An Unfinished Agenda
The New York-New Jersey Harbor

  Estuary Program
                   NEW YORK BIGHT
                   RESTORATION PLAN
       March 12-14, 1990

       An Unfinished Agenda
  A Regional Conference Co-Sponsored by Manhattan College and
The Management Conferences for the Long Island Sound Study (LISS),
  The New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program (HEP), and
        The New York Bight Restoration Plan (NYBRP)
                  March 12-14, 1990
                 Riverdale, New York

     Kevin Bricke                 Robert V. Thomann
     Acting Director                Professor
     Water Management            Environmental Engineering
      Division                     and Science Program
     U.S. EPA, Region II            Manhattan College

Prepared by Dynamac Corporation under Contract 68-C8-0052
for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The contents
do  not necessarily reflect the  views and  policies of the
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or  commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.   Camera-ready manuscripts were
requested from authors of technical papers.   Variations in
quality are the result of printing those chapters as submitted.

          Technical Editor:  Mark T. Southerland
            Publications Editor:  Karen Swetlow

       There is a direct relationship between the success of any endeavor and the quality
and quantity of work put into it.  For this reason, the productive outcome of this conference
is due, in large part, to the diligence of those who expended so much of their own time and
effort. It would be remiss not to acknowledge the individuals who contributed to the success
of this conference.

       First, a Steering Committee composed of representatives from Federal, State, and
local governments; citizens' groups; the scientific and technical communities; and Manhattan
College alumni developed the themes and format for this conference. We wish to thank the
following individuals for their participation in the Steering Committee meetings:
       Nicholas Bartilucci
       Albert Bromberg
       Br. James Collins
       Philip DeGaetano
       Eugenia Flatow
       Angelika Forndran
       Shing-Fu Hsueh
       Peg Kocher
       John Jeris
       John Lawler
       Janice Rollwagen
       Gwen Ruta
       Robert Smith
       Donald Squires
       Thomas  Steinke
       Dennis Suszkowski
       R. Lawrence Swanson
       Edward Wagner
Dvirka & Bartilucci
New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation
New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Manhattan College
New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Coalition for the Bight
New York City Dept. of Environmental Protection
New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection
League of Women Voters
Manhattan College
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly
U.S. EPA, Region II
U.S. EPA, Region I
Connecticut Dept. of Environmental Protection
University of Connecticut
Town of Fairfield
Hudson River Foundation
Waste Management Institute
New York City Dept. of Environmental Protection
      Second, even with all the hard work of the Steering Committee, the conference would
not have been a success had it not been  for the quality of the papers presented. Each
speaker did an outstanding job conveying his  or her viewpoint on the  individual topic
assigned. In addition, all speakers expended additional time and effort preparing the papers
contained in these proceedings.  We wish to commend them for their efforts.

      Next, we wish to commend for their contribution to the conference all members of
the Policy and Management  Committees  of the three studies who participated in the
opening charge to the conference and the final panel  discussion.  Their presence at the
conference signifies  their agencies' dedication as well as their own personal dedication to
the successful completion of the studies.

      The facilitators who guided and focused the group discussions and who reported back
to the  conference participants on the outcome of the breakout groups  deserve special
commendation for their outstanding efforts:
      Seth Ausubel
      Susan Beede
      John Connolly
      Philip DeGaetano
      Robert Dieterich
      Dominic Di Toro
      Barbara Finazzo
      Frank Flood
      Angelika Forndran
      J. Frederick Grassle
      Allan Hirsch
      John Jeris
      John Lawler
      Brian Molloy
      Rosemary Monahan
      Robert Runyon
U.S. EPA, Region II
U.S. EPA, Region I
Manhattan College
New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation
U.S. EPA, Region II
Manhattan College
U.S. EPA, Region II
Nassau County
New York City Dept. of Environmental Protection
Rutgers University
Dynamac Corporation
Manhattan College
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly
Piper & Marbury
U.S. EPA, Region I
New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection
      We also wish to acknowledge the undergraduate and graduate students of Manhattan
College who assisted as recorders, projectionists, and general helpers.

      Finally, we wish to acknowledge the conference participants who attended the plenary
sessions and workgroup sessions.  Without their insight into the  issues discussed and their
recommendations for the future course of the studies, the conference would not have been
the success that it was.



    Acknowledgments	  Hi

    Map of the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut Coastal Region	xi

    Conference Summary and Recommendations	xiii

Opening Addresses	1

    Welcome	3
      Br. Thomas Scanlan

    Saving Our Coastal  Waters Through Sustainable Development	7
      Hon. William K. Reilfy
      Questions and Answers	 15

    Signing of the Coastal Waters Pledge	21

    The Charge to the Conference	25
      Judith A. Yaskin  	27
      Leslie Carothers	33
      Langdon Marsh	37
      David Fierra  	41
      C. Sidamon-Eristoff	45

    A Historical Perspective Engineering and Scientific	49
      Donald J. O'Connor
The Condition of Our Coastal Waters:  Status. Trends, and Causes	69

   Historical Trends in the Abundance and Distribution of Living
   Marine Resources 	71
     J.L. McHugh, W.M. Wise, and R.R. Young

   Conditions in Long Island Sound  	87
    Paul Stacey

   Conditions in New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary  	  105
    Dennis J. Suszhowski


   Use Impairments and Ecosystem Impacts of the New York Bight 	  133
     R. Lawrence Swanson, T.M. Bell, J. Kahn,  and J. Olha

   Integrated Assessment of Conditions in the Sound-Bight System
   and Some Thoughts on How To Improve the Situation	  171
     J.R. Schubel and AS. West

   Conditions in the Sound-Harbor-Bight System Viewed in the National
   Context	  187
     Michelle A. Hiller

   Preliminary Conclusions on the Conditions of Our Coastal Waters:  Status,
   Trends, and Causes	  195
     /. Frederick Grossly
Workshop Sessions on the Primary Factors Causing Use Impairments and
Other Adverse Ecosystem Impacts	  201

Nutrient/Organic Enrichment	  201

    Nutrient/Organic Input and Fate in the Harbor-Sound-Bight System	203
     John P. St. John

    Ecological Effects and Acceptable Ambient Levels	  221
     Joel S. O'Connor

    Controlling Point and Non-Point Nutrient/Organic Inputs:  A Technical
    Perspective		  235
     Stuart A. Freudberg and J.P. LugbUl

    Controlling Nutrient/Organic Inputs:  A Regulatory Perspective	  253
     Robert L. Smith

Pathogens/Floatables	  265

    Pathogens and Floatables in the Sound-Harbor-Bight System:  Source,
    Fate, and Control	  267
     Guy Apicella, Michael Shelly, and Ann Corsetti


    City of New York CSO Abatement Program Cleaning Up Our Coastal
    Waters:  An Unfinished Agenda	  287
      Robert Gaffoglio

    Addressing the Pathogens and Floatables Problems:  A Regulatory
    Perspective	  293
      Richard L. Caspe

    The Positive Impact of Year-Round Disinfection: A Regional Perspective  ....  299
      Howard  Golub

    Addressing the Pathogens and Floatables Problem:  An Affected Community's
    Viewpoint 	  305
      Paul J. Noto

Toxics 	  315

    Toxic Inputs and Fate  in the New York-New Jersey Harbor, Bight, and
    Long Island Sound	  317
      James A. Mueller

    Toxic Levels in Water, Sediment, and Biota, and Their Effects in the
    Hudson-Raritan Estuary, Long Island Sound, and the New York Bight 	  355
      Frederika C. Moser

    Controlling Toxic Inputs:  Source Reduction and Treatment Options	  381
      W.W. Eckenfelder

    Controlling Toxic Inputs:  A Regulatory Perspective	  393
      Albert W. Bromberg

Habitat 	  401

    A Historical Review of Changes in Near Shore Habitats in the Sound-
    Harbor-Bight System  	.403
      Donald F. Squires

    Preventing Further Degradation of Aquatic Habitat:  A Regulatory Perspective .  429
      Mario P. Del Vicario

    Preventing Further Degradation of Aquatic Habitat:  A Citizen's Perspective   . .  435
      Eugenia Flatow



   Balancing Habitat Protection and Urban Growth:
   A Developer's Perspective  .	 441
     Anthony Sartor

Seafood Safety	 451

   Seafood Safety:  A Regulatory Perspective	 453
      Edward G.  Horn

   Seafood Safety:  An Industry Perspective	 467
      Lee J. Weddig

   Seafood Safety:  A Sport Fisherman's Perspective	 473
      Joseph J. McBride

   Seafood Safety:  Toxics in Fish Products: A Practical Environmental
   Perspective	 475
      Arthur Glowka

Ocean Disposal	 481

   Dredged Material Disposal:  A Regulatory Perspective	483
      John F.  Tavolaro and Deborah Freeman

   Responses of Habitats and Biota of the Inner New York Bight to Abatement
   of Sewage Sludge Dumping — Progress Report	 491
      Robert N. Reid

   Sewage Sludge Disposal:  A Regulatory Perspective  	 505
      Bruce Kiselica

   Environmental Risks of Ocean  Disposal	 515
      Wayne R. Munns and. Norman I.  Rubinstein

   Ocean Disposal: A Commercial Perspective	 533
      Lillian C. Liburdi
An Integrated Agenda for Cleaning Up Our Coastal Waters	  537

   An Integrated Agenda for Cleaning Up Our Coastal Waters	  539
     Albert F. Appleton


    Existing and Planned Environmental Programs:  A Norwalk Perspective	  555
      Dotninick M. Di Gangi

    Existing and Planned Environmental Programs:  An Industry Perspective  	565
      Geraldine V.  Cox

    Setting Priorities:  A National Perspective	  573
      David A. Fierra

    An Integrated Agenda for Cleaning Up Our Coastal Waters:
    Questions and Answers   	  577
Preliminary Conclusions from Tuesday's Workshop Sessions: Primary Factors Causing
Use Impairment and Other Adverse Ecosystem Impacts	 579

   Nutrient/Organic Enrichment	 581
      John Lawler

   Pathogens/Floatables	 585
      Robert Runyon

   Toxics  	 589
      John P. Connolly

   Habitat 	 591
      Allan Hirsch

   Seafood Safety	 595
      Rosemary Monahan

   Ocean Disposal  	 599
      Philip DeGaetano
Preliminary Conclusions from Tuesday's Workshop Sessions: An Integrated
Agenda for Cleaning Up Our Coastal Waters	 601

   Summary and Integration	 603
   Dominic M. Di Toro

Discussion: Preliminary Formulation of Recommendations To Guide Continued
Deliberation of the Management Conferences	  617

   David A. Fierra	  619
   Richard L. Caspe	  621
   Salvatore Pagano  	  625
   Eric Evenson	  627
   Robert Smith	  629
   Edward O. Wagner	  631
   Terry Backer	  633
   Anthony Sartor .	  635
   Questions and Answers	  637

    Appendix I: Issues Document

    Appendix II:  List of Speakers and Attendees

                                        New York-New Jersey Harbor
Delaware Bay
      Cape May
                                                                            Montauk Point
                                                                       25 Miles
              Map of the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut Coastal Region


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is currently funding three major water quality
management  planning  efforts  for the  coastal waters  in the New York-New  Jersey-
Connecticut region:

      •      The Long Island Sound Study;

      •      The New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program; and

      •      The New York Bight Restoration Plan.

Each  of these  efforts  is overseen by  a  Management  Conference  established  by the
Administrator of the Agency.

Since  the Sound, Harbor, and Bight function, in many respects, as a single ecosystem, and
since  the regulated community  will be required to implement provisions contained in all
three  plans, there is a compelling need  for inter-plan coordination.   For this reason, on
March 12-14,  1990, the Management Conferences, in conjunction with Manhattan College
and their 50th anniversary of environmental engineering, sponsored the regional conference:
"Cleaning Up Our Coastal Waters: An Unfinished Agenda."

The ultimate  purpose of the conference was to guide the continued deliberations of the
Management  Conferences overseeing the Long Island Sound Study, the New York-New
Jersey Harbor Estuary Program, and the New York Bight Restoration Plan.


On the morning of the first day, conference participants convened in a plenary session to
hear speakers who set the direction for the conference:

      •     Brother Thomas  Scanlan, President  of Manhattan  College, delivered  a
            welcoming address.

      •     William K. Reilly, EPA Administrator, delivered a keynote  address providing
            a national perspective on coastal issues.

      •     The Management  Conference Policy Committees presented the charge to the


On the afternoon of the first day, conference participants reconvened in plenary session to
hear a historical perspective on coastal issues from Manhattan College Professor Dr. Donald
J. O'Connor.  They then began a three-phase workshop process.

Phase I Workshops  --  During the first set  of workshops, conference participants defined
the following:

       •     The primary factors causing use impairments and other adverse ecosystem
             impacts in the Sound-Harbor-Bight system  (based  upon readily available

       •     The relative ecological and economic significance of these factors (based upon
              readily available information); and

       •      The major gaps in our information base that limit the confidence that we have
              in  identifying these primary factors and  in  estimating their relative

 During this phase, priorities were established without regard to the costs of implementation.

 Phase II Workshops - During the second set of workshops, participants were divided into
 the following six issue-oriented groups:

       •      Nutrient/organic enrichment;

       •      Pathogens/floatables;

       •      Toxics;

       •      Habitat;

       •      Seafood safety; and

       •     Ocean disposal.

Within each group, participants focused narrowly on the single issue before them, attempting
to develop ranked lists of recommended short- and long-term planning and implementation
actions.  In this phase of the workshops, conference participants considered the costs of
addressing the factors causing use impairments and selected remedies for each factor based
on cost-effectiveness.

Phase III Workshops  - During  the third set of workshops, conference participants were
asked to forge a single, integrated agenda from the  six issue-specific  agendas developed

during Phase II. The participants were asked to balance the costs and benefits of addressing
the individual factors in terms of overall ecological and economic significance, and were
asked to factor into their discussions a sensitivity to the total burden being placed on the
regulated community.

In each phase of the workshop process, conference participants began by listening to expert
speakers. Having heard the presentations, conference participants were divided into smaller
groups with facilitators to discuss the management questions that had been prepared by the
conference steering committee in an "Issues for Discussion" document.

Each evening, the facilitators met to synthesize the results of workgroup discussions. The
following day, delegated facilitators reported the  results of workgroup  deliberations in
plenary session.

At the end of the conference, a distinguished panel was asked to react to the results of the
workshop deliberations.

These proceedings contain a wealth of information that can serve to guide the continued
deliberations of the three Management Conferences.  Particular attention should be paid
to the brief reports made by  designated facilitators  summarizing the conclusions of the
workshop sessions.

      •     On page 195, J. Frederick Grassle presents "Preliminary Conclusions on the
             Condition of Our Coastal Waters:  Status, Trends, and Causes."

      •     Beginning on page 581, six facilitators present preliminary conclusions on "The
             Primary Factors Causing Use Impairment and Other Adverse Ecosystem

                   John Lawler addresses nutrient/organic enrichment.

                   Robert Runyon addresses pathogens/floatables.

                   John P. Connolly addresses toxics.

                   Allan Hirsch addresses habitat.

                   Rosemary Monahan  addresses seafood safety.

                   Philip DeGaetano addresses ocean disposal.

      •      On page 603, Dominic Di Toro presents preliminary conclusions on  "An
             Integrated Agenda for Cleaning Up Our Coastal Waters."

We strongly encourage each conference participant and other interested parties to read the
proceedings and to draw his or her own conclusions on how best to integrate pollution
prevention and control measures in the Sound-Harbor-Bight system.

As conference co-chairmen, our objectives were to begin a dialogue on how best to integrate
our efforts to clean up our coastal waters and to provide the impetus for initiating discrete
activities to move us toward that elusive target.

The proceedings provide clear evidence that the dialogue has begun. We would like to
focus  on three initiatives that are ripe for immediate followup.

Influencing Individual Behavior

One of the most striking conclusions of the conference was the overwhelming consensus on
the need to influence individual behavior if we are to meet our environmental goals. The
issue was highlighted in one form or another in each of the facilitator reports.  We are
therefore pleased to report that both the Harbor/Bight and Sound programs are preparing
to move ahead aggressively in this area over the coming year.

      •      The Harbor program was recently awarded $75,000 from the EPA Office of
            • Marine and Estuarine Protection for an Action Plan Demonstration Project
             to develop a public education strategy. The centerpiece of the project will be
             an "Environmental Lifestyle Guide" designed to provide pertinent information
             on how to act in  an environmentally responsible manner  in the  highly
             urbanized New York-New Jersey metropolitan  region. Full implementation
             of this strategy will involve coordination of numerous private initiatives and
             donations for efforts to expand upon the themes developed in the guide.

      •      The New  York Power Authority has  put up  $100,000 in response to  its
             proposed Long Island Sound Cable Crossing for projects that would benefit
             the Sound. Approximately 45 proposals were submitted, some of which dealt
             with public outreach and influencing behavior. The final funding decision will
             be made shortly, and it is likely that at least some of the money will be spent
             on education.

Analyze As One Ecosystem

Another theme that recurred throughout the conference was the need to analyze the Sound-
Harbor-Bight system as a single interactive ecosystem. This theme emerged in particularly
strong form in discussion on the mathematical modeling of pollutant fate in the system.
Since inputs of waste residuals and decisions on control affect all of the systems in an
interactive way, it is essential that this issue  be addressed in the short term.  We, therefore,
recommend the following:

       o     A joint meeting of the Modeling Evaluation  Groups for the three studies
             should be convened as soon as possible;

       o     Presentations should be made on all modeling efforts; and

       o     Proposals should be developed for integrated systems analyses.

Habitat As a Priority Systemwide

As Dominic Di Toro observed, conference participants really did discriminate in identifying
priority problems. It is, therefore, particularly striking  that, as Fred  Grassle reports, the
destruction and degradation of aquatic habitat was identified by conference participants as
a high-priority problem in the Sound, in the  Harbor, and in the Bight.  A review of the
workplans and budgets for the three ongoing planning efforts reveals that habitat is receiving
priority attention in the Harbor and Bight studies but not in the Sound  study.  We therefore
recommend that during the FY91 workplan and budget process for the Long Island Sound
Study, consideration be given to elevating the priority given to habitat-related issues.

Followup  Conferences

Furthermore, having begun the efforts to integrate three major ongoing planning efforts, we
should not stop now. We recommend that the Management Conferences, acting together,
solicit proposals from nonprofit and/or academic institutions to co-sponsor a followup
conference that builds on what we have learned to date, and that moves us toward a truly
integrated agenda for cleaning up coastal waters.
Kevin Bricke                                   Robert V. Thomann
Acting Director                                Professor
Water Management Division                    Environmental Engineering
U.S. EPA, Region II                              and Science Program
                                               Manhattan College


                                Br. Thomas Scanlan
                             President, Manhattan College
       Good Morning, ladies and gentlemen, honored guests.

       It is indeed a pleasure to welcome you today to this special symposium on improving
the quality of New York's coastal waters. There could not have been a more opportune
time to explore this subject together.

       In one respect — the most obvious one — this symposium is timely in its relationship
to the Fiftieth Anniversary of Manhattan College's distinguished program in environmental
engineering.  In light of the program's achievements ~ with which most of you are familiar
— it is clearly an occasion worth celebrating.  And, considering the scores of faculty and
alumni  who have  pioneered the science of improving water quality, the topic is indeed

       I am delighted, therefore, to welcome our guests from the Environmental Protection
Agency, particularly the Honorable William K. Reilly, the EPA's Chief Administrator. And
I want to thank the Long Island Sound  Study, the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary
Program, and the New York Bight Restoration Plan for cohosting this symposium.

       Yet, honored as we are by your presence, we realize that so many busy professionals
would not be gathered here on ceremony alone. Which brings me to the second reason why
our conference is indeed so timely — even vital.

       Today, we are only a decade away from a new millennium. In this decade, our world
will face challenges that will determine the quality of life on this planet for that millennium.
The problems are  self-evident; the solutions are not.

       What  sort  of  world  will we  bequeath to future generations?   Clearly, present
conditions  do  make  most  forecasts  look rather bleak.  Global warming,  acid  rain,
deforestation, chemically fouled rivers and bays  ~ this dismal litany, culled from today's
headlines, attests to the sorry state of our environment.

      Not long ago, the ramifications of these problems seemed remote. Many people
actually believed that the Earth could endure any assault, absorb any amount of sewage,

smoke, or toxic chemicals.  We thought the oceans, rivers, and winds could forever wash
away the impurities that we carelessly pump into our planet.

      Today, we have discovered that Earth's capacity for self-renewal is indeed finite, as
are the resources we continue to tax. Our waters can absorb only so much chemical waste
before becoming inhospitable to marine life -- and to us. We can chop down only so much
rain forest before irreparably damaging an ancient ecosystem.  For the past few decades,
scientists and environmentalists have known this, and they have sounded the alarm.  But
lately, the alarm has grown more strident.

      Some authorities even warn that time is running out.   Consider, for example, the
recent findings of the Worldwatch Institute,  a Washington-based research group. In its
annual "State of the World Report," Worldwatch predicted that we have roughly forty years
to  build  an environmentally sustainable, global  economy.   If  we should  fail,  then
environmental deterioration will be so severe that acute economic and political decline will
surely follow.

       Such warnings serve as effective reminders that we had better do something fast. Yet
even without such reminders, people grow increasingly aware that something is wrong.  For
example,  oil spills  continue to blacken  our  beaches and  pollute our rivers, prompting
everyone from Hollywood stars to average citizens to demand more stringent regulations for
oil companies.

       Incredibly, there are still skeptics, those who are unwilling or unable to accurately
gauge the crisis.  Casting aside the daily evidence of our environment's degradation,  they
sometimes charge that we overestimate the danger.  "Calm down," they say, "things are not
that bad.   Trying to remedy the situation will take too much work, cost too much money,
and slow  our nation's industrial engines."

       What do  we do?   Everyone knows that  there's some sort  of problem but not
everybody can agree upon  an appropriate course of action.

       It is useless to point fingers, to divide  the players into heroes or villains, friends or
foes of the environment.  For none of us actually wants to harm the planet that gives us life.
Our chances for success depend upon our ability to bring divergent forces together. What
we need is not conflict, but  cooperation.  Even without consensus, we must have teamwork.

      One of the most dedicated -- and successful - adherents to this view happens to be
with us today. Since his appointment by President Bush as Director of the EPA, William
K. Reilly has continued to build upon his reputation as a forceful conservationist. Yet he
has  accomplished this without  sparking  confrontation between  environmentalists  and
corporate leaders.

       Mr. Reilly is widely known for the conciliatory spirit that has won results throughout
his career. And he has proven, time and again, that conciliation is not concession. Rather,
it is the acknowledgment that reasonable people must work together. Thus, his message is
an important one:  whether  you are an  environmentalist,  a  government  official,  or a
corporate leader, you have a vested interest in maintaining the  Earth as a livable planet.

       This kind of approach will prove valuable as we increasingly look abroad for help in
improving the quality of life on this planet.  More than ever, we realize that cleaning up the
environment will take much more than unilateral action by the United States — or any one
nation. The sheer scope of environmental distress makes this abundantly clear. The crisis
we face must bring us together, for we all stand to gain — or lose — by the outcome.

       At first glance, this  may seem like a large order.   Actually, we should find the
challenge as  exhilarating as it  is sobering.   Our need for collective action underscores the
fundamental unity, the intrinsic interdependency, of all human beings.  The fact is, we, as
Earth's most highly developed  inhabitants, bear collective responsibility for the stewardship
of the planet.

       This point was eloquently made by the Jesuit paleontologist and philosopher, Pierre
Teilhard de Chardin. He believed that the genius of our species lies in its capacity to grow
in understanding with each successive generation. In this way, building upon the foundation
bequeathed by our ancestors, we alone of all species have acquired the know-how to  alter
the Earth. For better or worse, we can intervene in the course of its natural development.
Today, with the dizzying velocity of our technological advances, what we do will determine
the quality of life on Earth for all of our descendants, just as the achievements and failures
of our ancestors shaped the quality of our own  lives.

       As Tielhard wrote (and I quote):  "Owing  to the progress of science and of thoughts,
our actions today...will have repercussions through countless centuries and upon countless
human beings."  Tielhard wrote that passage back in 1920.  Considering the technological
strides we have made since then, how much truer do his words ring today?  Although
profound, Tielhard's message is remarkably straightforward:  Of those who are given much,
much  is  expected.   We human  beings  are endowed with incredible  abilities.  Our
responsibilities are equally great.

       This emphasis on responsibility has guided the work of environmental engineers for
generations.  Combining scientific theory with a desire to make the world a better place to
live,  these professionals have studied  the effects of pollution on our atmosphere and our
waters. Then, armed with that knowledge, they have designed methods for controlling the
damage that  can inadvertently follow  progress.

       For the past fifty years, the program in  environmental engineering at Manhattan
College has prepared professionals to  do  just  that.  The  program  began inauspiciously
enough in 1939, when it was dubbed the undergraduate "sanitary option" in our School of

Engineering.  Yet, at that time of burgeoning growth, it was one of the few courses of study
in the country that trained engineers to develop new, safe methods of discharging municipal
and industrial waste.

      Since then, the "sanitary option"  has grown  into our internationally  recognized
Graduate Program in  Environmental Engineering.  The Federal Government funded the
creation  of the graduate program in 1962.  It  is widely known that this program has
propelled an astounding number of environmental engineers on to prominent positions in
academia, government, and industry. Actually, the names of many of our faculty and alumni
would form a veritable Who's Who in the field.

      Today, there are similar  programs at universities  throughout the country.  But our
program, I believe,  retains a quality that makes it unique.  I will go further:  this unique
quality is one of the main reasons for the striking success of so many of our alumni.  That
quality consists of our  traditional emphasis on achieving academic excellence while striving
to make  the world a better place for  other people.

      Today, you who are participating in this conference will prove the durability of this
tradition by renewing your pledge to use your training, your expertise, and your  hearts in a
concerted effort to  improve the quality  of  our waters.  This conference, then, forms an
important part of our present and future efforts to leave this  Earth better than we found it.

      Thank you  all  very  much.   And  now, I am  pleased to present our  Master  of

                      SAVING OUR COASTAL WATERS
                              Hon. William K. Reilly
                              Administrator, U.S. EPA
       Thank you very much, Connie. I wasn't sure what to expect when you started down
that road. Connie and I have, among other things, spent nights in hammocks in the Amazon
together.  Not the same hammocks, but the same Amazon. I appreciate that introduction.
I should point out to those who felt that the mention of a lawyer is a bit of a dig, Connie
is himself a lawyer.  And, I'm not telling any lawyer jokes this morning.

       I also acknowledge you, Br. Thomas. I thought that the statement that you made on
the environment a few minutes ago was as eloquent and stirring as any I've heard.  Last
spring, when I gave the commencement address  at Providence College, I called  on the
bishops of the Catholic Church to follow up their very influential pastoral statements on
nuclear arms and poverty with a pastoral on the environment.  And this is  something that
I first mentioned to Cardinal Bernardin at the White House after having been lobbied there
by several cardinals to reconsider some of the elements  of our quite  extensive asbestos
requirements for schools. I thought, well I'm going to do some lobbying of my own.  And
they have  apparently  taken that suggestion seriously.  I had spoken  last  month to the
committee of the bishops considering that statement and I would very strongly urge them
to consult with Br. Thomas in its preparation.

       I'm delighted to be able to share my thoughts with this assemblage of professionals
and government officials concerned about our coastal waters, and I want to express special
thanks to the Management Conference participants, and particularly to Manhattan College,
for inviting me to address this important regional  conference.

       Manhattan College provides EPA with some of our very best and brightest specialists
and engineers. I was pleased to meet outside, just  a few moments ago, the two founders of
the new Environmental Club here, as well.  My own memories of Manhattan go  back into
my freshman year in college,  when I attended mixers here.

      I happened to read yesterday in The New York Times  (so it must be true) a story
about a person who specializes in giving speech instruction to businessmen;  and it included

the advice that one should emulate Churchill. There was a particular anecdote that this
speech instructor tells about Churchill having met a Mrs. Ruddick, a prominent Labourite
critical of Churchill who said to Churchill, late one evening at a party, "You, sir, are drunk.
And, if I may say so, quite disgustingly drunk." To which Winston Churchill is said to have
replied, "And you,  madam, are ugly. And, if I may say so,  quite disgustingly ugly.  And the
difference between you and me is that tomorrow morning I shall be sober."

      The other well known story of the same type about Churchill is the remark that Mrs.
Astor is supposed to have made to him when she found herself unhappily seated next to him
at dinner one evening.  She said to him, "If I were your wife I would put poison in your
coffee."  To which Churchill is supposed to  have  replied,  "And if I, madam, were your
husband I would drink it."  I'm not sure why this speech consultant carries stories like this
to business leaders, possibly to help them  in their  communication with the regulatory
agencies which oversee their activities. It doesn't sound like the new look that we've been
encouraging  among our friends in business, but  one piece of advice that  the speech
consultant apparently routinely gives is get right into  it. So, let rne do that.

       I want to say it is a very special privilege to address  the very first conference of what
is intended to be  a continuing series of annual conferences.   We, at EPA, have given
considerable thought to the work that lies ahead to save the Long Island Sound, the New
York/New Jersey  Harbor Estuary, and the New York Bight. These coastal areas, like so
many other aspects of the environment, are a mixture of good news and bad news.

       The United States is blessed with immense marine and coastal resources. For many
years, we assumed they would last forever.  We have, during the past twenty years, by many
measures, brought them back through large investments in cleaning up wastewater.  EPA
has presided over the expenditure of some $52 billion  in wastewater treatment construction
grants to some 7,000 specific grants and contracts.

       Nevertheless, coastal pollution and development, oil spills, loss of wetlands, and trash
and medical wastes on beaches have produced another wave --  a tidal wave of indignation
among Americans. I have, on  occasions, visited major oil  spills and witnessed the familiar
and depressing apparatus of response. The slicks and the streamers, the skimmers and the
booms that just never measure up to the losses. We now average one oil spill a day in these
United States.

      But after years of abusing our coasts, we are now increasingly aware that for too long
there has been an imbalance in favor of development over protection of our nation's coastal
areas.  We now know that we must tip the scales in favor of ecological protection.

      An approach to development designed to do that,  the kind of development that is
consistent with the survival and the protection of the  coastal resources now so stressed by
millions  of people,  is called  "sustainable development."   This notion  of  sustainable
development was coined, was invented really, to address the special problems of developing

countries. But I think that it is just as apt and urgently needed for the developed nations
as well for  the  Great Lakes,  for  the Chesapeake, for Narragansett  Bay (where I was
yesterday), and for Long Island Sound.

       As many of you may know, in 1983 the United Nations General Assembly sought an
answer to the  conflict between economic development and the environment.  The United
Nations  General Assembly established  a special independent  World  Commission on
Environmental Development, under the chairmanship of Gro Harlem Brundtland, then the
Prime Minister of Norway. They produced a report, the Brundtland Commission, entitled
"Our Common Future."  The Brundtland Commission defined sustainable development as
development that meets the needs of the present populations without compromising the
ability of future populations to meet their needs.

       Another way to  think about sustainable development  is to use an analogy from
banking.  Think  of the Earth's  environment  as a huge trust  fund left to us by wealthy
grandparents.  The fund contains a large but finite sum of capital -- the principal.  Yet
instead of money, the principal is the ability of the Earth's air and water to cleanse our
wastes and provide the resources that sustain life — the climate, the air, the waters, and the
soils.  The fund is big enough that if we act responsibly, we could live off the interest on this
principal  forever. But, instead,  we have been profligate  heirs.  We've spent  all  of the
interest and lately we have been encroaching on the principal as well.  We're writing checks
against the principal at such a rate that some of them are beginning to bounce.

       I am, nevertheless, hopeful.  People, I think, are finally beginning to realize that a
conflict between the economy and the environment is  a fight to  the death in which
everybody dies. And so it is this new convergence of environmental and economic concerns
— this new  sense we have that good environmental  health and good economic  health
reinforce one another in positive ways — that gives me hope for the environment and for the
Northeast and mid-Atlantic coastal waters.

       Consider, for the moment, our coastal regions. They are beset by a constellation of
problems: those oil spills I mentioned; untreated urban runoff and sewage from combined
sewer overflows; nonpoint source  runoff from shoreline development; the discharge of toxics;
discharges from recreational boats; atmospheric deposition from contaminants coming out
of automobile emissions (which  now account for  more than half of the air toxics in the
urban environment);  and  the accumulated ecological  stress  of the  watershed with a
population equal to that of Spain.  The EPA-funded Management Conference is currently
documenting the harsh realities of coastal waters in this region.  Harsh realities that you will
no doubt hear  in more detail from the many fine speakers and specialists scheduled to speak
after me at this conference.

       Allow me to offer four practical applications of sustainable development that should
help save our  coastal waters.  First, EPA must continue to improve our control of point
source discharges of conventional and toxic pollution -- the stuff that comes from out of the

pipe.  In fact, as far as coastal waters are concerned, we at EPA are going to start enforcing
like Captain Bligh.  A year ago, I told a meeting of the Association of Attorneys  General
that EPA would prosecute polluters to the full extent of the law.  Since that meeting during
the first year of the Bush administration, EPA broke records in virtually every area of EPA
enforcement.  Criminal prosecutions were at a record high.  Administrative compliance
orders were at record high of four thousand orders; this is up 33%.   And Superfund
enforcement was at a record high, up 34% over the previous year.  Our new enforcement
first policy, I think, has finally caused lawyers to begin to advise their clients that it is no
longer safe to lie back in the weeds; it is necessary to come forward and settle. As a result,
we had a record number  of Superfund settlements last  year  and recovered from private
parties for clean-up more  than a billion dollars -- substantially up from the year before.

       Even more  pertinent to our concerns today, EPA  has initiated a massive two-tiered
Clean Water Act enforcement effort. First, we are bringing municipal wastewater treatment
systems into compliance with their discharge permits.  Doesn't  sound like much really.  But
it is vitally important; it is our charge, and we will carry  it out.

       Second, we  are assuring that municipalities implement their pre-treatment programs
to keep toxic chemicals out of our waterways.  Last fall, Attorney General Dick Thornburg
and I announced enforcement actions  against 61 municipalities for failure  to implement
their  pre-treatment programs.  Some  heavy  metals and  organic  contaminants going  into
coastal  waters  have  decreased due  to  better  implementation of local pre-treatment
programs, due to improvement in local wastewater treatment plants, and due to the Federal
actions carried out in the last decade that involved the elimination of leaded gasoline and

       EPA has reduced  the  ocean and  coastal discharges  of 10,000  major industrial
wastewater treatment facilities. We have virtually eliminated ocean dumping of raw sewage
or sewage sludge through outfall  pipes. Deep sea  dumping of municipal sludge  is being
phased  out. I'm pleased to announce that shortly the EPA will issue a report to Congress
detailing how we are assuring that all communities  dumping sludge into the ocean are on
schedule to end dumping by December 31, 1991,  or in the case of New York City, by June
30, 1992. We have finally closed the ocean to industrial dumping,  to waste incineration, and
to radioactive waste disposal.

      I'm not content with this; last month I  told EPA's  enforcement office that next year
I expect enforcement  numbers to go  through the roof.  And  now I'll add this, if the
enforcement numbers don't go through the roof,  the EPA Administrator will.

      There is another harsh reality that must be addressed before we can really dull the
point of point source discharges. We must upgrade the hundreds of coastal cities that have
combined sewer overflow systems.  In most  east coast  cities, a good rainstorm  sweeps
sewage, street oils, and urban debris right into  the nearest coastal waters.  Solving the
combined sewer overflow problem is going  to  cost  big bucks.   We must  orchestrate a

partnership of Federal, State, and local resources to bring these antiquated CSO systems
into the 20th century. EPA is in the midst of a massive effort to bring approximately 20,000
combined sewer overflow points of discharge into the permitting system.  So that's some of
what EPA is doing or trying to do, more or less on its own.

       We are also working with other Federal agencies to ensure coordinated, consistent
Federal action.  We have formulated a National Coastal and Marine Policy that aims to
protect, restore, and maintain the  nation's coastal and marine resources.  Specifically, the
policy  commits the Agency to achieve the following goals:  (1) restore  and protect  our
shellfisheries, saltwater fisheries, and other wildlife habitat by controlling pollution and
getting at the causes of habitat loss; and  (2) restore the recreational use of all  our shores,
beaches, and coastal waters by reducing sources of contamination, plastics, and debris.

       I  recently had  occasion to visit a cleaned up water, one in which — by all  the
measures that focus on the water itself (the nutrients, the  algae, the fecal coliform) ~ the
great investments the country has made really had paid off, and we had substantially cleaner
water in that river than in anyone's living memory. But, after I waded into this river, one
could scarcely see the bottom because of all the plastic, the styrofoam cups, the paper, and
the debris floating down that river. We've got to get a grip on that. I think we've made as
effective an effort in this area as any and we will continue our effort. But in that effort, we
need to recognize that  the job is not fundamentally one of collection ~ the job is one of
pollution prevention, of reducing the enormous amount of waste that this society generates,
which is orders  of magnitude more than that of other internationally competitive, successful
economic nations.

       The EPA's coastal and marine policy also lists a set of actions that taken  together
are a  kind of  blueprint for  action by  all levels of government  - EPA, other Federal
agencies, and State and local governments. When actions are the sole responsibility of EPA,
we will move aggressively.  And when actions are the shared responsibility of  different
Federal agencies, we will work with them to coordinate our approach. In that connection,
I'm pleased to  announce that this Friday I signed and forwarded to my colleagues at the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (John Knauss) and the  Coast Guard
(Commandant Paul  Yost) a Memorandum of Agreement  that helps  to fulfill the present
pledge to end ocean dumping. The agreement delineates the responsibilities to each of our
agencies and pools monitoring and surveillance efforts to end ocean dumping  in law, but
more importantly, in fact.

       But if we are  to achieve  truly sustainable development, then State and local
governments must do something more.  They must address growth and land use issues, to
reduce nonpoint source runoff, habitat destruction, and aesthetic  degradation. EPA will
back them up wherever we can. But we cannot solve ~ EPA cannot solve  ~  our coastal
problems without the help of State and local governments.  We can work hard to persuade,
encourage, and support State coastal protection efforts,  but the reality of  sustainable
development means that State and local governments have much more work to  do on land

use issues -- issues of runoff from city streets, construction sites, highways, industrial parks,
suburban development, and fading septic systems. Combined, the nonpoint source pollution
of these land uses surpasses, in many cases significantly, the damage done to the coast by
point sources ~ the stuff that comes from pipes.  In fact, almost every wave of pollution
problems  that laps  at  our  shores can be  traced to uncontrolled  development  and huge
population increases in the nation's coastal area. Some 75% of the nation's population now
lives within 50 miles of the coastline.

       When I accepted the chairmanship of the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council in
December, I expressed support for the recommendations that they report on land use in the
"2020 Report." That report recommended that State and local governments establish buffer
zones, filter strips, and greenways around all sensitive natural resources and areas, even in
developed areas.  This is a direction I would strongly encourage in this region as well.

       I must say I am, as you are, appalled by the recurrent nightmares of careless oil spills
in the Arthur Kill Channel. I  strongly support a comprehensive review of all petroleum
handling practices and systems  in this area before it is too late.

       Well, those  are some of the initiatives that we  need to develop and address with
energy and imagination to resolve  our coastal  pollution problems. Let me conclude by
turning, for a moment, to the international  scene. I had the great privilege of accompanying
President Bush to the economic summit of the seven major industrialized countries last year
in Paris.  As many  of you may  know, the President has chosen to  give the environment a
major priority, not  simply in our domestic policy but also in the matter of foreign policy.
And, so, this was  the first time any head of government had ever brought an environmental
minister or adviser  to that economic summit.

       In discussions with the people there on the range of  environmental problems, both
in the countries represented and, perhaps  even more to the point, in the developed world
and in eastern Europe, I was struck by the sense of beginning —  the  relatively primitive
capacity of the Earth's international institutions for environmental  management to do for
the environment what the very sophisticated and well-developed economic system has done
in the post-war period for economic relations.

       Now we have some new and important  opportunities.  Just look at the stunning
changes that are taking place around the world - from Latin America to eastern  Europe
and now the Soviet Union. In  many places, those in the vanguard of political leadership
come out of the environmental movement and have environmental concerns.  The fortunate
congruence for those of us concerned about the environment - the stunning reforms now
sweeping the socialist  world -- make it possible, I  think, for us  to lessen our post-war
preoccupation with global military competition and to refocus our energy and our resources
from the preoccupations of defense and security in war to the  preoccupations  of peace.
And, foremost among them, to environmental protection, to the growing global threat to the
natural systems that sustain life  on this planet. That we now can consider this transition is

a great testimony to our free enterprise system and our military alliances. I believe that the
next great challenge to the creativity and resourcefulness of our free societies will be to
secure the ecological base on which long-term economic prosperity fundamentally depends.

      I  recently  had  breakfast  with the  Prime  Minister of Czechoslovakia.   The
environmental problems he described, the degree of assistance that he requested are off the
scale.   Incidentally,  the  question  arose  about the  sophistication  and  experience  in
coordination of  the  new  leaders  of  Czechoslovakia,  many of them  not having been
politicians, and the President, of course, having been a poet. And the President responded
that what they may lack in experience, they make up for in close coordination because the
President and his Foreign Minister had many years together as cellmates in jail.  It occurred
to me that that would be an interesting preparation to  ensure coordination in a cabinet in
the government.  But  it's one that they are looking to, to reinforce their solidarity in the face
of the problems that  they confront.

       Well this, in short, is freedom's moment.  It must also be a moment for celebrating
the Earth and for deepening our commitment to the protection of our coasts and our waters
and to the protection of our planet. In just a few minutes, I'm going to invite other officials
here today to join me in signing a pledge to protect and restore our coastal waters.  It's only
one page but it means a lot. To me it's a kind of pledge of allegiance -- the pledge of
allegiance to America,  the beautiful. Let us  pledge  to work together to make sustainable
development with all that  it needs a reality from sea to shining sea.

       Thank you.

                            QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Q.  You gave a terrific speech.  And you talked about a lot of things, about enforcement, about
how ocean disposal is going to be stopped.  Do you have any suggestions about how the local
counties are going to pay for all of this?

A.  This message I recognize comes at a time when resources, particularly in the Northeast,
are very constrained. Yesterday, I was in a town in Massachusetts, where I was told ~ I find
this hard to believe -  the deficit facing  the  city of Falls  River, Massachusetts, is $800
million.  That may be wrong, but that's what a State senator told me it was. And we have
issued an administrative order on combined sewer overflows that gives that community until
October to get us some detailed  plans on implementation.  The questions  that arise have
to do with peace dividends, and as we turn from some of these preoccupations of defense
and security to those of peace, to what extent we can anticipate one for the environment.

       I think that we have in this budget substantial resources that in the current budget
climate are relatively significant. The President provided in his budget request some $2
billion more for the environment, and that includes a particularly important piece for EPA
— $230 million more for our operating fund. The water quality request, which is $1.6 billion
for the State financing and State revolving  funds, is far less than sufficient to meet the needs
of this country.  We  estimate that those needs are in the range of $80  billion, and there is
no  way that the Federal Government at this time is capable of making a substantial dent
in that need. All I can say is that we will work very carefully and closely with the States and
localities to try to ensure that the priorities we are responsible for enforcing really do make
sense (for example, the calls on local resources that only go up — they're going to go up for
water, they're going to go up for  waste management, they're going to go up for air quality
-- very significantly to a portion  of our gross national product that is  higher than that of
virtually all of our competitors).  We have to  ensure that these expenditures make sense,
and we have to make sure that the people regard them as worthwhile. I think if they do,
the United States does not really want for resources, whether it's one level or the other, and
finally those resources will be there. I take it as my responsibility to ensure that we do the
best with the  money that we do have, and we'll work cooperatively with  the  States and
localities to ensure that  they do  the same.  That's the best we can  do in  the face of the
combined sewer overflow problem — it's far short of what's needed.

Q.   I  was wondering how you see people making personal sacrifices and changes in their
personal lifestyle and coping with the various changes that are to come in the next 10, 20, or 30
years?  For example,  the  automobile. We've become very accustomed to its  300-mile range.
We may have to go to an electric automobile with a 100- to 150-mile range. Do you think
people will sacrifice?  Are they willing to?  How are we going to teach them to change?

A.  You know, I am reasonably confident about the capacity of people to make changes that
they decide are useful or important.  I was on an airplane recently with a lady going to

Washington. Both of us were late for appointments.  And after sitting on the runway for
some time,  the pilot announced that we were going to suffer another delay necessary to
engage in a deicing process.   It was interesting that nobody on that flight  groaned or
complained. All of us remembered the Air Florida crash of some years ago - the plane had
not been deiced immediately prior to departure. In the same way, we put up with security
at airports that I think would have been unimaginable 25 years ago for most travelers.

       We  are  making  a number of decisions, certainly  made in the Environmental
Protection Agency, that have the combined effect of removing  options for disposing of
wastes in traditional ways, and increasing the cost of what waste disposal is still possible.
And those costs have gone steadily up and they will continue to do so as up to a third of the
landfills close over the next five years, and as the oceans and rivers are no longer available
for the many wastes that used to go into them. People, I think, will be prepared to make
 many of those changes.

       When you come  to the automobile,  you touch something fundamental and basic.
 There was an article yesterday, I think it was in the business section of the New York Times
 News of the Week in Review,  to the effect that at least we might look for some light at the
 end of the tunnel because we now have 1.7 vehicles for every two people, and as soon as
 we approach two to two, at least things will probably not get any worse until automobiles
 learn to drive themselves, which in this country should not be ruled out.  We are going to
 reduce very substantially air pollution from  the automobile.  We brought it down 96% in
the last 20 years, and we are going to go back and do it again. We are going to change the
fuels in  areas like this one, to achieve orders of magnitude reductions in pollution.

       Honestly, I suspect that congestion will have a  lot  more to do with the change in
lifestyle in this area, with respect to the car,  than pollution because I think we will make a
substantial  dent  in the pollution when  we begin to get that part of the problem under
control.  But the problem, as you suggest, is a much broader one and we have not begun to
address the  steadily worsening  problem of congestion and the concomitant land use changes
that bring with them the problems associated with the automobile.  We will address those
things.  We will address them incrementally, as the  problems become more and more
unavoidable to more and more people.

       I think that the burgeoning environmental ethic and  sensitivity in this country should
give us considerable ground for hope. What I would suggest to an audience like this  is to
help the politicians to identify the new options.  Particularly, begin to work with those who
make key decisions that influence where growth goes and how dense it is and whether it's
serviced  by  mass transportation,  before those decisions set in motion a process  that is
irresistible and that results in simply exacerbating the problem.

Q.  Good morning, Mr. ReilSy, my name is  Dan Fagan, reporter for Newsday.  Could you
give us a little more detail on your thinking regarding the spill in the Arthur Kill in the past

couple of weeks, beyond simply supporting a review of shipping operations. What else should
Federal EPA and local regulators do to prevent the likelihood of these spills happening again?

A.  There are two kinds of things I think we've got to do. We've got to diminish the length
of transport ~ and there are a full range of responses necessary to do that, that have to do
with better harbor guidance systems, escort requirements in some places such as Prince
William  Sound and particularly sensitive ecosystem  areas, and better control and  training
of  the human resources  and the management  skills of people responsible for  these
enormous, potentially destructive tankers.  I must say that all of the spills that I visited in
my first year as Administrator of EPA were caused by human error, and that must give us
concern  about the limits of intervention. And that must probably lead us to the conclusion
that as we continue to bring oil into this country (roughly half of our oil  needs now are
imported), we will continue to have spills with us. The response capability for  oil  spills is,
in my view, primitive. When we mount the response action, steamers go to work, booms
are laid out, and  invariably they are inadequate to the problems. We do not have anything
like the  sophistication and technology that it seems to me we should have in 1990.  I am
very pleased that some portion of the new oil liability legislation, raising liability standards,
is absolutely crucial  to this and will create incentives in the  industry to take what has
happened  far more seriously and put  more resources into it.  That new legislation does
provide more resources, and the oil industry itself has made a decision to put substantially
more funds into response, into repositioning equipment, and into technology.

       We have, in my view,  utterly failed to develop  adequately the potential of bio-
remediation and biotechnology as ways  to clean  up oil spills. The single most promising
aspect of  the response  in the  last spill was EPA's application of nutrients  to  the soil
microbes on some 75 miles of shore, which was all we could cover in the time that  we had.
We had  not, before that time, had on the shelf these kinds of response materials.  It could
have made a much greater difference and it looks, according to our scientists, as though they
will cut about in half the time it takes for that sound to restore itself.  I think we need turn
to the biotechnology industry for some of these petroleum-related contamination problems,
to increase the priority it gives to oil spills and perhaps in doing so, to begin  to reassure
some of their most skeptical critics about the possibility of this technology to clean the
country up.

Q.  Peg Kocher representing League of Women Voters in the tristate metropolitan area.
Have you any idea who in the task force like the one you just mentioned, will  address the
problem  of government agencies being the worst polluters.

A.  Let me say that going back to my period in the Council on Environmental Quality in the
early 70s,  I think virtually every President  has  made a commitment to try to clean up
Federal facilities.  It is an interesting lesson that  it is far more difficult to do that than to
get General Motors into compliance. What we're  talking about ~ and EPA is invariably the
Agency that's brought up  in Congress and criticized for not doing more ~ is essentially
diverting some of the resources in other agency budgets to give  a higher priority to things

environmental Now that often is difficult, if not impossible.  President Bush committed in
his campaign to make Federal facilities comply with the same standards and requirements
that  are required for the private  sector.  It is necessary to our credibility and it's only fair.
We have currently got, I think, 189 interagency agreements for cleanup of Federal facilities.
We expect to review 110 facilities this year. And, in each case, the 189 have entered into
agreements between the Federal  agency, EPA, and the States to put them on schedules with
specific time tables and with actual enforceable agreements. The magnitude of some of the
Federal agency problems is huge.  The Hartford facility, for  example, in Washington will
take us 30 years to work through.  It's a 500-mile facility that's contaminated throughout
from years and years of neglect and accumulation of radioactive and hazardous waste. But
we are working  to make some progress,  and our commitment is greater than it has ever
been under any President.  We're certainly committed to continue.

Q. Frank Flood from Nassau County. I'd like to ask the Administrator to comment on the
stormwater regulations.  The Clean Water Act requires municipalities to submit applications, I
think in February, and we really don't have any regulations yet.  What's your comment in  terms
of the prognosis.

A. Richard Caspe EPA Region II:  I can do that one for you,  Frank.  I can do it now while
the Administrator is here.  I can just say briefly that there are draft regulations still moving
on that.  The issue is that as you start developing regulations governing what will and won't
be permitted, the workload for municipalities as well as for EPA and the States could prove
enormous.  So that's still being debated somewhat on exactly how that  system will be
designed and set up, but I really don't want to take the time  now.

William  Reilly:  I  suspect there  is more  to that  and the other shoe is going to fall with
Nassau County;  I'd be interested to know the particular concerns you might have about
those regulations.

Q. My name is O'Brien from the New York Chapter of the Sierra Club. I was just wondering
if you might touch  briefly on plans on wetlands use, especially  due to the fact that there's  a
controversy about it.

A. You all recall that in the period prior to the campaign in  1988, the National Wetlands
Policy  Board sponsored by the Conservation Foundation and chaired by Governor Kean
recommended a policy of no net loss of wetlands in a proposal to President Bush.  We  have
had under way for more than a year a task force of domestic policy counselors reviewing
that pledge and looking for ways to implement it.

       As part of that effort, EPA and the Corps of Engineers finally succeeded in doing
what all these many years  of administering the Clean Water Act  Section 404 together we
had never done.  And what we  did, which many critics had urged us to  do, is that we
integrated, we came into agreement on how to administer that law.  It turns out that  it
scared  the daylights out of all  those folks who had been telling us we'd  never get together.

At any rate, we did. And, as many of you may know, this occasions a very strong negative
reaction from energy interests, from transportation interests throughout the country, and
from groups  in  Alaska  concerned  about excessively rigid  application  of mitigation
requirements. When I looked into the history of how we have, in fact, applied Section 404,
in Alaska, which is  58% wetland - and that happens to be the developable flat part of the
State - I discovered that 9  out of 10 of the permits that we granted last year had no
mitigation requirements.  The reason for that was that our regional office could find no
possibilities of wetlands to restore in this area that is wetland rich. In other words, we were
administering the law in a reasonable and responsible way. When there were no practical
alternatives to a project and no way to  mitigate or apply  to wetlands we made those
accommodations. Nevertheless, we put into a revised memorandum of understanding to the
Corps, a specific agreement that where the Corps and EPA together agree  that there are
no mitigation opportunities present, because of a large amount of wetlands in an area, we
will  in those cases,  which we expect to be very few, not require mitigation.

       Now, I want to say two things about this agreement. First, it is to all who worked in
the wetlands area for any length of time a very significant advance over previous policy. It's
not  an advance from the environmental  point of view over the draft that we signed last
November, but it's a much greater advance over the pre-existing policy that was in effect for
many, many years.  Second, the role of a number of people, in particular the Chief of Staff
John Sununu, and  the conflicting concerns of the various interests were,  it strikes me,
perfectly normal and appropriate. In fact, it was testimony to the very high priority the
environment has in this administration. My predecessor, I was told after all this took place,
Lee  Thomas,  made five telephone calls to Don Regan,  Chief of Staff under  President
Reagan, to find out and to  discuss with the Chief of Staff what the President should do
about the Clean Water Act, which was presented by the Congress for his signature -- the
President's signature. And, he never received a call back until someone let him know that
the President had, in fact, vetoed the bill.  That is unthinkable in this administration.  We
are  engaged and we are involved at very high levels,  and  both the Governor and the
President reaffirmed their support for no net loss of wetlands in this process.  We continue
to work on that and we give it a very high priority. It's  one of the most specific pledges the
President made in  his campaign and when he defined for me what he meant  by it, the
memorandum would more than satisfy any concerned environmentalist about the 300,000
to 500,000 acres of wetlands we are losing every year in this country.  We do, however, have
to continue to keep the public informed about the function of productive wetlands. I was
disappointed that we could not have that kind of support.  I think I talked to 15 governors
about that memorandum.  And secondly, we've got to be sensitive to practical and serious
ways to implement  these policies.  We've got to know how to separate the important from
the insignificant. To the extent that we do that, I think we  will have the consistent support
- more support -- than we have, particularly at EPA.

Q. Can you comment on the administration's draft on the fate of sludge, CSO,  and floatables
washing upon beaches.

A.  On the CSO problem  and sludge  -- I'm aware that there have been a great many
concerns expressed about our sludge regulations, and we have had a considerable number
of comments made and we  have scheduled to review them.  The reuse of sludge material
is something we want very much to continue to make possible and encourage.  It is, in my
view, fully consistent with sustainable development. We will get those out in the near future
and I think there will be  responses to some of  the problems.   On the CSO problem
generally, I don't have a lot  of answers in terms of resources to make available at this time.
I think I addressed that issue to some degree  in the morning.  The only thing I would say
is, it probably is important that you understand the attitude on this. We have a continuing
argument with the Congress about the adequacy of resources in the quest for clean water
and wastewater treatment.   We are  asking,  as I mentioned,  $1.6 billion for these State
revolving funds to capitalize State capacities  to maintain their own responsibility in the
future investments in this area.  That is $400 million less than the Congress appropriated
last year -- $600 million more than was ever appropriated for State revolving funds. There
was an understanding reached  some years ago, to phase out, both through the  Reagan
Administration and the Congress,  the Federal role in wastewater treatment. Now, having
reached some $52 billion as I mentioned, it's not seen as a permanent commitment of the
Federal Government to support.  I know that poses some very difficult  problems in this
area,  and I know that when we finally reach the end of the line, within the next year or so,
we will find the Congress very reluctant to acknowledge that that agreement means what the
administration thinks it means. We will continue the dialogue and take further stock of the
situation at that time and see where we are.

       My own sense with regard  to water pollution  is that the really crying need against
which we have made wholly  inadequate response is the nonpoint source part of the problem.
It is responsible for more than half of the surface water problem in the country now. We
have, for the first time, gotten the  Federal establishment, the Executive Branch, to make a
commitment to provide some funds for nonpoint source control ~ $14 billion. Last year,
I think, there was three times that amount committed by the Congress. It's  primarily a State
and local problem, as the land use part of it, I think, must continue to be. We will work
very closely with each of the States and localities to try to give aid and respect the nonpoint
source programs.  Also, to bring  on  the  new technologies -- soil nitrates testing, better
control of pesticides,  to find other ways of proposing this year 2.5 million acres of new land
in the Conservation Reserve Program.  This is the program in which farmers are actually
paid to take land out of production.  We want to concentrate those investments now on
filter strips, buffer strips, wetlands resources, and other areas vital to conservation and
protecting wetlands and groundwater, and to protecting our water quality program.  We are
committed to work very closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture in developing these
initiatives, to make them dovetail to serve a number  of objectives at the same time.

      Thank you.

     Morning Speakers and Invited Elected Officials

            William J. Hughes
      U.S. House of Representatives
         2nd District, New Jersey
               Dean Gallo
           State Representative
               District 11
               New Jersey
            Guy V. Molinari
           Borough President
              Staten Island
            James H. Scheuer
      U.S. House of Representatives
          8th District, New York
          Andrew P. O'Rourke
            County Executive
           Westchester County

                                                                    PLEDGE FOR

                                                    OUR COASTAL  WATERS


                                                               March  12,  199O

                                               We,  the undersigned, find and declare that...

Our estuaries and coastal waters are Important natural resources that have provided Incomparable beauty and significant recreational and commercial benefits;

The living resources, water quality and aesthetic character of these waters have been altered and degraded from rapid development, over-exploitation and other human uses;

Restoration and protection of the environmental quality of our coastal waters requires focused management by a partnership of federal, state and local governments,
affected Industries, academla and the public.
     therefore pledge to support the goals of the Management Conferences overseeing the development of the Long Island Sound §tudy, the new York/flew Jersey
Harbor Estuary Project and the ^ew York Bight Restoration Plan, and we commit to restore and protect the environmental quality of our coastal waters through the
Implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans developed by these Management Conferences.
                                                         Management Conference Policy Committee Members
                                                                       (1  '


                                  Judith A. Yaskin
               Commissioner, N.J. Department of Environmental Protection
       My  follow administrators  of environmental  protection programs  and ladies and
gentlemen.  Every time we start one of these conferences, and I've attended many over my
years as a public official, I always feel that you who are the work horses, the technicians, the
experts, are really ready  to go into your workshops  and get started, while we continue to
have speeches. I will make mine short and thank you for having me  here today. I'm the
newest member of the regulatory officers and administrators here today. I've been in the
office 60 days and I've made four trips to the Arthur Kill, so at least I have that record.  I
also have a very bad cold as a result of that.

       As many of you know, Tom Druid and I have been talking to -- and around March
23 will be meeting with — the petroleum industry. Letters are being exchanged with regard
to what has been happening with the petroleum industry and the Kill.  The Arthur Kill has
been the scene of many accidents. The Administrator said that all the accidents that he's
observed were human error.   We haven't  reached that conclusion with regard  to  the
incidents at Arthur Kill; certainly human error contributed, but we are also concerned about
metal fatigue, boat inspection, piloting, and concerned about the very nature of the pipeline
~ that was  the initial accident that occurred  in January.

       We want to meet with the industry because our primary goal is pollution prevention.
For the  most part,  our  responses to the Kill have  been satisfactory.   I  give a  high
compliment to the Coast  Guard.  But  once filled, there's no question the estuary has been
affected, that the marsh  in  the area  has been affected, and that we  are faced  with  a
continued cleanup and examination of the degradation of that estuary. The main thrust of
that meeting will be prevention and where do we go from here.  And, of course, to examine
with some federal representatives heard from today and New Jersey's representatives, where
our jurisdictions begin and end.  It is not satisfactory that the federal government has  a
preemption in the governance and responsibility for pipeline safety, but that if a particular
pipeline is  a three-quarters of an inch smaller than their jurisdiction or is exempted from
their jurisdiction, it appears that that is an unregulated, uninspected pipeline.

      Of the  complex issues we are facing in this estuary, the New York/New Jersey
Harbor, I've been asked to address the development and land  use in this estuary.  As we
know, the complex issues that are facing us are because the  estuary, which is rich and
productive, has intensively used habitats -- not only by human beings but by birds and other
creatures as well as fish -- and accommodates fishing, commercial shipping, tourism, the
waste disposal industry, waterfront development, wildlife, and  people.  The estuary finds
itself dealing with these  varied  sources of pollution,  and the solutions to clean up are
extraordinarily complex.

      New Jersey is a part of two national estuary programs.  On the north, of course, with
our neighbor New York in this project, and our entire west coast and the  south  of New
Jersey is involved in the  Delaware Estuary Program.  So, there is not an inch  of New
Jersey's coast  -- east, west, north, or south -- that is not confronting an estuary problem.
Many people have said that New Jersey is in the forefront of environmental regulation and
law -- I answer because it has to be. As one of the most densely populated states in this
country, we have some  of the  most  complex environmental problems that any state
confronts.  We need to identify the factors and the relationships  that impact the estuary and
to develop comprehensive strategies — that's what you and I are here for today. While other
panels will speak to the concerns of waste management and to pollution, one of the things
that1 I'm concerned about  is planning development in these areas.

       The environmental goals  have been translated  by the New Jersey Department of
Environmental  Protection into  a vast  set of  rules and regulations currently under
implementation by the Department.  Today, our New Jersey legislature will be passing  an
even more stringent clean water enforcement act.  These regulations cover an array of
treatments from coastal  land use  and planning, to nonpoint  pollution, to NJPDES  or
discharge permits, and many of these programs also regulate the infrastructure associated
with development such as wastewater treatment facilities, sewer lines,  and water supplies.
Certainly, all of those regulatory programs are intended to protect environmental resources,
including the coastal areas and our estuaries. No matter how well designed these programs
and  regulations  and enforcement seem to  be, and the State of New Jersey has  already
imposed $42 million worth of fines and has 160 municipalities and whole counties on sewer
ban, when we  look at our  estuaries, which are some of our most sensitive areas, there are
shortcomings.  The programs designed to protect our water and our coastal communities
have not been that effective in  providing remediation and preventing ongoing pollution.
You  have heard  about  some  of the  reasons  --  treatment  plant  failures,  high-level
contaminants  from nonpoint source pollution, combined sewer overflow, and  loss  of
environmentally sensitive areas due to increased development pressures, loss of wetlands,
filling in,  and drainage --  all in affected sensitive areas.  These are areas where new
approaches in environmental protection are needed.  These are some of the new approaches
and strategies New Jersey  is contemplating.

      In the past, the question of whether or not to approve a  new or expanded domestic
wastewater treatment facility dealt mainly with the engineering and technical aspects of the

system's design and the physical limitations of the receiving waters and groundwater. Today,
we  are beginning to look more at the regional and secondary impacts of new domestic
wastewater treatment facilities.  It is  not enough to accept as sound the environmental
planning or the technical wastewater treatment capacity. We need to address whether a new
facility is needed to provide for planned and future growth or whether the facility is really
a poorly planned venture that will spur environmentally unsound development.

      We have had the experience in our state  recently with the Great Swamp. Some of
you may have read  about it in the New York newspapers and New Jersey newspapers. It
was clear that our Division of Water Resources came to the conclusion that engineering and
technical solutions could be found to extend the sewer lines and create greater capacity in
the wastewater treatment plant that was involved. The problem was that those extended
lines would spur development near a national wildlife habitat.  The question then became
how do we resolve and why do we have the split of what itself is called a philosophy. We
had our people in natural resources, in the wildlife programs, in habitat programs, and our
regulatory people in wetlands coming to grips and confronting the technical achievement of
the engineers. It is interesting to me that  not only were many of these people in three
different divisions,  but  they had three different assistant  commissioners  to  whom they
reported.  It seems to me that as a regulatory body one of the things we need to do to
provide sound policy is to restructure the department and our functions so that we look at
the totality of the impact of such a plan.  Whether such environmentally sound wastewater
treatment plants will spur environmentally unsound development, of course, is one of the
real economic issues that confronts the state.

      We have a state  planning mechanism, and  I intend  as Commissioner,  as does the
Department, to come and work with  that  state plan before we approve new wastewater
treatment plants or  extension of sewer lines so that we will  look not only at the treatment
plant for its adverse impact on receiving waters, but also at the potential adverse impact to
surrounding areas including environmentally sensitive areas and coastal areas.  We can no
longer consider just  the immediate effect of a proposed facility. We must look at long-term
and cumulative effects.

      Through water quality treatment planning, the  Department has been able  to
coordinate wastewater management decisions with the water quality management planning
provided in the statewide and areawide water quality management plans. In October, the
Department adopted new statewide water quality management planning rules that, among
other things, will require smaller-scale wastewater  management plans.

      Atlantic County and Cape May County — although these are not in the area of the
New York Harbor - also are deeply concerned with what  we do in this harbor, because
planning and what occurs here deeply affect all  of their beaches.  New Jersey will have a
floatable plan and a  water surveillance quality plan again this year.  We will be working with
the New York authorities to develop a cooperative effort for the cleanup of the  Harbor and
for the beaches of Sandy Hook, assuming the Federal Government gives the waiver that we

need to do our work there. We are using Department of Corrections labor, Department of
Transportation equipment, and I have managed to get funds to do this.  Like New York,
New Jersey is suffering from a tremendous budget crunch. The Administrator spoke about
the problem of resources. Our state has a  $550 million deficit for this fiscal year that it
must balance by June. Nonetheless, our Governor and this Department have been able to
allocate $1.1 million for beach cleanup and  for floatables.

       In addition to statewide water quality management planning rules, the Department
recently is developing a nonpoint source assessment and management program with the
EPA.  This is, of course, a question of education and  one which we all agree is vital.  If the
estimates are accurate, 65% of all the pollution of our surface and groundwater, including
the New York Harbor, is a result of nonpoint source pollution control.

       The other aspect of planning in which  the  Department  is involved and will be
working on with New York, is the development of the Skylands Project to protect our
watershed and the Palisades between the rivers of  New York and New  Jersey.  This is
because it is not just what goes on in the  Harbor but the quality of the water  and the
protection of the water supply that need to be considered.  In other words, it is not just the
estuary but what gets into the estuary, what development  occurs that  will impact on the
estuary. New York and New Jersey have come to realize that we must plan and we must
manage. In addition, New Jersey has a moratorium on the conveyance of lands utilized for
the protection of public water supply reservoirs. My department  will continue to support
a moratorium so that we can develop recommendations concerning buffer zones around
public water supply  reservoirs.  This report  and the application  of  multi-zone buffers
throughout watersheds associated with public water supply intakes and tributaries was
submitted in December, right before I took office in January. I've met with the legislature
and they are anxious to work on developing such  buffer zones for  all the watersheds,
particularly those that affect New York and New Jersey, in what I call the Skylands Territory
--the Palisades, Sterling Forest, and all  of that precious area north of here.

       This multi-zone buffer approach is particularly relevant to watersheds that drain into
New York Harbor and other estuaries.  Since the buffer zones would be applied to public
water  supply reservoirs,  intakes,  and tributaries,  the downstream estuaries will be the
beneficiaries of upstream nonpoint source pollution  controls and regulated development.
Our state has developed a seven-tier plan of development.  It's now being worked on with
the counties in what's called a Cross-Acceptance Program.

       Let me give you an example of regulatory failure. New York, like New Jersey, has
a coastal areas facility review plan (CAFRA).  One of the greatest loopholes that has gone
on  in New Jersey has been the numerous attempts to close and change the  way in which
CAFRA operates, from the proposal of commissions in the last administration to a dune act,
which failed 15 years ago in a previous administration. Right now communities still are not
regulating developments if the developments are less than 24 units. The thought was that
individual homes should be free of control, of planning, and of regulation.  So, if you were

a major corporation and you have four or five subsidiaries you can build 24 or less units in
the same area, which has occurred in this state. This is a loophole that needs to be fixed.
In  addition  to  the coastal  areas review,  you  have the  overlap  with the  Pinelands
Commission, and the state plan does not apply to any of the coastal counties because of
CAFRA and the existence of another regulatory body called Pinelands. The result is that
our coastal counties, other than their own planning resources, are not examining regional
planning.  This is a proposal that will come into effect and I have spoken with the Governor
about how to provide regional planning to protect our water supplies and to protect the
counties as they develop. In the next year or two, I think, this will be one of the principal
concerns of my Department as it affects our coast and our estuaries to ensure that planning
can be carried on a careful way - careful of our habitat and careful of our water supplies.
We are already experiencing saltwater intrusion into our aquifers. Without the aquifers, no
matter how many houses are built, there will be no water supply for human habitation.  The
Department  ultimately foresees correlating water supply  needs of the area with its
wastewater management needs.

       Other members of this panel will speak about the  problem of wastewater discharge.
Clearly, one of the most pressing problems we have is CSOs. My state has thus far put forth
$2 million for planning and mapping of CSOs. We have another approximately $40 million
available for distribution for design for this fiscal year.  Next year I hope for, and will press
for, additional millions  of dollars depending on the deficit. In New Jersey, to fix CSOs
alone will probably cost upwards of $150 million.  Nonetheless, the counties, the federal
government,  and  the  state will continue to  dedicate funds  through  the  Wastewater
Treatment Fund, through state appropriations, and through Federal grants — monies for this
project that is critical to all our estuaries and all our coast.

       New Jersey appreciates being  allowed to participate  in  the development of a
comprehensive management plan.  It is significant for our state that we are surrounded by
sensitive estuaries.  We understand New Jersey's responsibility in polluting those estuaries
and we understand our responsibility for helping to clean them.  I look forward to working
with this conference and with the Management Conference.

                      THE CHARGE TO THE CONFERENCE:
                                 Leslie Carothers
           Commissioner, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
      My assigned topic today is developing the political will to carry out the cleanup of
our coastal waters. I think there are three major ingredients in the recipe for creating the
energy ~ the sustained energy — to do the job.

      •     Good science

      •     Public understanding and activism

      •     Leadership by policymakers, especially elected officials

      I will use the example of Long Island Sound because that's the case I know best.

Good Science

      For  several years, New York, Connecticut, and EPA Regions I and  II and many
research organizations have been at work on the Long Island Sound Estuary Study.

      The task of the scientists and analysts is to diagnose the Sound's problems, and to
array the evidence in a way that points clearly and convincingly to the remedies. One thing
they have shown us is that excessive nitrogen in Long Island Sound water is increasing algae
that take up precious oxygen as they die.  Dissolved oxygen at the bottom of the western
sound is so low it shows  we are in danger of creating a Dead Sea.

      All of our three states have the legal tools, or most of them, to control pollution, such
as wasteload allocations  and permits. What we need from science is the analysis that we
can plug into our  regulatory systems to require action.

      Because those actions will be costly, we  will need as much precision as the state of
the science affords to tell us what reductions in nitrogen  are needed and where they are
needed to get results. And we will need the ability to translate that information into terms
that are understandable and credible to the public.

Public Understanding and Activism

      Nothing much gets done in politics unless somebody cares and somebody pushes.

      Well, believe me, the public cares about coastal resources and amenities.  On Long
Island Sound, we have over 200,000 registered boats whose operators care about the quality
of the water and the shore.  Commercial and recreational fishermen, beachgoers, bird-
watchers, harbor dwellers, tourists -- they all care, too.

      In Connecticut, we have a growing number of organizations, alliances, educational
institutions,  and individual activists all focusing attention on Long Island Sound.  Saturday
night, I  went to  a lecture at the Mystic Aquarium by Terry Backer,  the Soundkeeper, a
watchdog for the sound.  He drew a large and attentive audience. They had to be attentive,
too, because there were several obstreperous whales in the pool behind the podium, giving
the whale's rendition of a Bronx cheer whenever Terry paused.  I conclude that the whales
are with us and the people are, too.  They want to see an agenda and hear what they can

      I want to add that the press is an extremely important factor  in increasing public
understanding and concern.  The sound has received excellent coverage of issues ~ good
reporting on the tough  technical issues of the science as well as some racier stuff on
syringes. The scientists, we bureaucrats, and the politicians need to keep the information
flowing  so the press can help us keep the issue before the public over the long time it will
take to  address the problems.

The Policymakers

      Governors, legislators, and their staffs normally respond to the facts and to public
concern. But we and they must do more than react.  We must lead.

      In Connecticut, the  Governor and our department are already taking action in
anticipation of a new agenda for Long Island Sound.

      Because we expect nitrogen removal to be required at some of our plants affecting
the Sound, we are requiring that phase of treatment to be included in upgrading plans.  We
are also piloting nitrogen removal  options at our Norwalk plant and  working on ways to
fund interim, operational measures that can cut nutrient loadings.

      This year, Governor O'Neill  has proposed to raise the state's annual contribution to
our Clean Water Fund from $40 million to $100  million.  The impact of this will be to
accelerate the construction  of  all  of  our projects and allow leveraged  financing, both of
which will save a lot of money  -- hundreds of millions of dollars - that can be directed to
nutrient removal for the Sound.

      Our legislators are now working with their New York State counterparts on the new
Bi-State Commission on Long Island Sound.  They are  identifying common issues like oil
spill prevention to lay the groundwork for coordinated action.  The members will also help
to build the bridges we need for both states to work together  on funding.

      But the cleanup and preservation of our coastal waters are surely not solely a state
responsibility, nor should New York and Connecticut be regarded as the exclusive stewards
of Long Island Sound.

      The Long  Island Sound Study is a state-Federal effort of our states and EPA. The
constructive collaboration that has occurred would be continued under a Long Island Sound
office proposed in legislation by Senator Lieberman. We need a framework for cooperative
action as well as  analysis.

      More than that, we need national leadership and Federal money to help clean up our
coasts.  The states are ready to do our share, but the multiple social  and environmental
burdens of our coastal cities  — Newark, Bridgeport, New York, to name a few — greatly
complicate the task.

      Considering that, it surely defies reason that we are phasing out Federal clean water
funding in the next two years.

      We aren't  phasing out the Federal highway program, are we? In recent weeks, the
Administration proposed not to eliminate it  but to redirect it to routes and projects  of
national importance.

      Why not do the same with the Clean Water funding program? Keep it, but redirect
it to pollution problems of national priority.   Surely restoration of our nation's precious
coastal waters ranks at the top of the list.

      I recognize Washington thinks only governors and state legislators should get to raise
taxes. But I note that we are somehow scraping up $160 billion and counting to bail out
greedy and incompetent officials of deregulated savings and loans. So don't tell me we can't
find the money to continue a Federal share of coastal cleanup. We're talking about political
will here.  And so let us press on to get the facts and make our case.  Let  us do  our best
to keep the growing constituency for coastal cleanup informed and engaged.

      And  let us demand that public policymakers at all levels of government make the
commitment to clean up our coats and to make great strides by the year 2000. All we ask
is their  attention, their energy,  and their willingness to make hard decisions.  And if the
public officials we have can't  do it, we should find some new ones who can.

                                  Langdon Marsh
                               Deputy Commissioner
               New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
       Thank you, Rich. Well, the conference is only a couple of hours old and already one
statement that has been made clearly needs correction, and that is that not everything you
read in the New York Times is true. I speak particularly of the allegation that the State of
New York is the largest polluter of the waters of this state, which is an allegation made by
a couple  of upstate Assemblymen, and as I have testified before them that  is a gross
misstatement or distortion of the facts. Nevertheless, the New York Times does  print what
people say.

       Well, it's great to be here together with my colleagues on this panel. We represent
a veritable bouillabaisse of regulatory jurisdiction.  And, it is fitting that this group try to
make and blend a fish stew of all of the various programs and initiatives that we have to
contend with because only by recognizing the interdependence of the Long Island Sound,
the Bight, the New  York/New Jersey  Harbor, and the issues and problems and potential
solutions that are available, can we come up with an action plan ~  an action program ~ that
will truly work. I think that the coming together of these three programs and efforts with
the help of Manhattan College and EPA  is good evidence of a growing recognition  by
people along the coast of their own interdependence and of the interdependence of the
various problems that we  have to deal with.  I think this is  part of a growing  movement
toward addressing the problems of coastal waters. Last week, for example, I testified before
Congressman Studds, and some  members of his  panel of the Committee of Merchant
Marine Fisheries, on the coastal defense initiative that he has drafted to upgrade the water
quality standards applicable to the coastal  waters, and also to  coordinate better between
coastal management programs and coastal water quality programs. While there are some
defects in the particulars of his approach, overall the thrust of that initiative is a very good
one, in recognition that there is a strong constituency and a strong need to deal with the
problem of coastal water quality.

      The particular portion of the  program that I'm  supposed to address  is  on the
evaluation of the benefits and burdens of the estuary plans and the recommendations that
will ultimately come from them ~ what burdens will be on the regulated communities. So,

let me put before you some questions I think the conference will need to address over the
next couple of days.

      We have 20 million people living in proximity to these estuaries. Meeting all the best
usages of the water that is in that community is going to be a true challenge.  Whether we
can meet all of the uses for all of these people is what we're about today. Of course, these
uses include recreational opportunities, shell fishing, and the propagation and survival of
ecologically important species. So, what sorts of impacts and burdens will achieving those
objectives have on the regulated communities from New York City to a rural community in
the Connecticut Valley, for example?  Because we can't do  everything that we want to all
at the same time, we need to prioritize and put in some kind of reasonable framework those
actions that we can reasonably expect to accomplish.  How do we  define those priorities
among all the  recognized needs that are out there?  Well, by examining the considerable
cost of the increased regulatory requirements that Commissioner Carothers has outlined.

      Take New York City, for example.  Look at some of the  environmental issues  that
are already being addressed by the City, either on a voluntary or a mandated basis.  Their
total capital expenses planned just for projects that are on the State Revolving Fund priority
list amount to $6.7 billion.   The City  is faced  with a number  of  major expenditures --
expansion of treatment plants to treat excess flows, regulator and pump station improvement
programs, combined sewer overflow abatement — that in itself is expected to cost about  $1.5
billion — getting sludge  out of the ocean,  flow reduction at various POTWs,  inflow
infiltration assessment and correction,  and so  on.  On top of that, you have the extremely
expensive problem of solid waste disposal and water supply development.  When you put
it all together — about $10 billion worth of water quality needs alone plus billions more for
solid waste, water supply, and so on — there is a tremendous economic burden. This is all
before you get to issues like nutrient removal, which is indicated as the major improvement
from the Long Island Sound study.  If $6 billion is truly the price tag just from Long  Island
Sound, what  more  will there be  for  the other estuary programs?  As  Commissioner
Carothers outlined, it is clear that we are facing a tremendous financing problem, and we
have  to set that against all  the other  local  needs for financing such as public  housing,
medical care, social services,  and of course, infrastructure repair --  bridges, roads, and so
on.  Local communities are going to be extremely stressed over the next 10 or so years as
they begin to address the kinds of problems that the  estuary programs are beginning to

      Now, in order to deal with this, there are a couple of things that I believe need to
be done. First of all, we need to document the impact  of doing the  various things that are
recommended  -- the various management options. We need to get information to identify
the incremental costs of improved water use and the potential under different options. It
is going to present us with some very hard choices.  For example, we need to evaluate the
effects on recreational and commercial fisheries and various dissolved oxygen levels with the
various nutrient control options  and costs to try to come up with a proper balance and

sequence of improvements to be made. We need to understand the economic and human
health significance of increased openings of shellfish areas relative to the costs of combined
sewer overflow abatement, stormwater control measures, and new sewering. We need to
evaluate the cost-effectiveness of prevention programs versus remediation.  Where do we
hold the line? What kind of improvements can we afford?  What is feasible?  This is not
to say that we need to give up on any particular objective.  We need not assume that there
won't be enough money to do the things that need to be done. I was heartened to hear that
perhaps unlike other members of his administration, Administrator Reilly did talk about the
possibility of a peace dividend.  There can be a peace dividend and there can be dollars
made available by extension of the revolving fund program or otherwise to cover the costs
of these needed improvements.  But  nevertheless, even with additional money, it is never
going to be enough for us to  do everything all at once. So we need to define the problems.
We need to identify which things we can do right away and which things will have to be
done later on.

      We face two different kinds of problems.  Those which are controllable with the
existing technology, and for which publicly accepted management  options already exist.
Things we know how to do and have  done for many years but at the moment just lack the
resources to do. Controlling pathogens, for example, dealing with combined sewer overflows
and stormwater control — there are proven and well accepted technologies available.  But
then there are  those problems for which there is no easy social, political, economic, or
technological solution.  There  is no agreement on what has to be done, or how it will be
done, or how it will affect  the  communities  that  are involved.  What do we do with
sediments, for example? How do we remediate them?  What kind of disposal or treatment
technology do we use? Where do we put it?  And a host of other questions. What is the
role of biotechnology, which Administrator Reilly is very laudably pushing as a technique
or control? But until we can achieve some level of consensus of how to deal with problems
like sediments,  it will be very difficult to move forward.

      Now, municipalities throughout this three-state region are achieving higher levels of
wastewater treatment,  they  are  implementing pretreatment programs, disposing of solid
waste, and developing sewage sludge disposal techniques. But we must recognize that these
municipalities are not the generators  of the waste, they are simply the recipients of it and
are asked to pass on the problem or  to deal with it themselves.  So, one of the questions
that I think has already been put to  you  in various forms  this morning is to what extent
should we  place more emphasis on  estuarywide waste reduction, reuse,  and recycling
programs?   What kinds  of programs are  suitable for cooperation among  the  various
jurisdictions and how do we implement them? What kind of institutions?  What  kind of
education? What kind of financing can we provide for these kinds of programs?

      And secondly, of course, we need to intensify our educational efforts on individual's
responsibilities to relieve these municipalities of the burdens that have been placed upon
them.  How do these affect  us as citizens, as taxpayers, as consumers? We heard some
discussions this morning about the motor car and the kinds of changes that will be required

for its use in this metropolitan area to improve air quality over the next 10 or 15 years. We
have to face the same kind of issues with respect to waste reduction in other areas ~ in solid
waste, the kinds of products we consume and how we throw away or recycle them ~ and in
our use  of the wastewater treatment system as a way of disposal.

      So, in closing, I'd like to urge you to accept the very considerable challenge that you
have. We need to take dramatic steps to improve our water quality.  They are expensive
but they are possible, and we need to sort out how we can accomplish them.  We need to
recognize the total  burdens put on our regulated communities in order to meet  those
objectives.  We have to define our goals precisely and develop priorities that are achievable.

                                    David Fierra
                                 U.S. EPA, Region I
       Thank you, Rich. Julie Belaga wanted to express her regrets for not being here and
I can truly tell you that she is a very strong advocate of the coastal issues. She would have
liked to have been here, but she couldn't.

       When a friend of  mine who works for NOAA found  out  I was coming to the
conference to speak, he sent me a copy of a report on which he has been working.  The
report is to the United Nations, the second report dealing with issues on coastal waters in
the world. He sent me a letter that highlighted some of the  things  in the report.  I think
that I'd just like to summarize a couple of those things to reinforce what a lot of others have
already mentioned here this morning.  This is the second United Nations report.  It has
looked at thousands  of studies  worldwide.   The  consensus is that it  is not individual
pollutants or activities that are causing the major problems in coastal areas, but it is the
result of the sum total of all of the contaminants plus physical effects together from both
point and nonpoint sources. I think that the conclusions from the report are that only when
people become concerned with contaminants — ranging from dog feces on streets to exotic
chemicals coming out of modern internal combustion engines, spreading over the streets and
washing into the sea ~ can we begin to do something about issues.  It's easy to end ocean
dumping, although  some in this room may not agree with  that,  or to move  it farther
offshore.  It's far  harder to get the general citizenry to do those things that must be done
to improve and maintain environmental quality in the cities bordering  the coastal zone.
Well, I think that's just another voice worldwide that is indicating what the Administrator,
Brother Scanlan, and all the other speakers have talked about in terms of the problems we
are facing. We must  reduce the loadings to the environment,  particularly to the coastal
areas where they  tend to accumulate, causing  real problems.

       My charge to this group, this morning, is to talk about pollution prevention.  As was
alluded to earlier by at least one  of the questioners, I'd like to define pollution prevention
because talking about changing lifestyles or changing the way that we do business means
putting the environment first in the way we make those changes.  Who are the people that
need to participate? My feeling is, and I think a lot of the other speakers have mentioned


this, that  everyone has a role.   Industry certainly has  a role.  They must  reduce the
chemicals they use. We must reduce packaging.  Obviously, agriculture has a major role.
Developers need to stop destroying wetlands and habitat. Citizens must be much more
cognizant. The local, state, and the federal governments all have roles, significant roles that
should be more proactive. We need to look at legislation. We need to look at incentives.
We need to look at technical assistance -- working with people. Obviously, advocacy groups
have a significant role as Leslie Carothers mentioned.  They must push everyone harder.
And we all have a responsibility to educate our peers and the  citizens, as Commissioner
Carothers said, in terms of what are we really doing to our environment and what can we
do to change it?

       The changes are not  going to come easily. In many cases, they are inconvenient.
There are institutional barriers that need to be dealt with -- and, in some cases, they're
costly. But as Dr. Jack Pierce from NOAA said, "these are the  things we must work on if
we are going to make a difference." The cost of not making these changes, as people have
said, is overwhelming. Many of things we are doing now are irreversible in terms of our
overall ecosystem.

       I would like to talk for just a couple of minutes about a few examples of some of
these ongoing changes that I am aware of and things that this group should think about in
terms of their applicability to the estuaries that we are talking about today.  Cape Cod,
Massachusetts, where I happen to live, is about to  pass or ratify a local land use regulatory
agency. That is a tremendous challenge in New England, and in Massachusetts, where local
government is so strong and so autonomous.  They've finally corne to the realization that
the ecosystem is a regional — geographically regional — activity and does not honor town
boundaries.  I expect that it  will pass by probably 3 to 1 or better, because the citizens did
vote it in by 3 to 1 on a non-binding referendum a year ago last fall.

       The Narragansett Bay Project --  some of  things we are doing there. One of the
projects we're funding through the  bay project is working with industry, doing environmental
audits and helping industry to reduce the waste that it actually uses and in many cases going
to closed systems.

       In the Long Island Sound Project on the Housatonic River, we're funding some work.
We are working with  local farmers to try and minimize the amount of nutrients that they
need to place on the land.  I know in the New York area, although I'm  not personally
involved in it, Region II is dealing with the marine debris issue and trying to  control the
management of it while ultimately looking to minimize the utilization of it.

       I think that the message that I'd like to leave with you is that all sectors -- every
person -- need to deal with this issue and  can make a difference. The motivation must be
there.   Like Leslie Carothers  said, we need to educate  the people  about what the
consequences are.  I think this can be done.  I was at a meeting yesterday in Rhode Island
at which Administrator Reilly spoke.  It was their annual Save the Bay Meeting, and there

were 1,200 people present.  Every Congressman from Rhode Island was there with one
exception, and he sent a letter ~ they don't dare not be there. Save the Bay has the major
impact on politics in Rhode Island and they have made a major difference. I think that can
occur elsewhere.

       I think this group of people should let their imaginations run over the next two days
and come up with very strong and sensible but far-reaching recommendations to the Policy
Committee on all ways  of reducing pollutant inputs into the environment.  As Langdon
Marsh mentioned, it is going to be very difficult setting priorities on some problems. This
is true, but we should work on all fronts right now  to reduce pollutant loadings. Thank you.

                            Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff
                     Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region II
       Thank you, Rich.  No, I'm not mad because I'm going last; however, I am looking
forward to lunch.  So, I won't be too long.  One of the difficulties of going last, of batting
cleanup, of course, is the fact that many of the previous speakers have made the same points
that I was and am prepared to make.  However, never mind.  I will go ahead anyway.

       Part of our problem, and my assignment, is to talk about what we can do now. I
believe part of our problem is that people in our region and this country are not really sure
that governments collectively can improve things.  I  think we have a lot of credibility to
restore on our  collective ability to  do something.   This table represents a collective
partnership  table  - the State of  New York, the  State of New Jersey,  the State of
Connecticut, Region II,  and Region I of EPA. Can we get some visible  results?  In the
interim, in the period between the time we identify the many problems that we really know
already, and the time we complete and implement  a long-term management plan to resolve
these problems, wherever  we  can, we need  to  begin  removing some of the factors
contributing to the problems, while  we are trying  to figure out  how to  resolve  them
comprehensively.  In this way, we can keep many of the effects of the problems in check
while we look for permanent solutions.

       We know, as Commissioner Carothers  said,  that the public  cares.   The public,
however, needs to be lead. You know, politics and rhetoric can be very harmful. It doesn't
really accomplish very much to blame either the states, or the federal government, or the
cities, or the localities because that kind of convenient bashing of other jurisdictions doesn't
accomplish anything.  It's hard to convince people in one part of the country that they
should put resources —  tax dollars — into coastal areas or another part  of the  country.
That's a given fact. What we at the federal government, on the administrative side, can do
is try to make sure that those resources for which  we are responsible are spent wisely and
effectively. However, I think we have to come up with some things that we can do now that
are really feasible and  that can show  the  public that it  is worthwhile  to  expend their
resources on improving the conditions in our estuaries, our water bodies,  and our coastal
areas today. Discretion is obviously the better part of valor. And before you implement any
interim plan of action you must have a reasonable basis for whatever temporary solutions
you are offering.

      I want to touch on five or so specific problem areas that we have identified and how
we are now either implementing or could implement an "action now" agenda to deal with
them. The first one is the floatables area.  We mentioned earlier that an early product of
the New York Bight Restoration Plan was the short-term Floatables Action Plan that was
implemented last summer. This was, I think,  extraordinarily successful evidence  of how
jurisdictions can, in fact, work together.  This plan was developed in cooperation with the
U.S. Army Corps of  Engineers,  the Coast  Guard,  the  New Jersey Department  of
Environmental Protection, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation,
and the New York City Departments of Sanitation  and Environmental Protection.  The
purpose was to combat floatable debris and washups on beaches. As you all  know, washups
had created an enormous problem and a disaster area for our coastal regions the summer
before last. An economic hit of enormous magnitude. Last summer the plan, and what was
done according to it, virtually stopped beach closings with a couple of exceptions.  It  is an
example of how a short-term solution, an action now agenda, can be effective.  The same
group that developed the floatables action plan is currently working on long-term solutions
for the Bight.  Skimmer boats will be bought by the City of New York and put into service
in skimming, when the money is made available through grants to be made by the region
in the next couple of months.  The boats will not necessarily be available this summer.
Meanwhile, the plan and the program will go back into effect — and have already started
to go back into effect — this summer. But what new  things can we start to do in the same
general area  of  floatables that  can begin to  attack the problem  directly, visibly, and
immediately?  That is the charge that we would like to have you all think about during this
three-day conference.

      Another area is pathogens. Bursting sewage pipes and other accidents contribute to
the ruination of shellfish beds, make waters unswimable, and hurt tourism.  Accidents do
happen but, to a great extent, these things could be avoided through better maintenance of
sewage  systems.   We need to move, with the states, to ensure that the penalty for these
accidents  is swift and sure and that, working  through the  media, we create a clear
disincentive for future accidents. In Mamaroneck Harbor, for example, beach closures  after
periods of rainfall are frequently attributed to the surcharging of sanitary  sewers  and to
discharges of  contaminated storrnwater.  The state  is addressing  the  surcharging issue
through  enforcement actions.   Now,  we're attempting to  address  the   contaminated
storrnwater issue through  the Mamaroneck Harbor Action  Plan.   We are  examining
alternatives,  ranging from increased street sweeping  to  detention  and  treatment of
storrnwater discharges in order to reduce the bacterial load reaching the area's beaches. We
will work with the states  to incorporate the results in reasonable  storrnwater discharge
permits.  What else should we be doing, now, to improve that kind of situation?

      Toxics ~ this problem appears much  larger in the New York Harbor than in the
Sound or in  the  Bight.   So, we're  looking to  fast track  the schedule for waste  load
allocations for toxics so that we can finalize plans to further reduce toxic discharges well
before the 1994 deadline for the harbor plan. We'd like to know what else we can do and
what else  can be done by other jurisdictions.

      Habitat  — we are  looking  at  advanced identification  or  added  plans  in  the
Hackensack Meadowlands area of New Jersey and on both sides of the Hudson River. Our
only word to the developer and the constituencies if they are represented here is, when it
comes to things like wetlands, as Mark Twain said, "It's a lot easier to stay out than to get

      Nutrients - this problem is much more severe in the Sound than in the Harbor or
Bight. It is a good example of where we need to find a reasonable basis for action.  For a
long time, we did not have enough technical data to implement an "action now" agenda.  We
did not  even know which nutrient — nitrogen or phosphorus ~ was  causing the  problem.
Now, we see that the culprit is nitrogen.  The Long Island Sound study is publicly committed
to producing a preliminary nutrient management plan by September 30th of this year, 14
months prior to the completion of the final plan. We need to ensure that we come forward
with an "action now"  agenda for the control of nutrients at that time.  Actions that we
should be considering include requiring the owners and operators of municipal treatment
plants to begin facility planning now for nutrient control, imposing a freeze on nutrient
inputs to ensure  that the problem does not get worse as we continue studying it, and
initiating nutrient management  plans for critical watersheds by targeting  the heaviest
contributors to the problem. If we hope to regain some of our credibility, we certainly must
be prepared to  act more  quickly than we have in the past.

      I can't help thinking that while it took a certain number of years to send  a man to
the moon it has taken probably twice that long to build one sewage treatment plant in the
North River. It's not  quite totally in operation for secondary treatment as yet, as far as I
know. It takes a long time to get this kind of project done or under way.  But, in order to
be able  to develop the constituency — the political  constituency — that we have to have to
get the money to do the things we all know need to be done, we have to be able to show
some direct and immediate visible results now. So, that is my charge to you all. Please tell
us what we should be doing now, during these next lh days.  Thank you very much.

                       A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
                      ENGINEERING AND SCIENTIFIC
                                Donald J. O'Connor
                            Professor, Manhattan College,
                      and Principal Consultant, HydroQual Inc.
      This paper is an introduction to the major issues of the conference - Nutrient and
Organic Enrichment,  Pathogens and Floatables, Ocean Disposal, Toxics, Habitat and
Seafood Safety.  The first three issues, which affect in large measure the latter two and to
a lesser degree ocean disposal, are primarily addressed.  A historical perspective of water
quality in the New York-New Jersey Harbor is presented, indicating the conditions before
construction of the treatment plants and the progressive improvements that have occurred
as additional facilities have  been placed into  operation.  Present levels (1989) of water
quality are evaluated in light of existing standards and the various projects in the planning
and design stages. Comparable, but less extensive, discussions of the Long Island Sound and
New York Bight follow discussion of the Harbor. The locations and boundaries of  three
regions are shown in Figure  1. Scientific and engineering advances and the development
and utility of water quality models are briefly discussed. The concluding section summarizes
the progress made and the steps to be taken in the overall goal of improving water quality
in the metropolitan  area, and offers some general observations and recommendations
applicable to this and other estuarine projects in the country.

      The collection of wastewater and the construction of the sewerage system in New
York City began in early  1696.  The major portion of the system in lower and central
Manhattan was begun approximately in 1830 and completed in 1870.  The first wastewater
treatment plant was constructed in 1886 to protect the bathing beaches of Coney Island.
As the other boroughs of the city and the adjoining metropolitan and urban areas in New
Jersey expanded, during the immigration in the latter part of the 19th century and the early
decades of the 20th century, so too did the wastewater collection system.

Figure 1.  New York-New Jersey Harbor and contiguous coastal zones.

      The discharge of the  increasing quantities of sewage associated with population
growth caused a depression in water quality in the Harbor and the North and East Rivers.
This condition, in conjunction with many other public health issues, led to the establishment
of a Sanitary Commission in  1904 to develop a master plan for sewage treatment in New
York  City. Implementation of the Commission's report, completed in 1910, did not occur
until 1929, due in part to the first World War in the late teens and presumably due to lack
of public awareness during the economic prosperity of the decade of the twenties.  Despite
the collapse of the stock market and the ensuing financial depression in the early thirties,
aggravated by the extreme drought in the Midwest, a construction program was initiated in
1931 in New York City.  The first regional treatment plant, Coney Island, was placed into
operation in 1935, three additional plants on the East River were activated by the end of
the end of the decade, and two plants discharging to  Jamaica Bay were operating early in
the following decade. Passaic Valley, the largest plant in New Jersey, which discharges to
the Upper Harbor, also began operations during this period.

      The construction program, which included the installation of new facilities as well as
efforts to increase the treatment efficiency of the existing plants, was renewed following the
second World War. By 1967, 12 major plants were in operation in New York City, including
Newtown Creek, the largest plant in the metropolitan complex.  Comparable programs of
treatment plant construction in the seventies and eighties were effected in the states of New
Jersey and Connecticut and Westchester County, and the City's program was completed.
Thus, virtually all of the wastewaters presently discharging to the New York-New Jersey
Harbor Complex receive treatment.  The  locations  and capacities of the plants, which
discharge directly to the Upper Harbor  and the North and East Rivers, are shown in Figure
2.  Additional  facilities, not shown,  are  located in Staten Island,  New  Jersey, and

      New York City was one of the first large metropolitan areas to design, construct, and
operate biological treatment processes; this provided the  basis for subsequent application
both nationally and worldwide.  Noteworthy is the research and development  of treatment
processes conducted by the Department of Public Works that were initiated in the thirties
and carried on for the next two or three decades.  During this period, the role of the federal
government  was purely advisory through  the Public  Health  Service.  A significant
contribution, however, was made by a public works program, instituted during the Roosevelt
administration,  to relieve the effects  of  the  depression.   Financial  support  for the
construction of many of the  treatment plants was thereby provided.  The  authority to
establish water quality  standards, however, resided in the  individual states.  In light of the
regional nature of water quality problems in the Harbor Complex, the States of New York,
New Jersey, and Connecticut signed an interstate pact, establishing the Interstate Sanitation
Commission. Common water quality standards were agreed on, and the Commission reports
annually on  the progress of treatment plant construction and upgrading to achieve these

      Treatment Plant Effluents
       Fraction Treated - 1989

   —  Combined Sewer Overflow

   D- NYC Survey Stations
New York
Figure 2. New York-New Jersey Harbor complex

      In the period following the second World War, the federal government played an
increasing role in the abatement of water  pollution.  In the sixties, the Federal Water
Pollution Control Agency was created, which thereafter became the Federal Water Quality
Agency.   Under its auspices, in  conjunction  with  the  states and the  City, the  first
comprehensive study of the  Harbor Complex  was conducted  -- The Hudson River-
Metropolitan Complex Program. One of the significant features of this program was the
application of a mathematical model of water quality to a regional management plant.  The
development of the model occurred during the previous decade through research grants
from the National Science Foundation and the United States Public Health Service.

      Increasing awareness of the quality of all phases of the environment -- air, water, and
land ~  led  to the  formation of the Environmental Protection  Agency in  1970.   The
Construction Grants Program of the Agency supplied funding for the construction of
additional treatment plants. Under the  nationwide EPA 208 program in the seventies, a
comprehensive study of the Harbor waters was conducted to assess the effectiveness of the
treatment facilities in achieving water quality goals and the  significance of pollution  from
nonpoint sources.  The mathematical model was extended upstream to the  limit of the
salinity intrusion in  the Hudson River, to the western region of Long Island Sound and to
the apex of New York Bight.  The water quality model was used to evaluate various
management alternatives to reduce the effect of combined sewer overflows, in conjunction
with increased levels of treatment of the  point sources. It subsequently was employed in a
number of regional planning studies.  In the seventies and eighties, a water quality program
for New  York Bight  was  conducted  by  the National  Oceanic  and  Atmospheric
Administration, which was established at the same time as the EPA.  In the past few years,
a study of water quality of Long Island was undertaken under the EPA Estuaries Program
and, under separate congressional authorization, a similar study of the New York Bight was
conducted.  Over this period, incremental improvements of the mathematical  model  were
effected, culminating in the present  state of the art for the Long Island Sound Study.

      The constituents  in untreated municipal wastewaters, which  adversely affect the
quality of receiving waters, are the following:  suspended and floatable solids, bacteria,
organic carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus and toxic substances, which include heavy metals,
synthetic organic chemicals, and radionuclides.  Some or all of these  constituents are also
present  in treatment plant effluents, combined sewer overflows, urban runoff, industrial
wastes, tributary inflows, and  atmospheric deposition.  Although  each of these  sources
contributes to the total mass rate of  discharge of the constituents,  the plant effluent
constitutes the major fraction.

      The treatment plants are designed to remove primarily, and operate accordingly, the
solids, bacteria, and organic carbon.  Some reduction of nutrients and  toxic substances is
incidentally effected in the treatment processes.  One of the major issues is the treatment

of the latter constituents required to meet water quality standards. In defining this level of
treatment, consideration should simultaneously be given to the relative effects and potential
modifications of the other sources.

       Coliform bacteria, indicators of pathogenic organisms, are substantially reduced by
the various processes that comprise the treatment system.  The effect of treatment is seen
in the dramatic reduction of the bacterial concentration in the East and North Rivers over
the past few decades (Figure 3).  The concentration of the fecal coliform bacteria, a less
ambiguous criterion, is also presented.  Notable is the similarity of the long-term trends in
each region of the harbor system, the magnitude of the concentration being proportional to
the respective mass discharges. The anomalous increase in the fifties and sixties and the
short-term rise in the seventies in the North River require further analysis.   The present
levels of coliform  bacteria are primarily due to combined sewer overflows, urban runoff, and
tributary inflows.

       In the past decade, a program  of pretreatment of industrial wastewaters  has been
initiated, specifically directed to the removal of heavy metals.  The concentrations of these
substances have also diminished, examples of which are shown in Figure 4 for copper and
lead.  While, in some cases, the other heavy metals, such as cadmium and chromium, have
not decreased as significantly, the present concentrations are within water quality standards.
Presently under way is a citywide combined sewer overflow study. The implementation of
the program, following this study, will further reduce the levels of both bacteria and heavy
metals, as well  as particulate organic carbon and nutrients.

       Organic enrichment refers specifically to the organic carbon complexes in wastewater,
which  are assimilated by bacteria as a food source  and simultaneously utilize  dissolved
oxygen. Inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus are  absorbed by phytoplankton, whose carbon
source is carbon dioxide. The algae, however, produce oxygen  during daylight and consume
it at night.  On senescence and decay of these microorganisms,  organic carbon and nutrients
are released and  the cycle is repeated.  The common denominator is  dissolved oxygen,
required by both  the bacteria and  algae, as well as the higher forms of  aquatic life.  The
oxygen utilized by these respiratory processes is replaced by the photosynthetic activity of
the algae and from the vast reservoir of oxygen in the atmosphere. In a balanced ecosystem,
the microorganisms work cooperatively, supplying each other with food and nutrients.  More
important, they establish the basis of the aquatic food chain.  The intermediate organisms
predate on the lower forms and in turn are consumed by the higher aquatic and terrestrial
predators and ultimately by humans. Each link in the food chain returns organic carbon and
nutrients through  respiration, elimination, and decay.


~*'f~~ MJ~C

• NY S




L**" 9m
        40 -
        20 -
         o -f
             4 4. •
E co -
? 40 -
2 20 -


— ii^-1-

'• ^B""


t. 4.4
• * *•(
•*• ,


»40 ' t950 I960 1970 ' i960 ' 88®0 I
Figure 3.  Summer average coliform and fecal bacteria.



             50 -


Nm Vtl^M,

4- 4
' * t /
y v7 '
i *


\ +- X




Figure 4.

      This ecological balance is distributed when excessive amounts of organic carbon and
nutrients are discharged to the receiving waters. In this case, the bacteria and algae, instead
of working a parallel mode, operate in a sequential and an apparently more deterministic
manner.  When untreated wastes, containing a high organic carbon content, are released to
a natural water body, bacterial growth is initially predominant and the dissolved oxygen is
depressed.  Water quality  models were first developed to define  this process.   The
conversion of carbon to bacterial cells and the restoration of dissolved oxygen establish an
environment more conducive to the growth and potential proliferation of algae.  The latter
is related to the  concentration  of nitrogen  and phosphorous  as well  as to light and
temperature levels. Subsequent development of mathematical models incorporated these
phenomena. The final repository of the cellular production of both the bacteria and algae
is in the bed of the river, estuary, or coastal zone. Oxygen is required for the decomposition
of this material, releasing nutrients, some of which are returned to the water column. The
latest developments in water quality modeling include these significant mechanisms.

      Initial efforts in the field of environmental engineering and science were accordingly
directed to the removal of organic carbon to restore dissolved oxygen levels, and later efforts
were  directed to the removal of nutrients to control the growth of phytoplankton.  The
treatment facilities in the New York-New Jersey Harbor and throughout the country have
been designed primarily to remove the organic carbon. The effect of nutrient discharges has
not been evident in the Harbor water, but rather in the contiguous regions of western Long
Island Sound in the mid to late eighties and  the New York Bight during the mid-seventies.
During  these periods,  extremely low dissolved oxygen  and anoxic  conditions have been
observed.  One of the most significant questions, which the mathematical models  are
presently  being used to address, is the degree of nutrient removal required to maintain
water  quality  standards.    Of equal and  possibly greater  importance is  the  relative
significance  of the anthropogenic sources of nutrients by contrast to the effects of natural
phenomena ~  rainfall,  runoff, winds,  temperature, stratification,  and the circulation
associated with these factors.

      The role of dissolved oxygen, critical in the ecological balance, is one of the primary
criteria by which the state of the aquatic ecosystem is evaluated. The reduction in the mass
discharge of organic carbon as the treatment plants were placed in operation resulted in
gradual improvement in the dissolved oxygen concentrations in the North and Lower East
River, as shown in Figure 5. Sampling of the Harbors was initiated in 1910 and has been
regularly  conducted  to the  present -- a testimony to the environmental awareness and
scientific foresight of New York City administration and personnel. It represents the longest
historical  record of water quality in the  country and one  of the  longest in  the world, the
London County Council in England having begun regular sampling in the Thames  River in

      The dissolved oxygen data in Figure 5  are summer average values, with the solid line
drawn through  the three-year moving averages.  The North River data are  representative
of the concentration in  the surface layer.  The dissolved oxygen values in the lower layer are

                            D- YEARLY
                               3 YR AVERAGE
                            4 - YEAR
                            	 3 YR AVERAGE
Figure 5. Summer average dissolved oxygen.

1 or 2 mg/L less. The East River is approximately vertically homogeneous and the data are
depth average values.  The improvement in the dissolved oxygen concentration is evident
from the late thirties, when the  first treatment plant on the East River was placed  in
operation.  The relatively rapid decrease in dissolved oxygen occurred from 1910 to 1920,
when the population increased and a major portion of the sewerage system was  completed.
In the following 20 to 30 years, the Harbor waters assimilated the untreated wastewater of
more than 5 million people and sustained an approximate steady-state  condition. It is
remarkable that the dissolved oxygen never dropped  to zero in the major waterways,  as
occurred in other estuarine systems serving large metropolitan areas.  Noteworthy are the
similar responses of the North  and East Rivers, as well as the pronounced oscillation  in
concentration, rising in the late sixties and falling in the early seventies. In the eighties, the
concentration is approximately constant in the East River, while it continued to rise in the
North River.

      In Figure 6, the historical records of dissolved oxygen in the Lower and Upper East
Rivers are  presented, in conjunction with the total population of the area draining to the
East River and the contributing population.  The  difference between the  two  is the
equivalent population receiving treatment. The locations of vertical lines indicate the year
in which the various plants went into operation, with each displacement representing the
approximate magnitude  of  the facility.  The "untreated" value in 1989 represents the
equivalent  population of the residual mass in the plant effluents.   It is ironic  that in the
years following the construction of the Newton Creek plant (1967), the concentration  of
dissolved oxygen decreased.

      A comparable depression in the  dissolved oxygen occurred in the North River  as
shown in Figure 7, which also presents the timing and magnitude of the treatment plant
construction. The dashed lines in the two upper panels are parallel long-term trends. The
Hudson River flow and the New York City rainfall are presented in the lower panel. The
correlation between the rainfall and runoff is evident.  Also  to be noted is the inverse
relation between these parameters and the dissolved oxygen ~  the maximum concentration
occurring at the end of the dry period in  the late sixties and the reverse in the mid to late
seventies.   From this graphical and qualitative correlation, it may be inferred that the
maximum concentration of dissolved oxygen  is due to reduction in the combined sewer
overflows and the related benthal demand, an increase in the photosynthetic activity of the
algae and minimum salinity  stratification during the dry period, followed by a  reversal  of
these factors resulting in a minimum concentration of dissolved oxygen in the wet period.
The minimum and maximum flows of the eighty-year record of the Hudson occurred
respectively at these times.

      The historical records of dissolved oxygen in the upper and lower layers of western
Long Island Sound at Hart Island are shown in Figure 8. The individual points are average

t- •
§ 80-
£ 60-
x 40 -
1 20-
4 -
— CO ^— ' ""
-^— O

1 -

++ \
• Vv*vv

Upper East
4-+ +

" "" 'T

+ +•"+*** <
v" + / '

- Lower East

•'••'•• ^^
4 •

10 1930 1950 1970 1990


- Untreated

1 1 n M i ii 1 1*-*"*
I 	 .

0 1930 1950 19'
— Total

70 19<

Figure 6.















CO   15

u-   10


               I        I
             ( 3YR, MOVING AVERAGE)
                                 AUGUST  DATA
   -   SURFACE
1  -


— * 	

* ^ ,

* * •
>- 	 A
'c±^_+y*r ^/

Nli +
* A


^0          60

Figure 8.  Hart Island, Long Island Sound.

values for the month of August, and the solid line the three-year running average of these
data.  This record is not as extensive as those for the North and East Rivers, but sufficient
to demonstrate the trend from 1945 to the present.   The  maximum concentration  of
dissolved oxygen in the mid-sixties is similar, but the depression in the following decade is
not evident.  The influence of the photosynthetic production offers the effect of the negative
factors.  From 1910 to 1985, the dissolved oxygen varies in an apparently random manner.
From 1985,  the concentration  in the surface layer increases while that in the lower layer
decreases resulting in the maximum differential between the two layers, as shown in the
lower panel.  The increasing dissolved oxygen  is  consistent  with the increase  in the
photosynthetic activity of the algae. Although the chlorophyll record,  which is a measure
of the algal  concentration, is not as complete as the dissolved oxygen, there are sufficient
data to indicate moderate increases of algae over this period.

      An additional factor  producing the relatively large difference in dissolved oxygen
concentration is the associated salinity gradient.  The increase in the salinity gradient is due
to meteorological and hydrological factors, which also affect the hydrodynamic circulation.
The general direction of the current on the north shore of Long Island Sound is westward,
introducing nutrients which  are discharged from the treatment plants  on the Connecticut
shore. Possibly more significant is the flux of nutrients from the plants on the Upper East
River in New York City, as well as the effects of the heavily stressed embayments on both
the north and south shores in this region. A hydrodynamic study of Long Island Sound,
presently under way, will provide an important component to  the water quality analysis  of
the Sound.  The integrated hydrodynamic and water quality model should then be able  to
delineate the relative significance of the New York and Connecticut treatment plants,  as
well as the  effect  of the stressed embayments, with respect  to both point and nonpoint

      There remains the question of the net direction and magnitude  of the flow through
the East River. Preliminary hydrodynamic analysis of this problem indicates the transport
is from the  Sound to the  Harbor, in which case the effect of the New York City plants
would be less than if the net tidal flow were toward the Sound.  A study has recently been
initiated to address this problem, the results of which should provide a firmer basis for the
water quality management plan of Long Island Sound, as well as the New York-New Jersey

      Extensive data on water quality have been collected for the New York Bight during
the seventies, particularly with respect to the anoxic conditions which occurred in the middle
of the decade.  Studies were conducted prior to and following this episode,  but  were
discontinued in  the  earlier eighties.  Limited  hydrodynamic analysis of the  complex
circulation patterns were also made during this period. Surveys and evaluations of the  Apex
region of the Bight, as well as the 106-mile site, were carried on to address the issue of


sludge disposal. Additional data have also been collected by a number of local and regional
agencies.  The complete historical record is, however, not as extensive as those for the
Harbor and the Sound. The studies have focused primarily on organic enrichment, nutrient
discharges, and dissolved oxygen.  Information on toxic materials is relatively limited.
Various analyses and summaries of these data have been conducted, but compilation of the
overall data base apparently has not been performed to date; this project should be initiated

      From  the viewpoints of scientific understanding  and  engineering analysis, more
questions remain than have been answered. Among these, the major issues relate to the net
hydrodynamic transport and mass flux through the Sandy  Hook transect, the water-bed
transfer of  the dissolved  and particulate  components  of nutrients  and toxicants,  the
metabolic characteristics of the  algae and  bacteria  and their  interaction, atmospheric
deposition, and the variable circulation patterns on the seasonal, annual, and long-term time
scales. The primary question of the net flux through the Sandy Hook transect is related to
the direction and magnitude of the net flow in the East River.  A preliminary effort, which
is specifically directed to  addressing this question, will incorporate  as many of these
remaining issues as possible. The purpose of the study is to define the relative significance
of the flux through the Sandy Hook transect, by contrast to the other sources of pollutants
to the New York Bight.

1.     Significant progress has been made in improving water quality in the New York-New
       Jersey Harbor with respect to bacteria and dissolved oxygen. It is anticipated that
       the treatment upgrading of a few remaining plants should readily achieve the water
       quality standards for bacteria  and dissolved oxygen.  The relatively long history of
       daia collection, model development, and application has provided a sound basis for
       planning as evidenced by the improvement in these constituents.

2.     The nutrient discharges apparently have no deleterious effects in the Harbor and the
       North and East Rivers, but increased algal growth as well as bacteria oxidation and
       benthal effects are related to the decreasing dissolved oxygen in western Long Island.
       The scientific understanding  and  engineering  analysis of the effects of nutrient
       discharges represent the state of the  art.   Lacking broad application, the present
       model contains a degree of uncertainty. Questions  that further contribute to the
       uncertainty relate to the direction and magnitude  of East River net flow, the
       circulation in Western Long Island Sound, the relative significance of the treatment
       plant  effluents  from New York and  Connecticut, and the effect of the stressed
       embayments contiguous in this region.  Notwithstanding, the modeling effort should
       provide a reasonable basis for management decisions regarding nutrient control for
       Long  Island Sound, and subsequently, for the New York Bight.

3.     Major reductions in the concentrations of some heavy metals in the Harbor waters
      have been recorded over the past decade, and in certain cases, such as cadmium and
      chromium, the present concentrations are within established standards.  Much,
      however, remains to be done.  The knowledge and understanding of the phenomena
      that determine the fate of toxic substances are not as complete as that existing for
      nutrients and, therefore, efforts toward codification of the present state of knowledge,
      with the associated development and improvement of the relevant models, should be
      initiated immediately.

4.     Formulation of a water quality management plan should simultaneously take  into
      account both nutrients and toxicants, in conjunction with the ultimate disposal of
      sludge and residues  from proposed and  existing  treatment facilities, rather than
      unilateral consideration of each.  The next logical step appears to be the reduction
      of mass discharges  from combined sewer overflows and urban runoff, which contain
      both nutrients and  toxicants as well as other constituents that adversely affect water
      quality. The large identifiable overflows are relatively amenable to modification and
      control, which produce improvements in water quality and reduce accumulation in
      the benthal layers.

5.     Given the present state of knowledge  and the  rate at which  understanding is
      progressing, the planning and decisionmaking process should have sufficient flexibility
      to incorporate future developments, presently unanticipated; thus, planning  and
      implementation  should be viewed  as an  incremental process, comparable to the
      evolving state  of scientific and engineering knowledge and model  development.

      The engineering science of the environment  is barely  fifty years old - a brief
      historical  period by  contrast  to  the  other longer-lived  endeavors  of science  and
      engineering. This field is presently characterized by the relatively specialized inputs
      of a variety of disciplines, rather than by a coordinated and cooperative effort of
      many. The activities of various governmental agencies, responsible for environmental
      concerns, may be characterized in a similar manner.  Hopefully, the formation  of a
      Department of the  Environment at the national level may consolidate many of these
      activities.   The foregoing assessments  provide  some  basis for  the  following
      observations and recommendations, which also have relevance to other water quality
      studies throughout the country.

1.     There should be a continuous and coordinated program of environmental monitoring
      and assessment involving scientists, engineers, administrators, and the public. The
      program would include data collection, laboratory and field experimentation, analysis
      and synthesis  of these data, and  modeling development and application.   These
      activities should be incorporated in an ongoing process of environmental assessment,


      not simply when a problem arises.   Such a process would permit scientists and
      engineers to respond more rapidly when problems do arise, to assess improvements
      (or lack of) when remedial measures are effected, and to anticipate future issues.
      These scientific and engineering activities would focus on relevant  environmental
      issues, not "pure research" questions, which are presently supported by a number of
      governmental agencies and private foundations. The participation personnel would
      be  supported by and  accountable to  the public and  the governmental  agencies
      responsible for environmental quality.

2.     These are a number of governmental agencies at local, regional, and federal levels,
      presently  conducting or planning studies in the New York-New Jersey Harbor
      complex,  in  addition to those  supported by private  organizations and  research
      institutes. This situation has led to a plethora of studies of the area, which in many
      cases are  being carried on independently and autonomously. Admittedly, most, or
      at least some of these, advance the state of knowledge and contribute to the solution
      or control of environmental problems.  It would be more efficient and productive to
      coordinate these projects.  It is encouraging to note steps are being taken in the
      present project  toward this goal.  Further emphasis  should be placed on these
      coordinating efforts in order to eliminate repetition, to avoid reproducing past results,
      and to ensure all of the important issues are addressed.

3.     Present planning is focusing on specific regions  ~  New York  Bight, Long Island
      Sound, New York-New Jersey Harbor, and the Hudson River estuary. While it is
      feasible, as an initial step, to treat these components separately,  it will ultimately be
      required to  analyze the entire system as an ecological and  geophysical  unit. The
      information evolving from the present studies will provide a basis to structure a more
      realistic model of the total system on a larger time and space scale. It is understood
      that the present plan subsequently calls for the unified approach. The preliminary
      formulation of this model, however, should be initiated immediately.

4.     Expenditures in the order of billions  of dollars will be required to realize the water
      quality goals. Comparable costs to answer other environmental problems, as well as
      the many  social needs of this metropolitan area and the  country,  may be anticipated.
      The reflections of John Gardener, the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare
      in the Kennedy Administration, are relevant today. From his insightful and concise
      comments in "No Easy Victories," published more than twenty years  ago:

             We must all face the coming crunch between expectations and
             resources. The expectations of the  American people for social
             benefits are virtually limitless.  The proponents of every social
             institution or group believe passionately that  support of their
             field must be vastly enlarged in the near future.  The colleges
             and universities have ideas for federal support that would run
             to  billions per  year.  And they ask  little compared to the

             advocates of aid to elementary and secondary education. The
             annual costs of a guaranteed income would run to scores of
             billions.  Estimates of the cost of adequate air- and water-
             pollution control  and solid-waste disposal run even  higher.
             Estimates of the cost of renovating our cities run to hundreds
             of billions.  How do we make rational  choices between goals
             when resources are limited ~ and will always be limited relative
             to expectations?  The question translates itself into  several
             others: How can we gather the data, accomplish the evaluation
             and do the planning that will make rational choices possible?

      We are  taking a significant step  today in answering these questions ~ continuing
      along a path, laid out and cleared over the past half century.  Anticipating limited
      resources to accomplish the task, we must select judiciously those alternatives that
      provide the maximum environmental benefit.  As with resources, we have limited
      time and limited trained personnel, but they are sufficient to attain the goals in a
      staged and sequential manner. The task, however, will take longer than most of the
      public anticipates.

      The concluding observation is again taken from John Gardener:

             One striking  feature  of our  situation  today is that we are
             creating new problems as we go along....   Environmental
             pollution is the classic example of a problem arising from our
             progress. Our capacity to create new problems as rapidly as we
             solve the old  has implications for the kind of society we shall
             have to design.  We  shall need a society that is sufficiently
             honest and open-minded to recognize its problems, sufficiently
             creative to conceive new solutions, and sufficiently purposeful
             to put those solutions into  effect. It should be, in short, a self-
             renewing society...and, in justice to future generations, a self-
             sacrificing one.

      The historical background of the wastewater system was abstracted from annual
reports  of the  New York City Department  of  Environmental Protection,  Bureau  of
Wastewater Treatment. The cooperation of Edward Wagner, Assistant Commissioner, and
the assistance of Thomas Brosnan, Water Quality Section, are gratefully acknowledged. The
collection and compilation of the data by Savas Hadjineocleous and Abigail Bergoffen,
Environmental Engineering and Science Program,  Manhattan College, are recognized and


       Historical  Trends in the Abundance and Distribution
                   of Living Marine Resources
               J.L. McHugh,  W.M.  Wise,  R.R.  Young
                Marine Sciences Research Center
                  State University of New York
                   Stony Brook, NY, 11794-5000

                         presented at

                       the  conference on
     "Cleaning Up  Our  Coastal Waters: An Unfinished Agenda"
                       Manhattan College
                       12-14 March 1990

     The coastal and  estuarine waters of  New York Bight, Long

Island Sound, and New York-New Jersey Harbor  have  historically

supported rich,  diverse populations of fish and shellfish.  These

resources have sustained,  and continue to sustain, active commer-

cial and recreational  fisheries that  are  important components of

the economic, social,  and cultural  vitality of  the  region.   In

examining the extent,  cause(s), and consequences of water quality

problems in the region, the New York Bight Restoration Plan,  the

New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program,  and  the Long Island

Sound Study are attempting to  identify trends in the abundance

and distribution of key  fishery resource species and to relate

these trends to impaired  water  quality or habitat changes/losses

in the  region.   This brief presentation contributes  to that



     Estimating  the abundance of  fishery  resources  (stock

assessment)  can be  done  using  statistics derived from commercial

and/or recreational fisheries—principally landings,  fishing

effort,  and catch per unit  effort  (CPUE)—or  from information on

biological parameters  of the stock derived from fishery-

independent surveys of  the resources.  Ideally, both  types of

information are used.   Acceptable  quality data of each type are

available  for some  of the important marine  fisheries and fishery

resources  of  the New York Bight, and NOAA's National Marine

Fisheries Service uses  this information to produce  stock

assessments  for  these  species.  However,  fishery-independent

survey data and  rigorous fishery  effort data are  generally not

available for many of the more estuarine or  anadromous species of

fish and shellfish  found in Long  Island Sound and the New York-

New Jersey Harbor.

     The following  analysis of the status  of the region's marine

and estuarine fishery resources relies primarily  on commercial

fishery  landings and,  less so, on  commercial fishing  effort.

Marine recreational fishery landings and  effort data are avail-

able only for  the relatively recent past and  are not very useful

for describing historical trends  in resource abundance.   Trends

in commercial  landings do not  necessarily solely reflect changes

in the abundance of target species;  changing levels of fishing

effort and changes  in the availability of resources, which might

be produced by changes in key environmental parameters,  also

contribute  to variability in fish  catches.

     This summary focuses on the  biological condition of the

region's principal  fishery resources as this affects commercial

and recreational  fisheries.   Fisheries for some  species are

severely or  completely constrained  by the presence  in these

species of toxic contaminants  or  pathogens.   This unfortunate

circumstance  is documented elsewhere in this volume.

Commercial  Fishery Landings

     Commercial fishery landings in New  York and New Jersey

suggest that  there  has  been  a distinct decline  in the abundance

of fish and shellfish in the  region over the past century.  Total

commercial landings in  the  two states,  virtually all  of which

represent harvests from the Bight and  contiguous waters, drop

from  a  maximum  of nearly  700 million Ibs.   in  1956  to

approximately 160  million  Ibs.   in 1987.   Commercial fishery

catch per unit effort has also dropped,  mainly because effort

(number and  harvesting  capacity  of  fishing  vessels)  has

increased, particularly in the trawl  and longline  fisheries

(NOAA,  1988;  McHugh and Hasbrouck,  1989).

     Much of  the documentable decline  in  commercial  fisheries in

the mid-Atlantic region has been caused  by  overharvesting of

target resource species  (McHugh, 1972).   This is particularly so

for species that  spend  most  of  their lives  in the open, coastal

waters of the Bight,  for which  the evidence incriminating water

quality deterioration as a cause for declines  in resource abun-

dance is slight.  Water pollution and habitat destruction/altera-

tion have undoubtedly contributed to the decline in abundance of

a number of those species that are strongly dependent on riverine

and/or estuarine environments  (Summers  et.  al.,  1987).   However,

even for many of  these  species,   it is generally  believed that

overfishing has played as important  a  role  in reducing standing

stocks (NOAA,  1988).

     On a volume basis,  menhaden  (Brevoortia tyrannus)  histori-

cally dominated  commercial  fishery  landings from  the  Bight and

Long Island Sound.   However,  this important industrial species

has been seriously reduced in abundance  in the New York Bight

area, particularly since the 1960s.   Maximum landings were about

600 million Ibs.  in 1956,  but by 1987 almost no  menhaden were

landed  (Figure  1).   Water  pollution may have been important in

this decline; young  menhaden  enter  the estuaries  of the  region

and move up rivers  in their early development.   However,  it is

generally accepted that  overfishing,  especially in  Chesapeake Bay

and North Carolina,  is the major cause of decline  in the  stocks

of menhaden (McHugh,  1972,  1977).   Extensive catches of menhaden

were once made  in Long  Island Sound by purse seiners  operating

out of  ports  in New York,  New  Jersey, Connecticut, and  Rhode

Island.  As the  stocks  dwindled  due to fishing pressure  in the

region and  further south, the menhaden  processing plants began to

close.  The last plant in  New  York closed  in  1969.   With the

closing of the Sea Coast, Inc. reduction plants  in northern New

Jersey in 1982,  the only directed fishery  for menhaden  remaining





1  160 H

                          Total landings minus menhaden

                          Major anadromous, estuarine, and
                          marine species

                          Major anadromous and
                          estuarine species

                          Major marine species
                1880    1900
                      1920    1940
1960    1980
Figure  l.     Commercial marine fishery landings,  New York &  New
              Jersey,  1887-1987

in Long Island Sound  is a small gillnet fishery harvesting menha-

den to be used as bait in lobster pots and in recreational fish-


     When menhaden landings from New York and New Jersey are

substracted from the  total,  all-species landings, the upper curve

in Figure 2 is the result.   Except for the period  1962-66,   when

large landings  of food fishes  used to manufacture oil  and fish

meal increased total harvests substantially,  annual landings of

food  fish  and shellfish have  remained fairly steady  (100-120

million Ibs.); the increase  after 1973 has been caused  largely by

a major  increase in  fishing effort  rather than an increase in

resource abundance  (McHugh and Hasbrouck,  1989).   However, if

total landings  for food  are divided into two  categories--major

anadromous or estuarine species and major marine species, indica-

tions as to  the effect of  water pollution on  fishery  resources

may be made.

     Combined  landings of selected, major anadromous  and

estuarine  species, notably shad  (Alosa  sapidissima),  alewives

(Alosa pseudoharengus and  A.  aestivalis) , striped bass (Morone

saxatilis),  sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhvnchus), American  oyster

(Crassostrea viriqinca),  hard clam  (Mercenaria mercenaria), and

bay scallop  (Arqopecten irradians^  have declined in  the  past

century from more than 58 x  106 Ibs.  in 1887 to less than 5 x 106

Ibs. in 1987,  a decline of nearly 90%.







                    All Species
                    Menhaden only
            1880    1900   1920   1940   1960    1980
Figure  2.  Landings of food  finfish and shellfish, New York and
           New Jersey, 1887-1987

     Harvests  of  oysters and  hard clams,  particularly,  have

declined from overfishing and also from the direct  and indirect

effects of  pollution--the  contamination of  shellfish growing

waters with pathogens resulting from the pollution  of  estuarine

waters with  human sewage has  led to the closure of  thousands

ofacres of bay  bottom to harvesting.  Disease outbreaks  traceable

to consumption of  contaminated shellfish produce marked  reduc-

tions  in the regional  demand for raw shellfish (Grosslein  and

Azarowitz,  1982).   At  one  time,  oysters  were the primary commer-

cial shellfish  harvested  from Great South Bay, New York.  In  the

1950's, salinity  increases in the  Bay  caused by the  reopening of

Moriches Inlet  by a severe hurricane  and a  shift in  phytopklank-

ton species  assemblages  in the Bay to  smaller-size species, a

result of the introduction to the  Bay  of nitrogenous wastes from

duck farms,  combined to severely reduce the abundance of oysters.

With pollution  control  measures  gradually reducing the  impact of

duck wastes on  the  system, the hard clam assumed its  current role

as the primary  commercial  shellfish harvested from the Bay.

     Shad and other anadromous species  have also declined sub-

stantially in abundance.   These fishes are so vulnerable to water

pollution  at critical  stages  of  their lives  that  even though

overfishing has been the major factor in their  decline, loss of

habitat and  water pollution have also played  a part  (Talbot,

1954;  MacKenzie,  in prep.).

     Although Sindermann  et al.  (1982)  said that no  signs  of

adverse  effects  of  pollution on the abundance  of   fishes   and


shellfishes  could be identified  from  commercial  fishery  landings

data in the  New  York Bight, they were referring to events outside

the Hudson River Estuary and the New York-New Jersey Harbor.   In

the River proper,  in  the  Estuary, and  in  the region's inshore

embayments,  there is little doubt that water pollution  has also

been instrumental in reducing the abundance of such species as

shad (Talbot,  1954), hard clam (Schubel et al.  1985),  and oysters

(Loosanoff,  1932).

     Another factor contributing to the decline of some species

is the  destruction or disruption of habitat.   This effect is

illustrated  by both  Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxvrhynchus)  and

Atlantic salmon  (Salmo salar)  which are now threatened  in these

waters  due  to dams  in Connecticut rivers  which interfere with

their spawning  activities,  although  active restoration efforts

are underway with Atlantic salmon  in Connecticut.  The population

of sturgeon in  the  Hudson River  was also  subject to excessive

harvests in the latter part of the 19th-century.   The  Atlantic

States  Marine  Fisheries  Commission (ASMFC)  has  developed a

coastwide fishery management plan for shad  and river herring

designed to restore productive runs of these species to heavily

dirupted rivers, including habitat improvement, fish passageways,

and stocking programs.  Dredging  and filling activities in Long

Island Sound have severely disrupted the habitat of other species

such as soft clams (Mya arenaria).

     Major marine species,  on the other hand,  represented  in

Figure 2 by weakfish fCynoscion reaalis),  bluefish (Pomatomus

saltatrix),  Atlantic mackerel (Scomber  scombrus),  flounders

(primarily winter flounder Pseudopleuronectes americanus,  summer

flounder  Paralichthys dentatus.  yellowtail flounder Limanda

ferruqinea ,  scup  fStenotomus  chrysops) ,  black  sea  bass

(Centropristis striata), whiting or silver hake  (Merluccius

bilinearis),  and sea  scallops  (Placopecten magellanicus) have not

declined as much as many of the estuarine species.   In 1887 about

15 million Ibs.  were  landed in New York and  New Jersey.  Landings

rose irregularly to a maximum of about 63  million Ibs.  in 1949,

declined to a minimum of about 26 million Ibs.  in  1969,  rose to a

secondary maximum of  about 50  million Ibs.  in  1979, then  fell to

about 32 million Ibs. in 1987.

     A number  of regionally-important coastal  marine fishery

resources were purposely not included  in  Figures  1  and  2,

including surf clam  (Spisula  solidissima^,  which did not enter

the fishery in guantity until after the World War II, and ocean

guahog  (Arctica islandica),  which was not  reported in  New York

Bight landings  untill  1976.    Atlantic  cod  (Gadus  morhua)  and

haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus)  also were not  included  because

they appeared in landings in  guantity only for  a few years and

obviously  represented a  change  in  fishing  strategy.   Minor

species  also  were not included.  These omissions account  for the

discrepancy in Figure 2  between  total landings minus menhaden and

major anadromous,  estuarine,  and marine species.

     Natural fluctuations  in abundance  account for some of the

landings trends,  as do changes in fishing effort.   For instance,

the maximum landings in  1949  would have been considerably lower

if the New England mackerel fleet had not made an appearance off

the Middle Atlantic Bight in the late 1940's (Fishery Statistics

of the  United States,  1949).  Although the  catches of  major

marine  species in Figure 2  seem to  show a slightly  increasing

trend,  there  is  almost  certainly a decline in  actual abundance

because fishing effort has  increased  substantially since the late

1970's  (McHugh and  Hasbrouck, 1989), which  means  that catch per

unit of effort has declined.   Many of the most important finfish

and shellfish  that  have traditionally supported  the  commercial

fisheries in the Southern New England region are currently being

harvested at or above long-term sustainable levels (NMFS,  1989).

This is particularly the case for species  important in  the trawl


     Figure 3  shows  total  landings,  fishing effort,  and catch-

per-unit-effort in  the  trawl fisheries  of the  northeast.   Total

trawl catches in the northern mid-Atlantic region declined by 28%

during  the period  1984-1987, while catch-per-unit-effort  has

declined by more than 50%  from  the peak  in  1982.   The abundance

of important groundfish  species has  declined  in the  past decade

while other species, such as  squid, butterfish, and whiting, have


Figure 3.
Total trawl catch, standardized  fishing  effort (days
fished), and catch-per-unit-effort since 1976  for
three regions of the northwest Atlantic  Ocean  (from
NOAA, 1989).

remained relatively  abundant and assumed greater  importance in

the fisheries of the region.  There  is  little question that the

primary cause of declining  abundance  of  the region's historically

important groundfish and flounder resources has been overfishing

resulting from increases in domestic  fishing effort that began in

the early 1980's (NOAA,  1989).  Unless fishing mortality on these

species is reduced,  their  contribution to the  fisheries  of the

region will continue to  decrease.

     Many of the fishery resources important  to the  New Jersey-

New  York-Connecticut region have  clearly become  less abundant

over the past one hundred years,  especially those that depend on

rivers  and estuaries.   For a  number  of these estuarine and

anadromous stocks,  there is strong evidence that water pollution

and other habitat disruptions have played a  significant part in

these declines  (Franz,  1982; Mayer,  1982; Summers et  al.  1987;

Rose 1986; Sykes and Lehman,  1957).   For some of  these inshore

species, however,  and for many of the coastal marine species, the

primary cause of stock reductions has been overharvesting.

Blake,  M.M.  and Smith,  E.M.   1984.   A marine  resources  management
plan for the State of Connecticut. Dept. of  Envir.  Prot.,  Bureau
of Fisheries.   244pp.

Fishery  Statistics of the  United States.   1977.   Statistical
Digest Vol. 71,  U.S.  Dept.  of  Commerce 1984: vi  + 407 pp  (and
previous numbers in this  series,  under various  departments, going
back to 1880).

Franz,  D.R.   1982.  An historical perspective  on molluscs  in New
York Harbor, with emphasis on oysters.   In: Ecological  stress and
the New York Bight: Science  and  management.   Garry  F. Mayer (ed) .
Estuarine research Federation, Columbia,  SC.  181-197.

Grosslein,  M.D.  and Azarovitz,  T.R.   1982.   Fish Distribution.
MESA New York Bight Atlas Monograph 15, New  York Sea Grant Inst.

Loosanoff, V.L.  1932.  Observations  on propagation of  oysters in
James and Carrotoman Rivers  and  the  seaside of  Virginia. Virginia
Commission on Fisheries,  Newport News,  VA. 45pp.

MacKenzie, C.L., Jr.   In manuscript. History of the fisheries of
Raritan Bay, NY and NJ, an urbanized  estuary.

Mayer,  G.F.,  ed.   1982.  Ecological stress  and the New York
Bight:  Science and management.  Estuarine Research Federation,
Columbia, .  715pp.

McHugh,  J.L.   1972.   Marine fisheries of New  York State.  U.S.
Dept.  Commerce,  NOAA,  Nat'1 Marine Fish.  Serv., Fish.  Bull.

McHugh, J.L.  1977.  Fisheries and fishery resources of New York
Bight,  Nat'l Marine Fish. Serv., NOAA Tech. Report,  NMFS Circ.
401:v+50 p.

McHugh, J.L. and E. Hasbrouck.  1989.  Fishery management  in New
York Bight: experience under  the Magnuson Act.   Fisheries
Research 8:205-221

National Oceanic  and Atmospheric Administration.   1988.   Status
of fishery resources off  the northeastern United States for 1988.
NOAA TM NMFS-F/NEC-63, National  Marine Fisheries Service, Woods
Hole, MA  135pp.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.   1989.   Status
of fishery resources  off the northeastern United States for 1989.
NOAA TM NMFS-F/NEC-72.   National Marine Fisheries Service,  Woods
Hole,  MA.   110pp.

Rose,  K.A.,  Summers,  J.K., Cumins, R.A. and Heimbuch, J.G.   1986.
Analysis  of  long-term ecological  data using  categorical  time
series regression.  Can. J. Fish, and  Aquatic  Sci.  43(12):2418-

Schubel, J.R. et al. 1985. Suffolk County's hard clam industry:
an overview and analysis of management  alternatives.  A report of
a study by the Coastal Ocean Science and Management Alternatives
(COSMA)  Program.  Marine Sciences  Research Center,  State
University of New York, Stony Brook, NY.  Special Report 63,  Ref.

Sindermann, C.J., Esser, S.C.,  Gould,  E., McCain,  B.B., McHugh,
J.L., Morgan,  R.P.  II, Murchelano,  R.A., Sherwood, M.J.,  and
Spitzer, P.R.  1982.  Effects of pollutants on fishes.  In:  Eco-
logical Stress  and  the New York Bight;  Science and Management
(Ed. Garry F.  Mayer).  Estuarine  Research Federation, pp 23-38.

Sykes, J.E. and  Lehman, B.A.   1957.    Past and  present  Delaware
River shad fishery and considerations  for  its  future.  U.S.  Dept.
Interior,  Fish.  Wildl.  Serv-, Research  Rept.  46:iii + 25pp.

Summers,  J.K.,  Polgar, T.T.,  Rose, K.A., Cummins, R.A., Ross,
R.N., Heimbuch,  D.G.  1987.   Assessment of  the relationships
among hydrographic conditions, macropollution histories,  and fish
and shellfish stocks in major  northeastern estuaries.  NOAA Tech-
nical Memorandum,  NOS  OMA  31.  223pp.

Talbot, G.B.   1954.   Factors  associated with fluctuarions in
abundance of Hudson  River  shad.  U.S.  Dept. Interior,  Fish.  Bull.

                        CONDITIONS  IN LONG ISLAND SOUND
                                Paul E. Stacey
                         Senior Environmental Analyst
              Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
                            Water  Management Bureau

    Renewed  interest  in  the  condition of  our  nation's  estuaries  has  been
fostered through the Federal  EPA's  National  Estuary Program.  The  Long Island
Sound Study (LISS)  was initiated in 1985 as  one  of  four  estuaries to  receive a
special  one-year  federal  allocation  to   evaluate   conditions   and  develop
management  plans  to  correct  water  quality  problems.   The  study provided  a
needed  opportunity  to look  at Long  Island  Sound  comprehensively since  many
state  and  federal  jurisdictional  boundaries  intersect  the  Sound.   Pollution
management  activities  prior   to   LISS  emphasized   inland   systems.    While
management  of  inland  waters  and point  source  dischargers was expected to and
has improved water  quality in Long Island Sound,  no  comprehensive evaluation of
conditions or water quality problems  specific  to the  Sound had  been  conducted
since the 1970's.  Although not yet complete,  the first  four  estuarine studies
proved  to  be invaluable  in  helping  the  states   identify  and begin  to manage
water quality problems not previously identified.  The formal "National Estuary
Program" was established  by  Section  320 of  the  Clean Water  Act  (CWA)  of 1987
and Long Island  Sound has been designated an  Estuary  of  National Significance
by its membership in the  program.   Information and  studies conducted  by dozens
of investigators involved in the Long Island Sound Study form the basis of this

    This report  will  address  four  topics  identified  by  the  convenors  of the
conference.  They are:

    *    Use impairments and other adverse ecosystem impacts in the Sound.

    *    Ecological significance of the impacts with reference to some economic

    *    Trends  of  these  conditions  (better  or worse)   with emphasis  on the
         present century.

    *    Prognosis  for correcting these problems  in  the Sound.

    Recent efforts  to characterize water  quality of Long  Island  Sound as part
of the National Estuary  Program have identified some key issues which  will


require changes in the way we manage  Long Island Sound.  The Long  Island  Sound
Study has  identified 1.)  low  dissolved  oxygen,  2.)  toxic  contamination,  3.)
living marine resources, 4.) pathogens,  and 5.)  floatable debris as  five  areas
of concern.   Primary among  these  is  the  issue  of  low dissolved oxygen,  or
hypoxia,  that seasonally  impacts  substantial  areas  in  Western  Long Island
Sound.   Water containing  less  than  3  ppm  is  generally  considered to  be
"hypoxic".  This  condition will be the focus of this  report.


    LISS has  sponsored  field studies of  Long  Island Sound annually  since 1986
to identify  the  extent  of  low dissolved  oxygen problems.   Each year there  has
been  a  hypoxic event recorded in the western  Sound although the areal  extent,
duration and  minimum  dissolved oxygen  levels weren't (and were not expected to
be)  the same each year.   Generally,  hypoxia has  occurred  sometime  during  the
July  through September  period,  includes  an area  west of the  point  where  the
Housatonic River  discharges  into Long  Island Sound, and is most severe  between
Throgs  Neck  and  the Connecticut/New  York  border  (Figure  1) .   Depending  on
severity, the area impacted by dissolved  oxygen levels  of 3 ppm or  lower ranges
from  65 to 180 km  .   The water remains hypoxic from  2  to 6 weeks.

    Hypoxia  occurs in the  bottom layer  of water lying below a  density  gradient
(pycnocline)  set up  by differences  in  temperature  and salinity  between  the
surface  and  bottom waters.  Estuarine  systems  are particularly susceptible to
hypoxic events because of  this natural stratification which is  strongest in  the
late  summer.  The  pycnocline   creates  a  barrier  which  prevents  oxygenated
surface  waters  from  mixing  with the hypoxic bottom waters.    Decaying  organic
matter  in the lower  water column  and  in the  sediments  serves as a sink  for
available  oxygen,  gradually drawing  the  oxygen pool  down  to  critical  levels.
Oxygen  is not replenished until storms  or  falling  temperatures  break up  the
gradient  and  the water column becomes well mixed  (Figure 2).

     There  is  concern that  hypoxia  limits  the  use of  otherwise viable  habitats
in  the  Sound by resident  fish  and shellfish.   Motile species  may be  excluded
from  feeding, nursery  or  breeding areas  for  a  portion  of  their  life.    The
result  can  be  reduced  growth,  lowered  survival,  increased predation,  or
increased  competition  for  food as  organisms   are  crowded  into  the  remaining
available  habitat.    Sedentary  shellfish or slower moving  species may suffer
direct  mortality when trapped in a hypoxic  area  or be sublethally impacted in
ways  similar  to  those listed for motile  organisms  when stressed by  low oxygen
levels.   While these impacts have  not  been quantified, migration  from  hypoxic
areas has been documented  during fish surveys.   An estimated 65 to  180 km  is
unavailable  to  many species  during  these events;  therefore,  some  loss  in
productivity  is  likely.  Algal blooms and  fish kills  also occur  periodically,
particularly  in coastal coves and embayments, which may reduce  recreational  use
of the  Sound  for both ecological and aesthetic  reasons.

    Long  Island  Sound supports  a vigorous  commercial  and recreational  fishery
(Smith  et  al. ,  1989)   Market value  of the commercial catch from Long Island
Sound  runs  about $40 million  per  year  and sportfishing adds  between  $70  and
$130 million  to the regional economy.  Important  commercial species include

                                    Bottom Water
                               Dissolved Oxygen (ppm)
                     1-2 ppm  2-3 ppm 3-: ppm X ppm  CQnn R,yer
                 August 1988
                                                             (7   V.ontauk
                                                           Atlantic Ocean
Figure 1.     Dissolved oxygen levels  in bottom waters  of  Long Island Sound
              during the late summer hypoxic period  in  1987  and 1988.   (Source
              LISS,  1987;  1988a)

                                      EHi!3^f)\ —''
                                      	^f >'\==-'
                                                       added by
                                                       wave action
                   a sharp density
                   gradient isolates
                   the surface and
                   bottom waters
                              .. •
                      .•>. ^. V. x.' ,.-,.	'.
           fish leave hypoxic waters
       by added
        dead plankton
        sink and use up
        oxygen during
                                                  trapped lobsters are
                                                  unable to escape
                                                  low oxygen conditions
       •;::'vy%:v--;:^-4c.  p^  -;-.^^^^fc:.:  •.'  .'••'.'•.'•''••••
        immobile bottom dwellers may die
Figure 2.

lobster,  oyster,  winter flounder and scup.  While  commercial  landings data are
subject to many variables,  including catch  effort,  accuracy of landing reports
and natural  variations in  stocks, a  compilation  of 25  years of  commercial
landings  data  show  peak landings  during  the  last  five years  of  the 1961 1985
period for three of the four species (Figure 3).

    The most compelling information that hypoxia impacts some of these valuable
resources has come from Connecticut DEP's Division of Marine  Fisheries.   Since
1984,   Marine   Fisheries   has  been   studying  the   relative   abundance  and
distribution  of  marine  finfish  and   lobsters  throughout  the  Sound east  of
Greenwich.   Beginning in  1986,  collections  have  been made  in  an  area  off
Hempstead Harbor to determine fish distribution in the area most susceptible to
hypoxia.    Generally,  Hempstead  abundance  indices  were less  than  half  those
observed  in  non-hypoxic  areas of  the  central Sound  and species  abundance was
near zero  in July and August  (Howell,  1990).   While arguments  can be made that
the species which utilize western  Long Island Sound are adapted to this forced
migration  and  interference  with their  life history  is minimal,  such arguments
can only be  supported  if hypoxia  in the western  Sound is shown to be largely a
natural  phenomenon.   The  reduction in species presence  and  abundance  in the
hypoxic zone is well-established (Figure 4), but marine systems are complex and
absolute proof of this relationship and its quantitative impact on productivity
awaits additional research.

    Long  Island  Sound,  despite  its  rich  cultural  history,  has  not  been
extensively  nor  continuously  studied  or  monitored  to  establish  trends  of
hypoxia.   Earlier surveys  summarized by NOAA  suggest  that  minimum dissolved
oxygen  levels  have fallen  over the last four  decades  (Figure 5) .   Key among
these  is  the   extensive  work  of  Gordon  Riley  and  his  associates  at  Yale
University.  His surveys in 1954 and 1955 extensively measured oxygen levels in
both surface and  bottom waters throughout much of  the area currently impacted
by hypoxia.  During his surveys,  no  measurements of  dissolved oxygen  below 3
ppm were observed  at  any time  in  the bottom  waters.   Surveys conducted in the
early 1970's began to report oxygen levels below 3  ppm  in the western part of
the Sound during  the  late  summer  period (Collins  and Heimerdinger,  1986; Reid,
Frame and Draxler, 1979; Hardy  and Weyl, 1971).  While the historical record is
by no means  complete,  based on the available  information,  a  trend toward more
extensive  hypoxia and  lower  minimum dissolved  oxygen  levels  seems  apparent.
The  monitoring  sponsored  by  the  Long  Island  Sound   Study  has  identified
recurrent  seasonal hypoxia in the  western  Sound  since  1986,  as  discussed
above.   Minimum dissolved  oxygen reported in the Long Island Sound  Study work
was  zero  during   1987  (LISS,   1987;   Figure  1).    Similar  observations,
particularly east  of  the Throgs Neck Bridge,  were  not reported in the earlier

    Studies conducted for  the  Long Island  Sound Study  have identified nutrient
enrichment as  the probable  cause of hypoxia.   Population growth and related
increases in the volume of sewage  treatment plant effluent have led to loadings
of nutrients beyond natural levels and beyond the assimilative capacity of Long
Island Sound.  The added nutrients stimulate algal growth, creating a demand on
oxygen when the algae dies and  decays.  It is estimated  that Long Island Sound

                              COMMERCIAL LANDINGS or LODSIER
                          TAKEN FROM LONG ISLAJID SOUND, 1961 - 1985

7. Wi.ivy)

3.0OO.OOO '
5 ' VKl.OOO '

r71F7lF7lR/l K/1K/1 y^ywA '/






NOIC: th« OVPIOI)^ onnuol

»pO*t catch 'torn
19fll la I«fl5 «o>
- IOO.OOO Ibt.





77 78 79 80 81 BI 83 84 85

                         1AKEN FROM LONG ISLAND SOUND. 1961 - 1985
90O.OOO •

750.0OO •

600. OOO -

5 450.OOO -

15O.OOO •
0 -

JI01E: Th« ov»
l[M)ll (
1901 t

61 62 83 *4 65 66 t7 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 00

'oqc onnual
at eh liom
I9B5 -ot



BI e; »J 91 »5
                                                                                                                             78 79 6O 81  02 83 04 0)
                        Figure  3.       Commercial  landings  of  lobster,  oyster,  winter flounder  and  scup
                                          taken form  Long  Island  Sound,  1961-1985.   (Source:  Smith  et  al

                   MEAN FISH CATCH PER  TOW
                             1989 SURVEY
z/uu -
2000 :
1600 -
1400 -

800 :

600 :
400 :
200 :








/ /









/ ,






                         MEAN FISH CATCH
                     AT FOUR OXYGEN RANGES
                 0-1.9      2-2.9     3 - 3.9
                                PPM OXYGEN
4 +
Figure 4.     Total fish catch,  all species combined,  in the Central Basin vs
            the Hempstead Harbor area (top graph) and relationship between
            fish catch and dissolved oxygen levels (bottom graph). (Source:
            P. Howell, CT DEP, Div.  of Marine Fisheries)


                            FOR THE NARROWS
                                                         1067 (WELSH)

                           FOR THE CENTRAL BASIN

                                                         • 1»M-1»i!(IWLFn

                                                         O 1S7J . 1874 (BOHLEN)
Figure 5.      Historical  comparison  of  minimum  dissolved  oxygen  levels  in the
              Western Narrows  and Central  Basin of Long Island Sound.   (Source
              Parker,  C.A.,  NOAA)

receives about  60,000 tons  (5.4 x  10   kg)  of nitrogen  each year.   Much of
this  load  is  carried by  the Connecticut  River,  driven  by  the  4.39  x 10
gallons  (1.66  x  10    liters)   per  year  discharged  by  the  river.   That
represents  about 58%  of  the  water  being  discharged  to  the  Sound  from  all
sources (Figure 6).    It  does not  take a  very  high  concentration of nitrogen in
this major  water source to  create  a large load to  the system  each year.   In
that context, the roughly one-third of the total nitrogen load delivered to the
Sound each year by the Connecticut River is not unexpected.

    Other sources of nitrogen, particularly  anthropogenic sources, may  be of
greater  concern because  they represent  a  non-natural  load located  in close
proximity to the hypoxic  area.   Sewage  treatment plants,  for example,  also
contribute about  a  third of the  total nitrogen  (in the coastal counties which
border Long  Island Sound)(Figure 7).   They are concentrated in the western part
of  the Sound's  drainage basin  (Figure  8)  and provide a high potential  for
management.    While  the  effect of the  major  treatment  plants along  the East
River  on Long Island Sound is unclear  at this  time,  a  strong relationship to
hypoxia  is  likely,  and  treatment plants  east of New York City  in the western
Sound will undoubtedly require management.

    The  temporal  trend  in nitrogen  discharged  by  sewage  treatment plants  has
not been well-documented because of  incomplete monitoring in  the  study area.
However, a relationship  between  discharge volume and  nutrient loads exists and
a  reasonable  parallel  between  discharge  volume  and  nutrient  load can  be
presumed.  Since  1974, for  example,  sewage  treatment  plants  in western coastal
municipalities have increased  their discharge volume 32 %,  from 722 mgd to 1061
mgd  (Figure  9)   While sewage  treatment  plant  upgradings  have  led  to  an
effluent  quality  far  superior   to   past  decades  in  terms  of   quantity  of
oxygen-demanding substance concentration, standard secondary plants remove only
a  small  portion of  the  nutrients associated  with  sanitary wastes.   A standard
secondary sewage treatment plant removes only  about  10  to  30% of  the total
nitrogen in  raw sewage,  for example.

    While treatment  plant upgradings to  secondary have reduced the  immediate
drain  on  oxygen  associated  with   minimally  treated  effluents,   release  of
nutrients can still   result in a "delayed"  response.   The  nutrients discharged
by  sewage treatment  plants  stimulate  algal  growth  which sets up its own oxygen
demand  when  the algae  dies.   This effect  is  suggested  by  the historical
dissolved oxygen data  in the East River and Western Narrows by Parker, O'Reilly
and Gerzoff  (1986) .    The  data seem  to  show a trend  toward  higher  dissolved
oxygen levels in the  East River where upgrading to secondary level  of  treatment
at  the  major sewage  treatment  plans  located   there  decreased the  immediate
oxygen  demand of minimally treated  sewage.   In the Western Narrows,  however,
dissolved oxygen  levels  appear to be declining, possibly a delayed response to
nutrients still  being released into  the East River and by western Long Island
Sound  treatment plants.   As  the  nutrient rich water travels  into the Western
Narrows, algal  growth is stimulated along its  route, deposited in the Western
Narrows  as  it dies,  and  an oxygen demand is created in that area.   As the Long
Island Sound Study model is refined  and verified,  these relationships and the
role of the  East River sewage  treatment plants should become more clear.

    Non  point sources of  nitrogen  are  also  of concern in  Long Island Sound.
For example, non-point stormwater runoff in the entire basins of the major


                   BILLION  GALLONS PER YEAR
          CT R    UPSTREAM
      Figure 6.    Sources of water (billion gallons per year) discharged to Long
                Island Sound.  "Upstream" is the volume transported into the
                coastal counties via the major tributaries excluding the
                Connecticut River, "Rain" is the volume falling directly on the
                Sound, and other categories are for those source types in the
                coastal counties "bordering Long Island Sound only.

                         TONS PER YEAR
15000 -
   Figure 7.   Distribution of nitrogen loads (tons/year) delivered to Long
            Island Sound by source type. The "ATMOS" bar represents a range
            of estimates.

_ 180 -
£ 160 -
S 140 -
°~ 120 -
c 100 -
15 80 -
c 60 -
0 40 -

m 20 -


I 	 1 i 	 .
y s
100 -
80 -
40 -
20 -
i^^ff, — ^^*^>^ Major Facilities
• Average Daily Flow 1 MGD
• Average Daily Flow 10 MGD

24 5

Figure 8.
Location of sewage treatment plants in the coastal counties
surrounding Long Island Sound.   (Source: Farrow et al., 1986)

      Figure 9,
Discharge volumes of sewage treatment plants in New Haven and
Fairfield Counties, CT, Westchester and Nassau Counties, NY, and
along the East River in New York City which discharge to Long
Island Sound or its tributaries.  (Source: Interstate Sanitation
Commission, 1974; 1979; 1984;  1989)

Connecticut  tributaries  contributed  about   25,000  tons  (1.1  x  10   kg)  of
nitrogen during the October  1987  through September 1988 period  (U.S.G.S.  Water
Year  1988)  to  the  system  and rainfall,  directly  on the,  Sound,   contributes
another 4,000  to  12,000  tons/yr  (1.7  x 10   to  5.3 x  10  kg/yr) .   Estimates
for  these  categories  are  not  well-documented,  however,  particularly  for
atmospheric   deposition.    Recent   monitoring   suggests   the    atmospheric
constribution directly  on  the  Sound may be toward the  lower end of  the  range.
Similarly, the non point  load  calculations  for the Water Year 1988  represent a
below average discharge period: a wetter year would  contribute higher  loads of
nitrogen  and  the  percent  relationship between point  (not greatly affected by
rainfall) and nonpoint  would consequently change, tipping the distribution of
nitrogen sources more heavily toward the non point category.

    If  the  non-point  component of  the "upstream" source  is estimated, of  the
total load  of nitrogen  to the Sound, non point  sources  may be responsible  for
50% of  the  total  nitrogen load.  The  "natural"  component  of the nitrogen load
to  Long Island  Sound  from stormwater  runoff  is  estimated to be about half of
the  nonpoint load.   This means  that  the  stormwater  runoff  contribution  of
nitrogen  might  be  reduced  by 50%  if  the  Sound's  drainage  basin  could  be
returned  to  a natural  condition, an unlikely proposition.   Also,  much of  the
nonpoint  load is  contributed  by  the  Connecticut  River which,  because of  its
location,  may not  be  as  important  a  source as the  Housatonic  River  which
contributes  a much smaller  load of  nitrogen (Figure  10).   Nevertheless,  the
Housatonic River  shows  at  least a  40% enrichment of nonpoint load  (Figure 10),
is  close  to  the hypoxic area,  and  is therefore a prime candidate for  non  point
management.   Estimates  for  a  natural  load  from atmospheric  sources have  not
been  made.   Note  that   stormwater   runoff   includes  the   contribution  from
atmospheric  fallout  over  land  that  is not absorbed into  the system before it
reaches Long  Island Sound.


    Hypoxia  has  been  regularly observed in the bottom waters  of western Long
Island  Sound and, left unchecked,  it  is  expected that the  expanse  and minimum
levels  of dissolved  oxygen would worsen with  time.   The present evaluation of
the condition indicates that  a reduction in  the  nitrogen load to  Long  Island
Sound will  help alleviate  hypoxia.   It is not known what  level  of  reduction is
needed  right  now  or  what  the minimum  level  of dissolved oxygen is  that  can be
achieved  with best management  efforts.   There is only a preliminary indication
of  what  a  minimum dissolved  oxygen  level,  protective of  the  most  sensitive
species in Long  Island Sound, might  be.   It  is  clear,  however,  that  sewage
treatment plant effluent  in  the area west of  New Haven  (excludes  the large load
from  the Connecticut  River)  contributes roughly  30,000  tons/yr  (1.3  x  10
kg/yr)  of nitrogen being  discharged  to Long Island Sound by both natural  and
cultural  sources.  Assuming  that  a  portion  of the  East River  load  moves
eastward  into  Long   Island  Sound,   sewage   effluent  will  be  a  key  in  any
management  scenario.    From  a  management perspective,  point  sources  are much
easier  to  control.   Technologies  for  nutrient   removal  at  sewage  treatment
plants  exist  and,  given the importance of  sewage as  a nutrient source  in  the
Long  Island Sound basin, prospects for  management  and control are  good.

                        NON  POINT  NITROGEN LOADS
                             TONS PER YEAR BY BASIN
       20000 -
        15000 -
               Figure 10.
   Calculated (Water Year 1988) vs. "natural" non point load
   estimates for major tributary basins discharging to Long Island
   Sound.  SW - Southwest Coastal Basin, HOUS - Housatonic River
   Basin, QUIN - Quinnipiac River Basin, CT R - Connecticut River
   Basin, and THAMES - Thames River Basin.

    It  is  unlikely  that  "natural"  conditions  in  Long Island  Sound  can be
restored, however, because of the high density of development and the difficult
nature of non point source controls.   Non point sources basinwide contribute at
least one third of the nitrogen  load  and even if best management practices are
widely applied within  the basin, we  should  expect only a  modest reduction in
nitrogen from non-point  sources.   Fortunately,  much  of  the load is discharged
by the Connecticut River,  distant from the western  Sound,  which  may not be as
critical to  manage.   Final  hydrodynamic modeling underway at this  time will
help answer that  question.   Estimates  of atmospheric contributions of nitrogen
to  Long Island   Sound  run  as  high  as  20%.   Management  actions  to  control
atmospheric loads would  require  a national  effort,   and would  undoubtedly, be
costly.   Clearly, our  best  prospects  for  nutrient control  lie  with  better
management of point sources.

    Finally,  the  prognosis for  improvements  in Long Island Sound  is  only as
good as  our ability to implement management programs  recommended by, and beyond
the Long Island Sound  Study Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan.  A
"Study"  of  Long  Island Sound, or any  system  for that matter,  can  never be of
finite  duration  if it is to be  of  value.  A  management  plan,  no matter how
"comprehensive" can  never be  timeless.   There will  always be changes  as our
understanding  of   Long  Island  Sound  evolves  and new   issues  that will  need
addressing which  cannot  even be  predicted at  this time.  Quite  often,  when a
study  is over,  the structure that went into the development of  the study and
its plans dissolves.  To  ensure  success,  the  pathway to  implementation must be
in place and structurally sound.

    While  the Long  Island  Sound Study  will  probably  be  remembered  for its
pioneering work in identifying  and describing the dynamics  of  hypoxia in Long
Island  Sound,  this is  not a new  issue.   In  the  last "Long Island Sound Study"
conducted by  the   New  England River  Basins  Commission   (NERBC,  1975a) ,  it was

         Long  Island  Sound has  long  been  the  repository  for  many
         pollutants.   It is still not  possible to  make quantitative
         predictions of  the  cumulative  effects  of  pollution such as
         the  nutrients  and toxic  substances  which  enter  Long Island
         Sound.   This   is  complicated  particularly  by  our lack  of
         understanding of the three-dimensional circulation pattern in
         the Sound and its variations with time.

         Some  scientists  have  voiced  serious  concern  over   the
         eutrophication problem caused by man-added nutrients in parts
         of Long  Island  Sound.   The  short-term effects of excessive
         enrichment  are   generally rapid growth or   blooms  of  algae,
         resulting   in    large   daily   fluctuations    in   oxygen
         concentrations,   lowered  dissolved oxygen due to algae  die-off
         and  biodegradation,   and possible  benthic  animal  and  fish
         kills because of oxygen  stress.

One of  the  "high  priority" recommendations of the study (NERBC,  1975b) was to
conduct  a  "Study  of nutrient enrichment in  the western Sound".   Attention to
this  recommendation  during the  ten-year interim before the  initiation of the
present  Long Island Sound Study would have been extremely beneficial in


attacking the problem of hypoxia.   Comments by NERCBC on the need to understand
the  three-dimensional   circulation  of  the  Sound and  the  role  of  New  York
City/East River  treatment  plants  are  especially haunting.   The  Long Island
Sound  Study  has  placed  a  lot  of  effort  into describing  the  East  River
dynamics.   Completion   of  three-dimensional  hydrodynamic  model will  finally
answer the question of the East River's role in another year.

    The  Long  Island  Sound  Study has  identified hypoxia  as  its  top priority
management issue  to  be addressed by the  conference.   A substantial portion of
western Long Island Sound bottom water has been found to be impacted by hypoxia
during  the  late  summer  each year  since  the  study  began monitoring  in 1986.
Fisheries surveys  show that many of the  important  commercial and recreational
species  avoid  the hypoxic  area and some  impact  on  productivity of both motile
and  sedentary  species  is  likely.   While  the  historical  database  is  weak,
available  information   suggests  an  increase  in  hypoxic  area  and  minimum
dissolved  oxygen  levels  since the  1950's when  no measurements  of dissolved
oxygen below 3  ppm were  recorded.   Without proper management of the condition,
it is expected  that water quality would continue to decline.

    There  is  a  clear relationship between  levels of  nutrients,  particularly
nitrogen,  and  hypoxia.    Excessive  nutrients  stimulate   algal   growth  which
eventually dies  and  creates  an oxygen demand as  it sinks into the bottom layer
of water and  the sediments.   Population  growth  in  the  Long Island Sound basin
has  resulted  in  increases  in  sewage treatment  plant  discharge  volume  and
nonpoint contributions from land use changes.  Both of  these sources contribute
large loads of  nutrients and  are  targeted for management.   It is expected that
control  of  nutrients  from  sewage treatment  plants  and non  point runoff will
reduce  the  extent and severity  of the hypoxic  condition.   Whether control of
nutrient loads will return Long Island Sound  to a ''natural" condition, however,
is uncertain at  this  time.
 Collins, E. and G. Heimerdinger.  1986.  Data characterizations for Western
    Long  Island Sound.   NODC Informal  Report  No.  2,  NOAA, Nat.  Ocean.  Data
    Cent., Washington, DC. 75 p.

 Farrow, D.R.G., F.D. Arnold, M.L. Lombardi, M.B. Main and P.O. Eichelberger.
    1986.  The  national  coastal pollutant  discharge inventory.   Estimates for
    Long Island Sound.  NOAA, Strategic Assess. Br., Rockville, MD.  40 p.

 Hardy, C.D.  1972.  Movement and quality of Long Island Sound waters, 1971.
    Marine Sciences Res. Cent., SUNY, Stony Brook, N.Y. Tech. Rept. 17.  66 p.

 Howell, P.  1990.  Marine fishfish sampling in Long  Island Sound, 1986-89.  CT
    DEP, Marine Fisheries Div., Waterford, CT.  15 p. mimeo.

Interstate Sanitation Commission (ISC).  1974.  1974 report of the  Interstate
     Sanitation Commission.   ISC, New York, NY.  63 p.

Interstate Sanitation Commission.  1979.  1979 report of the Interstate  Sanita-
    tion Commission.   ISC, New York,  NY.  112 p.

Interstate Sanitation Commission.  1984.  1984 report of the Interstate  Sanita-
    tion Commission.   ISC, New York,  NY.  60 p.

Interstate Sanitation Commission.  1989.  1989 report of the Interstate  Sanita-
    tion Commission.   ISC, New York,  NY.  46 p.

Long Island Sound Study (LISS).   1987.  1987 Annual Report.  U.S. EPA.   28 p.

Long Island Sound Study   1988a.  1988 Annual Report.  U.S. EPA.  36 p.

Long Island Sound Study.  1988b.  Hypoxia in Long Island Sound.  Fact  Sheet #1.
    U.S. EPA, Office of Water, National Estuary Program.   2 p.

New England River Basins Commission (NERBC).  1975a.  People and the Sound.
    Water management.  NERBC, New Haven, CT.  129 p.

New England River Basins Commission.   1975b.  People and the Sound.  A plan for
    Long Island Sound.  NERBC, New Haven, CT.  60 p.

Parker, C.A.  Unpublished graphics.  NOAA, Ocean Assess. Div., Rockville, MD.

Parker, C.A., J.E. O'Reilly andR.B.  Gerzoff.  1986.  Draft.  Historical trends
    assessment program.   Oxygen depletion  in Long Island Sound.   NOAA, Ocean
    Assess. Div., Rockville, MD.

Reid, R.N., A.B.  Frame and A.F  Draxler.  1979   Environmental baselines in
    Long  Island  Sound,  1972-1973.   Nat. Mar. Fishe.  Serv  ,  Special Scientific
    Kept., NOAA Tech. Rept.   NMFS SSRF-738.  31 p.

Smith, E.M., E.G. Mariani, A.P.  Petrillo, L.A. Gunn and M.S. Alexander.  1989.
    Principal  fisheries  of  Long  Island  Sound,   1961  1985.    CT   DEP,  Marine
    Fisheries Prog.,  Hartford, CT.   47 p.

                           CONDITIONS  IN THE
                              Dennis J. Suszkowski
                             Hudson River Foundation
                           40 West 20th Street, 9th Floor
                               New York, NY 10011

      The New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary (NY/NJ Harbor Estuary) is a network
of connecting tidal waterways located within eastern New York and northern New Jersey.
Though the entire estuary includes all waterways landward of the Sandy Hook/Rockaway
Transect  to their head of tide, the National Estuary Program is focussing its efforts on
a core area which includes the waterways shown in Figure 1.

      The NY/NJ  Harbor  Estuary  receives  the freshwater drainage from an  area
encompassing 42,190 square  kilometers (16,290 square miles) (Rod et. al, 1989).  The
freshwater  sources  are defined  by Mueller  et  al.  (1982)  as depicted  in  Figure  2.
Freshwater from  the  tributaries  is  by far  the largest contributor  (78%), however,
freshwater from wastewater sources (13%) is major factor influencing water  quality within
the estuary.   The large wastewater input reflects  the huge population surrounding the
southern  portion of  the estuary.

      The estuary has served as  a major thoroughfare for commercial navigation, been
a receptacle for the  disposal  of huge quantities of sewage, and has supported functional
commercial fisheries and a variety of recreational activities,  such as bathing, boating and
fishing.  The ecosystem has, at times, been in serious conflict with the uses of both the
estuary and the land within its drainage basin.

      This paper provides an overview of the status of conditions in the estuary.  A
review of historical trends  is  presented with regard to water quality, habitat abundance,
and fisheries.  In addition, impairments to present uses are documented.

                                           ROCKLAND CO.  ]    {  ff
                                                     Tappan Zee Bridge
                                     NEW YORK

                                   WESTCHESTER CO.
                      ,". .V,,
                    PASSAIC CO.  ;            !> Oradell Dam
                               ^  BERGEN CO.
                          Dundee Dam
                 ESSEX CO.
              NEW JERSEY
        UNION CO.
Fieldville Dam     o^i^er
                   % River


          Lower New York Bay
                        Raritgn Bay
                                        ''Hook Bay i
                                                 / Sandy Hook-Rockaway Transect
                                                              NEW YORK BIGHT
                        MONMOUTH CO.
                        Swimming River
 Figure 1.  Map of the lower portion of the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary.  The shaded areas
 represent  the core area of the Harbor Estuary Program.

         Tributary 77.7%
                                                          Air & Leachate 2.5%

                                                      Wastewater 12.9%

                                             Urban Runoff 6.9%
                  Flow = 1,000 cubic meters/second

Source: Mueller et al. (1982)
      Figure 2.  Freshwater sources to the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary.


Land  Use  and Population

       Historic land use trends in the  estuarine drainage basin  are shown in Figure 3.
Rod et.  al  (1990)  indicates that developed  land  in  1980 is defined as areas having
population densities greater than 2500 individuals per square mile. The undeveloped land
category includes rural and suburban areas along with forested regions.  The two principal
historic trends are  the dramatic  decrease in croplands  and  the increase in urbanized

       Population trends since 1880 are depicted in Figure 4.  Population in the drainage
basin has increased from approximately 4  million persons in 1880 to about 17 million in
1980.  Nearly 88% of the population resides  in urban areas.  Combining these statistics
with Figure 3, we  find that for the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary drainage basin, 88% of its
human inhabitants reside within  13% of the land area.  Most of  these people live in the
New York City metropolitan area.

Water Quality


       Perhaps the  greatest impact to  water quality in the estuary has been from the
discharge of sewage from a large and expanding population. Nuisances caused by sewage
pollution are nothing new.   Large cities,  like  New York City  and Newark,  NJ, have
experienced  sewage-related  problems for  nearly three centuries.  Loop  (1964)  reports
that waste  disposal  in New Amsterdam  in  the  17th  Century  was  crude and  simple.
Sewage was collected in pails and dumped into the rivers.  This  practice continued until
approximately 1850.  Sewage and other  refuse disposal became such an offensive problem
that the Governor ordered  a common sewer to be built in 1680 in what is now lower
Manhattan.   During the  early 1800's some street sewers were constructed, however, in
1867, the Metropolitan Board of Health found that sewers were obstructed, manure heaps
were piling  up, and privies  were overflowing.  The street sewers that weren't clogged,
discharged their contents into boat slips which were described in 1868 as "poisoning the
water  and contaminating the air" (Loop, 1964).  Besides the normal  runoff from rains,
which  caused serious flooding problems  to  city  dwellers, the  opening  of  the  Croton
aqueduct system  in  the  early 1800's brought added volumes  of water to an  already
overtaxed sewerage system.

       Newark faced similar problems to New York City.  Galishoff (1988) indicates that
in 1857,  sewage from cesspools and privies not absorbed by the soil,  drained into open
ditches.   Conditions were thought to be of public health  concern  along with being
unsightly and foul smelling.  In 1857, the city authorized  the construction of sewers.  As
with New York City, these early sewers were designed for surface drainage, not graded
properly and were not suitable maintained.  After 1890,  a  major capital improvement


     1880   1890   1900   1910   1920
Source: Rod et al. (1989)
1940   1950   1960   1970   1980
           Figure 3.  Land use trends in the estuary's drainage basin.

    1880   1890   1900    1910    1920   1930   1940    1950   1960   1970   1980
Source: Rod et al. (1989)
          Figure 4.  Population trends in the estuary's drainage basin.

program was undertaken in Newark to built more efficient sewers.  By 1919, every part
of the city had sewers, however, it was the responsibility of the private citizens to pay for
their connection to the main sewer lines.  As reported by Gaslishoff (1988), the poor
were unable to pay for the improvements and consequently sanitary conditions were not
achieved in many parts  of Newark.

      In 1906, the City of New York was directed by the State Legislature to create the
Metropolitan Sewerage  Commission of New  York which would  study the conditions of
sewerage and sewage disposal in the metropolitan region  and formulate  a general plan
or policy for protecting and improving the sanitary conditions of New York Harbor. The
Commission conducted many scientific investigations, including the first field investigations
of the concentrations of dissolved oxygen in harbor waters.   The  Commission did  a
comprehensive and extensive examination of harbor conditions  and  concluded, in part,
with the following observations (Metropolitan Sewerage Commission, 1910):

      o     "Bathing in New York Harbor above the Narrows  is dangerous to health,
             and the oyster industry, already driven to the outer limits  of  the  district,
             must soon be entirely given up."

      o     "The  Passaic river,  the  Rahway river,  the  Bronx  river,  Gowanus and
             Newtown creeks, and the Harlem river have become little  else than open
             sewers.  Innumerable local  nuisances exist along the waterfronts of New
             York  and New Jersey where the sewage of the cities located about the
             harbor is discharged..."

      o     "Not  only  does the discharge of  sewage  now  produce  objectionable
             conditions near the points of outfall, but the water which flows  in the main
             channels of the harbor above the Narrows  and in the East and Hudson
             rivers is more polluted than considerations  of  public  health and  welfare
             should allow."

      The  Commission recommended  that  New  York  City's  sewerage  system be
dramatically upgraded, and that effluent be diverted  away from the near-shore slips and
piers to a central diffuser in the Lower Bay. While reconstruction of the sewerage system
eventually took place (including the construction of modern sewage treatment plants), the
Commission's recommendation regarding a central outfall was never adopted.

      Figure 5 summarizes the historic trends in urban sewerage. It wasn't until about
1960 that all urban areas within the drainage basin were sewered. Large cities, like New
York City, constructed combined systems, handling both stormwater runoff and sewage.
Since these systems allow raw sewage to bypass treatment plants during storm  events, they
have been in disfavor over the past 20 years and their areal extent has actually declined.

      Dissolved  Oxygen

      Dissolved oxygen has been measured in the harbor since  1909.  Figure 6 shows




1880   1890   1900    1910    1920
Source: Rod et al. (1989)

1940   1950    1960   1970   1980
  Figure 5.  Sewerage trends in the urban areas of the estuary's drainage basin.

    SS  60
    CD  40
    O  30

                             Hudson River Lower East River
   1 1 1 1 1
                  1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i
                   1920     1930     1940    1950
    Source: New York City Department of
        Environmental Protection (1987 & 1990)
1960     1970     1980    1990
Figure 6. Tends in dissolved oxygen concentrations for the Hudson River and Lower East

long-term dissolved  oxygen trends for the lower  East River and the Hudson  River
adjacent to  Manhattan.   The East  River concentrations are  typically lower  than the
Hudson's  because  of the greater quantities  of sewage  that have  historically been
discharged there.  The trends, however, are similar for both waterways.   A decline in
concentrations is evident  from 1909 to approximately  1930.  From about 1935 to the
present,  a  general  increase  can be  observed.   This increasing trend  follows  the
construction of modern sewage treatment works in the metropolitan area which began in
the 1930*8.

      Figure  7  shows  the  relationship  between dissolved  oxygen  concentrations and
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) loadings from New York City. The loadings from
1909 to 1965 were calculated by first multiplying average water consumption rates taken
from Citizens Union Foundation  (1987) by an average BOD concentration for raw sewage
of 150 mg/1. This estimate was considered reasonable after  discussions with HydroQual,
Inc. (1990) and New York City Department of Environmental Protection (1990).  Radiloff
(1972) provided  historic estimates of BOD removal by New  York City treatment plants.
His estimates  were subtracted from the calculated BOD loadings to obtain the loadings
shown in Figure 7.  For  1965-1989, estimates  of BOD loadings from HydroQual, Inc.
(1990) were used.

      A  strong relationship exists  between  BOD   loading  and  dissolved  oxygen
concentrations for the East River.  The data point  for 1909 seems  to  represent the
weakest relationship. This is consistent when  one considers the amount of sewage that
reached the river and how it was discharged.  In 1909, much of Queens was not sewered
(Loop, 1964).  Consequently much the BOD loading never reached the East River, but
was likely discharged into cesspools and privies, or to  small streams and  tributaries. In
addition, much of the  sewage which reached the river was discharged into basins, such
as Newtown Creek and Gowanus Bay, and into the boat slips along the  edge of the river.
The  measured dissolved  oxygen levels reflect conditions in  the  main  channel areas.
Therefore, the 1909  calculated BOD load is thought to be a much higher amount than
what actually reached the river.  This coupled with the near-shore discharge of sewage
seems to explain the apparent discrepancy in this part  of the graph.

      Metal  Loadings

      Rod et al. (1989) reconstructed historical loadings of  a variety of trace metals to
the estuary.  Figure 7 shows estimated loadings of lead and copper. These trends which
are also similar to other metals such as mercury and cadmium, show generally increasing
loadings from  1880 through 1980. This follows the expansion of industry throughout the
basin.  Declines in  loadings generally  follow a  decline in industrialization, changes in
product uses, and environmental controls.  Environmental control  (i.e. the ban  on lead
in gasoline)  is clearly evident in  the  decline in  lead loadings between 1970 and 1980.


      Near-shore and wetlands habitats in the lower estuary have been greatly modified


O 70

3 60 -
      50 -
   |S  20H
   40 -
   30 -
               1989 DD1987
                                       1920 D
                                     1940 D    D 19451
                   200           300            400            500
                   BOD Loadings from NYC (metric tons/day)
Figure 7.  Relationship between BOD loadings and dissolved oxygen concentrations in the
Lower East River.  Data sources included New York City Department of Environmental
Protection (1987 & 1990), Citizens Union Foundation (1987), HydroQual, Inc. (1990), and
Radiloff (1972).

  en _
  c 6
   O) 4

                                     Lead  F/3 Copper
          1880  1890  1900   1910  1920  1930  1940  1950  1960  1970  1980


  Source: Rod et al. (1989)
Figure 8.  Reconstructed metal loadings to the estuary for lead and copper.

through filling to create new lands, dredging to provide deeper draft navigation channels
and berthing areas, and dredged material disposal, particularly into wetlands.  Figure 9
shows how the size of Newark Bay has been altered since 1855. Between 1886 and 1976,
the bay has  been reduced in size through shoreline modifications by over 33%.  At the
same time, the bay has increased in average depth from 2.0 m to 3.1 m due to channel
excavations  (Suszkowski, 1978).  This general pattern of development  is consistent with
other  areas  of the estuary, however, filling along Manhattan started many years earlier.
Major shoreline modifications  have not occurred within the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary since
the early 1970's, due to:   (1) the  application of new environmental  laws  to more
stringently regulate these encroachments; (2) a changing and less favorable economic and
social climate for massive  projects;  and (3) the fact that  many developable near-shore
areas  have already been modified.


      McHugh  et  al. (this volume)  report  that many  estuarine  fish species  in the
northeast have  experienced significant declines during  the  20th  Century.   The  most
probable hypotheses for the declines include  overharvesting  (principally by commercial
fishing), toxic effects due to poor water quality, and habitat loss caused by anthropogenic

      Summers et al. (1986)  examined relationships between historical declines in fish
abundance in the estuary and pollution variables  (dissolved oxygen and BOD  loading).
They  found positive  correlations  between  abundance  for four out of 24  stocks and
dissolved  oxygen concentrations.  (See Table 1)  In addition,  they  found a correlation
between the oyster decline and increased BOD loadings to the estuary.  In  1988, Limburg
& Schmidt  (in press)  conducted a study of fish spawning in several tributaries to the
Hudson River.  The tributaries  studied receive the  runoff from 42% of  the  Hudson
River's drainage basin.  They  found  a strong statistical relationship  between densities of
fish eggs and larvae and urbanization in the drainage area. Basically, less fish were found
in the urbanized stream basins.  Both Summers et  al. (1986) and Limburg  & Schmidt (in
press)  have demonstrated  that human  activities  are  statistically  correlated with fish
abundance in the estuary. They provide added impetus to continue further investigations
into the cause and effect relationships between  human activity and fish abundance.


      Both  human use and ecological impairments to the estuary are summarized in
Table 2 using the  same  general format  employed by the Waste Management Institute
(1989) in their review of use impairments to the New York Bight.  The  causative factors
and the extent  of the impairments are listed along with an assessment  of the economic
impact and ecological significance. The assessments of economic and ecological impacts
reflect the judgments  (and prejudices) of the author and should be  viewed as discussion
points in connection with an overall evaluation of  the significance of use impairments to
societal  and  ecological values.  Where a large degree of uncertainty is exists in evaluating
significance, question  marks (?)  appear next to the assessment.


   100 -
in  80 -

    60 -
    40 -
    20 -
                                           1855 area = 19.6 square kilometers
      Figure 9.  Historic changes in the size of Newark Bay, New Jersey.

                  Dissolved Oxygen
           BOD Loading
  American shad
  soft clam


                     HARBOR ESTUARY




Factors Causing
o Pathogens

o Floatables

o Spills

o Toxicants

o Pathogens

o Floatables

o Toxicants

o Floatable, sewage

Extent of
Persistent closures
in Keansburg, NJ &
Staten Island
Periodic closures in
Closures due to
sewage spill in 1 988
More than 1 8 major
species affected

Severe shellfish
harvest restrictions
Periodic damage to

Dredging delays
making Port less
Aesthetic impacts to
recreational boating
Economic Impact











See Fisheries






TABLE 2.  (cont.)

Commercial &

Other Ecological

Factor Causing Impact
o Toxicants

o Habitat Loss
o Overharvesting
o Hypoxia
o Spills
o Nutrient &
Organic Enrichment
Extent of Impact
Disease: most adult
tomcod develop
liver cancer
Abundance &
oyster decline;
declines in resource
species linked to
water quality
Large loss of
wetlands; loss of
nearshore habitat
througout Harbor
Stock declines?
Link between
abundance and DO
Loss of wetlands,
birds, and
invertebrates - e.g.
Arthur Kill
changes in lower
web; impacts to
Economic Impact
Beach  Closures

      Within the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary, there are several areas that have and continue
to be used as bathing beaches. In New Jersey, there are 9 public beaches located along
Raritan and Sandy Hook Bays.  The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
monitors the quality of the bathing waters with the cooperation of county health officials.
Beaches are  closed  if fecal coliform  concentrations  are greater  than 200 fecal
coliforms/100 ml in 2 successive measurements prior  to weekends during the summer.
In addition,  if officials believe that the public's health may be endangered from  the
presence of floatables or algal blooms, they may close  beaches a well.  In 1989, beaches
were closed 34 times;  all due to  pathogens (New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection,  1990a).  One beach, Keansburg - Beachway, accounted for 28 of  the 34
closures.  No beaches were  closed during the summer of 1989  due to  floatables.

      In New  York City, bathing beaches  are located along the Lower Bay at Coney
Island and Staten Island, and in the Upper East River  at Orchard Beach and the Bronx.
The New York City Department of Health monitors water quality at these beaches during
the summer months.  Based upon their findings with to respect  to total coliform  counts,
beaches are recommended for bathing or restricted in subsequent years.  The criterion
for closure is a consistent measurement of 2400 total coliforms/100ml at any given beach.
In 1989, 2  beaches on Staten  Island were restricted because of  pathogen contamination
(Ashendorf, 1990).  In addition, one of the  Staten Island beaches was closed in 1989 due
to floatables, and others were closed in 1988 due to a spill of raw sewage.

      The  economic  significance  of  beach  closures  is  thought to have  regional
implications, but little ecological consequences.  However, in the case  of beaches which
are closed  on a routine basis (such  as Keansburg), it is thought  that these beaches have
had  diminished appeal for bathing for some time and consequently their periodic closure
does not result in serious disruptions to beachgoers. Therefore,  closure of these beaches
was  regarded as having a local economic impact.

Unsafe Seafoods

      The  consumption and   sale  of seafood products  are regulated by  both state
governments in New York and New Jersey.  With regard to toxics, more than 18 major
species  of fish and shellfish are currently being restricted for sale or consumption. Table
3 presents a summary of the various state restrictions by geographic reach of the estuary.
In New  Jersey,  striped bass caught anywhere in the estuary cannot be sold commercially,
while American eel has  a ban on sale for  catches within the Hudson River.  Both of
these species, along with an additional 3 (large bluefish,  white perch, and white catfish)
having consumption advisories, are  restricted principally  because of high concentrations
of PCB  in  their flesh.  Within  Newark Bay, the Arthur Kill, the Kill Van Kull, and  the
lower Passaic River, a ban on  sale along with a complete consumption prohibition on all
fish and shellfish  species is in effect due to the presence of dioxin.


1) Entire Estuary
except East River
Si Harlem River)

2) Hudson River

(3) Newark Bay
[ind. KVK, AK, &
'assaic River)
4) Tidal Passaic
5) Harlem River &
East River
New Jersey
Ban on Sale
striped bass

American eel
striped bass
striped bass
blue crab
American eel
all fish, shellfish,
& crustaceans

New Jersey
Consumption Prohibited


striped bass
blue crab

all fish, shellfish,
& crustaceans

New Jersey
Consumption Restricted
American eel
large bluefish
white perch
white catfish
striped bass

same as (1 )

same as (1)



New York
Ban on Sale
American eel
striped bass
white perch
brown bullhead
white catfish
black crappie

same as (1)



same as (1 )

New York
Consumption Prohibited
American eel
white perch
brown bullhead
largemouth bass
white catfish
striped bass
same as (1)



American eel

New York
Consumption Restricted
black crappie
rainbow smelt
Atlantic needlefish
northen pike
tiger muskellunge
blue crab

same as (1 )




    Sources:  New York State Dept. of
    Environmental Conservation (1990a & 1990b);
    New Jersey Dept. of Env. Protection (1990b)

       In New York, nine species of fish and shellfish are banned from commercial sale,
while an additional seven have either a consumption prohibition or restriction on intake.
Twelve of these are resident finfish of the tidal freshwater portion of the estuary.  PCB
is the principal contaminant causing these restrictions.

       The harvesting of clams from the estuary is severely restricted  due to the presence
of  pathogens.   Table 4  summarizes  the restrictions for  each state.   Though  the
terminology is different, the effect is the same.  All areas of the estuary are  closed to
shellfish harvesting, except  the Lower Bay.  There, special permits  or designated areas
can be used to harvest the shellfish and transplant them to  safe locations. In New Jersey,
clams have been transplanted in Barnegat Bay, while clams harvested in New York State
waters have been  relayed to areas in Long Island.

       Unsafe seafoods are thought to have regional economic consequences, even beyond
the species that are restricted.  The public's fear of consuming unsafe seafood may affect
the entire seafood industry within both states.  The significance of pathogens in shellfish
is thought to have little ecological significance.

Commercial &  Recreational Fisheries

       As stated above, fisheries in the estuary have experienced historic declines.  The
causative agents  are unclear,  however,  possible  culprits  are overharvesting, toxicants,
habitat loss and hypoxia.  Several important commercial fisheries have been curtailed or
completely eliminated including the striped bass, oyster, and clamming industries.  The
striped bass fishery is closed due to PCB. The oyster was decimated  years ago, probably
due to some  form  of  pollution (Haskin,  1990), and the clamming industry has been
curtailed due to bacterial contamination. At present, the  commercial shad  fishery is in
danger of becoming economically unprofitable. While harvests in recent years have been
good, shad fisherman have had the misfortune of catching large quantities of striped bass
in their nets. Under normal circumstances the fisherman would be delighted since striped
bass always was a prize catch.  However, because the commercial striped bass  fishery is
closed because of PCB contamination,  the bass  must be  returned  to the  river.  The
abundance of striped bass in the shad  nets are requiring an enormous effort on the part
of the  fishermen to remove them.  Consequently, the economics  of continuing to fish for
shad is becoming marginal.

       Toxics discharged to the estuary may be contributing to fish disease.  Cormier et
al. (1989) have reported that the  estuary is unique  with respect to other U.S.  estuaries
in that 24% to 100% of the tomcod in the estuary develop liver cancer. The work by
Cormier et al.  (1989)  suggests  that  estuary water  contains  a causative agent  for
tumorigenesis.  The ecological significance of this and other possible diseases (e.g. shell
disease in crustaceans)  is currently unknown.

       Since a variety of fish and shellfish species have undergone declines during the past
century, this impact is considered to be  of  large ecological significance.  Since none of


                                New York
                               New Jersey
       Lower Bay &

       Raritan Bay

(but can get special

permit to harvest

(1) Condemned areas

(2) Special area to
                                                  haravest transplants
       Rest of Harbor
     Source: New York State Dept. of Env. Conservation (1990c)
          New Jersey Dept. of Env. Protection (1989)

the potential causative  agents  have  been  definitively linked  to the  declines, the
assessments contained in Table 3 all  contain question marks.


      Commercial navigation has been impacted over the years due directly to floatables
and indirectly to toxicants.  Floating debris from dilapidated piers and derelict vessels
have been a serious nuisance, requiring large efforts on the part of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (Corps)  to conduct daily collections of debris.   In addition, The Corps has
also  undertaken  a massive cleanup project  to  remove the sources of drift along the
shorelines of New York Harbor.

      Dredging and  dredged material disposal activities have been under scrutiny for
several years because of the presence of toxic compounds in the  dredged sediments and
their potential harmful effects upon open water disposal in the New York Bight.  While
dredging operations have continued in the Port, there has been considerable uncertainty
in the ability of the Corps and port users to obtain timely dredging and disposal permits.
This uncertainty is causing the shipping community to continually reassess its  use  of the
Port of New York & New Jersey.   While the Port is constantly in  a  struggle for  a
competitive edge  with other ports,  the uncertainties in obtaining permits is affecting
whatever edge the Port may have.  Consequently, the impact  of toxics may be having both
a regional and  national economic impact.

Other Ecological Impairments

      The recent oil  spills in the Arthur Kill have indicated that the estuary can suffer
ecological damage due to  spills.  In particular, several species of herons which in  recent
years have established nesting colonies,  are potentially at risk.  An evaluation of the long
term effects of the recent spills awaits further study and evaluation.

      The massive discharges of nutrients and organic matter have certainly affected the
carbon cycle in the lower estuary. The implications of alterations to the carbon cycle are
not well understood.  Is sewage-related organic matter being  incorporated into  food web?
Is  sewage being  converted into fish  production?  Has sewage  pollution changed the
composition of the lower food web and caused changes to the  higher trophic levels?
These are interesting  questions whose answers require a much more extensive  knowledge
of the estuary and its functions than  we now have.  They should not be overlooked in
long  term planning efforts.


      Table 5 contains qualitative judgments regarding whether conditions in the estuary
are better or worse than those in 1900 and 1970, respectively. The rationale for choosing
these two  time periods is to: (1) reflect the long-term trends that are evident throughout
this century; and  (2) to document any trends that are evident since the enactment of

                         Since 1900
                Since 1970
   Organic Enrichment
   Habitat Loss
Much better
Marginally Better
Much better
   Living Resources
        TO 1990.

major environmental legislation, primarily the Clean Water Act in 1972.


      Regarding toxics, conditions  are clearly worse  than in 1900.   With continued
industrialization,  more inorganic and organic compounds have been discharged  to the
estuary.  Since 1970, lesser quantities of toxic metals and organics are being discharged
to the estuary principally because of reduced industrialization and environmental controls.
Conditions are considered to be better  today than in 1970 because of reduced  loadings,
however, this does  not imply that the residual amounts of contaminants that are found
in estuarine  sediments and within the drainage basin are any less a cause  for concern
than in 1970. In fact, there may be more stored contaminants today than in 1970.

Organic Enrichment

      In  1900, there were similar total BOD loadings to the present.  However, the
quality  of the sewage  effluents and  the distribution of the  discharges were clearly
different.  For instance, there was no treatment of wastewater at the turn of  the century.
In addition, the discharges of sewage were in near-shore locations. At present, virtually
all sewage is treated and the effluent pipes are located at the pierhead line.   There are,
however, CSO discharges which occur at the bulkhead line.  In 1970, more than 25% of
the sewage entering the lower estuary was untreated.  The overall sewerage system in the
metropolitan area is certainly superior to that of 1900, but the  quantities of sewage have
dramatically  increased due to  an expanding population.   Sewage treatment has resulted
in dissolved oxygen improvements since  1935. At present, there is considerably less BOD
loading to the estuary than in  1970.

Habitat  Loss

       Large acreages of near-shore and wetland habitats were  eliminated by  a variety of
development projects from the 1800's to approximately  1970.  Since 1970, little loss of
habitat  has occurred.


      The discharge  of refuse, street sweepings, and raw sewage into estuarine waters
was a  common practice at the turn of century.   Sanitation  practices  have drastically
improved  since then.  With  increasing concern about  floatables in relation to  beach
closures and  navigation impairments, increasing controls in handling refuse (e.g.  at Fresh
Kills landfill), the better enforcement of illegal dumping, and the  harbor drift collection
of the Corps of Engineers have brought about improvements since 1970.

Living Resources

      There  have been  declines in a variety of estuarine  fisheries since 1900.  The
apparent causes seem  to be overharvesting,  pollution,  and  habitat loss.  The natural
fluctuations inherent in fish stocks and the lack of quantitative abundance information for
most fish species make it impossible  to judge the overall condition of living resources
today in relation to 1970.  However, for at least one species, Heimbuch et al. (in press)
report that striped bass have shown a 7.9% annual increase in stock size since 1974 in
the Hudson River.


      The New York  City  Department  of  Environmental  Protection  (1987)  has
documented decreasing concentrations of coliform bacteria in harbor waters during the
last decade.  This  appears  to be correlated  with upgrading of sewage treatment and
increased chlorination.  If the coliforms are indicative of other pathogens, then certainly
conditions have improved since 1970.  Though bacteria measurements were made in the
harbor as  early  as 1909, the differing methodologies make long-term comparisons
impossible.   What is significant,  however,  is  the awareness of the  public  health
implications of improper sewage disposal, and the steps taken by health officials to reduce
the exposure  of the public to pathogens in harbor waters.  At  the turn of the century,
floating bathing establishments  surrounded  Manhattan.  The  Metropolitan Sewerage
Commission (1910) pointed out that it was not unusual  for sewage-related materials to
drift into these bathing areas. Over the years numerous steps have been taken to restrict
bathing, discourage the use of sewage-covered  driftwood as fuel in homes, and restrict the
consumption of contaminated shellfish.


Citizens Union Foundation.  1987. Water-Watchers:  A  citizens guide to New York City
      water supply.  The Water Supply Project.   New York. 66 p.

Cormier, S.M., R.N. Racine, C.E. Smith, W.P. Dey, and T.H. Peck.  1989.  Hepatocelmlar
      carcinoma and  fatty infiltration in the  Atlantic  tomcod, Microgadus  tomcod
      (Waldbaum).  Journal of Fish Diseases.  12:105-116.

Galishoff, S.  1988.  Newark  - The  nation's unhealthiest  city - 1832-1895.  Rutgers
      University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey. Pages  117-130.

Haskin, H. 1990. Personal communication.  Rutgers Shellfish Laboratory.

Heimbuch, D.G., D.J. Dunning, and J. Young,  in press.  Post yolk-sac larvae abundance
      as an index of year class strength of striped bass in the Hudson River. C.L. Smith,
      editor.   Proceedings of  the  Hudson River Environmental  Society's Seventh
      Symposium on Hudson River Ecology, State University  of New York Press, Albany,
      New York.


HydroQual,  Inc.   1990.   Personal communication with John  St. John and  Charles

Limburg, K. and  R. Schmidt,   in  press.   Patterns of fish spawning  in  Hudson River
      tributaries:   Response to an urban gradient,  manuscript accepted  by Ecology,
      Ecology Society of America.

Loop, A.S. 1964.   History  and development of sewage  treatment  in New York City.
      Department of Health, City  of New York.   166p.

Metropolitan Sewerage  Commission.  1910.   Sewerage  and  sewage  disposal in the
      Metropolitan District of New York and New Jersey.  Report  of the Metropolitan
      Sewerage Commission.  Martin B. Brown Press, New York. 550p.

New Jersey  Department of Environmental Protection.  1989.   Shellfish  growing water
      classification charts.  Division of Water Resources, Trenton, New Jersey.

New Jersey Department of  Environmental Protection.  1990a.  Personal communication
      with David Rosenblatt, Division of Water Resources, Trenton, New Jersey.

New Jersey Department of  Environmental Protection.  1990b.  Personal communication
      with Fredrika Moser and Paul Hague, Office of Science and Research, Trenton,
      New Jersey.

New York City Department of Environmental Protection.  1987.  New York Harbor
      water  quality survey 1987.   Water  Quality  Section, Bureau  of  Wastewater
      Treatment, Wards Island, New York.  19p.

New York City Department  of Environmental Protection. 1990. Personal communication
      with Angelika Forndran  and Thomas Brosnan, Bureau of Wastewater Treatment,
      Wards Island, New York.

New York City Department of Health.  1990.   Personal  communication with Arthur
      Ashendorf, Director,  Bureau of Public Health Engineering, New York.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.  1990a.  New  York State
      1989-90 fishing regulations guide.  Albany,  New York. 72p.

New York  State  Department of  Environmental Conservation.    1990b.    Personal
      communication with James Gilmore, Division of Marine Resources, Stony Brook,
      and Andrew Kahnle,  Region 3, New Paltz, New York.

New York  State  Department of  Environmental Conservation.    1990c.    Personal
      communication with  Charles  DeQuillfeldt.  Division  of Marine  Resources, Stony
      Brook, New York.

McHugh, J.L., R.R. Young, and W.M. Wise,   this volume.  Historical trends  in the
      abundance and  distribution of living marine resources in the system.

Mueller J.A., T.A. Gerrish, and M.C. Casey.  1982.  Contaminant inputs to the Hudson-
      Raritan Estuary. NOAA Technical Memorandum OMPA-21.  Boulder, Colorado.

Radiloff, H. 1972.  personal communication.  New York City Planning Commission.

Rod, S.R.,  R.U. Ayres, and M. Small.  1989.  Reconstruction of historical loadings of
      heavy metals and chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides in the Hudson-Raritan Basin,
      1880-1980.  final report  to the Hudson River Foundation, New York.   212p.

Summers, J.K., T.T. Polgar, K.A. Rose, R.A. Cummins, R.N. Ross, and D.G.  Heimbuch.
      1986.    Assessment  of  the  relationships  among  hydrographic  conditions,
      macropollution  histories,  and  fish  and  shellfish stocks in major northeastern
      estuaries, submitted to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Martin
      Marietta Environmental Systems, Columbia, Maryland.  226p.

Suszkowski, DJ.  1978. Sedimentology of Newark Bay, New Jersey: An urban estuarine
      bay.   Ph.D. Dissertation.  University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware.   222p.

Waste Management Institute.  1989.  Use impairments and ecosystem impacts  in the New
      York Bight.  Marine Sciences Research Center, SUNY at Stony Brook,  New York.
      279 p.

                            OF THE NEW YORK  BIGHT
                              R.  Lawrence  Swanson
                          Waste Management Institute
                       Marine Sciences Research Center
                         State University of New York
                      Stony Brook, New York   11794-5000

                                  T.  M.  Bell
                          Waste Management Institute
                       Marine Sciences Research Center
                         State University of New York
                      Stony Brook, New York   11794-5000

                                   J. Kahn
                           Department of  Economics
                         State University of New York
                         Binghamton, New  York 13901

                                   J. Olha
                          Waste Management Institute
                       Marine Sciences Research Center
                         State University of New York
                      Stony Brook, New York  11794-5000
     East of New Jersey  and  south of Long Island, the continental shelf spreads
into the  rolling  sand plain of the New York Bight.  The floor of the Bight slopes
-- about  30  meters  in a hundred  kilometers  --  toward  the edge of the shelf from
an apex at the  mouth of the Hudson River (Figure 1).  A wide,  shallow valley,
cut by  the Hudson River during the last ice age, crosses the shelf and terminates
in the  Hudson Canyon.  Bight  waters which cover this section of the continental
shelf are subjected to external  forces  and  processes  that in  many ways control
the  consequences  of  anthropogenic interactions with  this marine   ecosystem.
Driving forces such as the  northwestern  Atlantic circulation,  meteoro-logical
and climatological  conditions, and  the  influence of the Hudson-Raritan Estuary
and back  bays of New York  and New  Jersey are  among the most  dominant.


                                      BIGHT LIMITS
Figure 1.   New York Bight  and  approaches.


     The Bight is perhaps one of the most used and abused coastal areas in the
world as a consequence of urbanization  and  the disposal of the waste of some 20
million people who reside by its shores and surrounding bays and estuaries.  A
variety of sources, including  those  associated  with  sewage  wastes, industrial
wastes, contaminated  dredged  material, urban runoff,  and  atmospheric fallout
contaminate these coastal waters.   These  sources discharge wastes indirectly to
the Bight via the inflowing Hudson-Raritan Estuary and coastal inlets, as well
as  directly  from  coastal  runoff  and  sewage outfalls.   Much  of  the  area's
municipal wastes  have been  taken  by  barge  out into  the  Bight for  nearly  a
century.  Legal dumping of garbage and trash ceased in 1934 but, as late as 1987,
some  8.4  million  wet tons  of sewage  sludge  and  6  million  cubic yards  of
contaminated dredged  material  were dumped  into  the ocean waters  10 to  180 km
offshore1 (Figure 2).

     Still the Bight  provides  important resources for its  millions of users.
There  are  offshore fisheries  in these waters,  and wildlife  inhabit  the less
populated shores.  The Gateway National  Recreation Area  borders the Bight and
provides marine recreational  opportunities  in  a  relatively natural environment.
The Bight  is  a major  sea lane for marine  commerce,  and  its resources include
sand and gravel and perhaps other untapped resources.

       In order to conserve  and  hopefully rehabilitate  the  Bight,  it  is important
to understand ecological  processes  in the Bight  and the impact of anthropogenic
activities on  the marine  ecosystem.   To  acquire  and allocate  resources for
rehabilitation, it is  useful to  understand impacts  in terms of economic costs
and benefits.  Many of the stresses of excess population and industrialization
as measured by pollutant  loadings and ecosystem impacts can be specified in terms
of use  impairments    use impairments that  have  measurable social and economic

       Five broad categories of impairment  attributed  to  pollution  in the Bight
that are causing significant   losses of ecological, economic, or social values
are:  beach closures,  unsafe seafoods,  hazards  to  commercial  and recreational
navigation, losses of commercial and recreational fisheries, and possible impacts
on some marine animals.   These  impairments  are generally caused by floatable
wastes, nutrient loading,  toxicants, pathogens,  and  loss of habitat.  Measures
of such  impairments are  not standard, nor in  many cases,  totally  quantifiable.
We have examined  specific  subsets  of these  impairments  (Table 1)  in terms of
their spatialand  temporal  changes, when available,  and as a  first approximation
determined  the economic and social significance of these changes.

       In some cases,  there may be overlap when an impairment is caused by more
than  one  agent.    For  some of the  impairments,  the  causal  agent  may  have an
indirect effect on the resource.   For  example,  human health may be threatened
by toxicants via  eating  contaminated fish.   The direct effect of the toxicant
may jeopardize the health of the fish  (lower reproductive capacity), while the
indirect effect is on public health.

                                            LONG ISLAND
                                          INLET SITES
                                        (DREDGED DISPOSAL)
                             CELLAR X

                        (12 MILE SITE)'
          LONG BRANCHj
                     • •<"

      NEW JERSEY:)
                             INLET SITE
             \ \  ACID
               \ WASTES

                       BIGHT APEX LIMITS-
                                                              '- 15 '   20
      73*50' W
     Figure 2.  New York Bight apex and disposal sites,


Use  Impairment

Beach  Closures

Unsafe Seafoods

Commercial Navigation and
  Recreational Boating
Measures oflmpairment

Pathogen Contamination
Washup of  Floatable Waste
Algae Washups

Toxicants  in  Marine  Foods
Pathogen Contamination
Floatable  Hazards and
 Noxious  Water  Quality
Ecosystem Health and  Productivity Impacts

Commercial and Recreational  Fisheries
                                         Distribution and  Abundance
                                         Fish Kills
Birds,  Mammals,  and  Turtles
 Habitat Loss
 Human use  Conflicts
 Floatable  Wastes

Beach Closures

      The economic consequences of beach impairments from algae, pathogens, and
floatables are based on  beach use which  can be measured  in user days;  however,
there is no single or comprehensive source from which these data can be derived.
 The extent to which beach use has decreased at New York beaches as a result of
pollution can be approximated by comparing beach attendance in 1976 (60 million
user days) with either the baseline attendance  figure (105 million) or attendance
in  peak years  (150  million).   Alternatively,  for an extremely  conservative
assessment of the reductions  in beach usage, one could assume that the 1976 level
was the baseline, and measure a 25% to  50% reduction in use from  that  level.
This reduction is  based on reports of the effects of 1988 waste washups on beach
attendance.  Using these  assumptions, the reduction in beach use would be between
30 and 90 million user days in New York State.  Comparable figures for New Jersey
would be 6.7  to 37  million  user  days (based on  an observed decline  in beach
attendance of 7.9% to 34% at  beaches along  the New Jersey shore in 1987-1988).

      A beach pollution event has  three  major economic impacts.   First,  there
is a reduced  level of expenditures3  on beach activity, which has negative effects
in many sectors of the economy.  Second, there  are impacts on employment.  Third,
the  people  who use  the beaches  suffer a  lower quality  of  life because of
diminished recreational opportunities.   The measures of the first  two impacts
are apparent to the non-economist.   The third, measured by consumers'  surplus,
is not considered in this analysis.

      Beach  closures  due  to pathogens,  while not appearing  to have  economic
consequences as large as those due to floatables, do have significant  economic
impacts.  Beach attendance was again used to measure the impacts. Specifically,
the  average  yearly attendance  at  New  York  State  Park beaches  in the  1970s
(excepting  1976,  a year  of  pronounced  floatable  washups)  was  computed and
compared  to  average  attendance   in   the  1980s   (excepting   1987  and  1988,
characterized by high  incidence of floatable  washups).  The averaging process
evened out the effects of weather on beach attendance, and it  was  assumed that
the remainder of the difference was due  to pathogens (or possibly  other  forms
of chronic pollution).

      The assignment of economic values is  similar  to those described above for
floatables.  Since comparable figures were not available for New Jersey,  these
values were assumed to be  proportionate to  the New  York values. Estimates were
based on the ratio of floatable impacts to pathogen  impacts being  the  same for
New York and New Jersey.

Unsafe Seafoods

     In addition to the effect  on  human  health in  those small  segments of the
population who are  subsistence  fishermen and  who  disregard  health  advisories
against consuming contaminated  seafood,  there are  losses  in economic  benefits
associated with reduced activity in the recreational and commercial  fisheries.
Recreational fishing, after beach  use,  involves  the  most  people using  the New
York  Bight.   Roughly  2.5  million  anglers  (National  Oceanic  and  Atmospheric
Administration 1980;  Kahn,  1986,   unpublished),  for New  York  and New Jersey
combined,  derive  enjoyment from  recreational fishing  and inject roughly  $2
million yearly of  direct  expenditures  into the  region's  economy  (Kahn,  1986,

      There was a significant reaction by recreational fishermen to the recent
medically related  waste  washups.    The  washups may  have  exacerbated  existing
negative reactions  as  the washups  came  shortly after  the  considerable media
coverage of the following  events: closure of the New  York striped bass  fishery,
the issuance  of a New Jersey  bluefish health advisory, and the unexplained deaths
and washups  of dolphins  and whales.  This intense  media  coverage  created the
impression that  the fish are  simply too  contaminated to eat.   Much of our
information is based on informal survey data following  the 1988 fishing season.

      The economic multipliers or  ripple effects for both the  recreational and
commercial  fishery are  estimated to be between 2 and 3.   The impact  of toxicants
on commercial fishing markets was based on the catch of a prohibited species and

the downward shift in demand that could have had effects on price and quantity
of landings.

      It is difficult to measure  employment  impacts  in the commercial fishing
industry that result from a reduction in demand since there are many part-time
fishermen in the industry.   Shocks of this nature usually affect the part-time
fishermen first.  It is also difficult to measure impacts on employment in the
shellfishing industry as a result of closure of shellfish beds.  Closures have
been a problem for decades, so there are not the sudden and unexpected impacts
that have characterized recreational fishing and beach use.

      Still other important economic impacts  are associated-with the closure of
shellfish beds and with  pathogen  contamination  in general. Approximately 32% of
the shellfish beds that  once existed in the Bight and Hudson-Raritan Estuary are
closed.  The first costs are those associated with the  lost potential production
which could take place if the beds were open.  Second are the costs associated
with the human ingestion of pathogens, either from consumption of shellfish from
beds that  are contaminated but not  yet  closed,  or from  the  consumption from
illegal beds.   The third group  of  costs are  those associated  with  enforcing
closures. Finally, there are  the  lost  economic benefits from declining demand
for shellfish because people are  afraid of ingesting pathogens.   Our estimates
were based primarily on lost potential production.

Commerci al/Recreati onal  Navi gati on

     Our measures of costs of floatable hazards to commercial and recreational
boating were  limited to the  costs  of damage  due  to  collision  with  floating
objects and costs  to remove floating  hazards from waterways.  They do not measure
the economic damages generated from reduced aesthetic quality of the recreational
boating experience.

Commercial/Recreational  Fisheries

      Changes  in  both  abundance   and  distribution  of  fish  may  have  important
impacts on the economy.  The commercial catch  has declined over time as has catch
per unit effort.  It  is  assumed that the  recreational  catch  per unit effort has
declined as well.  One  must  use  caution  when discussing catch  per unit effort
in recreational fishing  because the  effort is the source of enjoyment.  However,
studies by  Buerger and  Kahn (1989)  show that catch  rates are an  important
determinant of the demand for recreational fishing.

      If the demand declines as a result of the reduction in catch rates, then
both the value to the anglers and the  number of  trips (and expenditures) will
decline.   Buerger and  Kahn  (1989)   showed that the  decline in striped bass
populations resulted in a loss of economic benefits of $2 to $8 million alone.
Changes in distribution  of fish will  also increase the  cost to anglers,  lowering
their number of trips and reducing their  catch  rates, which will further reduce
their trips.


      It was not  possible to approximate the  economic losses associated  with
changes in abundance and distribution in  recreational  fishing due to pollution.
It  is  difficult  to  determine  how  much  of  the  decline  in  abundance  and
distribution was due to  overfishing  and  how much was due to pollution.   It  is
probably safe to assume that the effect of  pollution was greater for estuarine
and anadromous  species than for offshore marine  species. It could also be argued
that the estuarine and  anadromous species were  subject  to more  fishing pressure
than  offshore  species,  particularly  with respect to  the  recreational  catch.
Since the  data do not  exist  to  estimate this relationship  properly, we  have
assumed that for  every  1%  increase  in recreational  fishing activity,  direct
expenditures would  increase  by $20 million, total expenditures  by  $40 million
to $50 million, net economic benefits by  $10 million,  and employment by roughly
900 jobs.   It  is  possible that  the  recreational  fishing  benefits  of reducing
pollution  and  increasing fish abundance  could be negated  if  the  response  of
commercial fishing to the increased stock  is an increase in  fishing effort which
would result in lower stocks.

      The above analysis for recreational  fishing can  be extended to commercial
fishing.  Fish  kills and fish disease are  likely  to have small  negative impacts
on the economic benefits derived  from commercial  fishing, with  the exception  of
shellfish.  Given that the total  value of landings for shellfish in New  Jersey
and New York is approximately $70 million,  it  appears that the  annual  damages
for a shellfish kill of large magnitude could  approximate this amount.

      Stock reductions from overfishing are  likely to  have a  significant  impact
on the fishery,  but the stock reduction from  pollution could not be inferred  from
existing data.  However,  for each one percent increase  in commercial  fishing
activity,  direct  expenditures would  increase  by $1.2 million dollars, total
expenditures by $2.4 million to  $3.6 million and  net economic  benefits by  $1.2
million. Employment  impacts  are  difficult to determine due to the  presence  of
part-timers in the  industry.

      As with recreational fishing benefits,  the commercial fishing  benefits  of
reducing pollution will  be dissipated if the response  to less pollution is  more
intense fishing, which ultimately reduces stocks and catch.  It is  essential  that
fishery management policy be coordinated with environmental policy to avoid this.

Birds, Mammals, and Turtles

      Marine  mammals  and  turtles   are  not  commercially   and  recreationally
exploited.  However, marine birds, such as  ducks  and geese,  are  hunted in  some
cases.  Economic impacts of impaired  uses  were  therefore difficult to quantify.
Some  estimates  might have  been  made  by  examining sales  receipts  from whale
watching excursions, visitations  to wildlife  refuges, and memberships in wildlife
clubs.   Although  assigning  a value  to  these  resources is  difficult,  birds,
turtles, and mammals are  nonetheless aesthetically and ecologically important.

      Three levels of impairments need to be examined.  At  the  lowest level  are
impairments that reduce the regional  population of a  species.  The second level
is the endangerment  (or  extinction)  of a  species in  the region.   At the third
level, regional endangerment  (or extinction)  leads to global  endangerment (or


extinction in the wild).  For most species in the New York Bight area, the first
and second levels  are the most relevant.

      Since the reduction in habitat for certain endangered birds and sea turtles
may  have  a  critical  effect  on  their  reproduction   (birds)  or  development
(turtles), continued loss of habitat in  addition to anthropogenic mortality in
the New York Bight  region  may threaten  their existence.   Fisher and Krutilla
(1985) docu-mented  the  economic  importance of  preventing  species extinction.
They also  demonstrated that when faced with an irreversible en-vironmental change
such as the loss of critical  habitat or ex-tinction of a  species,  one should
avoid these irreversible con-sequences even if the immediate costs of doing so
seem to exceed  the benefits.

      The reduction in abundance of these  animals  leads to social  losses in a
variety of ways.    First,  the sighting  of these  animals  leads  to  increased
enjoyment during a variety of other activities.   For example, the highlight of
a recreational  fishing trip might not be the  fish  the  angler catches,  but the
sighting of a whale, eagle, or osprey.  Large nesting  populations of birds add
enjoyment to beach  trips.   Second,  the  existence  of healthy numbers of these
species is taken by many people as  an  important  indicator of the quality of the
environment and  the quality  of  life.   When individual  or large numbers  of
organisms die from oil spills,  entanglement or other anthropogenic causes, people
hold themselves  responsible as members of a  society that allowed the tragedy to
take place.

      The importance of  marine mammals  in this  regard cannot  be understated.
Many members of society feel a  warmth towards marine mammals that does not extend
to other  members of the  animal  kingdom.   This may be  because  of the superior
intelligence  of these animals, their size,  grace or other factors.  The source
of this enchantment  is  not as important  as its  existence,  and there is ample
evidence  to  suggest that  it  exists.   Such  evidence  includes the  widespread
contributions to the "Save the Whales"  campaign, the passage of the Marine Mammal
Protection Act,  the attention given to the washup of dead porpoises in the Mid
Atlantic Bight  area, and the $5.8 million international  effort (Rose, 1989) to
save three California Gray  whales trapped in Arctic ice.  It is beyond the scope
of this report,  however, to conduct these analyses.

      While  it  is  difficult  to  quantify  the  losses  from  pollution-induced
reductions in populations of birds,  marine  mammals, and sea turtles, the losses
do exist and are important.  In any overall comparisons  of the  costs and benefits
of  reducing  pollution  in  the  New York  Bight,  these  values  should  not  be


Beach Closures - Pathogenic Contamination

      Particular pathogenic  bacteria  and  viruses  excreted by  man can  cause
gastrointestinal tract  diseases:  typhoid,  paratyphoid,  dysentery, diarrhea,
cholera, polio,  and hepatitis.  Beach closures in the Bight are not based on the
presence of  the actual  pathogens,  a  determination  that is  costly and  slow.
Closures are based  instead on  the presence of  total  and  fecal  coliform  bacteria
-- presumptive evidence that  pathogens are  present. Since  Escherichia  coli is
an  intestinal   bacterium,   its   presence  in  a  water  sample  suggests  fecal

     The criteria  for  beach  closures  based on  coliform  concentrations are
different for the  states  of New  York and New Jersey.   The differences  in the
standards for the two states may  account for some  of the discrepancy in  numbers
of beach closings in New Jersey (more restrictive  in recent  years)  versus those
in New York.  Despite these differences it  is likely that  fewer ocean  beaches
closed in New York because there  are fewer sources of fecal  coliform in  inshore
waters -- fewer storm sewers and  only two sewage treatment plant outfalls along
the coast.

      Areal Extent

      In New Jersey, between 1985-1988, there  were 86 ocean  beach closures.  In
the  1980s  there were approximately 100 beach closures in each  state due to
pathogens.   Closures occurred  in  all the coastal  counties, although the greatest
impacts cover the 45 km of beaches  from Sandy Hook  to Manasquan (Table  2).

The periods of closures have  generally been on  the  order of days  with  several
instances of closures in excess  of  a month.   Information for  beach closings in
New York due to  high coliform counts was  lacking  for years prior  to 1987.  In
1987, no ocean beaches in New York were closed due  to pathogens, but one ocean
beach (Quoque) was closed in  1988.

      Causes of  Impairment

      Certain pathogenic bacteria and viruses excreted  by man may  be contained
in the greater than two billion gallons of wastewater (secondary treatment), 400
million  gallons  of wastewater (primary  treatment)  and  18  million gallons of
untreated effluent  that are delivered to New  York harbor daily (HydroQual, 1989).
Storm water via  CSO's also  delivers raw effluent  to the Harbor.   A portion of
this water mixes with the water  at  various  New York  and  New Jersey beaches.

                                                  Period Beaches  Closed
New Jersey County Beaches
Atlantic County:
 - Atlantic City  Beach
Burlington County
Cape May County:
 No.  Ui Idwood	)
 Wildwood	)
 Wi Idwood Crest	)
 Lower  Township
 Cape May City
 Ocean  City

7 days
Monmouth County:
 Army Recreational  Beach	)
 Sandy Hook	)
 Asbury Park	)
 Ocean Grove	)
 Bradley Beach
 Monmouth Beach
Long Branch 7/21 to ?
Loch Arbour end of season 1
Ocean County:
Ortley North Beach 2
Ortley South Beach 2 None
Barnegat high tidal A&B 5
Seaside Heights 4

Island Beach State Park
Total No. Days
*Fecal coliform levels exceeded 50/100mL water sample, but beach closure cannot be directly determined.  Beaches
have been closed without preliminary or confirmatory samples when water quality problems were assumed.

      Problems Associated with the Impairment

      Certain pathogens may  cause  gastrointestinal  tract diseases  and  testing
for the presence of actual  pathogens  is costly and slow.   However,  based on  the
few incidents of disease outbreaks  reported,  the public has  been well  protected
over the years, a measure of the effectiveness  of the  standard.  Although
chlorination and other treatments may kill off most of the fecal coliforms, other
problem organisms such  as  viruses  may  survive the treatments.   Fecal  coliform
standards alone may give a false sense of public health  status.

      Economic and Social Impacts

      The most significant  social impacts of beach closures due to pathogens  are
the lost opportunities to recreate.  The major  economic  loss  for New  Jersey in
1988,  estimated  at  $390 million,  was  from decreased  revenues  resulting from
actual beach closures, although the general public's perception that beaches  are
unhealthy resulted in decreased beach  use.   In New York the  economic loss was
approximately $200 million  (Table  3).   New Jersey's  user  days  also  decreased by
eight million during 1987 as a result of coliform-caused closures.

       For New York,  there were no beach closures due to coliforms,  although the
general perception that beaches and  water quality were poor apparently culminated
in decreased beach use.   New York's user days  in 1987  decreased  by  20 million.

Beach Closures - Washup of Floatable Waste

     Floatable wastes  are  waterborne  materials and debris  that are buoyant.
These  include  debris  (wood and beach  litter  such  as  cans,  bottles,  styrofoam
cups, sheet  plastic, balloons, straws, and paper products); sewage-related wastes
(condoms, sanitary napkins, tampon applicators, diaper liners,  grease balls, tar
balls,  and  fecal material);  fishing  gear  (nets,  floats,  traps,  lines);  and
medically related  wastes  (hypodermic  needles, syringes, bandages,  red bags,
enema bottles).

      Area!  Extent

      In the period  1980-1988,  there  were on  the order  of  100  beach closures
around the New York Bight due to floatable wastes.  Until  1989, the  criteria for
closing beaches because of floatable wastes  were not  consistent from beach to
beach.   Water quality (as measured  by the  coliform indicator)  has generally not
been a factor in closing beaches during  a floatable washup.  Rather, closures
have depended on subjective criteria such as the look  or smell of the material
or on expectations of public  perception  --  to avoid a possible  public  outcry.

Use Impairments    Factors Causing     Significance      Spatial and Temporal
               iBpaiment         of Inpairaent     Extent of lapaiment        Economic Inpact

Beach Closures

• Pathogens        Pathogens         little          approx. 100 beach closures    $590 Billion
                                              in 1980s in each state

• Floatables       Floatables        little          up to 100 In closed at one   SI.0-5.4 billion
                                              tiBe over short periods of
                                             tine in  each  state

• Algae           Nutrients         little          United                   snail

Most closures occurred for hours -- rarely more than a day.  More consistent beach
closure guidelines  by local and state  agencies are now  in use  (Marine Sciences
Research Center,  1984).

     In New  Jersey, the area  closed on numerous  occasions during May 1987 due
to  floatables  included  40  km  of  beaches;  in  August  1987,   the   area  closed
comprised  80 km  of beaches  (Figure 3).    Few  beaches  were  closed  because of
floatable wastes  in 1988.  In New  York  in  1976, sewage-related  floatable wastes
were responsible  for closing  93  km of beaches.   There  were 2.4 km of beaches
closed in 1987; and  in July, 1988, 93 km of  beaches were closed due to medically
related and  other floatable wastes  (Figure  4).

      Temporal  Changes

      From the  late  1800s through  the 1930s, garbage,  paper,  bottles, metal, and
dead animals were  discarded into New  York Bight and  New  York harbor waters.
During the  1940s-1950s, the floatables  problem was  probably held  somewhat in
check with the  end of refuse dumping at sea  and introduction  of sewage treatment
plants.  During the  1960s and 1970s, styrofoam cups, disposable plastic diapers,
plastic tampon  applicators  and PET (polyethylene teraphthalate bottles increased
the floatables  load, and in  1987  and  1988,  some  medically related  wastes were
found with the  typical  floatables.

      Causes  of Impairment

      The majority of floatable wastes are  located  along the  periphery of the
Hudson-Raritan  Estuary,  and much  of these wastes  are  flushed out into the Bight
during the  spring  freshet  (Swanson and Zimmer,  1990).  The  intensity  of the
freshet dictates  the size  and  distribution of the  summertime  floatable load.
The peak of  floatable waste input from the  freshet  is at or near the start of
the beach season.


  00  10  20  30  <
                             '  I '  'V I
                       0   10  20	30
  Beach Closu
  To Floatablds
                    50  60  70  80  90
                   y> , q,n  , 1,10, u?n^_L
                     50  60  70  80
                                   1§0 STATUTE MILES
                  90  tOO
                                                            NAUTICAL MILES
Figure 3.  1987 beach closures due to floatables.


                           Atlantic  Jcoes  Baach
                     Coney   Beach  Beach
^  1988 Long Island Beach:'GIgsures Caused Primarily

r\  By Floatable Waste,,//;/;

A                       /"/..".-•>'''.-•••""'
 /                   10  .0 / Itf .-'20 .:' 30 40 50 60  7Q.  80  90 JOO STATUTE MILES
'                     1.9  p/lp'i, 3,0-",  S.O .  7,0 . 9,0  . 1,10, 1?Q ,J^O  KILOMETERS
                  10 .•> 0 ./' JO'  20\ 30  40  50   60  70  80  90  '00 NAUTICAL MILES
Figure 4.  1988 Long  Island beach  closures caused primarily by
          floatable  waste.

     During the summer,  rainfall  causes bypassing of sewage  treatment  plants,
delivering  floatable  wastes  to  the  receiving  waters  from  combined  sewer
overflows.   Garbage and  trash reach marine  waters through  poor solid  waste
handling in the metropolitan area and from storm sewers,  particularly along the
New Jersey coast.   Illegal  disposal is probably  a  minor source.  Sea  breezes
may wash ashore debris accumulated along oceanic fronts  and convergences and in
Langmuir circulation cells.  Long Island  is particularly vulnerable  to  washups
of floatable wastes because of the prevailing  summer winds in the area (Swanson
et al., 1978, Swanson and Zimmer, 1990).

      Problems Associated with the  Impairment

      Floatable materials  on beaches and  in our  coastal waters are  mainly  an
aesthetic  problem  for the  public.   There  is  a  perception  that contact  with
floatable  material  poses a  major  public  health  threat;  however,  there  is  no
evidence to support that supposition. Public safety  (injury from cuts, bruises,
punctures) may be a more significant threat.  The fear of exposure to AIDS made
the medical wastes  found in  the floatable material  a major  concern in the 1987
and 1988 washups.   These fears are  unfounded (Green, in  press,  1990).

     There are  also detrimental  impacts on marine birds, turtles, fishes,  and
other  marine  animals  from  floatable   wastes  which   may  result   in  death:
entanglement  in  plastic  objects  and in fishing  line  and ingestion  of  plastic
objects that are mistaken by animals for prey food.  Some of the impacted marine
animals have been designated as endangered  or  threatened species, underscoring
the ecological significance  of this  impairment.

      Economic and  Social Impacts

      For New York  the loss in total  expenditures is  estimated  to be between $750
million and $1.8 billion for 1988.   The  New Jersey loss in  total expenditures
is estimated  to  be between $600 million  and $3.6 billion.    Our estimates  for
losses in beach user days in 1988 range  from 6.7  30 million in New  Jersey and
30   91 million in  New York  as compared to  estimates of  baseline  attendance.

      In an independent analysis, R. L.  Associates (1988) report a reduction  in
user days  of  1.9 million in  1988 relative to  1987 along  the  New Jersey coast.
They also  report a  reduction of  $700 million  in  expenditures  in  1988 relative
to 1987.

      In  a  study for the  Long Island Tourist  and  Convention  Commission,  Fey
(1990,  in press) estimated that the  net loss of expenditures  on Long Island  in
1988 was $700 million.   In this estimation, the Commission  considered that the
loss in beach  related expenditures  of $1.4 billion was  partially returned  to
other parts  of  the economy  and  that the  Island  had  been experiencing a  5.6%
growth rate in the  tourist  industry  since  1978.  The actual loss in expenditures
in 1988 relative to 1987 was $900 million.

      In an effort  to reduce the  impact  of floatables, the USEPA in cooperation
with the U.S. Army  Corps of  Engineers, the  U.S. Coast Guard,  the  states of New
York and New Jersey, and New York  City implemented  a short-term floatables action
plan.  The plan  supplements the U.S.  Army Corps of Engineers program of skimming


New York Harbor  debris  that might pose  a  hazard to navigation.   The effort,
implemented in 1989 at an additional  cost  of  $1  million,  consists of reducing
the mesh size of the  existing nets  in  order  to  pick up much  of the floating

Beach Closures - Algae

      Algal blooms -- green tides  and  red  tides,  have  occurred throughout the
Bight, particularly off  New  Jersey's  coast  but rarely have caused ocean beaches
to close.   Blooms may  be  enhanced by  the  introduction of certain nutrients that
enter the Bight in the effluent from sewage treatment plants  (point sources along
the New Jersey coast); from the Hudson-Raritan Estuary; and direct runoff from
the land (non-point sources),  especially from  agricultural  runoff.   Nutrients
are also transported onto the  continental  shelf  from  slope waters and to some
degree from atmospheric  fallout.

      Problems Associated with the Impairment

      Algal blooms are aesthetically displeasing  and disconcerting because they
often look and smell like sewage.  There are  no  known  health risks associated
with  blooms  occurring  in the  Bight,  although  in 1972 blooms  of Prorocentrum
micans were  associated  with complaints  by swimmers of respiratory discomfort
(Olsen,  1989).   Beach closings in  New Jersey  (near  Atlantic City)  in 1984 and
1985 resulted from blooms of the non-toxic  dinoflagellate Gvrodinium aureolum,
but these beaches closed as a precautionary measure.

      Economic and Social Impacts

      Economic impacts affect many communities that are economically dependent
on beach-goers.   The  dollar amount  is  unknown,  but assumed to  be relatively

      Ecological Significance

      Very dense algal blooms are known to cause a reduction  of dissolved oxygen
(DO)  in  the water  column.    Low  DO  in certain  areas --usually  enclosed  or
restricted areas having  limited flushing with oxygenated waters -- has resulted
in kills of marine animals, particularly benthic  fauna.   In the  Bight proper,
there are  very few areas subject to these conditions;  therefore, the ecological
impacts resulting from algal blooms are  negligible.  Recent  reports of kills in
the Bight  have been of very few fish and of a very  localized  and sporadic nature,
mainly in  several spots  along  the  New  Jersey  coast.    An exception  was  the
anomalous  1976 widespread bloom of Ceratium tripos, which contributed  to a major
faunal kill extending over  some 8600 kmz (Swanson and  Sindermann, eds., 1979).
In most of the localized kills, DO had not  been measured;  therefore low DO has
not unambiguously been determined  to  be  the cause of  the  recent  fish kills in
the Bight.  However, these  episodes  along  with direct  measurements of general

hypoxic conditions  and  phytoplankton bloom events  along  much of New  Jersey's
nearshore may be indicative of chronic,  increasing  coastal  eutrophication.  The
dolphin strandings which occurred off the New Jersey shore in 1987 have  recently

been indirectly tied,  through  the food chain, to a bloom of Ptvchodiscus brevis.
a species not found in the New York  Bight.

Unsafe Seafoods - Toxicants

      The types of toxicants  in edible marine species  of the  Bight  include the
organic  compounds:  polychlorinated  biphenyls  (PCBs),  DDT,  and polyaromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs); and the  metals: mercury,  cadmium, lead,  and silver.

      Areal Extent

      In  general,  toxicants  mainly  affect  inshore   species  because   their
concentrations are greater near the  sources along the  coast and  in  estuaries.

      PCBs    In  general, concentrations of  PCBs are  below the  Food  and Drug
Administration (FDA) action limits  (2.0  mg/kg)  (Mearns, et al.,1988).   except
in large, fatty species of fishes.    PCB concentrations  are generally higher in
fishes than in shellfish.

      DDT   The  average concentrations all fall well  below the 5.0 mg/kg FDA
limit (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1986).

     Other Toxicants   Data are very  limited, but generally these  toxicants fall
below FDA action levels  (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,  1986).

      Temporal Changes

      Comparisons  over time  are  difficult  to  make   because  measurements  of
contaminants historically have been  made from different tissues within  the same
species and among different species.   However,  for PCBs there is a decreasing
trend exemplified  by the PCB content  in menhaden populations along the New Jersey
coast between  1969  and  1975  (Mearns et al ..1988).   DDT levels  have decreased
eighty to one hundred-fold nationwide since the mid-1960s. For dieldrin, there
is some evidence of a nationwide decrease  in shellfish
contamination, but the national trend in marine fishes  is  not apparent (Mearns
et al., 1988).

      Social and Economic  Impacts

      The most immediate impact to the public is issuance  of  health advisories
limiting or prohibiting ingestion of  fish or actual  fishing for certain  species.
In both New York and New Jersey, advisories warn the public to  limit  consumption
of striped bass (Morone saxatilis).  bluefish  (Pomatomus saltatrix) and  American
eel (Anguilla rostrata) (Belton, 1985; Halgren, personal communication).

     In the longer term, risk analysis studies indicate  there may be an increased
incidence  of  cancer from  ingestion  of contaminated  seafood.    Although the

indication of  increased  cancer risks  is  speculative,  a recent  study (National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,  1986)  determined that only that part of
the population that consumes large quantities  of contaminated fish may be at an
unacceptable  risk.    However,   the  lifetime  cancer risks  of  anyone who  eats
carcinogen-contaminated  fish  are increased  in proportion to the  amount  of the
carcinogen consumed.

     The major economic  impact  is from a  decrease in seafood consumption due to
fears that the food may be harmful.   Based on anecdotal  information, some of the
public still  avoided seafood as of  January 1989  as a  result of  the floatable
medically related waste washups of the summer  of 1988.   (Dilernia  and Malchoff,
1990, in press) found a decline in consumption of 25-50% relative  to 1987 based
on a survey  of fishermen on party  boats from  New York City and  Long  Island .
These vessels ply the nearshore  waters  where  the impact of the fleatables problem
was most evident.

      The offshore charter  boat fleet  was not  so much impacted  by  the floatable
problem  as  by  adverse  stock   abundance  and  distribution.  In 1988 this  was
apparently related to unusual  water temperatures, not pollution. While the local
commercial sales of fisheries products  was down,  the price the fisherman received
at the dock did not  seem  to  be affected.   Fishermen were able to sell their catch
to foreign markets.   Ofiara and Brown (1990,  in press) found a 20-50% decline
in the number of fishing  trips  in a survey conducted in New Jersey of party boats
and charter  boats.  New York and New Jersey  recreational fishing  experienced a
loss in total expenditures  of $1.25 billion  (Table 4).   New York and New Jersey
commercial fisheries  suffered  a loss   in  total  expenditures  of  $60 million.

Pathogens  in Shellfish

     Filter-feeding  bivalves  can collect and  concentrate bacteria  and  viruses
of anthropogenic origin.  Therefore, health  risks to consumers  are increased by
the practice of eating raw  or  partially  cooked  shellfish.

Use Impairments    Factors Causing     Significance     Spatial and Temporal       Economic Impact
               Impairment         of Impairment     Extent of  Impairment

"Toxicants       Toxicants           little         Inshore                 $1.3 billion

•  Pathogens       Pathogens           little         825 km                  $73-109 million

      Area! and Temporal Extent

     Typhoid fever  outbreaks  associated with shellfish  were common  until  the
mid-1920s  (Lumsden,  1925).   An infectious  hepatitis epidemic  was  linked to
contaminated Raritan Bay hard clams  in  1960-61  (Ringe et al., 1962;  Mason  and
McClean 1982).   In 1986 about 25% of the  nearly 4,047 km2 of shellfishing grounds
in the  New York Bight and  bordering  shallow bays and  lagoons were  closed to
shellfishing (Figure 5).   The Hudson-Raritan Estuary has been closed for over
60 years.  The total closed area in the Bight apex is approximately 825 km2.

Causes of Impairment

      As is the case with beach closures due to pathogens, coliform bacteria  are
the indicator organisms  used to  assess the water quality of shellfish beds.   New
York's and New Jersey's monitoring standards are much more stringent for closing
shellfish beds than  for  closing  beaches. The sources  of  the coliform, however,
are the same --  sewage effluent  (treated and untreated),  ocean dumping of sewage
sludge  and contaminated dredged material,  effluent from  the  Hudson-Raritan
Estuary, storm water runoff, combined sewer overflow,  and sewage  discharge from

      Economic and Social  Impacts

      The estimated potential production in dollars,  if closed  shellfish beds
were open,  is  $36 million  annually.   This  estimate is based on  the  assumption
that all beds  have  equal productivity  and  that  an increase  in production does
not reduce the price of shellfish.

     Costs associated with  human ingestion of pathogens and the  costs associated
with  enforcing  closures are  not known, but  probably are  significant.  Also
unknown is the  cost  in lost  economic benefits from declining demand for shellfish
because people  are  afraid  of  ingesting pathogens.   The  total  annual  economic
impact from this impairment is estimated at $73-109 million.

      Ecological Impact

      The ecological consequences of pathogens in shellfish  are  believed to be
insignificant.   In  fact,  closures of beds  to  shellfishing probably  result in
overall  increased shellfish populations,  since the closed  beds  serve  as seed
populations. Shellfish populations appear to thrive in nutrient-enriched waters,
despite toxicant content,  and in some  instances  are  safe for ingestion using
today's relaying and depuration  techniques.

Commercial and Recreational Navigation  - Fleatables and  Noxious  Conditions

      Areal Extent

      Floating debris, particularly driftwood,  poses  some hazards to boating in
the Bight, but the  number  of  boats damaged is not known.  The greatest impact
to navigation  is in or just outside  the Hudson  Raritan  Estuary, for  which  the
greatest amount of data exists.   The drift  collection program  of the  U.S. Army

Figure 5.      Shellfish closure areas of the New York Bight region in 1986

Corps of  Engineers is carried out  in the harbor proper;  however, the  Bight  is
directly affected  by the program since whatever driftwood  is eliminated from the
harbor lessens the amount entering the Bight.  As one moves progressively farther

away from the  Harbor along the coast of New Jersey  and Long Island's  southern
coast, the reports of drift-related  accidents decreases dramatically.

      Causes of  Impairment

      Much of the driftwood is carried downstream in the Hudson during high river
stages.    A   significant  contribution  is  also  made   from  abandoned  and
disintegrating piers,  boats,  sheds,  and other structures  around the  harbor,  as
well  as  intentional  and unintentional  dumping of  dunnage,  crates,  and  other
unwanted materials from vessels and  docks into the  harbor.    In 1987,
17,500 m3 of drift was  collected compared to  the  average annual  14,077 +452  m3
for the period 1967-86.

      Economic and Social  Impacts

      Floating debris and  slicks  of pollutants are aesthetically displeasing  to
recreational boaters  in  the Bight.   Noxious  slicks of pollutants usually result
in  some  inconvenience but rarely in expense  to  boaters having  to clean  their
boats.  Large economic losses, however,  are  frequently incurred when  plastic  is
sucked into the  engine  via the  water intake  pump.   There  can  be even  greater
economic  losses  when a  boat  strikes a  partially  sunken drifting object  large
enough to damage the hull, propeller, or shaft.    However, the amount of losses
incurred  by  recreational  boaters  from  these types of  impacts  is  not  known.
According to insurance  companies, many boating accidents  that are actually due
to  poor navigation, are reported on  insurance claims  as  the result of  hitting
drifting objects.   Total estimated  economic  expenditures,  including the  program
to  collect and burn drift in the harbor,  may  amount  to  $500 million  annually
(Table 5).


Use Impairments    Factors Causing     Significance     Spatial and Temporal        Economic Impact
               Impairment         of  Impairment    Extent of Impairment

°  Floatables     Floatables        Little         No data for Bight;          $500
                                             data for harbor            million
                                             only                    annually

°  Noxious        Floatables,        Little         	              $25
  Conditions     sewage                                                million


Commercial  and Recreational  Fisheries  -  Disease

     The diseases that impact  fisheries  species in the Bight  are mainly fin rot
in  fishes   (Sindermann,  1988)  and  shell  disease  in crabs  and  lobsters.   The
prevalence  of fin rot  in  the Bight has declined significantly between 1974 and
1983 (Table 6) for reasons that are  not  clear.

Areal and Temporal Extent of Impairment

      Fin  rot   An outbreak of  fin  rot  disease affecting  several  species was
reported  in  the Bight in  1967.   During  1967 there was  an  8% prevalence  in
bluefish  (Pomatomus  sultatrix)  and  4% in winter  flounder  (Pseudopleuronectes
americanus),  with a much  larger prevalence  (25%-70%)  in  adjacent rivers and bays.
From  1973-74,  14.1%  of  winter flounder  from the  Bight  apex  were  diseased,
compared to 1.9% from control areas.  From 1974-75, 3.9% of winter flounder from
the Bight apex were affected by  fin rot, while  only  0.7% of winter founder from
outside the apex were  affected.   In  1983 the prevalence  had decreased to about
1%  in the  Bight apex.
      Shell  disease    Epizootic  incidents  of 10-90% prevalence
stressed  populations of crabs  and lobsters;  natural prevalence may
2%.   In  1988,  30% of red  crabs  from  the Hudson  Canyon  (Figure 6)
                                                        occur  among
                                                        be as low as
                                                        and  several
                               COMERCIAL/RECREATIONAL FISHERIES
Use Impairments
Factors Causing

 of Impairment

Spatial and Tempora
Extent of Impairment

 Bight apex (pre-
 valence of finrot
 decreased from 13%
to 1% in winter
 flounder from
Economic Impact
°  Abundance and
°  Episodic
toxicants,  over-     moderate
harvest, habitat

nutrients,  reduced   unknown
                small in extent,
                but occurring
                almost annually
                from 1974-88.
                8,600 km  in 1976

      40  -
30 H
      20  H
       10  -I


                            2             3

                           (77)           (81)

                                    Severity Rating


Figure 6.   Shell  disease  prevalence  and severity in Hudson Canyon,

          June  1988
                                                          Source: Young,  1990

canyons farther north were moderately or severely diseased giving the appearance
in different areas  that  the shell  was burned  (Young,  1990).   Young,  however,
notes that the  disease  prevalence was as high as 81% in 1884  from the same areas
based on samples stored in the Smithsonian Institution.   These latter samples
were only slightly or  very slightly diseased  but can  be considered to have been
taken in non-polluted  waters prior to impacts from the Industrial  Revolution.

      Causes of Impairment

      Both types  of disease are non-specific  (their etiology is  not clear).
However,  according  to some studies,  they  are  associated  with  toxicants  in
polluted or degraded environments, including many major harbors around the world.
However,  the  1884 crab collections  certainly  indicate the  occurrence  of the
shellburn  disease  prior  to any contamination  of the Bight.   While  microbial
infections are  thought to  be  responsible for fin  rot, there is  evidence that
persistent exposure to toxicants in  sediment and seawater promotes the condition.
Thus,  flatfish  are especially prone  to  this disease because  of  their direct
contact with sediments. Shell disease is thought to result from various chitin-
consuming  bacteria and fungi.   There is some very limited evidence that sewage
sludge and contaminated dredged material  may promote the condition.  It is not
known  if or to  what  extent these diseases  cause  a decline  in  the  affected

      Economic and Social Impacts

      The  economic  losses to fishermen  from  these diseases  are not known, but
are probably small, since fishes with  fin rot  may still  be  sold as fillets in
the market and  are safe to consume.   Crustaceans with shell burn disease are also
considered safe to  eat and  their meat  can be marketed as a processed product.
With  lobsters  and crabs, however,  their market  worth,  at  least  in  the U.S.
market,  is higher when sold whole,  so there is  some loss to  fishermen marketing
shell  burn diseased crustaceans.   Japanese  fishermen apparently  prefer some
indication of shell  disease  as they associate the coloring of the diseased shell
with the  firmness of the meat (Young,1990).

Commercial and Recreational Fisheries - Distribution and Abundance

      Areal and Temporal  Extent of Impairment

      Marine fish reproductive data  are  few,  so information comes mainly from
landings.  There has been a distinct decline in abundance of fishes and shellfish
in the past 100 years,  judging by commercial  landings (Figure 7).   In 1957 there
was a maximum of 3.2 x 105 metric tons landed.  By 1987, that figure was down to
7.3 x 104 metric tons.   Landings of  major marine species have  fluctuated over the
years,  even  showing a slight  increasing trend  (McHugh  and Hasbrouck,  1989).
However, because the commercial  fishing effort  has increased substantially, the
catch per  unit effort has declined.


200 A

             To!al landings minus menhaden
             Major anadromous, esfuarine, and
             marine species

             Major anadromous and
             esfuarine species
             Major marine species
  1880    1900
                     1920     1940
1960     1980
Figure 7-  Commercial fish landings in the New York Bight
                    between 1880-1987

      Causes of Impairment

      Overfishing  is  the  chief  factor  responsible  for  the decline  in fish
abundance for commercial fisheries and probably for recreational fisheries, as
well.    Pollution  has  no  doubt  played  a part  in the  decline  of estuarine
fisheries,  since anadromous and estuarine  stocks  have  declined much more than
marine stocks  (Mayer 1982;  Rose,  1986; Summers et al.,  1987).   Estuarine and
anadromous  species  are vulnerable to pollution and loss  of habitat because their
critical  developmental  stages are spent  in the  sites closest to shore and are
therefore subjected to the brunt of pollution and human intrusion. Whether these
effects are reversible  or long-term  damage  has  been done  to any  species are not

      Economic and Social Impacts

      The estimated loss in total  expenditures to recreational  fishing in both
states is $1.25 billion  for  1988.  This estimate takes into account the decrease
in demand  from the perceived  contamination  of fish after  the  1987  and 1988
floatable events.  Commercial fishing losses in total  expenditures were estimated
at $24 million for New York and $36 million for New Jersey.

Commercial  and Recreational Fisheries - Episodic Fish Kills

      Areal and Temporal Extent of Impairment

      In the 1970s  and  1980s, periodic  localized  fish  kills, generally of low
numbers,  have  been  reported in  the  New York Bight, particularly  near the New
Jersey coast. An anomalous  benthic fauna! kill in 1976,  due to anoxic conditions
over  a 8600  km2  area,  resulted  in  mass mortalities  of  surf clam  Spisula
solidissima  (62%),  ocean  quahog Arctica  islandica   (25%),  and sea  scallop
Placopecten  magellanicus  (9-13%)  (Sindermann  and  Swanson,  1979).   Finfish
generally  avoid  areas  of low DO, so the impact  is not  known, but  it  may be
limited to  reduced spawning and to associated mortality of eggs and larvae.

      Causes of Impairment

      Hypoxic or anoxic  conditions  in  the  1976  event were attributed to early
and extreme spring warming, a deep pycnocline and, persistent southwesterly winds
leading to  onwelling  of offshore waters  and reversal  of subsurface currents
(Swanson and Sindermann, 1979).  There were  few storm  events during that year
to circulate the water,  and a  bloom  of phytoplankton (Ceratium tripos) consumed
the  oxygen supply  that was  already  limited  as  a consequence of  physical

     The causes of  the other fish kills are unknown,  but low DO is the suspected
cause.  Algal blooms are an annual  phenomenon  along the  New Jersey coast, and
concomitantly low DO is probably a  factor  in these fish kills.  These yearly algal
blooms may  be associated with eutrophication;  and  organic carbon and nutrient
input to coastal waters of the Bight is certainly a contributing factor.

      Ecological  Significance of Impairment

      It is unknown whether  kills of marine organisms are on the rise or whether
the reports of these kills are increasing.  However, if the kills are increasing,
the impacts are not significant at this  time.   These events are  localized and
sporadic, and the affected species seem to rebound from them when the  chemical
and physical conditions rebound.   It  is  unlikely that any long-term impact on
the affected species would result from fish kills in the open  Bight where even
short-term effects are less profound than in more enclosed areas.

      Economic and Social Impact

      Recovery of a species  is dependent  on  recruitment  time.   Sea scallops and
ocean quahogs have  much longer recruitment times  than do surf clams, for  example.
However,  recovery  is  also dependent  on  other  factors;  for  example,  predator
decline  and  lack  of fishing pressure on  a  diminished  species will allow that
species to recover sooner.  In the  1976 mass benthic mortalities,  both  of these
factors aided the fast  recovery of surf clams in the Bight.  The economic impact
of  this event was  originally estimated  to cost  in  excess  of $600  million,
probably  an  overestimate (Swanson and  Sindermann,  1979).   No  other  data on
economic  loss from fish kills exist.

Birds, Mammals and Turtles - Abundance and Distribution

      Extent of the Impairment

      Birds, mammals  and turtles  are  found seasonally  throughout the Bight.
Several species of endangered or threatened birds and turtles  use parts of the
Bight for critical  or developmental   stages  of  life.   Data  are  generally not
available  on pollutant effects on  population  over time in this area,  with the
exception  of  effects  of  DDT  and  possibly PCBs  on  birds.   The peak  of these
effects was in the 1950s  and  1960s, but since the banning of DDT, there  has been
a steady rebound of affected bird populations from their previous steep declines.
In  1985  and  continuing through 1987,  there  was  about a fivefold  increase over
the previous five  years  in  the number of marine turtle strandings on  New York
beaches.  For New Jersey,  the  increase jumped significantly in 1987 (by  a factor
of  four)  compared to the years 1979 through 1986.

      Causes of Impairment

      Toxicants,  entanglement in plastic  litter, and disturbance  by man are the
three most prevalent causes  of endangerment  to marine animals  as a whole (Table
7).  Boat hits  are  the major cause of mortality to turtles in  the Bight. Turtles
historically have only rarely laid eggs on Bight beaches, so reproduction is not
jeopardized by toxicants  in  the Bight.   However, toxicants are a major threat
to bird reproduction in the Bight.  Habitat loss, modification and disturbance
along the coastal  fringe  have an even greater  impact  on  bird  populations in the

Bight.   Birds, turtles, and mammals  are particularly vulnerable to entrapment
and entanglement  in plastic waste such as six-pack rings, fishing line,  and nets.
Turtles and mammals are vulnerable to  ingestion of plastic bags and balloons  that
are mistaken for squid, jellyfish, and other prey food items.  The consequence
of ingestion is often death.
                             COWERCIAL/RECREATIONAL FISHERIES

Factors Causing
I mpa i rment

and human use
conflicts, habitat
Significance Spatial and
of Impairment Temporal Extent ECONOMIC IMPACT

or threatened
species; less
so for others
     The degree of impairment from toxicants  is not known, but it is likely  that
the general health and reproductive success of birds,  mammals,  and  turtles  that
inhabit polluted areas may be compromised.   Frequently turtles  and  occasionally
mammals are stranded  on  New Jersey and New  York  beaches from unknown causes.
It may be that, like seal deaths  in the North Sea, animals'  immune systems  are
compromised by pollution.

      Ecological Significance of  Impairment

      The ecological  significance is great when endangered or threatened species
are involved.  Among  the  four species  of  turtles  that are found in the  Bight,
there are  two  on  the endangered  list  (leatherback and Ridley) and two  on  the
threatened list (loggerhead  and green)  (Mager, 1985).  There are four New  York
State designated  endangered  species  of birds (peregrine falcon, roseate tern,
least tern and piping plover) and three New York State designated threatened
species (osprey,  northern  harrier and  common tern)  that use the coastal areas
of the Bight (Buckley and Buckley, 1978).

      Economic and Social Impacts

      Economic losses are  undeterminable;  however,  social consequences  can  be
significant.    The perceived degradation of  the region's waters is especially
amplified when mammals die in large numbers,  such as  occurred  in the summer of
1987.  The public's sense of aesthetics about the  place where they  live is  also
compromised when once thriving marine animals are  threatened or no  longer found
in the region.


      More than  20  million people  live,  work and  recreate along the  coastal
waters of the New York Bight.  Population densities vary  from  2700 km   for New
York City as a whole to approximately 80 km"2  at the eastern end  of Long Island
and southern  New  Jersey.  Historically, it was  the attraction of "The Great Port"
that contributed  to  the development of the region and the associated degradation
of much of the nearby coastal waters.  The waterways were logical conduits for
transport and dispersion of all types of wastes including domestic,  industrial
and even those of bone rendering facilities.  Even though New  York City was at
the  forefront  of sewage  treatment  technology  in  the  early to  mid-twentieth
century,  waste  disposal  traditionally  has  been  an   afterthought   in  the
metropolitan area.

      Today,  coastal waters of the Bight,  which  are  geographically removed from
the Hudson-Raritan Estuary,  experience downstream effects  of the estuary and its
attendant pollution problems.   The closure of  shellfish beds at the mouth of the
Hudson-Raritan Estuary, floatable debris on beaches, and  the possible  increase
in hypoxia or eutrophication in the New York Bight and western Long Island Sound
are  but  a  few examples.    Even  the  impacts of  ocean-dumped sewage   sludge and
dredged materials and atmospheric fallout of pollutants originate with  activities
adjacent to the estuary.

      Poorly controlled  coastal  development  along  New  Jersey  and Long  Island
portend  the  continuing  deterioration  of New  York  Bight resources  even  if
conditions in the estuary are improved.

      The population immediately surrounding the New York Bight will be in excess
of 24 million by the year 2000.   This  is an  increase of  only about 15%  over the
period  dating  from 1985.   However,   it  is  perhaps the  redistribution of the
population  that   is  more   important  with  regard  to  marine   water  quality.
Development will  apparently continue to shift  mainly away from  the central city
into the suburban counties,  particularly into coastal  areas.  These realities
are paramount considerations for the  development  of any long-term management plan
addressing the quality of coastal waters.

      Identification of the important  components of the Bight ecosystem that can
or even should be restored and the means to  do so  are  to be accomplished by the
New  York Bight Restoration  Plan.   Planning restoration of the  Bight  based on
today's  understanding of  the  ecosystem  is  intriguing   but  frustrating:  an
appropriate approach to achieve positive and measurable  results is not  evident.
We have examined impaired uses of the Bight --  identifying those uses  that are
recognized as important  to  our  health and well-being,  aesthetic sensibilities
and  livelihoods.   On some  levels,  these use impairments can  be measured and
quantified.   Some  aspects  of the  impairments  remain  very difficult,  if not
impossible to assess  (Table 8).   The impaired  uses  that can be  identified as
significant  in   terms of   social  or  economic  values  can  be  targeted for

 restoration.   If the resources  and technologies are  committed and  the citizenry
 is willing to modify its behavior, it  is  possible to implement actions to restore
 many of  these  uses.  The success  of these actions can  be measured.

      It  is argued with increasing conviction that by targeting economically or
 socially significant impairments, the overall health of the ecosystem is ignored
 (Sagoff  1988).   In  fact,  if  significant  strides can  be  made  toward  restoring
 uses,  the  overall  health  of  the  ecosystem  is   bound to  improve as well.   The
 converse,  however, is  not  evident.  Even if a few measures  of the overall  health
 of the  ecosystem were  to  be greatly  improved,   it  is not  evident that  specific
 uses would be  recovered.

                  NEW  YORK BIGHT  (*  IN MILLIONS OF 1987 DOLLARS)
 Beach Impairments

 Pathogens in
$539 to $2165

   $ 36
$1078 to $5413
 $472 to $590

 $73 to $109
                18.1  to 73

                                                                         $447 to $1515

 -commercial fish

 Ecosystem Impacts

 Fish Kills
 •rec fish
 -conrn fish

 -rec fish
 -comm fish

 Abundance &
 -rec fish
 -comm fish

 Damage to birds


Navigational hazards
(recreational boating)
   $ 30
                                                                            $ 90












                                                                       $25 to $250
nms * not  measures, but  likely to be small relative to the errors  in measurement of those values that are
nml * not  measured, but  likely to be large relative to the errors  in measurement of those values that are

      The numbers generated for the economic part of this study are not precise.
They cannot be derived directly from Bureau of Labor Statistics  data,  and  very
often the primary data upon which they are based are imprecise.  However,  we are
confident that wherever we have  ventured  to provide numerical estimates,  they
are of the right order of magnitude.

      The compartmentalization of the study into various impairments of specific
uses excludes  from consideration many  economic  damages  from pollution.   The
quality  of  life  is  an important  factor in  business  and  industry  decisions
concerning where to locate their economic activity.  Unfortunately,  along  with
the additional economic activity generated by business  and  industry,  they  have
also generally contributed to eventual environmental degradation.   Witness the
coastal area of the New York Bight that has many negative associations such as
air pollution, population  congestion,  and crime.   A better marine  environment
can offset some of these negative features and make the region a more attractive
place for families and businesses.

      The  information  in  Table  8  is indeed  alarming.    Considering  beach
impairments,  pathogens  in  shellfish  and toxicants  in  marine foods, the total
annual  expenditures  lost   amount  to  between $3  billion  and  $7.5  billion.
Similarly, the jobs lost could be in the range of 46,000    100,000.

      Lost revenue and jobs on this  scale typically would  generate  considerable
political  attention  and perhaps trigger  extensive  remediation  programs  with
considerable  tax-supported assistance.   Societal targets  are diffuse in  this
situation; where the uses  have become  gradually  impaired over many  decades,  the
need for attention has not been so obvious.   However,  it would appear  that now
there are significant  benefits to be derived from an improved marine  environment.

      Interestingly,  the greatest identified economic  loss  is  associated  with
the floatables problem, yet this  loss  can  be  alleviated easily.   The sources of
the  problem  are  well  known and  the  solutions  to  the  problems  have  been

      There are  already  some programs and  activities  under way,  particularly
targeted towards the  estuary, that will have beneficial effects  on  the quality
of the Bight.  The  upgrading of sewage treatment plants,  appropriate  chlorination
of sewage effluent,  introduction of industrial pre-treatment programs, upgrading
of combined storm sewer systems and the continued move of industry from the  city
should cause marked improvements in the water quality of the Upper and Lower  Bays
and the East River.

      Perhaps  as a result  of  these measures,  we can anticipate  the  opening of
several beaches  in  the estuary  and shellfishing areas in the estuary and the
Bight that are now closed.   The reduction  of  toxins  (dioxins,  furans,  dieldrin,
lead and cadmium)  in  these waters  may lead  to lower concentrations  of some of
the contaminants in marine  organisms.  However, it is  likely that bans and  public
health advisories  will  still  be issued.   These toxins  persist  in  the  marine


sediments which serve as a continuing long-term repository of substances toxic
to marine organisms.  It is also possible that the EPA, state or FDA standards
will  become more  restrictive  as more is learned  about  the  harmful  effects of
consuming contaminated seafood.

      It would be naive  to believe that the New  York  Harbor  area  is going to
revert  to  a desirable  marine  recreational  area  because many  uncontrollable
problems remain. For example, seepage of contaminants from landfills, intentional
and accidental  spills, urban runoff, poor control  of marina operations, and poor
management of wastes at  the  individual  and  small  business  level will continue
to plague the metropolitan  area.   Operation and  maintenance resources for the
infrastructure needed  to  ensure  water  quality will  probably  lag  far  behind
optimal  levels.

      The New York Bight apex will  be a  prime beneficiary of improvement to the
harbor complex, which is a major source  of contaminants  to the Bight.  However,
continued coastal  development on Long Island and  in New Jersey will add stress
to the bays and lagoons  of these coastal  areas.  To relieve this stress, direct
discharges  from sewage  treatment  plants to the   ocean  offshore will probably
increase.   Given  current  trends  in coastal  development,  we can  probably
anticipate that the rather steep gradient of water quality from extremely poor
in the  harbor  to  clean  in the  east  and  south  will begin to  level  off.   More
frequent  beach and  shellfish  bed  closures  might  be expected.    Nutrients
stimulating phytoplankton  blooms may also  be  expected to  increase  as  sewage
treatment systems come on  line.   Control  of coastal  development and effective
land use planning are imperative if the present status of marine water quality
along coasts to the south and east of the Bight apex is to be maintained.

      Improvement  in  the  water quality  of the  Bight apex  may  result  from
improvement in the water quality of the Hudson-Raritan plume and also from the
cessation in 1988  of ocean dumping of sewage  sludge at the 12-mile site.  Perhaps
the  shellfishing  closure area  surrounding  this  site  will  be reduced  to some
degree as a consequence of these actions.

      Concern must be expressed with regard to the potential long-term effects
of ocean dumping of sewage  sludge  and industrial  wastes at  the  106 mile site,
although legislation intended to terminate this practice has  already been signed
(Ocean  Dumping  Ban  Act  of  1988).   However, monitoring for  long-term effects
should  be  undertaken in  case  ocean  dumping continues  longer  than  has  been

      Overall, the quality of the waters of  the New York Bight and particularly
the  Bight  apex are probably  typical  of an  over-populated  and  over-developed
coastal   region in  the  industrialized  world.    They  can  bear  considerable
improvement but there  is room for conservative optimism. Technological solutions
will   only  partially aid  in reducing further  degradation.    More  fundamental
actions --  reducing the production of pollutants or reducing population density
- will be needed to restore uses and enhance ecosystem quality.   These solutions
will  be costly and depend  upon  residents'  willingness  to  modify some of their
cultural habits. For example, limiting coastal development would  probably be the
greatest  positive  influence,   but   that   has   many   implications  regarding
transportation, business, industry and the associated tax base.   The opportunity


for conserving and  improving  water  quality and wisely using  coastal  resources
depends upon the individual and collective will  of society, business and industry
and government.  Extending the notion of  improved U.S. competitiveness through
better cooperation between business and government should perhaps  be  broadened
to include environmental quality.


1.  Sewage sludge was ocean dumped at a site approximately  equal distance  from
and 20 km off the  New York and New Jersey coast from 1924 through 1986.  In  1987
sewage sludge dumping was phased out of this near coastal site  to  the 106-mile
site some 250  km  east of  Cape May,  New Jersey. All  sludge  dumping  at the  near
shore site ceased in December 1987.

2.   Some institutions  such  as  the Long  Island  Region of  the  New York State
Department  of  Parks  and Recreation  compile annual  attendance figures from the
per-vehicle admission fee records.   At  some beaches  (particularly town beaches)
admission is gained  by having the appropriate annual sticker  on the car, so there
is no daily  census.  The only comprehensive annual attendance figure for New  York
is for 1976, a year  associated with  an  unusually  large number  of beach problems
(washups of floatables  and other wastes).
      An estimate of total  beach use was  determined by assuming  that attendance
at New York  State  Park beaches is a constant fraction of total attendance. Based
on these data, one  could  assume a baseline  attendance at  New York beaches of
approximately 105 million user days (the  average of the lower and  upper bounds
reported in  a working  paper  prepared  in connection  with this  report).   This
figure is representative of average attendance in years without a major  pollution
event.  The comparable  figure for New Jersey would be 93.6  million  user days.

3.  Direct   expenditures have  been  estimated  by  examining  average   per-trip
expenditures in other studies  --  adapting those  figures to 1987-1988.  Direct
expenditures do not take into account the  additional  expenditures  generated as
these dollars are respent.   These  indirect or "ripple effects"  are determined
through the  application of  a  multiplier.   Multipliers of 2 to 3 are  generally
employed in studies  of this  nature (Bell  and Leeworthy, 1986 and New York State
Department of Environmental  Conservation,  1977).


Bell, F.W. and V.R.  Leeworthy. 1986.  An  economic assessment  of  the importance
      of saltwater beaches in Florida.   Florida State  Univ., Tallahassee.

Belton, T.J., R.  Roundy, B.E. Ruppel, K.  Lockwood, S.  Shiboski,    Bukowski, G.,
      N. Weinstein,  D.  Wison,  and H.  Whelan,  1985. A study  of  toxic
      hazards to  urban  recreational fishermen and  crabbers.  New  Jersey
      Department of Environmental Protection.  OSR.

Buckley,  P.A. and F.G.  Buckley,  1978.   In J.  Noyes,  editor.  Human
     encroachment  on  barrier beaches of the  northeastern U.S.  and its
     impact  on coastal  birds.  Coastal  recreational  resources in an
     urbanizing environment.  Amherst,   MA:   Holdsworth   Nature
     Resource Center, Planning  and Development Series.

Buerger,  R.  and J.  Kahn, 1989.  The New York value of  Chesapeake
     striped  Bass. Marine Resource Economics, (6):  19-25.

Dilernia, A.  and M. Malchoff, 1990;  in press. 1989  Survey of Long
     Island and  New York City charter and party boat businesses.
     In  Proceedings  of the Conference  on  floatable  wastes  in the
     ocean:social, economic, and public  health implications,  March 21-
     22,1989  at  SUNY-Stony Brook.

Fey,  G.  (1990,   in  press).   Impact  of  environmental  issues  on
     tourism. In  Proceedings of the Conference on floatable wastes in
     the ocean:social, economic,  and public health  implications,  March
     21-22,1989  at SUNY-Stony Brook.

Fisher,  A.   and  J.  Krutilla.   1985.   The  economics  of  natural
     environments. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore,

Goldman,  J.M. 1988. The development of a sewer system  in New York
     City,  1800-1866: evolution of a technological  and managerial
     infrastructure, Unpublished Ph D. dissertation.  State
     University  of New York at Stony Brook.  Stony  Brook, N.Y.
     203  pp.

Green, W.  1990,  in press. "Manifest Waste: Will the Regulation of
     'Medical Waste1  Disposal  Promote  the Public Health and
     Protect  the Public Shores?"  In Proceedings of the Conference
     on floatable wastes in the  ocean: social,  economic,  and  public
     health implications, March  21-22,1989 at SUNY-Stony  Brook.

HydroQual,  Inc.  1989. Assessment of pollutant inputs  to New York
     Bight. Job  No. DYNM0100.  Dynamac Corporation. Rockville,

Kahn,  J.  1990,  in  press.  A  general  overview of  the   impacts  of
     floatable  wastes  on  fisheries,  tourism,   and   marine
     recreation. I_n Proceedings of the Conference on floatable wastes
     in the ocean:social, economic,  and public health implications,
     March  21-22,1989 at SUNY-Stony Brook.

Lumsden, L.L.  1925.  A typhoid fever epidemic caused by oyster-borne
     infection.  Public Health Reports, supplement No.50.

Mager, A., Jr.  1985.  Five  year status review of  sea  turtles listed under the
      Endangered Species Act of 1973. U.S. Department of Commerce,  NOAA:
      36-55;  70-80.

Marine  Sciences  Research  Center.  1989.  Floatables  Management  Plan.  Coast
      Institute. Waste Management Institute.  State University of New York
      at Stony Brook. Stony Brook, New York.

Mason,  J.R.   and  W.R.   McLean,   1962.   Infectious hepatitis  traced  to  the
      consumption of raw oysters. American Journal of Hygiene,  75:90-95.

Mayer, G.F., ed.  1982.  Ecological  stress and the  New  York Bight:  Science and
      management.  Estuarine Research Foundation, Columbia,  S.C.

McHugh, J.L.  and E. Hasbrouck, 1989. Fishery management in the  New  York Bight:
      Experience under the Magnuson Act 1. Fisheries Research,  Holland.

Mearns, A.J., M.B.  Matta,  D.  Simecek-Beatty, M.F. Buchman,   G. Shigenka,  and
      W.A. Wert. 1988. PCB and chlorinated pesticide contamination in U.S.
      fish and shellfish: a historical assessment report. NOAA/NOS  Tech.
      Memo OMA-39. 140 pp.

National  Oceanic and  Atmospheric Administration;  National  Marine Fisheries
      Service.  1980.  Marine   recreational   fishery  statistics  survey,
      Atlantic  and  Gulf  coasts,  1979.  Current  Fishery   Statistics.
      Washington, D.C.

National  Oceanic  and Atmospheric Administration  1986.  Report  on the 1984-86
      federal survey of PCB's in Atlantic coast bluefish. Data  report.

Ofiara, D. and  B.  Brown.  1990, in press. Marine  pollution  events of 1988 and
      their effect on travel,  tourism,  and recreational activities  in New
      Jersey. In. Proceedings of the  Conference on  floatable wastes  in the
      ocean:social, economic,  and public  health  implications,  March 21-
      22,1989 at SUNY-Stony Brook.

Olsen,  P.  1989.  Development  and distribution of  a brown-water algal  bloom in
      Barnegat  Bay,  New  Jersey.  Pages  189-212.   In  E.M.  Cosper,  V.M.
      Bricelj and E.J.  Carpenter,  eds.  Novel  phytoplankton blooms: causes
      and  impacts  of recurrent  brown tides  and  other  unusual  blooms.
      Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Ringe, M.E.,  J.D. Clem, R.E. Linker, and  L.K. Shermer, 1962.   A  case study on
      the  transmission  of  infectious  hepatitis by  raw   clams.  U.S.
      Department of Health,  Education and  Welfare,  Public Health Service,
      Washington, D.C.

R.L.  Associates 1988.   The economic impact of visitors to the New Jersey shore
      the summer of 1988. Princeton, New Jersey.

Rose, K.A.,  J.K. Summers, R.A. Cumins,  and  D.G.  Heimbuch,  D.G.  1986. Analysis
      of  long-term  ecological  data   using   categorical   time  series
      regression.   Canadian  Journal  of Fisheries  and Aquatic  Sciences
      43(12):  2418-2426.

Rose, T.  (1989).  Freeing the whales. Carol Publishing Company.  Secaucus,  New

Sagoff,  M. 1988. The economy of the earth.  Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

Sindermann,  C.J. 1988.   Fin  erosion  of striped bass.   I_n Sindermann, C.J.  and
      Lightner, D.P.,  editors.   Disease,  diagnosis  and  control  in North
      America marine aquaculture.  Vol. 17.  Developments in Aquaculture
      and Fishery Science.  Elsevier Science Publ.  Co. NY.

Sindermann,   C.J.   and  R.L.  Swanson,  R.L.  1979.   Historical   and  regional
      perspective. Pages  1-16. 7n  R.L.  Swanson,  and  C.J. Sindermann, editors.
      Oxygen depletion and associated benthic mortalities in the New York
      Bight, 1976.  Professional Paper 11. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
      Administration,  Rockville,  MD.

Squires,  D.F.  1981. The Bight of the Big Apple. The  New York  State Sea Grant
      Institute, Albany, N.Y.

Summers, J.K., T.T. Polgar, K.A.  Rose, R.A. Cummins, R.N. Ross,  D.G. Heimbuch.
      1987.  Assessment of the relationships among hydrographic conditions,
      macropollution histories,  and fish and  shellfish  stocks  in major
      northeastern estuaries.  NOAA Technical Memorandum, NOS OMA 31. 223

Swanson, R.  L. and R.L.  Zimmer.  1990. Meteorological conditions leading to the
      1987 and 1988 washups  of floatable wastes on New York and New Jersey
      beaches  and  comparison  of these  conditions  with the  historical
      record. Estuarine, Coastal  and Shelf Science,  30:59-78

Swanson,  R.L.  and  C.J.  Sindermann. 1979. Oxygen depletion  and  the future: an
      evaluation.   Pages  335-345. In R.L. Swanson,  and  C.J. Sindermann,
      editors. Oxygen  depletion and associated  benthic mortalities  in the
      New York Bight,  1976.   Professional Paper  11.  National Oceanic and
      Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, MD.

Swanson,  R.L., H.M. Stanford,  and  J.S.  O'Connor. 1978.  June 1976 pollution of
      Long Island ocean  beaches.  Journal  of  the environmental engineering
      division, ASCE,  Proc. Paper 14238 (December)  194 EE6:1067-1085.

Young, R.R.  (1990). Prevalence and  severity  of  shell disease among deep-sea red
      crabs of the Middle  Atlantic Bight  in  relation   to  ocean sludge
      dumping. Masters thesis. State University of New York @ Stony Brook.
      Stony Brook, N.Y.


                       IN THE SOUND-HARBOR-BIGHT SYSTEM
                                 J.R. Schubel
                                 Anne S. West
                          Waste Management Institute
                       Marine  Sciences  Research Center
                        The University  at Stony Brook
                      Stony Brook, New  York   11794-5000

     There  is  a  general public  perception,  in  part  related to  concern  over
coastal  water quality,  that  the coastal ocean,  in general, and that the coastal
environments of New  York,  New Jersey  and  Connecticut,  in particular,  are  in
decline  (Morganthau,  1988;  Smart  et al. 1987; Toufexis,  1988).  The quality of
these coastal waters  grades  from  nearly pristine  on the east end of Long Island
to one of the most  degraded  open  coastal areas  of the world, the inner New York
Bight -- the Bight Apex.  The gradient in  environmental  quality is one of the
steepest in the nation's coastal  ocean.

     Ptolemy once remarked that it is the role of the scientist to "tell the most
plausible  story  that  saves  the  facts."    Although  Ptolemy  didn't  state  it
explicitly, he meant  "all  the facts".  One problem we have in dealing with the
environment is the use of selective  subsets  of facts  to  tell  "short stories."
Are things getting  better in the Long Island Sound-New York Harbor-Bight system?
Yes!  Are they getting worse?  Yes!  The  answer is an absolute and unequivocal
"yes" to both questions.  But, on  balance what  is the situation?  What story is
most consistent with  all of the facts?  In  this  paper we try to tell that story.
Contribution No.  753 of the Marine Sciences  Research  Center  of the University
at Stony Brook.

     The projected growth  of  population in coastal areas  is  cause for concern
with regard to  water quality.  The figure  is often quoted, but never documented,
that by  the  year 2000, 75% of the population of  the United States  will  live
within 50 miles of the coast of the ocean and the Great Lakes.  While this number
may be exaggerated,  it  is clear that Americans  like  to  live close to the margins.
 Degraded water quality, degraded  habitats and degraded   communities of living
marine resources all  are associated with major population centers and  it is easy
to envision steadily increasing impacts of society on the waters of the eastern
end of Long Island Sound as coastal development  proceeds.

     People  need  to  decide  now  what  qualities   they  want    their  coastal
environments to have in  years to come, what uses they want them to serve and then
to develop  management  policies and practices --  strategies -- to  ensure  that
those goals are  met. Technological fixes  can  alleviate the  potential problems
to some degree, but we  should not  be fooled into thinking  that  technology  will
keep ahead of  the  potential  for  coastal degradation.   It will  not!   And,  once
coastal  marine  environments  are  lost  or  seriously   impaired   because of
over-development, the costs to rehabilitate are  high and  the results uncertain.

     "Water quality" can be described by a  variety of different measures, ranging
from relatively intangible concentrations of chemicals to more tangible effects
of impaired water quality  or impaired uses of the  water  body and  its resources
(e.g.,  the  frequency  of fin rot  in fish; miles   of  beach closed  to bathing;
areas  of  shellfish  beds  closed  to  harvesting).   Measures of  water  quality
generally  take on  significance to  the  public only when  compared  to  reference
values that relate directly to  the  uses  or values they consider to  be important.
Commonly  used  reference values  include:  regulatory  water quality  standards,
average  values in other states,  historical  values that  permit comparison of
current  conditions with  conditions of a decade  ago or  with pre-industrial
conditions, and where one's local area ranks relative to the  list of the nation's
top 10 most polluted coastal marine environments.

     This diversity of measures of water quality  is emphasized because a number
of commonly used "measures" are not descriptive  of  what most people consider to
be  indicators  of  water quality.   Perhaps more  importantly,   many  of  these
measures contribute little to  management  decisions that affect water quality.
We  present  our  interpretation  of  water  quality  in  terms   of more  socially
significant "impaired uses."

     More than 13 million New Yorkers live,  work  and  recreate along the marine
coastal waters of New York  State.   The number of people living along the borders
of Long  Island  Sound is close  to 15 million.   Population densities  range  from
7,000 per square mile   in  New York City  to  less  than 200  per square mile at
the eastern end of Long Island.  It was  the  attraction of the "Great Port"  that
contributed to the development of  the region and the  associated degradation of
much of  the  nearby coastal waters.   The waterways were  logical   conduits for
dispersal  and  dispersion  of  all  types  of  wastes,   including  domestic and
industrial wastes  and  even carcasses  of animals  from  the numerous  slaughter
houses and bone  rendering  facilities.  Proper  waste disposal traditionally has
been an  afterthought in  the metropolitan New York City  area. And in  this respect,
New York City is the rule,  rather than the exception among major coastal cities.

                                                            Schubel and West

     Even today, many of the downstate coastal  marine waters relatively  removed
from the New York-New Jersey Harbor  area  experience downstream effects of the
harbor and its attendant pollution problems.  Consider, for example, the closure
of shellfish beds at   the mouth of the Hudson-Raritan  Estuary,  floatables on
beaches,  the impacts of ocean dumping of sewage  sludge and contaminated dredged
materials,  and  the  possible  tendency  for  increased  hypoxic conditions  or
eutrophication  in  the New  York Bight and western Long  Island Sound.  In a recent
study of  impaired uses  of the New York Bight  done for Region  II  of  the U.S.
Environmental  Protection Agency, it was estimated that New York's share of the
economic losses associated with  impacts on  beach use,  fisheries,  recreational
boating,  and marine  birds, mammals  and  turtles was  on the order of  several
billion  dollars  per year.  Researchers at  Rutgers  University estimated  the
economic losses  in direct  expenditures for the State of New Jersey to be between
$240 million and $1.4 billion annually (Waste Management Institute 1989).

     The greatest impairments  to the water quality of  the  Sound-Harbor-Bight
system are low  levels of dissolved oxygen  because of eutrophication; restricted
fishing because of pollution  by toxicants and  sewage and by  non-point source
runoff; beach clousures because  of sewage inputs and  non-point sources;  and a
variety of  problems  associated with floatable  wastes,  including  medical-type


     Concern has been  expressed  in the last decade as to whether portions of the
New York  Bight Apex  (Figure  1) and  western  Long   Island Sound  are  showing
persistent and growing adverse signs of eutrophication.  It probably  is premature
to so state this with  certainty  for  either area, and particularly for the Bight
Apex.    It  is important  to  monitor  the  situation  closely  and to  implement
appropriate  remedial  measures  to   reduce  the probability  of  increasing  the
frequency, duration and geographical extent of such events.

     Low levels of dissolved  oxygen  (DO) are observed in the near-bottom waters
of the Bight,  Harbor,  and western Sound during the summer  months of  some  years.
In  July  and August of  1987  extremely low oxygen values, 0-2 parts per million
(ppm), were observed in the waters  of western Long Island Sound as far east as
Greenwich, Connecticut.   Such  hypoxic events have  adverse  impacts on  benthic
organisms of the affected  area,  particularly sessile  forms. The summer of 1987
was especially severe;  many bottom-dwelling invertebrates died and  fish avoided
the area.

     During the past decade,  near-bottom water DO concentrations in the  Harbor
have improved, although in many areas values  still  fall  below  New York State
water quality standards for fish propagation   (5 ppm).  Anoxia (0 ppm DO) often
occurs in the Arthur Kill,  Kill Van Kull,  Harlem River, and  the East River. Most

               Philadelphia Sewage

               Sludge Dumpsile
             Figure 1: New York Bight and adjacent waters. Dashes outline area depicted in Figure 2.
From-    Carriker,  M.R.,  J.W. Anderson,  W.P.  Davis, D.R.  Franz, G.F. Mayer,  J.B.  Pearce,
               T.K.  Sawyer,  J.H.  Tietjen,  J.F.  Timoney,  D.R.  Young.   1982.  Effects or
               pollutants on benthos in Ecological  Stress and the New York Right:  Scignce
               and  Management  (Garry  F.  Mayer,  ed.)    Estuarine  Research  Federation,
               Columbia,  South  Carolina, pp 3-21.

                                                            Schubel and West

bivalves,  including  clams and oysters, are unable to live in these waterways.
Similar conditions exist in the Narrows between the East River and Long Island

     The deeper basins of central and western Long Island Sound and  several bays
along the  north shore of Long  Island  also  frequently fail to meet DO standards.
The recent  improvements  in DO levels  in  the  waters  of New York  Harbor are a
consequence of new and  upgraded  sewage treatment  plants.    However,  nutrients
formerly released  to Harbor waters  as organic   matter now are  dispersed  in
dissolved  forms, to  be  assimilated   outside the  Harbor by phytoplankton.  When
these phytoplankton  die, they  constitute  a source of biological  oxygen demand
that is dispersed  from  the Harbor to burden the western Sound and the inner New
York Bight.

     Unlike the nearshore  zone  of northern New Jersey,  the nearshore zone of the
south shore of  Long Island has  not experienced  low DO problems to any appreciable
degree --   a consequence of the differences in the oceanic  circulation in the
two areas.

     Low  DO routinely  occurs  in  the Christiaensen  Basin  (Figure   2),  the
topographic depression at the head of the Hudson  Shelf Valley,  located between
the  dredged material disposal   site    and  the  former  12-mile  sewage sludge
dumpsite.    While  low DO conditions in the  New York  Bight  Apex  are controlled
largely by  oceanographic  and  meteorologic  conditions,  the  oxygen  demand from
local dumping  operations and particularly  from the Hudson River plume add to the
oxygen stress  of  the area.   Long term monitoring in the Bight Apex has shown
no indication  of a trend of decreasing  DO  levels  in near-bottom waters  (Swanson
and Parker  1988).  The  natural  variability in these  areas makes  evaluation of
the situation  difficult.  However,  low levels of DO can be expected any summer
given the appropriate combination of oceanographic and meteorological conditions.

     Phytoplankton blooms,  which  often  are responses to nutrient enrichment from
human wastes, also  can occur in response to natural events, although  the  specific
causes of  naturally     induced blooms  are  poorly understood.  Because of the
massive quantities of algal cells characteristic  of blooms, the affected waters
can take on a   distinct discoloration.   Green tides and red  tides  have been
observed in the Bight in recent years.  Brown tides in the waters of  the  Peconics
and other  bays of  eastern  Long  Island  Sound and  Great South Bay  occurred from
1985 through 1988 and have been responsible for the collapse of the bay scallop
fishery.   The problem appeared to be ameliorating in 1989 and the bay scallop
began to repopulate  the Peconics-Flanders  Bay system.   The  cause of the brown
tide has not been identified unequivocally; it may well have been  triggered in
part by  natural events  such   as  drought  conditions,   but  it  may have  been
aggravated by  human activities  involving the use of new types of fertilizers and
additives  to detergents  (Cosper et al. 1989).

     Besides  obvious aesthetic  impacts  of  phytoplankton  blooms and  their
potential  for contributing  to depressed DO concentrations in near-bottom waters,
reports from bathers  and lifeguards of nausea,  sore throat, eye irritation, and
lung congestion have been attributed to phytoplankton blooms.


                                           Dredged Material;

                                             Dumpsite [TT
                    Figure 2: Lower Hudson-Raritan estuary and inner New York Bight.
From:    Carriker, M.R.,  J.W.  Anderson, W.P. Davis,  D.R.  Franz, G.F. Mayer,  J.B. Pearce,
               T.K.  Sawyer, J.H.  Tietjen,  J.F.  Timoney,  D.R.  Young.   1982. Effects of
               pollutants on benthos  in Ecological Stress and the New York Bight: Science
               and  Management  (Garry  F.  Mayer,  ed.)    Estuarine  Research  Federation,
               Columbia,  South Carolina,  pp 3-21.

                                                            Schubel and West

Toxic Substances and Pathogens

     Municipal  sewage  treatment  plants  contribute  virtually  all   kinds  of
pollutants to the region's coastal  marine  waters.   For nearly all pollutants,
the direct inputs to  coastal  water by  industrial  discharges  account  for only
about 1% by mass of the discharges  of these same pollutants from sewage treatment
plants.   Sewage  treatment   plants  dominate  loadings  of most  human pathogens,
some  toxic  metals,     organic   carbon,   and  synthetic  organics  excluding
polychlorinated byphenyls (PCBs).  The  upper  Hudson and other rivers and streams
contribute most of the  suspended   solids,  about  two-thirds  the PCBs and 25% of
the nitrogen and  phosphorus to the area's coastal marine waters.

     Urban runoff is  also a  significant  source  of a  number  of contaminants,
contributing  about  35% of the oil  and  grease.  It is worth noting  that each year
the quantity of oil  and grease that reaches  New York Harbor waters from sewage
treatment plants and  from  industrial  discharges  throughout  the drainage basin
is  equivalent  to the  amount  of  oil  released  by the  EXXON VALDEZ oil  spill.
Rivers and streams together  with urban runoff contribute more than 20% of the
total loadings  of arsenic, lead,  nickel, selenium, and zinc.

     The ability in  the region to  respond effectively to spills of oil and other
toxic  materials  is  poor.   Facilities  are  primitive  and management  response
mechanisms range from cumbersome to  inoperative.  If a major  spill  were to occur
within the region,  its impacts might well  be  greater than those associated with
the EXXON VALDEZ.   This is  not  because the region's  natural ecosystem is more
sensitive than Prince  William  Sound.   It is not.   It is because  there are so many
overlapping  jurisdictions  in this  region and because there   is  no  emergency
response plan in  place  that would allow a rapid response.  A high priority should
be given to developing  a comprehensive  spill response management plan which is
a composite of regional and sub-regional plans.

     Indirect  loadings  of  several  pollutants  to marine  waters    from  the
atmosphere through  the  entire  Hudson  watershed are significant.   For example,
in  Long  Island Sound,  east  of Greenwich Connecticut,  atmospheric inputs alone
can account for the entire sediment load of  lead (Hirschberg et al. 1989).  In
the New York  Bight, approximately 80% of the lead input is atmospheric (Hydroqual

     Primarily because  of  PCB concentrations which exceed  U.S.  Food  and Drug
Administration (FDA)  guidelines  (viz.  2 ppm PCBs   in  fish flesh),  the state
departments  of  health  for the  tri-state area have  issued  health advisories.
These advisories recommend limiting consumption of  a number  of popular finfish.

     Pollutant accumulations in fish have also led  to extensive restrictions on
commercial fishing  for  a  number  of species.    Since  1986,  New York State has
prohibited the sale of  striped bass caught in all New York waters.  Commercial
fishing is banned in the Hudson from the Troy  Dam to the Battery in New York City
for all  species except  American shad,  large Atlantic sturgeon and  goldfish.  The
entire New York  Harbor and Long  Island Sound as far  east  as about Hempstead
Harbor are closed to  shellfishing  because of human pathogens (as indicated by


concentrations of coliform   bacteria).   In the New York Bight,  a  shell fishing
closure area of 240 square nautical miles has been established around the former
12-mile sewage sludge dumpsite.  In 1986 approximately one-third of the shellfish
beds in the New York-New Jersey  Harbor  and New York Bight were  closed because
of pathogens.  While  these  areas are large,  there has been  relatively  little
change in the  total area closed  to shellfishing for more than  15  years  (Waste
Management Institute 1989).

     It is  significant  that  since the early  1970s Harbor waters  have shown a
trend of decreasing levels  of contamination by human pathogens (as  indicated by
counts of  coliform and fecal   coliform bacteria).  In January  1990,  however,
shellfish harvesting was still prohibited  in   82,445  acres  of  New York's  Long
Island Sound waters (about 18% of  the  total shellfish bottom) and Connecticut's
Long Island shoreline  had 78,009  acres (about 20% of the total shellfish bottom)
closed to  shellfishing.   As  expected,  increasing concentrations  of pathogens
occur  as one progresses from eastern Long  Island Sound to New York Harbor.  With
few exceptions, the entire Hudson-Raritan  Estuary  has  been  closed  to shellfish
harvesting  for direct consumption  for over 60 years.   New York  Harbor has  been
completely  closed  to  shellfishing for 30 years.   It is alarming that with few
exceptions, once an area has  been  closed to shellfishing, it has had to remain

     Western  Long  Island  Sound  waters  conformed to  bathing water standards
(dependent  of  coliform levels) only  63% of the time during  the  summer of 1986.
Conformance with bathing water  standards within harbors along  the north shore
of western Long Island ranged from 25% to 100% of the time.  Most beaches of the
inner New York Harbor have been closed to bathing for more than 50 years because
of  sewage contamination,  however,  the   beaches  of the outer New  York  Harbor
continue to show improvement and  several  have been  opened in the  past few years.

     Two  fish diseases  prevalent  in  the  lower  Hudson  and New   York  Harbor
probably  are  pollutant-induced.   Most  of the Atlantic tomcod sampled from the
lower Hudson, near  Garrison,  (New  York) in 1983-1984 had liver cancer.  Extensive
chemical  analyses  of  the  same  livers  detected metals  and  synthetic organic
compounds expected in an industrialized estuary.  Erosion  and progressive death
of fin tissue  (a disease termed  "fin rot")  has been observed  in  22 fish species
of New York Harbor and Bight.   Fin rot  has been described from polluted marine
waters  throughout  the world. The cause of fin  rot is uncertain,  but several
studies  indicate that  it  is  initiated by  contact  with contaminated sediments
(Murchelano and Zishowski 1982).

     Some  laboratory  studies have linked  shellfish  disease to human wastes.
Crabs,   lobsters  and shrimp  in  the  Bight  exhibit erosion of their  chitinous
exoskeletons by bacteria and  fungi. This "shell  disease" of crustaceans has been
found  in  up  to 30%  of  the shrimp,    Crangon septemspinosa,  from  the  most
contaminated  areas of the  Bight.   Recently there  have  been reports  in  the press
that shell  erosion is occuring on Jonah crabs  (Cancer irroatus) and red  crabs
(Geryon quinquedens) taken from several  submarine  canyons  near  the  edge of the
continental  shelf  to  the  northwest of  Deep  Water   Dumpsite  106  (DWD  106).
Allegations have been made by representatives  of the commercial fishing industry
that the  cause of  the disease is ocean dumping of sewage  sludge at this  newly
designated  sewage sludge dumpsite, 120 nautical miles from Ambrose Light.  Recent


                                                            Schubel and West

research,  however, has found that red  crabs  collected  from the New York Bight
in the later 1880s, prior to ocean dumping at DWD 106,  exhibited shell disease
which indicates that  sewage  sludge alone does not promote this condition (Young
1989).   However,   a  better  understanding  of  the causes  of shell  disease is
necessary.   It  is important from the perspective of all parties that  an objective
assessment  be undertaken.

Floatable Wastes

     Floatable  wastes  are  derived  from a  variety   of  sources,  but  the  most
objectionable  ones are  those associated with  sewage.   Diaper  liners,  condom
rings, tampon applicators,  and  grease balls are aesthetically objectionable and
their presence raises concern among beach users that  there  is a potential public
health risk. More recently there has been concern about floatable medical-type
wastes because of the fear of contracting AIDS.

     Concern about the impacts of floatables on marine organisms  has  been focused
on plastics  which can entangle  birds, fishes, and  turtles.    In  some cases,
plastics have  been ingested by marine organisms, interferring  with digestive
processes and  even causing death.   Floatables  have become a  growing  issue,
perhaps largely as a  result of the increasing use of plastics. These products
began to appear on  the market in the  mid-1960s.  The  introduction of the plastic
PET bottle in  1977 was a significant contributor to  the floatable problem.

     While beaches in the area  are  continually littered to some degree, there
are occasions when the problem is so severe -- or perceived to be so severe --
that beaches have  been closed.   In 1987, 40 km of New  Jersey  beaches  were closed
in late May and 80 km in mid-August because of strandings of floatable wastes.
In 1988, many  beaches  on both  the  north  and  south   shores  of  Long Island and
Westchester County, (New York)  were  closed  for  periods of hours to days because
of reports of  stranded floatable wastes, including medical-type wastes.

     Even though   bathing  water  quality  standards   (as  measured  by  coliform
concentrations) do not seem to be exceeded during floatable events, the public
avoids beach areas during and  after  these episodes.   Public  perception can have
a significant  impact on  beach related  businesses.   The losses  to the region
because of the floatables during the summer of 1988  has been estimated between
1.0 and 5.4 billion dollars (Waste Management Institute 1989).

     The major floatable events  on  the region's ocean beaches appear  to be
related to   persistent  winds  that tend to concentrate  floating materials and
strand  them on downwind beaches.   The most  effective  way  of  reducing  the
magnitude and  severity  of the problem  is  to reduce the  quantity  of material
entering marine systems  at their sources.   Limiting the  use  of plastic items in
the marketplace will  also help to reduce the problem.

     Combined  storm sewers in the  metropolitan area are probably the greatest
single  contributor  of   floatables  to  the  region's coastal  marine  waters.
Inappropriate, ineffective and sloppy solid waste handling  that lead to the

inadvertent release  of floatable  wastes  into  marine  waters  also  add to  the
problem.    The U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency's  floatable  action  plan
developed and  conducted  in  coordination with the  U.S.  Coast Guard,  U.S.  Army
Corps of Engineers, the states of New York and New Jersey,  and New York City is
aiding in reducing  the problem on an interim  basis by its surveillance and harbor
clean-up programs.   Longer term solutions are more critical  and  are identified
in  the  Marine Sciences  Research  Center's  (1989)  comprehensive  floatables
management plan that was developed with the full participation of all  relevant
federal, regional,  state, county and town agencies.


     The  ongoing  program   of   upgrading   sewage  treatment  plants   in  the
metropolitan  area  should continue  the trend  of improving   dissolved  oxygen
concentrations in near-bottom waters of the Harbor complex,  the  East  River and
the  New York  Bight  Apex.   The  extent  of  further  improvement,  however,  is
difficult to  predict.

     Western  Long  Island  Sound  is the marine  system  of greatest concern with
regard to the potential  for eutrophication in the coming years.  While  there are
insufficient  data  to   establish a clear trend,  there appears to be a   slight
increase in the frequency of low DO events in near-bottom waters in recent years.
The  upgrading  of sewage  treatment  plants  in  the City may have exacerbated the
situation  in  the  western Sound  by  changing  the forms  in  which nutrients are
introduced,   transported, and made available to  phytoplankton.   Certainly, the
present  situation  in  the western Sound warrants careful  analysis and  perhaps
remedial   measures once the  mechanisms  -- the  causes of  the  problem  -- are
sufficiently  well  understood  so that  remedial  measures can be selected  with a
reasonable degree of assurance  of success.  The  costs will  be high.

     In  the  Bight  Apex, there is  no indication  of  a  decreasing  trend  in
near-bottom DO although  there are  localized  "hot spots" along   the New  Jersey
coast.  Physical  processes seem  to dominate the annual  cycle of the distribution
of DO in near-bottom waters of the Bight Apex.  One might expect that  there would
be some improvement in the summertime near-bottom DO levels  as a  consequence of
the  relocation of sewage sludge dumping from the 12-mile site to the  106-mile
site.  Localized  oxygen  depletion  may occur  because  of  phytoplankton  blooms
triggered either  by natural  or anthropogenic causes.

Toxic Substances and Pathogens

     The population bordering  New York State's  marine  waters is projected to
increase to about 15 million by the year 2000.   This  is only  a growth  of about
15%  from 1985  estimates.  However,  it  is  the redistribution  of  the population
that is perhaps more important with regard to marine water quality.   People will
continue  to   move  away  from the  central   city and  into  suburban  counties,
particularly toward the eastern  end of  Long Island.   Increased development will
lead to increased  stresses on coastal  environments  and their living  resources

                                                            Schubel and West

unless the development is carefully planned and controlled.

     The upgrading of sewage  treatment  plants,  continual chlorination of sewage
effluent, introduction of industrial pretreatment programs, improvement in the
combined storm sewer  systems, and the continued flight of industry  from New York
City should lead to continued improvements in the water quality of  the Upper and
Lower Bays of New York Harbor,  the East River and the New York Bight Apex.

     Perhaps as a result of  these  measures,  we can  anticipate opening of some
beaches and shellfishing areas  that are now  closed.  The reduction of inputs of
contaminants to these waters may  lead  to a  reduction  of  the  concentration of
these materials in  marine organisms, but there will  be a time lag.   It is likely
that bans and public health advisories  will  remain in effect,  at least for the
forseeable future.  Because many contaminants have a high affinity for particles,
they ultimately come to reside in  the sediments.   Reworking  of  sediments by
animals and by waves  and tides can enhance the exchange of contaminants with the
water  column,  leading  either   to  an  increase in  the uptake  or  release  of
contaminants  by  the  sediments  depending  upon  a  complicated  set  of  chemical
conditions.  Sediments may be a major and persistent source of contaminants to
marine organisms.

     New York State,  the U.S. EPA, and FDA standards  for contaminants in seafood
may become more,  or  less, restrictive in the future as we learn more about the
human health effects  of consuming contaminated seafood, or as the level of public
concern about these  issues increases, or decreases.

     Diseases in  fishes and shellfishes also may be expected to decline as the
concentrations of contaminants  decrease.  There was  a ten-fold decline in the
prevalence  of fin  rot   in  winter  flounder in  the New  York Harbor  between
1973-1978.  The cause of this decline is not obvious.

     Despite these optimistic views, it would be naive to believe that the New
York Harbor  area  is  going to  become a desirable recreational  area for water
contact activities.   Too many pervasive  and almost unmanageable problems remain.
 Seepage  of contaminants  from landfills,  intentional  polluting  activities,
accidental  spills, urban runoff, poor  control  of marina   operations,  and poor
management of wastes at the individual  and  small  business level will  continue
to  plague  the region's  coastal  marine environments  and  their  living marine
resources.   Financial   support  for  the  proper rehabilitation,  operation and
management of New York  City's  water quality infrastructure will  probably fall
far short of what  is  needed to bring these facilities to optimum levels.  While
water contact recreation in Harbor  waters  will  remain very limited, with proper
planning, responsible and  imaginative  development  and enlightened management,
other forms of water-related recreational opportunities  could be expanded and
enhanced.  But these too will be controversial.

     The  New  York Bight  Apex   and western  Long  Island  Sound  will  be prime
beneficiaries of reductions in contaminant  loadings to the Harbor complex because
the Harbor complex is a major source of contaminants to these  systems.
     The continued eastward development on Long Island  will add stress to the


south  shore  bays,  to  central  and  eastern   Long   Island  Sound  and  to  the
Peconics-Flanders Bay system.   Unless  decisive  managment actions are  taken,  the
rather steep gradiant of water  quality from poor in New York Harbor to very good
in the eastern  Sound may  begin to  flatten  out  as  a  result  of  gains in the west
and losses in the east.  More frequent beach and shellfish  bed  closures  might
be expected in the east.  Increased  phytoplankton blooms may  also be expected
as the need for sewage treatment and the discharge of effluent  to marine waters
increases with population growth and with the growing  inefficiency of many septic
and cesspool  systems.   Control of  coastal development  and effective  land  use
planning are imperative if the present status of good water quality  in eastern
Long  Island  Sound  is to  be  maintained.    Prevention is a  far more  effective
management strategy and less costly  than rehabilitation.  It is not at all  clear
that an increase  in the  average water  quality of Long Island Sound which results
from minor gains in the west offset by minor  losses in  the East  is  a  net gain
for society.   In our  view, if  a choice must  be made, it would make  more  sense
to ensure maintenance of the  high quality  in the eastern Sound  even if it  means
postponing improvements in the western Sound.

     New York Bight waters should remain in relatively good  condition except in
very  nearshore area  were  local  coastal  development will   be  the controlling
factor.  The  Bight Apex may show improvement  as  a consequence of  gains in the
quality of the Hudson- Raritan plume and also from the cessation of ocean dumping
of sewage sludge at the 12-mile  site.  The  area  closed  to shellfishing may be
reduced to some degree as a consequence of these actions.

     Concern   must be expressed  with  regard to the  long-term effects  of  ocean
dumping  of  sewage sludge  and  industrial  wastes  at  the  106  mile  site.   The
problems associated with sewage sludge dumping are not with  the sewage, but with
the contaminants associated with the sewage particles.   Long-term monitoring of
the effects of dumping at DWDS 106 should be continued at least  until the dumping
is phased out  as a consequence  of  the implementation of the Ocean Dumping Ban
Act,  and  preferably  longer to  document the response to cessation of  dumping.
Dumping of sewage sludge in the ocean is a little like the trick birthday candles
which, after  being extinguished, reignite.  Ocean dumping  too may return, and
we should learn whatever lessons we  can from this valuable,  expensive  and unique

     Recent summers have  brought to our attention  the sentivity  of  the public
to having clean,  aesthetically  attractive  and safe coastal marine environments.
For  the  first time marine scientists have begun to work  in  a  sustained and
systematic  way with  economists and  social  scientists  to analyze  the   costs
associated  with  degraded  coastal  environments.   These collaborations should
continue  and  be  expanded.   It  is alarming that New York lost  several billion
dollars in expenditures in the summer of 1988 because of the public's  reaction
to floatable and medical-type wastes.


     The environmental problems of  the region's coastal  marine  environments  are
not fundamentally  different  from those 10, 20,  30,  even  50  years ago.   They
differ in degree, not in kind.   There  is not enough  money to address  all of  the


                                                            Schubel and West

region's marine  environmental  problems, let  alone all of  its environmental,
social  and  infrastructure  problems.  Because of this,  money must be  spent wisely
and on  projects of importance to the  public.  Choices must be  made and strategies
developed to  ensure that funds are spent effectively.   This requires an explicit
definition  of goals  and  objectives  and a tracking  (monitoring) of diagnostic
properties  to  assess the  efficacy  of  management strategies  and  engineering
practices employed.

     As far  as  selecting which  marine  environmental  problems  to  address are
concerned,  we believe the  following principles should apply.  The first priority
should  be to  take whatever measures  are  required to conserve those  areas now in
good condition;   to  ensure that there  is  do degradation.  We should  be very
cautious in  approving  further development of  coastal  areas and do  so  in the
context of larger, sub-regional to regional, comprehensive,  land-water use plans.
The second  priority should be to invest in rehabilitating those areas where an
investment  will  have  a  significant impact on  use patterns by important species,
including but not restricted  to humans.  In other words, the  second priority
should  be to  take  those  management  actions  that  will  produce  predictable and
desirable results at acceptable costs;   results  which will be manifested in
enhanced or expanded uses  and values  considered to be  important  by  society.
The third priority should be to invest in those areas which  will require large
and long-term  investments with  uncertain  payoffs.   Cleaning  up  western Long
Island  Sound  may be  such  a case.  The  strategies for cleaning up an environment
differ  from those needed  to prevent  further degradation.  Strategies to achieve
the latter  should not be delayed.

     Eventually, society will  have to invest in strategies at all  three levels
of priority,  but phasing is important:  preventive medicine, restorative medicine
and major surgery -- in that  order  --  and  major surgery only after getting at
least a second opinion.

     Most environmental problems result from people -- too many of them -- and
the ways in which they dispose  of their wastes.   Development also can destroy
valuable habitat which may have profound, long-term impacts on ecosystem health.
The metropolitan  New York City  area  and  the tri-state coastal  region  are no
exceptions  to  these  general problems;   indeed they  illustrate them vividly.
Society  must decrease  the  amounts  of wastes  it  produces,   simplify  their
compositions  and enhance recycling and reuse to the maximum extent that can be
sustained.   This will require major, fundamental changes in  lifestyles in many
industrialized countries  and  particularly  in  the U.S.   Having done  this --
reduced, recycled and reused to the maximum extent  possible -- society must look
at the  wastes that remain,  those that  cannot at the  time  be reduced, recycled
or reused,  and  select  the best -- the most  appropriate --  disposal  strategy.
This is the strategy that reduces risk to human health to an acceptable level,
at acceptable cost and that has the  least adverse impact on  the environment --
the total environment.   Waste disposal options are limited.   Wastes can be put
either  on the land,  in the ocean, or in the air.  Those are  our only practical
options. One lesson that  has become increasingly clear is the interconnectedness
of our  environmental  media;  water, land  and air.  In selecting the environmental
medium  for disposal, careful, rigorous,  cross-media analyses must be  carried out;


analyses that are  waste  specific and that  take  proper account of  the special
characteristics of the region.  This rarely  is done.   Wastes  typically go into
the medium for which  there  is the least public opposition.  This does not ensure
the best protection for our total  environment and often significantly increases
the cost of disposal.

     The state and the federal  government must make a significant and sustained
investment to  conserve and, where  appropriate,   to  rehabilitate the  region's
coastal marine  environments.   The program  must  involve research,  monitoring,
modeling, education and action  and it must be marked by patience and a constancy
of commitment.   So long as  our coastal  marine  environments  and their  living
resources are important to  society, that is how long we will have to make a major
investment to improve  our  understanding  of  them  and to use that  new knowledge
to manage them more effectively.

Carriker, M.R., J.W. Anderson,  W.P.  Davis,  D.R.  Franz,  G.F.  Mayer,  J.B.  Pearce,
      T.K. Sawyer,  J.H.  Tietjen,  J.F. Timoney, D.R.  Young.   1982.  Effects of
      pollutants on benthos  in Ecological Stress and the New York Bight:  Science
      and  Management  (Garry F.  Mayer, ed.)    Estuarine  Research  Federation,
      Columbia, South Carolina, pp 3-21.

Cosper,  E.M.,  V.M. Bricelj  and  E.J.  Carpenter.    1989.   Novel phytoplankton
      blooms, coastal and estuarine  studies, Vol.  35,  Springer  Verlag,  Berlin.

Hirschberg, D., K.  Cochran  and C.R.  Dere.  Deposition of metals and Pb-210 in
      Long Island  Sound.  Marine  Sciences  Research Center, State University of
      New York at Stony Brook,  Stony Brook,  New York 11794-5000.  Abstract  from
      the  Tenth Biennial  International  Estuarine Research Conference.  October
      8-12, 1989.

Koebel, Charles T.  and Donald A. Krueckeberg. 1975. Demographic    Patterns.  MESA
      New York Bight Atlas Monograph  23. New York Sea  Grant Institute.  Albany,
      NY- 43 pp.

Marine  Sciences  Research  Center.   1989.  F1eatables  Management  Plan. COAST
      Institute and the Waste Management Institute, SUNY  at  Stony  Brook, Stony
      Brook,  NY. 40pp.

Morganthau, T.   1988.   Don't go near  the  water:    Is  it  too late to save our
      dying coasts?  Newsweek,  August  1, 42-47.

Murchelano, R.A. and J.  Ziskowski.   1989.  Fin rot disease in the New York Bight
      (1973-1977)   in  Ecological  Stress and the New York Bight:   Science and
      Management (Garrv F. Mayer, ed.)  Estuarine Research  Federation; Columbia,
      South Carolina, pp. 347-358.

Smart, T., E.  Smith, T.  Vogel,  C. Brown,  and K.  Wolman.  1987.   Troubled Waters

                                                            Schubel  and West

      Business  Week.  October 12,  1987,  88-104.

Swanson,  R.L.,  M.A. Champ, T. O'Connor,  P.K.  Park, J. O'Connor, C.F. Mayer, H.M.
      Stanford  and J. Verber. 1985.  Sewage sludge dumping  in the New York Bight
      apex:  a comparison with other proposed dumpsites.   in Wastes  in the Ocean,
      Nearshore Waste Disposal, Vol 6.  (Ketchem, B.H., J.M. Capuzzo,  V.W. Burt,
      I.W.  Duedall,  P.K.  Park,  and D.R. Kerter eds.) John Wiley,  New York,  pp

Swanson,  R.L. and C.A. Parker. 1988.  Physical environmental factors contributing
      to  recurring  hypoxia in the New York Bight.  Transactions of the American
      Fisheries Society.  Vol. 117, No.l,    pp  37-47.

Toufexis, A.  1988.   Our  filthy seas:  the world's  oceans  face a  growing threat
      from manmade  pollution.  Time,  August 1.

Waste Management Institute.   1989.  Use  Impairments  and Ecosystem Impacts of the
      New York  Bight prepared as part of  the  U.S.  Environmental  Protection
      Agency's  New York Bight Restoration Plan.  Marine Sciences Research Center,
      SUNY at  Stony Brook, Stony  Brook, NY.   297  pp.

Young, Randall.  1989.   Shell disease among red crabs  inhabiting  submarine
      canyons  of the New  York Bight.   NOAA Technical   Memorandum NMFS-F/NEC-77-

Conditions in the Sound-Harbor-Bight System

      Viewed  in  the  National  Context
             Michelle A.  Killer

    Director,  Technical  Support Division

 Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection

              Office of Water

    U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency

               March 12,  1990

           Conditions in the Sound-Harbor-Bight System

                 Viewed  in  the National  Context
I have been asked to  address  the question:  How do the problems in
the Sound-Harbor-Bight system compare with those in other estuarine
systems in the United States?

In  response,  I  will attempt  to  address  the environmental  and
management problems the Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
(OMEP) is addressing nationally,  some of the strategies currently
being used in our programs, some of the limitations we are facing,
and current legislative activities in Congress that address coastal
pollution problems.

Environmental and Management Problems

In developing the Near Coastal Waters Initiative, OMEP identified
five nationally pervasive problems:

     - eutrophication,
     - pathogen contamination,
     - toxic contamination,
     - changes in living marine resources, and
     - loss of habitat.

So when one reviews,  for example,  the Long Island Sound Project's
list   of  priority   problems-  low   dissolved   oxygen,   toxic
contamination, changes in living marine resources,  pathogens,  and
floatable debris, there is a  certain similarity-  Indeed, a survey
of  the priority  problems identified in each  of  the  estuaries in
the National Estuary  Program  further illustrates that the nation's
coastal waters are exhibiting similar signs of stress.

Nutrient enrichment and the resulting low dissolved oxygen
problems are priority problems typical of the larger estuaries
with agriculture watersheds- Albemarle/Pamlico Sounds,  South
Puget  Sound.   But nutrient  enrichment  is  also typical  of  the
smaller systems confronting rapid growth and development creating
storm  water  run-off,  septic  and  municipal  treatment  system
pollution problems- Buzzards  Bay, Delaware Inland  Bays and Sarasota
Bay.   However,  no other system  appears  to have the  extensive
nutrient pollutant loadings that the  Sound-Harbor-Bight system has,
compounded with nonpoint run-off.

Around  the  country   toxic   contamination  is  associated  with
industrial watersheds, port and harbor facilities,  and
depositional areas.  In-place toxic contaminants are found in the
largest systems-   Narragansett Bay,  Delaware Bay,  tributaries to
Albemarle/Pamlico  Sounds,  the urban  embayments  of  Puget Sound,
Boston Harbor, and the smallest systems- Casco Bay.


Pathogen contamination of  shellfish,  or suspected  contamination,
has closed shellfish  beds  in every system  in the program.   And,
habitat loss  due  to dredging,  fill,  shoreline modification,  and
development is reported in every system.

So there are  no  real surprises.  However,  the types of  problems
being dealt with  in the  northeastern  U.S.  appear to be among the
toughest-  population growth,  development,  the value and  cost of
land, the decaying infrastructure, aging municipal  plants without
expansion room.   These problems are critically impacting coastal
waters in the northeast and raising tough management  issues.   Can
you  imagine  a coast line the  size  of California's with  only one
combined sewer overflow to permit?

The northeast can take heart  on a few issues.  The loss of  wetlands
on the  West  Coast is worse.    In  San  Francisco Bay the estimated
loss  is  90%,  and of the remaining  10% most are  only  "seasonally
wet".   And,  the  situation   in Puget  Sound  isn't  much  better.
Environmental resource managers in the south east, gulf region and
the west coast are also dealing with another problem that we should
pay  attention to-   fresh water diversion.   During drought and low
flow conditions-  the  estuary is the lowest priority.  East coast
folks should  take heed.   It  has been predicted that  the  increase
in population, and  its corresponding  demand for water, may result
in a  fresh water  draw down for the  Chesapeake that may completely
change  the salinity of  the system in twenty  years- defeating all
efforts to restore  the system today.

Challenges and Strategies

The  unique  set of  problems  in every  estuary presents a  certain
challenge- and there are several different approaches being taken.

"Taking on all sources of pollution":  Puget Sound

the  Puget Sound  Water  Quality Authority  chose  to "take-on" all
sources  of  pollution simultaneously-   Through a series  of issue
papers  which  identified  the  nature  and extent of  the  problems and
through  a critical  evaluation of the  state of  Washington's in-
place programs to address those problems, the Authority made strong
recommendations to  the State about  what needs to  be done.  And in
response  to  public concern  the state legislature  responded with
substantial increases in resources for the agencies responsible for
pollution  abatement and  control, enforcement, and other  programs
to  implement  the  Authority's recommendations.

In-place  contaminants; Puget Sound  and the Great  Lakes

Both the  Puget Sound and the Great  Lakes programs have focused on
the  elimination of  all current  point sources of certain pollutants


found in contaminated sediments.  As a result of the urban
embayment strategy for Puget Sound, NPDES permits have been revised
and reissued  with new  limits  on certain  pollutants,  previously
unpermitted discharges have been identified and permitted, and best
management practices have been  developed  and specified in permits.
Increased inspections, compliance and enforcement actions have also
been used  as  effective  tools.   The Great  Lakes remedial actions
plans will implement similar strategies.

The identification of biological impacts associated with sediment
contamination has also led to the development  of sediment criteria
by  the state  of  Washington.    In  order  to  establish  effluent
limitations for  NPDES permits, the State  is  developing sediment
criteria  in  the  absence  of national  criteria.   It  appears that
natural sedimentation may be the only safe way to ensure that these
systems recover,  assuming that  we can  ensure that  the new layer of
sediments  being  deposited is  free  of contaminants.   Efforts to
determine when mitigation, or remediation, is appropriate have also

Taking on all sources of  selected priority problems;  Chesapeake

The  Chesapeake  Bay  program   selected  the  priority  problem  of
nutrient  loading  and initially set out  to reduce all  sources of
nitrogen  and  phosphorous to  the  system.    Advanced  wastewater
treatment at the Blue Plains plant restored the Potomac River- but
the cost/benefit analysis of putting the same treatment  in on other
tributaries vs.  agricultural best management practices,  is still
debated.   To ensure  further  reductions in nutrient  loadings,  a
"gentleman's  agreement"  between  the  governors   of  the  states
establishes a goal of a 40% reduction in nutrient loadings to the
Bay.    Load  reductions  are  determined  segment  by segment  and
tributary  by  tributary,  by  the  states  issuing  permits  and
conducting wasteload  allocations.  But,  it took the commitment of
the governors  to  direct state  and  local  officials to get the job

Living Resources:  How much pollutant reduction is enough?

One of  the principal goals of the  Clean Water Act  is to ensure
balanced  indigenous  populations  of  fish and  shellfish  in  the
nation's waters.  And, the public is demanding restoration of the
abundance  and  productivity of  living  resources.   The bottom line
is simple- people  want  to be able  to  go fishing and eat the fish
they catch.  And, as environmental resource managers, we certainly
recognize that fish and shellfish are indicators  of the health of
any waterbody.

Both the  Puget Sound and Chesapeake Bay programs have "stumbled"
into a hard reality-  finfish  and shellfish do not "magically"


reappear with the  improvement  of water quality.   Improvements  in
water  quality have  to  be  accompanied by  the  preservation  or
restoration of habitat,  and  protection of certain species.   And,
fishery management becomes critical to  ensuring  success.

In  Puget  Sound  recent  studies  indicate  that  harvesting  of
intertidal organisms by the public along the  shoreline may have  to
be controlled to  protect the  foodchain.   These impacted  species
are species that  were  never thought to need protection.  In the
Chesapeake  a  Living  Resources  Committee  is  examining  critical
habitat requirements of Bay species.  Where these requirements can
be translated to  water quality criteria and standards-  dissolved
oxygen standards  and other habitat characteristics,  they  will  be
incorporated into state water  quality management plans.

As resources managers we have simple biology, but tough management
questions to address.  Consider the aquatic turtle.  If every  mile
of shoreline is  developed,  bulk-headed,  or  obstructed- the species
declines because it cannot climb onto the shore,  build a  nest, and
lay eggs.   What percentage  of shoreline  is critical?  In which
tributaries?  And, how do we ensure that a  percentage of  the total
shoreline  is  left unaltered in the right places?   Or  consider
striped bass.   Where  is  it  critical  to reduce  or eliminate low
dissolved oxygen  in  the  mainstem of the Bay?  Are there  critical
migratory routes  or  refuges  that the  species must have  access  to
in mid-summer in order to survive?

Interestingly enough the debate,  and  the need  to translate the
water quality objective  into water quality standards  and criteria
and  NPDES  permit conditions,   has  the  Chesapeake  Bay  program
scurrying to  determine an appropriate  concentration of  dissolved
oxygen  for the  Bay-  one  that will  adequately  protect living
resources.  In every case,  the ultimate abatement and control  tool
has proven to be the water quality standard and designated use, and
the numeric criteria that ensure that  the standard will  be  met.
The numeric  criteria provide  the derivation  of an  NPDES permit
effluent limitations, wasteload allocations and daily maximum loads
for certain pollutants  from  both point and nonpoint sources.   In
the case of living resources,  the water quality  standard may  have
to begin to address land use planning and  development  "permits"-

Water Quality Standards

State water quality  standards  form the backbone of  surface water
programs.  If we are to  target  coastal  areas that  need additional
controls and redirect state programs, we must rely on water quality
standards.   Standards and  designated  uses  provide  not only the
water quality goals of  "fishable,  swimmable" for a water body,  they
provide the scientific and regulatory basis for additional control
measures.  And, the  Clean Water Act places the  responsibility  on
the states to adopt water quality standards  to protect designated


EPA develops basic scientific and technical information and
publishes water quality criteria guidance for selected pollutants
to protect public health and aquatic life.  Those of us who worry
about the  coasts,  frequently find EPA's  fresh  water orientation
frustrating, and the process  of  developing criteria entirely too
slow.  For us, there are  two  important messages.   In the absence
of federal  criteria, the  states can develop  and  adopt their own
criteria.  And a state can adopt a criterion that is more stringent
that a national criterion to ensure the attainment  of water quality
standards.  The Great Lakes  states,  the state of Washington, and
the states of Maryland  and Virginia,  are all ahead of the national
criteria and standards program.

The point source  control program  is rapidly improving capabilities
to  address impacts  on living resources  by implementing  water
quality  based toxic controls,  wasteload  allocations,  and  daily
maximum  loads.   The immediate need  is to  develop  and implement
practicable control measures for  nonpoint  sources, particularly in
coastal  counties and targeted watersheds.   And  baseline controls
for  non-traditional  point sources  of  pollution, combined  sewer
overflows  and stormwater discharges must be top priority.   We
cannot overemphasize the importance of taking action now to improve
base programs while more advanced science and ecological work is
done.  Both the National Estuary and Near Coastal Waters programs
place  the  highest priority  on  an  action  now  agenda and  the
demonstration  of  new  techniques  and  management strategies  to
address nontraditional sources of pollution.

Future Direction and Legislation

In  1991,  the Agency  and   the   Congress will  be  involved  in
reauthorization  of the  Clean Water Act.   The  direction  water
pollution  control  programs take  over the  next 5-10  years will be
established with reauthorization.   In addition,  the Coastal Zone
Management Act is being reauthorized this year and current drafts
of the  bill directly address  water  quality impacts  of land use
practices.  Coastal resource managers should be asking themselves
some hard  questions about how these pieces of legislation
might better  address coastal pollution problems; they should be
working with  EPA and representatives to Congress in the drafting
of new statutory  provisions  where appropriate.   Coastal  issues are
in the  forefront;  numerous  pieces of legislation being developed
now propose changes to the Clean Water Act and the National Estuary
Program  which may or  may not  be appropriate.    If you  are not
familiar with  the  proposed  legislation before both  the House and
Senate, referred to as the Coastal Defense Initiative, you should
be.   You  are the  experts   in coastal protection;  let  EPA and
Congress hear  from you.

                              J. Frederick Grassle
                      Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences
                               Rutgers University
   As an introduction to his talk yesterday, Administrator Reilly referred to an article in
the New York Times about a speech coach who is advising businessmen to emulate Winston
Churchill.  Even if I were up to doing it this morning, I think a "we will fight them on the
beaches" kind of talk wouldn't  be appropriate. As we approach the twentieth anniversary
of Earth Day, Pogo's view of the enemy, at least in part, is still with us. That is "we have
met the enemy and it is us."  This doesn't prevent us from setting priorities, and I can take
one piece of advice from the speech coach and that is, to get right into it.

   The table shown below was circulated to each group yesterday and was used to identify
the primary factors causing use impairments and other ecosystem impacts. This table (Table
1) is a summary of the fourteen table 1's that we had last night.  You can see that all of the
items identified at least came out as having some significance.  In the habitat category, for
each of the areas in question,  all came out high. On the Sound, clearly the nutrient and
organic enrichment issue was identified as the most important. As far as the Harbor is
concerned, four of the five subject areas were put into the high category. For the Bight, two
of the five were ranked high.  Systemwide, habitat and toxics were identified as highest.
                                   SOUND       HARBOR      BIGHT        SYSTEM
Floa tables

    Now, as all of you know who participated in the groups, there was considerable variance
and we're putting up a mean. To give you a little bit of a flavor for the variance, in Table
2 I've underlined the highs where there was almost complete unanimity, with a double line
for the high for the Sound, single line for the highs for pathogens and habitat in the harbor.
Also, in some areas, there was a lot of variance and so I put highs and lows in parentheses
where there was a fair amount of disagreement.
                                      SOUND       HARBOR      BIGHT       SYSTEM
    If you analyze some of the individual reports, you find that in some  of the areas a
number of people said high and an equal number said low for some of the categories.  So,
analyzing the variance in these tables would be quite complicated.

    For the additional categories, in Table 3, and these are in no particular order, a number
of groups identified the impact of fisheries activity, especially the harvest itself.  Intensity
of use in general was identified in different ways in several table 1's (numbers of people,
boating activity, etc.). Also, a couple of the groups emphasized oil spills, no doubt because
of the recent events on the Arthur Kill. One of the groups especially wanted to emphasize
chronic oil and grease discharges and not just large oil spills as an important concern.

    A number of items would be categorized as institutional/cultural. This heading was used
by  one of the groups to combine a number  of categories, including legal  framework,
planning, regulations, lifestyle of people, resources allocation, and problems of integration
of approach.

    Solid waste was specifically mentioned by one of the groups, especially sludge and dredge
spoil. Access to the shore was mentioned by a couple of groups. Growth and development,
although clearly related to other categories, was singled out by a couple  of the groups. And
finally, esthetics -- when it's all cleaned and we look at it in the morning, it may still be ugly.
That may be an issue to  consider now.

         Nutrients and Organics
             ~ gradients, circulation patterns
             — intermediate concentrations
             ~ interaction with toxics
             ~ role of sediments
             ~ causes of low O2 event off New Jersey

             ~ relationship to  indicators
             ~ methods for studying viruses
             ~ data on harbors as well as beaches

             ~ role of sediments, especially shellfish

             ~ relate loss to real use impairments
             ~ predict effect of land use on water quality
             ~ need for long-term data

             ~ overharvest

         Intensity of Use
             — numbers of people, boats, etc.

         Oil Spills (also chronic)

             — legal, planning, regulatory
             ~ lifestyle resource allocation
             ~ integration approach

         Solid Waste (especially sludge and dredge spoils


         Growth and Development


   Several groups felt we needed more information on gradients of nutrients and organics,
especially in Long Island Sound. Differences between the western Sound and eastern Sound
were clearly identified. Also, in the Sound and other areas, there's a question of tributaries
versus the open waters. Clearly, circulation patterns  need to be better understood as well
as how circulation affects patterns of nutrients and organics. There's a question concerning
the effects of intermediate concentrations of oxygen, e.g., numbers  on the order of 4
milligrams per liter or less.  We also need to know about the interaction between low levels
of oxygen and toxic nutrients and organics. The role of sediments in these interactions is
especially in need of study.  They interact with the water column during resuspension and
may become redeposited in other areas. One of the groups mentioned the causes of the low
oxygen conditions on the Continental Shelf off New Jersey. We do not fully understand how
unusual circulation events interact with nutrients in the system to  produce this disastrous

   Pathogens -- there's a question as to whether the indicators really show what pathogens
occur in particular environments.  There are  new biotechnology methods for looking at
pathogens, and we  need to know more about viruses.  Several  groups mentioned this
problem,  and  one of the groups mentioned that we needed data on harbors as well as
beaches — especially in the Sound.

   With regard  to toxics, some of you  emphasized  the  role of sediments especially for
shellfish.  One of the groups suggested  that we  really need to know how loss  of habitat
relates to real use impairments.  Also, we need to predict the effect of land use on water
quality. And, finally a couple of groups  mentioned the need for long-term data sets.

   I think rather than say any more, I'd  like to open it up to discussion and see  if there
were other things that were important that I missed in going through the tables or if there
are some new issues that somebody particularly wants to  mention.

   [Questions from  people in the audience were not picked up  by  the recorder.  The
following summarizes the responses.]

   Differences between the eastern and western Sound, hotspots, tributaries, and areas of
heavy port activity were mentioned. Understanding a more complex matrix of sites is clearly
going to be important in future studies in these areas.  I have a slide that I meant to put up
based  on our discussion  last night.  It  says that "the pigeon holes were not  always
appropriate and that we relied on a democratic process as much as on a consensus-building
process."  A lot of people made additional categories since the classification was different
in different groups.   We could not work toward a consensus because there wasn't enough
time to get into a detailed consideration of the data. This meant that participants who were
not reasonably familiar with the data contributed less.

   The vision of the future is not shown in Table 1.  The table is your perception of what
the situation is now.  Projection of a matrix of public concerns assuming implementation of
a successful management plan would be interesting. Some of the groups talked a little bit

about resource allocation ~ by that they mean the distribution of money to attack these
various problems.   We might also think in terms of good ideas, that's  another kind of
resource.   We do  not think of ideas in terms of allocation ~ this indicates one of the
problems with the usual approach to resource allocation.

   It has been pointed out that the general public is not well represented here.  Although
not the main purpose of this meeting, the estuary programs are trying  to understand from
the grass roots what the people are most concerned about. To reach a consensus in a public
forum, we would need extensive presentation or expert opinion during discussion. We all
agree that, in general, the public needs better access to data.


                       HARBOR-SOUND-BIGHT SYSTEM
                              John P. St. John, P.E.
                               Principal Engineer
                                 Hydro Qual, Inc.
    The waterways of the tri-state metropolitan area, New York-New Jersey Harbor, Long
Island Sound, and New York Bight, are enriched with nutrients and organic materials from a
variety of sources, both man-made and natural. Carbonaceous organic materials, commonly
measured as biochemical  oxygen demand (BOD), will undergo bacterial oxidation in
receiving waters and will  cause some level of direct reduction of dissolved oxygen.
Nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus, stimulate the  growth of algae which may depress
dissolved oxygen in the  lower layers of receiving waters by  respiration and by  undergoing
decomposition in bed sediments after settling.  Nitrogen in the form of ammonia may also
depress dissolved oxygen directly by undergoing bacterial oxidation in the water column.
Depression in dissolved oxygen concentration by any of these  factors below  3.0 mg/1 is
termed hypoxia and may adversely impact living marine resources.

    Hypoxia is a recurrent problem in certain portions of the harbor-sound-bight system.
Federal and state  planning initiatives are currently underway within each of these areas in
order to develop both short and long range conservation  and management plans.  With
regard to control of hypoxia, the following questions have been posed within the context of
these programs:

    1.   What are the loadings of BOD, nitrogen and phosphorus to the harbor-sound-
         bight system?

    2.   What are their relative contributions to hypoxic conditions and the development
         of undesirable algal species?

    3.    What do we know at this point about the level of load reductions required to meet
         existing standards or alternative end points?

    4.    Do we have the necessary system-wide analytic  effort underway at this time to
         determine the required level of control?

The purpose of this paper is to provide some responses to these questions.


Pollutant Sources

    Organic carbon  and nutrients enter receiving waters from a variety of sources which
may be categorized as follows for this discussion:

         Point sources consisting of municipal and industrial wastewater discharges and
         collected stormwater discharges  including combined sewer overflows and storm

         Non-point  sources  including uncollected  surface runoff, landfill leachate, and
         atmospheric fallout,

         Tributary rivers carrying pollutants originating  from both point and non-point
         sources within their watersheds,

         Oceanal disposal activities including dredged material disposal and sewage sludge

    For the present  discussion, the geographical limits of  New  York-New Jersey Harbor,
Long Island  Sound and New York Bight are those as shown  on Figure 1. In New York-New
Jersey Harbor, approximately 75 municipal and industrial point sources discharge effluent to
receiving waters (HydroQual,  1989a). In addition, more than 600 combined sewer  overflow
(CSO) outfalls are distributed throughout the harbor area.  Storm drains are also in
substantial numbers.  Principal tributary rivers include the Hudson, Raritan, Hackensack,
Passaic, Rahway and Elizabeth Rivers.

                           LONG ISLAND SOUND
                    SANDY HOOK -
                    ROCK AWAY POINT
                   NEW YORK BIGHT ZONE
                                                      DEEP WATER
                                                      SEWAGE SLUDGE
              Figure 1.  Location  map.


                                                                            St. John

    In Long Island Sound, from Throgs Neck to the Race at Orient Point, there are
approximately 35 municipal and industrial discharges. Some localized CSO discharges exist
but most collected stormwater is discharged from storm drains.  Atmospheric fallout can be
a substantial non-point source due to the large surface area of the sound. Eight rivers enter
the sound through six outlets, the largest of which are the Connecticut and Housatonic

    In New York Bight, there are less than 20 direct municipal and industrial  point source
discharges and most of these are distributed along the New Jersey shoreline between Sandy
Hook and Cape May (HydroQual, 1989a). Some localized storm drainage is discharged to
the bight on the New Jersey shore.  As with the sound, atmospheric fallout can be a
significant source of pollutant inputs  due to the large  surface area of the bight. Dredged
material continues to be  discharged at the Mud Dump within the apex but sewage sludge
disposal has been relocated to the 106-mile deep water site.

    In addition to direct inputs to the various waterways as described above, pollutants may
be transported from one  geographical area to another by net flow and dispersion in the
interactive harbor-sound-bight system.  As depicted on Figure 2, pollutants may be
transported between New  York-New Jersey Harbor and Long Island Sound by net tidally-
averaged flow and dispersion in  the East River. The magnitude, direction and variability of
such flow is very important in this regard but poorly defined at present. Similarly, materials
discharged to New York-New Jersey Harbor will be transported to New York  Bight across
the Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point transect at the harbor entrance.  As with the East River,
the magnitude,  direction, and variability of the net tidally-averaged flow at this location is
very important for definition of pollutant transport.  The net flows, and therefore the inter-
area pollutant transports, are related to hydrological factors such as the freshwater river
flows, hydrodynamic factors such as tidal elevations and water density, and meteorological
conditions such as wind.

    In addition to pollutant transport from New York-New Jersey Harbor, the bight  also
receives mass transport of pollutants with the coastal  oceanic drift which enters the bight
along its eastern boundary and flows toward the southwest.  Even though pollutant
concentrations may  be low, this mass input may be substantial as the coastal  flow is quite
large in  magnitude. The bight may also receive a periodic  mass influx  of nutrients and
organic material from transport across the continental shelf break.

    As also shown  on Figure 2, pollutants discharged into receiving waters may undergo
various reactions and transfers both in the water column and bed sediment while being

            LOADS   TRIBS
                   LOADS   TRIBS
                   INPUTS (C,N, P)



    Figure  2.  Pollutant sources, transport and fate.


advected with the net flow and dispersed from one area to another. These factors must also
be defined to determine export from one area to another, e.g. harbor to sound or harbor to
Pollutant Loadings

    Inputs of BOD, total nitrogen and total phosphorus to the harbor-sound-bight system
are summarized  on Figures 3, 4 and 5 respectively.  Each  diagram indicates the total
pollutant loading to each geographical area and the relative proportions originating from the
various pollutant sources (HydroQual, 1989a).  For organic enrichment as measured by
BOD as shown on Figure 3, 82 percent of the total loading to the harbor originates from
point sources of which about two-thirds originates from wastewater  treatment plants with
the balance from stormwater.  In the sound, most of its loading (40 percent) is from the
Connecticut tributaries with approximately 22 percent of the total from point  sources
located from Throgs Neck to the Race. It is observed, however, that a substantial  fraction
(37 percent) of the total is  assumed to be transported into the sound from another water
body, in this case, the East River.  In the bight apex, the total input is estimated to be from
dredged material disposal at the Mud Dump (44 percent) or transported in from the harbor
(48 percent).

    Figures 4 and 5 show a somewhat  similar pattern for nutrients, total nitrogen and total
phosphorus. Figure 4 indicates that most (66 percent) of the nitrogen loading to the harbor
originates from point source discharges with approximately  one-third of the  total from
tributaries and non-point sources.  In the sound, most of the nitrogen loading is assumed to
be transported in from the  East River (39 percent) with another substantial fraction
contributed by the Connecticut tributaries (30 percent). Other point and non-point sources
comprise the balance (16 and 15 percent).  In the bight apex, almost all of the loading is
assumed to be transported in from adjacent water bodies, either from the harbor or with the
coastal drift. In general, similar patterns are observed for phosphorus on Figure 5.

    The information used to develop the loading diagrams of Figures 3, 4 and 5 ranges from
good to poor.  The most uncertain parts of the estimated inputs are  those which deal with
inter-area transports, that is, from the East River to Long Island Sound and from New York-
New Jersey Harbor to New York Bight.  These uncertainties must  be resolved for effective
management planning.





















           I / r ,
           i/ / / /i
                    NY-NJ HARBOR

                    LOAD= 674 MT/D
                    LONG ISLAND SOUND

                    LOAD= 295 MT/D
                                NY BIGHT APEX

                                LOAD= 140 MT/D
               TRIBS    DUMP    TRANS
           Figure 3.  BOD loadings to harbor, sound, and

                       bight apex.


                      TOTAL NITROGEN

                     TOTAL PHOSPHORUS














                                  NY-NJ HARBOR
                                  LOAD= 33MT/D
                     LONG ISLAND SOUND
                     LOAD= 13 MT/D
           NY BIGHT APEX
        u  LOAD= 99MT/D
                TRIBS    DUMP   TRANS
       Figure 5.  Total phosphorus loadings to harbor, sound and
                        bight apex.


                                                                           St. John


    The estimated effects of pollutant loadings on hypoxic conditions in the harbor-sound-
bight system are shown on Figure 6. For New York-New Jersey Harbor, the East River was
selected for analysis, a major waterway with more depression in dissolved oxygen than other
harbor locales. Summer 1984 conditions are shown as analyzed previously (HydroQual,
1984) for the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP). In this
analysis, the dissolved oxygen was 3.4 mg/1, producing a dissolved oxygen deficit (depression
below the natural dissolved oxygen saturation value) of 4.3 mg/1.  The New York Harbor
Water  Quality Model  developed during  the 208  Areawide Wastewater Management
Planning  Study was applied to analyze 1984 conditions in the  East River.  As shown on the
diagram,  it is estimated that greater than 70 percent of the oxygen depression is caused by
bacterial oxidation of organic carbon  inputs (BOD).  Approximately 15 percent of the
oxygen depression may be related to nutrient impacts (NUT), primarily from sediment
oxygen demand associated  with decaying, settled algae, with the balance of the depression,
10 percent, from boundary conditions (BC), that is, from pollutants and effects in adjacent
waterways. It is judged that these results for the East River are representative of the harbor
in general.

    In Long Island Sound, August 1988 conditions in the Western Narrows were selected
for evaluation.  In this case, the approximate level of dissolved oxygen in bottom waters was
2.0 mg/1 producing  a deficit of  5.5 mg/1. For the cause  and effect analysis, the two-
dimensional (vertical, longitudinal) water quality model, LIS.2, being developed
(HydroQual, 1990) as part of the Long Island Sound  Estuary Study was used.  This
interactive water column-sediment model relates nutrient and organic inputs to the
development of algae and performs a dissolved oxygen balance of the various sources and
sinks.  As shown, it is estimated at present that, in contrast to the East River, the major
cause of  dissolved oxygen depression is nutrient related,  approximately 70 percent of the
total, as caused by algal respiration in the subpycnocline water column  and algal related
sediment oxygen demand.  Organic carbon in the  form  of BOD  from pollutant inputs is
estimated to cause approximately 15  percent of the total  oxygen deficit and boundary
conditions, the  balance.

    In the New York Bight Apex,  modeling studies conducted to date are very preliminary
in nature.  An analysis (O'Connor and Mancini, 1979) was conducted of August  1974
conditions with a bottom dissolved oxygen concentration of approximately 3.0 mg/1 in the

         NY-NJ HARBOR
                              LONG ISLAND SOUND  NEW YORK BIGHT

           EAST RIVER (1984)
           00= 3.4mg/L
           DEF= 4.3mg/L
          BOD   NUT
                                WEST NARROWS (1988)

                                D0= 2.0mg/L
                                DEF= 5.5mg/L
                       APEX (1974)

                       D0~ 3.0 mg/L
                       Figure 6. Dissolved oxygen depression by cause.

bight apex.  On the basis of the modeling analysis, it was estimated that approximately 80
percent of the oxygen depression was related to nutrient-algal effects with the balance
divided between organic effects and boundary influences.  It is noted that the organic carbon
effect appeared to be related to sewage sludge disposal extant at that time at the 12-mile
site, and since relocated.

    In summary,  analyses to date indicate that dissolved oxygen depression in New York-
New Jersey Harbor is primarily related to organic carbon inputs while that in Long Island
Sound  and New York Bight is primarily nutrient driven.

    Nutrient enrichment also contributes in part to the development of nuisance algal
blooms, that is, more localized intense concentrations of objectionable species which appear
periodically in area waters, especially along the New Jersey shoreline.  Historical monitoring
by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and EPA indicates that such
localized,  intense  blooms often begin in northern coastal waters, Raritan and Sandy Hook
Bays, in spring and early summer and then appear to move to open coastal waters with tidal
currents and the coastal drift.  Understanding of the causes of nuisance algal blooms
requires research on the nutrient requirements and kinetic growth characteristics of the
various organisms. Effective control of this problem is contingent upon the development of
scientific understanding of the nutrient and other requirements of the nuisance organisms
and the environmental dynamics which trigger the blooms.

    On the basis of cun ent knowledge, some information on the required level of load
reduction to achieve dissolved  oxygen standards or alternative endpoints is summarized in
Table 1.  In the harbor, modeling analyses to date have indicated that secondary treatment
for reduction of carbonaceous  material at the various wastewater treatment plants will be
satisfactory  to achieve existing  dissolved oxygen  standards for current  water use
classifications in the open waters.  In some confined tributaries, control  of CSO discharges
may be required to abate localized oxygen depression; this is currently under study by
NYCDEP in the City-Wide CSO Studies.  Generally, nutrient removal from loadings within
the harbor is unnecessary to manage oxygen in harbor waters, but may be required to abate
hypoxia in the sound or bight depending upon the export of harbor loadings to those locales.
Nutrients and algal  effects appear to be of significance in the  dissolved oxygen balance of
Jamaica Bay.

                 ABATEMENT OF HYPOXIA


                              LI SOUND
                     NY BIGHT
  99                99
                *  PROBABLY
                 *  POSSIBLY
             SOUND/BIGHT    EXPORT           EXPORT
           *  ASSESS FOR
             JAMAICA BAY
                                 * ASSESS

                                                                            St. John

    In Long Island Sound, as dissolved oxygen depression in bottom waters is related
primarily to nutrient induced effects, it is probable that substantial nutrient reduction will be
required for management, but the appropriate level is yet to be determined by the  Long
Island Sound Estuary Study. An important issue which must be resolved in this regard is the
export and impact of nutrient materials discharged to the harbor which may affect
conditions in the western sound by transport through the East River.  It is unlikely that
control of organic carbon inputs to the sound will be effective for hypoxia management but
this is yet to be determined.

    The situation in New York Bight is essentially similar to that of the sound. The issue of
the magnitude and impact of nutrient export from harbor to bight is very important in terms
of assessing the manageability of the periodic hypoxia.  The relative influence of
"background" nutrient concentrations within the coastal drift and the effect of relatively
small, but perhaps locally important, discharges along the New York-New Jersey shorelines
must be evaluated. The effect of reducing organic carbon discharges to the bight is likely to
be minor.

    At present, initial steps toward a system-wide analysis of the harbor-sound-bight system
are in progress but no integrated analysis is yet in place. The Long Island Sound Estuary
Study includes various mathematical modeling techniques to define the cause and effect
relationships between nutrient and organic carbon inputs and hypoxia in order to assess the
effectiveness of various levels of control.  The preliminary two-dimensional hydrodynamic
model shown on Figure 7 will be developed further to a coupled three-dimensional
hydrodynamic and water quality model for this purpose. A special task currently in progress
will quantify flow and pollutant transport characteristics in the  East River to assess the
significance of New York-New Jersey Harbor inputs on dissolved oxygen problems  in the
western sound.  It is judged that the studies currently underway in Long Island Sound will
permit development of an effective management plan for hypoxia.

    A similar but preliminary modeling study is beginning in New York Bight as part of the
Bight Restoration Plan.  In  this study, circulation analysis will be performed by a model
similar to that shown on Figure 7 (HydroQual, 1989b) which will incorporate hydrodynamic
features of all three geographic regions:  bight, sound and harbor.  A companion water



                                     UpdoUd N«» York Horbof  Model Grid
                                                                                                                                                                                   US-H SKCMtNTATION
BtrUorc *

                                                                                                                                               THE L(.iMf\ TAT lONAo. DOHA1N  AMJ ClKVRlKtAK,

quality model for nutrient/organic-algal-dissolved oxygen interactions will begin at the
Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point transect and will be confined to the western portion of the
bight proper at this time. It is almost certain, however, that if the hypoxia problem in New
York Bight appears to be  manageable, that is, if "controllable" inputs in New York-New
Jersey Harbor have a significant impact on bight hypoxia, then  an integrated analysis of the
harbor-bight system will be required.  For this purpose, the  updated New York Harbor
Model also shown on Figure 7, a three-dimensional coupled hydrodynamic and water quality
model being prepared at present for NYCDEP in  the CSO studies, could be linked to the
bight model for the analysis. The harbor model, presently focusing on coliform bacteria and
dissolved oxygen, would be developed further  to incorporate nutrient-algal interactions.
Circulation patterns and nutrient and organic carbon dynamics  in the harbor would then be
evaluated to determine pollutant export from harbor to bight, a key concern.  Thus,
"controllable" nutrient sources would be linked directly to the hypoxia problem in the bight
in order to assess management requirements.

    Ultimately, it would be desirable to link all  modeling frameworks together, harbor-
sound-bight, to provide a comprehensive analytical tool for the entire interactive system.

HydroQual, 1984, with Hazen and Sawyer, Newtown Creek Water Pollution Control Plant,
   Additional Water Quality  Information for 301(h) Application,  for New York City
   Department of Environmental Protection.

HydroQual, 1989a, Assessment of Pollutant Inputs to New York Bight, for Dynamac
   Corporation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (addendum to New York
   Bight Restoration Plan- Phase 1).

HydroQual, 1989b, Assessment of Pollutant Fate in New York Bight,  for Dynamac
   Corporation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (addendum to New York
   Bight Restoration Plan  Phase 1).

HydroQual, 1990, water quality  modeling tasks for the Long Island Sound Estuary Study, in

                                                                         St. John

O'Connor, D.J. And J.L. Mancini, The Carbon-Oxygen Distribution in New York Bight,
   Phase I- Steady State, Manhattan College, Bronx, New York, for MESA New York Bight
   Project, NOAA.


                                Joel S. O'Connor
                            Ocean Policy Coordinator
                               U.S.  EPA, Region II
                              New  York, New York
      The ecological effects of nutrient and organic enrichment in regional marine
waters are described elsewhere in this volume and in several other publications (Riley,
1972; Malone, 1978, 1982; Yentsch, 1977; Falkowski et al, 1980; Swanson and
Sindermann, 1979; Parker, 1990; Welsh and Elder, 1990).  So, I describe only broadly
the dynamics of carbon, oxygen and nutrient cycling, and human influences on theses
cycles.  Emphasis is placed, rather, upon the estimation of hypoxic effects in New York-
New Jersey Harbor, New York Bight and Long Island Sound, and the best ways to
portray the improvements expected from alternative  management decisions.

      We are concerned about the effects of nutrients and organic carbon in waters
around New York only because their natural cycles are out of kilter.  For millions of
years the NY-NJ Harbor Estuary, the Long Island Sound, and inner NY Bight have
cycled nitrogen,  phosphorus, other plant nutrients, and  organic carbon.  The  cycles of
these materials have been in approximate balance as portrayed in Figure 1.

      For millions of years this cycle mineralized the organic carbon produced by a few
large animals, and lots of smaller plants and animals. These organisms remained in
balance with nutrient and carbon cycles, partially because they didn't have the
destructive behavior of congregating at the margins of surface waters.



      Figure 1. Nutrient and organic carbon cycling in marine ecosystems.
      (Adapted from B.H. Ketchum. 1967. Symposium on Primary Productivity
      and Mineral Cycling in Natural Ecosystems. AAAS, Washington, B.C.)

      Only recently has European man deforested the region, fertilized it for crops and
channeled most human waste into rivers and estuaries. Only since then has the organic
carbon accumulated much faster than it can be mineralized, even with the help of
several large STPs.  These STPs don't get rid of the carbon or nutrients, they mineralize
the carbon to CO2 and the nutrients originally in the organic matter.  The nutrients are
then discharged to water and are quickly taken up by phytoplankton  the nutrients again
become incorporated in organic carbon.

      First some generalizations about the biological importance of dissolved oxygen

      o  DO is needed by all marine organisms except sulfur bacteria
      o  low DO concentrations have serious biological effects at
         much higher concentrations than are required to cause death
      o  biological  effects of low DO are modified  greatly by water temperature,
         toxicants and other stressors.

      We know little very about historical trends in DO  concentrations until they were
measured directly in this century.

      Over the past several decades there have been clear trends in minimal summer
DO concentrations in some water bodies of the region.  Most areas of New York-New
Jersey Harbor, during the summers of recent years,  had substantially  more DO in
bottom waters than was present before large-scale upgrading of sewage treatment (NYC
DEP, 1990; Suszkowski, this Proceedings).  Conversely, and perhaps as  a partial
consequence of more  complete and effective treatment of sewage discharged to the
Harbor, bottom DO concentrations in western Long Island Sound have declined on
average for at least the past 20 years (Parker, 1990). In addition the summer hypoxic
areas (however defined) of the Sound are becoming larger (Parker, 1990). Similar
trends in the New York Bight are not evident.

      From a management perspective, however, much longer trends are of more
interest.  The total extent of human activity that has altered natural nutrient cycles  is
some indication of how much effort is required to reverse the trend toward worsening
hypoxia.  Historical trends in nutrient loadings will suffice as a measure of hypoxic
severity today relative to European settlement.  Century-long estimates  for the Hudson
and Raritan River watersheds are presumed to be broadly comparable to trends in
watersheds of Long Island Sound and the New York Bight.

      Since initial deforestation of the region, increasing nitrogen loadings have been
due primarily to fertilizer usage and human waste. By 1880 total nitrogen loadings must
have already increased to several times those of the natural watersheds, due primarily to
deforestation and the  wastes of several million inhabitants (Van Bennekom and
Salomons, 1980; Ayres et al.,  1988).  These early increases in nitrogen loadings may well
have been greater than later increases from 1880  to the present.  Total nitrogen loadings

 to the Hudson-Raritan Estuary from all sources appear to have increased only about
40% from 1880 to 1980 (Ayres et al., 1988).

      However, the increment in total phosphorus loadings to the Estuary from 1880 to
1980 exceeds 300% (Ayres at al.,  1988).  Since all human influences have increased
riverine phosphorus inputs to the  oceans by about four-fold (Van Bennekom and
Salomons, 1980), this more than three-fold increase in the past century may be a large
fraction of the total increase over natural conditions.

      Now the human population of the New York region is approaching 20 million (a
common Year 2000 projection).  It is not surprising that our wastes have altered greatly
the nutrient and carbon cycles outlined in Figure 1:

      o  organic carbon has accumulated in water and sediments
      o  all or  most of the bottom DO  is used up in mineralizing the carbon during
          late summer
      o  as a result, the mineralization process  is slowed down in late summer
      o  also as a result  of low DO concentrations,  organisms suffer a variety of
          stresses including mortality in extreme situations
      o  oxygen depletion in  turn alters other geochemical cycles, notably the
          sulfur  bacteria act on organic carbon to release hydrogen sulfide
          In shallow bays  the hydrogen sulfide escapes to air, causing well-known odors
          and blackening  of lead  paint.

      Lots of quantative information exists  about particular biotic effects of particular
DO concentrations.  Unfortunately direct field evidence is difficult to get.  It is quite
expensive to be  in the field at precisely  the right places and times, and field
measurements as always are quite variable.  Still, the  State of Connecticut Department
of Environmental Protection is making surprisingly good field measurements of hypoxic
avoidance by lobsters and some bottom fishes. Also,  NY State's Department of
Environmental Conservation has been able to document hypoxic mortality of lobsters in
pots.  Both of these field measurements are valuable, particularly in helping define the
areal extent of hypoxia with clearly defined impacts.

      Figure 2 gives some perspective on the biological effects that occur as DO
concentrations decline in marine waters.

      The most rigorous evidence as to  the lowest DO concentrations that do no harm
will continue to  come from controlled laboratory studies. Laboratory investigations of
low DO effects are continuing a EPA's Environmental Research Laboratory,
Narragansett, Rhode Island. The Narragansett Laboratory has exposed several organisms
to low DO, and  finds that 4.3mg DO/1 is, so far, the highest DO concentration required
to protect the organisms tested.

DO Concentration             Effect
 0 - 0.5 mg/l  Death of living organisms, except sulfur bacteria
0.5 - 1         Some benthic organisms can live for a few days
 0-1.5       Phosphorus liberated from sediments very rapidly
1.5-3        Many organisms leave or die; some benthic
              invertebrates die within days to weeks
  ~ 3         50% mortality in some organisms after 96-hour
              exposures in the laboratory
 3 - ?         Lobsters and some fishes leave or avoid hypoxic Long
              Island Sound waters
  4.3         Atlantic silverside chronic effects value; effects possible
              at even higher DO concentrations
    Figure 2. Ecological effects of hypoxia.   (Adapted from Mountford and Reynolds [1988].)

      Biotic effects of low DO from phytoplankton blooms are probably seen as the
most important manifestation of degraded water quality, but additional effects are often
seen as very important:

      o reduced water clarity ("dirty water")
      o surface slicks
      o odors from algae or anaerobic muds
      o some species of algae can decimate shellfish stocks
      o poisonous shellfish, from toxicants produced by phytoplankton.

      People often perceive dense phytoplankton concentrations and their consequences
as serious.  Perhaps this is partially because some hypoxic impacts are so tangible; they
can be highly visible (e.g., fish kills) and they can smell strongly.
      Surface marine waters of the region have been classified by New York, New
Jersey and Connecticut as to their "best use."  Some are classified as usable for bathing
and shellfishing, others support the propagation of resident biota, others support only
the maintenance and migration of fishes.  There are variations on these basic categories.
Within each classification a minimal DO concentration, a standard, has been  defined to
support these uses (NYS DEC, 1989; NJ DEP, 1985; Connecticut DEP, 1987).

      These standard or minimally acceptable DO values are shown in Figure 3. The
standard values range from 3 to 5 mg DO/1 through out the Harbor area.  The DO
standards for LIS and the New York Bight are primarily 5 mg DO/1 with  some
Connecticut waters having standards of 6 mg/1.

      At present there are no DO criteria for marine waters.  Criteria, or carefully
documented estimates of the DO concentration that fully protect most marine
organisms, are now being developed for the LIS region.  These marine criteria are being
developed by EPA's Environmental Research  Laboratory in Narragansett, Rhode Island.
When developed, these criteria will synthesize all sources of quantitative evidence that
particular DO  concentrations harm organisms  (through reduced growth, impaired
reproduction, avoidance behavior, etc.)

                                                                                   \    SUFFOLK CO

                                                                                o n g \ Island
                                                                                     SCALE 1:450.000
Figure 3. Marine water quality standards for dissolved
oxygen concentrations (mg DO/1).

      Existing DO standards have limited value as endpoints for management decisions.
Routine, seasonal violations of DO standards for many years, in the Sound and
elsewhere, have not yet prompted responses that achieve DO standards. Many reasons
have been given for these shortfalls, but one issue may be particularly important for our
purposes.  The total societal costs of DO concentrations falling below standard, say 5 mg
DO/L, are not clear.  Indeed, if the decline is not far below 5 mg/1,  does not persist,
and is limited to a small  area of the Sound, the costs may well be negliable  arguably

      More difficulty arises over more severe, persistent DO declines over larger areas.
At some stage the severity, persistence and areal extent become management issues.
However, existing standards provide minimal guidance in this matter; all we know is that
DO concentrations should not fall below 5  (or 6) mg/1 anyplace in the Sound.


      It is relatively easy to understand hypoxia, its causes and its  effects, at least
imprecisely. It is much harder to  say what  can be done about it. How can we frame the
issue in the Sound most usefully for environmental managers? A number of us from
agencies concerned with the  Sound are trying to frame the probable consequences of
particular alternatives for remediating hypoxia in the Sound (see Acknowledgements).
We wish to illustrate these alternatives and their likely results in the  most useful way.

      First it seems evident that some form of control over nutrient  and carbon
loadings to the Sound is the only practical way to reduce hypoxic impacts.  (I
intentionally avoid the issue of whether N, P or both is the best nutrient to limit.) So
we assume that the impacts of hypoxia are  direct functions of nutrient loadings,
recognizing perhaps very long lags in response to reduced loadings, and recognizing that
weather is a major influence on the severity of hypoxia.  At least in the mean,  hypoxia in
the Sound can be remediated only by limiting nutrient and carbon loadings.

      Figure 4 illustrates an overall strategy to frame these management options for
remediating hypoxia.  Other strategies are possible of course,  but broadly they  might
well be  variations on this theme designed for Long Island Sound.

      As with most strategies, this one starts out with what we already know, in the
three boxes at the top of Figure 4:

      o physics and the dynamics of carbon, oxygen and nutrients
      o DO concentrations (fields of bottom DO)
      o biological effects of low DO within these maps or fields.

          Physics & C/O/N
          DO Fields
                Model Reduced-Loading Scenarios
                      Predicted DO Fields
                      from the Scenarios
            Effects of Past
            DO Fields
                                      Estimate Effects
                                      of DO at Particular
                                   Choose DO
           Management Options & Benefits

           Do Nothing
           Reduce N15%
           Reduce N30%
           Reduce N50%
Ecological     Cultural
$ Benefits

Figure 4. Estimating the benefits of control programs.

      We are not so much interested in the DO values, per se. as in their biotic effects.
Effects are outlined broadly in Figure 2, but we  need quantitative measures of effect -
better ones than we have. These are being estimated through both lab and field work as
indicated at the right of Figure 4.  Given reliable relationships  between DO
concentrations and ecological effects, we can estimate the effects of past hypoxic events
to the extent that past DO fields are quantified.  Existing  data  permit rough
approximations of the areal  extents and durations of low DO fields for very few recent

      So far we can estimate the ecological effects of past hypoxic events for which DO
fields are known. To estimate future benefits  of different nutrient management options
we must model what is expected to happen when nutrient loadings are limited by
specified amounts (see Figure 4).

      I use the notion of a  "DO endpoint" as  a  managerially useful description of DO
effects after a particular limitation on loadings, accounting for the time lag in effects of
course.  What kind of endpoint is most  useful?  The most obvious way to frame the
issue is  to predict the improvements in hypoxic effects that would result from limiting
the loadings by different  amounts.  How much nutrient limitation is required to meet  the
state DO standards, or the EPA DO criterion  when defined? How much is required to
meet other DO endpoints?

      An important point of departure is the  minimal DO concentration at which
chronic exposures (over one to  a few weeks) will protect sensitive species of  the region
against  adverse sublethal effects.  This  "final chronic value" is being defined by EPA.
For  the sake of discussion now, consider the minimal DO  concentration that will protect
against  known (and incompletely measured) adverse chronic effects: about 4.3 mg/1.
(The EPA regional DO criterion will also probably specify an acute criterion value, but
this  complication is not considered here.)  So we assume (perhaps optimistically) that
hypoxic effects will not occur in LIS unless DO concentrations  fall below 4.3 mg/1 for a
week or so.

      But the managerial significance of DO concentrations below 4.3 mg/1  depend
importantly  upon the area of habitat affected.  If, say, 300,000 acres of the  Sound were
hypoxic (<4.3 mg/1)  during  the worst recent summer, how many acres would be hypoxic
if nutrients were  reduced  by 15%,  and  how long would it take to reach better DO
conditions?  How much improvement could be expected from 30% to 50% nutrient
reductions?  A predictive model to answer these sorts of questions is being developed by
HydroQual, Inc. in collaboration with NOAA.

      Say we were confident that  50%  nutrient  reduction would reduce the now 300,000
acre hypoxic area to  the neighborhood of 50,000 acres within a decade. Intermediate
nutrient reductions would be expected to result in  intermediate hypoxic acreages (Figure
4). For each nutrient reduction scenario the acreages subjected to even lower DO
concentrations (below 3,  2 and  1 mg/1)  are also  estimable.

      From these sorts of endpoints, outlined at the bottom of Figure 4, we can foresee
estimating ecological benefits more reliably than from alternative ways of describing
"hypoxia."  I should acknowledge that this general approach to characterizing DO
endpoints was outlined independently, but earlier, by the Chesapeake Bay Program
(Mountford and Reynolds, 1988).

      There is now very little to say about the cultural and economic benefits from
remediating hypoxia in the Sound.  Perceptions of these benefits should  be enhanced
greatly by reliable, however imprecise, knowledge of the corresponding ecological
benefits (Figure 4).

      Comprehensive and quantitative knowledge of existing hypoxic impacts, however
imprecise it must remain, is obviously essential for estimating the benefits of control
programs.  The long Island Sound Study (LISS) continues to acquire this knowledge.

      The best way to estimate the benefits of control programs is  to keep careful tabs
on the LIS system after nutrient controls have been implemented.  It is particularly
important to monitor nutrient loadings and the areal extent of the lowest DO fields with
enough reliability to detect changes of the order expected.  This implies monitoring that
is costly enough  to justify a lot of care in defining the sampling designs.  Neither the
sampling strategies  nor the intensity of environmental monitoring programs are generally
adequate for their objectives (NRC, 1990). The principles of sampling design to
minimize costs are well known, but they are hard to apply in  a situation like the Sound.
For instance, there  are such large uncertainties in even current nutrient  loadings from
the East  River to the Sound that feasible sampling efforts could not adequately keep
track of presumed nutrient limitations. Adequate resolution of these East River nutrient
loading requires better understanding of transport in the  East River in addition to
nutrient distributions (St. John, this proceedings). DO monitoring in the Sound might
be more  efficient if the timing of expensive, full-scale surveys could be optimized by
prior, cheaper surveys that predicted the timing of maximal DO declines.

      Among the largest sources of uncertainty  in estimating nutrient control benefits
will be our estimated relationship between improved DO conditions and the response of
biota.  Better estimates of low DO effects on sensitive organisms  and life stages  is
probably one of the most cost effective ways to better estimate the benefits of control
programs.  Of particular value would be controlled, laboratory exposures of animals to
low DO over the same durations of hypoxic exposure  experienced in nature.  These
natural exposures are often weeks long in western Long Island Sound.  Despite the
difficulty of conducting such experiments, they could substantially strengthen our
knowledge of safe lower bounds on DO concentrations (Boswell et  al., 1987).

      Any further insight into hypoxic effects is almost certain to increase the known
concentration of DO that causes effects; it is unlikely that new knowledge will reduce
the minimal DO concentration of concern.  This sort of research, in the field or
laboratory, is cheaper than the monitoring required, and it could lead to recognition that
the benefits of nutrient controls are greater than we now realize.

      Improved oxygen regimes would  result in benefits apart from enhancing the
quality of the Long Island Sound ecosystem. These economic and cultural benefits are
expected to derive largely from ecological improvements, but are perceived as monetary
gains to the regional economy and as largely undefined public satisfactions.  At least
some of the economic benefits are estimable in principle. However, useful measures of
them require prior estimates of both existing ecological impacts and the reduced impacts
resulting from nutrient controls.  The LISS expects to estimate both the ecological and
economic estimates.

The variety of expected cultural benefits can not be captured by existing measures. As
is true of environmental improvements generally, the importance of the cultural benefits
must be assessed by governments with minimal technical guidance.

Members of the Long Island Sound Study's DO Endpoint Advisory Team and its
mentor, Kevin Bricke, U.S. EPA, Region II contributed extensively to this work.  I thank
Jasely Miranda for typing the manuscript.


Ayres, R.U., J.W. Ayres, J.A. Tarr and R.C. Widgery. 1988. An Historical
      Reconstruction of Major Pollutant Levels in the Hudson-Raritan Basin:  1880-
      1980. NOAA Tech. Memo. NOS OMA 43, Vol. 1. 99 pp.

Boswell, M.T., G.P. Patil and J.S. O'Connor.  1987. Quantifying the severity of hypoxic
      effects, pp.  159-174, IN: G.B. Mackiernan (ed). Dissolved Oxygen in the
      Chesapeake Bay. Maryland Sea Grant Publication, College Park, MD.

Connecticut DEP (Department of Environmental Protection). 1987. Water Quality
      Standards. Connecticut, DEP, Water Compliance Unit, [Hartford, Conn.] 46 pp.

Falkowski, P.G. H.S. Hopkins and J.J. Walsh. 1980. An analysis of factors affecting
      oxygen depletion in the New York Bight. J. Mar. Res.. 38:479-506.

Malone, T.C. 1982. Factors influencing the fate of sewage-derived nutrients in the lower
      Hudson Estuary and New York Bight, pp. 389-400, IN: G.F.  Mayer (ed).
      Ecological Stress and the New York Bight: Science and Management. Estuarine
      Research Federation, Columbia, SC.

Mountford, K. and R.C. Reynolds. 1988. Potential biological effects of modeled water
      quality improvements resulting from two pollutant reduction  scenarios, pp. 593-
      606, IN: M.  Lynch  and K. Krome (eds). Understanding the Estuary: Advances in
      Chesapeake Bay Research.  Chesapeake Bay Research Consortium, Inc.,
      Solomons, MD.

NJ DEP (New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection). 1985. Surface Water
      Quality Standards.  N.J.A.C. 7:9-4.1  et seq. NJ DEP, Division of Water Resources,
      [Trenton, NJ] 47 pp.

NRC (National Research Council, Marine Board, Commission on Engineering and
      Technical Systems). 1990.  Managing  Troubled Waters: The Role of Marine
      Environmental Monitoring. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 118 pp.

NY DEC  (New York Department of Environmental Conservation). 1989. Water Quality
      Regulations - Surface  Water and Groundwater Classifications and Standards.
      NYS DEC, Division of Water Resources, [Albany, NY].

NYC DEP (New York City Department of Environmental Protection). 1990. New York
      Harbor Water Quality Survey, 1988-1989. NYC DEP, New York, (in press)

Parker,  C.A. 1990.  A historical data assessment of oxygen depletion in Long Island
      Sound. Estuaries. 13: (in press).

Riley, G.a. 1972. Patterns of production in marine ecosystems, pp. 91-112,  IN:  J.A.
      Weins (ed.) Ecosystem Structure and Function. Oregon State University Press,

Suszkowski, D.J. 1990. Conditions in New York Harbor, (this Proceedings)

Swanson, R.L. and C.J. Sindermann. 1979. Oxygen Depletion and Associated  Benthic
      Mortalities in New York Bight, 1976. NOAA Professional Paper 11. National
      Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, DC.

Welsh, B.L. and F.C. Eller. 1990. Mechanisms controlling summertime oxygen depletion
      in western Long Island Sound. Estuaries. 13:  (in press).

Van Bennekom, A.J.  and W. Salomons. 1980.  Pathways of nutrients and organic matter
      from land to ocean through rivers,  pp.  33-51, IN: River Inputs to Ocean Systems.
      UNESCO and IOC, Paris.

Controlling Point and Nonpoint Nutrient/Organic Inputs:
                 A Technical Perspective
                        Prepared by
             Stuart A. Freudberg and Jon P. Lugbill
       Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
            Department of Environmental Programs
                 777 North Capitol Street, NE
                   Washington, DC 20002
                       Presented to:
          U.S. EPA and Manhattan College Conference:
               Cleaning Up Our Coastal Waters:
                   An Unfinished Agenda
                       Riverdale, NY
                       March 13,1990

Freudberg and Lugbill
                             Nutrient Controls: A Technical Perspective
       The  over-abundance  of
nutrients  and organic pollutants
continues to be one of the most
serious water  quality  problems
faced  in  water bodies  like  the
Chesapeake Bay.  Eutrophication
is a process where excess nutrients
result in  the over stimulation of
algal growth.  During  eutrophic
conditions,  abnormally   large
growths of algae upset the balance
of the river's ecosystem. The effects
of such algal growth in aquatic
systems may include fish lolls, lower
species diversity, reduced  light
penetration, odor problems, visual
annoyance, low dissolved oxygen,
and  decreased  assimilation  of

       Nutrient controls for point
and nonpoint sources are continuing
to evolve. As the options for the
control of nutrients increase in scope,
the need for cost and effectiveness
comparisons  among  different
management options  becomes
essential  to achieve  an equitable
allocation of  resources.    Cost
information has been historically
difficult to obtain that  would be
directly associated with the removal
of nutrients from the water system.
For  example,  agricultural  best
management practices have  been
used for decades as a  means of
reducing soil loss from erosion.
Only recently however, have they
been associated with the reduction
of nutrients from agricultural runoff.
Therefore,  the  installation  of
agricultural  best management
practices  may  be  economically
justified by reducing soil loss before
calculations are made on the amount
of nutrients saved. Similarly, only
in  recent years  has  sufficient
experience  and  data  become
available to quantify point source
and urban runoff control costs. This
report will concentrate on the direct
benefits of reducing nutrients and
will over-simplify   a   complex
situation  of economic benefits for
the sake  of  comparison between
different sources. Its purpose is to
give the policy maker a sense of the
possible with respect to effectiveness
and  costs of the control options

       Data utilized in this report
is  generally  drawn  from  the
experiences and study of nutrient
controls for the Potomac River Basin,
which covers 14,000 square miles
across the states of Pennsylvania,
West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland,
and the District of Columbia.  The
Potomac  is  the second  largest
tributary to the Chesapeake  Bay
estuary system, which is over 64,000
square miles. Major progress over
the past 20 years has been made in
restoring the Potomac River estuary
through point source nutrient and
organic   controls.    A  major
Chesapeake Bay-wide restoration
effort is now in high-gear, with a
year 2000 goal of a 40% reduction
in nitrogen and phosphorus now
being  implemented.   Continual
improvement in the Potomac and
achievement of the Chesapeake Bay
restoration  goal  will  require
continued implementation of a mix
of point, agricultural, and urban
controls. While there are numerous
variations and considerable range
in the costs and cost-effectiveness
of the options covered in this report,
the authors believe that the data is
a reasonable representation of the
state-of-the-art controls available at
the start of the last decade of the
20th century.
       This  report looks at the
nutrient/organic removal options
available  to  the  environmental
decision maker for both point and
nonpoint sources.  Cost estimates
based on the amount of nutrients
saved (removed) per year will be
used to evaluate  the tradeoffs
between various nutrient reduction
technologies.     In  addition,
prevention  methods  reducing
nutrient inputs before they enter
the waste stream for both point and
nonpoint sources will be presented.

       Biological nutrient removal
(BNR) will be highlighted as an
advanced method of reducing both
nitrogen and phosphorus from the
municipal  point  source  waste
stream.    Further,  traditional
methods of chemical addition will
be looked at for phosphorus  and
nitrogen   removal.        The
implementation of phosphate bans
will be described as a method of
preventing nutrients from entering
the waste stream.

       Urban runoff controls  will
be reviewed for a variety of different
control structures  under  several
different  development scenarios.
Preventive  measures  will   be
addressed including the use of street
cleaners and leaf collection.

       Agricultural    nutrient
control options will be looked at
including pasture, cropland,  and
animal waste.  These areas of runoff
will be reviewed with an emphasis
on the cost of controls installed in
the Potomac River Basin. Preventive
measures   of  nutrient   control
including  nutrient management
techniques, the conservation reserve
program, and conservation tillage
will be evaluated.

Point Source Control

       The control of  nutrients
from municipal  point   sources
continues to be the focal point of
most nutrient reduction strategies.
Municipal  wastewater treatment
plants remove nutrients with even
the most basic forms of treatment.
Nutrients tend to bond to sediment
and can be consumed by micro-
organisms which are then removed
from the waste stream.  Nutrient
removal systems generally increase
the amount of sludge created at
wastewater  treatment  plants.
Advanced  tertiary treatment can
produce  effluent containing  low
nutrient concentrations.

Freudber? and Lugbill
                              Nutrient Controls: A Technical Perspective
       In primary treatment,  a
portion of the suspended solids and
organic matter is removed from the
wastewater. This removal is usually
accomplished   with   physical
operations such as screening and
sedimentation.  The effluent from
primary  treatment will ordinarily
contain   considerable  organic
material  and will have a relatively
high biochemical oxygen demand
(BODXTchobanoglous, 1985).

       The effluent from primary
treatment is further processed to
remove   organic  matter   and
suspended material in secondary
treatment.  Ingeneral, biological
processes  employing   micro-
organisms are used to accomplish
secondary treatment. The effluent
from secondary treatment usually
has little BOD and suspended solids
and may contain several milligrams
per liter of dissolved oxygen (Ibid.,
1985). The EPA National Municipal
Policy has resulted in secondary
treatment levels in the majority of
municipal wastewater  treatment
plants in the U.S.

       Biological nutrient removal
(BNR)   systems  for  municipal
wastewater treatment  have been
recommended as  a  means of
reducing nutrients which cause
water  quality  problems.   BNR
systems  can be installed  in  new
plants   instead  of  traditional
secondary  treatment or  can be
retrofitted  in  existing  plants.
Biological nutrient removal systems
are very new in this country and
are currently being tested under a
variety  of  situations.    Their
advantage is for modest additional
capital  investment,  secondary
treatment  facilities   can  have
enhanced nutrient removal.

        Blue  Plains  and  other
advanced plants in the Washington
D.C. area use the more traditional
method  of  chemical addition for
phosphorus removal. However, as
more becomes  known about BNR
technology, it  is expected that a
number of plants will evaluate the
applicability of BNR, particularly
if nitrogen removal is necessary to
protect the Chesapeake Bay.

       Nitrification, is a biological
process implemented to remove
organic nitrogen and ammonia
loads. Nitrification provides some
removal of total nitrogen and has
been used successfully for over a
decade  in  the  metropolitan
Washington region.
What is BNR?

       Biological nutrient removal
(BNR) is  a biological system to
reduce the amount of nitrogen and/
or phosphorus in sewage treatment
plant effluent.    BNR  strategies
involve the movement of primary
effluent through aerobic, anoxic, and
anaerobic zones (see Figure 1.). The
aerobic zone consists of aerators
which add oxygen thereby causing
nitrification — the transformation
of ammonium nitrogen into nitrate
nitrogen.  The anoxic zone causes
denitrification — the transformation
of nitrate nitrogen into nitrogen gas.
Internal mixers in the anoxic zone
facilitate the release of nitrogen gas
into the atmosphere. The anaerobic
zone  is  for the  removal  of
phosphorus and this process is also
facilitated  by the  use of mixers.
These different zones contain micro-
organisms  that  are  constantly
recycled  back into the system to
maintain   steady    biological
conditions.   To  achieve  greater
phosphorus removal, BNR systems
can be supplemented by traditional
chemical addition (the addition of
metallic salts).

       BNR    systems    vary
according to design, effectiveness,
cost,  consistency,  and  removal
efficiency. Some of these differences
are summarized in Table 1.  The
table lists systems for the removal
ofphosphorus and/or nitrogen. For
example the phostrip process only
removes   phosphorus,    the
Bardenpho system only reduces
nitrogen,  and  the VIP process
removes both  phosphorus  and

       One of the basic differences
between different BNR systems is
the hydraulic residence times (HRT)
-  the  time wastewater is being
processed by the different biological
processes. Basically, the longer the
residence time the higher the cost
of removal and the greater the
removal of nutrients. For example,
the Bardenpho system in Table 1
has a long residence time resulting
in a high cost and excellent nitrogen

       New plant costs in Table 2
illustrate the different levels of costs
associated  with an  increase in
hydraulic  residence time.  These
costs are based on the construction
of a new generic plant to handle 21
million gallons per day  (mgd) of
waste.  The costs of the different
options must be  looked at in
conjunction with  the  treatment
levels achieved with a specific plant
design.  For reduction of both
nitrogen and phosphorus  to  low
permit limits the use of BNR with
chemical addition allows  for the
most flexibility while still remaining
on the low end of costs. Costs for a
new BNR  plant are in  the same
ballpark as secondary treatment as
shown in Table 2.

       Retrofitting   currently
operating   plants  with  nutrient
removal technologies is difficult and
expensive compared to  installing
these options when a facility is first
built.  The current conditions at a
facility need to be taken into account
to determine the most cost effective
alternative.      For   example,
compatibility   with   existing
treatment  processes,   hydraulic
limitations,   site  constraints,
wastewater characteristics, sludge
handling   impacts,  and  permit
compliance during construction -
are all considerations that need to
be   factored into  a retrofitting

 Freudberg and Lugbill
  Nutrient Controls: A Technical Perspective
                                          Figure 1
                                 BNR Process Schematic
                                               O o
                                                     O o
o o
o o
                                               AEROBIC ZONE
                                       NITRIFIED RECYCLE
                            RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE (RAS)
                        SLUDGE (WAS)

Freudber? and Lugbill
Nutrient Controls: A Technical Perspective
                                          Table 1

                     Comparison of BNR Process Characteristics

Oxidation Ditch
Chemical Treatment
Nutrient Removal
Phosphorus Nitrogen
Least Best
Moderate Moderate
Good Moderate
Good Moderate
Moderate Least
NA Good
Best Least
Best Least

New Plant

   NA - Not Applicable
   Modified from CH2M Hill report by Glen T. Daigger, 1988.
                                         Table 2
                            New BNR Treatment Options
Treatmtent Process
Secondary Treatment
BNR (6-hr HRT)
BNR (6-hr HRT) +
Chemical Addition
Secondary Treatment
+ Chemical Addition
BNR (16-hr HRT) +
Chemical Addition +
BNR (16-hr HRT) +
High pH Phosphorus






Avg. Cost
21 mgd plant
($ millions)



O&M Costs
($ millions)



Yearly Capital
($ millions)



Cost per Pound






Total yearly capital cost based on 8% yearly interest spread over a life of 20 years.  The total phosphorus with no
treatment was assumed to be 6 mg/1 and with nitrogen to be 30 mg/1. Based on December, 1989 Dollars using the
Consumer Price Index for all cities in the U.S. Modified from CH2m Hill, 1988.

Freudberg ana Lugbill
                             Nutrient Controls: A Technical Perspective
decision.   As a result, it is very
difficult to determine  an average
price to retrofit  a  generic plant.
However,  the state  of Virginia
completed  an  extensive study
examining the costs of retrofitting
current  WWTPs  with  nutrient
removal technologies (CH2m Hill,
1989).   The nutrient  removal
technologies in the study were not
limited to BNR but were the most
cost effective option for each plant.
The large difference in costs found
in this Virginia study associated with
changing a plant to meet different
permit requirements are shown in
Table 3.  In addition,  it has been
found that the seasonality of  the
permit  limits  would  have  a
significant impact on  the  cost of
nutrient removal.

       Chemical addition is  a
method of removing phosphorous
to  very  low concentrations  by
adding metallic  salts.  The most
common    additives   include
aluminum  sulfate  and ferric
chloride.  Metallic salts are added
in solution to the wastewater  and
combine with the phosphorus which
then precipitates out into the sludge
train.  This  greatly increases  the
amount of sludge that needs to be
removed from a plant. Chemical
addition can be used on its own or
as a backup forbiological removal.
 Chemical  and Physical Processes
 for Nitrogen Removal
       There  are  several  major
 methods  of  nitrogen  removal
 besides the biological  methods
 previously described.  Ammonia
 stripping, selective ion exchange,
 breakpoint chlorination,  and
 methanol addition are some of the
 most commonly used technologies.
 These  methods tend to be more
 controllable under the constantly
 changing environmental conditions
 of most  systems.   As a result,
 chemical-physical methods are often
 used alone or as a process to refine
biological nitrogen removal to meet
permit requirements.
provides  nitrogen  removal by
elevating  the  pH and  allowing
ammonia  to be released into the
atmosphere. The process involves
elevating the pH of the wastewater
to near ten. At this point ammonia
can freely leave the water into the
air.    This process  is  further
stimulated by the use of towers to
expose the water and the ammonia
to the air surface.  These towers
require pumping and large fans to
maintain a high evaporation rate.
Controls on the discharge of the
ammonia  into  the atmosphere can
be  installed to utilize hydrogen
sulfide as a stripper.  The result is
the production of ammonium sulfate
which  can be  recovered  and
recycled.  One draw back for this
method is the failure of the system
to work well under cold conditions
(below 32 degrees F).

        Selective ion exchange uses
a  naturally   occurring  zeolite,
clinoptilolite  for the  selective
removal   of   ammonia  from
wastewater.  The clinoptilolite is
exposed to the wastewater and it
attracts ammonia ions to its surface.
Once the clinoptilolite becomes full
of ammonia ions and other particles
it is regenerated by stripping the
ions to form an ammonium solution
to be used as a fertilizer. Then the
clinopotilolite is reused over again
to collect more ammonia ions. This
method is currently being used by
the  Upper  Occoquan  Sewage
Authority in  Virginia  to  reduce
nitrogen levels to the Occoquan
reservoir.   The selective  ion
exchange produces an effluent with
about 1.6-2.0 mg/1 total nitrogen.
Using this method in conjunction
with  breakpoint  chlorination can
result in a plant meeting a 1.0 mg/
1 total nitrogen effluent limit.

        Breakpoint chlorination is
the process of removing nitrogen
by chemically oxidizing ammonia

into nitrogen gas.  This proces is
capable of nearly complete removal
of nitrogen from the waste stream.
In addition, this process is capable
of  adjusting to  fluctuations  in
temperature and flow. Therefore,
this proces provides a method of
treating effluent to meet strict permit
requirements. The drawback is the
cost of using the heavy doses of
chlorine  necessary to  reach  the
breakpoint  where  ammonia  is
transformed into nitrogen gas.  In
addition, safety concerns have been
raised due to the large volumes of
chlorine required.

       Methanol  addition  was
evaluated by Greeley and Hansen,
Inc. (1984)as a means of removing
nitrogen  for  Potomac estuary
wastewater plants. In this process,
methanol, a carbon source, was
added  to deep bed  anoxic  filters
where  biological  denitrification
would  occur.  This method was
capable of achieving total nitrogen
limits down to 3 mg/1.  Cost data
from that study, adjusted to 1989
dollars, is  provided  in Table 4.
Generally, this method  is  highly
reliable but  capital and operating
cost intensive, although comparable
in cost to BNR retrofit costs on a
per pound basis. Methanol addition
can also be used to enhance BNR
Processes (Tchobanoglous, 1985) in
achieving  lower  total  nitrogen

Nonpoint Source

Urban Runoff Control Options

       The  nutrient   loadings
associated with urban runoff have
been well  documented (Beaulac,
Reckhow,  and  Simpson,  1980).
There are different loading rates
for old urban areas with no runoff
controls, recently built areas with
peak flow attenuation,  and new
urban   areas with  stormwater
nutrient control.

       The  best  measure  of
urbanization within the basin is the

Freudberg and Luvbill
Nutrient Controls: A Technical Perspective
                                          Table 3.
                POTW Retrofit Cost Estimates for Nutrient Removal
Arlington *
Alexandria *
Lower Potomac *
Mooney *
Quantico *
Aquia *
Fredricksburg *
Little Falls Run
Richmond *
Falling Creek
Proctors Creek
Hopewell *
William sburg
Fort Eustis
James River
Boat Harbor
Army Base
TP = 2 mg/1
Capital O&M
($ millions)
Cost /lb /year




TN=10 mg/1 & TP=2 mg/1 Cost/lb/year
Capital O&M TN
($ millions)


Design Flow, Capital and O&M values are from Ch2M Hill, 1989. The cost per pound of nutrient removed is
estimated based on the yearly total cost and the nutrients reduced based on an original effluent of 18 mg/1 of
nitrogen and 6 mg/1 of phosphorus. Plants with an * already meet the proposed phosphorus effluent limits.

Freudberg and Lugbill
                             Nutrient Controls: A Technical Perspective
                                             Table 4
                                Estimated Nitrogen Removal
            Potomac Estuary WWTPs Methanol Addition to TN = 5 mg/1

Dale City
Lower Potomac
Blue Plains

Capital Cost
Millions $
Cos t-Ef f ecti veness
Source: Adapted from Greeley and Hansen, 1984. Escalated 1982 dollars to 1989 dollars using the Consumer Price
 total impervious area (ie., the lump
 sum of all the highways, structures,
 parking lots, etc.) The impervious
 fraction of urban land produces the
 majority of the nutrient load, as
 well  as  the  additional  annual
 stormwater runoff volume. Schueler
 (1987) has studied the relationship
 between impervious area and urban
 runoff control and provides  a
 detailed  analysis  of  the best
 management practices to ameliorate
 urban runoff.    Alternatives
 discussed  by  Schueler  include
 detention facilities and infiltration
 controls. Removal efficiencies of a
 variety of different urban control
 practices is included in Table 5 (Ibid.,
 1987). Recent work by the Council
 of Governments (Galli, 1989) has
 examined a new technology termed
 a peat sand filter for urban runoff
       Dry  extended  detention
ponds rely     primarily     on
settling to  remove pollutants.
Depending on how much and how
long runoff is detained, it is possible
to achieve moderate to high removal
rates for particulate pollutants that
are  relatively  easy  to  settle.
However, removal rates for most
soluble pollutants are quite low for
dry  extended detention ponds,
although it is possible to enhance
rates by incorporating biological
removal mechanisms into the design
of the pond (e.g., by establishing a
shallow marsh in the bottom stage
of a dry extended detention pond,
or by using extended detention in
combination with a wet pond).
       Wet ponds have a moderate
to high capability (up to 80%) of
removing most urban pollutants,
depending on how large the volume
of the permanent pool is in relation
to the  runoff produced from the
surrounding watershed. Wet ponds
utilize both settling and biological
uptake, and are capable of removing
both  particulate  and soluble
pollutants. In addition to increasing
the volume of thepermanent pool,
wet pond  removal rates can  be
enhanced by establishing marshes
around the perimeter, and  by
adjusting the geometry of the pond.
Infiltration  Practices   (trenches,
basins, porous pavement)

       From a pollutant removal
standpoint,  infiltration trenches,
basins,  and porous  pavement
behave in a similar manner, and
can be treated as a group. Infiltration
practices filter runoff through the
soil  layer, where  a number of
physical, chemical, and biological
removal processes occur. Infiltration
practices have a moderate to high
removal  capability  for  both
particulate  and  soluble  urban
pollutants, depending  how  much
of the annual runoff  volume  is
effectively transported through the
soil layer.  Removal rates can be
further enhanced by increasing the
surface   area   reserved  for
transporting  and  adjusting the
geometry of the practice to achieve
a draining time of less than 3 days.
It should be noted that infiltration
practices should not be relied on to
achieve high levels of particulate
pollutant removal (particularly
sediments), since these particles can
rapidly clog the device.  Rather,
particulate pollutants should be

Freudberg and Lugbill_
                                                            Nutrient Controls: A Technical Perspective
                                          Table 5
              Comparative Pollutant Removal Of Urban BMP Designs
OESiafi 2
OCM4N 1»

9 (5 O (3 3 ® MOMIUTI
• 3 O 3 • ® MODMATI
9 9 3 3 • ® HIQH

9 3 O O (3 ® MOWRATI
• 3 O O •  MOOtOATt
• 9339® HiaH

933999 MOOtRATt
• 33999 "«>"
• 9 9 • • • HiaH

933939 MOOCMTI
• 33999 HIOX
• 9 9 • • • "'*•'

393939 UOOCMTI
• 9 9 9 • • "••**
• 9 9 • • • HIQH

O ® ® ® ® ® LOW

O O O O O ® LO«»
• 3399® MOMRATI

O O O O O ® ww
(5 (3 (3 O O ® w>*
Design 1: First-flush runoff volume detained for 6-12 hours.
Design 2: Runoff voluM produced by 1.0 inch, detained 24 hours.
Design 3: As in Design 2, but with shallow aarsh in bottoa stage.
Design 4: Permanent pool equal to 0.5 inch storage per impervious acre.
Design b: Penanent pool equal to 2 . 5 (Vr) ; where Vi"»ean stora runoff.
Design 6: Permanent pool equal to 4.0 (Vr); approx. 2 weeks retention.
Design 7: Facility exfiltrates first-flush; 0.5 inch runoff/ i«p«r. acre.
Design 8: Facility exfiltrates one inch runoff volume per imper. acre.
Design 9: Facility exfiltrates all runoff, up to the 2 year design storm.
Dasign 10: 400 cubic feet w*t storage per impervious acre.
Design 11: 20 foot wide turf strip.
Design 12: 100 foot wide forested strip, with level spreader.
Design 13: High slope swales, with no check dans.
Design 14: Low gradient swales with check dams.
                                                                             O  * TO 20% REMOVAL

                                                                             (J  20 TO 40* REMOVAL

                                                                             3  40 TO 60» REMOVAL

                                                                             9  «0 TO §0% REMOVAL

                                                                             •  *0 TO 100* RiMOVAL

                                                                             (£)  INSUFFICIENT
  Reproduced from
  Schueler (1987).
aff:  APracti.
iiuu .

al Manual Fnr Planning and Designing Tlrr^an BMEaby

Freudberg ana Lugbitt
                              Nutrient Controls: A Technical Perspective
removed before  they  enter  the
structure by means of a filter strip,
sediment trap or other pretreatment

       Peat sand filters have recently
been developed to  use peat as a
medium to  increase infiltration and
promote biological activity to remove
pollutants from wastewater.  In the
Washington metropolitan area there
are several demonstration projects
being   constructed   to   manage
stormwater  runoff   utilizing  this
practice. These projects will provide
more information  on the  actual
effectiveness  and  implementation
costs of peat sand filters.

Cost of Urban Pollutant Removal

       The costs of  implementing
the different kinds of BMPs  was
studied for the Washington  region
by Wiegand, et al, (1986). This paper
evaluates the installation of extended
detention   ponds,  wet ponds,
infiltration basins, infiltration trenches,
porous pavement,   and porous
pavement with extra storage.  The
results of this cost analysis can be
found in Table 6.  These costs are
based on nutrient removal efficiencies
determined  by field  studies  by
MWCOG, 1983. In addition, annual
operating costs were determined by
using a project life of 20 years and an
8% discount rate.

        Based on the analysis of costs
and cost-effectiveness of various
urban BMPs discussed, some general
conclusions can be drawn.  First,
although somewhat variable, BMP
construction costs can be reasonably
explained by a  regression model in
which base construction costs are a
function of storage volume.  The
resulting regression equations  can,
in turn, be used to generate planning
level estimates of comparative BMP
construction  costs.    Second,  the
incremental costs of building a multi-
purpose water quality BMP,in lieu of
the  conventional   stormwater
management dry pond, vary with land
use and watershed size. In general,
structures serving larger drainage
areas are more cost-effective. Finally,
economic factors, while important,
are often not the only consideration
in urban BMP selection. Other factors
such as pollutant removal capability,
and aesthetic and recreational values
are becoming more important factors
in the  selection  of  stormwater
management BMPs.

Agricultural Runoff Control
       Agricultural BMPs have been
in existence since the 1930s to  aid
farmers with the control of erosion
and sediment control. Many of these
same practices have been found to
be effective in the control of sediment
related pollutants such as phosphorus
and  some pesticides.   In  addition,
there has been many recent changes
in agricultural  practices  that  can
reduce  the  amount  of   nutrients
entering river systems.  Examples of
these   new  methods   include
conservation  tillage,  fertilizer
management,    and     nutrient
management of manure.  The three
main types of agricultural runoff
include cropland, pasture, and animal

       Cropland runoff contributes
nutrients  at a  site specific  rate
according to slope, soil, crop, tillage
practice, fertilizer input, and BMPs
installed.  Different tillage practices
leave the soil exposed to erosion forces
in varying  ways.   For  example,
conventional tillage requires plowing
the ground.  Soil  is easily eroded
when there is no vegetation to hold
the soil in place.  An assortment of
other  BMP  practices  have been
designed to keep the soil on the land.
In addition, there are new methods
of nutrient  management to more
accurately provide nutrient needs for
plant uptake.

        Pasture  runoff can  be  a
significant source of nutrients.  For
example, over grazing reduces the
total amount of vegetation available
for nutrient uptake and reduces the
vegetative cover keeping the soil in
place. Grazing can compact the soil
decreasing soil permeability resulting
in greater runoff rates.  In addition,
where  livestock  congregate  for
drinking water, eating, and cooling,
there is the potential for increased
nutrient release from animal waste.
Therefore, the periodic  moving  of
eating and drinking sites will  help
alleviate local overuse problems.

       Animal   waste  nutrient
contributions are difficult to estimate
as each individual farmer deals with
this resource differently.  Nutrients
from animal wastes are taken up by
crops, pasture,  volatilize into the
atmosphere,  and  digested  by
microbes. This results in a substantial
reduction of nutrients from the time
nutrients leave the animal until they
reach the water system. In addition,
the implementation of BMPs such as
manure storage facilities, ponds, and
lagoons can further reduce the nutrient
load to the  water system.   Large
animal  waste  sources  are now
subjectto permits  in the State  of

       The  cost-effectiveness  of
various agricultural BMPs have been
evaluated over the years for their on-
farm benefits  and  have  been
considered economically beneficial to
the farmer and in turn to society in
the form of constant and inexpensive
food sources. Off-farm environmental
benefits have been a consideration,
but have not been looked at in the
cost-effectiveness of most practices.
There is little information available
on the effectiveness of agricultural
BMPs in the reduction of nutrients
for both ground water  and surface
flow. Further, when information is
available it relates to site specific cases
and  cannot  be used to generalize
across an entire watershed. There is
information on practices installed on
specific soils, fertilizer rates, crop type,
and cropping practice. This makes it
very difficult   to  determine  the
effectiveness of an average BMP.

Freudberg and Lugbill
Nutrient Controls: A Technical Perspective
                                         Table 6

            Cost-Effectiveness of Urban BMP's in Nutrient Removal
Development Ponds Infiltration Porous Pavement
Scenario X_D Wet Basin Trench No Extra With Extra
Storage Storage
Incremental Cost, $/lb/vr - Total Phosphorus removed

1 acre
10 acre
25 acre
1 acre
10 acre
25 acre
Shopping Ctr.
1 acre
10 acre
25 acre

29 367
28 282

24 112
20 86

23 64
20 54

262 886
112 356
37 255

149 534
42 248
22 143

104 480
14 194
7 143



2 79
62 22
89 107
Incremental Cost, $/lb/vr - Total Nitrogen removed

1 acre
10 acre
25 acre
1 acre
10 acre
25 acre
Shopping Ctr.
1 acre
10 acre
25 acre

7 94
7 72

6 28
5 22

6 16
5 14

37 128
16 51
6 44

22 77
6 59
3 26

15 69
1 28
1 21



9 71
13 66
 All costs are expressed in December, 1989 dollars from the Consumer Price Index. Annual payment calculations
 are expressed in 1989 dollars and assume a twenty year note and a 8% interest rate. Table was modified from
 Wiegand, et al, 1986.

Freudberg and Lugbill
                             Nutrient Controls: A Technical Perspective
      For the sake of comparison,
the  effectiveness  of some  of the
common practices used in the field
have been estimated in the Virginia
BMP  Handbook  (1979).    The
efficiencies listed in this reference may
be  optimistic   regarding   the
effectiveness of agricultural BMPs.
Once the removal efficiency of a BMP
    determined   there   is   the
consideration of how many nutrients
runoff a particular land use. For this
paper the use of median runoff values
from Beaulac, Reckhow, and Simpson,
(1980) were used. Normally a range
of values needs to be used to address
the potential  effectiveness of  a
particular practice. The end result of
these  calculations  will  enable  a
calculation of the amount of nutrients
saved by a particular BMP project.

       Information  was  readily
available on the number of agricultural
BMPs installed in the Potomac River
Basin in 1987 from the  U.S. EPA
Chesapeake  Bay Liaison Office
(Schuyler, 1988).  The  information
included the type of BMP installed,
the total area treated by each BMP,
the sediment reduction, the cost-share
amount, and the total cost of the BMP.
The acres treated were then multiplied
by a nutrient export coefficient and
by the removal  efficiency of the
particular practice. This resulted in
a  gross estimate  of  the  nutrient
removal of the  practice based on
average nutrient export from  that
particular land use.  These values
were then multiplied by the life span
of the practice to determine the total
                                            Table 7

   Incremental Costs of Nutrients Removed From ASCS Federal Cost Share in
                             Potomac Basin Counties in 1987

Strip Cropping
Terrace System
Cover Crop
Critical Area
Sediment Basin
Sod Waterways
Permanent Vegetation
Grazing Land Protection
Permanent Vegetation
Stream Protection
Forest Tree Plantations
Animal Waste
Animal Waste System
Animal Waste Control
Life Span
of Practice






























The costs shown here have been adjusted to December, 1989 prices using the Consumer Price Index. Removal
efficiencies are for illustration only and may not represent expected values in the field for a particular BMP.

Freudberg and Lugbill
                               Nutrient Controls: A Technical Perspective
nutrient reduction expected to occur
during  the  life  of the  practice
according to Soil Conservation Service
regulations. The total cost share was
then divided by the total nutrient
load to arrive at an estimation of the
cost per pound of nutrient saved.
The results of this analysis are shown
in Table 7.

       These values provide a rough
estimate  and  were  calculated
specifically for this report and are
not meant to provide true field costs
or removal rates of nutrients. More
research in  this area needs  to  be
performed and calculated in the future
to  enable  an interdisciplinary
approach to the cost effectiveness of
various nutrient control alternatives.

       The  cost-effectiveness  of
agricultural BMPs has been studied
using  CREAMS  modeling.    An
example of the CREAMS modeling
results can be found in a paper  by
Crowder and Young (1988) evaluating
the  cost effectiveness of BMPs  in
Pennsylvania. This paper supplies a
range of cost effectiveness for a variety
of nutrient control alternatives for
agriculture (Table 8) for comparison.
The cost effectiveness found in Table
8 are  significantly lower than the
estimates derived  above from the
implementation costs of BMPs in the
Potomac Basin (Table 7).

       The cost-effectiveness of the
various agricultural BMPs shows the
expected cost per pound of nutrient
saved.  The various BMPs are being
compared for their effectiveness for
nutrient removal  only and do not
represent the true worth of a practice
to the  farmer  or  to  reductions  in
sediment.    For  example,  sod
waterways are shown as an expensive
method of reducing nutrients. The
sediment reduction benefits of this
practice   however,  make  sod
waterways an important part of an
agricultural cost share program.

       There is little known about
the  total  maintenance  costs  of
agricultural  BMPs.    The  Soil
Conservation Service performed a
study in the late 1980s that found a
wide range of levels of maintenance
of practices installed in the field. Field
practices installed 30 years before were
found to be still working extremely
well, when well maintained by the
farmer. However, there were BMPs
that had just recently been installed
with  little or  no  maintenance
performed.  In the future a major
priority of the  Soil  Conservation
Service  should  be to  include
maintenance as a cost consideration
when allocating cost share funds.
Preventive Methods of
Controlling Nutrient and
Organic Inputs
       Several of the more significant
pollution  prevention  options are
discussed  below.  Many of  these
options can  significantly  reduce
nutrient loads and costs either alone
or in conjunction with the technologies
described previously.

Point Source Controls
Phosphate bans.

       A ban on detergents  and
cleaning agents containing phosphates
represents  one of several  control
strategies successfully employed in
the Chesapeake Bay watershed during
the last five years.

Phosphate Ban Impacts

       Since implementation of the
three  phosphate  bans  in   the
Chesapeake Bay, evaluation of the
subsequent impacts has focused on
the reduction of operating costs at
wastewater            treatment
plants(WWTPs).  Having passed the
first phosphate ban legislation in the
Bay area, the state of Maryland was
also the first to document the impacts.
In a  1987  study of  62  WWTPs
representing 550 million gallons per
day (mgd) of wastewater flow, the
State     Water     Management
Administration reports savings of $4.4
million resulting  from an average
reduction of 82 tons per day of alum
(a phosphorus-removing chemical
precipitant.)    Cost  reductions
attributable to  a  drop in sludge
production of 28  dry tons per day
could not be assessed but are thought
to be substantial (MDE, 1987).

       A 1988  study of conditions
at the  Blue Plains Area Treatment
Plant yields similar results (Bailey,
1988). The study reports a reduction
in iron dosage of 10.5 tons per day, a
decrease of more than 25%, accounts
for $2.1 million per year savings in
chemical costs.  A drop in sludge
volume of 254 wet tons per day, a
14% decrease, accounts  for  an
additional  $4.4  million  savings
annually.  (Of the toH reduction in
sludge volume, approximately 200
wet tons per day  can be attributed
specifically to the ban, while the
remaining 54 wet tons per day can be
attributed  to  refinements  in the
treatment process.)  Total  annual
savings amount to $6.5 million  or
10% of the operating budget, the
majority  of which  can be linked
directly to the phosphate ban.

       A  1988 study of WWTP
performance in Virginia revealed a
decrease in the influent phosphorus
concentration by 31% as a result of
the phosphate ban.  In addition to
the expected decrease in  influent
values, there was an added benefit
of lowering the effluent phosphorus
concentrations by 50%. This increased
removal of phosphorus resulted from
WWTPs operating more efficiently
with lower amounts  of phosphorus
having to be processed (VWCB, 1989).
Summary of Phosphate Bans and
Regional Impacts

       The effect of the phosphate
bans  on  influent  phosphorus
concentrations in Maryland, Virginia,
and the  District of Columbia are

Freudberg and Lugtnll
                                                   Nutrient Controls: A Technical Perspective
                                      Table 8.
 Cost-Effectiveness of Soil Conservation Practices Compared with Conventional
                        Practices on a Representative Field
Conservation practice




Permanent vegetative
cover 2/
Contour tillage and
shorter slope length
Winter cover crop/residue
management 3/
Cost of
soil saved
toer toni



Cost of
N saved
(per pound)



Cost of
P saved
(per pound)



    Reduced tillage and
      residue management/
      winter cover 4/
    No-till and residue
      cover 4/
    Sod waterway
    Terrace system
    Diversion system with
      20-foot sod filter
    Reduced tillage and  sod
(10) Reduced tillage along the
      field contour, winter
      cover crop, sod waterways,
(11) No-till planting along  the
      field contour with
      residue management/winter









    I/  The per—acre losses for conventional practices were taken from continuous
  corn grain on the representative field (Duffield silt loam, 5-percent slope,
  Lancaster County, PA), with 40 tons of manure applied per acre per year:  11
  tons of soil loss, 123 pounds of N loss, and 31 pounds of P loss.
    2/  The cost-effectiveness of this practice is much greater relative to other
  practices on steeper slopes/more erodible land.  Unlike this representative
  field, it is not broadly applicable for gently sloping land.
    3/  The cost-effectiveness of residue management varies significantly with
  respect to the crop grown during the prior year, with a previous crop of hay
  requiring no expenses for residue management, while a winter cover crop must be
  planted when no residue is left from the prior crop (which was corn silage).
    4/  Proper residue management is necessary for conservation tillage practices
  to be effective.  For continuous corn grain, management involves cutting and
  disking the corn stover after the grain is harvested.
Reproduced from Managing Farm Nutrients by Crowder and Young (1988).


Freudber? and Lugbill
                             Nutrient Controls: A Technical Perspective
                                            Figure 2
                                   Phosphate Ban Effects
     Influent Phosphorus Reductions At Major Wastewater Treatment Plants
                 Phosphorus Cone. (mg/I)
       District of Columbia
                                 Pre-ban Levels
                     Post-ban Levels
 shown in Figure 2. Maryland reported
 a  30%  reduction  in  influent
 phosphorus  from  1985  to  1986.
 Similarly, the reduction from pre to
 post-ban levels was 26% in the District
 of Columbia and 31% in Virginia.

 Industrial Pretreatment

        Industrial   pretreatment
 programs have been in place for many
 years. Initial designs were installed
 to insure the reliability of municipal
 wastewater  treatment  systems.
 However, industrial pre-treatment
 also can be considered a  pollution
 prevention method. This method can
 help reduce or prevent  excess
 municipal  nutrient  and  organic
 loadings. In addition, pretreatment
 is usually the first method of reducing
 toxins in any municipal system with
 effluent toxicity problems.
Prevention Alternatives For
Urban Land Uses

       The ultimate source of urban
pollutant runoff is what falls or is
transported onto impervious surfaces.
The use of land use controb to limit
growth in areas adjacent to river
bodies and flood plains can reduce
the urban nutrient load. The use of
forested buffer strips along stream
channels  decreases channel erosion
and  filters  out  sediments  and
nutrients. Tree ordinances that require
trees to remain on urbanized land or
that require a builder to plant as many
trees as they remove are ways to
decrease  nutrient runoff.   Street
cleaners have also proven to be an
effective  method  of  reducing  me
impact of atmospheric deposition.
Maintaining urban areas to keep refuse
off the streets and parking lots reduces
loads. In addition, reducing nutrients
at the source by  decreasing  the
atmospheric deposition rates with
special emphasis on nitrogen oxide
reductions can also help control urban

Preventive Measures For

       Preventive measures  are
probably the  most cost effective
agricultural runoff controls but it is
not   easy   to  calculate  their
effectiveness.  Examples of these
preventive   measures  include
conservation   tillage,   nutrient
management of  manure  wastes,
fertilizer management,  and  the
conservation  reserve  program.
Conservation tillage has proven to
be cost effective for farmers to use
once  the original capital costs are

Freudberg and Lugbill
                               Nutrient Controls: A Technical Perspective
recovered. Nutrient management has
proven to be an effective method of
reducing the amount of fertilizer in
the Chesapeake Bay area  states.
Fertilizer usage has decreased between
1980 and 1986 by 35% in Pennsylvania,
21% in Maryland, and 16% in Virginia
(Swartz,  1990).   As a  result  of
decreased fertilizer applications, it is
assumed that  there is  reduced
amounts of runoff from agricultural
land.  In addition, timing of manure
or fertilizer applications geared  to
plant  uptake is helping  to  insure
reduced runoff concentrations from
agriculture.  Nutrient management
planning for farms as a result of the
1985 and pending 1990 farm  bills
should lead to further reductions in
agricultural runoff, much of it due to
preventive approaches with nutrient
applications and  control of  animal
wastes. The latter approach includes
fencing around stream banks to keep
livestock from overgrazing an area.
This is an extremely effective measure
that has limited structural cost, a fence,
but provides a major reduction of
animal waste  inputs  into the river


       A significant array of nutrient
and organic control alternatives exist
today. Their cost-effectiveness ranges
by several orders of magnitude from
a few dollars per pound removed
per year to over $100  per pound
removed per year. Biological nutrient
removal is a very promising option
for point source control. Urban runoff
can  be reduced substantially by
detention ponds. Agriculture can be
best controlled in a total farm nutrient
management system.

        Continuous implementation
of nutrient controls combined  with
active research in the Potomac and
Chesapeake Bay basins  provides  a
rich  source of data and experience
with which to develop a nutrient
control policy for other major estuary
systems. •
   About The Authors

   Stuart A. Freudberg is Director of Environmental Programs for the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
   (COG). COG is the regional planning agency for the metropolitan Washington D.C. region.

   Jon P. Lugbill is an Environmental Planner in the Department of Environmental Programs, who has specialized in the
   analysis of nutrient kadings and controls in the Potomac River Basin.  Mr. Lugbill conducted the primary research for
   this paper.

FreudberxandLugbill	     Nutrient Controls: A Technical Perspective^

Bailey W., Information, Phosphate Ban Effects on Blue Plains Sewage Treatment Plant., 1989. D.C. Department of
Public Works, Water and Sewer Utility Administration.

Beaulac, M.N., K.H. Reckhow, and J.T. Simpson. 1980. Modeling Phosphorus Loading and Lake Response under
Uncertainty: A Manual and Compilation of Export Coefficients, U.S. EPA Document 440/5-80-011.

CH2m Hill., 1988.  Seminar Summary, Emerging Nutrient Removal Technologies., Mid Atlantic Office, Reston,

CH2m Hill, 1989, POTW Nutrient Removal Retrofit Study.  Prepared for the Commonwealth of Virginia State
Water Control Board., October, 1989.

Consumer Price Index., 1989., U.S. Department of Labor., Washington, D.C., December, 1989.

Crowder, B., and C.E. Young, 1988., Managing Farm Nutrients: Tradeoffs for Surface and Ground-Water Quality..
U.S. Government Printing Office., Washington, D.C., January, 1988.

Galli, J., 1989., Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments., Peat-Sand Filters:  A Proposed Stormwater
Management Practice for Urbanized Areas., Washington, D.C., February, 1989.

Greeley and Hansen., 1984. Blue Plains Feasibility Study. Final Report. For the D.C. Department of Public Works
Water and Sewer Utility Administration.

Lugbill, J.P., Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Potomac River Basin Nutrient Inventory., Washington
D.C.January, 1990.

Maryland Department of the Environment., 1987. Effect of Phosphate Detergent Ban on Municipal Treatment Plants
in Maryland. Prepared by the Water Management Administration., Baltimore, MD. June, 1987.

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, An Evaluation of the Costs of Stormwater Pond Construction
and Maintenance, Report to the U.S. EPA, Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, 1983.

Schueler, T.R., Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical
Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs. Washington D.C., July, 1987.

Schuyler, L., Information, BMP Data sent to the authors from Lynn Schuyler. U.S. EPA, Chesapeake Bay Program,
December 8,1988.

Swartz P., Information, Presentation at  the Nonpoint Source Conference of the Chesapeake Bay. Williamsburg,
Virginia., February 27,1990.

Tchobanoglous G. and E.D. Schroeder, 1985. Water Quality.
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Menlo Park, California.

Virginia Water Control Board., 1988. Effect of Phosphate Detergent Ban on Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants
in Virginia.  Virginia Water Control Board, Chesapeake Bay Office., November, 1988.

Wiegand C., T. Schueler, W. Chittenden, D. Jellick., Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 1986.
Comparative Costs and Cost Effectiveness of Urban Best Management Practices.. Washington, D.C.

                   STATE  OF CONNECTICUT
                             COASTAL CONFERENCE
                          A REGULATORY PERSPECTIVE

                              Robert L.  Smith
                     Director of Planning  and Standards
                         Bureau of Water Management
              Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
                              Table of Contents
I.    Historical Perspective

    A)  Sewage Treatment Plants

    B)  Industrial Wastewater Treatment Facilities

II.   Long  Island Sound   The Hypoxia Problem

    A)  Discovery of Hypoxia

    B)  Loadings and Sources

III. Nitrogen, a Pollutant

IV.   Assimilative Capacity

V.    Waste Load Allocations/Permit Limits

VI.   Implementation Strategy

    A)  Planning Policy
    B)  Interim Action
    C)  Facilities Planning
    D)  River Loadings
    E)  Urban Stormwater Runoff
    F)  Atmospheric Deposition

VII. Year  2000   A Reasonable Target?

VIII.  Conclusion
                       165 Capitol Avenue  •  Hartford, Connecticut 06106


    Modern day water pollution control programs really began in the mid to late
1960's.   Connecticut's  current program  began  with  the  passage  of  its  Clean
Water Act of  May  1, 1967.  This  Act was the  result  of a  one  hundred member,
bi-partisan task  force  that  declared  Connecticut's  waters  were  fouled with
untreated sewage and industrial waste and that this is  inimical  to the public
health,  safety, and welfare  of  our  citizens.  The  Act broadly  defined  water
pollution as  any  substance  or  material that  made  the waters  of  the  state
"unclean or impure" and  gave  the  Water Resources  Commission strong enforcement
authorities.   By the first  Earth Day  in April  of 1970  a paper describing the
water pollution  control  strategy  had been  released  entitled  "Clean  Water  by
1972".   In  retrospect,   the   collective niaivite  regarding   the  extent  and
severity of water pollution was astounding.

    Nonetheless,   an aggressive  program  had begun  focusing  on point  source
controls.  Connecticut's  treatment standards were:

A) Sewage Treatment Plants

    Secondary treatment was required  as  the minimum with effluent limits set at
30 mg/L for both biochemical  oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended  solids  (SS).  On
smaller high  quality streams, sand  filtration was required  and  permit limits
were established at 20 mg/L for both  BOD  and SS.

B) Industrial Waste

a) Organic

    Facilities discharging  carbonaceous  organic waste  were  required to provide
the equivalent of  secondary treatment and most had limits  of  30  mg/L for both
BOD and SS.

b) Metal Finishing

    Historically,  metal  working  and  metal finishing have been the predominate
industries  in Connecticut.    By  1970, Connecticut  was  requiring  treatment  to
meet  limits  of 0.1 mg/L cyanide,  0.1 mg/L  hexavalent chromium and  1.0 mg/L
individual heavy metals  with  certain limited exceptions.  By 1972,  a  statewide
pretreatment  program was underway requiring  virtually  identical  treatment for
metal finishing industries  discharging to public sewers.

    By the mid 1970's,  the majority  of  metal  finishers had  controls  in place
and  operating.   Strict  compliance  with permit  limits was  certainly not  up
today's  standards.   However,  great  improvements  were  made.    Rivers  once
severely  polluted  were  recovering  and  the  future   looked  bright  for  the
restoration of  the state's inland waterways.   The Naugatuck  River,   virtually
devoid of  aquatic  life  in  1970,  had significantly better  aesthetic  value and
there was  clear  evidence  of the  hardier  forms  of  aquatic  life returning.
Literally tons of heavy  metals and sewage had been removed in  just a  few short

    Despite this  progress and  optimism,  it was  also becoming  clear that  for
certain  rivers,   secondary  treatment   would  not  be   sufficient  to  meet
Connecticut's Water Quality  Standards of 5 mg/L  dissolved oxygen.   Thus began
the development of  numerical water quality models  which predict  the  degree of
treatment  necessary to restore  these remaining  water  quality  limited  stream
segments to Class B, Fishable/swimmable standards.

    The first water quality  model  in  Connecticut  was developed  in 1975  for  the
Quinnipiac River, the  stream tributary to the New  Haven Harbor estuary.  That
model  generated  permit limits  requiring  97%  removal of Ultimate BOD and  95%
removal of SS  for municipal effluents discharged to the river.   Subsequently,
these  removal  efficiencies have been confirmed with more  advanced models  and
ammonia  limits  have been added to  protect  against ammonia  toxicity.   Since
1975, DEP  staff have completed,  or are in the process of completing  models  for
10  rivers.   7  sewage   treatment plants  are  operating  at  advanced  treatment
levels,  6  are  under construction,  1  is  under final design and  7 are  in  the
process of facilities  planning.  In total,  of 83  municipal treatment  plants in
Connecticut,  21  are required to provide  advanced  treatment  at  this  time.   In
addition,  there are 6  small plants with  sand  filters that provide AWT  quality
effluent.  Advanced treatment  at  these  facilities will  eliminate  dissolved
oxygen  depletion  below the  5.0 mg/L standard and  ammonia  toxicity bringing
water quality limited  stream segments  to  the adopted Class B Fishable/swimmable
goal.   Table  I  shows   the  status   of  advanced   treatment  requirements  in

                                    Table I

                Advanced  Treatment Requirements  in Connecticut

North Haven
Ridgefield Rt.  7

Steel Bk.
Williams Bk.




Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan including the hypoxia management
recommendations  will be  completed  in  September  1991.    At  that  time,  the
facilities planning  process  can fine  tune  the  recommendations to  the final
modeling results.

    Although facilities planning would begin with some uncertainty of the final
target for nitrogen control,  failure to  begin  the process  until the final plan
is completed would result in a one year delay in  implementation.

    D)  River Loadings

    As  an  example,  the Housatonic  River contributes approximately  10%  of the
nitrogen loading to Long  Island  Sound.   Further,  this source is in the western
end of the Sound and likely to be significant in  its effect on water quality by
virtue of its proximity to  the problem area.   Although the river is treated as
a point  source  in the modeling  exercise,  its  load is a  combination  of point
sources, non-point  sources,  atmospheric deposition and natural contributions.
The basin  drains approximately 2,000 sq. miles  including  approximately 15-20%
of Connecticut and smaller portions of New York and Massachusetts.  Clearly, if
we  are  to spend hundreds of millions  of  dollars  rebuilding municipal sewage
treatment  plants  in  Connecticut,  we  must   also  develop  a  strategy  for
controlling nitrogen  loads  from  this  and other important tributary rivers.  In
this basin, only 40%  of the  total nitrogen  load can be linked to point sources
leaving  other  sources accounting for  60% or  more  of the  the load.   Also, the
fate  of nitrogen from point  sources  discharged  many miles from the  mouth is
unknown.  Natural denitrification may  remove  a significant portion of the load
before it reaches the Sound.

    At  the  time  the preliminary  plan  is published, it will  be appropriate to
recommend  a  reasonable  goal  for  a percentage reduction  of nitrogen  for the
entire Housatonic basin.  Very preliminary estimates show that  if there were no
anthropogenic  sources,  the  Housatonic River  basin would  contribute  1500 tons
per year and the present  loading  is 5100 tons per year, a 250%  increase.  Under
the  TMDL/WLA process  this  basin  would also  receive  a  load  allocation.   A
reasonable assumption at this time is  that the  load allocation will  be some
percentage of the current load,  say a 25% reduction.

    However,  the  preliminary  plan  will  not  be   able  to  make  specific
recommendations  to   accomplish   a  25%  reduction.    What   is  needed  is  a
comprehensive  evaluation  of  the  basin loadings  and  development of  a specific
nitrogen  control plan.   This  will  literally take  years  to  accomplish and
becomes  one  part of the  "unfinished agenda".   Connecticut will have to commit
to accomplishing this task  and future  activities  will include trend monitoring
and enforcement  as necessary  to manage this giant complex.

    E)  Urban Stormwater Runoff

    Along  Connecticut's  coastline,  urban and  residential  development has been
identified  on a preliminary  basis as  a significant  source of nitrogen.  In
fact, the  Southwestern  Coastal Basin,  which includes much of Fairfield  County,
accounts  for  600 tons per year  of nitrogen from urban runoff.  Further, this
loading  is  at the  western  end  of the  sound  where  its  contribution  is more


                                   Table II

                    Nitrogen Loadings to Long Island Sound

    Waste Water Treatment Plants
    Urban Runoff
    Cropland Runoff
    Forestland Runoff
    Upstream Sources
                                            Annual Loading Tons/yr.
                                           Total 50,200 Tons/yr

    As the  LISS has  progressed,  extensive  monitoring and  investigation into
hypoxia is  leading  to the conclusion  that nitrogen enrichment  is the primary
cause  of  hypoxia.   Algae  blooms  in  mid winter  and  mid  summer  are  being
described by researchers as the cause  of  hypoxia.   Water quality data does not
show high  levels of  organic  contaminants sufficient  to cause  such extensive
oxygen  depletion.   Water  quality  modeling   is  focusing  heavily  on nitrogen
loadings and effects.   The implications of phosphorus  and organic loadings are
also being explored but their control does not appear to be a viable management
alternative at this time.   Clearly,  there  is a strong consensus developing that
recommendations for nitrogen control are an inevitable outcome of  the LISS.

    Connecticut water pollution statutes broadly describe pollution as anything
that  renders  the waters  of the  state unclean  or impure  including physical,
chemical and biological  changes.   At  this time  a strong argument can be made
that nitrogen  is a pollutant  and that sources  should be  required to provide
treatment to remove it.  The concept is the same as the approach used after the
passage  of  Connecticut's  Act   in  1967  which  established  a  standard  of
technological  feasibility  and  Best Available  Treatment  (BAT)  on the national


    Long Island  Sound, as  other water  bodies,  has an assimilative capacity for
pollutants  including  nitrogen.  That  is  the amount of  a pollutant that can be
discharged  without  preventing  the  attainment  of  water  quality  goals  or
impairment  of  designated  uses.   In this  case,  the assimilative  capacity for
nitrogen is being exceeded and the result  is hypoxia.

    The  first  purpose of the  Long  Island  Sound  model  is  to  develop the
assimilative  capacity  for  nitrogen,   called  the  Total  Maximum  Daily Load
(TMDL).  To  identify  this load,  Water Quality Managers  must  first define the
condition to which the Sound must be restored.  On inland waters  this  is  a much
simpler task  with attainment of  the  numeric criteria  for  dissolved oxygen as
the usual  end  point.   However, in  LIS this  is much more complicated.   First,
New York  and  Connecticut  have different  standards of  5.0 mg/L  and 6.0 mg/L
respectively.   Secondly,   the  scientific  justification  for  dissolved  oxygen


    To  summarize the historical perspective, when  the  New England River Basins
Commission initiated their study of Long  Island Sound  in 1971,  Connecticut was
struggling to restore degraded inland waters.  Although rapid progress in water
quality management  was  made  in  the  1970's,   it  was   not  yet  time  to  focus
attention on the open waters of Long  Island Sound.   By the mid 1980's, control
of pollution of  inland  waters  was becoming  manageable.   Connecticut was ready
in 1985 when  the Long Island  Sound  Study (LISS) was  initiated and  now is the
time to move forward rapidly to manage water quality in the Sound, the ultimate
receptor of Connecticut's water borne pollutants.


    A)  Discovery of Hypoxia

    The late  Professor  Gordon Riley  of  Yale University  performed  hundreds of
dissolved oxygen measurements  over the entire  Sound from 1952  to 1955.   Not a
single data point showed  dissolved oxygen levels less  than 3.0  mg/L, the level
below which is  generally  considered  "hypoxic".   In contrast,  Professor Barbara
Welsh  of  the University  of  Connecticut  in  1987  found bottom waters  in large
areas  of  the  Sound west  of  the  Housatonic River below  3 mg/L  and some bottom
waters  less than  1.0  mg/1,   a  condition  called  anoxia.   Some  near coastal
waters, noteably Hempstead Harbor, had severe  oxygen  depletion throughout the
entire  water  column.   Measurements  were  repeated  in   1988 and the hypoxic
condition was  confirmed  although  minimum values were  not  as low as  in 1987.
The  contrast  between the data sets  seems to  indicate  that hypoxia  has  been
worsening  over the last  thirty five years.  In Chesapeake Bay,  hypoxia has now
been described as  a persistent condition for  the summertime over much of the
upper bay.  A  Chesapeake Bay  researcher  recently  observed that the conditions
in  the Sound  look similar  to the  conditions  in the  Bay  thirty  years  ago.
Perhaps this  is  a  chilling prediction of the  Sound's  fate if  nothing is  done
now to halt the advance of chronic hypoxia.

    B) Loadings and Sources

    Early in  the LISS,  two primary issues were identified for  study:  nutrient
and  organic  enrichment  or   eutrophication and  toxic   contamination.   After
discovering the  extent  and secverity  of  oxygen depletion,  eutrophication gave
way  to  hypoxia,  a  more  direct  term   indicating   the  effect  of  nutrient
enrichmnent  and this  focused the  study.   Algae  blooms were  associated  with
hypoxic  events and  the  theory quickly  emerged  that  nitrogen enrichment was
causing marine  algae  blooms  leading to the  depletion  of dissolved oxygen when
the algae  dies and decays.  Among other pollutants,  an  inventory of nitrogen
loadings   was   accomplished  by   the   National   Oceanic   and  Atmospheric
Administration(NOAA)  as  part  of  their   National  Coastal Pollutant  Discharge
Inventory(NCPDI).   The   NCPDI  estimates   of  pollutant  loadings  used current
wastewater  discharge  permit  information  and the LISS  sponsored  monitoring to
confirm and/or adjust these loadings.

    The NCPDI  inventory  indicated  that  the total  nitrogen loading  to  LIS is
approximately  50,000  tons/yr.   It  must be noted that  40% is  attributed to the
Connecticut River  at  the easterly end of the  Sound.   Table  II summarizes the
NCPDI loading estimates for nitrogen.

criteria is much  less  certain.   In simplistic  terms,  one of the most  critical
tasks is for the Long  Island  Sound Management Conference to collectively  agree
on a  condition that represents  restoration of  the  Sound to  a level  at  which
water  quality   goals   are  met.   Once  this  is  accomplished,  the  model can
calculate the  load of nitrogen  that results  in this condition,  or the  TMDL.
This will be presented in  terms  of pounds/day for the Sound as a whole or for
certain geographic areas.


    After developing the TMDL,  it must then  be allocated among sources.  This
is called  a Waste  Load  Allocation  (WLA)  and  describes  the  total daily load
allowable in pounds/day  for  each source  including  permitted facilities.  For
the Sound,  the modeling will  not be sensitive to individual sources  except the
very  largest.   For example,   the  model  may  indicate  the  Sound is  sensitive to
the loading of the Housatonic River but it  will not show sensitivity to  single
point sources  such as  the  City of Milford's STP at the mouth  of the  Housatonic
River.   It  can  be  expected  that  the model will  demonstrate  water   quality
impacts in the western basin  (and maybe the central basin).    From  the  combined
loadings from Connecticut's major shoreline sewage treatment plants.

    Therefore,  the net result of  the modeling analysis   is  likely  to be  a WLA
for  Connecticut's major  shoreline  STPs  and  each plant  will be  required to
remove  a percentage  of their individual  nitrogen loads.  There will not be a
technical justification  for  fine tuning  the  loads among individual  facilities
and politically  it is probably  not feasible  to do  so  anyway.   Permit  limits
will be developed reflecting  the  allocated  loads.

    The allocation among point sources  will also reflect non-point sources and
atmospheric  deposition  and  the  practical  ability  to  control   these  other
sources.  Although the costs  for  controlling  nitrogen at  point sources  is  high,
this  may  be   the  only  feasible  way  to  make  significant  water   quality
improvements given the difficulty in controlling non-point sources.   It must be
recognized  that  the concept  of  a WLA is  that  this is  a  final  load that a
municipality must stay  within   from  this point  on.   The existing concept of
continually  expanding  sewer  service  to  serve  growth  will have practical
limitations because higher and higher efficiency treatment technology will have
to be  employed as discharge  volumes  grow in  order  to keep  the total  nitrogen
load level.  Municipalities will  have to  confront this issue head on and define
the ultimate growth and development of  their  community.


    After  management   options   are   defined  by   the   modeling   activities,
implementation  must be  by   a  series  of  short  and long  term  actions that
collectively represent a logical  management approach.  Following are management
concepts that need to be part of  long term plans  to control  hypoxia.

    A)  Planning Policy

    Since  it   is  known  that  nitrogen  controls  are  an  inevitable  management
consequence, any municipal sewage  treatment plant now undergoing renovations or
rebuilding,   including  CSO   projects,  should  incorporate   future  plans  for
nitrogen  removal.   This  planning  should  begin  immediately  as   design  and


construction taking  place now will  affect the  communities ability  to remove
nitrogen later.   Connecticut adopted  such a  policy in  1989  and  has  already
worked with 5 municipalities to  incorporate  future nitrogen removal into their
present  activities.   In  certain  cases  minor  design  changes  or  additional
construction now will save large amounts of money in the future.

    B) Interim Action/Retrofit Existing Facilities

    The  City  of  Stamford  has  already  demonstrated  that  minor  equipment
additions and process changes  can remove nitrogen  at existing facilities.   In
simple terms, a "dead zone" that is allowed to go anoxic is created at the head
end  of the  secondary  aeration  tank  and nitrified mixed  liquor(a  mixture of
sewage and  cultivated bacteria)  from the  end  of the tank  is  recycled  back to
this  zone.   Microbes  then  use  the  oxygen  atoms  from  the  nitrate  molecule
(NO,)  and  release nitrogen  to  the  atmosphere  as  a gas.   Stamford has  been
able to remove approximately 70% of the total nitrogen using this technique.

    The  Connecticut  Department  of Environmental  Protection has  explored  the
feasibility  of  doing this  at  13  municipal  plants along  the  shoreline  from
Greenwich to Branford.  A preliminary estimate is  that up  to  50%  of the total
nitrogen load might be able to be removed at these plants.  Conceiveably, there
might even be a measureable improvement in Long Island Sound water quality with
this interim action.   Costs for  interim retrofits can be expected to be between
$50,000 and $100,000 per facility.

    Given the moderate costs and potential success  of this  action,  it should be
considered  as the  first  phase  of municipal nitrogen removal.   The Long Island
Sound  Bi-State   Committee,  Subcommittee  on Water  Quality has endorsed  this
concept.  Connecticut is  planning to  implement  a program  of  retrofits and is
working  with the  legislature  to  create  a one  million  dollar  fund  to assist
municipalities.    One of  the  benefits of  this  approach  is  that  it   can be
implemented much more quickly than major renovations.  In Connecticut we expect
this   program   to   be  fully   implemented  within  one  year.    It  must   be
recognizedthat this is an interim action and recycle within the aeration system
creates practical  limitations  in the  amount  of additional sewage  that can be

    C)  Facilities Planning

    The  long term solution  for Long  Island Sound  involves  rebuilding and/or
expanding existing municipal treatment plants  to  provide  year  round nitrogen
removal at  a relatively  high level of  removal.   The engineering evaluation of
site   specific   facilities,   called  "Facilities   Planning"   will  result  in
recommendations  for  modifications and contruction of  new  facilities.   The
process takes one  to  two  years  and yields preliminary design criteria and  cost

    When the preliminary  management plan for  hypoxia is  released in September
of  1990, it will be appropriate to  begin the  facilities  planning process for
those  municipalities  that   are  within  the   management  area.    Since  the
preliminary plan will be  based on the  water  quality model without the benefit
of a completed hydrodynainic model, there will be a  certain  level of uncertainty
in  the recommendations.   Therefore,  initial facilities planning  will  have to
begin based on a range of removal efficiencies that may be  required.  The Final


    It  is  likely  that modeling  will  show  little  if any  response  to these
loadings,    However,   continued  development   of  the   shoreline  will   increase
loadings'and tend  to  gradually offset gains made  by  controlling point  sources
and river  basins.   The long term strategy must  include  goals for controlling
nitrogen from  this  source.   Perhaps the goal  will be no  increase  over a base
year to be accomplished by  implementation  of best management practices  (BMP's)
to control non-point sources of nitrogen.  Since any new development, even with
BMP's, will increase loadings, BMP's would have to be implemented for  existing
development  to  offset new development  related  increases.   Like  the river
basins, a  comprehensive  evaluation of these  sources  and  their controllability
and specific recommendations is  required.  This will  take years and is  another
part  of the  "unfinished agenda".   Controllability and associated  costs are a
significant issue in this case and least return for the effort and money is to
be  expected.   Regardless,   a  comprehensive plan  for  improving  the  Sound must
address these issues.

    F)  Atmospheric Deposition

    Estimates  indicate  that as much as  20%  of the total  nitrogen load to the
Sound  is   from  atmospheric  deposition  directly on  the 1,300  mi.  sq.  of the
Sounds  surface.   Further,   wet  and dry  deposition are also  integral  parts of
river  basin  loadings, urban  runoff and non-point sources  in general.  Since
atmoshperic fallout is evenly distributed  over  the entire  area of the Sound, it
may  not  be   identified  as  a  source,   that  if  controlled,  would  result in
measureable  improvements  to the  water  quality  of the Sound.   However, it is
certainly  contributing  to  hypoxia and  cannot  be  ignored.   The plan  will
probably  identify some  level  of  control  of  atmospheric deposition  based on
national policies  for  acid  rain  and air pollution control laws.  To date, acid
rain  has  not been identified  as  having a significant impact on Connecticut's
water  resources.   Now there is a  clear  link between  nitrogen compounds in air
pollution  and  significant water  quality problems in the state's most important
water  resource.   Although  this  problem  must be  controlled  nationally,  the
management plan  for  the  Sound  will  probably  include   recommendations  to
implement  efforts  to  control  air pollution.   Implementation will be through an
entirely  different  route    probably through  the  State's  Air Pollution  Program
to urge adoption of national laws  and policies.


    Recent estimates  are that  to rebuild thirteen  of the  major  plants along
Connecticut's  shoreline,  it would  cost  close to  $500  million.   Assuming  that
facilities planning is completed by 1992 for  these plants, it would leave eight
years  for  design and  construction if the  goal  is completion by the year 2000.
On  the average,  this  would mean  a commitment of  $60-65  million per year  over
and  above  the current rate  of expenditure which is  similar.  A recent  omnibus
bonding  bill  introduced in   the Connecticut  legislature  for  a variety of
environmental  and agriculture projects  amounted to  $125  million.   Of  course,
the  jury  is  still out on this proposed bill  but at  least  its  not  out of the
question  to  discuss  this sum  of  money  publicly.  Perhaps the  issue is one of
priorities rather than total dollar amount.

    Other  implementation requires  rather  lengthy  investigations  and  planning
and  it is  fairly reasonable to assume that substantial progress can be  made by
the  year  2000.   It must also  be remembered  that  this will not be  a  one  time


effort but  an initial surge  followed by a permanent  sustained  effort.   By the
year  2000 much of the  initial  surge can be  behind us and the  focus  of effort
should  be  on monitoring  and  enforcement at  sewage  treatment plants,  trend
monitoring  of  water  quality  in the  Sound  and  the wide  variety  of  other
management   functions   dealing  with  coastal   development,   non-point  source
management, habitat  preservation and resource management.


    It  has  taken  over  100 years  to degrade Long  Island  Sound to  its  present
condition.   The first  report of  the State  Sewage Commission,  to  the  General
Assembly,   published in  1899  stated  that  of  eighteen  principal  cities  in
Connecticut  having  sewer  systems,   only  Meriden and  Danbury  purify  their
sewage.   The population in these  cities  was 481,000  according  to  census data.
The report  further  stated  that "All  other cities discharge  their  sewage into
water-ways:    "water carriage and dilution"."   Further, there  were  eight other
buroughs having sewer systems  and of these  only  Bristol  and Litchfield purify
theirs.   Thus  in  1899  there   were at  least  twenty two  substantial  sewage
collection  systems discharging untreated  sewage  to the waters  of the state.   A
chapter  of  the report was  entitled  "The  Present Evils of the  System of Water
Carriage in  Connecticut" so  it  is evident  that all was  not well.   Danbury
installed a treatment system after  a landmark case in 1895  in  which they were
found liable for  polluting the Still River and interfering with riparian rights
of a downstream mill owner.

    Great progress has been  made since the passage of state and federal water
pollution control laws in the late 60's and 70's.  Now, however, the cumulative
effect of nitrogen from a wide variety of  sources has  significantly contributed
to the hypoxic conditions that  have been  documented in Long Island Sound.  The
Sound is not nearly as  severely impacted  as  the Chesepeake  Bay but conditions
are almost  surely getting worse.  Connecticut's most precious water resource is
in trouble.

    On the positive side,  we have  the  most sophisticated modeling tools that
have ever been available to explore management options.  The Sound  is not dead,
just exceeding its  assimilative capacity.  It  is  well within our abilities to
restore water quality, not  to  the "pastoral setting", but  to  a good condition
that is aesthetically pleasing  and  supports  a healthy, marine environment.  It
is really a matter of the will of the people to do this.   It is my opinion that
the will and ability  is there  and  that by  the year  2000 great  progress will
have been made in restoring the Sound.


                     SOUND-HARBOR-BIGHT SYSTEM:
                       SOURCE, FATE, AND CONTROL
                                  Guy Apicella
                               Director of Modeling

                                Michael J. Skelly

                                  Ann Corsetti
                                 Project Engineer
                         Lawler, Malusky & Skelly Engineers
    Pathogens and floatables have a number of common characteristics, but they are also
unlike. They are paired for these conference proceedings mainly because of their similar
impact on our coastal waters. The common as well as the distinctive characteristics of these
two pollutants are described in this paper.

    A number of sources contribute microbial contamination and floatable debris into our
 coastal waters.  The three major contributors, particularly in urban areas  of the tristate
 coastal  area, are combined sewer  overflows  (CSOs), sewage  treatment plants,  and
 stormwater runoff.  A minor source of pathogens is bottom sediment.  Minor sources of
 floatables are landfills and marine transfer stations, littering by beachgoers and commercial
 and recreational boaters, refloating of stranded debris, decaying wooden piers, and illegal
 dumping. The relative magnitude of these sources of pathogens and floatables varies within
 the Sound-Bight-Harbor system.

    Ninety-nine  wastewater  treatment  plants discharge  into  the  Interstate Sanitation
 District's waters  (Figure 1) (ISC,  1988).  Of  these, 15 provide  primary  treatment; 76,
 secondary treatment.  Pathogens  and floatables can enter a water body as a result of plant
 breakdowns, power failures, sanitary line breaks, and suboptimal disinfection (pathogens

    CSOs are probably the greatest single source of pathogenic and floatable contamination.
There are 677 CSO outfalls in the district, located primarily in the New York-New Jersey



                                                   C  0  N  N E  C T
                                                                 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
                                                                              IN THE
                                                                 INTERSTATE SANITATION DISTRICT


                                                                      Apicella, et al.

coastal regions (Figure 2).  New York has the greatest number  511   followed by New
Jersey with 101 and Connecticut with 65. Combined sewer systems have regulators that limit
the flow of sanitary wastewater and stormwater runoff to the treatment plant to prevent
hydraulic overloading.  Overflows  occur when the hydraulic  capacity of the regulators is
exceeded.   Rainfalls as little as 0.04  in./hr can  cause overflows.   As a result, municipal
sewage and urban refuse washed off streets are discharged untreated and unscreened into
New York-New Jersey waters.  The total  CSO flow from the service areas of New York
City's 14 water pollution control plants (WPCP)  alone is 556  million gallons in an average
storm, or 0.39 in. of rain  in 6.7 hrs (O'Brien & Gere, 1986).

Pathogen Indicators

    Water contaminated by this  sewage poses a  public health concern.   Pathogenic
organisms  contained in sewage  can  cause typhoid,  hepatitis,  dysentery,  and  other
gastrointestinal illnesses.  The bacteriological quality of waters for contact and noncontact
recreation  as well as  shellfishing  is  traditionally monitored by  the use of  two widely
recognized indicators, total and fecal coliform. These indicators have numerical criteria set
according to the intended use of the water body. For example, New York waters classified
for bathing have a monthly median limit of 200/100 ml.  The average fecal coliform content
in CSOs is  3.5xl06/100 ml.

    Pathogenic organisms are more closely associated with human than animal waste, but
the standard coliform  analysis cannot  differentiate  the source.   Another  indicator,
enterococci  (a subgroup of fecal  strep),  is  gaining acceptance, in part because  it has
demonstrated good correlation between levels and  human illness.   The Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Bacteria (EPA, 1986)  recommends enterococci for marine waters and
E. coli for fresh water.  Currently, the tristate water quality standards specify two indicators
for their coastal waters:

     New York - Total and fecal  coliform
     New Jersey  Fecal coliform and enterococci
    Connecticut - Total coliform and enterococci

    Fecal and total coliform and enterococci levels are reduced approximately 99.99% by
chlorination (NJSDOH, 1988).  However,  organisms that resist chlorination are a concern.
Viruses can still be present at significant levels in the treated effluent. Viral assays, however,
are lengthy and difficult. Currently, experimental assays are being conducted on the f2 male-
specific bacteriophage as a possible indicator of viral contamination.  (A bacteriophage is
a virus that infects  bacteria and, like viruses,  it is resistant to  chlorination.)

                       SHORELINE SEGMENTS
                       HAVING CSO OUTFALLS

                                                                     ApiceSIa, et ai.
Characteristics of Floatables
    Floatables are solid waste materials and natural debris that remain buoyant at the water
surface; unlike microbial contamination, they are visible to the eye. Composed of general
trash, medical items, and natural debris (kelp, wood), floatables are aesthetically unpleasing
and sometimes detrimental to marine life.  When not combined with sewage, they pose more
of a public  safety concern (broken glass,  sharp objects) than  a public health concern.
However,  the heightened media coverage of beach washups in 1987 and 1988 focused on
syringes because of the association with AIDS.

    During  the past few years there has been an increase in the collection of quantifiable
data on floatables. Figure 3 shows the  amount of floatable material removed from the Flow
Balancing Method (FBM) prototype being  tested on two CSOs in Brooklyn's 26th Ward
service  area.   The  quantity  of  floatables  appears  to  be  directly related to  rainfall
(HydroQual, 1989).

    The pathways of floatable pollution interconnect wastewater treatment and solid waste
disposal operations at marine  transfer stations and landfills.  Most wastewater solids are
removed by  bar racks, screens, and skimmers early in primary treatment and disposed of in
landfills. But inadequate equipment and/or improper operational procedures at landfills and
marine transfer stations can cause floatables to reenter the water.

    Much evidence also indicates  that floatables are generally found close to their sources.
A 1989 study (HydroQual, 1989) comparing the amounts of floatables in the open water with
those on the  beach showed more glass,  metal, styrofoam, paper, and medical items (syringes)
at the beach (Figure 4).  This was probably because the  pathways from the nearby CSO
sources to the beaches did not intersect the open-water monitoring transects.  In addition
to the transport of floatables via water, glass, cans, styrofoam, and paper were probably also
left by beachgoers. It is believed that  most of the syringes found on Connecticut's beaches
were left behind by drug users, not washed up from the water (CDEP/CDHS, 1989).  Nearly
90% of the  material captured in  the  open water was plastic, generally fragmented and
weathered so that it "swims" just below the  water surface.

    Beaches on Staten Island  and Brooklyn experience heavy impacts of floatable debris,
probably from the Fresh  Kills Landfill (NYSDEC,  1988).   Because illegal  dumping  is
episodic, poorly monitored, and seldom documented, the percentage it  contributes to the
floatables present in our coastal waters is unknown.

CSO and Treatment Plant Coliform Loads

    The fecal coliform loads  discharged in the  treated  effluent of New York City's 14
WPCPs are estimated in Table 1.  Fecal coliform loads discharged by CSOs in each plant's
service area are estimated for an average rain of 0.39 in. in  6.67 hrs (O'Brien & Gere, 1986).







            NOV DEC


              *	—	        1989 —	»
                NYCDEP 26lhWard Regulators 2 and 2A CSO Floatables
                                                            HydroQuai, Inc.

                     FIGURE 4
              Wood (0.4%
           Rubber (1.0%
      Styrofoom (6.5%
       Metal (0.2%
Cloth (0.4%)
 Paper (1.6%)
  Medical (0.0%)
                                 Plastic (89.6%)
             Open  Water  Trawling
       Captured  Material  Distribution
                  Medical (0.4%)
              Paper (9.1%)
          Cloth (0.8%)
       Wood (6.2%)
    Class (5.8%)
  Rubber (0.7%)
Styrofoom (19.3%)
                                             Plastic (47.0%)
                Metal (10.8%)
              Beach  Monitoring
       Captured Material  Distribution
                                                  HydroQual, Inc.

                                  TABLE 1

Wards Island
North River
Hunts Point
26th Ward
Coney Island
Owls Head
Newtown Creek
Red Hook
Tallman Island
Bowery Bay
Oakwood Beach
Port Richmond
WPCP 1989 Average1 CSO for Average Rain Storm2
Avg Avg Fecal Avg Combined Sewer Fecal Load
Flow Coliform Load Overflow Coliform
MGD counts/lOOmL counts/day MG3 lE06/100mL counts




1. 10E+16
Source:  NYCDEP Discharge Monitoring Reports.
 Source: O'Brien and Gere 1986.

Corresponds to 0.39 inches of rain during a 6.67 hour storm.

                                                                    Apicella, et al.
The comparison shows that the total CSO load during an average storm is more than 10,000
times greater than the  total  treatment plant load.  The annual total coliform load for a
typical New York City WPCP service area, Hunts Point, was evaluated by modeling CSO
discharges from 1957 through 1985 (Figure 5). The median yearly coliform load from CSOs
is approximately 250 times greater than the Hunts Point  WPCP effluent load, based  on
NYCDEP's  1989  flow  data (NYCDEP,  1989)  and  LMS'  1988-1989  total coliform
concentration data (LMS, 1989a).

    CSO loadings are affected primarily by rainfall intensity and accumulation, which have
certain expected return periods.  The variation in coliform loadings from CSOs for a range
of rainfalls is  shown in Figure 6.  The six-month storm produces a coliform load 20 times
that of a storm with a five-day return period. These comparisons demonstrate that CSOs
are  the  predominant source of coliforms and  the  magnitude  of this load varies  greatly
depending on the rainstorm.

    Ocean dynamics, estuarine  transport,  and meteorological conditions  influence the
survival of microbial  organisms and the transport of floatables. The fate of pathogens is
controlled primarily by two mechanisms:  (1) transport/dilution and (2) degradation. The
momentum of the waves and the wind in ocean waters and tidal flow within estuaries affects
the movement and persistence of bacterial contamination.  The degradation of pathogen
indicators in water bodies is relatively fast and attributable to salinity, temperature, and

East River Total Coliform Concentrations

The response of bacteriological levels to CSO discharges is evident in East River sampling
data for a wet-weather survey (LMS, 1989b).  The total precipitation of approximately 1 in.
started at 0400  hrs and had a peak intensity of 0.30 in./hr, which  corresponds to a  return
period of 25 days.  The total coliform concentrations in the East and Harlem rivers observed
prior  to rainfall were well below NYSDEC  criteria.  The  distributions of  total  coliform
concentrations consistently show greater levels in the lower East River and lower levels near
western Long Island Sound. Increased concentrations are evident in the data  collected from
5 to 10 hrs after the onset of rain. Peak concentrations, which are approximately an order
of magnitude greater  than those prior to rainfall and at approximately half of the sampling
stations exceed NYSDEC's monthly criteria, occur about half a day after rainfall. Coliform
concentrations decrease during  the next 1.5  days such that  the concentrations measured
three days after  rainfall are nearly back to prerainfall levels.  The impact of CSO discharges
is also evident in other areas of the New York-New Jersey harbor.  Hydrodynamic and time-

Hunts Point Service Area Combined Sewer Overflows
            Total Yearly Coliforrn  Load,  1957-1985

            10 -
            0.1 -
           0.01 -
          Total Coliform Load (counts x 10
    Note: WPCP Average Yearly Total Coliform Load =  1.9x10   counts


                   Total Coliform Loadings From The

           Hunts Point WPCP Discharge and Loadings From

              Hunts Point Combined Sewer  Overflows For

                         A Range  of Ram  Events
                         Combined Sewer Overflows





             Rain (in)  0.35   0.69   1.50  1.90  2.30

Peak Hourly Intensity (in/hr)  0.05   0.19   0.32  0.59  0.70

     Return Period (days)   5     14    30    90   180


Average Daily Load

variable water quality models are being applied to analyze the fate of pathogen indicators.
For example, responses of the New York-New Jersey harbor to CSO discharges are being
modeled as part of New York City's CSO abatement program.

Seasonal Nature of Floatables

    Floatables are transient and seasonal (the largest impacts occur during the summer).
They do not degrade readily and must be physically removed from the environment.  If not
removed, the spring tides associated with the new and the full moon will cause floatables to
reenter the water as evidenced by EPA data on  floatable material (EPA, 1989) removed
from open waters (Figure 7). The generation of floatables into coastal waters is heightened
during the summer season. Short-term meteorological events (freshwater inflow, heavy rains,
and high-speed onshore winds) cause washups in the vicinity of the source loading.

    Nevertheless, long distance transport is influenced by tidal currents and circulation in
the Hudson-Raritan estuary.  A high Hudson River freshwater inflow intensifies the Hudson-
Raritan coastal  plume that  hugs the New Jersey shore.   The  plume carries with it a
substantial floatable load. Dry spells followed by intense rains flush the urban area of debris
and cause CSOs and high loadings on collection and treatment systems that may result in
operational failures.  Once in the Bight, these floatables are then subjected to the Bight's
currents and winds.  Wind seems to have the greatest significance on beach washups. It has
been observed that strandings occur when one wind direction persists for an extended period
of time.  Depending on  the  direction, either New Jersey or Long Island beaches may be
affected. In 1976 and 1988, strong south-southwesterly winds persisted in the Bight. As a
result,  Long Island was impacted greatly (Figure 8). By contrast, in 1987 climatological
information  shows that winds from  the east-northeast prevailed (Figure 9). The Hudson-
Raritan plume with its high floatable load stayed  much closer to the New Jersey coast  and
beach  washups occurred.

    Floatables can  exhibit  much variability, however, making their fate  difficult to
determine.   Current analytical techniques employ field measurements, drogue release  and
tracking, strandograms, and hindcasting.  Models developed to simulate the transport of oil
or sewage spills are being used to analyze the fate of floatables. During the EPA Floatables
Action in  1989, three   of  the sightings  of floatable  slicks  were   communicated  to
USCG/NOAA. They monitored meteorological conditions, used their model to predict the
fate (dispersion or landfall) of the debris slick, and reported their predictions in a timely

    As CSOs are probably the greatest single source of floatables and pathogens to our
coastal waters, they are the focus of control strategies.  EPA's strategy for CSOs directs the
state to consider technology-based as well as water quality-based requirements.  Because
CSOs are covered generally by  SPDES permits that prohibit the  discharge of floatable
material, a technology-based approach is appropriate. The tasks for a technology-based




                                            FIGURE 7

                         1989  Floatables  Action  Plan

                                AMOUNT OF FLOATABLES COLLECTED
       50 -
       40 -
        30 -
        2Q -
        10 -
         o  iimhiitiiHiiiiiHiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiifilinimiiiiiin
          £  *
                                                                               O - Full Moon

                                                                               • - New Moon
                                                                          U.S. Environmental Protection Agency


                                NEW YORK
                    UPPER HARBOR

                       NEWARK BAY
                     RARITAN RIVER
             NEW JERSEY
                                                                     NEW YORK BIGHT
                                                    BARNEGET BAY

                                                   BARNEGET INLET
                     Arrow direction denotes current direction.  Current
                     velocity Is proportional to the length of the arrow.
                                 HERFORD INLET
                                                                                       NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

                            NEW YORK

                UPPER HARBOR

                   NEWARK BAY


                 RARITAN RIVER
                                                X  JAMAICA BAY

                                               , LOWER HARBOR
' /  '    •  I '   \  ^  \  »
                                              BARNEQET BAY

                                             BARNEGET INLET
          NEW JERSEY
                             HERFORD INLET
                    Arrow direction denote* current direction. Current
                    velocity )• proportional to the length of the arrow.
                                                                             NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

approach focus on the land aspects of the CSO problem; the water quality-based approach
goes beyond that  to evaluate, in detail, the water quality response to CSO  abatement
alternatives (Figure 10).

    The control of other discharge sources of floatables and pathogens (storm water, for
example) necessitates an analytical framework similar to that described for CSOs.

Technology-Based  Control

    A clear understanding of the combined sewer  system is attained  by collecting and
compiling available data, measuring the flow and pollutant loadings, and using these data to
model the CSO discharges. Designing removal facilities for floatables (e.g., swirl concentra-
tors) necessitates the selection of a reasonable rainfall condition, such as the maximum
hourly rainfall that occurs once every three,  six, or 12 months, to evaluate the hydraulic
design.  Cost-effectiveness, land availability, and economic considerations also have to be
considered in selecting the targeted level of control.

Water Quality-Based Control

    New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut have numerical criteria for bacteriological
parameters in their water quality standards.  These criteria are  generally specified as  a
statistical term (geometric mean, median) for a monthly time period. In addition, numerical
criteria  for  the other  water  quality constituents,  such  as dissolved  oxygen,  may be
contravened because of CSO  discharges.  Substandard DO concentrations are commonly
found in the upper tributaries to the Sound-Habor-Bight system.  Technical evaluation of
the extent  of control necessary to comply  with bacteriological as well as  other standards
requires  these additional tasks:

    •    Field sampling, measurement, and laboratory  analyses  of receiving

    •    Modeling of receiving waterbody response

    •    Projections of reduction in bacteriological loading for design storms (or
         a continuous period of rain events) that will achieve compliance with
         applicable standards

    This water quality-based  approach is  exemplified by  New York City's CSO Facility
Planning projects, which include extensive field sampling to provide synoptic data for model
validation.  The extent of CSO control is analyzed by first  identifying areas of poor water
quality, where water quality standards are not being met.  These are found typically in the
upstream portions of tributaries, such as Flushing Creek, Paedegart Basin, and Gowanus
Canal, where there are relatively large CSO outfalls.

    The reductions in pollutant loadings of coliforms, biochemical oxygen  demand (BOD),
and total suspended solids (TSS) are evaluated  jointly for a range  of control technologies


                           TECHNOLOGY BASED
                                 (Floa tables)
                          Collect Sewer System Data
                             CSO Field Sampling
                           Modeling CSO Discharges
Rain Conditions
Develop and Evaluate Alternatives
                                                                      WATER QUALITY BASED
                                                                        (Pathogen Indicators)
                                                                       Collect Water Quality Data
                                                                       Receiving Water Sampling
                                                                    Modeling Receiving Water Quality
                                                                            Compare Projected Water
                                                                              Quality to Standards

e.g., in-line  or  off-line storage, swirl concentrator,  disinfection).  The improvements in
coliform and dissolved oxygen concentrations that would result from these CSO reductions
are projected and compared with the water quality standards.  Combinations of the CSO
abatement alternatives are developed by interfacing the water quality modeling with other
tasks, including environmental assessment, design engineering, and public participation. How
much control of pathogen indicators is needed to restore beneficial  uses in the  system is
currently being  evaluated in New York-New Jersey Harbor as part of New York City CSO
abatement projects.

Beach Monitoring for Pathogen Indicators

    The practices of the local county health departments in monitoring the bacteriological
quality of beaches are geared to short-term periods.  Because a 28-day period of data
collection to evaluate compliance with  standards would not allow fast enough action for
health protection, routine monitoring data for  periods of two to seven days are assessed
regularly.  If two or three consecutive samples at a beach exceed the monthly criterion, the
beach may be closed if the cause is identifiable and justifies this action. These beach closure
practices require that control of CSOs and other sources in the vicinity of beaches have a
high level of assurance (i.e., backup systems).  Nevertheless, the random nature of rainfall
and associated  pathogen loadings may  result in a short-term  beach closure even though
monthly bacteriological criteria are being met.

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and Department of Health Services
    (CDEP/CDHS).  May  1989.  Coastal sanitation report.

HydroQual, Inc.  1989.  City of New York city-wide floatable study.  Division of CSO
    Abatement, Bureau of Heavy Construction, Department of Environmental Protection,
    and Department of Sanitation.

Interstate Sanitation Commission (ISC).  October 1988.  Combined sewer outfalls in the
    Interstate Sanitation District.

Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers (LMS).  1989a. Task 2.4, Water quality monitoring of
    East River  CSO project.  Data  installments No.  4  (21  March 1989) and No.  7 (4
    December 1989).

Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers (LMS).  1989b.  Presentation of water quality data on
    East River to Citizens Advisory Committee meeting,  26 October 1989.

New Jersey State  Department of Health (NJSDOH).   March 1988.  A study  of the
    relationship between illnesses and ocean beach water quality.

                                                                  Apicella, et al.
New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP).  1989.  Discharge
   monitoring reports for January through December 1989.

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). December 1988.
   Investigation: sources of beach washups in 1988.

O'Brien & Gere Engineers,  Inc.   1986. City-wide combined sewer overflow study.  Final

U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  1986. Ambient water quality criteria for
   bacteria - 1986. PB86-158045.

U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA).   Region II.   1989.   Assessment of the
   floatables action plan.

                         AN UNFINISHED AGENDA
                              Robert Gaffoglio, P.E.
                          Acting Deputy Director (Design)
                          Bureau of Heavy Construction
                           New York City Department of
                   Environmental Protection, New York, New York
      The five boroughs of New York City are divided into fourteen (14) sewage treatment
plant drainage areas. These 14 plants treat approximately 1.7 billion gallons of sewage every
day.  This sewage is conveyed to the plants through approximately 6,000 miles of sewers.
Between 70% and 80% of these are combined sewers.

      During dry weather, the combined sewers function as sanitary sewers, conveying all
flows to the treatment plants. During wet weather, however, large volumes of rainfall runoff
enter the system. If this water was conveyed to the treatment plants, it would exceed their
hydraulic capacity. (The plants are designed to handle twice their average dry weather flow
for limited periods.) To avoid flooding the plants, regulators are built  into the combined
sewers to act as relief valves.  During and immediately after rainfall, the combined sewers
continue to carry up to twice the average dry weather flow to the treatment plants, but
above that level, the regulators shunt  all additional flow to the nearest  waterway. During
these discharges, or combined sewer overflows (CSO), a portion of the sanitary sewage
entering or already in the combined sewers will be discharged into the waterway along with
storm water and debris washed from the streets.

      There are more than 400 CSO's distributed along the City's shoreline. The smallest
of these is 12 inches in diameter with a contributing drainage area of 2 or 3 city blocks. An
example of one of the larger outfalls is at  the head of Flushing Creek.  It is a three barrel
outfall, 10 feet high by 60 feet wide overall.

      From the earliest times,  Combined Sewer Overflows were recognized as a major
source of pollution. During the 1950's, the City contracted for a series of studies leading to
"The Elimination of Marginal Pollution" or CSO.  These studies resulted in facility plans for


approximately 25 CSO retention basins in Eastchester Bay, the Upper East River and
Jamaica Bay. These basins would capture most overflows and return them to the treatment
plants after the storm.  Any storm overflow exceeding the capacity of the retention basin
would be  discharged after having a major portion of the sewage solids, and all  of the
floatables, removed through an approximate equivalent of primary treatment. Disinfection
would also be performed on these excess flows where necessary to protect swimming waters.

      A major  construction  program,  called  "The  Auxiliary  Water  Pollution Control
Program", was planned.  The proposed CSO  facility at Spring Creek  on Jamaica Bay was
designated as a prototype and was advanced first.  The Spring Creek facility was opened in
1972 and resulted in significant water quality improvements. The facility has been operating
since 1972 and has caused a dramatic improvement in the condition of Spring Creek.

      The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 was,  ironically, the main reason for
the suspension of the Auxiliary Program after the completion of the Spring Creek facility.
This law provided unprecedented funding for pollution control but  gave priority  to the
elimination of raw discharges and  the achievement of secondary treatment at new and
existing treatment plants.  New York City's treatment plant needs were so great that no
resources  were available for CSO control.  This delay, however, was beneficial because
subsequent studies and developments in CSO control pointed the way toward more cost-
effective solutions.

      From 1975 through 1977 the City conducted a harborwide water quality study funded
by a Federal Grant under Section 208 of the Water Pollution Control  Act Amendments of
1972.  This study included development of a water quality computer model and monitoring
of combined sewer overflows.  Initial results showed that, on  a steady-state basis, the effect
of CSO's on the dissolved oxygen (D.O.) levels of most of the  "open water" parts  of the
harbor complex were insignificant. Notable exceptions were  the narrow creeks, canals and
backwaters of certain bays, where CSO's could  result in contravention of water quality
standards, at least on an intermittent basis.

      Consequently, a separate study was made  of these confined water bodies, grouped
generically under the title:  "Tributaries".   Unlike  the  "open waters", several  of these
tributaries were found to be extremely oxygen deficient, resulting in septic conditions and
offensive odors.

      In summary,  the 208 Study found that, although a large amount of CSO abatement
was needed in the tributaries,  a greatly reduced amount of treatment was necessary for
CSO's discharging into  open waters.   Predicated on these findings, the Department of
Environmental Protection formulated  its first CSO Abatement Program.  It consisted of
Facility Planning Projects for those Tributaries which the 208  Study had indicated were
severely impaired by CSO's.   Some  of these were  Flushing Bay, Paerdegat Basin, and
Newtown Creek.

      New York State DEC was not satisfied with the City's approach to CSO Abatement.
They took the opportunity of the 1982 issuance of SPDES Permits to require that the City
conduct a City-Wide program for the abatement of CSO's that cause contravention of water
quality standards.

      The DEP, with DEC's approval, began the development of this program through a
two-phased approach. The first phase, generally identified as "CSO Problem Assessment",
was completed in 1986. It consisted of:

      1.     Identification and characterization of CSO's.
      2.     Assessment of CSO's effect on water quality (from existing data and
            past studies, but with updated mathematical modelling).
      3.     Development  of a Phase II work plan.

      While the results of the 208 studies were generally confirmed, the impacts of CSO's
on water quality were assessed in greater detail for individual reaches of the harbor.  The
Phase II Work Plan recommended that the harbor complex be divided into four areas for
detailed Facility Planning. The current CSO Abatement Program consists of eight project
areas which are a combination  of the City-Wide Program and the original Tributary
Program.  Together they cover all the waters of the Harbor Complex.  They are:

                  Area-Wide                     Tributaries

                  East River                     Flushing Bay
                  Jamaica Bay                    Paerdegat Basin
                  Inner Harbor                   Newtown  Creek
                  Outer Harbor                  Jamaica Tribs

      In December,  1989,  we presented our  recommended plans for Flushing Bay and
Paerdegat Basin at Public Hearings. I will  use those projects to illustrate the engineering
efforts which are undertaken and the magnitude of the construction program which will be

      Paerdegat Basin is a  narrow body of water, stretching approximately one mile from
its head to its mouth  at Jamaica Bay. There are three large CSO's which discharge at its
head.  During  Facility Planning, a large  amount of data was  acquired through  field
investigations.  CSO flows and loads were measured along with their resulting impact  on
water quality. Analysis of this data revealed that water quality in the Basin generally meets
State Standards, with the exception of a relatively small area at the head of the Basin, where
a CSO mound continuously  depresses oxygen levels.  After a significant rainfall, however,
the situation changes considerably.  Dissolved oxygen and  coliforai violations occur and

persist, in varying degrees, for approximately three days.  The Basin then returns to its dry-
weather condition. This generally conforms to the findings of the 208 Study and the City-
Wide CSO Study regarding water quality in Tributary Water Bodies.

      All of the data collected is used to  calibrate computer models of the sewer system
and the water body.  Utilizing these models, we can evaluate the impact of various rainfall
events and the effectiveness of different abatement strategies.  Alternatives are evaluated
and ranked according to the following criteria:

             o     Ability to meet water quality standards
             o     Public acceptance
             o     Cost Effectiveness

       Evaluation of alternatives resulted in a recommended plan with several components.
Regulator modifications would maximize flow to the treatment  plant.  Dredging the CSO
mound would eliminate the oxygen demand at the lead of the Basin. However, the principal
component of the plan is the achievement of 50 million gallons of CSO retention.  This
would consist of  20 million gallons  of in-line sewer storage and the  construction of a 30
million gallon retention facility. This facility will be constructed entirely underground with
the exception of headworks and odor control buildings and a small outfall structure. The
surface over  the facility (approximately five acres) can be returned to community use.

       Implementation of the recommended plan will result in a 75% reduction in pollutant
loading to the Basin.  This will permit achievement of State Water Quality Standards for
Coliform throughout the  Basin at all times.  Dissolved Oxygen Standards will be met with
the  exception of the head  of  the Basin  which may  experience a  minor  violation
approximately 10% of the time.

       The capital cost of the recommended plan is $135 million.  Design and construction
schedules, along with appropriate environmental reviews, would  place the facility on-line in

       From  the  Paerdegat  Basin  Project, we can see  the direction  in  which  the
Department's CSO  Program is  moving.   For the  largest CSO's discharging into  the
headwaters of tributaries, where a high level of abatement is required, storage at or near the
point of discharge, combined with treatment of existing plants, is the preferred technology.
The prime factor in this preference is the capacity of  the present treatment plants and
intercepting sewers.  Over $2 billion of City, State and Federal funds are  invested in these
facilities, which are capable of handling far more than their present dry weather flow.  In
general, the  screens,  headworks and primary tanks can handle two times the secondary
treatment design flow. This excess primary effluent may  be bypassed around the secondary
tanks, and recombined with secondary effluent for disinfection and discharge.


      For  storm flows which exceed the system storage capacity, the CSO Abatement
Facilities will operate as primary treatment plants, with screening, solids and  floatables
removal, and disinfection where necessary.

      For the smaller CSO's, it now appears that floatables and settleables removal will be
necessary at most locations, with aggregation and/or elimination of outfalls where feasible.
For discharges affecting bathing or shellfishing waters, disinfection may also be necessary.

      With more than 400 outfalls for which retention will not be required, this will require
a major construction commitment. Our Flushing Bay Project illustrates this point.

      There are 15  CSO's discharging to Flushing Bay and Creek. One of these, at the
head of the Creek, contributes approximately 60% of the pollutant load to the Bay. For that
outfall a 40 million  gallon underground retention  facility is proposed.  This facility, in
conjunction with other measures, will permit the  achievement  of State Water Quality
Standards.  However, the remaining outfalls will continue to discharge floatable materials
during rain events.

      Various alternatives were considered for floatables captures.  These included:

             o      Screening
             o      Swirl Concentrator
             o      Hydrodynamic Concentrator
             o      Helical Bend Concentrator
             o      Primary  Settling Tank
             o      In-Channel Horizontal Rotating Screen
             o      Floating Boom
             o      Source Load Reduction

      After extensive investigation, it was decided that Swirl Concentrators provided the
best combination of floatable and settleable removal  characteristics in conjunction  with
operational simplicity and maintainability. The device consists of a  circular channel in which
rotary motion of the combined sewage flow is induced by the kinetic energy of the incoming
flow.  Heavier particles settle  rapidly to the bottom and are discharged through a foul sewer
outlet to the treatment facility. "Clean flow" discharges over a circular weir and proceeds
to the outfall.  Floatable material is retained by baffles and discharged through the foul
sewer outlet when the swirl drains after the storm.

      The facility plan recommends the elimination or consolidation of overflows where
feasible and the construction of seven Swirl Concentrator Facilities. One of these will be
advanced immediately as a prototype and all facilities  will be on-line by 1996.  The  total

capital cost of our Flushing Bay facilities, retention and floatables, is approximately $300

       The City has committed $1.5  billion to be  spent over the  next  10 years for CSO
abatement facilities. This is predicated on the construction of 10 to 12  retention facilities
throughout the City. By the year 2000, these facilities are expected to be on-line and water
quality violations will no longer occur  as a result of rainfall events. However, the control of
floatables will take us into the next century and cost as much as 2 to 3 billion dollars more.

       Toward that end,  the City has  initiated a City-Wide Floatables Study.  This project
will  assess  all  possible  sources   of  floatables,  their transmission routes  and ultimate
destinations. Armed with this information, we will be able to prioritize our resources toward
the abatement of those sources which have the greatest impact.  Only through the massive
commitment of municipal resources and the efforts of all members of the public can our
waters be returned to useful productivity.


                        AN UNFINISHED AGENDA


                       A REGULATORY PERSPECTIVE
                            Richard L. Caspe, P.E.
                           Water Management Division
                                Region II
                               March 13, 1990

      In addressing the issue, it is important to take a moment to reflect on the underlying
theme of this conference. An unfinished Agenda.  We should not, in our enthusiasm to
finish the job we've all dedicated our professional careers to, forget where we've been, and
where we are. Let's quickly dispel the idea that things have never been so bad and that the
water just keeps getting worse and worse.

      We tend to look back at the past with a sense of nostalgia.  Ever since the disastrous
state of our environment was brought to the public attention in the late 60's and early 70's,
we have looked upon the pre-chemical, pre-industrial eras as if people wandered around
their cities in pristine, pollution-free nirvanas. The truth is that  they did not.

      The first New York City Authorization for a common sewer took place in 1695,
almost three hundred years ago.  By 1910 New York City alone was discharging over 600
million gallons of raw, untreated sewage into the harbor every day.  All along the Atlantic
Coastline communities discharged vast quantities of raw sewage, and frequently disposed
of garbage, directly into the ocean.

      That's 1910. We tend to think of it as a golden, charming era. Ty Cobb was playing
ball in Detroit; Harry Houdini was  escaping from cages, chains,  trunks and handcuffs all
over the country; Halley's Comet was passing by. But - on a more mundane level, in the
same year, The Metropolitan Sewage Commission of New York  was reporting that

"practically all the waters within 15 miles of Manhattan Island are decidedly polluted"	
"the waters are  incapable of supporting fish life...the waters in many of the smaller rivers
and inner tributaries of the harbor are now so heavily charged with sewage that the waters
in many of these places is black, and  effervesce with foul gasses. attempt is made to
purify the  sewage.':

      The same report went on to discuss the outrageous garbage wash-ups --- not of the
summers of 1987 and 1988, but the summer of 1906.  I quote: "Inspections of the sea in all
directions  to a distance of about 35 miles from the Narrows showed the presence of fields
of many acres of garbage...of that portion of the garbage which was carried to shore, the
most offensive elements were dead and  decomposing animals, such as dogs, cats, rats, and
fowls...a great many people put on their clothes and left the water in disgust after  a few
minutes, as it was so full of vegetables and grease. One woman decided to leave after a
dead dog came  in contact with her face."

      The report goes  on  to  talk about  the adverse impacts 6n  shellfish, statistics on
typhoid from poisoned oysters, gastroenteritis, cholera, and so on.

      Dumping of garbage into the ocean was finally made illegal in 1936, but it was not
until eighteen years ago that this nation launched an ambitious effort to really clean up and
restore the country's waters — waters that had been neglected and abused for over 200

      Today all wastewater treatment plants in this area are at secondary treatment or
are on schedule to do so.   And we have essentially eliminated discharge of raw sewage
during  dry weather periods;

      Then,  what are the problems of today? Despite the great strides I have attempted
to bring to mind, there is clearly a long way to go towards finishing our ultimate agenda.

      Our ocean beaches  continue  to be plagued  by  problems.   While most of these
problems  are no longer continuous, the problems associated with  rainfall and high tides
in an  area which has  a  dense population,  a combined  sewer  system,  and at  times
questionable  street cleaning practices cause significant use  impairments.
What then, can and are the regulatory agencies doing about  it?
      Let's start with floatables:

      The summers of 87 and 88  were marred by significant wash-up of floating debris
on the New Jersey and New York ocean beaches.  A problem, which had  been considered
by Regulatory Agencies as merely aesthetic, and not all that significant was envisioned very
differently by the public. People stayed  away from the ocean in droves. Not only did they
not swim, they did not fish and did not eat the fish.  Supermarkets displayed signs that fish
being sold was not caught in local waters. The presence of a small number of hyperdermic
needles as part of the flotsam coupled with public concern over  contracting AIDS had
proven enough  to cause a severe reaction by the public, one which at times approached


      In an attempt to get  a better handle on the problem  EPA embarked  upon an
investigation of floatables accumulation in the New York/New Jersey Harbor  complex.
Our scientists mapped the estuaries and shorelines that were most heavily impacted. We
looked at possible sources as  well as the dynamics of floatables.  We found that floatables
pollution takes two distinct forms, dispersed quantities of free-floating garbage and wood,
and floating slicks of concentrated garbage and sewage, which occasionally wash ashore and
force beach closings.

      We found  that debris slicks may occur after  a rainstorm event that results in
overflows of combined sewers and discharge of stormwater from storm sewers. Then again,
we also found that slicks can  form through  "resuspension" of floatables that have already
washed up on our shorelines. This normally occurs when the high lunar tides from a full
or new moon, succeed in refloating or resuspending floatable materials on shorelines and
carrying them out where they  concentrate in slicks. Finally, we found that the  largest debris
slicks form as a result of resuspension and a storm event occurring at the same time.

      With this information, EPA then formed an Interagency  Workgroup of local, state
and Federal agencies (August 1988) to develop a strategy which would be  responsive to
the floatables problem by mitigating as much of the adverse impact as possible. A Summer
1989 Floatables Action Plan  was developed, adopted and implemented during the period
of May 15 through September 15, 1989.   The plan consisted  of four key elements:
surveillance, regular cleanups (moon-tides  and rain events), nonroutine cleanups and a
communications network to  facilitate  coordinated use of available  resources.  Agencies
involved in implementing the plan  were the New Jersey  Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP), New York City Department of Sanitation (NYDOS), New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), U.S. Army Corps  of Engineers
(USAGE), U.S. Coast Guard  (USCG) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

      We had also determined that most floatable  debris that impact the  shorelines of
New Jersey and New York originate in the New York/New Jersey Harbor.   Large  slicks
had been primarily observed from Governor's Island to the Narrows, and in the Arthur
Kill. Therefore, the surveillance plan concentrated on detecting slicks of floatable materials
within the Harbor where it could be collected easily.

      An integral part of the plan was the regular removal of  debris from the harbor at
established key locations. These locations were the Narrows and the outflow  of the Arthur
Kill into the Lower Harbor.  The  USAGE removed  the debris  with their drift vessels
utilizing specially designed nets paid for by NYSDEC and NJDEP.  NYDOS supplied a
barge at its Gravesend Bay Marine Transfer Station to transport  the collected debris to the
Fresh Kills Landfill for disposal. Debris removal routinely occurred during daylight hours
on the day before, day of, and day after the full and new moon high tides.   Also the
USAGE conducted debris removal at the two locations following significant storm events
that caused overflow of combined sewage.

       An additional aspect of the plan focused on the capture of debris slicks that were
spotted at other points within New York/New Jersey Harbor. The USAGE vessels and a
fishing cooperative (vessels under contract with NJDEP) were available to conduct debris
removal operations. Collection activities were only possible landward of the Sandy Hook-
Rockaway transect.

       For slicks that were observed beyond the Sandy Hook-Rockaway Point transect, a
NOAA/USCG model was used to predict potential impact areas. The  state floatables
coordinators were informed of the potential slick wash-ups and notified the local authorities

       To administer the plan, a  communication network was established for reported
sightings of floatables.  An EPA  floatables coordinator functioned  as the center of the
reporting network and coordinated debris removal activities. All agencies involved in the
surveillance and debris removal operations were available 24 hours/day through the use of
hotline numbers  and paging systems.

       Additionally, the State of New Jersey implemented a program known as "Operation
Clean  Shores" to remove floatable debris from approximately 45 miles  of shoreline from
south of the George Washington Bridge to Highlands, New Jersey.  This program, which
utilized minimum  security  prisoners,  NJDEP personnel  and  assistance from local
municipalities was  funded  through  a two  million  dollar grant under  the  Sewage
Infrastructure Improvement Act.  The cleanup was  originally scheduled to be conducted
from March through May but was extended through September 1989.
Also, the States of New Jersey and New York developed guidelines and held sessions to
educate beach operators on beach cleanup operations, how to handle medical waste, how
to dispose of it, and who to notify.

       The spring and summer of 1989 was a period of record breaking rainfall with average
monthly rainfalls over twice the norm. These heavy rains resulted in combined sewer
overflows and stormwater discharges of floatable debris as well as a significant resuspension
of debris off the shorelines as high waters and flood  conditions scoured debris from banks
of rivers and streams.   Slicks were observed in the harbor complex after practically every
rainfall event.

       Despite all the rainfall the region received,  only two stretches of ocean  beaches
along the  Long Island and New Jersey shorelines were closed during the bathing season
as a result of floating debris washing ashore.

       The reduction in the beach closures can be  partially attributed  to the Floatables
Action Plan.  During the period from May 15 to September 15, the USAGE collected
approximately 543.7 tons of debris of which  461.2 tons was captured on floatable days.
The collected material, as  estimated by  the USAGE, contained (on a volume basis)
approximately ninety percent wood and ten  percent other  floatable materials  (plastics,
paper products, tires, grasses,  reeds, etc.).


      While USAGE was performing debris removal from the Upper Harbor, the New
Jersey Commercial Fishermans Association under contract to NJDEP was being utilized
to conduct activities in Raritan Bay.  The NJCFA began their operations on June 18 and
continued through Labor  Day.  During this period approximately 165 barrels (55 gallons
capacity each) of household trash and 30 cubic yards of wood was netted.  Also, to further
eliminate the potential source of floating debris, NJDEP implemented its Operation Clean
Shores program.  Through  September  15,  this  program was responsible for removing
approximately 3,000 tons of debris from 28 miles of New Jersey Shorelines.

      Despite the efforts to  collect  marine debris within the harbor, syringes continued
to be found during the summer season on the ocean beaches along the New Jersey
shoreline (Sandy Hook to Cape May), the south shore of Long Island (East Rockaway
Inlet to Montauk Point),  and New York City beaches (Coney Island, Manhattan Beach
and the Rockaways). The New York City Beaches reported a dramatic decrease from 943
in 1988 to 434 syringes in 1989.  The reported number of syringes found on the south shore
of Long Island decreased  slightly from 110 to 75. The reported number of syringes found
along the New Jersey shoreline increased from approximately 60 to over 300.  Two events
accounted for 45% syringes.  The additional increase may be indicative of better recording

            The Floatables Action Plan played an integral role in preventing a repeat
of the large number of beach closures which occurred during the Summers of 1987 and
1988, and keeping the beaches clean of floating debris. Other programs that were instituted
this past year: New Jersey Operation Clean Shores the States of New Jersey and New York
efforts to educate  beach  operators on the handling/reporting of floatables  debris,  and
medical waste tracking, also  significantly contributed to a  successful summer.  These
programs are all stopgap measures until such time that long term solutions can be instituted
to correct the sources of the problem. The Floatables Action Plan will be continued on a
limited basis during the winter months (surveillance and cleanups following new and full
moon high tides, and significant rainfall events) and will be reinstituted for the summer of

      As a means  of further  supporting this effort, and in recognition  of  the success
experienced this past summer, EPA will shortly be awarding $2,200,000 to the City of New
York as grant aid for the purchase of two skimmer vessels. It is expected that these vessels
will be available for use during the summer of 1991.

      This is  but one of many short-term efforts towards control  of  floatables  and
pathogens that EPA is  involved in. Other assistance type activities include previous grants
to New Jersey municipalities for repair of regulators and appurtenances to insure maximum
capture of flow, demonstration studies of netting type devices for retrofitting of overflow
points, an attempt  to significantly improve the quality of stormwater discharges through
implementation of Best Management Practices within the Village  of Mamaroneck, and

funding of the Flow-Balancing in-stream treatment techniques currently being demonstrated
within the City of New York.

       I believe that all the preceding is very positive, however, it shows but one side of
EPA, that of helper, researcher, and doer.  The other side of EPA is atleast equally as
important, that is the function of regulator, overseer and ultimately enforcer.

       In recognition of the significance and timeliness of the Combined Sewer Overflow
problem in  areas such as ours EPA has recently formalized a strategy for dealing with
means of mitigating problems  associated  with  combined sewers.  The policy is written
around three basic objectives:

             1.    ensuring that discharges occur only as a result of wet weather,

             2.    establishing minimum technology treatment requirements for discharges
                   and assuring compliance with them and,

             3.    minimizing water quality impacts from these wet weather discharges

       The states have  recently submitted  strategies for accomplishing these objectives in
a finite timeframe.  EPA  is in the process of reviewing them.

       The last item I would like to address is enforcement.

       Enforcement of violations, especially those which  create use impairments, albeit
temporarily, will be  swift, tough and predictable.  We will look more  than ever to the
regulated public to ensure that ample checks  exist to prevent "unforeseen  events" from
happening before they  occur.  Cases where negligence is  apparent will be prosecuted to
the full extent of the law. We will certainly raise even higher the hurdles placed before
the regulated public before a violation will be excused.

       While no one of the above items is the solution to the problems that still beset our
waters we are hopeful that together they will lay the ground work and provide the structure
for our path towards finishing our agenda  (for  pathogen and floatables problems in the

                    Presented by

                    Howard  Golub
              Assistant  Chief Engineer
           Interstate  Sanitation Commission
                 311 West 43rd Street
              New York, New York  10036
                  at the conference


                  Manhattan College
                 Riverdale, New York
                 March 12 - 14, 1990

                     A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE
     The Interstate Sanitation Commission is a water and air pol-

lution control agency of the States of New York, New Jersey and

Connecticut formed in 1936.   In water pollution, the Commission

has regulatory and enforcement powers and water quality and ef-

fluent regulations that apply within the Interstate Sanitation


     The Commission's Water Quality Regulations adopted in 1977

contained maximum coliform limitations for treated sewage dis-

charges.  However, these limitations applied only when the dis-

infection of effluents was required by another regulatory agency

with appropriate jurisdiction.  As a result, disinfection prac-

tices in the Interstate Sanitation District were not uniform.

The State of New Jersey required year-round disinfection for dis-

charges into Raritan Bay "but allowed seasonal disinfection else-

where — from April 15th through October 15th.  In New York,

year-round disinfection was required for private facilities, for

most POTWs discharging to Long Island Sound and for the Oakwood

Beach treatment plant in New York City; others disinfected sea-

sonally from May 15th through September 15th.  Connecticut re-

quired year-round disinfection by all plants discharging into

Long Island Sound.  Consequently, the applicability of the Com-

mission's coliform limitations and the disinfection status of

sewage discharges into the region's waters varied.

     In 1983,  the Commissioner of the New Jersey Department of

Environmental  Protection requested that the ISC look into the

matter of maintaining shellfish beds, especially in Raritan Bay,

in condition to allow shellfish harvesting throughout the year.

Many beds otherwise suitable for shellfishing were closed during

the cold weather months when some of the sewage treatment plants

in the area were not disinfecting their effluents.

     ISC's examination of the situation included public hearings

at which the proponents and opponents put their views and evi-

dence on the record.  There was evidence and arguments presented

on both sides  of the issue.  Some contended that extending year-

round disinfection requirements to all plants in the region would

not suffice to open shellfish beds because other sources of coli-

form contamination were too great to allow the waters to be

brought within safe coliform limits for shellfish harvesting.

Others contended that year-round disinfection would be an effica-

cious measure, both for its effect on shellfishing and as a gen-

eral health measure.  The case for neither side was incontrovert-

ible.  A Hearing Officers'  Report was prepared to aid the ISC

Commissioners.  After months of consideration, the Commission

amended its Water Quality Regulations in September, 1984 to re-

quire the Commission's coliform requirements to be met on a year-

round basis, effective July 1, 1986.

     Since being implemented, year-round disinfection has shown

positive results.  In the Atlantic Ocean off The Rockaways, the


New York State Department of Environmental Conservation extended

the season in 198? for 16,000 acres of shellfish beds for direct

harvesting,  and in 1988 all seasonal restrictions were removed.

In 1989, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

removed the seasonal restriction for 13,000 acres in Raritan and

Sandy Hook Bays for depuration harvesting.  At the request of the

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the Com-

mission is presently sampling the New York portion of Raritan Bay

for coliform criteria for shellfishing.  In an evaluation of pre-

and post-year-round disinfection data for coliforms at sewage

treatment plants, the Commission found greater compliance after

the year-round disinfection requirement was implemented.

     The results to date are encouraging, however more remains to

be done.  The Commission is looking into the issue of disinfec-

tion for combined and storm sewers and will work with the states

and the U.S. EPA to to achieve compatibility throughout the area.

                       Paul J.  Noto,  Mayor
                      Village of Mamaroneck
     Floatable debris is a result of several factors, among
them,  storm drains and combined sewer overflows which is a
discharge of material in the sewer system that seep into the
groundwater and runs into the streams and rivers that empty into
the Mamaroneck Harbor.  Untreated wastewater from sewage
treatment plants during large storm events,  and volumes of waste
material which is dumped daily into the oceans from commercial
shipping fleets throughout the world often find its way into the
Long Island Sound and local waterways.  Floatable debris can
also enter the water through mishandling of solid waste that is
floating on barges for transport to landfills.

     The impact of floatable debris and pathogens on a
waterfront municipality is multi-faceted.  Primarily, the first
indication of problems are the beach closings that occur when
the bacteria contamination reaches a level that is deemed unsafe
for recreational swimming.  Once the beach closings become
frequent enough, there is a general decline in park attendance,
a reduction in demands for maritime industries that usually go
with waterfront communities, a perception that property values
decline and a general concern over the public health that
permeates all of the decision-making within the municipality.
There is a general feeling that the quality of life in the
community is eroding since most people who live there were
attracted to the community because of its maritime character.

     Beachgoers themselves can add to the problem by littering,
not only on beaches, but near any coastal waterway.  Boaters
contribute by throwing trash overboard and discharging sanitary
waste directly into Long Island Sound.

     Municipalities can develop programs to address, not only
the impact of floatables and pathogens, but the causes as well.
The Village of Mamaroneck has been very aggressive in addressing
the floatable problem and we have done so by developing a
program that is a multi-dimensional approach to the problem.

     The most direct program a community can develop and one
that attacks the problem at its source is a sewer maintenance
program.  Unfortunately, most municipal sewer lines were
constructed in the 1930's and are in the process of a gradual
but steady deterioration.  This deterioration creates sewer
leakage which forces raw sewage into the groundwater, and the
resulting runoff runs into the nearest waterway.  The sewer
maintenance program we developed includes televising the lines
in the municipality, locating the cracks in deteriorating lines
and repairing them, and installing new lines when necessary.
This is a very expensive but necessary endeavor that every
municipality must undertake.  The Village of Mamaroneck with a
population of 18,000 and an annual budget of $12 million will be
spending approximately a million dollars a year on sewer
maintenance and replacement for at least the next ten years.
Unfortunately, this program is a gradual one and cannot address
all the sewer problems within a municipality in one given year,
but this type of program, along with a continuing maintenance
program will help address problems in smaller areas.

     Part and parcel with this type of program is a regional
approach that requires all neighboring municipalities to do the
same.   The Village of Mamaroneck is one municipality at the
bottom of a watershed and given the geographic locale,  the
Village is in a drainage system of approximately 23 miles.
Therefore, it is absolutely essential that other communities in
the watershed coordinate their maintenance programs so that the
problems are addressed on a much larger scale.

     In  addition,  Mamaroneck undertook a program to eliminate
inflow/infiltration which is the flow of stormwater into the
sewer lines which  causes combined sewer overflows.  During large
storm events,  most sewer systems are ill equipped to handle the
large amounts  of stormwater that run into the sewer system which
causes overflows that seep into the groundwater and the runoff,
which contains large amounts of bacteria, runs directly into the
harbor and the Sound.   The Village undertook to clean and
televise 12,000 feet of sanitary sewer pipe and to disconnect
and repair catch basins and manhole frames that were improperly
connected to our sanitary sewer.  By reducing this
inflow/infiltration,  communities can take a giant step towards
reducing the floatables and the pathogens.

     A contributing cause of inflow/infiltration is illegal
stormwater connections that connect stormwater gutters to sewer
lines.  To address this problem, we undertook, in cooperation
with the County of Westchester, a smoke testing program whereby
homeowners were tested through a smoke test to determine if in
fact their stormwater runoff was properly connected to the storm
drains and not into the sewer lines.  Unfortunately, many people
purchased homes unaware of the fact that their storm runoff
systems  could  be a contributing factor to the combined sewer
overflows.  This program, combined with public education, and
enforcement measures,  is potentially a very successful one.
Unfortunately, it  does require a large commitment of time and
resources since every street must be tested and, of course, once
the improper connections are discovered, enforcement measures
must be  undertaken.   Obviously, this is not always a popular
solution, however,  a necessary one.

     Additional municipal efforts should include repairing catch
basins and enacting animal waste laws which are very difficult
to enforce, yet create a necessary standard of behavior for the
general  public.

     Another element of the local program must include controls
on local development.   We have learned through the Long Island
Sound Study and other studies that, in fact,  uncontrolled
development can contribute to water pollution.  Part of any
municipal site plan review process must be adequate controls on
development to make sure that Best Management Practices are
utilized, stormwater discharge is strictly regulated, that the
runoff is kept to  a minimum and that all environmental impacts

on developments are fully explored and addressed.  Every
community needs development to maintain the vitality of its
economy and maintain a strong tax base.  This does not mean the
community should have no development but simply that all
development should be carefully evaluated with a thorough
environmental review.  In New York most developments now fall
under the SEQRA process which mandates a complete environmental
review by the appropriate municipal board.

     Any successful local effort to help clean up the Long
Island Sound relies heavily on public education.  The Village of
Mamaroneck has been very aggressive in generating as much
information as possible for the public so that everyone is aware
of the problems of Long Island Sound and how each individual can
contribute to keeping it cleaner.  We are particularly proud of
our award winning Sammy Terry Program, copy attached, which was
created by our Village Engineer in which a cartoon character,
Sammy Terry, was created as an enforcement agent to help educate
people about illegal stormwater connections, and to enforce the
law against these improper connections.  This program was
undertaken in cooperation with our local schools and our local
scout troops. The young people became involved by going
throughout the community and helping with the investigations.
This was all done in conjunction with Archie Comics which is
created and produced in Mamaroneck, New York. The program was a
success and we continue to use Sammy Terry.  It was so
successful that the County of Westchester has taken advantage of
the program and will be using it county wide.  This is important
for several reasons, besides the fact that it does provide a
measure of entertainment, it relies heavily on the interest of
young people.  Since we believe that the Long Island Sound is in
danger and we wish to preserve it for future generations,
involving young people at this level is very important and very
helpful because they become sensitized to the need to take
individual responsibility for helping to keep Long Island Sound

     An additional component of public education, includes a
program for local officials to speak to as many public forums as
possible:  League of Women Voters, the Women's Club, the service
clubs, etc. where local officials can explain the problem, can
explain what is being done to solve the problem and to encourage

people to participate on an individual basis in the overall
cleanup.   That includes encouraging people not to use
fertilizer,  to check for improper stormwater connections, to
recycle when necessary and to be cognizant of every individual's
overall responsiblity to the Long Island Sound.

     It is equally important that a locality establish a good
relationship with the local media to help offset the negative
public relations input of the beach closings each summer, and
also to generate good public relations relative to your cleanup
efforts,  and to involve the community into making every effort
to clean up Long Island Sound.

     Since a municipality cannot solve this problem on its own,
it is imperative that an organized lobbying effort be undertaken
by the community, primarily in conjunction with other
neighboring communities.  We in Mamaroneck were very successful
in obtaining County funding for an independent study of the
pollution in Mamaroneck Harbor and in obtaining the smoke
testing crew from the County to smoke test, not only in
Mamaroneck,  but County wide.  We were instrumental in getting
our former Congressman Joseph DioGuardi to form the Long Island
Sound Congressional Caucus which has provided strong federal
support for the overall cleanup of the Long Island Sound.
Through our lobbying efforts, we were able to obtain a $500,000
Environmental Protection Agency Action Plan Project for
Mamaroneck Harbor which is still underway.  Additionally, it is
important to get the public to help you lobby other officials.
A municipality can be particularly effective, due to its strong
personal relationship with its constituents in getting them to
lobby federal, state and county officials directly which will
help keep these legislators responsive to the need for a
solution to the problem.

     In addition to this kind of effort,  a community should form
a regional organization that will help bolster their lobbying
efforts.   We formed the Mamaroneck Sewer District Task Force,
which is a group of Mayors and Supervisors within the Mamaroneck
Sewer District of about seven communities, where we coordinate
our efforts.  We are implementing some of the recommendations
made from other levels of government and we are simply keeping
each other informed so that our efforts to help clean up the

Sound are coordinated and comprehensive.  As I indicated before,
since the problem is a regional one,  it will require regional
solutions and intermunicipal cooperation to solve.

     With regards to the anticipated regulatory requirements, it
is unclear exactly what these requirements may fully entail.
However,  I think they are useful since we are well on our way to
developing a regional approach, some of these requirements can
be very helpful in forcing recalcitrant muncipalities to address
this problem in a forthright manner.   Unfortunately, many
communities without beaches or without waterfronts view these
problems as a low priority.  These regulatory requirements can
be very helpful.  More importantly,  we will require money to
help implement them and we will require assistance and to
provide additional public education since it is important that
the public be made fully aware of these requirements so that
they are not surprised when they are confronted with an
additional regulatory burden.

     There is a great deal that a municipality can do.  However,
no matter how much any one municipality does, it will not be
enough unless all communities participate in an overall effort
to help clean up the Long Island Sound.  We are very proud of
our record and our local initiatives in this area and we hope
that by sharing our ideas, we can get other coimwnities to
participate as well on a sound wide basis.

                       AND I'D
              ^^= H
              I  I1'

                 /MSP6CTOQ SAMMY TERRY (JN
     "THE  RIGHT COMNECT/OMS "             *
                SOY'THIS IS SOME
        , I'M SORRY/ I DIDN'T SEE
            HARBOR AND
                   WHAT KIND OFIO6IC IS\
            THAT; //VS^^fTT^/S Sx^/W/M
            rZRRy ? 1 THOUGHT RAIN/
                     P MAKES EVERV-
                    THIMG CLEAN /
               f    VES/ AMD THE
               ( &&YSCC

—	 _	    ^ /  N|QW(   [THOUGHT '

       ?^K/ THIS ENC?S UP IT
       RONJECK H/\R8OR /\NP
                                                 CREATE SUCH

           OVER THE VE4RS /
                                        IN THE SUMMER
                                         F THE BEACHES
                                         REDUCE THIS PROBLEM

                                           £V£BV0A/£ HAS TO C//£rCX"THElR
                                           GOOF L£AG£RS , SUMP PUMPS t
                                                              OPEN TRAPS,  ~
                                                 SEE//=• THEY ARE
      I'D SET MOST
        PEOPLE ^£M/'T-
   OA/£ MUST 3£ MA0£.' IF
         HAVE THESE
                                                       CONUGCTfONS /

                                         AND THAT
AflCHE AND KSPECTCM SAMMY TEfWY. Numtor ). wua produced tor the \Wa0e o( Mamvoneck by Archie Comic Pubtesttaw. Inc, 325 FayeOe A«, Mam»ronec*. N.V.
)05«. Wc*»rt K GoldMtar. Pnaidert and Co-Pubtaher. Mchael L S«b6rtde«, Chalnnan and Co-PubNsher "Archte- tnd •» Individual Wuywss ta the exdua*« IrtOemart o(
Archie Comic Put*caborw. ha Inapector Sammy Terry was created by Lea Zakarin. VHage Engineer of Mamaronee*. N.Y. to help be* the VMaee and Wsstchestor County
Worm local reaktente aboU apecMc envtronmentol and «anHary prootema. Speda) (hanks tor Ihak help in development of Ws project should 90 to Ws Zakarin. Rick DJRort.
01 McGimpsey. Sam W°*r. Eagle Scout John Katen. Sir Speedy Printers, Richard Goldwater. Michael SHoerldelt. and parUcularty victor Gorellck «»ho pulled X the tooae ends


                                 ISLAND SOUND

                            by James A. Mueller*--'-)

     In developing plans for the improvement of the coastal waters in the New
York metropolitan area, quantification of pollutant inputs is an essential
part of evaluating the impact of management alternatives. Ultimately, the fate
of pollutant inputs and attendant adverse impacts on water use must be related
to specific sources so that effective engineering and management actions can
be implemented.  A number of studies have been conducted in the last 15 years
on the inputs and fate of pollutants in the metropolitan area coastal waters.
This paper summarizes results of these studies for the toxic inputs of heavy
metals and organics,  mainly PCB, as well as suspended solids to which many of
the toxics are adsorbed. The fate of the PCB inputs to the coastal waters over
the past 30 years with projected future impacts on the fishery is summarized
from a recent study conducted at Manhattan College. To a lesser extent the
fate of the other contaminants is considered in transporting the pollutants
from the harbor to the bight waters.

     In the most recent study conducted on the New York Harbor and Bight,
HydroQual, 1989, the  following eight sources of pollutant inputs are consid-

     1.  Wastewater. This includes point source discharges from municipal and
industrial sources.  The majority of the sources receive treatment, most of it
secondary, prior to discharge with a small amount of raw sewage still being
phased out.

     2.  Barge Dumping.  This input includes a number of sources.  Wastewater
sludges are collected from the above treatment plants and dumped in the ocean
106 miles off the coast. Dredge material from the harbor and coastal waters,
construction debris,  and acid wastes are dumped closer inland while chemical
waste dumps have been phased out.
     3.  Atmospheric Deposition.  Pollutants carried offshore are  deposited  in
coastal waters during both wet and dry weather. Dry deposition occurs from gas
transfer and settling of particulates while wet deposition occurs durin rain,
snow and fog.
     4.  Runoff.  In urban areas,  surface runoff occurring from rain events  car-
ries surface pollutants to coastal waters from separate storm sewers or from
combined sewers. The  latter, referred to as combined sewer overflow,  CSO,
contains a combination of surface runoff and untreated sanitary sewage.  In
non-urban areas, runoff consists of street, agricultural,  and forest runoff.
The major volume of this runoff is from the streams and rivers draining
upstream areas and referred to as gauged runoff.
     5.  Sediment Flux.  This source is an estimate of the pollutants  which  are
resuspended or diffuse into overlying coastal waters.  Some amount of this
material originates from other sources resulting in a degree of double count-
ing with some overassessment of inputs.
     6.  Landfill Leachate.  Rainfall percolates through landfills  and becomes
contaminated with pollutants which are transferred to the groundwater or dis-
charged from the site as leachate to surface waters.
     7   Accidental Spills.  This  source includes spills of fuels  and other
petroleum hydrocarbons as well as toxic organics into coastal waters.
(^Professor,  Environmental Engineering & Science Graduate Program, Manhattan
   College,  Riverdale,  NY,  presented at the Cleaning Up Our Coastal Waters: An
   Unfinished  Agenda Conference,  Manhattan College,  March 12-14,  1990.

     g  Groundwat-.p.r Inflow.  Groundwater flow into coastal waters may transport
pollutants not trapped in the soil layers. Its impact has been  shown to be
insignificant, Mueller et al.,  1976,  and will not be considered further.

     Three geographical areas  are considered for the various sources:
            1.  New York   New Jersey  Harbor also called the Transect zone
because of the pollutant transport to the bight at the Rockaway  Sandy Hook
            2.  New York Bight,  the ocean area from Cape May, New Jersey to
Montauk Point, Long Island.
            3.  Long Island Sound.
     Figure 1 shows the above  zones with the New York Bight further divided
into two coastal zones and a direct discharge zone. Figure  2 further delin-
eates the Long Island Sound drainage  area with associated USGS  drainage areas.

           The dominating feature of  the transect zone is the Hudson River
which drains 34,600 km2 providing the major freshwater flow in  the area. The
population of the entire zone is about 15 million with 13 million in the New
York   New Jersey metropolitan area.  There are 57 municipal and 16 industrial
discharges downstream from the gauging stations on the Hudson River at Pough-
keepsie, NY and on the various New Jersey Rivers as shown in Figure 3. There
are a significant amount of CSO's in  the zone as well as 92 landfills, Mueller
et al.,  1982.

           The dominating feature of  the New York Bight is the large water
surface area, 35000 km2, with 1800 km^ considered the Apex  directly outside
the transect zone. A large net coastal circulation occurs from  Northeast to
Southwest. Figure 4 shows the 16 direct municipal wastewater discharges and 1
industrial discharge directly into near shore coastal waters in addition to
the 6 municipal discharges into the bays. Figure 5 shows the locations of the
5 barge disposal sites within the bight proper, the 12 mile sewage sludge site
now abandoned, as well as the two 106 mile sites for sewage sludge and chemi
cal wastes outside the bight area.

           The Long Island Sound's dominant features are its large surface
area of 3350 km^ connected to the East River on the western end and the
Atlantic Ocean in the East.  The hydraulic exchanges between the East River and
the Sound are not fully understood but would tend to govern the water quality
in the area since no major rivers discharge to the western  Sound. The Housa-
tonic River is the major discharge in the central Sound with the Connecticut
?viver the major discharge in the eastern Sound. Figure 6, the locations of the
15 municipal wastewater treatment plants, shows the majority of the flow to be
discharged to the densely populated western end of the Sound. The four large
NYC treatment plants, 12 to  15, are included in both the Long Island Sound and
New York Harbor loads. In addition 24 industrial discharges are present, Fig-
ure 7, with the largest located in the central and far eastern  end of the


     Pollutant mass loads are  presented on an annual average basis for flow,
suspended solids and the toxics. Year to year and seasonal  changes in hydrol-
ogy, meteorology and other factors can cause significant variations around
tabulated estimates. In many cases, information on mass inputs  is limited and
loading rates are extrapolated from the best available data. In some
instances, data is insufficient for developing estimates of load inputs.


     Table  1 presents the magnitude of the toxic inputs to the harbor. The
wastewater  inputs are based on 1987 data and account for most of the  treatment
plant upgrading that occurred in the 1980's in the metropolitan area. The
majority of these inputs come from municipal secondary treatment plants. Fig-
ure 8 shows the distribution of inputs by source. The total metals loads are
summarized  in this and subsequent loading figures to represent average source
distributions of the major metals inputs, the tabulated data available for the
specific metals.

     For the total metals,  inputs from wastewater,  stormwater and tributaries
are significant while most of the solids are contributed by the tributaries.
While the above sources are also significant for the PCB's with the Hudson
River contributing the majority due to the upper Hudson contaminated  sedi
ments,  atmospheric inputs to harbor waters become as important as stormwater
inputs.  All atmospheric values are inputs only and do not consider losses of
volatile components back to the atmosphere. The discussion on PCS fate later
in the paper evaluates this situation. Toxics inputs from landfill leachates
is insignificant for the metals and about 3% of total PCB inputs.
     Table  2 shows the historical trends in the toxic wastewater inputs start-
ing at 1970-74 for the solids and 1979-80 for the metals. By 1987 raw sewage
inputs from New York City had markedly decreased due to new plant construction
and completion of sewage interceptors. Separate industrial treatment  plant
inputs have also significantly decreased where they generally now represent
less than 5% of the total wastewater inputs except for mercury where  they
represent about one third of the total.  Figure 9 shows the marked decrease in
solids inputs over this period to be paralleled by a decrease in total metals
which represent 1.5% of the total wastewater solids discharged from treatment
     The heavy use of the harbor complex for shipping and the intensive con-
centration  of industries in some areas subject the area to accidental spills
as witnessed by the number of major spills of petroleum products in the Arthur
Kill area in the early 1990's. In 1982,  Mueller et Al performed a data gather-
ing effort  to document spills to the transect zone between 1974 and 1979
during which 1750 m^ per year of fuel oil and hydrocarbon products were
spilled into the harbor complex. Annual mass inputs of napthalene (51% of
total inputs), toluene (3.3%), trichloroethylene (3.6%),  and petroleum hydro-
carbons (6% of oil and grease) were provided in this study.
     The fate of the contaminants in the harbor waters is important to deter-
mine not only impacts in the harbor but also the quantity transferred to the
New York Bight through the Rockaway   Sandy Hook transect. Much of the
suspended matter containing toxics settles to bottom, some of it ultimately
removed during dredging operations to maintain navigation channels. Based on a
mass balance analysis using settling rates, HydroQual, 1989,  estimated that
60% of the  solids and toxics were retained in harbor sediments due to the
process of  sedimentation. Typically sediments in near shore waters are more
highly contaminated than in open bay waters due to settling.  Since no biodeg-
radation of the metals nor for the most part PCB occurs in the sediments, the
impacts of  the contaminated sediments on aquatic biota and the interchange of
contaminants with overlying waters is required to evaluate environmental

     Table  3 shows estimates of toxic inputs to bight waters  with Fig 10 sum-
marizing distributions. A range of estimates for suspended solids, copper,
nickel and  zinc is due to uncertainty in the amount settled in the harbor. For
the solids, transfer coefficients (ratio of amount transferred into bight
waters to amount of pollutant load into the harbor from all sources)  varied
from 0.004  to 1.0 while for the above three metals, from 0.4 to 0.7.  This
range of estimates is based on analysis of data from three techniques, a
concentration gradient analysis, a net flux analysis, and a settling  analysis,

HydroQual, 1989.  The remaining metals, organics  and  inorganics  used a trans-
fer coefficient of 0.4 assuming 60% settling in the harbor.  For  the total
loads, average values of all range estimates were utilized.
     Figure 10, summarizing the data in Table 3,  shows the dredge  spoils  to be
the major inputs of solids, the atmosphere and transect  zone to  be the major
inputs of the metals while the atmosphere is the  major input of  PCB's.
Although the sludge dumpsite is actually outside  the  bight proper  it is
included due to its proximity and is significant  with respect to the total
metals. Direct coastal zone inputs are insignificant  for the total bight
waters being less than 2% of the total inputs. When considering  the bight
apex, atmospheric inputs are much lower due to the smaller surface area,  thus
the greatest inputs are from the transect zone and dredge spoils as illus-
trated in Figure 11 for PCS.
     The history of the barge dump volumes to the New York Bight,  Figure  12,
shows that volumes of acid and chemical wastes peaked from the late sixties to
the late seventies but has now been discontinued. Dredging operations  in  the
last  5 years are removing about one-third of the  volume  removed  durin  peak
operations in  the early seventies. The volume of  sludge  has  been gradually
increasing, with a sharp jump in 1980, as treatment plants continue to  be
upgraded producing more sludge. In total, 6 New Jersey,  14 New York City. 2
Nassau County  and 1 Westchester County treatment  plants  dispose  of sewage
sludge at the  dumpsite. Until early 1986, these plants used  the  12 mile site.
This  was gradually phased out between March and December 1987. As  of January 1
1988, all sewage sludge is disposed of at the 106 mile site  with phase  out of
all sewage sludge ocean dumping mandated for the  early 1990's. Although volume
has increased  in the past quarter century, loads  have not always increased as
shown in Table 4. Greater sludge digestion and destruction at the  treatment
plants is responsible for the solids decrease while the  decrease for most
metals may be  related to reduced industry in the  area, increased industrial
recycling, and industrial pretreatment.
      Table 5 compares the man-made and atmospheric inputs to  the New York
Bight to the inputs from the coastal advective transport due to  the east  to
south, Montauk to Cape May circulation pattern, Hydroqual 1989.  These  coastal
transport inputs are associated with background ocean pollutant  concentra-
tions, from discharges farther north, and with pollutants exiting  from  Long
Island Sound. The information is quite tenuous since  it  is based on unverified
coastal flow estimates from a hydrodynamic model  and  very limited  ambient
concentration data along the geographical limits  from a  1988  EPA cruise.
Although outputs from Cape May were generally greater than eastern inputs at
Montauk, a mass balance considering sources could not be obtained.   However it
does  indicate that the metal inputs from the inland sources  are  significant,
especially when considering the bight apex where man-made inputs are 80 to
800%  greater than background transport values.

     Table 6,  the toxic inputs to Long Island Sound is based  on  data from the
NCPDI study of Farrow et al.,  1986, and atmospheric estimates of Stacey,  1990
modified by bight and harbor input data for metals and PCB's.  Figure 13,  the
distribution of inputs,  indicates that stormwater contributes the  major solids
inputs due to runoff from cropland and urban areas.  For  both total metals and
PCB's tributaries in the central and eastern portions of the  area  contribute
the greatest loads with atmosphere, wastewater and stormwater all  significant.
The magnitude of the toxics loads into the Long Island Sound is  slightly  less
than half the magnitude of the toxics loads into  the  New York   New Jersey

     The  Long Island Sound 1988 annual report,  EPA,  1988, indicates  that  sedi
ment and mussel samples tend to be more contaminated with metals and toxic
organics in the western portion near Throgs Neck  than in the  eastern areas.
The PCB sediment data in the lower New York   New Jersey harbor  waters  is also
typically higher than existing at Throgs Neck presumably due  to  the Hudson
River tributary source.  A special study on tributylin (TBT)  indicates  that the

highest concentrations in mussels were measured in site 2 at Mamaroneck  in  the
proximity of a marina. This compound, highly toxic to some marine life in
coastal waters,  has been widely used in marine paint to prevent barnacles and
algae from accumulating on marine hulls until 1988 when its use was severely


     To evaluate the impact of the toxic loads on the coastal waters,  a model
of the fate and interactions of the contaminants with the sediment, atmo-
sphere, and aquatic biota is required. A study of the PCB fate in the lower
Hudson estuary below the Troy dam has recently been completed by Thomann et
Al, 1989 and will be briefly summarized here.

     The striped bass fishery in the Hudson River is presently closed because
the PCB concentration is above the allowable USFDA level of 2 micrograms PCB
per gram fish.  Two management questions were considered by this study. "What
can be done to open the striped bass fishery? What would be the effectiveness
of upstream dredging of contaminated sediments on the lower fishery?"

     Figure 15  shows the limits of the study area were from the Troy dam out
to the Bight apex and out to the eastern end of Long Island Sound. The major
upstream source of PCB's in the mid sixties and early 70's were from the GE
discharges in the Hudson Falls   Ft. Edward area. Prior to this time down-
stream loading from treatment plants and runoff were predominant as shown in
Figure 16. The upstream load rapidly diminished in the late 70's to about the
same order of the downstream inputs. In the early years from 1946 to 1974 when
the PCB load was high, the flux of PCB was from the water column to the
sediments in the lower estuary causing a buildup in sediment concentration.
When the total load decreased in the mid 70's, the sediment flux was reversed
with the sediment acting as a contaminant source to the water column.

     To evaluate the fate of the PCB's in the estuary,  a mathematical  model
was developed incorporating the circulation and flow patterns in the estuary
with the sediment-water and water-air interactions as well as the food chain
bioconcentration, excretion and accumulation processes. Since the various PCB
homologs have differing partitioning coefficients, 7 PCB homologs were uti-
lized in the model. Model calibration and verification was obtained with exis-
ting data. Figures 18 to 20 show the total PCB loadings over the 41 year
period 1946-1987 to the Bight, 46 m ton, and Sound, 6 m ton,  with the tri,
tetra, and penta biphenyls comprising 80% of the load.

     Figures 21  to 23 show the input and fate of the total PCBs and 2  homo-
logs. Most (66%) of the PCB load to the estuary in this 41 year period has
been volatilized to the atmosphere, 9% removed by dredging and 19% transported
across the model boundaries. No biodegradation of the PCB is assumed in the
model leaving only 5.7% stored in the system, primarily in the sediment.  Vola-
tilization is seen dominate all homologs, although progressively decreasing as
one proceeds from the lower to upper homologs. This behavior is expected since
higher homologs partition to solids more strongly becoming lesc available for
volatilization.  The fate mechanisms associated strongly with solids (dredging
and storage) indicate lower contributions for the lower homologs and increas-
ing contributions for the higher homologs.  Boundary transport also appears to
be significantly influenced by solids, since contributions increase with the
higher homologs.
     The mode,l  was used for projections of future striped bass PCB concentra-
tions as shown in Figure 24 and 25. Under a "no action" alternative, 50% of
the striped bass in the estuary are expected to be below 2 ug/gwet by 1992
with another 12 years required to get 50 % below 1 ug/gwet or 95% of the fish
below 2 ug/gwet. If upstream dredging removes all PCB,  the results are about
the same as the "do nothing" alternative since mass inputs below Troy, NY to
the Hudson estuary dominate loadings in recent years.

     1.  The quality of the existing toxics data base for the harbor, bight,
sound coastal inputs is considered adequate for the metals for the wastewater
runoff,  and barge disposal sources. Other sources; atmospheric deposition,
sediment flux, and coastal transport are considered poor to inadequate since
they are based on little data or data extrapolated from other areas. Except
for the sewage sludge source, the data base for other contaminants is also
considered poor to inadequate.  Quantification of the loads in this paper are
best estimates requiring continual upgrading as better data bases are devel-

     2.  Fate models employing the physical,  biological,  and chemical interac-
tions with the system hydraulics, such as that illustrated in this paper for
the PCBs in the Hudson estuary,  when properly calibrated and verified with
field data provide a powerful tool to evaluate management decisions on use

1.   HydroQual, 1989.   "Assessment  of  Pollutant  Inputs  to  New York Bight",  for
    Dynamac Corp., Rockville, MD by support  of  US  EPA.

2.   Mueller,  James  A.,  Jeris,  J.S.,  Anderson,   A.R.,  Hughes,  C.F.,  1976.
    "Contaminant  Inputs  to  the New York Bight", NOAA Technical  Memorandum ERL

3.   Mueller, James A., Gerrish, T.A.,  Casey,  M.C.,  1982.   "Contaminant Inputs
    to  the Hudson-Raritan Estuary", HydroQual,  Inc., prepared for NOAA Office
    of  Marine Pollution  Assessment, Rockville,  MD.

4.   Farrow. D.R., Arnold, F.D., Lombard!, M.L., Main, M.B., Eichelberger,  P.O.,
    1986.  "The National Coastal Pollutants Discharge Inventory, Estimates for
    Long Island  Sound",  Office cf  Oceanography  and Marine  Assessment,  NOAA.

5.   Stacey, PaulE., 1990. Personal Communication, Senior Environmental Analyst,
    Connecticut  DEP,  12  Jan.  1990.

6.   EPA, 1988.   Long  Island Sound  Study, 1988 Annual Report.

7.   Thomann,  R.V.,  Mueller,  John A.,  Winfield,   R.P.,   Huang,  C.R.,  1989.
     "Mathematical Model  of  the Long-Term Behavior  of PCBs  in the Hudson River
    Estuary", Manhattan  College Environmental  Engineering & Science  Program
    report prepared  for  The Hudson River Fdn.

                        SAND* MOOK-
                        ROCKAWAY POINT
                      »  TRANSECT
                          DIRECT UGHT DISCHARGE ZONE
                                                          DEEP WATER
                                                          SEWAGE SLUDGE

       5000 r
       4000  •
    B  3000  '
       2000  '
       1000 ' '
no upstream riverine inputs
    estimated (or
  subareas 1 through 6
                                                      1 )   Upstream riverine source
                                          	1	h
                                        5      6
                                                         34  BGY
FIGURE  2,  Long Island Sound  Geographical Area Showing Annual Stream-
            flow, circa 1982.


                                           i {       Queens
                                                  QUEENS CO

                                       KINGS CO.


             MUO DUMP DREDGE

                   12 MILE SEWAGE SLUDGE (ABANDONED)
                                                    IOC MILE OCCPWATER
                                                    MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
                              1OS MILE OEEPWATCH
                              INDUSTRIAL WASTE
                                              DOES NOT INCLUDE WOOD BURN SITES


        160 '

        KO '


      B 100 .
      Y  80




                                                  Major Facilities

                                            • average daily flow >1 MGD
                                           0 average daily flow >10 MGD
                               45     6    7

                               Wastewater Flow
FIGURE 6.   Annual Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges by
            Subarea, circa  1982-84.

                                                 Process water

                                                 Cooling water
                             industrial Wastewater
FIGURE 7-  Annual Treated Process  and Cooling Water Discharges from
           Direct Discharging Industrial Facilities by Subarea,
           circa 1982-84.


                              4600  m ton/d
             TOTAL METALS
                              13 m ton/d
               TOTAL PCB
         LANDFILL (3.1%)
                              W kg/d

  500 -






             Estimated at

             1.5% of TSS
              TOTAL METALS


          SLUDGE /
 11,000  m ton/d
                  TOTAL METALS

          SLUDGE     ^^^[7>\  TRANSECT
          (19-2%)   ^^•X/X (34.2%>
   19 mton/d
                    TOTAL PCB
              SLUDGE (1.33)
    31  kg/d
                              COASTAL (0.6%)

                                       TOTAL MASS INPUT*
                                                14 kg/d

                                             BIGHT ZONE
                                             MASS INPUT: 10
                 LONG ISLAND
                 COASTAL ZONE
                 MASS INPUT* LIMITED
NOTES  Results are estimates only.  Use with caution.  Refer to text,

                                            (B) ACID WASTES













          I 111 I
  1965  1970  1975 198O 1985  1990











             I I I I I \ I I I I ! I ! I I I I



       1965  1970 1975 1960 1985  1990

            CALENDAR YEAR
       1965  1970  1975 1980  1985 1990

             CALENDAR YEAR
          (D) SEWAGE SLUDGE










                                        1965  197O 1975  1980 1985 199O

                                             CALENDAR YEAR
         FIGURE  12.  BARGE DUMPING TO NEW YORK BIGHT (1967"TO 1987)

            WASTEWATER (3.
                                    2200  m ton/d
                   TOTAL METALS
                                    5.7  mton/d
                    TOTAL PCB

               4,5 kg/d

Sediment Samples—Long Island Sound

    Ratio to Throgs Neck
                                        Mussel Samples—Long Island Sound

                                             Ratio to Throgs Neck
               4  S',6      8
                                                                                  Sediment S^mpl^s—Hudson Piver to
                                                                                                     Ihrogs Neck
                                                                                          m    w        m
                                                                                       Ratio to Throgs Neck
                                                            4      6

                                                                                     10   11    12   13   14    1
                                                                                                  . Location*
                     NEW   *•   CONN
                     YORK  \
                                                                     Atlantic Ocean
                                                                                                1 =  Throgs Neck
                                                                                                2=  Mamaroneck
                                                                                                3=  Hempstead Harbor
                                                                                                4=  Sheffield Island
                                                                                                5=  Huntington Harbor
                                                                                                6«=  Housatonic River
                                                                                                7-  Port Jefferson
                                                                                                8=  New Haven
                                                                                                9=  Connecticut River
                                                                                               10=  Sandy Hook
                                                                                               11 -  Ftaritan Bay
                                                                                               12-  Jamaica Bay
                                                                                               13—  Lower Bay
                                                                                     40*30     14=  Upper Bay
Sediment Samples—Long Island Sound
    Ratio to Throgs Neck
                                             Mussel Samples-Long Island Sound     Sediment Samples-Hudson River to
                                                                                                      Throgs Neck
                                                  Ratio to Throgs Neck
         1     35      7      9
            2   •  4      6     8
                                               1      3      57      9
- M
- R


O 1








                                                                                       10   11    12    13

                                                                                                 Local torn
figure W-.  When rhe corKenrrotionj of jome meioli (lop) ond orgonk compoundj (bottom) of sites in Long Islond Sound ond she Hudson-Rorilan Ertuory ors compared
to concentroliom of Throgj Neck ond a ratio B cclculated, both mussels ond sediment show a generc* western enhancement of contamination. (From Tom O'Connor,
Notional Ckeonk and Atmospheric Administration.)

Figure  15°  Limits of  study area



Upstream Loading

  Waterford, NY:

From sediment data
From water column
                              Downstream Loading
                                       i  i  i  i  I  I  I   I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I  I

                         FIGURE  16.   PCB  Loading Rate to Lower Hudson from 1946 to 1987.

      FIGURE 17.  Annual Change  In  Sediment PCB  Mass







,3 .

                            NIT         FROM SEDIMENT

                            TO WA.TP eSUUM:N
              T	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	[•

           1946   1950   1954   1958   1962   1966   1970   1974   1978   1982   1986


                            FROM HUDSON ESTUARY
              TOTAL MASS THROUGH 1987 - 46 METRIC TONS
15 -

14 -

13 -

12 -

11 -

10 -

 9 -

 8 -

 7 -

 6 -

 5 -

 4 -


 2 -

 1 -
         7/7 /1

                            FROM HUDSON ESTUARY
                  TOTAL MASS THROUGH 1987 - 6 METRIC TONS

      0.3 -
      0.2 -

           FIGURE 21.  Total PCS  Inputs and Fate
                         269.9 mt
           PStflAH  I11.7X)
                            ATMOS II. 9X)
RUNOFF (20.5X)
                                         UPSTR {55.9X5
                         269.9 at
               STORAGE (5.7X)    DECAY  (O.OX)
                                          VOLATILIZ (6B.OXJ

                                  FIGURE 22.  Dichlorobiphenyl  inputs and fate
36.51 mt
          PS+HAW  (S.OXJ    ATMOS  (i.7X)
RUNOFF (12.9X)
                                          STORAGE (2.9XJ  DECAY  (O.OX)
                              BDRY TRNSP (ii.8X)
                                              DREDGING  (3.7X)
                                                                     i.Sf   not
                                  UPSTR (80.4X)
                                                                                     VOLATILIZ (81.EX)

                             FIGURE 23.  Hexachlorobiphenyl Inputs and Fate

                    INPUT                                        FATE

                        ATMOS (3.2X)
PS+RAW (25.9X)
                                 UPSTH  (16.5X)
STORAGE  (7.9X)    DECAY '°-05!l
                                           BDRY TW.SP  (31. OX)
                                                                                  VOLATILIZ  U4.9X)
                         RUNOFF (54.4X)

1967      rasa
    Figure 24 .Simulated response of striped bass PCS concentration in
    Region #2 under the "No Action" alternative.

Estimated  number  of  years  to  reach  target  percentiles

in  the  striped  bass  of  Rtgipn #2  under  two alternatives

               24 -


               20 -

               18 -


               14 -

               12 -


                a -

                6 -

                4 -


                                              STRIPED BASS FOR REGION #2
                                 "•MO ACTION" ALTERNATIVE
                             PCB INPUT LOAD FROM ABOVE

                              TROY, NY =  0 AFTER 1987
           25            50             75           90      95

                   ESTIMATED  X OF STRIPED BASS EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN 2 ug/g (w)

           3.4           2.33    2.0           1.5          1.0

                   ESTIMATED  MEAN CONC.  (ug/g (w))  OF STRIPED BASS  IN REGION #2

Flow (mgd)
TSS (m tons/d)
Toxic Pollutants
Organic Toxics
PCB Total
PAH Total
Inorganic Toxics




















aAverage daily values   HydroQual,  1989
c(1979 through 1980), Mueller et al., 1982

                                                   TABLE   2.  HISTORICAL TRENDS IN THE TRANSECT ZONE MASS INPUTS
Raw (m/id)
Parameter 1970-74"
Flow 480
Conventional m
TSS 258
Toxic Pollutants



Primary (mud)
1970-74a 1979-80b
663 410
m ton/d
358 318

Secondary (mxd)


1970-74" J979-80b
1300 1870
m ton/d
209 241



Industrial (nwd)
1970-74* 1979-80"
242 274
D ton/d
52 8




Total (m*d)
1970-74" 1979-Bot
2685 2896
m ton/d
870 680


> 1987


•Mueller et al. (1976) for 1970 to 1974 data, Table 23
         et al. (1982) for 1979 to 1980 data. Table VI-13, Table VI-10

                              TABLE   3.    SUMMARY OF POLLUTANT INPUTS TO NEW YORK BIGHT

TSS ^rnfrWeO
Toxic Pollutants
o Lead
5 Mercury
Ofganjg Pollutants




New Jersey



>0. 05-0. 14

Long Island



>0. 03-0. 11





Dump Sites




(* ..s/^
' 109^8


    Inorganic Pollutants
aExcludes coastal transport,  ftefer—fc0-£eeliuir"3:3—
DNo estimate for sediment flux

Note:  Estimates in this table are based on limited data and information in some cases and should be used with

TABLE 4. Comparison of 1973 and 1987 Sludge Loads
to the New York Bight
Vol , m-Vyr
TSS m ton/ day
Toxic Pollutants
Organic Toxics
DDT & metab.
H. Epoxide
PCB- total
Total Load





Total Load



HydroQual,  1989

  Table 5.  Metal  Inputs  to New  York Bight Proper and
     Apex Compared to  COASTAL TRANSPORT  Inputs
          Bight  Inputs              Apex  Inputs
           as % of   Apex  Transport as % of
Transport   Montauk      From East      Apex
 (kg/d)    Transport      (kg/d)       Transport
1, 070
8, 130
1, 370
14, 200
9, 140

                         1, 210

                                     1, 020

                                     1, 800






TSS (m ton/d)
Toxic Pollutants
Organic Toxics
PCS - Total (3)
Wastewater (I)






Atmospheric ( 2 )






From Farrow et al.,  1986 modified as follows:
    Metals data uses avg L.I.  secondary concentrations for municipal waste-
    water except for As and Hg where NYC values were used.
    Using average values from Great Lakes estimates by Stacey,  1990 except
    As,  Cr and Zn scaled up from Transect Zone values by surface area ratio
    From Thomann et al . , 1989 deleting Newtown Creek from estimate.


                   AND THEIR EFFECTS IN


                      NEW YORK BIGHT
                        Fredrika C. Moser

                   Division of Science and Research

             New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

                        Trenton, New Jersey


      A literature review provided information on the distribution of toxic contaminants
in water, sediments and biota in three coastal systems in the New Jersey, New York and
Connecticut area: The Hudson-Raritan estuary, the Long Island Sound and the New York
bight. Particle-associated contaminants and their transport, dispersion and deposition are

      Disparities in data collection and analytical techniques make comparisons between
data sets and systems difficult. In general, pollutant concentrations decrease with increasing
distance  offshore.   Contaminant levels  are highest  in fine-grained  particulates  and
concentrations are primarily controlled by particulate size and proximity to contaminant

      Federal and state standards, criteria, and guidelines exist for regulating certain toxic
contaminants in estuarine and coastal waters.  There are no standards for contaminants in
sediments. FDA can restrict the sale and consumption of fish if tissue levels exceed FDA
established action levels for specific contaminants.  Little information exists on the effects
contaminants in these systems may have on biota.  However, on-going research combining
field and laboratory studies may contribute significantly to understanding toxic effects on

      Understanding distribution of toxics between  these different systems is enhanced
through  the use of  sediment geochemical  tracers.  These tracers  (e.g. 137Cs, 7Be, DDT,
PCBs, etc.)  can  provide  an understanding  of  spatial  and  temporal distribution of
contaminants. This information is critical for developing sound management strategies for
these coastal waters and guiding continued research.

       Considerable information exists on the levels of toxics in three coastal systems in the
New Jersey, New York and Connecticut areas: the Hudson-Raritan Estuary (HRE), the
Long Island Sound  (LIS) and the New York Bight (NYB). Less information exists on the
effects these levels of toxics could have on human and ecological health. Limitations in our
knowledge and in existing standards and criteria make regulation and management of toxic
contaminants in these systems difficult. Sediment core data (e.g., radionuclides: 137Cs, 7Be;
contaminants: lead [Pb], polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs], DDT and its metabolites,
chlordane) and an understanding of sediment dynamics are important tools for determining
the selection and cost  of clean-up actions as part of a management program  (Bopp and
Simpson, 1989). This paper summarizes selected data sets that report contaminant levels
in water, particulates and biota for these three systems.  Emphasis is given to particle-

associated contaminants and other particle-associated tracers.  These tracers can be a
powerful tool for understanding  sources, distribution,  transport, and  temporary  and
permanent  sinks of contaminants throughout these coastal  systems.  In  discussing toxic
effects on biota, I briefly discuss data from combined laboratory studies and field investiga-

       Contaminants were selected for inclusion in this paper based on data set availability
and analytical techniques. The selected contaminants were the metals Cu, Cd, Cr, and Pb;
and organic compounds dioxin, PCBs, DDT and selected DDT metabolites and hydrocar-
bons. Contaminant levels in biota are reported only for select species. The data sets are
often incomplete and few samples have measurements of all contaminants of interest.

      I should note that many more contaminants  should be studied than are discussed
here. Research on contaminant sources and sinks should include contaminants that are not
on the priority pollutant list.  Contaminants not on  the priority pollutant list could be
identified through chemical-specific analyses conducted  under state or  federal permit
programs as well as through the literature (Burkhard and  Ankley, 1989). In particular,
identification of toxic chemicals produced by industrial and municipal point sources should
be integrated into monitoring and management programs for these systems.

      First, this paper discusses the limitations of  the different information sources on
contaminants in these systems. Second, a brief background is provided on the standards and
criteria that can be used to control toxic loading to estuarine systems.  Third, contaminant
levels reported in the literature that occur in the  three different media (water,  sediment,
biota) are reported for each of the three coastal systems.  Fourth, effects of contaminants
on aquatic organisms in these areas are  briefly discussed.

       HRE,  LIS and NYB rank in the United  States' top seven "most heavily sampled
embayments"  for PCBs and organochlorinated pesticides in, primarily, bivalves and fish
(Mearns  et al.,  1988).  Despite the heavy  sampling, determining temporal and spatial
contaminant trends by comparing and combining  data sets is difficult.  Data  collection
methods and analytical techniques are inconsistent. Less obvious, but equally important, are
differences in approaches to normalizing data, statistical analyses and interpretation.  For
example, metal  levels in  water may be either  a dissolved  fraction (filtered  and then
acidified), an acidified and then filtered fraction, or an unfiltered "bulk" water sample. Each
of these methods, especially in estuarine systems where changes in salinity can significantly
change a metal's distribution between the dissolved and paniculate  phase,  can result  in
different water column metal concentrations and different interpretations of a metal's spatial
and temporal distribution.  Similar methodological problems arise with data for metal and

organic contaminants in sediment and biological samples. In sediment samples different ap-
proaches to "normalizing" for grain size, organic carbon, and "natural" levels of metals can
affect interpretations of contaminant distribution and occurrence.  In biological samples
differences in  collection  time,  in animal  size/age,  in  biological affinity for certain
contaminants, and in the selection of organs or tissues for analyses can affect interpretations
of contaminant levels and trends.  These problems must  be considered carefully before
comparing results  from different studies  in the same system.  Also,  in order to  avoid
misrepresenting contaminant values taken from the referenced materials, all units reported
in this paper are taken directly from the reference. There has been no attempt made to
standardize the units as it is  not  always  clear from the  reference how the  units were

       Other problems exist that further preclude the effective use of historical data to
establish firm spatial and temporal trends in metals and organic contamination in  these
systems.  However, some data sets-National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion (NOAA), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), New York City Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYCDEC), Interstate Sanitation Commission (ISC), and those
conducted by university-affiliated research  institutions such as Lamont Doherty Geological
Observatory-while not necessarily  comparable to each  other,  do provide good historical
information for assessing levels of contaminants in water, sediments and biota.  These are
the studies that this paper has focused on.

       Several national acts and laws affect fresh and salt water quality. The Clean Water
Act directs EPA and the states to set standards and establish criteria in an effort to attain
fishable/swimmable levels for all water bodies in the United States. Under section 303 and
401 of the Clean Water Act, EPA or the individual states are given primary responsibility
for developing water quality standards.  In practice, water quality standards for estuarine
systems can be adopted only to maintain designated uses of water bodies and to  maintain
ambient water quality characteristics.   States are required through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program to establish criteria to control the
discharge of toxic substances into the nation's waters (Federal Register, 1984).  The EPA's
Water Quality  Standards require the use of combined  biological testing techniques and
chemical-specific analyses to assess effluent discharges and to set permit limitations. Where
specific numerical criteria for a chemical  or biological  parameter are  not available,
compliance with the standards must be based  on general narrative criteria and on protection
of the designated use.  If states do  not have numerical  criteria, then EPA-recommended
criteria may be used (USEPA, 1985).  EPA's published water quality criteria are  based on
available scientific information and  the agency's published risk assessment procedures.

       EPA, New Jersey and New York established limited water quality criteria for salt
water systems during the last two decades.  State and federal criteria for ambient water


quality in estuarine or marine waters depend on the designated use for a water body.
Certain designated uses allow  the water  quality to  fail  the  swimmable/fishable criteria
(NJDEP, 1988; Table 1).   Under this designation, further reduction in water quality  is
prevented through the "anti-degradation" mandate of the Clean Water Act.

Substance      SA, SAB, SC   I      SD
Cadmium +
Chromium +
Copper +
Lead +
Nickel +
Zinc +
Arsenic x






NOTE: Only standards for metals (and arsenic) are listed here. For complete list of NYS standards, see "NYS
Water Quality Standards and Guidance Values". (NYSDEC, April, 1987).

+ = acid soluble form:  that part of the substance that passes through a 0.45 micron membrane filter after the
sample is acidified to Ph 1.5-2.0 with nitric acid.

* = NYSDEC Guidance Values 1987 (ug/1).

x = dissolved arsenic form.
(from NYCDEP, 1987)

      Section 304 (1) of the reauthorized Clean Water Act of 1987 requires the states to
develop lists of waters, including estuaries, that do not meet the Clean Water Act goals or
their designated use.   The Act requires  states  to identify point sources and amounts of
pollutants discharged into non-compliant waters and  develop control strategies for each
waterway so that the water quality standards (either designated use or swimmable/fishable)
are met. For New Jersey and New York this includes parts of the HRE.

      EPA and the states can also use the Toxic Substances Control Act to regulate
chemical substances  and to prevent those substances  from contaminating biota.  Similar
regulations can be used under  the Resource Conservation Recovery Act and  CERCLA
(Superfund). In addition, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act permits
EPA to deny registrations or to cancel existing registrations  for pesticide chemicals that
cause fish contamination.

       As federal and state governments revise the Water Quality Standards, Criteria and
Guidelines  there is  increasing  emphasis on establishing permitted  levels of toxics in
discharges that are protective of both human and ecological health. New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) and EPA Region IV currently are revising their
water quality standards. EPA  Region IV is developing  guidelines to predict acceptable
levels of toxics in fish tissue to protect human and ecological health (Dieterich, per. comm.).
For consumption of fish from fresh water systems, maximum contaminant concentrations are
determined  using a 10~6 human  health risk factor for carcinogens.

      A series of action levels  and proposed criteria  exist to protect human and wildlife
consumers of contaminated fish and shellfish. The action limits are federally enforceable
criteria set by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to prevent interstate sale of
contaminated seafood (Federal Register,  1974). The National  Academy of Sciences (NAS)
in 1974 recommended numerical criteria for protection of predatory wildlife. Although the
NAS criteria were never adopted as regulatory criteria,  the FDA action levels are used
frequently by the states (Mearns et al., 1988). In general, the states use the action levels  set
by the FDA to establish advisories for limited consumption or for prohibition of sale and
consumption of specific fish or shellfish in state waters.

      New  York and  New Jersey have  identified areas in the HRE and the NYB  for
prohibitions and for limited consumption advisories on both resident and migratory species.
In New Jersey these advisories are based primarily on levels of PCBs, dioxin, chlordane and
other organic contaminants (Hauge,  1990).  New York has similar restrictions for  some
species as they exceed FDA criteria for PCBs and cadmium (Sloan, 1987; Table 2).

      Compound                                    Level (ppm, wet weight)

Mercury                                                    1.0b
PCB                                                       2.0
DDT and metabolites                                          5.0
Chlordane                                                  0.3
Dieldrin                                                    0.3
Lindane                                                    0.3C
Eldrin                                                     0.3
Heptachlor and heptachlorepoxide                                0.3
Dioxin                                                     2.5, 5.0 x 10"5d

a     Unless otherwise noted, information from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1982).

      Information from Armstrong and Sloan (1980).

c     Information from Federal Register, Dec. 6 (1974).

d     Two "levels of concern"  have been established. Above 50 parts per trillion, FDA recommends no
      consumption and below 25 ppt they place no limit on consumption. Between 25 and 50 ppt they
      recommend no more than one meal a week for infrequent consumers and 1-2 a month for frequent
      consumers (Belton et al. 1985).

      No  standards or criteria exist for regulating ambient levels of contaminants in
sediments.  The  United  States  Army  Corps of Engineers (USACOE) and  the EPA
developed bulk toxicity and bioaccumulation tests  using several selected organisms  for
sediments targeted for dredge removal and ocean disposal (USEPA and USACOE, 1977).
 PCBs, Hg, Cd, petroleum hydrocarbons, DDT and metabolites  are the only contaminants
measured in sediments targeted for dredging and ocean disposal. In addition, the EPA and
the  USACOE are  currently  developing  a method for  evaluating dredged  material
contaminated by dioxin (Tavalaro and Stern, 1990).

      Developing comprehensive ambient  sediment quality criteria requires a  testing
program that  includes  diverse biological  tests  for different toxicity  endpoints (e.g.,
carcinogen, teratogen, etc.), several different organisms and comprehensive chemical testing.
Current research  and numerous approaches are presented in USEPA (1989) and Zarba

(1988). It seems prudent to consider a tiered approach to toxicity evaluation which includes
field measurements coupled with chemical and biological testing in the laboratory, similar
to the methods proposed by the International Joint Commission Sediment Subcommittee
(IJC, 1988).  As most of the comprehensive sediment evaluation methods currently being
proposed will be costly, decisions to determine sediment toxicity should be tied to plans for
sediment management.

      Although the original Clean Water Act was more specifically targeted towards fresh
water systems, the 1987 Clean Water Act recognized the importance and necessity to
address the specific and often unique water quality standard setting needs of estuarine and
coastal waters.  New programs, standards and criteria are being established to improve water
quality in the coastal zone.  Numerous academic and government studies were important
in highlighting water  quality issues  in coastal waters.  Many of these studies showed
contaminant levels in estuaries  of both ecological and human health concern.  Below are
outlined some of the research  studies that highlighted water quality problems in the
estuarine and coastal waters of New Jersey, New York and Connecticut.

      Research studies and ambient water quality monitoring programs provide valuable
data on contaminant levels in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary (NJMSC, 1987).  In particular,
work in the Hudson River provides a comprehensive evaluation of the concentration and
distribution of PCBs in particles, fish and shellfish.  In addition, NYCDEP, NJDEP and
NYSDEC have  various  on-going monitoring  programs, that  include  some  limited
measurement of toxic contaminants in the HRE.

Levels  of Toxics in Water

      The NYCDEP conducts annual comprehensive monitoring in the New York Harbor
area which includes the measurement of concentrations of toxics in both sediment and water
(NYCDEP, 1987).  Results from 1987 and previous years indicate possible decreases in
water column  values for  Cu and Pb.  Cu concentrations averaged 13 ug/1 and Pb con-
centrations averaged 70 ug/1. This, however, still resulted in a low percentage of stations
that were in compliance with state water quality standards for Cu and Pb at 19% and 12%,
respectively (Table 1).  Cd and Cr  compliance, however, was as high as 50% and 100%,
respectively, with mean concentrations of 4.1 ug/1 and 0.9 ug/1 (NYCDEP, 1987). Pb and
Cu measured in Raritan Bay in  1974  yielded concentrations up  to 65 ug/1 and  13.9 ug/1,
respectively (Waldhauer et al., 1978). Breteler (1984), using historical data, reported for the
HRE average water column values  for Cu, Pb, Cd and Cr of 33  ppb, 15 ppb, 0.5 ppb and
5.9 ppb, respectively.  As with other data, Cu  continues to fail  to meet  NYCDEP water
quality standards and Pb only meets their standards in waters with a limited designated use
(Table 1). Searl  et al. (1977) measured extractable organics in water samples collected in
New York Harbor waters  in 1974 and  1975.  They  report a mean concentration of


extractable organics of 159 ug/1.

Levels of Toxics in Sediments

      Studies of PCBs in the Hudson River have provided critical, detailed information
necessary for development of management plans for this system (Sanders, 1989).  Average
concentrations for PCBs in recent sediments (post-1954) from the inner New York harbor
and Raritan Bay were 3 ug/g and 0.4 ug/g (Olsen et al., 1984).  Higher concentrations are
found in sediments of the upper Hudson River. Maximum concentrations in river sediments
range from about 100 ppm in the upper river to 8 ppm in the New York harbor (Bopp and
Simpson, 1989). NYCDEP (1987) reported average sediment concentrations of PCBs for
1983 to 1986 of 0.06 to 0.70 mg/kg in Newark Bay estuary and values in New York harbor
and the lower  Hudson River ranging from  less than 0.06 to greater than 0.70 mg/kg.
Stainken and Rollwagon (1979) report a mean PCB  value of 110 ng/g in  sediments of
Raritan Bay.  Other average levels of contaminants reported by Olsen et al. (1984) include
for  the inner harbor: Cu, 220 ug/g, Pb, 390 ug/g, DDD 153 ng/g, chlordane 160 ng/g,
petroleum hydrocarbons (PCHs), 1800 ug/g; for Newark Bay:  Cu, 380 ug/g,  Pb 340 ug/g,
and PCHs, 4300 ug/g; and for Raritan Bay:  Cu, 280 ug/g, Pb, 198 ug/g, DDD  26 ng/g,
chlordane 15 ng/g, PCHs, 1600 ug/g. These values are similar to average metal concentra-
tions reported by Breteler (1984) in the HRE for Cu, 148 ppm, and for Pb, 354 ppm, with
maximum average lead values of 1027 ppm measured in the Arthur Kill. Other hydrocarbon
values reported by Stainken (1979)  ranged from 2.2  to 1098.2 ug/g, with concentration
increasing with increased silt-clay content.

      Meyerson (1988) summarized metal and organic toxics data in sediments for the
HRE. Sediment surface samples from Newark Bay have ranges for Cu of 67  to 970 mg/g,
Pb of 76 to 3209 mg/g, and Cd of 1 to  18 mg/g, and from Raritan Bay have ranges for Cu
of less  than 10 to 610 mg/g and Pb of less than 6 to 990 mg/g (Meyerson  et al., 1981).
Meyerson (1988) also  summarized  petroleum  hydrocarbon ranges reported by Connell
(1982) in the range of 6900 mg/g  in the Arthur Kill to < 10 mg/g in eastern  Raritan Bay.
Greig and McGrath  (1977)  reported ranges  of metal contamination  in surface (0-4  cm)
sediments of Raritan Bay for Cd, Cr, Cu and Pb of < 1 to 15 ppm, <2 to 260 ppm, < 1.6 to
1230 ppm, and < 4 to 985 ppm, respectively. These and other studies of contaminant levels
in Raritan Bay are summarized by Pearce (1983).

      Dioxin concentrations in sediments have been  measured in  Newark Bay. Recent
sediments (as defined by Be-7 activity) and suspended particulate concentrations for 2,3,7,8
TCDD range from < 36 ppt in New York Harbor to 730 ppt in the Passaic River  (Tong et
al.,  1989; Bopp,  1988).  Concentrations  were greatest  in the lower Passaic River  and
decreased in lower Newark Bay.  Belton et al. (1985) reported sediment concentrations in
surface grab samples in the lower Passaic river ranging from non-detectable  to 6.9 ppb.

      Detailed geochemical studies of particle-associated pollutant transport using multiple
tracers exists for PCB, chlorinated hydrocarbon and dioxin contamination in the HRE (Bopp
et al, 1981; Bopp et al, 1982; Olsen et al., 1984; Bopp, 1988; Bopp et al., 1988; Bopp and
Simpson, 1989; Tong et al., 1989; Bopp et al., 1990). These studies provide an understand-
ing  of both temporal and spatial sediment distribution, as well as transport, sources and
sinks of contaminants in this system. As shown in these and other studies (Bopp et al., 1981;
Bopp et al., 1982; Multer et al., 1984; Olsen et al., 1984; Renwick and Ashley, 1984), fine-
grained particle distribution is important in controlling PCB and other particle-associated
contaminant distribution.

Levels of Toxics in Biota

      Elevated  levels  of contaminants in  fish  and  shellfish of the  HRE  is a well-
documented problem.  Both New Jersey and New York states have prohibitions on the sale,
and advisories on consumption, of fish and shellfish from this system. Areas of Newark Bay
have prohibitions on sale and consumption of striped bass and blue crabs,  and the New
Jersey portion of the Hudson River has an advisory to limit consumption of striped bass.
Both prohibitions are due to extensive dioxin contamination in Newark Bay (Belton et al.,
1985). Dioxin contamination in striped bass led to limited and very limited consumption
advisories for the Hudson  River (Hauge, 1990).  New York has limited  consumption
advisories and bans on consumption for numerous species  in the Hudson  River due to
contaminants such as PCBs, dioxin, chlordane, and DDT (Sloan,  1987).  New Jersey has a
statewide prohibition on the sale of striped bass from all areas of the HRE, except Raritan
Bay, because of PCB  contamination.   Other New Jersey  restrictions include  limited
consumption advisories based  on PCB contamination for American  eels,  statewide; for
striped bass and bluefish in the HRE and  northern NYB; and for white perch and white
catfish in HRE.

      PCB  levels in  Hudson  River striped  bass  collected in  1986  had an  average
concentration range of  3 to  18 ppm; this was similar to average ranges reported in 1983 to
1985, but  higher than reported in 1982 (Sloan, 1987).  Values for total PCBs in bivalves
reported by the  National Status and Trends Program (NS&T) for the New York harbor and
Raritan Bay were some of the highest for any station in the U.S., ranging from 4254 to 991
ng/g (NOAA, 1987a).  Sloan (1987) reported mean 2,3,7,8 TCDD values in striped bass
tissue of 26.4 ppt and of 32 ppt in Newark Bay. Belton et al. (1985) reported 2,3,7,8 TCDD
concentrations in fish and shellfish in Newark Bay estuary ranging from a mean of 184 ppt
in blue crabs to a mean of 40 ppt in striped bass.  Rappe et al. (1989) reported on analysis
of six samples collected in the Hudson River, Newark Bay,  Raritan Bay and NYB.  The
highest value detected exceeded 5000 ppt of 2,3,7,8 TCDD in the hepatopancreas of a blue
crab collected  in  Newark  Bay.  The muscle  tissue  from the same  organism  had  a
concentration of less than 100 ppt. These studies, and others, report higher concentrations
of TCDD  are found in organs (e.g., liver,  hepatopancreas) than in muscle tissue.  Metal
values measured in mussels  over several years by the NS&T program found an increase in
concentrations of Cu, Cr, Hg and Ni in sites from the HRE (NOAA, 1989a).


      Reported  toxic contaminant levels for Long Island Sound here are mostly from
regional scale studies and historical data compilations (Greig, 1977; Reid et al., 1979; Reid
et al., 1982;  Greig and Sennefelder, 1985; Greig and Sennefelder, 1987;  NOAA, 1987a;
Mearns et al, 1988; NOAA, 1988; Cornell, 1987; Dawson, 1989; ISC, 1989; NOAA, 1989a;
LIS Study, 1989;  Chytalo and Stacy, per. comm,1990). Monitoring efforts  are undertaken
by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and NOAA. In general, toxics
in all three media - water, sediments and biota -- show a decrease in contamination from
west to east.

Levels of Toxics in Water

      The  Interstate Sanitation Commission compiled  a series of data sets  on toxic
contamination in water (ISC, 1990).  Their analysis of these  data found considerable
variability in concentrations which were difficult to separate from natural variability and
inconsistencies in the data sets.  In particular, much of the data are limited to the eastern
portion of the sound, making regional  evaluation difficult.  Given  these limitations the
following conclusions were determined:

      - Metal values decrease from west to east.
      - Chlorinated hydrocarbons were mostly non-detectable.
      - Copper concentrations did not meet the New York State Department of
        Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) standard (2.0 ug/1) 97% of the
      - Lead only met the NYSDEC standard (8.6 ug/1)  in about 50% of the
      - Cadmium did not meet  the NYSDEC standard (2.7 ug/1) in about 12%  of
        the samples.

Levels of Toxics in Sediments

      Primarily grab samples have been collected and analyzed for sediment contaminants
in Long Island Sound. The  levels discussed here are predominantly from several regional
studies performed in the last two decades (Greig et al, 1977; Reid et al, 1979; Reid et al,
1982;  Connell, 1987; and NOAA, 1988).  Much of this historical  information is being
compiled and analyzed by Dawson (1990). In general, sediment studies indicate a decrease
in particle-associated contaminants from west to east.   However,  some of the highest
concentrations are found in harbors and the tidal portion of rivers draining into the sound.
Reid et al.  (1979) reported that grain size distribution in Long Island Sound  generally
coarsened to the east and south.  As with all estuarine systems, low energy depositional

environments, such as those in  the  tidal portions of these rivers, can be expected to
accumulate fine-grained particles and provide temporary or permanent storage areas for
particle-associated pollutants. Although grab samples may provide a general description of
contaminant distribution, a far greater understanding of the temporal and spatial distribution
of particle-associated contaminants in Long Island Sound would be gained through historical
studies using cores dated with appropriate time tracers.

      Dawson (1990) reports that levels for metals, PCBs and PAHs decrease from east to
west, with higher values measured  in harbors and some rivers.  Connell (1987) reported
similar values with maximum concentrations of PCBs in harbor and offshore LIS sediments
of 810 ppb and 480 ppb, respectively. The LIS Study (1989) reported a general enhance-
ment of contamination in sediments from east to west.

Levels of Toxics in Fish

      Contaminant levels in certain species of fish and shellfish have been measured in LIS
since the  1970s (Figure 1; LISS, 1987).   Striped bass  have consistently exceeded FDA's
action level of 2 ppm for tissue concentrations of PCBs since the 1970s (Table 2; LISS,
1989).  These concentrations are  similar to levels measured in fish from other urban
embayments  on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts and, based on the available data, do not
suggest a significant change in PCB contamination of fish since the mid-1970s (Mearns et
al.,  1988). Greig and Sennefelder (1985) reported mean levels of PCBs in mussels ranging
from 220 to 518 ppb.  These mean values were calculated from PCB concentrations
measured in  10 individuals collected at each of the 10 locations in LIS.  NOAA (1989a)
reported  a range in mean PCB concentration in mollusks of 350 to 1300 ng/g. At each
station in LIS three composites were collected and their values averaged for each year from
1986 to 1988. These data showed a trend of general decreasing concentrations of chlordane,
cadmium and zinc in mussels and oysters at some sites in Long Island Sound. LISS (1989)
and Chytalo and Stacy (per. comm., 1990) also reported a general western enhancement of
contamination for metals and organic compounds in mussels collected from LIS. Levels for
PCBs in mussels do not exceed the FDA limit anywhere in the sound (Chytalo and Stacy,
per. comm., 1990). Lobster samples collected in Long Island Sound in 1986 showed  a range
of mean PCB concentrations in tail/claw meat and hepatopancreas of <0.10 ppm  and 3.7
to 2.38 ppm, respectively. The hepatopancreas analysis also suggested elevated concentra-
tions of Cd and Pb (Chytalo and  Stacy,  per. comm., 1990).


        1986, AFTER NYSDEC)

3 00

O 2 00

2 81




0 99

3 3'


1 53


I . •
2 •* O
I ^
036 T3 o
on 013
I 	 1 I 	 1

0 45



FDA Action Leval i

! I ,
« 0 C
i i i
5 * "-
en 5
01 T3 2
0 £ c
0 36 - ^ ^
r^ rn rn


      Numerous comprehensive investigations have been conducted in the NYB.  These
include intensive studies of the effects of human wastes on the biota and ecosystems in the
New York Bight (MESA, 1977-1978), of the sewage and dredge disposal sites by Reid et al.
(1982), and of the phase-out of the sewage-sludge dumpsite (NOAA, 1989b). Mearns et al.
(1988) reported that more studies on the occurrence of PCBs and chlorinated pesticides in
fish and shellfish had been conducted in these  marine waters than  anywhere else in the
United States.  Most of these studies  were  conducted because of scientific and public
concern about the human and biological risks associated with the dumping of wastes into
the NYB. Although much is understood about processes in the NYB, much more must be
learned in order to develop  appropriate management plans to restore and enhance its
ecology. Levels of contaminants in water,  sediments and biota are comparable to other

urbanized coastal areas (NOAA, 1987; NOAA, 1988; NOAA,  1989a).  Excellent review
articles and  books have been published  that synthesize the data collected in the NYB
(Young et al., 1985; Mayer, 1982; Boehm and Requejo, 1986).  These, and many other
studies, focused on the possible fate and effects of the disposal of sewage sludge and dredge
spoils in the NYB.  The sewage sludge dumpsite was moved to the 106-mile site at the end
of 1987.  The National Marine Fisheries Service has an on-going intensive study (NOAA,
1989b) of the phase out of the sewage sludge dump site, and EPA and the USACOE are
conducting studies to determine a new location for the dredge disposal site (Battelle, 1988;
Battelle,  1989).
Levels of Toxics in Water

      Hydroqual (1989) summarized data collected by EPA in 1988 and contained in the
EPA STORET database on concentrations of metals in water column samples. They report
that Cu and Pb exceeded EPA marine water quality criteria (2.9 ug/1 and 8.6 ug/1) in the
NYB. However, there is some question as to the reliability of all data contained in the EPA
STORET database.  Therefore, EPA conducted their own survey and  collected water
samples throughout the NYB in 1988.  EPA found that metal concentrations tended to be
highest at nearshore stations (Hydroqual, 1989). Although data for the distribution and sig-
nificance of the metals were similar between the  two  studies, concentrations measured by
EPA in  1988 were significantly lower than reported  by  the other data sets.  Hydroqual
(1989) suggests this difference is most likely an analytical effect rather than  an actual
decrease of metal concentration over time. The 1988 EPA survey found Cu concentrations
exceeded the EPA marine water quality criterion  at nearshore stations, but that Pb
concentrations did not.  Hydroqual (1989) notes that significantly lower Pb levels may
actually indicate a true decrease in Pb concentrations  in water and not just a difference in
analytical methods.  Data  from Segar  and Cantillo (1977)  reported  a range in Cu
contamination from 1.75 to  23.75 ug/1. However, more recent data compiled by Segar and
Cantillo (1984) gave a range of Cu contamination from a  high in the NYB apex of 53 ug/1
to a low on the outer shelf of 0.23  ug/1.  They also reported a range in Pb values from a
maximum of 8 ug/1 in the NYB apex to a minimum of 0.69 ug/1 on the outer shelf. PCB
concentrations in water samples reported by MacLeod et al.  (1981) and summarized by
Hydroqual  (1989) ranged from 0.33 to 0.6  ug/1; these values are comparable to those
reported for the upper Hudson River.  Segar and Davis (1984) reported PCB levels from
various studies in the NYB ranged from 1 to 80 ng/1.  These values  were some of the
highest reported in the  United States, but considerably lower than those reported for the
Baltic Sea and Japanese coastal waters (Segar and Davis, 1984).

Levels of Toxics in Sediments

      Numerous studies and  compilations of studies have  been completed on toxics in
sediments of the  NYB  (Hydroqual, 1989; NOAA, 1989b; NOAA, 1987b; NOAA, 1987c;
NOAA, 1982; MESA, 1978-1979; Farrington and Tripp, 1977).  Sample collection has been


primarily by ponar grab, with  many fewer  core samples  collected.   Hydroqual (1989)
reviewed and summarized many of these data.  They report ranges for Cu concentrations
in sediments in several different studies from 1972 to 1982, the major sources of data being
NOAA (1982) and Dayal (1981).  Hydroqual (1989) noted that mean Cu concentrations
ranged from about 6 to 60 ug/g, showing a very general decrease in concentration through
the Hudson  Canyon to the slope.  Mean Pb concentrations in sediments summarized by
Hydroqual (1989) from data collected in 1973,  and 1977 to 1980 range from 0.12 to 0.34
ug/g in the nearshore to 0.0004 to 0.006 ug/g in the outer shelf.

       Concentrations of DDT and its metabolites in sediments were reported by MacLeod
et al. (1981) and ranged  from non-detectable to a maximum of 0.3 ug/g. PCB concentra-
tions summarized by Segar and Davis (1984) ranged from 0.0005 to 2.2 ug/g. Hydroqual's
(1989) summary of data for the NYB  reported a maximum value, from measurements
collected in 1973, of approximately 2 ug/g in the vicinity of the sewage dump site. These
are different from values reported by NOAA (1987b) for similar data sets compiled from
1980 to 1983 where PCB  concentrations in the inner NYB ranged from < 1 to 1150 ppb (dry
wt.) and in the Hudson shelf valley from <0.1 to 38 ppb (dry wt.).  Battelle (1984) reported
a range in PCB concentration of 1.8 to 150 ng/g from sediment samples collected in 1981
and 1983 .  This variation in concentrations suggests differences in sampling and analytical
methods  and makes any  generalizations of PCB contamination in the NYB difficult.

      Various studies have focused on PAHs and hydrocarbon geochemistry of sediments
in the NYB.  It is difficult to compare these data  because different compounds were
analyzed in the different studies; however, some results from individual studies  are
presented. Farrington and Tripp (1977) report concentrations of hydrocarbons ranging from
500 to 3000 ug/g (dry wt.) and suggested an anthropogenic hydrocarbon source for the NYB.
Koons and Thomas (1979) reported similar hydrocarbon concentrations in the NYB ranging
from approximately 24 to 6500 ug/g, with maximum concentrations at the dredge spoil
dumpsite and minimum values off-shore. Battelle (1984) also reported  a decrease in PAH
concentration with distance offshore, with levels ranging from < 10 to 46000 ng/g.

       Recent studies of fine-grained particulate distribution on the shelf indicate a strong
relationship between particulate distribution  and contaminant concentration (Young et al.,
1985; Boehm and Requejo, 1986; Stumpf and Biggs, 1988; Bopp, 1989).  Dayal et al. (1981)
collected cores in the vicinity of the dredged  material dumpsite and compared stratigraphy
and metal distribution through the cores.  They found  that  sediments  associated with
dredged material were enriched in metals by orders of magnitude when compared with other
coastal deposits. On-going work by Bopp (1989; 1990, per. comm.), as part of the NOAA
study of the phase-out of the sewage sludge dumpsite, is focusing on radionuclide dating and
chemical analysis of cores collected  from the  former sewage sludge and current dredge
disposal sites, with additional sampling  sites down the axis of the Hudson Canyon to  the
shelf/slope  break.  These types of investigations,  coupled with existing  information on

contaminant loading in the  NYB, can contribute significantly to our understanding of
contaminant  sources,  distribution  and sinks,  and  the  development  of appropriate
management strategies  for the NYB, as well as HRE and LIS.

Levels of Toxics in Biota

       Alden  et  al.   (1985) produced an  excellent, comprehensive  compilation  of
contaminant body  burdens in biota for the New York Bight.  Alden et al.(1985) report
ranges in winter flounder for Cu, Pb,  Cd  and Cr of non-detectable to 33.7 ppm, non-
detectable to 2.7 ppm, non-detectable to 9.9  ppm and non-detectable to 6.0 ppm, respective-
ly.  They report levels  of Cd in lobster of non-detectable to 0.715 ppm.   NOAA (1982)
reported metal concentrations in selected fish and shellfish samples collected in 1982. They
reported that Cu levels in winter flounder and lobster muscle tissue ranged from 0.14 to 0.34
ppm and from 2.27 to  15.48 ppm, respectively.  Pb values for the same  species did  not
exceed 0.6 ppm.  Cr concentrations in winter  flounder and lobster were 0.12 to 1.35 ppm
and < 0.1 to 0.52 ppm, respectively. Cd levels were <0.1 ppm in winter flounder and ranged
from <0.7 to 0.15 ppm  in lobster.

      Currently, the only heavy metal with a recommended action limit provided by FDA
is mercury (as methyl mercury).  The action level of 1 ppm was not exceeded in any tissue
samples reported by NOAA  (1982).   Alden et al. (1985) report a mean concentration of
methyl mercury in lobster of 0.51 ppm, a  maximum of 1.97 ppm and concentrations of
methyl mercury in winter flounder ranged from 0.0003 to 0.650 ppm.

      Considerable data have been summarized about the concentrations of PCBs and
organochlorinated pesticides  in the NYB (Hydroqual, 1989; NOAA, 1989; Mearns et al.,
1988; Sloan et al., 1988; NOAA, 1987; Alden et al., 1985; and Belton et al., 1983). Some
of these studies were prompted, in part, by the occurrence of high levels of PCBs in fish and
shellfish in the HRE. Measurements by NYSDEC of PCBs in striped bass, summarized by
Hydroqual (1989), reported mean values in the NYB below the FDA action limit of 2 ug/g,
although in the nearshore area the confidence interval exceeds this level.  NJDEP  studies
found that mean PCB  concentrations in striped bass in the nearshore of the NYB also
exceeded the FDA action limit of 2 ug/g (Belton, 1983). Similar concentrations above the
FDA action limit for other species, such as  bluefish and eels, were also detected.  A large
survey conducted by NOAA  (1987d) of PCBs  in bluefish samples collected in the spring,
summer and fall of 1985 found  that mean  concentrations, whether grouped by size or a
combined total, only approached the FDA limit during the fall (1.99 ppm for large bluefish;
1.70 for all bluefish).

      Due to the high PCB concentrations found through their own studies and others, New
Jersey in 1983  issued a limited consumption  advisory for striped bass and bluefish for
offshore waters in the NYB extending south from Sandy Hook to Barnegat Bay. Based on
the results of the NOAA study (1987d) and further NJDEP data, in 1989,  NJDEP revised
their bluefish advisory to include the entire  New Jersey coast and to apply only to bluefish


over 24 inches or 6 pounds (Hauge, 1990).  This was because all of the studies found that
large bluefish were more likely to exceed FDA limits than smaller bluefish.  Studies of PCBs
in tissue samples of lobsters and winter flounder, summarized by Hydroqual (1989), NOAA
(1982) and O'Conner et al. (1982) indicate that PCB concentrations did not exceed the FDA
action level in these species.  Alden et al. (1985) summarized PCB and DDD concentrations
for numerous species collected, primarily, in the NYB. They found concentrations for DDD
averaged 0.324 ppm, with the lowest concentrations occurring in the NYB.  Concentrations
for PCBs ranged as high as 50 ppm, but were mostly below 2 ppm.

      EPA is currently developing water quality standards and criteria for marine waters
aimed at protecting both  human and ecological health (Dieterich, per.  comm., 1990).
However, there is considerable controversy over the appropriateness of the endpoints and
the methods used for determining human and ecological  health risks.  As part of the
management program for these three systems, it is critical that some consensus be reached
on how these risks should be measured, evaluated  and, where necessary, minimized.

      Numerous  laboratory investigations have attempted to determine toxic endpoints
caused by contaminants on abundant species.  However, in urbanized estuaries and coastal
zones such as the  HRE, LIS, and NYB, it is critical that laboratory research be combined
with field research to interpret possible toxic  effects on organisms living in these systems.
Carefully designed field studies are necessary to control for: gross environmental differences
such as salinity, temperature, turbidity and grain size; the complex mixtures of contaminants
that occur in these systems; and natural variations in species abundance  and diversity.
Bioaccumulation studies may address human  health risks, but ecological risks require far
more sophisticated research, involving field  verification of the  effects of pollutants on
growth, disease  occurrence, reproductive success and other indicators of stress.

      Studies such as  these have been conducted or are  on-going in the HRE, NYB and
LIS. Brown (1989) and Cristini et al. (1989) have conducted field  and laboratory studies in
Newark Bay to understand effects of dioxin on fish and shellfish.  Cristini and Reid (1988)
summarized  studies  showing that some species develop resistance  to certain chemicals
present in estuarine systems, but that these resistent populations may be less tolerant to
other environmental variables and do  not live  as long or grow as well as species in less
polluted systems.  Sindermann et al. (1982) concluded in their summary paper that many of
the pollutants found in the NYB were at levels  capable of affecting early life stages of fishes,
of increasing susceptibility to predation and disease, and possibly  of reducing reproductive
capability.   Studies in Long Island Sound of  the reproductive  success of lobsters and
flounder suggest that hatching successes and embryo survival appeared to correspond  to an

inshore-offshore gradient of pollutants rather than an east-west variant (LISS, 1989). More
detailed particle-associated pollutant  distribution and transport studies might strengthen
Long Island Sound  correlations between pollutant concentrations and biota reproductive
success. The above studies suggest that toxic contaminants at their present levels in these
systems may have numerous effects on the life-cycle of the biota.  Difficult management
decisions must be made based on acceptable biological and human health risks and on the
observed toxic contamination of the water, particulates and sediments.

      Considerable research and monitoring has been conducted in the HRE, LIS and
NYB over the last two decades. A literature review highlights the difficulties in comparing
data sets and in reaching scientific conclusions that may help in designing management plans
for these coastal waters.  Few studies cover more than one component of the coastal system,
and  those that do frequently lack  the data necessary to solve complex environmental

      Federal and state standards, criteria and guidelines, and FDA action levels exist for
some toxic contaminants in the water and biota of coastal systems. There are no standards
regulating toxic levels in sediments.  Earlier inconsistencies between fresh and salt water
quality criteria were resolved by the Clean Water Act of 1987. The more stringent controls
outlined in this  Act may  improve estuarine water quality.  The  USEPA is developing
comprehensive ambient sediment quality criteria for toxic contaminants. Current investiga-
tions that use a tiered approach to  assess sediment toxicity  by combining field and
laboratory analyses are promising techniques for developing sediment criteria.  However,
any method developed is likely to be costly and the method's appropriateness should be
evaluated  in conjunction with local sediment management plans.

      An overview  of  toxic  contaminant levels throughout these systems shows  that
concentrations of certain pollutants exceed federal and state criteria in certain areas. Toxic
levels in water seem predominantly controlled by proximity to source.  Water quality most
frequently fails to meet toxic criteria in the highly urbanized areas of these systems.
Contaminant sources that contribute to toxic accumulation in biota are less clearly defined;
however, contaminant  concentrations  exceeding federal action levels occur in several
different species  of fish and  shellfish in all three systems.  Particle-associated contaminant
concentrations are controlled primarily by source and sediment grain size  distribution.
However,  the widespread distribution of particle-associated  toxics in these systems is
attributable primarily to removal and disposal of particulates through  dredging activities.

      Continued research  and monitoring  are  critical  to  any  management  plan.
Geochemical tracers can provide useful information on contaminant sources, distributions
and sinks,  and enhance policy decisions on the management of dredge material.  Investiga-
tions of the  spatial  and temporal  distribution  of  toxics throughout  these  systems  are


necessary for evaluating trends in contaminant loading and will be fundamental in guiding
current and future management programs for these coastal waters.

Alden, R.W., J.F. Matta, and R.M. Ewing. 1985. Contaminant body burdens, variability and
      monitoring implications for the New York Bight. Final report to NOAA/OAD under
      contract NA83RAD00001 submitted by Old Dominion University. Sept. 1985. 462 p.

Armstrong, R.W., and R.J. Sloan.  1980.  Trends  in levels of several  known  chemical
      contaminants in fish from New York State waters.  NYSDEC Tech. Rep. 80-2. 77 p.

Battelle. 1984. Organic pollutant biogeochemistry  studies  in the northeast U.S. marine
      environment part 2: Organic geochemical studies  in the Hudson Canyon  and  Gulf
      of Maine areas.  Final report submitted to NOAA/NMFS under contract No. NA-83-
      FA-C-00022. p. 42-61.

Battelle. 1988. Report on siting feasibility for an alternate mud site in the  New York Bight.
      Report submitted to the USEPA under contract No. 68-03-3319. Work Assign. 2-128.
      90 p.

Battelle. 1989. Winter survey of selected areas  in the  New York Bight in  support  of
      designation of an alternate mud  dump site.  Part I: Geological results.  Report
      submitted to the USEPA under contract No. 68-C8-0105. Work Assign. 2. 150 p.

Belton, T.J., B. Ruppel, and K. Lockwood. 1983. Poly chlorinated biphenyls (Arochlor 1254)
      in fish tissue throughout the State of New Jersey:  A comprehensive survey.  NJ.
      Dept. Env. Prot., Trenton, N.J. 43 p.

Belton, T.J., R. Hazen, B.E. Ruppel, K. Lockwood, R. Mueller, E. Stevenson, and J.J. Post.
      1985. A study of dioxin (2,3,7,8 Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin) contamination in select
      finfish, crustaceans  and  sediments of  new Jersey waterways.  NJDEP Office  of
      Science and Research Tech. Rep. 101 p.

Boehm,  P.D., and A.G.  Requejo. 1986. Overview of the  recent sediment hydrocarbon
      geochemistry of Atlantic and  Gulf  Coast  outer  continental shelf environments.
      Estuarine Coastal Shelf Science. 23:29-58.

Bopp, R.F. 1988. Dioxins in Newark Bay, Lament Doherty Geological Observatory  1988
      Annual Report. Columbia University. New York. p.  8-11.

Bopp, R.F. 1989. Sediment transport. In: Response to the habitat and biota of the inner
      New York bight to abatement of sewage sludge dumping: Second annual progress
      report -- 1988. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-F/NEC-67. p. 12-16.

Bopp, R.F., H.J. Simpson, C.R. Olsen,  and N. Kostyk. 1981. Polychlorinated biphenyls in
      sediments of the tidal Hudson River, New York. Env. Sci. Tech.  15(2):210-216.

Bopp, R.F, HJ. Simpson, C.R. Olsen, R.M.  Trier, and N. Kostyk. 1982. Chlorinated
      hydrocarbons and  radionuclide chronologies in sediments of the Hudson River and
      estuary, New York. Env. Sci. Tech. 16(10):666-676.

Bopp, R.F., M.L. Gross,  and F.C. Moser. 1988. Tracing dioxin in Newark Bay sediments.
      Proc. Abst. SETAC 9th Annual Meeting, Arlington, VA. p. 25.

Bopp, R.F, and H.J.  Simpson. 1989. Contamination of the Hudson River:  The sediment
      record.  Pages  401-416  m  Contaminated Marine  Sediments-Assessment  and
      Remediation. National Research Council. National Academy Press. Washington D.C.

Bopp, R.F, M.L. Gross, H.Y. Tong, HJ. Simpson, S.J. Monson, B.L. Peck, and F.C. Moser.
      1990. A major incident of dioxin contamination: Sediments of New Jersey estuaries
      (submitted manuscript).

Breteler, R.J. 1984. Chemical pollution of the Hudson-Raritan Estuary. NOAA Tech. Mem.
      NOS OMA 7.  72 p.

Brown, R.P, A.  Cristini,  and K.R. Cooper. 1989. The absorbtion and tissue distribution of
      3H-TCDD  in the soft-shell clam, Mya  arenaria.   Prog.  Abst. Transboundary
      Pollution. Soc. Envir. Tox. Chem. 10th Annual Meeting. Toronto, Ontario.

Burkhard, L.P, and  G.T. Ankley.  1989. Identifying toxicants:  NETAC's  toxicity-based
      approach. Environ. Sci. Tech. 23(12): 1438-1443.

Chytalo, K, and P. Stacy. 1990. Personal communication. Connecticut Dept. of Env. Prot.

Connell, D.W. 1982. Approximate petroleum hydrocarbon budget for the Hudson-Raritan
      Estuary  New York. Mar. Poll. Bull. 13(89).

Connell, D.W. 1987.  Polychlorinated biphenyl  (PCBs) in Long Island  Sound: A review.
      Marine Sciences Research Center. SUNY  Stonybrook. 52 p.

Cristini, A, and R. Reid.  1988. Effects of contaminants on the fauna of the Hudson-Raritan
      estuary, and risks to humans from consuming estuary fauna. In: The Hudson-Raritan:
      State of the estuary. A report by the panel on water quality of the Hudson-Raritan
      estuary. NJ. Marine Sciences Consortium, p. XII1-XII13.


Cristini, A., K. Cooper, and S. Bernard. 1989. The distribution of dioxins in the tissues of
      juvenile blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus. Prog. Abst. Transboundary Pollution. Soc.
      Envir. Tox. Chem. 10th Annual Meeting. Toronto, Ontario.

Dawson, M. 1990. Contaminant Levels in the sediments of Long Island Sound. NMFS/NO-
      AA, Milford, Conn, (draft report).

Dayal,  R., M.G. Heaton, M. Fuhrmann, and I.W. Duedall.  1981. A geochemical and
      sedimentological study of the dredged  material deposit in the New York Bight.
      NOAA Tech. Mem. OMPA-3. 174 p.

Dieterich, R.  1990. Personal communication. USEPA Region II. New York.

Farrington, J.W., and B.W. Tripp.  1977. Hydrocarbons in western North  Atlantic surface
      sediments. Geochim. et Cosmochim. Acta 41:1627-1641.

Federal Register. 1974.  December 6. 39(236):42743-48

Federal Register. 1984. Development of water quality-based permit limitations for toxic
      pollutants; National policy. March 9. 49(48): 9016-19

Greig, R.A., and R.A. McGrath. 1977. Trace metals in sediments of Raritan Bay. Mar. Poll.
      Bull. 8(8): 188-192.

Greig, R.A., R.N. Reid, and D.R. Wenzloff. 1977. Trace metal concentrations in sediments
      from Long Island Sound. Marine. Poll. Bull. 8(8): 183-188.

Greig, R.A., and G. Sennefelder. 1985. Metals and PCB  concentrations  in mussels from
      Long Island Sound, bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 35:331-334.

Greig, R.A. and  G. Sennefelder 1987. PCB concentrations in winter flounder from Long
      Island  Sound, 1984-1986. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 39:863-868

Hauge, P. 1990. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), chlordane, and DDTs in  selected fish and
      shellfish from New Jersey waters, 1986-1987:  Results from New Jersey's Toxics in
      Biota monitoring program. NJDEP, draft report.

Hydroqual. 1988. Assessment of pollutant fate in New York Bight. Hydroqual, Inc. Dynamac
      Corp. Rockville, MD.

International  Joint Commission.  1988. Procedures  for the  assessment of contaminated
      sediment problems in the Great Lakes.  IJC, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.  140 p.

ISC. 1990. Long Island Sound estuarine study historical data analyses for toxic contaminants
      in the water column. Interstate Sanitation Commission, (draft report)

Koons, C.B., and J.P. Thomas. 1979. C15+ hydrocarbons in the sediments of the New York
      Bight. Proceedings 1979 oil spill conference (prevention, behavior, control, cleanup).
      Amer. Petrol. Instit. Wash. D.C. p. 625-628.

LISS. 1987.  Long Island Sound  Study,  1986, Annual Report,  eds. M. Connor and E.
      Scavotto, Battelle Ocean Sciences. Duxbury. MA 20 p.

LISS. 1989. Long Island Sound Study,  1988, Annual Report, ed. V. Gibson, Battelle Ocean
      Sciences. Duxbury. MA. 36 p.

MacLeod, Jr., W.D., L.S. Ramos, A.J. Friedman, D.G. Burrows, P.G. Prohaska, D.L. Fisher,
      and D. W. Brown. 1981. Analysis of residual chlorinated hydrocarbons, aromatic
      hydrocarbons and related compounds in selected sources, sinks and biota of the New
      York Bight. NOAA Tech. Mem. OMPA-6. 128 p.

Mayer, G.F., ed. 1982. Ecological stress and the New York Bight: Science and management.
      Estuarine Research Center, Columbia, South Carolina. 715 p.

Mearns, A.J., M.B. Matta, D. Simecek-Beatty, M.F. Buchman,  G. Shigenaka, and  W.A.
      Wert. 1988. PCB and chlorinated pesticide contamination in U.S. Fish and Shellfish:
      A historical assessment report.   NOAA Tech. Mem.  NOS OMA 39.  Seattle,
      Washington. 140 p.

MESA. 1978-1979. Marine Ecosystems Analysis.  MESA New York bight atlas monograph
      series.  32 volumes. New York Sea Grant Institute, Albany, NY.

Meyerson, A.L. 1988.  Contamination  in  the sediments of the Hudson-Raritan estuarine
      system m the Hudson-Raritan: State of the estuary. A report by the Panel on Water
      Quality of the Hudson-Raritan estuary. N.J. Marine Sciences Consortium, p. V1-V11.

Meyerson, A.L., G.W. Luther, J. Krajewski, and R.I. Hires.  1981. Heavy metal distribution
      in Newark Bay sediments. Mar. Poll. Bull. 12(7):244-250.

Multer, H.G., D.M. Stainken, J.M. McCormick, and K.J. Berger. 1984.  Sediments in the
      Raritan Bay-Lower New York Bay complex. Bull. New Jersey Acad. Sci. 29(2):79-96.

NJDEP. 1988. New Jersey state water quality inventory report:  a report on the status of
      water quality in New Jersey pursuant to the New Jersey Water Pollution Control Act
      and section 305(b) of the federal Clean Water Act. NJDEP, Div. Water  Res.,
      Trenton,  NJ.


NJMSC. 1987. The Hudson-Raritan:  State of the estuary.  Summary and Appendix.  A
      report by the panel on water quality of the Hudson-Raritan estuary. New Jersey
      Marine Sciences Consortium. Water Quality of New Jersey Coastal Waters. Vol 1,
      part 1 and 2.

NOAA.  1982. Contaminants in New York Bight and Long Island Sound sediments and
      demersal species, and contaminant effects on benthos, summer, 1980. NOAA Tech.
      Mem. NMFS-F/NEC-16. 96 p.

NOAA.  1987a. A summary of selected data on chemical contaminants in tissues collected
      during 1984, 1985, and 1986. NOAA Tech. Mem. NOS OMA 38. 23 p.

NOAA.  1987b. NOAA's northeast monitoring program (NEMP): A report on progress of
      the first five years (1979-84) and a plan for the future, eds. R.N. Reid, M.C. Ingham,
      and J.B. Pearce. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-F/NEC-44.

NOAA.  1987c.  Progress report  and preliminary assessment of findings of the  benthic
      surveillance project-1984.  NOAA Off. Ocean, and Marine Assess., Rockville, Md.,
      Jan. 1987.  81 p.

NOAA.  1987d.   Report  on 1984-86 federal survey of PCBs in  atlantic coast bluefish,
      interpretive report.  Coordinated by NOAA in cooperation with FDA and EPA.
      March 1987. 56 p.

NOAA.  1988. A summary of selected data on chemical contaminants in sediments collected
      during 1984, 1985, 1986, and 1987.  NOAA Tech. Mem. NOS OMA 44. 15  p.

NOAA.  1989a. A summary of data on tissue contamination from the first three years (1986-
      1988) of the mussel watch project. NOAA Tech. Mem. NOS OMA 49. 22 p.

NOAA.  1988b.   Response of the habitat and biota  of the inner New York bight to
      abatement of sewage sludge dumping:  Second annual progress report - 1988.
      NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-F/NEC-67. 46 p.

NYCDEP. 1987. New York Harbor water quality survey 1987. New York City Dept. of Env.
      Prot.  Water Qual. Sect., Wards Island, NY. 19 p.

O'Connor, J.M., J.B. Klotz, and T.J. Kneip. 1982. Sources, sinks, and distribution of organic
      contaminants  in the  New  York Bight  ecosystem. In:  G.F. Mayer, ed. Ecological
      Stress and the New York Bight:  science and management. Estuarine Res. Feder-
      ation, Columbia, South Carolina, p. 631-654.

Olsen, C.R., I.L. Larsen, R.H. Brewster, N.H. Cutshall, R.F. Bopp, and H.J. Simpson. 1984.
      A geochemical assessment of sedimentation and contaminant distributions in the
      Hudson-Raritan estuary. NOAA Tech. Rep. NOS QMS 2. Rockville, MD. 101 p.

Pacheco, A.L., ed. 1988. Characterization of the middle Atlantic water management unit of
      the northeast regional action plan. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-F/NEC-56, 322 p.

Pearce, J.B. 1983. Raritan Bay - A highly polluted estuarine system m Reviews of water
      quality and transport of materials in coastal and estuarine waters, ed. Pearce, J.B.
      Coop. Res. Rep. 118. International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, Denmark.
      p. 32-48.

Rappe, C. P-A. Bergqvist, S. Swanson, T. Belton, B. Ruppel, K. Lockwood, and P.C. Kahn.
      1989. Levels and  patterns  of PCDD and PCDF contamination in fish, crabs and
      lobsters from Newark Bay  and the New York Bight.  Prog. Abst. 9th international
      symposium on chlorinated  dioxins and related compounds. Toronto, Ontario.

Reid, R.N., A.B. Frame, and A.F. Draxler. 1979. Environmental baselines in Long Island
      Sound, 1972-73. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS SSRF-738.

Reid, R.N., I.E.  O'Reilly, and V.S. Zdanowicz. 1982. contaminants in New York Bight and
      Long Island Sound sediments and  demersal  species,  and contaminant effects on
      benthos, summer 1980. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-F/NEC-16. 96  p.

Renwick,  W.H.,  and G.M.  Ashley. 1984. Sources, storages, and  sinks of fine-grained
      sediments in a fluvial-estuarine system. Geo. Soc. Amer. Bull. 95:1343-1348.

Sanders,  I.E. 1989. The PCB-pollution  problem in the upper  Hudson River:  From
      environmental disaster to environmental gridlock. Northeast. Env.  Sci. 8(l):l-86.

Searl, T.D., H.L. Huffman,  and J.P. Thomas. 1977. Extractable organics and nonvolatile
      hydrocarbons in New York Harbor waters. API Oil Spill Conference (Prevention,
      Behavior, Control, Cleanup). Proceedings, March 8-10. p. 583-588.

Segar, D.A., and A.Y. Cantillo. 1976.  Trace metals in the New York Bight, eds. Middle
      Atlantic continental Shelf and the New York bight, Proc. of Symp. Spec. Symposium,

Segar, D.A., and P.O. Davis. 1984. Contamination  of populated estuaries and adjacent
      coastal ocean - A global review. NOAA Tech. Mem. NOS OMA 11.

Sindermann, C.J., S.C. Esser, E. Gould, B.B. McCain, J.L. McHugh, R.P.  Morgan II, R.A.
      Murchelano, M.J. Sherwood, and P.R. Spitzer. 1982. In: G F. Mayer, ed. Ecological
      Stress  and the  New York Bight:   science  and  management.  Estuarine  Res.


      Federation, Columbia, South Carolina, p. 23-38.

Sloan, R. 1987. Toxic substances in fish and wildlife:  Analyses since May 1, 1982. Div. of
      Fish and Wildlife and Division of Marine Resources, NYSDEC. September 30,1987.

Sloan, R., B. Young, V. Vecchio, K. McKown, and E. O'Connell.  1988. PCB concentrations
      in the striped bass from the marine district of New York state. NYSDEC Tech. Rep.

Stainken, D. 1979. Occurrence of extractable hydrocarbons in sediments from Raritan Bay,
      New Jersey. Bull. N.J. Acad. Sci. 24(1):6-11.

Stainken, D. and J. Rollwagon. 1979. PCB residues in bivalves and sediments of Raritan
      Bay. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 23:690-697.

Stumpf, R.P., and R.B. Biggs. 1988. Surficial morphology and sediments of the continental
      shelf of the middle Atlantic bight. Jn Pacheco, A. L.  ed. Characterization of  the
      middle atlantic water management unit of the northeast regional action plan. NOAA
      Tech. Mem. NMFS-F/NEC-56. p. 51-73.

Tavalaro, J.F., and E.A. Stern. 1990. The problem of dioxin contamination in sediments of
      the prot of New York and New Jersey, m U.S./Japan experts meeting on manage-
      ment of  bottom sediments  containing toxic substances, symposium volume, Las
      Vegas,  Nevada, February, 1990.

Tong, H.Y., S.J. Monson, M.L. Gross, R.F. Bopp, H.J. Simpson, B.L. Deck, and F.C. Moser.
      1989. Analysis of dated sediment samples  from the Newark Bay area for selected
      PCDD/Fs. (accepted Chemosphere).

U.S.  Department of Health and Human Services. 1982.   Action levels for poisonous or
      deleterious substances in human food and animal feeds.  FDA Industry Prog. Branch.
      Bureau of Foods (HFF-326).  Washington, D.C. 13 p.

U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency. 1989.  Sediment  Classification Methods Compen-
      dium. Draft Report. USEPA, June 1989.

U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Water  quality criteria  for  water. U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency.   Office  of water regulations  and standards.
      Washington, D.C. EPA 440/5-86-001.

U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency. 1985.  Technical support document  for water
      quality-based toxics control. Office of Water. Washington D.C. September.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1977. Ecological
      evaluation of proposed discharge of dredged material into ocean waters. U.S. Army
      Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Waldhauer, R., A. Matte, and R.K. Tucker. 1978. Lead and copper in the waters of Raritan
      and lower New York bays. Mar. Poll. Bull. 9(2):38-42.

Young, R.A., D.J.P.  Swift, T.L. Clarke, G.R. Harvey, and P.R.  Betzer. 1985. Dispersal
      pathways for particle-associated pollutants.  Science  229(4712):431-435.

Zarba, C.S. 1988. Status of the U.S. EPA's sediment quality criteria development effort, m
      Chemical  and biological characterization of sludges, sediments, dredge spoils, and
      drilling muds. eds. JJ. Lichtenberg, J.A. Winter, C.I. Weber, L. Fradkin, ASTM STP
      976. p. 13-17.

                   CONTROLLING TOXIC  INPUTS--
                          SOURCE REDUCTION
                      AND  TREATMENT  OPTIONS
                        W. WESLEY ECKENFELDER
                              ECKENFELDER INC.
                            227 French Landing Drive
                               Nashville, TN 37228
       Wastewater treatment technology is undergoing profound changes at this time.
 This phenomena has been triggered by changes in regulations and permit requirements. In
 the past, permit requirements primarily related to conventional pollutants, namely BOD and
 suspended solids.  Over the years, the kinetics of BOD removal were refined, leading to
 rational design and operational criteria. More recently, the kinetics of relating to specific
 organics; e.g., phenol, have been developed and applied to both industrial and municipal
 wastewater treatment plants.  In all of these cases, reasonably predictive models now exist
 for the performance of biological wastewater treatment facilities.

       The major problem now facing wastewater treatment plants is the aquatic toxicity
 requirement as defined by a bioassay.  Toxicity is defined in terms  of toxic units, which is
 related to the LCso of the wastewater.  Toxic  units are non-specific and include all
 wastewater constituents including synergistic and antagonistic effects and, as such, no
 models presently exist to predict toxicity reduction through biological wastewater treatment

       Toxicity data has been developed for a wide variety of aquatic species for most of
 the common organic and inorganic pollutants.   While this is useful information when
 considering specific compounds, most of these are either removed or transformed through
 a wastewater treatment plant.  A better approach is necessary, therefore, to relate toxicity to
 treatment technology in a cost-effective manner.  The present approach by the EPA is to
 address toxicity at the source through industrial pretreatment programs. While this makes
 sense in  many cases, it must be recognized that  resulting effluent toxicity from  a
 wastewater treatment plant is frequently due to oxidation by-products from the biological
 process which may or may not be controllable at the source.  A comprehensive program is
 thereby required to evaluate  source control and resulting  impacts on the wastewater
 treatment plant. The proposed protocol is shown in Figure 1.

An equalized sample is pretreated for the removal of heavy metals, volatile organic carbon,
and ammonia. The presence of ammonia may significantly affect the toxicity of the sample
and can be removed in a pretreatment step or through nitrification in the bio-oxidation step.
Following pretreatment, a priority pollutant scan and a bioassay is run on the sample. The


        Figure 1. Protocol for source toxicity evaluation

sample is then subjected to bio-oxidation in order to oxidize all the biodegradable
components.  Several test protocols are available for this purpose including the Fed Batch
Reactor, the Zahn Wellens procedure, and continuous activated sludge reactors.

      If the waste stream in question is non-degradable and toxic, then it is segregated for
source control and/or physical-chemical pretreatment. Following  pretreatment,  the
wastewater may be returned to the biological process.

      After bio-oxidation, the sample is again evaluated for toxicity. If it is still toxic
following bio-oxidation, additional treatment employing powdered activated carbon or
tertiary granular activated carbon may be employed. Alternatively, prior to bio-oxidation
physical-chemical treatment may be applied to the wastewater stream.

       The source treatment options are shown in Figure 2.  The process selection will
depend on the pollutants as identified in Figure 1.

       Chemical oxidation is a promising technology for a wide variety of organics and
inorganics. In most cases, the primary objective of chemical oxidation is detoxification and
to render the organics more biodegradable in subsequent treatment processes. Results
using H2C>2 for several toxic organics are shown in Table 1.  Organics oxidized by H2O2
with a UV catalyst are shown in Table 2.  Ozone is an effective oxidant for many of the
toxic organics.  Depending on the volatility of the organic, both stripping and oxidation will
occur.  Table 3 shows some organics removed by ozonation.

       Many organics which are non-degradable, toxic or degrade very poorly aerobically
will degrade to end  products under anaerobic  conditions.  In these  cases, anaerobic
pretreatment may effectively reduce toxicity and render the  wastewater amenable to
subsequent aerobic biological treatment.  Toxic organics amenable to anaerobic treatment
are summarized in Table 4.

       Granular carbon columns will effectively remove many toxic organics.  GAC has
been successfully employed for the treatment of pesticide wastewaters and others which are
both non-degradable and toxic.

                     PEROXIDE  WITH UV  CATALYST
                                 Methyl isobutyl ketone
                                 Carbon tetrachloride

                                                          TO DISCHARGE
                                                          OR TREATMENT
                     WET AIR
                      AIR  OR STEAM
       Figure 2. Source treatment technologies for toxicity reduction


COD reduction

Benzoic acid

(%) in 2 davs (10%)
      Conditions-stochiometric dosage of H2O2, pH 3.5, 50 mg/1 Fe++

      NT = Not Toxic

                                    Methyl ethyl ketone
                                    Methyl isobutyl ketone
                                    4-Meth y 1-2-pentanol
             TABLE  4.
Acetylsalicylic acid
Acrylic acid
p- Anisic acid
Benzoic acid
Benzyl alcohol
2.3 Butanediol
Ethyl acetate
o-Hydroxybenzoic acid
p-Hydroxybenzoic acid
                                   Phihalic acid
                                   Polyethelene glycol
                                   p-Aminobenzoic acid
                                   m-Chlorobenzoic acid
                                   p-Hydroxybenzyl alcohol
                                   m-Chlorobenzoic acid
Source: Shelton and Tiedje (1984)

       After screening those wastewaters which are toxic and non-biodegradable for
source treatment, those which are biodegradable are subjected to aerobic biological

       It has been shown that under conventional process operating conditions (SRT >10
days) even the more recalcitrant organics are oxidized to low residual concentrations.
Results for several recalcitrant organics are shown in Table 5. What is significant to note
from Table 5 is the  buildup of organic by-products in the system.  For the compounds
shown in Table 5, six to nine percent of original COD results in  non-degradable by-

       There is evidence that many of these by-products are high molecular weight and
toxic to aquatic life.  In these cases, since the toxicity cannot be removed by pretreatment,
additional technology must be added to the activated sludge process for the removal of
these constituents.  At this point in time, carbon has been shown to be the most viable
technology to remove residual toxicity in activated sludge effluents. In several cases, PAC
has been successfully used as shown in Figure 3.  It has also been shown that GAG may
selectively remove toxic high molecular weight organics. Treatment of a toxic bioeffluent
by GAG is shown in Figure 4  As can be seen, the TOG breaks through  after 16 days
operation, but the toxicity breakthrough does not occur for 60 days.  It can be postulated
that the toxic, high molecular weight organics are replacing non-toxic molecules on the
carbon. In cases where this situation exists, GAG may be a cost-effective technology.


       It is probably obvious that thai the first step in developing an economic analysis of
toxicity reduction is an evaluation of source control and/or source treatment for those
wastewater streams identified in the protocol outlined in Figure 1.  Substitution of non-
toxic chemicals for toxic ones in the manufacturing process should be explored. In some
cases, improved yield or by-product recovery can generate income offsetting the costs of
disposal. Source treatment as shown in Figure 2 should then be evaluated,  because of the
diverse nature of the wastewaters involved, baseline economics cannot be developed and
each case will be site specific.

                      IN  SECONDARY  EFFLUENT  FROM  AN
                      ACTIVATED SLUDGE   PLANTS)
COD of Compound
COD of Microbial
Products mg/l*l
Nitrilotriacetic Acid          6.5                 2.7                    39.7
Sulfanilic Acid             6.9                 3.2                    33.8
Morpholine               15.0                 2.8                    33.9
Initial COD of compound was 500 mgA.





                              Total Organic
                                                         - 3000
                                                                           - 2000
300      400
                                            CARBON  DOSAGE, mg/l
                       Figure  3. PAC performance in the treatment of  a chemicals wastewater




                                        ELAPSED  TIME,  days


                 Figure 4.  TOG  and toxicity  reduction using granular  carbon columns

       In many cases,  source control will not remove toxicity from the  effluent as
 discussed earlier and add-on end of pipe technologies must be employed. Figures 5 and 6
 show comparative capital and O&M costs for the more common technologies.  These costs
 were developed for a 10  MOD wastewater flow with a raw wastewater COD of 1,000 mg/I
 treated in an activated sludge plant. Chemical oxidation or anaerobic digestion would be
 provided as a pretreatment for the  wastewater for detoxification and improved
 biodegradability.  The capital cost may range from 32-95 percent of the activated sludge
 plant and the O&M cost from 70-90 percent of the activated  sludge  plant. Granular
 activated carbon is the most expensive with respect to both capital and operating cost and
 would normally only be considered where toxicity is selectively removed as shown in
 Figure 4.  Powdered activated carbon will frequently retrofit into  an existing plant thereby
 substantially reducing the capital investment

       It is apparent that there is no simple solution to the problem of aquatic toxicity.
While source treatment is effective and necessary in many cases involving toxic, non-
degradable organics and inorganics, in cases involving toxic or non-toxic degradable
organics source treatment may not eliminate the resulting toxicity.  A comprehensive
identification procedure is necessary to define the most cost-effective solution to any
particular problem.  Since in most cases a wastewater treatment plant exists, the protocol
should be tailored to optimize use of the existing facilities. This inevitably becomes a case
by case evaluation.

Shelton, D. R., and J. M. Tiedje, Applied and Environmental Microbiology,  47, 850,

Chudoba, J., J. Albokova and J. S. Cech, Water Resources 23, 11, 1431, 1989.




                                                       GAC  Regeneration
PAG  Regeneration
                            ACTIVATED SLUDGE
         Figure  5. Relative  capitol cost of physical-chemical technologies
                  for toxicity reduction  basis  10  mgd, COD = 1000 mg/l

                      H  020xidation
                                   GAG Columns
                                                       GAG Regeneration
                                                        PAG Regeneration
                           ACTIVATED SLUDGE
   Figure 6. Relative operating and maintenance cost of physical-chemical
             technology for  toxicity reduction basis 10 mgd, COD = 1000 mg/l


Albert W. Bromberg
Division of Water
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

March 13, 1990


      It is generally accepted that toxic substances are not good for man and his environment.
Toxics control and reduction is required by federal and state law and is accomplished through
complex technical and legal mechanisms which attempt to integrate risk vs. benefit vs. cost on
media-by-media basis.  Regulatory agencies are faced with implementing controls based on
economically achievable control technology and applying substance specific criteria for the
protection of human and aquatic life.

      This presentation is intended to provide a environmental status report on our ability
to come to grips with controlling toxic substances using existing regulatory mechanisms.  Since
the theme of this conference is the near-shore coastal waters, the ongoing regulatory initiative
will be presented from a water program perspective.  However,  I have also attempted to
include relevant ongoing efforts in other media programs such as air, land, and solid waste.


      A State's water toxic regulatory control program is set by the requirements of the
federal Clean Water Act, as amended. This program consists of technology based treatment
requirements as a minimum coupled with water quality based limitations to protect the best
use of the receiving water.

      For industrial discharges, "Technology" treatment consists of Best Available Treatment
Economically Achievable (BATEA). Where federally promulgated BAT effluent guidelines
are not available, states develop guidelines using Best Professional  Judgement (BPJ).  For
municipal discharges, minimum treatment is secondary treatment  or its equivalent.  Pre-
treatment programs are required of municipal facilities with flow greater than  5 MGD or
smaller if it has significant industrial waste contributors.

      As a supplement to technological treatment requirements, water qual ity based effluent
limits are required, where necessary, to meet the  designated best use of the receiving water.
This consists of the use of chemical specific effluent limits or biological (toxicity) testing, or
both, to assure that water quality standards are met and designated uses are maintained and

      Toxics control in other media is similarly governed by companion federal legislation.
The Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act  (RCRA) serves  to control the treatment,
storage and  disposal of solid and hazardous waste.  The Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability  Act (CERCLA or Superfund) and the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) establish programs and principles for the
remediation  of hazardous waste sites, active and inactive.  The Clean Air Act is  under
significant review this year on a national level to address issues such as the emissions of toxic
substances and the control of acid precipitation and deposition.


      Of obvious interest to this Conference is the status of toxic control programs in the
states immediately adjacent to the New York Bight, namely Connecticut, New Jersey and New
York. The following is a summary of these State toxic control actions with emphasis on the
water program and water program involvement in other media activities.

      The following elements of Permitting activities in the Water Program will be compared:

      Technology Treatment Requirements

             Best Available Treatment (BAT)

             Best  Professional Judgement  (BPJ)    represent a state's determination of
             effluent limitations (including toxics) to  satisfy the technological requirements
             of the Clean Water  Act in the absence of USEPA promulgated categorical
             industrial effluent guidelines

             Industrial Waste Pretreatment for publicly owned treatment works


      Water Quality Based Requirements

             Water Quality Standards

             Biological monitoring


      Other media programs have direct and  indirect impacts on water quality. Water
program review is provided for the following actions:

      Solid  Waste
             Sludge disposal

      Hazardous Waste
             Hazardous Waste Treatment
             Hazardous Waste Site Remediation

      Air Emission Control

      Table 1 present a summary of the respective state  regulatory activities as they relate to
wastewater discharges  and state water program involvement in other media (air, land, etc.)
regulatory activities.

                                                                                     TABLH   1
             Regulatory activity
Water Program - Permits

Technology Treatment


Water Quality Requirements
  Standards, Bio-monitoring

Solids Waste Program


Sludge Disposal

Hazardous Waste Program

Hazardous Waste Treatment

Hazardous Waste Site Remediation

Air Program

Toxic Emissions Control
All "technology" requirements applied.
Program delegated and being implemented.

Few standards in-place; some under develop-
ment; whole effluent  toxicity limits and bio-
monitoring applied site-specific
Policy in place; applied where applicable.
Controlled by water permit.

Disposal  regulated  by water or solid  waste
Water permit establishes technology and water
quality effluent limits.

Receives water quality review, limits in coasent
order or water permit
Air guideline levels established for  over  800
sulistances.  Control  technology required to
meet guideline.
                New Jersey
                                                                New York
All "technology1' requirements applied.
Program delegated and being implemented.

Limited  number of  standards  in-place;  an
additional   14  developed,   others   under
development;  whole  effluent toxicity  limits
applied, bio-monitoring required.

Policy in place; applied where applicable.
Controlled by water permit

Disposal regulated by water permit
Water permit establishes effluent limits.
Receives water quality review, limits contained
in water permit
Required "state of the art" control technology;
11 toxic standards must lie met; ambient air
guidelines under development.
All "technology1' requirements applied
Program not delegated but being implemented.

Chemical specific  effluent  limits developed
based on promulgated water quality standards;
biological monitoring applied site-specific
Policy in place; applied where applicable.

Limited by water permit

Disposal regulated by Solid Waste permit
Water permit establishes technology and water
quality effluent limits.

Receives water quality review, limits in coasent
order or water permit
Air  guidelines  established  for  over  400
substances categorized as high, moderate or low
concera  Control technology applied to meet


      All elements of a point source toxic control program are in-place and consistent with
federal legislative requirements.  The principle  weaknesses in  existing  programs are the

      The inability to  conduct a multiple-state toxic wasteload allocation analysis for the
      establishment of toxic effluent limits.  Such an analysis is predicted on a) the existence
      of compatible substance specific toxic marine water quality standards  for each state
      involved, and b) toxic waste discharge inventories for all significant point sources.

      For Long Island Sound (Connecticut and New York), point source discharges are
      sufficiently distant from each other that application of individual state toxic control
      strategies on a site specific basis should be adequate to assure maintenance of toxic
      standards. For New York-New Jersey Harbor (New Jersey and New York), the number
      and location  of point sources are such that development of a bi-state toxic wasteload
      allocation process is desirable.  The water program staffs have initiated discussions
      directly on this topic.  Toxic wasteload allocation is also identified as a work plan
      element in the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Study.

      The absence of chemical specific marine water quality standards in Connecticut and
      New Jersey.  This is compensated by strong whole  effluent toxicity control efforts in
      both states employing biological (toxicity) monitoring. Both states are  in the process
      of reviewing  technical  information toward developing  chemical specific criteria for
      adoption as water quality standards.  This process is hindered by the general lack of
      scientific data on the effect of toxic substances on marine  water species.

      Toxic discharge  load inventories for all potential waste sources. There  is relatively
      good toxic discharge data for industrial and municipal point sources.  However, there
      is  considerably less information on toxics for combined sewer overflows (CSO's),
      stormwater runoff, nonpoint sources and atmospheric deposition. The first cut of a bi-
      state effort to establish a harbor-wide toxic wasteload allocation will, of necessity, focus
      on point sources with the integration of other sources (CSO, stormwater, etc.) as data
      becomes available.

      Toxics from air emissions are being controlled; however, there has been no assessment
      of the benefits to the water environment to be gained by different or better emission

      A positive point is that the contribution of toxics from solid and hazardous waste
      receives the same scrutiny as toxics resulting from other water discharges.


      The  federal Clean  Water Act  stipulates the technical  and legal procedures  for
implementing the goal of "elimination" of the discharge of pollutants" and national policy of
the "prohibition of the discharge of toxic pollutants in toxic amounts."  These procedures
include the application of technology and water quality based effluent limits.  The following
are USEPA/State actions which would enhance the reduction of toxic discharges.

      EPAreview of previously promulgated federal categorical effluent limitations to ensure
      that the most up-to-date treatment technology is being applied for pollutant control.

      States review and updat-3 best professional judgement (BPJ) treatment technologies for
      industrial categories where EPA has not promulgated effluent guidelines.

      EPA should continue to support the development of water quality criteria for  the
      protection of marine aquatic life. Up to now, much more effort has been devoted to
      the development of fresh water criteria than marine water criteria.

      States place priority emphasis on the implementation of and compliance with mil nicipal
      pre-treatment program requirements for the control of toxic pollutants.

      EPA work with the States to develop a national implementation strategy for applying
      anti-degradation to further reduce persistent toxic pollutants.

      States  incorporate best management practices  (BMP's) in industrial wastewater
      discharge permits to control toxics in stormwater runoff.

      States implement the control strategies in the recently adopted State Nonpoint Source
      Management Plans for the control of toxic pollutants.

                                                NEW \  /^YORK

                                                   New York
                                                   Area and
                                                   Marine Waters
                             10    \2MILES


                A Historical Review of Changes in Near-Shore
                 Habitats in the Sound-Harbor-Bight System
                                Donald F. Squires
                             Marine Sciences Institute
                             University of Connecticut
                                 Storrs, CT 06268

      This paper retraces the changes which have occurred in the near shore habitats of
the New York Bight, New York Harbor and Long Island Sound since the invasion of the
North American continent by Europeans, a time hereinafter called the "contact." Following
that summary, the factors which have been primary in causing destruction or degradation
of aquatic habitats over the  past 50 years are summarized. Then, finally, measures taken
in that period of the past 50 years which have improved aquatic habitats are identified.

      Human population growth has been a dominant factor in alteration of the North
American environment, both directly and indirectly as a consequence of pollution.  Humans
had been in North America for many millennia prior to the European contact, but they had
been few in numbers and their culture was such that their environmental impacts were
slight. But within a century of settlement, European colonists had had a substantial impact
on the coastal environment.

      How do human populations influence near-shore habitats?  Among other influences
are the following:

      1.     Physical  destruction  of  habitats in preparation  of sites  for industrial,
            residential and other construction;

      2.     Dredging of channels  and spoil disposal;

      3.     Construction of bulkheads, armored shorelines, dams, dikes, seawalls, levees,

      4.     Drainage of habitats for crop production, mosquito control or other purposes;

      5.     Flooding by construction of impoundments;

      6.     Mining for sand and gravel or other materials; and

      7.     Discharges of toxic pollutants, loadings from sewage disposal, both treated
             and  untreated, and   sedimentation  from  runoff resulting  from  land
             development, agriculture, etc.

      Additionally, there are many indirect human-caused impacts upon shorezone habitats
caused by sediment diversion, alteration of local hydrology, and subsidence resulting from
groundwater withdrawal.

The Region

      Three states bound the aquatic regime consisting of the New York Bight, New York
Harbor and Long Island Sound.  These states differ from each other in significant ways for
their  history,  and consequently the pattern  of their development resulting from their
resources, population and economies, has led them in different pathways.

      New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the Union and is second only to
California in industrialization, much of which is concentrated in the area surrounding the
Port of New York.  Of the state's population, 90% lives in cities and, by census definition,
some of the state's counties are wholly urbanized. While those counties abutting the New
York Harbor  have been urbanized and  industrialized for almost a century, the central
coastal region is only now rapidly developing.  Ocean County's population grew 90% in the
1960's and other rural areas have increased in population by over 50% since that time. New
Jersey's coastal areas are one of the most industrialized and heavily developed in the United
States and its coastal recreational and park lands, among the most utilized (U.S. Department
of the Interior, 1988C).

      New York, the largest state in the northeastern United States, is  also the most
diverse in geography, natural resources, population  and economy. Fourth  in numbers of
residents, the state's population is unevenly distributed:  almost 50% live in the 320-square-
mile area surrounding and including New York City.  Long Island's 1,475 miles of shoreline
(46% of the state's total) have been intensively developed for residences with the greatest
concentration being on the south shore of the Island.  New York Harbor, a premier national
port, fostered the  development,  principally on Manhattan Island, of a center of commerce,
banking and other commercial services. New York City has now a position  as the nation's
financial capital as a consequence of its long history in maritime commerce. Yet, today, the
shores of the port are undergoing a transformation from sites of commerce and industry to
mixed use  development of service  industries and  residences (U.S. Department  of the
Interior, 1988B).

      Connecticut's protected shoreline, in contrast to the open sandy shores of New York
and New Jersey, features rocky headlands and many small bays and estuaries — there are
only 79  miles  of  sandy beach  in the  state.   The extensive  salt marshes  and tidal
environments - these embayments fostered were early infilled by European settlers as this
coastally oriented state developed.   But, while industry once dominated the shoreline,
residential use is now predominant and has, in large part, displaced industry. Between 1960
and 1970, commercial development in the coastal region increased  133%. Residential areas
now occupy about 25% of the shorefront.  In  the 36 coastal townships, residential purposes
accounted for almost  50% of all new  land  development  in the  1970-1975 period (U.S.
Department of the Interior, 1988A).
People and the Tri-State Coastal Region

      Human population growth and resultant impacts on the coastal environment were
first examined by analysis of population growth in the metropolitan core and outward along
three radii: a western comprising largely the New Jersey coast; a central of Long Island; and
a northern, the Connecticut shore (Figure 1).  Population history of the coastal counties of
the three states was used in the analysis as provided in data of the U.S. Census Bureau.
The  results  are shown in Figures 2 and 3, Regional Population Growth and Regional
Population Density, respectively.  Tables  1 and 2 provide data on population history and
population density, respectively. The definition used of the coastal region as including only
those counties which border on the coast  differs from the definition of coastal population
used by the U.S. Census Bureau. That agency differentiates the coast as that area 50 miles
from the tideline but includes  all of the population of New Jersey and Connecticut in its
coastal tabulation.

      Figures 2,  3,  4, and 5  reveal what  one intuitively understands:  Population is
concentrated in the urban center and decreases in density outward from that center. A small
centrum of lesser population density at the urban center (Manhattan) may reflect urban
decay or census undercounting.  This population distribution results from growth of the
metropolitan region as a locus of employment and a subsequent spread of housing, industry
and support systems around the perimeter of the metropolis. Population density reflects the
same pattern, i.e., a decreasing density along the three radii from the core outward. Note
the rather considerable disparity between the population density of the Connecticut coast
~ an almost  uniform 500+  persons per square  mile — and the variation in New Jersey's
coastal counties. In Connecticut, at present, the coastal land use is largely residential except
for three urban port cities, whereas in New Jersey the socioeconomic profile ranges from
industrial to  rural agricultural land use.


2 -
3 -
4 -
5 -
6 -
7 -

Westchester (NY)
FairfiGld (CT)
New Haven (CT)
Middlesex (CT)
New London (CT)
The Bronx (NY)

1 -
8 -
9 -
10 -
11 -


New York (NY)

Queens (NY)
Nassau (NY)
Suffolk (NY)

12 -
13 -
14 -
15 -
16 -
17 -
18 -
19 -
20 -
21 -
Bergen (NJ)

Hudson (NJ)
Essex (NJ)
Union (NJ)

Richmond (NJ)
Middlesex (NJ)
Monmouth (NJ)
Ocean (NJ)

Atlantic (NJ)
Cape May (NJ)



    ~ X O
    p -x3 •"*»
     < c/>
    X) <* ^
    S =• §

    8 q §
    5 S S
!c s-
 ^— •"!
f _. ^3 i—1

 g 3-

 p ,-.
 " £"
 3- o>'

 g- 3
         a a
         oa 3

         o S.
         n -
         3 =•
         B S-
               Regional Population  Growth

                              1790 -1980
                  Pop.— All Counties(millions)
                Y1790 Y1830  Y1850  Y1900  Y1940  Y1950  Y1960  Y1970  Y1980


         O -i

3- '" S
ft O -•
o S o
§ " ~
? <" ET
£> g-«
Q. „ g
P a- ?•
=: CL S
5- ft R
ft ft Q.
S ^D'
•8 21°
•a no Q.
        S r1 cr
        •3 5 §
        8 i-8
        S.-5" g
        5" 8--
         i O tn
        H ^ cr
        ft ft d
                    Regional  Population  Density
                              1980 -  By County
                   Pop. (I000's)/sq mi
                          Counties — From Manhattan Outwards

  County          1790  1830  1850  1900  1940  1950  1960  1970  1980

 Fairfield          36    47     60     184   418   504   654   793   807
 Middlesex        19    25     27     42    56    67    89    115   129
 New Haven       31    44     66     269   484   546   660   745   761
 New London      33    42     51     83    125   145   186   231   238

New York

 New York        11    70    177    705  1890  1960  1698  1539  1428
 Bronx            22    133    338   1346  1395  1451  1425  1472  1169
 Kings             5    21    139   1167  2698  2738  2627  2602  2231
 Queens            4     6     10     153  1298  1551  1810  1987  1891
 Nassau           12    16     27     55    406   673  1300  1429  1322
 Suffolk           17    27     37     78    197   276   667  1127  1284
 Richmond         4     7     15     67    174   192   222   295   352

New Jersey
Cape May
  Population data are from U.S. Census Bureau reports of county populations.  For those
  counties not in existence in early years, population data have been disaggregated from
  precursor civil divisions assuming uniform distribution of population within the reporting
  unit.  Data are in thousands of persons.

New Haven
New London
New York
New York
New Jersey
Cape May






























Population data taken from Table 1. County area were uniformly taken from U.S. Census
Bureau County Areas for 1980. For those counties not in existence in early years,
estimates have been made of their area by aggregation and a uniform  distribution of
population waws assumed as for Table 1. Data are in thousands of persons per square

   P °
   t/i >-*>



    Regional  Population  —  1980

                 (By County)
   Population (1000's)
                        Counties — From Manhattan Outwards


    Population density of the coastal counties along the three radii described in Figure 1 is
    shown in three dimensions. The dominance of the metropolitan core is apparent. Data are
    from Table 1.
                       Figure 5.  Population density:  1980.

The Nearshore Habitats

      Nearshore habitats are defined here as the actual shore zone, or interface between
water and land; a landward buffer of the areas which can impact upon aquatic resources;
and the shallow, nearshore waters. Of the complex of habitats to be found in this zone, tidal
wetlands have been the best mapped, quantified and inventoried.  Least well mapped and
inventoried are the tidal flats and other nonvegetated, nearshore, submerged lands. We will
now examine the ways in which human activities impact upon these habitats.
Habitat Destruction

      Many traditional port functions are now being closed out or threatened by rising land
values and are being replaced by mixed-use developments.  But these shifts in waterfront
use configuration are not new.  They may be considered but  a stage in the continuum of
urban evolution. Buttenweiser (1987) has usefully summarized patterns of development of
American urban waterfronts.  In her analysis, early waterfronts were largely shaped by the
character  of the ships and the cargoes they carried.   But the  bulky goods,  the  stuff of
imports to a developing nation, were increasingly superseded by the export of finished goods.
This required alteration in the configuration of shoreside structures and in the transport of
goods to  those facilities.   Ships became  larger as iron and  steel replaced wood  for
construction and  steam  replaced sail for motive power.  Greater depths of water were
required for the passage of larger  ships into and out of ports.  Docks were  extended as
storage  space  required  for the  greater volume  of goods  transported increased.
Containerization displaced labor from the shorefront to other locations and required new
and enormous facilities.

      And most  recently, financially highly productive mixed-use  (housing/office/retail)
projects have displaced less financially fecund, per unit of area occupied,  industrial and
transport  functions.   These  are a  modern manifestation of  the combined effects  of
technological obsolescence and  lessened waterfront property values (e.g., Moss, 1980).
Simply put, as Containerization became the  favored mode of ocean transport, the facilities
for "break-bulk," the former mode of transport, were rendered obsolete. The Hudson River
coast, lined with mile-long finger piers and warehouses, quickly became passe and the piers
deteriorated.  Today, often all that remains of these  noble structures are  the pile-fields
which once supported the pier and warehouses.  The value of these pile-fields as  aquatic
habitat,  or as surrogate habitat, is the subject of current debate.  As  trucks replaced
railroads as the  favored mode of surface transport, the great marshaling yards of the port
became redundant. These unused or underutilized properties have depreciated rapidly in
value until it has become  profitable to  refurbish them for  new  uses ~  housing, retail
commercial, and service offices.

       New York Harbor, in its pre-contact form, had gently sloping shores fronting on
shallow flats extending far out into the Harbor as well as extensive wetlands.  Settlers,
particularly those of English ancestry, were quick to bulkhead that shoreline, using timber
cribs, and to backfill.  The first primitive dock was built before 1624; the first stable pier
(rock fill in timber cribbing) was built in 1647, and the first landfill to straighten the shore
and provide a level land surface and uniform depth of water was started in 1654 (Condit,
1980). Buttenweiser (1987) catalogued the filling of Manhattan's coastal margin. These
data are summarized in Table 3.
       Period                     Acres of fill               Acres per year
Data from Buttenweiser, 1987.
       By 1925, the boosters of New York's Harbor were trumpeting that more miles of its
waterfront were bulkheaded than any of the harbors of Europe, Asia or South America.
Today virtually all  of the commercially  developed port has bulkheaded, rip-rapped or
otherwise modified shorelines.

      To handle shoreside traffic, increasingly trucks, roads were built — later highways ~
right to and on the margin of the nearshore habitat zone. The concentration of highways
built along the shore during the 1930s and 1940s reflected the lesser costs of land acquisition
in those routes.  Coastal marshes, then largely unappreciated for their habitat value  and
considered  nuisances because of  their biting insect populations, were readily infilled.

      Finally, the nonvegetated shoal water flats, shellfish beds, sand bars and other shallow
water habitat other than wetlands have been extensively disturbed.  Dredging of channels,
dumping  and disposal of solids, shellfishing, and commercial fishing with towed nets have
all combined to reconfigure the harbor bottom and its biota. Of these, dredging has been
the most  destructive as it results  in a modified bathymetry as well as related effects

such as sedimentary plumes, altered hydrology, etc.  Serious channel dredging commenced
in the late 1800s with the invention of the hydraulic dredge (Edwards, 1893). Between 1884
and 1892, 16 miles of channel had been dredged (Klawonn,  1977). Between 1888 and 1900
the Harlem Ship Canal was dredged with a cut 400 feet wide and 15-18 feet deep through
Dyckman's Meadows ~ a tidal marsh (Klawonn, 1977).

      This general pattern of port development has been followed, in one form or another,
in almost every port city in the tri-state region.  These structural changes, induced by
technological innovation, occurred in conjunction with regional economic change, social and
political events such as migrations and wars.

      Because of the body of quantified information about tidal wetlands, that component
of nearshore habitats  is here used as an indicator of the degree of modification  of all
nearshore habitats.  One must be careful, however, for there  are many uses of the term
"wetlands", not all of which have been clearly defined or used consistently in the literature.
Only recently has the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Cowardin et al., 1979) developed a
comprehensive classification of fresh and marine wetlands.

      Wetlands  of the region were massively destroyed prior to the mid-1900s.  As  yet
unqualified acreages were filled, ditched, drained and otherwise mutilated. Some of  the
largest scale losses  were in New  Jersey where, on  the eastern coast of the Bayonne
Peninsula, extensive landfills were  created to provide space for the railroad yards.  This
activity extended from about 1850 until shortly after the  first world war. Some of  the
landfilling commenced earlier.  For example, Near Exchange Place, Jersey  City, landfilling
commenced  as early as 1804  and by 1840 had extended 400 to 500 feet eastward (Kardas
and Larrabee,  1979).  The Hackensack Meadowlands, to the west of the Peninsula, were
severely disrupted by draining and the creation of tide gates as early as the mid-1700s and
by regular burning from 1804 onwards to rid the  marshes of thieves and pirates (Wright,
1988).  In the view of those  inventorying  New Jersey's  wetlands in  the  mid-1950s, this
alteration, from salt  marsh  to  cat-tail marsh,  degraded  the wildlife  value  of the
Meadowlands — a view not all would agree with. An estimate of the pre-contact coastal
wetlands of New Jersey has not been identified, and so the losses are unquantified. By 1954,
257,260 acres of coastal wetland remained (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1965C).

      Along the Connecticut shore, the coming of the railroad from New York to Boston,
from 1850 to 1875, meant that many embayments were cut off  from Long Island Sound by
causeways, often with deleterious impacts on wetlands. Ditching and draining of salt hay
meadows commenced as early as 1904 (State of Connecticut, 1982).  Reliable estimates of
coastal wetlands  in  1914 suggest that over  23,000 acres of what has been estimated as
60,000+ acres of contact era wetlands were existent (Niering, 1961). Of these, 17,000 acres
remained in  1954 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1965B) and about 17,500 acres remain

      Long Island was subject to lesser developmental and industrial pressure than either
New Jersey or Connecticut, so while the New York Harbor region was losing wetlands to
landfill at a  galloping pace, Long Island's  loss occurred later.  Of an estimated 50,000 or
more acres of wetland in the past, 34,000 remained in 1954 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1965A) and  about 25,000 acres today.

      The five boroughs of New York City originally had extensive tidal marshes. Indeed,
lower Manhattan was almost separated from the rest of the  island at high tide by  the
flooding of the Beekman Marsh on the East River, which was connected to Fresh  Pond
(later The Collect) and small streams flowing west to the North (Hudson) River (Bolton,
1922).  The  full acreage of those marshes is not  known at this time, nor are  most  maps
adequate for the task of delineating them with accuracy.  Some estimates have been made
of the disappearance of the tidal marshes. They are summarized in Table 4.

Manhattan Brooklyn

NAb 1,920

NAb 1,853

Bronx Queens
1,510 l,570a
945 2,425



Barlow, 1971
Flebus, 1935
City of NY, 1940
Fenton, 1947
Aeryns, 1946
City of NY, 1958
Barlow, 1971
a Island marshes of Jamaica Bay not included.
b Not available.

 Data from various sources as indicated.  See Bibliography for full reference.

      But not all coastal marshes were victims to the housing boom for in the post-war
period mosquito control was of great health importance. In 1958 New York City's Planning
Department undertook an inventory of marshes and lands underwater at the behest of the
City's Department of Health because of concern for mosquitoes and other large insects.
The concern did not result from the nuisance of biting insects, but from real concerns over
outbreaks of mosquito-borne disease such as malaria and encephalitis. The Department of
Health had found spraying "not completely effective"  as a control  measure  and  was
"interested in the establishment  of a plan and of an orderly program for filling in these
offending marsh areas" (City of  New York, 1954). Of course, as  70% of the marsh and

underwater land areas identified were in City ownership and under the control of the
Department of Parks, Robert Moses, then Commissioner of Parks, was more than ready to
see them filled with rubbish and garbage, topped with dredge spoil and converted to coastal
parks (Caro, 1974).

      It is also instructive to recall that attitudes toward wetlands, marshes and swamps was
quite different prior to the 1960s than at present. Notes from an in-service training course
for New York City, Department of Sanitation, workers lauds landfills for eliminating "useless
tracts of land...rat-infested, malaria-breeding  eyesores for the community1'  (City of New
York, 1940).  Such evaluations were not limited to the advocates of landfills (e.g., Squires,

      As the making of new land progressed, diversity of materials used for the landfill
increased.   While ashes, household refuse and night soil were often disposed of in these
operations, more common was the use of rock and soil  resulting from land clearing and
leveling operations.  In this fashion, for example, the entire northern shore of Brooklyn was
slowly pushed into  the Harbor  (Stiles, 1870).  With later mechanization, dredge  spoil
became a popular material for such landfills. For example, most of the Port Newark, Port
Elizabeth  and Newark Airport landfill was derived from the dredging of Newark Bay.
Suszkowski (1978) has noted that the dredging of the Bay  and spoiling of its margins has
resulted in a Bay of smaller  area but approximately same  volume  of water.  Similar
developmental patterns may be  found  in almost all of the industrialized harbors of the
region, although to a lesser extent.

      Through about 1888, most New York City refuse was dumped into the Harbor. With
the termination of this practice by congressional action, other "waste reduction" and disposal
practices were sought.  From about 1896 until  1917, most City refuse was  collected and
taken to Barren Island, Jamaica  Bay, where garbage (food wastes) was rendered, rubbish
was  largely recycled and ashes  (from  home  cooking and heating fires), then a major
constituent of solid wastes, were disposed of. A major private concern in waste removal was
the Brooklyn Ash Removal Company, which operated  incinerators  and landfills.  The
operations  of this company were ultimately  utilized  in landfills in Flushing Meadows
(eventually the  site of a World's  Fair and Alley Pond Park.  Rikers Island was the Fresh
Kills of  its day.  Refuse, coal and incinerator ash were first dumped on the island in 1895
and by 1938 this 60-acre island had grown to over 400 acres.  It was later reduced in size
as ash was taken from the Island to the site of LaGuardia Airport and used  as fill (Corey,

      Other transportation facilities were the  cause of massive landfill projects, often with
a mixture of refuse,  garbage, construction debris and hydraulic spoil being used for filling.
For  Newark Airport,  filling started in  1913  and  ultimately  2200 acres of marsh were
obliterated by the  1970s (Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 1979A); LaGuardia
airport is built on 357 acres of landfill, mostly 12 million cubic yards of cinder and ash from
Rikers Island dumped on tidal mudflats.  An additional 28 acres of marsh and lagoon were

later filled with hydraulic spoil (Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 1979B); and,
construction of Kennedy International Airport took 4930 acres of wetlands filled with
hydraulic spoil to a depth of 10-15 feet between 1942 and 1979 (Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey,  1979C).  The Port Authority's  major container shipping facility, Port
Elizabeth, was built on 1165 acres of wetlands between 1958 and 1962. Over 1100 acres of
marsh were bulkheaded and filled to create Port Newark.
Effectiveness of Control Measures

      To determine how effective control measures taken to limit habitat loss have been,
we shall first examine the rate of loss of habitats. In the anecdotal  material presented, it
is apparent that enormous nearshore habitat destruction occurred in the last half of the 19th
century and the first quarter of the 20th century.  However, the  task of quantifying that
habitat destruction is only now under way (Squires, in progress).  Further, only very few
nearshore habitats have been examined in any systematic and  quantified fashion ~ tidal
wetlands being the best example.

      To assess the rate  of loss of nearshore habitats, we have examined coastal wetlands
data from the period between the 1950s and the 1970s. This was a period of rapid loss of
coastal wetlands all over  the nation (Figure 6). In the late 1960s and early 1970s, States
began to take actions to protect wetlands and so provide a baseline from which to measure
effectiveness of controls on habitat loss.

      Wetlands began to be inventoried and quantified in the early 1950s, permitting some
analysis of the pre-regulation rate of loss. For this study, we used "tidal wetlands" in the
fashion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in its  1960-70 wetlands inventories.  Ralph
Tiner, U.S. Fish and  Wildlife Service (Personal Communication) assures that  there is a
degree of comparability among the habitats included within that term in the inventories of
the several states. Mudflats and other tidally exposed areas as well as open waters seaward
of low tide or open fresh coastal waters were not included. We have not found comparable
data for these habitats. The data presented in the following tables and figures record what
might be popularly termed "tidal marsh areas" (Figures 7 and 8).

      What  is immediately  evident from  these data  is what  we should expect: where
population is greatest, the environmental impact, in this instance on tidal wetlands, has been
greatest.  Tiner (1984) reports that in the lower 48 states, agricultural development is the
greatest threat to all  wetlands, causing 87% of the loss.  Urbanization follows causing 8%
of the loss.  However, in the most populated areas such as New York and New Jersey,
dredge and fill for residential sites is responsible for the major losses. Factors causing loss
of wetlands in the decade between 1954  and 1964 have been  catalogued (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife,  1965A, 1965B,  1965C)  and are shown in Table 5.  It should be remembered,
however, that prior to 1950,  agriculture and industrial port development  were the primary
factors causing wetlands loss.



       7- -
                              0.2% low/yr.
                                                 0.5% low/yr.
Rate of loss of coastal wetlands between 1922 and 1974 is shown. The estimates of wetlands

lost includes both estuarine and tidal wetlands. (From Gosselink and Baumann, 1980; after

Tiner,  1984).
   Figure 6.  Rate of wetlands loss in the coterminous United States.





        "O O
        rt 3

        o' Er
        CL n


p p

o1 cp
-i o



    P O
    ft j*
P Tl r^

o-og" p

8 f §•
p ft co

t/i -' O
 _ <"

^, H^ -^~*

2>2 g

S S|
^ p S

o S D

£S Q

o.g «

2 |«g

S £?^
fj CL ft

5" ' v<.
3 < ft
o ;? p?

          « S S
    ,	   SO
    f K Z

    ' ft a-

     * £

     o^ S

           ft O
           P >"*•>
   D R

   o P
   ft 9.
   3 c:

   =f CL

   c q
   M 3.
   CT" Cj
   p ft
   B 0-
                     Wetland  Loss  1954  -1973

                                   (Per Year)
                      Acres Lost
                              Counties — From Manhattan Outwards

                                    ^H  CT  ^^  NY  L:  I NJ




     O O M

     "§ &
     s- f p
                100 -













    «— »-


      3- ST
      •a g
      ar a.

      n i—
      q 5
      p. Cf>
      5 o
      n 3
                      Counties — From Manhattan Outwards

                     BETWEEN 1954 AND 1964, LISTED BY CAUSATIVE
(%)    New York
New Jersey
Misc. fill
Waste disposal




Misc. fill


Waste disposal





Misc. fill
Waste disposal


S&G mining





  Data for Connecticut, New Jersey and Long Island are from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
  Service Coastal Wetlands Inventory (1965A, 1965B, 1965C).
      All tidal wetlands are not the same in their value as habitat.  In Connecticut, the
compilers noted that those marshes considered as being of high-moderate value (as wildlife
habitat) were destroyed at about the same rate as those of low-moderate value but that
many of the higher value marshes were degraded by pollution, siltation and intensified use
of nearby areas by humans.  In New York and New Jersey, loss of high-quality marsh, or its
degradation, was exacerbated by siltation, adjacent fill, ditching for mosquito control and
other factors.   But, in New Jersey, this  type of degradation was most noted  in the
Hackensack Marshes where the 12,000 acres of remaining wetlands have been so altered by
ditching, diking and draining " to retain little or no value to waterfowl" (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1965C). In southern New Jersey, the same source reports that 10,000 acres
were degraded  by diking to permit production of salt meadow hay. Losses in New Jersey
tended to be greatest in the low- and negligible value  marshes.

      Attention has been paid to wetlands loss in the decade from 1954 to 1964 because
this period is possibly representative of the peak of wetland destruction in the three-state
region.  The enormous  losses were so disturbing to officials and to environmentalists that

all three states enacted coastal wetlands protection laws: Connecticut in 1969; New Jersey
in 1970; and New York in 1972. These laws have been effective in slowing the rate of loss.

      Tiner (1985) identified 201,000+ acres of salt and brackish marsh and an additional
48,000+ acres of intertidal flats in New Jersey in 1973.  These enormous acreages had
already been decimated by filling, ditching and placement of tidal gates by the 1900s. New
Jersey had been losing marshes at the rate of 3000+ acres per year prior to its protective
legislation, but  has seen that rate slowed, by one estimate, to 50 acres per year (JACA
Corporation, 1982). But those losses are now out on the perimeter, for many of the core
counties have lost all  but those most highly protected wetlands. Those now suffer from
illegal dumping, trespass and abandonment and pollutional degradation.

      New York's present  coastal  wetlands  are  heavily concentrated  on Long Island.
Various estimates suggest that 50,000 to 55,000 acres may once have been present, of which
about 24,900 acres remain.  New York's tidal wetlands regulations  are considered by the
State's Department of Environmental Conservation to be quite stringent and, according to
officials of that Department, have resulted in minimal loss of vegetated  underwater lands.
However, non-vegetated lands such as tidal flats and shoals have not been protected and
have suffered severe loss from dredging. Because of protection and sea level rise, the shoal
shores of Long Island may now be gaining new wetlands acreage.  In the New York Harbor,
extensive wetlands once existed.  I  know  of no estimates of their area.  Barlow (1971)
suggests that by 1900  less than 600 acres remained on Manhattan and that of the 27,000
acres remaining elsewhere in the five boroughs, most were in Jamaica Bay, The Bronx and
southern Staten Island. By 1969, only 3800 acres remained.

      It is estimated that Connecticut had, in 1914, over 23,000 acres of tidal wetlands. This
has been estimated as  less than half of that which had once been present.  Today something
like 17,500 acres remain. Connecticut's tidal wetlands legislation, unlike that of New York,
has the effect of protecting not only vegetated wetlands but also non-vegetated tidal flats
and shoals. According to the Connecticut  Council on Environmental Quality (1988), loss
of coastal wetlands has been in the order of 0.5 acre per year since protective legislation.
Officials of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection note that under that
Department's restoration effort, about 1500 acres of coastal wetland have been restored. At
present, it  is  felt  that stormwater discharge into  coastal wetlands may, through  the
introduction of freshwater at critical periods, be  destructive of tidal wetlands.  Attention is
now being given to the location of stormwater drains.
The Urban Shoreline

      Large populations of human beings are of considerable threat to the environment.
Such populations tend to  develop a wholly new environment dominated by  humans
themselves and their technological creations.  Wildlife of many kinds are intolerant of such
an environment and avoid it, not only because of habitat destruction or degradation, but also


because of the ultimate social and cultural conflict between species. To attempt to "restore"
an element  of wilderness to the urban environment may seem desirable but  more often
results in artificialities of zoological and botanical park-like situations in which both human
and wildlife roles are defined and partitioned. Yet, nature shows considerable resiliency and
where human activity is decreased or absent, wildlife seem to re-establish and habitats to
restore themselves. This is  seen, for example, in those portions of the inner harbor along
the Arthur Kill where extensive petroleum tank "farms" provide extensive areas free from
human intrusion. Bird colonies have become established and new wetlands are emerging in
these areas.

       Perhaps what is required is more attention to the interfacing of human populations
and wildlife by constructive land use planning.  It is desirable to recognize the gradations
which exist between the heavily impacted to lightly touched habitats and to work harder
towards the preservation and restoration of the latter.

       Certainly, if nothing else,  much attention  should be given to  the  reduction of
degradation of habitats by illegal rubbish and fill dumping and the persistent stress of toxic
pollutants placed into coastal waters. Coastal cities developed with the ideation  of the flush
toilet. Proximity to the twice daily cleansing of the shoreline by tidal  flow was a  decided
asset for unrestrained population growth in the absence of sewerage and sewage treatment
and was delightfully less expensive. The flush toilet was also found to work for all  manner
of fluids and debris other than  human fecal material and was used for such purposes, but
as in  all good things, was soon overutilized.  Consequences of the input  to coastal waters of
human fecal material  may  include eutrophication and hypoxia and closure of shellfish
grounds  and beaches  in the interests of  public  health.  Debris and  rubbish clog the
waterways and drift to distant beaches to annoy shore visitors who wish to leave their own
garbage on the beach.  Almost  200 years after the first efforts to control this nuisance, we
find that amazing progress has been made in the technological artifacts thus disposed of and
in the technologies applied to  the treatment of that which is disposed of in  the coastal

       New  York Harbor has experienced  what seems  to be devastating alterations and
habitat destructions -- yet wildlife persist in surprising array and numbers. But  this should
not suggest  that it is feasible, although technically possible, to restore the  Harbor to its
pre-contact state. Effort should be expended on lessening the loss of all nearshore habitats
on the periphery  of the city and on  reducing the degradational  insults  to  the urban
nearshore environment.  In  the final analysis, humans are social animals and many enjoy
clustered living and the social and cultural  advantages it brings. It is, in the final analysis,
easier to collect and treat concentrations of wastes - industrial or sewage - than dispersed
wastes. We know that dispersion costs the environment dearly in energy consumption, etc.
One  must conclude that cities are not  inherently environmental enemies, but rather are
opportunities to concentrate on limited areas the impact of human populations. Within
urban environments  we should invent new ways iu which to coexist  with the biological
communities  that are willing to tolerate our excesses.


      I thank Huang Dan and Jennifer Young, graduate assistants, for their aid.  Ron
Rosza, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and Ken Koetzner, New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation, provided information and insights on
wetlands in their respective states. Michael Ludwig, Milford Laboratory, National Marine
Fisheries  Service,  was  helpful in  providing data, literature and his experiences  with the
habitats of the region.  To the many librarians who have put up with my quest for the
esoteric for several  years:  my thanks.   Jonathan  Cell, Office of New Jersey Heritage,
Richard Castagna, Tidelands Bureau, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection;
Roselle Henn, District Office, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers all  provided  access to
important information.  Dennis Suszkowski of the Hudson River Foundation has provided
consistent encouragement, criticism, and information.

      This research was supported, in part, by grants from the Hudson River Foundation,
the Research Foundation of the  University of Connecticut and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.


Aeryns, A.M., 1946. Mosquito Control-Engineering Control Aspects. Sect. 3b of In-Service
      Training  Course for Newly Appointed  Health Inspectors. City of  New  York,
      Department of Health,  Bureau  of  Sanitary  Engineering, November  8,  1946.

Bolton, R.P., 1922. Indian Paths in the Great Metropolis. Indian Notes and Monographs.
      The Museum of the American Indian. Heye Foundation, New York, NY. 280 pp.

Buttenweiser, A. 1987. Manhattan Water-Bound: Planning and Developing Manhattan's
      Waterfront from the Seventeenth Century to the Present. New York University Press,
      New York, NY. 243 pp.

Caro, R. 1974. The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York. Alfred A.
      Knopf. New York, NY. 1246 pp.

City of New York, 1940. Mosquito Control in New York City. A Short Treatise Prepared
      for Personnel Assigned from the National Youth Administration to the Department
      of Sanitation-1940. Typescript.

City of New York, 1958. Marshes and Lands Under Water, New York City. Preliminary
      Inventory. City of New York,  Department  of Planning. 8 pp. +  maps and charts.
      Unpublished document.

Condit, C.W., 1980. The Port of New York. A History of the Rail and Terminal System from
      the Beginnings to Pennsylvania Station. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago,
      IL. Vol. 1, 456 pp.

Connecticut Council and Environmental Quality. 1988. Annual Report of the Council  on
      Environmental  Quality.  State of Connecticut, Department  of Environmental

Corey, S. 1989. The Department of Sanitation. Theory & Practice. 1929-1967. Unpublished
      Draft Report, New York City Department of Sanitation. New York, NY. Variously

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F. Golet and E. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and
      deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish  and
      Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program.  FWS/OBS-79/31, December 1979.
      Washington, D.C. 103 pp.

Edwards, J., 1893. Improvement of New York Harbor: 1885 to 1891. Compliments of Joseph
      Edwards, New York, NY. [Privately Published]

Fenton, R., 1947. An Analysis of the Problems of Sanitary Landfills in New York City. City
      of New York, Department of Health, Bureau of Sanitary Engineering,. Typescript.
      August, 1947. [Also submitted to New York University as thesis for Master of Civil
      Engineering (Sanitary)] 133 pp.

Flebus, C.G. 1935. Report on New York City Waste Disposal. Report prepared for the New
      York City Park Department. Typescript.

JACA Corporation, 1982. Final Report. A Case Study of New Jersey Wetlands. Trends and
      Factors Influencing Wetlands Use. Prepared for Office of Technology Assessment,
      U.S. Congress, Washington, D.C.

Kardas, S. and E. Larrabee, 1979. Cultural Resource Survey/Exchange Place and Pavonia
      Avenue Ferries, Jersey City, N.J. Prepared for the New York District Office, Corps
      of Engineers, U.S. Department of the Army by Historic Sites Research, Princeton,
      NJ. April, 1979. 73 pp. Looseleaf.

Klawonn, M.J., 1977. Cradle of the Corps: A History of the New York District U.S. Army
      Corps of Engineers 1775-1975.  U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District.
      June, 1971. 310 pp.

Moss, M. 1980. Staging a Renaissance on the Waterfront. New York Affairs, Vol. 6, No. 2,
      pp. 3-19.

Niering,  W. 1961. Tidal Marshes. Their Use in Scientific Research in Connecticut's Coastal
      Marshes. A Vanishing Resource. Connecticut Arboretum, Connecticut College, New
      London, CT. Bull. No. 12, February 1961. pp. 3-7.

Port Authority  of New York and New Jersey, 1979A. Master  planning studies. Newark
      International Airport. Phase I, Final Report. December, 1979. Port Authority of New
      York and New Jersey, NY, NY. 125 pp.

Port Authority of New York and New  Jersey, 1979B. Master planning studies. LaGuardia
      Airport.  Phase I, Final Report. December, 1979. Port  Authority of New York and
      New Jersey, NY, NY. 117 pp.

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, 1979C. Master planning studies. John F.
      Kennedy International  Airport.  Phase  I, Final  Report. December,  1979. Port
      Authority of New York and New Jersey, NY, NY. 133  pp.

Squires, D.F., 1988. Evolution of New York State's Policies on  Underwater Mining of Sand
      and Gravel. Marine Mining, Vol. 7, pp. 19-34.

State of Connecticut, 1982. A history of Connecticut's coast. 400 years of coastal industry
      and development. State  of Connecticut, Department of Environmental Protection,
      Coastal Area Management Program. Hartford, CT March,  1982. 75 pp.

Stiles, H.R. 1869-1870. A History of the City of Brooklyn. 3 Vols. Vol. 3 (1870), pp. 501-982.

Suszkowski, D. 1978. Sedimentology of Newark Bay, New Jersey: An Urban Estuarine Bay.
      Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,  University of Delaware, Newark, DE. 220 pp.

Tiner, R.W. Jr. 1984. Wetlands of the United States: Current status and recent trends. U.S.
      Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory.
      Washington, D.C. March 1984. 59 pp.

Tiner, R.W. Jr. 1985. Wetlands of New Jersey. U.S. Fish  and Wildlife Service, National
      Wetlands Inventory, Newton Ciorner, MA. 117 pp.

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1988A.  Report to Congress: Coastal Barrier Resources
      System. Recommendations for additions to or deletions from the Coastal Barrier
      Resources System. Vol. 5 Connecticut. Washington, DC.  36 pp.

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1988B. Ibid. Vol. 6  New York. Washington, DC. 59 pp.

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1988C. Ibid. Vol. 7 New Jersey. Washington, DC. 35 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,  1965A. Supplementary report on the coastal wetlands
      inventory of Long Island, N.Y. U.S.  Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
      Service, Region 5, Boston, MA. June 1965. 11 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,  1965B. Supplementary report on the coastal wetlands
      inventory of Connecticut. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
      Region 5, Boston, MA. June,  1965. 11 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,  1965C. Supplementary report on the coastal wetlands
      inventory of New Jersey. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
      Region 5, Boston, MA. June,  1965. 13 pp.

Wright, K.W. 1988. The Hackensack Meadowlands. Prehistory and History.Report prepared
      for the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission, Lyndhurst, NJ. 112 pp.
      Unpublished Typescript.

          Preventing Further Degradation of Aquatic Habitat:
                         A Regulatory Perspective
                             Mario P. Del Vicario
                 Chief, Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch
                             U.S.E.P^4.  Region II
    Destruction and degradation of aquatic habitat is a usual consequence of man's
alteration of the environment to suit his own uses.  Human actions are often in
conflict with the resource needs of the rest of the biota occupying the area and in
fact, many activities sacrifice long-term sustainability for short-term gain. Past
philosophy has often been that resources are "inexhaustible" and are  available for
quick gain without examining the long-term impacts on the regional and global
environment. This idea, coupled with the fact that the bulk of our population is
concentrated along the coastal regions of our  country has resulted in the loss or
impairment of much our coastal habitat. To think that places like Brooklyn,
Manhattan, Newark, and Jersey City were once large  wetland expanses is hard to
imagine.  Only small remnants of the aquatic  habitat  that once existed still remain.
What has come about is an isolation of habitat into small parcels which are of
reduced use to fish and wildlife.  If we are to preserve remaining natural habitat
and restore or enhance areas that have been lost, we  must change the development

    Unfortunately, existing regulatory programs are not adequate to protect
nearshore habitat  from the many human activities  and influences that negatively
affect them. Despite present concern  over the loss of habitat, many  acres are still
being degraded  or destroyed. The ironic part of it is  that much  of the loss is fully
within the law.  Part of the problem stems from the fact that there are many
competing laws, some  development-oriented ones focusing on use by humans, and
some  habitat-oriented  ones focusing on the environment.  Until the laws are
integrated in such a way as to give the environment full consideration, there will
continue to be loss of  habitat and the  fauna that depend on it.

    The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZM), is designed to guide the
development of nearshore habitat in a controlled manner by allowing activities  that
are dependent on, or consistent with, being located in the coastal zone. This


development can be in the form of constructing shoreline structures such as roads
for access to public beaches, bulkheading to maintain slips for marinas, placement
of rip-rap to keep shipping channels  from eroding, etc.  CZM encourages creation
of open spaces and preservation areas ,  but with the idea of promoting public
access and recreational use, which then  competes with its utility as  habitat.  So
although it appears as though CZM should protect the environment, it actually has
the opposite effect. Present Coastal  Zone  Management is development oriented.
It was designed to manage a logical build-out of the coastal zone, not to protect

    Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, gives the Army Corps of Engineers
the power to regulate the maintenance and creation of channels within navigable
waterways and the construction of certain structures  in waters of the U.S. While a
certain amount of these activities are unavoidable in an urban area, and many are
not disastrous by themselves, the cumulative impact over time is  tremendous.
NEPA, the National Environmental Policy  Act, states that cumulative impacts
should be examined, however,  this is rarely carried out to the degree that is

    Section 404 of the Clean Water Act provides for the protection of waters of
the United States from the deposition of dredge or fill material.  Waters of the
United States include wetlands and special aquatic sites such as mudflats, vegetated
shallows, spawning and shellfish areas, etc.  The 404 program is administered by
the Army Corps of Engineers with USEPA oversight. Section 404 also regulates
the construction of certain types of shoreline structures considered to be fill but
does not generally prohibit modification of the  coastal zone and rarely fully
considers cumulative or regional impacts of the regulated activities.

    It is  ironic that most of the wetland losses that the region is experiencing now
is  not from non-regulated activities, but  from permitted activities such  as draining
or dredging of coastal habitats, ditching  and diking of marshes, and modification of
upstream headwater areas. Many  of these  problems stem from the issuance of
Nation-Wide Permits and General State-Wide Exemptions for these activities.

    A new concern is for the recent  proliferation of proposals to construct very
large pile-supported structures in tidal and  non-tidal waters.  These projects are
designed to avoid any discharges of "fill" material, and therefore be more likely to
receive approval despite potential  substantial impacts.  Also,  with Congressional
approval, portions of navigable waterways can be designated  non-navigable which
removes them from Section 10 jurisdiction, thus removing projects which don't
require 404 Authorization from federal  review and protection.  For instance,
portions of the Hudson  River by Battery Park and the East River along the
Riverwalk Project site have been deregulated in this manner.

    When mitigation is used to compensate for wetland loss due to a regulatory
action, there is a large degree  of uncertainty as to the success of the effort due
primarily to inadequate  follow-up.  This lack of compliance monitoring is a  direct

                                                                  Del Vicario

result of insufficient resources. In addition, mitigation is rarely considered on a
watershed-wide basis.  Not only must discrete areas be protected and enhanced,
but the future of the surrounding area must be considered as well. If the upland
areas deteriorate to the point where the habitat value of the mitigation site is lost
or severely diminished, then the whole reason for the mitigation is also lost.

    New York and New Jersey have programs for tidal wetlands that are similar to
the 404 program.  Though there are many overlaps between state  and federal
jurisdiction, there are inconsistencies between the programs in  terms of sizes and
types of habitats that  are protected.  New York's Freshwater Wetlands Program
has done much to  regulate the destruction of freshwater sites in the state.
However, the program generally deals only with sites that are larger than 12.4
acres.  Sites smaller than that can be altered without the need  for a permit.

    It is important  to recognize that there are also cyclical and successional
phenomenon which of themselves, are natural, but when coupled with over-
development, are also destructive. An example  is the rise  in sea level.  Rising sea
levels would normally extend existing coastal habitats landward, however where
shoreline development has hemmed in the coastal habitats there is no chance for
this to happen.  Therefore, even those areas which are now protected could
eventually be lost to erosion and flooding along with  the organisms that depend on

    Protection of nearshore habitat requires a holistic approach.  Regulators can
no longer consider just individual parts of the environment, but rather they must
consider the habitat as an interconnected system.  Destruction  of parts of the
system,  as a rule leads to  the  degradation of the whole  ecosystem.  It is important
to protect large  areas of habitat because small disjunct patches, though ecologically
important, often cannot function to their full potential.  If,the upland areas that
drain into the wetlands are degraded to the point that their run-off destroys the
site, then the whole effort of saving the wetland in the first place was in vain.

    Thus, in assessing the impacts on a habitat as the result of regulatory action,
one must go beyond considering only the direct  impacts on the project site. It is
also necessary to have alternate habitats for  organisms in the event that their
primary habitat is  destroyed or altered in ways that render it unsuitable.  A good
example are bird breeding areas where discrete  breeding islands can be devastated
by disease or rat infestation, or get washed away by a storm. If there are no
alternate sites in the area,  the birds will not  be  able to  breed and will likely
abandon the area.   Organisms cannot be confined to  small niches without having
alternate sites available.

    In general there is a philosophical approach taken in addressing adverse
environmental impacts to  habitat associated with proposed projects that places the
burden of proof on the regulating program to show harm.  This approach puts us

in a position of waiting/hoping that our prediction of no significant impact is
accurate, thus  leaving the environment at risk.  The inverse approach would be
more protective of the environment by taking a bias in favor of environmental
quality. In order to accomplish this, a regulatory policy change would need to be

    Much can be done to reach this goal of preventing further destruction and
degradation of aquatic habitat. A good start would be strict enforcement of
existing habitat protection laws. Changing the regulatory definition of "fill" to
include pile-supported structures would ensure  that the protection of aquatic
habitat through the federal process wouldn't be circumvented by an act of
Congress. Intact, publicly owned  aquatic habitats could be protected and those
areas that have been degraded or destroyed could be enhanced in the short-term
by cleaning  up shorelines, restricting human access, replacing lost vegetation,
reducing pollutant inputs, restoring the hydrology, etc. Privately owned lands  could
also be preserved by obtaining the development rights through a public or private
agency such as the Nature Conservancy or the Trust For Public Land.

    Long-term prevention of the destruction and degradation of aquatic habitat
must start by enlightening decision makers and the general public as to the
importance  of habitat and modify their attitudes towards preserving it.  Ideas and
regulations  must be supported before they will  be accepted and effectively

    More specific measures could include expanding the Coastal Zone
Management Program further inland, recognizing the need to take a broader
consideration  of the entire  ecosystem, and to change the focus to one of
environmental protection.  For instance,  the creation  of upland buffer zones are
necessary around wetlands  and other special aquatic sites in  order to minimize the
degradation of habitat by pollutant run-off and human intrusion.

    Mitigation should be rigorously mandated and enforced for any loss or
impairment of aquatic habitat that is unavoidable. Gaps in existing regulatory
program authorities must be closed so that all activities  potentially affecting coastal
resources are considered. We need to identify all remaining special aquatic sites in
the Bight so that preservation and restoration of habitat  can be planned most
effectively.  Small sites cannot be overlooked.

    Other measures that can be taken include setting a goal  of increasing the
quantity and quality of wetlands and other special  aquatic sites, increasing
acquisition of wetlands for the purpose of preservation, and requiring all
government agencies to provide full  compensation for any wetland altered by
facilities they build or support.

    The no-net-loss policy,  if strictly enforced, could go far to protect the
remaining wetlands.  This policy should be expanded  to include all special aquatic
sites.  However, if this policy is eroded, further habitat loss will certainly occur.

                                                                 Del Vicario

Development must be compatible with the function of the entire ecosystem, not
just the immediate site in question, before any balance can be struck. The piece
meal, site by site approach  to evaluating environmental value has been ecologically
disastrous and can no longer be tolerated. Past land use practices have not
adequately addressed habitat preservation, thus allowing the destruction of many
important habitat areas.  If we are to preserve, enhance, and restore habitat as
mandated by the Estuary Management Conferences, it will be necessary to
thoroughly reexamine and modify present land use and development practices with
full consideration being given to the  ecosystem.

    One method of getting at the problem of unifying regulations, management
and enforcement would be  to refocus and combine  all federal environmental laws
into a single Environmental Protection Act, administered by a single Federal
environmental protection regulatory  agency.  A similar Act should be enacted and
regulated at the state level.  In order to avoid unnecessary duplication, some
portions of the federal program could be delegated to the states with the oversight
of the federal  agency.

    The last point I'd like to make is that the  prevention of further degradation of
aquatic habitat is not solely the responsibility of regulatory agencies. It is the
public's responsibility to recognize their role in degrading  the environment. People
have to understand that the "environment" doesn't start at the boundary of some
park or preserve, but it includes their lawn, driveway,  and route to work.  People
have to change their perception that the environment  is some precious patch of
land protected from the onslaughts of overwhelming development. Rather, it is the
entirety of our living space,  a portion of which we choose  to modify to suit our
needs and comfort.  That act of modification however, in no way removes that
space from the environment, which continues to affect the remaining natural area.
It is left up to us to decide which aspect of our environment has the dominant
influence on our quality of life.

                        A CITIZEN'S PERSPECTIVE
                                 Eugenia Flatow
                               Coalition for the Bight
                               New York, New York
Habitat: Freedom and Sound Planning

      This citizen's view of habitat is that the locally based protection of the home of the
shellfish, the migrating waterbirds, or the spawning grounds of the striped bass means far
more than an environmental concern for diversity. It is necessary for preserving our western
values of freedom. For if we ~ thee and me — will not take the steps necessary to preserve
our precious water supply, to purify our air, and clean up our waterways, some higher power
will do it for us in the name of survival — and may do  it badly.

      It is, after all, a matter of will, as well as know-how. It is a question of boundaries.
Will we continue to move within:  the mindsets of the past? the constraints of agency roles
and responsibilities? the equally limiting narrow agendas of neighborhood priorities? or
have we the  vision  and the courage  to come together across political boundaries, across
professional  disciplines,  beyond  the comfortable desire  to  deal  only  with  facts easily
obtained? Will we plan comprehensively and substitute pollution prevention for end-of-the-
pipe control?  Restoring this ecosystem will take all our combined intelligence and unified

Odyssey of a Citizen

      Let me first share with you the experience that has brought me to this view.  I appear
before you as a citizen.  Except for the fact that I would add activist to that sobriquet, it is
a title I use with pride.  Apart from the  fact that I believe there are many "lay" citizens
today far more knowledgeable and thoughtful than many  professionally  trained scientists,
I must also confess that I am an engineer (trained, I am afraid, in an institution not so quick
as this  one in recognizing  the importance of the  environment), but  capable  of assessing
technical solutions.

       I am also a born and bred New Yorker, encouraged by my family to share any talents
or energies I possess  "for the greater good."   So, I have seen service as  an  elected
Democratic Leader, a Coordinator of Housing & Development and Director of Model Cities
for Mayor John Lindsay, and Executive Deputy to Secretary of State Basil Paterson when
I was privileged to gain passage for the Coastal Zone Management program. I have also
been a proactive member of countless advisory committees on parks and open space (when
that  was "the environment"),  on Sea Grant and Coastal Management, and on Clean Water
when Federal guidelines provided the impetus for full public participation. In other words,
I have spent forty years working with, meeting with, and being part of the public and public
officialdom, seeking to devise palatable decisions for unpleasant problems in a democratic

       I have watched bureaucrats, both as colleagues and as adversaries, hide behind the
limitations  of the law or the budget, and fail to take  on problems that "were not their job"
even if the connections were obvious.  I have watched legislators mandate responsibility
without resources.   I  have  watched  engineers  build ever  greater structural  solutions,
confident of success without any evaluation of the consequences, because government
provided billions for construction and hardly pennies for research or planning.  I  have
watched citizens defend their backyards with intransigent vehemence, but I have also seen
citizens use their collective skills wisely when given a real opportunity  to contribute.

The  NYC 208 CAC: Citizens at the Cutting Edge

       We  learned a most extraordinary lesson when we organized the  New  York City
Citizen's Advisory Committee for the 208 planning program. We learned that we citizens
were not fettered with the boundaries of the government planners.  Our vision was not
narrowed to the letter of the  law or the restrictions of budget authorizations.

       We organized to consider wastewater planning and coastal management together and
focused on the water quality of tributaries where the impact on people is greatest.  We
reached out to other 208 CACs to form a region il coalition. We preached the doctrine of
combined sewer overflows before money was mide available to treat the problem.

       And, we were also tight-fisted  visionaries.   We were skeptical of the need for
secondary treatment if it was more important to capture combined sewer overflows. We
called for new institutional arrangements to make the City's  water resources program self-
financing.  Because we learned to be concerned about all media,  not just water, we dared
to question the wisdom of getting out of the ocean before we found alternatives more
suitable than incineration for sludge.

       We suggested the experts consider the impact of greenhouse effect, highlighted the
need for interstate negotiation on wasteload allocations, and opposed Westway because it
was a misplaced infrastructure investment.

      In summary, we left a legacy of unfettered lessons which we must continue to apply

      •      Plan for water and shore together ~ Clean Water and Coastal Management
             are two sides  of the same coin.

      •      Plan with attention to  cross-media impacts  - the price of excellent water
             cannot be unacceptable air.

      •      Think regionally and organize regionally around shared waterbodies -- only
             the regional scale encompasses sources, fates, and effects.

      •      Think frugally — money, too, is ecological and subject to limits.

      •      Look beyond tomorrow ~ in a global greenhouse, the most basic "givens"
             about water, air, and land may be subject to change.

Breaking Down the Thought Barricades

      We must  discard old mindsets.  We must realize we are all in this together, and it
is going to cost us.  Not just tax money, but sacrifices in life style.  Nothing earth shattering,
but the kinds of changes we have all been pursuing in the interests of better health, such as
natural food diets, more exercise, no smoking,  and  more bicycles.

      I am not a fanatic, but I am an optimist with a strong belief in what citizens can do
if armed with strong intentions and good data.  Notice I say good data, for there is nothing
worse than the distortions resulting from good  intentions and bad data.

      First  of all,  let us  appreciate the  importance of  citizen  solidarity  in  raising
environmental concerns to preeminence during the last decade. Using the power of the
ballot, the person in  the street has escalated environmental issues to the top of the list ~
internationally - so that there does not exist a government that does not mouth the requisite

Winning the Peace

      Okay, so we've won the war.  Now let's  win the peace.  Let's sharpen our agendas
and widen our horizons.  But let's not lose sight of the problem. The problem is - the
problem has always been - too many people in the wrong place.

      That is not just an environmental problem, but also an economic problem, and one
that the entire globe is wrestling with.  Not only are we propagating at an excessive rate,
destroying our limited resources with unpardonable speed, but we have congregated those
populations along the waterways in some  of the richest, most sensitive areas of the globe.


We are just beginning to learn how detrimental man has been to his planet.

       It has, after all, been a very short interval in which we have concerned ourselves with
protecting the environment. And, in that short interval, we have been deadly efficient in
inventing more complex ways to  poison the  Earth, and abominably complacent about
delegating the solution for the problem to governments we barely trust and to scientists from
whom we expect miracles.

Critical Issues

       So, those of us who are privileged to participate in open goal setting for this estuary
management planning must examine the carrying capacity of this region, particularly from
precious parts of this region, before reaching decisions on environmental impact.  The aim
of good development, says NEPA, is to achieve consensus on environmental protection and
economic growth. We can all salute that. We simply must not forget three important rules.

1.     Goal setting is an exercise in mutual compromise. Before we do the evaluation of
cost efficiency of proposed solutions, let's also do a risk assessment of whether we  are
considering the right priority problem

2.     Lasting solutions require a comprehensive analysis. Before deciding priorities for the
management of the ecosystem, we must consider all of the insults and all the impacts on all
of the media (air, land, and water).

3.     We need a different concept for managing growth. As our civilization becomes more
and  more  high  tech, as  our  region increases  its graduation  of  functionally  illiterate
youngsters  or continues to discard middle-aged or elderly  workers, we need to evaluate
whether economic growth must permit population growth,  particularly in coastal regions
without infrastructure services. We must examine our land use controls and our practices
for designating critical areas; we must impose  restrictions on the use of public monies to
support inappropriate development.

Time To Take Stock

       My message, therefore, is  relatively easy to state and extremely difficult to achieve.
Those  of us who have spent our  professional and civic  lives urging our elected leaders to
provide resources for "meaningful research" must now cry, "Better planning! Less waste!"

       No more  misspent tax levy dollars chasing the  "latest" pollutant devil.  No more
narrow visions constricting assignments to "do-able" tasks.  No more pollution control that
simply  shifts pollution around.

       This momentous meeting, recognizing that we  are dealing with a total ecosystem, is
hosted  by  a prestigious institution with  the foresight to celebrate fifty years of  an

environmental engineering curriculum. Let's harness all of the know-how in this region and
work together constructively to decide what our most pressing problems are, what it will cost
to solve them, and do they represent the greatest risk.  And let's consult the citizen who will
pick up the tab and who must modify his habitat, if not his  life style.

      This is a convocation of informed citizens; all of you who today are labeled "citizen,"
are citizens, too, with an equal stake as citizens in this process of constructing a CCMP for
the Hudson/Raritan ecosystem.

      And, as we  come together, unite if you will, to make  those critical choices, let us
destroy the boundaries which separate our thinking  or limit  our visions,  so that we may
continue to enjoy this remarkable habitat which nourishes us.


               Anthony J. Sartor, Ph.D., P.E., P.P.
               Paulas, Sokolowski and Sartor, Inc.
                       Warren, New Jersey

     The  basic  question   facing   regulators   today  concerning
development in the urban environment  is  whether a balance can be
struck  between  protecting   nearshore  habitat while  allowing  for
nearshore development.  Over  the  last 50 years, the New York-New
Jersey  metropolitan  area  nearshore  habitat has,  for the  most
part, been degraded or  destroyed  as a result of prior industrial
and port-development activities.   Perhaps  the  only way that this
nearshore habitat  can  be restored  will  be as  a  result of  joint
participation between  citizens of  the  environmental  community,
the public sector, and the development  community.   Furthermore,
development  adjacent  to  waterfront  areas may,  in  fact,  be  a
prerequisite  and  catalyst  to fostering  habitat  protection  and
enhancement through redevelopment  and rehabilitation activities.
However, a growing impediment to the private sector's willingness
to participate  is  the ever-changing  uncertainty  associated with
federal, state and local regulatory  permitting requirements  and
the inconsistencies existing between all  three.

     Within the metropolitan  area,  there are virtually no  areas
of undeveloped  or  uninhabited waterfront  lands  and,  therefore,
most  nearshore   or onshore  habitats have  been  significantly
altered.   The purpose  of   this  discussion  is  to highlight  the
development community's concern  and suggested  role  in  balancing
habitat  protection  and  urban growth.   It  is  my opinion  that
restoration of  our  urban  waterfront environment will  not  be
accomplished  unless appropriate development takes place.

     Among the  issues  that  I would  like  to  address today  are
current   regulations   affecting  coastal   development;  conflicts
which occur in regulatory review at the  various levels; the need
for regional  planning strategies; and the  need  for a cooperative

effort  between  vrrious  parties  in the  development  process  to
accomplish  the  cleanup of  the  urban  waterfront  environment  by
establishing criteria for aiding in consistent regulatory review
and decision-making.


     The area of  redevelopment activity that  I  am most familiar
with in the New York  metropolitan area is that which is occurring
in New Jersey along  its urban  waterfront areas.   The activity is
found along the "Gold Coast" of the Hudson River; along the Sandy
Hook-Raritan Bay shorelines; and in the previously decaying urban
areas  of  Atlantic City,  Asbury Park  and the  City  of  Camden.
Federal regulation of these  developments  is  found largely in the
U.S.  Army Corps  of   Engineers,  Section  10  and  404  permitting
process;  New Jersey State  review  occurs largely  through  the
permits required as  part  of the State's Coastal Zone Management
Program.   Federal  review is largely limited  to wetland-related
activities and those  activities  waterward  of  the mean high water
line;  State  review  extends   to   those   waterward  and  upland
activities  (up to  500 feet  upland), but both  reviews  most times
require regional impact analysis well beyond project boundaries.

     What follows is  a general discussion of this legislation and
its evolution into regulatory policy.  Section 404 was enacted as
part of  Public  Law  92-500,   the  Federal Water Pollution  Control
Act  Amendments  of  1972   (FWPCA),  to  control   pollution  from
discharges of dredged or fill  material  into waters of the United
States.   Although  the Environmental Protection  Agency  (EPA)  is
responsible for administration  of  the Clean Water  Act,  Congress
authorized the Secretary of  the Army, acting through the Corps  of
Engineers, to issue  permits  under  Section  404, since that agency
had  been  regulating  dredging  and  placement  of  structures  in
navigable  waters   under  the  Rivers  and  Harbors Act of  1899.
However,  Congress,  in  Section  404(b),   directed  the  EPA,  in
conjunction  with  the  Corps,  to  develop   the  environmental
standards  for  the  program,  known  as  the   Section  404(b)(l)
Guidelines.  Nothing  in Section 404 of the FWPCA delineated the
role of the guidelines in  the permit review process,  but Congress
clearly intended that the  guidelines should provide environmental
criteria by which to  judge the suitability of  disposal sites.  In
addition to  the  guidelines,  Congress,  under Section  404(c)  gave
EPA  the   authority   to   prohibit,  withdraw  or   restrict   the
specification of a 404 discharge site.  This  authority,  which  is
known  as  a  404(c)  "veto,"   can  be  used  by EPA to present  the
unacceptable adverse  impact  of a 404 project.  (Kruczynski, 1989)

     As   the  Section   404   Program  evolved   through   Corps
Regulations, EPA Guidelines, judicial  review,  and the passage  of
the Clean  Water  Act   (CWA)  in  1977, the following  components  of
the program were established:

          In 1975,  the  regulations set  forth  a  presumption
          that  no  permits   shall  be   issued   unless   an
          applicant can  clearly  demonstrate that  there  are
          no  less  environmentally   damaging,   practicable
          alternatives  available  for  non-water  dependent

          In 1977,  the  definition of "waters of  the  United
          States"   was  expanded  to include  wetlands.    The
          regulation declared that "wetlands are  vital areas
          that constitute  a valuable  public resource,  the
          unnecessary alteration  or  destruction  of  which
          should be  discouraged  as  contrary to   the  public

          A public  interest review  policy  was  established
          within  the  scope  of  the  404(b)(l)   Guidelines,
          requiring the  Corps to  consult with  the U.S. Fish
          and  Wildlife   Service  (FWS),   National   Marine
          Fisheries   Service  (NMFS),   Soil  Conservation
          Service  (SCS), EPA, and State agencies  in reaching
          a decision on  a proposed alteration.

     Furthermore,   the  review  process   was  streamlined   into  a
definable  sequence which   required   that   the  Corps  examine  a
proposed   project   in   the  following   order:      avoidance,
minimization,   and  compensating   mitigation.      The  404(b)(l)
Guidelines  clarify this  sequence as:   1)  avoiding  impacts  to
waters of  the  United States through  the selection of the  least
damaging  practicable alternative;  2)   taking   appropriate  and
practicable steps  to  minimize impacts;  and 3)  compensating  for
unavoidable impacts to  the  appropriate  extent practicable.   This
sequence has been  clarified in  a  recent Section 404 Memorandum of
Agreement  (MOA) between the ACOE  and  EPA.   This MOA allows  for
flexibility with President  Bush's goal  of  "no  net loss" of  the
nation's wetlands  by providing  for the realization that it is  not
possible  for  every  permit  action  to  achieve  no net  loss  of
wetland values  and functions.

     Section 10 was enacted  in  1889  in response  to a  Supreme
Court  decision  holding   that there  was  no federal  common  law
prohibition  against  the  obstruction  of  navigable  waters   by
private parties. (Anderson,  1984)   In today's urban  development
setting,   Section   10   is  most   commonly   applied to   projects
proposing pier  rehabilitation  and development.   Similar to  the
Section 404 program,  Section 10 is administered by the Corps with
the participation  of  the  EPA,  FWS,  and NMFS through  a  public

 interest review.   Unlike Section 404,  the  Section  10 process  is
 less  involved,  focusing  mainly on  the  potential  environmental
 impacts of a proposed project.

     As indicated, I am  personally  most familiar with New Jersey
 regulations and  for purposes  of this  discussion will  limit my
 comments to just  that  State.   As  early as 1914, New Jersey has
 regulated activities along  the  waterfront of  navigable waters of
 the State under  the  Waterfront and Harbors Facilities Act.   The
 original purpose  of  this law  was  much the same as  that  of the
 Section  10  program.    In  the late  1970s,  New Jersey  adopted
 Coastal Management Policies  within  its  State  Administrative Code
 as  required by  the Coastal  Area  Facility Review Act (CAFRA) of
 1973  (N.J.S.A.  13:19-1  et  seq.).    These policies  constituted
 specific rules  and guidelines  governing  coastal, and later all
 tidal waterfront development activities.  These development rules
 were  reviewed  federally  through  an  EIS  process  and  deemed
 consistent  with   federal   policies   governing  coastal   zone
 management,  specifically Section 306  of the Federal Coastal Zone
 Management Act  under  the authority  of  the National  Oceanic and
 Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).   Accordingly, the State of New
 Jersey,  through  the  New  Jersey  Department  of  Environmental
 Protection (NJDEP), has  the authority  to administer  the  Federal
 Act through CAFRA.

     It is my  opinion that sufficient regulatory authority exists
 at  both  the federal  and state  level  to  protect the nearshore
 habitat and to prevent further destruction and degradation of the
 aquatic environment in both the long term and  the short term.  It
 is  my  considered  opinion  that  a balance  can be struck  between
 protecting  nearshore  habitat  and   development.    In  order  to
 accomplish this,  consideration must be given to certain issues as
 identified below.


     At times, one major  area of concern confronting developers
of  waterfront properties  is the  duplicity  and  inconsistency  in
the regulatory review process.   Consistency  in the review  process
 is  vital  if  a  developer  is  expected  to  design  a   project  in
conformance  with   various  Federal,   State  and  local  policies
concerning coastal development.

     The State  of New  Jersey  Coastal  Zone  Management  Program
provides a basis  for  a  consistent  review policy in their Rules on
Coastal Resources  and  Development  (N.J.A.C.  7:7E-1.1  et  seq.).
Here,  regional priorities are established and specific sensitive
or  "special"  areas are  protected.   The  rules allow specific,
predetermined   uses  at   appropriate  coastal   locations   while
providing  for  the protection  of  resources in conformance  with
existing State  regulations  (i.e.,  water  quality   regulations,

noise standards, air quality  standards,  etc.).   In  attempting to
eliminate    arbitrary     decision-making    or     unrestrained
administrative  discretion,  N.J.A.C.  7:7E-1.5(b)  of  New  Jersey's
Rules  on Coastal  Resources  and  Development  incorporates  the
following principle:   ".  .  .the limited flexibility  intentionally
built into the  Coastal  Resource and Development Policies  provides
a  mechanism for   incorporating  professional  judgement  by  DEP
officials, as well  as recommendations and comments by applicants,
public  agencies,   specific  interest  groups,  corporations,  and
citizens into the coastal decision-making process."   Furthermore,
NJDEP  review is guided  by eight  basic  coastal policies,  which
summarize the direction of  the specific policies.

     The federal review  process is more subjective.  At  times,
the  process works  well.   There are  numerous instances  whereby
extremely difficult  problems  are  resolved  by negotiations  with
the  appropriate  federal   agencies,   ultimately  profiting  our
environment.   However,  in  other  instances,  the federal  review
process seems to lack a coherent, uniform approach for regulating
waterfront development projects.   The  current state of  federal
regulatory  review   is  founded  upon   an  interpretation   of
broad-based  guidelines  which,  to the dismay  of the developer,  can
entrap a project in a sometimes subjective whirlpool of criticism
from  various   commenting  agencies.    This  situation  is  often
compounded when "cooperative" agencies lack consensus on  coastal
policy in advance  of a permit application,  leaving  the developer
to gamble on which  design approach  will lead to the  path  of least
resistance.  For example, in the "last resort" mitigation  process
provided  for under the  Section 404  review sequence, the  Corps
usually defers  to  the  FWS  to assess  mitigation  requirements  and
expects  to  receive  advice  from the FWS after  the  developer's
application  is  submitted and a commitment  has  been made to  a
certain plan.    If  the  Corps  does  not agree with  FWS  or  other
commentators,  including  EPA and  NMFS, a prolonged  and expensive
delay often  occurs. (Clark,  1989)

     There  are   times  when  the   "requests   for  additional
information" process  commonly encountered  in a  Section   404  or
Section  10  permit  application  review results  in    unwarranted
delay.  After  a developer complies with  such  a request, a review
agency may  then ask for additional  information  on  an unrelated
issue.  As the  months go  by, the developer has no recourse but to
start questioning  the  agency's  motives - are they  attempting to
address legitimate  concerns in  light of defined criteria  or  are
they seeking to obstruct a  project?   In many cases,  it  is clear
that the lack of predetermined regionally formulated criteria for
regulatory  agency   review   leaves   the  developer  grasping  for
solutions while his project flounders.

     In view of  the  plight  which the development community faces
when considering  coastal  development projects,  it  appears clear
that the current  regulatory  review process must be re-evaluated.
Specifically, it is my opinion that review agencies must begin to
focus on regional strategies which respond  to  such needs as the
restoration  and   enhancement  of  locally   degraded  nearshore
habitat.  All too  often,  the lack of  a consistent review process
between the  various  agencies leads to  an  over-reliance  on  the
personality of the regulatory reviewer.   Project approval relies
on  qualitative  traits as  opposed to  quantitative criteria.   A
tendency exists to "drag out" the permit process which, at times,
causes developers to withdraw projects.


     Regional planning strategies  must  be developed which define
a  set  of   protection  and/or  restoration  goals   vital  to  the
survival of  a  particular  ecosystem.   These  strategies  must also
establish a  set  of review criteria which  is identifiable at  the
outset and which must be followed by the reviewing agency-  Based
on  past   history,   it  is    obvious  that  the  consequence   of
uninhibited waterfront development is  a  reduction or elimination
in  local  habitat  value  and  productivity.   However,  current
regulatory  policy fails  to  associate this  local  loss with  the
resultant degradation  of  the larger aquatic  ecosystem due to the
dependency of the regional system on local habitat functions.

     The management  of our  nearshore  environment  must consider
the needs and expectations of the larger aquatic ecosystem.  This
may  include the  re-establishment of  habitats  critical  to  the
survival of threatened or  endangered species or necessary for the
propagation of desirable  animal  or plant species.   Additionally,
regional   needs   for   flood  or   erosion   control,   pollutant
assimilation, storm damage protection  or groundwater recharge may
depend on our ability  to  restore locally degraded habitats which
are integral parts of the larger  ecosystem  in which they  are  a
part.   Whereas current  regulatory policy,  which  considers  the
need  to mitigate as  a  last   resort,  may be  appropriate  in
protecting  existing high value habitats in rural areas,  alternate
policies must  be  established in urban waterfront  revitalization
to account  for  restoration goals set on a regional basis.  (Clark,

     Steps   at   the  national  level  to  establish  a  nationwide
planning  strategy   for   development   in  wetland   areas   have
implications to  development  along  the  waterfront  in  the  urban
environment,  with  specific  implications to  the development  of
regional planning  strategies.  As I  have previously  noted,  the
Clean Water Act and  the Section  404(b)(l)  Guidelines  require the
incorporation of  the  sequence of: 1)  avoiding  impacts  to waters
of the  United  States  (i.e.,  wetlands)  through the selection  of

the "least damaging practicable alternative; 2) taking appropriate
and practicable  steps  to minimize  impacts; and  3)  compensating
for   the  unavoidable   impacts   to   the  appropriate   extent
practicable.    This  sequence has  been clarified  in  the  recent
Section  404 Memorandum  of Agreement  (Feb.  7, 1990)  between the
ACOE and  EPA.    This MOA allows  for  flexibility  with President
Bush's goal  of  no  overall  net  loss  of  wetlands.    This  is  a
clarification  of  earlier  stated  goals  and  in  itself does not
establish a no net loss policy.   The MOA  can contribute toward a
goal of no overall net loss  of  the  nation's current wetland base
but it  also  realizes that  it  is  not  possible for  every  permit
action to achieve a  no net loss of  wetlands values and functions
due to regional considerations.

     It  would  be advisable  to  develop a  similar strategy  on  a
regional level with  respect  to development  along  the waterfront
in the urban  environment.   Regulatory  agencies currently  review
each application on a case-by-case basis,  often ignoring regional
considerations along the  way.   As an  example, if  a  small  pocket
of wetlands is encircled by development, it is considered  of some
habitat  value,  even  if  it   is   completely  isolated  by  the
surrounding development.     This   blind  interpretation  of  the
regulations does  not consider the true  habitat  or  functional
value of  the  wetland pocket  and  the effects  of  the surrounding

     Development  and  restoration/mitigation  areas  should  be
differentiated based upon regional considerations.   A  wetland
pocket surrounded by paved and other impervious surfaces is of no
service  to wildlife.  The  pocket  will  tend to concentrate the
urban runoff that,  over  time, will seriously  degrade  this area.
Mitigation should  be required for such  a  situation,  but  the
mitigation requirement   should  be  incorporated  into  a   larger
regional  strategy  that   would  be  of  greater  value  (i.e.,  a
long-term restoration project).   Efforts  should be  concentrated
on previously  disturbed areas  of  greater potential  value  rather
than attempt to save smaller  isolated  pockets  that offer  limited
diversity.    In   the situations  where  low value  wetlands  in
developed  areas  can  be  compensated   for  a  high  value  system,
mitigation should  be given   greater  weight  than  avoidance  and
alternative sites.

     The case-by-case review process  usually does  not  consider
the above  and is  not always consistent  from review  process to
review process in different  districts  and  between  agencies.   The
MOA's  between  the federal review agencies  and the  ACOE create an
adversary environment,  especially when  mitigation  is considered.
The agencies  tend to doubt  the  success  of mitigation  projects

overall.   The  fact of  the matter  is,  there has  not  been an
extensive evaluation of these projects to determine their  success
and  how they  function.  (Shisler,  1989)   It  is  true  that  some
nearshore areas are  not ideally suited  for  habitat restoration,
but  degraded  and dysfunctional  habitats  that were  once  highly
productive  local   systems  should   be  highly   considered  as
mitigation sites within the bounds  of  appropriate environmental
strategies.     Areas  targeted  within  the  scope  of  a  regional
planning policy with a  high potential  for enhancement should not
be greeted with skepticism.

     In summary, it  is  my view that the development  of regional
planning strategies for waterfront development should be a joint
effort  involving regulatory  agencies,  the development community,
environmental  groups,   and  the  public  sector,  similar  to  the
national effort  on the wetlands issue.   Proper  planning among
these groups can lead  to  the  identification  of preservation and
restoration goals on  a site-specific basis,  allowing regulatory
agencies  to   review mitigation  proposals  as they  conform  to
predetermined  restoration  targets and   procedures.   This would
afford developers the opportunity to enter  the regulatory review
process with  a plan which  is already  consistent  with  regional
planning criteria.


     It  is  my  considered  opinion  that   a  balance   between
development  in  the  urban environment  and protecting the nearshore
habitat can be achieved and, in many instances over the  last ten
years,  has   been   achieved  in  various  waterfront  development
projects in New Jersey.  A primary key  in obtaining this balance
is  to  establish  a  dialogue with  the  various  development,
environmental  and public sector  interests.   This dialogue should
focus on establishing development criteria which  could  be put in
place so that  a developer will  be able  to plan towards a specific
program with  some level  of certainty.

     The use  of private  funds along with environmental and public
sector  input  will   be   a   strong  factor  in   re-establishing  the
nearshore habitat.   As  a matter of  fact,  it  is my opinion that
development  may be  a prerequisite and catalyst which  will foster
habitat  protection  and enhancement  through  redevelopment  and
rehabilitation  activities.    The restoration of degraded  areas by
private funding not only  benefits  the developer  by allowing the
project to take place,  but also benefits the environment (i.e.,
restored ecosystem)  and the public  (i.e.,  new jobs, new public
spaces), in  both  the   short and  long   term.    By denying  such
practices,  the government  will eventually have to compensate the
developer for  the  loss  of  use of  his  property.   The government
loses;  the  developer   loses;  the  environment  loses;   and,
therefore,  the  public   loses.   The  entire  package of  potential
benefits should be  considered as  part of the review process.

     The  federal review  is  complicated by the  various  state and
local agencies  that  may have differing goals.   The states tend to
encourage   regional   plans  for  development,   preservation   and
enhancement while  the federal  agencies appear  to follow their own
agenda.   I want to  read for you a quote  from  Justice  Sandra Day
O'Connor  on how she  chooses law clerks.  Justice 0" Connor  said
"I am the one who has to make the  decisions around  here,  so  I am
not  concerned   or  interested  in   the  individual's  particular
philosophy.   However,   I  don't  want  to hire  someone  who has  a
particular ax  to  grind  in  terms of  legal  structure."   Project
reviewers  at  all levels of government should pay attention to the
philosophy expressed by Justice O'Connor.  Their concerns should
be given  great  weight within the scope  of their review,  but  they
should not use the  process to  comment on anything other  than
their respective agency's policies  and development criteria which
should evolve  from  a dialogue  of  all  interests.    A  consistent
policy must be  established and enforced.  Only in  this  way can
the  ever-changing   uncertainty  associated   with   the   current
regulatory process be overcome.


Anderson,  Frederick  R.,  Mandelker,  Daniel R.,  and Tarlock, A.
     Dan.  1984.     Environmental  Protection;    Law   and   Policy,
     p. 418.  Little, Brown and  Company, Boston, Massachusetts.

Clark,  John R.  1989-   Regional Aspects of Wetlands Restoration
     and  Enhancement  in the Urban  Environment, p.  85-103.    In
     Wetlands   Creation   and Restoration:    The  Status  of   the
     Science,    Vol.    II.       Oct.,    1989.    EPA   Publication

Kruczynski, William  L.  1989- Mitigation and the Section  404
     Program:   A Perspective, p.  137-138.  In  Wetlands  Creation
     and  Restoration:  The Status of  the Science, Vol.  II. Oct.,
     1989.  EPA Publication 600/3-89/038b.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection -  Division  of
     Coastal  Resources,  1988.  Coastal  Resources and Development
     Policies.   New   Jersey  Administrative  Code   (Chapter   7E,
     August 15:   7E-10-7E-11).

Shisler, Joseph  K. 1989.   Creation  and Restoration of Coastal
     Wetlands  of  the Northeastern  United States,  p.   152.    In
     Wetlands   Creation  and  Restoration:  The  Status   of   the
     Science,    Vol.    II.       Oct.,    1989.    EPA   Publication

              SEAFOOD SAFETY

                                Edward G. Horn
                      New York State Department of Health

       Any discussion of safety should begin with a definition of "safe" and a reminder
that safety is a very personal concept.  Webster defines safe as "freed from  harm or
risk".  Although this would on face value translate to  zero risk, regulatory  agencies
recognize that "zero" is very difficult to attain and few scientists would characterize
any activity or exposure to a hazardous substance as having zero risk.  Scientists are
able to measure  concentrations of toxic chemicals at ever diminishing levels,  and our
knowledge of the biological mechanisms underlying such illness as cancer is sufficiently
incomplete that regulatory agencies generally must assume that exposure to even very
small concentrations of a  potential carcinogen carries a finite, though probably very
small risk.   Such  risks are calculated and  used when regulatory agencies  develop
numeric standards, criteria or other guidelines to protect public health.

       However, equally  important  from a  regulatory  point of  view,  is  society's
ambivalence  with   safety  and  the  very personal  concept  of  "acceptable  risk".
Regulations  by their nature  are prescriptive.  Speed limits prohibit excessive speed;
environmental standards control the discharge of obnoxious or toxic materials to the
environment; and food standards  prohibit the sale of produce containing pesticides,
preservatives, additives, etc. in  excess  of certain amounts.   Someone's behavior is
constrained by regulation, his or her freedom  is restrained.  This restraint is designed
to protect others from  harm, and  in general  most of us accept these losses of liberty
willingly in the interest of public safety.

       Regulation is easiest when the harm is potentially severe and the restriction of
individuals relatively benign.  However, the regulation of foods is  rarely easy.  Food
standards, including those  for seafood, must consider the beneficial qualities of the
food as well as the risks  of illness.   In addition, public policies  have generally
encouraged keeping a balanced, high-quality diet within the financial reach  of every


citizen.  Thus, the establishment of food  standards must consider the effect of the
standard on the supply of a food as well as the risk of illness.

       Fish and shellfish are an important source of high-quality protein and are low
in saturated fats.   Fish oils have been reported to lower plasma cholesterol and
triglycerides and their consumption has been reported to be associated with lower than
normal  risks of coronary heart disease.  Increasing fish consumption is useful in
reducing dietary fat and controlling weight.  Finally,  many people enjoy fishing and
eating their catch.   Eating freshly-caught fish  and knowing where it was caught can
be a benefit in addition to the intangible benefits of the recreational experience.

       Shellfish from the bays at the mouth of the Hudson  River, the Long Island
Sound  and the  Bight (Harbor-Sound-Bight system), as well as worldwide, have  been
and continue to be a source of illness from infectious diseases.  In addition, some fish
and shellfish from  these waters have also  been found to contain potentially harmful
levels of chemical contaminants.  This paper summarizes what is known about existing
levels of fish and shellfish contamination in the Harbor-Sound-Bight system and how
regulatory agencies have responded to this  knowledge.

       Shellfish (clams and oysters) are filter feeders that feed on very small particles,
including bacteria and viruses, in the water.  Bacteria and viruses that are present in
the water are concentrated in the shellfish intestine and remain viable.  Where sewage
treatment is inadequate, the bacteria and viruses can include human pathogens. When
contaminated shellfish are eaten raw or partially cooked, these pathogens can cause

       The Northeast Technical Services Unit of the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)  has compiled a list of reported  shellfish-borne  disease outbreaks (Rippey,
1989).    These  reports   undoubtedly  underestimate   the  actual  incidence  of
shellfish-borne disease, and  Rippey notes an estimate (Archer and Kvenberg, 1985)
that only 5-10% of cases occurring in the US are actually reported.  Since 1900, more
than  11,600 cases of shellfish-borne disease have been reported in the United States
and Canada.  Prior to 1950, typhoid fever was the most commonly reported disease
associated with shellfish consumption.  In 1924  a  typhoid epidemic with 150 deaths
reported was traced  to contaminated oysters from NY.   Typhoid fever was replaced
by  hepatitis A from 1960-1980. In recent years,  reported outbreaks of gastroenteritis
of  unknown etiology have been increasing.   Norwalk virus has been implicated in
outbreaks with similar symptoms, and it may be  responsible  for much of  the reported
gastroenteritis where  no agent was identified.  Bacterial agents (a variety of Vibrio
species including cholera) are still reported for some outbreaks in the  United States,
particularly in  waters of southern United  States.   Vibrio species  have  not been
identified in the Harbor-Sound-Bight system.

Number of
of Cases
        Source:  Bureau of Community Sanitation and Food Protection, NYSDOH
      In the last decade, shellfish-borne diseases reported in New York have generally
declined,  with the largest number of outbreaks and individuals involved in  1982 and
one outbreak affecting two individuals reported in  1988 (Table 1).  In  1982, the source
of illness  was traced most frequently to clams harvested in Rhode Island (NYSDOH,
1983).  However, in 1989 the ten outbreaks were associated with consumption of raw
or partially cooked  clams from  Long Island waters (Table  2).   In New York,
gastroenteritis, probably associated with the  Norwalk virus,  was the most common
illness (Morse et al, 1986).

      New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut regulate  shellfish harvesting through
programs that comply with the National Shellfish Sanitation Program developed by
the  FDA. In general, these programs rely on  monitoring  water in shellfish harvesting
areas for  enteric bacteria (Escherichia coli) indicative of inadequate sewage treatment.
When E.  coli  levels in  the water exceed the standards, the area is closed to shellfish
harvesting and posted.   Recreational or commercial  licenses are required to  harvest
shellfish,  and  a listing  of closed waters is provided  to all license holders.  Shellfish
shippers are required to attach tags to shellfish which they sell, identifying the source
waters. Shellfish tags have facilitated identifying the  source of contaminated shellfish,
but the system does not always make it possible to trace the shellfish  source  to a
particular digger.

                          YORK STATE, 1989
Date of
Long Island
Huntington Bay
Long Island
Huntington Bay
North Carolina
Core Sound
North Carolina
Core Sound
Long Island
Huntington/Oyster Bay
Long Island
Huntington/Oyster Bay
North Carolina
Core Sound
Long Island
Oyster Bay
Long Island
Huntington Bay
Long Island
Great South Bay
aConfirmed case.
 NA  information incomplete, suspected shellfish-associated outbreak.

 Source:  Bureau of Community Sanitation and Food Protection, NYSDOH

                              AND SHELLFISH
                  Chemical        Standard     Type of standard
1.0 ppm
5.0 ppm
2.0 ppm
0.3 ppm
0.3 ppm
0.3 ppm
50 ppt
Action level
Action level
Action level
Action level
Action level
           Chemical concentrations are as wet weight in edible portions.
           Abbreviations:  ppm = parts per million; ppt =  parts per trillion.

      As noted above, the health risks associated with eating shellfish contaminated
with pathogens are well-documented. Illness strikes soon after the meal and in most
cases its etiology can be determined.  This relationship has been understood for at least
100 years.

      In Minamata, Japan  between 1953  and 1965  severe illness and death from
mercury poisoning were traced to fish and shellfish contamination.  By the late 1960's
fish were discovered throughout the world to contain chemical contaminants such as
mercury and DDT.  Mercury contamination in  swordfish from the North Atlantic led
to the proposed federal action level for mercury  in fish and shellfish (FDA,  1974)
which was modified and finally adopted in 1979 (FDA, 1979).  Since 1974, the FDA
has adopted action levels or tolerances for a number of chemical contaminants in fish
and shellfish (Table 3).  Fish in excess of these standards are prohibited in commerce.
Although the FDA has not adopted standards  for toxic metals in seafood other than
mercury, a number of other countries have (Table 4).  State  health and resource
management  agencies  refer to  these  standards,  to US EPA  and  World  Health
Organization guidelines, and their own evaluations of health effects of toxic  metals
when evaluating contamination in fish and shellfish.

Health Advisories and Fishery Closures

      AH  three states bordering the Harbor-Sound-Bight system monitor fisheries for
chemical contaminants and have issued  health advisories for those fish that exceed the
FDA standards or have sufficiently high metals  levels to warrant concern. In addition,
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)  contamination of striped  bass contributed  to the
prohibition of commercial harvest and sale of that species in all three states.

                          SEAFOOD PRODUCTS
Hong Kong
New Zealand
United Kingdom




]\/fptaI /nnrtv wpt wfMpht^ - — . --
Cd Cr Cu
0.2-5.5 10-70

0.5 10

2.0 1.0

1.0 30

0,0.1 10

0 1.0 10
5.5 1.0 100


a Limit varies among states.
 Abbreviations:  As = arsenic;  Cd =  cadmium;  Cr =  chromium; Cu  = copper;
                Pb =  lead;  ppm  =  parts per million.

 Source: modified from Tetra Tech, 1986 which was derived from Nauen, 1983.

Mean PCBs
(ppm-wet wt)
        Fish collected from Long Island Sound and the South Shore of Long
      aN = number offish in sample.
        Abbreviations: mm  = millimeter; ppm-wet wt  = parts per million
                     on a wet weight basis.

        Source: unpublished  summary by R.  Sloan of data from Sloan et al,
Length Harbor/Western LIS
South Shore/Eastern LIS
PCB concentrations are mean parts per million-wet weight for edible portions.
Abbreviations: mm =  millimeters; N = number offish; LIS  = Long  Island Sound.

Source: calculated from Sloan et al, 1988.

      Monitoring efforts and a number of special studies  to assess chemicals in fish
and shellfish from the Harbor-Sound-Bight system provide a general understanding
of where the contamination  exists.  The  New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (NJDEP) has issued a number of reports on chemical contamination offish
and shellfish from this area (Belton  et alt 1982; Belton et al 1983; Belton etal, 1985;
Eislie, personal communication).   The  New  York  Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYDEC) has  also reported on chemical contamination of marine fish
and shellfish (Sloan  and Horn, 1985; Sloan etal, 1986; Sloan etal, 1987; Sloan etal,
1988; Bush etal,  1989).    In  1984-86,  the  National  Oceanic and  Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) in cooperation with  FDA and the Environmental Protection
Agency  (EPA) conducted a survey of PCB levels in Atlantic Coast bluefish (NOAA,
1986).   In 1985-86,  Connecticut and New York evaluated  chemical contaminants in
several fish and shellfish species as  part of the Long Island Sound Study (CTDEP,
1987; Chytalo, 1989).

     Striped bass (Morone saxatilis)

      Soon after the FDA announced that the PCB tolerance would be changed from
5.0 ppm to 2.0 ppm (FDA, 1984), the states moved to evaluate PCB levels in striped
bass.  By 1986 commercial harvest and sale of this species was prohibited throughout
the Harbor-Sound-Bight system as a consequence of resource protection measures to
prohibit harvesting small (i.e. young) fish and excessive PCB contamination of larger
fish (Table 5).  Each of the states warn anglers to limit consumption of striped bass
or not eat them at all, depending on where the fish are caught. Women of childbearing
age, infants and young children are cautioned to not eat any striped bass. PCB levels
in striped bass are highest in  the Harbor area and western Long Island Sound and in
larger fish (Table 6).

     Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix)

      In 1985, PCB levels in bluefish were generally  less than the 2.0 ppm tolerance
level  (Table 7).  However,  recreational anglers and their  families who consume large
amounts of bluefish may be at greater risk than consumers of commercially-caught
fish.  The Bluefish Survey (NOAA, 1987)  reported recreational catch statistics for the
New York Bight which  indicate that recreational anglers caught more than 22 million
pounds  of bluefish in the New York  Bight (Table 8).  The report notes that the PCB
tolerance adequately protects the average consumer of commercially-caught fish. Such
individuals eat "a variety of  fish from various  locations,  most of which contain little
or no measurable PCBs." The FDA has advised that PCB  intake should not exceed
1  //g/kg/day.  If fish are at the tolerance  level, an adult would consume this  amount
of PCB  with an average of 30 g fish/day of 8 ounces of fish per week.

      Using regional catch rates  and household size, the  Bluefish Survey (NOAA,
1987) calculated the number of fishing trips that would be required for an angler to
catch enough fish  that  if eaten by  his family within  a year  would exceed the  1
//g/kg/day guideline.  For the New York Bight, using average catch rates per trip, as
few as four trips on  a charter or party boat would provide enough large fish to equal
the recommended daily  intake guideline.  The report recommended that State agencies


Na Mean PCBs
(ppm-wet wt)
   aN = number offish analyzed (number of analyses).

    Source:  unpublished summary by R. Sloan of data from NOAA, 1986.
                 THE NEW YORK BIGHT, 1985
300 mm (12 in)
300-500 mm
> 500 mm
(20 in)
Total Catch

    Fish lengths are in millimeters (mm) and inches (in) fork length.
    Percent (%) catch is percent by length except as noted.
   aCatch weights are thousands of pounds (Ibs).
   bPercent (%) of total catch by month.

    Source: calculated from Tables 15-17 in NOAA, 1987.

consider issuing advisories to limit consumption of large  bluefish (>500 mm or 20
inches). All three  states  have issued advisories recommending limited consumption
(one meal per month) of large bluefish.

     American eels (Anguilla rostrata)

       American eels from the New York Harbor-Raritan  Bay area as well as a
number of other localized  areas along the western Long Island Sound shore exceed the
2.0 ppm tolerance for PCBs.  Thus, New York and New Jersey have issued advisories
recommending limited  consumption of  this species.   In addition, the  commercial
harvest and sale of American eels from the Hudson River  and Newark Bay Complex
in New Jersey and  the  Hudson River-Harlem River-East  River area in New York is
prohibited, and no  consumption of eels from these areas is  recommended.

     Lobster (Homarus americanus) and blue crab (Callinectes sapidus)

       Blue   crab   and   lobster   concentrate   PCBs,   cadmium,   and  dioxin
(2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-/>-dioxin) in  their  hepatopancreas (tomalley).   In Long
Island  Sound,  New York samples (n =  80) of hepatopancreas from American lobster
average 3.2  ppm PCBs and  6.1 ppm  cadmium (Chytalo,  1989), and Connecticut
samples (n  = 29)  average 3.2 ppm PCBs  and 8.8 ppm  cadmium (CTDEP,  1987).
The highest concentrations of PCBs and cadmium in  lobster hepatopancreases came
from waters off-shore of the Housatonic River (12 ppm PCB and 18  ppm cadmium
in a sample of 6 lobsters).   New Jersey has documented elevated PCB and dioxin in the
hepatopancreases of blue crab and lobster in the Newark Bay Complex, Raritan Bay,
and the "Northern  Mud Hole", located in the Hudson Canyon about 32 km (20  miles)
off-shore (Belton et a/, 1985).

       PCB and cadmium levels were very low in claw and  tail meat from blue crab
and lobster at all these locations.  Thus, the States recommend that the  tomalley of
lobster and  blue crab  caught anywhere in the region not  be eaten.  New Jersey
prohibits the commercial harvest or sale of blue crab from the Newark Bay Complex.
Lobster are not caught  in  that area.

     Other fish and shellfish

       The  States  have evaluated  chemical contaminant levels  in other species of
commercial or recreational interest.  In general, other fish and shellfish  have much
lower levels of chemical contaminants.   New Jersey has measured elevated levels of
chromium and lead in soft clams (Mya arenaria)  in  the vicinity of  a  wastewater
discharge off-shore of  Port  Monmouth  and  Atlantic Highlands  (Eislie, personal
communication).     In   Connecticut,   eleven   samples   of   sixteen   oysters
(Crassostrea virginicd) had somewhat elevated  levels  of cadmium, copper, and zinc
(1.1  ppm, 49  ppm, and 1030 ppm, respectively) but lower levels than are found in the
hepatopancreases of lobster (CTDEP, 1987).


      Guzewich and Morse (1986) discussed  a  number of factors contributing  to
outbreaks of shellfish-borne disease which remain  important today:

1.   Pollution of coastal waters with human sewage and the  consumers desire to eat
    shellfish raw.

    Many coastal embayments and estuaries are  polluted by sewage from treatment
    plants, septic tank failures  and other inadequate treatment of human  sewage.
    This pollution may be chronic or periodic (after storms).

2.   Illegal harvest of shellfish from  closed waters.

    Enforcement agencies do not have adequate staff to fully police all closed shellfish
    beds, and the shellfish industry does not admit that illegal harvesting is a problem.
    The penalties levied on  violators are usually inadequate to deter  future illegal
    harvesting, and in  some areas diggers are treated as folk heroes.

3.   Improper classification of shellfish waters.

    Periodic  flushing of pathogens into harvesting  areas is  more difficult to detect
    than chronic contaminalion and may have escaped detection by the  monitoring
    effort.   Some beds  which  are  closed after  storms  may  be opened  too  soon,
    particularly where viruses are present.

    The absence of coliform  bacteria is  not necessarily  a reliable indication  of
    contamination with viruses.  Viruses are not deactivated by sewage treatment and
    are retained in the shellfish intestine more tenaciously than bacteria.

      Several actions should contribute to reducing the incidence of shellfish-borne

1.   Reduce contamination of the shellfishery.

    Improved sewage treatment, particularly of combined sewage overflows  and on
    boats,  would reduce the level of  contamination, but may not be  universally
    effective. Treatment systems will need to  attenuate viruses as well as  bacteria to
    be fully effective.

2.   Enhance enforcement and/or impose more severe penalties on violators.

    Overall, the shellfish industry suffers when the consumer loses confidence in the
    safety of the product.  However, in the short-term the individual  digger can often
    derive significant benefit at limited risk by harvesting from illegal beds.  Severe
    penalties and enhanced  enforcement  increase the risk to the individual digger.
    The financial costs of implementing this option would not be as great as the social
    cost of relying more heavily on policing restrictive regulations.

3.   Advise the  public against consumption  of raw or partially cooked shellfish.


    This approach will be effective only if people are aware of the advice and believe
    it.  Enhanced reporting of disease incidents and greater public awareness of the
    risks of eating raw shellfish are needed.

    Encourage aquaculture of shellfish in controlled, clean environments.

    Shellfish  can be  cultured  in re-circulating  seawater.    Pathogens  and  other
    contaminants can be controlled to produce a high-quality product.  However, this
    recommendation should not be considered as a substitute for continued efforts to
    reduce contamination of the Harbor-Sound-Bight environment by pathogens and
    toxic chemicals.

       PCBs are by far the most ubiquitous and significant chemical contaminant of
fish and shellfish in the Harbor-Sound-Bight system.  Major industrial point sources
of PCBs to the Hudson and Housatonic  Rivers were identified and controlled by the
late-1970's  (Horn, et al,  1979).   However, contaminated sediments  in these rivers
undoubtedly still contribute  to  PCB contamination of the  marine  fisheries.   And
non-point runoff and miscellaneous point sources in the various urban centers in the
region  cannot be ignored.

       Until the  I960's  an industrial point source  of cadmium existed on the lower
Hudson River near Cold  Spring, NY.  Sediments  in the cove north of Constitution
Island  have  been designated a Superfund site.  These sediments may be contributing
cadmium to the Harbor-Sound-Bight system, but non-point runoff and miscellaneous
point sources in the various urban centers in the region are probably more important.

       Until environmental discharges of these chemicals are significantly reduced and
sediments removed or buried, fish and shellfish will remain contaminated.   Health
advisories will  continue to be necessary.  Without the requirement for a fishing license,
State agencies  may need  to consider how to inform anglers about the advisories.  In
limited areas where dioxin contamination is most severe, New Jersey has posted signs
in English and Spanish to warn anglers not to eat fish or crabs  from these waters.
Such an  effort would be  more difficult  where the advisory is less restrictive,  more
complex and applicable to waters  at some distance from the point of posting. The
author also believes that posting should  be reserved for  areas of contamination where
the risks are highest (e.g. shellfish beds potentially contaminated by pathogens and the
most extreme levels of chemical contamination.


       A  number  of individuals graciously  provided unpublished data,  assisted in locating
published  information and reviewed portions of this paper. The author particularly wishes to
thank Bill Eislie, Tony Forti, John Fudala, Jack Guzewich, Paul Hague, Bruce Ruppert, Ron
Sloan, Paul Stacey, and Brian Toal for their generous assistance, and he apologizes  and takes
responsibility for any remaining errors.  The  conclusions and opinions presented in this paper
are those  of  the author  and do not  necessarily represent policies  of the New York State
Department of Health.


Archer, D.L. and J.E. Kvenberg.  1985.  Incidence and cost of foodborne diarrheal
     disease in the United States.  J. Food Prot.  48:887-894.

Belton, T.J., B.E. Ruppel  and  K.  Lockwood.  1982.  PCB's (Aroclor 1254) in Fish
     Tissues Throughout the State of New Jersey:  A Comprehensive Survey.  New
     Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Division of Fish, Game and
     Wildlife.  Trenton, NJ.

Belton, T.J., B.E. Ruppel, K.  Lockwood and  M.  Boriek.   1983.  PCBs in Selected
     Finfish Caught within New Jersey Waters 1981-1982 (With Limited Chlordane
     Data). New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection  and Division of
     Fish, Game and Wildlife. Trenton, NJ.

Belton, T.J., R. Hazen,  B.E. Ruppel, K. Lockwood, R. Mueller,  E. Stevenson and
     J.J. Post.    1985.   A  Study  of  Dioxin (2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin)
     Contamination in  Select  Finfish,  Crustaceans and Sediments  of New Jersey
     Waterways.  New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.  Trenton,

Bush, B., R.W.  Streeter  and R.J. Sloan.  1989. Polychlorobiphenyl (PCB) Congeners
     in Striped Bass (Moronesaxatilis)  from Marine and  Estuarine Waters of New
     York    State    Determined    by    Capillary    Gas    Chromatography.
     Arch. Environ. Contam.  Toxicol. 19:49-61.

Chytalo,  K.   1989.   Preliminary summary of results from the Long Island Sound
     Study. New York Department of Environmental Conservation.  Stony Brook,

CTDEP.  1987.  First periodic report of activities on the  Long Island Sound Study.
     Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection.  Hartford, CT.

Eislie, W. personal communication. Chemical investigation of shellfish from Northern
     Monmouth  County  waters.   New  Jersey  Department  of  Environmental
     Protection, Bureau of Marine Water Classification and Analysis.  Leeds Point,

Guzewich, J.J. and D.L. Morse.  1986.  Sources of shellfish in outbreaks of probable
     viral gastroenteritis: Implications for control.  J. Food Prot. 49(5):389-394.

Horn, E.G., L.J. Hetling, and T.J. Tofflemire.  1979.   The problem of PCBs in the
     Hudson River  System. Annals  N.Y. Acad.  Sci. 320:591-609.

Morse, D.L., J.J.  Guzewich, J.P.  Handrahan, R. Stricof,  M. Shayegani, R. Deibel,
     J.C. Grabau,  N.A. Nowak,  J.E.  Herrmann,  G.  Cukor, and  N.R.  Blacklow.


      1986. Widespread outbreaks of clam- and oyster-associated gastroenteritis: Role
      of Norwalk virus. New Eng.  J.  Med. 314:678-681.

Nauen, C.E.  1983.  Compilation of legal  limits for hazardous substances in fish and
      fishery products.  FAO  Fisheries Circ. No. 764.  Food and Agric. Org.  U.N.
      Rome, Italy.

NOAA.  1986.  Report on 1984-86 Federal Survey of PCBs in Atlantic Coast Bluefish:
      Data Report.  National Oceanic  and  Atmospheric Administration in cooperation
      with Food and Drug Administration.

NOAA.  1987.  Report on 1984-86 Federal Survey of PCBs in Atlantic Coast Bluefish:
      Interpretative  Report.  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration  in
      cooperation with Food and Drug Administration.

NYSDOH.  1983. Preliminary report on clam associated enteric illness in New York
      State during May-September, 1982.  New York Department of Health Bureau
      of Communicable Disease Control and Bureau  of Community Sanitation and
      Food Protection, Albany, NY.

Rippey, S.R.  1989.  Shellfish borne disease outbreaks. Northeast Technical Services
      Unit, Food and Drug Administration, Davisville, RI.

Sloan, R.  and E.G.  Horn.  1985.  PCB in Striped Bass From the Marine District of
      New York in  1984.  New York Department of Environmental Conservation,
      Bureau of Environmental Protection.  Albany, NY.

Sloan, R., E. O'Connell and R. Diana.  1987.  Toxic Substances in Fish and Wildlife:
      Analyses since May 1, 1982.  New  York State  Department of Environmental
      Conservation.  Volume 6. Albany, NY.

Sloan, R.,  B.  Young, V. Vecchio, K.  McKown and E. O'Connell.   1988.   PCB
      Concentrations in the Striped Bass from the  Marine District of New York State.
      New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Technical Report
      88-1.  Albany,  NY.

Tctra Tech.   1986.    Guidance manual  for  health  risk assessment  of  chemically
      contaminated seafood. Rept. TC-3991-07.  Tetra Tech Inc.,  Bellevue, WA.

                          Lee J.  Weddig
                    Executive Vice President
                  National Fisheries Institute
     Last week at the 1990 Food Policy Conference entitled  "Safe
and Healthy  Eating" held  in Washington,  DC,  the  Secretary of
Health and  Human Services,  Dr.  Louis  Sullivan,  reiterated the
position often stated by the U.S.  Food and Drug Administration in
recent months  that  seafood consumption  in  the United States is
extremely safe,  in  fact much less  likely  to cause illness  than
consumption of meat or poultry.   This statement apparently was
based  on rather in-depth analysis conducted  by  the  FDA in
conjunction with  Center for Disease  Control which  included not
only reported outbreaks of foodborne illness, but also results of
other surveys.   In  contrast to the  statement  by  one of the top
health authorities in the United States, we have all  seen rather
contradictory charges  made by  various  groups  which give the
impression that  seafood  is  a  very unsafe  product.    In  fact,
"Russian roulette" was  the way  it was  characterized  by one

     The commercial  seafood  industry is  caught in-between  these
two points of views.   We  know that  seafood in  general is  very
safe.   It is one of  the best foods  for human consumption  in that
its nutritional  characteristics  are very beneficial,  especially
in the maintenance  of  a  low-fat,  low-cholesterol  diet with its
attendant  benefits  to  a healthy cardiovascular system.   The
industry also recognizes,  however,   that  certain  products can
carry a  risk  of illness  that is  beyond acceptable  limits in
today's society.   I  am  particularly talking about raw molluscan
shellfish which has  been  harvested  from polluted waters, and in
extreme  cases,  products  which  contain  chemical  residues  that
exceed tolerances determined by health authorities.   The  present
regulatory system  is intended  to  keep  such  products from the
marketplace,  but  the system is  in need of improvement.

     The Conference  organizers  have posed a series of questions
to the presenters.   Some of these I  am not  qualified  to address,
especially those  that relate to existing levels of toxics in the
water,   sediment,  in  the  Sound-Harbor-Bight  system.    Our
organization  also  lacks specific data  that would  enable us to
issue blanket statements regarding  level of risk that may  exist


from consuming fish from this area.   But I would like to comment
generally  on  these  two points,  then  devote the  bulk  of  this
presentation to  a discussion of  existing  regulatory mechanisms
and standards and the changes anticipated  that would improve the


     As  various  analysts  have  considered  levels  of  toxics  in
water sediment and their relationship to human health the seafood
industry has  very often  suffered because  information reflected
the toxins present in whole animals  or  in  edible portions of the
animals  as  opposed  to  that which may  exist  in the  flesh  which
would  be the  normal part consumed.    Experience  has  shown  a
tendency to throw around numbers reflecting high levels of toxins
without pointing out that they do not reflect the level in edible
parts  of the  fish  or  shellfish.   As  management  measures  are
considered or information  released to the  public,  it is critical
that  the  numbers  be  accurate  and  have  a relationship  to
consumption  as   opposed  to  impact  on  the  resource  or  the

     As for the present human health risk from consuming fish and
shellfish  from  the system,  one must  separate  risk into  two
considerations.   The  first  is  the risk of  rather  immediate
illness  that  can come from eating food,  and the  other would  be
impact  on  health  over  a  longer term.    Considering  first  the
immediate  risk,  it  would  appear  that  consumption  of  a cooked
seafood  product  from  U.S. waters  including  the systems  being
discussed typically  poses  little or  no risk of  illness,  a  fact
supported by  the comments of the Secretary of Health and  Human
Services that I  mentioned  earlier.   On  a  pound  per  pound basis,
cooked seafood products are among the safest,  or the very safest
of  the  animal  proteins.    Raw  shellfish,  however,  can pose  a
greater  risk with that  risk being considerably  increased if the
product  is  taken from  areas  that are  closed due  to pollution.
There  are  some  who  would  believe  that  consumption of  any  raw
shellfish   is an unacceptable  risk.   We  disagree  and maintain
that  product  harvested  from  waters  certified  to  meet  current
standards  of the National Shellfish  Sanitation Program  fall
within  the bounds of  acceptable  risk   for  healthy   individuals.
However,  consumption of  raw  animal  proteins  is an  individual
judgmental  call  which  falls  in  the same  category   as  making  a
choice to consume any number  of  foods such as raw eggs, raw mi lie
or steak tartar.

     Moving from the  risk of  immediate   illness to  long-term
impact due  to  presence of  toxins of one kind  or  another in the
flesh  of fish and  shellfish  is  a  major  step.    For years,  the
health authorities have set tolerances  or  action  levels to keep
from the marketplace those products  which  were deemed to pose an
unacceptable risk to  health over the longer  term.   It is common
knowledge that the  methodology to determine  these action levels


or  tolerances  is  now  under  significant  debate  with  many
suggesting that risk from carcinogens or reproductive toxins  has
been understated in the past.   We  are not qualified  in toxicology
so I will not make a specific  comment on appropriate methodology.
There are numerous  scientists of  national  repute who argue that
overstating risk  from chemical  presences  in the food supply
appears to be more likely the  case than  understating them in that
epidimiological evidence does  not seem to support any contention
that current methods are understating the risk.  I  have  not seen
any evidence  that  would  link  rates  of  cancer to consumption of
fish  and shellfish,  but on  the  contrary,   have  seen   research
results  which suggest that  lower fat  diets  may  reduce cancer

     Regardless of risk,  however,  the present regulatory  system
which governs the movement of the fish to  the marjcetplace  is  not
adequate for today's  needs  and those of the  future.   It  is  for
that reason that  the  seafood industry has been  working for  the
past several years  to establish a  more  effective  regulatory
program which includes some form of mandatory  seafood  inspection.
The work  on this  system was  actually begun  in  1985  when  the
industry asked  Congress  to  direct the National Marine  Fisheries
Service, which  is an  agency  of the U.S.  Department of  Commerce,
to investigate and design an improved seafood inspection system.
Monies  were  appropriated for  this  purpose and  that  agency  has
been working on this design since 1987.

     A preliminary report of the study has now been submitted to
Congress which  is  in the  process of  considering a  number of
legislative proposals, which would establish a mandatory seafood
inspection program.    The industry  supports  enactment  of  such
legislation and has very  specific  ideas  as to what is needed to
provide assurance to the consumers now and  in  the  future that  the
seafood supply is indeed safe.

     In  order  to  provide  this   assurance,  of  course,  the
legislation must  address any  real  problems that  may exist  and
also provide  a means  of  anticipating possible  problems  in  the
future.  The program  envisioned  by the  industry would contain a
number  of  elements  with the centerpiece being  a  relatively  new
concept in food  safety surveillance  called  the  HACCP system.
HACCP stands for  Hazard Analysis Critical  Control Point concept
and it  is  an approach that  calls for monitoring of those  points
in  a  process  which  have  the  potential   for  causing  a  health
hazard.   The food  processor  is  charged  under  regulation  with
maintaining a monitoring system  of  these  control  points,  and to
maintain  records which would  be available  to  the  inspection
authorities  to  provide  assurance  that   there  is a continual
monitoring of the  operation  and that unsafe  food did not  reach
the marketplace.


     The HACCP system  is presently employed in  the  low-acid
canned  food business,  but  implementing  it  across  an  entire
industry as diverse as  seafood is a rather mammoth undertaking.
This explains  the  lengthy amount of time that has  been engaged
over the  past few  years  to  develop the technicalities  of  the
system itself.  The HACCP system by itself will  not provide  the
assurances that are necessary  when  one is  dealing  with possible
problems resulting  from pollution even though it does  have  the
provision  for  establishing  control points to  provide  greater
assurance that product  moving  into  trade has  not  been harvested
from closed areas.   It  would  also  provide a  means  of regularly
requiring  laboratory analysis  of  product to assure that  the
levels of residues are within standards.

     But,  in addition to  these provisions  of  the  HACCP program,
however, we would anticipate  that a new  regulatory  system would
provide  more  concentrated  attention   to such questions  as
molluscan shellfish regulation and enforcement.  It would set  the
stage for development of additional  standards for toxic substance
presence in fish products.   The current  regulations of  the Food
and Drug Administration do cover  a dozen  or so chemical residues
that  have been  found  in  fish  and set  up  action  levels  or
tolerances for them.  We  would  expect  that with the  onset of a
new regulatory program  additional substances  now  being detected
in seafood products would  become subject to a regulatory level.

     As for raw molluscan shellfish production,  it  would  be  our
wish  that  greater  resources  be devoted to  this  area  of  the
seafood  industry,  especially  in the  form of monies for more
comprehensive  and  persistent  state monitoring  and  enforcement
activities.   In  concept, the  present regulatory mechanism of
monitoring growing waters is  realistic,  but in various  parts of
the  country  the  inability  to  prevent bootlegging from  closed
areas and the  inability to  monitor  as  often or as  thoroughly as
necessary,  has created  some  questions  over the  effectiveness of
the  system.    In  a new program  funding  should  be provided to
correct these  deficiencies.   In  addition,  there  should be
additional federal authority available to make it easier for  the
federal government to back up states efforts in this area.

     Also needed is an  infusion  of  research funding to provide a
more  sophisticated  and accurate method   of  monitoring  growing
waters.  The  industry has been lobbying  Congress  for  such funds
and has been  successful in  getting  a project  started.   The work
will be rather involved and  long-term, but at least  the  effort
has begun.

     One  of  the  new  concepts  of  legislation  that is  being
considered is  a  program  that would  regularly  monitor  fishery
resources  for  toxic  substances, providing  an early  warning
system.    Should problems  be  detected,  compliance  to standards
would be  built  into the  HACCP control program  or the  body of
water,  or select  species  from it would be  declared off  limits.
The concept  is  an extension  of  the  present molluscan shellfish
monitoring system in finfish production areas.

     The  industry  believes that  the new  regulatory  inspection
legislation will provide  new  mechanisms  and assurances  that the
seafood supply remains  safe for human  consumption.

              Joseph J. McBride
      Montauk Boatman's Captain's Association
        - - - PAPER NOT AVAILABLE - - -

                       TOXICS IN FISH PRODUCTS --
                                  Arthur Glowka
                   Director, Hudson River Fisherman's Association
                             Hudson River Foundation
                           Long Island Sound Task Force
      I am a rational environmentalist who has  struggled for the past 25 years on the
restoration of both the Hudson River and Long Island Sound.  These efforts have been
quite successful. I am also an active sportfisherman, clammer, and lobsterman consuming
much of what I harvest.  I've carefully followed the toxic and pathogenic trends in these
species in relation to the perceived and actual effects on humans who consume them. As
vice-chairman of the upper Hudson River PCBs reclamation project for more than 14 years,
I know a little bit about PCB movement in the Hudson River, New York Bight, and Long
Island Sound and their effects, if any,  on human beings and fish life throughout the area.
The really tragic toxic story is that PCB loadings in the Hudson River, Housatonic River,
and New Bedford Harbor are still in place and continue to infect the coastal fisheries, and
there are no remedial solutions in sight.

      When we talk about toxics in fisheries products that might be detrimental to human
health we are looking at the chlorinated hydrocarbons, PCBs, DDT, dieldrin and the heavy
concentrate in shellfish flesh. All of the chemical  toxics have been steadily  decreasing
during the past decade as both state and federal pollution control laws have been tightened
and the enforcement efforts against polluters have become more efficient and effective.  A
lot of these toxic chemicals and pesticides have been banned or outlawed by the regulatory
agencies. Shellfish poisoning in humans has also decreased because of increased monitoring
of shellfish waters  and the industry's self-regulated quality program.

      There is a lot of madness out there concerning toxics in fish flesh. The leaders in
this toxiphobic parade are the large, publicly supported environmental organizations that
compete against each other for funds. Doomsday scenarios of toxic poisoning are produced
in a steady stream of books, advertising, semi-scientific studies and TV programs by these
organizations,  each trying to out-doom the  other.  All  of these scare tactics product  a
snowstorm of donations from a public terrified by sensational news stories, TV bits, and
magazine articles that have little basis in reality.  To amplify this hysteria is the modern
miracle of analytical chemistry, which now allows us to validly test samples down to parts

per billion, parts per trillion, and even parts per quadrillion. At these levels, we are no
longer talking about chemical substances but molecules of matter.  To  exacerbate the
problems, the public's perception is that parts per billion is more than parts per million
because the numbers are larger.  I did some back-of-the-envelope scratching one day and
came up with the interesting notion that if all the fish flesh consumed in this country during
one year contained 1 ppb of PCBs, the total amount, if aggregated, might fill two 5-gallon
buckets.   The federal  government, through its many public health and  environmental
protection  agencies,  sets maximum  levels for toxics in fish flesh that moves through
interstate commerce. The states seern to tag along with these protocols.  Extensive sampling
and testing show that heavy metals in fish flesh rarely even come close to these conservative
federal  action levels.   Heavy metals rarely dissolve  in the water column; rather, they
consolidate in the bottom sediments.  Even the fate of  DDT, banned for almost twenty
years, is in the bottom sediments.  So, it is the new political pollutant, PCBs, which catches
all the action in fish toxics exposes.

      The FDA has set a 2-ppm limit on PCBs  found in fish flesh, but this is the whole fish
-- guts, skin, and all.  But we humans tend only to  consume  boneless fillets, which contain
less than a third of the iotal body burden of PCBs. Where PCBs in fish are a problem, each
state has an active public education  campaign as well as fish advisories outlining which
segment of the populace might be most susceptible along with guidelines for cleaning and
cooking suspected species to decrease the levels of PCBs.

      The fish flesh toxic alarmists always harp  back to the Japanese Yushu incident, where
cooking oil and PCBs became mixed and were ingested  by hundreds of people.  No one
died; there were some examples of chloracne and minimal birth defects, but the real culprits
were the dibenzofurans in the PCBs.  Dibenzofurans are closely allied to dioxin, a known
carcinogenic chemical.  Yet, none of the aroclors of PCBs produced by Monsato (the only
U.S. PCB manufacturer) ever contained any dibenzofurans.

      What we have created in the United States is a totally chemophobic society without
any understanding of the many chemicals we ingest into our bodies each day through normal
food and water consumption.  As an example  of how far this silliness can  go, during the
media blitz of "syringes on beaches" that occurred 2 years ago, we received calls from frantic
women saying, "My husband just brought home some bluefish he caught.  Can I get AIDS
from eating bluefish?"

      I've  been following Bruce Ames, the world-renowned biochemist, during the past
years, and I have been fascinated by his flip-flop  from a carcinogenic doomsayer into a
sponsor of  chemical  rationality.   As  such,   he  has now become the  pariah  of the
environmental rightists. I, too, have come to realize that  the plant world, our chief source
of food material, has evolved into its present state by turning its waste products into natural
pesticides and fungicides that humans consume with minimal or no effects. Indeed, a whole
new  field of science called  "allelopathy," based on naturally occurring insecticides  and
pesticides produced by plants, is now  developing.

      There is a great deal of talk these days of human excrement being dumped into
inshore waters from boats bypassing their septic holding tanks. The result is that dockside
pumpout station facilities are becoming more common, yet -- ironically ~ seldom used. As
a followup to this - I don't know of anyone who has tried to do a mass balance study of
naturally produced fish feces loadings versus the boaters' human product.

      Then there is the whole matter of bottom paints. These paints are loaded with heavy
metal biocides to prevent bottom fouling of pleasure boats jammed into marinas, which
seldom venture out into the open water.  Only Tributyltin (TBT) paint has been banned.
Yet all the rest slowly slough off, as they are supposed to do, dumping toxic metals into the
water column and bottom sediments, and ~ since marinas are in protected areas ~ flushing
is minimal.

      As a matter of interest, after the whole Hudson River PCB problem was exposed
more than fifteen years ago and General Electric settled with New York  State for  four
million dollars matched by the state's three million dollars for dredging, we of the PCBs
Advisory Committee had funds to do a lot of studies, including extensive epidemiological
work.  We  studied the G.E. workers,  who practically walked in excess PCB fluids from
transformers and  capacitors, as  well as their wives.  We did pediatrician lead work  with
pregnant women  and lactating mothers  along  Lake Ontario, as well as  extensive blood
sampling among individuals who consumed high amounts of fish along Lake  Michigan. As
would be expected, we did find that the more PCB-laced fish these people consumed, the
higher the levels of PCBs in their blood. But  as to  chronic health effects,  we could find
none against the common background  noise of smoking and drinking.

      The groups clamoring about the environment like to base their arguments of total
toxic disaster on a methodology called "toxic risk assessment," which is a statistical exercise
based on a lot of assumptions and models that have not been truly tested in the real world.
The positive metabolic effects of fish consumption are not factored into the equation, nor
is the undeniable truth that hundreds of lives have been saved over the decades of PCB use
as a dielectric in transformers and capacitors  that didn't overheat,  catch fire, and burn
people to death, as was the case when mineral  oils were used.

      Although the recent spat of fish consumption scares has  put  a  damper  on the
economics of sportfishing and of the fish stores closest to the coasts, 10 miles  inland, the
same fish products are purchased with no hesitation as if they came from a different ocean.
There is also the fact that since commercial fishing for striped bass has been banned in the
Hudson River  since 1976 because of the river's PCB loading, the population of these fish
has exploded to an all-time high (even to the point that it is ruining the traditional spring
shad-netting fishery, since so may of the forbidden striped bass are clogging the shadman's
nets). The excess of striped bass has poured into Long Island Sound to the amazement of
local draggers and lobstermen who are finding lively small stripers in their nets and pots this
winter, something that has never occurred before.

      Heavy metals, PCBs, and PAHs are supposedly the cause of fin rot and skin lesions
in finfish, and they could well be. But preliminary testing done by the Connecticut DEP on
the microalgae Champia parvula. and sea urchin Arbacia punctulata sperm cell tests done
in Bridgeport's Black Rock Harbor, one of the most nefarious toxic-loaded harbors on Long
Island Sound, "only indicate some mild toxic effects." Supposedly, the dumping of New York
City's sewage sludge at the 106-mile site in the New York Bight was causing the decimation
of all aquatic life.  But  followup cruises by  NOAA during the summer of 1989 using
submersibles found a thriving ecosystem.  Can anyone here tell me why 98% of 2-year-old
Hudson River tomcod have gross lesions on their livers but outwardly appear to be strong
and healthy? Yet we have been funding studies of this phenomenon through the Hudson
River Foundation for years.

      Even the penned aquaculture fisheries of salmonoids along the Northeast,  Puget
Sound, and the Scandinavian countries, once believed to be the sacra sancta answer to the
toxic-loaded ocean fishery, are now being attacked as excessive feces producers loaded with
viral diseases and prophylactic sulfa drugs, much  like  our domestic  poultry and  cattle

      There is also  the idiocy of past toxic scares that were blown all out of proportion to
the true relative dangers, and the eventual reversals of supposed facts that never made the
front pages  but  were hidden in obscure paragraphs. Remember the mercury  scare in
swordfish a decade ago?  Or the recent astounding pronouncement that leaving sequestered
asbestos intact  in schools and  buildings is safer than  tearing  it  out?  How  about  the
turnaround from the fuel crisis of the 1970s, where every house and building should be
made as air-tight as  possible to conserve oil ~ now we are plagued with indoor pollutants
and radon.

      In light of all this ~ No, I don't believe we need any more fish testing and toxic
regulations at this time.  Each state, guided by federal standards, is doing an adequate job
of protecting public health in this, the last hunter/gatherer food industry in  the United
States.  Federal inspection of fishes, similar to our domestic beef and poultry inspections,
would only create more problems than it would solve. Fish come and go freely, and very
few have detectable  toxics in them.  We  should look to other countries that have seafood
inspection programs in place to discover what works and what doesn't before starting
anything here. After all, scrombroid poisoning is more prevalent in our area than any toxic-
caused sickness, yet no one even talks about it. We should stop trying to count the number
of toxic angels that can dance on the head of a pin and enjoy eating fish.

      As a rational  environmentalist who is also an active sportfisherman, I feel that  the
existing state and federal toxic standards for shellfish and finfish taken out of the New York
Bight area and Long Island Sound are adequate.  Over the past decade, I have carefully
studied the toxic trends in these seafoods as well as the relationship between the perceived
and actual effects on humans who consume them. I feel that any human risk is minimal,
if indeed there is any health risk at all, since no statistically significant epidemiological study

has shown any adverse effects.  Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York have extensive
sampling and testing procedures in place, fashioned after federal protocols, that continue
to show only extremely low levels of environmental toxics and pathogens.  Unlike federal
beef and poultry inspection practices that deal with captive populations of animals, seafish
roam freely. When and if isolated fish are found with higher body burdens of a chemical,
these instances are sensationalized all  out of proportion to the total universe of fish taken,
which scares the public and creates  havoc in the whole fishing industry.

              OCEAN DISPOSAL

                       John F. Tavolaro
         Acting Assistant Chief, Operations Division
            New York District, Corps of Engineers


                       Deborah Freeman
               Water Quality Compliance Branch
            New York District, Corps of Engineers
     To meet the requirements of modern shipping and
transportation, the channels, slips and berthing areas of the
Port of New York and New Jersey require periodic dredging.
Managing the dredging operations and disposal of material
dredged from the shipping channels is a major responsibility
of the New York District Corps of Engineers.

     The Port of New York and New Jersey handles more general
and containerized cargo than any other port in the United
States.  The Port is comprised of 750 miles of waterfront and
2600 acres of marine facilities, supported by 240 miles of
federally maintained channels.  Since the harbor is not a
naturally deep port, the maintenance of ocean commerce within
the Port depends upon a regular program of dredging.  Annual
volumes of material dredged from federal channels and private
facilities of the Port between 1970 and 1986 vary widely,
ranging from 2.3 million cubic yards (1981) to 19.5 million
cubic yards (1971).

     Proper management of dredged material disposal
activities is necessary to limit adverse impacts on marine
biota and ecosystems in the New York Bight.  It is the
responsibility of the Corps of Engineers, under several
authorities, to evaluate and regulate the disposal of dredged


     Before addressing regulatory issues, we need to define
terms.  Dredged material is sediment (mud and sand) that must
be moved out of the navigation channels.  It is a product of
natural erosion and transport of sediment.  New York Harbor
is an estuary,  which is defined as a semi-enclosed coastal
body of water which has a free connection with the open sea
and within which sea water is measurably diluted with fresh
water.  Estuaries usually have high sedimentation rates,
especially for fine grained material.

     Typical sediment from the New York Harbor area is
approximately 50-65% water, as compared to typical upland
soils which are 30-40% water.  Most dredged material is less
than 30% sand;  it is comprised mainly of silt and clay.  It
naturally contains trace metals such as copper, iron, mercury
and cadmium.  Sediment contains contaminants and organic
materials to a greater or lesser degree because of human
influences.  Outfalls, storm drains and spills all contribute
to contamination.  The result is a naturally occurring,
mostly inorganic material,  which is influenced by the quality
of the water it flows through, and which needs to be
relocated in order to provide channels for ships.
     It is important to remember that dredged material is not
comparable to sewage sludge or chemical wastes which are
products of processing a human derived product.  Sediment
cannot be considered a "waste" product in that sense, since
sedimentation is a natural  process.  Even if there was no
population present, there would still be sedimentation in New
York Harbor.  However, if there was no need for shipping,
there would be no dredged material.   The desire for a port
turns this sediment into dredged material, while people and
businesses located at the water's edge can cause
contamination of the sediment.

     Most of the dredged material from the Port of New York-
New Jersey poses no toxic threat to the ecosystem and
organisms of the New York Bight.  However, since this is a
highly urbanized and industrialized area, some 2 to 5% of the
material dredged each year may accumulate sufficiently high
concentrations of organic or metallic contaminants that they
may adversely impact the survival or function of marine
organisms that come in direct contact with the sediment.


     At this point I would like to dispel a common myth,
namely, that ocean disposal is the "cheap solution" to the
problem of dredged material disposal.  Actually, ocean
disposal usually costs between $5 and $12 per cubic yard,



depending on the distance that the material needs to be
transported.  By comparison note that sidecasting, which is
commonly done in the Gulf Coast states, costs on the order of
$.50 per cubic yard.  Since a typical dredging project
involves tens or hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of
dredged material, the difference in cost amounts to tens of
millions of dollars.  Ocean disposal of dredged material is
not done in order to save money; it is done out of necessity.

     In the past, upland disposal was the most common form of
disposal in New York Harbor; upland areas, near shore areas
and wetlands were routinely filled in.  By the late
nineteenth century, the population had grown significantly
and the limited waterfront property available became very
valuable to use in water related or port related activities.
This severely limited the number of available upland and near
shore sites.  At the same time, ships got bigger and needed
deeper channels.  Passenger liners, oil tankers and
containerships need up to 45 foot depths to enter the harbor
and New York Harbor is naturally less than 20 feet deep on
average.  The increased need for dredging, combined with
fewer upland disposal sites, resulted in increased use of
offshore disposal.  Since World War I, approximately 90% of
New tfork Harbor dredged material has been ocean disposed in
the general vicinity of the Mud Dump Site which is located 6
miles east of Sandy Hook, New Jersey-

     The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of
1972, commonly known as the Ocean Dumping Act, is the law
that governs all materials proposed for ocean disposal.  The
law is derived from the international agreement known as the
London Dumping Convention which outlines ocean disposal
policies for almost 100 signatory nations.

     Section 103 of the Ocean Dumping Act specifically covers
dredged material.  It gives the Secretary of the Army the
authority to regulate the transportation of dredged material
to ocean waters for the purpose of disposal.  The Corps of
Engineers is required to use technical guidelines set up by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation
with the Corps, in evaluating ocean disposal applications.
To the maximum extent practicable, disposal sites designated
by USEPA are to be used.  The regulations which set up
technical and procedural guidelines are contained in the Code
of Federal Regulations (40 CFR parts 220-229 and 33 CFR part
324) .

     There are three important aspects to consider when
dredged material is proposed for disposal in the ocean:

a.  A need for the particular dredging and disposal project
must be demonstrated.   This is generally a straightforward
analysis,  and is usually not controversial for port related

b.  All disposal alternatives must be fully explored on a
project by project basis when an applicant proposes disposal
in the ocean.  The Ocean Dumping Act states that all other
alternatives are considered available and preferable to ocean
disposal,  even if they involve a "reasonable incremental
cost" above the cost of ocean disposal.   This incremental
cost has never been defined precisely.  An exception to the
rule that the ocean is the alternative of last resort is any
situation where the alternative can be shown to damage the
environment more than ocean disposal would.

     In addition to project by project analyses, the Corps
has evaluated in depth several regional alternatives to ocean
disposal.   They will be discussed in greater detail in
Section IV of this paper.

c.  Dredged material being considered for disposal cannot
cause unacceptable ecological impacts to the ocean
environment.  These impacts are measured through the
EPA/Corps rigorous testing program.

     Since the Ocean Disposal Act and accompanying
regulations stress the ecological aspects of ocean disposal,
the EPA/Corps testing guidelines reflect this by emphasizing
biological testing.  The testing program utilizes evaluative
techniques such as bioassays and bioaccumulation testing,
which provide relatively direct estimates of the potential
for unacceptable environmental impact.  It should be
emphasized that testing prior to ocean disposal is very
stringent, more so than for either disposal on land or in an
estuary.  Recent proposed revisions could make the testing
requirements even more stringent.  These changes have been
incorporated into the national testing guidance manual
("Green Manual") for ocean disposal of dredged material which
has been released for public comment. - Changes include
lengthening the time required for bioaccumulation tests from
10 to 28 days for organic compounds, and encouraging the use
of a tiered or hierarchical approach to testing and

     Unfortunately, there is a public perception that the
dredged material testing program is too lax.  This frequent
criticism is based upon reading of the Public Notices in
which it appears obvious that "everything passes."  There is



a simple explanation for this misconception:  the Corps does
not publish Public Notices proposing ocean disposal in those
limited cases when the criteria is not met.  Therefore the
public does not see the testing problems, or the projects
with a questionable need: these have all been eliminated.
Either the project was modified to comply with the
regulations,  another disposal alternative" was sought, or the
project was withdrawn.

     When a project satisfies all three aspects of ocean
disposal criteria, the Corps is still required to minimize
possible adverse impacts to the environment.  This is done
through continuous monitoring and management of the disposal
site during and after disposal.  The management goal for
dredged material disposal in the New York Bight is to locate
a site where currents or waves will not disperse the
sediment.  Then, through the use of pinpoint dumping,
disposal effects are limited to the smallest possible area of
the bottom.  Finally, the site is bathymetrically and
biologically surveyed to ensure that this has been
controlled.  The management goal for other materials that are
disposed in the ocean, such as sewage sludge, is to allow the
material to disperse and dilute in the ocean.  Dredged
material is one of the few types of material that are kept
contained.  The Corps performs this management and
monitoring, in coordination with USEPA.

     In 1978,  the National Wildlife Federation and the
Environmental  Defense Fund filed a lawsuit contending that
the Corps of Engineers failed to comply with ocean dumping
requirements.   A 1980 decision upheld one of their charges,
that in addition to considering alternatives for individual
ocean dumping projects separately, the Corps had a
responsibility to evaluate possible regional alternatives to
ocean disposal.  In accordance with the findings of the
Court, the Corps issued a comprehensive programmatic
Environmental  Impact Statement in 1983, and began to
systematically study possible alternatives under the Dredged
Material Disposal Management Program.

     On the basis of years of study and site selection
screening,  many alternatives have been considered.  The study
concludes that:

a.   There is no single alternative or combination of
    alternatives that could replace ocean disposal for more
    than a few years.  The volumes are too huge and disposal


    space is too limited.

b.  However, ocean disposal can be managed in an
    environmentally responsible way through disposal
    management techniques such as capping, which have already
    been implemented, and which minimize the impacts of ocean
    dumping significantly.  Material that contains low levels
    of pollutants, but does not pose an environmental
    threat, is disposed in the ocean and covered with a thick
    cap of clean dredged material which has been shown to
    effectively protect the marine environment.

c.  The most necessary alternatives to ocean disposal are
    those that could receive contaminated dredged material
    which is not disposed of in the ocean because it is
    considered too polluted.  This material is suitable for
    disposal in confined facilities.  Confined facilities
    could alsp receive dredged material that is currently
    capped in the ocean, if it is considered more desirable
    to place the dredged material there.

d.  There are two promising alternatives for contaminated
    dredged material that are being considered.  Borrow pits
    are underwater pits left from previous sand mining
    operations.  Dredged material could be disposed in either
    existing or newly constructed borrow pits,  since
    extensive studies have shown that this is feasible.  This
    alternative could be implemented relatively quickly with
    limited additional expense.  A longer term alternative
    would be the creation of a large containment island
    similar to ones used in Baltimore and Norfolk.  An island
    could give as much as 50 years of disposal  capacity,  if
    reserved for dredged material that is not suitable or
    marginally suitable for ocean disposal.

e.  Other alternatives can be implemented in special cases.
    For example, the New York City Department of Sanitation
    is currently using dredged material as sanitary landfill
    cover at their Fresh Kills Landfill.  Beneficial uses of
    dredged sand such as beach nourishment and construction
    materials are also being done.  In addition, wetlands
    creation with clean material could be a promising
    alternative, if funds are available.

     These points are discussed in detail in a  recently
published technical summary report conducted by New York
University's Institute of Environmental Medicine entitled
"Managing Dredged Material."   The report is an evaluation of
disposal alternatives for dredged material in the New York
and New Jersey metropolitan regions.  The utility of
individual alternatives was evaluated based upon the quality
of the sediments, the quantity of the sediments, and the



practicality of implementing any given disposal option.
Regarding quality,  some alternatives are only feasible for
clean dredged material, while contaminated material may be
disposed utilizing other alternatives.  Regarding quantity,
large volumes of dredged material require large-capacity
disposal options.  For example, only the ocean is capable of
handling the entire volume of clean material.  Finally, the
environmental, engineering and economic aspects of
individual options will affect which are ultimately chosen
for implementation.

                   - PROGRESS REPORT
             Robert N. Reid
             National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
             National Marine Fisheries Service
             Sandy Hook Laboratory
             Highlands, NJ  07732
     From 1924 through  1987,  sewage sludge was  dumped at a site
22.2 km (12 nautical miles) off  Sandy  Hook in the inner New York
Bight  (Fig.  1) .   No records  of  amounts dumped  were  kept before
1960.   More recently,  there  was  a  general  increase  in dumping
amounts, to a maximum of 7.6 million metric tons  (8.3 million wet
tons) in 1983.   Inputs in  the early 1980s were  at the time the
largest ever  to  any oceanic  sludge dumpsite  (Norton  and Champ,
1989).   However,  the New  York City Department  of Environmental
Protection  (1983)  stated  that recent  increases  in sludge volume
had been due mostly to  increased  water  content, that sludge solids
dumped  increased  only 5%  from  1973 to  1981,  and that  the mass
loadings of most  sludge contaminants decreased over that period.
A comparison of  1973  and 1987 sludge  loadings (HydroQual,  Inc.,
1988) indicated decreases,  some quite large, in loadings of sludge
solids, biochemical oxygen demand  and heavy metals,  although
nutrient inputs increased;   for organic contaminants, no 1973 data
were available for comparison.

     The sewage sludge dumpsite  is  in  23.8 -  25.3 m (78 - 83 ft)
water depths.  Sediments in the dumpsite  are sandy and are scoured
by storms.   During dumping, dumpsite sediments contained somewhat
elevated concentrations of carbon and contaminants, but there was
no long-term buildup of sludge materials at the site  (Norton and
Champ,   1989).   Contaminant accumulation  and effects  were most
apparent in  the deeper  waters (30 - 40  m) (98 -  131  ft)  of the
Christiaensen  Basin to the west,  especially just  west of the
dumpsite's   northwest  corner  (where  most  dumping  had  been)


• 	 1 — — ~
1 7- ]
;', 1

(with E
^-yr^^"050' 73°40'
'"' *»'*"*!
. \ ;" 40°30'-
,--''' :"•'•'"••-. •
/' "V:«o, "--., * t*2 ""'"'"' . I,
\v 7.0 -, . 30"1
i : • \ -'i-- •
\ r' :: NY6^ . I
*- ..}.—«, - m, '
.Ni / !! « * \12 We
• - -.! : ;Seiragie
/ 'J :' 1 • '.Sludge
ft- i '{Dredge
L iDumpsite 9
^--e, •; •! .
c.j :
-,-''" /' ' 40°20'-
^ e S^<
'"-:,, °" • I*
rc- \ NY11^
1986 1987-1988 1989

raphic x x
Seabed and x x
water column rates,
hydrographlc surveys
with EPA, NJ DEP,
and others
Figure I.  Sampling locations and schedules.

                            REID - RESPONSE TO SLUDGE ABATEMENT

(Environmental  Processes  Division,   Northeast  Fisheries Center
[hereafter EPD],  1988).   It  was,  in  general,  not  possible to
distinguish completely the fates and  effects of sewage sludge  from
those of  other  inputs  (sludge ranked only third  behind dredged
material disposal and  the Hudson-Raritan outflow  as  a  source of
most contaminants to the inner Bight)  (Stanford and Young, 1988).
Some impacts wholly or partly attributed to sewage sludge were:
1.  Accumulation  of heavy metals and  toxic  organic compounds in
bottom sediments and in organisms, including resource species (Reid
et al.,  1987) ;
2.    Introduction  of   viral,   bacterial,  fungal  and  protozoan
pathogens and  pathogen  indicators into the inner Bight  (Cabelli and
Pederson, 1982;   Robohm et al.,  1979;  Sawyer, 1980);
3.  Development  of bacterial  strains  resistant to toxic metals and
antibiotics (Timoney and Port,  1982);
4.  Closure of shellfish beds due to elevated levels of microbial
indicators of pathogens  (Stanford et al., 1981);
5.   Elevated rates of  seabed  oxygen consumption,  and  lowered
sediment oxidation-reduction potentials  (EPD, 1989) ;
6.  Reduced bottom  dissolved oxygen  levels (Segar and Berberian,
1976) ;
7.   Bottom macro-invertebrate  community  severely altered   over
approximately 10 - 15  km2  (3.9  -  5.8 mi2)  to the west of the sludge
dumpsite,  and  total   macroinvertebrate  biomass   elevated  and
crustacean populations  (especially the  pericarids)  reduced  over
most  of  the  Christiaensen  Basin and  upper Hudson  Shelf Valley
(Boesch, 1982;  Steimle et al.,  1982);
8.  Increased  incidences of fin rot in  bottom  fish  (Murchelano and
Ziskowski, 1976),  and "black gill" and shell disease in crabs and
lobsters (Sawyer,  1982);
9.  Reduced catches of fishes  (Waste Management  Institute, State
University of  New York at Stony Brook,  1989) and lobsters, in  part
due to  fishermen  avoiding areas where trawls and  pots  would be
fouled by sewage sludge;  and
10.  Reduced demand for fish and shellfish from  the Bight (Waste
Management Institute,  1989).

     The phaseout of  sludge disposal  in  the  inner Bight between
March 1986 and December 1987 provided an opportunity, by  studying
responses of habitats  and biota,  to clarify past fates and effects
of the sludge.  Findings of the  study will increase understanding
of  effects  of   ocean  dumping,  and  will  add  to  the  limited
information available on recovery of former dumpsites.


     Sampling consisted of two  complementary surveys, conducted in
alternate months except in August when both were conducted  to focus
on the stressful conditions (e.  g. ,  high temperature, low dissolved
oxygen)  likely at  that time.  On "replicate" surveys, eight samples
were taken  for  each of  numerous variables at three  stations at
similar  depths  and  for  which historical data  exist,  but  with
different levels of  presumed sludge accumulation and effects  (EPD,


1988).  Station NY6 was located approximately 1.6 km (0.9 nautical
mile) west of  the  dumpsite's northwest corner  (Fig.  1);   NY6 was
thought to be the area of greatest sludge accumulation and effects.
Station R2  (Fig.  1)  was about  3.4  km (1.8 n. mi.)  north of NY6,
with  a benthic  community  that  is not  highly  altered but  has
elevated biomass, presumably due  to carbon inputs from sludge and
other  sources.   Station NYU  (Fig. 1) was  11.3 km  (6.1  n.  mi.)
south  of NY6 on the eastern shoulder of the  Hudson Shelf Valley,
and  is considered the least  polluted of  the three sites.  At each
replicate station, three samples  of all  variables were taken at a
central point  and another five  samples were taken at the edges of
an ellipse about the central point.

     On  "broadscale"  surveys,  single  samples  were  taken  for
slightly fewer variables at 25 stations covering most of the inner
Bight and including all  major habitat types.  All station locations
and  sampling schedules  are shown  in Fig.  1.   Variables sampled in
each survey  are listed  in  Table 1, which  also  indicates sampling
done independently of the replicate and  broadscale surveys.

      Bottom  water  samples  were   taken  using  Niskin  bottles.
Dissolved  oxygen  was  determined  by Winkler  titration.   Smith-
Mclntyre  grabs were  used  for  sampling  sediments and  benthos.
Sediment  redox potentials  were measured by  inserting  a platinum
electrode in the grab,  for comparison with a reference electrode.
Samples for sediment metals were taken from the grabs with plastic
coring tubes,  and  were  analysed by  flame  atomic absorption after
an  aqua  regia leach.    After  subsampling  the grabs,  remaining
sediments were rinsed  through 0.5 mm mesh  sieves  for analysis of
benthic macrofauna communities.   Fish,   crabs  and  lobsters  were
collected with 15  - minute  tows of an otter  trawl  having an 11.0
m (36  ft)  footrope and 9.8m (32 ft) headrope, with 51 mm (2 inch)
mesh net  in  the cod end and 76 mm  (3 inch)  mesh elsewhere.  Pots
were used to supplement  lobster  catches.  Seabed oxygen consumption
was  surveyed on separate monthly  cruises,  by deploying a Pamatmat
multiple  corer  and  measuring  rates  of  consumption  in  cores
incubated  at  ambient  temperature.   A  special  survey  of fecal
coliform bacteria  in bottom  waters of the inner Bight was made by
the  U.S.  Food and  Drug  Administration   (FDA)  in October 1989;
samples were taken from the bottom water  overlying the sediments
in the grab sampler, and coliform counts were determined using the
five-tube MPN  (most probable number)  technique.
     Detailed  discussions of station characteristics, methods and
rationales are given in a Plan  for Study (EPD,  1988).


WITH FURTHER DATA  ANALYSIS.   See EPD  (1989)  for  more complete
descriptions of data through mid-1988.  EPD intends to issue final
data reports for  each  discipline beginning  in  late 1990, with an
overall final  report scheduled  for 1991.


                                             REID  - RESPONSE TO  SLUDGE  ABATEMENT
Table 1. Variables measured during the 12-mile dumpsite study
Bottom Water
    Dissolved oxygen (R,B)'
    Temperature (R,B)
    Salinity (R,B)
    pH (R,B)
    Sulfide (R,B)
    Nutrients (R,B)
    Turbidity (R,B)

Water Column
    Salinity (CTD)
    Current measurements
    (moored meters)
    Heavy metals (R,B)
    Organic contaminants (R,B)
    Sulfide, pH profiles (R)
    Redox potential (R,B)
    Sediment BOD (R)
    Chlorophyll pigments (R,B)
    Total organic carbon (R,B)

    Grain size (R,B)

    Seabed oxygen consumption
Resource species
    Distribution/abundance (R,B)
    Diet (R)
        Winter flounder
        Red hake
        Silver hake
    Gross pathology (R)
        Winter flounder
    Tissue organics (R)
        Winter flounder
    Migration (tagging) (B)
        Winter flounder

    Macrofauna abundance/diversity (R,B)
    Meiofauna abundance/diversity  (R,B)

Bacteria - sediments
    Fecal and total coliform (R)
    C. perfringens (R)
    Vibrio spp. (R)
    Total count (R)

Bacteria - shellfish
 1 R = Replicate survey
  B = Broadscaie survey

Sediment Heavy Metals

     Metal concentrations  in  the top 1 cm of  sediments at NY6  in
1936 and 1987 appear  to  have  remained at levels  similar to those
found during  peak  dumping in  the early  1980s  (see  Fig.  2  for
concentrations of Zn at the three replicate stations;  patterns for
Cr, Ni,  Pb and Cu were similar) .  With cessation of dumping, levels
in the top 1 cm appear to have dropped toward those found 5 cm deep
in NY6 sediments.   The values  at 5 cm depths were similar to those
elsewhere in the Christiaensen  Basin, e. g. ,  at R2  (Fig. 2)  (EPD,
1989).  Analysis of during- vs. post-dumping  data for all seasons
will be required to confirm these  trends.

Seabed Oxygen Consumption  (SOC)

     SOC, which is related  to organic loading of the sediments, had
been elevated at and near  the dumpsite while  dumping was ongoing.
SOC rates declined  rapidly toward background  with phaseout  (EPD,
1989).  Fig.  3  shows annual rates at a six-station transect across
the top of the  dumpsite  and  extending to  the east and  west.
Statistical significance of any trends  in these  annual rates has
not yet been tested.  Station 30,  2.0 km  (1.1  n.  mi.)  east of the
dumpsite, had always had values typical of  relatively clean  Bight
sands, and rates did not change with cessation  of dumping.  Station
31 was in the northeast corner  of  the dumpsite,  where only Nassau
County  (NY) had  dumped,  and  only through June  1986.    There the
annual average SOC rate dropped appreciably from 1985 to 1986 and
then had only  a  slight further decrease  through summer 1988.  Most
dumping had been in the site's northwest corner (Station 32),  where
rates dropped precipitously after phaseout began and  leveled off
to background rates as dumping  ceased.  Just west of the dumpsite
in  the  eastern Christiaensen  Basin  (Station 33, = NY6),  rates
apparently responded to the initial reduction in dumping with a 20%
lower annual average SOC in 1986 versus 1985, and then decreased
again to background levels as dumping ceased.   Station 34,  in the
center of the  Basin,  probably  received  organic materials with a
smaller, less  labile  sewage sludge  component and proportionally
more refractory material from  the estuary;   this may  explain why
little or no change in SOC rates was seen at  34.  Station 35 was
just northeast of the  dredged  material  dumpsite, and  the  drop in
rates between 1985  and 1986 may be  related to a 75%  decrease in
dredged material disposal  over  that period.

Sediment Redox Potential

     Sediment  oxidation-reduction  or  redox  potential  is also
influenced by organic  inputs.  Areas of sludge accumulation (e. g.,
NY6 in Fig. 4) had  been  characterized by reducing sediments (low
redox potentials) .   Potentials at NY6  have  generally increased
since the beginning of the  phaseout,  and the amplitude of seasonal
redox cycles has diminished.   There appears to be a convergence of
values between NY6, R2 and NY11  (EPD, 1989).

                              REID - RESPONSE TO SLUDGE ABATEMENT
1 10








                                   NT 1
       20  -
       10  -
                   0 - 1 cm
 Figure  2. Mean  (n=3) concentration  of zinc (± one standard
            deviation) in layers 1 and 5 at  replicate stations,

           Station 30
Station 32
Station 34
                      ROCKAWAY PT.
         1984    1985
                                                               \ I  40°30-
                                               12 MDS
                                                         .  SOC CRUISE
                      •>13  NY5
                            SEABED OXYGEN CONSUMPTION
                                      ml 02/m2/hr
                            ,  o

                                           Station 31
                                           Station 33
                            -,  0

                             60T ©

                                Station 35

                                       4 20
                                       -^ 0
                                                              DUMP SITE
                        1986     1987    1988 1984     1985     1986     1987     1988
Figure 3.   Station locations  and seabed oxygen  consumption rates

                           REID - RESPONSE TO SLUDGE ABATEMENT

-300 -|

' \ A-'''^^'*
: "' DEPTH -.5cm

1983 ' 1984 ' 1985 ' 1986 ' 1987 ' 1988 '
Figure 4.  Redox potentials at  0.5  cm in sediment at  replicate
           stations over time.

Dissolved Oxygen in Bottom Waters

     From the  beginning  of the  sludge  phaseout  in  March  1986
through summer 1989, dissolved oxygen concentrations of less  than
2.5 mg/1 were not  measured in bottom waters  at NY6.    Before  the
reduction in sludge input,  values  less than 0.5 mg/1 were observed
in summer months   (Andrew  Draxler,  NOAA,  Sandy Hook  Laboratory,
Highlands,  NJ 07732, pers. comm.,  February  1990).

Fecal Coliform Bacteria in Bottom Waters

     Of 30  stations sampled in an  October 1989 survey of the inner
Bight, 28 had fecal coliform counts  below the  detection limit used
(MPN  of  9/100  ml  water) ,  one station had  an MPN  of  9, and  one
station  in  deep  water between  the  sewage  sludge  and dredged
material dumpsites had a count of  139.  The counts in general were
noted to be  well  below those observed during dumping,  and lower
than counts found  in many estuaries where shellfish are currently
harvested.   It was therefore thought that it should be  possible to
reopen most or  all of the shellfish closure  area.  However,  the
inner Bight  is  considered  a  unique situation,  and the  standard
guidelines  for  shellfish  closures  are not used.   FDA must also
evaluate toxic and  pathogenic  contamination of clam tissues,  and
perhaps other factors,  in  making  its  determination (Jack Gaines,
U.S.   Food   and  Drug   Administration,  Bldg.   S-26,  Construction
Battalion Center,  North Kingstown, RI 02852, pers.  comm.,  November
1989) .

     The reduction  in  fecal  coliform  counts cannot be attributed
exclusively  to  the cessation of sludge dumping.   It has been
estimated (New York City  Department of  Environmental  Protection,
1983) that  the Hudson-Raritan outflow added at least 500 times  the
numbers of  coliforms to the inner  Bight as sludge did when dumping
was ongoing.  Much of the reduction  in coliforms must be due  to  the
year-round   (as  opposed to warmer  months  only)  chlorination of
municipal wastewaters in the estuary, beginning in 1986.  The year-
round chlorination  is  probably the main  factor enabling a three
month extension  of the  seasonal certification of surf clam beds  off
the  Rockaways   (western  Long  Island)  for  harvesting for human
consumption in 1987;   in  December 1988  the area became certified
year-round  (Interstate Sanitation Commission,  1989) .

Benthic Macrofauna

     The polychaete  worm,  Capitella   sp.,  widely used  as  an
indicator of organic pollution, had often been  extremely abundant
(>10,000 per m ) at NY6 during dumping.    No densities  >100  per m
were  found in the  three summer 1988 surveys.   No  clear responses
of species  richness or other community variables were seen through
summer 1988 (EPD,  1989).

                          REID - RESPONSE TO SLUDGE ABATEMENT

Fish,  Crab and Lobster Distribution/Abundance

     From July 1986 through December 1987, biomass of trawl catches
at all  three replicate  stations  was dominated  by little skate,
winter flounder,  ocean pout,  spiny dogfish and  rock crabs.  During
the phaseout of  dumping,  total biomass decreased, the proportion
of fish to invertebrates  increased, and differences among the three
stations diminished (EPD, 1989) .  Interviews with  lobstermen have
indicated some reduction in  fouling of  pots and nets by sludge-
like materials,  though lobstering in the highly altered area has
not increased much (Clyde MacKenzie, NOAA, Sandy Hook Laboratory,
Highlands, NJ 07732,  pers. comm., February 1990).  Some  fishermen
still report that their nets are fouled with "manmade fibers" while
trawling in the  inner Bight,  and that conditions have not changed
since dumping stopped (William Phoel,  NOAA, Sandy Hook Laboratory,
Highlands, NJ 07732,  pers. comm., February 1990).

Fish and Lobster Food Habits

     Early results indicated principal prey items  to be  generally
similar for the three replicate stations while dumping was ongoing.
One exception was the occurrence of Capitella sp.  in guts of winter
flounder at NY6,  reflecting the dominance of this polychaete there
(EPD, 1989) .

Fish and Lobster Pathology

     The degree to which  sewage sludge has contributed to  pathology
in  the inner  Bight,   and the  response  to  phaseout,  have  been
unclear.  O'Connor et al. (1987) chose fin rot in  winter flounder
as an appropriate pathology and species for an  index  of pollutant-
induced  disease.    In   1973,   the  first  year  of  systematic
observations, a very high 13.4% of flounder examined from the inner
Bight had fin rot (Table  2), compared to 2.1 % from  "control" areas
(Murchelano and Ziskowski, 1976) .  However, the  incidence  decreased
thereafter,   perhaps  due  to  increased resistance  among flounder
populations, and there were  several years in  which little or no
disease was observed.  Data through 1983  are from  the inner Bight
in general;  it  is not known how many fish were from the sludge-
affected area.  The 1986-89 data are from the sludge phaseout study
(Anthony Pacheco, NOAA, Sandy Hook Laboratory, Highlands,  NJ 07732,
pers. comm., February  1990),  and  are broken down  into incidences
at stations NY6,  R2  and NY11.   The decrease in  fin  rot at NY6 over
that period  could be  taken  as a  response to the phaseout,  but
decreases were also seen  at R2 and NY11, and the latter "reference"
station had the highest  incidence in the  first year  of the study-
Effects of sludge are thus difficult to  evaluate.

          NEW YORK BIGHT.  DATA FOR  1973  -  1983  ARE FROM O'CONNOR
          ET AL.,  1987;  1986  - 1989 DATA ARE  FROM  PACHECO,




Incidence of fin rot (%) n

NY 6
NY 6
NY 6

     Preliminary data from a study of responses to sludge phaseout
in  the  inner  New  York Bight  possibly  indicate improvement  in
several  variables:   sediment trace  metals and  redox potentials,
seabed oxygen  consumption,  and bottom water  dissolved oxygen and
fecal coliform concentrations.  Responses are  mixed or not yet seen
for bottom invertebrate communities and for fish, crab and lobster
distribution/abundance,  food  habits  and  pathology.    No  firm
conclusions  about   responses  ce.n  be  made  until  a  rigorous
interdisciplinary data  analysis  has  been completed.


Boesch,  D. F.   1982.   Ecosystem consequences of alterations of
     benthic community structure and function in the  New York Bight
     region.  Pages  543 -  568 in:  Mayer, G.  F-,  ed.  Ecological
     Stress and the  New York Bight:   Science and  Management.
     Estuarine Research Federation,  Columbia, SC.   715 p.
Cabelli,  V. J.  and  D.  Pederson.   1982.  The  movement of sewage

                         REID - RESPONSE TO SLUDGE ABATEMENT
     sludge from the New  York Bight dumpsite as seen  from
     Clostridium perfringens spore densities.   Pages  995  - 999 in:
     Oceans 82 Conference Record.   Marine Technological Society,
     Washington,  DC 20006.
Environmental Processes Division,  Northeast  Fisheries  Center.
     1988.   A plan for study:  Response of the habitat and biota
     of the inner New York Bight to abatement of sewage  sludge
     dumping.  NOAA Tech.  Mem. NMFS-F/NEC-55.  34 p.
Environmental Processes Division, Northeast Fisheries Center.
     1989.   Response of the habitat and biota of the  inner New York
     Bight to abatement of sewage sludge dumping.  Second annual
     progress report - 1988. NOAA Tech. Mem. NMFS-F/NEC-67. 47 p.
HydroQual,  Inc.   1988.  Assessment of  pollutant  inputs  to New York
     Bight.  Report to U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency from
     HydroQual,  Inc., 1 Lethbridge  Plaza,  Mahwah, NJ  07430.
     Unpubl. manuscr. 117 p.
Interstate Sanitation Commission.   1989.   Annual Report on the
     Water Pollution Control  Activities  and  the Interstate Air
     Pollution Program.  Unpubl. manuscr. 46 p.  + appendices.  ISC,
     311 West 43rd St.,  New York, NY  10036.
Murchelano, R. A.  and J. Ziskowski.  1976.  Fin  rot disease studies
     in the New York Bight.  Pages 329-336 in:  American Society of
     Limnology and Oceanography Special Symposia Volume 2.  441 p.
New York City Department  of  Environmental  Protection.   1983.
     Technical information to support  the redesignation of the 12-
     mile site for ocean disposal of municipal  sewage sludge.  NYC
     DEP, 2358 Municipal  Bldg.,  New York,  NY  10007.   Unpubl.
     manuscr. 438 p. plus appendices.
Norton, M. G. and M. A. Champ.   1989.  The influence of site-
     specific characteristics  on  the  effects  of sewage sludge
     dumping.  Pages 161  -  183 in;  Hood,  D.  W. , A. Schoener and
     P. Kilho Park,  eds.   Oceanic Processes in Marine Pollution,
     Volume 4.  Scientific  Monitoring Strategies for Ocean Waste
     Disposal.  Robert E.  Krieger Co., Malabar, FL.   286 p.
O'Connor, J. S., J.  J. Ziskowski and  R.  A. Murchelano.  1987.
     Index of pollutant-induced fish  and shellfish disease.  NOAA
     Special Report.  29 p. plus appendices.
Reid, R. N., M.  C.  Ingham  and J.  B.  Pearce, eds,  NOAA's  Northeast
     Monitoring Program (NEMP):  A report on progress of  the first
     five years (1979 - 84)  and a plan for  the  future.  NOAA Tech.
     Mem. NMFS-F/NEC-44.   138 p.
Robohm, R. A., C. Brown and  R. A.  Murchelano.   1979.  Comparison
     of antibodies  in marine fish from clean and polluted waters
     of the New York Bight:  Relative levels against 36  bacteria.
     Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 38:  248 -  257.
Sawyer, T.  K.  1980. Marine amebae from  clean and stressed bottom
     sediments of the Atlantic Ocean  and Gulf  of Mexico.  J.
     Protozool.  27:  13 - 32.
Sawyer, T.  K.  1982.  Distribution and  seasonal  incidence  of "black
     gill" in the  rock crab,  Cancer  irroratus.  Pages 199  - 211 in:
     Mayer, G. F., ed.   Ecological Stress  and the New York Bight:
     Science and Management.   Estuarine  Research Federation,
     Columbia, SC.  715 p.
Segar, D. A. and G. A.  Berberian.   1976.   Oxygen depletion in the


     New York Bight apex:   Causes  and consequences.  Pages  220 -
     239 in;   Gross, M.  G. ,  ed.  Middle Atlantic  Continental  Shelf
     and the New York Bight.   American Society of  Limnology and
     Oceanography Special Symposia Volume 2.  441 p.
Stanford, H.  M. ,  J. S.  O'Connor and  R.  L.  Swanson.   1981.   The
     effects of ocean dumping  on the New York Bight ecosystem.
     Pages 53 - 86  in;   Ketchum, B.  H. , et al., eds.   Ocean Dumping
     of Industrial Wastes.  Plenum Press, New York.
Stanford, H.  M. and D. R.  Young.  1988.   Pollutant loadings to the
     New York Bight apex.   Pages 745 -  751  in;   Oceans 88
     Conference Record.  Marine Technological  Society, Washington,
     DC 20006.
Steimle, F.,  J. Caracciolo  and J.  B. Pearce.   1982.  Impacts of
     dumping on New York Bight apex  benthos.  Pages 213 -  223 in:
     Mayer, G. F.,  ed.   Ecological  Stress and the New York Bight:
     Science and Management.   Estuarine  Research Federation,
     Columbia, SC.   715  p.
Timoney, J. F. and J.  G. Port.   1982.  Heavy  metal  and antibiotic
     resistance in Bacillus and Vibrio from sediments of New York
     Bight.  Pages 235  - 248 in;   Mayer,  G.  F. ,  ed.  Ecological
     Stress and the New York Bight:   Science  and Management.
     Estuarine Research  Federation,  Columbia,  SC.   715 p.
Waste Management  Institute,  State University  of New York at  Stony
     Brook.  1989.  Use impairments  and  ecosystem  impacts of the
     New York Bight.  Marine Sciences Research Center, SUNY,  Stony
     Brook, NY 11794.  Unpubl.  manuscr.,  279  p. plus appendices.

                         SEWAGE  SLUDGE DISPOSAL:
                       A REGULATORY PERSPECTIVE

                             Bruce  Kiselica
                     Chief,  Ocean  Dumping Task Force
                             USEPA-Region II

    Ocean dumping  is regulated  under the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act  (MPRSA) of  1972,  33 U.S.C.  1401-1444.  This Act requires
that a special permit be  obtained from the U.S.  Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) for the transport and  disposal of municipal sewage sludge into
ocean waters.  EPA  has been issuing permits for this activity since April

    Municipal sewage sludge  has  been dumped in the ocean since the 1920s.
There are currently nine  municipal  sewage sludge generators, six in New
Jersey and three in New York.  Collectively, these dumpers annually dispose
of approximately 8.7 million  wet  tons of  sludge.   This paper provides a
brief overview of sewage  sludge  disposal  and addresses the four related
management conference questions  as  follows:

    What are the current and planned practices for sewage sludge disposal
    at the 106-mile site?
    Whan are the current plans  for implementation of land-based
    What do we know about  the adverse environmental impacts of this
    What further monitoring  and  analysis is planned to improve our
    understanding  of these impacts?


    Dumping has occurred at  the  site design-by EPA, The Deepwater
Municipal Sludge Dump Site  (DMSDS,  also known as the 106-Mile Site), since
March 17, 1986.  Dumping  municipal  sewage sludge at sea is restricted to
this site, which is located approximately 115 nautical miles from the
nearest point on the coastline; Atlantic  City, New Jersey.  Previous ocean
dumping permits, allowing disposal  at the 12-Mile Site, expired on
January 9, 1981.  The dumpers shifted their disposal operations to the
designated site in  accordance with  amended judicial decrees entered into
subsequent to the 1982 final  judgment in  the Case of City of Mew York vs
EPA, 543 F.  Supp. 1084 (1981).

     EPA received complete applications  from  the  following nine New Jersey
and New York sewage sludge generators:   Bergen  County utilities Authority
(BCUA) , Joint Meeting of Essex and Union Counties (JMEUC) ,  Linden Roselie
Sewerage Authority  (LRSA) , Middlesex County Utilities Authority (MCUA) ,
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners  (PVSC), Rahway Valley Sewerage
Authority  (RVSA), Nassau County Department of Public Works (NCDPW),  New
York City Department of Environmental  Protection  (NYCDEP),  and Westchester
County Department of Environmental Facilities  (WCDEF) for  issuance  of
special permits to transport and dispose of sewage  sludge.   In conjunction
with preparing permit conditions for a term ending  on March 17, 1991, EPA
drafted Agreements to implementation of  alternative disposal methods as
required by the Ocean Dumping Ban Act  of 1988  (ODBA) .  The ocean dumpers
accepted the Agreements, and EPA and the respective State  accepted  their
cessation schedules.  The Agreements were signed  by all parties in
August 1989.

     The new ocean dumping permits contain numerous new conditions  to
minimize the adverse environmental impacts and  to ensure a more controlled
dumping operation.  The major key provisions  include:

     Reduced discharge rates based on  individual  permittee  sludge
     toxicity.  The previous rate was  15,500 gal. per minute (gpm)  at
     minimum speed of 3 knots for all  dumpers.  Reduced rates now range
     from 15,500 to 292 gpm at a vessel  speed of  6  knots.
     Monitoring requirements include monthly sampling (sludge
     characterization) and deployment  of probes and drifters from barges to
     measure current shear at the site and farfield transport of sludge
     away from the site.
     Vessels are to follow tracklines  and allow 2 hours (or 12 miles at 6
     knots) between vessels.
     Manifest system to track the sludge from its origin until its ultimate
     disposal at the DMSDS.  Seals must  be placed on all vessel dump and
     transfer valves.   Inspectors check  the condition of the seals and
     observe all sludge loadings and transfers while the vessels are in
     Shipriders are required on all vessels going to the DMSDS to monitor
     dumping operation at the DMSDS.


     The Ocean Dumping Ban Act (ODBA)  states that an ocean  dumping
authority,  the State in which it is based, and EPA  shall enter into  a
compliance  or an enforcement agreement as a condition of issuing a permit
for the ocean dumping  of industrial waste or sewage sludge.   Section
104B(c)(2)  of ODBA requires a compliance agreement  that includes a
negotiated  plan for an ocean dumper to terminate  its  ocean  dumping by
December 31, 1991, through the design, construction,  and full
implementation of an alternative system  for management of the waste  or

If an ocean dumper does not propose to  implement  long-term land-based waste
or sludge management by December 31,  1991,  the  parties must enter into an
enforcement agreement.  A judicial consent  decree and enforcement agreement
was successfully negotiated with each ocean dumper;  each of the agreements
was signed by the parties on or before  August 4,  1989.

    New Jersey's six ocean dumping sewerage agencies identified their
choices of interim and long-term land-based sludge management alternatives
in their sludge management plans submitted  to the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) in April 1989.   Interim proposals include
landfilling and chemical fixation as  a  landfill cover material.  Long-term
proposals include incineration and chemical fixation as a landfill cover
material.  New Jersey sludge and solid  waste management regulations require
that long-term plans be implemented within  the  county where the sludge or
solid waste is generated unless an interdistrict  (or equivalent) agreement
is developed and signed.

    New York's three ocean dumpers have  indicated that each is evaluating
the feasibility and environmental acceptability of the entire range of
sludge management options.  New York  State  General Municipal Law 120(w)
provides for a process to solicit proposals from  the private sector to
furnish solid waste management facilities.   This  request for proposals
(RFP) technique is being used by the  New  York ocean  dumpers to seek interim
alternatives to ocean disposal.  If this  process  yields alternatives that
can meet long-term land-based needs,  the  dumpers  may enter into a 25-year
agreement with the proposer under this  law.  At the  same time, the dumpers
are continuing to evaluate their long-term  alternatives.   The specific
dates and plans identified for all the  dumpers  are as follows:
New Jersey

Bergen County

Joint Meeting

Linden Roselle

Middlesex County

Passaic Valley
Interim Plan

Dewater at PVSC


disposal, 3/17/91

Dewater and chemical
fixation to in-state
landfill as cover,

Dewater and out-of
state disposal, 3/17/91
Long Term Plan




Rahway Valley                 Dewater and out-of       incineration
                              state disposal, 3/17/91  at Jt. Meeting

Nassau County                 Private Venture*,        Under Study
                              50% 6/30/91              12/31/94
                              100% 12/31/91

New York City                 Private Venture**        .Under Study
                              20% 12/31/91             50% 12/31/95,
                              100% 6/30/92             100% 6/30/98

Westchester                   Private Venture*,        Under Study
                              12/31/91                 9/15/95

*    Being Sought Through Joint RFP Process

**   Being Sought Through RFP Process


     From 1984 through early 1986, EPA developed and implemented, as
directed by the Ocean Dumping Regulations, a monitoring plan designed to
determine whether adverse impacts result from disposal of sewage sludge at
the 106-Mile Site.  The monitoring plan is consistent with the general
approach for tiered monitoring .   The plan considered characteristics of
the site and the sludge to predict possible impacts of sludge disposal and
formulate the null hypotheses tat these predictions suggest.  The following
impact categories itemized in the ocean dumping regulations were used to
develop predictions of possible impacts:

     o    Impingement of sludge onto shorelines,
     o    Movement of sludge into marine sanctuaries or shellfishery or
          fishery areas,
     o    Effects of sludge on commercial fisheries,
     o    Accumulation of sludge constituents in biota,
     o    Progressive changes in sediment composition related to sludge
     o    Impacts on pollution-sensitive species or life-cycle stages as  a
          result of sludge disposal,
     o    Impacts on endangered species as a result of sludge disposal
     o    Progressive changes in pelagic,demersal,  or benthic biological
          communities as a result of sludge disposal.

    A tiered approach organized the null  hypotheses  into a hierarchy,
whereby data collected in each tier were used  as  the  foundation for he
design and extent of monitoring activities in  the next tier.   Such an
approach ensured that only information needed  for making decisions would be

    The four tiers included in the 106-Mile Site monitoring program are as

    o    Tier 1-Sludge Characteristics and Disposal  Operations
    o    Tier 2-Nearfield Fate and Short-Term Effects
         Tier 3-Farfield Fate
    o    Tier 4-Long-Term Effects

    The objectives of Tier 1 are to assess sludge characteristics and
disposal operations in order to determine  whether the assumptions made in
setting permit conditions continued to be  true throughout the period that
the 106-Mile Site is used.  Monitoring and surveillance of sludge
characteristics and disposal operation were necessary for assessing the
characteristics of individual sludge plumes and total loading of sludge to
the site.

    Because of uncertainty in the reliability of available data from the
sewerage authorities, EPA independently sampled and characterized sludge
from the nine authorities.  Parameters measured included toxicity to
representative marine species (Menidia beryllina  and  Mysidopsis bahia),
organic priority pollutants, metals (copper, lead,  cadmium, and mercury),
and other  characteristics—settleable matter,total suspended solids, total
solids, wet-to-dry-weight ratio, density of solid matter, and specific
gravity.  Although data from this independent  study did not provide a
statistical representation of the characteristics of  sludges  through time,
they were used to evaluate the representativeness and accuracy of data
submitted by the sewerage authorities.  Data generated by the EPA study
were generally comparable to those provided by the sewerage authorities.
The information was subsequently used in calculating  allowable rates for

    The overall objective of Tier 2 monitoring was to assess the short-
term behavior, transport, and impact of sludge within the 106-Mile Site and
in the immediate area surrounding the site.  Short-term effects were
defined as those effect were occurring within  1 day of sludge disposal.
Measurements of nearfield fate of sludge disposed at  the site have focused
on issues related to compliance with permit conditions and possible effects
from sludge disposal.  In 1987 EPA began studying the short-term, nearfield
fate of sludges disposed at the site.  Activities included direct studies
of sludge plumes under varied oceanographic and meteorological conditions.
Specifically, Tier 2 activities include:

     o    Measuring sludge constituents in the water column  in  and near the
          106-Mile Site to determine fate of sludge constituents with
          respect to permit conditions and ambient conditions,
     o    Conducting sludge-plume observations to define dilution
          characteristics of the sludge and any seasonal patterns of sludge
          dispersion at the 106-Mile Site,
     o    Studying rapid settling of sludge particles from plumes and,
     o    Measuring surface currents and water-column structure to estimate
          sludge dispersion.

     Measurements of the concentration of selected sludge tracers in the
barges discharging sludge during surveys conducted plus time series
measurements of the concentration of these tracers in the plumes have been
used to develop an emperical formulation that allows the calculation of
disposal rates for each municipality.   Based on this formulation and acute
biossay results from the sludge characterization study, EPA developed a
nomograph which relates the regulatory driven Limiting Permissible
Concentration to allowable dumping rates.   This nomograph (Figure 1) forms
the basis for settling discharge rates for the permits issued in August
1989 and will be used to adjust dumping rates at the 106-Mile Site on a
quarterly basis.

     Before a comprehensive estimate of long-term effects of sludge dumping
at the 106-Mile Site can be made, it is necessary to estimate where the
sludge goes, the area of the seafloor that may be influenced by sludge
particles, and the cumulative concentrations that may be expected in the
water column and sediments after years of dumping.  Therefore, Tier 3 of
the monitoring program was designed to estimate the transport and fate of
the sludge dumped at the 106-Mile Site in the long term and the farfield.

     Farfield fate of sludge dumped at the 106-Mile Site depends upon
dispersion of sludge plumes in several space and time scales.  The
principal components of estimating fate of sludges are (1) advection, (2)
mixing, and (3) sinking and coagulation.   Advection is the transport of
sludge particles by the movement of water, that is, in a current field.
All but the largest sludge particles are expected to spend weeks to months
in the water column.   They are likely to encounter many current fields and
travel long distances, up to 100 - 1000 km, before deposition on the
bottom.  Mixing is the dilution of sludge particles in a parcel of water by
small-scale turbulent processes that depend on the density and velocity of
the water.  Turbulent energy due to wind and surface waves, vertical
current shear, and density profiles of the water mass affect mixing.
Sinking is dependent on particle size and denisty.  Coagulation, the
sticking together of sludge particles, may alter the distribution of
particle sizes in a sludge plume and affect sinking.

    Thus,  several  types of measurements are required to estimate the
possible results  of all the physical processes acting on the sludge.
Specifically,  Tier  3 activities include:

    o    Studying  water-mass movement from the 106-Mile Site,
    o    Studying  surface currents and water structure in the areas
         expected  to be impacted by dumping,
    o    Using remote-sensing information to evaluate large-scale water
         movements and structure,
    o    Measuring settling of sludge particles in the field and,
    o    tfsing appropriate models  to estimate fate of sludge constituents
         and  to  identify possible  depositional areas.

    The study of water-mass movements was initiated through the release of
satellite-tracked drifters during October 1988 (4 drifters), and most
recently in October 1989 (4 drifters).  Additional releases have occurred
and will continue weekly by the dumping authorities beginning in March,
1990.  Trajectories of these releases, illustrated in Figure 2 indicate
that the water mass being tracked from the site has not moved on to the
continental shelf;  movement from the site has been in a southwesterly
direction,  continuing until entrainment in the Gulf Stream.

    During 1988  and 1989, EPA monitored water-mass structure and particle
concentrations at distances up to 40 nmi from the site.   These measurements
were not associated with specific plumes, so they effectively bridged
nearfield and  farfield monitoring.   Vertical profiles were made to
determine the  depth of the particle maximum, and water samples were
collected and  analyzed for sludge tracers:  trace metals, selected organic
compounds,  Clostridium perfringens  spores, Salmonella spp., other
pathogens,  chlorophyll a, and xylem tracheids.   Preliminary results
suggested that sludge tracers could be identified at many stations
downcurrent from  the site and that  further farfield studies were warrented.

Results of  farfield fate studies conducted to date suggest that:

    o    The  seasonal pycnocline,  where particles concentrate naturally,
         is a region of the water  column where sludge particles may also
    o    Sludge  constituents are unlikely to concentrate in any location
         on the  seafloor within or to the southwest of the site.  If
         sludge  were transported onto the continental shelf, sludge
         constituents could reach  the seafloor,
    o   Warm-core eddies are a viable but poorly understood mechanism for
        potential northward transport of sludge constituents to the edge
        of the  continental shelf,
    o   On average, sludge particles are likely to remain in the water
        column, become entrained  in the Gulf Stream, and be subject to
        great dispersion, which would not result in identifiable impacts
        to the  environment and,

     o    Under some oceanographic conditions, sludge may  be  recirculated
          through the site.

     The objective of Tier 4 studies is to assess whether  there  are  long-
term impacts from sludge disposal at the 106-Mile Site.  Tier  4  includes
plans for studies of impacts on fisheries species, biological  communities
that are prey for fisheries species, and other marine resources.

     Long-term effects may occur within or outside the site.   Long-term
effects in the site can occur if, for example, there is a  progressive
decline in water quality—although such a decline has not  been observed or
nor is it predicted—or if significant quantities of sludge particles
settle to the seafloor within the site.  Effects outside the site, such as
bioaccumulation of sludge constituents, may occur if sludge particles are
regularly transported in the direction of marine resource  areas.

     Long-term effects, Tier 4, studies were initiated in  1989 and will
continue for the duration of the program.   Effects on endangered species
have been assessed since dumping began and will continue throughout the
life of the program.   During 1989, NOAA and EPA conducted  preliminary
studies of contaminants in lantern and hatched fishes.   Other
bioaccumulation studies, studies of chitinoclasia, benthic studies,
assessment of ichthyoplankton,  and measurements of pathogens in sediments
will proceed during 1990 and 1991.



B   100,000::
                                           FIGURE 1.  NOMOGRAPH FOR DISCHARGE RATES
                             3kt  6kt  9kt
H	1—I I  I I ll|	1	1—I I  I I ll|
                                                       1—I  I I I ll|
                           1—I I I I II
                                  SLUDGE DUMPING RATE (gol/min)

                                                        •Start  f 16:22:18
  76*   75*   74*   73*  72*   71*  7B-  69*  68*  &?•   66"   65

                              Wayne R. Munns, Jr.
                                 Senior Biologist
                    Science Applications International Corporation
                    U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory
                            Narragansett, Rhode Island


                              Norman I. Rubinstein
                         Chief, Exposure Assessment Branch
                       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                        Environmental Research Laboratory
                            Narragansett, Rhode Island
     Introduction of anthropogenic wastes into the marine environment often results in
adverse impacts on ecological systems.  The intensity and scale of impact is dependent
upon several factors, including the physical and chemical attributes of the waste material,
the amount  of material and  its release rate,  and the existence and  susceptibility of
biological systems exposed to  the wastes.  The  challenge for environmental scientists is
to describe  and  predict  potential impact  in sufficient  detail  to  permit  effective
management of waste  disposal.

     During the 1970s and early 1980s, dredged sediment, sewage sludge, and industrial
byproducts made up the bulk of wastes released into U.S. waters (Burroughs, 1988).
Historically, these same wastes have caused the greatest concern for the New York-New
Jersey-Connecticut region.  Added to this list are  cellar dirt, acid wastes, construction
wastes, and the products of activities such as at-sea wood and liquid waste incineration.
Within each  of these categories  of  waste material, large  variation  exists in the


concentrations and bioavailability of constituent contaminants.  This variation requires
that the potential impacts of waste disposal be examined on a case-by-case basis.

     Both shallow nearshore and deep water offshore sites have routinely been used for
disposal activities.  In selecting a site, a general tradeoff is made between the economic
uses of an area and the perceived  hazards of the wastes to be disposed.  The rationale
behind this approach involves consideration of the proximity of human activity, but also
the degree  of dispersion  (and therefore dilution)  expected  at  these  sites.   The
distributions of obvious natural resources and the timing of their greatest susceptibility
are also  considered.   Whereas the environmental  impact of  ocean disposal  can be
modulated to some degree through judicious  placement of disposal sites, very few areas
of the ocean are devoid of organisms and ecological systems susceptible to impact.  Such
impacts can occur at all levels of biological organization, from effects on subcellular and
genetic systems to modification of the form and function of whole ecosystems.

     The  highly  complex  relationships  between the  waste  material,  disposal site
characteristics, and biological systems are neither  easily understood  nor well described.
The U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency's  Environmental  Research Laboratory in
Narragansett, Rhode  Island  (ERLN), has  strived  over the past decade  to develop a
logically sound, scientifically defensible approach to addressing questions of the ecological
impacts of ocean disposal (Bierman et al., 1986;  Gentile et al,  1989). This strategy,
centered  around the risk assessment paradigm, employs several information-gathering,
modeling, experimental, and synthesis activities in  the quantification  of potential impact.
As summarized  in Figure 1,  information concerning the physical and chemical attributes
of the source waste  material  (Source Characterization), the physical and biological
characteristics of the  disposal  site  (Site Characterization), the spatial and temporal
distributions of the  waste material and constituent contaminants during and following
disposal (Exposure Assessment), and the responses of appropriate biological endpoints
over the  range  of relevant exposure concentrations (Hazard Assessment) is synthesized
into qualitative and  quantitative statements  of risk  (Risk Characterization).  Properly
formulated estimates of ecological  risk can be used to make rational disposal decisions.
Ideally, monitoring programs are implemented to confirm or deny the validity of the risk
predictions (Phelps and Beck, 1984).  Although originally developed as a predictive tool
for use prior to initiation of disposal activities, modified versions of this approach have
proven valuable in the examination of impacts in aquatic  systems  associated with in-
place hazardous wastes (e.g., Johnston et al, 1990).

     The remainder of this paper describes the range of adverse impacts associated with
ocean  disposal  of anthropogenic waste through the presentation of  case  studies and
projects conducted by ERLN. Evidence from these studies is supplemented where
appropriate with salient information obtained from other investigations performed mainly
in the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut region.  The primary intent of this discourse is

Spatial  and Temporal
Concentration Distribution
as a  Function of Source
    Exposure  (Dose)-Response
    Relationships as a  Function
    of Concentration
                   RISK  CHARACTERIZATION
              Figure I. ERLN's Marine Ecological Risk Assessment Strategy.

not to catalogue all known impacts associated with ocean disposal, but rather to provide
scientific insight  into the identification and resolution  of waste disposal management

     Adverse impacts associated with dredging and  ocean disposal of dredged sediments
can result from the physical disturbances associated with the actual dredging and disposal
activities, and from the release of constituent contaminants and their subsequent exposure
to biota.  Physical disturbance of benthic communities at the dredging and disposal sites
is assumed to occur as an obvious and unavoidable byproduct of the dredging operation.
Although  such  disturbances  are  clearly important  to management  decisions,  more
pervasive are the impacts associated with the release of contaminants.  The ultimate fate
of these contaminants, and therefore their potential ecological impact, is dependent upon
the transport mechanisms existing at the  dredging and disposal sites (Figure 2).  In
energetic systems, contaminants in dissolved and particulate form may be distributed over
large areas,  increasing the risk of environmental impact.  Fortunately, the harbors and
waterways most often requiring  dredging are typically depositional areas with relatively
quiescent current regimes. However, it is these same areas which tend to accumulate fine
grained sediments. Because fine grained sediments  are likely to display higher levels of
contamination and are also more easily transported by water currents, these materials can
potentially cause the greatest problem when disposed in the ocean.

Case Study 1  - The New Bedford Harbor  Pilot Project

     In conjunction with EPA Region I, the  U.S. Army  Corps of Engineers (COE), and the
State of Massachusetts,  ERLN participated  in the New Bedford Harbor Pilot Project by
monitoring the potential  adverse  impacts associated with different options of dredging and
in-harbor disposal  (Nelson,  1989).  The upper reaches of New Bedford Harbor (NBH),
which  is located  on Buzzards Bay in Massachusetts  (Figure  3), contain fine grained
sediments which  are highly contaminated  with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and
heavy metals.  These sediments are also acutely toxic to marine  life.  Up to 100% of test
animals died in laboratory  assays involving benthic  amphipods. Additionally, ambient
water column concentrations of several contaminants exceed EPA's Water Quality Criteria
in the  upper harbor, presumably as a result of contaminant migration from the bottom
substrate. The site was  added to EPA's National Priorities List of hazardous waste sites
in 1982,  and targeted for mitigation.  The Pilot Project was designed to provide input to
the decision process addressing  mitigation  options.

     The approach used by ERLN to  quantify impacts associated with the various

                                                      Munns and Rubinstein
                         SEDIMENTS AT
                         DREDGE SUE
Suspension and
                                     Suspension and
                         SEDIMENTS IN  I
                        DISPOSAL VESSEL
                         TRANSPORT TO
                         DISPOSAL SITE
                                           Errant Disposal
            [ DISPOSAL
                        ELSEWHERE IN
                                                           EXPORTED OUT
                                                          '  OF ESTUARY
                                                           OUTSIDE SITE
Figure 2. Fate of dredged material released during dredging and disposal operations.

 Hot Spot (approximate)

                            Street Bridge
      New Bedford
                                 New Bedford
V  Point
                        -Clark's Point $
                           ••  -' - <   ''
   Mishaum Point
Figure 3.  Location of New Bedford Harbor  (modified from Nelson, 1989).

                                                            Munns and Rubinstein

dredging and disposal options involved the use of real-time environmental  monitoring.
Exposure  and   hazard  assessments  were performed utilizing  physical  (suspended
particulates), chemical (water column concentrations of PCBs, cadmium, copper, and lead,
and PCS bioaccumulation in mussels), and biological (acute and chronic toxicity assays
involving fish, mysids, algae, and sea urchin reproductive  cells and field deployments of
caged mussels) endpoints.  Rapid turn-around of chemical and toxicity results permitted
daily decisions  to be made  which mitigated the potential risks associated with  specific
dredging and disposal activities.

     Due in large part to  the extreme  precautions  taken during  sediment handling
operations (e.g., installation of silt curtains, and minimization of the release of particulates
during dredging and disposal), no unacceptable biological  impacts were observed during
this study (Nelson, 1989). Operation-related elevations above prespecified levels in water
column PCB concentration were observed on a few occasions, but these rapidly returned
to lower levels  following corrective action.  A final conclusion drawn in this project was
that no adverse environmental impact was  observed.

     The New Bedford Harbor Pilot Project was unusual  in that every effort was made
to minimize the transport,  and therefore potential  impacts, of released contaminants.
This project demonstrates  that dredging  and in-harbor disposal  operations  can be
conducted safely (at least on a  small scale), and should be used as  a model for future
dredging projects.  A  review is given by Morton  (1977)  of existing studies conducted
through the mid-1970s which address the ecological impacts of dredging and disposal.
During the  decision process, the ecological risks of dredging clearly need to be weighed
against the ecological  and economic risks of leaving the sediments undisturbed.

Case  Study 2 - The Field Verification Program

     In 1982,  COE  and EPA initiated  the  6-year Field Verification Program (FVP) to
investigate  three  options for the disposal  of dredged  material (Gentile et al,  1988a;
Peddicord,  1988).  Two of these options, upland  disposal and  the creation  of  new
wetlands, were examined by COE's Waterways Experiment  Station  (Folsom , 1988;
Simmers et al,  in preparation).   The third option,  aquatic disposal in coastal  marine
waters, was investigated by ERLN (Gentile et al, 1988b).  Black Rock Harbor  (BRH),
located near Bridgeport, Connecticut (Figure 4), was selected as the source of dredged
material for this case  study. Approximately 55,000 cubic meters of BRH sediment, an
anoxic, fine grained material containing high levels  of organic and inorganic contaminants
(Rogerson et al, 1985; Munns et al, 1988), were disposed in the northeast corner of the
Central Long Island Sound (CLIS) Disposal Site (see Figure 4).  This  operation produced
a relatively small (circa 1.5 m in height) disposal mound in a location removed from
other existing disposal mounds.  Physical isolation of the  mound,  in conjunction with

        FVP STUDY J

                         BLACK ROCK

                                  LONG   ISLAND
                                                                    SOUTH REFERENCE
                                                                          •  SITE
                  Figure 4.  Locations of Black Rock Harbor, CLIS, and the FVP disposal site.

                                                            Munns and Rubinstein

predisposal site characterization and monitoring  activities, permitted some degree of
separation of the impacts of the BRH material from those resulting from other disposal

     Following the  ecological risk  assessment  approach,  ERLN collected  information
concerning the dredged  material,  the  exposure  fields  resulting from disposal,  and the
effects  of the material  on several ecologically  relevant  endpoints,  to  develop  an
understanding  of the  potential  impacts  associated  with such  disposal  operations.
Individual studies were conducted  simultaneously in the laboratory and in CLIS to verify
assay-based predictions of risk. These studies  involved suspended and bedded exposures
of BRH sediment to a large number of marine species representing several phyla.  Hazard
measurements were made on genetic, physiological, histological, organismal, population,
and community level endpoints.

     BRH sediment proved to be hazardous to a variety of  biological functions and
endpoints in agreement  with  the  levels  of its constituent contaminants  (Gentile et al,
1988b).  In the laboratory, both water column and benthic effects were observed.  Most
significantly, the physiology of mussels and polychaetes, and the survival and fecundity
of mysids and amphipods, were adversely impacted. Behavioral changes and contaminant
bioaccumulation were also observed. The magnitude of impact was typically correlated
with the level of BRH exposure.  Similar responses occurred at the disposal site, and good
agreement was seen between the  responses experienced in laboratory and field studies
for comparable exposure conditions. Most  of the effects measured were short-term in
nature, and confined to  the near field.  It is notable that the benthic community which
developed on the dredged material mound had  not yet completely converged with that
of either the predisposal or the  surrounding background community some 2.5  years
following disposal.

     Two important conclusions can be drawn from the FVP.  The first is that the risks
of adverse impact associated with ocean disposal of contaminated dredged material are
both real  and potentially large.  These impacts  can  involve  both water column and
benthic  species.   The second conclusion is  that laboratory  assays generally  provide
appropriate predictions of field responses when exposure conditions are similar. Although
the  first  conclusion  is  disconcerting  (albeit  not  wholly  unexpected),  the second  is
satisfying in that it provides justification for the  laboratory assay approach to predicting
environmental impact. This approach is outlined in the current revisions to the EPA/COE
implementation manual  (EPA/COE,  1977).

     Where  adverse  impacts  are indicated,  mitigating measures  such  as  capping or
confined disposal can be  initiated.  These procedures have been successfully employed by
the COE New England District in its  dredging  program (Morton, 1989). For those cases

in which in-water mitigation cannot be accomplished, it may be prudent to evaluate and