CLEANING UP OUR
COASTAL WATERS:
An Unfinished Agenda
LONG
ISLAND
SOUND
STUDY
The New York-New Jersey Harbor
Estuary Program
NEW YORK BIGHT
RESTORATION PLAN
A REGIONAL CONFERENCE
March 12-14, 1990
-------
CLEANING UP OUR
COASTAL WATERS:
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
CO-CHAIRMEN
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.
J'"
Technical Editor: Mark T. Southerland
Publications Editor: Karen Swetlow
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
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
AlBuff
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.
in
-------
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.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Page
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
-------
Page
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
VI
-------
Page
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
vii
-------
Page
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
vm
-------
Page
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
IX
-------
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
APPENDICES
Appendix I: Issues Document
Appendix II: List of Speakers and Attendees
-------
N
New York-New Jersey Harbor
Delaware Bay
Cape May
Montauk Point
Scale
25 Miles
Map of the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut Coastal Region
XI
-------
CONFERENCE SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION
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.
CONFERENCE FORMAT
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
conference.
xiii
-------
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
information);
• 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
significance.
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
xiv
-------
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.
CONFERENCE RESULTS: THE PROCEEDINGS
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
Impacts."
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.
xv
-------
• 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.
NEXT STEPS
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.
xvi
-------
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
xvn
-------
OPENING ADDRESSES
-------
WELCOME
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
appropriate.
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
Ceremonies.
-------
SAVING OUR COASTAL WATERS
THROUGH SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
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
PCBs.
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
10
-------
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
11
-------
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
12
-------
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.
13
-------
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
15
-------
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
16
-------
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
17
-------
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.
18
-------
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.
19
-------
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.
20
-------
SIGNING OF THE COASTAL WATERS PLEDGE
Morning Speakers and Invited Elected Officials
21
-------
ADDITIONAL SIGNERS OF THE PLEDGE
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
22
-------
PLEDGE FOR
OUR COASTAL WATERS
Including
NEW YORK BIGHT, NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY HARBOR, AND LONG ISLAND SOUND
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 '
-------
THE CHARGE TO THE CONFERENCE
25
-------
THE CHARGE TO THE CONFERENCE
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.
27
-------
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
28
-------
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
29
-------
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
30
-------
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.
31
-------
THE CHARGE TO THE CONFERENCE:
DEVELOPING THE POLITICAL WILL FOR COASTAL CLEANUP
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.
33
-------
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
do.
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.
34
-------
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.
35
-------
THE CHARGE TO THE CONFERENCE
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,
37
-------
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
identify.
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
38
-------
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
39
-------
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.
40
-------
THE CHARGE TO THE CONFERENCE
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
41
-------
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
42
-------
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.
43
-------
THE CHARGE TO THE CONFERENCE
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.
45
-------
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.
46
-------
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
out."
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.
47
-------
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.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
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.
49
-------
NY-NJ
HARBOR
COMPLEX
ATLANTIC
OCEAN
Figure 1. New York-New Jersey Harbor and contiguous coastal zones.
50
-------
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
Connecticut.
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
standards.
51
-------
Westchester
County
Treatment Plant Effluents
Fraction Treated - 1989
— Combined Sewer Overflow
D- NYC Survey Stations
New
Jersey
Staten
Island
Raritan
Bay
New York
Bight
Figure 2. New York-New Jersey Harbor complex
52
-------
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.
WATER QUALITY ISSUES
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
53
-------
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.
NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR
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.
54
-------
140
8
Q
E
O
O
Z
m
e
LOWER EASV RIVER
LEGEND
• SURFACE
+ BOTTOM
•£ FECAL
"•«
~*'f~~ MJ~C
_i
f
• NY S
* COLI
• STAN
«
B
-f
TATE
FORM
DARDS
*•* SEC ON PA RY
r*-f PRIMARY
•
4
4
4-
4
"*L
L**" 9m
eo - UPPER EAST RIVER
40 -
20 -
o -f
T
!••
4 4. •
4
E co -
O
o
? 40 -
f*)
2 20 -
NORTH RIVER
~""^»Mi
,«
— ii^-1-
•*•"?,
'• ^B""
,
v>
f
t. 4.4
• * *•(
•*• ,
_
»40 ' t950 I960 1970 ' i960 ' 88®0 I
YEAR 1
Figure 3. Summer average coliform and fecal bacteria.
55
-------
CP
z
g
<
LJ
o
z
o
o
250-
200-
150-
100-
50 -
•
\
\
\
\
Nm Vtl^M,
4- 4
' * t /
y v7 '
i *
•£>
a
+
•
9
\ +- X
T*
:OPPER
LEGEND ;
NORTH
LOWER EAST
UPPER EAST
AVERAGE
-f
Y«
1970
1975
I960
YEAR
1985
1990
CP
ac
UJ
o
o
o
250-
200-
150-
100-
50-
1970
An
1975
I960
YEAR
LEAD
A
1985
1990
Figure 4.
56
-------
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
1895.
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
57
-------
D- YEARLY
3 YR AVERAGE
4 - YEAR
3 YR AVERAGE
Figure 5. Summer average dissolved oxygen.
58
-------
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.
LONG ISLAND SOUND
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
59
-------
100-
c
o
t- •
§ 80-
0
(T>
£ 60-
UJ
o
x 40 -
o
0
UJ
1 20-
in
CO
o
0-
19
51
4 -
z
— CO ^— ' ""
5.1
-^— O
CL
1 -
0-
19'
EAST RIVER TRANSECT
V
++ \
• Vv*vv
•.
Upper East
,
4-+ +
+H
" "" 'T
+ +•"+*** <
v" + / '
- Lower East
/vv
•'••'•• ^^
4 •
10 1930 1950 1970 1990
YEAR
Z
^r-"
\_
X
- Untreated
1 1 n M i ii 1 1*-*"*
V
•1
I .
«•
0 1930 1950 19'
^v
— Total
"^^
70 19<
50
YEAR
Figure 6.
60
-------
1940
50
60
70
60
90
si
.3
2-J
Si
UJOD
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
ID
<
CO
2
0
CO
Q
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
CO 15
t-
u- 10
5
0
I I
TREATMENT PLANTS
NORTH
RIVER
PASSAIC
VALLEY
NEWTOWN
CREEK
YONKERS
OWL'S
HEAD
I- DISSOLVED OXYGEN
SUMMER AVERAGE DATA
( 3YR, MOVING AVERAGE)
-------
AUGUST DATA
10
8
v.
0>
e
LJ
x
o
Q
LL)
O
co
en
0
- SURFACE
o»
£
LJ
a:
e>
1 -
SA
-
LiNim
— *
r
*V
+*••*-
i
* ^ ,
* * •
>- A
'c±^_+y*r ^/
Nli +
*^<\
*
* A
-
1900
20
^0 60
YEAR
80
2000
Figure 8. Hart Island, Long Island Sound.
62
-------
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
sources.
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
Harbor.
NEW YORK BIGHT
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
63
-------
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
immediately.
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.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
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.
64
-------
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.
GENERAL ASSESSMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
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,
65
-------
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
66
-------
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.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
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
appreciated.
67
-------
THE CONDITION OF OUR COASTAL WATERS:
STATUS, TRENDS, AND CAUSES
69
-------
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
Introduction
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
analysis.
71
-------
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.
72
-------
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-
73
-------
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
74
-------
240-
220-
200-
180-
1 160 H
o
Total landings minus menhaden
Major anadromous, estuarine, and
marine species
Major anadromous and
estuarine species
Major marine species
1880 1900
1920 1940
YEAR
1960 1980
Figure l. Commercial marine fishery landings, New York & New
Jersey, 1887-1987
75
-------
in Long Island Sound is a small gillnet fishery harvesting menha-
den to be used as bait in lobster pots and in recreational fish-
ing.
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%.
76
-------
to
o
O
Q.
U_
O
CO
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
i
100
All Species
Menhaden only
1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980
YEAR
Figure 2. Landings of food finfish and shellfish, New York and
New Jersey, 1887-1987
77
-------
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
78
-------
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).
79
-------
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
80
-------
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
fishery.
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
81
-------
YEAR
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).
82
-------
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.
83
-------
REFERENCES
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.
182pp.
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.
70(3):585-610.
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.
84
-------
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-
2426.
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.
85-19.
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.
56:371-413.
85
-------
CONDITIONS IN LONG ISLAND SOUND
Paul E. Stacey
Senior Environmental Analyst
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
Water Management Bureau
INTRODUCTION
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
report.
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
considerations.
* 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
87
-------
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.
CAUSES AND IMPACTS OF HYPOXIA
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
Point
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)
89
-------
EHi!3^f)\ —''
^f >'\==-'
oxygen
added by
wave action
sewage^1,
effluenti'C,
a sharp density
gradient isolates
the surface and
bottom waters
.. •
.•>. ^. V. x.' ,.-,. '.
"
pycnocline
fish leave hypoxic waters
X
bloom
prolonged
by added
nutrients
dead plankton
sink and use up
oxygen during
decomposition
trapped lobsters are
unable to escape
low oxygen conditions
•;::'vy%:v--;:^-4c. p^ -;-.^^^^fc:.: •.' .'••'.'•.'•''••••
immobile bottom dwellers may die
Figure 2.
90
-------
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.
TRENDS IN HYPOXIA
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
surveys.
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
91
-------
COMMERCIAL LANDINGS or LODSIER
TAKEN FROM LONG ISLAJID SOUND, 1961 - 1985
COMMERCIAL LANDINGS Or OYS1FRS
TAKEN FROM LOIIG ISLA/ID SOUND. 1961 - 1985
3,000.000
7. Wi.ivy)
3.0OO.OOO '
VI
5 ' VKl.OOO '
*
(.OOO.OOO '
5OO.OOO -
F
r71F7lF7lR/l K/1K/1 y^ywA '/
\
71
\
I
73
I
74
I
75
NOIC: th« OVPIOI)^ onnuol
i
76
»pO*t catch 'torn
19fll la I«fl5 «o>
- IOO.OOO Ibt.
i
I
1
R\\\\NS\\XN\XSI
y
y/
!
i
YA
/,
y
\
//
'/
/;
/
/
//
//
//
1
'y
y
/,
y
^
//
\
f.
f
77 78 79 80 81 BI 83 84 85
i-D
to
COMMERCIAL LANDINGS OF WINTER FLOUNDER
1AKEN FROM LONG ISLAND SOUND. 1961 - 1985
COMMERCIAL IANOINGS OF SCUP
TAKEN FROM LONG ISLAND SOUND. 1961 - 1985
90O.OOO •
750.0OO •
600. OOO -
e
5 450.OOO -
£
3OO.OOO -
15O.OOO •
0 -
JI01E: Th« ov»
l[M)ll (
1901 t
[Zj
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
1
I
P^l
//
\
/,
/
^
^
^
x
X
^
^
y,
/.
\
^
/,
/,
^
y
/,
f/
//
y/
/,
^
7"7
y
^
y
y
y.
//
/
^
\
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 :
1800:
1600 -
1400 -
1200:
1000:
800 :
600 :
400 :
200 :
0:
E3
V
X
BASIN
Z3 CENTRAL
E3 HEMPSTEAD
nn
r\i
X
X
X
//
^
o-
v
/ /
//
'/
X
s
^
^
APR MAY JUN
1
X
t
£\]
3
X
^
x
<>
^
3
g
x
y^
1
X
/^
^
1
//
//
/ ,
/;
//
//
^
N^
\
^
\^
^
\
|
\
x
^
'/
V
//
y
X
1
\
^
JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV
MONTH
800
MEAN FISH CATCH
AT FOUR OXYGEN RANGES
700-
600-
500-
400-
300-
200-
100-
0-
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)
93
-------
TEMPORAL COMPARISON OF MINIMUM DO CYCLES
FOR THE NARROWS
12-1
JFMAMJJASOND
1067 (WELSH)
TEMPORAL COMPARISON OF MINIMUM DO CYCLES
FOR THE CENTRAL BASIN
12-1
JFMAMJJASOND
PERIODS
• 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)
94
-------
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
95
-------
LONG ISLAND SOUND WATER SOURCES
BILLION GALLONS PER YEAR
5000
4000-
3000-
2000-
1000-
0
7
CT R UPSTREAM
RAIN RUNOFF
SOURCE
STPS
INDUS
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.
-------
NITROGEN LOADS TO LONG ISLAND SOUND
TONS PER YEAR
30000
15000 -
0
RIVERS
STP'S
ATMOS
SOURCE
NON-POINT INDUS
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 -
a
£ 160 -
S 140 -
°~ 120 -
in
c 100 -
o
15 80 -
U
c 60 -
0 40 -
m 20 -
^
I 1 i .
8
Subareas
10
£
to
c
"S
O
c
_0
CD
y s
100 -
80 -
60-
40 -
20 -
i^^ff, — ^^*^>^ Major Facilities
• Average Daily Flow 1 MGD
• Average Daily Flow 10 MGD
24 5
Subareas
Figure 8.
Location of sewage treatment plants in the coastal counties
surrounding Long Island Sound. (Source: Farrow et al., 1986)
98
-------
LONG ISLAND SOUND STP DISCHARGE
MGD
1500
1000-
500-
0
1974
1979
1984
1989
YEAR
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)
-------
o
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.
PROGNOSIS FOR CORRECTING HYPOXIA
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.
100
-------
NON POINT NITROGEN LOADS
TONS PER YEAR BY BASIN
20000 -
15000 -
o
10000-
5000-
0
Source
TOTAL
NATURAL
SW
HOUS
QUIN
SOURCE
CONN
THAMES
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
stated:
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
102
-------
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.
SUMMARY
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.
LITERATURE CITED
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.
103
-------
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.
104
-------
CONDITIONS IN THE
NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY
Dennis J. Suszkowski
Hudson River Foundation
40 West 20th Street, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10011
INTRODUCTION
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.
105
-------
NY/NJ
HARBOR
ESTUARY
ROCKLAND CO. ] { ff
Tappan Zee Bridge
Piermontl
Marsh
NEW YORK
WESTCHESTER CO.
MORRIS CO.
,". .V,,
PASSAIC CO. ; !> Oradell Dam
^ BERGEN CO.
Dundee Dam
BRONX
ESSEX CO.
3
NEW JERSEY
yhrogs
.Bridge
0°'
QUEENS
UNION CO.
MIDDLESEX CO.
Fieldville Dam o^i^er
% River
York
Bayf
KIM van KUII^ < 7 BROOKLYN
STATEN
ISLAND
/
Lower New York Bay
Raritgn Bay
Sandy'
''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.
106
-------
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.
107
-------
HISTORICAL TRENDS
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
areas.
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
Sewerage
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
108
-------
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920
Source: Rod et al. (1989)
1930
Year
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980
Figure 3. Land use trends in the estuary's drainage basin.
109
-------
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980
Year
Source: Rod et al. (1989)
Figure 4. Population trends in the estuary's drainage basin.
110
-------
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
ill
-------
2.5
CO
Q)
0)
03
g-
O)
O
O
O
03
0)
0.5
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920
Source: Rod et al. (1989)
1930
Year
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980
Figure 5. Sewerage trends in the urban areas of the estuary's drainage basin.
112
-------
80
^70
.O
SS 60
1
^50
CD 40
D)
£
O 30
CD
CO
CO
10
Hudson River Lower East River
1 1 1 1 1
1909
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
Year
Source: New York City Department of
Environmental Protection (1987 & 1990)
Ml I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II M M M M I
1960 1970 1980 1990
Figure 6. Tends in dissolved oxygen concentrations for the Hudson River and Lower East
River.
113
-------
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.
Habitat
Near-shore and wetlands habitats in the lower estuary have been greatly modified
114
-------
O 70
fc
3 60 -
50 -
o
Q
Q)
if
1
|S 20H
0)
I
40 -
30 -
10
Q1909
1989 DD1987
1920 D
D1950
1940 D D 19451
1955
D1935
100
200 300 400 500
BOD Loadings from NYC (metric tons/day)
600
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).
115
-------
8
en _
c 6
o
o
o
x
O) 4
C
o
Lead F/3 Copper
1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980
Year
Source: Rod et al. (1989)
Figure 8. Reconstructed metal loadings to the estuary for lead and copper.
116
-------
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.
Fisheries
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
modifications.
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.
USE IMPAIRMENTS
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.
117
-------
120
100 -
in 80 -
LO
CO
co
m
N
60 -
40 -
20 -
1855 area = 19.6 square kilometers
1855
1886
1976
1990
Figure 9. Historic changes in the size of Newark Bay, New Jersey.
118
-------
Dissolved Oxygen
BOD Loading
American shad
X
bluefish
X
oyster
X
lobster
X
soft clam
X
TABLE 1. CORRELATIONS REPORTED BY SUMMERS ET AL. (1986)
BETWEEN FISH AND SHELLFISH ABUNDANCE AND POLLUTION
VARIABLES.
119
-------
TABLE 2. USE IMPAIRMENTS AND ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS IN THE NY/NJ
HARBOR ESTUARY
BEACH CLOSURES
UNSAFE SEAFOODS
NAVIGATION
Factors Causing
ImDairment
o Pathogens
o Floatables
o Spills
o Toxicants
o Pathogens
o Floatables
o Toxicants
o Floatable, sewage
Extent of
ImDairment
Persistent closures
in Keansburg, NJ &
Staten Island
Periodic closures in
NYC&NJ
Closures due to
sewage spill in 1 988
More than 1 8 major
species affected
Severe shellfish
harvest restrictions
inNY&NJ
Periodic damage to
vessels
Dredging delays
making Port less
compettive
Aesthetic impacts to
recreational boating
Economic Impact
Local
Regional
Regional
Regional
Regional
Regional
Regional/National?
Local/regional?
Ecological
Significance
Little
Little
Little
See Fisheries
Section
Little
Little
Moderate
Little
to
o
-------
TABLE 2. (cont.)
Commercial &
Recreational
Fisheries
Other Ecological
Impairments
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 &
Distribution:
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
Overfertilization;
changes in lower
web; impacts to
Bight
Economic Impact
Local?
Regional?
Regional?
Regional
Regional?
?
?
Ecological
£»ionifir'an
-------
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.
122
-------
TABLE 3. FISHERY RESTRICTIONS DUE TO TOXICS
1) Entire Estuary
except East River
Si Harlem River)
2) Hudson River
(3) Newark Bay
[ind. KVK, AK, &
'assaic River)
4) Tidal Passaic
liver
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
N/A
New Jersey
Consumption Prohibited
-
-
striped bass
blue crab
all fish, shellfish,
& crustaceans
N/A
New Jersey
Consumption Restricted
American eel
large bluefish
white perch
white catfish
striped bass
same as (1 )
same as (1)
N/A
N/A
New York
Ban on Sale
American eel
striped bass
white perch
carp
goldfish
brown bullhead
pumpkinseed
white catfish
black crappie
same as (1)
N/A
N/A
same as (1 )
New York
Consumption Prohibited
American eel
white perch
carp
goldfish
brown bullhead
largemouth bass
pumpkinseed
white catfish
striped bass
walleye
same as (1)
N/A
N/A
American eel
New York
Consumption Restricted
black crappie
rainbow smelt
Atlantic needlefish
northen pike
tiger muskellunge
bluefish
blue crab
same as (1 )
N/A
N/A
_
to
w
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
124
-------
TABLE 4. SHELLFISHING RESTRICTIONS DUE TO PATHOGENS
New York
New Jersey
NJ
(Jl
Lower Bay &
Raritan Bay
Non-Certified
(but can get special
permit to harvest
transplants)
(1) Condemned areas
(2) Special area to
haravest transplants
Rest of Harbor
Non-certified
Condemned
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.
Navigation
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.
SUMMARY: THEN AND NOW
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
126
-------
Since 1900
Since 1970
Toxics
Worse
Better
Organic Enrichment
Different
Better
Habitat Loss
Much better
Marginally Better
Floatables
Much better
Better
Living Resources
Worse
Pathogens
Better
Better
TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF CONDITIONS IN THE ESTUARY IN 1900 AND 1980
TO 1990.
127
-------
major environmental legislation, primarily the Clean Water Act in 1972.
Toxics
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.
Floatables
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.
128
-------
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.
Pathogens
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.
REFERENCES
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.
129
-------
HydroQual, Inc. 1990. Personal communication with John St. John and Charles
Dujarden.
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.
130
-------
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.
192p.
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.
131
-------
USE IMPAIRMENTS AND ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS
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
INTRODUCTION
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.
133
-------
NEW
BIGHT LIMITS
Figure 1. New York Bight and approaches.
134
-------
Swanson
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
relevance.
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.
135
-------
OMO1
.0*30'
LONG ISLAND
INLET SITES
(DREDGED DISPOSAL)
SANDY HOOK-
ROCKAWAY POINT
TRANSECT
0'20'
N
•0*10'
DREDGED.
MATER!AL\
CELLAR X
DIRT
LIGHT
SEWAGE
/SLUDGE
(12 MILE SITE)'
LONG BRANCHj
• •<"
NEW JERSEY:)
<\
INLET SITE
\ \ ACID
\ WASTES
\\
V
'N.
BIGHT APEX LIMITS-
'- 15 ' 20
KILOMETERS
I
I
74.
73*50' W
73M01
73*30'
Figure 2. New York Bight apex and disposal sites,
136
-------
Swanson
TABLE 1. USE IMPAIRMENTS AND ADVERSE ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS
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
Features
Ecosystem Health and Productivity Impacts
Commercial and Recreational Fisheries
Disease
Distribution and Abundance
Fish Kills
Birds, Mammals, and Turtles
Habitat Loss
Human use Conflicts
Toxicants
Floatable Wastes
METHODS
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).
137
-------
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,
unpublished).
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
138
-------
Swanson
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.
139
-------
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
140
-------
Swanson
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
ignored.
141
-------
USE IMPAIRMENTS
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
contamination.
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.
142
-------
Swanson
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF 1985-1988 NEW JERSEY BEACH CLOSINGS DUE TO
PATHOGEN-INDICATED CONTAMINATION
Period Beaches Closed
New Jersey County Beaches
1985
1986
1987
1988
Atlantic County:
- Atlantic City Beach
9*
None
None
Burlington County
None
None
None
None
Cape May County:
No. Ui Idwood )
Wildwood )
Wi Idwood Crest )
Lower Township
Cape May City
Ocean City
6/85-8/85
location
unknown
7 days
Monmouth County:
Army Recreational Beach )
Sandy Hook )
Asbury Park )
Ocean Grove )
Bradley Beach
Avon
Belmar
Monmouth Beach
17
15
9
9
2
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
1
Island Beach State Park
None
None
None
Total No. Days
-75
-35
-15
58
*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.
143
-------
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.
144
-------
Swanson
TABLE 3. USE IMPAIRMENTS - BEACH CLOSURES
Ecological
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.
145
-------
75
74
73
72
f!
1
1987
Dud
00 10 20 30 <
9
' I ' 'V I
0 10 20 30
Beach Closu
To Floatablds
TT
es
50 60 70 80 90
y> , q,n , 1,10, u?n^_L
50 60 70 80
1§0 STATUTE MILES
to
KILOMETERS
4f
3£(
90 tOO
NAUTICAL MILES
75*
74'
73'
72'
li
Figure 3. 1987 beach closures due to floatables.
146
-------
Oak
Atlantic Jcoes Baach
Coney Beach Beach
Is.
^ 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.
147
-------
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
148
-------
Swanson
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
debris.
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
small.
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
149
-------
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
150
-------
Swanson
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.
TABLE 4. USE IMPAIRMENTS - BEACH CLOSURES
Ecological
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
151
-------
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
boats.
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
152
-------
Figure 5. Shellfish closure areas of the New York Bight region in 1986
153
-------
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).
TABLE 5. USE IMPAIRMENTS - COMMERCIAL/RECREATIONAL NAVIGATION
Ecological
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
154
-------
Swanson
ECOSYSTEM HEALTH AND PRODUCTIVITY
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
TABLE 6. ECOSYSTEM HEALTH AND PRODUCTIVITY IMPACTS
COMERCIAL/RECREATIONAL FISHERIES
Use Impairments
Disease
Factors Causing
Impairment
Toxicants
Ecological
Significance
of Impairment
unknown
Spatial and Tempora
Extent of Impairment
Bight apex (pre-
valence of finrot
decreased from 13%
to 1% in winter
flounder from
1974-83.
Economic Impact
nms
° Abundance and
distribution
° Episodic
kills
toxicants, over- moderate
harvest, habitat
loss
nutrients, reduced unknown
circulation
small in extent,
but occurring
almost annually
from 1974-88.
8,600 km in 1976
nml
nml
155
-------
50
40 -
o
rj
-g
'>
TJ
C
30 H
20 H
10 -I
0
Male
Female
2 3
(77) (81)
Severity Rating
4
(16)
5
(11)
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
species.
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.
157
-------
240-
220-
200 A
180^
0
To!al landings minus menhaden
Major anadromous, esfuarine, and
marine species
Major anadromous and
esfuarine species
Major marine species
1880 1900
1920 1940
YEAR
1960 1980
Figure 7- Commercial fish landings in the New York Bight
between 1880-1987
158
-------
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
known.
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
processes.
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.
159
-------
Swanson
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
160
-------
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.
TABLE 7. ECOSYSTEM HEALTH AND PRODUCTIVITY IMPACTS
COWERCIAL/RECREATIONAL FISHERIES
Ecosystem
Impact
Distribution
Factors Causing
I mpa i rment
and human use
conflicts, habitat
loss
Ecological
Significance Spatial and
of Impairment Temporal Extent ECONOMIC IMPACT
endangered
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.
161
-------
Swanson
CONCLUSIONS
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
162
-------
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.
TABLE 8. SUMMARY OF THE ANNUAL ECONOMIC LOSSES FROM IMPAIRMENTS OF
NEW YORK BIGHT (* IN MILLIONS OF 1987 DOLLARS)
Direct
Expenditures*
Total
Expenditures*
Jobs
(000)
Net
Economic
Benefits*
Beach Impairments
•algae
-ftoatables
-pathogens
Pathogens in
shellfish
nms
$539 to $2165
$236
$ 36
runs
$1078 to $5413
$472 to $590
$73 to $109
nms
18.1 to 73
7.9
nml
nms
$447 to $1515
$277
nml
Toxicants
-commercial fish
-recreational
fishing
Ecosystem Impacts
Fish Kills
•rec fish
-conrn fish
Diseases
-rec fish
-comm fish
Abundance &
Distribution
-rec fish
-comm fish
Damage to birds
•maimials
-turtles
Aquaculture
Navigational hazards
•Aesthetics
(recreational boating)
$ 30
$500
$90
$1250
nml
20
$ 90
$250
nms
nml
nms
rms
nmi
nml
nms
nms
nms
nms
nml
nml
nms
nml
nms
nms
nml
nml
nms
nms
nms
rms
nml
nml
nms
nml
nms
nms
nml
nml
nms
nms
nms
nms
nmt
nml
nms
nml
nms
nms
nml
nml
nml
nml
nml
nms
mil
$25 to $250
nms * not measures, but likely to be small relative to the errors in measurement of those values that are
estimated.
nml * not measured, but likely to be large relative to the errors in measurement of those values that are
estimated.
163
-------
Swanson
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
identified.
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
164
-------
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
legislated.
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
165
-------
Swanson
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.
Endnotes
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).
LITERATURE CITED
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.
166
-------
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,
MD.
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,
MD.
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.
167
-------
Swanson
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.
168
-------
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
Jersey.
Sagoff, M. 1988. The economy of the earth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
University.
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.
169
-------
INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT OF CONDITIONS
IN THE SOUND-HARBOR-BIGHT SYSTEM
AND
SOME THOUGHTS ON HOW TO IMPROVE THE SITUATION
J.R. Schubel
Anne S. West
Waste Management Institute
Marine Sciences Research Center
The University at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, New York 11794-5000
INTRODUCTION
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.
171
-------
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.
172
-------
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
wastes.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Eutrophication
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
173
-------
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.
174
-------
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
Sound.
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.
175
-------
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.
176
-------
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
1989).
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
177
-------
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
closed.
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
178
-------
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
179
-------
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.
FORECAST FOR THE FUTURE
Eutrophication
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
180
-------
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
181
-------
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
experiment.
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.
SOME CLOSING OBSERVATIONS
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
182
-------
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;
183
-------
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.
REFERENCES
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
184
-------
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
461-488.
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-
185
-------
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
187
-------
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.
189
-------
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
"WE SIMPLY HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING WE DO BETTER". In 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
190
-------
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
expanded.
Taking on all sources of selected priority problems; Chesapeake
Bay
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
done.
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"
191
-------
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
uses.
192
-------
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.
193
-------
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS ON THE CONDITIONS OF OUR
COASTAL WATERS: STATUS, TRENDS, AND CAUSES
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.
TABLE 1. PRIMARY FACTORS CAUSING USE IMPAIRMENTS AND OTHER
ADVERSE ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS
SOUND HARBOR BIGHT SYSTEM
Nutrient/Organic
Enrichment
Pathogens
Floa tables
Toxics
Habitat
H
M
M/L
M
H
M
H
H
H
H
M
M
H
M
H
M
M
M
H
H
195
-------
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.
TABLE 2. PRIMARY FACTORS CAUSING USE IMPAIRMENTS AND OTHER
ADVERSE ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS (WITH VARIANCES HIGHLIGHTED)
SOUND HARBOR BIGHT SYSTEM
Nutrient/Organic
Enrichment
Pathogens
Floatables
Toxics
Habitat
H
M(H)
M/L
M
H
M
H
H
H
H
M
M(L)
H
M(H)
H
M
M(H)
M
H
H
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.
196
-------
TABLE 3. ADDITIONAL FACTORS CAUSING USE IMPAIRMENTS OR OTHER
ADVERSE ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS
Nutrients and Organics
~ gradients, circulation patterns
— intermediate concentrations
~ interaction with toxics
~ role of sediments
~ causes of low O2 event off New Jersey
Pathogens
~ relationship to indicators
~ methods for studying viruses
~ data on harbors as well as beaches
Toxics
~ role of sediments, especially shellfish
Habitat
~ relate loss to real use impairments
~ predict effect of land use on water quality
~ need for long-term data
Fisheries
~ overharvest
Intensity of Use
— numbers of people, boats, etc.
Oil Spills (also chronic)
Institutional/Cultural
— legal, planning, regulatory
~ lifestyle resource allocation
~ integration approach
Solid Waste (especially sludge and dredge spoils
Access
Growth and Development
Aesthetics
197
-------
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
effect.
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
198
-------
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.
199
-------
WORKSHOP SESSIONS ON THE PRIMARY FACTORS
CAUSING USE IMPAIRMENTS AND OTHER
ADVERSE ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS
NUTRIENT/ORGANIC ENRICHMENT
201
-------
NUTRIENT/ORGANIC INPUT AND FATE IN THE
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?
203
-------
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 LOADINGS
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
drains,
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
disposal.
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.
204
-------
LONG ISLAND SOUND
ZONE
NEW YORK-
NEW JERSEY
HARBOR
ZONE
SANDY HOOK -
ROCK AWAY POINT
TRANSECT
NEW YORK BIGHT ZONE
DEEP WATER
MUNICIPAL
SEWAGE SLUDGE
MitES
Figure 1. Location map.
205
-------
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
Rivers.
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
206
-------
PS+NPS
LOADS
OCEAN
DISPOSAL"
PS+NPS
LOADS TRIBS
PS+NPS
LOADS TRIBS
NY-NJ
HARBOR
EAST
RIVER
LONG ISLAND
SOUND
SANDYHOOK-
ROCKAWAY
TRANSECT
NEW YORK
BIGHT
COASTAL
TRANSPORT
FLOW
DISPERSION
.POLLUTANT
INPUTS (C,N, P)
WATER COLUMN
DECAY
TRANSFORMATION
SETTLING
FLUX
SEDIMENT
DECAY
TRANSFORMATION
BURIAL
LOSS—'
FLOW
DISPERSION
Figure 2. Pollutant sources, transport and fate.
207
-------
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
bight.
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.
208
-------
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
z
o
<
o
_J
o
H
u.
o
H
Z
UJ
o
o:
100
80
60
40
20
0
100
60
60
40
20
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
82
WWTP
STORM
I / r ,
22
i/ / / /i
PS
NY-NJ HARBOR
LOAD= 674 MT/D
15
LONG ISLAND SOUND
LOAD= 295 MT/D
40
37
NY BIGHT APEX
LOAD= 140 MT/D
44
48
NPS
TRIBS DUMP TRANS
Figure 3. BOD loadings to harbor, sound, and
bight apex.
209
-------
TOTAL NITROGEN
0
o
_J
_J
<
o
LU
O
-------
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
o
<
o
o
h-
u.
o
LJ
O
tr
UJ
Q.
100
80
60
40
20
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
100
80
60
40
20
66
STORM
29
NY-NJ HARBOR
LOAD= 33MT/D
33
LONG ISLAND SOUND
LOAD= 13 MT/D
42
26
NY BIGHT APEX
u LOAD= 99MT/D
84
12
<1
NY-NJ
7,
DRIFT
PS
NPS
TRIBS DUMP TRANS
Figure 5. Total phosphorus loadings to harbor, sound and
bight apex.
211
-------
St. John
POLLUTANT IMPACTS
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
212
-------
NY-NJ HARBOR
LONG ISLAND SOUND NEW YORK BIGHT
to
H
W
O
y_
Lul
Q
O
Ci
O
u.
O
LtJ
O
IT
LU
a.
100
80
60
40
20
0
EAST RIVER (1984)
00= 3.4mg/L
DEF= 4.3mg/L
BOD NUT
BC
WEST NARROWS (1988)
D0= 2.0mg/L
DEF= 5.5mg/L
BOD NUT
BC
APEX (1974)
D0~ 3.0 mg/L
DEF~5.3mg/L
BOD NUT
BC
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.
REQUIRED LEVELS OF LOAD REDUCTION
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.
214
-------
REQUIRED LEVEL OF LOAD REDUCTION
ABATEMENT OF HYPOXIA
ORGANIC
CARBON
NY-NJ HARBOR
* SECONDARY
TREATMENT
* STUDY CSOs
LI SOUND
NY BIGHT
* PROBABLY NONE * POSSIBLY SOME
99 99
NUTRIENTS * NONE FOR
HARBOR
* PROBABLY
SUBSTANTIAL
99
* POSSIBLY
SUBSTANTIAL
99
* SOME FOR * DEFINE HARBOR * DEFINE HARBOR
SOUND/BIGHT EXPORT EXPORT
99
* ASSESS FOR
JAMAICA BAY
* ASSESS
MANAGEABILITY
-------
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.
SYSTEM-WIDE ANALYSIS
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
216
-------
to
H
~J
H-
TO
l-t
TO
O
d.
(0
ere
i-i
H-
P-
en
i-h
o
i-i
cr
o
CO
o
p
3
a"
H-
cro
UpdoUd N«» York Horbof Model Grid
39
36
Nrwir.
75
US-H SKCMtNTATION
BtrUorc *
73
LongluiDe
71
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.
REFERENCES
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
progress.
218
-------
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.
219
-------
NUTRIENT/ORGANIC ENRICHMENT
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS AND ACCEPTABLE AMBIENT LEVELS
Joel S. O'Connor
Ocean Policy Coordinator
U.S. EPA, Region II
New York, New York
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
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.
221
-------
LIGHT
'EUPHOTIC
ZONE
DARK
&
COLD
•^OUTFLOW
^THERMOCLINE
<^OUTFLJOW ROOPLANKT
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.)
222
-------
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
(DO):
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
223
-------
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.
224
-------
NJ
M
Ul
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].)
-------
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PHYTOPLANKTON CONCENTRATIONS
AND PERCEIVED WATER QUALITY
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.
EXISTING STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
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.)
226
-------
\ SUFFOLK CO
o n g \ Island
SCALE 1:450.000
Figure 3. Marine water quality standards for dissolved
oxygen concentrations (mg DO/1).
227
-------
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
nonexistent.
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.
FORMULATING DO ENDPOINTS
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.
228
-------
Physics & C/O/N
Dynamics
Previous
DO Fields
Model Reduced-Loading Scenarios
Predicted DO Fields
from the Scenarios
Effects of Past
DO Fields
Estimate Effects
of DO at Particular
Concentrations
Choose DO
Endpoints
Management Options & Benefits
Benefits
Option
Do Nothing
Reduce N15%
Reduce N30%
Reduce N50%
Ecological Cultural
$ Benefits
$Cost
Unchanged
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
years.
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.
230
-------
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).
ESTIMATING BENEFITS OF CONTROL PROGRAMS
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).
231
-------
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.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
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.
LITERATURE CITED
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.
232
-------
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,
Corvallis.
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.
233
-------
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
235
-------
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
pollutants.
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
available.
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.
Methodology
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
Options
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.
237
-------
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
nitrogen.
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
removal.
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
238
-------
Freudberg and Lugbill
Nutrient Controls: A Technical Perspective
Figure 1
BNR Process Schematic
PHOSPHORUS RELEASE
SOLUBLE BOO UPTAKE
ORGANISM SELECTION
OENITRIFICATION
NITRIFICATION
BOO REMOVAL
PHOSPHORUS UPTAKE
O o
o
O
O o
"O
o o
o o
AEROBIC ZONE
NITRIFIED RECYCLE
EFF
RETURN ACTIVATED SLUDGE (RAS)
WASTE
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE (WAS)
239
-------
Freudber? and Lugbill
Nutrient Controls: A Technical Perspective
Table 1
Comparison of BNR Process Characteristics
Process
Bardenpho
A2/0
UCT
VIP
AO
Oxidation Ditch
Phostrip
Chemical Treatment
Nutrient Removal
Capability
Phosphorus Nitrogen
Least Best
Moderate Moderate
Good Moderate
Good Moderate
Moderate Least
NA Good
Best Least
Best Least
Operational
Flexibility
Least
Least
Moderate
Moderate
Least
Moderate
Good
Best
New Plant
Costs
High
Low
Moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Moderate
High
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 +
Filtradon
BNR (16-hr HRT) +
High pH Phosphorus
Precipitation
TP
(rng/1)
6
4
2
1.0
1.5
0.2
TN
(mg/1)
18
10
10
18
3.0
3.0
Avg. Cost
21 mgd plant
($ millions)
$55.76
$55.80
$59.67
$62.86
$73.56
$106.94
O&M Costs
($ millions)
$3.26
$3.51
$4.04
$4.12
$4.14
$7.61
Yearly Capital
Costs
($ millions)
$5.60
$5.60
$5.99
$6.31
$7.39
$10.73
Cost per Pound
TP TN
$/lb/year
NR
$71.20
$39.23
$38.87
$43.19
$49.43
$11.54
$7.12
$7.85
$13.63
$7.20
$10.62
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.
240
-------
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.
Ammonia
stripping
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
241
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
concentrations.
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
POTW
Arlington *
Alexandria *
Lower Potomac *
UOSA *
Mooney *
Quantico *
Aquia *
Fredricksburg *
FMC
Massaponax
Little Falls Run
York
Richmond *
Falling Creek
Proctors Creek
Henrico
Petersburg
Hopewell *
William sburg
Fort Eustis
James River
Boat Harbor
Nansemond
VIP
Army Base
Chesapeake
Total
Design
Flow
40.0
54.0
72.0
54.0
24.0
2.0
6.0
4.5
6.0
6.0
8.0
15.0
70.0
10.0
27.0
45.0
15.0
50.0
22.5
3.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
40.0
18.0
24.0
691.0
TP = 2 mg/1
Capital O&M
($ millions)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.05
0.24
0
0.49
0
0.08
1.35
2.71
1.78
0
0.22
0.06
0.41
0.52
6.31
0.77
0.36
0.44
16.78
1.88
4.33
4.53
8.83
1.18
0.16
1.33
0.08
0.22
0.22
0.25
1.11
0
0.37
0.67
0.50
0.54
0
1.52
0.13
1.40
1.51
1.50
0.17
0.72
1.45
34.60
Cost /lb /year
TN TP
-
-
-
-
4.45
3.30
-
6.34
-
3.06
2.47
1.42
3.98
-
5.63
3.69
5.92
5.12
5.83
1.94
3.45
5.12
-
TN=10 mg/1 & TP=2 mg/1 Cost/lb/year
Capital O&M TN
($ millions)
44.28
127.34
66.23
24.22
11.08
1.55
3.62
2.74
12.22
15.78
0.30
11.03
52.45
4.01
14.57
71.52
6.67
71.52
19.51
6.01
13.09
78.05
36.80
45.64
28.94
62.30
831.22
6.57
7.64
9.13
12.95
2.54
0.29
1.49
0.44
0.65
0.66
0.40
0.89
0.18
0.30
1.29
3.65
1.06
11.62
2.68
0.30
0.72
2.50
1.80
3.27
1.74
0.93
75.67
11.31
15.52
8.99
5.01
6.24
9.23
12.65
6.57
12.86
15.32
2.21
5.50
3.20
2.87
4.18
9.88
4.73
15.43
8.46
12.31
4.17
16.97
6.44
8.05
10.60
12.28
TP
.
-
-
.
-
-
-
13.13
25.72
30.64
4.41
11.00
-
5.75
8.36
19.75
9.47
-
16.93
24.62
8.33
33.95
12.89
16.11
21.20
24.55
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.
242
-------
Freudberg and Lugbill
Nutrient Controls: A Technical Perspective
Table 4
Estimated Nitrogen Removal
Cost-Effectiveness
Potomac Estuary WWTPs Methanol Addition to TN = 5 mg/1
Plant
Alexandria
Arlington
Dale City
Lower Potomac
Mooney
Quantico
Piscataway
Mattawoman
Blue Plains
Flow
49
32
6.5
50
12
1.5
34
10
370
Incremental
Capital Cost
Millions $
22.8
6.1
3.9
6.4
5.0
1.4
9.7
3.7
220.6
Incremental
Cos t-Ef f ecti veness
$/lb/yr
2.43
1.70
2.62
1.65
1.71
4.58
1.61
1.35
2.75
Source: Adapted from Greeley and Hansen, 1984. Escalated 1982 dollars to 1989 dollars using the Consumer Price
Index.
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
control.
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
243
-------
Freudberg and Lugbill_
Nutrient Controls: A Technical Perspective
Table 5
Comparative Pollutant Removal Of Urban BMP Designs
BMP/design
IXTENOfO OETZNTIO* PONO
DE8ION 1
OESiafi 2
DESIGN 3
WIT PONO
OE8ION 4
OES1OM 8
DESIGN «
INFILTRATION TRENCH
DESIGN 7
DESIGN (
DESIGN »
INFILTRATION BASIN
CES1GN 7
DESIGN *
DESIGN 9
POROUS PAVEMENT
DESIGN 7
DfSIGN t
DESIGN 8
WATER QUALITY INLET
DEMON 10
FILTER STRIP
OttWPVH
CttMNfft
QRA888D 8WAUI
OCM4N 1»
OEStON 14
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.
KIY:
O * TO 20% REMOVAL
(J 20 TO 40* REMOVAL
3 40 TO 60» REMOVAL
9 «0 TO §0% REMOVAL
• *0 TO 100* RiMOVAL
(£) INSUFFICIENT
KNOWLEDGE
Reproduced from
Schueler (1987).
Urb
aff: APracti.
iiuu .
al Manual Fnr Planning and Designing Tlrr^an BMEaby
244
-------
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
device.
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
Options
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
waste.
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
Virginia.
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.
245
-------
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
Single-Family
Residential
1 acre
10 acre
25 acre
Townhouse
Residential
1 acre
10 acre
25 acre
Commercial
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
-
-
-
546
637
660
2 79
62 22
89 107
Incremental Cost, $/lb/vr - Total Nitrogen removed
Single-Family
Residential
1 acre
10 acre
25 acre
Townhouse
Residential
1 acre
10 acre
25 acre
Commercial
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
-
-
-
79
92
96
63
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.
246
-------
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
is
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
BMP
Cropland
Strip Cropping
Terrace System
Diversion
Cover Crop
Critical Area
Planting
Sediment Basin
Sod Waterways
Pasture
Permanent Vegetation
Improvement
Grazing Land Protection
Pond
Permanent Vegetation
Cover
Stream Protection
Forest Tree Plantations
Animal Waste
Animal Waste System
Animal Waste Control
Life Span
of Practice
1
10
10
1
5
10
1
5
10
5
5
10
5
10
10
Removal
TN
60
60
30
30
60
45
30
60
60
60
30
15
60
80
80
Efficiency
TP
60
60
30
30
60
45
30
60
60
60
30
15
60
80
80
TN
TP
$/lb/yr
27
7
32
12
53
39
1329
5
14
7
17
293
20
0.75
1.75
165
43
198
73
325
237
8174
32
89
46
109
1883
129
8
20
Number
Installed
78
3
18
218
26
20
158
705
185
16
94
7
48
36
44
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.
247
-------
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
248
-------
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
(1)
(2)
(3)
Permanent vegetative
cover 2/
Contour tillage and
shorter slope length
Winter cover crop/residue
management 3/
Cost of
soil saved
toer toni
14.35
2.07
6.49
Cost of
N saved
(per pound)
Dollars
3.21
.45
.90
Cost of
P saved
(per pound)
5.09
.22
2.48
(4)
Reduced tillage and
residue management/
winter cover 4/
No-till and residue
roanagement/winter
cover 4/
Sod waterway
Terrace system
Diversion system with
20-foot sod filter
strip
Reduced tillage and sod
waterways
(10) Reduced tillage along the
field contour, winter
cover crop, sod waterways,
terraces
(11) No-till planting along the
field contour with
residue management/winter
cover
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
1.82
1.26
1.21
8.60
2.69
2.05
9.55
2.16
.31
.22
.29
2.07
.62
.39
2.13
.37
.59
.54
.54
3.68
1.00
.77
3.86
.86
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).
249
-------
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)
Maryland
District of Columbia
Virginia
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
runoff.
Preventive Measures For
Agriculture
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
250
-------
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
system.
Conclusions
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.
251
-------
FreudberxandLugbill Nutrient Controls: A Technical Perspective^
References
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,
Virginia.
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.
252
-------
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
COASTAL CONFERENCE
CONTROLLING NUTRIENT/ORGANIC INPUTS
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
253
165 Capitol Avenue • Hartford, Connecticut 06106
-------
I. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
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
years.
255
-------
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
Connecticut.
Table I
Advanced Treatment Requirements in Connecticut
Municipality
Winsted
Plymouth
Plainville
Farmington
Danbury
Vernon
Manchester
Southington
Meriden
Cheshire
Wallingford
North Haven
Torrington
Thomaston
Watertown
Waterbury
Ledyard
Ridgefield,Main
Ridgefield Rt. 7
River
Still
Pequabuck
Pequabuck
Farmington
Still
Hockanum
Hockanum
Quinnipiac
Quinnipiac
Quinnipiac
Quinnipiac
Quinnipiac
Naugatuck
Naugatuck
Steel Bk.
Naugatuck
Williams Bk.
Norwalk
Norwalk
BOD/SS
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Ammonia
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Dechlorination
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
256
-------
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
significant.
257
-------
Table II
Nitrogen Loadings to Long Island Sound
Source
Waste Water Treatment Plants
Industry
Urban Runoff
Cropland Runoff
Forestland Runoff
Upstream Sources
Annual Loading Tons/yr.
18,875
1,054
3,665
1,857
50
24.698
Total 50,200 Tons/yr
III. NITROGEN, A POLLUTANT
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
scale.
IV. ASSIMILATIVE CAPACITY
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
258
-------
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.
II. LONG ISLAND SOUND - THE HYPOXIA PROBLEM
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.
259
-------
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.
V. WASTE LOAD ALLOCATIONS/PERMIT LIMITS
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.
VI. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY
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
260
-------
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
received.
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
estimates.
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
261
-------
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.
VII. YEAR 2000 A REASONABLE TARGET?
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
262
-------
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.
VIII. CONCLUSION
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.
263
-------
WORKSHOP SESSIONS ON THE PRIMARY FACTORS
CAUSING USE IMPAIRMENTS AND OTHER
ADVERSE ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS
PATHOGENS/FLOATABLES
265
-------
PATHOGENS AND FLOATABLES IN THE
SOUND-HARBOR-BIGHT SYSTEM:
SOURCE, FATE, AND CONTROL
Guy Apicella
Director of Modeling
Michael J. Skelly
Partner
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.
PRIMARY SOURCES OF PATHOGENS AND FLOATABLES
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
only).
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
267
-------
PRIMARY TREATMENT TO BE PHASED OUT BY REGIONALIZATION
\
PRIMARY TREATMENT BEING UPGRADED TO SECONDARY TREATMENT
SECONDARY TREATMENT [UNDER DESIGN) \
SECONDARY TREATMENT (UNDER CONSTRUCTION I
C 0 N N E C T
(T) SECONDARY TREATMENT BEING PHASED 0
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
IN THE
INTERSTATE SANITATION DISTRICT
268
-------
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.)
269
-------
SHORELINE SEGMENTS
HAVING CSO OUTFALLS
270
INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION
-------
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).
271
-------
in
O
E
sfi
0)
.O
0
(^
O
O
tfi
u
c
O
«fe-
c
O
c
O
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
FIGURES
10
NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
1
NOV DEC
^-1988-*
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
* — 1989 — »
NYCDEP 26lhWard Regulators 2 and 2A CSO Floatables
272
HydroQuai, Inc.
-------
FIGURE 4
Wood (0.4%
GI03S
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
273
HydroQual, Inc.
-------
TABLE 1
TABLE 1. COMPARISON OF NEW YORK CITY WPCPs AND CSO FECAL COLIFORM LOADS
Plant
Wards Island
North River
Hunts Point
26th Ward
Coney Island
Owls Head
Newtown Creek
Red Hook
Jamaica
Tallman Island
Bowery Bay
Rockaway
Oakwood Beach
Port Richmond
Total
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
315
177
156
63
101
110
344
45
101
65
157
27
36
43
17
43
12
8
13
24
41
14
11
12
12
7
29
6
2.01E+11
2.90E+11
7.02E-t-10
1.98E+10
4.75E+10
9.93E+10
5.36E+11
2.35E+10
4.19E+10
2.83E+10
7.25E+10
7.30E+09
3.87E+10
9.75E+09
1.49E+12
40.2
17.3
70.7
14.7
31.8
54.2
78.3
16.0
74.9
39.5
60.9
18.2
0.0
39.3
2.0
2.5
1.4
7.8
6.5
2.5
1.4
2.5
3.9
2.0
3.2
2.5
6.7
3.04E+15
1.63E+15
3.74E+15
4.33E+15
7.81E+15
5.12E+15
4.14E+15
1.51E+15
1. 10E+16
2.99E+15
7.37E+15
1.72E+15
9.95E+15
6.44E+16
Source: NYCDEP Discharge Monitoring Reports.
2
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.
FATE OF PATHOGENS AND FLOATABLES
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
sunlight.
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-
275
-------
FIGURES
Hunts Point Service Area Combined Sewer Overflows
Total Yearly Coliforrn Load, 1957-1985
c
o
D
CD
o
o
o
13
CT
C
0>
O
L-
o>
CL
99.999
99.99
99.9
99
90
70
50
30
10 -
0.1 -
0.01 -
0.001
D
234567
Total Coliform Load (counts x 10
8
15
Note: WPCP Average Yearly Total Coliform Load = 1.9x10 counts
276
-------
FIGURES
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
WPCP
GO
c
3
O
o
"D
0
O
_J
E
i_
o
^—
o
o
_D
"o
1e+017
le+016
1e+015
1e+014
le+013
1e+012
II
I
•yrV
•vVvyv*'
r-»»
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
2.50
0.98
360
Average Daily Load
277
-------
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
manner.
EXTENT OF CONTROL
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
278
-------
z
o
a
ui
t
3
u
I
o
70
FIGURE 7
1989 Floatables Action Plan
AMOUNT OF FLOATABLES COLLECTED
50 -
40 -
30 -
2Q -
10 -
o iimhiitiiHiiiiiHiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiifilinimiiiiiin
^
£ *
-JV
imlmiliiinlmjinmmiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiimiiiiiiiim
O - Full Moon
• - New Moon
Date
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
FIGURES
to
CD
O
CONNECTICUT
MANHATTAN
NEW YORK
UPPER HARBOR
NEWARK BAY
RARITAN RIVER
HUDSON
RARITAN
ESTUARY
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
WIND-DRIVEN CURRENTS IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT, SOUTHWESTERLY WINDS.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
-------
tv)
CO
NEW YORK
CONNECTICUT
MANHATTAN
UPPER HARBOR
NEWARK BAY
ARTHUR
KILL
RARITAN RIVER
X JAMAICA BAY
, LOWER HARBOR
HUDSON
RARITAN
ESTUARY
' / ' • I ' \ ^ \ »
!!//,''&
BARNEQET BAY
BARNEGET INLET
NEW JERSEY
HERFORD INLET
Arrow direction denote* current direction. Current
velocity )• proportional to the length of the arrow.
39"
72-
WIND-DRIVEN CURRENTS IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT, NORTHEASTERLY WINDS.
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
waters
• 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
282
-------
ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES TO ADDRESSING EXTENT OF CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY BASED
(Floa tables)
Collect Sewer System Data
CSO Field Sampling
Modeling CSO Discharges
oo
w
Select
Design/Target
Rain Conditions
Develop and Evaluate Alternatives
Environmental
Assessment
WATER QUALITY BASED
(Pathogen Indicators)
Collect Water Quality Data
V
Receiving Water Sampling
Modeling Receiving Water Quality
Compare Projected Water
Quality to Standards
Plan
Selection
Facility
Design
-------
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.
REFERENCES
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.
284
-------
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
report.
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.
285
-------
CITY OF NEW YORK CSO ABATEMENT PROGRAM
CLEANING UP OUR COASTAL WATERS:
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
287
-------
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.
288
-------
Gaffoglio
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
required.
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
289
-------
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
1995.
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.
290
-------
Gaffoglio
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
291
-------
capital cost of our Flushing Bay facilities, retention and floatables, is approximately $300
million.
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.
292
-------
CLEANING UP OUR COASTAL WATERS:
AN UNFINISHED AGENDA
ADDRESSING THE PATHOGENS AND FLOATABLES PROBLEMS:
A REGULATORY PERSPECTIVE
Richard L. Caspe, P.E.
Director
Water Management Division
Region II
U.S.E.P^.
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
293
-------
"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. ...no 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
years.
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
hysteria.
294
-------
Caspe
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.
295
-------
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
accordingly.
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.).
296
-------
Caspe
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
mechanisms.
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
1990.
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
297
-------
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
Region).
298
-------
THE POSITIVE IMPACT OF YEAR-ROUND DISINFECTION;
A REGIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Presented by
Howard Golub
Assistant Chief Engineer
Interstate Sanitation Commission
311 West 43rd Street
New York, New York 10036
at the conference
CLEANING UP OUR COASTAL WATERS: AN UNFINISHED AGENDA
Manhattan College
Riverdale, New York
March 12 - 14, 1990
299
-------
THE POSITIVE IMPACT OF YEAR-ROUND DISINFECTION:
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
District.
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.
301
-------
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
302
-------
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.
303
-------
ADDRESSING THE PATHOGENS AND FLOATABLES PROBLEM:
AN AFFECTED COMMUNITY'S VIEWPOINT
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.
305
-------
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.
306
-------
Noto
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
307
-------
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
clean.
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
308
-------
Noto
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
309
-------
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.
310
-------
AND I'D
LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOU TO
WSPCCTOR
Ill
^^= H
I I1'
© 1966 ARCHIE COMJC PUS. IMC
HE'S AN ENVIRONMENTAL ANQ SANITARY EXPERT
AND IS HERETO HELP US SOLVE SOME OF OUR
PROBLEMS. HE'LL BE IN TOUCH WITH YOU SOON.
-------
/MSP6CTOQ SAMMY TERRY (JN
"THE RIGHT COMNECT/OMS " *
SOY'THIS IS SOME
, I'M SORRY/ I DIDN'T SEE
VOU/ l'A/» UPSET BECAUSE
CAN A DP TO THE POiLUT/OM Of
HARBOR AND
LONG
WHAT KIND OFIO6IC IS\
THAT; //VS^^fTT^/S Sx^/W/M
rZRRy ? 1 THOUGHT RAIN/
WASHES AWAY POLLUTION
P MAKES EVERV-
THIMG CLEAN /
NOT ALWAYS/ MAMAROMECK ISA
HAVIN& A PROBLEM WITH ITS )
OVERLOADED
SYSTEM
f VES/ AMD THE
( &&YSCC
HELPING
WSPZCTOR
CONTRIBUTING TO
OVERLOADIM&
/ SEE THAT f$OOf= L£AP£G ? IF IT IS
f CONNECTED0/&£CTLy INTO THE VILLAGE
V SEWER LIME; THE GAWWAT£G GOES TO
^ THE MAMARONECK TREATMENT PLANT
ALONG WITH THE SEWAGE
UNDERSTAND
INSPECTOR
OVERLOAD
SEWERAGE
312
-------
THIS OVERLOADS 7H£ SyST€M/ THE PLANT } GET THE V MMM... WHO
POESN'T WORK4S WELLES IT SHOULP/WP /PICTURE \ WOULP H/WE
— _ ^ / N|QW( [THOUGHT '
?^K/ THIS ENC?S UP IT
RONJECK H/\R8OR /\NP
LONG ISMNP SOUNP
CREATE SUCH
PROBLEM/
fiSEE ' I'M 3LAC? YOU'RE HERE, INSPECTOR'
I'M SURE MOST OF THE PEOPLE0GE/W '
AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM/ THIS
> COULD BE ONE OF THE .
7 THEY'VE H^PTO CLOS£ OUR
OVER THE VE4RS /
/T'S
IN THE SUMMER
F THE BEACHES
REDUCE THIS PROBLEM
313
-------
£V£BV0A/£ HAS TO C//£rCX"THElR
GOOF L£AG£RS , SUMP PUMPS t
OPEN TRAPS, ~
ROWWG
SEE//=• THEY ARE
VILLAGE'S
I'D SET MOST
PEOPLE ^£M/'T-
THEY
COA/MGCTtOMS, A
OA/£ MUST 3£ MA0£.' IF
THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS,
THEY SHOUIDC#£CK WITH THE
HAVE THESE
CONNECTIONS
YOU'RE RIGHT/
MAMAROKJECK
CITIZENS MUST
v PULL TOGETHER
> TO FIND AND
STOPTH£S£
CONUGCTfONS /
YOU MEAN
IT'S
AGAINST
THE LAW
O HAVE
THESE
CONNEC-
TIONS?
THAT'S
RIGHT
ARCHIE
8V WORKIMG ) / YES/ WITH THE PLANT OPERATING
TOGETHER WE tLEFFICIENTLY, WE CAM LICK TH/S PROBLEM
CAN REDUCE THE \OFPOUUT'OV IN ~[\\tHAKBOR AND
OVERLOADING OF ] LONG ISLAND SOUND FOR PG£S£MT
OUR TREATMENT/ £ND FUTURE G£M£GAT/OMS OF
PLANT
AND THAT
MEANS
YOU/
ART : JOE COWARDS, LES ZAKARIM, RUOV LAPICK- L£TTeRI^4G . B. VOSH(C?A-CO(jO«N6: .
EDITOR: VICTO* SOREL'CK-OWlRMAkf PUBUSHER:MlaWEH.SlL8EWOBT-PRESt£?EWT/Pueu.iSHeR: RICHARD H.6(XOW4TER
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
togotter
314
-------
WORKSHOP SESSIONS ON THE PRIMARY FACTORS
CAUSING USE IMPAIRMENTS AND OTHER
ADVERSE ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS
TOXICS
315
-------
TOXIC INPUTS AND FATE IN THE NEW YORK NEW JERSEY HARBOR, BIGHT, AND LONG
ISLAND SOUND
by James A. Mueller*--'-)
INTRODUCTION
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.
SOURCES
In the most recent study conducted on the New York Harbor and Bight,
HydroQual, 1989, the following eight sources of pollutant inputs are consid-
ered.
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.
317
-------
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.
LOCATION
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
transect.
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.
NEW YORK NEW JERSEY HARBOR (TRANSECT ZONE)
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.
NEW YORK BIGHT
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.
LONG ISLAND SOUND
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
Sound.
MAGNITUDE AND TRENDS OF MASS LOADS
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.
318
-------
NEW YORK NEW JERSEY HARBOR (TRANSECT ZONE)
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
plants.
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
impacts.
NEW YORK BIGHT
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,
319
-------
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.
LONG ISLAND SOUND
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
Harbor.
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
320
-------
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
restricted.
FATE OF PCB IN THE LOWER HUDSON ESTUARY
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.
321
-------
CONCLUSIONS
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-
oped.
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
impairments.
322
-------
REFERENCES
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
MESA-6.
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.
323
-------
SAND* MOOK-
ROCKAWAY POINT
» TRANSECT
DIRECT UGHT DISCHARGE ZONE
DEEP WATER
MUNICIPAL
SEWAGE SLUDGE
25M8LES
FIGURE 1 . GEOGRAPHICAL ZONES IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT
324
-------
5000 r
4000 •
B 3000 '
G
Y
2000 '
1000 ' '
no upstream riverine inputs
estimated (or
subareas 1 through 6
1 ) Upstream riverine source
-t-
1 h
5 6
Subareas
Strcamflow
34 BGY
10
FIGURE 2, Long Island Sound Geographical Area Showing Annual Stream-
flow, circa 1982.
325
-------
14-«
i { Queens
QUEENS CO
MZ2
Brooklyn
KINGS CO.
FIGURE 3 . TRANSECT ZONE WASTEWATER- DISCHARGE LOCATIONS
326
-------
FIGURE
4 . LONG ISLAND AND NEW JERSEY COASTAL ZONE WASTEWATER DISCHARGE LOCATIONS
327
-------
MUO DUMP DREDGE
12 MILE SEWAGE SLUDGE (ABANDONED)
IOC MILE OCCPWATER
MUNICIPAL SEWAGE
SLUDGE
1OS MILE OEEPWATCH
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
NOTE'
DOES NOT INCLUDE WOOD BURN SITES
FIGURE 5 ^ NEW YORK BIGHT DISPOSAL SITES
328
-------
180-
160 '
KO '
120-
B 100 .
G
Y 80
60
40.
20
0
Major Facilities
• average daily flow >1 MGD
0 average daily flow >10 MGD
45 6 7
Subareas
Wastewater Flow
8
10
FIGURE 6. Annual Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant Discharges by
Subarea, circa 1982-84.
329
-------
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.
330
-------
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
STORMWATER
(7.6%)
TRIBUTARIES
(86.0%)
WASTEWATER
(6.4%)
4600 m ton/d
TOTAL METALS
ATMOSPHERE
(°-2%)
WASTEWATER
(32.0%)
13 m ton/d
TRIBUTARIE
(37.0%)
TOTAL PCB
LANDFILL (3.1%)
ATMOSPHERE (11.
.5%)
STORMWATER
(9.9%)
TRIBUTARIES
(54.7%)
WASTEWATER
(20.8%)
W kg/d
FIGURE 8. TOXIC INPUTS TO HARBOR
331
-------
1000
c
o
500 -
Q_
Z
(f)
<
0/15
c
o
H-
CL
10-
5H
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
(TSS)
0
1950
Estimated at
1.5% of TSS
TOTAL METALS
Cr,Cu,Pb,Ni,Zn
1960
1970
1980
YEAR
1990
2000
FIGURE 9. HISTORICAL WASTEWATER INPUTS TO HARBOR
332
-------
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
SLUDGE /
ATMOSPHERE (2.4%) ^
11,000 m ton/d
TRANSECT
(21.0%)
COASTAL
(0.7%)
DREDGE
(71.9%)
TOTAL METALS
Cr,Cu,Pb,Ni,Zn
SLUDGE ^^^[7>\ TRANSECT
(19-2%) ^^•X/X (34.2%>
19 mton/d
ATMOSPHERE
(31.3%)
COASTAL
(1.9%)
DREDGE
(13.4%)
TOTAL PCB
SLUDGE (1.33)
31 kg/d
ATMOSPHERE
(58.7%)
TRANSECT
13.0%)
COASTAL (0.6%)
DREDGE
(26.4%)
FIGURE 10. TOXIC INPUTS TO NEW YORK BIGHT
333
-------
(A) APEX MASS INPUT BUDGET
HQf INCLUDING COASTAL TRANSPORT.
TOTAL MASS INPUT*
14 kg/d
(B) MASS INPUT DISTRIBUTIONS-kg/d
NY-NJ HARBOR
TRANSECT ZONE
MASS INPUT* 4
ATMOSPHERE
LEACHATC
WASTEWATEH
20%
DIRECT
BIGHT ZONE
MASS INPUT: 10
NEW JERSEY
COASTAL ZONE
MASS INPUT* LIMITED
DATA
LONG ISLAND
COASTAL ZONE
MASS INPUT* LIMITED
DATA
COASTAUTRANSPORT: NO DATA
NOTES Results are estimates only. Use with caution. Refer to text,
FIGURE 11 . TOTAL PCB INPUTS TO NEW YORK BIGHT APEX
334
-------
(A) DREDGED MATERIAL
(B) ACID WASTES
C1
ti
o
Q.
•>
E
3
o
c
o
E
UJ
20.0
I8.O
16.0
14.0
12.0
10.0
e.o
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
I 111 I
1965 1970 1975 198O 1985 1990
CALENDAR YEAR
(C) CHEMICAL WASTES
0.9
-O.8
0.7
.0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
0.0
I I I I I \ I I I I ! I ! I I I I
o
o>
t)
E
S
u
c'
o
ui
2
1965 1970 1975 1960 1985 1990
CALENDAR YEAR
4.O
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
CALENDAR YEAR
(D) SEWAGE SLUDGE
10.0
9.0
e.o
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.O
2.0
1.0
0.0
itti\tttt\itii\itti\itii
1965 197O 1975 1980 1985 199O
CALENDAR YEAR
FIGURE 12. BARGE DUMPING TO NEW YORK BIGHT (1967"TO 1987)
335
-------
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
WASTEWATER (3.
STORMWATER
(79.1%)
TRIBUTARIES
(17.2%)
2200 m ton/d
TOTAL METALS
ATMOSPHERE
(25.4%)
STORMWATER
(14.6%)
Cr,Cu,Pb,Ni,Zn
WASTEWATER
(14.4%)
5.7 mton/d
TRIBUTARIES
(45.6%)
TOTAL PCB
ATMOSPHERE
(17.9%)
STORMWATER
(9.4%)
WASTEWATER
(17.2%)
4,5 kg/d
TRIBUTARIES
(55.6%)
FIGURE 13. TOXIC INPUTS TO LONG ISLAND SOUND
336
-------
Sediment Samples—Long Island Sound
Ratio to Throgs Neck
1.5
0.5
Mussel Samples—Long Island Sound
Ratio to Throgs Neck
1.5
M*fcury
pffiiiiii|iim
L.»d
0.5
4 S',6 8
Locations
Sediment S^mpl^s—Hudson Piver to
Ihrogs Neck
m w m
Ratio to Throgs Neck
1.5
0.3
4 6
Locations
10 11 12 13 14 1
. Location*
74-00'
'73-001
72W
NEW JERSEY
NEW *• CONN
YORK \
Atlantic Ocean
41-30'
41*00'
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
1.5t-
0.5
pea
DOT
EZS53
ChJoniarw
PAM
Mussel Samples-Long Island Sound Sediment Samples-Hudson River to
Throgs Neck
Ratio to Throgs Neck
2
1.3
0.5
I
i
1 35 7 9
2 • 4 6 8
Locations
1 3 57 9
2468
Locations
L
- M
- R
allot
1
*i
'£
•1
O 1
I
'I
:•<
•n
iro<
;
I
^
"
J3 IN
ecu
jj
V
Jl'
V
-i
•
c
t
i
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.)
337
-------
Figure 15° Limits of study area
338
-------
LO
u>
D
<
2
CO
o
D.
Upstream Loading
Waterford, NY:
From sediment data
From water column
data
Downstream Loading
i i i i I I I I I I I I I I I I I
O
c.
o
D
10
46
YEAR
FIGURE 16. PCB Loading Rate to Lower Hudson from 1946 to 1987.
-------
FIGURE 17. Annual Change In Sediment PCB Mass
co
>£.
o
-w
m
m
to
m
o
Q,
S3
r=H,
fB)
3!
c
6
5
4
3
2
1
,3 .
-5-
-6
NET INPUT INTO SEDIMENT
FROM WATER COLUMN
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
Year
-------
CD
O
Q.
O
00
o
O.
2
o
FIGURE 18. CUMULATIVE PCBLOADING TO NY BJGHT
FROM HUDSON ESTUARY
TOTAL MASS THROUGH 1987 - 46 METRIC TONS
16
15 -
14 -
13 -
12 -
11 -
10 -
9 -
8 -
7 -
6 -
5 -
4 -
3
2 -
1 -
7/7 /1
m
H3
H4
HOMOLOG
HS
H6
H7
FIGURE 19 o CUMULATIVE PCB LOADING TO LONG ISLAND SOUND
FROM HUDSON ESTUARY
TOTAL MASS THROUGH 1987 - 6 METRIC TONS
HOMOLOG
341
-------
FIGURE 20. PCB FLUX TO NY BIGHT FROM HUDSON ESTUARY
1.4
TETRACHLOROBIPHENYL
1946
1993
0.3 -
0.2 -
CO
O
TETRACHLORO
HEXACHLORO
1960
1
1965
DICHLORO
87
YEAH
342
-------
FIGURE 21. Total PCS Inputs and Fate
CUMULATIVE INPUT THROUGH 1987
TOTAL PCB = SUM OF HOMOLOGS
269.9 mt
PStflAH I11.7X)
ATMOS II. 9X)
RUNOFF (20.5X)
INPUT
UPSTR {55.9X5
CUMULATIVE STORAGE AND LOSSES
TOTAL PCB = SUM OF HOMIOLOGS
269.9 at
STORAGE (5.7X) DECAY (O.OX)
BNORY TRNSP (19.3X)
DREDGING O.OX!
FATE
VOLATILIZ (6B.OXJ
343
-------
FIGURE 22. Dichlorobiphenyl inputs and fate
FATE
DTCHLQ3Q1IPHENYL
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)
-------
12.34
FIGURE 23. Hexachlorobiphenyl Inputs and Fate
INPUT FATE
HEXACHLOROBIPHENYL
ATMOS (3.2X)
PS+RAW (25.9X)
CO
J^
(Jl
UPSTH (16.5X)
STORAGE (7.9X) DECAY '°-05!l
BDRY TW.SP (31. OX)
VOLATILIZ U4.9X)
RUNOFF (54.4X)
DREDGING (16.IX)
-------
1967 rasa
tags
2000
YEAR
2010
Figure 24 .Simulated response of striped bass PCS concentration in
Region #2 under the "No Action" alternative.
346
-------
FIGURE 25.
Estimated number of years to reach target percentiles
in the striped bass of Rtgipn #2 under two alternatives
o
CD
s
Q.
CO
o
cr
in
oc
<
UJ
26
24 -
22-
20 -
18 -
16-
14 -
12 -
10-
a -
6 -
4 -
2-
0
2010
2005
2000
1995
1990
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
-------
TABLE 1. TOTAL TOXIC INPUTS TO TRANSECT ZONEa
Parameter
Flow (mgd)
Conventional
TSS (m tons/d)
Toxic Pollutants
Metals
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Organic Toxics
PCB Total
PAH Total
Inorganic Toxics
Cyanide
Wastewater0
2572
294
(kg/d)
47
9
25
315
1637
328
15
381
1515
2
17
368
Runoff0
19392
4280
(kg/d)
53-113
1000
1620
1630
7-37
730
3529
6-7
154
Atmospheric
Deposition0
(kg/d)
1.6
2
10
100
20
200
1.1
5-50
Landfill
Leachate0
(kg/d)
1.5
0.1
1
4
6
7
0.2
5
0.3
0-0.6
2
Totals
22000
4570
(kg/d)
>50
>9
80-140
1330
3260
2070
20-50
1140
5240
9-11
180-220
>370
aAverage daily values HydroQual, 1989
b(1987)
c(1979 through 1980), Mueller et al., 1982
348
-------
TABLE 2. HISTORICAL TRENDS IN THE TRANSECT ZONE MASS INPUTS
Raw (m/id)
Parameter 1970-74"
Flow 480
Conventional m
TSS 258
Toxic Pollutants
Metals
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
1979-80b
342
ton/d
1*1
kn/d
1*
6
1.7
54
203
28
1.6
58
468
1987
18
7.8
0.13
0.01
0.2
3.*
19
5
0.*
3
13
Primary (mud)
1970-74a 1979-80b
663 410
m ton/d
358 318
kn/d
15
7.3
34
651
454
820
49
470
2330
Secondary (mxd)
1987
436
_82
6.6
1.4
6
73
260
99
1
65
248
1970-74" J979-80b
1300 1870
m ton/d
209 241
k*/d
68
26
33
314
1100
241
4.5
404
2830
1987
2066
198
37
8
19
237
1348
221
8
306
1240
Industrial (nwd)
1970-74* 1979-80"
242 274
D ton/d
52 8
kK/d
0.46
-
1.2
1.7
5.5
1
0.02
2.3
19
1987
52
6.4
2.8
0
0.01
0.58
8.8
2.8
5.5
7
14.3
Total (m*d)
1970-74" 1979-Bot
2685 2896
m ton/d
870 680
k*/d
97
39
70
1000
1800
1100
55
930
5600
> 1987
2572
294^
47
9
25
314
1636
328
15
381
1515
•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
Parameter
Conventional
TSS ^rnfrWeO
Toxic Pollutants
Metals
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
o Lead
5 Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
Ofganjg Pollutants
PCB-Total
PAH-Total
Transect
Zone
18-4574
(kR/d)
>20
>4
32-56
531
1304-1631
826
9-21
454-795
2098-3671
4
70-88
New Jersey
Coastal
Zpne
11-93
(ke/d)
>1.15
>0.07
3
9
60-66
12
0.5
>10.3
135-213
>0. 05-0. 14
Long Island
Coastal
Zone
14-31
fke/d)
>0.8
>0.06
2.8
4.8
25-26
5.5
0.6
>5.9-6.9
40-51
>0. 03-0. 11
Direct
Bight
Zone
8114
(kzAnb
66
37
533
1808
2535
9
783
2628
18.6-33.9
435
Deep-
Wnter
Dump Sites
433
(kz/A)
5
0.3
24
362
1354
433
2
79
1327
0.4
Approximatea
Total
(* ..s/^
' 109^8
rke/dV
93
4
111
1440
4720
3812
27
1503
7059
31
514
Inorganic Pollutants
Cyanide
>148
172
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
caution
-------
I
TABLE 4. Comparison of 1973 and 1987 Sludge Loads
to the New York Bight
Vol , m-Vyr
Parameters
Conventional
TSS m ton/ day
Toxic Pollutants
Metals
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel!
Zinc
Organic Toxics
PAH's
Dieldrin
Chlordane
DDT & metab.
Endrin
Heptachlor
H. Epoxide
Lindane
PCB- total
1973
4,281,760
Total Load
450
kg/d
1500
0.3
44
730
700
720
13
120
1800
-
-
-
-
-
-
1987
7,578,162
Total Load
433
kg/d
4.7
0.3
24
341
1354
431
1.8
78
1323
5.1
0.05
1.47
0.20
0.008
0.008
0.023
0.008
0.37
HydroQual, 1989
351
-------
Table 5. Metal Inputs to New York Bight Proper and
Apex Compared to COASTAL TRANSPORT Inputs
Metal
U)
Ul
Montauk
Bight Inputs Apex Inputs
as % of Apex Transport as % of
Transport Montauk From East Apex
(kg/d) Transport (kg/d) Transport
Cadmium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
1, 070
8, 130
1, 370
120
14, 200
9, 140
10
58
280
23
11
77
60
1, 210
190
1, 020
1, 800
100
180
800
800
81
220
-------
1
TABLE 6. TOTAL INPUTS TO LONG ISLAND SOUND ,
Parameter
Flow(MGD)
Conventional
TSS (m ton/d)
Toxic Pollutants
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
Organic Toxics
PCS - Total (3)
Wastewater (I)
1160
80
kg/d
9
39
73
284
63
5
404
0.77
Runoff
16,900
2,090
kg/d
76
72
450
595
550
15
1850
2.90
Atmospheric ( 2 )
Deposition
-
kg/d
7
10
47
130
340
940
0.80
Total
18,100
2,170
kg/d
92
120
570
1010
950
20
3190
4.5
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.
353
-------
TOXIC LEVELS IN WATER, SEDIMENT AND BIOTA,
AND THEIR EFFECTS IN
THE HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY, LONG ISLAND SOUND AND THE
NEW YORK BIGHT
Fredrika C. Moser
Division of Science and Research
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Trenton, New Jersey
355
-------
ABSTRACT
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
emphasized.
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
source.
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
biota.
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.
INTRODUCTION
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-
356
-------
Moser
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-
tions.
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.
DATA LIMITATIONS
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
357
-------
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
determined.
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.
STANDARDS AND CRITERIA
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
358
-------
Moser
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.
TABLE 1. AMBIENT WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR SALTWATER FROM
THE NYSDEC FINAL 1987 WATERBODY CLASSIFICATIONS (UNITS ARE IN
UG/L)
Substance SA, SAB, SC I SD
Cadmium +
Chromium
(total)
Chromium +
(hexavalent)
Copper +
Lead +
Mercury
Nickel +
Silver
Zinc +
Arsenic x
2.7
54
2.0
8.6
0.1*
7.1
58
63
2.7*
50*
2.9*
5.6*
0.1*
7.1*
58*
36*
2.7*
1200
3.2
200
0.1*
140
170
120
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)
359
-------
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).
360
-------
Moser
TABLE 2. FDA ACTION LEVELS CLASS A HUMAN HEALTH FOR CHEMICAL
CONTAMINANTS IN EDIBLE FISH3 (MODIFIED FROM CRISTINI, 1988)
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
361
-------
(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.
HUDSON-RARITAN ESTUARY
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
362
-------
Moser
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.
363
-------
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).
364
-------
Moser
LONG ISLAND SOUND
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
time.
- Lead only met the NYSDEC standard (8.6 ug/1) in about 50% of the
samples.
- 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
365
-------
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).
366
-------
Moser
FIGURE 1. HISTORICAL CONCENTRATIONS OF PCBs BY SPECIES (FROM LISS,
1986, AFTER NYSDEC)
3 00
E
a
a
CO
O 2 00
Q.
B
C
o
a
c
*
U
c
o
o
1.00
2 81
"5
UJ
American
5
o
c
A
U
i
<
0.17
n
«
JC
U
I
o
H
0 99
3 3'
c
•^
"
i
2
Allanllc
1 53
c
"»
5
o
c:
a
c
I . •
2 •* O
I ^
036 T3 o
cr
on 013
I 1 I 1
«
0 45
2.43
£
(0
I
55
FDA Action Leval i
! I ,
« 0 C
i i i
5 * "-
en 5
01 T3 2
0 £ c
0 36 - ^ ^
£
r^ rn rn
NEW YORK BIGHT
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
367
-------
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
368
-------
Moser
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
369
-------
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
370
-------
Moser
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.
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF TOXICS ON BIOTA
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
371
-------
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.
SUMMARY
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
problems.
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
372
-------
Moser
necessary for evaluating trends in contaminant loading and will be fundamental in guiding
current and future management programs for these coastal waters.
REFERENCES
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.
373
-------
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.
374
-------
Moser
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.
375
-------
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.
376
-------
Moser
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.
377
-------
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,
2:171-198.
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.
378
-------
Moser
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.
88-1.
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.
379
-------
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.
380
-------
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
facilities.
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
381
-------
PRIORITY
POLLUTANT SCAN
BIOASSAY
EQUALIZED
SAMPLE
METALS
REMOVAL
VOLATILES
REMOVAL
AMMONIA
REMOVAL
BIO-OXIDATION
NON-
DEGRADABLE
TOXIC
SOURCE
CONTROL
PHYSICAL-
CHEMICAL
TREATMENT
Figure 1. Protocol for source toxicity evaluation
382
-------
ECKENFELDER
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.
SOURCE TREATMENT
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.
TABLE 2. ORGANICS REMOVED BY HYDROGEN
PEROXIDE WITH UV CATALYST
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
2-Butanol
Chloroform
Methyl isobutyl ketone
4-Methyl-2-pentanol
Carbon tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethane
383
-------
TO DISCHARGE
RECYCLE
OR TREATMENT
FILTRATION
GRANULAR
CARBON
ADSORPTION
PRECIPITATION
ANAEROBIC
TREATMENT
OXIDATION
REDUCTION
WET AIR
OXIDATION
AIR OR STEAM
STRIPPING
PROCESS
WASTEWATER
HEAVY
METALS
CHEMICAL
OXIDATION
ORGANIC
CHEMICALS
VOLATILE
ORGANIC
AMMONIA
Figure 2. Source treatment technologies for toxicity reduction
384
-------
TABLE 1. HYDROGEN PEROXIDE OXIDATION OF ORGANICS
LO
03
tn
COD reduction
Compound
Phenol
Benzoic acid
Nitrobenzene
Aniline
o-Cresol
m-Cresol
p-Cresol
o-Chlorophenol
m-Chlorophenol
p-Chlorophenol
2,3-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,5-Dichlorophenol
2,6-Dichlorophenol
3,5-Dichlorophenol
2,3-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Percent
reduction
COD
76
76
72
77
75
73
72
75
75
76
70
69
74
61
69
80
73
47
TOC
44
48
38
43
56
38
40
48
41
22
53
50
42
33
49
51
51
44
LC50
Before
oxidation
6.1
24.0
6.0
35.7
2.5
1.3
0.4
5.1
1.8
0.3
1.0
0.6
1.9
5.7
0.5
6.3
2.0
2.8
(%) in 2 davs (10%)
After
oxidation
NT
NT
76.2
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
17.3
NT
85.6
NT
52.2
Before
oxidation
41
69
59
0
16
0
65
18
0
0
12
9
14
0
0
0
0
0
After
oxidation
47
32
31
40
51
51
47
37
40
39
31
32
38
9
9
19
49
39
Conditions-stochiometric dosage of H2O2, pH 3.5, 50 mg/1 Fe++
NT = Not Toxic
M
O
*
w
w
r
o
w
90
-------
TABLE 3. ORGANICS REMOVED BY OZONATION
Methyl ethyl ketone
Tetrahydrofuran
Methyl isobutyl ketone
2-Butanol
4-Meth y 1-2-pentanol
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Xylene
TABLE 4.
ORGANIC MINERALIZED UNDER
ANAEROBIC CONDITIONS
Acetylsalicylic acid
Acrylic acid
p- Anisic acid
Benzoic acid
Benzyl alcohol
2.3 Butanediol
Catechol
m-Cresol
p-Cresol
Di-n-butylphthalate
Dimethylphthalate
Ethyl acetate
2-Hexanone
o-Hydroxybenzoic acid
p-Hydroxybenzoic acid
3-Hydroxybutanone
3-Methylbutanol
1-Octanol
Phenol
Phloroglucinol
Phihalic acid
Polyethelene glycol
Pyrogallol
p-Aminobenzoic acid
Butylbenzylphthalate
4-Chloroacetanilide
m-Chlorobenzoic acid
Diethylphthalate
Geraniol
4-Hydroxyacetinilide
p-Hydroxybenzyl alcohol
2-Octanol
Propionanilide
Butylbenzylphthalate
m-Chlorobenzoic acid
o-Chlorophenol
m-Methoxyphenol
o-Nitrophenol
p-Nitrophenol
Source: Shelton and Tiedje (1984)
386
-------
ECKENFELDER
After screening those wastewaters which are toxic and non-biodegradable for
source treatment, those which are biodegradable are subjected to aerobic biological
treatment
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-
products.
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.
ECONOMICS OF TOXICITY REDUCTION
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.
TABLE 5. SOLUBLE MICROBIAL PRODUCTS
IN SECONDARY EFFLUENT FROM AN
ACTIVATED SLUDGE PLANTS)
Compound
SRT
(days)
Residual
COD of Compound
(mg/l)
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.
387
-------
10r
LO
CD
CD
o
in
O
o
o
h-
Z
=>
O
X
o
100
en
E
O
m
a:
<
O
o
a:
O
h-
O
Total Organic
Carbon
4000
- 3000
- 2000
1000
CO
\-
oc
o
_l
o
O
I
DL
o:
O
_i
O
o
0
100
200
300 400
500
CARBON DOSAGE, mg/l
Figure 3. PAC performance in the treatment of a chemicals wastewater
-------
LO
00
cn
E
O
O
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
ELAPSED TIME, days
90
o
CO
\—
z
^)
o
X
o
o
in
O
W
n
X
M
Z
Figure 4. TOG and toxicity reduction using granular carbon columns
r
a
PI
-------
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
DISCUSSION
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.
REFERENCES
Shelton, D. R., and J. M. Tiedje, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 47, 850,
1984.
Chudoba, J., J. Albokova and J. S. Cech, Water Resources 23, 11, 1431, 1989.
390
-------
LLl
0
Q
~)
_l
GO
Q
111
h-
O
GO
O
O
_i
O
h;
D.
<
O
LU
UJ
CC
3.0
2.0
1.0
ECKENFELDER
GAC Regeneration
GAG
Anaerobic
Filtration
PAG Regeneration
HpOpOxidation
PAG
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
Figure 5. Relative capitol cost of physical-chemical technologies
for toxicity reduction basis 10 mgd, COD = 1000 mg/l
391
-------
2.0
1.5
1.0
H 020xidation
Anaerobic
GAG Columns
Filtration
PAG
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
392
-------
CONTROLLING TOXIC INPUTS
A REGULATORY PROSPECTIVE
Albert W. Bromberg
Division of Water
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
March 13, 1990
393
-------
INTRODUCTION
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.
BACKGROUND
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
protected.
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.
395
-------
STATE PROGRAM SUMMARY
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
Anti-backsliding
Water Quality Based Requirements
Water Quality Standards
Biological monitoring
Anti-degradation
Other media programs have direct and indirect impacts on water quality. Water
program review is provided for the following actions:
Solid Waste
Landfills
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.
396
-------
TABLH 1
Regulatory activity
Connecticut
Water Program - Permits
Technology Treatment
BAT/BPJ/Ann'-Backsliding
Pretreatment
Water Quality Requirements
Standards, Bio-monitoring
Anti-Degradation
Solids Waste Program
Landfill
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
permit
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
guideline.
-------
ANALYSIS OF STATE PROGRAMS
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
following:
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
control.
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.
398
-------
WHAT MORE CAN BE DONE
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.
399
-------
N
N
NEW \ /^YORK
NEWARK
NEWARK BAY
New York
Metropolitan
Area and
Contiguous
Marine Waters
10 \2MILES
400
-------
WORKSHOP SESSIONS ON THE PRIMARY FACTORS
CAUSING USE IMPAIRMENTS AND OTHER
ADVERSE ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS
HABITAT
401
-------
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
Introduction
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,
etc.;
4. Drainage of habitats for crop production, mosquito control or other purposes;
403
-------
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).
404
-------
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.
405
-------
TJ
f
a
NORTHERN f |
2 -
3 -
4 -
5 -
6 -
7 -
Westchester (NY)
FairfiGld (CT)
New Haven (CT)
Middlesex (CT)
New London (CT)
The Bronx (NY)
CENTRAL
1 -
8 -
9 -
10 -
11 -
/^
New York (NY)
Kings
(NY)
Queens (NY)
Nassau (NY)
Suffolk (NY)
WESTERN :;.v,
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)
n
o
n
VI
n>
VI
r+-
P
o
o
p
(/>
l—f-
p
rt
CE.
o'
3
-------
o
eg"
"1
o
to
a
CS.
o
o
X)
p*
r-K-
o'
O
00
o
-a
O
.
o'S
~ 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.
sr
ft
n -
3 =•
B S-
>3
Regional Population Growth
1790 -1980
Pop.— All Counties(millions)
Y1790 Y1830 Y1850 Y1900 Y1940 Y1950 Y1960 Y1970 Y1980
Years
CT
NY
NJ
-------
O -i
o
oo
51
TO"
tti
CQ.
o'
O
•O
P*
1-+^
o'
3
C/l
3- '" S
ft O -•
sl§
o S o
§ " ~
? <" ET
£> g-«
Q. „ g
P a- ?•
"—
=: CL S
5- ft R
a§"S
ft ft Q.
S ^D'
•8 21°
•a no Q.
S r1 cr
?j!
•3 5 §
8 i-8
S.-5" g
5" 8--
i O tn
H ^ cr
l:gl
ft ft d
Regional Population Density
1980 - By County
80
Pop. (I000's)/sq mi
60
40
20
Counties — From Manhattan Outwards
CT
NY
NJ
-------
TABLE 1. POPULATION HISTORY OF THE TRI-STATE REGION"
County 1790 1830 1850 1900 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980
Connecticut
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
Bergen
Hudson
Essex
Union
Middlesex
Monmouth
Ocean
Atlantic
Cape May
6
1
10
8
16
7
10
7
3
11
2
23
19
23
12
17
14
5
15
22
41
33
29
30
10
9
6
78
386
359
99
80
82
19
46
13
410
652
837
328
217
161
38
124
29
539
647
906
398
265
225
57
132
37
780
611
924
504
434
334
108
161
48
897
608
932
543
584
462
208
175
60
845
557
851
504
596
503
540
194
82
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.
409
-------
TABLE 2. POPULATION DENSITY IN THE TRI-STATE REGION8
County
Connecticut
Fairfield
Middlesex
New Haven
New London
New York
New York
Bronx
Kings
Queens
Nassau
Suffolk
Richmond
New Jersey
Bergen
Hudson
Essex
Union
Middlesex
Monmouth
Ocean
Atlantic
Cape May
1790
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1830
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
3.2
3.2
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1850
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
8.0
8.0
2.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1900
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.1
32.0
32.0
16.7
1.4
0.2
0.1
1.1
0.2
8.4
0.3
1.0
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
1940
0.7
0.2
0.8
0.2
85.9
33.2
38.5
11.9
1.4
0.2
2.9
0.9
14.2
0.7
3.2
0.7
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
1950
0.8
0.2
0.9
0.2
89.1
34.5
39.1
14.2
2.3
0.3
3.3
1.2
14.1
0.8
3.9
0.8
0.5
0.1
0.2
0.1
1960
1.2
0.2
1.1
0.3
77.2
33.9
37.5
16.6
4.5
0.7
3.8
1.8
13.3
1.4
4.9
1.4
0.7
0.2
0.3
0.2
1970
1.3
0.2
1.2
0.3
70.0
35.0
37.2
18.2
5.0
1.2
5.0
2.1
13.2
1.8
5.3
1.8
1.0
0.3
0.3
0.2
1980
1.3
0.3
1.2
0.4
64.9
27.8
31.9
17.3
4.6
1.4
6.0
1.9
12.1
1.9
4.9
1.9
1.1
0.8
0.3
0.3
Area
632
373
610
669
22
42
70
109
287
911
59
237
46
316
103
316
472
641
568
263
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
mile.
410
-------
t
a
n>
CE
5'
o
T3
o
II
P °
t/i >-*>
o
-
s.
l
3.
(T
a
D.
5'
T5
eg'
n
O
c
3
f?
Q.
Regional Population — 1980
(By County)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
Population (1000's)
n
Counties — From Manhattan Outwards
CT
NY
NJ
-------
CD
CO
z
LJ
Q
Z
O
Q.
O
CL
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.
412
-------
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.
413
-------
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.
TABLE 3. LANDFILLING ON MANHATTAN ISLAND: 1609-1978
Period Acres of fill Acres per year
1609-1700
1700-1800
1800-1900
1900-1980
321
408
452
167
3.5
4.1
4.5
2.1
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
414
-------
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
today.
415
-------
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.
TABLE 4. TIDAL/COASTAL MARSHES OF NEW YORK CITY
Acreage/Borough
Date
1900
1935
1940
1947
1948
1954
1969
Manhattan Brooklyn
<640
NAb 1,920
NAb 1,853
Bronx Queens
27,200
29,000
15,000
1,510 l,570a
10,000
945 2,425
3,840
Staten
Island
9,310
3,198
Source
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
416
-------
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,
1988).
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,
1989).
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
417
-------
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.
418
-------
COASTAL WETLAND LOSS IN U.S.
10
(A
iu
oc
u
u.
o
V)
o
7- -
0.2% low/yr.
0.5% low/yr.
1922
YEARS
1954
1974
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.
419
-------
f
en
CD
P"
&,
CO
O*
CO
CO
NJ
O
CD
"I
P
"O O
rt 3
o' Er
CL n
%3
DO
p p
o1 cp
-i o
•ZB
2*
2?
P O
ft j*
P Tl r^
o-og" p
8 f §•
p ft co
t/i -' O
_ <"
^, H^ -^~*
2>2 g
B
S S|
^ p S
sis.
o S D
£S Q
o.g «
2 |«g
S £?^
fj CL ft
5" ' v<.
3 < ft
o ;? p?
«§•§•
P
n
I
« S S
, SO
S5s|
coun
f K Z
S5-S
cJz-*
' ft a-
* £
o^ S
s-s-
ft O
P >"*•>
D R
»!
o P
ft 9.
3 c:
=f CL
E-8
c q
M 3.
CT" Cj
p ft
B 0-
Wetland Loss 1954 -1973
(Per Year)
Acres Lost
600
500
400
300
200
100
Counties — From Manhattan Outwards
^H CT ^^ NY L: I NJ
-------
f
fD
CX5
a
I
en
O*
en
en
O O M
"§ &
s- f p
r>
100 -
NJ
"d
fD
O
D_
P"
O
>-*»
fD
CTQ
2-
p"
3
O.
en
O*
en
^*-
a.
2,
era
«— »-
sr
(D
fD
i-l
8'
Cu
-
3- ST
•a g
ar a.
n i—
q 5
p. Cf>
5 o
n 3
Counties — From Manhattan Outwards
CT
NY
NJ
-------
TABLE 5 PERCENT OF WETLANDS LOST IN THE DECADE
BETWEEN 1954 AND 1964, LISTED BY CAUSATIVE
FACTOR3
Connecticut
(%) New York
New Jersey
Misc. fill
Waste disposal
Bridges/roads
Industry
Airports
Marinas/docks/
channels
Housing
Recreation
Schools
Agriculture
48
14
9
7
7
6
5
3
1
1
Housing
Misc. fill
Recreation
Industry
Marinas/docks/
channels
Airports
Bridges/roads
Waste disposal
Schools
34
20
17
13
6
4
3
1
1
Misc. fill
Housing
Marinas/docks/
channels
Waste disposal
Bridges/roads
Industry
S&G mining
Recreation
38
29
11
10
6
4
1
1
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 "...as 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
422
-------
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
423
-------
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
ocean.
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.
424
-------
Acknowledgments
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.
425
-------
Bibliography
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.
Typescript.
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
Protection.
Corey, S. 1989. The Department of Sanitation. Theory & Practice. 1929-1967. Unpublished
Draft Report, New York City Department of Sanitation. New York, NY. Variously
paged.
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]
426
-------
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.
427
-------
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.
428
-------
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
trend.
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
429
-------
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
habitat.
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
necessary.
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
430
-------
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
them.
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
431
-------
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
made.
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
enforced.
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.
432
-------
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.
433
-------
PREVENTING FURTHER DEGRADATION OF AQUATIC HABITAT:
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
dedication.
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.
435
-------
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
society.
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.
436
-------
In summary, we left a legacy of unfettered lessons which we must continue to apply
today:
• 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
homilies.
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.
437
-------
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
438
-------
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.
439
-------
BALANCING HABITAT PROTECTION AND URBAN GROWTH
A DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE
Anthony J. Sartor, Ph.D., P.E., P.P.
Principal
Paulas, Sokolowski and Sartor, Inc.
Warren, New Jersey
INTRODUCTION
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
441
-------
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.
CURRENT REGULATIONS AFFECTING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT:
A NEW JERSEY CASE STUDY
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:
442
-------
Sartor
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
projects.
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
interest."
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
443
-------
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.
THE REGULATORY AGENCY REVIEW PROCESS: A QUESTION OF CONSISTENCY
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,
444
-------
Sartor
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.
445
-------
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.
NEED FOR REGIONAL PLANNING STRATEGIES AND DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
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,
1989)
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
446
-------
Sartor
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.
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
447
-------
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.
SUMMARY
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.
448
-------
Sartor
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.
REFERENCES
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
600/3-89/038b.
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
600/3-89/038b.
449
-------
WORKSHOP SESSIONS ON THE PRIMARY FACTORS
CAUSING USE IMPAIRMENTS AND OTHER
ADVERSE ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS
SEAFOOD SAFETY
-------
SEAFOOD SAFETY: A REGULATORY PERSPECTIVE
Edward G. Horn
New York State Department of Health
BACKGROUND
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
453
-------
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-BORNE DISEASE
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
illness.
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.
454
-------
Horn
TABLE 1. SHELLFISH-ASSOCIATED ILLNESS IN NEW YORK STATE
1980-1989
Year
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
Number of
Outbreaks
1
1
110
35
19
10
4
2
1
10
Number
of Cases
2
234
1043
504
238
134
37
13
2
184
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.
455
-------
TABLE 2. SHELLFISH-ASSOCIATED OUTBREAKS REPORTED TO NEW
YORK STATE, 1989
County
Broome
Cortland
Erie
Erie
Rockland
Rockland
Westchester
Suffolk
Nassau
Monroe
Date of
Onset
5/07
5/08
5/14
5/15
5/21
5/21
7/10
7/21
8/02
10/12
Suspected
Agent
Norwalk-like
virus3
Norwalk-like
virus
Norwalk-like
virus
Norwalk-like
virus
Norwalk-like
virus
NA
Norwalk-like
virus
Norwalk-like
virus
Norwalk-like
virus
Norwalk-like
virus
Number
111
36
11
3
59
15
NA
15
12
2
31
Source
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
456
-------
Horn
TABLE 3. FDA STANDARDS FOR CHEMICALS IN FISH
AND SHELLFISH
Chemical Standard Type of standard
Mercury
DDT
PCBs
Chlordane
Dieldrin
Heptachlor
Dioxin
1.0 ppm
5.0 ppm
2.0 ppm
0.3 ppm
0.3 ppm
0.3 ppm
50 ppt
Action level
Action level
Tolerance
Action level
Action level
Action level
Guideline
Chemical concentrations are as wet weight in edible portions.
Abbreviations: ppm = parts per million; ppt = parts per trillion.
CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION OF FISH AND SHELLFISH
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.
457
-------
TABLE 4. TOXIC METAL STANDARDS FOR EDIBLE SEAFOODS AND
SEAFOOD PRODUCTS
Country
Australia3
Canada
Chile
Ecuador
Finland
Hong Kong
India
Italy
Netherlands
New Zealand
Philippines
Poland
Switzerland
Thailand
United Kingdom
Venezuela
Zambia.
Range
Minimum
Maximum
As
!.0,1.5b
3.5
0.12,1.0
1.0
5.0
1.4-10
1.0
1.0
3.0
4.0
2.0
1.0
0.1
3.5-5.0
0.1
10
]\/fptaI /nnrtv wpt wfMpht^ - — . --
Cd Cr Cu
0.2-5.5 10-70
0.5 10
10
2.0 1.0
10
0.05-1.0
1.0 30
10-30
0.1
20
20
0,0.1 10
100
0 1.0 10
5.5 1.0 100
Pb
1.5-5.5
0.5
2.0
5.0
2.0
6.0
5.0
2.0
0.5,2.0
2.0
0.5
1.0-2.0
1.0
1.0
2.0-10
2.0
0.5-10
0.5
10
a Limit varies among states.
Inorganic.
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.
458
-------
Horn
TABLE 5. PCBS IN STRIPED BASS FROM LONG ISLAND WATERS
1985
Length
(mm)
450-510
510-560
560-610
610-660
660-710
710-760
>760
Length
(inches)
18-20
20-22
22-24
24-26
26-28
28-30
>30
Na
12
35
37
94
67
37
73
Mean PCBs
(ppm-wet wt)
1.68
1.69
2.04
2.04
?46
3.19
3.41
Fish collected from Long Island Sound and the South Shore of Long
Island.
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,
1986.
TABLE 6. PCBS IN STRIPED BASS FROM LONG ISLAND WATERS
1987
Length
(mm)
450-610
610-840
>840
Length Harbor/Western LIS
(inches)
18-24
24-33
>33
PCB
1.64
2.57
4.92
N
69
91
91
South Shore/Eastern LIS
PCB
1.25
1.66
2.65
N
172
188
183
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.
459
-------
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
460
-------
Horn
TABLE 7. PCBS IN BLUEFISH FROM THE NEW YORK BIGHT
1985
Length
(mm)
250-500
500-760
760-1000
Length
(inches)
10-20
20-30
30-39
Na Mean PCBs
(ppm-wet wt)
178(66)
577(169)
523(143)
0.52
1.26
1.79
aN = number offish analyzed (number of analyses).
Source: unpublished summary by R. Sloan of data from NOAA, 1986.
TABLE 8. RECREATIONAL CATCH OF BLUEFISH IN
THE NEW YORK BIGHT, 1985
<
Month
May-June
August
Oct-Nov
Total
300 mm (12 in)
lbsa
69
236
1312
1617
%
1
4
12
7
300-500 mm
lbsa
2616
1125
1495
5236
%
53
18
13
24
> 500 mm
lbsa
2287
4834
8348
15469
(20 in)
%
46
78
75
69
Total Catch
Ibs
4973
6195
11154
22322
%b
22
28
50
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.
461
-------
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).
462
-------
Horn
REGULATORY INADEQUACIES AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
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
diseases.
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.
463
-------
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.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
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.
464
-------
Horn
REFERENCES
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,
NJ.
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,
NY.
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,
NJ.
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.
465
-------
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.
466
-------
SEAFOOD SAFETY: AN INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE
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
organization.
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
467
-------
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
situation.
TOXINS AND RISK ASSESSMENT
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
ecosystem.
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
468
-------
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
incidence.
CURRENT REGULATORY MECHANISMS AND STANDARDS
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.
469
-------
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.
470
-------
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.
471
-------
SEAFOOD SAFETY: A SPORT FISHERMAN'S
PERSPECTIVE
Joseph J. McBride
President
Montauk Boatman's Captain's Association
- - - PAPER NOT AVAILABLE - - -
473
-------
TOXICS IN FISH PRODUCTS --
A PRACTICAL ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE
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
475
-------
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.
476
-------
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.
477
-------
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
industries.
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
478
-------
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.
479
-------
WORKSHOP SESSIONS ON THE PRIMARY FACTORS
CAUSING USE IMPAIRMENTS AND OTHER
ADVERSE ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS
OCEAN DISPOSAL
481
-------
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL:
A REGULATORY PERSPECTIVE
John F. Tavolaro
Acting Assistant Chief, Operations Division
New York District, Corps of Engineers
and
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
material.
483
-------
WHAT IS DREDGED MATERIAL?
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.
WHY OCEAN DUMPING?
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,
484
-------
Tavolaro
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-
WHAT IS THE REGULATORY PROCESS? HOW IS DREDGED MATERIAL
EVALUATED?
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) .
485
-------
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
activities.
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
evaluation.
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
486
-------
Tavolaro
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.
WHAT ABOUT ALTERNATIVES TO THE OCEAN?
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
487
-------
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
488
-------
Tavolaro
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.
489
-------
RESPONSES OF HABITATS AND BIOTA
OF THE INNER NEW YORK BIGHT
TO ABATEMENT OF SEWAGE SLUDGE DUMPING
- PROGRESS REPORT
Robert N. Reid
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
Sandy Hook Laboratory
Highlands, NJ 07732
INTRODUCTION
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)
491
-------
• 1 — — ~
74°00'
Ik
l*o\
lO'l
1 7- ]
^\
^>|
•*£J'fc^<^
;', 1
Replica
Broads<
Seabtd
metabo
Hydrogi
surveys
(with E
^-yr^^"050' 73°40'
J' BOCKAWAV PT.
/•""""^^°\
'"' *»'*"*!
. \ ;" 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
JAS OND JFM AMJ JAS OND JFM AMJ JAS
Ham
raphic x x
PA)
Seabed and x x
water column rates,
hydrographlc surveys
with EPA, NJ DEP,
and others
Figure I. Sampling locations and schedules.
492
-------
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.
METHODS
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,
493
-------
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).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
OBSERVATIONS REPORTED BELOW ARE PRELIMINARY, AND MAY CHANGE
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.
494
-------
REID - RESPONSE TO SLUDGE ABATEMENT
Table 1. Variables measured during the 12-mile dumpsite study
Habitat
Biota
Water
Sediments
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
Temperature
Salinity (CTD)
Oxygen
Current measurements
(moored meters)
Chemistry
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)
Characteristics
Grain size (R,B)
Erodibility
Rates
Seabed oxygen consumption
Sedimentation
Resource species
Distribution/abundance (R,B)
Diet (R)
Winter flounder
Red hake
Silver hake
Lobster
Gross pathology (R)
Winter flounder
Lobster
Tissue organics (R)
Winter flounder
Lobster
Migration (tagging) (B)
Winter flounder
Lobster
Benthos
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
495
-------
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).
496
-------
REID - RESPONSE TO SLUDGE ABATEMENT
R?
D_
CL
210
200
190
180
170
150
150
140
130
120
1 10
100
90
60
70
60
50
ZINC
NT6
CL
£L
900
BOO
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
NT 1
CL
CL
70
60
50
30
20 -
10 -
1-5cm
0 - 1 cm
]—I
cm
Figure 2. Mean (n=3) concentration of zinc (± one standard
deviation) in layers 1 and 5 at replicate stations,
497
-------
74°00'
601
40-
20
Station 30
60!
40
20-
©
Station 32
60
40-
20-
©
Station 34
73°50'
73°401
ROCKAWAY PT.
1984 1985
\ I 40°30-
D
12 MDS
STATIONS
. SOC CRUISE
STATIONS
•>13 NY5
M32
iDREDGE
IDUMPSITE
SEABED OXYGEN CONSUMPTION
ml 02/m2/hr
60i
40-
, o
60
Station 31
Station 33
-, 0
60T ©
Station 35
40-
4 20
-^ 0
M30
SLUDGE
DUMP SITE
40°20'-
1986 1987 1988 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988
Figure 3. Station locations and seabed oxygen consumption rates
498
-------
REID - RESPONSE TO SLUDGE ABATEMENT
*>
E
JZ
UJ
500-
400-
300-
200-
100-
0.
-100-
-200-
-300 -|
400
*«nn-
' \ A-'''^^'*
: "' DEPTH -.5cm
NY6
R2
NY11
1983 ' 1984 ' 1985 ' 1986 ' 1987 ' 1988 '
Figure 4. Redox potentials at 0.5 cm in sediment at replicate
stations over time.
499
-------
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).
500
-------
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.
501
-------
TABLE 2 INCIDENCE OF FIN ROT IN WINTER FLOUNDER FROM THE INNER
NEW YORK BIGHT. DATA FOR 1973 - 1983 ARE FROM O'CONNOR
ET AL., 1987; 1986 - 1989 DATA ARE FROM PACHECO,
UNPUBLISHED.
Year
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1986
1987
1988
1989
Incidence of fin rot (%) n
NY6
R2
NY11
NY 6
R2
NYU
NY 6
R2
NY11
NY 6
R2
NYU
13.4
6.1
1.6
0.7
3.2
2.0
—
0.0
1.6
1.7
0.4
2.2
1.0
3.9
0.7
0.3
1.1
0.6
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
1943
570
1637
667
1159
2561
""
102
314
357
241
85
169
64
356
417
153
577
816
233
585
286
178
SUMMARY
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.
REFERENCES
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
502
-------
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
503
-------
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.
504
-------
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
1973.
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
alternatives?
What do we know about the adverse environmental impacts of this
activity?
What further monitoring and analysis is planned to improve our
understanding of these impacts?
EXISTING DISPOSAL PRACTICE
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).
505
-------
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
port.
Shipriders are required on all vessels going to the DMSDS to monitor
dumping operation at the DMSDS.
LAND BASED ALTERNATIVES
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
sludge.
506
-------
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
3/17/91
Out-of-state
disposal
3/17/91
Out-of-state
disposal, 3/17/91
Dewater and chemical
fixation to in-state
landfill as cover,
3/17/91
Dewater and out-of
state disposal, 3/17/91
Long Term Plan
incineration
1/01/96
incineration,
2/10/98
incineration,
1/01/96
Same
3/17/91
incineration,
12/31/96
507
-------
Rahway Valley Dewater and out-of incineration
state disposal, 3/17/91 at Jt. Meeting
2/10/98
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
MONITORING IMPACTS
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
disposal,
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
and,
o Progressive changes in pelagic,demersal, or benthic biological
communities as a result of sludge disposal.
508
-------
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
collected.
The four tiers included in the 106-Mile Site monitoring program are as
follows:
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
dumping.
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:
509
-------
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.
510
-------
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
concentrate,
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,
511
-------
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.
512
-------
Ul
M
Ul
1.000.000
o
p
B 100,000::
O
UJ
O
UJ
o:
10,000:-
1,000
10
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|
100
1,000
10.000
1—I I I I II
100.000
SLUDGE DUMPING RATE (gol/min)
-------
82-19-1998i
•Start f 16:22:18
76* 75* 74* 73* 72* 71* 7B- 69* 68* &?• 66" 65
FIGURE 2- TRAGECTORIES OF DRIFTERS RELEASED AT THE SITE
514
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS OF OCEAN DISPOSAL
Wayne R. Munns, Jr.
Senior Biologist
Science Applications International Corporation
U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory
Narragansett, Rhode Island
and
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
515
-------
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
516
-------
MARINE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
SOURCE
CHARACTERIZATION
SITE
CHARACTERIZATION
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
Spatial and Temporal
Concentration Distribution
as a Function of Source
Inputs
HAZARD ASSESSMENT
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
issues.
IMPACTS OF DREDGING AND OCEAN DISPOSAL OF DREDGED
SEDIMENTS
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
518
-------
Munns and Rubinstein
DREDGE MATERIAL CONTAMINANT FATE
E
S
T
U
A
R
Y
SEDIMENTS AT
DREDGE SUE
Suspension and
Resettlement
Suspension and
Transport
SEDIMENTS IN I
DISPOSAL VESSEL
0
C
E
A
N
Deposition
TRANSPORT TO
DISPOSAL SITE
Errant Disposal
Entrainment
1
[ DISPOSAL
MOUND
Resuspension
Deposition
WATER COLUMN
PARTICULATE
AND DISSOLVED
Transport
TRANSPORTED
ELSEWHERE IN
ESTUARY
EXPORTED OUT
' OF ESTUARY
DISPOSED
OUTSIDE SITE
BOUNDARY
TRANSPORTED
. OUTSIDE SITE
BOUNDARY
Figure 2. Fate of dredged material released during dredging and disposal operations.
519
-------
Hot Spot (approximate)
Estuary
Coggeshail
Street Bridge
New Bedford
New Bedford
Harbor
V
Rickersons
V Point
-Clark's Point $
•• -' - < ''
Wilbur
Point
Rock
Point
Mishaum Point
Figure 3. Location of New Bedford Harbor (modified from Nelson, 1989).
520
-------
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
521
-------
Ln
to
NJ
BRIDGEPORT
FVP STUDY J
REACH
NEW
HAVEN
BRIDGEPORT
//MAINTENANCE
^/DREDGING
BLACK \\
ROCK 'A.
BLACK ROCK
HARBORS
LONG ISLAND
FVP
DISPOSAL
SITE
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
activities.
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
523
-------
in which in-water mitigation cannot be accomplished, it may be prudent to evaluate and
compare the risks of ocean disposal with those of wetland and upland disposal options,
or with those of keeping the sediments in place.
IMPACTS OF SEWAGE SLUDGE DISPOSAL AT OFFSHORE SITES
The impacts associated with offshore disposal of municipal sewage sludge are not
well established. Evidence from such disposal at nearshore sites suggests that the effects
may be varied, and not always negative. Most obviously, nutrient enrichment and
perhaps enhanced phytoplankton growth may occur as organically rich sludge is
introduced into nutrient poor waters. If enriched too far, however, noxious
phytoplankton blooms can occur, and shallow ocean basins and areas of impaired
circulation can experience hypoxia and anoxia as organic mater is decomposed. These
situations are not uncommon in the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut region (Swanson
and Sindermann, 1979; Welsh, 1988). Other types of impact found in shallow systems
include the release of pathogens and chemical contaminants, including heavy metals and
organic compounds (Duedall et al, 1983). These insults can lead to long-term
modification of benthic community structure and function (e.g., Pearson, 1987). As with
dredged materials, the extent and magnitude of environmental impact associated with
sludge disposal are dependent upon the quantities disposed, their level of contamination,
the potential for transport, and the proximity of susceptible biota.
Case Study 3 - Sewage Sludge Disposal at the 106-Mile Dump Site
With the closure of the 12-Mile Site in the New York Bight impending,
municipalities in New York and New Jersey began disposing their sewage sludge at the
Deepwater Municipal Sludge Dump Site (a section of the 106-Mile Site; Figure 5) in
1986. Located off New Jersey at the edge of the continental shelf, the 106-Mile Site
displays highly dispersive characteristics thought to result in rapid dilution of released
wastes. Sewage sludge is currently being introduced to the site at a rate of some 7-8
millon wet tons per year (EPA, 1988).
ERLN's risk assessment activities associated with the 106-Mile Site have centered
primarily around modeling exercises of contaminant exposure and biological effects (Paul,
1988), and laboratory measurements of the toxicity of the sludges (Miller et al., 1988).
Initial modeling efforts were directed towards description of sludge transport and the
resulting long-term pattern of waste and constituent contaminant concentration (Paul et
al., 1989; Walker et al, 1987). These studies suggested long-term elevations in
contaminant concentration, but no real adverse environmental impact in the water
column. Subsequent simulations of sludge accumulation in the bottom sediments, and
the resultant bioaccumulation of contaminants by biota, again suggested little impact
associated with existing sludge loading rates to the 106-Mile Site (Nocito et al, 1988).
524
-------
Munns and Rubinstein
75*0.0'
73*0.0'
71*0.0'
— Deepwoter Municipal
Disposal Site
2000 meters
1000 meters
200 meters
100 meters
69*0.0'
36*0.0
42*0.0'
34*0.0
40*0.0'
38*0.0'
36*0.0'
77*0.0'
75*0.0'
73*0.0'
71*0-0'
34*0.0'
69*0.0'
Figure 5. Locations of the 12-Mile Site and the 106-Mile Site (modified from Walker et
al., 1987).
525
-------
In a final exercise, impacts on the short-term population dynamics of zooplankton were
indicated to be minimal at existing loading rates, although they became more significant
with an increased mass loading rate (Munns et al, 1989). The low toxicity of these
sludges, in conjunction with the highly dispersive character of a deepwater site, results
in an expectation of little to no adverse environmental impact associated with sludge
disposal at the 106-Mile Site.
To date, limited monitoring of sludge disposal impacts in the vicinity of the 106-
Mile Site has occurred. Early monitoring efforts focused on waste characteristics and
near field fate and effects. ERLN's assessments of ecological risk therefore have not been
validated. Although EPA is formulating a more comprehensive monitoring plan for
implementation in the near future (EPA, 1990), recent legislation (The Ocean Dumping
Ban Act of 1988) has dictated cessation of municipal sludge disposal at this and all other
oceanic sites by the end of 1991. It is therefore unlikely that our long-term predictions
will be tested.
IMPACTS OF DISPOSAL OF OTHER ANTHROPOGENIC WASTES
A multitude of anthropogenic wastes other than dredged material and sewage sludge
have been introduced in marine systems (Ketchum et al, 1981). Of these, combustion
products of at-sea incineration activities, acid wastes and other industrial byproducts, and
radioactive wastes, might reasonably be considered the most noxious. Studies conducted
at ERLN and elsewhere have demonstrated the potential for adverse impacts associated
with the release of such wastes. Again, the impact realized in the environment is
determined in large part by the quantity and rate at which the material is released and
the physical characteristics of the site. In the case of liquid wastes, rapid initial dilution
following disposal typically limits the extent of adverse impact associated with even
relatively toxic wastes. Some examples will serve to illustrate these points.
An investigation of at-sea incineration of driftwood and other wooden debris was
conducted to determine the potential for toxicity and bioaccumulation of contaminants
associated with the ash effluent produced as a result of post-burn wet-down activities
(Schimmel and Pruell, 1989). Samples of this effluent, and of the receiving waters
around the incineration vessel, were the subject of acute toxicity assays and 10-day
bioaccumulation tests utilizing mysids, fish, algae, and sea urchin reproductive cells. Of
the samples tested, only the wet-down effluent itself displayed significant toxicity. No
bioaccumulation of the several organic and inorganic contaminants examined was
observed. These results indicate that although this incineration waste has the potential
to produce adverse impact, rapid mitigation of this potential occurs as a result of initial
dilution upon entering the ocean. Similar conclusions were drawn from a study of the
combustion byproducts of PCB-contaminated fuel oil (Strobel et al, 1988). Little toxicity
was observed using a variety of test species and endpoints in assays simulating
526
-------
Munns and Rubinstein
introduction of stack gasses into marine waters. Thus, when the wastes are sufficiently
diluted or exhibit low toxicity, no adverse impact are expected.
The potential exists, however, for long-term buildup of waste materials in bottom
sediments when sedimentation of these materials is sufficient to impact the bottom. The
depth of the disposal site and the lateral transport experienced by the waste as it
descends become important in these cases. For instance, modeling efforts and
experiments conducted by Bonner et al. (1986) indicated that a high degree of dispersion
could be expected for low-level radioactive soils released at the edge of the continental
shelf. On the other hand, solid wastes can accumulate on the bottom of shallow systems
in a fashion similar to dredged material accumulation. The adverse impacts of this
buildup can include modification of bottom sedimentology, affecting the suitability of the
site for benthic recolonization, contaminant bioaccumulation, and perhaps acute and
chronic toxicity (Harvey, 1989).
CLOSING REMARKS
Impacts associated with ocean disposal of waste materials are the result of complex
interactions between physical, chemical, and biological processes. Thus, the risks
associated with disposal of each type of waste need to be examined and defined
individually in the context of the characteristics of the disposal site and potentially
impacted biota. In regions receiving input of multiple wastes, however, management
by waste load allocation appears most appropriate. Individual disposal decisions would
then be made in the context of the total waste stream entering the region, perhaps with
some consideration of the assimilative capacity (sensu Cairns, 1977) of that region.
Evidence is accumulating which suggests that many of the nearshore environments in
the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut region may be close to reaching that capacity.
Despite their inherent complexity, disposal impacts are measurable, and through
application of a risk assessment strategy, subject to prediction. Sound technical bases
for the delineation of environmental (and human health) risks associated with other
disposal options also exist, or are being developed (see Norton et al, 1988). It should
therefore be possible for the environmental manager to evaluate and compare the risks
of each disposal option, and then select the one which yields the optimal solution with
respect to potential environmental impact, cost, esthetics, or any other criterion important
in the disposal decision. Environmental studies will continue to provide valuable insight
to this decision process.
527
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The case studies described in this overview are the result of over a decade of
research at ERIN. We acknowledge the entire laboratory for valuable insight and
contribution. Special thanks go to W.G. Nelson, J.F. Paul, K.J. Scott, and H.A. Walker
for their review comments, and to L. Rogers and R. Petrocelli for assistance in
preparation of the manuscript. Although this report has been reviewed and approved for
release by ERLN, the views presented herein are not necessarily those of the Agency.
This is ERLN Contribution No. 1139.
REFERENCES
Bierman, V.J., J.H. Gentile, J.F. Paul, D.C. Miller and W.A. Brungs. 1986. Research
strategy for ocean disposal: Conceptual framework and case study. Pages 313-
329 in Environmental Hazard Assessment of Effluents (H.L. Bergman, R.H.
Kimmerle and A.W. Maki, eds.). Pergamon Press. Elmsford, NY.
Bonner, J.S., C.D. Hunt, J.F. Paul and V.J. Bierman, Jr. 1986. Prediction of vertical
transport of low-level radioactive Middlesex soil at a deep-ocean disposal site.
EPA 520/1-86-016. U.S. Environmental Research Agency. Washington, D.C.
Burroughs, R.H. 1988. Ocean dumping Information and policy development in the
USA. Marine Policy, April 1988.
Cairns, J. 1977. Quantification of biological integrity. Pages 171-187 in The
Integrity of Water (R.K. Ballentine and L.J. Guarraia, eds.). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.
Duedall, I.W., B.H. Ketchum, P.K. Park and D.R. Kester (eds.). 1983. Wastes in the
Oceans, Vol. 1. Industrial and Sewage Wastes in the Ocean. Wiley and Sons.
New York, NY.
EPA. 1988. Report to Congress on administration of the Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended (P.L. 92-532). EPA-503/8-88/002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.
EPA. 1990. 106-Mile Deepwater Municipal Sludge Site Monitoring, Research, and
Surveillance Plan. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C.
EPA/COE. 1977. Ecological evaluation of proposed discharge of dredged material
into ocean waters. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Vicksburg, MS.
528
-------
Munns and Rubinstein
Folsom, B.L., Jr., J.G. Skogerboe, M.R. Palermo, J.W. Simmers, S.A. Pranger and R.A.
Shafer. 1988. Synthesis of the results of the Field Verification Program upland
disposal alternative. COE Technical Report D-88-7. U.S. Army Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Gentile, J.H., G.G. Pesch and T.M. Dillon. 1988a. The application of a hazard
assessment research strategy to the ocean disposal of a dredged material:
Overview. Pages 115-122 in Oceanic Processes in Marine Pollution, Vol. 5.
Urban Wastes in Coastal Marine Environments (D.A. Wolfe and T.P. O'Connor,
eds.). Krieger Publishing. Malabar, FL.
Gentile, J.H., G.G. Pesch, J. Lake, P.P. Yevich, G. Zaroogian, P. Rogerson, J. Paul, W.
Galloway, K. Scott, W. Nelson, D. Johns and W. Munns. 1988b. Synthesis of
research results: Applicability and field verification of predictive methodologies
for aquatic dredged material disposal. COE Technical Report D-88-5, prepared
for the U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station by the U.S. EPA
Environmental Research Laboratory. Narragansett, RI.
Gentile, J.H., V.J. Bierman, Jr., J.F. Paul, H.A. Walker and D.C. Miller. 1989. A
hazard assessment research strategy for ocean disposal. Pages 199-212 in
Oceanic Processes in Marine Pollution, Vol. 3. Marine Waste Management:
Science and Policy (M.A. Champ and P.K. Park, eds.). Krieger Publishing.
Malabar, FL.
Harvey, S.E. 1989. Disposal of coal wastes in the marine environment. Pages 85-99
m Oceanic Processes in Marine Pollution, Vol. 3. Marine Waste Management:
Science and Policy (M.A. Champ and P.K. Park, eds.). Krieger Publishing.
Malabar, FL.
Johnston, R.K., P.E. Woods, G.G. Pesch and W.R. Munns, Jr. 1990. Assessing the
impact of hazardous waste disposal sites on the environment: Case studies of
ecological risk assessments at selected Navy hazardous waste disposal sites. In
press in Proceedings of the 14th Annual Army Environment R&D Symposium.
Williamsburg, VA.
Ketchem, B.H., D.R. Kester and P.K. Park (eds.). 1981. Ocean dumping of industrial
wastes. Plenum Press. New York, NY.
Miller, D.C., M. Marcy, W. Berry, C. Deacutis, S. Lussier, A. Kuhn, M. Heber, S.C.
Schimmel and E. Jackim. 1988. The acute toxicity of sewage sludge to marine
fish, mysids, and copepods. Pages 103-114 in Oceanic Processes in Marine
529
-------
Pollution, Vol. 5. Urban Wastes in Coastal Marine Environments (D.A. Wolfe and
T.P. O'Connor, eds.). Krieger Publishing. Malabar, FL.
Morton, J.W. 1977. Ecological effects of dredging and dredge spoil disposal: A
literature review. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Tech. Pap. 94.
Morton, R.W. 1989. Monitoring the effectiveness of capping for isolating
contaminated sediments. Pages 262-279 in Contaminated Marine Sediments
Assessment and Remediation. National Research Council. Washington, D.C.
Munns, W.R., Jr., J.F. Paul, V.J. Bierman, Jr., W.R. Davis, W.B. Galloway, G.L.
Hoffman, P.P. Rogerson and R.J. Pruell. 1988. Exposure Assessment Component
of the Field Verification Program: data presentation and synthesis. EPA-600/6-
89/003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Narragansett, RL
Munns, W.R., Jr., H.A. Walker, and J.F. Paul. 1989. An ecological risk assessment
framework for examining the impacts of oceanic disposal. Pages 664-669 in
Proceedings of Oceans '89, Vol. 2. IEEE. New York, NY.
Nelson, W.G. 1989. A framework for real-time decision-making — New Bedford
Harbor Pilot Study. EPA-600/8-89/084. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Narragansett, RI.
Nocito, J.A., H.A. Walker, J.F. Paul and C. Menzie. 1988. Framework for a risk
assessment of midshelf vs. offshelf marine disposal of sewage sludge. Pages 101-
120 in Aquatic Toxicology and Environmental Fate, Vol. 11 (G.W. Suter II and
M.A. Lewis, eds.). ASTM STP 1007. American Society for Testing and
Materials. Philadelphia, PA.
Norton, S., M. McVey, J. Colt, J. Durba and R. Hegner. 1988. Review of ecological
risk assessment methods. EPA/230-10-041. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington, D.C.
Paul, J.F. 1988. Risk assessment methods for 106-Mile Ocean Disposal Site. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Narragansett, RI.
Paul, J.F., V.J. Bierman, Jr., H.A. Walker and J.H. Gentile. 1989. Application of a
hazard assessment research strategy for waste disposal at the 106-Mile Ocean
Disposal Site, in Oceanic Processes in Marine Pollution, Vol. 4. Scientific
Monitoring Strategies for Ocean Waste Disposal (D.W. Hood, A. Schoener, and
P.K. Park, eds.). Kreiger Publishing. Malabar, FL.
Pearson, T.H. 1987. Benthic ecology in an accumulating sludge-disposal site. Pages
530
-------
Munns and Rubinstein
195-200 in Oceanic Processes in Marine Pollution, Vol. 1. Biological Processes
and Wastes in the Ocean (J.M. Capuzzo and D.R. Kester, edsj. Krieger
Publishing. Malabar, FL.
Peddicord, R.K. 1988. Summary of the US Army Corps of Engineers/US
Environmental Protection Agency Field Verification Program. COE Technical
Report D-88-7, prepared for the U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station by Battelle Ocean Sciences. Duxbury, MA.
Phelps, O.K. and A.D. Beck. 1989. Ecological risk assessment and marine monitoring.
In press in Coastal Zone '89.
Rogerson, P.P., S.C. Schimmel and G. Hoffman. 1985. Chemical characterization of
Black Rock Harbor dredged material. COE Technical Report D-85-9, prepared for
the U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station by the U.S. EPA
Environmental Research Laboratory. Narragansett, RI.
Schimmel, S.C. and R.J. Pruell. 1989. Evaluation of the potential toxicity and
bioaccumulation of contaminants associated with wood burning activities in the
New York Bight. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Narragansett, RI.
Simmers, J.W., et al. In preparation. Synthesis of the results of the Field Verification
program wetland disposal alternative. COE Technical Report (in preparation).
U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
Strobel, C.J., J.H. Gentile, S.C. Schimmel, R.S. Carr, J.W. Williams and D. Redford.
1988. Proposed biological testing methods for the United States Incineration-at-
Sea Research Program. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 19:605-610.
Swanson, R.L. and C.J. Sindermann (edsj. 1979. Oxygen Depletion and Associated
Benthic Mortalities in the New York Bight, 1976. NOAA Prof. Pap. 11.
Walker, H.A., J.F. Paul and V.J. Bierman, Jr. 1987. Methods for waste load
allocation of municipal sewage sludge at the 106-Mile Ocean Disposal Site.
Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 6:475-489.
Welsh, B.L. 1988. Hypoxia in Long Island Sound, Summer of 1987. m Proceedings
of Oceans '88. IEEE. New York, NY.
531
-------
Remarks of Lillian C. Liburdi
"Cleaning Up Our Coastal Waters:
An Unfinished Agenda"
March 13, 1990
Ocean Disposal: A Commercial Pearspecti
Good morning. My name is Lillian Liburdi, and I am the
Director of the Port Department of the Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey. It is a pleasure to be here today, and to be
given the chance to speak on the economic issues of dredged
material disposal. Before I address the guestions provided, I
would like to give you some background on the Port Authority and
Port of New York and New Jersey.
The Port Authority was created in 1921 by compact between
the states of New York and New Jersey as their joint and common
agency to plan, develop and operate a bi-state network of land,
sea, and air transportation facilities and other facilities of
commerce that contribute to the promotion and development of the
economy of the New York/New Jersey Metropolitan Region.
Our Port facilities are unguestionably a vital component of
the bi-state region's economic base. The Port generates more
than $14.0 billion annually in economic activity, $4.2 billion in
wages and salaries, $2.3 billion in business income and $.4
billion in state and city income taxes and sales tax.
The direct impacts represent a significant contribution to
the regional economy, accounting for approximately three percent
of regional employment.
Commodities of all kinds are brought by ship to pass through
our marine terminals, ranging from orange juice to automobiles,
lumber to wine. Some shippers move their cargo through the NY/NJ
port largely out of geographic convenience - this region has a
large consuming population. However, you must be aware that, as
a result of the massive changes in the transportation industry
such as deregulation and intermodalism, we cannot count on
business, even those in the region, to ship through the Port.
Unlike years ago, when the Port was clearly the nation's gateway,
we must now compete not only with ports on this coast, but ports
around the nation. Rail and truck services have become important
players in the competition for cargo. It may be cheaper for a
shipper to bring cargo into a port that may be farther from the
cargo's ultimate destination, only to move it by rail or truck
the rest of the way-
Competition in this industry is fierce. All aspects of the
533
-------
industry are brought into play. Costs, service, labor - all are
factored in, including the physical ability of a ship to enter
port and navigational safety. Dredging is one of these
compet i t i ve component s.
The Port of New York and New Jersey has no choice but to dredge.
The natural depth of the harbor - about 18 feet - could not
accommodate today's deeper draft vessels requiring 35 or more
feet. Approximately 8-12 million cubic yards of sediment is
relocated from the Port's navigation channels and berths each
year. All decisions on dredging and dredged material disposal
impact the commercial viability of this port. Legislation of
regulation that is not sensitive to the need to balance
environmental needs with realistic economic considerations, can
affect, possibly severely, a port's competitive position and the
regional and national benefits derived from port activities.
Presently, total federal maintenance channel dredging costs
in the port are more than $20 million annually. It is
conceivable that more stringent regulations could raise the cost
of dredging and disposal significantly. There are many scenarios
with attendant costs I could share with you. One dramatic
example is the use of a containment island. Using Corps of
Engineers planning estimates, and assuming that project costs
would be recouped, dredging, transportation and disposal costs
could escalate between $60 and $215 per cubic yard of material.
That would drive the annual dredging cost up to anywhere between
$71 to $243 million. Again, I submit that we all must balance
human economic needs with environmental protection.
In considering the issues and impact on the commercial
viability of the Port of New York - New Jersey, with regard to
alternatives to woodburning at sea, we must discuss navigation
safety and pollution. Again, some background information. Most
of the wood burned at sea is generated by the New York Harbor
Removal of Drift Program. The project was conceived as the most
effective way to rid the waterfront of decrepit piers and
structures that ar hazardous sources of drift. Drift can be, and
is, a navigational hazard to commercial and recreational
shipping. It can rupture the hull of a vessel. In addition, the
project offers the prospect of waterfront land reuse, with
further benefits of aesthetic and environmental enhancements, as
well as fire and health hazard reduction. The Corps has
estimated that collisions with drift causes $53 million in damage
to recreational and commercial vessels each year. There is an
indirect cost in dollars and public perception to this port when
a vessel is damaged in the harbor. Safe navigation is very
important to the Port Authority and the vessels that navigate our
harbor.
As to the last question that I am to address in this forum -
"Would the Port Authority serve as a sponsor for innovative
programs for dredged material disposal?" - it can be read in many
ways. We are involved in many of the ongoing efforts to address
534
-------
the environmental issues that are now being examined in our
harbor, especially those that seek to examine dredging and the
placement of dredged material as part of their agenda. We have
been members of the Corps of Engineers Public Involvement
Coordination Group, assisting to hammer out a workable long term
plan for the management of dredged material along with 500 other
participants. We are actively involved in the London Dumping
Convention, which examines the issue of ocean dumping on an
international level, through our membership in the International
Association of Ports and Harbors. We sponsored the kickoff
meeting of the New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program and
have been attending committee meetings ever since. The Port
Authority also sponsored a seminar on Dredged Material Management
in 1988 - many of you were there.
The Port Authority would most certainly join with state,
local and the federal government and agencies to explore and
sponsor innovative, cost effective solutions to the placement of
dredged material. This issue will not be solved by on authority
of agency- It will take a joint effort of all the stakeholders
of our harbor and our region. We are willing to help.
Thank you for allowing me to express the Port Authority's
views on these issues. We look forward to working however we can
with you to balance those issues in a way that addresses sound
environmental and economic policy.
535
-------
AN INTEGRATED AGENDA FOR CLEANING
UP OUR COASTAL WATERS
537
-------
AN INTEGRATED AGENDA FOR CLEANING UP OUR COASTAL WATERS
Albert F. Appleton, Commissioner
New York City Department of Environmental Protection
March 13, 1990
To begin with, I would observe that the only successful
agenda for cleaning up the coastal waters of the New York
metropolitan region will be an integrated one. We will either
recognize that shared natural resources are the concern of all,
or we will bog down in jurisdictional squabbles and struggles
over power, prestige and responsibility, or more likely the
avoidance of it, and our shared hopes for environmental
restoration will remain unrealized. Governments must learn to
work together and they are going to have to accelerate their
efforts to do so, for public expectations are growing at a very
rapid pace.
The Dinkins Administration is an environmental
administration and it has a keen interest in the status of our
local waterways and land-water connections. Our swift and
aggressive response to the Exxon spill in Arthur Kill, our
commitment to work towards tighter regulation of the petroleum
industry, is one example of this dedication to clean coastal
waters. Another example is our commitment to preserving and,
539
-------
AFA
where possible, restoring the City's wetlands. We believe in no
net loss of wetlands and we have been disappointed in the Bush
Administration's retreat from it in the fine print of recent
wetlands policy documents.
To combat coastal pollution effectively, government must
first establish sanction severe enough to take the profit out
of pollution. But at th\* same time, it must also offer
partnership and assistance to the private sector, and make it
easier for businesses to meet environmental standards. New
tools for this partnership include technical assistance
programs, better preventive measures, impartial, scientific
intensive monitoring of pollution control efforts, full
assessments of natural resource damages, prompt and definite
regulatory guidance, an understanding that time is money, the
commitment of sufficient resources to regulatory management and
the creation of genuine tools of self-regulation such as
environmental auditing.
Second, government must put its own house in order. Since
the 1930's, and particularly since the early 1970's when Federal
aid became available, New York City has invested heavily in
water pollution control programs. The programs started since
the Clean Water Act have already yielded major gains in water
quality, and the City is committed to achieving even more
improvements as the work continues and new programs are added.
540
-------
AFA
Government control of its own pollution demands a
comprehensive set of programs. Since the Clean Water Act, over
$2.5 billion has been spent to build two new sewage treatment
plants for the large parts of Brooklyn and Manhattan that never
before had plants, plus pumping stations to link other unserved
areas to existing plants. The new Red Hook plant was completed
last year. The new North River plant began advanced preliminary
treatment in 1986 and will be completed this year. Upgrading
work has already been completed on nine of our twelve older
plants. Work is still underway on the Coney Island and Owls
Head plants, and design work is beginning on the Newtown Creek
plant. The total cost of these last three upgrades is estimated
at over $2 billion.
New York City generates about 1.7 billion gallons of sewage
daily. As a result of expanding our treatment plant network,
DEP has reduced the City's routine raw sewage discharge into
coastal waters from 425 million gallons per day in 1973 to less
than 1 million gallons today. Intermittent raw discharges,
caused by construction related bypasses, accidents or
malfunctions, have been reduced from an average of 200 million
gallons per day in 1973 to about 4 million gallons today.
Recent improvements were gained through our regulator
improvement program, budgeted in Fiscal 1990 at $3.1 million,
which has substantially eliminated dry weather leakage from
541
-------
AFA
faulty regulators.
The only remaining routine raw discharge comes from five
outfalls at the southern tip of Staten Island. Work is underway
on an interceptor sewer and pumping stations that will halt this
last discharge by 1993, at a cost of over $200 million. In
addition, lateral connections to the interceptor sewer will
eliminate the aging septic tanks and privately operated
"package'1 plants that have poorly served southern Staten Island.
As a result of our investments in new treatment plants and
our sewer system over the past 15 years, the City's annual
survey of Harbor water quality shows a significant drop in
coliform bacteria counts, and a significant increase in
dissolved oxygen. Total coliforms harborwide averaged 11,800
per 100 ml in 1974. They dropped 86%, to 1,600 per ml, by
1989. Fecal coliforms dropped 87%. Average dissolved oxygen
levels rose 34%, from 3.8 mg per liter in 1974 to 5.1 mg in
1989. Our surveys show that these basic water quality
indicators are finally returning to turn-of-the-century levels.
With raw sewage discharges under control, the City's $1.5
billion Combined Sewer Overflow Program is the next major step
toward better water quality. Our initial ten-year program is
focusing on the City's larcest combined sewer outfalls. The
benefits will be major gains in dissolved oxygen and coliforr;
542
-------
AFA
bacteria levels, as well as a reduction in floatable trash in
our waters. The first two projects will begin land use review
this spring and all eight projects in our initial program will
be in the facility planning stage by the middle of next year.
Our first two projects are for the Paerdegat Basin and Flushing
Bay coastal inlets, which are severely impacted by storm
runoff. Their target completion dates are 1995-1996.
The Combined Sewer Overflow Program incorporates both
traditionally-oriented projects, like the retention facilities
planned for our largest outfalls, and experimental approaches
like our test of a pontoon-based system in Fresh Creek. This
system, called the Flow Balance Method, has been used
successfully to abate storm runoff into freshwater lakes in
Sweden. Fresh Creek is the first location in the world to test
the system's ability to deal with combined sewer overflows into
saline waters. So far the results are highly encouraging. A
Federal grant paid half the $750,000 cost of the original
installation, and are in the process of obtaining similar monies
for a $1 million project to reconfigure and improve the
facility.
After combined sewer overflows come floatables. Following
the summer of 1988 DEP, along with State and Federal agencies,
developed a program to keet water borne trash from polluting our
beaches. Last year the City started a $2.7 million study that
543
-------
AFA
will lead to permanent measures to keep trash out of the water.
We are scrutinizing every possible source of floatable trash in
the New York Harbor, from storm and combined sewer overflows to
decaying piers, solid waste transportation and recreational
activities. We are also looking at the transmission of
floatables in, around, and out of our local waters. We expect
this study to yield significant data we can use to create a
systematic program for reducing floatables from sources in New
York City. We are also hopeful that the regional
information-gathering in the study will help other regional
localities focus their clean-up efforts.
After combined sewer overflows, we turn to toxic metals.
Regrettably, since we first began monitoring heavy metals in
Harbor waters in 1974 we have detected no significant long term
improvements, with the exception of a decrease in lead primarily
due to federally mandated cutbacks in leaded gasoline. On the
other hand we have seen a highly desirable result of our
aggressive enforcement of federal industrial pre-treatment
regulations, in a significant reduction of metals in our sewage
sludge. The s;aff of our Industrial Pretreatment Program has
grown from an initial twelve to 39, and we are trying to find
the resources to bolster the program staff again, to 58. We are
also looking to add additional staff to our water testing
laboratory.
544
-------
AFA
We are now concentrating on ways to reduce metals that leach
into our water from plumbing, beginning with copper. Success on
this front should yield gains in both sludge and Harbor water
quality.
After toxic metals, we must safely dispose of our sludge.
New York City halted the disposal of sludge at the 12-Mile Site
at the end of 1987, in compliance with Federal law that now
requires ocean disposal at the 106-Mile Site pending ocean
disposal phase-out by 1992. Whether these new measures improve
coastal water quality remains to be seen.
New York City has begun to invest tremendous sums in
land-based alternatives for sludge disposal. Last fall the City
placed an order for 53 sludge dewatering centrifuges, at a cost
of $44 million, which we plan to install on the grounds of eight
existing sewage treatment plants. Total costs for the
dewatering facilities alone are estimated at $694 million. We
are working with the private sector to find both interim and
permanen^ land-based sludge management alternatives that make
beneficial reuse of its organic qualities. That goal is going
to be difficult to obtain. We will need the help of those who
so fervently argued that sludge should be taken out of the
ocean. It is hardly good coastal policy to save the water at
the price of inflicting far worse damage on the land or air.
545
-------
AFA 8
For New York City, another element of coastal water
preservation is taking all possible steps to avoid resorting to
the Lower Hudson for drinking water. The reduction of flows
into our treatment plants is an important secondary gain from
water conservation, saving major infrastructure costs. We've
coordinated a $25 million Infiltration and Inflow study of the
sewers with electronic xt.ak detection of the water supply system
to abate groundwater infiltration from leaking water mains, we
are implementing the citywide Metering Program on a priority
area basis, and we are conducting door-to-door leak inspections
in buildings in those areas as well. By spring we hope to have
a program, at an estimated $1 million cost, to conduct free leak
and waste audits for homeowners citywide. This program will
also include installing free low-flow showerheads and aerators.
A keystone of our City-wide water conservation projects is
our $290 million, 10-year program to install water meters in all
630,000 residential buildings that have never been metered. We
are also replacing 170,000 existing meters. So far the program
is running ahead cf schedule, at a rate of approximately 1500
installations weekly.
The City has also mandated the installation of low flow
fixtures in new or renovated buildings. The City law adopted
the ultra-low 1.6 gallon per flush standard for toilets, for
which the law takes effect in 1992. We are working successfully
546
-------
AFA
with the plumbing industry and other city agencies to have the
ultra-low flow toilets installed voluntarily even before the
1992 deadline. Every year an estimated 200,000 toilets are
replaced in New York City.
To encourage property owners to retrofit their buildings
with low-flow fixtures, DEP has a pilot retrofit program
underway, using city-owned apartment buildings and low-flow
fixtures donated through the New York Plumbing Foundation. So
far the comparison of retrofitted buildings with the control
group shows a 30-40% drop in water consumption.
Public education about water conservation has become a
permanent DEP program since the 1985 drought emergency. In
Fiscal 1990 we allocated $600,000 for water conservation
programs, including videos, brochures for adults, educational
material for schoolchildren, and an exhibit opening Thursday at
the Con Edison Conservation Center.
In addition to seeking more funds for building on these
existing programs, the City plans to implement additional
pollution abatement and wetland protection projects. These
include Harbor System Modeling, a Greenhouse Effect evaluation,
the Staten Island Bluebelt program, the Harbor Herons Nature
Refuge Complex, the Buffer the Bay program for Jamaica Bay, the
Bronx River and Udalls Cove programs, and a variety of wetland
547
-------
AFA 10
restorations in various city coastal parks. We are moving
towards a permit with the Department of Environmental
Conservation on cleanup of hazardous waste sites and control of
discharges from Fresh Kills. New York City is also
participating in studies of the Long Island Sound, the New York
Bight, the Hudson River estuary and the New York-New Jersey
Harbor estuary to help devise plans for future regional water
quality improvements. As part of the Long Island Sound Study,
we have volunteered our Tallman Island sewage treatment plant in
Queens and budgeted over $300,000 to test methods there for
reducing nutrients in plant effluent.
I believe this represents reasonable progress by New York
City towards our goal of comprehensively putting our own house
in order.
The third component of an integrated strategy is
inter-governmental cooperation. Frankly, it is my limited
experience that we can do much better. However cordial and
collegial relationships are on the personal level, it is
difficult to see much evidence of an integrated approach to
Clean Water. State and Federal bureaucracies are understaffed
and too divorced from operational responsibilities to have any
clear sense of time urgency in the short term and time reality
in the long term. Moreover they suffer from their own internal
divisions of responsibility between regional officials and
548
-------
AFA 11
distant capitols, and are in the position that no theorist of
democratic government regards as desirable, of having power
without responsibility, particularly the power to require
actions from subordinate levels of government that they refuse
to accept responsibility for either paying for or dealing with
the obstacles to their implementation that no local government
has the power to remove.
A similar list of sins besets local and regional
governments. They, have let themselves be consumed by short term
local interests, political, economic and budgetary, to the
absence of any long term strategy of environmental improvement.
They have been far too willing to blame higher levels of
government for their own environmental failures and far too
unwilling to enter the national environmental political debate
on the broad scale of carrying forward national environmental
*
policy, as opposed to short term and immediately expedient
pursuits of parochial local interests.
Above all, an integrated inter-goverrmentao. approach would
be asking two questions: what planning is being done, and does
the current institutional division of labor make sense. I have
some strong concerns on both issues. It is difficult to see any
orderly thinking about environmental policy in the debates over
the Clean Air Act, on federal energy policy, and on a dozen
other topics, starting with water policy. Some legislation is
549
-------
AFA 12
resource focused, other is pollutant focused, some use command
and control measures, some is incentive driven, some performance
standard driven, some discretionary regulations. We have sludge
legislation making draconian demands that we get sludge out of
the ocean in an impossibly short time without the slightest
proof that the alternatives are environmentally more beneficial
standing side by side with federal toxics cleanup and pesticides
regulation programs that in very fundamental ways are more
environmental gesture than environmental regulation. We have
more models for citizen participation than you can shake a stick
at, and we have steadily more dissatisfied citizen groups. And
when it comes to preemption, the concept of consistency seems to
vanish from the English language.
Last, but certainly not least, there is the ominous
political and moral inconsistency bordering on the predatory
different jurisdictions often manifest towards each other. New
Jersey bemoans New York sludge and then moves forward towards
ringing the harbor with sludge incinerators that will send her
sludge products New York bound. New York State bemoans New
Jersey air emissions while ignoring the need to prevent
development in Sterling Forest from filling northern New Jersey
reservoirs with sewage. The Midwest bemoans shipments of
northeast garbage while blithely sending acid rain precursors
all over the northeast to save a few percentage points on
utility rates. Until there is a realization that political
550
-------
AFA 13
boundaries do not relieve governmental jurisdictions of their
responsibilities to their fellow Americans these practices, and
all they mean for coastal waters, will continue.
If this conference accomplishes anything, it will be to
suggest not that there are answers to the question of an
integrated approach, but some major massive questions that we
should no longer delay discussing.
Fifth, an integrated approach means a national approach, and
a national approach means one thing, national money. I'm new on
the block, I realize the Revolving Fund was meant to close out
the Federal Clean Water Funding responsibility question, but
let's unclose it. My biggest three combined sewer overflow
plants will cost less than one B-2 bomber. Which will do the
country more good? Reprogramming 1% of the current defense
budget would double the funding for EPA. Which would do the
country more good?
The lament out of Washington the last ten years is that we
cannot afford domestic investment in our infrastructure. Not
only is that statement astonishingly myopic, but it represents
an approach to the management of our Federal resources so
egregiously misguided that it cries out for challenge. It was
pointed out not too long aco that the main difference between
the Federal Budget in 1980 and today is that somewhat over $100
551
-------
AFA 14
billion has been cut from domestic programs and somewhat over
$100 billion has been added in interest on the national debt.
Senator Moynihan has pointed out that the 1980's was not a tax
cut decade, merely a time when we slashed income taxes on our
wealthiest citizens and offset them with social security tax
increases on hard working blue collar and middle class
taxpayers. The Federal i.overnment has made massive increases in
off-book loan guarantees and is now bailing out the Savings and
Loan industry to the tune of $200 billion plus. Under those
circumstances, any claim that the Federal government cannot
afford to spend some necessary billions a year on Clean Water
infrastructure is laughable. And it is time to say so. There
is a peace dividend coming that has to be reinvested in the
country's pressing social and environmental problems. It is
time we stopped impoverishing ourselves, neglecting and
degrading our basic natural resources.
The sixth component of an integrated coastal policy is an
integrated approach to the environment. It is time we stopped
pushing pollutants out of one media into another. Sludge is one
notorious example, but there are many others such as solid
waste, acid rain and toxic substances. This means it is time to
end the era of pollution control and begin a new era of
pollution prevention. There will be no cleaner coastal waters
without it. Here in the New York - New Jersey harbor region we
are admirably positioned to turn what is a necessity, a
552
-------
AFA 15
multi-media approach to pollution control, into a major
opportunity for national leadership.
Lastly, I must add that there has to be an integrated
philosophy of environmental protection. I think the two
concepts we must ground this on are equity and creativity.
Equity here means equal access to public resources. Let me
illustrate with a non-water example, the current Clean Air Act
debate. The Bush Administration costs its own Clean Air
proposals at $19 million, and they claim those of Clean Air
advocates would total $41 million. Assuming (and it's an
assumption only) for a moment that both these numbers are
correct, what the Bush Administration is arguing is that
industry should get to cut down $22 billion worth of Clean Air
from the public resource treasury. By what right? We have to
stop using the environment as a free resource to subsidize the
economic gains of a select few.
As for creativity, I hope the concept needs no introduction
but what does it mean in practice? It means rejecting the pat
solution, the standard orthodoxy and finding ways to craft
win-win solutions for all concerned. It is impossible to
overstate how much we will need this. There are no more easy
environmental victories in the years ahead. And without new
ideas, new approaches, a new era of integrated thinking and
integrated regional action, we will have no environmental
553
-------
AFA 16
victories at all .
In closing let me just suggest this: We all have immediate
and legitimate institutional needs, immediate and legitimate
bureaucratic and political authorities we must report to. But
if we cannot find a way to reconcile whatever differences these
produce to face the larger problem of coastal pollution, then
the environmental prognosis for the future is grim indeed. As
Benjamin Franklin once observed, we must all hang together, or
we will hang separately.
554
-------
EXISTING AND PLANNED ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS:
A NORWALK PERSPECTIVE
By: Domlnick M. Di Gangi, P.E.
City of Norwalk
Director of Public Works
INTRODUCTION
Much of what you have heard yesterday and this morning concerns the
importance of controlling the discharge of nutrients - more specifically
nitrogen - Into Long Island Sound. The preliminary data available from the
Long Island Sound Study suggest that we can no longer be content with
removing only 5-day biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids.
The environment appears to warrant that we do more. Alga! blooms and
resulting limited light penetration are related to nutrient enrichment - some
of which comes from municipal treatment plant effluents as well as non-
point sources such as urban runoff and agricultural runoff. We at Norwalk
have opted to do something about the contribution of total nitrogen our
treatment plant makes to Norwalk Harbor and to Long Island Sound.
Working with the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection and
our consulting engineers, Malcolm Pirnie, we have developed an aggressive
program to determine what method of biological treatment is best suited to
solving the nutrient removal issue at Norwalk. More importantly, the
program is geared toward developing processes that will have general
applicability to all secondary facilities discharging to the Sound, both in
New York and in Connecticut.
Long Island Sound is a vital resource. More locally, Norwalk Harbor is
extremely Important to the economy of the City of Norwalk and Fairfield
County. The City recognizes this and has embarked on an ambitious
555
-------
program to meet the problem head on and solve It. Today, I will describe
several elements concerning our work:
The general history of the City's environmental programs
A bit about our current process performance
The nature of the nutrient problem facing Norwalk Harbor
Our current program for biological nutrient removal.
With respect to nutrient removal, the City of Norwalk is Taking Action!!!
SOME BASIC HISTORY
The original Norwalk wastewater treatment plant was constructed by the
City in 1931. At that time, the facility consisted of the present primary
settling tanks and a chlorine contact tank for disinfection. Although a
primitive treatment works by today's advanced standards, the facility
provided a marked improvement over the many raw discharges and grit tank
that characterized waste treatment in Norwalk prior to its construction. At
best, the old primary plant removed suspended matter from the waste and
provided a measure of disinfection for the protection of the public health.
As residuals management become a problem owing to the competition for
space in an urban area, the plant was modified in the mid-1960's to include
a coil-type vacuum filter for the dewatering of primary sludge and a fluid
bed incinerator to combust the dewatered sludge and reduce its ultimate
volume to ash.
For over 40 years, the Norwalk plant existed as a primary facility until, in
1974, an activated sludge biological treatment process was added to comply
with state and federal water quality objectives. The secondary addition
included several conventional unit processes Including aeration tanks, final
clarifiers and additional chlorine contact facilities, as well as dissolved air
556
-------
flotation thickeners, centrifuges and an additional fluid bed incinerator for
solids handling.
The 1980's brought more change for Norwalk. Early in the decade, a
supplemental treatment facility - the only one of its kind In the State of
Connecticut - was constructed to primarily to treat storm water. A new
headworks was built, Including new bar screens, grit chambers and Parshall
flumes. However, the major element in the supplemental facilities were six
rotating drum microstrainers designed to treat stormwater In a flow stream
parallel with the secondary treatment facilities. The last major addition to
the facility came with the construction of a second fluid bed incinerator and
the replacement of the centrifuges with belt filter presses for the dewatering
of combined primary and secondary sludge. The original fluid bed
Incinerator was abandoned with the start-up of the new unit.
Today, the Norwalk plant can provide effective biological treatment for a
wastewater flow of 15 million gallons per day.
As you will see, permit limitations are consistently met with performance
being far better than required. Also, the plant provides treatment for up to
an additional 75 million gallons per day of stormwater in its supplemental
treatment facility. This is where we are in 1990. However, we anticipate
that the next five years may radically change the face of the Norwalk
wastewater treatment facility. The issue is nutrients.... here is why.
The Harbor
Norwalk Harbor Is an estuary formed by the confluence of the Norwalk
River with Long Island Sound. In an engineering report entitled "Norwalk
Harbor Demonstration Project for Hypoxia Control", the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection presented documentation concern-
557
-------
ing the need to mitigate severe low dissolved oxygen conditions in the
Harbor.
The estuary is characterized as having an "outer harbor" known as Sheffield
island Harbor and an "inner harbor* essentially comprised of the tidal
reaches of th® Norwalk River. The harbor has many prominent environmen-
tal features including th@ Stewart B. McKlnney Wildlife Refuge which
supports the third largest wading bird colony in the northeast as well as the
largest nesting and feeding heron colony on Long Island Sound. Also, the
harbor supports very significant commercial and recreational activities,
including:
Two public beaches
Twenty-two marinas
Twelve yacht clubs
Thirty commercial fishing vessels
Two thousand acres of sheSS fish beds
Seventy percent of all seed btd oysters sold in Connecticut
All of this contributes to an annual revenue of about 20 million dollars in
activity directly related to the Harbor. CSearSy, the vitality of Norwaik Harbor
is extremely important to maintain from both environmental and economic
perspectives.
THE PROBLEMS
Before I present the current action plan for the harbor and its implication
for the Sound, let's set th© stage by briefly discussing the problem.
Research conducted by Connecticut DEP has determined that Norwalk
Harbor has water quality problems including extremely low levels of
dissolved oxygen. Sampling and mathematical modelling have attributed
these hypoxlc conditions to excessive algal growth and resulting eutrophica-
558
-------
tion. The preliminary conclusion reached by DEP is that the conditions of
hypoxla are largely a result of the presence of the nutrient, nitrogen.
Nitrogen is present in the effluent from the Norwalk plant - as is the case
in most secondary plants not designed to remove nitrogen forms. The
implication here is that the nitrogen in the Norwalk effluent contributes to
the water quality difficulties In the Harbor. Clearly, there are other sources
of nitrogen, such as urban and agricultural runoff to the river. However,
these non-point sources are believed to be present in much smaller
quantities and are more difficult to control and quantify than a municipal
plant outfall.
As a result of the study work to date, it was concluded by DEP that the
control of nitrogen from the Norwalk plant could have a beneficial impact
on the Harbor. Moreover, since the harbor resembles the Sound itself in
many ways - for example, both water bodies exhibit localized hypoxic
conditions in a marine environment - I believe what we learn in NorwaSk will
have wide ranging benefit to many communities in both Connecticut and
New York. The Norwalk program is a key element in the overall Long
Island Sound Management plan. Now, I'll tell you about the program and
how we got there.
THE NORWALK DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
In March of 1989, the City advertised a Request for Proposal to develop a
facility plan to address the advanced waste treatment needs of the Norwalk
plant. After a review of proposals, the City selected based on qualifications
and experience the consulting engineering firm of Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. of
White Plains, New York to prepare the facility plan and develop the Norwalk
Harbor Demonstration Project. (As a side note, PIrnle's Vice President
559
-------
responsible for the project, Joe Lauria, is a graduate of Manhattan's
sanitary engineering program.)
The approach to solving the nitrogen removal problem had to be flexible;
several criteria were established:
Up to 90% removal of total nitrogen might be required
The City preferred a non-proprietary process, if possible
Re-use of existing tankage was desireable
Site constraints were considerable.
In consideration of the other plants which potentially could be affected by
nitrogen removal policy, I believe these criteria have relatively universal
applicability. We all have tight sites and would like to get maximum utility
out of existing facilities. With these thoughts In mind, the Norwalk
Demonstration Pilot Project was developed and funded two-thirds by a
planning grant obtained form Connecticut DEP.
To satisfy the study objectives, three separate pilot systems treating up to
a total of 9,000 gallons per day were designed and constructed on-site at
the Norwalk plant. Each pilot was designed as a biological nutrient removal
facility using a different process.
The first pilot was constructed with basic design criteria similar to the
existing secondary treatment processes. Our intent with this system is to
see just how far we can 'push" nitrogen removal in a model of a conven-
tional secondary plant by doing "simple" things such as cycling on and off
the diffused aeration system, installing fixed baffles In the aeration basins,
modifying mixed liquor concentrations and varying recycle rates. Suc-
cesses here will be translated to full plant trials and also could be tried at
560
-------
other municipal plants designed along the same conventional mid-1970's
criteria as were the Norwalk secondary facilities.
A second pilot system was constructed with specific aerated, mixed and
anaerobic zones with tankage and internal recycles established so as not
to infringe on existing patents for three-stage biological nutrient removal
processes. We believe this system may achieve levels of total nitrogen
removal approaching 90 percent.
A third pilot system was constructed using a modification of the 5-stage
Bardenpho process. The system contains two aerated zones and three
zones of very low dissolved oxygen designed to achieve up to 90 percent
removal of total nitrogen forms.
All three pilot systems are being operated simultaneously and are treating
primary effluent from the existing treatment plant. A mechanical chiller is
in-place and is capable of reducing the 9,000 gallons per day of primary
effluent to a temperature of about 5 to 7 degrees centigrade. This will be
used to asses the impact of cold weather on process performance.
Currently, we plan to operate all three systems for at least six months.
BENEFITS
There is much to be gained from the Norwalk Biological Nutrient Removal
Demonstration Pilot Program:
Pilot scale evaluation of three alternate biological nutrient
removal technologies will determine the best approach to year-
round nutrient removal, not only for Norwalk, but for al! plants
discharging to the Sound. The data available from cold weather
operation of the biological nutrient processes will be of
561
-------
significant benefit to all designers of wastewater treatment
facilities.
More accurate cost estimates for the design, construction and
operation of advanced facilities of this type can be determined
through pilot plant scale-up.
Subsequent to construction, the opportunity to study post-
treatment water quality Improvements In Norwalk Harbor will
provide unique and useful data pertinent to understanding the
problems encountered in Long Island Sound itself.
Subsequent to construction, the Norwalk facility would be the
first of its kind in Connecticut and could serve as an instruction
center for municipal staff involved with treatment plant opera-
tions and maintenance.
SUMMARY
To summarize briefly, I've discussed some of the history of the Norwalk
facilities and described the problems facing Norwalk Harbor. The existing
environmental programs and their performance have been described; the
existing plant is doing quite well.
Nutrient removal is the next step. Our program is ambitious and currently
is being Implemented. The benefits that will be derived for the Norwalk
Demonstration Pilot Project will advance significantly our understanding of
the most appropriate biological nutrient removal technology for this climate
and will have broad implications for Sound-wide water quality Improvements.
562
-------
The City is proud to be among the leaders in contributing to the nutrient
removal solution for Long Island Sound.
Thank you.
563
-------
EXISTING AND PLANNED ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS:
AN INDUSTRY PERSPECTIVE
by
Geraldine V. Cox, Ph.D.
Vice President Technical Director
Chemical Manufacturers Association
ABSTRACT
The chemical industry initiated several programs that reduce its contribution of contami-
nants to the estuary system. For ten years we have operated waste reduction programs to lower
the volume of wastes we generate, and to increase the treatment levels of the wastes that are must
be disposed. This program has been superseded by the Responsible Care Initiative which is a
broader program that includes waste reduction and other elements. Responsible Care is an obli-
gation of membership in the Association.
Responsible Care has management practice codes that address various operational ele-
ments of the chemical industry. The most relevant code to the New York Bight is the Waste and
Release Reduction, WARR, Code. This code will be adopted shortly by the industry and focuses
on reducing waste at the point of generation.
BACKGROUND
When I first worked on the New York Bight in 1970,1 can remember the gross pollution
that came from just about every source imaginable. The industrial effluents had some control,
but not that much. Sewage treatment of municipal wastes was primary — if at all. Combined
sewer overflows carried raw sewage, industrial wastes and runoff from the streets that was laden
with heavy metals, salts and other wastes. The majority of the heavy metals, 96%, entering the
New York Bight came from the Hudson and its tributaries (NOAA, 1975). The practice of
dumping garbage from New York stopped at least a decade before, but disposal of primary sew-
age sludge and construction rubble continued. While ocean dumping of industrial and munici-
pal wastes was a common practice at that time, this practice has contributed little contamination
relative to the total loading to the New York Bight.
When I drove through New Jersey toward New York I can remember air pollution so
severe that my eyes swelled shut and I could not see. I remember driving along open trash
heaps in the tidal marshes north of the Newark Airport. The swarms of sea gulls that fed
on the dumps became a hazard for the airplanes landing at the airport. Fallout from air
pollution and seepage from improperly managed waste disposal operation contributed sig-
nificant levels of contamination to the New York Estuary and Bight.
565
-------
Fortunately that picture of the past is becoming more of a memory.
Many things have changed in the intervening twenty years. State and Federal legislation
and regulation and voluntary industry actions have reduced industrial inputs to the Bight
Ocean dumping of industrial wastes is no longer practiced in the New York Bight Industry has
significantly reduced the levels of organics and toxic materials in its effluent. Industry has re-
duced the volume of the wastes it generates and has significant recycling and reuse programs.
The quantity of airborne contamination is a small fraction of what it was in the 1970s. This air-
borne reduction reduces the quantity of materials that enter the waterways by atmospheric fall-
out and non-point source reduction. The practices of waste disposal have changed in that same
period. Industry is under severe restrictions for its disposal of wastes.
Unfortunately other things have not changed soon enough. The treatment of municipal
wastes — both waterborne and solid — lag well behind industrial counterparts. Ocean disposal
of industrial wastes is a thing of the past. New York is finally ceasing its ocean disposal of sew-
age sludge. New York City's slow movement to secondary treatment and the continued prob-
lems with municipal solid waste disposal force me to give the New York Estuary and Bight a
mixed report card for the past twenty-year period.
INDUSTRY RESPONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY
Responsible Care
The chemical industry has accepted its role to protect the environment and the
communities surrounding our operations. We believe that we have an obligation to go beyond
legal requirements. This commitment has its roots deep in the history of the industry and cur-
rently is manifested in our Responsible Care management code.
The Responsible Care initiative has five key elements:
1. Guiding Principles — The Guiding Principles of Responsible Care are statements
regarding health, safety and environmental quality upon which management
practice codes are based. The Principles recognize both public concerns and the
industry's desire for self-improvement
2. Codes of Management Practice — Responsible Care is defined through a series of
management practice codes. Each code clearly states its purpose and the manage-
ment practices it is intended to foster. Each code also states the intended results
and defines, in a qualitative way, what is expected of member companies. All
codes will be accompanied by implementation resource materials that identify
ways a company can improve its performance. Codes aim to encourage
companies to stretch themselves to achieve higher levels of performance. Codes
are reviewed by a Public Advisory Panel and member companies before final ap-
proval.
3. Public Advisory Panel — Fundamental to Responsible Care is the Public Advi-
sory Panel. This panel is composed of informed citizens and environmental
and community leaders from across the country. It helps ensure that the pub-
lic's concerns are understood and that actions are taken to respond to those
concerns. The Panel reviews all proposed Codes of Management Practices and
will provide early warning on issues of public concern.
566
-------
Cox
4. Member Self-Evaluation — Each management practice code requires a mem-
ber company to conduct an annual self-evaluation of its progress on imple-
menting each element of that code. This assists company management to deter-
mine whether a change in implementation is necessary. The self-evaluations
also will assist CMA to gauge overall industry progress and to identify areas
where additional resource materials are needed.
5. Executive Leadership Groups — Executive Leadership Groups are regional
meetings of Chief Executive Officers (CEO) and other senior industry execu-
tives that provide an opportunity for companies to meet and discuss their prog-
ress and share experiences with Responsible Care implementation. Each group
is chaired by a CEO or other senior executives and each region contains ap-
proximately thirty companies. Group members discuss individual progress on
overall implementation, identify areas where individual companies need assist-
ance and suggest adjustment to the program.
6. Obligation of Membership — Obligation of membership includes: 1) signing
the Guiding Principles; 2) commitment within the company; and 3) to partici-
pate in code drafting and good faith effort to implement the code.
Guiding Principles
CMA developed the Guiding Principles of Responsible Care from a position statement
adopted in 1983 by CMA's Board of Directors. The statement acknowledged public concern
about the impact of chemicals and hazardous waste on human health and the environment.
In the statement, CMA endorsed principles regarding health and safety and environmental
quality and urged its members and all chemical manufacturers to adopt them. CMA ex-
panded upon this statement, using the Canadian Responsible Care Principles along with
guidance from member company Executive Contacts, to prepare the Guiding Principles.
Responsible Care begins with each member company's Executive Contact signing the
principles, Table 1, as evidence of the company's commitment to support fully an effort to
continuously improve the industry's responsible management of chemicals. Table 2 provides
management code development dates.
TABLE 1. GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR RESPONSIBLE CARE A
PUBLIC COMMITMENT
As a member of the Chemical Manufacturers Association, this company is committed to sup-
port a continuing effort to improve the industry's responsible management of chemicals. We
pledge to manage our business according to these principles:
• To recognize and respond to community concerns about chemicals and our
operations.
567
-------
TABLE 1. (cont.)
• To develop and produce chemicals that can be manufactured, transported,
used and disposed of safely.
• To make health, safety and environmental considerations a priority in our
planning for all existing and new products and processes.
• To report promptly to officials, employees, customers and the public, informa-
tion on chemical-related health or environmental hazards and to recommend
protective measures.
• To counsel customers on the safe use, transportation and disposal of chemical
products.
• To operate our plants and facilities in a manner that protects the environment
and the health and safety of our employees and the public.
• To extend knowledge by conducting or supporting research on the health, safe-
ty and environmental effects of our products, processes and waste materials.
• To work with others to resolve problems created by past handling and disposal
of hazardous substances.
• To participate with government and others in creating responsible laws, regula-
tions and standards to safeguard the community, workplace and environment.
« To promote the principles and practices of Responsible Care by sharing expe-
riences and offering assistance to others who produce, handle use, transport or
dispose of chemicals.
TABLE 2. RESPONSIBLE CARE IMPLEMENTATION
Code of Management Practices
• Community Awareness and Emergency Response Approved November
1989
• Waste and Release Reduction Will be presented for approval in April
1990
• Process Safety Will be presented for approval in June 1990
• Distribution Will be presented for approval in November 1990
• Waste Management Will be presented for approval in April 1991
568
-------
Cox
TABLE 2. (cont.)
• Product Stewardship Will be presented for approval in Winter 1991
• Worker Health and Safety Will be presented for approval in Spring of
1991
Responsible Care is a program of the present and the future. The chemical industry has
reduced its contributions to the general contamination of the New York Bight through other
programs that will be incorporated into the Responsible Care Codes of Management Practice.
Hazardous Waste Management
The Chemical Manufacturers Association has conducted numerous seminars and prod-
uced materials to help its members reduce the volume of wastes it generates and to provide
better treatment for those wastes that must be handled. This effort has paid off (Tischler/
Kocurek, 1989).
Wastewater
• Between 1981 and 1987, the participants have reduced wastewater generation
by 18.6%.
• The quantity of waste treated in NPDES facilities decreased by 12.7% from
1981 to 1987.
• Discharge to a POTW decreased 65.8% from 1981 to 1987.
• Wastewater treatment by means other than in NPDES facilities or by dis-
charge to a POTW decreased by 84.6% from 1981 to 1987.
• Underground injection decreased by 9% between 1981 and 1987.
Solid Waste
• Solid waste generation increased 27.1% from 1981 to 1987 — mainly from
recycled wastes. Without including recycled wastes, solid waste generation actu-
ally decreased 41.5% from 1981 to 1987.
• Incineration increased 50.2% from 1981 to 1987.
• Solid waste treatment by means other than incineration decreased by 69.8%
from 1981 to 1987.
• Landfill disposal decreased by 13.6% from 1981 to 1987.
• Incineration increased from 14.7% in 1981 to 44.9% in 1987.
569
-------
•
Landfill disposal increased from 13.3% in 1981 to 30.5% in 1984. Since 1984,
there has been a steady decrease to 23.4% in 1987.
In 1987, of the hazardous solid waste that the chemical industry generated, 77.2% was
recycled. Recycling includes material reclamation/reuse/recovery and energy recovery.
Rather than belabor the point, the chemical industry is generating far less waste than it
did a decade ago, and it is managing that waste in a far more rigorous manner than it did
even five years ago. The net result is that the wastes from our operations have significantly
less impact on the New York Bight.
Fugitive Emissions
Another program of the Chemical Manufacturers Association is Fugitive Emissions. In
1989, the Chemical Manufacturers published Improving Air Quality: Guidance for Estimat-
ing Fugitive Emissions from Equipment. This manual helps the member companies to iden-
tify the sources of fugitive emissions from operating equipment so that the sources can be
controlled. We worked with the Environmental Protection Agency to assure that the manual
conformed to the Agency's methodology. This has helped many members to reduce the emis-
sions from previously unmonitored sources. The manual is supported with three video tapes
and a computer program, Plant Organizational Software System for Emissions from Equip-
ment, POSSEE. POSSEE supports the organization, entry and analysis of plant data and
field measurements of fugitive emissions. It allows entry of screening and bagging data too.
Airborne contaminations are a concern in the New York Bight, and with such programs
the chemical industry is reducing its contribution of contamination to the watershed.
SUMMARY
The chemical industry has made significant improvements in its operations in the New
York Bight area. The environmental protection programs instituted by the industry and by
the federal and state governments make it much less significant as a source of contamination
in the region. The industry is committed to improving its performance even more. Contami-
nation from the chemical industry is no longer a significant threat to the Bight. Nationwide,
the contribution of pollution to waters is less than 11% from all industrial sources (CEQ,
1987).
REFERENCES
Chemical Manufacturers Association. 1988. POSSEE Users Manual, Software and Video
Tapes. Chemical Manufacturers Association, Washington, DC.
Chemical Manufacturers Association. 1989. Improving Air Quality: Guidance for Estimat-
ing Fugitive Emissions from Equipment. Chemical Manufacturers Association,
Washington, DC.
Council on Environmental Quality. 1987. Environmental Quality. 18th Annual Report to
the Council on Environmental Qauliry.
570
-------
Cox
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1975. Evaluation of Proposed Sewage
Sludge Dump Site in the New York Bight. Prepared by MESA, Stoney Brook, N.Y.
NOAA Technical Memorandum ERL MESA-11.
Tischler/Kpcurek. 1989. 1987 CMA Hazardous Waste Survey. Chemical Manufacturers
Association, Washington, DC.
571
-------
SETTING PRIORITIES: A NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
David A. Fierra
Water Management Division, U.S. EPA Region I
Thank you, Rich. I guess I'm supposed to be talking about priorities from EPA's
perspective in six minutes. Maybe I'll try to do it in one minute by saying that as everyone
here expects, EPA considers everything a high priority and everything should be done
tomorrow. That's my short speech. But I guess I've got to go through at least six minutes.
I've been with EPA since the beginning and I've seen it evolve. In the beginning
years, EPA dealt largely and continues to deal largely with point source problems, at least
in the water program. They got very used to running programs, very specific programs,
permitting programs, enforcement programs, things that were easily quantifiable. I guess
that those are the things that are more easily dealt with from a budget perspective.
Congress likes to know how many permits are going to get issued for how many people and
how many enforcement actions. Unfortunately, that has driven EPA to be very program
specific. I know that it is true in some of the other programs, although I'm not as familiar
with them. We've tended over the last 20 years or so to be very, very program specific ~
a lot of it because of legislation, the need to deal with what may be called the most obvious
problems, and because that is where we can best get our budget. I think in the early 1980's
we realized that we really hadn't accomplished, and were not going to be able to
accomplish, what Congress intended us to accomplish back when the Clean Water Act was
passed in 1972. I think through experiences such as what was going on in the Great Lakes,
the Chesapeake Bay, and other areas, we realized that we were not accomplishing the goal
of a healthy ecosystem and a healthy environment.
One example I would like to use to further emphasize that problem is Cape Cod,
Massachusetts, where there are no point source discharges because there is a state Ocean
Sanctuaries Act, but where we continue to have nutrification problems, and more shellfish
beds are closed every year. Obviously you can't turn around and point at the pipes coming
out of New York City or Boston or anywhere else as the problem ~ not even CSOs. So
really we have to start looking at things differently. We've got to start looking at things that
we haven't looked at ~ some of the nonpoint source issues.
573
-------
What Administrator Reilly asked the Agency to do over the last year is to try and
start dealing with some of these broader issues. I think he's frustrated by the way some of
our laws are very parallel, they don't integrate activities. I think that because of that, he's
asked the Agency to embark on a strategic planning process.
I can talk a little bit about what we are doing in the water program, and particularly
in my region. We're one of three regions in the country that have been asked to pilot a
strategic plan, and I'll try to talk about the national environmental priorities we are trying
to deal with in a strategic sense. The Office of Water Strategic Plan — the Office of Water
Program with its strategic plan ~ has come to recognize the Chesapeake Bays, the Long
Island Sounds, and the New York Bight, by saying that we need to emphasize some of these
ecosystems but we also need to continue some of the activities that we have had ongoing
for the last 20 years. Basically we have taken the position that we must maintain the
environmental gains that have been made and at the same time start solving some of the
ecosystem problems. With limited resources, that is going to prove to be a real challenge.
I'd like to talk a little bit about my perspective on how these issues fit together and
what they mean. To maintain environmental gains, as Administrator Reilly mentioned
yesterday, requires continued enforcement, in fact, increased enforcement. He mentioned
something to the effect that he would be out the door if the numbers didn't go up. I
certainly took that as a message that I'd probably go out the door before he would, if the
numbers didn't go up. I do see an emphasis on enforcement. I think we can take that
emphasis and put it where it's going to make a bigger difference, maybe in some areas that
are more important than others. I think looking at toxics and the enforcement of toxics
regulations in the coastal zone is certainly something that we could and should do more of.
In another area ~ the wetlands issue — I think we should have more aggressive enforcement,
particularly in some of the sensitive areas. I hope enforcement is not going to just be
number driven but it's going to have an impact.
I think we need to do more pretreatment and we need to do more regarding point
source discharges. Again, I think we have to target some of these activities because of
limited resources and implement them where they are going to do the most good. I think
a lot of people here feel that the coastal areas would be one of those target areas.
The no net loss policy - I personally think that habitat protection is vital to the
survival of any coastal system and we need to do more than just enforce regulations against
violators. We need to look at more preservation. We need to be more proactive. There
are habitat wetland areas in the coastal areas that have been degraded but have the
potential to be restored. I think we need to seek out and restore them, not just implement
the no net loss policy, i.e., trade off one for another. I think we've got to start getting a leg
up on that, at least in the sensitive areas.
Another new program is the nonpoint source program as a national priority. I think
this is something that is particularly important in sensitive areas. Actually, when a lot of
574
-------
people talk about nonpoint source problems they equate them almost totally with
agricultural issues. I think it certainly is a major issue and a big problem. I also think that
there are a lot of other nonpoint source kinds of activities that are critical to the coastal
areas and to the Northeast and we need to do a better job of lobbying in terms of their
importance.
I think another principle that both Administrator Reilly and LaJuana Wilcher have
emphasized is the whole area of pollution prevention. I think it is particularly critical and
should be interwoven into whatever priorities we set. As I mentioned yesterday, I would
encourage people to not limit their thinking about pollution prevention to waste
minimization but, rather, to look at it in its broadest sense in terms of resource protection
and what needs to be done in areas such as land use management. There are certain things
we need to limit -- the loading zone - and the most important one in the marine
environment is nutrients.
What criteria should be used to establish priorities? Well, for one thing, we need to
maintain the quality of the environment that we have already attained. And that's a tricky
job. In my region, for strategic planning, we have decided, for better or for worse, that we
are going to pay somewhat less attention to point source discharges in freshwater areas,
particularly large streams that have a lot of dilution and probably don't need as much
attention. That doesn't mean that those permits aren't going to be enforced — they are
going to be enforced. They are in effect. But we are considering not reissuing them as
rapidly as we have in the past. That's a small thing, but we are also looking at inspections
to see where they make a big difference, in terms of risk and knowing that we have got to
do more inspections in sensitive areas with a set level of resources. We're trying to identify
areas where, even if we have a minor violation from time to time, we're not going to have
a water quality problem.
I think preservation of habitat in the coastal area is something that, in the shor* term,
we should decide to do, seek out, and take a proactive approach. I was happy to see this
morning that it was ranked high across the board. Obviously, all levels of government can
play a role in that as well as citizens.
We should, in the short term, make a commitment to looking at all ways of changing
our lifestyles, and preventing pollution. I think we could all do something and it needs to
be done collectively. We need to establish that as an effort.
I think the other problems that we've heard talked about today and yesterday --
nutrients, the pathogens, and toxics ~ I've heard arguments on both sides of those issues that
I could probably use to make a case for prioritizing them one way or another. I also heard
Commissioner Carothers, and I think she hit it right on the money when she said we need
good science and we need commitment from everyone. I think what we need to do to
establish some of those priorities is to bring together people who are going to be effective,
who are going to be making decisions, who are going to be affected by the decisions, and
575
-------
who need to make a commitment and bring more public interest and public input into this.
I think nutrients, at least in Long Island Sound, are a systemwide problem and need to be
dealt with by both states and dealt with in the very near future. Many of the other issues,
e.g., pathogens, combined sewer overflows, some toxics in some cases may be more local
problems. I think that we, as regulators, need input from people in terms of the value of
some of the affected resources because everyone has said solutions are very expensive and
they are not going to be accomplished overnight. We need broad-based input; we need to
hear from everyone, we need to go out and solicit input because the regulatory program
itself, whether it be permits or enforcement, is not going to accomplish the whole job. It
needs to be done in collaboration with a whole group of people including scientists and so
forth, and we need to get our act together to determine what makes the most sense for a
given resource area. We need a process for doing that. In my region, I've been trying to
work with my states to develop what we are calling a state clean water strategy. What we
are looking at is a nonpoint source strategy, issues dealing with nonpoint sources. We have
always had a permit strategy which is basically to take care of the permits, reissue permits,
and enforce permits. We need to have some integrating approach to bring those two
strategies together and to identify the resources and the actions that the public is most
interested in and most committed to implementing because that's really what it's all about.
We need some kind of a process like that. In Long Island Sound and some of the estuary
programs we have many of the ingredients for achieving it. We have very good CACs and
technical advisory committees. I think we need to reach out and bring in the politicians, and
in some cases we've done that. That, to me, is a decisionmaking process. It is not
necessarily what a scientist can say is the worst problem or the most serious problem. We
need to be able to solve the problem. People need to know what is important to them, and
they need to know how to communicate that to us. I don't feel it can be a scientific
approach to things. Science certainly has to play a role but so does everyone else. So, I
think that what I would do in the coastal areas would be to continue the coalitions that have
been built, build on them, and continue the dialogue. I hope we can arrive at some
consensus on what things are really the most important in terms of the ecosystem and the
public's interest, and move forward with that kind of an approach.
576
-------
AN INTEGRATED AGENDA FOR CLEANING UP OUR COASTAL WATERS
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Q. Arthur Glowka, Long Island Sound Task Force. There are a couple of things that Mr.
Di Gangi left out. The Norwalk Plant, which is 75 miles up the Sound was probably one of the
worst run sewage treatment plants on Long Island. It was sued successfully by a group of
citizens in 1985 and they settled out of court. The plant is now being run by Malcolm Pirnie,
Engineers, because the city does not have the facilities or the people to run it themselves. One
of the reasons that this plant was picked out for nutrient removal was because you have a very
active citizens water monitoring group who have a good profile on exactly what the water quality
is of the Norwalk River. Any of this work that gets done on the Norwalk Plant you can tell
whether it's improving the Norwalk River or not. But Mr. Di Gangi also forgets the fact that he
can't even handle his own sludge; it's being trucked up to Naugatuck, right?
A. In the interim, yes.
Q. In the interim. For how many years in the interim? All right, now. The last thing are these
pilot plants, for 3,000 gallons a day. Are these actually operating and who's paying for them?
A. They are part of the state grant, as I mentioned. Either they are on the verge of
operating or will operate.
Q. So they are not operating. What kind of money and who's paying it?
A. I believe it's about $600,000 to $450,000.
Q. / just want to bring these up.
A. The Norwalk Treatment Plant is operated by city personnel, managed by Malcolm
Pirnie, who provides two people. Yes, there is a consent degree that was initiated and
settled out of court that occurred about two years after the City was in the process of
making massive improvements to the treatment plant. A monitoring period was created as
part of the settlement and the plant performed, I believe, very well. The fine that was
instituted was theoretically to be $750 per violation and I think there were five. Yes, there
was a suit but it caught the plant on its upturn not its downswing.
Q. It couldn't have gotten any worse.
Q. Eugenia Flatow, Coalition for the Bight. / would like to know how do you compare the
cost of the improvements that were made.
577
-------
A. The treatment plant, in the last five years, has doubled most of the operations. Most
of the capital improvements come out of the capital budget and are spread out over a 20-
year period. The cost to the taxpayer has been tremendous. There's been about $10 million
in investments for the treatment plant, I believe, over the last five years. It is normally the
city's number one priority on its capital budget.
Q. / guess I was realfy interested in the cost beyond the secondary treatment.
A. I don't believe we have a handle on those numbers.
578
-------
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FROM TUESDAY'S WORKSHOP
SESSIONS: THE PRIMARY FACTORS CAUSING USE
IMPAIRMENT AND OTHER ADVERSE ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS
Facilitators
579
-------
NUTRIENT/ORGANIC ENRICHMENT
John P. Lawler
Lawler, Matusky & Skelfy
The conclusions of the three groups that addressed nutrient/organic enrichment were
presented in plenary session on Wednesday, March 14, 1990, in four categories: information
requirements, point source control, nonpoint source control, and original source control.
INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS
Under this category, the group identified four subcategories: models, costs of control
options, achievable standards, and a unified data base.
Everyone in all three groups saw a need to complete the component models for the
Sound, the Bight, and the Harbor; a high priority was placed on doing this, on a short-term
basis, within the framework of the studies. The understanding was that we really can't get
the answers we're looking for without the completion of these models. The development
of a systemwide model was recommended, in which the components from the three
individual models would be taken and put together. This was given a medium priority and
viewed as a long-term effort.
Most people in each of the groups felt that there simply wasn't enough work done
at this time in any of the management studies in terms of developing the costs of the various
control options. Cost development needs to take place on a parallel basis, now, in the short-
term, while the models are being developed; i.e., we need to know the costs of various
control options at the same time the answers from the models being developed are
becoming known.
Achievable standards was a discussion specific to the Sound. Dissolved oxygen
standards on the Sound are at least 5 mg/L in all cases and in some places 6 mg/L, whereas
the maximum level at which adverse effects have been observed is 4 mg/L, and the hypoxia
581
-------
problem is discussed in terms of 3 mg/L or less. To achieve 5 or even 6 mg/L was
perceived to involve a major cost, and questions as to how realistic such standards are were
addressed.
A long-term need to continue the monitoring program and to see that the data from
all of the areas were placed in some kind of unified data base was identified.
POINT SOURCE CONTROL
Point source control was viewed largely in terms of nitrogen removal at sewage
treatment plants. Current operations should be maximized as much as possible to obtain
whatever nitrogen removal can be achieved at the plants now. The issue of additional
sludge generation by changing certain process operations may not have been addressed.
Again, focusing on the Sound and on the short-term basis, facility planning was aimed
first and foremost on retrofits at the existing plants. Several different speakers discussed
what was going on in Connecticut at this time, and New York City's program at Tallman's
Island was also noted.
Facility planning to evaluate what would be required for new additions to achieve
major nitrogen removal should also be done, with cost and achievable removal the twin
objectives of each study.
No position whatsoever should be taken on what additional requirements, if any,
should be placed on the New York City plants on the East River and Long Island Sound
until the level of East River transport of nutrients from the various plants on the Sound is
determined on completion of the models, particularly the Sound model.
Consideration should be given to requiring that new plants, in areas where such could
clearly be considered to be contributing to the hypoxia problem, include nitrogen removal.
NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL
One group felt atmospheric deposition should be studied on short-term basis and put
a medium priority on it. Another group felt that it should be reduced on a long-term basis
and also put a medium priority on it. Both viewed the problem as systemwide as opposed
to individual water bodies.
Land use controls and land use management programs were discussed with specific
reference to wetlands. This was viewed on a systemwide basis and both short and long term.
582
-------
Lawler
A high priority should be placed on beginning the planning now as part of the program and
ultimately seeing it become a continuing thing.
Some specific commentary was made on tributaries as to what their contributions
actually are and what one could do to attenuate that effect.
Stuart Freudberg presented a large number of steps that are being taken in the
Chesapeake Bay region in the area of nonpoint source controls. With respect to new
developments, more thought should be given to the stormwater retention that already takes
place in many developments. Though normally required from a flooding standpoint, the
kinds of things that we do today for flooding, with some minor changes, also have some
benefits in the area of nutrient control, e.g., wet rather than dry detention ponds, particularly
two-stage.
ORIGINAL SOURCE CONTROL
All three groups saw education of the public as to how each individual person can
contribute to source control as the important factor to achieve original source control. This
recommendation focused on the lifestyle changes that were heard in any number of
discussions through the three days of the conference.
Two groups felt that at least there should be some studies on phosphate bans.
Everybody felt that water conservation is a must. All kinds of benefits come from
it and strong recommendations should be made for it.
Either on a required basis or at least by encouraging it through some kind of
incentive, organic fertilizers with slow release of nitrogen should be fostered as the
commercial fertilizer of choice.
Boat sewage at marinas should be pumped to sewers and sewage treatment plants.
583
-------
PATHOGENS/FLOATABLES
Robert Runyon
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Although the workgroups for pathogens and floatables issues were combined,
comments on the impacts and recommended control strategies were segregated based upon
significant differences in the activities associated with assessment and implementation
mechanisms.
PATHOGENS
The first topic for which a necessary action was considered centered on the need to
develop a water quality indicator related to health risk. During this discussion,
consideration was also given to investigating a human-specific indicator. The basis for this
consideration is recent data showing that existing indicator systems have little or even
negative correlation with human health risk from bathing. It was proposed that regulators
working with the scientific community throughout the entire system would accomplish this
activity. Timing was considered to be short term owing to the obvious need, but several
years may be needed to accomplish this task. Priority ranking was high.
The second necessary action discussed was development of minimal standards for
bathing beach closures relevant to the task mentioned previously. The current
inconsistencies among various states involved in classifying bathing waters, as well as the
opening and closing of bathing areas for swimming, were discussed. There is, however,
national consistency in classifying and regulating the use of waters for harvesting of shellfish.
The scope of this action is systemwide with a short-term time frame and is rated as high
priority.
The third recommended action involves investigating the effectiveness and the
adverse impacts of disinfection. This action is directed toward two related areas: the first
would investigate current disinfection practices to evaluate their efficiency in killing the
pathogens that most frequently result in human illness from either ingestion of shellfish or
swimming in polluted water; the second would investigate the adverse environmental
585
-------
impacts of disinfectants currently discharged into the harbor receiving waters. The scope
was considered to be systemwide; priority was considered to be medium for localized areas
and lower for offshore areas of the Bight itself.
The fourth topic for recommended action was the reduction and abatement of CSO
discharges. This effort requires coordination of all Federal, State, and city authorities in the
Harbor and the Sound. The three prior recommended actions were discussed before this
action, since it is recognized that the information developed in actions one through three
would serve to ensure that the most appropriate, cost-effective abatement strategies would
be implemented. This is critical owing to the immense cost of implementing this action to
reduce pathogen concentrations. This also needs to be accomplished as soon as possible
and was rated as a high-priority action.
The fifth recommended action discussed recognizes the need to control pathogen
contributions from marina operations, standardizing requirements for pump-outs or other
mechanisms to eliminate this source. This was rated as a short-term medium priority action
to be accomplished by coordinated Federal, State, and local authorities.
FLOATABLES
The group developed more recommended actions regarding floatables issues during
the discussion. A central theme that was expressed throughout the discussion by virtually
all participants was the emphasis that must be placed on public education concerning the
role of the individual in controlling floatables pollution. Topics discussed in this area
involved the individual's role in floatables from CSOs and stormwater. Methods of "getting
the message out" were discussed, including the use of the media and educational curricula
in the schools. Additional discussion mentioned the role of the individual in recycling,
particularly medical-related waste.
The second recommended action recognized the contributions of shoreline cleanup
to reducing floatables, recommending an expansion of New Jersey's "Operation Clean
Shores" and a continuation of the waterborne cleanup by the Army Corps of Engineers and
the regional "Floatables Action Plan." This effort is rated as a short-term, high-priority
action within the Harbor.
The third recommended action lumped a variety of recommendations into the
category of source reduction. This included recycling, redesign of packaging, and instruction
on disposal for insulin syringes and instruction on disposal of home-generated medical-
related waste. Discussion also involved education to implement changes in life style,
involving industry and all levels of government as well as the public in implementation. The
scope was considered systemwide, timeframe as short term and continuing, and the priority
was rated as high.
586
-------
The fourth action, surveillance and enforcement, was discussed in the framework of
a perceived need to have adequate surveillance coverage to detect illegal disposal or other
illegal activities resulting in floatables discharges as well as to have appropriate enforcement
authority to penalize offenders. It was recommended that the public have the opportunity
to report violations that they observe. This action scope was systemwide, with a short-term
time frame and a medium to high priority.
The reduction of CSO discharges was also recommended as an action item under
floatables, since the most objectionable floatable items stranded on shorelines often are
sewage-related material. Additionally, group members expressed concern that stormwater
collection systems must also be addressed since they also contribute significant floatables
concentrations. The CSO abatement action was rated as high priority within the Harbor and
Sound, with the stormwater system operation and maintenance throughout the system rated
as medium to high. Both were recommended as short-term and continuing timeframe
actions.
TABLE 1. Pathogens
Action Who Where Time frame Priority
1. Develop indicator Regulators/ Systemwide Short and High
related to health scientists long
(Human specific)
2. Develop minimal Regulators Systemwide Short High
standards relevant to
No. 1 bathing standard
3. Investigate Regulators/ Systemwide Short Med.-localized
effectiveness and scientists Lower-offshore
adverse envi ron-
mental impacts of
disinfection
4. Reduction/abate- Federal, state, Harbor, Short High
ment of CSO city Sound
discharges
5. Standardize Federal, state, Systemwide Short Medium
marina operating local
procedures
587
-------
TABLE 2. Floatables
Action
1. Public education
on individual 's
Who
All 1 eve I s and
public
Where
Systemwide
Time frame
Short
Priority
High
role with respect
to floatables, CSOs,
stormwater (use of
media, educational
curricula),
recycling, medical
waste, litter, indi-
vidual responsibility
2. Expansion of
shoreline and water
cleanup (Operation Clean
Shores, Floatables Action
Plan)
3. Source reduction
(recycIi ng, redes i gn
packaging, syringe
disposal, lifestyle
changes)
4. Surveillance
and enforcement
5. Reduction/abatement
CSO discharges
6. Stormwater
system design,
and 0 & M
Interagency
All levels and
industry
All regulators
and public
Federal, state,
city
State, local
Harbor
Systemwide
Systemwide
Harbor,
Sound
Systemwide
Short
Short
and long
Short
Short and
cont i nue
Short and
continue
High
High
High
(H)
High
Medium
(H)
588
-------
TOXICS
John P. Connolly
Environmental Engineering & Science Program
Manhattan College
Riverdale, NY 10471
In facilitating discussions for several workgroups at this conference I noted that any
group tends to develop a premise around which discussions are centered. I believe that this
tendency influences the recommendations finally chosen by the group and that it is
important to know the proposition that served as a ground for recommendations. Two
workgroups dealt with Toxics. One worked off the premise that the toxic chemical problems
in this system are poorly understood and the first order of business is to improve our
understanding, whereas the other group's premise was that toxic chemicals are impacting the
system, and irrespective of our level of understanding of the problem, we must immediately
expand efforts to decrease inputs of all toxics.
Both groups did not distinguish between the Harbor, Bight or Long Island Sound. All
of the recommended actions are applied system-wide. With few exceptions the actions are
considered to be short term, i.e., to be implemented as soon as possible.
The first group recommended the following actions:
1) Criteria & Standards. Criteria and standards exist for only a limited number of
toxic chemicals and thus we do not have end points that would allow an assessment
of the toxic chemical problem. It is critical that the development of biological and
numerical criteria and standards for water, sediment and biota be fast-tracked. It is
also critical that these be consistent across states.
2) Coordinated Intensive Monitoring. We don't understand the toxics problem
because we do not have proper end points, but also because we do not have enough
data to determine concentration levels in the environment. A coordinated intensive
monitoring program is needed to quantify loadings (point, nonpoint and atmospheric)
and concentrations (water, sediment, biota and atmosphere). It is critical that such a
program be coordinated so that all agencies involved use common sampling and
589
-------
analysis procedures and that all data reside in a single database accessible to all
interested parties.
3) Evaluation of Disposal Alternatives. It is necessary that the impacts of all possible
alternatives be considered in decisions regarding the disposal of toxic wastes. In
particular, ocean disposal of sludges should be reevaluated relative to the
environmental and public health impacts of land disposal and incineration. The group
was strongly committed to reopening the issue of ocean disposal of sludges.
4) Fate Processes. An increased understanding of the processes controlling the fate
of toxics in all phases of the environment is needed. In particular, intermedia
transport of toxics must be better understood.
5) Modeling. Current modeling capabilities are insufficient. We must improve and
further develop modeling frameworks for predicting the fate of toxics on both micro
and macro scales, with particular emphasis on assessing public health impacts.
The second group recommended the following actions:
1) Implementation of Existing Regulations. Good regulations to control the sources
of toxic chemicals already exist, e.g., the pretreatment program and 304L program.
However, these regulations have not been aggressively applied. We must speed up
their implementation.
2) Increased Enforcement. Standards are not rigorously enforced. Greater
compliance with effluent standards would help curtail the toxic chemical problem.
3) Reduce Nonpoint Sources. Toxics loadings to the system from nonpoint sources
are substantial. A program of nonpoint source control must be developed
immediately.
4) Land Use Controls. A recommendation for long-term action was to attempt to
reduce toxic loading by controlling land uses.
5) Cost-Benefit Analysis for Individual Chemicals. Establish the true cost of a
chemical by including disposal costs and the costs of environmental controls so that
informed decisions regarding the production and use of the chemical can be made by
contrasting benefits with the true cost. This recommendation was assigned a medium
priority.
6) Lifestyle Changes. Change the way we live so that we minimize the generation of
toxic wastes. For example, limiting automobile use would reduce toxic loading to all
phases of the environment.
590
-------
HABITAT
Allan Hirsch
President, Dynamac Corporation
Three groups developed recommendations on habitat, facilitated by Bob Dietrich, by
Fred Grassle, and by me.
One of the first points to be made is that "habitat" is not limited to wetlands. It
includes adjacent uplands, shallow water environments, and dunes and beaches, all of which
directly affect coastal resources or coastal ecosystems.
Our discussions also recognized the overall relationship between habitat protection and
the much broader question of controlled growth, coastal development, and open space
preservation. Even though we focused on recommendations dealing explicitly with habitat,
there was an undertone in our discussions that reflected the broader fundamental problem
of too much congestion and of ways to address that issue.
We developed four categories of recommended actions — regulation, land use planning,
acquisition, and information development:
A. Regulation
Of the various types of habitat or open space that are important to maintenance of
coastal environmental quality, wetlands and aquatic environments are the ones most subject
to regulatory protection, and the only ones subject to direct federal regulation. Our
recommendations in this category, therefore, are specific to improved wetland regulatory
programs. Some of these should be accomplished on a short-term or immediate basis. They
are as follows:
1. The "no net loss" policy should be codified. It is very important to have this
policy reflected in the formal regulatory structure.
2. Closely related, there should be more consistent application of mitigation
requirements and better adherence to the water dependency requirements. For
591
-------
example, we should not allow a marina attached to a proposed housing
development in a wetlands to be used to circumvent water dependency
requirements.
3. There should be increased staff and funding for wetland regulatory programs at
all levels ~ state and federal. The current effort is too limited.
4. The monitoring of permit compliance and enforcement provisions should be
strengthened. Again, this is related to increased staffing and resources. Very
often mitigation requirements in a permit are not monitored or followed up, and
probably a great deal of noncompliance results.
5. Regional ecosystem approaches should be incorporated into wetland regulation.
We need to find ways to consider wetland permits not on an ad hoc basis but
rather on a regional and on a cumulative impact basis. One mechanism is
advance identification under the 404 program.
6. Improved integration of regulatory procedures is needed. This was discussed
principally from the standpoint of improving how applicants could interact with
the regulatory agencies. There are several federal agencies involved as well as
state and sometimes local agencies. The thought was not to recommend that all
those agencies have to reach a uniform decision on proposed permits, because
they may have very different viewpoints and missions. However, the application
procedures should be unified ~ such simple things as assuring that applicants do
not have to fill out different sets of permit forms for the state and federal
agencies.
B. Land Use Planning
This is where the concern for habitat preservation and the fundamental issue of
regional development come together. Recommendations are as follows:
1. Review existing statewide planning processes in the region to determine their
adequacy for incorporating ecosystem protection and ecological goals. Statewide
growth management efforts now under way should be identified and evaluated
to determine how useful they would be in incorporating some sort of ecological
goals for coastal areas. The New Jersey State Redevelopment Plan, a statewide
planning process, was specifically identified. There were said to be a number
of similar planning processes in Connecticut; nothing similar was known to be
under way in the State of New York.
2. Review the adequacy of the three states' coastal zone management programs,
from the same standpoint. The Coastal Zone Management Act is coming up for
reauthorization, and that review could lead to recommendations as to how the
act should be strengthened or modified.
592
-------
3. Review the Maryland Critical Area Program. This is a program that emerged
from the Chesapeake Bay Program. It places density limitations on different
kinds of lands adjacent to the Bay and designates the kind of development that
can occur within a thousand feet of the water line. That program should be
reviewed to see whether the same concepts might be recommended for adoption
in this region.
4. In the final analysis, the local governments control much of what happens
through their land use planning and zoning. It was recommended that the Local
Government Committees of the Estuarine Management Conferences review the
adequacy of local government planning and zoning. They should look at such
matters as whether there are still tax incentives in effect that encourage unsound
development. The Management Conferences should attempt to exercise
leadership in conducting such reviews and developing recommendations.
5. Review the Federal Floodplain Insurance Program to determine whether
improvements could be recommended in the way the program is administered,
and possibly, in the fundamental regulatory structure itself, to create greater
disincentives for development in vulnerable coastal areas.
C. Acquisition
This is the ultimate mechanism for protecting sensitive and critical habitat areas.
Recommendations are as follows:
1. That a regional plan framework for acquisition be developed. This framework
would outline regional acquisition priorities. The potential role of acquisition
includes more than wetlands or unique sensitive areas. There has to be a
concern for a total regional framework, including buffer zones, corridors, or
other provisions. Based on regional goals and a regional framework, efforts
should be made to develop a long-range action program for acquisition.
Acquisition itself takes place through many bodies: federal agencies such as the
Fish and Wildlife Service; private bodies such as the Nature Conservancy or the
Audubon Society; and the state agencies. However, we should seek to develop
an overall regional framework of goals and priorities. Both fee and easement
types of acquisition should be considered; acquisition of littoral rights was
specifically mentioned.
2. We should use regulatory actions on a pending or interim basis prior to
acquisition itself. Once an acquisition plan is outlined and certain areas are
identified as priorities, land costs can very quickly skyrocket. Regulatory
procedures should be used in tandem with acquisition wherever possible.
3. Various kinds of financing mechanisms that might be used to implement
acquisition programs were identified, such as real estate taxes, permit fees,
593
-------
gasoline taxes, and sequestering enforcement fines for use in acquisition. The
use of development transfer rights was also mentioned as a mechanism to set
aside or preserve various kinds of open spaces.
4. Finally, it is important to find incentives for non-public acquisition programs
such as those of the Audubon Society or the Nature Conservancy, through
various kinds of matching or cooperative efforts.
In summary, no short-term, immediate implementation actions were developed in the
acquisition category, but rather in areas where the Management Conference should develop
recommendations for the future.
D. Information Development
We continue to need a better technical information base for habitat preservation. This
includes the following:
1. Maintaining good inventories and maps both of habitat and species distribution.
Much of that work is under way, but many of the findings are not accessible to
the public and to interest groups. It is not pulled together and presented in a
convenient way.
2. Devising better criteria for considering trade-offs; which are the most valuable
things to acquire and protect? We need to develop better criteria for assessing
habitat values that can be used in planning decisions.
594
-------
SEAFOOD SAFETY
Rosemary Monahan
U.S. EPA, Region I
The safety of seafood to human consumers is of national importance and the
recommendations developed by the workgroup apply nationwide, and not just to local
waterbodies. Many groups need to be involved in solving current problems, including all
levels of government, the fishing and food industries, and public interest groups.
Two themes emerged in the workgroup discussion:
one is that we need to ensure that the seafood consumed in this country is
safe, and
the second is that we need to make sure the public understands how safe their
seafood really is.
Our recommendations follow in order of importance.
Public Education
Our highest priority for action was public education. We felt that the public
perceives eating seafood as risky, although this perception often is false and results from
misinformation.
Our public education efforts should be focused on several groups:
1. Media. In the past, the media have been responsible for disseminating some
misinformation on seafood safety and exaggerating risks, so we should do a better job
providing them with accurate information and explaining it.
2. Elected officials. Since elected officials create our laws and determine our budgets,
we need to ensure they have and understand all the information they need to make
informed decisions.
595
-------
3. High-risk groups. We need to communicate potential risks to high-risk groups so
they understand how safe their seafood is or isn't. Recreational and subsistence
fishermen (and their families) usually eat much more seafood than ordinary
consumers. These fisherman often catch much of their seafood from one site, and
if that site is contaminated, they may be running a larger risk than the average
consumer. (Seafood sold in stores often is caught in less contaminated offshore
waters, and usually comes from many locations.)
4. Coastal residents. Residents of the coastal zone tend to eat more seafood than those
living inland, and should be targeted for educational efforts.
5. Environmental groups and the public. We spent some time discussing who should
be educating the public and targeted groups, and how to coordinate these efforts.
Several groups need to be involved, including public agencies, the fishing and
processing industries, and public interest groups. We agreed that it would be best
to have one credible voice that is seen as being independent and objective. The
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) might serve as a good model.
We need to clarify for the public what the true risks of eating seafood are. For
example, we need to ensure that consumers really understand the differences between the
risks they run from eating shellfish versus those from eating finfish. Health risks associated
with shellfish typically are related to pathogens, which can produce almost immediate illness
(e.g., gastroenteritis). By contrast, health risks associated with finfish typically are related
to toxic chemicals, and illnesses might develop over a time span of decades. Our
understanding of the risks posed by pathogens is often much better than our understanding
of the risks posed by consuming small quantities of chemicals over a lifetime of seafood
consumption.
Consumers need to have information available to them so they can make their own
decisions both about whether to eat seafood and also about how much to eat. For example,
in order to decide whether or not to eat raw shellfish, they need to know and understand
the probability of developing gastroenteritis. Both for fish and shellfish, they also need to
understand how risk is related to quantity consumed (meals eaten per year), and to where
the product is harvested.
The public needs to know how the safety of their seafood compares to that of other
products in their diet. They also need to understand the relative merits of eating seafood
(for limiting cholesterol in their diet) versus the possible risks of developing cancer from
exposure to contaminants.
We need to reach agreement on how protective we want to be. What risk is
"acceptable" to society: a chance of one in 1,000,000 of developing cancer as a result of
consuming seafood, or one in 10,000?
596
-------
We spent some time discussing mechanisms for educating the public. These include
distributing information to recreational fishermen when they apply for saltwater fishing
licenses (in states where required) or register their boats. Trade journals and magazines are
examples of the many other vehicles available for education.
Public education is something that needs to be undertaken in the short term, but it
will require a long-term commitment.
Seafood Inspection and Enforcement
Another high priority that needs to be undertaken over the short term is to develop
a model seafood inspection program. Legislation is pending in Congress that is supported
by the fishing industry. A seafood inspection program would do two things: it would help
ensure the safety of our seafood, and it would also rebuild some public confidence that has
been eroded in the last few years.
We agreed that there needs to be additional enforcement of existing regulations. We
recognized that we will never have enough money to hire an army of enforcers, however,
and we therefore should build on self-enforcement in the fishing industry.
Standardize Risk Assessment Methodologies and Communication
Also of high priority is the need to standardize risk assessment methodologies, risk
management responses, and how we communicate risks. Different agencies have different
methods of assessing and managing risks. This has resulted in one authority asserting that
eating seafood from a certain waterbody poses a defined risk, and another authority claiming
that no risk exists. This does nothing but confuse the consumer. Agencies need to speak
with a unified, credible voice. We also need to make sure the public knows why or why not
risk management responses are made, and what level of risk we are regulating.
Reduce Contaminants and Prioritize Sources
We agreed that it is of high priority to reduce loads of contaminants now entering
coastal waters, but it is of medium priority to work on in-place contaminants (e.g., sediments
in urban harbors). In-place contaminants can be very difficult and expensive to remove, and
letting them be buried by natural sedimentation may in some cases cause the least
environmental impact. In general, we felt that money would be best spent building on
existing programs to better regulate new sources of contamination, and that this is something
that should be done over the short term, but continued over the long term. However, areas
with very high contaminant levels (hot spots) should be prioritized for remediation.
597
-------
Research New Indicators
For pathogens in shellfish, we felt that existing indicators (coliform bacteria) are
inadequate for predicting threats to human health. Much work already is under way
nationwide to identify better indicators, so the priority for the New York area is moderate.
This is something that needs to be done over the short term and continued over the long
term.
Set New Standards and Revise Existing Ones
We have no health standards for many contaminants that are found in seafood.
Because coastal waters typically are contaminated by many pollutants, it was felt that the
standards that do exist (e.g., for PCBs) will provide some protection and therefore it is of
moderate priority for additional standards to be developed (e.g., for PAHs). It was felt that
revising existing standards (as needed) is of lower priority. Again, these are activities that
should be started over the short term and revised over the long term.
598
-------
OCEAN DISPOSAL
Philip DeGaetano
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Bureau of Water Quality Management
Albany, New York
The workshop on Ocean Disposal focused attention on two main areas of concern:
Disposal of dredge material, which will likely continue for the foreseeable future, and sludge
disposal, which is being phased out.
The work groups stressed the need for public education targeted at the various public
sectors, including the general public, involved citizenry, and elected officials. Education
efforts would focus on environmental issues in general. More specific efforts should be
targeted at fully describing the disposal options available for dredge material and sludge and
the environmental effects of the various disposal options. Finally, education should stress
recycling reuse to reduce the amount of material that must be disposed.
The second item raised was termed "good science." There is a need for better
technical information on land-based alternatives and on the environmental effects of these
alternatives including relative risks.
The third item raised was pollution prevention. There is a need to reduce the direct
and indirect discharges of toxics and other substances that contaminate sediment and sludge.
Pollution prevention may make disposal on land or incineration less objectionable.
Legislation was discussed at length. The consensus was that disposal options should
not be legislated. Rather, disposal should be based on a multi-media approach that assesses
disposal options on land, water, and air. The analysis should be based on a cumulative
regional assessment.
Present practices for wood burning, disposal of dredge spoils, and cellar dirt should
be allowed to continue as long as it can be demonstrated that they are meeting current
regulations and are not causing significant environmental harm.
599
-------
Finally, the issue of cost was discussed, especially as it relates to dredge spoils. The
concern is that since dredge disposal is costly in the Northeast, it puts the New York-New
Jersey Harbor at a disadvantage as a port with other areas of the country. There is a need
to investigate methods of taking the cost of dredge spoil disposal out of the equation of port
operations.
600
-------
PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS FROM TUESDAY'S WORKSHOP
SESSIONS: AN INTEGRATED AGENDA FOR CLEANING
UP OUR COASTAL WATERS
Dr. Dominic Di Toro
Professor
Manhattan College
601
-------
CONFERENCE SUMMARY AND INTEGRATION OF RESULTS
Dominic M. Di Toro
Environmental Engineering and Science
Manhattan College
There is a certain historical precedent for my being asked to present a summary of
the conference and to attempt an integration of the results. As some of you know, the
reason that I am an Environmental Engineer is because Don O'Connor1 needed people to
integrate differential equations. As his research assistant during my last year at Manhattan
College, my task was to integrate peculiar mathematic equations that O'Connor would
dream up. So I think there is a certain amount of precedent for the task at hand.
The problem: How does one integrate all of the recommendations and all of the
work that has been done over the last two days? So I examined the methods that are
available to integrate various problems. The first one that occurred to me was to find a
table of integrals and look this one up. Unfortunately, most of the integral tables had
nothing about this particular kind of integration. So I examined some other techniques.
One common approach when an analytical solution doesn't exist is a numerical integral.
Now that was really appealing. I could take all of the categories and all of the
recommendations and just number them one, two, etc., and the integration would be
complete. I would have succeeded at numerically integrating the Conference. But upon
sober reflection it was clear that enumeration is not integration.
Perhaps integration by parts, or the more complicated methods - contour integrals,
volume integrals, surface integrals — this could go on and on. Then, in a stroke ~ a flash
of understanding ~ it finally occurred to me that what I needed was a category integral. I
had to find categories into which I could put all of the recommendations. So what follows
is my attempt to perform a category integration of the recommendations of the Conference.
I would like to thank the conversations I had with the facilitators and with Kevin Bricke and
Bob Thomann who talked me out of the first four ways of doing the integration.
A good place to start is with Fred Grassle's summary of the priorities that were
decided on after the first day (Table 1). What I found remarkable was that there really was
an expression of priorities. Normally one gets a rather bland "everything is important" out
of this kind of an exercise, but in this case there really was some discrimination. You can
'Donald J. O'Connor, Professor of Civil Engineering, Manhattan College.
603
-------
TABLE 1. CLEANING UP OUR COASTAL WATERS: An Unfinished Agenda
PRIORITIES3
SOUND HARBOR BIGHT SYSTEM
NUTRIENTS
PATHOGENS
FLOATABLES
TOXICS
HABITAT
H !!
M(H)
M(L)
M
H
M
H !
H
H
H !
M
M(L)
H
M(H)
H
M
M(H)
M
H
H
a H = High; M = Medium; L = Low; ! denotes superlatives.
Source: Frederick Grassle, Director, Institute of Marine and Coastal Science, Rutgers
University.
see that nutrients are a very high priority in the Sound. I think what struck me most
forcefully was the importance of habitat across the board. One would not have seen this
ten or fifteen years ago. So there has been a real sea of change in the environmental
perceptions of professionals as well as lay people.
THE PEOPLE
Okay, the first category: One can call it the people, the body politic (Table 2) --
those out there who pay the bills for the environmental controls and for whom, presumably,
the controls are being implemented. A number of recommendations have to do with
lifestyle changes. John Lawler whispered in my ear just before this talk: "Think about
someone standing up at an International Water Pollution Control Federation meeting ten
years ago and saying we have to change the way we live and that's going to help water
pollution." It's unthinkable. And yet here we have serious people proposing that we must
change the way people live in order to influence the environment. We have to educate
them. We have to educate them directly with regard to seafood safety, and we also have
to give them ways to educate themselves. We have to do something about the credibility
of our profession. We have to do something about influencing the state of belief that is
associated with governmental and private academic evaluations. If I were the Director of
EPA, I would open an office of public education and I would have my most talented person
604
-------
TABLE 2. THE PEOPLE
1. LIFE STYLE CHANGES
* RECYCLING
* WATER CONSERVATION
* BIODEGRADABLE, REUSABLE
2. EDUCATION
* DIRECT
* SELF: INFORMATION STORAGE AND ACCESS
3. CREDIBILITY
* CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL ANALOG
4. RESTRICTIONS
* COASTAL DEVELOPMENT
running that office. Because clearly what's important is influencing the will of the people
since they are ultimately going to provide what we need. The Centers for Disease Control
somehow does it - we should do the same thing. We are going to put a lot of restrictions
on freedoms that people enjoy currently. When we talk about restricting coastline
development, when we talk about buying up wetlands and so on, what we are talking about
is restricting freedom. Since this country is a democracy, if we are going to do these things,
we really need the people behind us. As a consequence, the category "the people" is, I
suspect, a focus that is a new part of environmental thinking.
THE ECOSYSTEM
Another idea which is slightly older but which, I think, is equally important is the
view that we have to deal with the ecosystem (Table 3). It is not sufficient to look at the
problem piecemeal. One has to put together analysis frameworks that are integrated. This
was captured by the workshop recommendations that the mathematical models be physically
integrated. There should be no artificial boundaries that divide the middle of the river into
the part we study and the part we don't study. For biological evaluations, we examine biota
across the spectrum, i.e., entire food chains.
605
-------
TABLE 3. THE ECOSYSTEM
1. INTEGRATED ANALYSIS
* PHYSICAL - ARTIFICIAL MODEL BOUNDARIES
* BIOLOGICAL - INTERACTIONS AMONG BIOTA
2. INTEGRATED HABITAT MANAGEMENT
* INVENTORY
3. INTEGRATED DATA COLLECTION
* COORDINATED
It's pretty clear that habitat management needs to be done in an integrated manner.
One can't just worry about one little wetland at a time because incrementally they amount
to the whole.
And, finally, it's pretty clear that you need integrated data collection programs. From
those of us that actually use data from various places, believe me, it would be nice if there
were some ecosystem-wide, well-thought-out data collection programs.
THE SCIENCE
A category that continually turned up might be called "the Science" (Table 4).
Commissioner Carothers talked about the need for good science. I would like to make a
distinction between what I think of as regulatory science or environmental science where the
accent is on environmental regulation - science in the service of the environmental
regulation - and scientists who play around in the environment, which is essentially "I've got
a problem I'd like to do and I wonder if I could find an environmental context that would
let me play around with this problem." What we really need are scientists that are
environmental scientists. And, I think we're getting there. But it hasn't been easy, as some
of you who deal with this sort of problem know.
For example, we need consistent data collection methodologies. It became clear, for
example, that EPA does not have standard marine chemical methods for measuring
606
-------
TABLE 4. THE SCIENCE
1. CONSISTENT DATA COLLECTION:
* METHODS
* CENTRALIZED STORAGE
2. STRENGTHEN:
* DATA ANALYSIS
* MODELING
3. DEVELOP:
* HUMAN VIRUS MEASUREMENT METHODS
4. DEFENSIBLE END POINTS AND CRITERIA
* CONSISTENT FOR PATHOGENS
* WATER, SEDIMENT, BIOTA FOR TOXICS
* DISSOLVED OXYGEN
* TOXICS AND PATHOGENS FOR SEAFOOD
5. ECOSYSTEM INDICATORS
* BENTHIC COMMUNITY STRUCTURE
* SYSTEMWIDE IMPACTS
nutrients. And it would be nice to centralize the data storage. For all of its ills, STORET
is the only repository that exists and is easily accessible.
We really have to figure out what to do with all the data that we've got. Unexamined
data is like an unexamined life - it's not worth living. And, therefore, I think both data
analysis and modeling have to play a role.
Finally ~ and this is a key one - we really have to develop measurements of
pathogens that look at the pathogens themselves (viruses, what have you). I think there's
an area where some biotechnology methods, for example gene probes, can really see the
pathogen and not the indicators we have at present. We are going to have the world's best
fecal coliform standards. Question -- are we going to drink the water?
607
-------
The area of appropriate criteria has been developing quite rapidly recently, but I
think it still has a way to go. The issue is defensible endpoints. When I went to school at
Manhattan College, we thought that dissolved oxygen criteria had been chiseled into the
back of the Ten Commandments, that somehow the criteria came down from on high. And
we had a simple problem ~ design the solution to meet the criteria and we were done.
Environmental engineering was easy in those days!
Unfortunately, it's become clear that the criteria are as, how shall I say, as
approximate and as difficult as any other part of an environmental analysis. So, there is a
clear need for defensible criteria for pathogenic organisms, and for water, sediment, and fish
flesh criteria. One of the reasons that you know things are approximate is that dissolved
oxygen criteria are being examined again. So, clearly it's an interesting area.
There is a whole area of ecosystem indicators that has been receiving attention. One
would like to be able to take the temperature of an ecosystem ~ you know, how sick is it?
And people have talked about structural measures, and so on. The problem is that there's
no really solid, well-agreed-upon way to do the problems. There's clearly a need for science
in this area.
COMMON SENSE
A large number of recommendations can, I think, be fairly called common sense
(Table 5). Let's get to doing these. They are not a moon shot. We know how to do this
stuff ~ let's do it! These are the recommendations to do with the implementation of present
programs. Get after loadings that we know are involved in the problem. Continue the
planning efforts that are under way. Do the things that practical technical people really
know how to do. The floatables action plan really did work. Continue it, do more of it.
Get some decent cost estimates as we go into these new problems. If we know what it's
going to cost us to do some modifications, we will have a much better idea of what we
should be spending in terms of studying. This whole raft of recommendations can fairly be
called common sense.
THE UNEXPECTED
There were a couple of recommendations that I would call the unexpected (Table
6). These really surprised a number of us. The first one was that people were not blindly
accepting the ban against the disposing of sewage sludge at sea. Reconsider the ban. Do
a multimedia analysis. My God, actually analyze the problem! Quite surprising. I was
really quite delighted. Someone pointed out that, of course, we are sitting in New York
City. So, there may be a vested interest in this problem. But, nevertheless, it isn't all New
York City types out there. Maybe it has something to do with the tough urban mentality.
But that really surprised me. Once that got going, things really got going. Let's examine
608
-------
TABLES. COMMON SENSE
1. FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF EXISTING PROGRAMS
* MUNICIPAL COMPLIANCE
* PRETREATMENT
* SWIFT AND SURE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS
* NO NET LOSS OF WETLANDS
2. AFFECT LOADINGS NOW
* INVESTIGATE LOW-COST NUTRIENT REMOVAL
* REDUCE TOXIC INPUTS - BMPs - IN-PLANT CHANGES
3. CONTINUE PLANNING EFFORTS OF THE NEP
* LONG ISLAND SOUND, NEW YORK BIGHT, NEW YORK-NEW
JERSEY HARBOR
4. FLOATABLES ACTION PLAN
* ENHANCED
5. DEVELOP RELIABLE COST AND BENEFIT INFORMATION
TABLE 6. THE UNEXPECTED
1. OCEAN DISPOSAL
* RECONSIDER THE OCEAN DUMPING BAN ACT FOR SEWAGE
SLUDGE
* MULTIMEDIA ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEM
2. EXAMINE ALL THE LEGISLATION - RE-AUTHORIZATION OF CWA
609
-------
all the legislation: the authorizations are coming up for the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air
Act. Let's get to it. Why do we think that the staffers on the Senate and the House side
who write these bills know what they are doing? What is the evidence? Rather audacious,
don't you think? You know, let's get out there and hammer on their heads. I like that; I
really was surprised.
And then to hear the new Commissioner of the New York City Department of
Environmental Protection, Commissioner Appleton, get up and tell us that there is a
revolution out there. That the system is out of control. We're losing the war. It was
wonderful. It was exhilarating. I've never heard a regulator say that. I thought Bill Reilly
was a new form of governmental regulator. It was really quite astonishing.
NEW INITIATIVES
There are a number of new initiatives that have been talked about, which deal with
the next generation or the current generation's problems, and they really follow along the
categorization that the facilitators and the planners of this meeting put together (Table 7).
They cover the problems of nutrients and organics. The suggestion is to do some tributary
management planning, see whether we can actually affect nonpoint source runoff. That has
never been demonstrated, by the way, to rny knowledge. On the pathogens side, examine
the effects of chlorination. It is a very toxic compound. See if we're not going to have a
problem with the solution as well.
You can see how a category integral works, I think. On the floatables — go after the
sources. On the habitat — go out and buy a lot of land. It's a very good idea, I think. It's
a way to do the problem. Just buy it. On ocean disposal of dredge materials, evaluate
possible containment sites, evaluate new disposal locations. On toxics, I thought it was
interesting. Half the group, as I understand it from the facilitator, said let's get to wasteload
allocations and the other half said we don't know enough to do it.
So, I think where we end up is three major classes of actions. One is the broader --
the people, the ecosystem -- the broader kinds of contexts. One is basic common sense --
let's just get out there and do what we know how to do. Third is the category of new
initiatives, basically following the lines along the planning problems that have been
discussed.
610
-------
TABLE?. NEW INITIATIVES
1. NUTRIENTS/ORGANIC ENRICHMENTS
* FACILITIES PLANNING
* FINAL INTEGRATED MODEL
* TRIBUTARY MANAGEMENT PLANNING
2. PATHOGENS
* CSO CONTROL PROGRAM
* EFFECTS OF CHLORINATION - AQUATIC TOXICITY
* PERMITS FOR STORMWATER DISCHARGES
3. FLOATABLES
* SOURCE CONTROLS
4. HABITAT
* LAND ACQUISITION POLICY
5. OCEAN DISPOSAL OF DREDGED MATERIAL - EVALUATE:
* CONTAINMENT
* NEW DISPOSAL LOCATIONS
6. TOXICS
* WASTE LOAD ALLOCATIONS (TOO SOON?)
* MULTIMEDIA ANALYSIS
PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS • PUZZLES
Category analysis requires one more category: personal observations.2 Okay, I
termed these puzzles (Table 8). Why is there a mismatch between our technical analysis
and the public's perception of what the problems are? The best example is, why does an
ocean disposal ban pass by unanimous vote in both houses? There must be something going
on. Why is there such a large mismatch between what our technical analyses tell us and
2John Lawler suggested that these are the arbitrary constants of the integration.
611
-------
TABLE 8. PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS ** PUZZLES
1. THE MISMATCH BETWEEN TECHNICAL ANALYSIS AND PUBLIC
PERCEPTION:
* BANNING OCEAN DISPOSAL AND OCEAN INCINERATION
2. THE INCONSISTENCIES BETWEEN TECHNICAL ANALYSES:
* WHY ARE EFFLUENTS, SEWAGE SLUDGE, AND DREDGED
MATERIAL TREATED DIFFERENTLY?
3. THE BATTLE FOR MASS BALANCE MODELING:
* NOT UNIVERSAL AMONG NEP PLANNING STUDIES
* STILL SKEPTICS IN THE FACE OF WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
REQUIREMENTS
4. RISK ANALYSIS
* LACK OF PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING AND ACCEPTANCE
what the body politic interprets and acts on? Seafood safety is another good example.
What's going on? Why don't we get through to the people?
I think this has to do with historical problems. Also, there are a large number of
inconsistencies within our own technical analyses. For example, when we consider ocean
disposal we treat these sources differently: effluents, sewage sludge, and dredge materials.
All are discharging masses of various toxics and nutrients to the environment. They are not
analyzed within the same context.
Mass balance modeling. This has more to do with the fact that we are sitting in
Manhattan College than perhaps the topic. The battle for mass balance modeling is a fight
that we've been fighting since the beginning. It is interesting that it has not been won yet.
For example, it is not universal among the National Estuary Program Planning Studies. In
fact, I think that aside from the New York waters and Chesapeake it's not that common.
There are still skeptics out there, lo and behold. So, I think that battle still needs to be
joined.
612
-------
And finally, one that I really am puzzled about ~ why don't we trust risk assessments
and risk analysis? Why don't we really believe in them? Maybe we do, but certainly the
public doesn't. For example, the concern over drinking Lake Ontario water, with very small
concentrations of chemicals. It doesn't square with risk analysis. Maybe the risk analysis
is wrong. That's an explanation. However, maybe the public needs to be educated. In
either case, the situation, as it currently exists, is not very satisfactory.
PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS - PROGRESS
The progress that has been achieved in the last twenty years has been remarkable
(Table 9). There is clearly a much improved atmosphere for working together. Scientists
and engineers no longer guffaw in each other's presence. They actually listen. Technical
people can talk to lay people without both of them going to sleep. And regulators actually
will talk to everybody, which is a remarkable turn of events. Things are clearly changing on
that score.
One very hopeful development. There's a much broader view of the problems. The
problems are not chopped up and isolated the way they used to be. They go from wasteload
allocations to criteria to biological endpoints to multimedia assessments. Things are really
progressing at a rapid rate. And we have a vastly expanded technical arsenal. If this
Conference had been held ten years ago, the number of problems and the number of
solutions we could have offered would have been ten percent of what we can do now. So
things are moving fast. We do indeed have a lot of technical tools at our disposal. We also
have a lot of problems, and we have to deal with them.
PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS - CHALLENGES
Finally, there are a lot of challenges that we should look at (Table 10). There's
surely a lot of biology out there that we don't understand very well. The whole issue of the
impact of toxics on the ecosystems and on human health is really a quagmire. Are there any
problems at all? Are there overwhelmingly many problems? One can't make an informed
choice. One can guess. But one really doesn't have enough information to choose.
An interesting question: Is there the political will to do the problem? Commissioner
Carothers correctly pointed out that the function of an administration is to provide the
political will and to convince the people to provide the support. Is there enough time and
money to do the problem? As some of you know, the worst way to do a problem is to take
a large sum of money, for example, ten million dollars, and try to spend it in one year. And
the best way to do a problem is to take the ten million dollars and spend it at a rate of one
million dollars a year for ten years. Will there be enough time and money? Will we learn
how to deal with the uncertainties of the answers that come out? And finally, is there
613
-------
TABLE 9. PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS ** PROGRESS
1. A MUCH IMPROVED ATMOSPHERE FOR WORKING TOGETHER
* SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS
* TECHNICAL AND LAY PEOPLE
* REGULATORS AND EVERYBODY
2. A MUCH BROADER VIEW OF THE PROBLEMS
* CRITERIA, END POINTS, EFFECTS IN RECEIVING WATER
3. A VASTLY EXPANDED TECHNICAL ARSENAL
* LARGE, INTEGRATED, MULTIDISCIPLINARY STUDIES
* SYSTEMWIDE MODELS
* EUTROPHICATION AND TOXICS
TABLE 10. PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS ** CHALLENGES **
1. STILL A LOT OF BIOLOGY THAT'S VERY POORLY UNDERSTOOD
* TOXICS IMPACTS
* ARE THERE REALLY ANY PROBLEMS?
* ARE THERE OVERWHELMINGLY MANY PROBLEMS?
2. IS THERE THE POLITICAL WILL TO DO THE PROBLEM?
* ENOUGH TIME AND MONEY
* DEAL WITH UNCERTAINTY
3. IS THERE THE SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING FORTITUDE TO GET AN
ANSWER?
* MORE STUDY...
614
-------
enough scientific and engineering fortitude to get an answer? Will we come down on
something at the end of ten years, one million dollars a year? Or will we just say,
plaintively, we really have to study some more?
So there are a number of positive things going on, and there are a number of
negative things going on. I'd like to read you a quote, which I think really summarizes the
state of things the way I see it. It is from Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities. It's the
beginning when he is talking about the French Revolution, and I'll just paraphrase it slightly:
It is the best of times, it is the worst of times. It is the age of wisdom, it is the
age of foolishness. It the epoch of belief, it is the epoch of incredulity. It is
the season of light, it is the season of darkness. It is the spring of hope, it is
the winter of despair. We have everything before us, we have nothing before
us. We are all going to Heaven, we are all going direct the other way.
615
-------
DISCUSSION: PRELIMINARY FORMULATION OF
RECOMMENDATIONS TO GUIDE CONTINUED DELIBERATION
OF THE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCES
617
-------
DISCUSSION
David A. Fierra
Water Management Division, U.S. EPA Region I
Thank you very much. I'll try to make my remarks brief since I just wrote down what
they were supposed to be.
We have not coordinated our comments here, so I suspect there will be a lot of
repetition. I tried to carve out a couple of areas that are important based on my perspective
and experiences in other estuary programs in coastal waters. For one thing, in terms of
priorities, there were not very many low priorities listed by the earlier speakers and I guess
I'm not surprised at that. That may seem to be overwhelming to an agency that might
consider itself responsible for all of those activities, but I'd like to say that in many of these
areas there are many levels of government and many citizens, and many agencies that play
a role. One thing that we should be doing as regulators, scientists, and activist groups is to
try and reach out to other groups with other authorities, other wills, and other commitments.
For example, I don't think that land use management was mentioned many times as a
necessary element, and I strongly believe it is. That is not a role for the federal government
now or probably never will be.
I think that what I can do as a federal regulator is to work with people who have that
responsibility and to help to convince them, if they are not already convinced, that
everything I do in controlling point sources may not have positive impact unless they are
willing to do some things as well. I think that although I will never have a direct role in
that, I can take a proactive role, and by working with the state regional planning agencies
and local agencies, in some cases provide tools to accomplish that. We should not be
overwhelmed listing all of the areas that appear to be high priorities because there is not
a single group or agency that has authority and responsibility over all of these areas.
Certainly communicating to the public and educating the public on consequences is
something that we have to do in order to promote the will. I have two comments on some
of the more specific issues in terms of what should be done first. I mean these in the
context of starting all of these things now by reaching out to agencies and integrating and
communicating. I truly think that the protection, restoration, and preservation of habitat
is, without question, the most significant issue, for several reasons. One is that we know the
619
-------
consequences of destroying habitat. You don't need a tremendous scientific analysis to
understand the problem as we do with some issues such as nutrients. The loss of habitat
is irreversible and it is not the same as going back and dealing with combined sewer
overflows, for instance. In fact, some people are violating the law right now, and have been
since 1977. CSOs are very expensive but we know that we can deal with them. Although
CSOs are causing problems, I don't mean to belittle them, they are something we can solve.
Habitat loss is not something we can solve tomorrow.
The other area is toxics. Of the two groups that dealt with toxics ~ one wanting
more study, one wanting more action ~ I strongly support more action. We don't have all
of the information, particularly on toxics that biocumulate, but there's no question that
keeping them out of the environment is what that we need to look at. We do not need
more study in terms of the overall impact of toxics.
I think I'd like to close with that, and I'd be happy to answer questions later.
620
-------
DISCUSSION
Richard L. Caspe
Director, Water Management Division, U.S. EPA Region II
I have a lot of comments. I'll try to run through them very quickly.
First, I believe we need to be learning more. Throughout this conference, the theme
has been that we have to keep on studying. I also heard the theme that we have to come
up with practical solutions, getting on with the job, doing what we can as quickly as we can.
I think that accomplishes two things and really will reflect a lot of my comments. Number
one, I hope, it doesn't allow the problem to get any worse while we keep on studying it.
The second issue that I've heard throughout the conferences is the need to educate
the public. How do you educate the public? You can invite them to seminars like this and
sit and talk, or you can start putting in front of them specific proposals dealing with specific
issues that show them where they are responsible for the problem and how they can deal
with it. I think that's really what you have to do, and I think a lot of the things I am going
to discuss now will accomplish that.
I will start with nutrients and organics in the Sound. Certainly, we need a systemwide
model of everything, to see how everything works. However, to deal with the Sound, I think
we need a "max-min" program immediately, if you remember the old term. We need to talk
about the concept of freezing nutrient loadings to the Sound; if nitrogen is the problem that
might or might not be practicable. You certainly can be asking people to do the best they
can with what they have. I think you'll find that at least the nitrogen loadings to the Sound
will not get worse while we try to get a better handle on exactly how to deal with them. I
also think it will give the public a better sense of what's going on.
The same thing applies to combined sewer overflows - a "max-min." I know that a
lot of work is being done on them but one of the speakers talked about firm EPA
enforcement. I can assure you that there will be no dry weather overflows that will go
unnoticed or unenforced within the regions.
Floatables. We talked about public education. For example one of the things that
I tried to push last year and I'm going to try to push again, for example, is how do you get
621
-------
to the public and start talking about floatables. Last year the New York Water Pollution
Control Association did a lot of work on Long Island; they made all kinds of nice things.
There are other things that have been going on as well. For instance in the federal building
where I work. I suspect there are things that are being flushed down the toilets that
shouldn't be flushed down toilets. I'd like to propose a "Don't Flush" campaign, in which
we go out and try to explain to people what should and shouldn't be flushed down a toilet.
That, hopefully, will conserve water and also get some problems out of the waste stream.
Toxics. I hear that we really don't know the extent of the problem. Whenever we
start to deal with toxics the question arises ~ How do toxic substances partition in the
water? What's soluble and what isn't soluble? What is available and what isn't available?
How does it get into the biota? I'm not sure we have the answers to that and I'm sure we're
going to have the answers right now in the short term. But, in the meantime, we know we
have some toxic problems and toxic loadings continue to increase. I think we have to deal
immediately and aggressively with toxic loadings throughout the area. This would at least
assure that things don't get worse while we start on a path to determine, in short order, how
to fix it.
Habitat (no net loss). We have some concerns about the no net loss policy that's
come out. The no net loss policy seems to have set out a procedure based on mitigation
as the possible solution to all problems. It clearly isn't. The first thing to look at is
avoidance of wetlands. I think we have to deal with that and as we codify it in this region,
we will perhaps, deal with the issue of what no net loss means. How do we want to protect
our wetlands? I love the idea of ~ I can see Mario in the back cringe on this thing — a
whole systems approach to try and figure out and plot the value of the wetlands throughout
the system. To figure out on which wetlands we should absolutely hold the line. I'm not
sure of the resource implications of that. It is certainly something that I'm going to be
looking further into.
Dredged material. I think that's a real problem. As you get more into it, you get
more sediment loads, and you find more and more places where you can't dispose of
dredged material. You are going to be faced with the option of closings or coming up with
solutions. I think containment islands may be the answer. But, frankly, there is no one
federal agency or political entity that has the oomph to push containment islands in this
area. As soon as it comes up, somebody is going to blow it out of the water. I think we
need a large group. You need a consensus approach to really start pushing on something
like this.
The last item I would like to quickly discuss is sludge dumping - the Ocean Dumping
Ban Act. I have spent probably more of my time dealing with the Ocean Dumping Ban Act
than most of you. I wasn't always in favor of it, as it was proposed. But, I can assure you
that Congress knew exactly what it was doing. Congress was briefed and they were told both
formally and informally of the implications of act. Don't believe that you can change it.
622
-------
Another issue is dealing with science. I've heard statements about the impact of
sludge dumping in the oceans and that there's no problem in the ocean. I'm the person that
has to stand up in front of the public and explain what the impact is and isn't, and I'm not
sure what the impact is on the ocean. I can tell you that there are certain diseases and
problems that cannot be directly linked to ocean dumping. But that doesn't mean that
ocean dumping isn't a contributing or indirect cause. I can't find the linkage. The ocean
is an awfully big place. Sure, you put sludge on land, or you put it in an incinerator with
a stack and you see air emissions, or if you put it in a landfill you can see something. It's
very easy to quantify that effect. And that's why balancing disposal methods through the
years has been so difficult. When you put sludge into the ocean you can just shrug your
shoulders and say who knows where it goes. We don't.
623
-------
DISCUSSION
Salvatore Pagano
Director, Division of Water, N.Y.S. DEC
I just want to cover a couple of the items. One that particularly concerns me and was
touched on occasionally by the speakers is an overall funding and overall concern for how
we can accomplish everything we talked about whether we agree with it or don't agree.
Where do the resources come from? How do we move forward?
Resources. Right now, the picture is not as good as it has been in the past. Yet, we
are saying that we are going to do more. The federal government has been tinkering a lot
with other agencies and EPA's budget. The monies that are coming from Congress and
were proposed in the President's budget for next year are less, generally, than they were this
year. On the state side, the state's budget for the environment is about two-tenths of one
percent of the entire state budget. It's a lot of money but as a percentage it's not a lot in
terms of the environmental program. On the other hand, when you talk to the public or
when you see national or state goals there are two things that are given as a major concern
or issue — drugs and the environment. It doesn't appear to me that that message gets
through to congressional people so that Congress will pay more attention to it, or at the
state level. As an influence within the programs, either at a state or federal level, or for
associations you belong to, our success at being able to raise our concerns about protecting
the environment or repairing things in the environment has been limited. We've also been
somewhat limited in influencing those program areas and the resources that are put into
those programs. Somehow, the public must be more of an influence than it is right now.
Education was mentioned six or seven times by speakers this morning in various parts
of their talks. I believe a major key to our being able to raise the consciousness of
Congress, of the state, of the agencies, and the public and local communities is by a lot of
grass roots support. We are going to try to develop, at the state level, the guidance and the
methodologies for dealing with things like nonpoint source pollution, wellhead protection
programs, and a lot of the activities that we believe should not be strongly regulated if
regulated at all from the federal or the state levels. We've got to build that constituency.
People must better understand what it means to them as individuals — how their lifestyle
and their actions may affect the environment. I think the public is ready for that. Our job
should be to find ways to get that information to them. As one speaker said, this is a
continuing process. It's not something that you do once and you walk away. The school
625
-------
system is ultimately where these kinds of activities, interests, programs, and education have
got to get through. You can't do it on a "hit or miss" basis.
Risk assessment. There was recognition by one of the speakers that there's got to
be a better way to discuss risk assessment so that the public understands the issue.
Personally, I think the public understands. What they are telling us is -- we don't like your
answers. I'm not sure it's that they don't trust what we're saying. They believe that when
we give a number such as one in a million we are probably truthful, but we may doubt it.
They hear that doubt. What I think they're saying is ~ that's not good enough. We've got
to listen to that message. We've got to pay attention to the fact that they are saying toxics
in the environment are not welcome. Find ways to keep them out. If you tie that in with
their interest in the environment, individual lifestyle changes can make some sense and can
make some headway. I'm not talking about one year. We are talking about a 10- or 20-year
evolution of change or recognition. It's part of the education process. But the answer does
not lie in the public having an understanding of what risk assessment means. It's our having
a better understanding that the public doesn't want toxics in the environment.
Anti-degradation. In the State of New York, one of our state program shifts is to
deal with toxics more aggressively. We have a point source control program. We do have
water quality standards. We do have technology standards. Beyond that, Congress said in
the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987, "Thou shalt have an anti-degradation policy."
Tied in with what we believe the public is saying about toxics, at least, anti-degradation
means that we've got to find ways, beyond the standards, as good or bad as those standards
are, and beyond technology, to take toxics out of the environment. We will be initiating an
anti-degradation program on particularly persistent toxics. Things that don't go away. It
makes no sense to me that we talk about water quality standards and we talk about fish
standards with persistent toxics when, in fact, we aren't very comfortable that those things
will ever break down. Or they will break down so slowly that we really can't feel very
comfortable that there's any control mechanism or the controlled release of those kinds of
substances is going to be effective. Therefore, we're going to attempt a ratcheting-down
process, at least with persistent toxics.
Land acquisition. If we talk about wetlands protection, if we talk about ways and
means of communities providing controls, we must talk about the actual acquisition of land.
If comes down to dollars, it's either going to be a state or local community buying land for
protection or they're going to be paying somebody not to use the land for certain things.
At this conference we're talking about areas where growth is a major issue. In upstate New
York, we run into the same argument in the Adirondacks. The attempts and desires to
build in the Adirondacks. Either acquire the land so that the state owns it or somehow
provide compensation to those who cannot use their land.
The time for difficult choices is now. Thank you.
626
-------
DISCUSSION
Eric Evenson
Acting Director, Division Of Water, New Jersey DEP
I would like to talk about credibility, land use, pathogens, seafood safety, and follow
up with ocean disposal of sludge.
The first thing is credibility. Dominic mentioned in his integration of the topics this
morning that there was a basic problem of credibility and he used the CDC as an analog.
I would like to mention a couple of things about that because it really got me thinking. The
Centers for Disease Control is responsible for looking at the pathways of diseases, the
impact of them, and helping us to deal with those issues. It's an area where we are united
against a common enemy — disease. In the area of the environment, when it often gets
down to the point that we finally start looking at individual environmental impacts, the
enemy really turns out to be ourselves. I think that's where oftentimes the credibility issue
breaks down, because we are pointing out to one another that we are, in fact, the problem.
There are a couple of things that we can do in this area. One, we can sharpen our science
and also sharpen our communications, but in order to effectively gain credibility in the
environmental field, one of things that's going to have to be recognized on a nationwide
basis is that we have to let go of our personal interests to further the common good. I don't
think that realization has hit home as yet. We need to help that along.
On land use. I liked very much hearing a lot of the emphasis on land use during
these talks. We have a real problem out there with nonpoint source impacts and there's a
lot that needs to be done. In New Jersey, in our Division of Water Resources, we've been
talking a lot about nonpoint source impacts and the need to develop best management
practices that will be employed statewide. I told everybody that it is time to stop talking
about them and get on with the business of developing them. So, the charge that I have
given to my staff is that by the end of the year, I want to have developed a set of best
management practices that can be implemented on a statewide basis. By the time they get
those developed, I will have figured out a way for us to get them implemented on a
statewide basis.
We also need to have more research in the area of nonpoint source controls and
determine what we can do about the areas that are already developed. Best management
627
-------
practices are very easy to implement in new areas and there are some you can implement
in already developed areas. However, there is a lot that needs to be done to tackle the
problem of our existing urban and suburban areas ~ to clean up their nonpoint source
impacts. I believe that the vitality not only of this New York Harbor estuary, but of all
estuaries around the country, is going to hinge upon land development issues, best
management practices, and nonpoint source control impacts on water quality.
We also need to consider seriously the issue of acquisition of critical lands. There
are going to be some lands that, because of their sensitivity and because of our ability to
control impacts, are going to have to be bought and taken out of the developable pool,
rather than have us attempt to regulate what is done with them.
For pathogens, I concur completely with the recommendation that we need to look
at the development of a human-specific or an indicator that really gives an indication of the
pathogenicity of the water. This is something that's necessary and that both the state and
federal government should be putting considerable money toward.
There's a lot that's being done in the area of seafood safety but a critical point needs
to be made — the funding in this area is simply inadequate right now. In many of the state
programs the funding is inadequate to do what really needs to be done. This is affecting
our public education efforts, our monitoring efforts, and our enforcement efforts. In order
to maintain a safe seafood industry in the country, we need to increase the funding for this
program.
Before I go on to sludge disposal I'd like to throw in one item on floatables. For the
Floatables Action Plan we need to keep on doing what we are doing right now. It has
worked, and worked very well. We need to expand our public education efforts.
Finally, on sludge disposal. We know a lot more about the impacts that sludge will
have when it is handled on land than we do about it impacts out in the ocean. Director
Caspe's comments were right on the mark. Just because we can't prove that there are
impacts from what is occurring in the ocean, it does not mean that there is no impact there.
I offer a couple of suggestions for approaching Congress about changing the law. You have
to be able to answer the question about the unknown impacts. There are some basic policy
issues that the Congress laid out a long time ago about the reuse of materials and managing
ocean sludge through other practicable alternatives when they are available. Other
alternatives are available, and it's time to get Congress to follow through with instituting
them. If we are going to go back and redo risk analyses, it's not going to be the nine
facilities that are currently using ocean disposal that are going to be at the center of the
argument, it's going to be all the municipalities that have ceased ocean disposal in the past.
In New Jersey alone that amounts to 150 communities. This should be kept in mind when
making any recommendations about revisiting the issue of the ocean dumping ban. With
that, I will conclude my remarks. I will be happy to answer any questions when the question
period comes up. Thank you.
628
-------
DISCUSSION
Robert Smith
Bureau Of Water Management, Connecticut DEP
Good morning. There are four points I would like to make today to wrap things up.
One is where are we? We're ready to tackle Long Island Sound and we're ready to address
these problems. In 1971, when the Housatonic River Basin Commission began its study of
the Long Island Sound, my job at that time was to get a state car and drive out to the
Naugatuck River and find out if Anaconda American Brass was putting hundreds of
thousands gallons a day of untreated waste into the river. Back then our job was to control
gross pollution. In 1971, we were not ready to address the Sound — we are ready at this
time. Virtually all of the sources of pollution in the inland waters of Connecticut drain into
Long Island Sound. What happens in upstate Connecticut and even in Massachusetts is
important to what happens in Long Island Sound.
The second point is that we now have tools available to us that make it easier to get
the job done. The National Estuary Program has facilitated management conferences for
Long Island Sound. The program has done some good science — quite a bit of it in my
opinion ~ and we have unprecedented cooperation from two regions of EPA, the States of
New York and Connecticut, and other agencies. We have made a lot of progress, have
facilitated investigation of the Long Island Sound, have learned a lot about it, and we are
on our way. The mathematical models, particularly the three-dimensional hydrodynamic
water quality models, are the best we've ever had. They will probably get better in the
future. We need to be careful about the decisions we make, but they are good enough to
make decisions today.
The third point is that it's time to move on. In Connecticut, the support from the
people is there. In the last few years I must have attended 40 to 50 conferences. They were
hosted by environmental groups concerned about Long Island Sound. It's obvious, at least
along the southern border of Connecticut, that there are a great number of people who are
concerned about Long Island Sound and who want to understand what the problems are
and, of course, to have solutions. The legislature of Connecticut has also asked us to
explain to them what is going on. They are very interested in the problem. We are being
asked questions by the Long Island Sound Bi-State Commission for Connecticut and New
629
-------
York. They want pollution stopped and they want to make a difference. So we have the
public's interest. We have an excellent foundation on which to build.
The last point is on a personal note. I began working in water pollution control in
1970 and the first challenge was gross sources of pollution in surface water. The surface
waters had been grossly contaminated from before the turn of the century. It wasn't until
Connecticut passed its water pollution control law that we began to wrestle with the
problem. So the pollution sources existed for almost 100 years with serious degradation.
It was really simple in the early days to find the sources of pollution and control them. The
results were rewarding. Groundwater pollution is also a big challenge. We've gone through
a program of developing regulations, laws, standards, criteria, classification systems, and so
forth. I'd say we're at the stage of late program development and long-term remediation.
In both of these cases, it was fun to do the work because you could see the results. I really
view this as the last big challenge. The inland waters and groundwaters are important
because they all drain into the Long Island Sound. You have to control them first, because
if you cannot assess the impact on Long Island Sound if you do not know what is going on
upstream. Now we are at the point of addressing Long Island Sound. I've never seen so
many dedicated knowledgeable people assembled together for one issue. When there's a
lot of hysteria and a demand for action, you need the cohesive approach that we have here.
I think we can move ahead. Personally, I think it's going to be fun and I look forward to
the challenge.
630
-------
DISCUSSION
Edward O. Wagner
Assistant Commissioner, New York City DEP
I'm not going to attempt to be comprehensive in my reactions to all that has been
said at this conference. My first point is to react to the unexpected items that Dom DiToro
brought up this morning. I think there are few people in this room who were more
surprised than I at the remarks made by Commissioner Appleton yesterday. I'm going to
find learning to work with him very interesting, but basically I reacted positively.
The second surprise was the vigor and the courage many of you expressed when
talking about getting out and participating actively in the reauthorization process for the
Clean Water Act. I find that a very good sign. Many of us stay in our bureaucratic
protective shells and leave the process to somebody else.
The third surprise also has to do with the courage of some of you when talking about
reopening the Ocean Dumping Ban Act. Good luck to you! I agree with Rich Caspe. I
think Congress was fully informed about the issue of ocean disposal when they made that
decision. The action in my view, was a public policy decision and was not based on the
technology or the science of the issue. For those of you who are out there trying to reopen
that option, New York City will not be with you.
Another area that struck me was the different perceptions people had, but that's not
new. It's obvious to all of us that we have different perceptions of the problems, the
solutions, the magnitude of problems, the priorities, the sense of urgency, and the
differences between engineers and scientists and regulators and regulatees. It was clear that
there's a difference of opinion in many of these areas. Specifically, there is a conflict
between the sense of urgency between the desire to get on with attacking these problems
and the need for further study. There are extremes for both of these viewpoints. The
greatest challenge in developing these National Estuary Programs is how do we balance the
sense of urgency that we all feel against the need to get all the information needed.
New York City has been viewed as the classic foot dragger. I'm glad that we have
representatives from our department at this conference because they can testify to the sense
of urgency that we program managers have to live with in terms of advocating and
631
-------
competing with other programs for increased resources. The stakes are high, that much is
clear. Much of what needs to be done will have a great impact in terms of both social
changes and economic demands. For instance, look at the program outlined by the Public
Works Director of the City of Norwalk for nutrient control. If you extrapolate their $15
million program from Norwalk to New York City, it's a $5 billion program without acquiring
any additional lands. That's a high stake. The number doesn't frighten New York City.
Our CSO Program Director talked about a $4.5 million dollar program for CSOs. We are
moving rapidly into that area. If that's what it takes, that's what we'll do.
Where do we go and what should we do? First of all, we need to work harder at
communicating and trying to break down some of these different perceptions. We should
be able to articulate what we know and believe in order to fully understand what each side
is trying to say. We need to be accurate and not posture, but rather present the facts. We
need to break down barriers so that we can trust each other. I have been involved
personally in communicating a number of issues with private citizens and business leaders.
What struck me was that our motivation and our goals are all basically the same. As for
a common sense approach, the CSO program is a good example of this type of
communication.
In New York City we're proceeding with an examination of what it might mean to
control nutrients. We are not burying our heads in the sand. For the challenges that I see,
many of us are going to have to develop new knowledge, skills and ability. Over these three
days, there's been a lot of talk about land use controls. In New York City today, land use
planning is a sphere that doesn't essentially bear on water pollution. We need to develop
a political understanding and communicate with our leaders. We need to know how to use
and not misuse the political process for developing political will.
Setting priorities is an issue, and we've talked about that need. In the past, we have
all dealt with an agenda without a clear sense of priorities. We would like to do everything
that the existing legislation and regulations require us to do. In many cases there are
statutory deadlines. If the estuary conferences are going to have priorities, we need to
reconcile them with existing statutes.
This was an invigorating conference for me, as I knew it would be. I encouraged
many of my staff to come and they did. I hope that it was invigorating for them, and I hope
that we can continue to have success, especially in trying to integrate the three estuary
programs.
632
-------
DISCUSSION
Terry Backer
Soundkeeper For The Long Island Sound Keeper Fund
— Tape Untranscribable —
633
-------
DISCUSSION
Dr. Anthony Sartor
Principal, Paulus, Sololowski & Sartor
I think Mario and Janice have a plot against me because yesterday I followed
Eugenia and today I follow Terry. Wow!
My closing remarks are presented with a dichotomy of feelings. I'm home again.
This is the first time I've been back to Manhattan College in many years. I am a Manhattan
College graduate. It's good to be back and it hasn't changed much. On the other hand, I
feel somewhat lonesome because one of my disappointments over the last three days is the
lack of input from the development community. That's why I'm here, to address some of
those issues.
Just as the regulatory and environmental community have become much more
sophisticated over the years, so has the development community. There are developers and
representatives of the developers who are responsible. What the development community
is looking for as I said yesterday, is some consistency in guidelines and permitting. I believe
that the development can be compatible with the environment, but we need a regional
approach to establishing guidelines. The states have taken a step in that direction. The
Coastal Zone Management Plan does work, but there are problems with it. I think it has
to be, and will be, revisited. But I think you can move ahead along these lines, by getting
the development community to the table with the scientists, the engineers, and the
environmental community. I think something can be accomplished at conferences such as
this. You must reach out to the development community and have them come in and put
their ideas on the table with you. Development, despite what people may want, will take
place, but it should be responsible development. Despite what Terry said, take advantage
of the fiscal resources that are available from the development community. The responsible
developers realize that there has to be a give-and-take and they are willing to look at this
issue. The habitats can be helped on both the short-term and the long-term approach by
responsible development because there are funds available for habitat restoration and
rehabilitation.
My closing comment is to recommend that developers stop having to spend their
fiscal resources on the lawyers and the legal system. Instead, have them put the money into
an area that would be helpful, especially in the area of habitat. That's my closing message.
635
-------
DISCUSSION
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Q. (Speaker unidentified). One of the things that surprised me as an attendee of this forum
is that we touched on things that I didn't think would be touched on. One of them was the
limits on treatables. I didn't expect to hear that at this forum. We talked about limits on the
freedom of lifestyle, we talked about freedom of property use. One of the things that we haven't
talked about and maybe it is a taboo subject and shouldn't be discussed at this jorum, is the
question of the controls on population density and also, again a taboo subject, birth control and
its impact on the environment in general.
A. David Fierra. We have religious taboos and the current climate in this country toward
planned parenthood and so forth. It is very difficult to talk about. You know and I know
that the bottom line is how many people we have. If we are not going to be able to address
that issue in a free society, I think these engineers have to work harder.
Spreading people out all across the country causes more difficulty because they keep
moving to the coast. I think the answer is going to be providing fast, rapid transit to move
the people so they can live in the middle of the country and have an economical way to get
to the coast. That solves the difficulty of the coast, which is privately owned in many places.
It's a tough question, but we all know that if you have too many people you start losing your
freedoms. Those are freedoms as we traditionally see them: To be able to do what we
want, where we want. There are other freedoms that come with being able to walk along
the water. So it's private freedoms versus public freedoms. We're going to have to
concentrate on the public's right to that access to the water.
(Speaker unidentified.) Thank you Dave Fierra. I want to give a very partial response and
that has to do with Cape Cod and the regional regulatory agency in land use and growth
management. This agency deals with virtually all aspects of growth impact. In terms of
environmental impact, they are looking at the impact of a resource such as drinking water
or coastal waters and trying to develop a limiting approach in terms of density of the people
that sustain the value of the resource. It's a small step in the direction of dealing with
density as an impact on the ecological system. Thank you.
Q. Frank Coltrip. / would like to address this to anyone who feels technically competent to
answer. In talking about pathogens and indicators, isn 't it quite possible that we won't find any
637
-------
indicators or at least not a single indicator that is going to do for us all the things that people
have suggested should be done.
A. (Speaker unidentified.) I think we will find an indicator. We've been doing work in the
State of New Jersey on an ocean health study. We can monitor for certain viruses and we
have done that. What we need is an indicator substance or organism that we can turn
around in approximately a 24-hour period to get the analysis instead of a 7-day period.
Then we can make a judgment about the health of ocean waters or estuarine waters. I think
that we will eventually find one.
Q. Martin Garrel, Adelphi University. / have a question about whether the documents that
come out of the workshop will have a money tab, or a bill, or a reckoning for the total cost of
everything that people would like to have done. I've been sitting back in row number 5
sandwiched between two very interesting ladies who are from the Office of Management and
Budget. I can only guess that they're here because they want to be sure that you people from
EPA don't give away the farm or something. We talk about trade-offs. I realize that when you
total everything up, and get the bill for what we want, we are going to have to make a pitch to
the public what the cost is and why we want it. Again, I'm sure that Mr. Wagner must have
considered that in New York City. When you look at that a $1.5 billion tab for nutrient removal
at STP, you have to figure out how it's going to be financed and weigh that against the cost of
handling those people that are sleeping in every car of the number one train that rides out here
on the subways. It's tough. Have you given some thought to that?
A. Richard Caspe. As far as the cost goes, we're talking about two different issues. One
is the short-term response and the other is the long-term response. If you are dealing with
issues that might cost $5 billion for the City of New York to denitrify waste of some level,
before any decision is made on that there is going to have to be some real good science
performed. Not just on the impact of the nitrogen the water body, but the impact of
denitrification on the nitrogen in the water in terms of living things within the water body
and what the effects of excess nitrogen are. There's going to be some type of a cost-benefit
analysis done before a decision is made. That doesn't mean that you don't deal with
nitrogen, if nitrogen is the problem as in the case in the Sound, for example. I'm not saying
that you don't deal with it now. There's two different levels. Again, there are certain things
that can be done to reduce nitrogen that might not cost $5 billion or $1 billion or $100
million. It may cost substantially less. Those are the things in which I have a very keen
interest. There are going to be some important, responsible decisions made. I don't think
anyone here is suggesting irresponsible decisions. I appreciate the fact that Ed and the City
of New York are not frightened by the $5 billion number. When you add $5 billion for
identification and add surface water treatment or requirements, for water supply in the
Delaware and Catskills, as well as sludge and CSOs - those $5 billions start adding up and
they become $20 billions or more. Those number become very frightening. From the
regulatory perspective, we can't demand everything. You can't ask somebody to fly. You
have to prioritize and come up with a responsible way to deal with these issues. I don't
think anyone here is suggesting anything but that.
638
-------
Salvatore Pagano. Let me reemphasize the point of funding. I think we are fighting a
losing battle right now. The budgets at the federal and state levels, I can speak for New
York State, don't address what the people are reacting to, and the state government does
the same thing. Guess what the top water bill is this year in Congress? It has to do with
oil pollution. Remember the Valdez? That's what causes them to take action. We're
talking about actions to prevent problems and they're telling us to take actions when there
is a problem. When bridges fall down, money goes to the Department of Transportation
to inspect bridges, so they don't fall down. We're trying to get ahead of that. That's the
problem we are faced with. We can add up all the price tags on all the things we talked
about today but we're not going to get anywhere with those things. Since 1972, when there
was an understanding and a belief that we had to rebuild the infrastructure, at least for
wastewater disposal systems, we haven't made a whole lot of progress. That program is
done as a self-policing, self-monetary system that is done on a loan basis. Congress wants
to walk away from a lot of these things. The state and federal budgets do not necessarily
deal with these problems. It comes back to the issue of the public being heard so that there
is an impact, and also the governments are aware that people are concerned or afraid to
ignore these issues.
Q. Gerald Lawler, Environmental Consultant. / would like to make one point, actually two
points. The first point has to do with credibility. The scientific community sometimes has
credibility problems.
Nothing was done about acid rain. None of the things that were done in response to the
problem have been carried out long enough to be able to determine the striped bass in the
Chesapeake system. When things such as acid rain happen, they realty reflect inadequate
knowledge. We are then faced with having a credibility problem and the dilemma of being
asked to explain why something has happened. We realfy aren't prepared to give reasons.
Another credibility problem is in the engineering area, the whole area of solid waste
management, particularly recycling. Landfills are being closed. Recycling and reuse are realty
laudable. In our area, I know of at least three examples where recycling efforts can implement
solid waste programs. Everybody has to put their trash in separate containers and sort out their
waste. If the waste get picked up, people pay an extra fee and what happens? It goes to the
landfill. There's no market for this stuff. So it gets all piled up in the landfill after going
through the expense of sorting it. It has to do with the lack of marketing. Is that a federal or
a state role? Who's role is it to put through policies and/or tax laws which favor the use of
recycled materials in preference to raw materials?
The other point that I would like to make has to do with what went on at this conference.
One thing I realty didn't hear is that the more successful we become in cleaning up the water
and cleaning up the beaches, the more intensive is the use of these areas, which counteracts the
cleanup efforts.
639
-------
A. Terry Backer. Who is responsible for recycling programs? The same guys who mandate
recycling by the public should be mandating the use of those materials. We currently do
some stuff with newsprint. We have a tendency to pat ourselves on the back when we
encourage people to move to the coastline, to get them out there, help them to get water,
and so forth. I don't believe in that. I believe that it works like economic structure. In the
1980s, there was plenty of money around so lots of people moved to the coast and could
afford that expensive problem. I have a tendency to think that's a lot of self-back patting
and I don't buy it at all. I think it has to do with being an unprecedented economic
situation more than whether the rivers or the waterfront were cleaned up. If Congress and
the state legislators are not going to mandate the use of recycled materials, it is an exercise
in frustration. Its doing something to make it look good to the public. It always falls back
to political solutions.
Q. Peter Mack, N.Y.S.D.E.C. I'm a regulator and it seems to me that when people want to
locate in areas that perhaps they shouldn't, people try to use our laws to prevent them from
moving there. Our laws aren't set up to control, nor should they be used to control,
development. I've heard a lot of people talk about, over the last few days, how development
is a concern and we should consider development in our deliberations on the oceans or the
shore. But, on the other hand, once somebody gets where they are, whether they should be there
or not is irrelevant. As a regulator, and as communities, we're told that when developers cause
a problem — fix it — once they're there. In the last three days, we talked about a lot of fixes and
yet no one has ever said we're not going to be able to fix some of these things simply because
there are too many people where they are. Anyone want to take a shot at that?
A. Terry Backer. You started out your statement by saying that regulators shouldn't use
the law to prevent development. I think maybe it is time to fess up on these problems and
say that some of these problems are big and we don't know how to solve them but we're not
going to stop working on them. Maybe the credibility problem lies with the fact that we
keep looking for answers that in some way get presented as a promise and the promise is
never fulfilled. Maybe we can clean up some of the toxic sites. Maybe it's better, I don't
know, you're the scientist. I think honesty and being straightforward is best. Maybe we can
say we have problems that already exist that we can't solve but we can prevent a lot of new
ones. This is what we need to say. Is that what you're saying? Well then, as regulators
maybe you have to say that, not as a cop out but really look at what you are doing and say
technology got us into this but technology isn't ready to get us out yet. And as an engineer
I'd like to say exactly that.
Q. Joyce Freeling. I'd like to address this to Terry Backer. I'm a creative marketer -- let me
explain the difference between a marketer and a creative marketer. A marketer moves things
out to the public. A creative marketer responds to the totality of what's needed in the
marketplace. With a group of other professionals in this area, we have been designing a highly
creative consumer education vehicle. Monday, I asked who I would present this to if I was
looking for a public service. The program is developed so that major corporations could be
involved in it as well I was received with not onfy nervousness but by being passed over. Now
640
-------
I've heard over and over again how critical public education is. But there's no response to it.
It seems to me that if you have something, there should be an opportunity to present it to
someone to find out if it realty is highly beneficial This program is designed to be introduced
both nationally and bi-regionalfy because it's modular. I am as frustrated as everyone else in
trying to get something accomplished.
A. Terry Backer. Part of being involved in environmental stuff is public support. Public
support is the media and the way that we do that is we have to be pretty controversial. An
idea is the hardest thing to sell. We use selective memory.
Q. No, No. What I'm asking you for is information. We know how to market and create
something that will gain consumer involvement - that's contextual education. It's entirely
different from anything anyone here has seen because we're in different professions. What I'm
looking for are two things. I want to get information that is critically needed in the regions and
I want to get, if possible, health service corporations involved. If it's approved.
A. Salvatore Pagano. A suggestion. For the selling of the water program and selling of
water resources along with the need for prevention and protection, whether we correct water
problems or not, a foundation has been set up in Washington called the Water Foundation.
Their major interest and concern is to explain the water program to the public. I have a
reference for you if you want to speak to somebody there.
Q. Dave Rourke with the American Littoral Society. It seems to me in the future you ought
to have a demographer in your group because it appeared to me that one of the questions that's
going to come up in the future is knowing what's happened in the past 50 years, what is going
to happen in the next 50. A lot of things that involve coastal use can become of more
economic value. For example, if gasoline were to triple or quadruple in price, what would the
30 million people, some of whom are near poverty level, do if they wanted to go for a swim?
It's got to be close by; it can't be in Maryland or in Cape Cod. It's got to have beaches and so
forth. Many more facilities may be available in the future than are available now. Okay, if
you're going to continue to use the coasts for recreation.
Water — If you have a regional plan, for water you also have a chance for the three
governors to get together on issues such as mass transit, in wanting rebuilding in certain areas
that be served by mass transit. They could get together and make gasoline $3 a gallon in a
regional area,
A. Salvatore Pagano. Let me say this. Trying to get some public officials to attend this
conference was difficult. Trying to talk to the governor --1 don't do that. I think the idea
is probably a good one. How it's done I don't know. If you want to use a gasoline tax as
an example, a penny a gallon is worth approximately $100 million in New York State. A
one cent tax increase on a gallon of gas. Right now the tax is split between federal and
state taxes. I think the idea is a good one. There are many similar funding sources. The
problem is getting people interested enough to say that the state or states in a region should
641
-------
implement programs to accomplish some good. That connection hasn't been made as yet
and so putting a penny tax or some tax on some consumer product is not popular. It's got
to become popular.
Just a follow-up comment. Using the example of the gasoline tax, if we remember
back to the mid-1970s when there was an oil crisis, the public responded very quickly, in a
matter of a few years. We were buying a lot of little cars and there were more carpools
than we have ever seen before. Then it stopped. The crisis was over and people returned
to their old habits. I think the public can respond to a need. They are very adaptable.
642
-------
APPENDIX I: ISSUES DOCUMENT
-------
CLEANING UP OUR
COASTAL WATERS:
An Unfinished Agenda
LONG
ISLAND
SOUND
STUDY
The New York-New Jersey Harbor
Estuary Program
ISSUES
FOR
DISCUSSION
NEW YORK BIGHT
RESTORATION PLAN
March 12-14, 1990
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
INTRODUCTION 1
CONFERENCE OVERVIEW 1
PHASE I WORKSHOPS
THE CONDITION OF OUR COASTAL WATERS:
STATUS, TRENDS AND CAUSES 2
PHASE II WORKSHOPS
INDIVIDUAL AGENDA ADDRESSING THE PRIMARY
FACTORS CAUSING USE IMPAIRMENTS AND OTHER
ADVERSE ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS 4
PHASE III WORKSHOPS
AN INTEGRATED AGENDA FOR CLEANING UP
OUR COASTAL WATERS . 6
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Primary Factors Causing Use Impairments and
Use Impairments and Other Adverse Ecosystem Impacts 3
Table 2. Individual Issue-Specific Agenda 5
Table 3. Integrated Agenda 7
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A. Agenda A-l
Appendix B. Maps of the Sound, Harbor, and Bight B-l
Appendix C. Management Conference Questions C-l
n
-------
CLEANING UP OUR COASTAL WATERS:
An Unfinished Agenda
INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 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 (LISS), the New York-New Jersey Harbor
Estuary Program (HEP), and the New York Bight Restoration Plan (NYBRP). Each of the
three planning efforts is overseen by a Management Conference established by the
Administrator.
The three efforts require close coordination since, in many respects, the Sound, Harbor, and
Bight function as single ecosystem; control actions taken in one component of the system
affect water quality in the other components of the system. Furthermore, there is a
compelling need to evaluate the total burden on the regulated community associated with
implementing the recommendations in all three plans. For example, New York City will
be required to implement provisions contained in all three plans.
For this reason, the Management Conferences, in conjunction with Manhattan College, have
decided to sponsor this conference. Manhattan College is celebrating the fiftieth
anniversary of its Environmental Engineering program this year and views this conference
as an appropriate opportunity to place coastal environmental issues into the proper
historical context.
The conference will be held March 12-14, 1990, at Manhattan College. Conference
participants will include government regulators; elected officials; representatives of the
regulated, professional, and academic communities; and private citizens. The agenda for
the conference is included as Appendix A; maps of the Sound, Harbor, and Bight study
areas are included as Appendix B; management questions that the invited expert speakers
will address are included as Appendix C.
CONFERENCE OVERVIEW
On the morning of the first day, conference participants will convene in plenary session to
hear speakers who will set the direction for the conference:
• Brother Thomas Scanlan, President of Manhattan College, will deliver a welcoming
address;
• EPA Administrator William K. Reilly will deliver a keynote address providing a
national perspective on coastal issues; and
-------
• The Management Conference Policy Committees will present the charge to the
conference.
After breaking for lunch, conference participants will reconvene in plenary session to begin
a three-phase workshop process. Manhattan College Professor Dr. Donald J. O'Connor will
initiate the process by providing a historical perspective on coastal issues. In each phase
of the workshop process, conference participants will begin by listening to expert speakers
who will address the detailed questions that have been posed by the Coastal Conference
Steering Committee; these questions are included as Appendix C. The expert answers to
these questions will provide a firm technical foundation for workgroup deliberations.
Having heard the presentations, conference participants will be divided into groups of
approximately twenty to facilitate discussion. In these groups, conference participants will
be asked to develop answers to the questions posed on Tables 1-3 in the document. Each
group will have a facilitator and a recorder. Afternoon meetings of the facilitators will
provide the opportunity to synthesize workgroup conclusions and recommendations.
Designated facilitators will then report the synthesized conclusions back to the conference
in plenary session. The workshop process has been designed to enable conference
participants, working together, to develop a single, integrated agenda for cleaning up our
coastal waters.
Once the integrated agenda resulting from the workshop sessions has been presented in
plenary session, a distinguished panel will be asked to react to it. The conference will then
conclude with a brief summary of how the integrated agenda produced by conference
participants will influence the continued deliberations of the Management Conferences
established by the Administrator.
PHASE I WORKSHOPS
THE CONDITION OF OUR COASTAL WATERS: STATUS, TRENDS AND CAUSES
During the first set of workshops, conference participants will attempt to
Define the primary factors causing use impairments and other adverse ecosystem
impacts in the Sound-Harbor-Bight system (based upon readily available
information);
Define the relative ecological and economic significance of these factors (based
upon readily available information); and
Define the major gaps in our information base that limit the confidence that we
have in identifying these primary factors and in estimating their relative
significance.
During this phase, priorities will be established without regard to the costs of cleanup.
Specifically, during Phase I, conference participants will be asked to answer the questions
in Table 1.
-------
Table
Nutrient/
Organic
Enrichment
Pathogens
Floatables
Toxics
Habitat
Other
(Specify)
1. Primary Factors Causing Use Impairments and Other Adverse Ecosystem Impacts
SOUND
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
HARBOR
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
BIGHT
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
SYSTEMWIDE
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
For each element of the matrix, answer the following questions:
1. How significant is this factor in contributing to use impairments and other adverse ecosystem impacts (High, Medium, or Low)?
2. On what basis do you draw these conclusions?
3. What additional information would improve the confidence that you have in your conclusions?
-------
PHASE II WORKSHOPS
INDIVIDUAL AGENDA ADDRESSING THE PRIMARY FACTORS CAUSING USE
IMPAIRMENTS AND OTHER ADVERSE ECOSYSTEM IMPACTS
During the second set of workshops, participants will be divided into six issue-oriented
groups:
• Nutrient/organic enrichment;
Pathogens/floatables;
Toxics;
• Habitat;
Seafood safety; and
Ocean disposal.
Within each group, participants will focus 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 will
consider the costs of addressing the factors causing use impairments and will select
remedies for each factor, based on cost-effectiveness.
Specifically, each group will be asked to fill out Table 2:
Identifying recommended actions to deal with the issue;
Identifying whether the action should be undertaken for the Sound, Harbor, Bight,
or systemwide;
• Identifying whether the action should be undertaken in the short or long term1;
and
Identifying whether the action should be assigned a high, medium, or low priority.
For the purposes of this analysis, short-term actions can be defined as those undertaken prior to the
completion of a Final Management Plan; long-term actions can be defined as those undertaken after the
completion of a Final Management Plan. Final Management Plans for the three programs will be completed
as follows:
Long Island Sound Study - November 1991
New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program - April 1994
New York Bight Restoration Plan April 1991
-------
Table 2. Individual Issue-Specific Agenda
Issue:
Recommended Action
Sound,
Harbor,
Bight, or
System-
Wide
Short/
Long
Term
Priority
(High,
Medium,
Low)
NOTE: Consider factors such as cost, effectiveness, the need for prompt action, the need for a sound
technical basis for action, and the need to balance competing uses of our coastal waters. Ensure
that adequate consideration is given to potential pollution prevention initiatives.
-------
In answering these questions, the groups are asked to consider factors such as cost,
effectiveness, need for prompt action, need for a sound technical basis for action, and need
to balance competing uses of our coastal waters. Furthermore, groups are asked to ensure
that adequate consideration is given to potential pollution prevention initiatives.
PHASE III WORKSHOPS
AN INTEGRATED AGENDA FOR CLEANING UP OUR COASTAL WATERS
During the third set of workshops, conference participants will be asked to forge a single,
integrated agenda from the six issue-specific agendas developed during Phase II. The
participants will be asked to balance the costs and benefits of addressing the individual
factors in terms of overall ecological and economic significance, and will be asked to factor
into their discussions a sensitivity to the total burden being placed on the regulated
community.
Specifically, conference participants will asked to fill out Table 3.
-------
Table 3. Integrated Agenda
Recommended Action
Sound,
Harbor,
Bight, or
System-
Wide
Short/
Long
Term
Priority
(High,
Medium,
Low)
NOTE: • Use six issue-speciilc agenda developed during Phase II as a starting point.
• Balance cost and benefits in terms of overall ecological and economic significance.
• Be sensitive to the total burden being placed on the regulated community.
• Prepare a single, integrated agenda.
7
-------
APPENDIX A
Agenda
-------
CLEANING UP OUR COASTAL WATERS:
AN UNFINISHED AGENDA
The first annual regional conference, co-sponsored by Manhattan College and the Management
Conferences for the Long Island Sound Study (LISS), New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary
Program (HEP), and the New York Bight Restoration Plan (NYBRP). This conference is the
first in a continuing series. The Management Conferences will solicit expressions of interest in
co-sponsoring future conferences from other academic institutions within the region.
Riverdale. New York
March 12-14. 1990
Time Topic
MONDAY. MARCH 12. 1990
8:30 a.m. Registration
9:00 a.m. Welcome
9:20 a.m. Keynote Address:
A National Perspective
9:50 a.m. Questions to Administrator Reilly
10:10 a.m. Signing of the Coastal
Waters Pledge
10:30 a.m. The Charge to the Conference -
Management Questions to be answered
at the Conference, as posed by the
members of the Management Conference
Policy Committees (a joint statement)
Speaker/Facilitator
Br. Thomas Scanlan
President
Manhattan College
Hon. William K. Reilly
Administrator
USEPA
Morning speakers and invited
elected officials
Ms. Julie D. Belaga
Regional Administrator
USEPA, Region I
Mr. C. Sidamon-Eristoff
Regional Administrator
USEPA, Region II
Mr. Thomas C. Jorling
Commissioner
N.Y.S Dept. of Environ.
Conserv.
A-l
-------
COASTAL CONFERENCE AGENDA - Page 2
Time
Topic
11:30 p.m.
1:00 p.m.
1:30 p.m.
Lunch (Buffet)
Keynote Address: A Historical
Perspective
The Condition of Our Coastal Waters:
Status, Trends, and Causes - Technical
presentations in plenary session
Historical Trends in the Abundance and
Distribution of Living Marine Resources
Conditions in the Long Island Sound
Conditions in New York-New Jersey
Harbor
Conditions in the New York Bight
Speaker/Facilitator
Ms. Judith A. Yaskin
Commissioner
N.J. Dept. of Environ. Prot.
Ms. Leslie Car others
Commissioner
Conn. Dept. of Environ. Prot.
Dr. Donald J. O'Connor
Professor
Manhattan College
Dr. J.L. McHugh
Professor Emeritus
Marine Sci. Res. Center
SUNY - Stony Brook
Mr. Paul Stacey
Project Manager
Long Island Sound Study
Conn. DEP
Dr. Dennis J. Suszkowski
Science Advisor
Hudson River Foundation
Dr. R. Lawrence Swanson
Director
Waste Management Inst.
Marine Sci. Res. Center
SUNY - Stony Brook
A-2
-------
COASTAL CONFERENCE AGENDA - Page 3
Time
3:30 p.m.
5:00 p.m.
Topic
An Integrated Assessment of Conditions
in the Sound-Harbor-Bight System
Conditions in the Sound-Harbor-Bight
System Viewed in the National Context
Workshop Sessions To Discuss "The
Condition of Our Coastal Waters" -
Break-out sessions in groups of
approximately 20 to discuss management
questions related to the condition
of our coastal waters
Adjourn
Social Hour - Cash Bar
Meeting of Facilitators
Speaker/Facilitator
Dr. J.R. Schubel
Dean and Director
Marine Sci. Res. Center
SUNY - Stony Brook
Dr. Tudor T. Davies
Director
Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection, USEPA
Facilitators
TUESDAY. MARCH 13. 1990
8:30 a.m. Conclusions from Monday's Workshop
Sessions - A report, in plenary session
on the conclusions reached at the previous
day's workshop sessions
9:00 a.m. Workshop Sessions on the Primary Factors
Causing Use Impairments and Other
Adverse Ecosystem impacts1
Dr. J. Frederick Grassle,
Director
Institute of Marine
and Coastal Science
Rutgers University
'At these workshop sessions, Conference attendees will initially be divided into six groups. Each group
will hear technical presentations on one of the following six topics: Nutrient/Organic Enrichment,
Pathogens/Floatables, Toxics, Habitat, Management of Living Marine Resources, and Ocean Disposal. The
technical presentations, which will address the pertinent management questions posed by the Policy Committees,
will last approximately 20 minutes each. Upon completion of the technical presentations, the six groups will be
further divided into groups of approximately 20 persons, to facilitate the formulation of group responses to the
management questions.
A-3
-------
COASTAL CONFERENCE AGENDA - Page 4
Time
Topic
NUTRIENT/ORGANIC ENRICHMENT
Nutrient/Organic Input and Fate
Ecological Effects and Acceptable Ambient
Levels
Controlling Point and Non-Point Nutrient/
Organic Inputs: A Technical Perspective
Controlling Nutrient/Organic Inputs:
A Regulatory Perspective
PATHOGENS/FLOATABLES
Inputs and Fate of Pathogens and
Floatables in the Sound-Harbor-Bight
System
Addressing the Pathogens and Floatables
Problems: Planning and Engineering
Solutions
Addressing the Pathogens and
Floatables Problems: A Regulatory
Perspective
Addressing the Pathogens and
Floatables Problems: An Affected
Community's Viewpoint
Speaker/Facilitator
Mr. John P. St. John, P.E.
HydroQual, Inc.
Dr. Joel S. O'Connor
USEPA, Region II
Mr. Stuart Freudberg
Director
Dept. of Environ. Prog.
Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments
Mr. Robert Smith
Acting Director
Planning and Standard Div.
Conn. DEP
Mr. Michael Skelly
General Manager
Mr. Guy Apicella
Modeling Program Manager
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly
Mr. Robert Gaffoglio, P.E.
Chief
Division of CSO Abatement
Control
N.Y.C. DEP
Richard L. Caspe, P.E.
Director
Water Management Division
USEPA, Region II
Honorable Paul J. Noto
Mayor
Village of Mamaroneck
A-4
-------
COASTAL CONFERENCE AGENDA - Page 5
Time Topic Speaker/Facilitator
TOXICS
Inputs of Toxics to the Sound-Harbor-Bight Dr. James Mueller, P.E.
System Professor
Manhattan College
Levels of Toxics in Water, Sediment, Ms. Fredrika Moser
and Biota, and Their Effects Office of Sci. & Research
NJ. DEP
Controlling Toxic Inputs: Source Reduction W.W. Eckenfelder, P.E.
and Treatment Options Dist. Prof. Emeritus
Vanderbilt University
Senior Tech. Director
Eckenfelder, Inc.
Controlling Toxic Inputs: A Regulatory Mr. Albert W. Bromberg, P.E.
Perspective Chief
Quality Eval. Section
Division of Water
N.Y.S. DEC
HABITAT
A Historical Review of Changes in Dr. Donald F. Squires
Aquatic Habitat in the Sound-Harbor-Bight Director
System Marine Science Institute
Univ. of Connecticut
Preventing Further Degradation of Mr. Mario P. Del Vicario
Aquatic Habitat: A Regulatory Perspective Chief
Marine & Wetlands Prot.
Branch, USEPA, Region II
Preventing Further Degradation of Aquatic Ms. Eugenia M. Flatow
Habitat: A Citizen's Perspective Coordinator
Coalition for the Bight
A-5
-------
COASTAL CONFERENCE AGENDA - Page 6
Time
Topic
Balancing Habitat Protection and Urban
Growth: A Developer's Perspective
SEAFOOD SAFETY
Seafood Safety: Regulatory and Risk
Assessment Perspectives
Seafood Safety: A Commercial Fisherman's
Perspective
Seafood Safety: A Sport Fisherman's
Perspective
Seafood Safety: An Environmentalist's
Perspective
OCEAN DISPOSAL
Dredged Material Disposal: A Regulatory
Perspective
Monitoring the Recovery of the Former
12-Mile Sewage Sludge Site
Sewage Sludge Disposal: A Regulatory
Perspective
Speaker/Facilitator
Dr. Anthony Sartor
Principal
Paulus, Sokolowski, &
Sartor
Dr. Edward Horn
Research Scientist
N.Y.S. Dept. of Health
Mr. Lee Weddig
Executive Vice President
National Fisheries Inst.
Mr. Joseph J. McBride
President
Montauk Boatman's Captain's
Association
Mr. Arthur Glowka
Chairman
Long Island Sound Task Force
Director
Hudson River Foundation
Mr. John F. Tavolaro
Chief
Water Quality Compliance
Branch, New York District
Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. Robert Reid, Chief
Benthos Task
Natl. Marine Fish. Serv.
Sandy Hook
Mr. Bruce Kiselica, Chief
Ocean Dumping Task Force
USEPA
A-6
-------
COASTAL CONFERENCE AGENDA - Page 7
Time
Speaker/Facilitator
Environmental Impacts of Ocean Disposal
Impacts of Decisions on Ocean Disposal
in the Port of New York-New Jersey
12:00 p.m. Luncheon
1:30 p.m. An Integrated Agenda for Cleaning Up
Our Coastal Waters - Conference attendees
will convene in plenary session to hear
presentations that provide a context within
which to formulate an agenda for cleaning
up our coastal waters.
Existing and Planned Environmental
Control Programs: A New York City
Perspective
Existing and Planning Environmental
Control Programs: A Norwalk
Perspective
Existing and Planned Environmental
Control Programs: An Industry
Perspective
Setting Priorities:
Perspective
A National
Dr. Wayne R. Munns
Senior Biologist
Science Applications
International Corporation
ERL-Narragansett
Ms. Lillian C. Liburdi
Director
Port Dept.
Port Authority of NY-NJ
Mr. Albert F. Appleton
Commissioner
N.Y.C. Dept. of Environ. Prot.
Mr. Dominick M. DiGanges
Director
Public Works
City of Norwalk
Dr. Geraldine V. Cox
Vice Pres. & Tech. Dir.
Chemical Manufacturers
Association
Mr. David A. Fierra
Director
Water Management Division
USEPA, Region I
A-7
-------
COASTAL CONFERENCE AGENDA - Page 8
Time Topic
3:30 p.m. Workshop Sessions To Develop an
Integrated Agenda for Cleaning Up
Our Coastal Waters2
5:00 p.m. Adjourn
Meeting of Facilitators
Speaker/Facilitator
Facilitators
WEDNESDAY. MARCH 14. 1990
9:00 a.m. Preliminary Conclusions from Tuesday's
Workshop Sessions on Primary Factors -
Reports in plenary session on
conclusions reached in the six workshop
sessions pertaining to Nutrient/
Organic Enrichment, Pathogens/Floatables,
Toxics, Habitat, Seafood Safety, and
Ocean Disposal
10:00 a.m. Preliminary Conclusions from Tuesday's
Workshop Sessions on An Integrated -
Agenda - Report in plenary session
on the conclusions reached in the
workshop sessions pertaining to the
development of an integrated agenda
10:30 a.m. Break
10:45 a.m. Discussion - Preliminary formulation of
recommendations to guide continued
continued deliberation of the
Management Conferences
Facilitators
Dr. Dominic DiToro
Professor
Manhattan College
Mr. David A. Fierra
Director
Water Management Div.
USEPA, Region I
Conference participants will be divided into workgroups of approximately 20 to begin formulation of
an integrated agenda that deals with all of the primary factors causing use impairments and other adverse
ecosystem impacts. Care will be taken to ensure that each workgroup has representatives who dealt with each
of the six topics addressed at the workshop sessions on Tuesday.
A-8
-------
COASTAL CONFERENCE AGENDA - Page 9
Time Topic Speaker/Facilitator
Mr. Richard L. Caspe
Director
Water Management Div.
USEPA, Region II
Mr. Salvatore Pagano
Associate Director
Division of Water
N.Y.S. DEC
Mr. Eric Evenson
Act. Director
Division of Water
N.J. DEP
Mr. Adrian P. Freund
Chief
Bureau of Water Management
Conn. DEP
(invited)
Mr. Edward O. Wagner, P.E.
Asst. Commissioner
Bureau of Wastewater
Treatment
N.Y.C. DEP
Mr. Terry Backer
Soundkeeper for the Long
Island Sound Keeper Fund
Dr. Anthony Sartor
Principal
Paulus, Sokolowski, &
Sartor
12:15 p.m. Next Steps Mr. Richard L. Caspe, P.E.
Director
Water Management Division
USEPA, Region II
12:30 p.m. Adjourn
A-9
-------
APPENDIX B
Maps of the Long Island Sound,
New York-New Jersey Harbor, and
New York Bight
-------
LONG ISLAND SOUND
NOIION
\ IIAMIOID
OIIINMICH
-------
The New York - New Jersey Harbor
B-2
-------
DIRECT BIGHT DISCHARGE ZONE
DEEP WATER
MUNICIPAL
SEWAGE SLUDGE
The New York Bight
B-3
-------
APPENDIX C
Management Conference Questions
-------
MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE QUESTIONS
The Condition of Our Coastal Waters; Status. Trends, and Causes
Historical Trends in the Abundance and Distribution of
Living Marine Resources Dr. J.L. McHugh
1. What are the historical trends in the abundance of living marine resources in
the Sound? In the Harbor? In the Bight? Systemwide?
2. What are the major factors causing these trends? What is the relative
importance of each of these factors?
Conditions in the Long Island Sound Mr. Paul Stacey
3a. What are the use impairments and other adverse ecosystem impacts in the
Sound?
4a. What is the ecological and economic significance of these impacts?
5a. What are the primary factors causing these impacts?
6a. Are conditions getting better or worse? Have any trends been established in
the present century?
7a. What is the prognosis for the future of the Long Island Sound?
Conditions in New York-New Jersey Harbor Dr. Dennis J. Suszkowski
3b. What are the use impairments and other adverse ecosystem impacts in the
Harbor?
4b. What is the ecological and economic significance of these impacts?
5b. What are the primary factors causing these impacts?
6b. Are conditions getting better or worse? Have any trends been established in
the present century?
7b. What is the prognosis for the future of New York-New Jersey Harbor?
Conditions in the New York Bight Dr. R. Lawrence Swanson
3c. What are the use impairments and other adverse ecosystem impacts in the
Bight?
C-l
-------
4c. What is the ecological and economic significance of these impacts?
5c. What are the primary factors causing these impacts?
6c. Are conditions getting better or worse? Have any trends been established in
the present century?
7c. What is the prognosis for the future of the New York Bight?
An Integrated Assessment of Conditions
in the Sound-Harbor-Bight System Dr. J.R. Schubel
8. When viewed from a Sound-Harbor-Bight systemwide perspective, what is the
relative significance of the individual impairments and the factors causing
them? Which impairments are manifested with equal intensity
systemwide? Which are manifested with greater intensity in the individual
subsystems of the Sound-Harbor-Bight?
Conditions in the Sound-Harbor-Bight
System Viewed in the National Context Dr. Tudor T. Davies
9. How do the problems in the Sound-Harbor-Bight system compare with those
in other estuarine systems in the United States? In the world?
Nutrient/Organic Enrichment
Nutrient/Organic Inputs and Fate John P. St. John, P.E.
10. What are the loadings of BOD, N, and P to the Sound-Harbor-Bight system?
11. What are their relative contributions to hypoxic conditions and the
development of undesirable algal species?
12. What do we know at this point about the level of load reduction required to
meet existing standards or alternative endpoints?
13. Do we have the necessary systemwide analytic effort under way at this time
to determine the required level of control?
Ecological Effects
and Acceptable Ambient Levels Dr. Joel S. O'Connor
14. What are the current standards and criteria for dissolved oxygen? Are there
standards and criteria for other parameters associated with nutrient/organic
enrichment?
C-2
-------
15. What do we know about the ecological effects of nutrient/organic
enrichment?
16. What do we know about the relationship between ambient levels of dissolved
oxygen and ecological effects?
17. What is the relationship between phytoplankton concentrations and perceived
water quality?
18. How best can we formulate alternative endpoints for management
consideration?
19. How best can we estimate the benefits of control programs?
Controlling Point and Non-Point
Nutrient/Organic Inputs:
A Technical Perspective Mr. Stuart Freudberg
20. What pollution prevention options are available for limiting the point source
loads of BOD/N/P to the system, and what are their costs?
21. What treatment options are available for limiting the point source loads of
BOD/N/P to the system, and what are their costs?
22. What pollution prevention options are available for limiting the non-point
source loads of BOD/N/P to the system, and what are their costs?
23. What treatment options are available for limiting the non point source loads
of BOD/N/P to the system, and what are their costs?
24. By reducing or preventing point and non-point inputs of BOD, N, P entering
the system, what are the associated benefits for other parameters?
Controlling Nutrient/Organic Inputs:
A Regulatory Perspective Mr. Robert Smith
25. Considering what we know about nutrient and organic inputs to the Sound-
Harbor-Bight system, how can the Management Conferences select
appropriate environmental objectives and develop plans to achieve them?
26. What short-term actions can be implemented to prevent the problem from
getting worse? What short-term actions can be implemented to begin
reducing the existing problem?
27. How best can we expedite the development of cost-effective long-term
remedies to resolve the problem of nutrient/organic enrichment?
C-3
-------
Pathogens/Floatables
Inputs and Fate of Pathogens and Floatables
in the Sound-Harbor-Bight System Mr. Michael Skelly &
Mr. Guy Apicella
28. What are the primary sources of pathogens and floatables in the Sound-
Harbor-Bight system?
29. What is their fate in the system?
30. To what extent do pathogens and floatables have to be controlled to allow
the restoration of beneficial uses in the system?
31. What are the current indicators of the pathogen and floatable problems? Are
these indicators adequate? Is there a need to develop new and/or additional
indicators?
Addressing the Pathogens and Floatables
Problems: Planning and Engineering Solutions Mr. Robert Gaffoglio, P.E.
32. What planning and engineering solutions to the pathogens/floatables problem
are currently being implemented? What further actions are planned?
33. What pollution prevention techniques are most appropriate for discharges to
the Sound-Harbor-Bight system?
34. What treatment options are most appropriate for this region in terms of
practicality, effectiveness, and cost?
35. What are the lead times required to implement these controls?
36. By reducing or preventing pathogens and floatables from entering the system,
what are the associated benefits for other parameters?
Addressing the Pathogens and Floatables Problems:
A Regulatory Perspective Mr. Richard L. Caspe, P.E.
37. What are the regulatory agencies doing to encourage short-term remedies to
restore beneficial uses?
38. Are there additional measures that the regulatory agencies can implement
to encourage short-term remedies to restore beneficial uses?
39. What can regulatory agencies do to encourage cost-effective long-term
remedies to restore beneficial uses?
C-4
-------
Addressing the Pathogens and
Floatables Problems: An Affected
Community's Viewpoint Hon. Paul j Noto
40. What floatables- and pathogens-related adverse impacts are currently
experienced at the local level?
41. What can local government do at its own initiative to address these adverse
impacts?
42. How can local government respond to anticipated regulatory requirements?
Toxics
Inputs of Toxics to the Sound-
Harbor-Bight System Dr. James Mueller, P.E.
43. What are the current loadings of toxics to the Sound-Harbor-Bight system?
44. What are the trends in these loadings?
45. What do we know about the fate of toxics in the Sound-Harbor-Bight system?
Levels of Toxics in Water, Sediment,
and Biota, and their Effects Ms. Fredrika Moser
46. What are the existing levels of toxics in water, sediment, and biota in
relationship to existing standards and criteria developed to protect the Sound-
Harbor-Bight ecosystem?
47. Are the existing standards and criteria adequate?
48. What do we know about the ecological effects of the existing levels of toxics?
Controlling Toxic Inputs: Source
Reduction and Treatment Options Mr. W.W. Eckenfelder, P.E.
49. What pollution prevention options are available for limiting the point source
loads of toxics to the system, and what are their costs?
50. What treatment options are available for limiting the point source loads of
toxics to the system, and what are their costs?
51. What pollution prevention and treatment options are available to deal with
non-point sources of toxics such as atmospheric deposition, urban runoff, and
leachate from hazardous waste dumps?
C-5
-------
52. By reducing or preventing toxic inputs from entering the system, what are the
associated side benefits for other parameters?
Controlling Toxic Inputs:
A Regulatory Perspective Mr. Albert W. Bromberg, P.E.
53. What is the status of existing programs to control toxic inputs to the system?
54. What more can be done to limit toxic inputs using technology-based and
water quality-based limits?
55. What can be done to control toxic inputs that are entering the system from
other media?
Habitat
A Historical Review of Changes in
Aquatic Habitat in the Sound-Harbor-Bight System Dr. Donald F. Squires
56. What changes have occurred in nearshore aquatic habitat since the arrival of
the European settlers?
57. What have been the primary factors contributing to the destruction and
degradation of nearshore habitat over the past fifty years?
58. What measures have been taken over the past fifty years to minimize the
destruction and degradation of nearshore habitat?
Preventing Further Degradation of
Aquatic Habitat: A Regulatory Perspective Mr. Mario P. Del Vicario
59a. Are existing environmental regulations adequate to protect nearshore aquatic
habitat? If not, what type of measures are required to protect nearshore
habitat?
60a. What can be done in the short-term to prevent further destruction and
degradation of aquatic habitat? What can be done in the short-term to
enhance or restore nearshore habitat that has been degraded or destroyed?
6la. What can be done in the long-term to prevent further destruction and
degradation of aquatic habitat? What can be done in the long-term to
enhance or restore nearshore habitat that has been degraded or destroyed?
62a. Can a balance be struck between protecting nearshore habitat and developing
land to satisfy urban growth?
C-6
-------
63a. By reducing or preventing point or non-point sources of fill material from
entering the system, what are the associated benefits for other parameters?
Preventing Further Degradation of Aquatic
Habitat: A Citizen's Perspective Ms. Eugenia M. Flatow
59b. Are existing environmental regulations adequate to protect nearshore habitat?
If not, what type of measures are required to protect nearshore habitat?
60b. What can be done in the short-term to prevent further destruction and
degradation of aquatic habitat? What can be done in the short-term to
enhance or restore nearshore habitat that has been degraded or destroyed?
61b. What can be done in the long-term to prevent further destruction and
degradation of aquatic habitat? What can be done in the long-term to
enhance or restore nearshore habitat that has been degraded or destroyed?
62b. Can a balance be struck between protecting nearshore habitat and
development?
63b. By reducing or preventing point or non-point sources of fill material from
entering the system, what are the associated benefits for other parameters?
Balancing Habitat Protection and
Urban Growth: A Developer's Perspective Dr. Anthony Sartor
62c. Can a balance be struck between protecting nearshore habitat and
development?
Seafood Safety
Seafood Safety: Regulatory and
Risk Assessment Perspectives Dr. Edward Horn
64a. What are the existing levels of toxics in water, sediment, and biota in
relationship to the standards and criteria developed to protect human health?
65a. Is there a human health risk from consuming fish and shellfish from the
Sound-Harbor-Bight system? If so, how significant is the risk?
66a. What are the existing regulatory mechanisms and standards to protect the
public from consuming unsafe fish and shellfish?
67a. Do these regulatory mechanisms and standards adequately protect human
health?
C-7
-------
68a. What changes to the existing regulatory mechanisms and standards would
enhance the protection of human health?
Seafood Safety: A Commercial
Fisherman's Perspective Mr. Lee Weddig
64b. What are the existing levels of toxics in water, sediment, and biota in
relationship to the standards and criteria developed to protect human health?
65b. Is there a human health risk from consuming fish and shellfish from the
Sound-Harbor-Bight system? If so, how significant is the risk?
66b. What are the existing regulatory mechanisms and standards to protect the
public from consuming unsafe fish and shellfish?
67b. Do these existing mechanisms and standards adequately protect human
health?
68b. What changes to the existing regulatory mechanisms and standards would
enhance the protection of human health?
69a. How have government actions and legislation affected the commercial seafood
industry?
Seafood Safety: A
Sportfisherman's Perspective Mr. Joseph J. McBride
65 c. Is there a human health risk from consuming fish and shellfish from the
Sound-Harbor-Bight system? If so, how significant is the risk?
69b. How have government actions and legislation affected sportfishermen?
Seafood Safety: An
Environmentalist's Perspective Mr. Arthur Glowka
64c. What are the existing levels of toxics in water, sediment, and biota in
relationship to the standards and criteria developed to protect human health?
65d. Is there a human health risk from consuming fish and shellfish from the
Sound-Harbor-Bight system? If so, how significant is the risk?
66c. What are the existing regulatory mechanisms and standards to protect the
public from consuming unsafe fish and shellfish?
67c. Do these existing mechanisms and standards adequately protect human
health?
C-8
-------
68c. What changes to the existing regulatory mechanisms and standards would
enhance the protection of human health?
Ocean Disposal
Dredged Material Disposal: A
Regulatory Perspective Mr. John F. Tavolaro
70. What are the current and planned disposal practices for dredged material in
the Sound-Harbor-Bight system?
71. What are the adverse environmental impacts associated with dredging and
ocean disposal of dredged material?
72. What type of mitigative measures are currently practiced? Is additional
mitigation possible? Dredged material disposal?
73. Are there short-term and/or long-term alternatives to the ocean disposal of
dredged material in this area?
Monitoring the Recovery of the Former
12-Mile Sewage Sludge Site Mr. Robert Reid
74. What adverse environmental impacts have been experienced from dumping
sewage sludge at the former 12-mile sewage sludge site?
75. Has the 12-mile site shown any environmental improvement since sewage
sludge dumping ceased in 1987?
76. What are the prospects for implementing mitigative measures at this site?
77. What are the prospects for and benefits of opening this site and adjacent
waters to shellfishing?
Sewage Sludge Disposal: A
Regulatory Perspective Mr. Bruce Kiselica, P.E.
78. What are the current disposal and planned practices for sewage sludge
disposal at the 106-mile site?
79. What are the current plans for implementation of land-based alternatives?
80. What do we know about the adverse environmental impacts of this activity?
81. What further monitoring and analysis are planned to improve our
understanding of these impacts?
C-9
-------
Environmental Impacts of Ocean Disposal Dr. Wayne R. Munns
82. What are the adverse environmental impacts associated with dredging and the
ocean disposal of dredged material?
83. What are the adverse environmental impacts associated with disposal of
sewage sludge at the 106-mile site?
84. What are the adverse environmental impacts associated with other ocean
disposal activities such as cellar dirt, acid wastes, industrial wastes, and
woodburning at sea?
Impacts of Decisions on Ocean
Disposal in the Port of
New York-New Jersey Ms. Lillian C. Liburdi
85. How is the commercial viability of the Port of New York-New Jersey and
other ports within the Sound-Harbor-Bight system impacted by decisions on
dredging and dredged material disposal?
86. How is the commercial viability of the Port of New York-New Jersey
impacted by decisions on other ocean disposal activities such as woodburning?
87. Would the Port Authority serve as a sponsor for innovative programs for
dredged material disposal?
An Integrated Agenda for Cleaning Up Our Coastal Waters
Existing and Planned Environmental
Control Programs:
A New York City Perspective . . Mr. Albert F. Appleton
88a. What have you done to date to contribute to the cleanup of the Sound-
Harbor-Bight system?
89a. What are your current plans for implementing additional pollution abatement
projects?
90a. On what basis did you establish your priorities?
9la. What are the costs of these projects?
92a. How will they plans be funded?
C-10
-------
93a. To the extent that the Sound, Harbor, or Bight studies include
recommendations for control programs not currently part of your plans, how
can the recommendations be accommodated?
Existing and Planned Environmental
Control Programs:
A Norwalk Perspective Mr. Dominick M. DiGanges, P.E.
88b. What have you done to date to contribute to the cleanup of the Sound-
Harbor-Bight system?
89b. What are your current plans for implementing additional pollution abatement
projects?
90b. On what basis did you establish your priorities?
91b. What are the costs of these projects?
92b. How will they be funded?
93b. To the extent that the Sound, Harbor, or Bight studies include
recommendations for control programs not currently part of your plans, how
can they be accommodated?
Existing and Planned Environmental
Control Programs:
An Industry Perspective Dr. Geraldine V. Cox
88c. What have you done to date to contribute to the cleanup of the Sound-
Harbor-Bight system?
89c. What are your current plans for implementing additional pollution abatement
projects?
90c. On what basis did you establish your priorities?
91c. What are the costs of these projects?
92c. How will they be funded?
93c. To the extent that the Sound, Harbor, or Bight studies include
recommendations for control programs not currently part of your plans, how
can they be accommodated?
C-ll
-------
Setting Priorities:
A National Perspective Mr. David A. Fierra
94. What are the national water pollution abatement priorities, and how have they
been established?
95. What criteria should we use in establishing priorities for the short-term? For
the long-term? For further analysis?
C-12
-------
APPENDIX II: LIST OF SPEAKERS
AND ATTENDEES
-------
Robert D. Abrams
New York State Marine Education
Association
520 Danie Street
Westbury, NY 11590
Albert F. Appleton
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
40 Worth Street
New York, NY 10013
Kevin T. Aiello
Middlesex County Utilities Authority
P.O. Box B-l
Sayreville, NJ 08872
Maeve Arthars
U.S. EPA, Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Room 500
New York, NY 10278
Alfredo Alder
New York University Medical Center
Dept. of Microbiology
550 First Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Seth Ausubel
U.S. EPA, Marine & Wetlands Protection
Branch
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Bob Alpern
The River Project
67 Vestry Street
New York, NY 10013
F. L. Bach
Alliance for a Living Ocean
44 Sunrise Drive
Montvale, NJ 07645
Tim Anderson
Westchester County Dept. of Health
112 E. Post Road
White Plains, NY 10601
Terry Backer
Long Island Soundkeeper Fund
P.O. Box 4058
Norwalk, CT 06855
Protopapas Angllos
Polytechnic University
333 Jay Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Nicholas J. Bartilucci
Dvirka & Bartilucci Consulting Engineers
6800 Jericho Turnpike
Syosset, NY 11791
Guy A. Apicella
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers
One Blue Hill Plaza
Pearl River, NY 10965
Todd S. Bates
The Asbury Park Press
3601 Highway 66
Neptune, NJ 07754
II-l
-------
Pat Beckles
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
40 Worth Street, Room 1331
New York, NY 10013
Joseph J. Birgeles
Port Authority of New York
& New Jersey
One World Trade Center
New York, NY 11754
Hadley Bedbury
Maxus Energy Corporation
717 N. Harwood
Dallas, TX 75201
Alan F. Blumberg
HydroQual, Inc.
1 Lethbridge Plaza
Mahwah, NJ 07430
Susan Beede
U.S. EPA, Region I
JFK Building, WQE-1900
Boston, MA 02203
W. Frank Bohlen
University of Connecticut
Marine Sciences, Avery Point
Groton, CT 06340
David Berger
Portland Community College
12000 SW 49th Ave.
Portland, OR 97219
Melissa Beristain
New York Sea Grant Extension
125 Nassau Hall, S.U.N.Y. at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, NY 11794
David Berkovits
Port Authority of New York &
New Jersey
1 World Trade Center
New York, NY 10048
Marci L. Bortman
Legislative Staff
Congressman William J. Hughes
341 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Howard Boswell
Boswell Engineering
330 Phillips Ave.
S. Hackensack, NJ 07606
Randy Braun
U.S. EPA
2890 Woodbridge Ave., Bldg. 209
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
Roger C. Binkerd
Aquatec, Inc.
75 Green Mountain Drive
South Burlington, VT 05403
Greg Brazier
Waterborne Waste Recovery Systems
37 Shell Road
Rocky Point, NY 11778
II-2
-------
Kevin C. Bricke
U.S. EPA, Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Albert W. Bromberg
New York State Dept. of Environmental
Conservation, Division of Water
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-3503
Thomas Brosnan
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Wastewater Treatment
Wards Island, NY 10035
Davio K. Bulloch
American Littoral Society
211 West Clinton Ave.
Tenafly, NJ 07670
Paul L. Busch
Malcolm Pirnie
2 Corporate Park Drive
White Plains, NY 10602
Leslie Carothers
Connecticut Dept. of Environmental
Protection
122 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Louis Carrio
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Wastewater Treatment
Wards Island, NY 10035
Cynthia R. Carusone
New York State Dept. of Environmental
Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-3503
Richard L. Caspe
U.S. EPA, Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Moses C. Chang
U.S. EPA, Water Management Division
26 Federal Plaza, Room 813
New York, NY 10278
Ann L. Buttenwieser
New York City Department of Parks &
Recreation
The Arsenal, Central Park
New York, NY 10021
John Chen
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Wastewater Treatment
Wards Island, NY 10035
Jack Caliendo
Village of Mamaroneck
169 Mt. Pleasant Ave.
Mamaroneck, NY 10543
Joseph A. Chisonis
Urban Systems Concert Group, Inc.
120 77th Street
North Bergen, NJ 07047
II-3
-------
Henry J. Chlupsa
William F. Cosulich Assoc. PC
330 Crossways Park Drive
Woodbury, NY 11797-2015
Jon C. Cooper
Louis Berger and Associates
100 Halsted Street
East Orange, NJ 07019-0270
Karen Chytalo
New York State Dept. of Environmental
Conservation
S.U.N.Y., Bldg. 40
Stony Brook, NY 11794
Jordan Clark
Columbia University, Dept. of Geology
Lament - Doherty Geological Observatory
Palisades, NY 10964
Sarah L. Clark
Environmental Defense Fund
257 Park Ave. South
New York, NY 10010
Anthony Conetta
Dvirka & Bartilucci
9800 Jericho Turnpike
Syossett, NY 11791
Terry C. Cosper
Cosper Environmental Services, Inc.
P.O. Box 525
Northport, NY 11768
Geraldine V. Cox
Chemical Manufacturers Association
2501 M Street, NW
Washington, DC 20037
Cynthia J. Decker
Waste Mont. Inst./S.U.N.Y. SB
State University of New York
Stony Brook, NY 11994
Philip DeGaetano
New York State Dept. of Environmental
Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
John P. Connolly
Manhattan College
Environmental Engineering & Science
Riverdale, NY 10471
Joseph P. Conway
Bureau of Water Supply & Wastewater
Collection
44 Beaver Street
New York, NY 10004
Michael Deering
New York State Legislative Commission
on Water Resources
11 Middleneck Road, Room 213
Great Neck, NY 11021
Mario P. Del Vicario
U.S. EPA
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
II-4
-------
Christopher E. Dere
U.S. EPA, Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Room 805
New York NY 10278
Dominick M. Di Gangi
City of Norwalk
Box 5125
125 East Avenue
Norwalk, CT 06856-5125
Vasil Diyamanoglu
Dept. of Civil Engineering,
City College of New York
Covent Ave. & 138th Street
New York, NY 10031
Thomas E. Doheny, Jr.
Department of Conservation & Waterways
Lido Blvd., P.O. Box J
Point Lookout, NY 11569
Jennifer A. DiLorenzo
New York State Senate Subcommittee on
the Long Island Marine District
270 Broadway, Room 1001
New York, NY 10007
John Donnellon
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Wastewater Treatment
Wards Island, NY 10035
Joseph L. DiLorenzo
Najarian & Associates, Inc.
One Industrial Way West
Eatontown, NJ 07724
Joseph Donohue
Atlantic City Press
New Jersey Statehouse
Trenton, NJ 08625
Naeem Din
New York City Sanitation Dept.,
Environmental Unit
253 Broadway, Suite 800
New York, NY 10007
Dominic M. Di Toro
Manhattan College
Environmental Engineering & Science
Riverdale, NY 10471
Robert E. Dieterich
U.S. EPA, Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Joseph J. Dowhan
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Box 307
Charlestown, RI 02813
David R. Draper
Desdner, Robin & Assoc.
43 Montgomery Street, P.O. Box 469
New Jersey, NJ 07302
Cathy Drew
The River Project
67 Vestry Street
New York, NY 10013
II-5
-------
Carol DuBois
Action for Conservation North Shore
Box 492
Huntington, NY 11743
Charles L. Dujardin
HydroQual, Inc.
1 Lethbridge Plaza
Mahwah, NJ 07430
Patrick M. Durack
U.S. EPA, Region II
Water Management Division
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
James A. Ebert
U.S. National Park Service,
Fire Island National Seashore
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Wastewater Treatment
Wards Island, NY 10035
W.W. Eckenfelder
Eckenfelder, Inc.
227 French Landing Drive
Nashville, TN 37228
Hilary Einsohn
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Wastewater Treatment
Wards Island, NY 10035
Martin Engelhardt
Bureau of Water Supply & Wastewater
Collection
44 Beaver Street
New York, NY 10004
Erwin J. Ernst
New York Aquarium, New York
Zoological Society
Surf Avenue & W. 8th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11224
Ellen Essig
New York City Office of Management
& Budget
1 Center Street
New York, NY 10007
Pamela Esterman
Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
460 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Loreto Evangelista
Queens College
Flushing, NY 11355
Eric Evenson
New Jersey Dept. of Environmental
Protection, Water Resources
401 E. State St.
Trenton, NJ 08625
II-6
-------
Steven A. Fangmann
Nassau County Department of
Public Works
1 West Street, Room 125
Mineola, NY 11501
Kenneth Feustel
Dvirka & Bartilucci Consulting Engineers
6800 Jericho Turnpike
Sysosset, NY 11791
David A. Fierra
U.S. EPA, Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
John Fillos
City College
138th Street & Conne. Ave.
New York, NY 10031
Barbara A. Finazzo
U.S. EPA, Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Room 1137
New York, NY 10278
Eugena Flatow
Coalition for the Bight
121 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 501
New York, NY 10013
Arnold F. Fleming
AKRF Inc.
117 E. 29th Street
New York, NY 10016
Frank J. Flood
Nassau County Dept. of Public Works
C.C.W.P.C.P., P.O. Box 88
Wantagh, NY 11793
Angelika Forndran
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Wastewater Treatment
Wards Island, NY 10035
Peter Foti
Belle Harbor Property Owners Association
P.O. Box 178, Rockaway Park Station
Rockaway, NY 11694
Joyce Freeling
Your Living Space
245 East 63rd Street
New York, NY 10021
Stuart A. Freudberg
Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments
777 N. Capital Street, Suite 300
Washington, DC 20002-4201
Douglas A. Gaffney
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Philadelphia District
U.S. Custom House,
2nd & Chestnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
II-7
-------
Robert Gaffoglio
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Heavy Construction
40 Worth Street, Room 1317
New York, NY 10013
Thomas P. Gallagher
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers
P.O. Box 280669
Lakewood, CO 80228
Edward J. Garland
HydroQual, Inc.
1 Lethbridge Plaza
Mahwah, NJ 07430
James J. Gilmore
New York State Dept. of Environmental
Conservation
S.U.N.Y, Bldg. 40
Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356
Art Glowka
Long Island Sound Task Force
60 Round Hill Drive
Stamford, CT 06903
Victor Goldsmith
Dept. of Geology & Geography, Hunter
College
695 Park Ave.
New York, NY 10021
Martin Garrell
Adelphi University
Box 701
Garden City, NY 11530
Arthur Goldstein
AGA Associates
16 School Street, Suite 100
Rye, NY 10580
Mary Downes Gastrich
New Jersey Dept. of Environmental
Protection, DWR
401 E. State Street, CNO29
Trenton, NJ 08625
Victoria Gibson
Battelle Memorial Institute
397 Washington Street
Duxbury, MA 02332
Howard Golub
Interstate Sanitation Commission
10 Columbus Circle
New York, NY 10019
Philip Grande
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Wastewater Treatment
Wards Island, NY 10035
Maria Gill
Hudson River Fisherman's Association
33 Crane Ave.
White Plains, NY 10603
Frederick Grassle
Rutgers University, Cook College
P.O. Box 231, Old Blake Hall
New Brunswick, NJ 08903
II-8
-------
Lisa Gray
Hazen & Sawyer
730 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Thomas T. Griffin
Najarian & Associates, Inc.
One Industrial Way West
Eatontown, NJ 07724
William Haberland
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Wastewater Treatment
Wards Island, NY 10035
Peter Hark
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Wastewater Treatment
Wards Island, NY 10035
Pat Harvey
U.S. EPA, Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Emerson Hasbrouck
Cornell Cooper Cooperative Extension
39 Second Ave.
Riverhead, NY 11901
Harold H. Hakim
Rutgers University
Shellfish Research Lab., Box 687
Port Norris, NJ 08349
Sam Hastwell
NRDC
40 W. 20th Street
New York, NY 10011
Ross Hall
USAE Waterways Experiment Station
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199
Fern Halper
AT&T Bell Laboratories
600 Mountain Ave., Room 30K008
Murray Hill, NJ 07974
Phillip Heckler
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Wastewater Treatment
Wards Island, NY 10035
William Heiple
Metcalf & Eddy
1 Research Parkway
Meriden, CT 06450
Emile M. Hanna
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
40 Wor'h Street, Room 907
New York, NY 10019
Clay Hiles
Judson River Foundation for
Scientific & Environmental Res.
40 West 20th Street, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10011
H-9
-------
Cynthia A. Hill
Monmouth County Planning Board
Hall of Records Annex, E. Main Street
Freehold, NJ 07728
Edward G. Horn
New York State Dept. of Health
2 University Place, Room 350
Albany, NY 12203-3313
Michelle A. Hiller
U.S. EPA, Office of Marine & Estuarine
Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
George Hulse, Jr.
New Jersey Dept. of Com.,
Engineering & Economic Development
CN822
Trenton, NJ 08625-0822
Kenneth R. Hings
Graduate School of Oceanography,
University of Rhode Island
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882
Allan Hirsch
Dynamac Corporation
11140 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852
Charles E. Hoffmann
U.S. EPA, Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Carlton Hunt
Battelle Memorial Institute
397 Washington Street
Duxbury, MA 02332
Joseph A. Husband
Malcolm Pirnie
2 Corporate Park Drive
White Plains, NY 10602
Dennis Jackson
New York State Dept. of Envrionmental
Conservation
S.U.N.Y. at Stony Brook, Bldg. 40
Stony Brook, NY 11790-2356
Catherine Holter
414 W. 120 Street, #406
New York, NY 10027
Doug Hopkins
Environmental Defense Fund
257 Park Ave. South
New York, NY 10010
Wayne Jackson
U.S. EPA, Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
John S. Jeris
Manhattan College
Environmental Engineering & Science
Riverdale, NY 10471
11-10
-------
Mohan S. Jethwany
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
2358 Municipal Building
New York, NY 10007
Marcha Johnson
New York City Parks
373 Washington Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11238
Lowell Kachalsky
O'Brienpgere Engineers, Inc.
144 East 44th Street
New York, NY 10017
Denise M. Kaminski
Liro Consulting Engineers
Five Village Square
Glen Cove, NY 11542
Thomas Kane
Commission for the Corporation
of the Environment of Freeport
46 North Ocean Ave.
Freeport, NY 11520
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Hudson River Fishermen's Association &
Natural Resources Defense Council
33 Crane Ave.
White Plains, NY 10603
Robert Kent
New York Sea Grant
39 Sound Ave.
Riverhead, NY 11901
Victor J. Kimm
U.S. EPA
1107 Carper Street
McLean, VA 22101
Bob Kingsbury
Burde Inc.
7 O'Shea Lane
Laconia, NH 03246
Bruce Kiselica
U.S. EPA, Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Mary Kearns-Kaplan
Trust for Public Land
666 Broadway
New York, NY 10012
Larry Klein
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Wastewater Treatment
Wards Island, NY 10035
Aimee A. Keller
Graduate School of Oceanography,
University of Rhode Island
South Ferry Road
Narragansett, RI 02882
Demetrios Klerides
Velzy/Weston
One Old Country Road, Suite 430
Carle Place, NY 11514
11-11
-------
Peg Kocher
League of Women Voters of the Tristate
Metropolitan Region
102 Shore Road
Douglaston, NY 11363
Zhi Wei Kuang
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
1718 68th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11204
Michael Labiak
Nassau County Department of Public
Works
170 Cantigue Rock Road
Hicksville, NY 11801
Alexander A. Lach
Middlesex County Utilities Authority
P.O. Box B-l
Sayreville, NJ 08872
Gerald J. Lauer
EA Engineering, Science and Technology
The Maple Building
3 Washington Center
Newburgh, NY 12550
Joseph A. Lauria
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
2 Corporate Park Drive
White Plains, NY 10602
John P. Lawler
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers
One Blue Hill Plaza
Pearl River, NY 10965
William Lawler
U.S. EPA, Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Room 500
New York, NY 10278
Thomas J. Leane
Harsimus Cove South
30 Montgomery Street, Suite 1460
Jersey City, NJ 07302
Alex Lechich
U.S. EPA, Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 11224
William M. Leo
HydroQual, Inc.
1 Lethbridge Plaza
Mahwah, NJ 07430
Joseph F. Lescinski
New York State Parks
Box 1000
Wantagh, NY 11793
Joseph Lestingi
Manhattan College
School of Engineering
Riverdale, NY 10471
Ed Levine
NOAA
Building 110, Box 2
Governors Island, NY 10004
11-12
-------
Jeff Leviton
S.U.N.Y. Hudson River Foundation
Stony Brook, NY 11797-5245
Lillian C. Liburdi
Port Authority of NY & NJ
One World Trade Center
New York, NY 10042
William Lindroth
Commission for the Conservation of the
Environmental of Freeport
46 North Ocean Avenue
Freeport, NY 11520
Sheldon Lipke
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
600 Wilson Ave.
Newark, NJ 07105
Betty A. Little
American Association of University
Women
11 Berta Place
Basking Ridge, NJ 07920
Roger Locandro
Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council
NOAA-Fisheries
26 Grafton Road
Stockton, NJ 08559
Michael Lorenzo
URS Consultants
Mack Centre II, Mack Centre Drive
Paramus, NJ 07652
George Lutzic
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Wastewater Treatment
Wards Island, NY 10035
Ronald R. Luxenberg
Aquatec, Inc.
75 Green Mountain Drive
South Burlington, VT 05403
Peter Mack
New York State Dept. of Environmental
Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
Mark Maimone
Nassau County Dept. of Public Works
170 Cantiague Rock Road
Hicksville, NY 11801
Bernice Malione
The Port Authority of New York &
New Jersey
1 World Trade Center -72 S.
New York, NY 10048
James M. Mansky
TAMS Consultants Inc.
655 Third Ave.
New York, NY 10017
Rose Marabetti
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
1 Centre Street, Room 2454
New York, NY 10007
11-13
-------
Nina Marden
Action for the Protection &
Conservation of the North Shore
Box 492
Huntington, NY 11743
Joseph J. McBride
Montaux Boatmans' & Captains' Assn.
Box 1908
4 Stokes Court
East Hampton, NY 11937
Phil Markovitz
Dept. of Environmental Protection
Wards Island, NY 10035
Landon Marsh
N.Y.S. Dept. of Environmental
Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
Jean M. McCarroll
Berle, Kass & Case
45 Rockefeller Plaza, Suite 2350
New York, NY 10111
Francis M. McGowan
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers
One Blue Hill Plaza
Pearl River, NY 10965
Joseph A. Maser
Louis Berger and Associates
100 Halsted Street
East Orange, NJ 07019-0270
J.L. McHugh
Marine Science Research Center
State University of New York
Stony Brook, NY 11794
Kenneth C. Mattes
Fordham University
37 Gould Ave.
Dobbs Ferry, NY 10522
Charles A. Menzie
Charles A. Menzie & Associates
1 Courthouse Lane Suite 2
Chelmsford, MA 01824
Audrey McAndrew
Sierra Club, New York City Group
625 Broadway
New York, NY
Francis X. McArdle
The General Contractors Association of
New York
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 3510
New York, NY 10165
Wageh Minassian
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Wastewater Treatment
Wards Island, NY 10035
Joseph T. Miller
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Manhattan Municipal Bldg.
1 Center Street
New York, NY 10007
11-14
-------
Abby Mintz
Office of Management & Budget
New York City
1 Center Street
New York, NY 10007
James A. Mueller
Manhattan College
Environmental Engineering
& Science
Riverdale, NY 10471
Lissette Miquel
Ebasco Services Incorporated
2 World Trade Center
New York, NY 10048
John A. Mueller
Manhattan College
Civil Engineering Dept.
Bronx, NY 10471
JoAnn B. Moisides
New York State Dept. of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Rd., Room 201
Albany, NY 12233-3508
Brian J. Molloy
Piper & Marbury
1200 19th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
Rosemary Monahan
U.S. EPA, Region I
JFK Federal Bldg., WQE 1900
Boston, MA 02203
Doreen M. Monteleone
Marine Sciences Research Center
COAST Inst.
State University of New York
Stony Brook, NY 11794-5000
Frederika Moser
Office of Science & Research
CN-029
401 E. State Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
Bill Muir
U.S. EPA, Region III
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19107
John C. Muir
Prospect Park Environmental Center
Brooklyn Center for the Urban
Environment
Tennis House, Prospect Park
Brooklyn, NY 11215
Regina Mulcahy
U.S. EPA
2890 Woodbridge Ave.
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
James F. Mulligan
Nassau County Dept. of Public Works
Water Management Unit
170 Cantiague Rock Road
Hicksville, NY 11801
Wayne R. Munns, Jr.
Science Application International Corp.
c/o U.S. EPA, 27 Tarzwell Dr.
Narragansett, RI 02882
11-15
-------
Noah Najarian
Natural Resources Defense Council
40 West 20th Street
New York, NY 10011
James A. Nickels
New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium
Building 22
Sandy Hook, NJ 07732
William Nieter
St. John's University
Jamaica, NY 11439
Paul J. Noto
Mayor, Village Of Mamaroneck
Mamaroneck, NY 10543
Robert Nuzzi
Suffolk County DHSB of Marine
Resources
Riverhead County Center
Riverhead, NY 11901
Robert Nyman
U.S. EPA, Region II, Marine & Wetlands
Protection
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Luke O'Brien
Sierra Club, New York City Group
625 Broadway
New York, NY 10278
Donald J. O'Connor
Manhattan College
Environmental Engineering
& Science
Riverdale, NY 10471
Joel S. O'Connor
U.S. EPA, Region II,
Water Management Division
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Rosella T. O'Connor
U.S. EPA, Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Room 813
New York, NY 10278
Douglas D. Ofirara
Bureau of Economic Research
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, NJ 08903
Sharon O'Hagan
New Jersey Division of Travel & Tourism
20 West State Street, CN826
Trenton, NJ 08625
Frank J. Oliveri
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Division of System Planning
40 Worth Street
New York, NY 10013
11-16
-------
Michael Olohan
Hudson River Foundation for Scientific
& Environmental Research
40 West 20th Street, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10011
Fran Ondrushek
New Jersey Division of Travel & Tourism
20 West State Street, CN826
Trenton, NJ 08625
Robert Reid
National Marine Fisheries
NOAA, Sandy Hook Lab
Highlands, NJ 07732
William K. Reilly
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Francis V. Padar
Nassau County Dept. of Health
240 Old Country Road
Mineola, NY 11501
Lawrence Robinson
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Wastewater Treatment
Wards Island, NY 10035
Salvatore Pagano
NYS Dept. of Environmental
Conservation
Division of Water
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
Kieran Pape
New York City Planning, Waterfront
& Open Space Division
22 Reade Street, Room 6W
New York, NY 10007-1216
John F. Paul
U.S. EPA, ERLN
27 Tarzwell Drive
Narragansett, RI 02882
Pamela E. Ransom
Office of the Major
City Hall c/o Deputy Major Fife
New York, NY 11218
Rhonda Roff
Natural Resources Defense Council
40 W 20th Street
New York, NY 10011
Janice Rollwagen
U.S. EPA
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Carlos E. Ruiz
WES/Water Quality Modeling
3909 Halls Ferry Road
Vicksburg, MS 39180
Robert Runyon
New Jersey Dept. of
Environmental Protection
DUR
P.O. Box CN029
Trenton, NJ 08675
11-17
-------
Joseph Rutkowski
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Wastewater Treatment
Wards Island, NY 10035
Benedict Salanitro
Village of Mamaroneck
169 Mt. Pleasant Ave.
Mamaroneck, NY 10543
Nina Sankovitch
Natural Resources Defense Council
40 W 20th Street
New York, NY 10011
Ed Santoro
Dvirka & Bartilucci Consulting Engineers
3000 Hadley Rd.
Plainfield, NJ 07080
Vincent Sapienza
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Wastewater Treatment
Wards Island, NY 10035
Anthony J. Sartor
Paulus, Sokolowski & Sartor
67A Mt. Blvd. Ext.
P.O. Box 4039
Warren, NJ 07060
Jacqueline Sartoris
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Wastewater Treatment
Wards Island, NY 10035
Chikashi Sato
Polytechnic University
333 Jay Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Holly Sawin
U.S. EPA
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Stephen C. Sautner
Clean Ocean Action
P.O. Box 505
Highlands, NJ 07732
Thomas Scanlon
Manhattan College
Manhattan College Parkway
Riverdale, NY 10278
Edward Scheader
Bureau of Water Supply & Wastewater
Collection
44 Beaver Street
New York, NY 10004
Paul Schlansly
New York City
Dept. of Environmental Protection
Safety & Training Section
Wards Island, NY 10035
J. R. Schubel
Marine Science Research Center
S.U.N.Y.
Stony Brook, NY 11794-5000
11-18
-------
Richard Sedlak
The Soap & Detergent Association
475 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016
Joseph J. Seebode
New York District Corps of Engineers
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278-0090
C. Sidamon-Eristoff
U.S. EPA, Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Harvey Simon
U.S. EPA, Region II, OPM-PPI
26 Federal Plaza, Room 900
New York, NY 10278
Michael J. Skelly
Lawler, Matusky & Skelly Engineers
One Blue Hill Plaza
Pearl River, NY 10965
Janis Skinkis
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Wastewater Treatment
Wards Island, NY 10035
Margaret T. Smith
Middletown Township Environmental
Commission
52 Hosford Avenue
Leonardo, NJ 07737
Robert Smith
Connecticut Dept. of Environmental
Protection
122 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Robert Smith
Hazen and Sawyer
730 Broadway
New York, NY 10003
Amy Sosin
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mark Southerland
Dynamac Corporation
11140 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852
Katherine S. Squibb
New York University Medical Center,
Institute of Environmental Medicine
Long Meadow Road, Box 817
Tuxedo, NY 10987
Donald F. Squires
Marine Sciences Institute
University of Connecticut
Graduate Center U-6
Storrs, CT 06268
John P. St. John
HydroQual, Inc.
1 Lethbridge Plaza
Mahwah, NJ 07430
11-19
-------
Paul E. Stacey
Connecticut Dept. of Environmental
Protection Water Management
122 Washington Street
Hartford, CT 06106
Patricia O. Sullivan
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
1 Centre St
New York, NY 10007
William Stammer
64 Greenacres Avenue
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Eric A. Stern
U.S. EPA, Region II
Marine and Wetlands
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278-0090
Andrew Stoddard
Creative Enterprises of Northern Va., Inc.
112 Orchard Circle
Hamilton, VA 22068
Thomas L. Stokes, Jr.
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Wastewater Treatment
Wards Island, NY 10035
Stephen E. Storms
EA Engineering, Sciences &
Technology, Inc.
15 Loveton Circle
Sparks, MD 21152
Dennis J. Suszkowski
Hudson River Foundation for Scientific
& Environmental Research
40 West 20th Street, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10011
R. L. Swanson
Water Management Institute
S.U.N.Y. at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, NY 11794-5000
Philip Sweeney
U.S. EPA, Region II
Water Management Division
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
John Szeligowski
TAMS Consultants, Inc.
655 3rd Ave.
New York, NY 10017
Basil P. Tangredi
Huntington Township Conservation Board
51 Broadway
Greenlawn, NY 11740
Kevin Sullivan
Dynamac Corporation
11140 Rockville Pike
Rockville, MD 20852
Salvatore Tatta
Manhattan College
Riverdale, NY
11-20
-------
John F. Tavolaro
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Jacob K. Javits Federal Bldg.
New York, NY 10278-0090
Helen Taylor
U.S. EPA
2890 Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
Mark Tedesco
U.S. EPA, WMD/MWPB, Room 1137
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
M. Llewllyn Thatcher
Columbia University
Dept. of Civil Engineering
S.W. Mudd Building, Room 610
New York, NY 10027
Robert V. Thomann
Manhattan College
Environmental Engineering & Science
Riverdale, NY 10471
John Tiedemann
New Jersey Sea Grant Marine
Advisory Service
1623 Whitesville Road
Toms River, NJ 08755
David Tolmazin
U.S. EPA, Region II
26 Federal Plaza, Room 813
New York, NY 10278
Wilma A. Turnbull
New York Coastal Fishermens'
Association Inc.
P.O. Box 636
Throggs Neck Station
Bronx, NY 10465
Edward O. Wagner
New York City Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Wastewater Treatment
Wards Island, NY 10035
Nancy Wallace
Bronx River Restoration Project, Inc.
375 East Fordham Road
Bronx, NY 10458
Nora A. Walsh
Town of North Hempstead
Planning Dept., 220 Plandome Road
Manhasset, NY 11030
Barbara E. Warkentine
University of Medicine and Dentistry
of New Jersey
Department of Anatomy
100 Bergen Street
Newark, NJ 07103
Ral Welker
Marine Science Center,
Long Island University
Montauk Highway
Sounthampton, NY 11968
11-21
-------
Andrew Willner
American Littoral Society
Sandy Hook
Highlands, NJ 07732
William Wise
Marine Sciences Research Center
State University of New York
Stony Brook, NY 11794-5000
Demetrius J. Yackanich
Public Service Electric & Gas Co.
80 Park Plaza
Newark, NJ 07101
Rae Zimmerman
New York University
4 Washington Square North
New York, NY 10003
11-22
------- |