Risk Ranking Project
Region 2
Ecological Ranking and
Problem Analysis
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Ranking Work Group
Region 2
February 1991
-------
-------
Foreword
What are our nation's worst environmental problems? Pesticides in our foods, dwindling
wetlands, toxic wastes, the hole in the ozone layer, radon lurking in the basement, acid rain,
closed beaches, and urban smog are among the many problems that pose threats to our health,
to the environment, and to our well being.
Over the last 20 years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been given
responsibility to deal with many of these problems under a patchwork of legislative mandates.
Given the scarcity of resources available to confront the expanding list of threats to public
health and to the environment, we need to know what the worst environmental problems are in
terms of risks to people, natural systems, and our welfare. Then, we must assess whether our
priorities make sense in light of the relative risks posed by these problems.
On a national level, Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental
Problems, a landmark study published by EPA in 1987, was designed to start answering
these questions. In January 1990, EPA's Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
requested that the seven EPA regions which had not yet completed comparative
analyses of the risks posed by environmental problems at the regional level undertake
such studies.
In Region n, a work group composed of staff members with varied backgrounds,
representing each of the divisions was created, and asked by the Regional Administrator
to undertake the Risk Ranking Project. The work group proceeded to: 1) define the
regional list of environment problems; 2) develop the criteria and methodologies for
evaluating the problem areas; 3) collect data and analyze the risks; and, 4) complete a
relative ranking of the problem areas on the basis of their health, ecological and welfare
risks. On October 1, 1990, the work group presented its rankings and the rationale for
its findings to the Regional Administrator and the region's senior managers. The work
group's recommendations were unanimously adopted by the senior managers.
This report includes the ecological ranking results, background on the ecological
ranking criteria and methodology, and the detailed ecological problem areas analyses on
which the rankings are based.
Ill
-------
-------
Region II Risk Ranking Work Group
Chairwoman
Alice Jenik
Branch Chief
Office of Policy and Management
Members
Debra Curry
Hydrologist
Water Management Division
Ellen Parr-Doering
Hydrologist
Air and Waste Management Division
Kevin Doering
Program Analyst
Office of Policy and Management
Marcus Kantz
Section Chief
Environmental Services Division
Robert F. Kelly
Environmental Scientist
Air and Waste Management Division
Carlos O'Neill
Section Chief
Caribbean Field Office
Marian Olsen1
Environmental Scientist
Office of Policy and Management
Timothy J. Ream
Program Analyst
Office of Policy and Management
Ernest Regna
Branch Chief
Environmental Services Division
Palma Risler2
Program Analyst
Office of Policy and Management
Dennis Santella
Section Chief
Emergency and Remedial Response
Division
Nancy Schlotter
Environmental Scientist
Water Management Division
Walter Schoepf
Environmental Scientist
Emergency and Remedial Response
Division
Berry Shore
Congressional Relations Specialist
Office of External Programs
Harvey Simon3
Environmental Scientist
Office of Policy and Management
Marina Stefanidis
Environmental Scientist
Emergency and Remedial Response
Division
Lawrence Tannenbaum
Environmental Scientist
Emergency and Remedial Response
Division
1 Lead analyst for health risks and editor of the health risk document.
2 Lead analyst for welfare risks and editor of the welfare risk document.
3 Lead analyst for ecological risks and editor of the ecological risk document.
-------
-------
Acknowledgements
The contributions of the following people were essential to the completion of this
project:
Air and Waste Management
Larainne Koehler
Alan Fellman
Environmental Services
Diane Buxbaum
Policy and Management
Maeve Arthars
Steve Rubin
Robert Eckman
John Baglivi
Vicki Snitzler-Neeck
Mike Verhaar
Office of Pnlirv. Planninff
and Evaluation
Catherine Tunis
Richard Worden
Water Management
Isaac Chen
Christopher Dere
Anthony Dore
Theresa Faber
Aristotle Harris
William Hoppes
Wayne Jackson
Edwin Khadaran
Bruce Kiselica
Maureen Krudner
Marit Larson
Alex Lechich
Elizabeth Lonoff
Robert Nyman
Douglas Pabst
Patrick Pergola
Eric Stern
Shari Stevens
The following firpts, under contract to the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
provided assistance by conducting research for and completing some of the problem
area analyses:
IGF, Inc.
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
Temple, Barkeryhd Sloane, Inc.
Jay J. Wind, Inc.
Vll
-------
-------
Contents
I. Introduction
II. Analytical Approach/Methodology
III. Ecological Ranking Results
IV. Problem Area Analyses
1. Industrial Point Discharges and Municipal/Public Waste Water
Treatment Discharges to Water
2. Combined Sewer Overflow Discharges to Water
4. Non-point Sources of Water Pollution
5. Traditional Underground Injection Wells (Class I-III)
6. Other Underground Injection Wells (Class IV-V)
7. Land Use Changes/Physical Modifications of Aquatic Habitats (except
dredging)
8. Land Use Changes/Physical Modifications of Terrestrial Habitats
9. Dredging and Dredge Disposal
10. Municipal Sludge Disposal and Treatment
11. Wastewood Disposal or Treatment
12. Active Hazardous Waste Sites Currently Regulated Under RCRA
Subtitle C
13. Abandoned Hazardous Sites/Superfurid Sites
14. Municipal Solid Waste - Storage and Landfills
15. Municipal Solid Waste - Incinerators
16. Materials Storage Tanks, Sites and Pipelines Not Regulated Under
RCRA Subtitle C (Underground Storage Tanks and Others)
17. Accidental Releases During Production or Transport
18. Pesticides Contamination Associated with Application
20. Stationary and Point Sources of Air Pollution
21. Mobile Sources of Air Pollution - Motor Vehicles
22. Area Sources/Non-point Sources of Air Pollution
23. Sources of Air Pollution That Lead to Acid Deposition, Primarily
from Large Stacks
26. Chemical Use That Depletes the Ozone Layer - Chlorofluorocarbons
27. Radiation Other than Radon
Appendix A: Areal Extent of Region II Ecosystems and Habitat Loss Estimates
Appendix B: Impacts to Aquatic Ecosystems in Region II
Appendix C: Exposures and Impacts at Select Abandoned Hazardous Waste Sites in
Region II
Appendix D: Background Analysis on the Ecological Effects of Pesticide Use in
EPA Region II
1
3
8
11
12
29
35
39
40
41
46
50
56
65
68
70
79
81
85
89
99
108
119
121
123
132
140
143
157
167
179
IX
-------
-------
I. Introduction
The primary objective of the Region n Risk Ranking Project is to compare the risks
posed by the different environmental problems facing the New York/New Jersey/Caribbean
Region. The intent of the project is not only to inform EPA staff and managers, but to inform
and to influence the public debate over environmental issues as well. Another objective is to
use the results as a critical component of a strategic planning process for the region. The level
of risk is only one factor that determines priorities. Strategic planning also takes into account a
variety of other factors: cost/effectiveness; public concern; the effects of disinvestment; statutory
and regulatory mandates; and, how well government effort leverages private investment in
environmental improvement. The strategic planning process for the Fiscal Year 1993 budget
began in the fall of 1990.
The Risk Ranking Project has two components: analysis and professional judgement.
An interdivisional work group, composed of Region n staff with diverse academic backgrounds
and encompassing all program areas, was named. On January 31, 1990 the Regional
Administrator convened the work group and charged it with responsibility for completing a
comparative risk analysis and ranking. In the ensuing months, the work group developed the list
of environmental problem areas to be considered, and the methodologies and criteria for
ranking the problems on the basis of their health, ecological and welfare effects. Individual staff
members conducted research and analyzed the environmental problem areas.
After staff analyses were completed, initial meetings were held to determine the relative
risks posed by environmental problems for health, ecological and welfare effects. The work
group evaluated the data and analyses submitted as well as the professional judgement of the
work group, especially the persons who completed the analyses. The group also considered the
direction of the uncertainty, data gaps, consistency and the technical merit of the analysis.
After the initial rankings were developed, work group members had several weeks to
review the analyses more thoroughly and to consider the relative rankings. Proposals to adjust
the rankings were prepared during this period. At a subsequent meeting, the work group
reached a consensus on the rankings. They were presented to the region's senior staff during
September 1990. At a joint meeting on October 1, 1990, the Regional Administrator and his
senior staff concurred with and adopted the work group's rankings.
This document provides detailed background on the ecological rankings and the
supporting analysis for each ecological problem area.
-------
ECOSYSTEM/RECEPTOR CATEGORIES
Oceans - All deep coastal waters, extending to
international boundaries and including near coastal waters
that are not estuarine.
Estuaries - Semi-enclosed areas where fresh and
marine waters mix and/or river flows are influenced by the
tides. This category includes tidal wetlands.
Freshwater Wetlands -AH inland areas that
exhibit the characteristics of a wetland as defined by the
Army Corps of Engineers.
Rivers, streams and lakes - AII navigable
waterways and their tributaries, as well as all man-made
and naturally occurring inland bodies of water other than
the Great Lakes.
Great Lakes - Treated separately from other lakes in
the Region because of size and complexity.
Forest and other Non-Agricultural
Upland - All wooded areas including parks.wildlife
refuges, commercial forest lands, and other non-agricultural
upland habitats such as meadows and grassland.
buffer areas.
- All farmland and surrounding
Figure II-l
-------
II. Analytical Approach/Methodology
At the start of the Risk Ranking Project in Region II, the work group reached
agreement on the list of problems to be considered in terms of ecological risk. Also established
were the ranking criteria to be used and the general approach to be followed in analyzing the
problems. The final list of 23 "ecological" problems (Table II-1) is a subset of the project's
master list of 27 problem areas. The four problems (drinking water, pesticides on food, radon,
and indoor air) that were excluded from consideration were presumed to present negligible
threats to ecosystems.
The work group first developed ecological ranking criteria that would allow for some
common ground in comparing the different areas. This task was challenging, because there is
no generally accepted model for assessing ecological risks, and the types of information available
for different problem areas vary considerably. The criteria (Table II-2) adopted by the group
are based on the ranking considerations utilized in EPA's "Unfinished Business Report" and in
the comparative risk pilot projects conducted in Regions I, III, and X.
The first criterion, intensity of impact, is a subjective evaluation of the severity of effects
on ecosystems. It is based on the available hazard information and estimated exposure levels.
The endpoints used to evaluate severity vary significantly and can include factors such as
acreage of habitat lost; various diversity indices; and measures of primary productivity,
mortality, growth rates, bioaccumulation, and so on. The second criterion, scale, indicates how
widespread the ecological effects from a given problem area were judged to be. The underlying
assumption is that more widespread effects are of greater concern than localized problems. In
order to facilitate the assessment of scale, baseline estimates of the areal extent of ecosystem
types in Region II were developed by ICF, Inc. for the work group (Figure II-l and Table II-3).
The third criterion, value, accounts for threats to areas with high ecological importance (high
diversity or productivity; major spawning grounds or migration pathways; sensitivity to
perturbation, etc.). For example, although the impacts from hazardous waste sites were
projected to be relatively limited in scale, many of the sites were in proximity to ecologically
important habitats. As a result, the problem's low scale score was somewhat offset by a high
value score. The fourth criterion, uncertainty, did not factor into the numerical score for each
problem area. Instead, it provided a descriptive label — high, medium, or low ~ to the overall
uncertainty of the problem area analysis. The criteria scores provided in each detailed analysis
are the original recommendations of the work group member responsible for that problem
area's analysis. The scores were used in conjunction with other factors cited in the analyses, and
the results of group discussion to evaluate the relative risks posed by the different problem
areas.
The object of each analysis was to assess the effects of the«problem area's related
chemical or physical stressors on the region's major environmental receptors. Stressors and
receptors of concern varied from problem to problem. For example:
o Land Use Changes/Physical Modifications of Aquatic Habitats other than
Dredging: The primary ecological stressor was physical disturbance and the most
important receptors of concern were marine and freshwater wetlands.
o
Extra-Regional Sources Leading to Acid Deposition: The primary ecological
stressors were acid particulates, and the most important receptors of concern
-------
included high altitude lakes and forests in New York and the Pine Barrens in
New Jersey.
o Non-point Sources of Water Pollution: The primary ecological stressors included
contaminated and non-contaminated sediments, toxic compounds, nutrients,
oxygen demanding substances; receptors of concern included rivers, streams,
lakes, wetlands, the Great Lakes, and estuaries.
o Mobile Sources of Air Pollution - Motor Vehicles: The primary ecological
stressors included contribution to ozone, acid precipitation, and air toxics;
receptors included forests, lakes, and agroecosystems.
Wherever possible, the analyses relied on existing reports and studies as source
materials. However, for a majority of the problem areas, ecological resource data and direct
measures of impacts on biota and biological communities were either unavailable or difficult to
obtain. As a result, many of the analyses relied fairly heavily on professional judgment. Each
analysis included a discussion of predicted or observed ecological impacts, an evaluation of
whether the problem was likely to worsen or not over time, an estimate of the length of time
needed for an ecosystem to recover if its stressors are removed, and the scoring
recommendations for that problem area.
-------
TABLE JI-l
Ecological Pfofotem List*
1, Industrial Point Discharges and Mtitticipal/Pttblio Wastewater Treatment
Discharges to Water
2. Combined S,ewer Overflow Discharges to Water
4 Non-point Sources of Wafer Pollution
5, "Traditional Underground Injection Wells (Classes ME)
6. , Other Underground Injection Weils (Class IV-V)
7. Land, Use Changes/Physical Modifications of Aquatic Habitats other than
Dredging
8, Land Use Changes/Physical Modifications of Terrestrial Habitats
9. Dredging and Dredge Disposal
101 Municipal Sludge Disposal and Treatment
11, Wastewood Disposal or Treatment
12. Active Hazardous Waste Sites Currently Regulated Under RCRA Subtitle C
13. Abandoned Hazardous Sites/Superfund Sites
14. Municipal Solid Waste - Storage and Landfills
,15, Municipal Solid Waste »Incinerators
16. Materials Storage Tanks, Sites and Pipelines Not Regulated under RCRA
Subtitle1 C
17, Accidental Releases During Production or Transport
18. Pesticides Contamination during Application
20. Stationary and Point Sources of Air Pollution
, 21* Mobile Sources of Air Pollution » Motor Vehicles
22x Area/Non-point Sources of Air Pollution other than Chlorofluorocarboris
23. fktra-Regional Sources Leading to Acid Deposition
26. Chemical Use that Depletes the Ozone Layer » Chlorofluorocarbons"*
27. Radiation other than Radon (effects from uncontrolled waste considered
% under problems 12 and 13)
following problems areas were not evaluated since they were
presumed to present negligible threats to ecosystems: 3. Operation an&
Maintenance of Drinking Water Systems; 19. Pesticide Residues on Food; 24,
Radon; and 25. Indoor Air Pollutants other than Radon. This list follows the
numbering scheme of the master list for the Regional Ranking Project. The
order of the master list is not related to the rankings.
-------
Intensity of Impact
TABLE 11-2
Ecological Ranking Criteria
15 4JJ.
1 a
Severe impact^ major changes in species
composition, decreased biodiversity, high
mortality of indicator species^ low
reversibility, or outright habitat destruction,
Moderate impact compared to above
Negligible or minor impacts
Scale
5 = Widespread impacts; greater than 50% of
resource affected
3 = 20-30% of resource affected
1 = <10% of resource affected
Value
Uncertainty
5 - Impacted systems are of vital ecological
significance (areas of high diversity or
productivity, major spawning grounds or
migratory pathways, highly sensitive to
perturbation^ unique ecologically, important
to other systems for uptake/cycling of
nutrients or contaminants, etc.)
3 = Moderate ecological value (commonly found
species, widely found habitat type, etc.)
1 = Low value (e.g., highly industrialized* or
developed areas)
?
High, Medium , or Low descriptor for the
overall uncertainty to. the analysts, |&
relevance to the ranking criteria, and the
accuracy of the risk estimates,
-------
TABLE II-3
AREAL EXTENT OF ECOSYSTEM TYPES IN EPA REGION II
Ecosystem
Oceans
(shore miles')
Estuaries
(square miles)
Freshwater
Wetlands
(acres)
Rivers
(miles)
Lakes
(acres)
Great Lakes
(shore miles)
TWal Wetlands
(acres)
Agriculture
(acres)
Forest
(acres)
New York
130
1.564
1.000.000
70.000
750.000
577
25.000
8.5 million
18.5 million
New Jersey
120
691 (a)
646,000 (b)
6.450
51.000
250,000
870.900
2,006.700 (C)
Virgin Islands
173
30
0
0
0
(d)
(d)
(d)
Puerto Rico
434
176
Not Available
3.374
11,146
—
22.971
1.011,600(e)
740,000
TOTAL
857
2,461
1.646,000(0
79,824
812,146
577
297.971 (0
10.382,500(0
21,246.700(0
(a) NJ 305(b) reports 420 aq. ml. open estuarine waters; 691 sq. ml. monitored estuarine waters
(b) NJ 305(b) reports 896.000 acres fresh and saline wetlands; NJDEP reports 250.000 acres tidal wetlands
(c) Value includes Christmas frees and productive reserves; value is 1.864,300 acres without these
(d) Data unavailable
(e) Total represents 248,300 acres of crops and 763,300 acres of pasture; data from 1980
(f) Excludes data from Jurtedtetfons for which estimates were not available
-------
III. Ecological Ranking Results
The problem area ranking was based in large part on the sum of the scores provided in
the problem area analysis and the initial recommendation of the work group for the relative
ranking of the problem area. An important consideration in the scoring was maintaining
consistency across the criteria. In other words, if the intensity score was 5, the scale and value
scores would have to be based on the ecosystems subject to that intensity (5) of impact. Initial
scoring recommendations for each problem area were provided by the work group member
responsible for each analysis. Generally, the work group did not alter these scores. However,
the group decided not to follow those scores strictly when assigning rankings to the problems.
The decision to avoid a strict adherence to the scores during the relative ranking was
designed to counterbalance some of the subjective values that influenced those scores and to
ensure that professional judgment about severity and impact had some influence on the final
rankings. This decision also allowed the work group to focus its discussions on the nature and
impacts of the problems rather than on the scoring system and its application.
Final rankings were based on group consensus about the relative threats posed by the
problems, taking into consideration the scoring recommendations and the group discussion. The
problem area summaries that follow describe the major issues that went into the ranking
considerations. The broad groupings of ecological risk (very high, high, medium, and low) are
intended to represent significant differences in relative risks (Table III-l). There was
considerably less confidence in the placement of problem areas within each group. For example,
the work group is confident that areas ranked "high" pose greater threats than those ranked
"low", but has less confidence that priorities within the group rated "high" are exact.
Several aspects of the ranking are noteworthy.
o The two most highly ranked problems deal with the effects of land use on aquatic
and terrestrial habitats. Although EPA has limited authority over land use, there
was strong agreement that development is the major threat to some of Region
n's important ecological resources. Risks to coastal systems and fresh water
wetlands were considered to be particularly significant. The Science Advisory
Board (SAB) has also identified habitat loss as a major problem that EPA needs
to address.
o Sources of acid deposition and non-point source pollution to surface water were
also identified as very high sources of ecological risk. Acid precipitation is fairly
widespread in the Northeast and threatens forest systems, high-altitude lakes, and
the pine barrens. Non-point source pollution generates a wide variety of
ecological stressors and adversely impacts a high percentage of Region II's
surface waters.
o Although the work group placed chemical uses that deplete the ozone layer into
the "high" rather than "very high" risk category, there are some unusual aspects to
this problem that should be noted. The ranking is based on predicted effects on
plants at current exposure levels. Although the work group was skeptical of some
of the scenarios presented in an Agency study, future damage to terrestrial
vegetation and phytoplankton and contribution to global warming could be
catastrophic. The SAB has recommended that this type of large scale problem,
-------
which has a very high uncertainty, but huge potential risk and low reversibility,
should be acted on even before additional research can confirm the predictions.
o Global climate change was the SAB's most highly ranked ecological problem, and
was another large scale problem that the SAB recommended action on in the
face of uncertainty. However, the Region II list did not include climate change
as a separate problem area, since it was a list of pollution sources rather than
effects. However, climate change impacts are discussed separately under the
problem areas that contribute to the emission of "greenhouse" gases such as
carbon dioxide, methane, chlorofluorocarbons and nitrous oxide (i.e., all of the
air pollution sources, and the land use problem areas). However, the work group
considered climate change to be one of the most significant threats to the
region's ecosystems.
o Accidental releases also present a difficult problem in terms of relative risk
ranking. The "medium" ranking was based on spills occurring in an "average"
year. But the prospect of a very large release into ecologically important areas is
difficult to factor into the overall analysis.
o Problems that involved toxic contamination were generally ranked lower than
problems that cause more overt damage via habitat degradation, nutrient
loadings, reduced oxygen levels, and acidification. However, certain geographic
regions (e.g., the Niagara Frontier, the Hackensack Meadowlands) were
identified as ecosystems significantly threatened by toxic pollutants.
o Two problem areas — municipal sludge disposal and dredging — were ranked low
in terms of ecological risk, even though these areas have generated significant
public concern. Although monitoring at the deep water site in the Atlantic is still
under way, ocean disposal of sludge at that site is not expected to produce
significant impacts on oceanic or coastal ecosystems. There is some uncertainty
about the severity of impacts on bottom-living (benthic) communities from
dredging. Nevertheless, impacts at disposal sites and dredged channels are
localized and thus rank lower in priority than some other problems.
Because of extensive data gaps and the lack of any generally accepted quantitative model
for comparing ecological risks, best professional judgment was relied on rather heavily in this
analysis. The final ranking represents a qualitative evaluation of the effect of various pollutant
sources and human activities on the region's ecological resources. For a majority of the
problem areas, ecological resource data and direct measures of impacts on biota and biological
communities were either unavailable or difficult to obtain. This was particularly true in regard
to the information needed to support judgments about intensity of impact (changes in
biodiversity, population numbers of select species, biomass, and community structure related to
environmental stressors), and ecological value of threatened or impacted resources in Region II.
A more quantitatively based analysis would require a shift in the way the Agency
currently monitors ecosystems and stores and interprets environmental data. Such a shift is
already occurring, with recent changes in EPA data systems, the advancement of geographic
information system technology, the ongoing development of biocriteria and bioindicators, and
ORD's environmental mapping efforts. However, the Agency has long focused on human health
concerns, and a shift in its culture and capabilities is likely to take some time.
-------
TABLE III-l
ECOLOGICAL PROBLEM AREA RANKING
Veiy High
Land Use Changes/Physical Modifications of Aquatic Habitats other than Dredging
Land Use Changes/Physical Modifications of Terrestrial Habitats
Extra-Regional Sources Leading to Acid Deposition
Non-point Sources of Water Pollution
High
Pesticides Contamination during Application
Industrial Point Discharges and Municipal/Public Wastewater Treatment Discharges to Water
Chemical Use that Depletes the Ozone Layer * Chlorofluorocarbonsr
Combined Sewer Overflow Discharges to Water
Medium
Mobile Sources of Air Pollution - Motor Vehicles
Area/Non-poinf Sources of Air Pollution other than Chlorofluorocarbons
Accidental Releases During Production or Transport
Stationary and Point Sources of Air Pollution
f" . Municipal Solid Waste - Storage and Landfills
Abandoned Hazardous Sites/Superfund Sites
Active Hazardous Waste Sites Currently Regulated Under RCRA Subtitle C
Low
Materials Storage Tanks> Sites and Pipelines Not Regulated under RCRA Subtitle C
Dredging and Dredge Disposal
Municipal Solid Waste«Incinerators
Other Underground Injection Wells (Class IV-V)
Municipal Sludge Disposal and Treatment
Radiation other than Radon
Traditional Underground Injection Wells (Classes MB)
Wastewood Disposal or Treatment
Not Ranked
Operation and Maintenance of Drinking Water Systems
Pesticide Residues on Pood
Radon
Indoor Air Pollutants other than Radon
lBased on current impacts on plants. Ecological risks could be catastrophic
if predictions are accurate. Analysis, however, has very high uncertainty.
10
-------
IV. Problem Area Analyses
Detailed analyses on the 23 environmental problem areas assessed for ecological impacts
in Region II are presented in the following chapters. The analyses are arranged in the order in
which they appeared in the master list for the Region II Risk Ranking Project. The order of
the master list is not related to the rankings.
11
-------
1. Industrial Point Discharges and Municipal/Public
Waste Water Treatment Discharges to Water
Summary/Abstract
This analysis assesses ecological risk from point sources of water pollution in Region II
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Although most of the region's waters are not
severely degraded by point source pollution (see Table 1-1 in Appendix B), some waterbodies in
industrialized areas have suffered significant impacts. The intensity of impact varies with the
nature, amount, and frequency of discharge, and the properties of the receiving waters.
Industrial and municipal discharges affect both fresh and saline waterways. In Region II,
nutrients and oxygen-demanding organic materials are the most frequently occurring point
source pollutants causing ecological impacts. Nutrient loadings can accelerate eutrophication in
enclosed water bodies. Oxygen-demanding pollutants can cause depleted oxygen levels, which
can lead to a variety of ecological impacts (e.g., fish kills, reduced biodiversity, changes in
community structure) in affected waterbodies.
Toxic substances such as metals and organic pollutants factor into ecological impacts in
Region E surface waters less frequently. However, elevated levels of toxins in certain areas
have resulted in impacts on resident biota (e.g., bioaccumulation in organisms at higher levels of
the food chain, reproductive and developmental effects, and shifts in biological community
structure and function). Such changes may occur with relatively small pollutant loadings and can
be difficult to detect. Areas that are impacted by toxic chemicals include New York/New Jersey
interstate waters, rivers in the urban areas of New York and New Jersey, the Niagara area, and
certain parts of the Delaware River.
Introduction
Point sources of pollution discharge effluents directly into surface waters through
discrete conveyances such as outfalls or pipes. This analysis evaluates the risk to ecosystems
from both industrial discharges and municipal sewage treatment outfalls, which have long been
acknowledged as sources of pollution. Storm water discharges are considered another major
category of point sources, although most storm water contaminants are non-point source in
origin. Storm water and combined sewer overflows (CSOs) are discussed in detail in the CSO
analysis (Problem Area #2).
The history of industrial point source pollution in New York and New Jersey goes back
to the beginning of the industrial revolution, when factories concentrated in urban areas near
waterways so that effluent could be disposed of conveniently. In Puerto Rico and the U.S.
Virgin Islands, significant point source pollution has a more recent history, although its effects
have also been demonstrated there. Industrial point source dischargers in Region II include
electroplating and metal finishers, pharmaceutical companies, petroleum refineries, and power
plants. Municipal or publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) treat sewage waste from
communities as well as indirect discharges from industrial facilities. Because of the region's
dense population, municipal waste treatment contributes significantly to pollutant loadings.
12
-------
Point source pollution abatement is an ongoing program in Region n. Point source
pollutants have been identified and are being regulated under the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES), which requires point sources to obtain a permit to discharge
effluents to surface waters. Permits must contain effluent limitations for the protection of
human health and the environment. This permitting program under the Clean Water Act has
been delegated to New York, New Jersey, and the Virgin Islands. Permitting authority for
Puerto Rico has been retained by EPA. Pretreatment programs have also been established to
control pollutants from indirect discharges to POTWs. EPA has established criteria and the
states have established ambient water quality standards for the protection of human health and
aquatic life. The states utilize these standards to set permit limitations. The following provides
a breakdown by jurisdiction of the number of current NPDES permits in Region II:
Source Type1
Industrial
Majors
Minors
NY
1,171
140
1,031
_PR
320
74
246
Y!
41
4
37
Total
3,127
365
2,762
Municipal 556
Majors 234
Minors 322
Total 1,727
249
151
98
1,844
102
34
68
422
12
2
10
53
919
421
498
4,046
Hazard Identification
The following stressors are associated with point-source discharges to surface water:
toxic chemicals (i.e., metals, pesticides, and other organic chemicals); oxygen-demanding
pollutants; and other physical/chemical parameters (i.e., nutrients, turbidity/suspended solids,
acids, and temperature).
In general, point source discharges produce relatively severe but highly localized effects.
Three major types of problems can occur from exposure of surface waters to stressors from
point-source discharges: direct, relatively short-term effects from acute releases of stressors;
more long-term direct and indirect effects from continued releases of relatively large amounts of
non-persistent or moderately persistent stressors; and residual effects of past releases of
persistent chemical stressors that have been banned altogether or restricted in use in recent
years (e.g., DDT, PCBs). Most residual effects result from persistence of the chemical stressors
in sediments and aquatic biota; these effects thus are difficult to attribute to current point-
source discharges and will not be considered in this analysis.
^ Major discharges are distinguished from minor discharges by virtue of their waste volume, the
strength or hazard of contaminants, and/or their location with respect to sensitive water uses.
13
-------
Specific Hazards Associated with Aquatic Stressors
Specific hazards associated with each type of stressor are summarized below.
Information presented includes current level of knowledge, types of species-level and ecosystem-
level effects, dose-response or threshold levels, and reversibility of effects.
Metals
Level of knowledge: Toxic metals that can cause significant stress to aquatic organisms
include arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel,
selenium, tin, and zinc. Hazards associated with these metals are well characterized, and EPA
ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) are available for most metals (EPA, 1986b). However,
although lower pH has been reported to increase the toxicity of some metals (e.g., chromium
VI), there are few data relating toxicity to pH for most metals. There also are few data
available to relate fish tissue residue levels of metals to possible adverse effects on the fish.
Types of effects: Various metals and metal forms produce different types of toxic effects.
Species-level effects of metals on fish include neurotoxicity, impaired reproduction, reduced
growth, damage to gill surfaces and impaired respiration, and mortality. Ecosystem-level effects
in aquatic systems include reduced primary and secondary productivity, loss of top carnivores,
changes in community composition, and modification of nutrient cycling.
Dose-response or threshold levels: The effects of metals in the environment depend upon
their concentrations and chemical form(s). The chemical forms of metals are determined by
complex suites of both abiotic and biotic factors, including pH, Eh, salinity, alkalinity, the
presence of other metals and ligands, dissolved oxygen, and the presence or absence of specific
types of bacteria. Metals that bioaccumulate (e.g., cadmium, lead, and mercury) can have
serious adverse effects on species at high trophic levels (e.g., trout) despite low environmental
concentrations. Chronic AWQC for metals range over several orders of magnitude, from 0.012
ug/1 for lead to 1,000 ug/1 for iron, although most range from 1-200 ug/1.
Reversibility of effects: The expert panel convened by Cornell Ecosystems Research
Center (EPA, 1987) estimated that decades or centuries would be required for surface water
bodies to recover from metal contamination, because sediments contaminated with metals
continue to be a source of contamination of biota, particularly benthic invertebrates and
bottom-feeding fish. Moreover, episodic acute exposures to sediment contaminants can occur
when storms or other infrequent events cause resuspension of contaminated sediments. Because
of their higher natural flushing capabilities, streams and rivers will recover more quickly from
sediment contamination than will lakes and ponds.
Animals that have been exposed to heavy metals and that have developed significant
body burdens will remain contaminated for years or for life. Thus, biotic recovery after residual
metal contamination subsides will generally be slower than recovery of aquatic populations
following, for example, reduced dissolved oxygen, because body burdens of the metals can
contribute to lifetime depression of reproductive success and to other continuing sublethal
effects in the longer-lived organisms. In the absence of specific information, it can be assumed
that reversibility is low to moderate, occurring within 10 to 100 years (EPA, 1987).
14
-------
Pesticides
Level of knowledge: Pesticides are chemical compounds specifically formulated to kill or
debilitate certain target organisms. Hazards associated with pesticides are well characterized.
EPA (1986a) has developed Standard Evaluation Procedures for several toxicity tests
recommended for the evaluation of pesticide toxicity prior to registration. The recommended
testing procedures include fish and estuarine and marine organisms but do not include the
aquatic stages of insects or other aquatic invertebrates. As a consequence of the required
testing program for pesticide registration, acute fish toxicity data are available for many
pesticides, and EPA ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) are available for several pesticides
(EPA, 1986b).
Types of effects: Species-level effects include insecticide-induced mortality among the
aquatic juvenile life stages of many insect species, herbicide-induced reduction of submerged
aquatic vegetation, teratogenicity in fish, impaired reproduction of fish, and fish kills.
Ecosystem-level effects include reduced biomass and diversity of invertebrate and vertebrate
communities, herbicide-induced reduction of submerged aquatic vegetation, and concomitant
loss of invertebrate communities as well as fish that utilize plant cover for spawning or
protection of juvenile stages.
Dose-response or threshold levels: The potential for a pesticide to cause adverse aquatic
effects is related to two characteristics: toxicity and bioaccumulation. Pesticides that are
persistent and that bioaccumulate can have serious adverse effects on species at high trophic
levels (e.g., trout) despite low environmental concentrations. Herbicides and fungicides
generally are not highly toxic to fish. Insecticides can be quite toxic to the aquatic stages of
nontarget insects and crustaceans. Highly persistent pesticides (both banned and still in
widespread use) have bioconcentration factors (BCFs) in excess of 1,000 or 10,000; chronic
AWQC for these substances tend to be in the pg/1 range (i.e., 1/1000 of one ug/1).
Reversibility of effects: For pesticides that bind to sediments (e.g., DDT and kepone),
reversibility of aquatic damage can be slow following the institution of control measures at the
source, because the sediments can serve as a continuing source of contamination for decades.
Animals that have been persistently exposed to pesticides and that have developed significant
body burdens will remain contaminated for years or for life. Because of their higher natural
flushing capabilities, streams and rivers will recover more quickly from sediment contamination
than will lakes and ponds. For moderate to highly persistent pesticides, in the absence of
specific information, it can be assumed that reversibility is moderate, occurring within 10 to 100
years (EPA, 1987). As less persistent pesticides are developed and used in place of more
resistant compounds, the time required to reverse ecological damage is reduced. In the case of
nonpersistent pesticides, recovery of an aquatic ecosystem can begin soon after the source of
contamination is eliminated.
Organic Chemicals
Level of knowledge: The list of organic compounds that can stress aquatic organisms is
extensive. Thousands of organic compounds are currently in use, and more are developed every
day. Although hazards associated with chronic exposures are well characterized for a few
organic compounds, few data are available for the vast majority of these chemicals. Estimates
of acute aquatic toxicity can be obtained for most organic chemicals using quantitative structure-
activity relationships (QSAR), but considerable uncertainty is associated with these estimates.
15
-------
Types of effects: The possible species-level and ecosystem-level effects of toxic organic
compounds are diverse. In addition to producing adverse effects on reproduction, growth,
and/or survivorship or inducing organ disfunctions, many organic compounds are carcinogenic.
Organic compounds that are persistent and that bioaccumulate (e.g., PCBs and phenols)
generally present the greatest threat.
Dose-response or threshold levels: EPA (1986b) has identified chronic toxicity values for
some organic chemicals or groups of organic chemicals (e.g., PAHs), but a chronic AWQC exists
for only one nonpesticide organic (PCBs). Organic compounds that are persistent and that
bioaccumulate can have serious adverse effects on species at high trophic levels (e.g., trout)
despite low environmental concentrations. EPA-identified lowest-observed-effect-levels
(LOELs) for organic chemicals range over several orders of magnitude, from 0.00001 ug/1 for
dioxin to 21,900 ug/1 for trichloroethylene.
Reversibility of effects: The potential reversibility of aquatic ecosystem damage resulting
from discharges of toxic organics to surface waters is less for the persistent, bioaccumulating
compounds than for the nonpersistent compounds. Considerations similar to those discussed for
pesticides apply.
Oxygen-Demanding Pollutants
_ Level of knowledge: The effects of reduced dissolved oxygen (DO) on fresh water
aquatic life have been studied for much of this century. Oxygen-demanding pollutants lower the
concentration of DO in receiving waters. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is a measure of
one specific effect of the addition of dissolved organic material in waters: the increased
respiration rates of bacteria and other microorganisms decomposing this organic material.
Models exist to relate source loads of BOD to changes in DO in receiving waters, in some cases
with extremely high accuracy (e.g., the Delaware River Basin Commission model).
Types of effects: Species-level effects include direct acute mortality of adults
(asphyxiation), increased susceptibility to disease, reduced growth and activity, and lowered
reproduction (usually due to mortality of eggs or early life stages). Swimming fish have high
oxygen demands relative to other aquatic organisms and generally are the first to die or to
emigrate. Ecosystem-level effects include replacement of the normal complement of aquatic
fauna and flora with characteristic "pollution tolerant species," which include certain types of
bacteria, algae, fungi, and protozoans, sludge worms (Tubificidae), and blood worms
(Chironomid larvae). Under extreme conditions, elimination of DO from receiving waters will
cause the extermination of all forms of life that require oxygen for respiration.
Dose-response or threshold levels: EPA (1986b) has promulgated national criteria for
ambient DO for the protection of fresh water aquatic life. Most states have more stringent DO
standards for cooler waters containing either salmonids, nonsalmonid cool water fish, or the
sensitive centrarchid, the small mouth bass. These criteria do not represent assured no-effect
levels, particularly in receiving waters with marked daily cycles of DO (e.g., those with dense
populations of algae). Criteria do represent DO concentrations believed to protect the more
sensitive populations of organisms against potentially damaging impairment and are intended to
be protective at typically high seasonal environmental temperatures for the appropriate
taxonomic and life stage classification categories.
Reversibility of effects: The reversibility of reduced DO effects in aquatic ecosystems
depends on the type of water body and the waste type that produced the BOD. Shallow or swift
16
-------
flowing water bodies seldom suffer significant reductions in DO as a consequence of loading
with organic substances because of natural aeration. Deeper, more slowly moving water bodies
can experience significant decreases in DO in the lower water column as a consequence of
accumulation of highly organic or nutrient-rich sediments or suspended solids. Moreover, if the
BOD reaches the point where aerobic microorganisms cannot survive, anaerobic forms become
predominant, producing hydrogen sulfide or methane gas and further decreasing water quality.
Nonetheless, in the absence of severe sediment loading with organic material, DO can rapidly
return to normal when sources of BOD are controlled.
The time required for recovery is therefore largely a function of the level of damage that
had occurred before DO levels were restored to acceptable levels. Numerous studies have
documented the return of some natural fauna within months of removing BOD loads, and a
nearly full complement of fauna within a year (Hynes, 1974). These data are consistent with the
designation of reversibility as 1 to 10 years by the panel of scientists convened by the Cornell
Ecosystems Research Center (EPA, 1987).
Nutrients
Level of knowledge: Hazards associated with nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorous
are well characterized. Although difficult to assess, the rate of nutrient inflow is more indicative
of nutrient availability than are measures of nutrient concentrations because of the dynamic
cycling of these materials in aquatic ecosystems.
Types of effects: Excess nutrient loading has both short- and long-term effects. In the
short term, excessive fertilization of surface water can lead to the development of nuisance algal
blooms and increases in the biomass of rooted aquatic vegetation. In the long run, dissolved
oxygen levels decrease, suspended organic materials increase, and the structure of aquatic
communities shifts. Eventually, excess nutrient loading can result in the eutrophication of ponds
and lakes.
Dose-response or threshold levels: The effects of nutrient loading depend considerably on
the natural flushing capacity of the water body. There is less opportunity for accumulation of
nutrients in streams and estuaries than in lakes because of the continual transport of water.
Reversibility of effects: Manipulating nutrient loading can improve the water quality of
streams and rivers more rapidly than controlling nutrient input to lakes. Lake Washington is an
example of a large, deep, oligotrophic-mesotrophic lake that turned eutrophic in about 35 years,
primarily through the discharge of treated and untreated domestic sewage. Six years following
the diversion of sewage from the lake, nuisance algal blooms ceased (Edmondson, 1970). If
excess nutrient loading continues long enough, permanent physical alteration of the habitat (e.g.,
addition of organic sediments) can occur. The expert panel convened by Cornell Ecosystems
Research Center (EPA, 1987) estimated that years or decades would be required for lakes to
recover from excess nutrient loading and that rivers and streams could recover within 1 to 10
years.
Suspended Solids
Level of knowledge: The effects of suspended solid particulates on aquatic organisms are
well known (e.g., EPA, 1972 and EPA 1986b)). Exposure-response criteria in terms of total
suspended solids (TSS) have been suggested (EPA, 1972), and data on TSS in receiving waters
are readily available (e.g., through STORET). Turbidity results from the suspension of solid
17
-------
particles of small size in the surface water column. High turbidity is more characteristic of
faster flowing waters than of lakes or ponds. Turbidity also is a natural phenomenon in many
water bodies. Rivers and streams normally become turbid during heavy rains, when large
amounts of suspended matter can be discharged to the water from land or resuspended from
the bottom.
Types of effects: One major effect of excess suspended solid particulates on aquatic
invertebrates is clogging of gills and filter-feeding mechanisms, resulting in reduced rates of
respiration and excretion and lowered food intake. Corals are particularly sensitive to
suspended particles because of related limitation of light, and the energy required to clear
particles from their surface. High sedimentation rates can kill reef building corals and eliminate
associated biological communities. Effects on fish include reduced growth rates, reduced
resistance to disease, death, prevention of successful development of eggs and larvae, and
modified natural movements and migration (particularly among highly visual species). The most
important ecosystem-level effect is a depression of photosynthetic activity by aquatic plants,
which reduces the primary productivity of the aquatic ecosystem. In sufficiently deep receiving
waters (e.g., lakes), increased turbidity can change the thermal stratification patterns and thus
change the temperature distribution, oxygen regime, and composition of the biological
communities. Turbidity can also severely impact coral communities.
Dose-response or threshold levels: EPA (1986b) advises that settleable and suspended
solids should not reduce the depth of the compensation point for photosynthetic activity by
more than 10 percent from the seasonally established norm for aquatic life. The photosynthetic
compensation point is the depth at which plants are just able to balance food production and
utilization. Effects of suspended solids are most likely to occur during storms in areas with high
levels of soil erosion (e.g., agricultural and silvicultural areas). Significant effects from point
source discharges are unlikely as long as the facilities are operating properly and meeting their
discharge limits.
Reversibility of effects: The immediate effects of turbidity (e.g., gill clogging and reduced
photosynthesis) are rapidly reversible if turbid conditions are short-lived, as is the case in
natural ecosystems. The panel of scientists convened by the Cornell Ecosystems Research
Center (EPA, 1987) designated 1 to 10 years as the time frame for reversing the effects of long-
term excess suspended solids. The time required for recovery will be largely a function of the
damage done to the biological community while the suspended solids were being released to the
surface water.
Acids
Levels of knowledge: The effects of acids on surface water bodies are well characterized,
particularly given recent attention to atmospheric acid deposition. The main direct effect of an
acid on a surface water body is to alter the pH of that water body. A pH value is defined as the
negative logarithm of the concentration of hydrogen ions in solution. Hydrogen ion content is
partly a function of the dissolved carbon dioxide content, which, in turn, is decreased by
photosynthesis and increased by respiration.
Types of effects: Effects attributable to acidification of streams and lakes include changes
in population density, community diversity, and species compositions of bacterial, algal, and
macroinvertebrate communities and a decline in fish populations. Low pH levels also release
sediment-bound metals and increase their concentrations in the water column (EPA, 1979). In
general, the toxicity of acidic waters to fish is increased by higher trace metal concentrations
18
-------
(e.g., aluminum and cadmium) and is reduced by higher levels of dissolved organic carbon and
divalent cations such as calcium (Haines, 1981). Under extreme conditions, acids can eliminate
all aquatic life from a surface water body.
Dose-response or threshold levels: In fresh water, pH values can vary widely both within
and between water bodies. Within highly productive surface waters, pH can vary by 1 to 1.5
units daily. The range of normal pH values in surface water bodies is from 5 to 9 (Hynes,
1974). However, pH levels lower than normal for a given location can stress the ability of an
aquatic organism to maintain homeostasis and can induce mortality. The degree to which the
addition of an acid to surface water will alter pH depends in part on the buffering capacity of
the water. The water's buffering capacity depends upon several things, including the geology of
the drainage basin (e.g., whether water percolates through soils rich in calcium carbonate,
carbon dioxide, or carbonic acid). In general, surface waters with pH levels lower than 5.0 will
be devoid of fish and with levels lower than 4.2 will be devoid of most forms of life.
Reversibility of effects: The reversibility of adverse ecological effects caused by acid
runoff or discharges into surface waters depends on the extent of the ecological damage
incurred before source controls are implemented. If all sources of acidic input to a surface
water are eliminated, the rate at which the water body would return to the normal pH range for
the region will depend upon the rate flushing capacity of the water body and can be quite rapid.
Temperature
Level of knowledge: Thermal stressors produce changes in ambient surface water
temperature. The effects of thermal stress on surface water bodies are particularly well
characterized for power plant cooling water discharges.
Types of effects: Increased ambient surface water temperatures cause increased
metabolic and respiration rates and can alter behavior patterns (e.g., feeding and migration) of
aquatic organisms. Although rising temperatures may, up to a point, enhance the growth rate of
some organisms, eventually higher temperatures will adversely affect reproduction and survival.
Nearly all aquatic organisms have body temperatures that conform to the water temperature.
At the ecosystem level, species assemblages will change as overall ambient temperatures change
and as organisms with different temperature optima become more or less competitive.
Dose-response or threshold levels: EPA (1986b) recommends two upper-limiting
temperatures for a surface water body: a time-dependent maximum temperature for short
exposures and a maximum average weekly temperature. The extent of thermal-change-induced
damage to aquatic biota depends greatly on the rate of temperature change, the duration of
exposure, the magnitude of "natural" daily temperature cycles, and where the ambient
temperature lies in relation to the tolerance range of a given species. In general, rapid changes
in temperature are most stressful to aquatic biota. Effects occurring during the spawning season
probably have the greatest effect on fish populations. There also is an interaction between toxic
chemicals and temperature. Organisms subjected to stress from toxic chemicals generally are
less tolerant of temperature extremes.
Reversibility of effects: Reversibility of temperature-induced changes in aquatic
ecosystems depends largely on the source of the thermal stress. If the source can be eliminated,
recovery of normal temperature regimes can be very rapid. Biological recovery will take from
months to years, depending on the severity of the adverse effects. The panel of scientists
19
-------
convened by the Cornell Ecosystems Research Center (EPA, 1987) designated reversibility as
ranging from years to decades but stressed the highly localized nature of these effects.
Mode of Transport Through the Environment
Toxic chemicals and other stressors discharged into surface waters may be transported
through the water body in three general ways. These are discussed briefly below.
o Highly soluble chemicals generally are dispersed through the water column and
transported in bulk flow. Suspended solids also are transported via bulk flow.
The mobility of these stressors depends primarily on their water solubility and
the flow rate of the receiving waters.
o Relatively insoluble chemicals tend to adsorb to particles in the water body,
either in suspension or on the bottom (i.e., sediments). Chemicals bound to
sediments tend to remain in place unless scouring or other erosional events
occur.
o Persistent chemicals (i.e., metals and some organic compounds) may
bioaccumulate in aquatic biota and be transported via the food chain. Food
chain transport may occur upgradient (i.e., contaminated fish may swim
upstream) and between the aquatic and terrestrial environment (i.e., a bird may
eat a contaminated fish).
_ Toxic chemicals and other stressors discharged from point sources generally tend to be
in significant concentrations (or amounts) in a fairly localized area near the source. The size
and flow rate of the receiving water body generally determine the size of this localized area.
Persistent chemicals that bioaccumulate generally have the greatest potential to be widely
transported at significant concentrations.
Potential Environmental Receptors
Potential environmental receptors considered in this analysis are limited to the aquatic
ecosystems as defined in the Section 305(b) reports provided by each jurisdiction as well as the
aquatic biota inhabiting these ecosystems. Although specific definitions of each ecosystem type
differed somewhat among jurisdictions, the following general definitions are appropriate:
Oceans — All deep coastal waters, extending to international boundaries and including
near coastal waters that are not estuarine (as determined by the physical limits of the
estuary or where salinity is greater than 30 parts per thousand)
Estuaries, harbors, and bays - Semi-enclosed areas (including tidal wetlands) where fresh
and marine waters mix and/or river flows are influenced by the tides
Fresh water wetlands - All inland areas that exhibit the characteristics of a wetland as
defined by the Army Corps of Engineers
Rivers, streams, and lakes -- All navigable waterways and their tributaries, as well as all
man-made and naturally occurring inland bodies of water other than the Great Lakes
Great Lakes — Limited to Lake Erie and Lake Ontario
20
-------
Endpoints of Concern
Endpoints of concern considered in this analysis all are measures of actual impacts
rather than risk. The analysis was based largely on information provided in the Section 305(b)
reports from each jurisdiction. These reports generally classify surface waters into three
categories:
o Fully supporting all designated uses (i.e., the fishable/swimmable goals of the
Clean Water Act),
o Partially supporting one or more designated uses, and
o Not supporting one or more designated uses.
Criteria used to determine the degree of use or goal impairment differed somewhat
among jurisdictions, but generally were based on the frequency and magnitude of violations to
existing water quality standards determined with ambient monitoring data. In some
jurisdictions, ambient monitoring data were supplemented with other information such as
monitoring of toxic substances in fish and wildlife, special surveys, fisheries resource surveys,
water quality complaints, beach closure reports, and shellfish area closures.
For this analysis, we defined two levels of impact to surface waters:
o Degraded waters (i.e., those not supporting or partially supporting designated
uses related to biota), and
o Waters that are not degraded (i.e., those fully supporting designated uses).
We also summarized data on fish kill incidents and other specific concerns (e.g.,
bioaccumulation of persistent organic compounds) listed in the Section 305(b) reports.
Uncertainties
In this analysis, we considered the following sources of uncertainty:
o The proportion of each ecosystem type not assessed for the 305(b) report,
o The degree to which available data allowed observed impacts to be attributed to
specific sources (i.e., point sources) and stressors, and
o A qualitative evaluation of the reliability of the reported impact data.
In each jurisdiction, two types of assessments were reported. Monitored water bodies
generally were those for which the assessment was based on current ambient water quality data.
Evaluated water bodies generally were those for which the assessment was based on professional
judgment, land uses, known pollution sources, predictive modeling, citizen complaints, surveys of
fisheries personnel, or other information unrelated to specific water quality data.
21
-------
Exposure Assessment
Because data presented in the Section 305(b) reports are measures of actual impacts
rather than risk, an exposure assessment was not conducted. The impact data in the Section
305(b) reports actually integrate information on exposure (e.g., ambient monitoring data),
hazard, and risk.
Risk Characterization
Although most of the waters in Region n are not severely degraded by point source
pollution (Table 1-1 in Appendix B), some of those in industrialized areas have been
significantly affected. The intensity of impact varies with the nature, amount, and frequency of
discharge and the properties of the receiving waters. In certain highly developed areas, the
combined loadings from point sources can result in substantial impacts on diverse and
productive ecosystems. In general, however, impacts from point sources are fairly localized. A
breakdown, by jurisdiction, of ecological impacts from point sources in Region II follows.
New York
Point source discharges are no longer the most significant cause of impairment in New
York's water bodies (NYSDEC, 1990). More than 80 percent of the state's water bodies are
impacted primarily by non-point sources. Contaminated sediments, considered non-point
sources of pollution, represent the most serious and extensive problem throughout the state (see
Problem Area #4). Pockets of impairment from point sources do remain, however. Typically,
they are related to ineffectively treated municipal discharges or result from municipal facilities
with remaining construction needs. Municipal waste water and combined sewer outfalls
significantly impact the relationships between organisms and the environments of all the water
body types found throughout the state. Most urban runoff/storm water impacts are centered in
the New York City/Long Island area, but this problem also exists in a few upstate communities
(see Problem Area #2). About 21 percent of the reported fish kills in New York were
attributed to discharges from municipal or industrial treatment facilities (Table 1-10 in Appendix
B). Tables 1-1, 1-2, and 1-6 (Appendix B) summarize information from New York's 305(b)
report that evaluates ecological impacts that may be related to point source pollutants.
The ecological integrity of the marine waters of Long Island and the New York City area
of the lower Hudson Estuary is significantly disrupted by urban runoff and combined sewer
overflows, which result in significant organic enrichment/depleted dissolved oxygen levels,
elevated coliform levels, and toxic contamination. Hypoxic conditions that destroy benthic
organisms are periodically observed in Western Long Island Sound's deeper waters. The major
cause is believed to be mortality of large volumes of algae, which proliferate when nutrients
from runoff and waste water treatment plants are discharged into the water. It is difficult to
accurately assess the contribution of point sources to these impacts in relation to other sources.
There are 15 water body segments on the state's 304(1) short list, meaning that for these
segments, criteria for toxic pollutants are exceeded entirely or substantially as a result of point
source discharges. Of these segments, nine are in the New York Harbor complex. The
pollutants of concern in the Harbor have been identified as copper and mercury. In other
areas, mercury, PCBs, and dioxin have been identified as pollutants of concern.
22
-------
New Jersey
Point and non-point sources of pollution are present to some degree in practically every
watershed in the state. No accurate quantification of the extent of each source's impact is
currently available, and unless predictive modeling or monitoring is performed specifically for
the purpose of defining pollutant inputs, the proportions of impacts due to point and/or non-
point sources cannot be fully determined. However, point sources of waste water are believed
to affect every major New Jersey waterway. The 1,844 industrial and municipal waste water
discharges, along with storm water discharges (see Problem Area #2), significantly impact water
quality statewide. Of the 77 percent of New Jersey's assessed fresh waters believed to support
fish propagation and maintenance uses, approximately 33 percent may be threatened as a result
of known or suspected pollution sources (this refers both to human health and ecological
impacts; the New Jersey 305(b) report does not distinguish between the two impact types).
Tables 1-1, 1-3, and 1-7 (Appendix B) summarize information from New Jersey's 305(b) report
that evaluates ecological impacts that may be related to point source pollutants.
Ecological stressors commonly found in excessive amounts include nutrients, oxygen-
demanding organic material, salts, sediments, and oil and grease. Other water quality problems
in the state that are partly due to point sources include impacts of pesticides, priority organics,
metals, ammonia, habitat alteration, thermal modification, pH deviations, and altered chlorine
levels.
The increasing amounts of nutrients and oxygen-demanding materials being discharged
to New Jersey's ocean waters are contributing to coastal water enrichment, which may lead to
phytoplankton blooms and benthic anoxia. Phytoplankton blooms have also been observed in
the Hudson/Raritan and Raritan/Sandy Hook estuaries, that resulted in hypoxic conditions in
the latter that have caused fish kills of flounder, sea robin, crabs, and other species. Sewage
treatment plant discharges, combined sewer outfalls, the disposal of dredged materials, the
outflow from the Hudson/Raritan estuary, and non-point source tributary inputs all contribute
to coastal water enrichment, and it is difficult to apportion each source's ecological impact.
Point source discharges also contribute to the low dissolved oxygen levels that are the
primary reason why 24 percent of the state's rivers and streams cannot fully support fish
propagation and maintenance. Minimum dissolved oxygen levels were violated occasionally
along the coast during 1988 and 1989. This has the potential to impact aquatic communities by
restricting the types and numbers of organisms that can inhabit affected areas or by causing
mortality of aquatic life.
Lakes in New Jersey are impacted primarily by non-point sources, although some lakes
are impacted by industrial or municipal discharges (> 175 lake-acres or 0.7% of the states lake-
acreage - see Table 1-1 in Appendk B).
Ten water bodies are on New Jersey's 304(1) short list. The major pollutants of concern
in New Jersey from point source discharges are heavy metals. Five of the ten waters listed in
the state are segments of the New York Harbor complex*
New York/New Jersey Interstate Waters
Nine New York waterbody segments and five New Jersey water body segments on the
304(1) short list are located in the New York Harbor complex. Again, combined sewer outfalls
are a major part of the problem. High concentrations of toxics are found in New Jersey-New
23
-------
York interstate waters, rivers in urbanized northeastern New Jersey, and tributaries to the
Delaware River in the Camden area. The New Jersey-New York interstate waters, including the
Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, Hudson River, Newark Bay, and the tidal Hackensack River, exhibit
severely depressed dissolved oxygen concentrations that are caused partially by point source
loadings. High levels of PCBs and pesticides have also been observed in finfish here. Dioxin
has been found in the Passaic River and in New York Bight. These toxic compounds may cause
reproductive or developmental abnormalities in affected organisms and/or shifts in biotic
community composition. Although much if this bioaccumulation is believed to be a result of
non-point source pollution, much of the bioavailable contaminants that now reside in sediments
originated from point sources.
Puerto Rico
Industrial, municipal, and combined sewer outfall discharges significantly impact the ecology
of Puerto Rico's waters, causing organic enrichment and toxic contamination. Pathogen
indicators, nutrients, organic enrichment, and flow alteration are the principal causes of serious
impacts here. More serious impacts are caused when waste water is discharged into poorly
flushed water bodies, such as the Martin Pena Channel, which is accumulating solid wastes
owing to. its poor flushing capacity and numerous waste water discharges. Several fish kills
related to eutrophication and organic enrichment/oxygen demand caused by waste water
discharges were reported in 1988 and 1989. Tables 1-1, 1-4, and 1-8 (Appendix B) summarize
information from Puerto Rico's 305(b) report that evaluates ecological impacts that may be
related to point source pollutants.
Twelve water body segments are on the Puerto Rico 304(1) short list. The majority are
listed for heavy metals. There are also 16 water body segments on the "suspected" short fist.
Additional monitoring will be performed on these segments to verify any toxics problems.
U.S. Virgin Islands
The most significant point source problems in the U.S. Virgin Islands are waste water
discharges. Poor waste water treatment, plant malfunctions, storm drain overflows, and raw
sewage discharges lead to elevated coliform levels, nutrient enrichment, and increased turbidity,
especially in poorly flushed areas such as lagoons. Ecologically sensitive and important areas
such as corals, mangroves, seagrass beds, and fish/shellfish/turtle spawning and nursery areas
are adversely impacted by waste water discharges. Industrial discharges also have been linked
to elevated levels of toxics in sediments and the water column. Tables 1-1, 1-5, and 1-9
(Appendix B) summarize information from the U.S. Virgin Islands 305(b) report that evaluates
ecological impacts that may be related to point source pollutants.
No water bodies in the Virgin Islands are on the 304(1) short list.
Trends
All jurisdictions in Region II have well established permit programs. As a result,
ambient water quality has improved. A study of significant discharges to the Niagara River
compared 1985-1986 data to 1981-1982 data and revealed an 80 percent reduction in total
discharge of toxic priority pollutants. The continued implementation of the region's permitting,
pretreatment, and enforcement programs as well as upgrade of sewage treatment facilities will
24
-------
contribute to further reduction of pollutant loadings from point sources and reduction in related
ecological impacts. In particular, the imposition of permitting requirements based on aquatic
toxicity will reduce the impacts from point sources on aquatic species.
Reversibility
The reversibility of damage to aquatic ecosystems, once source control measures are
implemented, is a function of two key factors: the time required for the existing contamination
to abate and the time required for the biological community to be reestablished once the
contamination levels subside. Certain types of contamination (e.g., thermal alteration) can be
rapidly mitigated if appropriate source controls are available and implemented, whereas other
types (e.g., metal contamination of sediments) leave significant residual contamination that can
require decades to decline to no-effect levels. Once sources of new and residual contamination
have been eliminated, the time required for an aquatic community to recover will depend upon
many additional factors.
Several factors influence the speed with which a healthy aquatic community can become
reestablished once contamination is removed (i.e., all sources, including sediments). One key
factor is the severity of the effects incurred. If entire trophic levels have been eliminated, a
healthy biotic community will take longer to develop than if only a few species have been
eliminated or displaced. The time required for full recovery also will depend upon the extent of
the contamination and the distance that has to be traveled by recolonizing individuals from
uncontaminated areas. Fish can recolonize rapidly from long distances provided that the
intervening habitat is suitable. Aquatic invertebrates recolonize more slowly, except for aquatic
insects, which can recolonize rapidly in spring when flying adults disperse and lay eggs. Another
factor is the level of residual contamination in biota.
The eight stressors associated with point source discharges to surface water can be
tentatively classified according to whether they exhibit low, intermediate, or high reversibility, as
follows:
• Low — metals and some pesticides and organic chemicals
• Intermediate -- pesticides, organic chemicals, nutrients, and acids
• High — suspended solids, temperature, and oxygen-demanding pollutants
On the basis of this categorization, the reversibility of most impacts to surface waters in
Region II resulting from the current point source discharges is intermediate to high. Nutrients,
organic enrichment, and suspended solids are the main pollutants responsible for observed
surface water degradation linked to point source discharges. However, certain water bodies
(i.e., those on the 304(1) short list) are contaminated with metals and persistent organic
compounds (e.g., PCBs and dioxins). Much of this contamination is present in sediments
(considered a non-point source). Most of these water bodies are located in highly urbanized,
industrialized areas (e.g., the New York Harbor complex). Given the many sources and types of
stresses on these ecosystems, their recovery, if indeed recovery is possible, will probably take a
long time.
However, it should be noted that the foregoing classification of stressors with respect to
reversibility of effects is a gross oversimplification. Site-specific conditions and contaminants
25
-------
will greatly influence reversibility in most cases. Information on the reversibility of the eight
stressors associated with point source discharges to surface water as well as some of the
variables that influence site-specific reversibility is provided in the hazard identification section
of this report.
Uncertainty
Three potential sources of uncertainty are considered: the unassessed proportion of
each type of ecosystem, the reliability of data, and the degree to which observed impacts or
threats can be attributed to point sources. Each of these is addressed below.
The proportion of ecosystems assessed for the 305(b) reports is high. Except for oceans
surrounding the Virgin Islands, at least 94 percent of all ecosystem types in Region II were
evaluated in some manner. Moreover, except for rivers and streams, the evaluations for
80 percent to 100 percent of the ecosystems were based on actual ambient monitoring data.
Only about 6 percent of the rivers and stream miles in Region II were monitored (5 percent in
New York, which has 92 percent of the stream miles), although nearly all of the rest were
assessed in some manner. The two ecosystem types for which no data were available are
privately owned lakes in New Jersey (53 percent of the total acreage in that state) and oceans
surrounding the Virgin Islands.
We assume that the reliability of data generally is very high for several reasons. First,
we assume that the type, volume, and location of all significant point source discharges are
known as the result of the NPDES permitting process, and therefore that all known and
expected problems are monitored closely. Second, the data available for monitored water bodies
are either actual impacts (e.g., elevated levels of contaminants in fish tissues) or reasonable
surrogates of actual impacts (e.g., measured levels of contaminants above water quality criteria
or standards). Finally, the conclusions regarding impacts to evaluated water bodies were based
on the professional judgment of qualified water management personnel familiar with the status
of water resources in their respective jurisdictions. However, it should be noted that most water
quality assessments, particularly for water bodies that were evaluated rather than monitored, are
human-health-based. For example, conclusions regarding degradation of oceans and Great
Lakes were based largely on the existence of fish or shellfish advisories (i.e., concentrations of
contaminants in fish or shellfish tissue above levels considered safe for human consumption).
Ecological monitoring data (e.g., comparison of monitored ambient concentrations to ecological
water quality criteria or standards and direct evaluations of aquatic community structure) were
relatively scarce. As a consequence, some ecological impacts or threats (e.g., adverse impacts to
birds that consume contaminated fish or shellfish) may have been overlooked.
We expect that there was a considerable amount of uncertainty concerning attribution of
impacts to particular stressors and sources for several reasons. For most water bodies in
Region II, we would expect that multiple stressors are released to the water body from multiple
sources. In many cases (e.g., all of New Jersey's waters), available data did not permit
identification of the particular sources or (stressors) responsible for a given impact. In other
cases, an observed impact attributed largely to a single point source may have resulted from
cumulative inputs from multiple sources (e.g., pollutant concentrations might be elevated, but
not above a criterion level, upstream of a facility). More important, many of the major impacts
to surface waters of Region n are due to contaminated sediments that are the result of largely
historical contaminant discharges. Although point sources probably contributed significantly to
26
-------
the observed contamination, it is impossible to quantify their relative contribution to present
impacts.
Scoring Recommendations
The following subscores were recommended for areas in Region II:
New York:
New Jersey:
Puerto Rico:
Virgin Islands:
Intensity 4, Scale 3, Value 3, Total 10
Intensity 4, Scale 4, Value 3, Total 11
Intensity 5, Scale 3, Value 5, Total 13
Intensity 4, Scale 1, Value 5, Total 10
The final scores are not necessarily an average of these scores. They represent a
proposed aggregate score for the region.
Region II:
Intensity 4, Scale 3, Value 5, Uncertainty: Medium
Total: 12 (M)
References
Edmundson, W. T., "Phosphorus, Nitrogen, and Algae in Lake Washington after Diversion of
Sewage," Science 169:690-691 (as cited in EPA 1972), 1970.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of
Environmental Problems: Appendix in," Ecological Risk Work Group, Office of Policy,
Planning, and Evaluation, Washington, D.C., 1987.
EPA, "Quality Criteria for Water," Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington,
B.C. EPA 440/4-84-022, 1986a.
EPA, "Hazard Evaluation Division Standard Evaluation Procedure Ecological Risk Assessment,"
Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C. EPA-540/9-85-001, 1986b.
EPA, "Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants: Volume 1," Office of
Water Planning and Standards, EPA-440/4-29-029a, 1979.
EPA, "Water Quality Criteria 1972," EPA-R3-73-003, prepared by the Environmental Studies
Board, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Washington,
D.C., 1972.
Haines, T., "Fish Population Trends in Response to Surface Water Acidification," Acid
Deposition Long-Term Trends, pp. 300-334; National Research Council, Washington,
D.C.: National Academy Press, 1986.
Hynes, H.B.N., The Biology of Polluted Waters, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1974.
ICF, Inc., Background analysis for USEPA Region II Comparative Risk Project - Point Sources
to Water," prepared for EPA Region II, 1990.
27
-------
ICF, Inc., "Ecological Risk Hazard Findings for Effects of Oxygen-Demanding Pollutants,
Pesticides and Herbicides, Nongaseous Inorganics, Suspended Inert Solids, Sediments,
Acids, and Thermal Alteration on Aquatic Ecosystems; Reversibility of Injury to Aquatic
Ecosystems Resulting from Industrial Point Sources, Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTWs), and Non-point Sources," Draft Hazard Findings Prepared for the
Pennsylvania and EPA Region in Comparative Risk Projects, 1988.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), "New Jersey 1990 State Water
Quality Inventory Report," (State 305(b) Submittal) Bureau of Water Quality Planning,
Division of Water Resources, Trenton, New Jersey, March 1990.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), "New York State
Water Quality" (State 305(b) Submittal) .Bureau of Monitoring and Assessment,
Division of Water, Albany, NY, April 1990.
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (PREQB), "Puerto Rico 305(b) Report,"
Environmental Quality Board; Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, April 1990.
U. S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources (VIDPNR), "Water Quality
Assessment Report 305(b)," Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Protection, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., March 1988.
28
-------
2. Combined Sewer Overflow Discharges to Water
Summary/Abstract
Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) are overflows that occur when storms cause such a
large volume of water to flow through the sewers that sewage treatment plants must let a
significant amount bypass the plant without treatment. Floatables from CSOs represent a
hazard to marine life and birds. High levels of nutrients and oxygen-demanding substances
following storm events can lead to low oxygen conditions and result in degradation of aquatic
communities and fish kills. In industrial areas, oils, grease, and toxic organics, which present
acute and chronic risks to aquatic organisms, are also released following storm events. New
York/New Jersey Harbor shows significant impacts. Moderate impacts were also noted for
Lake Ontario, and minor or negligible impacts were described for Camden County, Puerto Rico,
and the Virgin Islands.
Hazard Identification
The following stressors are associated with CSOs: nutrients, oxygen demanding
pollutants, floatables, organic chemicals and heavy metals. Floatables and nutrients are the
major pollutants of concern from CSOs. Specific hazards associated with aquatic stressors
include the following:
Nutrients (nitrate, ammonia, phosphorus) and Oxygen-Demanding Compounds
When oxidizable wastes and nutrients are discharged to a stream or estuary, bacteria
begin to decompose the waste into simple chemical compounds. These bacteria may grow fast
enough to consume the entire supply of oxygen from the water column before it can be fully
replenished by water transport, diffusion from the atmosphere and photosynthesis. Nutrient
loadings also contribute to nuisance algal blooms, which can impact aquatic ecosystems via
increased turbidity and reduced dissolved oxygen levels (the dead algae are digested by oxygen-
demanding bacteria). Resulting anoxic conditions can cause pronounced shifts in aquatic
communities and, in extreme cases, mortality of benthic fish, shellfish, and macroinvertebrates.
Floatable solids (kitchen waste, paper, plastics, medical waste, etc.)
In addition to being eyesores, the nonbiodegradable floatable pollutants, especially plastic
and styrofoam objects, can be lethal to marine mammals, birds, and fish that ingest or become
entangled in the debris. Styrofoam pellets, for example, can be ingested by fish that mistake
them for zooplankton. The indigestible pellets can fill the fish's gut, prevent it from feeding,
and cause the fish to starve to death.
Organic chemicals and heavy metals (industrial discharge, contaminated household waste, etc.)
Toxic chemicals and heavy metals in CSOs can contaminate marine sediments and
concentrate in fish and shellfish. These chemicals and metals can cause a range of adverse
effects on reproduction, growth, and/or survival rates of different species, and can cause organ
damage, cancer, and other impacts in individual organisms.
29
-------
Risk Characterization
Floatables from CSOs represent a hazard to marine life and birds. High levels of
nutrients and oxygen-demanding substances following storm events can lead to low oxygen
conditions and result in degradation of aquatic communities and fish kills. In industrial areas,
oils, grease, and toxic organics, which present acute and chronic risks to aquatic organisms, are
also released following storm events. New York/New Jersey Harbor shows significant impacts.
Moderate impacts were also noted for Lake Ontario, and minor or negligible impacts were
described for Camden County, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. A breakdown, by
jurisdiction, of ecological impacts from point sources in Region II follows.
New York/New Jersey Harbor
In the greater New York metropolitan area, approximately 70 to 80 percent of sewers
are of the combined type (NYSDEC 1988). There are more than 780 CSO discharge points
(540 points within New York City and 240 within northeastern New Jersey) that directly convey
untreated overflows to the New York/New Jersey Harbor complex. During periods of heavy
rainfall, treatment plants are bypassed and sewage is discharged directly into the New
York/New Jersey Harbor. Dry-weather overflows also occur, although known dry-weather
overflows to the New York/New Jersey Harbor are estimated to be approximately 20 million
gallons per day (MOD), only about 1 percent of the total municipal daily discharge (NJDEP
1987). Total population in this area is about 10.4 million, and about 7 million are served by
combined sewer systems. The boldface on Figure 2-1 indicates the area within the New
York/New Jersey Harbor (shadow area) where CSOs are located. Combined sewer overflow
pollutants include coliform bacteria, nutrients, oxygen-demanding organic material, suspended
solids, sediments, floatables, and oil and grease. However, in addition to pollutants normally
associated with sewage, CSO may be contaminated with pesticides, priority organic chemicals,
and metals.
Potential sources of pollutants impacting the New York/New Jersey Harbor include raw
sewage discharges, treated sewage discharges, industrial waste, sewage spills, storm drains,
combined sewage overflows, commercial shipping and recreational boating, illegal discharges and
dumping, and ocean dumping. A study on floatables (NYSDEC 1988) found that consistently
higher numbers of floatables appear on northern New Jersey beaches than on southern New
Jersey beaches, and raw sewage discharges, CSOs, and marine transfer stations are suspected of
contributing relatively large amounts of floatables. Wet-weather overflows cause significant and
severe ecological and welfare impacts in New York/New Jersey Harbor. Based on the New
Jersey 1990 State Water Quality Inventory Report (NJDEP 1990), the impact on New Jersey's
ocean water from CSOs is moderate, local, and minor in comparison with impacts from
industrial and municipal discharges and storm water outfalls. CSOs from New York contribute
about 47 percent of the moderate to severe pollutant impacts to the Atlantic-Long Island Sound
Basin (NYSDEC 1990).
Lake Ontario, New York
A number of streams and basins in the Lake Ontario area are severely affected by
loadings from storm events. There are 33 CSOs discharges to the Buffalo River alone. The
associated discharge of metals, solids, phosphorus, and toxic contaminants seriously impairs
water quality in the Niagara River and Lake Ontario. In the U.S. segment of the Lake Ontario
Basin, the estimated annual discharge of toxics from CSOs was 106 tons in 1986. However, the
30
-------
Figure 2-1
31
-------
direct impact of CSO loadings on water column quality and fish tissue has not been quantified
(EPA Region H 1990). H
Camden County, New Jersey
The Delaware Estuary from Trenton, New Jersey, to Lisbon Point, Delaware, is 85 miles
long and flows through the nation's fifth-largest urban area, the Philadelphia-Camden
metropolitan area. Approximately 100,000 people are served by the combined sewer systems
operated by Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority. Thirty-seven discharge points
convey overflows directly or via the Cooper River or the Newton Creek to the Delaware River.
The Delaware River in the Philadelphia-Camden area is designated "fishable not supported" and
"swimmable not supported." However, the adverse impacts from industrial and municipal
discharges and storm runoff are greater than from CSOs (NJDEP 1990).
Puerto Rico
According to the available hydrologic data, Puerto Rico has 100 river basins, which
account for 5,373 stream miles and 176 estuary miles. There are a total of 18 lakes and 20
lagoons with an approximate surface area of 11,146 acres, and a total of 434 miles of shoreline.
The Puerto Rico water quality assessment indicated that a total of 2,727 stream miles (51
percent) were less than fully supporting designated uses. Of this total, 2.4 miles were impacted
by combined sewer overflows. In estuaries, 85 percent (147 miles) of the miles assessed are not
fully supporting uses. Of this total, CSO contributed to 1.6 miles. CSOs do not contribute to
any adverse impact in lakes, lagoons, or the 434 miles of shoreline (PREQB 1990).
Virgin Islands
Water quality in the Virgin Islands is generally good but is worsening due to an increase
in_nonpoint sources such as vessel wastes and uncontrolled runoff. During and after heavy
rainfall, hydraulic overload may cause sewage to overflow due to the limited capacity of the
collection system and storm water infiltration in the Christiansted Harbor area. However, no
significant CSO impact has been identified to date (VIDPNR 1988).
Trends
^ On August 10, 1989, EPA issued the final National Combined Sewer Overflow Strategy, in
which EPA requires each state to prepare a statewide strategy for developing and implementing
measures to reduce pollutant discharges from CSOs. EPA Region II has received statewide
strategies from New Jersey and New York. Both states will implement their strategies by
eliminating dry-weather overflows, controlling floatables, and applying appropriate control
technologies. Furthermore, New Jersey passed the Storm Water Management and Combined
Sewer Overflow Abatement Bond Act of 1989, under which $50 million is available for the
purpose of storm water management and abating combined sewer overflows. The State
Revolving Fund (SRF) program provides reduced interest loans to municipalities for sewage
works, and CSO abatement projects are eligible for that support. Implementation of these
initiatives should result in reduced loadings and a corresponding reduction of related ecological
impacts from CSOs in the future.
32
-------
Reversibility of Effects
While CSOs contain various pollutants, floatables, nutrients and oxygen demanding
poEutants are the major stressors of concern for ocean and estuarine ecosystems. The effects of
these stressors can probably be reversed fairly quickly if the source is eliminated. Stressors of
concern that are more persistent in the environment include organic compounds and metals (see
Problem Area #1). However, CSOs appear to be relatively minor contributors to toxic loadings.
CSO impacts in unconfined water bodies (rivers or coastal waters) are generally short-term in
nature.
Uncertainties
There was a considerable amount of uncertainty concerning attribution of impacts to
particular stressors and sources for several reasons. For most water bodies in Region II,
multiple stressors are released to the water body from multiple sources. In many cases (e.g., all
of New Jersey's waters), available data did not permit identification of the particular sources or
(stressors) responsible for a given impact.
Scoring
The following subscores were recommended for specific areas in Region II:
New York/New
Jersey Harbor
Lake Ontario, NY
Camden County, NJ
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Intensity
3
3
1
1
1
Scale Value Total Uncertainty
5
1
1
1
1
5
1
1
13
5
3
2
2
Med
Low
Low
Low
Low
The final scores (below) are proposed as aggregates for the Region:
Region II 3 159 Med
References
Environmental Protection Agency Region II (EPA Region U) "Great Lakes Problem Area
Report ~ Toxic Chemical Stresses," prepared for the Region II Risk Ranking Project,
Water Mangement Division, June 1990.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "National Combined Sewer Overflow
Strategy," Office of Water, August 1989
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), "New Jersey 1990 State Water
Quality Inventory Report," (State 305(b) Submittal) Bureau of Water Quality Planning,
Division of Water Resources, Trenton, New Jersey, March 1990.
33
-------
NJDEP, "New Jersey Floatables Study: Possible Sources, Transport, and Beach Survey Results,"
NJDEP, November 1987.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), "New York State
Water Quality," (State 305(b) Submittal) Bureau of Monitoring and Assessment, Division
of Water, Albany, NY, April 1990.
NYSDEC, "Investigation of Sources at Beach Washups in 1988," NYSDEC, December 1988.
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (PREQB), "Puerto Rico 305(b) Report,"
Environmental Quality Board; Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, April 1990.
PREQB, "Goals and Progress of Statewide Water Quality Management Planning -- Puerto Rico
1988-1989," PREQB, April 1990.
United States Virgin Islands, Department of Planning and Natural Resources, "Water Quality
Assessment Report 305(b)," Department of Planning and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Protection, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, U.S.V.I., March 1988.
34
-------
4. Non-point Sources of Water Pollution
Summary/Abstract
Non-point sources of water pollution include contaminated and noncontaminated
sediments, airborne deposition of toxic compounds, and runoff from urban, agricultural,
silvicultural, and resource-extraction activities. This assessment reflects the current level of
understanding of non-point source (NFS) pollution in Region II. The nature of NFS pollution
varies greatly among the four jurisdictions in the region. On the one hand, more than 10
percent of New York State is covered by water, and on the other hand, the U.S. Virgin Islands
have no lakes, rivers, or perennial streams.
Atmospheric deposition, nutrients, and sediments are the most frequently occurring NFS
pollutants in Region II. Nutrients cause eutrophication in impoundments, and sediments
destroy benthic organisms and pose a threat to the unique coral reefs in the Virgin Islands.
Because much of the region is highly urbanized, urban runoff presents a significant problem.
Impacts from nutrients associated with agriculture continue to pose problems in New Jersey,
New York, and Puerto Rico.
Introduction
According to EPA non-point source guidance (EPA 1987), "NFS pollution is caused by
diffuse sources that are not regulated as point sources and normally is associated with
agricultural, silvicultural, and urban runoff, runoff from construction activities, etc. Such
pollution results in the human-made or human-induced alteration of the chemical, physical,
biological, and radiological integrity of water. In practical terms, NFS pollution does not result
from a discharge at a specific, single location (such as a single pipe) but generally results from
land runoff, precipitation, atmospheric deposition, or percolation."
While the point source problem is very well identified and quantified, this is not the case
with non-point sources of pollution, which are widespread but not well quantified. Many states
are in the process of collecting more data and closely monitoring NFS activities to gain a more
reliable quantitative assessment. Many states began to address NFS pollution with the initiation
of Section 208 studies. This process has been accelerated with the passage of the 1987
ammendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 319 of the Act requires states to assess
and identify categorical NFS pollutants and develop a Comprehensive Non-Point Source
Management Program to address the identified NFS problems. All states in the region have
completed these NFS documents and are now implementing their NFS Management Programs.
Hazard Identification
NFS pollutants have only been identified on a categorical basis. The major categories of
NFS pollution include atmospheric deposition, on-site waste water systems, urban runoff,
agricultural activities, landfills, contaminated sediments, and road sanding. The principal
ecologic stressors associated with these sources include acids, sediments, nutrients, heavy metals,
toxic organics (pesticides and VOCs), oxygen-demanding compounds, thermal modification, and
highly fluctuating stream flows and levels. Acids, sediments, and nutrients are the major
35
-------
stressors in the region. Detailed information on the potential ecological impacts from these
stressors is presented in the point source analysis.
The mode of transport of these stressors through the environment is mainly surface
runoff. Airborne deposition of certain toxic compounds are significant in the Great Lakes (see
Problem # 22: Area Sources/Non-point Sources of Air Pollution), and acid precipitation is a
major problem in the region (see Problem Area # 23: Extra-Regional Sources that Lead to
Acid Deposition). For the purposes of the ranking, however, airborne non-point source
contamination to surface waters was not considered under this problem area. Potential
environmental receptors of the identified stressors are lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, lagoons,
estuaries, and coastal waters. Of particular concern in the region are the Great Lakes, the New
York Bight, the Long Island Sound, and New York Harbor.
In-place contaminated sediments are categorized as a non-point source pollutant.
However, in most instances, the sediments were initially contaminated by point sources.
Although it is difficult to determine the relative contribution of different sources to
bioaccumulatipn of toxic compounds in aquatic species, contaminated sediments are believed to
be highly significant. Risks to ecosystems from contaminated sediments are probably less
significant than to humans. People are at risk from long term ingestion of fish that have
accumulated toxic chemicals in their flesh, and several Region II fisheries have been closed
because of PCBs. Although individual aquatic organisms can be adversely effected by toxics,
however, fish populations are fairly resistent to low level exposures of organic compounds and
metals. ^ In fact, the ban on striped bass fishing in the Hudson has probably contributed to an
overall increase in striped bass population.
Exposure Assessment
The serious effort to address NPS pollution is intensifying. The main data sources for
this effort can be found in state NPS Assessment Reports and Management Programs. The
data do not currently exist, however, to provide a meaningful exposure assessment.
Risk Characterization
The ecological impacts of NPS are believed to be significant. However, most ecological
impacts of NPS cannot be quantified given currently available information. As NPS control
programs continue to evolve, these ecological impacts will be better quantified and controlled.
Atmospheric deposition, nutrients, and sediments are the most frequently occurring NPS
pollutants in Region II. Nutrients cause eutrophication in impoundments, and sediments
destroy benthic organisms and pose a threat to the unique coral reefs in the Virgin Islands.
Because much of the region is highly urbanized, urban runoff also presents a significant
problem. Impacts from nutrients associated with agriculture continue to pose problems in New
Jersey, New York, and Puerto Rico. There have been occasional cases of fish kills due to
accidental spills of silage juices and other oxygen-demanding substances in the region. A
breakdown, by jurisdiction, of ecological impacts from non-point sources in Region II follows.
New Jersey
According to New Jersey's Non-point Sources Assessment and Management Program,
NPS pollution impacts most of the water bodies in New Jersey. There are 6,450 miles of rivers,
36
-------
24,000 acres of public lakes, 900,000 acres of fresh water and tidal wetlands, 120 miles of ocean
coastline, and 420 square miles of open estuary waters.
New York State
NFS pollution is the primary source of contamination for more than 80 percent of the
impaired water bodies. Identified non-point sources have a major impact on over 111,700 acres
of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs; they also have a secondary impact on some 142,000 acres. Non-
point sources have a major impact on 247 square miles of bays and estuaries and a secondary
impact on more than 785 square miles of these water bodies. New York is the only state in the
region that has specific data on contaminated sediments (see Table 1-6 in Appendix B).
Puerto Rico
Some 852 miles of rivers are significantly impacted by NFS pollution, with a secondary
impact on over 1,300 miles. Identified non-point sources have a major impact on more than
2,400 acres of lakes and lagoons, with a secondary impact on over 2,000 acres. Identified Non-
point sources have a major impact on over 35 miles of estuaries and coastal waters, with a
secondary impact on over 78 miles. The NPS impacts of animal waste have been particularly
acute in Puerto Rico, where Lake La Plata, a drinking water reservoir for the residents of San
Juan, is severely impaired. Excessive nutrient loadings to the lake have caused prolific growth
of water lilies and other plants in the lake. A Clean Lakes Project to collect, treat, process, and
recycle the animal waste is under way.
Virgin Islands
Over eight square miles of lagoons and coastal areas are impacted by NPS pollution.
There are no lakes, rivers, or streams in the Virgin Islands. Sediments from construction sites
pose a serious threat to the unique coral reefs of the Virgin Islands. The problem has been
identified and will be addressed by the NPS Management Program for the Virgin Islands.
Trends
A concerted effort is being made throughout the region to deal with NPS problems. All
states in the region have established NPS coordination committees or Task Forces consisting of
appropriate federal, state, and local agencies to address NPS problems. The state governments
are now responsible for coordinating and implementing best management practices and other
measures to control NPS pollution. Aggressive implementation of these programs could lead to
significantly improved water quality in the future.
Reversibility
See information provided in Problem Area # 1.
Uncertainty
There is a need for more ambient data so that comparisons can be made between
estimated exposures, levels of concern, predicted adverse effects, and the geographic extent of
the adverse effects.
37
-------
Scoring Recommendations
Scores were determined separately for each jurisdiction in Region II:
New York:
New Jersey:
Puerto Rico:
Virgin Islands:
Intensity 4, Scale 4, Value 4, Total 12
Intensity 5, Scale 4, Value 4, Total 13
Intensity 4, Scale 4, Value 5, Total 13
Intensity 3, Scale 2, Value 5, Total 10
The final scores are not necessarily an average of these scores. They represent a
proposed aggregate score for the region.
Region II:
Intensity 4, Scale 4, Value 4.5, Uncertainty: High
Total: 12.5 (H)
References
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "Non-point Source Guidance," Office of Water,
December 1987.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), "New Jersey Non-point Source
Assessment and Management Program," Division of Water Resources, Trenton, New
Jersey, October 1989.
NJDEP, "New Jersey 1990 State Water Quality Inventory Report," (State 305(b) Submittal)
Bureau of Water Quality Planning, Division of Water Resources, Trenton, New Jersey,
March 1990.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), "Non-point Source
Assessment Report," Bureau of Water Quality Management, Division of Water, Albany,
New York, February 1989.
NYSDEC, "New York State Water Quality" (State 305(b) Submittal) Bureau of Monitoring and
Assessment, Division of Water, Albany, NY, April 1990.
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board (PREQB), "Non-point Source Assessment Report,"
Environmental Quality Board, Hato Rey, Puerto Rico, August 1988.
PREQB, "Puerto Rico 305(b) Report," Environmental Quality Board; Hato Rey, Puerto Rico,
April 1990.
U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources (USVI), "U.S. Virgin Islands
Non-point Source Pollution Assessment Report," Department of Planning and Natural
Resources, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands, December 1989.
VIDPNR, "Water Quality Assessment Report 305(b)," Department of Planning and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Protection, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas,
U.S.V.I., March 1988.
38
-------
5. Traditional Underground Injection Wells (Classes I - III)
Problem Definition
This problem area includes the following types of injection wells:
Class I - Deep hazardous and nonhazardous waste below an underground source of
drinking water
Class II — Oil and gas recovery wells
Class III -- Solution mining
Risk Characterization
Region II has no Class I wells, 1,190 Class H wells, and approximately 90 Class HI wells.
Current Mechanical Integrity Tests (MITs), which Class H and III wells must undergo regularly,
reveal little potential for ground water contamination. Therefore, there is low potential for
ecological impacts associated with ground water contamination as a source of exposure to
surface ecosystems. The impacts of the surface operations for these wells present a greater
potential threat in terms of habitat loss and nonpoint source pollution. Because information
about the ecosystem resources around these wells was not available, however, an estimate of risk
could not be made.
Scoring Recommendations
Intensity 1, Scale 1, Value 1, Uncertainty: High
Total: 3 (H)
References
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "Unfinished Business in New England: A Comparative
Assessment of Environmental Problems," Ecological Risk Work Group Report, USEPA
Region I, December 1988.
EPA, "Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems,"
Appendix III, Ecological Risk Work Group, USEPA Office of Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation, February 1987.
39
-------
6. Other Underground Injection Wells (Class IV and V)
Problem Definition
Class IV and V wells include all underground injection wells that cannot be classified as
I, n, or HI. Included among the Class IV and V well types are shallow injection and cooling
water return, storm water drainage, cesspools, septic tanks, industrial drainage, and automobile
service bay drainage wells. Depending on well type, volume of discharge, well depth, and soil
type, the impact on ground water will vary. Weils in Classes IV and V were not included in
Area #5 (Traditional Underground Injection Wells: Class I-in) since separate data are available
and the program emphasis now differs substantially from the traditional UIC classes.
Risk Characterization
Class IV and V UIC wells are sources of potential contamination of ground water
because of the chemicals injected into the wells. Region II has an estimated 48,940 Class V
wells in New York and New Jersey. Although specific figures were not available for the
Caribbean, there are probably a considerably smaller number of wells in Puerto Rico and the
Virgin Islands. One Class IV well was identified and will be treated as a Class V well for the
purposes of this assessment. Ground water contaminants from these wells that are dispersed to
soils, sediments, and surface waters represent a potential source of risk to regional ecosystems.
These risks are difficult to assess since little information is available. In general, however, these
sources probably represent some portion of total nonpoint source loadings to regional
ecosystems.
Uncertainty
Because little information is available, the uncertainty about ecological risks from Class
IV and V UIC wells is high.
Scoring Recommendations
Intensity 1, Scale 1, Value 1, Uncertainty: High
Total: 3(H)
40
-------
7. Land Use Changes/Physical Modifications of Aquatic
Habitats (Except Dredging)
Summary/Abstract
This problem area covers physical modifications that cause disruption of aquatic habitats,
such as dam construction and operation; flood control channelization; and filling for highways,
housing, industrial areas, and landfills. The geographic extent of land use changes and physical
modifications of aquatic habitats encompasses most of the region. Impacts are particularly
severe in the region's coastal areas. While much of the ecologically important aquatic habitat
has already been lost in urban areas, the few remaining areas are oases for rare and endangered
species. The undeveloped areas in the region are at high risk for habitat loss or degradation.
Wetlands are vital ecological breeding grounds and habitats for many aquatic species. Wetland
modifications are highly irreversible and severely impact aquatic species. There is a strong
consensus among work group members that this problem area presents the highest ecological
risk in Region II.
Introduction
Ever since Europeans began colonizing the New York and New Jersey area in the 1600s,
the aquatic habitats found both inland and along the coast have been modified to meet human
needs. Unfortunately, these modifications are often incompatible with the needs of native fish
and wildlife as well as with the long-term human need for a healthy environment. Human
population growth has been the dominant factor in altering the region's environment, both
directly, from physical change, and indirectly, as a consequence of pollution.
Early Americans depended on access to the water for commerce and transportation.
Near-shore habitats such as wetlands were once considered nuisance areas, and many were filled
in to make room for commerce and industry. Overall, New York State has lost 60 percent of its
original fresh water and tidal wetlands and New Jersey has lost 39 percent. Many counties near
the heart of the New York metropolitan area have lost most if not all of their remaining
wetlands, and much of what remains .is altered or degraded.
Other shallow-water habitats, such as tidal mud-flats and seagrass beds, have also been
vastly reduced in size as a result of filling for houses and highways, sand mining, dredging, and
bottom fishing. Many habitats, if not physically destroyed, were degraded by human intrusion.
Runoff of chemicals, nutrients, and sediment from agriculture and urban areas, and direct
pollution from industry and sewage disposal, which are addressed under other problem areas
analyses, are directly related to land use and cause significant degradation of aquatic habitats.
Hazard Identification
The following activities contribute to stresses on aquatic habitats:
o
o
o
Real estate development
Filling for highways and industrial areas
Draining of land for agriculture
41
-------
o Agricultural and urban runoff
o Clearing of land for agriculture
o Construction of marinas
o Dragging of fishing gear on the bottom
o Artificial stabilization of shorelines with bulkheads and riprap
o Flooding by construction of impoundments
o Mining for sand and gravel
o Use of off-road vehicles in sensitive areas such
as barrier islands and dunes
o Human intrusion on and harassment of wildlife in otherwise suitable
habitat
o Lumbering
Most of the direct impacts from these activities result from changes in an area's
hydrology or siltation or from outright elimination of the habitat. Channel siltation and
increased flood damage due to the loss of water storage capacity are both serious problems in
the region. Damming of rivers, dredging of channels, redirecting of water through sewers, and
flood control devices can change salinity regimes of estuaries. Since many estuarine organisms
are dependent on specific ranges of salinities, changing these regimes can make these areas
unsuitable for species that normally inhabit that area, and cause significant shifts in local
ecosystems.
Another major concern is that impacts on one habitat can cause secondary impacts on
other systems. Wetlands are important filtering zones for land runoff and reducing the amount
of wetlands around a body of water increases the dispersion of pollutants. This can be
especially important in suburban and rural areas, where large amounts of sediment and
nutrients can be flushed into streams after heavy rain events. For example, if wetlands are
destroyed around a semi-enclosed bay, the resulting sedimentation and land runoff of nutrients
and chemicals may degrade the water quality to the point where submerged aquatic vegetation
(SAV) could not survive. Not only would the SAV be lost, but all the organisms that depend on
it, such as larval bay scallops and other invertebrates, finfish, birds, mammals, and would be
threatened as well.
All of the region's inland and near shore aquatic habitats (tidal and fresh water wetlands,
near-shore shallows, and tidal mud-flats, estuaries, lakes, streams) are susceptible to degradation
and loss from the effects of human activities. As human population grows and damaging land
use increases, the pressure on aquatic habitats increases. One example of this pressure in the
region is Ocean County, New Jersey, which grew 90 percent in the 1960s. The most obvious
effect of habitat loss and degradation is reduced habitat for fish and wildlife. When habitat is
lost, it is generally lost forever. Continued piecemeal and wholesale destruction of habitat has
caused precipitous declines in many populations of organisms that depend on aquatic and
terrestrial habitats. As a result, many species, such as the piping plover, roseate tern, and short-
nosed sturgeon, have been placed under state and federal threatened and endangered species
protection. In addition to reduced abundances of organisms, many of the remaining fish and
shellfish are unsafe for human consumption as a result of contamination of habitat with toxic
chemicals, pathogens, etc. As suitable habitat is lost, we must harvest food from an increasingly
smaller area ~ which translates into less usable resource. Although this has significant economic
repercussions, it is, more importantly, an indicator of the more serious problem of ecological
destruction.
42
-------
S & 3
8
if
§
0)
.
CD I
1
O
LU
DC
111
•3
C
'5>
a>
JQ
JS
'«
CO
3
CO
CO
o
g
m
x
York
JO
'5
CO
3
O
O
«o - ^
CD ^ « - gj.
{lilii
S?if^«
73 o
cd
Is III
« en « « e
p i- o
Hll
i
01 £ m s « ^ ^
i » *
CD
2
a
§
ca
3
i
-------
Risk Characterization
The geographic extent of land use changes/physical modifications of aquatic habitats
encompasses almost all of Region n. Coastal areas affected are concentrated in the New
York/New Jersey Harbor area. While much of the habitat has already been lost in the urban
areas, the few remaining areas are oases that are necessary for many rare and endangered
species. The undeveloped regions in more outlying areas are now at risk and need to be
protected before they, too, are lost.
Habitat loss was recognized as being one of the most important areas of concern in
Region II at the April 1990 Coastal Conference held at Manhattan College. We are uncertain
about the exact amount of habitat lost, but at this point it is only academic to discuss specific
acreages. We know that there is a definite trend of habitat destruction. We also know that
some losses are irreversible.
Trends
As indicated in Table 7-1, annual loss rates for freshwater and coastal wetlands in New
York and New Jersey are fairly low, and Puerto Rico is actually gaining coastal wetlands.
However, historical losses have been so great that the remaining, significantly stressed resources
are extremely important. Given pressures for development within the region and the diffuse
governmental responsibility for control of land use, habitat destruction is likely to be a
continuing problem for the foreseeable future. If predictions of sea level rise and storm surges
due to global warming are accurate, coastal aquatic habitats may become increasingly stressed or
eliminated.
Reversibility of Effects/Uncertainty
One of the major uncertainties associated with this problem area is the long-term
success of mitigation sites constructed to replace lost wetlands. While vegetation can sometimes
survive and provide wildlife habitat, it is uncertain whether other important functions can be
reduplicated. The reversibility of aquatic habitat loss is quite low. Habitat that is eliminated by
filling will probably never return to its original state. Habitat that is altered by surrounding
activities may recover over time if the harmful land uses are discontinued. Habitat loss and
overharvesting have led to the extinction of a growing number of species. Unlike other, more
superficial environmental problems that can be reversed, extinct species cannot be recovered.
Other uncertainties are the long-term effects associated with sea level rise. Hemming in
coastal habitats by development may lead to their ultimate demise. Under natural conditions of
sea level rise, coastal habitat would simply be displaced inland. If development is allowed to
encroach on coastal habitat, there will be no room for it to move landward as the sea level rises.
If the habitat, and all associated organisms, are displaced in this manner, they will have no place
to go and will disappear.
Scoring Recommendations
Intensity 5, Scale 5, Value 5, Uncertainty: Medium-High
Total 15 (M-H)
44
-------
References
Del Vicario, M. P., "Preventing Further Degradation of Aquatic Habitat: A Regulatory
Perspective," prepared for the Coastal Conference held at Manhattan College on April
12-14, 1990.
ICF, Inc., Background Documentation for USEPA Region n, Comparative Risk Report -
Extent and Habitat Loss/Gain Data, July 1990 memo from Robert Hegner of ICF to
Harvey Simon of EPA (see Appendix A).
Squires, D. F., "A Historical Review of Changes in Near-Shore Habitats in the Sound-Harbor-
Bight System, prepared for the Coastal Conference held at Manhattan College on April
12-14, 1990.
45
-------
8. Land Use Changes/Physical Modifications of
Terrestrial Habitats
Summary/Abstract
This problem area covers physical modifications that cause disruption of terrestrial habitats,
such as flooding from dams, pipeline construction, or flood control channelization. The analysis
focuses on the loss or conversion of forests and agricultural land. Urban sprawl is contributing
to piecemeal elimination of farmland and forest areas in the region, reducing habitat for wildlife
and crop production. Although some increase in forested areas has been observed in New York
and Puerto Rico, replacement forests are of lower value as wildlife habitat.
Introduction
For purposes of evaluation and discussion, Region IPs terrestrial habitats have been divided
into two categories: forest (including recreation areas and parks) and farmland. Of these two
categories, farmland is under more serious stress. According to information provided by state
agencies (ICF 1990), New York, with a base of 8.5 million acres of farmland, lost 1.1 million
acres between 1979 and 1988; New Jersey, with a base of 870,900 acres, lost 140,000 acres within
the same time span (see Tables II-l and 7-1).
^ In the case of New York, the loss has been partially offset by the gain in forest acreage,
which has in some cases reestablished itself on idle farmland. Between 1968 and 1980, New
York gained 1.2 million acres of forest in this manner. However, the gain through reforestation
of idle farms is itself substantially offset by the primary conversion of farmland to urban and
suburban uses. The situation in Puerto Rico is similar (see Figure 8-1). Forest land has
increased by 10,260 acres per year between 1940 and 1980, for a total of 550,000 reforested
acres. This took place after a 94 percent loss of forest from the 1700s to 1940. Farmland is
being lost at a rate of 20,515 acres per year; a total of 164,600 acres was lost between 1972 and
1980 (see Table 7-1). New Jersey's situation is more serious, since the state is losing forest as
well as farmland. Between 1956 and 1987, New Jersey lost 8,800 forested acres per year. The
state's current base is 2,006,700 acres (ICF 1990).
The conversion of farmland and forests to urban and suburban use is outside EPA's
regulatory authority. However, the byproducts of conversion (e.g., highway and pipeline
construction) can be influenced through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Section
309 review process.
Hazard Identification
The conversion of agricultural or forest land to nonagricultural use is a complex process
that often takes place over a period of 15, 20, or more years, and it involves interplay among
farm profitability, urban growth, land values, personal life cycle considerations, community
expectations, and government incentives and regulations. Since World War II, the potential for
development has dramatically increased, resulting in substantially greater land values throughout
extensive agricultural areas. Growing population, increased accessibility resulting from highway
46
-------
600
TOTAL TREE COVER
FOREST
COFFEE SHADE
1820 1840 I860 I88O 1900 1920 I94O I960 1980
Figure 8-1 Area with tree cover in Puerto Rico, 1828-1985. Forest
does not include nonstocked forest land.
Based on data from U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, South
Forest Experimental Station, "Forest Resources of Puerto Rico," Resource Bulletin, SO-
85, October 1982, New Orleans, LA; and USDA, Forest Service, South Forest
Experimental Station, "Forest Area Trends in Puerto Rico," Research Note, SO-331,
February 1987, New Orleans, LA. According to these reports total forest area has
increased from 279,000 hectares (ha) in 1980 to 300,000 ha in 1985, about 4,000
annually, this increase occurred primarily because reversions of cropland and pasture
to forest exceeded forest clearing for non-forest uses. Note, however, that all new forest
is classified as secondary forest, which now totals about 58% of the island's forest.
Abandoned coffee shade comprises the next largest forest class, and abandoned and
active coffee shade combined total 82,000 ha. During the study period, about 8,000 ha
were cleared for relatively permanent non-forest uses such as residences and right-of-
way. The figure also includes historical data on changes in forest acreage in Puerto
Rico that were reproduced in the Forest Service reports.
47
-------
construction, greater affluence and leisure time, increased recognition of the long-term
investment value of limited resources such as land, and a decrease in the perceived attraction of
urban living all contribute to loss of these lands.
The recent tendency of the population to disperse, in sharp contrast to the centuries-old
trend toward centralization, has been well documented. The effect of this shift in develop-
mental potential (and the associated increase in land values) has placed much more agricultural
and forest land in jeopardy. It has also changed the nature of the threat to agricultural and
forest land. Traditionally, only the land at the city's edge was built upon, and this land was
thoroughly covered with new development. Now, random or "buckshot" development over large
areas is increasingly typical, and new development is often far from existing urban
concentrations and without any urban center of its own. Because the lots are larger and more
scattered, the new pattern may disturb more extensive agricultural areas, with more farmland
lost and idled per new dwelling unit than under the previous development method, which
featured a more compact and efficient use of space.
The most obvious effect of loss or degradation of forest land is reduced habitat for
wildlife. Habitat loss is usually permanent. Continued piecemeal and wholesale destruction of
habitat has caused precipitous declines in many populations of organisms that depend on forest
habitats. Even though reforestation is occurring in the region by both natural methods and
current silviculture practices, the process is long and the resulting secondary growth has lower
habitat value. Additionally, reforested land is often on small, isolated plots without the
necessary corridors for wildlife migration. With respect to silviculture methods, plots are often
homogeneous, further reducing the habitat value. The loss of forests will also influence the rate
of global warming.
Loss of farmland directly affects human welfare. On a national/international level, the
United States is one of the few major exporters of agricultural produce. Millions of people
throughout the world depend on American-grown food for survival. Much of the land that is
being lost is either prime agricultural land, close to major markets, or both. To the extent that
it is replaced with poorer land or land that is more remote, costs of energy, irrigation, fertilizer,
and transportation increase. As local food sources are lost, consumers must rely less on fresh
food, and they face greater risk of interruption of food shipments because of bad weather or
labor strife.
The underlying concern is that good farmland is a finite resource necessary to survival.
If, acre by acre, it continues to be converted irreversibly to nonfarming uses as the population
continues to increase, in a few decades the nation may face a serious food production problem.
Continuing increases in agricultural productivity from technological improvements cannot
be counted on to offset the loss of good agricultural land. In fact, the rate of increase in
productivity per acre seems to have slowed down significantly in recent years, and past increases
in agricultural productivity have been heavily dependent on petroleum, whose cost is increasing
rapidly and whose availability is becoming less certain. In short, land remains essential for
meeting future needs for food and fiber. Once it is built on, it can be reclaimed for agricultural
use^ only at great economic and political cost. For all practical purposes, the conversion of
agricultural lands to urban uses is an irreversible process.
48
-------
Risk Characterization/Uncertainty
The geographic extent of land use changes/physical modifications of terrestrial habitats
encompasses almost all of Region II. Urban sprawl is contributing to piecemeal elimination of
farmland and forest areas in the region, reducing habitat for wildlife and crop production. The
remaining outlying areas are now at risk and need to be protected. Confidence in estimates of
the rate of habitat loss in the overall analysis is fairly high.
Reversibility of Effects
While reforestation is a lengthy process, it is a reasonably successful one. Farmland,
however, once built on, can be reclaimed for agricultural use only at great economic and
political cost. Manufacturing good land from poor soils comes at a high cost.
Scoring Recommendations
Intensity 5, Scale 5, Value 5, Uncertainty: Medium-High
Total 10 (M-H)
References
Department of Agriculture (DOA), Forest Service, South Forest Experimental Station. "Forest
Resources of Puerto Rico," Resource Bulletin, SO-85, New Orleans, Louisiana, October
1982.
DOA, Forest Service, South Forest Service Experimental Station. "Forest Area Trends in Puerto
Rico," Research Note, SO-331, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 1987.
Essiks, J. Dkon, William Toner, and Lisa Resenberger, The Protection of Farmland: A Reference
Guide Book for State and Local Governments, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.
ICF, Inc., Background Documentation for USEPA Region II, Comparative Risk Report -
Extent and Habitat Loss/Gain Data, July 1990 memo from Robert Hegner of ICF to
Harvey Simon of EPA (see Appendix A).
President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), Environmental Quality — Twentieth Annual
Report, CEQ Washington, D.C. 1990.
49
-------
9. Dredging and Dredge Disposal
Summary/Abstract
This problem area addresses the ecological risks associated with dredging of sediments for
navigation channels, harbors, marinas, and contaminated sediment remediation as well as the
disposal of dredge spoils. Ecological stressors of concern include PCBs, cadmium, mercury, and
petroleum products. The major potential impact from disposal of dredged materials is to
benthic communities. Impacts are probably restricted, for the most part, to disposal sites.
Impacts to dredged sites are intermittent, and limited to navigational channels that have been
historically disturbed. The intensity of impact from dredging and dredge disposal is probably
low. The Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has established protocols for disposal of dredged
materials that are intended to protect aquatic life. The protocols are being revised at the
national level, however, and there is uncertainty involved in characterizing risks to ecosystems
from dredging.
Introduction
New York/New Jersey Harbor has historically been one of the nation's leading ports. It
contains approximately 40 federally maintained waterways, 1,200 waterfront facilities, 235 deep-
draft terminals, and more than 1 million linear feet of berthage. The Army Corps of Engineers
is responsible for maintaining and improving all waterways to ensure that the navigation
channels can accommodate the cargo, container, and passenger ships. Each year approximately
8 million cubic yards of material are dredged by the Corps and private permittees to
accommodate these vessels, and most of this material is discharged at the Mud Dump Site. The
Mud Dump Site is located approximately five nautical miles off the coast of Highlands, New
Jersey. This disposal site has an area of approximately 2.3 square miles, with water depths
between 16 and 29 meters. Virtually all of the material dredged from New York/New Jersey
Harbor and its environs is deposited here.
In addition to the Mud Dump Site, eight inlet disposal sites service specific inlets in New
York and New Jersey. Four are in New York: the Rockaway, East Rockaway, Jones, and Fire
Island Inlet disposal sites. Four are in New Jersey: the Shark River, Absecon, Manasquan, and
Cold Spring Inlet disposal sites. Because the majority of the material dredged from these inlets
is sand, the material is generally used for beach nourishment. Consequently, the inlet disposal
sites are used sporadically for relatively small quantities of dredged material. Future disposal
needs in New York Harbor are expected to be about the same as current requirements.
Five ports in Puerto Rico utilize designated ocean dredged-material disposal sites, with
varying disposal volumes. The disposal sites at these ports — Yabucoa, Mayaguez, Arecibo,
Ponce, and San Juan — are located an average of several miles seaward of the port entrances.
As yet there have been no requests for ocean disposal of dredged material from the Virgin
Islands. Disposal needs in Puerto Rico and possibly the Virgin Islands may be expected with
increased development.
It should be noted that, in almost all cases, navigational channels and other dredging
sites constitute only a small area of an estuary or embayment. The in-place contaminated
50
-------
sediments in the region's water ways (see Problem Area #4) may pose greater ecological risks
than dredging and disposal activities.
Hazard Identification/Testing Methods
Prior to permit issuance, all applicants for ocean disposal permits must perform a
battery of tests on representative samples of dredged material from the proposed project.
These tests, which were developed by EPA and the Corps of Engineers, are documented in a
jointly published guidance document (EPA and COE 1984). EPA Region II and the New York
District COE used this guidance to develop requirements for a series of tests specific to
proposed disposal projects in the New York Bight (COE - in press). These tests are intended
to assess whether dredged material disposal at the Mud Dump Site will further degrade the
ecosystem. They include chemical and physical tests of site water and sediment elutriate, and
biological tests such as solid-phase bioassays on three indicator species, and bioaccumulation
analyses of the organisms surviving the solid-phase tests. The endpoints used in most tests
today are mortality and bioaccumulation of selected contaminants in the test species. If
mortality1 or bioaccumulation2 are greater than acceptable levels, ocean disposal of the material
is not allowed. If , ocean disposal may be prohibited or permitted only with appropriate
mitigation measures.
One such measure is capping. If the dredged material does not pose an acute toxicity
threat (as indicated by a clean bioassay test) but still poses the potential for chronic toxicity if
organisms undergo prolonged exposure to the dredged material (as indicated by a
bioaccumulation test), capping may be appropriate to mitigate the potential for chronic
exposure. EPA and the New York District COE determine whether capping is sufficient to
mitigate potential chronic impacts on a case-by-case basis, and factors such as the number of
organisms exceeding bioaccumulation criterion influence the decision. If capping is
recommended, the cap must consist of clean material with a minimum cap-to-project-material
ratio of 2 to 1. If the tests conducted for proposed disposal indicate the potential for acute
toxicity, the dredged material may not be disposed of at the Mud Dump Site. At present, the
, only alternative for such material is disposal at upland sites. However, additional options —
such as subaqueous borrow pits and containment islands ~ are being explored.
In addition to the testing procedures required in the guidance, dredged material from all
potential projects located in the Passaic River and Newark Bay area must undergo dioxin
testing. Dioxin analyses of sediments and biota performed by the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) indicate that ocean-disposal of sediments from these areas
could pose a threat to aquatic organisms. Tissue analyses of indigenous aquatic organisms in
these areas have indicated that the organisms were bioaccumulating dioxin, often to
concentrations exceeding the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) recommended limits.
The primary source of the dioxin was a Superfund site that discharged waste water into the
Passaic River near the mouth of Newark Bay. The EPA Environmental Research Lab at
Narragansett has conducted laboratory bioaccumulation tests and field analysis on representative
organisms there (Pruell, et al 1990). A protocol for testing and evaluating material suspected of
a statistically significant difference and a difference greater than 10 percent, compared
with reference sediment results, at present, is required.
2Usually statistically significantly greater than in reference sediment results.
51
-------
being contaminated with dioxin is currently being coordinated by EPA, the Corps of Engineers,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the states of New
York and New Jersey.
Other major contaminants of concern currently associated with disposal of dredged
material from the New York/New Jersey Harbor at the Mud Dump Site include PCBs,
cadmium, mercury, and petroleum hydrocarbons. These contaminants are among the listed
criteria pollutants in the London Dumping Convention as promulgated in the U.S. Ocean
Dumping Regulations. Results from a chemical and biological monitoring effort at and around
the Mud Dump Site during the summer of 1990 may indicate a need to revise testing regarding
additional specific contaminants or re-evaluation of biological endpoints. Additional stressors of
concern include physical disruption by burial at and surrounding the Mud Dump Site, and water
column turbidity both at the disposal site and at the dredging sites.
The medium of concern for transport through the environment is the ocean, with its
associated biological, chemical, physical, and geophysical processes. Chemical, physical, and
geophysical processes can route contaminants of concern from disposed sediments by dissolution
during and after passage through the water column, transportation of constituents by currents,
and transportation of particle-bound constituents by bedload and suspended transport. A
secondary receptor is the dredging site, which is typically located in an estuary, inlet, or
embayment subject to siltation. The waterway therefore requires initial or periodic dredging,
generally for either commercial or recreational navigation purposes. Resuspension and
transport of potentially contaminated sediments during dredging, and in the case where the
barge-overflow method of barge filling is used, can adversely affect water quality and
downstream bottom areas with increases in turbidity and contaminant loadings.
Dose-Response Evaluation
Predictions of ecological effects from dredging activities are based on laboratory tests,
and there is some level of uncertainty in projecting laboratory results to the "real" world. Factors
in this uncertainty include:
o The bioassays are performed on representative samples from the dredging area, and
the samples may not accurately characterize the actual extent or mass of potential
contaminants.
o The bioassay test conditions may or may not represent the actual physical
distribution and exposure conditions in the field.
o The mortality or bioaccumulation effects on a small test population of organisms is
difficult to interpolate in terms of the likely ecological effects of the actual dredging
or disposal operation in the field (i.e., what is the ecological impact of 10 percent
mortality of a particular benthic species on a naturally occurring population, or of
the likelihood of a certain percentage increase of bioaccumulation of a particular
contaminant in that species?).
Because of these uncertainties, monitoring of an ocean disposal site, or in some cases of
either a specific or typical dredging operation, is important. Ultimately, the actual effects of
these activities in the field can be assessed only by monitoring. Monitoring also helps validate
the laboratory testing methods used. A recent chemical and biological monitoring program at
52
-------
the Mud Dump Site, conducted by EPA Region II in the summer of 1990, will augment a
physical monitoring effort carried out by the New York District COE to begin addressing some
of these issues. It is expected that the results of the EPA monitoring will help answer many
questions pertinent to this risk analysis, especially those about estimated exposure and transfer
of contaminants to benthic and other lower food-chain organisms in the marine system.
Exposure Assessment
As mentioned before, an adequate assessment of exposure and transport will be
facilitated by information gained through a planned monitoring effort at the Mud Dump Site.
Chemical and biology based sampling and analysis will provide information on spacial, surficial,
sediment contaminant distribution on- and off-site, and benthic and epifaunal organism body
burdens of contaminants. Although a direct linkage may not be made between elevated surficial
sediment levels (if found) and body burdens, an assessment of exposure to lower food-chain
animals should be possible given the presence of gradients in the sediment contaminant levels.
Exposure routes include interstitial water uptake and sediment ingestion by benthic
organisms; uptake from resuspended particles by epibenthic organisms; and uptake of dissolved,
suspended-sediment bound or colloidal contaminants by water column organisms. Predation at
all levels of the above exposure routes can result in biomagnification and the transport of
contaminants off the site. Laboratory tests and field assessments conducted elsewhere have
shown varying degrees of biomagnification potential in different organisms and with different
contaminants. However, there is little information at present in Region II on the extent to
which exposure resulting in off-site effects are occurring.
Risk Characterization/Uncertainty
As with the evaluation of project-specific testing results, field-measured exposure
information was compared with both reference area values and appropriate levels of concern to
assess risk factors in this problem area. The reference area approach uses information on
sediment chemistry and the bioassay and bioaccumulation results of samples from a specifically
designated reference area. The reference area for an ocean dredged-material disposal site must
be similar in characteristics to the ocean disposal site, but must not have been influenced by
previous disposal operations. Also, the reference site should approximate the conditions at the
disposal site prior to the commencement of disposal operations, although presence of the same
nondisposal contaminant inputs as the disposal site is acceptable. If test results show a
statistically significant difference between reference sediments and samples of the materials to
be dredged, the results are deemed to indicate potential concern for adverse impacts. The
material may then be found to be suitable for ocean disposal only with mitigation measures.
The test results may also be compared with pertinent levels of concern, including FDA levels for
human consumption of fish and shellfish. In the case of dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) in Region II, a
28-day bioaccumulation of levels in test organisms greater than the lower FDA level excludes
the material from any ocean-disposal method. Lower levels of concern for dioxin used by New
York State are currently being considered as ocean disposal cutoff values. Other FDA action
levels or appropriate state or other levels can be used for comparison in evaluation of
bioaccumulation data.
Under the present protocols, there is a fairly high level of uncertainty in characterization
of ecosystem risk. Monitoring of the direct exposure-related parameters begins the process of
53
-------
evaluating ecological risk. Far field and secondary exposure- related effects are more difficult to
assess. Water column effects can be measured only to a limited degree. Adverse impacts to
localized or even regional populations of phytoplankton, zooplankton, and nekton3 by sustained
disposal activities with a high proportion of fine, low settling rate material is difficult to assess.
This applies also to assessment of risk regarding the dredging site activity.
The major potential impact with regard to ocean disposal of dredged material is to the
benthos. With respect to the benthos, as was mentioned earlier, a bioassay assessment of a
certain mortality rate for a test species after exposure to a particular dredged material must be
put in the perspective of its true ecological meaning. The same is true regarding
bioaccumulation test findings of increased levels of specific contaminants in test organisms.
These considerations also apply to estuary dredging sites where these effects can be a factor
(i.e., through suspended sediment water column exposure or downstream benthic redeposition).
Longer-term lab tests may be necessary to determine chronic effects of increased contaminant
uptake.
A scientifically rigorous assessment would include a baseline benthic community analysis
of the disposal site and its environs, preferably with some assessment of the holistic
relationships of the benthic community with upper-level predators and nutrient sources and
sinks, and consideration of the chemical and physical properties of the dredged materials and
chemical signature of site water, water column density profiles, and depth-dependent current
regimes. In the case of the Mud Dump Site, with its long history of use, this baseline
assessment cannot be conducted. However, inferences about ecological impacts can be made
with some confidence by comparing the site with existing reference areas after completion of a
broad-scale monitoring survey that includes benthic community analysis. However, this kind of
monitoring is expensive and therefore difficult for management agencies to budget without
specific funding allotments.
The geographical extent of the potential adverse ecological impacts is probably mostly
limited to the vicinity of the disposal site. Water column impacts from suspended contaminated
material resulting from multiple dumps may be of concern and may affect a wider area. Water
column impacts are probably of most concern in the case of the Puerto Rico sites, with their
much deeper water and dispersive disposal strategy. Assuming that project-specific testing
reasonably characterizes the potential ecological impacts, an estimate can be made that this area
results in a low intensity of impact.
Trend
Current testing and evaluation methods for dredged material discharge are described in
a joint EPA/COE manual (EPA and COE 1990). These testing and evaluation procedures are
currently being revised nationally. The new procedures and test organisms have been proposed
for use. These new nationwide procedures will soon be implemented in coastal regions. For
example, a more sensitive benthic organism, the amphipod, is proposed for broad-scale use in
place of, or in addition to, some currently used organisms. Since this is a mortality-based test,
the use of a more sensitive organism may result in fewer proposed projects being found suitable
for ocean disposal, even with mitigation methods included. Another proposal calls for
lengthening the bioaccumulation test time for organic contaminants from the current 10 days to
zFree swimming organisms such as fish or amphibians.
54
-------
28 days. The longer test time will eliminate a weakness in the current tests: 10 days is not a
sufficient period for most test organisms to accumulate contaminants to the degree that would
occur in the environment.
Also under consideration for potential revision is the water column test currently used to
determine compliance with marine water quality criteria outside of the disposal site and, after
four hours, anywhere in the marine environment. This testing is conducted using the results of
sediment elutriate concentrations in calculations that take into consideration the size and
oceanographic conditions of the disposal site mixing zone. The initial, or four-hour, mixing
calculations are being revisited for their revised potential application to specific disposal sites,
including the Mud Dump Site.
When the proposed revisions are fully implemented, testing of dredged material
proposed for ocean disposal may be more rigorous, and more carefully planned management
practices may be implemented. As a result, ecological risks from dredging operations will
probably be less serious than under current procedures.
Scoring Recommendations
Intensity 2, Scale 1, Value 2, Uncertainty: Medium
Total 5 (M)
References
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Army Corps of Engineers (COE), "Ecological
Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of Dredged Material into Ocean Waters,"
Environmental Effects Laboratory, COE Waterways Experiment Station, December
1984.
COE, "Guidance for Performing Tests on Dredged Material to Be Disposed of in Ocean
Waters" EPA Region II and New York District COE, 1990.
R.J. Pruell, N.I. Rubenstein, B.K. Taplin, J.A. Livolsi and C.B. Norwood, "2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,3,7,8-
TCDF, and PCBs in Marine Sediments and Biota: Laboratory and Field Studies - Final
Report to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New York District," EPA Environmental
Research Laboratory-Narragansett, March 12, 1990.
EPA and COE, Draft Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of Dredged Material into Ocean
Waters. Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, EPA (EPA-503-8-90/002), January
1990. i » *
55
-------
10. Municipal Sludge Disposal and Treatment
Summary/Abstract
This problem area includes ocean dumping of sludge as well as land application,
incineration, and composting of sewage sludge from municipal waste water treatment works. A
monitoring program of the current deep water disposal site off of New Jersey is still under way.
Results to date have not identified significant impacts. Ecological impacts of land disposal
practices are not well characterized, but were judged to be localized and relatively minor.
The ranking of this problem area was based on present conditions; it did not consider
alternative disposal methods that will be used after the ocean dumping ban act takes effect.
Although the current low level risks to ocean ecosystems will be eliminated by the use of these
alternatives, ecological risks to terrestrial, freshwater and inshore ecosystems in proximity to
disposal sites are likely to increase.
Introduction
In 1924, New York City began ocean dumping municipal sludge at a site 12 miles
outside of New York Harbor (commonly called the 12-Mile Site). Over the next few decades,
additional communities in the New York and New Jersey area began to ocean-dump municipal
sludge at this site. The 12-Mile Site, located in the New York Bight Apex (see Figure 10-1),
occupies an area of about 6.6 square nautical miles with a water depth of approximately 27
meters (88 feet). The New York Bight, defined as the area south of Montauk Point, New York,
east of Cape May New Jersey, and inshore from the 200 meter depth contour, is generally
considered to be the area that could be influenced by sludge disposal at the 12-Mile Site (see
Figure 10-1). Sludge dumping at the 12-Mile Site was suspected to be impacting benthic
organisms, phytoplankton and fish in and near the site. Concerns about these impacts on biota,
human health (ingestion of contaminated fish), and welfare (impingement on shorelines and
beaches) and the potential for transport of contaminants to the Bight contributed to the
dedesignation of the site in favor of a deepwater site. A monitoring program of the site after
closure has shown some signs of recovery in terms of decreased heavy metals in sediments, and
improved seabed dissolved oxygen (Batelle, 1989).
On May 4, 1984, EPA designated the Deepwater Municipal Sludge Dump Site
(DMSDS), commonly known as the 106-Mile Site, as a regional ocean dumping site. The
DMSDS is located approximately 120 nautical miles southeast of Ambrose Light and 115
nautical miles from Atlantic City, New Jersey, the nearest coastline. Water depths at the site
range from 2,250 to 2,750 meters. The disposal of sludge at the 106-Mile Site began in March
1986; sludge disposal at the 12-Mile Site ended on December 31, 1987. Since then, all sludge
disposal has taken place at the DMSDS.
Although the number of municipal sludge dumpers has decreased since the passage of
the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA), the volume of
municipal sludge has increased from 4.6 million wet tons in 1973 to approximately 8.7 million
wet tons in 1989. That increase resulted primarily from the upgrading of sewage treatment
plants and the resultant increase in municipal sludge production in the New York/New Jersey
metropolitan area.
56
-------
ie *eo
Figure 10-1. Locations of the 12-Mile Sewage Sludge Site and the 106-Mile
Deepwater Municipal Sludge Site. (Source: Batelle, 1989)
57
-------
The Ocean Dumping Ban Act (ODBA) of 1988 prohibits the oeean dumping of
municipal sludge beyond December 31, 1991. Nine months following the date of enactment (i.e.,
by August 15, 1989), the dumping of municipal sludge was prohibited without a permit issued by
EPA, and a prior agreement was required in order for a permit to be issued. Further, no
permits for the ocean dumping of municipal sludge can be issued unless the permittee was a
previously authorized ocean dumper. In compliance with ODBA, permits which became
effective on August 14, 1989 were issued to the nine authorized municipalities. Agreements for
the phase-out of sludge disposal were also reached in August 1989, requiring all of the
permittees to cease sludge dumping by December 31, 1991, with the exception of New York
City, which will phase out 20 percent by the 1991 deadline and the rest by June 30, 1992. Table
10-1 presents further details about schedules and plans for each ocean dumper. The ocean
dumpers plan to implement a range of land-based sludge management alternatives, which will be
regulated by state and federal regulations designed to protect public health and the
environment. On February 6, 1989, EPA issued proposed 40 CFR Part 503 regulations that
would establish requirements for final use and disposal of sewage sludge when applied or
disposed of in various media. Table 10-2, from the Federal Register Notice, identifies the
pollutants for which specific numerical limits are proposed.
Significant amounts of sludge of varying properties are disposed of on land or are
incinerated at present. As reported in July 1989, there are 502 municipal waste water treatment
plants generating 306,000 dry tons of sludge per year in New Jersey. Of this volume, 51 percent
is ocean-dumped; 21 percent is incinerated; 18 percent is disposed of out of state (mainly
landfilled); 6 percent is land-applied or distributed and marketed; and less than 1 percent is
lagooned, a practice that is being phased out. According to a 1987-88 sludge inventory survey,
497 plants are generating 370,000 dry tons per year in New York. Of this volume, 41 percent is
ocean-dumped, 27 percent is incinerated, 26 percent is landfilled, 5 percent is land-applied or
distributed and marketed, and 1 percent is handled by other methods. Both states enforce
comprehensive sludge management programs. Most of the sludge in Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands is incinerated or landfilled.
Hazard Identification/Exposure Assessment
The preliminary ecological risk assessment for the proposed dumping of sewage sludge
at the 106-Mile Site concluded that no adverse effects would be expected over the next 100
years (O'Connor, 1983). The assessment was based on estimates of annual volumes of sludge
disposed, prevailing currents, estimates of the sludge composition, and plume dispersion
modeling. Based on a comparison of estimated surface water concentrations with laboratory-
derived benchmarks, the authors of the risk assessment concluded that no adverse effects were
expected in phytoplankton of zooplankton communities. The estimated PCB levels in fish
approached, but did not exceed human health based FDA action levels for PCBs (2 parts per
billion). No adverse effects were expected in the benthos after 100 years of dumping. However,
the estimate of impacts to the benthos was considered to be more uncertain than surface water
estimates due to modeling uncertainties (O'Connor, 1983).
Because of uncertainties in the risk assessment a monitoring program was established to
confirm the projected water column and sediment concentrations of iron, lead zinc, chromium,
PCBs, and PAHs, and monitor for biological impacts. Figure 10-2 outlines the potential impacts
of sludge disposal based on characteristics of the disposal site and the sludge. Results to date
from nearfield fate-and-effects studies have shown the following:
58
-------
Table 10-1
Current Sludge Management Compliance Schedules and Plans
for Interim and Long-Term Implementation
Interim
Sewerage Authority
Bergen County Utilities
Authority (BCUA)
Joint Meeting of Essex and
Union Counties (JMEUC)
Linden Roselle Sewerage
Authority (LRSA)
Middlesex County Utilities
Authority (MCUA)
Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners (PVSC)
Rahway Valley Sewerage
Authority (RVSA)
Nassau County Department
of Public Works (NCDPW)
New York City Department
of Environmental Protection
(NYCDEP)
Westchester County
Department of Environmental
Facilities (WCDEF)
Compliance
Date
3/17/91
3/17/91
3/17/91
3/17/91
3/17/91
3/17/91
6/30/91 (50%)a
12/31/91 (100%)
12/31/91 (20%)b
6/30/92 (100%)
12/31/91
Plan
Dewatering/
out-of-state
disposal
Dewatering/
out-of-state
disposal
Dewatering/
out-of-state
disposal
Chemical fixation/
Landfill cover
Dewatering/
out-of-state
disposal
Dewatering/
out-of-state
disposal
Dewatering/
private venture
Dewatering/
private venture
Dewatering/
private venture
Long term
Compliance
Date
1/1/96
2/10/98
1/1/96
3/17/91
12/31/96
2/10/98
12/31/94
12/31/95 (50%)c
6/30/98(100%)
9/15/95
Plan
Incineration
Incineration
Incineration
Chemical fixation/
Landfill cover
Incineration
Incineration at Joint
Meeting of Essex
and Union Counties
Under study
Under study
Under study
a Under its interim plan, NCDPW plans to phase out 50% of its ocean dumping by 6/30/91 and 100% by 12/31/91.
b Under its interim plan, NYCDEP plans to phase out 20% of its ocean dumping by 12/31/91 and 100% by 6/30/92.
0 Under its long-term plan, NYCDEP plans to phase in 50% of its capacity by 12/31/95 and 100% by 6/30/98.
59
-------
Table 10-2
Pollutants for Which Specific Numerical Limits Are Proposed
Pollutants
Aldrln
Arsenic
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Beryllium
Bis (2-ethylhexyl)-
phthalate
Cadmium
Chlordane
Chromium
Copper
ODD, DDE, DDT
DIeldrIn
Dimethyl nitrosamlne
Heptachlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Lead
LIndane
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
PCB
Selenium
Toxaphene
Trlchloroethylene
Total hydrocarbons1
Zinc
TOTAL
Land
Application
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
25
Distribution
an
-------
o Sludge can be transported out of the site within four hours of disposal.
o For roughly 90 percent of the time, currents are strong enough to transport sludge
out of the site within one day.
o For some sludges, sludge dumping at the rate originally set -- 15,500
gallons/minute — can result in exceeding the toxicity-based limits on permissible
concentrations four hours after disposal.
o For some sludges, sludge dumping at 15,500 gallons/minute can result in pathogen
indicators exceeding ambient levels four hours after dumping.
o Sludge does not penetrate the seasonal pycnocline1 in significant quantities within
the first 8 to 12 hours following dumping.
o Settling of sludge is similar in winter and summer.
o The rate of nearfield, short-term settling of sludge can depend on dumping rate.
o Concentrations of selected contaminants in surface waters within and outside the
site may be elevated when surface currents at the site are sluggish.
o Concentrations of contaminant metals, organic compounds, and indicator species for
pathogens probably will be close to background concentrations within one day
following dumping.
o Dissolved oxygen depression within sludge plumes is not biologically significant.
o Significant changes in pH do not occur from sludge dumping.
o Contaminants initially associated with sludge particles may be lost to the dissolved
phase following dumping.
o Currents may reach speeds of 1.5 knots when warm-core eddies move.
Results of farfield fate studies conducted to date indicate the following:
o Significant quantities of sludge probably do not settle to the sea floor in the vicinity
of the site on short time scales (days).
o Settling of sludge constituents during the first eight hours after dumping is minimal.
o The seasonal pycnocline, where particles concentrate, is an area where sludge
particles could also concentrate.
boundary between water masses of different densities.
61
-------
Potential Impacts of Dumping
Based on Characteristics of Sites and Sludge
Site Characteristics
Physical Oceanography
• Hydrography
• Currents
• Water Masses
Bottom Characteristics
• Sediment Grain Size
• Sediment Composition
Baseline Chemistry Data
• Sediments
» Water Column
- Water Quality
- Trace Metals
- Organic Compounds
- Microbiology
Baseline Biology Data
• Plankton
• Benthic Communities
Waste Characteristics
Physical Oceanography
• Settling Data
Chemical Characteristics
• Priority Pollutants
• Conventional Pollutants
Toxicology
• Bioassays
Baseline Biology Data
m Quantity of Material
• Method of Release
• Frequency and Duration
Consideration of Potential impacts
Shoreline Impingement
Movement in Marine
Sanctuaries
Effect on Commercial
Fisheries
Accumulation in Biota
Changes in Water Quality
Changes in Sediment
Composition
Effects on Sensitive Species
Effects on Endangered
Species
Effects on Biological
Species
Figure 10-2
62
-------
o
A small percentage of sludge constituents may reach the sea floor in the vicinity of
the site, but further study is necessary to determine conclusively whether this
deposition could occur or be significant.
Warm-core eddies are a viable but poorly understood mechanism for potential
northward transport of sludge constituents to the edge of the continental shelf.
o The majority of sludge particles are likely to remain in the water column, become
entrained in the Gulf Stream, and be subject to great dispersion, which probably will
not result in impacts to the environment.
o Sludge may under some oceanographic conditions be recirculated through the site.
Further study of water mass movements and currents is being done, and remote sensing
techniques to evaluate large-scale water movements and structure are currently being
implemented.
Long-term effects studies will evaluate effects of sludge disposal on organisms,
populations, and communities in any areas where concentrations of site-related contaminants
are predicted to accumulate. Potential effects on endangered species are monitored during
every survey in the vicinity of the site. Potential accumulation of sludge constituents will be
studied in fisheries species inshore from the site and in the fish that live within the site waters.
Final plans for other studies will be made after evaluating results from the other monitoring
tiers.
The ecological effects of land disposal and incineration of sewage sludge are not well"
characterized. Impacts are assumed, however, to be relatively localized.
Risk Characterization
The original risk assessment for the 106-Mile Site and the initial results of the
monitoring program have not identified significant ecological impacts. The monitoring program
is still continuing, however, and the evaluation of long term effects remains to be completed.
Ecological impacts of current land disposal practices are difficult to characterize, but were
judged to be localized and relatively minor.
Trends/Reversibility of Effects
Although the number of municipal sludge dumpers has decreased since the passage of
the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, the volume of municipal sludge
has increased from 4.6 million wet tons in 1973 to approximately 8.7 million wet tons in 1989.
That increase resulted primarily from the upgrading of sewage treatment plants and the
resultant increase in municipal sludge production in the New York/New Jersey metropolitan
area. Although the risks to ocean ecosystems will be eliminated by implementing the ocean
dumping ban, the risks from land disposal practices are likely to increase as a result of the ban.
Any water column effects from ocean dumping are likely to be quickly reversed after the activity
is ceased. Effects on benthic communities, if any significant, impacts have occurred are likely to
take somewhat longer to reverse.
63
-------
Uncertainty
The results of the monitoring program are incomplete and the risks from land disposal
options are not well characterized. The overall uncertainty of the analysis, however, was judged
to be moderate.
Scoring Recommendations
Intensity 1, Scale
Total 3 (M)
1, Value 1, Uncertainty: Medium
References
Batelle Ocean Sciences, "Draft Support for Report to Congress on Monitoring Program in
Response to Section 104B(j)(4)(a) of the Ocean Dumping Ban Act," prepared for
USEPA under EPA contract no. 68-C8-0105 Work Assignment 33, July 1989.
EPA 40 CFR 257 and 503, "Standards for the Disposal of Sewage Sludge; Proposed Rule,"
Federal Register, Vol. 54, No. 23, February 6, 1989..
O'Connor, T.P., Okubo, A., Champ, M.A., and Park, P.K., "Projected consequences of dumping
sewage sludge at a deep water ocean site near New York Bight." 1983 Canadian Journal
of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40:228-241
64
-------
11. Wastewood Disposal or Treatment
Summary/Abstract
This problem area includes releases to air and water from burning of driftwood at sea,
and of proposed alternative methods such as landfill, gasification, and incineration. The
ecological impacts of wastewood incineration are probably low or non-existent. In any case, the
program is being phased out. Insufficient information was available to evaluate alternative
disposal methods.
Introduction
The Port of New York and New Jersey supports extensive waterfront development
associated with marine transport. Because many of the waterfront structures, bulkheads, and
pile fields were constructed many years ago, they have deteriorated, and the wood from the
structures enters the waterways and creates hazards to navigation. Charged with the
responsibility for maintaining navigable waterways, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
must remove any hazards to navigation (e.g., driftwood). In an effort to prevent wooden debris
from entering the water, the Corps has implemented a source removal program, called the New
York Harbor Drift Removal Project. This program serves a dual purpose. It prevents potential
navigation hazards by removing the deteriorated structures at their source, and it enables areas
that have been cleaned up to be reopened for subsequent development. Most of the wood
collected from this source removal and harbor cleanup program is disposed of by burning the
debris at the wood burning site.
Wood burning at sea is considered a form of ocean disposal because particulate matter
in the plume created by the wood burning operations ultimately settles onto the ocean.
Unburned pieces of wood and the ashes resulting from the burning operation are not permitted
to be dumped into the ocean; they must be returned to land for either subsequent burning or
disposal at a landfill. Prior to the establishment of EPA and the enactment of permitting
regulations for ocean dumping, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the City of New
York, and private waste transporters burned wastewood at a site in the Atlantic Ocean located
approximately 17 nautical miles off the coast of Point Pleasant, New Jersey. This wood burning
site now serves as the interim site. Water depths at the site average 31 meters. The maximum
volume burned in any one year has never exceeded 60,000 tons. In 1988 and 1989, 32,000 and
25,000 tons of wooden debris were burned at the site, respectively.
Before issuing permits for any wood burning activities, EPA follows the criteria
established under the Ocean Dumping Act. That is, EPA will not allow wood burning if there is
a technically feasible, economically reasonable, and environmentaEy acceptable disposal method
with less overall environmental impact. EPA applies a rule of reason in determining the
practicability of an alternative and the balancing of environmental impacts. Consistent with this
policy, EPA evaluates alternative methods of disposal whenever it receives an application for a
wood burning permit. If the applicant is a private waste transporter, EPA evaluates the
availability of land-based disposal sites for each specific project in the application prior to
making a permit decision. If the applicant is a government institution such as the Corps of
Engineers or the City of New York, EPA makes a general determination regarding the
availability of alternatives for all of the projects on a program-wide basis. However, if there is
65
-------
no feasible alternative on a program-wide basis and EPA decides to issue the permit, EPA
stipulates that the permittee must advertise all projects for both ocean- and land-based disposal,
and submit the results of the bidding process to EPA. If EPA then determines that a feasible
alternative disposal method exists for a particular project, it will not allow that project to be
ocean-disposed. Of the last three contract bids submitted to EPA for review, EPA authorized
only one of the projects for ocean disposal. Sufficient landfill capacity existed to dispose of the
debris generated by the other two projects.
The current wood burning site, located in the Atlantic Ocean approximately 17 nautical
miles off the coast of Point Pleasant, New Jersey, has interim status. It is the same site that has
been used by the Corps since the 1960s. It gained interim status in 1977 based primarily on the
use of the site prior to the enactment of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA). Interim status is still in effect, pending completion of an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) and formal site designation. Should a permanent site be designated, the only
material that may be burned there is wooden debris collected from New York/New Jersey
Harbor and its environs. Wood from other areas may not be burned at the site. This policy is
based on the premise that outside of the metropolitan New York/New Jersey area, there should
be sufficient landfill capacity to dispose of any wood wastes generated.
In 1983, EPA issued a notice of intent to prepare an EIS on the proposed designation of
an ocean wood burning site in the New York Bight. A draft EIS for the Designation of an
Ocean Wood Burning Site for the New York Bight was prepared in June 1989. The proposed
site is not the interim site used historically, but instead is one located approximately 21 nautical
miles offshore of Seaside Park, New Jersey. Although the draft EIS proposed designating an
ocean wood burning site for a five-year period, the proposed rule-making package proposes
designation only until midnight on December 31, 1991. The reason for this modification is that
new information concerning practicable land-based alternatives has become available subsequent
to the preparation of the draft EIS. EPA is currently evaluating its tentative decision to
relocate the wood burning site on the basis of all comments received during the October 1989
Public Hearings and public comment period on the proposed rule and draft EIS.
The wood burning permit now in effect is the most comprehensive ever issued by EPA.
Several special conditions are incorporated into the permit to ensure that environmental impacts
resulting from the wood burning operations will be minimal and that the operations will be
conducted in a controlled and safe manner.
Risk Characterization
In 1986, a comprehensive at-sea monitoring and computer modeling study was conducted
to assess air and water quality impacts resulting from wood burning operations. Representative
samples of wood from projects throughout New York/New Jersey Harbor were collected, and a
waste characterization was performed to document the concentrations of various metals,
organohalogens, PCBs, and creosote. On the basis of this characterization, EPA identified a
worst-case wood, and controlled laboratory studies were conducted to measure various organic
and inorganic compounds in the gaseous emissions and various metals in the ash residues.
After the laboratory studies were completed, field studies were initiated to monitor air
and water quality during the burning and wet down phases of a typical wood burning operation.
Air samples collected upwind, downwind, and aboard the burn barge did not detect PCBs or
dioxin at or above EPA-approved detection limits.
66
-------
Creosote was detected, but by placing an annual cap of 119,000 tons on the amount of
material that may be burned by all permittees at the burn site, EPA-approved detection limits
were not violated. Metals generally either were not detected or were detected in trace amounts.
Runoff water and water samples collected in the vicinity of the burn barge did not contain
unacceptable amounts of organic compounds. Dioxin and PCBs were not detected. Analysis of
the wet ash samples indicated that the material was suitable for disposal at a sanitary landfill
practicing standard cover and compaction procedures. The ecological risks from this activity are
probably low or nonexistent, and the program will be phased out in any case by 1991.
Insufficient information was available to evaluate the risks from alternative disposal methods.
Scoring Recommendations
Intensity 1, Scale 1, Value 1, Uncertainty: Low
Total 3(L)
References
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed
Wood Burning-at-Sea Site," EPA, 1989.
67
-------
12. "Active" Hazardous Waste Sites Currently Regulated
Under RCRA's Subtitle C
Summary/Abstract
This problem area covers all active hazardous waste sites currently regulated under
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C. For purposes of this analysis,
the sites were evaluated on the basis of the risks posed before permit/corrective actions were
taken. These sites include treatment, storage, and disposal facilities as well as generators.
Units that impact the environment include landfills, surface impoundments, waste piles, land
treatment units, incinerators, tanks, and drums. Many sites are in areas that currently have low
ecological value, because habitats were destroyed when the facilities were originally developed.
Secondary impacts of chemical contamination range from moderate to negligible, depending on
the site.
Introduction
Hazardous waste units that have caused environmental problems are land disposal areas,
tanks, and drums. While many of these units now must meet regulatory standards, releases
from these units due to waste mismanagement have been known to cause environmental
damage.
Investigations to determine the extent of contamination are occurring at treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities. No investigations have been conducted for generators, however,
since EPA currently has no authority to routinely request monitoring data at these sites. Data
commonly collected center on ground water, soil, and air contamination; human health is the
primary focus of these investigations. Surface water, sediment, and fish sampling have occurred
on a site-specific basis. Ground water that is known to be discharging into surface water has
been examined to ascertain whether concentration levels have exceeded water quality criteria,
where they are currently available. However, few data are currently available to fully evaluate
risk for more than a few sites.
RCRA sites have already destroyed habitat on-site simply by being built; therefore,
ecological effects off-site are usually the primary problem. Most RCRA sites in Region n are
associated with urban areas and waterways, since production facilities need easy access to
markets and transportation. Some facilities use surface water as cooling water for their
production processes. Therefore, primary ecological impacts of RCRA sites include
contamination of creeks, lakes, and oceans and the related sediments found in each body of
water. Contaminants that have been found include volatile and semi-volatile organics, metals,
and PCBs.
In Region n, effects from RCRA sites have included the contamination of fish by PCBs
and mercury, the destruction of tropical rain forests, the filling of fresh water wetlands, and the
disruption of manatee habitat. Although supporting data on other damage are not currently
available, probable damage includes fish kills, diseased organisms, and chronic or behavioral
effects on aquatic and terrestrial plant and animal species. In an ecological risk evaluation of
RCRA and Superfund sites, the Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation found that out of 20
RCRA facilities examined, all affected surface water, 12 affected wetlands, 5 affected special
habitats, and 5 affected flood plains (EPA, 1989).
68
-------
Hazard Identification
Contaminants at RCRA sites consist of a wide variety of chlorinated solvents, other
volatile organics, PCBs, phenols, and metals. Contaminants of greatest ecological concern have
tended to be metals and PCBs because they do not volatilize and/or they bioaccumulate.The
environmental receptors of contaminants are primarily wetlands (via runoff or ground water
discharge), rivers, streams, and lakes. RCRA sites in Puerto Rico are known to have impacted
coastal bays and oceans. It is unclear to what extent ecological damage has occurred, as data
are sparse and/or preliminary.
Risk Characterization
Characterizing ecological risk due to RCRA hazardous waste sites is difficult because of
lack of data. Many sites destroyed habitat when they were created. The secondary impact of
chemical contamination can be moderate or negligible, depending on the site. Not enough data
exist to determine the degree of this secondary impact. Impacts tend to be localized. While a
few ecologically important areas have been greatly affected, the majority of sites are in already
developed areas, and ecological impact would most likely be minimal.
Trends
Regulatory standards for newer facilities should help to limit future off-site
contamination at facilities in Region II. In addition, implementation of corrective action at sites
that already have off-site releases should help reduce ecological risks from this problem area.
Reversibility of Effects
Many of the contaminants found at RCRA sites are very persistent in the environment
and tend to bioaccumulate. If unremediated, they represent a continuing source of risk.
However, these risks would be reduced significantly by cleanup of the most serious sites. Since
most of the impacts are moderate and localized, most affected ecosystems will probably recover
over relatively short time scales.
Scoring Recommendations
Intensity 3-4, Scale 1, Value 1-3, Uncertainty: Medium
Total 5-8 (M)
References
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "The Nature and Extent of Ecological Risks at
Superfund Sites and RCRA Facilities," Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation
EPA-230-03-89-043, 1989.
69
-------
13. Abandoned Hazardous Sites/Superfund Sites
Summary/Abstract
This problem area includes all hazardous waste sites that are not regulated under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). For the purposes of this analysis, the sites
were evaluated on the basis of risks posed before any corrective actions were taken. Although
contaminants from some sites can cause relatively severe ecological impacts, observed effects are
usually localized. A rough screening analysis indicates that only a small percentage (< 2
percent) of the region's ecosystems are significantly impacted by contaminants from Superfund
or other non-RCRA hazardous waste sites. However, 35.6 percent to 45.6 percent of the
region's sites are within three miles of a sensitive environment (estuary, critical habitat, 100-
year flood plain, barrier island/coastal high-hazard area) and can potentially impact valuable
ecological resources.
Introduction
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA or "Superfund") and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA) were enacted to authorize the federal government to respond to the release or
potential release of hazardous chemicals at hazardous waste sites. The Superfund Program uses
a screening tool called the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) to identify candidate sites for the
National Priority List (NPL) and prioritize listed sites for cleanup. Ideally, the sites that
represent the greatest public health and environmental threats will have the highest priority
under this system.
This analysis is concerned with ecological risks and/or impacts from sites not regulated
under RCRA that may be on the NPL, that have been deleted from the NPL, that are
candidates for the NPL, or that are simply noted by the federal government or states as
unmanaged locations containing hazardous waste. According to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System, or CERCLIS,
Region n has 201 sites listed on the NPL and 3,252 identified CERCLIS sites; there are
possibly many more unidentified sites. Region n has a high number of sites in relation to its
geographic area (see Figure 13-1), and has approximately 16 percent of the nation's 1,277 NPL
sites. New Jersey has the highest concentration of sites, with a total of 109 on the NPL (54
percent of all Region H sites). New York has 83 NPL sites (41 percent), and Puerto Rico has
the remaining 9 sites (5 percent) (EPA(b), 1989).
The nature of contaminants, mode of transport, and resultant ecological risks vary
greatly from site to site, and it is therefore difficult to describe an "average" site. Furthermore,
detailed ecological studies of sites within the region are infrequent. Until recently most site
evaluations have focused exclusively on human health concerns, and information about
ecological impacts has been very sparse. In addition, the original Hazard Ranking System was
heavily weighted toward human health impacts. It did not allow a site to be listed on the NPL
solely on the basis of ecological impacts. The HRS has been revised, however, and future site
rankings will place a greater emphasis on ecological risk.
70
-------
NPL CHARACTERIZATION PROJECT
National NPL Site Location Map
NPL CHARACTERIZATION PROJECT
' Region 1! NPL Site Locitios Map
Source: (EPA, 1990)
Figure 13-1
-------
This historical lack of programmatic emphasis on ecological effects has contributed to the rather
sparse data base on ecological impacts at NFL sites. For example, most ecologicalinformation,
if available, is present only in documents that cannot be readily reviewed. This situation may
improve in the future as several Superfund initiatives are implemented:
o EPA's Biological Technical Assistance Group (B-TAG) is an informational gathering
of biological experts from state and federal agencies who regularly meet to provide
recommendations to regional project managers on site-specific biological issues.
o Preliminary Natural Resource Surveys (PNRS) are brief site reviews (usually of
NPL sites) produced by two of the Federal Natural Resource Trustees (Department
of Interior, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) in which the extent,
if any, of potential or actual injury to Trustee ecological resources of concern is
assessed. The document, which is for EPA internal use only, indicates whether the
Trustee would be willing to grant the responsible parties a release from liability for
any damages to Trustee ecological resources as a result of a hazardous waste
release.
o EPA has begun to develop ecological risk assessment guidance for hazardous waste
sites. For example, the document "Ecological Risk Assessment Methods" produced
by the Office of Policy Analysis (EPA(c), 1989) identifies and summarizes
methodological approaches used to characterize both actual and potential ecological
impacts at CERCLA waste sites. It also identifies the ecological assumptions
inherent in these approaches and identifies opportunities for additional methods
development that would make current approaches for characterizing ecological
impacts more comprehensive and standardized.
Despite the overall lack of detailed information about ecological impacts on individual
sites several useful studies provide aggregate information about observed ecological impacts at
sites listed in CERCLIS. The CERCLIS Characterization studies (EPA, 1990; EPA(a), 1989;
and EPA(b), 1989) and an Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation (OPPE) study (EPA(d),
1989) of the nature and extent of ecological risks at 52 NPL sites provided the background
information for the screening analysis presented here.
Additional information for the analysis was provided by a contractor's review of a
sample of PNRS surveys of Region H sites. The results of this review are presented in
Appendix C.
Hazard Identification
Most risk assessment work conducted at Superfund sites has focused on the fate and
effects of chemicals with regard to human receptors. There are, however, situations where
ecological receptors (microorganisms, fauna and flora) are at greater risk but are overlooked or
given marginal treatment in the risk assessment process (Menzie, Burmaster and Freshman,
1988). Ecological risks associated with most sites result from off-site migration of contaminants
to surface water, sediments, and surrounding wetlands. These risks are generally assessed
qualitatively, and less so in a quantitative fashion (EPA(d), 1989; and Doty and Travis, 1989).
72
-------
Contamination at inactive hazardous waste sites can involve a wide variety of substances,
including metals and organic chemicals. Table 13-1 lists the 25 most commonly found chemicals
at Superfund Sites.
TaMe 13-1
Most Frequently Identified Substances: Superfund Sites
Other Organics
FCBs
Phenol
Inorganics
Cyanides (soluble salts)
Metals
Copper*
Mercury
Zinc*
Chromium*
Cadmium*
Arsenic*
Lead*
* and associated compounds
Sources EPA, 1985
Triehloroethylene
Toluene
Benzene
Chloroform
TetraeMoroethylene
1, 14-tricMoroniethane
Ethylbeiizene
Methylene Chloride
Vuiyl Chloride
1^-dicbloroethane
Iji-dichloroethanse
Carbon TetrachlorMe
These chemicals can produce a wide variety of ecological impacts depending on the level
and extent of exposure to sensitive environmental receptors. These impacts include:
o Effects on individual organisms such as mortality, reduced growth rate, organ damage,
reproductive effects, behavioral changes, and carcinogenesis
o Effects on populations of individual species, such as a reduction in population size via
mortality or a decline in reproductive rate, and/or avoidance of the site and localized
extinction
o Effects on biological communities, such as an increase in dominance by pollution-
tolerant species, associated reduction in biodiversity, and decreased rates of production
73
-------
Hazardous waste sites can lead to the disturbance of ecosystems on or adjacent to the
site when contaminants are transported via any of three migration routes (ground water, surface
water, air). Secondary routes of contaminant dispersion are transport of soils and sediments
and bioaccumulation in biota.
Exposure Assessment
Generalizations about exposure at hazardous waste sites are difficult to make since sites
vary greatly. However, the following provides examples of the exposures to ecosystems
identified in OPPE's survey of 52 relatively well-studied Superfund sites (EPA(d), 1989):
o Surface water contamination - Concentrations of eight metals, PCBs, and
pentachlorophenol were observed at 1.5 to 414,000 times EPA's ambient water
quality criteria for aquatic organisms.
o Contaminated sediments ~ Observed contaminants included seven metals, PCBs,
and asbestos. Concentrations frequently exceeded background levels by factors
ranging from 15 to 820.
o Soil contamination — Observed contaminants included six metals, PCBs, phenols,
asbestos, nitroaromatics, and other organics. Concentrations frequently exceeded
background levels by factors ranging from 3 to 2,600.
o Wetlands and marshes -- Observed contaminants included metals, oils, and PCBs.
Concentrations frequently exceeded background levels.
Additional information on observed exposures and potentially impacted biological
resources is provided in Appendix C.
Risk Characterization
An accurate view of the overall risks from the region's Superfund sites would involve
extensive review of background documents for many sites, an effort that is beyond the scope of
the Regional Risk Ranking Project. For the purposes of comparative risk ranking, however, a
rough screening analysis was conducted to develop scores on the intensity of impact, scale, and
value of resources impacted.
OPPE's survey of 52 nationwide Superfund sites indicated that 18 to 35 percent of the
surveyed sites showed significant ecological impacts and projected that 2,700 to 5,300 sites
nationwide were likely to show significant ecological risks (EPA(d), 1989). This sample was
reported to consist of relatively well-studied sites. Assuming that these estimates are
representative, these percentages can be used to determine a range of sites in Region II that
may have significant ecological impacts or risks. Using OPPE's screening method, we can
assume that approximately half of the region's 3,252 non-RCRA sites listed in CERCLIS will be
categorized as "no further action required," leaving a universe of 1,626 potentially impacted
sites. If 18 to 35 percent of these sites can be expected to exhibit significant ecological impacts,
the range of impacted sites is 293 to 569, with a mid-range estimate of 431 sites.
74
-------
To develop areal estimates of the impacted environmental receptors on or adjacent to
these sites, the following multiplying factors were used (scaling factors are based on geometric
means of the areal extent of impacts at the 52 sites surveyed in OPPE's 1989 study, (EPA(d),
1989); factors are rounded to the nearest whole number):
o Surface water: potential water column impacts — 3 stream-miles/site; potential
sediment impacts — 2 stream-miles/site
o Soil: potential impacts — 15 acres/site
o Flora: potential impacts — 11 acres/site
o Wetlands: potential impacts — 7 acres/site
Table 13-2 presents estimates of impacted areas from Region n sites and compares
these projections to the area of the region's ecological resources. On the basis of these rough
projections, a relatively small percentage (<2 percent) of the Region II ecosystems are
potentially impacted by the region's sites. OPPE's 1989 report indicated that the majority
(approximately 80 percent) of the sites surveyed showed "moderate" impacts in terms of
ecological threats, since the area affected generally appears to be small to moderate in size, and
the biota affected appear to be limited to organisms close to the site (on-site or in the
surrounding wetlands or aquatic environment); and/or contaminant levels may be below acute
toxic levels in most areas. Although the threatened areas are not large compared to the region
as a whole, many sites are in close proximity to sensitive ecosystems. The OPPE study
estimated that 60 percent of the surveyed sites were within three miles of wetland or other
critical habitat and that 25 percent of the sites potentially threatened endangered species or
their habitats (EPA(d), 1989). The Regional NPL Characterization study stated that 35.6
percent of the region's NPL sites were within three miles of a sensitive environment (estuary,
critical habitat, 100-year flood plain, barrier island/coastal high-hazard area) (EPA(b), 1989),
while the CERCLIS Characterization Project that included non-NPL sites stated that 45.6
percent of the sites are within three miles of a sensitive environment (EPA(a), 1989).
In addition, certain parts of the region, such as the Meadowlands in New Jersey and the
Niagara River area in New York, have an unusually high concentration of Superfund sites that
may present significant cumulative risks to ecosystems. Although no studies to date have been
done to evaluate the overall impacts in such area, it has been estimated that hazardous waste
sites constitute the most significant component of toxic chemical loading to the Niagara River
(EPA and DEC, 1989). In addition, tissue analysis from indigenous aquatic organisms within
the Passaic River and Newark Bay area have indicated that these organisms were
bioaccumulating dioxin, often to concentrations exceeding FDA recommendations. The primary
source of dioxin was a Superfund site that discharged waste water into the Passaic River near
the mouth of Newark Bay.
Trends
Current regulatory programs for hazardous waste disposal should limit the creation of
new abandoned waste sites, and the problem area should become less significant as existing sites
are cleaned up. However, there is high uncertainty as to how many unidentified sites currently
exist that will require remediation.
75
-------
Table 13-2
Estimates of Potentially Impacted Areas hi Region II4
Total Percentage
_ Regional of Region
Media , Areal Estimate* Resources* Affected*
Surface Water (Stream-miles)
Ambient 1,293 (8794,707)
Sediment s 862 (586*1438)
Soil (Acres)
JFtora (Acres)
Wetlands (Acre?)
6,465 (4,395-8,535)
4,741 (3.223-6,259)
79,824
79,824
31,629,200"
3,017 (2,051-3,983) 1,943,971'
1,6 (11-24)
14 (OJ-L4)
0.02 (0.01-0,02)
046 (041-0,21)
(a) Based on an estimate of 431 significantly impacted sites tyith a range of 29& to 569 sites
(b) Figure presented i$ a mid-range estimates; ft& range fe'presented in parenthesis
(c) From estimates of regionaTecosystem areas developed by ICF, ln& (See Appendix 1)
(d) Sum of forested and agricultural areas ' -,'-,,;
(&) Sum of marine dnd freshwater
Reversibility of Effects
Many of the contaminants found at NPL and non-NPL sites are very persistent in the
environment and tend to bioaccumulate. If unremediated, they represent a continuing source of
risk. However, these risks would be reduced significantly by cleanup of the most serious sites.
Since most of the impacts are moderate and localized, most affected ecosystems will probably
recover over relatively short time scales.
Uncertainty
Major sources of uncertainty in this analysis include:
o Hazardous waste sites are highly variable, and making generalizations about
"average" exposure and impacts is very difficult.
o Detailed information about ecological risks at individual sites is not generally
available.
76
-------
o Much of the information that is available is not on any type of centralized database.
Extracting the information would require extensive review of background documents
for many sites, an effort that was beyond the scope of the Regional Risk Ranking
Project.
o The total universe of sites is probably larger than the number of sites covered by
this analysis, which was limited to sites already listed on CERCLIS. It is difficult to
estimate how many additional sites not covered by CERCLIS pose ecological
threats.
Overall, however, the analysis is generally adequate to provide the necessary background
for the regional ranking.
Scoring Recommendations
The following scoring recommendations are based on the information provided in the
Risk Characterization Section.
Intensity: 3 to 4
Scale: 1
Value: 5
Uncertainty: High
Impacts at most sites are classified as
moderate.
Impacts at most sites are localized and a
relatively small portion of the region's
ecosystems are affected.
A high percentage of sites are in close
proximity to sensitive ecosystems.
Due to difficulty in determining "average"
risks and limited availability of readily
interpretable, site-specific information,
uncertainty was rated high.
Total:
9 to 10 (H)
References
Callahan, C.A. "On-Site Assessment Methods Using Earthworms," USEPA, unpublished.
CERCLIS Database.
Doty, C.B. and C.C. Travis. The Superfund Remedial Action Decision Process: A Review of
Fifty Records of Decision. Office of Risk Analysis, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee. Air and Waste Management Association. 1989.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "NPL Characterization Project: National Results,"
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, 1990.
77
-------
EPA(a), "CERCOS Characterization Project," Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
1989.
EPA(b), "NPL Characterization Project; Region II Results," Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, 1989.
EPA(c), "Ecological Risk Assessment Methodology," Office of Policy Analysis, 1989.
EPA(d), "The Nature and Extent of Ecological Risks at Superfund Sites and RCRA Facilities,"
Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation, EPA-230-03-89-043, 1989.
EPA, The 25 Most Frequently Identified Substances at 546 Superfund Sites," Adapted from
McCoy & Associates, "Haz. Waste. Consult." 3:2(1985) in OSWER Bulletin Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 1985.
EPA and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), "Reduction of
Toxic Loadings to the Niagara River from Hazardous Waste Sites in the United States,"
in Niagara River Toxics Management Plan, 1989.
EPA, DEC, Ontario Department of Environment (DOE), Canada Ministry of the Environment
(MOE), Lake Ontario Toxics Management Plan, EPA, DEC, DOE and MOE, 1989.
EPA Region IT, Environmental Impacts Branch, personal communications with Michael
Verhaar, Lorraine Graves, and Joanne Arenwald.
Hicks, W.W., Parkhurst, B.J., and S.S. Baker Jr. "Ecological Assessment of Hazardous-Waste
Sites: A Field and Laboratory Reference," EPA Office of Research and Development
EPA/600/3-89/013, 1989.
Menzie, CA., Burmaster, D.E., and J.S. Freshman, "Assessment of Methods for Estimating
Ecological Risk in the Terrestrial Component: A Case Study at the Baird & McGuire
Superfund site in Holbrook, Mass.," Unpublished analysis, Menzie & Associates, 1988.
Select RI/FS studies and PAs, Sis, PNRSs, and other studies (see Appendix C).
78
-------
14. Municipal Solid Waste --Storage and Landfills
Summary/Abstract
This environmental problem area includes municipal waste or storage sites such as
municipal landfills and municipal surface impoundments containing primarily nonhazardous
wastes. Some municipal solid waste sites eventually become Superfund sites, and many are
located in high-value wetlands. The nature of the impacts for Superfund, active hazardous
waste, and solid waste sites is likely to be similar, because each involves acute and chronic toxic
impacts on organisms via surface runoff and ground water leachates to surface water. Municipal
solid waste sites were judged by the Region II work group to present the highest relative
ecological risk of these problem areas because of three factors: the great number of sites, the
high potential of those sites to become Superfund sites, and the proximity of those sites to
wetlands.
Introduction
Ecological impacts due to municipal solid waste landfills result primarily from surface
runoff of contaminants to streams, lakes, and other surface water bodies, or discharge of ground
water contaminated by leachate to wetlands or surface water. Impacts are usually localized.
Uncertainty of the risk is high, because environmental data specific to these facilities are
incomplete. The only available data are from ground water monitoring.
Municipal landfills have historically been placed in wetlands, which were viewed as
"worthless" areas. These areas are known to be rich in biological diversity and are important
habitats for many aquatic species. The Meadowlands of New Jersey is a striking example of the
extensive amounts of these habitats that have been degraded or destroyed in Region II. There
are similar examples on Long Island in New York. There are 967 active and inactive municipal
waste landfills in New York, 400 in New Jersey, 62 in Puerto Rico, and 3 in the Virgin Islands.
Hazard Identification
Thirty percent of the NPL Superfund sites are inactive municipal waste landfills. Since
municipal landfills tend to receive hazardous waste either as components of solid waste (e.g.,
metals in batteries), or by other means (e.g., illegal dumping), it is reasonable to assume that
additional sites will be identified as landfills are closed. Contamination at these sites consists of
metals, PCBs, phenols, and volatile organics, including the chlorinated solvents, benzene,
toluene, and xylene. Sampling at non-NPL landfills has identified iron, manganese, and phenols
in the ground water. These data are incomplete, however; organics other than phenol were not
often analyzed. The hazard identification section of Problem Area #1 provides additional
background on the effects of metals and organic compounds on surface waters.
Hazardous constituents that migrate to surface water can impair the overall health of
fresh water and estuarine fish and other organisms. It is unclear to what extent ecological
damage has occurred, however, since data are lacking.
79
-------
Risk Characterization
Characterizing ecological risk due to municipal solid waste landfills is difficult because of
lack of data. In addition, many sites destroyed habitat when they were created. In the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response's regulatory impact analysis of municipal solid waste
landfills, leachate exceeded tpxicity thresholds for small creeks and streams with flow less than
15 cubic feet per second, while at large landfills the toxicity exceedances generally were limited
to those landfills with high infiltration rates. Iron, silver, and biological oxygen demand were
determined to be the primary stressors on aquatic ecosystems (ICF, 1990). It is not known what
percentage of Region IPs landfills would meet these conditions.
Trends
Risks from this problem area are likely to increase as older landfills continue to close.
Regulatory standards for operating facilities should help to limit future off-site contamination at
newer facilities.
Reversibility of Effects
Many of the contaminants found at landfills are very persistent in the environment and
tend to bioaccumulate. The effects of more conventional pollutants from landfills such as
nutrients and oxygen demanding substances can be reversed over relatively short time periods.
Since most of the impacts are moderate and localized, most affected ecosystems will probably
recover over relatively short time scales.
Scoring Recommendations
Intensity 3, Scale 1, Value 3, Uncertainty: High
Total 8 (H)
References
ICF, Inc., "Adverse Impacts on Aquatic Ecosystems from Subtitle D Industrial Facilities,
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, and Underground Storage Tanks," (background
document for USEPA Region II Comparative Risk study), July 1990.
80
-------
15. Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators
Summary/Abstract
This problem area includes solid waste and resource recovery incinerators. Currently,
there are 16 active solid waste incinerators in Region II; that number is expected to increase.
The ecological impacts from the emission of criteria air pollutants by municipal solid waste
incinerators (MSWs) are considered to be minimal compared to other sources because of the
low emission rates from these incinerators. Some potential for bioaccumulation of metals from
emissions exists. Ecological effects from ash disposal can be minimized if properly constructed
landfills are used.
Introduction
The combustion of municipal solid waste (MSW) represents an increasingly important
element of the solid waste disposal program in the United States. In Region II, most existing
landfill facilities are approaching capacity, and increasing concern about the health and
environmental impacts of landfilling have prompted many communities to examine resource-
recovery energy projects as an option for waste disposal. Disposal of municipal waste by
combustion, however, releases potentially harmful pollutants into the air, and although waste is
reduced by volume from 70 to 90 percent, there is also potentially harmful residual ash that
must be properly disposed of.
There are three principal design types of MSW burning facilities: mass burn, modular,
and refuse-derived fuel (RDF). The massburn and modular facilities usually combust the waste
with no preprocessing other than the removal of large noncombustible items that cannot pass
through the fuel feeding systems. The RDF facilities incorporate boilers into the design. All of
the facilities recover heat to use in generating steam or electricity. Some co-fire the MSW with
fossil fuels, but this does not affect the primary hazardous pollutants of concern for this analysis
(EPA(a), 1987).
This report concerns ecological impacts for areas surrounding existing and proposed
resource recovery facility sites and for disposal of incinerator ash. Direct impacts can be
expected from the emission of organics, metals, acid gases, nitrates (NO^) and carbon monoxide
(CO) are evaluated. Additional indirect impacts (which could cause greater adverse ecological
impacts than the air emissions) from disposal of the remaining ash, which can contain amounts
of environmentally hazardous metals, are also addressed. There are currently 16 solid waste
combustion units operating or testing in the region, with four in the greater New York City
area, four in New Jersey, and the remainder on Long Island or in upstate New York. Based
upon size and stack height release levels, air emission impacts can be expected to impact an
area of up to 30 kilometers surrounding an individual plant. As of March 1989, another 32
facilities were in the planning or permitting stages, including two in Puerto Rico. New Jersey
has plans for the operation of at least one facility in every county, and many of the region's
remaining facilities are concentrated in the greater New York City area, including Long Island.
Therefore, we can expect air emission impacts to extend over most of New Jersey and New
York City, and Long Island, Rockland, and Westchester counties. In addition, there are and
will be an increasing number of potentially impacted areas in upstate New York.
81
-------
Hazard Identification
EPA's Municipal Waste Combustor Study identified and measured 17 different
pollutants of concern from stack testing at newer existing MSW facilities: arsenic, beryllium,
cadmium, carbon monoxide, chlorobenzenes, chlorophenols, chromium, chlorinated dioxins
(CDDs) and dibenzofurans (CDFs), formaldehyde, hydrogen chloride, lead, mercury, nitrogen
oxides, particulate matter, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH), and sulfur oxides. Existing and projected emissions are a function of plant type, size,
control equipment, and maintenance procedures. Utilizing significant recent advances in control
techniques, including acid gas scrubbing, fabric filter bag house systems, and temperature and
combustion controls, overall efficiencies for CDDs and CDFs can be greater than 99 percent.
Other organics such as chlorobenzenes and polychlorinated biphenyls are removed to a lesser
extent, but generally better than 95 percent at operating temperatures between 125 and 140
degrees C. Particulate control can exceed 99.9 percent while acid gases can be reduced between
70 and 90 percent. Most metal constituents can be removed at a rate exceeding 99 percent, but
mercury, because of its low boiling point, is poorly controlled unless the temperatures of the
combustion gases are held below 140 degrees (EPAa, 1987).
EPA has proposed a methodology to examine risks to terrestrial and aquatic organisms.
This proposed methodology included a terrestrial food chain model to assess the effects of
deposited pollutants on herbivores, soil biota, predators of soil biota, and plants. The proposed
methodology also included an evaluation of risks to aquatic organisms and wildlife preying on
aquatic organisms from surface runoff and ground water infiltration models (EPA, 1986). In a
supporting document, EPA stated that lead and mercury emissions from two representative
hypothetical facilities were predicted to reach levels in the environment that may lead to adverse
effects on aquatic and terrestrial plant and animal life. However, detailed results of the
environmental risk assessment were not provided (EPA(b), 1987).
Ecological risks have been evaluated at several municipal waste combustion facilities. In
general, ^estimated concentrations of contaminants in environmental media (e.g., air, soil, surface
water, biota) were well below those associated with adverse ecological impacts. However, some
acute mortality might result from spills of liquid wastes into surface water bodies. The greatest
ecological risks appear to be loss of wildlife habitat owing to construction of new facilities. For
example, a risk assessment for a proposed resource recovery facility in Winona, Minnesota
reached the following conclusions:
o Construction of the proposed incinerator will result in the loss of wildlife habitat.
Construction that results in the loss of wetlands habitat will have a greater impact
on the environment than will construction that does not result in the loss of
wetlands.
o Predicted concentrations of chemicals in surface water are between 3 and 8 orders
of magnitude below ambient water quality criteria or concentrations associated with
any toxic effects in fish. Therefore, significant impacts on aquatic ecosystems or
resident fish species are not likely.
o Predicted concentrations of contaminants in the animal diet of ducks and eagles are
5^ to 11 orders of magnitude below levels known to cause toxic responses in these or
similar species. Therefore, adverse effects via the animal diet are not likely.
Exposures via plant food, water, air, and skin, and exposures while preening will
contribute to intake but most likely not to levels associated with adverse effects.
82
-------
o
Estimated air concentrations are between 3 and 9 orders of magnitude below those
associated with adverse effects in plants. Therefore, adverse effects of air emissions
on plants are not likely.
Soil concentrations of mercury and cadmium may be at sufficiently high levels to be
toxic to some plant species. These effects probably would be localized (ICF-
Clement, Associates, 1987).
Another risk assessment, for a proposed Facility in Ontario, Canada, concluded the
following:
o Estimated air concentrations resulting from emissions from incinerator stacks,
emissions from evaporator stacks, and fugitive emissions are between 1 and 4 orders
of magnitude below those associated with adverse effects in animals and plants.
Therefore, adverse effects of air emissions on terrestrial biota are not likely.
o Predicted concentrations of metals and phenol from facility emissions deposited in
surface water are between 11 and 16 orders of magnitude below measured
background concentrations, although existing (background) concentrations of metals
in nearby surface waters are at levels that are likely to result in adverse effects in
aquatic ecosystems, fish, and birds that eat fish.
o
Ecological risks associated with several hypothetical accident scenarios generally
were low or very low. However, spills of liquid wastes directly into surface waters
could result in acute mortality or aquatic organisms (i.e., fish kills) and terrestrial
wildlife drinking contaminated water (Environ Corporation, 1988) .
Risk Characterization
Overall ecological risk is expected to be minimal from criteria air pollutants with some
potential for small amounts of metal accumulation from air emissions. Although the number of
incinerators in the Region is likely to increase, there should be a reduction in future trends
since newly constructed plants will have lower emissions than those currently in operation
(assuming that the older incinerators are phased out). Ecological effects from ash can be
controlled if properly constructed landfills are available for disposal.
Trends
In the future, the number of incinerators in the region is expected to increase.
Ecological impacts from emissions are still likely to be minor, due to the use of newer
technologies resulting in lower expected emissions. Incinerator ash will become a more
significant problem in the future and may present localized ecological risks if not properly
disposed of.
83
-------
Reversibility of Effects
Although the effects from this problem area are likely to be localized, many of the
emitted compounds that bioaccumulate, such as dioxin and metals, are highly persistent in the
environment and in biota.
Scoring Recommendations
Intensity 1-2, Scale 1, Value 1, Uncertainty: High
Total 3-4 (H)
References
Environ Corporation, Site Assessment, Phase 4B: Risk Assessment, Volume 1;
prepared for the Ontario Waste Management Corporation, January 1988.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "Methodology for the Assessment of Health
Risks Associated with Multiple Pathway Exposure to Municipal Waste Combustor
Emissions," Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC,
and Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, OH, October, 1986.
EPA(a), Municipal Waste Combustion Study Report to Congress, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, D.C. 20460. EPA/530-SW-87-021a, June 1987.
EPA(b), "Municipal Waste Combustion Study Assessment of Health Risks Associated
with Municipal Waste Combustion Emissions," Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, D.C. 20460. EPA/530-SW-87-021g, September 1987.
ICF, Inc., "Background Analysis on Ecological Effects of Municipal Solid Waste
Incinerator," prepared for EPA Region H Comparative Risk Project, 1990.
ICF-Clement Associates, "Health Risk Assessment for the Proposed Resource Recovery
Facility in Winona, Minnesota," prepared for the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
St. Paul, MN, November 1987.
84
-------
16. Materials Storage Tanks, Sites, and Pipelines Not
Regulated Under RCRA Subtitle C (underground
storage tanks and others)
Summary/Abstract
This problem area includes industrial waste or storage sites containing primarily
nonhazardous wastes such as industrial landfills, industrial surface impoundments, oil and gas
waste impoundments, incinerators, and land application units. It also includes all types of
storage units and associated pipelines, such as above-and-below ground storage tanks, barrels,
etc., that contain nonhazardous materials such as motor fuels, heating fuels, solvents, and
lubricants.
Most of the chemical storage tanks under this problem area are located in urban and
industrialized areas. Petroleum storage tanks, however, are distributed more evenly throughout
Region II and consequently have a greater potential to adversely impact ecological systems in
rural areas. Spillage from shallow petroleum storage tanks can discharge to surface water,
affecting aquatic environments, particularly small streams. Generally, releases from
underground storage tanks (USTs) do not migrate great distances from their point of discharge.
Ecological data from this problem area are sparse, and uncertainty regarding its magnitude is
high.
Introduction
Nationally, the UST program applies to an estimated 1.4 million tanks ~ and more than 95
percent store petroleum products. Most of the remainder contain hazardous chemicals. An
estimated 3 million to 7 million tanks are currently exempted from regulation. In Region II,
there are approximately 104,000 regulated tanks, as calculated by the Office of Underground
Storage Tanks (OUST), with 28,000 in New Jersey, 70,000 in New York, more than 5,000 in
Puerto Rico, and 250 in the Virgin Islands. The actual state-regulated totals are higher, since
they regulate above-ground tanks and fuel oil (heating) tanks. There were about 5,450
confirmed releases in 1989; however, because of their widespread locations and the often
considerable time lag between leakage and environmental notice, the actual figures are probably
much higher. In 1987 alone, New York reported 8,460 incidents of leaks and spills to soil,
although it is not known to what extent ground water standards were violated. In the same
year, there were 935 surface releases affecting rivers, streams, and lakes in New York. This
figure can also be considered an underestimate. Petroleum USTs are widely distributed
throughout urban and rural areas in Region II. These scattered sites have the potential for
adverse ecological impact, mostly localized around the respective site. Generally, ecological
impact data are very sparse. Current conservative estimates are that at least 10 percent of these
sources are leaking and could be impacting the surrounding environment (EPA, 1986).
85
-------
Hazard Identification
Petroleum products that are stored in USTs in large quantities are motor fuels (motor,
diesel, and jet fuel), heating oils (distillate fuel oil and residual fuel oil), solvents, and
automotive and industrial lubricants. Petroleum is a mixture of hundreds of compounds,
primarily simple saturated and unsaturated hydrocarbons. A wide variety of compounds is
added to enhance performance of the product or impart certain characteristics. These additives
are often very toxic, and in some cases are carcinogenic. Indicator compounds for ecological
effects have not been accurately assessed or quantified.
Stress agents identified by the EPA Ecosystem Research Center emphasize oil and
petroleum products. UST leaks also can contribute air emissions (i.e., gaseous phytotoxicants).
(Cornell, 1987) The screening conducted by the Region II work group considered the area
most widely understood (petroleum leaks to surface waters) and does not include other,
potential pathways or possible impacts from chemical tank leaks.
Impact Assessment Methodology
Contaminants from a leaking UST can travel via ground water and ultimately reach surface
watery (e.g., through springs). The frequency of potential impacts upon surface water and
aquatic life was determined using a series of scenarios with various combinations of stream size
and gasoline amounts. The analysis is intended for screening purposes and includes several
conservative assumptions. Numbers were generated for the nation: These can be divided by 14
(percentage of the national total in Region II, according to OUST) to roughly approximate the
number of streams in the region.
A simple dilution model was used to predict surface water concentrations of gasoline.
The mass loading rate was derived using data from an UST model that included the predicted
occurrence of leaks and leak rates from the 1.4 million USTs in the United States. The
simulation period for the analysis was 30 years. It was assumed that the entire floating plume
discharges to the nearest stream. Degradation and other fate and transport processes were not
considered in the scenarios. Therefore, the concentration of contaminant in the stream was
derived by dividing the mass loading rate by stream flow. Using these assumptions, the
predicted mass of gasoline reaching the stream was slightly less than the total leak volume
because some gasoline was refined in the unsaturated zone.
The surface water concentration of gasoline calculated in each scenario was compared to
a maximum acceptable toxicant concentration (MATC) of 0.8 mg/L. This value was chosen
after four different methods of calculating MATCs (including three extrapolations from acute
aquatic toxicity data to chronic aquatic toxicity) resulted in a range of values from 0.7' to 2.7
mg/L. A sensitivity analysis indicated that the overall results from the scenario simulation
would not change appreciably over the predicted range of MATCs.
The number of USTs that would potentially affect a given stream size was determined by
assuming a random distribution of USTs along streams of various sizes (i.e., orders 1 through 10)
in proportion to the number of stream miles nationwide.
86
-------
Risk Characterization
Over a 30-year simulation period, a large number of first- and second-order streams was
determined to be potentially affected by a leaking UST. A summary of the results for first-,
second-, third-, and fourth-order streams is shown in Table 16-1. Specifically, the model
estimated that releases from more than half (56 percent) of the 1.4 million USTs could result in
adverse impacts in smaller streams over the next 30 years. Releases from more than 560,000
leaking USTs (40 percent) could result in adverse ecological impacts in first-order streams;
releases from more than 15 percent of leaking USTs could result in adverse impacts on second-
order streams. The model indicated that no streams of fifth-order or higher would be affected
by UST leaks. These results suggest that leaking USTs are unlikely to result in adverse
ecological impacts in larger streams, which tend to be more important in terms of fisheries and
other recreational and commercial value. However, leaking USTs have the potential to cause
adverse impacts to a large proportion of the nation's, and consequently the region's, smaller
streams. A rough approximation from the table below would predict that 2,000 streams, mostly
first and second order, receive adverse impacts annually from USTs in Region II.
Table 16-1
Dumber of Leaking USTs Resulting in Adverse Aquatic Impacts
Stream Order
Number of USTs
Affecting Stream
Percentage of USTs
Affecting Stream
(percentage)
.
2
3
4
TOTALS
ICF, Inc., 1990
560,000
220,000
5,000
130
787,130
40.0
15.7
0.34
0.01
0,0
56.1
Overall ecosystem effects from leaking USTs should be rated low, when compared to the
widespread ecological problems, because most USTs .are located in or near already-disturbed
natural areas and most leaks from petroleum and chemical USTs do not move very far from the
point of discharge. The exceptions are those USTs located in areas where surface waters are
adjacent to releases. Although more research is needed, the only documented ecological
87
-------
impacts of these leaks are some mostly localized effects on terrestrial and aquatic systems (e.g.,
some fish kills in streams). Potential air transport routes have not been characterized.
Trends
The regulatory controls that will be implemented over the next several years, together with
emerging problem awareness in state and local governments, will significantly reduce the future
potential for ecological disturbance. As human health impacts are addressed, the potential
ecological risks should be reduced.
Reversibility of Effects
Many of the contaminants related to USTs sites are very persistent in the environment
and tend to bioaccumulate and may stay bound in soils or sediments for relatively long periods
of time.
Scoring Recommendations
Intensity 2, Scale 1, Value 3, Uncertainty. High
Total 6(H)
References
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "Releases from Underground Storage Tanks: A
Preliminary Analysis of Ecological Risks," Office of Underground Storage Tanks, 1986.
EPA, "Underground Motor Fuel Storage Tanks: A National Survey," EPA 560/5-86-013, 1986.
EPA Region I, "Releases from Storage Tanks" (for Region I Risk Ranking Project),
1988.
ICF, Inc., "Adverse Impacts on Aquatic Ecosystems from Subtitle D Industrial Facilities,
Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, and Underground Storage Tanks," Background
document prepared for Region n Comparative Risk Study, July, 1990.
88
-------
17. Accidental Releases During Transport or Production
Summary/Abstract
Accidental releases during transport or production include catastrophic events with acute
impacts, often requiring some sort of emergency response, as well as smaller events with less
obvious impacts. Accidental releases may occur during transport, production, or use (e.g., an
industrial unit explosion, a railroad tank car spill, or an oil spill).
Accidental releases of hazardous substances, oil, and other materials contribute to the
degradation of both terrestrial and aquatic environments. The extent of ecological damage
varies in time and space and depends on the nature of the substance released. The
International Joint Commission has documented that regular accidental releases of toxic
chemicals significantly degrade water quality, and may contribute more pollution to the
environment than regulated sources (GLASTBC, 1988).
Unfortunately, data gaps are huge in this area. In order to fill these gaps, ecological
data need to be collected as part of the spill-reporting process.
Introduction
Recent disasters such as the Bhopal toxic gas release and the Valdez oil spill have
resulted in increased public awareness of the ecological impact of accidental releases. The
major characteristic of accidental releases is unpredictability: time, location, nature of release, or
environmental receptor cannot be anticipated with any accuracy for most releases. This report
qualitatively describes the ecological risks associated with accidental releases of contaminants
such as oil and hazardous substances.
Contaminants are released into the environment in a number of ways during transport,
production, storage, and use. Accidental releases can have catastrophic effects on the
environment. Accidental releases primarily affect surface water ecosystems (i.e., death of birds,
mammals and fish, damage to wildlife habitats, and food chain impacts in rivers and coastal
waters). For example, after an oil spill the impacted animal communities will respond to the
increased, oil-induced stress. The magnitude of their response depends on the severity of the
oiling and type of oil spilled. In the most severe cases, infaunal communities will suffer drastic
decreases in diversity. The community may be reduced to one or a few species of opportunists
found in very high abundance (Gilfillan et al., 1983). The overall damage to an ecosystem may
be reversible only over many months or years.
In addition to the effects of one-time, significant releases, the cumulative effects of
relatively small releases are also of concern, particularly if the pollutant is nonbiodegradable or
bioaccumulative (State of Washington, 1989). Investigations prompted by the perchloroethylene
spill near Sarnia (Canada) focused attention on the importance of repeated low-level incidents.
For example, available records from the Great Lakes Basin over the past 10 years show regular
minor accidents, each releasing between 10 and 4,000 tons of contaminants into the St. Clair
River, in close proximity to drinking water intakes for several metropolitan areas. Results
suggest that the loading of these spills may significantly exceed amounts released into the
environment through regulated pathways. For instance, one spill equaled a continuous discharge
89
-------
Tafele 17-1
Number., o? Accidental Releases per
^v
„-"
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
'• f
New Jersey ^ ' , .
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
-. ,, f
New Jersey ' - -
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
TOTAL
Source: BUNS Data Base
FST87
Air
186
104 -
15
1
306
" Land
367
31*
31
2
?ia
ffiatey
237
183
21
9
450
1,469
-
fiscal Tear y,
*W
- 212
138
20
3
373
371
299
40
»
718
250
176:
40
18
484
1,575
'
Medium
mm
_
187
148
16
1
352
389
349
39
2
779
243
182
27
10
462
1,593
90
-------
of 1.5 years, and another was roughly equivalent to more than 1,400 years of continuous effluent
discharge (GLSABTC, 1988).
Risk Characterization
Table 17-1 depicts data retrieved from the Emergency Response Notification System
(ERNS) for Federal Fiscal Years1 (FY) 1987-89. The ERNS database is maintained by EPA
and includes reports of accidental releases within Region II. Unfortunately, the information is
not always comprehensive, and information on the exact nature and quantity of material
released is not always provided. Accidental releases are filed on a Notification Report Form by
the responsible party, and underreporting may occur. FY 1990 information was not included
since there is no complete data set. It is important to note that the classification categories of
accidental releases in ERNS are not mutually exclusive; some chemical spills show up in more
than one of the above categories.
In general,-the number of accidental releases to air, land, and water increased between
FY 1987 and FY 1989. This could imply a trend toward an increased frequency of exposure of
fauna and flora to hazardous substances, oil, and other contaminants. It is, however, unclear
whether this statistically unverified trend reflects an increase in reporting, an actual minor
increase in accidental releases, or random variation.
The total number of accidental releases recorded by the ERNS process appears to be
greatest to land, followed by water and then air. Releases of chemicals to an aquatic
environment might temporarily alter water column chemistry and contaminate sediment, flora,
and fauna. Releases of chemicals to soil could alter soil chemistry and structure and
subsequently affect physiology and community structure of localized fauna and flora
communities. The ecological effects of accidental releases to land might be considered less
far-reaching than those to water since soil acts as confining matrix, and impacts are likely to be
localized. Recovery time may vary with type and duration of exposure (Harwell and Kefly,
1987).
As Table 17-2 illustrates, the number of recorded accidental releases of hazardous
substances declined between FY 1987 and FY 1989, while the number of recorded accidental
releases of oil and other nonhazardous substances increased. It is not clear whether the changes
are real or are related to changes in notification frequency. The release of hazardous
substances and oil constitutes 88 percent, 77 percent, and 72 percent of the total number of
recorded accidental releases for FY 1987, FY 1988, and FY 1989, respectively. This implies that
a significant proportion of the recorded accidental releases leads to some level of exposure to
potentially toxic substances, although these figures suggest that the frequency may be declining.
The accidental releases of salts could also have potential negative affects on fauna and flora. A
number of studies in the scientific literature assess the effects of road salting on soil organisms
near the periphery of roadways.
The quantity of hazardous substances released (Table 17-3) indicates the potential extent
of exposure. Although emergency response or other cleanup activities may limit the amount
released to the environment, ultimately, a quantity of chemical, when released, dissolves in
lThe federal fiscal year is from October 1 through September 30 of the following
calendar year.
91
-------
Table
Number of Accidental Releases per Fiscal Year v.
of Substance
BY 87
Hazardous Substance (Acids. Bases. Benzene* Mercury. Pesticides^ PCBsl
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
301
225
35
0
561
216
45
3
503
203
173
6
0
382
Pit {Fuel Oil. Mineral OM. Kerosene, Tar Balls. Transformer Oil)
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
292
235
20
9
556
319
220
38
21
589
322
273
44
12
651
Other Substances (Odors, Vapor Plume, Hydrogen
Sulfide. Toluene. Salts. Nonhazardous Chemicals. Unknowns)
New Jersey
New York - ,
Puerto Rico
Virgin Hands
Total
TOTAL
Source: ERNS Data Base
95
54
2
1
152
1,269
199
116
8
1
324
191
178
22
0
391
1,424
92
-------
" ' Table 17-3 ^ ' , • ,
Quantity of Released Hazardous
New Jersey
Gallons
Pounds
Barrels ,
Other
New York
Gallons
Pounds
Barrels
Other ,
Puerto Rico
Gallons
Pounds
Barrels
Other
Virgin Islands
Gallons
Pounds
Barrels
Other
Total gallons
Total pounds
Total barrels
Total other
Source: ERNS Data Base
FY87
195,894
66,777
51
32,456
103,343
234,707
106
313
3,933
43,551
0
0
0
0
0
0
303,170
345,035
157
32,769
Substances T.
FY8&
728,371
78,473
23,
149
85,115
3,420,591
157
60
-
11,334
50,047
0
1,654
0
0
0
0
824,820
3,549,111
180
1,863
>
Fiscal Year
FY89
29,655
31,481
77
85
1,020,424
81,289 -"
0
222
5,026
2,175
0
54
0
0
0
0
1,055,105
114,945
77
361
•*••
93
-------
water, attaches to sediment, or is bound to soil. The disturbance of these media affects fauna
and flora. Based on the ERNS data, the Caribbean ecology appears to be least exposed to
quantities of hazardous substances.
The data for total gallons, total pounds, total barrels, total other, and extent of exposure
show greater variation than the data for frequency of exposure. When an extremely large
quantity of hazardous substance is released, it could be expected that ambient concentrations in
a particular medium would be high for a period of time depending on the biodegradability of
the compound and other contributing circumstances (such as atmospheric conditions, wind,
aquatic chemistry, soil chemistry). Fauna and flora within critical habitat and other sensitive
environments could ultimately be exposed to toxic levels of the released compound. However,
there is no way to differentiate between the acute and chronic effects of sporadic large releases
and regular small releases of hazardous substances to fauna and flora based on the available
data. The figures for gallons, pounds, and barrels of material released underestimate the actual
material released, since many records do not include this type of information.
The quantity of oil recorded as released to the environment indicates the potential
extent of exposure to fauna and flora. Oil that is released to an aquatic or terrestrial
environment becomes partly dissolved, bound in sediment, or attached to soil. The
contaminated medium becomes a source of exposure to fauna and flora for an uncertain amount
of time. The total gallons, total pounds, total barrels, and total other, or extent of exposure to
oil (Table 17-4) also seems to vary more than the frequency of release of oil. This is consistent
with expectations, since oil spill incidents vary considerably in terms of the nature of the
accident and the response. Huge spills of oil can have impacts on fauna and flora within both
terrestrial and aquatic environments, especially if these spills occur near sensitive areas.
Given the available data, there is no way to differentiate between the acute and chronic
effects of sporadic large oil spills and regular small spills to fauna and flora. There also could
very well be significant underreporting of oil spills.
The Caribbean ecology appears to be least exposed to quantities of other substances
(Table 17-5) (salt, nonhazardous substances, etc.), based on the ERNS data. However, there is
a potential for significant underreporting in ERNS.
Uncertainty
Several existing databases provide information on accidental releases to land and water:
the Accidental Release Information Program, which describes hazardous chemicals released
accidentally from facilities; the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Database,
which covers all rail and truck incidents with DOT-regulated commodities; the USEPA
Emergency Response Notification System; and certain state databases.
The information provided by these databases is not directly helpful in assessing the
ecological risks associated with accidental releases of oil and hazardous substances. In addition,
many studies on ecological effects from spills are related to enforcement actions or litigation by
federal and state agencies and are not readily available. Therefore, ecological risks can be
estimated only roughly. This has been done for this report on the basis of a review of select
ERNS data from FY 1987 to FY 1989.
94
-------
/ * _: »" Table 174 '
Qnantity of Released Oil v. Fiscal Year
** irvBLT iS^V'&fi fe^v^io
Hew Jersey
Gallons
, Pounds
Barrels % ,
Other
New York
Gallons
, Pounds
Barrels
Other
Puerto Rico
.Gallons
Pounds
Barrels
Other
'Virgin Islands
" Gallons
'Pounds
Barrels
Other
, Total gallons
Total pounds
Total barrels
Total other
Source: BRNS Data Base
165 618
266
347
29
154,770
0
21,033
5
•
526,808
0
30
0
785
0
0
0
847,981
266
21,410
34
*
123,352
. 1>101
3,296
0
179,790
0
293
0
321,024
0
0
0
227
0
1,551
1
624,393
1,101
5,140
1
1,092,541
87
1,296,394
48
'
163,672
101
334
22 '
44,237
810 ,
13
0
2,922
0
42,000
0
1,303,372
998
1,338,741
70
95
-------
•*° s
New Jersey
Gallons
Pounds
Barrels
Other
New York '
Gallons
Pounds
Barrels
Other -
Puerto Rico
Gallons
Pounds
Barrels
Other
Virgin Islands ,
Gallons
Pounds
Barrels
Other
Total gallons
Total pounds
Total barrels
Total other
.: Table 17-5
Quantity of Other Substances v. Fiscal
FV&7 FY88
' f
16,832
100
6
* 1
-
3,935
1,101
0
5
,
150
^ , , 0
*• * o
0
'
0
0
0
0
>', 20,917
1,201
6
6
•
19,716
3
3
90
'
6,011,715
0
20,049 ,
42
,
4,000
55
0
0
_,
. o
0
1
0
6,035,431
58
20,080
132
Year
FY8J*
53,102
2,982
010
2,014
9,553
31,051
40
145
5
0
0
0
f
0
0
0
0
62,660
34,033
50
2,159
Source: ERNS Bata Base
96
-------
In order for the above databases to be helpful in estimating ecological risks from
accidental releases from a wide range of sources, it would be valuable to have the following
information:
o The number of accidental releases of hazardous substances and oil per jurisdiction
(New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands)
o The type of material released to the environment
o The quantity of material released (individual and aggregate)
o The delineation of the releases by media (land, air, and surface water)
o The ecological resources impacted by the release (wetlands, estuaries, critical
habitat, etc.)
o The types of ecological damage (fish and bird deaths, etc.) associated with the
accidental release
o The range of contaminant concentrations at spill point, as well as ambient
concentrations in environment
o The duration of chemical exposure to biota from accidental release (cleanup time is
a good estimate)
Generally, information on the first four items is available, while information on the last four is
nonexistent or unavailable.
Scoring Recommendations
The following scoring recommendations are based on the information provided in the
Risk Characterization Section.
Intensity:
Scale:
Value:
The intensity of impact for each individual
accidental release or aggregate releases is not well
understood. Generally, however, ecological
damage could vary between severe impact and
minor impact depending on the release.
The scale of the impact cannot be readily
determined with the available information. A
number of accidental releases (hazardous
substances, oil, and other substances) occur each
year in varying magnitudes. It is likely that for
most accidental releases, less than 10 percent of
the resource is affected.
The value of the impacted ecosystems cannot be
readily determined with the available information.
97
-------
Uncertainty: Very High
However, accidental releases probably affect areas
of varying ecological significance.
Data gaps are huge. To fill these gaps, ecological
data as roughly specified, needs to be collected as
part of the spills-reporting process.
Total:
8(VH)
References
Accidental Release Information Program Data Base
Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Database
EPA Emergency Response Notification System
Gilfillan, E.S., SA. Hanson, D. Vallas, R. Gerber, D.S. Page, J. Foster, J. Hotham, S.D. Pratt.
Effect of Spills of Dispersed and Nondispersed Oil on Intertidal Infaunal Community
Structure, in J.O. Ludwigson (ed.), Proceedings of the 1983 Oil Spill Conference, San
Antonio, Texas. 1983.
Great Lakes Science Advisory Board's Technological Committee. Spills: The Human-Machine
Interface, Proceedings of the Workshops on the Human Machine Interface, International
Joint Commission. 1988.
Harwell, Mark A. and John R. Kelly, "Ecosystems Research Center Workshop on Ecological
Effects from Environmental Stresses: A Contribution to the EPA Comparative Risk
Project's Ecological Risk Work Group," Ecosystems Research Center, Cornell University,
December 1986.
Robinson, G.M.L. and C.R. Thomas. Evaluation of MTF for Testing Hazardous Material Spill
Control Equipment, EPA-670/2-74-73 in J.S. Robinson (ed.), Hazardous Chemical Spill
Cleanup, Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey. 1979.
State of Washington. Risk Evaluation Reports for Sudden and Accidental Releases, Vol 3,
Part 16. 1989.
98
-------
18. Pesticide Contamination Associated with Application
Summary/Abstract
This problem area addresses ecological risks from the application of all forms of pest
control agents (e.g., insecticides, herbicides, and rodenticides), and includes air pollution drift
and nonpoint source runoff. Acute impacts to nontarget biota are likely during application, but
data are sparse* Most nonpoint source pesticides impacts are from pesticides no longer in use,
such as DDT. Nonpoint source impacts can range from fish kills (short term) to various chronic
impacts on fish populations and aquatic communities.
Introduction
The term pesticides, as used in this report, includes herbicides, insecticides (including
rodenticides), and fumigants. As a class of materials, pesticides are toxic chemicals designed to
kill insects, rodents, and vegetation (e.g., weeds). Because these toxic materials are used
throughout our environment (forests, farms, commercial and residential buildings, waterways,
etc.), they are of major concern to EPA as well as the public. The magnitude of the problem is
described in the EPA annual report, "Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage: 1988 Market
Estimates" (EPA, 1988). The report indicates that approximately 1.1 billion pounds of active
ingredients (i.e., toxic chemicals) were used in the United States in 1988. The market value of
these chemicals is $7.4 billion, more than one-fourth of the world market. What is not usually
recognized is that the so-called inert chemicals (chemicals that do not have pesticide activity)
that are part of the formulated product may also have both long-term and short-term impacts.
The production of pesticides by the chemical industry in the United States has been
decreasing from a high of 1.47 billion pounds in 1980 to 1.04 billion pounds of active ingredients
in 1987, as reported by the International Trade Commission. The EPA report breaks down the
pesticides usage to nearly 70 percent for agriculture, 16 percent for industrial uses, and about 8
to 15 percent for home and garden use (EPA, 1988). As much as 100 million pounds of
pesticides may have been used in the home and garden market alone.
Hazard Identification
Nonpoint source discharges to surface waters frequently contain pesticides as well as
fertilizers used in agricultural applications. Pesticides can degrade water quality, cause fish kills,
or bioaccumulate in fish. Aerial spraying of pesticides can create air pollution problems with
accompanying ecological impacts because of wind drift and contamination of surface water.
Pesticide disposal continues to pose a problem, and pesticides frequently are among the
hazardous chemicals found at Superfund sites. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) allows homeowners to dispose of pesticides, regardless of their toxicity, as part of
nonhazardous waste disposal in sanitary landfills, and this practice presents potential future
problems. The major environmental receptors of pesticides are wetlands, surface water, soils,
and — depending on soil porosity — ground water. It is clear that the poisonous nature of
pesticides together with the large tonnages used in diverse applications present potential
significant ecological risks. Despite the lack of data, which caused a high degree of uncertainty
in our estimates, chronic ecological effects appear likely.
99
-------
Table 18-1
Region II Pesticides
"\ Pound*
New Jersey Usage In 1985 In Coastal Plain
Herbicides
Alaohlor 92,000
Metotaohtor 75.000
Atrazlne 62,000
Cyanazlne 25.000
2.4.D 9,500
Simazfcw 8.800
TrtfuraHn 4.500
Mottbuzln 2,100
Insecticides
Parathton 52.000
Methomyl 45.000
Endosulfan 41,000
Carbofuran 34,000
Carbaryl 22,700
Oxamyl 21,000
Malathton 10,000
DtazJnon 9.500
Mathyl 4.700
Parathton 4,700
Ethton 3.700
AWtearb 3.600
Fumlgants
Methylbromlde 3,200
Dlcbtoropropene 2,300
Otter Pesticides In New Jersey
Sutfur
Cyroito
Chtorphyrtfos (Dureban)
Pesticide Usage In New York
Alaohtor 694,000
Atrazioe 2.496.000
Carbaryl 328.000
Carbofuran 204.000
Cyanzalne 661.000
MBtotachtor 429,000
SJmaztne 58,000
Pesticide Usage in Puerto Rico
Glypbosate N.A.
Dteulfoton N.A.
Dtzaioon
Pesticide Usage In the Virgin Islands
DJazhion N.A.
Malathton N.A.
Chtorpyrtto N.A.
'"" L^1
462-3,000 mg
235 mg
672-1, 750 mg
150
100-500 mg
970-200 mg
3,700-500 mg
0.25-1.1 mg
0.92-8 mg .
10-15 mg
2-118mg
2-19 mg
212-710 mg
2-7 mg
250-gOO mg
66-250 mg
6-1, 270 mg
6-1, 270 mg
13-50 mg
0.3-0.65 mg
214 mg
280 mg
175 mg
200 mg
60-1, 000 mg
470-3,800 mg
2-10 mg
Carcinogen 2
Clatslflcatlon
+ Possible
Possible +
+ Possible
I
+ Possible
Possible
+
-
I Possible
+ Pending Review
+
I Negative-IARC
I
+ Negative-NCI
+• Negative-NCI
I
Negative-NCI
lARC-Possible
+ Negative-NCI
+
N.A. - Not available.
1 From RTECS1985-86 + Positive. - Negative. < - Inconclusive.
2 National Cancer Institute (ARC. EPA Carcinogen Assessment
100
-------
In order to assess the acute and chronic ecological risks associated with the use of
pesticides in Region II, the following information sources were utilized: technical and scientific
literature; telephone contacts with state health and environmental authorities, EPA, other
federal agencies, and academic experts.
Table 18-1 identifies the pesticides used in Region II. The pesticides shown for New
Jersey are for the coastal plain (Louis, et al, 1989). Table 18-1 also identifies the major active
ingredients used in New York state (Cornell, undated). Both acute and chronic carcinogen
effects are shown for all pesticides. Table 18-2 also identifies the food crops on which these
pesticides are used. Statistics from the "Framework for Regional Requirements Planning"
report (Temple, Barker, and Sloane, 1989) sum up total pesticide usage in Region II by state, as
follows:
Pounds/Year - 19851
State
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Active Ingredient
2,256,000
9,050,000
NA
NA
This study considered only the total amount of pesticides, with some allowance for the
toxicity characteristic as contributing to the total. This allowance is based on both acute impacts
as measured by LD^ or LC^2 and chronic impacts in terms of cancer or noncancer.
Professor Robert Metcalf, in an address to the Pesticides and Pest Management
Conference, described a typical scenario for the ecological consequences of pesticide use
(Metcalf, 1987):
o
The target pest is eliminated initially.
The pest develops resistance to the pesticide.
The pesticide destroys or weakens the natural enemies of the pest,
which spurs a resurgence of the initial pest and, in some situations, the
development of secondary pests.
The food web is contaminated.
1NA stands for not available
^LDyf is the chemical dose at which 50% of test animals are killed. LCX is the environmental
concentration of a chemical that kills 50% of test animals. Dose refers to the actual amount of a
chemical that is received by the subject and is usually presented in terms of body weight (e.g.,
mg/kg). LCsfi are measures of exposure rather than dose; exposure refers to the amount of a
chemical in the environment of the test organism. Exposure is usually measured in terms of
concentration (e.g., mg/l in -water or mg/M3 in air).
101
-------
Table 18-2
Pesticide Toxicities
Common Name
Alachtor
Atrazine
Benefin
Bromacll
Butylate
Chloramben
Cyanazlne
2.4-D Acid
2.4-DAmine
DaJapon
Dteamoa
Dinoseb
Dlquat
Dluron
Fenuron
Unuron
Matribuzln
Paraquat
Pfcloram
Prometone
Propaohter
Propazine
Simazine
2.4.5-T
TrifloraJIn
AJdtearb
AWrin
Azlnpbosmythyl
Caibaryl
Carbufuron
Chlordane
Chtorpyfiros
DDT
Demeton
Dlazlnon
Dteofoi
DteWrin
DIsulfston
Endosutfor
Endrin
Ethton
Fonofos
Heptachtor
Malathton
Methyl Parathton
Monocrotophus
Parathton
Phorate
Phosatone
Phc»met
Toxaphene
Benomyl
Captafol
Captan
Carboxln
Dfnocap
Dodlne
Ferbam
Maneb
Metiram
Thlram
ZJeneb
Zram
TOXlCltV
.• Rat, Acute
(oral Wso, mglkg)
1,200
3,080
800
5,200
4,500
3.500
334
370
370
6.590
1,028
5
400
3,400
6,400
1,500
1.930
150
8.200
1,750
710
5,000
500
300
3,700
0.93
35,
11
500
8
335
97
113
2
76
684
46
2
18
7.3
27
8
90
480
9
21
4
1
96
147
69
> 9.590
500
9,000
3,200
980
1,000
^7.000
6,750
6,400
375
>5,200
1,400
FISH
tLCso,mgtt) '
.2.3
12.6
0.03
70
4.2
7.0
4.9
>50«
>15C
>100
35
0.4 d
12.3
>60
53
16.0
>100
400
2.5
>1.0b
1.3
>100
5.0
0.5-16.7
0.1
_
0.019
0.010
1.0
0.21
0.010
0.020
0.002
0.081
0.030
0.10
0.003
0.040
0.001
0.0002
0.23
0.03
0.009
0.019
1.9
7.0
0.047
0.0055
3.4
0.03"
0.003
0.5
0.031
0.13
2.2
0.14
0.9
12.6
1.0
>4.2
0.79
0.5
1.0
• 48- or 96-hour LCgo tor Wuegills or rainbow trout, unless otherwise specified.
bLC100 for goldfish.
c Forspoi
d Fbrkillfish.
Source: JWPCF 60:7. July 1988.
102
-------
Because the purpose of the pesticide is to kill the pest (insect, plant, animal), by its very
nature it is toxic to fife forms. Unfortunately, pesticide toxicity is not usually limited to its
intended targets, and impacts on nontarget organisms, including humans, can be significant. The
acute ecological impacts, such as fish kills or dead vegetation, are self-evident; they can often be
traced back to an abnormally high concentration of a toxic material in the water, resulting from
equipment leaks, accidental spills, or storm water runoff from a freshly treated field. Aerial
spraying can also have an immediate acute impact.
Long-term ecological effects are more easily detected than human health effects since
the causative agents or stressors are few and easily detected. Bee poisoning by insecticides,
which results in diminishing crop yields, is one example. Cultivated crop plants that depend on
or benefit from insect pollination include alfalfa cotton, peanut, sugar beet, citrus and deciduous
fruits, and virtually all vegetables. Pollinating insects, especially wild and domestic bees, are very
sensitive to the toxic action of pesticides. It is somewhat ironic that in banning DDT, which was
less toxic to bees, the succeeding substitutes (organophosphates and carbamates) turned out to
be much more toxic to bees. The most damaging insecticides to bees still being used today are
parathion, methyl parathion, carbaryl, carbofuran, and synthetic pyrethroids. The total loss of
bees and bee products in the United States is estimated to have averaged $135 million annually
from 1967 to 1978 (Metcalf, 1987). Since the current pesticides are more toxic to bees, losses
can be estimated at the same level.
Another long-term effect occurs through bioaccumulation over varying lengths of time.
Bioaccumulation of pesticides (e.g., in fish, birds, and humans) is a process by which pesticides
are absorbed in the fatty tissue of the species. As a class of chemicals, chlorinated pesticides
have been found to bioaccumulate. This fact, coupled with the available long-term toxicity data,
led EPA to ban their continued use. Mercury-based chemicals that replaced chlorinated
compounds were also found to bioaccumulate. The real danger arising from pesticide
contamination of surface water is that through bioaccumulation at all levels of the food web, the
pesticide concentration tends to build up to unsafe levels. The data below demonstrate
bioaccumulation for pesticides no longer being used, but show why it would be a major concern
if pesticides being used today were also found to bioaccumulate (Metcalf, 1987).
Pesticide
DDT
Toxaphene
Water Concentration
(parts per trillion)
6
8
Fish Concentration
(parts per million)
20
7-11
The high concentrations not only make fish unfit to eat but also impair their ability to
reproduce; wildlife that consume contaminated fish also are impacted. The obvious conclusion
is that pesticide contamination that begins as an ecological impact can soon become a health
impact or an economic impact. Table 18-2 lists LD^ and LCj,, values for most pesticides in use
today (Younos and Weigmann, 1988). The LC.,,, is the concentration in water that will kill or
immobilize 50 percent of the test organisms, in this case, fish. The LC^ values for the most part
are much higher than the concentrations reported to be found in ground water. Although
environmental concentrations may not be high enough to elicit acute effects, bioaccumulation
may occur and should be considered the major concern. Since newer pesticides are not as
103
-------
stable as the chlorinated pesticides were, bioaccumulation may not reach toxic levels. However,
data to support this position are not yet available.
Risk Characterization
Consideration of impacts on the environment was restricted to two time periods:
pesticides application and crop harvest. Impacts are likely to be minimal, and they are probably
acute, resulting from aerial spraying or accidental spills. In New York and New Jersey,
9.3 million acres of farmland were treated with 11.3 million pounds of pesticide in 1985
(Temple, Barker, and Sloane, 1989). The potential for acute impacts on the environment does
exist, but hard data are not available.
Nonpoint source impacts from pesticides, resulting from storm water runoff after
pesticide application and from accidental pesticide spills, are also a major concern.
Unfortunately, all data relating to pesticide use and its correlation with ecological studies (e.g.,
fish tissue analyses) are for pesticides no longer being used. These pesticides are primarily
chlorinated organics, which are persistent and therefore tend to bioaccumulate. While these
pesticides do pose both ecological and, subsequently, human health threats, there is little that
can be done to correct these problems short of treating all surface waters and contaminated
soils and sediments to remove the chemicals.
To properly assess pesticide runoff into surface waters in the future, data are needed for
the new pesticides (atrazine, carbaryl, carbofuran, malathion, etc.). The data base should
contain information on bioaccumulation, persistence, biodegradability, and toxicity of the
metabolites, etc. An indication of stability of some pesticides can be found in Table 18-3 (EPA,
1990).
Impacts of pesticide contamination in surface water include both short-term and long-
term effects. Fish kills are the classic example of short-term impacts. Decreases in numbers of
fish, stunted growth, and malformations can be attributed to the presence of toxic chemicals in
the water; pesticides may be a major contributing source. The more subtle long-term effects
include eventual degradation of the ecosystem as a result of impacts on beneficial species.
Atrazine, the major pesticide (herbicide) used in Region II, is among the more stable
materials in terms of its biodegradability. Unfortunately, there is no indication as to whether
atrazine is absorbed in the fatty tissue of fish. This is of special concern because of the high
water-solubility of atrazine and its chemical analogs (e.g., cyanazine): Atrazine - 33 ppm, and
Cyanazine - 171 ppm solubility in water). From the chemical structure of atrazine, one would
conclude that its solubility in fatty tissue would be low, but this data gap should be filled in
order to reach a conclusion on risk. Additional information on predicted effects on specific
Region II habitats is provided.
Trends
A number of regulatory measures are coming into place to address areas of concern
related to pesticide use. Under the 1988 amendments to FIFRA, new incentives for regulating
pesticides were identified:
104
-------
o Ground water
o Endangered species
o Worker protection
Worker Protection Rules requiring the use of protective clothing and limiting worker
exposure to pesticides already applied should be in effect in FY 1991 and FY 1992. A new rule
to restrict the use of pesticides that have potential for contaminating ground water and are
known toxins (carcinogens, etc.) is expected to be in place by late FY 1991 or early FY 1992.
This rule is based on the potential leachability characteristics, toxicity persistence, or degree of
degradability (including characteristics of the pesticide metabolites) and any indication of
potential contamination of surface waters. These rules will have beneficial effects in the three
areas of concern to the EPA: health, ecology, and welfare.
Table 18-3
Bfodegradatlon Rate
Pesticide
DDT *
ATRA&ENE
CAREARYL
CARBOFURAN
MALATHION
METHYL PARATEflON
PARAQUAT
PARATHION
SIMAZINE
TRIFLURALIN
2;4D
Constant in Soil
- 0.00013
0,019
0.037
0,047
140
0,16
0,0016
0.029
0.01
0.008
0,066
Rate Comparison
to DDT
1 ;
146
270
360
11,000
1,200
12
320 -
110
60
500
Another promising trend impacting on all areas of pesticide use is the new biotechnology
approach to pesticides. These materials are long-term and considerable demonstration of their
effectiveness and safety are necessary. A near-term approach is the use of less pesticides, which
has both cost benefits as well as health and ecological gains. Past history has shown that in
agricultural practice, farmers have tended to use much more than is required, and home users
have been estimated to apply 10 times as much pesticide as is necessary to do the job.
Until the new activities are well established, the agency needs to maintain an active field
program, with increasing support to states so they can more rapidly achieve the environmental
goal of reducing the negative impacts of pesticide use.
105
-------
Reversibility of Effects
For pesticides that bind to sediments (e.g., DDT and kepone), reversibility of aquatic
damage can be slow following the institution of control measures at the source, because the
sediments can serve as a continuing source of contamination for decades. Animals that have
been persistently exposed to pesticides and that have developed significant body burdens will
remain contaminated for years or for life. Because of their higher natural flushing capabilities,
streams and rivers will recover more quickly from sediment contamination than will lakes and
ponds. For moderate to highly persistent pesticides, in the absence of specific information, it
can be assumed that reversibility is moderate, occurring within 10 to 100 years (EPA, 1987). As
less persistent pesticides are developed and used in place of more resistant compounds, the time
required to reverse ecological damage is reduced. In the case of nonpersistent pesticides,
recovery of an aquatic ecosystem can begin soon after the source of contamination is eliminated.
Scoring Recommendations
Intensity 4, Scale 4, Value 4, Uncertainty: High
Total 12 (H)
Note: Scores are based on professional judgment in lieu of hard data on exposure and observed
effects in the field.
References
Cornell University, "Assessment of Pesticides in Upstate New York Ground Water."
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "In Situ Treatment of Hazardous Waste-
Contaminated Soil," Office of Research and Development Engineering Laboratory,
Cincinnati EPA/540/2-90/002, 1990.
EPA, "Pesticide Industry Sales and Usage: 1988 Market Estimates," EPA 1988.
EPA, "Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems: Appendix
IE," Ecological Risk Work Group," Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation,
Washington, D.C., 1987.
Louis et al. "New Jersey Pesticide Use Survey: Effect of Agricultural Chemicals on Ground
Water Quality in New Jersey Coastal Plain," from Proceedings of National Research
Conference, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, May 1989.
Metcalf, Robert L., "Ecological Consequences of Pesticide Use," from Proceedings of the 16th
Annual Pesticides and Pest Management Conference, Illinois Department of Energy and
Resources, November 1987.
RCG, Hagler, Bailly, Inc. "Background Analysis on Ecological Effects of Pesticides Use in EPA
Region U," Prepared for the Regional Risk Ranking Project, August 1990.
(see Appendix 4)
106
-------
Temple, Barker & Sloane, Inc. 1991 Framework for Regional Requirements Planning.
prepared for the Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances, 1989.
Younos, T.M. and D.L. Weigmann, Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 60,
No. 7, July 1988.
107
-------
20. Stationary and Point Sources of Air Pollution
Summary/Abstract
Stationary and point sources of air pollution include industrial point sources and power
plants. They emit some criteria pollutant air toxics and contribute to ozone formation and
global warming. The primary ranking consideration was the problem area's contribution to the
formation of low-level ozone, which was considered to be less significant than mobile or area
sources. The medium uncertainty rating is the result of uncertainties about global warming and
ozone impacts. The air toxic and criteria pollutants data for stationary air sources are more
accurate and complete than those data available for other sources.
Introduction
The stationary source category includes utility plants that burn fossil fuels for electrical
power production, oil and gas refineries, cement plants, and several categories of factories and
industrial manufacturing facilities. Emissions from these sources' stacks and vents contribute
directly to atmospheric concentrations of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, inhalable particulates,
and carbon monoxide. In addition, nitrogen oxides play a critical part in ozone formation, along
with volatile organic compounds, some of which are emitted by sources in this category.
The Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970, amended in 1977, required EPA to set national ambient
air quality standards for particulate matter, sulfur oxides, carbon monoxides, nitrogen dioxides, '
ozone, and lead. Primary standards were set for the protection of human health; secondary
standards are to protect public welfare (the definition of which has been the subject of much
debate, including several legal battles involving the Agency). The CAA required that states
implement plans (SIPs) to meet and maintain the standards. The CAA also sets emission limits
for various stationary sources accounting for control technology and costs. By 1982, the region
had met most of the criteria air standards, but ozone and carbon monoxide continued to exceed
the health-based standards for most of the densely populated portion of the region. For ozone,
this includes New York City, Rockland, Westchester, Nassau, and Suffolk counties, and the
entire state of New Jersey. The carbon monoxide nonattainment areas include almost all of
New York City, parts of Westchester and Nassau counties, and 15 downtown urban central
business districts in New Jersey. Much of the ozone and almost all of the CO problem can be
attributed to mobile and area sources of air pollution. The only other location in Region II with
a violation of standards for another criteria air pollutant is at a New York City street location,
and this can be attributed to mobile sources as well.
Unlike the mobile and area source categories, it is relatively easy to model and monitor
sources in order to gain an understanding of their contribution to ambient concentrations. As a
result, and due to significant gains in control technology and subsequent tightening of new
source emission standards, relatively few Region II sources directly violate health-based
standards (based upon monitoring and modeling, information). CAA provisions do not allow for
the continued operation of a stationary source that is out of compliance with appropriate
emission regulations. Some of the emissions, however, contribute to other problem areas such
as acidic deposition and global warming.
108
-------
Hazard Identification
Criteria Air Pollutants
The criteria air pollutant most likely to be associated with regional ecosystem effects at
current concentrations is ozone. The target ecosystems for effects are agricultural and forest
ecosystems.
Surveys conducted in the United States have identified symptoms of decline in numerous
managed and unmanaged forest ecosystems exposed to elevated levels of ozone. Ambient ozone
and other air pollutants may be responsible for the injury or decline in some or all of the
surveys referenced in Table 20-1. Because stress from air pollutants is superimposed on
complex interacting natural stresses on managed and unmanaged forest ecosystems, evaluating
ozone involvement in forest damage is very complex and uncertain. Among the 15 forest
declines listed by the EPA Science Advisory Review Board, air pollution has been Listed as an
"important factor" in four cases: the declines of Jeffrey and ponderosa pine in the San
Bernardino Mountains in California; the decline of eastern white pine in the eastern United
States; the decline of softwood and hardwood species in Europe; and the decline of red spruce
and balsam fir in the Appalachian Mountains (EPA, 1985). Air pollution may affect foliar
injury and yields, and as a result may affect the integrity of the entire forest ecosystem.
Ozone has been strongly implicated as the cause of pine decline in the first two cases. In these
cases, the biological mechanism for ozone effects is known (EPA, 1986); geographical gradients
and observed damaged are correlated with gradients in ozone concentrations (Miller, 1983; and
Skelly et al. 1983); and genetic variation in susceptibility and resistance to damage in the field is
correlated with genetic variation and susceptibility in controlled experiments (Benoit, et al. 1983;
and McLaughlin et al. 1982).
Evidence for ozone and acid deposition involvement in the balsam fir and red spruce
decline has been presented by numerous investigators as well (Table 20-1). However, the
evidence for air pollution involvement in the decline is less certain and rests principally on the
fact that the amount of damage is greater at higher elevations than at lower elevations. This is
consistent with gradients in concentrations with altitude of both ozone and nitrate, the time of
exposure to nutrient-rich cloud water and fog, and the accumulation of lead in forest tree tissue
and soils (indicating increased levels of regional air pollution).
Ozone and nitrogen deposition have been linked to forest decline through four hypotheses:
o Ozone exposure alters enzyme function and disrupts cell membranes, causing a
reduction in carbon fixation.
o Ozone, combined with acid deposition or fog, stimulates nutrient leaching and
reduced biomass (Prinz et al. 1982; and Chevone and Yang (in prep.)).
o Nitrogen, deposited in excess, causes increased nitrogen availability and uptake,
reallocation of carbon, and the alteration of foliar biochemistry, resulting in increased
susceptibility to drought stress. Research by Shafer (1984) and Meier and Bruck
(1984) indicates that simulated acid rain treatments consisting of sulfuric and nitric
acid had a detrimental effect on the incidence and vigor of ectomycorrhizal short
roots of
109
-------
Table 20-1
Summary of Case Studies of Forest Decline
Authors
Species
Location
Findings/Evaluation
1, Adams, eta!.
(1985)
Red Spruce,
Fir
Virginia
West Virginia
Annual ring width declined post-1965
Growth rates 1930-1965 show correlation with
drought events
No conclusions on cause for decline post-1965
2. Bruek
(1984)
Red Spruce,
Fir
Southern
Appalachians
Mortality and defoliation of both species increase with
elevation
No drought observed
Metal toxicity to soil
Basal area not reported, declining cannot be
quantified
Reported metals appear too low for toxicity, based on
laboratory studies
3. Cook
(1985)
Red Spruce
New York
Compared annual, tree ring growth to climate factors
for period 1750 to 1976
Concluded that climate may be a contributing, but not
sole, cause of observed decline in ring width
post-1967
Much of ring width variation pre-1968 explained by
climate factors
4. Friedland.
eta!.
(1984)
Red Spruce
Vermont
New York
Red spruce decline evident in 1980s
Present hypothesis that winter damage, compounded
by "over-stimulation" with nitrogen deposition, may be
a causative factor
Hypothesis requires further testing
5. Johnson,
etal.
(1981)
Pine
New Jersey
Two-thirds of trees show some growth decline
post-1965
No causative factors confirmed
6. Johnson &
Slccama
(1983)
Red Spruce
Appalachians
Decreased growth post-1965
Authors concluded that decline is "stress-related"
Several hypotheses presented; none proved
7. McClenahen
& Dochinger
(1985)
White Oak
Ohio
Tree growth during period 1900-1978 correlated with
climate and air pollution factors
Climate explains less of the growth variance
post-1930
Authors suggest that air pollution may be
contributing; but insufficient data presented for
hypothesis testing
Source: RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
110
-------
Table 20-1 (cont.)
Authors
Species
Location
Findings/Evaluation
8. McLaughlin,
etal. (1985)
Sugar Maple
Ontario
Decline In annual growth from 1956-1976
Drought, pathogens, and caterpillar Infestation
suggested as contributor
9. Miller,etal.
(1983)
McBride
(1985)
Ponderosa
Pine, Jeffrey
Pine, White
Fir, etc.
San Bernardino
National Forest,
California
Decreased growth in sensitive pines
Increased mortality In sensitive pines
Injury increased along Increasing air pollution gradient
Paper demonstrates ozone injury is occurring at
ambient concentrations
10. Puckett
(1982)
Pine, others
New York
Relationship between tree growth and climate had
changes from 1900 to 1973
Author suggests add rain and/or air pollution as
contributing factor, but no data on pollution used In
the analysis
11. Raynal,
etal.
(1980)
Red Spruce
New York
Seedling mortality observed
Reduced tree ring growth post-1965
Limited measurements, so hypotheses for decline
and seedling mortality cannot be tested
12. Reich &
Amundson,
(1985)
Poplar, Eastern
White Pine,
Sugar Maple,
Red Oak
Ithaca, N.Y
New photosynthesis decreased linearly with
increasing ozone concentrations
Compared to controls photosynthesis was depressed
between 10 and 40%
13. Scott,
etal.
(1985)
Red Spruce,
Fir, Birch
New York
Basal area decline in red spruce and balsam fir above
900 m from 1964 to 1982
Stand size not reported
No hypothesis for cause of decline presented
14. Sheffield,
etal.
(1985)
Southern
Commercial Pines
Florida,
Georgia,
North Carolina,
South Carolina,
Virginia
Reported radial growth declines in yellow pines <16"
between 30-50% in Piedmont and Mountains of
Southeast
Authors offered no final explanation for observed
decline
15. Siccama,
etal.
(1982)
Red Spruce
Vermont
Resampled red spruce plots on Camels Hump exhibit
decline in basal area from 1965 to 1979
Variability not reported, so statistical significance
cannot be assessed
111
-------
Table 20-1 (cont.)
Authors
Species
Location
Findings/Evaluation
16. Skelly,
eta].
(1983)
8 Eastern
Tree Species
Blue Ridge
Mountains,
Virginia
Tulip poplar, black locust, table mtn. pine, green ash,
and Virginia pine had increased growth in filtered
chambers compared with ambient air
17. Stephenson
& Adams
(1984)
Red Spruce
Virginia
No decline on Mt. Rodgers reported from 1954 to
1983
Basal area of larger trees increased
18. Vogelmann,
eta).
(1985)
Maple, Fir,
Beech
Vermont
Declines in basal area, biomass, and density reported
for maple and beech
Insects and fungal diseases eliminated as possible
contributing factors
No definitive conclusions drawn on role of air pollution
or drought
19. Wang.
eta).
(1986)
Trembling
Aspen
New York State
Measured significant p < 0.05 differences in growth
between trembling aspen growth in ambient vs.
filtered chambers
20. Westman
(1985)
10 Chapparal
Shrub Species
Santa Monica
Mountains,
California
Reproduced field foliar injury symptoms in ozone
fumigation chambers
20 types of foliar injury observed in field
Unable to relate symptom intensity in field to
presumed air pollution pattern
112
-------
loblolly pine. In addition, preliminary experiments indicate that the nitrogen fraction of the
simulated acid rain solution is the predominant cause of reduced incidence and vigor of these
short roots.
o Nitrogen, deposited in excess, prolongs the growing season, thus delaying the cold
hardening process, and reducing the frost hardiness of forest trees (Kramer and
Kozlowski, 1979; and EPA, 1985). Damage of this type has been observed in high
elevation spruce forests in Vermont and North Carolina.
There is considerable uncertainty among forest scientists concerning the characterization of
forest exposure-response functions and the effective dose for ozone (Peterson and Sueker,
1987). An EPA study of 18 tree species, listed the following concentrations and exposure times
likely to cause foliar injury (EPA, 1986):
o
o
o
/tlLJ.t?V/ JLWJLLU.J. JJ.1JM.J.JT 1 t—t^. *&.} J.^\J\JI»
0.20 ppm to 0.51 ppm for 1 hour
0.10 ppm to 0.25 ppm for 2 hours
0.01 ppm to 0.17 ppm for 4 hours
Fewer studies have attempted to link ozone with physiological or growth responses. In an
examination of eastern white pine from two ozone sensitivity classes growing in Virginia, the
most sensitive classes exhibited 20-50 percent less growth than trees from the least sensitive
class (Benoit et al., 1983). A concomitant decrease in height growth and foliar biomass has
been reported for saplings grown in unfiltered air compared to charcoal-filtered air (Skelly et
al., 1983). More recently, Wang et al. (1986) measured increases in visible foliar injury,
acceleration of leaf senescence, and reduction in growth of trembling aspen exposed to ambient
air. For two of the three years of the study saplings exposed to ambient air had much less shoot
growth (12-14 percent) than those grown in filtered air. Reich and Amundson (1985) reported
that net photosynthesis is decreased linearly with increasing ozone concentrations in sugar
maple, eastern white pine, hybrid poplar, and northern red oak. No visible symptoms were
apparent. The most complete study of ozone effects at the forest ecosystem level was done in
the San Bernardino National Forest, California, east of Los Angeles, an area typified by
elevated ozone. The study concluded that ozone-induced foliar injury and premature leaf fall,
leading to decreased photosynthetic capacity, decreased radial growth and reduced nutrient
retention in foliage and produced an 84 percent reduction in commercial yield of Jeffrey and
ponderosa pine (Miller et al., 1977).
Limited chamber study results (Wang et al., 1986) in New York suggest that ambient
concentrations of several air pollutants, including ozone, may be affecting sensitive tree species
in New York State. Work being conducted on Whiteface Mountain in New York indicates no
significant effects of ozone on any of the reported red spruce growth variables or on
photosynthesis. Growth variables reported include: the length of the terminal shoot, the
number and length of branches, and the dry mass of stems, needles, and roots. However, pH
was reported to have a significant effect on photosynthesis, with the rates of photosynthesis
increasing as acidity of experimental treatments increased (Kohut et al., 1990). Results of this
and other work confirm the relative tolerance of red spruce seedlings to ozone alone or in
combination with acidic precipitation in studies occurring over one or two growing seasons.
Researchers at the Boyce Thompson Institute at Cornell University (Laurence, 1990), the U.S.
EPA's Corvallis Laboratory (Tingey, 1990), the U.S. National Park Service (Bennett, 1990) and
the U.S.D.A. Northeast Forest Experiment Station were unaware of any field research
conducted in either New York or New Jersey estimating significant forest growth decrement
associated with ambient ozone concentrations during the growing season.
113
-------
Toxic Air Pollutants
The effects of toxic air pollutants on ecosystems, particularly on plants, are not well studied.
Fluoride and arsenic emissions have been associated with impacts on livestock and honeybees
(XJSEPA Region X, 1988). Airborne deposition of toxic compounds such as PCBs have been
identified as an important source of toxic loadings to the Great Lakes (Liroff, 1989). Some
studies have shown that air derived toxics can concentrate in the microlayer (the top
50 microns) of surface waters, including polyaromatic hydrocarbons, PCBs, and various metals at
levels many orders of magnitude above EPA's water quality criteria. Potential receptors of
microlayer contaminants include: 1) surface-dwelling bacteria, algae, protozoa, copepods, and
other organisms that live in the microlayer; 2) organisms that feed on these organisms; and
3) the larvae of a variety of invertebrates and finfish that spend at least part of their life in the
microlayer (USEPA Region X, 1988). Possible effects include reproductive impairment and
other acute and chronic toxic endpoints, and bioaccumulations through the food chain.
Acid Deposition and Global Warming
Point sources also contribute to acid precipitation impacts in Region II; these are described
in detail in the report on Extra-Regional Sources of Acid Precipitation. They also contribute, in
part, to the effects of global warming (e.g., sea level rise, climate change).
Risk Characterization
Although current information is inadequate for characterizing the risks to Region II
ecosystems, it should be recognized that the potential for damage is well known and that
ambient ozone concentrations are sufficiently high to cause phytotbxic effects in sensitive
species.
Although impacts from ozone drove the ranking of this problem area, the impact of toxic
deposition to surface waters, local contributions to acid precipitation, and secondary effects of
global warming are also of concern. Stationary sources were considered to be less significant
than mobile or area sources as contributors to ozone production.
Trends
The trend in direct ecological effects is likely to improve due to proposed reductions in
ozone and air toxics under the new Clean Air Act. Secondary effects from global warming are
likely to increase over several decades.
Uncertainty
The best-documented effect is the impact of ground-level ozone on plants, although direct
evidence of effects in Region II is relatively limited. Ecosystem effects of air toxics are not well
studied, and global warming predictions on a local level are highly uncertain.
114
-------
Scoring Recommendations
Intensity 3, Scale 2, Value 2, Uncertainty: Medium
Total 7 M
References
Adams, H. S., S. L. Stephenson, T. J. Biasing, D. N. Duvick, and S. Dabney, "Growth Trend
Declines of Spruce and Fir in Mid-Appalachian Subalpine Forests," Environ. Exp. hot.
25:315-325, 1985.
Bennett, D., University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, Personal Communication, 1990.
Benoit, L. F., J. M. Skelly, L. D. Moore, and L. S. Dochinger, "Radial Growth Reductions of
Pinus Strobus L. Correlated with Foliar Ozone Sensitivity as an Indicator of Ozone-
Induced Losses in Eastern Forests," Can. J. For. Res. 12:673-78, 1983.
Botkin, R. and H. Devine, "Benefits to Forests in the Northeast of Reducing Ambient Ozone
Concentrations," Memo to Alan Basala, U.S. EPA-OAQPS, November 3, 1986.
Bruck, R. L, "Decline of Montane Boreal Ecosystems in Central Europe and the Southern
Appalachian Mountains," in Research and Development Conference Proceedings, TAPPI
Press (September), 1984.
Chestnut, L. G., R. D. Rove, and B. D. Ostro(a), "Santa Clara Criteria Air Pollutant Benefit
Analysis," Draft Final Report prepared for the Regulatory Integration Division, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., May, 1987.
Chevone, B. I and Y. S. Yang, "Seedling Growth Response of Loblolly and Shortleaf Pine to
Ozone and Simulated Acidic Precipitation," (in prep.) 1985.
Cook, E. R., The Use and Limitations of Dendrochronology in Studying the Effects of Air
Pollution on Forests," Proceedings of papers presented at the NATO workshop on acid
rain, Toronto, Ontario, May 11-16, 1985.
Callaway, J. M., R. F. Darwin, and R. J. Nesse, "Economic Effects of Hypothetical Reduction on
Tree Growth in the Northeastern and Southeastern United States," Battelle Report to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986.
Chestnut, Lauraine G. and Robert D. Rowe, "Ambient Particulate Matter and Ozone Benefit
Analysis for Denver," Draft report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C., January, 1988.
Chestnut, L. G., T. N. Neithercut, and B. D. Ostro(b), "The Health Effects Associated with Lead
in Gasoline and Drinking Water in Metro-Denver," Draft Report prepared for the
Regulatory Integration Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
October, 1987.
Chevone, B. I. and Y. S. Yang, "Seedling Growth Response of Loblolly and Shortleaf Pine to
Ozone and Simulated Acidic Precipitation," (in prep.)
115
-------
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region X, "Draft Comparative Risk Project Problem
Report: AIRTOXICS." EPA Region X, 1988.
EPA, "Regulatory Impact Analysis on the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Sulfur
Oxides (Sulfur Dioxide)," Draft Report Prepared by the Strategies and Air Standards
Division, Office of Air, Noise and Radiation, Research Triangle Park, NC, May, 1987.
EPA, "Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Other Photochemical Oxidants," Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA/600/8-84/0206F, 1986.
EPA, "Air Quality Criteria for Ozone and Other Photochemical Oxidants," External Review
Draft, Research Triangle Park, NC, EPA-600/8-84-020B, 1985.
Friedland, A. J., R. A. Gregory, L. Karenlampi and A. H. Johnson, "Winter Damage to Foliage
as a Factor in Red Spruce Decline." Can. J. For. Res., 14:963-965, 1984.
Johnson, A. H., T. G. Siccama, D. Wang, R. S. Turner, and T. H. Barringer, "Recent Changes in
Patterns of Tree Growth Rate in the New Jersey Pinelands: A Possible Effect of Acid
Rain," /. Environ. Qua!., 10:427-430, 1981.
Kohut, R. J., J. A. Laurence, R. G. Amudson, R. M. Raba, and J. J. Melkonian, "Effects of
Ozone and Acidic Precipitation on the Growth and Photosynthesis of Red Spruce After
Two Years of Exposure," Water, Air and Soil Pollution, in press, to appear in Vol. 51 1990.
Laurence, J. A., Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Science, Ithaca, NY, Personal
Communication, 1990.
Liroff, Richard A., "The Great Lakes Basin: A Great Resource at Risk," Conservation
Foundation Letter, 5:89, Washington, D.C., 1989.
McBride, J. R., P. R. Miller and R. D. Laven, "Effects of Oxidant Air Pollutants on Forest
Succession in a Mixed Conifer Forest Type of Southern California," Air Pollutants: Effects
on Forested Ecosystems, pp. 157-161, Acid Rain Foundation, Minneapolis, MN, 1985.
McClenahen, J. R. and L. S. Dochinger, "Tree Ring Response of White Oak to Climate and Air
Pollution Near the Ohio River Valley," /. Environ. Qual, 14:274-28, 1985.
McLaughlin, S. B., "Effects of Air Pollution on Forests: A Critical Review," JAPCA, 35(5):512-
534, 1985.
McLaughlin, S. B., R. K. McConathy, D. Duvick and L. K. Mann, "Effects of Chronic Air
Pollution Stress on Photosynthesis, Carbon Allocation and Growth of White Pine Trees."
For. ScL, 28:60-70, 1982.
Meier, S. and R. I. Bruck, "Effects of Simulated Acid Precipitation on the Incidence and Vigor
of Ectomycorrhizae on Pinus Taeda." In: Aquatic Effects Task Group (E) and Terrestrial
Effects Task Group (F) Peer Review Research Summaries, NCSU Acid Deposition
Program, Raleigh, NC, 1984.
116
-------
Miller, P. R., "Ozone Effects in the San Bernardino National Forest," p. 161. In: D. D. Davis,
A. A. Millen and L. Dochinger (eds.) Air Pollution and the Productivity of the Forest, Izaak
Walton League and Pennsylvania State University, 1983.
Miller, P. R., R. N. Kickert, O. C. Taylor, R. J. Arkley, F. W. Cobb, Jr., D. L. Dahlsten, P. J.
Gersper, R. F. Luck, J. R. McBride, J. R. Parmeter, Jr., J. R. Wenz, M. White and W. W.
Wilcox, Jr, Photochemical Oxidant Air Pollutant Effects on a Mixed Conifer Forest Ecosystem,
Annual Progress Report, 1975-1976, EPA-600/3-77/104. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 338 pp., 1977.
Peterson, D. and J. K. Sueker, "Risks of Forest Response Due to Ambient Ozone" Presented at
80th Annual Meeting of APCA, New York, N.Y. (June 21-26, 1987), Paper #87-36-3.
Prinz, B., G. H. M. Krause and H. Stratmann, "Forest Damage in the Federal Republic of
Germany." LIS Report No. 28, Land Institute for Pollution Control, Landesanstalt fur
Immissionsschutz des Landes Nordrein-Westfalen, Essen. Wallneyer Strabe 6, Federal
Republic of Germany, 145 pp. (C.E.G.B. Translation No. T14240), 1982.
Puckett, L. J., "Acid Rain, Air Pollution, and Tree Growth in Southeastern New York, 7.
Environ. Qual., 11:375-381, 1982.
Raynal, D. J., A. L. Leaf, P. D. Manion, and C.J.K. Wang, "Actual and Potential Effects of Acid
Precipitation on a Forest Ecosystem in the Adirondack Mountains," NYS Energy Research
and Development Authority, 56/ES-EHS/79, 1980.
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc., Background Analysis for USEPA Region II Comparative Risk Project,
1990.
Skelly, J. M., Y. Yang, B. J. Chevone, S. J. Long, J. E. Nellessen and W. E. Winner, "Ozone
Concentrations and Their Influence on Forest Species in the Blue Ridge Mountains of
Virginia," Air Pollution and Productivity of the Forest, pp. 143-59, Izaak Walton Leage,
Washington, DC, 1983.
Reich, P. B. and R. G. Amundson, "Ambient Levels of Ozone Reduce Net Photosynthesis in
Tree and Crop Species," Science, 230:566-570, 1985.
Schwartz, J. and A. H. Marcus, "Statistical Reanalysis of Data Relating Mortality to Air
Pollution During London Winters 1958-1972," Draft paper presented to the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Clean Air Science Advisory Committee in December,
Research Triangle Park, NC, 1986.
Scott, J. T., T. G. Siccama, A. H. Johnson and A. R. Breisch, "Decline of Red Spruce in the
Adirondacks, New York," Bull, Torrey, Bot, Club, 111:438-44, 1985.
Shafer, S. R., "Effects of Acid Rain on Soil Borne Plant Pathogens," Ph.D. Thesis, Department
of Plant Pathology, North Carolina State University, 210 pp., 1984.
Sheffield, R. M., N. D. Cost, W. A. Bechtold and J. P. McClure, "Pine Growth Reductions in the
Southeast," Resour Bull, SE-83, USDA Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment
Station, Asheville, NC, 1985.
117
-------
Siccama, T. G., M. Bliss, H. W. Vogelmann, "Decline of Red Spruce in the Green Mountains of
Vermont," Bull, Torrey, Bot, Club, 109:162-168, 1982..
Stephenson, S. L. and H. S. Adams, "The Spruce-Fir Forest on the Summit of Mount Rogers in
Southwestern Virginia," Bull, Torrey, Bot, Club, 111:69-75, 1984.
Tingey, D., Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR, Personal
Communication.
Vogelmann, H. W., G. J. Badger, M. Bliss and R. M. Klein, "Forest Decline on Camel Hump,
Vermont," Bull, Torrey, Bot, Club, 112:274-287, 1985.
Wilhour, R., "Benefits to Forests of Reducing Ambient Ozone Concentrations," Memorandum
of September 22, 1986.
Wang, D., D. F. Karnosky and F. H. Bormann, "Effects of Ambient Ozone on Productivity of
Populus Tremuloides Michx. Grown Under Field Conditions," Can J. For Es 16:47-55, 1986.
118
-------
21. Mobile Sources of Air Pollution - Motor Vehicles
Summary/Abstract
This category includes automobiles, trucks, and buses. Emissions include some criteria
pollutants, air toxics, and contributions to low-level ozone and global warming. The ranking is
based primarily on the contribution of mobile sources to stresses on plants from ground-level
ozone. The impacts of low level ozone are complex, and it is difficult to characterize how
mobile source stressors interact with other stressors such as acid rain. The uncertainty is
therefore high. Criteria pollutant emission impacts are relatively low and toxic emissions are
moderate from mobile sources. Information for pollutants other than ozone is sparse.
Introduction
This category is made up of motor vehicles: passenger cars and trucks, buses, rail, and air
transportation. The Clean Air Act requires certain emission limitations for various mobile
source categories. Major contribution to criteria pollutant concentrations are carbon monoxide,
nitrogen dioxide, and ozone from precursor emissions. Lead used to be a major problem, but
the EPA's phasing out of leaded fuel has reduced this mobile source problem. Mobile sources
can contribute to a lesser extent to concentrations of fine particulates and air toxins. Although
great progress has been made in individual auto emission reductions, carbon monoxide
violations have continued in urban and suburban locations, mostly due to the increase in vehicle
miles travelled by the growing number of motor vehicles in the region. This category also plays
a major role in the Northeast's failure to reduce ground-level ozone concentrations to below the
health-based standard. The entire region is in attainment for nitrogen dioxide, although the
decline in overall annual averages has abated, and increases in mobile source contributions
threaten to increase concentrations in the future. The major criteria pollutant problem areas in
the region are carbon monoxide and ozone, which are impacted by emissions from this source
category. The primary nonattainment areas are outlined under the stationary sources problem
area.
Hazard Identification
See hazard information provided in the reports for Problem Areas #20 and #23.
Risk Characterization
The ranking is based primarily on the contribution of mobile sources to stresses on plants
from ground-level ozone. Mobile sources also contribute to acid deposition and air toxics, and
secondary effects of global warming. Although it is difficult to apportion the contributions of
different sources to the production of ground-level ozone, mobile sources were considered to be
more significant than area or stationary sources.
119
-------
Trends
The trend in ecological effects is likely to improve due to proposed reductions in ozone and
air toxics under the new Clean Air Act. Secondary effects from global warming are likely to
increase over several decades.
Uncertainty
The best-documented effect is the impact of ground-level ozone on plants, although direct
evidence of effects in Region IE is relatively limited. Ecosystem effects of air toxics are not well
studied, and global warming predictions on a local level are highly uncertain.
Scoring Recommendations
Intensity 3, Scale 3, Value 3-4, Uncertainty: Medium to High
Total: 9-10 M-H
References
See Problem Areas #20 and #23.
120
-------
22. Area/Nonpoint Sources of Air Pollution Other Than
Chlorofluorocarbons
Summary/Abstract
This problem area includes sources not usually regulated as a stationary source but having
estimated contributions to global warming, criteria air pollution (especially ozone), and air
toxics. Area sources include incinerators in residential buildings, wood burning stoves, VOC
emissions from small sources such as dry cleaners and filling stations. This problem area is
difficult to quantify or model and the analysis has high uncertainty. This area was ranked below
mobile sources because of best professional judgement that it represented a relatively smaller
contribution to precursors to ground-level ozone.
Hazard Identification
See hazard information provided in Problem Areas #20 and #23.
Risk Characterization
The ranking is based primarily on the contribution of area sources to stresses on plants
from ground-level ozone. Area sources were considered to be more significant than stationary
sources, but less significant than mobile sources as a source of precursors to ozone.
Trends
The trend in ecological effects is likely to improve due to proposed reductions in ozone and
air toxics under the new Clean Air Act. Secondary effects from global warming are likely to
increase over several decades.
Uncertainly
The best-documented effect is the impact of ground level ozone on plants, although direct
evidence of effects in Region II is relatively limited. Ecosystem effects of air toxics are not well
studied, and global warming predictions on a local level are highly uncertain.
Scoring Recommendations
Intensity 3, Scale
Total 9-10H
3, Value 3-4, Uncertainty: High
121
-------
References
See hazard information provided in Problem Areas #20 and #23.
122
-------
23. Extra-Regional Sources of Air Pollution That Lead
to Acid Deposition, Primarily from Large Stacks
Summary/Abstract
This problem area includes sources of precursor pollutants that contribute to acid
precipitation originating from outside the region, including utilities, transportation, and other
industrial and commercial processes. The deposition of acidic particulates is exceeding
calculated environmental threshold values over much of the New York and New Jersey region.
Detrimental effects have been observed in several of the region's sensitive ecosystems, including
the Adirondack and Catskill regions of New York and the Pine Barrens in New Jersey. Adverse
impacts range from moderate to severe, and the systems hit the hardest are the most pristine.
However, both the severity and some of the causes are still widely debated by different members
of the regulatory and scientific community. In Region II, most of the acidic deposition and
precipitation (>80 percent) originates from sources outside of the region and is brought in
through long-range atmospheric transport (OTA, undated). As a result, national reductions in
precursor pollutants will be required to reduce the stress on the New York and New Jersey
ecosystems discussed below.
Despite over 10 years of solid research, there are a number of areas where uncertainty
about ecological effects remains high. Other than the Pine Barrens, most research has centered
on effects in high elevation areas, leaving us with little data to assess lower elevation and
suburban ecological effects. In addition, nitrogen loading data from the Chesapeake Bay area
suggest the need to address potential impacts on New York's and New Jersey's coastal systems
and wetlands.
Introduction
The combustion of large quantities of fossil fuels for electrical, industrial, and
transportation needs releases millions of tons of sulfur and nitrogen oxides (SOX and NOX,
respectively) annually into the atmosphere over the United States. The health and ecological
impacts from sources considered in this problem area are caused by the wet and dry deposition
of acidic compounds resulting from the chemical reaction of these gases with sunlight, water
vapor, and oxygen in the atmosphere (Figure 23-1). Harmful levels of acidic deposition occur
even when contributing source emission levels are lower than those called for by the Clean Air
Act requirements and National Ambient Air Quality Standards and increments are met for the
primary contributing pollutants of sulfur and nitrogen dioxides. In the summer, resultant
transport of sulfates significantly interferes with visibility and can contribute a majority of the
inhalable particulate found in the air.
The review of adverse impacts in Region II .has been limited to the states of New York and
New Jersey. Large amounts of data have been generated by federal, state, and university
research, which has been funded primarily under the National Acid Precipitation Assessment
Program (NAPAP). Ecological effects vary in scope and effect across the region, impacting
inland and coastal aquatic systems as well as terrestrial and agricultural systems. Reports of
damage vary widely from minimal to far reaching, depending on the author. Although localized
effects of acidic deposition are a likely possibility from large industrial sources in the Caribbean,
any problem there would probably fall under the criteria air pollutant category, since the
123
-------
Th» pollutant mix:
Acid deposition (wet and dry), ozone, airborne fine particles
Transport and
transformation:
Prevailing winds; complex
chemistry
At risk:
Lakes and streams, forests, craps,
materials, visibility, human health
Emissions:
Sutlur dioxide.
nitrogen oxides.
hydrocarbons
Figure 23-1 Transported Air Pollutants: Emissions to Effects
As sulfur and nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons are carried away from their
sources, they form a complex mix of pollutants leading to acid deposition,
ozone and airborne fine participates. These transported air pollutants pose
risks to surface waters, forests, crops, materials, and human health. (From:
OTA, undated)
atmospheric scale over this area is not sufficiently sized to allow the transport phenomena
documented in the eastern United States to occur. Since Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands
have not been targeted as areas of concern, little research or data collection have been
conducted within their boundaries.
Primary sources of precursor pollutants contributing to acid deposition are the utility
industry, the transportation industry, and other industrial and commercial processes (Figure 23-
2). New York State conducted extensive modeling studies before enacting its sulfur reduction
program in 1986. Sulfate deposition was measured in the Catskills and Adirondacks, and long-
range modeling was carried out in order to quantify measured values and correlate them with
potential emission sources. Almost 40 percent of the national budget of SO2 is emitted from
stacks greater than 480 feet in height. The results indicate that most sulfate accumulation found
in areas in which the state-set 20 kg/HA1 Environmental Threshold Value is exceeded originates
from out of state sources (Figure 23-3). In the region, approximately 370 sources exceed 100
tons of sulfur oxides annually. Many of these sources are operating with sulfur-in-fuel
limitations far below the national average in order to comply with local and statewide air
standards and regulations. Even with the further reductions anticipated from its new regulatory
program, New York will not be able to meet all of its sulfate reduction goals without significant
reductions in out-of-state sources (NYSDEC, 1985). (A good estimate of the region's
1HA stands for hectare (10,000 square meters or 2.47 acres).
124
-------
Figure 23-2
Primary Sources of Precursor Pollutants
Sulfur Dioxide
Nitrogen Oxtdes
Transportation
3%
Industrial
25%
Transportation
42%
Utility
29%
Industrial
12%
Source: Data presented in NAPAP, 1985
Figure 23-3
Out-of-State Sources/Region II Sulfate Accumulation
Adtrondacks
Catskllls
Now York
17%
Remain!
Midwest
States
8%
Remalnli
Midwest
State*
8%
New York
16%
Ontario
10%
Source: NYSDEC, 1985
125
-------
contribution [New York and New Jersey sources] to the overall ecological impact is somewhere
between 15 and 20 percent).
Although the acid deposition problem is generally considered to result primarily from fossil-
fuel-derived stack emissions, combustion from transportation sources also plays a major role and
cannot be ignored. Regional source inputs to the total amount of nitrate ionaccumulations are
extremely difficult to quantify because much of the input is transportation-based and insufficient
modeling studies exist to quantify this area. Generally, in the New York/New Jersey region, a
greater percentage of nitrogen compounds than sulfates originates locally due to the lower-
height release from transportation sources. Some studies have shown that nitrates, on average,
are not being absorbed into aquatic ecosystems as easily as sulfates. Consequently they may
play a larger role than sulfates in affecting the total ion concentration and pH levels in several
of the sensitive areas in Region TJ. Region ITs contribution to both sulfur and nitrogen
precursor pollutants, as compared to national totals, is shown below in tons:
Pollutant National New York
S02
N02
23,000,000
21,000,000
870,000
417,500
New Jersey Reg. 3-6
310,000 21 million
336,800
Hazard Identification
Precursor pollutants of SO^, NOX and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) interact in the
atmosphere and are transformed into acids (H2SO4, HNO3). Sulfate and nitrate particulate
matter can be carried many hundreds of miles, depending on upper atmospheric conditions, and
are deposited as wet or dry deposition. Organic acids, resulting from both natural and man-
made VOCs, may also contribute to the acidity of precipitation. While the pH of normal
precipitation is 5.6, acid precipitation can reach levels as low as 3.0-3.5 during single storm
events in this region (APCA, 1983).
Sulfur can enter a soil system through several different pathways, including wet and dry
deposition, mineral weathering, and washout of biological material on a surface that had
previously taken up sulfur from the soil or air. The entrance pathways are similar for aquatic
systems except that water passing through soils may account for much of the total sulfur
entering an aquatic system. Nitrogen, which is frequently the limiting nutrient for many
ecosystems, is not adsorbed easily in soils. While sulfate ions are adsorbed by oxides of
aluminum and iron, which are frequently found in soil particles, nitrate ions do not activate
similar pH buffering.
In areas where the acid neutralizing capacity (ANC) has been reduced or eliminated,
continuing inputs of acidic stressors can mobilize metals into the soil or surrounding surface
water. Aluminum, toxic to most species of fish, is released, and other trace metals, including
lead, cadmium, and zinc, have been monitored at levels exceeding input amounts from other
environmental pathways (OTA, undated).
Environmental Receptors, Possible Effects, and Endpoints of Concern
Worst-case documented ecological impacts are aquatic and terrestrial. The majority of
research to date has focused on the fresh water inland water bodies and damage to forested
areas within the region. In addition, major reductions in visibility have been linked to sulfate
126
-------
transport, especially during the summer months. Some current research done in the
Chesapeake Bay area suggests a strong possible relationship between additional nutrient
loadings and algal growth in the marine environment due to excessive nitrogen input from acidic
deposition.
Observations of ecological impacts such as fish mortality and reproductive impairment, loss
of aquatic habitat, and forest die-back helped initiate the NAPAP effort. The Adirondack Park
area of New York State was one of the first significant warning areas in the Northeast.
Currently, significant amounts of data exist for several valuable ecosystems in the region,
including the Catskills, the Kitanny range in northwest New Jersey, and the Pine Barrens. The
range of adverse effects varies according to different studies, from diseased portions of red
spruce forest and select aquatic species to a complete loss of life in certain high-elevation ponds
and lakes. Despite the large-scale research effort of the last 10 years, there remains significant
debate and uncertainty in interpreting the data collected and in using it to establish a
relationship between damages found and the direct or even indirect effects of acid deposition.
The risk to the ecological health of an ecosystem from the effects of acid deposition can be
seen by examining the current conditions and comparing them (if possible) with information
about that same area in the past. Aquatic effects generally arise when the pH of surface water
falls below 5.5. Most of the federal and state studies use 5.0 as the level of concern, in addition
to an ANC value of 0 or less, indicating the system's lack of remaining capacity to neutralize
any additional acids. Generally, the endpoint of concern has been based upon fish mortality:
pH 5.5-6.0 < 10% surface waters fishless
pH < 4.5 70% surface waters fishless
It is believed that the rapid rise in mortality at the 4.5 level is due to the concurrent release
of aluminum and, in some instances, mercury. As levels fall below pH 4.5, only a limited
number of aquatic organisms can exist. Of course, when and how severely a system is adversely
impacted by acidic inputs depends upon on its buffering capacity and other complex chemical
factors. In other words, the stress on a particular system depends upon the existing geography
and the makeup of underlying soils and bedrock, as well as several existing water quality factors.
Because the science is so complex, predictive trends are also a subject of much debate (EPA,
1985).
Terrestrial impacts are not as easily quantified, and determining stressor-damage linkage is
difficult. Although tree mortality is evident at higher elevation points in the Northeast, existing
studies cannot positively determine what percentage is due to the impacts of acidic deposition.
Rather, available data suggest that a combination of environmental stresses, including air
pollution, precipitation quantity and quality, and soil conditions, interact to cause adverse
impacts. The single most damaging effect, however, may be caused by acidic fog that is often
noted at high elevation sites for several hours in duration. Low pH clouds in the range of 2.5 to
3.5 damage the leaves and needles of trees and often contain a toxic "soup" of heavy metals.
The most frequently cited damage is to red spruce, but different research indicates varying
levels of damage to other species in different portions of the region. Additional terrestrial
impacts can include flora destruction and the leaching of toxic metals from the soil, potentially
adversely impacting the ecosystem by other, less understood mechanisms (Kim, 1990)
127
-------
Exposure Assessment
The predominant initial route to fresh water and terrestrial systems is atmospheric
transport. Normal rainfall has a pH of 5.6, which is slightly acidic because of the presence of
HjCOa. Rainfall over the New York/New Jersey area has been averaging near pH 4.5, ranging
lower in parts of the sensitive Adirondack region and lower yet (4.2) in the South Jersey Pine
Barrens, possibly due to its proximity to the greater Philadelphia metropolitan area. Individual
events in the region have been monitored as low as 3.0, or the equivalent pH of vinegar. The
most sensitive areas in the region appear to be the Adirondacks and the Pine Barrens in New
Jersey. The higher elevation lakes in northern New York have little buffering capacity (low
ANC values), and the Pine Barrens (which are naturally acidic) may have no additional
absorption capacity.
The percentage of acidified lakes (pH< 5, ANC< 0) in the Adirondacks varies by report,
from less than 5 percent to as high as 24 percent of the total lake population. The difference
comes from the survey methods: The NAPAP study excluded all lakes smaller than 4 hectares,
or 41 percent of the total lake population. Most of these are located at high elevations, with
shallower soils and lower buffering capacity. Relevant data indicate that approximately 10
percent of the surface waters .in this region now have a pH of < 5.0 and a severely degraded
ecological value. Another 15 percent of the surface water area is severely stressed, with a pH of
between 5.0 and 6.0. Most of the stressed and damaged areas are located in the higher
elevation southwestern portions of the park. There is considerable disagreement on the extent
of further threatened areas at current levels of deposition, predictions ranging from almost no
change over the next several years to hundreds more threatened lakes.
The New Jersey Pine Barrens comprises a unique ecological system of national significance
and is designated a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. The NAPAP surface water survey revealed
an extremely high percentage of acidified stream reaches with very low (0-15 ANC) buffering
capacity. Although naturally acidic, Pineland surface waters may be particularly susceptible to
increased acidity from acidic deposition, and studies indicate that precipitation chemistry
correlates well with the chemistry of undisturbed Pinelands streams. The highly leached and
porous soils do not retain sulfate, which accelerates acidification of the surface waters (Morgan
and Good, 1986). Although damage to fisheries and other ecological indices is not as well
documented as in^the Adirondacks, the effects of acidic deposition on the unique aquatic flora
and fauna, which include many endangered species, merit special attention (Kretser, Gallagher,
and Nicolette, 1989). Other critical areas for which national and regional data have been
collected include the middle Hudson and Catskills region of New York and the Kittany range of
northwestern New Jersey. Both of these areas contain high elevation ranges with sensitive
underlying soils and bedrock. Some fish losses are documented for both regions, although the
percentages are somewhat less than for the Adirondacks. In northwestern New Jersey, a recent
study of six lakes found increased levels of Hg, Cd, and Pb in fish tissue. These trace metals
have become associated with acidified waters believed to be linked to acidic deposition inputs.
Similar findings exist for surface waters in the Catskills, but the documentation is less extensive
than existing data from the Adirondacks and the Pine Barrens.
Adverse terrestrial impacts, particularly to upper elevation forests comprised of red spruce
or other soft wood species, have been documented in some of these areas, most notably the
Adirondacks. In certain locations, red spruce damage could be classified as severe, but it is not
clear how much can be attributed to acidic deposition and how much to ozone or other air
pollution effects. Additional localized impacts have been studied in other portions of New
York, including Long Island, but survey sizes are smaller and current data are insufficient to
128
-------
make detailed conclusions. It is sufficient to note that sensitivity to this problem area is not
limited to the regions noted above; they have been analyzed more carefully because of their
ecological significance and documented effects.
There is insufficient data to characterize the ecological impact from sources considered in
this problem area on the remainder of the region. Sufficient monitoring data exist to establish
with a high degree of confidence that acidic precipitation is falling over the entire New York
and New Jersey area. However, research on ecological effects for suburban and urban areas has
concentrated on welfare effects, and very little data exist to even qualitatively assess the effects
of these stresses on the ecological systems contained within them. It is likely, however, that
some of the effects found in the most stressed systems (i.e., shallow soils, low ANC values) are
less prevalent in many of the lower elevation inland areas in the region, and this factor may
tend to reduce the overall intensity of impacts in the region. Finally, more research is needed
to assess the ecological impacts of acidic deposition on the region's wetlands and coastal
ecosystems.
Risk Characterization
After 12 years of intense research, it is clear that levels of acidic deposition (pH< 5.6) are
having an adverse impact on some of the critical ecosystems in this region. Certain aquatic
effects are well documented, although a good deal of uncertainty remains in establishing cause
and effect relationships. In addition, it is difficult to characterize secondary effects such as
other chemical changes, including the leaching of toxicants from the soils or the potential
cumulative effects on animal reproduction and the food chain.
Trends
According to the NAPAP study, much of the northeast region may be at or near a steady
state, if precipitation chemistry is not altered. If this is the case, we can expect little significant
change in surface water chemistry over the next 10 to 50 years. This estimate assumes that
surface acid loading is equalled by the mineral weathering rate in those regions that are not
already acidic. This finding is disputed by some state and university research, which indicates
that certain sensitive areas may become acidic even if inputs are reduced, since available
buffering capacity has almost been depleted. Modeling studies are under way, but these, too,
are expected to contain a high degree of uncertainty in their results.
In addition, both the House and Senate versions of a new Clean Air Act call for a major
reduction (on the order of 10 million tons) of sulfur oxides and new control strategies for
nitrogen oxides. These reductions would be phased in over several years, and are expected to
eventually have a major impact on reducing sulfate and nitrate loadings in the region.
Reversibility of Effects
Once damage has occurred, the reversibility of effects sustained by either aquatic or
terrestrial systems is at best uncertain. In some instances, more pollutant-tolerant species will
take over; generally, data do not support near-term restoration for aquatic systems. However,
the snapshot picture assembled over the last 10 years is not sufficient to allow firm scientific
conclusions regarding the degradation or improvement of individual ecosystems over time.
129
-------
Uncertainty
Despite over 10 years of solid research, there are a number of areas where uncertainty
about ecological effects remains high. Other than the Pine Barrens, most research has centered
on effects in high elevation areas, leaving us with little data to assess lower elevation and
suburban ecological effects. In addition, nitrogen loading data from the Chesapeake Bay area
suggest the need to address potential impacts on New York's and New Jersey's coastal systems
•and wetlands.
Scoring Recommendations
Intensity: 5
Scale:
Value:
Documented impacts are severe, ranging from decreases in
biodiversity to a complete loss of all aquatic species in some fresh
water systems.
Current data demonstrate a moderate to severe impact over 15 to
25 percent of the sensitive areas reviewed.
The areas most adversely impacted contain some of the region's
most ecologically valuable, undeveloped terrestrial and fresh water
systems.
Uncertainty Medium The inputs and effects are well known. Longer term pH and ANC
data are needed to decrease cause and effect and ANC data are
needed to demonstrate a casual relationship with greater certainty.
Total:
13 (M)
References
Air Pollution Control Association (APCA), "The Meteorology of Acid Deposition," APCA, 1983.
Berringer, Julia, USGS, personal communication
Calhoun, James, NYSDEC, personal communication.
Cooper, Gregg, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), personal
communication
Cowling, E.B., "Acid Deposition in Historical Perspective," Environmental Science and
Technology, 1982.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "Chemical Characteristics of Streams: Mid Atlantic
and Southeastern U.S. (National Stream Survey Phase 1)," Office of Acid Deposition,
Environmental Monitoring and Quality Assurance, EPA/600/3-88/021a and b, June, 1988.
EPA, National Surface Water Survey Fact Sheet on Acid Neutralizing Capacity, EPA,
September, 1985.
130
-------
Faust, S., Rutgers University, personal communication.
Kaufman, Phillip, EPA Corvalis, personal communication.
Kim, Y.H., "Experiments Show How Acid Clouds Harm Eastern Forests," Cornell University;
Agriculture and Life Sciences News, 1990.
Kretser, W., J. Gallagher, and J. Nicolette, "Adirondack Lake Study 1984-1987: An Evaluation of
Fish Communities and Water Chemistry," prepared for the Adirondacks Lake Survey Corp.,
February, 1989.
Morgan, Mark D., Acidic Deposition Impacts Mediated by Sulfur Cycling in a Coastal Forest
Ecosystem, Rutgers University, 1988.
Morgan, Mark D. and Good, Ralph E., "Impact of Acid Deposition on Stream Water Chemistry
in the New Jersey Pinelands," Center for Coastal and Environmental Studies and
Department of Biology, Rutgers University, 1986.
National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP), "Acidic Deposition: State of Science
and Technology; Summary Compendium Document," Patricia M. Irving, editor, NAPAP,
January, 1990.
NAPAP, "Interim Assessment; The Causes and Effects of Acidic Deposition, Volumes II and
III," NAPAP, 1985.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), "Acid Rain, A Policy
for New York State to Reduce Sulfur Dioxide Emissions, Final EIS," NYSDEC, 1985.
Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), "Acid Rain and Transported Air Pollutants:
Implications for Public Policy," OTA Report, undated.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment (OMOE), "Acid Precipitation in Ontario Study, Annual
Program Report 1988/1989," OMOE, January, 1990.
Shaw, David, NYSDEC, personal communication.
Sprenger, Mark D., Concentrations of Trace Elements in Yellow Perch from Six Acidic Lakes,
Rutgers University, 1987.
131
-------
26. Chemical Use That Depletes the Ozone Layer ••
Chlorofluorocarbons
Summary/Abstract
Reduced levels of stratospheric ozone may have three main effects: (1) increased
ultraviolet (UV) radiation reaching the earth's surface, (2) increased concentrations of
tropospheric (ground-based) ozone, and (3) increased global warming and sea level rise.
Increased UV radiation can result in an increased incidence of mutations that adversely affect
fecundity, growth, and survival in most plant and animal species. This, in turn, can result in the
reduced abundance or the extinction of populations and changes in ecosystem structure and
function. High levels of tropospheric ozone have been shown to affect growth and yield in
terrestrial plants. Sea level rise can result in loss of coastal habitats.
Estimates of stratospheric ozone depletion, increased UV radiation, increased tropospheric
ozone, and sea level rise are highly uncertain at present. There are few dose-response data for
the effects of UV radiation and tropospheric ozone on individual organisms and virtually no
data for the effects on populations. Moreover, potential impacts to ecosystem structure and
function are only speculative at present. However, catastrophic impacts to global populations
and ecosystems are possible under worst-case scenarios.
Introduction
The potential effects of CFC and halon emissions on stratospheric ozone and other
atmospheric processes became evident in the mid-1970s. For example, NASA data show that
the stratospheric ozone layer decreased over mid-latitudes by 1.7 to 3.0 percent from 1969 to
1986. Growing concern over the adverse impacts of these chemical substances, particularly on
the stratospheric ozone layer, has led to an international effort to control substances that
destroy stratospheric ozone. EPA prepared a study of the costs and benefits of phasing out
production of CFCs and halons in the United States (EPA, 1989). Data presented in this study
are summarized below.
Hazard Identification
Three types of hazards are associated with CFCs and halons: (1) increased UV radiation
at the earth's surface resulting from stratospheric ozone depletion, (2) increased tropospheric
ozone (i.e., smog), and (3) sea level rise resulting from global warming.
Increased UV Radiation at the Earth's Surface
Many CFCs and halons destroy stratospheric ozone because their high chemical stability
permits them to reach the stratosphere. In the stratosphere, increased solar UV radiation
breaks off chlorine and bromine molecules, which catalyze chemical reactions that break down
ozone. Less ozone in the stratosphere allows more UV radiation to reach the earth's surface.
Higher UV radiation levels may cause decreases in fecundity, growth, and survival in a
variety of marine organisms located primarily at the surface of the water, including fish larvae
132
-------
and juveniles, shrimp larvae, crab larvae, copepods, and plants essential to the aquatic food
chain (EPA, 1987). A number of studies on crops have shown that ultraviolet-B (UV-B)
radiation adversely affects crop yield and quality (EPA, 1988). Decreased fecundity, growth,
and survival may result in short-term decreases in population abundance. Changes in ecosystem
structure and function also may occur as organisms more resistant to the increase in UV
radiation predominate. However, the long-term effects of increased UV radiation on aquatic
and terrestrial ecosystems are unknown (EPA, 1987).
, UV damage to physiological systems is a "natural" process. All life on earth evolved under
UV bombardment from space, and the natural processes of physiological repair, natural
selection, and evolution have resulted in organisms that are adapted to current levels of UV
exposure. These same natural processes can be expected to respond to increased levels of UV
radiation (i.e., organisms eventually will adapt). However, it is not possible to predict what
forms of life will and won't adapt to a given level and rate of change of UV radiation exposure.
For example, bacteria may be able to adapt, while mammals (i.e., humans) and higher plants
may not. Therefore, under worst-case scenarios there could be a catastrophic change in the
form and diversity of life on earth.
Increased Tropospheric Ozone
Increased UV radiation is one factor that can affect the development of tropospheric ozone
(i.e., smog). At high concentrations, tropospheric ozone has been shown to cause reduced
growth and yields in agricultural crops and trees (EPA, 1989). In humans, increased
tropospheric ozone has been shown to cause alterations in pulmonary function, aggravation of
respiratory diseases, lung damage, immunosuppression, and adverse effects on the liver, central
nervous system, and blood enzymes. However, current information is insufficient to determine
the impacts of increased tropospheric ozone on forests or terrestrial animals. (See Problem
Area 20 for additional information.)
Sea Level Rise
Sea level rise resulting from global warming can cause direct loss of coastal wetlands and
terrestrial habitats owing to higher storm surges, flooding, and erosion.
Dose-Response Evaluation
All dose-response data come from EPA, 1989. Changes in stratospheric ozone levels were
predicted by using atmospheric chemistry models and empirically adjusting them to account for
observed decreases in stratospheric ozone. The resulting increased UV-B radiation at the
earth's surface was related to crop loss and loss of marine plankton and fish. The effect of
increased UV radiation on tropospheric ozone was modeled using ozone air quality models.
Predicted increases in tropospheric ozone were related to crop loss. The effects of UV-A are
still being debated and are not included. Global climate circulation models are used to predict
sea level rise. The resulting effects on coastal ecosystems are discussed qualitatively. Additional
details of the methodology used in EPA, 1989 are provided below.
The increase in UV radiation is fairly uniform across Region II. The tropics have less
ozone, more UV, and less stratospheric ozone reduction than middle latitudes. Therefore, the
amount of UV increase is generally uniform across the region.
133
-------
Methods for Evaluating Atmospheric Response
Stratospheric Chlorine and Bromine Levels
Changes in stratospheric chlorine and bromine concentrations were estimated using a
method from Connell, 1986 which assumes a simplified exponential decay in the atmospheric
abundances of each compound. The amount of chlorine added to the stratosphere by a CFC
compound or substitute depends on the amount of chlorine in the compound and the stability of
the compound in the troposphere. Therefore, CFC and halon emissions estimates were
translated into stratospheric chlorine and bromine concentrations using two parameters:
atmospheric lifetime (i.e., the time chlorine or bromine is associated with a specific compound
and will remain in the atmosphere) and a conversion factor that converts emission units to
stratospheric concentrations. CFC and halon emissions were estimated under two scenarios:
implementing controls and CFC substitutes (three different plans for phasing out CFCs were
considered), and without implementing any controls.
Stratospheric Ozone Depletion
Ozone depletion was estimated using a one-dimensional (1-D) atmospheric chemistry model
developed by Connell (1986). This model translates changes in stratospheric chlorine and
bromine-containing halon concentrations over time into changes in total column ozone. Two
projections were made: Projection A ~ impacts on ozone depletion relative to stratospheric
concentrations in 1985, assuming no further depletion than what models would have projected
(i.e., assuming in essence that past depletion beyond model projections is a one-time
phenomenon without future implications); and Projection B — in which ozone depletion is
calibrated on the basis of making the model's sensitivity to chlorine increases consistent with
historical ozone depletion. In the first projection, the initial level of ozone depletion was
adjusted assuming 2.35 percent ozone depletion by 1985 (the value estimated by the NASA
Ozone Trends Panel for northern hemisphere mid-latitudes from 1969 to 1986). The analysis
also assumed that the chlorine level in 1985 was 2.7 ppb.
The assumptions for the two different projections led to significantly different results. In
Projection A, ozone depletion ranged from 3.1 percent in the year 2000 to -0.71 percent in the
year 2100, using the phaseout schedules; and from 3.3 percent in the year 2000 to 50 percent in
the year 2100 without implementing controls. In Projection B, ozone depletion ranged from
5.84 percent in the year 2000 to 5.4 percent in the year 2100, using the phaseout schedules; and
from 6.4 percent in the year 2000 to 50 percent in the year 2050 without controls.
Tropospheric Ozone Levels
Estimates of tropospheric ozone were made, using relationships developed by Whitten and
Gery (Whitten, and Gery, 1986). These data are based on studies of ambient air quality in
Nashville, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles.
Global Warming
The estimates for emissions of CFCs, CFC substitutes, and energy-related greenhouse gases
were entered into a model designed to forecast changes in global equilibrium temperature
associated with atmospheric CO2 increases. This model was adapted from a one-dimensional
radiative-convective model developed by the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences and was used
to estimate the change in global equilibrium temperature (EPA, 1988). Changes in global sea
134
-------
level were estimated using a model originally developed by Lacis (Lacis, et al., 1981). It
evaluates the expected change in average global air temperature due to trace gas concentrations,
sensitivity to greenhouse-gas forcings, and heat diffusion into the oceans. The effects of thermal
expansion, alpine meltwater., and Greenland meltwater also were considered. However, the sea
level rise estimates do not include the potential changes due to Antarctic ice discharge,
Antarctic meltwater, or Greenland ice discharge.
The analysis assumed that the direct radiative effect of the doubling of CO2 concentrations
is 1.26°C. After including feedback effects, however, the equilibrium temperature change
expected from a doubling of CO2 concentrations is assumed to be 3°C. In the model projections,
the increase in global equilibrium temperature in the year 2075 ranged from 4.8°C (using the
phaseout schedules) to 4.8°C (without implementing controls).
Methods for Estimating Environmental Effects
Marine Organisms
The estimates of adverse effects to marine organisms were based largely on qualitative
information presented in EPA, 1987. A study by Hunter et al. (1982) on the potential dose-
response relationship of the effects of UV radiation on anchovy larvae populations was used as
a basis for estimating the potential impacts of UV radiation on all major commercial aquatic
organisms in the natural environment. Average fish harvest levels for the 1981-1985 period
were used to represent average annual harvest levels through 2075. It was assumed that impacts
would range from one-half to twice the level estimated using the average annual values.
Crops
Teramura and Murali (Teramura and Murali, 1986) estimated that a 0.3 percent decrease
in soybean yield would occur for every 1 percent increase in UV-B, with a maximum decline of
7.5 percent. Ozone/crop yield relationships developed by Rowe and Adams (1987) were used
by EPA to estimate the decrease in yield due to increased tropospheric ozone (EPA, 1989).
Results were given as estimated increases in costs resulting from increases in tropospheric ozone
levels.
Sea Level Rise
The only impacts assessed were economic impacts for all major coastal ports. The analysis
was based on estimates developed for Charleston and Galveston by Gibbs (1984), who analyzed
impacts for two types of community responses: damages if actions anticipating the rise in sea
level were undertaken, and damages if no anticipatory actions were undertaken.
Risk Characterization
EPA focused on the economic benefits of phasing out CFCs and halons. In some analyses,
the underlying ecological impact data were not reported. Most of the risk characterization was
little more than a qualitative reiteration of hazard. The three main types of ecological damage
noted in the report were as follows:
o Decreases in growth, survival, and reproduction of marine organisms essential to the
aquatic food chain, perhaps causing changes in species composition,
135
-------
o Crop yield and quality reductions due to increases in UV irradiation, and secondary losses
due to increases in tropospheric ozone, and
o Impacts to wetland and coastal habitats from sea level rise resulting from global warming.
The case modeled here is not the worst case for stratospheric ozone depletion. The
greatest depletion, and the greatest ecological impact, will occur in the next century because of
chemicals already in the atmosphere. This is because the residence time for CFCs is measured
in decades or longer and stratospheric concentrations will continue to increase because of
atmospheric dynamics even if all emissions were to cease immediately (EPA, 1990).
Additional details of the risk characterization found in EPA, 1989 are presented below.
Effects of Increased UV Radiation at the Earth's Surface
The results show that the estimated fish harvest decline by the year 2075 under Projection
A would be 25 percent with "no controls" and 0 percent with any of the phaseout schedules.
Under Projection B, the estimated fish harvest decline by the year 2075 would be 25 percent
with "no controls" and between 3.5 and 3.9 percent with the phaseout schedules. It was assumed
that the impacts would range from one-half to twice the level estimated using the average
annual values, but no justification for this assumption was given.
Rowe and Adams (1987) estimated that crop harvest decline by the year 2075 under
Projection A would be 7.5 percent with "no controls" and between 0.2 and 0.3 percent with any
of the phaseout schedules. Under Projection B, the estimated crop harvest decline by the year
2075 would be 7.5 percent with "no controls" and between 2.3 and 2.4 percent with the phaseout
schedules.
Effects of Increased Tropospheric Ozone
No quantitative estimates of impacts from increased tropospheric ozone on plants or
animals were presented. In particular, the data on crop reduction used to derive economic cost
information were not presented.
Effects of Sea Level Rise
There was no discussion of the ecological impacts of sea level rise.
Uncertainty
The decrease in stratospheric ozone is real, but the magnitude of its future depletion is
somewhat uncertain and could be more or less. Some of the effects are less certain than others
(e.g., sea level rise and increase in tropospheric ozone). Crop damage from increased UV has
been demonstrated in the laboratory, but we don't know how changes in plant and marine
organism life will affect larger ecosystems such as the ocean and food crops. Additional
discussion of uncertainty is presented below.
136
-------
Exposure Estimates
Stratospheric Chlorine and Bromine Levels
The science of atmospheric modeling is highly uncertain at present. Given the large
uncertainties concerning the adequacy of current atmospheric models, the analysis uses changes
in chlorine and bromine concentrations as a surrogate for evaluating the risks of ozone
depletion. Although chlorine and bromine abundances are thought to be the primary
determinants of the risk of ozone depletion, other atmospheric processes affecting ozone
depletion are not considered. In addition, estimates of the atmospheric lifetime of CFCs and
halons are highly uncertain at present.
Ozone Depletion
The analysis used a 1-D atmospheric chemistry model to predict ozone depletion.
Comparison of the results of 1-D and 2-D models suggests that 1-D models may tend to
underestimate average global ozone depletion. The estimates of ozone depletion under
Projection A are not adjusted to show depletion that has already occurred. The estimates of
ozone depletion under Projection B could be higher or lower than what would actually occur,
depending upon whether heterogeneous reactions occur in the aerosol layer, whether ozone
depletion occurs in the Arctic, and whether the atmosphere responds in a linear or nonlinear
fashion. More importantly, global ozone depletion was arbitrarily constrained at 50 percent,
thus underestimating impacts when ozone depletion reaches 50 percent in the study. Note that
for the "no control" projection, the 50 percent ozone depletion was reached in the year 2100 for
Projection A and in the year 2050 for Projection B.
Tropospheric Ozone Levels
Estimates of tropospheric ozone are based on ambient air quality in three U.S. cities. It
cannot be determined whether similar relationships between CFC/halon concentrations and
tropospheric ozone would be expected in non-urban areas.
Global Warming
The model assumes a rapid equilibrium response to a CO2 doubling. In reality, the
equilibrium response to a CO2 doubling could take several decades or more to occur. Climate
sensitivity (i.e., the direct radiative effect of the doubling of CO2 concentrations) may range
from 1.5 to 4.5°C (NAS, 1979). The corresponding equilibrium warming estimates would be 50
percent and 150 percent of the model estimates, respectively. The estimates of sea level rise are
the same for both the adjusted and standard ozone depletion scenarios.
Environmental Effects
Current scientific evidence is insufficient to allow estimates of the amount of damage to
expect in the natural environment for a given increase in UV radiation, tropospheric ozone, or
sea level rise. Several variables probably will determine the extent of damage to marine
organisms, including the degree to which UV radiation penetrates the water, the amount of
vertical mixing that occurs, and the seasonal abundance and vertical distributions of the
organisms. Although numerous adverse impacts in individual organisms can be demonstrated,
the long-term effects of these impacts on populations or ecosystems are unknown. Insufficient
information exists to determine the impacts of increased UV radiation on forests. The dose-
137
-------
response relationship used to estimate commercial fish losses is very uncertain and is based on
larvae from one species. Larvae from other species may be more or less sensitive to UV
radiation. The effect of larval losses on the adult population also may differ in other species as
a result of their population dynamics (i.e., age at maturity, degree of compensation in the
population). Under certain conditions, large larval losses may have little effect on adult
populations. Information on hazard (and risk) to crop species from UV radiation and
tropospheric ozone is extremely limited. Moreover, crops may not be adequate surrogates for
other plants, particularly those in other major plant groups (e.g., algae, woody vegetation) and
closely related "wild" species. Many sea level damage issues (e.g., flooding of coastal wetlands,
beach erosion, and increases in salinity in aquifers) were not addressed.
Scoring Recommendations
Intensity 4, Scale 4, Value, Uncertainty: Very High
Total 12 (VH)
References
Connell, Peter S., "A Parameterized Numerical Fit to Total Column Ozone Changes Calculated
by the LLNL 1-D Model of the Troposphere and Stratosphere," Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, Livermore, Calif, 1986.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "The Report of the Ecology and Welfare Subcommitte
- Relative Risk Reduction Project Appendix A," Science Advisory Board EPA SAB-EC-90-
021A, September 1990.
EPA, "Costs and Benefits of Phasing Out Production of CFCs and Halons in the United States -
- review draft," Washington, D.C., November 3, 1989.
EPA, "Regulatory Impact Analysis: Protection of Stratospheric Ozone," Washington, D.C.,
August 1, 1988.
EPA, "Assessing the Risks of Trace Gases that can Modify the Stratosphere," Washington,
D.C., 1987. (Revised version of the Environmental Protection Agency, "An Assessment of
the Risks of Stratospheric Modification," Washington, B.C., 1986)
Gibbs, M., "Economic Analysis of Sea Level Rise: Methods and Results," In: Earth, M.C. and
Titus, J.G. (eds.) Greenhouse Effect and Sea Level Rise: A Challenge for this Generation,
New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold,1984.
Hunter, J.R., Kaupp, S.E., and Taylor, J.H., "Assessment of Effects of Radiation on Marine Fish
Larvae," In: Calkins, J. (ed.) The Role of the Solar Ultraviolet Radiation in Marine
Ecosystems, Plenum, New York, 459-497, 1982.
Lacis, A, et al, "Greenhouse Effect of Trace Gases," Geophysical Research Letters 8:1035-1038,
1981.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS), "Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment,"
Washington, D.C., National Academy of Sciences Press, 1979.
138
-------
Rowe, R.D. and Adams, R.M., "Analysis of Economic Impacts of Lower Crop Yields Due to
Stratospheric Ozone Depletion," Draft report prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., August 1987.
Teramura, A.H. and Murali, N.S., "Intraspecific Differences in Growth and Yield of Soybean
Exposed to Ultraviolet-B Radiation under Greenhouse and Field Conditions," Env. Exp.
Bot., 1986.
Whitten, G.Z. and Gery, M, "Effects of Increased UV Radiation on Urban Ozone," Presented
at an EPA workshop, "Global Atmospheric Change and EPA Planning" (Jeffries, H., ed.),
EPA Report 600/9-8 6016, July 1986,
139
-------
27. Radiation Other Than Radon
Summary
A report provided by the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (EPA 1990) identifies
natural and man-made sources of ionizing radiation other than radon and their potential for
impacts on ecosystems. Ionizing radiation is a known carcinogen and can also cause genetic and
teratogenic (birth defects) effects. According to that report, no known ecological impacts are at-
tributable to ionizing radiation under current exposure scenarios. Recently released evidence of
significant bioaccumulation of radionuclides near federal nuclear facilities around the country
seems to counter this conclusion, and the Region n work group was somewhat skeptical of this
conclusion. Nevertheless, the judgment of the Region II work group was that most potential
ecological effects were from accidental releases or abandoned active disposal sites, which are
covered under Problem Areas # 13 and #17.
Hazard Identification
Ionizing radiation refers to radiation that strips electrons from atoms in the medium
through which it passes. The adverse effects of exposure to ionizing radiation, and hence of
radioactive materials, are carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and teratogenicity. Both cancer
induction and genetic mutations are believed to be stochastic effects; i.e., the probability of
these effects (the risk of occurrence) increases with dose, but the severity of the effect is
independent of dose. Furthermore, there is no convincing evidence of a threshold of exposure
below which the risks are zero. Evidence of the deleterious effects of exposure to ionizing
radiation comes from both human epidemiology and animal studies. Sources of ionizing
radiation to ecosystems are grouped into two classes: natural background and man-made.
Ecological Impacts of Ionizing Radiation
At the levels of environmental radioactivity of concern to this project, radiation exposure
has few or no adverse effects on organisms other than man, or on the environment. The
adverse effects associated with low levels of radioactivity in the environment are cancer, genetic
effects, and birth defects. Such effects, even if extremely rare or undetectable, are of concern to
humans. However, for organisms other than man, the concern is not with individual organisms
but with the viability of the species and the function and structure of the ecosystem as a whole.
During the 1960s and 1970s, a vast amount of radiobiological research was performed to
assess the impacts of radiation on plant and animal communities. The research included a large
number of comprehensive laboratory and field studies motivated primarily by concern over
fallout from weapons tests. Excellent reviews of the literature are provided by Turner (Turner,
undated) and Casaretti (1968). A more recent review was prepared by the Office of Radiation
Programs in 1986 (EPA, 1986).
In summary, it appears that ecosystems subjected to prolonged exposures below a few rad
per day show no detectable adverse ecological impacts. Turner concludes that, though the
community interactions to prolonged exposures to ionizing radiation are complex and difficult to
predict, doses on the order of several hundred rads per year would be needed to cause
140
-------
extinction of a species. Such exposures can occur following a major nuclear accident (e.g.,
Chernobyl) but are not associated with the production and use of radioactive materials. Nor
were they associated with uncontrolled sites where previous activities have resulted in the
contamination of the site with radioactive materials.
Ecological Impacts from Natural Background Radiation
The doses and potential risks associated with exposure to naturally occurring background
radiation and naturally occurring radionuclides have been estimated in a number of national and
international reports (EPA, 1981; NCRPM, 1987; and UNSCEAR, 1982). These exposures are
divided into three components: external exposure to terrestrial radiation, external exposure to
cosmic radiation, and internal exposure to naturally occurring radionuclides. Ecosystems have,
of course, evolved to deal with natural.forms of radiation, and impacts from natural sources are
generally negligible. The major cause of concern regarding ecosystems is exposure via the
increased "natural" ultraviolet radiation from projected CFC-induced reductions in the ozone
layer, which is discussed in detail in Problem Area #26. As indicated in that analysis, increased
ultraviolet exposure could produce widespread negative impacts on various ecosystems.
Uncertainty
Overall uncertainty is medium or moderate. Confidence in the analysis is relatively high as
far as it goes. There is some uncertainty as to the nature and quantity of nuclear facilities in
the region, their releases to the environment, and the potential for bioaccumulation of
radionuclides through food chain and resultant impacts on biota.
Scoring Recommendations
Since impacts (other than for increased ultraviolet exposure due to CFCs) are described as
negligible, the lowest values for the ecological ranking criteria are selected:
Intensity 1, Scale 1, Value
Total 3 (M)
1, Uncertainty: Medium
References
Casaretti, A. P., Radiation Biology, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1968.
Environmental Protection Agency, "Analysis of Risks from Ionizing Radiation Other Than
Radon, and Nonionizing Radiation for Region II Risk Ranking Project" Office of Policy
Planning and Evaluation, 1990.
Environmental Protection Agency(a) (EPA), "Environmental Impact Statement — NESHAPS for
Radionuclides: Background Information Document — Volume I: Risk Assessment
Methodology," EPA 520/1-89-005, Office of Radiation Programs, Washington, D.C.,
September 1989.
141
-------
EPA(b), "Environmental Impact Statement — NESHAPS for Radionuclides: Background
Information Document -- Volume H: Risk Assessments," EPA 520/1-89-005, Office of
Radiation Programs, Washington, D.C., September 1989.
EPA, "Effects of Radiation on Aquatic Organisms and Radiobiological Methodologies for
Effects Assessment," EPA 520/1-85-016, Office of Radiation Programs, Washington, D.C.,
February 1986.
EPA, "Radionuclides: Background Information for Final Rules - Volume II," EPA 520/1-84-
022-2, Office of Radiation Programs, Washington, D.C., October 1984.
EPA, "Population Exposure to External Natural Radiation Background in the United States,"
EPA/SEPD-80-12, Office of Radiation Programs, Washington, D.C., April 1981.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS), "The Effect on Populations of Exposures to Low Levels
of Ionizing Radiation: 1980," Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiations,
Washington, D.C., 1980.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRPM), Ionizing Radiation
Exposure of the Population of the United States, NCRP Report No. 93, Bethesda, Maryland,
1987.
Turner, F. B., Effects of Continuous Irradiation of Animal Populations, work performed for the
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Division of Biomedical and Environmental Research,
under contract AT(04-1)GEN-12 with the University of California.
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), Ionizing
Radiation: Sources and Biological Effects, United Nations, New York, 1982.
142
-------
Appendix A
Areal Extent of Region II Ecosystems and Habitat
Loss Estimates,
143
-------
9300 Lcc Highway
Fairfax. Virginia
22031-1207
703/934-3000
ICF INCORPORATED
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
July 26, 1990
Harvey Simon, EPA Region II
Bob Hegner, ICF
Data Sources for Areal Extent and Habitat Loss/Gain Data
Attached are several pages of text documenting the sources of areal
extent and habitat loss/gain data and presenting our conclusions regarding the
reliability of these data. I also have included a log of our telephone
conversations in pursuit of these data. In general, I believe that both the
areal extent data and the data on recent habitat loss/gain rates are of high
quality. In contrast, with the exception of forest resources in Puerto Rico
(see attached Figure), I believe that the estimates of historical wetland loss
rates in New York and New Jersey are of low quality.
I also have attached updated areal extent and loss/gain data tables for
Region II. We have incorporated all information received as of today into
these tables. Please note that the areal extent of forest in Puerto Rico is
slightly lower in this updated table. The new figure is from a U.S. Forest
Service publication, so it is as accurate as we can be.
144
-------
Q
CD
111
DC
HI
CO
LLI
Q.
HI
f-
52
CO
o
o
LJLJ
LJL
O
H
LJJ
LLI
DC
TOTAL
8
DC
1
QL
•8
jw
c
S
t
0)
i
z
Ecosystem
fe
CO
1
S
o
CM
i—
O
CO
Oceans
(shore miles)
CO
CM"
R
o
CO
O)
CO
S
iq
Estuaries
square miles)
^
S
o
CO
£)
CO
1
0
Z
o
S
o
o
o
co"
CO
o
o
o
o
o
o
T™
Freshwater
Wetlands
(acres)
§
R"
S
co"
o
o
IO
co"
o
0
o
R"
o> jog
EC .§.
CO
CM
CO
CO
T—
o
o
o
o
LO
g
o
o
co "en1
li
S
1
1
1
1
S
If
CO "£
0) O
CD §,
1
CM
CM"
CM
g
o
o
o
8"
CM
o
o
o
id
CM
idal Wetlands
(acres)
h-
s
0
o
IO
S
CO
0
T—
g
o
o
to
T—
T—
°,
T™
g
0
o
en
1
.0
I
10
CO
Agriculture
(acres)
S
o
C3
^^
co"
S
T™
CM
8
o
o
g
o
CO
S
CM"
.2
1
in
CO
If
£1
co
•a
H
!.
ea C CO
CO Co CD
J2 I 1
CO
iill
145
-------
SOURCES FOR AREAL EXTENT DATA
Data for New York, New Jersey, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto
Rico on the areal extent of oceans, estuaries, freshwater
wetlands, rivers, lakes, and Great Lakes were obtained from the
305(b) reports for each jurisdiction and the Delaware River Basin
Commission. Additional sources on areal extent are discussed
below by State or Territory.
New York
The areal extent of tidal wetlands, 25,000 acres, was provided by
Kevin DuBois, a marine resource specialist with the New York
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC). He obtained
the data from a report by the New York State Office of Parks,
Recreation, and Historic Preservation, entitled "Wildlife
Protection In New York State," covering the years from 1986 to
1989.
The areal extent of agriculture, 8.5 million acres, was provided
by Kim Blot, of the NYDEC. He read the information from an
official document but did not identify the document.
The areal extent of forested land, 18.5 million acres, was
provided by Bruce Williamson, a forester with the NYDEC. He read
the information from an unidentified official document.
New Jersey
The areal extent of tidal wetlands, 250,000 acres, was provided
by Ernest Hahn, of the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP), Division of Coastal Resources. He read the
information from an unidentified official document.
The areal extent of agriculture, 870,900 acres, and the areal
extent of forested land, 2,006,700 acres, were provided by George
Pierson, of New Jersey Parks and Forestry. He read the
information from an unidentified official document.
Virgin Islands
Data on tidal wetlands, agriculture, and forest in the Virgin
Islands had not yet been received. Keith Richards of the
Department of Planning and Natural Resources told us he would
compile the information.
Puerto Rico
Data on tidal wetlands in Puerto Rico were obtained from the
305(b) report.
The areal extents of forest and agriculture were obtained from
the following two documents:
146
-------
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, South Forest
Experimental Station. "Forest Resources of Puerto Rico,"
Resource Bulletin, SO-85, October 1982, New Orleans, LA.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, South Forest
Experimental Station. "Forest Area Trends in Puerto Rico,"
Research Note, SO-331, February 1987, New Orleans, LA.
Conclusion Regarding Data Quality
All of the data on areal extent appears to have come from
internal State/Territory data bases used to support water quality
management or from official published documents. The only
primary references we examined directly (i.e., those for forests
in Puerto Rico) used conventional methodology (i.e.,
interpretation of aerial photography) to determine areal extent
of forest cover. We conclude that the quality of areal extent
data is high.
14,7
-------
SOURCES FOR HABITAT LOSS DATA
Data on loss rate for farmlands, coastal wetlands, freshwater
wetlands, and forest were obtained from a variety of sources.
The sources, along with additional information on the causes of
changes in the various habitats and trends, are discussed below
by State and territory.
New York
Loss rates for farmland were obtained from Kim Blot, of the
NYDEC. He read the information from an official document but did
not identify the document.
Loss rates for coastal wetlands were obtained from the 305(b)
report.
Loss rate for freshwater wetlands were obtained from the
following reports compiled by the NYDEC and provided to us by
William Sarbello, Habitat Protection Head, NYDEC Division of Fish
and Wildlife:
Wiley, William J. An Examination of Trends Affecting the
Freshwater Wetlands of New York State. 1968-1983. Draft.
Wiley, William J.- Changes in the Wetland Resource of Selected
Areas in New York State. 1968-1980. Draft, March 1986.
Wiley, William J. Changes in a Drained Muckland Region of New
York State. 1968-1980. Draft.
In addition to loss rates, these documents provided some relevant
information on the causes of the losses. In his study of trends,
Wiley examined a time series of aerial photographs from a
stratified random sample of 1194 wetlands distributed throughout
the State. In all, 26,000 hectares of wetland were examined.
Between 1968 and 1983, 292 (24.5%) of these 1194 wetlands were
altered by man with a resultant loss of 295 hectares (1.0%).
Water level management (e.g., draining, channelization, pond
construction) was responsible for the majority of the observed
alteration (29.5%) and for the greatest loss in area (24.5%).
Wiley also examined wetland loss rates from 1968 to 1980 with a
subset of 6,842 freshwater wetlands totaling 16,010 hectares.
The cumulative alteration rate in these wetlands was 32.5%, and
cumulative losses were 6.2% of the total. Both are substantially
greater that the statewide rates determined by the author in the
report discussed above.
Finally, in. his study on a drained muckland, Wiley examined
trends in drained muckland using a sample of 370 hectares of
wetlands. Between 1968 and 1974, 50 hectares were drained and
put into production; an additional 30 hectares were converted
between 1974 and 1980. Total loss of wetlands vegetation
148
-------
(predominately flooded deciduous trees) was 23%. This rate
comparable to the loss rate in expanding urban centers during the
same period.
Data on gains in forest were provided by Bruce Williamson, NYDEC.
He read the information from an unidentified official document.
New Jersey
Loss rates for farmland were provided by Bob Battaglia of the
NJDEP. He read the information from an unidentified official
document. He stated that one cause of the losses is real estate
development, primarily near Philadelphia and New York City.
Loss rates for coastal wetlands were provided by Ernest Hahn of
the NJDEP. He read the information from an unidentified official
document.
Loss rates for freshwater wetlands were provided by Hahn, from a
draft document on wetlands filled or modified under state general
permits.
Loss rates for forest were provided by George Pierson, of New
Jersey Parks and Forestry. He read the information from an
unidentified official document.
Virgin Islands
Data on habitat loss rates in the Virgin Islands have not yet
been received. Keith Richards of the Department of Planning and
Natural Resources told us he would compile the information.
Puerto Rico
The loss rates for farmland were obtained from two reports by the
U.S. Forest Service listed in the discussion of the sources for
areal extent data.
The loss rate for coastal wetlands was computed from information
in the 305(b) report and the Forest Service articles mentioned
above.
The loss and gain rates for forest in Puerto Rico were gathered
from the two reports by the U.S. Forest Service discussed above.
The report entitled "Forest Area Trends in Puerto Rico," in
particular, provided some relevant information on the causes of
changes in forest resources. Total forest area has increased
from 279,000 hectares (ha) in 1980 to 300,000 ha in 1985, about
4,000 ha annually. This increase occurred primarily because
reversions of cropland and pasture to forest exceeded forest
clearing for nonforest uses. Note, however, that all new forest
is classified as secondary forest, which now totals bout 58% of
the island's forest. Abandoned coffee shade comprises the next
largest forest class, and abandoned and active coffee shade
149
-------
combined total 82,000 ha. During the study period, about 8,000
ha were cleared for relatively permanent nonforest uses such as
residences and right-of-way. The U.S. Forest Service report also
reproduces historical data on changes in forest acreage in Puerto
Rico. These data are included in the updated habitat loss/gain
table and are shown in the attached figure.
Conclusions Regarding Data Quality
All of the data on recent habitat loss/gain appears to have come
from official published documents. The only primary references
we examined (i.e., wetland loss in New York, forest gains in
Puerto Rico) appeared to be scientifically defensible studies
using conventional methodology. We conclude that the quality of
data on recent habitat loss/gain is high. The weakest data are
those for historical habitat loss. The USDA studies of forest
changes in Puerto Rico reference a study of historical forest
losses in that Territory, but otherwise, data on historical
losses either were unavailable or best professional judgement
(e.g., "50% wetlands loss in New York since colonial times").
With the exception of the forest study for Puerto Rico, we
concluded that the quality of data on historical habitat is poor.
150
-------
PHONE LOG
New York
6/28 Bruce Williamson, forester, New York Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYDEC): forest gains.
Kim Blot, NYDEC: agriculture loss rates.
William Sarbello, NYDEC, Habitat Protection Head, Division
of Fish and Wildlife: freshwater wetlands.
6/28 Kenneth Koetzner and Kevin Dubois, NYDEC: tidal wetlands.
6/29 Koetzner and Dubois: tidal wetlands.
7/2 Sarbello: freshwater wetlands.
New Jersey
6/28 George Pierson of New Jersey Parks and Recreation: forest
areal extent and loss rates.
6/29 Bob Battaglia, New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP): farmland loss rates.
Ernest Hahn, NJDEP, Division of Coastal Resources: coastal
and freshwater wetlands.
7/3 Dave Dixon, Northeast Forest Experiment Station: forest loss
rates.
Virgin Islands
6/29 Keith Richards, Department of Planning and Natural
Resources, Director of Comprehensive and Coastal Zone
Planning): areal extent and loss rates for all resources.
7/3 Richards, two calls: areal extent and loss rates for all
resources.
Richards recommended contacting Denton Moore, Director of
Fish and Wildlife.
7/5 Moore had no information but recommended contacting the Army
Corp of Engineers based in Puerto Rico.
7/12 Dr. Ed Towle, President of the Island Resources Foundation,
said he would send a briefing/summary from a NOAA report
Land and Water Use Plan. A draft of the report, due out in
September, should be available in NOAA's Washington Coastal
15:1
-------
Zone Management office. Two calls to NOAA went unanswered.
Puerto Rico
6/28 George Procter, botanist with Department of Agriculture:
areal extent and loss rates for all resources.
7/2 Procter recommended contacting Barbara Cintron.
7/5 Cintron provided figures from Forest .Resources of Puerto ,
.Rico, and recommended contacting Dr. Ariel Lugo, Institute
of Tropical Forestry, Southern Forest Experiment Station,
Peter Weaver, Southern Forest Experiment station, and
Alexander Candelario, Director of National Resources
Inventory at the Department of Natural Resources (three
calls).
7/5 Weaver confirmed the figures reported by Cintron and said he
would send a recent copy of Forest Resources of Puerto Rico.
Weaver recommended contacting Aurelio Sierra, of the Soil
Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture, to obtain
information on farmland. Weaver could not provide a
telephone number.
Dr. Ariel Lugo could not be reached.
7/12 Candelario said the data for Puerto Rico could probably be
determined from areal maps on file at the DNR. Candelario
recommended contacting Pedro Gelavard, Director of EPA's San
Juan Office, to examine the maps.
TELEPHONE NUMBERS
New York
Kim Blot
Kevin Dubois
Kenneth Koetzner
William Sarbello
Bruce Williamson
New Jersey
Bob Battaglia
Dave Dixon
Ernest Hahn
George Pierson
Puerto Rico
Alexander Candelario
(518) 457-7076
(516) 751-7900 extension 377
(516) 751-7900
(518) 457-9713
(518) 457-7370
(609) 292-6385
(215) 975-4075
(609) 633-6755
(609) 292-2733
(809) 724-8774 extension 292
152
-------
Barbara cintron
Dr. Ariel Lugo
George Procter
Aurelio Sierra
Peter Weaver
Virgin Islands
Keith Richards
Denton Moore
Army Corp of Engineers
(based in Puerto Rico)
Dr. Ed Towle
(809) 725-8603
(809) 766-5335
(809) 724-8774
Call forwarded
(809) 766-5335
(809) 774-3320
(809) 775-6762
(809) 729-6901
(809) 775-6225
(Also a Washington office 202-265-9712)
153
-------
I
g
o
LU
cc
<
D.
UJ
a
CO
CO
o
m
•8
I
I
New Jerse
1
CD
cS
co S
0 .
o o> co 5
§ T o S
«
5 ^
2 1
1
cres
ear
tal
ost 1.1 million ac
1979-1988
11 0,000 acres/y
1% of current to
CO
I
CO
U-
1
CO
i
l
« 2
to ^
as —
.
i
40% loss since 1950s
r= to
S "O
CO C
CO CO
O 3=
0|
« o
o
o
!
•^~ ^3
^
2 co
* to ?- « TO
a
*"
£ ' _TS
S S
O
0
-------
600
5OO
40°
300
§ 200
100
TOTAL TREE COVER
FOREST
COFFEE SHADE
rie
J.
_L
J.
JL
1820 I84O 1860
I860 1900
* YEAR
1920 1940 I960 1980
Figure 1.—Area with tree cover in Puerto Rico, 1828-1985. Forest
does not include nonstocked forest land.
155
-------
156
-------
Appendix B
Impacts to Aquatic Ecosystems in Region II
157
-------
TABLE 1-1
IMPACTS TO SURFACE WATERS IN EPA REGION II FROM POINT SOURCES
junrsotcnoN
NewYork
New Jersey
Puerto
Rico
Wgh
Islands
TOTAL IN
REGION II
ECOSYSTEM
TYPE
Rivers and
Streams
Lakes
Great
Lakes
Estuaries
and Bays
Oceans
Delaware
River
Other Rivers
and Streams
Lakes
Estuaries
. Oceans
Rivers and
Streams
Lagoons
Oceans
(Coastal areas)
Estuaries
Estuaries/
Harbors/Bays
Oceans
Rivers and
Streams
Lakes
Rivers and
Streams
Lakes
Great
Lakes
Estuaries, Bays
and Harbors
Oceans
TOTAL
AMOUNT
70,000ml
750.000 A
577 shore
mtes
1.564 rri~2
OncLtxyt)
130 rri
tries
148ml
6,302 rri
51.000A
691 rrtA2
439lri~2
(120 ihort ml)
5,373ml
11.146A
(17.4 ml-2)
434 shore
mfes
1 76.3 stream
mites
30.3rrt~2
1728 shore
mtes
0
o-
81,823ml
801 ,000 A
(1.2S2mT2)
577 shore
mtes
2,479 rrt~ 2
(hdbays)(f)
857 shore
mtes
AMOUNT
ASSESSED
70.000 mi
(100%)
750,000 A
(100%)
577ml
(100%)
1,564 rri"2
(100%)
130 shore
(100%)
148 rri
(100*)
1.719ml
(27.3*)
24,000 A
(47.1*,)
691 rri~2(e)
(100H)
43917^^2(0)
(100%)
5.373 rri
(100%)
11.146A
(100%)
434 rri
(100%)
176.3 rri
(100%)
29.0 rri~ 2
(98%)
0
(0%)
—
—
77,240 rri
(»4.4%)
774.000 A
<»e.e%)
577 rri
(100%)
2,478 rri~ 2
(89.WH)
684 rri
(7».e%)
SOURCE
Port
Sources
Point
Sources
Port
Sources
Port
Sources
Point
Sources
Port/Nonport
Sources (c)
Port/Nonport
Sources (c)
Port
Sources
Port/Nonport
Sources (c)
Port/Nonport
Sources (c)
Port
Sources
Port
Sources
Port
Sources
Port
Sources
Mostly Port
Sources
—
—
—
Mostly Port
Sources
Mostly Port
Sources
Mostly Port
Sources
Mostly Point
SoureM
Mostly Port
Sources
AMOUNT NOT FULLY SUPPORTING USES («).(b)
TOTAL ECO HEALTH
188.8 mi 63.0 rri 125.8ml
(0.9%) (0.1%) (0.2%)
15.302A 0 1S.302A
(2.0%) (0%) (2.0%)
IDA o IDA
(«0.01%) (0%) (<0.01%)
59.6 rrt~ 2 16.0rrt~2 43.6 rri~ 2
(3.1%) (1.0%) (2.»%)
000
(0%) (0%) (0%)
29rri 22rri 18rri
<18.e%) (14.B%) 02.2%)
490 rrJ. 404 rri 501 rri
(28.6%) (23.5%) (28.1%)
>175A (d) (d)
O0.7%)
161 rri~2 W) 161 rri"2
(23.3%) (23.3%)
173rri~2 (d) 173mi~2
(3«.4%) (30.4%)
281.0ml (d) (d)
(&*%)
0 (0) W)
-------
TABLE 1-2
IMPACTS TO AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS IN NEW YORK FROM POINT AND SELECTED OTHER SOURCES
ECOSYSTEM
RJVERS
AND
STREAMS
LAKES
O BEAT LAKES
ESTUARIES
•AYS
OCEANS
SOURCE
IPS
MPS
PPS
cs
Unknown
UPS
CS
Unknown
MPS
CS
MPS
CS
MPS
CS
POLLUTANT
Aesthsties
Metals
OWgrease
Org. en/DO
Thermal mod.
Aesthetics
Ammonia
Chlorine
Metals •
Nutrients
Org. on/DO
Pathogens
SHIatton
Unk. Toxic
Aesthstlcs
Ammonia
Chlorine
Org. en/DO
Metals
Priority Org.
Priority Org.
Unk. Toxic
Unknown
AMth*lio»
Nutrient!
PwtoO.l
Priority Org.
Metale
PMtlCKie
Priority Org.
Pathogens
Priority Org.
Org. en/DO
Priority Org.
Pathogens
Priority Org.
USE IMPAIRED
Fishing
Fish Passage
Fish Survival
Fishing
Fish Survival
Fish Survrval
Fishing
Bathing
Fishing
Fish Propag.
Fish Survival
Fish Propag.
Fishing
Fish Propag.
Fish Propag.
Fish Survrval
Fishing
Bathing
Watei Supply
Non-ooni. rec.
Fish Propag.
Fishing
Fish Propag.
Fish Survival
Fishing •
Fish Propag.
Fishing
Fish Propag.
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Fish Propag.
Fishing
Fish Propag.
Fishing
Bathing
Bathing
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Water Supply
Fishing
FfchPropao.
FilhPaesage
Fishing
ShcHishing
Fishing
KEY
H
E
E
H
E
E
H
H
H
E
E
E
H
E
E
E
H
H
H
H
E
H
E
E
H
E
H
E
H
H
H
E
H
E
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
E
E
H
H
H
TOTAL AREA NOT FULLY
SUPPORTING USES (a)
2.0 mi.
0.6 mi.
6.5 mi.
5.6 mi.
1.0 mi.
0.1 mi.
12.6 mi.
10.6 mi.
46.7 mi.
1.0 mi.
1.0 ml.
6.S mi.
2.0 mi.
S.4 ml.
11.0 mi.
16.0 mi.
33.5 mi.
3.0 mi.
6.0 mi.
1.6 ml.
2.5 mi.
1.0 mi.
7.0 mi.
0.6 mi.
1.3 ml
3.0 ml.
1.0 ml.
2.0 mi.
7.6 ml
111.4 ml.
75.S mi.
2.5 mL
2.0 ml.
(.0 ml.
5.5 mi.
0.2 ml-2
13.6 ml'2
10.2 ml-2
35.3 ml-2
1.8 ml'2
0.5 ml-2
3.3 ml-2
167.6 mi'2 .
0.0 mi'2
3560.0 mi-2
1.0 ml
15.0 ml
145.0 ml
43.6 ml-a
70.0 ml-Z
SEVERE IMPACT
ON WATER BODY (b)
0.6 mi.
6.6 mi.
0.1 mi.
10.6 mi.
4.3 mi.
4.0 mi.
6.4 mi.
11.0 mi.
16.0 mi.
16.6 mi.
3.0 mi.
2.0 mi.
66.6 mi.
8.0 ml.
0.2 ml-2
1.0 ml.
15.0 mi.
43.8 ml-2
0.0 ml
MODERATE OR SLIGHT
IMPACT ON WATER BODY (c)
2.0. mi.
5.6 mi.
1.0 mi.
12.6 mi.
41.4 mi.
1.0 mi.
1.0 mi.
1.6 mi.
2.0 mi.
1.0 mi.
17.0 mi.
3.0 mi.
6.0 mi.
1.6 mi.
2.6 mi.
1.0 mi.
7.0 mi.
0.5 mi.
1.3 mi.
1.0 mi.
7.5 mi.
64.6 mi.
76.5 mi.
2.5 ml.
2.0 mi.
6.5 mi.
13.6 ml-2
10.2 mi-2
35.3 mi-2
1.9 mi-2
0.6 mi-2
3.3 ml-2
167.8 ml-2
0.0 mi-2
3560.0 mi-2
16.9 ml.
130.0 mi.
70.0 mi .
IPS - Industrial Point Sourc*
MPS - Municipal Point Sourc.
PPS - Privau Point Sourc*
CS - Contaminated Ssdimsnts
H- Human health etlsct
E- Ecological •llaet
(a) Not supporting us* or partially supporting us*
(b) In NY Stats Section 305(6) report, 'severely impaired* waters do not support their designated uses
(c) In NY State Section 306(b) report, 'moderately Impaired* waters partially support their designated uses, and "slightly impaired' waters are threatened
159
-------
O
0.
§
E
CO
cc
UJ
-5
z
CO
.UJ
CO
o
o
Ul
Q
I
1
o
CO
>J I
IJ
£i
tc £
V
CO
u
V
O t!
2 2
II
< Q.
V
E
cr
CL
•u.
HI
cc o W
m o H"
£L UJ <
POLLUTANT
UJ
|
O
co
ECOSYSTEM
0 0
1 E
82
c
I 8
O W
fli
X
5
1
DELAWARE
RIVER
E ij:
&{
CO ~
1 1
0) >$
£
03 R3
75 n
lij i
*#******
CO »- f T- »~
•ri
w re 1 i 8 «o
liffflff
Z< ®| Q.O
5
gico
I < 2
0 C "J
^lte
8
1
i
JD
o
c/3
8
^^
*
i
i
^
<«
• t£
a
CO
LU
5
£!
o E
CO
CM
^
CO
*"
75 75
_o o
S
£ 1
X
*«**
C3 CVI r- T-
c
eg
lutrlents/Pathog
Siltatlon
Priority Org.
Pesticides
z
1
ESTUARIES
CM
o E
O O
£
co 53
O 0)
tx
c
CO
x
-------
TABLE 1-4
IMPACTS TO AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS IN PUERTO RICO
FROM POINT AND UNKNOWN SOURCES
ECOSYSTEM
RIVERS
AND
STREAMS
LAGOONS
OCEAN
(COASTAL
AREAS)
ESTUARIES
SOURCE (a)
IPS
MPS
Unknown
IPS
MPS
Unknown
IPS
MPS
Unknown
IPS
MPS
Unknown
AREA NOT FULLY SUPPORTING USES
MAJOR IMPACT
ON WATER BODY (b)
37.1 mi
60.2 mi
Omi
OA
OA
OA
8.1 mi
7.0 mi
Omi
3.4 mi
6.4 mi
Omi
MODERATE/MINOR IMPACT
ON WATER BODY (b)
123.7 mi
60.0 mi
16.3 mi
OA
OA
372.3 A
Omi
17.3 mi
5.9 mi
6.6 mi
4.9 mi
Omi
IPS - Industrial Point Source
MPS - Municipal Point Source
(a) Pollutants and use impaired could not be determined from the available documentation
(b) "Major*, 'moderate*, or 'minor' impact as listed in the Puerto Rico Section 305(b) report
TABLE 1-5
IMPACTS TO AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS IN THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
FROM POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCES
ECOSYSTEM (a)
ESTUARIES/
HARBORS/
BAYS
SOURCE (b),(c)
Point source
with some
non-point
sources
AREA NOT
SUPPORTING USES
1.77mi*2
AREA PARTIALLY
SUPPORTING USES
0.37 mi*2
(a) There are no large fresh water lakes or ponds and no perennial streams
on any of the islands in the Virgin Islands. No data on ocean shore miles affected
could be found in readily-available information.
(b) No data on specific sources could be found in readily-available information. In many
cases, It was not possible to distinguish between point and non-point sources.
(c) Pollutants and use impaired could not be determined from the available documentation
161
-------
§
I
Srf
|g
5£
i
I?
I?
— o
&
i?
i*
1!
Il
i
'
I
I
I?
il
Industrial
Point Sources
II
§5
al
rces
M
Poin
It
i!
I #
Si
I*
o) .
a> r.
— o
if
E?
0 0
I?
0 0
If
si
E?
n
Ss
^ CO
1*1
minated
iments
j!_
III
i!
Is-
Stream
Ivw
Stre
i!
< .
85
- e
5.302 A
'(2.0%)
nicipal
Sources
< ^
53s
II
H
I
S3
il
BE
03,249 A
(13.8%)
A
)
03.
(13.
03.249 A
(13.8%)
inated
ents
i* i
V C" R
o * fc
*~ £
£!
l
es
CM
!~
(M
Is
8
"
ontaminated
Sediments
5.0
(1.
25.5 ml"2
(1.6%)
if
*
1?
I
S*
CM
o <•>
CM
if
!
5.0 ml
(9.3%)
5.0 ml
(9.3%
*
Estuaries
and Bays
?
II
T
1 *
gl
^
Ii
if
f g"
•I
1
Ipl
III g
n- sfii
I°s
si
I_
llll
< CL E U.
162
-------
ACT (b)
EALTH
O O
m
I
i?
0 Oi
C-
if
1*
K;
B
I-E?
g£
f
II
a, in
g
1?
t?
B
as
H
~ <-'
1719 frt
(27.3H)
Slr
s
>
(>
*
43ml'2(0
(20. 7H)
£_
£
ml'2(0
9.4*)
S
£c*
•S £
;ss
s
t
iPif
Illii
jjjjjj
if:
163
-------
I-:
x i
o '
iS
1 e
®
'B 8
if •"
! 2
g1
If
If
I?
II
SS
go
E ^
<
s
SI
CM 5^
CD C.
1
«> c.
I!
•»' c.
If
» ".
IB C.
II
•E ^^
cv r^
I?
51
I?
C5 Z
21
s e
I
11
ce &
If
s e
H
I -
s s
f
Is
ii
* J
£ e
;i|
:s!
f»i
l-s
ii
JI^
i5 *
sgjg
flJ
Is!
SeS
164
-------
I E
P
11
= ^.
Estuaries/
Harbors/
Bays
1
£ e
|
165
-------
TABLE 10
SUMMARY OF FISH KILLS IN REGION 2
STATE OR
TERRITORY
New York
New Jersey
Puerto
Rico
Virgin
Islands
TOTAL NO.
OF FISH
KILLS
58
—
5
A few fish
have died
NO. OF
KILLS DUE
TO POINT
SOURCES
12 (21%)
—
2 (40%)
0
APPROX.
TOTAL NO.
OF FISH
KILLED3
159,270
—
—
Few
APPROX. NO.
OF FISH
KILLED DUE
TO POINT
SOURCES8
22,700 (14%)
— '
—
0
8 Numbers for New York State are approximations based on data
reported in Tables 18 and 19 of the 1990 New York State
Section 305(b) report.
— indicates that no information was reported in readily-
available materials.
166
-------
Appendix C
Exposures and Impacts at Select Abandoned Hazardous
Waste Sites in Region II
167
-------
Data for the following sites were compiled for ecological risk analysis:
DPI Reports
1. Williams Property Site
2. Sharkey Landfill Site
3. Asbestos Dump
4. Kin-Buc Landfill
5. Lipari
6. Love Canal
7. MEK Spill Site
NOAA Report?
1. CPS Chemical/Madison
2. Bridgeport Rental & Oil
3. EEC Trucking
4. Kin-Buc Landfill
5. Vincland Chemical
6. Helen Kramer Landfill
•7. Hudson River PCS Site
168
-------
Summary of NOAA Reports
Seven NOAA reports (PNRS) were reviewed for the purpose of ecological studies. Of the seven
sites discussed, two are in the State of New York and five are in the State of New Jersey.
The list of contaminants which are of primary concern to NOAA are more or less site specific,
ranging from one contaminant at the Hudson River PCB Site to as many as ten at the Helen
Kramer Landfill. The type of contaminants depends on the use to which the site was put In
general, however, landfills (i.e., Kin-Buc and Helen Kramer) tend to contain more contaminants
than other sites due to the variety of wastes that were previously dumped there. The principal
contaminants (trace elements) of concern to NOAA that are common to most sites include
cadmium, lead, mercury, and zinc. Lead has caused concern at all seven NOAA sites.
The pathways through which contaminants reach habitats include groundwater flow, leachate,
soils, sediments, and surface water runoff. The magnitude of contaminant concentrations varies
to a great extent The background levels of contaminants are usually not provided in the NOAA
reports; instead, AWQC (Ambient Water Quality Criteria) and AET (Apparent Effect Threshold)
values, as well as the Equilibrium Partitioning, are used as benchmarks. There is tremendous
variation among the levels of contaminant concentrations in excess of the benchmarks. They
range from several to hundreds, thousands, and even hundreds of millions of times (i.e., PCBs
in groundwater and leachate from the Kin-Buc Landfill). It is therefore difficult to make
generalizations on the magnitude of contamination across the sites.
The species affected by the contaminants are not specifically identified in the NOAA reports.
However, each report provides a list of major species that use the impacted habitats for spawning,
nursery, and/or adult forage. We may want to assume that they are all affected one way or
another, but the extent of impact on each species may not be the same. The number of species
affected is, of course, site specific. For instance, only two species have recently been identified
on the habitat of the BEC Trucking Site, but for other sites, the list generally runs over a dozen.
The only affected federally endangered species identified is shortnose sturgeon (on three sites).
In addition, American shad, which is listed as an endangered species in the State of New Jersey,
appears on three of the New Jersey sites.
For further information, please refer to the PNRS data sheets and attached tables.
RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
July 23.1990
169
-------
Summary of DPI Reports
Seven .D01 reports (PNRS) were reviewed for the purpose of ecological studies. Of the seven
sites discussed, two are in the State of New York and five are in the State of New Jersey. (They
are not the same sites as those in NOAA reports, however.) Compared with NOAA reports, DOI
reports contain less information in general, particularly with regard to the levels of contaminant
concentrations.
The list of contaminants identified in the DOI reports varies from site to site. These lists also
tend to be less specific (e.g., VOC's or heavy metals as opposed to the actual element or
compound) than they are in NOAA reports.
As for the media affected, some DOI reports state that the food chain is a potential pathway of
contamination, eventually reaching humans. In addition, groundwater, surface water, soil, and/or
sediment are also mentioned.
Information on background levels of contaminants is not provided. The benchmarks used for
comparison include EPA's criteria, the Natural Academy of Sciences criteria, and the New York
State criteria (i.e., for MEK). However, the contaminant concentrations and/or the criteria
themselves arc not always specified.
Potentially affecied species that are of concern to DOI include both birds and fish. There is only
one affected species that is listed as a federal endangered species: the peregrine falcon found
on the habita; of the Kin-Buc Landfill. It should be noted that this species is not identified in
the NOAA report on the Kin-Buc Landfill. In addition, American shad, which is listed as ar.
endangered species in the State of New Jersey, has also been seen on the Kin-Buc site.
For further information, please refer to the PNRS data sheets.
RCG.'Haeler, Bail)>. Inc.
Ju]> 23, 1990
170
-------
EPA RECIOH 2 SITES
CHEJOCAL COKTROL
ELIZABETH, RJ
REGION 2
of Sit*: Inactive landfill
Major Release
seepage cf landfill leachatt directly to surface wtter (river)
infiltration into ground water, which is observed to discharge to
river
Principal Contaminant*:
• inorganics: N/A
• orgar.ics: volatile organics, ph thai ate esters, PCBs
Eedia/Biota Observed to be Contaminated:
• ground water
• river sediments
• soil
Kaln Ecological Risks/Istpacta:
• surface water (river) is polluted, but contamination cannot be
linked directly to this site
• 2.2 acres of soil contaminated with organics
• areavide studies conducted by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the
Anry Corps of Engineers concluded that sensitive species have eithe:
been entirely eliminated froa the area, or they are present only in
particular areas during certain tines of the year
• food chain contamination could result if benthic organises are
present in the nouth of the Elizabeth River, especially
bioaccumilation of PCBs
• three sensitive areas were identified in a dredging environmental
Impact assessment by the Axny COE: Shooters Island; wetlands near
Coethals Bridge; and audflats in Newark Bay (however, it was
concluded that it is unlikely that contaminants in the Elizabeth
River could adversely affect any of these areas because of the
distance froa.the site and dilution by the river)
171
-------
-fkxn»entc Reviewed:
Record of Decision; "1987.
Remedial Investigation (partial); -no date.
Feasibility Study (partial); no date.
CRANBY, HY
1EGION 2
Type of Site: inactive privately-owned landfill
Major Release Pathways:
• discharge of leachate-contaminated ground water to surface water
• direct discharge to wetlands from buried drums
• runoff of soil to Creek
Principal CotxtanfTurnta:
• inorganics: Cd, Cr, Mn, Ba
* organics: bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, 1,2-dichloroethene,
tetrachloroethene, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, trichloroethene,
xylenes
Media/Biota Observed to be Contaminated:
• ground water
• soil
• sediments (Ox Creek)
• surface water -- below AVQC levels
Main Ecological Risks/Inpacts:
• £ acres jof soil contaminated with organics and aetals
• Ox Creek and a New York State designated freshwater wetland adjacent
to Ox Creek border the onsite waste disposal area; Three Rivers
State Wildlife Management Area is located 3 miles from the cite
• degradation of wetlands habitat from potential dredging of
contaminants
• potential for bioaccuoulation and other chronic effects to benthic
organisms from contaminated sediments*
172
-------
potential for acute toxic effects to aquatic organisms from runoff
of coil and leachate into Ox Creek during recommended excavation of
onsite contaminated soil
Document Reviewed: Public Health Evaluation; June 15, 1988.
HUDSON RIVER
6LZN FALLS. R7
REGION 2
Type of Site: PCS-contaminated river
Major Release Pathways:
discharge of PCBs into river
sediment release to vater column
PCBs present in dredge spoils located along the river banks (i.e.,
in the floodplain)
PCBs leaching via ground vater
air volatilization of PCBs
potential erosion and re-suspension of contaminated soils and
sediment during the future remedial activities
Principal ContviaTnjmta; PCBs (arochlors 1221, 1254, 1016, and perhaps others)
Media/Biota Observed to be Cant*
it*d:
soil
river sediments
surface water
ground water
air
fish
onsite vegetation
Mala Ecological Risks/Impacts:
• potential toxic effects to terrestrial biota and aquatic- biota other
than fish; other effects due to the potential bioaccumulation of
PCBs*
• tidal estuary is lower 150 miles of river and some wilderness areas
contaminated
173
-------
&evi«ved:
HRS Panel Summary "Risk'Assessment for Hudson River; June 1987.
ICF Chart on Ecological Threats at Hudson River Site; March 1988.
Feasibility-Study Vol. 1; April 1984.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement; May 1981.
Final Environmental Impact Statement; January 1987.
Hudson River PCS Contamination - A 1985 Perspective.
Contaminants in Hudson River Striped Bass: 1978-1985 (86
supplement).
PCB Contamination data (tables).
LIPAEJ LANDFILL
MANTUA TOWNSHIP, BJ
REGION 2
Typ* of Site: inactive landfill
Major Release Pathways:
• direct release of drummed wastes through spillage
• leaching of ground water to surface pools and then to marsh or
directly to Chestnut Branch
• flooding of Alcyon Lake and release of contaminants to soils
(frequency of flooding not indicated)
Price ipal Contaaixumtc:
• inorganics: Zn, Cr, Ni, Pb, Hg, As
• organics: benzene, Ir2-dichloroethane, ethylbenzene, toluene,
bis(2-chloroethyl)ether, xylene, chloroform
Media/Biota Observed to be Contaminated:
soil in marsh and parks
ground water
surface water (Rabbit Run, Chestnut Branch, Alcyon Lake)
sediments (Rabbit Run, Chestnut Branch, Alcyon Lake)
vegetation
fish
174
-------
Mala Ecological Risks/I*pacts:
complete devastation of vegetation in leachate migration paths
1,500 feet of stream surface water contaminated with bis(2-
chloroethyl)ether, toluene, arsenic, chromium, mercury, and lead
26 acres of lake surface water and sediment contaminated
700' x 200' area of marsh soil contaminated with organics and metal
bioaccumulation of organics in fish
potential reduction in species diversity in Alcyon Lake; common caz
is most populous fish and constitutes greatest total biomass; this
species is known to be tolerant of poor water quality
potential chronic effects to fish in Alcyon Lake, such as stunted
growth
potential contamination of benthic organisms in streams due to
contaminated sediments, and possible contamination of organisms at
higher trophic levels
potential contamination of and toxic effects to terrestrial wildlift
from direct ingestion of contaminated media or through the food
chain (e.g., raccoons, opossum, water fowl)
the marsh area, streams, and parks adjacent to Alcyon Lake are
considered important and sensitive environments by the State of New
Jersey
Documents Reviewed:
Offsite Remedial Investigation Final Draft; June 1987.
Onsite Feasibility Study; August 1985.
Risk Assessment (Appendix A of RI); June 1987.
Public Health Evaluation; June 1987.
MARATHON BATTERY CORPORATIOH
PUTNAM CO.. BY
REGION 2
Type of Site: inactive battery production facility
Major Release Pathway*: Ni-Cd waste effluent from battery plant was
discharged through a storm sewer into a cove and' two
freshwater marsh areas
Principal Contaminants:
• inorganics: Cd, Ni, Co, nitrate, carbonate
• pH (basic: 11-12.5)
175
-------
Media/Biota Observed to be Contaminated:
sediment
surface vater
onsite soils
fish, shellfish, benthic invertebrates
reptiles (turtles)
marsh vegetation
Main Ecological Risks/Impacts:
marsh sediments contaminated up to 2 miles from the battery plant
sensitive environments contaminated: two freshwater marsh areas of
284 acres, and a tidal flat and cove of 34 acres
marsh and vetlands could be disturbed further by remedial action
potential effects to fish which use the wetlands for spawning*
ecological effects described as "minimal" and minor
potential threats to terrestrial biota*
Documents Reviewed:
ICF Chart on Ecological Threats at Marathon Battery Site (Only
Area I: Constitution Marsh and East Foundry Cove); March 1988.
Record of Decision, Remedial Alternative Selection for Marathon
Battery Company Site Area I; 1986.
Draft Remedial Investigation Report; April 1988.
176
-------
Site Name/EPA ID #: Kama's Sanitary Landfill: NJD980771661
Location: Sussex County, NJ
Site Description: Solid waste disposal facility- closed in 1979
because of leachate discharge to adjacent marshlands. Clay layer
separates shallow aquifer from deep aquifer which is used as a
residential and commercial water source.
Source of Information: Region II EPA CERCLIS files.
Ecological Risks/Impacts For Site:
Leachate stream leaving the landfill property and entering the
marsh adjacent to the said landfill.
Leachate and marsh soils show evidence of septicity and anaerobic
decomposition.
The marsh at points of contamination shows lack of normal
vegetation and evidence of dead timber.
The marsh during wet weather periods may be flushed causing shock
loadings of pollutants to Meadow Brook and downstream Paulins
Kill.
Landfill is suspected of discharging into a FW-2 trout
maintenance stream.
The Landfill is located 4,000 feet from a critical habitat (Blue
Heron Reserve)
A fish kill on April 13,.1975 in the Meadow Brook was a result of
a discharge from this landfill.
177
-------
178
-------
Appendix D
Background Analysis on the Ecological Effects of Pesticide
Use in EPA Region II
Prepared by:
RCG, Hagler, Bailly, Inc.
for the
Regional Risk Ranking Project
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
179
-------
90068B3/II/ES
08/17/90
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is a summary of the potential ecological effects of pesticide use. The objective of
this summary is to provide technical support information for Region II analysts and managers
involved in EPA's Comparative Risk project This summary is not a definitive characterization
of ecological risks; rather a synthesis of information readily available within the time frame of
this assignment.
This report includes pesticide use information, a description of receptor elements, as well as
the ecological impact assessment of pesticides. Acute toricity data for the major classes of
pesticides evaluated is included. A series of appendices presenting detailed data and
information used to derive this summary report are provided for documentation.
The following summarizes this risk analysis8 outcome for Region II:
1. The intensity of ecological risk from pesticides is considered medium based on
regional information; though it is important to note that it may be intense in
localized areas (especially the Caribbean islands).
2. The potential duration of pesticide effects is moderate, but it could be considered
long term in localized areas.
3. Pesticides typically affect ecosystems and their components, thus their impact can be
considered of low global importance.
4. The value of the ecological resources impacted is considered high due to the unique
regional habitats present (especially in the Caribbean islands).
5. Forty-five animal species are listed as endangered in Region II. Only one (a snail
species) was identified by a separate EPA analysis as potentially at risk from
pesticides (i.e., forest products).
6. The extent of pesticide application in the Region is considered to be medium (29
percent devoted to agriculture).
'Region IV definitions for the evaluative terminology were used.
180
-------
90068B3/II/SUM-1
08/Y7/90
INTRODUCTION
Pesticides are unique environmental contaminants in that they are deliberately added to the
environment for the purpose of killing or injuring living organisms. Ideally, pesticides should
be highly specific to target pests, and noninjurious to desirable nontarget species. However,
most pesticides are not highly selective and can be injurious to many nontarget organisms.
Based on their widespread use, pesticides pose a risk to nontarget native fish and wildlife
species, habitats, communities, and ecosystems; both aquatic and terrestrial systems are affected
by pesticides. This analysis reviews the ecological risk of pesticides for Region II (the Region).
Receptors with higher susceptibility to pesticides were identified based on their exposure
potential and sensitivity. This analysis should be applicable to a great number of pesticides
used in this Region. The information included in this report emanates from numerous
discussions with experts from conservation groups, state and federal agencies, and academia.
Published and unpublished reports were used to support these assessments.
Organochlorine pesticides (otherwise known as chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides) were the
first synthetic organic chemicals to be extensively used for pest control. Currently,
organophosphorus compounds represent the largest group of pesticides used. The insecticidal
properties of carbamates were discovered in 1931 and developed in the late 1940s; since then,
other compounds like substituted phenols, substituted ureas, and nitro compounds have been
developed and are widely used.
Ecological resources are at risk from pesticide use in agriculture, forestry, aquatic plant control,
maintenance of transportation corridors, and municipal and private pest management (e.g.,
mosquito control). Pesticides are introduced into the environment through numerous routes
including air (aerial spray and offsite drift), water (direct application and runoff), and land
(direct application to crops or other "resources"). Receptors can be exposed to pesticides
through numerous pathways including dermal contact, ingestion of pesticide granules or
contaminated matter, and inhalation of pesticides during spraying operations. The receptors
evaluated included species, biotic communities, and ecosystems. Changes in ecosystem structure
and function were quantified as data were available. Due to the complexity of ecosystem
responses, the severity of pesticide risk is difficult to address. The toxicological database is
dominated by dose-response type of studies concentrating mainly on standard specie? .nder
181
-------
90068B3/I17SUM-2
08/17/90
standard laboratory conditions. The evaluation of pesticide effects under field conditions has
only recently been incorporated into ecological risk assessments prepared as part of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) registration process. Thus, previous field
ecological impact information is available mainly as incidental effects, poisonings, or die-offs
reported to various agencies.
A group of "risk factors" reflecting the likelihood that a pesticide could reach receptors and
affect the structure and function of the ecosystem were identified. This analysis was conducted
for EPA's Comparative Risk project. Although acceptable scientific procedures were followed,
the information presented herein is not appropriate for other uses. This analysis was prepared
to provide environmental managers with information and "tools" to relatively rank different
environmental problems by the residual risk they pose to the environment.
THE REGION
Region II includes six ecoregions (listed in Figure 1) adapted to numerous anthropomorphic
uses creating a pattern of pesticide use which is complex. This Region includes highly
populated areas in New Jersey and New York and certain parts of Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands. This Region is relatively small, approximately 39 million acres, with about 29 percent
of the acreage devoted to agricultural use. The vegetation of the area is predominantly
northern hardwoods with spruce fir, Appalachian oak, oak/hickory/pine, and pocosin areas. The
land use pattern is mostly forest with woodland, cropland, pasture, swamp, and urban
components, often in a mosaic of forest and agriculture or urban use. Puerto Rico and the
Virgin Islands are tropical islands surrounded by coral reef ecosystems; consistent ecoregion
maps are not available for these islands. (Appendix A includes a detailed description of the
Region.) Region II encompasses many rare ecosystems, especially in the Caribbean. The U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI) lists 45 animal species in the Region as endangered species,
including 10 mammals, 15 birds, 15 reptiles and amphibians, and 5 fish and invertebrates
(50 CFR Part 17). These species represent a broad cross-section of all taxonomic and
ecological groups.
182
-------
LEGEND
Sa NORTHEASTERN VttGHVANDS
59 NORTHEASTERN COASTAL ZONE
60 NORTHERN APPALACHIAN PLATEAU AND UPLANDS
61 ERIE/ONTARIO LAKE PLAIN.
62 NORTH CENTRAL APPALACHIANS
63 MIDDLE ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN
Note: Excluding Puerto Rico and the
Virgin telands-not mapped by Omerik.
so
' ' ' '
100 Miles
0 50 100 150 Kflometeis
Figure 1 ECOREGIONS ENCOMPASSED BY EPA REGION II
SOURCES; Omefnlk. 1986; KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, he, 1990.
183
-------
90068B3/II/SUM-4
08/17/90
PESTICIDE USE
Accurate pesticide use information is needed to evaluate the potential impact of this group of
chemicals on the environment More than 50,000 pesticide products are registered for
thousands of agricultural purposes in the United States (1), and about 70 percent of new
chemicals produced are used in agriculture. Insecticides, fungicides, and herbicides comprise
about 90 percent of all pesticides used in agriculture (2). Herbicides are the most widely used
agricultural pesticides in the United States. There are 121 chemicals registered as herbicides
with hundreds of trademark products. Because of the diversity of crops grown in New Jersey
(72 vegetable, 10 fruit, and 8 grain commodities), there is a corresponding diversity in the
amounts and types of pesticides used. As of 1989, there were 9,994 labeled pesticide products
registered for sale in New Jersey with approximately 400 to 500 major active pesticidal
ingredients (3).
Due to the large number of pesticides used nationwide and the scarcity of pesticide use data,
EPA (4) selected 41 active ingredients for national review based on their documented toxicity
to avian, mammalian, and aquatic species. Pesticides potentially affecting groundwater were
also included in this list (Table 1). Fifteen of the 40 pesticides selected are included in
Gianessi and Puffer's (5) national use estimates of selected agricultural pesticides. It is
important to note that Gianessi and Puffer's (5) estimates include 25 of approximately 200
commonly used active ingredients and was compiled using information from 1982 to 1985.
Furthermore, pesticide use extrapolations should not be made from these 25 active ingredients
to the remaining active ingredients not included in Gianessi and Puffer's (5) study. Acute
toxicity data for the 41 selected pesticides are included in Appendix B. Agricultural lands
comprise approximately 29 percent of the estimated 39 million acres in Region II. Pesticide
use estimates for the Region were approximately 1 million pounds of organophosphates,
0.7 million pounds of carbamates, 1.5 million pounds of triazines, 0.06 million pounds of
nitroanilines, 1.9 million pounds of acid amines, and 03 million pounds of herbicides (2,4-D
only) (Table 2). Pesticide use estimates were not available for Puerto Rico and the Virgin
Islands.
184
-------
90068B3/11
08/17/90
Table 1. Critical Stress Agents-Active Ingredients Selected for Review
Diazinon (B,F, GW)a
Fenvalgrate (Esfenvalerate) (F)
Phorate (B, M)a
Cypermethrin (F)
Tralomethrin (F)
Befenthrin (F)
Lamda-Cyhalothrin (F)
Cyfluthrin (F)
Tefluthrin (F)
Aldicarb (B, M, GW)
Demeton (B, M)
Ethoprop (B)*
Fenamiphos (B, M)
Isophenphos (B, M)
Oxamyl (B)
2,4-D (GW)ab
Cyanazine (GW)
MetolacWor (GW)a
Simazine (?)b
Parathion ethyl/methyl (B, F, GW, M)a
EPN (B, F, M)
Azinphos ethyl/methyl (B, M)
Carbaryl (F, Honey Bees)8
Coumaphos (F, B, M)
Diflubenzuron (Dimilin)
Endosulfan (F)
Fenthion (F)
Terbufos (B, M)
Thiobencarb (B, M)a
Chlorpyrifos (B, F)
Carbofuran (B, M, GW)a
Disulfoton (B, GW)a
Famphur (B, M)
Fonofos (B, M)
Methomyl (B, M)
Permethrin (F)b
Atrazine (F, GW)ab
Triflualin (GW, F)ab
Alachlor (GW)ab
Malathion (B, F, GW, M)a
Dimethoate (B, M)
Note: B = indicates avian (bird) concerns.
F = indicates aquatic (fish) concerns.
GW = indicates groundwater impact concerns.
M = indicates mammalian concerns.
"Indicates use information available from Gianessi and Puffer (4).
blndicates chemical is on Food Residue List.
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation,
1990 (4).
185
-------
Table 2. Pesticide Use Estimates* Available for Region
Pesticide
Oreanophosphates
Diazfflon
Disulfoton
Ethoprop
Malathion
Parathion
(ethyl)
Parathion
(methyl)
Phorate
Carbamates
Carbatyl
Carbofuran
Triazines
Atrazine
Nitranilines
Triflualin
Acid Amides
Alachlor
Metolachlor
Chlorinated Phenoxv
2,4-D
Total Pounds of Active
New Jersey
10,943
5,641
2,209
7,242
60,588
53,008
12,296
II
Ingredient Per Year
New York
34,458
61,637
NBA
98,055
139,992
435,920
56,746
Total Organophosphates
67,636
90,215
132,708
15,232
370,466
156,453
Herbicides
34,197
319,077
333,274
Total Carbamates
1,392,432
48,426
967,947
377,183
Total Acid Amides
308,297
90068B3/RGNII
08/17/90-
Region II
Total
45,401
67,278
2,209
105,297
200,580
488,928
69.042
978,735
386,713
423.489
710,202
1,525,140
63,658
1,338,413
533.636
1,872,049
342,494
Note: NEA= no estimate available.
"Noncropland uses are not accounted.
Source: Gianessi and Puffer, 1989 (5) (Data for mid-1980s).
186
-------
08/17/90
In addition to agricultural applications, pesticides are used for mosquito control, aquatic plant
control, forest management, human disease control, right-of-way, and golf course maintenance;
these uses were not estimated by Gianessi and Puffer (5). Based on the numerous beneficial
pesticide applications, pesticides are used Region-wide.
The state of New Jersey has a well developed ongoing pesticide survey program. The New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) undertook a major survey of
agricultural applicators in New Jersey for 1985. A total of 176 active ingredients were
reported, and a total of 1,579,284 Ib of active ingredient were applied by 1,721 separate farming
operations. This represents approximately 75 percent of the farming operations in the state.
These data were entered into a geographical information system to eventually qualitatively
evaluate the impact of pesticides on sensitive areas. The major pesticides used in New Jersey
are summarized in Table 3. Fungicides were the most widely used pesticide group, with
elemental sulfur accounting for 55 percent of the amount reported. Herbicides and insecticides
were the second and third most important pesticide groups (3). Table 3 also includes Gianessi
and Puffer pesticide use estimates. In the case of New Jersey, the estimated uses are typically
2 to 4 times higher than the surveyed uses. Thus the use of Gianessi and Puffer's estimates for
this Region will result in conservative evaluations.
The 1982 Census of Agriculture (6) includes graphical displays of crops grown nationwide that
can be used to identify major agricultural areas and ecosystems at risk from pesticides.
Changes in land use should be reviewed to identify areas of advancing agriculture, as these
areas may be receiving pesticides for the first time. The indicator crops selected by EPA for
review are corn, citrus, potatoes, apples, tomatoes, wheat, cotton, and soybeans (7). Maps of
distribution of these crops are included in Appendix C. The agricultural industry in New Jersey
produces 72 vegetable, 10 fruit, and 8 grain commodities. New Jersey ranks in the top five
states in the country in the production of snap beans, cabbage, cranberries, blueberries, and
peaches (3). Crops of interest in New York include corn, apples, and wheat.
187
-------
90068B3/H
- 08/17/90
Table 3. Major Pesticides Used in New Jersey Agriculture During 1985.
Pesticides
New Jersey Survey
(pounds of
active ingredient)
Use Estimates (5)
(pounds of
active ingredient)
Herbicide*
Alachlor
Metolachlor
Atrazine
Butylate
Linuron
Cyanazine
Chlorothal-Methyl
Dinoseb
Paraquat
2,4-D
Insecticide
Parathion
OU
Methomyl
Endosulfan
Carbofuran
Arinphos-Methyl
Carbaryl
Qxamyl
BT
Acephate
91,515
74,831
61,954
58,893
43,883
25,080
15,688
11,855
9,533
9,450
51,445
48,376
45,135
40,746
33,770
32,751
22,606
20,783
13,621
10,500
370,466
156,453
132,708
NBA
NBA
NBA
NEA
NBA
NEA
34,197
113,596
NEA
NEA
NEA
90,215
NEA
67,636
NEA
NEA
NEA
Fungicide6
Sulfur
Mancozeb, Maneb, Zinebd
Captan
Captafol
Chlorthalonil
Ferbam
Metiram
Metalaxyl
363,644
92,641
62,071
25,216
24,242
23,427
17,837
7,419
NEA
NEA
NEA
NEA
NEA
NEA
NEA
NEA
Note: NEA = no estimate available.
"Percent of all herbicides used in region = 83.2
^Percent of all insecticides used in region = 77.2
Percent of all fungicides used in region = 94.7
dThe survey was unable to differentiate between mancozeb, maneb and zineb.
^se estimates from Gianessi and Puffer (5) for the state.
Source: Louis et al, 1989 (3).
188
-------
90068B3/II/SUM-9
08/17/90
RECEPTOR ELEMENTS
Emphasis was placed on the identification of receptor elements (habitats and species) at risk
due to the complexity of the pesticide use patterns. KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences,
Inc. (KBN) has identified several sets of characteristics which make a habitat (ecological
community) or species potentially vulnerable to damage from pesticides. These risk factors
reflect the likelihood that a pesticide could reach a habitat and potentially affect the survival of
significant populations directly through acute and/or chronic toxic effects or indirectly through
damage to the habitat or food chain. All potential routes of exposure were assessed; they
included water, land, and air.
The following are the risk factors for habitats identified:
1. Location of a habitat in low topographic situations (areas) or aquatic/wetland
environments where pesticides could be brought in by surface water and
groundwater;
2. Small patch size of a viable habitat surrounded by agricultural or forestry land that
could be vulnerable to spray drift from adjacent fields or forests;
3. Ecological communities characterized by important and potentially sensitive
populations or diverse assemblages of plants, invertebrates, amphibians, fish, and/or
top carnivores;
4. Rare habitat types, presumed to support rare species;
5. Habitats and species that have not been previously exposed to toxic substances or
other serious disturbances (most sensitive species are likely to have already dropped
out of the biota of a disturbed system);
6. Agricultural regions where farmlands are expanding into native ecosystems not
previously exposed to pesticides;
7. The leading edge of an agricultural or forestry epidemic that is being controlled by
pesticides;
8. Systems with low regenerative capability;
9. Systems subject to natural and/or manmade stresses; and
10. Communities supporting threatened or endangered species.
189
-------
90068B3/II/SUM-10
08/17/90
A species can be considered potentially at risk if it has any of the following characteristics.
1. It represents a rare, threatened, or endangered species;
2. It represents a keystone species that plays a critical role in the ecosystem;
3. It is known to be susceptible to toxic effects of pesticides;
4. It is endangered and has a high exposure potential to pesticides, including wide
ranging species with multiple exposure potential;
5. It has a critical life history stage or requirement (food or habitat) known to be
sensitive to pesticides;
6. It is at the extension of its range or utilizing a marginal quality habitat exposed to
pesticides.
ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Habitats and Species at Risk
To identify habitats and species at risk, experts from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
Heritage Programs, conservation organizations, and other appropriate agencies were contacted
and interviewed regarding habitats and species with the risk factor characteristics outlined
previously. The interviewers also inquired about known or suspected pesticide impacts on
habitats or species. A number of types of habitats and species in Region II were identified
potentially at risk from pesticides.
Three basic habitat risk concerns were identified for Region II:
1. Multiple impacts on wetlands, which receive runoff from pesticide application areas.
Wetlands in dairy areas have been mentioned as a particular concern, but problems
may be equally or more important in other agricultural areas.
2. Degradation in biodiversity and other impacts on rare communities that occur in
small patches, including grassland remnants, rock barrens, vernal pools, fens, and
glades. Spray drift and runoff from surrounding agricultural lands and mosquito
control programs are the major concerns. Rare plants and invertebrates are
especially vulnerable.
3. The Caribbean islands include many unique and rare habitats; thus they should be
monitored carefully.
190
-------
90068B3/WSUM-U
08/17/90
For a detailed presentation of ecological risk factors, see Appendix D.
Reported Effects
For Region II, records of fish and wildlife kills or die-offs from pesticides were not available
for this review. However such episodes have been reported nationwide. It was the opinion of
the scientists interviewed that both acute and subacute effects to non-target fish and wildlife
occur often. Documentation and identification of the cause and extent of pesticide poisoning is
often lacking. The actions related to the suspected poisoning are rarely observed or reported.
Inquiries to the USFWS Madison Laboratory are strongly recommended. Due to the paucity of
pesticide field testing data, these wildlife poisonings and die-offs are the main documentation of
pesticide field effects.
RISK ANALYSIS SYNTHESIS
Pesticide use is ubiquitous throughout the Region. More than 50,000 pesticide products are
registered currently for thousands of agricultural purposes and about 70 percent of new
chemicals are used in agriculture. The issue of pesticide regional distribution is compounded
by the fact that economics also plays a major role in pesticide use. A Florida study showed
that there is a direct relationship between crop value and pesticide use per acre (8). Thus, in
the assessment of risk, attention must be paid not only to the crops grown in largest areas but
also to the pesticide use patterns locally (especially near sensitive habitats and species).
Most pesticides are not highly specific to the target organism and impact nontarget species, thus
affecting ecosystem structure and function Region-wide. Pesticides enter the environment
through all routes of exposure (air, land, and water) and receptors are exposed to them by all
possible exposure pathways.
Wildlife poisoning and die-off incidents presented earlier document that pesticides impact
nontarget organisms, even when applied according to label instructions. Unfortunately,
documentation and identification of the exact cause and extent of the reported poisonings is
often lacking. Animals that are affected by chronic exposure often leave the area of the
poisoning and are not detected. Animals that are killed may rapidly decompose, making post
mortem examinations and residue analysis difficult. In aquatic incidents, the animals are often
191
-------
90068B3/II/SUM-12
08/17/90
carried away by currents, and are subject to rapid decomposition as well. The above conditions
lead to a significant probability of underreporting and, therefore, underestimate field pesticide
effects.
Forty-one active ingredients were selected by EPA (4) for evaluation (Table 1); those with
available use estimates by Gianessi and Puffer (5) are presented in Table 2. Cross-reference of
these estimates with New Jersey actual use data shows that Gianessi and Puffer's (5) estimates
are from 2 to 4 times larger than actual values.
The following risk analysis is based on pesticides grouped by their chemical structure. Use
estimates for selected pesticides is summarized in Table 2. Their acute toxicity profiles are
included in Appendix B.
Organophosphates
Organophosphates represent one of the largest groups of pesticides used in the Region
(Table 2). Several confirmed and suspected pesticide poisonings have been associated with this
group of pesticides. The persistence of these pesticides is typically low to moderate (days to
weeks) and the potential for bioaccumulation is low. However, the toxicity of these pesticides
to insects, fish, and mammals is high due to their ability to inhibit the acetyl cholinesterase
enzymes. For pesticides applied by aerial spraying, the risk of effects to non-target organisms
in adjacent habitats is high. For pesticides where broadcasting of granules is used, significant
.risk to non-target species feeding in these areas exists unless the pesticides are quickly
incorporated into the soil. Ethyl parathion has been identified more than any organophosphate
as the cause of unintentional wildlife die-offs.
Carbamates
Carbamates are also anticholinesterases and are widely used for insect control. Carbamates
have been identified as possibly responsible for several incidents of pesticide poisoning in
Florida. Carbamates have relatively moderate persistence in the environment and typically have
a low bioaccumulation potential. Most carbamates are considered highly acutely toxic to
wildlife (bird and mammals) if ingested. Aldicarb is one of the most toxic pesticides in use
today; unfortunately it was not included in Gianessi and Puffer's estimates (5). Aldicarb is
192
-------
90068B3/IDSUM-13
08/17/90
applied as granules. Birds (e.g., herons, egrets, song birds, etc.) and other animals feeding in
agricultural field can be considered at risk if the granules are not quickly and properly
incorporated in the soil.
Pyrethroids
Eight pyrethroids were included in the national list (4). Use estimates are not available from
Gianessi and Puffer (5) for this group of pesticides. The persistence and bioaccumulation
potential of these pesticides is low. These compounds are typically toxic to fish and
invertebrates. They are applied by aerial or ground spraying.
Chlorinated Phenoxy
The chlorinated phenoxy compound, 2,4-D, a systemic herbicide, has a moderate persistence
and a low bioaccumulation potential. It has low to moderate toxicity to wildlife but is toxic to
aquatic organisms. It is applied by aerial or ground spraying, broadcast granules, or injection
(aquatic use). The environmental effect of 2,4-D on plant life is to change the dominant plant
species in the area (ecosystem structure changes). The major risks appear to be habitat loss
for species in or adjacent to areas sprayed due to drift Changes in habitat caused by
phenories have been shown to affect the following species: ducks in wetlands, pocket gophers
in rangelands, and populations of deer, voles, elk, and chipmunks (9).
Triazines
Triazines are moderately toxic to invertebrates, fish, and birds. They have low toxicity to
mammals. Endangered aquatic species can be affected if the compounds are applied directly to
aquatic system. Terrestrial endangered species may be affected if the pesticides are used in
ditch banks and right-of-way. Simazine is registered for use as a herbicide and algicide on
crops, noncrops, forest and aquatic sites. The primary action of all triazines is interference
with photosynthesis. Simazine has a low bioaccumulation potential in fish. Its persistence in
ponds is variable, the average half-life is 30 days, thus it is not persistent in aquatic systems.
Acid Amides
The acid amides are widely used herbicides. Most are used for selective control of seeding
weeds either by preemergence application or preplant soil application. Alachlor is a
193
-------
90068B3/II/SUM-14
08/17/90
preemergence herbicide relatively non-toxic to birds and mammals. The soil persistence in the
environment is relatively short.
Nitroanilines
DISCUSSION
Table 4 includes summaries of analyses conducted by the Office of Pesticide Programs (10).
This table presents listings of endangered species potentially at risk from pesticides used in
forest lands. This information is presented by state for the Region. According to this analysis,
crop, range, pastureland, and mosquito larvicide products were not identified as creating a high
risk to endangered species in this Region. Forty-five animal species are listed as endangered in
Region II. Pesticides used on forest lands were identified as potentially affecting one
invertebrate and two plant species. This analysis (10) did not include the Caribbean.
Three basic habitat risk concerns were identified as priority issues for Region II:
1. Multiple impacts on wetlands, which receive runoff from pesticide application areas.
Wetlands in dairy areas have been mentioned as a particular concern, but problems
may be equally or more important in other agricultural areas.
2. Degradation in biodiversity and other impacts on rare communities that occur in
small patches, including grassland remnants, rock barrens, vernal pools, fens, and
glades. Spray drift and runoff from surrounding agricultural lands and mosquito
control programs are the major concerns. Rare plants and invertebrates are
especially vulnerable.
3. The Caribbean islands include many unique and rare habitats; thus they should be
monitored carefully.
The following summarizes this risk analysis outcome for Region II:
1. The intensity of ecological risk from pesticides is considered medium based on
regional information; though it is important to note that it may be intense in
localized areas (especially the Caribbean islands).
2. The potential duration of pesticide effects is moderate, but it could be considered
long term in localized areas.
194
-------
en o
03 o>
<0 >v
u
to
a
to
C
•a
S
•a
e
iJ
ui
i
J3
•3
n
to
8,
— 1
M
0
O -H
to *
!l
S £
•H H
S
1
g
3
g
I
3
O
in
195
-------
90068B3/II/SUM-15
08/17/90
3. Pesticides typically affect ecosystems and their components, thus their impact can be
considered of low global importance.
4. The value of the ecological resources impacted is considered high due to the unique
regional habitats represented.
5. Forty-five animal species are listed as endangered in Region II. Only one (a snail
species) was identified by a separate EPA analysis as potentially at risk from
pesticides (10).
6. The extent of pesticide application in the Region is considered medium (29 percent
devoted to agriculture).
196
-------
08/17/90
REFERENCES
(1) Murphy, S.D. 1980. Pesticides. In: Cassarett and Doull's Toxicology. J. Doull,
CD. Klaassen, and M.O. Amdur, Editors. MacMillan Publishing Company.
(2) Nimmo, D.R. 1985. Pesticides. In: Fundamentals of Aquatic Toxicology —
Methods and Applications. (G.M. Rand and S.R. Petrocelli, eds.). Pages 335 to
373. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.
(3) Louis, J.B., M.G. Robson, and G.C. Hamilton. 1989. New Jersey Pesticide Survey.
Proceedings of a National Research Conference (May 11-12, 1989)--Pesticides in
Terrestrial and Aquatic Systems. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, Virginia.
(4) Worden, R.C 1990. Personal Communication. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation.
(5) Gianessi, L.P. and C.A. Puffer. 1989. Use of Selected Pesticides in Agricultural
Crop Production ~ National Summary. Unpublished Document Prepared by
Resources for the Future.
(6) U.S. Department of the Census. 1982. The 1982 Census of Agriculture. Volume
2, Part I, Graphic Summary.
(7) Worden, R.C. 1990. Personal Communication. Crop Information Provided by
Resources for the Future to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Policy, Planning and Evaluation.
(8) Nail, L.E., C. Phillippy, W. Tschinkel, S. Dwinell, and Ken Kuhl. 1987. Ranking of
Possible Targets for Biological and Alternate Control Based on Pesticide Use. Pesticide
Review Council, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
(9) Biggar, J.W. and LN. Seiber, 1987. Fate of Pesticides in the Environment.
Proceedings of a Technical Seminar. Agricultural Experiment Station. Division of
Agriculture and Natural Resources. Publication Number 3320.
(10) Turner, L. 1989. Personal Communication. Crop-Endangered Species Analyses
Conducted by the Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
(11) Omernik, J.H. 1986. Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States. Corvallis
Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
197
-------
APPENDIX A
ECOLOGICAL SETTING
198
-------
90068B3/II/A-1
08/17/90
ECOLOGICAL SETTING
Region II includes two disjunct areas. One incorporates the states of New York and New
Jersey, extending from the Canadian border southeastward to the Atlantic coast. The other
takes in the Caribbean islands of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Figure 1 shows the
ecoregions of northern Region II as defined by Omernik (7).
The New York - New Jersey part of Region II takes in the shores of Lake Erie, Lake Ontario,
and the St. Lawrence River on the Erie/Ontario Lake Plain. These irregular plains are covered
with cropland interspersed with pastures, urban lands, and forests of beech, maple, birch, and
hemlock. The Adirondack Mountains to the east are in the Northeastern Highlands ecoregion.
They are forested with maple, birch, beech, spruce, hemlock, and fir. The Northern
Appalachian Plateau to the east and south is an irregular plain with patches of pasture, forest,
and urban land in a cropland matrix. The Catskills to the southeast are in the North Central
Appalachians. These low mountains are forested with maple, birch, beech, hemlock, and
spruce. Northern New Jersey is in the Northern Piedmont, characterized by irregular plains and
hills with a patchwork landscape of cropland, oak forest, pasture, and urban development.
Coastal New Jersey is on the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain, a flat forest-dominated ecoregion
with areas of cropland, pasture, and wetlands. The primary vegetation types here are upland
forests of oak, hickory, pine, beech, sweetgum, magnolia, and other hardwoods, pine/holly
pocosin wetlands, and oak/tupelo/cypress wetlands. Long Island is in the Northeastern Coastal
Zone, characterized by oak forest with cropland, pasture, and urban areas.
Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are tropical islands surrounded by coral reef ecosystems.
Omernik (3) did not map these areas, so no consistent ecoregion maps are available. Puerto
Rico is a heavily populated island dominated by densely settled and highly disturbed tropical
moist forests. There are xeric habitats in the southwestern part of the island and a small area
of rainforest in the eastern mountains. The Virgin Islands get less rainfall and are dominated
by thorn scrub communities with resort development.
199
-------
LEGEND
58 NORTHEASTERN HIGHLANDS
59 NORTHEASTERN COASTAL ZONE
10 NORTHERN APPALACHIAN PLATEAU AND UPLANDS
61 ERIE/ONTARIO LAKE PLAIN-
62 NORTH CENTRAL APPALACHIANS
63 MIDDLE ATLANTIC COASTAL PLAIN
Note: Excluding Puerto Rico and the
Virgin biands-not mapped by Omerik.
North
50 100 Mites
0 50 100 150 Kilometers
Figure 1 ECOREGIONS ENCOMPASSED BY EPA REGION II
SOURCES: Omernlk, 1986; KBN Engineering and Applied Sciences, Inc, 1990.
vvEPA
200
-------
APPENDIX B
ACUTE TOXICITY DATA OF SELECTED PESTICIDES
201
-------
WC5>
i-
Ni»x
r>«o
to o
a>
,
« S
•g S
n g
o r o
•9 « i
TS 0 0
1C -H CO
0 <
to o
C3
« fH
O •
iH 0
a o
43 43
iH r-
iH ^
O O
.a
o
« o
O f-l
CO -
CM fl
O O
43 43
O O
• •*
•H CO
V
O
Ol
m a
CM
«-l CO
o o
43 43
.»• m
CO CO
u
0
0
o .n
CM "O
20
43
r- to
00 rH
a
O CM
•H co n >^
M CO O 1
& * *s ^
.-I CM 1 m
O CJ
CD -a1 co
CM CM Ol
0 0
« C-l 0
03 CM 0
r- in CM
o o o
43 43 43
-a- CM CO
o
a ao
o o o
O CO O
r- .to
. o
CO tH 03
O O O
43 43 43
CM CM 0
•a-
-------
W O)
CO CO
PH 0
«n
VI
o
CM
CO
60
C
O4
ffl
•a
o
•H
n
a.
-o
e
43
O
rH"
03
CO
0
a
CO
g
>»
43
M
O
g
£
o
41
3
o
o
•H
41
a
41
B
o
e
(S
fH
n
•H
g
— rl
(M 0
O -rH C
43 0
H <0 -H
8 O «0
M -H 0
0 -H«
< P«
id
o
43
*
•8
41
H
51
M M
a
o
m
o
41
a
O
n
•H
CM
g
•4*
M
jX
g
^
in
o
•j
O >H
|
£
8
i H
ii
teg
Q
u
0 0
0
»
(O
o
41
§ S.
O
^
0
CO
B ^
fH o
P^
•3 O>
CM CM
O O
41 41
o, -«• o co
•H CM -rt CO
S CM fS 1
e CM 41 m
i N § «
(x b.
CO O -T
CO iH
0
0
o
fH
A
O
•"
N -0.
O
A O
0 0
« O O)
o o *
rH CM
rH -T rH
SO O
43 43
00 0 rH
O •
to o •*
rH
CJ
S
•%,•%>*.
'O- rH rH
a o o
43 43 43
o co r*
rH rH CO
rH
o
>n ji to
• r* o
r^ CM
rH rH ^
333
CO CO 0
CM CO
fH
o) o fH in
1 X IX C 1
CM £b i o «n
n CM B f-i -rt r-N
O i e fH .C i
<« -a- .cm 41 fH
o -a- Pi m 0 CM
§0> 0 CM rH fH
n o
f< w S
^
CO
(S
«
o
to
3
^p
0
o
^
o
to
CM
3
CO
rH
?
o
41
in
CM
rH
O
m
o
41
CO
Farathion
56-38-2
.4- to
CM -a-
a
o •
m fH
o o
41 41
IO CM
0 0
-------
wra
o
41
CO
CO
CM
o
*
in
^
CO
5
in
Carbofuran
1563-66-2
CM •» < < •<
no MUM
o
« ^ o
00 0
in o
o to o
- CO
«-i m CM
u
0
r, i ^.
r4 • CM
•«• en A
o o o
43 * o •"
o to £ in o
t-l • -*• "7*
CM -V <°
•9
A
e
A o
0 13 CO
O O CO
0 O •
« rt rH in
m r~ - «H
A CO « A
o o o o
4l 41 41 41
O
r-« -«• O 2 0
r-l in CO o
« r» co o
r-i m
A
mo CM
II O> 1
r~ esj i to o>
r» N " •«• e •«• i
tN m flqi -rim Bco
in r-4cO -H-HCM MM -ril
53 Is -Sss is is
is a $ & s
g S
u
« o
0 0
o •
0 0
O CO
m A
5 5
r*. o
co a
in
0 0
0 0
CM 10
a o
41 41
•«• o
• O
CO -4-
1 §
O
A
c
0 TO
0 0
0 iH
• O
O -
T-I m
A A
So
41
o o
O CO
O O]
CM
A
CO
a B co n i
•5 1-1 i a o
i-t i-l O) 13 IO
•H a o -H M i
BUI 1 0 CM
g 3 CM J8 .-4 r-.
O «-4 CO JZ O)
M
-------
35
o
o
o
a*
o
O)
N
N
n
o
o
o
o
-------
»-« oa
is
SCO
o
CO
^^
o
«n
3
S
t>
•H
0
41
J
tu
•a
41
0
z
Ul
3
n
*
I
£»
•rt
I
H
1
5
41
41
i
M
1
?
tQ
•
f-4
•i
H
M
CM
M o
0 -rt C
41 0
n a ft
m o to
HMO
a r-i (4
~
K
a
0
m
s
0
•P
9
U
H
41
a
M
|
•
jj
a
•H
CM
M
1
C
S
r-*
•3
It
O
i
•H
^
M
,-J
|
Jg
I,
**
ll
u
O
o
o
0
0
rH t-t
A !>•
S 5
0
o
•o
o
o
o
O 4
<0 t-J
O O
41 41
0 01
0 0
0 •
• o
in
N
A
XI
o
0
o
41
eg
.4
o
0
0
- XI
0 0
/? S
So
41
O 0
•«• CO
1C
•C ' •
1 S
1 V 1
• co car*
-Q CO t-3 3 1
„ g i -s a s
& 1-4 f** C >H C4
•*4 «H IO 091
•1 «-i -H co O « »n
3 -H Q m 8 o T-I
II 1 ^ " 1 1 H
.
U
e
9
•3
0
in
3
M
O
O
in
•J
o
o
M)
S
U
M
O
5
1
g
•a
0
n
e
n
u
e
3 . .'
o n co
•rt a 41 en
41 f-l O rH
§ -S .1 . -
* 3 w.;S-o
O •
O > 0 O) «H -H to
S « <-H n co
gb » M O)
0 - • « rH
•H41 C • •-« *H
fjQ <)*H0(i]rst£3
5 1 „' .g 33-1SS
1 o ^ ° •« Is^Mxrl
* K 4l*o*HC J.w«9?*3!8
*d I 5^o S'sl&'se
H S -H 41 —1 0 "
•" ^ " H 41 •
41 O -ri Q -t M 3
o > m * w CM 9
8 FJTf-a e W
206
-------
900
-------
APPENDIX C
GRAPHIC DISPLAYS OF CROP DISTRIBUTION
COPIED FROM U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
THE CENSUS 1982 GRAPHIC SUMMARY (5)
208
-------
140 GRAPH 1C SUMMARY
1982 CENSUS OF AGRICULTU
209
-------
Acres of Apple Trees: 1982
1982 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE
GRAPH 1C SUMMARY 183
210
-------
Wheat Harvested for Grain: 1982
1982 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE
GRAPH 1C SUMMARY 147
211
-------
Tomatoes Harvested for Sale: 1982
178 GRAPH 1C SUMMARY
1982 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE
212
-------
Irish Potatoes Harvested: 1982
1982 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE
GRAPHIC SUMMARY 161
213
-------
1982 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE
214
GRAPH 1C SUMMARY
-------
982 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE
215
GRAPH 1C SUMMARY 157
-------
Acres of Lemon Trees: 1982
1982 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE
GRAPHIC SUMMARY 187
216
-------
Acres of Orange Trees: 1982
Acres of Grapefruit Trees: 1982
186 GRAPHIC SUMMARY
1982 CENSUS OF AGRICULTURE
217
-------
APPENDIX D
ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
218
-------
90068B2/RGNII/D-1
OS/17X90
ECOLOGICAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
OVERVIEW
To identify habitats and species at risk, experts from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
Heritage Programs, conservation organizations, and other appropriate agencies were contacted
and interviewed regarding habitats and species with the risk factor characteristics outlined
previously. The interviewers also inquired about known or suspected pesticide impacts on
habitats or species. The information below is a synthesis of the experts' comments and readily
available literature. It should be noted that many of these were quick assessments, not
scientifically based facts. Information from USFWS is identified by an asterisk (*). A number
of types of habitats and species hi Region II are at risk from pesticides. The information
presented below is applicable mainly to New Jersey and New York.
HABITATS AT RISK
Synthesis of information from KBN's sources identified the habitats listed below as at risk from
pesticides. The states/areas named are places where the problem was specifically mentioned; a
thorough analysis might reveal that other parts of the Region may be equally or at higher risk.
This technical support document records the diverse habitat/pesticide concerns elicited by the
interviews. KBN's scientists integrated and evaluated this input to identify the priority issues
discussed in the summary document.
The text below presents examples of the kinds of habitats characterized by each risk factor.
Many of these could be combined or listed under multiple risk factors. They are grouped as
they are here only to illustrate the types of risk situations observed hi Region II.
1. Habitats with low topographical location (e.g., aquatic systems and wetlands) subject
to runoff potentially contaminated by pesticides are at risk, such as the following:
a. Wetlands including saltmarshes, freshwater tidal swamps, cedar swamps,
sinkholes, peatlands, and streams;
2. Habitats with small patch size surrounded by areas subject to pesticide spraying are at
risk, including:
a. Vernal ponds hi the Southern coastal plain of New Jersey (Cape May, Cumberland,
Atlantic counties);
219
-------
90068B2/RGNII/D-2
08/17/90
b. Grassland remnants and rock barren communities in New York;
3. Habitats not previously subjected to pesticide spraying (e.g., expanding agricultural areas,
expanding pest control efforts) are at risk;
4. Habitats containing diverse and unique animal and plant communities are at risk,
including:
a. Vernal ponds with rare plants and invertebrates, affected by nearby agriculture and
mosquito spraying;
b. Fens in northwest New Jersey and New York, which support several globally
endangered Lepidopterans and are surrounded by agriculture;
c. Northeast New Jersey Traprock Glades supporting many endemic species;
5. Rare habitats are at risk, including:
a. Inland saline systems in New York,
b. Atlantic white cedar swamps,
c. Great Lakes deepwater communities, and
d. Pine barren communities.
Two basic habitat risk concerns have been identified as priority issues for Region II:
1. Multiple impacts on wetlands, which receive runoff from pesticide application areas.
Wetlands in dairy areas have been mentioned as a particular concern, but problems
may be equally or more important in other agricultural areas;
2. Degradation in biodiversity and other impacts on rare communities that occur in
small patches, including grassland remnants, rock barrens, vernal pools, fens, and
glades. Spray drift and runoff from surrounding agricultural lands and mosquito
control programs are the major concerns. Rare plants and invertebrates are
especially vulnerable.
SPECIES AT RISK
1. Species with high (or suspected) sensitivity to pesticides, such as:
a. Invertebrate*
Grizzled skipper (Pyrgus wvandofl has disappeared since the 1950s because of gypsy
moth control with DDT. This butterfly is globally ranked as an endangered species.
220
-------
90068B2/RGNII/D-3
Grizzled skipper also found in shale barrens in other states and may be equally
sensitive to new pesticides.
b. Raptors*
c. Waterfowl*
d. Puerto Rican crested toad (Peltophrvne lemurt-runoff of rangeland and forest
pesticides.
DISCUSSION OF LIMITATIONS OF ASSESSMENT
The main limitation of the analysis was the scarcity of pesticide use data. Although estimates
are available for some of the active ingredients used in the Region, pesticide use patterns and
locations within counties is needed to assess the risk to habitats and species of concern. A
somewhat "artificial" limitation of this assessment was the timeframe and level of effort
scheduled. For example, episodic information was not able to be obtained within this project
although it is important in understanding the nature of the ecological risks associated with
pesticides use in Region II.
Mapping of pesticide use estimates and data, as well as crop locations, will be extremely useful.
The location of habitats and species at high risk should then be added. This exercise through a
geographic information system can facilitate the evaluation of the extent of ecological risk from
pesticide use.
221
-------
------- |