«fcD S;
\
o
T
if
EPA-2-NY,NJ-OCEAN DUMPING-?6
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON THE
OCEAN DUMPING OF SEWAGE SLUDGE
IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
DRAFT
FEBRUARY 1976
tt
SEWAGE SLUDGE
DUMP SITE
PROPOSED
NORTHERN
AREA
PROPOSE
SOUTHERN
AREA
^200
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 11
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 10Uu7
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON THE
OCEAN DUMPING OF SEWAGE SLUDGE
IN THE
NEW YORK BIGHT
DRAFT
FEBRUARY 1976
Prepared by:
Dames & Moore
2 Penn Plaza
New York, New York 10001
Job No. 9094-003-29
Text and Tables Edited and Abridged by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Contract No. 68-01-2834
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Title Page
I SUMMARY , 1
II BACKGROUND 22
A. The New York Bight 22
1. Geographic Description of the
New York Bight 22
2. Existing Dump Sites in the New York
Bight 25
B. Ocean Dumping of Sewage Sludge in the
New York Bight 27
1. Wastewater Treatment and Sewage Sludge. 27
2. Current Sources 29
3. Dumping Vessels. 40
4. Future Sources 43
C. Ocean Dumping at Other Sites in the
New York Bight 50
1. Dredged Material Site 50
2. Cellar Dirt Site 54
3. Acid Wastes Site 55
4. Wreck Site 56
5. Chemical Wastes Site 56
D. Overview of Pollutant Loading in the
New York Bight 58
1. Suspended Solids 61
2. Carbonaceous Materials 61
3. Heavy Metals 61
4. Nitrogen and Phosphorous 62
5. Microbial Contamination 62
E. Federal Legislation and Control Programs.... 63
1. The Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
(PL92-532) 63
2. Related Legislation 64
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Title Page
3. EPA Ocean Dumping Permit Program 65
4. COE Dredged Material Permit Program.... 69
5. USCG Surveillance Responsibilities 69
6. FDA Responsibilities 72
F. International Considerations 74
1. United States Laws 74
2. International Agreements 75
3. Proposed United States Legislation 76
G. Other Activities in the New York Bight 78
1. Commercial Fishing 78
2. Recreational Uses 80
3. Navigation 82
4. Potential Mineral Resources 82
5. Potential Deepwater Ports 87
6. Potential Offshore Islands 88
III DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 89
A. History of the Proposed Action 91
B. Proposed Northern and Southern Areas 94
C. Cost of the Proposed Action 96
D. Relationship to Other Dumping Activities
in the New York Bight 97
E. Relationship to Other Activities in the
New York Bight 98
IV DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT 99
A. Study Program 99
1. Study Areas 99
2. Data Collection 102
B. Physical Oceanography 104
1. Hydrographic Characteristics 104
2. Currents 110
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Title Page
C. Biological Oceanography 124
1. Benthos 124
2. Fisheries Resources 128
3. Plankton. 139
4. Coliform Contamination, Antibiotic
Resistant Bacteria, and Diseases of
Marine Resources 141
D. Geological Oceanography 147
1. Geomorphology 147
2. Surficial Sediments 150
3. Suspended Particulate Matter 151
4. Northern Area 156
5. Southern Area. 160
E. Chemical Oceanography 168
1. Heavy Metals 168
2. Dissolved Oxygen 169
3. Nutrients 175
4. Organic Carbon 180
5. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons 184
6. Summary 188
V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 189
A. Land-Based Alternatives. 189
1. Land Application 190
2. Incineration 191
3. Pyrolysis 191
4. Sale as a Soil Conditioner or
Fertilizer 192
5. ISC Conclusions 192
B. Ocean Dumping Alternatives 194
1. No Action - Use of the Existing Dump
Site 194
2. Proposed Action - Immediate Use of an
Alternate Dump Site 199
3. Phased Action - Continued Use of the
Existing Dump Site and Future Use of
an Alternate Site 201
4. Dumping Methodology 202
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Title Page
VI FATE OF SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMPED AT THE PROPOSED
AREAS 205
A. Settling and Dispersion in the Water
Column 205
1. Bulk Density 206
2. Settling Velocities 206
3. Modeling Results 207
B. Resuspension 211
1. Storm Waves and Currents 212
2. Internal Waves 212
3. Bottom Currents 213
C. Chemical Equilibria and Biological
Oxidation 214
1. Heavy Metals 214
2. Organic Matter 217
D. Comparison to Other Dump Sites 217
1. Philadelphia Dump Site 217
2. Dump Sites in Other Waters 220
E. Summary 220
VII IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 222
A. Impacts on Public Health and Water
Quality 222
1. Swimming 223
2. Shellfish 224
3. Floatables 225
4. Hazards to Navigation.... 226
B. Impacts on the Ecosystem 228
1. The Benthos 229
2. Fisheries Resources 232
3. Plankton 235
4. Short Dumping 237
5. Potential for Recovery 239
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter
VIII
IX
XI
Title Page
C. Economic Impacts 241
1. Sludge Transportation Costs 241
2. Commercial Fishing 246
3. Mineral Resource Development 248
4. Loss of Sewage Sludge as a Potentially
Valuable Resource 250
D. Impacts With Respect to Other Dumping
Activities in the New York Bight 254
1. Dredged Material 254
2. Wrecks 254
3. Other Dumping Activities 255
E. Miscellaneous Impacts 256
1. Potential Impact on Marine-Related
Recreational Activities 256
2. Effect on Population Growth in the
New York-New Jersey Metropolitan Area.. 256
3. International Legal Implications....... 257
ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE
AVOIDED SHOULD THE PROPOSED ACTION BE
IMPLEMENTED 259
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF
MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND EN-
HANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 261
IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF
RESOURCES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE
PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED 264
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 266
A. Summary .of General Background 266
B. Comparative Evaluation of a Northern or
Southern Alternate Dump Site and the
Existing Dump Site 269
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapter Title Page
C. Conclusions Regarding the Continued Use of
the Existing Sewage Sludge Dump Site 272
D. Conclusions Regarding Dumping Further
Offshore at Either Alternate Dump Site
Area 274
E. Conclusion Regarding Selection of a New
Sewage Sludge Dump Site 276
F. Recommendations 276
ABBREVIATIONS USED 281
METRIC EQUIVALENTS OF ENGLISH UNITS 284
BIBLIOGRAPHY 285
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Sample form: Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act
(Ocean Dumping) Permit 303
Appendix B - Interstate Sanitation Commission
Phase 1 Report: Chapter III.
Conclusions and Recommendations. 315
Appendix C - National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Marine Ecosystems
Analysis Draft Report: Chapter I.
Summary, Conclusions, and Recom-
mendations. 327
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Number Title Page
1 Existing Dump Sites In and Adjacent to the
New York Bight 26
2 Treatment Practices of Ocean Dumping Per-
mittees (1975) 31
3 Average Characteristics of Ocean Dumped
Sludge (1973) 32
4 Heavy Metal Characteristics of Ocean Dumped
Sludge 34,35
5 Volumes of Waste Dumped at Sites In and Ad-
jacent to the New York Bight (1960 to 1975) 37,38
6 Volumes of Sewage Sludge Dumped in the New
York Bight (1973 to 1975) 39
7 Sludge Dumping Vessels Permitted for Use in
the New York Bight 41,42
8 Future Treatment Practices of Ocean Dumping
Permittees (1981) 45
9 Volumes of Sewage Sludge Estimated for Dump-
ing in the New York Bight 47,48
10 Comparison of Dredged Material and Sewage
Sludge Mass Loads 52
11 Total New York Bight Loads by Source 59
12 Ocean Dumping Orders in the New York Bight 68
13 Commercial Fisheries Landings in the New
York-New Jersey Metropolitan Area (1973) 79
14 Commercial Shellfish Landings in the New
York-New Jersey Metropolitan Area (1973) 81
15 Beach Ownership and Use in the New York-
New Jersey Metropolitan Area 83
16 Beach Attendance at State and National Parks
in the New York-New Jersey Metropolitan Area
(1974) 84
vii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Number Title
17 Predicted Maximum Average Velocities of
Upper, Middle, and Lower Tidal Currents
in the Northern Area 112
18 NOAA-MESA Current Meter Deployments:
Water Depth and Location in Water Column 116
19 The Common Fisheries Resources of the
New York Bight 129
20 Concentrations of Dissolved Heavy Metals
in the Water Column of the New York Bight 170
21 Concentrations of Heavy Metals in the Sedi-
ments of the New York Bight 171
22 Loading of Heavy Metals in the Bight Apex 172
23 Sources of Oxidizable Carbon in the Bight
Apex 174
24 Dissolved Oxygen Levels at the Northern
Area 176
25 Nutrient Concentrations in the New York
Bight 178
26 Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in the Sediments
of the New York Bight 187
27 Model Results of Transport and Dispersion of
Sewage Sludge at the Northern (60 m Depth)
and Southern (50 m Depth) Area 209
28 Release from Sludge of Heavy Metals in
Seawater 215
29 Fleet Hauling Capacity 242
30 Sludge Hauling Costs 244
31 Comparison of Alternative Sewage Sludge
Disposal Methods for the Metropolitan Area 252
32 Comparative Evaluation of a Northern or
Southern Alternate Dump Site and the Exist-
ing Dump Site 270,271
Vlll
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Title
1 The New York Bight 23
2 Bight Apex and Existing Dump Sites 24
3 Waste Dumping in and Adjacent to the
New York Bight 36
4 Sources of Pollutants in the New York Bight 60
5 Navigational Lanes and Proposed Deepwater Ports
and Offshore Islands in the New York Bight 85
6 Potential Mineral Resources in the
New York Bight 86
7 Location of Existing and Proposed Dump
Site Areas in the New York Bight 90
8 Study Areas and Subareas 100
9 Mean Monthly Percentages of Annual Discharge
for the Hudson and Connecticut Rivers 105
10 Late Winter Temperature-Salinity Profile
at Subarea 1A(R) 107
11 Late Summer Temperature-Salinity Profile
at Subarea 1A(R) 109
12 Tidal Currents at Lightship Stations/
Montauk Point to Barnegat Bay 111
13 Mean Spring Surface Currents in the
New York Bight 115
14 General Residual Current Along the Bottom
of the New York Bight 117
15 Mean Spring Bottom Currents in the
New York Bight 119
16 Benthic Faunal Types in the Mid-Atlantic
Bight 125
17 Surf Clam Distribution in the New York
Bight (1965) 133
18 Surf Clam Distribution in the New York
Bight (1969) 134
ix
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Number Title Page
19 Surf Clam Distribution in the
Mid-Atlantic Bight (1974) 135
20 Ocean Quahog Distribution in the
Mid-Atlantic Bight (1974) 136
21 Sea Scallop Distribution in the
Mid-Atlantic Bight (1975) 137
22 Area Closed to Shellfishing in Vicinity
of Sewage Sludge Dump Site 143
23 Geomorphic Elements of the Mid-Atlantic
Continental Shelf 148
24 Percentage of Mud in Bottom Sediments
of the New York Bight 152
25 Schematic Model of Suspended Particulate
Matter Distributipn on the Continental Shelf 154
26 Bathymetry and Sample Locations for
Subarea 2D1 157
27 Geophysical Tracts 158
28 Mean Grain Size of Bottom Sediments
in Subarea 2D1 159
29 Percentage of Gravel in Subarea 2D1 161
30 Percentage of Mud in Bottom Sediments
from Subarea 2D1 162
31 Percentage of Gravel in Bottom Sediments
of Subarea 2D2 164
32 Mean Grain Size in Bottom Sediments
of Subarea 2D2 165
33 Mesoscale Bedforms 167
34 Percentage of Total Organic Carbon in
New York Bight Sediments 181
-------
LIST '6F; FIGURES (Continued)
Number Title Page
35 Distribution of Carbon/Nitrogen Ratios
in New York Bight Sediments 183
36 Distribution of TCH/TOC Ratios in
New York Bight Apex Sediments 185
37 Coliforms in Long Island Coastal Waters 196
38 Coliforms in New Jersey Coastal Waters 197
39 Typical Transport and Dispersion of
Sewage Sludge in Ocean Waters 210
40 Bottom Areas Affected at Existing Sewage
Sludge Dump Sites in the Mid^-Atlantic Bight 219
41 Sludge Transportation Costs 245
42 Recommended Alternate Dump Site 278
XI
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON THE
OCEAN DUMPING OF SEWAGE SLUDGE
IN THE
NEW YORK BIGHT
I. SUMMARY
DATE: February 1976.
TYPE OF STATEMENT: Draft.
RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency - Region II.
TYPE OF ACTION: Administrative.
OVERVIEW;
Since the early 1900's, the sewage sludge generated
at municipal wastewater treatment plants in the New York-
New Jersey metropolitan area has been disposed of by dumping it
in the ocean. Some of the older treatment plants in the metro-
politan area provide only primary wastewater treatment. These
plants will have to be upgraded to provide at least secondary
treatment, as mandated by the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972. One of the effects of upgrading will
be an increase in the volume of sludge that must be disposed of.
The existing sewage sludge dump site is located in
the section of the Atlantic Ocean known as the New York Bight.
Currently, about 4 million cu m (5.2 million cu yd) of sewage
sludge are dumped here every year. The volume of sludge to be
dumped will steadily increase. By 1981 it is expected to be
double what it is in 1976.
1
-------
Concern over the possible effects of dumping greatly
increased volumes of sludge at the existing dump site led EPA
to consider the need for a new dump site farther out in the
Atlantic. The EPA had already stated its intention to complete-
ly phase out ocean dumping of sewage sludge by 1981, provided
that acceptable land-based disposal methods could be substitut-
ed. Still, it was not known whether the existing site could ac-
commodate the sludge to be dumped in the interim. Therefore, in
1974 EPA proposed that a new ocean dump site be designated for
use until sludge dumping could be replaced by environmentally,
technically, and economically viable land-based disposal meth-
ods.
The EPA took this step as a precaution against any
possible public health effects that might result from over-
taxing the existing dump site. The next step was to determine
whether such a precaution was necessary, and if so, whether the
proposed action was the best possible way of preventing public
health hazards and coastal water quality degradation. To accom-
plish this, an in-depth evaluation of the proposed action and
the alternatives to it was undertaken. The conclusion of this
in-depth evaluation was that EPA's proposed action was environ-
mentally unnecessary, and might in fact be more environmentally
damaging than taking no action whatsoever. This environmental
impact statement (EIS) explains how that conclusion was arrived
at.
Based on the information reported in this EIS, EPA
has made a preliminary decision not to go ahead with the pro-
2
-------
posed action. Instead, EPA now recommends: 1) continued use
of the existing dump site, 2) a comprehensive monitoring pro-
gram for the existing dump site, and 3) designation of an al-
ternate dump site that can be used if and when the monitoring
program indicates that the existing site cannot safely accom-
modate any more sewage sludge.
The EPA no longer supports its originally proposed
action, that is, designation and immediate use of a new dump
site. Nevertheless, this alternative is referred to through-
out the EIS as the proposed action. It was only through the
reports and studies connected with this EIS that the originally
proposed action was discredited. All of these reports and stud-
ies took as their starting point EPA support for the proposed
action, and the EIS reflects that perspective.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION;
The EPA proposes to abandon the existing sewage sludge
dump site in the Apex of the New York Bight and to designate an
alternate dump site farther out in the Bight. Depending on
which of the two areas under consideration is chosen, the North-
ern Area or the Southern Area, the dump site will be located at
a minimum of 46 km (25 n mi) off the coast of Long Island or off
the coast of New Jersey. Under the proposed action, use of the
alternate dump site will commence in July 1976 and will continue
until suitable land-based sludge disposal alternatives can be
implemented in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area. The
additional cost of implementing the proposed action is from 27
to 33 million dollars. This represents a 56 to 69 percent in-
3
-------
crease over costs associated with use of the existing dump site
(48 million dollars), for the period 1976 through 1981.
(See Chapter III.)
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION;
There are two categories of alternatives to the pro-
posed action considered in this EIS: land-based sludge dis-
posal alternatives (long-term) and other ocean dumping alterna-
tives (short-term).
The feasible land-based sludge disposal alternatives
are:
- Land application
- Incineration
- Pyrolysis
- Sale as a soil conditioner or fertilizer.
These land-based alternatives are being studied by the Inter-
state Sanitation Commission (ISC) under a grant from EPA. When
completed, the ISC studies will form the basis for developing a
Sludge Disposal Management Plan for New York-New Jersey metro-
politan area. Because of their preliminary status, only a gen-
eral discussion of these alternatives is possible in this EIS.
The other, ocean dumping, alternatives are:
- Continued use of the existing site (No Action).
- Continued use of the existing site and designa-
tion of an alternate site to be used if neces-
sary (Phased Action).
-------
Since the implementation of land-based disposal meth-
ods in the metropolitan area is still some years off, a suitable
interim ocean dumping alternative is needed. The proposed ac-
tion and the other ocean dumping alternatives are discussed in
detail in this EIS.
(See Chapter V.)
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION;
The proposed action will have a number of general ef-
fects and a number of site specific ones. Among its general ef-
fects will be a significant adverse impact on the benthos, the
bottom-dwelling organisms, at and near an alternate dump site.
In response to sludge dumping, the benthic community will prob-
ably increase in numbers, but decrease in diversity. After
awhile, the species that remain will be representative of a pol-
luted bottom environment, such as that at the existing dump site
in the Bight Apex.
The sediments on and in which the benthic organisms
dwell will be degraded. The concentrations of heavy metals,
organic matter, coliforms, chlorinated hydrocarbons, and pos-
sibly of nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorous) in the sediments
will increase over background concentrations. Pollutant con-
centrations in the water itself will vary according to the par-
ticular composition of each load of sludge, the degree of dis-
persion in the water column, and seasonal conditions.
The site specific effects of the proposed action will
become manifest if the alternate dump site is located in the
-------
Southern Area. Sludge dumping in the Southern Area may damage
commercial shellfishing, particularly surf clam harvesting, off
the New Jersey coast. It may also interfere with the potential
development of mineral resources (oil and gas, sand and gravel)
in and adjacent to the Southern Area. The most serious and most
imminent conflict will be with the proposed oil and gas develop-
ment on the outer continental shelf.
The Northern Area does not present any problems which
are site specific. Commercial shellfishing in the area is mini-
mal and is likely to remain so. No developable mineral resour-
ces have been identified in or near the Northern Area.
The only significant irreversible and irretrievable
resource commitment involved in implementing the proposed action
is the cost. Through 1981, it will cost 56 to 69 percent more
than it does at present to transport sewage sludge for ocean
dumping; the increased cost is directly attributable to the in-
creased distance to an alternate dump site farther out in the
Bight.
The continued loss of sewage sludge which is a poten-
tially valuable resource, through ocean dumping, is an irrever-
sible and irretrievable commitment. However, until land-based
disposal methods can be implemented in the metropolitan area,
the beneficial use of sludge is impossible. Until it is possi-
ble, ocean dumping of sewage sludge is an unavoidable but in-
significant commitment of these resources.
(See Chapters VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X.)
-------
RECOMMENDED ACTION;
After careful evaluation of the available alternatives
and of the effects of ocean dumping, EPA recommends that use of
the existing sewage sludge dump site in the Bight Apex continue.
As a safeguard, EPA recommends: 1) that an alternate dump site
in the Northern Area be immediately designated for use in the
future, if necessary, 2) that the existing dump site and nearby
sensitive recreational and marine resource areas (Hudson Shelf
Valley) near Long Island and New Jersey be closely monitored for
potential hazards to public health or water quality, and 3) that
upon confirmation of such hazards, permittees be required to use
the alternate dump site.
A thorough review of the most recent information, in-
cluding onsite investigations, indicates that the proposed ac-
tion, immediate designation and use of an alternate dump site,
is unjustified. Continued use of the existing dump site is not
a present threat to public health or to water quality along the
beaches of Long Island or New Jersey. Moving the present sludge
dumping operations to an alternate site without adequate justi-
fication will result in the unnecessary contamination of a rel-
atively pristine area of the Bight. Moreover, contamination of
a new area will not be balanced off by recovery of the existing
dump site. The existing site and its surrounding area are not
expected to significantly improve even if sludge dumping is
terminated because pollution from other sources will continue.
(See Chapter XI.)
-------
FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES FROM WHICH COMMENTS HAVE
BEEN REQUESTED:
Federal Agencies;
Council on Environmental Quality
Washington, B.C.
Department of Agriculture
Washington, D.C.
Department of Commerce
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Coast Guard
New York, N.Y.
National Marine Fisheries Service
Gloucester, Mass.
Sandy Hook, N.J.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Bolder, Colo.
Rockville, Md.
Stony Brook, N.Y.
National Weather Service
Garden City, N.Y.
Department of Defense
Army Corps of Engineers
New York, N.Y.
Vicksburg, Miss.
Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy
Alexandria, Va.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
New York, N.Y.
Food and Drug Administration
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Davisville, R.I.
Department of Housing and Urban Development
New York, N.Y.
-------
Federal Agencies (Cont'd);
Department of Interior
Washington/ D.C.
Gateway National Recreation Area
Brooklyn, N.Y.
Energy Research and Development Administration
Washington, D.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Cleveland, Ohio
Corvallis, Or.
Narragansett, R.I.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Washington, D.C.
United States Senate;
Honorable J. Glenn Beall, Jr.
Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Honorable James Buckley
Honorable Clifford P. Case
Honorable Jacob K. Javits
Honorable Charles McC. Mathias, Jr.
Honorable John 0. Pastore
Honorable Claiborne Pell
Honorable Abraham A. Ribicoff
Honorable William V. Roth, Jr.
Honorable Lowell P. Weicker, Jr.
Honorable Harrison A. Williams
Senate Commerce Committee
Senate Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution
Senate Subcommittee on Oceans and the Atmosphere
United States House of Representatives:
Honorable Bella S. Abzug
Honorable Joseph P. Addabbo
Honorable Jerome Ambro, Jr.
Honorable Herman Badillo
Honorable Mario Biaggi
Honorable Jonathan B. Bingham
Honorable Shirley Chisholm
Honorable Dominick V. Daniels
Honorable James J. Delaney
Honorable Thomas J. Downey
Honorable Pierre S. DuPont
Honorable Millicent Fenwick
-------
United States House of Representatives (Cont'd);
Honorable Hamilton Fish, Jr.
Honorable James J. Florio
Honorable Edwin B. Forsythe
Honorable Henry Helstoski
Honorable Elizabeth Holtzman
Honorable James J. Howard
Honorable William J. Hughes
Honorable Edward I. Koch
Honorable Norman F. Lent
Honorable Andrew Maquire
Honorable Helen S. Meyner
Honorable Joseph G. Minish
Honorable John M. Murphy
Honorable Richard L. Ottinger
Honorable Edward J. Patten
Honorable Peter A. Peyser
Honorable Otis J. Pike
Honorable Charles B. Rangel
Honorable Frederick W. Richmond
Honorable Matthew J. Rinaldo
Honorable Peter W. Rodino, Jr.
Honorable Robert A. Roe
Honorable Benjamin S. Rosenthal
Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes
Honorable James H. Scheuer
Honorable Stephen J. Solarz
Honorable Frank Thompson, Jr.
Honorable Lester L. Wolff
Honorable John W. Wydler
Honorable Leo C. Zeferetti
House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries
House Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation
and the Environment
House Subcommittee on Oceanography
House Committee on Science and Technology
House Subcommittee on Environment and the Atmosphere
State and Local Governmental Agencies;
Mayor, Village of Atlantic Beach
Atlantic Beach, N.Y.
10
-------
State and Local Governmental Agencies (Cont'd);
Erie County Environmental Health Services
Buffalo, N.Y.
Hempstead Town Department of Conservation and Waterways
Point Lookout, N.Y.
Lacey Township
Forked River, N.J.
Long Island State Park and Recreation Commission
Babylon, N.Y.
Maryland Water Resources Administration
Annapolis, Md.
Middlesex County Planning Board
New Brunswick, N.J.
Monmouth County Planning Board
Freehold, N.J.
Nassau County Department of Health
Mineola, N.Y.
Nassau County Environmental Management Council
Mineola, N.Y.
Nassau County Planning Commission
Mineola, N.Y.
Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board
Hauppauge, N.Y.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Trenton, N.J.
New Jersey Department of Health
Trenton, N.J.
New Jersey State Assembly and Senate
Trenton, N.J.
New York City Chamber of Commerce and Industry
New York, N.Y.
New York City Department of Health
New York, N.Y.
11
-------
State and Local Governmental Agencies (Cont'd);
New York State Assembly and Senate
Albany, N.Y.
New York State Assembly
Committee on Environmental Conservation
Albany, N.Y.
New York State Atomic and Space Development Authority
New York, N.Y.
New York State Department of Commerce
Albany, N.Y.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Albany, N.Y.
New York, N.Y.
Stony Brook, N.Y.
White Plains, N.Y.
New York State Department of Health
Albany, N.Y.
New York State Office of Parks and Recreation
Albany, N.Y.
New York State Sea Grant Program Office
Albany, N.Y.
Ocean County Board of Chosen Freeholders
Toms River, N.J.
Suffolk County Department of Environmental Control
Hauppauge, N.Y.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Hauppauge, N.Y.
Suffolk County Executive Office
Hauppauge, N.Y.
Suffolk County Water Authority
Oakdale, N.Y.
Mayor, Borough of Surf City
Surf City, N.J.
Tennessee Valley Authority
Chattanooga, Tenn.
12
-------
State and Local Governmental Agencies (Cont'd)
Tonawanda Town Environmental Commission
Kenmore, N.Y.
Department of Public Works
Yaphank, N.Y.
Interstate Agencies;
Interstate Sanitation Commission
New York, N.Y.
Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
New York, N.Y.
Tri-State Regional Planning Commission
New York, N.Y.
Ocean Dumping Permittees;
American Cyanamid Co.
Linden, N.J.
Bergen County Sewerage Authority
Little Ferry, N.J.
Caldwell Trucking Co., Inc.
Fairfield, N.J.
Borough of Fairfield
Fairfield, N.J.
General Marine Transportation Corp.
Bayonne, N.J.
City of Glen Cove
Glen Cove, N.Y.
Joint Meeting of Essex & Union Counties
Irvington, N.J.
Linden Roselle Sewerage Authority
Linden, N.J.
City of Long Beach
Long Beach, N.Y.
13
-------
Ocean Dumping Permittees (Cont'd);
Middlesex County Sewerage Authority
Sayreville, N.J.
Middletown Sewerage Authority
Belford, N.J.
Modern Transportation Co., Inc.
South Kearny, N.J.
Nassau County Department of Public Works
Mineola, N.Y.
New York City Environmental Protection Administration
Department of Water Resources
New York, N.Y.
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
Newark, N.J.
Pollution Control Industries, Inc.
West Caldwell, N.J.
S.B. Thomas, Inc.
Totowa, N.J.
Westchester County
White Plains, N.Y.
West Long Beach Sewer District
Atlantic Beach, N.Y.
Whippany Paper Board Co., Inc.
Whippany, N.J.
Citizen Groups;
American Littoral Society
Highlands, N.J.
Atlantic Beach Taxpayers Association
Long Beach, N.Y.
Citizens for Clean Environment
Sayville, N.Y.
Colts Neck Environmental Commission
Colts Neck, N.J.
14
-------
Citizen Groups (Cont'd);
Committee of Concerned Citizens of Wantagh
Wantagh, N.Y.
East End Council of Organizations
East Hampton, N.Y.
Environmental Defense Fund
East Setauket, N.Y.
Federated Conservationists of Westchester County
Tarrytown, N.Y.
Friends of the Earth
New York, N.Y.
Hudson River Sloop Restoration Association
Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
Long Island Daymen's Association
Islip, N.Y.
Long Island Environmental Council
Port Washington, N.Y.
Long Island Fishermen's Association
Quoque, N.Y.
Malverne Environmental Council
Malverne, N.Y.
Marine Environmental Council of Long Island
Seaford, N.Y.
National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere
New York, N.Y.
National Boatmen's Alliance
Hauppauge, N.Y.
National Coalition for Marine Conservation
Boston, Mass.
National Wildlife Federation
Washington, D.C.
15
-------
Citizen Groups (Cont'd);
New Jersey Marine Science Consortium
Highlands, N.J.
New Jersey Public Interest Research Group
New York, N.Y.
Trenton, N.J.
New York League of Women Voters
Setauket, N.Y.
New York Water Pollution Control Association
Syracuse, N.Y.
Passaic River Coalition
Basking Ridge, N.J.
Regional Marine Resources Council
Hauppauge, N.Y.
Resources for the Future
Washington, D.C.
Rochester Committee for Scientific Information
Rochester, N.Y.
Scientists Committee for Public Information
New York, N.Y.
Shellfish Commission
Milford, Conn.
Shellfish Institute of North America
Point Lookout, N.Y.
Sierra Club
New York, N.Y.
South Branch Watershed Association
Clinton, N.J.
Academic/Research Institutions;
American University
Department of Biology
Washington, D.C.
16
-------
Academic/Research Institutions (Cont'd);
Associated Universities
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Upton, N.Y.
Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory
Palisades, N.Y.
Marine Sciences Center
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, N.J.
Marine Sciences Research Center
Stony Brook, N.Y.
Marine Sciences Research Group
Brooklyn College - CUNY
Brooklyn, N.Y.
National Academy of Sciences
Washington, B.C.
New York Ocean Science Laboratory
Montauk, N.Y.
New York State University (SUNY)
Agriculture and Technical College
Farmingdale, N.Y.
Rutgers University
Department of Environmental Sciences
New Brunswick, N.J.
University of Delaware
Newark, Del.
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole, Mass.
News Media Agencies;
Atlantic City Press
Toms River, N.J.
Buffalo Evening News
Buffalo, N.Y.
CBS News
New York, N.Y.
17
-------
News Media Agencies (Cont'd);
Daily Observer
Toms River, N.J.
Herald News
Passaic, N.J.
Nautilus Press
Washington, D.C.
Newsday
Garden City, N.Y.
New York Times
New York, N.Y.
Private Consultants/Industries;
Alpha Analytical Labs
Jersey City, N.J.
American Petroleum Institute
Washington, D.C.
Lewis Berger and Associates
East Orange, N.J.
Camp, Dresser & McKee
Boston, Mass.
Cherne Industrial
Edina, Minn.
Ciba-Geigy Corp.
Ardsley, N.Y.
Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen, and Hamilton
Washington, D.C.
Consolidated Edison Co.
New York, N.Y.
Cory Laboratories
Menominee, Mich.
Delta Laboratories
Rochester, N.Y.
18
-------
Private Consultants/Industries (Cont'd)
Delta Scientific Corp.
Lindenhurst, N.Y.
M. Disko Associates
West Orange, N.J.
Ecolotrol
Bethpage, N.Y.
Fantus Company
South Orange, N.J.
Find Motor Company
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Fisher Scientific Company
King of Prussia, Pa.
General Electric Corp.
Selkirk, N.Y.
General Mills, Inc.
Buffalo, N.Y.
Havens and Emerson, Ltd.
Saddle Brook, N.J.
Howard, Needles, Tammen, and Bergendoff
Alexandria, Va.
New York, N.Y.
International Hydronics Corp.
Princeton, N.J.
Interstate Electronics Corp.
Anaheim, Ca.
Ionics, Inc.
Lexington, Kentucky
Kirby and Sommerer Labs
New York, N.Y.
Limnetics, Inc.
MiIwaukee, Wi s.
Arthur D. Little, Inc.
Cambridge, Mass.
19
-------
Private Consultants/Industries (Cont'd)
Jack McCormick and Associates
Devon, Pa.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
Sayreville, N.J.
Modern Transportation Company
South Kearny, N.J.
Mogul Corp.
Chagrin Falls, Ohio
N.L. Industries
New York, N.Y.
NUS Corp.
Pittsburg, Pa.
Orion Research, Inc.
Cambridge, Mass.
Pouch Terminal
Staten Island, N.Y.
Pro-Tech, Inc.
Malvern, Pa.
Public Service Electric and Gas Co.
Newark, N.J.
Raytheon Co.
Portsmouth, R.I.
Reynolds Metal Co.
Richmond, Va.
Rollins Environmental Services, Inc.
Wilmington, Delaware
John Jay Ryan and Co.
Newark, N.J.
Scranton Publishing Co.
Chicago, 111.
Shell Oil
New York, N.Y.
20
-------
Private Consultants/Industries (Cont'd)
Technicon Industrial Systems
Tarrytown, N.Y.
Toms River Chemical Corp.
Toms River, N.J.
Universal Oil Products Co.
San Diego, Ca.
Williams Brothers Waste Control
Tulsa, Okla.
Winer, Neuburger, and Sive
New York, N.Y.
Libraries;
Atlantic City Free Public Library
Atlantic City, N.J.
Nassau Library System
Garden City, Long Island, N.Y.
New York Public Library
Fifth Avenue and 42nd Street
New York," N.Y.
Free Library of Philadelphia
Logan Square
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Princeton Library
Princeton, N.J.
Rutgers Science/Medicine Library
New Brunswick, N.J.
Suffolk Cooperative Library System
Bellport, Long Island, N.Y.
SUNY Library
Stony Brook, N.Y.
Trenton Free Public Library
Trenton, N.J.
U.S. EPA Library
Edison, N.J.
New York, N.Y.
21
-------
II. BACKGROUND
A. THE NEW YORK BIGHT
1. Geographic Description of the New York Bight
The New York Bight is the section of the Atlanic Ocean
that extends from Cape May, New Jersey north and east to Mon-
tauk, Long Island. The Bight covers more than 39,000 sq km
(11,350 sq n mi), an area about twice the size of New Jersey.
It extends off the Long Island and New Jersey coasts to the out-
er edge of the continental shelf, approximately 150 to 180 km
(43 to 54 n mi) seaward of the coast (Figure 1). The coastline
of the Bight is characterized by sandy beaches and by numerous
bays and estuaries.
The Bight Apex, which covers 645 sq km (188 sq n mi),
extends from Atlantic Beach, New York south and west to Manas-
quan, New Jersey (73°30'W to 74°00'W and 40°10'N to 40°35'N).
It is immediately adjacent to the New York-New Jersey metropol-
itan area and is more or less centered on the apex of the Hudson
Shelf Valley (Figure 2).
The New York Bight is delineated from the estuarine
waters of Outer New York Harbor by the Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point
transect (Figure 2). The Outer Harbor (Lower Bay, Sandy Hook
Bay, and Raritan River) includes the waters south of Staten Is-
land lying between the Narrows and the harbor entrance. It is
commonly differentiated from the Inner Harbor (Hudson River,
East River, Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, Passaic River, Harlem
River, Hackensack River, Newark Bay, and Upper Bay).
22
-------
41
B GHT APEX LIMITS
NAUTICAL MlLES
iiuiiii.
lillilill
THE NEW YORK BIGHT
SOURCE:USEPA, APRIL 1975.
DAMK8 B (MOORE
FIGURE 1
-------
LONG ISLAND
OUTER HARBOR
SANDY HOOK-
ROCKAWAY POINT
TRANSECT
LONG BRM
NEW JERSEY
ASBURY PARK;
DREDGED MATERIAL
(MUD)
CELLAR SEWAGE
DIRT SLUDGE
(RUBBLE &
DEBRIS)
WRECK (DERELICY
VESSEL)
o
LA
0
o
-a-
o
-rACID
WASTES
O.
<
C3
CO
o
rr\
o
ra
r--
BIGHT APEX AND EXISTING DUMP SITES
10
20
KILOMETERS
5 10
NAUTICAL MILES
30
15
SOURCE: USEPA, JULY 197**.
FIGURE 2
-------
2. Existing Dump Sites in the New York Bight
There are currently five dump sites in the New York
Bight where the disposal of toxic and nontoxic wastes is permit-
ted under the authority of the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (MPRSA). These sites are all located
within the Bight Apex (Figure 2). They include the sewage
sludge site, the dredged material (mud) site, the cellar dirt
(rubble and debris) site, the acid wastes site, and the wreck
(derelict vessel) site (Table 1). A sixth dump site, the chemi-
cal wastes site, is located approximately 196 km (106 n mi) from
the harbor entrance, on the edge of the continental shelf. This
dump site is just outside the New York Bight (Figure 1 and Table
1). Roughly 70 percent of the municipal wastes and 60 percent
of the industrial wastes that are ocean dumped in the United
States are dumped at these six sites (USEPA, July 1974).
Ocean dumping at the existing sewage sludge site is
described in detail in Section IIB. Dumping at the other sites
is discussed in Section IIC.
25
-------
TABLE 1
EXISTING DUMP SITES IN AND ADJACENT TO THE
NEW YORK BIGHT
Approximate Distance
Area
Coordinates
Dump Site
Sewage Sludge
Dredged Material
Cellar Dirt
Acid Wastes
Wreck
Chemical Wastes
Latitude and
40°22'
73°41'
40°24'
40°23'
40°16'
73°36'
40°13'
38°40'
72°00'
30 "N to
30"W to
10"N,
00 "N,
00 "N to
00"W to
00"N,
00 "N to
00 "W to
Longitude
40°25'
73°45'
73°51'
73°49'
40°20'
73°40'
73°46'
39°00'
72°30'
00"N
00"W
OO'^1
00 "W1
00 "N
00 "W
00 "W1
00 "N
00 "W
Sq Kilometers
(Sq N Miles)
22
6
6
41
6
1,550
.7( 6.6)
.9( 2.0)
•9( 2.0)
.0( 12.0)
.9( 2.0)
.0(450.0)
Depth
Meters
(Feet)
27 ( 90)
27 ( 90)
31 ( 103)
24 ( 80)
60 ( 200)
1,800.0(6000)
Kilometer
(N Miles)
L.I. N.J.
20 (11)
20 (11)
22 (12)
27 (15)
30 (16)
20 (11)
9 ( 5)
11 ( 6)
27 (15)
20 (11)
Center Coordinates
Source: USEPA, November 15, 1975.
-------
B. OCEAN DUMPING OF SEWAGE SLUDGE IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
The existing sewage sludge dump site in the Bight #p*ex
is used almost exclusively for the disposal of sewage sludges
from large municipal treatment facilities in the New York-
New Jersey metropolitan area. Prior to 1974, some industrial
wastes were also dumped at this site. Only small quantities of
sludge resulting from the biological treatment of industrial
wastes are now dumped here.
The present location was selected by the States of
New York and New Jersey in 1924, following a United States Su-
preme Court settlement. This settlement was the culmination of
a suit brought by the City of New York against the Passaic Val-
ley Sewerage Commissioners (PVSC) to prevent the discharge of
sewage sludge into Upper New York Bay. The existing site was
chosen to maintain the integrity (public health and aesthetics)
of the Long Island and New Jersey beaches, as well as to avoid
possible hazards to navigation within New York Harbor.
1. Wastewater Treatment and Sewage Sludge
Sewage sludge is a broad term used to describe the
mixture of sewage and settled solids removed from municipal
wastewater during treatment. Its characteristics depend main-
ly upon the type and degree of treatment provided. In general,
sludges transported for ultimate ocean disposal at the existing
sewage sludge site are derived from the primary and secondary
treatment of municipal wastewater and from domestic septic
tanks.
27
-------
Raw municipal wastewater is a combination of liquid
and solids; the liquid fraction is much greater than the solids
fraction. Consequently, raw municipal wastewater entering a
treatment plant generally has a very low suspended solids con-
centration (100 to 300 mg/1 or 0.01 to 0.03 percent solids by
weight). One of the purposes of treatment is to remove as much
of the solids as possible from the wastewater. Through treat-
ment, most of the solids become concentrated in a small fraction
of the liquid; this mixture is called sludge. The sludges that
result from the combined primary and secondary treatment of mu-
nicipal wastewaters have much higher solids concentrations (3
to 5 percent) than the raw wastewater.
Primary treatment, the most basic type of wastewater
treatment, removes from 50 to 60 percent of the suspended solids
present in the raw wastewater. Sludges withdrawn from primary
sedimentation tanks are usually gray and slimy, and have an of-
fensive, odor.
*
Secondary treatment, which EPA is requiring all mu-
nicipal facilities to implement in the near future, removes ap-
proximately 85 percent of the suspended solids. Activated
sludge and trickling filters are the two secondary treatment
processes most commonly used by municipal facilities in the
New York-New Jersey metropolitan area. Sludges resulting from
the activated sludge process generally have a brown, flocculent
Please note that "EPA" is a general reference to .the U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency. Where it is necessary to dif-
ferentiate between the Headquarters office and the Region II
office of the agency, the appropriate designation is made.
28
-------
appearance and an inoffensive odor. These sludges have a ten-
dency to quickly become septic. When this occurs, the color be-
comes quite dark, and there is a disagreeable odor of putrefac-
tion. Sludges resulting from the trickling filter process are
brownish, flocculent, and have a relatively inoffensive odor.
As with activated sludges, there is a tendency for trickling
filter sludges to quickly become septic.
In some cases, sludges resulting from primary or sec-
ondary treatment are digested in order to anaerobically decom-
pose the organic materials present. Sludges resulting from the
digestion process are dark brown to black in color; when thor-
oughly digested, their odors are relatively faint and inoffen-
sive.
Sludges derived from domestic septic tanks are black
and, unless well-digested by long storage, have an offensive
odor.
Additional information on wastewater treatment proces-
ses, solids, and sludge treatment can be found in the litera-
ture (USEPA, October 1971 and October 1974; Metcalf & Eddy,
1972). The characteristics of the sewage sludges dumped in the
New York Bight are discussed below.
2. Current Sources
In July 1975, EPA issued eighteen Interim Permits for
ocean dumping at the existing sewage sludge site. Twelve of
these permits were granted to municipalities or sewerage author-
29
-------
ities in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area. The waste-
water and sludge treatment practiced by the permittees, which
directly affects the type of sludge produced, is shown in Table
2.
With the exception of New York City and Westchester
County, which operate their own sludge transportation vessels,
these permittees contract commercial barging companies to trans-
port their sludge to the dump site. Three permits were issued
to commercial haulers in New Jersey (Modern Transportation Com-
pany, Caldwell Trucking Company, and General Marine Transporta-
tion Corporation). The commercial haulers collect and transport
sewage sludge and domestic septic tank wastes to the dump site.
These commercial permittees serve local septic tank cleaners
and small municipal and sewerage authority wastewater treatment
plants in New Jersey.
Three permits were issued to industries in New Jersey
(Whippany Paper Board, American Cyanamid, and S.B. Thomas).
These three industries produce small volumes of waste activated
sludge from private, onsite, secondary treatment facilities.
A sample ocean dumping permit form is included in
Appendix A to familarize the reader with the type of information
EPA requires of an applicant.
a. Sludge Characteristics. Based upon weighted average
data from the 1973 permittees (Table 3), the sludge being dumped
in the New York Bight contains 4.5 percent total solids (see
Table 2 for percentage of solids in the sludge dumped by each
30
-------
TABLE 2
TREATMENT PRACTICES OF OCEAN DUMPING PERMITTEES
1975
Permit,
Number
NJ002
NJ003
NY007
NJ008
NY009
NJ017
NJ019
NJ021
NJ022
NY028
NY029
NY031
NJ063
NY068
NJ103
NJ106
NJ109
NJ111
Permittee
Mlddletown Sewerage Authority
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
City of Long Beach
Middlesex County Sewerage Authority
City of New York
Bowery Bay
Coney Island
Hunts Point
Jamaica
Owls Head
Newtown Creek
Port Richmond
Rockaway
Tallman Island
VJards Island
26th Ward
Modern Transportation Co.
Bergen County Sewerage Authority
Linden Roselle Sewerage Authority
Joint Meeting of Essex & Union Counties
Nassau County
Westchester County
West Long Beach Sewer District
Whippany Paper Board
City of Glen Cove
Caldwell Trucking Co.
American Cyanamid
S.B. Thomas
General Marine Transportation Corp.
(1975)
Treatment
Level
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Primary
-
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Mostly Primary
Secondary
Primary
Primary
Secondary
Primary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Mostly Primary
Secondary
Secondary
Mostly Primary
Sludge Treatment
Thickening, Digest & Dewatering
None
Digestion and Heat Conditioning
Thickening
-
Thickening and Digestion
Thickening and Digestion
Thickening and Digestion
Thickening and Digestion
Thickening and Digestion
Thickening and Digestion
Digestion
Thickening and Digestion
Thickening and Digestion
Thickening
Thickening and Digestion
Partial Digestion
Thickening and Digestion
Thickening
Digestion
Thickening and Digestion
Thickening' and Digestion
Thickening
NA
Thickening
Partial Digestion
NA
NA
Partial Digestion
Percent
Solids
3.2
6.6
2.3
3.2
-
2.6
4.8
1.9
7.2
2.1
3.2
2.8
2.7
3.7
6.9
3.6
NA
1.6
5.8
8.8
2.0
3.6
8.5
NA
NA
NA
. NA
NA
HA
NA = Not Available.
EPA-Region II permit number.
Sources: USEPA, January 21, 1976; ISC, 1975.
-------
TABLE 3
AVERAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF OCEAN DUMPED SLUDGE (1973)1
2
Weighted Average
Characteristic Concentration (mg/1)
Total Solids (TS) 45,000
Suspended Solids (SS) 39,000
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 5,500
Alkalinity (Alk) 2,700
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD,-) 17,000
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 93,000
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 9,200
Oil and Grease (0 & G) 1,900
Ammonia (NH..-N) 890
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) 1,500
Nitrites and Nitrates (NO. + NO -N) 3.9
Total Nitrogen (Total-N) 1,500
Total Phosphorous (Total-P) 400
Cadmium (Cd) 3.7
Chromium (Cr) 63
Copper (Cu) 60
Mercury (Hg) 1.1
Lead (Pb) 63
Zinc (Zn) 160
Arsenic (As) 120
Beryllium (Be) 0.02
Nickel (Ni) 9.5
Selenium (Se) 100
Vanadium (V) 0.75
Fecal coliform (organisms/lOOml) 310,000
Sludge characteristics based upon values from EPA-Region II,
ocean dumping permit files for the period May 1 through Decem-
ber 31, 1973.
2
Weighted average. Heavy metals and oil and grease averages
based upon eight values for each source. Other parameters
are based upon one to eight values for each source.
Source: Mueller and Jeris, unpub.
32
-------
permittee) and 3.9 percent suspended solids. It is also charac-
terized by high concentrations of heavy metals (chromium, copper,
lead, mercury, nickel and zinc). Representative concentrations
of heavy metals are shown in Table 4. The high ratio of chemi-
cal oxygen demand (COD) to biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), or
of COD to total organic carbon (TOC), is characteristic of
sludges having significant industrial wastewater contributions.
The total solids present are approximately 20 percent
organic material, as reflected by the TOC concentrations. Most
domestic sewage sludges contain between 25 and 50 percent organ-
ic material. Total nitrogen and total phosphorous account for
about 3 percent and 1 percent, respectively, of the total sol-
ids, which can be considered within the normal range for domes-
tic sludges. The oil and grease concentration, approximately 4
percent of total solids, appears to be more representative of a
metropolitan area, where combined sewers, carrying both sanitary
wastes and urban runoff, commonly serve existing wastewater
treatment facilities.
b. Volumes of Sludge Dumped. Although dumping at the ex-
isting sewage sludge site began in 1924, accurate records prior
to 1960 are not available. The volume of sewage sludge dumped
into the New York Bight has increased slowly from 2.9 million
cu m (3.8 million cu yd) in 1960 to 4.3 million cu m (5.6 mil-
lion cu yd) in 1973 (Figure 3 and Table 5). In 1974 and 1975
(Table 6), the volume dropped slightly to 3.7 and 3.4 million
cu m (4.9 and 4.8 million cu yd), respectively. Similar fluc-
33
-------
TABLE 4
HEAVY METAL CHARACTERISTICS OF OCEAN DUMPED SLUDGE
00
1975
Permit,
Number
NJ002
NJ003
NY007
NJ008
NY009
NJ017
NJ019
NJ021
NJ022
NY028
NY029
NY031
NJ063
NY068
NJ103
NJ106
NJ109
NJ111
Heavy Metals
Permittee
Middletown Sewerage Authority
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
City of Long Beach
Middlesex County Sewerage Authority
City of New York
Bowery Bay
Coney Island
Hunts Point
Jamaica
Owls Head
Newtown Creek
Port Richmond
Rockaway
Tallmari Island
Wards Island
26th Ward
Modern Transportation Co.
Bergen County Sewerage Authority
Linden Roselle Sewerage Authority
Joint Meeting of Essex & Union Counties
Nassau County
Westchester County
West Long Beach Sewer District
Whippany Paper Board^
City of Glen Cove _
Caldwell Trucking Co.
American Cyanamid^
S.B. Thomas3 " ,
General Marine Transportation Corp.
Mercury
(Hg)
136
1,110
380
170
465
310
<50
215
260
145
260
315
630
135
143
1,314
290
852
<5
.1,674
NA
-
NA
—
-
-
15.3
Cadmium
(Cd)
268
11,375
410
2,621
1,230
380
338
430
600
1,465
88
435
240
230
7,151
17,903
3,757
6,263
130
5,981
NA
-
NA
—
-
-
4.1
Arsenic
(As)
<17
81
<4,000
46
2,400
2,400
2,000
2,500
9,500
960
1,500
1,400
5,700
170
<20
<30
<19
15
<1
4,000
NA
-
NA
—
-
-
30
(pg/D
Lead
(Pb)
5,425
164,478
NA
97,950
56,000
66,000
26,000
38,000
34,000
284,000
16,000
64,000
84,000
30,000
11,936
42,336
23,714
45,708
8,100
33,000
NA
-
NA
—
-
—
15,300
Copper
(Cu)
19,050
44,806
NA
52,953
119,000
106,000
38,000
65,000
103,000
65,000
16,000
173,000
108,000
56,000
33,499
73,375
106,814
95,980
24,200
53,000
NA
-
NA
—
-
-
2,300
Zinc
(Zn)
44,250
277,793
NA
233,998
143,000
101,000
48,000
90,000
118,000
76,000
46,000
134,000
120,000
41,000
101,771
106,711
254,194
102,602
22,900
74,000
NA
-
NA
—
-
-
30,800
-------
TABLE 4 (Continued)
HEAVY METAL CHARACTERISTICS OF OCEAN DUMPED SLUDGE
1975
Permit,
Number
NJ002
NJ003
NY007
NJ008
NY009
OJ
Ul
NJ017
NJ019
NJ021
NJ022
NY028
NY029
NY031
NJ063
NY068
NJ103
NJ106
NJ109
NJ111
Permittee
Middletown Sewerage Authority
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
City of Long Beach
Middlesex County Sewerage Authority
City of New York
Bowery Bay
Coney Island
Hunts Point
Jamaica
Owls Head
Newtown Creek
Port Richmond
Rockaway
Tallman Island
Wards Island
26th Ward
Modern Transportation Co.
Bergen County Sewerage Authority
Linden Roselle Sewerage Authority
Joint Meeting of Essex & Union Counties
Nassau County
Westchester County
West Long Beach Sewer District
Whippany Paper Board2
City of Glen Cove
Caldwell Trucking Co.
American Cyanamid^
S.B. Thomas^
General Marine Transportation Corp.
Selenium
(Se)
<59
<9
NA
<8
9,900
5,030
6,800
11,500
8,500
13,100
6,900
6,300
20,000
5,600
6,500
<59
28
<680
8
<65
<10
NA
-
NA
—
-
-
140
Heavy
Vanadium
(V)
<485
<200
NA
<560
1,800
2,000
1,500
1,200
2,200
1,400
1,000
2,600
1,700
1,000
2,800
<485
<445
<314
<550
480
<80
NA
-
NA
—
-
-
<1,000
Metals (yg/1)
Beryllium
(Be)
<260
<20
NA
<20
40
40
33
36
45
36
36
54
37
42
46
<260
<20
<23
<20
<40
<240
NA
-
NA
—
-
-
<20
Chromium
(Cr)
8,200
99,628
NA
33,358
64,000
10,000
7,400
14,000
30,000
95,000
1,700
14,500
40,000
12,000
34,000
8,200
194,883
42,829
62,978
NA
11,300
NA
-
NA
—
_
_
710
Nickel
(Ni)
5,704
13,814
NA
9,730
17,000
9,900
3,200
14,000
8,500
13,500
2,100
6,000
84,000
2,200
7,200
5,704
15,168
9,143
5,989
2,240
4,000
NA
-
NA
—
-
_
1,000
NA = Not Available.
EPA-Region II permit number.
2Included with NJ017.
3Included with NJ111.
Source:- USEPA, April 1975.
-------
co
O
UD
-~J
vn
O
c
27
m
CO
I
ID
0)
0)
i
m CD
>
CD
Q
>-
O
z
o
Q
UJ
Q_
11-5
05.1)
11.6
(12.7) 9.7
1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968
DREDGED MATERIAL
SEWAGE SLUDGE
CHEMICAL & ACID WASTES
1960 1961
CALENDER YEAR
OCEAN DUMPING BILL - OCT. 1972
-------
TABLE 5
VOLUMES OF WASTE DUMPED AT SITES IN AND ADJACENT TO THE NEW YORK
In Thousands of Cubic
Waste 1960
Sewage Sludge 2,921
(3,820)
Dredged Material 4,290
(5,611)
Cellar Dirt 564
(738)
-j Acid Wastes 2,348
(3,071)
Wreck1
Chemical Wastes
Total Bight 10,123
(13,240)
1961
2,564
(3,354)
4,770
(6,238)
619
(810)
2,370
(3,100)
-
5
(7)
10,328
(13,509)
1962
2,772
(3,626)
6,741
(8,816)
617
(807)
1,951
(2,551)
-
10
(13)
12,091
(15,813)
BIGHT (1960 to 1975)
Meters (Cubic Yards)
1963
3,256
(4,259)
5,494
(7,186)
755
(988)
4,432
(5,797)
-
528
(690)
14,465
(18,920)
1964
3,118
(4.078)
6,530
(8,540)
578
(756)
2,531
(3,310)
-
—
12,757
(16,684)
1965
2,954
(3,863)
4,955
(6,480)
697
(912)
2,014
(2,634)
-
—
10,620
(13,889)
1966
3,212
(4,201)
4,348
(5,687)
244
(319)
2,184
(2,857)
-
—
9,988
(13,064)
1967
3,261
(4,265)
7,045
(9,214)
389
(509)
1,756
(2,297)
1
115
(150)
12,566
(16,435)
-------
TABLE 5 (Continued)
oo
VOLUMES OF WASTE DUMPED SITES
IN AND ADJACENT TO THE NEW YORK BIGHT (1960
to 1975)
In Thousands of Cubic Meters (Cubic Yards)
Waste
Sewage Sludge
Dredged Material
Cellar Dirt
Acid Wastes
Wreck1
Chemical Wastes
Total Bight
1968
3,426
(4,481)
4,864
(6,361)
306
(400)
2,403
(3,143)
-
64
(83)
11,063
(14,468)
1969
3,406
(4,455)
7,554
(9,880)
483
(632)
2,335
(3,054)
-
66
(86)
13,844
(18,107)
1970
4,042
(5,287)
3,750
(4,905)
609
(796)
1,992
(2,605)
-
122
(160)
10,515
(13,753)
1971
2,928
(3,830)
11,516
(15,062)
517
(676)
2,162
(2,828)
3
170
(222)
17,293
(22,618)
1972
3,024
(3,955)
9,775
(12,785)
741
(969)
2,379
(3,112)
3
721
(943)
16,640
(21,764)
1973
4,281
(5,600)
6,216
(8,130)
632
(827)
2,397
(3,136)
1
508
(664)
14,034
(18,357)
1974
3,716
(4,860)
8,410
(10,820)
801
(1,048)
2,271
(2,970)
-
447
(585)
15,645
(20,283)
1975
3,650
(4,774)
4,660
(6,100)
130
(170)
1,990
(2,600)
-
550
(725)
10,980
(14,369)
Number of derelict vessels/wrecks disposed on-site.
Source: USEPA, April 1975 and January 21, 1976.
-------
TABLE 6
VOLUMES OF SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMPED IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
(1973 to 1975)
u>
1975
Permit,
Number
NJ002
NJ003
NY007
NJ008
NY009
NJ017
NJ019
NJ021
NJ022
NY028
NY029
NY031
NJ063
NY068
NJ103
NJ106
NJ109
NJ111
Sewage Sludge in Thousands of Cubic Meters (Cubic Yards)
Permittee
Middletown Sewerage Authority
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
City of Long Beach
Middlesex County Sewerage Authority
City of New York
Bowery Bay
Coney Island
Hunts Point
Jamaica
Owls Head
Newtown Creek
Port Richmond
Rockaway
Tallman Island
Wards Island
26th Ward
Modern Transportation Co.
Bergen County Sewerage Authority
Linden Roselle Sewerage Authority
Joint Meeting of Essex & Union Counties
Nassau County
Westchester County
West Long Beach Sewer District
Whippany Paper Board^
City of Glen Cove ,
Caldwell Trucking Co.
American Cyanamid^
S.B. Thomas-^
General Marine Transportation Corp.
TOTALS
1973
17
537
18
307
2,471
343
112
218
168
179
888
21
27
65
391
59
236
218
48
93
224
77
3
-
NA
—
-
-
28
4,277
(22)
(702)
(24)
(402)
(3,231)
(448)
(146)
(285)
(219)
(234)
(1,162)
(28)
(35)
(85)
(512)
(77)
(308)
(285)
(63)
(121)
(293)
(100)
(4)
-
(NA)
—
-
-
(37)
(5,592)
10
573
18
321
1,815
172
86
83
130
76
744
25
45
18
372
64
293
181
63
106
225
77
3
-
NA
—
-
-
31
3,722
1974
(13)
(750)
(24)
(427)
(2,372)
(225)
(113)
(108)
(170)
(99)
(973)
(32)
(59)
(23)
(487)
(83)
(383)
(237)
(82)
(138)
(295)
(100)
(4)
-
(NA).
—
-
-
(41)
(4,866)
18
459
18
285
1,812
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
•-
-
-
185
224
59
111
31
102
3
-
3
—
_
-
51
3,361
1975 (est.)
(23)
(600)
(24)
(383)
(2,370)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
(242)
(293)
(77)
(145)
(410)
(133)
(4)
-
(4)
—
_
-
(66)
(4,774)
NA = Not Available.
EPA-Region II permit number.
2Included with NJ017.
3Included with NJ111.
Sources: USEPA, April 1975 and January 21,
1976.
-------
tuations were noted in 1971 and 1972. The average annual volume
dumped from 1960 to 1975 was 3.3 million cu m (4.3 million cu
yd).
The twelve municipal or sewerage authority permittees
produce about 95 percent of the sludge dumped in the Bight. The
largest source is New York City, which generates approximately
54 percent of all the sludge dumped. Four other municipal or
sewerage authority permittees (Passaic Valley Sewerage Commis-
sioners, Middlesex County Sewerage Authority, Nassau County, and
Bergen County Sewerage Authority) and one commercial permittee
(Modern Transportation Company) account for approximately 36
percent. The remaining 10 percent of the sludge is dumped by
the other six permittees.
3. Dumping Vessels
Sewage sludge is currently transported to the existing
dump site by barges and sludge tankers. The barges are towed to
the site; the sludge is dumped by gravity through an opening in
the bottom of the barge. Sludge tankers are self-propelled
vessels capable of pumping sludge through openings beneath the
waterline.
At present, fourteen vessels (eight barges and six
tankers) are permitted by EPA to transport sewage sludge to the
existing site (Table 7). Two of these vessels (the barge,
Judson K. Stickle, and the tanker, Coney Island) are undergoing
repairs and modifications. They may be available for use in the
Bight by 1977. Two other vessels (the barges, Forest and Liquid
Waste No. 1) are currently used for ocean dumping in other areas
40
-------
TABLE 7
Permittee
Modern Trans-
portation
Company
New York City
SLUDGE DUMPING
Vessel Name
Forest1
Lisa
Judson K. Stickle2
Raritan
Liquid Waste No. I1
Ocean Disposall No. 2
North River
Newtown Creek
Bowery Bay
Owls Head
Type
Barge
Barge
Barge
Barge
Barge
Barge
Tanker
Tanker
Tanker
Tanker
VESSELS PERMITTED FOR USE IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Tonnage
Metric Tons
(Tons)
7,300
(8,000)
7,300
(8,000)
6,400
(7,000)
2,700
(3,000)
2,700
(3,000)
5,400
(6,000)
2,376
(2,617)
2,321
(2,557)
1,432
(1,578)
1,492
(1,643)
Carrying
Capacity Age
Cubic Meters
(Cubic Yards) Years
7,193 16
(9,408)
7,193 16
(9,408)
6,247 16
(8,170)
2,650 22
(3,466)
2,650 25
(3,466)
5,300 7
(6,932)
3,087 2
(4,037)
3,052 8
(3,992)
1,869 16
(2,444)
1,869 23
(2,444)
Length
Meters
(Feet)
83
(272)
83
(272)
91
(300)
64
(211)
64
(211)
81
(266)
99
(324)
99
(324)
82
(268)
82
(268)
Beam
Meters
(Feet)
21
(68)
21
(68)
20
(64)
13
(43)
13
(43)
17
(56)
15
(50)
15
(50)
14
(45)
14
(45)
Loaded
Draft
Meters
(Feet)
5.6
(18.5)
5.6
(18.5)
4.7
(15.5)
4.1
(13.5)
4.1
(13.5)
5.0
(16.5)
4.9
(16)
4.9
(16)
4.0
(13)
4.0
(13)
Propulsion
Towed
Towed
Towed
Towed
Towed
Towed
Self-
Propelled
Self-
P rope lied
Self-
Propelled
Self-
Propel led
-------
TABLE 7 (Continued)
ro
SLUDGE DUMPING VESSELS PERMITTED FOR USE IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Permittee Vessel Name
Westchester Westco I
County
General Marine Susan Frank
Transportation
Corporation
Rebecca K
Coney Island
Totals and Means 14 Vessels
Forest and Liquid Waste No. 1
Type Tonnage
Metric Tons
(Tons)
Barge 728
(802)
Tanker 1,297
(1,429)
Tanker 1,297
(1,429)
Tanker 1,297
(1,429)
44,040
(48,484)
Carrying
Capacity
Cubic Meters
(Cubic Yards)
1,415
(1,850)
1,457
(1,906)
1,457
(1,906)
1,457
(1,906)
46,896
(61,334)
are presently in use in Philadelphia or Puerto
Age
Years
15
NA
NA
NA
16.6
Rico, but
Length
Meters
(Feet)
61
(201)
76
(249)
76
(249)
76
(249)
80
(262)
may be
Beam
Meters
(Feet)
11
(36)
13
(42)
13
(42)
13
(42)
15
(50)
Loaded
Draft
Meters
(Feet)
3.0
(0)
3.7
(12)
3.7
(12)
3.7
(12)
4.4
(14.2)
in the New York
Propulsion
Towed
Self-
Propelled
Self-
Propelled
Self-
Propelled
area in the
future.
2
Judson K. Stickle is currently under repair and will not be available until 1977.
Coney Island is currently being modified for permitted use in the Bight and may be available in 1977.
Sources: Pollution Control Industries, August 15, 1975; NYCEPA, July 28, 1975; Westchester County, July 7, 1975;
General Marine Transportation Corporation, July 6, 1975; USEPA, January 21, 1976.
-------
(Philadelphia and Puerto Rico), but may be available in the
future. The carrying capacity of this fourteen vessel fleet
would be 46,900 cu m (61,300 cu yd) per trip.
The City of New York owns and operates a fleet of four
self-propelled sludge tankers, whose total carrying capacity is
approximately 9,900 cu m (12,900 cu yd), or 21 percent of the
potential carrying capacity. The two commercial sludge haulers,
Modern Transportation Company and General Marine Transportation
Corporation, have potential carrying capacities of 31,800 and
3,900 cu m (35,000 and 4,300 cu yd), respectively. Together
they represent 76 percent of the potential barging capacity in
the metropolitan area. The barge operated by Westchester County
accounts for the remaining 3 percent.
4. Future Sources
The twelve municipal and sewerage authority permit-
tees, along with the three commercial permittees, are expected
to be the only significant sources of sewage sludge, on a volu-
metric basis, dumping in the New York Bight from 1976 through
1981. During this period, these sources are, at the direction
of EPA, to develop environmentally acceptable land-based methods
of sludge disposal. The EPA has already established schedules
for phasing out sludge dumping by the three industrial permit-
tees (Whippany Paper Board, American Cyanamid, and S.B. Thomas)
by 1977. It is EPA's stated goal to implement environmentally
acceptable alternatives to ocean dumping of all sewage sludge
in the Bight by 1981, where environmentally, technically, and
economically feasible.
43
-------
Within the next few years, the six primary wastewater
treatment facilities in the metropolitan area that dump sewage
sludge in the Bight will be upgraded to provide secondary treat-
ment (Tables 2 and 8). Around 1981, New York City will add a
new facility (the North River Plant) to the eleven wastewater
treatment facilities it already operates. A total of twenty-
three large wastewater treatment facilities in the metropolitan
area, all operated by the present municipal and sewerage author-
ity permittees, will be dumping sewage sludge in the New York
Bight by 1981. All of these facilities should be practicing
secondary treatment by then.
The three commercial haulers will probably continue
to provide sludge dumping services to septic tank cleaners and
small municipalities and sewerage authorities in New Jersey.
The EPA intends to phase out commercial sludge dumping by 1981.
a. Sludge Characteristics. In the interval, 1976 to
1981, the sewage sludge dumped in the New York Bight should gen-
erally resemble that being dumped at present, as described pre-
viously in this section and as shown in Tables 2, 3, and 4. It
is assumed that concentrations of heavy metals will remain about
the same because conventional secondary treatment does not re-
move heavy metals. Pretreatment requirements for discharge of
industrial effluent to municipal systems are not expected to be
operational until 1977, and only slight in-house process reduc-
tions in heavy metals discharged from industries in the metro-
politan area are anticipated.
44
-------
TABLE 8
171
FUTURE TREATMENT PRACTICES OF OCEAN DUMPING PERMITTEES
1975
Permit,
Number
NJ002
NJ003
NY007
NJ008
NY009
NJ017
NJ021
NJ022
NY028
NY029
NY031
NJ063
NY068
NJ103
NJ106
NJ109
NJ111
Permittee
Middletown Sewerage Authority
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
City of Long Beach
Middlesex County Sewerage Authority
City of New York
Bowery Bay
Coney Island
Hunts Point
Jamaica
Owls Head
Newtown Creek
Port Richmond
Rockaway
Tallman Island
Wards Island
26th Ward
North River (1981)
Modern Transportation Co.
Linden Roselle Sewerage Authority
Joint Meeting of Essex & Union Counties
Nassau County
Westchester County
West Long Beach Sewer District
Whippany Paper Board^
City of Glen Cove
Caldwell Trucking Co.
American Cyanamid2
S.B. Thomas^
General Marine Transportation Corp.
(1981)
Treatment
Level
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
'Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
NA
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
-
--
NA
-
-
NA
Sludge Treatment
Incineration
Thickening, Digestion & Dewatering
Digestion and Heat Conditioning
Digestion
Thickening and Digestion
Thickening and Digestion
Thickening and Digestion
Thickening and Digestion
Thickening and Digestion
Thickening and Digestion
Digestion
Thickening and Digestion
Thickening and Digestion
Thickening and Digestion
Thickening and Digestion
Thickening and Digestion
NA
Thickening and Digestion
Thickening and Digestion
Incineration
Incineration
Incineration
-
Incineration (1979)
NA
-
-
NA
Percent
Solids
mm
10.0
3.5
4.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
2.8
5.0
3.5
4.7
3.5
2.5
3.7
3.5
3.5
NA
5.8
3.5
-
3.5
-
-
-
NA
-
-
NA
NA = Not Available.
EPA-Region II permit number.
2
Whippany Paper Board, American Cynamid and S.B. Thomas are to phase out of ocean dumping of sewage sludge by 1977.
Sources: USEPA, April 1975 and January 21, 1975; ISC, 1975.
-------
In the future, the concentrations of heavy metals from
the New York City and New Jersey sewage sludge sources may de-
cline as pretreatment and in-house changes in industrial proces-
ses are implemented. This may make these sludges more accept-
able for agricultural uses (Section VA).
Sludges from secondary treatment facilities generally
have a lower solids concentration than sludges from primary
facilities. As the remaining primary treatment plants in the
metropolitan area are upgraded to provide secondary treatment,
there may be a slight decrease in the solids concentration of
sewage sludge dumped in the ocean. Specific sludge treatment
methods can be used to increase the solids concentration, there-
by reducing the total volume of sludge, and making barging to an
ocean dump site more economical. Therefore, many of the up-
graded wastewater treatment facilities are expected to provide
solids concentration in addition to conventional sludge treat-
ment.
b. Volumes of Sludge to be Dumped. The volume of sewage
sludge dumped in the New York Bight is expected to double be-
tween 1976 and 1981 (Table 9). Approximately 99 percent of this
volume (up from 95 percent in 1975) will be generated by the
present municipal and sewerage authority permittees. The re-
maining 1 percent of the future load (down from 5 percent in
1975) will be dumped by the three present commercial permittees.
Projections are that in 1981, a total of 10.2 million cu m (13.3
million cu yd) of sewage sludge will be dumped in the Bight.
46
-------
TABLE 9
VOLUMES OF SEWAGE SLUDGE ESTIMATED FOR DUMPING IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
1975
Permit.
Number
NJ002
NJ003
NY007
NJ008
NY009
NJ017
NJ019
NJ021
NJ022
NY028
NY029
NY031
NJ063
NY068
NJ103
NJ106
NJ109
NJ111
Sewage Sludge in Thousands of Cubic Meters (Cubic Yards)
Permittee
Middletown Sewerage Authority
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
City of Long Beach
Middlesex County Sewerage Authority
City of New York
Modern Transportation Co.
Bergen County Sewerage Authority
Linden Roselle Sewerage Authority
Joint Meeting of Essex & Union Counties
Nassau County
Westchester County
West Long Beach Sewer District
Whippany Paper Board^
City of Glen Cove
Caldwell Trucking Co.
American Cyanamid^
S.B. Thomas3
General Marine Transportation Corp.
TOTALS
1976
18
459
29
308
2,982
310
217
92
111
365
141
3
-
41
-
38
5,114
(23)
(600)
(38)
(403)
(3,900)
(406)
(284)
(120)
(145)
(478)
(185)
(4)
-
(54)
-
(50)
(6,690)
1977
24
459
31
319
3,942
310
223
120
111
382
424
3
-
43
-
38
6,429
(31)
(600)
(40)
(417)
(5,155)
(406)
(292)
(157)
(145)
(500)
(555)
(4)
-
(56)
-
(50)
(8,408)
1978
30
459
32
743
4,078
310
225
148
111
400
436
4
0
44
0
38
7,058
(39)
(600)
(42)
(972)
(5,333)
(406)
(294)
(194)
(145)
(523)
(570)
(5)
(0)
(58)
(0)
(50)
(9,231)
1979
36
765
34
765
4,351
310
229
177
333
417
531
4
0
Inc.
0
38
7,990
(47)
(1,000)
(44)
(1,000)
(5,690)
(406)
(300)
(231)
(435)
(545)
(694)
(5)
(0)
(Inc.)
(0)
(50)
(10,447)
-------
TABLE 9 (Continued)
VOLUMES OF SEWAGE SLUDGE ESTIMATED FOR DUMPING IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
CO
1975
Permit,
Number Permittee
NJ002 Middletown Sewerage Authority
NJ003 Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
NY007 City of Long Beach
NJ008 Middlesex County Sewerage Authority
NY009 City of New York
NJ017 Modern Transportation Co.
NJ019 Bergen County Sewerage Authority
NJ021 Linden Roselle Sewerage Authority
NJ022 Joint Meeting of Essex & Union Counties
NY028 Nassau County
NY029 Westchester County
NY031 West Long. Beach Sewer District
NJ063 Whippany Paper Board2
NY068 City of Glen Cove ,
NJ103 Caldwell Trucking Co.
NJ106 American Cyanamid^
NJ109 S.B. Thomas3
NJ111 General Marine Transportation Corp.
TOTALS
Inc.= Incinerated.
EPA- Region II permit number.
2
Volumes included in Modern Transportation Company
phased out of ocean dumping.
3 T , , , .
Sewage Sludge in Thousands of Cubic Meters
1980
42
994
35
912
4,621
310
234
205
333
434
681
4
0
Inc.
_
0
0
38
8,843
(55)
(1,300)
(46)
(1,193)
(6,044)
(406)
(306)
(268)
(435)
(567)
(891)
(5)
(0)
(Inc.)
_
(0)
(0)
(50)
(11,566)
totals until 1977 when Whippany
48
994
37
924
5,880
310
239
232
333
451
701
4
0
Inc.
_
0
0
38
10,191
1981
(63)
(1,300)
(48)
(1,208)
(7,690)
(406)
(312)
(305)
(435)
(590)
(917)
(5)
(0)
(Inc.)
_
(0)
(0)
(50)
(13,329)
Paper Board and American
(Cubic Yards)
2000
Inc.
1,860
46
2,449
6,975
310
693
403
544
Inc.
Inc.
Inc.
0
Inc.
_
0
0
38
13,318
Cyan amid
(Inc.)
(2,443)
(60)
(3,203)
(9,122)
(406)
(907)
(527)
(711)
(Inc.)
(Inc.)
(Inc.)
(0)
(Inc.)
_
(0)
(0)
(50)
(17,419)
will be
L. — . £
ocean dumping.
Sources: ISC, 1975; Bergen County Sew. Auth., October 12, 1975; Joint Meeting, September 10, 1975; Middlesex County Sew.
Auth., September 18, 1975; PVSC, September 24, 1965; Nassau County, September 18, 1975; Westchester County,
September 15, 1975; NYCEPA, October 28, 1975.
-------
The City of New York, Westchester County, Middlesex
County, Passaic Valley, Linden, Roselle, and Joint Meeting are
expected to remain the largest generators of sludge volumes in
1981 (Table 9). The greatest growth in volume, a fivefold in-
crease, is projected for Westchester County. New York.City will
continue to be the largest sludge generator in New York State,
and Passaic Valley and Middlesex County the largest generators
in New Jersey.
Three small municipal or sewerage authority treatment
facilities (Middletown, Glen Cove, and West Long Beach), and
possibly Nassau and Westchester counties, are to begin inciner-
ating sewage sludge by 1981. Incineration would replace the
current practice of ocean dumping.
49
-------
C. OCEAN DUMPING AT OTHER SITES IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Besides the sewage sludge dump site, the other exist-
ing dump sites in the New York Bight are the dredged material,
cellar dirt, acid wastes, and wreck sites (Figure 2 and Table
1). Although the chemical wastes site is outside the Bight, it
will be discussed here (Figure 1 and Table 1). For the most
part, ocean dumping at these five sites will continue until at
least 1981.
1. Dredged Material Site
The principal wastes dumped at this site are materials
dredged from navigable waterways, including channels, harbors,
anchorage grounds, and vessel berths. Up until 1973, ash re-
sidues from fossil-fueled power plants were also dumped here.
The dredged material currently dumped here results from pro-
jects, authorized by the Corps of Engineers (COE), involving
maintenance dredging in harbors and channels of the New York-New
Jersey metropolitan area. Both the COE hopper dredges and
privately owned bottom-dump scows use this site.
a. Past Activities. The original site within New York
Harbor was established in 1888. As the designated area de-
a
creased noticeably in depth, its location was changed several
times. The existing dredged material site was designated for
use in 1940. Dredged material has generally been the major
source of wastes dumped in the Bight, based upon estimated
annual volumes.
From 1960 to 1974, nearly 92 million cu m (120 million
cu yd) of dredged material were dumped at the existing site
50
-------
(Figure 3 and Table 5). The peak annual volume for this period
was 11.5 million cu m (15.1 million cu yd) in 1971. The average
annual volume for the period was approximately 6 million cu m (8
million cu yd).
b. Present Waste Characteristics. Based upon mass load-
ing comparisons with sewage sludge (Table 10), the dredged ma-
terial being dumped at the existing site consists primarily of
particulate solids. It is characterized by high concentrations
of heavy metals, especially cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, and
zinc. Dredged material apparently exerts the same biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) as sewage sludge, but only one-half of the
chemical oxygen demand (COD) and only one-fifth of the total
organic carbon (TOC). The mass loading of oil and grease (0 &
G) in the dredged material is extremely low. The total Kjeldahl
nitrogen (TKN) and total phosphorous (Total-P) levels in dredged
material appear to be nearly four times as high as those in
sludge.
c. Future Activities. Based on historical permit data,
the COE expects a future annual increment of 46 to 54 thousand
cu m (60 to 70 thousand cu yd) of dredged material. In 1975,
4.7 million cu m (6.1 million cu yd) of material were dumped at
the site (USEPA, January 21, 1976). Utilizing the projected
increment, the 1981 volume would be about 4.8 million cu m (6.2
million cu yd); this is much less than has been dumped in the
past. However, large dredging projects could change this sig-
nificantly.
51
-------
TABLE 10
COMPARISON OF DREDGED MATERIAL AND SEWAGE SLUDGE
Parameter
Total Solids (TS)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD,-)
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
Total Organic Carbon (TOG)
Oil and Grease (0 & G)
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
Total Phosphorous (Total-P)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
Mercury (Hg)
Lead (Pb)
Zinc (Zn)
Dredged
Material
Metric
13,400
200
1,100
110
22
63
63
2.0
2.3
6.3
Sewage
Sludge
Tons/Day
530
210
2,100
540
300
17
17
0.04
0.073
0.70
0.013 0.013
4.7
7.3
0.72
1.8
MASS LOADS
Dredged Material
to Sewage
Sludge
Loading Ratio
25.28
0.95
0.52
0.20
0,07
3.70
3.70
50.00
31.50
9.00
1.00
6.53
4.06
Metric ton =1.10 tons.
Source: Mueller and Jeris, unpub.
52
-------
In October 1974, EPA requested that the COE-New York
District submit a plan for phasing out the existing dredged
material dump site by 1976, and possibly using an alternate dump
site within the Northern or Southern Area. The plan was to
include consideration of alterna' ">ves to ocean dumping, poten-
tial navigation hazards, economic impacts, and an implementation
schedule. The request was based upon the significant volume of
dredged material being dumped annually, the high pollutant
loading associated with the material dumped, and the decision to
move the existing sewage sludge dump site farther offshore
(USEPA, October 9, 1974).
The COE-New York District maintains that relocating
the dredged material dump site is not currently justified on the
basis of potential effects on water quality, shellfish beds or
fisheries resources, wildlife, or recreational areas. In
addition, the COE anticipates that transporting dredged material
to an alternate dump site in either the Northern or Southern
Area will significantly increase the costs of the waterways
dredging and port development program in the metropolitan area.
Currently, the COE is studying alternative sites and methods of
dredged material disposal and has indicated a willingness to re-
locate the existing dump site if studies show that it presents
a hazard to navigation or public health (USACOE, December 12,
1974).
In July 1975, the COE suggested that dredged material
dumping be shifted slightly offshore and to the southeast of
the existing dump site. This proposal was prompted by the ac-
53
-------
cumulation of solids at the dump site, the need for maintaining
a maximum 15 m (50 ft) water depth onsite, and the trend toward
increased vessel draft (USACOE, July 14, 1975).
Monitoring studies conducted by NOAA-MESA indicate
that the "great bulk" of dredged material already dumped onsite
has not been transported any significant distance from the re-
lease point (NOAA, March 14, 1975). Recently (November 1975),
NOAA-MESA stated that use of the existing dredged material and
sewage sludge sites has resulted in significant adverse environ-
mental impacts over a localized area of several hundred square
meters. Nevertheless, NOAA does not recommend moving the exist-
ing dump site unless it presents a hazard to navigation or pub-
lic health (NOAA, October 6, 1975).
The EPA is currently evaluating the need to relocate
the dredged material dump site.
2. Cellar Dirt Site
Cellar dirt is composed mainly of construction rubble,
broken concrete, excavated earth and rock, and other non-float-
able material. The bulk of this material comes from construc-
tion in the metropolitan area. Cellar dirt is ocean dumped
because there is little or no land area left for its disposal in
the metropolitan area. A great deal of the material recently
dumped at the cellar dirt site resulted from blasting and tun-
neling operations in New York City, especially for the Second
Avenue Subway and the new water tunnel.
54
-------
a. Past Activities. Cellar dirt has been dumped into the
Bight since 1908, when the original dump site was established.
Since then, the site has been moved several times because of the
potential hazards to navigation as the cellar dirt material ac-
cumulated. The existing site was designated in 1940. From 1960
through 1974, this dump site received over 8.4 million cu m
(11.0 million cu yd) of material (Table 5) for an average an-
nual contribution of over 535 thousand cu m (700 thousand cu
yd)..
b. Future Activities. In 1975, 268 thousand cu m (350
thousand cu yd) of cellar dirt material were dumped at the site
(USEPA, January 21, 1976). This reduction in volume is due to
decreased construction activity in the metropolitan area. The
volume of material dumped at the cellar dirt site varies accord-
ing to economic conditions in the construction business.
3. Acid Wastes Site
Currently, the acid wastes dump site is used by only
two industries (NL Industries and Allied Chemical), both of
which are located in New Jersey. Prior to 1974, DuPont dumped
caustic wastes here; these wastes are now dumped at the chem-
ical wastes site. Acid wastes, which consist of the by-
product (process) acid solutions, are generally transported to
the site aboard rubber-lined tank barges. They are then re-
leased below water level, while the barges are underway, to
insure maximum dispersion and dilution.
a. Past Activities. The existing acid wastes dump site
in the Bight Apex was established in 1948. Prior to 1948, acid
55
-------
wastes were dumped at the sewage sludge dump site. Between 1960
and 1974, over 35 million cu m (46 million cu yd) of acid wastes
were dumped (Figure 3 and Table 5), for an average annual con-
tribution of 2.3 million cu m (3.0 million cu yd).
b. Future Activities. The volume of acid wastes dumped
in the Bight is not expected to increase between 1976 and 1981.
The two industries that currently use the site are under an
implementation schedule to phase out ocean dumping by 1981
(USEPA, January 21, 1976).
4. Wreck Site
Derelict vessels and wrecks, which represent hazards
to navigation, are permitted to be disposed of at this dump
site. Abandoned recreational craft generally are handled under
EPA permit by the COE, while larger abandoned vessels are turned
over to their owners for disposal.
a. Past Activities. The wreck site has been used very
sparingly in recent years. Only eight vessels were dumped at
the site between 1960 and 1974 (Table 5).
b. Future Activities. The USCG and the COE have proposed
that the existing wreck site be relocated outside of existing
navigational lanes. This action is now under review by EPA.
For the immediate future (1976), EPA will not permit use of the
existing site.
5. Chemical Wastes Site
The chemical wastes dump site was created as an al-
ternative to the land disposal of industrial chemical wastes
which might contaminate potable water supplies.
56
-------
a. Past Activities. The chemical wastes site was estab-
lished in 1965 based upon geographical limits recommended by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. From 1960 to 1974, less than
2.5 million cu m (3.5 million cu yd) of chemical wastes were
dumped here (Figure 3 and Table 5), for an average annual con-
tribution of slightly over 176 thousand cu m (230 thousand cu
yd).
b. Future Activities. There are currently nineteen in-
dustrial waste generators permitted to use this site. Of
these, fifteen are under an implementation schedule to phase out
ocean dumping by July 1977. The remaining four industries are
under implementation schedules to phase out ocean dumping by
1981 (USEPA, November 15, 1975).
57
-------
D. OVERVIEW OF POLLUTANT LOADING IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
The present pollutant loading in the New York Bight
can be attributed to dumping and non-dumping contaminant sour-
ces. The non-dumping loading comes from three major sources:
atmospheric fallout, wastewater (municipal and industrial) dis-
charges, and surface (gaged and urban) and groundwater runoff
(Table 11 and Figure 4).
The Mueller and Jeris report (unpub.) represents the
best current estimate of the non-dumping loading to the New
York Bight. Admittedly, it contains data gaps and relies
heavily upon unverified discharge information. Nonetheless,
the report gives a relatively good general description of non-
dumping pollutant loading.
The actual contaminant input to the New York Bight
continental shelf waters cannot be precisely quantified because
of the difficulty in identifying the reductions that occur
in the pollutant load before it reaches the Bight. For the
most part, the contaminant loading presented by Mueller and
Jeris identifies loadings from three separate zones: the Sandy
Hook-Rockaway Point transect zone, the New Jersey coastal zone,
and the Long Island coastal zone.
Barging sources, as defined by Mueller and Jeris, in-
clude dredged material, sewage sludge, cellar dirt, and acid
wastes dumped directly into the waters of the Bight. The pol-
lutant loading from wreck dumping was considered to be insigni-
ficant. In terms of absolute volumes, dredged material con-
stituted the major source of pollutants dumped in the Bight.
58
-------
TABLE 11
Total New York Bight Loads by Source
Percentage Contribution
Parameter
Flow
Suspended Solids (SS)
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand (BOD)
Chemical Oxygen
Demand (COD)
Total Organic Carbon
(TOC)
Oil & Grease (06.G)
Ammonia (NH -N)
Organic Nitrogen
(Org-N)
Total Kjeldahl
Nitrogen (TKN)
Nitrite & Nitrate
(N02-N & NO -N)
total-Nitrogen
Ortho-Phosphorous
Total-Phosphorous
Cadium (Cd)
Chromium (Ch)
Copper (Cu)
Iron (Fe)
Mercury (Hg)
Lead (Pb)
Zinc (Zn)
Fecal
Coli-winter
summer
Total
Coli-winter
summer
Direct
T
Bight
Coastal Zone
Wastewater
Barge Atmospheric
0.02
63
21
32
25
38
24
19
21
0.07
16
-
50
82
50
51
79
9
44
29
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
59
5
9
10
12
-
4
9
6
33
13
1
0.7
2
1
3
3
-
9
18
0
0
0
0
Municipal
5
4
48
35
29
22
55
45
51
6
40
72
35
5
22
11
5
71
19
8
87
85
91
84
Runoff
Industrial Gaged Urban Groundwater
0.4
0.2
2
1
1
0.7
3
2
2
0.3
2
-
1
0.6
0.8
9
0.5
2
3
2
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
33
16
11
13
18
16
10
21
15
60
25
18
9
5
10
10
6
13
6
21
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.1
2
12
9
9
15
23
4
5
5
0.6
4
9
4
5
16
16
6
5
19
22
13
15
9
16
0.4
0
0.01
0.01
0.02
-
0.04
0.02
0.02
0.7
0.2
0
0
0.001
0
0.006
0.01
-
0.004
0.009
0
0
0
0
TJarging includes dredged material, sewage sludge, cellar dirt,
and acid wastes dumping.
Source: Mueller and Jeris, unpub.
59
-------
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
ORGANIC CARBON
AIR
NITROGEN
PHOSPHORUS
LEAD
SOURCE : MUELLER AND JERIS , UNPUB.
SOURCES OF POLLUTANTS IN THE
NEW YORK BIGHT
FIGURE 4
-------
Mueller and Jeris concluded that the greatest pol-
lutant input to the Bight originates in the Sandy Hook-Rockaway
Point transect zone. Inputs from the New Jersey and Long Is-
land coastal zones are small, contributing less than 6 percent
of the total pollutant loading to the Bight.
1. Suspended Solids
The major input of suspended solids (SS) to the New
York Bight waters (63 percent) comes from barged sources, prin-
cipally dredged material. Atmospheric fallout contributes ap-
proximately 5 percent of the total, while runoff contributes
about 28 percent. Wastewater discharges contribute the re-
maining 4 percent.
2. Carbonaceous Materials
Municipal wastewater discharges are the source of
about half (48 percent) of the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)
loading reaching the Bight. Barging (21 percent), runoff (20
percent), and atmospheric fallout (9 percent) account for most
of the remaining load.
Barging and municipal wastewater discharge loadings
account for approximately 67 percent of the COD and 54 percent
of the TOC loading in the Bight. The COD and TOC loadings from
atmospheric fallout are approximately 11 percent and 15 percent,
respectively. Likewise, the COD and TOC loadings from runoff
are approximately 11 percent and 15 percent, respectively.
3. Heavy Metals
Barging appears to be the major source of heavy metals
contamination to the New York Bight, with the exception of mer-
61
-------
cury (from municipal wastewater discharges). Runoff and munici-
pal wastewater discharges are the second and third largest sour-
ces. Almost all of the barge-related heavy metal loadings are
the result of dredged material dumping; sewage sludge accounts
for less than 6 percent of these loadings.
4. Nitrogen and Phosphorous
Approximately half of the oxidizable nitrogen (am-
monia, organic nitrogen, and nitrate-nitrogen) in the Bight
appears to result from municipal wastewater discharges. Runoff
and barging, almost equally, account for the remaining oxidiz-
able nitrogen.
Gaged runoff (60 percent) is by far the largest source
of nitrites and nitrates (N09-N and NO-.-N) in the Bight. At-
fc -J
mospheric fallout (33 percent) is the second major source of
these contaminants.
Municipal wastewater discharges account for 72 per-
cent of the dissolved phosphorous (Ortho-P) loading in the New
York Bight. The remainder of the dissolved phosphorous results
from runoff. Barging, primarily of dredged material, accounts
for 50 percent of the total phosphorous loading to the Bight.
5. Microbial Contamination
Municipal wastewater discharges appear to be the major
source (84 to 91 percent) of microbial contamination (fecal and
total coliform) to the Bight. The remaining coliform loading
results from urban runoff. Barging is an insignificant source
of fecal contamination of the New York Bight.
62
-------
E. FEDERAL LEGISLATION AND CONTROL PROGRAMS
1. The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of
1972 (PL 92-532)
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
of 1972 (MPRSA) regulates the dumping of waste materials in U.S.
ocean waters (U.S. Congress, October 23, 1972). It includes
mechanisms for designating dump sites, for issuing dumping per-
mits, and for carrying out associated surveillance and enforce-
ment activities. It also provides for establishing marine sanc-
tuaries and for researching the causes and effects of marine
pollution. Under the MPRSA, EPA is assigned overall responsi-
bility for administration and enforcement activities. Other re-
sponsibilities are assigned to the COE, the USCG>, the Department
of Commerce (through NOAA), the Department of State, and the
U.S. Attorney General.
The transportation from the United States of "any
radiological, chemical or biological warfare agent or any high-
level radioactive waste" for the purpose of dumping it into any
ocean waters is specifically forbidden by the MPRSA. This pro-
hibition was required of any signatories of the International
Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of
Wastes and Other Matter, which was ratified by the U.S. Senate
in August 1973.
The responsibilities of the federal agencies under the
MPRSA are discussed below.
The EPA issues dumping permits for the transport and
dumping of all materials, except dredged material, into ocean
63
-------
waters; establishes criteria for review of permit applications;
designates ocean dump sites; assesses environmental impacts of
ocean dumping; and provides for enforcement of ocean dumping
permits.
The COE issues permits for the dumping of dredged ma-
terial, subject to EPA review.
The USCG conducts surveillance and other appropriate
enforcement activities to prevent unlawful transportation of
material for dumping.
The Department of Commerce (through NOAA).conducts
comprehensive monitoring and research programs regarding the
effects of ocean dumping, including possible long-range effects
of pollution, overfishing, and man-induced changes of ocean eco-
systems; designates marine sanctuaries, after consultation with
other affected federal agencies; and regulates all activities
within such sanctuaries.
The Department of State protects the marine environ-
ment by establishing international agreements which further the
goals of the MPRSA.
The U.S. Attorney General initiates civil and criminal
actions at EPA's direction "for such relief as may be appropri-
ate", including injunctions to cease ocean dumping.
2. Related Legislation
The New York Harbor Act of 1888, the Rivers and Har-
bors Act of 1899 (otherwise known as the Refuse Act), and the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1905 were the first federal laws that
attempted to regulate the dumping of refuse and dredged materi-
64
-------
al into the navigable waters of the United States, including the
ocean. The MPRSA has superseded these Acts and other related
legislation with regard to ocean dumping of waste materials.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
(FWPCAA) of 1972 (PL 92-500) are the source of EPA's authority
to regulate the discharge of treated wastewater (effluent> into
U.S. waters, including wastewater discharge through ocean out-
falls. Both the MPRSA and the FWPCAA provide for the establish-
ment of criteria to control the dumping and discharge of wastes
in ocean waters.
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1965 and the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) indirectly re-
late to ocean dumping in that they require the conservation of
marine resources and the assessment of environmental impacts,
respectively, where federal actions are concerned. Prior to the
passage of the MPRSA in 1972, these laws were frequently used to
halt or regulate ocean dumping (Pararas-Carayannis, 1973).
3. EPA Ocean Dumping Permit Program
Under the MPRSA, EPA is authorized to establish a
permit program for regulating the transport and dumping of waste
materials, except dredged material, in ocean waters. Region II
of EPA has been delegated the responsibility for regulating
ocean dumping in the waters off New York, New Jersey, Puerto
Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
a. Existing Regulations. On October 15, 1973, EPA-Head-
quarters published Subchapter H, Ocean Dumping Regulations (40
65
-------
CFR, Parts 220 to 227), as authorized under the MPRSA, which
established guidelines for the review, evaluation, and issuance
of ocean dumping permits.
Part 220 of these regulations describes five types of
permits that may be issued: General, Special, Emergency, Re-
search, and Interim. The EPA has, with few exceptions, issued
only Interim Permits. These permits are non-renewable and have
a term of one year or less. A new Interim Permit may be issued
to an applicant that has already received one Interim Permit
only if that applicant has demonstrated compliance with an ap-
proved schedule to implement an environmentally acceptable al-
ternative to ocean dumping. The EPA's policy has been to hold
public hearings on the issuance of most ocean dumping permits.
A sample permit form is contained in Appendix A.
The EPA has issued Special Permits to users of the
cellar dirt dump site because the materials that are dumped
there are considered nontoxic. Special Permits are renewable
and have a term of three years or less.
i Parts 221 through 226 describe required information
for application, action on application, contents of permits,
records, COE permits, and enforcement procedures for the regula-
tion of ocean dumping.
Part 227 contains the technical criteria, including
applicable maximum concentrations of toxic substances, used in
the evaluation of wastes proposed for ocean dumping. The esta-
blishment of these criteria was authorized under Section 104 of
66
-------
the MPRSA and Section 403 of the FWPCAA; the criteria apply to
both ocean dumping and discharge through ocean outfalls.
The EPA-Headquarters has issued two General Permits
(40 CFR Part 229), one for burial-at-sea and the other for
transport and sinking of target vessels by the U.S. Navy. A
third General Permit is being drawn up for the dumping of wrecks
(derelict vessels). No Research or Emergency Permits, which can
only be issued by EPA-Headquarters, have been granted for the
New York Bight area to date (January 1976).
b. Proposed Regulations. At present, EPA-Headquarters
is revising Parts 220 to 227 of the ocean dumping regulations
and is preparing a new Part 228, regarding management of dump
sites. When completed, these revisions will be published in the
Federal Register as proposed regulations, and will be subject to
public review and comment.
c. Enforcement Actions. Since the MPRSA became effec-
tive, EPA-Region II has initiated eight enforcement actions on
alleged ocean dumping permit violations in the New York Bight
(Table 12). These actions were based upon referrals from the
USCG, NASA, and EPA's own staff. Three of these orders (No. 73-
1, 74-2, and 75-4) were issued for alleged misuse of the exist-
ing sewage sludge site. The remaining five orders were for
alleged violations at the chemical wastes or acid wastes site.
Over 100 USCG referrals to EPA have been for the per-
mittee's "failure to notify" the USCG prior to leaving port.
67
-------
TABLE 12
00
OCEAN DUMPING ORDERS IN THE
Order
No.
73-1
74-1
74-2
74-4
75-2
75-3
75-4
75-5
Respondents '
Name
General Marine
Transport Corp.
Moran Towing &
Transportation Co.
Modern Transporta-
tion Company
Spentonbush Trans-
port Service, Inc.
Modern Transporta-
tion Company
Chemical Recovery
Corp., EPL Indus-
ries. Inc.
Nassau County
Moran Towing &
Transportation Co.
Referral
From
EPA-
Region II
USCG
USCG
USCG
EPA-
Region II
EPA-
Region II
EPA-
Region II
NASA & EPA-
Region II
Type of
Violation
Permit condition vio-
lation and dumping
without permit
Dumped outside auth-
orized dump site
Dumped outside auth-
orized dump site
Dumped outside auth-
orized dump site
Higher concentration
of several parameters
than that reported in
the permit application
Higher concentration
of several parameters
than that reported in
the permit application
Failure to segregate
industrial waste
Dumped outside auth-
orized dump site
NEW YORK BIGHT
Notice of
Violation
11/21/73
01/23/74
04/02/74
06/06/75
03/05/75
03/05/75
05/06/75
08/14/75
Disposition
Final Order 05/15/74
Hearing officer upheld
GMTC on both counts
Final Order 05/27/75
$25,000 penalty payment
Appealed U.S. District
Court
Final Order 01/22/75
Charges withdrawn
Pending
Pending
Pending
Final Order 06/16/75
No Penalty; ordered to
terminate dumping of
industrial wastes
Pending
Dump Site
Sewage Sludge
Acid Wastes
Sewage Sludge
Chemical Wastes
Chemical Wastes
Chemical Wastes
Sewage Sludge
Acid Wastes
Source: USEPA, October 24, 1975.
-------
The facts did not warrant initiation of administrative action,
although, in some cases, a letter of reprimand was sent to the
permittee.
4. COE Dredged Material Permit Program
The COE is authorized to issue permits for the dumping
of dredged material into navigable waters, under the FWPCAA, and
into ocean waters, under the MPRSA. Passage of these two Acts
in 1972 relieved the COE of all responsibility for the regula-
tion of waste discharges, as either effluent or solid waste
materials.
The COE has published interim final regulations (33
CFR Part 209) containing guidelines for the regulation of dredg-
ing operations and for the issuance of permits for the transport
of dredged material for dumping. The criteria to be used by the
COE in evaluating applications for ocean dumping of dredged
material are those promulgated under the aforementioned Ocean
Dumping Regulations (40 CFR Part 227).
5. USCG Surveillance Responsibilities
The USCG has the responsibility under the MPRSA to
"conduct surveillance and other appropriate enforcement activity
to prevent unlawful transportation of material for dumping, or
unlawful dumping" and to "supply to the EPA Administrator and
the U.S. Attorney General, as appropriate, such information of
enforcement as they may require in carrying out their duties
relative to penalty assessment (fines), criminal prosecutions,
or other actions involving litigation." Under the MPRSA, the
69
-------
USCG is authorized to issue regulations to carry out "the re-
sponsibilities and authority conferred."
a. Existing Program. The USCG to date (January 1976) has
not promulgated any regulations under the MPRSA. For the pres-
ent, the USCG has defined its surveillance responsibilities
under an internal order, (Commandant Instruction 5992.9A), which
can be briefly summarized as follows:
- Spot checks will be conducted on dumping vessels for
valid permits.
- Surveillance will be concentrated on the dumping of
toxic material, EPA requests for vessel/dump monitoring, and 10
percent of other disposal activities.
- Surveillance will be accomplished by using a USCG ves-
sel to intercept and/or escort the permittee vessel, by aircraft
overflight of the assigned dump site during dumping activity,
by stationing shipriders (USCG personnel) on permittee vessels,
and by radar coverage.
- Random surveillance missions will be conducted in des-
ignated and non-designated areas to discourage illegal dumping.
- For purposes of enforcement, the USCG will report vio-
lations of the ocean dumping permit conditions to EPA.
- The USCG will review both EPA and COE draft permits
for ocean dumping such that specific surveillance conditions may
be made part of the final permit.
The U.S. Coast Guard-Third District, which has jur-
isdiction over coastal waters from Connecticut to Delaware-, is
70
-------
responsible for the surveillance of ocean dumping in the New
York Bight. Within the Bight Apex, patrol vessels conduct sur-
veillance of the existing dump sites and record vessel sitings,
activities, and positions. Daily helicopter patrols are con-
ducted over the five existing dump sites in the Bight Apex,
weather conditions permitting.
The use of shipriders is an effective method of sur-
veillance, but requires an exceptional commitment of manpower.
Therefore, shipriders are used only for surveillance at the
chemical wastes dump site. In 1974, 44 percent of the vessels
going to the chemical wastes site carried shipriders. Intercep-
tion by aircraft or ship is not routinely attempted because of
the inaccuracy in estimating the dumping vessel's time of arri-
val and because of the relatively short endurance time of the
patrol helicopters (USCG, July 8, 1975).
From April 1973 (the effective date of the MPRSA) to
December 1974, the USCG-Third District made twenty-two enforce-
ment referrals to EPA. Fifteen of these referrals, containing a
total of 133 possible violations, were for failure of the per-
mittee to notify the USCG of vessel departure. The other seven
referrals included three cases of illegal short dumping, two
instances of liquid wastes spilled en route, and two cases of no
permit on board the vessel (USCG, June 2. 1975). Three of the
twenty-two USCG referrals resulted in enforcement actions by EPA
(Table 12).
b. Proposed Program. The USCG is conducting research on
the development of a positive recording system, based on elec-
71
-------
tronic navigation. The prototype, tested in the summer of 1975,
is based on LORAN C (Long Range Aid to Navigation). The sealed
recording navigation equipment can record the trackline of the
dump vessel on a tape, providing a permanent record of whether
the vessel reaches the designated site. Although the prototype
does not have a dump sensor, such a sensor is electronically
possible. The legal aspects of this equipment being placed
aboard a private vessel are also being researched (USCG, July 8,
1975).
6. FDA Responsibilities
Operating under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act and
the Public Health Service Act, the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) administers the National Shellfish Sanitation Program.
This program gives FDA the responsibility to assure that bivalve
shellfish (clams, oysters, etc.) shipped in interstate commerce
are of a safe and wholesome nature. The FDA is responsible for
classifying the waters beyond the 3-mile (5.6 km) limit.* Since
1970, FDA has monitored waters beyond the 12-mile (22.2 km)
limit. (USEPA, November 21, 1975).
In the metropolitan area, FDA has closed to shellfish-
ing the waters within an 11.1 km (6.0 n mi) radius and shoreward
of the existing sewage sludge dump site (Section IVC). The clo-
sure includes both a polluted area and a safety or buffer zone.
* All limits in ocean waters are expressed in nautical miles
(n mi): e.g., 3-, 12-, and 200-mile limits.
72
-------
The states are responsible for classifying, according
to water quality, the ocean waters from the coastline out to the
3-mile (5.6 km) limit. The USCG monitors these closed areas and
reports to FDA any vessels seen harvesting shellfish. Although
FDA is empowered to seize the cargo, it usually notifies state
officials to take appropriate actions. These actions include
seizure of the cargo, fines, and license suspension.
73
-------
F. INTERNATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
An alternate sewage sludge dump site in either the
Northern or Southern Area in the New York Bight would lie out-
side currently recognized U.S. waters. International guidelines
on ocean dumping are somewhat vague, despite the recent proceed-
ings of the Third United Nations Law of the Sea Conference
(UNLOS III). The United States has proposed legislation that
would extend economic control to the 200-mile (371 km) limit.
1. United States Laws
The United States has maintained a territorial limit
(territorial sea) of 3 nautical miles (5.5 km) since 1783. The
waters, air space, seabed, and subsoil within this limit are
subject to United States sovereignty. The coastal states also
have jurisdiction over the waters within the 3-mile (5.6 km)
limit.
In 1945, a Presidental proclamation (Prbc. No. 2668)
gave the United States jurisdiction over the subsoil and seabed
resources beyond the 3-mile (5.6 km) limit to the edge of the
continental shelf. This proclamation also established U.S.
claims to oil and gas deposits in the shelf. The Outer Con-
tinental Shelf Lands Act of 1953 reinforced the proclamation and
gave the federal government sole jurisdiction over submerged
lands from the 3-mile (5.6 km) limit to the edge of the con-
tinental shelf. A companion bill, the Continental Shelf Sub-
merged Lands Act of 1953, gave the coastal states jurisdiction
over seabed and subsoil resources within the territorial sea.
74
-------
In 1966, the U.S. Congress passed the Territorial
Fisheries Act (PL 89-65-8) , which extended exclusive fishing
rights to a 12-mile (22.0 km) limit (U.S. Congress, October 14,
1966) . Under international law, this area is known as the
contiguous zone.
The MPRSA gave the United States control of ocean
dumping in coastal ocean waters over which the United States has
jurisdiction or may exercise control, under accepted principles
of international law (Baxter et_ al., 1974).
2. International Agreements
The Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contigu-
ous Zone defined the territorial sea as the waters extending 3
nautical miles (5.6 km) seaward of a defined baseline, as deter-
mined by the Department of State. The contiguous zone is that
area between the baseline and a 12-mile (22.2 km) limit. Ocean
waters include those waters of the open sea lying seaward of the
baseline.
Under international law, a coastal nation has exclu-
sive control over its internal waters (bays, estuaries, and
other semi-enclosed areas) and territorial sea. It also has
authority to designate dump sites and enact pollution control
laws that protect public welfare and private property. A coast-
al nation has the right to prevent pollution of the contiguous
zone, based upon potential contamination of the territorial sea
(Marine Technology Society Journal, July 1974).
In August 1973, the U.S. Senate ratified the Interna-
tional Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dump-
75
-------
ing of Wastes and Other Matter. This convention became effec-
tive in September 1975. Annex II of the convention requires the
issuance of a special permit for dumping wastes into the ocean
(especially sewage sludge or dredged material) which contain
"significant amounts" of heavy metals, toxic compounds, organo-
halogens, pesticides, and high-level radioactive materials. The
MPRSA initially implemented the provisions of this convention
for U.S. controlled and adjacent waters.'
The Third United Nations Law of the Sea Conference
(UNLOS III) is now addressing economic development and -control
of the seabed resources beyond a 12-mile (22.2 km) limit. There
are many issues to be resolved, such as the guarantee of transit
through international straits, delineation of boundaries, and
multinational arrangements. The Conference appears to be moving
toward the establishment of a 200-mile (371 km) economic zone,
in which a coastal nation will have exclusive right to authorize
and regulate all economic activities. The United States has
advocated a set of conditions for this zone, including adequate
pollution control, protection of foreign investments, compulsory
settlement of disputes, international revenue sharing, and non-
interference with other ocean activities (Marine Technology
Society Journal, July 1974).
3. Proposed United States Lesiglation
The slow progress of the UNLOS III Conference in pro-
viding agreements or treaties has led United States lawmakers to
propose a bill extending commercial fisheries and pollution con-
76
-------
trol jurisdiction to the 200-mile (371 km) limit. Such a bill
recently (January 1976) passed the Senate and is under review by
a joint committee (House and Senate) to reconcile differences
with the original House version. The Administration wishes to
delay the implementation date for a 200-mile (371 km) limit to
1977, as contained in the Senate version of the bill. This
would give the UNLOS III Conference an opportunity to reach a
final agreement on such a limit, prior to unilateral U.S. ac-
tion.
77
-------
G. OTHER ACTIVITIES IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
1. Commercial Fisheries
Based on annual dollar earnings, commercial fishing is
probably the most important activity in the New York Bight at
present. In 1973, a total of 84.3 million kg (185.5 million Ib)
of fish and 9.9 million kg (21.9 million Ib) of shellfish, val-
ued at 10.4 million and 20.7 million dollars, respectively, were
landed in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area (Table 13).
Most of this catch was taken in the Bight. However, significant
quantities of commercial fish and shellfish, especially surf
clams, were caught in waters off other states (Maryland, Dela-
ware, and Virginia).
Nassau and Suffolk counties in New York and Monmouth
and Ocean counties in New Jersey accounted for approximately 97
percent of the value of all commercial fish landed in the metro-
politan area during 1973 (Table 13). The reported value of fish
and shellfish landed in Suffolk County was 62 percent of the
1973 total. Suffolk County also accounted for 73 percent of all
shellfish landed in the metropolitan area during 1973. In
1974, New York and New Jersey had 5,364 full-time and 2,942
part-time commercial fisherman (BLM, November 1975).
Most of the commercial fish landed in the metropolitan
area during 1973 were whiting, flounders (blackback, fluke, and
yellowtail), striped bass, red hake, bluefish, butterfish, cod,
menhaden, sea trout, porgy, and mackerel. The most common spe-
78
-------
TABLE 13
COMMERCIAL FISHERIES LANDINGS IN THE NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY METROPOLITAN
County, State
New York, N.Y.
Kings, N.Y.
Nassau, N.Y.
Suffolk, N.Y.
Monmouth , N . J .
Ocean, N.J.
Total
FISH
Kilograms (Pounds)
in Thousands
19
852
1,021
7,881
70,822
3,717
84,312
(42)
(1,875)
(2,245)
(17,339)
(155,809)
(8,178)
(185,488)
(1973)
Dollars
in Millions
0.014
0.383
0.515
3.778
4.209
1.449
10.348
SHELLFISH
AREA
Kilograms (Pounds) Dollars
in Thousands in Millions
70
109
2,039
4,394
404
2,937
9,953
(154)
(240)
(4,486)
(9,666)
(889)
(6,462)
(21,897)
0.306
0.192
1.465
15.172
0.706
2.821
20.662
Sources: NOAA-NMFS, 1974 a and b.
-------
cies of commercial shellfish landed were hard clams (ocean qua-
hogs), oysters, American lobster, and surf clams, in that order.
These species accounted for approximately 93 percent of the
value of the 1973 commercial shellfish landings for the metro-
politan area (Table 14). Scallops, crabs, and clams, other than
hard clams and surf clams, do not appear to be economically im-
portant to the commercial fisheries of the region at this time;
oysters are not currently harvested in the Bight, except in the
local bays and estuaries. The 1974 surf clam catch exceeded the
1973 catch by more than 10 percent (FDA, December 18, 1975).
During the last decade, the surf clams taken from the Bight and
from adjacent bays and estuaries have accounted for more than 50
percent of the edible clam meats harvested in United States
waters (McHugh, 1975).
The potential commercial fisheries development, es-
pecially shellfisheries, is discussed further in Section VIIC.
2. Recreational Uses
a. Sport Fishing. About 5.3 million residents of the
northeastern United States fished in the waters of New York and
New Jersey during 1974, as a recreational activity. Approxi-
mately half of these sport fishermen actually made use of the
New York Bight (NOAA-NMFS, 1975a). Most sport fishing off the
New York and New Jersey shores is devoted to species which are
also commercially exploited, such as sea bass, striped bass,
white perch, salmon, and some trout. Approximately 75 percent
of these species depend upon the coastal zone waters during some
or all of their life cycle (Ketchum, 1972).
80
-------
TABLE 14
COMMERCIAL SHELLFISH LANDINGS IN THE NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY
METROPOLITAN AREA
(1973)-1-
Shellfish
American Lobster
Hard Clams
(ocean quahogs)
Razor Clams
Soft Clams
Surf Clams
Oysters
Sea Mussels
Bay Scallops
Sea Scallops
Squid
Conch
Blue Crabs
Red Crabs
Rock Crabs
Total
Kilograms (Pounds)
in Thousands
878
3,720
2
55
3f490
639
311
104
71
323
20
254
12
73
9,952
(1,932)
(8,185)
(5)
(121)
(7,678)
(1,405)
(685)
(229)
(155)
(710)
(44)
(559)
(27)
(161)
(21,896)
Dollars
in Millions
3.141
11.721
0.003
0.134
1.098
3.285
0.195
0.467
0.307
0.146
0.013
0.137
0.002
0.009
20.658
Total landings for Kings, Nassau, Suffolk, Monmouth, Ocean
and New York counties (see Table 13).
Sources: NOAA-NMFS, 1974a and b.
81
-------
b. Beach Attendance. The shorelines of Long Island and
northern New Jersey support an estimated two-billion-dollar
beach industry (IEC, 1973c). The popularity of the Long Island
and New Jersey beaches is due to the quality of the low sandy
beaches and to their easy accessibility by means of the well-
developed metropolitan area highway system. Shore property in
the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area is owned by federal,
public, and private entities (Table 15). In 1970, an estimated
65.7 million persons attended these beaches (Table 15). In
1974, beach attendance at state and national parks in the metro-
politan area was about 9.8 million people (Table 16).
3. Navigation
The USCG is responsible for establishing navigational
lanes (separation zones) in the New York Bight. There are three
traffic separation zones leading into Ambrose Channel and the
Ports of New York and New Jersey (Figure 5). These separation
zones are designated as the Barnegat, Hudson Canyon, and Nan-
tucket navigational lanes. The circular area at the intersec-
tion of the three navigational lanes at the Bight Apex is a
precautionary area characterized by a high level of ship traf-
fic. The existing sewage sludge dump site is located within
this area. The proposed Northern and Southern Areas are for the
most part located outside these separation zones (Figure 5).
4. Potential Mineral Resources
a. Sand and Gravel. The distribution of sand and gravel
in the New York Bight is shown in Figure 6 (Schlee, 1975). -At
82
-------
GO
CO
TABLE 15
BEACH OWNERSHIP AND USE IN THE NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY METROPOLITAN AREA
Shore Ownership
County, State
Monmouth , N . J .
Richmond, N.Y.
Kings, N.Y.
Queens, N.Y.
Nassau, N.Y.
Totals
Kilometers (Miles)
Federal Private Public
9.8 (6.1)
0.5 (0.3)
0.03(0.02)
1.6 (1.0)
11. 9( 7.4)
15. 1( 9.4)
6.0( 3.7)
2.6( 1.6)
3.2( 2.0)
26.9(15.7)
18.2(11.3)
14. 5( 9.0)
5.6( 3.5)
11. 2( 7.0)
27.4(17.0)
76.9 (47.8)
Total Shore Length
Kilometers (Miles)
43.1(26.8)
20.9(13.0)
8.2( 5.1)
16.1(10.0)
27.4(17.0)
115.7(71.9)
1970 Beach
Attendance
(persons)
6,940,000
698,000
21,818,100
22,372,000
13,900,000
65,728,100
Includes Jones Beach, and approximately 16.1 km (10 miles) of beaches in Suffolk County
along with Captree State Park at Fire Island Inlet.
Source: IEC, 1973.
-------
TABLE 16
BEACH ATTENDANCE AT STATE AND NATIONAL PARKS
IN THE NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY METROPOLITAN AREA
(1974)
Park Attendance
Island Beach State Park, N.J. (1973)-1 524,580
Gateway National Recreation Area, 1,597,202
2
Sandy Hook, N.J.
Smith Point Co. Park, Fire Island 720,000
4
Robert Moses State Park, Fire Island 2,526,668
4
Captree State Park, Long Island 1,556,591
Fire Island National Seashore 555,000
Fire Island "Other" (1973)5 2,301,000
9,781,041
Sources:
•'•NJDEP, July 1975.
o
National Park Service, July 1975.
3Suffolk County, July 1975.
4NYSDEC, July 1975.
5National Park Service, 1975.
84
-------
BREAKWATER
PROPOSED AIRPORT
NANTUCKET
NAVIGATIONAL
PROPOSED
MAN-MADE
ISLANDS
PROPOSED
SUPERPORT
NORTHERN
AREA
PROPOSED ATLANTIC
ENERATIN6 STATIC
SOUTHERN
AREA
^PROPOSED
JSttPERPORT
k
NAUTICAL MILES
NAVIGATIONAL LANES AND PROPOSED
DEEPWATER PORTS AND OFFSHORE ISLANDS IN
THE NEW YORK BIGHT
SOURCES: I EC, 1973; DAMES & MOORE 1975-
FIGURE 5
-------
75'
74'
41
NORTHERN
AREA
SOUTHERN
AREA
NAUTICAL MILES
POTENTIAL MINERAL RESOURCES
IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
KEY:
OCS OIL & GAS LEASE TRACT #40
I I OIL £ GAS AREA OF CALL
® SAMPLE LOCATIONS FOR SAND & GRAVEL
GRAVEL IN PERCENT
>50 LZZD25-50L
J<25
SOURCES: SCHLEE, 1975; BLM, NOVEMBER 1975.
FIGURE 6
-------
present, most sand and gravel used in the metropolitan area is
mined at inland sites. New York Harbor is also the site of a
very large sand mining operation. As these sources become de-
pleted and increasingly difficult to find, the economics are
expected to shift in favor of developing offshore sand and gra-
vel mining operations.
b. Oil and Gas. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), has
issued a tentative list of 154 tracts totaling 354,816 hectares
(876,750 acres) for a proposed sale of oil and gas leases (OCS
Lease Tract #40) on the mid-Atlantic outer continental shelf
(Figure 6). The sale of the lease areas is expected to occur in
1976 (BLM, November 1975).
5. Potential Deepwater Ports
Deepwater ports, generally used for oil transfer fa-
cilities, must be located in offshore waters with sufficient
depth, ranging from 30 to 34 m (100 to 110 ft), to accommodate
supertankers. Current design appears to favor the use of single
point mooring buoys for the transfer operations, with underwater
pipelines connected to onshore storage and refining facilities.
In one case (Raritan Bay, New Jersey), an artificial harbor/dock
arrangement has been proposed for unloading.
Potential deepwater port locations off the New York,
New Jersey, and Delaware coasts are shown in Figure 5. At pre-
sent, the USCG feels that a port located somewhere in the Hud-
son Shelf Valley near-shore waters may satisfy the operational
constraints for safe supertanker transfer off the metropolitan
area (USCG, April 18, 1975).
87
-------
6. Potential Offshore Islands
Two major uses have been proposed for artificial off-
shore islands in the New York Bight: floating nuclear power
plants (Atlantic Generating Station) and commercial facilities
(airports, refineries, and harbors). A number of factors have
combined to delay development of these activities in this re-
gion. These include unresolved safety problems associated with
construction and operation of floating nuclear power plants,
excessive construction costs in waters deeper than 22 m (70 ft),
the post-1973 economic slump, and the lack of a national energy
policy. Offshore facilities that have been proposed for the
Bight are shown in Figure 5. The Atlantic Generating Station
may be the only proposal that still remains viable (Dames &
Moore, 1975).
88
-------
III. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action involves abandonment of the exist-
ing sewage sludge dump site in the Apex of the New York Bight,
and designation and interim use of an alternate dump site locat-
ed within the proposed Northern or Southern Area of the New York
Bight (Figure 7) . The proposed action is based upon the premise
that the existing dump site cannot accommodate the anticipated
1981 volume of sludge (Section IIB), without affecting the re-
creational quality of Long Island and New Jersey coastal waters
(USEPA, January 17, 1975). Present sludge volumes are expected
to double by 1981 as a result of upgrading several large munici-
pal treatment facilities in the metropolitan area (Tables 8 and
9).
Although studies conducted by EPA, NOAA-MESA, FDA, and
state and local agencies indicate that the current use of the
existing dump site poses no public health hazard to the near-
shore waters of Long Island or New Jersey, the impact of dumping
increased volumes of sewage sludge at this location is unknown.
The EPA recognizes that there are potential adverse impacts as-
sociated with dumping greatly increased volumes of sludge at the
existing site. Concern over these potential impacts led EPA to
consider the proposed action.
This environmental impact statement (EIS) has been
prepared to assess the effects of the proposed action and to
provide specific recommendations, especially with regard to the
continued use of the existing dump site and the designation and
89
-------
75
SANDY HOOK-ROCKAWAY
POINT TRANSECT
ROCKAWAYIPT
SEWAGE SLUDGE
DUMP SITE
BIGHT
APEX
LIMITS
A 6 KM
* (25 N Ml) V SOUTHERN
AREA
10 0 10 20 30
I I I I I
KILOMETERS
0
NAUTICAL MILES
LOCATION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED
DUMP SITE AREAS IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
SOURCE: NOAA, SEPTEMBER 17,
FIGURE 7
-------
use of an alternate dump site. The most acceptable dump site
will be selected, based upon environmental considerations and
other factors. The EPA will designate an alternate dump site
in July 1976, after public review of and comment on this EIS.
A. HISTORY OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The significant events leading up to the proposed ac-
tion are described below.
October 1972. The U.S. Congress passed the MPRSA.
This Act authorized EPA to regulate ocean dumping as of April
23, 1973 (Section HE).
April 1973. The EPA-Region II issued Interim Permits
to municipal and industrial waste generators who were practicing
ocean dumping in the New York Bight under COE permits.
The EPA-Headquarters issued interim ocean dumping
regulations (40 CFR, Parts 220 to 227) covering the transporta-
tion and dumping of material in ocean waters. The first ac-
tion of EPA-Region II under these regulations was to identify
the individual dumpers according to the quantity and types of
wastes being dumped in the New York Bight. As a result, forty-
seven permittees were required to cease dumping in the Bight
because acceptable alternatives were available.
July 1973. The EPA-Region II issued Interim Permits
under the regulations to those dumpers with no immediate alter-
native to ocean dumping in the Bight.
October 1973. The EPA-Headquarters issued final ocean
dumping regulations (40 CFR, Parts 220 to 227). The EPA-Region
91
-------
II consigned all liquid industrial wastes, except acid wastes,
to the chemical wastes dump site (just outside the New York
Bight). Previously, most of these liquid industrial wastes were
dumped at the existing sewage sludge dump site (Figure 2).
The EPA-Region II contacted NOAA-MESA regarding the
possibility of designating an alternate dump site, pending the
development and implementation of environmentally acceptable
land-based alternatives for the disposal of sewage sludge.
March 1974. The NOAA-MESA made preliminary recommen-
dations to EPA regarding two study areas in the New York Bight
at which an alternate sewage sludge dump site could be located.
The EPA requested that NOAA-MESA evaluate these preliminary
study areas (NOAA-MESA, March 8, 1974).
April 1974. The EPA-Region II notified all users of
the existing dump site that it intended to shift sludge dumping
operations to an alternate site in July 1976 or earlier, depend-
ing upon the results of an EPA onsite monitoring program. In
response, municipal and sewerage authority permittees indicated
that they could not commit the necessary resources to effect
such a move on the basis of a notification of "intention" alone
(USEPA, July 15, 1975).
The NOAA-MESA agreed to assist EPA in evaluating the
two preliminary study areas, and tentatively scheduled several
seasonal sampling cruises of the areas for 1974 and 1975 (NOAA-
MESA, April 11, 1974).
92
-------
The EPA-Region II held a public hearing regarding the
issuance of twenty-four Interim Permits, under the final regu-
lations, to users of the existing sewage sludge dump site.
The EPA initiated a comprehensive sampling program
to monitor water quality in the New York Bight Apex. With the
concurrence of NOAA-MESA, EPA recommended continued use of the
existing site, pending completion of a program for reducing vol-
umes of wastes and/or finding an alternate site or methods of
handling these wastes. To this end, EPA gave the Interstate
Sanitation Commission (ISC) a grant to study land-based disposal
alternatives in the metropolitan area.
May 1974. The NOAA-MESA recommended two general
areas, the Northern Area and the Southern Area (Figure 7), for
study as potential locations for an alternate dump site (NOAA-
MESA, September 23, 1975). As previously requested by EPA,
NOAA-MESA agreed to conduct several cruises to collect baseline
data in these two areas of the Bight (Section IVA).
The EPA-Headquarters contracted with the Raytheon Com-
pany to perform three cruises to collect baseline data in a
small portion of the Northern Area (Section IVA). This infor-
mation was intended to supplement NOAA-MESA cruise data.
September 1974. The NOAA stated that it would concen-
trate its study efforts on two subareas, 2D1 in the Northern
Area and 2D2 in the Southern Area, because of limitations of re-
sources and time (Section IVA). In addition, NOAA indicated
that if the Northern and Southern Areas were unacceptable for
93
-------
sewage sludge dumping, a site within "an equivalent distance"
should be available (NOAA, September 17, 1974).
October 1974. The EPA-Region II sent a second letter
of notification to all users of the existing sewage sludge dump
site stating that its position was "firm" and that permits would
not be issued after July 1976 for continued use of the existing
site (USEPA, October 2, 1974).
December 1974. The EPA-Region II contracted with
Dames & Moore to prepare an EIS on the proposed action in accor-
dance with the requirements of NEPA and of EPA's EIS regulations,
January 1975. The EPA issued an official "notice of
intent" to prepare this EIS (USEPA, January 17, 1975).
April 1975. The EPA-Region II held a public hearing
regarding the issuance of fourteen Interim Permits for use of
the existing sewage sludge dump site (USEPA, April 1, 1975).
May 1975. The EPA-Region II signed a formal Letter
of Understanding with NOAA-MESA concerning baseline surveys
and evaluations of the Northern and Southern Areas. As per this
agreement, NOAA-MESA provided EPA-Region II with a report of its
findings (NOAA-MESA, November 1975) for input to this EIS.
July 1975. The EPA-Region II held a public hearing
regarding the issuance of four additional Interim Permits for
use of the existing dump site.
B. PROPOSED NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN AREAS
Based on the information collected by NOAA and on the
recommendations made by NOAA, EPA has proposed that an alternate
94
-------
sewage sludge dump site be located within either the Northern or
Southern Area (Figure 7). The Northern Area is located roughly
46 km (25 n mi) from the Long Island coast; it is about 1,650
sq km (490 sq n mi) in area, and lies in 40 to 60 m (132 to 198
ft) of water. The Southern Area is roughly 46 km (25 n mi) from
the New Jersey coast; it is about 900 sq km (260 sq n mi) in
area, and lies in 30 to 40 m (100 to 132 ft) of water. The dis-
tance from the Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point transect to the far-
thest point in either area is 120 km (65 n mi).
The use of either area as a sewage sludge dump site
may conflict with other present or potential uses. Although
both areas are outside existing navigational lanes (Figure 5),
they may contain commercially valuable shellfish resources (Sec-
tion IVC). The Southern Area abuts the OCS Lease Tract #40 for
oil and gas (Figure 6 and Section IIG) and may contain some val-
uable sand and gravel deposits. Detailed descriptions of both
areas are given in Section IVA.
The selection of the Northern and Southern Areas was
based upon the following considerations:
- The MPRSA recommends that ocean dumping be conducted
off the continental shelf, where feasible. However, EPA and
NOAA-MESA scientists agreed that the many unknowns associated
with dumping sewage sludge in the ocean made "off-the-shelf"
dumping an undue environmental risk.
- The alternate dump site must minimize the chances of
sewage sludge reaching the Long Island or New Jersey shoreline.
95
-------
- The alternate dump site must minimize adverse impacts
upon the living marine resources of the New York Bight. For
this reason, the boundaries of the proposed areas were set at a
minimum of 18.5 km (10.0 n mi) from the Hudson Shelf Valley,
where bottom dwelling and migratory marine species are preva-
lent.
- The economics and logistics of ocean transportation
of sludge require that the distance from the Sandy Hook-Rockaway
Point transect to the dump site be no more than 120 km (65 n mi).
This constraint is based on the limited range of the existing
fleet of dumping vessels (Table 7) and on the undue economic
burden of hiring or constructing new, long-range vessels.
C. COST OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action will increase the total costs for
hauling sewage sludge from 56 to 69 percent by 1981 (Section
VIIC). This is a direct result of the increased distance to
an alternate dump site in either the Northern or Southern Area.
Capital expansion of the existing fleet of sludge
dumping vessels (Table 7) is unnecessary because the available
carrying capacity is sufficient for the near future (Section
VIIC). Also, the general consensus among permittees is that
capital outlay for fleet modification or expansion is not
cost-effective in light of EPA's intention to phase out ocean
dumping in 1981.
96
-------
The proposed action may result in reduced commercial
shellfish catches, especially of surf clams, in the vicinity of
either the Northern or Southern Area. Commercial shellfisheries
along the New Jersey coast and offshore toward the Southern Area
appear most sensitive in this respect (Section VIIC).
The proposed action could also interfere with the
potential development of identified mineral resources (sand and
gravel, oil and gas) in the Southern Area and the immediate vi-
cinity. No potential mineral resources have been identified in
or near the Northern Area (Section VIIC).
The sludge itself is a potentially valuable resource
because it is now possible to convert sludge into soil condi-
tioners and fertilizers. Dumping sewage sludge into the ocean
results in the loss of this potentially valuable resource. How-
ever, this value cannot be realized until the land-based methods
of sludge disposal that are now being studied are implemented in
the metropolitan area (Section VIIC).
D. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER DUMPING ACTIVITIES IN THE NEW YORK
BIGHT
The proposed action is not expected to interfere with
other dumping activities in the New York Bight (Section VIID).
However, EPA is considering the need to relocate the existing
dredged material and wreck dump sites. The EPA has specifically
requested that the COE consider using the alternate sewage
sludge dump site for the dumping of dredged material (Section
IIC). Such combined dumping activities could magnify the poten-
97
-------
tial adverse environmental impacts at the alternate dump site
(Section VIID). The proposed action will not affect or be af-
fected by the possible relocation of the wreck dump site (Sec-
tion VIID).
E. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER ACTIVITIES IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
The proposed action is not expected to affect marine
related recreational activities (sport fishing, pleasure boat-
t-
ing, or beach attendance) or population growth in the New York-
New Jersey metropolitan area (Section VIIE). However, it may
have international legal implications if the United States at-
tempts to control fishing within a 200-mile (371 km) limit (Sec-
tion VIIE).
98
-------
IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT
This chapter synthesizes the oceanographic data (physi-
cal, biological, geological, and chemical) needed to assess the
impact of the proposed action. Appropriate data from previous
studies have been combined with the .data from the NOAA-MESA and
Raytheon studies of the proposed areas that were conducted spe-
cifically for this assessment. These data are required to es-
tablish the nature of, and the temporal and spatial variations
in the environmental parameters needed to predict the fate of
dumped sewage sludge and to assess the resulting impacts on the
ecosystem at both the Northern and Southern Areas.
A. STUDY PROGRAM
1. Study Areas
In May 1974, NOAA recommended that EPA study two large
areas (Figure 8) in the New York Bight, identified as the North-
ern Area and the Southern Area, as possible locations for an al-
ternate sewage sludge dump site. Because of the large areas in-
volved and the short time before the July 1976 target date for
designating an alternate dump site, NOAA further recommended
that two subareas, one in the Northern Area and one in the South-
ern Area, be given study emphasis (NOAA, September 17, 1974).
Descriptions of the areas and subareas follow:
The Northern Area is described by three boundaries (Fig-
ure 8). The northern boundary is a line roughly parallel to
and 46 km (25 n mi) south of the Long Island coast and seaward
99
-------
75'
74
SANDY HOOK - ROCKAWAY
POINT TRANSECT
NAUTICflL MILES
STUDY AREAS AND SUBAREAS
SOURCE: NOAA, SEPTEMBER'17,
FIGURE 8
-------
of the 37 m (120 ft) depth contour; the southern boundary is a
line roughly parallel to and 18.5 km (10.0 n mi) north of the
axis of the Hudson Shelf Valley; and the eastern boundary is an
arc of a circle with a radius of 120 km (65 n mi) from the
Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point transect. The approximate area is
1,650 sq km (490 sq n mi).
Subarea 2D1 is a square measuring 22 km (12 n mi) on a side
located within the Northern Area, adjacent to the northern and
eastern boundaries, with center coordinates of 40°12.0'N and
72°46.5'W (Figure 8). The area is 484 sq km (144 sq n mi). The
Raytheon Company studied a slightly different configuration of
Subarea 2D1 in the Northern Area (Figure 8). Known as Subarea
1A(R), it is a square measuring 26 km (14 n mi) on a side; it
has essentially the same center coordinates as NOAA-MESA's Sub-
area 2D1. The area is 676 sq km (196 sq n mi).
The Southern Area is likewise described by three boundaries
(Figure 8). The western boundary is a line roughly parallel to
and 46 km (25 n mi) east of the New Jersey coast and seaward of
the 37 m (120 ft) depth contour; the northern boundary is a line
roughly parallel to and 18.5 km (10.0 n mi) south of the axis of
the Hudson Shelf Valley; and the southern boundary is the arc of
a circle with a radius of 120 km (65 n mi) from the Sandy Hook-
Rockaway Point transect. The approximate area is 900 sq km (260
sq n mi).
Subarea 2D2 is a square measuring 22 km (12 n mi) on a
side located within the Southern Area, adjacent to the eastern
101
-------
and southern boundaries, with center coordinates of 39°41'N
and 73°18'W (Figure 8). The area is 484 sq km (144 sq n mi).
2. Data Collection
In May 1974, EPA initiated a program of data collec-
tion to determine the marine baseline (physical, biological,
geological, and chemical oceanography) conditions in the North-
ern and Southern Areas. This program consisted of seasonal data
gathering cruises conducted independently by NOAA-MESA and by
the Raytheon Company from the summer of 1974 to the summer of
1975. The specific NOAA-MESA and Raytheon study activities are
outlined below.
a. NOAA-MESA Activities. In order to collect the neces-
sary baseline data, NOAA-MESA stepped up its regular marine
sampling program in the New York Bight for the duration of the
study period. Subareas 2D1 and 2D2 (Figure 8) were frequently
and intensively sampled. A grid of twenty to thirty equidistant
stations at each subarea was used to sample the water column,
and the sediments. A detailed description of the NOAA-MESA
study activities, with regard to the proposed action, is con-
tained in the May 1975 Letter of Understanding between NOAA-MESA
and EPA, which is available from EPA-Region II. The data
collected by NOAA-MESA for EPA became a major input to the
November 1975 NOAA-MESA report on proposed ocean dumping in the
Bight and to this EIS.
b. Raytheon Activities. In May 1974, EPA-Headquarters
awarded a contract to the Raytheon Company of Portsmouth,
102
-------
Rhode Island, to perform three seasonal baseline data gathering
cruises in Subarea 1A(R). These cruises were conducted in
t
September-October 1974, April-May 1975, and July 1975. Approxi-
mately fifteen stations were sampled for a combination of physi-
cal, biological, geological, and chemical parameters.
Data reports for all three cruises were available for
this EIS, although the data for the last cruise was provided
too late for inclusion. Reduction of data from the first two
cruises was undertaken as part of this assessment, and the re-
sults have been incorporated into this EIS. Review of the data
report for the third cruise indicates general agreement with the
previous cruise results.
103
-------
B. PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY
This section on physical oceanography includes de-
scriptions of the hydrographic characteristics and currents in
the New York Bight and at the Northern and Southern Areas.
1. Hydrographic Characteristics
a. Water Masses. Most of the continental shelf, includ-
ing the existing and proposed dump sites, is characterized by
coastal or shelf water. The hydrographic characteristics of
this water (its temperature and salinity) are controlled by sea-
sonal sea-air exchange processes (such as precipitation, evapor-
ation, and heat exchange), by the influx of fresh water, and by
mixing of the shelf water with more oceanic water (slope water)
near the shelf edge. The major freshwater inputs to the New
York Bight are the Hudson and Connecticut rivers (Figure 9).
The shelf water mass tends to exhibit a two-layer pro-
file. The upper layer, surface shelf water, has a salinity
range of 30 to 32.5 0/00 (parts per thousand) and a temperature
range of 20 to 27°C (68 to 81°F). The lower layer, bottom shelf
water, has a somewhat higher salinity range of 32.5 to 34.5 0/00
and a lower temperature range of 5 to 11.5°C (41 to 53°F).
b. Seasonal Variations in Temperature and Salinity Pat-
terns . Winter and summer are the seasons of the most extreme
conditions in the New York Bight. In winter, the Bight is char-
acterized by well-mixed conditions, and in summer, it is char-
acterized by heavily stratified conditions. Spring and fall are
104
-------
30
HI
O
oc
<
O 20
05
Q
10
U_
O
UJ
O
<
l-
z
UJ
O
cc
UJ
Q.
CONNECTICUT
20
>-
_l
I
z
O
UJ
2
10
HUDSON AND MOHAWK
JAN MAR MAY JULY SEPT NOV
FEB APR JUNE AUG OCT DEC
MEAN MONTHLY PERCENTAGES
OF ANNUAL DISCHARGE
FOR THE HUDSON AND CONNECTICUT RIVERS
SOURCE: BIGELOW AND SEARS, 1936.
FIGURE 9
-------
transitional periods between the extremes of winter and summer.
The following synopsis of seasonal conditions is from Bowman and
Wunderlich (1975).
Winter Conditions (January and February). As a conse-
quence of low-volume river runoff and strong verticle mixing,
water within the Bight is, for most part, vertically homogeneous
during the winter. The coldest temperatures occur near shore
and increase steadily seaward; the temperature ranges from less
than 5°C near shore to 13°C (41 to 54.5°F) near the shelf edge.
Similarly, maximum salinities of 33 0/00 are found on the inner
shelf with a small increase to 34 0/00 on the edge of the shelf.
Temperature-salinity measurements taken during late winter (Ray-
theon, 1975b) show the well-mixed conditions that prevail during
the winter in the middle shelf (Figure 10).
Spring Progression (March through May). In March,
April, and May, dilution of the Bight waters results from high-
volume river runoff. This freshwater inflow causes a strong
lateral variation in surface salinities.
In spring, the Hudson River discharge can be as high
as 1,200 cu m/sec (43,000 cfs). This discharge produces a low-
salinity plume (26 to 30 0/00) which tends to flow south along
the New Jersey coastline. Increased solar heating of the Bight
waters is reflected in a gradual temperature rise at the sur-
face.
Summer Conditions (June through August). During the
summer, the Bight waters exhibit a strong thermocline, with sur-
face temperatures reaching a maximum of 24°C (50°F). Although
106
-------
30
10
(32.8)
20
(65.6)
t/>
C£.
30
(131.2)
50
(164.1)
B--
60
(196.9)°
31
SALINITY PARTS PER THOUSAND
32 33 34
I
I
APRIL 12, 1975
WIND = 5 KNOTS SW (9-3 km/hr)
WAVE = I FOOT (0.3m)
I
10(50) 15(59) 20(68)
TEMPERATURE °C (°F)
35
36
I
25(77)
30(86)
LATE WINTER TEMPERATURE-SALINITY
PROFILE AT SUBAREA 1A(R)
KEY:
SALINITY
TEMPERATURE
SOURCE: RAYTHEON, 1975B.
FIGURE 10
-------
there is some warming of bottom water over winter conditions, it
is relatively slight with temperatures remaining below 12°C
(54°F) over most of the Bight.
The depth of the warm, mixed layer of water is about
10 to 15 m (33 to 49 ft), and the thermocline generally lies at
depths of 15 to 30 m (49 to 98 ft). Salinities do not differ
significantly from previous values. Temperature-salinity mea-
surements taken during the late summer (Raytheon, 1975a) show
that the vertical stratification persists into October (Figure
11).
Fall Progression (September and October). In Septem-
ber and October, surface cooling and wind-driven mixing start to
break down the summer thermocline. Surface temperatures de-
crease to approximately 16 to 18°C (61 to 65°F) in the inner
Bight by the end of October. As the surface temperatures de-
crease, the bottom temperatures increase toward 12°C (54°F) as a
result of the vertical mixing. Mixing also results in a more
homogeneous salinity field and in an overall increase in salini-
ty values as more saline water from the slope is introduced.
Early Winter Conditions (November and December). In
November and December, strong vertical mixing continues to homo-
genize the water column over the Bight Apex. During November,
the temperature gradient from the Bight Apex to the shelf break
is small. As December progresses, cooler inshore temperatures
develop. Vertical salinity values become uniform and the hori-
zontal gradient of salinity from the Apex to the shelf break is
slight.
108
-------
30
10
(32.8)
^ 20
t (65.6)
O-
LU
0 30
(98,4)
40
(131.2)
50
-(164.1)
31
1
5
(41)
SALINITY PARTS PER THOUSAND (&)
32 33 34
35
OCTOBER 5, 1974
WIND = 15 KNOTS SW
(27.8 KM/HR)
WAVE = 2 FEET(0.6m)
1
10 15 20
(50) (59) (68)
TEMPERATURE °C (°F)
25
(77)
36
30
(86)
LATE SUMMER TEMPERATURE-
SALINITY PROFILE AT SUBAREA IA(R)
SOURCE: RAYTHEON, 1975 A.
KEY:
• SAL INITY
x TEMPERATURE
DAMES 0 MOORE
FIGURE 11
-------
2. Currents
The current circulation patterns over the continental
shelf are both complex and variable. Current circulation pat-
terns are subject to a number of forces which vary in time and
space. The components of the shelf current circulation are
described here in order to provide a setting for the discussion
of the fate of dumped sewage sludge in Chapter VI.
a. Tidal Currents. The tidal current direction in the
middle shelf region of the New York Bight is clockwise. Esti-
mates of tidal currents from staff measurements in the Bight are
given in Figure 12 (Haight, 1942). The maximum average tidal
current measured near the Northern Area (USS Finch) was reported
to be 7.2 cm/sec (2.8 in/sec). Tidal current velocities in the
Northern Area were calculated from harmonic analyses of data
collected on the first two Raytheon cruises (Raytheon, 1975a and
b). The velocity of tidal currents shows a vertical and season-
al variation (Table 17). Similar values of tidal current velo-
city are expected in the Southern Area.
Tidal currents are important in the initial distribu-
tion of dumped materials on the bottom (mixing and dispersion).
Tidal currents are also important as a source of energy for the
resuspension of settled solids. Bottom tidal current velocities
may be low, about 10 cm/sec (4 in/sec), but when coupled with
wind-driven currents during storm events, they can cause resus-
pension and subsequent redistribution of sediments.
b. Surface Currents. Freshwater inflow to the New York
Bight, primarily from the Hudson and Connecticut rivers, influ-
110
-------
"£=
CONTOURS IN METERS
10 20
KILOMETERS
0 10
SCALE OF VELOCITIES
I I I I
MILES (STATUTE)
0 10
I
1.832
KM/HR
0
Knot
METRIC
1
1.832
KM/HR
NAUTICAL MILES
TIDAL CURRENTS AT LIGHTSHIP
STATIONS, MONTAUK POINT
TO BARNEGAT BAY
SOURCE: EG&G, 1975c.
THE LOCATION OF EACH LIGHTSHIP STATION IS SHOWN BY A CIRCLE
ACCOMPANIED BY THE NAME OF THE STATION.
THE DIRECTIONS AND VELOCITIES OF THE TIOAL CURRENTS FOR THE
EVEN NUMBERED SOLAR HOURS FROM 0 TO 10 HOURS AFTER THE
GREENWICH TRANSIT OF THE MOON ARE SHOWN BY ARROWS FOR A
NUMBER OF STATIONS.
THE LENGTH OF THE ARROW REPRESENTS THE AVERAGE OBSERVED
VELOCITY ON THE SCALE SHOWN BELOW. THE FIGURES AT THE
ARROW HEADS ARE THE HOURS AFTEfi THE GREENW.ICH TRANSIT.
HOURS AT WHICH THE VELOCITY IS ZERO ARE PRINTED NEAR THE
CENTER OF THE DIAGRAM WITHOUT ARROWS. ABOVE EACH DIAGRAM
IS THE NAME OF THE LIGHTSHIP STATION TO WHICH IT APPLIES.
FIGURE 12
-------
TABLE 17
PREDICTED MAXIMUM AVERAGE VELOCITIES OF UPPER, MIDDLE, AND
LOWER TIDAL CURRENTS IN THE NORTHERN AREA
in cm/sec (in/sec)
Layer Winter Summer
Upper 22.5 17.5
(8.7) (6.9)
Middle 18.5 13.6
(7.3) (5.4)
Lower 13.8 11.0
(5.4) (4.3)
Sources: Raytheon, 1975 a and
112
-------
ences surface currents in the Bight. Fresh water is not as
dense as salt water. The presence of lighter water on the inner
portion of the shelf causes the water surface to be slightly
higher here than it is farther offshore. This condition gener-
ally prevails along the continental shelf and moves a density-
driven coastal current toward the southwest. Occasionally, in
the winter, there is intense cooling of the inner shelf waters.
This, combined with low freshwater runoff, results in denser
waters inshore. As a result, the current flows toward the north
(E.G. & G., 1975).
Superimposed upon this general circulation pattern is
the seasonally variable wind-driven current system. The result-
ing surface current is the vector sum of these two current sys-
tems . **
Bumpus and Lauzier (1965) have characterized the sea-
sonal nontidal surface drift on the Middle Atlantic Continental
Shelf. The results have>been inferred from drift bottle data
obtained from 1958 to 1962. Except for the Hudson Shelf Valley,
the net surface drift in winter is toward the south, with an
offshore component. Surface currents in the summer more close-
ly parallel the coast because wind effects are smaller and the
density-driven coastal current becomes dominant.
Both NOAA-MESA (November 1975) and Raytheon (1975b)
have taken current measurements in the proposed areas. How-
ever, these data should be intepreted with caution because ver-
ification procedures have not been completed. The preliminary
113
-------
data indicate that in the winter, the mean surface current is
6 cm/sec (2.4 in/sec) in a southerly direction, and that from
late winter through early spring, it is 5 cm/sec (2 in/sec) in
the alongshore direction. The mean surface current in the
Northern Area was not notably different from that in the South-
ern Area during the spring (Figure 13 and Table 18). Current
observations made during the summer cruises are similar to pre-
vious cruise results, which show that the mean surface velocity
is 7 cm/sec (2.6 in/sec) in a southwesterly direction.
c. Bottom Currents. Bottom currents have been studied
through the use of seabed drifters (Bumpus, 1961; Lee et al.,
1965). Bumpus1 results revealed a southwestward (alongshore)
and shoreward movement of residual bottom drift on the inner
continental shelf. The rates of drift were between 0.2 and 1.8
cm/sec (0.08 to 0.71 in/sec). Based on observations he made in
1961 and 1964, Bumpus (1965) drew the following conclusions:
- The residual drift is variable, not always in the same
direction, and at times it appears nearly reversed. In spite of
these variations, a general tendency is indicated.
- Offshore from a line drawn about one-half to three-
quarters of the distance between the shore and the 91 m (300 ft)
contour at depths of 55 to 64 m (180 to 210 ft), the tendency is
toward an offshore drift (Figure 14). Shoreward of this line,
the tendency is for the flow to be westerly or southerly with a
component toward the coast. The location of this line is not
sharply defined; it moves on or offshore from time to time ,
114
-------
NORTHERN AREA
AGOB37 =X 90
"^ oo
t^J COKTOU
10 0 10 20 30
NAUTICAL Mites
MEAN SPRING SURFACE CURRENTS
IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
KEY:
CURRENT VECTOR SCALE f I I I I I I I I H
lOcm/sec
(3.9in/sec)
SOURCE: NOAA-MESA, NOVEMBER 1975.
FIGURE 13
-------
TABLE 18
NOAA-MESA CURRENT METER DEPLOYMENTS; .
WATER DEPTH AND LOCATION IN WATER COLUMN
Station No.
SURFACE
AGOB-15
AGOB-28A
AGOB-29
AGOB-30
AGOB-33
AGOB-34A
AGOB-37
AGOB-38
AGOB-49
BOTTOM
AGOB-15
AGOB-20A
AGOB-29
AGOB-30
AGOB-33
AGOB-34A
AGOB-37
AGOB-38
AGOB-49
P31
P32
P12
Pll
R9
RIO
Rll
Water Depth
in meters (ft)
Distance from Bottom
23
38
48
59
59
77
76
35
80
23
38
48
59
59
80
77
76
35
47
75
62
33
55
46
37
( 76)
(126)
(158)
(194)
(193)
(253)
(249)
(114)
(262)
( 76)
(126)
(158)
(194)
(193)
(262)
(253)
(249)
(114)
(155)
(245)
(202)
(109)
(181)
(151)
(122)
in meters
21
37
38
57
51
70
74
33
78
3
1
8
17
1
1
15
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
(ft)
( 70)
(120)
(126-)
(188)
(166)
(229)
(243)
(108)
(256)
( 10)
( 3)
( 26)
( 56)
( 3)
( 3)
( 49)
( 3)
( 3)
( 15)
( 15)
( 15)
( 15)
( 15)
( 15)
( 15)
Periods of current meter deployment vary between stations,
2
Stations shown on Figure 13.
Stations shown on Figure 15.
Source: NOAA-MESA, November 1975.
116
-------
NAUTICAL MILES
ALONG
GENERAL RESIDUAL CURRENT
THE BOTTOM OF THE NEW YORK BIGHT
KEY:
NOTE: MAGNITUDE IS NOT IMPLIED
BY LENGTH OF ARROWS
SHADED AREA INDICniES LINE OF DIVERGENCE
OF ONSHORE AND OFFSHORE FLOW
SOURCES: BUMPUS, 1965; CHARLESWORTH, 1968.
FIGURE 14
-------
probably on a seasonal basis (this line is called the Bumpus
line of divergence).
- There is a definite residual drift towards the mouths
of the estuaries.
- The rate of residual flow varies from 0.2 to 1.3
cm/sec (0.08 to 0.51 in/sec), but is frequently 0.4 to 0.9
cm/sec (0.15 to 0.35 in/sec).
- The residual current seems to be related to a shore-
ward flux of shelf bottom water.
Several drifter results obtained by Hardy e_t _al.
(1975) for the inner shelf south of Long Island indicate that
near-bottom circulation has a strong onshore component within
the 27 to 42 m (72 to 220 ft) depth contours. These results
appear to confirm the earlier findings of Bumpus (1965). Cur-
rent measurements, in the form of observed current meter data,
also appear to verify Bumpus1 results. Both NOAA-MESA and Ray-
theon observed seasonal variations in velocities of mean bottom
currents which appear to verify Bumpus1 general results.
During the winter, the mean bottom current in the
Northern Area is small, 2 cm/sec (0.8 in/sec), and flows in a
southwesterly direction (Figure 15). The NOAA-MESA and Raytheon
current meter stations show a systematic shoreward trend of
near-bottom currents in the Northern Area. It appears that the
currents are directed toward the Hudson Shelf Valley; this re-
sults in a net onshore drift.
During the winter, the mean bottom current in the
Southern Area is directed downcoast at approximately 3 cm/sec
118
-------
75'
74
NAUTICAL MILES
MEAN SPRING BOTTOM
IN THE NEW YORK
CURRENTS
BIGHT
KEY:
CURRENT VECTOR SCALE
IH
1 0cm/.sec
(3.9in/sec)
SOURCE: NOAA-MESA, NOVEMBER 1975.
FIGURE 15
-------
(1.2 in/sec) with a strong onshore component. This appears to
be in agreement with Bumpus1 finding that there is a residual
drift toward the mouths of estuaries.
Current meter observations made during the summer,
when stratified water conditions prevail, are similar to those
made during the winter, when well-mixed water conditions pre-
vail. In terms of magnitude and direction, summer bottom cur-
rents show that the net drift is around 2 cm/sec (0.8 in/sec)
and is directed toward the southwest.
The line of divergence is not evident from current
meter data on the Long Island shelf (Figure 15). None of the
net bottom currents for the Long Island shelf have offshore com-
ponents. However, the two most seaward stations have net cur-
rents that are more coast-parallel than the inner station cur-
rents. All of the currents in and adjacent to the Hudson Shelf
Valley have considerable onshore components, perhaps reflecting
a unique flow system associated with this feature. The Hudson
Shelf Valley's flow system is discussed at the end of this sec-
tion.
The data from the New Jersey shelf region suggest that
a line of divergence may exist near the 60 m (197 ft) depth con-
tour, landward of Station P-12 (Figure 15), where the mean cur-
rent has a slight offshore component. The station near the
Southern Area has a considerable onshore component of net bottom
flow.
d. Wind Drift Currents. Seasonal variations in wind con-
ditions also influence current patterns. During the summer, the
120
-------
prevailing northerly wind flow has only a minor influence on
waves and currents because of low wind velocities. Summer
storms passing north of the Bight tend to produce winds from the
southwest. These storm winds, generally of lower intensity than
winter storms, can influence water circulation in the Bight by
adding a seaward drift current component. This drift current
parallels the Long Island coast.
During the winter, air circulation over the Bight is
marked by frequent abrupt changes. These changes are caused by
storm centers which usually move from west to east. Winter
storms are much more intense than summer storms, and their ef-
fects are much more extensive. Storms tracking eastward, south
of the Bight, produce east to northeast winds on shore. These
storm systems, called Northeasters, can produce significant wind
drift currents that move in a west-southwest direction.
The extent of stratification of the water column gov-
erns whether the wind energy is transferred through the water
to the bottom layers. During the summer, the bottom layers are
less affected by wind stress because of the presence of the
thermocline and because of the lower levels of wind stress.
Conversely, the well-mixed condition of the water during the
winter enables energy to be transferred through the water column
more easily.
During Raytheon Cruise 2 (March 6 - April 4, 1975),
two storm systems were encountered which caused strong wind-in-
duced currents. During March 19-20 and April 3-5, 1975, North-
121
-------
easters were located off the Bight. Winds were from the ENE at
gusts of up to 30 m/sec (65 MPH).
The Northeaster of April 3-5, 1975 illustrates the be-
havior of the current field when subjected to high wind stress
during well-mixed conditions. Comparison of the vertical cur-
rent structure in component form (N-S, E-W) shows the E-W cur-
rent components to be large, with maximums of 34.0 cm/sec (13.4
in/sec), 33.2 cm/sec (13.1 in/sec) and 26.5 cm/sec (10.4 in/sec)
for the surface, middle, and bottom currents, respectively
(Dames & Moore, unpub.). The N-S components were not signifi-
cantly affected by the wind since it was a westerly wind.
The response of the current field to the intensifica-
tion of the wind is rapid at the surface, but there is a time
lag before the bottom current is impacted. Bottom currents are
substantially lower than surface currents during wind-driven
storm events.
e. Hudson Shelf Valley. Bottom currents in the axis of
the inner Hudson Shelf Valley channel have been studied with
regard to their response to surface winds (Lavelle e_t al.,
1975). The direction of summertime nontidal flow in the channel
axis appears to be influenced by surface wind events. When the
wind blows offshore (towards the southeast), the bottom currents
are directed upchannel; conversely, onshore winds cause a net
downchannel flow. These results were obtained during the sum-
mer, when stratified conditions (two layers) were present.
122
-------
The data base was too limited to indicate long-term
circulation patterns in the Hudson Shelf Valley. However, these
results do indicate a possible upwelling/downwelling mechanism
controlled by wind events as a contributing factor to circula-
tion in the inner Hudson Shelf Valley.
f. Internal Waves. Internal waves on the continental
shelf and in the Hudson Shelf Valley have been identified in
satellite imagery studies (Apel et al., 1974). Stratified water
conditions must be present for the generation of internal waves.
One theory is that an internal wave is generated when the tidal
wave propagates onto the shelf; the depth discontinuity causes
tidal energy to be transformed into internal waves. The intern-
al waves then propagate onto the shelf until the bottom of the
thermocline (density interface) intersects the bottom, where the
waves break. Breaking internal waves can contribute to sediment
resuspension and must be considered in evaluating bottom sedi-
ment transport.
123
-------
C. BIOLOGICAL OCEANOGRAPHY
This section on biological oceanography includes de-
scriptions of the benthos, fisheries resources, plankton, and
coliform contamination in the New York Bight and the proposed
areas.
1. Benthos
The benthos includes marine species which burrow into
the bottom sediments, species which are attached to the bottom,
and species which live and move about on the bottom. Due to
their ubiquitous nature, limited mobility, and relatively long
lifespan, benthic organisms are frequently used as indicators of
water quality and sediment quality. In addition, they are often
a source of food for fish and man.
a. Common Faunal .Communities. The composition of benthic
faunal communities is largely .controlled by sediment type,
although other parameters such as temperature range, salinity,
water quality, depth, and currents are also important. The
benthic communities of the New York Bight are characteristic of
the Mid-Atlantic Bight from Cape Hatteras to Cape Cod. The sand
fauna, the silty-sand fauna, and the silty-clay fauna are
common to this zone (Figure 16).
The progression from sand fauna to silty-sand fauna to
silty-clay fauna generally occurs in an offshore direction.
However, the transition is subtle and the communities are not
easily delineated. The differentiation is particularly diffi-
124
-------
76*
SILTY-SAND FAUNA
SILT-CLAY FAUNA
36
BENTHIC FAUNAL TYPES
IN THE MID-ATLANTIC BIGHT
0
0
100
200
KILOMETERS
100
300
1*00
200
NAUTICAL MILES
SOURCE: PRATT, 1973.
DAMES 8 MOORI
FIGURE 16
-------
cult near the Hudson Shelf Valley where all three faunal com-
munities may be found (Pratt, 1973).
The sand fauna are found from the shore seaward to
depths of 30 to 50 m (100 to 165 ft). The sand fauna are
adapted to the shifting sand conditions of their environment.
They are not easily moved, and, if buried, they are capable of
digging themselves out. Oxygen concentrations in the water and
sediment are high and suspended food is abundant. Among the
important species of the sand fauna are the surf clam and the
rock crab (Pratt, 1973). Communities dominated by the surf clam
may be among the most productive communities on the sea bottom
(Thorson, 1957).
The silty-sand fauna cover large areas of the con-
tinental shelf. They are particularly productive in terms of
fish food, and many species of groundfish, as well as lobster
and crab, feed in the area. The ocean quahog is representative
of the silty-sand fauna. Compared to the sand fauna, the silty-
sand fauna have a relatively stable environment. Deposit and
suspension feeders occupy permanent tubes and burrows in the
sediments. Tube-dwelling amphipods are abundant enough to be an
important fish food and a useful indicator of long-term trends
in environmental quality (Pearce, 1970).
The silty-clay fauna are found in the fine sediments
that are characteristic of protected estuaries and bays of the
inner edge of the continental shelf. The silty-clay fauna also
are found in the fine sediments distributed throughout the
126
-------
Hudson Shelf Valley. This faunal community includes deposit-
feeding starfish, worms, and bivalves (shellfish). The present
value of the silty-cla'y fauna, in terms of fish food or direct
yield to man, is low. However, these fauna support some ground-
fish as well as migrating lobster.
b. Northern and Southern Areas. Preliminary examination
of benthic samples from sixty stations in the Northern and South-
ern Areas indicates that the offshore region between 37 and
64 m (120 to 210 ft) is characterized by a relatively uniform
distribution of faunal communities (NOAA-NMFS, 1975b; Pearce
and Radash, 1975). In contrast, an erratic distribution of
faunal abundance and composition is found in the Bight Apex,
near the existing dump sites.
The proposed areas have approximately the same number
of individuals and species as the unpolluted or relatively
unstressed portions of the Bight Apex. Surf clams were reported
to be abundant in and shoreward of the Southern Area. Ocean
quahogs and rock crabs were numerous at both proposed areas.
The presence of these species may indicate that both areas are
transitional between the highly productive sand fauna community,
represented by the surf clam, and the silty-sand fauna, repre-
sented by the ocean quahog. Except for differences in shellfish
abundance, the Northern and Southern Areas seem to have equally
productive benthic communities in terms of fish food value and
direct fisheries resource potential.
127
-------
2. Fisheries Resources
The information presented below has been selected and
organized to concentrate on those points that are relevant to
impact evaluation and alternate site selection. For simplicity,
.common names are used. Taxonomic equivalents are given in Table
19. Pelagic fish are those fish that live and feed in the water
column; demersal fish are bottom dwellers.
This discussion includes shellfish (which are usually
categorized as benthic species) because of their large con-
tribution to fisheries resources in the Bight. Shellfish in-
clude the bivalves (clams, scallops, and quahogs) and some
crustaceans (lobster and crab).
a. New York Bight. Fish found in the Bight include year-
round and seasonal resident species and transient species. The
Bight is also an important spawning area for coastal fish. How-
ever, these fish do not spawn at specific local sites. The
location and areal extent of the most intense spawning varies
annually (NOAA-NMFS, 1975b). This annual variation is probably
due to temperature and possibly due to larval food supply. As a
result of extensive fish surveys in the New York Bight, NOAA-
NMFS (1975b) concluded that only general spawning areas could
be compared with accuracy.
b. Northern and Southern Areas. The Northern and South-
ern Areas are within the spawning range of most coastal fish.
These areas are also in the migratory path of coastal (north-
128
-------
TABLE 19
THE COMMON FISHERIES RESOURCES OF THE NEW YORK BIGHT
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
Species Not Found in the Northern or Southern Area
bay scallop Aequipecten irradians
blue crab Callinectes sapidus
blue marl in Makaira nigr lean's
calico scallop Argopecten gibbus
eastern oyster Crassostrea mercenaria
hard clam Mercenaria mercenaria
quahog Mercenaria campechiensis
shad Alosa sapidissima
soft shell clam Mya arenaria
striped bass Roccus saxatilis
swordfish Xiphias gladius~
weakfish Cynoscion regalis
white marlin Makaira"albida
Species Which Periodically Inhabit or Pass Through the Northern
or Southern Area
alewife Alosa pseudoharengus
American lobster Homarus americanus
Atlantic mackerel Scomber scombrus
Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus
black sea bass Centropristes striatus
bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix
cod Gadus morhua
goosefish Lophius americanus
little skate Raia erinacea
ocean pout Macrozoarces americanus
red crab Geryon quinquidens
red hake Urophycis chuss
rock crab Cancer borealis
rock crab Cancer irroratus
scup (porgy) Setnotomus chrysops
silver hake Merluccius bilinearis
squid Loligo
sealei
summer flounder Paralic
ithys dentatus
winter flounder Pseudopleuronectes americanus
yellow tail flounder Limanda ferruginea
Species Which Inhabit the Northern or Southern Area for Most
or All of Their Life Cycle
ocean quahog Arctica islandica
sea scallop Placopecten maqellanicus
surf clam Spisula solidissima
Sources: Saila and Pratt, 1973; NOAA-NMFS, 1975b.
129
-------
south) and inshore-offshore migrants. Population centers of
year-round resident species lie either in or near these areas.
The year-round resident species include little skate, goosefish,
silver and red hakes, ocean pout, yellow tail flounder, and
squid (NOAA-MESA, November 1975).
The constituents of the major fisheries are discussed
below according to their geographic and migratory distribution
patterns. The proposed action will have the least effect on
those fish which are not found in the proposed areas during any
part of their life cycle. It will have the most pronounced ef-
fect on those fish which spend most or a vital part of their
life cycle in the proposed areas.
Information on life histories and habits of the major
fish species in the Mid-Atlantic Bight was obtained from Saila
and Pratt (1973). This review served as the basis for division
of the various species into the categories discussed below and
shown in Table 19.
Species not found in the Northern or Southern Area
include the eastern oyster, hard clam, calico scallop, soft
shell clam, and bay scallop which are all bivalves. Because of
their limited motility, they are not likely to be found migrat-
ing to or through these areas. The striped bass, American shad,
swordfish, white and blue marlins, weakfish (all bony fish), and
the blue crab (crustacean) are motile species which are not
common to either area. However, because of their motility,
their absence from the proposed areas is not a certainty.
130
-------
Nevertheless, both of the proposed areas are outside of the
normal distribution range for significant populations of these
species.
Species which periodically inhabit or pass through the
Northern or Southern Area are numerous, as shown in Table 19.
There is little in the way of site selection that can be done to
mitigate impacts on these species because they are so common in
the Bight.
The red crab fishery is of unknown value, and remains
essentially an untapped resource. The American lobster is found
in waters from Labrador to North Carolina. South of Long Is-
land, lobster are restricted to deeper water for lack of both
suitable substrate and sufficiently cold water temperatures. In
the Bight, they are common to silty sands at depths of 27 m (90
ft) ; they are found in greater abundance near the numerous
wrecks off the New Jersey coast. An inshore lobster fishery,
which extends from Cape Cod to New Jersey, accounted for approx-
imately one-fifth of the U.S. landings in 1968. It is quite
likely that this inshore fishery is currently over-exploited
(Saila and Pratt, 1973). Both the red crab and American lobster
are reported to be numerous in the outer portions of the Hudson
Shelf Valley, with breeding zones being located in the inner
reaches (Buelow et. al., 1968).
The rock crab is common in coastal waters from Labra-
dor to South Carolina, but the present fishery is centered on
the coastal waters of Maine and Massachusetts (Saila and Pratt,
1973). Monthly groundfish surveys by NOAA-NMFS (1975b) revealed
131
-------
that the rock crab is present, in limited numbers, at both the
Northern and Southern Areas.
Species which inhabit the Northern or Southern Area
for most or all of thier life cycle primarily include the surf
clam, sea scallop, and ocean quahog. Both areas contain these
commercially important bivalves, as well as other ecologically
important invertebrates. Surf clams and ocean quahogs are
abundant over large areas on the continental shelf, from Long
Island to Maryland (Figures 17 through 20). Sea scallops, in
commercial quantities, are found in patchy distributions through-
out the Bight (Figure 21).
Surf clam surveys in 1965 (Figure 17) and 1969 (Figure
18) reported an abundance of these commercial species in and
shoreward of the Southern Area. Few surf clams were observed in
or near the Northern Area. The most recent survey information
from the 1974 Delaware II cruises (Figure 19) indicates that the
center of the surf clam fisheries is no longer off the New
Jersey coast, but has moved further south off the Delmarva
Peninsula. However, surf clams remain abundant near, and es-
pecially shoreward of the Southern Area.
Ocean quahogs are generally found far offshore at
depths of 25 to 61 m (75 to 185 ft), while surf clams inhabit
nearshore waters at depths of about 43 m (135 ft) (Merrill and
Ropes, 1969). Because of this difference in distribution with
depth, shellfish surveys specifically directed at surf clams
probably would not sample the most appropriate ocean quahog
132
-------
75'
74
NAUTICAL MILES
SURF CLAM DISTRIBUTION
IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT (1965)
KEY:
SOURCE: BUELOW £J AL., 1968.
NO SURF CLAMS
UNDER £ BUSHEL
£ TO 1 BUSHEL
1 BUSHEL OR MORE
CATCH = 5 MINUTE TOW WITH
30 IN(0.8M) DREDGE
FIGURE 17
-------
75'
74
NAUTICAL MILES
SURF CLAM DISTRIBUTION
IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT (1969)
SOURCES: PEARCE,
AND MERRILL,1969.
KEY:
^>I-I 1 BUSHEL OR MORE
::::: ito i BUSHEL
• • • » •
CATCH = 5 MINUTE TOW WITH
30 IN(0.8M) DREDGE
FIGURE 18
-------
41*-
N
"' VOHO
«*i**!Li&^- • •
•NORTHERN AREA
40'-
SOUTHERN AREA
Delaware
Bay
m
DELAWARE E
SHELLFISH ASSESSMENT
CRUISE
June 1974
SURF CLAMS
AREA
Long Islond
New Jersey
Delmorvo Penintulo
Virginia-N. Carolina
Symbols
PERCENTAGE of
1.0 Bu.
or More
0
13.3
1 1.6
5.6
•
l/4 Bu.
14.3
19.3
27.9
9.3
*
SAMPLES WITH
1/4 Bu.
or Less
10.7
30.1
25.6
20.4
e
None
75.0
30.4
34.9
64.8
•
36-
100
200
CAPE HATTERAS
•KILC
TERS
/
100
NAUTICAL MILES
SURF CLAM DISTRIBUTION
IN THE MID-ATLANTIC BIGHT
SOURCE: NOAA-NMFS, 197H. (1974)
FIGURE 19
-------
I ..... ^^1^
f. ..OA. >v — '
o • • o o
o ^^
NORTHERN. AREA 40._
SOUTHERN AREA
39*-
DELAWARE IT
SHELLFISH ASSESSMENT
CRUISE
June 1974
38'-
OCEAN OUAHOGS
AREA
PERCENTAGE of SAMPLES WITH
1.0 Bu. l/48u. or Leu
Long Island 25.0 10.7
New Jersey 8.2 6.9
Delmarva Peninsula 1.2 0
Virginia-N.Carolina 0 0
Symbol* • A
46.4 17.9
30.1 54.0
17.4 81.4
0 100.0
37*-
36*-
KM
100
=t
200
TERS
100
NAUTICAL MILES
73'
I
3S*-
71*
I
OCEAN QUAHOG DISTRIBUTION
IN THE MID-ATLANTIC BIGHT
SOURCE: NOAA-NMFS,
(1974)
DAMES e MOORE
FIGURE 20
-------
NORTHERN AREA
SOUTHERN AREA
SEA SCALLOP DISTRIBUTIONAL STUDY
R/V ALBATROSS IV CRUISE 75-8
AUGUST 7-16,1975
• NO SCALLOPS
UNDER 1/4 BUSHEL
1/4 TO 1 BUSHEL
1 TO 2 BUSHELS
2 TO 3 BUSHELS
DASHED LINES INDICATE A1AJOR TRANSECTS
KILOMETERS
NAUTICAL MILES
SEA SCALLOP DISTRIBUTION
IN THE MID-ATLANTIC BIGHT
(1975)
70°
SOURCE: NOAA-NMFS, 1975C.
DAMES 8 MOORI
FIGURE 21
-------
habitats. This fact notwithstanding, the 1974 Delaware II
shellfish assessment cruises do provide data on ocean quahog
distributions in the nearshore waters of the Mid-Atlantic Bight
(Figure 20). The cruise results indicate that ocean quahogs are
numerous in the Southern Area. The Northern Area was not sam-
pled. The greatest abundance and frequency of occurrence was
found just off Long Island (NOAA-NMFS, 1974a). More recent
shellfish surveys of the proposed areas (NOAA-NMFS, 1975b) re-
ported ocean quahogs to be numerous in both areas.
At present, ocean quahogs constitute the largest under-
utilized clam resource in the Bight (Saila and Pratt, 1973).
Underutilization may be attributed to: the rapid growth of the
surf clam fishery to meet market demand; the larger yield of
meat per bushel provided by the surf clam (Merrill and Ropes,
1969); the greater distance to ocean quahog areas; and the poor
keeping properties and strong, variable flavor of ocean quahogs
(Mendelsohn et al., 1970; Medcof and Chandler, 1968). Possibly,
the ocean quahog could be used in the future as a substitute for
surf clams (Mendelsohn et al., 1970).
The major fishing effort for sea scallops is near the
Hudson Shelf Valley and off the Virginia Capes (Saila and Pratt,
1973). Sea scallops were found at both the Northern and South-
ern Areas. However, estimates of their abundance in these areas
are lacking because the clam dredge used in this study is not
an appropriate device for sampling sea scallop populations
(NOAA-NMFS, 1975b). The results of a sea scallop survey in
138
-------
August 1975 (Figure 21) show that species concentrations were
greater on Georges Bank than in the Mid-Atlantic Bight. Sea
scallops were found in depths of 31 to 110 m (95 to 340 ft) ,
with 71 percent of the catch occuring between 57 and 73 m (180
to 220 ft) and 21 percent occurring between 36 and 54 m (120 and
165 ft) (NOAA-NMFS, 1975c).
3. Plankton
Plankton are those plants (phytoplankton) and animals
(zooplankton) which float in the water column. Phytoplankton
are the primary producers at the base of the food chain; zoo-
plankton, for the most part, are herbivores that feed on the
phytoplankton. The high degree of spatial and temporal varia-
tion inherent in plankton populations makes study of their
abundance, composition, and distribution extremely difficult.
The productivity in an area is a function of many en-
vironmental variables, especially available nutrients and salin-
ity. Malone (1975) recently prepared a review of plankton tax-
onomy and distribution for the Bight. Examining seventy-five
years of published and unpublished data, he determined that
phytoplankton species composition in the Bight was influenced
most strongly by estuarine processes. Conversely, zooplankton
composition is influenced most strongly by oceanic processes.
Malone's summarized data provide a baseline from which future
changes can be projected; however, they are insufficient to show
definitively the effect of man's activities on plankton popula-
tions. Malone attributed this insufficiency to a lack of stan-
139
-------
darized methodology and to inadequate temporal and spartial
coverage.
Ryther and Dunstan (1971) found nitrate-nitrogen to be
the limiting factor in plankton productivity within coastal
waters. However, this does not appear to be the case in the
Bight Apex. A high nutrient input from the Hudson River estuary
results in an estimated 2,000 metric tons (2,200 tons) per day
of carbon fixed by phytoplankton in the Apex (NOAA-MESA, 1975).
The New York Ocean Sciences Laboratory (1973) corre-
lated physical and chemical characteristics of water in the
Bight with zooplankton species and biomass. Their results in-
cluded the identification of four water masses:
- New York Harbor waters, with salinity values of less
than 20 /oo, form a shallow tongue of surface water within the
estuary (Ketchum e_t al., 1951) . This water mass supports a
predominantly estuarine species population characterized by
seasonal variations and low biomass. Pelagic plankton are
scarce, but veliger larvae and barnacle cyprids are common.
- New York Bight waters, with salinity values of 29 to
31 /oo, are found seaward of the harbor waters and down to the
thermocline. Diversity of species is greater than in harbor
waters. A significant number of eggs spawned by fish, such as
anchovy and menhaden, are found in this water mass. These
phenomena were also observed by NOAA-MESA (November 1975).
Plankton species are similar to those of the harbor water mass.
140
-------
- Atlantic Shelf waters, with salinity values of more
than 31.5 °/oo, usually occur below the thermocline except in
areas of upwelling or mixing. The source of these waters is off
the continental shelf. Pelagic shelf plankton dominate.
- Mixing or transition zone waters, with salinity
values of 31 to 31.5 /oo, separate Bight waters from shelf
waters. The largest biomass is found in this transitional zone.
The dominant plankton species in these waters are the same as
those found in shelf waters.
4. Coliform Contamination, Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria, and
Diseases of Marine Resources
a. Coliform Contamination. Traditionally, coliform bac-
teria have been used as indicators of pollution from municipal
wastewater discharges. While coliforms do not pose a threat to
public health, their presence in large numbers indicates a high
probability that pathogenic organisms are also present. Only
recently has it become possible to monitor directly for patho-
genic organisms iri situ (in place); therefore, most of the
available data are for the coliform group.
Since 1968, EPA and FDA have been monitoring the bot-
tom sediments and water column in the Bight Apex, especially in
the vicinity of the existing sewage sludge dump site, for'indi-
cations of coliform contamination. This monitoring activity has
produced the following observations and actions.
In 1970, FDA prohibited shellfishing in an area of
11.1 km (6.0 n mi) radius around the existing dump site (Fig-
141
-------
ure 22) based on high coliform counts in the water column and
bottom sediments (Buelow et al., 1968; McGraw, 1969) and on the
potential for shellfish contamination. Areas adjacent to the
closed area were found to be of very high quality and safe for
shellfish harvesting. Coliforms contributed by sludge dumping
were not accumulating, but were experiencing a relatively rapid
die-off following their introduction into the Apex (McGraw,
1969).
In 1972, FDA extended the prohibited shellfishing zone
to the Long Island and New Jersey shorelines (Figure 22). Near-
shore waters out to the 3-mile (5.6 km) limit had previously
been closed because of potential coliform contamination from
onshore sources (FDA, 1972). The decision to close the addi-
tional area was based upon poor surface water quality only;
bottom waters and sediments appeared to be of good quality.
Coliform sampling data strongly suggest that contamination of
shellfish waters beyond the 3-mile'(5.6 km) limit is attribu-
table to onshore sources, such as runoff, wastewater discharges,
and estuarine inputs, rather than to sludge dumping. The inci-
dence of coliforms in nearshore bottom sediments was low and
decreased significantly seaward, indicating onshore sources of
contamination.
The most recent FDA (FDA, 1974a) and EPA (July 1974
and April 1975) studies of the waters between the sludge dump
site and the Long Island and New Jersey beaches show no signif-
icant coliform contamination of the sediments or water column
142
-------
75'
74'
NAUTICAL MILES
AREA CLOSED TO SHELLFISHING
IN VICINITY OF
SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMP SITE
KEY:
CLOSED TO SHELLFISHING
SOURCE:FDA, 1973.
FIGURE 22
-------
that can be attributed to sludge dumping at the existing dump
site. The EPA monitoring program for the Apex continues to show
excellent surface and bottom water quality, with regard to coli-
form densities, surrounding the existing dump site. This moni-
toring program includes testing for coliform bacterial groups in
the bottom sediments and water column, for selected pathogenic
bacterial groups in the bottom sediments (negative to date) and,
since late 1975, for viruses in the water column (also negative
to date). However, FDA still finds the area unacceptable for
shellfishing (FDA, December 18, 1975).
b. Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria. The increased use of
antibiotics has resulted in mutant bacteria which are resistant
to a broad spectrum of antibiotics and possibly even to heavy
metals (Davies and Rownd, 1972; Summers and Silver, 1972). The
focus of concern is a transfer resistance factor known as
R-plasmid, which can be transmitted from one bacterium to
another through normal types of bacterial reproduction such as
conjugation or transduction (Davies and Rownd, 1972). Recently,
such antibiotic resistant bacteria have been isolated from Bight
waters in the vicinity of the existing sludge dump site (Kodi-
tschek and Guyre, 1974a). It has been suggested that the dump
site is a potential "breeding ground" for antibiotic resistant
bacteria.
Antibiotic resistant (R-plasmid) bacteria are not
unique to sewage sludge or to ocean dumping of sludge. They
have been recovered from raw and treated sewage, from river
144
-------
water, from salt water in Mobile Bay, Alabama (Feary et al.,
1972), from the Whippany River, New Jersey (Koditschek and
Guyre, 1974b) , a'nd from beach water at Sandy Hook, New Jersey
(Koditschek and Guyre, 1975). The antibiotic resistant bacter-
ia are an indicator of wastewater contamination.
c. Diseases of Marine Organisms. Several disease condi-
tions have been observed in a variety of marine organisms in the
Bight Apex. These include occurrences of fin rot, lobster die-
off, necrosis of crustacean exoskeletons, gill fouling, and pro-
tozoan parasites on gill tissues. To date, none of these ob-
served conditions have been attributed directly or solely to
sludge dumping, nor have the causative agents been isolated.
The occurrence of fin rot has been linked to environ-
mental stress, as evidenced by the inability to induce the con-
dition in test fish by innoculation with bacterial isolates
(Mahoney et al., 1973). Ziskowski and Murchelano (1975) found
that fin rot was confined largely to bottom dwelling flat fish
in Raritan Bay and the Bight Apex, with no occurrence among fish
in the relatively pristine Great Bay on Long Island. Fin rot
was also observed in pelagic species, such as weakfish, from the
western end of Raritan Bay.
The occurrence of fin rot in winter flounder, the most
commonly affected species, was statistically greater in the
Bight Apex than in seaward areas of the Bight. The percent of
occurrence was statistically greatest in areas characterized by
sediments of high-carbon content. Also, no diseased fish were
145
-------
found in the vicinity of ocean outfalls (NOAA-MESA, November
1975). Preliminary results from ongoing experiments indicate
that survival of caged fish in the Christiansen Basin, where
organic material is accumulating, is low compared to fish
survival in unpolluted areas (Murchelano and Ziskowski, 1975).
Pathological conditions of shells and gills have been
observed in crustaceans, including rock crab, lobster, and
shrimp (NOAA-NMFS, 1975b; Young and Pearce, 1975). Crabs with
coated gills have been observed in the Bight Apex. This "black
gill" disease was prevalent except during the molting season.
Necrosis of the exoskeleton and appendages of shrimp, lobster,
and crab was also reported in the vicinity of the sludge and
dredged material dump sites. It is postulated that the degraded
conditions of the Bight Apex and the occurrence of high concen-
trations of bacteria found there may contribute to diseases of
marine organisms.
146
-------
D. GEOLOGICAL OCEANOGRAPHY
This section on geological oceanography includes de-
scriptions of the geomorphology, surficial sediments, and sus-
pended particulate matter of the New York Bight and the proposed
Northern and Southern Areas.
1. Geomorphology
The sea floor is not a smooth, featureless plain; it
is characterized by forms and structures (known as geomorpholog-
ic features or bedforms) just as the land surface is character-
ized by features such as hills and valleys.
The continental shelf, including the portion that un-
derlies the New York Bight, exhibits a variety of geomorphologic
features, such as relict drainage channels, scarps and terraces,
systems of sand ridges, and smaller features (bedforms) (Figure
23). Reviews of the continental shelf's geomorphologic features
and their origins can be found in Milliman e_t al. (1972) and
Swift et al. (1973). In general, the geomorphology of the con-
tinental shelf reflects the cumulative processes of erosion and
deposition by streams and near-shore currents.
a. Relict Drainage Channels. Relict drainage channels
are simply the remains of drainage channels from an earlier geo-
logic period. During glacial periods, when the sea level was
low, much of the continental shelf was exposed. Streams associ-
ated with large drainage systems, such as the Hudson River, cut
deep erosional valleys in the surface of the continental shelf.
147
-------
m
ID
CO
RIVER-BORNE DELTA DEPOSITS
GEOMORPHIC ELEMENTS OF THE MID-ATLANTIC CONTINENTAL SHELF
8
fll
SOURCES: MILL I HAN, EJ AU, 1972; SWIFT. 197*;
GARRISON AND McMASTER, 1966; HcKINNEY. 1975.
-------
On the Long Island shelf, a trunk drainage system (Long Island
Valley) has been implied from analysis of Stearns1 (1967) bathy-
metric charts (Garrison and McMaster, 1966; McKinney and Fried-
man, 1970) .
b. Scarps and Terraces. The shelf surface also displays
a series of scarps and terraces which formed in response to the
erosion and deposition associated with periods of constant sea
level (Veatch and Smith, 1939; Emery and Uchupi, 1972; Garrison
and McMaster, 1966; McClennen and McMaster, 1971; Swift e_t al. ,
1972). The fact that much of the shelf surface still bears the
patterns and features of earlier erosion suggests that there has
been very little deposition of sediments on the shelf surface
since the last sea level rise.
c. Sand Ridges. The most conspicuous geomorphologic fea-
tures of the continental shelf are the sand ridges. The sand
ridges are 2 to 4 km (1.1 to 2.2 n mi) apart and up to 10 m
(33 ft) high and extend for tens of kilometers. Investigations
show that the ridges rest on older lagoonal strata (Swift
et al.., 1973; Stubblefield et al., 1974; Stubblefield et a^. ,
1975; Stahl et al., 1972). The ridges appear to have been
caused by storm action in near-shore areas during the last sea
level rise. As the sea level rose, they became isolated rem-
nants on the shelf surface (Swift e_t al., 1973).
d. Smaller Bedforms. The effect of present hydraulic
action on the shelf surface is evidenced by the formation of
smaller bedforms, such as wave ripples and large-scale current
149
-------
lineations. The latter appear as elongate forms up to 1.5 m
(4.9 ft) high, and they are arranged in furrows, bands, patches,
and ribbons of alternating sediment types. These forms are
thought to be caused by the bottom hydraulic flow associated
with major storm events (McKinney et^ al., 1974; Maclntyre and
Pilkey, 1969).
2. Surficial Sediments
Recent studies of surficial sediments on the eastern
continental shelf of the United States reveal that, in general,
the shelf surface is a vast sand plain (Emery and Schlee, 1963;
Emery, 1966; Schlee, 1973; Milliman ejt al_., 1972). The sand
generally accumulates in elongated ridges, which are especially
well developed on the inner portions of the shelf. While sand
is the most abundant textural component on the shelf, gravel,
greater than 2.0 mm (0.08 in) in size, and mud (silt and clay),
less than 62 y (0.002 in) in size, are significant.
a. Gravel. Indications are that there is a significant
gravel deposit on the inner portion of the northern New Jersey
shelf; the highest percentage of gravel in the deposit occurs
in the proposed Southern Area, as shown in Figure 6 (Schlee and
Platt, 1970; Schlee, 1975). The northern New Jersey shelf gra-
vel deposits are thought to be river-borne terrace gravels that
were deposited on the exposed shelf by glacial meltwaters, prob-
ably from the Hudson River system (Schlee and Platt, 1970).
Scattered deposits, high in gravel content, are also present on
the Long Island shelf. Bottom samples taken in Subarea 2D2 con-
tain up to 39 percent gravel.
150
-------
b. Mud. The distribution of mud (fines), less than 62 y
(0.002 in) in size, is shown in Figure 24. The high percentage
of fines in the area south of eastern Long Island represents the
western edge of a large relict silt deposit of the southern New
England shelf (McKinney and Friedman, 1970). In general, the
percentage of fines on the inner shelf and middle shelf is quite
low (less than 0.5 percent) out to about the 64 m (210 ft) depth
contour. Locally, in depressions, the percentage of fines can
be higher (up to 5 percent).
Between the 64 and 92 m (209 and 301 ft) depth con-
tours, the shelf is characterized by values of 5 to 10 percent
fines. In the depression area of the Long Island Shelf Valley,
fines increase to 20 to 30 percent locally. At the 100 m (330
ft) depth contour, the percentages increase markedly. Finally,
at the shelf edge, where the depth is about 183 m (600 ft), val-
ues of 40 to 50 percent fines occur. The inner and middle seg-
ments of the Hudson Shelf Valley are characterized by high per-
centages of fines, generally greater than 25 percent and local-
ly greater than 50 percent. Overall, the New Jersey shelf is
lower in fine material.
3. Suspended Particulate Matter
Studies on suspended particulate matter (SPM) of the
continental shelf of Eastern United States (Manheim et al.,
1970; Meade, 1969 and 1972; Meade et al., 1975) and of other
shelves (McCave, 1972) show that, in both surface and bottom
waters, SPM concentrations decrease rapidly away from the coast-
151
-------
NAUTICAL MILES
PERCENTAGE OF MUD IN BOTTOM
SEDIMENTS OF THE PERCENT LESS THAN
NEW YORK BIGHT KE^(°O°^,N)
| I < i.o
SOURCES: SCHLEE, 1973; HOLLISTER, 1973;
NOAA-MESA, NOVEMBER 1975;
McKINNEY AND FRIEDMAN, 1970.
i.o TO 25
25 TO 50
50 TO 75
FIGURE 24
-------
al zone. This pattern is aided by the predominantly coast-par-
allel longshore currents of the inner shelf. Shelf transport
from stream discharges occurs in the form of SPM-rich estuarine
plumes; for example, the surface flow out of the Hudson River
estuary produces a turbid plume which comes within 5 to 10 km
(3 to 5 n mi) of the New Jersey coast' (Drake, 1974; Charnell
et al., 1974). The Hudson River plume at times extends as far
south as 35 km (19 n mi) from the New York Harbor entrance.
A schematic model of the distribution of suspended
particulate matter across the continental shelf is presented in
Figure 25. As indicated in the model, there are three major
sources of the SPM found in continental shelf waters: river-
borne SPM, resuspended bottom sediment, and organic matter pro-
duced on the shelf (Meade et al., 1975).
Over 90 percent of the SPM from rivers is trapped in
the estuaries and wetlands (Manheim et al., .1970; Meade et al.,
1975; Schubel and Okubo, 1972). Although 10 percent of the SPM
actually reaches coastal waters, not all of it remains there.
The dominant transport system is a two-layered circulation pat-
tern with a less dense, less saline water flowing seaward in the
upper layer and a denser, more saline water returning landward
in the bottom layer. The SPM in the upper layer is carried sea-
ward. The SPM in the bottom layer is carried landward. The
contribution of river SPM to the continental shelf water system
is carried in the river's surface layer plume. The resuspension
of fine inorganic sediments near estuary mouths is related to
153
-------
SUSPENDED PARTICIPATE MATTER CONCENTRATION
SCALE IS RELATIVE
0
30-J
(98)
E 30
T (98)
-------
the effects of wave surge and wind-drift currents in these shal-
low waters (Section IVB).
In size, the particles of inorganic material in the
Bight Apex are generally like fine silt or clay, with less than
10 percent of the particles exceeding 16 y (0.0006 in). Inor-
ganic material constitutes 25 to 50 percent by volume of the to-
tal SPM close to shore and near the bottom. In the seaward por-
tions of the Apex, within the clearer waters of the central
shelf, inorganic content ranges from 5 to 10 percent of the to-
tal SPM (Drake, 1974).
Drake (1974) estimates that a single November storm re-
suspended a minimum of 10,000 metric tons (11,000 tons) of fine
sediments throughout the water column in the Bight Apex. This
demonstrates the strong influence of storm events in resuspend-
ing fine sediments. Other agents of resuspension include the
activities of benthic organisms and fishing trawlers.
The SPM of the surface waters over the proposed areas
consists mostly of combustible plankton and their non-combusti-
ble remains (Meade et al., 1975). Total SPM concentrations in
surface waters range from 100 to 500 yg/1, of which 80 percent
is combustible planktonic matter, 15 percent is siliceous and
calcareous, non-combustible planktonic matter, and 5 percent or
less is land-derived non-combustible matter.
The SPM concentrations in subsurface waters are the
same or somewhat lower, with higher concentrations noted about
10 m (30 ft) above the bottom. The bottom layer has SPM concen-
155
-------
trations of 500 to 2000 yg/1, consisting of 30 to 60 percent
combustible matter and 40 to 70 percent non-combustible matter.
4. Northern Area
a. Morphology. The proposed Northern Area is located on
the central portion of the Long Island continental shelf near
the headward portions of the relict Long Island Shelf Valley
(Figure 23). The bathymetry (Figure 26), or depth below sea
level, is based on early surveys (1937-1938) which used contours
of one fathom intervals (Stearns, 1967). The pattern of the in-
ferred relict drainage system reveals a well-developed drainage
element oriented northwest and another oriented east-northeast
(Figure 26).
Geophysical surveys (NOAA-MESA, November 1975) have
been conducted in Subarea 2D1 (Figure 27). Preliminary results
indicate that a surficial sand sheet exists, but it is generally
thin, 1.5 to 1.8 m (5 to 6 ft), and is underlain by lagoonal
clays. In a number of places these clays are exposed on the sea
floor.
b. Surficial Sediments. The NOAA-MESA (November, 1975),
Raytheon (1975 a and b), and McKinney and Friedman (1970) have
sampled bottom sediments in the Northern Area (Figure 26). The
regional sediment distribution on the Long Island shelf has been
described previously in this section. Fine sands are located
along the axial segments of the relict drainage system (Figure
28). Fine-medium sands are located in the south-central por-
tion, and coarse-medium sands characterize the rest of the area.
156
-------
Occi
72°55
72°50'
72035,
1»0°05'
BATHYMETRY AND SAMPLE LOCATIONS
FOR SUBAREA 2D1
OI23456789IO
0 I 2345
0 I
T I
2 3 4 5
I.I I I
KILOMETERS
STATUTE MILES
I
NAUTICAL MILES
CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1 FATHOM = 1.83M (6FT)
SOURCES: NOAA-MESA, NOVEMBER, 1975;
RAYTHEON, 1975 A AND B;
McKINNEY AND FRIEDMAN 1970.
KEY:
• NOOA-MESA SAMPLES
X RAYTHEON SAMPLES
A McKINNEY AND FRIEDMAN 1970
INFERRED RELICT DRAINAGE PATTERN
FIGURE 26
-------
73 30'
73°25' 73°20' 73 15'
39 15'
H
- 39 10'
SUBAREA 2D2
0 1
KILOMETERS
3 « 5
72°55'
72°50'
NAUTICAL HILES
72°15'
72°10'
SUBAREA 2D1
SOURCE: NOAA-HESA, NOVEMBER 1975.
GEOPHYSICAL TRACTS
0 5 10 15
0123
KILOMETERS
5
NAUTICAL MILES
KEY:
_^-^—BATHYMETRIC CONTOUR LINE
CONTOUR INTERVAL - 1 FATHOM - 1.83m (6FT)
*i ""TRACT LINES
DAMES 8 MOORE
FIGURE 27
-------
Ore '
72°55
MEAN GRAIN SIZE OF BOTTOM SEDIMENTS
IN SUBAREA 2D1
0123456789 10
III i i iiti
3 4
_| 1
KILOMETERS
STATUTE MILES
NAUTICAL MILES
KEY:
CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1 FATHOM = 1.83M (6FT)
1MM = (0.03937 IN)
| | 0.50 TO 0
A MOMENT MEAN: BY SIEVING I&IP&;] °'35 T0 °
X FOLK GRAPHIC MEAN; BY SIEVING
0.25 TO 0.
MOMEMT MEAN OF SAND FRACTION ONLY: BY
RAPID SETTLEMENT ANALYZER
MEDIUM
SAND
FINE SAND
0 MOOMB
SOURCES: NOAA-MESA, NOVEMBER 1975; RAYTHEON, 1975 A AND B;
McKINNEY AND FRIEDMAN 1970.
FIGURE 28
-------
The highest percentage of gravel in sediments, approx-
imately 40 percent, occurs in the raised areas between the rel-
ict valleys (Figure 29). A number of other samples, containing
5 to 10 percent gravel, were obtained from the floors of the
valleys.
Most samples have very low percentages of fines (muds),
generally less than 1 percent (Figure 30). Higher values, up to
5 percent, are found locally in low topographic areas.
c. Bedforms. The sandy bottom of the Northern Area is
characterized by wave ripples and by areas which appear slightly
undulated or mounded. The ripples are thought to be the result
of bottom currents associated with storms.
Side-scan sonar surveys (NOAA-MESA, November 1975) of
the Northern Area reveal longitudinal bedforms (parallel to cur-
rents) referred to as large-scale current lineations (McKinney
et a_l., 1974). They occur as sediment zones, oriented on an
east-west axis, in the valleys of the northern portion of the
study area. This is also the area where thin layers of fine
sands cover the underlying "basement of clay".
The large-scale current lineations appear to be formed
by the movement of fine sands in response to secondary flow in
the bottom boundary layer. The fine sand is swept out and away
by the downward moving divergent currents and accumulates in the
zones of current convergence.
5. Southern Area
a. Morphology. The western portion of the Southern Area
is characterized by a north-south chain of depressions, deeper
160
-------
Occ '
72°55
72°50'
72°35I
PERCENTAGE OF GRAVEL IN SUBAREA 2D1
23 45 6 78'9 10
I I I I I i I | I
KILOMETERS
STATUTE MILES
012345
I | | I I I
012345
I I I I I I NAUTICAL MILES
CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1 FATHOM = 1,83m (6FT)
KEY:
| | < 5 PERCENT
liijiiijji 5 TO 10 PERCENT
10 TO AO PERCENT
XA SAMPLE STATIONS
SOURCES: NOAA-MESA, NOVEMBER, 1975;
RAYTHEON, 1975 A AND B;
McKINNEY AND FRIEDMAN, 1970.
FIGURE 29
-------
72°55
O-JC I
72°35
PERCENTAGE OF MUD IN BOTTOM
SEDIMENTS FROM SUBAREA 2D1
OI23456789I
012345
0 12945
I i I I I i
KILOMETERS
STATUTE MILES
NAUTICAL MILES
CONTOUR INTERVAL = 1 FATHOM = 1.83M (6FT)
KEY: PERCENT LESS THAN 62/U. (0.0024 IN)
A!-7 = 1-7 PERCENT
PERCENT
SOURCES: NOAA-MESA, NOVEMBER. 1975;
RAYTHEON, 1975 A AND B;
McKINNEY AND FRIEDMAN 1970.
DAMES 8 MOORE
FIGURE 30
-------
than 37 m (120 ft), and the eastern portion by elongate high re-
gions. Individual depressions in the area are oriented north-
east and are up to 6 m (24 ft) deep. These depressions alter-
nate with sand ridges. A dominant landward-facing scarp, which
is located to the west of the Southern Area, parallels the
north-south depressions and high regions within the Southern
Area (Figure 23). The northern portion of the Southern Area is
located along the northward-sloping rim of the Hudson Shelf Val-
ley.
Geophysical and geologic data for the shelf and for
the Southern Area (NOAA-MESA, November 1975; McClennen, 1973)
suggest the following sequence of strata: a surficial sheet of
sand forming the shelf underlain by an upper lagoonal clay, un-
derlain by a unit of sand or gravel, underlain by a lower clay.
Locally, within the deeper troughs, erosion has cut through
the upper sand and clay strata to expose the lower clay
strata on the floors of the flatter troughs. The NOAA-MESA
(November 1975) reports the presence of a buried channel in the
southern portion of the Southern Area. The channel appears to
be cut into the lower clay strata and has a general east-west
orientation. The bathymetry of Subarea 2D2 is presented in Fig-
ure 27.
b. Surficial Sediments. The distribution of surficial
sediments has been reported by NOAA-MESA (November 1975). The
gravel and sand distributions in Subarea 2D2 are shown in Fig-
ures 31 and 32.
163
-------
™
fi/F
N
C
C
39»
45'
39*
40'
35'
39;
30'
73°30'
73»25'
73»20'
73*15'
PERCENTAGE OF GRAVEL IN BOTTOM
SEDIMENTS OF SUBAREA 2D2
0123456789 10
I I I I i i I I I I
KILOMETERS
I I I I STATUTE MILES
2345
I I I luAiiTir&i MILES
SOURCE: NOAA-MESA, NOVEMBER 1975.
KEY:
GRAVEL
;::: MEDIUM SAND-O.^Z TO 0.50 MM
**•• MEAN GRAIN SIZE
1 MM = 0.03937IN
DAMES 0 MOORE
FIGURE 31
-------
73°30'
73°25'
73°20'
^y
• • A* •
'•••••«
'••••••••
> • • •
.......
/ • f • *^ ••••••••
. • • »™ V* • ».••»«•«»
'••*••«.•••»
-•'••'•• t • • -
..•••••
• •••••%• • • •.
•$:•'::••::;::.•?
^m^m^
'•.••.•..«. • *• • «>.»V.'*.J?»%. V •
•..«..•/..*• • • • «GT.TT.V.*: * • • •
'•.••.•..»•• • •. «Vrd_Ll? ••••••••
^£
//
* ••'•••••
*•••••>••..•
••'
C
C
39045-
390^,0,
39°35'
39o30,
MEAN GRAIN SIZE OF BOTTOM
SEDIMENTS OF SUBAREA 2D2
0123 456789
I I I I I I I I I I
10
KILOMETERS
I STATUTE MILES
^NAUTICAL MILES
SOURCE: NOAA-MESA, NOVEMBER 1975-
KEY:
m
0.50 MM
!•!•* 0.50 - 0.42 MM
;.':;•': 0.42 - 0.35 MM
I 0.35 - 0.30 MM
$$& 0.30 - 0.25 MM
COARSE SAND
MEDIUM SAND
FINE SAND
> 0.25 MM
1 MM = 0.03937 IN
NOTE: GREATER THAN
DAMES a MOORE
FIGURE 32
-------
The most prominent feature of the bottom sediments is
the band of coarse sands and gravelly sands along the northeast
rim of the study area, parallel to the rim of the Hudson Shelf
Valley. The regional sampling on a 16 km (9 n mi) grid by the
U.S. Geological Survey and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Insti-
tute also suggests that there are gravelly deposits along the
southern rim of the Hudson Shelf Valley to the northwest of the
study area (Schlee and Platt, 1970). Progressively finer sands
are found to the southwest of the gravelly deposits. This sug-
gests that reworking of these deposits and subsequent southwest-
erly transport have occurred, perhaps during lower sea levels
when the ridges formed.
c. Bedforms. Observations in the Southern Area reveal
the same types of bedforms as in the Northern Area (NOAA-MESA,
November 1975). Wave ripples up to 1 m (3.3 ft) wide are found
in the area. Apparently, winter storms are responsible for the
wave ripples. Low relief elongate bands (lineations) and irreg-
ular patches of contrasting sediment texture are also found in
the area. In addition to the longitudinal forms, widely spaced
3 to 5 m (10 to to 16 ft), low relief, wave-like features were ob-
served in the Southern Area. The orientation of these wave-like
(transverse to the flow) and longitudinal forms (parallel to
the flow) for the Bight is presented in Figure 33. The hydraul-
ic origin of these forms, especially the wave-like features, is
not clear at present. They may have originated from the action
of breaking internal waves as discussed in Sections IVB and VI.
166
-------
75'
74
NAUTICAL MILES
MESOSCALE BEDFORMS
KEY:
« > LONGITUDINAL LI NEAT IONS
1 TRANSVERSE WAVE-LIKE FORMS
SOURCES: NOAA-MESA, NOVEMBER 1975; McKINNEY EJ AL. , 197**.
FIGURE 33
-------
E. CHEMICAL OCEANOGRAPHY
This section on chemical oceanography includes descrip-
tions of the heavy metals, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, organic
carbon, and chlorinated hydrocarbon concentrations in the New
York Bight and more specifically in the Northern and Southern
Areas.
1. Heavy Metals
a. Water Column. The concentration of dissolved heavy
metals (cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, and
zinc) in the water column of the New York Bight varies according
to the location and the time of year. However, background con-
centrations are generally higher than those reported for the
open ocean (Brewer, 1975). The generally higher concentrations
in the Bight are related to many factors, but especially to the
proximity of the sources of heavy metals (metropolitan area) and
to the higher concentrations of suspended matter in the Bight
waters (Benninger et al., 1975). Suspended matter, including
clay minerals, organic matter, and finely dispersed iron and
manganese oxides, can influence the distribution of dissolved
metals. High concentrations of dissolved metals are often no-
ticeable in summer, when waters are stratified (oxygen depletion
near the bottom mobilizes metals), and in winter after storm
activity (sediment overturning contributes metals to the water
column).
In general, concentrations of dissolved heavy metals
are highest in the Bight Apex, where the influences of man are
strongest. The proposed areas are pristine by comparison.
168
-------
There is little difference between the two proposed areas in
concentrations of dissolved heavy metals (Table 20).
b. Sediment. Concentrations of heavy metals in bottom
sediments are not uniformly distributed throughout the Bight.
Concentrations in the sediments vary according to the sediment
grain size, the quantity of organic material present, the min-
eral composition, and the proximity of sources of heavy metals
(metropolitan area). The importance of the proximity of sources
of heavy metals is evident from the elevated concentrations in
the Bight Apex (Carmody et al., 1973). Based on available data,
there appears to be no significant difference between the pro-
posed areas in concentrations of heavy metals in sediments
(Table 21).
c. Bight Apex. Sewage sludge dumping at the existing
site is a minor source of contamination by heavy metals in the
Bight Apex (Table 22). Pollutant sources (dumping and non-dump-
ing) and loadings (percent) to the Bight Apex are discussed in
Section IID.
2. Dissolved Oxygen
a. Surface Waters. With the exception of the waters near
the Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point transect and in the Lower Bay
(Figure 2), surface waters in the New York Bight are saturated
or nearly saturated with oxygen. Low levels of oxygen, gefneral-
ly less than 50 percent saturation, have been noted in surface
waters off Cape May, New Jersey and in a corridor along the
northern New Jersey coast.
169
-------
TABLE 20
CONCENTRATIONS OF DISSOLVED HEAVY METALS IN THE WATER COLUMN OF THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Sampling yig/1
Location Cadmium (Cd) Chromium (Cr) Copper (Cu) Lead (Pb) Mercury (Hq) Nickel (Ni) Zinc (Zn)
Northern and
asA 0.06 to 19 3 to 15 0.23 to 18
2.4
Southern Areas1 0.06 to 19 3 to 15 0.23 to 18 0.69 to 0.05 to 0.24 0.72 to 1.0 1.8 to 38
Bight Apex in 0.11 to 46 NA 0.6 to 47 NA NA NA 2.1 to
the Vicinity of 190
Sewage Sludge
i_i and Dredged
-J Material Dump
0 Sites2
NA = Not Available.
Sources:
1Raytheon, 1975 a and b; NOAA-MESA October 16, 1975.
2NOAA-MESA, October 16, 1975; NOAA-NMFS, 1972.
-------
TABLE 21
CONCENTRATIONS OF HEAVY METALS IN THE SEDIMENTS OF THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Sampling
Location
Northern and' .
Southern Areas
Bight Apex in
the Vicinity of
Sewage Sludge
and Dredged
Material Dump
Sites2
ppm
Arsenic
(As)
4 to 8
Cadmium
(Cd)
<5
Chromium
(Cr)
<22
0.6 to
460
Copper
(Cu)
8
0.2 to
620
Lead
(Pb)
0.9 to
700
Mercury
(Hg)
<0.05
<4
Nickel
(Ni)
0.8 to
50
Zinc
(Zn)
<32
1.3 to
1500
NA = Not Available.
< = Less than.
Sources:
Greig and Pearce, 1975; Raytheon, 1975 a and b.
2Greig et aJL. , 1974; Carmody et al. , 1973; NOAA-NMFS, 1972.
-------
TABLE 22
LOADINGS
OF HEAVY METALS IN
Sewage Sludge
Loadings ,
Metal
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Copper (Cu)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Zinc (Zn)
metric
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
tons/day"1"
044
073
7
72
013
8
THE BIGHT
Total Bight
Loadings .,
metric
2.
5.
13.
12.
0.
33
tons/day"1"
4
0
8
7
3
APEX
Percent from
Sewage Sludge
1.8
1.
5.
5.
4.
5.
5
1
7
3
5
metric ton = 1.10 tons.
Source: Mueller and Jeris, unpub.
172
-------
b. Mid-Depth Waters. The oxygen levels in mid-depth
waters are general!^ transitional between surface and bottom
levels. Oxygen levels depend upon the degree of stratification
and vertical mixing, which in turn depends upon seasonal changes.
c. Bottom Waters. Oxygen levels as low as 20 percent of
saturation have been observed in the bottom waters of the New
York Bight Apex during summer stratification. An area of sever-
al hundred square kilometers near the existing dredged material
and sewage sludge dump sites is characterized by oxygen depleted
bottom waters (less than 50 percent of saturation) during the
summer. Oxygen depletion increases gradually beginning in
spring, as the thermocline develops, and reaches a maximum in
late summer. Oxygen saturation levels increase in the fall,
following breakup of the thermocline, and continue to increase
as greater mixing occurs (Segar et al., 1975).
The principal cause of oxygen depletion in bottom
waters is the large input of oxidizable organic carbon to the
Bight Apex (Segar et al., 1975). The sources are in situ (in
place) photosynthetically-fixed carbon, river-borne particulate
carbon, and ocean dumped carbonaceous materials (Table 23). In-
situ photosynthetically-fixed carbon is the dominant source of
oxidizable carbon in the Bight Apex.
Benthic oxygen demand appears to be responsible for
only a small fraction of the oxygen depletion in the Bight Apex
(Segar et al., 1975). In the vicinity of the existing sludge
dump site, the total seabed oxygen consumption rates (NOAA-MESA,
November, 1975) in late August and early September (stratified
173
-------
TABLE 23
SOURCES OF OXIDIZABLE CARBON IN THE BIGHT APEX
Source Input (Annual Average)
millions of kg/day(Ibs/day)
Photosynthetically-Fixed Carbon 2.2 (4.8)
(Summer Average) 6.5 (14.3)
River-Borne Particulate Carbon 1.0 (2.2)
Ocean Dumping
Sewage Sludge 0.14 (0.31)
Dredged Material 0.26 (0.57)
Source: Segar et al., 1975.
174
-------
column) ranged from 10 to 60 ml/sq m/hr (3 to 18 Ib/ac/day).
Highest values were noted near wastewater effluent outfalls
along the New Jersey coast. Seabed oxygen consumption rates ob-
served during winter cruises in the Northern Area (NOAA-MESA,
November 1975 ranged from 5 to 20 ml/sq m/hr (1.5 to 6 lb/ac/
day). The average rate of seabed oxygen consumption for the
Northern Area has been reported to be about 6.9 ml/sq m/hr
(2.1 lb/ ac/day).
d. Proposed Areas. Recent data (Raytheon, 1975 a, b, and
c) indicate that dissolved oxygen concentrations in surface, mid-
depth, and bottom waters at the Northern Area are moderately to
highly saturated under winter, spring, and critical summer condi-
tions (Table 24). The saturation value for oxgen at these sam-
pling depths probably does not fall below 50 percent at any time
of year, and it is usually much higher (75 to 110 percent).
Recent investigations performed by NOAA-MESA (October 16, 1975)
in both the Northern and Southern Areas revealed similar season-
al and vertical dissolved oxygen trends. There appears to be no
significant difference in dissolved oxygen concentrations be-
tween the two proposed areas.
3. Nutrients
a. Nitrogen. Mueller and Jeris (unpub.) estimated that
the Bight Apex receives a total nitrogen load of 520 metric
tons/day (573 tons/day). Of this daily load, 210 metric tons
(231 tons) are in the form of ammonium, 190 metric tons (209
tons) are incorporated in organic compounds, and 120 metric tons
(132 tons) occur as nitrate and nitrite. Sixty percent of the
175
-------
TABLE 24
DISSOLVED OXYGEN LEVELS AT THE NORTHERN AREA
Position Winter Cruise 1974
In Water Concentration Saturation
Column ppm percent
Surface 8.3 to 10.0 85 to 105
Mid-depth 6 . 6 to 9.3 60 to 85
Bottom 6.4 to 7.4 55 to 65
Spring Cruise 1975 Summer Cruise 1975
Concentration Saturation Concentration Saturation
ppm percent ppm percent
9.7 to 11.6 75 to 95 7 . 4 to 9.5 85 to 110
11.1 to 12.0 90 to 100 9.1 to 10.2 85 to 100
10.5 to 11.5 80 to 90 7.5 to 7.7 60 to 65
Sources: Raytheon, 1975a, b, and c.
-------
nitrate and nitrite is from natural river runoff. Another 30
percent is from atmospheric fallout. The two major sources of
ammonium loadings are wastewater discharges, including 50 cu
m/sec (1,140 mgd) of primary and secondary effluents and 13 cu
m/sec (296 mgd) of raw sewage discharge, and sludge dumping
(O'Connors and Duedall, 1975).
The ammonium loading from wastewater discharges from
the Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point transect zone was estimated to
be five to ten times greater than that from sludge dumping
(Mueller and Jeris, unpub.). In the Bight Apex, the concentra-
tion of total nitrogen largely depends on the extent to which
the nutrient-rich river waters are diluted by seawater and on
the use of nitrogen by phytoplankton.
Generalized concentration ranges of nitrogen in the
Bight are shown in Table 25.
b. Phosphorous. Phosphorous occurs in the Bight as total
phosphorous, reactive (ionic forms) phosphorous, particulate
phosphorous, ortho-phosphorous, and meta-phosphorous. Reactive
phosphorous in the surface waters of the Bight Apex ranges from
38 ug/1 to more than 95 ug/1. Reactive phosphorous in the sur-
face waters of the outer Bight ranges from less than 10 to 57
ug/1. Deeper waters generally show higher phosphorous concen-
trations. Particulate phosphorous concentrations also range from
less than 10 ug/1 to more than 95 ug/1 (Alexander and Alexander,
1975) .
During the summer, when the water column is strati-
fied, total phosphorous concentrations appear to be higher in the
177
-------
TABLE 25
NUTRIENT CONCENTRATIONS IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Sampling
Location
Bight Apex
ug/1
Ammonia (NH3~N)a Nitrite (N02-N)b Nitrate (NO3~N)b Ortho-Phosphateb
<2 to 126
<2 to 59
<7 to 252
<10 to 133
Northern and
Southern Areas
<2 to 28
<2
<2 to 48
<0.1 to 48
< = Less than.
00 Sources:
Alexander and Alexander, 1975.
3NOAA-MESA, October 16, 1975.
-------
deeper waters of the Bight than in the surface waters (Corwin,
1970). However, this trend was not seen during the Raytheon
cruise of September 1975. 'In the winter months, total phosphor-
ous concentrations are relatively uniform throughout the water
column.
Eighty-five percent of the total phosphorous load to
the Bight is contributed by dredged material and wastewater dis-
charges (Section IID).
Generalized concentration ranges of ortho-phosphate
in the Bight are shown in Table 25.
c. Relationship to Productivity. Productivity in the
Apex during the summer months is higher than that observed in
similar temperate coastal zones (Segar e_t al., 1975). This ap-
pears to be the result of the relatively high nutrient loading
within the photic (light penetrating) zone. The major sources
of the high nitrogen loading to the Bight are: river-borne ni-
trogen, supplying 120 thousand kg/day (204 thousand Ibs/day);
dredged material, supplying 30 thousand kg/day (66 thousand
Ibs/day); and dumped sewage sludge, supplying 20 thousand kg/day
(44 thousand Ibs/day). The river-borne nitrogen may exert a
significant influence on photosynthetically-fixed carbon because
the river-borne nitrogen has a lower density than nitrogen from
other sources and, therefore, remains longer in the photic zone.
A large amount of the nutrients in dredged material are buried
on the bottom and, therefore, are unavailable for photosynthe-
sis.
179
-------
4. Organic Carbon
a. Water Column. In the fall of 1974 (September to Octo-
ber) , the total organic carbon (TOC) in the water column at the
Northern Area ranged from 2 to 9 mg/1, with most samples averag-
ing 4 to 5 mg/1. The TOC concentrations did not appear to vary
significantly with depth. In the spring of 1975, the TOC con-
centrations ranged from 2.8 to 7.4 mg/1.
b. Sediments. The TOC in Bight sediments varies accord-
ing to distance from waste inputs (Figure 34). "Pristine" con-
tinental shelf areas generally contain less than 0.2 percent TOC.
Sediments containing more than 2 percent TOC are probably conta-
minated by wastewater discharges, ocean dumping, and other waste
inputs (Gross, 1972b). Forty-one percent of New York Harbor is
characterized by sediment deposits with a TOC content of more
than 2 percent, the average is 5.6 percent. Near the sewage
sludge, dredged material, and cellar dirt dump sites, more than
52 sq km (15 sq n mi) of bottom area are covered by sediments
containing more than 2 percent TOC. The highest TOC concentra-
tion (6.4 percent) occurs at the dredged material dump site. In
the shallow coastal regions off Long Island and New Jersey, sedi-
ments contain between 0.1 and 0.2 percent TOC (Gross, 1972a).
High concentrations of TOC (5 percent or more) were detected at
the head of the Hudson Shelf Valley (Charnell, 1975).
c. Proposed Areas. The TOC in the sediments of Subarea
2D1 ranges from 0.0011 to 0.1177 percent, based upon samples col-
lected by NOAA-MESA (August 23, 1975). Raytheon (1975a and b),
180
-------
75'
74
00 10 20 30
I I I 1
KILOMETERS
NAUTICAL MILES
PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL ORGANIC
CARBON IN NEW YORK BIGHT SEDIMENTS
SOURCE: HATHAWAY, 1971.
FIGURE 34
-------
using different sampling grids, reported TOG concentrations
ranging from 0.034 to 0.131 percent for the spring 1975 cruise
and from 0.042 to 0.61 percent for the fall-winter 1974 cruise.
These elevated concentration ranges are not easily explained.
The TOC in the sediments of Subarea 2D2 ranges from
0.0271 to 0.0691 percent, based upon samples collected by NOAA-
MESA (August 23, 1975). The TOC in sediments from the axis of
the Hudson Shelf Valley ranges from 0.1 to 0.2 percent.
d. Relationship to Toxic Substances. The importance of
organic carbon in the assessment of the fate of toxic substances
(especially heavy metals) is twofold. Organo-metallic complexes
and compounds may act as transport agents for toxic substances.
Also, sediments rich in organic matter often act as a sink for
toxic substances. Organic carbon is often inversely proportion-
al to sediment grain size and, therefore, directly proportional
to clays (aluminosilicates), which play an important adsorptive
and desorptive role in metal ion distribution.
e. Carbon/Nitrogen Ratio. The carbon (TOC) to nitrogen
(Kjeldahl) ratio in sediments of the New York Bight varies
greatly (Figure 35). Near the Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point tran-
sect, ratios are generally greater than 10. For most of the
Bight, ratios range from 3 to 11 (Milliman, 1972). Sediments
near shore, which contain a great deal of organic matter from
land-based sources, generally have high C/N ratios; these ratios
decrease with distance from land. Relict sediments on the shelf
may also exhibit high C/N ratios because they are also likely
to contain land-derived organic matter.
182
-------
751
74'
73'
72'
MONTAUK
POINT
NAUTICAL MILES
DISTRIBUTION OF CARBON/NITROGEN
RATIOS IN NEW YORK BIGHT SEDIMENTS
SOURCE: MILLIMAN, 1972.
FIGURE 35
-------
f. TCH/TOC Ratio. Charnell (1975) has devised a useful
indicator for sewage-derived components in sediments; this indi-
cator is the ratio of total carbohydrate content (TCH) to total
organic carbon (TOC). The technique is based on the assumption
that the bulk of carbohydrate materials derived from sewage
(dumped or discharged) are oxidation-resistant structural carbo-
hydrates, such as cellulose and hemicellulose. Carbohydrate in-
puts from the land contain cellulose-deficient materials; thus,
their TCH to TOC ratio is low, generally less than 10.
Sediments in the Bight Apex generally have TCH to TOC
ratios greater than 20. Samples from the existing dump sites
(sludge, dredged material, acid wastes, and cellar dirt) and
from the Hudson Shelf Valley have ratios ranging from 30 to 65
(Figure 36). TCH to TOC ratios for samples collected south of
Rockaway Beach, Long Beach, and Jones Beach range from 13 to 67.
Samples from Jones Inlet and East Rockaway Inlet have ratios
ranging from 13 to 24 (Charnell, 1975).
5. Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Because of the persistence and toxicity of the chlori-
nated hydrocarbons, such as DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloro-
ethane) and PCB (polychlorinated bi-phenyl), there is great
concern about their abundance and distribution in the marine en-
vironment. However, there are almost no chlorinated hydrocarbon
data for the New York Bight.
a. Potential Sources. Although specific information on
chlorinated hydrocarbons in the New York Bight is not avail-
able, some insights can be gained from a recent California
184
-------
DISTRIBUTION OF TCH/TOC RATIOS
IN NEW YORK BIGHT APEX SEDIMENTS
0 10 20 30 40 50
100
10
KILOMETERS
20 30
40
i
50
i
NAUTICAL MILES KEY:
•ISOBARS OF TCH/TOC RATIO
SAMPLING STATIONS
SOURCE: HATCHER AND KEISTER, 1975.
DAMES e MOORE
FIGURE 36
-------
study (Young et al., 1974a and b, and 1975). The California
study concerned the percentage contribution of chlorinated hydro-
carbons by source. It showed that 77 percent of the DDT mass
loading in the Southern California Bight was introduced by sur-
face runoff, 14 percent by direct industrial discharge, 6 per-
cent by atmospheric fallout, 3 percent by municipal wastewater
discharge, and less than 0.1 percent by marine antifouling
paints. For Arochlor 1254, a PCB, calculations showed that 64
percent was contributed by surface runoff, 34 percent by direct
industrial discharge, 1 percent by atmospheric fallout, 1 per-
cent by municipal wastewater discharge, and less than 0..1 per-
cent by marine antifouling paints. Although these data cannot
be applied directly to mass balance determinations for the New
York Bight, they do indicate potential chlorinated hydrocarbon
loadings.
b. The Bight. Published data on chlorinated hydrocarbon
distribution in the New York Bight are scarce. Recent studies
at the Northern and Southern Areas constitute the only source of
chlorinated hydrocarbon data presented in this report (USEPA,
March 25, 1975; Raytheon, 1975a and b). The results of these
studies are shown on Table 26.
Results from a small number of sediment samples taken
in the vicinity of the dredged material and sewage sludge dump
sites show slightly elevated levels of ODD (DDT breakdown pro-
duct) and an anomalously high DDT concentration at one station
(X4).
186
-------
TABLE 26
CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS IN THE SEDIMENTS OF THE NEW YORK BIGHT
Northern Subarea 1A(R)
a
Pesticide
Aldrin
Chlordane
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlorepbxide
Methoxychlor
P, P1 ODD
P, P1 DDE
P, P1 DDt
Lindane
Toxephene
Concentration
dry weight
13
41
20
20
15
12
28
18
18
19
15
47
Southern Subarea 2D2
Sampling
Station
29
55
56
54
53
30
28
27
65
69
68
Concentration
ug/kg dry weight
PCS
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
4.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
< 5.0
37.0
< 5.0
< 1.0
Vicinity of Dredged Material and Sewage Sludge Dump Sites
Concentration
ug/kg dry weight
< = Less
Sources:
Sampling
Station
X4
X5
X3
Z5
than.
Ift-TC — __.31_
DDE
13
17
19
15
DDD
48
81
61
39
DDT
126
13
19
16
USEPA, March 25, 1975.
=NOAA-NMFS, 1972.
187
-------
6. Summary
The New York Bight Apex is a heavily used and envi-
ronmentally stressed coastal area. Municipal and industrial
wastewater effluents, along with runoff, atmospheric fallout,
and the materials disposed of at the different dump sites, con-
tribute large quantities of heavy metals, nutrients, organic
matter, and chlorinated hydrocarbons to the waters of the Apex.
The distribution of these materials is generally a function of
the distance from the source and the composition of the solids
that are either suspended or accumulated on the bottom. Within
the Bight Apex, the presence of large amounts of organic matter
from numerous sources results in localized areas of low dis-
solved oxygen values. Outside the Bight Apex, nutrient and dis-
solved oxygen levels are quite predictable and are a function of
the water's temperature-salinity structure and the degree of
weather-induced mixing.
188
-------
V. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
The only real alternative to the proposed action is
disposal of sewage sludge on land. Dumping sludge into the
New York Bight at either the existing (No Action) or an alter-
nate (Proposed Action) dump site is an interim, or short-term,
solution. It will, however, allow the timely implementation of
long-term, land-based sludge disposal methods. Different
methods of dumping sewage sludge during this interim period
have been investigated. These alternative dumping methods are
discussed at the end of this chapter. The EPA intends to phase
out ocean dumping in the New York Bight by 1981, provided that
environmentally acceptable, technically feasible, and econom-
ically reasonable alternatives can be developed.
A. LAND-BASED ALTERNATIVES
In June 1975, the Interstate Sanitation Commission
(ISC) issued a technical report summarizing available land-based
methods of sewage sludge disposal. This report constitutes
Phase 1 of a three-phase sludge management study funded by EPA.
Subsequent reports scheduled for release in July 1976 will in-
clude a detailed study of feasible alternatives (Phase 2) and
an examination of legal/institutional implementation problems
(Phase 3) .
The Phase 1 report considered primarily the following
land-based methods of sewage sludge disposal: land application,
incineration, pyrolysis, and sale as a soil conditioner or fer-
189
-------
tilizer. The potential for implementing these methods in the
metropolitan area is discussed briefly below.
1. Land Application
Sewage sludge has been applied to land as a soil con-
ditioner and fertilizer. The characteristics of sludge that are
important to land application are organic matter, available
nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, and trace elements),
heavy metals, and toxic organics (especially chlorinated hydro-
carbons) . In general, there are three factors which limit the
immediate implementation of land application of sewage sludge
generated in the metropolitan area. First, sewage sludge gen-
erated by wastewater treatment facilities in the metropolitan
area contains high concentrations of heavy metals (cadmium,
chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc) and signifi-
cant quantities of toxic organics (chlordane, dieldrin, endrin,
heptachlor, lindane, and mirex). If these substances leached
out of a land application site, they would be highly damaging to
adjacent streams and underlying groundwater aquifers. Second,
metropolitan area sludge is low in nutrients, as are most do-
mestic sewage sludges, in comparison with commercial fertil-
izers. Finally, land is not available in the metropolitan area
for a large-scale, land-application operation. The cost of
transporting great quantities of sludge to suitable land-appli-
cation sites outside the metropolitan area appears to be pro-
hibitive.
190
-------
2. Incineration
Sewage sludge incineration results in waste gases,
particulates, and a relatively small quantity of sterile ash
that retains most of the heavy metals originally present in the
sludge. Air pollution controls, such as wet scrubbers, are nec-
essary to remove particulates, odors, nitrogen oxides, sulfur
oxides, volatile toxic organics, and air-borne heavy metals
(cadmium, lead, and mercury). Multiple-hearth incineration, the
incineration method preferred in the Phase 1 report, has the
least potential for air pollution, can burn without auxiliary
fuel (gas, oil, or coal), and is compatible with a phased
change-over to pyrolysis. The ash, which contains heavy metals,
must ultimately be disposed of in an environmentally sound
manner.
Generally, sludge must be dewatered (to less than 40
percent liquid) to burn without auxiliary fuel. Sludge which
is not dewatered has a high (93 to 97 percent) liquid content.
Sludge could be incinerated on ships or platforms an-
chored offshore to minimize air pollution problems. However,
the costs are not justified because there are other, more eco-
nomical methods of sludge disposal available.
3. Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis (destructive distillation) is the process of
breaking down organic matter, such as sewage sludge, by heating
it in the absence of oxygen. The resulting by-products are gas-
es (carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and methane), a
carbon/ash char, and a liquid waste containing a wide variety
191
-------
of organic compounds. Pyrolysis is generally cheaper than in-
cineration because it produces fewer particulates and, there-
fore, requires less in the way of air pollution controls. The
by-products, char and gases, can be used as fuels. To date, no
large-scale pyrolysis tests have been conducted on sewage
sludge alone. Thus, prior to implementation of this alterna-
tive, a demonstration pilot plant would have to be built. The
Phase 1 report recommended that 'both pyrolysis and incineration
of sewage sludge should be investigated in conjunction with the
disposal of solid wastes.
4. Sale as a Soil Conditioner or Fertilizer
The constraints on the sale of sewage sludge as a soil
conditioner or fertilizer are much the same as those on land ap-
plication. High concentrations of heavy metals and toxic organ-
ic compounds would have to be removed or reduced prior to sale.
In addition, the sludge would have to be dried to 5 or 10 per-
cent moisture content and fortified with nutrients for use as a
fertilizer. Finally, there is the problem of consumer accept-
ance.
5. ISC Conclusions
The ISC Phase 1 report (June 1975) drew the following
conclusions regarding land-based disposal methods for the metro-
politan area and their eventual, phased implementation.
The most feasible alternative to ocean dumping would
be dewatering of sludge with filter presses, followed by pyroly-
sis. This conclusion was based on environmental impact, eco-
nomic feasibility, and energy recovery. This system would have
192
-------
the least potential for negative environmental impacts on water,
air, and land resources. Such a system could be implemented
X
within ten years.
Mu11 iple-hearth inc ine rat ion could be implemented
sooner than pyrolysis. The multiple-hearth incinerators could
be converted to pyrolysis units in time. However, incinerators
would cause more difficult siting problems because of potential
air pollution and local citizen resistance. The total costs of
the incinerators needed to handle all of the sludge generated
in the year 2000 by wastewater treatment facilities currently
practicing ocean dumping, would be $400 to $500 million (in
1975 dollars).
Land application could be implemented in fringe areas
(outside of the metropolitan area), where population density is
low, large tracts of land are available, and agricultural enter-
prises provide a market for sludge-based fertilizers and soil
conditioners.
A small scale pilot study should be undertaken immedi-
ately with the aid of an equipment manufacturer who is familiar
with pyrolysis technololgy and who builds multiple-hearth fur-
naces. The purpose of the pilot study would be to develop the
required engineering parameters prior to full-scale demonstra-
tion plant construction.
The complete text of ISC's conclusions and recommenda-
tions is presented in Appendix B.
193
-------
B. OCEAN DUMPING ALTERNATIVES
The interim alternative to land-based disposal of
sewage sludge is ocean dumping. The ocean dumping alternatives
under consideration in this EIS are: 1) continued use of the
existing dump site (No Action), 2) immediate designation and use
of an alternate dump site (Proposed Action), 3) immediate desig-
nation and future use of an alternate dump site (Phased Action),
and 4) modification of dumping methods to mitigate potential ma-
rine and shoreward impacts. The EPA goal of phasing out ocean
dumping by 1981 would not be changed under any of these alterna-
tives.
1. No Action - Use of the Existing Dump Site
The No Action alternative involves continued use of
the existing dump site until alternative land-based methods of
disposal can be implemented. The existing dump site would have
to accommodate an anticipated twofold increase in sludge volume
by 1981, without any significant hazards to public health or ir-
reversible damage to the marine environment. The goal of the
No Action alternative would be to limit environmental impacts
to the existing site, rather than adversely impacting another
area of the marine environment.
The original argument for moving the sewage sludge
dump site (danger to Long Island and New Jersey beaches due to
greatly increased volumes of sludge) is thoroughly discussed in
Sections IIB and IIIA. Current studies of beach quality indi-
cate that this argument is largely invalid, and tend to support
194
-------
continued use of the existing site.
a. EPA Monitoring Studies. In April 1974, EPA initiated
a monitoring program to investigate the quality of the water and
bottom sediments in the New York Bight and along the Long Island
and New Jersey beaches (USEPA, July 1974 and April 1975). Data
from the surf and near-shore waters along the Long Island and
New Jersey beaches indicate that the water quality remains ex-
cellent with respect to total and fecal coliform density, and
that it is acceptable for contact recreation, as shown in Fig-
ures 37 and 38. Some random elevated coliform counts appear,
but this does not constitute any violation of standards nor does
it appear to indicate any systematic change or degradation of
water quality. Sediment data indicate slightly elevated bacter-
ial counts at certain near-shore sampling stations. These ele-
vated counts can be attributed to inland runoff and wastewater
outfalls.
Sampling is continuing along transects between the ex-
isting dump site and the Long Island shore, the New York Harbor
entrance, and the New Jersey shore. Recent results indicate
that a clean water and sediment zone, about 10 to 11 km (5.5
to 6 n mi) wide, separates the leading edge of the sludge mass
from the Long Island coast.
b. NOAA-MESA Studies. Recently NOAA-MESA prepared two
reports (March and November 1975) on dumping at the existing
sewage sludge site. The consensus of these reports is that no
significant accumulation of sewage sludge is occurring at the
existing dump site, but that some sludge particles may be mixing
195
-------
(lWOOL/NdW)WyOdll03
(1MOOl/NdW)WyOdll03
o
o
o
<{-
aavaNvis
3J.V1S >iyOA M3N
COLIFORMS IN LONG ISLAND
COASTAL WATERS
10
20
30
KILOMETERS
10 15
NAUTICAL MILES
SOURCE: USEPA, APRIL 1975.
S e IM
FIGURE 37
-------
2
2
37
GEOMETRIC MEAN
NUMBERS
3
3
3
2
3
"25
•19
13
• 16
50
GEOMETRIC MEAN
NUMBERS
22
11
ill
5
m
SAMPLING STATIONS
NEW JERSEY
STATE STANDARD
15
MO
NO NEW JERSEY
STATE STANDARD
60 40 20 0 20 40 60
FECAL COL I FORM TOTAL COL I FORM
(MPN/100 ML) (MPN/100 ML)
COLIFORMS IN NEW JERSEY
COASTAL WATERS
1.0
30
50
SOURCE: USEPA, APRIL 1975-
KILOMETERS
10 20
NAUTICAL MILES
3.0
DAMES e MOORE
FIGURE 38
-------
with natural fines in the Christiansen Basin, northwest of the
dump site. The reports also note that the ecological effects of
sewage sludge dumping are indistinguishable, from those associat-
ed with dredged material and acid wastes dumping, with contami-
nants in the plume of the Hudson estuary, with shore-zone con-
tributions, and with atmospheric contaminant fallout. However,
there is ample evidence that sewage sludge dumping exerts
significant local effects. The most obvious effect is smother-
ing of bottom dwelling organisms, such as crabs, lobsters, and
clams. Some fish in the Bight Apex are afflicted with fin rot,
but this disease is not thought to be attributable solely to
sewage sludge dumping.
There is no substantial evidence that commercial or
recreational fishing in the Bight is being affected by ocean
dumping or by other, non-dumping pollutant sources. However,
the catch of groundfish appears to be reduced in high-carbon
sediment areas, such as in the vicinity of the existing sewage
sludge dump site. Furthermore, it is apparent that very few
surf clams reach commercial size within the area now impacted
by sewage sludge dumping.
The NOAA-MESA reports do not indicate any shoreward
movement of coliform contamination as a result of sludge dump-
ing at the existing site. However, they do note the apparent
persistence of coliform bacteria in the vicinity of the exist-
ing dump site, especially in the bottom sediments. There is
no evidence that cessation of sewage sludge dumping at the ex-
isting site would permit reopening of the immediate area (Fig-
198
-------
ure 22) to shellfishing, under current FDA regulations (Section
HE) .
The complete text of NOAA-MESA's conclusions and rec-
ommendations (November 1975) is presented in Appendix C.
c. Re1ated S tud ies. The Mueller and Jeris report (un-
pub.) indicates that, at most, the dumping of sewage sludge ac-
counts for 15 to 20 percent of the total pollutant loading to
the Bight Apex. Loadings from non-dumping pollutant sources
(wastewater discharges, runoff, and atmospheric fallout) far
outweigh those from all current ocean dumping sources (sewage
sludge, dredged material, acid wastes, and cellar dirt). Both
dumping and non-dumping pollutant sources are discussed in Sec-
tion IID.
Other studies (Town of Hempstead, 1974) support the
conclusion that sewage sludge dumped at the existing site does
not significantly affect the quality of the waters or beaches
of Long Island.
2. Proposed Action - Immediate Use of an Alternate Dump Site
The areas under consideration as possible locations
for an alternate sewage sludge dump site include: proposed
Northern and Southern Areas (Figure 8), other areas in the
Bight, areas off the continental shelf, and other existing dump
sites in or adjacent to the Bight. These potential site loca-
tions are discussed below.,
a. Northern and Southern Areas. Based upon preliminary
selection criteria and NOAA-MESA recommendations, the EPA has
proposed locating an alternate sewage sludge dump site in either
199
-------
the Northern or Southern Area of the Bight (Section 11IB) . A
detailed environmental assessment of sludge dumping in these two
areas is contained in Chapter VII.
b. Other Areas in the New York Bight. In terms of mini-
mizing the potential for environmental impacts, a site located
offshore 148 to 158 km (80 to 85 n mi) from the Sandy Hook -
Rockaway Point transect and within the depression of the Long
Island Shelf Valley, about 80 m (264 ft) in depth, would be pre-
ferable. The potential for sludge transport to adjacent biolog-
ical resource areas, including the Hudson Shelf Valley and near-
shore shellfisheries, would be lowest if dumping were to occur
within this area.
However, this area is outside the maximum 120 km (65
n mi) range of the existing barge fleet (Section IIB). Further-
more, it would be difficult to justify the greatly increased
transportation and possible fleet capitalization costs in terms
of concomitant benefits. Public health benefits would not in-
crease proportionally with distance. In this regard, both the
Northern and Southern Areas appear to be far enough off the Long
Island and New Jersey shores and in deep enough water to mini-
mize both potential public health and marine impacts.
c. Areas Off the Continental Shelf. Transporting sewage
sludge to an alternate dump site off the continental shelf would
be cost prohibitive, as noted above. Moreover, the effect of
dumping sewage sludge in these waters is unknown.
d. Other Existing Dump Sites. Dumping sewage sludge at
other existing sites in the Bight Apex (the dredged material,
200
-------
acid wastes, cellar dirt, or wreck site) would violate the orig-
inal concept of segregating wastes by dump site. It would be
difficult, if not impossible, to determine the cause of adverse
environmental effects at a dump site where two or more different
types of wastes were being dumped. The end result would prob-
ably be several seriously contaminated dump sites in the Bight
Apex, instead of the two that now exist (the sewage sludge and
dredged material sites). In addition, the existing dredged ma-
terial site is only about 9 km (5 n mi) off the New Jersey
shore; the existing sludge dump site is about 20 km (H n mi)
offshore.
3. Phased Action - Continued Use of the Existing Dump Site
and Future Use of an Alternate Site
Under this alternative, sewage sludge would continue
to be dumped at the existing site until a comprehensive monitor-
ing program indicated imminent public health hazards or damage
to recreational water quality. Such a monitoring program would
safeguard beach quality to the maximum extent, would be reviewed
on a timely basis, and would include a decision-making process
for terminating use of the existing site. This termination pro-
cess could include phased use. For example, the existing site
could be used during the winter when potential impacts on
recreational uses would be lowest.
Under the phased alternative, an alternate dump site
would have to be designated and held in reserve for possible
future use. Since the phased alternative would maximize use of
the existing dump site, adverse impacts on an alternate dump
201
-------
site would be minimized. In addition, sludge hauling costs
would be less under a phased alternative.
The success of the phased alternative would depend
greatly upon establishing a suitable monitoring and review pro-
cedure to verify that continued use of the existing dump site
was not endangering the Long Island and New Jersey shores or the
marine environment.
4. Dumping Methodology
The current sludge dumping procedure, as set forth in
each ocean dumping permit, is discharge of the sewage sludge
within the designated dump site, at a uniform rate, over a spe-
cified distance. The rate of discharge is based on bioassay
analyses of representative waste samples. Vessel traverses must
be at least 1 km (0.5 n mi) apart. If two or more vessels are
discharging simultaneously within a dump site, or if two or more
vessel trips or legs occur within one hour of each other, a dis-
tance of at least 1 km (0.5 n mi) must be maintained between
discharges.
Dumping methods which have been considered in this
EIS include simple overboard dumping, discharge in the wake of
the vessel (present method), and jet discharge.
a. Overboard Dumping. This consists of simply releasing
the material from the sludge vessel, such that the material de-
scends by its own momentum. Since the vertical motion is af-
fected by buoyancy, the initial distribution of the dumped ma-
terial is mainly within the surface water layers.
202
-------
b. Discharge in the Wake of the Vessel (Present Method).
This method results in high initial mixing and dilution. How-
ever, vertical motion is still dependent on density differences
between the sludge materials and the receiving waters.
c. Jet Discharge. This method involves discharge of
sludge through a pumping system. It is effective in passing the
sludge material through the surface layers. Jet discharge has a
more confined initial distribution, usually at the depth of neu-
tral buoyancy of the sludge.
d. Summary. Based upon the 30 to 60 m (100 to 200 ft)
depths and the dispersive flow patterns of the proposed Northern
and Southern Areas, the present method of sludge dumping, dis-
charge in the wake of the vessel, should be continued at an al-
ternate dump site in the proposed areas. This conclusion is
based upon the following considerations:
- Sewage sludge dumped at or near the surface will set-
tle over a wide area because of its low bulk density, 1.01 g/cu
cm.
- Differences in the thermohaline (temperature and
salinity) density structure of the ocean would probably slow
the settling of sewage sludge under stratified conditions and
would negate the effectiveness of a subsurface discharge
(through a pumping system from a transport vessel).
- Dispersion at the proposed areas is primarily a func-
tion of sea state, depth, and water mass movements. As such,
it is not likely to be improved by altering the present dumping
203
-------
technique. At the existing dump site, tidal influences and in-
shore currents appear to dominate.
- Given the volumes of sludge projected for dumping
through 1981 and the limitations of the present fourteen-vessel
fleet, the use of sophisticated dumping techniques would prob-
ably be technically impossible and economically prohibitive.
Moreover, such techniques would be of little value in improving
dispersion patterns.
- Monitoring of the interim dump sites would be facili-
tated by limiting dumping to a specific surface area.
204
-------
VI. FATE OF SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMPED AT THE PROPOSED AREAS
The impact of sewage sludge on the marine environment
depends on the interactions of sludge with seawater. These in-
teractions control the fate of the dumped sludge. Sludge-sea-
water interactions are so complex that they cannot be precisely
predicted. However, there are theoretical models which, togeth-
er with the limited information collected at existing dump
sites, can give some indication of what happens to the sludge
after it is dumped in the ocean.
The fate of sewage sludge depends upon the forces gov-
erning initial settling and dispersion, resuspension, and chemi-
cal and biochemical reactions.
A. SETTLING AND DISPERSION IN THE WATER COLUMN
The settling and dispersion of sewage sludge dumped in
the ocean are affected by many factors, including the character-
istics of the sludge itself. Characteristics of sludge that af-
fect the rate at which it settles are its bulk density (which is
the density of the sludge mixture, both solids and liquid), its
solids density (which is the density of the sludge particles
alone), and its solids concentration. Characteristics of the
receiving water also affect the rate at which sludge settles.
Such characteristics include the water's density structure,
which is controlled by its temperature and salinity, and the
current patterns (Section IVB).
205
-------
1. Bulk Density
The bulk density of the sewage sludge that is current-
ly dumped in the Bight averages 1.009 g/cu cm and ranges from
1.0007 to 1.0181 g/cu cm. The bulk density of the sludge is
generally less than the density of the ambient seawater, which
ranges from 1.019 to 1.025 g/cu cm for the Bight. Since the
bulk density of sludge is less than that of seawater, most of
the sludge is retained in the upper layer of the ocean. The
solids are composed primarily of organic materials (density of
1.02 g/cu cm to 1.7 g/cu cm) and smaller proportions of inorgan-
ic mineral matter (density of 2.65 g/cu cm). The density of
the sludge ranges from 1.12 to 1.75 g/cu cm and averages 1.50
g/cu cm (Callaway et al., unpub.) Most of the sludge solids,
fine, low-density organic matter, will tend to remain in sus-
pension, but the small fraction of heavier minerals will set-
tle rapidly to the bottom.
2. Settling Velocities
The sludge solids will tend to settle at different
rates, depending on their size and density. Callaway et al.
(unpub.) have monitored the dispersion of sludge solids dumped
at the existing site in the Bight Apex. They estimated that the
larger, flocculated particles (small diameter particles bound
together into large diameter groups) had an average settling
velocity of 0.5 to 1.0 cm/sec (0.2 to 0.4 in/sec). The majority
of the particles had settling velocities of 0.01 to 0.30 cm/sec
(0.004 to 0.12 in/sec), as measured by plotting the settling
velocity of the center of mass of the waste field. The remain-
206
-------
ing fine particles had settling velocities of 0.001 cm/sec
(0.0004 in/sec) or less. These in situ (in place) determina-
tions of sludge solids settling rates correlate positively
with laboratory measurements made by Greene (1974).
During periods of stratification (summer conditions),
most of the solids were retained in the upper layer and dis-
persed laterally (Callaway et al., unpub.). Some of the heavier
solids, with faster settling rates around 2 cm/sec (0.8 in/sec),
may have passed through the upper layer and settled on the bot-
tom. During periods of non-stratification (winter conditions),
the solids were rapidly dispersed throughout the entire water
column. Taking into account the currents, initial dilution of
the sludge, and the small fraction of heavier particles in the
sludge, Callaway et al. (unpub.) concluded that the possibil-
ity of substantial sludge accumulation on the bottom was remote.
These field measurements support the findings of earlier model
studies (Edge and Dysart, 1972) that were conducted to predict
the physical fate of dumped sewage sludge.
3. Modeling Results
A simple, two-dimensional diffusion model was used to
evaluate the fate of dumped sewage sludge at the Northern and
Southern Areas. The assumptions of this steady-state mass bal-
ance model were: 1) the dumped sludge is a point source, 2) the
oceanic velocity and density fields are uniform, and 3) the
oceanic dispersion coefficients are constant. The model's ap-
207
-------
plicability is limited to periods of time greater than tidal
periods but less than seasonal ones. The dispersion coeffici-
ents used were those given by Neumann and Pierson (1966). Table
27 shows the model results. Figure 39 represents an initial
sludge load on the bottom as predicted by the model.
Considering the water depths at the alternate areas
and the wide range of settling velocities of sludge solids, most
of the sludge particles are expected to remain in suspension for
a period of time ranging from one hour to several days. The
heavier sludge particles and sludge floes, which tend to settle
out faster, will be greatly affected by short-term currents,
such as tidal or storm-wind-driven currents, and by wave activi-
ty. Sludge particles with slower settling velocities will os-
cillate in the water column due to short-term currents, but ul-
timately will be dispersed by long-term currents, such as densi-
ty-driven coastal currents, prevailing wind-driven currents, and
ocean turbulence.
The model results (Table 27) indicate that heavier
sludge particles, settling at 2 cm/sec (0.8 in/sec) or more,
will be deposited a maximum of 0.30 km (0.16 n mi) from the dump
site; the lighter particles, settling at about 0.1 cm/sec (0.04
in/sec), will be deposited a maximum of 15.0 km (8.1 n mi) from
the dump site. The prevailing currents will transport the
lightest particles at velocities from 10.0 to 30.0 cm/sec (4.0
to 11.8 in/sec); however, dispersion and biochemical degradation
of these particles will result in extremely low sludge particle
concentrations beyond 15.0 km (8.1 n mi). Sludge will probably
208
-------
TABLE 27
MODEL RESULTS OF TRANSPORT AND DISPERSION OF SEWAGE SLUDGE AT THE
NORTHERN (60 m DEPTH) AND SOUTHERN (50 m DEPTH) AREA1
Distance From
Dumping Point
Depth
meters
(feet)
50
(164)
60
(197)
N> 50
§ (164)
60
(197)
50
(164)
50
(164)
Current Settling Velocity Dispersion
Velocity of Sludge Solids Coefficient
cm/sec
(in/sec)
10.0
(4.0)
10.0
(4.0)
10.0
(4.0)
10.0
(4.Q)
10.0
(4.0)
30.0
(11.8)
cm/sec
(in/sec)
2.0
(0.8)
2.0
(0.8)
0.1
(0.04)
0.1
(0.04)
2.0
(0.8)
0.1
(0.04)
sq cm/sec
(sq in/sec)
1,000
(155)
1,000
(155)
1,000
(155)
1,000
(155)
10,000
(1,550)
10,000
(1,550)
Dispersion To Center of_ Radius of ,
Coefficient Time Sludge Mass Sludge Mass
sq cm/ sec min
(sq in/sec)
10.0 60
(1.5)
10.0 60
(1.5)
10.0 1250
(1.5)
10.0 1250
(1.5)
10.0 60
(1.5)
10.0 1250
(1.5)
kilometers
(n mile)
0.25
(0.15)
0.30
(0.16)
5.00
(2.70)
6.00
(3.24)
0.25
(0.15)
15.00
(8.09)
meters
(feet)
65
(213)
72
(238)
300
(985)
330
(1,082)
212
(697)
950
(3,117)
See Figure 39 for a typical representation of sludge transport and dispersion.
Horizontal distance traveled before reaching the ocean bottom (see Figure 39).
Radius of sludge mass after reaching the ocean bottom (95 percent of mass within
radius, see Figure 39).
-------
DUMPED SEWAGE SLUDGE
APPLIED AS A POINT SOURCE
CENTER OF SLUDGE MASS
PREVAILING
OCEAN
CURRENT
DISTANCE FROM DUMPING POINT —*4
TO CENTER OF SLUDGE MASS
L
RADIUS OF SLUDGE MASS
TYPICAL TRANSPORT AND DISPERSION
OF SEWAGE SLUDGE IN OCEAN WATERS
NOTE: SEE TABLE 2?.
FIGURE 39
-------
be more widely distributed during the summer when stratified
water conditions prevail than during the winter when vertical
mixing prevails. Stratification will result in a longer reten-
tion of sludge in the upper water layers and, consequently,
wider distribution.
The model (Table 27) estimated that 95 percent of the
sludge mass on the bottom would be contained within a maximum
radius of 950 m (3,100 ft). This sludge mass represents a very
small percentage of the dumped sludge solids; most of the solids
are not expected to reach the bottom. The greater depth of the
Northern Area will result in a slightly larger area of bottom
affected by dumping than in the Southern Area. For materials
settling at 0.1 cm/sec (0.04 in/sec), and a current velocity of
10.0 cm/sec (4.0 in/sec), materials will be transported 1 km
(0.54 n mi) further in the Northern Area. Although there will
be a greater area of bottom affected in the Northern Area, the
concentrations of sludge per unit area of bottom will be lower.
Callaway et al. (unpub.) reached similar conclusions.
B. RESUSPENSION
Only a small fraction of the dumped sludge reaches
the sea floor (Callaway et al., unpub.). This material i-s
further affected by biological activities and physical forces.
Benthic organisms burrowing in the deposits incorporate the
material into the existing substrate. Incorporation of the
211
-------
sludge material reduces the possibility that it will be trans-
ported out of the area. Benthic fauna consume the fine sludge
solids and void them along with other waste products as coarse
pellets. The potential for resuspension of this pelletal debris
is much lower than the potential for resuspension of freshly
deposited sludge solids.
Bottom sediments are resuspended primarily by storm
waves and currents and by internal waves. Once resuspended,
these sediments can be transported by bottom currents.
1. Storm Waves and Currents
Strong wind-driven currents associated with storm
events can resuspend large quantities of fine bottom sediments
in the Bight Apex (Drake, 1974). The bottom sediments in both
of the alternate areas exhibit wave ripples. This indicates
that these sediments have been moved back and forth by surface
waves associated with storms. However, the Northern Area,
because of its greater depth, has a slightly lower potential for
resuspension of fine grained sediments by surface waves than
does the Southern Area.
2. Internal Waves
Internal waves have been observed in the vicinity of
the Hudson Shelf Valley. These internal waves dissipate as they
break along the bottom at the depth where the density gradient
upon which they travel intersects the bottom. Only bottom sedi-
ments shoreward of the 30 to 35 m (98 to 115 ft) depth contour
are likely to be affected by internal waves. The bedforms ob-
served in the Northern and Southern Areas (Section IVD) may
212
-------
have been produced by either internal waves or storm currents.
The deeper portions of the Northern Area have a lower potential
for resuspension of fine bottom sediments by internal waves than
do areas within the Southern Area.
3. Bottom Currents
Fine bottom sediments, once resuspended in the water
column, will be transported by the bottom currents. Results ob-
tained using bottom drifters indicate that a line of divergence
(Figure 14) exists on the continental shelf at depths of about
60 m (197 ft). Shoreward of this line, the bottom drift tends
to have an onshore component; seaward of this line, the bottom
drift tends to have an offshore current.
All of the Southern Area is shoreward of the line of
divergence. If sludge were dumped in this area, the sludge par-
ticles that reached the bottom would be subjected to a slow,
steady, shoreward movement. The deeper portions of the Northern
Area, on the eastern border, are along the line of divergence.
If sludge material were transported by the bottom currents in
these deeper areas, it would probably move in an offshore direc-
tion.
The presence of relict mud deposits in the Northern
Area indicates that the agents of resuspension and transport
have been ineffective in removing mud from the bottom sediments.
Use of a site near the deeper areas in the Northern Area would
probably result in the transport of sludge particles to the ad-
jacent low-lying areas of the relict drainage system (Figure
213
-------
26), where they would remain. Although a physical accumulation
on the bottom is not expected, increases in the levels of organ-
ic material and heavy metal concentrations are anticipated.
C. CHEMICAL EQUILIBRIA AND BIOLOGICAL OXIDATION
When sewage sludge is dumped into the ocean, it is
physically dispersed within the water column. At the same time,
it begins to chemically interact with the seawater. Basic laws
of chemistry regarding concentration equilibria and adsorption
are the major factors affecting the chemical reactions that oc-
cur.
1. Heavy Metals
Field analyses at the Hyperion Sewage Treatment Plant
in Los Angeles, California show that a significant portion of
the heavy metals present in sewage sludge are in the particulate
fraction (fines) of the sludge. The analyses at Hyperion also
show that many of these metals are released into the seawater
(Table 28) (Chen et al., 1974; Rohatgi and Chen, 1975). As soon
as the sludge is dumped, there is a rapid, initial (first-stage)
release of metals, followed by a slower, long-term (second-
stage) release. The first-stage release is attributable to the
oxidation of organic particles and metal sulfides and to the de-
sorption of metals from particles. Desorption may be responsi-
ble for some of the second-stage releases as well (Rohatgi and
Chen, 1975) .
The equilibria equations of Morel e_t al. (1975) indi-
cate that the metals that are present in sludge as metal sul-
214
-------
TABLE 28
RELEASE FROM SLUDGE OF HEAVY METALS IN SEAWATER1
Metal Percent Released
Cadium (Cd) 93-96
Chromium (Cr) 2
Copper (Cu) 5-9
Lead (Pb) 35
Manganese (Mn) 35
Nickel (Ni) 49-64
Zinc (Zn) 18-39
From suspended particulates in digested sludge at equilibrium
with seawater.
Source: Rohatgi and Chen, 1975.
215
-------
fides rapidly dissolve upon mixing with seawater. This dissolu-
tion frees the metal ions from the sludge particles and promotes
rapid dilution of the metal ions.
In situ studies (Callaway et a!L., unpub.) at the ex-
isting sludge dump site show initial dilutions of seawater to
sludge ranging from 500:1 to 1000:1 within ten minutes of re-
lease. Other researchers have noted that concurrent with ini-
tial dilution there is a drop in the ambient oxygen level in the
area of the dump site. Metal concentrations in the water immed-
iately after cessation of dumping are reported to be highly var-
iable. Seven hours after dumping, concentrations of metals in
the water column reportedly remain elevated (Hilovsky and Szucs,
1975).
The metals that are not dissolved or oxidized during
the first-stage release can be released in time as the organic
matter with which they are bound is decomposed or as they are
desorbed from inorganic material. Conversely, metals which are
in solution or which come into solution during dumping can be
immobilized through sorption to suspended particulate matter.
Chromium, copper, lead, and zinc are expected to ac-
cumulate in bottom sediments. Cadmium is not expected to accum-
ulate because it is rapidly dissolved in the water column.
Segar and Cantillo (1975) calculated the average residence time
of heavy metals in the Bight Apex. They concluded that a con-
siderable portion of the metals originating in sewage sludge or
dredged material is rapidly flushed out of the Apex.
216
-------
2. Organic Matter
The organic constituents of ocean dumped sewage sludge
are subject to oxidation and scavenging in both the water column
and bottom sediments. O'Connors and Duedall (1975) have demon-
strated that the organic carbon content of bottom sediments in
the vicinity of the dredged material and sewage sludge dump
sites is not high when compared to that in other coastal areas.
Further, they postulate that different microorganisms act to hy-
dro lyze the organic matter in sludge, and they note specifically
that cutin, a common component of sludge, is degraded by bacter-
ia and fungi. These biological oxidation processes reduce the
dissolved oxygen levels in seawater.
As discussed in Section IVD, substantial quantities
of oxidizable organic matter reach the Bight Apex. The oxida-
tion of this organic matter depletes the dissolved oxygen in
the Bight Apex, especially during the summer months when bio-
logical activity is high. Segar e_t al. (1975) concluded that
relocation of the sewage sludge and dredged material dump sites
would not significantly improve the dissolved oxygen levels in
the bottom waters of the Apex. They also concluded that a two-
fold increase in the nutrient loading into the Apex from inland
runoff could raise photosynthetic productivity to a level that
would seriously deplete the oxygen in the bottom waters.
D. COMPARISON TO OTHER DUMP SITES
1. Philadelphia Dump Site
A look at sludge dumping at the newly designated
(1973) Philadelphia site can provide some insights into what can
217
-------
be expected at the proposed alternate areas in the New York
Bight. The volume of sludge dumped at the Philadelphia site in
1974 was approximately 0.6 million cu m (0.8 million cu yd),
about one-sixth of the volume of sludge dumped in the Bight in
1974 (Lear and Pesch, 1975) . The water depth, hydraulic activ-
ity, and net drift at the Philadelphia site are similar to con-
ditions within the alternate areas in the Bight.
Organic carbon accumulation in the vicinity of the
Philadelphia site is small. Background concentrations are ap-
proximately 0.1 percent organic carbon by dry weight; the high-
est concentration found in the affected areas was only 1.4 per-
cent. The highest organic carbon levels were observed at a sta-
tion approximately 19 km (10 n mi) south of the dump site.
The highest metal concentrations also were found at
this station (Lear and Pesch, 1975). Chromium, lead, and zinc
showed accumulation with respect to background concentrations.
Manganese and iron also were high, but this was attributed to
industrial waste dumping at an adjacent site. Mercury, copper,
and nickel had not accumulated in the bottom sediments to any
appreciable degree. On the other hand, polychlorinated bi-
phenyls (PCBs) had accumulated in the bottom sediments.
Figure 40 is a general representation, based on metal
and organic content, of the bottom area affected by pollutant
sources in the Bight Apex and near the Philadelphia dump site.
Dumping at the Philadelphia site has a pronounced influence on
downcoast areas. This may be the result of coast-parallel
transport caused by the predominant southwesterly drift.
218
-------
YORK
BIGHT APEX
>^SLUDGE SEWAGE
NORTHE
AREA
OUTHER
AREA
PHILADELPHIA
SEWAGE SLUDGE
DUMP SITE
AREAS OF HEAVY
METAL AND ORGANIC
CONTAMINATION
BOTTOM AREAS AFFECTED AT EXISTING
SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMP SITES IN THE
MID-ATLANTIC BIGHT
SOURCES: LEAR, 1973; CARMODY _EJ AL_.; 1973;
HATCHER AND KEISTER, 1975.
FIGURE 40
-------
2. Dump Sites in Other Waters
In Scotland, sludge dumping in the Firth of Clyde has
affected an area of between 2.9 and 10.0 km (1.6 to 5.4 n mi) in
diameter (Mackay et al., 1972). Concentrations of heavy metals
in the immediate vicinity of this dump site are quite similar to
those found in the Bight Apex, although the bottom sediments in
the Firth of Clyde contain more organic carbon (8.2 percent).
Background concentrations of pollutants in the Firth of Clyde
are generally higher as well. Water depths in the Firth of
Clyde are less than 90 m (295 ft), and tidal flushing is a domi-
nant dispersal agent in this estuary.
In England, studies have been conducted on sludge
dumping in the Thames estuary. The estuary is shallow, about
20 m (65 ft), and is subjected to strong tidal currents of
about 90 cm/sec, (35.4 in/sec). The studies show no appreciable
loss in oxygen concentration in bottom waters (Shelton, 1971).
E. SUMMARY
It is expected that the bottom area surrounding a
dump site in either the Northern or Southern Area will be con-
taminated by increased levels of fine organic matter, heavy
metals (chromium, copper, lead, and zinc), bacteria (Sections
IVC and VII A, B), and polychlorinated bi-phenyls (PCBs).
Detectable contamination from sludge dumping will be limited
to areas within 15 km (8 n mi) of the dump site; the affected
area will be elongated in the direction of the prevailing
currents (to the west and southwest off Long Island, to the
220
-------
south and southwest off New Jersey). A larger area of bottom
will be affected if dumping occurs in the Northern Area because
of the greater depth. However, there will be less accumulation
of solids per unit area, again because of the greater depth.
In general, significant accumulations of sludge solids on the
bottom are not expected at a dump site in either area.
The areas with the lowest potential for resuspension
and transport of fine sludge contaminants are in the deep, de-
pression areas along the easternmost segments of the Northern
Area. These areas are currently characterized by high propor-
tions of fine sediments.
The impact of these sludge contaminants on the eco-
system is discussed in Chapter VII.
221
-------
VII. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action will have an impact on water qual-
ity and the marine ecosystem at and adjacent to the dump site.
The significance of this impact will depend on the nature of the
sludge and on the environmental conditions at the dump site.
The proposed action will also have a.n impact on shellfish in the
area of the dump site, representing a potential public health
hazard. The proposed action may have a number of economic im-
pacts beyond those associated with use of the existing dump site
in the Bight Apex. These include increased sludge transporta-
tion costs, decreased commercial fishing, reduced potential for
developing shellfish resources, and interference with mineral
resource development. The loss of a potentially valuable re-
source, the sludge itself, will continue under the proposed
action. The proposed action also has the potential to conflict
with other dumping activities in the Bight.
A. IMPACTS ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND WATER QUALITY
The proposed action will have no significant adverse
effects upon the public health and welfare of beach communities
or upon coastal water quality along Long Island or New Jersey.
Floatables from an alternate dump site in either the Northern or
Southern Area are not expected to reach beaches along these
coasts under any weather conditions, including winter storms.
Potential coliform contamination of commercial shellfish (surf
clams, ocean quahogs, and sea scallops) as a result of sludge
222
-------
dumping will be limited to the immediate vicinity of the al-
ternate dump site.
1. Swimming
Recent studies (Section VB) indicate that bacterial
contamination of bathing (primary contact) waters from the dump-
ing of sewage sludge at the existing site is negligible. Ran-
dom, elevated coliform levels along the Long Island and New
Jersey beaches are attributed to contamination from inland sour-
ces rather than to ocean dumping activities (FDA, 1974 a and b;
USEPA, July 1974 and April 1975) . Data collected by EPA, FDA,
and NOAA-MESA along the New Jersey shore indicate that municipal
wastewater treatment plant discharges were the principal cause
of the elevated coliform levels in the beach waters. These
agencies have concluded that there is no indication of coliform
contamination of waters along the Long Island and New Jersey
beaches as a result of sewage sludge dumping. Bacterial con-
tamination from sludge dumping appears to be confined to the
immediate vicinity of the existing dump site. The FDA has
closed a circular area, with an 11.1 km (6.0 n mi) radius,
around the existing site to all commercial and recreational
shellfishing in order to protect public health (Section IVC and
Figure 22).
Brook's model has been used to predict the theoretical
dispersion of bacteria as a result of ocean dumping at a site
with characteristics similar to those of the existing dump site
(USEPA, unpub.). Using conservative values for onshore cur-
223
-------
rents, coliform die-off rates, and dispersion coefficients, it
was concluded that there would be a low probability of coliform
contamination of waters along nearby beaches. Since the pro-
posed areas are much farther offshore than the existing dump
site, and in different current regimes, the potential for bac-
terial or viral contamination of primary contact waters from use
of either the proposed areas is virtually non-existent.
2. Shellfish
Contamination of edible commercial and sport shellfish
taken from the New York Bight represents a significant potential
public health hazard to the metropolitan area. Shellfishing has
been prohibited in the immediate area of the existing dump site,
as well as in other estuarine and coastal waters in the Bight
Apex (Figure 22). The health hazard implicit in the consumption
of contaminated shellfish is much greater than that from direct
contact (swimming) because shellfish have the capacity to con-
centrate microorganisms in their tissues.
Use of a dump site in either of the proposed areas is
likely to result in, at least, a temporary FDA closure of the
area to commercial and sport shellfishing. It is difficult to
predict the size of the area that would be closed. Judging from
present FDA practices (Section HE) , a precautionary closure
would involve a circular area, 11.1 km (6.0 n mi) in radius,
around the designated dump site. The greatest abundance of surf
clams is found in and around the Southern Area (Figures 17, 18,
and 19). Ocean quahogs are abundant in both areas (Figure 20),
224
-------
but their resource potential in comparison with surf clams has
not been defined.
The potential for health hazards would be greatest in
contaminated areas currently and potentially used for large-
scale commercial shellfishing. The most intense commercial
shellfishing now occurs off the New Jersey coast, shoreward of
the Southern Area. Assuming that commercial shellfishing pat-
terns remain essentially the same for the next five years, po-
tential public health hazards due to consumption of contaminated
shellfish will be less if a site in the Northern Area is chosen.
A ban on shellfishing at either of the proposed areas
would place a restriction on fishing in international waters.
Such a restriction is unprecedented; international enforcement
may be somewhat tenuous. The great distance from shore presents
the additional problems of higher costs and more difficult mon-
itoring and enforcement of shellfishing restrictions.
3. Floatables
Certain aesthetically unpleasant components of dumped
sewage sludge (oil, grease, and artifacts) are expected to ac-
cumulate in a surface slick within the immediate area of an al-
ternate dump site. Although the possibility exists that some
floatables are currently washed up on Long Island and New Jersey
beaches from the existing dump site, this cannot be verified
(NOAA-MESA, March 1975). Inputs from other sources, the Hudson
estuary, inland runoff, municipal wastewater discharges, com-
bined sewer and stormwater runoff, and vessel discharges, are
225
-------
considered to far outweigh those from sludge dumping at the
existing site.
Sewage sludge dumping in either of the proposed areas
will have a much lower potential for affecting the beaches be-
cause the proposed areas are much farther offshore than the ex-
isting dump site. However, floatables associated with the use
of an alternate dump site will contribute to the degradation of
relatively pristine waters at that dump site.
4. Hazards to Navigation
The proposed action represents an increase in vessel
traffic and, thus, a potential hazard to navigation in the New
York Bight. Sludge vessels will have to make more and longer
trips to dispose of waste if a new site is designated (Section
VIIC). Sludge vessels are inherently slow, 13 km/hr (7 knots)
for towed barges and 22 km/hr (12 knots) for tankers. Towed
barges represent a particular navigation hazard because they are
difficult to control and appear on a radar screen as two sepa-
rate vessels. Sludge vessels could collide with other commer-
cial vessels, such as oil tankers and freighters, or with sta-
tionary structures, such as navigation aids, breakwaters, and
oil platforms.
a. Precautionary Zone. The greatest potential for colli-
sion would occur when the sludge vessels pass through the Pre-
cautionary Zone in the Bight Apex (Figure 5). This potential
impact would be mitigated somewhat by abandoning the existing
dump site, which lies within this zone. Both of the alternate
226
-------
areas are outside the established navigational lanes and, there-
fore, relatively hazard-free.
b. The Southern Area. The navigation situation in the
Southern Area may be complicated by increased traffic (work
boats, supply ships, oil tankers, etc.) associated with the
nearby development of potential oil and gas lease tracts (Fig-
ure 6). There also is a slight possibility of the sludge ves-
sels colliding with oil platforms in the potential lease area
located nearby. Whether these navigation hazards will materi-
alize depends upon the development of oil and gas and on the
duration of ocean dumping at the site.
c. Further Hazards. With the exception of oil and gas
platforms (Section IIG), it is ulikely that proposed offshore
facilities, such as artificial islands and deepwater ports, will
be built in the near future.
227
-------
B. IMPACTS ON THE ECOSYSTEM
The magnitude of adverse impacts on the marine ecosys-
tem will be primarily a function of the concentration of the
sludge which reaches the bottom, the areal extent of contaminant
coverage on the bottom, and the subsequent transport of contami-
nants on the bottom. Bottom transport will serve to increase
the lateral extent of the impacted area (Section VIA). The
characteristics of the sludge that will be dumped in the Bight
in the future are not expected to be much different from the
characteristics of the sludge that is dumped in the Bight at
present (Tables 3 and 4).
Impacts on the biota, especially the benthos, can be
mitigated to some degree by dispersing the contaminants in the
water column, thereby diluting the contaminants before they
reach the bottom. However, dilution necessarily involves an in-
crease in the area affected. Impacts may be minimized either by
containing the pollutants in a very small area to concentrate
toxic substances or by dispersing the pollutants over a large
area to achieve maximum dilution.
With maximum dilution, the impacts caused by those
pollutants that eventually reach the bottom will be minimal pro-
vided that the potential for resuspension and bottom movement of
pollutants to other areas is low. To the extent possible, se-
lection of an alternate dump site should be based upon the opti-
mization of these physical forces.
228
-------
1. The Benthos
The benthic community is composed of those organisms
that live on or in the sediments or substrates (Section IVC).
For the purposes of this EIS, demersal fish (bottom feeders) and
shellfish (bivalves and crustaceans) are discussed under the
next section, Fisheries Resources.
a. Similar Areas. Impacts on the benthos at the Northern
and Southern Areas are likely to be of the same nature as those
observed at existing sewage sludge dump sites. Until further
comprehensive investigations of the benthos at the proposed
areas are completed, it is impossible to determine the full sig-
nificance of the impacts associated with use of these areas.
With the data available, it is possible to make only gross esti-
mates based on benthic impacts occurring at existing dump sites.
At present, a bottom area of approximately 52 sq km
(15 sq n mi) around the existing dredged material and sewage
sludge dump sites shows evidence of reduced biomass and a shift
in the composition and diversity of the benthos. Studies by
NOAA-NMFS (1975b) found the major impact to be suffocation of
the benthic organisms buried by dredged material. In this re-
spect, adverse biological effects due to dumping of dredged ma-
terial may be more severe than those due to dumping of sewage
sludge. Contamination of the nearby Hudson Shelf Valley also
has been observed; however, the benthic communities are not as
unproductive in the Valley as at the dump sites (NOAA-NMFS,
1972).
229
-------
A study at the Philadelphia sewage sludge dump site,
located about 74 km (40 n mi) east of Ocean City, Maryland, was
unable to detect the impacts of sludge dumping on the benthos
(Lear, 1973). However, an accumulation of heavy metals in
scallops and clams onsite was observed. At the time of Lear's
study, this dump site had been used for less than a year, and
the volume of sludge that had been dumped there was approxi-
mately one-sixth of the annual volume dumped at the existing
sewage sludge dump site in the Bight. The depth at the Phila-
delphia dump site is comparable to that at the Southern Area.
In Scotland, sludge dumping in the Firth of Clyde has
resulted in an accumulation of organics and metals, as well as
in a change from a clam and starfish community to a polychaete
worm community. An increase in the benthic biomass has also
been observed. However, this increased biomass appears to be of
little or no value as fish food since none of the species were
found in the guts of fish from the area (MacKay et al., 1972).
Steel et al. (1973) also reported an increase in the level of
sludge-related contaminants, with impacts being most evident
upon the benthos. The volume of sludge dumped in the Firth of
Clyde is approximately one-fourth of that currently dumped in
the New York Bight. The depth at the dump site in the Firth of
Clyde is comparable to the depth at both the Northern and South-
ern Areas.
b. Proposed Areas. The Northern Area is somewhat deeper
than the Southern Area. Consequently, use of the Northern Area
230
-------
would result in greater dilution of contaminants and lesser im-
pacts on the benthos. The potential for resuspension and trans-
port of contaminated sediments appears to be somewhat less in
deeper portions of the Northern Area than in the Southern Area
(Section VIA).
c. Hudson Shelf Valley. Sewage sludge dumped in either
of the proposed areas is not likely to reach the Hudson Shelf
Valley, based upon predictions of lateral transport in the water
column prior to settling or after resuspension (Section VIA).
At the worst, extremely low concentrations of fine sludge parti-
cles will settle on the bottom at distances of more than 15 to
20 km (8 to 11 n mi) from a dump site located in either the
Northern or Southern Area. The distance from the Hudson Shelf
Valley to the nearest boundary of either area is 18.5 km (10.0 n
mi), as shown in Figure 7.
The Hudson Shelf Valley is receiving contaminated ma-
terials from the Bight Apex (NOAA-MESA, March 1975), as shown in
(Figure 40). The existing dredged material and sewage sludge
dump sites are located immediately adjacent to the rim of the
inner terminus of the Hudson Shelf Valley and may be the sources
of contamination in the Valley.
The red crab and American lobster, numerous in the
lower parts of the Hudson Shelf Valley, would undergo adverse
impacts if sludge contaminants accumulated in the Valley. Spe-
cial emphasis should be placed on avoiding contamination of the
upper reaches of the Valley where breeding zones are located.
231
-------
2. Fisheries Resources
Fisheries resources in the New York Bight include pel-
agic fish (water column feeders), demersal fish (bottom feed-
ers) , and shellfish (bivalves and crustaceans), as described in
Section IVC.
Attempts to define impacts on fisheries resources at
existing dump sites in the Bight Apex have been hampered by a
lack of temporal and spatial coverage, inadequate sampling de-
sign, and limited numbers of replicate samples, all of which
precludes statistical verification. The motile and highly mi-
gratory nature of most finfish species has prevented delineation
of cause and effect relationships. The purpose of this EIS is
not to quantify impacts, but to recommend an alternate dump site
where adverse impacts would be minimal. For this purpose, the
data are sufficient since they allow relative comparisons.
a. Proposed Areas. Non-motile shellfish species at or in
the vicinity of the proposed areas are the fisheries resources
most likely to be impacted by sewage sludge dumping. The surf
clam, sea scallop, and ocean quahog are common to both areas,
often in numbers suitable for commercial harvesting (Section
IVC). Based on recent surveys, greater surf clam resources are
found in and around the Southern Area, especially along the New
Jersey coast (Figures 17, 18, and 19), than in the Northern
Area. Ocean quahogs are numerous in both areas (Figure 20).
Sea scallops are less common than either surf clams or ocean
quahogs (Figure 21). Surf clams and ocean quahogs are not found
in significant numbers at the existing sewage sludge dump site.
232
-------
The potential impact on shellfish resources would be
minimized by dumping within the Northern Area; this judgment is
based primarily on the abundance of surf clams in the Southern
Area. Use of the Northern Area would also minimize the danger
to public health from illegal harvesting of contaminated shell-
fish, as the Southern Area is currently and potentially a more
lucrative commercial source.
Significant impacts on the crustaceans (crab and lob-
ster) that frequent the proposed areas can also be expected.
There is no evidence that these species are more or less abun-
dant in either alternate area. Impacts upon crustaceans will
be mitigated to some extent by their ability to move out of the
affected area.
Since most commercial finfish species are found
throughout the Bight (Section IVC), impacts on these species
will be about the same at either alternate area. Impacts on
finfish might be expected to differ if one of the areas exhib-
ited physical characteristics conducive to migratory behavior.
At present, there is no evidence of such characteristics in
either area.
b. Fish Activities. As part of a NOAA-NMFS study
(1975b), groundfish in the New York Bight were sampled twice
yearly to relate dumping to activities of fish. On a seasonal
basis, the catch of bony fish in high-carbon sediment areas of
the Bight Apex, such as the sewage sludge dump site, was found
to be lower than in low-carbon sediment areas. From this, it
233
-------
was concluded that migratory movements are affected by the ocean
dumping of sewage sludge.
Both of the proposed areas exhibit topographical lows
which favor the accumulation of high-carbon sediments. Hydraul-
ic activity is lower at the proposed areas than at the existing
dump site, which also favors the accumulation of high-carbon
sediments. The Northern Area is characterized by slightly
deeper waters and somewhat finer-textured sediments than in the
Southern Area. This indicates a greater propensity f,or the ac-
cumulation of high-carbon sediments and, consequently, a lower
abundance of groundfish in the Northern Area. However, consid-
ering the anticipated dilution and dispersion of sludge associ-
ated with depth, alterations of migratory habits should not re-
sult from sludge dumping at either of the proposed areas.
c. Fin Rot. The occurrence of fin rot in demersal fishes
has been attributed to polluted conditions in the Bight Apex and
in Raritan Bay (Murchelano and Ziskowski, 1975). Causative
agents have not been defined, nor has the anomaly been exclu-
sively linked to ocean dumping. In spite of a significant dif-
ference in fin rot occurrence between fish taken in the Apex and
those taken in the outer Bight, the overall percentage occur-
rence is low (3.8 percent of winter flounder from the Apex, 0.7
percent from the outer Bight). A greater percentage occurrence
was observed in samples taken from high-carbon sediment areas
(5.1 percent of winter flounder sampled).
Considering the substantial dilution expected at
either of the proposed areas and the lack of significant addi-
234
-------
tional pollutant loadings, fin rot is not expected to occur at a
dump site in either of the proposed areas.
3. Plankton
Plankton are defined as those plants (phytoplankton)
and animals (zooplankton) -which float in the water column (Sec-
tion IVC) .
a. Similar Areas. Ocean dumping practices in the Bight
Apex have had no observable effect on phytoplankton productivi-
ty. Increased sludge dumping probably would not increase or de-
crease the rate of primary productivity, but might expand the
area of high phytoplankton productivity. Similarly, ocean dump-
ing practices have had no discernible effect on the species com-
position, abundance, or distribution of zooplankton in the Apex
(NOAA-NMFS, 1975b).
Pararas-Carayannis (1973) reported that "no short-term
adverse effects have been observed on free-floating or swimming
marine organisms in the New York Bight. Specifically, no ef-
fects were observed on zooplankton species composition and dis-
tribution."
This may indicate the incapacity of present field
techniques to detect effects on plankton. Laboratory investiga-
tions suggest that there are effects on plankton. However, the
applicability of these laboratory investigations to evaluation
of an alternate dump site is limited. Barber and Krieger (1970)
reported phytoplankton productivity to be inhibited by sewage
sludge. This inhibition has not been substantiated. Dunstan
235
-------
(1975), investigating the effect of sewage effluents on phyto-
plankton, found the response of phytoplankton quite varied and
unpredictable. Although growth was generally enhanced by the
addition of nitrogen and phosphorous, the role of minor growth
substances (trace metals, vitamins) became paramount in the reg-
ulation of phytoplankton productivity, composition, and abun-
dance.
The effects on zooplankton are only slightly less con-
fused. Based on field and laboratory data, NOAA-NMFS (1972) re-
ports that sludge and dredged material cause pathological ano-
malies in larger crustaceans. It seems likely that smaller
crustaceans, such as gammarid amphipods (a common fish food),
would be affected in a similar manner.
b. Proposed Areas. Impacts upon plankton in the proposed
areas will probably be undiscernible. While the addition of
nutrients might favor localized increases in phytoplankton pro-
ductivity, other factors would tend to decrease productivity.
Increased turbidity would lessen the depth of light penetration
and, thereby, would result in a localized reduction of produc-
tivity. Since primary productivity is limited to the upper
layers of the water column (photic zone), high levels of nutri-
ents below this zone will not be utilized in photosynthesis.
Potential impacts on the zooplankton would be more
severe at the alternate areas than at the existing dump site.
Zooplankton biomass generally is greater in the shelf and tran-
sition zone waters, which characterize the two alternate areas,
236
-------
than in nearshore waters (Section IVC). Thus, adverse effects,
such as pathological anomalies and impediments to larval growth,
would threaten a larger zooplankton population at a site located
in the Northern or Southern Area than at the existing dump site.
Furthermore, zooplankton populations at the alternate areas are
oceanic in nature and, therefore, are less adapted to environ-
mental stress than zooplankton in the Bight Apex, which are es-
tuarine in nature. No difference could be expected between the
alternate areas.
4. Short Dumping
The proposed action may encourage short dumping, that
is, dumping before the vessel reaches the designated dump site.
Surveillance by USCG radar, shipriders, planes, and vessels, and
the use of dump site transponders is expected to prevent illegal
short dumping.
a. Emergency Situations. Ocean dumping permits (Appendix
A, General Condition 10), allow the master of a vessel to dump
at any location or in any manner in order to safeguard life at
sea. Dumping of this sort is likely to occur between the Sandy
Hook-Rockaway Point transect and any new dump site further off-
shore.
Rough weather during the late fall, winter, and early
spring can cause emergency situations which require short dump-
ing. Other emergency situations which can occur include vessel
breakdowns under hazardous conditions and potential collisions
at sea with other ships or stationary objects.
237
-------
The increased number of trips and the greater distance
and time to the proposed areas will raise the potential for
emergency dumping. The effects of emergency dumping should be
mitigated by the dilution and dispersion provided by stormy
weather conditions. Moreover, each emergency would be unique in
time and place so that sludge would not be continually dumped at
the same point under the same wind and weather conditions.
b. Potential Impact. If an alternate dump site were lo-
cated within the Southern Area, the sludge vessels would likely
use the Hudson Canyon Navigational Lane (Figure 5) for much of
the distance. The fact that much of this route is over or near
the Hudson Shelf Valley will, to some extent, cause minor ad-
verse effects since the Valley will trap short-dumped sludge.
The alternate route to the Southern Area, along the Barnegat
Navigational Lane (Figure 5), would increase travel time and
costs, and thus, probably would not be used. Furthermore, use
of this route would present a hazard to New Jersey beaches in
the event of a short dump when winds or currents were onshore.
Transporting sludge to the Northern Area does not re-
present a serious hazard to the Hudson Shelf Valley in that the
barges would probably use the Nantucket Navigational Lane (Fig-
ure 5), which parallels Long Island. However, use of this route
would present a hazard to New York City and Long Island beaches
in the event of a short dump when winds or currents were on-
shore. Following the alternate Hudson Canyon Navigational Lane
to the Northern Area would be longer and more costly, and thus
238
-------
it probably would not be used. If used, it would represent a
direct threat to the Hudson Shelf Valley.
The most adverse impacts of short dumping would occur
if such dumping were to take place in the Bight Apex. However,
the probability is that most short dumping would take place out-
side of the Apex.
5. Potential for Recovery
The potential for ecosystem recovery at the existing
dump site is an important consideration in assessing the impact
of moving to an alternate dump site. The recovery potential of
both of the proposed areas is about the same.
Studies of repopulation rates following pollution
abatement in the Raritan estuary indicate relatively rapid re-
establishment by principally freshwater forms in the upper es-
tuary (Dean and Haskin, 1964). However, more recent surveys in
western Raritan Bay found an improverished benthos, not indica-
tive of recovery (NOAA-NMFS, 1972). McNulty (1970) found no
evidence of increased numbers of commercial or sport fish in
Raritan Bay following pollution abatement, and he concluded that
long-lasting detrimental effects have resulted from pollution
and dredging. The NOAA-NMFS (1972) predicts that after abandon-
ment of the dredged material and sewage sludge dump sites, re-
covery to former levels of productivity, if it is possible at
all, may require years or even decades. The FDA (1975) has
found shellfishing areas around these two existing dump sites
very degraded and concluded that moving the sites would be of
little help to the recovery of the area.
239
-------
Considering the potential degradation from use of the
alternate areas, and the low potential for recovery of the
existing dump site, no overall benefit to the benthic ecosystem
can be foreseen as a result of moving to an alternate dump site
in the Northern or Southern Area.
At this time, no prediction can be made for recovery
of an alternate dump site after dumping is phased out.
240
-------
C. ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The proposed action will increase significantly the
cost of ocean dumping sewage sludge in the New York-New Jersey
metropolitan area. In addition, it has the potential for con-
flicting with commercial fisheries, with the development of min-
eral resources, and with the beneficial use of sludge.
1. Sludge Transportation Costs
The cost of transporting sewage sludge to an alternate
dump site in either of the proposed areas was evaluated for two
components: capital costs for potential fleet expansion and
hauling costs, including operation, maintenance, and repair.
a. Fleet Expansion. Expansion of the existing fleet of
fourteen vessels permitted for hauling sludge is unnecessary.
These vessels have a combined carrying capacity (Section IIB and
Table 7) large enough to transport, at least, 12.6 million cu m
(16.5 million cu yd) of sewage sludge annually to any site within
the proposed areas (Table 29). The volume of sludge projected
for dumping in 1981 is only 10.2 million cu m (13.3 million cu
yd). Thus, based on projected volumes, the existing fleet would
have a reserve capacity of 2.4 million cu m (3.2 million cu yd).
The existing fleet would be more than sufficient to continue
dumping sludge at the existing site in the Bight Apex (Table 29).
Besides being unnecessary, fleet expansion costs can-
not be justified because land-based disposal alternatives are
expected to eventually replace ocean dumping. If, during the
interim, there were an unexpected shortage of hauling capacity
241
-------
TABLE 29
One-way Distance
in km (n mi)
^
Round-trip Distance''
in km (n mi)
Average Speed
in km/hr (knots)
4
Round-trip Time
in hr
Loading and Docking Time
in hr
Total Trip Time
in hr
Maximum Trips
per year
Required Trips
in 1981
Maximum Sludge Hauling
Capacity^ in millions of
cu m (cu yd)
1981 Sludge Volume9
in millions of cu m
(cu yd)
Reserve
in millions of cu m
(cu yd)
FLEET HAULING CAPACITY
Existing
Dump Site
22 (12)
138 (75)
13 (7)
10.6
'ime
4.0
14.6
7,679
3,045
Northern or
Minimum
65 (35)
222(120)
13 (7)
17.1
1 4.0
21.1
5,313
3,045
Southern Area
Maximum
121(65)
334(180)
13(7)
25.7
4.0
29.7
3,775
3,045
25.7 (33.6) 17.8 (23.3)
10.2 (13.3) 10.2 (13.3)
15.5 (20.3) 7.6 (10.3)
12.6 (16.5)
10.2 (13.3)
2.4 (3.2)
20ne-way distance is from the Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point transect.
Round trip distance includes travel within New York Harbor
3 and waterways.
The average speed is for all fourteen vessels under conservative
. conditions.
Round trip time equals the round trip distance divided by the
_ average speed.
,Total trip time equals round trip time plus loading and docking.
Maximum trips per year equals 8,008 hrs/total trip time x 14
vessels. The 8,008 hours of operations allow one month over-
j haul (out of service) per vessel per year.
Required trips equals 1981 sludge volume of 10.2 million cu m
(13.3 million cu yd)/average vessel capacity of 3,350 cu m (4,380
8 cu yd).
Sludge hauling capacity equals maximum number of trips times average
p vessel capacity of 3,350 cu m (4,380 cu yd).
The 1981 sludge volume projected for the Bight (Table 9).
Reserve can be translated as additional transport capacity, extra
trips, or greater total trip time. It could also represent the
time lost to inclement weather conditions, but not maintence,
which was already taken into consideration in the one month
overhaul.
242
-------
in the Bight/ additional barges could be brought in from other
geographic areas, as required.
b. Hauling Costs. The proposed action would increase
total hauling costs during the 1976 to 1981 period by 56 to 69
percent (Table 30). If an alternate dump site were located 65
km (35 n mi) from the Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point transect (Figure
7), the total hauling costs during the 1976 to 1981 period would
be 75 million dollars. A distance of 120 km (65 n m) would
result in slightly higher total costs of 81 million dollars for
the same period. On the other hand, continued use of the exist-
ing dump site between 1976 and 1981 would cost 48 million dol-
lars. These conservative estimates were based on unit costs
from the current haulers (Table 30, Footnote 1) and on the
projected sludge volumes (Table 9). Inflation was taken into
consideration after 1979.
The effect of increased distance on unit hauling
costs, based on vessel type (barge or tanker) and operation
(commercial or municipal), is shown on Figure 41 for the year
1976. It is apparent that Westchester County's barge is not
cost-effective at any distance beyond the existing dump site.
The cost impacts of increased distance upon commercial haulers
are significant when distances are increased from 65 to 120 km
(35 to 65 n mi), but appear to become insignificant when dis-
tances exceed 120 km (65 n mi).
The cost impacts to New York City will be minor if the
distance is extended to 65 km (35 n mi). However, unit costs
243
-------
TABLE 30
Year2
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
TOTAL
PERCENT
INCREASE
SLUDGE HAULING
in Millions of
Existing
Dump Site
4.460
5.955
6.992
8.529
10.033
12.018
47.99
COSTS
Dollars1
Northern or
Minimum
6.829
9.075
10.833
13.443
15.976
18.806
74.96
56
Southern Area
4
Maximum
7.509
9.917
11.749
14.459
17.096
20.180
80.91
69
Based on unit costs from Pollution Control Industries (Modern
Transportation Company), New York City, and General Marine
Transportation Corporation.
2
Assumes that costs increase by 5 percent annually from 1979
through 1981.
Minimum costs
Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point transect.
Maximum costs assume a distance of
Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point transect.
Minimum costs assume a distance of 65 km (35 n mi) from the
Maximum costs assume a distance of 120 km (65 n mi) from the
244
-------
CM O
trv -3-
LTV
13
O
CO CM
3 •
O
^
•co
CM —
to
O
O
o o
-WESTCHESTER
COUNTY BARGE
COMMERCIAL
TANKER
COMMERCIAL
BARGE
N.Y. CITY
TANKER
EXISTING DUMP
SITE
LIMITS OF ALTERNATE
DUMP SITE AREAS
(10)
19
(20)
37
(30)
56
(50)
93
(60)
111
(70)
130
(80)
148
(90'
167
DISTANCE TO DUMP SITE IN KM (N. Ml.)
SLUDGE TRANSPORTATION COSTS
FIGURE 41
-------
start rising rapidly after 111 km (60 n mi). This may reflect
the use of large municipally owned sludge tankers. Total haul-
ing cost will greatly influence New York City's dumping opera-
tions, because the city will continue to be the source of more
than 50 percent of all sludge.dumped (Table 9).
2. Commercial Fishing
The proposed action may adversely affect the harvest-
ing of commercial shellfish at or near an alternate dump site.
The commercial harvest of surf clams along the New Jersey shore
would be particularly sensitive to sludge dumping at the South-
ern Area.
a. Southern Area. Dumping sewage sludge within this area
probably would damage commercial shellfishing resources. The
area adjacent to the New Jersey shore supports significant quan-
tities of commercially valuable surf clams, sea scallops, and
ocean quahogs (Figures 17 through 21). As such, it is an import-
ant and established fisheries resource. The general dispersion
and movement of sludge particles in the water column after dump-
ing at a site located in the Southern Area would appear to be
onshore (Section VIA), and thus, over the adjacent shellfishing
area.
In December 1975, the State of New Jersey prohibited
the taking of surf clams of less than 8.9 cm (3.5 in) in diame-
ter within the 3-mile (5.6 km) limit. This action was precipi-
tated by commercial overfishing in the surf zone (New York Times,
on December 31, 1975). While the surf zone is recovering, there
will be pressure to develop more abundant areas further off-
shore.
246
-------
b. Northern Area. Surf clams are not abundant in this
area. Thus, dumping would have a minor effect on commercial
harvesting. In addition, the net dispersive flow at the North-
ern Area appears to be offshore and off the continential shelf
(Section IVB).
c. Potential Shellfish Resources. Dumping in either of
the proposed areas could reduce the potential for developing
ocean quahogs and sea scallops as commercial shellfish resour-
ces. Both species appear to be numerous in the proposed areas
and undoubtedly would be affected by sludge contamination. Be-
cause of their distribution at and near the proposed areas,
ocean quahogs and surf clams would appear to be most vulnerable
to potential reductions in commercial catches.
In 1973, the commercial shellfish catch in the metro-
politan area was worth 20.6 million dollars, as compared with
10.3 million dollars for the commercial fish catch (Table 13).
Neither of these figures includes fish or shellfish from the New
York Bight that were caught in the Bight and landed in neighbor-
ing states (Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, and
Virginia), or in other countries. Ocean quahogs (11.7 million
dollars), American lobster (3.1 million dollars), and surf clams
(1.0 million dollars) comprised the most valuable shellfish
catch from the Bight in 1973.
At present, the New York Bight may supply at least 50
percent of the edible surf clam meats harvested from U.S. waters
(McHugh, 1975). Any damage to or closing of a specific area
247
-------
within the commercial harvesting zones could result in a signif-
icant impact upon the shellfish industries. There is no guaran-
tee that an area closed to shellfishing can be immediately re-
opened after the cessation of sludge dumping. It should be
pointed out/ however, that the old Philadelphia sewage sludge
dump site off Delaware Bay was reopened by FDA within a year of
cessation of sludge dumping. The volume of sludge dumped at
this site was one-sixth of that dumped at the New York Bight
Apex dump site.
3. Mineral Resource Development
The proposed action may conflict with the potential
development of mineral resources in or immediately adjacent to
the Southern Area.
a. Sand and Gravel. The designation of a dump site in
the Southern Area would apparently conflict with the development
of sand and gravel deposits in the western portion of the area
(Figure 6). Dumping sewage sludge within this area could con-
taminate the sand and gravel deposits and limit their onshore
uses. Decontamination, in addition to the normal washing prac-
tices before construction use, could increase mining costs.
However, oil development and pipeline operations at the adjacent
OCS (Outer Continental Shelf) Lease Tract #40 may pose a more
serious obstacle to mining of these sand and gravel deposits in
the Southern Area. Crude oil spills could contaminate the
bottom areas. Should this happen during offshore oil develop-
ment, the sand and gravel deposits would likely be removed from
248
-------
mining consideration (BLM, November, 1975).
With regard to the potential development of sand and
gravel within the Southern Area, initial ..delineations of the
gravel areas were based on widely spaced surficial samples (Sec-
tion IVD). Preliminary results of recent NOAA-MESA studies
(Schlee, 1975) suggest that these gravelly deposits are sand-
wiched between two clay units in many areas. These deposits may
not be as widespread and readily accessible as previously
thought.
Sand and gravel deposits also are located at or near
the existing sludge dump site (Figure 6). These deposits are
much closer to the metropolitan area and, therefore, have more
potential as a developable resource than those in the Southern
Area. The bottom areas at dump sites in the Bight Apex already
have been contaminated by sewage sludge and dredged material
dumping. Thus, deposits in these areas may be unusable, or of
limited use, without decontamination. In contrast, the sand and
gravel deposits within the Southern Area are clean.
b. Oil and Gas. Designation of a dump site in the South-
ern Area would have a minor adverse impact on the development of
oil and gas (Figure 6) off New Jersey (DCS Lease Tract #40).
The Northern Area is approximately 111 km (60 n mi) northeast of
the tentatively selected tract (Figure 6); use of the Northern
Area for sludge dumping could not possibly conflict with the de-
velopment of this oil and gas lease tract.
249
-------
Potential conflicts with oil and gas development
include:
- Constraints upon pipeline routing because of conta-
minated bottom sediments. Of course, the pipelines could be
routed such that conflicts would not occur.
- Increased difficulty of monitoring and assessing the
extent and impact of pollution related solely to oil and gas
development.
- Damage to, or elimination of, sport fisheries that
could be expected to establish around offshore structures. How-
ever, the development of a viable sport fishery 148 km (80 n mi)
from the New Jersey coast is difficult to envision at this time.
- Navigation hazards from sludge barging operations
(Section VIIB) during drilling, construction, and off-loading
operations (BLM, November 1975).
- Increased turbidity from dumping activities that
could interfere with maintenance and repair work (BLM, November
1975).
Whether these potential problems will occur depends on
the overlap between sludge dumping and offshore oil development.
Currently, the BLM intends to lease OCS Tract #40 in May 1976.
If an alternate dump site were located in the Southern Area, the
two activities could conflict as early as the summer of 1976.
4. Loss of Sewage Sludge as a Potentially Valuable Resource
In theory, the costs of sludge disposal can be signi-
ficantly reduced by using the material as a soil conditioner,
250
-------
fertilizer, or energy source (Section VA). Thus, ocean dumping
of sewage sludge represents the loss of a potentially valuable
resource.
a. Metropolitan Area Sludges. The opportunity for re-
covering value from sewage sludges generated in the New York-New
Jersey metropolitan area appears to be limited to incineration
and/or pyrolysis.
On the basis of cost-effectiveness and environmental
acceptability, the ISC Phase 1 report clearly favors pyrolysis
over the other major land-based alternatives (Section VA). The
net cost factors, environmental constraints, and implementation
timeframe of the alternatives studied are shown in Table 31.
The Phase 1 report concluded that the sewage sludge
produced by most of the treatment facilities in the metropolitan
area is unsuitable for use as a soil conditioner or fertilizer
because of its high heavy metals, and toxic organics content,
and low nutrient content. This is not expected to change in
the near future. Only a few sources of sludge, low in heavy
metals and toxics, were considered suitable for land applica-
tion (Section VA).
The ISO's conclusions and recommendations are includ-
ed in Appendix B.
b. Future Value. As ocean dumping costs increase, the
value of sewage sludge as a source of thermal energy will be-
come more important in evaluating the net costs for any alter-
251
-------
TABLE 31
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE SEWAGE SLUDGE DISPOSAL METHODS FOR THE METROPOLITAN AREA
Ul
N)
Disposal
Method
Land Application
Incineration,
or Pyrolysis
Disposal as a ,
Saleable Product
(drying)
2
Ocean Dumping
Net
Cost
$121-132/
metric ton
(dry)
$52/metric
ton (dry)
$66/metric
ton (dry)
$18-40/
metric ton
(dry)
Environmental
Constraints
Heavy metals and nitrates con-
tamination of ground and sur-
face waters.
Particulate matter, gases,
residues, and odors.
Heavy metals and insufficient
nutrients (N, P, and K)
Heavy metals, coliforms,
nutrients, organics,
pesticides
Implementation
Timeframe
2-3 years
5-10 years
4-5 years
Sources:
•""ISC, 1975.
"See Table 9 for projected sludge volumes and Table 30 for sludge hauling costs.
-------
native disposal method. Implicit in EPA's intention to phase
out ocean dumping by 1981 is the belief that land-based disposal
alternatives will eventually be cost-competitive with ocean
dumping.
At present, the ocean dumping of sewage sludge cannot
be considered a significant loss of a valuable resource. The
future value is dependent upon the costs associated with imple-
mentation of the incineration and/or pyrolysis alternative. It
is quite possible that this alternative may prove cost-competi-
tive with ocean dumping for most present municipal waste gener-
ators.
253
-------
D. IMPACT WITH RESPECT TO OTHER DUMPING ACTIVITIES IN THE
NEW YORK BIGHT
The proposed action should not affect other dumping
activities in the foreseeable future. If dredged material is
dumped with sewage sludge at an alternate dump site, as request-
ed by EPA (Section HID) , the combined environmental impact will
almost certainly be more severe than sludge dumping alone.
1. Dredged Material
At present, it is impossible to predict precisely the
environmental impact of dumping both sewage sludge and dredged
material at a site within either of the alternate areas.
Dredged material dumping was not considered a serious environ-
mental problem until recently. Its effects upon the environment
are just now being established.
It is certain that most (90 to 95 percent) dredged ma-
terial reaches the bottom, based upon historical evidence at the
existing dump site. This is in direct contrast to the very
small percentage of dumped sewage sludge that reaches the bot-
tom.
2. Wrecks
Relocating the wreck dump site seaward of the Barnegat
Navigational Lane (Section HID) will not environmentally or
physically impact upon the proposed action. A potential naviga-
tion hazard is most unlikely, since this is the principal reason
for relocating the existing dump site. These wrecks might even
become a feeding ground for fish and a stimulus to sport fish-
eries.
254
-------
3. Other Dumping Activities
Use of the existing acid and chemical wastes dump
sites will be phased out with time in favor of land-based dispo-
sal methods or process modifications. The cellar dirt dump site
will continue to be used as needed, depending upon major con-
struction activity and availability of alternate disposal tech-
niques. At any rate, cellar dirt material is essentially inert
and nontoxic to the marine environment.
255
-------
E. MISCELLANEOUS IMPACTS
The proposed action may result in a number of miscel-
laneous impacts that are not directly associated with ocean
dumping of sewage sludge. These would include potential effects
on marine-related recreation (sport fishing, boating, and beach
attendance), possible induced population growth in the metropol-
itan area, and international legal implications.
1. Potential Impact on Marine-Related Recreational Activities
The proposed action is not expected to affect marine-
related recreational activities, with the possible exception of
sport fishing in the waters at and near an alternate dump site.
Sport fishing and pleasure boating in the New York Bight occur
mostly in a narrow band, 5 to 20 km (3 to 11 n mi) wide, along
the Long Island and/New Jersey coasts. Recreational activities
within this zone will not be affected by sewage sludge dumping.
Sport fish that feed here, and the associated biomass, will be
unaffected by the proposed action. Because of the potential for
shoreward drift associated with the Southern Area, sport fishing
within 46 km (25 n mi) of the New Jersey coast could be impacted
by sludge dumping.
Beach attendance, which is critical to Long Island and
New Jersey shore resorts, will not be affected by dumping at
either of the alternate areas (Section IIG).
2. Effect on Population Growth in the New York-New Jersey
Metropolitan Area
The proposed action is not expected to influence popu-
lation growth in the metropolitan area. This conclusion is
256
-------
based upon the following observations regarding wastewater
treatment and population in the region:
- The decision to provide secondary treatment by 1977
already has been made and is being implemented in the upgrading
of existing facilities and the construction of new ones.
- The metropolitan area is receiving sewerage service;
the service area is fixed and cannot physically be expanded.
- The population in the metropolitan area is not expect-
ed to increase significantly during the next ten years and may
even decline. There is no reason to believe that population
densities will change in the region.
- The method of sludge disposal does not appear to con-
trol, either directly or indirectly, the attractiveness of liv-
ing in the metropolitan area.
- Increased costs due to the proposed action are insig-
nificant when considering total costs for municipal services.
- Water quality in the metropolitan area should improve
as a result of upgrading wastewater treatment. However, this
cannot be considered a significant factor in attracting people
to the area.
3. International Legal Implications
The proposed action would continue the practice of
dumping sewage sludge from the United States in international
waters. The United States has established defacto control,
based upon and mineral resource development, out to the edge of
the continental shelf at the 100 m (328 ft) depth contour and
257
-------
approximately 85 km (110 n mi) from the Apex. The proposed
areas are well within this zone of control.
In February 1976, the United States Senate passed a
bill to establish a 200-mile (371 km) fisheries limit. If full
legislative action is taken on this bill, it will go into effect
in 1977. The UNLOS III Conference may produce similar interna-
tional controls (Section IIF).
258
-------
VIII. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
SHOULD THE PROPOSED ACTION BE IMPLEMENTED
The proposed action will adversely affect the benthos
at and near an alternate dump site in either the Northern or
Southern Area. Sludge dumping will add heavy metals (cadmium,
chromium, lead, zinc, and possibly nickel), bacteria (fecal and
total coliforms), and organic matter to the marine environment.
As the benthic community adapts to these polluted conditions, it
will become less diverse, that is, composed of fewer species.
Only those species that can tolerate the altered environment at
and near the dump site will flourish.
Effects on the benthos will be severe, but localized.
Only a small percentage of the sludge solids that are dumped are
expected to actually reach the bottom. Most of the sludge will
remain suspended in the water column, where it will be subject
to degradation by pelagic (free-swimming) organisms.
Sludge dumping will cause bacterial and viral contam-
ination of shellfish (surf clams, ocean quahogs, and sea scal-
lops) at and near the dump site. Benthic organisms, especially
shellfish, will also concentrate heavy metals from the sludge in
their tissues. To prevent public health hazards from contamina-
ted shellfish, it may be necessary to prohibit shellfishing ,in
the vicinity of the dump site.
Under stormy conditions, sludge particles that have
settled on the bottom may be resuspended and transported to
adjacent areas. However, sensitive marine resource areas, such
259
-------
as the Hudson Shelf Valley, are far enough from both the North-
ern and Southern Areas to remain uncontaminated by transported
sludge.
Sludge dumping will produce floatables (oil, grease,
and artifacts) in the vicinity of the dump site. None of this
material is expected to reach the beaches of Long Island or New
Jersey, even under the most extreme weather conditions.
260
-------
IX. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S
ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-
TERM PRODUCTIVITY
The proposed action will allow the timely implementa-
tion of land-based sludge disposal methods in the New York-New
Jersey metropolitan area. At the same time, it will prevent
public health hazards and water quality degradation along the
shores of Long Island and New Jersey. On the other hand, the
proposed action will adversely affect the relatively pristine
waters at the alternate dump site. Effects on the benthos will
be particularly severe. After sludge dumping is terminated, the
alternate dump site area is expected to recover to former levels
of productivity and species diversity. However, the time needed
for recovery and the extent of recovery will largely depend upon
the duration of sludge dumping and the volume of sludge dumped.
Abandoning the existing dump site in the Bight Apex
will not insure immediate or even eventual recovery of the area.
Contamination of the waters by dredged material dumping, muni-
cipal wastewater discharges, combined sewer and stormwater
runoff, and other discharges to coastal and harbor waters will
continue. The area around the existing dump site will probably
remain closed to shellfishing for many years. Although the
existing dump site is seriously polluted, its continued use will
not endanger public health or welfare or degrade water quality
along the shores of Long Island or New Jersey.
261
-------
Interim use of an alternate dump site in either the
Northern or Southern Area will have both short-term and long-
term effects on the marine environment. During a dumping opera-
tion, dissolved oxygen concentrations in the water column will
decrease as soon as sludge is introduced. Shortly after dumping
ceases, dissolved oxygen will return to ambient saturation con-
centrations. Concentrations of dissolved heavy metals in the
water column will be slightly elevated during and for a short
time after sludge dumping. A long-term effect of sludge dumping
will be increased concentrations of heavy metals and organic
carbon in sediments.
For the short-term, sludge dumping at a site in the
Southern Area may interfere with the potential development of
mineral resources (oil and gas, sand and gravel). Gravel de-
posits at the existing dump site are contaminated and may remain
unusable for many years after dumping at the site is terminated.
Certainly for the short-term and possibly for the
long-term, sludge dumping at a site in the Southern Area will
prohibit the further development of this area's commercially
valuable shellfish resources. Whether short-term or long-term
closure of the area to shellfishing is necessary will depend on
the duration of sludge dumping, the volume of sludge dumped, and
the consequent effects.
For the short-term, use of an alternate dump site in
either the Northern or Southern Area will pose greater naviga-
tion hazards than does use of the existing dump site. The
262
-------
navigation hazard will increase because more and longer trips to
the dump site will be nedessary. The highest hazard potential
may be expected in the Southern Area if plans to develop the
offshore oil and gas resources adjacent to the Southern Area are
realized.
-------
X. IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION
SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED
The major irreversible and irretrievable resource
commitment involved in implementing the proposed action is the
cost. Sludge transportation costs will increase by 56 to 69
percent during the interim period (1976 through 1981). Permit-
tees will have to pay an additional 27 to> 33 million dollars -to
use an alternate dump site in either the Northern or Southern
Area. These are costs over and above the total transportation
costs (48 million dollars) that would be associated with con-
tinued use of the existing dump site in the Bight Apex for the
same period. Expansion of the existing sludge transportation
fleet (Table 6) will not be necessary to implement the proposed
action. The total capacity of the existing fleet is sufficient
to transport the projected 1981 sludge volumes (Table 9) to
either proposed area.
The only other irreversible and irretrievable resource
commitment is the sludge itself. The sludge dumped into the
ocean during the interim period will be lost to beneficial uses,
such as land application and use as fuel. However, the benefic-
ial use of sludge is not immediately implementable, and storing
the sludge until it can be used beneficially might be hazardous
to the public health.
Use of an alternate dump site in either proposed area
will not result in irreversible damage to the area or the as-
264
-------
sociated marine resources. Sludge dumping will cause short-term
impairment of marine productivity at and near the dump site.
However, eventual recovery of the area to previous levels of
productivity is expected after sludge dumping is terminated.
265
-------
XI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. SUMMARY OF GENERAL BACKGROUND
1. The New York Bight (Figure 1) encompasses some ex-
tremely valuable marine resources. The Bight currently is used
for commercial and sport fishing, navigation, swimming, and re-
creational boating. It is used for the ultimate disposal of
municipal and industrial waste materials, either through ocean
dumping or through outfall discharges at the shoreline. In ad-
dition, it has the potential for development of mineral re-
sources (oil and gas, sand and gravel), offshore power generat-
ing facilities, and deepwater ports.
2. Historically, the New York-New Jersey metropolitan
area has used the New York Bight for disposal of its "hard-to-
treat" waste materials. For example, in 1975, 4.7 million cu m
(6.1 million cu yd) of dredged material, 3.7 million cu m (4.8
million cu yd) of sewage sludge, 2.0 million cu m (2.6 million
cu yd) of acid wastes, 130 thousand cu m (170 thousand cu yd) of
cellar dirt, and 554 thousand cu m (725 thousand cu yd) of chem-
ical wastes were dumped at sites in and adjacent to the Bight.
3. It is EPA's stated intention to phase out ocean
dumping of all municipal and industrial wastes by 1981, provided
that the alternative methods of disposal are environmentally
acceptable, technically feasible, and economically reasonable.
It is EPA's policy not to issue an ocean dumping permit to any
municipal or industrial waste generator who is not under a
266
-------
schedule to develop and implement an acceptable land-based dis-
posal alternative.
4. An EPA-funded study is being conducted by the In-
terstate Sanitation Commission (ISC) to develop a Regional plan
for disposal of municipal sludges which are currently dumped in
the ocean. This New York-New Jersey Metropolitan Area Sludge
Disposal Management Plan, which is sponsored by the States of
New York and New Jersey and by EPA, is scheduled for completion
in September 1976. All municipal ocean dumping permittees in
the metropolitan area are required either to participate in this
plan or to develop and implement their own alternative disposal
method.
Phase 1 of the ISC study recommended two basic dis-
posal systems: 1) filter-press dewatering and incineration
and/or eventual pyrolysis with maximum energy recovery, and 2)
land application where sufficient demand exists for a soil con-
ditioner or fertilizer produced from sludge, and where the ap-
plication rate amply protects public health and welfare. This
Phase 1 study concluded that the pyrolysis system could not be
implemented before 1985. However, a less favorable alternative,
using multiple hearth incinerators which eventually could be
converted to pyrolysis units, could be implemented by 1981 pro-
vided that no major legal-institutional problems developed.
Phase 2 of the ISC study is an in-depth investigation
of environmental, technical, and economic aspects of the alter-
natives recommended in Phase 1, and Phase 3 is a study of
267
-------
legal-institutional problems. The Phase 2 and Phase 3 reports
are scheduled for completion in mid-1976; they will be used to
prepare the final Sludge Disposal Management Plan.
5. In general/ the volume of sludge dumped at the
existing sewage sludge dump site has steadily risen since initi-
al designation of the site in 1924. Current projections indi-
cate that, if municipal facilities construction program sched-
ules are maintained, the volume of sludge will increase from
approximately 5.1 million cu m (6.7 million cu yd) in 1976 to
10.2 million cu m (13.3 million cu yd) in 1981. This is about
a twofold increase.
6. The sludges that are now being dumped in the
ocean contain high concentrations of heavy metals (cadmium,
lead, mercury, zinc, etc.), which are attributed to the large
industrial wastewater contributions to municipal systems in the
metropolitan area. The EPA Pretreatmeht regulations and guide-
lines, which are aimed at removing industrial pollutants prior
to discharge to municipal systems, have not yet been promul-
gated. A significant reduction in the heavy metals content of
municipal sludges is anticipated after these regulations and
guidelines are promulgated (expected by 1977) and enforced via
municipal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits.
7. The anticipated increase in the volume of sewage
sludge to be ocean dumped, its potential adverse environmental
impacts, and the timeframe for implementation of land-based al-
268
-------
ternatives necessitated a study of alternate dump sites. In
1974, EPA and NOAA jointly recommended two mid-shelf areas, the
Northern and Southern Areas (Figure 7) , as possible locations
for an alternate sewage sludge dump site. Oceanographic studies
in these areas were conducted by NOAA. These studies were aug-
mented by baseline data collected in a portion of the Northern
Area by the Raytheon Company under contract to EPA.
B. COMPARATIVE EVALUATION BETWEEN A NORTHERN OR SOUTHERN
ALTERNATE DUMP SITE AND THE EXISTING DUMP SITE
1. Table 32 compares the environmental impacts asso-
ciated with use of a dump site in the Northern Area, use of a
dump site in the Southern Area, and continued use of the exist-
ing dump site.
2. Dumping at a site within the Northern Area would
result in moderate impacts upon the local marine ecosystem.
However, impacts on the benthos (bottom marine organisms) prob-
ably would be severe. Closure to shellfishing of the area in
and adjacent to the dump site would result in a slight economic
loss. Travel time and transportation costs would increase
greatly over present time and costs. Threats to the public
health or welfare and/or degradation of coastal water quality
associated with use of this area would not be expected.
3. Dumping at a site within the Southern Area would
result in moderate to severe impacts upon the marine ecosystem.
Impacts on the benthos probably would be severe. Closure to
269
-------
TABLE 32
NJ
^J
O
Affected Component
A. Impacts on Public Health
and Water Quality
1. Swimming
2. Shellfish
3. Floatables
4. Hazards to Naviga-
tion
B. Impacts on the Ecosystem
1. Benthos
2. Fisheries Resources
3. Plankton
A. Short Dumping
5. Recovery
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF A NORTHERN OR SOUTHERN ALTERNATE DUMP SITE AND THE EXISTING DUMP SITE
Northern Area Southern Area Existing Dump Site
Slight potential effects.
Very slight potential effects.
Slight potential effects.
Virtually no potential for pathogen con- Virtually no potential for pathogen con-
tamination of swimming beaches. tamination of swimming beaches.
Slight potential for consumption of con-
taminated shellfish as the area does not
have commercially abundant quantities of
surf clams or ocean quahogs.
Very slight potential for floatables
reaching beach.
Increased barge traffic, especially
through the Precautionary Zone
(Figure 5).
Potentially moderate impacts.
A high probability for severe modifica-
tion of the benthic community.
Slight loss, due to closure, of non-
commercial shellfish resources.
Very slight impacts; stimulation of pro-
ductivity may be offset by toxic effects
and turbidity.
Slight impact upon offshore Long Island
waters along the Nantucket Navigational
Lane.
Moderate potential for recovery of the
site following cessation of dumping.
Moderate potential for consumption of
contaminated shellfish as the area has
commercially abundant quantities of
surf clams.
Very slight potential for floatables
reaching beach.
Increased barge traffic, especially
through the Precautionary Zone
(Figure 5). Potential interference
with future oil and gas development.
Slight potential for contamination of
swimming beaches; no more significant
than exists at present.
No potential for consumption of conta-
minated shellfish as the area is closed
to shellfishing (Figure 22).
Slight potential for floatables reach-
ing beach.
Increased barge traffic, especially
through the Precautionary Zone
(Figure 5).
Potentially moderate to severe impacts. Slight impacts.
A high probability for severe modifica-
tion of the benthic community.
Moderate loss, due to closure, of com-
mercially valuable shellfish resources.
Very slight impacts; stimulation of pro-
ductivity may be offset by toxic effects
and turbidity.
Moderate impact upon Hudson Canyon along
the Hudson Canyon Navigational Lane.
Moderate potential for recovery of the
site following cessation of dumping.
No significant degradation beyond the
present state.
Slight impact on shellfish resources,
no loss beyond present closure areas.
Slight impact, if any.
Very slight Impact.
Very low potential for recovery if site
is moved now or if it is used in the
interim.
-------
TABLE 32 (Continued)
COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF A NORTHERN OR SOUTHERN ALTERNATE DUMP SITE AND THE EXISTING DUMP SITE
Affected Component
C. Economic Impacts
1. Sludge Transportation
Costs
2. Commercial Fishing
3. Mineral Resource
Development
4. Loss of Sludge as a
Resource
D. Impact of Other Dumping
Activities
E. Miscellaneous Impacts
1. Marine Related Re-
creation
2. Population Growth
3. International Legal
Implications
Northern Area
Greatly increased transportation costs.
A 56 to 69 percent increase in sludge
transportation costs.
Very slight potential for impact upon
commercial shellfishlng
(see A. 2 above and Figure 18).
No potential resources identified
(Figure 6).
No real potential for beneficial use
during the short-term future.
Potentially severe impact if dredged
material dumping were to occur.
No effect.
No potential for reaching beaches or
near-shore waters.
No anticipated effect.
Potential problem in controlling inter-
national fishing in the vicinity.
Southern Area
Greatly Increased transportation costs
and potential conflicts with commercial
shellfishing and mineral resource de-
velopment.
A 56 to 69 percent increase in sludge
transportation costs.
Significant potential for interference
with shellfish catches, especially surf
clams, shoreward of the area
(see A.2 above and Figure 18).
Potential conflict with (sand and gra-
vel, oil and gas) resource development
(Figure 6).
NO real potential for beneficial use
during the short-term future.
Potentially severe impact if dredged
material dumping were to occur.
No effect.
No potential for reaching beaches or
near-shore waters.
No anticipated effect.
Potential problem in controlling Inter-
national fishing in the vicinity.
Existing Dump Site
No significant secondary effects.
No Increase in sludge transportation
costs besides short-term inflation.
Closed to commercial shellfishing
(Figure 22).
No effect since sand and gravel de-
posits are already contaminated.
No real potential for beneficial use
during the short-term future.
Area already contaminated by dredged
material.
No effect.
Very slight potential for reaching
beaches and near-shore waters.
No anticipated effect.
Existing site is within the interna-
tional 22.2 km (12 n ml) pollution con-
trol limit.
The affected components and the effects are discussed in much greater detail in Chapter VII of this EIS. Only the most significant effects are
summarized here.
-------
shellfishing of the area in and adjacent to the dump site would
result in a severe economic loss. In addition, conflicts would
occur with development of mineral resources in and adjacent to
this area. Travel time and transportation costs would increase
greatly over present time and costs. Threats to the public
health or welfare and/or degradation of coastal water quality
associated with use of this area would not be expected.
4. Continued dumping of present volumes of sewage
sludge at the existing dump site would result in slight addi-
tional adverse environmental impact. However, continued dumping
of present volumes of sludge would not represent a significant
threat to the public health or welfare and/or a degradation of
coastal water quality.
C. CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE CONTINUED USE OF THE EXISTING
SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMP SITE
1. Monitoring studies by EPA, NOAA, FDA, and the Town
of Hempsted (Section VB) show that sewage sludge dumping at the
existing site has not significantly affected the water quality
off Long Island or New Jersey beaches. Where contamination of
beach quality has occurred, it appears to have been the result
of raw and inadequately treated wastewater discharges, combined
sewer and stormwater runoff, and other discharges to coastal and
harbor waters.
2. Dumping of current volumes of sewage sludge will
not have a significant effect on the rather limited benthic
community at the existing site. The benthic community would not
272
-------
recover in the near future if the existing site were abandoned.
Furthermore, areas not closed to shellfishing would not be re-
opened in the near future even if the existing site were aban-
doned.
3. Continued dumping of present volumes of sewage
sludge at the existing site will not have a significant addi-
tional effect on water quality in the Bight Apex. Preliminary
studies (Mueller and Jeris, unpub.) of pollutant loadings into
the Bight Apex indicate that loadings associated with sewage
sludge dumping are small (5 percent) in comparison to those
associated with dredged material dumping or other pollutant
sources (Hudson River input). However, pollutant loadings from
dumped sewage sludge are significant and are adversely impacting
the benthic community, especially in the vicinity of the dump
site.
4. Small quantities of floatables (oil, grease, and
artifacts) derived from sewage sludge are present at the exist-
ing dump site for short periods immediately after dumping oc-
curs. There is no direct evidence that the washup of floatables
on Long Island and New Jersey is attributable to sewage sludge
dumping; the probability that these materials result directly
from sludge dumping activities is low.
5. Increased volumes of sewage sludge to be ocean
dumped represent a ^potential increase in navigational hazards
due to the greater number of trips that will have to be made to
the existing dump site, which is located in the Nantucket Navi-
gational Lane.
273
-------
6. Potential adverse environmental impacts of dumping
increased volumes of sewage sludge at the existing site are re-
lated to the dispersive characteristics and the assimilative
capacity of the Bight Apex waters, which are unknown. There-
fore, an expanded program is needed to monitor the impact, espe-
cially along the Long Island and New Jersey beaches, and in the
Hudson Shelf Valley, of continued dumping at the existing site.
Such a monitoring program can be used as a decision-making mech-
anism for phasing out or abandoning use of the existing dump
site to prevent any further significant adverse environmental
impacts.
D. CONCLUSIONS REGARDING DUMPING FURTHER OFFSHORE AT EITHER
ALTERNATE DUMP SITE AREA
1. Heavy metal, toxic organic, and microbiological
contamination of bottom sedimerit in and near a new dump site
will occur after initial use. However, smothering of benthic
organisms is not likely to occur, unless dredged material also
is dumped there.
2. Dissolved oxygen concentrations in the water col-
umn at a new site may undergo short-term decreases following
dumping, but these are not likely to significantly affect the
ecosystem.
3. The composition of the benthic fauna at a new site
may change; the benthic biomass will likely increase in popula-
tion, but decrease in diversity.
274
-------
4. Use of a new dump site will result in greatly in-
creased travel time,, transportation costs, monitoring costs, and
costs associated with U.S. Coast Guard surveillance.
5. Closure by FDA of areas in and near a new dump
site to shellfish harvesting, based on potential bacterial con-
tamination, will probably occur.
6. There is an increased probability that short dump-
ing, including emergency dumping, will occur. Increased man-
power and equipment will be needed by the U.S. Coast Guard to
provide adequate surveillance against illegal dumping.
7. Since the alternate areas lie within international
waters, minor problems with regard to legal control of dumping
and commercial fishing may arise. Use of a new dump site will
increase the potential for human consumption of contaminated
v
shellfish that have been illegally harvested.
8. Increased transportation time in open ocean
waters will increase navigation hazards.
9. Sites can be chosen within each alternate area
that will mitigate impacts on the living marine resources of the
Hudson Shelf Valley. Water column transport of dumped sludge
from either area to the Hudson Shelf Valley is possible, but
unlikely.
10. Even if greatly increased volumes of sludge are
dumped in either area, adverse impacts on coastal water quality
are not expected.
11. The water quality of the Bight Apex will not be
significantly improved by implementing the proposed action be-
275
-------
cause the vast majority of pollutants entering the Apex are from
other sources: primarily dredged material dumping, inland run-
off, and wastewater discharges.
E. CONCLUSIONS REGARDING SELECTION OF A NEW SEWAGE SLUDGE
DUMP SITE
1. Designation and use of a site in each of the al-
ternate areas will result in potential adverse impacts (see pre-
vious conclusions) in two separate, relatively pristine areas,
rather than in one.
2. The comparative evaluation of the alternate areas
is summarized in Table 32. The major differences between opti-
mum sites in the Northern and Southern Areas are:
- The Southern Area has greater existing and potential
shellfish resources than does the Northern Area. Thus, dumping
would have a greater adverse impact if a site were designated in
the Southern Area.
- The Southern Area contains or is adjacent to poten-
tial mineral resources. Dumping activities in this area could
conflict with the development of these resources and could com-
pound the potential impacts on the environment.
3. If an alternate sewage sludge dump site is to be
designated, it should be located in the Northern rather than in
the Southern Area.
F. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The development and implementation of land-based
alternatives, which are environmentally acceptable, technically
276
-------
feasible, and economically reasonable, should be carried forth
as expeditiously as possible.
2. The existing sewage sludge dump site should con-
tinue to be used.
3. An expanded monitoring program and review process
should be developed to determine when and if environmental fac-
tors warrant the phasing out or abandonment of the existing dump
site. This decision-making process should be directed at the
protection of public health and welfare and at the prevention of
coastal water quality degradation. In general, the monitoring
program should include comprehensive sampling of appropriate
parameters upon which a decision to phase out or abandon the
existing dump site can be based. In addition, the program
should be designed to differentiate between pollutant sources in
the Bight Apex.
4. An alternate dump site should be designated in the
Northern Area for potential use if and when the existing dump
site is abandoned or its use is phased out (Figure 42). This
site should be a square, roughly 31 sq km (9 sq n mi) with cen-
ter coordinates at 72°42' W longitude and 40°12'N latitude, at a
depth of 55 m (180 ft). The center of this recommended site is
about 61 km (33 n mi) south of Long Island, about 111 km (60 n
mi) east of New Jersey, about 45 km (24 n mi) from the Hudson
Shelf Valley, and about 111 km (60 n mi) from the Sandy Hook-
Rockaway Point transect.
277
-------
RECOMMENDED
ALTERNATE
10 0 10 20 30
I I I I I
KILOMETERS
MILES (STATUTE)
0 10 20
NAUTICAL MILES
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATE DUMP SITE
'CENTER COORDINATES OF RECOMMENDED DUMP SITE
ARE
FIGURE 42
-------
5. This site offers the following advantages:
- It is located in a deep section. Thus, because of
its greater depth, there will be a low potential for resuspen-
sion of bottom sediments due to surface and/or internal waves,
and wind-driven currents. In addition, nearby deeper troughs of
the Long Island Shelf Valley will act as potential traps for
sludge contaminants, inhibiting the bottom transport of conta-
minants into adjacent areas.
- It is distant from the Long Island and New Jersey
shorelines and from the Hudson Shelf Valley. The Long Island
beaches are located up drift of the prevailing coastal currents.
Thus, it is an optimum location with a very low potential for
transport of contaminants to either the coastal areas or the
Hudson Shelf Valley.
- It has neither significant biological resources
(shellfish) nor known potential mineral resources (oil and gas,
sand and gravel).
- Oceanographic studies, including those of NOAA and
the Raytheon Company, provide a data base for future trend as-
sessments, if the site is actually used.
6. The existing method of ocean dumping, uniform dis-
charge in the transportation vessel's wake, should be continued.
7. Studies of the oceanographic conditions and char-
acteristics of the New York Bight by NOAA should be expanded to
bring a clearer understanding of this complex ecosystem. To
this end, studies by the NOAA-MESA New York Bight Project should
279
-------
be supported, especially studies on pollutant loading and the
dispersive and assimilative characteristics of Bight waters.
8. The environmental impact of ocean dumping by the
COE at the existing dredged material dump site should be studied
in detail. Studies of alternatives by the COE should be expe-
dited in order to eliminate the ocean dumping of dredged mater-
ial as soon as possible.
280
-------
ABBREVIATIONS USED
BOD
BLM
cm
cm/sec
COD
CFR
cu m
cu yd
°C
oF
EIS
FWPCAA
ft
FDA
in
in/sec
ISC
kg
kg/day
km
MPRSA
MPN
m
biochemical oxygen demand
Bureau of Land Management
centimeter
centimeter per second
chemical oxygen demand
Code of Federal Regulations
cubic meter
cubic yard
degrees Centigrade
degrees Fahrenheit
environmental impact statement
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments
feet
Food and Drug Administration
inches
inches per second
Interstate Sanitation Commission
kilogram
kilogram per day
kilometer
Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972
most probable number
meters
281
-------
ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)
ug/kg
ug/1
y
mg
mg/1
ml
ml/sq m/hr
NASA
NEPA
NOAA
NOAA-MESA
NOAA-NMFS
n mi
OCS
ppm
PVSC
Ib/ac/day
Ib/day
sec
sq
microgram per kilogram or millionth
gram per kilogram
microgram per liter or millionth gram
per liter
micron
milligram or thousandth gram
milligram per liter
milliliter or thousandth liter
milliliter per square meter per hour
National Aeronautic and Space
Admini stration
National Environmental Policy Act
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration-Marine Ecosystems
Analysis
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration-National Marine
Fisheries Service
nautical miles
outer continental shelf
parts per million
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
pounds per acre per day
pounds per day
second
square
282
-------
ABBREVIATIONS (Continued)
SPM
SS
TCH
TKN
TOC
COE
USCG
EPA
EPA-Headquarters
EPA-Region II
UN LOS
suspended particulate matter
suspended solids
total carbohydrates
total Kjeldahl nitrogen
total organic carbon
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Coast Guard
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Headquarters
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region II
United Nations Law of the Sea
283
-------
METRIC EQUIVALENTS OF ENGLISH UNITS
Metric
Centigrade (°C)
centimeter (cm)
centimeters/second (cm/sec)
cubic meters (cu m)
cubic meters/day (cu m/day)
kilogram (kg)
kilometer (km)
kilometer/hour (km/hr)
liter (1)
meter (m)
milliliter/square meter/hour
(ml/sq m/hr)
square kilometer (sq km)
English
Fahrenheit (°F)
inch (in)
inches/second (in/sec)
cubic yards (cu yd)
million gallons per day (mgd)
pound (Ib), ton
mile, nautical mile (n mi)
knot
gallon(g)
foot (ft)
pounds/acre/day
(Ib/ac/day)
square nautical mile (sq n mi)
284
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alexander, J.E. and E.G. Alexander 1975. Chemical Properties:
MESA New York Bight Atlas Monograph Series, Monograph 2
(draft); New York Sea Grant Institute, SUNY, Albany, N.Y.
Apel, J.R., R.L. Charnell and R.J. Blackwell, 1974. Ocean In-
ternal Waves Off the North American Coasts from ERTS-1:
Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Remote
Sensing of the Environment.
Barber, R.T. and D. Krieger, 1970. Growth of Phytoplankton in
Waters from the New York City Sludge Dumping Grounds: 33rd
Annual Meeting of Amer. Soc. of Limnology and Oceanography.
Baxter, R.R., J. T. Kildaw and J.D. Nybart, 1974. Ocean Re-
sources Management; Legal and Policy Aspects - Materials
and Costs: Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the
Law School of Harvard University; Boston Massachusetts.
Beardsley, R.C. and B. Butman, 1974. Circulation on the New
England Continental Shelf: Response to Strong Winter
Storms; Geophysical Research Letters, pp. 181-184.
Beardsley, R.C., W.C. Boicourt and D.V. Hansen, Nov. 3-5, 1975.
Physical Oceanography of the Middle Atlantic Bight: Paper
Presented at Special Symposium on the Middle Atlantic Con-
tinental Shelf and New York Bight, American Museum of
Natural History, New York City; Amer. Soc. of Limnology
and Oceanography.
Benninger, L.K., D.M. Lewis and K.K. Turekian, 1975. The Use
of Natural Pb-210 as a Heavy Metal Tracer in the River-
Estuarine System: Marine Chemistry in the Coastal En-
vironment; Amer. Chem. Soc. of Special Symposium #18,
Washington, D.C.
Bergen County Sewerage Authority, October, 1975. Letter from
John G. Costello, Executive Director, Bergen County Sewer
Authority, Little Ferry, New Jersey to Daniel A. Sullivan,
Senior Environmental Engineer, Environmental Impacts
Branch, USEPA Region II, New York, New York.
Bigelow and Sears, 1936. Studies of the Waters on the Contin-
ental Shelf, Cape Cod to Chesapeake Bay: II Cycle of
Salinity; Popular Physical Oceanography and Meteorology
Vol. 4(1), 94 p.
Bowman, M.J. and L.D. Wunderlich, 1975. Temperature, Salinity,
and Density: MESA New York Bight Atlas Monograph Series,
Monograph 1 (Draft).
285
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
Brewer, P.G., 1975. Minor Elements in Sea Water: In Riley,
J.P. and Skirrow, G. (eds.) Chemical Oceanography, Academic
Press, New York, pp 415-496.
Buelow, R.W., B.H. Pringle and J.L. Verber, 1968. Preliminary
Investigation of Waste Disposal in the New York Bight:
U.S. Dept. H.E.W. Public Health Service, Bureau of Disease
Prevention and Environmental Control; Washington, D.C.
Bumpus, D.F., 1961. Investigations of Climate and Oceanographic
Factors Influencing the Environment of Fish: Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institute, Ref. No. 61-41; Woods Hole,
Massachusetts.
Bumpus, D.F., 1965. Residual Drift Along the Bottom on the Con-
tinental Shelf in the Middle Atlantic Bight Area: Amer.
Soc. of Limnology and Oceanography, Vol. 10: pp. R50-53.
Bumpus, D.F. and L.M. Lauzier, 1965. Surface Circulation on the
Continental Shelf Off Eastern North America Between New-
foundland and Florida: Amer. Geograph. Soc. Serial Atlas
of the Marine Environment, Folio 7, 4 p. 8 pi. App.
Bureau of Land Management, Nov. 1975. Draft Environmental
Statement - Proposed 1976 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and
Gas Lease Sale Offshore the Mid-Atlantic States: OCS Sale
No. 40, Washington, D.C.
Callaway, R.J., et al., unpublished, 1975. Dispersion of Sewage
Sludge DiscEarged from Vessels to New York Bight Waters:
Abstracts from the Special Symposium on the Middle Atlantic
Continental Shelf and New York Bight, Nov. 3-5, 1975,
10-11; Amer. Soc. of Limnology and Oceanography, New York
City.
Carmody, D.J., J.B. Pearce and W.E. Yasso, 1973. Trace Metals
in sediments of New York Bight: Marine Pollution Bull.,
Vol. 4(9), pp. 132-135.
Charlesworth, L.J., 1968. Bay, Inlet and Nearshore Marine Sedi-
mentation: Beach Haven-Little Egg Inlet Region, New Jersey
Pts. 1, 2, 3, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michi-
gan; University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Charnell, R.L., et al., 1974. Utility of ERTS-1 for Coastal
Ocean Observation: The New York Bight Example; Marine
Technology Soc. Jour. Vol. 8, pp. 42-47.
286
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
Charnell, R.L., 1975. Assessment of Offshore Dumping; Technical
Background: Physical Oceanography, Geological Oceanography;
Chemical Oceanography; NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL MESA-
1, Washington, D.C.
Chen, K.Y., et al., 1974. Trace Metals in Wastewater Effluents:
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol.
42(12); pp. 2663-2675.
Corwin, N., 1970. Reduced Data Reports for Atlantis 52 and
Goswold 140: Appendix I, Technical Report, Ref. No. WHOI
170-15; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Woods Hole,
Massachusetts.
Davies, J.E. and R. Rownd, 1972. Transmissible Multiple Drug
Resistance in Enterobacteriaceae: Science, Vol. 176, pp.
758-768.
Dames & Moore, 1975. Final Coastal Process Report, Atlantic
Generating Station (In Press): A Report to Public Service
Electric and Gas Company of New Jersey.
Dames & Moore, Unpublished. Analysis of Current Meter Observa-
tions in a Proposed Dump Site Area of the New York Bight,
Dames & Moore, Cranford, New Jersey.
Dean, D. and H.H. Haskin, 1964. Benthic Repopulation of the
Raritan River Estuary Following Pollution Abatement. Amer.
Soc. of Limnology and Oceanography, Vol. 9(4), pp. 551-
563.
Drake, D. 1974. Suspended Particulate Matter in the New York
Bight: Sept. - Nov. 1973, NOAA-TR-ERL 318-MESA-l; 53 p.,
Washington, D.C.
Duedall, I.W., H.B. Connors and B. Irwin, 1975. Fate of
Wastewater Sludge in the New York Bight Apex: Journal of
the Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 47(11), pp.
2702-2706.
Dunstan, W.M., 1975. Problems of Measuring and Predicting In-
fluence of Effluents on Marine Phytoplankton: Environ-
mental Science and Technology, Vol. 9(7).
Edge, B.L. and B.C. Dysart, 1972. Transport Mechanisms Gov-
erning Sludges and Other Materials Barged to Sea: Clemson
University, Clemson, South Carolina.
EG&G., 1975. Summary of Oceanographic Observations in New
Jersey Coastal Waters Near 39°28'N Latitude and 74°15'W
Longitude During the Period May 1973 through April 1974:
A Report to Public Service Electric and Gas Company,
Newark, New Jersey.
287
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
Emery, K.O., 1966. Atlantic Continental Shelf and Slope of the
United States, Geological Background: U.S. Geol. Surv.,
Prof. Paper 529-A; Washington, D.C., pp. 1-23.
Emery, K.O. and J.S. Schlee, 1963. The Atlantic Continental
Shelf and Slope, a Program for Study: U.S. Geol. Surv.,
Circular 481, Washington, D.C., 11 p.
Emery, K.O. and E. Uchupi, 1972. Western North Atlantic Ocean;
Topography, Rocks, Structure, Water, Life, and Sediments:
Amer. Assoc. of Petroleum Geologists Bull., Memoir 17,
532 p.
Food and Drug Administration, 1972. Preliminary Report, Co-
operative Offshore Water Quality Studies, New York Bight:
April-July 1972, Brooklyn, New York.
FDA, 1973. New York Bight Shellfish Closure Area Map - Vicinity
of Sewage Sludge Dump Site: Brooklyn, New York.
FDA, 1974a. Total and Fecal Coliform Levels in Sediments and
Waters from Stations Between the Sewage Sludge Dump Site
and Long Beach, New York:- Jan. 7, 1974, Brooklyn, New
York.
FDA, 1974b. Total and Fecal Coliform Levels in Waters and
Sediments from the Atlantic and Long Beach Offshore Area of
the New York Bight: Oct. 15-21, 1974, Brooklyn, New York.
FDA, 1975. Conversation between George C. Meyer, Regional
Shellfish Consultant, Shellfish Sanitation Branch, FDA,
Brooklyn, New York and Roger R. Fay, Marine Biologist,
Dames & Moore, New York, New York.
FDA, December 18, 1975. Letter from James L. Verber, Chief of
Northeast Technical Services Unit, Shellfish Sanitation
Branch, FDA, Davisville, Rhode Island.
Feary, T.W., A.B. Sturtevant, and J. Lanford, 1972. Antibiotic
Resistant Coliforms in Fresh and Salt Water: Arch.
Environmental Health, Vol. 24, pp. 215-220.
Garrison, L.E. and R.C. McMaster, 1966. Sediments and Geo-
morphology of the Continental Shelf off Southern New
England: Marine Geology, Vol. 14, pp. 273-289.
General Marine Transportation Corporation, July 6, 1975. Let-
ter of Data Transmittal from the General Marine Trans.
Corp. to Dr. Barry J. Berdahl, Proj. Mgr., Dames & Moore,
New York, N.Y.
288
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
Greene, M., 1974. Study of Physical, Settling, and Thickening
Characteristics of a Sludge: Pacific Northwest Environ-
mental Research Laboratory; NIIS Acquisition No. PB-241-
231.
Greig, R.D., et al., 1974. Distribution of Five Metals in
Sediments from the New York Bight: Middle Atlantic Coastal
Fisheries Center; Informal Report No. 36.
Greig, R. and J.B. Pearce, 1975. Further Analyses of Heavy
Metals in Sediments Collected from the Outer New York
Bight: Middle Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Center; In-
formal Report No. 63.
Gross, M.G., 1972a. Marine Waste Deposits near New York:
Marine Pollution Bull. Vol. 3(4), pp. 61-63.
Gross, M.G., 1972b. Geologic Aspects of Waste Solids and Ma-
rine Waste Deposits: Geol. Soc. of Amer. Bull. Vol. 84, pp.
3163-3174.
Haight, F.J., 1942. Coastal Currents Along the Atlantic Coast
of the United States: U.S. Coast and Geod. Surv. Special
Publ. No. 230, Washington, D.C.
Hardy, C.D., E.R. Baylor and Moscowitz, 1975. Sea Surface
Circulation in the Northwest Apex of the New York Bight,
Parts I and II: Part II - Diagrams and Data for Seabed
Drifters, with Appendix-Bottom Drift Over the Continental
Shelf of NYB, (draft to NOAA).
Hatcher, P.G. and L.E. Keister, 1975. Carbohydrates and Or-
ganic Carbon in New York Bight Sediments as Possible In-
dicators of Sewage Contamination: Abstracts from the
Special Symposium on the Middle Atlantic Continental Shelf
and New York Bight; Amer. Soc. of Limnology and Oceano-
graphy, pp. 31-33, New York, N.Y.
Hathaway, J.C., 1971. Data file, Continental Margin Program,
Atlantic Coast'of the United States; Vol. 2, Sample
Collection and Analytical Data: Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institute Technical Report 71-115, 496 p. (unpublished
manuscript).
Hilovsky, E.M. and F.K. Szucs, 1975. Dynamics of Waste Dis-
persion of Dissolved Heavy Metals in the New York Bight
Area: Geol. Soc. of Amer. Abstracts, Northeastern Sec-
tion, p. 74.
289
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
Hollister, C.D., 1973. Atlantic Continental Shelf and Slope of
the United States - Texture of Surface Sediments, New
Jersey to Southern Florida: U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper
529-M.
Interstate Electronics Corporation, 1973. Ocean Waste Disposal
in the New York Bight, Report 4461C1557: IEC, Oceanics
Division, Anabeim, California.
Interstate Sanitation Commission, 1975. Phase 1 Report of
Technical Alternatives to Ocean Disposal of Sludge in the
New York-New Jersey Metropolitan Area: Prepared by Camp,
Dresser & McKee and Alexander Potter Associates, Boston,
Massachusetts.
Joint Meeting of Essex and Union Counties, September 10, 1975.
Letter from Edward P. Decker, Executive Director, Joint
Meeting of Essex and Union Counties, Irvington, New Jersey
to Daniel A. Sullivan, Environmental Engineer, Environmen-
tal Impacts Branch, USEPA-Region II, New York, N.Y.
Ketchum, B.H. (Ed), 1972. The Waters Edge-Control Problems
of the Coastal Zone: Coastal Zone Workshop-1972, Woods
Hole Oceanographic Institute, MIT Press; Boston, Massachu-
setts.
Koditschek, L.K. and P. Guyre, 1974a. Antimicrobial-Resistant
Coliforms in New York Bight: Marine Pollution Bull.
Vol. 5, (5), pp. 71-74.
Koditschek, L.K. and P. Guyre, 1974b. Resistance Transfer Fe-
cal Coliforms Isolated from the Whippany River: Water Re-
sources, Vol. 8, pp. 747-752.
Koditschek, L.K. and P. Guyre, 1975. Antimicrobial Resistant
Bacteria Isolated from Sediments at the Sewage Dump Site
in the New York Bight: Paper Presented at the Special
Symposium - the Middle Atlantic Continental Shelf and
New York Bight; Amer. Mus. of Nat. His. November 1975.
Lavelle, J.W., G.H. Keller, and T.L. Clark, 1975. Possible
Bottom Current Response to Surface Winds in the Hudson
Shelf Channel: Jour, of Geophys. Res. Vol. 80, pp. 1953-
1956.
Lear, D.W. (ed.), 1973. Supplemental Report, Environmental
Survey of Two Interim Dump Sites: Middle Atlantic Bight;
Operation Fetch: NTIS Acquis. No. PB 239 257.
290
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
Lear, D.W., and G.G. Pesch, 1975. Effects of Ocean Disposal
Activities on Mid-Continental Shelf Environment Off Dela-
ware and Maryland: NTIS Acquis. No. PB 239 256.
Lee, A.J., D.J. Bumpus, and L.M. Lauzier, 1965. The Sea-Bed
Drifter: ICNAF Res. Bull. No. 2.
McCave, I.N. 1972, Transport and Escape of Fine-Grained Sedi-
ments from Shelf areas, in Swift, Duane and Pilkey eds.
Shelf Sediment Transport: Process and Pattern, Douten,
Hutchinson and Ross Inc. pp 656.
McClennen, C.E., 1973. New Jersey Continental Shelf Near Bot-
tom Current Meters Records and Recent Sediment Activity:
Journal of Sedimentary Petrology; Vol. 43 (2), pp. 371-
380.
McClennen, C.E. and R.L. McMaster, 1971. Probable Holocene
Transgression Effects in the Geomorphic Features of the
Continental Shelf Off New Jersey, United States: Maritime
Sediments, Vol. 7, pp. 69-72.
McGraw, D.J., 1969. Continuation of the Investigation of Waste
Disposal in the New York Bight: U.S. Dept. of H.E.W.,
Public Health Service, FDA - Shellfish Sanitation Branch
Report.
McHugh, J.L., 1975. (Personal Communication), Professor of
Marine Environmental Studies, State University of New
York, Stony Brook, New York.
McKinney, T.F., 1975. Regional Geomorphology of the Inner New
Jersey Shelf (In Press): Proceedings of the Seminars on
Pollution and Water Resources, Columbia University.
McKinney, T.F. and G.M. Friedman, 1970. Continental Shelf Sed-
iments Off Long Island, New York: Journal of Sedimentary
Petrology, Vol. 40, pp. 213-248.
McKinney, T.F., W.L. Stubblefield and D.J.P. Swift, 1974. Large
Scale Current Lineations on the Great Egg Shoal Retreat
Massif, New Jersey Shelf: Investigations by Sidescan
Sonar; Marine Geology, Vol. 17, pp. 79-102.
McNulty, J.K., 1970. Effects of Abatement of Domestic Sewage
Pollution on the Benthos, Volumes of Zooplankton, and Foul-
ing Organisms of Biscayne Bay, Florida: Studies in Tropi-
cal Oceanography, Vol. 9, p. 107.
291
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
Maclntyre, I.G. and O.K. Pilkey, 1969. Preliminary Comments on
Linear Sand-Surface Features, Onslow Bay, North Carolina
Continental Shelf: Problems in Making Detailed Sea-Floor
Observations. Maritime Sediments, Vol. 5, pp. 26-29.
MacKay, D.W., W. Halcrow and I. Thornton, 1972. Sludge Dumping
in the Firth of Clyde: Marine Pollution Bull. Vol. 3, pp.
7-9.
Mahoney, J.B., F.H. Midlige and D.G. Deuell, 1973. A Fin Rot
Disease of Marine and Euryhaline Fishes in the New York
Bight: Transactions of the Amer. Fish. Soc., Vol. 102(3),
pp. 596-605.
Malone, T.C., 1975. Plankton Systematics and Distribution:
MESA New York Bight Atlas Monograph Series; Monograph 13
(Draft).
Manheim, F.T., R.H. Meade, and G.C. Bond, 1970. Suspended Mat-
ter in Surface Waters of the Northern Gulf of Mexico:
Amer. Soc. of Limnology and Oceanography, Vol. 17, pp.
17-27.
Marine Technology Society Journal, July 1974. Special Law of
the Sea Issue.
Meade, R.H., 1969, Landward Transport of Bottom Sediments in
Estuaries of the Atlantic Coastal Plain: Journal of Sedi-
mentary Petrology, Vol. 39, pp. 222-234.
Meade, R.H., 1972. Sources and Sinks of Suspended Matter on
Continental Shelves: In Swift, D.J.P., Duane, D.B.,
and Pilkey, O.K. (eds.), 1972; Shelf Sediment Transport;
Process and Pattern; Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc.
Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania: pp. 249-262.
Meade, R.H., et al., 1975. Sources of Suspended Matter in
Waters of tEe Middle Atlantic Bight: Journal of Sediment-
ary Petrology, Vol. 45(1), pp. 171-188.
Medcof, T.C. and R.A. Chandler, 1968. Exploring for Uses of
Ocean Quahogs; Obstacles and Opportunities. Fisheries
Resources Board, Canada, Technical Report 101:8 p.
Mendelsohn, J.M., et al., 1970. The Ocean Quahog - A Bountiful
Clam. Food Production and Development, Vol. 4, pp 90-92,
97.
Merrill, A.S. and J.W. Ropes, 1969. The General Distribution
of the Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog: Proceedings of Na-
tional Shellfish Association, Vol 59, pp. 40-45.
292
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
Metcalf & Eddy, 1972. Wastewater Engineering: McGraw-Hill
Publ., New York, N.Y.
Middlesex County Sewerage Authority, Sept. 18, 1975. Let-
ter from Sol Seid, Chief Engineer, Middlesex County Sewer-
age Authority, Sayreville, New Jersey to Daniel A. Sulli-
van, Environmental Engineer, Environmental Impact Branch,
USEPA-Region II, New York, N.Y.
Milliman, J.D., 1972. Marine Geology: in Coastal and Offshore
Environmental Inventory: Cape Hatteras to Nantucket
Shoals; Marine Publication Series No. 3, University of
Rhode Island, Provindence, Rhode Island.
Milliman, J.D., O.H. Pilkey and D.A. Ross, 1972. Sediments of
the Continental Margin off the Eastern United States.
Geol. Soc. of Amer. Bull., Vol. 83, pp. 1315-1334.
Morel, F.M.M., et al., 1975. Fate of Trace Metals in Los An-
geles County Wastewater Discharge: Environmental Science
and Technology, Vol. 9, (8), pp. 756-761.
Mueller, J.A. and J.S. Jeris (Unpublished). Contaminant,Inputs
to the New York Bight: Manhattan College, New York, N.Y.,
360 p.
Murchelano, R. and J. Ziskowski, 1975. Fish Disease Studies
in the New York Bight: Paper Presented at the Special
Symposium. The Middle Atlantic Continental Shelf and New
York Bight; Amer. Mus. of Nat. His., Nov. 1975.
Nassau County, Sept. 18, 1975. Letter from James S. Gillen,
Deputy Commissioner of Public Works, Department of Public
Works, Nassau County, Mineola, New York to Daniel A. Sulli-
van, Environmental Engineer, Environmental Impacts Branch,
USEPA-Region II, New York, N.Y.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Sept. 17,
1974. Letter from David H. Wallace, Associate Administra-
tor for Marine Resources, NOAA, MESA program, Rockville,
Maryland to Gerald M. Hansler, Regional Administrator,
USEPA-Region II, New York, N.Y.
NOAA, March 14, 1975. Letter from David H. Wallace, Associate
Administrator for Marine Resources, NOAA, MESA Program,
Rockville, Maryland to Colonel Thomas C. Hunter, District
Engineer, New York District Corps of Engineers, New York,
N.Y.
293
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
NOAA, Oct. 6, 1975. Letter from David H. Wallace, Associate
Administrator for Marine Resources, NOAA, MESA Program,
Rockville, Maryland to Gerald M. Hansler, Regional Admin-
istrator, USEPA-Region II, New York, N.Y.
NOAA-Marine Eco-System Analyses, March 8, 1974. Letter from
R.L. Swanson, Project Manager, MESA New York Bight Pro-
gram, Stony Brook, New York to Richard T. Dewling,
Director, Surveillance and Analysis Division, USEPA-Region
II, Edison, New Jersey.
NOAA-MESA, April 11, 1974. Letter from Allan Hirsch, Director,
MESA Program, Rockville, Maryland to Richard T. Dewling,
Director, Surveillance and Analysis Division, USEPA-
Region II, Edison, New Jersey.
NOAA-MESA, Aug. 23, 1975. Memorandum from D. Segar to Director
of AOML; Subject: Alternative Dump Site Report.
NOAA-MESA, March 1975. Ocean Dumping in the New York Bight:
NOAA Technical Report, ERL 321-MESA; Rockville, Mary-
land, 78 p.
NOAA-MESA, Sept. 23, 1975. 'Letter from R.L. Swanson, Project
Manager, MESA New York Bight Program, Stony Brook, New York
to Daniel A. Sullivan, Senior Environmental Engineer,
USEPA-Region II, New York, N. Y.
NOAA-MESA, Oct. 16, 1975. Raw Water Column Chemistry Data from
AOML, Miami, sent to Dr. Thomas McKinney, Senior Marine
Geologist, Dames & Moore, Cranford, New Jersey by Paul
Eisen, Data Manager, MESA New York Bight Project, Stony
Brook, New York.
NOAA-MESA, Nov. 1975. Evaluation of Proposed Sewage Sludge
Dump Site Areas in the New York Bight: Draft Report pre-
pared by NOAA-MESA, Stony Brook, New York for the USEPA-
Region II, N.Y.
NOAA-National Marine Fisheries Services, 1972. The Effects of
Waste Disposal in the New York Bight: Nine Sections (NTIS
Acquis. No. AD739531 through 739539); Summary Final Report
(AD743936).
NOAA-NMFS, 1974a. New York Landings, Annual Summary, 1973;
Current Fisheries Statistics No. 6412: NOAA XCFSA-6412,
NA-4.
NOAA-NMFS, 1974b. New Jersey Landings, Annual Summary, 1973;
Current Fisheries Statistics No. 6413: NOAA XCFSA-6413,
NA-5.
294
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
NOAA-NMFS, 1974c. Surf Clam Survey, Cruise Report - NOAA Ship
Delaware II, 13-28 June 1974 and 5-10 August 1974: Middle
Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Center, Oxford, Maryland.
NOAA-NMFS, 1975a. Participation in Marine Recreational Fishing
Northeastern United States, 1973-1974; Current Fisheries
Statistics 6236.
NOAA-NMFS, 1975b. Biological Information Submitted to MESA on
July 3, 1975, for Use in a Report to EPA on Alternative
Dump Sites in NYB (As Revised July 21, 1975): 2 Volumes.
NOAA-NMFS, 1975c. Sea Scallop Survey, Cruise Report - NOAA
Ship Albatross IV, August 7-16, 1975 and Sept. 27-
Oct. 3, 1975: Middle Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Center,
Sandy Hook Laboratory, Highlands, New Jersey.
National Park Service, 1975. Draft Environmental Statement -
Master Plan, Fire Island National Seashore, New York:
U.S. Department of the Interior.
National Park Service, July 1975. Telephone Conversation Be-
tween George Painter, Park Technician, Gateway National Re-
creation Area, Sany Hook, New Jersey and Robert Price, So-
ciologist, Dames & Moore, Cranford, New Jersey.
Newmann, G. and W.J. Pierson, 1966. Principles of Physical
Oceanography: Prentice Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, July 1975.
Telephone Conversation Between Caroline Selmon, Bureau of
Parks, NJDEP, Trenton, New Jersey and Robert Price, Sociol-
ogist, Dames & Moore, Cranford, New Jersey.
New York City Environmental Protection Agency, July 28, 1975.
Letter from Norman R. Melbinger, P.E., Acting Chief, Div.
of Plant Operations, Bureau of Water Pollution Control,
City of New York, N.Y.
New York City Environmental Protection Agency, Oct. 28, 1975.
Letter from Charles Samowitz, Commissioner, Dept. of
Water Resources to Daniel A. Sullivan, Senior Environ-
mental Engineer, Environmental Impact Branch, USEPA-
Region II, New York, N.Y.
295
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
July 1975. Telephone Conversion Between A. Abrams, Park
Supervisor, Robert Moses State Park, Fire Island, New York
and Robert Price, Sociologist, Dames & Moore, Cranford,
New Jersey.
New York Ocean Science Laboratory, 1973. The Oceanography of
the New York Bight: Physical, Chemical, Biological; Tech-
nical Report No. 00017.
New York Times, Dec. 31, 1975. Article, "State Restricts Fish-
ing for Sea Clams."
O'Connors, H.B. and I.W. Duedall, 1975. The Seasonal Variation
in Sources, Concentrations and Impacts of Ammonium in the
New York Bight Apex: Preprint from American Chemical Soci-
ety Symposium Series on Marine Chemistry in the Coastal
Environment.'
Pararas - Carayannis, G., 1973. Ocean Dumping in the New York
Bight - An Assessment of Environmental Studies: U.S.
Army COE, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Technical
Memo No. 39, 159 p.
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners, Sept. 24, 1975. Letter
from S.A. Lubetkin, Chief Engineer, Passaic Valley Sewer-
age Commissioners, Newark, New Jersey to Daniel A. Sulli-
van, Senior Environmental Engineer, Environmental Im-
pacts Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
II, New York, N.Y.
Pearce, J.B., 1970. The Effects of Solid Waste Disposal on
Benthic Communities in the New York Bight: FAO Technical
Conference on Marine Pollution, Rome, 9-18 Dec. 1970.
Pearce, J.B. 1974. Regional Coastal Environmental Considera-
tion for Offshore Power Plants, Sandy Hook to Atlantic
City, N.J., In: J.M. Peres (Ed.), Modifications Thermiques
et Equilibres Biologiques p. 409-477; Institut de La Vie,
Paris.
Pearce, J.B. and D. Radosh, 1975. Benthic Fauna: MESA New
York Bight Atlas Monograph Series, Monograph 14 (Draft)
Pollution Control Industries, Inc., Aug. 15, 1975. Letter
from Christian T." Hoffman Jr., President, PCI, Inc., West
Caldwell, N.J. to Dr. Barry J. Berdahl, Proj. Mgr., Dames
& Moore, New York, N.Y.
296
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
Pratt, S.D., 1973. Benthic Fauna, pp. 5-1 thru 5-70. IN:
Saila, S.B. (Ed.), Coastal and Offshore Environmental
Inventory: Cape Hatteras to Nantucket Shoals; Marine
Publication Series No. 2, Occasional Publication No. 5,
University of Rhode Island, Providence, Rhode Island
Raytheon, 1975a. Cruise 1 Data Report, Baseline Survey - New
York Bight; Sept. 24 - Oct. 5, 1974, Volumes 1-5.
Raytheon, 1975b. Cruise 2 Data Report, Baseline Survey - New
York Bight, April 11 to May 2, 1975; Volumes 1-6.
Raytheon, 1975c. Cruise 3 Data Report. Baseline Survey - New
York Bight, May 18 to 21, 1975; Volumes 1-7.
Rohatgi, N. and K.Y. Chen, 1975. Transport of Trace Metals
by Suspended Particulates on Mixing with Seawater: Journal
WPC, Vol 47 (9), pp. 2298-2316.
Ryther, J. and W. Dunstan, 1971. Nitrogen, Phosphorus and
Eutrophication in Coastal Marine Areas; Science, Vol. 171,
pp. 1008-1013.
Saila, S.B. and S.D. Pratt, 1973. Mid-Atlantic Bight Fisher-
ies, pp. 6-1 thru 6-125. IN: Saila, S.B. (Ed.),
Coastal and Offshore Environmental Inventory: Cape
Hatteras to Nantucket Shoals; Marine Publication Series
No. 2, Occasional Publication No. 5, University of Rhode
Island, Providence, Rhode Island.
Schlee, J. and R.M. Platt, 1970. Atlantic Continental Shelf
and Slope of the United States - Gravels of the Northeast-
ern Part: U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 529-H.
Schlee, J., 1973. Atlantic Continental Shelf and Slope of
the United States - Sediment Texture of the Northeast
Part: U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 529.
Schlee, J., 1975. Sand and Gravel, MESA New York Bight Atlas
Monograph 21: New York Sea Grant Institute, Albany,
New York.
Schubel, J.R. and A. Okubo, 1972. Comments on the Dispersal of
Suspended Sediment Across the Continental Shelves. IN:
Swift, D.J.P., et al., (Eds.), 1972; Shelf Sediment Trans-
port Process and Pattern, Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross,
Inc., Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, pp. 333-346.
297
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
Segar, D.A. and A.Y. Cantillo, 1975. Trace Metals in the
New York Bight: Abstracts From the Special Symposium on
the Middle Atlantic Continental Shelf and New York Bight,
Nov. 3-5, 1975, p. 62. Amer. Soc. of Limnology and
Oceanography, New York, N.Y.
Segar, D.A., G.A. Berberian and P.G. Hatcher, 1975. Oxygen
Depletion in the New York Bight Apex - Causes and Conse-
quences: Abstracts from the Special Symposium on the
Middle Atlantic Continental Shelf and New York Bight,
Nov. 3-5, 1975; p. 61; Amer. Soc. of Limnology and Oceanog-
raphy, New York, N.Y.
Shelton, R.G.U., 1971. Sludge Dumping in the Thames Estuary:
Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 2 (2), pp. 24-27.
Stahl, L., J. Koczan and D.J.P. Swift, 1972. Anatomy of a
Shoreface Connected Ridge System on the New Jersey Shelf:
Implications for the Genesis of the Shelf Surficial Sand
Sheet; Geology, Vol. 2, pp. 117-120.
Stearns, F., 1967. Bathymetric Maps of the New York Bight:
Atlantic Continental Shelf of the United States, Scale
1:125,000; National Ocean Survey, NOAA, Rockville, Mary-
land.
Steele, J., et al., 1973. Pollution Studies in the Clyde Sea
Area: Marine Pollution Bull., Vol. 4 (10), pp. 153-167.
Stubblefield, W.L., M. Dicken and D.J.P. Swift, 1974. Reconnais-
sance of Bottom Sediments on the Inner and Central New Jer-
sey Shelf: MESA Rept. No. 1, NOAA, Rockville, Maryland.
Stubblefield, W.L., et al., 1975. Sediment Response to the
Present Hydraulic Regime on the Central New Jersey Shelf:
Journal of Sedimentary Petrology, Vol. 45, pp. 337-358.
Summers, A.O. and S. Silver, 1972. Mercury Resistance in a
Plasmid Bearing Strain of Escherichia coli; Jour. Bacteri-
ology, Vol. 122, pp. 1228-1236.
Swift, D.J.P., et al., 1972. Holocene Evolution of the Shelf
Surface, Central and Southern Atlantic Shelf of North Amer-
ica: In Swift, D.J.P., Duane, D.B., and Pilkey, O.H.
(Eds.), 1972. Shelf Sediment Transport Process and Pattern;
Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, Pa.,
pp. 499-575.
Swift, D.J.P., D.B. Duane and T.F. McKinney, 1973. Ridge and
Swale Topography of the Middle Atlantic Bight, North Amer-
ica: Secular Response to the Holocene Hydraulic Regime;
Marine Geology, Vol. 15, pp. 227-247.
298
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
Swift, D.J.P., 1974. Continental Shelf Sedimentation: The
Geology of Continental Margins; Springer-Verlag, New York,
N.Y.
Suffolk, County, July 1975. Telephone Conversation Between
Schuyler Corwin, Smith Point County Park, Fire Island,
New York and Robert Price, Sociologist, Dames & Moore,
Cranford, New Jersey.
Thorson, G., 1957. Bottom Communities (Sublettoral or Shallow
Shelf): Geol. Soc. of Amer., Memoir 67 (1), pp. 461-534.
Town of Hemstead, 1974. Ocean Dumping of Sewage Sludge; Its
Effect on the South Shore of Long Island: Town of Hem-
stead, Dept. of Conservation and Waterways, Marine Labora-
tory, Point Lookout, New York, Contribution No. 11.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Dec. 12, 1974. Letter from
Colonel Harry W. Lomard, District Engineer, New York
District Corps of Engineers, New York, N.Y. to Gerald
M. Hansler, Regional Administrator, USEPA-Region II,
New York, N.Y.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, July 14, 1975. Letter from
Colonel Thomas C. Hunter, District Engineer, New York
District Corps of Engineers, New York, N.Y. to Gerald
M. Hansler, Regional Administrator, USEPA-Region II,
New York, N.Y.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, August 24, 1975. Interim Final
Regulations for Permits for Activities in Navigable Waters
or Ocean Waters: Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 144,
pp. 31320-31344.
U.S. Coast Guard, April 8, 1975. Guidelines for Ocean Dumping
Surveillance and Enforcement. Commandant Instruction
5922.9A.
U.S. Coast Guard, April 18, 1975. Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for Deepwater Port Regulations: Deepwater Ports
Project, Office of Marine Environment and Systems, USCG,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Coast Guard, June 2, 1975. Letter to Michael Jones,
Oceanographer, Dames & Moore, Cranford, New Jersey from
Commander James A. Atkinson, Acting Chief, Marine Environ-
mental Protection Division, District Three, U.S. Coast
Guard, Governors Island, New York, N.Y.
299
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
U.S. Coast Guard, July 8, 1975. Telephone Conversation Between
Lt. Fred Rubel, Marine Environmental Protection Division,
District Three, U.S. Coast Guard, Governors Island,
New York, N.Y. and Susan Moore, Environmental Scientist,
Dames & Moore, New York, N.Y.
U.S. Congress, Oct. 14, 1966. Territorial Fisheries Act;
Public Law 89-658, 80 Stat. 908.
U.S. Congress (92nd), Oct. 18, 1972. Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972; Public Law 92-500, 86
Stat. 816.
U.S. Congress (92nd), Oct. 23, 1972. Marine Protection, Re-
search and Sanctuaries Act of 1972; Public Law 92-532,
86 Stat. 1052.
U.S. Department of State, Nov. 20, 1972. Press Release No. 287,
Describing the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pol-
lution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Materials.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Oct. 1971. Process Design
Manual for Solids Removal: Technology Transfer Manual,
prepared by Burns and Roe, Inc., Oradell, New Jersey.
USEPA, April 5, 1973. Ocean Dumping: Interim Regulations for
the Transportation for Dumping and Dumping of Material
Into Ocean Waters: Federal Register 38(65), pp. 8726-8730.
USEPA, Oct. 15, 1973. Ocean Dumping: Final Regulations and
Criteria for the Transportation for Dumping and Dumping
of Material Into Ocean Waters: Federal Register 38(198),
pp. 28,610-29,621.
USEPA, April 1974. Briefing Report - Ocean Dumping in the
New York Bight Since 1973: Surveillance and Analysis
Division, USEPA-Region II, Edison, New Jersey.
USEPA, July 1974. Ocean Disposal in the New York Bight: Tech-
nical Briefing Report, No. 1; Surveillance and Analysis
Division, USEPA-Region II, Edison, New Jersey.
USEPA, Oct. 1974. Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment
and Disposal: Technology Transfer Manual No. EPA 625/1-
74-006.
USEPA, Oct. 2, 1974. Letter to Municipal Permittees from
Gerald M. Hansler, Regional Administrator, USEPA-Region II,
New York, N.Y.
300
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
USEPA, Oct. 9, 1974. Letter to Colonel Harry W. Lombard,
District Engineer, New York District Corps of Engineers
from Gerald M. Hansler, Regional Administrator, USEPA-
Region II, New York, N.Y.
USEPA, Jan. 17, 1975. Letter of Intent to Municipal Permittees
from Gerald Hansler, Regional Administrator, USEPA-Region
II, New York, N.Y.
USEPA, March 25, 1975. Memorandum from F.T. Brezenski, Chief,
Technical Support Branch, Surveillance and Analysis Divi-
sion, USEPA-Region II, Edison, New Jersey.
USEPA, April 1975. Ocean Disposal in the New York Bight:
Technical Briefing Report No. 2. 86 p.; Surveillance
and Analysis Division, USEPA-Region II, New York, N.Y.
USEPA, April 1, 1975. Ocean Dumping Permits; Public Hearing
Transcripts, New York, N.Y.
USEPA, July 15, 1975. A Letter From Richard T. Dewling, Di-
rector of Surveillance & Analyis Division, USEPA-Region
II, Edison, New Jersey, to Dr. Barry J. Berdahl, Proj.
Mgr., Dames & Moore, New York, N.Y.
USEPA, Oct. 24, 1975. Transmittal Letter of Information From
- Sandra Kunsberg, Lawyer, USEPA-Region II, New York, N.Y.
to Dr. Barry J. Berdahl, Proj. Mgr., Dames & Moore,
New York, N.Y.
USEPA, Nov. 15, 1975. Written Communication from Peter Anderson,
Chief of Marine Protection Program, USEPA-Region II, Edison,
New Jersey to Dr. Barry J. Berdahl, Proj. Mgr., Dames &
Moore, New York, N.Y.
USEPA, Nov. 21, 1975. Written Communication From Daniel A.
Sullivan, Senior Environmental Engineer, USEPA-Region II,
New York, N.Y. to Dr. Barry J. Berdahl, Proj. Mgr., Dames &
Moore, New York, N.Y.
USEPA, Jan. 21, 1976. Written Communication From Peter Anderson,
Chief of Marine Protection Program, USEPA-Region .II, Edison,
New Jersey to Dr. Barry J. Berdahl, Proj. Mgr., Dames &
Moore, New York, N.Y.
USEPA, (Unpublished). Application for Research Ocean Dumping
Permit: EPA National Environmental Research Center,
Cornwallis, Washington, Nov. 13, 1975; Preliminary Mater-
ial, Subject to Revision.
301
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Continued)
Veatch, A.C. and P.A. Smith, 1939. Atlantic Submarine Valleys
of the United States and the Congo Submarine Valleys:
Geol. Soc. of Amer.; Special Papers No. 7, 101 p.
Westchester County, July 7, 1975. Letter From Kenneth G. Wolf,
Director, Wastewater Treatment, Westchester County Depart-
ment of Environment Facilities, White Plains, New York to
Dr. Barry J. Berdahl, Proj. Mgr., Dames & Moore, New York,
N.Y.
Westchester County, Sept. 15, 1975. Letter From Kenneth G. Wolf,
Director, Wastewater Treatment, Westchester County Depart-
ment of Environment Facilities, White Plains, New York to
Dr. Barry J. Berdahl, Proj. Mgr., Dames & Moore, New York,
N.Y.
Young, J.S. and J.B. Pearce, 1975. Shell Disease in Crabs and
Lobsters from New York Bight: Marine Pollution Bulletin,
Vol. 67, pp. 101-105.
Young, D.R., et al., 1974a. Marine Inputs of Polychlorinated
Biphenyls and Copper from Vessel Antifouling Paints:
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project TM 212,
May 1974, 20 p.
Young, D.R., et al., 1974b. Mercury Concentrations in Dated
Varved Marine Sediments Collected Off Southern California:
Nature, Vol. 244 (5415), pp. 273-275.
Young, D.R., et al., April 8-10, 1975. Pollutant Inputs and
Distributions Off Southern California: Preprint of Paper
Presented at 169th National Meeting of ACS Special Sympo-
sium, Marine Chemistry in the Coastal Environment; Phila-
delphia, Pennsylvania.
Ziskowski, J. and R. Murchelano, 1975. Fin Erosion in Winter
Flounder: Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 6 (2), pp. 26-29.
302
-------
APPENDIX A
SAMPLE FORM
MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH,
AND SANCTUARIES ACT
(OCEAN DUMPING) PERMIT
Source: USEPA, November 15, 1975.
303
-------
\
1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK. NEW YORK 1OOO7
MARINE PROTECTION, RESEARCH, AND
SANCTUARIES ACT (OCEAN DUMPING) PERMIT
PERMIT NO. AND TYPE:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
EXPIRATION DATE:
REAPPLICATION DATE:
APPLICANT:
and any person owning or operating a towing vessel
employed for the purpose authorized herein.
This permit authorizes the transportation and dumping into ocean waters
of certain material pursuant to the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctu-
aries Act of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1401-1444, (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act"), regulations promulgated thereunder, and the terms and conditions set
forth below.
304
WASTE GENERATOR(S)
WASTE GENERATED AT:
PORT OF DEPARTURE:
WASTE TRANSPORTER(S):
-------
General Conditions:
1. All transportation and dumping authorized herein shall at all times
be undertaken in a manner consistent with the terms and conditions of this
permit. The applicant, waste generator(s) and waste transporter(s) designated
above shall be the permittees liable for compliance with such terms and condi-
tions. The liability of each is set forth in the Special Conditions. Com-
pliance by any permittee with one or more but less than all of the conditions
with which such permittee must comply will not constitute a ground or grounds
of defense in any proceeding against that permittee for violation of the pro-
visions of this permit.
2. Any person who violates any provision of the Act, the Final Regula-
tions issued thereunder, or any term or condition of this permit shall be
liable for a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 for each violation. Ad-
ditionally, any knowing violation of the Act, Final Regulations, or permit
may result in a criminal action being brought with penalties of not more than
$50,000 or one year in prison, or both.
3. a. Transportation to, and dumping at any location other than that
authorized by this permit shall constitute a violation of the Act and of the
terms and conditions of this permit.
b. Transportation and dumping of any material not identified in or
significantly in excess of that identified in the application for this permit,
unless specifically authorized by a written modification hereto, shall consti-
tute a violation of the Act and of the terms and conditions of this permit.
4. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to authorize, in any way,
the transportation from the United States for the purpose of dumping into
the ocean waters, into the territorial sea, or into the contiguous zone, of
the following material:
a. High-level radioactive wastes.
b. Materials, in whatever form, produced for radiological, chemical
or biological warfare.
c. Persistent synthetic or natural materials which may float or
remain in suspension in the ocean.
5. The applicant may not apply for, nor any permittee simultaneously
hold, a permit from another EPA Regional Office for any of the material to
which this permit is applicable, nor may the applicant or any permittee trans-
fer material from one EPA Region to another if a permit for the transportation
or dumping of such material has been denied by one EPA Region.
305
-------
6. After notice and opportunity for a hearing, this permit may be
modified or revoked, in whole or in part, during its term for cause in-
cluding, but not limited to, the following:
a. Violation of any term or condition of the permit;
b. Misrepresentation, inaccuracy, or failure by the applicant
to disclose all relevant facts in the permit application;
c. A change in any condition or material fact upon which this
permit is based that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction
or elimination of the authorized transportation or dumping including, but
not limited to, changes in conditions at the designated dump site, and newly
discovered scientific data relative to the granting of this permit.
d. Failure to keep records, to engage in monitoring activities,
or to notify appropriate officials in a timely manner of transportation and
dumping activities as specified in any condition of this permit.
7. This permit shall be subject to suspension by the Regional Adminis-
trator or his delegate if he determines that the permitted dumping has resulted,
or is resulting, in imminent and substantial harm to human health or welfare or
the marine environment. Such suspension shall be effective subject only to the
provisions of 40 C.F.R. 223.2(c).
8. The authority conferred by this permit may, at the discretion of the
Regional Administrator or his delegate, be transferred to a waste transporter
other than that (thos.e) named herein, provided that a request for such a trans-
fer be made, in writing, by the applicant at least 30 days prior to the requested
transfer date.
9. If material which is regulated by this permit is discharged due to an
emergency to safeguard life at sea in locations or in a manner not in accordance
with the terms of this permit, one of the permittees shall make a full report,
in accordance with the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1001, within 10 days to the
Regional Administrator detailing the conditions of this emergency and the actions
taken.
10. Unless otherwise provided for herein, all terms used in this permit
shall have the meanings assigned to them by the Act or the Final Regulations
issued thereunder.
11. The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in
either real or personal property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it
authorize any injury to private property or any invasion of rights, nor any
infringement of Federal, State or local laws or regulations, nor does it obviate
the necessity of obtaining State or local assent required by applicable law for
the activity authorized.
306
-------
12. This permit does not authorize or approve the construction of
any onshore physical structures or facilities or, except as authorized
by this permit, the undertaking of any work in any navigable water.
13. Each permittee shall at all times maintain in good working order
and operate as efficiently as possible all facilities, including vessels,
used by such permittee in achieving compliance with the terms and conditions
of this permit.
14. This permit, or a true copy thereof, shall be placed in a conspicuous
place on the vessel which will be used for the transportation and dumping
authorized by this permit. If the dumping vessel is an unmanned barge, the
permit or true copy of the permit shall be transferred to the towing vessel
or an additional true copy shall be available onboard the towing vessel.
15. In accordance with 33 U.S.C. 445, every scow or boat engaged- in the
transportation of municipal sludge or industrial wastes shall have its name
or number and owner's name painted in letters and numbers at least fourteen
inches high on both sides of the scow or boat. These names and numbers shall
be kept distinctly legible at all times, and no scow or boat not so marked
shall be used to transport or dump any such material.
16. The permittee(s) shall provide telephone notification of sailing to
Captain-of-the-Port, (COTP) New York at 212-264-8753 during working hours
(8:00 AM to 4:30 PM Monday through Friday) and to 212-264-8770 during the non-
working hours, weekends, and holidays not later than two (2) hours prior to
the estimated time of departure. The permittee(s) shall immediately notify
the COTP upon any changes in the estimated time of departure greater than one
hour.
17. The following information shall be provided in the notification of
sailing:
a. Name of the towing vessel and barge or tank vessel
b. Name of the transporter
c. Description of the vessel's contents including volume
d. Place of departure
e. Location of the dump site
f. The time of departure
g. Estimated time of arrival at the dump site
h. Estimated time of return to port.
307
-------
18. The permittee(s) shall maintain and submit Coast Guard Form
CCGD 3-278, Monthly Transportation and Dumping Log, to COTP, USCG, c/o
New York Station, Governors Island, New York, N.Y. 10004. Permittee(s)
shall enter on this form under the column entitled "Dump Site" the latitude
and longitude at which the actual dumping occurred. These forms are to be
mailed to the Coast Guard during the first week of the succeeding month for
which they were prepared. If additional forms are required, they may be
obtained by forwarding a written request to Commander (mep), Third Coast
Guard District, Governors Island, New York, N.Y. 10004. Copies of these
logs will be forwarded on a quarterly basis to: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Surveillance and Analysis Division, Edison, N.J. 08817, Attn: Marine
Protection Program.
308
-------
Special Conditions:
1. This permit shall expire at midnight on . This
permit is nonrenewable. Application for a new permit must be submitted
to EPA at least 180 days prior to expiration of this permit.
2. During the term of this permit, the type and quantity of material
permitted for transportation for the purpose of ocean dumping shall be in
accordance with the following:
gallons of municipal sewage sludge
which shall mean those sludges which result from
primary, secondary, or digestion of municipal
wastes.
3. Disposal Site - Transportation for the purpose of ocean dumping
shall terminate at, and waste dumping shall be confined to, the area
described below:
Latitude: 40° 22' 30" N to 40° 25' 0" N
Longitude: 73° 41' 30" W to 73° 45' 0" W
4. Method of Disposal - (a) The permittee
shall use only the following vessel(s)/barge(s) for transportation and
dumping of wastes authorized under this permit:
(b) Waste is to be discharged at a uniform rate over a distance of
at least nautical miles within the disposal site designated in Special
Condition No. 3. Vessel/barge traverses shall be at least 0.5 nautical
mile apart. If two or more vessels/barges are discharging simultaneously,
or if any two or more vessel/barge trips are to occur within one hour of
each other, a distance of at least 0.5 nautical mile is to be maintained
between discharges.
(c) If the waste cannot be uniformly discharged as required above,
the permittee shall, within 30 days of issuance
of this permit, provide to EPA in writing, detailed technical information,
certified by a naval architect or marine engineer, as to why this condition
cannot be met. A time period of not more than one year from the date of
issuance of this permit will be allowed for the installation of equipment
or systems necessary to meet the uniform discharge requirement.
309
-------
5. Analysis of Authorized Wastes - (a) Analyses shall be conducted
monthly on a representative sample of a vessel/barge load for the following
parameters:
Bioassay using the organism Artemia salina and/or any substitute
organism designated to be more appropriate by EPA, Region II.
Mercury (rag/kg), liquid and solid phase
Cadmium (rag/kg), liquid and solid phase
Specific gravity at 20 C
Oil and grease (mg/1), using liquid-liquid extraction with
trichlorotrifluorethane.
Petroleum hydrocarbon (mg/1) using tentative IR procedure
Fecal coliform (MPN/100 ml)
Total coliform (MPN/100 ml)
Analyses shall be conducted quarterly on a representative sample of a
barge/vessel load for the following parameters:
Bioassay using the organisms Skeletonema costatum, Acartia
tonsa or Acartia clausii, Menidia menidia and/or any sub-
stitute organism designated to be more appropriate by EPA,
Region II.
Arsenic (mg/1) Lead (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1) Zinc (mg/1)
Vanadium (mg/1) Chromium (mg/1)
Nickel (mg/1) Total solids (mg/1)
COD (mg/1) Suspended solids (mg/1)
310
-------
(b) Analytical data will be submitted to EPA, Region II, on a
monthly basis, with the first report due no later than 30 days follow-
ing the initial discharge.
fc) All analyses will be conducted according to one of the
following:
(1) Specific analytical procedures distributed by
EPA, Region II;
(2) Approved test procedures contained in "Guidelines
Establishing Test Procedures for Analysis of
Pollutants," 40 C.F.R. 136; or
(3) Test procedures selected by the permittee and approved
by EPA, Region II.
(d) Within 20 days of effective date, the name and address of the
designated laboratory and a description of all analytical test procedures
being used shall be provided to the EPA, Region II.
(e) Any laboratory employed for purposes of performing the analyses
specified in Special Condition No. 5(a) shall maintain a viable analyti-
cal quality control program. This program will include:
(1) Use of EPA-approved analytical test procedures
as listed in Special Condition No. 5(c).
(2) Use of the sample preservation techniques and the
holding time specified in the analytical method
employed or in EPA manual entitled "Methods for
Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes."
(3) Routine use and documentation of intra-laboratory
quality control practices as recommended in the EPA
manual "Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in
Water and Wastewater Laboratories." These practices
will include use and documentation of internal quality
control samples.
(f) The laboratory facilities, data, records, and quality control
records are subject to periodic inspection by EPA, Region II personnel.
(g) EPA may require analysis of quality control samples by any
laboratory employed for purposes of compliance with Special Condition 5(a)
Upon request, permittee(s) shall provide EPA with the analytical results
from such samples.
311
-------
6. Monitoring - Permittee(s) may be required, during the term of this
permit, to conduct or participate in a monitoring program of the impact of
the permitted waste disposal on the marine environment at the designated
disposal site, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 223.l(f) (Supp. 1973).
7. Implementation Plan, Schedule, or Alternative - In accordance
with 40 C.F.R. 227.4 (Supp. 1973) permittee
shall either:
(a) Participate in the EPA's New York-New Jersey Metropolitan
Area Sewage Sludge Disposal Management Program, which has a goal of phasing
out ocean dumping by 1981, and upon request actively cooperate in the develop-
ment of such a program; or
(b) No later than nine months from the effective date of this
permit, submit a phase A/phase B plan meeting all the requirements of
40 C.F.R. 227.4 (Supp. 1973).
In the event that the permittee chooses alternative (a) above, it
shall submit to EPA, Region II, within 20 days of the effective date of
this permit, confirmation, in writing, of its intent to participate in
the regional sludge management program.
8. Digester Cleanout - The permittees may dispose of "digester clean-
out" wastes at the 106-mile chemical waste disposal site (Latitude 38 40' N
to 39° 0' N, Longitude 72° 0' W to 72° 30' W). Conditions to be imposed on
the permittees in relation to disposal of "digester cleanout" wastes shall be:
(a) The permittee shall provide telephone notification of sailing to
Captain-of-the-Port, (COTP) New York at 212-264-8753 during working hours
(8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday) and to 212-264-8770 during
nonworking hours, weekends, and holidays not later than twenty-four (24)
hours prior to the estimated time of departure. The permittee shall confirm
the exact time of departure within thirty (30) minutes of the actual de-
parture time, and immediately notify the COTP upon any changes in the esti-
mated time of departure greater than one hour. Within two (2) hours after
receipt of the initial notification the transporter will be advised as to
whether or not a Coast Guard shiprider will be assigned to the voyage.
(b) Surveillance will generally be accomplished by a Coast Guard ship-
rider who will be on board the towing conveyance for the entire voyage. His
quarters and subsistence while on board shall be provided by and shall be at
the expense of the permittee. He shall be treated courteously and afforded
free and immediate access to all navigational capabilities on the vessel
which can provide information on position, course speed, depth of water,
bearings, etc. The notification procedures which will permit the timely
assignment of a shiprider are specified in Special Condition 8(a). The
following information shall be provided in the notification of sailing:
312
-------
(1) Name of the towing vessel and barge or tank vessel
(2) Name of transporter
(3) Description of the vessel's contents including volume
(4) Place of departure
(5) Location of disposal site
(6) The time of departure
(7) Estimate time of arrival at the disposal site
(8) Estimated time of return to port.
In addition, the permittee shall maintain and submit the information required
above in accordance with the provisions of General Condition 18.
(c) A representative sample of the "digester cleanout" material shall
be collected and analyzed by the permittee on each barge/vessel load for the
following parameters:
Mercury, liquid and solid phase (mg/kg)
Cadmium, liquid and solid phase (mg/kg)
Petroleum hydrocarbon (mg/kg), using IR procedure
Total solids (mg/kg)
Total volatile solids (mg/kg)
Specific gravity at 20 C
Analyses shall be conducted in accordance with Special Condition 5(c) and
submitted to EPA, Region II, no later than 30 days following the discharge.
9. Reports and Correspondence - All reports required by General Condition
18 and Special Conditions 5 and 8 shall be submitted to the following address:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
Surveillance and Analysis Division
Edison, New Jersey 08817
Attn: Marine Protection Program
All other material required by this permit to be submitted to EPA, and
related correspondence, shall be sent, in duplicate, to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
Enforcement Division
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
Attn: Status of Compliance Branch
313
-------
10. Liability - (a) The permittees
shall be jointly and severally liable for
compliance with Special Conditions 2, 5(a)-(g), 6, and 8(c) as well as
all applicable General Conditions.
b. The permittee shall be solely liable
for compliance with Special Conditions 4(a) and (c).
c. Any person owning or operating a towing vessel employed for
purposes of the activities authorized by this permit shall be, for pur-
poses of each discharge, a joint permittee herein who shall be jointly
and severally liable together with the permittee
for compliance with Special Conditions 3, 4(b) , 8(a)-(b) , and all appli-
cable General Conditions.
d. The permittee shall be solely
liable for compliance with Special Condition 7.
By authority of Gerald M. Hansler, P.E., Regional Administrator,
United States Environmental Protection Agency:
Signed this day of 1975.
Meyer Scolnick
Director
Enforcement Division
314
-------
APPENDIX B
INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION
PHASE 1 REPORT
CHAPTER III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Source: ISC, 1975.
315
-------
III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. CONCLUSIONS
The important conclusions arrived at on the basis of environmental
considerations, total costs, technical feasibility, and energy usage are
as follows. These conclusions form the basis and backup for the recom-
mendations that are made:
1. Sludge Conditioning and Dewatering
The two methods of sludge conditioning ahead of dewatering are by
use of chemicals and by heat treatment. The cost of conditioning cannot
be dealt with separately, since conditioning influences the costs of de-
watering. The cost of chemical conditioning (lime and ferric chloride or
polymers) and then dewatering indicates that the combined cost for the
different dewatering equipment falls in the range of $30 to $38 per ton
of dry solids, including capital and O&M costs. The choice of dewatering
method cannot be made only on the basis of these costs, since the moisture
content of the sludge cake produced varied from 80 to 60 percent, and the
cost of succeeding processing methods determines which method of dewater-
ing is most cost-effective.
The cost of heat treatment to condition the sludge plus dewatering
falls in the range of $66 to $72 per ton of the original dry solids pre-
cessed. Because this method of treatment affects the total pounds of sludge
remaining and its character, a decision as to which conditioning or de-
watering method to use depends on the costs of succeeding processing or
disposal methods. If the dewatered sludge is to be disposed of as such,
then when using filter pressing, the cost of producing the cake with heat
treatment is about double that with chemical conditioning.
However, the heat-treated sludge is sterile and there is about 25
percent net less solids to dispose of. Thus, the difference in the de-
watered sludge weight or volume, since both can be dewatered to about 40
percent solids, is about 25 percent. To justify using heat treatment, the
reduction in hauling and placement costs would have to overcome the 100
percent differential in conditioning and dewatering costs. The net elec-
tric power usage for heat treatment plus dewatering is about 360 kwhr per
ton compared to 120 kwhr for chemical conditioning and filter press
dewatering.
2. Incineration or Pyrolysis
Incineration of sludge or its pyrolysis are both thermal conversion
processes that can permit maximum energy recovery from the heat value of
the sludge solids. The two processes are compatible as far as requirements
for dewatering are concerned. Also, the multiple-hearth incinerator fur-
naces can be adapted to pyrolysis. The capital and operating costs and
energy recovery potential are comparable, with pyrolysis having a distinct
advantage as far as air pollution controls are concerned, and is, there-
fore, the more desirable sludge processing system from the viewpoint of
316
-------
potential negative environmental impact on the air resources of an area.
Pyrolysis has another advantage over incineration in that the fuels
from the pyrolysis reactor, the gas and char, can be stored and thus uni-
form feed of a steam boiler furnace can be obtained even if the rate of
sludge feed to the pyrolysis reactor is variable.
The total capital and O&M costs for a large-size incineration or
pyrolysis plant with maximum heat and energy recovery are about $47 per
ton of dry solids in the original sludge when processing digested sludge
with a heat value of 5,000 Btu per Ib. This alternative uses chemical
conditioning and filter presses and a sludge of at least 40 percent
solids is obtained.
This system incorporates an afterburner for raising the furnace
exhaust gas temperature to 1,400 degrees F. Credit has been taken for
$22.50 worth of excess electric power produced (evaluated at 5
-------
as 75 to 85 percent. Such a high amount of oxidation requires very high
reactor pressures (1,500 to 2,000 psi), which makes the process very
energy-intensive and costly. An intermediate level of oxidation (600 to
800 psi) produces a total volatile solids reduction of about 40 to 50
percent. In that respect, it is about comparable to anaerobic digestion.
The total solids reduction is about 30 to 35 percent. These figures are
corrected for the increase in the solids to be processed due to regenera-
tion of solids by the biological treatment of the strong liquor that the
process produces.
The intermediate wet-air oxidation process has total costs of
per ton of dry solids in the original sludge. If the oxidized slurry is
dewatered on a vacuum filter, the additional cost is $5.30 per ton. The
high-pressure system has costs of $137 per ton for wet-air oxidation and
$4.20 per ton for vacuum filtration of the residue. These costs were
developed for processing digested sludges. If raw sludges are processed,
the cost per ton decreases somewhat, since no auxiliary fuel is required,
but the sidestream produced is somewhat stronger in BOD, COD, and NH3.
The total costs remain essentially the same as given above. Thus, for
processing undigested sludge the total costs, including dewatering of the
residue, but not including disposal of the residue, is $103.30 as compared
to $31 for the pyrolysis system, which also does not include the cost of
ash disposal. The wet-air oxidation process is very energy-intensive,
consuming 800 kwhr per ton for all operations, including sidestream treatment
and odor control. If the power costs are less than 5«t per kwhr, the above-
indicated cost difference between wet-air oxidation and pyrolysis will be, of
course, somewhat less. For example, if power costs are 3<£ per kwhr, the wet
oxidation costs drop to $87 per ton and the net cost of the pyrolysis system
rises to $36.50.
Wet-air oxidation generates a liquid sidestream having a BODs of up to
10,000 mg/1, a COD of 20,000 mg/1, and NH3 of 1,200 mg/1. A large portion
of the COD is not biodegradable, and consists of various unknown organic
complexes. This liquid sidestream presents a very serious potential nega-
tive environmental impact on our surface water resources. This sidestream
also is odorous and the vapors from it must be put through odor control
equipment. Also, the handling and treating of this sidestream will pro-
duce nonpoint odor sources which are difficult to control. The environ-
mental assessment of this sludge processing system (including both the
Zimpro and Barber Colman designs) indicates serious potential negative
impacts on air and water resources of the area.
Other negative features of wet-air oxidation are the safety hazards
associated with high-pressure reactors and serious corrosion-erosion-
deposition problems in piping and heat exchangers (Department of Defense,
1973).
4. Oil-Medium Dehydration and Combustion
(Carver-Greenfield System)
This system accomplishes dewatering of the liquid sludge by mixing
it with No. 2 or No. 4 fuel oil in proportions of 1 part of solids to
6-10 parts of oil, evaporating the water in a multi-effect evaporator,
and then separating the oil from the sol ids.in a centrifuge. The use of
waste oils and fat skimmings from sewage treatment plants could replace
some of the fuel oil, but evaluation of this was too indefinite and was
318
-------
considered not a sufficiently reliable source of oil for carrying on the
process. The solids are then incinerated (or pyrolyzed) to produce the
steam and power needed to run the system. This system has been used to
dewater various homogeneous slurries in industrial processes. Some lab-
oratory scale tests made on a heterogeneous sewage sludge (primary and
waste activated) indicated that the evaporated and condensed water (liquid
sidestream) contained ammonia concentrations up to 3,000 mg/1 and total
carbon up to 9,000 mg/1. The BOD was estimated as being up to 12,000
mg/1. It was assumed that treatment of this sidestream would have total
costs and power consumption similar to that for the sidestream generated
by heat treatment of sludge.
Total capital and O&M costs were estimated on basis of information
supplied by the manufacturer. Total costs, including sidestream treat-
ment and odor controls, were $106 per ton of dry solids. Information
obtained on operation of multi-effect evaporators, with the associated
pumps and valves, indicated very high maintenance costs. The system uses
up fuel oil in order to produce sufficient steam and power for the process.
Power for treatment of the high-strength sidestream must be purchased or
additional fuel burned in the boiler and additional power generated for
this purpose.
This prrocess produces several negative environmental impacts. The
high-strength sidestream has organics not common to domestic sewage. The
condensed water (distillate) when exposed to air emits odorous vapors.
The large amount of exposed fuel oil in agitated tanks into which the
sludge is added produces hydrocarbon-type odors and also does present a
fire hazard.
There are no installations of this system processing a heterogeneous
sludge mixture. For cost, environmental, and experience reasons, this
system cannot be recommended.
5. Land Application
An investigation was made of the cost of applying liquid stabilized
(digested) sludge to strip-mine areas in Pennsylvania, about 100 miles .
from the study area. Even if the heavy metals did not limit the rate of
sludge application, and using a rate of 10 tons (dry solids)>per acre per
year, on the basis of nitrogen limitation, the total costs for applying
the area's sludge, including acquisition of land, was between $110 and
$120 per ton. The application of 1,000 tons per day, that is, 50 percent
of the study area sludge, would require 36,500.acres.
The present heavy metal concentration would limit the safe application
rate on agricultural land to 1 to 2 tons per acre per year. If reductions
in heavy metal content to one-half of present values could be achieved
by enforcement of pretreatment regulations, the application rate could go
up to 5 tons per acre per year. This would require double the land area
previously indicated and increase the costs to $185 to $195 per ton of
dry solids.
Application of either liquid or dewatered sludge to land in the study
area and in southern New Jersey is severely limited due to the sandy soil
319
-------
and the very real hazard of polluting the extensive groundwater resources
of the area and in New Jersey. An EPA funded study being carried out by
Rutgers University in Ocean County shows that longer-term breakthrough of
nitrates can occur with resultant groundwater contamination (Kaplovsky,
1975). Limited quantities of dewatered and stabilized sludge could find
use along roadways, grass strips in park areas, on golf courses, etc.
The conclusion arrived at is that direct application to land of a large
portion of the study area's sludge is not economical and the'cost would be
about triple that of the incineration or pyrolysis alternative. The
potential hazard of contamination of underground and surface waters with
heavy metals is a serious negative environmental impact of such disposal of
the study area's sludge. Sewage sludges from modern urban-industrial areas
contain many materials that are not "natural" to soils, and hazardous
contamination of our land resources with serious long-term effects is poss-
ible by uncontrolled and indiscriminate application of such sewage sludges
to land.
6. Drying to Produce a Product as a Source for Plant Nutrients
The disposal of the study area's sludge by drying and selling the
product to the organic fertilizer and soil conditioner market was given
intensive consideration and study. The constraints mentioned under laiid
application in regard to the toxic heavy metals also apply to the dried
product. The total cost of drying, including dewatering after chemical
conditioning is in the range of $100 to $120 per ton of dry solids, the
higher cost being that of a granulated product suitable for bagging. If
the product is to have a nitrogen content higher than in normal mixed
primary and activated sludge (2 to 4 percent), the cost of fortifying it
with, say, urea, must be added.
In comparing this alternative for sludge disposal with incineration
or pyrolysis, the costs for the drying operation only should be determined
since dewatering and sidestream treatment is common to both alternatives.
These costs, including all air pollution controls, are at least $75 per
ton of dry solids. The power and fuel costs are those used in all evalu-
ations in this Report. The cost of incineration or pyrolysis is $30.85
per ton, including equipment for energy recovery. The value of the elec-
trical energy recovered is $22.50 for a 5,000 Btu per Ib sludge and $32
for a 6,500 Btu per Ib sludge. Thus, the incineration or pyrolysis pro-
cess actually costs only about 0 to $8 per ton of dry solids, or about
$5 to $12 per ton of sludge processed when ash disposal is included.
On the basis of the above costs study, in order to justify-drying of
the sludge for disposal as a soil fertilizer-conditioner, it is necessary
that the product be sold for at least $65 per ton at the sludge processing
plant. On the basis of present prices for N and P in commercial fertilizers,
the value of a 4-5-0-sludge is about $30 - $35 per ton, which values agree
with rates presently quoted for dried sludge. Obviously, the drying of
the sludge and disposing of the product as indicated is not an economical
alternative.
320
-------
7. Composting to Produce a Product
cts Source for Plant Nutrients
Composting of sludge stabilizes it by reducing the volatile solids
by about 20 to 40 percent, depending on whether digested or raw primary
and waste activated sludge are used. During composting a considerable
amount of nigrogen is evolved as ammonia. Therefore, a compost from raw
sewage sludge will never have more than about 2.2 percent nitrogen. For
digested sludge, the compost nitrogen is less than 1 percent.
Composting has been cost estimated on the basis that the operation
will be carried on using roofed areas such as not to be affected by the
weather, and that artificial aeration will be used to control odors and
prevent anaerobic conditions from developing. Composting uses less fuel
and power than any other type of sludge processing except anaerobic di-
gestion. However, it requires large land areas and has high labor costs.
A large composting facility needs about 0.5 acres per ton of dry solids
processed, or a 1,000-ton per day plant will require 500 acres of flat
land area.
If the liquid sludge could be transported by barge or pipeline to
the composting facility, the high costs of hauling a sludge cake could be
avoided.
Using the above criteria, the total costs, not including the cost
of land and transportation, are about $75 per ton. This includes all
costs associated with dewatering and sidestream treatment. If the costs
of dewatering are subtracted, the cost is about $45 per ton. This can
be compared with the cost of incineration or pyrolysis with energy recov-
ery, which was about $5 to $12 per ton, including ash disposal, as indi-
cated in the conclusions relating to drying. Thus, to justify composting
it is necessary to sell the product for at least $35 per ton. Because
compost is low in nitrogen, it would require considerable fortification.
If sold as produced, it is doubtful if more than $16 to $15 per ton could
be obtained. The inert matter in compost will be between 40 and 50 per-
cent. However, the product is a good conditioner for sandy soils and
improves their water-holding capacity. Certainly a small portion of the
study area's $ludge> particularly that having lower heavy metal content,
could be composted and the product used along highways, on lawns, park
areas, etc.
This processing method cannot be recommended for handling the major
protion of the study area's sludge because of its relative cost and the
uncertainty of disposing of a large quantity of the product. Except for
possible odors, the process does not generate any negative environmental
impacts on air or water.
8. Anaerobic and Aerobic Digestion
Most of the New York City .wastewater treatment plants have anaerobic
digestion. The purpose of digestion is to reduce the total amount of
solids, stabilize the solids, reduce pathogens, and produce a gas that
can be burned to generate heat or power. In regard to the incineration
and pyrolysis alternatives, it is noted that the cost-effectiveness is
321
-------
dependent on the heat energy that can be extracted. The volatile solids
that are destroyed and converted to methane and C02 in the anaerobic
digester have a heat value of about 10,000 Btu per Ib. To obtain maximum
efficiency, a digester must be heated to about 90 degrees F, which is done
by burning the gas produced. Also, energy for mixing is required.
The cost analysis showed that the energy recovered from the methane
produced, when converted to electrical power, will pay for the costs
associated with digestion. Also, analyses showed that if the volatile
solids destroyed in the digestion process were pyrolyzed, since their
Btu value is 10,000 per Ib, the resultant energy recovered will more
than pay for all costs associated with dewatering and processing these
solids in a pyrolysis system. Therefore, either the digestion and
pyrolysis systems, with maximum energy recovery, can pay for their
processing costs as far as destruction of volatile solids is concerned.
Therefore, if incineration or pyrolysis is practiced, digestion
plants probably should not be expanded or any new ones built. A further
advantage is obtained if digestion is not expanded, and that is the con-
siderable decrease in the BOD and ammonia content of the sidestream with
resultant reduced costs of treatment.
Aerobic digestion did not receive serious consideration in this
study because it is very energy-intensive. The power required to reduce
the volatile solids by about 40 percent, using aerobic digestion, is in
the range of 35 to 50 percent of that used in the activated sludge pro-
cess that generated the waste activated sludge. On an average the power
consumption will be about 250 kwhr per tonof solids per day , or at 5<£
per kwhr, $12.50 per ton of dry solids processed. The equipment and con-
struction cost for a large plant is about $10 per ton (EPA Process Design
Manual, Sludge Treatment and Disposal, 1974). The total cost of aerobic
digestion is about $25 per ton of solids, or about twice that of anaerobic
digestion when credit is taken for energy recovery from the generated gas.
9. Incineration or Pyrolysis with Solid Wastes
The benefits associated with heat-energy recovery by dewatering
chemically conditioned sludge to 40 percent solids with filter presses
can be also realized by incineration or pyrolysis in combination with
the combustibles in solid wastes. How the sludge is to be fed with the
shredded solid wastes into a solid wastes incinerator or pyrolysis unit
depends on the type of furnace or reactor and the general design. It may
be desirable to dry the sludge cake with heat from the solid wastes com-
bustion, so as to permit a furnace design without providing for evapora-
tion of the remaining water in the sludge cake. The heat-dried sludge
could be blown into the furnace separately or mixed with the shredded
solids waste material.
Whether this alternative would be attractive economically, over the
incineration or pyrolysis of the sludge separately, depends to a large
degree on whether the sludge could be dewatered and the sidestream treated
at the solid waste processing facility. The hauling of sludge cake over
an appreciable distance to the solid wastes facility is expensive and may
not be desirable from operational and environmental considerations.
322
-------
10. Miscellaneous Processing and Disposal Systems Considered
The following sludge processing and disposal systems were considered
and evaluated relating to technical feasibility, costs, energy usage,
and potential negative environmental impact on land, water, and air.
They were considered unsuited for handling the major portion of the sludge
produced in the study area for one, some, or all of the above reasons.
In some cases, the environmental impact was indeterminate, but feasibility
and costs made the proposed systems unsuitable.
1. Landfill of dewatered sludge cake
2. Chemical solidification and disposal in landfill
3. High chlorine stabilization and disposal on land
4. Solvent (amine) extraction and dehydration process
5. Shipping overseas of liquid or dried sludge to desert countries
6. Combustion of sludge on board ships in open seas
7. Mixing sludge with pulverized rock to produce a topsoil
(Goordman system)
B. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
On the basis of the cost studies, technical feasibility, energy con-
siderations, and environmental acceptability, the basic sludge disposal
system recommended for the study area is pyrolysis of the sludge solids
with maximum recovery of energy. Specifically, the sludge processing
system would consist of:
1. Chemical conditioning with lime and ferric chloride.
2. Dewatering using filter presses to obtain a sludge cake of at
least 40 percent solids.
3. Pyrolysis of sludge cake in an oxygen-deficient atmosphere to
produce combustible gases and a residual char.
4. Recovery of heat energy from exhaust gases and char with a
steam boiler and electric power generator.
5. Air pollution controlled by use of a high-energy water scrubber.
6. Treatment of all liquid sidestreams so that before discharge into
a receiving water they will be of secondary treatment quality.
Pyrolysis equipment is compatible with incineration; however, it
offers some significant advantages in reducing emissions and simplifying
air pollution controls. Also, it has better overall economics. Pyrol-
ysis plants have been built for solid wastes; nevertheless, studies
should be carried on to develop design parameters specifically for sewage
323
-------
sludge pyrolysis. Studies to date indicate that a multiple-hearth fur-
nace can, with relatively simple modifications, be converted to a pyrol-
ysis reactor.
It is estimated that it will take about one year to make the necessary
small scale plant studies. After that a full-scale demonstration plant
appears to be indicated, and its design, construction, and operation will
take another 2-3 years. After about 4 years the design of actual pro-
cessing facilities could be started, and they can be placed in operation
in about 8-10 years after the initial studies are begun. It is recom-
mended that small scale plant studies be started immediately with an equip-
ment manufacturer who is familiar with pyrolysis technology and who builds
multiple-hearth furnaces. It is recommended that such studies be funded
and carried out concurrently during the Phase II program. Funding sources
are being investigated by ISC and EPA.
An incinerator facility design could be started immediately if this
seems desirable and pyrolysis units could be added during later expansions,
or any existing multiple-hearth incinerators could be converted to pyrol-
ysis units. Sludge dewatering, air pollution control, and energy recov-
ery equipment, with incineration would be compatible with pyrolysis re-
actors.
In-depth studies in Phase II of the study program should include,
in addition to the pyrolysis investigations, the following:
1. For the selected sites, problems relating to sludge transport,
transfer, storage, and pumping should be more thoroughly studied. Also,
the transport and disposal of residual ash must be investigated, includ-
ing disposal and its possible beneficial uses.
2. Availability of fresh makeup water at the processing site.
3. On the basis of the projected sludge handling capacity at the
planned sites, the total mount of pollutants of concern that will be
emitted into the atmosphere per unit time by the facility should be
determined and their dispersion indicated.
4. The required treatment of the dewatering and scrubber water
sidestreams should be definitely established, including amount of such
treated sidestreams that can be recycled. The integration of these
treatment facilities with the sludge processing facility should be
clearly established.
5. The complete materials handling logistics at the sludge proces-
sing facility should be worked out.
1. Incineration or Pyrolysis with Solid Wastes
The possibility of combined incineration whould be investigated in
conjunction with the on-going solid wastes study for New York City, and
any such resource recovery projects in New Jersey. The use of pyrolysis
for heat conversion of solid wastes should be studied at the 1,000 ton
per day plant that is being started up at Baltimore and the multiple-
hearth furnace being studied in Contra Costa County, California.
324
-------
If resource recovery systems are to be established for handling the
solid wastes, the burning of the shredded combustibles with disintegrated
sludge cake or with heat-dried sludge in a boiler-furnace for power pro-
duction should be investigated. Answers to questions regarding how sew-
age sludge and solid waste combustibles could be best combined for burn-
ing with maximum energy recovery should be forthcoming from work now in
progress at public power plants and industrial plants.
In considering heat conversion for energy recovery from solid wastes
and sewage sludge, the incineration or pyrolysis site location with respect
to the wastewater treatment plants is of considerable importance in connect-
tion with the overall economics. In studying the siting for such joint
disposal, investigations should be made regarding the location of sludge
dewatering facilities, as truck transport and handling of sludge cake is
costly.
Obviously, any study of joint disposal of sewage sludge with solid
wastes must be closely integrated with the studies relating to solid
wastes. The maximum benefits of such disposal, including maximum costs
recovery from power generation, will be obtained if, other things being
equal, the costs of sludge dewatering, treatment of resulting sidestreams,
and transport can be minimized.
2. Land Application for Limited Quantities of Sludge
In the study area there are several wastewater treatment plants that
produce sludges that are more suited for land application, especially in
regard to heavy metals, than the major portion of the area's sludge. These
sludges should be identified and consideration given to use of such sludges,
after stabilization (digestion, composting, or high lime treatment), and
dewatering, on various suitable land areas such as parks, golf courses,
grass strips along highways, etc. Also, it could be used to improve
sandy soils where it is desirable to increase growth of natural vegetation.
Such processing of sludges from smaller treatment plants, located
near the periphery of the study area, could be more economical than the
transport of the sludge to a large processing facility. Proper land dis-
posal, if done with some judgment, should not create any potential environ-
mental hazards.
3. Drying and Composting for Use on Land
It is recommended that some additional verificaiton be obtained in
regard to the marketing possibilities, with projections for a,t least the
next 25 years, for dried sludge and also composted sludge for use as soil
conditioners and as source of plant nutrients. Limited studies in regard
to the costs for producing these products and their selling price at the
sludge processing plant, indicate these sludge disposal methods would have
net costs considerably higher than incineration or pyrolysis with energy
recovery.
Any planned widespread use of the sludge produced in the study area
on land, and especially on agricultural land, is contingent on the reduc-
tion, by pretreatment and other control measures, of the heavy metal con-
tent by at least one-half of present values, and the cadmium to about one-
325
-------
fifth of its present average value. If this is not possible or practical,
then no large-scale and long-term plans for processing this sludge for
disposal on land should be made, irrespective of cost considerations.
4. Siting and Transportation
The sites identified in Chapter VI as having potential for serving
as the location of sludge processing facilities should be further investi-
gated. Considerations should include:
1. Existing plans for the site and availability
2. Access for materials and personnel
3. Effects on air and on surface and ground waters
4. Effects on neighborhoods
5. Building conditions, including topography and foundation conditions
6. Effects on natural preserves and on recreational areas
Transportation should be further investigated to refine merits of
barging versus pumping.
326
-------
APPENDIX C
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
MARINE ECOSYSTEMS ANALYSIS
DRAFT REPORT
CHAPTER I. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Source: NOAA-MESA, November 1975.
327
-------
DRAFT
I. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This section summarizes significant features of the New York
Bight's midshelf environment and alternative sewage sludge dumpsite
areas 1-A and 2-A (fig. 1), draws applicable conclusions about the
effects of dumping sewage sludge at any interim dumpsite in this
environment, and presents specific recommendations relative to
dumping operations and monitoring activities.
A. Characteristics of the Environment
Features of the Bight's physical environment and biota that
relate to the dumping of sewage sludge in the alternative dumpsite
areas are summarized by disciplinary category.
Geological oceanography: Field studies within the northern
alternative dumpsite area 1-A and the southern alternative dumpsite
area 2-A indicate the following:
Seafloor sediments in both areas are predominantly clean
sands of medium grain size (1/4 to 1/2 mm), but contain small areas
with over 20 percent gravel. The absence of mud deposits indicates
thorough reworking of the substrate by storms, which resuspend fine
sediment particles and remove them from the studied areas.
Sediment grain-size and bedform data for snecial survey grid-
2D1 in northern area 1-A and special survey grid area
area/202 in southern area 2-A (fig. 2) suggest a general transport
of sand-sized sediment to the southwest during seasonal storms—
"northeasters," which usually occur in winter, but sometimes occur
in summer. Data for northern grid-area 2D1 indicate a moderate
328
-------
75°
30'
74
NEW YORK BIGHT
CONTOURS IN FATHOMS 8 (METERS)
TONY BROOK
ROJECT OFFICE
ESA OPERATIONS
EXISTING SEWAGE SLyDGE.^:'« «.
DUMP SITE •$'
RESTRICTED.
,i FISHING
75'
71°
Fig. l Existing and proposed alternative sewage dump site area
(Area 1-A and Area 2-A). The shaded area along the
continental shelf is a no-fishing area established by
international bilateral agreements.
329
-------
DRAFT
74°00'
41° 00'
73°00
72°00'
40°00'
39°00'
Fig. 2 Proposed alternative dumping area location criteria, New York Bight.
330
-------
DRAFT
rate of southwest sediment transport over broad, low-
gradient, preexisting valleys. Data for southern grid-
area 2D2 suggest more intense southwes* sediment trans-
port. The Hudson Shelf Valley (Fig.2) functions to
some extent as a conduit for materials dumped in the
Bight Apex.
Physical oceanography: Water-column characteristics
and water movements over the midshelf region of the
alternative dumpsite areas are predictable, in a general
manner. However, sudden climatic events can disrupt
general seasonal cycles, cause changes in structure of
the water column, and modify the fractionation, settling,
and transport of dumped sewage sludge.
The density difference associated with the "cold bubble"
that occurs in midshelf waters over the alternative dump-
site areas during summer may cause increased amounts of
dumped material to reside in the surface water layer. The
potential for shoreward transport of material in this
surface layer, at the air-sea interface, is greater during
summer. In winter, shoreward transport in the surface
layer is less.
The flow of shelf waters, below the wind-driven surface
layer, is generally southwestward, along depth contours.
This flow is highly variable and subject to intense meteorol-
ogical events, particularly in winter. Midshelf water mixes
331
-------
DRAFT
with water in the Bight Apex, where currents are also variable.
Apex currents are dominated by tidal and meteorological forcing.
Wind events sometimes cause varying flow patterns of the order
of several days. The previously hypothesized, long-term
clockwise eddy motion (gyre) in the Apex has been confirmed for
the intermediate-water layer. The near-bottom flow.and surface
flow in the Apex do not, however, always coincide with the flow
in the intermediate water layer or with each other. Short-term
current-meter records of near-bottom flow indicate that the gyre
may extend to the bottom during the winter season.
Hudson Shelf Valley water, at least beneath rim depth, flows
both up and down the Shelf Valley; but, long-term water flow is..
distinctly up-valley. This up-valley flow and the predominate
southwestward flow in upper midshelf waters increase the potential
for shoreward transport of sewage sludge that would be dumped in
the northern area (northeast of the Hudson Shelf Valley).
There is a subtle shoreward movement of bottom water flow
relative to the flow higher in the water column, as shown by
current meter records throughout the Bight. Though not-fully
understood, this movement may be caused by estuarine influences,
compensation for offshore surface wind transport, and formation
of a boundary layer due to friction.
Chemical oceanography: In the Bight Apex sewage sludge
dumping adversely affects the trace metal and organic contaminant
loading of sediments, and, to a lesser extent, the water column.
332
-------
DRAFT
It also adversely affects, to a lesser extent, the oxygen
levels in the Apex water mass. The total influence, how-
ever, of sewage sludge dumping upon the sediment and water-
column is less than the influence of contaminants from
other sources.
In the alternative dumpsite areas, sewage sludge dumping
could increase chemical species in the water column at the
point of introduction. However, rates of dispersal should
be sufficient to reduce this effect, except in the immediate
discharge plume. There is little contamination of the
midshelf region, at least within the limits of the alterna-
tive dumpsite areas.
Dilution and dispersion of sewage sludge at the present
dumpsite, however, are not sufficient to avoid some influences
on the chemistry of the ecosystem. Dilution and dispersion
of sewage sludge at either alternative dumpsite area would
be greater than at the present site, and would probably
result in only local and temporary changes in water chemistry.
Biological oceanography: Outer and mid-portions of the
Bight appear relatively pristine insofar as they have been
studied. General conclusions follow.
Living marine resources in the midshelf region of the
alternative dumpsite areas are typical of those along the
Middle Atlantic and New England continental shelf. Benthic
assemblages are an essential food supply for most demersal
333
-------
DRAFT
fishes. They would be altered unpredictably, prehaps only
minimally, by the dumping of sewage sludge. These assemblages
are distributed fairly homogeneously, on a large scale, in
response to the natural features of the region, such as
sediment type and bottom relief.
Potential biological impacts of sewage sludge dumped in
the alternative areas, based on field investigations and studies
in the Bight Apex, include:
1. An increase in the incidence of fin rot.
2. Contamination of sediments and overlying waters by
pathogens of man, fish, and shellfish, some of which are
resistant to certain antibiotics and heavy metals.
3. Alterations in migratory patterns of bottom-living fishes.
4. Increased concentrations of several heavy metals in fish
and shellfish, which are significantly higher than
concentrations in these organisms under existing
conditions.
5. Modifications of food webs through introductions of detritus
and bacteria; and short-term, localized effects on plankton
through nutrient enrichment.
334
-------
DRAFT
B. Selection of Area, Site, and Disposal Procedure
Certain observed phenomena that will affect the impact
of dumped sewage sludge are discussed relative to choice
of dumpsite and method of dumping. The following
di'scussion is predicated on the assumption that a clear
and definite need for moving the existing sewage sludge
dumpsite has been demonstrated, a need which has not yet
been demonstrated. NOAA's advice and policy onfcontinued
use of the existing dumpsite is contained in letters from
David H. Wallace, NOAA's Associate Administrator for Marine
Resources, to Gerald R, Hansler, Administrator of Environ*-
mental Protection Agency, Region II, dated /7 September
1974 and 6 October 1975. Copies of these letters in
Appendix
Selection of alternative dumpsite area: .In-selecting
any dumpsite area, the Hudson Shelf Valley must be considered
because: a) it serves as a migration path for certain fishes
and shellfish, b) fisheries are now present in and near the
Valley, and c) the deeper portion of the Valley is a winter
aggregation zone for certain species. Further, water flow
in the Shelf Valley is extremely complex, reverses at times,
and is difficult to predict.
Current flow on the open shelf of the Bight generally is
to the southwest. Variations in this mean flow sometimes
show an onshore component. Dissolved and suspended fractions
335
-------
DRAFT
of dumped material can be expected to move with this prevailing
flow, and, at times, move shoreward.
The Hudson Shelf Valley is a sink for a large portion of
fine particles that reach it. Material dumped in northern area
1-A is likely to contaminate the Shelf Valley to a greater degree
than material dumped in southern area 2-A. Because of the Shelf
Valley's importance to living resources, southern area 2-A is
more acceptable for disposal of sewage sludge than northern
area 1-A.
Selection of specific dumpsite location: It is recommended
that any new sewage sludge dumpsite be located within a small
portion of the southern alternative dumpsite area 2-A. Speci-
fically, the site should include an area no more than approxi-
mately 12 nmi2 (41 km2), centered at latitude 39°40'N - longitude
73°18'W, where depths are approximately 40 m (22 fm). Reasons
for recommending this location include projected environmental
effects, development of an effective monitoring program, and,
to a lesser degree, the method and economy of the sewage sludge
disposal operations. This site minimizes the possibility of
material being dispersed toward and into the Hudson Shelf Valley-
Selection of disposal procedure: There has been much
discussion about the merits of containing vs. dispersing of
wastes as they are disposed in the marine environment.
Dilution over a large area has been advocated by some to
minimize environmental problems,while containment of wastes within
336
-------
a small area has been advocated by others to preserve the
remainder of the environment. In the midshelf region
the argument is academic. Sewage sludge will be naturally
dispersed and widely distributed, even when dumped at a
point source. Dumping over a large area increases costs
of dumping operations. Also, development of a system to
monitor effects of disposal over a large region will
introduce a logistic problem that will be exceedingly
expensive to solve.
-------
DRAFT
C. Monitoring New Interim Dumpsites
Development of a sound monitoring program at any new
sewage sludge disposal site is essential to understanding
the effects of the dumping. It is recommended that an
adequately-funded monitoring program be established.
Initial surveys at a new sewage sludge dumpsite must
examine the type of waste material to be disposed in
context with the rationale for dumping, and the desired
ultimate fate of the waste. Knowledge of the proposed
site, in the context of regional oceanographic processes,
and of the interaction of the injected material with the
environment is required. Ideally, the proposed dumping
situation should be modeled and independently verified.
Once dumping begins at the site, the oceanographic
processes and fate of dumped materials, which were hypo-
theized; and modeled, should be verified through a moni-
toring effort which should include detailed investigations
of the dispersive, advective, and density fields,
particularly as a function of the oceanographic clima-
tology. If initial assumptions prove valid, then monitoring
should continue routinely, utilizing only a few key
parameters to check the probabilistic nature of the
original predictions. These parameters should be selected
on the basis of their usefulness, sensitivity, and ease and
rapidity of sampling and analysis. The monitoring program
should be designed to be economically reasonable. The objective
338
-------
DRAFT
of the monitoring should be a biological and chemical
assessment of the capacity and growth of the site, the
health of the biological community in and around the
site, and the extent of movement of material away from
the Site. If initial assumptions concerning the
oceanography in the vicinity of the site fail to with-
stand the rigors of the field investigations, then the
new knowledge should be used immediately to identify and
resolve discrepancies, and to make appropriate adjustments
in dumping practices, if warranted.
Following is a list of parameters which should be
part of the monitoring effort. It should be emphasized
that there is no unique tag for measuring the fate or
effect of dumped sewage sludge in the marine environment.
Total and fecal coliforms: The distribution and
abundance of these organisms in the water column,
sediments, and shellfish should be measured. Regardless
of weaknesses associated with utilizing coliforms as
indicators, they remain the only acceptable standard,
and they are indicators of pathogens.
Turbidity: Some measure of turbidity of the water
column is useful as a general measure of the advection
and dispersion of dumped sewage sludge. Long-term
persistence and growth of turbidity in what is now a
rather pristine area would be excellent indicators of
339
-------
DRAFT
environmental degradation.
Ocean color: Remotely-sensed ocean color information
should be considered as a potential indicator of materials
from dumped sewage sludge at and near the air/sea interface..
Utilization of existing technology and either satellite or
high altitude imagery should provide considerable insight into
the transport and dispersion of these materials.
Characteristic materials found in sewage sludge: There are
a number of byproducts representative of human, animal and in-
dustrial wastes in sewage sludge. Physical examination of
suspended material and of bottom surficial sediment samples
should give, perhaps, the first indication of contamination.
Examination of samples for tomato and melon seeds, human hair,
fragments of rubber and plastic, and cellulose fibers is suggested.
Dissolved oxygen: Dissolved oxygen in the water column is
one of the most critical parameters to monitor. The general
health of the environment depends on a sufficient supply of
oxygen relative to its utilization to support life and oxidize
man-related and natural materials. Close examination of oxygen
content is recommended.
Metals in sediments: The distribution and abundance of
selected heavy metals in surficial sediments should be monitored
at both sites. Atypical metals concentrations are general in-
dicators of a degraded environment.
340
-------
DRAFT
Benthic invertebrates: These organise serve as long
term integrators of marine environmental contamination.
It is recommended that abundance of selected species be
determined. In addition coliform and heavy metal de-
termination should be made in selected shellfish.
Time and space scales, and methods of sampling are
not defined at this time. Environmental parameters
that require complex instrumentation systems, or massive
data collection programs, should be avoided.
341
------- |