United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial1 Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA-600/7-78-109
June 1978
Research and Development
&EPA
Response of a Salt
Marsh to Oil Spill
and Cleanup:
Biotic and
Erosion a I Effects
in the Hackensack
Meadowlands,
New Jersey
Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program
Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-78-109
June 1978
RESPONSE OF A SALT MARSH TO OIL SPILL AND CLEANUP
Biotic and Erosional Effects in the
Hackensack Meadowlands, New Jersey
by
Phillip C. Dibner
URS Company
San Mateo, California 94402
Contract Number 68-03-2160
Project Officer
Leo T. McCarthy, Jr.
Oil and Hazardous Materials Spills Branch
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Edison, New Jersey 08817
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory-Cincinnati, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily
reflect the views and policies of the 0. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed, converted,
and used, the related pollutional impacts on our environment and even on our
health often require that new and increasingly more efficient pollution
control methods be used. The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory -
Cincinnati (IERL - Ci) assists in developing and demonstrating new and
improved methodologies that will meet these needs both efficiently and
economically.
This study consists of an assessment of the biological and erosional
effects of a crude oil spill in the Hackensack River, New Jersey, and sub-
sequent cleanup operations. The information gained as a result of this
experience will be valuable to oil spill onscene coordinators when planning
and responding to future spills under similar environmental conditions.
Personnel responsible for future damage assessment surveys should also find
the report useful. For further information, please contact the Oil and
Hazardous Spills Branch of the Resource Extraction and Handling Division.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
-------
ABSTRACT
This study addresses the biological and erosional response of portions
of the Hackensack Meadow!ands estuarine marsh to the Well en Oil Company
number 6 crude oil spill of late May 1976, and the subsequent cleanup opera-
tions. Cleanup included cutting and removal of oiled grasses of the species
Spartina al term'flora from the bank of the Hackensack River. Data were
gathered from several locations along the riverbank and in the inner marsh
during four sampling sessions, at approximately 4-month intervals, throughout
the year following the spill. The productivity of the marsh plants, the
composition of marsh soil invertebrate communities, the presence of oil in
the substrate, and erosional trends were monitored. Results suggest that
cutting heavily oiled Spartina soon after contamination saved the plants from
dying by root suffocation.However, the foot traffic associated with cutting
is implicated as having made the river bank susceptible to severe erosion by
boat wakes and other sources of erosive energy. It is concluded that cutting
is only desirable in a limited range of circumstances, determined by the
characteristics of the contaminating oil, the biology of affected plants, and
the time of year.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
FIGURES vi i
TABLES vi ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ix
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Description of the Study Area 1
Oil Spill Cleanup History 4
Spill Incident 4
Marsh Cutting Operations 6
2 CONCLUSIONS 10
3 RECOMMENDATIONS 11
4 STUDY RATIONALE AND METHODOLOGY 13
Potential Impacts of Spill and Cleanup 13
Effects of Oil 13
Effects of Cutting 13
Synergistic Effects 14
Rationale for Data Collection 14
Vegetation 15
Soil Fauna 15
Oil in Substrate 15
Erosion 15
Location of Sample Stations 16
Physical and Biological Attributes of the
Sample Stations , 16
Sampling Procedure 19
Vegetational Distribution and Productivity 19
Fauna 21
Distribution of Oil in the Substrate 22
Erosion 22
5 RESULTS 23
Vegetation 23
Fauna 26
Oil in the Substrate 26
Erosion 27
-------
CONTENTS (cont.)
Section page
6 DISCUSSION 29
Sources of Error 29
Vegetation 31
Fauna 32
Oil in Substrate 33
Erosion 34
REFERENCES 36
APPENDIX 38
vi
-------
FIGURES
Number
o
1 Study Area ..........................
2 Spartina al term' flora .................... 3
c
3 Phragmites commums .....................
4 Contaminated Regions in the Hackensack Meadowlands ...... 7
5 Cut Area on Hackensack River Bank .............. 8
6 Location of Sampling Stations ................ 17
7 Configuration of Vegetational Sampling Stations ....... 20
8 Total Plant Volume Per Unit Area ............... 24
9 Position of Bank Edge vs. Time ................ 28
A-l Percent Cover ........................ 4^
A-2 Density ........................... 42
A-3 Total Plant Volume Per Unit Area ............... 43
A-4 Height ............................ 44
A-5 Diameter ........................... 45
A-6 Individual Stem Volume .................... 46
A-7 Position of Bank Edge vs. Time ................ 51
vii
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Summary of Sample Stations 18
A-l Measurements of Phragmites 38
A-2 Measurements of Spartina 39
A-3 Marsh Soil Invertebrate Populations 47
A-4 Marsh Soil Fauna: Number of Invertebrate Genera
and Individuals, and Invertebrate Diversity Index 48
A-5 Observed Changes in Soil Surface Elevation at
Sedimentation Stakes 49
A-6 Observed Changes in Position of Shoreline
Break-in-slope 50
viii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Sincere thanks are extended to Chester Mattson, Donald Smith, Nicholas
Vallario and other members of the Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commis-
sion who permitted this research to be performed in their jurisdictional
area. Mr. Smith was particularly helpful in providing information about the
spill and helping the research team become familiar with the area.
Robert Castle was responsible in large part for the sampling design. He
also provided information and prepared much of the text on erosional pro-
cesses. Leon Grain performed the onsite observations of the oil spill
cleanup operations and contributed most of the text that describes them.
Michael Slack and Diane Renshaw edited the manuscript and provided many
helpful suggestions. Susan Samse prepared the graphics, Diane Renshaw pro-
vided the botanical line drawings, and Margaret Chatham and Donna Murzi typed
and produced the final report. The study was conducted under the Oil and
Hazardous Materials Program of URS Company; Bill Van Horn, program manager.
Special thanks are due to Leo McCarthy and Stephen Dorrler of the
Environmental Protection Agency, without whose support this work would not
have been possible.
ix
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
This study addresses the response of salt marsh communities in the
Hackensack Meadowlands, New Jersey (Figure 1), to an oil spill that occurred
in late May 1976. A primary objective of the study was to develop recommen-
dations for minimizing the adverse biological and erosional impacts of clean-
up operations in future spills.
DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA
The Hackensack Meadowlands comprise a great complex of estuarine marshes
in northern New Jersey, across the Hudson River from New York City. Although
most of the surrounding region has been built on to provide industrial and
residential facilities, approximately 6,300 acres of water and marshland
remain essentially undeveloped (Mattson and Vallario, 1976). The distin-
guishing characteristics of this undeveloped region are described below.
The Hackensack River flows through the marshes, carrying nutrient-rich
sediments from inland. As the river slows on its approach to the sea, it
deposits a portion of these sediments. Some of these, as well as materials
contained in industrial and sanitary effluents from the towns and cities
nearby, become incorporated into the marsh soil and feed the plants growing
there.
Organic materials in the sediment, along with the remains of dying
plants, are decomposed by bacteria. The decomposition process requires more
oxygen than is available in the benthic environment. The marsh soil becomes
anaerobic, and the dead stems of marsh grasses only partially decay. The
partly decomposed plant material accumulates after each growing season and
adds to the peat substrate.
The Atlantic Ocean also exerts a considerable influence on the marsh
ecosystem. Tidal waters move upriver twice daily. They run over the soil
and flush away wastes. The mixture of sea and river water produces a
brackish-water environment that eliminates competition from salt-intolerant
species, and allows the salt-adapted marsh grasses to thrive.
The naturally dominant plants of saline marshes in this portion of the
United States belong to the genus Spartina. One species, Spartina patens,
grows in the higher portions of marsh and is of no concern in this study.
However, the salt marsh cord grass, Spartina alterniflora, is of primary
importance in the Hackensack Meadowlands and was therefore the object of
considerable observation during this investigation. This species is depicted
in Figure 2. Spartina inhabits the frequently inundated zones adjacent to
1
-------
-\~ * - _*
Source: ll.S.G.S. (1967 a & b).
Figure 1. Study Area
-------
0.5 meter
Figure 2. Spartlna alternlflora
-------
creeks and channels in the marsh.* It has colonized much of the broad ex-
panse of mudflats in the inner or back marsh of the Hackensack Meadowlands,
away from the main river channel. In the downriver portions of the Meadow-
lands, Spartina alterniflora populates the banks of the Hackensack River.
Although the leafy tissues and aerial stems of the Spartina plant die
back each year, the underground stems, or rhizomes, and roots are perennial
structures. These organs, which are essential to the plant's vegetative
survival, require oxygen to survive, but cannot obtain it from the oxygen-
poor soils in which the plant commonly grows. They obtain necessary oxygen
and release carbon dioxide waste through a system of open spaces and hollow,
air-filled tubes that open to the atmosphere through pores in the leaves,
called stomata. Specially adapted guard cells close when the leaves are
inundated, to prevent the air spaces from filling with water (Teal and Teal,
1969).
Spartina is a salt-tolerant plant. It actually grows quite vigorously
in freshwater environments, but is infrequently observed there because it
cannot compete successfully with species that are specifically adapted for
living in freshwater marshes (Teal and Teal, 1969).
One such freshwater plant is Phragmites communis, a common reed that
grows in a wide range of habitats. Phragmites. shown in Figure 3, is another
dominant plant of the Hackensack Meadowlands, and the only species besides
Spartina alterniflora that received intensive study in the present investi-
gation. PhragmitesTcan tolerate dry ground. It grows on the higher banks
and remains of old dikes. It also is the dominant species in much of the
marshland in the northern portion of the study area.
Just as Spartina grows well in freshwater, so can Phragmites tolerate a
certain amount of salt. Its presence in the upper limits of salt marshes is
fairly common, but it does not grow well when the salt concentration (chlo-
ride) in the soil water exceeds about 1.2 percent (Haslam, 1972). Phragmites
also seems to be similar to Spartina in the way its roots obtain oxygen.
They contain some air-filled tissue and do not seem to be starved for oxygen
when the plant bases are inundated (Buttery et al., 1965).
Interested readers are referred to a biological inventory of the marshes
and waterways in the Meadowlands compiled by the Hackensack Meadowlands
Development Commission (1975), for more detailed information on the study
area.
OIL SPILL CLEANUP HISTORY
Spill Incident
On the night of May 25-26, 1976, at the site of the Wellen Oil Company
storage facility in Jersey City, New Jersey, an oil tank ruptured. The
*The term Spartina alone will refer from here on to the species Spartina
alterm'flora, unless specific reference is made to the genus at large or
to some other species.
-------
1 meter
Figure 3. Phragmltes conrounls
-------
containment berm surrounding the tank failed, resulting in the release of
approximately 2 million gallons of No. 6 crude oil into the Hackensack River.
The flood tide carried the oil approximately 3.7 kilometers upriver into the
vicinity of the Kingsland Creek-Sawmill Creek area of the Hackensack Meadow-
lands. A strong east wind directed the bulk of the oil to the west bank of
the river. Currents of more than 2 meters per second (4 knots) in conjunc-
tion with the wind threatened to carry the oil up several small channels into
the interior of the marsh. Booms, placed across the entrances to the most
important channels, failed against the strong currents. As a result, most of
the back marsh and mudflat areas were exposed to the spilled oil. The most
severely affected regions are shown on the map in Figure 4. The viscous oil
adhered to most plants and yegetational debris within the tidal range. Much
of the contaminated vegetation in the marsh interior, however, was situated
in the path of tidal currents, which washed some of the oil from the plants.
The pattern of soil contamination was less apparent. In some locations, it
seemed that only the less water-saturated sediment permitted adhesion; else-
where, all the substrate was contaminated. The large mudflat area in the
vicinity of Sawmill Creek was exposed to a great quantity of oil. The oil
did not strongly adhere to the substrate and was ultimately removed by tidal
flushing.
Marsh Cutting Operations
After most of the mobile oil on the Hackensack River was contained or
removed by cleanup contractors, local, governmental, and private experts
decided that cutting was a viable method of removing the vegetation that had
been contaminated and which continued to release oil to the waters. On
June 13, 1977, 17 days after the spill, the cutting operation was started by
Disch Construction Company. The operation took place on the western bank of
the Hackensack River from the New Jersey Turnpike Bridge to approximately
0.5 kilometers north of Kingsland Creek, a total distance of 2.4 kilometers.
The cut area, shown in Figure 5, included the most heavily contaminated
vegetation. A horizontal path of marsh plants, approximately 3 meters wide,
was cut and removed from the site. The marsh plants were cut 5 to 15 centi-
meters from the soil surface. Cutting was terminated on June 30.
The cutting operation was carried out only during daylight hours. Marsh
cutting could only take place during the lower tidal cycle because at other
times the Hackensack River bank was underwater, making cutting difficult and
dangerous. As a result, crews worked 8 to 10 hours each day.
One crew was employed in the cutting operation. This seven-man crew
consisted of one foreman, one cutter, and five plant debris handlers. The
work crew were provided with one 16-foot motorboat, 2 flat-bottomed boats,
2 scythes, and 7 pitchforks and clamforks. This crew cut and removed plant
debris at an average rate of 140 linear meters of river bank shoreline per
day.
The cutter used an aluminum handled brush scythe with a 46-centimeter
blade. After 10 to 15 minutes of cutting, the scythe blade became dull and
-------
Contamination
Light
Subsequent Contamination
Figure 4. Contaminated Regions in the Hackensack Meadowlands
-------
-Lltt
Hm
mile
i
.
-,^- ^4^. .NX i-v.^feSMs
Figure 5. Cut Area on Hackensack River Bank
-------
required sharpening by file. One cutter was able to keep ahead of the
5 people raking and loading the plants into the flat-bottomed boats.
Three people were employed in raking the cut vegetation into small
stacks on the river bank. About 6 to 10 of these stacks would accumulate on
the shoreline prior to removal. Since protective ground cover beneath the
stacked plants was not employed, oil was able to drain from the stacks onto
the soil. On occasion stacks were left overnight, allowing oil to leach from
these stacks and be washed away at high tide. Protective booms, which might
have contained the oil, were not used.
Two people using pitchforks transferred the plant material from the
stacks to the two flat-bottomed boats. The flat-bottomed boats were used as
barges to transport the cut plants to an interim storage area beneath the New
Jersey Turnpike Bridge. At the storage area, neither protective ground cover
on the shoreline and embankment nor protective booming of the shoreline were
observed. Some of the debris was left at this site until November. The
plants were subsequently removed to a landfill site that had been approved by
the State of New Jersey.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are suggested by the observational and suppor-
ting quantitative data gathered during this study:
1. Damage to Spartina alterm'flora plants caused by the Well en oil
spill resulted primarily from the physical, not the chemical (toxic) proper-
ties of the oil. Oil coated the plants, prevented gaseous exchange with the
atmosphere, and ultimately caused the plants' roots and rhizomes to suf-
focate.
2. Mortality was highest in heavily oiled Spartina al term'flora plants
that were neither washed clean by tides nor cut.
3. Other oiled plants, which were less heavily oiled or naturally
flushed clean, may have sustained some damage, as evidenced by decreased pro-
ductivity. However, this result may be an artifact of the sampling procedure
and the distribution of the plants.
4. The success of cutting heavily oiled plants as a technique for
reducing long-term damage to them depends upon a combination of factors,
including the biology of the contaminated species, the elapsed time between
contamination and cutting, the season in which cutting is performed, and the
characteristics of the oil.
5. Cutting soon after contamination was beneficial. This treatment
apparently reduced long-term damage to the most heavily oiled marsh grasses
of the species Spartina alterm'flora, despite the fact that it entailed
trampling them. The foot traffic itself was detrimental, in that it appar-
ently contributed to severe bank erosion. The heavily trampled portions of
the river bank became more susceptible to erosion by boat wakes and natural
wave and current action. It cannot be concluded that foot traffic and
cutting were sufficient in themselves to cause severe erosion.
10
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are based upon observations made in the
course of this investigation. They constitute an approach to marsh cleanup
that will minimize the potential for damage to marsh plants and to the af-
fected shorelines. Where economic or other necessity dictates the use of
cleanup procedures that may be more damaging to the marsh than those de-
scribed below, the recommendations provided here may still help to establish
priorities and minimize the adverse impacts of cleanup.
It should be noted that these recommendations are applicable only where
the contaminating oil is relatively viscous and functionally nontoxic. Most
heavy fuel oils and some weathered crudes fall within this class. Diesel and
other light fuel oils do not. These recommendations are also primarily
applicable to estuaries on the northeastern Atlantic coastline of the United
States. However, they are likely to be of some use wherever Spartina
alterm'flora and Phragmites communis are dominant components of an oil-
contaminated salt marsh ecosystem.
1. As soon as possible after contamination, an oil spill response team
should determine which portions of marsh are so heavily oiled that
root suffocation of marsh grasses is likely to occur. Local or
regional experts are best relied upon to provide this information.
If such persons are not available, it may be necessary to use the
general rule that completely oil-coated plants are in danger of
suffocating, while plants with any appreciable portion of their
green tissue exposed to the air are less subject to this form of
mortality.
2. Initial cleanup should consist of low-impact methods, such as
low-pressure flushing, to remove free oil from the marsh plants and
substrate. The heavily oiled plants that are in danger of dying
from root suffocation should be treated first. Some stands of
marsh grass may be exposed to extensive natural flushing at tidal
flow and ebb. This natural cleansing process may eliminate the
need for flushing by the cleanup crews.
3. Immediately after initial cleanup those plants that remain heavily
oiled, and whose roots are still in danger of suffocating must be
treated in some way that will expose their internal tissues to the
atmosphere. The most common treatments are cutting and burning.
Cutting may be an effective treatment for many species, but it can
only be recommended for Spartina alterm'flora on the basis of this
study.
11
-------
4. Manual cutting of oiled plants in shoreline areas exposed to high
wave and current energy should be employed only after other methods
have been explored and rejected. Methods that eliminate, or at
least minimize foot traffic on the river bank are highly preferred.
Possible alternatives include use of aquatic vegetation cutters and
controlled burning.
A few additional recommendations, related to but not necessarily arising from
this investigation, are relevant to possible future studies:
5. Continue qualitative monitoring of erosion and plant growth along
the cut and uncut contaminated regions on the Hackensack River
bank. This will help to elucidate the long-term effects of either
cutting or of taking no action on bank stability.
6. Conduct studies that will determine the suitability of cutting, not
cutting, or using innovative (no foot traffic) removal techniques
for more toxic oils.
7. Use the quantitative data provided in this study to aid in the
sampling design of future studies in the Hackensack Meadowlands or
similar regions of the northeastern United States.
8. Develop contingency plans for oil spills that will make optimal use
of all available decontamination facilities and knowledgeable
persons in the immediate vicinity and the region at large.
12
-------
SECTION 4
STUDY RATIONALE AND METHODOLOGY
The stated objective of the investigation described in this report was
to "conduct a variety of studies designed to supplement, expand, and verify
aspects of the ongoing study (EPA 68-03-2160) regarding development of state-
of-the-art procedures for protection, cleanup, and restoration of marshlands
endangered by oil spills. Particular emphasis [was] to be given to evalua-
tion of the impacts and effectiveness of the cutting techniques used in
cleanup" (EPA, 1976).
To accomplish these goals in the context of the Well en spill and sub-
sequent contamination of the Hackensack Meadowlands, it was necessary to
determine the effects of the spilled oil on the marsh flora and fauna, the
biotic effects of the cutting operations, and any additional effects that
might arise when cutting and oiling occur together.
POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF SPILL AND CLEANUP
Effects of Oil
The direct effects of oil on marsh plants and animals may be physical or
toxic. Physical effects result from the viscous and adhesive properties of
oil. Stomata (gas-exchange pores) of plants may be blocked. The gills and
mouth parts of invertebrates may become clogged; the fine structure of birds'
feathers may be disrupted, preventing flight and reducing or eliminating the
insulatiye protection that the feathers provide. Crapp (1971) has summarized
the physical effects of oils as those that act "by smothering organisms and
cutting off respiratory exchange, and by interfering with their movement. . ."
Toxic effects result from the oil's interaction with the biochemical
functioning of contaminated organisms. Baker (1971a) has discussed a few
hypothetical mechanisms of toxic action on plants. .The most general of these
is the replacement of fatty molecules in cellular membranes, resulting in
membrane disruption, increased permeability, and leakage of cellular con-
tents. Increase in respiration is often observed, possibly because mito-
chondria (the organelles responsible for aerobic respiration) are damaged so
that the rate of oxygen use is no longer coupled to other biochemical pro-
cesses.
Effects of Cutting
Most grasses, including the familiar species used for lawn plantings,
are not adversely affected by cutting. This is because the growth tissue, or
13
-------
meristem, is near the base of the plant. However, the response of some
species may depend upon the time of year, meteorological conditions, and
tides. Phragmites communis is one such species. While cutting may not
directly injure the plant, tides that submerge the cut stubble prevent air
from reaching the roots. If reduced aeration occurs in late summer, it can
seriously impair the underground formation of new buds (Haslam, 1970).
Furthermore, although buds develop throughout the year, they emerge from the
ground to form aerial shoots only during a relatively brief period in spring.
They remain dormant throughout the rest of the year unless the Phragmites
stand is burned or the rhizomes (underground stems) are cut. Cutting the
aerial stems does not interrupt the buds' dormancy. Consequently, no new
stems replace those that have been removed. If cutting is performed directly
after all the new shoots have grown to maturity (e.g., in July), the plants
will be unable to photosynthesize for a large portion of the growing season.
This can be seriously detrimental to the stand (Haslam, 1968).
No such adverse effects of cutting have been reported for Spartina
al term flora. Waisel (1972) has noted that repeated mowing of this species
has been observed to stimulate growth and to promote uniform growth, high
plant density, and early flowering.
Some methods of cutting vegetation involve heavy traffic on the marsh
soil. This can result in trampled buds and remaining aerial shoots of the
plants, disrupted substrate, broken portions of underground stems, and,
ultimately, increased soil erosion.
Synergistic Effects
Additional phenomena not found in either an oil spill or a cutting
incident alone may appear when both of these occur together. For example,
oils can travel in the intercellular spaces of uncut plants, but they rarely
enter the vascular (liquid transport) system. When plants are cut, however,
oil may enter the vascular system via the cut stem, thereby gaining easier
access to remote portions of the plant (Baker, 1971a).
Another synergistic effect may occur if oil is trampled into the marsh
sediments. These sediments are frequently anaerobic, a condition that in-
hibits the biochemical degradation of oil (Burns and Teal, 1971). Therefore,
undecomposed oil may reside in the marsh substrate for a long time.
RATIONALE FOR DATA COLLECTION
Eleven sampling stations were selected, and certain features of each
station were monitored during four sample periods. Data were gathered on:
(1) composition and growth of the vegetation, (2) composition of soil in-
vertebrate populations, (3) presence of oil at various depths in the sedi-
ments, and (4) erosion of the substrate. The reasons for selecting these
characteristics for sampling are discussed below.
14
-------
Vegetation
In any study seeking to examine the implications of a potentially
damaging event on a given ecosystem, first consideration should be given to
the onsite vegetation. Plants are the only organisms that trap the energy
coming to earth from the sun. Therefore, all other organisms must ultimately
obtain their energy from plants. Though few organisms graze directly on
marsh grasses, as the grasses decay they are physically and chemically
reduced to forms that other animals can use. These animals include shellfish
larvae and fish fry ultimately consumed by humans. Marsh plants are also of
great importance before they die and decay. They provide cover for wildlife,
and the cushioning effect of their aerial parts and the binding character of
their roots slow the erosive processes that would wash the marsh sediments
away.
Soil Fauna
Just as vegetation is an indicator of the quantity of energy available
to the salt marsh ecosystem, so animals can serve as sensitive indicators of
the quality of that system. Soil animals display different responses to the
presence of foreign materials. Some benthic organisms, for example, thrive
on the nutrient-enriched sediments near a sewage outfall, while others cannot
survive the high concentration of organic wastes (Patrick, 1950). Oil pollu-
tion may produce similar results.
The distribution of species in a sample is as important for providing
insights into the quality of the estuarine environment as are the specific
kinds of animals present. The few organisms that can live in polluted waters
are likely to be more abundant than any one organism would be where no con-
taminant is present. The total number of benthic invertebrates is also an
important indicator of the quality of marsh life because they provide the
food for vertebrates such as fish and wading birds.
Oil in Substrate
There were two reasons for attempting to determine if oil were present
in the substrate at each sample station. The primary reason was to provide
evidence of causality if severe effects on the soil invertebrates or the
marsh plants were observed. The secondary reason was to determine how long
the oil remained in undegraded form in the substrate. This would be parti-
cularly important where the cleanup crews cut the marsh grasses and trampled
oil into the soil. It is generally believed that burial of oil in anaerobic
substrate prevents or greatly slows its degradation. The buried oil can then
exert its detrimental effects on plant roots and benthic invertebrates for a
long time after the original contamination.
Erosion
The effects of erosion may be more noticeable to people than any other
impact of an oil spill and cleanup. Once a river bank erodes, it is no
15
-------
longer available for colonization by marsh plants. The biological produc-
tivity that was once associated with the eroded region is permanently lost.
Erosion also adds participate matter to the flowing water, reducing its
quality for use by humans and aquatic organisms. This particulate material
is likely to be dropped somewhere downstream, aggravating sedimentation
problems and necessitating more frequent dredging, with additional environ-
mental and economic costs.
LOCATION OF SAMPLE STATIONS
Figure 6 depicts the location of the eleven stations where physical and
biological data were gathered during this investigation. The sampling sites
were visited four times throughout the year following the spill: in July
1976, October 1976, March 1977, and July 1977. A sampling visit was origi-
nally planned for the winter of 1976-1977 but was cancelled because severe
icing would have rendered data collection impossible.
Physical and Biological Attributes of the Sample Stations
Five sites were selected to evaluate the impact of oil and cutting
operations on the marsh substrate and plants of the river bank. Stations 1,
2, and 5 were all located directly on the main channel of the Hackensack
River. Stations 3 and 4 were located respectively on the north and south
banks of a tributary east of the river. It would have been preferable to
situate all of these stations on the main river channel, but it was^ecessary
to sample some unoiled areas. These were found only along tributaries (see
Figure 4).
The sites for four sampling stations were subjectively selected to be
similar in terms of the elevation and shape of the bank, which was quite
steep. Station 1 was positioned in a segment of Phragmites marsh on the
river bank that had been oiled but not cut; it was therefore suitable for
examining the effects of oil contamination in the absence of cutting.
Station 2 was established in a region that had been oiled and cut. This
station, like the rest of the cut region, supported a mixture of Phragmites
and Spartina. It was not possible to measure the relative abundance of these
species before cleanup operations were completed. Station 3, also dominated
by Phragmites. served as an overall control site, being neither oiled nor
cut. Finally, the unoiled Phragmites plants at Station 4 were cut by the
research team so that the impacts of cutting could be observed in the absence
of oil contamination.
At sample station number 5, on the inside of a bend in the river, the
bank assumed the gradual slope characteristic of such locations, where the
current slows and the water drops its sediment. This site supported a
heavily oiled stand of Spartina alterniflora. and it was selected because it
permitted the effects of severe contamination on this prominent marsh plant
to be observed.
16
-------
*
]. I
... - , \
- V. ' -. - ,
~ \> - .-Rad.o T^i^i
\-- J-'--i' '. a'A #
.'--\:;^- , V /
I -- . - -z '. ' ",- > 4 '
r-i -
Spartina: Stations 2,5,7,8,9,10
Phragmltes: Stations 1,3,4,
Mudflats: Stations 6,11
Figure 6. Location of Sampling Stations
17
-------
No vegetation was cut in the inner or back marsh of the Kingsland-
Sawmill Creeks area. Four stations, all dominated by Spartina alterm'flora,
were established there: two on the east and two on the west side of the New
Jersey Turnpike. The tidal flows are restricted by the Turnpike; therefore,
the vegetation on each side is subjected to differing flushing characteris-
tics.
Although the oil penetrated almost everywhere in the back marsh, a few
regions were protected. Station 9, west of the Turnpike, was protected by
the Turnpike on one side, by a gas pipeline on the opposite side, and by
embankments and substantial expanses of marsh grass on either end. This
grass apparently served to trap most of the oil before it reached the sample
station, for no signs of contamination were visible at the first sampling
period. Station 7, east of the Turnpike, was similarly protected by a berm
and extensive marsh.
The two other vegetation sampling stations, numbers 8 and 10, were
located adjacent to channels on the east and west side, respectively, of the
New Jersey Turnpike. Both had been oiled, but the contamination was no
longer extensive by the time the research team arrived. Apparently, most
locations in the back marsh had been exposed to a substantial amount of
back-and-forth tidal flushing that helped clean the marsh grasses.
Two additional stations were established on the mudflats to observe
penetration of the spilled oil into the sediments and to sample the inver-
tebrate fauna for possible response to the spill. Station 6 was located in
the east and Station 11 on the west side of the New Jersey Turnpike.
Table I summarizes the characteristics of the sampling stations.
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF SAMPLE STATIONS
Treatments
Oiled
Cut
Type
Location
Key: P =
C -"
M =
R =
E =
W =
1234
0 0
0 0
P S&P P P
R R R R
Stations
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
00 0 00
S M S S S S M
R E E E W W W
Phragmites marsh
Spartina marsh
Mudflats
River bank
Back marsh
Back marsh
east of Turnpike
west of Turnpike
18
-------
SAMPLING PROCEDURE
Data were collected during four sampling sessions: in July 1976;
October 1976; March 1977; and July 1977. The following paragraphs describe
the data-collection procedures followed at each sampling period.
Vegetational Distribution and Productivity
During the initial sampling period, a transect was established parallel
to the adjacent river or tributary stream channel at each of the 9 sample
stations that supported vegetation. The position of the initial point of the
transect in relation to the station marker and the transect's direction were
recorded. Each transect was subjectively positioned so that all points along
its length would be equally exposed to tides. Samples were taken in five
1-meter-square quadrats at 3.05-meter (10-foot) intervals along the transect.
For a few of,these sample plots, this nominal interval was adjusted to avoid
significant irregularities in bank conformation like drainage sloughs and
similar features. The sampling arrangement is depicted in Figure 7.
The location of each quadrat was recorded so that the quadrats could be
re-established by use of measuring tape and pocket transit at subsequent
sampling periods. After the winter, when investigators were confident that
markers would remain stable, the boundaries of each quadrat were delineated
with stakes and twine. This considerably expedited and improved the accuracy
of quadrat re-establishment in the final sampling period.
The complexity of the terrain and the consequent difficulty of estab-
lishing similar sampling sites dictated the use of nondestructive sampling
techniques. The investigators measured percent cover, stem density, stem
height, and stem diameter of grasses at each sample station. Where the marsh
grasses were short enough, the percent of ground surface area covered by each
species was determined with a sampling frame. Elsewhere, it was necessary to
estimate this quantity. The estimation was simplified and probably improved
by placing 2 meter sticks so that each quadrat was divided into four 1/4-
square-meter subplots. Each of these smaller units could be visualized more
easily than the entire quadrat. Percentages of cover for each quarter-
quadrat were estimated, summed, and divided by 4 to obtain the final estimate
for the entire quadrat.
Stem densities were determined by counting the number of stems in 2 of
the 1/4-square-meter subunits of each quadrat, resulting in 10 measurements
per station per sample period. All shoots arising independently from the
soil were counted as separate stems, whether or not they were attached to the
same parent plant or not. Some problems are associated with this method of
single-plant identification, as Caldwell (1957) has discussed. Nonetheless,
the rest of the sampling procedure was designed around it. The ultimate goal
was to obtain various indicators and measures of plant productivity within
the quadrats, not to measure the size of individual plants, so this approach
appears entirely justified.
19
-------
DStation Marker
to Station
Marker
Plot
1 meter
River
3.05 meters
River
Density
Density
Expanded View of
Individual Plot
Stem counts were recorded for
indicated i-m2 subplots.
In plots 1, 3, and 5, stem
height and diameter were recorded
for ten plants. Plants measured
were those lying nearest to points
at 0.1-meter intervals along the
transverse axis of the plot, on
the far side of the axis from the
station marker.
This nominal configuration
was altered at some stations to
conform to local constraints 1n
topography.
Figure 7. Configuration of Vegetational Sampling Stations
20
-------
In the first, third, and fifth quadrats at each station, the height and
diameter of individual grass steins were recorded for 10 plants. The plants
selected were those lying nearest to points at 0.1-meter intervals along the
transverse axis of the sample plot, on the far side of the axis from the
station marker. Occasionally, there were not enough stems in appropriate
locations; in such cases, other stems in or very near the quadrat, along the
transect, were measured. Height was measured with a meter stick, to the tip
of the longest leaves in Spartina, and to the tip of the most recently
developed, unopened leaf at the apex of Phragmites stems. Stem diameter was
measured with a micrometer-caliper.
The simplest assumption for calculating the volumes of the plants was to
treat them as if they were cone-shaped, and to use the following formula:
Stem volume = ir x (Height) x (Diameter)2
12
By taking the average volume of the stems in a given quadrat and multiplying
it by the number of stems in that quadrat, a figure was obtained that esti-
mated the total volume of vegetation in the plot. If it is assumed that
volume of the plants is proportional to dry weight, this figure is an indi-
cator of the biological productivity (fixed biomass) of the plot. Despite
inaccuracies that may arise from some of the above assumptions, this estimate
was useful because it permitted meaningful comparison of any 2 sample plots,
whatever their dominant species. This is not true of stem height, diameter,
or density, which are likely to differ between species. Although estimations
of percent cover permit some comparison of the amount of light used by plants
in the different quadrats, they fail to incorporate potentially significant
differences in plant height.
In addition to the measurements described above, false-color infrared
and true color aerial photographs were taken at each sample period. This
program was intended to document any extensive plant mortalities that might
have resulted from the spill.
Fauna
At each station, 5 samples of marsh soil were collected by hand, using a
small, metal container. Care was taken to sample the same surface area at
each location, but the depth of marsh soil collected varied where roots and
rhizomes interfered with sampling. The samples were washed free of sediment
in a 2-millimeter wire mesh and preserved in 10 percent buffered formalin
solution. Selected samples were shipped to a biological laboratory after
each sampling period for identification of all invertebrate fauna.
Interviews with knowledgeable persons furnished some information on the
apparent response of birds and other prominent marshland species to the oil
spill.
21
-------
Distribution of Oil in the Substrate
Duplicate marsh soil cores were collected at each sample station, with a
stainless steel corer. The core samples were placed in airtight plastic
bags, wrapped in aluminum foil, and frozen in dry ice immediately after
collection.
Selected samples, from 2.5, 5.0, and 7.5 centimeters depth in the marsh
soil, were sent to a laboratory for chemical analysis. It was originally
hoped that gas chromotography (GC) could be used to identify the oil and
estimate its concentration in the marsh substrate. Unfortunately, GC
analyses that were performed after the first sampling period produced no
clear-cut results. Thin-layer chromatography (TLC) was subsequently used as
the analytic technique. TLC is less sensitive than GC, but it permits rapid
screening of a large number of samples without entailing excessive costs. No
true reference material (Wellen No. 6) was available when the current investi-
gation was initiated. It was hoped that internal comparisons of the sample
stations would indicate the presence or absence of oil at any given station.
Comparison was also made to a sample of oiled gravel. This sample was free
of organic sediments that would appear as peaks in the chromatogram and mask
the oil's presence.
Erosion
Erosional data were collected at all vegetated sample stations. Two
wooden stakes, one closer to the marsh interior and one nearer the adjacent
water body, were marked, notched, and placed in the soil at measured dis-
tances and directions from the station marker. At each sample period, the
height of the notch on each stake was measured. These data provided a con-
tinuing record of the elevation of the marsh soil surface. This permitted
monitoring for sediment loss that might accompany the death of marsh vegeta-
tion in oiled areas and the heavy foot traffic in cut regions.
Distances were also measured from the marker stakes to the major break
in slope at the erosional face of the river bank at Stations 1 through 5.
The aerial photographs taken as a portion of the vegetational sampling
program were also intended to extend the observations of erosion processes
beyond the individual stations where measurements were made. Additional,
qualitative data were gathered on other factors that could potentially affect
erosion. These included tidal flow, boat traffic, bank conformation, and
general substrate characteristics.
22
-------
SECTION 5
RESULTS
All results are presented in figures or tables in the Appendix. For
convenience to the reader, selected data are also presented in the text.
VEGETATION
The data on vegetational characteristics of each sample station are
displayed in Figures A-l through A-6 and in Tables A-l and A-2.
Figure 8, "Total Plant Volume per Unit Area" shows the pattern of
standing vegetational crop throughout the year of study. The initially large
amount of plant material present in July 1976 decreased in October because of
dieback and decay. This effect is more pronounced in Spartina. whose stems
are softer, more pliable, and more susceptible to the elements, than are
Phragmites stems. The data collection in March did not include dead stems
from the previous year's growth. The volume of vegetation in that month
represents the small shoots of the new growing season. In July 1977, the
amount of plant material present is similar to what it was the previous year.
iolce d.a,JVu?ges* that there 1s less Phragmites at Station 1 in 1977 than
in iy/b. While it might at first be surmised that this was caused by oil
contamination, this is probably not the case. At the final sampling period,
the charred remains of marker stakes and other debris provided convincing
evidence that a fire had destroyed the surface vegetation at the station As
discussed in Section 2, fire breaks the dormancy of Phragmites buds. The
stems measured in July 1977 had resprouted, but had not as many dormant buds
nor the same time to grow as the previous year's stems.
The control Phragmites at Station 3 seem to have grown back quite vigor-
ously in 1977. Interestingly, the plants at Station 4, which were experi-
mentally cut, recovered only as much as those at Station 1, even though
Station 4 appeared similar to Station 3 at the study's outset.
The Spartina controls (Stations 7 and 9) grew back extraordinarily well
by July 1977. The apparently spectacular increase at Station 9 might, how-
ever have resulted from the station marker's being lost over the winter
The transect may have been re-established in a slightly different location
resulting in misleading data. Nonetheless, the marsh surrounding Station 9
ppobably
23
-------
-4500
-4000
-3500
-3000
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
M
/> v
1
!,
It
Station
Oiled
Cut
Pom.Species
Location
Time
10
Phrag Spartina
River
July '76
1
Phrag | Spartina
River
Oct. '76
Phrag
9 10
Spartina
River
Mar. '77
i
10
Phrag| Spartina
River
w
July '77
Figure 8. Total Plant Volume Per Unit Area (cm /m )
-------
The data suggest that the uncut, oiled Spartina to the west of the New
Jersey Turnpike (Station 10) did not grow weTT Tfie decrease may reflect a
loss of substrate rather than poor plant growth, since it appeared that there
was less available substrate for Spartina after the winter of 1976-1977 and
since Spartina grew very well at Station 10 wherever there was available
substrate. This observation is supported by 2 groups of data. First the
percent cover (see Figure A-l) was not much lower than at other stations.
[he tall grass stems there leaned over and covered unvegetated portions of
the sample plots. Second, the stem density (Figure A-2) compares favorably
with that at other stations in July 1977, despite the paucity of substrate at
station 10.
T ^e ^uh 01l!d SPart1na 1n the back marsh east of the New Jersey
Turnpike (Station 8) exhibited good growth by the final sampling period,
although not as good as the control Spartina. The soil at Station 8 was very
moist. The ground contained many poorly drained depressions.
e °lledl cu!;. Plants at Station 2 grew to approximately the same total
at Station 8 in July 1977. They did not produce as
mnrh H'H . .
SSl,X- i^K000^!1 Phragmites at Station 3> but exceeded the concurrent
production of Phragmites at Stations 1 and 4.
h /"easurements at Station 5 were taken on the young
LJf? f f M ° repUce the contaminated Spartina stems when this
nn«h 2 I JS ; *"° mea*urements of the oiled mass of dead vegetation
f?n! 1 cJ VhaV1me' However, the second-year productivity of the
tina at Station 5 was unquestionably lower. K y
nprrrn ste* **!*£> stem dens1ty, individual stem volume, and
percent cover all support the data on total plant volume. Station 5 con-
Pr°dUCtive than the othe'"s- ^ Diameter does not
H fi6 d?"S1'ty °f ,Phragniites stems is roughly the same at the
e t ? samPlln9s: The experimental cut (Station 4) appears to have
o?r SntleS? d%T ^^ially- -PerhaPs some stubble was Campled into
size Sid'tpXESrS ?° I9her denSlty °f Spartina' ^fleeting its smaller
size and tendency to sprout year-round.
A few additional observations are relevant to the response of the marsh
land vegetation. The earliest cut stands of oiled Spartina displayed aSod
growback of vegetation by July 1977. Station 2 was-^nlTsiifh reg on ff
Sfter tte sUSi]ierP?Mh;?nH°f ihe CUt ^*> Wh1ch was'cut more ^ two weeks
ifto%t5iS J H- i 5 d a 16SS P°sltlve response. Oiled, uncut regions
like Station 5 displayed poor growth in 1977.
plan! m°rtall>ty wa* observed in any aerial photographs.
UnC 3 °n the r1verbank' none was observed from the
25
-------
Weathered oil, presumably from other spill events, was observed in some
locations, but not at any sampling stations. At the final sampling period,
oil from a small, recent spill was observed at Station 5 and along the west
bank of the Hackensack River north of Station 5.
FAUNA
Donald Smith (personal communication) has reported that a number of bird
species that usually nest in the Hackensack Meadowlands were rare or absent
in 1976 after the marshes were contaminated by spilled oil. However, by the
following year, populations were apparently back to normal and thriving.
Several pairs of glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus), a species never observed
nesting in the Hackensack Meadowlands before, were observed and strongly
suspected of breeding there in the Spring of 1977.
Smith also noted that, after the spill, marsh and red-jointed fiddler
crabs (Uca pugnax, U. minax) and diamondback terrapin (Malaclemys terrapin)
were physically handicapped by contamination with tarry residues from the
oil. Nonetheless, these creatures continued to attempt movement. They did
not appear to be poisoned, as they might have upon exposure to a truly toxic
oil. One other unusual effect was the appearance of mating coloration and
display in male fiddler crabs in October 1976, well past the usual mating
season (Donald Smith, personal communication).
The data on marsh soil invertebrates are presented in Tables A-3 and
A-4. Data include the habitat conditions, populations of various taxa,
number of genera, number of individuals, and Shannon-Weaver diversity index
for each sampled station. The population levels in 1977 were generally lower
than those in 1976. The populations of oligochaete worms were observed to be
higher than that of other taxa in most samples. In the first and second
samplings, the lowest species diversity was found at those stations where the
vegetation had most recently been cut in 1976, i.e., Station 2 in July, and
Station 4 in October. Calculated diversity indices, dependent to a degree
upon population size, were lower in the final two samplings.
No organisms were observed at the oiled mudflat station, number 6 during
the first July sampling. It could be argued that this was an effect of the
oil. However, since other oiled stations (e.g., 1 and 2) displayed sub-
stantial populations, it was felt that some other effect (perhaps toxic
runoff from the New Jersey Turnpike) was being observed. The mudflat
stations were subsequently abandoned and Stations 7 and 8 were substituted in
subsequent sampling sessions.
OIL IN THE SUBSTRATE
Internal comparison of the thin-layer chromatograms derived from soil
cores at selected sample stations revealed several points of similarity among
the organic compounds in the substrate at each station. However, these were
apparently of biogenic origin, because they bore no similarity to the oil in
the gravel sample which served as a reference in this analysis. Possible
interpretations of these negative results are discussed in Section 6.
26
-------
EROSION
Observed interim and net changes in elevation of the marsh surface are
shown in Table A-5. A net loss of soil is indicated by most river bank data
and a net gain is suggested by data from the marsh interior. These observed
changes may be due in part to sinking of marker stakes or isostatic adjust-
ments in the marsh surface.
Apparent sediment accretion is most widely observed between the first
and second samplings. The predominantly negative changes between the second
and third sample periods may reflect marsh sediment compaction associated
with heavy winter ice loading. The final data suggest little change.
Table A-6 displays distances to the erosional face in river bank areas.
These are presented graphically in Figure 9. Note that the intervals between
sample periods are not equal. No substantial difference is suggested by the
data for uncut oiled area (Station 1) or uncut and experimentally cut,
unoiled areas (Stations 3 and 4). In contrast, a radically different rate of
erosion between the first and second sampling occurred at Station 2. This
station was exposed to both oil and heavy manual cutting operations. Aerial
photographs and ground observation confirmed that this extreme bank erosion
had occurred along much of the riverbank where the oiled plants had been cut.
Furthermore, the severe erosion was restricted to the cut regions.
The mechanism of erosion in this case was bank undercutting followed by
slumping Many private and commercial boats and ships were observed on the
Hackensack River during all sampling periods. The wakes produced by this
traffic were sufficient to have provided the primary erosional force. The
surficial mat of Spartina roots remained essentially intact and continued to
support growing plants throughout the investigation. The riverbank at
and wavp r!i?S ^ at Stations 1, 3, and 4, and consisted of a current-
32 cTzone SrnW-stl1 " ^ ^ "^ < »«* °f
net 1 o> Sl!^^^
Examination of aerial photographs and ground observation yielded the
nll^n10nf +K e-OST ?f a different type had occurred along the later-cut
portions of the riverbank. In these locations, soil appeared to have been
w?nter o? *" °f ^ banL Thl'S condiilon ^noticed after the
27
-------
- 0
--50
--100
Distance From
Initial Location
(cm)
Station 5
Station 4
Station 1
Station 3
(lost marker) Station 2
-150
Time
July '76
Oct. '76
Mar. '77
July '77
Figure 9. Position of Bank Edge Vs. Time
28
-------
SECTION 6
DISCUSSION
All oil spills are different in some respects. The findings reported in
the present study are applicable only to spills where a similar type of
relatively viscous, heavy fraction oil is spilled in a similar estuarine
environment. However, since such oils are frequently spilled, the results
presented herein are likely to have wide applicability.
Patterns of tidal flow that distribute spilled oil also partly determine
the ecological characteristics of the affected region. Thus, areas isolated
from contamination may not be directly comparable to oiled regions. For
instance, the vigorous growth of Spartina at Stations 7 and 9 in the final
sampling may result more from their locations away from open water than from
the fact that they weren't oiled. The present study affords no purely ob-
jective way of distinguishing among these possibilities. The author's own
impression is that the difference is locational.
Because the sample sizes were rather small and the data quite variable,
the quantitative results reported here should be considered indicative and
supportive only of observations made in text, not as conclusive evidence.
Nonetheless, considerable use can and should be made of these data in the
design of future studies, because they provide estimates of the variability
of the sampled material. These estimates are extremely useful in determining
the optimal sample size, sampling design and the probability of obtaining
meaningful results within given cost constraints.
Finally, it should be emphasized that no detailed quantitative baseline
data were available for this study. A similar difficulty is likely to plague
many future attempts at determining the effects of any large-scale impact
upon an ecosystem.
SOURCES OF ERROR
The most prominent sources of error in the present study have been
uncontrolled variables. Sampling sites were selected to be as similar as
possible, but it was apparent from the start that the stations were not
precisely equivalent.
The vegetation data are extremely variable. The standard deviations
(displayed as dark lines superimposed on the histogram bars in Figures A-l
through A-6) are generally large, compared to the mean value (length of the
bar) of. any given measurement. This variability could be a result of the
small number of samples used in this study; more likely it results from the
29
-------
clumping of data. Clumping simply means that observed characteristics are
not independent. For example, if a sample contains one large stem, there is
a greater-than-random chance that the next measured stem will be large. Data
for such clumped distributions characteristically have a large standard
deviation.
In the case of data on the percent cover and density, the clumping was
caused by the physical clustering of Spartina and Phragmites plants.
Spartina forms clones: small, young shoots arise from rhizomes (horizontal,
underground stems) that sprout from a large parent stem. Caldwell (1957) has
described this process in detail. To a lesser extent, Phragmites does the
same. However, Phragmites is more evenly spaced, as evidenced by the smaller
standard deviations in the Phragmites density (see Figure A-2).* Clumping
also reflects the tendency of these and many other plant species to cluster
in optimal microhabitats.
The clumped distribution of stem height and diameter results less
directly from the physical clustering of the plants. Stems selected to be
measured were those lying closest to certain points on a small transect that
bisected each quadrat. If this transect failed to cut through clumps, a
disproportionate number of small stems on the clump edges were measured. If
the transect did pass through clumps, more large stems were measured.
The high variability in height and diameter is reflected in an even
greater standard deviation of individual stem volume (Figure A-6). Limited
resources and the rather lengthy calculations required prevented the deter-
mination of the standard deviation of total plant volume per square meter
(Figure A-3). Nevertheless, it follows from the variability of stem height
and diameter that the standard deviation of stem volume would have been quite
large.
If it is assumed that the probability of selecting a cluster of large or
small stems is approximately equal to the true proportion of large and small
stems in the sample plot, then the calculated mean will be a much better
estimate of the true mean stem size than the large standard deviation would
imply. A similar argument holds true for percent cover and stem density.
The above assumption failed only in instances where the clumps were so
sparse that a sample point was unlikely to fall in the center of one. In
these cases, there probably was some bias towards sampling small stems. This
bias would have accentuated measured differences between lushly and sparsely
vegetated plots. However, except for Stations 8 and 10 in July 1977, sparse
plots also had very open clumps, reducing the effects of the bias. The data
are therefore considered reliable, though interpreted cautiously.
*The very large standard deviation of Phragmites density at Station 1 in
July 1976, is the result of using a 1-square-decimeter quadrat for counting
densities. On the basis of this sample, this quadrat size was judged to be
too small, and 1/4-square-meter quadrats were subsequently adopted.
30
-------
VEGETATION
Most of the oiled, uncut sample stations have been affected in some way
besides oiling that clouds the interpretation of data. Station 1 was burned-
affliJUn f3.nd Station 10 were characterized by irregular substrate that
affected the distribution of the plants. It is possible that the low produc-
? *:e! °*!?d Ju]y I977 at.all these sites are due to oil. Thefol-
w,- ev/1dence that at Stations 8 and 10 the differences
were due at least in part to habitat.
Explanations for the loss of substrate at Station 10 were suggested by a
morP 0b?h7Sl??S- T?6 SHtl0!! WaS heavily ticked by fishermen9 Further-
more, the station s location between 2 embankments might have encouraged
mnurIVA ^ln9 t* 1Ce; T?e ^C°rded hei'9hts of P'ants at Station 10
re^oncihi^f^th01!9^31' I* 1S be11eved that the bias discussed above is
rnntHh.fi tl ^ t J°V recorded stem ^^- This would also ultimately
contribute to low total volume. Station 8 contained many poorly-drained
sCch rPninLmnJtSh* As ^ f al ' (1975) have discussed, the Spartina in
Some o?9tS2 cj£i Tf in dePauPerate stands- Station 8 was no exception.
Some of the sample plots were sparsely vegetated. Yet, even where the veqe-
S?ai?onWISwf?arSe> T? \nd1v1dua1 clumPS of grass were quite heaUhy Tus,
degree P°S Same type °f bias as Stat1°" 10> but to a
receecothi-i P??ductivity at Station 5 was probably a
f ected in lu thl n ] t^"'^ !he P°0f resP°nse of the vegetation is re-
wlr« nnt ? / Parameters that were measured. Clumps at this station
r?uL2 inWmlIvdefeJKped) a?d the taller stems in thei> interiors were S-
cluded in many of the samples. Furthermore, the oiled remains of marsh
grasses growing prior to the spill were sti 1 present in July 1976 These
than those wh?ch ^w9in'l977 ^
°f heavily °11ed and matted
samolina suaaPJ?^h^ntar'-ati°n (source unknown) observed at the final
to the same ?o itt? «' JS freclu?nt1y carried by the extant current regime
that ? hf ! co'lecting points, causing chronic pollution. It is possible
that the poor growth at Station 5 partly results from continua oilina ov
over
moedamainnh '
much more damaging than a single incident (Baker, 1971b).
Very little Phragmites was present at Station 2 in July 1977 Perhaos
s?le P neSedmaJ.COnent °f the veget^tton at this P
se t ancK.
PhraamitL in !h^P lblG that CUtting favored the Spartina and damaged the
Phragmites in what was once more of a mixed stand, as discussed in Section 4.
tion aon!;^ of,^lna was observed at Station 2, where the vegeta-
illl ?h«U ? a? cu?' /arther uPriver the Olled, cut grass did not grow so
etl H977^ 15antKrrSCU^1aJerthantheother however. Mittson
et al. (1977) concluded that the oil plugged the stomata of the Spartina
31
-------
plants, thus depriving their roots of air (see Section 2). The roots of the
earliest-cut plants were saved from suffocation when the cutting operations
opened the plant stems, allowing air to diffuse downward. Approximately
2 weeks after the initial oiling, the remaining contaminated roots of Spartina
started to die for want of oxygen; thus, later cutting was less effective in
promoting recovery.
The results of the present study support the conclusions of Mattson et
al. (1977). In areas that were oiled but where the plants were not com-
pletely coated (e.g., Station 1) or where tidal flushing washed plants partly
clean (e.g., Stations 8 and 10), there is no conclusive evidence of oil
damage. It therefore seems unlikely that the oil exerted its negative ef-
fects upon the marsh grasses through any toxic mechanism. Cutting was appar-
ently an effective way of combatting the physical blockage by oil of the
plants' gaseous exchange with the atmosphere. It was therefore desirable in
this case.
Unfortunately, it cannot be generalized from this study that cutting is
a panacea for oil damage to marsh plants. Other factors may be significant
in other situations. Seasonal effects and the biology of the affected species
must be considered. For example, it is possible that the apparent decrease
in the standing crop of Phragmites at Station 4 was caused by the cutting
that was performed when this study began (Section 4). Results might also
differ for oils with higher concentration of toxic components. If toxic oils
were trampled into the soil during cutting, they might persist indefinitely
and preclude recolonization. Cutting might encourage migration of toxic
materials down the stems to the roots and rhizomes of affected plants.
Possible alternatives to hand-cutting include use of aquatic vegetation
cutters and burning. Both techniques minimize foot traffic on potentially
sensitive marsh soil. Although ignition during the growing season may be
difficult, burning has the added advantage of promoting sprouting in
Phragmites. This technique would have to be used in the context of air
quality and safety standards, as well as vegetational management options,
since burning can alter the composition of marsh plant populations. None-
theless, burning is probably the available technology most compatible with
natural functioning and continued maximal productivity of the marsh.
FAUNA
The mating coloration and behavior of male fiddler crabs in October 1976
may have resulted from harmonal interference caused by petroleum hydrocarbons
still leaching from the marsh soil at that time. This phenomenon, which was
not observed i/i 1977, has been observed elsewhere (Charles Krebs, Saint
Mary's College, personal communication).
It does not appear that the large vertebrates of the Hackensack Meadow-
lands, especially the birds, were adversely affected for longer than the
season of the spill itself.
32
-------
There is no clear correlation between any properties of the sampled
invertebrate communities and the presence or absence of oiling. The dense
population of oligochaete worms is typical of a highly organic substrate like
that found in the Meadowlands. The lowered diversity index of fauna at cut
stations may be an indication either of the direct effects of cutting and
trampling on the marsh soil fauna or of the reduction in habitat diversity
that accompanied the loss of the grasses. The lowered index may also have
resulted from some other locational effect, or it may simply be an artifact
of the small sample size. The interpretations offered here must therefore be
considered t.pntatiuo
The lack of observed organisms at Station 3 in the third and fourth
sample periods and the low diversity indices in 1977 probably reflect the
cra -°W numbers °f organisms present at that time. The harsh winter of
~
7 - .
nn.Ll Possible cause of the population reduction. It is not likely
"?r!covered Ol1 "used the decrease, since the oil spilled in the Hacken-
sack River was apparently physically disabling but not toxic. Moreover, the
population reduction is not related to the known distribution of the oil.
Hn,tthoi unfortunate that benthic monitoring was not con-
tinued at the mudflat Stations 6 and 11 after the first sample period.
*nH th2 J' supported a variety of organisms, was only lightly oiled
and therefore served as a control for the more heavily oiled Station 6 Even
f t*ic or otn ffcts unrelat
. unrelated to oil contamination were present at
btat on 6, the site might normally have supported some invertebrates. The
complete absence of organisms in samples collected at this station however
Oil1n9 ^ have ^ed the soil fauna. A subsequent
n-- .
iunnnrt nintMVertel?raJes atustat1on 6 "ould have provided evidence in
support of this conjecture, but no additional data were collected Neverthe-
less samples collected at this location at any time in the futSre would be
a
OIL IN SUBSTRATE
No correlation was established between the organic materials in the soil
tLTJr±red at Van'°US Sam?ling Stat1ons and th* samPle of o ed grave
thf n^v ?d ? referen«- There is no question that the bulk of the oil in
2c,,?E hfT16 Came from-the We11en sP1n- Therefore, although posit ve
results m ght have been subject to dispute in the absence of a true reference
JKtn2attVh reSKltS PSrted here must be Considered as reliable Llhose'
that would have been obtained from an uncontaminated sample of the spilled
he Seve^al DOS?1b1e explanations for the observed lack of cor-
+ samPled sediments may simply not have been oiled to a level
that would have been detectable by TLC. Furthermore, highly viscous oils are
unlikely to penetrate soil, especially a marsh soil composed of very fine
sediment. In fact, the contaminating oil in this spill formed only a thin,
33
-------
tarry layer on the marsh soil surface at the locations where soil contamina-
tion was still apparent as of mid-July 1976. There was no indication of soil
penetration.
It is interesting to note that the results indicate no soil contamina-
tion at Station 2, which was subjected to heavy foot traffic shortly after
the spill. Perhaps the soil there was firm enough to prevent mixing of oil
with any but the most unconsolidated upper layers of sediment. The surface
sediment that was disturbed and heavily contaminated may have washed away
during subsequent high tides.
A final possibility is that the oil which contaminated the gravel sample
weathered differently from that which contaminated the marsh surface. However,
it is unlikely that the decomposition processes could have been so different
as to completely mask any similarity within 2 months after the spill, when
the soil cores were first collected.
Further speculation is not warranted in the absence of more definitive
data. Future studies should probably continue to use TLC as a screening
procedure before more sophisticated and costly forms of analysis are used.
However, such tests are more likely to be more successful if samples are
containing a high concentration of the suspected contaminating oil are
collected. For example, in this investigation, the upper few millimeters
instead of the upper few centimeters of oiled marsh soil would have been
collected and then compared with similar samples at greater depths in the
soil.
EROSION
It is difficult to ignore the association between cutting and acceler-
ated bank erosion at Station 2. Because the Spartina root mat remained
undamaged, the erosion cannot be attributed to plant mortality. The pressure
of heavy foot traffic may have been transmitted through the root mat to the
unconsolidated soil below, resulting in destabilization. Although they may
have been contributing factors, neither oiling nor exposure to the open river
channel can be implicated as sole causes of erosion, since Station 1 was also
both oiled and situated on the main river bank but it did not erode as much
as Station 2.
t The shape of the bank may have some effect on erosion potential. The
northern portion of the cut region, where the bank slope was less steep than
at Station 2, did not experience bank undercutting. However, the oiled
plants on this portion of the bank were cut last. It is possible that foot
traffic associated with cutting operations was less intensive toward the end
of the cleanup effort.
The Phragmites at Station 4 was cut so that the effects of cutting in
the absence of oil contamination could be observed. The lack of unoiled
river frontage necessitated locating this station on an interior channel.
The absence of erosion at this site may be attributed either to lack of
34
-------
oiling or to the low wave and current energy environment. The latter ex-
planation appears more likely, since high-energy environments are known to
cause erosion. It is also possible that the deeper root mat of Phragmites
plants provides more bank stabilization than that of Spartina. This would be
consistent with all observations.
The positive values observed at Station 5 probably reflect the sedi-
mentological environment. This station is on the inside of a bend in the
river, a natural point of accumulation.
The subjectively observed surface erosion in the later-cut regions was
probably caused by winter icing and spring runoff through bank areas where
the plant cover was no longer intact. There is no way to predict with cer-
tainty whether and to what degree this erosion might have been reduced had
the plant cover been maintained at its original vigor.
35
-------
REFERENCES
Baker, Jenifer M., 1971a. The effects of oils on plant physiology. In
Effects of Oil Pollution on Littoral Communities, Institute of
Petroleum, London.
Baker, Jenifer M., 1971b. Successive spillages. In E.B. Cowell, ed., The
Ecological Effects of Oil Pollution on Littoral Communities, Institute
of Petroleum, London.
Burns, Katherine A. and John M. Teal, 1971. Hydrocarbon Incorporation into
the Salt Marsh Ecosystem from the West Falmouth Oil Spill, NTIS report.
com 73 10419.
Buttery, B.R., W.T. Williams, and J.M. Lambert, 1965. Competition between
Glyceria maxima and Phragmites communis in the region of Surlingham
Broad.ITTfie fen gradient. Journal of Ecology - 53: 183-196.
Caldwell, Phoebe - Ann, 1957. The spatial development of Spartina colonies
growing without competition, Annals of Botany, N.S. 21(82):203-214.
Crapp, Geoffrey B., 1971. The ecological effects of stranded oil. In E.B.
Cowell, ed., The Ecological Effects of Oil Pollution on Littoral
Communities. Institute of Petroleum, London.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. RFP No. CI-76-0322, Edison,
New Jersey.
Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission, 1975. Wetland Bio-Zones of
the Hackensack Meadowlands: An Inventory. Lyndhurst, New Jersey.
Haslam, Sylvia M., 1970. The performance of Phragmites communis Trin. in
relation to water-supply. Annals of Botany 34:567-877.
Haslam, Sylvia M., 1968. The development and emergence of buds in Phragmites
communis Trin. Annals of Botany 33: 289-301.
Haslam, Sylvia M., 1971. Community regulation in Phragmites communis Trin.
II. Mixed stands. Journal of Ecology 59(1): 75-88.
Haslam, Sylvia M., 1972. Biological flora of the British Isles. Phragmites
communis Trin. Journal of Ecology 60: 585-610.
Hubbard, J.C.E., 1970. Effects of cutting and seed production in Spartina
anglica. Journal of Ecology 58(2): 329-334.
36
-------
Mattson, Chester P., and others, 1977. Hackensack estuary oil spill:
cutting oil-soaked marsh grass as an innovative damage control
technique. In Proceedings, 1977 Oil Spill Conference. American
Petroleum Institute, Environmental Protection Agency, and United
States Coast Guard, New Orleans. 243-246.
Mattson, Chester P., and Nicholas C. Vallario, 1976. Water Quality in a
Recovering Ecosystem, Hackensack Meadowlands Development Commission,
Lyndhurst.
Patrick, Ruth, 1950. Biological measure of stream conditions. Sewage and
Industrial Wastes 22(7): 926-938.
Potera, George T., 1970. A Preliminary Ecoloqic Study and Evaluation of
a Section of the Hackensack Meadowlands. Report to the Hackensack
Meadowlands Development Commission.Lyndhurst, New Jersey.
Shea, M.L., R.S. Warren, and W.A. Nearing, 1975. Biochemical and transplan-
tation studies of the growth form of Spartina alterm'flora on Connecticut
salt marshes. Ecology 56: 461-466.
Teal, John, and Mildred Teal, 1969. Life and Death of the Salt Marsh,
National Audubon Society and Ballentine Books, New York.
U.S.G.S., 1967a. Jersey City Quadrangle 1:24000 topographic map.
U.S.G.S., 1967b. Weehawken Quadrangle 1:24000 topographic map.
Waisel, Yoav., 1972. Biology of Halophytes. Academic Press, New York &
London.
37
-------
CO
oo
Table A-l
Measurements of Phragmltes
Parameter Sample
Measured Period
1 Cover
Density .
(Steir,s/nr)
Height
(to,)
Diameter
(Cm)
Stem Volume
(Cm3)
Total Volume
(Density x
Ster, Volume)
(Cn.3)
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Station No. 1
Standard
Mean Deviation
82
58
<.6
54
146
58.5
6.8
95.2
183'
181.7
2.75
103.3
.51
.674
.461
.486
18
24.4
.223
10.9
2,570
1.427
1.5
1.041
17.9
12.3
<.55
36
242
30.3
8.7
80.8
54.9
44.0
1.76
52.6
.24
.150
.185
.271
19
14.2
.270
15.4
__
..
--
Ho. of
Samples
5
4
5
5
15
8
10
10
36
25
15
28
36
25
15
28
36
25
15
28
__
..
--
Station No. 3
Standard
Mean Deviation
100
84
<)
96
120
49.2
31.2
107.6
205.9
234.8
6.4U
198.2
.50
.759
.810
.792
17
39.7
1.3
37.5
2,040
1.953
40.6
4,035
0
15.2
6.5
51.9
27.2
12.5
48.1
36.86
43.58
1.84
38.3
.18
.180
.0384
.208
18
26.1
.941
24.5
--
Station No. 4
No. of
Samples Mean
5
5
5
5
10
10
10
10
28
29
30
29
28
29
30
29
28
29
30
29
--
--
30
<1
56
70.4
43.6
23.2
85.6
67.3
10.86
127.2
.73
.442
.665
.594
__
4.41
1.63
15.5
192
37.8
1.327
Standard
Deviation
39
30
26.5
55.1
16.4
51.8
32.6
5.37
66.1
.24
.174
.266
.199
..
4.10
1.42
17.2
--
--
-
*
No. of
Samples
5
5
5
10
10
10
10
28
20
30
29
28
24
30
__
28
20
30
--
--
--
Station No. 2
Mean
1.8
..
5.2
__
0
11.2
18.8
__
5.2
4.48
86.1
._
.436
.422
.394
..
.235
.239
3.49
--
0
2.7
65.6
Standard
Deviation
2.9
--
5.6
__
0
11.4
19.8
_.
2.76
3.41
0
..
.0817
.0782
0
..
.0452
.295
0
--
--
--
llo. of
Samples
5
5
b
_.
10
10
10
__
2
4
1
_.
2
4
1
..
2
4
1
--
-
--
Plot 4, sample period No. 2:
only within plot plants.
the values for stem dimensions include plants not within sample plot. These differed very little from values using
-o
-a
ei
ii
x
-------
Table A-2
Measurements of Spartina
to
to
Parameter
Measured
% Cover
Density _
(Stems/nT)
Height
(Cm)
Diameter
(Cm)
Stem Volume
(Cm*)
Total Volume
(Density x
Stem Volume)
(On3)
Sampl e
Period
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Mean
18
34
<1
86
76.
367
166
397
20.
11.
3.
55.
m
1.
t
m
5.
76.
76.
22.
2.064
Station No. 2
Standard
Deviation
7
8
2
92
7
35
202
120
500
0
207
0135
2
7
0
4
9.8
6.9
14.7
42.5
356
124
170
9.42
12.6
1.86
37.8
.19
.0879
.260
.235
1.4
.318
.0259
5.69
..
-~
__
~
No. of
Sampl e
5
5
5
5
15
10
10
10
30
28
26
29
30
28
26
29
30
28
26
29
_.
_..
_ _
Station No. 5
i Mean
2.2
<.6
20
18
27.6
34
146
10.3
15.3
3.62
23.9
.51
.285
.164
.427
1.2
.865
.0256
1.96
21.6
239
.9
286
Standard
Deviation
3.3
<.55
22
28.7
65.1
66.3
235
6.13
16.8
1.86
25
.26
.205
.0503
.213
1.8
1.69
.0150
2.73
__
«
Station No. 7
No. of
Samples Mean
5
5
5
8
10
10
10
19
30
10
20
19
30
10
20
19
30
10
20
__
_.
95
33
<1
94
221
349
299
554
94.1
19.8
5.46
52.8
.68
.228
.0531
.488
21
.661
.0351
7.67
4,641
231
6.9
4,249
Standard
Deviation
7.1
21.1
._
13
62.4
79
131
240
75.5
20.6
2.39
65.7
.30
.120
.0564
.251
25
1.47
.0311
12.3
..
__
__
No. of
Samples
5
5
5
5
10
10
10
10
30
29
29
30
30
29
29
30
30
29
29
30
__
__
-------
Table A-2
Measurements of Spartina (Cont.)
Station No.
Parameter Sample
Measured Period
2 Cover
Density «
(Stems/m)
Height
(Cm)
\*** */
Diameter
(Cm)
\**' ' /
Stem Volume
(Cm3)
\ **' * i
Total Volume
(Density x
Stem Volume)
(Cm3)
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
Standard
Mean Deviation
64
13
<]
87
62.6
116
83.1
451
84.3
36.5
5.90
36.4
.65
.390
.224
.548
13
1.94
.0894
5.3
814
225
7.4
2,390
39.8
14.7
_.
20.0
54.6
93
113
295
67.4
33.7
2.53
53
.19
.206
.0780
.260
16
6.48
.0795
10.6
_
--
, 8
Station No. 9
No. of Standard No. of
Samples Mean Deviation Samples
5
5
5
5
10
10
10
10
28
29
30
30
28
29
30
30
28
29
30
30
_
74
45
<1
63
117
115
119
264
56.9
49.8
6.45
88.8
.53
.412
.212
.611
9.2
3.40
.107
15.8
1,075
391
12.7
4,171
31.5
26.7
24.8
70.8
84.7
184
134
41.75
32.06
2.63
65.1
.29
.169
.0917
.321
17
3.63
.117
18.4
__
--
5
5
5
5
10
10
10
10
29
30
30
30
29
30
30
30
29
30
30
30
--
~~
Station No. 10
Standard No. of
Mean Deviation Samples
82
55
<1
57
255
167
84
321
106.2
44.7
4.93
23.7
.62
.316
.154
.369
15
1.57
.0368
1.08
3,825
265
3.09
346
32.1
20.9
27.0
109
109
113
335
73.75
23.7
1.89
29.7
.21
.0953
.0559
.151
14
1.55
.0308
1.62
--
--
~
5
5
5
5
8
8
10
10
20
20
30
30
20
20
30
30
20
20
30
30
--
--
*
-------
Phrag Spartina
J
A A
y y
y y
y y
y y
y y '
y y '
y y '
1 3 4 2 5 7 B 9
1C
Phrag Spartina
River
UctT Vb
Phrag Spartina
10
River E W
Mar. '//
Figure f(-l. % Cover
-------
ro
-800
-700
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
Station
Oiled
Cut
Don. Species
Location
Time
|
-
i
t
>
i
i
j
i
i
i 4
\ »
I t
i
; I
< »
\ 't
1
li
3
4
Phrag
I
2
-
I
5
9
/
t
8
9 1
g
Spartina
River
E
W
July '76
j
1
i
3
"
I
4 i
t
<
Phrag
*
I
! 5 '
»
i
t 8
9 1
0
Spartina
River I E
w
Oct. '76
x
1
i
3
4
Phrag
2
*
~~
I
5 ;
' 8
9 li
Spartina
River | E
W
Mar. '77
3
>
'
i
'
i
1
i
1
j
3
t
t _
*
j
4251
Phrag Spa
River
'8910
rtlna
E I W
July '77
Figure A-2. Density (stems/m2)
-------
-4500
-4000
-3500
-3000
-2500 'f
-2000 | p
-« ||
-1000
II
-500
Station 134257
Oiled
Cut
,
8
3
1C
Dom. Species Phrag Spartina
Location River E
Time July '76
W
i
* J,
1
3425789 10 1
Phrag Spartina Ph
River E W
Oct. '76
\
3425789 10 JJ
/
\ \
\ 1
1 1
| |
3
4
rag Spartina Phrag
River 1 E W
Mar. '77
2
I
5
/
8 <
\
10
Spartina
River
July
E
W
'77
3, 2,
Figure A-3. Total Plant Volume Per Unit Area (cm /m )
-------
Phraq Spartina
2
' ' X
< I ^
i
y X ' '
c^ X ' '
^ v! ' '
y X ' '
-------
-.9
-.8
-.7
-.6
" 5 i
i
i
i
-.4 |
i
t
>
»
I
I
i
1
,
i
*
__ 4
1
J
j,
>
t
i
i
i
t
t
i
i
' i
\ \
> /j
t /*
' rj
1 /i
1 'J
> n
1 4V
' 'J
' ft
1 '',
3 1 P P
I 1
I i i
"
' III
Station 1
Oiled
Cut
3 4
Dom. Species Phrag
2
5
»
1 8
-
9 1
«
Spartina
Location River | E
Time
W
July '76
't
i
»
t
t
t
t
t
t
\
>
t
'.
4
--
,
lu
11
1 1
\\ \
i i !
i i 1 1
in
0 1
» «
3
4
Phrag
2 5
.
7 8
i >
i '
i i '
__ 1 1
1 1
1 1
* i
1 1
1 1
1
i
\
%
*
t
t
t
1
|
|
|
3
»
'
t
i
7'
t
i
i
I
>
.
I
'
r
|
I
.
.
',
\
I
I
4
Spartina Phrag
River
E
W
Oct. '76
-
I
2
5
^
*
j
j
<
i
*
<
i
i
t
|
7 8
*
r '<'
> i
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
> >
> '
t *
» >
4 '
/ i
* <
II
>$ '
Ifi
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
t
1
1
t
1
r
i y. '**
' % 2
1 Z y
1 X v
» 2 2
9 Z *
III
9 10 13
4 1
t
<
Spartina Phrag
River
Mar
E
2 5
»
»
7 8
y
9 10
Spartloa
W River
E
W
. '77 Oct. '77
Figure A-5.Diameter (cm)
-------
-45
-35
-25
i
-15
i
.
l
i
i
i
-5
i
.
i
i
Station
Oiled
Cut
Don. Species
Location
Time
r
' ,
\\
!
I
i!
', '
]
r
.
,
-
|
|
'
'
'
"
.
.
3
4
Phraq
I
2
5
T
I
[
7
8
9
Spartina
River
E
!
/
X
/
1
f
/
I ;
!
i
^
>
r i
i
t
s
>
>
>
^
>
/
/
>
/
/
^
/
i
+
>
/
i
, ^
>
, ^
, i
, <
. ^
i ^
f
, '
f
i f
, J
i '
» J
.
\
i
r
|
f
'
,
,
1
,
i
,
t
,
,
t
,
.
i
,
r
,
i
|
r
.
\
; 2
1!
1 « ^
10
f
W
July '76
1
3
t
'
'
.-
*
j
t
/
/
/
4
3hrag
^iver
2
5
7
8
i
9
i
10
Spartina
Oct.
E
W
'76
1
I
3
^
4
Phrag
2
5
7
Sparti
River
Mar.
8
na
E
77
9
10
W
'
t
'
*
'
'
t
*
*
*
'
*
1
t
'
'
1
1
1
1
.
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
»
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
t
i
i
i
»
i
M
1 !
5 ^ :
LI
1
3
.
,
,
>
^_
p
1
I
.
1
|
f
t
f
t
>
i
'
1
4
}hrag
?
-
_
l'
5
7
8
I
9 10
Spartina
^iver
E
W
July '77
Figure A-6. Individual Stem Volume (on3)
-------
Table A-3
HARSH SOIL INVERTEBRATE POPULATIONS
Habitat:
Sediment:
Flushing:*
Overflow
Throughput
Location:
Treatment:
Polychaetes
July '76
Oltgochaetes
Molluscs
Crustaceans
Insects
Polychaetes
Oct. '76
OKgochaetes
Molluscs
Crustaceans
Insects
Polychaetes
Mar. '77
OUgochaetes
Molluscs
Crustaceans
Insects
Polychoetes
Jul. '77
Oligochdctcs
Molluscs
Crustaceans
Insects
Station 1
Phragmites
Firm
Low
High
River
Oiled
64
258
0
3
0
0
65
0
6
0
4
38
0
0
0
0
n
\
0
0
Station 2
Spartlna marsh
Firm
Low
High
River
Oiled i Cut
6
533
0
1
0
0
3
0
1
0
0
75
0
0
0
0
90
0
0
0
Station 3
Phragmites
Firm
Lew
High
River
None
0
22
0
5
1
0
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Station 4
Phragmites
Firm
Low
High
River
Cut
2
36
1
28
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
17
0
4
0
4
07
0
1
0
Station 6 Station 7
Mudflat Sparttna Harsh
Soft Soft
Low Low
Low Low
E E
Oiled None
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
0
32
1
3
41
0
3
0
9
no
47
10
0
Station 8 Station 11 Tide
Spartlna Harsh Mudflat
Soft Soft
Moderate Low
Low Low
E U
Oiled Oiled
809
29
1
0 1.2.3.4:Low
54 6.11:Higrt
227
448
0 Low
19
1
0
61
0 Low
2
0
49
6
1 Low
2
0
Overflow « degree to which the plants themselves are flushed by tidal flows
Throughput * rate at which surrounding waters are removed from the marsh system.
-------
00
Table A-4
HARSH SOIL FAUHA: NUMBER OF INVERTEBRATE GENERA AIIO INDIVIDUALS. AND INVERTEBRATE DIVERSITY INDEX
July '76
Oct. '76
liar. '77
Jul. '77
Habitat:
Sedincnt:
Flushing:*
Overflow
Throughput
Location:
Treatment:
! Genera
Individuals
Diversity
Index**
/ Genera
1 Individuals
| Diversity
[ Index*"
1 Genera
Individuals
Diversity
Index**
(Genera
Individuals
(Diversity
Index"*
Station 1
Phragmites
Firm
Low
High
Rjver
Oiled
e
344
1.346
5
71
1.362
4
42
.800
4
73
.723
Station 2
Spartina marsh
Firm
Low
High
River
Oiled t Cut
11
542
.584
3
4
1.040
3
75
.555
2
100
.325
Station 3
Phragmites
Firm
Low
High
River
Hone
7
28
1.188
4
4
1.3B6
0
0
Undefined
0
0
Undefined
Station 4 Station 6 Station 7 Station 8 Station 11
Phragmites Mudflat Spartina Marsh Spartina Harsh lludflat
Firm Soft Soft Soft Soft
Low Low Low Moderate Low
High Low Low Low Low
River E E E »
Cut Oiled Hone Oiled Oiled
700 6
67 0 893
1.211 Undefined -443
2 6 9
8 67 692
.562 1-345 1.197
5 6 4
21 47 63
1.273 .838 .823
4 7 5
92 1U4 58
.503 1.219 .002
Tide
l,2.3,4:Low
6.11:High
Low
Low
Low
Overflow = degree to which the plants themselves are flushed by tidal flows.
Throughtput rate at which surrounding waters are removed from the marsh system.
'Shannon-Weaver
-------
(£1
Table A-5
Observed Changes in Soil Surface Elevation at Sedimentation Stakes (cm)
Station
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
Description
Uncut oiled
river
Cut oiled
river
Uncut unoi led
tributary
Cut unoi led
tributary
Uncut oiled
river bend
Uncut unoi led
interior marsh
Uncut oi led
interior marsh
Uncut unoi led
interior marsh
Uncut oi led
interior marsh
July 1976
to
October 1976
* 1.3
- 1.2
- 3.2
+ 0.6
- 0.6
» 1.3
+ 2.5
+12.1
* 2.6
INTERIOR
October 1976
to
March 1977
-1.3
+0.6
-1.3
-2.5
0.0
-0.6
-1.3
MARKER
March 1977
to
July 1977
0.0
--
0.0
+ 0.6
0.0
0.0
+1.3
July 1976
Net to
Change October 1976
0.0 - 2.5
-4.5 - 1.8
-1.9 + 1.3
-0.6 + 0.3
+0.7 + 2.5
+ 3.1
-22.5
+2.6 + 7.6
OUTER MARKER
October 1976 March 1977
to to
March 1977 July 1977
- 0.6 -0.7
..
-15.9
+ 1.9 0.0
- 2.2 0.0
- 1.9 1.9
+ 3.8 -0.6
..
Net
Change
-3.8
-.
--
-0.6
-1.9
+ 2.5
+ 6.3
--
..
-------
Table A-6
Observed Changes in Position of Shoreline Break-in-Slope (en)
July 1976 October 1976 March 1977
to to to Net
Station Description October 1976 March 1977 July 1977 Change
1
2
3
4
5
Uncut oiled
river
Cut oiled
river
Uncut unoiled
tributary
Cut unoiled
tributary
Uncut oiled
river bend
- 3.8
-115.6
- 7.6
- 3.2
+ 1.3
-1.9
+1.3
-4.5
-3.8
+2.6
+ 3.9
-17.1
+ 8.9
+ 1.2
- 1.8
-209.6
- 29.2
+ 1.9
+ 5.1
50
-------
- 0
--50
--TOO
Distance From
Initial Location
(cm)
Station 5
Station 4
*Stat1on 1
Station 3
' (lost marker) Station 2
-150 .
Time
July '76
Oct. '76
Mar. '77
July '77
Figure A-7. Position of Bank Edge vs. Time
51
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-78-109
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
RESPONSE OF A SALT MARSH TO OIL SPILL AND CLEANUP:
Biotic and Erosional Effects in the Hackensack
Meadowlands, New Jersey .
5. REPORT DATE
June 1978 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
Phillip C. Dibner
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
URS COMPANY
155 Bovet Road
San Mateo, California
EHE 623
94402
11. CONTRACT/qOetKT NO.
68-03-2160
12. SPONSORING AGENCV NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory-Cin. OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinatti. Ohio 452fi8
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final 5/76 - 12/7L
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This study addresses the biological and erosional response of portions of the
Hackensack Meadowlands estuarine marsh to the Wellen Oil Company number 6 crude
oil spill of late May 1976, and the subsequent cleanup operations. Cleanup
included cutting and removal of oiled grasses of the species Spartina alterm'flora
from the bank of the Hackensack River. Data were gathered from several loca-
tions along the river bank and in the inner marsh during four sampling sessions,
at approximately 4 month intervals, throughout the year following the spill.
The productivity of the marsh plants, the composition of marsh soil invertebrate
communities, the presence of oil in the substrate, and erosional trends were
monitored. Results suggest that cutting heavily oiled Spartina soon after
contamination saved the plants from dying by root suffocation. However, the
foot traffic associated with cutting is implicated as having made the river
bank susceptible to severe erosion by boat wakes and other sources of erosive
energy. It is concluded that cutting is only desirable in a limited range of
circumstances, determined by the characteristics of the contaminating oil, the
biology of affected plants, and the time of year.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Substrates
Swamps
Invertebrates
Grasses
Erosion
Cleanup
Hackensack Meadowlands
New Jersey
Oil Spill
Pragmites communis
Spartina alterniflora
Salt Marsh
43F
68D
91A
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
21. NO. OF PAGES
62
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
52
U.S. GOVERNMENT HINTING OFFICE: 1978-757-140/1351 Region No. 5-11
------- |