.

ED 153 863 .

TITLE

INSTITUTION

.

.UPORT NO1 PUB DATE'

NOTEAVAILABLE FROM

EDRS PRICE"DESCRIPTORS

DCCUMENT REVUE

02,_ 235

The Integrity of Water; Proceedings cf a Syaposium,Washington, D.C., Hatch 1C-12, 1575.Environmental Ptotecticr Agency, Washington, D.C.Office cf Water,ProgregsaEPA-33575222p.Superintendent of rocuxents, U.S. Government PrintingOffice, Washington, D.C. 2C402 (S'tock Number055-001-'0106E-1; No price 'ducted)

MF-$0.113 HC- $11.37 Plus Postage.*Conservation (Environment); *Ervitcrment;Legislation; *Quality Ccntrcl; Scientific. Research;*Symposia; Technical Reporto; Water Pcl/dticnControl; *Water,Rescurcei

ABSTRAcT,

This volume resulted from the fcraal papers andcomments presented at. an invitational symposium ty reccgnized waterexperts representinga variety cf disciplines ,and societal interests.The focus of the symposium was on the definiti'er and interpretation,of water quality integrity as .viewed ty represttatives cf stategovernments, industry, academia, conservaticn and environmentalgroups, and others of the general public. This yicluae is organized insix parts: (1y an overview, (2y chemical integrity, (3) physicalintegrity, (4) biologic4 integrity--a gualitatiAte appraisal, (5)

integrity - -a qua4titative,determination, and (6)integrity--an interpretatioA. (EB)

- :7'

44,************************************444*******************************

,* Reproductions supplied by- EDRS ate the best that can he made *

* frok the original document. *

*********************************4444******444444*********41*********'

p

THEINTEGRITY

OFWATER

US DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,EDUCATION &WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO-DUCEO EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN-ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

"PERMISSION -To REPRODUCE THIS

MATERIAL HAS BEES GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) AND

USERS OF THE ERIC SYSTEM "

. Proceedings of a Symposiurh

March 10-12, 1975

Washington, DC.

Vs.

4

REVIEW NOTICE

Thisteport has been reviewed by the Office of Water Plan-ning and Standards, Office of Water and Hazardous Mate-rials, EPA, and approved for publication. Approval does notsignify that the contents. necessarily reflect the views andpolicies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor doesmention of trade names or commercial products constituteendorsement or recommendation for use.

1 .

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents. U.S. tov,einment Printing OfficeWashington, D.C. 20402 -.(Paper co3er) ' .. . -

Stock Number 055-001-01068-1. \'

4

c

THE INTEGRITY OF WATERa symposium

P

.

SYMPOSIUM COORDINATORS:R. Kent Ballentine and Leonard J. GuarraiaWater Quality.Criteria Staff, EPAWashington; D.C.

OPENING SESSION.

Chairman: Kenneth M. Mackenthun, Acting Di-rector, Technical Standards Division, Office ofWater and Hazardous Materials, EPA, Wash-ington, D.C.

Speakers: Kenneth M. MackenthunJames L. Agee, Assistant Administrator, Office

of Water and Hazardous Materials, EPA,Washington, D.C.

Thomas Jorling, Director, Center for Environ-mental Studiei, Williamstown, Massachusetts

Donald Squires, Director, State University ofNew York Sea. Grant Program, Albany, New"York

CHEMICAL INTEGRITY

Chairman: Dwight G. Ballinger, National Environsmental Research Center, -EPA, Cincinnati,Ohio

Speakers: Bostwick Ketchum, Director, WoodsHole Oceanographic Institute, Woody Hole,Massachusetts

.Arnold Greenberg, Chief, Chemical and Radio-logical Laboratories, State of CaliforniaDepartment of Public Health, Berkeley, Cali-fornia

Jay Lehr, Executive Secretary, National WaterWell Association, Columbus, Ohio

PHYSICAL INTEGRITY

Chairman: Richard K.. Ballentine,i Water QualityCriteria Staff, EPA, Washington, D:C.

Speakers: Donald J. O'Connor, Professor ofEnvironmental Engineering, Manhattan Col-lege, New York, New York

Donald R. F. Harleman, Professor of CivilEngineering and Director, ( Parson's Labora-tory, for Water Resources, MassachusettsInstitute of Technology, Cambridge, Massa-

° chnsettsJohn M. Wilkinson, A. D. Little, Inc., Cam-

bridge, Massachusetts

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY -I-A QUALITATIVE APPRAISAL

Chairman: Leonard J. Guarraia, Water QualityCriteria Staff, EPA, Washington, D.C.

°Speakers: David G. Frey, Indiana University,Bloomington, Indiana

George Woodwell, Brookhaven National Labora-tories, Upton, Long Island, New York

Charles Coutant, Oak Ridge National, Labora-tory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

Ruth , Patrick, Chief, Curator of Limnology,Academy or Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,

*Penniyttania

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITYA QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION

Chairman: David G. Frey, Indiana University,Bloomington; Indiana

Speakers: Ray Johnson, National Science Founda-tion, Washington, D.C.. -

John Cairns, Virginia Polytechnic Institute andState University, Blacksburg; Virginia

Gerald T. OHO, Resource ManagementAssociates, Lafayette, California

J. P. H. Batteke, Chief, Social Sciences Division,Environment Canada, Burlington, Ontario

INTEGRITYAN INTERPRETATION.

Chairman: Martha Sager, Effluent Standards andWater Quality Information Advisory Commit-

. , tee, EPA, Washington, D.C.Ronald B. Robie, Director, Department of Water

Resources, The Relsources Agency, Sacra-,mento, California

Ronald B. Outen, National Resources DefenseCouncil, Washington, D.C.

R. M. Billings, Director of Environmental Con:-trol, Kimberly:Clark, Neenah, Wisconsin . ,

Gladwin Hill, National Environmental Corre--spondent, New York Times, New York , 'r.

Following each prehentation, Symposiu m partici-%),

-pants were encouraged to question the speaker..These discussions were recorded by aTrofessiohal.reporting service and appear at thelconclusion (114each paper. They have been minimally edited, sim-ply for clarification of the spoken svord,inprint.

A

p 0

I

FOREWORD

"The Integrity of Water" results from' tbe formalpapers and comments presented at an invitationalsymposium by recognized water experts represent-ing a variety of disciplines and societal interests.The focus of the symposium was on the definitionand interpretation of water quality integrity as.viewed and discussed by representatives of Stategovernments, industry, academia, conservationand environmental groups, and others of the gen-eral public. The symposium was structured to ad-dress quantitative and qualitative characteristics ofthe physical, chemical, and biological proprties ofsurface,and ground waters.

It is recognized ,that streams, lakes, estuaries,and coastal marine waters vary in size and configu-ration, geologic features, and flow characteristics,and are influenced.by climate and meteorologicalevents, and the type and extent of human impact.The natural integrity of such waters may be deter-mined partially by consulting historical records ofwater quality and species composition where avail-able, by conducting ecological investigations of thearea or of a Cbmparable ecosystem,, and throughmodeling studies that provide an estimation of the

natural ecosystem based upon information avail-able. Appropriate water quality criteria presentquality goals that will.provide for,the protection ofaquatic and associated wildlife, man and otherusers of water, and consumers of the aquatic life.

This volume adds another dimension to our re;corded knowledge on water quality. It brings intosharp focus one of the basic issues associated withthe jrotection and management of this Nation's kvalued aquatid resource. It highlights, once again,our unqualified dependence upon controlling waterpollution if we are to continue to have a viable andcomplex society. The Congress has provided uswith strqng and comprehensive water pollutioncontrol laws. In .accordance with the advances inresearch and development and with our increasedknowledge about the environment, these laws _willreceive further congressional consideration andmodification as appropriate,. 1.17 is through theefforts orthose who participa d in making this vol-ume possible that attention is focused once again onthe basic goals of water quality to support the dy-namic needs of this generation and of others tocome.

Douglas M. Costle, Administrator'U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyJune, 1977

v

'CONTENTS' 6

The Integrity of Water, a Symposium g) iii

ForewordDouglas M. Castle

OVERVIEW.

The Problem 3

Jaines L. Agee

Legislative Requirements 5Kenneth M. Mackenthun

Ihcorporating Ecological Interpretation intoBasic StatutesThomas Jorling

Integrity of the Water Environment = _

Donald F. Squires. .

CHEMICAL INTEGRITY,

9

15

' The Water EnvironmentBostwick H. Ketchum

25

The Chemical Integrity of Surface Water 33Arnold E. Greenberg

The Integrity of Ground WaterJay H. Lehr and Wayne A. Pettyjohn

PHYSICAL INVGRITY

41

The Effect ,of Hydrology and Hydrography onWater QualitY'Donald J. O'Connor

Effect of Physical Factors on Water QualityDonald R. F. Harleman

4" Channelization ______ s -------------John M. Wilkinson

a

61

105

.117

I

BIOLQGICAL INTEGITYA QUALITATIVE APPRAISAL

Biological Integrity of Watoran Historical Ap-proach A '" 127David G. Frey

Biological Integrity-1975 141G. M. Wood well

Representative Species:ConcePt 149Charles Coutant

Identifyin grity Through EcosysterifStudy 155Ruth Patrick

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITYA QUANTITATIVEISETERMINATION

r

. FidheriesRay Jbhnson

165

te

Quantification of Biological Integrity 171John Cairns. Jr. ,

Adbdeling of Aquatic Ecosystems 189Gerald T. Orlob

The Watershed as a Management Concept 203J. P. H. Batteke

INTEGRITY4-A 'INTERPRETATION

The States' View 211Ronald B. Robie

A Conservationist's View 215Ronald Outen.

Industry's View 221R. M. Billings

The Public's View. 227Glad win Hill

z

o

-QV E RVI EVV.

0

0

THE PROBLEM

4.JAMES L. AGE&Aisistant Administrator for

/ Water-and Hazard us Mateeials. EnVirorimentai Protection Agency

-Nhe major thrclearly define anAri individual'svaryvaryasIamsthat follow,. Thevital resource,our modern socito those who fotheme a waterdemands of theassure ittainmepassage of the FAmendments of

P.L. 92 -500 iscomplex enviroenacted. All fat?goal to restore aand biological in"The Act provi

issue defining thfocus on humanfate and effectsand advanced wbut a few. Both ththedeveloPment,itoring effort aregoal of defining th

Technical assistmeats is an integrbring about achievThis assistance t*active inteygovernFederal 'personnel

,rnment to establi-ongoing.pollutio cdata managementcal information, rehelp to establish a

Under Section 3standards; the Agenpollutants. However,

,other sections of thelegislation ( FederalRodenticide Act) alsotrol pollutants that may be toxic in certain

t of this symposium is to moredelimit "The Integrity of Water."rception of aquatic integrity will

e we shall see in the,discussionsnhancement of water quality, as aa challenge that must be met bytr. We have an innate obligationow in our footsteps to deliver toesource that cart,,weet the use

generation. PoSifii,e action tot of this goal was initiated with the

Oral Water Pollution ControR Act972 (Pd.,. 62-500t:

ne of the most comprehensive andental laws which has ever been

is of the Act bear upon the basic,d aintain the chemical, physical,

*ty of the Nation's waters.es for an active .research and de-

which addresses a varietS' ofaquatic environment. Key areas

ealth effecteof *water pollution,pollutants dli the environment,treatment technology, to name

monitoring'of water quality andthose tools essential to the mon-essential to support the overallintegrity of water.nce to State and local govern-

part of the overall program to-ment of the 1977 and 1983 goals.es many .forms. There is anental exchange program wheree loaned to a local or State gov-h programs or to help in hentrol program. Cooperation ind retrieval, sharing of tech i-nal/State planning effOrte,ter mode of communication.(a), toxic eollutani 'efflue

has proposed a list of toit should be recognized thact, andlor that matter, Othe

secticide, Fungicide, andan be effectively used toton-

1

t

I

amounts. The toxic pollutant effluent standards aredirected against continuous 4ischargei. Accidentalspills of hazardous pollutants are also of major con-cern. To evolve a coherent toxic and hazardousmaterials control program on a continuing basisprovides a substantial challenge to the Agency.

The Environmental Protecticp Agency continuesto emphasize construction granth as a high priorityitem. Municipal projects form a central core tomany achievements of both the effluent and thewater duality requirements of 1977 and 1983. In thepast 28 months over $3.5 billion of the $9 billionmade 'available for construction of municipal treat-.ment plants were obligated. About $6.5 billion willbe obligated by July 1975. Coordinated efforts byEPA, States, and communities remain essential tocomply with the conditions for grant awards, aswell as, to see that applications are quickly proc-essed and awarded.

Permit compliance assurance activities are to in-crease in this fiscal year as an outgrowth ofpriorities of the previous years. Emphasis on per-mit issuance is to be replaced by the initiation andconduct of a compliance assurance program whichwill be based upon issued permits specifying levelsof control and phased dates for achievement.

There has been a change in the Agency's empha-sis for achieving better water quality. The shift hasbeen away from a sole reliance upon water qualitystandards to a combination of best technology andwater quality standards. The shift in direction,hasbeen dictated by passag4 ofthe Act. Under formerlaw the water quality standards were the mainmechanisms by which Water qvality was to beachieved. Under the present Act both best technol-ogy and water uality standards are to be used toachieve the g als. asically, this has been.a shiftaway from depende e upon the assimilation capac-ity of water 'to one o best practicable treatment asa means to manage effluent concentration.

This transition has taken a great deal of effortand time. Development of effluent limits for indus-trial categories Add the National Pollution Dis-charge Elimination System permits \have necessi-tated a major commitment of personnel. The totaleffort in the first 2 years of implementation

83

r.

4 'THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

proceeded in less than 'optimal fashion. Some stepslagged; others were poorly synchronized with otherdependent areas. Many, of the problems resulfrom hiving to quickly carry out the requiremenof the Act in the time frame specified by the law.

These situations should not be repeated in thesecond phase. Effluent -guidelines, water qualityanalyses, and waste load allocations all should becompleted and ready for use by the time permitsaddressing the 1983 requirements are ready to beissued. Similarly, planning for the 1983 goal shouldprecede the appropriate construction and permit-ting actions, and State program development underSection 106 should incorporate the basic planningand analysis.

There will be an increasing emphasis now inother areas in accordance with the water strategy.The first major thrust is to encourage States todevelop areawide waste management plans underSection 208. In addition, under Section 303(e),water quality standards and implementation, each,shall develop a continuing planning process toprovide a coordinated Statewide water pollutioncontrol program. Much of the funding for the initialphases shall be Federal. Fiscal year-76 will apeak year for planning in this areas and the num rand extent_of plans under development during t isperiod 'will demand continuing State and regionaloffice. attention to assure that the plans effectivelyaddress all appropriate elements.

The Agency's. initial thrust was to control pointsource discharges. Now That the permit program isunder control,, an increased emphasis will beplacedpon nonpoint sources. The 1983 goal will not behieved in all cases by controlling point sources

one. flonpoint "pollution management programse being developed or have been developed for thentrolpf,siltation from construction sites, highwa4nstruction, and from silvicultural activities. Pes-

-iti ide runoff associated with land application andp eventual contanfination of water is an area of

ency concern. As established point source con-measures begin to take effect, actions should be

iht oduced which address the remaining water4u ity problems and their causes to determinewh ther proposed solutions should emphasize fur -the controls Aver point or nonpoint soulves, orsow e combination of the two.

o sections of the Act are useful for nonpointsou ces management: lake restorative techniques

under Section 304(i), and clean lake; demonstrationprograms under Section 314. Currently, $4 millionhas been allocated to initiate State clean lakesprojects.

Another major program area is the update ofwater quality standards. This continuing evolutionin standards will be initiated with the publication of"Quality Criteria for Water." These criteria incor-porate the latest published scientific informationand will be used as a basis'for 'developing revisedwater quality standards. The criteria also will serveas a basis for raw water source criteria used in de-veloping finished drinking water standards. Inorder to provide a cohesive program utilizing a va-riety of laws such as the Drinking Water Act, P.L.93-523, and the Federal Water Pollution ControlAct, P.L. 92 -500, a single activity can serve a dualpurpose; this is exemplified in the use of the -Qual -ity Criteria for Water" for both the 1983 goals forP.L. 92-500 and as the criteria, for raw drinking,water sources. Another example of a collateraleffort is the monitoring data which the\programprovided for under Section 106(e) of P.L. 92-These data can be used for P.L. 92-523 undo' Sec-tion 1431, the emergency powers, for monitoring oftoxic or-hazardous materials in drinking water.

Approaches will vary in different areas, but somecommon themes can be identified. Special effortswill be taken in nearly all areas to examine the na-ture of the urban runoff problem, including stormand combined sewers, and to develorthe appropri-ate strategy and tactics of control.

Public participation is an essential component indeveloping and implementing water quality man-agement choices. Those who will both pay for andbenefit from the activities must have an opportun-ity to 'provide inptits throughout the planning andmanagement cycle. Constructive participation,

resulting program improvements, should lead'to the public support,critical to the achievement ofthe goals of the Act.

Qne key to our success will be the extent whichwe, as a society, can define and understand theintegrity, quality, and behavior of the aquaticenvironment. We shall needs your input and help.This symposium addressing the integrity of wateris but-one example of the Agency's desire to involveand solicit public participation of diverse interests.I want to thank all of you for coming and helping us.

LEGISLATIVE 'REQUIREMENTS

KENNETH M. MACKENTHUNcting Deputy Assistant' Administrator

for Water Planning and StandardsEnvironmental Protection Agency

r

VP

,9

. ..

,

The 92nd Congress presented the EnvironmentalProtection Agency with a significant and profoundc allenge in Section 304 of the Federal Water P,ollu-tiIiin Control Act Amendments of.1972. That chal-le ge was to "delineate the factors necessary torestore and maintain' the integrity of waters andthe °factors necessary for the protection andpropagation of all forms of life that associate them-selves with water. It is significant, of course, thattht words "restore," "maintain," and "protect"have different connotations ih usage and differentenvironmental requirements for their fulfillment.Webster's Unabridged Dictionary defines the word"integrity" as possessing the quality or state ofbeing complete or undivided,' of soundness, oforganic unity, of an unimpaired or unmanned con-dition. \

We have made every effort to permit intensivediscussion of integrity factors in this Symposium'with noted speakers addressing physical, chemical,and biological conditions amenable for the best usesof surface waters and of ground waters, freshwaters, and saline Waters. Equally important to aseries of statements on .conditions for existence ofwater's best uses is an interpretation of the mean-ing of such. discussions to regulatory and planningagencies in governments, to conservationists, toindustry, and most important, to the public. Inorder to achieve success, the identification anddelineation of conditions niust be followed by imple-mentation through regulftion or proclamation, andrecognition and acceptance by the public. .

Interrelated and influencing factors that affect,life in water, the uses of the water, and the users ofaquatic life span the dimensions of our knowledge ofthe aquatic environment. It is a long-establishedaxiom of ecology that the phyiical and chemicalcomposition of an ecosystem influences the life thatIndy survive and thrive therein and each spe-cies that survives or thrives interacts one withanother to form the total ecosystem complex. Like-wise, the effects on a receiving waterway, eitherfrom direct or ndirect activities associated withman, have h significant influence on an ecosystemand rltay increase its relative prtiction of aquatic

I

Co

life or destr i ompletely, either for rscreaion oras an .accep ab habitat for organisms. Thus,changes in flo s , shape, depth, or contour of awaterway; eh: 3- themperature, pH, or relativerelationship of e cal constituency; or changes inbiotic potenti t h introduced species, over-harvesting of p: c . species, or misconceivedaquatic.manag me p ctices, may well result in aplateau.of acco hs meet that is far less than whatI believe isoa gen r accepted concept of.restor-ing and maintaining th 'integrity of water. -

'Since investigators ganto define thequalitkpfthis Nation's waters in the;; ,early'aely 1900's, we have,recognized a general niqueness in individualcharacter among each of ur many lakes, as well asamong major reaches of o rivers and streams.lake ecosystem in the mod Urinous terrain of Colo-rado is far different in the ture and extent of itscomponents fro a similar abitarin the agricul-tural plains of ndiana or ois.. Judging fromaninterpretation f some names ng attached to lakewaters, some such lakes have 'resented biologicalprobleins from the-days when t e Red Man cookedthe, profits from his hunt on the* shores. Similarly.a fleeting glance would -be suffi lent for any 'oserver to ascertain a d. hnilarit in the poten alfor life in water between he mighty, Missouri dWisconsin's Bois Brule. Th , the land over which awaterway flows or the -so* over which it resides

ng with the physical pecfs of the water body,determines to a considerable extent the water'spotential ,for biotic prOuctivity. The meaning ofwater integrity, then, should be adjusted to en-compass the range of is iosyncrasies of this Nation'smany waters.

.The, intent of Congress was not that we reverteach flowing stream and each lake to its jeweledquality prior to the coming of man on this continent,for th t can never be. Man has wrought manyirrever ible.changes to the waterways; the cutting

. of fores , the plowing of prairie sods, the construc-tion of assive highway systems, and the buildingof cities have resulted in irreversible changes to thequality of waters that have been associateddirectlyor indirectly with these events. The Western

10

5

7

6 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

States' Water Law of Prior Appropriation and theEastern States' Riparian Law of Water Rights haveparticularly influenced and affected associatedwaters. Envtionmental catastrophies occur, and

. affect water quality either ephemerally or for vary-,. ing periods of significant time. Floods, drought, ice,

wind, and even the recurring seasons -haveortheirparticular effects that will vary with the intensityof the occasion and with the type of aquatic ecosys-tem considered.

Man, on the other hand, continues to affect waterquality irreversibly and often irreparably with hismany actions that result directly in point sourcepollution or indirectly in and as a contributingfactor to diffuse source pollution. Both generalsources contribute organic materials, inert silts,toxic pollutants, and nutrients and fertilizers thatmay stimulate eutrophication. It was the intent ofCongress that these source§ be managed to controlpollution to the maximum extent possible and torestore and maintain water integrity as a result.Other activities that require intensive examinationand decision are those that would alter the physicalcharacteristics of waterways, detrimentally affect-.

ing their quality. The great natural wealth thatoriginally made possible the growth and develop=

.,Inent, of the United States included a generousendowment of shallow water and waterlogged wet-

.; lands which exist aamarshes, swamps, bogs,. pot-holes, sloughs, and river-overflow lands. We havecome to recognize that the wetland resource, foreacample, represents, an ecosystem of unique and :major importance to the citizens of this Nation and,asa result, requires extraordinary protection!.

It was not, I believe, the legislative intent thatthe integrity of water be 'addressed as an entityseparate from the many other mandates of the Fed-eral Water Pollution Control At Amendments of1972. No single section of .that Act was meant tostand alone.' Those amendments represent a com-prehensive series of environmental controls andmanagement practices. The unstated goal of PublicLaw 92-500 is to restore and maintain to the maxi-mum degree possible the integrity of the Nation'swaters. The Act provides for grants for researchand development, for State pollution control pro-grams, for the construction of sewage treatmentplants, for the development and implementation of.areawide waste treatment management .plans, forbasin planning, for lake.restoration, and for train-ing: It provides for the development of interrelatedstandards and enforcement to control the quality ofeffluents, as well as o receiving waters. These 111-dude: the definition best practicable and bestavailable effluent qu ity, fropi industries andmunicipalities to meet the goals of the Act; the de-

velopment of water qu criteria to provide forwater that will suppor ish and recreation; theadoption of water quality standards; the,definitionof national standards of performance for the controlof t e discharge of pollutants for new industrialso ; the development ctf national toxic and pre-tr ent effluent standards;, the improvement inoil a d hazardous substances pollution abatement;the management of vessel wastes; the development'of% provisions for theimal discharges; the develop-ment of provisions for aquaculture; and the devel-opment of dredged or fill materials criteria. Acomprehensive permit program was established tomanage discharges. These legislative mandates allare interrelated witbthe concerns of this Nation torestore and maintain the best water quality thatfeasibly can be attained through the efforts of all tofocus the Nation's pollution management technolo-gies on that goal. ,

At every step of the way, P.L. 92-500 mandatesa . consideration of environmental integrity. Theaehievement of integrity clearly was considered toresult from an implementation of. all facets of thatlaw. Planning is a day4o-day factor in our personallives; wise planning is essential to achieve envir6n-mOntal integrity. Water quality must be of thehighest to achieve water integrity. Such quality is'provided for in seeral ways in P.L. 92-500: ineffluent limitations, that press ft the maximumdegree of treatment technology economically feasi-ble; in ambient quality standards based on scientif-ically derived criteria that will ensure lilleral wateruses; and in.effluent standards for toxic substances.

Ambient quality standards can be attained onlythrough appropriate treatment of Municipalwastes. Again, the Act provides for liberal con-struction grant funds tO build treatment plants, forresearch to develop innovative treatment or controlmethods, for the implementation of pretreatmentstandards'applicable to industries that discharge tomunicipal systems, and for the training of operatorsto manage complex wastewater treatment systems.As an entity, P.1.4.1-500 provides for the -Processleading toward the a tainmentbf water integrity._

A.% a society we have become cognizant of theeconomic impact of each of our actions. This neces-sity, stated on many occasions throughout P.L.92-500, often results in difficult environmental de-cisions. The statutory words ". . . wherever attain-able . ." provide a degree of judgmental latitude.Prudence dictates that there are some individualwaters where a purity akin to integrity is not costeffective. Some cannot be restored feasibly. For allwaters, however, P.L. 92-500 has become a basisfor a national water ethic. Aldo Leopold's clarioncall for-a national land ethic slowly is being realized

11A

I

OVERVIEW

,nomic standpoint. He wrote, 'Examine each ques-tion in terms.of what is ethically and aestheticallyright, as well as what is economically expedient. Athing is right when it tends to preseHe the integ-rity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community.It is wrong when it tends otherwise." His words of aquarter of a century ago were germane in theirtime; they remain germane today. .

for the water. iAldo Leopold was a giant of a past generation. He

met an untimely death in 1948, but in his lifetinie hewas recognized as a great naturalist, teacher, andconservationist. Writing in "A Sand CountyAlmanac," which was published in 1949 after_ hisdeath, he admonished his readers to quit thinkingabout environmental problems solely from an eco-

)

C

7

:. .

S

.

, N

NI

a

. )

.

12

/

.t

N

M

%

e

.-

t

*

-.........,

INCORPORATING ECOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION

INTO'BtOC.TATUTES

THOMAS JoRLINGDirector, Center for Environmental. Studies

Williamstownfitassachusetts

I"

, In the remarks of. the two EPA representativespreceding me, 1 didn't perceive what I understandto be the 1972 Amendments; perhaps I should statea little bit about my background with the Act. Iserved on the staff of the Senate Committee onPublic Works during the legislative process-leadingto the enactment of P.L. 92-500:-

It is important to focus attention on one of themost innovative aspects of the 1972 Amendments;namely, the clear, unequivocal benchmark state-ment of biospheric integrity as the objective of thewater pollution control.effort. It's significant that ithas taken 21/z years for ,EPA to focus attention onwhat is the overriding policy of the Act. The factthat it is 2' /z years late an all other 'aspects of theAct are to be implemented under that rubric mayaccount for many of the difficulties encountered-inthe implementation of the Act to date. I think partof the deep concern I hadAn listening to the EPArepresentatives stems from their failure to inter-

, pret the specific operational elements of the Act interms of this policy..I hope,to clarify that failure as I

proceed.The benchmark of biospherieintegrity is a con-

cept that l have an ever-widening circle of influ-ence and ire will see its applicability' in many areasof human affairs, domestically and internationally.For instance, as a reference in the consideration ofthe ozone layer of the atmosphere, the productionand use ;of energy, the Movement of manmade

hernicaLs biogeocheinical cycles, and s0 on. Itwill extend to providing a framework of makingdeCisiOns applicable to such issues as contaminationof the oceans, interbasin transfers of matter andenergy, the supply of materials and water, food

production, and even the size and character of ourinstitutions. Yeti it is a difficult concept as the con-ference topics themselves attest and it is a concept

on which the dialogue level should be high.Prior to 1970, in',.the case of the Clean Air Act,.

and 1972 in the case okhe Water Pollution ControlAct, one would searjh in vain tafind any statementof public policy with respect to the quality of theenvironment to he4obtained under these earlierFederal-State programs. Neither air nor water poi-

., ,

R

lution was defined. The objectives sought werenowhere stated. The regulatory statutes which

were in effect at that time were circular, or boot-strap -efforts to achieve what, norkone knew. Butwhatever it was, it was to be "feasible."

Prior to 1972, the Water Pollution Control Actwas vague . on what Congress intended to beachieved. It did not define or otherwise describewater pollution. Rather, the Act stated that its pur-pOse and its programs and procedures were "toachieve the prevention and 'control ot water poi-lution."

Yet, that undefined notion of what constitutedwater pollution was further qualified in the Act'senforcement authority where a court, before issu-ing any final abatement order on whatever waterpollution it found, was instructed to "give due con-sideration .to the praFtiCability of complying withsuch standards as may be applicable and thephysical and economic fbasibility of securing abate-ment of any pollution." It is not surprising,therefore, that abatement of water pollution wasalmost nonexistent under the earlier law.

The purpose of this conference is to discuss bio-logical integrity or ecological integrity ,in' the con-

'."z-text of water_pollution. I Will, therefore, confine myremarks to the Water Pollution Control Act. How-ever, I would be remiss if I did not point out thatthe ambient air standards structure and the CleanAir Act have very similar characteristics, espe-cially when it is recalled that the secondary ambientair quality standard required to be achieved underthe Cleap Air Act provides for the protection of eco-systems from any adverse effects. However, acidrain measurements that reveal pHs as loW as threeand sometimes evgn,below that, are being taken inareas (the northeastern U.S.) where the air quality'is superior.to the secondary,standard, as presently-promulgated.' Therefore, the secondary standard,at least in the case of oxides of sulphur, is deficient.

In singling outlhe Federal Air and Water Pollu-tion Control Laws, it should be noted that the dekciency which, I have describedthe failure 'of -Congress to state what is to be achieved is notunusual. In fact, in most modern statutes, Congress

13

10 .THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

has not stated with any degree of p ecision what isto be achieved by the programs it e acts. Rather, it ,has granted or extended to ex utive agenciesbroad, almost unbounded, discretion- to determinewhat they are to do in a particular field and the onlystatutory reference is to do it within the amorphousstandard of the public interest.

This is the root catise of executive branch dinniznance over gress. Congress has been deficientin -tianslatin the public policy it desires to beachieved in specific norms. Mather, it has shiftedthe burden of establishing policy to the ExecutiveBranch with few, if any, guidelines or criteria as towhat, when, even how public policy is to be carriedout. In such a situation, the Executive Branch be-comes the forum in which negotiations are con-ducted, negqtiations which really have no cleararticulation of the alternatives or the assumptions.Perhaps that is sufficient in the regulation of busi-ness practices, consumer protection, and in otherareas, but I doubt it. It is clear that such an ap-proach is insufficient when the character of the lifesupport system is at issue.

Incorporating ecological principles into rwala-tory statutes is not easy. Two quite different sets of

communities after biogeochemial cycles with aminimum departure from the geological br back-ground rates of change in the bidsphere.

Within tht subset of issues under the label "prac-tical," weare looking at the question of whether ornot a program which is established to achieve some-thing= a principle, a-purpose or an objectivewill,in fact, Achieve. it. We must examine the age-oldmaxim, is it enforceable? Again, a comparison ofthe old with the new program provides insight intothe tremendous differences relative to practical andenforcement questibns.

A program premised upon*the establishment ofacceptable beneficial uses of water has inherent init several layers of legal cause and effect relation-ships that, enable easy frustration of enforceablerequirements:First of all, there must be somenotion, to the point of agreement, on what consti-tutes a "beneficial use." If we look, at the old pro-gram we find that beneficial uses supposedlyinciuded . public water supplies, fish and wildlifeprotection, agricultural, Industrial ,sad other uses.Following the establishment of the beneficial usefor the water in question, there had to be agree-ment on the criteria or scientific numbers for pollu-problems are involved. The first set might be calledN tants which would establish and maintain the levelphilosophical, and the second practical. of quality of the water-which would 'allow carryingIn considering the philosophical, it isnecessary to

contrast the new program enacted in 1972 with theprogram it replaced because the two provide a con-ceptual framework in which to compare stronglydivergent assumptions.-Under the earlier program,the basic assumption was that the biosphere, and inparticular the water component of the biosphere,was to be, and in fact_ existed to be, used. Thespecific language of the statute reflected this con-cept and we heard it described in both EPApresentations earlier. The measure of water qualitywas to be its "beneficial use." Without getting intothe debate on the historical origins of the concept of"use" that have been desiribed by Lynn White andothers, it is sufficient.tor, our purposes simply& say'that earlier pollution control law was based on theassumption that the components of the environ-

'zinent existed to be used by man, a creature thatsomehow existed apart from and. beyond the bio-sphere.

,.,,,The new progTam has a different underpinning. '

It assumes that man is a component of the bio-sphere and that relationship we seek to achievewith the environment is what some have /called `criteria, created circumstances in which compro-"harmony." Under this view, man an integral, if mice and indefinite delay operated to frustratedominant, part ofthe structure an function of the enforceability.biospheKe. The intellectual roots o is perspective Letus consider, for instance, what was includedare found in the study of evolution. The objective of in any estimate of criteria of water quality neces-this concept is the maximum patternjug of human .__sary to meet i given use. There must have been a

out the supposed use. It should be no surprise thatthe program did not speakin terms of specific pollu-tants. Rather, it referred to what, in fact, areeffects of pollutknts: BOD, chemical oxygendemand, pH, turbidity, suspended solids, and thelike. The earlier program included a calculation of"the assimilative capacity" which can be defined asthat volume of pollutants which could be processed,treated, or otherwise disposed of in the receivingwaters while still maintaining the designated use.

The calculation of such an assimilative capacityassumed knowledge of the structure and function ofthe aquatic ecosystems over long periods of time,Which simply does not exist and will not exist intothe indefinite future. Consequently, assimilativecapacity became a rather rough, negotiated esti-mate, often made by lawyers and engineers, cer-tainly not by biologists, of what -waste treatmentservices could be rendered by a particular reach ofwater. This calculation, or store accurately'negoti-ated agreement of assimilative- capacity, coupledwith a determination of acceptable beneficial useand an agreement on the specific numbers or,

4

14'

OVERVIEW .

prior estimate of the amount andeffect of the inputof pollutants from upstream waters. There musthave been a prior estimate of the cumulative effectof all polliitants on downstream waters, especiallythe oceans. And we must continually recall thatrivers contipme to be the most significant contribu-tor of pollutanti 'to the estuaries and. the ocean.

,There had to be a prior estimate of the amount and

effects of knowable' and unknowable nonpointsources of pollutants. There must have been a corn-piete' knowledge gf all components of the wastetream which, as the EPA r resentatives earlier

admitted, is not even know at the present time.There must be complete and ccurate monitoring ofboth the waste discharge stream and the ambientenvironment, another factor which does not yetexist.

It must be emphasized that all of these estimates

were highly amenableto negotiation and to compro-mise and; more importantly, contained extrerhelyhigh probabilities of error. It must also be empha-sized that all of these estimates would have to beestablished before any consideration was given todetermining effluent limitations or controls applica-

ble to specific sources of pollutants.Error in any sequential program in which later

estimates are based upon prior estimates is multi-plied in the final result. So, in addition to conceptssuch as beneficial use and assimilative capacity, thecontrol program requires 'further logical gymnas-tics such as the provision of mixing zones which, ofcourse, are defined as those' areas of greater or les-

ser distance around an outfall'source in which meas-

urements are not taken. Mixing zones are strictlyfor the purpose of allowing another layer of negotia-

tion and compromise, always with the burden ofproof on the government, the public, and"theenvironment,

The, net effect of the program was the application

of controls which were fully in accord with andacceptable to the interests of the dischge source.More importantly, the whole progl'am assumedthat and energy moved in linear pathways.

It was fundamentally opposite to the notion of keep-

int matter and energy within constraining circle

cs cycles.ingThe practical aspects of thetnew program requirecontrols to be-set for sources of pollutants withoutregard to., the ambient environment. The controlmeasures adopted are referenced to the presentability to recycle materials, energy, and waterwithin the overall objectiveof complete recyclingsystems for industrial, municipal, and agriculturalactivities. There are, to be sure, opportunities toapply other factors in the consideration of what con-

trols are to be imposed at' particular times. The Act

11

is structured so that time, itseilf is the major factor,.

as performance of sources will be reviewed regu-larly every 5 years; alWays under the overall policyof looking towards the reclaiming Of pollutants andthe recycling of water. It is*a happy coincidencewhen enforceability and the philosophical premise

- neatly complement each other.It is appropriate -now, almost 2 leers and 6

months folloWing enactment of this major change inpublic policy, to review how it has be,tn rbceiveiland implemented. Many good things have hap-perickl. Perhaps this conference is one of them, latethough it is. I will not spend time reciting whatgood has been done, but rather focus on certain ele-rftents of the implementation process as they relateto the concept of ecological integrity.

Here the results are not so good. Let us look at afew specific examples. The first from the municipalwaste treatment program. Along about t900, legiti-mate concern with disease, especially cholera andtyphoid, led to radical change in the view of mu-nicipal waste in, this country. Prior to that time, theperspective, where there was one, was generallycompatible with modern ecological principles. How-ever, at about that time and in large part con-tinuing thrpipgh to today, -our efforts at handlingmunicipal waste shifted to a policy that can becharacterized as chlorinate and dump. This notion,incidentally, based on the premise that the naturalwater systems perform waste treatment services,was greatly facilitated by the program of pollutioncontrol in effect prior to 1972.

Possibly reflecting the rural charactfr of our pop-ulation before 1900, it was common to incorporatesewage through the apPlicition of such "waste" tothe land and agricultural activitiesso-called sew-age farms. In a word, nutrients of high value werereturned to the biogeochemical cycles from whichthey came. Even in large communities, such as Ber-lin, Parisiand Melbourne, sewage systems had4his

characteristic.In an ecological context, they Make sense. But

the sense they make cannot be made clear unlessthe 'components of municipal waste are brokendown into. their specific biological; chemical, andphysical characteristics, a trilogy of words thatappears often in the new Act.

Thus, under the 1972 Amendmetkts, the EPAAdministrator was given 1 year to translate the oldsanitary engineering notion of secondary treatmentinto a definition conforming to the requirements ofthe 1972 Act: specifically, to write an effluent limi-tation at the level of performance achieved by sec-ondary treatment, as defined in Section 502, arestriction "established by a State or the'Adminis,trator on quantities, rates and concentrations of

15

12 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER'

chemical, physical, and biological and other constit-uents which are discharged from point sources intothe navigable waters."

The Administrator, after the lapse of more than ayear, promulgated an effluent limitation for secon-dary treatment which was written in terms thatcould have been written_ in the 1920's. Secondarytreatment was defined on August 17, 1973,1in termsof BOD, suspended solids, pH, and fecal coliforincontent. Such a definition reveals no understandingof the ecological character of municipalwaste. BODis not a pollutant, it is an effect of a class of pollu-tants of organic character.

Municipal wastk is comprised of, among otherthings, phosphorus, potassium, and nitrogen, thestandard nutrients of commercial fertilizer. Thesematerials should have been incorporated into a newecological definition of secondary treatment. Yet,this was not done and has not yet been done.

Similarly, since municipal waste is, by thepromulgated definition of EPA, considered to in-clude only those things which cause the effectsrecited in the definition, there is no recognition of

't'he fact that many exotic chemicals, includingheavy metals and pathogens, are,working their wayinto the municipal waste streanik' as a result of theuse of such materials in industrial operations, hos-pitals, and even in household cleaners and the like.

Until we move to the identification of the specificbiological, chemical, and physical constituents ofthe municipal waste stream, we are not going to begiven the conceptual framework in which to movetowards recycling.

More ominous than the activity of EPA in defin--_ing the secondary treatment effluent limitation hasbeen the interpretation of the Phase II or 1983requirement's for municipal waste treatment sys-tems. These are termed in the Act as the "bestpracticable waste treatment technology." Underthe Act, as recited in Section 201, these require!'ments are to provide for "the reclaiming and re-cycling of water and the confined and containeddisposal of pollutants so they will not migrate tocause water or other environmental pollution."

-Rather than promulgate a specific effluent limita-tion for the specific and different systemthat meetthis test, EPA is now defining the Phase II require-ment in what can be characterized as an ambientwater quality standard.

This failure of EPA to translate the municipalwaste treatment requirements specifically in termsof recycling flies in the face of the Act and is poten-tially the most damaging aspect of impmentation.If continued, it will prevent any restructuring ofsociety in accordance with ecological integrity. Onewould hope that as- the Agency continually evalu-

"f

tes its position it will act iri a manner moteseonzs.sistent with the spirit and the letter of the law.

A second example. Many States and the EPA areissuing permits under Section 402 which speak interms of mixing zones even though the definition ofeffluent limitation under the Act does not admitsuch a concept. The Agency continues to opt forescape from enforceability which the mixing zonerepresents. A mixing zone always affords analleged polluter the defense that it was nbt his efflu-

ent which caused or contributed to the violation atsome arbitrary., circle around an outfall, but rather,

r'-to plead and shift the impossible burden to the gov-ernment and to the public, that it was the upstream,waste load, or even the flow characteristics of thestreamthat caused the pollution.

Mixing zones are inherently unenforceable. Infact, under the Enforcement Section, Section 309,there is no 'statutory authority to enforce suchprovisions. v

Perhaps tide most important aspect for the eco-logical notion of reinChrporation of matter andenergy into biological cycles has been woven intothe Act in Section 208, the Planning and Manage-

- ment Section. In part, this process should havebeen' viewed by the Agency as an educationalopportunity for the citizens of this coup I mightadd here that before educating the citize f the,country, I would have hoped-that-EPA would vesponsored within its own structure and for its o:personnel a program similar to the Water QualityInstitutes for citizens tkat were sponsored by theConservation Foundation throughout the country. Ithink it's very important that everyone be educatedto the new concepts that are in this Act.

We have come a long way from our rural tradt-Aim, where experience with growing organismswas a part of everyday life, to the point where agreat majority of our citizens live in urban concen-trations and have no expirience with living sys-tems. Food, energy, and housing tend to be viewedin such a culture as simply technological products.So also the management of waste. Yet ultimately,all of these life support -requirements ai drawn'from and have their source in the biospher4.

Section 208 provides an opportunity of kreat sig-nificance to view human habitations from the per-spective of ecological systems, to incorporatenutrient material back into the cycles from whichthey came, and to prevent the escape of exoticchemicals. However, as part of the general resist-ance of this Agency and the Administration to Sec-tion 208, this educational opportunity has fallen bythe wayside. Our urban citizens are not being giveninformationconcerning the nature of so-calledwaste material and the possibilities of including it in

16

OVERVIEW13

It,provides a planning and a regulatory mechanism.It provides an opportunity, if we use it,,to look atthe structure and functioning of human communi-ties as elements in the overall biosphere and makejudgments about the life support requirements ofthose human communities.

, This is a tall order. Yet it is thedirection in whichwomust, move;.it is the legacy of the concept of eco-

logical integrity.

the production of, for instance,',foodstuffs. Rather,

they are simply told that the Waste treatment prob-lem is an engineering problem: "Pour-concrete onit'" is the message,.

Food,, energy, and materials are: all being pro-duced at greater and greater distances geographi-cal and technological dittancesfrom .our people.Such remote systems make.population centers very

'-vulnerable to disruption and hostage tosystems ofdelivery. .

The water pollution control programcotild haveprovided a counterpoint to such trends. It could andshould enable us to look' at the structure and func-tioning of human communities, much as we look atnatural communities, in terms Of biogeochemicalcycling. We could and still can, under the Act, movein these directions.

In addition to the specific areas where implemen-tation has failed to live up to the promise, and pur:pose of the 1972 )Thit dmentsthe policy of ecolog-ical integritytherer has 'been a growing trend toimpose so-Called balancing, tradeoff, or benefit costanalysis in establishing goals, objectives and otherrequirements under the Act.

Cost and benefits are inextricably a function ofthe system in which they are applied. They operateas positive anck,legative feedback, mechanisms tokeep the system on the course on which it is em-barked, whether or not we know where it is going.Perhaps here it might be useful to add what I thinkis an accurate description of where our system isgoing. It comes from '11. G. Wells' lament in theclassic paper, "Mind at the End of Its Tether."

"Everything was, driving anyhow to anywhere ata steadily increasing velocity."

Simply put, applying costs and benefits assuresthat society will not materially change;.for, by defi7nition, any change which would cause, a significantalteration in any pattern of the existing society in

terms of employment patterns, altered consumerpatterns, reducing or limiting the amount of capitor its return, or whatever, is an unacceptable cost.

Thus, applying benefit and cost analysis assuresthat our society will not change. The crucial ques-tion is whether the crusade to benefit cost or bal-ance every decision, especially decisions relating topublic policy objectives, will do anything more thanimprove the efficiency of the society in movingalong its course. My 'answeris, probably not. Thatis, not until society comes to terms with at leastsome basic elements of its destiny. Benefits andcost should determine means, not ends..

The 1972 Amendments' Statement of EcologicalIntggrity is a statement, °fends. That is, what is tobe achieved. Put this waY, it provides peppectivewithin which to make judgments about our future.

Or

DISCUSSIONConnent:,,pnder CFR-133, ,our Agency has de-

fined' secondary treatment in terms of effluentlevels; that is, for BOD, suspended solids, andmicrobiology. There is an effort afoot now to re-

.move the microbiological effluent level from thatdefinition based upon the justification of conflict ofbeneficial uses and energy requirements. I'm justwondering if you would like to say a little bit aboutthat.

Mr. Jorling: Curiou,siy enough, the fecal coliformis the only specific pollutant which is includedwithin the definition. It is something which is dis-charged and is measurable' specifically. I suspectit's not lust coincidence that it is a'specific pollutantand that there ate attempts to remove it from thedefinition.

With that much said, I'm still concerned becauseI do believe the singular attention to fecal coliformis unnecessary. There should be attention towards

. all the pathogenic materials in the municipal, wastestream. But such attention should,be referenced tospecific pathogens and not so much to E eoli. Of-course, it's an easily identifiable badteria and wehad, back in the early stages, of public health, theability to test for it. Than followed guilt by associa-tionif you found E coli you also had cholera andother potential disease causing organisms.

I think we should go beyond that stage now, plac-ing Jess emphasis on fecal conforms and Move toother systems of waste treatment management and

*focus on the more commonly known and also morepathogenic materials in the.. municipal *wastestream.

Coln' ment: How do you Protect the integrity ofthe giound water with application of land treat-ment systems? Are the two integrities compatible?

Mr. Jorling: I believe so, with effective manage-ment. I don't think if you're considering reapplica:tion of waste water to agricultural, aquacultural,silificultural, or other activities, that you justindiscriminately apply:that waste to the'soils:What K.you do is inake studies of the particular climate,geological factors, and soil form,ations you areworking with and include within those calculations rground water considerations.

. 1 '7

e

a

4 t.-4

o

14 THE INTEGRITY OF (WATER

I don't think there's anything incompatible be- Proposals for was teviateirecycling or some form oftween the two. Properly managed, a system of re- recycling of municipal waste on,a large scale. One ofapplication of waste water to the land can be,done them has been implemented by, MetropolitanSani-without jeopardy; in fact, it can enhance, in the tary District of Greater Chicago ietheir prairiesense of not depleting, the groundwater system. plant. The other, the infamous study.of theLhicagoComment: Do you think that a significant retool- District Corps of Engineirs has not been imple-/ ing of what is no' the sanitary engineering com- mentgel and, I think it's- safe to say, won't be. Inmunity would be reqUired before any significant both cases,. these are. proposals that have Been' ,move to the recycling system with regard to munic- made by the sanitary engineers and have, rurtupipal waste? against a great deal of`extreme resistance; not bMr. Jorling: I guess, to be' honest, a brief answer' the urban people,whciare generating the waste, noto that question would be "yes." The sanitary by the technical people who must design the sys-engineering community, primarily the ,consulting tem, but, surprisingly 'enough and I think counterengineers who advise the communities around the to your comment earlier, by the rural residentsWhocountry of what their problem is and how to solve don't want that Chicago waste material depositedit, has long, tenuous roots in water pollution con- upon their farm lands. Would you care to commenttrol. It goes back to the problems with disease that on that problem?I mentioned in my statement and the chloiinate and Mr. Jorling: I'm not as familiar with the circum-,dump philosophy. Retooling is a difficult thing to stances of this as you are; but I do recognize the,achieve in any situation. I would hope at least edu- 'accuracy of your comment that the opposition ivascational efforts would be undertaken. Yet, from the generated in the northern areas of Indiana. I'm notperspective that I now observe the program, that sure that tie reaction had its initiation with the,is, from a community that's trying to put in a waste rural residents as much as it had withsoMe of thetreatment facility, it's obvious that there is nothing political representatives of those people. Once thefrom the top coming down to the regional offices, to monientum of reaction was established it was im-the States, or to the communities with respect to pd's-sible to reinject rationality. It became impossi-thde concepts.ble,,to consider what the material was and **hat ItRather, the attitude is still, very simply, pour 'could represent. I think, also, the Corps of Engi-concrete on it. Pull out the old form fora secondary neers and the Environmental Protection Agency in-plant, like 'a lawyer pulls out. a will, and build it. stead of operating in diverse directions when thatThat's what we still observe. So we do needs a study, was being performed could have worked ,intremendous amount of innovation and education harmony with the 1972 Act and could 'have over-within the structure of the water pollution control come a large measure of that opposition in advance

program as well as what I suggested, which is an instead of just standing above Northern Indiana, aseducational effort among the citizens of the country,, it were, proposing to drop the waste of Chicagoon what their life support needs and requirements on it,'unbelmownst to the people of Indiana. Untilare. that time there could have been much more work-Comment: I'd just like to comment' on this ex- ing with people. Section 208 incidentally? provideschange that took place. In Illinois we ha e had over that vehicleo,, the past few years at -least two signifi ant major

18

1

INTEGRITY OF THEWATER ENVIRONMENT .

DONALD F:SQUIRESNew York Sea Grant InstituteState University of New York/Cornell UniversityAfbany, New York

Itearly 10 years ago there was anothei "integ-rity" confereilbe here in Washington.' While thesubject of that conference, The Integrity" ofScience; dealt with a very different issue,Shere aresome interesting threads leading from it to ourpresent meeting. Barry Commoner, in speaking ofthe issues, touched on in The Integrity of Science,said,

There are serious disparities between the traditional princi-ples of science and modern realities. Perhaps the old idealsare no longer valid, and the present departures from themare a successful adaptation of science to its new position ofpower and importance. Or are the traditional principles ofscience still applicable? And in any case, what are the conse-quences of the growing tendency to encroach upon them?Does this tendency weaken science and impair its technslog-

-. ical usefulness; could it cause some of the evils which seem

' .to follow so closely on the heels of modern scientificprogress?-2

We have seen science assume a greater role inour lives and become a powerful political force. Atfirst the change was manifested in the adoption ofnew technologies, with the engineer assuming in-creasing importance, then the physicist, the biolo-gist, the chemist. In the past decade 'a new disci-pline has risen to a preeminent role in charting thecourse of political' action both through shaping pub-lic opinion and through direct political actionthatdiscipline is ecblogy.

Another alteration in the role of science in oursociety results from the conflict between the in-creasing rate of societal and technological innova-tion and the rune available for research. Scientistsmust perform the necessary experiments to ob-serve and measure the effects of such change andinnovation. But, while we have been very busyobserving, noting; and quantifying, we find that the

Informational base needed to cope. with presentknowledge demands is sadly lacking. Joel Hedg-peth has suggested that "the search for simpleapproaches and magic numbers that may be ob-tained with relative ease has led some pragmaticecologists down the primrose path of theoreticalecology. "' While I do not really relish initiating adebate on the subject of theoretical ecology, it does

seem to follow that scientific method may be re-sponding to the pressures for immediate analysis of

ironmental change. How else could such won-derful expressions as pre-site survey end post-sitesurvey have entered the vocabulary of even theundergraduate student?

The heed for data is clearly outstripping the abil-ity of seience_Wroduce. As a resultAVAtists nowmore fiequOltly appear In the pfublic forum toargue a use without the conclusive factual informa-tion req ed by them some years age. The Simple

fact of t e matter is that decisions affecting our-lives an 'pur futures are being made each day.'Unless w Who have technical information, or even

-"educ,at pinions," participate in those decisions,we shall n t be able to look back and be criticalthere may no point Irom which 'to look back. Theincreasingly important role of technical informationin decisionmaking results from the technologicalexplosion' brought about by scientific advance. Wecannot abrogate our responsibility for.participatingin making decisions abbut our lives and our futures.

Our present seminar `concerns integrity,olwater.. We are called.upon to address this subject becauseof the federal 'legislation entitled Federal Water.P911ution Control Act Amendments of 1972, whichstates in its Declaration of Goals and Policy: "Theobjective of this act is, to restore and maintain thechemical, phySical, and biological integrity of theNation's waters." Walter Westman reviewed thedebates that led to the wording of the act:

Controversies surrounding the diafting of water pollutioncontrol legislation are often basel on differences in theultimate water quality goals sought. Less obviously, but noless importantly, the controversies are usually rooted infundamentally* different methods of conceptualizing thenature and behavior of pollutants. These differences are of

crucial 'significance, since they have. influenced the

strategies for legal control of waterpollution not only in theUnited States but in many other parti:of the world., . . . I

will . . . (use], for want of getter terms, iiwo rather emotion-laden words to characterize the viewpdpts: technologicaland ecological.'

The importance Of what we are about in thesedays rests not only in our specific charge, 'the dis-

.19

4 4

t,

16

. '

, .THE INTEGR

cussion of the meaningof integrity as it is applied tothNation's waters, but alio in a fundamental issueof the. responsibility of science. 'The Federal WaterPollution Control Act Amendments-of 1972 containa basic ,philosophical shift in,water managementfrom one of standards (technological approach) toone of integrity' (ecological' approach). This is a sig-

'nificant achieVement.Science haia new set of responsibilities, some of

which my 'colleagues do not feel,comfortable-with. Ibelieve that Barry Commoner's words on theintegrity of science are useful to us Ukiah but in ,adifferent-context. Science has a new responsibillityone not often faced uplothat is, the responsibilityfor assisting°, more than ever before; the amor-phous group \we academics tend to lump together as"decisionmakers7. in making decisions which affectus all andin taking action in the absence of informa-

. tion and data: In doing this, we step outside thetraditional conservatism of science and enter into a

-role emphasizin the disparity between "traditionalprinciples pf sci nce and modern realities." Ourpurpose is to wo toward a definition of integritythat will allow i application in regulating theNation's waters.

I am somewhat wed at being the fi st of thespeaker's from ,th scientific cornmu ity, sur-rounded as I am by s me of the leading ecologists inthe country. My ow knowledge of water qualityand aquatic ecology is imited. My present role as adirector of a Sea Gra- t program has placed me inthe context of a pragm tist concerned with the de-velopment of the resou ces of the marine environ-ment and only indirectl with the question of waterquality and its monitorin and regulation. Those ofis who deal with the rine environment, tow-)

ever, are rapidly becoming highly sensitized to therapid decayof the quality* that last repository ofwastesthe oceins. Within -thy -own State's wa-ters, we have two outstanding examples of theuncontrolled impact of man: Lake Erie and NewYork Bight. We have also-seen, in-New York State,the response of citizens and of the aquatic environ-ment itself to a vigorous program of water qualityimprovement a dramatic change in ecological, so-cial, aesthetic, and economic values.

A small Sea Grant-sponsored study of theproperty values of Chautauqua and Erie Counties inNew York showed that from 1955 to the present,land values along Lake Erie did not increase (in con-stant dollars), while those of small, "pristine" (butecologically threatened) Chautauqua Lake in-creased over fivefold." Other economic factorssuch as tax revenues, employment, and recrea-tional utilization are similarly linked to the per-ceived value of the aquatic resource. Popular

ITY OF WATER

attitudes can be changed and are langing in theregion mentioned as citizens become aware of therevitalization-of a tsourCe. There is, therefore, an

' economic and social return to be obtained from im-proving water duality.

The real issue- is, however, much more funda-mental and far-reaching. Some set the issue at thepoint of survival for the human species. In this con-text, it might be well 'to look for the antecedents ofthe concept of integrity as applied to water regula-tion. It is my understanding th9t our colleagueGeorge Woodwell proposed this concept in a letterto Senator Muskie in 1971. I am certain that one cantrace Dr. Woodwell's concern far back through hisprolific writings as well as follow its expression for-ward in some of his latest articles. Dr. WoodWell'sbasic argument, as I see it, is that we are reallyadding only one aspect of the fundamentalproblentlyhen we look at water quali y. We areseeing only\a part of the impact of ma s burgeon-ing population upon the life system of this planet. Inthe public -mifid, the population issue as takensecond place to the immediate problem f energysupply. The preeminent concern today is tithe humanactivity generating energy. Woodwell has stated;

There is a common tendency to think of pressures on theenvironment as directly correlated with the-growth of popu-lation; and so they are.,, Tbe population of the earth is ex-pected to double in the next 30 to 35 years. But pressures onthe environment are also a Koduct of human activities.' . . .there are abundant signs thalgrowth in human influenceshas already progressed to the point where . . . individuallysmall insults are worldwide . tr. we are thephysics, chemistry, and biology of the,whole arch, a clearsign that growth in the aggregate effect of man has already

k exceeded the point ,where we can rely Upon the classicalassumptions about further growth.'.

We are fortunate that a colleague, Walter West-manwas involved as a "full-time ecologicaladvisor" during the drafting of the Federal WaterPollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, deven more fortunate that he did us the great serice of summarizing that enterprise from the view-point of the ecologist. .

I should like now tto revielcit the fundamentalchange that occurred in water quality legislation,and I shall lean heavily upon Dr. Westman's articlein so doing. Westman usefully contrasted what hetermed the "technological approach" and "ecologi-cal approach" to water pollution control in five leg-islative "issues": water quality goals, mode of treat-ment of pollutants, mode of classification ofpollutants, mode of monitoring the success of pollu-tant rehioval, and the legal point of control.

ISSUE ONEGOALS

Tom Jorling has already pointed outthat-one of

2.0

OVERVIEW

the great- deficiencieslof previous attempts to con-trol water Pollution was the absence of a dearlystated goal. In so doing he stated what might becalled an "ecological imperative" that is, it isimperative for ecology to be'utiliied. Jorling said". . . due consideration to the practicality of corn-plying with such standards may be applicableand the physical and economic feasibility of secur-ing abatement of any pollution." The 1972 Act,howevel-, clearly states that restoration and main-

.tenance of the physical, chemical, 'and biologicalwaterways shall be its goal. This, of course, con-trasts with 'previous definitions, which werecouched in terms of man's uses of waterways. Thithchange sets a higher goal, which, I am sure it willbe argued, 'places, an unnecessarily high cost uponsociety. Many take the contrary position on the

,basis that the natural state has the ability to main-tain itself without the technological intervention ofman, in itself energy consumptive.

Also embedded in this statement of goals is thechange in ihinking ,with regard to the concept of"assimilativg capacity." Ecologists argue with-con-siderable foke that there is no assimilative capac-ity, that any, additive has some effect upon ,the sys-tem at some point immediately or in the "farfield." We have difficulty in predicting the fate ofpollutants. John Cairns has stated: "Anythingadded to or removed from natural waters willprobably cause 'some change in the system,whether naturally or by the activities of man. Ourperception of these changes is limited 'by the preci-sion of our assessment methods and by the limitedbackground information on the structure, function,and rate of change of natural systems."-°

Westman called attention tor:`the inadequacy of-- the human-use, approach to water quality stand-ards: "This kind of assumption [assimilative capac-ity] is made throughout any use-classification sys-tern for streams,` almost invariably without a de-tailed foreknowledge of the fate of pollutants in thestream." We are continually plagued by the ab-sence of knowledge or data; we cry out that we can?not answer the questionyet. As we move fromthe concept of assimilative capacity, and its corol-lary human-use standards, to tie concept of integ-rity, we will have to answer the question of whatintegrity is. I am sure that we shall also be asked,how do you measure it?

My esteemed colleague, the peripatetic marineecologist Joel Hedgpeth, in Writing on the Impact ofImpact Studies, called attention to the problemscaused by our own uncertainties about natural bio:logical systems. He said: "From the more practicalviewpoint, however, the requirement that the po-tential ieffect of projects upon the environment be

17

estimated has produced a confused ferment of ea:-logical studies in _which still untested theories maybe frozen into bureaOratic Procedures and inade-quately trained personnel may be canonized 'as con: 'suiting ec 'sts." '°

I ISSUE TWO-*-MODE OFTREATMENT OF POLLUTANTS

The ecological approach to the,. problem.Is, Of

course, to eliminate the disefiarge of wastes intowater, 'bodies and to emphasize the recycling of

wastes and the utilization of land-use 'controls forthe nonpoint sources. Unhappily, although someclaim -that answers to this approach are at hand, ...

there are many yet unsolved problems, and we find`---tkat in several cases thereis not yet a "technologi-

"cal 'fix" but rather only a movement of the "prob-lem" to yet another point in our biosphere.

Have we indeed removed the source of pollq-tants? Are we truly r' cycling? Or, are e causingnew and as yet unrecognized proble ?you here todaY will say that the answer learly lies

Many of

in ,recognizing the fundamental fact, that we mayhave too many people, too many chemicals of un-known character and behavior. It ismanifestly sim-pler to remove materials from discharges before,they enter the natural' system than it islo trackthem through the system and follow all the newcombinations, linkagesk and synergisms that occur.I recall a colleame.in a large firm which plated antiotherwise pickled metals. In' a spirit of environ-mental consciousness he volunteered to work, onhis own time, ,with the compaiiy to reduce theirwaste discharge.,He was led tothe large tank at theend of the processing systeln into which all thwick-ling waters were drained and told, ?There's the raw

`material, go to it!" To his horror he found that theslurry in this tank was the combined wastes. of sixdifferent metal treating procesg lines. The slurrywas incredibly complex and boggled' his chem-ical-engineering mind. His suggestiok that the

'wastes from each of the six processes be ac-cumulated separately and "reclaimed" individu-ally was greeted with cries about the' expeNiseg ofrepiping and new construction. While my tale isadmittedly drawn from -the old days perhaps 6years agothe -fact remains- that treatment at thesource is less expensive than :treatment farther,downstream; treatment by elimination of theproduct itself fronicour society may be the finalanswer. , ,

Not all share my viewpoint tifir engineering' ismore an art than a precise science. Fla nelieve thecritical question we must ask with PEs#ect to treat-men% of pollutants through iecyclinrc is can we do

21

1'0

18 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

it? Toth Jorling has argued that we are not even them adequilte.ly, and iecmidarily because the work hasprogressing.on the regulatory front. '

1'

fl

ISSUE THREECLASSIFICATION .

OF POLLUTANTS

Westman states -that the classificationof pollu:tants under the ecological approach*may 'be dealtwith by measuring their effects upon the biology ofthe receiving 'waters. He divided pollutants intofour categories: nutrients, nonnutrients, toxic sub-stances, and' pathogens. Nutrients were consideredin terms of their potential to accelerate eutrophica-tion; nonnutrients were those materials that wouldnot be transformed within 1.week and that wouldhave principally a, physical effect upon the receivingwaters. He-recognized, however, that nonnutrientpollutants hacta particularly important character-istic in that that contained 'many materials of un-known future activity and that\many might be bet-ter Classed as toxic substances. He defined toxicsubstances with consideration for the concentrationat which the substance was active. Exposure, in-gestion, inhalation, or assimilation of substancesthat could cause death, disease, behavioral abnor-malities, cancer, genetic mutations, physiologicalmalfunctions, or physical deformations were thebasis for including a substance in this category.

Woodwell has, on the other hand, argued that-standards for toxins cannot be set on the basis ofthresholds for effects; our capability toe measurethresholds is inadequate for the bewildeting va-riety of substances that can be released. There is noway to control releases or to monitor substancesreleased. And there is "little basis for the beliefthat natural thresholds for effects on natural eco-systems exist." "

ISSUE FOURPOLLUTANT REMOVAL

The success of pollutant removal under the eco-logical approach is to be monitored biologically inthe stream, as contrasted with the technologicalapproach of monitoring effluents in-plant.'This-ag-proach will require observing the health oforganisms in the stream at every level of the foodchain. Hedgpeth stated, with respect to the Na-tional Environmental Protection Act, an argumentequally cogent here:

This, requirement of impact studies that M practice mudmeet the scrutiny. of hungry lawyers advised slibrosa bysome of our better ecologists,' should have an especially s.al-utary influence upon field studies in the coastal zone. . . . Sofar, these studies, intended to produce "base line" informa.tion, have not been impressive, primarily because of the re-luctance of the industries and agencies concerned to finance

O

been carried out by consultants and assistants lacking thetraining or understanding necessafy for Rich work. Yet,

insofar as studies relative to possible environmentalchanges in the sluge zone are'concerned, we have knownwhat should have been done for more than lit years, andfor at leasiaR years have had some sound ad ce availa leeven in plain English.",

Clearly, it this aspect of theocolegibl appro hto watei pollution control which will u. tgreatest effort by the,:scientiflet"rhmunityapproach is 'to work. : .

ISSUE FIVELEGAL ,POINT Of CONTROL'

The ultimate piffallof the technological apprqachto ,control was that it required the enforcement'agency to be able to predict the:effects an effluentwOidd have upO'n the body of water. The complexi-tfis that factorinto suclapabilityare somewhatgreater than science has bees i able to master.

Imthe ecological approach; Westman insists, thedilemma persists.` he goal is to achieve the integ-rity of the physical, chemic'al, and,biological charac-teristics of the water. It is ;tacitly assumed, atleastto my- mind,- that only pristine Nyiters possessintegrity,' for in these waters time and evolutionhave interplayed to produce a fauna and a flora,

adapted to the natural characteristics of theirenviritiment: Wesiman, argues that to 'allow any'thing short, of this leads 'again tp the,un,'ertaintiesof relating.effluent cOmpositiOrt to effluent effectsupoxwater qualify. It was this reasoning which ledCongress to stater "It is the national goal that. thedischarge of pollutantt into 'navigable waters be,eliminated by 1985. . .." The means to' Meet thisgoal is closedtcycle technology4

We insert at this point the c6mpficated questionof our ability to solve the problem technologically,.the economic costs of accomplishing the objective,and the alter ,ive`or "tradeoff, costs" of not doingsomething. /

As point out in the preceding paper, the 1972Water Pollutiox Control Act set a clear Objective ,inthe statement /of goal with which it wet' Prefaced.The Act pNc9eded ire"; 'to' make some clearstatements esteblidhing he mode of getting to theobjective'. One might ask, however, how do wemeasure our success or failurein.meeting theobjec-tive, whether tat success or failure be legislative,interpretive, regulatory, enforcement,technologi-,cal, or other. If we measure progress toward thegoal through the character i)f the biota of streams, -are we not simply king at "assimilat4 capac-ity"? Are we not, if we_examine Only The pointdownstream of discharge; perhaps oversimplifying

/ t

22.

OVERVIEW

Better guidance may have been given by our col-league at this meeting, John Cairns, who con-cluded: "Predicting and judging environmentalimpact with precision are areas in which biologistsmusteXcel. . . Good management is always prefer-able to "fire-fighting"! Both biologists and indus-trialists will have to be more flexible if we are topreserve some of the desirable qualities of life on anover-populated planet." "

I began this discussion by referring to an earlierconference on TheIntegrity of Science. I should like

the problem, f the eifecI may simply have movedfarther downs ream. To use a homely example,much of the up r Hudson River has "improved" in

* water quality o the point where it is now ,"safe" for,use by huma s for a variety of recreational pur-poses. The rcpt causes have been transferred, how-ever, to the, substrate, and to the downstreamreaches. Th is a cosmetic character to improvedwater quali which causes relaxation of vigil andeffort t,owar s improvement.

On the of er hand, we can measure our failure toachieve the goal stated in the Act by obserVing fur-ther degradation. As a group of scientists, we have'not achieved 4 clearly stated consensus on thelimits of further degradation. I do believe that aclear majority feel that we are approaching thelimits of our ecosystem and I further believe thatmany citizens are equally aware and concernedabout those limits. Tom Jorling has spoken elo-quently of the failure of the Environmental Protec-tion Agency to capture an educational opportunityto identify the need to reincorporate nutrient mate-rials into the ecosystem and the cycles ftom whichthey were derived. This is clearly not an engineer-ing problem, for if it were, we would have substan-tially moyed toward its alleviation. .

I cite as an instance the vexing,question of sludgedumping in New York Bight. Faced with disposal ofa potential nutrient (I, simplify, here, for the re-moval of toxic materialsfrom the sludge is indeed atechnological problem), many engineers, scientists,goyernmental adnijnistrators, and most citizensview the solution solely in terms of moving thedump site farther from the shores. If indeed theeducational opPortutity had been seized, publichearings on the dumping of sludge would now befilled with clamor apd furor over the technology of

, recycling, not, as at present, on shifting the site.The matters to be discussed in this conference on

The Integrity of Water are many and complex. Iwith that I could offer some simple resolution to theproblem. I am, however, only able to fall back onthe anecdote recounted by John Steinliart: "Aprominent economist was addressing a meeting of -economists, taking them to task for their enormous'self-pride in being hard-headed in .dealing wit,hworld problenii. He suggested that they weren't ashard-headed as they thought and he offered them asuccinct solution to thez4Srld's problemseco-nomic, environmental, and otherwise. His sugges:tion "eat rich people." "

Steinhart urged us to think about itthe proceSs'continuallycontinually lopping off the top of the pyramid.

Steinhart suggested that 'the somewhat didactfcmoral is that morally acceptable solutions are notguaranteed from analysis." 14' .

to quote from some of its findings:. .. the ultimate source of the strength of science will not befound in its impressive products or in its powerful instru-ments. It will be found in the minds of the scientists, and inthe system of discourse which scientists have developed inorder to describe what they know and to perfect theirun rstanding of what they have learned. It is these in-

' ter al factors the methods, procedures, and procpsseswhi h scientists use to discover and to discuss the proper-ties f the natural world which have given science its greatsucc ss. We shall refer to these processes and to theorganization of science on which they depeqdas the integ-rity of science."

. My closing obseryation is that our Nation is nowin the midst of a turmoil caused by immediateprob-lems the economy, energy supply, and e host ofother ,heatedly debated subjects. We must not losesight of the larger issues, however. Bentley Glass,addressing the "Goals of Human Soe!rty," summedit up thus:

The study of the limits of man's resources on earththelimits of energy, atmosphere, water, soil, foods, minerals,and fuels, and species of utilizable organismsshould becoupled with a vastly improved basis Lor technology assess-ment. . . The cry will be made that such a system wouldgreatly retard the introduction of innovations in modernenterprise, would reduce profits, halt economic growth, andput an end to 'progress.' That may well be so. The shit)bolethe of an ever-expandineconomy and of never-endinggrowth have deluded modern man long enough. With suchclear signs that we are pushing to the limits of the earth'Sresources in many ways, perhaps we are ready to recognizethat human progress in well-being is not synonymous withgreater numbers of people or steady increase in the rate ofexploitation and pollution of the environment."

REFERENCES1. Anonymous. 1965. The integrity of science. A report by the

AAAS Committee on Science in the Promotion of HumanWelfare. American Scientist. 53:174-198 ,

2. Commoner, Barry. 1967. Science and survival. VikingCompasslidition.

3. Hedgpeth, 'Joel. 1973. The impact of impact studies.Helgolander wiss. Meeresunters. 21:441.

4. Westman, 'Walter S. 1972. Some basic issues in waterpollution control legislation. American Scientist. 60

(6) :767 -773.5. Starler, N.H., A.N.P. Fisher and W.L. Fisher. 1974.

Assessing the economic impact of changes in environ-mental quality: a case study of Lake Erie's New Yorkshoreline. Unpublished progress r.eport. New York SeaGrant Institiite.

20 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

6. Fisher, A.N.P., W.L.' Fisher and N.H.. Star ler. 1974.Perceptions of water quality, water resource use, andeconomic impact. Unpublished progress report. NewYork Sea Grant Institute.

7. Woodwell, G.M. 1974. Success, succession, and AdamSmith. BioScience. 24 (2):81.

Woodwell. p. 86.9. Cairns, John. 1972. mg with heated waste water

discharges from steam- lectric powei plants. BioScience.22 (7):411.

10. Hedgpeth, p. 443.11. Woodwell. p. 87.12. Hedgpeth, p. 437.13. Steinhart, John S. 1972. Tnstitutiobs and the generation of

purpose: whose environment gets maneged and foi. what?Prometheus. 1 (4):9.

14. Steinhart, p. 9.15. Cairns, p. 419. .

16. Anonymous, p. 17417. Glass, Bentley. 1972. The goals ,of human society.

BioScience: 22 (3):137.

DISCUSSION'

Comment: With the remarks we had thismerning, I wonder if, in a sense, we aren't using titerns physical, chemical, and biological integrity tohelp escape the real intent of the law. Speaking asan ecologist, I have to make a confession, at leastfrom my personal point of view: we ecologists still

'have not graduated to the level of science thata chemists and physicists have. Our paradigm is not

that clharly defined. In a sense the term "intwttyof the system" would seem to me to be alit acop-out because what the law states, and correctme if I'm wrong, is that we are taking a look at ourNation's waters from essentially an historical per-spective, trying to get back to that kind,of environ-ment or that kind of ecosystem that was presentbefore pollution occurred. That, in fact, is a value'that is not a result of scientific thinking along thisparticular line. We can, I think, rationalize from anecological point of view that hake Erie from thetime it was first explored bythe French warriors tothe time that it reached its highest level of eutro-phkation was, in fact, a physically and chemicallyand biologically integral system. It had its integrityfrom a'fanctional pohit of view. It worked. It func-tioned. It did not die. I wonder just.how much weare confusing the issue with some terms that per-haps/should- be looked at in a somewhat differentperspective than we have in the past. Perhaps oneof the reasons that we failed in the educationprocess' is essentially that we really don't knewwhat we're talking about when We talk aboutintegrity in terms of its application for a set ofvalues.

Dr. Squires: I'd enjoy an opportunity to speak tothat because I think there is an eleMent in yourpremise that I would argue with. I don't think that

the concept of integrity needs to be one of returningtoa previous state. That would indeed mean thatwe would not only haye to eat rich people but agreat many others.

What we really have to look kr is a means bywhich we can preserve natural systems, and, by,that I mean physical, cheinical, and biological sys-tems, at a level which provides us,, the humanspeclep, with a means for survival. We have tsi dothis ilia way which is least.consumptive of energy. Ithinit a pretty rational case can be madethat bettertreafpent of pollutants prior to their bein: placedinte any receiving' body of water is less co p-tive lof energy than it is to try and maintain tintegrity of the system once you have polluted it.

I think that's the key issue. Do I depart fromyour thinking?

Comment: Na.,_ not at all. However, I Mild say itis an expres4ion of a set of 'values that we're tryingto describe, too. I think someone mentioned or_re-ferred to, Aldo Leopold and the ecological and con-servation ethic earlier this morning. This is really ,what we are t.allting aboutits application.

Dij. Squires: Again I want to return to the pointthat til'a most impressive part of this particularpiece of legidiation is that a goal was stated. With -®out, 4 goal one has no,direction in which to move,one has no ibility to set forces#t work to makeprogress an one has no way to measure Ont's prog-ress toward achieving the goal: The fi8t that agoal has beer set is the most significant thing donein this particular piece of legislation. Whether ornot we can achieve it and how we go about achiev-ing it are subjects for discussion. But the factiAhatthe goal is compatible with the very simple factor ofsurvivalthat's the key.

Comment: I have no argument with that.Mr. Jorling: It's certainly a igirejudgment to

establish integrity and the value is prudence, Isuspect. Given that. we don't know much about thebiosphere, where can we look for wisddm? Whatthe integrity standard does is to say that weaneas-ure what we do against a hackground. In other,words, we're trying to establish a reference pointfor the meashre of what man is doing to theenvironment because by and large we don't knowthis. Every time you pick up another issue ofScience, there is somethingsburied back in thehotesthat talks about freon and' what have you. There

° are so many things that we're doing to the environ-ment for which we just have no reference point. So,the integrity stateMent establishes that referencepoint.

The value of prudence is that it's easier to rern-edy smaller defects than big defects so that if youscrew up the Hoosic River, it's easier to fix that

24

Aft,

OVERVIEW

than screwing up the Hoosic and the Hddson; orworse, the Hoosic, the Hudson, and the AtlanticOcean.

With our capability to manipulate natural sys-tems, where is our effect the greatest? It's on

t

9

21

smaller systems. We should keep things patternedafter natural systems; the more closed the materialenergy cycles within those sistems, the better,.so Ithink that's another value judgment. It recognizesour limitations.

25

6

k

ft

p

!CAL INTEGRITYI

e

26

J

4

1

4

-THE WATER ENVIRONMENTA

BOSTWICK H: KETCHUMWoods Hole Oceanographic InstitutionWoods Hole, Massachusetts

Earth is unique, among the planets of our solarsystem in having an abundance of water in theliquid state. This is unquestionabl a consequenceof the evolution of the planet and o our favorablelocation in relationship to the su ile otherplanets may have large masses of nd, undoubt-edly, waters of hydration associated 'th the litho-sphere, nonevhas a true hydro ere which is

_characteristic of the earth. The presence of thisliquid water has enormous implicationefor the evo-lution of life as,weknow it-on earth, including thehuman species. Thus,.theire is more than one reasonto hold this conference on the' integrity of water.For without .watekthere would be none of us hereto discuss it and, next to the air we breathe, wateris the most critical substance to maintain life.

Even on earth the majority of water is segues-.-tered in the primary lithaiphere and in sedimen-

tary rocks, primarily as water of hydration. Thewatei tied up in this way is nearly 20 times as greatas the free water that we are discussing here today(Hutchinson--1957). Water is being added con-itantly to this reservoir by volcanic eruptions andby hot springs, but it is still uncertain how much ofthis is truly juvenile and how much is derived fromthe hydrosphere already present.

In looking at the title of my talk, some of myfriends suggested that I have the whole subject to

,cover. I don't pretend to cover the whole subject.The ,present distribution of water in the hydro-

sphere is shown in Table 1. As an oceanographer, I' will speak .primarily about the 98.8 percent of this

- water which is foundin the oceans and ram pleasedthat others will speak about the surface water andground water resources, the principal sources ofdrinkable water. The smallest fraction in Table 1 isthe Water, vapor of the atmosphere which may,nevertheless, be the most important. Because ofthe great mobility of the atmosphere, the precipita-tion part of the hydrological cycle is greatly de-pendent on this small fraction of the free water on--earth. The evaporation from the ocean surfaceexceeds the piecipitation there, and this providesfor the excess precipitation on land surfaces, nour-ishing plants and giving the continuous flow of ourrivers and recharge of our ground waters. In thisand many other ways, the linkage of the ocean and

1

the atmosphere exercises a profound control on theclimate of earth.

Table 1.Free water distribution on earth.

Location 10" Metric tons

Oceans 13,800Polar and other ice 167Inland water 0.25Ground water 2.5Atmospheric water vapor 0.13

Data from Hutchinson. G. E. 1957.1i. 223.

Over the eons of geological ,history, t Yam.-logic cycle has been weathering the land and carry-ing the elements into the oceans where they have

oaccumulated. Seawater contains, on the average,about 3.5 percent solids and virtuallyall of the nat-ural elements are present, though some in traceamounts. Of the latter, some have been measured'only very recently as a resultef the refinement ofour chemical methods of analysis. As a broad gen-eralization the major elements in seawater arepresent in constant relationship to one another sothat seawater can be considered as a 'solution inwhich the main variable is the total quantity ofwater. Evaporation can increase the salinity, ortotal salt content of the water, and precipitation candecrease it, but the elements present remain insubstantially the same proportion one to another.Minor.. perturbations occur near the mouths ofrivers where the chemicals of-the river water canmodify this generally constant relationship amongthe major elements. In the deep waters of the sea,however, which constitute almost three-quarters ofthe oceanic aquatic reservoir, the composition ofseawater is the result ormany millions of years ofequilibration with the land, and man) activitieshave yet to produce a measurable effect-there.

Some of the minor elements in seawater areessential for life. These include carbon d$oxide,oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, and for diatoms, sili-con. The growth of microscopic floating plants, thephytoplankton,.is limited by light intensity to thesurfacelayers of any aquatic ecosystem. These lifeprocesses vary the concentration of these elementsand compounds, sometijnes,exhausting the supplyso that further productivity is inhibited. The near-surface photTynthetic Oroduction, of organic mat-,

2725

0

26 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER, ...,

ter supports all life in the open sea, butit is in thesesame waters where man's activities are having ameasurable impact.-This is a cause for concern be-cause we do not know how much man can modifyOcean waters Without influencing the marine lifewhich it supportaand indirectly the survival of manhimself on the planet.

Man's impact on the integrity of water-is causedprimarily by pollution. The quantity -of waste mate-rials reaching the water environment has increasedgreatly with the increase in size and local density ofthe human population. As Dr. Squires pointed outthis morning, the population problem cannot be di-.. vorced from the problem of availability of qualitywater. EVen More important is the explOsive in-crease in technology, which not only increases theamount of pollution, but also is adding unique mate-rials which are not readily recycled by naturalprocesses. ,

On a'global scale, the pollutants of major concernare those which are produced and reach theenvironment in large quantities, which persist forlong periods of time in the environment, and whichare toxic to organismi, in6lUd4ng man, that dependupon the environment for their existence. Thereare Many other parameters Which' could be men-tioned such as the accumulation of various pollu-tants within the body tissues,,,and the transfer ofthese elements along various.parts of the food webor food chain. The pollutants of greatest concern,thus, include various heavyMetals, manmade radi-oisotopes, petroleum hydrocarbons, and persisfehtsynthetic organic chemicals such as the chlorinatedhydrocarbons and detergents. All' of these havebeen produced or redistributed by man in uniqueways and 'all of 'them can' now be detected in thewaters of the open sea far; from shore. For thesepersistent pollutants,- theacein is the ultimate sink

in which they %cumulate in 'the wate;, in: organisms, or in tiiAottom sediments: Therreach:the sea by a variety of transport mechanisms. Someare leached or eroded from the land and carried toseat by rivers as solutes or sediment's; some are derliberately introduced into rivers or directly into theocean as domestic and industrial wastes; some are-dumped at sea from shipboard or are a direct copse -,quence of ship operations; some are transported bythe atmosphere for great distancesirOm the sourcebefore being washed out by rain on both land andsea. ., ,

-Other pollutants may ,be of great local impor-tance, but are not of great importance in terms ofthe contamination of the laig reservoir of waterrepresented by the oceans. Foil example, esticsewage and, some aiFicultur r food rocessingwastes may be very important locally, not only be-

s

cause they over - fertilize the water and -lead toobnoxious growth but also because of possible-bac-terial and viral contamination. The natural organiccompounds in such wastes are soon decomposed in

. seawater or diluted to insignificant concentrations.In terms of the volumes of Seawater, they do notpose critical problems.

In. this sessi1 the receiving capacity or theassimilative capacity of natural aquatic environ-ments was often entioned. It has been explainedthat this concept no longer acceptable under theFederal Water Po ution Control Act Amendmentsof 19'72 or, as quires.' said, either there is noassimilative ca ty of an environment, or if thereis, we do nIt know. hat it is.

I would lflie,to point out one aspect of importancethat was not Men oned this morning and I wouldlike to take the o s rtunity to mention lt now. Thisis the time it: -I ed for the recovery df an abusedsystem If e insult is removed. The biodegradationof th pollutant is an ii/iportant contributingpr -ss to recovery, but the products of the degra-

ton may remain,. The physical turnover time, or1 ushing of the _system is the ultimate mechanismfor removal. ftpollutantt dissolved in the waterthis can v4ry from days to centuries, and the abilityof the ecosystem to reestablish itself...will be sOb-jected,to related time constraints.

To give a. few examplesrivers and mostestuaries ha,ve, flushing time of days to months.Lake Erie, which was mentioned thisoining, hasan average flushing time on the order of ,60.years,Lake Superior abotit 250 yeart; the deep waters of

4the =means, c'enttgies to millennia to fecirculate.The point that I wapt lesmake in this connection isthat it is especially dangerous to pollute these largewater masses which will take so long to recover.

HEAVY METAL.

About a dozen element's are being used or cycledby man at rates which are in excess of the normalgeologjeal rates oecycling. A list of these is pre-sented in Tablg'2. The effects of these in the aquaticenvironment range kmi the fertilizing activity ofcompounds of nitrogen and phosphorus to biolog-ically relatively inert elements such as iron, tohighly toxic elements suck as.Ynercury, It should bepointed out in connection With this table that theman-induced rates of mobiiiiation of these elementsrepresent his use of-the elements arid not the rate:at which they are being added to environment.Presumably, a steady state would ultimately beachved at which time man would only have toMobilize the elements to replace those which be-come environmental contaminants.

28

).

CHEMICAL INTEGRITY

- When considering man's contamination of theworld oceans the evaluation is more realisticallybased upon the toxicity of the elements to marineorganisms. Table 3 presents a list of toxic heavymetals, listed in order of decreasing toxicity in com-parison with the rate at which these are beingadded to the environment by combustion of fossilfuels. Since the burninggof fossil fuel injects thesecontaminants into the atmosphere, they reach aglobal distribution rapidly, an effect which is notfound if they are cycled more slowly through theland and the freshwater drainage. However, this isonly one source of contamination, and these rates ofintroduction are much less thantthose shdwn in the'previous table for the same elents.

Table 2.-Man-induced rates of mobilization of materials whichexceed geological rates as estimated in annual riverdischarges

to the oceans.

ElementGeological

rates'lin rivers)

Man!inducedrates' --

(mining)

Iron .Nitrogen .Manganese. :. ... -. s .,

CopperZincNickel

Thousand metric tons per year

25,000 319,0008,500 9,8003

440 1,600

05 4,460370 3,930300 -358

Lead 180 9 2,330 i

Phosphorus 180 6,500'Molybdenum ,

13 57

Silver 5 7

Mercury 3 1Tin 1.5 166

Antimony . 1.3 40

Source: 5CES11970). ,._,

' Bowen. 1966.' United Nations. Statistical Yearbook. 1967 data.' Consumption.

Table 3.-Man-induced mobilization by burning of fossil' fuels,toxicity to marine organisms, and critical index for various heavy

Imetals.

Mobilization'Element 10*/§(yr

Toxiatyt Index10"1/yr

RankordMercury, 1.6 0.1 16,000 1

Cadmium 0.35" 0.2 1,750 2

Silver . .... 0.07 1 70 10a

Nickel 3.7 2 1,350 3Selenium 0.45 5 -90 9

Lead 3.6 10 360 4

Copper 2.1 10 210 7

Chromium :., 1.5 10 150 SArsenic 0.7 10 70 10b

Mnc 7 20 330 6Manganese 7 20 350' 5

*Bettina and Goldberg. 1971 (except for cadmium)."CEQ. 1972.tNAS, 1975.

27

The ratio of the, rate of supply from this sourcedivided by the toxicity gives a number which I havecalled the relative critical index. This index actuallyrepresents the volume of seawater which would ber4ised to toxic levels at the given rate of mobiliza-tion by the burning of fossil fuels. For those wholike simpler units than 1012 liters, I might point outthat this unit equals a cubic kilometer, so this is nota trivial matter when you are talking about thou-sands of cubic kilometers of seawater. The rankorder of these elements places mercury, cadmium,nickel, and lead as the four most critical elements,and they are commonly cited as such. In the LondonDumping Convention the first two are prohibited,.and the others are listed as requiring special care asare arsenic, copper, zinc, beryllium, chromium, andvanadium.

. Another way to evaluate the importance of heavy,metals as pollutants in the marine environment is tocompare their natural- concentration in seawater .with their toxicity. Data arranged in this way arepresented, in Table 4. Nickel and mercury are pres-ent in seawater at concentrations greater thanthose which hay6 been, judged to be safe on thebasis of toxicity. The toxicity values in both of thesetables are taken from the "Water Quality Criteriaof 1972".prepared-forEPA by the National Acad-emy of Scienc'es. As you know, swordfish haveeenfound to contain mercury in excess of FDA stand-ards. Recent studies by Barber, et al. (1972) showmercury to be equally high in fish preserved for

-almost a century,-so that this contamination shouldnot be attributed to pollution by man. However, itis an example of places where our basic scientificinformation is inadequate to reach reasonable andsensible regulations concerning some of these pollu-tion problems. Acaxling to Table 4, the rank orderrates the four most critical elements as beingnickel, mercury, cadmium, and zinc.

t29

Table 4.-Toxic heavy metals of importance in marine pollutionbased on their seawater concentration andtoxicity.,

Concentration Toxicity* RankElement Ng/1 Ratios order

Mercury. 0.2 0.1 2 2

Cadmium 0.1 0.2 0.5 , Sa

Silver 0.3 1 0.3 4a

Nickel 7 2 3.5 1

Selenium 0.45 5 0.09 7

Lead 0.03 10 0.003 9

Copper 3 10 0.3 4b '

Chromium . . 4 0.6 10 0.06 8

Arsenic 2.6 10 0.26 5

Zinc 10 20 0.5 3bManganese 2 20 0.1 6

*Goldberg. et al. 1971. or Riley & Cheater, 1971, higher value.tAs in Table 3.

28 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

Both of these methods of assessing the criticalimportance of various heavy metals suffer frominaccuracies in the estimates. However, both showsufficient consistency to justify concern about thesemetals as pollutants. The toxic level of many ofthem is so close to the natural concentration in sea-water that any unnecessary addition by man shouldbe viewed with the, greatest concern. It is obviousthat high levels of pollution such as occurred inMinamata Bay in Japan, pose serious problems.This again is an indication that the size and scale ofthe body of water to which theilltnaterials areadded have a tremendous influence on the

faccumulation and the biological effects of thesemetals.

RADIOISOTOPES

Oceanographers first recognized man's potentialfor the contamination of the open sea,as a result ofthe atmospheric testing of nuclear explosives.Previously, it had been believed that the oceanswere so vast _that man's activities would have nomeasurable effeetotecCept in local areas such asestuaries and coastal waters. Atmospheric trans-port of the fission products of nuclear tests rapidlyled to a worldwide distribution and the distributionof these products has been studied extensively as aglobal experiment, since the materials were addedin a relatively short period of time rather thanbeing accumulated over geological eras.As with all elements, the sea contains natural

radioactivity, some of which is derived from theweathering of the earth's crust and some of whichoriginates as a result of the bombardment of theearth's gaseous envelope by cosmic rays. More than60 of these natural radionuclides have been identi-fied (NAS, 1971).

By December 1968, about 470 nuclear explosionshad been detonated in many parts of the world bythe nuclear powers (U.S.", U.S.S.R., U.K.; France,and China). Of these, 113 tests were performed onCoral Islands in the Pacific and 13 over the openocean. Six tests were performed underwater.Except, for, the 116 tests which were performedunderground and the radioactivity consequentlycontained, it makes little difference where the testwas performed since the mobile atmosphere carriesthe fission products to all parts of the world.

The radioisotopes distributed throughout theworjd by nuclear testing include not only the fiisionproducts of the nuclear explosion, but also theradioactivity induced in the materials in the struc-tures used or in the earth or water. The fissionproducts which have received the greatest atten-tion to date are '"Cs and "Sr which have half lives

30

of 30 and 28 years, respectively. Tritium (3H) andthe radioisotope. of carbon ("C) are present natur-ally in the environment and are also produced innuclear explosions (NAS, 1971).

There is no evidence that the fission productsadded by nuclear testing have produced concentra-lions of these radioisotopes which are hazardous to`Marine organisms. Those who saw the experi-mental area will know that locally it is a differentmatter. The fact that they are detectable in all sal.-face waters...of the world oceans is, in part, evidenceof the sensitivity of the analytical methods. Asmentioned abov,e, their presence in seawaterprovides a unique identifying "tag" of water massesand 'this has permitted critical analysis of some ofthe circulation patterns of the waters of the deepsea.

PETROLEUM

Another global pollutant which is 4 increasingimportance and concern is. petroleum. Pretroleum isa complex natural mixture of elarge number ofhydrocarbons. Petroleum has accumulated overmillions of years, but we are now exploiting-thisresource at a rate yastly in excess of the fate atwhich it can be replenished::

Natural lseeps of soil haVe probably. occurred -throughout geological history. As a result of ourrapid use of this material, however, the rate of pol-lution of the sea by oil has been-greatly increased.In 1971 the world consumption of oil approached2,400 million metric tons. Becauie most of the oil isused in parts of the world other than the productionareas, more than half of this oil has been trans-ported by sea in either the crude or refined form(NAS, 1975).

It is inevitable that oil pollutionof the oceans willincrease as a result of this great use and transporta-tion of petroleum. Various estimates have beenmade of the rate of addition of oil to the oceans, andthe latest of these is shown in Table 5 (NAS, 1975).This pollution is .at the rate of six million medictons per annum (mta). Ajthough'accidental spills__such as the grounding of the Torrey Canyon or theSanta Barbara oil well blowoutAre spectacularevents and attract the most public attention, theyactually account for only about 5 percent of themarine pollution by oil. Transportation lossesaccount for about 30 percent of-the total and a simi=lar quantity is provided by urban and river runoff. ,

Oil slick's and tar balls have been observed on thehigh seas in considerable quantities (Horn, et al.1970: Morris, 1971). Beadles throughout the worldare coated with tar in areas near the main transpor-tation routes even when no accidental spill has

.or

\

CHEMICAL INTEGRITY 29

Table 5.Petroleum hydrocarbons introduced into the oceans.

SourceInputruts Percent

Natural seeps 0.6 9,8Offshore production 0.08 1.3

TransportationTanker operations 1.33 21.8Other ship operations 0.5 8.2

Accidental spills 0.3 4.9Coastal refineries 0.2 3.3Mtmicipalnd industrial wastes 0.6 9.8Urban runoff 0.3 4.9`River runoff 1.6 26.2Atmospheric input 0.6 9.8

Total ' 6.11 100

Source: NAS. 1975. ,

occurred nearby. This- tar is the end product of theweathering of the oil reaching the sea. It is mostlyan aesthetic degradation of the environment.

Although the direct toxic effect of oil on marineorganisins is somewhat controversial, the evidenceis clear that all oils contain toxic substances, thoughin different proportions. The impact is largely de-pendent upon the type of oil and the degree ofexposure of the organisms to the oil before it dis-perses, evaporates, or decomposes. There is goodevidence (Blumer and Sass, 1972) that in relativelyshallow coastal waters the oil can become incorpo-rated in the sediments where it can persist for longperiods of time. After all, this is the way oil isformer:lin the first place in marine sediments underanerobic or anoxic conditions. The oil sequesteredin the sediments of shallow waters can be releasedat random interIals from the sediments to thewater as a result of storms, with nother sequenceof biological effects taking place:

The pollution of the high seas by has becomean international problem because of t increase inoil tanker traffic and ships burning f el oil. TheIntergovernmental Maritime ConsultativeOrganization (IMCO), a specialized agency of theUnited Nations, has held a series of internationalconferences which have drawn up and subsequentlymodified thek ',International Convention for thePrevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil." The mostrecent International Conference on Marine Pollu-tion was held in London in October and November

.,. 1973 (IMCO, 1974). The draft convention provides.regulations.for the prevention of pollution byloil, by-...,noxious liquid substances in bulk,' by harmful sub-

-, -stances in packaged form, and by sewage and gar-!. ,beige from ships. When the provisions of the, Con-

vention came to full force and take effect, thepollution of th sea by oil resulting from transporta-tion losses ; be greatly reduced. As Table 5shows, hoWeveri this will still leave considerable oil

pollution so long as our technology depends soheavily upon this energy source.

SYNTHETIC ORGANIC COMPOUNDS -A wide variety of synthetic organic chemicals is

also reaching the environment. The production ofsynthetic organic chemicals in the United States in1969 was 135,000 million pounds, a 12 percent in-crease over 1968. This quantity is not an insignifi-cant fraction of the natural productivity of the sea(NAS, 1972). Although many synthetic organicchemicals are readily degradable to elementarymaterials which re-enter the chemical cycles in thebiosphere, the more stable compounds that enterthe environment, whether as waste materials' orthrough their use, are of concern. Particularlycritical are those' compounds which are not foundnaturally, since organisms capable of decomposingthem have not evolved and they may persist forlong times and accumulate in the biosphere.

The chlorinated hydr4arbons such as DDT andits decomposition produc and polychlorinated bi-phenyls (PCBs) are of particular concenttince theyare not readily biodegradable and the ocean, is the'ultimate sink for these compounds. Haivey, et al.(1972) found substantial concentrations of DDT andits breakdown product DDE and even higher levelsof PCBs in a variety of organisms collected from theopen sea many miles from land. Their results con-firm the probability of atmospheric transport sincethe distributions show no clear-cut gradients whichwould be expected with river transport. Being oilsoluble, 'these compounds are concentrated in thelipid pool of the' organism with a maximum concen-tration of 3,300 micrograms/kg for DDT and DDEand 21,000 micrograms/kg lipid for PCBs.

*Woodwell'and his associates, who will be speak-ing to us tomorrow but perhaps not on this subject,modeled the circulation of DDT in the biosphere.and concluded that the largest reservoir is in theatmosphere, but also that the amount not decom-posed by ultraviolet rays in the troposphere willultimately be added to the surface of the sea (Wood-well, et al. 1971). The concentrations observed byHarvey, et al. (1972) were not as great as thoseassumed by Woodwell, et al. (1971) for oceanic fishor plankton. The lower accumulations in marineorganisms could be caused by a 'shorter atmos-pfieric half life of the DDT than assumed by Wood-well and his associates, by 0 faster degradation inthe marine environment, or by greater accumula-tion in sediments than those estimates used in themodel. Again, we emphasize the lack of hard, usefulscientific information to. evaluate this problem.Clearly, additional research is needed to evaluate

31

Gr

30, THE INTEGRITY OF WATER1

they have my hearty supporttrying to do.

the persistence of these compounds in.the- environ-

synthetic organic, detergents, an

ment.A variety of othe

including other pesticiemicals,pharma-

ceuticals are also undoubtedly reaching the marineenvironment but with impacts that are virtuallyunknown. It has been estimated that about 60 per-cent of The phosphorus content of sewage effluentsin some developed countries is caused by the exten-sive use of high phosphonus-containing detergents.Like other substances contained In sewage, theimpact is largely local where substantial modifica-tions to the biota can be caused by the processesknown as eutrophication.

CONCLUSIONSMound it difficult to write this paper without

Proceeding to the biological concerns since I am an.ecologist. Since I was told to talk primarily on thechemistry of this problem I have restrained myself,to 'some extent. I Would like to point out that, aswas mentioned this morning, very critical problemsare caused by mixed pollutants and when you lookat the environment, as a receiver of a set of pollu-tants you have .,,1,4,hink of the tail picture. Thesynei&m or the antagonism among different pollu-tants!of critical concern. I think that this subjectis under discussion and consideration at this sym-posium.

Man's technology has not yet destroyed the abil-ity of the oceans to support marind life which,provides A valuElble food resource for many nationsthroughout the world. However, the earlieroptimism of the oceanographer that the seas are sovast that the impact of pollution in the open seawould be undetectable has been proven false. Ininshore 'and coastal waters, the value of the sea formany of man's desired activities has been decreasedby marine pollution.

The optimistic part of the picture is that we arenow recognizing the importance of pollution in gen-eral, and active steps are being taken to control pol-lution and ameliorate the impact. Hopefully, it isnot too late and we can maintain the quality of ouraquatic. environment and restore those environ-ments which we have seriously, damaged. Appro-priate actions taken by the Environmental Protec-tion' Agency in the United States, by similarorganizations in other countries, and by inter-national agreement can help to maintain or restorethe integrity of water, both fresh ai marine,throughout the world. This is an enormous respon-sibility on the part of our friends in the Environ-men-aProtection Agency. I hope that a conferencesuch as this is of some help to them. In any case,

32

in what they are

REFERENCESBarber, R. T., A. Vijayakumar, and F. A. Cross. 1972. Mercury, concentrations in recent and 90-year-old benthopelagic fish.

Science 178: 636-039.Bertine, K. K., and E. D. Goldberg. 1971. Fossil fuel combustion

and the major Kdimentary cycle. Science 173: 233-235.Blumer, M., and J. Sass. 1972. Oil pollution, persistence, and

degradation of spilled fuel oil. Science 176: 1120-1122.Bowen, H. J. M. 1966. Trait elements, in biochemistry. Aca-

demic Press, London.Council on Environmental Quality. 1972. Third annual report of

the Council on Environmental 'Quality. U.S. Government.Printing Office, W hington, D.C. xxvi + 450 pp.

Goldberg, E. D., et 41971. Marine chemistry. Pages 137-146 inRadioactivity in t marine environment. NRCNAS Publ.No. ISBN _0 -309- 01865 -X. ix + 272 pp. . ,

Harvey, G. R., et' al. 1972. Chlorinated hydrocarbons, in open-ocean Atlantic organisms. Pages 177-186 in D. Dyrs.s,en andD. Jagner, eds. The changing chemistry of the oceans, NobelSymposium 20. Almquist and Wiksell, Stockholm, and JohnWiley and Sons, Inc., New York. _

Horn, M. H., J. M. Teal, and R. H. Backus. 1970. Petroleumlumps on the surface of the sea. Science 168: 245-246.

Hutchinson, G. E. 1957. A treatise on limnology. Vol. I, Geog-raphy, physics, and chemistry. John Wiley and' Sons, Inc., -New York. xiv + 1015 pp.

Inter-Governmental Maritime Orasultative Organization. 1974.International conferenceconference on marine pollution, 1973. Publ. No.ISBN 92-801-1026-8, Londo'n. 172 pp.

Morris, B. F. 1971. Petroleum: tar quantities floating in theNorthwestern Atlantic taken with a new quantitative Neuston'net. Science 173: 430-432.

National Academy of Sciences. 1971. Radioactivity in the marine--environment. National Academy of Sciences, Washington,D.C. ix + 272 pp.

. 1972. Water quality criteria 1972. National Academy ofSciences/National Academy of Engineering, U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office, Washington, D.C. Stock No. 5501-00520. xix+ 594 pp. .

. 1975. Petroleum it the marine environment. NationalAcademy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. xi + 107 pp.

Riley, J. P., and R. Chester. 1971. Introduction to marine chem-istry. Academic Press, London and New York. 465pp.

Study of Critical Environmental Problems. 1970. Man's impacton the global environment. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Massa310 pp.

United Nations. 1967. Statistical yearbook,:U.S. Tariff Commission. 1970. Synthetic organic chemicals,

United States production and sales, 1968 [TC publication 3271.U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 266 pp.

Woodwell, G. M., P. C. Craig, and H. A. Johnson. 1971. DDT inthe biosphere: where does it go? Science 1'74:1101 -1107.

DISCUSSION

Comment: Since many of the synthetic organicchemicals are toxic in nature and so many of themare algo accumulating in the environment, what doyou feel about the role of predictive toxicology and

,;; -

CHEMICAL INTEGRITY , . 31.

'the' control of the manufacture and dispersal of disposal(luggesting tllat we simply go fartheioutthese tags? into the ocean.. As an oceanographer, are .,pur

fir. tchuni; What can ene Sity,:except that I'm physical modeling techniques sufficiently reliabte 22all for it. There certainly should be screening tests tbat,we can 'make any kind of predictive- activklffiifor any substance teat is being prOd. uced in large, relating to such discharges? I,

,..,

amounts, as-any profitable inbstance4vill be.xThe sDr. Ketcham: I don't want to say we know n4th-screening should betmadeeally in the development ' ing about it because we know something aboutit.of the product in order to evaluate, what impactits There have been recent studies on the rate of Vo-production, the whole manufacturing procesq the logical degradation of dumped sewage sludge whichwhole waste material produced will have 'Upon theenvironment.

,

This is done only for drugs in this' country at thepresent time. Its uld be done, in my opinion, forall organic substa cps and pharmaceuticals. Somescreening mech m,should be required, Which isnot going to be easy I admit, but at least it shouldbe a part of.the normal dev,e1o2ment piocess of anymaterial.

Comment: I'd like toask, Doctor, about the dis-appearance off Peru of the fish menhaden, a fewyears ago. Was pollution a factor in this?

Dr,tetchum: The anchoveta was the fish: So faras I know, pollution was not a cause of its disap-pearance. This is ephenomenon that goes back his-torically for many years. Periodically, there's a ., ,quately, but currents alone-'don't tell you wherelshift in the ocean currents and this displaces the some material denser than seawater is going to go;population. The Peruvian coast is an area of naturalupwelling which leads to very heavy productivity,very heavy growths, and this supports an enor-mous population of anchovetac

This fishery reached a level of two billion poundsjust prior to this change, and it dropped to less thana tenth of that the next year, but the fishery hadbecome so efficient that they continued to fish thispopulation in away that had never happened be-fore. Previously, when the fish disappeared as aresult of the change in ocean currents, the fisher-men jUst gave-up and went home and took a rest.This time they didn't. They used echo sounders andeverything else. They continued to fish actively andfurther depleted the population. I haven't seen thelast year's figures, and whether the fishery willcome back or not is a guess. I couldn't predict. Thebasic, primary productivity that supported thisenormous fishery will undoubtedly come back be-cause phytoplankton are ubiquitous and they're'everywhere in the water, but the anchoveta was alocalized fishery. Whether there's mot*. left toreproduce the population, I think only time will tell.

But that's one thing that we'dan't want to blameon pollution. That's nature. Nature has had catas-trophes throughout geological time and will con-tinue to have catastrophesThere's just no reasonin my mind why man has to be another catastrophe.

Chairman Ballinger: Dr. Ketchum, I halm a ques-tion. There was a comment rejating to the ocean

indicate that it is faster than had been anticipated., It is dear.that the amount of material that has bAn-

dumped over the last 40 or 50 years would prodtea tremendous mound in the area if, it weren't beiiigdecomposed and dissipated. Mounds have be4nfound and mapped for the dredge spoil and buildirubble that have been dumped in the New YoBight, so it is not a lack of prior historical records 44the.lack of present ability to map accumulations. Inthe sewage sludge dumping area, there is a recordof accumulation a meter in depth from one core, buf,an adjacent sediment core taken as soon thereafte4,,as possible found virtually nothing.

As far as the currents are enficerned, I think we.,understand the curet regime in that area ade-1.;

and is going to end up.Moving the dump site to a new area will not solve

the problem. I Plink, as was mentioned this morn-ing, that the logical thing to do with any of these 'waste materials is to develop the technology to re-cycle them. The sewage sludge has a lot of usefulfertilizing chemicals and organic material which .

could be used as soil conditioners and as fertilizers -

and thus made of value.. Unfortunately, the earlyhistory of our sanitary engineering profession-called for the cheapest possible system, perhaps.Combining urban or storm runoff with sewage ag-gravates the problem. Allowing industries to puttheir untreated waste directly into the sewage col-lecting system makei things worse. Consequently,Lthis sludge being dumped has high levels of hydro-carbons, of pesticides, of several toxic' heavymetals. I suspect if you took the sludge, dried' it,and put it on your garden yop would successfullykill almost any plant that grows there.

It's obvious that sludge disposal is killingorganisms in the marine environment. But a lot ofthe suggestions for alternative methods of disposalwill move this impact on the environment from oneplace to another, and will not necessarily be asolution.

I think a solution can be found for sewage sludgedisposal and I'm heartily in favor of thurIng a solu-i,tion for it. As near as I can, tell, if you'rtk,goirig todestroy some 20 square miles Of-the eartlf*.purface /

"No

!Vg33.

3? THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

it may be just as well to put the sludge in the oceanas it would be to put it in a great big pile in the cen-ter of Manhattan Island and see what you could de-stroy there. '

It's a tough problem.Comment: In the water quality standard setting

process, is the philosol3hy of no discharge basedupon predicted toxicology scientifically and legallydefensible?

Dr. Ketchum: I have only one way to insure "nodischarge" of the wastes of the human populationand 'of huni technology and that is to destroyHomo sapiens." I'm not at all sure. that zero dis-charge is achievable so long as we haVe humanbeings on earth. Throughout geological time, manProbably created no larger perturbation on the

/,

r

1

34

environment than any other large voracious carni-vore. This is no longer true. We could go back tothe hunting stage of carnivores, whe'n we would Irrequire something like 10 square miles per in-dividual for maintenance, food° and subsistence.This would limit the world population to somethinglike four million people instead of four billionpeople, which it is today.

So long as we have four billion people on earth, solong as we heat houses and like to be warm andcomfortable, so long as we have to eat, man's exist-ence on earth is going to have an environmentalimpact.

I think it is possible to achieve a considerableimprovement without going all the way and revertman to a hunter in the open field. 19

A

THE CHEMICAL INTEGRITYOF SURFACE WATER

,

ARNOLD E. GREENBERGChief, Bioenvironmentat Laboratories SectionLaboratory Services ProgramCalifornia State Department of HealthSacramento, California .01

In my view, a presentation on the chemicalintegrity of surface water can deal either withcriteria (or standards) of surface water quality orthe means of achieving them. From-the earlier dis-cussions and the titles of those that will follow, itseems clear that the emphasis here should be on theformer, the faefers of water quality.

Coming from a health agency that is concerned. primarily with public water supplies, it is appropri-

ate f0 use criteria of drinking water qualityas model, although I intend my remarks to be

% mo broadly applicable.From a chemical point of view our concerns are

directed to four major groups of constituents thatcan impair water quality. Not in order of impor-tance, because that will vary with local conditionsincluding lancLoe, wastewater discharge, and ben-eficial uses, these groups are: total dissolved min-erals; inorganics, of which the most significant maybe toxic metals; organics, either clearly definedsuch as the pesticides, or a broad spectrum of un-known substances natilrally occurring in water oradded as a result of man's activities; and, lastly,dissolved gases. In a health context these consti-tuents can be separated into those that exert anadverse health effect, that is, are or may be toxic,and those having an undesirable effect moreoriented to aesthetics or consumer acceptability. In

broader context of eqviro ental protection oren ,... ,t, the criteria differ more quantita-,,ttively th '4-., ., . : tively, ough special concern

c.,...

especially nitrogen anthe growth of undesirable or''"?''''-'.'.4.,'- ;,,,,or undesirablenumbers of organisms..

s ..` ..,+ I

cherlicalorus, that stimulate

i'; -4.1tp,._,-,

must be given 4,..

The principal sources of information` -..criteria and standdrds that may be derivethem are the "blue book," "Water Quality Criteria,1972," a _report prepared for the Environmental

SAndards issued last in 196 by the Public Health

*otection Agency by the ational Academies ofSciences and Engineering, a d the Drinking Water

Service and now under revision by EPA. A numberof speakers in this symposium have been importantcontributors to the blue book; Pholie they will notobject to my use of the fruit of their labors.

TOTAL DIOOLVED SOLIDSTotal dissolved solids or filtrable,residue are dis-

cussed in the blue book but a recommended upperlimit is not given. At high 'concentrations aphysiological effect can be ()Rained but since theeffect is a function of specific ions, control can beimposed by setting limits for those ions. In anagricultural application, total dissolved solids or,more specifically, salinity, can be critical becausethere are numerous crops with low salinity toler-ances. The Colorado River exemplifies a situation inwhich increases in salinity resulting from irrigationreturn flows 'make for an unusable end productdownstream. Control by modification of agricul-tural practices or actual desalination of the riverwater is necessary to pioteCt beneficial uses.

Water pH can be included under this generalcategory of dissolved minerals. Although no stand-ards exist or are proposed, it is clear that theoptimum pH is around neutrality, say the rangefrom 6.5 to 8.5.

Biologically, a critical aspect of both total dis-solved solids and pH is the stability of the level,,that is, there may be !Averse biological impacts ofmarked , and rapid fluctuations in either. Suchchanges may result from waste discharges and inthe case of pH, from the massive growth of algaethat produce an elevated pH,, at least during thedaylight hburs of active photosynthesis,.

,

ORGANICSshoArs the proposed drinking wa

stand .1organic constituents that representa health hazard: me later date standards lessrelated to health to aesthetics will be

35

z

34 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER,

shellfish free frOm\Nhuman enteric _organisms, istoxic to fish at such a loW concentration as torchal-lenge our capability of measuring it. While it is notyet established that the major toxicant is chlorineitself or the chlorinated products produced hetreated waste, fish toxicity results fro nven-tional wastewater disinfection. Initiall he chpicemay be between human health prot ion and en-vironmental preserftation. As a repr sentative ofa health agency, I Can argue'only:for the fornier.From a longer term point pf view, alternatives tothe usual disinfection must be considered. This maybe ,by introduction of the added. cost of dechlorina: -

tion or by thense of disinfectants such as ozone orot4ers yet to be investigated.

With the exceptions noted, I would generalizethat surface water that is safe and aestheticallyacceptable for hulnan use will be sttfe for theenvironment. What I &eve talked about up t nowhas been relevant to biological toxiCants.' al littledirect public health concern but of tremendous s_environmental. significance lithe subject of biologi-cal stimulants. I refer, o course, to. nitrogen,phosphorus, and a pooidefinedarray of nutritivesubstanCes present in treated wastewaters; Thesemay have inunediate,impact on growth of algaeand other aquatic plants to such an-extent thatthere is interference with wildlife and .recreation.and may lead to general environmental degrada-tion. Solution of the problem seems obvious; ifnitrogen acid /or phosphorusare key elements that ,

may define biological activity2in a surface water,their removal from-wastes discharged to that waterwill prevent nuisance 'eutrophicatjon, Unfortu-nately, these elements are importantinorganicon-

Atituents of wastewater; especially - domesticwastes;'" the levels:at which biological responsesoccur are, very lost; and assured removal is notalways po's'sible but always expensive. Addition-ally, it must be remembered that wastewater doesnot represent the sole source of-these eleinents.

Broad environmental management, \including,land use planning and air pollution control, arecritically required. Lake Tahoe provides a useful,example. It is an alpine lake that has been delscribed as nitrogen-sensitive on the basis of exten-sive biosassay, experiments. Increased populationpressures on the lake basin and the desire topreserve the natural beauty of,the lake have led tothe decision that wastes generated in the basinshould not be added to the lake but removed fromthe basin. This is being done with wastewaters, butalso important are solid Wastes, home use of ferti-lizers, air pollutants that are carried down byprecipitation, and general land deyelopment. Onlya totally integrated effiirt can preser.ve indefinitely

added. This list will undolfbtedly include all or mostof the other 13 inorganic constituents discussed in,the blue book (alkalinity, ammonia, boron, chlorithicopper, hardness, iron, manganese, phosphate,sodium, sulfate, uranium, and zinc). Thp blue booksections on fresh and saltwater life add such metalsas aluminum, antimony, beryllium: molybdenum,nickel, phosphorus, thallium, and vanadium and thehalogens bromine and chlorine. Quantitatively, themaximum concentrations suitable for human ex-posure are similar to those for other organisms.Notable exceptions are ammonia, which may beadded to water in waste discharges and is toxic tofish (recommended limit in fresh water is 0.02mg/1); mercury, for which the-freshwater limit is0.05 pg/1 ; and zinc (saltwater limit is 0.1 leg/1). Tomeet the recommended limits for these consti-tuents will require essentially total oxidation or

,removal of ammonia, the principal nitrogen com-pound in domestic wastewater, and removal ofmercury.

Table 1.Maximum carli rninant levels for inolianIc chemicals.

Contaminant Level mel

ArsenicBariumCadmiumChromiumCyanide ,

Fluoride

0.051.

'0.0100.050.21.1 to 1.8 (dependingon ambient temperature)

0.050.002

10.0.010.05

LeadMercuryNitrate (as N)SeleniumSilver

'Source: PropOsed Interim Primary Drinking Water Standagla. EPA'

An interesting and important conflict betweenhuman needs and general environmental protectionis demonstrated in the case of copper and the halo-gens. Copper salts are used frequently to controlnuisance ,algae in water supply reservoirs. Al-though high concentrations of copper are toxic toman, the concentrations used for algae control sel-dom exceed 1 mg/1 and'do not pose a threat. Fish,on the other hand, may be kIled by exposures aslow as 0.05 mg/1. Until suitable substitutes for cop-per are developed, a difficult balance must be nego-tiated between copper concentrations high enoughto kill algae which contribute to aesthetic degrada-tion of drinking water by producing tastes andodors and also increase the cost of water treatment,and protection of fish in our reservoirs.

The case of theLhalogens is more acute. Chlorine,our most commonly used disinfectant for protectionof recreational users of water and production of

36

CHEMICAL INTEGRITY

those attributes of Lake Tahoe which make it de-servedly famous..

ORGANICS ,

Table 2 shows the proposed limits for organics indrinking water. In an-environmental sense the listis incomplete since it does not include common con-taminants of other than potable waters such as oiland grease, phthalate esters,, and polychlorinatedbiphenyls (PCBs). These may be. added to waterthrough waste discharges or other human ac-tivities. In the sense of defining criteria, the caseagainst oils is simplest and although-numerical rep-resentation of the criterion is dffficult or impossi-ble; the requirement that visible surface oils_ beabsent usually suffices. To protect freshwaterorganisms, the blue book recommended levels for

.) phthalates and PCBs are 0.3 and 0.002 tg /1, respec-tively.

Table 2. Maximum contaminant levels for organic chemicals.*

Contaminant Level. Ng /1

Carbon chloroform extract 700.Chlorinated hydrocarbons

Chlordane - a.Endrin '0.2Heptachloi OA

' Heptachlor epoxide 0.1Lindane ° 4.Methoxychlor 100.Toxaphene 5.

Chlorophenoxys:. a

2, 4 - D 100.2, 4, 5 - TP Silvex 10.

t

*Source: Proposed Interim Primer', Drinking Water Standards, EPA

A serious deficiency in both criteria and stand-ards exists in that -the number of organics poten-tjally present in water is almost unlimited and yetwe use a crude -catchall category, the carbonchloroform extract, to define our concern. If, forexample, a single organic with a toxicity level equalto that of heptachlor were present, a concentrationof 700 14/1 or 7,000 times the heptachlor maximum,

I would appear to be acceptable. Clearly, chemicaltests for toxic organic compounds are inadequate.Mite pertin t to the protection of human healthwould be rapi and meaningful bioassay tests com-parable to tho aed'for the protection of aquaticorganisms.:Serious, efforts to develop such tests areneeded urgently.

Of special notels the current clamor $r the use ofrenovated wastewater for domestic purposes.While highly treated wastes may meet existing orproposed standards, the 'absence of knowledge ofspecific organic compounds present and their

human health effects, and the observation that car-cinogenic substances have been identified in waste-waters or receiving streams, suggests strongly thatthe standards are inadequate for such circum;stances. To protect the public health such reno-vated Wastes should not be used as a source of do-mestic supply until or unless more information isobtained. The blue book includes dlist of about 100organic compounds of which the toxicity to marineorganisms has been studied. No comparable datafor humans exist.

DISSOLVED GASES

No drinking water standard for dissolved oxygenWas been proposed, but the blue book does recom-iend a level near saturation. Since oxygen is a

critical requirement for rilbst water forms andwaste discharges usually exert an oxygen demandthat results ingieceiving water oxygen depletion,fish and wildlife protection can be provided bymeeting the criterion. Fish protection also requiresthat water not be supersaturated and specifies thatthe total as pressure should not exceed 110 per-cent of atmospheric- presstre. The single toxic gasof concern is hydrogen sulfide which will affectlishat a concentration as low as 0.002 mg/1. Usually thepresence of an adequate supply of dissolved oxygenwill guarantee the absence of hydrogen sulfide sothat both odor nuisance and fish protection will beafforded by oxygen.

SUMMARY AND CQNCLUSIONS

I have made reference to The principal chemicalfactors affecting water quality. In the context oftoxic substances, meeting the drinking waterstandards generally will protect aquatic biota.Since the standards do not include. biostimulatgryfactors these must be added for the protection ofthe environment. Wastewater treatment alone maynot be able to provide for total protection so that wemust consider management of the total environ-ment, including water resource management, as anecessary condition 'for restoring and maintainingthe chemical integrity of our waters.

In the short term, wastewater treatment and dis-posal must be oriented to protect the public health.As technology and funds become available the sameconcerns for the whole environment -should be

manifested.

DISCUSSION

',-Comment: If you were to choose the-DrinkingWater Standards as your model, I think you would

37

36 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

find that the water quality criteria, for example, for,the chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides are much,lOwer when you consider fish toxicity; it so happens\ that fish are much more sensitive to the chlorinatedhydrocdbons, so in this, case I would recommendthat one shou&I ,look at both effects, the healtheffects in humans and the effects in fish and maybe

* choose a lower number, but I think that it would bea mistake, especially ih the case of .pesticides, tochoose the much higher numbers as to the health

' aspect in humans. c, , ; ,

Mr. Greenberg: I think that what you're saying isabsolutely correct, namely, that from a quantita-

' tive point of view the Drinking Water Standardsmay not be appropriate. I myself cited three exam-ples: ammonia, mercury, and zinc. Here, as withthe pesticides, the number, that is, the concentra-tion that is specified for human exposure may betoo high for fish or other organisms inhabiting awater environment.

I don't think that invalidates the model, theDrinking Water Standards. It simply indicates thatwe have to adjust the numbers. I'm in complete

4 accord with that.Comment: I think you kind of slid over a problem

which I would guess that in your capacity you'rewell aware of and that is the laboratory problem.Do you see in the next 2 years:sufficient advance inthe laboratory state-of-the-art to allow routinemonitoring of some of these parameters at the lowlevels that you mentioned; for example, I lulard yousay something-about a 0.05 part per million mer-cury standard. To my knowledge that's not a level _which you can measure routinely in the laboratory.

Mr. Greenberg: hink the question is a most ap-propriate one and really very appropriately putto the two of us who are standing or sitting now onthe podium.

Dwight Ballinger, as you know, is very muchinvolved with the development of laboratory meth-odology for EPA and I have similar responsibilitiesboth in the State of California and with StandardMethods. 1

rm in a very awkward situation in responding toth ,question in the-sense that I start by acceptingth which the biologist tells me should be the levelof cern. If I amtold that 0.05 mg/I is the level ofconcern for the aquatic biota, let's say for mercuryas you used the example, then I'd first ask, how wasit measure ? ,

How do ou know that you're really talking about0.05 mg/I and not 0.005 or 6.'0005 or even 50 mg/I.

rm sure that grosS'separation can be made, butsome of the more refined measur ments may in factbe beyond what is conventionally possible.

That's one area of my concern and relative

embarrassment. The other deals with the fact that Imakemy living from laboratory type activities andso I should insist on everybody measuring every-thing all the time because that's going to be goodfor me and people likeoe. On the other hand, I rec-ognize that this is not a socially desirable way tospend our money so that, again, we have to negoti-ate a balance between what we might do and whatit is reasonable for us to do.

I heard this morning very negative commentswith respect to cost benefit analyses. It seems tome that we have to have an awareness of cost bene-fits in terms of how many samples'to take and hoWmany analyses to make. ; .

The-real issue is how much we are technicallyable to detect. If we talk about pesticides, r thinkthat with the development of gas chromatographictechniques and with the coupling of gas chromatog-raphy and mass spectroscopy it is really possible toidentify almost anything, giden time and moneyenough.

On the other hand, for some of the inorganic con-stituents, we may have techniques but they're notnearly as widely used.

Atomic absorption spectrometry is very good.With the heated graphite atomizer the sensitivitycan be improved still further. Other analyticalprocedures, such as x-ray or neutron activation, areprobably beyond the scope and the financial possi-bility of most laboratories engaged in "water orwastewater analysis.

I can talk a long time on the question, but Lreallycan't give you an answer. I think it might be usefulto ask our moderator to make some comments onthis.

Chairman Ballinger: Thank you. I don't have anybetter answer either. However, I think there are acouple of points that we need to look at. One is thequestion of the setting of standards for the protec-tion of the integrity of the environment. The ques-tion arises whether the standards should be set onthe best information we have concerning an accept-able lev6 of a given pollutant, based on probablytoxiplogical data, or should the standard be set onwhat our preSent technology, allows us to measure.

I raised this question many, many years ago.when I was a very green young chemist With Dr.Stockinger, whom I think many of you will recog-nize as one of the Nation's foremost toxicologists.He said we will always set the standard on the bestinformation we have as to the effect of a materialand then we will challenge the analytical chemist tomeet that standard. I think we are and should be inthat mode. -

Secondly, I should point out that our analyticaltechnology is advancing very rapidly. We are now

38

\1

CHEMICAL INTEGRITY

measuring things at concentrations that we couldnot measure as recently gas 2 or 3 years ago.Therefore, I think as analysts should alwayshave the challenge before us to meet the standard,that is, to match our technology to the problemrather than settle for the status quo.

We need a challenge and I think we are meetingthose challenges. I'm concerned that we not use'limitations of analytical technology as a reason fornot setting the most reliable criteria to protect theenvironment.

Comment: When you're doing this, aren't yousetting unenforceable criteria? If you cannot moni-tor an industry, these criteria that you have, andyour people who go out to the industry or the

stream or whatever, aren't you setting unenforcea-ble criteria?

Chairman Ballinger: They may be unenforceableat the moment; I don't think they'll be unenforcea-ble very long.

We're dealing with a dynamic technology and Iwould prefer to say that, temporarily at least, wemay have to report a hum* which is not as fardown as we would like, but I think that's stillpreferable to .setting a standard and then turninaround this time next yen and going out to thepublic and reducing the stndard by a factor of 10because we have increased our technology.

Comment: Don't you leave yourself open to legalaction which could knock out your criteria and putthem back to a limit that could be monitored?Couldn't you be taker{ to court when you say thatyou cannot enforce this criteria because we cannotmeasure it? Presumably you'd be forced by thecourt to go to a monitorable criteria.

Chairman Ballinger: We will monitor and takelegal action to the best of our technical ability atany time. We will also stipulate that in theenforce-ment of all of the standards the analytical capabili-ties of the present technology will be taken intoconsideration in the preparation of the case.

Mr. Greenberg: I think this question has raised avery interesting one; which came first, the chickenor the egg? Dwight's 'reply was in the context of theregulatory agency setting standards which arebased on good criteria and Rod goals but may not \be reachable in terms of analytical capability.

On the other hand, Dwight, as a regulatoryagency representative, is also responsible for defin-ing the analytical methods which may be used. EPAhas listed 73 specific substances to be measured andhas defined specifically, by page number, thesources for those analytical techniques.

Both things now, the standard and the analyticaltechnique are in the Federal Register and bothhave regulatory status. To say that the analytical

37

techniques would keep up with the regulatory*activities, without requiring an annual or a morefrequent change in the regulations is really notquite true because you still have to change the reg-ulations for the laboratory methodology. You willalways be jumping in some kind of a leapfrog situa-tion. I don't think you can beat that system,though.

Chairman Ballinger: From a pragmatic stand-point, we find it a lot easier to change the analyticalmethod than to change the standards.

Mr. Greenberg: I'm sure.Comment: On that point, do you feel that the cur-

rent practiceS in making, legitimate or making gen-erally acceptable a given new laboratory procedureare adequate? Does the cycle for revision of Stand-ard Methods or EPA methods, respond rapidly tothe advances in the state-of-the,art so as to allow atimely utilization of these new methods as they be-come available?

Chairman Ballinger: , or exam-ple, we do have an annual revision of Section 304(g)which is_ thetest procedures methodology for the

luCant elimination discharge. Thus, there is anannual cycle so that not longer than 1 year wouldpass without our making a revision.

In the case of EPA, we can begin, at.least in ourown laboratories, by the adoption or ticanalyticalmethod at any time it is ready. It will be thenofficially promulgated within 1 year oL that time.

I think that's as sure as we ought tobe. It isunlikely that we can develop a method, refine it,adequately test it, publish it as proposed, and thenfinal, in anything less than a year. I don't know thatwe want any gteater turnover time than-that, but Ithink it is adequate to keep up with the technologyas far as EPA is concerned. I'm going to let Mr.Greenberg talk about Standard Methods.

Mr. Greenberg: I think that most people who useStandard Methods and who see the publicationdates of the book may tend to be misled by the factthat in the last couple of decades the, publicationcycle has been at roughly 5-year intervals. I mean"misled" inthe sense of thinking that unless it iswithin the hard covers of the book, "StandardMethods for the Examination of Water and Waste-water," it is not an approved method by the three,societies which sponsor the produCtion of that book.

The societies, some 10 years ago, adopted a tech-nique of having a review of procedures presented tothe Joint Editorial Board in published form, moreor less the kind of thing that Mr. Ballinger just re-ferred to, having that approved and published inthe journal or journals of the society and becominga standard method.

We are hoping that subsequent to the edition^ a

/".39

}NO

88 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

which is now in prepara , the 14th Edition, Likewise, we have potential inadequacies of sam-which should be out to ds the latter part of this piing. We also, and this is really the critical thing,year, thgt the cycle of the actual hard cover book have to have some idea of inadequibies in terms ofwill be every 2 years. Were aware of the concern the establishment of the criteria. To get back tithefor keeping up and we're doing whatever we're able' 0.05 mg/1 of mercury, how well fixed r1 that num-to do to keep up. Aber, becauserenforcement or control really hinges

Comment: Can you give me a rough figure of the on that number and other numbers like it.current anwal expenditure in monitoring a typical If ,the. criteria and the standards are baSed onwater supply in this country? numbers with huge error factors built into them,

econdly, by what factor does this great expendi- and certainly many of the biological tests do haveture need to be increased to satisfy his recommen- large error factors in them, then the ultimate of re-dations? finement of sampling and laboratory techniques is

Mr. Greenberg: I really have no dollar figures on really irrelevant. We're just barking up the wrongthis. I know that in California we have some op tree if we're focusing back on a criterion which islaboratories Which are approved by the DOUR-ment of He:11th for making water analyses.

I- know that if the requirements of EPA are met,either in terms of waste discharge monitoring ordrinking water supply monitoring, or loth, thenumber of laboratories or the size of laboratories inCalifornia is probably inadequate to handle, thedemand. This comes back to that item of concernwhich I expressed earlier about how much moneyshould we spend on monitoring.

I think it's a very difficult thing to do andalthough I have not attempted' it, I am convincedthat it's necessary for a balance to be definedbetween the protection afforded by additionalmonitoring and the costs- which the additional

really meaningless.Comment: a consulting engineer private

practice here in Washington;In the an gous situ-ation for enforcement of the proposed ew stand-ards you, have the conditions of air po andsolid wastes.

In private industry we find that the regulatoryagency charged by law with enforceitent is quitesevere in the private sector. Yet when they en-counter the comparable situation in the Federal orState sector the answer is ab,.:fine, idealisticallywe'd like to do it, bagoirstraints of our budget donot permit this and we permit tolerance, we permitwaivers, we pernit non-enforcement on Federalinstallations, including military installations,

monitoring require. ( specifically in the field"of solid waste, also hostile.,Comment: We've spoken about the $ficiencies of and hazardous waste, and air pollutionwheresome- .

laboratory technique, but I think there's a problem one is locked in for a long term, closed contract, yetarea as far as sampling is concerned. To mention a'emissions admittedly fail to meet State and Federal

- couple of cases: we are in the process of developing standards. tWhat assurance ao we have these standards com-

relatefor oxyge d hydrogen sulfide as they

relate to protec g a beneficial use, in this case, ing forth now are goiug to be as uniformly enforcedaquatic life. Th se oxygen and hydrogen sulfide at thaliate and Federal levels as they are inrequirementf are to be measured in the waterscd priva ndustry?. -

sediments. . Mr. Greenberg: I certainly cari:o.ive you no suchI'm just wondering if we, asked the States to assurance. I knbw, for example, In California that

adopt these as water quality standards how are we only recently have we been able to do anything ingoing to measure these constituents of the sedi- terms of standard setting or criteria' or enforce-ment? In situ, maybe, or possibly by going down ment, if you will, against Federal *gencies, but not

' and digging up the appropriate samples. How do we including the Department of Defense. I cannotdo this? speak for even California logive you that kind of

Are we doing any work in this respect? assurance and I don't know- whether Mr. BallingerChairman Ballinger: I don't know of any work or anyone else could give you that assurance on a

that is specifically addressed to the measurement of National level.dissolved gases in sediments. - Chairman Ballinger: Very, very fortunately I am

My initial impression is that these would have td mot a part of the Offictiof Enforcement and Generalbe measured in situ, that the transport of that kind Counsel. .of sample would certainly degrade it. Comment: I can make a commit on that. I think

Mr. Greenberg: I think tlyat question, though, can part of it is on the way to legislation which is coin:be looked at from a much broader point of view. ing around to taking care of this. For example, the

We have commented already on potential inade- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act 1

quacies in terms of la'boratory methodology. has come out recently. Applicators of theyegulated

v.' .... . ,

40

CHEMICAL INTEGRITY

OSHA requirements are equally applicable to Mateand local governmental institutions and privateinstitutions.

The one difference in terms of dealing with theprivate sectorand the public sector in the OSHAcontext is that the public institutions are not sub-ject to fines, as are private institutions.

insecticides and so on have to meet safe criteria be-. fore they can operate on Federal installations.

- Thus, the State is goingto have a hand in this and I-4 think-that the legislation is worded just right; all

l'''' Federal agencies will have, to come into it.Mr. Greenberg: I think another example is in the

context of the 'Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration. I'm not sure on a Federal level, but

- . .

43

..."

i ^

41

4

4........

.."

I

THE INTEGRITY OFGROUND .WATth

JAY H. LEHR,,ExecutiveNrectorNational Water Well Association

:Columbtil, Ohio

,

WAYNE'. A. PETTYJOHNProfessorOhio State UniversityColumbus, Ohib

GROUND WATERFACTAND FICTION

, Contrary toopular belief, ground water isneither mysterious nor occult; it does not occur inunderground lakes, rivers or veins, and springwater is not synonymoUs with purity. These are but

a few oNhe common. misconceptions concerning.ground water. 'Since some misconceptions of

ground water are widgly held, they are firstexamined before proceeding with a description ofground water behavior and attributes.

Misconception: Ground water occurs in under-

__ ground lakes, rivers and veins.Fact: Generally bodies of ground water bear no

resemblance to surface water bodies.In, the vast majority of - cases, ground water

occurs in rock formations that have a sufficientnumber of interconnected openings (permeablematerial) for the water to pass through them. Not

L,4iiaebramonly, these aquifers (water-bearing rocks)

sire connected for huhdreds or even thousands ofsquare miles. Along many river valleys, the flood-plain deposits amiiist of permeable sand and gravel.In Case such as thirst, the ground water commonlyflows in thesame direction as the surface streamand there may be a concentrated underground 'flowadjacent to the stream that is different from theunderground flow in nearby areas. This does not,mean that' the ground water flowing in thestream-side deposits is in any manner similar towater in a surface stream; During the last Ice Age,when glaciers advanced across the northern part ofthe United States, many of the pre-existing streamchannels in these areas were filled and the streamswere forced to deVelop other courses. Many of

these now-buried river valleys contain vast quanti-ties of ground water, but the enclosed water mustnot be likened to an underground river. Thiserroneous concept, however,,,.is-based on fact, be-cause in areas where limestone forms the majoraquifers, the inter may- slowly flow in largeUnderground openings such as caves and solution

e

channels. In one sense these large openings aresimilar to underground rivers and lakes. .

Misconception; 'Ground water is mysterious andoccult. -c--

. ,

Fact: Natural laws control the occurrence and. movement of ground water and therefore it is

predictable. ..

In past centuries, before the development ofscientific techniques of ground water hydrology,the natural laws controlling water movement wereunknown. This led to the concept, preserved in caselaw,,that the occurrence and movement of .water in

the ground is mysterious and occulti.e., that the ..principles of its behavior cannot be known. In fact,

well - established - natural laws, -the quantityand quality of ground water are predictable both inspate and in time. i/

0g

Misconception: Water rushes so 'rapidly under-ground that its-presence canbe detected by lis-

.

) tening for the noise.Fact: In most cases grOund water flows-only a

few tens of feet per year.Some people believe they can detect the presence

of large quantities of water underground merely byplacing heir ear to the earth and listening for the1...,..terushing wa r. This is not possible because groundwater moves very slowly through the earth. In fact,in most cases it moves only a few feet'per year. Lo-cally, hoWever, it may flow yery rapidly in lime-

stone terrain characterized by large openings suchas caves. Ground water velocity is of particularimportance in water pollution problems. Due to itsslow rate of movement, an area oncecontaminatedmay remain unusable for years. It is primarily for

this 'reason that disposal of- wastes on and in the,-ground must,be closely regulated. --*

MiscorAption:. Ground water, when removedfrom the earth, is never returned.

Fact: Ground water is a renewable resource.

In most parts of the country ground water, when

4241

o .

42THE- INTEGRITY OF WATER

,removed from the ground, Is constantly replaced.Thus, ground water is a renewable resource. Wateris constantly seeping into the ground and is contin-ually discharging into streams, lakes, and wells.Areas where water seeps into the ground are called-recharge areas; this includes virtually the entireland surface. Some types of soil, however, willaccept water much more rapidly than others. Forexample, the rate of infiltration (the rate at whichwater seeps into the ground) through sandy soil willbe much greater than through a heavy clay soil.Because of this phenomenon relatively high rates ofrecharge (infiltration) occur along river flood plainsand in sandy or gravelly areas. Areas with highrates of recharge must be carefully managed fortwo major reasons. First, they provide water tounderlying groundwater reservoirs (aquifers) and,

,secondly, water-soluble waste products stored inthese areas will also infiltrate and contaminate theunderground supply. Consequently, areas of highrecharge must be protected in order to maintain thequantity of water in storage and to protect itsquality.

Misconception: Ground water migrates thou-sands of miles through the earth.

Fact: Most ground water withdrawn is replacedin the near vicinity.

Much of the water in a groundwater reservoirinfiltrates within a radius of a few tens of miles ofWhere it is founiskIt has not traveled in the groundfor thousands or even hundreds of miles as somepeople tend to believe. There are no huge under-ground rivers transporting great volumes of highpurity water from Canada to Minnesota, Virginia toFlorida, or from the Rocky Mountains to Iowa andother Great Plains states.

Misconception: Ground water is not a significantsource of supply.

Fact: The amount of ground water in storagedwarfs our present surface supply.

Ground water is commonly considered an insig-nificant source of supply. The fact is, however, thatthe quantity of water in underground storage is2,000 to 3,000 times larger than the amount in allthe lakes, streams, and rivers combined. At thesame time, it is cold, of a nearly constant tempera-ture, free of sediment, and of high quality.: Themajor feature of ground water is its omnipres-enceit provides a reliable andleconomical watersupply for all kinds of activities for which surfacewater supplies would be uneconomical or eveninfeasible.

In 1970, the United States was using more than370 billion gallons of water per day. Of this amountabout 20 percent was from ground water, and herenets the greatest potential for future development.About a third of all public supplies and about 96 ,

percent of all rural domestic supplies are derivedfrom wells. About.25 percent of the water used forirrigation is ground water. Were it not for thesehuge underground reservoirs, irrigation could notlong exist in the arid and semiarid regions of theUnited States. Ground water makes possibleagriculture and ind$stry alike because it occurs atthe point of use and does not requiretransportationfor long distances.

41,

Misconception: There is no relationship betweenground water and surface water.

Fact: Ground water provides most of the flow ofstreams, and lakes and swamps are merely re-flections of the water table.

It is commonly believed that ground water andsurface water represent isolated systems. Con-sider, however, a stream in late summer. Althoughit may not have rained for several days or possiblyeven weeks, there may still be a considerable flowin the stream. Obviously, this water could not havebeen derived from the surface runoff of rainfall. Inlarge part the stream represents water that hasflowed from the ground Into the 'stream channel. Inother words, the low flow of a stream may be de-rived ptirely from groundwater discharge.

During low-flow conditions, the chemical qualityof the stream is similar to that in adjacent aquifers,but during periods of surface runpff and prkipita-tion, the stream quality is considerably different. Inmany places, the quality of surface water deterior-ates during the late summer and fall because adja-cent groundwater reservoirs are contaminated andthese contaminated ground waters provide thestream flow. It is evident that one needs to considernot only_waste disposal directly into a stream butalso the disposal of water- soluble material on theland surface, particularly in recharge areas. Inother words, there is a close interrelationship be-tween surface water and ground water and one can-not be managed without consideration of the other.

Misconception: The water table is falling-»throughout the country.

Fact: Although in a few areas the water table hitsdeclined significantly, in most places the watertable rises and falls with the seasons.

Not uncommonly we read in news media that ,"the water table is falling." During periods ofdrought, when water demands increase substan-

43

Clint( CAL INTEGRITY

tially and withdrawals may exceed the rate of nat-ural recharge, the water table may decline. In mostcases, the decline is temporary and the water levelrecovers once the drought is over. A similar prob-Yem of declining water _levels exists in particularareas, such as a few municipalities and large indus-

ial complexes, and in extensive irrigation dis-t icts. This occurs because the rate of groundwaterp ping over long periods 'may tar,..exceed the nat- .

ur rate of replenishment (recharge) Within theare of supply. In areas of substantial water leveld e, a few shallow wells may go dry or provide

only led quantities of water. Several techniques

have n developed to reverse these local waterlevel es, but what is needed is comprehensivegroun ater management p,rograms. The watertable in eed is falling in a few areas of substantialoverdr . These areas are generally very small and

unmanag . In the vast regions of the country thewater Icy merely rises and falls with the seasons.

Misconce tion: The water level in a well remains

constanFact: The ater level must decline in the vicinity

of a ptiiiip g well.

The proud o er of a new well may. be so en--, thuslastic that h believes there is no water levellowering or draw t own when the pump is on. Thisagain is incorrect ause there must 1;re a water

level decline the vicinity of a pumping well in

order to force ,wate to flow to the well. In verypermeable formation such as limestone caverns orsand and gravel deposs, the `amount of drawdownmay be very slight. ith increasing yield, how-ever, the drawdown i creases and around high-yield wells, water lev I lowering May extendoutward for miles.

Misconception: Spring w ter is synonymous with

exceptional quality.Fact: Springs are points here ground water is

naturally discharging, ut they 'are easilycontaminated.

Various product advertise ents assert thatspring water has exceptional tas e, purity, and per-

, haps Medicinal properties. The may also implythat well water is of unacceptable a uality. A spring,however, is merely a point where ound water isdischarging at the land surface. It has nearly the,same quality as nearby wells and s reams. On theother hand, springs are easily contaminated, butthe quality of well water is predic ble and hasnearly uniform temperature and the i 'cal proper -

Well water is biologically pure cept when

contaminated by sewage waste, the sources ofwhich lie in the near vicinity.

Misconception: All well water is naturally ofdrinkable quality.

Fact: The mineralization 9f ground w.ater.gener-allyincreases with depth and eventually apoint is reached where it is no longer potable.

Not all ground water is drinkable. Lying at-. depths *ging froM a few tens to several hundred.feet is the fresh-saltwater interface. Below thisinterface,, the mineral content of the water in-creases substantially and at greater depths it maybe so mineralized that it is considered a brine.Wells whose total depth approaches the fresh-saltwater interface eventually suffer from deteri-orating quality due to the upward .migration ofsaltwater as fresh water is removed. In coastal "areas, overpumping of fresh water may cause mi-gration of seawater into the aquifer, causing itsquality to deteriorate. Adequate water manage-ment programs, howeyer, canaubstantially reduceproblem' caused by migrating highly mineralized

water. -.

Misconception: Since ground water can't be seen,nothing is happening to it. --

fact: We do not know the extent of groundwatercontamination, -but from available informationwe must assume that the threat of widespreadcontamination of ground water issubstantial.

If an individual laid a raw sewage discharge lineinto a lake, it is quite unlikely that he would with-draw his drinking water from a surface intake only25 feet away. The potential health problem wouldbe easily recognized. Since ground water cannot beseen, however, the situation is considerably differ-ent. A cesspool or septic tank drain could lie within/25 feet Of a well, but the potentialproblem mightnot be recognized.

Karubian s examined the petroleum, pulp andpaper, and primary metals industries in the UnitedStates in an attempt to estimate the effect of theseactivities on groundwater pollution. These indus-tries produce a vast quantity of wastewater, muchof which is stored in unlined basins and lagoons.The liquids leak from the containment structuresand contaminate ground water. It was estimatedthat the total leakage during 1973 from thesestructures was 192,815 acre-feet from primarymetals industries, 76,335 acre-feet from petroleumrefining? and nearly 1.34,900 acre-feet from the pulpand paper industry. Thus, the total _quantity ofleakage from these three industries alone amountedto more than 403,000 acre-feet of contaminated

44

Tilt INTEGRITY OF WATER

water (an acre-foot is approXimately equal to326,000 gallons). The contamination is occurringUnderground, is hidden from view, and is not easily-

recognized. Nonetheless, the problem is significant.

GROUND WATER: THEPHYSICAL FLOW SYSTEM

In order for us to understand threats to thechemical integrity of ground water, we must firsthave ,an adequate knowledge of the physical lawsgoverning its flow through the porous route whichmakes up the earth's crust. The first basic situationwe must ca is:

GROUND' WATER FLOWTOWARD A PUMPING WELL

It is not always a simple matter for an individualto understand the process by which a well captureswater. Even in our present state of scientificunderstanding, the average layman considers awell as a hole which taps a large underground cav:-ity' filled with water. The Most obvious reason form'an's ignorance of the true facts about groundwater movement is simply that it is difficult tounderstand what one cannot see. The electronmicroscope has brought a whole new micro-worldinto focus, but the world-of ground water, basic asit may be, is still often relegated to the world ofmystery.

A very brief study of groundwater gedfl5gy willbiting to light the facts that most ground w termoves through the intergranular pore spa s ofsedimentary rocks rather than throng bioadunderground channels, and that wells captureground water by draining it from the pore spaces ofsaturated rocks. These facts can be best illustratedin a groundwater flow model which was con-structed in order to bring groundwater flow intosurroundings where it can be visually observed.The model (Figure la) consists of a water-tightplexiglass case containing a porous consolidatedmixture of sand and epoxy resin, which simulates atrue sandstone.° The consolidated medium is 18.inches long, 1 inch thick, and 12 inches high. Wateris recharged into the right end of the motel andallowed to discharge through an overflow drain inthe left end of the model.

The water level in the right end tank is main-tained at a higher level than the water in the leftend tank. This produces a hydraulic gradient whichcauses the water in the model to move from right toleft through the simulated sandstone aquifer. Ink isdischarged into the model through a perforatedmetal tube buried in the right end of the sandstone.

The ink entering the sand progresses through it in athin band marking the path of flow, or flow line,from each perforation.

A1/4-inch diameter hole at the center face of themodel simulates a well from which water can bepumped. When operating with the well pumping,the model' closely illustrates the flow pattern of atwo dimensional cross section along the regionalgradient of a radial flow system. The two dimen-sional character of the model, however, causes'thewell to act something like an infinite drain channel.In either case it clearly illustrates the phenomena ofgravity drainage."'

While open channel, surface water flow is char-acterizedby turbulence which results in useless dis-sipation of potential energy, ground water ischaracterized by laminar flow which conserves allits energy for the'single purpose of overcoming fric-tional resistance. This resistance is imposed uponthe flow by the vast surface area present in theaverage sedimentary aquifer. When the ground ,water system is undisturbed, the flow will followalong nearly straight 'parallel lilies at velocitieswhich depend directly on the magnitude of the per-meability of the rocks and on the slope of the hy.:draulic gradient. The pumping of a welt alters thesystem by creating an unusually low hydraulic headat the location of the well. The magnitude and di-rection of the hydraulic gradient and hence thevelocity' and direction of the groundwater flow ischanged everywhere within the area of influence ofthe well. The flow paths while remaining laminarwill then become curvilinear as they app'roach the

Arell, but a high degree of parallelism will still bemaintained.

Figure lb shows the model 23 minutes after theentrance of the ink; the 'flow bands have moved,partly across the model under a 'small hydraulic .gradient prior to the start of pumping. The °varia-tions in the thickness of the flow bands in Figure lbare due to adjustments in the ink input made by theauthor in order to finally arrive 'at neat, thinflow bands. Figure 1c shows the flow bands 2 min-utes after puinping began in.,the small well at thecenter of the Model. The existing pressure field wasmodified quickly to conform to the new boundaryconditions.

The coloring matter began movp slowly alonga infinite set &new stream lin , which inter-s ct d the lines of the old pattern at finite angles.

hey finally stabilized in a pattern coinciding withthe actual stream lines determined by these newboundary conditions as shown in the photograph(Figure 1d) and the flow net diagram -(Figure 2).When the pump was removed, the curved flow linesmoved horizontally as a unit (Figure le) until the

'45

CHEMICAL INTEGRITY 45

11110=1 IMMEINI 1111M0 WIN MONISM" 60111114.1M.M.Ma

IiI 1 1I 111

I

. \

*,\ \

N:Ni:-\

...-

\

-.

.cc---ssx

N.%

:4.

"- ,:*\,,....V..,7%;

.;."

;.*ScY,

FIGuite .1 PhotogrAghic history of a groundwat6 flow model The pictures were taken at the following times. A at 0 B at 23

min. after the entfmicd'of ink, C at 2 min after pumping began 124 min. after entranceof Ink); D at :3 mm. liter pumping began, E at 6

mm. after pumpingylo ipumping had continued for II mm ), F at 25 nun. after pumping stopped Photographs B through F are

enlargements..of the porous consolidated medium shown in A

46'

46THE, INTEGRITY OF WATER

ink was flushed out of the model and only the hori-zontal bands appeared (Figure lf).. Here an almostinstantaneous change in the vectors of motion of thewater particles took place because the reaction timeis very fast in small models. In the nonpumping sit-uation all the vectors were approximately equal,hence the old flow bands appeared to move as aunit.

The most interesting observation made in thestudy of this model (Figure 1) was the complete lack'of a transition phase of the flow bands as they

= appeared before pumping,'"and as they appearedaftdr pumping had taken place for a few minutes.At almost the very instant the well began to pump,all the particles of water within the radius of influ-ence of the well acquired a new vector of motion.There was no realigning of old flow bands becausethe old flow bands ceased to exist when pumpingbegan. Bach particle of wa=ter was on its own ,totake its placein the new net, similar !to" individuals

in a marching Band when a new formats -ton isimposed.

The change in the flow net is dependent upon thewater level in the pumping well. Any change inboundary conditiOns in the system, such as draw-down.in a well, will be felt throughout the systemresulting in adjustments of the pressure distribu-tions in accordance with the new boundaries." Thespeed1with which these adjustments occur can bedetermined by the -Theis non-equilibrium/equilib-rium equation 12

114.6 QT

rco(e-ti/u) d u

s = drawdown at any point, in feetQ = rate of discharge of the well in gallons per

minute= coefficient of transmissibility, in gpd per ft.

FIGURE 2. Flow diagram of well model shown in Fig. 1. The path which a particle of water follows is called a flow line; these arerepresented by solid lines with arrows. The head decreases along the path of flow. Lines connecting point,s,of equal head are calledequipotential lines; these are represented by dashed lines. An unlimited number 2f flow and equipotential lines can be drawn in anyflow system; however, in a flow diagram a finite number of lines sufficeto best illustrate the general pattern of flow, (Scale= 1/2 actualmodel.)

471.

Z= 1.87 r2 ST t

r

S=t =u =

CHEMICAL INTEGRITY47

distance between pumped well and point ofobservation, in feetcoefficient of storage, dimensionlesstime the well has been discharging, in days

a dimensionless quantity varying be-

tween the limits given

This equation was derived upon the simplifyingassumption that the removal of water from anaquifer is exactly analogous to the removal.of heatfrom a metal plate, for which the equations arealready known.

Study of the flow pattern surrounding a pumpiwell is important to the problem of water qualitf.In many locations the'lquality of water" will varywith depth. Water at different depths.,may 'have-originated from separate source areas and movedthrough rocks of different chemical composition,thereby Being exposed to the solutioning of dis-similar ions. -Often the water at certain depths in aspecific location is potable while at other depths it is

not A careful predetermination of the flow near theproposed supply well will delineate the verticalzone from which water will be captured. This willinsure avoiding any contamination by poor qualitywater. .

The limits of the well's area of influence shouldalso be determined fOr most wells, especially wherethere is a possibility of groundwater contamina-tion. In some areas, such as Long Island, N.Y.,industry is obliged by law to return water used onlyfor cooling purposes to the groundwater body; Theused water is very warm, and care must be takennot to allbw thit water to heat up the fresh supplyof water being used for cooling.f this is allowed tohappen the water used for cooling purposes will bewarmer to begin with and, therefore, will do a less

efficient cooling job which will result in higher cost

to the industry. By studying the flow net surround-ing the pumping well, it is possible to determinehow far distant a recharge well must be placed inorder to prevent the recharge water from retuinine,to the discharging well.

ANALYSIS OF WATER TABLE DRAWDOWN

' SURROUNDING PUMPING- WELLS - -

Having considered the flow pattern to pumpingwell, it is now necessary to study .the/ effects ofpumping on the level of saturation or "water table."It is important to understand that all the groundwater within a single set of hydrologic/and geologic

boundaries is pah of a single hydrologic system.Changesin any 'part of it wikeventually modify con-ditionsthroughout the entire system.

A hydraulic model analogous to very general sub-surface geologic conditions was constructed for thePurpose of studying and demonstrating the changesin the configuration of the water table produced bypumping wells.8 The model consisted Of a water-tight plexiglass case cont fling a consolidated me-dium, which was a mixture f sated and epoxy resin.The model case was ma of plexiglass '/z -inchthick; the inside dimensions were 33 inch? by 12inches by'3 inches.

The medium at the extreme right of the modelwas impermeable and was intended to representthe subsurface portion of an igneous mountainfront. The remaining medium within, model hadrrAing of approximately 2,000 Meizer units (gal-

lons per day/foot.2, 1:1 grbdient). The left end tankof the model was intended to represent the crosssection of a stream channel into which water wasrecharging; the sloping top surface of the porousconsolidated medium was intended to represent atributary channel capable of leading runoff from themountain front to the main stream channel. Themodel contained 30 wells that accurately measuredthe position of the water table. All of the wells were1/4 -inch in diameter. The lowest 6-inch segment ofthe four deepest wells was screened; the rest of thewells were open only at the bottom. A small bead ofred wax was placed in each observation well so thatthe water level would be clearly visible.

Figure 3 shows the model before and after well Bhad been pumped for a long\ enough period toachieve a steady state condition:The white linemarked "static water level" illustrates the positionof the water table before pumping. The definiteeffects of the boundary conditions\upon the cone ofdepression are shown by the blbck line on themodel. The limb of the cone to the right of the wellwas almost flat, due to the effect ot the impermea-blellitclary on the right. Since the well wasunab take water from storage beyond thisimpermeable barrier, it was forced to take an in-creased amount of water from storage in front ofthe barrier. ,This resulted in the lowering of thecone of depression in that area. The cone of depres-sion at the left Of the well extended to the surface ofthe recharging water. At that point enlargement of -the cone ceased, for recharge from the end tankwas induced and the necessity for drawingadditional amounts of water from storage within

the aquifer was eliminated. This is exactly whathappens when a wellbeing pumped near a streamextends its cone of depression to the edge of thatstream.

48

ASTATICAVATER LEVEL.

THE INTEGRITY OF WATER S

FIGURE 3. Photograph of the cone of depression model afterpumping in well B had reached a steady state. The cone ofdepression is drawn in black.

I AT1111c,w,A7cRiLFYE,L t .!ill11111111 11 1,1

FIGURE 4. Photog ph of the cone of depression model afterpumping in well A reached a steady state. Thgcone ofdepression is drawn in w 'te.

I I t'STATIC WATER LEVEL) Cgi ill-4-444414.411.1

I I I

hill

FIGURE 5. Photograph of the cone of depression model afterpumping in wells A and B had reached a steady state. The exist-ing multiple cone of depression is drawn in fir.aya.while the indi-vidual cones of depression of wells A and Bias shown in Figs. 3and 41 are drawn In white and blaclq respectively.

Figure 4 shows the model after well A had been ./pumped for a long enough period to achieve steadystate conditions. The surface of the cone of depres-sion is drawn in white on the face of the model.Once again, the effects of the two- boundary condi--tions are evident. In this case, the effect of thesource of recharge was more intense than the effectof the impermeable barrier, for well A was closer tothe recharge tank than to the barrier.

In a multiple well system where surface rechargeand evaporation are negligible, the drawdown atany point Within the area of influence is the sum ofthe indiVidual drawdowns of each well in the sys-tem." The results of investigations with the model--verified this statement. When wells A and B weresimultan, usly pumped long enough to reach the

tisteady state condition (Figure 5), the compositecone of depression was the sum of the individualcones. Both wells were pumped at the same rates asthose used to obtain the information depicted, inFigures 3 and 4, respectively. The "black ling on themodel in Figure represents the individual draw-down caused by puttying wellB (as shown in Fig-ure 3); the white line represents the individualdrawdown caused by pumping well A (as shown inFigure-4). The gray line on the model representsthe drawdown caused by the.simultaneous pumpingof the two wells. It is readily apparent that .thevertical distance between the gray line, and thestatic water Wel is equal to the sum of the-verticaldistances between (a) the. white line and the staticwater level and. (b) the black line and the itaticwater level. ".

This hydraulic model also can be used to studyartificial recharge by wells. Because this practice isbeing widely used today, it is important that theeffects of such recharge upon the shape of the watertable be clearly, understood. It has been pro/redtheoretically that the cone of impression broughtabout by a rechatginiNell will be a mirror image, ofthe cone -of depression formed by pumping the wellat the same ate as it is recharged.' An experimentwas performed with the model to verify this rela-tionship; the results of the tests are shwyn in Fig -we 6. The upper 4ctionof Figure 6 is a photographof the model prjor to pumping; the white line represents the static Water 'level. The center section ofthe figure shoWs the model after well B waspumped long enough to reach the steady state.Pumping was then stopped 'until' the water levelrecovered to the static position; at that time re-charging was begun at the same rate that the well-had been discharging. The lower section of Figure 6shows the model, after the steady state conditionshad been reached. It is readily apparent that thecone of impression, 4rawn in gray above the static,level, is the mirror image of the previously formedcone of depression, drawn in gray beneath thestatic water level.

The principles demonstrated. with the cone ofdepiession model have important implications inapplied hydrology. One concept illustrated by themodel is that it is advantageous to place a pumpingwell as near as possible to a source of recharge.Prior to development by wells, ittost aquifers are ina state of dynamic equilibrium, that is, natural_dis-charge is equalled by natural recharge, and thequantity of water in storage remains essentiallyconstant.

When wells tap an undeveloped aquifer; anew,discharge is superimposed upon a previously stablesystem: Thiemust be balanced by an increase in

4.9

a

A

C7 w0

aCHEMICAL INTEGRITY . , 49

CONEES'SION

CONE OF IMPR

STATIC WATER LEVELtill it II lilt

B

FIGURE 6. 'Photographs of The cone of depression model Aunder static water level conditions; B after pumping in well Breached a steady state; C after recharging into well B reached asteady state.

natural recharge, a decrease in natural discharge, adecrease in storage, or a combination of all thfee.The system is temporarily in a state of non-equilib-

, rium until discharge from it again equals recharge.The ultimate cone of depression of a pumping wellis the mechanism through which the recharge anddischarge are equalized. When the cone of depres-sion reaches a recharge area where rechargepreviously was being rejected, it causes an increasein the natural recharge by steepening the gradient.When the cone of depression reaches a natural dis-charge area, it decreases the gradient and hencedecreases the quantity of natural discharge: Whena well is placed close to an area of rejected re-charge, such as a stream or swamp, its cone ofdepression rapidly reaches the 'necharge area andinduces increased natural rechaige. Only a veryshallow cone of depression is required in this case;well A in Figure 2 illustrates this fact. Whe a wellis placed far from the recharge area it wil akelonger for the cone of depression to reach i and

ence a deeper cone will result; such a situation is`shown in Figure 3. ..

Although groundwater user's may put their wa-_ter to work in miry different ways, it is surely inthe best interests of all that the common water sup-ply be conserved so that it will yield the optimumquantities of water at the most economical rates. Athorough understanding of the physical principleswhich govern the performance of a groundwatersystem> will lead to more efficient planning and useof water. Study of the various configurations of theWater table brought about by-the punting df watertable wells will definitely help groundwater usersunderstand their individual pdsitions in the regionalgroundwater system.

A most 'important fact illustrated by the model isshown when it is assumed that wells A and B (Fig-ure 5) are owned by different farmers. Both of theowners must realize that when either well ispumped the water level at both wells will beaffected. Thus, 'because the subsurface aquiferalong with its areas of surface water recharge anddischarge is an integrated system, it must bejointly controlled and operated by all water users ifthe optimum benefits of its Water supply are to'begained.,

O

GROUND WATERS FLOW TOWARDAN EFFLUENT STREAM o.

One of the most intere ting groundwater flowpaytThisin,natureocc th(tricinity of an efflu-ent stream, a stream whit is supplied-by_the sur-rounding ground water. Leg: disputes have ariafrom misinterpretation of i imation about theflow patterns near such streams. levels inyells drilled along an effluent stream can higherthan the water level of the stream, and this fact hasbeen-submitted as evidence that ground water andsurface water are not connected)? Once establishedas a fact in ed4t, 'a decision can be obtained in someState that action taken- upon the groundwaterbody cannot possibly have any effect on the stSrfa§ewater body. Such a stand may be taken by a groulidwater tisei- to pf,dve- that pumping cannot depletesurface water. A groundwater user could sirtlarlyarguethat 11# cannot Cojthminaturface watet bydischarging waste tinto his weir:- Results derivedfroM a hydraulic Model,' analogous to the geologicsetting conimonly. found near an effluent stream, A

show that such arguments I many cases may bespurious. Only by' adequate' finition .of both thegeology and hydrauli --ear the stream can the .courts render sound) dgment on such matters."

The model (Figure:, consists of a watertight .

piexiglass case containing a porous consolidatedmixture of sandvand-epoxy reSin.? It is 30 incheslong, 1 inch thick, and 12 inches high at each end

so

r.

If

50 . THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

and slopes down to a small channel near the center.The channel represents the cross section of the ef-fluent stream. Ink was discharged into the modelthrough a perforated brass tube buried in each end.The ink entering the sand progresses through itand marks the path of flow, or flow line, from eachperforation. Water was recharged into both endsand discharged only from the simulated stream.The water table nearly coincided with the rock sur-face on either side of the stream. Figure 7 indicatesthe general direction of flow at several times afterthe flow of ink was started. ,

The flow lines turn up near the center and appearto defy gravity. Although the water is definitelyflowing upward topogiaphically, it is flowing down-ward hydraulically in accordance with 'physicalprinciples. Ground water always minks fromregions of high hydraulic head to regions of lowhydraulic head.

The effluent stream may be compared with ahorizontal well. In a manmade well, an area of lowhead is produced by pumping and the ground waterthus flows from the surrounding area of high hy-draulic head to the region of lower head near thewell. The effluent stream is also an area of lowhead, but the head distribution about the stream isa function of the topography and rainfall which havecaused a high water table to form; a region of highhydraulic head surrounding the topographicallylow-stream channel is thus furnished. Conse-quently, water moves from the adjacent highlandinto the stream.

- .,,Figure 8 shows the flow diagram of the effluentstrewn-model-. Flow follows the direction of maxi-mum gradieni as a ball takes the steepest pathwhen rolling slowly down a hill. Since the gradientsare maximum along paths normal to the equipoten-tials, the flow lines cross the equipotentiarlinesatright angles and thus form a conjugate system. Theequipotential lines beneath the stream become hori-zontal as they connect points of equal hydraulichead on opposite sides of the stream. The groundwater flow- which crosses these equip2tentials atright angles must therefore move vertically upwardin this region.

The increased potential with depth beneath theeffluent stream was verified in the model. Twowells., were drilled in the stream channel andscreened at 'different depths. The water levels inthe wells rose to different heights above the level ofthe stream itself. The deeper of the two wells hadthe higher water level which indicates the high po-tential at greater depth.

Comparison of the rates of movement of the flowlines'(Figure 7) shows that the flow along the baseof the aquifer is much slower than at points higher

do

N

\ 1Ill==11IrMMamlnik-41

51-FIGURE 7

CHEMICAL INTEGRITY

1 I 1

t

_..........00 I

1 1

I 1

I

1 1 I ; I ...---- t t t - t1

et .__,,___I 1

1 1 t t It / 1

r I 1 t t t% 1 i '

t II Ir . / 1/ii I;iitilii . . 1 1

I I°1 I 1 % . . / I 1

i 1 / 1

% % 1 %

/1 1 /1 1

t I1

t V %

I

II 1 I I % / I I I I

1 I %

t 1 t % , I I1 I

t 1 71

t %

%.. ' I 1 t

1 I 't 1 I I 1I I

t t i

51

.R URE 8. Flow diagram of efflue ream model shown in Fig. 1. The path which a particle of water follows is4alled a flow line:trh,ese are represented by solid 1° wit 's , ws. The head decreases along the path of flow. Lines ,connecting points of equal head are .

called equipotential line n e indicated by dashed lines. An unlimited number of flowand equipotential lines can be drawn in any: . :

flow system; however, n a flow diggram a finite number of lines suffice to illustrate best the general pattern (about 1/4 actual size).

in the-tdel. Th. knowledge is verystudying streams ear the sea whi e subject toonshore winds and twater es. The saltvqtermay move up the stream uring a storm anci)raise

. the, ater level, and thus temporarily reverse thegroundwater gradient. During this temporary flowreversal, saltwater moves from the streamlffto thegroundwater body and because of its high densitymay eventually sink to the bottom of the forma-tion.' A saltwater mound is )hereby formed be-neath the stream channel; th& mound may have along-lasting, detrimental effect on water supplywells in the deep portion of the aquifer near thestream channel. Although the original groundwa-ter gradient may be resumed soon after the streamsubsides, a long time will be required to wash outall the salt by the comparatively slow movement ofground water through the deep zone, A town's wa-ter supply can be temporarily impaired beyond useby this phenomenon, but this occurrence can beavoided if water supply wells are placed at a safe

. distance from the bank of any stream subject to saltWater tides.

ANALYSIS OF GROUNDWATER FLOW AROUNDAND THROUGH LENTICULAR BEDS

Regional groundwater patterns may be effec-tively altered by the presence of lenticular bedsintersecting the general direction of.flow. The tan-ner in hich these lenses can affect the normal flowhas often been misunderstood by people involved in

he utilization of ground ter resoureg. A modelexperiment was performed' in order to study theflow patterns around and through lenses of differ-ent litliologies. . -

The horizontal model,' Figure 9, 18 inches long,1ches wide, with an inside thickne§1,..of 1 5/8-

inches was utilized for this purpose. The model hasa 3/8-inch plate glass top and bottom, while thesides are sealed with opaque epoxy resin. Alumi-num reservoir tanks, 3 inches deep, are attached ateach end, extending out 2 inches froni-the model. A12-inch strip of 1-inch aluminum angle bar Lt-bondedto the glass top at each end so that the water levelsin the reservoir tanks can be maintained above thelevel of the model to produce a confined flow sys-te . The model contains porous consolidated mix-

res of sand and epoxy resin, simulating'sedimen-tary rocks, which have been formed into a pattern .representing a particular geologic structure. Theoblate lens shown on the right in Figure 9 has acoefficient of permeability of less than one USGSunit (gpd/sq ft/1:1 gradient). The eliptical lens onthe left has a coefficient of permeability of 10,000USGS units, and the encompassing medium haspermeability of 2, SGS units.

Figure 9 showsiXialjan view of the model as inkflow bands, emanating from ink reservoir cupsattached to the' night end of the model, movedthrough the porous consolidated, medium under asmall hydraulic. gradient. It is interesting to note(Figure 9) that flow band No. 3 in the center bifur-eated, completely wrapped around the oblate lens,

52

then reunited into a single flow band and continuedtoward the second lens. Flow Lands Nos. 2 and 4were forced outward by the effect of the impermea-ble lens but were then attracted toward the centerof the second lens because of its great pf/rmeabilityand large capacity for transmitting water. As theflow bands left the second lens they again spreaddue to the decreased transmissibility of the enconilpassing medium.

Many persons believe that a small area down-gradient from an impermeable lens will be 'a deadarea with no flow moving in tbr out. This modelexperiment supports the fact that there are no deadspots or stagnation zones in saturated laminargroundwater flow.

There is, however, a point of zero velocity, or noflow, called the stagnation point, which may occurwithin a flow system. When flow bands bifurcate orunite around some boundary condition, such as theimpermeable lens in Figure 9, or a cone of depres-sion of a pumping, well," there will be a point

around which the flow lines, contiguous to thtboundary, pivot as the direction of flow is changed.,This point is called the stagnation point. It has noarea or volume, buts simply an infinitesimal point.

,- -Whets considered in three dimensions the point be-comes a series of points an a line. With the excep-tion of these stagnation points, there is a positivevelocity vector acting everywhere within the porespaces of a saturated porous medium when a hy-draulic gradient is imposed upon it. However, al-though all the water in the system will flow, thevelocity of flow will not necessarily be Fonstantthroughout the porous medium. This can be seen inFigure 9, where all the ink bands were injectedsimultaneously into the model, but flow bands Nos.1,2,4, and 5, at tive.sitles of the first lens, traveledat greater velocities -than and No. 3 which begandirectly behind the lens. In 's model the waterimmediately down-gradient from the impermeablelens was definitely not stagnant or motionless. Thewater flowed very slowly from this area and was

D.4x

FIGURE 9. Photographic history of the hori4ontal lens model. The pictures were taken at the following times after the entrance of theink: A at 6 mm., B at 18 min., Cat 34 min., and D at 44 min.

CHEMICAL INTEGRITY

cdntinuously replacel by water flowing from a posi-tion of higher potential in accord with the equationof continuity:

Q = AOVwhere = volume rate of flow,

A = cross sectional area normal to flow,V = velocity of flow, and0 = porosity of porous media.

The flow diagram of the lens appears inFigure 10. The path which a pa 'of water fol-lows is called a flow line; these a represented bysolid lines. The head decreases along the path offlow. Lines connecting points of equal head arecalled equipotential lines; these are represented bydashed lines? An unlimited number of flow andequipotential lines can be drawn, in any flow sys-tem; however, in a flow diagram a finite `number oflines suffice to best illustrate the general pattern offlow. As previously scargd, flow follows the direc-tion of maximum gradient, much the same as a ballwill take the steepest path when rolling slowlydown a hill. Since the gradients are maximum alongpaths normal to the equipotentials, the flow linescross the equipotential lines at right angles, thusforming a conjugate system."

If flow lines are first drawn at equal intervals

1t I

53(

along a known equipotential line, the qua ity- ofwater flowing between any two flow lines 11

always be equal, assuming a unit depth, with noadditions to or losses from the saturated system. Ifhead loss between all4tdjacent equipotential lines ismaintained constant, then the flux of ,water movingthrough every element of the net bounded by twoflow lines and two equipotential lines will be equal.This system of constant density, flow lines andequipotentials is utilized in the flow net in Figure10. N

glovede c haraonugne di n tthheickf loofnahoiaw boaf No as

3erabliet

interest (Figure 9). It was a thick band, both ihfront of the lens and behind it but, as it rounded thecorner, it was very thin. In orderior this to occur inhomogeneous media, the velocity of flow must bemuch greater where the band is thin than wherethe band is thick, in order to satisfy the continuityequation; that is to say, when Q remains constant;V must increase as A decreases. The flow diagramof this model (Figure 10) designates These velocityvariations by the changing dimensions of the flownet elements. Within a single medium, the velocityis greatest in the narrowest elements and lowest inthe widest elements.

A great deal call be learned from this model in

regard to the proper placement of wells seekinguncontaminated water. Many mistakes hive bee:4r,

MU).and P2

L jEquipotentiai Line

Scale = 1/3 of actual model4-- Ploy Line

FIGURE 10. Flow diagram of the horizontal lens model shown in Fig. 1.1.."

54

>\/

54 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

mb.de in the placement of wells in areas of knowntoxic waste disposal. One common misconception isthat the shadow of a low or impermeable formation,such as an igneous plug or stock down-gradientfrom a point of waste disposal, offers a water sup-ply safe from contamination. This model indicatesthat this so-called shadow area only offers a delayrather than an escape from the inevitable contAmi-nation. In contrast to this observation is the excel-lent possibility of obtaining relatively uncontami-nated water at some distance to the, right or left Ofthe high permeable lens. When such a lens occursdirectly down-gradient from the location of thewaste disposal, it may have the effect of concentrat-ing the waste fluid in a small cross-section of flow,leaving the area to the sides of it uncontaminatedand, t&refore, capable of supplying potable wellwater.

GROUND WATER: MAINTAININGITS CHEMICAL INTEGRITY

In the previous sections of this paper we haveexamined the physical , characteristics of groundwater movement and concurrently touched on a fewof the potential pollution problems whicll-may alterits chemical *quality. Let us now examine more gen-erally many of the additional ways that groundwater becomes contaminated and then considerpotential methods by which groundwater contami-nation can be controlled or at least decreased.

Groundwater pollution is caused by man's activi-tiesexcessive pumping from coastal wells, irriga-tion, manufacturing, mining, and many others, butmost importantly, groundwater, ,pollution is causedby poor or inadequate waste-disposal practices.Waste materials are commonly disposed Of by plac-.,mg them in streams, on the land surface, or in theground.

Wells near streams cause the water to flow, fromthe stream into the ground, and thence to the well.If a stream is grossly polluted, this undesirablewater may contaminate nearby ground water andwellsbut it may take several years for The pol-luted water to show up at the well and by that timeperhaps the entire.area between the stream and thewell is contaminated. .

This type of groundwater pollution can be re-` duced by prohibiting the dumping of noxiouschemicals and other wastes into streams. Strict

'enforcement of surface water quality standards,which already exist, will go a long way towards ,asolution of this problem.

Man commonly spreads wastes on the land sun-.

face and stockpiles raw materials or finishedproducts outside. Many of these substances containchemicals that dissolve in watain or surfacerunoff., Once dissolved, the highly mnteralized orpolluted water may slowly sink ipto thesoil, leadingto groundwater pollition.

Examples include dumps, manure piles, mineralores, stockpiles of salt for snow removal, and hun-dreds of others. Animal feedlots have contaminatedground water with. excess amounts of nitrateahealth hazard. Stockpiles and salting of roads inwinter have caused well supplies to taste salty. Andgroundwater contamination by leachate fromdumps has caused foul tastes and odors.

Groundwater pollution caused by spreadingwastes on the land and stockpiling other materialscan be lessened by-the development of state regula-tions controlling such practices. Open andunregulated dumps should be prohibited. Stock-piles should be covered or drainage ditches con-structed around them so that the runoff can becollected and treated. Permits should be requiredbut issued only after considerable thought and eval-uation of ,the potential consequences. In many in-stances, bonds should be required which would beforfeited if the operation isn't managed properly.The operator could be held criminally liable ifgroundwatei-pollution occurs. All of the regulationsshould be based on sound scientific principles.

Unquestionably the most serious and widespreadcauses of groundwater pollution are related to thestorage or disposal of wastes in the groundpri--manly by septic tanks and secondarily by holdingponds and lagoons. The wastes filter down to thewater table and may later be withdrawn from awell. The same is true with outdoor priviesi and .

cesspools, waste disposal in excavations and sani-tary landfills insidious, and in some waysmore dangerous, is the leakage through rupturedand corroded storage tanks and transmission lines.of materials such as gasoline, fuel oil, and radioac-tive wastes.

Wells contaminated by privies, cesspools, or, sep-tic tank wastes can lead to waterborne diseases andepidemics at the worst, or the water may havebad tastes and odors-or even produce soap suds!Toxic compounds such as chromium and organicchemicals have appeared in wells because theground water was contaminated by wastes fromholding ponds or lagoons. The disposal of oil fieldbrines in holding ponds or evaporation pits has ledto the pollution of literally thousands of. sites. withsalty water. The contaminated water may be -socorrosive that plumbing in pumps literally fallsapart, and if the water is used to irrigate a lawn orgarden, all of the vegetation dies.

.r

55.

CHEMICAL INTEGRITY 55

The effects of drinking water contaminated byradioactive wastes are very subtle and may requirelong periods of time to become evident, but leakage

-of gasoline into the ground has led to taste and odorproblems which are minor compared to the destruc-

', tion brought about by explosions and fires. In a few/ cases, gasoline floating on the water table has

leaked into basements where the fume_ s \swereignited by pilot lights or sparks.

Many of these groundwater pollution problemscannot be easily solved but controls can be devel-oped so that future problems are minimized. Do-mestic waste disposal will be legs of a problem ifState agencies develop strict guidelines on septictank spacing and prohibit the use of outdoor priviesand cesspools. Industrial and municipal holdingponds and lagoons should, in /post situations, belined with material that will halt the slow infiltra-tion to the water table. The ponds should be pro-tected by dikes and alternate containment facilitiesand before a permit is issued methods should beavailable for the control and cleanup of ground-water pollution in the event that it should occur.Performance bonds and stiff fines coupled withstringent permit procedures would go a long way

, towards proper waste disposal management.There are many other causes of groundwater

pollution., .

Problem: The leakage.of highly mineralized or pol-luted water through unpluggld abandoned wellsand exploratory holes or through improperly con-structed wells.Control: Adequate water well construction stand-ards. State requirement that all abandoned wellsand exploration wells be properly plugged.

Problem: Drainage wells and collection sumps aredesigned to drain swampy or water-logged land sothat the water flows deeper into the ground or tocollect spilled materials. Much of the drainagewater and spilled substances are highly mineralizedand sink front the wells and sumps into water-bearing strata.Control: Prohibit the use of drainage wells and col-lection sumps except for domestic use, or require apermit procedure under, strict guidelines.

,

Problem: In some instances, 41Water supplies arecontaminated ley accidental spills, such as truck or`train wrecks.Control: Obviously, it is not possible to prohibitaccidents but it is possible to consider if the mate-rials are being tandled in the safest manner possi-ble..Furthermore, it is also possible to devequick cleanup techniques. This should be done.

There are many sources of groundwater contami-nation. In order to visualize whether a certain proc-ess or activity may cause groundwater pollution,one has to ask himself only one question-does theproduct or waste material contain water-solublesubstances. If it does, then there is a good chancethat groundwater pollution may occur if adequ4teprecautions are not followed.

Although the final responsibility for the develop-ment of adequate regulations to protect ourgroundwater resources rests with State and Fed-eral agencies, the average citizen must get involvedin order to recognize and press the issues. After all,we all drink water, we must have it to survive, andat least part of the responsibility for its safeguard-ing rests on our shoUlders.

REFERENCES

1. Ferris, J. G. 1949. Ground water. Pages 198-272 in C. 0.Wisler and E. F. Brater, Hydrology. John Wiley- andSons, Inc., New York.

2. Hall, H. P. 1955. An investigation of steady flow toward agravity well. La Houille Blanche 10:8-35.

3. Hansen, V. E. 1953. Unconfined ground water flow to mul-tiple wells. Trans. Amer. Soc. Civil Engrs. 118:1098-1130.

4. Jones, P. H. et al. 1956. U.S. Geological Survey Water Sup-ply* 1364. pp. 287 -93.

5. Karu . 1974. Polluted ground water: estimating theeffects of man's activities. EPA-600/4-74-002. U.S. En-vironmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. p. 99.

6. Lehr, J. H. 1963. Ground water flow models simulatingsubsurface conditions..Journal of Geological Education 11(4):124 -32.

7. Lehr, J. H. 1963. Ground water: flow toward an effluentstream. Science 140 (35Ft): 1318-20.

8. Lehr, J. H. 1963. Model analysis of water table drawdownsurrounding pumping wells. Journal of Soil and WaterConservation 18 (5).

9. Lehr, J. H. 1964. Model analysis of ground water flowaround and through lenticular beds. Journal: Water Pol-lution Control Federation 36 (1).

10. Mann, D. E. 1958. Thesis. University of California, Berke-ley.

11. Muskat, M. 1937. The flow of homogenous fluids throughporous media. McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., Inc., NewYork.

12. Theis, C. V. 1938. The significance and nature of the cone ofdepression in ground water bodies. Economic Geology 33(8): 889-902.

13. Theis, C. V. 1941: Trans. Amer..Geophysical Union. Part 3:734-38.

14. Todd, D. K. 1959. Ground water hydrology. John Wiley andSons, Inc., New York.

DISCUSSION

Comment: What is your definition of integrity ofound water? Is it zero for further contamination?

Or, you jokingly said that some streams could be

56

56 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

sewers or some aquifers that have terrible qualityof Water

Dr. Lehr: I feel. exactly that way. There areindeed aquifers that have poor quality of water nat-urally, and in no foreseeable future could they everbe used as potable supplies and I think there's noreason why we cannot dispose of our wastes intothem.

They're generally very deep. They have salinitygreater than 100,000 parts per Million and weshould be able to develop and construct really superdisposal wells. The regulation in doing that is verysevere, but when done sight it's terrific and I thinkwe can consider them sewers and dump our waterinto them. ,

The standards for main ring the integrity ofpotable aquifers, aquifers that can be used fordrinking water today or with a little cleaning in theforeseeable future should be the same as surfacewater. In other words, the drinking water stand--ards, as best we define them, should be used.

Comment: I was wondering if you could explaindeep well disposal and, secondly, pretreatment fordeep well disposal of effluents.

Dr. Lehr: Well, deep well disposal is the emplace-ment of pollutants purposely in the ground throughdeep wells. You don'ot, ever want to do it on the sur-face or anywhere near the surface but you can usezones that are already unusable and are not as-sumed to ever be usable for one reason or another.The pollutants will be stored there and will not mi-grate any great distance at a later time and get intousable water. We knp9v so much about groundwater, we can chart tite movement of these under-ground forniations and we can tell if the pollutant isplaced properly and the well casing doesn't leakupward and that the deep zone is not hydraulicallyconnected to a surface water zone by some fault orcrack in the rock or high permeable zone thatmoves vertically downward. Then we know thatthis pollutant is going to be out of our way for hun-dreds of years effectively, and we have a good placeto put the waste. It is done, it can be done, butmore often than not it's done poorly and they leakand cause side effects and sometimes the wells blowout of the ground because-the pressure is so great.

A certain amount of pretreatment is generallyneeded so as not to plug up the deep zone of rock.As far as potash goes, I don't know specificallyImean I know what potash is and I'm not aware ofany potash disposal wells and possibly through myignorance I don't see any reason why one could notdispose of potash or anything else.

We know we can dispose of radioactive wastesthis way if its done properly. Sometimes withouttoo much worry if the half-life is reasonable like 50

o.

or 100 years; if it's very long, we want to make surewe do a good job.. But it can be done and I don'tknow whether I'm something of a renegade in thegroundwater field, but I'm a realist as a groundwater person because the crust of the earth hasgigantic volume. It's absurd to/think we've got toprotect it all for drinkingrater. It's a multi-purpose system.

Comment: Many of us 'are aware of problemswith older sewer systems, specifically, infiltration.Would you comment, please, on the Problem ofexfiltration in those systems that are above groundwater.

Dr: Lehr: Yes. This is a tremendously, seriousproblem. In a lot of areas where you could useindividual domestic systems, where you have goodsoil and you could use septic tanks or aerobic sys-tems and you're somewhat short on ground water,municipal sewer systems can do a lot of damage fortwo reasons: when they're poorly constindthey're all poorly constructed, they have negativepressure; that is to say, you always build a sewersystem so it doesn't leak into the ground water, youbuild it sd the ground water leaks into it, so you geta tremendous inflow of ground water into the sewersystem and frequently you lower the water table,making less water available for use from wells and,what is even worse, you increase the load on yoursewer, your-water treatment plant, because you'reputting in this perfectly good water, diluting yoursewage and then you've got to treat it all and you'vereally got more volume than you can treat.

Then in periods of high flout you let it run out intothe river anyway so this is a problem and when youare going to build a sewer municipally, and obvi-ously in any dense area you want to do it, we needto pay a little more attention if we're going to havea water treatment plant that is going to operate,reasonably well. We have to pay more attention todesigning our system in such a way that it doesn'thave this negative leakage of the ground water intoit and the reason they do this is because they don'twant any sewage to leak out into the ground so theyoverdesignto make it leak in. I was an engineermyself once, maybe I still am, but I was always fas-cinated with these terrific little coefficients that we'plugged into our equations, like 2.319. We got ouranswer and then we doubled it for safety. That'swhat engineers tend to do and I think anybody whoworks past the first decimal point is wasting UStime and that is a problem. I think we need better'design, better engineering.

Comment: I wonder if you feel that prOtection ofground water is an adequate justification for imposeing _land use contiol of various sorts-and governingthe way that man lives on the surface of the ground

57

CHEMICAL INTEGRITY

and, if so, what your thoughts along that line are asto how it might be done and whai the mechanismsand various considerations are.

Dr. Lehr: That's a big question. The, answer tothe first one is yes,- I do believe that protection ofground water is a reason to imposer-land use control,no matter how severe the political problem. That isto say, I don't like to offend people's rights toomuch, but I do believe in preserving the land, thegreatest good for the greatest many, that can bedone in a non-bureaucratic way,. so I think that it

.takes considerable care'and thought.We're doing &little bit of this in our document on

developing regulations for the protection of groundwater. I really can't be specific about it other than Ithink it definitely can be used as a reason for land

1 57

use regulation and maybe as ground water becomesmore popular we'll put some emphasis on it andmaybe get the Land Use Bill through the Congressnext time' with this added reasoning. But I couldnot, in the time or even just off the top of my head,give you any very terrific. specifics as to what canbe done. Obviously, whether or not you can useseptic tanks depends-on a land use concept.

Another land use proNerif works as follows: ifyou allow uncontrolled building of parking lots,driveways, and shopping centers, you absolutelyeliminate -ground water recharge; the water aliflows out in the stream and if you're using growwater you're depleting your available ground waterfrom a quantity 'standpoint. This is a seriousproblein.

58.

"S.

PHYSICAL INTEGRITY

59(

A

THE EFFECT OFHYDROLOGY AND HYDROGRAPHYON WATER QUALITY

DONALD J. O'CONNORProfessor of Environmental Engineering ScienceManhattan CollegeNew York, w York

The Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 ad-dresses issues relating tO the development and dis-semination of information on the factors necessaryto restore and maintain the physical, chemical, andbiological integrity of natural water systems, toprotect fish and wildlife, and to allow for recrea-tional activities. This paper is directed to the firstof these-issues and specifically to the hydrologic andhydrodynamic effects on the physical, chemical,and biological constituents of natural water sys-tems. In order to develop information on the factorsnecessary to maintain and restore appropriatelevels of water quality, one of the key elements isour understanding of the effect that manmade andnatural inputs have on the quality of these systems.Accordingly, a brief description of the techniquesthat are available%to quantify these effects is firstpresented, followed by a number of applicationA to.the analyses of quality in various water bodies.

The general purpose of this paper is to indicatehow these techniques permit projections to bemade for a variety of remedial policies. The abilityto project future water quality conditions providesone of many essential elements reqUired forenvironmental planning. The value of these modelscan only be appreciated if their weaknesses, as wellas their strengths, are understood; accordingly, thelimitations of this type of analysis are also dis-cussed. In conclusion, a few observations are madeconcerning the nature and validity of the analysesand.recomniendations are presented concerning thedirection and needs of environmental planning forwater quality.

INPUTS AND WATER.QUALITY RESPONSES

Mathematical analyses of water quality arequantitative relationships between ippufs to nat-

ural systems and the water quality responses of thesystems.

60

The common basis of the majority of thesemodels is the principle of continuity or mass bal-ande. This principle is lot only of fundamentalimportance in that it provides a means of structur-ing realistic models, but is also of practical value inthat it establishes a basis for evaluating their valid-ity. Given a water quality problem in a specificarea, the particular constituents which relate tothat problem are defined. A mass balance is devel-oped for one or more of these interrelated constitu-ents in the water body which takes into accountthree factors: the transport through the system,the reactions within it, and the inputs into it. Thefirst factor describes the hydrologic and hydro-dynamic regime of the water system; the second,the biological,' chemical, and physical reactionsvvhich affect the water quality constituent; and thethird, tO-inputs or withdrawals of the substancesthrougil man's activities and natural phenomena.

Each region or specific site has its own geo-morphological structure And hydromettorologicarregime which establishes the transport structure.Identification and definition of the particular water

-quality problem and the related constituents lead toa specification, of the reactions which are relevant tothat problem. Each region is affected in varyingdegrees by municipal, industrial, agricultural, andnatural inputs which are discharged as either point

or distributed sources. Each area thus has a set ofspecific characteristics which qualitatively describethe problem and which may be expressed quan-titatively as transport, reaction, and input coeffi-cients. The transition from the general qualitativeprinciple to a specific quantitative form is deter-mined by assigning a set of realistic coefficients.That,they are realistic is determined by the degreeto which the concentration, as computed by themodel, agrees with observed data for various flow,temperature, and input conditions. This procedure,which establishes the validity of the model, is animportant criterion in the assessment.

, 61

si

62 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

MODELING FRAMEWORK

The procedure of developing the model to analyzea specific water quality problem consists of threedistinct steps: (1) the formulation of the pertinentequations; (2) the selection of the appropriate com-putational techniques to solve these equations; (3)the application of the equations and their solutionsto a particular water system. Although the term"model" is loosely applied to any one of the three'steps, it is used inclusively in this paper.

In the first step, the general principle of the con-servation of mass, as described above, is used toformulate thesequations of the various constituentsof water quality. In their simplest form, the equa-tions describe the distribution of conservative sub-stances such as dissolved solids, or singular re-,actants such as coliform bacteria. They increase incomplexity as consecutive reactions (e.g., dissolvedoxygen) are addressed. In their most complex formthey incorporate the interaction of a number of con-stituents (e.g., eutrophication and food-chain analy-sis). For many of the pertinent water qualityparametersthey are reasonably well formulated atthe present time. These relationships have been ina state of continuous development over the past fewdecades.

In addition to the terms which define the reactionkinetics, the transport factors must also be in-cluded. Depending on the geomorphological andhydrological chigacteristics of the water system thetransport may 15e incorporated in a rather simplefashion or in a relatively complex manner. The de-gree of simplicity or complexity is predicated on thetemporal and spatial variation of the particular sub-stance which is under consideration. The simplest

4- framework is the Steady-Slate, one dimensionalanalysis, while the most complex relate to timevariable analysis in multidimensional space. Thelatte frequently require the use of hydrodynamicrel ionships in order to quantify the transport

of the equation. The wastewater inputs areconsidered in the formulation of the pertinent

equations. The inputs of mass to the_ water system-are due to the discharges from municipal, indus-trial, and agricultural activities and the runoff fromthese areas and from the natural drainage of undis-turbed regions. The inputs of various constituentsfrom municipal sourcesare well known with respectto both the average values and their ,variations.This assessment is also applicable to many indus-tries which are characterized by the production ofone or a few products such as the pulp and paper,canning, and steel industries. However, industrieswhich produce a variety of products such asorganics, synthetic chemicals, and pharmaceuticalsare more difficult to characterize. The quantitative

assessment of the inputs is critical, particularlywith respect to the delineation between pointsources which are readily controllable and nonpointsources which are relatively difficult and, in somecases, impossible to control. Water quality re-sponses due to each of these sources must be clearlydistinguished and described. The difficulty of as-signing realistic vahles to distributed nonpointsources is very evident, given the present state ofknowledge and data.

The second step consists of seeking the most ap-propriate method of solution of the pertinent equa-tions. There are two general classes of solutions:one is based on the formal integrations of the basicequations and the second is based on finite differ-ence approximations of the differentials. For thesimple and intermediate kinetic reactions understeady-state conditions, the first type of solution iscommonly used. For the more complex kinetic andtransport regimes, it is usually necessary to employthe second. In either case, there are a number ofcomputer prOgrams for both classes which areavailable for, immediate application.

The last step consists of structuring the solu-tions, through the programs, to fit the conditions ofa specific water system. This step invariably in-volves a segmentation of the particular water bodytaking into account the transport, reactions, andinputs. It should allow for "a" realistic portrayal ofthe advective and dispersive components of thetransport. It should permit a reasonable represen-tation of the kinetics, particularly with respect togeophysical and hydraulic characteristics of thesystem. Finally, it should provide for a descriptionof the waste inputs and tributaries, both point awl

-distributed. The guidelines for segmentation arealso dictated by lie method of solution, i.e., analyt-ical integrated forms or finite difference tech-niq . Given the method of solution, the system issegmented such that the basic assumptions or pos-tulates are maintained without violating certainmathematical or numerical requirements or intro-ducing unnecessary computational complexity.

VALIDATION

The process of validation involves comparisonbetween computed values of a variable and thosemeasured in the prototype. When this comparisonis satisfactory, the model is said to be validated.What constitutes "satisfactory" depends on the na-ture of the problem, the structure of the model, andthe extent of available data.

Water quality models, on the whole, are planningand analytical tools rather than predictive and fore-casting techniques. The model is used primarily to

61,

PHYSICAL INTEGRITY 63

examine the spectrum of responses of the systemwhich may occur under varying planning alterna-tives, e.g., the water quality responses for the 1977and 1983 treatment scenarios under various hydro-logical regimes'.

The first step in the validation of the model is itscalibration. Given the geophysical and hydrologicalcharacteristics of the system and a water qualityconstituent whose reactions are known in-principle,an estimate or assignment is made of the appropri-ate coefficients and inputs. These may be knownfrom auxiliary models, as in the case of the hydro-dynamic transport terms; they may be assignedfrom correlations developed in laboratory or fieldexperiments as in the case of the kinetic terms; orthey may be specifically measured as in the case ofinputs. Transport and kinetic .coefficients may alsobe available from direct prototype observations andmeasurements. In any case, assuming a range ofthese values is kriown, a best estimate is made ofeach, the model is run, and the output compared tothe data. Invariably, successive adjustments arerequired to.obtain a "reasonable" agreement be-tween the model and the data. Having thus cali-brated the model, it is then validated by repeatingthe procedure for a different set of flow, tempera-ture, and input with the coefficients systematicallyredefined to reflect these conditions. The repetitionof this procedure for other combinations effects agreater degree of validation with each favorablecomparison between computation and observation.

PROJECTIONS AND PLANNtNG.

The validated models are then used to projectwater quality conditions for various controlprocedures or policies. These projections are madefor various combinations of hydrological and mete-orological conditions for the immediate and long

.term development of the area. The validated modelpermits a range of alternates to be evaluated in arealistic and: quantitative manner. These projec-tions provide on-e of the .many -inputs which theadministrator needs in order to make appropriatedecisions for environmental planning. The sig-nificance of the water quality problem and the con-sequences of the decision should be examined fromboth the environmental and economic points ofview. The degree_to which the analyses, providedby the models, affects the decisions should be com-mensurate with the level of validity of the modelsthemselves. From the scientific and engineeringpoints of view, the models should be completelyverified before they are applied in any practicalmanner.

EXAMPLES AND APPLICATIONS

The following examples describe the water qual-ity problems in various types of natural water sys-tems, freshwater streams, saline estuaries, lakesand the nearshore oceans. This four-way classifi-cation is based on the commonality of geomorpho-logical structure and hydrological and hydro-dynamic regimes within each category. The dilutionand transport associated with these factors deter-mine in large measure the concentration of consti-tuents which_ characterize the-wafer quality prob-lems. The problems, actual or potential, are causedby constituents in the water which are conservativeand non-conservative. The concentration of non-conservative substances is affected by biological,chemical, or physical reactions, while the con-centration of conservative substances is unaffectedby such reactions. Each of these constituents ispresent in water systems due to both naturalphenomena and man's urban, agricultural, andindustrial activities. In assessing what remedialmeasures must be taken to restore water quality,one of the most important considerations is the dis-tinction betw,een natural and manmade effects.Within each category, tile further distinctionshould be made between readily controllable pointsources and the more difficult distributed sources.

The first example concerns the buildup of totaldissolved solids and chlorides in the Great La es.Since they are conservative and not ected by ,et-tling or volatilization, their cone trations aredetermined only by the dilution and ransport dueto the freshwater flow through the ystems. Thepertinent transport parameter_ is t e hydraulicdetention time, which is the volum of a lakedivided by the total flow through it. A ap of theGreat Lakes and their drainage areas is resentedin Figure 1 which indicates the relative agnitudeof each lake and the directio spo . Thesource of freshwater flow th ough'Lakes Superiorand "Michigan is the cumulative runoff of the riversdraining into each. Their combined discharge flowsthrough each downstrearri lake in sequenceHuron, Erie, and Ontario, each of which receivesadditional drainage from its tributary streams.

The water flow through_ each lake also providesdilutioh for the inputs of chlorides and dissolvedsolids, whose sources are municipal and industrialwastewaters as well as the deicing salt contained inrunoff from highway's. The municipal and industrialsources have been increasing markedlit, since the

_turn of the century, as shown by the growth of pop-ulation and of the industrial chemical index inFigure 2. The use of salt for deicing purposes hyasinitiated in the 1930's. The increase in concentra-

62

64 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

tion due to these sources is added to the naturalbickground value, which is assumed to be inequilibrium. The'combined effect of all the sourceson the concentration of chlorides from 1900 to 1960in each lake is shown in Figure 3the solid line rep-resenting the calculated value and the circles rep-resenting the. observations. The marked increase inErie and Ontario is contrasted to the slight in-creases in Michigan and Huron and the constancy inLake Superior. These patterns are due to the rela-tively rapid growth of population and industry indownstream drainage areas by contrast to the mod-erate growth in the upstream areas. A further sig-nificant factor is the hydraulic detention timesapproximately 3 and 8 years for Erie and Ontario,respectively, and over 100 years for Lake Superior.Thus Lake Erie responds more rapidly due to itslarger municipal and industrial inputs and smallerhydraulic detention time. These factors are alsoresponsible for the greater rate of eutrophication inthis lake.

It is informative to examine the relative influenceof each of the components which make up thechloride concentration. Figure 4 indicates the con-tribution of each source to the total concentration inLakes Erie and Ontario. The greatest impact inLake Erie is due to the industrial discharges.Municipal sources are fairly significant while the&icing salt is becoming more pronounced as timegoes on. The effect of the upstream input from LakeHuron is also important. In Lake Ontario, however,the greatest effect is felt by the Lake Erie inflow.While the combined effect of the municipal, indus-trial, and deicing sources is significant, it is Obvi-ously much less than that of the Erie input.

A similar analysis was mode for the concentra-tion of total dissolved solid and the patterns weresubstantially identical. An example of the applica-tion of this type of analysis is presented in Figure 5.If both indusirial and population growth and theincrease in deicing salt usage were to continue atthe rates experienced in the past, the total dis-solved solids would reach a concentration of 500mg/1 about the year 2050. This is shown by theuper line in Figure 5. If industries in the Ontariobin ceased discharging salts, there would be aninitial decrease; but as the population grew thetrend would be reversed and the solids would againincrease. This simple example is presented to dem-onstrate the utility of the analysis in environmentalplanning and management.

The "Ohio River below the city of Cincinnati, asshown in Figure 6, is subjected to a backwatereffect from the Markland Dam. Prior to its con-struction, thefe were five individual dams, whosereservoirs had shallower depths and smaller cross

sectional areas, as shown in the lower right-handcorner of Figure 6. The height of the Markland Damsubmerged the existing dams, creating a waterdepth in the order, (4,100 feet at its face which de-creased in the upstream direction. The cross sec-tional area of the river varies in a similar fashion, asshown in Figure 7. The larger cross sectional areareduces the time of passage through the system andthe greater depths markedly change the reaera-tion capacity of the waten body. The effluent fromthe sewage treatment plant serving the city of Cin-cinnati was the primary source of wastewater. Theeffect of this effluent on the dissolved-oxygen con-centration is shown in Figure 8. The solid line isthat calculated by the model and the various sym-bols represent observations taken during periodswhen the river flow and temperature were thesame. There is a very rapid drop followed by a rela-tively slow buildup. This pattern is primarily due tothe increasing depth of the body of water whichaffects its gas transfer characteristics.-As the depthincreases, the ability to transfer oxygen from theatmosphere to the system decreases and, conse-quently, the DO is depressed and remains so for asignificant number of miles downstream.

The projections are shown in Figure 9. The com-ponents of the dissolved oxygen deficit are shown inthe upper figure and tlit resulting dissolved oxygenprofiles in the lower. The flow of approximately10,000 cubic feet per second is a relatively low flowfor the Ohio River. Even with high degrees of treat-ment, such as 90 percent removal of the carbonace-ous demand and 80 percent removal of nitrogenousdemand (the order of best practical treatment), theresulting profile indicates a minimum concentrationof about 3.5 mg/1. A projection back to hydro-graphic conditions of the lower dams would indicatethat the dissolved oxygen would be in the order of 2mg/1 greater. The hydrographic and hydrauliceffects caused by the construction of dams may bequite significant and presently available methods ofanalysis permit,this assessment to be made as dem-onstrated by this example.

The river flow of 10,000 cubic feet per second,which is a low flow for the Ohio River used in theprevious example, is significantly greater than thatavailable in other geographical regions of the,coun-try. The effect of river flow is further evidenced inthose areas where large metropolitan develop-ments are located on upstream tributary streams oflarger river systems. The effluent flow may begreater than the flow in the river, as in the case ofAtlanta, Ga., and Dallas, Tex. It is frequently ofthe same order A in Denver, Colo., and 'the Rome-Utica area in Nry York. For example, the Rome-Utica metropolitan districts are located in the

63

PHYSICAL INTEGRITY

freshwater flow. Because of these characteristics,substances are retained in this system for extensiveperiods. A map of the channel is presented in Fig-ure 18, indicating the location of the sampling ndgaging stations. Figure 19 portrays the distributif freshwater flow and the location and magnitude

of the wastewater inputs as measured by'the bio-chemical oxygen ,demand.. Figures 20, and 21 pre-sent the daia and calculation for the dissolvedoxygen during the wet and dry periods, respec-,tively. The increase in freshwater flow shown ineach drawing is due to the San Jacinto River. Therange of the dissolved oxygen values as shown bythe bars reflects the difference between the surfaceand bottom concentrations. It is evident that thissystem is highly stratified, as is freqiently the casein estuaries. The extended region of zero dissolvedoxygen is caused by tke high waste inputs intotidalsystems of low freshwater flow and moderate tidalmixing. Projections of water quality conditions,based on secondary treatment of all the wastesources, is shown in Figure 22. Even with low flowaugmentation of .500 and, 1,000 cubic feet persecond, low dissolved oxygen concentrations per-sist. The hydraulic influence 'pf the augmented flowis relatively minor because Of the large volume ofwater contained in the manmade channel' and turn-.ing basin, a large volume at great depth and smallvelocity.

A fiirther example of the hydrography of a tidalsystem is New York Harbor, map of which isshown in Figure 23. The total mass disCharge ofBOD is much greater than that of the Houston ShipChannel. Dissolved oxygen concentrations,' al-though depressed, are not as low as those in thechannel. This is due primarily to the relativelyintense nixing and dispersion of the tidal factors inNew York Harbor and, to a lesser degree, to theeffect of the Hudson River freshwater flow. At thetime the analysis was performed the crosshatchedareas of New York City, as shown in Figure 23,were' not receiving sewage treatment. Since thattime treatment plants have been installed in theseareas except for the western part of ManhattanIsland on the Hudson River, which is presentlyunder construction. Figuie 24 shows the' compari-son between the model and the data for the HildsonRiver and the East River. With projections of sec-ondary treatment in the order of §5 to 85 percent

,removal of the significant wasteWources, the DOcan be increased to about 4.5 mg/1 in the NorthRiver and 3.5 mg/1 in the East River. The DO hasnever dropped below-about J. mg/I -in the East Riveror below 2 mg/1 in the Hudson River even when thewaste discharge was greatdr than that shown in thefigure. The primary reason is the maintenance of

upstream region of the, Mohawk River Basin, asshown in Figure 10. The drainage areas and owsare presented in Figure 11. The wastewater' np i ts,as measured by the present and projected carbonceous oxygen demand MOD and a typical dissolvedoxygen profile during September 1966, are plottedin Figure 12. The concentration frequently dropsto zero. during the summer months when the tem-perature is high and the flow low. The computedprofiles and observed data of both BOD and DO areshown in Fi e 13 for July 26, 1967. This, Acon-junction wit analysesanalyses of other survey periods,indicates su antial agreement between 'calcula-tion and observation.

The components of the dissolved oxygen analysisare plotted in Figure 14. The sum of the individualelements.is shown in the upper segment of this fig-ure, which is subtracted from the dissolved oxygensaturation value to yield the calculated profile ofFigure 13. Breaking down the problem to itsindividual elenients enables an evaluation to bemade of the effective metids of control. The car-bonaceous and nitrogenouNdeficits are caused bythe Rome and Utica wastewaters, while the sludgedeposits are primarily the result of storm drainage.The background values are shown in the lower por-tion of Figure 14.

Water quality projections for future levels ofdevelopment of the area were made, utilizing thevalidated model as shown in Figure 15. For eachlevel of projected development, various degrees oftreatment were imposed and the resulting dis-solved oxygen concentrations determined. It is evi-dent that water quality problems of low oxygenpersist for many of the projected conditions. Thesharp drop in dissolved oxygen downstream fromRome, occurs in a small tributary of the Mohawk. Ifthe outfall is /*lc:dated 1 mile downstream to dis-charge directlyrto de Mohawk, as shown in Figure16, the depressed dissolvedoxygen in this stretch iselimina Knowledge and understanding of thehydrology of the system permits evaluation ofalternate methods of control as indicated by thisexample. 1

By -contrast to ,freshwater streams, salineestuaries are characterized by different hydraulicand hydrographic features. The primary differencelies in the mixing and dispersion due to the densityand tidal effects. The following examples, describ-ing watei\quality studies in the Houston Ship Chan-nel and Nkw York Harbor, illustrate the impor-tance of these factors. Figure 17 shows a map of theHouston Channel and Galveston Biy which flows tothe Gulf of Mexico. The tidal effects in the bay aredampened by the restricted inlet, -and hydraulictransport is further affected by the relatively low .

65

64

-s

66 THE INTEGRITY 01". WATER

dissolved oxygen due to the rather intense tidalmixing and freshwater flow which permits this par-ticular system to respond much more positively topollutional stress.

The nearshore ocean regimes also involve hydro-logic and hydrographic factors. A prime example isthe Boston Harbor area shown in Figure 25. Theproblem was the bacterial pollution which prevailedthroughout the whole Nystem which necessitatedclosing the bathing beadles and the shellfish areas.The major sources of pollution !were the effluentsfrom two treatment plants at Nut Island and DeerIsland, the storm overflows fram the Charles River

'and the discharge of sludge from the treatmentplants. The significant hydrodynargic phenomenonis the dispersion due to the tidal and density effectswhich trar'sports material laterally and longitudi-nally in the horizontal plane of the harbor. Figure26 presents the 1967 calculated and observed distri-bution of coliform bacteria which indicates fairlygood agreement. In the interval between 1967. and1969 the construction of t e Deer Island plant wascompleted and chlorinatio was putInto operation.In 1969, then, the syst received the chlorinatedeffluent from Deer Island, the storm overflowsfrom the Charles River, and the sludge discharge.from the plants..Figure 27 shows the 1969 conform,distribution. The calculated concentration south ofDeer Island can be interpolatekd to be about 2,000MPN/100'ml by contrast to.the-120,000 MPN meas-

. ured.in 1967. The individual effects of the wasteinput components are shown in the following fig-ures. Figure 28 shoWs the computed coliform con-,centration from the Deer Island and. Nut Island

.chlorinated effluents,. which are insignificant.',Fig-ure 29 shows effects of the discharge from thestorm overflows from the Charles River area. Thevalue south of Deer Island can be interpolated atabout 800 MPN /100 ml. Figure 30 shows the effectsof sludge disposal practice resulting fii alevel of,_almost 1,000 MPN/100 nt.

The superposition of these three inputs yields thetotal of about 1,800,, which is in reasonable agree-ment with the observation. It is apparent that thesludge disposal and the storm overflows are causinga higher level of pollUtion tkihe system than arethe treatment plant discharges.. It is .obvious thenth ternatives other than treatment of pqint

- sources can be evaluated and analyzed. Such alter-"t nate& may provide more effective improvemenna

`water qUality than advanced leve..ls of treatmentfrom point sources.

,. Another nearshare ocean exampit, e NewYork Bight_ The area is ptesently used r disposalof sewage sludge. dredge stoil, construction debris,acid waste, and toxic chemicals from the metropoli- ,,..t;,.

tan area. Figure 31 shows some of the sites andquantities involved both in New York waters andLong Island Sound waters. Figures 32 and 33 showthe, esults of drifter studies in the bight area,which qualitatively indicate the hydrology and hy-drography of the area. Surface drifters were.trans-lated to the Long Island shore, some to the Jerseyshore, and some out to sea. Most significant ispredominance of the bottom drifterS which movedwith the bottom currents to the Long Island shore.These simple yet informative field experiments

ich were conducted by NOAA are indicative ofthe omplexity of the hydrodynamic regime, whichis affected by tides, freshwater flow from the lowerharbor, winds, and density effects. Due to the cur-rents and dispersion associated with the hydradynaniic and hydrologic regimes of the region, thesediments are being slowly transported northwardtoward the Long Island shore. Furthermore, in theimmediate vicinity of the disposal sites, depressionof dissOlved oxygen is occaring as shown in middleand lower segments of Figure 34. Figure 31 alsoindicates the iocntion of plant outfalls from LongIsland: the Nassau County outfall presently underconstruction, and the proposed Suffolk Countyoutfall.

The solution of the hydrodynamic problem is par-ticularly,,important, because of the sludge disposalpractices, which impact the individual site locationsand potentially the shore region. By virtue of thehydrodynamic transport of the system, the organicmaterial is gradually moving shoreward, as morematerial is added. This pattern is evident in Figure34, which prgents the spatial extentbf the organicmatter in the sediments.

'Studies were made of the individual and com-bined effects of the outfalls on water quality in thearea. An example of this analysis is shown in Figure35, which presents the projected concentration ofnitrogen in both the surface and bottom for the con- .

di ion of ultimate development of the areas. The ;

c posite effec hese outfalls, the Hudson Riverdischarge, the sl a isposal, and the Neiderseyoutfalls should be analy d.

The final example rela s the process of eutrophi-cation, which is the fert. tion of natural watersystems, producIng excessive mounts of phyto-plankton or aqttatic weeds. Although lakes are par-ticularly susceptible to this phenomenon, it alsooccurs in fi:eshwater. streams and saline estuaries.The ,analysis of the problem is straightforward inprinciple: .inorganic nutrients, nitrogen and, phos-phorus, are converted. to plant organic materialthrough photosynthetic action. The planti usuallygrow during the summer' and spring when tempera-ture and light conditions are conducive, die in late

65 S.

4

PHYSICAL INTEGRITY

fall with little or no growth taking-place during thewinter. They are also preyed upon by the next linkin the food chainthe herbivorous zooplanktonthey, in turn, y the carnivores. These are then afood source for the next trophic level and sequen-tially through the food chain to man. Each trophiclevel by death and excretion returns organic nutri--1nts which hydrolyze to inorganic forms, and the

cycle continues. Controlled discharges of nutrientsto natural water systems are incorporated in thisnatural cycle and may be helpful and beneficial toproductivity. It is the excessive discharge of nutri-ents which causes the degradation of water quality.

In addition to the avaiability of nutrients, otherconditions affect the growth of phytoplankton, oneof which is the flow through the system. Reducingthe hydraulic transport through the system mayincrease the, severity of the problem by retainingnutrients in the system for greater periods and thusincreasing their availability to phytoplankton. Onephase of the California Water Plan is potentiallyfaced with this problem. It has been proposed todivert water from the Sacramento River in thenorth to the relatively arid areas in the south bymeans of a peripheral canal on the eastern border ofthe Sacramento San Joaquin Delta, as shown inFigure 36. The question arises, then, as to whateffect the reduced flow through the delta and thedownstream Suisun Bay will have on the eutrophi-cation.

Two specific geographical areas are analyzed inorder to demonstrate the effect of freshwater flow:one at Mossdale, on the freshwater portion of theSan Joaquin,. and the second the estuarine area, asshown in Figure 37. The annual variation of tem-perature, flow, and radiation for the years 1966 and1967 is presented in Figure 38 for the San JoaquinRiver. These, in conjunction with the nutrient dis-charges, were input data for the model which calcu-lates the temporal, distribution of phytoplankton,zooplankton, and nutrients. These distributions arepresented in Figures 39 and 40 for %he freshwaterSan Joaquin River at Mossdale and for theestuarine waters- at Antioch, respectively. Theeffect of the hydrology is evident; contrast thepronounced bloom in the spring of the low flow yearin 1966 to the high' flow in 1967, which essentiallyflushes the system before it has an opportunity togrow. The lower flow at the end of the year permitsgrowth to take place as evidenced by the fall bloomin 1967. In the estuarine area the tidal mixingpredominates over the freshwater flow and growthof phytoplankton occurs to about the'same degreeeach year. The, effect of freshwater flow in thisregion' is obviously less pronounced.

Although there are differences between the cal-

67

culated profiles and the observations, the, generalpattern is reproduced by the model, at least to thedegree which permits some preliminary evaluationof the effects of flow diversion and ipereased dis-charge of nutrients. The model was run for theseprojected conditions and the results are shown inFigure 41. It is to be noted that increased nutrientsand light have a more pronounced effect than de-creased flow. Furthermore, since levels of greaterthan 100 ug/1 of chlorophyll are projected, whichare considered excessive, removal of nutrients iscalled for. The bottom graph in Figure 41 indicatesthat presently available treatment technology fornutrient removal maintains concentration levelswhich Tare considered acceptable.

CONCLUSION

One of the essential elements in developinginformation on restoring and maintaining waterquality is an underdranding of the effect that man'sactivities and natural phenomena have on the qual-ity of water systems. These systems may becharacterized different physical, chemical, andbiological ways. This paper has emphasized theeffect that the hydrological and hydraulic factorshave on water quality, specifically addressing thephysiochemical and biochemical phenomena. Byvirtue of the mass and energy transfers through thepathways associated with these phenomena, or-ganic substances are converted to bacterial cells,consuming oxygen, and inorganic nutrients areutilized by, algae, producing oxygen. This con-version, ul5on which the higher biological formsdepend, is an essential link in the food chain.

The term "biological integrity" covers the spec-trum from the microscopic bacteria and algae to thefish and microscopic plants. Although there is, ingeneral, greater public awareness about the latter,the former are of more fundamental concern be-cause they form the basis of the food chain. Fur-thermore, they are of practical importance becausewater pollution control measures, are specificallydirected to the removal or transformation of thesemicroscopic substances which, in turn, maintainand/or restore aquatic environments conducive tothe preservation of the higher forms.

While the phenomena relating to the microscopicforms have been quantified (albeit with some scien-tific disagreement), those relative to the higher bio-logical levels have not beenat least not to thepoint where reliable projections can be made. It isthus possible at the present time-to make predictiveassessments of dissolved solids, bacteria, dissolvedoxygen, nutrients, and phytoplankton, but ex-tremely difficult to make such assessments about

66

68 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

fiSh and aquatic planti. The ability to formulatequantitative relationships decreases progressivelyas higher levels of the food chain are addressed be-/ cause of the increased diversity and myriad interac-tions which characterize theses levels. It becomesprogresiively more difficult as more complex prob-

lems are analyzed, e.g., the accumulation of toxicmaterial in the variou0 trophic levels.

Significant advances in our scientific understand-- ing of these phenomena have been made over the

past few decades, but not to the point where relia-ble quantitative assessments can be made. It may

-4.

MINNESOTA

be neither possible nor necessary to do so in theimmediate future. In someases, then, the natureof the environmental questions exceeds out presentability to provide reliable answers. Perhaps, at thistime, qualitative assessments are sufficient toeffect a dramatic improvement in water quality atdthis\appears to be the spirit of the recent legis -tion. In any case, the analyst has the deep obligtion to indicate the extent and degree of validatiof the model, such that some measure of its renal)*ity is evident to the administrator in the decision-maldng process..

LEGEND

Deol LoMs Born Drancge RoodoNesSubtosAs

'STATUTE MILES

20 0 X40 60 00 100ONTARIO

-1

:NEW YORK

3

WISCfNSIN

INDIANA

FIGURE 1. Mai) of Great Lakes.

6

I

r

25

20

cr)

0 15/7j

-J

"; Z017-.4 10-JO

a.

waz

1.5-

.r.o

0.5

5

PHYSICAL INTEGRITY

1900 1920 1 40 1960 1980YEAR

GROWTH OF BASIN POPULATION

LAKE ERIE BASIN

dir

1

LAKE MICHIGAN BASIN

01900

4

(.0

'1\

2000

1610 1920 -1930.. 1940 19601950 '

YEARINDEX OF U.S. CHEMICAL PRODUCTS

FIGURE 2. Population and industry growths.

68 41) \aiL

69

4

0

I

1.

THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

9-1 l' 1

0I

0 00ol

1930" 10 20 30 40 50 60 1900 10 20 30 40 50 60YEARS YEARS

4

20 30 40YEARS.

,

5D 60

25

20

15

10

5

Legend:o Observed.

Calculaed

1900 10 20 30 40 50 60 1900 10 20 . 30 40 50 60YEARS YEARS

FIGURE 3. Computed and observed chloride concentrations.

(69

V

i

a

30

E.

z0 25

41 7-

IX 20

.C.)

Z 150C.)

w

"r2 I0-J

PHYSICAL INTEGRITY

TOTAL

ER/E

MUNICIPALAND OTHER

DEICING

19000

30to.E

0Z 25

CX 20Z

0c.)

0 10

-0J5

INDUSTRIAL

UPSTREAMINFLOW

NATURALI I 1

N I I .1 o --.10 20 30 40 50 '60

YEARS

01900

'

ONTARIO

TOTAL

MUNICIPAL,INDUSTRIALANO OTHER

DEICING

UPSTREAM, INFLOW

NATURAL1 I 1I

0,` 20 30 40 50 60

-YEARS

FIGURE 4. Source chloride components for Lakes Erie andOntario.

600

.g"000

0200

71

ONTARIO

111 IN STANDARD

J

MO

76.

1990 2000 2020

YEARS

2040,

FIGURE 5. Projected TDS concentrations.

ow,

4

p

2060

72

.t

r

THE INTEGRI* OF WATER

es

/

±-

MARK LAND DAM

INDIANA . .

GREAT MIAMIRIVER

OHIO

A MUDDY CREEK STP

MILL CREEK SIP A

MILL CREEK

CINCINNATI

TILE MIAMI'STP t

LITTLEMIAMIRIVER

OHIO RIVER

510

520

470

KENTUCKY

BROMLEY SIP

tRIVER MILES BELOW PITTSBURGH

A SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

!

CBMI.--71.7=10 MILES 5

x Iacscsz5

i

LICKING RIVER

95.5 MILES

MARKLAND POOL ELEVATION.455 FT.1

428 FT.439

Fr'r 7

441 FT. i I38

4.

e

%

.. 0

)

FIGURE 6. Map of Ohio River and Cincinnati.

....,....

. fr

/

,71.

\

A

a

A

LOW HEAD DAMS. (REMOVED IN 1982)

PHYSICAL INTEGRITY73

u.

4.cc4a40

A8

100,000

30,000

60,000

OHIORIVER MARKLANO POOL

20,000

470 480 490 500 510

MILES BELOW PITTSBURGH

520 530

FIGURE 7. Cross - sectional area in the Mark land Pool.

72

.0

74 THE INTEGRITZ WATER

' r

I00

9,0

80

7.0

6.0

50

40

30

2.0

I0

0460

0.0 SATURATION' LEGENDTOP BOTTOM

OCTOBER 23,1963 0

OCTOBER 25,1963 0NOVEMBER 6,1963 -A

11

I

470 480 490 500

MILES BELOW PITTSBURGH

FIGURE 8. Calculated and observed DOdistributions,

,

73,

510 520

G

530

a

:;".

0

OX08

rgs

PHYSICAL INTEGRITY

AareTEMICRATURE s 211.0 \

? - FLOW. 10,000 Os f.UP3TREAM DO DEFICIT. .2 04/1

`UPSTREAM BOO DEA1CIT SO op/i

Le6e1Y0INITIAL OEF iti TBAOLGRO.IND COOCARBONACEOUS

-NITROGENOUSGREAT MIAMI RIVERTOTAL,DECIt IT E 0.0

St

500 520 530

MILE9 BELO* PITTSBURGH

FIGURE 9. Dissolved oxygen for secondarytreatment.

74

t

75

..r

.0

10.

;

76THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

'ROME

NINE MRED(

1.111._CA

N

.Cs /1_

AMSTERDAM

LITTLE' FALLS

r

--MILES0 10 20Illamesiad

A- USGS GAGING STATION

41 FIGURE 10. Map of Mohawk River Basin.

c

15

SCHENECTADY/

. '

5'

OHOES

4000

Zi3CO3

4.

1000

PHYSICAL INTEGRITY

10:010M-MAGC AREA-14GULATED TINWIA4S.

- °

II I

0I I

LK> 120 110 GO 90

_

JULY 26 -AUG 24,1967

BD 70 60 50 40 30 20

RWER WILES ABOVE 14JOSON RIVER

FIGURE 11.Drainage areaflow distribution.

-4

10

.41

78

a 9E

w 7xO 50

3

O I.

840'0X 30

>>,ctO 20(r)9 ioto oa0

cn

O 50n8 40Ucz 30Z0cc0 20

U 10

0

..re 4

../

)THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

...015$94N.LEQ Q_XY/EN SATURATION

-1-

tI

OBSERVED DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILESEPTEMBER 7,1966 +

O awesCANAL

1 1 1 1 1 . 1 i

11,

5 2g PRESENT WASTE LOADS 13

ce.. . zi .39

ct

1 II 1

4 .°. z c,9,6 to d.id I I i zi .

1 Ili 1

i I

'FUTURE (YEAR 2000 -2020) WASTE LOADS

EZZZ2Z) RAW

85% REMOVAL

i I 1 G

.ii

120 .1.10 100 90 80, 70 60 50 40RIVER MILES ABOVE HUDSON RIVER

FIGURE 12. Major waste huts observed dissolved oxygen profile.

!i

en,

30 20

i

10 0

/

t

12'

II

I0

8

7

Z1" 6E00 5co

4

3

I

PHYSICAL INTEGRITY

1'

TEMP 20&CFLOW

IiiI UTICA.392 cfs6) LITTLE FALLS. 08 dm at! 2

0125 1 /120

. Row

115 11( 11.110c,51 100 95 1 90 f 85

a RNER MILES ABOVE HUDSON RIVER FRAMCFCRT MERMAIER1 MOMAINK

ILION

FIGURE 13. A (top): IAD5 profile, Rome to Little Falls. B (bottom): Dissolved oxygen profile, Rome to,Little Falls.

83

1

%_.

2g Cs 90

2,1

8 , Cs' e.rs

7SLUDGE

DEPOSITS)

0.125

ROME ,

r

120 I

1

10

Iskoon. cx Orisi,

RIVER MILES ABOVE HUDSON ravER,

ik

NO PORtFICAT/ON i

TEMP , 20'22' CFLOW

o UTICA 392 cfso LITTLE FALLS .0 8 ds/m2

, 78

...

1. 13i

FRA.MKR)RT HERMMER Urrl.E FALLS,MNAWK

. ILION

, : : .-...

79

I

80 THE INTEGRITY 0I WATER

2

BOTTOM OEMANO

INITIALsauciitorrcoNomoN/

cARs 8 NIT)

120 lb , 100 90 80,i

RIVER MILES ABOVE HUDSON RIVER

FIGURE 14. DO deficit distributions for individual components.

79,

rep

4

te

T

7

r

PHYSICAL INTEGRITY

Cs 815

1

./ 4.S k

I' . \ I;1

kkrnisn vasTE L0405

\1 / 'R \1. \1 ... . 5 \5% cokecte zs% .1"k

%%CANSO KITPR

--5'

tit CARSA a No nil

1 1

1 120 115 -)10 05 lac. 00 95 90

Av.( RIVER MLES,A8OVE HI.OSEN RIVER

.5

eo

g6

I 5

4

0125

Es 8 15

'"...... ..... 55% CAR% 0 Penn

... ---------- ..\ ------..... (

15% CARlip 0 MIR `N...!\ , ...-''' \

Iss.ftgcgum_tsitu.oca, N

C.

.5% ORR8R / A

S 25% MTN,

:-.. ........... .1 \sst

sssJ-4.--.0 , 1 i

1120 115 110 los 1 ;co ss so Ianpc.c 1./NA 111,40.FORT

1.0C.OVM

RIVER MLES ABOVE HUDSON FLYER ...".

1

\

Cs .815

7

r6

3

2

...

81

95% Wag :5 PATIN- ..........

\ 054 CAM * Mt%

20% NCIVALA,21151LLINg,I el it) ILA* OROANT FLOW \ 65% GRIMTWA.. WO "..,...25% MIRA: --ND SUVA 0[105115010 ALGAL

45 JTKA 23 41Qt LITTLe 84U.5 0 42 cI. /MC

*NO NITROXATOC41

°125 1120 15 110 051 100 95 901UTICA FRANKFORT

MORAN%

NO` RIVER MLES ABOVE HUDSON RIVER ucH

FIGURE 15. Dissolved oxygen profiles; projected waste treatmentupper Mohawk Rilier.

80

0,

0

er

82

8

THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

MOHAWK RIVER

N 3c

2

\20% INCREASE IN LOADSI .1 IN 10 YEAR DROUGHT PLOWI

ti mt a UTICA : 231 cfsa LITTLE FALLS 0 42 cfsoni2

I TEMP 259CSLUDGE DEPOSITS, NO ALGAE

* N NITRIFICATION.

01250

ro

115 110 105 100" 95,UTtCA 90 85 80RIVER MILES ABOVE HUDSON RIVER FRANKFoRT

FIGURE 16. Dissolved oxygen profile; Rome outfall relocated at miles point 120.

r

81.

.1,

. HERKIMERMOHAWK 'ILION .

p

-I(

PHYSICAL INTEGRITY 0 a

4

FIGURE 17. Map of Houston-Ship Channel and Galveston Bay.

82

O

4

two

1200

200

PHYSICAL INTEGRITY.

TYPCIIL F1.04 DISTRIBUTIONOCHER 15, *es

V

25 20 15 - 10

/ALES ABOVE MORGANS PONT

5 0

4

0II

I

20 :5 ID

ARES ABOVE PACRGANS Kta

FIGURE 19. Typical flow distribution and loading rate.

4

0

0

85

E 6

5>-

O 4.-0

0ie

1

0...4230 0,5+NOVEMBER 19,1968

TE.0 i6.-15°C

j e C500 (N500 4/4 i900) +13TR 0E1400

31z c1300+04500t 1/2ac 5001 4-8T IA DE/AMC.

C.1^,730 CPS

8ENTHICDEMAND

MILES ABOVE MORGANS POINT

FIGURE 20. Dissolved oxygen profiles, November and Decem.ber 1968.

84

4

,

§6

8

s

w 5x0 40

30Cn

(20 2()-

1

THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

Cs

025

d

Z 5

0X 4041 3

0(0 2

Er

o.300 CFS 500 CFS1

AUG 19.969o 31.-32°C

1. CBOD4-(N1300 o kC800) BTM DEMAND

II= C600+(N800.1/2 CBOD) +6Tm DEMAND

15 0 0

r

0.-.HOO'CFS

SEPT 23, i969)T= 29°C

3fa cI20 to <05

t

\a-1369 CFS

F 10 07NkTeYNro --"-,--:-----Weee--.-,(0,MILES ABOVE' MORGANS POINT 4,

FIGURE 1 Dissolved oxygen profiles, Auguit and September I1969.

'-t.°

3

4

12

11

10

F

w

Xo 6

O5

SO

4

e.s.t o too o -,tsocrtrs

T 30. C

SECONDARY TREAT IACNT

DISSOLVED OXYGEN SATURATION

,GOA Crs Ft.0* INCRESE

[500 GrS ,LOW NCREXSE

L.) rLOw AwlEN:aTip%

1.0

I

1 IS

_ ,10

MILES ABOVE MORGANS POINT

FIGURE 22.Projected dissolved oxygen profiles flow augmen-tation.

'85

4.

PHYSICAL INTEGRITY

LEGEND

NYCDPW STATIONS- USCE MODEL STATODNS

A- EXISTING TREATMENT -PLANTSA- PROPOSED TREATMENT PLANTS

----DRAINAGE AREAS.OP PLANTSf2223AREAS NOT PRESENTLY

SERVED BY PLANTS

87

=CUED 0' ENV FFVFILES al NEW rre9( /4 FIX0° X.x..fgerrs APEAVERAGE t FO?AtaiST 054

7BACXGROUNO

away) aripariom.. . .. _ )_ , _ 1NORTII/BYeR, c4Reavdceous

IDATION

14 16

c's4I

.1.-=B4C4GROUND

.-NITROCEN OXIDATIONINHJI

CARBONACEOUS

SCALE

0 1 2 3miles

FIGURE 23. Map of New York Harbor.

NARROWS

EAST RAO?

A

4!

0I 4 1 I 1

4 t3 10 '12

MILES FRAM

FIGURE 24. DO profiles and componen , average of Augustdata 1954-1965.

-

44

;

\

THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

W.41111,P''M grAlr,

f'

.101

Cm4R',..ES Pt.)RIVER

111

INNER HARE.OR-

A.A =STE DISCHARGELOCATION

G SLUDGE DISCHARGELOCATf(DN

CCMBNED SEWERCUTLETS

STORM YgTEROVERFLOWS

PEDoocKs )41.ISLAND

CLANCY SAY

N- ON tTtR

\I

FIGURE 25. Map of Boston Harbor.

87

MYSTIC RIvER

112

CHARLESRIVER

99

CHELSEARIVER

60

8:10

40

PtriSICAL INTEGRITY

40

2g

124]

I0

20

20

MOON HO.10

I

Li

DEERISLAN

(120ao

60

NUT .ISLAND

I0

0

e

iii

poi

I MICE

- 4

IIEPON SET

RIVER Fl

f

NOTE

40CALCULATED ISOPLETH,LOGARITHMIC MEAN OFOBSERVED DATA

wEvmairHALL VALUES ,IN 1000 MPN/ 100Mls ° FpiE RIVER

29 WEYMOUTHBACK RIVER

\do'

CURE 26.Total cbliform verificatIon, Summer 1967.

,88.

I)

a

ta0

4

ON

Ti ii INTEGRITY OF WATER

I MILE

CHELSEA'RIVER

#00,000

CHARLES, RIVER\ 44,000 :*

1F(1)

1 00012 301

DEERISLAND

I 000,I

A

MOON H

NUTISLAND

EP ON SETRIVER

r.

NOTE:,,

100 PLCULATED CONTOUR

LOGARITHMIC MEAN OFOBSERVED DATA

ALL VALUES IN MPN/I 00 ML

12 6 0 1

'WEYMOUTHBACK RIVER

WEYMOUTHFORE RIVER

FIGURE 27. Total coliform'vgrifidation, Summer 1969... ,

.i.

. . .

'89

t

I

L

b

4

I

PHYSICAL INTEGRITY

,DE.FRISLAND

imarni=1I MILE

91

Ii

MOON HD

7...s....:41,--,

l't'. EP .) 7.5 E ..

,cel RI A E R

4.40

NUTISLA'.1

N OTE

K r = LA',

2 CALCULATE:D CONTOUR

AFL VALUES IN MPN/I00 MLWE'YP.IOUTPAFORE RIVER

FYMOUTIIACK RR/VI

f. rN 9

FIGURE 28. Conform -distriliition, effect of DeerLandliat-I-effluents, Summer 1969.

90f

a

Y

92 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

CHELSEARiVER

RIVE'a,}

mccr. C

NUT.ISLANL

NCRoN SEAix!, k

NOTE

K r = 3/0AY

1000 CACULATED CONTOUR

ALL VALUES 1N MPN/IOO ML.,

4

k.EYMOUT14_Fi. RE FPjR

.

f:IGURE 29. Coliform distribution ,-eft of inner harbor loads, Summer 1969.

5

.

CHELSEAR I V ER

I MILE

93

(

Io

MOON HO

NUTISLAND

rmr.(7,71"ta...e2.

NOTE :

K r = 3/0AY

100 CALCULATED CONTOUR

ALL VALUES 1N MPN/IDO ML Ia

W E YMOUTH .FORE RIVER

WEYMOUTHBACK RIVER

t

FIGUnEr.-6oliform distribution, effect of Deer I and Nut I sludges, Summer 1969.

92

-a

A

1

94 THE INOGRITY OF WATER

.;,.

41°

NEW ...4YORK

CONNECTICUT

0

LONG ISLAND

174°

AMBROSE

00

30 FM

(.

'.-Ne

.1--..

,\

SCALE0 10 20 30

MILES

/55M

(

eI,

LEGEND:

D REDGE SP014.

0- CELLAR DIRT0- SEWAGE SLUDGE®- ACID WASTE*-T RE ATMENT PLANTOUT FALL

1720

I.

Sc

FIGURE 31. Map of New York Bight.

93

J

PHYSICAL INTEGRITY _

4.

95

FIGURE 32. New Bight: June stulacellrifter vectors.

944

c.

-1'Wr§,.7 .

as. -fr'Ir I

10

964.

THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

,

FIGURE 33.New York Bight: June surface drifter vectors.

4.

7

p

95

,

--

LEGEND

CSZI > 2 (% ORGANIC MATTER> 10% ORGANIC MATTER> 5% ORGANIC MATTER

N1/40XYGEN CONCENTRATION IN SLUDGE LAYER-*

98 THE 'INTEGRITY OF WATER

EFFLUENT CONCENTRATION mg N/ISurcOLK FLOW 94 MGONAaSAU FLOW 90 MGC

-1141

-

4E41c,

PO1404111II$0tal#141:TOTAL NITROGEN

BOTTOM--

FIGURE 35. Computed composite total nitrogen profiles.

974

FIGURE 36. Locationniap of proposed peripheral canal project.

100

GRIZZLY BAY

DIE INTEGRITY OF WATER

BENICIA

RIO VISTA---

SHERMANISLAND

SUISUN CHIPPSBAY ISLAND

r.7

MODEL BOUNDARY

ANTIOCH

FIGuRE 37. Location map of study area.

20,000

16,000

it 12,000

3 8,000

4,000 ;.".\

00 i20 240 360 120 240

ccr,, 800

(9.-->. 600

-Jzgo 400"T.,45 2 00W4Zet

360

20 240 360 120 240 3601966 TIME - DAYS 1967

FIGURE 38. San Joaquin River, Mossdale.

99:

BIGBREAK

.4

100.000

84000la

g 64000

z 44000125 24000

0.

116,000

2e 12,000

13,00010.O 4,000N0

PHYSICAL INTEGRITY

I '

120 240 360 120 240 360 JAN

40

30

o.5 to

20

4&

101

36C

1.0C.1 /2 a 8< (1)0 2CC

0 z 0.6

0. 4

0.2-

00 1201966

tFIGURE 39. iytoplankton, zooplankton, andJoaquin River, Mossdale.

240 360 120TIME - DAYS

2401967

zc

o

1,T

JAN

FEB '1AAR APR NAT .JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

5.

5

0;5

21,

2

0

So 0 00

o 9,- iFEB MAR APR MAY JUN AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

JAN FEB MAR AP NAN, JUN JUL SEP OCT NOV OEC

360 ..FIGURE 40. Phytoplankton, zooplankton, and nitrogen: Antioch

verification, 1966.nitrogen: San

1O

,

102

200

150

100

50

0J F M A1MtJ1 JtAISt01N D

7

THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

ANTIOCH AND SUISUN BAY

A. EFFECT OF INCREASED NUTRIENTS,1980LEGEND

-SUISUN-ANTIOCH

/966 FLOW

SUISUN

200

150

100

50

ANTIOCH

B. EFFECT OF DECREASED FLOWSASE /966

19,000efs,MINIMUMI/980 NUTRIENTS

awl No

1966 FL0111

LEGEND-ANTIOCH

cf el SHALLOW11"-- 000cfs AREAS17

.://71;*ppgggg

e......4.° e.o , , , ,JFMA'M'J"J'A'S' 0 I N'D

200

150

100

50

SUISUN. BAY

C. EFFECT OF INCREASED LIGHTLEGEND

. -SUISUN

1966 EXTINCTIONCOEFFICIENT

70% 1966 EXTINCTIONCOEFFICIENT

/

4

0 ,JFMA',MJJ'A

200

. 150

100

50

0

ANTIOCH

S 1 0 TIN I D

D EFFECT OF NITROGEN REDUCTION (80%TREATMENT) WITH 1966 FLOWS

J I F I M 1 A 1 M I J I J I A I S I OIN I D

FIGVRE 41.Effect of increased nutrients, decreased flow, in-creased light, and nitrogen treatment. ,

DISCUSSION .

ComMent: On the last example you showed,would there be any payoff on the regulation of theuse of fertilizer rather than treating afterwards?

Dr. O'Connor: I think so. I think it's an area to belooked at more. We didn't address that specifically,

but I would 'certainly say that would be one thatbe.

Comment: To what extent is it now becomingpractical to introduce aquaculture factors into thesetypes of equations, as in a case of physically 9-tracting nutrients that are in excess?

Dr. O'Connor: I see that as something. that'svery much in the forefront. I don't see it as some-thing that is practick immediately? but I supportthat development and I'm optimistic about it in therelatively near future.

I think we need a little more data bn it, specificdata, experiments, so we can see the data and then ,

we can model better.Comment: It seems to me that maybe there

needs to be more support of this`type of activity inthe United States. The Japanese are way ahead ofus. Consideringthe billions .of dollars that are goingto be spent on extraction of nutrients by sewagetreatment, it seems relatively modest amounts ofresearch might have a large payoff.

Dr. O'Connor: I subscribe to that 100 percent.Comment: That was a tremendous presentation.

A couple of thin0 came out that the group isstruggling with.zAat. about the integrity ofwater. I look at the integrity of my own body forinstance, and it isn't a perfect thing. My body hasintegrity but it's not perfect. Do you have anythoughts about water and its perfection or its ,

integrity?, I'm finding it difficult to describe theproblerif, but we can't have complete zero of any-thing and we can't have complete perfection. Whatwe have is something in between. I wonder if youcould speak for a Minute to that kind of proposition,

Dr. O'Connor: I'd like tq%speak about an hour onthat kind of pro Ton. I don't know really how "much more I earl say'. I do respond to the spirit ofyour que4tion. /, 1/4

I think all of us,-when we read the law, and evenspeiffically our requests to appear here, we allasked ourselves more deeply, what we mean by theintegrity. And I submit,, it's basically a philosophi-cal question, and maybe even a moral one

I haven't got an answer, I keep looking for it. Ithink in some of the things I said I tried to address .

what nature is; it has bad parts and good parts. Welook at it through jaundiced eyes; we assume wehave the perfect vision.

It's good that optimism has pervaded our west-ern culture for a good number of years. The east-erners are much more realistic about it. I don'tknow what we can learn from them.- I am trying to say that given that, you alWays

strive for these ideals. Maybe sometimes we strivetoo hard, or too high. Maybe they're good to have, rbut maybe we can regard them as ideals.

101

PHYSICAL INTEGRITY

The final point, which I think follows, is that weinterpret this in a pragmatic or enforcing way aszero discharge.

There's :a certain point that we talk about inagricniture, a natural cycling of materials. There'ssome point where we can leave inssome 'nitrogenand phosphorus. Do we really' want to dischargesterile waters to our natural system?

I don't think that is in accord with what I observeas a natural law. So things like nutrients, and to 'acertain degree TDS, should be naturally recycled.That is part of zero discharge of pollutants but thatdoesn't mean distilled water.

On the other side are the synthetic compoundsthat industry is continuously manufacturing. Theyhave to be reevaluated much more significantly, asI know some are, so they can break down to providesome of the basic nutrients.

That addresses the issue. I know it doesn't an-swer the question.

Comment: I think it opens up what is a pollutant?And we just go from one problem to another.

,Dr. O'Connor: Exactly. When we think in termsof recycling, it's apparent that zero discharge is notpart of it. The law is a little ambiguous that way, itwas written from that point of view, the idea of anatural cycling of materials, to which I think, byand large, everynne subscribes.

It automatically follows therefore, that there's nozero discharge that will be going through recycling.If we don't recycle onto the water then we're goingto recycle onto the land. Maybe that was what wepresupposed.

I think the water has to be nourished just as theland has to be nourished. It's balanced. We're not atthe stage of saying what the balance is, but IO,doagree with you.

Comment: In Texas you showed a significantamount of pollution appeared, and you ordered theoxygen 'pro4ile for the channels in question. I wascurious to know if we can infer from that thatlow-ering of the amount of deoxygenating waste in thestream can occur without the stream flow showingsMiilar effects?

What I am trying to get at is: are there somekinds of stream channels, particularly in canal sys- ;tams, which are so limited in their reaeratingcapacity that we have a limited return on our[waste treatment] investment?

Dr. O'Connor: Yes. I respond to your questionpositively. That's about it. The significant inputofthe San Jacinto, is that what you're -thinking of?Where that comes in, you would have expected amore pronounced influence in dissolved oxygen.

That is due- to two reasons. One you alluded to,the 'artificial deep channel there 30 or 40 ket.,

103

When you start to do things like that, there's apoint of no return.

I think they would be better off in many waysin the future, we can think more in terms of 20-footchannels. There are limits on exact relationships,and they may, economically and ecologically, bebest.

The second factor is that the tidal influence is abalance between the tidal effects and the fresh-water effects. Perhaps it's not too specific, but, yes,your first point is properly taken.

Comment: You made the statement that a modelis.just a planning tool. We're now using a model as aregulatory tool in many areas. What kind of successdo you expect we'll haye if challenged in the courts?Will the court underStand what we've done, whatkind of success we expect in this area?

Dr. O'Connor: That's a good question. We talkabout all the disadvantaged people in our society, Ithink some of the most disadvantaged are thejudges. Can you imagihe what they're faced with,with these court actions? You're going tonne up allthe experts in the world, regardless of what side-they're on, and how does te poor judge get thisunraveled?

I think what we have to do, and I hope I'm an-swering your question, but I think what we have todo with groups like ourselves, regardless of whomwe represent, is to offer our services to the judge.There should be a third facet" to evaluate these twothings.

Our system was structured on the governmentbalancing industry.'Say they are unbalanced, howdo you side between these two? I think we haveto structure another facet 'that gives advice tothe judge.

That advice would take on the evaluation as towhat :degree, first, how representative are those,whatever the issue might be. That is, has the man.extracted4`the relevant features."

Second question: what degree has been cali-brated and validated. And then how far are we car-rying that extrapolation? Are we really taking it,are we close to it?

These would be the criteria by which, and I be-lieve having had the experience, 'that Californiawork-was a public hearing, and in essence it was acourt case, the local people took the Department ofWater Resources to court, and we represented theDepartment in that case. Five men heard the case,and there was only ene with technical training.

It took a longtime to describe this, but' it didwork, and I think it can work, if judges are thattype. But, having had that experience, I do sup-popt, strongly, that the judge should have a muchgreater budget available for his own evaluation,

102

I

104

instead of getting this contradictory evidence fromtwo experts. That's the difficult part, but I think itcan work.

Comment: Do you have any doubts on loweringthe phosphorus level and the validation'of that?

Dr. O'Connor: I indicated in this last project thatI was only looking at nitrogen. The reasoh beingthat phosphorus was plentifully available from thenatural input. There's phosphorus mining and it's in

/the ground water. And the' phosphorus levels werefar in excess of the saturation contents. In a num--bei of other systems, however, the phosphoruslevel can be the limiting factor, as it appears to be,to some degree, in the Great Lakes system.

What's simpliitic about what you just suggested,and I think maybe you realize it, is that really it's aproduct of those two nutrienta andolaybe, everyother., Whatever form that particular equationtakes, the growth coefficient in these equations has

o to reflect,in A product fashion, a nonlinear fashion,the concentration of all the relevant nutrients.

Consequently, and, you know the type of curvethat is usually used, so_ we can fall up and dOwn thatthing, to call something limiting is very deceiving.Any place-along that curve,there are combinations.In our recent work in Lake Ontario, at one time ofthe year phosphorus was limiting, in the-sense thatit was below the curve, and in the fall, the latterpart of the summer, it was nitrogen.

I'm #ery wary of the "let's remove all th? phts- ,

phoru's" because of good qualitative reasons. Butwe're dealing with nonlinear systems, and that'swhy, in general, I'd be very leary of any such state-ment that this or that is limiting. Did I address thequestion?

Comment: In relation to that, we have algae inthe stream, and we're attributing that to phos-phorus.

TIC INTEGRITY OF WATER

Dr. O'Connor: Does the field data bear, that outtoo? I would still try to validate a model for thatsystem, before I moved in that direction.

Comment: Talk about your efforts in the so-calledeutrophication models and studying them to suchan extent that you really understand the system.There are a couple of empkically-based models, ifyou want to c'a11 them that, that are sort of blackbox approaches, empirically-derived relationshipson observed data. Is that the kind of thing you seecoming forth?

Dr. O'Connor: I 'would hope .so, btit from myunderstanding of the phenomenon involved now,'Ithink perhaps they are too simplistic. They wereexcellent first steps in'giving some understanding,but, in that case, I think the direction has beenoversimplification

It is a limiting situation, and we:inkreporting onthis in the near future, my colleagues and myself, toshow that this'approach fits into what we are doing,and td indicate that it is a limiting situation.

Thai's why, when you try to correlate data to thisapproach, you see the usual scatter problem. It'sthe right idea, but too simple, as I see it. That's arather qualitative opinion. ).

Comment: There is a m* 0 data,, based onstudies designed to apply that. The working papersare coming out, and a lot of them fall pretty muchinto the model, as proposed.

'Dr. O'Connor: It's like using any goOd .pieceofinformation. Use tit within the limits fbr which itwas constructed. These are reasohable guides, but,maybe because I've gone the other route, -I'm waryof them. Maybe Lhaven't got the totally unpreju-diced eye:

Comment:One thing, I'm not too sure of thelimits of the 'approach, and if they have been welldefined. The original work is rattier large.

-

.

103

o

.2;

EFFECT OF PHYSICAL- FACTON WATER- QUALITY

DONALD R. F. HARLEMAN;Ford Professor of Engineering'Director, R. M, Parions Laboratory

for Water Resources and HydrodynamicsDepartment d Civil Engineering

; Massachusetts Institute of Technology'

,

INTRODUCTION

The, most important physical factor affecting thewater quality of a natural water body into whichwastes are discharged. is the state of motion of thereceiving water. Waterways, whether they belakes, reservoirs, rivers, estuaries, or the oceansare seldom stationary except for relatively short

periods of time. Furthermore, the act of discharg-ing a waste will in itself produge motion by jet diffu-

sion. Motion of the 'receiving water -may also begenerated by gravitational forces, wind stress atthe 'water surface, astronomical. tidal forces, oratmospheric pressure variations, The resultingPlow is affected by frictional-forces producing turbu-lence and dispersive'mixing processes. Density var-iations caused by gradients of Water temperature,suspended, Sediments, or dissolved salts may aug-ment orhhider the shear-induced mixing processes.Thus, distributions of temperature, salinity, and

solids are important physical factors 'affectingwater quality ,both through their ilifluence on thetransport 'processes and, by their 'effect On bio-chemical transformation rates.

The improvement and control of water quality ina.natural water body such/as a river or estuary canbe achieved by intelligent regulation-of municipalandlindustrial waste discharges. Waste treatmenttechniques by chemical and biological processes arehighly developed, and while it is technically possi-

ble to approach "zero discharge" of wastes, in mostcases it is neit r necessary nor economically feasi-

ble to do so. The 'rtati engineering decisions in

water quality co rol relate to the determination of

the level of was e treatment that is consistent withthe multiple uses of natural water bodies. This im-plies the ability to forecast or predict the responseof the river or estuary to future increasesin invest -

,'ment in waste treatment fatilities. -

The prediction by mathematical or physical

4

442

m el of effects and benefits in advance of the ctm-

str cti t n of a facility, is the essence of engineering.Phyeica models are of limited use in water qualitystudies cause of the difficulty of simulating bio-chemical reaction processes at reduced temporaland spati. scales. Within the last decade engineersand plann rs have made increasing use of mathe-matical m 'els for planning purposes. The objec-tive of this aper is to present. some recent develop-

ments ant' future research directions for

mathematic models for water quality control and

to illustrate he important coupling between physi-cal factors, r: 'resented by hydrodynamic transportprocesses,. a d biochemical .wate quality pararn-eters.

The models used for illustration were developedat MIT over the past 5 years. Since this paper is notintended to be a state-of-the-art review or a cri-tique of various modeling approaches and solutiontechniques, thellack of reference to comparablemodels develope by other investigators is justifiedonly in the intere t of breVity.

STRUCTURE 0 WATERQUALITY MODE S

20?

All mathematic Models are approximations, invarying degrees, if the natural processes whichthey attempt to re p resent In a deterministic man-ner. In an ecosyste ,as complex as a river or anestuary there are large number of possible ap-proximations withi the conceptual framework ofsimulation models. ny' water quality model con-taining a number Of ' ate constants" can bemade to

agree with field da a by the familiar process of

curve-fitting. Howev r, there is no guarantee that

,a particular model I give valid results when used

in a predictive role. I is Important that the User ordeveloper of a water tialjty model have the ability

105

106THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

ADVECTIVE TRANSPORT PROCESSES

In general, the transport processes are unsteady,therefore the advective terms which describe theflow field must be determined by simultaneous

.solution of the continuity and momentum equa-tions. The governing equations for one-dimensionalflow in a variable area channel are:

the continuity equation3 A + a Q

q-Tr 63-cand

the longitudinal momentum equationa

(AU) +a

(QU) = gA a hat ax ax

to analyze the structure of the model-and to judgethe validity of basic assumptions.

Various strategies can be identified for structr-lug mathematical models,' of aquatic ecosystems.Table 1 identifies thre asic Wes of models:

Table 1.Type of model Organizing principle Causal pattern Measure

Biodemographicmodels

BioenergeticmodelsBiogeochemica1models

Conservation ofspecies or ofgeneticinformationConservation ofenergyConservation ofmass

Life cycles Numbers ofindividuals orof species

Energy flow Energycircuits powerElement Mass ofcycles elemental

matter

. Fisheries management models usually belong tothe class of biodemographic models, as they areconcerned with particular species and the processesthat affect their numbers, such as birth, death, har-vesting, and competition. Bioenergetic models areconcerned with energy-flow, energy-storage, andenergy-dissipation processes simultaneously cou-plin ' ecological and environmental components.

M st. water quality engineering models fall intothe c tegory of, biogeochemical models. They em-ploy he principle of conservation of Mass to de-tenni 'e the distributions of dissolved- oxygen,nutrie ts, and biomass by the coupling of hydrody-namic transport and biochemical transformationproces s. The remainder of the discussion Will beconcerned with'biogeochemical mckels as applied towater quality control in estuaries.

BIOGEOCHEMICAL WATERQUALITY MODELS

The hydrodynamic aspects of an estuary are thetransport processes which include the.advection,mixing, and d,ispersion of specific, constituents inWaste effluents. In addition, these constituents aresubjected to vattious transfprmation or reactionprocesses leading to their' production and/or decay':Transport processes are relatively independent, orat least insensitive, to the characteristics of thewastes introduced into a waterway. The trans-formation processes,on the other hand, depend onboth the transport procesSes and on the interactionor coupling of sonstituents of the total waste load.

The essential features of biogeochemical modelsmay be illustrai4d by considering the one-dimensional formulation in which cross-sectionalareas, velocities, and concentrations are, functionsof longitudinal distanced x, and time, t.

where

Q

Ag. JC=Rb

=

An,gAde a p (2)

p ax

distance along longitudinal axistimeelevation of water surface with respectto a horizontal dad=cross-sectional dischargelateral inflow per unit length of channelaverage cross-sectional velocity in thechannel, = Q/Aacceleration of gravitycross-sectional area of channelChezy roughness coefficienthydraulic radius of channeldensity of waterdistance from surface to centroid of the-cross section

The last term in equation (2) represents theeffect of a longitudinal density gradient. This termis significant only within the salinity intrusionregion of estuaries. Boundary conditions must be

'specified (either water surface elevation, h, or dis-charge; Q) at the upstream and downstream sec-tions of the river or estuary being modeled. Thesolution of equations (1) and (2) can be obtainednumerically 13y means of finitp-difference schemesas desCribed by Harleman and Lee? The solutionrequires the specification of initial codditions far hand Q and advances in time in accordance with thevalues of the time varying botindary conditions.

CONSERVATION OF MASS

The basic components of blogeochemical waterquality models are statements of conservation ofmass. Essentially the model consists of a segue ce

105

1

PHYSICAL:.

of conservation of mass e- q uations, one for eachwater quality constituent.

The one - dimensional, conservation of mAss equa-tion may be written in the following form:

aat (ACJ + iQC) =

ax

a

where

a' ac).ax ax

I, 4*-

INTEGRITY107

In equation (4), the last term represents a source

of the external type, i.e, e the net 'rate at whirr heatis :transferred across the water surface tly the corn,bined processes of long -and short-wave radiation,

k...."aporation, and convection.Examples of the simultaneous solution of equ l-

tions (1), (2)', and (4) to find.T = ftx,t) using nu-merical techniques are given by Harleman, Brocardand Najarian:2 In rivers and in theliniform densityportion of estuaries (not including the salinity intru-sion region), the longitudinal dispersionferns' ineqUations (3) and (4) is of secondary importance.Values of the longitudinal dispersion coefficient ill,rivers and estuaries znay be estimated on the basisof the work of Holley, Harleman, and Fischer.'

+ A (-11 + (3)

C = concentration of a water qualityconstituent (averaged over the crosssection)

= longitudinal dispersion coefficient= time rate of internal addition of mass of

substance C per unit volume by transfor-mation r reaction processes

= time ra of external addition of mass ofsubstan e C per unit volume by additionof subst nce across the lateral, free sur-face an bottom boundaries of the sys-tem.

Etri

rThe hydrodyna c variables Q or LI, and h or ,-

obtained by solu on of equations (1) and (2) arebasic inputs to the transport terms on the left-handside of equation 4) . The longitudinal mixing proc-

ess is represent:, by the first term on the right-hand side and the internal and external "iourtes" or"sinks" of the p. ic4lar water quality constituent,epresented by , are contained in the last term.

Many transformation processes are dependent on4

the local tern rature (T) and/er salinity (S) of thewater and it convenient to determine T = f(x,t),

and S f ,t). as static iiariabled defining thewater en onment. T e quantity ecT representsthe conce tration of heft per u it volume of water.Therefo e with C = ecT, equa ion (3) can be,writ-ten as conservation of heat eq ation:

at x(AT) + (QT) = 0

tax

where

8 T b--]ax pc

(4)

= 'water temperature= time rate of net heat input per unit area

of water surfacewater surface width(density) (specific heft of water)

1

b ' =pc -3

10

In estuaries where salinity,fritrusion occurs, long:itudinal dispersion becomes ap important factor inthe overall mixing process. This is due to the gravi-tational circulation induced by. the freshwater-seawater density difference. TYne conservationequation for salinity is given by:

(Asl'+ (QS) --{a-P--at ax

=a-a

xAE

axI (5)

where

S = salinitylongitudinal dispersion coefficient in thesalinity intrusion region

Equation (5 is an example of a "conservative"conservation of mass equation; in general, there areno internal or external sources of salinity except atthe ocean boundary. Thatcher. and Harlemani usenumerical techniques to solve equations (1), (2), and(5) to find S f(x,t). They use a dispersion, rela-tionship in which Ei., is a function of the local long(itudinal salinity gradient and the degree of verticalmixing in tiie estuary. Applications to unsteadysalinity distributions, in the Hudson, Delaware,and Potomac estuaries under time-varying fresh-water inflo'wS are given.

TRANSFORMATION I5ROCESS

CBOD-DO MODELSHistorically, water quality models. have empha-

sized the importance'of dissolved oxygen (DO) asthe primary in licator of water quality. The earliestand most elem entary example of a transformationprocess, within the framework of biogeochemicalmodels, is the concept of carbonaceous biochemicaloxygen-demand CBOD). This Class of models, has

its origin in the ater quality studies otf Streeterand Phelps begi ning-about 1925. The coupling be-

,

108 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER .

tween the set of cattservation of mass equations forCBOD and DO is illustrated by the following formsof equation (3):

Conservation of-CBOD:_where

a (AL) + --a-- (QL) = (AE, a ofat ax ax ax

K,AL (6)0

where

L = ultimate carbonaceous biocheinicAl oxy-gen demand (CBOR)

K, = CBOD decay coeffia n

Conservation of DO:

a [A(DO)) ÷ a [Q (DO)) = aax

K,AL

at ax

where

-* DO =DO, =

[AEA a (Do)]ax

+ KA [D DO) (74

concentration of dissolved oxygesaturation concentration of doxygensurface reaeration coefficient

olved

The elementary-doupling arises from the fact t tthe solution ofpquation (6), L = f(x,t), appearsequation (7) as theanternal decay term for dissolvoxygen. Dailey and Harleman 6 have developednumerical methods for simultaneous solution- ofequations (102), (4), (5), (6), and (7) in estuarinenetworks of one-dimensional channels.

The fundamental limitations of the CBOD - DOclass' of models are Well known and will not be dis-cussed in detail. It is sufficient to say that It isessentially impossible to ,aggregate biogeochemicaltransformation processes within the concept ofCB,OD as A primary water quality constituent. Inaddition, dissolved oxygen is not a sufficient waterquality indicator in that it provides no informationon the state of eutrophication and the possibility. of

blooms.The a plication of modern waste treatment tech-

nology emands decisions on the removal of inor-ganic utrients4 in addition to the conventionalremov of oxygen-demanding organic materials.The qt stions of what to remove and how much to

8

remove are fundamental to intelligent design andinvestment decisions. on the treatrhent of wastesprior to discharge into an`adjacent river or estuary.These questions can only be answered by waterquality models that are capable of predicting theeadhp'cal response of the, waterway to increasedlevels of treatment. It ,is clear that future researchefforts in water quality modeling and field data col,lection should be directed to the modeling of trans-.formation processes within the element cycles of anaquatic ecosystem.

TRANSFORMATION PROCESSES'NUTRIENT MODELS

Current efforts in water quality modeling areattempting to deal with problems of eutrophicationby assuming that aquatic ecosystems are composedof coupled conservation of mass equations (Quin-,Ian): A one-dimensional, real-time, biogeochemicalmodel for an aerobic, nitrogen-limited estuarineecosystem subject to domestic sewage loadings hasbeen developed by Najarian.° The proposedestuarine water quality model attempts to followthe path taken by nitrogenous nutrients (in theirvarious forme) based on the prespt knowledge ofelement cycles in aquatic ecosystems. In contrast tothe simple 'CBOI). - DO model, the nitrogen modelrepresents vartms forms of organic apd inorganicnitrogen which are the potential sourceeof eutto-phic activity.

The dynamic estuarine nitrogeh cycle model con-sists of a closed matter flow lobp' having sevenstorage variables and twelve transformations of theelement nitrogen from one storage_form to anotheras shown in Figure 1. The chosen storage and trans-formation processes represent physical, chemical,and biological forms of nitrogen. The hypothesizedstructure pf the model is sophisticated enough tosimulate nitrogen-limited eco system/dynamics, yetit is simple enough to be amenable to computations.

he seven storage, variables include ammonia-N,trite N, nitrate-N, phytgplqnkton-N, zooplank-

-N, particulate organic-N, and dissolved or-icvN. 'The biochemical and ecological transfor-ions include nitrification, uptake of inorganic'ents by autotrophs,, grazing of heterotrophs;

nia regeneration by living cells, lysis ande of organic matter througIrceN walls., natu-th of microorganisms and amfrionification.nsformation rates are functions of nutrient

concen ations and available energy in the form ofheat 4tul light.

To explore the dynamics of the closed nitrogenelement cycle the proposed sevenadariable model isapplied to the batch or chemostargyptem shown in

107

N7

° 1(1'67'16/

4

issu .oac.ANIC-NN

6

Firlsiels.4,INTEGRrry ,

oIP'4)(

1)1N7

!SINS

4

t / I

t IIt 1 N

4N5

0.14...5 R4+N4\"fLANEICti-N ." PITTOPLANKTCH-N

.NS

Nf

._ATONIA-N

N1 4

.A.

I

:16

' NITRITE-1

N200.191r.

14

a

I -

FIGURE 1. Nitro : cycle structure in aerobic aquatic ecosystems.

.

Figure 2. The set of seven mass conse equa- dN, N,N, N,N,

tions for the chemostat, obtained from nation (3) 4 = "IS

(with 3C/3x = 0) are liited below.-The assumed Kl+N, 1(34.N3 Ki+Ni

expressions for each of transformation rates are .4%shown on the id", id arrows in Figure 1. The dottedlines indicate the information transfer necessary todetermine the rates of matter flows.

/ I4

R N.,23 2

NITRATE-NN3.

/Al

.34 1303

9.

.....41TransforsattoiDirection'lynctIon

16InfornationTransfer

NI = RI, N4+ R31113* RIIN7 RI2Niat

y R,NIN,,

(QIV) (N.31N1) '4K1+N,-

(8)

dN2 R23N2 (Q/v)4(N°2-112) (9)

dN, N,N1R2 115544--=-A+ (Q/V) (N°3N,) (10)dt .,±N

+ R.+ R.), M,

(Q/V) (N°."'!N.)

dN, N.143 (Rt.+dt K,+N,

(QN,) (N°5--N5)

1.c1,dt

+ (Wir) (N",N,)

dN7 =1147N4+11)37No RnN7dt -

+ (Q/V) (NctiN7)

108

6

(13)

110'

Valve

INPUT °

F; ow

Conc. :

where

Q

No1 "'""

N0

No3

No4

N.°5

No6

No7

THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

Stirrer

1,11'N2 '

coo

,N ,N6'N7

Valve

Q = 0 Boundaries Closed to matter flow-Q 0 Boundaries Open to matter flow

FIGURE 2. Batch and chemostat systems.

N, = concentration of NH, N, mg/1N, = concentration of NC),_ N, mg /1N3 = concentration of NOt N, mg/1N, = concentration of phytoplankton-N, mg/1N, = concentration of zooplankton-N, mg/1N5 = concentration of particulate 'organic-N,

mg/1NI = concentration of dissolved organic-N,

mg/1N°, = concentration of ith nitrogen-cycle stor-

age variable in the influent discharge,mg/1 (i =1,2, . . . 7) .

K= half saturation constant for NH, -N, mg/13 = half saturation constant/or NO3-Nong4-

K, = half saturation constant for phyto4,mg/1transformation rate from ith storagevariable to jth storage variable,-1/day

Q = rate of inflow and/or outflow, ft3/dayV = volume of the container, ft

Equations (8), - (14) are applicable to 1?atch andchemostat systems. However, the, exfernal sourceterms (Q/V) (N°1-N,) are zero in batch systems. Theanalysis of the system equations reveals that theformulated structure of the nitrogen-cycle model isa.closed mat, er flow loop with no leaks. Indeed, for

OUTPUT

Pim? : ,Q

Conc. : N1,

N2

N3

N4

N5

6

tr7

every positive internal source term there -exists anidentical negative internal sink term in the set of

,- system equations. This reciprocity of the source/sink terms i.4 in accord with the principle, of mass'conservation applied to.a closed-loop element cycle.

The expressions which desCribe the rate of trans-formation processes are of two types: first order

reaction kinetics in the form of dN= Ft,,N, or sat-

uration kinetics in the form of a hyperbolic expres-

sion . Data in the literature show ,dt

that transformation rates that relate to nutrient-uptake by primary producers or predators usuallyfollow saturation kinetics. These process rates areall temperkfire-dependent. Uptakerates also vary-with the intensity of solar radiation.

BATCH SYSTEM

fhe response behavior of the nitrogen cycle in abatch system is determined by (a) the initial con-centrations of the storage variables and,, (b) the

"assumed transformation rate parameters.- At alltimes the total amount of nitrogen in the system isequal to the sum of initial copcentrations of ele-mental nitrogen in its various storages, i.e.,

To 9

PHYSICAL INTEGRITY111

response characteristics of structures that assumequadratic or linear expressions for ecological pro- ,cess rates. Rate -govt rning parameters used inequations (8) (14) are given in Table 2. Thesevalues arfstwithinetherange of yalues reported inthe literature.

14;(t) = N, (15)

i=1 1=1

where N, = concentrations of nitrogen-cyclestorage variables a'any time t, mg/1

Nr = initial concentrations of nitro-gen-cycle storage yariables at timet= 0, g/1 .

The constraint equation 11.5), implies that the Qterm in the syStem governing equations is equal tozero.

The response analysis of the nitrogen model in abatch system is shown in Figure 3. The analysisreveals that the structured model exhibits a limit-cycle behavior. Such a behavior is characterized by'inherent undamped oscillations in the cycle..Thesesustained oscillations are the. result of the assumedhyperbolic expressions for the uptake of nutrientsby the biota. Quinlan (1975) discusses in detail the

Table 2.Transformation rate parameters.

ft12 = 0.20/dayAl, = 2.0/day (light }ours); 0.10 (dark hours)R22 = 0.25/dayR = 1.0/day (light hours); 0.051darkhours),R = 0.01/day

:= 0.07/day (light hours); 1.50 (dark hours)= 0.03/day= 0.03/day

Rsi = 0.01 /dayR = 0.10/day

= 0.30/day11.71 = 0.30/dayK, = 0.3 ppm-NK3 = 0.7 pptntNK, = 0.5 ppm-N

L1ZC.:2 'U

D. 4

.

lopra,

TIME IN HOURS

FIGURE 3. Limit-cycle response of a _batch system with closed boundaries .(0= 0) (1- NH3 -N; 2-NO2-N; 3-NO3-N; 4-PhYto-a;

5-Zoopl-N; 6-Part. Organic-N.; 7-DNv.Organic-N),

3000

110Vic

e',. 112

THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

CHEMOSTAT SYSTEM

Figure 2 shows the chemostat system with masstransfer across the physical boundaries of the sys-tem-The mass conservation principle requires thatthe following constraint equation be satisfied:

.

7 7 t . 7

/, N, (t) = . / N7 ± f Ii=1 i=1 i=1

' - N, (0} -19 dt

,,, :,

The response analysis of the nitroge,n cycle in achemostat system is shown in Figures 4, and 5.These analyses reveal additional 'system structurecharacteristics:

(16)

0.e

(i) When elemental nitrogen In one or moreof its storage forms is1 continuously addedand removed froin the chemostat, thelimit-cycle behavior disappears and adamped oscillation develops. Figure . 4shows the response of the chemostat withidentical 'system rate transformationparameters as for the batch system'shown

... in Figure 3. The residence time of thesystem is assumed to be 15 days, i.e., V/Q,.=15. . ,

(ii) The forced damping of the chemostatsystem oscillations is dependent on themagnitude of the assumed modulatingparameters. If the half saturation con-centrations K K., and K, are reduced to50 percent of their originally assumedvalues, a new dynamic response of the.sygtem is observed as shown in Figure 5. .

I I I I

0. 1

0.. 00 200 400 1000 1200 1400 ,1600 180.0 2000

TIME IN HOURS

FIGURE 4. Dynamic response of a chemostat system with open boundaries (1- NH3-N; 3-NO3-N; 4-Phyto-N; 5-Zoopl-N); K, =0:3;1(3.0.7; K4=0.5.

I

';.

111 7

4.

10.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

20.3

ciz

0.2

0.1

0.00

. t

PHYSICAL INTEGRIT* 113

VAne,tstif.

200 400 600 .800

TIME IN,I4OURS

1

1000 1206 1400 1600 1800

FIGURE 5. Dynamic response of a chemostat system with open boundaries (1-NH3-N; 3-NO3 -N; 4-Phyto-N; 5-Zoopl-N); K1= 0.15;K3=0.35; K4

POTOMAC ESTUARY.

The most dramatic evidence of the effect of phys-ical factors on water quality comes from the appli-cation of the nitrogen cycle model to an actual,/estuary. The tidal motion and longitudinal mixingprocesses in an estuary are highly variable both intime and space; in addition, the diurnalight-darkcycle is out of phase With the lunar tidal fycle.Najarian and Harlemane have demonstrated theapplication of the nitrogen cycle model to thePotomac Estuary from the head of the tide nearChain Bridge to the junction with Chesapeake Bay,a distance of 114 miles. A period of 19 tidal cycles(about 10 days) was chosen for the simulation run.Waste treatment, plat loadings in the 'upper 30miles of the dstuary were included, the major con-tribution being the Blue Plains waste treatmentfacility. The model calculates the tidal ikotion bymeans of the continuity and momentum equations,(1) And (2). Temperature and salinity can be deter-mined from equations (4) apd (5) and coupled to theseven nitrogen conservation of mass equations in

the form of equation (3). Time steps of the order of30 minutes were used for- the calculations withspatial increments ranging from 1,000 to 10,000 feet'in length.

Time histories of the seven nitrogen variablesduring the 10-day run are shown in Figures 6, 7,and 8 at a location 2_ miles below the Blue Mains,waste treatment facility. Of interest is the largevariability of many of the water quality parameterswithin a tidal period. This characteristic, which re-sults from a coupling of the hydrodynamic tport and the biochemical transformations, sug eststhat a re-evaluation of traditional estuarine field

data collection techniques is necessary. More atten-tion must be given. to determining the temporalvariations of constituents at fixed locations.

Obviously .much more is known about hydrody-namic transport processes than is known about bio-chemical' processes. Because of this it is importantthat water quality models incorporate correcttransport processes so as to avoid obscuring furtherunderstandiniN the complex _biochemical trans-formations.

112

114

0S

0CV

g

zoccz

ergO

O

0CV

00Cb 00

I

REACH':

3.

THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

NO3-N

fr..{111V

SO. 00 030.00 2110.00 320.00 soo.00 sao.cro .550.00. 540.00TIME IN SECONDS N10'

FIGURE 6. NO2 -N and NO3-N variations 2 miles downstream of Blue Plains; July 16-24,1969.

NO N

Nil3-N

-d PI

0.

o oN 3.

O;

0.N 0.0

ozo0.-

'142. Z

O

O

O

OO

O720.00 abo.00 ee8.00

REFERENCES

1. Harleman, D. R. F., and C. H. Lee. 1969. The computation oftides and currents in estuaries and canals. TechnicalBulle-tin No. 16. Committee on Tidal Hydraulics, U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Miss. See also D. R. F.Harleman and M. L. Thatcher, 1973, A user's manual,Appendix A.

2. Harleman, D. R. F., D. N. BroCar- d, and T. 0. Najarian. 1972.A predictive model fdr transient temperature distributionsin unsteady flows. Technical Report No. 176. Ralph M.Parsons Laboratory for Water Resources and Hydrody-namics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cam-bridge.

8. Holley, E. R., D. R. F. Harleman, and H. B. Fischer: 1970.Dispersion in homogenous estuary flow. ProceedingsASCE 96 (HY8).

4. Thatcher, M. L., and D. R. F. Harleman. 1972. A =the-mstical model for the prediction of unsteady salinity intru-sion in estuaries. Technical Report No. 144. Ralph M. Par-sons Laboratory for Water Resources andllycirodynamics,Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.

5. Thatcher, M. L., and)). R. F. Harleman, 1972. Prediction ofunsteady salinity intrusion in estuaries: mathematicalmodel and user's manual. Technical Report No. 159. RalphM. Parsons Laboratory for Water Resources and Hydrody-

.

Or

21Na

oz10UJtir

CC

OZcY

O8

08

O0

F.

namicsl Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cam-bridge.

6. Dailey, J. E., and D. R. F. Harleman. 1972. Numerical modelfor the prediction of transient water quality in estuarynetwor*. Technical Report No. 158. Ralph M. ParsonsLaboratory for Water Resources and Hydrodynamics,

usetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.7. Quin! , A. V. 1975. Design and analysis of mass con-

servative models of aquatic ecosystems. Ph.D. Thesis,Massachuietts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.

. 8. Najarian, T. 0., and D. R. F. Harleman. 1975. A nitrogencycle water quality model fbr estuaries. Technical ReportNo. 204. Ralph M: Parsons Laboratory for Water Re-sources and Hydrodynamics, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology, Cambridge.

DISCUSSION

Chairman Ballentine: Who prepared the bio-chemical models that you preSented here? Is thisanother member of your team at MIT?

Dr. Harleman: Yes. I'm very sorry that I didn'tverbally acknowledge the important contribution oftwo of my students. Dr. Alician Quinlan did much of

113

MP

..t

00

6-

66"

e`ta)L.

on

D 6"

oN

3.0e

REACH

PHYSICAL INTEGRITY

PHYTO-N

ZOOPL-N

A

.ee

114

0

aa.oaco

o Zino .a_Oao )

V'47

-6

80.00 160.00 240.00 320.00 400.00 480.00 S60.00 640.00. 720.00 800.00 .0118.00

TIME IN SECONDS sip'

FIGURE 7. -Phyt7o-N and Zoopl-N variations 2 miles dmvnsfreamof Blue Plains, July 15-24, 1969. 1

the fundamental, work relating to the structure ofthis type of modeling and the sensitivity and iors-tern responses as a function of the parameter rela-tionships.

Anoth* student, Tay-it-Najarian, has taken thisgeneral structure and applied it to some of theestuarine processes that I have shown. They areboth Ph.D. theses and are available as technical,reports of the Ralph M. Parsons Laboratory atMIT.

Chairman Ballentine: You made some commentsconcerning the problems of monitoring. From a

practical viewpOint; do you believe that, for in-stance, slack water type monitoring is still superiorto other types, or what would you suggest?

Dr. Harieman: I would prefer to see a much moreconcentrated effort at looking at the time varia-bility of parameters at fixed locations. I would bewilling to accept a more limited spatial distributionin favor of temporal definition. Observations atfixed locations should be made at least. during atidal cycle: from one slack to the next. I would verymuch like to we and encourage the, approach oflooking at the variability at fixed stations, because I

do not think it possible in these nonlinear systemsto account for these, effects by translation or otherapproximations of the tidal flow. When you put thesame rate constants into the biochenilcal modelsand approximate the flow by a freshwater dis-charge which eliminates the tidal reversals, the re-sults are quite different.

So that if you fit the data you Would end up withdifferent fitting constants, but it's the same processgoing on. -

Chairman Ballentine: Just to foster some discus-sion here, I know that much of Dr. O'Connor's datain New York Harbor were collected by the Depart-ment of Public Works. They would get their boatout once a day and go down the river' and collectsamples in a grab fashion. Is that correct?

Dr. O'Connor: Yes.Chairman Ballentine:So you have to work pretty

much with average values?Dr. O'Connor: Yes. On the NeW York Harbor we

did that over a good portion of the summer periodwhen the assumed' studies existed, so they did thatmaybe for 2 or 3 months for a recent study hydro-graph of the Hudson. They took various points in

114

116 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

0

O

N

o.o o0

zr

ccocc,r,o

cc

0NO

RERCH, 1

O

b.00 eb.00 160.05 2'40.00 320.00 4110.00 460.00 560.00 sho.00TIME IN SECONDS MID' ,

O

O

o.

cc

Opto

8

OO

720.00 ebo.00 a tat)

FIGURE 8. Part. Organic-N and Dissolved Organic-N. at 2 mflei downstream of Blue Plains. July 15. 2¢,1969. t

tle tidal curve by doing a random collection. So, Iassume the average there was a mean-tide condi-tion.

I hive mixed feelings about Di. Harleman's sug-gestion. I'll just make one point. 1 certainlx seewhat you're getting at, `but I'd like to look at thatmore critically.

My greatest conAern, of 'course, is the practicalimpact this has on collecting field data. I thinkwere getting overloaded in what we're asking for,and npw we're asking for additional data, whichmight start to break the back, so to speak.

Dr. 'Harleman: I'm not necessarily asking foradditional data. Spend the same amount of moneyon collecting data and give up the practice of run-

fling a boat up and down-the estuary. Concentrateon a smaller number of spatial points, but more de-

, tailed coverage in time.Dr. O'Connor: It's getting back to the old prob-

lem. Its a two- or three-dimensional time variableproblem, so it depends on how one looks at it, orwhat one abstracts from it; it depends on what wayhe thinks is most meaningful to look at.

Chairman Ballentine: Is this one of the oceanp-graphic approaches where they sit on station?

Dr. O'Connor: Yes. By contrast to what we had.Chairman BalleritIne: This is where you race the

slack upstream?.Dr. 0!Connor -Yes.

115

CHANNELIZATION

JOHN M: `WICK1FtSONConsultant, Arthur Little, Inc.

''''Cambridge, Massachusetts-..

Through the medium of this symposium, we areall asked to assist the Environmental Protectionagency in ".. . ;defining dhe concept of -waterintegrity in its ° various ..forms.'; The stated

. purpose bf the SyMposium is to address theissues .required -by- Section 304(a) (2) (A) and (B)"which, I believe, really means addressing the issueposed by the policy declaration of Section 101 of theAct, since Section 304 neither requires nor poses anissue; but.rather seeks information. Further, eachpresenter is requested to address the problemassociated with his topic, drawing upon his back-

tgroull and perspective.For y assigned topicthe one word channeliza-

tionno other guidance by the EpA'was offered asto how I shoidd handle it. This is commendable, ofcourse, but with the latitude it provides, me goes aspecial responsibility. Certainly it has been Anissue, certainly a problem as Wells But the twoterms, issue and problein, are often used inter-changeably and inaccurately. In my research back-ground, and in discussing research assignmentswith others, I have frequently found it necessary tOcall attention to an important difference between:the two terms.

Research seeks or ought to seek, the solution to aproblem and is, or should be, detached from pro-cesses for the resolution of issues. If it is not so de-tached, research is inescapably drawn into taking aposition on a question, often a vital question fordebatewhich defines an issue. It is therefore not

. research and should go by another name. Still, re-

searchpay illuminate an issue and contribute to jtsresolution by placing the problem in perspectivP. Iintend to keep my remarks problem-oriented,which is to say subordinatecto other perfectly validindeed essentialprocesses in a democraticsociety.

As for the meaning of "the integrity of. water," Ihave heard it expressed variously here in the past24 hours. For example, "only pristine waterspossess integrity"; "integral systemsgood or badWhatever the changing state over time"; "back-ground condition as a reference point"; and "not aconcept meaning return to a previous state." I havealso heard "try to improve it, but at least keep it

1

r

the way you find it"-which is really more anapproach than a definition. Finally, it is said to be aphilosophical and moral question.,

Setting aside these concepts for tht moment, I'would pose four questions, attempt to provide some .

answers, then return to the concept of integrity-AStry to relate it to channelization.

The four questions are: (1) What exactly is chan-nelization? (2) What has been the extent of its appli-cations? (3) What have been its observed physicaleffects on navigable waters, ground water, watersof the contiguous zone,' and the oceans? (4) Whathave been 4s observed physical effects on fish andwildlife and on recreational activities?

The inclusive term channelization sometimescalled channel improvement, alteration, hr modifi-cationcan mean variously the straightening,.widening, deepening, lining, clearing, dredging,re-directing, creating, or re-creating of water-courses. These are all essentially 'hydraulic en-gineering techniques that can be applied- singly

r,'"-o in combinations, together or in tandem, in mod-., erate or substantial scale. All are more or less self-

explanatory, but there are differences or degrees of

application.Straightening a watercourse, for example, may

involve slight realignment of a single curvature orpronounced departure from the course of flow at anupstream point to reconnection several miles down -streamsometimes called a "floodway." Wideningor deepening a natural alignment may increasecross - sectional dimensions by 2 or 3 feet to 100 feetor more. .Lining, if any, smay be with grass-typevegetation; often producing wlutt is called .a"grassed spillway," by gravel, rock - emplaced rip-rapping, bank stabilizing revetments of steel ortimber, or ,poured concrete; all of a trapezoidaldesign configuration to smooth channel beds andprovide channel banks of varying slope, from verti-cal to relatively horizontal. Such designs often pro-vide a "notched" channel bed or "pilot" channelintended to maintain very low but continuous flowswithin a confined trough of the larger channeldimensions.

Clearing, snagging, or dredging is designed toremove obstructions to flow in the watercourse.

tie117

TY OF WATER

.

original condition."This is an extreme view, to be sure. At the

extreme, statistical data . as of mid-1971 land itseems unlikely that the data are markedly differentnow), reveal that the average or I might saytypical application hal been in combinations ofstraightening, widening, deepening, clearing, andlining of 5.2 -mile segments of Minor tributarystreams, brooks,. afid unnamed ' legal or countydrains,, typically. small watercourses with peren-nial, intermittent seasonal, or no measurable flowpatterns. I say average or typical based upon a sta-tistical analysis of 1,630 completed and plannedapplications clabsified by the unfortunate term"channel improvements." My averagellerives from6,969 miles Of-completed works. About 20,000 milesof additional work- 20,000 additional linear mileswere planned at thattime. The:median' projectsize:for completed and armed applications wasabout emiles. More tha 80 percent of completedworks were concentrated i 0 southern states.

Cet me hasten to add1 st it:appear that I amimplying a physical significance to some programsthat have received little attention and a physicalinsignificance to others that have received much

, attention, that between these extremes there havebeen important and 'widespread applications ,ofchannelization talarger watercourses and legally-,defined navigable waters. I cite the extremes inthe context of our deliberations on the concept ofintegrity of water. If, as a practical' matter, thelegislative interest cannot be allowed to extend torestoring and maintaining the unimpaired andunmarred integrity of some '3,700 miles of theimpounded Mississippi transportation system, canthis legislative interest logically extend, again as apractical matter, to additional thousands of miles ofunnamed tributaries and Weal "court," 'county,"legal, or "district" drains, the rehabilitation ofwhich constitutes asizable portion of channelizationapplications? In my own rather though study of2,300 miles of channel modifications Selected for meto study as a more or less,randikni put representa-tive sample, I found that in 48.8 percent of the casesa combination of techniques was applied to drainageditch rehabilitation.,

Turning to the third and fourth of my questions,the situations between theextremes just describedhave been'the Most 'studied and observed and arethe most revealing, of ilhisical effects. Again,.would hasten to add that, without question, all situ-ations demonstrate some physical changes thatbear in some way on the AD tegrity ofwater concept..

Two comments to thcraysical effects questionsseem in order. First, you pay have observed that Ihave thus far used the term "watercourse" when I

418 THE INTEGRI

This can mean the cutting'of, trees and brush fromchannel beds' and banks, and sometimes `from awide right-of-war on either-side as well, to accom-modate placement. and spreading of excavateddredged "spoil" material.. Early workNeitIVspread, nor reseeded spoil banks. Mbre recently,where dredged materiaris a problem, rights-of-wayhave been contoured and quickly revegetated. Theremoval of sediment, sand or graVel bars, largeboulders, timber, constricting bridges, and olddams is another feature of clearing.

Redirecting or creating a new watercourse mayinvolve the placement of jacks or'jetty fields toinduce the aggradation or deposition of sedimen-tary materials in desired configurationsagain, toalter flow patterns similar to modefate,.straight-ening. Natural stream flow then does the work ofchannel alteration. It may, howevey, involve cut-ting an entirely new watercourse from an upstreampoint oft-departure to an entirely different oiitlet,uch as in a lake or estuary. This .is sometimes

called a "cut-off." Finally, recreating a water-.course may mean restoring the flow capacity toeither a partially or totally clogged drainage ditchor. canal, usually occasioned b'y poor original designrelative to soil conditions or to poor maintenance ofcomplete works resulting in heavy siltation andvegetation.

The building of levees in flood plains some dis-tance away from the normal channel alignmentwhich' is left physically undisturbedis a form ofchannelization, as is the stair-step series of lowdams and locks which provide shallow draft com-mercial or recreational navigation. Levees mare-

.

quentlY cause flow alteration, while navigation sys:,tems constitute essentially permanent alteration, tothe flow regime. Neither is Customarily grouped,within the popular term "channelization." Therecent EPA guidelines give navigational channelingthe prominence it deserves, but which has longbeen neglected.

The extent of the applications of these severaltechniques is extremely variable, ge6graphically,and by watercourse. Taking the broadest view andbearing in mind the integrity of water definition, itcan be said that the .major arteries of the vastMississippi drainage system have been channelizedfrom New Orleans to Knoxville, Tenn., to Pitts-burgh and beyond, to Chicago, to Minneapolis, toSioux City, Iowa, and to the border of Oklahoma,touching or reaching into 19 states in one con-tinuous system. Except where only "maintenancedredging" is carried out on the lower Missouri andMississippi Rivers, all of this type of channelization,constitutes permanent impairment, a point of noreturn, decidedly not in "correspondence with an

117

PINSICAt

might have said stream dr river. This was deliber-:ateto distinguish natural v,ater systems, on theone hand, from those water systems, on theother,that have not been natural or untouched for a long

-tune and,- indeed, those that did not exist before'One or more of the applications described sameabout. I suppose that, in terms of out integrityinquiry here, the questions this distinction raises

: how far does navigability extend and how isthe contiguous zone defined?

The second comment: if is very difficult to distin-h where physical effects leave off and chemical-.

an biological effectecome into the picture. Where' is the ing line or-transition point? Dr. Patrick

and I had occasion t6 Wrestle over this ques-tion figuratively speaking, of cursewhen wewere trying to sort out' our respective responsibil-

.ities on an assignment for the CEQ someime ago. Iwill ry to obserw here the distinctions drawn atthat ime. Thus, I will deal with (1) rates of flow, (2)volu es of flow, (a) contents of flow, (4) distances,(5) temperatures, (6) light, and (7) habitat.

One could visualize a three-dimensional matrixwhich would portray the relationships betweenthese physical factors, against (a) those types ofapplicationsclearing, realigning, and 'so forth,described earlier, and (b) those popularized butcomplex effects called wetland drainage, cut-offmeanders, groundwater diminution and recharge,erosion and sedimentation, downstream effects,and aesthetic values. Such a portrayal is quiteimpossible to present in an organized fashion.

Instead, suppose we hypothesize a typical situa-ti6n between the water system extremes that Ihave described. Say it's a 30-mile channeling job toa natural stream whose integrity or virginity' hasnot .yet been surrendered or compromised, so tospeak. 9ity further that the stream has some peren-nial.kflow (not a normally dry creek bed), a variedbankside habitat (not a terrestrial system, devoid ofvegetation), and a "natural" quality of water (not a

,biologically dead or grossly polluted aquatic habi-tat). Say further that the intendeti purposes of thisjob are to drain excessively wet but potentially pro-ductive farm Lands in upper reaches and to protectan urban community against flood waters in lowerreaches. Say, finally, that some of all the applica-tions of techniques of channelization are to becarried out. What effects may be expected withsome assurance? -

The answers can be quite brief and will come asno surprise. There are surprises once one begins todeal with the data relative to the idealized modelagainst which you're- testing the data. First, theclearing, snagging, and removal of bankside vege-tation and instream obstructions from an upstream

r

INTEGRITYa

,`segmenlivirtend to increase both,the volume andrate of streamflow, for a number of reasons, includ-ing reduced evapo-transpiration, "higher ;surfacerunoff% freer flow coleyance passage, . erground*ater transmissibility rates, and m e rapidsnowmett. At the same time, higher v mes willtend to increase tian4 storage of ground water.Contents of the frow will be altered in atsteall twoways - -amore suspended sedimehts due to highersurface runoff rates but less oxygen-demanding 'biodegradable or "background" maferial enteringthe water from leaves and other droppings. Wateltemperatures- will be raised by the direct rays ofthe SIM (there's less canopy Over tile° water fromtrees), but lmiered by the entry of more groundwater. More light on-the water will Alter photosyn-thetic processes, but perhaps unpredictably.ler-restrial habitat for specks that seek trees and wet .ground, will be reduced; that for4Oecies seekingbrush, grasses, and dry ground will hd increased.Aquatic species seeking pools, riffles, and shadewilf find less of such habitat; those species seeking .

warmer waters, more oxygen; and -freer' passageupstream will find these.

Next, the- widening, deepening, and straighten -' ,*ing of a middle segment 'of this natural stream(which, incidentally, will require similar clearing,snagging, and removal of obstruction but in larger

- dimensions and to accommodate constructionactivities) will have those effebts desckibed aboveand others. rtes and vOlunies of flow will increasefurther; waters will contaih chore suspended mate- 4,,,

rial and some wilt deposit as ,bed-load sand barsdespite higher velocitie's generally; temperaturesand light intensity will rise further; and there Willbe less of some kinds of habitat faV6red by someterrestrial and ,aquatic species and more of etherkinds favored by other, species. Moreover, as soilconditions tare found be unusually erosive in thishypothesized instan , graveled and' rip-rappedbank stabilization i arts of the segment will leave ,no habitat. In oche parts, moderately sloped bankswill prove too steep toey

rains, kresult, sedi-low reseeding immediately

Urtake root durin h avmentation is traced %o*nstrea yOnd the 30-mile

g,

project, despite in-channel drop or stabilizationstructures. A more pronounced' physical effectoccurs whin a.wide-swiaeping meander of oxbow iscut off by a straight channel section. While in-tended that the cut-off natural Channel is fo ton-

.tinue to receive and pass flows, and its battkpidehabitat is untouched, the aggradeti sedimen andchannel scour will conspire ,to piug the, entrance toEtnd exit 'from the oxlvw and to .reduce .the newchannel becTA elevation below the oxbow channelbed's elevation. Thus, a stagnant pool,or bayou'aeill

119

118

120 ,THE INTEG11TY OF WATER

be created. .,:

Next, the flO conveyance capacity in a thirdsegment, below ghat just described, must be main-tained as designe by a concrete-lined channel xithvertical sides and flat bottom, except for S notchedpassageway in the bed. This is occasioned by a con-stricted rig tof- ay through the urban area. Thealignment is not tered, only the cross-sectionaldimensions a e w dened and deepened., Also, noclearing is necess y, as no vegetation is present toclear. The channel 's bounded on one side by a rail-road, on the other ide by a street fronting assortedfactory rand wareh use buildings in varying stagesof deterioration. T e stream gradient flattens outfrom t e steeper upstream gradient of the valley. Apartia ly washed-out mill dam, behind whfch i 'acentury's accumulation of assorted sludge, is toremoved. The effects here will be substantially icreased rates and volumes of flow, a reduced cocentration of suspended materials, no change itemperature, light, or terrestrial habitat, and atotal change in aquatic habitat from mixed sludges,oils, and chemicals to solid Concrete. A chain linkfence will bound the channel, atop the retainingwall, on both sides. Drain pipes will be designed tomaintain ground water in the contiguous-zone atpre-project levels.

Finally, just downstream of the channel job, thenatural stream enters the headwaters of a largereservoir.created by-a dam 20 miles farther down-stream. Storage and release operations of the res-ervoir occasion daily and seasonal drawdowns, withfluctuations of up to 4 feet daily and 40 feet season-.ally: Waterfowl abound in the headwaters regionand sport fishing conditions are excellent. Thedownstream effects of the channel job are also pre:dictable. To the extent that upstream changes areexperienced, i.e., increase in volume of flow, ero-sion and transport of suspended materials, andhigher temperatures,, these Will be transferred tothe lower reservoir. Rates of flow will drokto zero,light. will be unchange'd,_and terrestrial, habitat Willremain unaltered. Sediment deposition.inthe reser-voir will totally alter lake bottdm aquatic habitatimportant to the fishery in the upper reservoirreaches..

What I have described is a composite channelingjob in the sensptlat virtually all of the techniquesare to be applied and to a fairly broad range of pre-project conditions or environmental settings. But itis more than that. It is in fact a set of,applicationsand settings which I observed and studied on onecompleted project in the field, the-physical effectsof which I attRmpted to evaluate.

For our puiposes here, howeVer% the descriptionis incomplete, not so much in the recording of appli-

.cations of. technique , but in the po trayal of therange 'of settings in hick they have been.appliedelsewhere. One could'sorrect 4is by ubstituting anumber of descriptliVe phrase. Thes would rangefrom richly varied swamp forest ecosystems,through rolling prairie and high-country farmlands, to barren and semi-arid range lands. The soilconditions could range from highly erosive to"bed-rock ledge. The downstream' receiving waters couldbe a natural lake, swamp, inland river, coastalstream, or estuary.

The descriptions are also ineompleteiin two dif-ferent ways: Namely, the effectsover time and thecumulatAre effects, which I feel have been sub-stantially ignored.

By cumulative I mean not necessarily upstream-downstream, but cumulative inthe sense that thesechanneling applications may occur in 8 or 10' or 20projects in the same river basin and they- all Con-verge on the downstream' outlet.

Clearly, whenever a natural stream system istampered with a new ecosystein confronts the fish ,

and wildlife species that inhabit it and new associ-ations must be set in motion and establiShed.Whether these are destructive or enhancing eventscan only be defined in-terms of individual or groupobjectives. For example. it is one thing to describea physical event stemming from channelization as adiminished rate of groundwater accretion or a lossof seasonal overflow to flood plain wetlands. Theseand other things do happen. It is another thing to.record the induced changes to species numbers,productivity, and diver y. It is still another toassert that these hap nings are always good oralways bad. , .

When it comes to the third in this progression ofdeterminations, we enter the arena of policy, bothlegislativeand administrative. I could suggest ele-ments Of administrative policy in the following man-ner. In the total water and related land system,from forested or arid uplands through waters of thecontiguous zone and navigable rivers to estuariesand the oceans, channelization seems at first not tojeopardize the integrity ,of waters, then to jeopar-dize it severely, and then again not to do so aseffects are dampened out in larger systems. In the'lolig process of hammering out administrativepolicy there is, I am advised, evidence of a Willinness to accept the validity of drainage needs. Tis also, I know from very recent experiedcsimilar toleranity of nonstrin lieu of

re,a

r willingness to accept the valid-tural flood plain management devices

ructural means to convey floodwaters.'Both are healthy and constructive signs.

Still, administrative policy development seemsconfronted with a dilemma posed by legislative

119

I

PHYSICAL INTEGRITY

policy. One declares a national policy ". . . . torestore and maintaKthe physical, c mical and bio-logical integrity of the . . . waters" ec. 101, P.L.92 500) and this is, prompted.* fr trations andimpatience with two decades of disapp nting waterquality program performance. This dec ration fol-lowed closely on the heels of, another nationalpolicy ". . . . to use all practicable means andmeasures . . . in a manner calculated to foster andpromote the general welfare, to, create and main-tain conditions Under which man and nature canexist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social,economic and other requirements of present andfuture generations of Americans" (Sec. 101(a), P.L.91-190). .

These two policy pronouncements seem to con-verge with inconsistency on, the channelkzation.question. Perhaps, as a practical Matter, the con-

- Cept of nondegradation may need to replace theconcept of integrity if the deliberations hete are toproduce sound and equitable results.

DISCUSSION

Comment: Can Mr. Wilkinson detail the nature'tfthe controversy, briefiVi

,--- Mr: Wilkinson: Could I detail the nature of thecontroversy? Well, in briefest essence, the pur-poses intended to be served by channelization are,as the EPA guidelites say in identifying them, flood'control and drainage of wetlands. These are onagricultural lands; to either enhance or restore theproductivity of farmlands and increase productionof food and fiber. ,......2

Secondly, for flood protection or flood damagealleviation. Here the objective is again, essially,economic rather than environmental, obviouMr. Itsto protect urban areas, or to protect against fre-quent flooding of farmlands, again, in eagriculturalregions.

Finally, there is the recognition of a third majorintended purpose of channeling, namely for naviga-tion. I guess the Tombigbee Project is a good exam-

le of that.I use the extreme example of a point of no re-

turnthe vast, interior, heartland navigation sys-tem. So I think, the two objectives, economic andenvironmental, some head on here and the contro-versy received quite a kit of attention when theCouncil on Environmental Quality decided to have ageneral assessment of channelization made.

So, the nature of the controversy, the issue if youwill, is economic versus environmental.

Comment: The last comment suggests perhapsthat you equate integrity, for use administratively,with the idea of nondegradation to define integrity.

,Could you ela ate on that just a little bit?

Mr. Wilkins n: I don't understand all I knowabout the prin iple of nondegradation which hasbeen applied to it quality, but it seems that therethe trend has en to take a pre exiting ambientair quality or ai quality condition and`then say wecan't do much a ut that. We can try to improve itbut let's accept that as it is, the baseline precondi-tion, and not tr to make all air pure everywhere,consistent with ihe principle of integrity, as we'retrying to do with 11 here.

Or the other w non-use. There has been 'a lot ofadministrative e fort to define "where do we gofrom here" in air uality, and this principle of non-.degradation of at pre-existing situation or an air4quality as it is no found has come to be acceptedrFbelieve, as a point oLdeparture and one might de-fine that, as some background condition, such asintegrity of water and integrity of air.

Comment: Then you would suggest that the,existing physical integrity.would be a point of departurel

Mr. Wilkinson: That's right.Commentr:And put that into some kind of overall

environmental assessment?Mr. Wilkinson: This is not to deny improvements

in it, but it's in lieu of that impossible goal of goingbacic to integrity as it's defined, say as correspond-ence with an original condition.

Comment: Are you putting any sign cance onthe words"where attainable" in the Act? Es eciallywhen it says that in the Mississippi- syste this

-,might not be attainable?Mr. Wilkinson: Right. It's a point of no retur It

could be, it's) not an irreversible or irretrieva lesituation.

The people who write Environmental Impa tStatements, when they come to that section? andI've written some myself, the irretrievable orirreversible; well, you can take a dani out, yoti cantake a whole series of dams rout. It's physically pos-sible, but hardly a realistic option.

Comment: I'd like to make a couple of comments.First of all, I don't think your response is very

good in reply to the question about what the contro-versy with the Council on Environmental Quality,was all about.

In the first place, you implied that it was eco-nomic versus environment. That i§ only part of it.The major charges that have been leveled againstall of the channelization projects that have beendone was that-they are using fax dollats to benefit a ,handful of land owners, to help them improve theirown property at the cost of a natural resource.

And, that certain channelization projeCts, in fac-t,benefited major industries. So there is a lot mare

121

V.

120Pt,

r-

O

122 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

than si ply facing environment versus economics.Some f the channelization projects were actuallycou r-productive in terms of controlling floods.

Then I would just like to raise a question; youimplied that channelization of our natural systemssomehow could have benefits that, well, though itmight hurt some organisms, ft might open up achannel migratory fish could come up. I thinkthat th scientific evidence that has been broughtout in tatements before,,the House GovernmentOperations Committee runs sharply counter tothat.

In fact, at the hearing where you testified, Dr.Vannote, who testified along with you, said, I be-lieve with reference to our natural stream system,theevidence is so conclusive that channelization hasjtst about totally grounded out the productivecapacity of the stream.

And yet, you imply in your remarks today that itmight help out, itmight turn the stream into a bio-logical desert. And I suggest that one example ofhow bad the effects could be can be seen just bygoing south about 65 miles to Gilbert's Run inMaryland and looking at what happened to a finestream that hosted migratory fish. It has now beentotally wiped out to benefit a couple of land owners.

I just offer these remarks contrary to some of ththings that you said. The issue of channelizationnot over messing around with drainage ditches nstreams that don't flow. It has been with the e-*ruction of various .productive natural systems,hardwood swamp areas which are rich in ifs!, andwildlife resources.

tr

Mi. Wilkinson: Evidence remains at issue., hoseare very good points. I'm sure that I could take youto channelization jobs that exemplify the/extremerange of effects, andJhose that didn't benefit just ahandful of land owners, but a railroad that didn'teven get into the benefit cost calculatio .

I don't dispute that at all. I don't think it's'quitfair of you to cite Robin Vannote's co ment in ttestimony. At this lecture that I cit at the opeing of my remarks, Robin was\the e too, and wehad a little chat about our tes ny and that of-Ruth Patrick. We both realiz d what had in bebrought out at that time under the circumstances,to reflect the diversity of our findings,in this field.

Chairman Ballentine: I have one .question. Mr.Blackwell, would you categorize all channelizationprojects as bad? I wasnfi clear on your coniment.There are bad aspects to almost any project. Whatkind of balancing test do you propose? ,

Comment: I just say thA we are not worriedabout a lot of,channelization projects if there is nota' resource presen), that would be destroyed. Thereason that channelization became an issue is the

fact that these projects were being carted out withtax dollars to destroy important natural values.

And for people to say that you spy that.channeli-,zation 4 wrong, per se; well, how are yotraupposedto answer a question like that? We wouldn't haveany coMplaints if there were not significant envi-ronmen al losses occurring. It's because of thoselosses t at w call for major reforms in policies. ,

And , the Soil Conservation Service, if youread the nvironmental Impact Statement, is goingright ah ad with about 1,500 miles of channelizationlisted in the past 2 years in their Environmental Im- rpact Statement filed with the Council on Environ-Mental Quality.

I don't think the Agency has taken to heart thecriticisms that have been brought. .

Chairman Ballentine: Would you mind identifyingthat report to the reporter? . , .

Comment: The Hearings of the House Govern-/ent Operations Committee. There are six volumesf Hearings; it's the Subcommittee on qonservatiOnrid Natural Resources. In those Hearings there'are `i,,

extensive bibliographies of related works.Comment: I would like to ask Mr. Wilkinson if in

/ his investigation he got involved with the effects of/ the locks and darns on the Ohio and Upper Missis-

sippi and other impoundments which, iri effect, cre-ated almost waste stabilization ponds in riverswhich, I believe, may have a very great effect ondigesting the pollutants of the stream and improv-ing water quality, plus or minus oxygen problemsbelow such structures? Did y6u find that there wasan improvement in the dissipation of organic mate-rials in the reservoirs and the deep channels? .\

Mr. Wilkinson: To answer the first part of yoWquest we did not get into navigation projects

use, at that time, the interest irl exploring theroblem was not navigation projects, it was in the

small projects in relatively minor tributary areas.And it was largely because of that, the definition ofthe projects, that our statistical analysis found thatabout 50 percent were of a drainage rehabilitationkind. We did not get into major rivers, major nevi-gaNpstreams. But you've got a good point there.

Comment_The_reason_L asked the question, inpart, is that the management of pollutants in stormwater runoff is becoming a greater and greaterproblem to then Nation and especially to urban ,

areas. And, the onsite retention techniques don'treally get too effective on pollution..---

So I think there seems to be a lack of informationon the effect of small detention reservoirs orimpoundments in improving the quality of stormrunoff in various places and various situations.

And I just wondered if anybody has any light he$ could shed on the effects of these small retention

121

It)

ti

C.

_7--structures on improving water quality?

Mr. Wilkinson: I think the subject of impound-ments was on the original program, wasn't it? Itdisappeared.'

Only one other response, it seems to me, is thatthe effects -instream or in the impoundmentto be studied. I think they have been, bu ey'r

PHYSICAL INTEGRITY 123 /

I

O

quite unpredictable in terms of temperatures;stratification, and Other things.

One thing that occurs to me is that you de nothave the turbulence that'you have in a natural flow-ingktieam and therefore, the reoxygenaiiini capac-ity., but that's getting alittlebit beyond my field.

122

p

4

Ati

r,

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY-A QUALITATIVE

APPRAISAL

. ,

OLOGICAL INTEGRITI7 OF WATER-A HISTORICAL APPROACH

DAVID G. FREYDepartm t of ZoologyIndiana University .

Bloomington, Indiana_

... -

To a considerable extent the topics assigned to ushave unreasonably artificial boundaries, because anecologist cannot' talk about the physics, chemistry,or biology of water separately, nor about the quali-

, tative aspects of water and its biotas separatelyfrom the quantitative aspects. Moreovei, in a meet-ing such as this of persons with disparate back-grounds and interests, effective communication canbe a problem. We all tend to use:words that havespecial meanings within opr own disciplines and weassume a certain understanding of premides, princi-ples, and laws when We use them. To make certainthat we all are operating on the same wave lengthIshall present several principles of ecology that must,guide our thinking about water, its management,and the potential effects on it of various manipula-tive processes, then give my own definition of theintegrity of water, and finally address the topicassigned me. The, principles to be discussed applyto 'all aquatic systems, but the examples I shallpresent will be concerned chiefly with takes, asthey, along with the oceans, provide in their sedi-ments the only record of past events not covered by

-tte'ribbservations or the memory of persons still11 g.

(1) Lakes and rivers e integral parts of largersystemsthe watersheds or catchment areas thatare drained by the rivers or drain through thelakes. Besides water itself, the catchment area con-tributes dissolved and particulate substances, bothmineral and organic. In addition, usually lesser'quantities of various substances are contributeddirectly to the water from the atmosphere by pre-

-' cipitation and dry fallout. Together with . suchprocess-regulating variables as light, temperature,current velocity, et cetera, these various sub-stances comprise the abiotic portion of the aquaticenvironment and help control the diversity andabundance of aquatic organisms.

(2) Those substances that are used directly byaquatic organisms and are necessary in theirmetabolismusually called essential nutri-entsare recycled in the system by biological

c

mechanisms. Storage in living biomass, in wood orsediments, or in the deep water of a stratified lakecan delay the reutilization of these nutrients forvarying periods of time. Because inputs and out-puts, including storage, are generally in balance, anaquatic systen a to remain functional requires a con-tinuous input Of. nutrients. The quantities of nutri-ents and other substances contributed bY.a water-shed vary with, the geological nature of-the sub-strate and its -overlying soils, the vegetationalcover of the land, and climate. Since all of thesetend to form regional patterns, it is not surprisingthat rivers and lakes also tend to form regional pat-terns or clusters, in their chemistry, productivity,and biotic diversity.

(3) Besides nutrients there must also be a sourceof fixed energy, mostly in organic compounds. The.,latter derive both fromphotosynthesis accom-plished within the aquatic part of the system andfrom organic materials, 'such as leaves, pollen, andleachates. produced in the terrestrial part of thesystem. In some systems, such as lakes with small,nonforested watersheds, virtually 100 percent ofthe available energy derives from autochthonousphotosynthesis, whereas in other systems, such assmall, headwater streams in heavily forestedregions, almost all the fixed energy derives fromorganic detritus. of terrestrial origin. But whateverits origin, the liked energy in organic substances isthe driving force that enables the Organisms pres-ent to metabolize and carry on their life processes.As the energy is used in metabolism it is trans-formed into heat and dissipated from the system.Hence, unlike nutrients, energy cannot.be recycled.It is a one-way street, but like nutrients there mustbe a continuous supply for the ecosystem tofunction.

(4) Taking into consideration regional differencesin water chemjatry and nutrient supply and differ-ences between water bodies, in energy availabilityand efficiency of nutrient recycling, each aquaticsystem, has accumulated over time a diversifiedbiota consisting' of many.,species of organisms ad-',

o

124127

128 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

justed to the particular set of conditions in thewater body in question: For purposes of analysisand construction of models, these organisms areoften clustered into such functional grotips as pri-mary producers, herbivores, detritivorts, carni-vores, decomposers, et cetera, but all are inter-related. That particular species occur in a/givenlake or river is partly a matter of the species pool ofthe region and the dispersal capabilities of theindividual species, partly a function of the bioticand abiotic relationships in the water body. Al-though we consider these systems to be in a steadystate, -intuitively we expect the biota to adjust tolong term changes in climate, vegetation, soil de-velopment, and internal trends within the systemitself, and we also expect the system to be able toaccommodate-and eventually recover from suchshort term natural stresses as scouring flushouts inrivers, episodes of volcanism, landslides,. and soforth. Homeostasis is restored.

This, to me, is what is meant by the integrity'ofwater the capability of supporting and maintain-ing a balanced, integrated, adaptive community oforganisms having a composition and diversity com-parable to that of the natural habitats of the region.Such a community can accommodate the repetitivestresses of the changing seasons. It can accept nor-mal variations in input of nutrients and other mate-dais without disruptive consequences. It displays aresistance to change and at the same time a capac-ity to recover from even quite major disruptions.

My assignment is to Consider what history tellsus about the response of aquatic systems. Anythingthat happened in the past is history. Even thewords I speak become a part of history as soon asthey are spoken. But most of history is unrecordedand hence unavailable for interpretation. In thecase of aquatic systems there are., anecdotalaccounts of particular events or conditions that mayhave some comparative value. There may be timeseries of accumulated data for particular rivers orlakes that document what happened during these,intervals. And, in the case of lakes (and oceans), theaccumulated sediments constitute an historical rec-ord of changing climate and watershed conditionsand the integrated response of the lake to thesechanges. Where no previous studies on particularlakes exist and likewise no isolated anecdotes aboutparticulam events, the only means 'we have ofinterpreting previous conditions is from the sedi-ments. For rivers this possibility does not exist atall, as there is no long term sequential accumulationof sediments. Hence, here we are completely de-pendent on the written record, except for the geo-morphic and hydrologic changes that can be inter-

. preted from the landscape and residual sediments

of the valley.I do not intend to say Much about rivers. Their

response to point source additions of domestic andindustrial wastes is the establishment of a longi-tudinal gradient involving a succession of chemicalprocesses and organisms, which for organic wastesis sufficiently predictive that a series of zones -4hesabrobic 'systemhas been set up.to help describeand interpret the process of recovery. Other zonedesignations have been devised for various kinds ofindustrial wastes and the responses they elicits

Organisms vary greatly in their sensitivity toenvironmental Flraiiges accompanying pollution.Fishes together with a majority of insects and mol-luscs are most sensitive. Blue-green algae and a fewmiscellaneous animals from several groups aremost resistant. These differences in tolerance leadto a greatly simplified community at the point ofmaximum impact, with the organisms toleratingthe conditions here often occurring in tremendousnumbers, and then to a gradual buildup in diversityof species and equitability in numbers of individualsdownstream. Various diversity indices have beenproposed to help quantify these changes. Diatomsare particularly useful in stream studies and theirtruncated log-normal distributions are useful inassessing the severity of pollution. The experiencedinvestigator can often determine quite easily fromthe macreinvertebrates present *hat the stage ofrecovery is, and can also detect residual effects ofpollution, as from lead mines in Wales, that are nolonger detectable chemically.

Lakes are fundamentally different from rivers ina number of respects that affect the integrity ofwater as I have defined it. In the first 'place,.theirwater movements are not gravity-controlled, unidi-rectional flows which continually flush out the chan-nel with new water from above, but rather wind-induced circulations. Typically in summer, whenthe wind Is not adequate to overcome the differ-ences in density set up by surface warming, thelake becomes divided into an upper circulating epiilimnion and a lower zone, the hypolimnion, Cut offfrom the surface by a steep density gradient and asa result subject to generally much weaker watermovements, than the epilimnion. During periods ofcalm weather those lakes that circulate continu-ously over summer can become temporarilystratified and even the epilimnion of the others candevelop secondary stratifications under these cir-cumstances. Regardless pf the duration of suchstratification, thellypolimnion, or its equivalent intemporary stratification, experiences cumulative,chemical changes, most important of which is thegradual depletion of dissolved oxygen by biologicalactivity. The longer the duration of stratification

N

el

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY-A QUALITATIVE APPRAISAL

and the greater the amount of biologic;,1 activity,the more severe will be the oxygen depletion withits attendant stresses on organisms requiring cer-tain levels of dissolved oxygen for their survival.

Unlike rivers, lakes accumulate sediments pro-gressively and sequentially. One effect of these sed-iments is gradually to reduce the volume of thehypolimnion over time and hence the total volumeof dissolved oxygen it contains when stratificationbecomes established in spring or summer. Conse-quently, even 'without any increase in biologicalactivity, the hypolimnion will experience a gradualreduction in oxygen concentration over time, whichbrings about the extinction and replacement ofvarious deepwater organisms as their tolerancesfor low oxygen are exceeded.

The sediments constitute a storage for energyand nutrients. Some of this is utilized by bacteriawhich can continue their activity even to consider-able depths in de sediments, or gy various animals,which bicause of their need for molecular oxygenare confined generally to the uppermost few centi-

' meters. Whether the sediments are functioningchiefly as a sink or as a reservoir for nutrients isimportant in problems concerning eutrophicationand its management.

The sediments also constitute a chronological rec-ord of processes in the lake and conditions in itswatershed, including climate. A perceptive readingof the recordits chemistry, physics, and paleon-tologygives us much insight into the stability oflake systems when subjected to various stresses,including those resulting from man's activities, andtheir rates of recovery.

A third major difference between rivers andlakes is that the water in lakes has a certain resi-dence time, up,to 100 years or more in some of thelarge lakes, determined by the relationship be-tween the input of water from the catchment areaand direct.precipitation and the total volume of thelake. This allows for the recycling of nutrients inthe same place, subject to the constraints imposedby stratification, and the buildup of a diverse com-munity oftsmall floating organismsthe plankton.And even apart from any storage function of thesediments, the residence or replacement timemeans that'there is an inherent lag in response ofthe system to any increase or decrease in inputs ofnutrients or other substances having biologicaleffects. In streams the response to,input changescan be almost immediate. Any storages in the sedi-ments are mostly temporary, as the sediments canbe swept downstream during the next flood stage.

What I shoUld like to do now is present a fewexamples of the kinds of responses made by lakes tovarious stresses.

129

It was almost axiomatic in limnology until quiterecently that lakes increase in productivity overtime through natural causes, a process that hasbeen termed natural eutrophication. This ideaseemed to be-substantiated by some early studies inpaleolimnology which showed that the organic con-tent of the sediments increased exponentially overtime from a very low level initially to -a certainplateau level the trophic equilibrium which wasthen maintained essentially unchanged almost tothe present. The trogic:equilibriUm was regardedas a state in which piuction was no longer limitedby nutrient supply but rather by such factors aslight penetration that affect the efficiency of utiliza-tion and recycling of nutrients within the system.

The sedimentary chlorophyll degradation prod-ucts (SCDP) in Sediments originate almost entirelyfrom .photosynthetic plants, chiefly algae, in thelake itself. Present evidence suggests that theseorganic compoUnds are relatively stable in sedi-ments. Hence, the quantitative changes over timeof these substances can give an indication of themagnitude and changes in produCtivity experiencedby a lake. One core from Pretty Lake, Ind., (Figure1), shows low SCDP and hence low pltductivity inlate glacial time and then an exponential increase toa maximum, maintained essentially at plateaU levelalmost to the present. This corresponds to theclassical interpretation of the trophic equilibrium inlake ontogeny. But the second core from shallowerwater .shows a decline in SCDP after the maximumfollowing the exponential increase, which does notfit the.model.

We now know from this and other studies inpaleolimnology that change in productivity overtime is not unidirectional from w, to high in alllakes, but that sonielakes had a period of high pro-ductivity initially and then became less productivesubsequently. Others had discrete episodes ofhigher productivity from whatever cause. Forexample, Lake Trummen in southern Sweden(Digerfeldt, 1972) had high accumulation rates oforganic matter, nitrogen,, and phosphorus at thebeginning of pOstglacial timapprTdmately 10,000years ago. These subsequently declined and re-mained low up td very recent time, when industrialorganic effluents completely changed he characterof the lake (Figure 2). These rela 'onships areinterpreted as reflecting the high earl availabilityof nutrients from the youthful soils of he regionaltill sheets, with the subsequent de,cli resultingfrom the progressive imPoverishment o the soil byleaching and by the reduction of subsur ce inflowinto the lake as 'basin-tealing sediment accumu-lated.

Hence, the productive status of a lake is depend-

V26

ti-

130

4

THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

2000CORE E

4000

a: 6000,m

if8000 -

10000 -

12000

14000

COKE A

50 100SCOP/G ORGANIC MATTER

FIGURE 1

150

ent on the Inagnitilde of its nutrient inputs, subjectto the internal controls of the syitem. If we can de-crease the nutrient supply, we can expect a more orless commensurate decrease in productivity. Vari-ous attempts are being made to model the magni-tude of the response expected from any reduction innutrient loading, but the rate of response is stillunpredictable. The rapid reduction of phosphorusand produbtivity in Lake Washington-following theelimination of secondary sewage effluents(Edmondson, 1972) is encouraging, .although someother components of the systemsUch as nitrogen,did not behave in the same' dramatic way. Otherexamples to be presented suggest that the responsetime of the total system, or perhaps better the re-bound time from a stressed condition, can be muchlonger than in Lake Washington.

The responses of a lake to the decreasing oxygenconcentration of the hypolimnion over time are inktructive and significant. Western bake Erie is sosallow. that it stratifies only temporarily in sum-

mer during calm weather. Already by 1953 the -oxygen demand of the sediments had become suchthat during a brief period of temporary stratifica-tion in late summer the oxygen content of the wateroverlying the bottom was sufficiently reduced tocause the wholesale death of the nymphs of the bur-rowing mayfly, one of the most abundant organismshere and a very important fish food (Britt, 1955).The, mayflies never reestablished their populations,but they have been replaced by smaller oligochaeteworms capable of enduring quite loW concentra-tions of dissolved oxygen. Thus, a single event, al-though obvidusly with antecedent conditions, led toa complete change in one portion of the bioticcommunity.

The cisco is another case in point, although per-haps less spectacular-.-- 11 -we Want to talk aboutendangered species, or at least endangered popula-tions, this is one. It is a fish that lives in deep waterwith requirements for both low temperature andhigh oxygen. If either" of these limits is eXceeded,the fish perishes. As the summer oxygen concen-tration of the hypolimnion gradually decreases overtime, the &co, in order to meet its oxygen needs,is forced upward into strata with progressivelyhigher temperatures. Eventually the combinationof low oxygen in deep water and high temperaturestoward the surface eliminates the habitat suitablefor the cisco and the population is extinguished. In1952 Indiana had 41 lakes with,lmown cisco popula-tions (Frey, 1955a). It is certain that a number ofthese populations have been completely extirpatedsince then, and it is not at all certain how long theOthers will survive.

The species of midge larvae associated with deep-water sediments have different requirements fordissolved oxygen, so that as the oxygen content ofthe hypolimniop gradually declines over time, thecomposition of the midge community likewisechanges progressively in favor of species capable oftolerating 'lower oxygen concentrations. This ledearly in limnology to the establishment of a series oflake types based on the dominant species of oftshore midges and presumably representing stagesin a successional series. Fortunately the head cap-sules of the midge larvae, which are well preservedin lake sediments, suffice to identify the organismsto the generic and sometimes to the species levels.In general, the pattern of succession in an in-dividualake corresponds to the model, with spe-cies reqtairing high levels of oxygen occurring earlyin the.history of the lake; these subsequently are

zeplaced by species more tolerant of reducedoxygen; they in turn are replaced by species stillmore tolerant, and so on until the only species left isa mosquito-like larva Chaoborus, which can endure

1.2-7

r

E.

IIli'ISSI A

2a

1 1..e.2li::

A

Loss on Ignition3NI garni annual dap g/dm

OM 1/1009 dry matt*?

Organic carbong/ma annual dip

Kis Wahl- N

gin/ annual dap .

.

'Phosphorus2

.

g/rn annual dip

. \''.....-....

2.e-

&a

y-

128

ac.poll,

SA2

SA1

SO2

Sal

AT2

ATI

1102

1301

PO

13 160g It

121i217

10

9

5

Z7

4

0 10 20 30 1.0 90 60 70 sO tOog 10 20 so 4 so' 70 90 tOog I 2 3 5 6 7 I 9 lOg Oa 01 Oa 02 04 02 414F.1

F.1

129

ICI

132 THE INTEGRITY

anaerobiosis for a while, but eventually even it is'eliminated if conditions continue to deteriorate.

The most incisive study to date is that of Hof-mann (1971) on Schohsee in northern Germany. Amidge community associated with moderate oligo-

. trophy dominated the offshore community untilearly sub-Boreal time about 1500 B.C. This was fol-lowed by a transitional community lasting perhaps2,500 years, and this in turn by .a eutrophic com-munity for the last 1,000 years. The whole story ismuch more complex than indicated by this too-briefsummary in that throughout the 10,000 years oflake history there were .migrations of Originallyshallow-water species 'into deep water, extinctionof deepwater species, and successional dominanceof one species or another as conditions graduallychanged. Actual quantitative studies of the benthosin 1964-67 compared with similar studies in 1924show that the populations are still changing (Figure3L In this interval the population of chironomids,especially Chironomus, has declined drastically,being replaced by an .increasing population of oligo-chaetes. ehaoborus remained about the same. Thissituation is reminiscent of western Lake Erie,where oligochaetes took over after the_higkilloff OfMayflies in 1953.

,,,Settlers first moved into the Bay of Quinte region

of Lake Ontario 'abOut 17 Government reportsdescribe the devastation of ousands of acres bylumbering and the erosion pro lems resulting. Theinitial impact of this land dist bane On the Baywas tb change the deepwater sediment from siltdominance to clay dominance and to 'bring about amarked decrease in organic content through dilu-tion by clay (Warwick, 1975). Subsequently, the or-ganic content increased gradually, although it isstill less than pre-iinpaet.level, but now there is apronounced decline in oxygen content of the deepwater in summer. The initial response of the midgecommunity was somewhat surprising; it becamemore oligotrophie than it had been before but thenit proceeded through several successional phases toa' quite strongly eutrophic stage at present (Figure4). Unlike previous intbstigators, Warwick be-lieves that the earliest stages in midge successionare controlled by food supply more than by theminimum annual concentration of oxygen in thehypolimnion. The latter is important chiefly in thelater stages of succession. Besides the shift in lithol-ogy from silt to clay, the sediments deriving fromthe linpact period are marked by the appearance ofthe pollen of Ambrosia (ragweed), the abundance ofwhich in the sediments roughly parallels but lags

1 somewhat behind the curve showing increase inpopulation of the region. Ambrosia 'provides an ex-cellent time- stratigraphic marker in eastern North

130,

".1OF WATER

America for forest clearance and the initiation ofagriculture. ,

Man's effect on our water resources is nothing re-cent. Figure 5 is a pollen diagram of Langsee insouthern Austria (Frey, 1955b), a lake that pres-ently has a lay of water at the bottom that doesnot participate the circulation of the rest of thelake in spring autumna condition known aspartial circulati or meromixis. At a particularlevel in the sedim -, which is obvious in the dia-gram, there are sud changes in the non-tree pol-:lens, including the a arance *various agricul-tural weeds and occasi al ains of such cultivatedplants as cereals and walnu , as well as a disruptionin the development of the f rest vegetation. At thissame level discrete band of clay occur, separatedby a black reduced sediment completely unlike thestable sediment deposited prior to this butdentiealto what occurs above. Quite obviously, this is whenagriculture began in the region about 2,300 yearsago, and just as obviously the clearance of the landfor agriculture resulted in the inwash of large quan-tities of clay into the lake, triggering the conditionof partial circulation, now maintained by biologicalmeans. Hence, the sudden'import of large amountsof clay into a lake can have different consequencesfor different systems.

Lago de Monterosi, a small volcanic lake in cen-tral Italy 'about 40 kni from Rome, had an initialsmall burst of productivity when formed about25,000 years ago, then a long phase of low produc-tivity up to Roman time, when the construction of aroad, the Via Cassia, in 171 B.C. completelychanwd the input of nutrients and other substancesfrom its small watershed (Hutchinson, et al. 1970).The lake responded by dramatic increases in pro-ductivity and sedimentation rates which did 'notpeak until almost 1,000 years after the disturbance(Figure 6). Since then, productivity, as inferredfrom the accumulation rates of such substances asorganic matter, nitrogen, et cetera, 'has subsided toa level not much greater than that existing beforethe disturbance. The lag in response and the longduration of the response are probably related to thefact that Monterosi is.a closed basin with no perma-nent streams draining its very small watershed and-with output only via seepage.

Grosser Ploner See is a lake in northern Germanyfamous for the many studies in limnology conductedthere by August Thienemann and his associates. In1256 A. I . constructed- at the outlet_raisedthe w r level about 2 meters, overflooding muchflatlan in the process and greatly increasing theextent e littoral zone. The response of the lakewas spectacular (Ohle, 1972). The sedimentationrate, which had increased slowly from about 0.1

r

4

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY-A QUALITATIVE APPRAISAL

SCHINSEE BENTHOS 1924 AND 1964/67

NUMBERS/M21924

103Ii

Nim

1964/67

1.=

1

101 12-19m

NUMBERS/M2

103

CHIRONOMIDAE/CHIRONOMUS1924

1,64/67

ft

CHIRONOMIDAE

CHIRONOMUS

1964/67111rIL

1924

101

NUMBERS/M2

'4-

1924

20-/4mDEPTH

19240.=.

1964/67 .

CHAOBORUS FLAVICANS

1924

1964/67

>24m

1964/971111.11924,

9m 20-24mDEPTH

TUBIF'ICIDAB1964/6 71.11.

1924

>24m

1964/67vmer

1924

12-19m 20-24mDEPTH

131

>24m

133_

0

134 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER 42,

PHASES IN THE 61 ENORA-B CORE mm per year at the ginning of postglacial join* to

.

-

0- s; only about 0.5 mm per year 9,000 years later, sud- '"

PHASE,..,- p,,,04,,,, (is, SOO

f denly jumped 20-fold to more than 10 mtri per year. .the MODERATELY C,,c:,,S sPO5- EUTROPHIC

This has resulted in half the 15 Meters of sediment10

PHASE

P,41t r' 005e0 ,9 cf rx,fla ,z,,Ztatfl .0 1999ditl..9 1yO* ih the lake deriving from only thelast 700 years of

15- the MESOTROPHIC

3b,,,I1,0020u, Leojx241 l<41cenesno spa the lake's existences. The big increases at this time .

C, 202 in the accumulation rates- of such substances as

25- tszsD_Rsto uotthe IMBALANCE° Tonylon. 400 H zinc, copper, cobalt, and aluminum reflect the in-,-

6 3°- OLIGOTROPHICPHASE Hopoobut000thut ctoho, Soon

POolooffv4111 sod creased input of mineral substances to deep water35-a from the overflooded -land and pl'obably from the

u.

4,ch 40 watershed also. Correspondingly big ,increases inPHASE §bst,20,2snono ot ,osenst410001(Z*11)

the accumulation rates of organic mattet, chloro-O 45- the INITIAL IMPACT tartgEnouothoo roe metua v000

a 50- phyll derivatives, and diatom silica reflect the big.}14a 65- increase improduction within the system° resulting

MOOOdrOmtiO 0041C. sloth

OLIGOTROPHIC po.a000pormo u+ OSCVP PyPIh\sm this changed regimelFigure 7). ' .-90- the FRE-SETTLEMENT Het.00.uouotoo, moo, soon

115- PHASE oti,,2p, or cuot,.. (zoo) Thee lake level had been raised to poWer a. mill140-' . MvopsCtro WO dam, as Was comition in northernGerMany at this

164 \ time, and also to facilitate the production of eels, -but the concomitant 'flooding of valuable lgricul-

FIGURE 4 tural lands resulted in a Tong -continuing ,strife ber 4

TOTAL . PUNSDEPTH

20.0

".11ETULAALPIUS

,1

It ; /-/S

IV.F ..e PICEA.. -4 PAWS; . V

OUERCUS cohnus u 0 Amcsw ff g

-

20

toe,, - - 1-11 U I--40 40 10 5 5 20 20 9 5 20 40 20 .,10 10 5 10 5

IIISLACK REDUCED OYTTJA SAPROPEL

IgS4PROPEL A THICK CLAY BANOS

MIXED OAK FOREST

MeromIctic PhaseSILT

FIGURE 5

132

ASS OATES OF MAN

FISELY.1.4111NATED OTT T.IA

Helcenictic P' e

I

nC

0

50

',co

0BIOLOGICAL, INTEGRITY A QU4LITATIVE APPRAISAL

V < WO. IV It . 10 10 (4),(e-V 113103010 20 30 00 50.p/sore on*Zyc 7 0 2 4 13%tror4 12 14 16 ITI 20 22 24 26 26.30 0 I 2 5 Smp. 2N'0 2 3

135

Sep wpc.' 9 O-II 12,

1.14111P

1513511I

I 1

4\%

/

1

A/MEAN RATE OVERRANGE Of MOW'04 OATES

. MEERROLATE0 .; Fans °Ivo.°1 AreitoximAnkyI MEANUK

e.

CI

, ,

r.

'

I T III1-,8,,IIIIT

0 v. GNITATILEORGANIC MAT TER410 NiTROGEN

%

V

.

IIIIC

T

EST1v4TEOPATE OFDEPOSITION OF NITROGENPLOT TEO AGAINST DEPTH

V

l

.

I

1

Io

*.k

II\..

, a

.

/

iiiii 11II0

PESTIMATED DATE OF 0E051,03NOF IGNITABLE ORGANIC MATTERIN.OTTE 0 4044.61 URIC,

..

/II ,1

/23005P

3037/1? 63 . ./ ,

g2 . .

. .

11.04ow8,

.-24.40 ITIT

A

FIGURE 6

tween the mill operators and fishermen on the onehand and the manor owners and farmers on theother. Finally, in 1882 the lake level was lowered by1.14 m. Up to this time the accumulation rates ofmost mineral substances had been declining irregu-larly,..and likewise the indicators of biological activ-ity. The sudden lowering in lake level resulted in

erosion and deposition offshore of sedimentshad accumulated in shallow water, yielding aat

discrete horizon of coarse - grained sediments andassociated sharp peaks of various mineral constitu-ents. Accumulation rates of chlorophyll derivativesand diatom silica declined at this time, perhapsthrough light limitation of production by increasedinorganic turbidity. The large increase in chloro-phyll derivatives in very recent- time, reflectinghigh productivity, is attributed to the heavy use ofagricultural fertilizers and phosphate detergentslxid to the, draining of the surrounding wetlands.

4Vuch an in ease of organic matter and other indi-cators of pr uctio toward the surface is common-place among es being stressed by man, fre-quently resulting in a completely different type ofsediment than anything deposited eajlier.

Grosser Ploner See is but one of A number of in-stances where the productivity of a lake has beenrharkedly increased by, raising its water level. The

,_present high productivity of Grosser PlOner See is`'-';',*shared by mahy lakes of the region, all accom-

.,

plished within the past few- decades in direct response to man's increasing impact on the systems.Ohle (1973) has used the term. "rasante Eutro-phierung" (racing eutrophication) for this rapid re-sponse of lakes to cultural influences, in contrast tothe genetally sNw; balanced development occur-ring naturally.

The most abundhnt animal remains in lake see)ments are the exoskeletal fragments of the Clado-cera, 'particularly the family Chydoridae (Frey,1964). They are abundant enough for the construc-tion of close-interval stratigraphies similar to thoseof pollen and diatoms and for the calculation of vari-ous diversity indices and distribution functions.Since the deepwater sediments represent an inte-gration over time and habitat, the population of re-mains recovered from the sediments is partly artifi-cial, in that all the species represented probably didnot co-occur ht the same time and,place. Yet the di-versity indices of the chydorids do show certain.demonstrable relationships td such variables asproductivity and transparency and, as shown inFigure 8; the relative abundance of the various spe-cies in an unstressed situation conforms almost pre-cisely to the MacArthur broken stick model for con-tiguous but non - overlapping. nicires (Goulden,1969a). Hence; the species distributton predicted bythis model can be used to assess the extent of imbal-ance in the system.

133 : II

136 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

0,95/m2ra

100, 200 300 400 500

<:!

E

0 -o

5-

15

g Al /m2x

15 20 21.) 30

E

CS

2

0

5-

10 -

15 _

E

2

E

3

FIGURE 7

1 1340

1BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY-A QUALITATIVE APPRAISAL

FIGURE 8

In a series of 21 lakes in Denmark for whichmeasurements of annual phytoplankton photosyn-

thesis by radiocarbon uptake are available(Whiteside, 1969), there is a direct relationship be-tween species diversity and transparency and an in-

direct relationship between species diversity andproductivity. There is also an inverse relationshipbetween transparency and productivity. The inter-

pretation of these relationships is that as lakes be-

come more productive, they become less transpar-ent from the development of larger phytoplanktonpopulations, 'and with higher productivity the chy-

'. dorid community is thrown out of balance, quitepossibly from a reduction of habitat diversitythrough the curtailinent of species diversity and

areal extent of the aquatic 'plants which form themajor habitat of the chydorids. And since the chy-

dorids are but one component of a complexcommu-nity, one can assume that the community as a whole

has been stressed by an increase in productivity.In another study in Denmark, Whiteside (1970)

attempted to establish the predictive value ofchydorid communities for lake type, and thenattempted to use these results in interpretingchanges in lake type in postglacial time in response

to climate and vegetational patterns of the water-sheds. A hard water, eutrophic lake (Esrom SO)was sufficiently buffered internally that it wentplacidly about Its business during postglacial timealmost regardless,of external stresses that wouldbe expected to have repercussions on the system,whereas a soft water, oligotrophic lake (GraneLangsci) reacted nervously to even small externalstresses. Thus, the responie to 'a given stress canbe expected to vary greatly from lake to lake der

137'

pending od its particular suite of ecological condi-

tions and balances.The MacArthur predictive model has been used

to assess community stresses resulting from therapid climUtic change of the last interstadial(Goulden, 1969a), from episodes of Mayan agricul-ture in Central America (Goulden, 1966), and fromvolcanic ash falls in a lake in Japan (Tsukada, 1967).The last study (Figure 9) is interesting in showingthat a single instantaneous but massive perturba-tion, as from an ashf all, can have marked and long-lasting effects on the community structure of alake.

There are quite a few other studies on the re-sponses of lakes to stresses that might be cited, butI should like to give just one more. The paleolimnollogy of North Pond in northwestern Massachusetts , .

is being studied intensively by Tom Crisman, agraduate student at Indiana University. Many ma-jor changes, almost as precipitous as those in Gros-

ser Ploner See, occurred in the lake shortly after

the pine forest represented by pollen zone B was rer,

placed by deciduous hardwoods: Productivity in thelake, as evidenced by the quantity of chlorolihyll 'derivatives .in the sediments, increased dramatic-ally at that time, along with nitrogen and phos-phorus. A species of planktonic Cladocera, Bosminacoregoni, which is usually considered characteristicof more oligotrophic situations; was replaced al-

most instantaneously by Bosmina longirostris,characteristic of more eutrophic situations (Figure10). Since there is no clear evidence for any majorfluctuation in water level and since it is unlikely theAmerindians could have modified the watershed toany appreciable extent, the only correlate and pos-

sible cause is the shift in Brest composition. Butthis is difficult to reconcile with the data, becausewatershed studies to date have demonstrated thatdeciduous forests are more parsimonious than co-niferous forests in releasing nutrients from thesystem.

Let me attempt to summarize sorri of the major

points developed. Lakes change biologically duringtheir existence from changing inputs of nutrients

and energy and from changing internal controlmechanisms, associated in part with stratificationand depletion of oxygen content In deep water. The,biological changes in many instances have been.gradual, although in others they have been sudden,

associate_d with natural catastrophes, major

changes in water level, or even changes in the dom-

inant vegetation type in the watershed.Lakes vary in their sensitivity to external stress

and in their rapidity and magnitude of resphnse.Man's chief impact- is to stress the systems so se-verely that they are thrown out of balance and the

135,1

138

L.

THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

1a .

F GTHE FIRST Co14NONESTIVECIE13

Mono' ;due

--. 09878C/E 0----CALCULATED

d

0 5

084

096.0

1.5

2 4

.

.1t:>:4; -. ,r.

I's 4,s; ; ' : i ,

"+;;.C:1. '- ''..'

1.

- ,f .,' ':'i;.fr,' ,.....p... ......,.......1:1-, a , ..!. ,z, ,',....4,-6 ..'

.,,Z4,;..VAC4if, ,,r...;1.w.?..,--0:p, Nri..1%.

.4--", .7, -...er,A., ; .; , ;lc

..----N.."

.

..

THE SECO*,VOLCANIC ASH

..-

Aloha attlnis

Mona' Nue

htn:p... t.).

' 1.:,ow,itt ..- .....- ,,,,. ..,74

-...! _....

,Monospllus 9.4imoromons.48

THE FIRSTcvoLcon ASH

mor_iovliu: z

1.

DIVERSITY

.. A. kl',,, ::. -,...,.,4X1 fr, 14j.".41 .4-t.?- iir-cs

.; --,...^,e 14,-

l':.14".:.4.1

44"`le *

..:!* .f^r.1.4,4'.

I 908kHNAEeHipPIUM

1

f.,.,1',

..,.

0

oMoDomlis D

<Monoipllus alb,

alligh,

1308NINA

,MonospIlas :'<i

MSSOODIII.IS6

61 2 ,

OUITABILITY

Monosallus -"MN'-.c..-4.:

,/ A ..-;.?

.,4r/

,:.,-4 -',".''''.:1';

'c...Vrilti..

V t.".'' h?,14-.."-i4,`',:cky 2

Atrtf. , .1.

,... i ,-41 rt*ik.., --, 1

..Cg.1.,.t, I..4-v

.1. lvv.w-...:

1, 3

20 .40 60

I C v ORi013

4:? :47agt

--

Eurycercue

Eu....10Lcus

Eat ems

Nona attinis

Nona affinli,, ... . ." .. ...

_ . . ..-. ...--

ODo

Euryeeraitsamilatus

6PECrE6 RANK"

CamptocercusillIAcroperusrectirostris w=harpae

coregont

1-2 3000-8

400

"00 0 40 TO 40 IO 04 TO 40 44 MO

0.00

. , .

Aloneollinis

_ 90Other ChydorklESIMonospUusr--M- BosmInaCladoCera disp ar giaNEPtliPPtu

/'FIGURE 9

a longirostris

400

50o0 10 20 10 40 40 0 70 Ili TO POO

PERCENT OF TOTAL BOSMiNA

FIGURE 10

rate of change is accelerated ..what Ohle calls"rasante Eutrophierung." Both' for-'natural andman-induCed stresses, the response of the total sys-tem maybe fast br slow, and likewise the rate of re-

0

0m

a1,53021606 P.

05

0 644.830

2808.P.

0.95I0

I5

2 0 .

1.800:1609 P.

420 40 60 xl0tfcc wet sediment

(Ream na) 0

Volcanicri Fineash sand

Clay-gyttja

covery. The lag may be considerably eater thanpredicted from the wateib replac ent 'time,amounti g to hundreds of years even small lakesif our,imples from the past have been correctlyinterp eted. Hopefully, the response time, portico=larly of recovery, will be fairly short, but faced withthe unpredictability, of the response time, weshould be much more solicitous about the stressesplaced on our lakes, as even with massive engineer-ing input they may not recover as rapidly as hoped.

Eutrophication occurs naturally, but so does thecontrary process of oligotplphication. That is, alake can become less productive with,time, if its nu-trient-budget is decreased. Paleolimnology has notyet been able to resolve what the major controls ofproductivity have been in the past for any particu-lar lake, except by inience from our knowledge ofpresent controls."But since, phosphorus, more thanany other single substance, is the dominant controlof productivity in tempetate lakes, it is essential tokeep phosphorus inputs at a minimum if we are tohave any hope at all of maintaining the integrity ofour lakes.

136,

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY -A QUALITATIVE APPRAISAL ' 139

REFERENCESBritt, N. W, 1955. Stratification in western LakeErie in summer

of 1953: effects on the Hexagenia (Epherneroptera) population.Ecology 36:239-244.

Digerfeldt, Gunnar. 1972. The postglacial development of LakeTrummen. Regional vegetation history, water level changes

and paleolimnology. Folia Limnol. Scandinavica 16:1-104.Edmondson, W. T. 1972. Nutrients and phytoplankton in Lake

Washington. Pages 172-188 in G. E. Likens, ed. Nutrients andeutropl4cation. Amer. Soc. Limnol. Oceanogr: Spec. Symp. 1:

x,328 pp.Frey, D. G. 1955a. Distributional ecology of the cisco (Coregonus

artedil) in Indiana: Invest. Indiana Lakes & Streams 7:177

*3-. 1955b. Liingsee: a history of meromixis. Mem. 1st. Ital.

Idrobiol. Sunni. 8:141-164.-. 1964. Remains of animals in Quaternary lake and bog

sediments and their interpretation. Ergebnisse der Limnoto-

gie 2:1-114.-. 1974. Paleolimnolo: Mitt. Internat. Verein. Limnol.

20:95-123.Goulden, C. E. 1966.1,a Aguada de Santa Ana Vieja: an inter-

pretative study of the cladoceran microfossils. Arch. Hydro-

biol. 62:373-405.11969a. Interpretative studies of cladoceran microfossils

in lake sediments. Pages 43-55 ui D. G. Frey, ed. Symposium

on paleolimnology. Mitt. Internat. Verein. Limno1.17:1-448.1969b. Temporal changes in diversity. Pages 96-100 in

G. M. Woodwell and H. H. Smith, eds. Diversity and stability

in ecological systems. Brookhaven Symposia in Biology, 22:

vii, 264 pp.Hofmann, Wolfgang. 1971. Die postglaziale Entwicklung der

Chironomidenund Chaoborus-Fauna (Dept.) des Schiihsees.

Arch. Hydrobiol. Sunni. 40(1/21:1-74.Hutchinson, W E. et al. 1970. Iantila: an account of the history

and development of the Lago di Monterosi, Latium Italy.Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc. N.S. 60(4):1 -178.

Ohie. Waldemar. 1972. `Die Sedimente des Grossen PkinerSees als Dokumente der Zivilization. Jahrb. f. Heimatkunde(P16n) 2:7-27.

-. 1973. Die rasante EutrOphierung des Grossen MinerSees in Friihgeschichtlicher Zeit. Die Naturwissenschaften

60(1):47.Tsukada, Matsuo. 1967. Fossil Cladocera in Lake Nojiri and

ecological order. Quaternary Res, 6(3):101-110. In Japanese.Warwick, Bill. 1975. The impact of man on the Bay of Quinte,

Lake Ontario, as shown by the subfossil chironomid succession(Chironomidae, Diptera). Proc. Int. Assoc. Limnol. Vol. 19. In

press.Whiteside, M. C. 1969. Chydorid (Cladocera) remains in surficial

sediments in Danish lakes and their significance to paleolinmo-logical interpretation. Pages 193-201 in D. G.Trey, ed. Sym-posium on paleolimnology. Mitt. Intefnat. Verein. Limnol.

17:1-448.-. 1970. Danish chydorid Cladocera: modern ecology and

core studies. Ecol. Monogr. 40:79-118.

DISCUSSIONComment: Your nefinition of the integrity of wa-

ter seems to be the capability of maintaining andsupporting a composition of organisms that canexist in its natural state. In your discussion you de-scribed varying natural states and change of proc-

ess. How does that translate to a useful definition .

today? , / ..

Dr.,Frey: W. e had an example a couple of weeksago when two young Ph.D.'s who were modelingecosystems gaie seminars at Indiana University.They had linear models which didn't allow for anychange over time. However, in any particular lakethere will be changes over time, induced bychanges in climate and vegetation, soil develop-ment, and so forth. The4response of the aquaticcommunity to these changes will probably be adap-tive adjustments in apecies composition and in therelative abundance of species, controlled in part bythe mobility of the Species. I think a definition of in-tegrity has to include the concept of a balanced, in-tegrated, adaptive community.

Comment: Did'you go into these? .Dr. Frey: No, they are objectives.Comment: Have you made any comparisons with

other organisms over an historical period? Wouldyou be able to use changes in the plankton pokula-tion to detect changes in t er, as you pouitedout is possible with fis populations? Would thechanges be subtle or quite apparent?

Dr. Frey: I didn't go into any of the long termstudies, because even the best. of these are less than100 years old. I know, for example, that there arerecords for the Chicago water supply which docu-ment the kinds and quantities of plankton in south-ern Lake Michigan over many decades: Probablythe longest and most nearly continuous record of all

is that for Lake Zirich in Switzerland. Here the, deepwater sediments have been accumMateng as

discrete annual layers since the.late 1800's. As thelake became more eutrophic under man's influence,various species of algae invaded the lake and devel-oped to bloom proportions. These are documentedby studies of .thewplankton. Significantly, theblooms of the various species, particularly the dia-toms, are also recorded in the appropriate annuallayers, so that Lake Ziirich constitutes to some ex-tent a calibration system for the interpretation ofreal events and changes in a lake from what is re-coverable from the sediments.

Most of these long term data series have been re-ported elsewhere at various times. I didn't attemptto summarize them, but instead concentrated onthe kinds of interpretations that can be madefromthe sedimentary record.

Comment: I'd like to ask you a philosophical ques-tion stemming from your definition of integrity. Inyotii'opinion, are efforts to reverse a naturally oc-curring trend toward eutrophication counter to theintegrity of that lake?

Dr. Frey: I had to leave out a number of pages ofMY prepared text because of time limitations (but

137

140 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER ;

these are included in the published paper). For thechydorid cladocerane, which are well representedin lake sediments, the species diversity of the corn--- munity declines as the productivity of the lake in-creases; indicating that the system is beingstressed. This should not be interpreted to meanthat all productive lakes are out of balance becausethe rate of change is probably the important consid-eration. Where the increased productivity is the re-

. sult of man or of some essentially instantaneousevent such as a volcanic ash fall, the rate of change

in nutrient bildgets or other environmental condi-tions is so great that the community cannot keeppace with orderly and adaptive adjustments. Butwhere the forcing variables change slowly overtime the aquatic biota is able to maintain an internalbalance. Hence, I am in favor of either reversingthe trend toward increasingproductivity in our nat-ural waters, except whekk,this is specifically de-sired, or at least sufficient IT reducing the rate atwhich eutrophication is occurring so that thetern is not stressed unduly.

138

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY-19Th

p. M. WOODWELLBiology DepartmentBrookhaven National LaboratoryUpton, New York

Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas. Use yourown property in'such a way that you do not damageanother's. -

A simple precept, well established in Englishlaw, cited by William Blackstone as the basis of thelaw of nuisance and, I would venture, embraced bymost of you and other thoughtful, reasonable menaround the world. The principle has many applica-

tions. It was advancedrecently by Charles CheneyHumpstone in an article in the January 1972 issueof Foreign Affairs in which he argued for an inter-national no-release policy on pollution as the onlypolicy that will work. The precept has its roots, ofcourse, in the biblical morality of doing unto othersas one would have them do unto him. Such a codehas appealed to reasonable men for more than 2,000years and has become incorporated into mores,manners, and our laws and interpretations ofequity before the courts. As the density of peopleincreases and the.potential for intrusions on the, in-

terests of others soars, the need for strengtheningthe morality grows as wellor we degenerate intobarbarismand environment slides rapidly towarda chaos of progressive toxification and impoverish-ment.

But where lies reason today? The arguments runthat reason in the management of enyironment liesin compromisebetween the venal interests of..would-be polluters and the so-called "unreasonable"idealism of that class of citizens commonly identi-fied as "environmentalists." And so we find the Ad-ministration acquiescing in pressures to delay orannul provisionsoof the Clean. Air Act and we watchcontinued pressures to weaken the Water PollutionControl Act Amendments of 1972, pressures to dis-

sect and thereby confuse the simple objectives ofthe Act: to restore and maintain the chemical,physical; and biological integrity of the Nation's wa-ters. The arguments run that the objective is"unrealistic" and "unreasonable." We cannot; theysay, live on earth without violation of the objective.,That, perhaps, is true if we take eslavishly narrowand prejudicial interpretation of the phrase; butneither can we live in progressive comfort and

. wealth if we allow accumulating worldwide intru-

sions on the physical, chemical, and biological integ-rity of the earth.

And so we are asked now to dissect and define aphrase that should not be dissected. Our interest isin thepreservation of the biota including man.Jbebiota is dependent on the physics and chemistirofenvironment and affects both. In this case all is oneand one,is all. A dissection is inappropriate.

There is, unfortunately, no universal agreementthat the preservation of the biota is in the interestsof man. The oil companies can and will buy the fish-eries in a time of growing hunger and assert thatthe world is improved. And if biotic resources areimportant, they say, which ones? I cannot repair in5 minutes the accumulated effects of a half centuryof educational perversion in science. I can but as-sert that the essential qualities of air, water, andland that make the earth habitable for man are .maintained by natural ecosystems in a late stage ofevolutionary and successional development. We arenow watqhing iegional and worldwide changes inthese systems, caused by man, that threaten all.The 1972 Amendments are an acknowledgement ofthat fact and a step toward recognition in lawAthat,the biota provides a series of essential services inaddition to food-and fiber. The question comes backnow: how can we best interpret and strengthen thisimportant law? What new in science can we bring tobear on EPA's job of supporting thelaw?

The answer is that science can helppowerfully, ifit will. It will not help powerfully if it acquiesces inthe popular belief that compromise among compet-ing exploiters is a sufficient basis for managementof the Nation's waters; that all waters have an as-similative capacity for all wastes and managementis a simple matter of dividing this assimilative ca-pacity among the users. It will help if it starts withbasic principles of science and builds enduring man-agement plans on them. The two most basic princi-ples are evolution and succession. I shall emphasize

.

the latter.The generalized effect of human activities is Ur"

shift both terrestrial and aquatic systems from suc-cessionally mature stages to less mature, succes-sional, or "managed" stages. We ask what happens

C-

139

141

'1.

142 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

to water when such shifts occur. We recognize thatthe qualities of lakes and streams ate closely cou-pled to the qualities of their drainaie basins andthat the "integrity" of a river's functios reachesfar beyond the water to the land it drains. Howdoes this water change as the land changes? Thereis no simple answer; we can, however, examine theconcentrations of major nutrient ions in watersdraining ecosystems that have been disturbed, suchas has been done at Hubbard Brook and elsewhere.Even better we can examine the flux of nutrientsalong a sere, one unit succession from agriculture toforest within the Eastern Deciduous Forest. Thesere I shall use as an example is that leading tooak-pine forest in central Long Island. In this in-stance, Dr. Ballard and I have measured the quan-tity of nutrient ions entering the ground waterunder the various communities of- the sere. Thisground water flows. On Long Island it flows about 6inches per day and goes ultimately, ineo ponds,streams, and estuaries along the shore. It is, inaddition, a major source of potable water. It is keptflowing by an annual percolation of about 55 cm,How do these plant communities change the quali-ties of the precipitation as it passes through them to,become part of the ground and surface watersystem?

The flux of anions and cations through there sys-tems is shown in Figure,l. Two trends are conspicu-ous: first, for most of the ecosystems the effect is toincrease the flux of most ions over that in precipita-tion, despite the high ionic content of New Yorkrain. The ecosystems are net sourcesof most ions.,

Second, the fluxes out of these systems are sub-stantially higher in the younger, least mature suc-cessional systems; they are least in the later, foreststages. The difference is especially conspicuous forthe nitrate ion where the difference between agri-culture and oak-pine forest was more than 1,000fold, but ikapplies to virtually all ions except POwhich moves little under such circumstances.

The sources of the additional ions include ferti-lizers applied in agriculture and the erosion of pri-mary minerals. The accumulation of nutrients inthe net ecosystem production of the rapidly devel-oping successional systems is not sufficient to ab-sorb the nutrients availableand they are lost, tocontribute to the eutrophication of water bodies.

If we ask what the ionic flux into the groundwater and therefore into streams was prior to theshift into agricultural and successional ecosystems,we find it under the present forest ecosystems. Thequality of the water under these communities giv'esus the best approximation of the nutrient ion con- °

tent of "normal" water entering lakes and streamsin this region. This is thelqUality of water required

50

20

10

5

2

LU

LU

WCC

(9 20

Li) 5

20W-J

\1.0 Si

.7110

2

1

0.0

0.0

0.01

0.2

011000

500

NO3

.

RI

),, ,)1

,-

) - .4/

)A,

,

0- ci

i- Hco3

M

7P

NO20. 15

i1.76

19

giMpim

TOTALANIONS

200 200 A, n mAG I I PRECIP I PINE I PRtc.",IP.FIELD I STAND I FET.D I STAND IOLD FOREST , OLD FORESTFIELD , FIELD

SUCCESSIONAL ECOSYSTEMS

FIGURE I

to support the mature, evolutionarily-derivedaquatic ecosystems of the area. These are the long-est lived, least fluctuating, most predictable. Whilethey may not be the most productive of organicmatter, they offer a wide range of resources toman, not tlfe least of which is water of high and pre-dictable quality.

Economists and other practical men bridle at thesuggestion that management of environment

140a

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITYA QUALITATIVE APPRAISAL

should favor evolutionary and successional matur-ity. What about cities, agriculture, clear-cut f r-ests, and human wastes not to speak of tox ssuch as DDT?

The answer is simple enough; this is the cost ofintensive use of environment. We have alreadymoved far toward recognizing the need; we haveacknowledged that certain toxins such as DDT,aldrin and dieldrin are intrinsically uncontrollableand - cannot be used. In effect we have said-thatthere are aspects of technology that we must foregoto live safely together. It is a small further step toaccept that industrial wastes are not appropriatelymade &public responsibility for disposal; they are apart of the cost of industry awl to be containedwithin it.

Similarly, we are faced with the challenge, stillpoorly recognized, of building closed urban andagricultural systems that mimic in their exchangeswith the rest of environment the mature naturalsystems, they displaced. Here is the current chal-

lenge fork science and governmentnot to aid in thediffusion of human influences around an already toosmall world, but to speed Or evolution of closed,man-dominated systems thatlffer the potential for

a long, stable, and rewarding life for man.Unreasonable? Hopelessly idealistic? Perhaps,

but only if we reject at this late stage the age-old,time tested precept of other reasonable men: Sicutere tuo ut alienum non laedas.

REFERENCESWoodwell. G.M., and J. Ballard. Evolution and succession in

terrestrial ecosystems: nutrient fluxes in the agriculture-to-forest sere of the Eastern Deciduous Forest. Science (sub-

mitted.)Research carried out at Brookhaven National Laboratory under

the auspices of U.S. Energy Research and Development Ad-

ministration.

DISCUSSION.Comment: I wonder, Mr. Woodwell, if you could

comment on some ideas on ,closed urban and agri-cultural systems? I wonder if you have any furtherideas on it?

Dr. Woodwell: Do you mean how do we close

them?Comment: Yes, and what the elements might

look like.Dr. Woodwell: Well, we start with sewage

systems. At the moment, many cities are buildingsewage outfall pipes that will dump sewage, freshwater, and other wastes into the coastal oceans.

That procedure seems to me to be totally incon-

N..,sistent' with the generalized objective stated by the

143

law we're hereto discuss. There is a very serdsa.and important challenge to science and governmentto figure out how to recover the fresh water in sew-age and use it again; to recover the nutrients andother wastes; to avoid the inevitable pollution ofthe coastal waters if those wastes are dumpedthere; and, to improve the patterns of use of freshwater And nutrients. Another enormous challengeis to figure out how to avoid dumping toxins such asoxides of sulphur and nitrogen into the atmosphereto acidify rains hundreds of miles from the source.

There always are the costs of increasing popula-tion and increasing intensity of land use. The al-ternative to progressive degradation of the envir-onment is to close up our systems. If we are willingto reduce the earth's population to the point wherewe can live with the open systems that we've had,we can rely on dilution and the well-establishedconcept of assimilative capacity to restore the sta-bility of the resources that we're using.

Comment: Would you describe the Brookhavenexperiment in closing that loop, both frckm the kinds

of problems you encountered andconvincing peopleit would be acgood idea, plus some of the technicalproblems that you ran into regarding the use of theland?

Dr. Woodwell: I suppose that onehas to do as onesays. Over the past several years, we've built atBrookhaven a series of experiments designed loex-plore the possibility of closing that sewage loopwith the hope that we will make it unnecessary tohave offshore disposal of Long Island's waste.

The approach that we used was to start withwhat we thought we knew. We thought we wereexperts in water and nutrient cycling in terrestrialand aquatic systems. So we approached the ques-tion as to whether we could build a combination ofnatural arid manmade ecosystems for recoveringwater and nutrients in sewage from the Brook-,haven Laboratory sewage treatment plant.

Unfortunately, BrookhaVen National Laboratoryis a scientific community and it doesn't 'have verydirty sewage, so we had to get dirtier sewagetrucked in. We made special blends of sewage, onethe equivalent of the effluent from a primary treat-ment plant; the other the equiValent of the effluentfrom a secondary plant.

The plant communities used were tie sere fromagriature through to a late-successional forest.We've also used a series of marshes and ponds andmeadows to examine the potential of these systemsas well, for recovering water and sewage.

To put the story in a nutshell, it is still incom-plete, of course, but we now are beginning to re-member things. We know that from the statujaointof versatility, certainly agriculture-is the best way

1.41

144 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

to absorb nutrients and manage the ground waterin terrestrial communities, but other natural com-munities have a certain definable potential.

The most promising communities are the aquaticones, the meadows, and Ihe marsh and pond com-plex. It looks as though we can use a combination ofmarsh and pond. We built a marsh, most success-Jay; we built a pond lined with plastic to separateit from the ground water, and the edges of thispond are large1lastic pans that support manmademarshes.

It looks as though sewage Waled into thesemarshes, then into the pond and recirculated. It isreally cleaned up very rapidly. This is quite a prom-.ising technique. 3

Thepoint I make is not that there is a single an-swer to the set of questions I have set forth, butthat there are several answers. The answers arelikely to be complicated. These that I have outlinedhere seem to offer one set of possibilities that, byand large, aren't being explored in detail or withgreat intensity.

We have had no support, for instance, from EPAfor this bit of research, although it's a fairly largeproject, amounting to several hundred thousanddollars a year. It has been financed, interestinglyenough, by the old Atomic Energy Commission andby the local government; the town of Brookhaven,Lorig Island, which has a quite remarkably progres-sive Republican administration, and has had theforesight to invest very heavily in this kind of re-search and is learning a great deal from it. I believethey feel rewarded.

I believe that there is in this sort of approach tothe sewage problem and to the problem of closingthe loop, a need for very great efforts in environ-mental science, which really changes the direction,the entire objivtive in the management of the en-vironment.

That is what this law_ that we're discussing asksus to do. It makes the assumption that we can liveon earth only if we preserve the essential integrityof the physical and chemical and biological functionsof the environment. That if we continue to allowhuman influences to diffuse further and furtheraround the world, and with greater intensity, wewill destroy those essential functions, and make theworld less habitable for man.

So I see here a challenge that just plain isn'tbeing xi*0 by and large, by current research. Cur-rent rekiafeh on energy in big national laboratoriessuch as the one I work at, are focusing on what havebeen the objectives of science for the past decade,to relieve the expansion of present patterns of in-dustrial and economic activity further diffusion ofhuman influences rather than the consolidation of

those influences into fairly tightly built systems.Comment: In your artificial system, I should say

your natural system for removing these nutrients,picking them up in another marsh plant is not clos-ing the ;loop, is it? Do you have a plan for gettingthose bull rushes back into cows?

Dr. Woodwell: Ideally, of course, one would put.them back into agriculture and recirculate themthrough civilization, but that's hard to do with sew-age because we have certain problems with para:sites and toxins of various types. . .

What ,one can do, however, is to concentratethose nutrients in a place where they can be har-vested and reused. They can loused ultimately asfertilizer in agriculture; humus can be moved toagriculture; if there are heavy metals, as there maybe in some types of sewage these'days, the heavymetals tend to be deposited in the marsh sedi-ments. Then after a time, those sediments can beharvested and treated in whatever way one wants.That seems to me to be a lot better approach thanwe're using at the moment, allowing them to be dis-persed into coastal oceans.

Chairman Guarraia: Isn't it a fact that this ap7proach has been taken at Woods Hole with some ofDr. John Ryther's work with agricultural utiliza-tion of sewage?

Dr. Woodwell: Yes indeed. He has a very elabo-rate, large project in which they're exploring thepossibilities Of using marine organisms, plants, fil-ter feeders, a d marine animals, to scrub the nutri-ents out of sew 'age.

It has the dis'advantage, of course, of still result-ing in the loss of the fresh water; the fresh water ismixed with saltwater, and then lost. It has the ad-vantage that the water that's released is low in nu-trients. They can do all this with a very high degreeof efficiency. .

Perhaps Dr. Ketchum would like to comment onthat.

Dr. Ketchum: I think you've slated it properlyand adequately. I thiiik it's worth mentioning thePenn State studies in which they have fertilizedagricultural crops. It's not uncommon in the Westin irrigation processes.

Dr. Woodwell: Yes. I haven't mentioned a thou-sand other projects that have been carried out overthe past decadessome of them have gone backeven centuriesin which sewage has been used inparallel approaches.

I think that we have the advantage at the mo-ment of having learned a lot about the structure ofecosystems and the circulation of nutrients. It'suseful to put this theory and detailed knowledgeinto practice.

Comment: The thing that we're hearing now with

142

V

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITYA QUALITATIVE APPRAISAL

regard to returning the sewage to #s natural sys-tem is the possibility of not only regirning it to itsnatural system, but contaminating ',;iur source ofground water, which is underneat4 that naturalsystem and never was exposed to these pollutantsin the first place. Especially, some If the concernraised about the problem of chemicals; in the surfacewater. People are inclined to turn mote and more tothe ground water for their drinking source.

Is there any way, at least in 4 teniporary sense,that you can get the waste backmbitthe land-vv fthout

getting the ground water contaminated as well?Dr. Woodwell: I think so. I think tale most com-

mon problem, at least in my experipnce in LongIsland, is with nitrogen-nitrate, in pail-icular.

There are various ways of removing nitrogen.The meadows that we're working with are very,very efficient at removing nitrogen, temoving wellover 95 percent of it; so do the ponds and marshes.

So if first treatment involves trickling through ameadow or passage through a marsh and pond, wewind up with very low concentrations of totalnitrogen.

The heavy als that rn many of you, Isuspect, tend be sedimented in marsh and inthe meadow, well. So they are localized and nottransported.

Comment: H ve you been able to traee any of themore exotic viru es that have shown up'? For exam-ple, in the EDS s dies?

Dr. WOodwell: No. That's one ofprogram' at .the moment. It j n't been

fjcias

l"tc failures of

done.Comment: It's not that it can't be done; it just

hasn't been done yet.Dr. O'Connor: I'm sure that most of us with rea-

sonable kitellect subscribe and agree withthe prin-ciples yobLve enunciated. I guess our problemsarise, not go much in acceptance of thoie basicmoral issues, as in answering specific ptoblemswhile we have such short time here for ourselvesand our future.

In this -sense, I guess I have to disagree: withsome of the things you said, or maybe add to them.Let me first try to add something and then; dis-agree.

I would add one other aspect to your fine talk; itis incorporating flexibility into our environmentalplanning. Let's not lock ourselves in too strongly,as with returning things to the Great Lakes. If wemess it up, we're going to mess it up for years.

It's precisely on that basis, getting more directlyto our home 'area, that I disagred so strongly withsome of the components that I think you and othershave agreed upon; returning the treated effluent ofLong Island to the ground water is exactly the last

145ti

point you raised.Whereas, if we do return to the ocean for a short

time, we have two potential advantages. One is theflexibilitywe're not locking ourselves into poten-tially destroying a water resource. Secondly, thereturn of nutrients to land, as you implied, can beequally beneficial to sea. It's an extension of whatyou said. Therefore, I think one would be a littlehard pressed to argue strongly for returning it toground water.

Dr. Woodwell: By the time we have built a,roughly, billion dollar sewage collection systemtreatment plant and a sewage outfall pipe that costsabout $60 million, one hardly thinks of this as aneasily reversible, flexible sewage managementsystem.

The investment of $60 million for a sewage outfallpipe is sufficient capital investment that I just don'tthink that we're going to change that plan in ahurry.

Going beyond that to pursue the flexibility as-pect, it is true that we can increase the primaryproductivity of limited areas in the ocean by addingnitrogen compounds and phosphorus to film. And,it's also true that the coastal oceans have a certainassimilative capacity for organic matter and otherhuman wastes.

But it isn't- true that they have an assimilativecapacity for all toxins. Most people these daysagree that we don't have room in the oceans for per-sistent chlorinated hydrocarbons such as DDT andPCBs. It's very hard to keep those out of the sew -

'age of New York, for instance.So, while we might establish the idea of an assim-

ilative capacity for certain substances in sewage,that assimilative capacity doesn't apply, generally,to what comes with that sewage. Is that true?

Dr. O'Connor: Quite true. As I suggOsted thismorning; I'm not referring to the principle of assim-ilative capacity, but the one that you enunciatedyourself, that is the residual materials in thetreated effluent are good for the land and its nat-ural recycling system. I'm simply submitting thatthey could be equally good for the water in a nat-ural recycling system.

So, the option is open both ways, l'would add oneother point: Just as hydrocarbons are bad for theocean, I would say, considering the groundwaterresource and the use we make of it in Long Isl d,it is doubly bad for the return there.

Finally, just a little rub. I'm glad to see you areconscious of fgrces.

Dr. Woodwell: Very good. I think that the possi-bilities of handling sewage on land are very great.It's hardly inflexible. We have physical-chemicalsystems for sewage treatment; we can take out

.143

146 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

chlorinated hydrocarbons and not put them into theground water. In fact, it's very bard to get theminto the ground water because they tend to be ab-sorbed in places on the surface of the ground.

One of the best, the classic approach to physical-chemical treatment is, of course, with charcoal fil-ters of various types. The humus layer of forest, orthe organic sediments of the marsh or a meadow,come very close to being precisely that. They pickup virtually everything. "

So, I think of the terrestrial and aquatic, as op-posed to marine approaches, as being extremelyversatile, and not fantastically expensive.

Dr. ,Patrick: I just wanted to clarify one pointwhich you raise: That is, in order to keep sewagefrom getting into the ground water, the CampbellSoup Company did a remarkable piece of work inwhich they put tiled drains under their spray irriga-tion areas, and these tiles collect the excess thatruns down and is not picked up; and that is re-sprayed or put into a pond, and it is then acted onby algae.

'Dr. Wood4e11: Very good, -Ruth, thank you. Ithink I can guarantee that r can produce a systemfor absorbing nutrients and toxins on the surface ofthe ground that will not result in contamination ofthe ground waters.

s I see heads shaking. I can see that we have a lotof research to do. -

Coinment: The concept of land disposal of sewageis not particularly new to this world. I mentionedyesterday the CSEOLM Study of the Chicago Dis-trict of the Corps of Engineers ,done about a yearago. CSEOLM was an acronym for Chicago SouthEnd of,Lake Michigan.

What they were looking at was the sewage andflood water in the entire metropolitan Chicago area.One of the proposals made in this study was landdisposal of all of the wastewaters from the metro-politan Chicago areasomething very much alongthe lines that you discussed.

One of the things from which the proposfered was that the land that would be required orthis wasn't measured in acres, it was measured incounties. It would have required, d can't tell you offthe top of my head, how many millions of acres, butas I recall, it was measured in millions.

Do y think it is a wise way of utilizing our landresour es to ut enormous land areas under thiskind o what m'ght be called stress?' Dr. oodw II: To answer that, I suppose weought take a quick look at what we do now. Whatwe d now, of course, is to partially treat thiswas . If we're in New York City, we then release itinto come water body that connects to' the NewYor Bight, losing the fresh wate for any new, im-

mediate use; losing a good fraction of the nitrogenand phosphdrus, the nutrients; and, without ques-tion, polluting the coastal waters. ,

In addition to that, there are certain hazards con-nected with dumping this partially treated wasteinto coastal waters.*Coastal waters are indeed de-graded by this process over large areas, sa there isa cost which we don't calculate at the moment orenter into the calculation of what it takes to-run acity.- .

(In addition to that, we geperate large quantities

of sludge which are, in New York City, hauled outin special barges into the New York Bight anddumped. And you EPA people know that this is anincreasing problem.

That's ,,what we do right now. Now the alterna-tive to this, at least what I'm saying is an alterna-tive, is to do research on how we recover the waterand nutrients, keeping them on land and restoring.41w-water to a usable condition.

If it takes a large land area; that, unforttRately,is the cost of'intensive use of the environment4 seethat as the only way in which we can intensify theuse of environments otherwise degraded. We losethe coastal fisheries, and almost no one is sayingthese days that we ought to do that.

Comment: Given that there is a large land re-quirement probably involved with your marshesand meadows, how does this system stack up interms of their normal ecosystem productivity? Inother words, can birds and animals that would char-acteristically be found in marshes and meadows,survive in these artificial waste treatment systemsand would they survive? Do you have any experi-ence on that yet?

Dr. Woodwell: It's a little premature, I suppose.The marshes that we have Juilt are attractive, toducks and geese and great blue herons; certainlythe ponds support fish. I don't see any reason whythese experimentally enriched systems can't be apart af the matrix of natdral systems that are thegeneral environment.

Dr. O'Connor: There was one other point thatyou relied that I would like to address.

I understood your prerogative to speak and putin a black and white fashion the conflict betweenthe environmentalist and the industrialist. 'Cer-tainly one can subscribe to the principle of yourpoint. I think it's unrealistic, as I tried to say thismorning, given the fact that we live in a technol-ogical, industrial society.

To address the issue, in my mind it's simplistic,that you're going to 'change the structure of society.Now, I fully agree with much of that, and our stand-ard of living. But it seems to me that the issues arenot so much between the environmentalist and the

144

6

BIOLOGICAL RITY A QUALITATIVE APPRAISAL

industrialist as with all the other basic needs'soci-ety has. There's a conflict of those monies toalleviate poverty; there's a whole priority of socialneeds that have to be put into perspective with theenvironmental. And I think that is a more criticalissue.

Dr. Woodwell: You put your finger on the verycore, of what concerns ecologists, scientists of theenvironment, at the moment. It's a very largetopic, one that isn't easily examined in detail in amoment.

The question edifies back as to what are the fund-amental resources in support of man? What does ittake to keep us on earth? We in the Western worldtend to think that it takes a healthy economy, fedby lots of fossil fuel energy, and that nuclear energyis going to displace this, and that the technologythat's built on this free flow of fairly inexpensiveenergy is going to solve all the problems of man.That is simply not so in the eyes of biologists whostudy environment.

We have heard in great detail about the changes-that occur in the vers with channelization; that assoon as we chap lize the river, the normal func-tions of the river t at were performed by biotic sys-tems are taken over by man, at considerable cost.As a result of the channelization, the depth-of floodsincreases. Sediment loads increase and a whole newarray of problems appears that.requires anothertax 6n the general public to resolve.

That isn't different from other aspects of theenvironment where we gradually take over man-agement from biotic systems. And we aren't verygood at that kind of management. If we were goodat it there wouldn't be a problem in channelization,there wouldn't be a,problem in management of thecoastal ocean or in management of lakes.

Dr. O'Connor: I agree we are no good on it. Wehave very little experience or background, so wewill accept the principle of flexibility then.

Dr. Woodwell: I'm not sure what I'm accepting.So we come back to what our basic resources are.Our basic resources worldwide are not energy or

-..the, economy or anything else. The basic resourcesare biotiusesources. These are the resources thatare used by all of the people on earth, all of thetime.

Muc more energy flows to the support of manthroug biotic resources then flows through indus-trial sy erns. Much more energy, by a factor of 20

or so, t least, worldwide. It's only here in theUnited takes, and for probably a fairly short time,that we live with the enormous wealth that cheapindustrial energy has given us.

147

Although this gives us the opportunity to useother resources, as populations increase and de-mand on environment grows, we have to use our re-ources in totally different ways in order to avoid

degrading the .much more fundamental biotic re-sources that are essential to all of us.

That's the point the ecologists and scientists haveto make, and that should be the point of research. Alot of research,-right now while we can do it, on howto close up these systems and live for a long timewith a finite set of biotic resources.,

,Perhaps an infinite technology, but it hasn'tchanged the basic,rules of the game. The basic ruleof the game is that everybody eats plants. -

Comment: I guess it's not a question, but a com-ment that I'd like you to say you agree with. I havea couple ofoobservatidns on the story of wastewaterdisposal in Illinois. I think the program was vic-timized by a poor job of public relations there,which is typified by the description of the project asthe disposal of wastewater. It's not disposal and it'snot wastewater. They might have oalled it the re-cycling of essential nutrients, and told the countiesinvolved that they had chosen the lucky numberand had been chosen to receive a great deal of freeirrigation ,water and fertilizer as a gift from the cityof Chicago.

My point is that a great deal pf the time a lot ofthe stigma involved is dependent upon what youcall the thing::

Secondly, I don't think that the utilization of landresources for the receipt of these materials pre-cludes its use for all the other things that are al-ready there. In fact, I think it enhances it. So, itisn't like two or three counties have to move some-where else. In fact, their agricultural space mightbe increased. I think that's the point of your talk.

The third point is to the gentleman over here. Irecall some work we did on a marsh' in North Caro;lina, which by accident wits unlucky enough to getat the end of the pipe. It was not any sort, of a treat-ment system, but it was that kind of marsh. It wasa great deal more productive, not only in plant bio-mass, but also in all the other things associatedwith it. And one was struck by this just watirigonto the sight. r

If there had been, in fact, a scheme harvestthat material and do something with it rather thanlet it fall right back into the water and simply passthose nutrients ori' down, it might have been a verygood and efficient way of-returning that material.

Dr. Woodwell: Very good, I'll agree with all ofthat.

145

ti

I

REPRESENTATIVE SpECI S CONCEPT

er

°CHARLES COUTANTEnvironmental Services DivisionOak Ridge National LaboratoryOak Ridge, Tennessee '

The question can be asked very fairlygiven allof our good intentions, given that we're honorablemen and we don't want to destroy-someone else'sneighborhood anymore than we do our ownwhatdo we do?

My response to this question is a pragmatic ap-proach to assessing the impacts by either an exist-ing. or potential source of biological damage on theintegrity of water.quality. Essentially what I havetried to ask, not only personally but in workingwith people in EPA, people in the fisheries busi-ness, other ecologists, is, "Can we go about doingan assessmeift in a way that is reasonable, come upwith some good criteria for the managers?"

Basically, it involves selecting from the environ-ment in question several key species that we're

going to use as key indicators or determinants interms of- criteria for decisions based on water qual-ity. These are species that could fall into two cate-gories: repreientative species and what we mightcall those important species. Different agencieshave used this concept in different ways ad I hopeI can bring some of the salient points together.

In essence, the approach is one of selecting cer-tain important and representative aquatic speciesto be the critical indicators for decisions regardingthe particular ecosystems and location being evalu-ated. The opposite approach (although there shouldbe intergradations and mixtures of approaches inpractice) would be to consider only characteristicsof the whole ecosystem, that is, the- aggregate ofthousands of diverse species and kinds of orga-

nisms.'The Representative and Important Species (RIS)

concept is different from the old "indicator species"concept once used in organic pollution, studies. Thatconcept sought to identify certain\undesirable, pol-lution-tolerant = organisms (e.g., \ sludge worms)whose presence indicated pollution; the RIS empha-sis is on those species which we want to protect orenhance. .

Assumptions and Criteria: What are my assump-tions in suggesting, the direction of using repre-sentative and important species? What are my eri-teria for selecting them?

/.

(1) It doesn't seem possible to adequately studyevery species that may exist at a site of pollution orother impact; there isn't enough time, money, orexpertise, and most important, I don't believe thestate of knowledge of aquatic ecokigy allows us tosee all the interactions among species that may berelevant to the particular source of impaet,species cannot be adequately studied in the timeframe for making resource decisions, some smallernumber will have to be chosen.

(2) The species of primary concern are thosecausally related to the sources ot impacts. TO besure, there m y .be reppreussiong. throughout anecosystem if c ain, elements are destroyed, but IV

generally the, st obvious change will be on thespecies directly affected. 'ILwe'.are to correct mis-takes, we must also be mo-t con erned with causalrelationships.'

(3) Some species of fish d invertebrates at asite will be economically rtant in their own,right, that is, commercial and its fishes, regard-less of any more .academic cOnnec i 4. ; the eco-systems as a whole. Some others may be , uisancespecies and thus important in the negative sense.Both types of species are important in a societalcontext; segments of the human society are partic-ularly interest in them

14) Some species are known to be critical to thestructure and function of their ecosystem, either

: through; .p iiiiical form, for example, corals, orthOkigfildod :chap' relationships. These would be"imPortant" in an ecological sense.

(5) SoMe species which-die can 'term "represents-. tive" will be either parficularly vulnerable to the

source of potential klataage (based upon our priorknowledge fkomisboratorror field studies), or theyare truly. representative jh- \their biological re-quirements of most other species. If thesespecies are protected eel that we can reason-ably assure protectio /of ether species at the site.Generally, we would n'' want to select wide-rang-ing species at the extremes of their geograPhicranges as "particoulartY vulnerable" or "sensitive"representative species; they could, howeveri stillbe "important" and selected on that_ basis. Orga-

1 4 6

t

A.49

a

-4

D

150 ° THE INTEGRITY OF WATER. ,

ae the edge of their Ka` nge will often be the a) If these have already been established andmost sensitive to environmental stresses and could catalogued by resource agencies or by previousbe useful as sensitive indicators of ecosystem ef- , ecological studies by the company or otherfects. However, they often are of trivial importance groups (for example, universities), then theseto either the ecosystem or man in their marginal data might be used without conducting addi-

tional field surveys. .,

b) If suitable data are not available, then asurvey covering a minimum of 1 year is proba-bly necessary to 'establish the kind of ecosys-tem being dealt with.

(3) Decide what problems viewed in the first slideor identified from the local resources are to be con-sidered further for this site. In particular,

a) n the problem credible (documented, aproblem,elsewhere, a good prediction)?

b) Is the problem likely to be significant forthe ecosystem or society?

c) Does the species that could cause the hy-pothetical problem actually occur at your loca-tion, even during short periods ora critical life,.stage? ,

d) Is the species likely to be closely involvedwith the source of damage?

(4) On the basis of anticipated problems, decideon a list of representative and important speciesrequiring detailed field and/or laboratory study andanalysis leading toward administrative decisions.Use the assumptions discussed earlier or any othercriteria that may by particularly applicable to yoursite.

(5) Obtain literature and laboratory data on therepresentative and important species. To theextent possible the analyst should become familiarwith every aspect of the population dynamics of

$ these selected species. Where data permit, popula-tion dynamics models may, aid in determining whichtypes of information are most important. Sondeexperimentation may be necessary at this point todefine such parameters of direct biologicld effectsas lethal temperatures, upper temperatures forgrowth, optimum growth temperature, et cetera,that can be useful in evaluating impacts.

(6) Obtain detailed field data at the site of prob-able impact (and reference areas) on the RIS that

environment. -

(6) Often, the list of organisms that might be con-sidered "important" or "representative" is still toolong to be practical and a smaller list, perhapsgreater than five but less than 15, may have to bechosen. Generally, we would want the reduced list'to include a diversity of the more sensitive fish,shellfish, or. other species of direct .use to man orimportant for structure or functioning of the eco-system. .

(7) Finally; there' is a category of organismsofficially listed in accordance with the Federal :

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (PL 93-205) which,are automatically "important" by legal definition

and which must be carefully considered in anyenvironmental evaluation.

Developing such a list presents an acute test of fmanagerial skills for the responsible agency. Thekey phases will be soliciting recommendations froma wide variety of sources: fish and game agencies,conservation groups, regulatory bodies, the af-fected industry, and others, and obtaining theirunderstanding and acceptance of both the selectionprocess and the end result.

Use: How will a list of representative and impor-tant species be used? .4 clear statement of theobjectives for such a list should, of course, havepreceeded its selection. The list and its use willdepend upon the type of facility being evaluated.

It is useful to outline a decision train or actionplan associated with our- species list. My ownexperience has been heavily oriented towardspower plant impacts, so the following thoughts aredrawn from that context. The decision train I out-line includes steps lqading up to the selection of thelist of species, and it assumes that the source,ofdamage is not yet operating so that impacts must

'be predicted. If the plant is already operating, thenactual damages should be looked for, and if found,.then the decision may be to take actions to alleviatethe damages or, if no,other recourse is available, toclose the plant.

Decision train: (1) Review the biological prob-

would pertain directly to the anticipated prob-lem(s). The actual distributions of the organisms atdifferent times can be especially important. Thismay require more than 1 year of data to establish

2 lems that have been identified at operating power yearly variations. ..

plants, in laboratory studies and speculative (7) Develop engineering designs for the proposedanalyses. A simple "shopping list" can be of great facility to minimize problems. An example would bevalue in reminding the analyst of what he should be selection of the location for a water intake either ,-

watching for. . . 4 'along shore or in deep water based on the relative(2)1Examine the biological resources and any abundances of organisms that could be drawn in

existing management objectives for these re- along with the water and damaged or killed.sources at the site. (8) Decide (a) what, ?problems remain credible

147

57

Ala......

No

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY-A QUALITATIVE APPRAISAL 151

after compensating with good engineering and (b)the magnitude of the problem in relation to. main-taining a balanced indigenous community. A projec-tion must be made at this point from the welldocumented analyses on representative and impor-tant species to the likelihood of ecosystem effects.This we must accept as educated speculation.

(9) From the list of predicted significant problemsthat remain, or lack of them, decide upon issuingapproval for the facility. The realistic ecologicalanalyst ,must realize at this point, however, thatthere will be other considerations entering deci-sions'besides his own. at,

Conclusions: Decisions ,regarding water re-sources must be made. We cannot wait for all perti-nent information W come in, for in practice it neverdoes. Knowledge continuously builds, sometimes toreveal our triumphs of insight, sometimes to revealour mistakes.

I feel that we can minimize the latter within thepractical limitations of today's environmental sci-ences if we concentrate our efforts on those speciesthat l"v feel are either particularly important or arerepresentative indicators of the rest.

Whether the ecosystems be designated as wild ormanaged (and most water bodies are actually man-aged for certain harvestable species), knowledge-able scientists and managers ought to bl able tocompile a list of key species based upon 4innage-ment objectives. These species can then receivemore than haphazard attention. The detailedinformation developed on them will provide clearerdecision criteria for the administratoY and clearerstandards for later judging of any changes in theintegrity of our waters.

Let me summarize with the benefits of what Ithink is the concept of representative and impor-tant species. We want to do what can succeed withtoday's knowledge. We don't want to do a job that'sgoing to wind up in a lot of fuzziness that's notreally going to do anybody any good. We want to dosomething that's going to contribute to the deci-sions that have to be made. We also want to givethose species that the public considers importantmore than just haphazard attention. For instance, ifwe had not worried about the stripy bass in the'Hudson Estuary area, somebody would have beendown on our necks very fast.

The species that the coMmercial fisherman, thesports fisherman, the general public feel are impor-tant to th-em, often in tangible ways, these are theones that the analysts have to consider in detail.We want to give clear criteria to the administrator. -We don't want him to have to make the subjectivejudgments in the end. The ecologist needs to beable to lay out as clearly as he can the criteria to be

used in making decisions and the alternatives. Ithink this system allows him to.

Some well understood standards must be putdown on paper for use in judging changes thatoccur. By setting the criteria fairly specifically forparticular representative and important species, bylhaving population dynamics models that make pre-dictions about what the population is going to do 5,10, 15 years down the track, we impose our particu-lar impact. We'll have some standards that then canbe used by regulatory and conservation agenciesand the general public, to know if, in fact, the deci-sion that was made was the correct one or the bestone.

There are probably other benefits too; perhapsone of them being that ecologists are maybe lazylike everybody else and we don't want to have tosolve all the world's problems all at once.

DISCUSSION

Dr. Patrick: I certainly agree with you. I agreethat we must understand life cycles, that we mustgo in depth to understaa-Certain species. I thinkwhen you're dealing with thermal effluents perhapsyou are safer in selecting a few species.

But, I should like to point out that you can havean increase or imbalance 'in nutrients that wouldbring about a change, a gradual change, trshift froma high predator pressure to one that's. very lowpredator pressure, and you wouldn't pick it up for along time from the kind of studies that you outline.

Except that you did give yoursekan out whenyou said the ecolokist should pick tlie importantspecies. Now I feel in any such baseline studies it'simportant to study those species that are importantin the food way as well as those that are commer-cially important to man, and a mix of these studiesthat gives you the best, shall we say, baselines for afuture comparison.

,Certainly I agree with you that you have to take'the engineer into it with you. In the study that wedid with the Chesapeake we were able to show thecompany and the engineering firm that a hilf a footper second would greatly reduce the fish and otherlarger invertebrates.

And also by studies we were able to show whereto put the intake that had the least fouling prob-lems, and I'm 'glad to see this is working. In otherwords, the ecologist has really saved the utility orthe company a great deal of money by asking theright questions and solving them in the right way.

But, as I said, I think you have to know moreEthan just a few species.

Dr. Coutant: I can't say much to debate that. Thecomments I have made are most applicable, in their.

148,

er

yD

1524 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

strictest sense, to cases where we're trying to dealpredictively; where we simply don't have the. long

' term ecosystem changing in front of our eyes forsomeone,to go out and look it:

In practice, application of any source of potentialdamage to aquatic, ecosystems occurs over a timespan. The damage may occur 10 year from now ifyou're in the early stages of design of a power sta-

.. tion. Sometimes you're at the construction phasewhen damages may start occurring, andthen lateron they are occurring more regularly and you canlook at their effects.

The representative and important species ap-proach works best for the predictive situation. Sucha predictive system can evolve into the ecosystemapproach which 'has its advantages when the sys-tem is,there and is changing. Then you can look atthings like species diversity and other factors whichyou simply couldn't look at in a predictive sense.

Dr. Ketchum: I to agree with what Dr. Coutanthas Said.. I would like to utter just one caution,being accustomed to the natural fluctuations of themarine fish population. I just hope that you aren'ton a declining part of the natural curve when youmake your prediction and find out that nature hastaken over and had a greater effect in that particu-lar case than man's activities.

Dr. Coutant: A very good point. In fact, it waswith some trepidation that I suggested a 1-yearsurvey. It depends on the audience that you're talk-ing to. If you talk to a group of utility people exclu-sively, they throw up their hands in horror at thethought of having to conduct an ecological study fora whole year. I think any good ecologist would rec-ognize that, as you say, there are fluctuations andlong term trends that make even 1-year samplingsalmost worthless.

Dr. Ketchum Perhaps studies of adjacent areascould serve as a control.

Dr. Coutant: Right. In fact, one of the pointswhich I didn't include In the paper is that we need abetter implementation of what we might call theresource agencies of the country for putting to-gether inventories of species and their populationdynamics that are apt to be on a list of representa--tive and important species.

We know there are State agencies doing inven-tories, Federal agencies doing inventories, and util-,ities around the country doing surveys of powerplant sites. If we had a system for putting thisinformation together, the poor analyst corild go tothis source and determine reasonably accuratelywhat is happening ecologically in the western end ofLong Island Sound, for example; There is a goof'body of information from the various State andFederal agencies that could be used as a basis for

predictions if it were uniformly available. But Idon't think we're there yet. We don't have thatamount Of cooperation available in the system.

Comment: I kilow that the fish, or single species.--...,has been used quite a lot in the last few years. But Iagree with Dr. Patrick, I think we're going to haveto spread out more. -

And the current work with microcosms, especi-ally work of Bob Metcalf. and others, from the workat Oak Ridge shows that they had utility andscreening materials in screening impact on func-tional groups and functions of ecosystems where we'don't have to go to the complete ecosystem and wecan get some ideas with some mix, even artificialmixes.

But I think that being able to protect or evaluatethe impact material do a natural nutrient cycle orsome of the functions such as primary productionand decomposition are as important as those spe-cies of the top level fish that we might select. Thatcertainly would cover more than five to 15.

Dr. Coutant: I agree with that wholeheartedly.As I mentioned, you go on from the RIS approach toa more ecosystem-oriented approach. But I'd alsobounce the question back to you; arxde, in a sense,taking a representative and important microcosmwith which to make our/judgments? For the fish,which I tendJo emphasize because that's what Ihave been dealing with tend to select a species.

In your case, yo ' e interested in lake ecosys-tems. You, there e, set up an aquarium that hasabout the right mix of water, plankton and sedi-ment. Do you not call that a representative' seg-ment of an ecosystem? ( . .

Comment: But if we 16ok at the important func-tions of an ecosystem, and put in represeritatives ofthose, functions, then I think we've come a longstepbeing able to use something on the east coastand the west coast to represent the same functions.And we don't have to have the same species.

The people in Georgia complain about using ,Du-luth fish because it's a cold water fish. But if wehave representatives of a level of the bacteria andthe algae that grow in the south and west and northand east, put these into microcosmsothen we repre-sent functions and not a particular species.

Dr. Coutant: Yes, that's true. I guess I'd have togo back to the criticism that the analyst would getfrom the public. For example, in trying to do that,you select a certain speciescarp, for exampletoput into your microcosm. You may have used thisspecies because another species won't fit. The ques-tion you get from the public hearing may be: whydid you select carp for a bottom feeder when youshould have used some other species which I (thepublic) think is more important?

14 9,

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY - A QUALITATIVE ,APPIVISAL

IIt's difficUlt.to translate microcosm studies to the

very specific cohcerns that people have. Microcosmstudies are becoming more and more important,and they're telling us many things. But you do windup with difficulty of translation in the end. The manin the field, the man with his fishing pole, is inter-ested in striped bass or he's interested in large-mouth bass, and in the end, you're going to have totranslate your results back to ththings people areinterested ht.

Chairmari Guarraia: I'd like to e a commenthere. Being a microbiologist, e r have to get aplug in. I'd have to subscri tot microcosm con-cept that Mr. Sanders mentio

There have been some studies that dosindicatethat thermal effluents have shifted microbial popu-lations, and I'm thinking specifically of some workwith Dr. John Buck. And Dr. Blakehurst from Can-ada has shown that the tubifex worms have a dis-like for certain species of microorganisms.

In other studies_k. Odum has shown that fish ,have a distinct preference.for certain microbial sys-tems. This, of course, leads us to wonder what hap-pens when we enrich certain aquatic environmentswith nutrients from various sources.

What are long tertnchanges in terms of microbialshifts? I don't know the answer, and I don't expectyou to know the answer to thi. So, certainly, thesingle species concept is important, and I think pri-marily for one reason-you get a handle on it. Ithink we all recognize the extreme complexity ofAle whole relationship.

Dr. O'Connor: Would you comment briefly onthe degree to which the fish population models thatyou referred to have been validated, if at all?

Dr. co#tant: I think both with respect to oursand just about any other model that has been puttogether, you have to say not enough. Validation isa most important part of any model developmentand it tends to be the one least looked at. Every-body puts a lot of IBM cards toget r and out comesa number, and we think we're

But, unless those results can 6.e validated, theyreally don't mean mpeh. The particular model that Ishoweci.you is a good example. It` is being validatedin a sense that studies are going on in associationwith a particular poWer plant. Very interestingstudies and expensive studies to find the informa-tion that the mod*, both ours and others that havebeen developed for die same predictions, haveshown to, be important.

There are twd ways of looking at validatingmodels. One is to determine whether the coeffici-ents are right. So a lot of work is being done now toget the right coefficients for, among other things,gg and larvae distributions for striped bass.

I

S

( 153

Second, there is also a planning phase for once theimpact has started-Some of that work is contribu-ting to finding out whether each year's data tend tomatch what We predicted for the year.

I think validati& is, in that case, coming along aswell as can be expected. But often it isn't and Ithink your point is well taken.

Dr. O'Connor: Projecting in the research area,how close do yoU see models such as that in whichyou would iritrodfice more specific 1)bllution effectslike toxicity? Is anyone in, the fisheries area doingthat now? Or when do you expect that might bedone?

Dr. Coutant: That's one thing that actually ware going to try to do with the striped bass modelon the Hudson, because some things are tied in-

Dr. O'Connor: Just thermally?Dr. Coutant: Well, the first step is thermally. I

showed you the population dynamics model; actu-ally the thing that goes' behind the screen for that isa hydraulics model that predicts the numbei of eggsand larvae that are going to'bel\ the entrainmentbox. Built into the hydraulic model° are the dy-namics of the estuary, such that You can predictthings like oxygen depletion by having thermaleffluent added, a new sewage treatment plant orother addiponth Really, what we would like in theend is to have a Hudson River resource model.

Dr. O'Connor: We should get together someday.Dr.' Coutant: I'd like to make one point. Your

_question mentioned the research context. In ourdiscussion I'd like to make clear that rm talkingfairly pragmatically- in this representative Ind im-portant species context, about things that we feelwe can do now; as opposed to things that rd like tobe able to do in the future. There are a lot4of thingsthat we ought to be able to do in the future if w6keep up a good level of research effort.

Dr. O'Connor: Let me-just add, when you get tothe DO studies, and you look around at theengineers, that we introduce alternatives as bestwe can.

Dr. Coutant: The business could stand a lot ofcpoperation.4 Comment: You said at the beginning that youwere interested in approaching these in as much ofa pragmatic way as possible. I'd like to see if youcan give ang, kind of estimate of the types Of exper-tise needed and therefore the money and man-power. We realize that when you're talking about anuclear power plant you're talking about a lot ofmoney over a long period of time. But can you makeany application from your studies to something notas costly? ,

Dr. Coutant: I'm notving to try to go into num-bers. I think if we've learned anything in this e..xer-

15Q

S

154 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

cise on the Hudson, and also working on the Colum-bia, we've learned that we tend to greatlyunderestimate the time ,it's going to take, themoney it's going to take; we tend to overestimatewhat we're going to do.

To do the job right, even for one species like thestriped bass on the Hudson, you don't nite animpact statement in 3 months. It takes 'severalyears to do a good job and then you don't know forsure where you are really, because you can't putconfidence limits on your prediction.

So, I'm forced to say let's get more pragmatic.When we try to look at what we can do let's be verycritical of what we, think we can do, and let's bevery narrowminded in this sensethat we're prac -.tical in selecting the number of species. This alsoputt pressure on those who are selecting this list ofrepresentative and important species to do a goodjob in making the selection. Because you're going tohave to spend a lot of time, money, and effort on thefew species that you do seledt.

Dr. Woodwell: I must.say I also approve of yourpresentation and your approach in general, but lestthe baby be thrown out with the wash here, youhave-n't said what you discovered as a result of allthat study of the striped bass in the Hudson andwhat the conclusion might be.

Anticipating your answer to that, I'll go on to saythat the problem will then turn out to be not stripedbass in the Hudson, but th fact that one of thosenuclear plants puts throu itself 30 million gallonsan hour, or more, almo an inconceivable quantityof water. And, 10 or 1 or 16 of these plants are pro-posed for the Hudso' River estuary. ---)

It really isn't th striped bass that we're inter-

-.,

151

1

ested in, but the Hudson River estuary ecosystem.And right on the face of it, we know that we can'tput that many plants on the Hudson River estuarywithout substantially destroying it in the begin-ning. Then what do we do. -. The question then comes back to, do we allowthis further diffusion of human influences aroundthp world, or do we decide that the estuaries areimportant, and we can't put reactors on them, thatwe have to figure out something else to do withreactors. .,

Dr. Coutant: I don't want to make this an in-house joke in a sense. For those of yott who aren'tfamiliar with what we have been talking about, letme explain, off-the-record.

(Discussion off-the-record because regulatoryaction still underway.) .

Dr. Patrick: I think two different questions areposed here. One is what's going to happen to a spe-cies that's important to man; the other is, what isgoing to happen to the assimilative capacity of theecosystem, or its flexibility over time.

I would like to find that when you study themajor groups performing functions in the ecosys-tem, the problem which Dr. Ketchum brought upabout the variation due to nature, the populationsof a central species, doesn't netessarily happen, atleast in all the rivers that I've ever studied.

You don't have, under natural conditions, allaspects of the.ecosystem varying the same way. Soyou aren't led astray by a minimum number ofspecimens of a given population being character- -

istic o the area. I'd also like to point out that wehave been able to monitor some facets of the eco-systems.

.1

ts

.:.

.7,

,,

IDENTIFYING INTEGRITYTHROUGH ECOSYSTEM STUDY

RUTH PATRICKChief Curator of LimnologyAcademy of Natural SciencesPhiladelphia,- Pennsylvania

Natural aquatic ecosystems have evolved overtime to accommodate to the physical and chemicalenvironment in which they'live. This paper will dis-cuss the basis for the integrity of these systems,how perturbation affects them, and will make sug-gestions for strategies of management to reducethe effects of perturbation or pollution; that is, inmost cases, pollution.

This discussion will concern itself primarily withstreams and rivers and will be based largely on myexperience of studying streams in the eastern partof the United States.

Studies of stream ecosystems indicate they have-?-~ -optimized the channel structure and the variable

chemical and,-physical characteristics of the waterdue to seasonal change, runoff from the watershed,and downstream flow. For example, in the head-water sections of the stream the structure and func-tioning of the ecosystems are responsive to theriffle-pool sequence which is composed of a divers-ity of substrates, mainly rocks, rubble, pebbles,sand, and some silt which resides either in the pools

. or along the edges of the stream.The diversity of the current pattern is high and is

responsive to the riffle-pool sequence and theroughness of the stream bed. The water is derivedin varying proportions depending on the streamfrom the ground water and from the runoff from thewatershed. In undisturbed water, ground watermainly contributes, the nutrients such as calciumand magnesium which reflect the geology of thearea from which the ground water is derived. Incontrast, the runoff from the watershed reflects taleusage of the watershed. In undisturbed areas itoften reflect the organic matter produced by thetrees and vegetation, whereas if the area has been,utilized by man it, may reflect agricultural activi-,ties, road and other such results of man's activi-ties. It is difficult to differentiate the contributionof these two sources because, after all, the runofffrom the watershed may reflect the ground waterand likewise the ground water may r ect t

' usage of the watershed.

0

Head water: In headwater streams detritus is oneof the main inputs. This is because these streamsusually run through heavily forested areas ana thefall-in of leaves and insects living within the treesproduces a considerable detrital input over theyear. Also, the trees of the watershed modify thelight entering the stream and prevent extremelyhigh temperatures from occurring during the sum-mer months. The temperature of these headwaterstreams may be fairly constant if most of the wateris derived from ground water and is heavily shaded;or may fluctuate more extensively if considerableamounts of the ivater ars e from surface runoff and if_the trees have been cut away from the banks of the

m-e headwater ecosyste have evolved toha great dependence upon detritus in the latesummer, fall, and early winter months and todepend upon primary production in the late winter,spring, and early summer months. Of course, inthose areas where the forest has been cut away andthe direct sunlightyenters,:the stream, primary pro-duction by algae andAquatic,plants is the main baseof the food web.

° In these headwater streams the flow is relativelysmall in volume and because of the vegetativenature of the banks the water is typically clear. Asa result, the photosynthetic zone extends com-pletely over the stream bed: Many of the aquaticinsects which live in riffles have adapted them-selves to the high rates of flow that exist in theseareas and thus have streamlined bodies. Fishesoften develop suction discs by which they canattach to the rock's. Some diatoms will have a muchmore streamlined shape or develop strong hold-parti in swift-flowing water compared- to theirshape and manner of living in slower moving watersor pools.

In'the slackwaters below riffles we typically findmany filter-feeding organisms. Sometimes thesealso exist within the riffle proper as in the case ofblackfly larvae, but caddisflies, clams, and otherfilter feeders are more typically found in the slack-

152155

156 THE INTEGRITY OF WATERr

water area where the current is still fast but not as.erosive as in the riffle proper.

In the pool one typically finds organisms that donot like high flow and prefer a fair amount oforganic matter as a nutrient source. Thus, in thesediments * pools we typically find chironomidlarvae and tubificid worms. Also living in pools weoften find fish and crayfish. The types of speciesfound somewhat depend upon whether the pool iswell oxygenated all the way to the riverbed orwhether there is a decrease in.oxygen in the lowerpart of the pool. In headwater reaches of the streamthe lowering of oxygen typically does not occur inpools. This characteristic may occur in deeperdownstream pools. Roots of bankside vegetationoften trail into the stream and in these we often findwater beetles, damselflies, and sometimessalamanders

Main trunk of the river: As one proceeds down-stream the flow increases in volume and the waterbecomes more muddy. In this reach of the river themeandering pattern becomes much more eccentrieand the riffle-pool sequence disappears.

Habitats for aquatic life are mainly on the shoal-.- ing edges of meanders; very little lives within the

cutting edge of the stream. Trailing branches fromtrees along the banks of the streams and the debriscaught among them often form habitats for aquaticlife. The advantage of these habitats is that theyfloat up and with' he increase and decrease offlow and thus do not become submerged, as do habi-tats, on stable subwaters.

Because' of therge volume of flow, shifts inheight or depth of the water may be very great andsudden, particularly during the spring of the year.Tills section of the stream is usually accompaniedby a wide flood plain, parts of which may be wetswamps all during the year and in other cases, floodplain ponds develop. These areas with much morestable beds are used by many aquatic organisms asfeeding and nursery grounds. One has only toobserve the teeming life in these flood plain pondsand swamps to realize their importance in seedingthe main channel of the river. During high flows inthe spring and sometimes in the fall they are con-nected with the river. Thus, organisms when youngmay spend considerable parts of their life cycles inthese ponds, traversing to the river during floods.

Sloughs and oxbows are also valuable feedinggrounds for aquatic life. The oxbows are typicallycaused by the cutting of a more direct channelwhich naturally occurs when the meanders get verylarge. These areas which have slower flows throughthem are clearer, because the sediments have had achance to settle out of solution. In these watersmany more algae grow and it is here that fish come

,,.

to feed. On these algae as, one might expect, largepopulations of insects and other invertebrates maydevelop.

The sloughs, which are the mouths of formertributary streams, are also excellent feeding areas.In these reaches of the stream the effect of bank-side shading is much less and the stream is de-pendent upon detritus brought in from the water-shed and on primary productivity. The integrity ofthis system and its productivity are dependentupon the flood plains!, and these naturally occurringoxbows and sloughs. If they are eliminated, whichsometimes happens in chanpelization, ,the produa-tivityof this reach of the river is greatly curtailed.

Estuary: In the estuary the channel structure isvery different from that of the rest 'of the river.Here we see the confined Channel giving way toopen marshlands. These, marshlands function in asimilar way as the wetlands in the upper reaches ofthe river. They are very productive; indeed Odumhas characterized them as being the most produc-tive areas in the world. They not only contributealgae. or primary producers as a source of food, butthe emergent plants, on their death in the fall of theyear, create large amounts of detritus. A consider-able amount enters the river system and furnishesfood for man species of aquatic life.

The marshl nds also function in improving waterquality as pla is and sediments assimilate largeamounts'of nit ogen, phosphorus, and other chemi-cals necessar for plant and microbial nutrition.The green plants also produce oxygen by theprocess of photosynthesis. Many plants mayaccumulate more nutrients than are necessary forgrowth. This luxury tends to be greatest in eu-trophic water.

These plants also accumulate large amounts ofsubstances such as heavy metals. The physiologicalmechanisms by which these large amounts ofmetals can be accumulated and not produce toxiceffects are not well understood. However, recentresearch has shown that there are limits to thisnontoxic accumulation of metals and when thesethresholds are reached the metabolic rate of thealgae is adversely affected.

In the open channel two-way flow is one of thecharacteristics of an estuary. This is due to tidalaction. This effect may extend far upstream abovethe pettetration of saltwater. Typically, in mostestuaries the saltwater tongue which is more or lessdiscrete, penetrates up the estuary along its bed,whereas freshwater flows occur over the surface.

The amount of freshwater flow depends on thedischarge of -the river. This is usually less in thesummer, and the estuary will have a higher saltcontent than it will in the winter. Indeed, in some

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITYA QUALITATIVE APPRAISAL

estuaries such as the Escambia, the saltwatertongue is so discrete that in the winter short-cycledinsects may enter the estuary as eggs and gothrough their larval stages and emerge before thewater becomes brackish in late spring or earlysummer.

Often there is a very different type of fauna andflora living in the whiter in the surface waters thanthat which lives in the deeper waters where morebrackish water remains throughout the year. Sincethere is considerable hold-up time in this part of theriver, the estuarine communities in structure re-semble more closely those of lakes, that is, oneoften finds plankton existing as well as benthic andepithetic forms.

In the free-flowing part of the river, the sus-pended organisms are really scuffed up bottomforms unless 'a dam is built into the river which in-troduces lake-like conditions. Exceptions to this aresome of the long, slow-flowing rivers in the middlepart of the country where plankton may develop.These plankton organisms are not true plankton asone finds in the open sea, because they do not spend,their whole life afloat in the water. Tfiey typicallyhave resting cells that lie on the bed of the river orlake.

Thus we see that the physical conditions of ariver channel and the chemical and physical char-'acteristics of the water differ in these variousreaches. Likewise, the kinds of species composingthe various communities differ. -

However, there are great similarities amongthese communities, for their functions are quitesimilar. For example, in all of these communitiesthere are detritivores (organisms that feed upondetritus), primary producers (organisms that fixcarbon in the presence of sunlight and chlorophyll),herbivores (animals that feed upon plants), carni-vores (animals that feed upon other animals), andomnivores (organisms that have a wide variety ofdiet).

Recent investigations have shown that it is ex-tremely difficult to type a given species to a givenfunction. The reason for this is that during the lifespan of a species, depending upon its stage of devel-opment, it may change its food preferences. Forexample, it may be a detritivore at one stage of itslife history and an algae feeder at other stages. It isalso well known that when a resource is limiting aspecies may switch to another food source. Thus,although a species may prefer to be a carnivore,when pushed it may become an omnivore.

These functions may assume varying importancein different types of aquatic ecosystems. In somesystems detritivores may be more important thanthe primary producers. Likewise in some systems,

157

omnivores are more prevalent than carnivores.Nevertheless, .the same functions are carried out inall aqtfatic ecosystems that we have studied.

Furthermore, we find the numbers of speciesthat perform these functions are very similar, insimilar ecological habitats. Of course, when thephysical and chemical characteristics of the habitatsare very different, such as estuaries versus head-water streams, the numbers of species performingthese functions may be different. However, in thesame river area, when well-collected at diffAenttimes, or in similar communities collected arthesame time, the numbers of species performingthese functions Will be very similar.

This is in line with the work of Cody and Mac-Arthur, who found that if one carefully equates thehabitats, the numbers of species which one will findliving in that type of habitat will be quite similar.

It is ;also important to note that the forces in-volved in the creating of aquatic ecosystems andthe maintaining of them, seem to be similar. Forexample, the formation of a community is largelydetermined by the invasion 'rate, the size of thearea, and the diversity of the area. The relati4eimportance of these factors varies according to thespecies involved. Patrick, et al., in a' study ofdiatom communities, has shown that invasion rateand species pool available to invade an area aremore important than size of area.

However, with other groups of organisms, thediversity of habitat might be more important. Thekinds and relative concentrations of variousdensity-independent factors are very important inthe maintenance of a diversified community. Ifthese factOrs are variable and somewhat unpredict-able, the relative population sizes of species willoscillate around a mean and the community willmaintain itself over time. It is the opening of thecommunity by these unpredictable occurrences thatenables new species to invade and thus maintain arelatively high diversity.

Species interaction is also another factor deter-mining diversity of an aquatic ecosystem. Bovbjerghas shown that if a single species of crayfish is pres-ent within a river it will occupy the riffles and slack-water areas and pools.'However, if another speciesis introduced they will partition the environmentwith one being able to maintain itself in the rifflesand the other one in the pool and slow slackwaterareas.

Likewise, he has shown that physical aggressionwill exist between caddisflies in establishing areasfor spinning nets. This has also been observed withthe purse caddiS on rocks. The e is a definite spac-ing between the occurrence of t se purse caddis,which is proportional to the area to which they can

154

158 , THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

graze when they extend their thorax outside thepurse case.

Species interaction which is not direc4y competi-tive but is accomplished by the excretion of varioussubstances, is quite common among algae. In otherwords, a given species of algae may excrete a sub-stance that will deter other algae from living withina zone close to the species. Thus, it can obtain nutri-ents in that area without much interference fromother species. For example, Procter found that thegrowth of Chlorella vulgaris is greatly reduced inthe presence of Anacystis marina. It is also reducedif the green flagellate Chlamydomonas reinhardii ispresent.

On the other hand, Chlamydomonas reinhardii isstrongly affected and cannot grow in the presenceof Anacystis marina and is greatly reduced in thepresencecirniorel/a vulgaris. Scenedesmus qua-dricauda is greatly influenced and its growth is re-tarded by the presence of Anacystis marina,Chlorella,vulgaris, and Chlamydomonas reinhardii.The recent work of Keating (oral communication)also supports these conclusions.

Species may also affect the growth of other spe-cies by being able to utilize a given mix of nutrients.For example, it is known that Asetrionella formosaand Fragilaria crotensis grow best in cool water andeffect the higher nutrient levels that are typicallypresent in 4 lake in the spring of the year.

When these nutrients are reduced to a level thatis not satisfactory for Asetrionella formosa andFragilaria crotensis and the temperature of thewater becomes warmer, Synedra acus will oftenbecome dominant. This dominant bloom is often fol-lowed by a bloom of Dinobryon. It is well knownthat Melosira granulata andmany of the blue-greenalgae occur only in lakes wheie the nitrogen is verylow.

Predator pressure is another factor that greatlyinfluences the diversity of an aquatic community. Ifa predator has a preference for a species which isvery common, the population of the prey will be

eatly reduced and the community will be open forinvasion of other species. Paine has shown this

occur in_theinterlidatregions-wherethe-starfishp eferred mussels. By reducing the populations ofmussels, other species were able to invade and thediversity increased. lipop has shown that if preda-tor pressure is against a given species the diversityof the community may be reduced. For example,she. found that snails preying upon diatom com-munities discriminated against the ingestion ofCocconeis placentula and Achnanthes lanceolata.As a result, these species were allowed to grow anddevelop large populations and thus, the evennessofdistribution of specimens among species was re-

duced and diversity was reduced.Brooks and Dodson have also shown that the

preference of a predator for a given size of preymay greatly change the structure of the planktoncommunity. For example, they found that the intro-duction of fish that preferred_a larger size Daphniareduced the size of the population of this prey andallowed tke development of smaller planktoniccrustacea which, in turn, fed upon smaller algae.The relative size of the. algal population increasedwhile the size of the crustacean population de-creased, as a result of the selective feeding by thefish.

Although all aquatic communities are shaped bythe forces of these various factors, the relativeforce of a given factor may vary greatly. For exam-ple, in small ponds in the tops of volcanoes, fewerspecies are able to withstand the high concentra-tions of certain chemicals such as sodium and potas-sium and the lack of calcium which often exist in thevolcanic lake. Therefore the numbers of species aregreatly. reduced.

Likewise, in the far north, with wide fluctuationsin day length and lower temperatures, many spe-cies cannot live in this area and therefore the num-bers of species available for invasion of the area areseduced. In such instances, the density-independ-ent factor seems to be more important than preda-tor pressure or competition in determining thestructure of the community. In contrast, in a tropi-cal forest competition and/or predator pressuremay be much more important.

perturbation ofthe natural conditions of streamsmay affect aquatic species in various ways. Forexample, perturbation may alter the physical habi-tat of the area in which the aquatic communityoccurs by simplifying the habitat or making it unin-habitable. In the channelization of streams the in-creased sediments fill the spaces between the rocksof the stream bed. As a result, the stream bed ishomogenized, decreaiing e numbers of physicalhabitats that previously* ted. Likewise, the cur-rent becomes swifterAO he current pattern isgreatly reduced or hom d due to the fact thatthe roughnessnf the river bed has been obliterated.

Other types of pollutants may make the river beduninhabitable. For example, the accumulation ofheavy metals in sediments may cause the sedimentenvironment to become toxic to organisms thatwould ordinarily live in it. Another example is theaccumulation. of silt among the grains of sand whichreduces the flow of water and hence, the ability ofthe organisms to obtain oxygen. As a result, manyspecies which commonly live in large particulatematter such as burrowing mayflies, will not live ifthe interstitial spaces are filled with fine silt. These

155

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITYA QUALITATIVE APPRAISAL

perturbation tend to have smaller populations;those that are mole tolerant will increase in popula-tion size. Thus, a greater unevenness of the distri-bution of specimens'among the species takes placeand the diversity index is lowered.

More severe perturbation results in species sub-stitution. For example, in a normally healthystream one will find many species of mayflies andseveral species of stoneflies. If the oxygen in thestream is greatly reduced during certain seasons ofthe year, one will find a great reduction in the num-ber of mayflies and stoneflies and in their place willbe more species of chironomids, snails, andorganisms that are tolerant of or prefer smallamounts of organic pollution. Thus the species num-bers will not be changed but the kinds of specieswill be greatly changed. If pollution is very severe,

' the numbers of species will greatly decrease.We have found in algal communities over many

years that the first effect of organic pollution is fora few species to become excessively common. Thesecond or more severe effect is a shift of speciesfrom diatom-dominated to green algal-dominated,and if more severe, to blue-green algal-dominatedcommunities. This shift is accompanied by a reduc-tion in the species, number but a great increase inbiomass.

'Toxic materials, on the other hand, have some-what different effects. If the toxicant is one whichdoes not kill the species but rather interferes withreproduction, one does not see a reduction in num-bers of species but all species have very small popu:latiOrs.- This is what hippens when-one lowers thepH of a circumneutral diatom community to about5.5)If the toxicant is one that kills many species butallows the more tolerant to live, one then sees agreater abundance of these few tolerant species.

This has been found to occur with various heavymetals. For example, chromium will bring about ashift of a, diatom-dominated community of manyspecies to one dominated by Stigeoclonium lubri-cum and ..a few species of blue-green algae, with alarge amount of-biomass. Thus we see that not onlyare the numbers of species greatly reduced, butwhether or not the populations or biomass are largeor small, is dependent on the type of toxic materialwhich is present.

Measuring the effects of pollution: Many peoplehave sought to express the degree of pollution byvarious methods. The most common ones that havebeen used are histograms, dendograms, graphicmodels,-or the development of the diversity indexand plotting this against numbers of species.

Of these various methods, the developing' of amodel to express the aquatic community gives themost information' because one can tell not only the

habitats are often the preferred habitats for thespawning of fish and the rearing of the very younglarvae. These, too, will be eliminated if there is nota free flow of oxygenated water through the sedi-ments.

Silt may also greatly reduce light penetration inwater and thus make the bed of the river uninhabit-able by algae. Since algae are often refer'red to asthe gr s of the seas, the plant food source will beelimi dand the herbivores greatly decreased.

P utants may also directly affect reproductionthe physiological efficiency of organisms. An

example of pollution directly affecting reproduction"is that of small concentrations of dieldrin which willaffect the behavior of fish and cause the male to failto chase the female or stake out a territory.

Thus, very low concentrations which do notapparently affect the normal physiology of the adultunder usual conditions, will affect the individual atbreeding time and pence the reproductive process ,

' of the species will be diminished.The effect on physiology has been found with

large increases in temperature which may also bedeleterious to organisms by causing the metabolicrate to be higher than the assimilative rate. Thus,the organism will not be able to obtain enoughnutrition to survive. In other cases, it has beennoted that shifts in temperature are necessary inorder for insects to molt and in other cases, bass areknown not to spawn unless the shift in temperatureoccurs from the low 60's to the high 60's in thespring of the.year. The maintenance of too hightemperatures may increase the incidence of

disease.The concentration of a given phhical or chemical

characteristic of the water may at one concentra-tion be deleterious and at another concentration beadvantagequs. Therefore, the concentration of pol-lutants is a very important consideration in deter-mining the effects upon an organism. For example,1 or 2 degrees Farenheit rise in the winter has beenfound to stimulate oyster ,growth in the PatuxentRiver, and oysters which usually take 3 years toreach marketable size, have been known to reachmarketable size in 2 years to slightlY war n1 water.

1, In such 'islightly warmed water, algae typicallygrow faster in the winter and the food for theoysters is also stimulated.

It has been found that extremely small amountsof certain chemicals such as manganese or vana-dium stimulate diatom growth, whereas large con-centrations may be toxic.

Response of communities to perturbation, partic-ularly manmade pollution, is usually first evidencedby a shif in the sizes of populations of variousspecies. Those species which are more sensitive to

159

156

160 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

numbers of species that are present, but estimatethe numbers of species that are represented by dif-ferent sized populations,

This is not possible by the use of a diversity indexor dendogram. The histogram probably gives thegreatest amount information, but to date, thishas not been put into a mathematical framework.

With a histogram, by heights of columns, one canindicate the numbers of species; by breadths of col-umns, the relative abundance of the species of agiven group, and whether or not that group hasspecies that are excessively large. One can also, bymaking the various columns represent variousgroups of species or single species, show somethingof species composition..

Comparisons of communities have been deter-mined mathematically by comparing diversityindices, by clustering in dendograms, and by vari-ance in model shape. Since the success of anyaquatic ,community depends upon so many vari-ables, it is very important that as many of these aspossible be determined in defining stream condi-

. tion-. Therefore, it is best to examine as many dif-ferent stages in the food web as possible as to thekinds of species and relative abundance of thesespecies performing each function.

Similarly, it is important to look at the commu-nity as a whole as to its species diversity and kindsof species forming it. Finally, it is important to cor-relate this in4 rmatidn with what can be obtainedconcerning tiT chemical and physical conditions ofthe water.

Because man is going to have to use the surfacewaterways if he is going to have a stable society, itis important that he not only diagnose the degree ofpollution which is present and what is causing thepollution, but he also should find ways to preventor greatly reduce the severity of the effects of pol-lution. For example, the discharge of a large vol-ume orvvater through a single outlet into a river cangreatly disturb the current pattern. However, ifthis water were discharged in a way to reinforcethe natural pattern, far less severe effects wouldresult.

Recent research by many workers has shownthat trace metals may have a great deal to do withwhat species become dominant within an aquaticecosystem. In other words, nitrogen, phosphorus,carbon, et cetera, are important in determining thenumber of organisms that a given body of water cansupport, but various mixtures of trace elementsmay determine what species are dominant. If thesespecies have high predator pressure the productiii-ity of the system will increase. On the other hand, if,they form nuisance growths it will decrease. Forthis reason nutrient management of effluents may

be an important way to improve streams ratherthan have them degraded by organic discharges.

Conclusions: From this study it is evident thatnatural aquatic ecosystems have a °great deal orability to cope with changing factors in the ecosys-tem. This ability to maintain a continuance overtime is made possible by the large species pool withshort generation time so that species performing agiven function can change with given environ-mental changes.

There are also many feedback mechanisins sothat organisms \aud subsequently nutrients can berecycled through the system. There are also pres-ent in performing each function, many differentspecies representing many different major groupsof organisms, orders, families, and genera. Theirdiversity in ecological requirements for growth pro-vides the system with a greater flexibility than if asingle group of species performed a given function.

The integrity of natural water systems is high.The important thing is that man learn how to man-age the use of such waterways avoiding overbur-dening them so that the aquatic life in the streamsis able to carry out natural cycling processes andassimilate wastes.

DISCUSSION

Chairman Guarraia: I think the point you raisedconcerning the diversity of populations bears outwhat many people have done in microbial systemsto show the relationships, and I'm thinking specific-ally of some of the work that has been done by DickMeri6 in Oregon in this line. Ito is certainly veryexciting. Are there any comments?'

Dr.Qoutant: To carry on the debate a little bit ina bit of a diffejent vein, one of the problems weseem to have is identifying what communities gowith what combinations of physical' and chemicalcharacteristics.

I'd like your opinion on our ability to take a na-tional census, if you will, of water quality data,physical and chemical primarily, that is beinggathired ,now and, has been gathered in, the pastand to couple that with usually completelyunrelated ecological surveys to develop a list of spe-cies plus other things.

Do you think we could come to the point of beingable to marry the physical and chemical data withthe biological data and say, if you have this list ofphysical and chemical conditions, this is the kind ofecosystem structure you wind up with. Do youthink we're near that? Do you think that would be afruitful approach?

Dr. Patrick: I think to take completely differentchemical and physical data from biological data and

157

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITYA QUALITATIVE APPRAISAL 161

try to match them when they aren't collected at thesame time is rather frivolous. It shouldn't be done.

We have done a great deal of-work using the com-puter to monitor and we have found that if you takeone chemical such as nitrate, and try to relate itsconcentration to a given species' flux in populationsize, in most cases you won't get it. But if you take amatrix of chemical and physical factors such as ni-trates, phosphates, and certain trace metals, youcan predict that you will have a diatom community.But we don't know how to do the matrix attemptcompletely yet, although we , have had somesue,cess.

Dr. Coutant: This is really why I asked the ques-tion, too. I know you're having some good luck inmatching things in individual experiments, youknow, the two simultaneously, but again, being alittle bit pragmatic in saying we don't have thatideal condition for most of our rivers and lakes andestuaries, but we do have a 4irly good inventory insome places at least. Historical data ave been

"gathered over the years, some of it well rrelatedand some of it not very well corr . And youjust have to hope that, somebody will,put all of thistogether somehow in some magical model and beable to know what goes with what. But that's a bigjob.and I wondered if you hid opinions op that.

Dr. Patrick: It's a terribly big job., and of courseyou know better than I that the methods of deter-mining things differ so at different laboratories.

We've just published a study of the history of theDelaware River. By taking a number of chemicalparameters and not trying to define the situationtoo carefully, we can see certain shifts like the .migration of shad, and the shift in the productivityof the estuary, roughly correlated with BOD,oxygen, nitrogen, and pliosphorus, but it's veryrough.

I think it is just like asking a doctor to take a tem-perature one time, do a cardiogram at anothertime, and do other analyses at still differenttimesand-then come back with the state of yourhealth - .That's pretty difficult.

Comment: I might add one thing. Under part ofthe law that we're talking about today, the 304-307sections, EPA as a regulatory agency is going torequire the industry or the manufacturers of mate-rials to provide certain information- on these mate-rials to determine their environmental capability.

I think it was pointed out yesterday, this all ties' into the integrity, and if we can tie this together

with our mathematical models and get them to pro-,: vide the information to go into the models and the

impact on the various species and the functions ofthe ecosystems, then those materials that are beingproduced in the future will have this information.

And someplace along the line we're going to haileto go back and screen some of it, the materials.liketoxic metals, the ones that are already in the .

environment, and find out how they fit into such asystem and what their impact is. I think we arelooking and working toward being able to bring allthis information together' about our aquatic eco-systems.

Comment: A number of people around the coun-try have been trying to develop in one form or an-other a water quality index to be used for meas-uring, as we proceed into the future, whether ornot all these wonderful things that we're doing forthese millions of dollars are having any real effecton the qtiality of our waters. Most of the effortsthat I'm acquainted with have been along the linesof utilizing the traditional chemical parameters ofwater quality or physical parameters, compositedinto some kind of an index.

More recently, I've heard some discussion of thepossibility of using biological measurements for thispurpose. Do you see any hope for this being a'real-ity in the near future, particularly for thepurpose Qf communicating with the laymen, withthe public at large? What our water quality prob-lems are and what kind of progress we're making?

Dr. Patrick: We have already done this. We havemodel diatom communities, and in various papersthat I have written we have determined ho`v far, wecan continue without ,severely altering naturalcommunities.

Typically, a normal curve is a model of a diatomcommunity. Now, if an extension of a length of thecurve occurs without reducing the height of themode, and sigma square increases, you know thatorganic enrichment of the water has occurred.

By different shifts in the diatom structtreIwon't go-into them all nowwe can tell roughly

. what kind of pollutant and what degree f pollutionis happening in a given stream. We an measurevery finely. Of course, anybody can go out 4nd seeif there are diatoms in the stream, and if there is ablue-green algal or cladophora bloom, and be ableto say that the stream's polluted. You don't have togo to the more refined methods to determine grosspollution. But the importance of this method is thatit tells you trends before they become severe, and Ithink that's the kind of monitoring that we mustestablish in this country.

We can't get all the answers before some pollu-tion occurs, but we must set up a monitoring net-work that has meaning, and that we haven't done sofar.

Comment: I'd like to add an additional commentto that. At the present time, the CEQ and EPA andUSPHS are funding a study tolook at the different

158

(

162 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

types of indices that are available and see if we cancome up with sorhething that may be used in a na-tional sense.

It's obvious from past experience, that this is notan easy thing to do. We are attempting to look atthat now and also in another sense, within EPAwe're now conducting a study on environmentalmeasurements. To take a look, not only at thewater aspect, but at the air aspect. We're doing thisat the request of the Administrator because of thedifferent things that are coming to the forefront.For example, now we're doing major economicstudies on the effects our regulations and standardsare having on the economics of industry and the dif-ferent types of things that they are doing. And also,requirements for the sewage treatment.

So, we're hoping to take a look at these things,and I myself am working on the study as are someof the other people here today. So we will definitelylook at the potential for using biological indicatorsand we're looking at this in a context of a nationalsystem, and in a trend system.

Obviously, it's not an easy thing to do, becausewe also have to look at the pragmatic approach thatChuck talks about, with money and manpower. Iknow Dr. Patrick's system is a very fine system andI think one of the problems is that there are not toomany people around who are able to look at diatomsand make predictions that you're able to make.Maybe you could respond to that.

Would there be enough expertise available sothat we could use it as a predictive type model? Forexample, in our reports to Congress and to thepublic?

Dr. Patrick: I'd like tarespond to that In twoparts. One is that I thiiik, for the general public,there's the attitude that one person in ecology cando everything. And I'd like to go back to my an-alogy of a doctor. Anybody can take your tempera-ture, and if it's up to 104, you know you're Sick. If

S"

43

3

it's only 100, you may not be quite sure that you'reill. You can be very ill, but the illness doesn't ex-press itself.

What I'm trying to say is that just as in medicaltreatment, you get what youpay for. The morethorough and competent the examination, the bet-ter the diagnosis. The more you try to reducethings to a single number, the more you lose in themeasurement.

The important thing is to know the spectrum andthe questions. To answer you, if you want toroughly know whether a body of water is goingdownhill, take a few measurements; it's just liketaking your temperature. You could do a diversityindex; anybody could do that, you don't have toknow species, only recognize differences. And youcan make a diversity index which can roughly say,this is different from that.

But, if you want to know if one or another kind ofpollution is present, you have to do Other things.

Maybe you have to analyze it to see if it's radio-active, if you're interested in radioactivity. Algaerapidly accumulates radioactivity. Or you may haveto do studies on heavy metal content, or look moreclosely at the community structure.

I think it depends,on the degree of information,its accuracy and completeness that you want.

As for diatom people, we could easily train peo-ple, in fact we're training a lot of them in about ayear to do this kind of work. And we have otherkinds of measures which are quite good, not as goodas the model, but what we sometimes call a semi-detailed reading of a community which is done veryquickly, in a-few hours.

So, I think, again, it all depends, and I don't thinkyou ought tic) try to come up with any one way. Inother words, you ought to have different degrees ofinformation, just as we do for medical examina-tions, depending on your questions.

159

I

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITYA QUANTITATIVEDETERMINATION

4

160

r.,

. .FISHERIES

RAY JOHNSONformerly with theNational Science FoundationWashington, D.C.

I first read the provisions of the Act pertaining torestoripg and maintaining the biblogict integrity ofwaters immediately after reading about the bluefintuna situation in the North and South AtlanticOcean. The report.by Frank Mather of Woods HoleOceanographic.Institution, published in the bulletinof the International Game Fish Association in 1974,tells about the imminent collapse of the bluefin tunafishery that has been a staple commercial fish, bothin the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, since beforethe time of Christ.

As recently as the 1960's the catches of this spe-cies made by the Portuguese, Spanish, Moroccan,Norwegian, Gerinan, and American fishermenwere 'in the 10,000 to 20,000 range per catch. But in1972 and 1973, some net's took only one or two fish,and some companies or fishing organizations tookonly 1,500 or so fish in a whole.year's Wile.

One catch of 11.1 fish averaged r,040 pounds per'fish, which shoull make some fishermen in theaudience open their eyes a little bit this early in themorning. But theotal weight of that one catch wasonly 55 tons, whereas the same people witlr the'same nets earlier had been taking 150,000 suchlishin their catches.

Obviously, that fishery is in a state of collapse" and it-is probably due to over-fishing. There.are

three reasons for thinking so. But, here is a bigogi-cal integrity problem that fits Webster's definelon.I immediately began to wonder, "Will thg EPA Ad-ministrator develop and publish information oniheover-fishing factor which is, just as important, inmany respects, as some of the other factors he hasto think about?"

Along about that seine time, I heard Dr. BettyWillard of km Council on Environmental Qualityspeak befo the American Society of Civil. Engi- ..veers in Montreal. In essence, I think I heard hersay tHat a la& of integrity may mean an imbalanceamong the chemical, physical, and biological ele-ments of an ecosystem that threatens the vitalityand prtiductivity of Some, or all; species of tilt sy&tem. It may nieag a disruption of 'the biological Os-

, tem to the point where it can't support the orgari,_2_isms within it any long. She said, too, that -many

geneziThssmay be required to restore the produc-tivity and complexity and stability of this syitem.

Well, the words "imbalance" and "disruption"and "stability" held me up for awhile because, toihe, the biological world is full of imbalances anddisruptions and instabilities. It is constantly alter-ing its makeup, its inputs, its outputs, its propor-tions, its internal relationships, in response to ahost of outside and inside factors.

- Many of these factors are not manmade in anyway. So, what are we thinking about in talkingabout integrity? A changeable situation, appar-ently. Are we really trying, in 'response to a legaldirective, to stop the world and freeze its action likea ode-shot frame in a motion picture? Or are wetrying to hold a piCture, or situation, forever staticin accord With what we think the world ought to belike? I sometimes think we ,are, and I sometimesthink that's not the way to do it. At least, we can'tachieve our goals very well if we have that in mind.

If we're to talk about the factors necessary to re.store andmaintain fisheries, we have to have somegoals to work toward, some idea of what we Want to

.achieve. What fishery levelsi for example, to re-store or tQ maintain.

There's much information available now, on boththe total tonnage of fish present in the lakes andstreams of the United States and the yield fromthose fish populations each year. Isaac Waltonknew ve well that he was, catching his biggest fishin the st that dr the richest valleys in his

',country. Now we can d e t that with all kindof facts and figures. We can d cuss the waters of4",New Brunsivick that 'flow ove rather insolublerocks and have very few nutrien in them. Theycontain a total fish population of anyw re from 1?to 36 pounds per acre. `

The waters of northern Michigan, as reported inthe-literature, 'drain from very porous and sterilesandy soil' and have about 38 pounds of fish peracre. In contrast; the average of many Minnesotalakes, in more fertile soil surroundings, reaches 150poundser acre, and in central Illinois, the figuresre around the 600 potind per acre total weight of

flgh. Fetile land prodUces fertile water and fertile

165

166 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

water, of course, would produce the greater totalfood chain and more fish.

The same is true in our estuaries around the' fringe of our continent and it's true in the ocean

waters where upwellings of fertile water from someof the depths are conducive to great& planktonproduction. That's where the biggest fish tonnagesare harvested too.

The amount of life in the water depends not onlyupon the dissolved nutrients, but in addition, therate of fish production is also governed by watertemperature and sunlight. A lake in northern Wis-consin, for example, can give up as much as 20 per-cent of its carrying capacity of fish in 1 year's timewithout reducing the total-poundage of fish in thelake. A lake in southern Louisiana can produce 118percent of its carrying capacity in 1 year's time. It

'recycles things faster.These carrying capacities are not firm and fixed

and yields aren't either, of course. They vary fromyear to year in adjustment to many factors. Thewinterkill situation in the lake states offers anexample. When winter snows cover the ice and shutout sunlight and prevent oxygen production, event-ually the decomposition of the bottom robs the shal-low lake's volume of all of the oxygen. That maydrastically reduce the fish population in those lakesand, of course, reduce the yields too, either to thecommercial fishermen or to. the angler. But the sur-vivor fishes, and there generally are survivor fishesof a few species, make remarkable increases ingrowth rates and they get that lake back up to itsproductive limit very quickly.

The productive capacity varies in regard/to an-other factor, too. Lake Senachwine in Illinoisvaries from 3,000 acres one year to 6,000 acres thenext because of the water level fluctuation. But itscarrying capacity remains between 50 and 55pounds per acre, no matter what the size of the lakeis. That is the conclusion of the Illinois Natural His-tory.Survey a few years back. The total tonnage offish goes up and down with the total acreage, butthe carrying capacity per acre remains about thesame.

There are other quantitative manifestations thatbear mention. A prairie lake under fairly fertileconditions may contain, if it is managed in one way,200 to 300 pounds per acre of game fish species. Or,if the fake has a mixture of game fish and rough fishspecies, the total poundage per acre would be closerto 600 pounds. If it had tough fish only, like carpand buffalo fish, the total poundage would probablybe closer to 1,000 pounds per acre.

The latter fish, the carp and the buffalo, utilizethe nutrients in the water on the bottom much moredirectly. The gqme fish, at the peak of the food

chain, produce fewer pounds at that peak. If we areto think in terms of integrity and have goals toreach, which goal do we want to reach?,A givenof conditions produces not only a given number orweight of individuals in a lake, but also dbtermineswhat species are in that lake.

Pristine waters of large size are usually low innutrients. They are clear and cool and they willhave lake trout and whitefish, perhaps only 1 or 2pounds per acre. Lakes with greater nitrogen frac-tion amounts and phosphorus compounds plus car-bonates, sulphates, chlorides, and many minerals,will have a bass or bluegill type population, or awalleye and perch grouping, or a bullhead andgreen sunfish grouping. Carp can't survive well in alake trout lake and lake trout wouldn't live in a-carplake. The quality of the water determines What spe-cies will' e there, too.

Bringing man into the picture adds another wholeset of factors. The natural ponds in Alabama, on the

',whole, produce 100 to 200 pounds of fish per acreper year. When the disciples and descendants ofDr wingle stepped in, the fertilized ponds in Ala -batfia began to produce 500 to 600 pounds of fish peracre per year.

Putting a dam across the Green River in Wyom-ing and Utah to produce Flaming Gorge, or acrossthe Colorado River to create Lake Powell, elimi-nated many miles of stream habitat for native riverfishes. Of course: that was regretted and objectedto, but those dams afforded water for developmentof excellent rainbow trout fisheries and large-mouthed bass fishing. Now, who is to judge thecomparative values in the two sets of conditions?Which integrity do we want to hold?

There's another question that comes to mind:how far dapt expect to go in the restoration effort?During many years as Federal Commissioner on theOhio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, Iwas always fascinated by the descriptions of-theOhio River and the valley, in Rafifiesque's day, inthe early.180Q's. I look out of my car window, ortow boat rindow, or my hotel room window, about175 years tater and see what the Ohio River lookslikg now. The wording of the Act and the intent ofthe hearings give us the obligation of restoring thatriver to its former condition.

In literature, you can.find,references to the terri-fied reactions of Marquette and Joliet as they werecoming down the Mississippi River in 1673 and sud-denly came to the point where-the Missouri enters.They were faced with a flood of enormous propor-tions coming in from the Missouri River. They hadnever seen anything like it. The Missouri's swiftcurrent and dltiness fascinated Lewis and Clark in1804-06. There was an integrity to that river; it had

162

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY A QUANTITATIVE nETERMINATION

its own fish population; it had a balance withinlimits, a range of conditions. Some of the earlyhuman residents on the upper part of the river usedthe fish. Is that-the kind of integrity we're supposedto restore? Should we knock out those six dams onthetupper part of the Missouri and go back to theway things were?

I think that guidelines have to be worked out andritc ge6ping for some. In my vague way, I'm reallysearching for some bench marks that we must haveto gui us in restoring and maintaining what iscalled Oh e biological integrity of waters, keepingthe fish populations in mind.

In nature the balance, or integrity, is a changingthing. What manifestations of the balance do wechoose to be our objectives and goals? That saintMissouri River was se loaded naturally with phos-phates that I recall Dr. Tarzwell, back about 1949,fearing that when the dams went in and the currentwas stilled and the silt was dropped, and the`waters cleared, and the sunlight began to do itswork, %vie would have the most "blooming" riveranywhefe on the continent. It was a possibility; itdidn't happen,

The droughts okthe middle .1930's through theprairie country eliminated whole lakes and streamsystems and their fish, too. The lake beds weresometimes farmed. When the rains returned, theproductivity of those lakes and streams was unim-paired. It might have even been enhanced.

We wouldn't like to have a norm involving suchfluctuations, but they have to be considered. Goingfar -back into history, the changes in climate haveforced a retreat of several species of fish, hundredsof miles from where they once were, back to thenortheast, where they now live. Even before, in

,early, Pleistocene times, the advance of the ice4sheets forced brook trout down into southern parte \of the United States, into southern Missouri andArkansas: Do we keep these thin in mind in talk-ing about natural characteristics or integrity of ourfish population?

In more recent times I recall that the forest firesin northern Wisconsin released nutrients fromthose burned ,watersheds into the headwaterstreams of the northern part of that State and ap-parently had a hand in fostering the development oftremendous stands of wild rice, or at least coincidedwith the stands of wild rice.

But the growing up of watersheds, under tightfire protection, now has coincided with t}W demon-strated impoverishment of those waters, and acomplete disappearance of wild rice. Which degreeof integritydo we want here; which condition do wewant to restore?

I'd feellbetter if an administrative conclusion

167

were reached that it is the influence of man we'retalking about. Our goal is to nourish our waters andwatersheds and their water inhabitants hack asclosely to the pattern of variable conditions thatexisted before man's influences became so para-mount. Despite the vagaries and shifts of these nat-ural conditions, they did produce resilient and di-versified animal- and plant communities. These di-versified communities accepted the whole spectrumof change as a natural thing; they lost a few individ-uals and, occasionally, a few species. In other timesand certain situations, maybe more individualswere gained and species were added. A permanentand unchanging period probably never existed, anda stable, maximum fish production, or fish popula-tion, probably never existed either.

There was a pattern of factors that held true overlong periods of time, and this pattern we shouldkeep, seek to restore. Determining these factorsAnd ranges, has been a big research task. We're notfinished with it; the details are not worked out well.A lot will be done in the next 7 to 10 years by pri-vate organizations, academic institutions, Federaland State agencies, to work out the details thatwe're seeking right now to answer some of these in-tegrity questions.

There is a point that 11' would like to make. It isagreed by fisheries professionals that many of thefactors bearing on the welfare of fish populationsare applied at some distance from those fish popula-tions, or from the waters in which they live. I thinkyou all know this, but I noticed you had an acquaint-ance here who talked about channelization. '

Agricultural practices on a watershed affect thequality of water draining from that watershed andalsO affect the fish in that water. That'is elemen-tary. I think we can remember that wastes flowinginto the Mississippi River at Memphis a few yearsago affected the welfare of one species of fish 800miles downstream. Very' clearly and not unex-pectedly, the effect on the fish population appearedwhere the stress was applied, at the mouth of theMississippi.

I'm wondering if the record of growing acidity inNew'England lakes, particularly in Maine and NewHampshire, might not be related to the change infuels now being burned in Pittsburgh. The jetstreams could be a transportation agent fromsource_to effect. -1

Also, some of the factors that have a bearing onwater integrity and on our fish aren't visible at all.A fish population cloesn'tihave to be killed outright,it doesn't have to give evidence of immediate deathand float downstream or ashore, to be extermi-nated. The fish population can be stopped in its re-productive efforts or in its ability to convert from

163

168 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

fresh water to saltwater, as in the case of salmon,and therefore, die out just as surely as if it werekilled immediately from some acute factors in theenvironment. The factors producing chronic effectsare just as important as those that produce the im-mediate, visible, acute effecls. They are much lessspectacular and a lot harder to work out.

I would like to mention one development that I.was quite interested in while I was working withthe National Science Foundation4Che University ofTexas Marine Science Institute aillPort Aransas hascreated and tested a method for assessing the ef-fects of natural and manmade changes on the es-tuarine environment and it has applied that methodto the Corpus Christi area. The State governmentis using this method and several other relatedmethods to evaluate changes and to manage the de-velopment of Corpus Christi's coastal area.

The Marine Science Institute has establishedthree data banks: one on the distribution of hydro-graphic features and the nutrients and other mate-rial contained in the water or in the sediments; an-other on the life history, the food preferences, andthe environmental limitations of the estuarine or-ganism; and a third on the commercial dud, sportfishing catch and effort in that area.

The total catch of fish in the gulfafor 1973 wasabout 11/2 billion pounds. Of that total, 485 million,or 30 percent, was sport fish catch. These fish, thistonnage, came off the continental shelf and inshorecoastal areas. This gives a good indication of thecoastal fertility and productivity of those waters.

By measuring the dynamics of Corpus ChristiBay and providing information on how man'schanges in those areas, through shoreline develop-ment or waste discharges, are affecting those bi-otopes, the investigators and the regulators` aregetting a good idea of how the changes are affectingthe productivity of their whole system. They nowknow which factors are the ones that have to bewatched.

This has been a very general discourse. As Icomma -to the end of my thoughts on this subject, Ithink about developing an action program once wehave determined our goals. We may not have ourobjectives quite clearly in mind yet. Our course ofaction certainly won't be direct. I do think profes-sional decisions are not all that hard to reach todayand that we ought to make a few of them and let thelegislators and the water users and citizens knowwhat the professionals think; then let the politicaland economic and socikl processes begin to respond.

DISCUSSION '4'

Comment: I've spent my life in this business. I've

woo

been grappling with this business of integrity andwhat we want or don't want. So, this morning be-fore the meeting I took a shot at writing the defini-tion and I'd like to ask Mr. Johnson what he thinksof it. Here it goes in its rough form: (-

Water may be said to have integrity when it di-rectly serves the needs of man and indirectly servesthe need of man by serving the needs of prants andanimals that are important to man, by enhancingman's food and preserving a good and healthy en-vironment in which man can live well over thou-sands of years.

In other words, water being inert has no integ-rity as we think of humans having integrity; it has afunction. I think that man has risen to a point%nthis earth because he had brains and could thinkand other things couldn't. I think it's not too self-centered for man to make use of what is availablefor his own benefit.

Mr. Johnson: I certainly appreciate hearing that;it covers the waterfront,,,a.nd many tvater uses. Idon't have any profound eomment to make.

Chairman 'Frey: I think that one of the- very im-portant things that Ray broughtont is that we can'tthink of a status quo withoutnking of the in-herent changeability that's in the system anyhow.So whatever definition or principles are adopted asguidelines they're going to have to take cognizanceof this natural changeability that is in the system inresponse to naturally occurring stresses outside.

I also personally feel that his ,emphasis on theadditional changes imposed' by man's activitiesstresses the ones that we are going to have to zeroin on and, quite possibly, the ones that are inherentin the intent of the law. Maybe someone would Careto raise opposition to that and engage Ray and mein combat.

Comment: I would, sir. In major engineeringworks, whether they're for Federal, State, local, orprivate purposes, we are imposing now (or are con-fronted with, depending on which side of the table'you sit in the planning process) a requirement foran environmental impact statement Or environ-mental assessment; one of the requirements in thinmatrix is to show that there's no degradation,(Nr,. ifthere is to be degradation, that it ii`qtantifiable,and further, toshoN4 that other alternatives wereconsidered.

Thi,4iropos'al that you are making offers theleast. 'WM, if we as professionals are unable toquantify or to set a time frame, how can a major de-velopment such as the Cleveland Airport expan;sion, or the Transit Authority, or the Alaskan Pipe-line do this? How can this cost be levied on a reason-able, equitable, cost sharing basis?

Is it the man who comes first and says,

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY-A QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION

piece of ground is to converted from -a naturalstate for my purposes, therefore, I bear the cost."Or, are the people who come later to 'share to becharged a user charge, or, in the case of private in-dustry, do we demand that all of the money be puton the tabbird say, "YOU want it, you pay"? How

can this e?Mr. Johnson: In many ways under many dif-

ferent conditions, I preSume.-I was part of the Alas-kan Pipeline effort, and I hate to think of the num-ber of hours that several of us spent on thatenvironmental impact statement on behalf of theDepartment of the Interior. In looking back on thatone particularveffort, Fm glad there was a delay be-

_

0

169

cause the engineering wasn't right in all respects.Corrections in design have now been made.

On your cost question, I don't have a good ans-wer, but this kind of question iS'usually answered-by three different types of inputs, finally somehowreaching some kind of a tripod agreement: the.bio-logical and.natural history input, the economic andsocial input, and the political and,adniinistrative in-put. Those three will have to get together andshape the decision on any one of these problemsthat you have raised. They may be different deci-sions in each case, but the process may rem n

about the same.

165.

a

QUANTIFICATION OF,BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY -s

JOHN' CAIRNS, :JR.Biblogy Department and -Center for Environmental StudiesVirginia e.Polytechnic Institute_and State UniversityBlacksburg, Virginia

Biological integrity may be defined-as the main-tenance of the community structure and functioncharacteristic of a particular locale or deemed satis-factory to society. In this regard, two points de-serve particular emphasis. First, the assumption ismade that all natural systems are dynamic and as aresult are characterized by a continual succession ofspecies, although the rate of successiop may be

quite different in different-systems. Thus, the pro-tection of 'a particular species however valuablefrom a monetary or .other value system, may becounterproductive because it attempts to "freeze" adynamic system. The conflict between the protec-tion of systems anfithe protection of species is dis-cussed at length ilitairns (1975).

Second, standards based on this definition of bio-logical integrity will be higlry: site specific. There-fore, while the criteria (nam maintenance of nor-5sal structure and function) will be the .samethroughout the United States, thus maintaining theequality before the law philosophy, the standards'for each particular locale, even within a singlestate, may be different. This merely recognizessomething that the Department of Agriculture hasrecognized since its inception, i.e., ecological condi-tions are not the same throughout the UnitedStates and attempts to ignore unique regional eco-logical conditions are stupid and doomed to failure.This would , hardly be worth saying were it not forthe fact tat environmental legislation continues to

r ignore regional differences probably because of feariof the complexity of the. legislation which takes.these into consideration. However, it is almoSt cer-taintain that environmental quality control will be un-successful until regional differences are acknowl-

edged.

STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY

!- It is not my intention to, attempt to discuss atlength the literature showing that natural commu-nities have certain structural characteristics which

may be depicted numerically. However, we are alldeeply indebted to such early investigators as Pres-ton (1948), Patrick (1949), and others. Also worthyof note is the equilibrium model of MacArthur andWilson (1963) which showed how community struc-ture could 'be maintained despite the successionalprocess. In addition to the scientific justification forthe use of structural-integrity as a means of' asses-sing pollutional changes, there is also substantialbenefit in communicability of results, since num-bers are more easily understood by nonbiologiststhan an array of Latin names.

Only three basic kinds of information are pres-ently useful in the quantification of the structuralaspects oftiological integfity. These are (1)' thenumber of species or other taxonomic units preg-ent, (2) the number of individuals per species, and(3) the kinds of species present, Within this frame-work'are such things as spatial relationships, den-sity relationships, and various trophic relation-ships.

INDICATOR SPECIES . ,

Biologists have long recognized that certain spe-cies tend to be found in certain habitats and, there-fore, thepresence of a certain species indicates thatcertain ecological conditions exist and the absence

.,of the species that these conditions do notlassum-ing the species 'are able to get there). This is, ofcourse, an oversimplification but space does notpermit a more detailed ,discussion. It was probablyinevitable that there would be an attempt to trans-fer this reasoning to theassessment of pollution bystating that certain species are found where pol-luted conditions exist, others where, conditions aresemi-polluted, and stL another 0i:sup of specieswhere healthy conditio exist. Unfortunately, pol-lution covers a much broader range of conditionsthan most habitats for which biologists predict withreasonable certainty that certain species will bepresent.

..1

1,66

: 171'

172 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

One of the principal faults with the indicator spe-cies concept is that a species may be very sensitiveto thermal discharges but rather tolerant of a par-ticular chemical toxicant or high concentration ofsuspended solids, yet all are forms of pollution. Amore extended discussion of these weaknesses iAPthe indicator species concept may be found itCairns (1974a1.

However, if one has faith in the indicator speciesconcept, one may collect the species from a particu-lar habitat or locale exposed to apresumed pol-lutant and dptermine the number of species in eachof the various saprobic categories and either com-pare these: to a reference area not exposed to thesource of pollution or some other 'reference aggre-gation of organisnis. Using this approach, it is pos-sible to get a quantitative comparison of one areawith another area. Proponents of the saprobic sys-lem have provided increasingly sophisticatedanalyses of the tolerance of various types of or-ganisms.:

Although I do not believe that sufficient informa-tion now exists for most areas of the wmild to makethe saprobic system functional, it does seem possi-ble that eventually a sufficiently large informationbase will revitalize this assessment method. Thisinformation base should include detailed informa-tion, about the tolerance of each species as well as asufficiently large list of species to insure that anappreciable number will be found in each and everylocale where assessments of biological integritymight be made. Until the information base isbroader than it is now, the saprobic system doesnot have general applicability. Since one probablywill not know precisely what species are in a par-ticular area until they are collected, much valuabletime would*be lost if, after collection and identifica-tion were completed, one found no saprobic desig-nation for most of the species collected.

THE PATRICK HISTOGRA4p

The histograms developed on the ConestogaltTr-vey by Ruth Patrick (1949) and her colleagues atthe Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences rep-resented a major breakthrough in the quantifica-tion of the structural aspects of biological integrity:The principal advantages of this method were: (1) itdisplayed the number.of species in,each of sevenmajor categories graphically; 12) it provided a crudemeans of distinguishing between' "normal" abund-ance and "over" abundance; (3) it'perrhitted detec-tion of gross pollutional effects; and (4) its effec-

'ttiveness was not markedly reduced by successionalchanges or small differences in habitat, whichwould be important if one were using species listsalone.

0

tt;

The principal weakn sses of this method were:(1) a highly trained to of specialists in differenttaxonomic dis s was required and thus themethod was difficult to use on a broad scale becauseof the lack of skilled specialists; (2) it only providedfour major categories of "health" and very oftenthe presence or absence of a few species might alterthe designation from one category to another (this,of course, could be offset by an extended discussionwhich would complicate the communication prob-lem); (3) the time required to obtain the informationoften extended to months because of the difficultyof identifying certain species (of course, in an emer-gency situation this could be substantially short-ened, but nevertheless, the identification processrequires at least several weeks). One should re-member that this method was developed over 26years ago and it should be judged in the context ofits timeat that time it represented a major turn-ing point in the quantification of biological in-tegrity.

A number of niethods followed which attemptedto reduce the number of the specialists requiredand the complexity of the Patrick histograms andretain the basic analytical thrust. Examples ofthese are the methods of Beck (1954, 1955) andWuftz (1955). These latter methods combinedelements of the saprobic system with the Patrickmethod and concentrated on a relatively narrowspectrum of the aquatic community in order to sim-plify identification and analytical problems. It isprobably fair to say that they represented a varia-tion on already established themes and not a con-ceptual advance. The work of Gaufin and Tarzwell(1952) and Gaufin (1956) on. Lytle Creek, based onthe same assumptions as Patrick's, represented amajor contribution in the quantification of biologicalintegrity since it showed the quantitative #nd quali-tative structural changes that occurred when anaquatic-community had been severely stressed bypollution and underwent &recovery process.

BEAK METHOD

The method developed by Beak, et al. (1959) wasprimarily'lor lakes but might well work in certainstreams where there are one or two species persist-ing for a substantial period of time in substantialnumbers. Essentially the method consisted of de-tel.mining .the density of one or more establishedspecies in two concentric rings at different dis-tances from the' waste outfall. Changes in propor-tional'abundance in these two rings indicated pollu-tion since presumably there would be a concentra-tion gradient proceeding away from the outfall inmuch the same manner that ripples expand as they

167

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITYA QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION

leave the spot where a thrOwn stone enters pondwater. .

There are several advantages to this method: (1)

one does not need a substantial amount of taxo-nomic expertise because only a few species are in-volved; (2) the results are expressed on a gradedscale; and (3) the method provides for determiningwith 95 to 99 percent confidence whether or not asignificant change Occurred.

Among the disadvantages are: (1) the chance thatthe organism or organisms one has selected may behighly resistant to thee particular stress being as-sessed; (2) the "noise factor" in density assessmentsis often quite high; (3) one's test species may bewiped out by some natural catastrophe and leaveone without any way of determining whether or notpollutional stress has occurred.

.t

PATRICK DIATOMETER

The diatometer developed by Ruth Patrick,' Matthew Hohn, and John Wallace (1954) repre-

sented a substantial advance in the quantification ofthe structural component of biological integrity be-cause with the use of an artificial substrate, it sub-stantially reduced the "noise factor" due to habitat'differences and time of substrate exposure. In addi-tion, it used a more sophisticated method based ona log-normal distribution of species abundance de-velopec) by Preston (1948).

Preston (1948) showed that for a sufficientlylarge aggregation of -individuals of many species,the species-abundance relationship often conformedto a normal law, after the individuals were groupedon a logarithmic scale. That is, the observed .distri-bution could be graduated by

y = yo exp --. (aR)2 (1)

where y represents the number of specieslalling in'the Rth "octave" to the left or right of the mode, y,is the number of species in the modal octave,_and."a" is a constant that is related to the jogarithrnicstandard deviation, o, by .

a2 =1/202 (2)

Preston's original method involved grouping theindividuals into octaves with end points r = 1, 2,4, 8 . . . These end points were subsequentlylabeled.l through R, the total numbep of octaves.Those species that fell on a group ett'd point weresplit equally between that octave and the nexthigher or lower octave. If an entire log-normal

. population is censused the curve extends infinitelyfar to the left and right of the mode and is sym-

s.

173

metrical. As Preston (1962) pointed out, however,species are not found infinitely far from the mode in

either direction and he describes, an intuitivelyreasonable method of determining the end of thereal finite distribution of individuals and species.

Given then, a complete ensemble or universe, thenature of the distribution can be ascertained. How-ever, it is exceptional in ecological work that a com-plete universe, or "population," or "community," etcetera is fully censused and in most instances onemust' be content to deal with samples from a uni-

verse (Preston, 1962). Provided that a sufficientlylarge random sample can be drawn from the uni-

verse, the distribution will be truncated on theleft,indicating that there are additional, uncensusedspecies in the ensemble although they may com-prise,only a relatively small percent of the total. Tocensus ,these species- (i.e., to obtain the universe)would require extraordinarily large collectionswhich, for practical purposes, would be out of thequestion. However, provided that the sample islarge enough to ascertain the mode of the distribu-tion, both y0 and o can be determined and thus, theextent of the complete, untruncated log-normal dis-tribution (i.e., the number of species in the uni-verse). Deducing the universe from a random sam-ple is carried out by means of internal evidence athand and not by an external assumption; the uni-verse we deduce is based on the nature of our sam-ple (Preston, 1962). ,

Species-abundance relationships are based upontwo fundamental types of data: the number of spe-cies in the community or universe and the relativeproportions of individuals among the species. Forpurposes of quantifying these relationships it isadvantageous for the ecologist to be able to sum-marize his data in one or two descriptive "commu-nitY statistics." When the data conform to the log-

"normal distribution, the obvious descriptors wbe the logarithmic variance, 02, and -N, the berof species in the biological universe. Othe uitableparameters are a, a measure of dispersion, and y,the height of the node. The important point is,however, that the species-abundance relationshipcan be adequately summarized by one or two gen-eral parameters which facilitates quantitative corn-pabrisortof two or more communities.

A number of difficulties arise if the log -normaldistribution is relied upon as the underlying theo-retical relationship of species abundance. FirSt, ithas not been shown to be sufficiently widely applic-able to all types of biological ensembles, to date.Preston (1962) cites numerous cases where the log-normal is adequate and Patrick, et al. (1954) haveused this distribution to describe the occurrence ofdiatom species in fresh and brackish water environ-

1 e 's

11.

I

174 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

ments. However, these are limited applications ofthe theory and do not confirm its ecological univer-sality. Biological ensembles of relatively small ex-.

. tent usually require other methods of quantificationsince their distribution cannot be, graphed withmuch success.

Secondly, a large amount of data must be col-lected and censused, even for the truncated form,so that the mode of the.distribution can be exposed.

-In some situations, this fact alone prohibits the useof the log-normal dipribution. Thirdly, the estima-tion of the parameiers of the distribution, i.e., themean and standard deviation, is difficult althoughcomputer programs for this purpose are available(Stauffer and Slocomb; manuscript in prep.).

These are the primary reasons that ecologistshave turned away from this type of species-abund-ance quantification in favor of methods that do notdepend upon the theoretical form of distribution ofindividuals among species. Indices based on-inmation theory, although more difficult to visua izebiologically, have gained great popularity as de-scriptive measures of community structure. De-spite its drawbacks the diatometer method is one ofthe soundest available for the quantification of bio-logical integrity. The aquatic ecology group at Vir-ginia Tech has a substantial program designed toreduce some of these problems (Cairns, et al. 1974;Stauffer and Slocomb, manuscript in prep.). Thisindicates our belief that the method is basicallysound and will continue to provide valuable infor-mation about biological integrity.

DIVERSITY INDICES

The diversity 'index is probably the best singlemeans of assessing biological integrity in fresh-water streams and rivers. It is less effective andmay ellen be inappropriate in la'kes and ()ceps. Asa screening method for locating trouble spots inmost flowing systems, it is sorb! Unfortunately,many investigators looking for a single all-purposemethod, use it alone when an array of evidence isrequired. Beware of the investigator who tries touse a single line of evidence of any type instead ofmultiple lines of evidence to assess biological integ-rity. A brief discussion of diversity indices follows.

Diversity indices that permit, the summarizationof large amounts of information about the numbersand kinds of organisms have begun to replace thelong descriptive lists common to early pollution sur-vey work. These diversity indices result in a nu-merical expryssion that can be used to make com-parisons between communities or organisms. Someof these have been developed to express the rela-tionships of numbers of species in various commu-

nities and overlap of species between communities.The Jaccard Index (190) is one of the most com-

monly used to express species "overlap." Other in-dices such as the Shannon-Weiner function (Shan-non and ,Weaver, 1963) have been used to expressthe evenness of distribution of individuals in speciescomposing a community. The diversity index in-creases as evenness increases (Margalef, 1958;Hairston, 1959; MacArthur and MacArthur, 1961;and MacArthur, 1964). Various methods have been

`developed for comparing the diversity of com-munities and for determining the relationship of theactual diversity to the maximum or minimui diver-sity that might occur within a given number of spe-cies. Methods have been thoroughly discussed byLloyd and Ghelardi (19641; Patten (1962); Mac-Arthur (1965); Pierou (1966, 1969); McIntosh(1967); Mathis (1965); Wilhm (1965) and Wilhm andDorris (1968) as to what indices are appropriate forwhat kinds of samples. An index for diversity ofcommunity structure afso has been developed byCairns, et al. (1968) and Cairns and Dickson (1971)based on a modification of the sign test and theoryof runs of Dixon and Massey (1951).

Diversity indices derived from information the-ory were first used by Margalef :(1958) to analyzenatural communities. This technique equates diver-sity with information. Maximum diversity, andthus maximum information, exists in a communityof organisms when each individual belongs to a dif-ferent species. Minimum diversity (or high redun-dancy) exists when all individuals belong to thesame species. Thus, mathematical expressions canbe used for diversity and redundancy that describecommunity structure.

As pointed out by Wilhm and Dorris (1968) andPatrick, et al. (1954), natural biotic communitiestypically are characterized by the presence of a fewspecies with many individuals and many specieswith a few individual's. An unfavorable limitingfac-tor such as pollution results in detectable changesin community structure. As it relates to informa-tion theory, more information (diversity) is con-tained in a natural community than in a pollutedcommunity. A polluted system is simplified andthose species that survive encounter less compe-tition and therefore may increase in numbers.Redundancy in this case is high, because the proba-bility that an individual belongs tq a specievrevi-ously, recognized is increased and the amount ofinformation per individual is reduced.,

The relative value of using indices or models tointerpret data depends upon 'the informationsought. To see the relative distribution of popula-tion sizes among species, a model is often moreilluminating than an index. To determine informa-

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY-A QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION

tion for a number of different kinds of communities,diversity indices are more appropriate. Many in-dices overemphasize the dominance of one or a fewspecies and thus it is often difficult to determine, asin the use of the Shannon-Weiner information the-ory, the difference between a community composedof one or two dominants and a few rare species, orone composed of one or two dominants and one ortwo rare species. Under such conditions, an indexsuch as that discussed by Fisher, Corbet and Wil-liams (1943) is more appropriate.

FUNCTIONAL INTEGRITY

Only a limited effort has been made to a se s theimpact of pollutional stress on the functi ng ofaquatic communities. Nevertheless, it has becomeincreasingly evident that approaches and methodsto evaluate the effects of stress on the functioningof aquatic communities are badly needed. Func-tional characteristics of aquatic ecosystems such asproduction, respiration, energy flow, degradation,nutrient cycling, invasion 'rates, et cetera are re-lated to the activities of various components of theaquatic community. The importance of these activi-ties is obvious yet the availability of methods ofstudying these activitiesis miniscule.

The importance of being able to evaluate the ef-fects of pollutants on both the structure and func-tion of aquatic communities has been recognized bythe Institute of Ecology's Advisory Group to theNational Commission onXnvironmental Qualitywhich has identified biological integrity as the pivo-tal issue in the assessment of pollution effects.Their definition of biological integrity (which thisauthor helped prepare) emphasizes both the struc-tural and functional aspects of natural ecosystemsand communities. In addition, The Federal, WaterPollution Control Act Amendments (PL 92-500,Sec. 304) states water quality criteria should reflectthe latest scientific knowledge on the effect of pol-lutants on biological community diversity, produc-tivity, and stability, including information on the

'factors affecting rates of eutrophication and rates oforganic and inorganic sedimentation for varioustypes of receiving water.

In general, assessing the impact of pollution onaquatic Systems has been troublesome. Communitystructure analysis has been preferred to investiga-tions of function .in dealing with perturbation ofaquatic systems because its study is less time con-suming, better understood, requires less effort,and has become conventional. Community functionhas been avoided because methods dealing with itscomplex operation have been lacking. Further-more, field studies have been hindered by fluctuat-

t.

175

ing environmental quality plus the fact that thedynamics of systems are inherently more difficultto measure than the components themselves.Clearlymthere is a need for the study of aquaticcommunity structure. However, such studies pro-vide incomplete information. Function must becoupled with community structure investigations toobtain a full understanding of the effects of pollu-tion relative to the health of aquatic communities.

Structural analyses in the form of species diver-sity, species lists, and numbers of organisms havenot adequately filled the regulatory agency's needfor information on the response of aquatic commu-nities to pollutional stress. Diversity indices place/values not on organisms which may be present insmall numbers but on those which perform vitalfunctions in the maintenance of community integ-rity. The symptoms of pollution may be masked byshifts in the dominance of some community mem-bers without substantially altering the diversity. Itis also difficult to establish whether these shifts orchanges are beneficial, detrimental, or indifferent.Because identical assemblages of organisms neverreoccur in natural systems, there is no "true nat-ural fauna" which remains constant through time.The high functional redundancy of communitiesmakes it possible to lose one or several pollution-sensitive species and still maintain adequate func-tion. Species lists and numbers give little informa-tion other than what is present in an aqUaticcommunity at any point in time.

Function, however, provides better insight intothe interaction of populations, the cycling .of en-ergy, and nutrient exchange in a community.Ideally, any studies of communities affected by pol-lution Should include both structural and functionalassessment, as well as the possible interrelation-ships between the two components.

. Although there is no body of quantitativemethods for the assessment of the functional in-tegrity of biological systems there are a Dumber ofpossibilities. A few examples of these follow (if Ihave left out your favorite method, don't write tome, use your energy to perfect its application in thedetermination of functional integrity).

PROTOZOAN INVASION RATES

It is possible that, a determination of the invasionrate of a protozoan-free substrate placed in a fresh-water lake or stream may alone be sufficient to esti-mate the degree of eutrophication; if this is thecase, a rather easily carried out assessment requir-ing, only a, fey, days will bev available. It is alsohighly probable, however, that additional useful in-formation will be gained from determining the time

17p

176 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

to reach equilibrium even though this may require 2or 3 months in some cases.

Since .1966, Cairns and a number of associates,(principally Dr. William H. Yongue, Jr.) have beencarrying out investigations involving.the coloniza-tion of polyurethane foam anchored in various por-tions of Douglas Lake, Mich., (e.g., Cairns, et al.1969, 1973; Cairns and Yongue, 1974) and other sec-tions of the country ranging as far south as SouthCarolina (Yongue and Cairns, 1971). The purposewas to study the MacArthur-Wilson EquilibriumModel of the point at which the colonization rate isin rough equilibrium with the decolonization rate. Afew years ago, when looking over the assembleddata from 1966 through 1972, it became evidentthat the time required to reach an equilibrium be-tween these two rates had been steadily decreasingin Douglas Lake, Mich-., from an initial period of ap-proximately 8 4veeks to a period of approximately 2-weeks in 1974.

Examination of colonization rates and the timerequired to reach equilibrium from other locationsstrongly suggested a correlation between the de-gree of eutrophication of the lake or pond in ques-tion and the time required to reach equilibrium.Cairns (1965), in a year-long study of the ConestogaBasin carried out in 1948, noted that theiinitial re-sponse of a freshwater protozoan community to in-creased nutrient loading was to increase both thenumber of species and the number of individualsper species. Further increase in nutrients mightthen lead to a decline in the number of species, butnot necessarily the number of individuals. This hasubsequently been confirmed in a number of situa-tions.

ZOOPLANKTON PHYSIOOGVAND REPRODUCTION

In a time of increased power demands, more andmore power plants are being constructed. Sincelarge volumes of water are used for cooling theseplants considerable attention hal been focused ontheir effect on aqu. atic populations, especially fish.Very little work has been conducted on zooplank-ton, and many of these papers do not examine theinteraction of temperature changes, chlorine, andphysical damage. Most of these studies are only onacute mortality. Chronic studies are virtually non-existent (Bunting, 1974). Various methods havebeen proposed to examine the effects of- entrain-ment but no studies have been done to determineeffectiveness and interrelatedness of the methods.

Such parameters as zooplankton physiology andreproduction might be useful in estimating thefunctional integrity of zooplankters in lakes near

power plants. For example, oxygen consumptionrates, ATP, and lipid concentrations could bechanged. Filtering rate of zooplankters rhight alsobe determined by comparing algal counts at timezero and after a defined period of time (Buikema,1973a) using the equation

F.R. v 1ogo log,,c,

los,oe

These factors all affect reproduction rates (Bui-kema, 1973b) which could be quantitatively as-sessed in a relatively short period of time. Becausemany zooplankters migrate vertically in responseto changes in light intensity, such functional assess-ments as rates of migration (Gehrs, 1974), responsethresholds, et cetera could be useful.

FUNCTIONING OF BENTHICMAMOINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITIES

Methods for the assessment of benthic macroin-vertebrate community function Jim% unfortunatelylagged far behind the develdpment of those for theanalysis of community Structure.

A great body of literature has been amassed re-cently, firmly establishing the energy supply ofmany running water systems as largely heterotro-phic (Minshall, 1967, 1968; Vannote, 1970; Fisher,1971; Hall, 1971; Kaushik and Hynes, 1968; Fisherand Likens, 1972; Cummihs, 1972, 1973; Cummins,et al. 1973a, 1973b). Detrital-based ecosystemshave been shown to be largely dependent upon lit-ter from their terrestrial surroundings for nutrientinput and even the evolutionary dispersal of in-sects (Rosi, 1963). The processing of dead organicmaterial passing downstream through a streamecosystem is largely a function of primary decom-position by fungi and bacteria (Iversen, 19)73), andthe selective feeding on detritus by invertebratesfollowing microfloral colonization and conditioning(Petersen and Cummins, 1974).

Aquatic macroinvertebrateS are important com-ponents in food webs of aquatic systems, being pri-mary and secondary consulters, and serving asfood sources for higher trophic levels. Very little in-formation exists on the functioning of macroinver-tebrate communities, and even less concerning theinfluence of pollutio* stress on feeding patterns ofinvertebrates. The hiss of an individual in a commu-nity with a particularieeding pattern due to politytion and its effect on community function have notbeen investigated. More studies to develop meth-ods for the assessment of macroinvertebrate com-munity function are needed.

171

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY-A QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION 177

A. Nitrogen CycleProcedures permitting anevaluation of the process and role of the nitrogencycle in flowing fresh water should be further de-veloped,. although some excellent references areavailable (e.g., Brezonik and Harper, 1969; Klucas,1969; Kuznestor, 1968 and Tuffey, et al. 1974). Theability of microorganisms to enzymatically trans-form one chemical species into another is wellknown. For example CO, is reduckd to organiccompounds and condensed phosphates can bebroken down into phosphates and then the phos-dhaies can.be coupled to organic molecules to formsome extremely important biological molecules.However, nitrogen appears to be utilized in moreforms by living organisms than any other element.

Nitrogen can exist in six different valence statesand all six of these states can be utilized or pro-duced by microorganisms. In some cases there arespecific organisms for specific ionic speciei such asnitrifying bacteria fior NH3 and NO, or nitrogen,fixers for N2. On the other hand a myriad of 'organ-isms may use NH, or NO,. Microorganisms are alsoknown to pioduce NH, NO,, NO3, N, and organicnitrogen compounds. Quite obviously microorgan-isms play an important role in the nitrogen cycle,and nitrogen plays an important role in the life ofliving organisms.

The investigation of the nitrogen cycle or balancein a stream or lake is a viable approach for studyingfunctional responses at the microorganism level be-cause: 1) many if not all of the enzymatic reactionsinvolved in,the nitrogen cycle are heat sensitive; 2)many of the reactions are sensitive to heavy metals;3) many are directly affected by oxygen leels; and4) the analytical methods for investigating the mic-roorganisms involved in the N cycle are fairly wellknown.

B . Carbon CycleRates of carbon uptake and in-corporation are integrally involved with'structureand function of autotrophs and heterotrophs inaquitic systems (Patrick, 1973; Bott, 1973). Knowl-edge of these rates yields information vital to theunderstanding of carbon cycling and assimilativecapacity- in diverse freshwater flowing systemswhich are subjected to pollution (Saunders, 1971;Wetzel and Rich, 1973). Nufnerous techniques havebeen developed utilizing radioisotopes and thesioiehiometric relationship between oxygen con-sumed or produced in the system to carbon oxidizedor reduced (Vollenweider, 1969; Hobbie, 1971).Enough variation exists in current investigations tomake comparisons from investigation to investi-gation exceedingly difficult. The development of-ac-ceptable technique which are efficient ,and can beutilized in a variety of situations is overdue.Qatacollected using a somewhat universal and standard

Identification of the importance of the major bio-logical componpnts in the process of reducing theinitial detrital biomass coukl be accomplished byartificially selecting against specific components ihsimultaneous parallel experinients, e.g., accordingto their size. Eyaluation of the importance of eachof the components can be based upon a number ofparameters including:,

a. Standing biomass.b. Calorific equivalents.c. Efficiency of energy utilization.d. Size of food particles required.e. Specific interrelationships between the com-

ponents.If simultaneous parallel experiments are con-

ducted concurrently under experimental (stressed)and control (absence of stress) conditions, patternsof the impact of stress should emerge.

AUTOTROPHIC ANDHETEROTROPHIC FUNCTIONING

The autotrophic and heterotrophic components ofaquatic systems have a vital and essential role inthe regulation of the functional activities of aquaticsystems. These two components of aquatic com-munities are intimately Involved in nutrient cycl-ing, energy fixation, and energy transfer. In orderto understand and predict the functional capabili-

, ties of freshwater flowing systems, it is obviousthat methods must be evaluated which allow a bet-ter understanding of the above activities._,The energetics of freshwater flowing systems de-pent' upon two sources of carboncarbon fixed in-terAally via the photosynthetic activity of the auto-trophic community and carbon which enters thesystem from the terrestrial environment al-

.lochthonous materialleaves, et cetera). The utili-zation of either of, the sources is generally the rate-limiting step in the total energetics of the wholeaquatic system. In addition, the availability andutiliz4ion of essential inorganic nutrients in fresh-water'flowing systems are governed to a largeextent by the autotrophic and heterotrophic com-ponents. While the autotrophic and heterotrophicmicrobial communities are frequently not studied inevaluating the impact of stress (pollution) on flow-ing systems, they have been shown to be sensitiveand reliable indicators of environmental perturba-tion (Cairns, 1971). The reason that they have notbeen utilized extensively in pollution assessment inthe past has been directly related to the difficulty inmeasuring their structure ,and function. However,it is essential that approaches be.developed whichallow us to understand and measure the responsesof these vital components of aquatic systems.

11.172

11.

1

178 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

technique or method would be comparable to datacollected in the same manner in other investiga-tions. The value of such an approach could be real-ized in information gained from the statistical com-parisons of diverse aquatic systems and pollutionalregimes-(Steel and Torrie, 1960).

In an effort to develop such methodology for de.termining the role of carbon in freshwater flowingsystems, a variety of old and new techniques mightbe examins41. This could include development ofequipment and test chambers, evaluation of the officacy of neutron activation analyses, autotrophicindices, plant and animal carotenoids, other pig-ments (xanthophylls, phycobilins, et cetera), ATPanalyses, and other procedures (Margalef, 1960;Thatcher and Johnson, 1973). The development ofprocedures with the little-used isotopes (35S, 33p, etcetera to determine functioning of the heterotro-phic and autotrophic components could also be in-vestigated (Bott and Brook, 1970).

C. Sulfur CycleOne might develop a method todifferentiate heterotrophic and autotrophic func-tion via the preferential utilization of organic andinorganic sulfur. Sulfur, as one of the macronutri-ents and an almost universal component of pro-teins, may be intimately involved with structure aswell as function of flowing aquatic systems. Knowl-edge of uptake rates and utilization by the hetero-trophic and autotrophic components may yield valu-able information about reaction _rates and criticalconcentrations in these compartments (Vollen-weifiler, 1969). Sulfur has recently been cited as acritical factor in the acidity of rainfall and runoff,pollution from acid mine drainage, and release orleaching of nutrient cations such as calcium fromthe soil into aquatic systems (sulfate is the mostcommon inorganic species in flowing systems).Many microorganisms and plants have the capacityto reduce sulfate to the oxidation state of sulfide for'incorporation into organic materials such as theamino acids, eysteine and methionine (Rodina1972).

The differential metabolism of sulfur by hetero-trophs and autotrophs in aquatic systems could bedetermined using SO, and tagged amino acids.Changes in community structure above and belowpolluting discharges could be monitored. It has .

been shown that bacterial diversity and algal di-versity are reduced by therrrial discharges (Guth-rie, et al. 19744. Rates of sulftr metabolism aboveand below thermal effluents may be correlated withchanges in diversity and may be directly involvedwith the assimilative capacity of that reach of thest re am.

4,

173

HISTORIC PROSPECTIVE

'Even if we quadrupled the number of methodsavailable for the quantifiCation of -biological integ-rity, a very basic question will not be resolvednamely, what type of system will be used to provide-the baseline or reference numbers against ,whichsystems receiving industrial waste discharges orother forms of contamination may be compared? .The selection process is likely to be hampered byour failure to recognize that most of the continent`United States, particularly the area east of -theMississippi, is a man-altered environment. Two il-lustrations will suffice to make this point. -

Each summer a .number of students and facultymembers (frequently including me) journey to thenorthern tip of Michigan's lower, peninsula to spenda few months studying "natural" ecosystems at theUniversity of Michigan Biological Station. Studentsand facul are cautioned not to overco ect and up-set th alance of nature. Fremem r vividly astormy faculty session many years a o when onefaculty member proposed experime al clearcut-ting on the station tract which was h ly contestedby another faculty member who wan to pgeservethe "natural environments' for c am plants. Thepresent station director, David M. Gates, whospent his boyhood at the station, remembers frompersonal observation and from the journals of hisplant ecologist father, Frank Gates, the devastationthat resulted from the vast lumbering activitiescharacteristic of that area less than 100 years ago.Journals of early biologists report that it was al-most impossible to travel anywhere in the areaduring the logging period without seeing slash firesor smoke from them. Originally the Biological Sta-tion area was used by civil engineers because thevegetation had been so thoroughly destroyed thatlong lines of sight were possible. Only when thevegetation became partially reestablished and in-terfered with surveying was the area turned ,overentirely to biologists.

The second example is the area roughly betweenAllendale, S.C., and Augusta: Ga., known asithe.,Savannah River tract. This site ,was placed offlimits in approximately 1951 by the Atomic EnergyCommission. At this time the inhabitants of thetown, Ellenton, and the other parts of the areawere removed and the farms, homesites, et ceterawere Mostly allowed to revert to "natural condi-tions" following a brief occupancy by work crewsduring the construction phases. Some trees wereplanted and other assists were given to naturalreinvasion, but mostly the process of change was"natural." Today the area abounds with wildlife andis and has been the focus of many ecological surveys

(BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITYA

and studies. Were it not for the AEC facilities stillthere, most ecologists would not hesitate to con-sider this a natural system and for the vast portionsof the tract where no manmade structures are pres-ent, most ecologists would hake no hesitation incarrying out an extended study of a "natural sys-tem." The point of all this is that what we are will-ing to label as "natural" systems often were at onetime substant)ally altered by human activities andfrequently underwent seN, ere ecological perturba-tions before reaching their present state. Thus, weshould not hesitate to use as reference systemsthose we consider satisfactory even if they wereonce altered by human activities.

ANTHROPOCENTRIC CRITERIA

One might also characterize biological integrityby determining the .ability to produce desiredquantities of commercially or recreationally desir-able species. This could be quantified by comparingactual -yield against an optimal yield. This mightalso be done foripe'st or nuisance species such as bit-ing insects or algae that produce unpleasant tastesand odors in water supplies. Quantification in termsof 'aesthetically desirable species boggles the mind.

MANAGEMENT CRITERIA '

Using the anthropocentric criteria discussedabove, one might also quantify the energy and ma-terial required to maintain the desired crops or lowdensities of pest organisms. One might rate a sys-tem from 1 to 10 on whether it provides desirableconditions "free" (i.e., no management costs) orwhether it is ,a costly system to manage. This mightbe considered an operationaidefinition of biologicalintegrity.

ASSIMILATIVE CAPACITY

For the-purposes of this discussion assimilativecapacity is defined as the ability of a receiving sys-tem or ecosystem to cope with certain concentra-tions or levels of waste discharges without suffer-

9U NTITA,TIVE DETERMINATION 179

\...an industrial process 'or a leaf dropping into thewater from a tree. It seems to the detractors of theconcept of assimilative capacity that the inttoduc-don of chemicals and fibers in the form of a leaf isnot regarded as a threat to the biological integrityof the receiving system (i.e., the maintenance of thestructure and function of the aquatic communitycharacteristic Of that locale) but that the intropc-tion of the same chemicals and fibers via an indus-trial municipal discharge pipe would be deleterious.Some f the same chemicals and materials presentin 1 ves and other materials introduced naturallyinto ecosystems are also present in the wastes fromindustrial and municipal discharg& pipes. Surely,within certain limits, an ecosystem can cope withthese. Of course, for bioaccumulative materialssuch as mercury, the assimilative capacity of manyreceiving systems is almost certainly very low andfor some probably ,zero. Zero discharge of thesetypes of polluting materials_ is a highly desirablegoal which should be achieved with dispatch. Forother types of materials the case against assimila-tive capacity appears to have no logical framework;

The weaknesses of the argument against the useof nondegrading assimilative capacity are especiallyweak where heated wastewater discharges are con-cerned. Would a AT of 0.001°C damage the biolog -'ical integrity of the Mississippi-River at New Or-leans or the Atlantic Ocean near Key West, Fla.?Or to phrase the question somewhat differently,

'would this thermal addition of industrial origin bemore of a threat or even a measurable threat _to thebiological integrity of these ecosystems than thenatural thermal additions? Is a microgram of gly-colic acid placed into an ecosystem by an algal popu-lation less of a threat to the biological integrity of

h. an ecosystem than the same amount disc argedfrom an industrial or municipal waste pipe? If youbelieve that there are some ecosystenis into whichthis amount of heat or glycolic acid might be intro-duced without damaging the structural or ftinc-tiozal integrity of the ecosystem, then you cannotdeny the existence of assimilative capacity eventhere are a very limited number of ecosystems

ing any significant deleterious effects. I have at- which you think this is Possible.tempted to find other definitions of assimilativ# A second aspect of the assimilative capacity c

troversy is the belief of some environmentalithat the ecological effects of society's activitieparticularly those of industrial origin, can be forever contained. The position of people who proclaithat we can have an industrial society from wnothing may be introduced into ecosystems istional. If one's outlook )s towards treatingwaste discharge in isolation from all others, ra

capacity but unfortunately have failed to find anysignificant body of literature on this subject.

A common position of those denying that assimi-lative capacity exists is that an introduced materialwill cause a change that would not have otherwiseoccurred. There is an implication that any change isnecessarily deleterious. It would not be rational todeny that an ecosystem or a community of organ-isms will respond to an environmental change than viewing.it regionally, then it is quite eviwhether caused by the introduction of wastes from that the complete treatmen of industrial w

Or

n-ts

174

hrra-achherent

stes

180 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

will require substantial amounts of energy, anenormous capital investment in facilities, and aVariety of chemicals to facilitate the treatment pro-cess if the process water is to be recycled for fur-ther use. This energy, chemicals for treatment, andmaterials for the construction of additional treat-ment facilities,will all have to be produced some-where and the production process will produce heatand other waste products that cannot be forevercontained.

The critical question is not whether they can beintroduced into the environment, thus taking ad-vantage of its assimilative capacity, but rather howand where they should be introduced into the envir-onment. If the 'detr actors-of--the assimilative capac-ity approach believe that it is possible to have anindustrial sotiety without introducing anything intothe environment at any place or time then theyshould show us in a substantive way how this can bedone. If they cannot do this, then we should all col-lectively address the problem of determining theassimilative capacity for different types of wasteproducts and ecosystems rather than endlessly dis-cussing whether assimilative capacity does or doesnot exist,. If the antagonists of the concept of as-similative capacity believe that there is no way inwhich a harmonious relationship between an indus-trial 4ociety and ecosystems can be achieved thenthey should tell us in more detail what to do next.

There is no question that the use of assimilativecapacity increases the risk of damaging-pie biologi-cal integrity of the receiving system. Even the useof nondegrading assimilative capacity reduces thesafety factor and this, together with the variabilityin assimilative capacity caused by changing envir-onmental conditions, makes it e ential that contin-uous biological monitoring be sed by dischargerstaking advantage of assimila4 e capacity. Thus,management and monitoring osts are inevitablebut may often be less expensive than advancedwaste treatment costs.

RESISTANCE TO ANDRECOVERY FROM CHANGE

A. Resistance to ChangeSome biological com-munities have a greater inertia or resistance to dis-equilibrium than others. TMability to resist dis-placement of structural and functional characteris-,

._,,j tics is a major factor in the maintenance of biologi-cal integrity. In order for a' displacement to becategorized as a loss of in ity it would have toxceed the range of oscillat or fluctuations char-teristic of that system. ufficient funds andme are available these a .uctuations can beetermined with reasonabl uracy. The ,stress

Prequired to overcome4nertia is less easily deter-mined until an actual displacement has occurred,although one might make an estimate from dose-response curves of important indigenous organ-isms. However, the use of the "species of interestor importance to man" concept is dangerous sincethe response of that species to a particular stressmight. not be representative of the response ofother species in the system. At present we have noreliable means of quantifying this important char-acteristic of biological integrity. A very crude esti-mate of inertial rank ordering of major water eco-systems is given in Table 1 (from Cairns, 1974).

Table 1. he relative elasticity (ability to return to normal afterbeing di laced or placed'in disequilibrium), inertia (ability toresist displacement or disequilibrium), and environmental stability(consistency of chemical-physical quality).

Elasticity InertiaEnvironmental

stability

Lilies 2 3 2Rivers 1 2 3Estuaries 3 1 4Oceans 4 4 1

1 high- intermediate high

3 intermediate low4 low

B. Recover* from StressOnce a system has beendisplaced (i.e., altered structurally or functionally)the time required for the restoration of biologicalintegrity is important as are the factors which af-fect the recovery process. Accidental spills such asthe ones reported by Cairns, et al. (1971, 1972,1973), Crossman, et al. (1973) and Kaesler, et al.(1974) for the Clinch and other rivers will probablyalways occur in an industrial society. A crude indexdf elasticity (i.e., ability to snap back after displace-Ment) has been developed by Cairns (in press): Alist of the factdrs important to this index follows:

a. Existence of nearby epicenters (e.g., forrivers, tributaries) for reinvading organisms.

Rating systemone = poor; two = moderate;three = 'good.b. Transportability or mobility of disseminules.Rating systemone = poor; two = moderate;three = good.c. General present condition of habitat following

pollution al stress.,

Rating systemone = poor; two <= moderate;three = good.d. Presence of residual toxicants following pollu-

tion al stress.Rating systemone = large amounts; two =moderate amounts; three = none.e. Chemical-physical water quality following pol-

lutional stress.

175-

A

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY A QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION

Rating systemone = severe disequilibrium;two = partially restored; three .= normal.f. Management or organizational capabilitiesfor

immediate and direct control of damaged area.Rating systemone = none; two = some;three = thriving with strong enforcemenfiii--e-rogatives.Using the characteristics listed above, which

must be placed into the equation in exactly the se-quence in which they are given,--one can arrive at arather crude approximation of the probability ofrelatively rapid recovery. This would mean thatsomewhere between 40 and 60 psiicent of the spe-cies might become reestablished/under optimal con-ditions in the\ first year following a severe stress,between 60 and 80 percent in the following year,and perhaps as niFny as 95 percent of the species bythe third year..Natural processes with essentiallyno assistance from a management or a river basingroup accomplished this on the Clinch River spillswhich were studied by the Aquatic Ecology Groupat Virginia Tech and the usefulness of this estimatehat also-been checked with data provided by someacid mine drainage studies (Herricks and Cairns,1972, 1974a, 1974b) and seems adequate in this re-gard as well. The equation follows:

RECOVERY INDEX = a ),,c b x,c xdxexf400.+ = chances of rapid recovery excellent55-399 = chances of rapid recovery fair togoodless than-55 = chances ofq-apid recovery po6r

During the development of the simplist?c equa-tion just given, considerably more complicatedequations were considered and rejected becausethe refinements seemed meaninglesS in view of ourpresent state,of knowledge. On this basis one mightreject even the modest effort just made. On theother hand there seems to be a very definite need toformalize the estimation of recovery and one hopesthat more precise equations properly weighted willevolve from this modest beginning.

CONCLUSIONS. -

It is evident that no single method will adequ-ately assess biological integrity nor will any fixedarray of methods be equally adequate for the di-verse array of water ecosystems. The quantifica-tion of biological integrity requires a mix of assess-ment-tnetho4 suited for a specific site and problem

'heated wastewater discharge). Since someecosystems are nipre Complex than others and somestresses on biological integrity more severe thanothers the variety and .intensity of methods used

..shoulfl be site specific. Table 2 demonstrates a sim--

, 181

ple version of a decision matrix for resolving theseproblems.

Table 2.Potential threat *o biological integrity. '

Minor1

Simple 1 1

Intermecligte'2 2Complex 3 3

Moderate2

Serru

24

6

A number one situation would require ss effortand fewer criteria than a number nine. any ecolo-gists will be unwilling to make the val e judgmentsnecessary for even the simple exam e matrix. Un-less they dispute the assumptions which precededthe matrix, professional pride should force them todo so because otherwise they will be forcing indus-try to ov rassess as a result of their insecurity andinab,ility to make distinctions between difficult andsimple situations.

What is needed is a protocol indicating the way in,which one should determine the mix of methodsthat should be used to estimate and monitor threatsto biological integrity. A good example of this ap-proach is "Principles for Evaluating Chemicals inthe Environment" (originally "Principles of Proto-cols for Introducing New CheMicals into the Envi-ronment") published 'in 1975 by the EnvironmentalStudies Board of the National Academy of Sciences.A badly needed accompaniment is a national systemfor stofing data gathered for such purposes whichalso insures greater standardization and compati-bility than Is possible with present systems. It isalso important that industrially sponsored studiesof this kind be made more accessible to 'the aca-demic community. This would insure that shoddycontractors would be exposed by academic criticismand reduce the money wasted by industry on thesegroups and would also expedite advancement ofthis type of assessment which would also benefitindustry.

While additional methods for quantifying biologi-cal integrity are being developed, industry andother dischargers into aquatic systems can take im-mediate measures to protect ecosystems. Until allcurrently available methods have been used thereis no justification fo'r complaining about the lack ofappropriate methodology. A list of some usefulmethods follows: (1) A screening test such as theORSANCO 24-hour test to determine which astesrequire immediate attention and which may be'gated to a lower' priority. (2) A determinatiodusingthe, ORSANCO 24-hour or some other short termtest of the variability of waste toxidity. Althoughthere is some' variability in bioassays due to thenature of the test organisms, it is dwarfed by the

1 76

11,

, 182

variability in toxicity of most industrial wastes.Some wastes may vary in toxicity as much as 10,000times from one sample to another. (3) A baselineecological survey which is essentially an inventoryof biological, chemical, and physical conditions inthe receiving system, should be carried out at criti-cal points related to the discharge with, of course,an, unexposed area to serve as a reference or con-trol. (4) A biologicil monitoring of certain areasof the receiving system on a routine basis so thatany deleterious effect can be determined rapidly.

There exists a vast array of methods potentiallysuitable for the assessment or determination of bio-logical integrity, _both structural and functional.One generally, tlibbgh not invariably, realizes theimportance of the -biological entity being measured,al en this is not always the case. However,showing tha useful in the context of measuringchanges in biological integrity is another matter.This is where biologists and ecologists ha( usuallydropped the ball.

Most biologists and ecologists with classicaltraining do not feel any responsibility to justify the'appropriateness of a method or a parameter beingsuggested as a monitor for biological integrity, be-cause they assume That if it is useful in ecology, andif classical ecologists recognize the importance ofthe measurement, then it must be appropriate forthe assessment of biological integrity. We have allseen the endless "shopping lists" resulting from agroup of ecologists putting, together a list of param-eters to determine the ecological impact of a partic-ular activity such as the construction of a dam. Themethods often appear tobe assembled by a "streamof consciousness procesb," or each of the ecologistspresent flushes his or her mind of all the methodsknown to him and requests jnat determinations bemade.

Even when all this information is collected, clas-sical ecologists will often refuse to predict the con-sequences of the course of action anyway becausethe information is ofteit not gathered in an orches-trated fashion so that the data bits can be inte-grated and correlated. On such projects each investigator goes his or her own way with-little or nocommunication ,with other investigators or even afeeling of Tesponsibility to see that data are gath-ered so that the needs of this particular assignmentwill be fulfilled. What results is a series of inven-tories of varying scientific sophistication which arepractically never useful for modeling or predictivepurposes.

The determination of biological and ecological in-tegrity is also hampered by the focus of attention on"pipe standards" rather than "receiving systemstandards." Thus, relatively little grant funding has

THE INTEGRITY OF WhTER-

been available from either governmental or privatesources to develop methods for the quantification ofthe effects of pollution on biological integrity. Onecan obtain funding for purely "ivory tower" ecologi-cal research, but if one made the major thrust ofthis research the assessment of pollutional effects,it would almost certainly be disallowed by the more"ivory tower" funding agencies. Mission- orientedagencies have been focused on "pipe standards"rather than on "receiving system standards" and onchemical-physical measurements rather than bio-logical measurements. Although it was in indus-try's enlightened self-interest to support the devel-opment of such methods, funding from this sourcehas historically been trivial.

In addition to these difficulties, until recentlythereowere relatively few scientific outlets for pub-lication of such investigations and very little aca-demic prestige attached to their production. As aresult, most of the work was carried out by consult-ing firms or academic institutions which produced

proprietary mimeographed reports of their investi-gations. Thus, what little knowledge was generatedin this field generally has been given very limiteddistribution in the form of 'proprietary reportswhich were rarely subjected to peer review andcertainly did not go through the rigorous scrutinythat occurs when publication is through the usualacademic outlets and subjected to printed rebuttal,et cetera.

A brief statement of my own view of the condi-tions which produced our present state of disarrayregarding the quantification of biological integrityfollows. We do not know, in any scientifically justi-fiable sense, the characteristics of aquatic ecosys-tems which are essential to the maintenance of bio-logical integrity. We also know practically nothingabout the relationship between the structural andfunctional characteristics of natural ecosystems.Such factors as spatial distribution of specie4 andthe factors which cause systems to oscillate both instructure and function are so poorly documentedthat it is difficult far us to say what is desirable andwhat is undesirable except in the grossest way.Furthermore, most of the systems in the conti-nental U.S. and particularly that area east of theMississippi River have been in many ways substan-tially affected by man-initiated activities such asdeforestation, flood control, agricultural activities,and so forth. Therefore, most of the systems with_which we must work are already disturbed to somedegree.

However, all is not lost! Most of the ecosystemsin England, for example, have been influenced byhuman activities for generations and yet we findthem pleasing and acceptable. Other systems such

(.)$11

I o.

177

&Y"

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY - A QUANTITATIVE- DETERMINATION

Renting, D. 1974. Zooplankton: thermal regulation and stress.In B. J. Gallagher, ed. Energy production and thermal effects.

4 Limnetics, Inc., Milwaukee, Wisc.Cairns, Jr. 1965. The protozoa of the Conestoga Basin. Not.

Nat. Acad. Sci. Phila. 375:1-14.. ed. 1971. The structure and function of freshwater mi-

crobial communities. Amer. Micrp. Soc. Virginia PolytechnicInstitute and State University Press. Blacksburg. 301 pp. ,

1973. The effects of major industrial spills uponstream organisms. Proc. of the 26th Annual Purdue IndustrialWaste Conference. Purdue Engineering Bull. 140:156-170.

1974a. Indicator species vs. the cokcept of communitystructure as an index of pollution. Water Resources Bull.10:338-47.

1974b. Irreversibility, severity, and perturbations ofr pollution. Report to National Planning Association,hington, D.C. 56 pp.

41975. Critical species, including man, within tilt bio-

sphere. Naturwissenschaften.-. In press. The effects of temperature changes and chlori-

nation upon the conimunity structure of aquatic organisms. InToward a plan of action for mankind: needs and resources -methods of provision. Institute de la Vie. World Conference,Paris.aims, J., Jr., et al. 1968. The sequential comparison index: asimplified method for non-biologists to estimate relative dif-erences in biological diversitriu stream pollution studies. J.Water Pollut. Contr. Fed. 40 (91:1607-1613.

. 1969. The relationship of freshwater protozoan commu-nities to the MacArthur-Wilson equilibrium model. Amer.NA. 103:439=454.

-. 1971. The recovery of damaged streams. Proceedings ofthe Symposium on Recovery and Restoration of DamagedEcosystems. Assoc. Southeastern Biol. Bull. 18:79-106.

1972. Coherent optical spatial filtering of diatoms'inwater pollution monitoring. Archiv fur Mikrobiologie 83:141-146.

-. 1974. Microcosm pollution monitoring. Proc. 8th AnnualConf. on Trace Substances in Evironmental Health. Uni-versity of Missouri, Columbia. 223-228.

Cairns, J., Jr., H. Boatin, Jr., and William H. Yongue, Jr. 1973.The protozoan colonization of polyurethane foam units an-chored in the benthic area of Douglas Lake, Mich. Trans,Amer. Micro. Soc. 92:648-656.

Cairns, J., Jr{, J. S. Crossinan, and K. L. Dickson. 1972. Thebiological recovery of the Clinch River ,following a fly'ash pond,pill. Proceedings of the 25th Industrial Waste Conference,

Engineering Bull: Purdue University 137:182-192.Cairns, J., Jr. and K. L. Dickson. 1971. A simple method for the

,biological assessment of the effects of waste discharges onaquatic bottom dwelling organisms. J. Water Pollut. Contr.Fed. 40:755-782.

Cairns, J., Jr., and William H. Yongue, Jr. 1974. Protozoancolonization ,rates on artificial substrates suspended at differ-, ent depths. Trans. Amer. Micro. Soc. 93:206-210.

Carlon,s 'D. M. 1974. Responses of planktonic cladocerans toheated waters. Pages 186-206 in J. W. Gibbons and R. R.Sharitz, eds. Thermal ecology. U.S. Atomic Energy Commis-sion.

Crossmati, J. S., J. Cairn's, Jr., and R. L. Kaesler. 1973. Aquaticinvertelirate recovery in the Clinch River following pollutionalstress. Bull No. 63 Water Resources Resea"rch Center. Vir-ginia Pdlvfkchnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.,66 PP,

Cummins, K. W. 1972: Predicting variations in energy flow, through a semi-controlled ,Ibtic ecosystein. Mich.' Statt Univ.

Inst, Water Research Tech: Report, lff?1-21.

as the Thames Rive were once sufficiently de-graded to be an obj ionable nuisance and havebeen restored by ptivi c'clamation efforts to acondition which, if.. of comp e to th nuitiveor original condition, is nevertheles mor pleasingand more acceptable as well as mo e useful to ussocially.

We are also able to estimate with re onable pre-cision the concentrations of toxicants wh h permitsurvival and adequate function of aqn tic or-ganisms which we consider important or re esent-ative. Given our present situation with a proletion of chemical materials and a paucity of informa-tion on their toxicity, we might kise as a reasonableworking hypothesis that concentrations of chemi-cals and other potentially toxic materials permit-ting survival coupled with adequate growth andreproductive success will also permit the organismsto function reasonably well in other important,respects.

We also know that aquatic communities sub-jected to pollutienal stress will undergo structuralalterations of a predictable nature. We know thatthe number of species will be reduced and that thenumber of individuals in certain species may in-crease. We can assess, on a site specific basis, suchimportant behavioral characteristics as the temper-ature preference and avoidance of fish. Althoughthe methodoloky for the assessment of biological in-tegiity certainly could be markedly improved, theuse of the methodologies in which we have confi-

dence, and a long history of effectiveness is stillminiscule.

REFERENCES

Beak, T. W., C. de Courval, and N.E. Cooke. 1959. Pollutionmonitoring and prevention by use of bivariate control eharts.Sewage Indust. Wastes A1383.

Beck, W. M. 1954. Studies in stream pollution biology. 1. Asimplified ecological classification of org'anisms.,Quart. F. Fla.Acad. 17(41:211-227. -

-. 1955. Suggested method for reporting biotic data.Sewage Indust. Wastes 27(101:1193-1197.

Bott, T. L. 1973. Bacteria and the assessment of watsr quality.'Pagei 61-75 in J. Cairns, Jr, and K. L. Dickson. ecik Biologi-cal methods for the assessment of water quality. ASTM STP528. American'Society for TeSting and Materials.

Bott, T. L., and 1. D. Brock. 1970. Growth and metabolism ofperiphytic bacteria; methodology. Limndl. Oceanog. 15:

333-342.Brezonik, P L., and C. L. Harper. 1969. Isiitrogen fixation in

some anoxic lacustrine environments. Science 164:1277-1279.Buikema, A. L., Jr. 1973a. Filtering rate of the Cladoceran,

Daiohnui pulex, as a function of body size, light and acclima-tion. Hydrobiologia 41:515-527.

1973b. Some effects of light on growth, molting, repro-duction, and survival of thetladocera, Daphnia pulex. Hydro-biologia 41:491-413.

fl.

11,0;6

183

178.

V

184 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

. 1973. Trophic relations of aquatic insects. Ann. Rev.Entomol. 18:183-206. c,

Cummins, K. W., et al. 1973. A- Organic enrichment with leafleachate in experimental lotic ecosystems. BioSci. 22:719 722.

1973b. The utilization of leg, litter by streamdetritivores. Ecology 54:336-345.

Dixon,, W. J., and F. J. Massey, Jr. 1951. Introduction tostatistical analysis. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Fisher, R. A., A. S. Corbet, and C. B. Williams. 1943. Therelation between the number of species and the number ofindividuals in a random sample of an animal population. J.Anim. Ecol. 12(1):42 -58.

Fisher, S. G. 1971. Annual energy budget of a small foreststream ecosystem, Bear Brook, West Thornton, N.H. Ph.D,Thesis, Dartmouth College. 97 p.

Fisher, S. G., and G. E. Likens. 1972. Stream ecosystem;organic energy budget. BioSci. 22:33-35.

Gaulin, A. R. 1956. Aquatic macro- invertebrate communities asindicators...of Alarm pollution in Lytle Creek. Sewage Indust.Wastes 28(7):906-924..

Gaufin, A. R., and C. M. Tarzwell. 1952. Aquatic invertebratesas indicators of stream pollution. Publ. Health Rep. 67.57 -64.

Guthrie, R. K., D. S. Cherry, and R. N. Firebee. 1974. A com-parison of thermal loading effects on bacterial populations inpolluted and non-polluted aquatic systems. Water Res.8:143-148.

Gehrs,* Ce W. 1974. Vertical movement of zoolankton inresponse to heated water. Pages 285 290 in J. W. Cibbons andR. R. Sharitz, eds. Thermal ecology. U.S. Atomic EnergyCommission.

Iiston, N. G. 1959. Species abundance and community or-ganization. Ecology 40(3):404 -416.

liall, C. A. S. 1971. Migration and metabolism in a streamecosystem. Rept. Univ. NorthiCarolina -Inst. Water Res.49:1-243.

Hernicks, E. E., and J. Cairns, Jr. 1972. The recovery of streammacrobenthic communities from the effects of acid mine drain-age. Fourth symposium on Coal Mine Drelnage Research,Ohio River Valley Water Sanitatiop Commission. BituminousCoal Research, Inc. 870-398

1974a. Rehabilitatiori of streams receiving acid min'sdrainage. null. No. 66 Water Resources Research Center.Virginia PolytecAnic Instgute and State University, BlackS-

..

burg. 284 pp.. 1974b. The recovery of streams stressed by acid coal

mine drainage. Pages 11-24 in Coal and the environment.Fifth Symposium on Coal Mine Dr`ainage Research, Coal, andthe Environment Technical Conference. Louisizille, Ky., Oct.22-24, 1974.

Hobbie, J. E. 1971. Heterotrophic bacteria in aquatic ecoAys-terns; some results of studies with organic radioisotopes.Pages 181-194 in J. Cairns, Jr., ed. The structure and functionof freshwater microbial communities. Research DivisionMonograph 3. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Uni-versity, Blacksburg.

Iversen, T; M. 4973. Decomposition of autumnshed beechleaves in a spnngbox and its significance for the fauna.,Arch.Hydrobiol. 72:305-312.

Jaccard, P. 1908. Nouvelles recheches snr la distributionflorale. Buil. Soc. Vaud. Sci. Nat. 44:223-270. , -

Kaesler, R. L., J. Cairns, Jr., and J. S..Crossman. 1974. The useof cluster analysis in the assessmhal of spills of hazardousmaterials. Amer. Midland Naturalist 92:94-114.

Kaushik, N. K., and H. B. N. Hynes. 1968. Experimental studyon the role of autumn-shed leaves in aquatic environments. J.,Eco1,56:229-243.

Klucas, R.V. 1969. Nitrogen fixation assessment by acetylenereduction, Page; 109 116 in Proceediags .Of Eutrophication-Birostimulation Workshop; Berkeley, Calif.

Kuznestor, S. I. 1968. Recent studies on the roleof microor-ganisms in the cycling of substances ins lakes. Limnol.Oceanogr. 13:211-224.

Lloyd', M., dnd R. J. Ghelardi. 1964. A table for calculating the r"equitability" component of species diversity. J. Anim. Ecol.33(21:217-225.

MacArthur, R. H. 1964. Environmen factors affecting birdspecies.diversty. Amer. Natur. 989931;387 -397.

1965. Patterns of specie diversity. Biol. Rev. 40(41:510-533.

MacArthur, R. H., and J. W:11,1501.4rthur. 1961. On bird speciesdiversity. Ecology 42(3):594- 98. \

MacArthur, R. and E. 0. Wilson. 1963. An equilibrium the-, oyy of insular zoogeogceph. Evolution 17:373-387.Margalef, R. 1958. Information theory in ecology. Gen. Systems

3:36 -'71.-. 1960. Valeur indicatrice de.la composition des pigments

du phytoplancton sur la productivite, compositiontaxomomique et proprietes dynamiques det populations.C,Ommite Internationale pour la Exploration de la Mer.15:277-281.

Mathis, B. J. 1965. Community structure of benthic macro-invertebrates in an intermittent stream receiving oil fieldbrines. Ph.D. Thesis, Oklahoma State University. 52 pp.

McIntosh, R. P. 1967. An index of diversity and the relation ofcertain concepts to diversity. geology 48(3):392 -404.

Minshall, G. W. 1967. Role of allochthonous detritus in thetrophic structure of a woodland springbrook community. Ecol-ogy 48:139-149. -

1968. Community dynamici of thg benthic fauna in awoodland springbrook. Hydrobiologia 32:305-339.

Patrick, Ruth. 1949. A proposed biological measure of stream,conditions, based on a survey of the Conestoga Basin, Lan-caster CountyPa. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. 101:277=341.

-. 1973. Use of algae, especially diatoms, in-the assessmentof water quality. Pages 76-95 in J: Cairns, Jr. and K. L. Dick-son, eds. Biologi methods for the assessment of water quaLity AS 528. American Society for Testing and

to ials. 'PatAck, Ruth, M. H. ?John, and J. H. Wallace. 1954. A new

method for determining the pattern of the diatoni flora. Not,Nat. Acad. Nat. 259:1-12.

Patten, B. C. 1962. Species diversity in net phytoplariktbn ofRaritan Bay. J. Mar. Res. 20(11:57-75.

Petersen, R. C., and K. W. Cummins. 1974. Leaisprocessing hi awoodland stream. Freshwater Biol.

Pieldu, E. C. 1966. The measurement of diversity in differenttypes of biologiCal collections. J. Theor. Biol. 13:131 -144.

-. 1969. An introduction to mithematiCal ecology. JohnWiley and Sons, New York. 286 pp.

Preston, F. W. 1948. The commonness and rarity of species.. Ecology 29:254-283.

. 1962. The canonical distribution of commonness andrarity. Parts I and II. Ecology 43(2):185 215,410-432.

Rodina, A. G. 1972. Methods in: aquatic microbiology. UniversityPark Press, Baltimore. 462 pp. -

Ross, H. H. 1963. Stream communities and terrestrial biomas.Arch. Hydrobiol. 59:235-242.

Saunders, G. W. 1971. Carbon flow in the aquatic system Pages31-45 ina Cairns, Jr., ed. The structure and function of fresh-water mocrobial communities. Research Division Monograph3. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacks-burg.

Shannon, C. E., and W. Weaver. 1963. The mathematical theory'qf communication. University of Illinois, Press, Urbana..125pp.

Stauffer, B., and J. Slocomb (m anu riot in prep.). A computerprogram for solving the maximunlikelihood equations of thetruncated log-normal distribution.

t

t BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY 7' A QUANTITATIVE.DETERMINATION

Steel. R. G. D.. and J. H. Tome, 1960. Principles and procedures of statistics. McGraw Hill Rook Co...Inc. New York. 481pp.

Thatche. L. and J. 0. Johnson. 1973. Determination of traceelements-in water and aquatic biota by neutron activationanalysis. Pages 277-298 In G. Glass, ed. Btodssay techniquesand environmental chemistry. Ann Arbor Science Publishers,Inc.,,AnmArbor Mtch.

Tuffey, T. J.. T. V. Hunter. and V.A. Matulewich. 1974. Zonesof nitrification. Watei Res. Bull. 10:555-.564..

, t Vannote. R. L. 1970. Detrital consumers in natural systems.Pages 20 24 to K. W. Cummins, ed. The Stream. AAA Sym-posium. Te,ch. Rept. Mich State Unit, Inst. Water ResearchNo. Z 4

Vol lensprinNo.213

Wetze

eer. R..A. 1969. A manual on methods for measuringry production in aquatic environments. LBP Handbook

12..Blackwell 'Scientific Publications. Oxford. England.p.

R. G . and P. H Rich, 1973: Carbon in freshwatersystems. Pages 241 263 in Carboq and the,btosphere. Proc.24th Brookhaven Syynposturn In Blarogy. USAEC SymposiumSer. CONF-720510,

Wilhm, J. L. 1965. 8pecies di ersity of bentha. macroms,ertebrates in a stream receiwig dome tic nd oil refinery effluents. Ph.D dissertation, Oklaho State' University, Still--water. 49 pp.

Wilhm. J. L., and T. C. Dorris 968. Biological parameters forwater quality criteria. Biosci. (6):477 480.

Wurtz. C. B. 1955. Stream biota and stream pollution Sewage: Indust. Wastes 27(1'1):1270 1278.Yongue. William H., Jr. and John Cairns. Jr 1971'. Colonization

and succession of fre4ater protozoans In artificial sub-strates suspended in a small pond in North Carolina. Not. Nat.Acad, Nat. Sci. 443:1 13.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS,

, My thoughts on biological integrity have been influenced Hy,discussions with many colleagues. particularly Drs. Arthur L.

'Buikema, Jr.. Ernest F. Benfteld. Kenneth L. Dickson andAlbert C. Hendricks. One of my graduate students, (John p.Slocomb. furntshed several critical references for manuscript. My aornictions were also tempered during deliberationsof the joint-Institute of Ecology and National Commission onEnvironmeVal Quality committpe on this, topic. even 'thoughtheir final conclusions may differ substantially from mine.

ISCUSSION

, Comment: I've been fascinated with some of theworkithat you and your stud ave been doingusing individual fish or smal groups of fish to moni-tor changes in water qualit . At the outset of yourtalk, you indicated that Yo didn't feel that singlespecies could be used in measure of biological in-tegrity. Wouldyou comment on that?

Mr. Cairns: You're perfectly right. I probablyshould have covered this in the talk and it is in thepaper. Single species are not a good index of biolog-ical integrity but can be used in an "e ly warning"System. The purpose of the single spe ies in our in-plant monitoring systems is to give an arty warn-ing of toxicity before the wastes a trta1lly reach thereceiving system. This has some adv ntages but

185

also all of the disadvantages of a "representative"species.

If an in-plant monitoring system showed biologi-cally deleterious changes in the plant waste beforeit %reaches the river, then you would have severaloptions: (1) Shunt the waste to a holding pond; (2)recycle the waste for further treatment; (3) scaledown th lant operations until the signal dis-appears:

This in- fant information would have to be corre-lated to the response of the biological community inthe receiving system itself. That is the way itshould be usednot as a single specieindex stand-ing alone.

Perhaps I'm being too much the devil's advocate'in not relying on individual species. However, it isdangerous to over-rely on indiVi0ual species. Thereis a role for them in in-plant monitoring systems,but never without being coupled to some monitor-ing system based on community structure in the re-ceiving system itself. Our in-plant and in-ecosystemmonitoring units ale designed to be coupled to-gether.

Comment: I was intrigued by your reference tousing natural-systems to accomplish tertiary treat-ment, as opposed to manmade systems to accom-plish the less costly primary and secondary. Wereyou referring only to non-toxic kinds of materialsfasopposed to relying on nature to handle. say, chlor-inated hydrocarbons and heavy metals? Also, doyou feel that there is sufficient natural assimilativecapacity to handle all of man's municipal and indus-

, trial-wastes Beyond secondary treatment?Mt. Cairns: There are several points to be made

here. One is that it may not be possible for manysystems to handle all of man's wastes because theyare too small and/or they are already, overloaded.One would have to decide on a site specific basis.

As you point put, there are certain kinds of com-pounds which arevneither degraded nor dispersed;these nvy aindergo biological magnification and forthese the is zero assimilative capacity. However,for most wastes many ecosystems have some as-similative capacity despite the zero discharge phi-losophy whiclvssumes that one carifOrever contain

,.,tthe environmental effects of an industrial socie y.This" is not possible beca5se very, very advan edtreatment requires energy, chemicals, and equ'p-ment.

.11

The production of these will, ultimately,-prod ceenvironmental effects somewhere. They will just bedisplaced from one site to another. I was trying toaddress that point in a very simplified fashion, butif there's no such thing as a nathral assikiilativecapacity, we're in real trouble! That would meanthe end of industrial society. So even though we

1-8'0

186 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

have mostly anecdotal evidence and intuitive feel-ings that there is such a thing as assimilative capac-ity, we have no other choice but to assume naturecan assimilate certain types of wastes and trans-form them. But if we don't define assimilative'ca-pacity more vigorously the assimilative capacity isexceeded and then the ecosystems will collapse.

We might set arbitrary standards for waste dis-chat ges based on general rules, and they mightactually work and protect ecosystems, 139.t thenwe'll be underusing the assimilative capacity mostof the time. We Will not be making full beneficial,non-degrading use of assimilative capacity, let'ssay, 364 days out of the year. WithOut informationfeedbacks about the condition of tad- receiving sys-tem good quality control is unlikely. My feeling isthat the money spent on getting feedback of info,r-mation about the response and condition of the re-ceiving system would 'be more than offset 1337 thesavings 'in waste treatment k one linked the dis-charge operation to the receivingcapacity.

So, what we )should trying to dc6, really, ismesh two dissiniilar systems. One is an industrialsystem operating under, more or less, the market

,system and the ecosystem which is "controlled" by'environmental variables. We should be trying toget these two, system; working together in some

. optimal way for society's benefit; I feel that we cando much better than We're now doing in that re-spect. .

Comment: the Agency's Water Quality,Standards program, traditionally, 'has been b edon providing levels for chemical parameters MC his to'provide protection for insfrqam water qualit

,""and biota.Do you feel that is an adequate system to provide

protection for aquatic communities, or dO you talkinstream levels of chemical parameters must be_augmented by biological monitoring, some type ofbiological monitoring requirement in the waterquality standards themselves?

Mr. Cairns: If you develop one standard for thewhole country, this fails to consider. low differentecosystems are in various regions and that thesedifferences influence toxicity.

Another important factor is that one shouldn't-regulate t e toxicants individually and in iso-

. lation fro others. Wd aren't exposed oxic in-sults one at time and as organisms e res nd tothe collectiveInsults to our bodies ( e smo , con-taminants in the water, and so forth). So do ,quaticorganisms and other organisms. The. Ate pts toregulate one Stress in isolation from the e ects ofother stresses won't work..

We should take advantage of the fact that natural,commune es summarize and integrate allgthese in-

t.a)

'181

suits and give us a cumulative response. I agreethat we should make some attempts to estimate thethresholds of toxicity for individual compoundssince this is useful information. It is.good'preclictiveinformation, but ultimately we must go to the sys-tem itself and study the cumulative impact and theintegrated response. I can't see any other way out.

pommeni: I'd like to `see you follow along a littlein that. Can you give us an idea of what level oftraining would je necessary to have the toxic peo-ple go out And do this sampling that you suggestand, obviously the money and manpower requireto do that ona national scale?

Mr. Cairns: In today's dollars or tomorrow's dol-lars?

Comment: Take your pick.Mr. Cairns: there are simple bioassays like the

ORSANCO 24-hotir bioasSay. The round robinsshpwed that it could be used by people who had noprkir training. The sequential comparison diversityindex can be used by people with no fornial taxo-nomic training.

For such tests one can take high school graduatesand, in one week, one can train them to produceuseful, statistically reliable results.

These technical ptople do better with the simpletests than Ph.D's because the Ph.D's get bored andthe other people don't. For simple tests can userelatively untrained people, as long as they are dis-criminating and dependable workers.

The aquatic ecology group at Virginia Tech hasjust developed A test using Daphnia for the Amer-ican Petroleum Institute which can be run quitewell by people who have had other types of formaltraining '(such as chemical engineering, sanitary'engineering) but ewith no training in bioassaymethods.

To cut costs we are going 'to automation in ourown lab. We have a unit ,using laser hologramswhich will' probably identify 8,000 diatoms, whenit's working at full effectiveness, in less than 10minutes. Biologists, in gneral, have not takenadvantage of computer technology and other typesof technology to cut costs in water quality'assess=ment.

The in-plant system that Dexter just mentionedis being installed at the Celanese Plant, Narrows,VA. , with the Manufacturing Chemists ASsociation.The capital investment for that, if you already haVe ,a mini-computer, will be about $26,000 and it can beoperated by a high school graduate. The laser sys-tem would cost about $156,000 in today's dollars,.but could'be used by many plants. The cost per an-alysis using automation will be relatively slight.

For a complete stream survey using nine taxo-nomists, my guess would be $4,000 to $8,000 per

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY-A QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION

station for each examination. The "complete physi-cal" surveys are very expensive. Functional meas-urements could also be expensive, except for thesimple rate prodsses.

Comment: We're not only an industrial society,we're largely an urban society. There're` a Treatnumber of these sections doing area-wide studies,an awful lot of them underway around St. Paul.

Many of the streams in urban areas are subject tolarge sediment loads, lots 'of scouring due to runoffa priori. Can we establish biological integrity withthose kinds of streams, because if the locals aregoing to be added, they will have to choose betweenalternatives. They will need some measure of whatthought, or the possible results ,to those alterna-tives when` you're talking about control of runoff,perhaps treatment and other kinds of disposal thatare in place now.

o we have to take the physical scenarios ofPhysical alterations for improvements? The samething on chemical, do we equate those and then tryto come up with the biological scenarios and poth-ble results, and then just lay them out and takeyour chance

Mr. Cairn : I don't know if there is anybody herethat can answer your question.

My guess would be, if I understood your questcorrectly, that in systems like the Ohio well neverfind out the original condition, so we must set

_standards (chemical, physical, and biologicalathata're -sa'tisfactory to us as a society. The various

187

scenarios with cost- benefit analyses oaklie given tothe general public or other decisionmakers for finalchoice,

If you look at the ORSANCO reports it is evidentthat the general water quality trend has been to-ward improvement of chemical-physical charac-teristics and they are getting more stable andmore predictable. This resulted from an imple-mented regional scenario.

Comment:' I was talking about any of the muchsmaller water bodies that are around the country.We only have a few, very large systems. In manyareas the streams are much smaller, they're creeks,and bodies down to that size.

A great deal of money could be spent, but wehave to base some decision on biological integrity.

Mr. Cairns: We're studying the South River withDuPont. in Virginia. It's a very small stream withvery heavy waste loading. I believe we can evaluatebiological integrity for, this stream and developpractical management programs to either improveor maintain present condition pf integrity.

It would not be cost effective to restore thatstream to its.original condition, but I think it is rea-sonable to restore the stream to some more accept-ble condition before it Apo the Middle and North

Rivers to form the SoutriWOrk ,of the ShenandoahRiver. There are acceptable means ?)f determiningbiological integrity and develo' ing managementplans. Implementing then is an er matter. .

4'

I

"1 82

4

MODELING OFAQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS

GERALD T. ORLOBResource Management AssociatesLafayette, California

INTRODUCTION

2

Public participation in environmental planningand in the decision processes that lead to imple-me ation ots ific control actions or. projects, has

pelled tra ition-bound planners and designers,to re-examine heir techniques and tools. It 4-4 es-sential in today's world that the range of alterna-tive actions and/or strategies be widened, and thatall viable choices that the body politic wishes tocon-sider be assessed before the choice b' znade.,This isno small task, in_view of the complexity Of the en-vironmental system, the. many constraintseco-nomic, social, political, and technologicalthatmust be considered, and our own limitation icii

understanding how ouz -environment actually be-haves. An awareness of these factors may cause the

-;,1 .more tiMorous to abandon all hope, but stimulatethe .more adventurous to seek new techniques,methodologies, and tools for dealing quantitativelywith environmental management alternatives,Models of aquatic ecosystems are repreientative ofsuch new,tools. Properly conceived and structured,they can become valuable adjuncts to the environ-mental planner's intuitive judgment and can 'bemade to serve the public decision process. It is ourintention in the

maythat follows illustrate

how such a tool may come to being and liew it maybe used.

We propose, first, to present some basic notionsconcerning the behavior of the aqdatic envirionmentwe wisb to model. Then, we would like to show howthese, can be treated .conceptually to form theModel. Given that such a model can be iinplemented(and we will assent that it can, by citing actual ex-amples), we will illustrate its pot#ntials by demon-stration in an actu'al case study, Leake Washington.

IMPORTANT ECOLQGICALCONCEPTS AND PROCESSES-

*.

. EUTROPHICATION . .. * :

,. For the purposes of illustrating the developmentand utility of an aquatic ecologic model, let ug con-sider an environmental management problem of

current national interestthat of eutrophication oflakes.

Eutrophication, the process of "aging" of-lakes,that ultimately leads to the conversion of a lake intoa swamp, is governed by many interrelated physi .cal, chemical, and biological processes that may bemodified by man. It is manifest to the non-scientistin the form of extreme symptonas proliferation ofaquatic-weeds, algal blooms, and fish kills. How:

.ever, to the trained biologist it is, seen as a delicatebut complex imbalance between the nutrient sup-

' ply to the systand.indigenout life forms. Thisimbalance may Oe a natural consequerke, a slow in-exorable progression of nutrient, enrichment of thelake keyed,to geologic and Climatic changes, or itmay artificial, accelerated by man through im-prudent intervention in the lake's natural hydro-logic regimen, its ecosystem, or its nutrient supply.',,

THE HYDROLdGIC SYSTEM

A fundamental building "block of the lake ecologic,model is a capability to represent correctly the hy-drologic processes that determine the exchangesand balances of water, heat energy, and nutrients.Such a capability may be available in the form ofdata obtained by direct observation or may be rep-resented by another model, a hydrologic or hydradynamic "driver," that carpsimulate .prototype be-havior. The minimum information we will needfrom this source includes temporal and spatial de-aiptions o water movement and` temperature. Anumber of suitable Models 'that will satisfy these re-quirements have been developed' and successfullyapplied in studies of thermal energy 'balances inlakes and reservoirs. We will not attempt to de-scribe these here, ,but will refery the interestedtreader to the rather substantial body of literaturealready extant.'

:THE ECOSYSTEM

AU aquatic ecosystem may be defined explictlyin terms of specific living organisms and the envir-onment in which they live, including its spatial di-mensions and quality. However, for purposes of

- .189

18.0

t-

190 ' THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

model representation of ecosystemsof whateverform and. complexity in the specific environmentsof a lake or reservoir, we may be well advised toconsider first some general principles and processesthat seem to be common to such aquatic ecosys-tems. As an aid in conceptualizing the problem:adiagrammatic representation of important ecologicinterrelationships and processes for a lake environ-ment is shown in Figure 1.

*First, let us recognize that the primary source ofall energy to "drive" the ecosystem and to regulatelife processes is the swi. The sun's energy is deliv-ered to the aquatic environment as solar radiationthat passes through the air-water interface and isdistributed downward in accordance with clarityand absorptiVe capacity of ,the, water. If photosyn-thetic plants are present, this supply of energy, to-gether with certain tundambntal building blocks forall living organisms, can be transformed by theprocess of photosynthesis into biomass, Le., livingmatter. Such biomass, created by the so-calledprimary producers, represtnts a potential energysource for higher forms ()Me who may by meta-bolic processes transform it into their own biomass:This they may accomplish at, some net expenditureof energy that may be treated as a gain in entropy'for the system as a whole.

In a complex aquatic habitat we may identify fourgeneral groupings of life forms according' to theirparticular role: in maintaining a viable ecosystem.These are:

1. Abiotic substances, including those essentialas building blocks.,of biomassIsuch as the most ele-mental forms of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus;and those that are necessary to sustain life, puch asdissolved oxygen and trace elemerkts.

2. Primary producers, including autot phic or-ganisms such as phytoplankton that n orporateabiotic substances into living Yell material by theprocess of photosynthesis. / ..

' 3. Consumers (predators), including heterotro%phic organisms such as zooplankton and aquatic anit.mals (nekton nd benthic forms) that utilize otherbiota and organk residues as basic energy sources,;and.

4. DecompOSerse, includint bacteria in both liqui...

and solid (benthos) phases and ftingi that b:redown residual organics to abiotic fornf's or to fothat may be more readily utilized by consumers.

:PRIMARY PRODU ION ANTY

PHOTOSYNTHESIS

The aquatic ecosystem functions under con-straints Of the availability of certain basic substances,, e.g., carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus,

6

and environmental conditions, e:g., light, heat, tox-icants, et cetera that may be regulated exogen-ously. In addition, the quality of the enviroflment,determined in part by the ecosystem itself, may setlimits on the system's performance. For example,the failure of decomposers to break down organicmatter accumulated in the benthos may bring-on ananaerobiosis with attendant depression of dissolvedoxygen and forthaltion of soluble toxic compounds.

Primary producers, like free-floating algae or at-tached aquatic plants, utilize the gun's energy andabiotic substances to synthesize new cell materialthrough photosynthesis. A relatively simple defini-tion of t Photosynthetic process is given by theapproximate stoichiometric equation

5.7 CO2 + 5.4 H2O + NO;light

algal cells

. C57/19802.31g + 8.25 02+ OH (1)

This relationship is derivedirom 4 basic consider-ation of the driving mechanisms of photosynthesis'and empirical evidence as to the approximate corn-

. position of algal cell material (neglectmg phos-phorus-arace elements). ,While the actual pro-"cess is far more complex thyi the equation .Suggests, most of the basic factofs that relate algaeto their aquatic habitat are reiresented. I

.een

that the essential driving force for the ocess (re -'action) is.sOlar energy (light). Alg ells are cap-°able of utilizing this energy source to build newcells from carbon dioxide, water, and nitrate. In theprocess, eledental oxygen iS given off and an alka-line environment (often favorable io optimal algalgrowth) is created. Oxygen goes into solution and.thus facilitates ,maintenance of an aerobic aquaticenvironment. Assuming the reasonableness of theequation stohiometrically, we may estimate thatabout 1.9 mg// of dissolved oxygen are produced foreach mg// of nets cell material. Similarly, for eachunit of oxygen produced,. an approximately equalweight of carbon dioxide must be alt.-enable,

GROWI1/41N. RESPIRATION

AND ORTALITY

The process described-6y e ation (1) is essen-tially one of phytoplankton gro h, an increase inbiomass. But, as for all 'living things, life is sus-tained on a steady ba:sis by utilizing stored energy,the process of respiration. This occurs lore or less'continuously, but is 'the dominant process whenphotosynthesis stops,..i.e., in the absence oflight.Respiration may be treated as a loss of biomass,normally at a rate of 5 to'15 percent of total.grow0.

184

4

1BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY A QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION

LIGHT' SEDIMENT

OXYGEN AND CARBON DIOXIDE(,,AQUATIC PLANTS

191

r

0 2( kLGAEAciutIA

cA rle; PELAGIC FISHES

' pZOOPT.:ANIUM --4,-

4=Na CIIclzt

....

...J

:1 1r

%,..

r- .S It02 f DETRITUS.. 4..

a/N/- O

3

'(' )i. I99243

MU ROUGH FISHES

BACTERIA

TOXICITYH

D

THE RMOCL I NE

40

110

BENTHC6

FIGURE Ecologic relationships in a lake environment.

185.

C

L

A

r

_J

4

192 EGRITY OF WATER

Algal cells grove. respire; mature, and die.tality rates depend on environmental conditioni.e., heat, toxicants, cet a, and since theselikely to vary seasonall mortality.may at timesdominate the life processeof algal cells.

The rates of algal growth, respiration, and mor-tality determine the net rate at which the total pop-ulation, the standing crop, changes. This .may beexpressed simply by

Net Growth Rate of Biamass = [GrowthRespiration Mortality]

Each of the terms representing growth, respira-tion, and mortality may be modified by factorsindicate the influences of the environment, forefample, temperature, toxicity, and the availabil-ity of essential nutrients.

4ALGAE - BACTERIA SYMBIOSIS

The loss of viable alga) cells from the systemans a loss of biomass in a complex form not

readily utilizable by other biota, certainly not by,algae themselves. To maintain the ecosystem in aviable condition in the face of limited supplies ofessential nutrients, it is necessary to break downdead algal cells and return basic nutrients to thesystem in abiotic forin.,This is the role of the de-composers, who live in a symbiotic relationship toprimary producers.

Consider the biodegradation of an organic com-po,und (dead algal cells, far example) comprisedessentially of C, H, 0, and N. In an aerobic environ-ment bacterial decomposition of such a compoundmight proceed generally according to

C, H 0, N, + A 0,heat

bacteriaorganic oxygenmatter

x CO2+ y H2O + z N 1-13+ new bacteria cells (2)

carbon water ammoniadioxide

This statement of the decornp8sition process indi-cates that proteinaceous material may be oxidizedbiochemically to produce carbon dioxide, water,and ammonia. The oxygen needed may be supplied,,in part, by photosynthesis (equation (Th, while theCO, produced goes into solution to c. ontribqetothe reservoir of this basic requirement for algalgrowth. Ammonia may be,further oxidized by bac-eria to nitrite and then to nitrate; likewise con-

uting to algal needs. The 'symbiosis betweenteria and algae is the fundamental relationship

between decomposers and primary producers.

PREDATION

Grazing by higher. trophic levels plays an impor-tant role in regulation of populations at-lower levelswhile propagating energy upward in the food chain.Por example, rapid growth of algae may trigger acorresponding but somewhat slower reaction inzooplankton standing crops, increasing the availa-bility of their primary food supply. Generally, thehigher trophic level grows slower and is less effici-ent in energy conversion, so biomass (energy) islost from the ecosystem. Peak groskrth of the preda-tor occult later, lags that of the prey, and fluctua-tions in biomass are usually not so great. Also, zoo-plankton may seek alternative food sources, forexample_ organic detritus, when algae are notplentiful. they have a certain motility, at leastvertically in the system, enabling them to be somewhat discriminatory in what they eat.

-A predator may shift its feeding preference fromtime to time, depending on 'environmental factorsand availability of food supplies. For example, zoo-plankton may prefer algae, but when stocks runlow, due perhaps to over-grazing, they may shift todetritus as a food source. These relationships canbe incorporated in the ecomodel structure b3;,mak-ingthe growth in biothas; of the predator a functionof the availability of both the prey and the alter-native food source. The rate of change in prey bio-mass will accordingly be diminished by loss to pre-dation, with an allowance for the "digestiveefficiency" of the predator in converting the prey'sbiomass to his own.

ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITS ON GROWTHLight

Photosynthesis requires light and the rate atwhich the process of energy conversion to biomasstakes place is regulated by light intensity. In'theabsence of light, ttir at very low levels of intensitysuch as may exist deep in a water body, there canbe- ho-primary production. Thus, photqsynthesis is

_keyed closely to diurnal and seasonal fluctuations inradiation and is affected by environmental 'condi-tions that may inhibit the transmission of light intothe habitat of photosynthetic plants. For example}the suspension of solid matter in the.water, eitherby natural forces ..or by the actions of man, mayinhibit photosynthesist or cause it to cease alto-

--gether. In certain instances, even, the excessivegrowth of algal cells can reduce li t penetration:i.e., the growth process may be f limiting.

4-

Nutrients'111i3e need certain essential nutrients to,build

1-

186. a

4

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITYA QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION 193

biomass. To sustain growth of new cells there needsto be a continuously available supply of carbon, ni-trogen, and phosphorus, for example. This can befrom- exogenous sources, e.g., waste water 'dis-cfiarges to the lake, or it can be supplied by recycl-ing of nutrients through the complex ecosystem ofproducers, consumers, and decomposers, as-illus-trated schematically in Figure 1.

If any essential-nutrient is deficient in the sys-tem, the growth rate, i.e. the,rate of pioduction ofnew biomasS, may be ,regulated to conform to theavailable rate of supply, even though other nutriaen#s may be present in abundance. Thu's, an ecosys-tem may be characterized as "nitrogen limiting,"indicating that growth can be controlled by reghlat-ing this critical nutrient. However, it may come topass that as nitrogen is added to the system, a pointwill be reached where phosphorus or carbon sup-plies will govern, and a new growth regulator takesover. Actually, there may be several regulators ofgrowth, operative simultaneously and varying incontrol with time-, place, .and other environmental

. conditions. Such complex processes are difficult todescribe mathematically for the urposes of ecosys-tem modeling, but empirical re tionsh'ps havebeen developed that give a reasona ccount ofthe effects of growth limiting factors.' 6

Temperaturegl

All .biological "processes are emperature sensi-' t&e. At temperature, extremes/either high or low,

they may virtually tease. At jntermediale levelsthey may proceed at maximal rates, the 1ptimumrate for a particular biological process depending onthe biota. In natural unstressed environments biotateni,to be betier.a.dapted by natural selection pro'-cesses to the range of temperAures on the low sideof the maximum. Hence,, extremes of high.tempera-tures tend to impose greater stresses, perhaps ulti-n3ately leading. to the demise of the, ecosystem:Fortunately, the large spatial variability of temper-.atures in lake systems and the heat exchange pro-

' cesses betty en water and air mitigate temperatureextremes' Mat are likely to cause ecosystem col-

., lapse.Temperature effects ph the, rates of biological

process are generally well known.from experience..Likewise, tecirtiques Jor., predicting temperature

) changes in lake systems are fairly ,well developed.Hence, the, effects of temperature on the lake eco-system can be incorporated in the ecologic model ina straightforward manner.

Toxicity,

. Most naturally or.ourring substances are toxic to

- 1 _

$

living organisms at- some concentration, but at'lower levels they may actually be biostimulatory.Thus, there may be a threshold range over whichthe_organism may function at near optimum levels,at least without inhibition of essential physiologicalprocesses. Such thresholds are known for certaincompounds and species of organisms under con-trolled laboratory conditions although hale isknown asyet about the complex interactions thattake place in natural environments with real eco-systems.

MODEL DEVELOPMENT

The development of a lake ecologic model pro-ceeds logically through a succession of steps, moreor less as follows:

1. Statement of goals and objectives.- 2. Conceptual representation of the prototype.

3. Functional representation 'in mathematicalform of hydrologic, water quality, and ecologic pro-cesses.

4. Computational representation in program-ming language for- simulation on the digital com-puter.

5. Calibration of 'model against performance ofprototype. .

6. Verification of model's predictive capability.7. Sensitivity testing of model's performance.8. Documentation and pr@paratiog of user man-

_

uals.9. Application to prototype cases. b

The nature of each of these steps and their iriterre-lationships has been described in dejail elsewhere.6It may suffice for present purposes to summarizebriefly afew of the more salient considerationi.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

4.- Questions of who is to use the model-and for whatTpurpose are primary considerations in model d%vel-oprhent. The academic may use the modeLas ?ve-hicle of education and instruction. The scientistmay see it as a means for comprehending the corn=

.plex interrelationship of processes and systems andfor defining areas for _future research. The plan-ner-decisionmaker may wis.h to u e it as a means forevaluating alternatives. .

In each instance, the requirem nts of reality withrespect to the prototype are fferent. These, in'turn, determine the temporal and spatial scales tobe used, the data required, and sometimes even thecomputational methods employed! Accordingly, theone of `development and cost are fixed by the de-gree of realism desired.

It must be reqpgnized that despite the obvious

194 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER \.

tradeoff between realism and cost, there are prac-tical limits of existing knowledge and technologythat may preclude, carrying development beyondcertain limits of detail and sophiStication. Often asimple model, wisely used, is much superior to anelegant model. inexpertly applied. After all, themodel is not ,a substitute for judgment, only ameans to enhance it if that capability alreadyexists,

CONCEPTUAL AIs,113 FUNCTIONAL REPRESENTATION

Conceptual representation of the prototype en-tails determination of the spatial and temporal

4.iidles at, which the model will be constructed. In adeep lake or impoundment that experiences strati-fication it has been found by experience that theWater body may be represented spatially as a seriesof horizontal lamina, i.e., slices, of equal thickness.These are arranged as a "system" along a verticalaxis, as illustrated' in Figure 2, a geometric repre-sentation of a stratified reservoir.

Within each control volume the properties of thewater mass aresconsidered uniform over some timeinterval appropriate to the rate processes beingsimulated. In the case of ecologic processes the timeinterval May be as little as one hour, although it isoften convenient to use one day time steps.

evaporationtributaryinflovv_abak

R

.

7

tributary

rain .- /

Otit./e3

verticaladvection

controlslice

outflow

s1

FIGURE 2. Geometric representation of a stratified reservoir.

Formulation of the model entails identification ofall pertinent quantities and processes and the pa-.

rameters and coefficients that characterize them.One may gain some perspective of these .for the lakeecologic model by inspection of idalized ecologic

,relationships depicted in Figure 1. In the uppersketch the various ecologic interactions are illus-trated in the customary pictorialization of theaquatic biologist. The trophic levels identified in-clude primary producers, both algae and roofedaquatic plants, zooplankton, pelagic and roughfishes, benthic animals, and bacteria. (decom-posers). Processes implied, in addition to advectionand diffusion associated with the hydrodynamic be-havior of the lake, are photosynthesis, growth, res-piration, mortality, predation, decomposition, re-aeration, oxidation, and sedimentation. Exogenousinputs to the system include sunlight; oxygen andcarbon dioxide, sedirnent, and nutrients.

In the lower sketch the ecosystem. is ,concep-tualized in the style adopted by H. T: Odum ' as anetwork of compartments (labeled P P Z, F, etcetera) joined by energy flow pathways. Followingroughly the same spatial orientation depicted in theupper sketch, this schematic representation shows,by the direction of the arrows On the energy path -,ways, the flow of energy upward from primary pro-ducers

20(P, and P2) through a succession of con-

sumers (Z, F, and F2), to ultimate harvest (H) by,9

man. Within the system there is passive storage ofcertain constituents (oxygen, detritus, sediment,and nutrients, represented by the symbols 0D, S N and N2 respectively). Changes in storageoccur as these quantities are supplied (e.g., photo-synthetic production of oxygen) or consumed bybiota (e.g., grazing of detritus by zooplankton),Sediment is seen to accumulate on the lake bottom(S), providing food for benthic' animals: (B). Theset,in turn (withthe aid of bacteria), 'return nutrients(N2) to the aquatic system. Benthic -animals arefood for rough fish (F2) that in turn may be har-vested. It. is noted, that certain life processes areregulated by the availability of food (basic nutrientsor biomass) and, environmental factors like heat,light, and toxicity.

COMPUTATIONAL REPRESENTATION`

This activity involves conversinn, of the modelformulation into a computer program that permitssimulation on the computer.

4e

CALIBRATION, VERSIFICATION ANDSENSITIVITY TESTING

188

These activities are preparatory to model. ap--

4BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY-A QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION

plication. They are intended to establish the relia-ility of the modeas a representation of the proto-type, using data derived by direct observations ofthe real system. i

Calibration entails adjustment of the model untilk4\ it, simulate prototype performance within some

preset limits of reliability.Verification involves checking model perform-

ance ag st the prototype without prior lEnowl-e, i.e. predicting prototype behavior.

Sen iti. ty testing entails determining the relia-, -bility of the model under variable 'conditions of in-

put data, levels oftoeiffcients, spatial and temporalscales, et cetera.

. a

DOCUMENTATION

This important step involves careful specificationof the computer program and user instructions sothat others may use the model.

APPLICATION

Application of the iirdel,is continuing activity,involving-simulation of prototype behavior for thepurposes of evaluation of alternatives. It, is bestillustrated for our purposes here by discussion of anactual case study, that of Lake, Washington.

LAKE WASHINGTON CASE STUDY

..'LAKE WASHINGTON FAIOLOGiC Mopzia

. The concepts described above have been tran-slated into a working ecologic model adaptable to a

' wide variety of aquatic systems, including strati-fied lakes, The first Application of the model to alimnological system, Lake Washington; was per-formed as a part of testing during the developmentprogram sponsored by the Office of Water Re.sour es Research (OWRR). The model was ,struc-ture according to the concepts illustrated inurea and 2 using the Deep Reservoir TemperatureM el developed previously by Water ResourcesEn peers, Inc.,' as a basic building block. In es-sence, thf model in, this for is one-diniensional,xlescribing.the temporal distribution of all waterquality and ecologic parameters over the annualcycle and along the vertical axis. "

Water quality and ecologic parameters included-

in the Lake Was elk Ecologic Model are asfollows: .

Abiotic Substanc s and Physical-hemical Pa- .,rameters

Nitrogen asammonia 1t

nitritenitrate

Phosphorus as phosphateCarbon dioxideOxygenTotal dissolved solids_TemperatureAlkalinitypHSedimentDetiitus

Biota and Biological ParametersBiothemical oxygen demand (ROD)Coliform bacteria (Phytoplankton as

large green algaesmall green algae

ZooplanktonNekton as .

coldwater pelagic fishes ,

warmwater pelagic fishesdeinersal (bottom) fishes

Benthic animals'

SELECTION,OF CASE STUDY

- 195

'Among a number of candidates -for testing of the

model concepts developed in the OWRR, project,Lake Washington' pr zed to be an outstandingchoice for two reasons . First was thelakers uniqueexperience over several decades, during which itwas subjecte4 to a wide range of pollutional stress.In the late 1950's and early 60'4, the lake reached anadvanced state Of, nutrient Enrichment due pri-marily to direct discharges of treated wastewaters,coupled with pekodic overflows from Seattle's com-bine& sewer system. During the summer months ,

unto about- -1965, algal blooms were experiencedfrequently at levels in the visible range. Inearly 60's there was increasing evidence of impening disaster to aquatic life; dissolved oxygehlevelin the hypoliinnion dropped well below- the levels °

require,d to sustain fish life and a steady downwardtrend was observed in each succeeding year.

In 1965, however'," Seattle's METRO went intooperation, collecting wastewater discharges and di-verting them ice Puget Sound. At about this sametime, steps were initiated 1,o,minimize combinedsewer overflows, thus feducin accidental enrich- «

Ment of the lake. The effect on the lake was dra-matic; in the follOwing year peak levels of algae pro-fluction dropped so that no blooms in the visible .

range were recorded. 'An obirioiis improvement inwater quality was registered throughout the lake,particularly in reductions in the levels of nutrientsavailable to support algal cell synthesis'.

196F ,

THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

Perhaps equally important in choosing LakeWashington as a test case was the existence of anexcellent body 61 field data, collected by W. T.Edmondson and his associates of the University ofWashington. Ttiese data, including the primary nu-trients, temperature, dissolved oxygen' andchlorophyll concentrations, provided the basis forcomparing model and prototype performance, i.e.,evaluating the predictiye capability Of the modeland ,calibrating it to prototype conditions: Time andspace do not permit an exhaust,ivediscussion'of theniry comparisons that were made; however, a fewexamples may setve to illustrate the model's per-formance in this initial application. '1"

Figtire 3 illustrates the annual Cycle of dissolved' oxygen distribution in the lake for hydrologic and

waste discharge_ conditions corresponding to theperiod 1962 63, justfrprior to wastewater diversionby METRO. While there are local differences be-tween' the simulated and observed distribution of

. dissolved oxygen, the general. pattern of progres-sive decline seems to be well desCribed by themodel; especially deep in the impoundment whereoxygen resources are noted to drop steadily over

0

10.0_

16) 20.0E 30.0

40,0

w 50.060,0

0

. 10.0

20.0:

E, 30.0

4).I a ,0 50.0

60.0

4

If

the year to bet-ow 4 mg/./ by late fall. Apparently,the .model predicted 'a greater degree of Itratifica-tion than occurred in the prototype, as evidencedby the somewhat lower D.O. levels calculated forthe' middre rangeof depth. This is borne out by acomparison of temperature' distributions as well..No attempt was made In this preliminary study tocalibrate the model to the field data, although if thishad been done, closer agreement could surely havebeen obtained.

Of special interest, of course, is thetemporal var-iation in algal biomass in the epilimnion of the lake

, dtiring the period of nutrient enrichment. Figure 4is illustrative of theinnu41 Cycle of algal biomass--in'the upper strata of the lake as simulated, by themodel and onservd in the prototype. The solid linerepresents theiniSdel prediction of algal biomass forpredischarge conditions of the 1962-63 period. Itmay be compared with the chlorophyll-a concentra-,tions observed by Edmondson for the 4961-63period.

It is noted that there' fair.agreemenI hiekweenobserved and simulated conditions during the earlypart of the year, through the peak bloom in mid-

.

OBSERVED DISS0,4-VED OXYGEN , mg/.11 10 9 1 9 9.

I I II

,CALCULATED' DISSOLVED OXYGEN , mg/ I10 9 9 10 10 91E1

10 9 8JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN

7- - 6 5 4 4 5 6JUL AUG. SEP OCT NOV DEC

FIGURE 3. Observed and simulated dissolved oxygen. Lake Washington. prediversion conditions.4

,190

a

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITYA QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION',

4

`.

AA

OBSERVED CHLOROPHYLLop--.

- x 1961

1962

A 1963

,

CALCULATEDALGAL Qi0mASS

AX

A

0.6

0.4

0.2

A

197

100.

90 ,

80

70

60

.

x 30

A

x

20

10

JAN FEB . -,MAR APR MAY .JUN. JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

FIGURE 4.̀Anneal variation of simulated algal biomass and observell-chlorophyll-a in surface strata, Lake Washingtoil, prediversionconditions.

,-summer. The low toncentratips sustaineavinthequarter of the year are followed fairly closely,

as is the abruPtgrowth of algae in Apriltnd May asthc lake warms and stratifies. The peak values ap-peaetar be of _the correct magnitude generally al-

-,thougb n attempt *Tag made in this preliminarystudytoladjbratethelnodel to the actual data.

-Figure 5-shbOsig,the distiihution of algal biomassin the upper 60 meter of water column over the fullannual cycle. _Clearly- evident is the high primary_productivity of the lake's upper strata in thewarmer summe iriionths, The typidal fall overturn,and the attendant drop in algal biomass is also ap-parent. .These results of model simulation of thelake's behavior are corroborated by EdirtondsoWs'chlorophyll-a data depicted in the upper portion ofthe figure.

An illustration of etiologic succession is seen hithe temporal relationships between two groups ofalgae and zooplankton presented' in Figure 6. Thesmall green algae (the upper curve in the figure)that grow rapidly at low light intensity are depictedas growing rapidly early in the y/ear, reaching peak"biomass levels in late May. The slower growinglarge green algae,follow, taking what is left of avail-able food: They peak later and at somewhat lower

O

leVels,:. The zooplankton, feeding on both algalgrotips, grow slowly Oral reach biomass levels about5 to. 10 percent-4 that of total phytoplanktpn. Tpeypeak iii-inid-August, 1.5 to 2 months later than thealgae: This pattern has been corroborated gen--erally in Lake Washington by direct observation al-though data on zooplankton standing crops are,meager.

.

EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES

As an illustration of the model's utility as &plan-fling tool, a cOmparison was made between pre- andpost-diversion conditions 'as, predicted by simula-tion of representative annual cycles. Iri the upperportion of Figure 7, the attenuation in the algalbiomass curve resulting from diversion of waste-waters from the system is clearly demonstrated,The results depicted, although they represent aver-age "before" and "after" conditions hydrologicallyand from the waste disposal point of view, are inagreement with the pattern of chlorophyll a distri-bution as noted by Edmondson. BOth thedepression of the _peak and its shift in time arecharicteristic of a song trend toward recovery ofthe lake from its previous eutrophic condition.

198

a: -

V

p

0.0

L 10.0

"- 20.0

E 30.0

40.0

50.0

a°

ft"

0

Ow,

50.0

60.0'

OA

k THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

. OBSERVED CHLOROPHYLL -A , dug/110 20 30 40 60 70 80 70 60 50 50 50

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

'60.050

10 10 5 5,10 10 5

r-t

...wawa MI

1

CALCULATED ALGAL BIOMASS, ,tig/150 100 200400 1000 l200 71000 ioo 50

AI

25 25 50 100 100

FEB 'MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT. NOV DEC

50

FIBRE 5. Simulated algal biomass and

7,1.0

0.8-

0.3-

0.2-

0.I-

0

4F.o

,. ,);, .,

4It , ZOOPLA TONN

....,.........---"----"ir:__.zeow...,. ,, 4,:,,.. ,..:.

1=217.1111111-.-1...11rai..17.061:r.., .. ...JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL -AUG 1 SEP 1 OCT . NOV DEC

40

3020I0

5

observed chlopphyll-a, variation with depth and time, Lake Washington, prediversion #conditions.

.4--SMALL ALGAE

aLARGE ALGAE

FiGuitt 6. Simulated ecological successions, Lake Washingto#n prediversion conditions.

196

1.0-Pd1;,z' ,;;1 2 8

411

25

22

112 0

18

1.6

MIE PrEy)fq PE ,EP EITIEEN I T PI

EE,

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY A QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION

In the lower portion of Figure 7 the annualchanges in dissolved oxygen concentrations" nearthe lake bottom for the same two cases are illus-trated It is observed that despite wastewater di-version the downward trend of oxygen resourcesdeep in the lake is little changed. This model resultis alsd in agreement with the prototype's behaviorand illustrates the dominant oxygen demand of thebenthos, a6ctor that is not dramatically altered bydiversion of nutrients from the lake.

1.4

1.2

1.0

I 0.4

0 4

0.2

10

6 6

2

0

BEFORE SEWAGESEWAGE

N FEB MAR A MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC

SURFACE ALGAL DENSITY

:;:;.-.1;3

BEFORE,D1VER810N

,

JAN FES MAR APR MAY j JUN J U C A U G S E P OCT NOV OEC

FIGURE 7. Water quility responses to sewage diversion fromLake Washington.

CONCLUSIONS

The state-of-the-art of ecologic modeling is stillrudimentary, but examples of practiced applicationsof n'todels such as that described here are increasingin number. The Ecologic Model, since its develop-ment under OWRR spbnsorship in 1970-71, hasbeen applied in a 'variety of environmental planningsituations. Recently, under joint sponsorship of theOWRR and the Environmental Protection Agencythe model was adapted to Puget Sound and to sixsubsystems of thiS complex marine environment.'It has been extended in its capability in further ap-plications on Lake -Washington and to a series ofartificial impoundments.8-° The basic concepts ofthe model have also beep incorporated in models'previodsly developed for vertically mixed estuaries

45

199

along the Pacific and gulf coasts and to coastalzones in New England and California.

Conceptually, models of aquatic ecosystems thatincorporate water quality interactions can beadapted to a wide variety of planning situations, in-_eluding those of lakes and manmade impound-ments. Basic formulations of the energy or massconservation type can be developed for abiotic sub-stances. These appear to be reasonably defensiblein light.of the existing body of knowledge on the be-havior of aquatic biota. Simulations of ecosystembehavior using such models appear to agree euitewell with prototype observations.

If there are limitations in the use of such modelsfor planning purposes, they are probably most iden-tified with the lack of reliable data from the proto-type that will serve both to -calibrate and test themodel and to instruct the modeler in how to im-prove this potentially useful tool. As experience isgained and ecologic models are tested and revised,confidence in their capabilities and awareness oftheir limitations are sure to grow: They are des-tined to figure prominently in future environmentalplanning and decisionmaking.

REFERENCES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Water Resources Engineers, Inc. 1968 (Revised). Predictionof thermal !nergy distribution in streams and reservoirs.Final Report to California Department of Fish and Game.

Water Resources Engineers, Inc. 1969. Mathematicalmodels for the prediction of tlitrmal energy changes inimpoundments. Report to Environmental, ProtectionAgency.

Orlob. G. T., and L. G. Selna. 1970. Temperature variationsin deep reservoirs. Journal of the Hydraulic Division,ASCE. 96, No. HY2, Proc. Paper 7063.

Odum, H. T.1972. An energy circuit language for ecologicaland social systems: its physical basis. Systems analysisand simulation in ecology, Vol. II. Academic Press, NewYork.

Chen, C. W., and G. T. Orlob. 1968. A proposed ecologicmodel for a eutrophylpg environment. Report to theFWQA, Water Resource Engineers, Inc. Walnut Creek,Calif.

Chen, C. W., and G. T. Orlob. 1972. Ecologic simulation foraquatic environment's. First Annual Report to tke Officeof Water Resources Research. Water Resources Engl.-neers, Inc., Walnut Creek, Calif.

Water 'Resources Engineers, Inc. Ecologic modeling ofPuget Sound and adjacent waters. Report to Office ofWater Research and Technology and EnvironmentalProtection Agency. In preparation.

Chen, C. W., and G. T. Orlob. 1973. ecologic study of LakeKoocanusa, Libby Dam-. Department of the Army,Seattle District, Corps of Engineers.

Glanz, D. G., G. T. Orlob, and G. K. Young. 1973. Ecqlogicsimulation of Tocks Island Lake.'U.S. Army Corps of En-gineers, Philadelphia, Pa.

Chen, Carl W. 19'72. Limnological study for Helms PumpedStorage Project. Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Emety-yille, Calif.

1.93

260 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

DISCUSSIONComment: Since 1916 we have been trying to get

drinking water standards that are acceptable forpotable water, that is, something you can put in acontainer, see, nd observe. Again, we haven't gotany uniformity there. The uniformity, or the lack ofuniformity, rather, comes from not being in con-stancy one State with the other. How in the worldare we going to train_and where are we going toget necessary professional-type people to makethese studies that can say this is up to standardsand this is how it can be maintained.

The point was made earlier that technicians cando this; I submit they can. But, when somethingoverwhelms the system and turns off the model andgoes beyond the belljar, thenyou are in deep trou-ble. You don't have time in a major facility system

r to wonder what happened, you have to correct thesituation. Where are these people coming from?The engineer Who graduates this June will only beone-half of the people who will be needed fpr othertypes of engineering.

Mr. Or lob: I'm not sure I have an answer forthat. Those that have 'associations with academicinstitutions are trying to et something about that,but we are suffering the consequences of a lag in

" training of professionals that was imposed on usabout 10 years back when it was much more" glam-orous to be involved in electronics or space explora-tion. Ithink that we are now suffering from lack ofsupport for straining and research. We in the uni-versities are desperately in need of that supportfront governmental agencies.

We need support of EPA, for example, in theprograms that .will bring about required trainingfor young engineers, chemists, and biologists with

f environmental orientation. Incidentally, we havesuch a tremendous interest on the part of studentsat the University of California with kvhich I am affil-iated, and we can't handle themtll. We don't haveopportunities for them that are competitive withthose of other fields in which there moneyavailable. 4

One of the important parts of our support cape-bilities in the universities has been the traininggrants program, provided for a considerable timeby EPA and its predecessors, but which is being cutoff in the next year or so. This is a great loss to aca-demic institutions in attracting qualified studentsto environmental programs.

The problems we are dealing with, I think, aremore complex than they ever were; they requiretraining of people with depth of understanding andsensitivity for environmental matters, even thoughyoung and as yet unskilled in the application of newtechnology. .

Comment: I was intrigued by your comment thatthe goals of management objectives are often inade-quately defined before modeling gets under way. I otwonder if you would like to reemphasize that pointand perhaps touch on what recommendations youwould like to make for research and development inmodeling.

Mr. Orlob: I think there have been some goodsteps taken to correct that situation. One of thesewas made, by EPA recently in its River BasinModeling Program.

Up to a certain point in time, most of the modelgthat were developed, of the type described in mytalk, were developed under special research con-tracts. That is, they were discrete model develop-ment projects not related to planning. This phase ofdevelopment was great; I participated in it. But,aquestion arose as to whether these models wouldever be brought to bear on real problems. Duringthis period there was a proliferation of models, farbeyond our real needs.

Probably about 90 percent of those produced arereally not worth anything to environmental plan-ners and decisionmakers. EPA undertook, a year ortwo ago, to take those models that were best docu-mented in the literature and, although they hadsire deficiencies, to apply them to real river basinplanning situations, to prepare them for use byplanpers, to document them properly, to calibrateand verify them. This was done for some 25 riverbasins and a dozen or so models. I believe in somecasesthe effort was a considerable successa becausethese models are now being used as tools in plan-ning in a number of States, and at the State level.I'm sure you will find some of these models beingused, for example, in 208 planning studies that arenow getting underway in many States.

Nevertheless, I do think there is still a need tocontinue some basic development, extending ourunderstanding in fundamental behavior of the aqua-tic environment. There is much that we need toknow and to do to make our models.

EPA and others who are involved in action pro-grams want to see these tools tuned a bit arid thenapplied. The greatest benefit that we can realizenow in the modeling state-of-the-art comes fromactual application. Through applications modelusers will learn limitations and deficiencies of suchtools and techniques. I believe we have enoughmodels now; we need merely to understand them alittle better.

A number of our earlier models were developedin the context of actual planning studies and servedsome useful purposes there.,Estuarine models havebeen notable examples; they were quite widelyused and 'Still are being beneficially applied in plan-

194

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY-A

ning situations. I think such models are rather welldeveloped. Perhaps ecologic models of lake and es-tuarine environmental systems are not yet as ad-vanced. I would like to see a continuing effort on amodest scale in researft related to modeling. Moreemphasis should be placed on application, checking,and verifying of existing models.

One last comment: it seems to me that there is a

r

QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION 201

need for a sort of national- register of modelingcapabilities. At present, it is exceedingly difficult toidentify sources of operational models and com-puter programs. Most of this technology is widelydispersed and not at all coordinated as to specifica-tions, quality, and availability. A national register,such asl suggest, could fill a critical need and 'bringorder to the modeling art.

1'95

4

N.

THE WATERSHED ASMANAGEMENT CONCEPT ik

J. P. H. BATTEKECtfief, Social Sciences DivisionEnvironMent CanadaBurlington, Ontario

ire -

othe management of a region on the basis of its

hydroloOcal :system is 'as old as man's culture.Dams were built on mountain slopes (the rice pad-dies in Java) and in rivers to retain the water forhuman and irrigation uses. Later, navigation ?e-quirements became economically of importance andwater level controls were built. Dams, locks, anddredging operations were undertaken to cater tothe need of this particular water use. Famousexamples are the Rideau system in Ontario with its47 locks, and the 360-mile long Erie canal with its 82locks; both built between 110-140 years ago whennavigation was a predominant water use.

A further significant step in water use develop-ment came "th the advent of hydroelectric power.The signifi a ce of this water use is particularlygreat in Ca da (82 percent of total electricity prod-uction). In the U.S: it accounts'for 10 percent of thenational pow* production.' The provision for allthese water requirements in the form of reservoirsaquaducts, locks, and dams created, in general, fineexamples of contemporary engineering skills.

Yet, it is only in the last decade that we havecome to experience that all is not wellin thecourse of our dealings with water, we have gravelyneglected the multiplicity of its uses, of its features,and the ubiquity of its nature. ..

This seminar attempts to shed light on the vari-ety of aspects involved in the phrase "the integrityof water." I would like to contribute to this discus-sion by focusing on water uses and their functionsand relationships.

Figure 1 shows the three major categories of thefunctions of water: the biological, the environ-mental, and the economic uses. The incomparabilityis striking. In human biological use we work in mil-ligrams or litres; for industrial waters, in billions ofgallons; and for power uses, in acre-feet. For envir-onmental use, a quantitative expression is often notrelevant.

Water is part of the hydrological cycle on aworldwide scale, and it is part of animal metabol-ism. It is both outer environment and inner envir-onment, at the same time. Being thoroughly con-

O

WATER...."EVERYTHING FOR EVERYONE"

?C4200 k,

c?Jcl co P ATERESOURC

AS ECONOMIC

PRODUCTIVE GOOD

FIGURE 1;.

fused by this complexity, mankind until recentlywas not quite able to deal with water in a fashionconsistent with his dealings with the other materi-als and commodities. The ownership concept, as ap-,plicable (Figure 2) to nearly all human products andmost natural resources, was only applicable in a - it.,half-hearted way. Although common law recog-nized Riparian Rights, they never attained such aclear, decisive ,status as, for example, propertyrights. Ih fact', the broad intent of Riparian Rightsappears to be impracticable. The ,market mechan-ism did not work for water either; this was, ofcourse, partially the consequence of a lack of defi-nition of ownershipthe fact that waterois a com-mon property resource..

The variety of and the competition for simultane-ous uses (fishing, navigation, and sewage dilutionfor example), and further, the occufrence of se-quential uses (for example,, the chain: mountain . ,brook ,drinking water sewage lake - drinking ,.water) were not regulated by the market mechan- ,

...isms. There is no generally and conveniently 'ac- - icepted way of paying the upstream user for not pol-'luting. Similarly, the upstream user cannot pay thedownstream user for the:privilege of polluting. '

In history, the disasters caused by sequentialwater uses have perhaps, dominated the field: ofman's communicative diseases until the use of chlo-rine in water treatment was introduced. With thi ., .

196° 2153'

204 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER'

THE SOCRYECONOMIC ASPECTS

OF WATER MANAGEMENT

OWNERSHIP: WHO HAS RIGHTS?SHORES & RIVER BANKS: WHAT RIGHTS?

CONFLICTING WATER USES:

SIMULTANEOUSSEQUENTIALWIDELY VARYING PURPOSES

iN SITUWITHDRAWALSDI LUTION OF WASTE

. AND THE "MARKET PLACE" HAS NO MEANSOFRESOLVING THE CONFLICTS.

FIGURE 2

I/ Vstep, it looked as if a comfortable, wasreached. But it was soon learned thot this sanitaryachievement only gave a tempokary relief. Outunderstanding of the water s ,,, em was still farfrom complete. .

In lose range, new pro s tang for attention:industrial waste, eutro tion, toxic substances,radioactive wastes, th al wastes, introduction (4alien fish species, dkp in fish harvests, contam-inated fish products Gil spills, et cetera.

Definite conclusions arise fronithis list of ills:1. All are ,caused directly or indirectly by

man's activi;/./2. Alth igh all problems originate with man,

each is part/of a different man-environment rela-tionship. /y 1 i ..

3. 1) ages were incurred by the forest andanimal, wildlife, and fish populations, as

by, humans. These damages, of course,fro:A case to case and were seldom limited to

ategory only.becomes apparent that water management is

t possible without accounting heavily for man's. /4",ectivities, and further, we have come to see the// it problems of water not in the narrow sense i.e.,

the water within the boundaries of shores and riverbanks but in-the organic totality of the watershed.

Water in the watershed forms an organic totalitywith the soils and vegetation in that watershed, andWith the entire animal, fish, and human populationsincluding all their activities in that basin, and, lastbut not least,-the climatic conditions of the basin.The watershed is, in fact, a big pipe: in Comes rain-water,' clean or loaded with chemicals; out flows aliquid, 'sometimes loaded with chemicals, some-times carrying excessive heat and perhaps evenradioactive particles. On its journey through thisbig pipe, this water has ,been used, over and overbringing_ into each process whatever was left of

197,

the previous processes, cleaning up somewhat by'assimilation processes in between.

This unique and complex set of relationships andinterdependencies is The Watershed System. Any-one who attempts to manage such a system camptmanage it in ignorpnce of the fact that, in such asystem, Everything is Related to EverythingElse. For the manager not only needs to know howthe maip system behaves, he should be well awareof the behavior of the many subsystems included'within the main system. I have attempted (Figure3) to list the main systems and some 'major subsys;tems playing their part in the-watershed. .

The use of systems analysis can brkng order tothis chaos of complexities by providing mechanismsfor systematic searching for interrelationships andfor building conceptual frameworks wherein the-na-ture of these relationships, can be expressed,studied, quantified, and tested. With systemsanalysis approaches one can study the wholewithout losing touch with the parts!

In the 50's and 60's we made the step from singlepurpose development objectives for water re-sources to multiO purpose development. In fact,this only meaWthat instead of one, two or threepurposes were pursued. But this is far from a com-prehensive approich. Therefore, the latter concept

.'Creclit for this expression goes to Dr. 0. M. Solsndt. former Chairman of theScience Council of Cansd

THE ELEMENTS OF THE WATER SHED

NATURAL SYSTEMS

GEOLOGY, HYI:RDGEOLOGYTOPOGRAPHY 1, a,

CLIMATEWATER RESOURCES

a ,PHYSICA CHEMICAL, BIOLOGICALLIMNOL,OGYFISH POPULATIONHYDROLOGYSEDIMENTATION

LAND RESOURCES .

SOILS & VEGETATIONWILDLIFEEROSION

soctiv: SYSTEMS

DEMOGRAPHIC & SETTLEMENT PATTERNS.- 'ECONOMIC CONDITIONS & ACTIVITIES

- : AGRICULTUREMININGMANUFACTURINGSERVICE INDUSTRIES

LAND USESRECREATIONINSTITUTIONAL & LEGAL STRUCTURES

FIGURE 3

r

BIOLOGICAL -INTEGRITY A

now needs further deepening to become eventuallywhat I would coin as a "harmonic basin develop-ment concept." This is considered to be a state inwhich all aspects and purposes have developed, orare developing to an optimum ,individual conditionwith a mininunn damage to other aspects. Maximiz-ing a all potentials, along with minimizing of alldamagesthe aim is the attainment of a delicatebalance. Such a condition can only be obtained, bycareful planning, and careful planning in turn canonly be successful if it is based on knowledge and in-sight into the problems.

When one attempts to-undertake,this exercise itbecomes immediately and painfully Apparent howmuch we do not know, despite the great number ofscientific achievements. Much of our knowl-edgeof necessityhas been formed in separate

,disciplines; the linkages have now to be formed. ..

The assumptions in one disciplinary field areoften the subject of study in other disciplines. WhatI mean is that any one problem-parameter is gen-erally .expressed in terms of one or more non-problem-parameters; at least in the terms of a particularticular scientist or a particular discipline. However,.non-problem-parameters in most cases are prob-lem-parameters for other scientists or for other dis-ciplines. Th. condition brings us to the heart of theproblem of watershed management. It is a highlymultidiseipl ry task. What was taken for grantedin single purpose resource development, and rea-sonably acceptable in multipurpose development,has now lost the basisior its validity nearly entirelyfor the harmonic basin development concept.

For egample, a ,so-called multipurpose watermanagement plan might have aimed at resolvingconflicts between hydropower, naVigatio,n, Ad.drinking water needs. But this limited set of consid-erations is no longer acceptable.

The "water-quality-man" thought before in termsof concentrations of contaminants in the .water.Once one had 'Managed the analytical techniqfies, itwas a .simple matter of establishing some cri-teria baed.on the known toxicity of the substance.Now we know that one cannot look at concentra-tions in isolation. Biological amplification can-in-crease such concentrations many times ,if suitable

. biological chainsof predator ankprey exist.The' forestry industry needs budworm control

programs as apart of our economic livelihood. B'ut

such a prograni using pesticidesimmediately af-fects the hearth of fish and wildlife and perhaps,indirectly, the well-being of the basin'Auman.pop-ulatiorE The pathways of contaminants are softennot clear. That some of this type of waste comesback and affeCts the health of the populations isyn-.avoidable. The costs of such effects are largely un-

1.98,..,.

QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION 205 -

known at the present, but they might be in'iportantenough to cause economic concern in addition tosocial concern.

Much, if not all of this, dependsas the conven-tional wjsdom has it on the people's choice (Figure,4). But reading the people's choice is not an easy orSimple matter. Sociologists have not been able tomap out clearly the People's perception of the waterresource, and their attitudes based on such percep-tions. Again, the multiplicity of water uses makes itextremely diffiCult to map out clear preferences ofthe population. This is even a much graver problemifwe realize that water has also a strong locationalfeature, a strong regional aspect.

Because of the absence, of the market mechanism,as it is available for commodities, the channels ofcommunication of the population for the purpose offormulating decisions and the feedback of such deci-sions are extremely unclear. Nevertheless, as weall can observe, they are, in all aspects, real.

This obvious vacuum in the system has beenfilled by the governments (Figure 5). They arechaiged with the difficult task of equally distributing benefits, and disadvantages, of the water re-source to their populations.

I have been listing all the negative points, all theproblems, and the lack of sufficient understandingof social, chemical, physical, and biological pro-cesses. It is naw time to Come to the more positivepoints; to discuss the ways open toward achievingaharmonious watershed -development. The criticalfunCtion in thN process is "conflict resolution." Thisconflict resolution should take place in each of thehierarchically arranged strata of the watershedsystem. Then, the consequences of each choice in

FORMATION OF PREFERENCES IN WATER

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

PERCEPTIONS

SOCIOLOGICAL..PRocESSES-

ATTITUDES

ALTERNATIVEOPPORTUNITIES

GOALS & OBJECTIVESFORMULATIONS

ECONOMICPROCESSES

FIGURE 4

*

206 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

TASK OF GOVERNMENTS.IN MANAGEMENT OF WATER...

..e31J0 CUT THE WATER PIt,' .

FIGURE 5 S

the conflict resofution process should be worked outto assess the various impacts resulting from thesechoices in the future. This latter .phase is extremelyimportant. History has shotvn us in so many fieldsand cases that the out& f well-intended pro-grabs and policies turns sr-in a number of years.

'This is no surprise to systems analysts, who are.well aware of the fact _that complex systems tend tobehave counter-intpitively.

Conflict resolution balances interests against interests: health interests against economicwelfare,wildlife against forestry, fish against fisheries, andso on. :There is no clear common denominator forthis balancing process, although many attemptshave been made to use economic criterialas commonstandards. The fallacy of this thinking as anOmpibus,solution has become quite apparent. Re-search is active in this field but no comprehensivesolution has been formed. Nevertheless work cancontinue even with less perfect tools.

Theopplexity of all the elements making up thebehavioiof a watershed system is-too great to besynthesized within the minds of individuals. (Com-puterized simulation models are the essential toolsin this process. The model, like a huge accountingmachine, keeps track of all the entries (parameters)in all their proper relations. Watersheds are notonly complex, their reaction time, in some casesas for example in the Great Lakesis very slow(Figure-6). Andisuch slowness requires a.consider-able policy lead time (Figure 7). Also, the cumula-tive nature of contaminants and the processes ofbiological amplification are long term effects. Of thesocial aspects., changes in 'attitudes of the populatiorlotake placonly very slowly, and economic adjustments in th'e basin are slow..and often painfulLikewise, institutional- adaptations, if they follow

each other too quickly, often confuse thepublic and'create -feelings' of instability. Social and environz.,mental experimentation are beyond our capability,

-.and certainly beyond responsible behavior if theconsequences of such an experiment could be dis- .astrous. .

Siinulation is then the only way out, and throughsimulation the cybernetic potentials can be testedfor their usefulness, and their pbtential for transla-tion into policies and programs. ConfliCts can be re-solved at each level o'f the system's hierarchy; thetradeoffs can become clear. The need for dataandapplied research* follows from sensitivity analysesproceOres. Hereby, the results over time aretested for their sensitivity to variations in key de-terminants of the system.

The watershdd management concept, as I havedescribed it so far, is now being used in variousbasins of -the world although at different levels of.sophistication. Some examples of well-establishedriver basin management agencies are the RuhrArea Genossenschaften in Germany; the RiverBasin Boards in ,Britain; the River Basin Commis-sions under the Water Resources Planning Aet(1965) in the U.S.A. (such as)slke Great Lakes BasinCommission); and the basin studies set up throughjoint ProVincial/Federal _consultation under theCanada Water Act.

I will now dwell for a few moments on the joint--basin studies ih the Great Lakes to exemplify theapplication of the watershed concept as a manage-ment tool. Under the Canada-U:S.A. Water.QualityAgrument of t.972, and under' the auspiCes of theInternational Joint Commission., intensive stuplans aq4eing carried out to study (a) thepollutionof the upPkr Great Lakes and fb) the pollution frOmland use adtil4ties in the Great Lakes. The broad-'ness and the ulti-dikiplinail scope of study isunprecedented. to and surveys rangefrorn space

TIME LAG, IN WATER QUA 1TY FEEDBACK'

:.

HUMAN ACTIV\I'T S'INGREAT LAKES BASIN

WATEFLQUALITY CHANGES

TIME 1N YiARS FOR90% DISPLACEMENT

BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY-IA QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION

1974PC)L,ICY LEAD

mit7.-56 YEARS

FIGURE 7

LI TY TREND

POLICY BECOMESFULLY EFFECTIVE

TIME

4..

'observations through the ERTS Satellite (EarthResources Technology Satellite) to the electronmicroscope observations of asbestos fibers, andIdepth social analysis.

On this broad scale, trends are being devetopedfor a period oi 50 Years. Changes in technology, eco-nomic structure, population, and attitudes towardsthe limited resources Of this planet, are being ap-,plied to the Great Lakes Basin Studies.

The increased desire of watershed inhabitants tohave a direct input into watershed planning thatmay affect their quality of life and the. values oftheir possessions has led to the formulation of vari-ous channelsdifferent for , different jurisdic-tionsfor public participation .in water planningand management. For decades we halle planned

_through processes of simplification (of necessity!).Present-technology allows us to go complex again;to take into 'account valuable details, brought for-ward by public participation: This is expressed bythe International Joint Commission Public Hear-ings Program.

Models for atmosperic loading of pollutantsfrom industrial, activities, for .water quality, forsocio-economic aspects, and for pi;licy analysis, areall,paA of this huge effort in which the two counttries, the basiii States, and Ontario cooperate.

'Other modresearch institrSrcbCenter o1s developing

e being develorkd at university's. -For instance, the Systems Re-?se Western Reserve University

r management model as a toolfor policy analysis. Figure 8 shows i Compressedconceptual diagram illustrating the..flow' in a sub-model for policy' analysis. Canada Centre for InlandWaters has developed water quality models, hydro-dynamic, physical, and biochemical models. TheCenter for Geographic Analysis of the Institute for'Environmental Studies of the Viliversity of WiEicon-sin in Madison is working on a heuristic model of.

207

LEGISLATIVE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS

4 ACTUAL TOLERABLEEFFLUENT LOAD

TECHNOLOGY

DISCR PAN y

PERCEPTION

SOCIAL RESPONSE

L-1 DELAY1,

EN LEGISLATIONFORCE/MENTI, DE LAY I

IMPLEMENTATION

MEDIA, 1CRISIS

COSTTAX BASE

ECO OMICS

LOAD ON ECONOMY

FIGURE 8

the Lake Superior Region, and York University,Toronto, is working on a Waste Loading Simulation.Model for the Great Lakes.' The schematic repre-sentation of this model in Figure 9 shows that thelink with the physical models is still missing.

These are onl-y a few factors in the field; of tsidethe Great Lakes many other attempts are beingmade at modeling watersheds. This should not beconsidered as wasteful, duplication. Because of thecomplexity of the matter, many viewpoints are pos-

. sible, and although apparently contradictory, theyoften are not so in the context of the larger sys-

WASTE LOADINGt POLICY

.SIMULATION MODEL

SCHEMATIb OVERVIEW

POPULATIONPOP

ECONOMICS

ECHNOLOG

ECONOMICSECO

SOCIOLOGYSOC

LEGISLATIONLEG

2o

FIGURE 9

(

INTEGRAT'ORINT

TASTE LOADINGSS ACCEPTABLE TOOCIETY

208 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

tems. Where the old 'disciplinary models describingthe phenomena in aqh discipline were probablycorrect in their own way, they now seetitto losesome of dieir neatness in the broader set of optionsprovided by a comprehensive model, and one of.thedifficult tasks, which was only undertaken in recentyears, is to bring these disciplinary models to-gether into comprehensive basin models. The stageof developing linkages is still fairly primitive.

In conclusion, hydrologic engineers, limnologists,economists, fish biologists, toxicologists, and legalanalysts have to come to terns at the peripheries oftheir various disciplines. And the problem of this is

A

r

I

A

201

much more than &human or disciplinary one. It is intact, a thrust forkard to a highe1( level of compre-hension. In this effort all inputs from differentorganizations are needed to lob in a really compre-hensive understanding of the problems with arealistic acc unting of all the possible factors.

The conce t of the watershed has begun to leadus to an ada tation of our institutions to recognizesocio-ptiysic realities that cannot be neglected.This adaptation will further affect our public andprivate wor design to include the integrity ofwater, not a residual,, but as an integral designspecification.

...

fr

lo

./J

,-

I

1

.,)I

*41

e

\

INTEGRITYAN INTERPRETATION

r

0

202.

a

4

0

Si

THE STATES' VIEW

. RONALD B. ROBIEDirector, Department of Water ResourcesThe Resources Agency

. State of CaliforniaSacramento, California

cI

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in.thikSymposium aild to present an interpretation of' theStates' viewothe integrity of water.

Thus far, the program has dealt with integrityiron.' a physical, chemical, and biological point ofview. From the many interpretations presented, itcan clearly be seen that integrity, like beauty, is inthe eye of the beholder.

In spite of the wide varie y of comments thathave been made here, basi the presentationscan be categorized as technical o, ientific in na-ture. In this pane we see the "pdlitical" viewinthe broadest sensr.' And that is very broaapdeed.

.../Whether the approach is technical or political,each of us at this session interprets the it,teg,-

rity of 'water on the basis of out day-to-day relation-shipito water management or mismanagement.

4 am aware of this personally because I am intransition. When this program was prepared, 1 wasa member of a State reguldtory body with responsi-bility for water quality and water rights. Last week

became' the director of a State deriartmentcharged with constructing and operating a majorwater project and carrying out water conservationand development planning.

In addition to the institutional structures that caninfluence interpretation of integrity, there are geo-graphical factors as well. My native State is a landof contrasts. There are mighty mountain, streamsand vast areas of semi-desert. Unfortunately, wehave located more than half our 20 million People onthat water-short desert area.

From a water quality standpointwe have usedthe ocean as our principal disposal receiving areafor urban wastes. Yet, 85 percent of our water useis by agriculture, and its problems of waste disposalare vastly different than those of a primarilyplianarea. Further, most agricultural problems are lo-cated inland in fertile valleys which afford limitedpossibilities MY disposal. ,_

Having sufficiently warned you of my institu-tional and geographical biases, I would now like tooffer my interpietation of- the integrity of water.This interpre\tation, while necessarily drawn from

presented byPORTER TOWNER

Chief Counsel

3

my experience's, tries to consider the forest and notjust the trees.

Historically, the control of water quality lias beethe primary responsibility,of the States, and thatbasically a sound system. Theoretically, the Statesshould not be as susceptible to political and eco-nomic pressures as local government agencies tra-ditionally have tended to be. Nor are the States asremote from specific areawide problems as the gov-ernmentOn the Potomac.

Since 1972 the States' authdrity has beenstrengthened by the establishinedt of a Nationalpolicy oa water quality. The previous threats, ofsdme polluters to the States"You're driving busi-ness away. We can't compete because others in thefieldwill not have the same expenses you are forc-ing on us. We'll move out if you get tough!"are holonger effective. '''(

Even though the Federal Water Pollution Con-trol Act Amendments .of 1972through the estab-lishment of National, go/is and a relatively uniformlevel of pollution controlrest ct the discretion ofthe States to som ee mense authority andresponsibility still remain. For example, .the lawgives the States the impetus to expand their egu-latory authority through administration of the

NPDES pepfilt system. Arid there are glany tasksleft to accomplish, such as: regulation of dythargesto ground waters, trionpoint pollution control, inno-,vative planning, and designing institutional Meansfor implementing plans.

Historically, the water allocatioln p?ocess, as rep-resented by water rights administration in thewestern. States is also a State responsibility. Al-hough here, too, there is a substantial Federal in-luence through the activities of Federal construc-

t' tion agencies and Federal exercise of water rightsthere is still rotth 'the Stdtes can do. Again, as anexample, water, rights administrators in the Statescan increasingly define the "public interest" notonly in econdmic terms but also in a manner to me-ognize the myriad of noneconomic social values aswell.

Thus, the States' role is,potentially a large ands

203211

V

212 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

importantone but one that is not easy-to perform. - most valuable in assuring the thorough analysis of

The basic challenge is to reflect society's values and alternatives. It cannot just be a tool with which tomaintain the integrity- of water at the same time. justify a project already committed or to explain aConflicts are inevitable. , decision already made. The environmental impact

For example, preserving a free-flowing river in Trocess must be made part of the planning processits original state is increasingly a- goal of modern itself. And we must fully, and at an early stage, in-society. The use of river flow is in conflict withsuch volve the public in the environmental impact pro-an integrity of water _and yet the use otriver, flow cess..is 9ften a necessity. I would point out, parenthetically, that in spite of

'There is a recogn ed need for reclamation of the usefulness of the impact processSs demon-waste water but insufficient effort has been gener- strated at the Federal level and by several Statesated . toward soling potential heglth problems less than half of the States employ such-proce-which may restrict the beneficial uses to which such dures.water Vay.be put. In addition, traditional econorh- . Another means of maintaining integrity isics weigh heavily against the environmental bene- through innovative problem-solving. The States'fits of wastewater reclamation, yet there is neluct- need to be willing to explore the use of solar ell-ance to lace the need to price water ifi a manner ergy, geothermal resources, wastewater reclarna-which would induce conservation of the supplies. ' tion, groundwater marragement, and, most impor-

Some groundwater basins are subject to-severe tantly, water conservation practices. In addition,overdraft, while others experienCe high water many mere imaginative and innovative changes iptables to the point that agricultural crops are institutional management and applicable legal doc-threatened. In spite of this, there is often a lack of trines will be necessary if the States are to maintainlaw gnd institutions which could protect these the integrity of water.basin and often remendous pressures are exerted , Finally, a more sophisticated apRroach to coordi-

. against attempts to enact appropriate legislation. dated statewide resourcds planninemust be taken.There are problems of salt buildup in soils and We need to set statewide goalsgoals which are

this requires flushingand a subsequent degrada- not narrow and oriented to the special interests oftion in water quality. single-purpose governmental agedcies, but which

In many areas there is a real controversy over best represent the truth and iDtegrity of water in awhether power plants should be sited on the coast s..kociety determined to eliminate wastes with effici-or inland. Both siting alternatives have their share ency and with the public interest foremost in mind.of economic and environmental "tradeoffs. This is not as easy as it sounds. Often "people in ,

There is continuing competition for water sup- high plaCes" have been educated in certain fieldsplies between instream use for fisheries and. recce- and are reluctant, or in some cases unable, to breakation and consumptive use dstrial, agricul- out of traditional molds to consider true"afterna--..

tural, and domestiC supplies tet. To use an example not related to water; but. i

Water use is al's n related and use In fact, which basically illustrates my point, ,consider thethere are those; Who. would accomplish restrictive transportation planner. Traditionally, the plannergrowth policy thlough limiting water supplies. . star ed with the- concept pf the automobile, thisHoWever, the record to date is one of confusion and liar ng theoscOpe of ssibilities to be considered.inconsistency. can now see e folly of statewide plans for

.4-, I hope yotrare detecting a thread of continuity freeways primer ased upon the philosophy ofhere: namely, the cowlexity of the problem of in- those who mak r living by th mile. Likewise,-

, terpreting and maintaining integrity of water from we must view witn suspicion statewi water plansthe States' point of view. The Stated' responsibility which are prodticed by those whose philosophy isto maintain the integrity of water must4be worked based upon the acri-loot, or for that matter, uponinto a total resprinse to the needs of the public. In' the discharge requirement alone. We need to view

. tact, the States' interest and the public interest the whole and place Within it the pikes each in itsshould really be one and the same. proper. position. We need to reeducate planners,

I believe the future holds the opportunity for ag- not only by college courses in new concepts, hut'gressive, innovative and bold actions by the States, through receiving input into the planning processthrough which they -can preserve their role in main- from other disciplines, including those associatedtaming the integrity of water. There are several with environmental prcztection.ways to make this possible. We must recognize and institutionalize the obvi-

.-The first method is to strengthen the environ- - oils fact that water quality and quantity ariin-

Mental impact process: The impact statement is separable. As strange as it seems, this is a fairly

.204 ..

INTEGRITYAN INTERPRETATION 213

new concept and not reflected in the 1972. Amend-nients. Traditionally, in the western States themain problem occupying those concerned withwater resources development and managemetit haspbeen quantity of waterjust getting the water tothe right pjkce at the right time. In recent years,.quality has *Come.a key factor, something we canno longer takb for granted. 2- .

In most States, including my own, we are stillstruggling to respond to changing obligations of theStates. But meet them we must, or the States inthis Nation will run the risk of abdicating their ye-sponsibilities. Neither can we afford to kick ourproblems upstairs instead of tackling them.'

Above all, the States must not sink intobureau-,cratic inertia. Such an event is not an impossibilityand it would truly be a tragedy. The noted criticBrooks Atkinson once wrote: "Bureaucracies aredesigned to perform public business. But as soon asa bureaucracy is established, it develops an autono-mous spiritual life and comes to regard the public asits enemy."

Surely thesStates can avoid this pitfall, for thegoals of our Federal environmental statutes and ourown common sense tell us that, unless the integrityof water is maintained, our Nation cannot long sur-vive. These goa)s are riot yet universally acceptedby those implementing efforts in the Statesatleast not in every place at all times. But the States

P and their local governmental subdivisiops muststrive for universal acceptance and implementationof these goals.

The integrity of water is not an abstract concept.It is a challenge, an obligation, and a necessity.Whether we are involved as technicians, scientists,or politicians, the public expects us to meet thechallengeand we§hould demand it of ourselves.

DISCUSSION

Comment: I presume that California, as mostState's; fias some form of a non-degradation policyincorporated into the water quality standards.Could you describe that policy, and how or whetheryou are implementing it; and what kind of successyou've had?

Mr. Towner: We do have such a policy, in Section13000'of the California Water Code. I hesitate to getinto the details of it. We've had it for somnd'time,'since 1949.

In California, the administration of water qualityand the Federal Act responsibilities are with whatwe call the State Water Resources Contiol 'Board.This is a ,five-man board. Then we have nine re;gional ,,boards. All have non-degradation policieg.Your best bet fof details is to contact the Water

Resource Control Board in Sacramento.Comment:. From the perspective of the State

government agency, do you feel that P.L. 9Z-500has established a reasonable and workable balancebetween Federal, State, and local governmentsharing of responsibilities and funds for achievingor maintaining the integrity of water?

Mr. Towner: I think it is not perfect, but it is cer-tainly a step in the right direction. It's not self-effectuating and the administration, I think, is asimportant as the law itself. I recognize that thereare some critics in some areas, but overall it hasworked in California.

On the construction aspect of it, as youknew, theFederal government puts up ,75 percent and thelocals have to put up 25 percent. In California; theState is putting up 121/2 percent, so a local agencyonly has to pay121/2 percent of the cost.

We've done this by two bond issues, one in 1970and one in 1974, each of them for $250 million, sowe've had $500 million to work with.

The point I'm trying to make is that you can't relysolely on the Federal Act itself. I think the Stateshave to do something, both in spending somemoney on project development and on staffing.

Comment: In the 1974 Municipal, Needs Surveyconducted 'by the States for the purpose of identi-fying publicly owned wastewater collection andtreatment facilities needed to implement waterquality standards, a. I recall the figures now, out ofabout $350 billion nhtionally, ,California has about$90 billion of that. I believe, far and away, the bulkof it was in a category of needs that has only re-cently been considered important, mainly cqntrol of*urban stormwater, runoff. Do you see $90 billionlying around anywhere to solve those problems?

Mr. Towner: No, I certainly don't. r know thatCalifornia-has more than its share of problems andof course in the big areas, the southern Californiaarea, you get what they call "flash floods." Millionsof dollars have been spent theie just on getting ridof the water when it falls because when it runs off,unless you have proper channelizatipg, it can take anumber of people and a great deal of property withit.

Comment: As a lawyer, what is your definition ofintegrity?

Mr. Towner: Well, to tell the truth, before Icame, w$ had time to go to a couple of dictionariesand look for definitions. Integrity, I think, as weuse it here, or at least as we were trying toChse it inour paper

Comment: r didn't ask for the interpretation; I'mnot a lawyer, so I don't know. What would be -alegdliclefinition of integrity?

Mr. Towner, I don't know. I'd haVe to go to the

205IP

-4.

214

4

THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

law books and check that. We didn't do that.Comment: What is your opinion?Mr. Towner: Well. I think with respect to water,

it means the highest and Best use of the water.Comment: Best use, then how would you inter-

pret that in terms of the water q lity? Would yousay that this.means that we have to maintain *hatbest use verywhere?' Mr. To per: Thd best we can.

Com nt: That's a shade away from it.Mr. Towner: As we mentioned in our paper,

many of us would like to maintain some streams inthe wild state. In other words, don't mop key withthem in any way whatsoever. In many cases, how-ever, this just isn't possible,

ComTent: No argument. What about some' ofthese fault problems in Calif6rnia?

Mr. Towner: We have to.solVe them. We areworking towards it prow., .

Comment: I mean that you are going to toleratethat from the standpoint of integrity? You feel thatdoesplaffect the integrity or it does?

Mi. Towner: It does if. you are using water so thatultimately you are going to irreparably damage thesourceby ruining the ground water, for example.

Comment: There are a couple of more words com-ing in there. You've gone froriii clear water, rushingstreams, and so forth, to damiging irreparably, andthat is a big gap.

Mr. Towner: Let me telLyou. Ii} the San JoaquinValley we are drawing down our groundwater tableseveral feet each year. We've got to ultimately re-f

a

charge that. That is just the groundwateeproblem.Also, there iFil'an adequate master drain now,' andthe waste discharges, while not yet irreparably af-fecting the ground water, aren't doing it any good.Ultimately, they could damage it so it can't ever bereclaimed.

Comment: How do you justify?Mr. Towner: You don't. Therefore, we're going

to' do something about it before it is too late. OurState Water Project has cost the State government$2 billion to date. An authorized unit is the masterdrain in the San Joaquin Valley; when this is built,it will get rid of that salt. It will take it out to theocean.

The problem here is that this drain will cost may-be $200 million, and at the present time, the land-owners in the San Joaquin Valley are unwilling toundertake full repayment. So it is stymied. Perhapsthe statewide interest will be 'considered adequatein the future to Build it without complete repay-inent.

Comment: We've had .discuslitm on the previousday about your problem and the solution. We'rewondering, what is integrity and what is the intentof the Act, where' do we go from herecan we.That is what I am trying to bring out of you as anattorney.

Mr. Towner: I wish I could definitely answer yourquestion. It is a challenge, that is all I can say forsure. But I appreciate the opportunity to wrestlewith the problem.

r

,

206;

A CONSERVATIONIST'S 'VIEW

RONALD OUTENNatural Resources DefenseCouncil, Inc.Washington, D.C.

.

There is one point th is often overlooked in dis-cussions about the "int grity objective" of the 1972Amendments. That po. t is that the statute specif-ically calls for an as.cessment by EPA of the'factorsnecessary to restore and maintain physical as wellas cheinical and biological integrity of the Nation'swaters.

The point is overlooked, I think, because the dis-cussions usually take place among water quality,en-gineers whose primary attention is to the filteredwater sample. My point is that the Act seeks eco-system integrity and recgtizes that all three com-ponentschemical, biological and physicalmustbe addressed. Rather than belabor 'the point here, Iwould like to introduce into the proceedings at thispoint a letter to EPA on the subject written by myorganization last year.

April 11, 1974

Mr. Kenneth M. MackenthunDirector, Water Quality CriteriaOffice of Water Planning and StandardsU.S. Environmental Prdtection Agency401 M Street, S.W.Washington, D.C. 20460Dear Mr. Mackenthun:

Pursuant to Section 304(a) of the Federal Water PollutionControl Act Amendments, EPA is to publish criteria forwater quality which:

accurately-reflect the latest scientific knowledge (A) onthe kind and extent of all iclentifiableNfects on health andwelfare including, but not limited to, pla nkton, fish, shell-fish, wildlife, plant life, shorelines, beaches, aesthetics,and recreation which may be expected from the presenceof pollutant& in any body of water . . . (and) (2) shall pub-lish . . . information (A) on the factors necessary to re;store and maintain thechemical, physical, and biologicalintegrity of all navigable water, ground waters, waters inthe contiguous zone, and the oceans; (and) (B) on the fac-tors necessary for the protection and propagation of shell-fish, fish, and wildlife for . . . receiving waters . , and(C) on the measurement and classification of waterquality; - -To fulfill the above mandates, EPA published in October,

1973, two draft volumes entitled Proposed Criteria forWater Quality: Volume I and Proposed Water QualityInformation: Volume II. NRDC will shortly be commentingon the adequacy of these two volumes with regard to thestipulations of Section 304(a). This letter deals preliminarily

207

with the glaring omission of two categories of (1) "factorsnecessary to restore and maintain the chemical, physicaland biological integrity of all navigable water;" and (2) "lec-tors necessary for the protection of shellfish, fish, and wild-life," which these draft volumes totally neglected toaddress.

One category of "factors" is generally referred to as"physical modifications" of natural watercourses and associ-ated wetlands that are integral to the aquatic life systemswith which Congress is concerned in the Act. The proposedCriteria and Information documents completely ignorephysical modification techniquesdams, impoundments,levees, 'channelization, fillsas threats to the physical,chemical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters andas destroyers of aquatic habitat, the very physical condi-tions that are essential to' the protection and propagation ofshellfish, fish and wildlife.

Wei believe that these two documents, particularly theInformation document implementing Section 304(a) (2),must also fully discuss the role of swamps, marshes, floodPlains, natural channels, and stream beds, stream vegeta--

'tion et cetera, as "factors" in preserving the naturalintegrity of surface and ground waters and in permitting thepropagation of fish,shellfish, and wildlife. They also mustdiscuss the threats to these resources and what can be doneabout these threats. EPA should face the fact that its pro-posed Water Quality Criteria could be fully satisfied withwater traveling in s concrete trough, pollutant-free buthardly reflecting the natural integrity which Congress in-tends to have restored and maintained pursuant to this Act.

The goal of the Act is the restoration and maintenance ofthe "natural chemical, physical and biological integrity ofthe Nation's waters" by 1985 (Muskie). The House Reportdefines that ecosystem whose structure and function isliakurar (as) one whose system are capable of, preservingtWrnselvesat levels believed to have existed before irrever-sible perturbations caused by man's activities." (Leg. Hist.Vol. I, p. 764).

The word 'integrity' as used is intended to convey a con-cept that refers to a condition in which the natural struc-ture and function of ecosystems is maintained. .

As a concept, natural structure and function is relatively,well understood by ecologists bOth in precise terms and asan abstract concept in those few cases where specificmodification is not confidently attsinable.Although man is a 'part of nature' and a product of evolu-tion, =natural' is generally defined as that condition inexistence before the activities of man invoked perturbs-.tions which prevented the.system from returning' to itsoriginal state of equilibrium.This definition is in no way intended to exclude man as aspecies from the natural order of things, but in this tech-nological age, and in numerous cases that occurred beforeindustrialization, man has exceedecinature's homeostatic

216 THE INTE

ability to respond to change. Any change induced by man,which overtaxes the ability of nature to restore conditionsto 'natural' or 'original' is an unacceptable perturbation.(Leg. Hist. Vol.:I, p. 763)The "1972 Water Quality-Criteria" prepared by the Na-

tional Academy of Sciences recognizes physical modifica-tions as responsible for the degradationfrof those very lifequalities which the Act intends to restore and maintain inthe Nation's wate's (Vol. I, p. 124). The destructiveness ofthese techniques on the very ecological values the Actintends to protect. has been well documented. Further, re-covery of natural systems destroyed by such techniques isfrequently meager and typically slow. Such a process ofdegradation is not allowed under the Act. '

In sum, we feel that EPA is legally bound to include in thefinal version of its Section 304(a) documents a full discussjonof the integrated physical character of the aquatic ecosys-tems and the effects upon this natural integrity of physicalmodification techniques. A discussion of these engineeringtechniques should address both their direct impacts andtheir indirect impacts on water quality through increasedpollution loads, e.g., sediment, nutrients, pesticides, heat,et cetera.

We feel that EPA cannot, from a legal standpoint, post-pone the issues posed by physical modification since Section304(a) calls for use of the "latest scientific knowledge." The"latest scientific knowledge" is replete with information onthe effects on water quality, shellfish, fish and wildlife ofphysical modification techniques and EPA therefore haslegal responsibility to include a discussion of these tech-niques, their consequences, and changes in the use of thesetechniques to bring their consequences in conformance withthe overall objective of the Federal Water Pollution ControlAct Amendments.

We would like to s.4 this issue resolved immediately, sothat the more difficult task of implementing this require-ment of Section 304(a) can begin quickly. A prompt re-sponse from you would be appreciated. -

Sincerely,Tom Barlow

Speth

On Monday Mr. Jorling and Dr. Squires made apoint that the 1972 Amendments marked p pro-found change in the philosophy and approaches towater pollution control in this country. The pbintbears reemphasis because even after 21/2 years ofliving under the new law, a discouraging number ofthe people -actually implementing haven't changedtheir thinking at all.,

The fact is you cannot effectively implement the'72 law using 1965 assumptions. Consider the oldlaw. It was premised on the anthropocentric idea,as Mr. Jorling pointe&out, that aquatic ecosystemsexist for the use of man.

This assumption leads one quickly to one per-verse result after another. The first order of busi-ness becomes the designation fig the "best use,"basically a ratification of the status quo, a legitimi-zation of the ecological abuse that had been previ-ously visited upon' the system. If a waterway is

for

WATER

sense to designate its bestuse as primary contactrecreation.

Next comes the creation of water quality criteria.These are concentration levels for various pollutants, usually only a few easily measured ones, defining the limits which, if exceeded in the aquaticsystem, would impair its ability to serve man in theway assigned to it. ,

Underpinning this process is the ecologicallyquestionable notion of assimilative capacity, theidea that extraneous materials placed in the watersomehow go away. Not even simple carbohydratesare degraded without causing a response in the dis-solved oxygen regime, probably the carbonateequilibrium, and certainly' the types and relativeabundances of organisms present.

Invoking the theory of assimilative capacity, andto avoid the obvious but unpleasant fact of findingdischargers .in violation right at their pie, one isled to the device of defining a mixing zone. A mix-ing zone is a sort of ecological free-fire zone whereanything goes. The mixing zone moves the point ofregulatory control far enough away from the dis-charge to make it very hard to assign blame forwhatever violation might be found. It also leads to acurious circularity typified by adural guideline I once saw; it saidwater quality criteria consistently violatthe mixing zone may indicate that the mix.inas defined is too small.

Use of this. sprawling regulatory scheme to ac-tually abate a source required the execution of aload allocation, whereby the hapless erstwhile reg-ulator had to allocate, based on assumptions aboutflow regimes, distribution of *sources and wastestream constitutents, dispersion characteristics,and more,t a portion of the total allowable load toeach pipe,

Even if by great good fortune and Herculean toilthis much were accomplished, the regulator foundhimielf up against a whole series of enforcementdelays, confefences, and admmiitions that he notcause the unfortunate polluter an ronomic hkrd-ship.

Some States were able' to make a little progressunder these conditions, but where pollution wasabated it usually was less the result of vigorousapplication of these procedures than the-result ofwhat one analyst has described as "gun twirlipg."Nationwide, it didn't work very well, and that's_nosurprise.

Note that all the steps in the process flowed logi-cally froth the. first assumption, that the aquaticeCo m exists for the use of human society. Withhe 197 Amendments, on the other hand, we haveor the first time in the Nation's history a waterpol-

-

V-

oposed proce-at finding

outsidezone

t-already an industrial sewer, it wouldn't make mudh

206

p

INTEGRITY -AN INTERPRETATION

lution control law that takes a holistic view of theaquatic ecosystem. For the.first time, the objectiveis the restoration'and maintenance of ecological in-tegrity, not the perpetuationorsomebody's notionof "best use." For ,the first time there is the recogni-tion in law of the fact that. man tampers With _thefabric of the biosphere at his own peril, that theoptions of human society are best preserved by pre-serving the integrity of, the biosphere on which'alldepends. I

One May well charge: This is very grandiose,perhaps even pro ohnd. Did Congress know what it-was saying witlT these words? To answer this weneed only consult'the legislative history and the Actitself.

..4From the report of the House Public Works

Committee: "The word integrity is used to conveconcept that refers to a condition in which the natral structure and frinction of ecosystems is main-tained." This bears remarkable similarity to thedefinition of ecological integrity put forth by Dr.Frey earlier.

From Section 502 of the Act: The term pollutionmeans the manmade or Than-induced alteration ofthe physical, chemical, biological, and radiologicalintegrity of. water."

Senator Lloyd Bentsen, in floor debate on theSenate Bill: "We urgently need this declaration of ,National policy, at a time when environmental pol-lution desecrates the quality of our lives and evenendangers human -survival. It is an eventual goalwhich abandons any concept that water has an as-similative capacity with respect to pollution, and it-,is, therefore, a decisive redirection in National'policy." .

Senator Cooper, also in the Senate debate: "I be-lieve the Bill and its purpose go even further thanasserting that public right resides in clean water.In a way, it recognizes an even more fundamentalcondition. It asserts the primacy of the naturalorder on which all, including man, depends. It de-clares an intention to restore the natural integrityof the Nation's waters."

Senator Muskie, in the Senate debate on the con-ference report: "These policies simply mean thatstreams and rivers are no longer to be consideredpart of the waste treatment process."

And elsewhere: "This legislation would clearlyestablish that no one has the right to pollute, thatpollution Continues because of, technological limits,not because of any inherent right_to use the Na-tion's waterways for the purpose of disposing ofpastes."

I don't think there is any doubt that Congressknew what it was about when these words were en-acted. Having stated this far-reaching objective,

217

Congress went on to say that to reach it we mustfirst obtain a goal of no discharge pf pollutants by1985, and even before that an interim goal, wher-ever attainable, of water quality capable of sup-porting fish and wildlife propagation and recreationin and On the water by mid-1983.

To backup these rather dramatic goals, severalno-nonsense regulatory programs intended to cover

. point source discharges, toxic pollutants, and in-dustrial, discharges to municipal systems were es-tablishe4. Even unpoint, source pollution got somelong overdue attention. There is a requirement thatregulatory programs be established in all parts ofeach State to implement' plans designed to reducenonpoin source pollution. These programs are tocontain land use requirements wherever needed todo the job.

Congress also inserted a number: of economicsafety valves, variances, in these regulatory re-quirements. The Water Act is not going to shutdown American industry. .

All this leads me to several observations and con-- elusions about the way We ought to be viewing theintegrity objective and what EPA could and shoulddo to get us moving faster in thedirection of achiev-ing it.

A corollary of the integrity concept and the defi-nitionpf pollution which tracks it is that there is nosuch thing as "natural pollution." A ramification ofit is that assimilative capacity becomes olvolete asa justification for polluting the water. In3fact, thewords, "assimilative capacity"pand "mix ing zone"'do not appear in he Act.__

The question, "How much-cleanup necessary?"becomes a meaningless question in terMs; of theultimate objective, though not in terms of?the in-terim water quality goal.

It is not possible at this time to definp the integ-rity objective by any index or system of water qual-ity parameters. There is too great a diversity ofnatural conditions, conditions we can only infer. In-tegrity is thus not a regulatory tool in and of itself.It does not require us to reforest the eastern sea-board, dismantle our cities, and board the May-flower for Europe. It is mere a statement of philos-ophy, a statement of National direction. It is not a

--meritorious criticism of the current law to say thatits ultimate objectiv6 is difficulto define quantita-tively. We have some good interim gOals, which canbe translated into effluent restrictions, to achievefirst. We should get about the business of doilsithat.

EPA could get this country, moving along thecourse that has been set by screwing its bureau-cratic courage to the sticking place and starting toimplement the law with a modicum of vigor. NRDC

Cr 209

218 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

has felt compelled to bring eight lawsuits already inattempting to get the Agency to abide by the tareletter of the law, d mostlff the regulations andguidelines that are central to the Act's operationhave come out u r court order.

On the of er side, industry has brought about150 lawsuits leerturn the effluent regulations setfor them. It is 'a real brawl, and the program issputtering along.

This conference is itself an example of theAgency's approach, where the Act requires the Ad-ihinistrator to develop and publish information onthe factors necessary to restore and maintain physi-cal, chemical, and biological integrity. The Agencywill, lam told, publish these proceedings and callthat compliance with the law. Where the Adminis-.tration is required to consult with outside groups,then explicate .the, objeEtive of the Act, EPA willpublish the eOhsglfation itself and thus avoid givingAgency approver' to the "controversial" ecoldiicalpriiitciples that Congress accepted without too muchtrouble.

Further, we we not see real progiess until weget ourselves detached from the "Chlorinate anddump" mentality. This means EPA must start tofulfill its statutory obligatkm encourzi'ke innova-tive municipal treatment technologies, especiallyland recycling: .

More broadly, and here I will compound-the her-esy, we will not get there til we break the deathgrip that the sanitary e ginee g and economicsprofessions have on all d s regarding the Way,that essential materials circulate through society.The sanitary engineer must make room fin. the sys-tems ecologist, the soil scientist, the agronomist,the hydrologist, the forester, the microbiologist.We need a team approach, not a pkire engineeringapproach,, to solve a problem that is affirmativelynot an engineering problem.

We must recognize that the field of economics isunequipped to deal with the broad questions of eco-system structure and function and therefore thequality of life we want a century, two centuries,from now. How do you compute the price of an ele-ment in the food' chain thyt is not destroyed? What.is 'the cost or benefit of t unit shift the Shan-

ty Index? .t

Rather than responding to indi ual treatmentcrises on an ad hoc basis, rather han taking theaction and then measuring its eff , we must eluci-date fundamental ecologlical prin les, then guideall human behavior by those principles.

,DISCUSSION

C.mm4nt: rd like'to ask, what is your interpreta-.

ti

-tion of the quality 'Oft ter necessary for people torecreate in the river. In other words, What stand.'ards of perfect health would you require of riverwater before,you swim in it?

_

Mr. Outen: I certainly don't have the concentra-tion levels for each relevant parameter in my head,.but I think the beart cut we have of that at the.,moment is the 'water quality criteria 'documentwhich has been proposed by EPA, but not -yet final-ized. The document flowed from, in'siime sense, thework of the National Academy of Sciences, whichwas a much larger effort and spanned severalyears. .

I would say one other thing about that Not onlydo we need to get that' water'qbality criteria book '

out, (it was supposed to be done in October, 1973, >-was proposed then and hasn't been finalized yet),we must make sure that the water quality. stand- 'ards that now exist are upgraded, and upgraded intime to influence and condition the setting of per-..manent levels for 1983, in the second round of per-mit is§uance. Those standards must include numey-ical criteria for all pollutants for ,which a numericalcriterion is appropriate. Those criteria that arediily adopted by the States must be at least asstringent as those in the 304(a) document or re-sent a very strong reason why this. isn't the rightthing to do. I can't think of any at the moment, but

leave myself that out. There is the further re-quirementithat water quality sten? is throughoutthe country be upgraded to a letre, Isistent withthe 1983 goal in time. to condition 1983 limits inpermits.

Comment: If you reprn the rivers to their nat-ural condition, do you think they wouldn't be polyluted with all of the milliorns of buffalo and animthat werb supposedly running around this country100 years ago?

Mr. Outen: It would n polluted under the,definition of pollution in t e Act, nor under the con- ,

cept of integrity espoused by Congress. It is a corol-lary, as I said, that there is no such thing as naturalpollution.

The fact that the Yellowstone Hot Springs werehot is no justification for making cold waterwayshot. The fact that coliform bacteria existed beforethe white man, at least, and disrupted the systemso badly, is no justification for coliformlevels of thesort we arr-now creating.

Comment I can't resist trying to clarify. one pointon your comments on capacity. You said that intro-ducing carbohydrates would make a change in thesystem ancYbecause of that there was no such thing,at least that is the way I interpreted it.'

That would mean a leaf falling into the streamwould change it. I think the important point is the

0"

l' INTEGRITYAN INTERPRETATION 219,

In conversations with more traditional sanitaryengineers, however, I learned that they would notmeet such guarantees because their stream dis-posal can't handle diurnal flow oscillations, dryweather-wet weather flow oscillations, and soforth. My question is would you support the idea ofmandating turnke contracts with cost and per-formance guarantee

sfor thesanitary engineering

profession in this country?Mr. Outen: I think yours' is a very sound analysis

and I think that would be a very small and easy stepto take. It would have enormous importance. Yes, Iwould support that. . .

Chairman Sager: I have to take exception to thelast remark about sanitary engineers and I have tosay that I have the highest regard for agronomists,ecologists, foresters, all of the basic scientific disci-plinarians who have added to the field of environ-mental knowledge through their various disparatedisciplinover the many years. I would like topoint out, however, that sanitary engineering is, in*a sense, a comprehensive vienCe because the sani-tary engineers of my acquaintance are also bio-chemists, organic chemists, microbiologists, as wellas structural engineers, people who understandthermodynamics, who unklerstand the physics ofhydraulics, and so on.

I would hate to 4ee what would be the case in theDistriet of Columbia at the present time if 280 mil-lion gallons of raw feces and urine flowed down thestreet without tholtexpertise of the sanitary engi-neers. ,...05.

I also have to take exception to the remark thatwas made that industry has gone to court to try toavoid or evade the limitations which have been putout for them by the Environthental ProtectionAgency. Although there are court cases, I person-ally believe that the idea is not for industry toevade discharge limitations. In the first place, theAct has a pro forma clause built into it which saysthat anyone who wants to sue for any reason. at anytime should file suit within 30 days.

Most people who read the small print at the bot-tom of the page go ahead end have their attorneysfile a suit against the Agency so that they may thenreview what has happened. In many instances, andI think even the people in the Environmental Pro-tection Agency who have worked on these limita-tions will not deny, the constraints put on the con-'tractors because of the time frame allow littleopportunity for data collection and particidarly datageneration for those industries who did not have tohave it;-iq.93llecting data. .

Therefore, many of the limitations, indu triallimitations, that came put under Section 304 d306, were incorrect. There is no way to put a point-

deleterious changes induced or caused by the intro-duction of these materials. Equally important, Ithink we will agree for many compounds, there is apossibility of introducing waste materials withoutcausing any identifiabte or demonstrable deleteri-ous effects, not just changes or responses, butmeasurable deleterious effects.

I don't'expect you to agree with this, \but if thatwere the case, then it would be the aAimilativecapacity.

/Mr. Outen: There are two points that spring tomind. The first point is: deleterious to whom orwhat? The second point is that I'm personally notvery reassured by the statement of somethat wecan put things in the water that we are then unableto measure. Thefirst example that springs to mind,it might not be the best, is that rising levels ofexotic chemicals in the water may disrupt- thespawning system of fish who are - confused by thenoise introduced into.their chemical communicationsystem. We may not be able to measure them, wemay not know what they are, we certainly will notknow that they are going to disrupt chemical cbm-munication systems, but it might happen.

The prudent thing to do would be to make all duehaste in the direction of not creating that sort ofpotential problem anymore.

Comment: Mr. Outen, o mentioned that a keystep toward achieving wale quality in this countrywas to break the death grip of the sanitary engi-neering profession on our sewage treatment prac-tices.

I want to make a statement that closes with aquestion about "turnkey" contracts. Sanitary ennleers are almost. alone among engineers in thii.

,tt---eountry in never guaranteeing the performance a,hd

the capital costs, let alone the first year operatingand maintenance costs, of the plants they design.

These sewage treatment plants are sold to localgovernments and to EPA on the basisiett certain re-moval rates that will allegedly be met. Almost in-variably during the course of a year, or a quarter,or a month, pr even a week, these rates are not metin actual practice, but the sanitary engineers whodesigned the plants get off scot free because design,'ers-and builders do, not share any legal responsibil-ity. for successful operations. We do not have arequirement for "turnkey" contracts that would im-

v pose cost and performance guarantees. While EPAnow accepts this turnkey process, ,it has not pan-.dated it.

In conversations with the people who designedthe Muskegon County (Michigan) Land TreatmentSystem, k have learned that they would be willingto live up .to cost and performance guarantees fortheir seivage recycling designs in the future.

21 1

220 TY OF WATER'''THE INTEGR

46

I

,ing finger at anyone who is culpable. No one personis' a part of the total operation of meeting tech-

, nelogical and scientific deadlines under a time con-.

straint and I; personally,, heiieve, and I belietle Ican justify my statements here, that thoie which

e incorrect are incorrect for the reasons which Iave and-the indUstries have gone to court topro-

test the incorrectness of them. The Agency willwork to revise and has already started to revisethem.

km very please with the idea, and the interpre-tation of the Natural Resources Pefense Councilabout maintaining and trying to'return natural eco-systemic halanCe.

I think everyone in the room has heard today,and probably yesterday from Ruth Patrick and theother ecologists who have spoken, that we all de-pedd on anatural ecosystem. I personally can stopmy car 'when I see children running across grassand breaking off trees and so on, and try to point

. out to themthat we are' dependent on the greenplant also.

'Comment: I didn't mean to criticize the sanitaryengineering profession for its 19th century accom-plishment of getting Viruses, bacteria and otherpathogens off our streets and into our rivers. Thatwas a necessary stage of development, but it is nolonger acceptable.

What I am proposing, basically, is the accom-

r-

plishment of tertiary sewage leatment on the land.Most sanitary engineering firms do not have soil,crop marketing, and agronomic-specialists on their .staffs, nor have they worked with these specialists"under contract.

This biases them in lavor of the river or lake dis-posal approach, and they end up throwing perfectlygood nitrogen fertilizer into the water. They'regoing to continue doing thisright here in Washing-ton at the,Blue Plains tertiary plant because.themethanol cost of denitrification has skyrocketed outof sight.

When we throp away sewage nitrogen, it forcesus to rroduce nitrogen *fertilizer which consumeslarge amou,nts of natural gas and electricity andalso eventually degrades the soil because it lacksor nic matter. s

It is the sanitary engineer's failure to take thisholis c view of things that Mr, Outen was trying toget at. I think he Was justified in his criticism of thesanitary engineering profession.

Chairman Sager: I, myself, am an ardent skpporter of land-bpsed treatment systems as mymany students can atte4 to. However, I personallydon't believe there'sbesdlution to any one of theseproblems. I don't believe there's orie solution for allthe Nation'slraterways. t believe we have differentsolutions dependink on the situation within thewatDvays.

2.12

a

INDUSTRY'S VIEW

A. M. BILLINGSDirector of Environmental ControlKimberly-Clark CorporationNeenah, Wisconsin

0'Socrates once said that if any man -intended to

argue with him, that man should first defineterms: "The integrity of water" is certainly a fermi,'"needing definition. This entire session, in tact, hari.been deioted to the discussion of possible interm-tations of this seemingly simple phrase. Socrat.awould hate, appreciated our attempt to define,terms.

The dictionary defines integrity as the sound;ness, the state of being, the honesty, or 'wholeness'We have -been trying thus far to decide just what k

meaning Congress did intend-I would like to ap-',proach this question from 'the other side.,I wouldlike to consider just what Congress probably, didnot intend.

First of allothen, it might be well to point outthat "integrity" does not necessarily mean "virgin-ity.",,These two words Tay have the same meaningin a 'specific instance,-biltf they are not synonymous.

feel certain that Congress had' no thought of con-sidering them to be so when it included them inLaw 92-500.

In the second" place, Xing Canute demonstrated agreat many years ago that inanimate object's suchas large bodies of, water do not readily respond topublic decree.

One method of claWsifying all things in this worldis to divide them under the three headings of solids,

gases and but this is a classification of theinanimate. I beli ve that it is meaningless to talk of"maintaining the ntegrity of water" the integrity ;

of an inanitna hing? Rather we should be Statingit as "integrity in the use of water."

In the third place, it seems highly improbable' that the intent of Congrerss was to create a favoredpart at the expense of a remaining and less-favoret-.whole. One does not put a smooth top on a table byfirst creating an optically flat surface of one squareinch in,area and then moving on to another squareinch. You start by sandpapering the entire surfaceand theH going to finer, paper, then to puMice, thento rottenstone, and finally to optical polishing. Yourgoalwhich you must never lose sight ofis to ar-rive at a smooth tabletdnand a square inch of znir-

for surface is not that" goal, partictifely if in

accomplishing it, you seriously roughen or gouge an

adjacent `area. Just se 'must .NVQ, in our sincere,justifiable and laudable concern about the environ-ment of our space ship, Earth, be carefu).to avoidwhat I call "The Optical Flat" syndrome. -...

There are encouraging signs that the danger ofthis syndiome is being recognlied. There was aperiod in the early seventies when the reverbera-tions arising &am the beating -of reasts, and thealternate thumping of chests flu- atened to drownout the quiet 'voice of reason. It ver happened,

'fOrtunately, and that voice can still be.heard quite',clearlydone will just stop 'and 'listen. But we,mustlisten carefully and to all that it has to say, forthis is a complex world. In fact, the complexity haitecome like the mythological giant Antaeus, who"could be knocked off his feet but would arise again,10 times onger than before: In the same fashion,each probl m solved today seems to cal* 10 newones to 'ar e. Accordingly, we become .confused at

times and sure of which way to turn. We are well_aware. tha we cannot exist indehhitely on earth ifwe conti e to act in the future as we have acted inthe 'past. But what shoull we' be doing? We knowhow tpAistingidsh between the expelts and thepseudOexperts but the expert.; themselves' are dis-agreeing. We are grateful, therefore, for that quietvoice of reason and the advice that it gives us.

In the first place, reason says quite simply thatno cataclysm is imminent, but t t there are someon the way if we, don't take the ppropfiate actionto prevent them. A bomb squad confronted withthe- problem of defusing a 'Series ofsstime bombsalways starts with the onesusgedted of being set togo off first. We must proceed in thlesame manner.Is our bomb a discharge' of raw-domestic sewagethat could start an epidemic next summer, or is it aparticulate problem, in the _upper 'atmospherewhich, by reducing the solar pnergy reaching theearth's surface, could tiring on an ice agein a fewthousand years? . ,

S ondly, reason continues, we cannot wait to

nstart corrections until we_canihs,Ve 100 percent as-

sur ce of success. Siimeone has to be first Thereis no such thing as certainty. Nothing is ever done

2L3

221

O

414

4.

. .222 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

without risk In this world. However, reason's risk Another way of desctibindoes not mean playing Russian roulette or betting, whole is by simply referringall that'you hakre on the "come card" in life's pOker industry, just as outside indugame.

Thirdly, reason is the, power of compreheiingfacts in an orderly or rational way. We must beCbr-tain, therefore, that all knownfertihent facts areconsidered. What is mote, new facts are beingadded continuously and, as new facts ,are intro-duced, reason's conclusions will change. In thisbird point lies one of our biggest problems. How do

.we knov; that the conclusion whichgw,e May have'reached would not have been 'different:had ,we buthad more facts, trunli truth, a bioader perspeetive?If reason is to starid Up,:it must be based on all theessential -facts. Reason is, therefore, concernedwith the whole.

Maintain the integrity in the Use of water? Whatabout, integrity in the use of air or land or 'people?

''What about integrity in th use of that basic essen-tial 'of all living/hings, namely, energy? Mankindmust be concerned' with the integrity'of the wholesince mankind is the only form of animation on'theface of the earth which is capable of so doing.

Tide whole! Trying to 'grasp the concept of thewhole boggles the mind. Yet, immense as the prob-lem is, it fnust be dealt with. For this presentation,I have chosen to separate the Whole into two parts:the animate and the inanimate, and have specifiedour concern as being with the animate.

All animation starts at the same Place--,- viz, with.energy. (Perhaps the old sun worshippers..weren'ttoes far off after all) But ,while all animation maystart with energy, it ends with people. At least itdoes today. It didn't millions of years ago back inthe age of reptiles, and maybe it won't millions ofyears 'from now, but it does as far as we are con-cerned, and the integrity q the whole can then onlybe judged as it relates to people.

People! Old people, young people, professionalpeople, people in public office, people in industry,people privately employed, people, people,,people.After all,' doctors or engineers, white cellar or blue

. collar workers, legiSlatats or educatorsall have 'acommon denoriiinator. They are all ,g_eople.And all a secotkdary onerequire two basic thin s if they are to exists ministehsta nuenergy- and economic ade uacy. Sometimes w,e mayloseeight.of this latter fact, but usually not for longBecause someone will bring us to an "about face"(and tpis usually a somewhat "shamed face"). Pro-fessor Henry, Luce, writing receetti in the WallStreet Journal, gives -one of the test examples of

chow goals may be lost sight of. He said: "Sometimesit would appear that the goal was not to proteCtAmericans from dirty air, but to protect clean airfrom Americans."

the portions of energy andlotted agilifferent people,pliers, to transporters, to mamen t suppliers; to distrithat they can all be fed and cobtain satisfactionjrom life

I would like to comment atphrases frequently. heard,; nnature" and "keeping naturpoint ou,t_triat nature,:ii balshe has available and, ,brinmeans gf her' natural laws:ance of nature" is like talkinwater."

Man and his ingenuity arbalance. rt it were If toWould become a question,of

:test, like the caribou herdsdiseased ancithewealLty tthen become a civilization,obackers and prize fighteieAllen Poes. No Byrons orAfter all, nature's ingenuivariety. Man'e variety res

I suppose that there, aWho would dispute the pc),matter ofttalance.' Thefact that evpiyone think

. on the fulcrt.Also, I wo d point ou

gibe for the,profit triotitr.as an individual ae welltry. Everyone has thefilligg. station employmore people can see taverage plumber clea

1 strain w occur to 0does the average,dcab dri er.or farmmaking of is worcases, thaik heav

or two, whoshappy. I wis

-known centwas to main. I wishface it,more tclotheto imWe.

214

the integrity of theto it as "balance." Intry balance refers toonamic a equacy al-o r. m erial sup-

acturers, to equip-rs, to consumers, sothed and housed and

his pointon those twomely, ''the balance ofin batance." I woulnce. She takes whats it into balance byo ,talk about the "bal-about the,"Wetness of

0

a part of nature or of.ature without man, itthe survival ofie fit-ho are kept free of the

e wolf packs. We wouldweight lifters and line-no Mozarts'or Edgar

beat Louis Sievensons.y relults, only from herIts from his ingenuity.

e few thoughtful peoplent that successful life is aifficultr ;rises from the

that* or she is standing

that in no Way do I abolo-in,no way! I can say this

a representative of indus-plofit, motive!, The avera

doesn't 'Pump gas se ate beauties of America; orthe,out aseptic tank so that less

r biolagicalenvironMent; nor-tor or nurse of lawyer or taxi,have as his prime motive the

d a better place to live. In manyn, it i4a motiVe,,,i;ut it is usually

nown certain doctors andof social workerg ands nurse

Rrimary aim was to make peoplehere were more like that. I also have

in industrialists whose primary goal,their,communities better prates to live

here were more like that, also. But letse great tnajei,ity of us ate motivated by

n the gni of having enough food to eat andto wear and a roof ever,our heads. We want

roVeteur standard of living: This means thatant things that we 'don't, abablut,ely need. If

1. .

INTEGRITY AN INTERPRETATION

. there are those in the audience to whic' h this state-ment doe nob apply, I salute you. But you are notin the majority. In fact, you are not even a ,verylarge minority and, if you will honestly review inyour minds the many people that you know, youwill agree with me.

And I do not believe that this is a criticism of therest of the world because they happen to feel thisway! I believe that the definition of "profit" shouldbe changed from the dictionary definition whichcalls it: "The excess of returns over expenditures,"to the more realistic one thatwould defirre profit as:"The attainment of a better life."

Just as Socrates was annoyed by a lack of defini-tions of terms, so also am I irritated by a misuse ofterms. I refer specifically to a name used so indis*-

criminately by our friends in the media that theterm is threatened with'complete perversion. Theword is "environmentalist," when the -phrase "en-vironment-minded" should be used.

We all continually see headlines that cite someconflict between the "Environmentalist" and Indus-try or Commerce or Educators. This is just not re-porting the situation correctly. There are environ-mentalists on both sides of most cases people whoare studying the integrity-of-the-Whole. Usually,however, the individuals dubbed "environmental-ists" are not qualified for such a designation, havingread only the first chapter of the book.

As a member of the paper industry, of course, Iwould be verydlesitant about criticizing the media--especially the press.. I hasten to suggest, there-fore, that perhaps a change in the definition of theword "environmentalist" would be the best way tocompromise on the matter. A definition such as thefollowing would probably- satisfy all but the trueenvironmentalists who, alas, do not constitute astrong voting block. "An environmentalist is a man(or Ms.) who is sincerely dedicated to the task ofimproving the environmentand is so certain thathe knows how it should be done that he is willing tobet all yoUr money*to prove or dispro1e his theory),"

These individuals may be. sincerely dedicated topreserving the world'in optimum condition ft.r fu-

. ture generations, but an individual is no more quali-fied to bi termed an environmentalist just becausehe it environment-minded than he istto be terman economist just because he is economy - minded:And yet this misuse goes on and on. -

But back to the subject of maintaining the integ-rity of the whole, the thesis of my, talk today: How

can we avoid the "optical flat" syndrome?First of all, we mutt learn to get far enough away

from the immediaje problem to be able to view it inperspective. We all are amused by the story of theblind men and the elephant, for we all .appreciate

a 223

that if 'you'would accurat ly describe an elephant,you should stand well b k particularly if it is awild elephant. Yet, how many of us see only the

__desirability of solving the problem aithand and notthe future consequences f that solution. - ,

The concept of the en ironmental impact state-ment has opened the vvi ow to a broader perspec-tive. Many of, these st tements, however, have .been off to false starts a d some are falling by theirown weight. Here aga the fact is sonietimes%being lost sight of that ey are not goals in them-sel;res, but only mean an end and can easily be-.come optical flats. ,The are, however, headed inthe right direction' to and an "integrity hewhole" and, in the pro less, are malting- Ere a

ore indixiduals consi r more and re factors.he big research agen., es of the Nation are goingeeper in their studies nd looking into side effectsore than has ever bee the case in the past. Their

is an encouraging glow n the horiy.on:But blind men still c ing to elephants' trunks and

in so doing impede p r gress . Means are still beingconfused with ends. the latter connection, I growl'

er very weary of hear g the argument given for someparticular schema that it is technically feasible.Usually this poi t is delivered thunderously and

draws thunder s applause from some active con-tingent in the udience. In-rebuttal,, I usually pointout that it is t hnically feasible to build an 18-lanehighway from Washington to New York City.

"Why, don' we do it then," I ask. "With ninelanes ofT \traf egoing each way, with the speed :of

each lane ca hilly regulated, it would certainly bePerh. Is someone in this very room today

may be kille an an accident on the present highwayto'New Yor , an acciaent,that would not have takenplace if ther- had been an 18-lane highway. asn't ahuman'bein s life worthy,of consideration?" .

I never p ess the audience to really answer theuestioriI just want, them to think about it a little.

, Absurd as this example may sound, it-has itscounterpart in everyday life. Far too many regula-tions are ing proposed today on the basis of datademonstra ing them, to be attainable rather than'with data, emonstralg them to be needed.

Anothe example o the optical' flat syndrome is

the attem t to, go too far too fast in correcting some-existing oblem with no consideration given to theside effec s that may develop. Pressure for rapid in- r

creases i the-percent of recycling is one exampleThese p essures sometimes take the form of newspecific ions for materials to be purchased by gov-ernmen bodies, or of boycotts of certai productsby orga izations, on the basis of some it rily re-quired intent of reused material uch pressures,create in the worthy cause of tending our nat-

21 5

0

THE INTEGR

Ural resources, may result in an effect which isexactly the opposite, simply because the whole

- problem has not been thought through.0 In the paper industry, newsprint is an excellent

illustration. Most of the newsptlut is manufacturedin northern Canada and the southern UnitedStates, but by far the greater part of it is used inthe large cities. Newsprint is one of the cheapestpaper products and you cannot ?lake a silk purseout of a sow's ear in the paper kndiistry any morethan you can anywhere el4e.

The use of old newspapers ig, therefore, prettymucklimited to boxboard grades or the manufac-ture of more newsprint. The logistics problem,however, that would result from the yearly ship-ping of thousands of tons of waste newspaper overthe thousands of miles of track to return it to itsplace of manufacture would create an added drainon our energy supplies. Also, one must rememberthat a single freight car will hold over half again theweight of newsprint rolls than it will of waste paperbundles, so more freight cars would be needed.True, the added use of energy would be partiallyoffset by the reduced use of trees in the manufac-ture of newsprint, but the growth of trees draws noenergy from our limited resources -beneath theearth's surface. Rather, the source of energy fortrees, like the sourer...of energy for all living things,is the limitless source, the sun.

Quantities of old newspapers are recycled intoother grades, as mentimd previously, but theamounts -are based on the problem of the whole andrecycling in other industries has similar limitationsbrought on by the overall picture.

Actually, recycling is nothing new. We have been. ,,--recycling materials for generations and the amount

recycled has sought its own level in each. We knowthat we will continue to recycle for generations and

ever increasing rate. To attempt, hdwever, toforce an immediate change in this single_area with-,out regard for related areas is to attempt to create

7sen optical flat and .a very small one.Still another example is the insistence that action

must be taken immediately even though the ade-quacy and the economic impact- of the availabletechnology may still be in doubt. Reason has statedthat 100 percent assurance of the success of anyproject is a luxury we cannot expect, but in thesame breath reason warns against Russian rou-lette. To embark on a venture, the failure of whichwould spell disaster for your company, is to playRussian roulette with both your investors and youremployees.

A power company, for example, could hardly beblamed for resisting the installation of the limescrubbing method for the removal of sulfur dioxide

ITY OF WATER

from the stacks when the solvingof the air pollutionproblem by this method can be accomplished-onlyby creating, an equal or more strfous problem insludge disposal, d problem which the companywould have to reckon with for all the foreseeablefuture. Some companies have allowed themselves,to be pushed.into going ahead,with is method, butnow a new citrate proceis is being koposegi Which,it is theorized, will minimize the solid waste aspectsof sulfur dioxide di sal while accomplishing thenecessary removal. What of the company that hasshouldered not only the expense of installing thelime scrubbing process but has saddled itself with ahorrendous sludge disposal problem, while the restof the world has waited for the technology t e-velop and en gone down the new road?

Or agai :-We have had an excellent illustration in .

one of o *mberly-Clark mills of the necessity of,standing ba k to obtain an overall picture., As youmay recall, i was only about 4 years ago.that jointtreatment of unicipal and industrial wastes wasbeing touted as the panacea for all pollution abate-

- ment problems. Authorities have backed off incetheh, but in 1970 and 1971 it was considered th "inthing."

The mill that I refer to is in a small town whichwas then as now) nder order to construct new andimproved sewage treatment facilities. it was gener-ally assumed that this was an ideal ;lase, if thereever was one, for joint treatment. Half of the wasteload world come from industry and half from themunicipality. It would thus have alt-the well knownadvantages of joint treatment such as tht etono-mies of size, the superior supervision possible inone large plant, the elimination of proliferations ofsmall plants, and a system which contained wastesthat would neutralize each other -. What is more, theFederal governMent would shoulder a major por-tion of the cost which, of course, -in the minds ofsome, meant that that patt would' be for free.Consideration of the actual facts of the matter,however, revealed some additional pertinentpoints.

In the first place, the manufacture of sanitary tis-sue produces no pathogens or disease germs such asare present in all municipal treatment facilities. Forthis reason, it is not necessary to disinfect the 21/2million gallons of used Ikater being discharged dailyto the river from the tissue mill. Once mixed withthe 2 million gallons of sanitary sewage, however,,as would be the case in any joint treatment facility,the entire 4v2 million gallons of effluent would, haveto be disinfected. This would mean using over twiceas much chlorine as would have been necessary tochlorinate that portion needing disinfection.

This latter poinyvas a telling one with the envi-

INTEGRITYAN INTERPRETATION

ronmental-miuded. The doubling of the cost of theprocess carried little or no weight, but the needlessexpenditure of energy in the production of the chlo-rine that would be completely wasted caused someof them to stir uneasily.

A second factor: Sludges from municipal plants ofthis size usually depend upon anaerobic digestion torender them innocuous. After anaerobic digestionthey are dried and hauled away to be used in aland-fill site where they eventually act,as a much needed"soil supplement. Contrasted withthis, broken cellu-losefibers, the sludge from a tissue mill, will notreadily digest anaerobically and hence cannot betreated by this method. Since tissue sludge is innoc-uous as it leaves the mill, it ca' be hauled directlyto landfill, soil amendment, or some similar disposalmethod. II it were to be mixed with municipalsludge during treatment, however, incomplete di-gestion of that municipal sludge would take placeand State regulation forbade the disposal of undi-getted or raw sanitary sewage in landfill sites. Ac-cordingly, if joint. treatment were contemplated,some method other than anaerobic digestion wouldhave to be utilized for disposal of the sludge.

Studies made by Kiknberly-Clark showed thatburning or liquid oxidation would more than dbublethe cost of municipal sludge disposal over that oflandfill disposal. However, the cost to the corpora-

. tion would be considerably more than doubled,since Kimberly-Clark, would certainly by expectedto pay fpr the added cost of disposing of the munici-pal portion of the sludge as well as that originatingfrom tie tissue mill. After all, the city would beforced to go to this new method of disposa only be-cease of the presence of industrial sludge. If thismethod cost the individual citizen more, it wasmaintained, industry should bear this added cost.You will admit they had a point.

From the energy standpoint, sludge disposal byincineration is never self-sustaining at all times.Supplementary oil or gas is always necessary.Again, this added energy requivement would beused to accomplish something that could be realizedin another manner landfill-- a method requiringfar less use of energy.

But there was still another major factor thatwent into the final decision. Incineration wouldmean air pollution unless adequate steps weretaken to prevent it. These adequate steps wouldnot have been necessary if there had been no incin-eration. Incineration Would not have been neces-avy if sludge could have been digested anaerobi-cally. Sludge could have been digested anaerobi-cally if there had been only a small percentage ofcellulosic material present. There would have beenonly a small percentage of cellulosic material pfes-

.225

ent triCimberly-Clark hadn't agreed to participatein a joint treatment project.

'Ergothe cost of all air pollution abatement fa-cilitjes and the 'energy required to operate themshould rightfully be a Kimberly-Clark problem.

And so the final decision wa.4.7for our corporationto build its own plant for treating our own wastesa treatment designed for our own specific needs.This plant has been in operation for over 2 yearsand has been doing a very laudable j*

Any learned presentation dealing wlth some crit-ical problem facing the Nation today always endswith a recommendation for immediate, action byeveryone. Actionusually drastic actionwhichthe speaker is certain will completely solve theproblem. In this discussion of the integrity of thewhole, therefore, I too, would like to make a recom-mendation. It will not completely solve, the prob-lem, but it will certainly, help and it ins somethingeveryone can do. Here it is.

In heaven's name, let's take a positive attitude!Let's stop beating ourselves over the head asthough integrity were a thing of the past! Let's pro-claim to each other and to the world that The lastdecade has seen a complete turnabout on the envi-ronmental front in this Nation. Let's give and takecredit for the gains made.

A little over 3 years ago, I had the opportunity ofdiscussing the environmental situation with HughDowns of Today Show fame. In the course of ourconversation, I pointed out that in spite of the clos-ing of some shellfish beds due to the buildup of bac-teA contamination, and some instAces of greateralgal bloom laid to the increasing use ofOosphates,

(things generally were starting to improve.Of course they are," Downs said. "Everyone

knows that the smog in London in Charles ickens'day was far worse than it is today. Fish a e beingcaught in the Thames where no fish have beenfound for j.00 years. In this country, reports comethrough almost weekly of some streamor river thathas turned the corner and is now on the road to re-covery."

"Why, then, won't anyone admit it?" I asked.I thought his answer was a thOught-provoking

one. 1'."Perhaps it's because of the nature of the society

welive in. It's a crisis society. Things have to reachcrisis proportions before we will take action onthem, and then we do and it's often violent action. Ithink that environmentalists are afraid that if it isever admitted that things are getting better, thepublic will heave a sigh of relief and say, 'Well, thatis taken care of. Now what do we worry abouttomorrow'r

I think that he Was right. But, while he may have

217a

me,

' t

4*

226 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER

been' correct 3 years4, I would hope that, envi-''ronmentally speaking at least, we are becoming bigboys now. We had better be because it takes bigboys to handle the whole problem.

In closing, I would like to read you a short poemwritten as I believe James Whitcomb iley mighthave written it had he turned his attentionto environmental pioblems. I se thai it mightbe considered a fairly long u fr Socrates toJames Whitcomb Riley, bu it is probably not out ofplace at this session. I ha observed some of myeiwironment-minded frien jumping further. Atany rate, her 'are the immor Ines:

Environmental Protection'scome toour house to stay,

cs

0

"7-

To clean the lakes and rivers up. An' brush the smog away.

An' shoo the flies off of the dumpsAn' bury pipelines deep.

\ An' monitor and prosecuteAn' earn its board and keep.-An' all us other childrenWheq we're feeling most perplexedWe get the Fed'ral Reg'ster outTo see what'scommin' next.For you'd better read the watch talesThat paper tells aboutCuzz the EPA will get youIf you don't watch out.

R. M. Billings

218

4

0

.THE PUBLIC'S- VIE*

4.

, .

GLADWIN HILLNational Environmental CorrespondentNew York TimesNew York, Netv York

In the days of vaudeville, the star act always hada special position on the program. It was custo-marily made the next to the last item, on the theoryit was ,a climax to everything that went before, butshouldn't le placed last because that was the timewhen people started leaving.

Therefore, 'I'm honored to be in the Uext-to-closing spot today. All personal considerationsaside, I hope that the thought in putting the public'soutlook near the end was not because that topic wasan afterthought, but because it was consideredespecially important.

My main point this afternoon will be that the pub-lic outlook is not only importapt but is the mostimportant aspect of all your. undertakings.

You've all heatd the old philosophical conceptthat a tree falling in the forest doesn't make anynoise if there isn't someone there to hear it.

The same concept is true, in a very real way, ofall endeavors that involve the public in generaland few things, of course, involve the public to agreater ex 'tent than water. ,

Whether your efforts on behalf of water qualityare in government, science, private industry orconservation, those efforts are critically dependenton money. The ultimate source of all money is thepublic. And the public won't, in the long run, supplyfinancing for a program or a project, no matter howworthy, unless the public is convinced that it isworthwhile.

We've all seen programs, even programs withmerit, go down the drain because public support forthem, for one reason or another, had evaporated.

The most frequent reason that publitf supportevaporates is that the virtues of a program are not'adequately communicated to the public. That iswhat I want to talk about briefly. Communications.I have no credentials in water technology or inwater science, but I do have some 30 years experi-ence in variousdields of communications.

I think the two most important facts for peopledealing professionally with water to realize arefirst, thatjhe cornerstone of their work is publicunderstanding; and second, that professionals, in

the main, aren't communicating as effectively asthey might because they don't talk.apd think aboutwater 'in the same language as their constituents.I'll try to give you an example from another field.

About 11 /2 years ago the atomic power industry,worried about the rising resistance to nuclearpower plants, sponsored a scientific opinion surveyto find out how the public felt about nuclear powee:,The industry was very pleased with the results,which suggested:theta! cent-of the public wasfavorable toed atomic power. I happen_,ed to beone of the speakers at a conference where these re-sults were reported, and I'm afraid I was the skunkat the icnic, because I said that it seemed quiteplausible that people, if asked whether they werefor or against atomic power, would say they werefor it.

But I suggested that this popularity was restingon sand if people had nQreal understanding of thepros and cons of atomic power. I asked the atomicpower people, in the connection with real under-standing, how many doorbells they thought theywould- have to ring before they found somebodywho could give them even an intelligent definitionof something as elementary as background radia-tion. It would certainly be a small minority.

Lack of understanding is why opponents ofatomic power like Ralph Nader are-having such aneasy time knocking that 80 percent favorability intoa cocked hat. I'm not saying Nader's right orwrong, but I'm saying that when the debate getsgoing and one side or the other doesn't have the am-munition, it gets knocked out of the)ox.

I think something of the same sort applies in thefield of water. Everybody uses water; everybodydepends on it; for hour-to-hour survival. So I thinkthere is a subconscious assumption by many profes-sionals that the public is as familiar with the nutsand bolts and pros and consest w,ater inanagenlientas professionals are.

But, look at it this way: How many doorbells doyou think you would have to Hug, before you couldget an intelligentjefinition of something as elemeg-tary in the water picture as BOD, or coliform, or

219

228 THE INTEGRI

deep well injection? How many laymen could tellyou that salmonella isn't some kind of fish or a newdance?

Ten years of writing about water quality in itsvarious foims have shown me that public knowl-edge on the subject is very limited. People thinkwater is clean if it looks clean. Conversely, theypanic if it has the least bit of color, odor, or turbi-dity. . Most people don't even know where their par-ticular water supply originates, let alone what itcosts them. They have no idea of the processes thatit goes through for purification. They don't knowthat a half dozen chemicals may be used.

You can see this when community disputes eruptabout fluoridating water. People react as if puttingany chemical in water regardless of its medicalmerits or demerits and regardless of any civil, liber-ties ramificationsas if fluoridation was, per se,evil because it amounts to tarhpering with water'spristine natural virginity.

The public is angry about water pollution, mainlybecause the result is aesthetic4ly distasteful. Andthey are willing to put out quite a bit of tax moneyfor water quality as long as the levy is rather in-visible.

It is easier to raise a million d6llars through Fed-,

eral taxes for. water pollution abatement than toraise $100,000 to improve the local communitysystems.

Finally, the public is impatient with the pace ofwater quality improsiement. The .aveimge citizenbuilds a garage in a couple of months. He Can't seewhy a sewage plant can't be pstyp in the sametime.

Now, how does this limited public knowledge af-fect professionals hi water quality? Well, as I'vesaid, if people don't 'understand your programsthoroughly, you have a shaky foundation of supportwhen the ine4itable crunches come and some poli-tician wants to divert funds froth water quality tofinancing some optlandish project like the SST.

Secondly, in the meantime your program may getonly anemic support. One of the greatigtapdals ofthis country, J think, is the minuscule amountsStates and localities and, indeed, the Federal Gov-ernment, spend on assuring pure drinking water. .

Jim McDermott and his colleagues labored over adecade to get passage of a drinking water bill whoseneed is as elementary as traffic signals. Citizenswould be horrified if they knew that only a fewcents per c ita per year were being spent onsurveillan and research to avert their beingpoiso y bacteria anal viruses.

ve you a specific example of how this publicignorance can affect Your work. One of the big sali-ents in water supply, as we all know, has been the

TY O1 WATER

procedure of purifying and recycling wastewater.That effort has proceeded slowly down the years,and one reason it has gone slowly, I think, is thewidespread profeisional assumption that the veryidea of recycled sewage would be repugnant to thepublic and Would encounter a massive wall of resist-ance. I'm sure this belief led many innovators totread very gingerly when otherwise they wouldhave forged ahead boldly.

Yet I went down to one of the first experimentalprojects of this sort at Santee, Calif., and talked tomothers while their children splashed happily in acrystalline pond made of reclaimed sewage. I saidto them, "Do you have any strange feelings or mis-givings about your children swimming in refinedsewage?" Unanithously, the answer was, "No, whyshould we think about that? Anybody can see thatthat water is as clean as can be."

This, as far as I know, has been just about theuniversal reaction to wastewater reclamation. Theanticipated acceptance barrier, Like the imaginarysound barrier in aviation, proved not to be there atall. This is one small example of how thinking in thelanguage of your constituents can be very impor-tant in accomplishing what you,warit

Please understand, I'm not venturing to picturethe public as a bunch of /nitwits whose primitiveprejudices have to be manipulated like the keys ofan organ. After all, they are your constituents, andwithout them, you wouldn't be where you are.

put at the New York Times, we have an unwrit-ten precept, and that is when you write a storyimagine that the person reading it just got out of a

' prison& of war camp yesterday. The individual isreasonably bright, but put all of the facts-in therenecessary to make it intelligible to the reader with-out the reader's having to comb through any backissues.

In other words, don't underestimate people's in-telligence, but never overestimate their informa-tion. Thousands of impressions from many sourcescrowd into every citizen's memory bank every daynow, at a greater rate than ever before in history.Anyone in a specialized field who assumes that thepublic knows what he or she is talking about prob-ably is wrong.

What does this mean in terms of the large-scaleeffort in government, science, industry, conserva-tion,-to firmly establish the int of ,water? Ithink what it means is that it calls for on f the big-gest public educational campaigns in his ry. Notthe sort of thing that can be done with a fanfare oftrumpets and some WIN buttons and is forgottenabout in a month.. But a concerted long term efforton the part of every person in the field who wantsto see his or her efforts get the financial and moral

220

a

C-

INTEGRITY-AN INTERPRETATION

support that they have to have.The inclination of many professionals is to say:

"Well, I'm a professional, I'll just do my little pro-fessional thing, and leave the educational work andpropaganda to professionals in that field."

If I can leave only one thought with you today, itis that that outlook won't wash anymore. In thesedays of instant communication, everyone has to tellhit story, or do what he can to help along the causeof enlightenment, because there is so much enlight-ening to be done.

No man is an island anymore. The sheepskin onthe wall saying you are some kind of a specialistdoesn't mean you can isolate,yourself from the peo-ple who underwrite your work. When they countthe votes that support appropriations, sheepskinsdon't get counted.

This may seem like a very crass, materialisticoutlook. It isn't. I think it's only realistic. Environ-mental problems today are 90 percent politics. Weknow immensely more technically than we can putinto practice, because getting it into practice isdependent on the political process.

Those of you who worts here in Washington knowthis. You are used to going up on the Hill to supportwhat you are doing. But the same thing applies allover the country at all levels, right down to the vil-lage level. In the early days of air pollution control,for instance, Phoenix, Ariz., had one of the best airpollution'engineers in the country. He got nowherebecause he didn',t realize that unless his technicalideas were tran0lated into viable prOpositions in thepolitical context, they didn't mean a thing.

Conversely, Los Angeles' air pollution directorfor years was a man who knew very little about thetechnology of air pollution. He was a former policelieutenant, Louis Fuller. But he knew how to go tdthe 'county politicians. and get things done. Anexample of what he could do on this basis was that,single-handedly, he transformed the entire paint in-dustry in this country, getting manufacturers tochange their historic paint formulas, to eliminatecertain objectionable solvents.

I think a great deal of water pollution in thiscountry is probably traceable to sanitary engineers,the men who run the municipal sewage treatment,plants. For years, they could foresee that their sys-tems, were being overloided, so they sent memosup to City Hall saying the sewage plant should beenlarged. And when the politicians did nothingabout it because there is no political glamour in en-larging a sewage plant the engineer went back tohis drawing board and said "Well, I have done myduty. I'm an engineer. If the politiciani don't wantto go along, that is their problem."

The trouble was, as we all know, it ended up

229

being his problem,'the engj1eer's problem. If hehid gone to his constituents in as elementary a wayas giving talks at Rotary Club luncheons, and famil-

i iarized the public with the probrems he had, hewould have helped generate the head of steam nec-essary for political action that would have made hisjob a lot easier today.

All right, so everybody isn't a William JenningsBryan or a Ralph Nader, capable of galvanizingpublic action *That is not the point. The point is thateverybody can do something, even if it is onlyspreading the gospel in conversation with friends.The important thing is awareness that the messagehas to be conveyed by any means possible thatthere has to be communication with the constit-uents.

I can't, within this afternoon's format, give you adetailed blueprint on just Now this tremendout jobof adequately informing the American public onwater quality should be done. It would take 6months, and at least a six figure fee, to lay out acampaign like that. A lot of the pieces of such aneffort already are being done by information spe-cialists in the EPA. But obviously this effort overallnati ally,. up to now, has not been comprehensiveenoug n it takes years of grunting and groan-ing to get through an elementary piece of drinkingwater legislation; when the Coast Guard is stillbacking and filling about toilet tanks on pleasureboats, and chickening out on telling Onassis to putdouble bottoms on his tankers. And when somepeople equate clean waterways with unemploy-ment.

With adequate public understanding of waterproblems sophistry peddlers like these wouldn'tdare stick their heads out of the woodwork lest theyget chopped off.

My point is, there is such a big informationalvacuum to be filled that everybody in' the waterfield, if he knows what is good for him, has to getwith the effort. Everyone should make for himselfor herself an analysis of what he or she thin ks arethe big gaps in public knowlgdge.related to his field.Then he should canvas thetools that are availablefor informing,people. The tools are not just a mime-ograph. machine cranking out handouts. They in-clude newspapers, magazines, books, pamphlets,radio., television, conferences, symposia, lectures,Personal appearances, and even personal conversa-tions. Somewhere in that spectrum, everyone canfind a spot where he can do something.

Finally, there should be the realization that theaudience you are addressing, your constituents, isnot a uniform, faceless, homogeneous mass that canbe aroused by words in mimeographed handouts.

There are different levels of knowledge, sophisti-

221

;

-.1\ . '2

M1

230 THE INTEGRITY OF WATER°

.

cation, and interest. Clem Whittaker, the Cali-fornian who virtually created the art of modernpolitical campaign management, had a maxim thatevery voter was at least seven different people: Hewas a taxpayer, probably a homeowner, a parent, achurchgoer, a motorist, a veteran, probably a Ro-tarian or a member of some other' ssociation likethat, and finally, a person with, probably, ethnic'ties.

Whittaker said that in the course of a politicalcampaign an appeal had to be made to each of thesevarious manifestations of the same person; and that

R

- :

222_v'e

I

if this was done, you stood your best chance of suc-cess in the campaign.

Think about thisand it will multiply your lever-age in developing public understanding of water in-tegrity and water quality,. When this understand-ing is deep enough and wide enough, the integrityof the water will be\ close to ar accomplished fact.Between now and then, there is a lot of time, but Iurge you to waste no time in taking advantage ofthat time. It will make your work easier, and thepublic happier and more supportive, and Lt willmake our water better.

4

+.

..

o U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE197;0-227.466 .