water

Review
Principles and Technical Application of Mixing Zones for
Wastewater Discharges to Freshwater and Marine Environments
Carlos J. A. Campos *, Donald J. Morrisey and Paul Barter

Cawthron Institute, 98 Halifax Street East, Nelson 7010, New Zealand; [email protected] (D.J.M.);
[email protected] (P.B.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +64-21-2164459

Abstract: A discharge mixing zone (DMZ) is a defined geographical area or volume of water in
the receiving environment of a discharge where initial dilution of the effluent occurs and where
exceedance of water quality criteria may be permitted. DMZs are essential to inform determination
of discharge consent conditions and an important element of risk management frameworks to reduce
any effects of the discharges on the environment and human health. In this review, we describe the
principles and technical application of DMZs. We present an overview of the physical processes
that govern the dispersion and dilution of wastewater discharges and the fate of contaminants in
coastal environments and define key criteria for determining the size of DMZs. We summarize DMZ
requirements in international legislation and guidance and exemplify their application to different
types of discharges by means of case studies. The selected case studies illustrate different modelling
tools for defining DMZs and different monitoring approaches to assess their effectiveness in achieving
ecological and human health objectives.

Keywords: estuaries; zone of initial dilution; allocated impact zone; wastewater; modelling; water





 quality standards; water pollution control
Citation: Campos, C.J.A.; Morrisey,
D.J.; Barter, P. Principles and
Technical Application of Mixing
Zones for Wastewater Discharges to 1. Background
Freshwater and Marine
Globally, large volumes of wastewater generated by domestic, industrial, and com-
Environments. Water 2022, 14, 1201.
mercial sources are discharged to rivers, lakes, and marine waters despite the availability of
https://doi.org/10.3390/w14081201
other more sustainable forms of use and disposal [1,2]. In 2020, it was estimated that only
Academic Editors: Zhiliang Zhu and 56% of all wastewater flows generated by households were collected and treated safely to
Chi-Wang Li at least the secondary level in an appropriate facility [2,3]. Every year, ≈730 million tonnes
Received: 31 January 2022
of wastewater and 300–400 million tonnes of liquid waste are discharged into surface
Accepted: 5 April 2022
waters [3]. The quality of surface waters affected by wastewater discharges continues to
Published: 8 April 2022
decline in many parts of the world, compromising the biological diversity of discharge
receiving environments, the services they provide, and the role of the discharges in buffer-
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
ing the detrimental effects of climate change [4]. The United Nations reported that only
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
60% of surface waterbodies assessed in 89 countries for the Sustainable Development
published maps and institutional affil-
Goal had good quality status [5]. Many of these countries have made substantial capital
iations.
investments to upgrade wastewater treatment and reduce effluent disposal to rivers, lakes,
and coastal waters.
International best practice guidance on management of wastewater treatment and
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
disposal identifies options to improve treatment and effluent quality, reduce the effects of
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. the discharges on the environment and human health, and in some cases, promote re-use
This article is an open access article and recycling of treated effluents [6,7]. When identifying locally appropriate management
distributed under the terms and options, discharge consenting authorities consider many factors such as technological
conditions of the Creative Commons and engineering constraints, the characteristics of the effluent, the hydrographical and
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// hydrological characteristics of the receiving environment and its environmental protection
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ designations, and community values (social, cultural, and spiritual) on the potential and
4.0/). actual effects of the discharges.

Water 2022, 14, 1201. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14081201 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2022, 14, 1201 2 of 26

When concentrations of contaminants in the discharge exceed those of the relevant

water quality standards and limits, there is normally an area of non-compliance near the
point of discharge. This occurs because it may not be technically feasible nor cost-effective
to reduce contaminant concentrations in the discharge to levels below those standards
and limits. Consequently, many countries have implemented discharge consenting regu-
lations and policies containing specific requirements for discharge mixing zones (DMZs).
Generically defined, a DMZ is a geographical area or volume of water in the receiving envi-
ronment of a discharge where initial dilution of the effluent occurs and where exceedance of
water quality standards and limits may be permitted. DMZs contribute to the sustainable
management of discharge activities and help minimize their effects on the environment
and human health. In practice, discharge consent authorities commonly approve a DMZ
for a discharge activity where it is not practicable to avoid, re-use, or recycle the treated
effluent. The consent may also specify monitoring requirements and criteria for reducing
the size of the mixing zone over time.
DMZs have been applied to wastewater discharges for decades. Every discharge
presents a unique set of circumstances concerning the type of effluent and the character-
istics of the receiving environment. Therefore, mixing zones must be determined on a
case-by-case basis. Monitoring and assessment of a DMZ should be linked to the potential
environmental and human health risks and beneficial uses and values of the environment.
Key gaps in the literature include the factors that influence the likelihood and the level of im-
pact, prioritization of the issues and risks requiring management within a mixing zone, and
criteria to ensure that mixing zones are kept to the smallest area possible and that there is a
process to reduce it over time. Modern tools for DMZ assessments combine in situ observa-
tions of physicochemical parameters from moored instrument platforms, remotely operated
vehicles, testing of the wastewater contaminants of interest, and high-resolution remote
sensing capabilities and hydrodynamic models that provide high-resolution information to
monitor the expression of discharge plumes. A challenge is how to make the best use of
these tools to support more comprehensive wastewater discharge impact assessments.
In this paper, we review the principles and technical application of DMZs. We start the
review by summarizing the ecological and human health effects of wastewater discharges.
We outline key considerations for determining DMZs and present basic DMZ requirements
in international legislation and guidance. We present statutory requirements in Canada,
United States of America, Brazil, European Union, United Kingdom, and Aotearoa, New
Zealand. Next, we exemplify DMZ application by means of case studies. Three DMZ
studies that we have undertaken were selected to illustrate different types of discharges,
mixing zone requirements, and water quality monitoring to determine the effects of the
discharges and mixing zone boundaries. Finally, we identify gaps in knowledge and
research priorities for more effective DMZ application.
Most of the DMZ information presented in this review relates to continuous discharges
and therefore does not apply to wastewater spills caused by extreme weather events,
infrastructure breakdown, mechanical or electrical failure, or other factors not normally
considered in discharge consents. Furthermore, while the review covers various freshwater
and marine environments, it focused on coastal environments which receive the largest
volumes of wastewater worldwide [4] and where the approaches to determining DMZs are
more diverse.

2. Effects of Wastewater Discharges

2.1. Effects on the Benthos and Water Column
Wastewater comes from a variety of sources (households, commercial and industrial
facilities, hospitals, offices, etc.) and contains a variety of organic and inorganic constituents.
Those of greater ecological and human health concern are suspended solids, organics that
affect biochemical oxygen demand or chemical oxygen demand, nutrients, pathogens,
metals, emerging organic contaminants, oil and grease, and plastics and floatables [8]. These
contaminants can exert a wide range of adverse effects on discharge receiving environments
Water 2022, 14, 1201 3 of 26

and human health. For example, oxygen depletion associated with biochemical oxygen
demand can be a serious problem in lakes, rivers, and estuaries. Toxic substances can cause
adverse effects in aquatic organisms and humans. Many of these are synthetic chemicals
such as pesticides or solvents. Some are slow to degrade while others degrade relatively
rapidly [8].
The magnitude and extent of effects from these wastewater constituents is determined
by many factors, primarily:
• The characteristics of the effluent (flow, volume, and chemistry);
• The discharge regime (frequency and duration);
• The dispersion and dilution of the effluent after discharge;
• The physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of the receiving environment.
These effects can be detected in two main areas of the receiving environment: the
bed or bottom (‘benthos’) and the water column. The physical, chemical, and biological
characteristics of the benthos may integrate transient changes of a wastewater discharge
from both dissolved contaminants in the water column and deposited organic-rich or
contaminated particulate material (e.g., sewage solids). While benthic characteristics
(e.g., sediment contaminants and ecological communities) can change over scales of months
(e.g., seasonally) and years, they remain relatively stable over smaller timescales and
provide a good medium for detecting discharge effects [9]. However, the benthos is
also sensitive to short-duration event-related changes such as storm events or sewerage
infrastructure breakdown [10].
In submarine outfalls (particularly those with multi-port diffusers), the enrichment
of the seabed from deposition of organic particulates reduces as the freshwater effluent
generally forms a buoyant surface plume which increases the initial mixing of effluent
and seawater [11]. Despite this, some degree of organic enrichment can still occur and
the range and magnitude of effects from wastewater and other organic-rich discharges
are particularly well documented [12]. These types of enrichment effects are commonly
assessed through visual observations, chemical analysis of the sediments themselves for
indicators of enrichment (i.e., grain size, organic carbon, and nutrients and products of
microbial decomposition), and analysis of sediment dwelling biota (including the ‘infauna’
living in the sediment and ‘epifauna’ living on it) [9,13].
Wastewater-impacted environments often show increased concentrations of total
organic carbon, total nitrogen, and phosphorus in the sediments and elevated macrophyte
and benthic invertebrate biomasses [13–15]. Visual observations of epibiota and sediment
characteristics, whilst cursory, provide a good general indication of the general state
of enrichment [16,17]. Often, these visual observations help to determine the need for
additional monitoring such as sediment chemistry and infaunal analyses. Analysis of
visual, physicochemical, and biological indicators of enrichment may be used to assess
the relative scale of effect(s). For a discharge to oceanic waters via an extended outfall, the
effluent parameters of major concern are toxicants, pathogens, floatables, oil and grease,
and suspended solids. For a discharge to a shallow bay or estuary, the parameters of
concern include all of these as well as nutrients, color, biochemical oxygen demand, and
surfactants [18,19].
The effects of organic enrichment on the seabed usually follow a gradient of type and
intensity with distance from the source, as summarized by Pearson and Rosenberg [20]. A
diagram of the range of possible effects from a wastewater outfall on soft bottom habitats
and the water column is provided in Figure 1. This diagram lists the type of response
that macrofaunal communities can exhibit depending on the level of organic enrichment
detected around the outfall. Regardless of their scale, intensity, duration, or frequency,
these biological effects may be influenced by other types of effects (physical, climatic, or
human-mediated) to produce cumulative environmental effects. These cumulative effects
may be manifested by the build-up of wastewater contaminants in sediments in the area
beyond the immediate area of influence of the discharge or changes in the abundance and
distribution of biological communities because of the occurrence of other diffuse- or point-
 that macrofaunal communities can exhibit depending on the level of organic enrichment
detected around the outfall. Regardless of their scale, intensity, duration, or frequency,
these biological effects may be influenced by other types of effects (physical, climatic, or
human-mediated) to produce cumulative environmental effects. These cumulative effects
Water 2022, 14, 1201 may be manifested by the build-up of wastewater contaminants in sediments in 4the area
of 26
beyond the immediate area of influence of the discharge or changes in the abundance and
distribution of biological communities because of the occurrence of other diffuse- or point-
source
sourcedischarges thataffect
discharges that affectthe
thesame
same receiving
receiving environment
environment [21,22].
[21,22]. Benthic
Benthic monitoring
monitoring is
isaareliable
reliable and cost-effective way of assessing discharge-related effects. A one-off ‘snap-
and cost-effective way of assessing discharge-related effects. A one-off ‘snapshot’
shot’
surveysurvey
oftenoften provides
provides sufficient
sufficient information
information to determine
to determine benthic
benthic effects effects associated
associated with a
with a single
single discharge.
discharge.

Prevailing
current
Bouyant surface p lume Enhancement of
phytoplankton prod uction

Ma crofaunal Response
Mo derate species richness with a
Un enriched = mo derate abundance distributed
Increa sed soluble nutrients evenly among species

Transition zone: abundance and

Low = species richness may be higher than
"normal"
Bouyant plume
Mo derate-low species richness with
Mo derate =
a few 'opportunist' species o ccurring
in high abundance.

Low species richness consisting of

Prevailing Hig h = one or a few opportunist species
current wh ich reach very high abundance
Deposition Eff ects: levels.
Organic enric hment Anoxic, sulphide-rich conditions
Change in seabed communities Extreme = either devoid of macrofauna or
Organic (epifauna, infauna, microalgae) having very few species in very low
Fish aggregation Alteration of s ediment chemistry abundance
particulates

Diffuser
le
ports ca
os
tt
No

Pipe provides hard Extreme Unenriched/

High
pe (anoxic Moderate Low
substrat e for reef Pi background
communities ll sediments)
fa
t
Ou
Level of enrichme nt (extreme none)

Figure
Figure1.1.Schematic
Schematic of
of potential effectsof
potential effects ofaasubmarine
submarinewastewater
wastewater discharge
discharge onon
thethe water
water column
column
and a soft bottom habitat. NB. The near field can be considered the area of highest density of organic
and a soft bottom habitat. NB. The near field can be considered the area of highest density of organic
particulates
particulates and fish aggregation near the diffuser ports. The transition zone corresponds to the areaarea
and fish aggregation near the diffuser ports. The transition zone corresponds to the
of the discharge with the lowest concentration of particulates in the upper water column (labelled
of the discharge with the lowest concentration of particulates in the upper water column (labelled as
as ‘buoyant plume’). The boundary of the far field begins where ambient flow conditions determine
‘buoyant plume’). The boundary of the far field begins where ambient flow conditions determine
plume behavior, in this case where the plume is advected to the right (areas labelled as ‘increased
plume behavior, in this case where the plume is advected to the right (areas labelled as ‘increased
soluble nutrients’).
soluble nutrients’).

The
The water
water column
column is is aa more
moreunstable
unstableenvironment
environmentand and background
background water
water quality
quality
changes
changesdiurnally,
diurnally, seasonally,
seasonally, andandinter-annually
inter-annuallyininresponse
response to to contaminant
contaminant inputs
inputs andand
climatic events (rain events, storms, and droughts). Such changes reflect
climatic events (rain events, storms, and droughts). Such changes reflect both extrinsic both extrinsic
and
andintrinsic
intrinsic processes.
processes. For example,
example, external
externalforces
forcessuch
suchasaschanging
changing states
states of the
of the tidetide
maybring
may bringabout
aboutdiurnal
diurnalchanges
changesinina acoastal
coastalsystem.
system.Because
Because thethe water
water column
column is aismore
a
more variable environment, multiple surveys may be required to characterize
variable environment, multiple surveys may be required to characterize effects of dis- effects of
discharges.
charges. Another
Another important
important difference
difference betweenassessing
between assessingwater
water column
column and
and bed
bedeffects
effects is
the spatial scale over which impacts may occur. While it is typical to observe a gradient
is the spatial scale over which impacts may occur. While it is typical to observe a gradient of
of decreasing
decreasing effects
effects from
from thethe discharge
discharge point,
point, measurableeffects
measurable effectsononwater
waterquality
qualitymaymay ex-
extend much further than benthic effects.
tend much further than benthic effects.
Given the large number of variables associated with the water column, it is almost
impossible to design a program that considers every possible set of circumstances. To
overcome this, a ‘worst-case’ approach is often employed where effects are assessed under
minimal mixing conditions such as low-slack water and low winds [23]. Under higher
currents and winds, both dilution and dispersion are increased.
In high-energy sites such as open marine environments with large flows, tides, currents,
and wave action, effluent disperses quickly and the mixing zone may be relatively small.
In contrast, in low-energy systems such as lakes and slow streams, mixing may be slower
Water 2022, 14, 1201 5 of 26

and the mixing zone may be larger [23]. Adverse effects can be mitigated by increased
treatment at the plant, an enhanced discharge regime (e.g., by using a multi-port diffuser to
increase initial dilution) (see multi-port diffuser illustrated in Figure 1), and discharge to a
higher energy environment where the effluent can quickly disperse. However, even when
some or all of these measures are adopted, there is still a possibility of adverse effects.

2.2. Effects on Human Health

Human exposure to untreated wastewater has been linked to viral, bacterial, and
protozoan diseases (e.g., salmonellosis, shigellosis, cholera, giardiasis, amoebiasis, hepatitis
A, viral enteritis, and other diarrheal diseases) and a wide range of chronic and acute health
effects [24,25]. Consequently, the potential effects of discharge on human health are a major
consideration when determining the size and shape of a DMZ. Depending on the designated
uses of the discharge receiving environment, various health-based water quality guidelines
and limits may be considered for determining and regulating the DMZ. These include
guidelines associated with contact recreational use, production of fish, shellfish, seaweed,
and other aquatic life for human consumption, etc. Discharge consents commonly include
limits and monitoring requirements for fecal indicator bacteria (fecal coliforms, Escherichia
coli, and enterococci) and less frequently, enteric pathogens (norovirus, enterovirus, and
adenovirus). Additionally of potential concern is the accumulation of toxic substances (e.g.,
trace metals and synthetic organic chemicals), biologically active chemicals (e.g., hormones,
antibiotics, pharmaceuticals, and steroids), and plastics by edible organisms [26]. Risks of
human exposure to these hazards depend mainly on the type of treatment applied to the
wastewater, the distance between the discharge point and the designated site, and the water
use. Table 1 lists the relative health risks associated with short (shoreline) and long marine
outfalls. In this regard, a long marine outfall is considered a pipeline or tunnel structure
of varying length (usually from 50 m to several kilometers) that conveys wastewater for
discharge some distance from the shoreline. Risk levels increase for discharges from large
populations and decrease for discharges from small populations.

Table 1. Relative risk to human health associated with two types of wastewater discharges to the
coastal marine environment. Modified from WHO [27].

Type of Treatment Short Outfall Long Outfall

None HIGH MEDIUM
Preliminary HIGH LOW
Primary (including septic tanks) HIGH LOW
Secondary HIGH LOW
Secondary plus disinfection LOW VERY LOW
Tertiary MEDIUM VERY LOW
Tertiary plus disinfection LOW VERY LOW
Lagoons HIGH LOW

Water and contaminant fate and transport modelling studies are usually required
to demonstrate that the DMZ is sufficiently far away from the designated sites and the
substances released in the discharge are not likely to cause detrimental effects on water
users [28,29]. These modelling studies may consider the potential linkages between mea-
sured or estimated concentrations of wastewater contaminants at the sites, the physical,
chemical, and biological transformations of the contaminants from the source to the expo-
sure site(s), and the frequency and duration of human exposure to the contaminants [28].
As a rule, a DMZ should not overlap a designated recreational site (e.g., swimming beach,
fishing site, or boating area) and should not result in water quality conditions exceeding
relevant guidelines for contact recreation. Concerning aquaculture operations, the assess-
ment of health effects would need to consider the species farmed, the risk management
 ured or estimated concentrations of wastewater contaminants at the sites, the phy
chemical, and biological transformations of the contaminants from the source to the
sure site(s), and the frequency and duration of human exposure to the contaminants
As a rule, a DMZ should not overlap a designated recreational site (e.g., swimming b
Water 2022, 14, 1201 fishing site, or boating area) and should not result in water quality conditions
6 of 26 excee
relevant guidelines for contact recreation. Concerning aquaculture operations, the as
ment of health effects would need to consider the species farmed, the risk manage
practices at thepractices at hygiene
site (good the site practices
(good hygiene practices
to ensure to ensure abetween
a safe separation safe separation between p
potentially
contaminated waters and produce), and any post-harvest treatments to ensure that farmedto ensur
tially contaminated waters and produce), and any post-harvest treatments
produce meet farmed produce
appropriate meet
safety andappropriate safety and quality standards.
quality standards.

3. Defining a 3. Defining
Mixing Zonea Mixing Zone
3.1. Effluent Mixing
3.1. Effluent Mixing
The dynamicsThe of adynamics
wastewater of adischarge
wastewater in any receiving
discharge waterbody
in any receiving is controlled
waterbodyby is controll
water depth, ambient current,
water depth, effluent
ambient density,
current, and the
effluent design
density, and of the design
outfall of
and can
the be and c
outfall
described as adescribed
mixing process occurring
as a mixing in two
process main regions:
occurring in two mainthe near fieldthe
regions: andnear
the far
field and th
field [30]. Thefield
near[30].
fieldThe
is the region where mixing is dominated by the
near field is the region where mixing is dominated by the discharge exitdischarg
conditions such as the size
conditions suchand
asdesign
the sizeofand
the design
outfall,of the flow
the rate relative
outfall, the flowtoratethat in the to that i
relative
receiving water, and the water,
receiving densityandof the
theeffluent.
density In of the
the far field, mixing
effluent. In the faris dominated
field, mixingby the
is dominate
ambient hydrographic
the ambient conditions, lateral conditions,
hydrographic and verticallateral
spreading
and of the discharge
vertical spreadingplume,
of the disch
and dilution through
plume, entrainment
and dilutionofthrough
the plume with the receiving
entrainment waters.with
of the plume The intermediate
the receiving waters
field is the transition between the near and far field regions. The temporal-spatial
intermediate field is the transition between the near and far field regions. scalesThe temp
associated with spatial scales associated with the near field are typically in the order ofwhile
the near field are typically in the order of minutes to tens of meters minutes to te
those in the farmeters
field are in the
while order
those of hours
in the to kilometers
far field (Figure
are in the order 2).
of hours to kilometers (Figure 2).

N N

et
di usion
and
advection

uoyant spreading

mbient di usion

dvection by ambient currents

arge-scale ushing
upwelling downwelling

patial scale
0 0 03 0 0 m]
Temporal scale
0 03 0 0 0 sec]

Figure 2. Reference spatial and temporal scales associated with transport and mixing processes of
Figure 2. Reference spatial and temporal scales associated with transport and mixing proces
wastewater discharges in the marine environment. Adapted from Bleninger et al. [31].
wastewater discharges in the marine environment. Adapted from Bleninger et al. [31].
In rivers, the rate of lateral mixing is affected by the flow rate of the receiving waters
and morphology of the stream channel. The marine environment is highly energetic
because of the large variations in bathymetry and wind and tidal conditions. All these
factors, together with freshwater inputs and waves, influence mixing and dilution in the
water column, especially in shallower areas. Therefore, the mixing processes occurring
in marine waters are more complex than those in rivers and lakes. This challenges the
identification of the worst-case scenario of ecological and human health effects discussed
above. In marine waters, the density and stratification conditions influence both the near
field and far field because they determine the vertical rise of the plume in the water column.
Water 2022, 14, 1201 7 of 26

The shear occurring between the discharge flow and the slower moving receiving waters is
the main factor affecting mixing in the near field.
The physical characteristics of outfalls for discharge of wastewater to marine and
freshwater environments vary widely. To increase dilution, the discharge can be subdivided
into several higher speed discharges by means of a multi-port diffuser placed towards
the end of the outfall pipe (Figure 1). The size and number of ports and their orientation
also vary widely. For positively buoyant discharges, the energy of the buoyancy further
contributes to accelerate the mixing and dilution of the rising plume; for negatively buoyant
discharges, the initial dilution is mainly driven by the kinetic energy of the exit jet. If the
diluted dense plume contacts the seabed, bottom friction delays the motion while the
density difference tends to restrain mixing over the upper surface of the plume [32]. In this
case, gravity plays a forcing role in plume advection, with the eventual fate of the diluted
mixture controlled by seabed topography.
In the far field where ambient conditions control plume trajectory and dilution, mixing
is dominated by background diffusion and advection by the time-dependent velocity field.
In discharge receiving environments with high mixing of freshwater with seawater, the
resulting stable density stratification can prevent the effluent from surfacing, in which case
the far field mixing is also affected by sub-surface currents [32]. It is important to note that
the near field and far field regions are hydrodynamic considerations and not necessarily
related to the size of a DMZ. In fact, a DMZ may include the whole continuum of near field
to far field [30]. The study of hydrodynamic processes occurring in these regions requires
the use of models and/or field dilution and dispersion studies.

3.2. Information Requirements

When determining the size of a DMZ, discharge consent authorities commonly con-
sider the following factors:
• The quality and quantity of the effluent discharged;
• The health of the receiving environment before the effluent is mixed (for new dis-
charges, these background characteristics are best determined prior to consenting);
• The proximity of the discharge to ‘sensitive’ receptors, including protected habitats
and other natural resources and human uses of the environment;
• The hydrodynamics of the water body (including those within the mixing zone);
• The physical, chemical and biological interactions between the discharge and the
receiving environment;
• The capacity of the receiving environment to assimilate the contaminants in the discharge.
Table 2 summarizes the types of information commonly required to inform a DMZ
assessment. Some types of discharge (those resulting from certain industrial activities,
cooling waters, leachate, and agricultural activities or confined animal operations) may
require additional more specific information not listed in the table. A conceptual model of
discharge effects similar to that illustrated in Figure 1 may be developed at the outset to
help identify appropriate wastewater treatment options and assessment needs for varying
discharge scenarios. Many types of models have been developed to assist DMZ assessments
(e.g., CORMIX and Visual Plumes) [33–35]. It is important that the selected model is
appropriate to the situation in which it is being used. It is also important that the model
is properly calibrated and validated to ensure that outputs are reliable and accurate. In
determining discharge scenarios, seasonal factors such as increased human activity due to
tourism, climatic effects on background water quality, recreational water uses, migratory
species, etc. may need to be considered.
Water 2022, 14, 1201 8 of 26

Table 2. List of information normally used to determine a discharge mixing zone.

Type of Information Description Useful References

Mixing zone Description of why the mixing zone is necessary [36,37]
Volume, flow rate, and discharge frequency
Temperature/density conditions
Concentrations of contaminants
Contaminant concentrations in the effluent relative to those in
Characteristics of the effluent the receiving environment [23,38–40]
Evidence that discharge volume and quality have been
optimized to mitigate any effects on the receiving environment
Discussion of any potential contaminant bioaccumulation
and/or toxicological effects on marine organisms
Geographical location and design (single/multi-port diffuser,
Outfall/diffuser depth in relation to water surface and bed of water body) [41]
Anticipated performance (best-/worst-case scenarios)
Type of mixing zone model (water quality, particle tracking,
hydrodynamic) and/or field dilution studies
List of model input parameters
Physical mixing of the effluent [30,42–47]
Model calibration/validation/sensitivity testing
List of data/metadata records
Data suitability/limitations
Type of waterbody
Dilution characteristics
Water temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen conditions
Characteristics of the receiving (ranges, seasonality)
[23,48–50]
environment Background water quality
Designated water uses and sensitive/protected habitats
and resources
Relevant water quality criteria/limits/standards/goals
Nature of the receiving environment, including presence of
ecologically, culturally, or economically important species
Assessment of ecological effects of Species at risk
[12–14,16,51–54]
the discharge Seasonal changes in water quality or presence of
migratory species
Exposure of aquatic species to contaminants in the discharge
Microbiological/chemical hazards
Relevant health-based guidelines/targets
Assessment of human health
Recreational, fishery, aquaculture, or other uses (e.g., domestic, [24,52,54–56]
effects of the discharge
industrial, agricultural water supply)
Risk of illness from exposure to contaminated waters

4. International Regulations on Mixing Zones

4.1. Canada
Canada has a fragmented governance regime concerning water pollution and man-
agement of wastewater discharges to marine and freshwater environments [57]. Pow-
ers to control wastewater discharges are shared between federal and provincial govern-
ments. The large variation in regulatory and policy frameworks across provinces prompted
the federal government to develop a Canada-wide Strategy for Municipal Wastewater
Management [58]. The strategy requires that all wastewater treatment facilities achieve
minimum performance standards and develop and manage site-specific effluent discharge
objectives. These effluent discharge objectives are established through site-specific en-
vironmental risk assessments that include an initial characterization of the effluent and
consider the characteristics of the receiving environment and the mixing that occurs in an
allocated mixing zone [58]. Medium (2500–17,500 m3 /day) and large (>17,500 m3 /day)
wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are required to conduct whole effluent toxicity
Water 2022, 14, 1201 9 of 26

testing. If an acute toxicity test fails due to ammonia, then the need for ammonia reduction
needs to be determined based on the assimilative capacity of the receiving environment.
This determination includes an evaluation of chronic toxicity, as required by the Canadian
Environmental Quality Guidelines, at the edge of the specified DMZ [58].
Most wastewater discharge consents are issued by provincial environmental regulators
and follow the provisions of provincial or territorial environmental protection laws [59].
In British Columbia, the key requirements are laid out in the Environmental Management
Act [60]. Discharges authorized by specific regulations may have specific requirements
relating to DMZs (e.g., municipal wastewater regulation). In these cases, discharge appli-
cants must comply with best management practices to reduce waste and prevent or limit
harmful effects of discharge activities on the environment. Best achievable technologies for
waste treatment must also be applied prior to considering a DMZ.
Discharge consenting must consider the physical mixing of the effluent to determine
the area of the receiving environment influenced by the discharge. In British Columbia,
the Technical Guidance on the Development and Use of Initial Dilution Zones in Effluent
Discharge Authorizations [54] defines DMZ or initial dilution zone as a “three-dimensional
zone around a point of discharge where mixing of the effluent and the receiving environ-
ment water occurs” which “allows for somewhat elevated concentrations of contaminants
of potential concern (COPCs) to occur within relatively small areas of a receiving water
body, without significantly affecting the integrity of the water body as a whole” [54]. The
Technical Guidance recommends authorization of DMZs for point source discharges to
surface waters that meet the following conditions:
• Best management practices for preventing or limiting harmful impacts to the environ-
ment should be applied;
• Best available technologies have been considered in the proposed discharge activity.
A DMZ should not be used as an alternative to reasonable and practical treatment of
effluent or effluent stream;
• Effluent discharge and water quality within the DMZ should not be acutely toxic to
aquatic life;
• Contaminants of potential concern should not bioaccumulate to levels harmful to
receptors as a result of conditions within a DMZ;
• Contaminants of potential concern should not accumulate to acutely toxic levels in the
water or sediments of the DMZ;
• Conditions within a DMZ should not attract aquatic life or wildlife, causing increased
exposure to contaminants of potential concern;
• Negative aesthetic qualities or other nuisance conditions in the receiving waters (e.g.,
odor, color, scum, oil, floating debris) should not occur as a result of the discharge
and/or DMZ;
• Dominance of a nuisance species should not occur as a result of conditions within the
DMZ that are due to the discharge;
• Use of a DMZ should not impair the integrity of the water body as a whole.
The guidance contains some additional requirements for reviewing proposed DMZs:
• A DMZ should be as small as possible to minimize the extent of the receiving environ-
ment potentially exposed to chronic toxicity levels;
• A DMZ should not adversely affect sensitive aquatic habitats (e.g., spawning, hatching,
rearing areas for fish, overwintering habitats for fish or migratory waterfowl, areas
used for aquaculture, etc.);
• A DMZ should maintain adequate zones of passage for migrating fish that do not
deter the fish from passing through, do not affect their sense of orientation, and do not
pose health risks to migrating species;
• A DMZ should not result in an adverse effect at the edge of the zone on designated wa-
ter uses in the area (livestock watering and irrigation, drinking water and recreation, etc.);
• A DMZ should not be sited near drinking water intakes or food harvesting areas (e.g.,
shellfish beds or Indigenous Peoples’ traditional harvesting locations);
Water 2022, 14, 1201 10 of 26

• A DMZ should consider setbacks from sensitive areas;

• A DMZ should avoid highly frequented recreational water use areas (e.g., public beach);
• At the edge of the DMZ, water quality should not result in short-term or long-term
effects to aquatic life;
• DMZs for adjacent authorized effluent discharges should not overlap with each other;
• The effluent plume within the DMZ should not contact the shoreline of a water body
in any manner that would prevent effective mixing and/or result in accumulation of
contaminants of potential concern in the sediments;
• Diffusers used to discharge effluent into a DMZ should be designed to maximize mixing.

4.2. United States of America

The US Environmental Protection Agency allows state authorities and tribes to adopt
their own mixing zone regulations as part of the states’ Water Quality Standards Policy
40 CFR 131.13 that apply to marine and freshwater environments [61]. In addition, the
use of wastewater dilution is supported by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permitting program 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)(ii), which requires the discharge
consenting authority to consider, where appropriate, “the dilution of the effluent in the
receiving water” when determining whether a discharge causes, has the reasonable poten-
tial to cause, or contributes to an instream excursion above a criterion [62]. Depending on
the state or tribal water quality standards and implementation policies, a consideration of
dilution may be expressed in the form of a dilution allowance or a mixing zone [62].
DMZs are individually defined and implemented through the NPDES consenting
process and are used to establish appropriate water quality-based effluent limits for a
specific discharger’s NPDES consent. The USEPA recommends that state authorities and
authorized tribes adopt, as a minimum, a statement into their water quality standards
specifying whether the state or tribe intends to authorize DMZs [63]. If it does, such policy
must ensure that:
• Mixing zones do not impair the designated use of the waterbody as a whole;
• Pollutant concentrations within the DMZ are not lethal to organisms passing through
the zone (lethality is considered a function of the magnitude of a pollutant concentra-
tion and the duration an organism is exposed to that concentration);
• Pollutant concentrations within the mixing zone do not cause significant human health
risks considering likely pathways of exposure;
• Mixing zones do not endanger critical areas such as breeding or spawning grounds,
habitat for threatened or endangered species, areas with sensitive biota, shellfish beds,
fisheries, drinking water intakes and sources, or recreational areas.
Due to the potential additive effects of certain pollutants that can result in the des-
ignated use of the waterbody not being protected, state and tribal mixing zone policies
should specify that mixing zones do not overlap. The USEPA also recommends that con-
senting authorities evaluate the cumulative effects of multiple mixing zones within the
same waterbody [63]. The regulatory framework defines four types of mixing zones:
• Allocated Impact Zone: in effect, the same as a DMZ. The term has been more com-
monly used since the publication of guidance to determine environmentally acceptable
size of mixing zones around point source discharges into freshwater and marine envi-
ronments [36];
• Legal Mixing Zone: the mixing zone in a regulatory sense, i.e., the dimensions of
the mixing zone as the State authority defines them as opposed to the mixing that
naturally occurs in a stream [30];
• Toxic Dilution Zone: a sub-zone within the DMZ that attempts to limit the exposure
of aquatic flora and fauna to toxic substances [30]. Two regulatory criteria for toxic
substances are recommended by the USEPA: a criterion of maximum concentration for
protecting against acute or lethal effects and a criterion of continuous concentration
for protecting against chronic effects [64];
Water 2022, 14, 1201 11 of 26

• Zone of Initial Dilution: regularly shaped area around the discharge structure that
encompasses the regions of pollutant concentrations exceeding the relevant standard(s)
under design conditions [65].
State regulations that deal with streams and rivers generally limit mixing zone widths
to cross-sectional areas and allow lengths to be determined on a case-by-case basis. In
relation to DMZs in lakes, estuaries, and coastal waters, some states specify the surface
area that is likely to be affected by the discharge. Special mixing zone definitions have
been developed for the discharge of municipal wastewater into coastal waters, as regulated
under Section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act [30]. In 1995, the USEPA recommended a
staged approach for defining DMZs [36]:
• Determine the need for zone;
• Establish the boundaries of the waterbody;
• Analyze current and future discharge data;
• Analyze ecosystem data;
• Develop environmental mapping;
• Assign relative values;
• Determine level of protection;
• Select mixing zone procedure;
• Allocate DMZ;
• Specify quality within DMZ.

4.3. Brazil
In Brazil, Resolution CONAMA No. 430 of 13 May 2011 defines mixing zone in marine
and freshwaters as an “area in the discharge receiving water, estimated based on theoretical
models accepted by the competent environment agency, which extends from the discharge
point, and delineated by the surface area where the mixing balance between the physical
and chemical parameters, as well as the biological balance of the effluent and that of the
receiving waterbody are reached, being the latter specific for each parameter” [66]. In
consenting a wastewater discharge, the competent authority may require a study on the
assimilative capacity of the discharge receiving environment. The study must consider,
as a minimum, the difference between the water quality standards prescribed by the
classification of the receiving environment and the concentrations measured from the
discharge point and those beyond the mixing zone [66]. In the event of a pollution source
that produces different effluents or multiple individual discharges, the limits contained
in the Resolution shall apply to each effluent or to the set of effluents after mixing, at the
discretion of the competent environment agency [66].

4.4. European Union and United Kingdom

At the time of writing, the United Kingdom had left the European Union but no new
mixing zone regulations and policies had been implemented. Therefore, the information
provided in this section applies to both jurisdictions. Directive 2008/105/EC defines
environmental quality standards (EQSs) for priority substances or contaminants of concern
(CoC) listed in Annex X of Directive 2000/60/EC (Water Framework Directive; WFD) and
other pollutants previously regulated under Directive 76/464/EEC. EQSs are concentration
values of substances or pollutants that must not be exceeded in the receiving waterbody
and consider the physical, chemical, and biological effects in the waters associated with
wastewater discharges [67]. Article 4 of Directive 2008/105/EC introduces the concept
of mixing zones. European Union Member States are not required to designate DMZs.
However, if they wish to do so, mixing zones should not affect the compliance of the rest
of the body of surface water with the relevant EQSs. The extent of mixing zones should
be restricted to the proximity of the discharge point and should be proportionate, “having
regard to the concentrations of pollutants at the point of discharge and to the conditions on
emissions of pollutants contained in the prior regulations, such as authorizations and/or
consents, referred to in Article 11(3)(g) of Directive 2000/60/EC and any other relevant
 be restricted to the proximity of the discharge point and should be proportionate,
regard to the concentrations of pollutants at the point of discharge and to the co
on emissions of pollutants contained in the prior regulations, such as author
and/or consents, referred to in Article 11(3)(g) of Directive 2000/60/EC and any o
Water 2022, 14, 1201 evant Community law, in accordance with the application of best available 12 of 26 tec
and Article 10 of Directive 2000/60/EC, in particular after those prior regulation
viewed.” 8]. Where a member state has designated mixing zones, the WFD Riv
Community
Management law, in accordance
Plans mustwith the application
include of best of
a description available techniques
the methods and Article
used to define suc
10 of Directive 2000/60/EC, in particular after those prior regulations are reviewed” [68].
and the measures taken to reduce the extent of the mixing zones.
Where a member state has designated mixing zones, the WFD River Basin Management
Technical
Plans must include guidelines
a description have been produced
of the methods to assist
used to define member
such zones state
and the authorities
measures
lish DMZs
taken to reduceintherivers,
extent canals, lakes,
of the mixing and transitional waters and to determine the
zones.
acceptability of the zones based on to
Technical guidelines have been produced a assist
tiered member state authorities
approach to establish
[69] (Figure 3). While D
DMZs in rivers, canals, lakes, and transitional waters and to determine the size and
2008/105/EC sets out options, it does not define mixing zones. DMZs are define
acceptability of the zones based on a tiered approach [69] (Figure 3). While Directive
technical guidelines
2008/105/EC as “the
sets out options, partnot
it does of define
a body of surface
mixing waterare
zones. DMZs which is adjacent
defined in the to t
of discharge
technical andaswithin
guidelines which
“the part the of
of a body concentrations
surface water whichof one or more
is adjacent contaminants
to the point of of
may exceed
discharge the relevant
and within which theenvironmental
concentrations quality
of one orstandard, provided
more contaminants that complian
of concern
may
restexceed
of thethe relevantwater
surface environmental
body with quality
thestandard,
EQ is not provided that compliance
affected.” 9]. The of tiered
the app
rest of the surface water body with the EQS is not affected” [69]. The tiered approach is
described below.
described below.

TIER 0 •Review discharge characteristics

Contaminant •Is CoC present?
of concern •Is CoC > EQS?

TIER 1
Initial •Is discharge significant (PC > relevant discharge limits)?
screening

TIER 2 •Undertake simple mixing zone modelling

Discharge test •Is approximate mixing zone acceptable/safe?

TIER 3
Detailed •Use more advanced modelling tools, if required
assessment

TIER 4 •Undertake field studies to validate

Investigative modelling results and decide if
study further modelling is required

Figure 3. Tiered approach for determining the size and acceptability of discharge mixing zones
Figure 3. Tiered
recommended by the approach for determining
European Commission. Based onthe size and
information acceptability
reported of discharge
by the European
zones recommended
Commission by the European
[69]. ‘CoC’—contaminants of concern,Commission. Based
‘EQS’—environmental on information
quality standards, and report
‘PC’—process contribution or the contribution of the discharge to the EQS
the European Commission 9]. ‘CoC’—contaminants of concern, ‘EQ ’—environ after full mixing.

quality
Tier 0standards, and
is a high-level ‘PC’—process
assessment contribution
to identify the presence ofordischarges
the contribution of the disch
with the poten-
the EQS after full mixing.
tial to cause EQS exceedance for CoC [69]. Any discharges that do not contain contaminant
concentrations above the EQS do not require the determination of a mixing zone because
the EQS would provide a sufficient level of environmental protection. In Tier 1, discharges
are screened to establish the level of assessment required for those identified in Tier 0 and
remove from further consideration those that can be assessed using simple tests [69]. In
Tier 2, an assessment of the extent of EQS exceedance is undertaken on a case-by-case basis
to determine their acceptability [69]. Tier 3 consists of a more detailed analysis of individual
discharges or groups of discharges by means of computer-based modelling [69]. Tier 4 is
a more detailed investigation to validate the model outputs and/or refine the modelling
Water 2022, 14, 1201 13 of 26

scenarios to better characterize the discharge impacts in relation to EQS exceedance. This
may involve field studies to determine if EQS exceedance can be accepted [69].

4.5. Aotearoa New Zealand

In Aotearoa, New Zealand, the concept of ‘reasonable mixing’ is referred to in Sections
69(3), 70(1), and 107(1) of the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991 [70]. The RMA is
due to be repealed by three new Acts, but the details of this new legislation have not been
published at the time of writing. While the RMA is a national legislation, the control of
wastewater discharges to rivers and coastal waters is a function of regional councils [70].
Under Section 70 of the RMA (rules about discharges), any regional council wishing to
include in a regional plan a rule that allows the discharge of a contaminant or water into
water or into land in circumstances which might result in that contaminant entering water,
it must ensure that, following reasonable mixing, the contaminant must not cause:
• “The production of conspicuous oil or grease films, scums or foams, or floatable or
suspended materials;
• Any conspicuous change in color or visual clarity;
• Any objectionable odor;
• The rendering of freshwater unsuitable for consumption of farm animals;
• Any significant adverse effects on aquatic life.”
To prevent or minimize any actual or potential adverse effects on the environment from
any discharge, councils must include a rule in a regional plan that requires the adoption
of a best practicable option, taking into consideration the nature of the discharge and the
receiving environment as well as the relevant water quality standards [70].
The RMA does not define zones of reasonable mixing. The Wastewater Monitoring
Guidelines defines these as “areas of transition within which classifications do not apply.
They are effectively zones of non-compliance. From a practical viewpoint, standards can
only apply after reasonable mixing of any contaminant or water with the receiving water,
disregarding the effect of any natural perturbation” [19]. The monitoring guidelines also
note that a single wastewater discharge may have one zone of reasonable mixing for seabed
effects and a different zone for water column effects [19].
The NZ Coastal Policy Statement [71] also includes reference to ‘reasonable mixing’
and ‘mixing zones’. This policy relates to “all discharges to water and provides that
‘particular regard’ is to be given to the sensitivity of the receiving environment, the nature
of the contaminants and the capacity of the receiving environment, as well as to the
mixing zone by avoiding significant adverse effects on ecosystems after reasonable mixing,
using the smallest mixing zone necessary and minimizing the adverse effects on the life-
supporting capacity of water within the mixing zone”. The NZCPS defines ‘mixing zone’
as “The area within which ‘reasonable mixing’ of contaminants from discharges occurs in
receiving water and within which the relevant water quality standards do not apply” [71].
This definition is similar to that used in the monitoring guidelines.
Mixing zones are more commonly applied to manage discharges of soluble toxicants
that do not bioaccumulate [23]. They are not applicable to certain waters where values
or characteristics are not compatible with the existence of a wastewater discharge, which
does not meet ambient management goals. Examples include waters with significant and
regular use for primary contact recreation, aquaculture, and high conservation values [23].
In general, the size of a DMZ is not tailored to the volume and nature of the discharge,
but rather, the volume and nature of the discharge must fit the standards and criteria set
out in a regional plan (e.g., regional council’s coastal plan). If a coastal plan specifies a
discharge as a consented activity, it must specify the size of the DMZ or alternatively, define
reasonable mixing to provide certainty as to the standards for a consented activity. If those
standards cannot be met, consent to discharge may be required. There are various water
quality guidelines referenced in regional plans which apply after reasonable mixing. Whilst
there is no statutory requirement to apply reasonable mixing to these guidelines, if they
are translated into standards in a plan or into consent conditions or if they are used to
Water 2022, 14, 1201 14 of 26

assess an application, then reasonable mixing should be allowed for if referred to in the
guidelines [72].

5. Case Studies on the Application of Mixing Zones to Different Types of Discharges

5.1. Effects of Municipal UV-Disinfected Effluent on Intertidal and Subtidal Benthic Communities
This case study reports an assessment of the marine ecological effects of a discharge
of secondary-treated and ultraviolet (UV)-irradiated effluent from a municipal WWTP by
means of dye tracing and ecological surveys. The discharge consent determines a 50 m
radius mixing zone beyond which any conspicuous changes in color and clarity should
be avoided and there should be no evidence of scums, oil, and grease. The consent also
sets a 50 m radius mixing zone for adverse effects on aquatic life and a 100 m mixing
zone for seafood safety. The study evaluated the possibility of modifying the DMZ to
100 m for all parameters in the new consent. The intertidal substrate along this coast varies
from large smoothly weathered greywacke outcrops and boulders to fractured rock reef
platforms. Mobile shingle beaches with isolated rock outcrops occur in parts of the middle
and lower shore levels. The seabed consists of irregular rocky reefs extending offshore from
the headlands and mobile coarse sand and gravels accumulated near to the shore.
The aim of the dye tracing study was to determine wastewater dilution under rela-
tively calm conditions (worst-case dilution scenario) on both an ebb and flood tide. Two
approaches were used: a qualitative visual tracking of batches of dye (Rhodamine WT) and
a quantitative continuous release of the same type of dye which measured dye concentra-
tions in the water column via boat-mounted fluorometry.
A survey of the marine intertidal and subtidal communities was undertaken to de-
scribe the diversity and abundance of subtidal epifauna and flora near the outfall and
to assess the effects of the wastewater discharge on the local communities. Intertidal
communities were surveyed by collecting sediment core samples for infauna analyses of
the low intertidal zone. The shallow subtidal communities were investigated through
semi-quantitative dive surveys of the outfall area and control sites.
Results of the batch dye release showed that, under offshore winds, the plume tended
to pool around the end of the outfall pipe and move generally to the east in a shore parallel
direction with a lesser shoreward movement on the early flood tide. The initial movement
was slightly inshore, apparently from wave action and impediment of alongshore move-
ment by a cluster of ‘awash rocks’. Inshore of these rocks, the plume moved alongshore
with the tide and slightly inshore due to wave action. The plume crossed the edge of the
100 m mixing zone sixteen to eighteen minutes after release, indicating a current velocity
of 9.3–10.4 cm/s. Fifteen minutes after discharge, the dye plume made shoreline contact
approximately 50 m to the east of the outfall structure amongst the inshore rocks. During
the continuous dye release, ≈5000 data points were gathered in a 600 m radius from the
outfall to the east, west, and offshore. The calculated dilutions during both the ebb and
flood tides are represented in Figure 4. During the whole study, the minimum dilution was
100:1. Dilutions of 100:1–110:1 were noted at the edge of the mixing zone to the east and
at inshore locations further east and at about 200 m from mixing zone edge. Dilutions of
110:1–220:1 were noted in areas directly west of the outfall (from 30–130 m) and in areas
offshore and to the east in excess of 100 m away.
The coarse sandy sediment contained a variety of mobile detritus-feeding amphipods
and isopods; small snails; nematodes and oligochaetes typical of nutrient-rich environ-
ments; and the filter-feeding polychaete Saccocirrus sp. This polychaete is typical of the
local interstitial spaces of coarse sandy and high energy beaches.
 was 100:1. Dilutions of 100:1–110:1 were noted at the edge of the mixing zone to the east
and at inshore locations further east and at about 200 m from mixing zone edge. Dilutions
Water 2022, 14, 1201 15 of 26
of 110:1–220:1 were noted in areas directly west of the outfall (from 30–130 m) and in areas
offshore and to the east in excess of 100 m away.

Figure 4. Calculated wastewater dilutions during ebb and flood tides.

Figure 4. Calculated wastewater dilutions during ebb and flood tides.

The coarse sandyNon-metric multidimensional

sediment contained a variety scaling (nMDS)
of mobile and cluster analysis
detritus-feeding identified groups of
amphipods
and isopods; small intertidal
snails;samples
nematodesbasedandon similarities
oligochaetesamong their infaunal
typical assemblages
of nutrient-rich (three groups at a
environ-
ments; and the filter-feeding polychaete Saccocirrus sp. This polychaete is typical of thecommunity
55% level of similarity and five groups at 65%; Figure 5). The intertidal infauna
assemblage at the 50 m east site (down current from the outfall) displayed an outfall-related
local interstitial spaces of coarse sandy and high energy beaches.
effect, with enhanced abundance of enrichment-tolerant taxa such as oligochaetes and
Non-metric multidimensional scaling (nMDS) and cluster analysis identified groups
nematodes. There was a pattern of enrichment extending as far as the 200 m east site and
of intertidal samples
to a based on similarities
lesser degree the 50 mamong
west site,their
butinfaunal
the 200 m assemblages (three groups
west site appeared to be well beyond
at a 55% level of similarity
the influence of the outfall. The enrichment effect from the nutrient-richcom-
and five groups at 65%; Figure 5). The intertidal infauna wastewater did
munity assemblage notat the 50tomadversely
appear east site (down
affect thecurrent from
infaunal the outfall)rather,
assemblage; displayed an out-and altered
it enhanced
fall-related effect,the
with enhanced
abundance andabundance
richness from of the
enrichment-tolerant
more typically sparse taxalowsuch as oligo-
intertidal assemblage as
chaetes and nematodes.
observedThere
at thewas200 ma pattern
west site.of enrichment extending as far as the 200 m
east site and to a lesser The biota of
degree thesubtidal
50 m west reefssite,
in 2–5
butm the water
200 m depths
west andsite immediately
appeared to offshore
be from
the outfall had minimal signs of outfall-related enrichment.
well beyond the influence of the outfall. The enrichment effect from the nutrient-rich Such communities are rarely
wastewater did not exposed
appear to to
elevated levels
adversely of nutrients
affect due toassemblage;
the infaunal high levels ofrather,
mixingitand dispersion and the
enhanced
effluent being largely directed back into shore by wave action upon being discharged.
and altered the abundance and richness from the more typically sparse low intertidal as-
The area closest to the outfall (<2 m deep) along both sides of the pipeline and to the
semblage as observed at the 200 m west site.
SE (down current) of the outfall had a lush and diverse macroalgal community consistent
The biota of with
subtidal reefsthat
an area in 2–5 m water
is mildly depthsrelative
enriched and immediately
to nearby controloffshore from
sites. Inthe
this area, the
outfall had minimal signs of outfall-related enrichment. Such communities
regular supply of dissolved nutrients appeared to allow many of the diverse are rarely ex- range of
posed to elevatedalgaelevels of are
that nutrients
common duealong
to high
the levels
coastalofarea
mixing and dispersion
to proliferate. and the
Consistent with this was
effluent being largely directedabundance
an increased back intoof shore by wavefish
herbivorous action
and upon
grazing being discharged.
gastropods, although increased
The area closest to the
abalone outfall (<2
abundances m likely
were deep)toalong both
be due sides
to the of the
absence of pipeline and to near
fishing pressure the the outfall.
2
SE (down current) of The total area
the outfall hadshowing
a lush andapparent
diversesigns of enrichment
macroalgal community was 2300 m with a further
consistent
6000 m 2 of possible enrichment. The size, shape, and position of these boundaries were
with an area that is mildly enriched relative to nearby control sites. In this area, the regular
supply of dissolved consistent
nutrientswithappeared
those identified
to allow in the
manydyeofstudies. It wasrange
the diverse therefore concluded
of algae that that some
retention of treated effluent occurs locally, enhancing primary productivity. The result is a
are common along the coastal area to proliferate. Consistent with this was an increased
relatively diverse macroalgal community that enhances nutrient recycling. To this extent,
abundance of herbivorous fish and grazing gastropods, although increased abalone abun-
the effects of nutrient enrichment were mild and did not having a significant adverse effect
dances were likely onto be due
aquatic to thus
life, the absence of fishing
not precluding the pressure
establishment near of thetheoutfall.
DMZ at 100 m. Some of the
observed enrichment could be due to agricultural nutrients entering the coastal area from a
stream that discharges just to the northwest of the outfall.
 sistent with those identified in the dye studies. It was therefore concluded that some re-
tention of treated effluent occurs locally, enhancing primary productivity. The result is a
relatively diverse macroalgal community that enhances nutrient recycling. To this extent,
the effects of nutrient enrichment were mild and did not having a significant adverse ef-
fect on aquatic life, thus not precluding the establishment of the DMZ at 100 m. Some of
Water 2022, 14, 1201 the observed enrichment could be due to agricultural nutrients entering the coastal16 of 26
area
from a stream that discharges just to the northwest of the outfall.

Figure 5.
Figure Cluster analysis and non-metric
5. Cluster non-metric multi-dimensional
multi-dimensional scaling
scaling(nMDS)
(nMDS)ofofintertidal
intertidalinfauna
infauna
sampled
sampled from beach sites
from beach sites near
nearthethewastewater
wastewateroutfall.
outfall.Samples
Samples linked
linked at lower
at lower levels
levels of similarity
of similarity in
in the
the cluster
cluster analysis
analysis oror closertogether
closer togetherininthe
thenMDS
nMDSwere
werefaunally
faunallymore
moresimilar.
similar.Data
Datawere
were4th
4throot
root
transformed
transformed (2D
(2D stress
stress == 0.09)
0.09) and
and groups were formed
groups were formed based
basedon
on55%55%and
and65%65%levels
levelsofofsimilarity.
similarity.

5.2. Effects of Municipal Secondary-Treated Effluent on Recreational Water Quality

In this study, a mixing zone was determined for a municipal WWTP discharge of
secondary-treated (oxidation pond) effluent into an open coastal area, with consideration
of the extent to which the discharge complies with the relevant microbiological criteria
for recreational waters (see below). From the oxidation pond system, the effluent flows
under gravity through a buried pipe for approximately 350 m. The pipe terminates in an
18 m long multiport diffuser which is anchored to the seabed and aligned perpendicular to
the shoreline.
The vertical and horizontal dispersion and dilution of the treated effluent were deter-
mined through drogue tracking, dye tracing, and mixing zone modelling. Drogue releases
Water 2022, 14, 1201 17 of 26

were carried out on 27 occasions over 11 months under differing tidal states (ebb, flood,
and slack), sea conditions, wind direction, and season to understand possible wastewater
dispersion scenarios. On all occasions, the drogue was released inshore of the marker buoy
at the approximate mid-point along the diffuser. Drogue positions were recorded in 10 min
intervals for the entire length of the drogue track using a vessel-mounted GPS. The position
of each drogue was tracked for about 60 min. Positions were post-corrected to differential
GPS fixes (±1 m) following each survey. The wind speed, direction, sea state, and tidal
stage were also recorded on a logbook for the beginning and end of each drogue track.
Dye (Rhodamine WT) studies were conducted to determine both horizontal and
vertical dispersion of the effluent plume and to establish effluent mixing and dilution. The
approaches for dye release were similar to those mentioned in Section 3.1. The dye was
injected into the effluent stream at the discharge point of the oxidation pond at a constant
rate using a dosing pump. The injection rate was calculated such that the concentration
of dye within the effluent plume was approximately 1 g/m3 during the study. Given
the discharge rate on the day of sampling (8000 m3 /day), the dye injection rate was
≈5.5 mL/min. To verify that receiving water levels could be accurately assessed, grab
samples of the effluent downstream of the injection point were taken at 30 min intervals
during the study. The actual concentration of the dye in the effluent plume over time was
determined by analyzing the grab samples while dye was being injected into the effluent.
The dye concentration in the water column near the outfall was determined by taking
vertical fluorescence profiles from a boat using a flow-through fluorometer. The plume
was mapped by taking vertical profiles at discreet points along traverse transects from the
long axis of the plume, recording the fluorometric value, time, GPS position, and depth
of the reading. These data were used to develop a contour map of dilution within the
effluent plume.
To compare the results of the drogue and dye studies and predict the dispersion and
dilution of the effluent plume, a CORMIX2 model was developed using the effluent, diffuser,
and receiving water parameters summarized in Table 3. Because a close relationship
between actual and predicted dilution was observed, the model was also used to predict
effluent dilution at discharge scenarios up to the 15,000 m3 /day peak dry weather flow.

Table 3. Summary of input parameters for the CORMIX mixing zone model.

Ambient Data
Waterbody depth 11 m
Discharge depth 11 m
Ambient current (from drogue studies) 0.18 m/s
Effluent density 1000 kg/m3
Seafloor roughness 0.025 Manning’s n
Discharge data (alternating staged diffuser)
Total number of ports 10
Distance between ports (same side) 4m
Port diameter 0.25 m
Distance to start of diffuser 350 m
Distance to end of diffuser 368 m
Port height off bottom 0.5 m
Effluent flow rate 9000 m3 /day
Alignment angle 97◦
Receiving water density 1025 kg/m3
 Distance to end of diffuser 368 m
Port height off bottom 0.5 m
Water 2022, 14, 1201 Effluent flow rate 9000 m3/day 18 of 26
Alignment angle 97°
Receiving water density 1025 kg/m3

Grab
Grabsamples
samples of of seawater
seawater were collected on
were collected on four
four separate
separateoccasions
occasionsfrom fromsixsixstations
stations
located
located along the shoreline. Stations were located 200 m and 500 m north and south ofofthe
along the shoreline. Stations were located 200 m and 500 m north and south the
outfall, immediately inshore of the outfall, and at the designated recreational
outfall, immediately inshore of the outfall, and at the designated recreational water. Water water. Water
samples
sampleswere wereanalyzed
analyzed forfor enterococci
enterococci and and fecal coliforms using
fecal coliforms using MPN MPN methods.
methods.
Drogue
Drogue speeds over the course of the study averaged 0.17 m/s withwith
speeds over the course of the study averaged 0.17 m/s a maximum
a maximum rec-
recorded speed of 0.48 m/s and a minimum recorded speed
orded speed of 0.48 m/s and a minimum recorded speed of 0.03 m/s over the entire lengthof 0.03 m/s over the entire
length of the Thus,
of the track. track. itThus,
took itthe
took the drogues
drogues from 18from min18to min
60 min to 60
to min
travel to250
travel 250 mthe
m from from the
point
point of release at the diffuser. Drogues released on the ebb tide
of release at the diffuser. Drogues released on the ebb tide tended in the northeasterlytended in the northeasterly
direction
directionalong
alongthe theshoreline
shorelinewhile
whileflood
floodtidetidedrogues
droguesran ransouthwesterly
southwesterlyalong along the shoreline
the shore-
(Figure 6). The drogue releases showed that the effluent plume
line (Figure 6). The drogue releases showed that the effluent plume would move no fur-would move no further than
125 m inshore of the diffuser at the turn of the tide. At this point, it
ther than 125 m inshore of the diffuser at the turn of the tide. At this point, it would be would be approximately
175 m from the 175
approximately shoreline.
m fromAt the1100 m north
shoreline. of themsewage
At 1100 north ofoutfall next to
the sewage the recreational
outfall next to the
area surf break, the effluent dispersion path moved no closer
recreational area surf break, the effluent dispersion path moved no closer than 250 than 250 m to the shoreline
m to
for
theall but onefor
shoreline of the northerly
all but one of thedrogue tracks.drogue
northerly The most shoreward
tracks. The mostdrifting
shorewarddrogue track
drifting
passed
drogue track passed the recreational area at approximately 175 m from the shoreline. Atit
the recreational area at approximately 175 m from the shoreline. At this point,
would be slightly
this point, it would offshore of the
be slightly main surf
offshore of thebreak.
mainInterestingly, the closest incursions
surf break. Interestingly, the closestto
the recreational area occurred during relatively calm conditions.
incursions to the recreational area occurred during relatively calm conditions. There There was no evidence
was
to suggest that an increasing swell size resulted in a more shoreward
no evidence to suggest that an increasing swell size resulted in a more shoreward move- movement of the
drogue
ment ofpath.
the drogue path.

15
10
5
2
Drogue
Tracks

15

0 Metres 500
10
5 2 Nelson Haven
Figure6.6. Summary
Figure Summary of
of the
the drogue
drogue tracks.
tracks. The
The recreational
recreationalarea
areasurf
surfbreak
breakisisrepresented
representedby
bythe
theblack
black
symbol ≈8 0 m NE of the outfall.
symbol ≈850 m NE of the outfall.

Visualtracking
Visual tracking of
of the
the dye
dye slug
slug indicated
indicated that
that the
the plume
plume tended
tendedto
tomove
movealongshore
alongshore
and showed only limited lateral dispersion. The drogue that was deployed
and showed only limited lateral dispersion. The drogue that was deployed at the at the head of
head
the plume stayed within the slug of dye for the entire track. Two separate continuous-
of the plume stayed within the slug of dye for the entire track. Two separate continuous-
releasedye
release dyestudies
studies conducted
conducted on on aa neap
neap ebb
ebb tide
tide (tide
(tide range
range 1.9
1.9m)m)and
andon
onaasmall
smallspring
spring
flood tide (tide range 3.7 m) showed that the plume travelled parallel to the shore on both
occasions. The dilution estimates derived from the dye studies presented in Figure 7 show
that dilutions ≥500:1 occurred within 250 m down-current of the outfall on both tides.
 Water 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of
Water 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 27

flood tide (tide range 3.7 m) showed that the plume travelled parallel to the shore on bo
Water 2022, 14, 1201 flood tide (tide range 3.7 m)The
occasions. showed that estimates
dilution the plumederived
travelledfrom
parallel
the to thestudies
dye shore on both 19
presented inofFigure
26 7 sho
occasions. The dilution estimates derived from the dye studies presented in Figure 7 show
that dilutions ≥ 00: occurred within 250 m down-current of the outfall on both tides.
that dilutions ≥ 00: occurred within 250 m down-current of the outfall on both tides.

Figure 7.7.Summary of of
dye
Figure SummaryFigure 7.dilutions
dye Summary determined
dilutions from from
ofdetermined the continuous
dye dilutions releases.releases.
the continuous
determined from the The recreational area
Thereleases.
continuous recreational area
The recreational ar
surf break is represented by the black symbol ≈8 0 m NE of the outfall.
surf break is represented
surf breakby is the by the≈black
black symbol
represented 850 msymbol
NE of ≈8
the0outfall.
m NE of the outfall.

Concentrations
Concentrations of of
enterococci
enterococci ranged fromfrom<1 to 11<1CFU/100 mL and met the
andrecrea-
Concentrations ofranged
enterococci to 11
ranged CFU/100
from <1 to 11mLCFU/100 met
mLthe
andrecre-
met the recre
tional water quality
ational water quality guideline
guideline(median
(median≤3 00
≤35/100mL and no
mL ≤3 single
and no sample ≥ 0 00
≥mL),
tional water quality guideline (median 00 single
mL and sample
no single 104/100
samplemL),
≥ 0 00 mL
including samples taken at 25 m from the outfall diffuser. Concentrations of fecal coli-
including samples taken at
including 25 m from
samples taken theat outfall
25 m diffuser.
from the Concentrations
outfall diffuser. of fecal coliforms
Concentrations of fecal co
forms ranged from <2 to 170 MPN/100 mL. The measured dilution levels showed that
ranged from <2 to 170
forms MPN/100
ranged from mL.
<2 to The
170 measured
MPN/100 dilution
mL. The levels showed
measured thatlevels
dilution entero-
showed th
enterococcal dilutions were slightly lower than either the CORMIX estimate and the dye
coccal dilutions were slightly
enterococcal lower
dilutions than
were either
slightlythe CORMIX
lower than estimate
either
tracing results indicated (Figure 8). Based on these results, a DMZ was recommended ex- the and
CORMIXthe dye tracing
estimate and the dy
results indicated (Figure
tracing 8).
results Based
indicatedon these
(Figure results,
8). a
Based DMZ
on was
these recommended
results,
tending 250 m to the north and south of the diffuser, parallel to the shoreline, and 100 m a DMZ extending
was recommended e
250 m to the north and
tending
shoreward and seaward. south
250 m of
to the diffuser,
north and parallel
south to
of the
the shoreline,
diffuser, and
parallel 100
to m
theshoreward
shoreline, and 100
and seaward. shoreward and seaward.
1,200
1,100 1,200
1,000 1,100
900 1,000
Dilution Factor

800
900
700
Dilution Factor

800
600
700
500
400
600 Faecal Coliforms (MPN)
300 500 Enterococci (CFU)

200 400 Dye Study Dilution Faecal Coliforms (MPN)

100 300 CORMIX Estimated Dilution Enterococci (CFU)

0 200 Dye Study Dilution

100 CORMIX Estimated Dilution

0 1000 200 300 400 500 600 700
Distance From Outfall (m)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Figure 8. Wastewater dilutions estimated from dye studies
Distance Fromand CORMIX
Outfall (m) modelling and concentra-
tions of fecal coliforms and enterococci as a function of distance from the wastewater outfall.
Figuredilutions
Figure 8. Wastewater 8. Wastewater dilutions
estimated fromestimated from
dye studies dyeCORMIX
and studies and CORMIX
modelling modelling
and and concentr
concentra-
tions of fecal coliforms and enterococci as a function of distance from the
tions of fecal coliforms and enterococci as a function of distance from the wastewater outfall.wastewater outfall.

5.3. Effects of an Industrial Discharge on Physical and Chemical Water Quality

As part of an application to renew a seabed outfall consent for a meat processing plant,
the scale and intensity of coastal water quality effects of the discharge were assessed through
analyses of water quality monitoring data and satellite and aerial imagery of the coastal
waters adjacent to the outfall. The studies comprised a review of the available water quality
data to assess the scale and intensity of contamination across the sampled area, the range
and concentration of detectable contaminants at the edge of the consented 1500 m mixing
zone, and delineation of the visible plume from the outfall and related that information
to the DMZ. The water quality data included pH, salinity, color or concentrations of fecal
Water 2022, 14, 1201 20 of 26

indicator bacteria, total suspended solids, total phosphorus, total nitrogen, chlorophyll-a,
and dissolved oxygen.
Statistical analysis of the physicochemical monitoring data did not indicate any con-
sistent detectable effect of the discharge on surface water quality. Minor effects on water
temperature were observed within the DMZ. Temperature variation between the edge of
the mixing zone was generally within 1 ◦ C of ambient at the boundaries of the DMZ, and
on no sampling occasion was it different by more than 2 ◦ C.
Patchy or occasional effects of the outfall were evident for three nutrient classes: dis-
solved reactive phosphorus (Figure 9), ammoniacal-nitrogen, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen.
Nutrient peaks did not translate into detectable effects on measured biological activity (as
chlorophyll-a). However, changes in levels of biological activity would not be expected to
manifest at or near the outfall site because of the time lag between exposure to increased
concentrations of nutrients and phytoplankton growth and reproduction. Bacterial contam-
ination was high and extended beyond the 1500 m limit of the DMZ. Concentrations of fecal
coliforms and enterococci were regularly much higher down-current of the outfall. They
Water 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 27
were also higher at the down-current boundary of the mixing zone than at the up-current
boundary, suggesting that the effect of the outfall on these variables extended beyond
the DMZ.

Figure 9. Seawater-dissolved
Figure 9. Seawater-dissolved reactive phosphorus
reactive phosphorus (DRP) concentrations
(DRP) concentrations within thewithin
mixingthe mixing
zone of zone o
the meat processing plant discharge under north-flowing (left) and south-flowing (right) curren
the meat processing plant discharge under north-flowing (left) and south-flowing (right) current
flows. Box and whisker plots (top) indicate median values and upper and lower quartiles (grey box)
flows. Box and whisker plots (top) indicate median values and upper and lower quartiles (grey box).
Whiskers were set with a factor value of 1.5.
Whiskers were set with a factor value of 1.5.
NB. Current flows were northerly on both occasions when offshore samples were
collected, but offshore data are presented on both line graphs for the purposes of compar-
ison between offshore and near-shore data. Darker lines connecting symbols indicate tha
the same values were recorded on multiple sampling occasions.
Water 2022, 14, 1201 21 of 26

NB. Current flows were northerly on both occasions when offshore samples were col-
lected, but offshore data are presented on both line graphs for the purposes of comparison
between offshore and near-shore data. Darker lines connecting symbols indicate that the
same values were recorded on multiple sampling occasions.
Visual effects of the plume were frequently apparent in satellite and aerial images and
extended beyond the mixing zone on a number of occasions (Figure 10). While visual effects
were not detected through the processing plant’s own monitoring of Hazen color, a plume
was apparent on satellite and aerial images on at least 40% of occasions for which imagery
was available. The visible plume was highly variable and extended beyond the edge of the
Water 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 22 of 27
mixing zone on three of the 33 analyzable images. The images suggested that near-shore
monitoring may not effectively represent optical water quality within the discharge plume.

Figure 10.
Figure 10. Landsat
Landsat 88 satellite
satellite image
image (captured USA time:
(captured USA time: 19
19 February
February 2015) showing diffuse
2015) showing diffuse plume
plume
extending to the south, slightly beyond the mixing zone boundary.
extending to the south, slightly beyond the mixing zone boundary.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

Mixing zones
zonesarearean
animportant
importantelement
elementofof
risk management
risk management frameworks
frameworks to reduce
to reducethe
effects of wastewater discharges on the environment and human health and are
the effects of wastewater discharges on the environment and human health and are essen- essential to
inform determination of discharge permit conditions. Our understanding
tial to inform determination of discharge permit conditions. Our understanding of theof the processes
driving
processes contaminant fate and transport
driving contaminant has improved
fate and transport over timeover
has improved andtime
withand
it, the
withneed to
it, the
constantly refine approaches to the determination and assessment of DMZs.
need to constantly refine approaches to the determination and assessment of DMZs. In In the past,
DMZs were
the past, DMZscommonly set in an arbitrary
were commonly set in anway or based
arbitrary wayonorbest professional
based judgement,
on best professional
but current approaches are mostly based on acceptable discharge effects.
judgement, but current approaches are mostly based on acceptable discharge effects. This ‘effects-
This
based’ approach is now expressed in many regulations worldwide. Essential
‘effects-based’ approach is now expressed in many regulations worldwide. Essential top- topics for
consideration in DMZ assessments are:
ics for consideration in DMZ assessments are:
•• The
The purpose(s)
purpose(s) for
for which
which the
the effluent
effluent is
is managed;
managed;
•• The
The characteristics of the discharge, including types,
characteristics of the discharge, including types, concentrations,
concentrations, and
and volumes
volumes of
of
contaminants;
contaminants;
•• The
The location
location of
of the
the outfall
outfall and
and timeline
timeline for
for improvements;
improvements;
•• The characteristics of the receiving environment, including the available dilution
The characteristics of the receiving environment, including the available dilution and
and dispersal and the proximity of the discharge to areas of ecological, recreational,
dispersal and the proximity of the discharge to areas of ecological, recreational, cul-
cultural or economic value;
tural or economic value;
• The proposed method of wastewater treatment and timeline for improvements;
• The need to keep the mixing zone as small as possible and to confine any ‘significant’
effects within the mixing zone boundaries.
In many jurisdictions such as Brazil and Aotearoa, New Zealand, mixing zone regu-
Water 2022, 14, 1201 22 of 26

• The proposed method of wastewater treatment and timeline for improvements;

• The need to keep the mixing zone as small as possible and to confine any ‘significant’
effects within the mixing zone boundaries.
In many jurisdictions such as Brazil and Aotearoa, New Zealand, mixing zone regula-
tions are vague and lack guidance on technical application. This creates many uncertainties
for discharge managers, consent authorities, and members of the public. Mixing zone defi-
nitions vary widely, as evidenced by the international regulatory requirements summarized
in Section 4. Consequently, their interpretation by engineers, oceanographers, biologists,
and discharge consenting authorities varies considerably. The data requirements for DMZ
assessments can be extensive and not easily met for some types of discharges (e.g., those to
sensitive waters).
This review indicated that regulations are not always explicit about the need to apply
DMZs only to circumstances where it has been demonstrated that all reasonable and
practicable efforts had been made to avoid, reduce, or re-cycle the effluent. Furthermore,
some regulations do not include requirements for a discharge improvement plan and
criteria to reduce the size of the DMZ. We consider that mixing zones should not be applied
to discharges to receiving waters that already consistently fail compliance with the water
quality standards (e.g., impaired waters in the USA; waters with bad ecological status in
the EU) or discharges that affect sensitive, endangered, or threatened species and habitats.
Some types of contaminants (e.g., persistent organic pollutants) bio-accumulate or
persist at toxic concentrations beyond DMZs. Other contaminants such as enteric viruses
are shed in extremely high numbers by infected individuals and persist, potentially as
infectious particles, several miles downstream from discharge points [73]. This is extremely
problematic because it questions the level of exceedance allowed for in a DMZ, particu-
larly where toxicity testing, persistence, and bioaccumulation studies are not required by
the regulations.
A DMZ assessment is a considerable undertaking, requiring collection and analysis
of oceanographic and water quality data, tracer and/or modelling studies that account
for varying environmental conditions, risk predictions, and engineering plans. There are
many types of models available to support DMZ assessments from simple mass balance
and dilution calculation spreadsheets to complex hydrodynamic and water quality models.
No single model is appropriate for all types of discharges, and a combination of models to
simulate far field and near field conditions is often appropriate for ocean outfall discharges.
We recommend that discharge modelling considers, as a minimum, the best- and
worst-case scenarios of effluent dilution. If ‘worst-case’ modelling outputs indicate con-
sistent non-compliance with water quality standards and limits, obvious effects on the
ecology of the water column and/or seabed, or a potential health effect on water users,
further work involving modelling of different effluent characteristics (contaminant loading,
seasonality factors, and density factors) and collection of field data for model calibration
and verification should be undertaken. Field studies should also be undertaken to inform
DMZ assessments if the existing historical monitoring data on the receiving environment
are limited.
Case studies 5.1 and 5.2 illustrate the benefits of dye tracing and drogue tracking
studies to determine the time of travel and transport patterns of the effluent plume without
the need to undertake complex and resource intensive hydrodynamic modelling. The
main advantage of dye tracing studies is that they provide actual evidence of transport,
dilution, and dispersion and a more accurate determination of the overall area that may
be affected by the wastewater discharge. Hydrodynamic models can reflect the effects of
several discharges under a range of environmental scenarios but require large amounts of
data. Case study 5.3 illustrates the value of combining in situ water quality monitoring with
analysis of remote sensing information to determine the ‘signature’ of coastal discharges.
Water quality information is sparse and variable in content and accuracy for most coastal
areas. In situ monitoring is logistically difficult to collect and may be cost-prohibitive for
many areas. From an operational perspective, there is a strong case for investing in remote
Water 2022, 14, 1201 23 of 26

sensing capabilities to support DMZ assessments, particularly for large volume discharges.
Remote sensing can provide spatially and temporally consistent information on a set of
water quality variables. Through data assimilation, the information can be used to inform
discharge plume modelling.
Based on the information reviewed, we suggest that further research is needed to:
• Determine the factors that determine incomplete mixing;
• Characterize the bio-transformations of persistent organic pollutants and bio-accumulative
chemicals in environments receiving discharges;
• Develop a framework for cumulative effect assessments to contextualize discharge
effects with those associated with other contaminant inputs;
• Determine the costs and benefits of DMZ versus alternative advanced treatment
options for a range of discharges.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.J.A.C. and D.J.M.; formal analysis, investigation,

writing—original draft preparation, and writing—review and editing, C.J.A.C., D.J.M. and P.B. All
authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. WWAP. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2017. Wastewater: The Untapped Resource. United Nations
World Water Assessment Programme Paris, UNESCO. 2017. Available online: https://www.unwater.org/publications/world-
water-development-report-2017/ (accessed on 16 March 2021).
2. UN-Habitat, WHO. Progress on Wastewater Treatment—Global Status and Acceleration Needs for SDG Indicator 6.3.1. United
Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) and World Health Organization (WHO): Geneva. Available online:
https://www.unwater.org/publications/progress-on-wastewater-treatment-631/ (accessed on 18 January 2022).
3. Boretti, A.; Rosa, L. Reassessing the projections of the World Water Development Report. NPJ Clean Water 2019, 2, 15. [CrossRef]
4. Corcoran, E.; Nellemann, C.; Baker, E.; Bos, R.; Osborn, D.; Savelli, H. Sick Water? The Central Role of Wastewater Management
in Sustainable Development. A Rapid Response Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme, UN-HABITAT, GRID-
Arendal. 2010. Available online: https://gridarendal-website-live.s3.amazonaws.com/production/documents/:s_document/
208/original/SickWater_screen.pdf?1486721310 (accessed on 20 May 2021).
5. UN-Water. Summary Progress Update 2021—SDG6—Water and Sanitation for All. Version: July 2021. Geneva, Switzerland.
Available online: https://www.unwater.org/publications/summary-progress-update-2021-sdg-6-water-and-sanitation-for-all/
(accessed on 5 January 2022).
6. UNEP; WHO; HABITAT; WSSCC. Guidelines on Municipal Wastewater Management. UNEP/GPA Coordination Office: The
Hague, The Netherlands. 2004. Available online: https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/8848/Guidelines_
on_municipal_wastewater_english.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y (accessed on 10 November 2021).
7. UNEP. Good Practices for Regulating Wastewater Treatment: Legislation, Policies and Standards. United Nations Environment
Programme. 2015. Available online: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/good-practices-regulating-wastewater-treatment-
legislations-policies-and-standards (accessed on 18 January 2022).
8. National Research Council. Managing Wastewater in Coastal Urban Areas; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC,
USA, 1993.
9. Valente, R.M.; Rhoads, D.C.; Germano, J.D.; Cabelli, V.J. Mapping of benthic enrichment patterns in Narragansett Bay, Rhode
Island. Estuaries 1992, 15, 1–17. [CrossRef]
10. Mallin, M.A.; Cahoon, L.B.; Toothman, B.R.; Parsons, D.C.; McIver, M.R.; Ortwine, M.L.; Harrington, R.N. Impacts of a raw
sewage spill on water and sediment quality in an urbanized estuary. Mar. Poll. Bull. 2007, 54, 81–88. [CrossRef]
11. Méndez-Díaz, M.M.; Jirka, G.H. Buoyant plumes from multiport diffuser discharge in deep coflowing water. J. Hydr. Eng. 1996,
122, 428–435. [CrossRef]
12. Puente, A.; Diaz, R.J. Response of benthos to ocean outfall discharges: Does a general pattern exist? Mar. Poll. Bull. 2015, 101,
174–181. [CrossRef]
13. Diaz, R.J.; Rhoads, D.C.; Blake, J.A.; Kropp, R.K.; Keay, K.E. Long-term trends of benthic habitats related to reduction in
wastewater discharge to Boston Harbor. Estuaries Coast. 2008, 31, 1184–1197. [CrossRef]
Water 2022, 14, 1201 24 of 26

14. Diener, D.R.; Fuller, S.C.; Lissner, A.; Haydock, C.I.; Maurer, D.; Robertson, G.; Gerlinger. Spatial and temporal patterns of the
infaunal community near a major ocean outfall in Southern California. Mar. Poll. Bull. 1995, 30, 861–878. [CrossRef]
15. Gücker, B.; Brauns, M.; Pusch, M.T. Effects of wastewater treatment plant discharge on ecosystem structure and function of
lowland streams. J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 2006, 25, 313–329. [CrossRef]
16. Ashton, P.H.; Richardson, B.J. Biological monitoring of the marine ocean outfall at Black Rock, Victoria, Australia. Mar. Poll. Bull.
1995, 31, 334–340. [CrossRef]
17. Burd, B.; Bertold, S.; Macdonald, T. Responses of infaunal composition, biomass and production to discharges from a marine
outfall over the past decade. Mar. Poll. Bull. 2012, 64, 1837–1852. [CrossRef]
18. ANZECC & ARMCANZ. Australian Guidelines for Sewerage Systems. Effluent Management. Report of the Agriculture and
Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand and Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation
Council. 1997. Available online: https://www.waterquality.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/effluent-management.pdf
(accessed on 10 January 2022).
19. NZWERF. New Zealand Municipal Wastewater Monitoring Guidelines. Report of the New Zealand Water Environment Research
Foundation SMF No. 4173. 2002. Available online: https://www.waternz.org.nz/Article?Action=View&Article_id=33 (accessed
on 20 April 2020).
20. Pearson, T.H.; Rosenberg, R. Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environment.
Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev. 1978, 16, 229–311.
21. Schiff, K. Sediment chemistry on the mainland shelf pf the Southern California Bight. Mar. Poll. Bull. 2000, 40, 268–276. [CrossRef]
22. Dubé, M.; Johnson, B.; Dunn, G.; Culp, J.; Cash, K.; Munkittrick, K.; Wong, I.; Hedley, K.; Booty, W.; Lam, D.; et al. Development
of a new approach to cumulative effects assessment: A northern river ecosystem example. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2006, 113,
87–115. [CrossRef]
23. ANZECC & ARMCANZ. Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, Volume 2, Aquatic
Ecosystems—Rationale and Background Information. 2000. Available online: https://www.waterquality.gov.au/sites/default/
files/documents/anzecc-armcanz-2000-guidelines-vol2.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2021).
24. Fleisher, J.M.; Kay, D.; Wyer, M.D.; Godfree, A.F. Estimates of the severity of illnesses associated with bathing in marine
recreational waters contaminated with domestic sewage. Int. J. Epidemiol. 1998, 27, 722–726. [CrossRef]
25. Shuval, H. Estimating the global burden of thalassogenic diseases: Human infectious diseases caused by wastewater pollution of
the marine environment. J. Water Health 2003, 1, 53–64. [CrossRef]
26. Landrigan, P.J.; Stegeman, J.J.; Fleming, L.E.; Allemand, D.; Anderson, D.M.; Backer, L.C.; Brucker-Davis, F.; Chevalier, N.; Corra,
L.; Czerucka, D.; et al. Human health and ocean pollution. Ann. Glob. Health 2020, 86, 151. [CrossRef]
27. WHO. Guidelines for Safe Recreational Water Environments. Volume 1, Coastal and Fresh Waters. 2003. Available online:
https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/42591 (accessed on 15 September 2021).
28. Loucks, D.P.; van Beek, E. Water quality modeling and prediction. In Water Resource Systems Planning and Management. An
Introduction to Methods, Models, and Applications; Loucks, D.P., van Beek, E., Eds.; Deltares: Silver Spring, MD, USA; UNESCO-IHE:
Paris, France, 2017.
29. Johnsplass, J.; Winger, A.C.; Bjørgesaeter, A.; Kleven, M.; Jensen, J.D. Combined integral and particle tracking model for describing
the dispersion, dilution, terminal layer formation and influence area from a point source discharge into a water body. Environ.
Fluid Mech. 2021, 21, 1009–1034. [CrossRef]
30. Jirka, G.H. Technical Guidance Manual for Performing Wasteload Allocations. Book III: Estuaries, Part 3: Use of Mixing Zone
Models in Estuarine Waste Load Allocations. 1992. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2019-12/
documents/technical-guidance-wasteload-allocations-book3part3.pdf (accessed on 5 October 2021).
31. Bleninger, T.; Jirka, G.H.; Roberts, P.J.W. Mixing Zone Regulations for Marine Outfall Systems. In Proceedings of the International
Symposium on Outfall Systems, Mar del Plata, Argentina, 15–18 May 2011.
32. Jirka, G.H.; Doneker, R.L.; Hinton, S.W. User’s Manual for Cormix: A Hydrodynamic Mixing Zone Model and Decision Support
System for Pollutant Discharges into Surface Waters. 1996. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-10/
documents/cormix-users_0.pdf (accessed on 21 October 2021).
33. USEPA, Dilution Models for Effluent Discharges. Report EPA/600/R-94/086 of the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development. 1994. Available online: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/3000354K.PDF?
Dockey=3000354K.PDF (accessed on 15 January 2022).
34. Frick, W.E. Visual Plumes mixing zone modeling software. Environ. Model. Softw. 2004, 19, 645–654. [CrossRef]
35. Morelissen, R.; van der Kaaij, T.; Bleninger, T. Dynamic coupling of near field and far field models for simulating effluent
discharges. Water Sci. Technol. 2013, 67, 2210–2220. [CrossRef]
36. USEPA. Allocated Impact Zones for Areas of Non-Compliance. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water EPA 823-R-95-003. 1995. Available online: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/20003Y2F.PDF?Dockey=20003Y2F.PDF
(accessed on 22 October 2021).
37. Cohen, G.E. Mixing zones: Diluting pollution under the Clean Water Act. Tulane Environ. Law J. 2000, 14, 1–94.
38. Nielsen, T.K.; Rasmussen, J. On the definition of a mixing zone. Water Sci. Technol. 1983, 15, 161–164. [CrossRef]
39. Lung, W.-S. Mixing-zone modeling for toxic waste-load allocations. J. Environ. Eng. 1995, 121, 839–842. [CrossRef]
Water 2022, 14, 1201 25 of 26

40. Kay, D.; Crowther, J.; Stapleton, C.M.; Wyer, M.D.; Fewtrell, L.; Edwards, A.; Francis, C.A.; McDonald, A.T.; Watkins, J.; Wilkinson,
J. Faecal indicator organism concentrations in sewage and treated effluents. Water Res. 2008, 42, 442–454. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Jirka, G.H.; Akar, P.J. Hydrodynamic classification of submerged multiport-diffuser discharges. J. Hydraul. Eng. 1991, 117,
1113–1128. [CrossRef]
42. Jirka, G.H.; Doneker, R.L.; Barnwell, T.O. CORMIX: An expert system for mixing zone analysis. Water Sci. Technol. 1991, 24,
267–274. [CrossRef]
43. Huang, H.; Fergen, R.E.; Proni, J.R.; Tsai, J.J. Probabilistic analysis of ocean outfall mixing zones. J. Environ. Eng. 1996, 122,
359–367. [CrossRef]
44. Doneker, R.L.; Jirka, G.H. Boundary schematization in regulatory mixing zone analysis. J. Water Res. Plan. Manag. 2002, 128,
46–56. [CrossRef]
45. Hunt, C.D.; Mansfield, A.D.; Mickelson, M.J.; Albro, C.S.; Rockwell Geyer, W.; Roberts, P.J.W. Plume tracking and dilution of
effluent from the Boston sewage outfall. Mar. Environ. Res. 2010, 70, 150–161. [CrossRef]
46. Doneker, R.L.; Ramachandran, A.S.; Opila, F. Riverine multiport diffuser dye dilution study and mixing zone modeling. In
Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, West Palm Beach, FL, USA, 22–26 May 2016; pp. 155–165.
47. Tate, P.M.; Holden, C.J.; Tate, D.J. Influence of plume advection and particle settling on wastewater dispersion and distribution.
Mar. Poll. Bull. 2019, 145, 678–690. [CrossRef]
48. Cleasby, T.E.; Dodge, K.A. Effluent Mixing Characteristics Below Four Wastewater-Treatment Facilities in Southwestern Montana,
1997. USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4026. 1999. Available online: https://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/1999/4026/
report.pdf (accessed on 13 July 2021).
49. Benítez, A.J.R.; Gómez, A.G.; Díaz, C.A. Definition of mixing zones in rivers. Environ. Fluid Mech. 2016, 16, 209–244. [CrossRef]
50. Nezlin, N.P.; Booth, J.A.T.; Beegan, C.; Cash, C.L.; Gully, J.R.; Latker, A.; Mengel, M.J.; Robertson, G.L.; Steele, A.; Weisberg, S.B.
Assessment of wastewater impact on dissolved oxygen around southern California’s submerged ocean outfalls. Reg. Stud. Mar.
Sci. 2016, 7, 177–184. [CrossRef]
51. Borja, Á.; Muxika, I.; Franco, J. Long-term recovery of soft-bottom benthos following urban and industrial sewage treatment in
the Nervión estuary (southern Bay of Biscay). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 2006, 313, 43–55. [CrossRef]
52. Holeton, C.; Chambers, P.A.; Grace, L. Wastewater release and its impacts on Canadian waters. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2011, 68,
1836–1859. [CrossRef]
53. Besley, C.H.; Birch, G.F. Deepwater ocean outfalls: A sustainable solution for sewage discharge for mega-coastal cities (Sydney,
Australia): Influence of deepwater ocean outfalls on shelf benthic infauna. Mar. Poll. Bull. 2019, 145, 724–738. [CrossRef]
54. MECCS. Development and Use of Initial Dilution Zones in Effluent Discharge Authorizations. Technical Guidance 11:
Environmental Management Act, Version 1.0. 2019. Available online: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/waste-
management/industrial-waste/industrial-waste/mining-smelt-energy/guidance-documents/tg11_development_and_use_
of_idz.pdf (accessed on 7 April 2021).
55. Fleisher, J.M.; Kay, D.; Salmon, R.; Jones, F.; Wyer, M.D.; Godfree, A.F. Marine waters contaminated with domestic sewage:
Nonenteric illnesses associated with bather exposure in the United Kingdom. Am. J. Public Health 1996, 86, 1228–1234. [CrossRef]
56. Bagnis, S.; Fitzsimons, M.F.; Snape, J.; Tappin, A.; Comber, S. Impact of the wastewater-mixing zone on attenuation of pharmaceu-
ticals in natural waters: Implications for an impact zone inclusive environmental risk assessment. Sci. Total. Environ. 2019, 658,
42–50. [CrossRef]
57. OECD. OECD Environmental Performance Reviews: Canada 2017. Chapter 5. Urban Wastewater Management. 2017. Available
online: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/9789264279612-12-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/9789264279612-
12-en (accessed on 10 December 2021).
58. CCME. Canada-Wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent. 2009. Available online: https://www.
ccme.ca/en/res/mwwe_strategy_e.pdf (accessed on 28 January 2022).
59. Tidball, J.; Atcheson, A.; Buttgieg, B.; Farber, T.; Gratton, L.; Hansen, S. Environmental Law and Practice in Canada: Overview.
2019. Available online: https://content.next.westlaw.com/2-503-2764?__lrTS=20210418003312332&transitionType=Default&
contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true (accessed on 15 December 2021).
60. BC Laws. Environmental Management Act. 2003. Available online: https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/
complete/statreg/03053_00_multi (accessed on 28 January 2022).
61. Cornell Law School. 40 CFR Part 131—Water Quality Standards. 2021. Available online: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/
40/part-131 (accessed on 31 January 2022).
62. USEPA. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Writers’ Manual. USEPA EPA-833-K-10-001, Office of
Water. 2010. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2015-09/documents/pwm_2010.pdf (accessed on 5
January 2022).
63. USEPA. Water Quality Standards Handbook. Chapter 5: General Policies. EPA 820-B-14-004, Office of Water. 2014. Available
online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-09/documents/handbook-chapter5.pdf (accessed on 5 October 2020).
64. USEPA. CORMIX2: And Expert System for Hydrodynamic Mixing Zone Analysis of Conventional and Toxic Multiport Diffuser
Discharges. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, EPA/600/3-91/073. 1991.
Available online: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/30000P2W.PDF?Dockey=30000P2W.PDF (accessed on 17 January 2022).
Water 2022, 14, 1201 26 of 26

65. Muellenhoff, W.P.; Soldate, A.M.; Baumgartner, D.J.; Schuldt, M.D.; Davis, L.R.; Frick, W.E. Initial Mixing Characteristics
of Municipal Ocean Discharges. Volume 1—Procedures and Applications. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Research Laboratory EPA 600 3-85 073a. 1985. Available online: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/20012V0
C.PDF?Dockey=20012V0C.PDF (accessed on 22 October 2021).
66. Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Resolução nº 430, de 13 de Maio de 2011, Dispõe Sobre as Condições e Padrões de Lançamento
de Efluentes, Complementa e Altera a Resolução No 357, de 17 de Março de 2005, do Conselho Nacional do Meio Ambiente.
2011. Available online: http://conama.mma.gov.br/?option=com_sisconama&task=arquivo.download&id=627 (accessed on 29
August 2021).
67. Jirka, G.H.; Bleninger, T.; Burrows, R.; Larsen, T. Environmental Quality Standards in the EC-Water Framework Directive:
Consequences for Water Pollution Control for Point Sources. European Water Management Online. 2004. Available online: https:
//www.ewa-online.eu/tl_files/_media/content/documents_pdf/Publications/E-WAter/documents/74_2004_01l.pdf (accessed
on 23 December 2021).
68. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy. Off. J. Eur. Comm. 2000, L327, 1–72.
69. European Commission. Technical Guidelines for the Identification of Mixing Zones Pursuant to Art. 4 of the Directive 2008/105/EC;
European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2010. Available online: https://circabc.europa.eu (accessed on 30 January 2022).
70. New Zealand Government. Resource Management Act 1991. Version as at 26 November 2021. Available online: https:
//www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0069/latest/DLM230265.html (accessed on 28 January 2022).
71. Department of Conservation. NZCPS 2010 Guidance Note. Policy 23: Discharge of Contaminants. 2018. Available on-
line: https://www.doc.govt.nz/globalassets/documents/conservation/marine-and-coastal/coastal-management/guidance/
policy-23.pdf (accessed on 5 October 2020).
72. Ooke, J.; Milne, P.; Rutherford, K. A Review of Definitions of “Mixing Zones” and “Reasonable Mixing” in Receiving Waters.
Technical Report No. 2010/045 prepared for Auckland Regional Council. Available online: https://knowledgeauckland.org.nz/
media/1786/tr2010-045-review-of-definitions-of-mixing-zones-and-reasonable-mixing-in-receiving-waters.pdf (accessed on 25
September 2020).
73. Campos, C.J.A.; Lees, D.N. Environmental transmission of human noroviruses in shellfish waters. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2014,
80, 3552–3561. [CrossRef]