Biological Assessment for the Closure of the
Mud Dump Site and Designation of the
Historic Area Remediation Site in the New
York Bight Apex
MAY 1997
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2
290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866
-------
30 I9S7;
i
Mr. Christopher Mantzaris, Chief
Habitat & Protected Resources
National Marine Fisheries Service
1 Blackburn Drive
Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930
Dear Mr. Mantzaris:'
On April 4, 1996, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), pursuant to Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA), initiated informal consultation with the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), concerning the possible presence of federally listed threatened /endangered
species in the vicinity of the Mud Dump Site (MDS) and surrounding areas in the New York-
Bight. This informal consultation was conducted as part of our preparation of a Supplement to
the Environmental Impact Statement on the New York Dredged Material Disposal Site
Designation for the Designation of the Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS) in the New York
Bight Apex (enclosed).
Based on the May 8, 1996 NMFS response to EPA's April 1996 letter, and discussions between
our two staffs, the EPA has prepared a Biological Assessment (BA) of the potential impacts of
the proposed action on the loggerhead, and Kemps ridley sea turtles, and humpback and fin
whales. The BA (two copies enclosed), utilizes information that has been provided by NMFS, in
conjunction with a variety of EPA reports and other reference material. The BA also considers
surveys and studies of the New York Bight Apex that have been conducted over the past two
years by EPA and the U. S, Army Corps of Engineers. Based on the BA, the EPA has determined
that the proposed designation of the HARS in the New York Bight Apex is not likely to adversely
affect the aforementioned listed species. Accordingly, I request the NMFS's written concurrence
with this determination within 30 days, pursuant to 50 CFR Part 402.120').
In the interim, should you have any questions concerning the BA or our determination, please^
contact me or Joseph Bergstein of my staff.
Sincerely yours,
Robert W. Hargrove, Chief
Strategic Planning & Multi-Media Programs Branch
Enclosure
cc: M. Ludwig, NMFS Milford
2DEPP-SPM:BERGSTEIN: 5/28/97 G:\U\S\SPM\BERGSTEIN\COORD NMF
-------
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
FOR THE CLOSURE OF THE MUD DUMP SITE AND
DESIGNATION OF THE
HISTORIC AREA REMEDIATION SITE
IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT APEX
EPA Contract No. 68-C7-0004
Work Assignment 0-04
to
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 2
New York City, NY
May 28,1997
Karen Foster and Jerry Neff
Battelle
397 Washington Street
Duxbury, Massachusetts 02332
(617) 934-0571
-------
Biological Assessment
for the Closure of the Mud Dump Site and
Designation of the
Historic Area Remediation Site
in the New York Bight Apex
MAY 1997
Prepared by
EPA Region 2
290 Broadway
New York City, NY 10007-1866
With Assistance of:
Battelle
397 Washington Street
Duxbury, MA 02332
-------
Biological Assessment May 1 997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ES-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Endangered Species Act Regulations 3
1.2 Endangered Species Considered 3
1.3 Format of the BA 4
2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 4
2.1 Physical Environment 5
2.1.1 Topography 5
2.1.2 Water Depths 5
2.1.3 Water Quality 7
2.1.4 Oceanographic Processes 10
2.1.5 Sediment Distribution, Quality, and Transport 11
2.2 Biological Environment 13
2.2.1 Plankton 13
2.2.2 Invertebrates 14
2.2.3 Fish 14
2.2.4 Birds 16
2.2.5 Other 16
3.0 NATURAL HISTORY OF ENDANGERED SPECIES 17
3.1 The Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) 17
3.1.1 Population Status and Trends 17
3.1.2 Seasonal Distribution in Middle-Atlantic Bight Waters 18
3.1.3 Food and Feeding Behaviors 19
3.1.4 Known Disturbance and Mortality Factors 22
3.2 The Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus) 26
3.2.1 Population Status and Trends 26
3.2.2 Seasonal Distribution in Middle-Atlantic Bight Waters 27
3.2.3 Food and Feeding Behaviors .29
3.2.4 Known Disturbance and Mortality Factors 31
3.3 The Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta carettd) 32
3.3.1 Population Status and Trends 32
3.3.2 Seasonal Distribution In Middle-Atlantic Bight Waters 33
3.3.3 Food and Feeding Behaviors 34
3.3.4 Known Mortality Factors 36
3.4 Kemp's Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys kempi) 38
3.4.1 Population Status and Trends 38
3.4.2 Seasonal Distribution in Middle-Atlantic Bight Waters 38
3.4.3 Food and Feeding Behaviors 39
3.4.4 Known Mortality Factors 40
4.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 42
4.1 Background on the HARS and Proposed Action 42
4.2 Description of Proposed Action — HARS Remediation 44
4.2.1 Estimate of Expected Volumes of Material for Remediation 44
-------
Biological Assessment
MDS Closure and HARS Designation
May 1997
Table nf Contents
4.3 Analysis of Impacts 46
4.3.1 Water Quality 46
4.3.2 Physical Impacts 47
4.3.3 Biological Impacts 54
4.3.4 Cumulative Impacts 57
4.4 Alternatives to Minimize Impact 61
4.4.1 Management Alternatives for the Proposed Action 61
4.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 62
4.5.1 BA Alternative 1 (SEIS Alternative 1): No Action 62
4.5.2 BA Alternative 2 (SEIS Alternative 2): Close MDS —
No HARS Designation 63
4.5.3 BA Alternative 3 (SEIS Alternative.4): HARS Restoration 63
5.0 REFERENCES 64
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Summary of Dredged Material Volumes and Trips to the Mud Dump Site from
1990 through 1996 '•'. 45
Table 2. Summary of 1997-2000 Expected Volume of Remediation Material from
Planned Federal and Private New York-New Jersey Harbor Dredging Projects 45
Table 3. Maximum Broad-Band (20-1000 Hz) Sound Pressure Source Levels for
Different Types of Natural Ambient Noise in the Marine Environment 51
Table 4. Estimated Peak Vs-Octave Sound Pressure Source Levels for Vessels of
Different Sizes and Speeds 52
Table 5. Commercial Vessel Traffic into New York Harbor, 1995:,-by Month 60
Table 6. 1994 Motorboat Registrations in New York City 60
Table 7. 1996 Motorboat Registrations in New Jersey. . ? 61
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Location of Current Mud Dump Site (MDS) and the Historic Area Remediation Site
(HARS) 2
Figure 2. EPA's Proposed Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS) Showing Regional Bathymetry,
the Priority Remediation Area (PRA), No Discharge Zone (NDZ), and Buffer Zone (BZ) .. 6
Figure 3. Abundances of Mackerel and Herring in the Northwest Atlantic 15
Figure 4. Distribution of Humpback Whales 1960 - 1992 in the Northwest Atlantic 20
Figure 5. Distribution of Fin Whales 1960 -1992 in the Northwest Atlantic 28
Figure 6. Distribution of Loggerhead Turtles 1960 - 1992 in the Northwest Atlantic 35
APPENDIX
Appendix A. General Information on Contaminant Bioavailability, Bioaccumulation,- Trophic Transfer,
and Biomagnification in Marine Systems
-------
Biological Assessment Executive Summary May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page ES-1
Introduction
The Port of New York and New Jersey is one of the nation's leading ports. To maintain this deepwater
port, dredging of its waterways is necessary on a periodic basis. Currently, material dredged from the Port
that is classified as Category I and n is disposed in the New York Bight Apex at the Mud Dump Site
(MDS), located approximately 5.3 nmi east of Sandy Hook, NJ and 9.6 nmi south of Rockaway Beach,
Long Island, NY.
Over the last few years, monitoring studies have found degraded sediment which exhibits potentially toxic
and bioaccumulative contaminants in the surface sediments of the MDS and adjacent areas. Additionally,
benthic infauna and lobsters in the MDS area have bioaccumulated contaminants which can potentially
impact higher trophic organisms, including human beings. The extent of the degraded sediment areas of
the Bight Apex, and the potential impacts presented by the historical use of the MDS, led EPA to propose
the closing of the MDS and designation of the Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS).
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; P.L. 93-205) requires that Federal agencies'
actions not jeopardize the existence of endangered or threatened species or result in destruction or adverse
modification of the critical habitat for such species. In accordance with the ESA, EPA has coordinated
with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to
ensure that designation and management of the HARS does not adversely affect any protected species or
critical habitat. This Biological Assessment (BA) is a result of EPA's coordination with the NMFS; EPA's
informal consultation with the USFWS was concluded on July 28, 1995.
Two species of endangered great whales (humpback and fin whales) and two species of threatened or
endangered sea turtles (loggerhead turtle and Kemp's ridley turtle) visit coastal waters of the New York
Bight on a seasonal basis to feed. These species, which are the focus of this BA, may pass through the
HARS and the shipping lanes used to transport the material for remediation to the site. The material for
remediation (hereafter: Material for Remediation or Remediation Material) is defined as:
". . . uncontaminated dredged material (i.e. dredged material that meets current Category I standards and
will not cause significant undesirable effects including through bioaccumulation)."
Proposed Action and Alternatives
The Proposed Action is to close (de-designate) the existing 7.5-km2 (2.2-nmi2) MDS and simultaneously
designate a 54-km2 (15.7-nmi2) HARS. Designation of the HARS will allow for the remediation of
degraded sediments. The degraded sediments in the HARS will be remediated by placement of at least a
1-m cap of Material for Remediation. The Proposed Action to designate the HARS for remediation of
degraded sediments is the most environmentally acceptable and economically feasible alternative evaluated
by EPA.
BA Proposed Action (SEIS Alternative 3): HARS Remediation
• Simultaneous closure of the MDS and designation of 15.7-nmi2 (54-km2) HARS
• The HARS is composed of the Priority Remediation Area (PRA), a Buffer Zone (BZ), and No
Discharge Zone (NDZ), including the MDS and sediments that have toxicity or bioaccumulative
contaminants.
• Remediation conducted by capping degraded sediment areas with at least 1 m of Material for
Remediation
• Approximately 40.6 Myd3 required to remediate the 9.0-nmi2 (31-km2) PRA; actual placement
volume may be larger to ensure at least aim cap throughout the PRA
• Remediation work prioritized by degree of sediment degradation
-------
Biological Assessment Executive Summary May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page ES-2
In addition to the Proposed Action, there are three alternatives:
BA Alternative 1 (SEIS Alternative 1): No Action
• No change to size or management of the present Mud Dump Site (MDS)
• No remediation of areas outside of the MDS with toxicity or sediments degraded by
bioaccumulative contaminants, or restoration of fine-grain sediment areas
• Disposal of Category I dredged material continues per the MDS Site Management and Monitoring
Plan (SMMP) until current remaining disposal capacity is reached
• Category n dredged material capacity will be reached by September 1, 1997
BA Alternative 2 (SEIS Alternative 2): Close MDS-No HARS Designation
• Closure of the present Mud Dump Site
• No Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS) designated
• No remediation of sediments outside of the MDS with toxicity or sediments degraded by
bioaccumulative contaminants, or restoration of fine-grain sediment areas created by past dredged
material disposal
BA Alternative 3 (SEIS Alternative 4): HARS Restoration
• Simultaneous closure of the MDS and designation-of 15.7-nmi2 (54-km2) HARS
• The HARS is composed of the PRA, NDZ, and BZ, including the MDS, surrounding areas that
has been historically used for disposal of dredged material and other wastes (e.g., building
materials, sewage sludge, industrial wastes), and sediments degraded by bioaccumulative
contaminants or toxicity.
• Restoration work conducted by covering fine-grain sediment areas with at least 1 m of sandy (0-
10% fines) Material for Remediation
• Approximately 46.4 Myd3 required to restore the 10.3 nmi2 (35.5 km2) of fine-drained sediments in
the PRA; actual placement volume may be larger to ensure at least aim cap throughout the PRA
• Restoration work prioritized by degree of sediment degradation
Affected Environment
For its evaluation of the MDS and the surrounding area of the New York Bight Apex, EPA selected a
Study Area based on field data indicating historical dredged material disposal and evidence of sediment
toxicity and the presence of contaminants. The Study Area was the basis for all subsequent evaluations
used in the development of this BA and EPA's Supplement to the Environmental Statement on the New
York Dredged Material Disposal Site Designation for the Designation of the Historic Area Remediation
Site (HARS) in the New York Bight Apex (hereafter referred to as the SEIS).
The Study Area is located in the New York Bight Apex, east of Sandy Hook, NJ, south of Rockaway
Beach, NY, and southeast of the entrance to the Port of New York and New Jersey. Water depths in this
area range from 12 to 42 m.
Within the Study Area, which includes the MDS, bottom sediments are heterogeneous and composed of
muds, clays, sands, and occasional rock outcrops and shipwrecks. Degraded sediments in the HARS are
contaminated by both metals and organic contaminants. The EPA Region 2 SEIS provides summary data
that characterizes the sediments throughout the Study Area. The SEIS concludes that while it is impossible
to quantify how much of New York Bight Apex contamination is the direct result of past dredged material
disposal, other ocean dumping activities (e.g., former sewage sludge disposal at the 12-Mile Site), or other
sources (e.g., via Hudson River plume or atmospheric deposition), the presence of these dredged sediments
in the Apex is cause for concern.
-------
Biological Assessment Executive Summary May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page ES-3
Water quality throughout the New York Bight Apex is generally good. It has improved substantially
following cessation of disposal of sewage sludge in the Bight Apex and implementation of effluent
limitations for domestic and industrial wastewater effluents to the Hudson/Raritan River estuary system.
Present discharges of Category I and Category n dredged materials at the MDS have only minor, transitory
effects on water turbidity and do not result in significant increases in concentrations of chemical
contaminants and primary nutrients in the water column. Concentrations of dissolved oxygen in bottom
waters are generally high and have improved substantially after cessation of sewage sludge dumping in the
Bight Apex in 1987.
Mean ocean currents through the Study Area are toward the southwest, parallel to the local depth contours.
Current speeds increase with distance from shore and decrease with depth. In the short-term, local currents
are modified by tidal and wind forcing. The wind stress tends to be directed offshore during the winter
when wind velocity is highest. Strong winter storms can produce strong along-shelf currents. Maximum
recorded wave heights during storms are more than 7 m, sufficient to resuspend sediments within the
shallower areas of the present MDS. Resuspension and transport of sediments usually are either to the
north in the Hudson Shelf Valley or southward out of the Bight.
The New York Bight has a moderately high biological productivity. Primary production by phytoplankton
in surface waters is highest in spring and early summer and is lowest in late fall and winter. The relative
abundance of zooplankton in the Bight tracks that of phytoplankton with a one to two month delay.
Benthic and swimming crabs, the preferred prey of loggerhead and ridley turtles, are abundant in shallow
nearshore waters and bays of the New York Bight, particularly along the southern and eastern shores of
Long Island. These crustaceans are most abundant in coastal waters during the summer.
Small schooling fish, such as herring and mackerel, and near-bottom forage fish, such as sand lance, serve
as preferred prey for humpback and fin whales in the New York Bight. These fish are migratory and are
most abundant in shelf and nearshore waters of the Bight in different seasons. Herring may be abundant in
nearshore waters in the spring, mackerel in the spring and fall, and sand lance during the summer. In
recent years, the herring, mackerel, and sand lance stocks in the New York Bight have increased. Similar
increases of forage fish have been observed in New England waters, resulting in a shift in the summer
distribution of humpback and fin whales in the Gulf of Maine.
Several species of marine or coastal birds live in or on the shores of the New York Bight. Three of these,
the bald eagle, the piping plover, and the eastern peregrine falcon, are threatened or endangered. The
piping plover feeds on intertidal invertebrates and the peregrine falcon feeds primarily on small birds.
Bald eagles are opportunistic predators that prefer fish (dead or live). The northeastern tiger beetle, which
inhabits coastal areas, is present within 3.5 nmi of the Study Area. Concerns regarding potential impacts
to the piping plover and northeastern tiger beetle were resolved during EPA-USFWS consultation.
Natural History of Whales and Sea Turtles in the New York Bight
Humpback Whale (Magaptera novaealgleae). The estimated current total population of humpback
whales in the western North Atlantic Ocean, including the New York Bight, is 5,543 individuals. The
western North Atlantic stock winters off the Lesser and Greater Antilles Islands in the eastern Caribbean
Sea. During the summer, these whales split into five feeding aggregations that migrate to and feed along
the coasts of Iceland, southwestern Greenland, Newfoundland and Labrador, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and
the Gulf of Maine. Most of the humpbacks that visit the New York Bight probably are from the Gulf of
Maine feeding aggregation, which numbers about 450 individuals.
-------
Biological Assessment Executive Summary May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page ES-4
Between 50 and 100 humpback whales are observed each year in the New York Bight. All age classes,
including mother/calf pairs are present in the Bight between June and September. In the winter, all the
humpback whales sighted in the New York Bight are non-reproducing juveniles.
Humpback whales visit the New York Bight in all seasons to feed on small forage fish and euphausiid
crustaceans. The whales are observed most frequently in coastal waters of eastern Long Island. There
have been only a few sightings of humpbacks near the MDS and proposed HARS. The distribution of
humpback whales in the Bight may change as the relative abundance and distributions of their preferred
prey changes.
The most common anthropogenic source of injury and mortality for humpback whales in the western North
Atlantic is entanglement in fishing gear. Collisions with vessels, particularly large ships, also are a
common source of injury and death for the whales. Humpback whales along the U.S. Atlantic coast have
become quite tolerant of small boat traffic and do not appear to be markedly disturbed by physical and
acoustic disturbance from these vessels.
Humpback whales are the top consumers in a relatively simple, short food chain composed of
phytoplankton, zooplankton, and small forage fish. The main route for bioaccumulation of chemical
contaminants is by trophic transfer through this food chain. Of the limited chemical-residue data sets
available, organochlorine compounds in blubber and organ tissues of humpback whales from the western
North Atlantic are somewhat elevated, over those of humpback whales from other areas. In comparison,
contaminant concentrations in toothed whales are significantly higher than in humpbacks. In all cases,
contaminant concentrations in humpback whales are lower than levels associated with adverse effects in
marine mammals.
Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalis). Fin whales are long slender whales that are capable of rapid
swimming speeds. They were less depleted by whaling than most other species of great whales. An
estimated 5,000 fin whales occupy continental shelf waters between Cape Hatteras and the Canadian
border each spring and summer. Several thousand additional fin whales occupy Canadian Atlantic waters
in the summer and frequently visit U.S. waters. While the summer distribution of Atlantic populations of
fin whales overlaps that of humpback whales, fin whales are more widely distributed in the Middle-
Atlantic Bight. Large numbers of fin whales remain in northern waters during the winter, compared to
humpbacks which predominately overwinter in southern waters.
Fin whales are the most abundant baleen whales in the New York Bight and can be sighted year-round. In
January through March, they are found close to shore off eastern Long Island where they probably are
feeding on herring and mackerel. They also appear in relatively large numbers in the New York Bight
Apex in the winter. They tend to move offshore and to northern feeding grounds to feed in the spring and
summer. Fin whales that winter further south visit the New York Bight, particularly waters off eastern
Long Island, during the summer. All age classes, including mother/calf pairs, visit the Bight during the
year. The distribution of fin whales in the Bight has changed somewhat in recent years, probably reflecting
changes in the distribution of their prey.
Like humpback whales, fin whales feed on small forage fish and euphausiid shrimp; the two species often
are seen feeding together, particularly where schools of sand lance are abundant. In the New York Bight,
fin whales sometimes are observed feeding on dense patches of pelagic euphaudiid crustaceans.
Fin whales, like humpbacks, frequently become entangled in fishing gear. However, unlike humpbacks,
fin whales are better able to avoid collisions with large vessels because of their great speed. Fin whales
-------
Biological Assessment Executive Summary May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page ES-5
have also been shown to bioaccumulate anthropogenic contaminants, such as polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and DDT.
Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta). Loggerhead turtles are threatened throughout their range.
Approximately 378,000 loggerheads live in coastal waters of the southeastern United States. An estimated
7,000 to 10,000 individuals, mostly subadults of both sexes, visit coastal waters of the middle and north
Atlantic during the summer to feed.
Juvenile loggerhead turtles are abundant during summer months in coastal waters of the New York Bight.
In the fall, they migrate southward to coastal waters of the south Atlantic states, particularly Florida, where
they spend the winter. The turtles feed in shallow coastal waters in Long Island Sound, Gardners Bay, the
south shore of Long Island, and the Hudson/Raritan Estuary during the summer. Occasionally, they are
trapped and cold-stunned (and killed) by rapidly falling water temperatures in Long Island Sound and the
bays of eastern Long Island during the fall. The young turtles grow rapidly during their summer visits to
the New York Bight.
In New York coastal waters, loggerheads feed on the bottom, primarily on small crabs. Feeding depths are
almost exclusively <20 m. When feeding, loggerheads often spend more than 57 minutes of each hour
below the water surface.
Several loggerheads strand on the shores of New York and New Jersey each year, most often from cold-
stunning in the fall. In the New York Bight area, the second major cause of death of loggerhead turtles is
collisions with vessels. Further south, large numbers of loggerheads are killed annually by entrapment or
entanglement in active fishing gear, particularly shrimp and fish trawls. Ingestion or entanglement in
floating debris, particularly monofilament fishing lines and floating plastic are a major source of injury and
death for loggerheads. Hydraulic dredging operations (not disposal) also contribute to annual mortalities.
Winter dredging of the Cape Canaveral channel, Florida, and King's Bay, Georgia, has resulted in the
deaths of sea turtles that hibernate in dredging areas. Because loggerheads do not hibernate in New York-
New Jersey Harbor or surrounding areas, dredging operations do not impact resident turtles.
Kemp's ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempi). Kemp's ridley turtle is the most severely endangered sea
turtle in the world. The entire Atlantic population probably does not exceed 500 adult animals. The total
world population of adult, breeding ridleys, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico, is approximately 2,200
individuals. There probably are 10 to 50 times as many juveniles, bringing the total population to 22,000
to 110,000 turtles of all ages. Only juvenile ridleys migrate into and feed in middle and north Atlantic
coastal waters.
Virtually all the ridley turtles that visit the New York Bight during summer to feed are juveniles. These
juveniles, 20 to 30 cm long, begin arriving in New York waters each year in July or August and remain in
shallow waters, particularly in the bays of eastern Long Island until mid to late September. They then
migrate southward toward wintering areas along the U.S. south Atlantic coast. Ridleys migrating south
from further east and north may become trapped by rapidly declining water temperatures and strand along
the shores of eastern Long Island and in Long Island Sound.
Ridleys, like loggerheads, feed primarily on small crabs that they capture in shallow coastal waters. They
rarely feed in water deeper than about 15 m. The juvenile turtles grow rapidly during their brief summer
visits to the New York Bight. There is growing evidence that, despite their small size, the juvenile ridleys
are able to make the long migration from New York and New England waters south to the Gulf of Mexico
where they join the only breeding population.
-------
Biological Assessment Executive Summary May 199'
MDS Closure and HARS Designation pageJiS*6
Kemp's ridley turtles are sensitive to cold stunning. Several turtles wash ashore stunned or dead each fall
as water temperatures fall rapidly along the shores of Long Island Sound and the New York Bight. The
main cause of anthropogenic mortality of ridleys in the New York Bight area appears to be vessel strikes.
Farther south large numbers of juvenile ridleys are caught and killed in shrimp nets. As many as 5,000
juvenile and adult ridleys are killed by entrapment in shrimp nets each year, far greater than the estimated
numbers killed by vessel strikes in the New York Bight area. Because they feed on the bottom, they
sometimes become trapped in bottom fishing gear, such as lobster and crab traps.
Impacts of the Proposed Action
Between 1990 and 1996, 26 million cubic yards (Myd3) of dredged material was dumped at the current
MDS. There was an average of 829 barge trips per year, each delivering an average of approximately
4,645 yd3 of dredged material. Under the Proposed Action, an estimated 40.6 Myd3 of Material for
Remediation would be placed in the HARS during remediation operations providing a 1-m cap of Material
for Remediation. It is expected that the number of barge trips to the HARS under the Proposed Action will
be considerably less than the 1990-1996 annual average number of trips to the MDS.
Placement of at least 1 m of Material for Remediation in the Priority Remediation Area (PRA) of the
HARS will cover and isolate all degraded sediments of the HARS. During placement operations, there
will be temporary increases in turbidity in the water column as suspended fine-grain sediments disperse
from the dredged material plume. However, these plumes will not exceed marine water quality criteria
after initial mixing and will fully dissipate within about 1 h of discharge.
Because all Material for Remediation placed in the HARS will have passed lexicological and
bioaccumulation tests, no contaminant-associated impacts will occur. Because the Material for
Remediation will not contain significant levels of contaminants, it is extremely unlikely that the Proposed
Action will adversely impact the food chain of the endangered and threatened turtles and whales in the
area. Correspondingly, capping the degraded sediment areas with at least 1 m of Remediation Material
will decrease contaminant exposure to the turtles and whales, and the Proposed Action will decrease the
risk for whales and turtles to ingest contaminated prey.
Remediation of the HARS will decrease the water depth of the site by approximately 1 m. If the Material
for Remediation has a different texture or mineralogical composition of the current sediments in the area,
sediment texture and other physical properties of surficial sediments will change. Concentrations of
bioavailable and potentially toxic forms of inorganic and organic chemical contaminants in surface
sediments will decrease; however, the effects of these reductions may not be measurable in whale and
turtle prey.
Although the Proposed Action may affect the bottom habitat and the corresponding communities (within
the PRA and Buffer Zone of the HARS), there is unlikely to be any effects on the endangered species or
their critical habitat. Preferred prey species of the four threatened or endangered species occur but are not
known to be abundant within the HARS. In general, water depths at the HARS are greater than the
preferred foraging depth of the sea turtles, and humpback and fin whales have never been observed feeding
in the vicinity. In summary, the protected turtles and whales are unlikely to forage in the HARS. The
potential for turtles and whales to bioaccumulate contaminants from prey organisms before remediation
operations is very low and this potential will be further reduced after completion of remediation operations.
The number of barge trips per year to the HARS is expected to be substantially fewer than the 829 trips
per year average to the MDS for 1990 to 1996. Potential disturbance to endangered whales and turtles
from ambient noise, or injury or death from collision is thus expected to be less than current conditions.
-------
Biological Assessment Executive Summary May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page ES-7
The underwater noise of under-way loaded barges and tug boats, although loud, will not significantly
change the current level of anthropogenic noise in waters of the New York Bight Apex. Commercial and
recreational vessel traffic in the northwestern Bight is very high and barges/tugs make only modest
additions to overall ambient noise.
Barges are towed at low speeds, usually less than 6 knots, and will be manned with NMFS-certified
observers to spot and help avoid collisions with whales and sea turtles. Given the slow movement of the
vessels, and the presence of the observers, the risk of collisions between barges carrying Material for
Remediation and endangered whales and sea turtles is very low.
The average number of trips per year to the HARS under the Proposed Action (SEIS Alternative 3),
BA Alternative 1, and BA Alternative 3 are less than the current annual trips to the MDS. While the
estimated annual number of trips to the HARS under the Proposed Action and BA Alternative 3 are
similar, BA Alternative 3 will take considerably longer to fully implement.
Relative to the potential bioaccumulation impacts from degraded sediments, the Proposed Action presents
less impact than BA Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 (SEIS Alternatives 1, 2, and 4, respectively). However, the
degree of impact reduction is likely to be undetectable with the limitations of current measurement
technology and the natural variability of the benthic ecosystem in the Bight Apex. Under BA
Alternative 1, degraded sediment exhibiting Category n or HI characteristics inside the current MDS will
be capped and isolated from the ecosystem, and thereby reduce contaminant bioaccumulation potential.
Outside the MDS, however, equivalent sediments under BA Alternative 1 will not be capped and will
continue to expose the benthic organisms to bioaccumulative contaminants and sediment toxicity.
Similarly, under BA Alternative 2, none of the degraded sediments within the MDS or surrounding
environs will be remediated. Under BA Alternative 3, degraded sediments throughout the MDS and
environs will eventually be capped, however, the ecosystem will continue to be exposed to the
contaminants during the lengthy period expected for the restoration operations to be implemented and
completed.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Port of New York and New Jersey is one of the nation's leading ports. With 126.1 million short tons
shipped in 1994, the Port ranked third, behind only the Port of South Louisiana and the Port of Houston,
which shipped 184.9 and 143.7 tons, respectively (USAGE WCSC, 1996). To maintain this deepwater
port, dredging of its waterways is necessary on a periodic basis. All sediment dredged from this port is
evaluated and categorized by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 2 and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (USAGE) New York District (NYD) prior to determining a disposal method and site. The
nearest ocean disposal site serving the Port of New York and New Jersey is the Mud Dump Site (MDS),
located approximately 5.3 nmi off Sandy Hook, NJ and 9.6 nmi off Rockaway Beach, Long Island, NY
(Figure 1).
Over the last few years, monitoring studies have found toxicity and potentially bioaccumulative
contaminants in the surface sediments of the MDS. These contaminants are associated with degraded
sediments [as defined in Chapter 3 of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS); EPA
Region 2 (1997)] and are probably the result of dredged material disposed prior to 1991, when dredged
material tests for ocean disposal were revised. In addition, 1994 sediment data from outside the borders of
the MDS revealed "hot spots" of degraded sediments north, east, west and northwest of the MDS. These
other contaminated areas were probably caused by either dredged material disposal projects completed
before the 1973 interim designation of the MDS, other ocean dumping in the Bight Apex (e.g., sewage
sludge dumping), or are the result of current or historic Hudson River outflow or atmospheric deposition
contamination.
EPA selected a Study Area in the New York Bight Apex that was the basis for evaluations used in the
SEIS and this Biological Assessment (BA). Subsequent to the evaluations and Agency decision making,
EPA has proposed designating a Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS) that encompasses approximately
one-half of the Study Area. The HARS would be 15.7 nmi2 (54 km2) and include the entire current MDS
area (Figure 1). Within the HARS would be a 9.0-nmi2 (31-km2) Priority Remediation Area (PRA), a 500-
m Buffer Zone (BZ), and a No Discharge Zone (NDZ).1 Following its designation, the HARS would be
managed to allow for remediation of the degraded sediment areas. This B A focuses on activities
associated with placement of Material for Remediation2 in the HARS as it relates to specific endangered
and threatened species.
'The Priority Remediation Area (PRA) is 9.0-nmi2 area that is divided into nine 1-nmi2 cells for management
purposes. The PRA contains the degraded sediments found in the MDS and surrounding areas, and will be covered
with at least 40.6 Myd3 of Remediation Material to ensure at least a 1-m cap throughout the area. The areas
exhibiting the greatest relative degree of degradation will be remediated first. The Buffer Zone (BZ) is an
approximately 5.7-nmi2 area (500-m, 0.27-nmi-wide band around the PRA) in which no placement of Remediation
Material will be allowed, but may receive Remediation Material that incidentally spreads out of the PRA. The No
Discharge Zone (NDZ) is an approximately 1.0-nmi2 area in which no placement or incidental spread of Material for
Remediation will be allowed. The NDZ is not degraded, and is generally above the 20-m (approx. 65-ft) depth
contour, the depth at which large storms such as hurricanes and northeasters are able to generate sufficient water
turbulence to resuspend and transport benthic sediments.
Material for Remediation (Remediation Material) is defined as: "... uncontaminated dredged material
(i.e. dredged material that meets current Category I standards and will not cause significant undesirable effects
including through bioaccumulation)." (July 24, 1996, EPA/DOT/USACE 1996)
-------
Biological Assessment
MDS Closure and HARS Designation
May 1997
Page 2
02468 Kilometers
0246 Miles
Figure 1. Location of Current Mud Dump Site (MDS)
and the Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS).
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 3
1.1 Endangered Species Act Regulations
This BA was prepared in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA, P.L.
93-205) which requires that all Federal agencies ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out
will not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species (i.e., listed species) or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of any critical habitat of such species. The "action" under
consideration is the closure of the present MDS and designation of the HARS as a site for subsequent
placement of Material for Remediation so as to remediate degraded sediment areas.
Because the action will occur in marine waters, the ESA mandates that the Federal agency responsible for
the "action" (i.e., EPA) consult with the Department of Commerce. Consultation with the Secretary of
Interior is required also if any birds or other non-marine endangered or threatened species may be affected
by the action. Accordingly, EPA consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to ensure that the proposed action does not ". . . jeopardize the
continued existence of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification
of the critical habitat of such species" (50 CFR Part 402). This consultation includes preparation of a
Biological Assessment (presented herein) to determine if designation of the HARS is likely to result in
adverse effects to threatened or endangered species.
With respect to EPA's coordination with the USFWS, potential issues concerning species (e.g., piping
plover, northeastern tiger beetle) under the jurisdiction of the USFWS were resolved during an informal
consultation that concluded on July 28, 1995.
1.2 Endangered Species Considered
This B A was developed to determine if designation of the HARS and subsequent conveyance to and
placement of Material for Remediation at the HARS in the New York Bight Apex could have adverse
effects on the marine ecosystem and biological resources of the Apex. Particular concern is for endangered
species of marine animals that may reside in or visit the area of the HARS and the barge routes between
the Port of New York and New Jersey and the HARS. Six species of endangered great whales (right,
humpback, fin, sei, blue, and sperm whales) and five species of threatened or endangered sea turtles
(loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, leatherback, green, and hawksbill turtles) are permanent or seasonal residents
of coastal and ocean waters of the western North Atlantic, including the New York Bight Apex. Only four
of these threatened or endangered species are regular visitors to coastal waters of the New York Bight
Apex and might visit the HARS during feeding or migration. These are humpback whales, fin whales,
loggerhead turtles, and Kemp's ridley turtles. These animals all visit the New York Bight to feed on a
seasonal basis. Based on recommendations by the NMFS, EPA has assessed the potential impact of
placement of Material for Remediation in the HARS on the four above-mentioned species.
EPA has conducted an informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service letter dated April 6, 1995) for endangered species under its jurisdiction within the HARS
(including marine and coastal birds and northeastern tiger beetle). This informal consultation was
concluded on July 28,1995.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 4
13 Format of the BA
The BA is a key component of the ESA §7 consultation procedure for designation of the HARS. This BA
will provide background information on the affected environment or "action area." This background
information includes a description of the physical, biological, and chemical features of the New York Bight
Apex. In addition, descriptions of the natural histories of endangered or threatened species present in the
area are presented.
As stated above, the proposed HARS and the New York Bight Apex are the focus of this BA. The
endangered and threatened species (i.e., listed species) that are discussed in this BA have been approved
by the NMFS during the early stages of the consultation (NMFS letter dated May 8, 1996 from NMFS to
EPA). The information on the affected environment and the endangered species natural histories in this
report is used to (1) evaluate the potential effects to endangered and threatened species and designated
critical habitats by the designation of the HARS and subsequent placement of Material for Remediation,
and (2) determine whether any listed species are likely to be adversely affected by the action. Alternatives
to the Proposed Action will be presented and evaluated with respect to their potential to minimize impacts
to the endangered and threatened species.
This BA uses information presented in the Biological Opinion issued on May 12, 1993 by the National
Marine Fisheries Service for the Port Elizabeth/Port Newark Dredging and Ocean Disposal Project (Port
Authority Project)(USACE 1993). The Biological Opinion addressed potential effects of activities at the
MDS on six endangered (right whale, fin whale, humpback whale, leatherback turtle, Kemp's ridley sea
turtle, and the green turtle) and one threatened (loggerhead turtle) species. The four endangered and
threatened species (fin whale, humpback whale, Kemp's ridley turtle, and loggerhead turtle) requested by
the NMFS (as noted in the NMFS May 8, 1996 letter to EPA) are included in this BA. Thus information
and data presented in the Biological Opinion on these four species is incorporated in this BA, where
appropriate.
2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This chapter of the BA provides a description of the physical (e.g., benthic topography), chemical (e.g.,
water temperature), and biological (e.g., fish species) characteristics of the New York Bight in general and
the Study Area, in particular, when possible. The Study Area is a 30-nmi2 area surrounding the current
MDS; the HARS encompasses approximately one-half of the Study Area (refer to Figure 1).
Environmental variables such as benthic topography (Evans 1975, Hui 1979), fronts and mixing regimes
(Volkov and Moroz 1977), sea surface temperature (Au and Perryman 1985), and sea surface salinity
(Thomson et al. 1986) may be related to the distribution of cetaceans and sea turtles. This chapter is not
intended to provide a comprehensive physical, chemical, and biological characterization of the New York
Bight. Rather, it provides an overview of the environment of the Study Area.
Much of the information presented in this chapter has been summarized from the SEIS that has been
prepared by EPA pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Readers are encouraged to
refer to referenced literature of this BA and the SEIS (EPA Region 2 1997) for more detailed information
on the affected environment of the current MDS, and the environmental consequences of the Proposed
Action to designate a HARS.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 5
2.1 Physical Environment
The following description of the physical environment of the HARS, inner New York Bight or Apex, and
the greater New York Bight provides a basis for understanding the oceanographic processes that make
these areas desirable as habitat for endangered and threatened species and their prey (e.g., zooplankton,
fish, and benthic invertebrates).
The current MDS, the Study Area, and the proposed HARS are located in the inner New York Apex
(Figure 1). The Bight Apex is the northwest comer of the larger New York Bight, which covers
approximately 2,000 km2 in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean bounded by Long Island, NY to the north and
the New Jersey coast to the west and the continental slope to the east. The New York Bight has several
unique physical and ecological features which differentiates it from neighboring coastal waters. Aspects of
the physical environment of the MDS, Study Area, HARS, and New York Bight are discussed below.
2.1.1 Topography
The Study Area is located on the shoulder of the drowned Hudson River Valley of the New York Bight
Apex, west of the Christiaensen Basin. Most of the area is depositional, receiving sediments from the
Hudson River estuary via the Hudson River plume and eastward areas via a seasonally variable
anticyclonic gyre (NOAA 1988).
Topography of the Study Area is dominated by the dredged material mound deposited over the past 100
years. Historical records of ocean dumping in the Bight Apex indicate that solid waste, including dredged
material, disposal in the New York Bight has resulted in a continual filling of the Hudson River Valley
from just outside the New York Harbor to areas beyond the southernmost boundary of the present MDS.
Disposal activities have altered the bottom topography such that a distinct ridge of dredged material
extends through the Study Area from the northwest to the southeast. A topographic low is evident to the
west of this dredged material disposal mound. This topographic low was not present historically and is the
direct result of the disposal activity that has been focused along the axis of the Hudson River Canyon. To
the east of the ridge of dredged material, depths rapidly increase into the Hudson Shelf Valley.
2.1.2 Water Depths
Water depths in the New York Bight gradually increase from 12 m near the mouth of the New York
Harbor to 200 m at the continental shelf break. The major geological feature in the New York Bight is the
Hudson Shelf Valley that extends across the bight from the New York Harbor to offshore.
Water depths in the Study Area are shallowest over the dredged material mound, ranging from 12 to 16 m
along the mound axis. The average depth of the present MDS is 22 m. The water depth within the
proposed HARS ranges from 12 to 42 m. Water depths in the eastern third of the northern half of the
Study Area rapidly increase seaward from the mound axis. Depths of 26 m exist along the central north-
south axis of the Study Area and increase to approximately 40 m at the eastern boundary. Depths increase
seaward across the southern third of the Study Area from 22 m in the Shewsbury Rocks area to 40 m in the
Hudson Shelf Valley. The shallow valley to the west of the dredged material mound is approximately
26 m at its deepest extent and shoals to depths of less than 22 m in the center of the area (Figure 2).
-------
Biological Assessment
MDS Closure and HARS Designation
May 1997
Page 6
1996 Bathymetry
,/•. ,•' < 20 meters
f\/2Q meters
/V> 20 meters
Figure 2. EPA's Proposed Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS) Showing Regional Bathymetry,
the Priority Remediation Area (PRA), No Discharge Zone (NDZ), and Buffer Zone (BZ).
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 7
2.1.3 Water Quality
Water quality usually is assessed based on the concentrations in the water column of suspended particles
(turbidity), dissolved oxygen, nutrients, chlorophyll, and chemical contaminants. These water quality
parameters can be affected by direct inputs (e.g., dumping, coastal discharges), indirect inputs (e.g.,
atmospheric, nonpoint sources), and secondary processes (e.g., remobilization from the seafloor, primary
production).
The current water quality of the New York Bight has been significantly influenced by a long history of
waste disposal in the Bight. Use of the New York Harbor and Bight as a repository of waste is
documented back to the 1800s, and the practice probably goes back much further. EPA Region 2 (1995a)
states that raw sewage, garbage, refuse, and street sweepings were routinely dumped into the inner harbor
until the early 1900s. As the harbor area developed and the population increased, public complaints about
the odor and debris problems, and environmental degradation resulting from these disposal practices,
forced the dumping activities out of the inner Harbor area, to the outer harbor, and eventually to the ocean
waters of the inner and outer Bight. Other wastes dumped into the Bight included excavation material
from bridge, tunnel, and building construction (Williams 1979).
I
By 1924, there were a number of specific locations in the New York Bight to dispose of wastes and these
were formalized in the 1970's under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
(MPRSA). In 1987, most ocean disposal of nondredged material in the New York Bight ended. The 12-
Mile Site (sewage sludge) was dedesignated in 1990, followed by the Acid Waste Site (industrial acid
waste byproduct) in 1991. More recently, the Cellar Dirt Site (construction and excavation debris) and the
106-Mile Site (municipal wastes) were dedesignated. With the cessation of sewage sludge dumping in the
New York Bight Apex, pollutant loading decreased and overall water quality improved. Metal loadings
decreased up to 35%, biological oxygen demand (BOD) loading decreased 39%, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB) loading decreased by less than 4%, with ongoing PCB loading suspected from coastal discharges.
Temperature, Salinity, and Density. The hydrographic structure of the New York Bight, including the
influence of the Hudson River estuary, has been well documented (e.g., Bowman and Wunderlich 1977).
Water temperatures in the New York Bight have a seasonal cycle with little variability. There is seasonal
evolution from vertically homogeneous temperature structure in winter to peak stratification in summer.
Salinity fluctuates from low values in spring and high, oceanic values in summer. The seasonal pattern of
surface water salinity in the Bight is dominated by freshwater inflow from rivers, particularly the Hudson
River and waters from Long Island Sound. Peak freshwater inflows to the Bight occur in April; lowest
flows usually are recorded during September.
New York Bight water reaches its maximum density during the winter (January, February, March) when
temperatures are at their lowest and salinities are high (Bowman and Wunderlich 1977). At this time of
year, the lowest temperatures occur near the coast, increasing offshore. In the Bight Apex, sea surface
temperatures drop to less than 2° C in the winter, during which time there is little river runoff offshore and
strong vertical mixing leading to an almost completely unstratified water column. Bottom temperature
tends to be slightly warmer than surface temperature in the winter. While the water column is well-mixed
there is deep wave penetration and essentially a one-layer flow. The winter hydrographic features are
dominated by a temperature, salinity, and density front that separates continental shelf and slope waters.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 8
Warming begins in the spring (April, May) when river runoff reaches its maximum. Near the coast, the
entire water column warms. Offshore in the Apex, the water column begins to stratify in the spring (i.e.,
bottom temperatures remain cold and surface water temperatures rise.) Surface temperatures reach 7° C to
8° C in April and May, but bottom temperatures rarely exceed 4° C except near the south shore of Long
Island. Strong thermal stratification begins to appear in May. The plume of low salinity water from the
Hudson River is strongly evident in the Bight Apex through most of the year. The Hudson River plume
follows the New Jersey shore south and frequently overruns the Study Area; a band of high-salinity water
is often trapped coastward of the Hudson River Plume.
The thermocline intensifies during summer (June, July, August) while bottom temperatures remain
unchanged. Close to the coast, where bottom depth is less than the depth of the thermocline, rapid
warming occurs. The shelf-break front that dominated the winter hydrographic properties and the
associated subsurface, warm intrusion disappears as the upper surface layers continue to warm (Bowman
and Wunderlich 1977). The surface temperature gradient and depth of the thermocline reach their
maximum in early August and remain so for the month. This two layer structure prevents the wind energy
from reaching the bottom, so the bottom current velocities are effectively decoupled from the surface
velocities. The salinity distribution during low river discharge in summer is characterized by a weak low-
salinity plume around Sandy Hook and patches of surface water of variable salinity spread throughout the
inner shelf of the Bight.
During the fall (September, October) and early winter (November, December), the thermocline breaks
down due to surface cooling and the increase in wind stress. The vertical overturning deepens the
isothermal layer and warms bottom water. Eventually the shelf waters are almost entirely isothermal. The
isothermal layer is 20 m deep in the Apex and 40 m deep in the Bight. Destabilization of the water column
by surface cooling and wind stress is usually stronger than buoyancy from river runoff and breaks down
the vertical salinity gradient and leads to a steady increase in surface salinity. Strong winter vertical
mixing dissipates any isolated patches of low-salinity water present during the summer.
Turbidity, Dissolved Oxygen, and Nutrients. The outflow from the Hudson River (i.e., Hudson River
plume) strongly influences the water quality in the Study Area and throughout the New York Bight Apex.
The concentrations, and spatial temporal distributions, of particles, nutrients, and contaminants in the
Study Area respond to this outflow and result in a decreasing offshore gradient for many of the above
parameters. In addition, the Hudson River plume exerts significant influence on the salinity and density
structure of the water column. These physical gradients influence the spatial and temporal variability in
turbidity, dissolved oxygen, nutrient, chlorophyll, and contaminant concentrations in the water column of
the Study Area.
Turbidity. Water column turbidity (suspended solids) can be affected by many factors including growth
of phytoplankton, river plumes, and natural and anthropogenic events that resuspend sediments. Dragos
and Peven (1994) reported low turbidity throughout the water column in June 1994 with a small mid-depth
maximum in the central portion of the Study Area. This feature appeared to extend from the north and
west into the Study Area, but did not extend to the east side of the Study Area. Turbidity in the water
column on the east side of the Study Area did not show any distinguishing vertical features during the
survey. Turbidity contours at the 8-m depth clearly show that this mid-depth turbidity maximum extends
from coastal New Jersey into the MDS. The data do not reveal elevated turbidity in the vicinity of the
MDS that might be attributable to dredge material disposal, but do show that the Hudson River discharge
and coastal currents exert a significant influence on the turbidity in the Study Area. Time series tracking
of individual dredged material plumes demonstrated that turbidity associated with dumping events in the
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 9
MDS decline to background levels within a few hours (Dragos and Lewis 1993; Dragos and Peven 1994).
These data indicate that dredged material disposal in the MDS environs has a transient impact on the water
clarity.
Resuspension of surficial layers of bed sediments during high energy events can also affect the turbidity in
the water column.
Dissolved Oxygen. Prior to transfer of sewage sludge disposal to the 106-Mile Site in 1986, the disposal
of the sludge at the 12-Mile Site contributed to unacceptably low dissolved oxygen concentrations in the
water and sediments of the New York Bight Apex (HydroQual 1989a). The low oxygen concentrations
were part of an arearwide eutrophieation characterized by elevated nutrient concentrations and high
phytoplankton production in surface waters.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations in the inner Bight increased measurably after sewage sludge disposal was
moved from the 12-Mile Site to the 106-Mile Site. During the summer months of 1983 to 1985, oxygen
concentrations in bottom waters of the most heavily impacted area within the 12-Mile Site frequently were
as low as 0.5 mg/L. In the summers of 1987 through 1989, after cessation of dumping, oxygen
concentrations increased to about 4 mg/L, with the lowest concentration of 2.5 mg/L recorded in 1989
(Mountain and Arlen 1995). Similar results were obtained in a study conducted by EPA Region 2 in
coastal waters off New Jersey and New York. After 1986, nearly all oxygen measurements (99.3%) in
bottom waters were above 2 mg/L, and no values below 2 mg/L were recorded after 1988.
Nutrients. The two inorganic nutrients that have the greatest effect on primary production in the ocean are
phosphorous and nitrogen. Other major nutrients, notably silicon, as well as many micronutrients and
metals are also necessary for plant growth, and may enhance or retard production based on local
conditions. Primary production in most coastal marine ecosystems is limited by concentrations of available
phosphorous and nitrogen present in the euphotic zone of the water column and taken up by plants as
phosphate and nitrate.
Globally, the major source of phosphorous is land drainage, with the ocean acting as vast reservoir of these
nutrients. Nitrogen compounds also enter the sea from land runoff, but a large proportion also enters the
marine environment through the atmosphere. Marine algae require sufficient quantities of both
phosphorous and nitrogen to grow and reproduce. The vast majority of these algae are microscopic
phytoplankton that live in surface waters of coastal areas that are rich in nutrients and receive sufficient
light for primary production (i.e., plant growth).
In the waters of the New York Bight and Bight Apex, coastal enrichment from land-based nitrogen sources
is of concern. Over-enrichment from land-based nitrogen contributes to the area's phytoplankton
communities growth especially during the summer. At excessive levels, this can lead to eutrophieation and
depletion of oxygen in the water column and other deleterious effects. The great majority of nitrogen
entering the Bight originates from sewage discharges that enter the area in the Hudson River plume.
Another source of nitrogen to Bight waters is atmospheric deposition. Coastal inputs tend to have a greater
relative importance closer to shore in the Bight, whereas atmospheric sources are more important at Bight-
wide scales.
The nutrient flux of the Study Area is dominated by the Hudson River plume which is driven by nutrient
loading from New York-New Jersey metropolitan area and watersheds (Stoddard etal. 1986, HydroQual
1989b). Stoddard etal. (1986) summarized data from over 3,000 stations that were sampled between 1973
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 10
and 1981 in the greater New York Bight, and showed that nutrient concentrations have a winter maximum
(period of lowest productivity) and a summer minimum (when primary production is high). The amplitude
of this cycle decreases seaward. Primary production is highest in the spring with a decline in production
during the summer and a secondary maximum in the fall. Primary production is highest in the surface
euphotic zone of the water column. As phytoplankton die and sink, the resulting organic matter
decomposes and consumes bottom-water oxygen.
In the past 10 years, nutrient loading to the Bight has decreased, resulting in a substantial improvement in
overall water quality. Eutrophic conditions have declined with the decrease in phytoplankton production
in surface waters, and bottom-water oxygen concentrations have increased proportionately. Disposal of
dredged material in the Study Area remains, as in the past, a minor source of nutrients to the Bight.
Contaminants. Contaminant concentrations in the water column of the Bight Apex are generally low
(Hanson and Quinn 1983) and do not exceed marine water quality criteria. The low total suspended solids
concentration (TSS) in the waters of this offshore region causes most contaminants to be present in the
dissolved phase (EPA Region 2 1991; 1992). Recent data also show that the concentrations of most metals
(and by extension organic contaminants) in the water column decrease with distance offshore from the
mouth of the Harbor (HydroQual 1989b). The decreasing offshore gradient (Klinkhammer and Bender
1981; Hanson and Quinn 1983; HydroQual 1989b; EPA Region 2 1991; Battelle 1992a; EPA Region 2
1992) directly reflects dilution of the contaminant concentrations in the Hudson River plume with seawater
from the Bight region. Variations in this gradient may occur as the flow of the river changes and in
response to other climatological factors that affect the mixing and transport regimes of the inner Bight.
The seasonal stratification of the water column also affects the vertical distribution of contaminants. For
example, metals concentrations in surface waters are consistently higher than in waters from below the
pycnocline. This reflects both the influence of the Hudson River outflow on the surface waters of the
Bight and natural geochemical processes that transport metals through the water column. However,
repeated sampling of the water column in the vicinity of the MDS shows that metal concentrations in this
area are low, with little variability, and typical for natural background concentrations of metals in marine
waters.
2.1.4 Oceanographic Processes
Much of the oceanographic conditions at the Study Area are the result of the large freshwater inflow to the
Bight Apex.
Hudson River and Long Island Sound waters are the two largest sources of fresh water to the northwest
Atlantic Ocean. Together, they significantly affect the salinity distribution and circulation in the New
York Bight Apex and the Study Area. Ketchum and Keen (1955), showed that the total annual discharge
of the Hudson and other rivers displaces a volume of water equal to 50% of the total volume of the Bight
Apex. This is quickly dispersed by active circulation in the Bight (residence time of fresh water in the
Bight is 6 to 10 days). The mean monthly inflows from the Hudson River and the Long Island Sound may
vary by as much as a factor of 10 from year to year. Correspondingly, salinity distribution in the Bight
Apex and the Study Area reflects this variability.
Currents. The general structure of current velocity in the Middle-Atlantic Bight has been extensively
described by several investigators [see the review by Beardsley and Boicourt (1981)]. The magnitude of
the currents generally increases with distance offshore and decrease with depth. The mean flow measured
by long-term current meter moorings on the Atlantic shelf is to the southwest parallel to depth contours
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 11
through the New York Bight at an average speed of 2 to 4 cm/s. Mean residence time of ocean water in
the New York Bight is 9 months.
Like all surface waters, Bight water responds to the frictional drag of the local wind. Wind stress tends to
be directed offshore during winter when it is at its maximum. In summer, southwest longshore wind stress
predominates. It is well documented (Beardsley and Boicourt 1981) that the mean southwestward
circulation is dramatically altered by weather events, particularly cyclonic winter storms. Southwestward
flow is greatly enhanced by winter northeasterly storm events on the shelf. Beardsley and Boicourt (1981)
showed that strong winter storms could produce along-isobath currents from 20 to 50 cm/s in the mid-shelf
region. Mayer el al. (1982) found that during periods of sustained wind stress directed from the northeast
(January 1976 and November 1976 through January 1977), upwelling occurred in the Bight Apex as the
near-bottom water flowed upshelf. This effect was found to be enhanced in the Hudson Shelf Valley. Han
and Mayer (1981) found offshore bottom layer flow only in response to northward wind stresses.
Current/wave data collected at three locations in the northeast corner of the MDS during non-storm events
indicate that non-storm variations in near-bottom currents may be the result of bottom topography, rather
than water depth. During storm events, waves of 12 to 14-s periods, near-bottom current flow was greater
at deeper depths (23-m versus 12-m) (SAIC 1993).
Waves. The prevailing direction of waves in the region follows the prevailing wind directions, from the
northwest in fall and winter and from the south in spring and summer. The maximum recorded height in
the Bight is 7.3 m. The highest waves were recorded during the winter months and in the early spring with
waves exceeding 2.0 m about 4 percent of the time and 3.0 m about 1 percent of the time. The most
common occurrence of high waves is in March and December with wave height exceeding 2 m more than
5 percent of the time.
2.1.5 Sediment Distribution, Quality, and Transport
The New York Bight is characterized by sediment heterogeneity related in part to a series of ridges (up to
10 m in height) and swales (2-4 km wavelength) on the continental shelf and the major topographic
features of the Bight, Hudson Shelf Valley, and Christiaensen Basin. Natural surface sediments of the
greater New York are characterized as a "sheet of sand up to 10 m thick with small areas of gravel and
muddy sand" (Freeland and Swift 1978). The dominant minerals are quartz and feldspars (Freeland and
Swift 1978). Finer grained sediments (muddy sand) are often associated with swales and other
topographic low areas (Harris 1976; Krom et al. 1985).
Historic dumping of dredged material in the Study Area has altered the surface sediment texture within the
Study Area. Recent data indicate that the surface sediments within the MDS are highly heterogeneous,
consisting of areas containing mud, sand, and rocks. Areas with more than 50% mud are found along the
northern portion of the western boundary of the Study Area. Areas consisting mostly of sand (<1 percent
mud) are found in the northwest quadrant of the Study Area. These sandy sediments extend toward the
northwest outside the Study Area to the entrance to New York Harbor. This region includes the areas that
have received dredged material over the past 100 years and includes the highest topographic features of the
area. Sediments along the western boundary of the Study Area and the Hudson Canyon Valley consist of
mud. Fine to medium and coarse sands also cover the southern half of the Study Area. The region of the
former cellar dirt site is characterized as sandy gravel and artifactual gravel. The Shewsbury Rocks shoal
extends seaward from the New Jersey shore to the southwestern portion of the Study Area. Also, the
southwestern portion contains sand waves and ripple fields. These features are also found along the
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 12
eastern and southern slopes of the dredged material mounds in the MDS, east of the MDS in the head of
the Hudson Shelf Valley, and along the slopes of the dredged material mound in the northwest quadrant of
the Study Area (SAIC 1995). Rocks and rock outcrops can be found at isolated locations throughout the
region.
Sediment Quality. The distribution of metals and organic contaminants in sediments of the New York
Bight are the result of natural distributions (metals), deposition from land runoff transported by the Hudson
River plume, atmospheric sources, and ocean disposal activities over the last 100 years.
Metals. Metals concentrations in the sediments of the New York Bight have been measured during several
field sampling programs over the past 25 years. One of the most comprehensive compilations and reviews
of metals (Zn, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Fe, Hg, and Cd) data for the New York Bight was published by Krom et al.
(1985). This study shows that sediments in the Bight consist of two distinct types: (1) sandy sediments
low in organic carbon and with relatively low concentrations of leachable metals (metals stripped from the
substrate with weak acid solutions) and (2) silt-clay sediments containing high organic carbon and
leachable metals concentrations.
The highest metal concentrations were consistently found in the MDS and immediately adjacent areas (i.e.,
the Study Area), with lower but elevated concentrations at several locations in the Christiaensen Basin and,
to a lesser extent, the Hudson Shelf Valley. For example, surficial sediments from the flanks of the
historic and current dredge material mound had the highest Hg concentrations (EPA Region 2 1997).
Metals concentrations in the Bight Apex are highly variable. In general, the highest metals concentrations
are reported for sediment samples collected in the 1970s (Krom et al. 1985). Samples collected in the
Bight area in the 1980s (NOAA 1982; JBR 1984; Lewis et al. 1989) have a relatively wide range in metals
concentrations. The highest metal concentrations in sediments collected in early 1990 surveys (Charles
and Muramoto 1991; McFarland et al. 1994; EPA Region 2 1997) are consistently lower than those in
sediments collected in. the 1970s and 1980s.
A consistent decrease in concentrations of copper and other metals in Bight Apex surface sediments over
the past few years suggest that surface sediment contamination in the Study Area has probably decreased
relative to the 1970s.
Organic Contaminants. Compared to the information on the trace metals in the New York Bight,
relatively few recent organic contaminant data are available. Though limited, the available data
demonstrate that background organic compound concentrations in New York Bight sediments are
generally low (Boehm 1983) and are strongly associated with the amount of fine grained sediment and
organic carbon in a given sample.
Historical and recent contaminant data of surface sediments in the Study Area are characterized by a wide
range in concentrations. As with metals, the highest organic-compound concentrations are primarily
associated with the fine-grained, organic-rich sediment located in the deeper, hydrodynamically quiet
regions of the Study Area. Contaminants in sandy sediments from the Study Area are in the range found
throughout the greater New York Bight. Fine-grained sediments in the Study Area tend to have
concentrations that are somewhat higher than in the Bight. Generally, organic contaminant concentrations
appear to have decreased in the Bight since the 1980s based on a comparison of data collected by NMFS in
1980 and EPA in 1994 [see Chapter 3 of the SEIS (EPA Region 2 1997) for further details].
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation __^______ Page 13
Sediment Resuspension and Transport. The resuspension and transport of bottom sediments throughout
the New York Bight is controlled primarily by storm events when wave generated near-bottom oscillatory
currents, combined with the mean currents, produce conditions under which bedload and suspended-load
transport can occur. Investigators have found that very few events account for the annual resuspension and
transport of bottom sediments in the vicinity of the Study Area (Vincent et al. 1981; Manning et al.
1994). In shallow areas, these storm driven events remove and reinject deposited sediments into the water
column. Most suspended sediment is transported in a turbid, near-bottom layer which is typically several
meters thick.
Vincent et al. (1981) estimated the potential sediment transport rate from current meter records in the
vicinity of the Study Area. The role of oscillatory currents in resuspending sediment was considered but
not explicitly included in the sediment transport calculation. The transport potential for the overall
movement of fine bottom sediments in the area of the Study Area shows two distinct transport patterns: (1)
net northward transport in the Hudson Shelf Valley and (2) net southward transport everywhere else. This
effect, combined with the depth of the Hudson Shelf Valley and Christiaensen Basin results in the Shelf
Valley acting as a sink for the general net southwestward transport of sediment along the shelf in the area
of the Study Area. Vincent et al. (1981) found that up-valley transport events were associated with
northeastward currents on the shelf, but also occurred during quiescent periods.
2.2 Biological Environment
A major factor affecting the seasonal distribution of endangered or threatened whales and turtles in the
New York Bight is food. Changes in the distribution of prey species result in changes in the distribution of
whales and turtles. Phytoplankton are the base of the food chain for a wide variety of marine organisms.
Zooplankton (which feed on phytoplankton and other zooplankton) serve as minor prey for humpback
whales, but are the major prey of planktivorous fish, which are fed on by humpback and fin whales.
Benthic macroinvertebrates are fed on by loggerhead and Kemp's ridley sea turtles.
2.2.1 Plankton
Malone (1977) provides a comprehensive description of phytoplankton and zooplankton in the New York
Bight and Bight Apex, based on studies conducted in the late 1960s to early 1970s. The description is
summarized in the following text.
Phytoplankton. Thirty-six phytoplankton species are abundant in the New York Bight Apex. Total
phytoplankton densities in the apex are highest in July and lowest in November. Diatoms dominate the
abundance in cold weather months, chlorophytes in the warm weather months. The total phytoplankton
density in July is dominated by the chlorophyte, Nannochloris atomus, which is most abundant near the
mouth of the Hudson River and the southern shore of western Long Island.
Zooplankton. Very few comprehensive studies have been conducted on zooplankton in the New York
Bight. Zooplankton populations in the Bight are dominated by copepods. Four copepod genera (Oithona,
Paracalanus, Pseudocalanus, and Centropages) comprise the majority of the zooplankton populations in
the Bight Apex. Oithona and Pseudocalanus are abundant year round, whereas, Centropages are
seasonally abundant. Other species of zooplankton that are abundant seasonally or at low densities
throughout the year include, chaetognaths, bivalve larvae, tunicates, and siphonophores. Chaetognaths,
which are present throughout the year, are most abundant in near-bottom water in May and July. Bivalve
larvae, another component of the zooplankton in the inner Bight, peak in January through March and
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 14
August through November. Tunicates are most abundant in the fall. Siphonophores are abundant during
all seasons, except for winter. In general, peaks in abundance of zooplankton in the inner Bight occur one
to two months after peaks in the Raritan River estuary.
2.2.2 Invertebrates
Loggerhead and Kemp's ridley turtles feed on benthic crustaceans and molluscs. Key crustacean prey
include spider crabs (Libinia emarginata), northern lady crabs (Ovalipes oscellatus), blue crabs
(Callinectes sapidus) and rock crabs (Cancer irroratus). Spider crabs are common throughout the Study
Area, especially in the summer, peaking in August. Northern lady crabs are most abundant in inshore
areas (their distribution is negatively correlated with depth in the summer and fall) and are inactive (i.e.,
are not caught in trawls) in the winter (Stehlik el al. 1991). Distribution and abundance of spider crabs is
not as well documented as the commercially important species of blue crab and rock crab.
Millikin and Williams (1984) summarized the migrations of blue crabs within bays. Adults move to lower
salinity water to mate. After mating, C. sapidus migrate to higher salinity waters that are suitable for
larval development. Males remain in lower salinity water, whereas, females are more mobile. Blue crabs
are rarely collected offshore (NOAA, pers. comm. 1996a) and it is unclear if they migrate from coastal
bays and inlets to offshore waters. Cancer irroratus is primarily a marine species with a continuous
distribution from southern New England to the Chesapeake Bight (Musick and McEachren 1972; Williams
1984). Distributions of Cancer irroratus apparently are triggered by seasonal cooling and warming. In
the New York Bight, C. irroratus move inshore in the fall and remain until the spring when they migrate
offshore (Stehlik et al. 1991). Migrations occur across the continental shelf. Sampling by the State of
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) indicates that Cancer irroratus are
collected near the Study Area in the spring before they migrate offshore. Stehlik et al. (1991) reported that
northern lady crabs are distributed in the inner middle-Atlantic shelf (south of Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras)
and Georges Bank, mostly at depths of less than 27 m. In the inner Bight, abundance in the summer is
notable, but peak abundance occurs in fall. The abundance of the northern lady crab in the Middle
Atlantic region in summer and fall is positively correlated with water temperature.
Several invertebrates, in addition to the zooplankton discussed in the preceding subsection, serve as prey
for forage fish that are consumed by fin and humpback whales. Cephalopods, in particular squid, are a
prey of mackerel (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953); mackerel are eaten by humpback and fin whales. Squid
are the most abundant cephalopods in the New York Bight. Squid are in the Bight from June through
October (NJDEP, pers. comm. 1996). Other invertebrate prey of mackerel include amphipods and
mysids. These are epibenthic invertebrates that are found in the water column above the Study Area
(Battelle 1992b).
2.2.3 Fish
Fish species in the New York Bight Apex are mostly migratory, although there are some species referred to
as "shore fishes" (NOAA 1988). The migratory fish move through the Bight Apex as they travel inshore
and offshore, and north and south in response to changes in water temperature.
The migration patterns of fish prey preferred by humpback and fin whales influence the distribution of
these two endangered whales. Herring, mackerel, capelin, and sand lance are small schooling fish that are
the primary prey of humpback and fin whales. All of these species, except for capelin which is a boreal-
arctic species, are found within the New York Bight.
-------
Biological Assessment
MDS Closure and HARS Designation
May 1997
Page 15
Herring (Clupea harengus), a boreal species, is distributed from Labrador to Cape Hatteras and moves
south through the Study Area in the winter, after spawning in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank. In late
February and March, herring move offshore, out of the inner Bight, and migrate north.
Mackerel, Scomber scombrus, has the same geographic distribution as herring, although, the migration
patterns of herring and mackerel are different. Migration patterns of mackerel are described in Overholtz
et al (1991). Mackerel move south (from summer grounds) through the Study Area in the fall prior to
moving offshore to winter. The fall migration through the New York Bight and the winter distribution are
strictly dependent on water temperature. In "warm" winters, adults may remain in the Bight and not move
offshore. Spawning takes place in the spring offshore from the New York Bight. After spawning, adults
move north to summer feeding grounds in the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank.
Sand lance, Ammodytes spp., are habitat-dependent and are associated with specific topography and sandy
sediments (NOAA, pers. comm. 1995b). Sand lance are found in the New York Bight (NJDEP, pers.
comm. 1996), with high concentrations off of eastern Long Island and Block Island (NOAA, pers. comm.
1995b).
Both herring and mackerel are non-selective planktivores, feeding on copepods, pteropods, and cirrepods.
Sand lance also feed on plankton, but tend to select larger individual prey items (Grosslein and Azarovitz
1982).
The NMFS has reported on the status of stocks for herring and mackerel through 1994 (NOAA 1995a).
Because sand lance are prey of mackerel and herring, high abundances of sand lance often occur when
abundances of mackerel and herring are low. Currently, mackerel and herring abundances are high
(Figure 3); sand lance abundances are recovering from recent lows.
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
Atlantic Mackerel
Labrador-North Carolina
Atlantic Herring
Coastal Stock Complex
stock blomass
(ago 7+;
~\
\
0)
o
3
I
•o
s
55
3000
2500-1
2000
S 1500
o
•£
o>
1000
500
62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94
Year
stock blomass
(age &) ;
landings
67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93
Year
Figure 3. Abundances of Mackerel and Herring in the Northwest Atlantic (NOAA 1995a).
-------
Biological Assessment May 1 997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 1 6
2.2.4 Birds
Endangered or threatened marine birds within the vicinity of the proposed HARS include three migratory
species: bald eagle, piping plover, and Eastern peregrine falcon. EPA has conducted an informal
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 1995a) on endangered and threatened birds
in the Study Area.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). The bald eagle was designated as a federally endangered species
in 1967. Since the 1972 implementation of restrictions on the use of DDT, the number of bald eagles has
increased. In fact, the bald eagle has been downlisted from endangered to threatened in the lower 48 states
(50 CFR Part 17). From 1988 to 1990 the number of bald eagles observed in New Jersey along the
Delaware Bay coast has increased dramatically. Bald eagles are opportunistic feeders that forage in a
variety of habitats, including bay shorelines, along rivers and lakes, perched in trees, or in bare sand. They
prefer live and dead fish (e.g., menhaden), when abundant (USFWS 1990).
Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). Piping plovers were listed as threatened in 1986. The piping
plover, a North American shore bird (MMS 1992, USFWS 1995b), has a New York/New Jersey
subpopulation (USFWS 1995b). Plover nesting areas include coastal beaches and sandflats. They migrate
along the coast, although migration patterns are not well documented, and feed on marine worms found in
intertidal areas (USFWS 1995b).
During consultation with the EPA, the USFWS initially raised some concerns about potential impacts to
the piping plover (USFWS 1995a). However, the concerns were resolved (USFWS 1995c).
Eastern Peregrine Falcon (Talco peregrinusj. The extensive use of oganochlorine pesticides in the early
1960s was the primary cause of the decline in the number of Eastern peregrine falcon, as it was for the bald
eagle described previously. The peregrine falcon was listed in 1970 under the Endangered Species
Conservation Act of 1969, and in 1984 all peregrine falcons in the lower 48 states were listed as
endangered (USFWS 1991). Currently, the primary threat to these birds is human disturbance of nesting
birds. A nesting survey identified fourteen pairs of peregrine falcons in New Jersey (USFWS 1995d).
Migrating peregrine falcons may also be impacted. This migratory, bird of prey "move[s] east or west,
from the mountains to the coast and back, rather than north or south", but has been observed offshore
(USFWS 1991; MMS 1992). They feed almost exclusively on birds (e.g., bluejays, pigeons) while in
flight.
2.2.5 Other
Northeastern Tiger Beetle (Cicindela dorsalis dorsalisj. Tiger beetles are found in many nearshore
habitats: open sand flats, dunes, water edges, beaches, woodland paths, and sparse grassy areas (USFWS
1994), where they feed on small amphipods, flies, and other beach arthropods. The beetle is one of the
indicators of a healthy beach community. Historically, the northeastern tiger beetle was found along the
undeveloped coastal beaches from Sandy Hook to Holgate, New Jersey (USFWS 1994). Recent coastal
development activities, beach stabilization, and high recreational use have destroyed and disturbed the
habitat of the tiger beetle (Hill and Knisley 1994), and resulted in its being listed as threatened in 1990.
The USFWS had initially raised concerns about the Proposed Action's potential impacts to the tiger beetle;
however, concerns regarding potential impacts to the tiger beetle were resolved (USFWS 1995c).
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 17
3.0 NATURAL HISTORY OF ENDANGERED SPECIES
The following chapter summarizes the natural history of the four endangered and threatened species
evaluated in this BA.
3.1 The Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)
3.1.1 Population Status and Trends
Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) occur in all the oceans of the world, except possibly the
Arctic (NMFS 1991a). The unique feature of humpback whales that distinguishes them from'all other
baleen whales is their extremely long flippers that may be 5-m long or about Va of tdtal body length.
Humpback whales are about 4-m long at birth and reach a maximum size of about 18m and a weight of
about 48 metric tons (Winn and Reichley 1985). Females are slightly larger than males.
Humpback whales were an important commercial species throughout most of their range, including Long
Island and New England waters, until early in the twentieth century (Allen 1916). Some taking of
humpback whales occurred in northwest Atlantic waters until the mid-1950s. The International
Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, Washington 1946, afforded the North Atlantic population of
humpback whales full protection in 1955 (Best 1993). Humpback whales were afforded endangered
species status in the United States in 1970 (USFWS 1986), and retain that status today. Although severely
depleted by whaling, the species has shown good recovery over most of its range. The best estimate of the
annual rate of increase of the humpback whale population in the western North Atlantic Ocean since the
cessation of exploitation is 9 percent per year (Katona and Beard 1990).
Prior to exploitation, the worldwide population was thought to number more than 125,000 individuals
(Braham 1984; NMFS 1991a). Best (1993) reviewed recent sightings data for 10 of the 11 putative stocks
of humpback whales in the world's oceans and concluded that the oceans of the northern hemisphere and
Australia support more than 17,500 humpback whales; data for Southern Ocean waters south of 30° S
latitude are less certain. The three Antarctic humpback stocks may contain as many as 20,000 individuals,
bringing the current world total to more than 37,000 individuals, representing approximately 30 percent of
the preexploitation population size.
In 1932, the western North Atlantic population was estimated to contain as few as 700 animals (Breiwick
etal. 1983), but this may have been an underestimate (Reeves and Mitchell 1986). Katona etal. (1994)
estimated that the average total humpback whale population in the entire western North Atlantic Ocean
between 1979 and 1990 is 5,543 (CV = 0.16) individuals. This compares well with the estimate of
Braham (1984) of 5,275 to 6,289 individuals. The western North Atlantic stock of humpback whales is
considered to have nearly or completely recovered (Braham 1984).
The humpback whale population can be divided into 11 to 13 breeding stocks each of which winters and
reproduces in a different clearly-defined tropical and sub-tropical area worldwide (NMFS 199la; Best
1993). The western North Atlantic breeding stock winters in the Lesser and Greater Antilles Islands of the
eastern Caribbean Sea. During the spring and summer, whales from this stock split into five feeding
aggregations that migrate to and feed along the coasts of Iceland, southwestern Greenland, Newfoundland
and Labrador, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and the Gulf of Maine (Payne etal. 1986; Katona and Beard
1990; NMFS 1991a).
-------
Biological Assessment May 1 997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 18
Humpbacks belonging to the Gulf of Maine feeding aggregation were estimated by mark-recapture
methods to number approximately 240 individuals in 1986 (Katona and Beard 1990). This may be an
underestimate; more than 600 humpback whales have been photo-documented in the Gulf of Maine since
1979, and more than 400 humpbacks were photo-documented in 1988 alone (NMFS 199la). Volgenau
and Kraus (1990) produced a mean population estimate for the Gulf of Maine of 447 individuals, and a
range from.340 to 555 whales. Some whales from the St. Lawrence River estuary and Canadian Maritimes
(Bay of Fundy and Scotian Shelf) feeding aggregations move through New England waters during their
biannual migrations between summer and winter habitats.
Humpback whales that are observed with increasing frequency in the Middle-Atlantic Bight each winter
may be from the Gulf of Maine, Newfoundland, and St. Lawrence River estuary feeding aggregations.
Individuals identified in one feeding aggregation occasionally are observed in another aggregation (Katona
and Beard 1990). Whales from the Gulf of Maine aggregation have been observed in the Gulf of St.
Lawrence and Newfoundland aggregations. Humpbacks from these three feeding aggregations seem to
congregate preferentially in winter breeding and calving areas off the Dominican Republic and eastern
Puerto Rico (Katona and Beard 1990) and may follow similar southward migration routes from summer
feeding areas to winter breeding areas. Between 50 and 100 humpback whales are observed each year in
the New York Bight (Sadove and Cardinale 1993). Most of these whales are non-reproducing juveniles.
Female humpback whales reach sexual maturity after 4 to 6 years and thereafter give birth approximately
every 2 or 3 years, although intervals of one to five years between successive calvings have been observed
(Clapham and Mayo 1987; NMFS 1991a; Clapham 1992). Most births take place in the winter in the West
Indies.
Mothers usually nurse their calves for a year or less (Clapham 1992; Baraff and Weinrich 1993). Weaning
may begin when the calves are five to six months old and still in the northern feeding grounds (Clapham
and Mayo 1987; Baraff and Weinrich 1993). After weaning their calves, the adult females are ready to
mate again. The gestation period is 10 to 12 months (NMFS 199la) and some females have been sighted
with newborn calves 2 or 3 years in a row (Weinrich et al. 1993), suggesting that mating may occur while
the female is still nursing. The life span of humpback whales is at least 30 years (Chittleborough 1959).
3.1.2 Seasonal Distribution in Middle-Atlantic Bight Waters
Juvenile humpback whales have been observed feeding within 4 km of shore off the coast of Virginia
during January through March (Swingle et al. 1993). It is probable that the distribution of these whales
extends northward into the New York Bight. All the humpbacks sighted off Virginia Beach, VA, are less
than llm long, indicating that they are sexually immature juveniles. Anecdotal observations by
commercial and recreational fishermen in the area (Swingle et al. 1993) and stranding records for
humpbacks along the U.S. Atlantic coast between 1985 to 1992 (Wiley et al 1995) indicate that these
aggregations of juvenile humpback whales in nearshore waters of the middle Atlantic are a recent
phenomenon. The recent reappearance of juvenile humpback whales in nearshore waters of the Middle-
Atlantic Bight may be due to the expanding range of one or more feeding aggregations of humpbacks or to
changes in prey distribution (Wiley et al. 1995).
Farther north, humpback whales regularly visit the New York Bight, where they are present in greatest
abundance between June and September (Payne and Heinemann 1990; Sadove and Cardinale 1993). All
age classes, including mother/calf pairs, are present during the summer. Smaller numbers, nearly
exclusively solitary juveniles, frequently are observed in the bight during December and January.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 19
Humpback whales are observed most frequently and for the longest peripds of time in the New York Bight
in Long Island Sound, Block Island Sound, Cox's Ledge, east and south of Montauk Point and in
Gardiner's Bay (Figure 4). They sometimes are sighted off Fire Island in September and October. They
also frequently visit coastal bays and inlets along the south shore of Long Island and the mouth of the
Hudson/Raritan estuary. There have been increased sitings in recent years of great whales, including
humpbacks, near the mouth of the Hudson River and in the lower reaches of the Hudson River estuary
(Sadove and Cardinale 1993; Kiviat and Hartwig 1994). The seasonal distribution of humpback whales in
New England and New York waters suggests that most of the humpbacks sighted in the New York Bight
are part of the Gulf of Maine feeding aggregation (Wiley et al. 1995).
Humpback whales have been observed migrating northward offshore the Middle-Atlantic states during
mid-to-late spring (Lee and Socci 1989). Some of these whales may stop off in the New York Bight to
evaluate the availability of suitable foods. Humpbacks remain in the Gulf of Maine for nearly eight
months each year, feeding on the abundant populations of schooling fish and crustaceans' (Kenney et al.
1981; Kenney and Winn 1986). Individuals or small groups of whales from this feeding aggregation may
periodically move southward into the New York Bight and coastal waters of the middle Atlantic during the
feeding season in search of food. Those humpbacks that have been identified in the middle Atlantic to
date are from the Gulf of Maine feeding aggregation (Wiley et al. 1995).
Apparently, the juvenile humpbacks that congregate along the middle Atlantic coast during the winter do
not make the migration to the tropical breeding grounds, but instead remain in the north to feed over the
winter (Swingle et al. 1993). The main activity of adult and juvenile humpback whales in the New York
Bight and middle Atlantic year-round is feeding (Swingle et al. 1993; Sadove and Cardinale 1993).
Increases since about 1975 in the abundance of humpback whales feeding in the vicinity of Stellwagen
Bank in the Gulf of Maine have been attributed to a population explosion of sand lance Ammodytes
americanus, a favorite food of humpback whales (Payne et al. 1986, 1990). Since 1975, there has also
been a dramatic increase in the abundance of sand lance in the Middle-Atlantic Bight (Meyer et al. 1979).
Recently, sand lance abundances have begun to recover (NOAA, pers. comm. 1996b) as have the
abundances of mackerel and herring. Perhaps this change in the relative abundances of different preferred
foods has encouraged humpback whales of all ages to visit the bight during summer months and has
enabled juveniles to remain over the winter.
3.1.3 Food and Feeding Behaviors
Humpback whales feed opportunistically on a wide variety of species of pelagic crustaceans and small fish.
Sand lance (Ammodytes americanus and A. dubius) currently is the most important food of humpback
whales in the western Gulf of Maine (Hain et al. 1982; Payne et al. 1986, 1990). Capelin (Mallotus
villosus) and euphausiids (Meganyctophanes norvegica) are preferred foods of humpback whales in more
northern U.S. and Canadian waters (Whitehead and Glass 1985). Humpbacks observed south of Cape Cod
and off Rhode Island in the spring are feeding on dense patches of euphausiids (Kenney and Winn 1986).
During their seasonal northern residency in the area, they may also feed on several commercially
important fish, such as herring (Clupea harengus), mackerel (Scomber scombrus), menhaden (Brevoortia
tyrannus), pollock (Pollachius virens), small haddock (Melanogrammus aeglfinus), and squid (Illex
illecebrosus) (Overholtz and Nicolas 1979; Whitehead and Glass 1985; Whitehead 1987; Piatt et al 1989;
NMFS 1991a).
-------
Biological Assessment
MDS Closure and HARS Designation
May 1997
Page 20
HUMPBACK WHALE SIGHTINGS
0 50 100 150 200 250
rwi RD rvi 7fl nn 7fi no 7+ OO 77 OO 70 00 68 OO 66 OO
Figure 4. Distribution of Humpback Whales 1960 -1992 in the Northwest Atlantic
(Source: NMFS unpublished data).
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 21
Humpback whales spend most of their time in northern waters, such as the New .York Bight and the Gulf
of Maine, concentrated where their preferred foods are most abundant. Humpbacks are found most often
in areas of upwelling, along the edges of banks, and over rapidly changing bathymetry along the
continental shelf, and along frontal zones between well-mixed and stratified water masses. An abrupt
change in water depth on the shelf may cause upwelling or other oceanographic conditions that favor dense
aggregations of near-surface zooplankton and shoaling, plankton-feeding fish upon which the whales feed.
Fine-scale movements of humpback whales along these features probably are controlled by the distribution
of their prey (Brodie etal. 1978; Gaskin 1982; Kenney and Winn 1986; Dolphin 1987a,b; Mayo etal.
1988; Payne et al. 1990).
Apparent declines in the abundance^of humpback whales feeding on Georges Bank may be related in part
to declines in the local abundance of some of these commercial fisheries species due to overfishing. There
were dramatic increases in the abundance of sand lance (a favorite food of humpback whales) in both the
western Gulf of Maine (especially on Stellwagen Bank) and on Georges Bank in the late 1970s and early
1980s (Meyer et al. 1979; Payne et al. 1986, 1990). The increase in the abundance of sand lance
coincided with a large decline in the abundance of several commercial fish species, particularly herring and
mackerel (Clark and Brown 1977; Anthony and Waring 1980; Grosslein et al. 1980), leading Sherman et
al. (1981) to speculate that sand'lance had replaced these species in the zooplanktivore niche throughout
the middle Atlantic, Gulf of Maine, and Georges Bank. The large increase in most years since the mid
1970s in the abundance of humpback whales feeding in the western Gulf of Maine, particularly on
Stellwagen Bank, is directly related to the increase in abundance of sand lance populations there (Payne et
al. 1986, 1990); however, humpbacks on Georges Bank apparently do not feed preferentially on sand lance
and their reduced abundance there may be due to declines in the abundance of some other forage species
(Payne et al. 1986) or to climatic changes that may also have affected the abundance of zooplankton on the
bank (Kane 1993; Kann and Wishner 1995). In the middle to late 1980s, a gradual decline began in sand
lance abundance, accompanied by an increase in herring abundance in the Gulf of Maine (Fogarty et al.
1991). This change in fish populations has been accompanied by a decrease in the numbers of humpback
whales in the vicinity of Stellwagen Bank and an increase in their numbers farther north in waters of
Cultivator Shoals, the northwest peak of Georges Bank, and Jeffreys Ledge, where herring are more
abundant (Blaylock etal. 1995).
The New York Bight Apex does contain some of the bathymetric and oceanographic features that favor
dense aggregations of humpback foods, but they are not developed to the extent that they are farther north
around Stellwagen Bank, Jeffreys Ledge, Browns and Bacaro Banks, and the Great South Channel (Kenny
and Winn 1986). Therefore, the preferred foods of humpback whales and the whales themselves do not
occur in the New York Bight in the same high numbers that they occur in high-use areas farther north.
Between 1980 and 1986, abundances of sand lance and mackerel in the New York Bight Apex were
highest in the spring (Smith et al. 1988). Sand lance occur inshore to mid-shelf, whereas mackerel are
more abundant along the mid-shelf and along the shelf edge. Herring migrate into coastal and offshore
waters off southern New England and the Middle-Atlantic Bight during the winter (Grosslein and
Azarovitz 1982) and spring (NOAA 1996c), respectively. Populations of sand lance have declined, but are
recovering, and populations of herring and mackerel are increasing in the New York Bight region, as they
are in the Gulf of Maine (Fogarty etal. 1991). Sand lance abundance in the New York Bight affects the
abundance of humpback and fin whales there (McKenzie and Nicolas 1988). As the sizes of stocks of
different forage fish fluctuate in coastal waters of the middle and north Atlantic, it is probable that the
abundance andseasonal residency of humpback whales in different regions of the New York Bight may
change.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1 997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 22
Humpback whales have the most diverse repertory of feeding behaviors among the great whales. They
may feed singly or in closely coordinated groups. Groups of up to 22 may lunge in unison at surface
schools offish (Main el al. 1982; Wiirsig 1990). In lunge-feeding, a whale rushes at a school offish or
euphausiids near the water surface at an angle of 20° to 40°, and occasionally up to 90°, opens its mouth
just before reaching the school, engulfing the school, and breaking the water surface with mouth agape
(Watkins and Schevill 1979). As much as Va of the body may clear the water surface during a lunge. The
whale then closes its mouth and forces the water out through the baleen plates by contracting the mouth
cavity, trapping the prey inside. Between lunges, the whale often rests for several seconds to a few
minutes, often at a depth of 4 to 6 m, presumably swallowing its prey, before lunging again. Humpbacks
also lunge-feed on schools of fish and crustaceans located at mid depths or near the bottom. When feeding
at depth, the whale rarely breaks the water surface at the end of the lunge.
Humpbacks may use a variety of herding strategies to force potential prey into a tight aggregation easy to
consume in a single gulp. They may use their flukes and fins to slap the water, possibly confusing or
stunning prey. Humpback whales, singly or in groups, also produce bubble clouds (single, 4-m to 7-m
diameter dome-shaped clouds composed of small uniformly sized bubbles) and bubble columns (smaller,
1-m to 1.5-m structures composed of randomly sized bubbles) that encircle or confuse prey long enough
for the whales to consume them (Hain el al. 1982). Several neighboring whales may bubble net at the
same time, increasing the effectiveness of the feeding stratagem.
Approximately 65 percent of the humpback whales feeding in Massachusetts Bay, particularly on
Stellwagen Bank, have scuff marks on their lower jaws, suggesting that they have been feeding on or in the
bottom (Hain 199la). This may be a specialized behavior of humpbacks feeding on sand lance. When not
schooling, sand lance spend much time buried in sandy sediments (Meyer el al. 1979).
Humpback whales are unlikely to feed on the bottom within the Mud Dump Site in the New York Bight
Apex. The coarse sandy sediments that sand lance favor are not abundant in the HARS and sand lance are
not known to concentrate there in large enough numbers to attract feeding humpback whales. Stellwagen
Bank is the only location where humpbacks have been observed feeding on the bottom. It appears that the
humpbacks that visit the New York Bight to feed are feeding primarily or exclusively on pelagic fish and
invertebrates, such as herring, mackerel, and euphausiids.
3.1.4 Known Disturbance and Mortality Factors
Very little is known about the natural mortality of humpback whales. Parasites, ice entrapment, predation
by killer whales, and fluctuating prey populations due to events such as El Nino may contribute to natural
humpback mortality rates (NMFS 199la). Young or sick humpbacks seem to be particularly vulnerable to
attacks by killer whales (Orcinus orca) and occasionally by larger predatory sharks (NMFS 1991 a). In the
western North Atlantic, 14% (464/3365) of the appropriately photographed humpback whales bear scars,
primarily on their flukes, from killer whale attacks (Katona el al. 1988; NMFS 199la). Although
humpback whales and killer whales have been observed feeding near one another without aggressive
interactions (Dolphin 1987c), killer whales have been observed attacking and killing other species of
baleen whales (Hancock 1965; Baldridge 1972; Silber et al. 1990).
The most common anthropogenic source of mortality for humpback whales in the western North Atlantic is
entanglement in commercial fishing gear, particularly off Newfoundland (O'Hara et al. 1986; Lien el al.
1989a,b; Hofman 1990; Volgenau and Kraus 1990; NMFS 1991b). Nearly 600 humpback whale
entanglements, leading to 93 verified deaths of whales (15%), were recorded in Newfoundland waters
-------
Biological Assessment MaY 1997
MOS Closure and HARS Designation Pa9e 23
between 1979 and 1989 (Lien etal. 1989b). Between 1975 and 1990, 47 humpback whales were reported
entangled in various types of fishing gear in U.S. waters. Five of these entanglements were fatal (10.6%).
The NMFS (199la) reported 18 entanglements on the outer continental shelf of the northeastern U.S.- Of
these entanglements, 9 of the whales were freed by volunteers, 6 whales died, and the fate of the other 3 is
unknown. Entanglement mortalities tended to increase as the size of the whale decreased. Overall, 12.4%
of the photographed flukes and 6.3% of the tail stocks of the western North Atlantic population are scarred
due to encounters with fishing gear (Hofman 1990; Volgenau and Kraus 1990). Twenty-five percent
(5/20) of juvenile humpback whales stranded along the central and southeast Atlantic coastlines had
injuries indicative of entanglement in fishing gear (Wiley et al. 1995). Volgenau and Kraus (1990)
estimated that the annual loss of humpback whales to entanglement mortality is about 0.3% for the
Newfoundland population and 0.2% for the Gulf of Maine population.
Commercial fisheries may compete directly with the whales for a particular preferred species of fish, as has
happened with the capelin fishery off Newfoundland (Lien et al. 1990), or the whales may become
entangled in fishing gear, as happens frequently in both Newfoundland and the Gulf of Maine (Hofman
1990; Volgenau and Kraus 1990). Humpback whales in the Gulf of Maine become entangled most
frequently in gill nets, followed by weirs and seines (Volgenau and Kraus 1990). In inshore waters of
Newfoundland, entanglement occurs most frequently in cod traps, followed by groundfish gill nets and
salmon gill nets (Hofman 1990). A total of 18 humpback whales have been reported entangled in lobster
gear in coastal waters between New Jersey and New England between 1976 and 1993 (NMFS 1994). Two
humpback whales were entangled in New Jersey, one in New York, and 11 in coastal waters of
Massachusetts. Only 1 of the whales died as a probable result of the entanglement (NMFS 1994).
Entanglement will not be a threat for right whales because they should be able to detect and avoid the taut-
line mooring configurations.
In general, collisions with ships and large motor boats are a constant threat to humpback whales, although
less than for right whales. There are many fewer reports of ship collisions involving humpback than right
whales (NMFS 199la). This may mean that humpback whales are better able to avoid oncoming vessels
or have a behavior repertoire that does not put them in harm's way as frequently as right whales.
Humpback whales are relatively tolerant of boats (Pert and McKay 1990) and are seen frequently in the
Great South Channel and Stellwagen Bank in the vicinity of commercial and recreational fishing vessels
and whale watch boats. During the early 1970s, before whale watching became popular in Massachusetts
Bay, humpback whales were difficult to approach in a small boat (Watkins 1986). The whales usually
diminished surface activities and moved away, emitting agonistic trumpeting sounds when approached too
closely. However, during recent years humpback whales in nearshore waters often readily accept the
presence of vessels, and some even "perform" various surface behaviors when approached by a whale
watch vessel. Humpbacks in the western North Atlantic are more habituated to vessel approach than any
other cetacean in the area (Watkins 1986). As whales become more habituated to whale-watch and other
vessel traffic, the chance of collision increases (Beach and Weinrich 1989). There is some evidence of
increased incidents of ship collisions in the Gulf of Maine (NMFS 1991 a). In a recent study of stranded
humpback whales along the Middle-Atlantic and southeast U.S., 30% (6/20) had injuries potentially
associated with a ship strike (Wiley et al. 1995).
Vessel traffic along the continental shelf of the northeastern U.S. can result in acoustic and physical
disturbance of the environment. To date, there is little information on the reaction of humpback whales to
acoustic disturbance. Humpback whales have good hearing and use vocalizations and hearing for a variety
of purposes, including social interaction, orientation, and prey detection. Humpback whales produce three
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 24
kinds of sounds: (1) songs that are produced in late fall, winter, and spring by solitary individuals;
(2) sounds by whales within groups on the winter (breeding) grounds; and (3) sounds on the summer
feeding grounds (Richardson et al. 1991).
Complex, long-lasting songs usually are associated with reproduction and usually are only used by males
on the subtropical and tropical wintering grounds (Tyack and Whitehead 1983; Cato 1991). They are
composed of complex trains of vocalizations ranging from 40 to at least 4,000 Hz (Thompson et al. 1979).
The low-frequency components of the songs have peak source levels in the range of 144 to 174 dB re 1
//Pa at 1 m (Thompson et al. 1979, 1986). During the summer, humpbacks make some vocalizations while
feeding. Vocalizations are in the 20 to 2,000 Hz range with peak source levels of 175 to 192 dB re 1 //Pa
at 1 m (Thompson et al. 1986). The sounds are used to coordinate feeding strategies of groups of whales
(Nilsone/a/. 1989).
Although little is known about hearing in baleen whales, it is generally assumed that they hear best in the
frequency range of their vocalizations (Myberg 1978, 1990). Because many baleen whale vocalizations are
below 1 kHz, and extending down to about 15 Hz, it is highly likely that they are very sensitive to low-
frequency sounds similar to those produced by operating motor vessels. Ambient ocean noise has many
low-frequency components; it is probable that ambient noise is the main limiting factor in detection of low--
frequency sounds by baleen whales (Richardson et al. 1991). The total natural ambient noise in the open
ocean is about 74 to 100 dB re 1 //Pa (Richardson et al. 1991; McCauley 1994; Advanced Research
Projects Agency 1995). Studies by Dahlheim and Ljungblad (1990) with gray whales suggest that the
critical ratio (difference between the lowest detectable sound intensity at a particular frequency and the
ambient noise intensity at that frequency) for baleen whales is very low (probably less than 10 to 20 dB) at
low sound frequencies. Baleen whales have good directional hearing and may be able to detect low
intensity, low frequency sounds when the signal and ambient noises are angularly separated (Richardson et
al. 1991)
Baleen whales respond differently to relatively constant noises, such as ship noise, and impulsive noise,
such as an explosion or seismic exploration noises. Generally, the threshold level for response in baleen
whales for constant noises is 45 to 50 dB re 1 //Pa lower than for impulsive noise (Malme et al. 1984;
Richardson et al. 1991; McCauley 1994; Advanced Research Projects Agency 1995). Bowhead whales
have been observed responding to vessel propeller noises of 84 and 91 dB re //Pa in the 1/3-octave bands of
strongest noise (Miles et al. 1987). These levels were only about 6 and 13 dB above the background noise
in the bands. Humpback whales in southeastern Alaska probably detected but did not respond to a
received continuous sound of 116 dB re 1 //Pa representing an industrial noise source (Malme et al. 1985).
Most baleen whales respond to constant, low-frequency sounds with broad-band intensities of more than
about 120 dB re 1 //Pa (Richardson et al. 1990; Malme 1993; Malme and Krumhansl 1993; Advanced
Research Projects Agency 1995). Whales probably experience pain and injury when received low-
frequency underwater sounds exceed a pressure of about 170 to 180 dB re 1 //Pa (Greenlaw 1987).
Motor vessel noises, caused by the turning of the screws, engine noises, and noises of operating machinery
on board, generally fall in the frequency range of 5 to 2,000 Hz, with highest intensities below 100 Hz
(Scrimger and Heitmeyer 1991). Sound intensity particularly at higher frequencies, tends to increase with
the size of the vessel. Supertankers and large container ships may have a maximum broad-band sound
source level of 190 to 200 dB re 1 //Pa at 1 m (Buck and Chalfant 1972; Cybulski 1977). A motor tug
boat towing a loaded barge may have a peak Va-octave sound pressure source level of about 170 dB re
1 //Pa at 1 m (Miles et al. 1987). Small outboard motor vessels produce broad-band sounds of about
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 25
150 dB re 1 AiPa at 1 m; these sounds are attenuated to the range of 85 to 140 dB re 1 ^Pa at a distance of
50 m from the source (Richardson el al. 1991).
Thus, humpback and other baleen whales can hear the sounds of nearby motor vessels. There is some
uncertainty whether sounds of the frequencies and intensities emitted by motor vessels cause biologically
significant disturbance and even harm to marine mammals. There is limited evidence that abrupt changes
in vessel speed and propeller RPMs may disturb whales (Watkins 1986); however, it appears that they
readily acclimate to the noise in their environment. Responses to vessel noises are highly variable for
different species and even among individuals of a species (Richardson el al. 1991). Whales may react to
short-term acoustic disturbances by moving away from the sound source, changing breathing and diving
patterns, or through agonistic displays (NMFS 199 la). Some individuals, perhaps naive, may react to a
motor vessel several km away (Ljungblad el al. 1988; MMS 1992). Bowhead whales in the Arctic often
will change course and behavior when exposed to active oil well drilling rigs and impulsive sounds from
seismic survey vessels (Ljungblad el al 1988; Richardson el al. 1985, 1991); however, most cetaceans
adjust rapidly to the presence of underwater sound from vessels and from offshore oil well drilling (Geraci
and St. Aubin 1987). To date there is no conclusive evidence that short-term disturbance from underwater
noise of the frequencies and intensities produced by motor vessels leads to any long-term effects on
individuals or populations (Richardson el al. 1991).
Humpback whales are the top carnivores in a relatively simple food chain consisting of phytoplankton,
zooplankton, small forage fish and crustaceans, humpback whales. Although the chain is short, it does
afford a mechanism for accumulation of natural and anthropogenic toxins to high concentrations from food
through trophic transfer and biomagnification.
An example of this phenomenon occurred in late November, 1987, when 14 humpback whales died in
Cape Cod Bay and Nantucket Sound after eating Atlantic mackerel containing a dinoflagellate toxin,
saxitoxin (Geraci el al. 1989). A few species of dinoflagellates, microscopic plants (phytoplankton),
produce powerful neurotoxins. These phytoplankton may periodically experience an explosive increase in
population size (called a bloom) in restricted locations along the coast. Primary consumers consume the
toxic blooms and may accumulate high concentrations of the toxins, leading to outbreaks of paralytic
shellfish poisoning (when commercially exploited bivalves consume the phytoplankton). The primary
consumers may be resistant to the toxins or may not accumulate doses that are toxic to themselves.
However, secondary or higher level consumers that eat the contaminated primary consumers may
accumulate a toxic or lethal dose. This is apparently what happened to the humpback whales. The
evidence accumulated by Geraci el al. (1989) suggests that a northern stock of mackerel, that had
accumulated saxitoxin while feeding on their preferred food of zooplankton and small fish in the Gulf of
St. Lawrence, migrated into Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays, where they were consumed by humpback
whales. Some of the whales received a lethal dose of neurotoxin and died almost instantly while still
feeding. Although this is the first documented case in the world of a large kill of humpbacks or other
whales attributable to ingestion of foods contaminated with phytoplankton toxins, it is possible that
periodic mortalities of 1 or a few whales were caused by phytotoxins, but went unrecorded. During the
first six months of 1990, seven juvenile (7.6 to 9.1 m) humpback whales stranded on the shore between
North Carolina and New Jersey with no apparent cause of death (NMFS 1991b). The young whales may
have been killed by consuming saxitoxin-contaminated food.
Some nonpolar organic contaminants, such as chlorinated pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), could also be biomagnified through the marine food web and be accumulated to high, potentially
toxic concentrations in the tissues of humpback whales and other piscivorous cetaceans (Reijnders 1986;
-------
Biological Assessment May 1 997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 26
Aguilar 1987). There are only limited published data on contaminant residues in tissues of northwest
Atlantic humpback whales (Taruski et al. 1975; Geraci 1989). Concentrations of synthetic
organochlorines in blubber of 4 humpback whales from the western North Atlantic stock (Geraci 1989)
were higher than concentrations of organochlorines in blubber of several other Atlantic baleen whales,
including right whales (Woodley et al. 1991), fin whales (Aguilar and Borrell 1991; 1994), and sei whales
(Aguilar and Borrell 1991). The lower organochlorine residues in right and sei whales probably are caused
by the lower trophic status of these zooplankton-feeding species. The lower residues in fin whales may be
due to geographic differences; the fin whales were sampled at a whaling station in northwestern Spain and
the humpback whales were collected in U.S. waters of the northwestern Atlantic.
Accumulated organochlorines may lead to a variety of pathological conditions in cetaceans, in particular
reproductive impairment (Addison 1989). In addition, nonpolar organic contaminants, that tend to
accumulate in depot lipids, such as blubber, while the whale is feeding, may be mobilized during fasting
(female humpback whales are not known to feed when they are in the winter calving grounds) and
accumulate in the lipid rich milk when the female whale is lactating and nursing its newborn calf (Aguilar
1987; Aguilar and Borrell 1994).
3.2 The Fin Whale (Balaenoptera physalus)
3.2.1 Population Status and Trends
Fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) are long and slender, growing to a maximum size of about 27 m (88
ft) and 73,000 kg (Minasian et al. 1984). As with most cosmopolitan whales, animals from the southern
hemisphere tend to grow to larger size than those in northern hemisphere populations (Slijper 1978), and
females usually are larger than males. The largest fin whale sighted in the northwest Atlantic during the
CeTAP program was 21.6 m long and the average size of adult whales was 16.1 m (Hain el al. 1992).
The U.S., Nova Scotia, and Labrador stocks of fin whales are from one or a few closely related
populations, whereas the Icelandic population is distinct (Mitchell 1974; Donovan 1991). Observations of
fin whales from the U.S., Canada, and Iceland indicate that the average size of fin whales from more
northern Atlantic waters off Canada and Iceland is larger than that of fin whales sighted off the U.S. North
Atlantic coast. Sergeant (1977) suggested that stocks of fin whales along the North American coast may
be segregated latitudinally by length during at least part of the year. Because little is known about the
winter breeding and calving areas of fin whales, it is uncertain whether fin whales, like humpback whales,
segregate into a few separate breeding populations that form several distinct summer feeding aggregations
occupying different feeding grounds.
Fin whales were listed as endangered throughout their range in 1970. Because of their high cruising speed,
fin whales were not harvested commercially in large numbers until other, easier to catch species, such as
right whales, were depleted and whalers developed high-speed boats (Leatherwood et al. 1976). However,
more than 700,000 fin whales were harvested world-wide in the twentieth century (NMFS 1994). There
was a fishery for this species in Nova Scotia, from 1964 to 1972 (Mitchell 1974) which harvested more
than 3,000 individuals during its short life. Commercial harvesting of fin whales elsewhere in the world
has continued at least into the early 1990s. However, stocks of fin whales have not been as severely
depleted as those of right and humpback whales by commercial whaling.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 27
Fin whales are present in all the major oceans of the world from the Arctic to the tropics, with greatest
numbers in temperate and boreal latitudes (Evans 1987). The estimated modern world-wide population is
105,000 to 125,000 individuals (Wiirsig 1990). They are the most abundant and frequently sighted of the
endangered great whales that visit coastal waters of the northeastern United States. The size of the
population in outer continental shelf waters off the eastern United States from Cape Hatteras to the
Canadian border ranges from about 5,000 in the spring and summer to about 1,500 in the fall and winter
(Hain el al 1992). Mitchell (1974) estimated that approximately 7,200 fin whales occupy the outer
continental shelf between Cape Cod and Labrador on a seasonal basis. About 2,000 fin whales visited
Newfoundland waters each year in the early 1970s (Allen 1974), but the number seems to have dropped
during the 1980s (Lynch and Whitehead 1984). The portion of the northwest Atlantic population that
visited the Gulf of Maine in the late 1970s and early 1980s range from about 3,000 individuals in the
spring and summer to 200 individuals in the fall and winter (CeTAP 1982). The current population size in
the Gulf of Maine probably is larger than the CeTAP (1982) estimates.
The size of the pre-exploitation population of fin whales in the western North Atlantic Ocean probably was
between 30,000 and 50,000 individuals (CeTAP 1979). Hain el al. (1992) suggested that the 1992
population of fin whales off the northeast coast of the United States might be in the range of 9,000 to
10,000 animals. Thus, the North Atlantic fin whale population has recovered to about 1A to Vb its pre-
exploitation size.
Little is known about reproduction in North Atlantic fin whales. Presumably, reproduction takes place
during their winter sojourn off the mid- and south-Atlantic states. Based on the distribution of strandings
of neonates, some of which were premature, calving seems to take place in coastal or offshore waters south
of New Jersey between October and January (Hain el al. 1992). Hain el al. (1992) hypothesized that the
Charleston Bight south of Cape Hatteras is the wintering ground for some of the fin whale population that
occupies New York Bight and New England waters during the summer. No mating or breeding is known
to occur in the Gulf of Maine and Canadian waters.
Newborn fin whales are just under 8 m long (Hain el al. 1992). Typically, the rapidly-growing calves are
weaned after seven months to as much as one year. Like most baleen whales, fin whales may have a calf
every two years. Female fin whales that summer in the Gulf of Maine have an average of 1 birth every
2.71 years (Agler el al. 1993). The average rate of increase in the size of the northwestern Atlantic fin
whale population is approximately 8% per year (Agler el al. 1993). Females reach sexual maturity after as
little as 4 to as many as 7 years, apparently depending on availability of food (Ohsumi 1986). The size at
sexual maturity is about 15-16 m. Fin whales may live as long as 85 or 90 years (Evans 1987).
3.2.2 Seasonal Distribution in Middle-Atlantic Bight Waters
In spring and summer, approximately 5,000 fin whales occupy the continental shelf between Cape Hatteras
and the Canadian border; numbers there decrease to about 1,500 during the fall and winter each year (Hain
el al. 1992). Thus, fin whales are by far the most abundant baleen whales in coastal waters of the middle
Atlantic (Figure 5). They are most abundant along the 40 to 50-m depth contour, particularly in the Great
South Channel, across Stellwagen Bank and northeastward to Jeffreys Ledge (Hain el al. 1992). They are
common in waters out to the shelf edge, 200 m, but rarely are sighted in waters deeper than 2,000 m.
Sixty-five percent of sightings are in water depths of 21 to 100 m. The summer distribution of fin whales
is very similar to that of humpback whales, and the two species can be considered sympatric throughout
much of their range in U.S. waters of the Atlantic during the summer feeding season.
-------
Biological Assessment
MDS Closure and HARS Designation
May 1997
Page 28
FINBACK WHALE SIGHTINGS
0 50 100 150 200 250
R7 on RO on 7fi DO 76 DO 74 00 72 00 70 00 68 00 66 00
Figure 5. Distribution of Fin Whales 1960 -1992 in the Northwest Atlantic
(Source: NMFS unpublished data).
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 29
Fin whales are the most abundant baleen whales in the New York Bight and are present year round
(Sadove and Cardinale 1993). In January through March, they are found close to shore (within 1 mile) off
eastern Long Island where they probably are feeding on herring and mackerel (Sadove and Cardinale 1993;
USAGE 1993). They are also found in relatively large numbers in the New York Bight Apex during
January and February (CeTAP 1982). They move away from the apex beginning in March and spread
throughout the Bight during the summer in feeding groups that may involve aggregations of more than 20
individuals and occasionally as many as 200 individuals. Some fin whales that wintered in the Bight may
move northward to rich feeding grounds off New England during the summer (Payne and Heinemann
1990). Other whales from further south may move into the bight in the spring. About 87% of all fin whale
sightings in the New York Bight occur between April and October in waters off eastern Long Island
(Sadove and Matlock-Cooley 1990). From September through early December, the fin whales'usually
move offshore to the edge of the continental shelf near the 200-m contour. They congregate in largest
numbers in waters adjacent to the Hudson Canyon where small schooling forage fish may be abundant.
They feed there in smaller aggregations of three to four individuals.
All age classes are represented in the fin whale populations in the New York Bight throughout the year.
Mother-calf pairs are observed in the New York Bight throughout the year and some calving may actually
occur in the Bight (Sadove and Kiehn 1984).
Many of the fin whales that occupy coastal waters north of 40°N latitude during the summer move south
and offshore, starting in October, to wintering grounds off Long Island, the Delmarva Peninsula, the Outer
Banks of North Carolina (CeTAP 1982; EPA Region 1 1988), and perhaps further south. Hain etal.
(1992) speculate that the large numbers of fin whales sometimes sighted in waters off Cape Hatteras in
spring and fall are moving between northern summer feeding grounds and southern overwintering grounds
in the Charleston Bight off South Carolina. However, very few surveys have been performed in this area,
so it is uncertain if fin whales actually occur there in large numbers during the winter.
Fin whale calves arrive in the summer feeding areas in the New York Bight, off New England, and eastern
Canada with their mothers. Even after separation from their mothers, which usually takes place after about
a year, most juveniles return to the same feeding areas they first visited with their mothers, suggesting that
migratory behavior and preferred feeding locations are learned from the mother (Seipt el al. 1990;
Clapham and Seipt 1991).
Fin whale distributions have changed somewhat in recent years, similar to the changes observed for
humpback whales. Both species feed on similar species and changes in seasonal distributions reflect
changes in the relative abundance and distribution of certain forage species, such as sand lance arid herring
(Payne etal. 1996; Fogarty etal. 1991).
3.2.3 Food and Feeding Behaviors
Fin whales eat many of the same foods as humpback whales and the two species frequently are seen
feeding together in spring/summer feeding areas (CeTAP 1982). Other species of cetaceans that frequently
are seen feeding with fin whales are minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) and whitesided dolphins
(Lagenorhynchus acutus).
Fin whales feed on a wide variety of small schooling fish and crustaceans. Since the mid 1970s, the
favorite food of fin whales on Stellwagen Bank, in Massachusetts Bay, and probably also in the New York
Bight is sand lance (Overholtz and Nicolas 1979; McKenzie and Nicolas 1988). In coastal waters off
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 30
Newfoundland, they feed primarily on capelin (Piatt et al. 1989). North Atlantic populations also have
been reported to feed on euphausiids, copepods, squid (Loligo spp. and Ilex spp.), and myctophid fish,
when these are locally abundant (Mitchell 1974; Katona et al. 1977).
Brodie et al. (1978) reported that a 17.8-m fin whale caught off Nova Scotia contained approximately 560
kg of euphausiids in its forestomach, probably having eaten more than that amount in less than eight hours.
Hain et al. (1992) estimated that a "typical" 25.7-ton fin whale eats about 533 kg of prey daily during the
summer feeding period. He estimated that the entire fin whale population of the northeast coast of the U.S.
consumes about 150,000 metric tons of prey during the fall and winter and 494,000 metric tons of food
during the more active spring and summer feeding periods. Baleen whale populations, including fin
whales, off Newfoundland may consume about 400,000 metric tons of capelin each year (Winters 1975).
A similar amount of food may be consumed by baleen whales on Georges Bank (Hain et al. 1985). Thus,
fin whales have an important effect on the pelagic marine ecosystem of the western North Atlantic.
Fin and humpback whales probably compete directly with cod, haddock, other piscivorous ground fish,
and man for food (Overholtz and Nicolas 1979; Hain et al. 1985). Hain et al. (1992) estimated that the
amount of food eaten by baleen whales each year was equivalent to the amount harvested by man.
However, Piatt et al. (1989) estimated that fin, humpback, and minke whales consumed less than 2% of the
available capelin during heavy feeding in Witless Bay, Newfoundland. The large breeding population of
seabirds in the area probably consumed more capelin than the whales. The three species of whales
consumed 60 to 100 metric tons of capelin each year from the bay, with the less abundant fin whales taking
about 6.6 to 11 tons, and the more abundant humpback whales taking 47 to 80 tons per year. These
observations suggest that, although fin and humpback whales do compete for some of the same foods with
some commercially valuable groundfish, the available food resource is not limiting to either group of
consumers.
Feeding behaviors of fin whales are less well known than those of right and humpback whales. They seem
to feed singly, or in groups of 2 to as many as 50 animals (CeTAP 1982). Fin whales are streamlined, fast
swimmers that typically cruise at speeds of 5 to 10 km/h (Hain 1991b). They apparently use this speed to
feed on less dense, more widely separated patches of prey items than required by humpback whales
(Whitehead and Carlson 1988). However, the observations of Brodie et al. (1978) on amounts of
euphausiids in the stomachs of fin whales suggest that fin whales do focus their feeding efforts on dense
aggregations of prey, when these are available.
Lunge-feeding fin whales usually move rapidly parallel to the water surface, whereas lunge-feeding
humpback whales usually swim at an acute angle to the sea surface (Watkins and Schevill 1979).
Typically, a fin whale approaches a school of fish or euphausiids at a speed of 5 to 11 km/h (Orton and
Brodie 1987). It waits to open its mouth until close to or in the school (Watkins and Schevill 1979). It
opens its mouth to an angle of 10° to 30°, depending on the size of the school, and closes it slowly over a
period of 1 to 3 seconds, engulfing a massive volume of water as it continues to swim forward. The
grooved pouch forming the floor of the mouth of fin whales is extremely elastic and can extend
tremendously during feeding, allowing the mouth to accommodate a large amount of water, equivalent to
as much as 50% of the volume of the whale (Pivorunas 1979; Orton and Brodie 1987). The force of water
rushing into the open mouth causes the elastic pouch to expand, often doubling the diameter of the whale.
The rapid expansion of the mouth cavity allows water to enter with minimal disturbance, avoiding a bow
wave that might allow prey to escape. After the whale closes its mouth, a complex network of muscles
lining the grooved pouch contracts slowly, compressing the water and forcing it out through the baleen
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page31
plates on either side of the jaws. The food retained by the baleen then is swallowed slowly through the
small throat.
3.2.4 Known Disturbance and Mortality Factors
There is very little published information about natural and anthropogenic causes of death and disease in
fin whales. It is probable that the hazards that affect humpback whales also affect fin whales. Fin whales
often are caught in fish traps deployed in offshore Canadian waters. Between 1969 and 1986, 12 fin
whales were entangled in fishing gear, usually groundfish gill nets, in inshore waters of Newfoundland
(Hofman 1990). Five of these whales (42%) died. Between 1975 and 1990, three fin whales were
observed entangled in fishing gear in the Gulf of Maine (Volgenau and Kraus 1990). All entanglements
were in lobster gear. The commercial lobster industry 'reported 6 instances of fin whale entanglements in
lobster gear between November 1975 and January 1991 (NMFS 1994). All but 1 of the whales was alive
when sighted. Three of the entangled whales were sighted in Massachusetts, 2 in New York, and 1 in
Maine. Such entanglements may indicate that fin whales sometimes feed near or at the bottom.
The types of passive fishing gear most frequently involved in^ entanglements of cetaceans (Read 1994) are
generally not used in the Study Area. Lobster traps of the types used in the vicinity of the Study Area are
occasionally involved in fin whale entanglements but usually do not result in serious injury to the whales.
With respect to entanglement associated with placement of Material for Remediation, no impacts are
. expected to whales because project placement buoys are expected to be taut-line mooring configurations
and avoided by fin whales.
Fin whales seem to be the most wary of the great whales when approached by whale watch boats and other
vessels in Massachusetts Bay (Watkins 1986). Fin whales react strongly to low-frequency ship sounds
which are near the frequency of their own vocalizations (14 to 750 Hz) (Cummings et al. 1986; Watkins et
al. 1987). In the early 1970s, they actively avoided approaching vessels and would often dive if
approached. In recent years, they have either ignored small vessels or actually approached to investigate
them. Although they have become accustomed to small vessel activity in recent years, they apparently are
not often harmed by it. However, failure to avoid vessels may put them at greater potential for injury from
propellers or collisions. The sensitivity of fin whales to underwater sounds of motor vessels probably is
the same as that of humpback whales, discussed previously.
There have been 72 verified strandings and 9 "floaters" of fin whales along the U.S. Atlantic coast during
this century (Hain et al. 1992). The years with the highest number of strandings were 1983, with 12
strandings, and 1986, with 6 strandings. Strandings have occurred most often on Cape Cod, Cape
Hatteras, and Long Island. All strandings of neonates (less than 8 m long) occurred south of New Jersey.
The cause of death of most of these whales is unknown. However, a yearling female fin whale stranded in
New England in 1977 apparently died of a massive infection of giant nematode parasites (Crassicauda
boopis) in the kidneys (Lambertsen 1986). This parasitic disease has a prevalence of nearly 95% in the
Icelandic population of fin whales and appears to be very common in other fin whale stocks as well
(Lambertsen 1986). The parasite may cause renal failure and mild anemia in severely infected whales. It
may be passed from mothers to their suckling calves in the urine (the urethra! opening and the mammary
grooves are close together in most whales). Lambertsen (1986) suggested that crassicaudiosis is a major
natural cause of mortality in fin whales.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 32
At the time in 1987 when 14 humpback whales died from consumption of mackerel contaminated with
phytoplankton toxin, two partly decomposed fin whales washed up on the western shore of Cape Cod Bay
at Marshfield and Manomet, MA (Geraci etal. 1989). The cause of death was not determined, but could
have been consumption of the contaminated fish. Fin and humpback whales eat similar foods.
Fin whales are the fastest swimmers of the baleen whales. Therefore, it is unlikely that predation by killer
whales and large sharks is an important cause of injury and death, except possibly among the very young
or sick. Nevertheless, there have been a few reports in the literature of attacks by killer whales on fin
whales (Tomlin 1957).
Their high speed also seems to protect them from collisions with motor vessels. The Smithsonian
Institution Marine Mammal Database contains nine records of collisions or propeller scaring of fin whales
between 1980 and 1994 (NOAA 1995c). Several of the documented and photographed fin whales in the
western North Atlantic population have prominent scars indicative of boat collisions (Agler el al. 1990;
Seiptera/. 1990).
Like most large whales, fin whales do not seem to be particularly sensitive to spilled oil. Following a spill
of nearly 8 million gallons of heavy bunker C fuel oil from the tanker Argo Merchant on Nantucket Shoals
in 1976, large numbers of whales, including 21 fin whales, were observed in the area of the oil slick (Grose
and Mattson 1977). Two fin whales were seen in a heavily oiled area and apparently were not bothered by
the oil. None of the whales showed obvious distress from coming in direct contact with the oil. Following
another spill of bunker C and No. 2 fuel oils from the Regal Sword southeast of Cape Cod, fin whales were
observed surfacing in heavy slicks with no apparent adverse effects (Goodale el al. 1981).
There is limited information on concentrations of anthropogenic chemical contaminants in the tissues of fin
whales (Taruski el al. 1975; Wagemann and Muir 1984; Aguilar and Borrell 1991). Blubber of fin whales
harvested off Spain contained 100 to 1,000 ug/kg lipid weight (parts contaminant per billion parts lipid)
total DDT and up to about 1,800 ug/kg lipid total PCBs (Aguillar and Borrell 1991). Females contained
lower concentrations of these organochlorines than males, probably due to transfer of these lipophilic
compounds to embryos during gestation and to calves in the lipid-rich milk (Aguilar 1987). These
concentrations are higher than those reported by Woodley el al. (1991) for right whales from the western
North Atlantic, but are comparable to concentrations in other fish-eating baleen whales (Tarsuki el al.
1975; Wagemann and Muir 1984). Blubber from Icelandic sei whales (planktivorous) analyzed by Aguilar
and Borrell (1991) contained about half the concentrations of total DDT and PCB of blubber from fin
whales. The differences probably related to differences in the feeding habits of the two cetaceans.
33 The Loggerhead Turtle (Caretta carettd)
3.3.1 Population Status and Trends
The loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta carettd) is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. It is
the most common and seasonally abundant turtle in inshore coastal waters of the Atlantic. An estimated
7,000 and 10,000 individuals of both sexes of this turtle occur seasonally in coastal waters of the north and
middle Atlantic (CeTAP 1982; Shoop and Kenney 1992). However, these numbers were not corrected for
the time loggerheads spend on the surface. Radiotagging experiments have shown that loggerheads spend
about 2.3 minutes out of each hour on the surface (3.8%) (Thompson 1988). Aerial surveys performed by
the National Marine Fisheries Service between Cape Hatteras, NC and Key West, FL between 1982 and
1984 were corrected for submergence time and yielded an estimated peak abundance of 387,594 (±20,154,
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 33
95% CI) individuals with carapace lengths of 60 cm or greater (Thompson 1988). The abundance of
loggerhead turtles is much lower north of Cape Hatteras and nearly all the turtles that visit northern waters
during the summer are juveniles with carapace lengths less than about 60 cm (Morreale and Standora
1993).
Most nesting in U.S. territory occurs on sandy shores between North Carolina and Key Biscayne, FL.
Between 1980 and 1983, an annual average of 52,073 (±16,459, 95% CI) nests were excavated by females
(Thompson 1988). An additional 1,000 nests were excavated along the entire U.S. coast of the Gulf of
Mexico. At an average of 2.5 nests per female per year, these numbers indicate that more than 20,000
loggerhead turtles nest along the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts of the United States each year. There
is some evidence of a smajl decline in the population of nesting females along the south Atlantic coast in
recent years (Witheringtoh and Ehrhart 1989).
The estimated population of loggerhead turtles along the southeast coast of the United States remained
relatively stable at about 387,000 individuals during the 1980s (Thompson 1988). An estimated 10,000 to
23,000 loggerheads are killed by fishing activities, particularly entanglement in shrimp trawls, along the
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts each year before the introduction of turtle excluder devices (TEDs)
(Kenwood and Stuntz 1987). Crowder et al. (1994b) estimated that implementation of TED regulations
has resulted in a decline of about 5% to 6% per year in loggerhead strandings. Recent models indicate that
it may take up to 70 years or more of deployment of TEDs on shrimp trawls for an increase in the numbers
of nesting females to become evident (Crowder el al. 1994a).
3.3.2 Seasonal Distribution In Middle-Atlantic Bight Waters
Loggerhead turtles are abundant during spring and summer months in coastal waters off New York and the
middle Atlantic states. In the fall, they migrate southward to coastal waters off the south Atlantic states,
particularly Florida, and the Gulf of Mexico. In the spring, they congregate off southern Florida before
migrating northward to their summer feeding ranges (CeTAP 1982). During the winter, the turtles tend to
aggregate in warmer waters along the western boundary of the Gulf Stream off Florida (Thompson 1988).
During their first two to five years, juvenile loggerheads are pelagic, drifting and feeding in the Sargassum
community (Carr 1986a,b). During this long pelagic period, the young turtles may make several transits of
the North Atlantic Ocean in the Great Gyre of the Gulf Stream and grow from a newly hatched size of 4.5
cm to about 40 cm before moving into coastal waters (Dodd 1988).
At an age of two to five years old, juvenile loggerheads begin appearing in coastal waters of the middle
Atlantic, particularly in coastal bays of the New York Bight and Chesapeake Bay (Morreale and Standora
1993). They apparently migrate north to these feeding areas in the spring and early summer.
The center of distribution of juvenile loggerheads along the U.S. Atlantic coast is in central Florida off
Cape Canaveral (Schmid 1995). Many of the young turtles migrate northward during the spring and early
summer to more northerly nearshore feeding areas, such as Core Sound, North Carolina (Epperly et al.
1995a,b), southern Chesapeake Bay (Keinath etal. 1987; Schmid 1995), and Gardners Bay and Long
Island Sound, New York (Morreale etal. 1989; Shoop and Kenney 1992; Morreale and Standora 1993).
Between 2,000 and 10,000 sub-adult loggerhead turtles use Chesapeake Bay south of the Potomac River
for feeding during the summer (Keinath et al. 1987). Smaller numbers are encountered particularly in
July, in Delaware Bay (Eggers 1989). Loggerheads also are encountered frequently in Long Island Sound,
New York Harbor-Raritan Bay, and along the south coast of Long Island during the summer (Morreale et
-------
Biological Assessment May 1 997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 34
al. 1989). Loggerheads frequently strand due to cold stunning between November and January each year
along the north shore of Long Island Sound and in the Bays of eastern Long Island (Morreale el al. 1992).
When the water temperature drops below about 12°C, the metabolic rate of these cold-blooded reptiles
decreases to the point where they are unable to swim and digest food; they become comatose and may die
if not warmed quickly. Loggerheads occur only rarely north of Long Island around Cape Cod and in the
Gulf of Maine (Snoop and Kenney 1992) (Figure 6). Several sub-adult loggerheads strand along the south
shore of Cape Cod Bay each winter (Matassa et al. 1994). The stranded turtles measure 27 to 47 cm SLCL
(straight line carapace length), indicating that they are late juveniles.
Migratory behavior seems to be cued to sea surface temperatures, with preferred water temperatures off
Cape Hatteras falling in the range of 14°C to 28°C (Shoop and Kenney 1992; Coles et al. 1994).
Loggerhead turtles first appear in waters around Long Island, New York, in early June and remain in New
York waters, mostly in bays in eastern Long Island, for the entire summer (Morreale and Standora 1993).
They begin to leave New York waters, swimming first eastward and offshore and then southward, in late
September through mid-October each year. Nearly all loggerheads remaining in New York waters after the
beginning of November are cold-stunned. The cold stunned turtles apparently are not the same turtles that
reside in local waters during the summer. They probably are from more northern, Massachusetts Bay and
Nantucket Shoal, feeding groups that were caught by rapidly declining water temperatures during their
southward migration (Morreale and Standora 1993).
The center of distribution of loggerhead turtles in the New York Bight area is in coastal bays in eastern
Long Island and in eastern Long Island Sound (Morreale and Standora 1993). They may also be abundant
along the south shore of Long Island, particularly in mid-shelf waters south of central Long Island, and in
the New York Bight Apex (Morreale et al. 1989; Shoop and Kenney 1992).
In the fall, loggerheads migrate southward to coastal waters off the south Atlantic states, particularly from
Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, to Florida, with peak numbers passing Cape Hatteras in November
(Morreale and Standora 1993; Musick et al. 1994). Some juvenile loggerheads remain through the winter
in nearshore waters of North Carolina south of Cape Hatteras where water temperatures remain at or above
11 °C (Epperly et al. 1995b). In the winter and spring, they congregate off southern Florida before
migrating northward to their summer feeding ranges (CeTAP 1982). Peak numbers of northward-
migrating sub-adult loggerheads occur off Cape Hatteras in April and May each year (Musick et al. 1994).
During the winter, the turtles tend to aggregate in warmer waters along the western boundary of the Gulf
Stream off Florida (Thompson 1988). They also may hibernate in bottom waters and soft sediments of
channels and inlets along the Florida coast (Ogren and McVea 1981; Butler et al. 1987).
3.3.3 Food and Feeding Behaviors
Adult loggerheads are primarily bottom feeders, foraging in coastal waters for benthic molluscs and
crustaceans (Bjomdal 1985). During feeding, they spend more than 57 minutes of each hour submerged
(Thompson 1988). Sub-adult loggerheads collected in Chesapeake Bay contained in their stomachs
horseshoe crabs, cancer crabs, and blue crabs, with traces of Sargassum weed (Lutcavage 1981). In New
York coastal waters, they feed primarily on small benthic crabs, such as spider crabs, rock crabs, and green
crabs (Burke etal. 1990; Morreale and Standora 1992,1993). Loggerhead turtles stranded on Cumberland
Island, Georgia, had been feeding on a variety of crabs, whelks, and mantis shrimp (Ruckdeschel and
Shoop 1988). Some turtles had large numbers of barnacles in their stomachs. Although loggerheads
appear to feed primarily on the bottom on benthic invertebrates, they also take food from the water column
-------
Biological Assessment
MDS Closure and HARS Designation
May 1997
Page 35
LOGGERHEAD TURTLE
SIGHTINGS
0 50 100 150 200 250
82 00__ BO 00 78 00 76 00 74 00 7
Figure 6. Distribution of Loggerhead Turtles 1960 -1992 in the Northwest Atlantic
(Source: NMFS unpublished data).
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 36
or the water surface. Turtles frequently contain large amounts of sediment in their guts, probably ingested
during feeding on benthic prey (Ruckdeschel and Shoop 1988).
In the New York Bight area, nearly all sightings of juvenile loggerheads (the only life stage present) are in
shallow coastal bays and estuaries where the turtles feed on benthic invertebrates, particularly crabs
(Morreale and Standora 1993). They rarely are observed in water depths of 20 m or more, characteristic of
most of the current MDS and proposed HARS (refer to Figure 1), and rarely feed at depths greater than
about 15m. Therefore, there is little likelihood that juvenile loggerhead turtles feed within the affected
environment of the Proposed Action or the alternatives.
Juvenile loggerhead turtles grow rapidly during their summer visits to coastal waters of the New York
Bight (Morreale and Standora 1993). The increase in straight-line carapace length of juvenile turtles in
New York ranges from 10.6 cm/year for 40- to 50-cm individuals to 3.0 cm/year for 50- to 60-cm
individuals. These growth rates are slightly lower than those of loggerheads in Florida and the Bahamas
(Mendonga 1981; Bjorndal and Bolten 1988). Schmid (1995) estimated, based on tag-recapture studies,
that loggerheads along the east coast of central Florida grow at a rate of 5.56 cm/year. Growth rate slows
as the turtles approach sexual maturity, which may occur after 12 to 45 years in the wild (Zug et al. 1983;
Frazer and Ehrhart 1985; Foster 1994) when the turtles are about 74 to 90 cm SLCL (Dodd 1988; Foster
1994). Adult loggerheads from the Florida population may grow to more than 120 cm SLCL and weight
more than 180 kg (Ehrhart and Yoder 1978). The good growth of juvenile loggerhead turtles in New York
waters suggests that the turtles are not casual visitors to these northern habitats, but visit coastal bays and
nearshore waters of the region intentionally each summer to feed and grow (Morreale and Standora 1993).
3.3.4 Known Mortality Factors
Between 1980 and 1983, there were 6,691 reported standings of loggerhead turtles along the U.S. Atlantic
and Gulf of Mexico coasts (Thompson 1988). Most strandings (77%) were along the southeast coast from
North Carolina to Florida; about 11% of strandings occurred north of Cape Hatteras. Most strandings
occurred during the spring and summer; 79% of the strandings north of North Carolina were between April
and July. The causes of these strandings has not been determined.
There have been five to 27 strandings each year along the coasts of New Jersey and New York (Teas and
Martinez 1989, 1992; Teas 1992, 1993, 1994a,b). In most years, strandings in New Jersey are most
frequent between July and November. Strandings occur most frequently in New York along the north
shore of Long Island in the fall and winter; these strandings may be caused by cold stunning (Morreale et
al. 1992; Matassa et al. 1994). As with most marine turtles, prolonged exposure of loggerheads to low
water temperatures, below about 8°C, may result in dormancy, shock, and death. During the winters of
1985, 1986, and 1987, 28 loggerhead turtles became cold-stunned and washed ashore in the Bay system of
eastern Long Island and along the north shore of the island (Morreale et al. 1992). The turtles became
cold-stunned between early November and late January each year. Cold stunning is not restricted to the
northern U.S. Cold stunning incidents, involving loggerhead and green turtles, have been documented
several times in the northern part of the Indian River Lagoon system in east central Florida (Witherington
and Ehrhart 1989; Schroeder et al. 1990).
The major sources of mortality of sea turtles, including loggerheads, caused by human activities include
incidental take in bottom trawls, particularly shrimp trawls (Henwood and Stuntz 1987; Thompson 1988;
NRC 1990; Anonymous 1992), coastal gill net fisheries, marine debris, and channel dredging (Thompson
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 37
1988; NMFS 1992). Loss of nesting habitat along the south Atlantic coast caused by coastal development
probably also has slowed recruitment of sea turtles.
Shrimp fishing is the best quantified and probably the dominant source of anthropogenic mortality among
North Atlantic loggerhead turtles (Thompson 1988; NRC 1990). An estimated 7,913 to 18,148
loggerheads are killed each year in shrimp nets along the southeast coast of the United States. An
additional 3,555 to 4,716 loggerhead turtles are killed this way each year in the Gulf of Mexico, bringing
the total killed in the shrimp industry to approximately 10,000 to 23,000 individuals per year. The
National Research Council (1990) estimated an annual mortality of loggerheads due to the commercial
shrimping of 5,000 to 50,000 individuals in U.S. waters.
Other fisheries account for 500 to 5,000 mortalities per year (NRC 1990). Three loggerhead turtles were
reported entangled in lobster gear between 1983 and 1991 by the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage
Network (NMFS 1994). Two of the turtles were in New Jersey and 1 was in New York. Two of the
turtles died. Entanglement of loggerhead turtles is not likely to occur because project placement buoys are
expected to be taut-line mooring configurations which are readily detected and avoided by loggerhead
turtles.
Nationally, dredging operations (not disposal) and collisions with boats may account for an additional 50
to 500 loggerheads per year each (NRC 1990). Dickerson et al. (1992) reported that winter dredging of
the Cape Canaveral channel, FL and King's Bay, GA resulted in the deaths of hibernating sea turtles.
Entrainment in electric power plant cooling water intakes accounts for fewer than 50 loggerhead deaths per
year (NRC 1990).
Ingestion of or entanglement in plastic debris undoubtedly contributes to the death of many loggerhead
turtles each year, however, the magnitude of this mortality is difficult to estimate (NRC 1990). Ten
percent of 33 necropsied loggerheads that had stranded in the New York Bight contained ingested
synthetic materials, mostly plastics (Sadove and Morreale 1990). Loggerheads in the New York Bight
become entangled most frequently in pound nets and lobster pot lines. Of 22,547 sea turtles (72.4% of
them loggerheads) stranded on shores of the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts of the U.S. between 1980
and 1992, 676 (3%) were affected in some way by debris (Witzell and Teas 1994). Of the different species
of sea turtles, loggerheads were least affected by entanglement; when entanglement occurred, it most
frequently involved monofilament lines with fish hooks, fishing nets, and rope. More than 40 loggerheads
stranded along the south Atlantic coast of the U.S. had ingested monofilament lines or hooks; a few had
ingested plastic or balloons. Fourteen loggerheads stranded on the south Atlantic coast had ingested or
become contaminated with oil or tar balls.
There is very little published information on the role or importance of chemical pollution in the mortality
of sea turtles, including loggerhead turtles. Stonebumer et al. (1980) reported that loggerhead eggs
collected from the shores of Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina contained 0.41 to 1.39 mg/kg dry wt.
total mercury. Several loggerheads collected south of Malta in the Mediterranean Sea were contaminated
with tarry residues of petroleum, probably derived from encounters with floating tar balls, which the turtles
often mistake for food (Gramentz 1988). Juvenile loggerhead and Kemp's ridley turtles that stranded in
Virginia and North Carolina contained 55 to 1,730 //g/kg wet wt. total organochlorines in subcutaneous fat
and 7.5 to 607 /^g/kg wet wt total organochlorines in liver (Rybitski et al. 1995). The most abundant
organochlorines were polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and DDT and its degradation products.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1 997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 38
3.4 Kemp's Ridley Turtle (Lepidochelys kempi)
3.4.1 Population Status and Trends
The Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempi) is a small sea turtle; adult females have shell lengths of 62 to 70
cm and weigh 35 to 45 kg (NRC 1990). Most of the ridleys that visit the east coast of the U.S. are
juveniles, averaging 25 to 30 cm long and weighing about 3 kg (NMFS 1988; NOAA 1991).
The Kemp's ridley turtle is the most endangered sea turtle in the world. The entire Atlantic population,
consisting almost exclusively of juveniles, probably does not exceed 500 animals (Carr and Mortimer
1980). The total world population of adult ridleys, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico, is approximately 2,200
individuals, down from an estimated 162,400 adult individuals in 1947 (Marquez 1989). The total
population, adults and juveniles, may number 22,000 to 110,000 individuals. The total nesting population
of females during the mid- to late-1980s has been estimated to number about 600 individuals, with each
female laying about two clutches of eggs per year (Pritchard 1990). When compared to the estimated
number of nests in 1947 (92,000), this is the most severe population decline documented for any species of
sea turtles (NRC 1990).
Nearly all reproduction takes place along a single 15-km stretch of beach near Rancho Nuevo, Mexico,
about 322 km south of Brownsville, Texas. Nesting occurs in a highly synchronized manner with large
numbers of females coming ashore within a period of a few hours during daylight (NRC 1990). In 1947,
an estimated 40,000 females nested in one day on the Rancho Nuevo beach. Only 842 nests were found in
1988 (Ross et al. 1989). The number of nesting females has declined at a rate of about three percent per
year since 1978 (Thompson 1988).
Female ridleys reach sexual maturity when they reach a carapace length of about 58 to 60 cm and are six to
nine years old (Marquez 1994). The mature females nest annually and produce one to three (average about
1.7) clutches per season containing a total of about 120 to 190 eggs. Longevity probably is greater than 20
years. Little is known about the sex ratio of ridley turtles or about the life history of the males.
3.4.2 Seasonal Distribution in Middle-Atlantic Bight Waters
The Kemp's ridley sea turtle is found mainly in the Gulf of Mexico (Hildebrand 1982), but juveniles also
occur during the summer along the Atlantic seaboard from Florida to Long Island Sound, Martha's
Vineyard, and occasionally north of Cape Cod, in Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts Bay, the Gulf of Maine,
and as far north as the Canadian Maritime Provinces (Lazell 1980). Groups of dozens of young ridleys are
observed frequently during the summer feeding in shallow coastal waters of Vineyard Sound, Buzzards
Bay, MA, and in the eastern Bays of Long Island, NY (Carr 1967; Lazell 1980; Morreale and Standora
1993).
Virtually all the Kemp's ridley turtles in New York Bight waters are juveniles. It is generally thought that
hatchlings and young juveniles from the western Gulf of Mexico drift to the east in the Gulf gyres and are
caught in the eastern Gulf Loop Current They are carried by the Florida Current through the Straits of
Florida into the Gulf Stream, in which they are carried up the eastern seaboard of the U.S. (Collard 1987;
Mdrquez 1994). They may be carried around the entire North Atlantic in the circular gyre of the Gulf
Stream before swimming into shallow coastal waters along the Atlantic coast of the U.S. When they move
into coastal waters of the New York Bight and New England, the juvenile ridleys are 24 to 30 cm long.
They forage in shallow coastal waters of New England, New York, and New Jersey during the spring and
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 39
summer and then migrate to southern waters in the fall. The spatial and seasonal distribution of ridley
turtles in the New York Bight area is similar to that of juvenile loggerheads (Morreale and Standora 1993).
Turtles that were tagged off Cape Canaveral, FL, migrated north in the spring as water temperatures
increased and south in the fall as water temperatures dropped (Henwood and Ogren 1987). The longest
recorded northward migration was about 880 km. Three juvenile ridleys that were tagged and released at
Virginia Beach, VA, in the fall migrated southward in nearshore waters (Keinath et al. 1992). One turtle
got as far south as Cape Canaveral, FL, before the transmitter stopped. Two ridleys that were tagged in
eastern Long Island were subsequently recaptured in coastal waters of North Carolina (Morreale and
Standora 1993). A juvenile ridley turtle from eastern Long Island was tracked by satellite telemetry as it
traveled south in the fail of 1991 (Morreale and Standora 1993). It traveled westward along the south
shore of Long Island and then continued southwestward toward the New Jersey coast. It then swam
directly south until it reached the coast of North Carolina. The entire trip of 709 km was performed within
60 km of shore in water depths less than about 40 m. The average swimming speed was 22 km/day. These
studies show that ridley turtles that visit New York Bight and New England waters during the summer to
feed are a part of the larger population centered in the Gulf of Mexico. These animals, despite their small
size can migrate back to southern waters and are not lost to the breeding population, as had been thought
earlier (Carr 1980).
All the ridley turtles in the New York Bight are two to five year old juveniles with carapace lengths of 22
to 38 cm (Burke et al. 1989; Morreale and Standora 1993). They begin arriving in New York waters in
July or August each year and remain in shallow nearshore waters, particularly in the bays on eastern Long
Island, during the summer (Burke et al. 1989; Morreale and Standora 1993). They begin leaving the area
in mid September and most have left for warmer southern waters by the beginning of November. Some
ridleys may hibernate over the winter in nearshore sediments (Carminati et al. 1994). Most'of the ridleys
observed after the beginning of November are cold-stunned. Ridleys become sluggish and have labored^
breathing when the temperature falls below 13°C; feeding ceases below 10°C, and they die when water
temperatures drop to 6.5 to 5.0°C (Schwartz 1978).
More ridley turtles have been observed in coastal waters of New York and southern Massachusetts than
anywhere else in the northeast (Lazell 1980; Morreale and Standora 1992). They are the turtles observed
most frequently cold-stunned along the north and east shores of Long Island (Morreale et al. 1992). In the
winters of 1985 through 1987, 97 cold-stunned ridley turtles were collected along the shores of Long
Island; only 15 of these animals were alive at the time of collection.
3.4.3 Food and Feeding Behaviors
Following a pelagic feeding stage shortly after hatching and lasting for several months (Carr 1986a),
juvenile ridleys move into shallow coastal waters to feed and grow. The young juveniles often forage in
water less than one meter deep (Ogren 1989), but they tend to move into deeper water as they grow. In
New York waters, nearly all feeding takes place on or near the bottom in shallow water (Morreale and
Standora 1992,1993). The deepest recorded dive of a juvenile ridley was to 21 m; dives usually level off
at about 15 m if the bottom isn't reached (Morreale and Standora 1993).
In coastal waters of New York, young ridleys consume several species of crabs, including in order of
decreasing preference, spider crabs (Libinia emarginata), lady crabs (Ovalipes ocellatus), and rock crabs
(Cancer irroratus) (Morreale and Standora 1992, 1993). Crustaceans represent more than 80% of the diet
of juvenile ridleys in the New York Bight (Burke et al. 1994). Other food items found in ridley stomachs
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 40
include molluscs and algae. The preference for spider crabs over lady crabs, despite the fact that the latter
is more abundant in ridley foraging habitat, is probably due to the greater ease of capture of the slower
moving spider crabs by the small turtles (Morreale and Standora 1993).
In Chesapeake Bay, sub-adult ridleys concentrate in seagrass (Zostera and Rupid) beds and feed primarily
on blue crabs (Callinectes sapidus) and cancer crabs (Cancer spp.) (Lutcavage 1981; Byles 1989).
Juvenile to adult ridleys stranded on Texas beaches contained a wide variety of foods in their digestive
tracts; crabs were most abundant, followed by molluscs and small fish (Shaver 1991). More than 60% of
the turtles contained some plant materials in their stomachs, but it represented less than one percent of the
total gut contents.
Juvenile and sub-adult ridleys in Florida and Georgia were observed to feed on the crabs Ovalipes
ocellatus and Heppatus ephiliticus (De Sola and Abrams 1933; Carr 1952). Blue crabs (Callinectes
sapidus) are the favorite food of sub-adult ridleys in Virginia (Hardy 1962; Musick 1979). Because of
their preference for crabs and other primarily shallow-water demersal prey, juvenile and adult ridley turtles
concentrate in coastal waters less than 100 m deep throughout their range (Thompson 1988). Blue crabs
are rarely observed in deep ocean waters (NOAA, pers. comm. 1996a), therefore, it is unlikely that ridley
turtles feed on blue crabs in the current MDS or within the borders of the proposed HARS.
Ridley turtles make long dives to the bottom and may feed on the bottom for an hour or more at a time; one
turtle was observed burrowing in the bottom of Long Island Sound (NMFS 1988). During daylight hours,
they spend most of their time under water. In a typical dive the turtle spends about 56% of its time in the
upper third of the water column, 12% in the middle, and 32% of its time on the bottom (Morreale and
Standora 1993). In water deeper than about 15m, the turtles usually dive to a depth of 6 to 10m where
they appear to be swimming in a directed manner.
In New York waters, ridley turtles spend most of their time feeding in shallow water and growing rapidly.
Individuals 20 to 30 cm long grow at an average rate of 2.2 cm/year; larger 30 to 40 cm individuals grow at
a rate of 4.5 cm/year. These rates are slower than those for ridleys in Texas (McVey and Wibbles 1984),
possibly because New York ridleys are able to occupy optimal foraging areas for only a few months each
year. A growth model proposed by Marquez (1972) indicates that ridleys may reach a length of 40 cm
after about four years and reach sexual maturity at a carapace length of about 60 cm after about six or
seven years.
3.4.4 Known Mortality Factors
Several stages in the life cycle of Kemp's ridley turtles are sensitive to natural and anthropogenic
disturbance. Each year between November and January when ocean water temperatures are falling, small
numbers of ridley turtles become stranded and die on beaches of the north and east shores of Long Island
and inner Cape Cod, due to cold stunning (NOAA 1991; Morreale and Standora 1992). When the water
temperature drops below about 12°C, the metabolic rate of these cold-blooded reptiles decreases to the
point where they are unable to swim and digest food; they become comatose and may die if not warmed
quickly. A total of 115 ridley turtles stranded on Cape Cod beaches between 1977 and 1987 (Danton and
Prescott 1988). In the winter of 1985/1986, 52 turtles (41 ridleys, nine loggerheads, and two green turtles)
stranded in Long Island Sound (Meylan and Sadove 1986). Nine of the ridleys and 1 each of the
loggerheads and green turtles survived following gradual warming at a rehabilitation center. Similar cold
strandings have occurred as far south as the Indian River Lagoon, FL (Wilcox 1986).
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 41
A major cause of sea turtle mortality attributable to man is entanglement in fishing gear, particularly
shrimp nets (NRC 1990). Hen wood and Stuntz (1987) estimated an annual incidental capture of
approximately 47,000 sea turtles of all species, with an estimated mortality of about 11,000 in the shrimp
fisheries of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coastal waters from Florida to North Carolina. These
estimates are thought to be low (NRC 1990). Of all the turtles killed each year by U.S. commercial
shrimping, 500 to 5,000 are juvenile and adult Kemp's ridley turtles. Most of the mortalities attributable to
entanglement in shrimp nets are in the Gulf of Mexico. With regard to potential entanglement impacts
from operation of the HARS in the New York Bight, there is no expected danger to ridley turtles from
placement of Material for Remediation. Project placement buoys are expected to be taut-line mooring
configurations which are readily detected and avoided by ridley turtles.
Other fishing-related deaths, caused by entanglement in lobster gear (O'Hara et al. 1986) and pound nets
(Morreale and Standora 1989), may result in an additional 50 to 500 deaths of Kemp's ridley turtles each
year. Ridley turtles, being benthic feeders, tend to become entangled in debris, including abandoned fish
and crab traps, on the bottom. This incidental catch could represent as much as 7.5% of the hatchling
ridleys produced each year, assuming that the 800 nests produced a total of 80,000 hatchling ridley turtles
each year. This extra mortality undoubtedly is contributing to the rapid decline in the population of
Kemp's ridley turtles.
Large numbers of sea turtles, including some Kemp's ridley turtles, die from eating or becoming entangled
in plastic debris (O'Hara 1989; NRC 1990). Sea turtles are particularly prone to becoming entangled in
monofilament fishing line and phantom fishing nets (Balazs 1985). Plastic bags and plastic particles are
the most common forms ingested; they probably are mistaken for food.
Under some circumstances, chemical pollution may be a threat to ridley turtles. As part of the Sea Turtle
Head Start Program, 12,422 one-year-old ridley turtles were tagged and released between 1979 and 1987
(Manzella et al. 1988). In 1982, 1,325 ridleys were released 6 to 10 km off the Texas coast in floating
patches of Sargassum weed. More than 28% of the turtles washed ashore within 14 days of release, and
most were coated with oil or had ingested tar balls, probably associated with the Sargassum. Because early
pelagic stage ridleys are thought to congregate and feed in rafts of Sargassum, they may be vulnerable, as
juvenile loggerhead turtles are (Carr 1987), to floating oil and nondegradable debris that tends to collect in
driftlines of Sargassum. Ridleys feeding in Sargassum rafts or on benthic prey may accumulate metal and
organic contaminants from their prey.
Ridley turtles that were cold-stunned on eastern Long Island between 1980 and 1989 contained means of
218 to 738 //g/kg wet wt (parts per billion) total PCBs, 156 to 300 /^g/kg total DDT, and 27.5 to 86 //g/kg
fra/zj-nanochlor in their livers (Lake et al. 1994); concentrations were much higher in body fat. There was
a general trend for mean concentrations of these organochlorines in the turtle tissues to decrease between
1980 and 1989. The concentrations of these compounds in ridleys from Long Island were higher than
those found in ridley and loggerhead turtles from southern Chesapeake Bay (Rybitski et al. 1995) and were
higher than concentrations known to cause reproductive effects in snapping turtles. Closely related Olive
ridley turtles (Lepidochelys olivacea) collected from coastal Ecuador contained elevated concentrations of
copper, lead, and zinc in their bones (Witkowski and Frazier 1982). Thus, coastal pollution may be a
source of pathology in ridley turtles.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 42
4.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES
4.1 Background on the HARS and Proposed Action
In February 1995, EPA Region 2 (1995b) issued a Public Announcement stating that the Agency would
commence a study of a 23-nmi2 area surrounding the existing MDS. The product of the study was to be a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) that would evaluate the following three alternatives
according to EPA's ocean dumping regulations.
1. No action (no expansion of the MDS)
2. Expansion of the MDS for Category I material
3. Expansion of the MDS for Category I and n material
Each of these alternatives, particularly Alternatives 2 and 3, were also to be evaluated relative to impacts
from historical disposal and the potential for remediating or restoring impacted benthic areas.
Development of the SEIS was started while several major Bight Apex field studies were still in progress.
In May 1995, EPA announced toxicity test results3 from benthic samples collected in the 23-nmi2 Study
Area (EPA Region 2 1995c). These data showed that if the Study Area sediment samples had come from a
proposed dredging site, sediments in some parts of the Study Area would have been classified as
Category HI and determined to be unacceptable for ocean disposal. Bathymetric and side-scan data
collected at this time also showed evidence of dredged material mounds northwest of the 23-nmi2 Study
Area (Subarea 1). In response to this new information, EPA expanded the Study Area by adding an
approximately 7-nmi2 rectangle (Subarea 2) northwest of and abutting the western border of Subarea 1.
The resulting 30-nmi2 (103.2 km2) Study Area encompassed all benthic areas that showed evidence of
dredged material disposal in the New York Bight Apex.
Other studies—some not directed at evaluating dredged material impacts—further characterized the
physical, chemical, and biotic conditions of the Study Area and Bight Apex.
• Chemical analysis of infaunal (worm) tissue from the Study Area confirmed that some sediment
contaminants are being bioaccumulated in the lower trophic levels.
• The hepatic tissue (tomalley) of Bight Apex lobsters was found to have levels of PCBs and 2,3,7,8-
TCDD (dioxin) above currently acceptable action levels and guidelines.
• Several shipwrecks were located in the Apex and Study Area, triggering a need for a National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) evaluation and an evaluation of the spatially-limited reef habitat created by
the wrecks.
3The toxicity tests reported by EPA Region 2 (1995b) were from 10-day amphipod bioassays using Ampelisca
abdita. Study Area sediments and reference area sediments were tested side-by-side under identical conditions [refer
to EPA/US ACE (1991) and USAGE NYD/EPA Region 2 (1992) for further description of test procedures].
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 43
The assembly of this new information generated heightened concern about the environmental
consequences of historical ocean disposal in the Bight Apex, including the continued disposal of
Category II dredged material. This in rum brought into question the appropriateness of continued use or
expansion of the MDS. The concerns led to Federal actions detailed in a July 24, 1996 letter to several
New Jersey Congressmen, signed by EPA Administrator Carol Browner, Secretary of Transportation
Federico F. Pena, and Secretary of the Army Togo D. West, Jr. (July 24, 1996, 3-Party Letter):
"... Accordingly, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will immediately begin the
administrative process for closure of the MDS by September 1, 1997. The proposed closure shall
be finalized no later than that date. Post-closure use of the site would be limited, consistent with
management standards in 40 C.F.R. Section 228.1 l(c). Simultaneous with closure of the MDS,
the site and surrounding areas that have be'en used historically as disposal sites for contaminated
material will be redesignated under 40 C.^.R. Section 228 as the Historic Area Remediation Site.
This designation will include a proposal that the site be managed to reduce impacts at the site to
acceptable levels (in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Section 228.1 l(c)). The Historic Area
Remediation Site will be remediated with uncontaminated dredged material (i.e. dredged material
that meets current Category I standards and will not cause significant undesirable effects including
through bioaccumulation)..." (July 24, 1996, EPA/DOT/USACE 1996)
The July 24, 1996, 3-Party Letter further states that "The designation of the Historic Area Remediation
Site will assure long-term use of category 1 dredge material," and that the three agencies will work to
develop a sound dredged material management plan for the Port, reduce the backlog of dredging projects,
and start a feasibility study for a 50-foot deep port.
Subsequent to the July 24, 1996, 3-Party Letter (EPA/DOT/USACE 1996), EPA Region 2 (1996) issued a
Public Announcement in September 1996 modifying the scope of the SEIS from evaluating the potential
expansion of the Mud Dump Site to evaluating the designation of a Historic Area Remediation Site
(HARS). In the same announcement, the Agency stated that it was beginning the administrative process to
close (de-designate) the MDS.
Following the 3-Party Letter and the September 1996 public announcement, EPA modified the alternatives
as follows:
SEIS Alternative 1 (BA Alternative 1): No Action
• No change to size or management of the present Mud Dump Site (MDS)
• No remediation of areas outside of the MDS with toxicity or sediments degraded by
bioaccumulative contaminants and sediment toxicity, or restoration of fine-grain sediment areas
• Disposal of Category I dredged material continues per the MDS Site Management and Monitoring
Plan (SMMP) (EPA Region 21 USAGE NYD 1997) until current remaining disposal capacity is
reached
• Category JJ dredged material capacity will be reached by September 1,1997
SEIS Alternative 2 (BA Alternative 2): Close MDS-No HARS Designation
• Closure of the present Mud Dump Site
• No Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS) designated
• No remediation of sediments outside of the MDS with toxicity or sediments degraded by
bioaccumulative contaminants and sediment toxicity, or restoration of fine-grain sediment areas
created by past dredged material disposal
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 44
SEIS Alternative 3 (BA Proposed Action): HARS Remediation
• Simultaneous closure of the MDS and designation of 15.7-nmi2 (54-km2) HARS
• The HARS is composed of the Priority Remediation Area (PRA), a Buffer Zone (BZ), and No
Discharge Zone (NDZ), including the MDS and sediments that have bioaccumulative
contaminants and sediment toxicity. (Refer to: EPA Region 2 1997)
• Remediation conducted by capping degraded sediment areas with at least 1 m of Material for
Remediation
• Approximately 40.6 Myd3 required to remediate the 9.0-nmi2 (31 -km2) PRA; actual placement
volume may be larger to ensure at least a 1 m cap throughout the PRA
• Remediation work prioritized by degree of sediment degradation
SEIS Alternative 4 (BA Alternative 3): HARS Restoration
• Simultaneous closure of the MDS and designation of 15.7-nmi2 (54-km2) HARS
• The HARS is composed of the PRA, NDZ, and BZ, including the MDS, surrounding areas that
has been historically used for disposal of dredged material and other wastes (e.g., building
materials, sewage sludge, industrial wastes), and sediments degraded by bioaccumulative
contaminants or sediment toxicity.
• Restoration work conducted by covering fine-grain sediment areas with at least 1 m of sandy (0-
10% fines) Material for Remediation
• Approximately 46.4 Myd3 required to restore the 10.3 nmi2 (35.5 km2) of fine-grained sediments in
the PRA; actual placement volume may be larger to ensure at least a 1 m cap throughout the PRA
• Restoration work prioritized by degree of sediment degradation.
4.2 Description of Proposed Action — HARS Remediation
EPA's Proposed Action is to simultaneously close the MDS and redesignate the site and surrounding areas
that have been used historically as disposal sites for contaminated material as the HARS (SEIS
Alternative 3). The HARS will be 15.7 nmi2 (54 km2) and include the entire current MDS area. Within
the HARS will be a 9.0-nmi2 (31-km2) Priority Remediation Area (PRA), a 500-m (5.7-nmr) Buffer Zone
(BZ), and a No Discharge Zone (NDZ) of approximately 1.0 nmi2. It is the Agency's determination that
obtaining Material for Remediation from dredging projects in Port of New York and New Jersey and
surrounding areas is the most environmentally beneficial and the most economically feasible alternative for
remediating the 9-nmi2 of degraded sediments within the PRA of the HARS.
Implementation of the HARS SMMP (EPA Region 2/USACE NYD 1997) will ensure that the degraded
sediments will be sufficiently isolated from the biotic zone of the New York Bight, and that toxicity and
the bioaccumulative contaminants of the degraded sediments are not exposed to the marine food chain.
Futhermore, injury or death to turtles or whales is unlikely given that the Material for Remediation will be
subjected to laboratory testing that must meet EPA ocean dumping regulations.
4.2.1 Estimate of Expected Volumes of Material for Remediation
Over the past seven years (1990 through 1996), more than 26 Myd3 of dredged material was transported
during 5,802 trips to the Mud Dump Site (Table 1). The annual average during this period was 3.8 Myd3
and 829 trips, respectively, with 4,645 yd3 of dredged material discharged per trip.
The projected volume of Material for Remediation to be placed at the HARS between now and 2000 is
presented in Table 2.
-------
Biological Assessment
MDS Closure and HARS Designation
May 1997
Page 45
Table 1. Summary of Dredged Material Volumes and Trips to the Mud Dump Site
from 1990 through 1996.
Year
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
7-yr Total
7-yr Average
Trip Volume
Volume (yd3)
4,718,947
3,754,886
4,481,326
5,532,044
5,208,602
2,824,299
429,020
26,949,124
4645 yd3
Number of Trips
1816
1367
1081
664
351
416
107
5802
829
Source: USAGE (1996, 1997)
Table 2. Summary of 1997-2000 Potential Volume of Remediation Material from Planned
Federal and Private New York-New Jersey Harbor Dredging Projects.
Year
1997
1998
1999
2000
4-yr Total
Expected Volumes
2,790,400
4,124,000
194,000
518,100
7,626,50
(yd3)
Source: Port Authority MudOne (1996)
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 46
However, the actual number of Material for Remediation placement trips to the HARS is expected to have
considerable variation depending on review, approval, and budgeting of dredged projects; port economics;
agency funding or remediation work at the HARS; and alternative disposal options for the Material for
Remediation (including beneficial uses). Indications from the MudOne database (Port Authority of NY &
NJ 1996) are that placement activities will be less than one-half the number of disposal activities from
1990 to 1996 (i.e., less than 415 trips per year).
4.3 Analysis of Impacts
4 J.I Water Quality
Water quality impacts associated with the existence of the current MDS and the proposed designation of
the HARS are limited to disposal-event impacts which are relatively infrequent and of short duration
(i.e., <1 h). Placement of Material for Remediation in the HARS must comply with marine water quality
criteria and meet all other applicable EPA/USACE criteria (40 CFR Part 227).
The primary water column impact of concern to threatened and endangered species addressed in this B A is
turbidity (suspended solids) which potentially affect prey species of the whales and turtles. The following
text summarizes impacts to the water column from a typical Material for Remediation placement event at
the HARS.
The Material for Remediation is expected to be placed in the HARS from slowly moving barges.
Placement from these barges would result in classic convective descent of the material under gravitational
settling followed by dynamic collapse when the descending plume impacts the bottom or reaches a
neutrally buoyant position in the water column. Material leaving barge doors usually drops in a
consolidated mass toward the bottom (USAGE 1993). However, a small fraction, usually about 3% of the
total, is eroded by water turbulence and disperses in the water column. The material remaining in the
water column continues to be diluted by the dynamics of the plume body for a short period (Scorer 1957;
Woodward 1959; Csanady 1973; Brandsma and Divoky 1976; Tsai and Proni 1985; Ecker and Downing
1987; Kraus 1991). Once the energy imparted by the placement activity dissipates, the plume undergoes
passive diffusion which is controlled primarily by the ambient oceanographic conditions (currents and
turbulence). An extensive review of the time histories of plume behavior and concentration (Ecker and
Downing 1987) shows that there is generally an abrupt change (reduction) in the rate of plume dilution
within 10 to 30 minutes after discharge, suggesting that initial mixing is complete within 10 to 30 minutes.
Dilutions after 10 minutes typically range from 1,000:1 to 100,000:1.
Direct measurement of dredged-material plume dilution rates and transport from 4,000 to 6,000 yd3
discharges of gravel, sand, silt, and clay at the MDS consistently show rapid dispersal of the plumes during
the first few minutes after release (Dragos and Lewis 1993; Dragos and Peven 1994). A small amount of
fine sediment (silt and clay) remained at measurable concentrations in the water column for up to 3 hrs.
These studies also found that the rapid settling of coarse material and turbulent mixing resulted in initial
dilutions of the plume of 3,000:1 to 10,000:1 within 5 to 15 minutes of dumping. Plume dilution after two
hours ranged from approximately 35,000:1 to 720,000:1. Total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations
near the center of the plume body approached background levels in 30 to 45 minutes.
As a Remediation Material plume descends through the water column and spreads across the bottom, it
will carry with it the gravel, sand, silt, and clay fractions of which it is composed, as well as any dissolved
or particulate chemical contaminants associated with it. Most of the small amount of contaminants
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 47
associated with this Remediation Material will remain adsorbed to sediment particles and be rapidly
deposited onto the bottom at the placement site. A very small fraction of the contaminants may be
adsorbed to the silt/clay particles that remain in suspension in the water column or with the aqueous ,
(dissolved) phase. These suspended and dissolved contaminants (compliant with all applicable marine
water quality criteria and EPA/USACE toxicity tests) are diluted rapidly in the water column, but may
result in measurable increases in concentrations of some chemicals in the water column for a short period
after a placement event. All elevated concentrations will quickly (< 1 hour) return to background levels
well within the 4-h initial mixing period specified in the ocean dumping regulations. Thus, elevated
contaminant levels in the water column are localized, of short duration, and would have no effect on
protected turtles or whales.
Temporary increases in water-column turbidity resulting from remediation work has low potential to affect
protected species that may visit the HARS. The results of a recent hydrographic survey in the vicinity of
the MDS (Dragos and Peven 1994), which represent water column conditions during active dumping at the
existing MDS, indicate generally low turbidity throughout the water column with a small mid-depth
maximum in the central portion of the HARS. This feature appears to extend from the north and west into
the HARS. The increase in water column turbidity in the MDS due to dredged material disposal has been
found to be slight to moderate and varied depending on large scale oceanographic features, such as the
Hudson River discharge or coastal transport, which may increase natural background turbidity in the area.
In summary, increases in turbidity due to placement of Material for Remediation are expected to be short-
lived. The placement of the Material for Remediation in the HARS will not result in long-term or
environmentally significant elevations in water column turbidity or water-column contaminants.
4.3.2 Physical Impacts
Physical impacts associated with designation of the HARS that could affect endangered whales and turtles
include vessel traffic, changes in the sediment grain-size and bottom contour, decreased water depth and
clarity, and settling of Material for Remediation particles through the water column. Each of these is
discussed separately in the text that follows.
Vessel Strikes. Vessel strikes are a significant source of mortality for inshore species of baleen whales
(Kenney and Kraus 1993; Wiley et al 1995; NMFS 1991a,b) and there is some evidence of increased
incidents in recent years of vessel collisions in northeastern U.S. waters (NMFS 1991b; Wiley et al. 1995).
As has been documented for bowhead whales (George et al. 1994), the size and extent of scarring on
whales indicates that collisions are primarily with large vessels such as container ships, tankers, or military
vessels. There are no documented cases of collisions between fin or humpback whales and loaded dredge
material barges or their tugs transiting to the current MDS. These vessels are towed at low speed (2-6
knots) and are probably easily avoided by the whales. The barges themselves do not have propellers,
which are the main source of injury to whales in vessel/whale encounters. Thus, compared to the barges,
tug boats are more hazardous to humpback and fin whales that might be resting on the sea surface or
lunge-feeding on prey near the water surface in New York Bight Apex. Although tug boats have
somewhat limited maneuverability when towing a loaded barge, they generally should be able to avoid
whales on or near the surface or the whales should be able to detect and avoid them. Futhermore, there has
been a decrease in barge traffic over time (Refer to Table 1). As the degraded sediments in the PRA of
the HARS are covered with the 1-m cap of Remediation Material, barge traffic to the site will further
decrease and further reduce the potential for vessel strikes.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 48
Placement of the Material for Remediation by the barges will occur inside the boundaries of the HARS
while the barge is underway. Placement operations will increase the underwater noise signature of the
barge, probably enabling whales and perhaps sea turtles to better detect and avoid the barge and tug boat.
Humpback and fin whales should be able to detect and avoid tug boats barges in tow traveling to and from
the HARS because barges are towed at a relatively slow speed of two knots (vessel speed and movements
are adjusted to sea conditions), and generate fairly loud underwater sounds. A typical loaded barge may
generate underwater sounds at a broad-band source intensity of about 170 dB re 1 //Pa @ 1 m, with
maximum sound intensity below about 200 Hz (Miles etal. 1987). The peak acoustic sensitivity of baleen
whales is thought to be in the range of 20 to 200 Hz, the frequency range of most of their vocalizations
(McCauley 1994). Generally, baleen whales can detect and respond to sounds in this frequency range that
have an intensity of about 120 dB re 1 //Pa or more or are 10 to 20 dB re 1 /zPa above the level of ambient
noise (Richardson et al. 1991; Advanced Research Projects Agency 1995). Thus, humpback and fin
whales will be able to detect the sounds of an approaching tug and barge. However, the responses of these
whales to an approaching tug and barge are unpredictable and may depend on the activity of the whale at
the time or its previous experience with other motor vessels. As discussed previously (see Section 3.1.4),
humpback whales are relatively tolerant of boats. However, because they are more habituated to vessel
approach than any other cetacean, they may be more susceptible to ship collisions than fin whales. Fin
whales, appear to be more wary of approaching boats.
Turtles are also subject to boat-related injuries. Between 1987 and 1993, up to 17% of all stranded sea
turtles on the U.S. Atlantic coast had boat-related injuries (Teas 1994a,b). Ship strikes appear to be a
significant source of mortality for sea turtles, particularly in waters around Long Island, and vessel-related
injuries have increased in recent years (Teas 1994a,b). Of the two species of sea turtles that are evaluated
in this BA, loggerhead turtles appear to be more susceptible than Kemp's ridley turtles to collisions with
boats near the HARS because they usually are larger and visit the New York Bight Apex in larger
numbers.
Juvenile loggerhead and Kemp's ridley turtles visit the general area of the Bight Apex each summer to
feed. Juvenile ridleys, and to a lesser extent juvenile loggerheads, rarely feed in water depths greater than
15 to 20 m. Therefore, they would not be expected to visit the areas of the HARS that will be remediated,
most of which are deeper than 20 m.
While feeding, ridley and loggerhead turtles spend most of their time submerged. Sub-adult and
loggerheads are primarily bottom feeders, foraging in coastal waters for benthic molluscs and crustaceans
(Bjomdal 1985). During feeding, they spend more than 57 minutes of each hour submerged (Thompson
1988) and between 25 and 58% of their time on the bottom (Standora et al. 1994). Feeding dives last from
about four minutes to as long as two hours (Renaud and Carpenter 1994). In New York Bight waters, sub-
adult ridley turtles probably feed primarily on benthic crustaceans. They make long dives to the bottom
and may feed there for an hour or more at a time (NMFS 1988). During their long periods of
submergence, loggerhead and ridley turtles are not very vulnerable to collisions with barges. Given the
underwater feeding behaviors and preference for feeding in shallow water, the potential for collisions
between juvenile loggerheads and ridley turtles and barges transiting between the Port of New York and
New Jersey and the HARS is low.
Vessel Traffic. The Middle-Atlantic Bight supports some of the busiest commercial and military shipping
lanes on the east coast of the U.S. Additionally, the Bight Apex has an increasing amount of vessel traffic
independent of the HARS (e.g., fishing boats from nearby areas). Thus, the increase of visits and seasonal
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Pege 49
residency of humpback whales in the area is likely to result in an increase in potentially adverse
interactions between the whales and human activities (Wiley et al. 1995; Sadove and Cardinale 1993;
Swingle era/. 1993).
The transport of the Material for Remediation to the HARS will require transit through the New York
Bight Apex. Although, the New York Bight Apex is not an area of high concentrations of endangered
whales and turtles, there is some potential for encounters and impacts with disposal vessels. As previously
presented, there will be fewer trips for placement in 1997-2000 than there were for disposal in 1990 to
1996. This vessel traffic is less than the average number of trips from 1990-1996 to the existing MDS
(829 trips/yr). Because the number of trips to the HARS is expected to be less than the number of trips to
the current MDS, the likelihood of illegal takes of these endangered and threatened species through direct
collisions or physical or acoustic disturbance of normal social, feeding, or nursery behavior should be less.
Physical Disturbance. Numerous studies have attempted to document the effects of ships on cetaceans
(Richardson et al. 1985; 1991). It is likely that whales react primarily to the noise generated by vessels,
not to their physical presence. Similarly, the physical presence and activities of vessels and vessel traffic
do not appear to be an important source of disturbance to sea turtles.
Vessels may physically displace some species from feeding areas and may interrupt courtship, breeding,
and other social activities if the vessel makes repeated approaches or if vessel traffic is dense. There is
some evidence that cetaceans have been displaced from traditional feeding and wintering areas due to
increased vessel traffic in Hawaiian waters (Baker et al. 1982; Forestell 1986).
Sea turtles do not appear to be disturbed by the physical presence of vessels or other human activities.
They may dive when approached by a vessel and avoid areas of intensive human activities. Therefore,
protected species of whales and sea turtles do not appear to be particularly sensitive to physical disturbance
from vessel activities. They are unlikely to be disturbed by the physical presence in the New York Bight
Apex of barges transporting or placing Remediation Material.
The Material for Remediation will likely be released through doors in the bottom of the barge while the
barges are underway. During placement activities, a dense plume made up of particles, some in large
clumps, entrains ambient sea water as it falls rapidly to the sea floor. The turbidity and turbulence in the
descending plume from the Material for Remediation is high at first, but decreases rapidly. There is some
chance that sea turtles foraging near or on the bottom in the area could be engulfed by the descending
Material for Remediation and sustain injury or death. The potential magnitude depends mainly on the
frequency with which juvenile loggerhead and ridley turtles forage within the boundaries of the HARS and
the extent to which they can detect and avoid the barges and the descending Material for Remediation that
will be placed within the HARS.
Conditions of water depth and availability of preferred foods are not optimal within the HARS and sea
turtles are not known to forage there. Sea turtles can detect underwater sounds of the intensities and
frequencies produced by underway tugs and barges, but often do not respond to such noises, unless they
are intense. Therefore, even if turtles are feeding within the site, they probably would not be deterred by
the presence of the barges. Impacts of the descending Material for Remediation on foraging sea turtles
probably will not be severe. Both ridleys and loggerheads are known to dig in and bury themselves in
bottom sediments. If turtles become buried by descending Material for Remediation, they probably will
escape from all but the thickest portions of the placed material. Turtle encounters with plumes from the
Material for Remediation in the water column probably will disturb the animals but will not be injurious.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 50
In summary, the potential for harm to protected sea turtles from the placement of Material for Remediation
at the HARS is low.
There is even less potential for whales to be impacted by falling Material for Remediation during
placement activities. Fin and humpback whales have never been reported within the boundaries of the
HARS, but have been spotted in the general area and could move through the site on occasion. They can
detect the presence of the moving barge and tug traffic. Moreover, the species can likely detect the
placement of Material for Remediation events. Because they are fast swimmers and water depth is shallow
within the HARS, it is highly likely that, if present in the HARS during a placement of the Material for
Remediation, they would avoid the barge and not remain under it. Swimming through a plume would not
harm a large animal like a whale because they do not breathe water and are sensitive to natural suspended
sediments.
Acoustic Disturbance. Low-frequency sounds, such as those produced by underway motor vessels travel
for long distances under water. These sounds, if they are intense enough, may cause injury to the ears of
whales and turtles, or even death from concussion. Lower intensity sounds in the frequency ranges heard
and used for communication by these animals may interfere with normal intraspecies communication,
detection (by echo-location) of prey, and orientation (Richardson et al. 1991).
Motor vessels add noise to an already noisy underwater marine environment. The total background
ambient noise in the open ocean is about 74 to 100 dB re 1 /^Pa (Table 3). However, several natural sound
sources, such as earthquakes, lightning strikes, and some biological noises, such as vocalizations of baleen
whales and some swimbladder sounds of fish, may temporarily increase natural ambient noise above these
levels.
In comparison to total background ambient noise presented in Table 3, vessel noises, caused by the turning
of the screws, engine noises, and noises of operating machinery on board, generally fall in the range of 5 to
2000 Hz, with highest intensities below 100 Hz (Scrimger and Hietmeyer 1991). Sound intensity,
particularly at higher frequencies, tends to increase with the size of the vessel. Supertankers and large
container ships may have a maximum broad-band sound source level of 190 to 200 dB re 1 AiPa at 1m
(Table 4). Small outboard motor vessels produce broad-band sounds of about 150 dB re 1 /^Pa at 1 m;
these sounds are attenuated to the range of 85 to 140 dB re 1 /zPa at a distance of 50 m from the source
(Richardson et al. 1991). Peak source sound pressures for tug boats towing barges are in the range of 160
to 170 dB re 1 /^Pa at 1 m (Buck and Chalfant 1972; Miles et al. 1987; Malme et al. 1989).
Most marine animals can perceive underwater sounds over a broad range of frequencies from about 10 Hz .
to more than 10,000 Hz. Peak acoustic sensitivity of sea turtles, and baleen whales is below about 1,000
Hz and generally in the range of 20 to 200 Hz (McCauley 1994).
Baleen whales produce a wide variety of sounds, some of them of considerable intensity. They are thought
to use sound for intraspecific communication and possibly also for echolocation and to aid in prey capture.
Sounds often are frequency-modulated and range from short chirps and clicks to complex songs. Most
baleen whale sounds fall in the frequency range of 12 to about 1,000 Hz, with some sounds as high as
8,000 Hz (Richardson et al. 1991; McCauley 1994). The high-frequency clicks (up to 31 kHz) sometimes
recorded in the vicinity of fin, blue, minke, and gray whales have not been attributed with certainty to the
whales themselves. If produced by the whales, they could be used for echolocation, as high frequency
sound is by toothed cetaceans. The low-frequency moans, grunts, rumbles, and pulsive sounds produced
by many baleen whales are in the frequency range of highest intensity sounds produced by motor vessels,
-------
Biological Assessment
MDS Closure and HARS Designation
May 1997
Page 51
Table 3. Maximum Broad-Band (20-1000 Hz) Sound Pressure Source Levels for
Different Types of Natural Ambient Noise in the Marine Environment.
Noise Source
Maximum Source Level
(dB re 1 //Pa @ 1 m)
Remarks
Undersea Earthquake
Seafloor Volcanic
Eruption
Lightning Strike on
Water Surface
Baleen Whales
Swimbladder Sounds of
Fish
Dugong
Total Open-Ocean
Ambient Noise
Rain Storm
Wind
272
255+
250
to 188
-140
<90
74-100
80
66
Magnitude 4.0 on Richter scale (energy
integrated over 50-Hz band width)
Massive steam explosions
Random events during storm at sea
<2000 Hz simple and complex calls,
clicks, pulses, knocks, grunts, moans
Marked spectral peaks in 50-3000 Hz
range
2000-5000 Hz simple chirps and squeaks
Estimate for offshore central California,
sea state 3-5; expected to be higher (> 120
dB) when vessels are present
Heavy rain shower, flat frequency
spectrum
Force 3 wind over water
Sources: Richardson et al. (1991), McCauley (1994), and Advanced Research Projects Agency (1995).
particularly large vessels, such as tankers and container ships (Table 4). Low-frequency vocalizations in
the 10 to 40 Hz range may be used by baleen whales for long-range communication (Payne and Webb
1971). Humpback whales (Thompson et al. 1986) and fin whales (Edds 1988) all produce low frequency
moans, tonal, pulsive and grunting sounds in the 10 to 40 Hz range. These low frequency sound travel
great distances with little attenuation in ocean waters, making them ideal for long-distance communication.
The loud, low frequency sounds produced by motor vessels may interfere with this long-range
communication.
Most baleen whales respond to constant, low-frequency sounds with broad-band intensities of more than
about 120 dB re 1 //Pa (Advanced Research Projects Agency 1995). However, actual thresholds for
behavioral responses to sounds in the natural environment depend on the level of natural ambient noise.
Whales apparently are able to distinguish sounds in their optimum frequency range that are 10 to 20 dB re
1 //Pa above ambient noise at the same frequency (Richardson et al. 1991). The threshold intensity of
constant or impulsive sounds for injury to the hearing apparatus of marine mammals and turtles is about
200 to 220 dB re 1 //Pa (Greenlaw 1987; McCauley 1994).
-------
Biological Assessment
MDS Closure and HARS Designation
May 1997
Page 52
Table 4. Estimated Peak V3-Octave Sound Pressure Source Levels for Vessels of Different
Sizes and Speeds.
Vessel
>250-m Large Oil Tanker
274-m Container Ship (23 Hz)
340-m Supertanker
WWII Battleship
337-m Tanker (20 Hz)
Icebreaker
135-m Freighter
Large Ferry
Tug and Loaded Barge
210-m Container Ship
Cruise Ship
20-m Tug and Empty Barge
200-m Roll On/Off
190-m Car Carrier
Tug and Barge
34-m Twin-Diesel Tour Boat
Fishing Trawler (transit)
Fishing Trawler (trawling)
16-m Crew Boat
7-m Boat with 2 x 80-hp outdrive
8-m Boat with 260-hp outdrive
4-m Boston Whaler/20-hp outboard
5-m Zodiac with 20-hp outboard
4-m Boat with 25-hp outboard
20-m Tour Boat
Small Boat with 18-hp outboard
Speed
(knots)
16
—
20
20
16
10
-
16
-
19
19
--
15
16
10
10
10
5
--
20
10
20
20
20
10
5
Sound Pressure
Level (dB re
1 fjPa @ 1m)
203
198
190
183
177
174
172
171
170
169
168
166
165
162
162
159
158
147
156
156
156
153
152
152
150
150
Reference
Cybulski 1977
Richardson et al. 1991
Buck and Chalfant 1972
Urick 1983
Cybulski 1977
Malmeera/. 1989
Richardson el al. 1991
Malmeera/. 1989
Miles etal. 1987
Jennette et al. 1987
Malmeera/. 1989
Buck and Chalfant 1972
Jennette etal. 1987
Jennette el al. 1987
Malmeera/. 1989
Malmeera/. 1989
Malmeera/. 1989
Malmeera/. 1989
Greene 1985
Malmeera/. 1982
Malmeera/. 1982
Malmeera/. 1982
Malmeera/. 1982
Malmeera/. 1982
Malmeera/. 1989
Evans 1982
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 53
There are conflicting reports of the short-term effects of vessel engine noise on marine mammals (i.e.,
some species of whales react to noise at great distances, some do not). There is some limited evidence that
abrupt changes in vessel RPMs may disturb whales (Watkins 1986); however, it appears that they readily
acclimate to the noise in their environment. Overall, reactions to human-generated noise vary not only
between species, but also within species (Richardson etal. 1991). Some studies indicate that whales may
react to short-term acoustic disturbances by moving away from the sound source, changing breathing and
diving patterns, or through possible agonistic displays (NMFS 1991b). Reactions have been documented
as far as 4 km from the vessel (Ljungblad et al. 1988; MMS 1992). Studies off the California and Alaska
coastlines have shown that most species of cetaceans adjust to the presence of offshore drilling equipment
(Geraci and St. Aubin 1987). However, studies of bowhead whales in the Arctic indicate that individuals
will often change course and behavior when exposed to the intense noise generated by active rigs and
seismic vessels (Ljungblad etal. 1988; Richardson etal. 1985; 1991). Bowhead whales in the Beaufort
Sea react, at least briefly, to aircraft, ships, seismic exploration, marine construction, and offshore drill
sites (Richardson,and Malme 1993). To date, there is no conclusive evidence that this short-term
disturbance leads to long-term effects on individuals or populations (Richardson et al. 1991).
Sounds produced by tug boats towing barges with or without a cargo probably produce underwater sounds
with peak intensities in the frequency range of whale audition of about 165 dB re 1 juPa. These sounds
attenuate naturally in the water to about 120 dB re 1 ^Pa at about 2 nmi from the source. These vessel
sounds are clearly audible to any humpback and fin whales in the vicinity of the HARS at the time.
However, these sounds are much too weak to cause outright harm to the whales. It is doubtful that such
sounds will cause lasting behavioral alterations to the endangered species (Richardson et al. 1991).
The sensitivity of sea turtles to acoustic disturbance has not been well studied. Turtles may use acoustic
signals within their environment for orientation to natal beaches (Lenhardt et al. 1983). In addition,
loggerhead turtles swam towards the surface when exposed to low-frequency, high-intensity sounds (20-80
Hz, 175-180 dB) while underwater (Lenhardt 1994). This could expose turtles to collisions with boats.
However, typical vessel sounds do not seem to disturb sea turtles. Therefore, the noise added to the marine
environment by the barges and tug boats carrying the Material for Remediation is unlikely to affect sea
turtles.
Summary of Vessel Impacts. Trips to the current MDS over the past 6 years have not resulted in any
illegal takes of fin or humpback whales or loggerhead or Kemp's ridley turtles (USAGE, pers. comm.
1996). It is not anticipated that this situation will change with designation of the. HARS.
Changes to the Contour of the Bottom. The disposal mounds in the current MDS have very little slope
(e.g., 0.3°), and the steepest mounds have a slope of 1° to 3°. There will be no substantial changes to the
large scale mounds or other large features on the bottom in areas of the HARS.
Grain Size. The Remediation Material is expected to be composed primarily of fine-grain silts and clays,
unless significant volumes of sandy material are excavated from new work projects (e.g., 50-Foot
Deepening Project). Presently, the proposed HARS contains material of varying grain size; sand, sandy-
mud, and mud. The area also contains rocks of various sizes. Some rocky and hard .bottom areas could be
covered in the remediation process resulting in changes to the benthic fauna. Over time, the surface
sediments of the site will have more silt and clay and there will be less sand. The end result will be a
mixed environment of silts and clays, with some sandy areas in the shallow (<20 m) waters.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1 997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 54
Changing some HARS sediments from sands to silts and clays could potentially impact whale and turtle
prey that inhabit rocky or sandy areas. The only whale prey that is habitat-dependent is sand lance, which
is found on sandy substrates. The HARS is composed of sandy sediment in most areas. The loss of some
of this habitat could negatively affect whale prey in this area. Given the wide-ranging presence of whales
in the New York Bight and the presence of such habitats in areas outside the HARS, a change in sediment
composition in the HARS will not jeopardize whale food sources.
Turtles feed on many species of crabs (cancer, horseshoe, blue, and spider) that are associated with muddy
or sandy sediment. However, these crab species are not as habitat-dependent as sand lance. For example,
cancer crabs prefer sandy substrates, but have been collected from mud and hard bottom environments.
Horseshoe crabs forage for prey in sand and mud substrates. Although the preferred prey species of
loggerhead and ridley turtles may be present within the HARS, the turtles are unlikely to forage there
because water depths exceed their preferred foraging depth. In summary, it is unlikely that sediment
changes within the HARS will adversely affect the turtles.
4.3.3 Biological Impacts
Sea turtles and whales bioaccumulate contaminants from their ocean environment almost exclusively
through their food sources. As air-breathing animals, the outer integument of these animals is much less
permeable than the gills of fish or the body walls of marine invertebrates. Therefore, passive or active
bioconcentradon of inorganic and organic chemicals directly from solution in the water is much less
important than bioaccumulation from food for entry of chemical contaminants into living turtle and whale
tissues. The major mechanism by which degraded surface sediments that currently are within the HARS
can harm protected species of whales and turtles is by bioaccumulation of sediment-associated chemicals
through the marine food chain. Invertebrate and fish prey items living in these degraded sediments and the
overlying water column at the HARS may bioaccumulate chemicals from solution or from benthic foods.
The turtles and whales may in turn become potentially contaminated by consuming contaminated prey
from the disposal site. However, because the whale food chain is a pelagic one, whales are unlikely to
become contaminated through this route.
Sea turtles are top consumers in a largely benthic food web. However, as discussed in the SEIS (EPA
Region 2 1997), present contaminant levels in the degraded sediments of the HARS do not appear to be
negatively affecting either local infaunal community structure or the higher trophic-level organisms that
feed directly or indirectly on the infauna within the HARS.
Both the endangered sea turtles and whales evaluated in this BA are the top consumers in short, relatively
simple food webs and generally feed for only a brief time each year in the vicinity of the HARS in the New
York Bight Apex. Based on our current level of understanding of bioaccumulation by sea turtles and
whales, it appears to be unlikely that these species could bioaccumulate contaminants from degraded
sediments or dredged material in the HARS to concentrations that would be harmful to them. A detailed
evaluation of the potential for bioaccumulation of sediment-associated chemical contaminants by sea
turtles and whales is included in Appendix A. Remediation within the HARS will further immobilize
contaminants existing in the sediments and decrease the exposure to endangered and threatened species.
The Food Web of Endangered Whales and Turtle Species. As discussed above, there is a very limited
potential for fin and humpback whales to bioaccumulate chemical contaminants from degraded sediments,
because the whales depend on a pelagic food web that is not linked to the benthic environment. The
-------
Biological Assessment May 1 997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Pa9e 55
limited potential that exists currently for contaminant bioaccumulation from degraded sediments by whales
will be reduced following remediation of the degraded areas.
Fin whales eat many of the same foods as humpback whales and the two species frequently are seen
feeding together in spring/summer feeding areas (CeTAP 1982). Humpback and fin whales feed
opportunistically in the New York Bight on a variety of small schooling fishes (sand lance, herring, and
mackerel) and planktonic crustaceans (mainly euphausiids) (Mitchell 1975; Overholtz and Nicolas 1979;
Payne et al. 1979). These prey species are all zooplankton feeders or, in the case of mackerel, they feed on
small fish that feed on zooplankton. Thus, fin and humpback whales are the top consumers in a relatively
shore pelagic food chain composed of primary producers (phytoplankton), primary consumers
(zooplankton), small carnivores (zooplankton-eating fish and euphausiids), and whales. Chemical
contaminants associated with sediments are unlikely to enter this pelagic food chain leading to endangered
whales. In addition, the short food chain means that chemicals with a tendency to biomagnify in marine
food webs will biomagnify to a lesser extent in the whale food chain than in a longer food chain.
Loggerhead and ridley sea turtles are bottom feeders, foraging in coastal waters for benthic molluscs and
crustaceans (Bjomdal 1985). They appear to be particularly fond of cancer crabs (Cancer spp.) and blue
crabs (Callinectes sapidus). The benthic crabs are primarily scavengers, feeding on dead and decaying
plants and animals. The benthic molluscs are primarily filter feeders, feeding on phytoplankton or small
infaunal organisms. Thus, the food chain leading to the protected sea turtles also is relatively short. The
turtles, if they fed for extended periods of time on contaminated crabs, could bioaccumulate dioxins,
dibenzofurans, and other highly hydrophobic chemicals to high concentrations presently within degraded
sediment areas of the HARS. However, this potential for impact is very low because both loggerhead and
Kemp's ridley turtles forage at shallower water depths than occur at the HARS, and so are unlikely to feed
on benthic crustaceans and bivalves from the site. Like with the whales, the small potential for
contaminant bioaccumulation by turtles that might forage in the degraded sediments areas of the HARS
will be further reduced by placement of a 1-m cap of Remediation Material.
Bioaccumulation and Trophic Transfer of Contaminants. As discussed earlier, the HARS will receive at
least 1 m of Remediation Material, which will decrease the level of contamination in surficial sediments in
the area that could bioaccumulate in marine organisms to concentrations that could be harmful to the
organisms themselves or their consumers. Therefore, benthic and demersal marine animals living in the
HARS and presently bioaccumulating contaminants from degraded sediments, will have less
bioaccumulation potential after the site is remediated.
Benthic crustaceans collected in the past from the vicinity of the existing MDS contained elevated
concentrations of polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans (Rappe et al. 1991), possibly derived
in part from historical placement of dredged material in the New York Bight. Placement of the Material
for Remediation at the HARS will bury and isolate these contaminants and decrease the bioaccumulation
potential by benthic and demersal marine animals that might be in the food chains of protected marine
turtles and whales. Potential contaminants sources such as the Hudson River plume and atmospheric
deposition will not be affected by the Proposed Action. [However, it should be noted that additional
actions (e.g., Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Hudson Estuary) are being
implemented by EPA and other agencies to reduce the exposure potential of contaminants (e.g.,
polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans, methyl mercury, PCBs, and chlorinated pesticides) in
the New York Bight Apex].
-------
Biological Assessment
MDS Closure and HARS Designation
May 1997
Page 56
Large baleen whales, such as fin and humpback whales, consume food equivalent to about 4% of their
body weight each day during the feeding season (Brodie el al. 1978; Lockyer el al. 1985). Only a small
fraction (usually a few percent) of the contaminants associated with food is absorbed across the gut and is
assimilated into the tissues of the whales. Therefore, the whales would have to feed heavily on
contaminated prey from the New York Bight Apex for an extended period of time to bioaccumulate
contaminants to high concentrations, assuming that prey from the Apex is more contaminated than prey
from other parts of their seasonal foraging range. Actually, fin and humpback whales depend on a pelagic
food web that is not tightly linked to the benthic environment. This pelagic food web is, at most,
minimally affected by bioaccumulation of chemical contaminants from degraded sediments and dredged
material in the New York Bight Apex. Therefore, contaminated sediments are not a quantitatively
important source of tissue contamination of fin and humpback whales that visit the New York Bight for a
short time each year to feed on pelagic prey.
Concentrations (0.1 to 1.9 ug/g wet weight) of total polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in blubber of right
whales from the Bay of Fundy and on Browns-Bacaro Banks, Canada, were much lower than
concentrations in tissues of toothed cetaceans (Woodley el al. 1991). Sei whales, which also are
zooplankton feeders, from Iceland also contained low concentrations of PCBs (Aguilar and Borrell 1991).
The predominantly piscivorous baleen whales, fin and humpback whales, on average, contained higher
concentrations of total PCBs in their blubber than the right and sei whales (Taruski et al. 1975; Aguilar
and Borrell 1991) but less than the right and sei whales. Eight humpback whales from the northwest
Atlantic population, reported by Geraci (1989), contained 4.4 to 32.1 pg/g wet wt. total PCBs in their
blubber. These concentrations are higher than those reported by others for humpback and fin whales from
other North Atlantic populations, but are lower than concentrations in the tissues of toothed cetaceans,
such as bottlenose dolphins (Geraci 1989) and beluga whales (Martineau el al. 1987). Although
concentrations of organochlorines in blubber of humpback and fin whales from the western North Atlantic
Ocean are elevated, there is rio evidence that the tissue residues are harming the whales or that the whales
accumulated the contaminants from food ingested during visits to the New York Bight Apex.
Concentrations of total and organic mercury in tissues of baleen whales generally are low, certainly much
lower than those in tissues of toothed whales (Sanpera el al. 1993; O'Shea and Bronwell 1994). Livers of
fin whales from waters off Iceland and Spain generally contain less than 2.0 mg/kg dry wt total mercury,
less than 50% of which is organic. Muscle and kidney tissues contain lower concentrations of total
mercury, but most of it is organic. Thus, mercury contamination does not appear to be a potential problem
in North Atlantic baleen whales. Benthic animals, including nemerteans, bivalve molluscs, shrimp, crabs,
and polychaete worms from the New York Bight Apex, including the vicinity of the HARS, generally
contain low concentrations of total mercury, usually less than 0.1 mg/kg dry wt. (Steimle el al. 1994).
Thus, possible prey items of protected turtles and whales from the vicinity of the HARS are unlikely to
contain elevated concentrations of organic mercury in their tissues that could represent a hazard through
trophic transfer to protected whales and turtles that might consume them.
There is little information on levels of
contamination of sea turtles with organic and
metal contaminants that have the potential to
biomagnify. Sea turtles, except leatherbacks, are
poikilotherms and, therefore, consume food at a
lower rate than homeotherms, such as whales.
Therefore, a longer period of consumption of
contaminated food would be required to effect
Peak Period of Abundance
Humpback whales -December to January
Fin whales -January to March
Loggerhead turtles -July to August
Kemp's ridley turtles -July to August
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 57
significant biomagnification. Mean concentrations of total PCBs in liver of Kemp's ridley turtles from the
shores of eastern Long Island decreased from 0.66 /^g/g wet wt in 1980 to 0.27 ,ug/kg in 1989 (Lake et al.
1994). Mean concentrations in subcutaneous fat decreased from 1.25 yug/kg in 1985 to 0.48 /ug/kg in
1989. By comparison, PCB concentrations in livers of loggerhead and ridley turtles collected in 1991 and
1992 from coastal waters of Virginia and North Carolina were 0.007 Mg/kg to 0.61 /^g/kg (Rybitski et al.
1995). Subcutaneous fat of the same turtles contained 0.06 /^g/kg to 1.73 ,ug/kg total PCBs. Loggerheads
contained higher concentrations of PCBs than ridleys. Some of the turtles sampled in Virginia and North
Carolina may have foraged during the summer in coastal waters of the New York Bight. These
concentrations of PCBs are relatively low for tissues of a coastal marine animal and indicate a declining
temporal trend in organochlorine contamination of these turtles. Placement of at least a 1 -m cap of
Remediation Material at the^HARS will decrease the total environmental load of bioavailable
organochlorine compounds to the Bight by permanently isolating the contaminants.
Therefore, considering that:
• The Material for Remediation is "uncontaminated dredged material (i.e., dredged material that
meets current Category I standards and will not cause significant undesirable effects including
through bioaccumulation) (July 24, 1996, EPA/DOT/US ACE 1996);
• Any potential prey items or food chain organisms in the HARS leading to protected whales and
sea turtles should be less contaminated after remediation of degraded sediments in the HARS;
• The limited potential that exists currently for contaminant bioaccumulation from sediments in the
HARS by whales will be reduced following remediation of the degraded areas;
• Whales and sea turtles would need to consume a large amount of contaminated prey over an
extended period of time to exhibit contaminant biomagnification;
• The water depth at the HARS is deeper than the preferred foraging depth for both species of
protected sea turtles;
• Although both humpback and fin whales are present in the general area of the New York Bight in
all months of the year, the limited availability of prey in the HARS makes it unlikely that they will
forage exclusively or for extended periods of time in the area, before or after degraded sediment
remediation;
Seasonal temperature changes restrict the distribution of loggerhead and ridley turtles to a few
months each year during the summer;
• No reported mortalities due to barges and tugs for activities conducted at the current MDS;
• Whales can detect barge/tug presence, and because of the slow speed at which barges and tugs
operate, whales can avoid them; and
Management actions (i.e., disposal inspector/certified NMFS observer) will mitigate potentially
adverse impacts to turtles and whales during placement of the Material for Remediation activities,
it is likely that protected species of whales and sea turtles will have less potential to bioaccumulate
contaminants and will be subject to less impacts under the Proposed Action, compared to the other
alternatives. Further, by providing for remediation of the areas of the HARS by placement of Material for
Remediation, the Proposed Action should actually improve environmental conditions and thus be
beneficial to endangered and threatened species.
4.3.4 Cumulative Impacts
Chemical Contaminants. The cumulative impacts to endangered species resulting from chemical
contamination of the New York Bight Apex marine environment can be evaluated by investigating all
sources of contaminants to the inner Bight. Currently, the three major sources of contaminant inputs to the
-------
Biological Assessment May 1 997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 58
Bight Apex (and the greater New York Bight) are dredged material disposal at the MDS, outflow from the
Hudson River (across the Sandy Hook - Rockaway Point Transect), and atmospheric inputs (HydroQual
1989a). Point-source effluents and nonpoint-source runoff from the shores of New York and New Jersey
bordering the Bight also contribute to contaminant loads in the New York (HydroQual 1989a). Disposal
sites for cellar dirt, sewage sludge, and industrial wastes were located in the past in the New York Bight
and outer continental shelf; these disposal sites have been de-designated and are no longer in operation, but
may present residual sources of anthropogenic contaminants.
In USAGE New York District/ EPA Region 2, only dredged material classified as Category I or
Category n is acceptable for disposal at the current MDS. At the HARS, only Material for Remediation
will be used for remediation. As previously discussed, the Material for Remediation is defined as
"... uncontaminated dredged material (i.e. dredged material that meets current Category I standards and
will not cause significant undesirable effects including through bioaccumulation)..." (July 24, 1996,
EPA/DOT/USACE 1996). The overall consequence of the Proposed Action is that the HARS, including
the MDS, will be reduced as a potential source of chemical contamination in the New York Bight Apex
environment. Degraded sediment areas found in the HARS will be covered with at least 1 m of the
Material for Remediation, thereby decreasing the likelihood that contaminants from the degraded areas will
vertically migrate to the biotic zone and be available for uptake into the tissues of resident benthic marine
organisms (e.g., SAIC 1996).
Following completion of remediation operations in the HARS, sea turtles and whales with the remote
potential to forage for bottom prey within the site will only come in contact with Material for Remediation.
The layer of this material will be sufficiently thick that infaunal prey organisms will not be exposed to
degraded sediments underneath. For example, sand lance bury themselves 10 to 15 cm in the sand for
refuge (Bigelow and Schroeder 1953), a far shallower depth than the minimum 1-m cap of the Material for
Remediation that would be placed in the HARS under the Proposed Action.
Contaminants that are transported from the New York/New Jersey Harbor across the Sandy Hook -
Rockaway Point Transect (in the southern limit of the lower New York Bay) originate from numerous
municipal and industrial treatment plants along the Hudson River and the innumerable nonpoint sources of
contaminants in the watershed (HydroQual 1989b), which has the largest drainage basin contributing to the
flow across the transect. Most of the contaminants of concern in the Hudson River plume are associated
with suspended particles of natural sediment. In recent years, the levels of contaminants discharged to the
Hudson River and its drainage basin have decreased as enforcement of effluent limits has become more
stringent, improvements to the CSO systems have been completed, and implementation of nonpoint source
controls have taken effect (Brosnan et al. 1995). Extensive annual monitoring of the water quality of New
York Harbor has clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of these controls and the resulting improvements to
water quality of the Harbor (NYC 1993; 1994). New York City reports that metals loading from its
treatment facilities declined by 50 to 97% between 1985 and 1993. Moreover, application of sophisticated
analytical techniques to monitor sewage effluent also resulted in substantially lower estimates of PCB
loading to the Harbor (NYC 1993) from these sources. Input of total PCBs to the Harbor from water
pollution control facilities (WPCF) in 1993 was calculated at 0.37 kg/d; wet weather loadings from CSOs
and storm runoff added an additional 0.16 kg/d. These loadings are approximately 45% of the inputs
calculated in previous Harbor Estuary Program Reports (NYC 1993). As a result, estimates of
contaminant inputs to the Bight in association with the Hudson River Plume have decreased. In addition,
continued reduction of emissions from industrial and energy production in the past decade have lowered
atmospheric inputs to coastal waters. Thus, there has been a general decrease in contaminant inputs to the
Bight Apex and the HARS since the late 1980s.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation , Page 59
Currently, most of the nutrients entering the Bight come from the New York/New Jersey Harbor area
(HydroQual 1989b). Although atmospheric inputs are significant on a Bight-wide scale, these inputs are
equal to those associated with the Hudson River Plume only if the amount recycled to the water column
after deposition in the sediment is added to the atmospheric input (HydroQual 1989b). Nutrient inputs to
the Bight from dredged material disposal at the current MDS are extremely small relative to other sources.
Based on the information discussed above, the impact of designating the HARS will result in less
contaminant loading to the Bight because degraded sediment areas will be covered. Furthermore, water
quality in the Bight should continue to improve because of the institutional controls already put in place.
While there is no direct evidence that historic contaminant loading in the New York Bight Apex has
harmed protected whales and sea turtles that visit the area in small numbers each year, improvements in
water quality in the area in recent years may have contributed to the increased frequency of visits to the
area by humpback and fin whales. It is unclear if larger numbers of juvenile loggerhead and ridley turtles
have visited coastal waters of the northwestern Bight to feed during recent summers.
Disturbance. Possible disturbance to protected species of whales and sea turtles from use of the HARS for
placement of the Material for Remediation could come from barge traffic to and from the site. The barge
traffic associated with dredge material disposal at the current MDS and the anticipated traffic at the HARS
will be only a small fraction of the total vessel traffic in the New York Bight Apex and reflects a decline
from past historical use of the MDS. A general indication of vessel traffic in the New York Bight Apex
can be gained from statistics compiled by the U.S. Coast Guard on the numbers and types of commercial
vessels that traversed the New York Bight in 1995 (USCG, pers. comm. 1996) [recreational and private
boat traffic data are unavailable]. A total of more than 4,200 commercial vessels (passenger, freight, and
tankers) traversed the New York Bight Apex in 1995 (Table 5). The average total length of passenger
vessels was 800 ft, that of freighters and tankers was 700 ft. The number of large commercial vessels
traversing the New York Bight each month ranged from 311 in February to 404 in June. Commercial
vessel traffic was highest from June to September, which corresponds with peak occurrences of humpback
whales and loggerhead turtles in the New York Bight Apex. It is assumed that the summer period also
corresponds to peak recreational boat traffic also in the Bight Apex.
Recreational and smaller (<1,600 gross tons) commercial vessels add to the vessel traffic in the New York
Bight Apex (Tables 6 and 7). A total of 212,248 recreational (e.g., pleasure boats), livery (e.g., water
taxis) and commercial (e.g., fishing boats) vessels were registered in New York City in 1994 (22,429) and
the state of New Jersey in 1996 (189,819); many of these vessels are assumed to traverse the Bight Apex
several times each year.
The volume of traffic transiting from the Ports of New York and New Jersey to the HARS will be a small
fraction of the total vessel traffic in the New York Bight Apex. The total commercial traffic in through the
Bight Apex in 1995 was 4,253 vessels. Several thousand smaller commercial and recreational vessels also
traversed the area. By comparison the number of trips by barges to the current MDS (assuming one trip
equals one vessel) in 1995 was 416. Therefore, the current barge traffic to the MDS, and anticipated
traffic to the HARS (after September 1, 1997) represents less than 10% of the total large vessel commercial
traffic transiting the New York Bight Apex and probably less than 5% of the total vessel traffic in the
Bight Apex. Assuming that the volume of large vessel commercial traffic remains constant, the tug/barge
traffic to the HARS will represent only a small percentage of the total traffic in the area. Considering the
total estimated 1996 (based on 1995) commercial traffic, plus the total number of licensed vessels in the
city of New York (22,429), the 1996 tugftarge trips of 107 to the HARS is a minor percentage of the total
-------
oiuiogicai Assessment
MDS Closure and HARS
Table 5. Commercial
Designation
Vessel Traffic
into New York
Vessel Type (average gross
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total for 1995
Passenger
(50,000)
2
0
0
6
10
24
30
30
38
26
3
5
174
Freight
(12,000)
262
228
273
248
249
300
268
264
257
258
258
246
3111
Harbor, 1995,
tonnage)
Tanker
(20,000)
89
83
81
63
67
80
78
87
93
85
79
83
968
May 1997
Page 60
by Month.
Total Number of Vessels
353
311
354
317
326
404
376
381
388
369
340
334
4253
Source: USCG, pers. comm., 1996.
Table 6. 1994 Motorboat Registrations in New York City.
County
Bronx
Kings
New York
Queens
Richmond
Total
<16'
828
1429
1024
2538
1286
7105
16-25'
1366
2212
1616
4243
1915
11354
Length (ft)
26-39' 40-65'
408
797
683
995
599
3483
33
56
106
79
49
325
>65'
14
20
25
17
13
89
Uncoded
17
17
5
22
12
73
Total
Number of
Vessels
2666
4531
3461
7895
3874
22,429
Source: New York State DMV, pers. comm. 1996
-------
Biological Assessment May 1 997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 61
Table 7. 1996 Motorboat Registrations in New Jersey.
Category
Pleasure
Livery
Commercial
Total
Number of Vessels
184,927
1836
3054
189,819
Source: New Jersey State DMV, pers. comm. 1996
potential traffic in the New York Bight Apex. Futhermore, it is expected that tug/barge trips will continue
to be a minor percentage of future commercial and recreational vessel traffic in the New York Bight Apex.
In conclusion, barges carrying the Material for Remediation, because of their low speed, are not expected
to represent a significant collision hazard to humpback and fin whales. NMFS-certified observers (with
marine mammal/sea turtle observation certification) on board the barge tugs will monitor for whales and
sea turtles during transits to and from the HARS [refer to EPA Region 21 USAGE NYD (1997)]. It is
expected that barges will attempt to avoid collisions with fin and humpback whales; collisions with
loggerhead and ridley turtles are unlikely, because these animals spend most of their time in the Bight area
foraging submerged in shallow coastal waters well away from the path of the barges. Underwater noise
from motor vessels is not additive. Therefore, the low-frequency noise contributed to the underwater Bight
environment from barge traffic will not add significantly to the total vessel noise in the area and will not
contribute to disturbance of protected whales and sea turtles in the area.
4.4 Alternatives to Minimize Impact
4.4.1 Management Alternatives for the Proposed Action
1. Possible event: Collision
Possible result: Injury or death of turtle or whale
Management Alternative: Vessels transporting the Material for Remediation to the HARS will
travel at slow speeds, usually well below 6 knots. Nevertheless, given the potential for collisions
with whales or turtles, vessels transiting to and from the HARS will always carry a NMFS-certified
observer/disposal inspector as a lookout to minimize encounters with endangered species. The
observer would not only be experienced in spotting whales and turtles, but would also be
experienced in advising vessel course changes to avoid collisions. Remediation Material
placement operations will be prohibited at the HARS if endangered/threatened species are present.
2. Possible event: Physical harassment
Possible result: Alter "normal" behavior, stop feeding, abandon feeding area, decrease
maternal care.
Management Alternative: Evidence from whale watching activities in Massachusetts Bay
indicates that humpback and fin whales species readily acclimate to the presence of large and
small motor vessels.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 62
NMFS-certified inspectors will provide advice on course changes around whales and turtles that
will minimize or eliminate the potential for harassment, if animals are spotted. There is no
evidence of long-term effects due to physical disturbance from motor vessels.
3. Possible event: Acoustic harassment
Possible result: Short-term change swimming direction, breathing patterns;
long-term: unknown
Management Alternative: The long-term effects of acoustic harassment are virtually unknown.
Humpback and fin whales seem to acclimate readily to underwater noises produced by motor
vessels. However, it is unclear if chronic elevated noise levels lead to behavioral modification in
the whales. There is limited evidence that abrupt changes in vessel RPMs, which may occur
during the actual placement of Material for Remediation, may temporarily disturb whales (Watkins
1986). Barge traffic will not contribute significantly to the total underwater background noise in
the area and so should not be particularly disturbing to whales and sea turtles. The sensitivity of
sea turtles to acoustic disturbances has not been well studied. Available evidence is that
loggerhead and ridley turtles are only disturbed by intense underwater sounds, well above those
produced by tugs towing loaded barges. Acoustic harassment from barges will be minimized by
posting a NMFS-certified observer on board to spot the protected species and avoid close
encounters with them.
4. Possible event: Dispersal of prey
Possible result: Increased feeding effort, possible decreased fitness.
Management Alternative: It is possible that the barge traffic could disperse the prey of whales
and turtles that might be present in the HARS. However, the New York Bight Apex and, in
particular, the HARS are not known to be significant feeding areas for whales and sea turtles.
Nearly all sightings of feeding humpback and fin whales in the Bight area are in the eastern Bight
off eastern Long Island. The few whales that have been sighted in the Bight Apex near the
entrance to the port of New York/New Jersey probably were stragglers and were not actively
feeding. Juvenile loggerhead and Kemp's ridley turtles feed in the New York Bight area almost
exclusively in the shallow waters of bays and inlets where their preferred crustacean prey is most
abundant. Water depths in the HARS area are too deep for routine foraging by these species.
Therefore, the HARS and the shipping lanes between the HARS and the Port of New York and
New Jersey are not important foraging areas for these protected species. Any dispersal of prey in
this area, if it actually did occur, would not adversely affect the whales and sea turtles.
4.5 Alternatives to the Proposed Action
In this section, alternatives are compared to the Proposed Action.
4.5.1 BA Alternative 1 (SEIS Alternative 1): No Action
The MDS was designated by EPA in 1984 to receive up to 100 Myd3 of dredged material. Since 1984,
68 Myd3 have been disposed of at the MDS. Under BA Alternative 1, the MDS will be operated as
specified in the 1997 USAGE NYD/EPA Region 2 Site Management and Monitoring Plan (SMMP).
BA Alternative 1 will result in remediating ecological effects of degraded surface sediments existing
within the northern and eastern portions of the MDS by capping them with the remaining capacity of 31
Myd3 of Category I dredged material. However, an adverse result of BA Alternative 1 is that degraded
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 63
sediments outside the MDS will not be capped/remediated under this alternative. Any remediation or
redistribution of sediments in these areas will be by natural remediation and ongoing sedimentary
processes.
The contour of the bottom in the MDS will change because of the further addition of dredged material to
the site. The size of the current mounds of dredged material will substantially increase as disposal
operations continue, especially in southern portions of the site. New small mounds may be formed
throughout the site as specific disposal points (MDS project permits require discharge at specific
coordinates for post-disposal monitoring purposes). The water depth over the site will measurably
decrease and the slope of the bottom will increase along the flanks of the mound. However, the overall
changes to bottom topography of the Bight Apex will be relatively small.
The change in water depth and topography is unlikely to adversely affect protected sea turtles and whales
in the area. The protected species are not known to use the area of the MDS for foraging. Preferred prey
of the sea turtles and whales are not known to be abundant in the area. The change in bottom topography
could alter local oceanographic conditions, rendering the area more favorable for forage species, such as
demersal crabs and sand lance. This could attract the protected species to the area. However, if this
occurred, the change would be gradual and it is unlikely that the endangered species would increase
foraging at the site while dredged material disposal is occurring. As discussed above, the potential for
impact from dredged material disposal to the protected species, is considered to be low.
Under this alternative, the current potential for impacts to endangered and threatened species will continue
until the remaining 31 Myd3 of dredged material have been disposed. After this has been achieved, trips to
the site will cease, the MDS will be closed, and there will be no disposal activity or placement of Material
for Remediation-associated impacts to endangered and threatened species in the Bight Apex.
4.5.2 BA Alternative 2 (SEIS Alternative 2): Close MDS-No HARS Designation
Under BA Alternative 2, there would be a continued exposure of degraded sediments to the biotic zone of
the New York Bight Apex. This scenario would not reduce the potential bioaccumulation of contaminants
by benthic and demersal species living in the vicinity of the MDS or proposed HARS, and exposure of the
species considered in this BA would remain at current levels.
4.5.3 BA Alternative 3 (SEIS Alternative 4): HARS Restoration
Under BA Alternative 3 (SEIS Alternative 4), only sandy Remediation Material (i.e., containing between
0-10% fines) will be used to cap degraded sediments of the HARS. The primary difference between this
alternative and the Proposed Action is that this alternative will cover degraded sediments with sandy
sediment (0-10% fines) rather than silty sediments, and return the site to pre-dredged material disposal
conditions. The fact that this alternative will take 3-5 times longer than the Proposed Action, and leave
degraded sediments in the HARS to potentially expose and impact endangered and threatened species (and
other organisms) for a longer period, makes this alternative environmentally less preferable than the
Proposed Action.
Similar to the Proposed Action, BA Alternative 3 impacts can be reduced or mitigated by selecting specific
restoration methods, schedules, or sediments. However, unlike the Proposed Action, the use of only sandy
Material for Remediation will change the existing mud-bottom habitats in the HARS to sand-bottom
habitats. This habitat change is expected to affect benthic communities, and potentially (however remote)
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 64
mud habitats of turtle prey. While the annual barge volume of traffic to the HARS will be less than the
Proposed Action, the timeframe over which the traffic occurs is expected to be 3-5 times longer. The
lengthening of the restoration period (compared to the Proposed Action) may present new or greater
impacts to endangered turtles and whales, particularly if the visitation rates to the Bight Apex by these
species increases in the intervening period.
5.0 REFERENCES
Addison, R.F. 1989. Organochlorines and marine mammal reproduction. Can. J. Fish. Aqua:. Sci.
46:360-368.
Advanced Research Projects Agency. 1995. Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental
Impact Report for the California Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate Project and its Associated
Marine Mammal Research Program. Advanced Research Projects Agency, Arlington, VA.
Agler, B.A., J.A. Beard, R.S. Bowman, H.D. Corbett, S.E. Frohock, M.P. Hawermale, S.K. Katona, S.S.
Sadove, and I.E. Seipt. 1990. Finback whale, Balaenoptera physalus, photographic identification:
methodology and preliminary results from the western North Atlantic. Pp. 349-356 in P.S. Hammond,
S.A. Mirzroch, and G.P. Donovan, Eds., Individual Recognition and the Estimation of Cetacean
Population Parameters. Rept. Int. Whaling Comm. (Special Issue 12).
Agler, B.A., R.L. Scholey, S.E. Frohock, S.K. Katona, and I.E. Seipt. 1993. Reproduction of
photographically identified fin whales, Balaenoptera physalus, from the Gulf of Maine. J. Mamm.
74:577-587. '
Aguilar, A. 1987. Using organochlorine pollutants to discriminate marine mammal populations: a review
and critique of the methods. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 3:242-262.
Aguilar, A., and A. Borrell. 1991. Heterogeneous distribution of organochlorine contaminants in the
blubber of baleen whales: implications for sampling procedures. Mar. Environ. Res. 31:275-86.
Aguilar, A., and A. Borrell. 1994. Reproductive transfer and variation of body load of organochlorine
pollutants with age in fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus). Arch. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 27:546-554.
Allen, G.M. 1916. The whalebone whales of New England. Mem. Boston Soc. Nat. Hist. 8(2):107-322.
Allen, J.A. 1974. Recruitment to whale stocks. Pp. 352-358 in W.E. Schevill, Ed. The Whale Problem.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Anonymous. 1992. Interactions between sea turtles and the summer flounder trawl fishery, November,
1991 - February, 1992. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Tech. Memo., National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, NMFS-SEFSC-307. 58 pp.
Anthony, V.A., and G. Waring. 1980. The assessment and management of the Georges Bank herring
fishery. Rapp. P.-V. Reun. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer. 177:72-111.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1 997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 65
Au, D.W.K., and W.L. Ferryman. 1985. Dolphin habitats in the eastern tropical Pacific. Fish. Bull.
83:623-644.
Baker, C.S., L.M. Herman, E.G. Bays, and W.S. Stifel. 1982. The impact of vessel traffic on the behavior
of humpback whales in southeast Alaska: 1981 season. Report for the National Marine Mammal
Laboratory, Seattle, WA.
Balazs, G.H. 1985. Impact of ocean debris on marine turtles: entanglement and ingestion. Pp. 387-429 in
R.S. Shomura and H.O. Toshida, Eds., Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of Marine
Debris, 26-29 November, 1984. Honolulu, HI. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Tech. Memo., National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Center,
NMFS-SWFC-54.
Baldridge, A. 1972. Killer whales attack and eat a gray whale. Journal of Mammalogy 53(4):888-900.
Baraff, L., and M.T. Weinrich. 1993. Separation of humpback whale mothers and calves on a feeding
ground in early autumn. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 9(4):431-434.
Battelle. 1992a. Evaluation of trace-metals in New York/New Jersey Harbor ambient waters, tributaries,
and discharges during low flow conditions for waste load allocations. Final data report to New York City
Dept. of Environmental Protection. Battelle Ocean Sciences, Duxbury, MA. 43 pp.
Battelle. 1992b. Qualitative assessment of Benthic Infauna Resources in Four Areas of the New York
Bight. Final report submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Oceans and Coastal Protection
Division, Washington, D.C. Contract No. 68-C8-0105 Work Assignment 3-301. July 14, 1992.
31 pp. + app.
Beach, D.W., and M.T. Weinrich. 1989. Watching the whales: is an educational adventure for humans
turning out to be another threat for endangered species. Oceanus 32(1 ):84-88.
Beardsley, R.C., and W.C. Boicourt. 1981. On estuarine and continental-shelf circulation in the Middle
Atlantic Bight. Pp. 198-234 in B.A. Warren and C. Wunsch, Eds., Evolution of Physical Oceanography.
MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Best, P.B. 1993. Increase rates in severely depleted stocks of baleen whales. ICES J. Mar. Sci.
50:169-186.
Bigelow, J.B., and W.C. Schroeder. 1953. Fishes of the Gulf of Maine. Fishery Bulletin of the Fish and
Wildlife Service, Vol. 53. Washington, D.C. 577 pp.
Bjorndal, K.A., Ed. 1982. Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. The Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington, D.C. 615pp.
Bjorndal, K.A. 1985. Nutritional ecology of sea turtles. Copeia 1985:736-751.
Bjorndal, K.A., and A.B. Bolten. 1988. Growth rates of immature green turtles, Chelonia mydas, on
feeding grounds in the southern Bahamas. Copeia 1988:555-564.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation page 55
Bjomdal, K.A., A.B. Bolten, D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar. 1994. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual
Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Tech. Memo., National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center
NMFS-SEFC-351. Miami, FL. 323pp.
Blaylock, R.A., J.W. Hain, L.J. Hansen, D.L. Palka, and G.T. Waring. 1995. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Tech. Memo., National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science
Center, Miami, FL. NMFS-SEFSC-363.
Boehm, P.D. 1983. Chemical Contaminants in Northeast United States Marine Sediments. Report
prepared for U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Technical
Report No. 99. 82pp.
Boesch, D.F., and N.N. Rablais Eds. 1987. Long-Term Environmental Effects of Offshore Oil and Gas
Development. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London, UK. 708 pp.
Bowman, M.J., and L.D. Wunderlich. 1977. Hydrographic properties. MESA New York Bight atlas
monograph 1. MESA New York Bight Project and New York Sea Grant Institute. Albany, NY.
Braham, H.W. 1984. The status of endangered whales: an overview. Mar. Fish. Rev. 46(4):2-6.
Brandsma, M.G., and Divorky, D.J. 1976. Development of Models for Prediction of Short-Term Fate of
Dredged Material Discharged in the Estuarine Environment. Contract Report No. CR-D-76-5, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experimant Station (USACE WES), Vicksburg, MS.
Breiwick, J.M., E. Mitchell, and R.R. Reeves. 1983. Simulated population trajectories for northwest
Atlantic humpback whales, 1965-1980. Fifth Biennial conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals,
Boston, MA. P. 14.
Brodie P.F., D.D. Sameoto, and R.W. Sheldon. 1978. Population densities of euphausiids off Nova Scotia
as indicated by net samples, whale stomach contents and sonar. Limnol. Oceanog. 23(6): 1264-1267.
Brosnan, T.M., A.I. Stubin, V. Sapiena, and Y.G. Ren. 1995. Recent changes in metals loading to New
York Harbor from New York City Water Pollution Control Plant. Pp. 657-666 in C.P. Huang, Ed.,
Hazardous and Industrial Wastes: Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Middle Atlantic Industrial Waste
Conference. Technomic Publishing Co., Inc., Lancaster, PA.
Brownell, R.L., Jr., P.B. Best, and J.H. Prescott, Eds. 1986. Right Whales: Past and Present Status:
Proceedings of the Workshop on the Status of Right Whales, New England Aquarium, Boston, MA, 15-23
June, 1983. International Whaling Comm., Cambridge, UK. 289pp.
Buck, B.M., and D.A- Chalfant. 1972. Deep water narrow band and radiated noise measurement of
merchant ships. Delco Electronics Rep. TR72-28, for the Office of Naval Research, Washington, D.C.
30pp.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1 997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 67
Burke, V.J., E.A. Standora, and S.J. Morreale. 1989. Environmental factors and seasonal occurrence of
sea turtles in Long Island, New York. Pp. 21-23 in S.A. Eckert, K.L. Eckert, and T.H. Richardson, Eds.,
Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. U.S. Dept. of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Tech. Memo., National Marine Fisheries
Service, NMFS-SEFC-232.
Burke, V.J., S.J. Morreale, and E.A. Standora. 1990. Comparisons of diet and growth of Kemp's ridley
and loggerhead turtles from the northeastern U.S. P. 135 in T.H. Richardson, J.I. Richardson, and M.
Donnelly, Eds., Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. U.S.
Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Tech. Memo., National Marine
Fisheries Service, NMFS-SEFC-278.
Burke, V.J., S.J. Morreale, and E.A. Standora. 1994. Diet of Kemp's ridley, Lepidochelys kempii, in New
York waters. Fish Bull. 92:26-32.
Burns, J.J., J.J. Montague, and C.J. Cowles. Eds. 1993. The Bowhead Whale. Special publication No. 2.
Society for Marine Mammalology, Lawrence, KS. 787 pp.
Butler, R.W., W.A. Nelson, and T.A. Kenwood. 1987. A trawl survey method for estimating loggerhead
turtle, Caretta caretta, abundance in five eastern Florida channels and inlets. Fish. Bull. 85:447-453.
Byles, R.A. 1989. Distribution and abundance of Kemp's ridley sea turtles, Lepidochelys kempi, in
Chesapeake Bay and nearby coastal waters. P. 145 in C.W. Caillouet, and A.M. Landry, Eds., First
International Symposium on Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Biology, Conservation and Management, Texas
A&M University, Galveston, TX.
Caillouet, C.W., and A.M. Landry, Eds. 1989. First International Symposium on Kemp's Ridley Sea
Turtle Biology, Conservation and Management, Texas A&M University, Galveston,, TX.
Carminati, C.E., E. Gerle, L.L. Kleihn, and R.P. Pisciotta. 1994. Blood chemistry comparison of healthy
vs hypothermic juvenile Kemp's Ridley sea turtles (Lepidochelys kempi) in the New York Bight.
Pp. 203-205 in K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten, D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar, Eds., Proceedings of the
Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. U.S. Dept. of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Tech. Memo., National Marine Fisheries Service,
Southeast Fisheries Science Center, NMFS-SEFC-351.
Carr, A. 1952. Handbook of Turtles of the United States, Canada and Baja California. Cornell University
Press, Ithaca, NY. 542pp.
Carr, A. 1967. So Excellent a Fishe. A Natural History of Sea Turtles. Natural History Press, Garden
City, NY. 248pp.
Carr, A.F. 1980. Some problems of sea turtle ecology. Amer. Zool. 20:489-498.
Carr, A. 1986a. New perspectives on the pelagic stage of sea turtle development. U.S. Dept. of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Tech. Memo., National Marine Fisheries
Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Panama City, FL. NMFS-SEFC-190. 36pp.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 68
Carr, A. 1986b. Rips, FADS, and little loggerheads. Biosci. 36:92-100.
Carr, A. 1987. Impact of nondegradable marine debris on the ecology and survival outlook of sea turtles
Mar. Pollut. Bull. 18:352-356.
Carr, A.F., and J.Mortimer. 1980. Survey and Preliminary Census of Marine Turtle Populations in the
Western Atlantic. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Final Report, Contract No. 03-79-DO8-0025.
Cato, D.H. 1991. Review of ambient noise in the ocean: non-biological sources. Bull. Austr. Acoust. Soc
6:31-36.
CeTAP (Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program). 1979. A Characterization of Marine Mammals and
Turtles in the Mid- and North-Atlantic Areas of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. Executive Summary for
1979. Report to the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C. Cetacean
and Sea Turtle Program, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI.
CeTAP. 1982. A Characterization of Marine Mammals and Turtles in the Mid- and North-Atlantic Areas
of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. Final Report of the Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program,
University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, Washington, D.C. Contract AA551-CT-48. 450pp.
Charles, J.B., and J. Muramoto. 1991. Assessment of Contaminants in Sediment and Biota at the Mud
Dump Site, New York Bight, October 1990. Report prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
under Contract No. 68-C8-0061 (WA1-20). 131 pp.
Chittleborough, R.G. 1959. Determination of age in the humpback whale, Megaptera nodosa
(Bonnaterre). Ast. J. Mar. Freshwat. Res. 10:33-128.
Clapham, P.J. 1992. Age at attainment of sexual maturity in humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae.
Can. J. Zool. 70:1470-1472.
Clapham, P.J., and C.A. Mayo. 1987. Reproduction and recruitment of individually identified humpback
whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, observed in Massachusetts Bay, 1979-1985. Can. J. Zool.
65(2):2853-2863.
Clapham, P.J., and I.E. Seipt. 1991. Resightings of independent fin whales, Balaenoptera physalus, on
maternal summer ranges. J. Mammal. 72(4):788-790.
Clark, S.H., and B.E. Brown. 1977. Changes in biomass of finfishes and squid from the Gulf of Maine to
Cape Hatteras, 1963-1974, as determined by research vessel survey data. Fish. Bull. 75:1-21.
Coles, W.C., J.A. Keinath, D.E. Barnard, and J.A. Musick. 1994. Sea surface temperature and sea turtle
position correlations. Pp. 211-212 in K.A. Bjomdal, A.B. Bolten, D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar, Eds.,
Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. U.S. Dept. of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Tech. Memo. National Marine Fisheries
Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, FL. NMFS-SEFC-351.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Pa9e 69
Collard, S.B. 1987. Review of Oceanographic Features Relating to Neonate Sea Turtle Distribution and
Dispersal in the Pelagic Environment: Kemp's Ridley (Lepidochelys kernpi) in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S.
Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Final Report, Galveston, TX. Contract No. 40-GFNF-5-00193. 70pp.
Crowder, L.B., D.T. Grouse, S.S. Hepell, and T.H. Martin. 1994a. Predicting the impact of excluder
devices on loggerhead sea turtle populations. Ecol Applic. 4:437-445.
Crowder, L.B., S.R. Hopkins-Murphy, and J.A. Royle. 1994b. The effect of turtle-excluder devices on
loggerhead sea turtle strandings in South Carolina. Pp. 32-33 in K.A. Bjomdal, A.B. Bolten, D.A.
Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar, Eds., Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology
and Conservation'. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Tech.
Memo., National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center, Miami, FL.
NMFS-SEFSC-351.
Csanady, G.T. 1973. Turbulent Diffusion in the Environment. Reidel, New York, NY. 248pp.
Cummings, W.C., P.O. Thompson, and SJ. Ha. 1986. Sounds from Bryde, Balaenoptera edeni, and
finback, B. physalus, whales in the Gulf of California. Fish. Bull. U.S. 84:359-370.
Cybulski, J. 1977. Probable origin of measured supertanker radiated noise spectra. Pp. 15C-1 to 15C-8 in
Oceans '77 Conference Record, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, NY.
Dahlheim, M.E., and D.K. Ljungblad. 1990. Preliminary hearing study on gray whales (Eschrictus
robustus) in the field. Pp. 335-346 in J.A. Thomas and R.A. Kastelein, Eds., Sensory Abilities of
Cetaceans. Laboratory and Field Evidence. Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Danton, C, and R. Prescott. 1988. Kemp's ridley in Cape Cod Bay, Massachusetts - 1987. Pp. 17-18 in
B.A. Schroeder, Ed., Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and
Biology, Fort Fisher, North Carolina. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Tech. Memo., National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, FL.
NMFS-SEFC-214.
DeSola, C.R., and F. Abrams. 1933. Testudinata from southeastern Georgia, including the Okefenokee
Swamp. Copeia 1933:10-12.
Dickerson, D.D., D.A. Nelson, M. Wolff, and L. Manners. 1992. Summary of dredging impacts on sea
turtles, King's Bay, Georgia and Cape Canaveral, Florida. Pp. 148-151 in M. Salmon and J. Wyneken,
Eds., Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtla Biology and Conservation. Noaa tech.
Memo. NMFS-SEFC-302.
Dodd, C.K., Jr. 1988. Synopsis of the Biological Data on the Loggerhead Sea Turtle Caretta caretta
(Linnaeus 1758). Biological Report 88(14). U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, D.C. 110pp.
Dolphin, W.F. 1987a. Ventilation and dive patterns of humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, on
their Alaskan feeding grounds. Can. J. Zoo/. 65:83-90.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation page JQ
Dolphin, W.F. 1987b. Prey densities and foraging of humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae.
Experientia 43:468-471.
Dolphin, W.F. 1987c. Observations of humpback whales, (Megaptera novaeangliae) - killer whale
(Orcinus area), interactions in Alaska: Comparison with terrestrial predator-prey relationships Can
Field-Nat. 101:70-75.
Donovan, G.P. 1991. A review of IWC stock boundaries. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. Special Issue
13:39-68.
Dragos, P., and D.Lewis. 1993. Plume Tracking/Model Verification Project (Draft Final Report).
Prepared by Battelle Ocean Sciences, Duxbury, MA, for EPA Region 2 under EPA Contract No. 68-C2-
0134, Work Assignment No. 222.
Dragos, P., and C. Peven. 1994. Plume Tracking of Dredged Material Containing Dioxin. Draft Final
Report submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region n, New York, NY. 49 pp. + app.
Ecker, R.M., and Downing, J.P. 1987. Review of State-of-the-Art Modeling of Ocean-Dumped Wastes.
Prepared by Battelle Ocean Sciences, Duxbury, MA, for EPA under Contract No. 68-03-3319, Work
Assignment No. 9. 90 pp.
Eckert, S.A., K.L. Eckert, and T.H. Richardson, Eds. 1989. Proceedings of the Ninth Annual Workshop
on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Tech. Memo., National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, NMFS-
SEFC-232. 306pp.
Edds, P.L. 1988. Characteristics of finback (Balaenoptera physalis) vocalizations in the St. Lawrence
Estuary. Bioacoust. 1:131-149.
Eggers, J.M. 1989. Incidental capture of sea turtles at Salem Generating Station, Delaware Bay, New
Jersey. Pp. 221-224 in S.A. Eckert, K.L. Eckert, and T.H. Richardson, Eds., Proceedings of the Ninth
Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration Tech. Memo, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries
Center, NMFS-SEFC-232.
Ehrhart, L.M., and R.G. Yoder. 1978. Marine turtles of Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge,
Kennedy Space Center, FL. Fla. Mar. Res. Publ. 33:25-30.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Region 1. 1988. Boston Harbor Wastewater Conveyance
System. Volume 1: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Volume II: Appendices.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, JFK Building, Boston, MA.
EPA Region 2. 1991. Evaluation of trace-metal levels in ambient waters and discharges to New
York/New Jersey Harbor for waste load allocation. Final data report by Battelle Ocean Sciences to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
-------
Biological Assessment MaV 1 "7
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Pa9e 71
EPA Region 2. 1992. Final Data Report for analysis of water samples taken during a New York Bight
survey in July 1988. EPA 842-S-92-007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, D.C.
EPA Region 2. 1995a. Historical background of the 12-mile dumpsite. Pp. 9-12 in Studholme, A.L., J.E.
O'Reilly, and M.C. Ingham, Eds., Effects of the Cessation of Sewage Sludge Dumping at the 12-Mile Site.
12-Mile Dumpsite Symposium, Long Branch, NJ June 1991. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration Technical Report, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA.
NMFS 124.
EPA Region 2. 1995b. Public Announcement. J.M. Fox, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 2,
New York City, NY. February 3, 1995. 2 pp + attachments.
EPA Region 2. 1995c. Press Release—Test Results Confirm Toxicity in Historical Dumping Area. M.
Mears, U.S. EPA Region 2, New York City, NY. May 10, 1995. 3 pp + attachments.
EPA Region 2. 1996. Public announcement, J.M. Fox, Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA Region 2,
September 11, 1996. 2 pp. + attachment.
EPA Region 2. 1997. Supplemental to the Environmental Impact Statement on the New York Dredged
Material Disposal Site Designation for the Designation of the Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS) in
the New York Bight Apex. Report by Battelle Ocean Sciences to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 2, New York City, NY. EPA Contract Nos. 68-C2-0134 and 68-C7-0004. May 1997. 450pp.
EPA/DOT (Department of Transportation)/USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1996. Letter to
New Jersey U.S. Congresspersons, signed by Carol M. Browner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
Frederico F. Pena, Secretary, U.S. Dept. of Transportation; and Togo D. West, Jr. Secretary of U.S. Dept.
of the Army. July 24, 1996. 4pp.
EPA/USACE. 1991. Evaluation of Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal - Testing Manual.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., and United States Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, D.C. EPA-503/8-91/001. 219pp.+ app.
EPA Region 2/USACE NYD. 1997. Site Management and Monitoring Plan for the New York Bight
Dredged Material Disposal Site (Mud Dump Site). April 1997. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New York
District and Environmental Protection Agency Region JJ, New York, NY.
Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, and A.J. Chester. 1995a. Aerial surveys for sea turtles in North Carolina inshore
waters. Fish. Bull. 93:254-261
Epperly, S.P., J. Braun, A.J. Chester, F.A. Cross, J.V. Merriner, and P.A. Tester. 1995b. Winter
distribution of sea turtles in the vicinity of Cape Hatteras and their interactions with the summer flounder
trawl fishery. Bull. Mar. Sci. 56:547-568.
Evans, P.G.H. 1987. The Natural History of Whales and Dolphins. Christopher Helms, New York, NY.
343 pp.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation page 72
Evans, W.E. 1975. Distribution, differentiation of populations and other aspects of the natural history of
Delphinus delphis (Linnaeus) in the northeastern Pacific. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los
Angeles, CA. 164pp.
Evans, W.E. 1982. Prepared evidence on underwater noise. Canada National Energy Board Hearing into
the Arctic Pilot Project, Phase n-Panel 6A, Exhibit 670, 9 pp., and testimony transcript pages 11414-
11470, Ottawa Canada. Cited by Richardson et al. (1991), op cit.
Fletcher, J.L., and R.G. Busnel, Eds. 1978. Effects of Noise on Wildlife. Academic Press, New York,
NY. 305 pp.
Fogarty, M.J., E.B. Cohen, W.L. Michaels, and W.W. Morse. 1991. Predation and the regulation of sand
lance populations: an exploratory analysis. ICES Mar. Sci. Symp. 193:120-124.
Forestell, P. 1986. Assessment and verification of abundance estimates, seasonal trends, and population
characteristice of the humpback whale in Hawaii. Final Report for the Marine Mammal Commission.
Contract No. MM29110414-6.
Foster, K. 1994. A growth curve for wild Florida Caretta caretta. Pp. 221-224 in K.A. Bjomdal, A.B.
Bolten, D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar, Eds., Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea
Turtle Biology and Conservation. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Tech. Memo., National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, FL.
NMFS-SEFC-351.
Frazer, N.B., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1985. Preliminary growth models for green, Chelonia mydas, and
loggerhead, Caretta caretta turtles in the wild. Copeia 1985(l):73-79.
Freeland, G.L., and D.J.P. Swift. 1978. Surficial Sediments. New York Bight Atlas Monograph 10.
Marine EcoSystems Analysis (MESA) Program. New York Sea Grant Institute, Albany, NY. 93 pp.
Gaskin, D.E. 1982. The Ecology of Whales and Dolphins. Heinemann Educational Books, Ltd., London,
UK. 459pp.
George, J.C., L.M. Philo, K. Hazard, D. Withrow, G.M. Carroll, and R. Suydam. 1994. Frequency of
killer whale (Orcinus area) attacks and ship collisions based on scarring on bowhead whales (Balaena
mysticetas) of the Bering-Chikchi-Beaufort Seas stocks. Arctic 47(3):247-255.
Geraci, J.R. 1989. Clinical Investigation of the 1987-88 Mass Mortality of Bottlenose Dolphins Along the
U.S. Central and South Atlantic Coast. Final report to National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Navy,
Office of Naval Research and Marine Mammal Commission, April 1989.
Geraci, J.R., and D.J. St. Aubin. 1987. Effects of offshore oil and gas development on marine mammals
and turtles. Pp. 587-617 in D.F. Boesch and N.N. Rablais, Eds., Long-Term Environmental Effects of
Offshore Oil and Gas Development. Elsevier Applied Science Publishers, London, UK.
Geraci, J.R., D.M., and Anderson, R.J. Timperi, D.J. St. Aubin, G.A. Early, J.H. Prescott, and C.A. Mayo.
1989. Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) fatally poisoned by dinoflagellate toxin. Can. J.
Fish. Aquat. Sci. 46:1895-1898.
-------
Biological Assessment MaV 1 "7
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Pa9e 73
Geraci, J.R., and D.J. St. Aubin, Eds. 1990. Marine Mammals and Oil. Confronting the Risks.
Academic Press, New York, NY.
Goodale, D.R., M.A. Hyman, and H.E. Winn. 1981. Cetacean responses in association with the Regal
Sword oil spill. Pp. XI-1 XI-6 in A Characterization of the Marine Mammals and Turtles in the Mid- and
North-Atlantic Areas of the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf. Annual Report of the Cetacean and Turtle
Assessment Program (CeTAP) for 1979. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C.
Gramentz, D. 1988. Involvement of loggerhead turtle with the plastic, metal; and hydrocarbon pollution
in the central Mediterranean. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 19:11-13.
Greene, C.R. 1985. Characteristics of waterborne industrial noise, 1980-1984. Pp. 197-253 in WJ.
Richardson, Ed., Behavior, Disturbance Responses and Distribution of Bowhead Whales, Balaena
mysticetus, in the eastern Beaufort Sea, 1980-1984. Report No. MMS 85-0034 to U.S. Minerals
Management Service, Hemdon, VA.
Greenlaw, C.G. 1987. Psychoacoustics and pinnipeds. In B.R. Mate and J.T. Harvey, Eds., Acoustical
Deterents in Marine Mammal Conflicts with Fisheries. NTIS PB88-17439. 116pp.
Grose, P.L., and J.S. Mattson, Eds. 1977. The Argo Merchant Spill: A Preliminary Scientific Report.
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Environmental Research
Laboratory, Boulder, CO.
Grosslein, M.D., R.W. Langton, and M.P. Sissenwine. 1980. Recent fluctuations in pelagic fish stocks of
the northwest Atlantic, Georges Bank region, in relation to species interactions. Rapp. P.-V. Reun. Cons.
Int. Explor. Mer. 177:374-404.
Grosslein, M.D., and T.R. Azarovitz, Eds. 1982. Fish Distribution Monograph 15. Marine Ecosystems
Analysis (MESA) Program. MESA New York Bight Project.
Hain, J.H.W. 199la. Apparent bottom feeding by humpback whales in Massachusetts Bay. Pp. 29-36 in
Southeast Atlantic Right Whale Behavior and Whale/Boat Interactions Using Coordinated Airship
Overflights. Final Report to Minerals Management Service, Atlantic OCS Region, Hemdon, VA.
Associated Scientists at Woods Hole, MA.
Hain, J.H.W. 1991b. Estimations of traveling speeds and tail stroke frequencies of fin and minke whales.
Pp. 23-28 in Southeast Atlantic Right Whale Behavior and Whale/Boat Interactions Using Coordinated
Airship Overflights. Final Report to Minerals Management Service, Atlantic OCS Region, Hemdon, VA.
Associated Scientists at Woods Hole, MA.
Hain, J.H.W., G.R. Carter, S.D. Kraus, C.A. Mayo, and H.E. Winn. 1982. Feeding behavior of the
humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, in the western North Atlantic. Fish. Bull. 80:259-268.
Hain, J.W.H., M.J. Ratnaswamy, R.D. Kenney, and H.E. Winn. 1985. The role of cetaceans in the shelf-
edge region of the northeastern United States. Mar. Fish. Rev. 47(1):13-17.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 74
Hain, J.H.W., M.J. Ratnaswamy, R.D. Kenney, and H.E. Winn. 1992. The fin whale, Balaenoptera
physalus, in waters of the northeastern United States continental shelf. Kept. Intl. Whal Comm
42:653-669.
Hammond, P.S., S.A. Mizroch, and G.P. Donovan, Eds. 1990. Individual Recognition and the Estimation
of Cetacean Population Parameters: Use of Photoidentification and Other Techniques to Estimate
Population Parameters; Incorporating the Proceedings of the Symposium and Workshop on Individual
Recognition and the Estimation of Cetacean Population Parameters. International Whaling Commission,
Cambribge U.K. 440pp.
Han, G.C., and D.A.Mayer. 1981. Current Structure on the Long Island Inner Shelf. J. Geophysical
.Research 86(C12):4205-4214.
Hancock, D. 1965. Killer whales kill and eat a minke whale. J. Mammal. 46:341-342.
Hanson, A.K., Jr., J.G. Quinn. 1983. The distribution of dissolved and organically complexed copper and
nickel in the Middle Atlantic Bight. Canadian J. Fish. Aquatic Sciences 40 (Supplement 2): 151 -161.
Hardy, J.R. 1962. Comments on the Atlantic ridley turtle, Lepidochelys olivacea kempi, in the
Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Sci. 3:217-220.
Harris, W.H. 1976. Spatial and temporal variations in the sedimentary grain-size facies and the sediment
heavy metal ratios in the New York Bight Apex. Pp. 102-123 in M.G. Gross, Ed., Middle Atlantic
Continental Shelf and the New York Bight, Special Symposia, Vol. 2. Am. Soc. Limn, and Ocean.,
Lawrence, KS.
Henwood, T.A., and L.H. Ogren. 1987. Distribution and migrations of immature Kemp's ridley turtles
(Lepidochelys kempi) and green turtles (Chelonia mydas) off Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. NE
Gulf Sci. 9:53-159.
Henwood, T.A., and W.E. Stuntz. 1987. Analysis of sea turtle captures and mortalities during
commercial shrimp trawling. Fish. Bull. 85:813-817.
Hildebrand, H.H. 1982. A historical review of the status of sea turtle populations in the western Gulf of
Mexico. Pp. 447-453 in K.A. Bjorndal, Ed., Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. The Smithsonian
Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Hill, J.M., and C. B. Knisley. 1994. In Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle (Cicindela dorsalis dor sails
Say) Recovery Plan. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA. 60pp.
Hofman, R.J. 1990. Cetacean entanglement in fishing gear. Mamm. Rev. 20(l):53-64.
Huang, C.P., Ed. 1994. Hazardous and Industrial Wastes. Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Mid-Atlantic
Industrial Waste Conference, August 7-10, 1994, Univ. Of Delaware, Newark, DE. Technomic Publishing
Co., Inc., Lancaster, PA. 771 pp.
Hui, C.A. 1979. Undersea topography and distribution of dolphins of the genus Delphinus in the southern
California Bight. Journal of Mammalogy. 60:521-527.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Pa9e 75
HydroQual. 1989a. Assessment of pollutant inputs to the New York Bight. Final Report to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II. New York Bight Restoration Program.
HydroQual. 1989b. Assessment of pollutant fate in the New York Bight. Final Report to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region n. New York Bight Restoration Program.
JBR Associates, Inc. 1984. New York Bight 1983 summer survey. Preliminary chemical data report
submitted to EPA Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection, Washington, D.C.
Jeannette, R.L., C.T. Swanson, B.C. Blase, and R.K. Howell. 1987. Merchant 1987. Unpublished
technical report prepared by Mar, Inc., Rockville, MD for the Naval Sea Systems Command, Washington,
D.C.
Kane, J. 1993. Variability of zooplankton biomass and dominant species abundance on Georges Bank,
1977-1986. Fish. Bull. 91:464-474.
Kann, L.M., and K. Wishner. 1995. Spatial and temporal patterns of zooplankton on baleen whale
feeding grounds in the southern Gulf of Maine. /. Plankton Res. 17:235-262.
Katona, S.K., D. Richardson, and R. Hazard. 1977. A Field Guide to the Whales and Seals of the Gulf of
Maine. 2nd Edition. College of the Atlantic, Bar Harbor, ME.
Katona, S.K., J.A. Beard, P.E. Girton, and F. Wenzel. 1988. Killer Whales (Orcinus area) from the Bay
of Fundy to the equator, including the Gulf of Mexico. Rit. Fiskideldar 11:205-224
Katona, S.K., and J.A. Beard. 1990. Population size, migrations and feeding aggregations of the
humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the western North Atlantic Ocean. Pp. 203-208 in P.S.
Hammond, S.A. Mizroch, and G.P. Donovan, Eds., Individual Recognition and Estimation of Cetacean
Population Parameters. Rep. Int. Whal. Comm. Spec. Iss. 12.
Katona, S.K., J.M. Allen and P. Stevick. 1994. Maintaining the North Atlantic humpback whale catalog.
Progress report to the Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Contract No. 50EANF-1-00056, May 1994.
26pp.
Keinath, J.A., J.A. Musick, and R.A. Byles. 1987. Aspects of the biology of Virginia's sea turtles: 1979-
1986. VA J. Sci. 38:329-336.
Keinath, J.A., J.A. Musick, and D.E. Barnard. 1992. Abundance and distribution of sea turtles off North
Carolina. Final Report to the U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Atlantic OCS
Region, Reston, VA.
Kenney, R.D. D.R. Goodale, G.P. Scott, and H.E. Winn. 1981. Chapter V. Spatial and temporal
distribution of humpback whales in the CeTAP study area. Pp. V1-V32 in CeTAP (1981). A
Characterization of Marine Mammals and Turtles of the Mid- and North-Atlantic Areas of the U.S. Outer
Continental Shelf. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Washington, D.C.
Kenney, R.D., and H. E. Winn. 1986. Cetacean high-use habitats of the northeast United States
continental shelf. Fish. Bull. 84(2):345-357.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1 997
MDs Closure and HARS Designation Page 76
Kenney, R.D., and S.D. Kraus. 1993. Right whale mortality - a correction and an update Mar Mamm
Sci. 9(4):445-446
Ketchum, B.H., and D.J. Keen. 1955. The accumulation of river water over the continental shelf between
Cape Cod and Chesapeake Bay. Deep Sea Res. Suppl. 3:346-357.
Ketchum, B.H., J.M. Capuzzo, W.V. Hurt, I.W. Duedall, P.K. Park, D.R. Kester, Eds. 1985. Wastes in
the Ocean, Volume 6. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Kiviat, E., and T. Hartwig. 1994. Marine mammals in the Hudson River estuary. News from Hydsonia
10:1-5.
Klinkhammer, G.P., and M.L. Bender. 1981. Trace metal distributions in the Hudson River Estuary.
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Sciences 12:629-643.
Kraus, N.C. 1991. Mobile, Alabama, Field Data Collection Project, 18 August - 2 September 1989.
Report 1: Dredged Material Plume Survey Data Report. Dredging Research Program Tech. Report. No.
DRP-91-3. USAGE, Washington, D.C.
Krom, M.D., K.K. Turekian, and N.H. Cutshall. 1985. Fate of Metals in the Sediments of the New York
Bight, Chapter 9. Pp. 209-234 in Ketchum, Capuzzo, Burt, Duedall, Park, and Kester Eds., Wastes in the
Ocean, Volume 6. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
Lake, J.L., R. Haebler, R. McKinney, C.A. Lake, and S.S. Sadove. 1994. PCBs and other chlorinated
organic contaminants in tissues of juvenile Kemp's ridley turtles (Lepidochelys kempi). Mar. Environ.
Res. 38:313-327.
Lambertsen, R.H. 1986. Disease of the common fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus): crassicaudiosis of
the urinary system. J. Mammal. 67:353-366.
Lazell, J.D. 1980. New England waters: critical habitat for marine turtles. Copeia 1980:290-295.
Leatherwood, S., D.K. Caldwell, and H.E. Winn. 1976. Whales, Dolphins and Porpoises of the Western
North Atlantic: A Guide to Their Identification. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Tech. Report, National Marine Fisheries Service. NMFS/CIRC-396. 176 pp.
Lee, D.S., and M. Socci. 1989. Potential impact of oil spills on seabirds and selected other oceanic
vertebrates off the North Carolina coast. Report to Dept. of Administration, North Carolina State Museum
of Natural Sciences, Raleigh, NC. 64 pp.
Lenhardt, M.L. 1994. Brief presented at the 14th Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and
Conservation, March 1-5, 1994, Hilton Head, SC. Cited in Advanced Research Projects Agency. 1995.
Final Environmental Jjnpact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the California Acoustic
Thermometry of Ocean Climate Project and its Associated Marine Mammal Research Program. Advanced
Research Projects Agency, Arlington, VA.
Lenhardt, M.L., S. Bellmund, R.A. Byles, S.W. Harkins, and J.A. Musick. 1983. Marine turtle reception
of bone conducted sound. JAud. Res. 23:119-125.
-------
Biological Assessment MaY 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Pa9e 77
Lewis, D.A., D. Shea, B.E. Buxton, C.D. Hunt. 1989. EPA New York Bight Sediment Survey Review
1982-1986. Final Report to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II. Battelle Ocean
Sciences, Duxbury, MA. 71 pp.
Lien, J., R. Sears, G.B. Stenson, P.W. Jones and I. Ni. 1989a. Right whale (Eubalaena glacialis)
sightings in waters off Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Gulf of St. Lawrence (1978-1987). Can.
Field-Nat. 103:91-93.
Lien, J., G.B. Stenson, and I.H. Ni. 1989b. A review of incidental entrapment of seabirds, seals and
whales in inshore fishing gear in Newfoundland and Labrador: a problem for fishermen and fishing gear
designers. Pp. 67-71 in Proc. World Symposium of Fishing Gear and Fishing Vessel Design.
Newfoundland-Labrador Inst. Fish. Mar. Technol. St. Johns, Newfoundland. •
Lien, J., S. Todd, and J. Guigne. 1990. Inferences about perception in large cetaceans, especially
humpback whales, from incidental catches in fixed fishing gear, enhancement of nets by "alarm" devices,
and acoustics of fishing gear. Pp. 347-383 in J. Thomas and R. Kastelein, Eds., Sensory Abilities of
Cetaceans. Plemum Press, New York, NY.
Ljungblad, D.K., B. Wu'rsig, S.L. Swartz, and J.M. Keene. 1988. Observations on the behavioral
responses of bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) to active geophysical vessels in the Alaskan Beaufort
Sea. Arctic 41:183-194.
Lockyer, C.H., L.C. McConnell, and T.D. Waters. 1985. Body condition in terms of anatomical and
biochemical assessment of body fat in North Atlantic fin and sei whales. Can. J. Zool. 63:2328-2338.
Lutcavage, M. 1981. The status of marine turtles in Chesapeake Bay and Virginia coastal waters. MS
Thesis, VA Inst. Mar. Sci., Coll. of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, VA. 126 pp. Cited in Keinath et
al. (1987).
Lynch, K., and H. Whitehead. 1984. Changes in the abundance of large whales off Newfoundland and
Labrador, 1976-1983, with special reference to the finback whale. Int. Whaling Comm. Sci. Comm. Doc.
SC/36/02.
Malme, C.I. 1993. Affidavit filed May 10, 1993 in U.S. District Court of Massachusetts in the Bays'
Legal Fund, et al. v. Carol Browner, et al. Civil Action No. 93-10883-MA. 4 pp.
Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, and P.T. McElroy. 1982. The acoustic environment of humpback whales in
Glacier Bay and Fredrick Sound/Stevens Passage, Alaska. Report to the U.S. National Marine Mammal
Laboratory, Seattle, WA.
Malme, C.I., P.R. Miller, C.W. Clark, P. Tyack, and J.E. Bird. 1984. Investigations of the potential
effects of underwater noise from petroleum industry activities on migrating gray whale behavior/Phase II:
January 1084 migration. BBN Rep. 586. Report from Bolt, Bemanek, and Newman, Inc., Cambridge,
MA, to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, Anchorage, AK. NITS PB 86-218377.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
Closure and HARS Designation Page 78
Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, P. Tyack, C.W. Clark, and J.E. Bird. 1985. Investigation of the potential effects
of underwater noise from petroleum industry activities on feeding humpback whale behavior. Report No.
5851. OCS Stuey MMS 85-0019. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS
Office, Anchorage, AK.
Malme, C.I., P.R. Miles, G.W. Miller, W.J. Richardson, D.G. Roseneau, D.H. Thomas, and
C.R. Greene, Jr. 1989. Analysis and ranking of the acoustic disturbance potential of petroleum industry
activities and other sources of noise in the environment of marine mammals in Alaska. OCS Study MMS
89-0006. Report to U.S. Minerals Management Service, Anchorage, AK.
Malme, C.I., and P.A. Krumhansl. 1993. A study of the sound levels produced by MWRA outfall boring
machine operations in Massachusetts Bay. Tech. Memo. No. 1113, BBN Systems and Technologies,
Cambridge, MA. Report to the U.S. Dept. of Justice, Boston, MA, and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Boston, MA. 33 pp.
Malone, T.C. 1977. Plankton Systematics and Distribution. MESA New York Bight Atlas Monograph
13. Marine EcoSystems Analysis (MESA) Program. MESA New York Bight Project. New York Sea
Grant Institute, Albany, NY.
Manning, J.P., L.Y. Oey, D. Packer, J. Vitaliano, T.W. Finneran, K.W. You, and S. Fromm. 1994.
Observations of bottom currents and estimates of resuspended sediment transport at the New York Bight
12-mile dumpsite. J. Geophysical Res. 99(C5):10211-10239.
Manzella, S.A. C.W. Caillouet, Jr., and C.T. Fontaine. 1988. Kemp's ridley, Leptochelys kempi, sea
turtle head start tag recoveries: distribution, habitat, and method of recovery. Mar. Fish. Rev. 50:33-42.
Marquez, M.R. 1972. Preliminary results on age and growth of the Kemp's ridley, Lepidochelys kempi
(Garman). Mem. IV. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanographic Congress, 1969. Mexico.
Pp. 419-427.
Marquez, M.R. 1989. Kemp's ridley turtle (Lepidochelys kempi). Pp. 159-165 in L. Ogren et ai, Eds.,
Proceedings of the Second Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium. Panama City FL. U.S. Dept. Of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Southeast Fisheries Center.
Marquez, M.R. 1994. Synopsis of Biological Data on the Kemp's Ridley Turtle, Lepidochelys kempi
(Garman, 1880). U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Tech.
Memo., National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center. NMFS-SEFSC-343.
91 pp.
Martineau, D. P. Beland, C. Desjardins, and A. Lagace. 1987. Levels of organochlorine chemicals in
tissues of beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) from the St. Lawrence estuary, Quebec, Canada. Arch.
Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 16:137-147.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1 997
MnS Closure and HARS Designation Pa9e 79
Matassa, K., G. Early, B. Wyman, R. Prescott, D. Ketton, and H. Krum. 1994. A retrospective study of
Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempi) and loggerhead (Carena caretta) in the area of the northeast stranding
network and associated clinical and postmortem pathologies. Pp. 255-258 in K.A. Bjorndal, A.B. Bolten,
D.A. Johnson, and P.J. Eliazar, Eds., Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle
Biology and Conservation. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Tech. Memo., National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, FL.
NMFS-SEFC-351.
Mayer, D.A., G.C. Han, and D.V. Hansen. 1982. Circulation in the Hudson Shelf Valley: MESA Physical
Oceanographic Studies in New York Bight, 1. J. Geophysical Res. 87(C12):9563- 9578.
Mayo, C.A., D.K. Matilla, S. Pitman, and L. Baraff. 1988. Abundance, distribution and habitat use of
large whales in the southern Gulf of Maine. Final report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast
Fisheries Laboratory. Contract No. 50-EANF-5-0059.
McCauley, R.D. 1994. Seismic surveys. Pp. 19-121 in J.M. Swan, J.M. Neff, and P.C. Young, Eds.,
Environmental Implications of Offshore Oil and Gas Development in Australia The Findings of an
Independent Scientific Review. Australian Petroleum Exploration Association, Canberra, Australia.
McFarland, V.A., C. H. Lutz, and F. J. Reilly. 1994. Bioaccumulation Data and Analysis for Selected
Comtaminants in Sediments and Biota of the New York Bight Apex Mud Dump Reference Site. Final
Report prepared for the U. S. Army Engineer District, New York, NY. 65 pp. + app.
McKenzie, T.P., and J.R.Nicolas. 1988. Cetaceans, Sea Turtles, and Pinnipeds of the Mid-Atlantic
Water Management Unit. Pp. 263-304 in Characterization of the Middle Atlantic Water Management Unit
of the Northeast Regional Action Plan. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Tech. Memo., National Marine Fisheries Service. NMFS-F/NEC-56.
McVey, J.P., and T. Wibbels. 1984. The growth and movements of captive reared Kemp's ridley sea
turtles, Lepidochelys kempii, following their release in the Gulf of Mexico. U.S. Dept. of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Tech. Memo., National Marine Fisheries Service,
Southeast Fisheries Center, NMFS-SEFC-145. 25pp.
Mendonca, M.T. 1981. Comparative growth rates of wild immature Chelonia mudas and Caretta caretta
in Florida J. Herpetol. 15:447-451.
Meyer, T.L., R.A. Cooper, and R.W. Langton. 1979. Relative abundance, behavior, and food habits of
the American sand lance, Amodytes americanus, from the Gulf of Maine. Fish. Bull. U.S. 77:243-253.
Meylan, A.B., and S. Sadove. 1986. Cold-stunning in Long Island Sound, New York. Mar. Turt Newsl
37:7-8.
Miles, P.R., C.I. Malme, and W.J. Richardson. 1987. Prediction of drilling site-specific interaction of
industrial acoustic stimuli and endangered whales in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. BBN Report 6509: OCS
Study MMS 87-0084. Report from BBN labs, Inc., Cambridge, MA and LGL Ltd., King City, Ontario, for
the U.S. Minerals Management Service, Anchorage, AK. NTIS PB88-158498. 341 pp.
-------
Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 80
Millikin, M.F., and A.B. Williams. 1984. Synopsis of Biological Data on the Blue Crab, Callinecres
sapidus Rathbun. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical
Report, Technical Report NMFS 1, National Marine Fisheries Service. FAO Fisheries Synopsis No 138
39pp.
Minasian, S.M., K.C. Balcomb m, and L. Foster. 1984. The World's Whales. The Complete Illustrated
Guide. Smithsonian Books, Washington, D.C. 224 pp.
Mitchell, E. 1974. Present status of northwest Atlantic fin and other whale stocks. Pp. 108-169 in W.E.
Schevill, Ed., The Whale Problem: A Status Report. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Mitchell, E.D. 1975. Trophic relationships and competition for food in northwest Atlantic whales. Proc.
Can. Soc. Zool. Ann. Mtg. 1974:123-133.
MMS. 1992. Outer Continental Shelf Natural Gas and Oil Resource Management. Comprehensive
Program 1992 - 1997. Environmental Impact Statement. Volume I. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Minerals
Management Service, Herndon, VA.
Morreale, S.J., and E.A. Standora. 1989. Occurrence, movement and behavior of the Kemp's ridley and
other sea turtles in New York waters. Okeanos Ocean Research Foundation Annual Report. April 1988 to
April 1989. 35 pp.
Morreale, S.J., A. Meylan, and B. Baumann. 1989. Sea turtles in Long Island Sound, New York: an
historical perspective. Pp. 121-123 in S.A. Eckert, K.L. Eckert, and T.H. Richardson; Eds., Proceedings of
the Ninth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and Biology. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Tech. Memo, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast
Fisheries Center, NMFS-SEFC-232. 306pp.
Morreale, S.J., and E.A. Standora. 1992. Habitat use and feeding activity of juvenile Kemp's ridleys in
inshore waters of the northeastern U.S. Pp. 75-77 in Salmon and I. Wyneken, Eds., Proceedings of the
Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Tech. Memo., National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast
Fisheries Center, NMFS-SEFC-302. 195 pp.
Morreale, S.J., A.B. Meylan, S.S. Sadove, and E.A. Standora. 1992. Annual occurrence and winter
mortality of marine turtles in New York waters. J. Herpetol. 26: 301-308.
Morreale, S.J., and E.A. Standora. 1993. Occurrence, Movement and Beharior of the Kemp's Ridley and
Other Sea Turtles in New York Waters. Report to the New York State Dept. of Environmental
Conservation Retum-a-Gift Wildlife Program, New York. Okeanos Ocean Research Foundation,
Hampton Bays, New York, NY.
Mountain, D.G., and L. Arlen. 1995. Oceanographic conditions in the inner New York Bight during the
12-Mile dumpsite study. Pp. 21-32 in Studholme, A.L., J.E. O'Reilly, and M.C. Ingham, Eds., Effects of
the Cessation of Sewage Sludge Dumping at the 12-Mile Site. 12-Mile Dumpsite Symposium, Long
Branch, NJ, June 1991. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Technical Report, National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA. NMFS 124.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1 997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation PageSI
Muir, D.C.G., R.J. Norstrom, and M. Simon. 1988. Organochlorine contaminants in arctic marine food
chains: accumulation of specific polychlorinated biphenyls and chlordane-related compounds. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 22:1071-1078.
Musick, J.A. 1979. The marine turtles of Virginia. Families Chelonidae and Dermochelyidae. With notes
on identification and natural history. VA Inst. Mar. Sci. Ed. Ser. 24:1-16.
Musick, J.A., and J.D. McEachran. 1972. Autumn and winter occurrence of decapod crustaceans in
Chesapeake Bight, U.S.A. Crustaceana 22(2): 190-200.
Musick, J.A., D.E. Barnard, and J.A. Keinath. 1994. Aerial estimates of seasonal distribution and
abundance of sea turtles near the Cape Hatteras faunal Barrier. Pp. 121-123 in B.A. Schroeder and B.E.
Witherington, Eds., Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and
Conservation. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Tech. Memo.,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, NMFS-SEFC-341. 281 pp.
Myberg, A.A., Jr. 1978. Ocean noise and the behavior of marine animals: relationships and implications.
Pp. 169-208 in J.L. Fletcher and R.G. Busnel, Eds., Effects of Noise on Wildlife. Academic Press, New
York, NY.
Myberg, A.A., Jr. 1990. The effects of man-made noise on the behavior of marine animals. Environ.
Internal. 16:575-586.
NJDEP. 1996. Fish and Game Division, Port Republic, NJ. D.Byrne. Personal communication.
New Jersey State Dept. of Motor Vehicles (DMV). 1996. J. Chmiko. Personal communication.
New York State Dept. of Motor Vehicles (DMV). 1996. B. Negri. Personal communication.
Nilson, M.R., C.G. D'Vincent and F.A. Sharpe. 1989. Form and function of the feeding vocalization of
the southeast Alaskan humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). P. 46 in Abstracts of the 8th Biennial
Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, December 1989, Pacific Grove, CA.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service). 1988. Northeast Research and Management Plan for the
Ridley Sea Turtle. National Marine Fisheries Service, Management Division, Habitat Conservation
Branch, Gloucester, MA.
NMFS. 1991a, Recovery Plan for the Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae). Report prepared by
the Humpback Whale Recovery Team for the National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.
105pp.
NMFS. 1991b. Proposed regime to govern interactions between marine mammals and commercial fishing
operations — Draft. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, D.C. 526 pp.
NMFS. 1992. Recovery Plan for the Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Lepidochelys kempii). National Marine
Fisheries Service, St. Petersberg, FL. 40 pp.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 82
NMFS. 1994. Endangered Species Act Biennial Report to Congress. Status of Recovery Programs,
January, 1992 - June, 1994. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, MD. 92 pp.
NOAA. 1982. Contaminants in New York Bight and Long Island Sound Sediments and Demersal
Species, and Contaminant Effects on Benthos, Summer 1980. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Tech. Memo., National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Center, Woods Hole,
MA. NMFS-F/NEC-16. 96pp.
NOAA. 1988. Characterization of the Middle Atlantic Water Management Unit of the Northeast Regional
Action Plan. Pacheco, Ed.. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/NEC-56.
NOAA. 1991. Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Draft Environmental Impact
Statement/Management Plan. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, Washington, D.C. 238 pp.
NOAA. 1995a. Status of the Fishery Resources off the Northeastern United States for 1994. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Tech. Mem. NMFS-NE-108. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science
Center, Woods Hole, MA. 140 pp.
NOAA. 1995b. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Woods Hole Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA.
G. Waring. Personal communication.
NOAA. 1995c. U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico Marine Mammal Stock Assessments. U.S. Dept. of
Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service.
NOAA. 1996a. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Sandy Hook Laboratory. L. Stehlik.
Personal communication.
NOAA. 1996b. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Sandy Hook Laboratory. M. Ludwig.
Persona] communication.
NOAA. 1996c. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science Center, Sandy Hook Laboratory. S. Gorski.
Personal communication.
NRC (National Research Council). 1990. Decline of the Sea Turtles. Causes and Prevention. National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 259 pp.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1 "7
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Pa9e 83
NYC (New York City). 1993. New York Harbor Water Quality Survey: Executive Summary 1993. New
York City Dept. of Environmental Protection, New York, NY. 20 pp.
NYC. 1994. New York Harbor Water Quality Survey: Executive Summary 1994. New York City Dept.
of Environmental Protection, New York, NY. 25 pp.
Ogren, L. 1989. Distribution of juvenile and sub-adult Kemp's ridley turtles: preliminary results from
1984-1987 surveys. Pp. 116-123 in C.W. Caillouet, and A.M. Landry, Eds., First International
Symposium on Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Biology, conservation and management. Texas A&M
University, Galveston, TX.
Ogren, L., and C. McVea, Jr. 1981. Apparent hibernation by sea turtles in North American waters.
Pp. 127-132 in K.A. Bjorndal, Ed., Biology and Conservation of Sea Turtles. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington., D.C.
Ogren, L. etal., Eds. 1989. Proceedings of the Second Western Atlantic Turtle Symposium. Panama
City, FL. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric and Atmospheric Admininstration,
National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center. 401 pp.
O'Hara,K.J. 1989. Plastic debris and its effects on marine wildlife. Pp. 395-434 in W.J. Chandler, Ed.,
Audubon Wildlife Report 1988/1989. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
O'Hara, K., N. Atkins, and S. ludicello. 1986. Marine wildlife entanglement in North America. Center
for Marine Conservation, Washington, D.C. 219 pp.
Ohsumi, S. 1986. Yearly change in age and body length at sexual maturity of a fin whale stock in the
eastern North Pacific. Sci. Rep. Whale Res. Inst. 37:17-30.
Orton, L.S., and P.P. Brodie. 1987. Engulfing mechanisms of fin whales. Can. J. Zool. 65:2898-2907.
O'Shea, TJ. and R.L. Brownell, Jr. 1994. Organochlorine and metal contaminants in baleen whales: a
review and evaluation of conservation implications. Sci. Tot. Environ. 154:179-200.
Overholtz, W.J., and J.R.Nicolas. 1979. Apparent feeding by the fin whale and humpback whale on the
American sand lance, Ammodytes americanus, in the northwest Atlantic. Fish. Bull. U.S. 77:285-287.
Overholtz, W.J., R.S. Armstron, D.G. Mountain, and M. Terceiro. 1991. Factors Influencing Spring
Distribution, Availability and Recreational Catch of Atlantic Mackerel, Scomber scombrus, in the Middle
Atlantic and Southern New England Regions. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Tech. Memo., National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Science
Center. NMFS-F/NEC-85. 13pp.
Palmer, H.D., and M.G. Gross, Eds. 1979. Ocean Dumping and Marine Pollution. Dowden, Hutchinson
& Ross, Stroudsburg, PA. 268 pp.
Payne, M.P., J.R. Nicolas, L. O'Brien, and K.D. Powers. 1986. The distribution of the humpback whale,
Megaptera novaeangliae, on Georges Bank and in the Gulf of Maine in relation to densities of the sand eel,
Ammodytes americanus. Fish Bull. 84:271-277.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 8^
Payne, M.P., D.N. Wiley, S.B. Young, S. Pitmann, P.J. Clapham, and J.W. Jossi. 1990. Recent
fluctuations in the abundance of baleen whales in the southern Gulf of Maine in relation to changes in
selected prey. Fish. Bull. 88:687-696.
Payne, P.M., and D.W. Heinemann. 1990. A distributional assessment of cetaceans in the shelf and
shelf-edge waters of the northeastern United States based on aerial and shipboard surveys, 1978-1988.
Final Report to U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries Center, Woods Hole, MA.
Payne, R., and D.Webb. 1971. Orientation by means of long range acoustic signaling in baleen whales.
Ann. NYAcad. Sci. 188:110-142.
Pett, S., and C.J. McKay, Eds. 1990. The resources and uses of Stellwagen Bank (Part 1): technical
report on the resources and uses of Stellwagen Bank. Final Report, Urban Harbors Institute, U.
Massachusetts, Boston, MA. 133 pp.
Piatt, J.R., D.A. Methven, A.E. Burger, R.L. Mclagan, and E. Creelman. 1989. Baleen whales and their
prey in a coastal environment. Can. J. Zool. 67:1523-1530.
Pivorunas, A. 1979. The feeding mechanisms of baleen whales. Amer. Sclent. 67:432-440.
Port Authority of NY & NJ. 1996. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey MudOne Database.
Regional Dredging Requirements, Maintenance Dredging, 1996-2000. Provided by L. Knutson, Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York, NY. February 1996. Dates may change pending new
PA data/KB.
Pritchard, P.C.H. 1990. Kemp's ridleys are rarer than we thought. Mar. Turl. Newsl. 49.
Rappe, C, P.A. Beqqvist, L.O. Kjeller, S. Swanson, T. Belton, B. Ruppel, K. Lockwood, and P.C. Kahn.
1991. Levels and patterns of PCDD and PCDF contamination in fish, crabs, and lobsters from Newark
Bay and the New York Bight. Chemosphere 22:239-266.
Read, A.J. 1994. Interactions between cetaceans and gillnet and trap fisheries in the Northwest Atlantic.
Rep. Int. Whal. Commn. Special Issue 15:133-147.
Reeves, R.R., and E.D.Mitchell. 1986. American pelagic whaling for right whales in the North Atlantic.
Pp. 221-254 in R.L. Brownell, Jr., P.B. Best, and J.H. Prescott, Eds., Right Whales: Past and Present
Status. Reports of the IWC; Special Issue No. 10. Cambridge, UK.
Reijnders, P.J.H. 1986. Perspectives for studies of pollution in cetaceans. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 17: 58-59.
Renaud, M.L., and J.A. Carpenter. 1994. Movements and submergence patterns of loggerhead turtles
(Caretta caretta) in the Gulf of Mexico determined through satellite telemetry. Bull. Mar. Sci. 55:1-15.
Richardson.T.H., J.I. Richardson, and M. Donnelly, Eds. 1990. Proceedings of the Tenth Annual
Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Tech. Memo., National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center,
NMFS-SEFC-278.
-------
Biological Assessment MaV 1 "7
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page85
Richardson, W.J., Ed. 1985. Behavior, Disturbance Responses and Distribution of Bowhead Whales,
Balaena mysticetus, in the Eastern Beaufort Sea. Report No. MMS 85-0034 to U.S. Minerals
Management Service, Hemdon, VA. 306 pp.
Richardson, W.J., M.A. Fraker, B. Wiisig, and R.S. Wells. 1985. Behaviour of bowhead whales Balaena
mysticetus summering in the Beaufort Sea: reactions to industrial activities. Biol. Conserv. 32:195-230.
Richardson, W.J., B. Wiirsig, and C.R. Greene. 1990. Reactions of bowhead whales, Balaena mysticetus,
to drilling and dredging noise in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. Mar. Environ. Res. 29:135-160.
Richardson, W.J., C.R. Greene, Jr., C.I. Malme, and D.H. Thompson. 1991. Effects of noise on marine
mammals. OCS Study MMS-90-0093. LGL Rep. TA834-1. Report from LGL Ecol. Res. Assoc., Inc.,
Bryan, Texas, for U.S. Minerals Management Service, Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf Region, Hemdon,
VA. NTISPB91-168914. 462pp.
Richardson, W.J., and C.J. Malme. 1993. Man-made noise and behavioral responses. Pp. 631-700 in
J.J.Burns, J.J. Montague, 'and C.J: Cowles, Eds., The Bowhead Whale. Special Publication No. 2. The
Society for Marine Mammology, Lawrence, KS.
Ridgeway, S.H., and R. Harrison, Eds. 1985. Handbook of Marine Mammals. Vol.3. The Sirenians and
Baleen Whales. Academic Press, London, UK.
Ross, J.P. S. Beavers, D. Mundell, and M. Airth-Kendree. 1989. The status of Kemp's ridley. A report to
the Center for Marine Conservation from Caribbean Conservation Corp. 51 pp.
Ruckdeschel, C., and C.R. Shoop. 1988. Gut contents of loggerheade: findings, problems and new
questions. Pp. 97-98 in B.A. Schroeder, Ed., Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Conference on Sea Turtle
Biology and Conservation. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Tech. Memo., National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, FL.
NMFS-SEFC-214.
Rybitski, M.J., R.C. Hale, and J.A. Musick. 1995. Distribution of organochlorine pollutants in Atlantic
sea turtles. Copeia 1995(2):379-390.
Sadove, S.S., and L. Kiehn. 1984. Occurrence and distribution of fin whale, Balaenoptera physalus,
cow/calf pairs in the New York Bight. Abstract, Western North Atlantic Marine Mammal Association
Proceedings.
Sadove, S., and S. Matlock-Cooley. 1990. Occurrence and distribution of fin whales, Balaenoptera
physalus, in the New York Bight, 1981 through 1989. Rept. Int. Whal. Comm. Special Issue 13.
Sadove, S.S., and S.J. Morreale. 1990. Marine mammal and sea turtle encounters with marine debris in
the New York Bight and the northeast Atlantic. Pp. 562-570 in R.S. Shomura and M.L. Godfrey, Eds.,
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine Debris, 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, HI. U.S.
Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Tech. Memo. 154.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1 997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation page 36
Sadove, S.S., and P. Cardinale. 1993. Species Composition and Distribution of Marine Mammals and
Sea Turtles in the New York Bight. Final Report to U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Southern New England - New York Bight Coastal Fisheries Project. Charlestown, RI.
SAIC. 1993. Draft Report - Analyses of Moored Current and Wave Measurements from the New York
Mud Dump Site: June Through September 1993. Report prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region H , New York, NY. Contract No. 68-W2-0026, Report #12.
SAIC. 1995. Sidescan and Bathymetry Results from the Expanded Mud Dump Area in the New York
Bight. Report prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region n, New York, NY. Contract
No. 68-W2-0026, Report #27. 81 pp.
SAIC. 1996. The Dioxin Capping Monitoring Program at the New York Mud Dump Site: Summary of
Geotechnical and Chemical Analyses of Cores from the August 1995 Postcap Survey. Report prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region n, New York, NY. Contract No. DACW33-94-C-0117,
Report #30. 81 pp.
Salmon, M., and J. Wyneken, Eds. 1992. Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle
Biology and Conservation. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Tech. Memo., National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, NMFS-SEFC-302. 195 pp.
Sanpera, C, R. Capelli, V. Minganti, and L. Jover. 1993, Total and organic mercury in North Atlantic fin
whales. Distribution pattern and biological related changes. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 26:135-139.
Schevill, W.E., Ed. 1974. The Whale Problem: A Status Report. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
MA. 419pp.
Schmid, J.R. 1995. Marine turtle populations on the east-central coast of Florida: results of tagging
studies at Cape Canaveral, Florida, 1986-1991. Fish. Bull. 93:139-151.
Schroeder, B.A., Ed. 1988. Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Conservation and
Biology, Fort Fisher, North Carolina. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Tech. Memo., National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, FL.
NMFS-SEFC-214. 136pp.
Schroeder, B.A., L.M. Ehrhart, J.L. Guseman, R.D. Owen, and W.E. Redfoot. 1990. Cold stunning of
marine turtles in the Indian River Lagoon system, Florida, December 1989. Pp. 67-68 in T.H. Richardson,
J.I Richardson, and M. Donnelly, Eds., Proceedings of the Tenth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology
and Conservation. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Tech.
Memo., National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, NMFS-SEFC-278.
Schroeder, B.A., and B.E. Witherington, Eds. 1994. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium
on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Tech. Memo., National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, NMFS-
SEFC-341. 281 pp.
Schwartz, F. 1978. Behavioral tolerance responses to cold water temperatures by three species of sea
turtles (Reptilia Cheloniidae) in North Carolina. Fl. Mar. Res Publ. 33:16-18.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1 "7
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Pa9e 87
Scorer, R.S. 1957. Experiments on Convection of Isolated Masses of Buoyant Fluid. J. Fluid Mechanics
2:583.
Scrimger, P., and R.M. Heitmeyer. 1991. Acoustic source-level measurements for a variety of merchant
ships. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 89:691-699.
Seipt, I.E., P.J. Clapham, C.A. Mayo, and M.P. Hawvermale. 1990. Population characteristics of
individually identified fin whales, Balaenoptera physalus, in Massachusetts Bay, 1980-1987. Fish. Bull.
88:271-278.
Sergeant, D.E. 1977. Stocks of fin whales, Balaenoptera physalus, L. in the North Atlantic Ocean. Rept.
Int. Whal. Comm. 27:460-473.
Shaver, D.J. 1991. Feeding ecology of wild and head-started Kemp's ridley sea turtles in south Texas
waters. J. Herpetol. 25:327-334.
Sherman, K., C. Jones, L. Sullivan, W. Smith, P. Berrien, and L. Ejsymont. 1981. Congruent shifts in
sand eel abundance in western and eastern North Atlantic ecosystems. Nature, London 291:486-489.
Shomura, R.S., and H.O. Toshida, Eds. 1985. Proceedings of the Workshop on the Fate and Impact of
Marine Debris, 26-29 November, 1984. Honolulu, HI. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Tech. Memo., National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Fisheries Center,
NMFS-SWFC-54.
Shomura and M.L. Godfrey, Eds. 1990. Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Marine
Debris 2-7 April 1989, Honolulu, HI. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Tech. Memo. 154. 1274pp.
Shoop, C.R., and R.D. Kenney. 1992. Seasonal distribution and abundances of loggerhead and
leatherback sea turtles in waters of the northeastern United States. Herpetol. Monogr. 6:43-67.
Silber, O.K., M.W. Newcomer, and H. Perez-Cortez. 1990. Killer whales (Orcinus orcd) attack and kill a
Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera edeni). Can. J. Zool. 68:1603-1606.
Slijper, E.J. 1978. Whales. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, MI. 170pp.
Smith, T., M. Payne, D. Heinemann, G. Waring, and A. Lange. 1988. Utility of Cetacean and Seabird
Sightings Conducted During Fishery Surveys. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northeast Fisheries
Science Center, Marine Mammal Committee.
Standora, E.A., S.J. Morreale, A.B. Bolten, M.D. Eberle, J.M. Edbauer, T.S. Ryder, and K.L. Williams.
1994. Diving behavior and vertical distribution of loggerheads, and a preliminary assessment of trawling
efficiency for censing. Pp. 174-176 in B.A. Schroeder and B.E. Witherington, Eds., Proceedings of the
Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. U.S. Dept. of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Tech. Memo., National Marine Fisheries Service,
Southeast Fisheries Center, NMFS-SEFC-341. 281 pp.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
Closure and HARS Designation Page 88
Stehlik, L., C.L. Mackenzie, Jr., and W.W.Morse. 1991. Distribution and Abundance of Four
Brachyuran Crabs on the Northwest Atlantic Shelf. Fish. Bull. 89:473-492.
Steimle, F.W., V.S. Zdanowicz, S.L. Cunneff, and R. Terranova. 1994. Trace metal concentrations in
common benthic macrofaunal prey from the New York Bight apex. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 28:760-765.
Stoddard, A., I.E. O'Reilly, I.E. Whitledge, T.C. Malone, and J.F. Hebard. 1986. The application and
development of a compatible historical data base for the analysis of water quality management issues in the
New York Bight. Pp. 1031-1035 in Oceans '86 Conference Record, Marine Technology Society &
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Ocean Engineering Society, September 23-25, 1986.
Washington, D.C. Volume 3 of 5. 1061 pp.
Stoneburner, D.L., M.N. Nicora, and E.R. Blood. 1980. Heavy metals in loggerhead sea turtle eggs
(Caretta caretta): evidence to support the hypothesis that demes exist in the western Atlantic population.
J. Herpetol. 14:171-175.
Studholme, A.L., I.E. O'Reilly, and M.C. Ingham, Eds. 1995. Effects of the Cessation of Sewage Sludge
Dumping at the 12-Mile Site. 12-Mile Dumpsite Symposium, Long Branch, N.J. June, 1991. U.S. Dept.
of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Technical Report, National Marine
Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA. NMFS 124. 257 pp.
Swan, J.M., J.M. Neff, and P.C. Young, Eds. 1994. Environmental Implications of Offshore Oil and Gas
Development in Australia - The Findings of an Independent Scientific Review. Australian Petroleum
Exploration Association, Canberra, Australia. 696 pp.
Swingle, W.M., S.G. Barco, T.D. Pitchford, W.A. McLellan, and D.A. Pabst. 1993. Appearance of
juvenile humpback whales feeding in the nearshore waters of Virginia. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 9(3):309-315.
Taruski, A.G., C.E. Olney, and H.E. Winn. 1975. Chlorinated hydrocarbons in cetaceans. J. Fish. Res.
Bd. Canada 32:2205-2209.
Teas, W.G. 1992. 1991 Annual Report of the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network. Atlantic and
Gulf Coasts of the United States. January - December 1991. Contribution No. MIA-91/92-62 from the
Miami Laboratory, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, FL. 48 pp.
Teas, W.G. 1993. 1992 Annual Report of the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network. Atlantic and
Gulf Coasts of the United States. January - December 1992. Contribution No. MIA-92/93-73 from the
Miami Laboratory, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, FL. 43 pp.
Teas, W.G. 1994a. 1993 Annual Report of the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network. Atlantic and
Gulf Coasts of the United States. January - December 1993. Contribution No. MIA-94/95-12 from the
Miami Laboratory, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, FL. 46 pp.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1 997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page89
Teas, W.G. 1994b. Marine turtle stranding trends, 1986 to 1993. Pp. 293-295 in K.A. Bjomdal, A.B.
Bolten, D.A. Johnson, and PJ. Eliazar, Eds., Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Symposium on Sea
Turtle Biology and Conservation. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Tech. Memo., National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, NMFS-
SEFC-351. 323pp.
Teas, W.G., and A. Martinez. 1989. 1988 Annual Report of the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage
Network. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States. January - December 1988. Contribution No.
CRD-88/89-19 from the Coastal Resources Division, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, FL.
47 pp.
Teas, W.G. and A. Martinez. 1992. 1989 Annual Report of the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage
Network. Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States. January - December 1989. Contribution No.
MIA-91/92-39 from the Miami Laboratory, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Center, Miami, FL. 50 pp.
Thomas, J.A., and R.A. Kastelein, Eds. 1990. Sensory Abilities of Cetaceans. Laboratory and Field
Evidence. Plenum Press, New York, NY. 710pp.
Thompson, N.B. 1988. The status of loggerhead, Caretta caretta; Kemp's ridley, Leptochelys kempi; and
green, Chelonia mydas, sea turtles in U.S. waters. Mar. Fish. Rev. 50(3): 16-23.
Thompson, P.O., W.C. Cummings, and S.J. Ha. 1986. Sounds, source levels, and associated behavior of
humpback whales, southeast Alaska. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 80:735-740.
Thompson, T.J., H.E. Winn, and Pl.J. Perkins. 1979. Mysticete sounds. Pp. 403-431: in H.E. Winn and
B.L. Olla, Eds., Behavior of Marine Animals. Vol. 3. Cetaceans. Plenum Press, New York, NY.
Thomson, D.H., D.B. Fissel, J.R. Marko, R.A. Davis, and G.A. Borstad. 1986. Distribution of bowhead
whales in relation to hydrometerological events in the Beaufort Sea. Environmental Studies Revolving
Funds Report No. 918. Ottawa, Canada. 119 pp.
Tomlin, A.G. 1957. Cetacea. In Mammals of the U.S.S.R., and Adjacent Countries. Vol.9. Akademii
Nauk SSSR, Moscow. (Translated by the Israel Program for Scientific translations, Jerusalem 1967).
717pp.
Tsai, J.J., and J. R. Proni. 1985. Acoustic Study of Dredged Material Dumping in the New York Bight.
Pp. 357-381 in Ketehum, B.H., J.M. Capuzzo, W.V. Burt, I.W. Duedall, P.K. Park, and D.R. Kester, Eds.,
Wastes in the Ocean, Vol. 6. Nearshore Waste Disposal. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Tyack, P. and H. Whitehead. 1983. Male competition in large groups of wintering humpback whales.
Behavior 83:132-154.
Urick, R.J. 1983. Principles of Underwater Sound. 3rd Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York,NY. 423pp.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1 997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page 90
USAGE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1993. National Marine Fisheries Service Endangered Species
Act Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion. Port Elizabeth/ Port Newark Dredging and Ocean
Disposal at the Mud Dump Site. National Marine Fisheries Service, Silver Spring, MD.
USAGE. 1996. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. B.May. Personal communication.
USAGE. 1997. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. B.May. Personal communication.
USAGE NYD/EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Region 2. 1992. Guidance for Performing Tests
on Dredged Material Proposed for Ocean Disposal. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers New York District and
Environmental Protection Agency Region H, New York, NY. Draft release December 1992, Revision 1:
June 1994. 46 pp + appendices.
USAGE WCSC (Waterbourne Commerce Statistics Center). 1996. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center, New Orleans, LA. U.S. waterway system fact sheet and freight
traffic data tables. Provided by C. Cook, CEWRC-NDC-CP. February 1996.
USCG (U.S. Coast Guard). 1996. U.S. Coast Guard Container Activities New York. Container
Inspections. New York, NY. G. Gaugler. Personal communication.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 1986. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
50 CFR 17.11 AND 17.12. JANUARY 1, 1986. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Washington, D.C.
USFWS. 1990. Chesapeake Bay Region Bald Eagle Recovery Plan: First Revision. U.S. Dept. of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5, Newton Corner, MA. 80 pp
USFWS. 1991. First Update of Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus). Eastern Population Revised
Recovery Plan. First Update. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5. Newton
Corner, MA. 28pp.
USFWS. 1994. Northeastern Beach Tiger Beetle (Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis Say) Recovery Plan. U.S.
Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5, Hadley, MA. 60 pp.
USFWS. 1995a. Letter dated May 3, 1995, to R.W. Hargrove, Environmental Impacts Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, New York, NY, from C.G. Day, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Pleasantville NJ. 4 pp.
USFWS. 1995b. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). Atlantic Coast Population Revised Recovery Plan.
Technical/Agency Draft. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Region 5, Hadley, MA.
225 pp.
USFWS. 1995c. Letter from C.G. Day, Supervisor, U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Pleasantville, NJ to R.W. Hargrove, U.S. EPA Region 2, Environmental Impacts Branch, New
York City, NY. July 28, 1995. 2 pp.
USFWS. 1995d. 1994 Nesting Survey of Eastern Peregrine Falcon. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Ecological Field Office, Concord, NH. M. Amaral. Personal communication.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Pa9e 91
Vincent, C.E., D.J.P. Swift, and B. Hillard. 1981. Sediment Transport in the New York Bight, North
American Shelf. Marine Geology 42:369-398.
Volgenau, L., and S.D. Kraus. 1990. The impact of entanglements on two substocks of the western North
Atlantic humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae. Report to U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service, Marine Entanglement
Research Program. Contract No. 43ABNF002563.
Volkov, A.F., and I.F. Moroz. 1977. Oceanological conditions of the distribution of Cetacea in the
eastern tropical part of the Pacific Ocean. Report of the International Whaling Commission 27:186-188.
Wagemann, R., and D.G.C. Muir. 1984. Concentrations of heavy metals and organochlorines in marine
mammals of northern waters: overview and evaluation. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Si. 1279:1-97.
Warren, B.A., and Wunsch. C, Eds. 1981. Evolution of Physical Oceanography. MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA. 623 pp.
Watkins, W.A. 1986. Whale reactions to human activities in Cape Cod waters. Mar. Mamm. Sci.
2:251-262.
Watkins, W.A., and W.E. Schevill. 1979. Aerial observation of feeding behavior in four baleen whales:
Eubalaena glacialis, Balaenoptera borealis, Megaptera novaeangliae, and Balaenoptera physalus.
J. Mammal. 60:155-163.
Watkins, W.A., P. Tyack, and K.E. Moore. 1987. The 20-Hz signals of finback whales (Balaenoptera
physalus). J. Acoustical Society of America 82(6): 1901-1912.
Weinrich, M.T., J. Bove, and M. Miller. 1993. Return and survival of humpback whale (Megapatera
novaeangliae) calves born to a single female in three consecutive years. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 9:325-328.
Whitehead, H. 1987. Updated status of the humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae, in Canada.
Canadian Field-Naturalist 101(2):284-294.
Whitehead, H., and C. Glass. 1985. The significance of the southeast shoal of the Grand Bank to
humpback whales and other cetacean species. Can J. Zool. 63:2617-2625.
Whitehead, H., and C. Carlson. 1988. Social behavior of feeding finback whales off Newfoundland:
comparisons with the sympatric humpback whale. Can. J. Zool. 66:217-221.
Wilcox, W.A. 1986. Commercial fisheries of the Indian River, Florida. Kept. U.S. Comm. Fish.
22:249-262.
Wiley, D.N., R.A. Asmutis, T.D. Pitchford, and D.P. Gannon. 1995. Stranding and mortality of
humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in the mid-Atlantic and southeast United States 1985-1992
Fish. Bull. 93:196-205.
Williams, A.B. 1984. Shrimps, lobsters, and crabs of the Atlantic Coast of the Eastern United States,
Maine to Florida. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 550 pp.
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
Closure and HARS Designation page 92
Williams, S.J. 1979. Geologic Effects of Ocean Dumping on the New York Bight Inner Shelf. Pp. 51-72
in Palmer and Gross Eds., Ocean Dumping and Marine Pollution. Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross,
Stroudsburg, PA. 268pp.
Winn, H.E., and B.L. Olla, Eds. 1979. Behavior of Marine Animals. Vol.3. Cetaceans. Plenum Press,
New York, NY.
Winn, H.E., and N. Reichley. 1985. Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae. Pp. 241-274 in S.H.
Ridgeway and R. Harrison, Eds., Handbook of Marine Mammals. Vol. 3. The Sirenians and Baleen
Whales. Academic Press, London, UK.
Winters, G.H. 1975. Review of capelin ecology and estimation of surplus yield from predator dynamics.
Int. Comm. Northwest. Atl. Fish. Res. Doc. 75/2.
Witherington, B.E., and L.M. Ehrhart. 1989. Hypothermic stunning and mortality of marine turtles in the
Indian River Lagoon system, Florida. Copeia 1989:696-703.
Witkowski, S.A., and J.G. Frazier. 1982. Heavy metals in sea turtles. Mar. Poll. Bull. 13:254-255.
Witzell, W.N., and W.G. Teas. 1994. The impacts of anthropogenic debris on marine turtles in the
western North Atlantic Ocean. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Tech. Memo., National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Fisheries Science Center,
Miami, FL. NMFS-SEFSC-355. 21 pp.
Woodley, T.H., M.W. Brown, S.D. Kraus, and D.E. Gaskin. 1991. Organochlorine levels in North
Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) blubber. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 21:141-145.
Woodward, B. 1959. Motion In and Around Isolated Thermals. Quarterly Journal of the Royal
Meteorological Society 85:144.
Wiirsig, B. 1990. Cetaceans and oil: ecological perspectives. Pp. 129-165 in J.R. Geraci and D.J. St.
Aubin, Eds., Marine Mammals and Oil. Confronting the Risks. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Zug, G.R., A. Wynn, and C. Ruckdeschel. 1983. Age estimates of Cumberland Island loggerhead sea
turtles. Mar. Tun. Newsl. 25:9-11.
NIAGRA RIVER ACTION PIAN
0
-------
Biological Assessment May 1997
MDS Closure and BARS Designation . Page A-1
APPENDIX A
General Information on Contaminant Unavailability, Bioaccumulation,
Trophic Transfer, and Biomagnification in Marine Systems
The form of a chemical in the environment has a marked effect on the extent to which it can be
bioaccumulated by and interact with the tissues to cause various biological effects, including toxicity, in
the organisms themselves and their consumers, including protected species (Nelson and Donkin 1985;
Waldichuk 1985). Only bioavailable chemicals may be bioaccumulated by marine organisms, possibly
leading to biomagnification in marine food webs. Material proposed for ocean disposal is currently tested
using toxicity and bioaccumulation tests; this will also be the case for placement of Material for
Remediation at the HARS.
Bioavailability. Bioavailability is the extent to which a chemical can be absorbed or adsorbed by a living
organism by active (biological) or passive (physical or chemical) processes. A chemical is said to be
bioavailable if it is in a form that can move through or bind to the surface coating (e.g., skin, gill
epithelium, gut lining, cell membrane) of an organism (Newman and Jagoe 1994). Many definitions of
bioavailability also include the requirement that the chemical on or in the tissues of the organisms must be
in a form that can react with cellular biochemicals, eliciting biological responses (Campbell et al. 1988).
The free ion and the aquo ions, ( e.g., M[OH]2 and M[OH"]), in solution are considered the most
bioavailable forms of most inorganic metals (Cowan et al. 1986; Nelson and Donkin 1985; Newman and
Jagoe 1994). Metals in the form of the pure metal, precipitates, or heavy minerals are not bioavailable to
marine organisms (Waldichuk 1985).
Organometallic compounds often are more bioavailable than the ionic inorganic forms of the metals. For
example, methyl mercury and some other organomercurials are bioaccumulated more rapidly than
inorganic mercury from water and food by marine animals (Fowler et al. 1978; Phillips and Buhler 1978).
This appears to be due to the much slower release of organic than inorganic mercury from tissues of marine
organisms. The methyl mercury in tissues of marine animals is derived primarily or exclusively from
microbial methylation of inorganic mercury in hypoxic and anoxic layers in the water column and
sediments (Rolfhus and Fitzgerald 1995; Gagnon et al. 1996). Marine and freshwater fish and
invertebrates accumulate methyl mercury primarily from methyl mercury-contaminated food (Pentreath
1976; Fowler et al. 1978). Arsenic may behave similarly. Most of the arsenic in tissues of marine animals
is organic and is bioaccumulated primarily from food and sediments (Neff 1997).
The bioavailability of organic chemicals to marine organisms also depends on the physical and chemical
forms of the chemicals. Organic chemicals in true solution in sea water generally are much more
bioavailable than organic chemicals that are present in complexed, adsorbed, or solid forms associated with
suspended particles or sediments. Most of the chemicals of environmental concern are nonpolar
(unionizable) and have a much lower solubility in water than in lipids in marine animal tissues (Davies and
Dobbs 1984; Bierman 1990; Morrison et al. 1996). They partition from solution in ambient seawater
across the gills and other permeable membranes into tissue lipids or from food in the digestive tract across
the digestive epithelium.
Bioaccumulation. Bioaccumulation is the uptake and retention of a bioavailable chemical from any one of
or all possible external sources (water, food, substrate, air). For bioaccumulation to occur, the rate of
uptake from all sources must be greater than the rate of loss of the chemical from the tissues of the
organism. Bioavailable chemicals diffuse passively or are transported across the outer membranes of the
-------
Assessment May 1997
CJos^re_and_HARS Designation Page A-2
organism down a concentration or activity gradient. If the affinity of the tissues for the chemical is greater
than that of the ambient water, the chemical may accumulate in the tissues to a higher concentration than
its concentration in the ambient medium. Most toxic metals and nonpolar organic compounds of concern
can bioaccumulate in tissues of marine organisms to concentrations hundreds or even thousands of times
higher than their concentrations in the ambient water (Farrington and Westall 1986). Because marine
turtles and whales have relatively little permeable body surface for direct uptake of chemicals from
seawater, and concentrations of chemical contaminants in contaminated environments are much higher in
tissues of food organisms than in the ambient water, these air-breathing animals acquire their body burdens
of chemical contaminants almost exclusively from their food.
Trophic Transfer. The process of bioaccumulation of chemicals from food is called trophic transfer.
Trophic transfer of contaminants in marine food webs involves many of the same physical and chemical
processes that are involved in accumulation of contaminants from water and sediments. However,
bioaccumulation occurs primarily or exclusively in the unique environment of the gut of the consumer.
Contaminants introduced into the gut of the consumer sorbed or bound to the tissues of the prey item may
desorb from the food and dissolve in the gut fluids during digestion and then partition from the gut fluids
across the gut epithelium into the tissues of the consumer (Gobas et al. 1993).
Contaminants may be spread throughout a marine food web by trophic transfer If the trophic transfer is
reasonably efficient and the consumers at each trophic level in the food web are inefficient in excreting the
contaminants, the contaminants may biomagnify in the food web (Connell 1989; Gobas et al. 1993).
Biomagnification. Biomagnification is the process whereby a chemical, as it is passed through a food
chain or food web by trophic transfer, becomes increasingly concentrated in the tissues of animals at each
higher trophic level. Biomagnification should be measured on a whole-animal basis or on the basis of
lipid-normalized tissue weight (for nonpolar organic chemicals) (Connell 1989; Leblanc 1995).
Bioaccumulation of a nonpolar organic chemical in a lipid-rich tissue of a predator (e.g., liver or depot fat)
to a concentration higher than that found in the prey is not necessarily biomagnification. Conversely,
biomagnification is demonstrated when the lipid-normalized concentration of a nonpolar organic
contaminant is higher in the tissues of the predator than in the prey.
Methyl mercury behaves differently. It is no more lipid-soluble than inorganic mercury, but instead is
bound in tissue to proteins, particularly in muscle (Mason et al. 1995). Thus, biomagnification of organo-
mercury compounds is defined in terms of residues in whole soft tissues of marine animals at different
trophic levels in a marine food web (Minganti et al., 1996).
The only organic chemicals for which biomagnification has been convincingly demonstrated in marine
food chains are highly hydrophobic (log Kow greater than about 4.0). Differential biomagnification of
different PCB and polychlorinated dibenzodioxin congeners is related to degrees of chlorination and ability
of different members of the food web to metabolize and excrete different congeners, preventing their
biomagnification. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are readily metabolized and excreted by most
species of marine invertebrates, fish, birds, and mammals and so do not biomagnify in marine food webs,
even those that include air breathing top predators (Broman 1990; Broman et al. 1990). Methyl mercury
is the only non-essential metal-organic compound that has been shown to biomagnify in marine food webs
(Young 1988; Minganti et al. 1996).
Some inorganic metals appear to biomagnify in tissues of marine invertebrates and fish. In many cases
these metals are sequestered in the form of insoluble, inert metal granules in selected tissues, particularly
the kidney (Simkiss and Taylor, 1989). These metal-rich granules may accumulate in the tissues of the
animals for their whole life times, resulting in an increase in tissue concentrations with age and size. The
-------
Biological Assessment MaY 1 "7
MDS Closure and HARS Designation , Page A-3
metals in the metal-rich granules are not bioavailable to the host and are not passed through marine food
webs (Nott and Nicolaidou, 1990, 1994). Pilot whales (Globicephala melas and P. macrorhynchus).
Atlantic bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus), and perhaps some other species of cetaceans,
bioaccumulate organic mercury to high concentrations and store it as inorganic mercuric selenide
complexes in the liver and lungs (Martoja and Berry 1980; Rawson et al. 1995; Caurant et al., 1996).
Thus, organic mercury is demethylated and stored in a non-toxic form in the whale tissues. The whales
also are highly tolerant to cadmium and store it in an as yet unknown form, probably solid concretions,
primarily in the kidneys (Martoja and Martoja 1985). Long-term sequestration of metals in inert forms in
tissues does not, strictly speaking, represent biomagnification, because the chemicals are not in a
bioavailable form that can cause harm to the host.
Biomagnification of highly hydrophobic chemicals is more likely to occur in marine food webs in the
trophic step from water-breathing prey to air-breathing predator, because the air-breathing consumer can
not release the highly hydrophobic chemical by passive diffusion through permeable membranes (Muir et
al. 1988). For example, concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in a Canadian arctic food
chain increase from an average of 60 to 151 ng/g lipid in plankton (depending on plankton size), to 333
ng/g lipid in pelagic fish, and 2,328 ng/g lipid, 882 ng/g lipid, 5,525 ng/g lipid, and 2,875 ng/g lipid in
ringed seals, polar bears, and beluga whales, respectively (Hargrave et al., 1992).
Appendix A References
Bierman, V.J., Jr. 1990. Equilibrium partitioning and biomagnification of organic chemicals in benthic
animals. Environ. Sci. Technol. 24:1407-1412.
Broman, D. 1990. Transport and fate of hydrophobic organic compounds in the Baltic aquatic
environment - Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans.
Doctoral Thesis, Dept. of Zoology, University of Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden. 76 pp.
Broman, D., C. Naf, I. Lundberg, and Y. Zebiihr. 1990. An in situ study on the distribution,
biotransformation and flux of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in an aquatic food chain (seston-
Mytilus edulis L.-Somateria mollissima) from the Baltic: an ecotoxicological perspective. Environ.
Toxicol. Chem. 9:429-442.
Campbell, P.G.C., A.G. Lewis, P.M. Chapman, A.A. Crowder, W.K. Fletcher, B. Imber, S.N Luoma, P.M.
Stokes, and M. Winfrey. 1988. Biologically Available Metals in Sediments. National Research Council
of Canada Publication No. NRCC 27694, Ottawa, Canada.
Caurant, F., M. Navarro, and J.C. Amiard. 1996. Mercury in pilot whales: possible limits to the
detoxification process. Sci. Tot. Environ. 186:95-104.
Connell, D.W. 1989. Biomagnification by aquatic organisms - a proposal. Chemosphere 19:1573-1584.
Cowan, C.E., E.A. Jenne, and R.R. Kinnison. 1986. Methodology for determining the relationship
between toxicity and aqueous speciation of a metal. Pp. 463-478 in T.M. Poston and R. Purdy, Eds.,
Aquatic Toxicology and Environmental Fate: Ninth Volume, ASTM STP 921. American Society for
Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.
-------
Biological Assessment May -\ 997
MDSL Closure and HARS Designation PageA-4
Davies, R.P. and A.J. Dobbs. 1984. The prediction of bioconcentration in fish. Wat. Res. 18:1253-1262.
Harrington J.W., and J. Westall. 1986. Organic chemical pollutants in the oceans and groundwater: a
review of fundamental chemical properties and biogeochemistry. Pp. 361-425 in G. Kullenberg, Ed., The
Role of the Oceans as a Waste Disposal Option. Reidel Publishing Co., New York, NY.
Fowler, S.W., M. Heyraud, and J. La Rosa. 1978. Factors affecting methyl and inorganic mercury
dynamics in mussels and shrimp. Mar. Biol. 46:267-276.
Gagnon, C., E. Pelletier, A. Mucci, and W.F. Fitzgerald. 1996. Diagenic behavior of methylmercury in
organic-rich coastal sediments. Limnol. Oceanogr. 41:428-434.
Gobas, F.A.P.C., J.R. McCorquodale, and G.D. Haffner. 1993. Intestinal absorption and biomagnification
of organochlorines. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 12:567-576.
Hargrave, B.T., G.C. Harding, W.P. Vass, P.E. Erickson, B.R. Fowler, and V. Scott. 1992.
Organochlorine pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls in the Arctic Ocean food web. Arch. Environ.
Contam. Toxicol. 22:41-54.
Leblanc, G.A. 1995. Trophic-level differences in the bioconcentration of chemicals: implications in
assessing environmental biomagnification. Environ. Sci. Technol. 29:154-160.
Martoja, R. and J.P. Berry. 1980. Identification of the tiemannite as a probable product of demethylation
of mercury by selenium in cetaceans. A complement to the scheme of the biological cycle of mercury. Vie
etMileau30:7-lO.
Martoja, M. and R. Martoja. 1985. La bioaccumulation des metaux: processus physiologique normal en
consequence de la pollution. Le Courrier du CNRS 54:32-37.
Mason, R.P., J.R. Reinfelder, and F.M.M. Morel. 1995. Bioaccumulation of mercury and methylmercury.
Water Air Soil Pollut. 80:915-921.
Minganti, V., R. Capelli, R. De Pellegrini, L. Orrsi-Relini, and G. Relini. 1996. Total and organic
mercury concentrations in offshore crustaceans of the Ligurian Sea and their relations to the trophic levels.
Sci. Tot. Environ. 184:149-162.
Morrison, H.A., F.A.P. Gobas, R. Lazar, and G.D. Hamer. 1996. Development and verification of a
bioaccumulation model for organic contaminants in benthic invertebrates. Environ. Sci. Technol.
30:3377-3384.
Muir, D.C.G., R.J. Norstrom, and M. Simon. 1988. Organochlorine contaminants in arctic marine food
chains: accumulation of specific polychlorinated biphenyls and chlordane-related compounds. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 22:1071-1078.
Neff, J.M. 1997. The ecotoxicology of arsenic in the marine environment: a review. Environ. Toxicol.
Chem. (In press).
Nelson, A-, and P-Donkin. 1985. Processes of bioaccumulation: the importance of chemical speciation.
Mar. Pollut- Bull. 16:164-169.
-------
Biological Assessment M^V 1 "7
MDS Closure and HARS Designation Page A-5
Newman, M.C., and C.H. Jagoe. 1994. Ligands and the bioavailability of metals in aquatic
environments. Pp. 39-61 in J.L. Hamelink, P.P. Landrum, H.L. Bergman, and W.H. Benson, Eds.,
Bioavailability. Physical, Chemical, and Biological Interactions. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL.
Nott, J.A. and A. Nicolaidou. 1990. Transfer of detoxification along marine food chains. J.Mar.Biol.
Assn. U.K. 70:905-912.
Nott, J.A. and A. Nicolaidou. 1994. Variable transfer of detoxified metals from snails to hermit crabs in
marine food chains. Mar. Biol. 120: 369-377.
Pentreath, R.J. 1976. The accumulation of mercury from food by the plaice, Pleuronected platessa.
J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 25:51-65.
Phillips, G.R. and D.R. Buhler. 1978. The relative contributions of methylmercury from food and water
to rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) in a controlled laboratory environment. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc.
107:853-861.
Rawson, A.J., J.P. Bradley, A. Teetsov, S.B. Rice, E.M. Haller, and G.W. Patton. 1995. A role for
airborne particulates in high mercury levels of some cetaceans. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 30:309-314.
Rolfhus, K.R. and W.F Fitzgerald. 1995. Linkages between atmospheric mercury deposition and the
methylmercury content of marine fish. Wat. Air Soil Pollut. 80:291-297.
Simkiss, K. and M.G. Taylor. 1989. Metal fluxes across the membranes of aquatic organisms. Rev.
Aquat.Sci. 1:173-188.
Waldichuk, M. 1985. Biological availability of metals to marine organisms. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 16:7-11.
Young, D.R. 1988. Report on the Assessment and Application of Pollutant Biomagnification Potential in
Near Coastal Waters. EPA Internal Report Number 600/X-88/295. Office of Research and Development,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Newport, OR. •
------- |