627 



from the current year and be subject to periodic review and adjust- 

 ment. The area considered should extend as far from the coast as 

 wastes are likely to have significant effects. The plan should include 

 desi^ation of uses and the setting of standards of tolerable pollution 

 consistent with the uses. This planning must take into account the 

 total water resources of each re^on. 



(7) Long-range, properly designed, detailed, quantitative studies 

 of the structure and dynamics of animal and plant communities and 

 their relationship to waste disposal in carefully selected areas, should 

 be established and supported. These areas should include those that 

 are relatively little affected, those being affected at an increasing rate, 

 and those that are already seriously affected. Some of the studies 

 should be done in designated and protected marine preserves. All 

 should be related to the uses defined in the long-range plan. 



(8) Programs of physiological studies to define the tolerable limits 

 of pollution for each of the specific uses envisioned for the zones des- 

 ignated in the long-range plan should be established and supported. 



(9) Programs of systems analysis and model development that will 

 improve prediction of the biological effects of various possible com- 

 binations of waste treatments, disposal systems, and uses of the receiv- 

 ing water should be instituted and supported. As more data become 

 available from the studies suggested above, models can be continually 

 refined. 



(10) All proposals for new installations, modifications or activities 

 that may result in major changes in the amounts or nature of the 

 pollutants should be reviewed to determine whether quantitative 

 ecological studies of the biota are required, both before and after the 

 change. If such studies w^ould lead to greater protection of the biota or 

 provide better bases for regulation, adequate funds for them must be 

 included in the budget. Enough time must be allowed for careful 

 studies, especially those to be done before the change is made. The 

 data from such studies would increase the accuracy of models and 

 would strengthen the objective bases for setting standards. 



(11) The U.S. Government should encourage the coordination of 

 wastes management over large regions in order to obtain more econom- 

 ical and efficient treatment. This will allow better use of the limited 

 supply of high quality manpower, improve management of waste dis- 

 posal and allow better control. It will lead to better regulated, and 

 probably reduced, effects on the biota of the receiving waters. 



(12) All of the proceding programs must be subjected to frequent, 

 independent assessment by outside experts in the fields concerned. 



(13) Because the biological impact of many pollutants is interna- 

 tional, the U.S. Government should accelerate negotiations looking 

 toward international control of pollution of international waters by 

 both airborne and waterborne toxicants. 



(14) The U.S. Government should consider and act effectively upon 

 the ultimate disposal problems and the biological effects of new prod- 

 ucts of any kind which, after release in the commercial market, could 

 result in the impairment of the biological values of the marine environ- 

 ment. The burden of proof of biological effects must rest with the 

 manufacturer. 



