United States Environmental Protection Agency EPA-600/ 8-82-021 August 1982 Research and Development SEPA Impact of Man on the Coastal Environment g I u C* «s> .d a «v* o 5
38/j
Figure 2. The depth profile of elemental carbon (charcoal) in a Lake Michigan sedi-
ment. The ages were determined by Pb-210 geochronology.
On the other hand, one component of the sediments, quartz, the source of which is
dominantly natural, decreased markedly in concentration in the recently deposited
strata, as compared with pre-industrial revolution values. The fall-off in concentra-
tion amounted to about 20 percent and resulted from the increased fluxes of fly ash
and associated debris to the deposit site from industrial activities.
There are a continually increasing number of studies illustrating similar environ-
mental histories of pollutants based upon records in sediments. Of importance is the
knowledge that the historical records are available, especially for those substances
that are recognized as toxic well after the time of their initial introduction to the envi-
ronment. In addition, knowledge about the persistence of organic materials in the
marine environment can be drawn from their persistence in the sediments.
THE STEPPING STONES
In the past three decades, during which the problems of marine pollution have
been identified, knowledge about the oceans has grown dramatically. A part of this
knowledge has emerged from pollution studies. For example, the importance of
atmospheric transport of organic materials from the continents to the oceans was
acknowledged following studies on the dispersal of DDT and the polychlorinated
biphenyls. The prevalence of methylated species of metals and metalloids in sea-
waters, sediments, and organisms was recognized from investigations that evolved
from the methyl mercury poisoning epidemics in Japan.
Some of the concepts that emerged duringthis period have guided many pollution
studies and have provided stepping stones for developing strategies for the disposal
of wastes in the sea. Several of these are considered here.
Bioaccumulation
Some species of organisms have the unique ability to extract from their environ-
ment and concentrate polluting materials that can affect their own health or the
health of the organisms that consume them, including human beings.
The concentration factors for marine organisms, the ratio of the concentration of
a given species in the organisms on a wet weight basis to the concentration in sea-
water, can rise to levels of hundreds of thousands. For example, ruthenium, one of
whose radioisotopes is involved in the laverbread story, has a concentration factor
for phytoplankton on the order of 200.000 ( Lowman et al„ 1971 ). As a consequence
of such enrichments, biological transport is an important factor in governing the
distribution of some elements in seawater. Lowman et al. indicate that the diurnal
vertical migration of organisms, fecal pellet production, moulting, and death have an
overall effect of moving biomass from surface to deeper waters. For pollutants that
are bioaccumulated, the dispersion by vertical transport, especially in highly pro-
ductive waters, can result in their rapid dilution. On the other hand, such mobiliza-
tion can carry pollutants to the benthos where they can impact upon the communi-
ties therein.
Residence Times
It is often essential to know the average period of time that a substance spends in
one of the reservoirs of the marine environment the water, organisms, and
sediments, for example — in order to predict the fate of pollutants. The concept of
residence time gained momentum during the initial considerations of the disposition
of artificially produced radionuclides in the oceans. The marine environment was
envisaged as consisting of a number of reservoirs or boxes, various water masses, the
phytoplankton, and so on. The transfer of materials from one reservoir to another
was assumed to occur through first order kinetics (Craig, 1957).
Of special interest is the concept of biological residence time or half-life. Experi-
ments to determine half-life can develop relationships between an organism and the
environmental concentration. There is a wide spectrum of biological half-lives.
Smaller marine organisms, including phytoplankton and zooplankton, have biologi-
cal half-lives on the order of hours ( Lowman et al.. 1 97 1 ). For methyl mercury in a
human being, the value is about 90 days. Values of years or decades might be
expected for transuranics in human bone. Knowing a biological half-life for a sub-
stance and estimating future exposure levels can make possible predictions for future
body burdens.
Studies of the association of a pollutant with a reservoir, be it an atmospheric wind
system or a water body, have emphasized the widespread dispersals of a pollutant in
the marine environment and have provided techniques to calculate residence times.
A pollutant may be injected into the environment in one country and impact upon
another, perhaps even in another continent. Part of the DDT sprayed upon agricul-
tural crops in Africa is transported by the northeast trade winds to the Caribbean.
Radioactive debris from the explosion of a Chinese nuclear device in May 1965 was
detected at sampling sites in Tokyo and Fayetville, Arizona, during two circum-
navigations of the earth. The average velocity of the wind transport was about 16
10
m sec (52 ft sec) in the tropospheric jet streams. The residence time for the debris in
the atmosphere was about 2 weeks. Of importance is the delivery of these materials to
the ocean system along the paths of the prevailing jet streams.
Speciation and State
The speciation and the state (solid, liquid, gaseous, or colloidal) of an element are
important characteristics in governing the residence time and its bioaccumulation.
For example, uranium exists in both dissolved and particulate phases in ocean water.
The two forms in coastal waters can be identified by their U-234, U-238 ratio (Hodge
et al., 1979). Some organisms such as scallops preferably accumulate the particulate
form, which is a thousand-fold lower in concentration than the dissolved form.
Others such as mussels prefer the dissolved form for uptake. Thus, organismic
concentration factors must be related to the particular form in which the element
occurs.
Where the various states of an element can be determined with relative ease, the
speciation can be a very vexing task. The experimental determinations of the
speciation of most elements are quite limited. The species of lead introduced to the
marine environment following the combustion of lead alkyls in gasolines may be
quite different from the naturally occurring species. As a consequence, their
behavior in coastal waters, especially in regard to uptake by organisms, may not be
predictable from knowledge about those of lead introduced in the major sedimentary
cycle.
Analytical Techniques
In the last half of the 1970s, there has been a minor revolution in our ability to
assay trace metals in coastal waters (Bruland, 1980). Improvements both in the
sampling of seawaters without the introduction of contamination from the ships,
hydrographic wires or sampling devices, and in laboratory analytical techniques
resulted in new wisdom about the concentration and distribution of metals in the
water column. Concentrations of cadmium, zinc, nickel, and copper were found to
be one to three orders of magnitude lower than the values previously reported.
Further, it was found that the sea water concentrations of a number of these elements
were governed by biological processes. Their abundance profiles, in some cases as a
function of depth, appeared to follow those of nutrients such as phosphorus, silicon,
and nitrogen.
The improvement in analytical techniques recalls the work of Haber( 1928) who in
the 1920s reduced the generally accepted values of gold in seawater by about three
orders of magnitude. His laboratory precautions and his sampling techniques
provided a model for future workers. However, the need for care was somehow over-
looked in the following decades until the studies of Claire Patterson at the California
Institute of Technology, who, with his co-workers, established new standards in
analytical techniques and sampling devices that permitted the accurate determina-
tion of lead levels in seawater.
These recent investigations of trace metal abundances have emphasized the impor-
tance of societal contributions to the oceans. The coastal waters of industrial areas
have received greater fluxes of metals as a consequence of industrial and domestic
discharges. But of greater concern is the possibility that marine organisms are
sensitive to slight increases of these very low (nanomolar) levels of metals. Anderson
and Morel ( 1978), for example, report that the dinoflagellate Gonyaulax tamarensis
becomes nonmotile at 0.1 nanomolar additions of cupric iron. Nonmotile cells do
not divide or grow larger. These are concentrations that are sometimes found in
coastal waters.
1 I
Marine Biochemistry
The increased understanding of the uptake, metabolism, and effects of pollutants
in the marine biosphere has given us a basis for assessing potential effects and
formulating control measures. New definitions of toxicity have evolved and field
measurements for toxic effects on some organisms are now possible.
Extensive work has been performed on the pathways of metals through marine
organisms, and it has been well summarized recently by George ( 1980). For phyto-
plankton and shellfish, the initial uptake of dissolved phases is consistent with
passive diffusion, i.e., an initial adsorption to an exposed mucous sheet or cell
membrane, followed by diffusion and binding to intracellular components. Metals
can also be taken up in particulate form from food, which may be of equal or greater
importance than the accumulation of dissolved forms. Some metals are bound
nonspecifically to cystosolic proteins. Excessive amounts of a metal may be
detoxified in a variety of ways. In some cases they are stored in sulfate or phosphate
granules, or directed to the shell, byssal threads, or carapaces.
The studies on the marine biochemistry of halogenated and petroleum hydro-
carbons have paralleled those of heavy metals. Copepods enzymatically metabolize
petroleum hydrocarbons to hydroxylated forms that are later excreted (Lee, 1975).
These organisms can take up dissolved or particulate forms of the hydrocarbons
from water or from food. The pollutants concentrate in the livers or gall bladders of
fish and are subsequently discharged in the urine or feces (Lee et al., 1972).
THE TITRATION
Over the past three decades, environmental scientists have identified a large
number of polluting substances entering the oceans and potentially capable of inter-
fering with public health, the vitality of marine organisms, and the nonliving
resources of the sea. Those responsible for the management of the coastal environ-
ment have been able to react in decades or less to available information from the
scientists. Thus, the experiences with marine pollution and with marine chemistry
can act as an information base for considering the abilities of the marine environ-
ment to accept some of the large-scale wastes of human beings. Much of the material
in the following presentation derives from the deliberations of 70 scientists at the
Crystal Mountain Workshop, held in August 1979 (NOAA, 1980).
The assimilative capacity of a marine water body may be defined as that amount of
a given material that can be contained within a body of sea water without producing
an unacceptable impact, be it upon livingorganisms or upon the nonliving resources.
This amount, essentially determined by a titration of the polluting substances in the
discharged material with the water body becomes evident at an endpoint. Pollutant
concentrations that are determined before the endpoint is reached are checkpoints.
The most extensive set of endpoints for individual pollutants has evolved from arti-
ficial radioactivity studies. For example, the unacceptable concentration of
ruthenium-106 in the seaweed Porphyra, taken from the seawaters adjacent to the
Windscaie Reprocessing Plant in the United Kingdom, would constitute an end-
point. The 0.5 ppm level of mercury in fish provides an endpoint that protects the
heavy fish-eating populations of the world.
With the titration concept, models have been constructed to seek out the assimila-
tive capacities of seawater utilizing existing data (NOAA, 1980). Although such
models will be refined with additional data, theirconstructionemphasiz.es that there
is a scientific basis for regulating the discharge of wastes to coastal waters.
The overall conclusion from the Crystal Mountain Workshop is that the waste
capacity of U.S. coastal waters is not now fully used. For example, the largest U.S.
industrial dumpsite (Site 106 off the coast of New Jersey), which receives about
800,000 m (1,048,000 yd ) year of titanium dioxide production wastes, organic
chemical wastes, and water treatment materials, is not used to its total assimilative
12
capacity. Here the endpoint is defined as an unacceptable disturbance to the
community of marine organisms. The waters of the Southern California Bight have
successfully accommodated the waste discharges from the highly industrialized and
populated (11 million people) adjacent land areas for the past 20 years without
unacceptable effects as determined by studies on the marine plant and animal com-
munities. The most important sources of pollutants are five large municipal waste-
water outfalls that discharge about 8 billion 1/day (2 billion gal/ day). Increased
amounts of metals and nutrients are evident in the Bight waters, as well as in the
sedimentary records. Amounts of organic particulates have also risen as a
consequence of sewage discharges. These organic phases appear to be incorporated
into the planktonic food web without impact.
In two of the studied areas, Puget Sound and the New York Bight, there is evi-
dence that the assimilative capacities for some substances may have been reached or
exceeded.
Twenty million persons live in the lands adjacent to the New York Bight. It is one
of the most intensively used coastal regions of the world. Its assimilative capacity for
dumped excavation dirt and construction debris was exceeded in the late 1800s and
shoaling of the channels interfered with the passage of ships. Four pollutants were
examined for their potential effects upon the Bight: microorganisms, nitrogen-
containing biostimulants, polychlorinated biphenyls, and cadmium. Of these, only
cadmium appeared to have reached unacceptable levels. For this metal, an endpoint
of 5.00 ppb in marine waters has been proposed on the basis that, at this
concentration, some oysters accumulate enough of the metal to nauseate human
oyster eaters. The highest estimates of cadmium now present in the waters are
substantially lower than this amount. Nevertheless, a model using reasonable
partition coefficients between shellfish and suspended sediments indicates that
organisms growing in heavily contaminated dredge spoils might exceed safe limits
for their body burdens of cadmium.
Puget Sound receives about 25 percent of the wastewater from the municipal treat-
ment plant (METRO), which discharges between 470 and 1,279 nr (61 1 and 1,675
yd3)/ day. There is some evidence that the recent toxic dinoflagellate blooms in the
central basin may be related to these discharges as may one incident of oyster larvae
mortality. In previous years, pulp mill discharges caused depressions in oxygen
concentrations, changes in the structure of benthic communities, and toxic effects
upon marine organisms. Increased and effective treatment facilities, combined with
a leveling off in activity, has resulted in reduced environmental stresses.
ENDPOINTS
In pollution monitoring, the endpoints have usually involved a single substance or
a collective of similar substances such as the polychlorinated biphenyls or DDT and
its degradation products. Exposure levels in seawaters are generally determined
indirectly, primarily through the use of sentinel organisms, although concentrations
in waters have been directly determined. For a determination of the assimilative
capacity, often the material to be discharged contains a variety of pollutants, the
analyses of which would be extremely costly. It appears that impacts of such
materials upon the well-being of marine organisms can provide endpoints, especially
those upon animal health. Some biological effects are already well established, while
others will require further assessment.
Bivalves, especially mussels, have several attributes for use as indicators of general
biological stress. First of all, they are cosmopolitan, and often a given species can be
found over a wide latitudinal spectrum. Secondly, they are sturdy creatures and can
endure considerable physiological or biological stress without mortality. Still, when
adaptive mechanisms fail to respond, a measurable impact may be found. A
sampling of such impacts taken from Bayne et al. (1980) will be cited in the following
paragraphs.
13
Bayne and his colleagues argue that physiological responses that may be inte-
grated into the ability of the organism to grow have been shown to be effective
indices in both field and laboratory studies. This study of "scope for growth" seeks
measurements of the changes in feeding rate, absorption efficiency, excretion, and
respiration rates and introduces them into a balanced energy equation. A decline in
growth potential is a clear sign of a stress. Any statistically valid evidence of a
decrease might constitute an endpoint.
Metals in excessive amounts are known to interfere with enzyme systems. For
example, cadmium and mercury can displace copper or zinc from metalloenzymes
such that the enzyme is rendered inactive. However, in many organisms detoxifi-
cation activity is a response to metal stresses. This mechanism involves the binding of
the metal to the low molecular weight protein, metallothionen. The amounts of the
metals bound to metallothionen will increase with increasing exposure levels to a
saturation state. At this point, the metals will spill over into the higher molecular
proteins in the enzyme pool. When the binding capacity of metallothionen is sur-
passed, measurable toxic effects occur such as a decreased growth rate. The spillover
point then corresponds to the endpoint. M ussels are known to detoxify heavy metals
with metallothionen.
The partitioning of metals into lysosomes in kidney, digestive gland, gut, gill, and
blood cells is presented as a detoxifying mechanism for mussels (Lowe and Moore,
1979). As the levels of metals in the lysosomes increase in mussels, the lysosomal
latency decreases. As a result, hydrolytic enzymes are released into the cytoplasm.
Further, as the storage capacity of the lysosome for metals is exceeded, it appears
that the metals arealso released into the cytoplasm. Thus, studies on the composition
of the cytoplasm can be revealing of stress resulting from collectives of polluting
metals.
Some empirical measurements seem to reflect the stress syndrome. For example,
Jeffries ( 1972) indicates that clams reflect pollutant exposures through their taurine
to glycine ratios. Acute stresses are indicated when the molar ratio is greater than 5.
Normal values are 3 or less, while chronic stresses may be described when the ratio
varies between 3 and 5. The theoretical basis for this phenomenon has yet to be
discovered.
Histopathological techniques show great promise in establishing the relative
health of animals (Bayne et al., 1980). Recent investigations with mussels from both
polluted and nonpolluted environments have revealed a variety of conditions that in
general can be identified by different investigators studying the same samples:
( I) hyaline degeneration of the connective tissue of the gills; (2) parasite burdens;
(3) increases in the number of mucous secretory cells; (4) gonadal neoplasms; (5)
hemopoietic neoplasms; (6) granulocytomas; (7) hemocytic infiltration of tissues;
and (8) loss of synchrony in digestive tissues.
Other avenues might be taken to reveal general stress conditions that so far have
been only modestly investigated. Such genetic indices as the breakage of chromo-
somes or chromatids might be useful. So far studies with' marine organisms have
been carried out with pollutant levels that are generally higher than those ever
observed in the environment. Still, such effects might be useful in assessing impacts
upon organisms exposed to increased levels of pollution.
THE FUTURE NEEDS
Past activities in marine pollution provide a substantial basis for the consideration
of waste disposal in the oceans. Clearly, for any given material awaiting disposal,
three options are possible: disposal to the atmosphere, to the oceans, or to land. Each
has its advantages and disadvantages based on scientific, social, and economic
considerations. For example, the burning at sea of toxic halogenated hydrocarbons
and the discharge of the resultant water, carbon dioxide, and hydrochloric acid to
the atmosphere appears to be a rational option. The storage of high-level radioactive
14
wastes, where possible retrieval is essential, dictates land sites for appropriate recep-
tacles. Clearly, the marine environment has accommodated domestic and industrial
wastes in the past. With increasing affluence in many countries and with an
increasing world population, the disposal needs for societal wastes will also increase.
What additional information do we need to consider oceanic discharge with the
caveat that we maintain the oceanic resources in renewable states?
The simplest answer presupposes increases in our knowledge of the marine
environment, chemical, physical, biological and geological, for all contribute to our
abilitv to evaluate the ocean's capacity for accepting wastes.
But some specific problems, often pollutant-specific or site-specific, need to be
resolved. Since the impact upon the health of the communities of organisms will
determine most endpoints. clearly we require simple, direct indicators of stress. I
have pointed out that there are general stress indices already available; still, there
remains the identification of specific indices responsive to individual pollutants or
classes of pollutants, say, the low molecular halocarbons or chlorophenols.
Some background problems continue to haunt us. What are the long-term effects
of low levels of pollutants on life in the sea? What are the synergistic and antagonistic
effects of collectives of pollutants or of individual pollutants? What are the amounts
and compositions of discharged wastes going to the oceans today? What are the
anticipated amounts for the near future'.'
But also there are scientific developments that will aid in our study of the
titrations. Remote sensing may be of great value in studying the dispersion of wastes
after introduction and the description of effects, for instance, eutrophication. where
one species of algae is replaced by another. Our abilities to analyze smaller and
smaller amounts of pollutants and to collect environmental samples without con-
tamination have continually developed over the past years. There appears to be no
let-up in this area. Finally, the growing community of political scientists, econo-
mists, and sociologists demands an evaluation of external costs in considerations
of oceanic discharge, information essential to ascertain whether the oceans can
compete with the atmosphere or land in receiving specific societal discards.
REFERENCES
Anderson, D. M.. and F. M. M. Morel. 1978. Copper sensitivity of Gunvaulax tamaren-
sis. Limnol. Ocean. 23:283-296.
Anon. 1973. Methyl mercury in fish. A toxicologic epidemiologic evaluation of risks. Re-
port from an expert group. Noridsk Hydienish Tidskrift, Supplementum 4.
Bayne. B.. et al. 1980. Mussel health. The international mussel watch, December 1978. U.S.
National Academy of Sciences.
Bruland, K. W. 1980. Oceanographic distributions of cadmium, zinc, nickel and copper in
the North Pacific. Earth Planet. Sci. Letters 47:176-198.
Butler. P. A. and R. L. Schutzmann. 1978. Residues of pesticides and PCBs in estuarine fish.
1972-1976. Pesticides Monitoring Journal 12:51-59.
Butler. P. A.. C. D. Kennedy, and R. L. Schutzmann. 1978. Pesticide residues in estu-
arine mollusks. 1977 versus 1972. National Pesticide Monitoring Program. Pesticides
Monitoring Journal 12:99-101.
Cottam. C, and E. Higgins. 1946. DDT: its effect on fish and wildlife. U.S. Department of
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Circular 1 I.
Craig. H. 1957. Isotopic tracer techniques for measurement of physical processes in the sea
and atmosphere. In: The effects of atomic radiation on oceanography and fisheries. U.S.
National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council Publication 551:103-120.
George. S.G. 1980. Correlation and metal accumulation in mussels with the mechanisms of
uptake, metabolism and detoxification: biochemical and ultrastructural studies. Abstracts.
VI International Svmposium on Chemistry of the Mediterrranean, Rovinj, Yugoslavia.
Goldberg. E. D. 1979. Pollution history of some U.S. estuaries. Proceedings of Aquatic Envi-
ronment in Pacific Region. August 21-23. 1978. SCOPE Academia Sinica, Taipei, Re-
public of China, pp. 8-18.
Goldberg. E. D., et al. 1978. The mussel watch. Environmental Conservation 5:105-125.
15
Goldberg, E. D., .1. J. Griffin, M. Koide, and V. Hodge. 1980. The impact of fossil fuel com-
bustion on the sediments of Lake Michigan. Manuscript.
Haber, F. 1928. Das gold im meere. Z. ges. Erdkunde 3 : 1 — 12.
Hodge, V. F., M. Koide, and E. D. Goldberg. 1979. Particulate uranium, plutonium and polo-
nium in the biogeochemistries of the coastal zone. Nature 277:206-209.
Holden. A. V. 1973. International cooperative study of organochlorine and mercury resi-
dues in wildlife, 1969-1971. Pesticides Monitoring Journal 7:37-52.
Hunt, G. J. 1979. Radioactivity in surface and coastal waters of the British Isles, 1977. Aquatic
Environment Monitoring Report Number 3, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Directorate of Fisheries Research ISSN 0142-2499, Lowestoft, United Kingdom.
Jefferies, H. P. 1972. A stress syndrome in the hard clam, Mercenaria mervenaria. J. In-
vert. Pathol. 20:242-251.
Lee, R. F. 1975. Fate of petroleum hydrocarbons in marine zooplankton. In: Proceedings of
the 1975 Conference on Prevention and Control of Oil Pollution. American Petroleum
Inst., Washington DC. pp. 549-553.
Lee, R. F., R. Sauerheber, and G. H. Dobbs. 1972. Uptake, metabolism and discharge
of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by marine fish. Mar. Biol. 17:201-208.
Lowe, D. M., and M. N. Moore. 1959. The cytolochemical distributions of their zinc
(Zn II) and iron (Fe III) in the common mussel. Mytilus eihtlis, and their relationship
with lysosomes. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc, United Kingdom 59:851-858.
I.owman, F. G., T. R. Rice, and F. A. Richards. 1971. Accumulation and redistribution
of radionuclides by marine organisms. In: Radioactivity in the marine environment. U.S.
National Academy of Sciences, pp. 161-199.
NOAA. 1979. Proceedings of a workshop on scientific problems relating to ocean pol-
lution. Estes Park, CO. July 10-14.
NOAA. 1979. The assimilative capacity of seawater for society wastes. Proceedings of a
workshop held at Crystal Mountain. WA, July 30-August 4.
Preston, A., and N. T: Mitchell. 1973. Evaluation of public radiation exposure from the con-
trolled marine disposal of radioactive waste (with special reference to the United
Kingdom). In: Radioactive contamination of the marine environment. International
Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, pp. 575-593.
Revelle, R., and M. B. Schaefer. 1957. General considerations concerning the ocean as a re-
ceptacle for artificially radioactive materials. In: The effects of atomic radiation on
oceanography and fisheries. U.S. National Academy of Sciences-National Research
Council Publication 551:1-25.
Risebrough, R. 1972. Cited in: Birds and pollution, an editorial article. Nature 240:148.
16
POLLUTION IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
A CASE HISTORY AND ASSESSMENT
L. Eugene Cronin
Director, Chesapeake Research Consortium, Inc.
1419 Forest Drive
Annapolis, Maryland 21403
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The opinions expressed are those of the author, not necessarily of the Trustees or
institutions of the Chesapeake Research Consortium. The library, excellent pro-
fessional cadre and general experience of the Consortium have been most valuable.
They are highly appreciated. This paper was not prepared on the time of the
Consortium.
POLLUTION IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY: A CASE HISTORY AND
ASSESSMENT
THE BAY
The tidal portion of the Chesapeake Bay system is the largest and most complex
estuary in the United States and the most valuable to human interests. It is a drowned
river valley system with many tributaries. Density gradients drive the two-layered
circulation typical of such estuaries. Detailed description is not appropriate in this
summary, since it has been provided in other publications (Chesapeake Research
Consortium, 1977; Corps of Engineers, 1974; Corps of Engineers. 1977; Cronin, L.,
1967; Cronin, L.. 1976; Cronin, L., 1978; Cronin, W., 1971; Kuo et al., 1975;
Lippson, 1973; Schubel, 1972).
Table 1 summarizes physical characteristics, the human population of the basin,
some of the principal uses, and projections for the future. The tidal Bay system lies in
Maryland and Virginia, but the drainage basin also includes portions of New York,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and West Virginia. The Bay is
complex, highly productive, valuable for many purposes, and subject to rapid
expansion in usages, many of which currently cause pollution or create conflicts. The
Bay is outlined in Figure 1, and the names of places cited in this review are noted.
The Chesapeake is the site and center of rapid change and vigorous human
activity. Most pollution problems are related to the sites of human population and
industrial activity; Figure 2 illustrates the locations of people and industry. While
this report emphasizes history, it is appropriate to include the best available projec-
tion of future distributions in Figure 3. The total population is expected to double,
with related increases in all aspects ot pollution.
Even for the last decade, it is not feasible to report the full history of pollution
pressures, water quality, new learning, legislation, and action by government and the
public in a relatively short summary. The more limited purposes of this report are to
identify the principal pollutants, note exceptional progress and problems related to
17
Table 1. Chesapeake Bay— Physical and Biological Characteristics,
Selected Usages and Basin Population (Corps of Engineers,
1974; Corps of Engineers, 1977; Cronin, W., 1971; Lippson,
1973)
Physical
Length:
Width:
Depth:
Surface area:
Shoreline:
Volume:
290 km (180 mi)
4-48 km (5-30 mi)
53 m maximum (175 ft)
8.4 m average open Bay (27.6 ft)
6.5 m average including tributaries (21 2 ft)
6,500 km2 open Bay (2,500 mi2)
1 1,500 km2 with tributaries (4400 mi2)
13,000 km (8,100 mi)
52 billion m3 for the open Bay, low tide
74 billion m3 total, low tide
Biological species:
>2700
Estimated
Usage:
ca. 1975
2020
Recreation Activity, days
59,000,000
258,000,000
Commercial shipping, tons
1 60,000,000
300,000,000
Commercial fishing, kg
175,000,000
!
MSY
may be exceeded
Recreational fishing, kg
175,000,000?
fo
r many species
Water supply through
systems, mgd
872
2320
Electricity generated, Gwh
68,000
882,000
Drainage:
Drainage area - sq
mi.
Mean annual flow, cfs
Susquehanna River (435 mi)
27,510
39,235
Potomac River (407 mi)
14,670
13,770
Rappahannock River (184 mi)
2,715
2,940
York River (130 mi)
2,660
2,660
James River (434 mi)
10,102
10,945
TOTAL BASIN
64,160*
76.890
Range in mean annual flow
49,000
(1965)
- 131,800(1972)
Extreme low flow (week of
Sept. 6, 1966)
4,720
*Exclusive of Bay and tributaries.
each, comment on the general state of the Bay and of our present comprehension of it
as a system, identify critical research needs for achievement of adequate protection
and enhancement of the uses that are desired of this estuarine system, and,
fortunately, describe several innovative and important improvements that have
occurred during the past decade.
It is relevant to note that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has
completed approximately three-fourths of a 5-year, $25 million Chesapeake Bay
Program sponsored by Senator Charles McC. Mathias of Maryland. Principal
emphasis is on toxic materials, submerged aquatic vegetation, excessive enrichment,
and on improved management of water quality. About 60 principal investigators at
30 agencies and institutions are involved in about 45 projects. Only a Summary of
Projects (Wells etal.. 1 979) and one technical report have been published at this time,
although many preliminary data reports are available. Relevant studies will be noted
throughout this report and identified as parts of the "Chesapeake Bay Program."
Figure 1. The Chesapeake Bay
19
Figure 2. Chesapeake Bay region, indicating land used for residential and commercial
activities as of 1973 (Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, 1977).
20
Figure 3. Chesapeake Bay region, indicating land used for residential and commercial
activities as projected for 2020 (Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, 1977).
2!
On the basis of this review, a general assessment will be expressed on the question
whether efforts to manage pollutants to this estuary are sufficient.
POLLUTION PROBLEMS AND PROGRESS
It is impossible to quantify the total set of pollutants reaching a large estuary under
intensive use. It is difficult even to summarize them in general terms, with reasonable
assurance that all anthropogenic materials and conditions injurious to present and
potential uses of the system, i.e., all of the pollutants, have been included. A study of
potential industrial chemicals, based on permits issued and on combined knowledge
of chemical engineers, indicates that at least 545 compounds must be "disposed" of
(GCA, 1979). In this case, there is good evidence of the input of hundreds or perhaps
thousands of chemical compounds, plus pathogenic organisms, sediments, solid
matter, color, heat, radioactivity, and materials that place demands on the oxygen
supply in the Bay. The principal detrimental introductions merit comment, with
emphasis on progress achieved and problems remaining.
Polluting materials and conditions are not introduced in neat and discrete cate-
gories. The content of the following subsections necessarily overlaps, but the
groupings may be helpful in reviewing a tangle of issues.
Sewage
The scale of pollution problems from sewage is determined by the size of human
population and related industrial activity, the composition of material entering
sewage treatment plants, the types and degree of treatment, the quantity and pattern
of release of liquid effluents, the placement of solid residue, and the total character of
the receiving waters. All of these factors vary throughout the Chesapeake Bay
system, but there is an increasing body of knowledge about magnitude and effects
from these complex materials. The problems created by increasing release of par-
tially treated sewage into the tributaries and main stream of the Chesapeake have
long been recognized (Corps of Engineers, 1974; Corps of Engineers, 1977; Cronin,
L„ 1967; Ellis, 1973; Fish and Wildlife Service, 1970; McKewen, 1972; Schubel,
1972). They are concentrated near the metropolitan areas at Baltimore, Washington.
Norfolk-Newport News-Hampton, and Richmond, but may appear near any
population center, as in the Patuxent River where no city exists but where treatment
plants concentrate regional wastes and add them to agricultural drainage. The
multiple effects of domestic wastes on uses of the Bay are illustrated in Figure 4 (Ellis,
1973).
The magnitude and trends of sewage input are partially documented. The most
comprehensive description and summary was produced in 1974 for all tidal waters of
the Bay system (Brush, 1974). At that time, 35 plants using primary treatment and
207 employing secondary treatment released 945 million gallons per day (mgd) of
treated wastes into the Bay that, when combined with 360 mgd from the Susque-
hanna, was 2.8 percent of the total freshwater input. The Corps of Engineers' Future
Conditions Report projects that municipal wastewater treatment will increase (for
the defined Bay region) from about 950 mgd in 1975 to about 1 ,770 mgd around the
year 2000- an 85 percent increase (Corps of Engineers, 1977). Other numbers are
available, but they are not comparable with these because only the report by Brush is
based on both scanning of permits and direct observation of many of the plants.
The only major sewage treatment system providing advanced waste treatment is at
Blue Plains, near Washington, D.C., with a design capacity of 309 mgd (Corps of
Engineers, 1977). Advanced waste treatment is planned for several other sites, but
review of costs against provable benefits is causing reassessments (Jensen, 1976).
In specific tributaries, estimates have been made of total loading. About 25
percent of the freshwater at the mouth of the James River is from sewage outfalls
(Austin, 1979). For the Patuxent River, one estimate indicated that 74 percent of the
low freshwater flow to the estuary in 1980 consisted of treated sewage. This is likely
to increase to 84 percent by the year 2000 (Wilson. 1977).
22
"O
CD
CD
-z "o
C/)
p c
o
— CD
Q.
C — 1
to
O
Q
O
CD
C/)
°f
CD
0)
CD
-C
■ —
o
Q
)
Q
CO
UJ
CD
GQ
c/>
(D
c/)
i_
CD
C
o
c/>
CD
C/>
CD
CD
E
o
T3
C_>
CD
Q.
E
C
CD
E
c
o
L-
'>
c
LU
CD
iZ
23
The components of sewage effluents are, as always, -diverse in response to inputs.
Nutrients in many forms are present and so are trace metals, synthetic organic com-
pounds, chlorine, detergents, particulate materials, and unnumbered other minor
components. Washington, a residential and office-related city, produces at least 6
metric tons of phosphorus and 10 metric tons of nitrogen per day, but there are rela-
tively few metals or other constituents of industrial origin (Schubel, 1972). Baltimore
and the Norfolk area release larger relative quantities of nonnutrient chemicals.
The effects and management alternatives for some of these materials have been
studied in the Chesapeake Bay region. Sewage sludges may not be deposited over-
board in the system, and the potential alternatives of landfill, incineration, spraying
for agricultural use, drying or composting with wood chips for land application, use
as fuel, and dumping at sea have all been explored. Some are used, but no economi-
cally accepted and environmentally satisfactory method or set of methods for
dealing with increasing quantities on a long-term basis has been found for the large
population centers. The effects of sewage sludges on estuarine and freshwater fish
have been summarized (Tsai, 1975).
Bacteria and viruses are introduced from septic tank overflow, overloaded treat-
ment systems, and co-mingled sewage and surface water, usually during heavy rain-
fall. In the Chesapeake, the states maintain routine monitoring of shellfish beds,
swimming beaches, and other sites by standardized coliform-based techniques
supplemented by other testing. The area of shellfish beds closed because of exces-
sive coliform counts has declined from about 385,000 acres in 1970 to about 240,000
acres in 1980; Maryland reduced its closure areas from 320,000 acres to 70,000 acres
in that period (Garreis, 1980 and Wiley, 1980). Lowered numbers indicate both
improvement in preventing contamination and reduction in the impact on the
shellfish industry. The standard indicator techniques are recognized to be useful for
some purposes, although both scientists and health officials recognize their
substantial limitations (Colwell, 1977; Colwell and Kapper, 1978).
Recent research has partially documented the presence of potential human patho-
gens in the estuary, apparently from sewage sources (Colwell, 1977). Fecal coliforms
can be very abundant, 24,000/ 100 ml of water, in Baltimore Harbor; Salmonella is
frequently associated with fecal coliform organisms and is widespread, especially
near cities. Clostridium botulinum, the agent of botulism, has been found at random
sites over the Bay in sediments. Enteroviruses have received attention, but their signi-
ficance in the Bay is not established. Many antibiotic-resistant bacteria have been
observed in samples from shellfish and water. Fish have yielded preliminary evidence
of contamination and possible infection by human pathogens near areas of sewer
outfalls (Janssen and Meyers, 1968).
The principal impression from review is that, while efforts are made to protect
human health, understanding of bacteria and viruses in the Chesapeake Bay is primi-
tive and inadequate, both for those from sewage and those endemic to the system
that play extremely important roles in the processes of the Bay (Colwell, 1977;
Cronin et al., 1977). There are dangers in that situation.
Nutrients
The effects of nutrients on the Bay system and the costs of wise management of
them present some of the most pervasive, complex, and perplexing of pollution
problems. Nutrients arise from natural decay and runoff, from industrial activities,
from disturbed land used for agriculture or development, and from sewage treatment
plants. The present and potential effects of excessive enrichment have frequently
been cited as a "major" problem or "the most serious" problem threatening the
health and usefulness of the Bay system (Cronin, L., 1967; Cronin, L., et al., 1977;
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1969; McKewen, 1972; Perkinson
et al., 1973; Pritchard, 1971; Schubel, 1972).
The national and global literature on nutrients is vast, and a large number of
surveys, monitoring observations, research projects, and analyses have been
completed in the Chesapeake Bay region (Champ, 1977; Corps of Engineers, 1974;
24
Corps of Engineers, 1977; Flemer and Heinle, 1974; Hydroscience, 1975; Jaworski,
1981; Jensen, 1976; Kuo et al., 1975; Laniak, 1979; Lippson and Lippson, 1979;
Pheiffer et al., 1972; Roberts et al., 1975; Schubel, 1972; Sullivan et al., 1977; Tsai,
1975; Williamson, 1972). It would be inappropriate to detail all of these here;
summary comments will be presented instead. Fortunately, much information has
been synthesized in the last decade, so that highly useful analyses exist. These and
several unusual specific cases will be reviewed.
An ambitious effort has been made to review all of the useful field data from the
total Chesapeake Bay since 1913-1916, when the first were obtained ( Heinle et al., in
press). This review demonstrates the great difficulties inherent in such an effort.
Records are lost; analytic techniques have been revolutionized; very few studies are
sustained for decades; computerized sets are often incompatible, etc. It is possible to
provide the following summary, however:
• The various portions of a large estuary differ fundamentally in components and
processes related to nutrients and cannot be successfully lumped together under a
single criterion or set of standards.
• The inherent variability of the estuarine system in response to rainfall, tempera-
ture, storms, and other factors vastly complicates interpretation of long-term
data.
• Water quality in much of the total Chesapeake system has changed in recent
decades because of increased nutrient enrichment.
• In the upper and middle Chesapeake Bay proper, and in several tributaries,
nutrient content and algal concentrations have increased and light penetration
has decreased.
• In some tributaries, available oxygen in deeper waters has been reduced, and
annual variations in concentrations of oxygen are now more extreme.
• The lower Bay has been little affected, although the effects of enrichment have
progressed down the main stem and tributaries over time.
• If concentration of Chlorophyll-a is used as the best available, albeit imperfect,
gross indicator of threat from nutrient enrichment, the following guidelines can
be stated for the Chesapeake Bay system:
1) Estuarine waters of salinity less than 8 to 12 percent are moderately en-
riched if they have summer chlorophyll levels of 30 to 60 ugl l1; they are
highly enriched, with potential of damage, if summer levels exceed 60
Mg/r'.
2) Waters of salinity higher than 8 to 1 2 percent are moderately enriched at
20 to 40 jug/ 1" in summer, and highly enriched at levels above 40 jug/ 1~'.
• The quality of algal populations may be as important as quantity, and each may
at times be an objective in management.
• Reduction of nutrient input in the Potomac system has been demonstrated to be
effective in improving the lower river and upper estuary.
• Either nitrogen or phosphorus may control production ratio in various areas of
lower salinity, but nitrogen appears to dominate the mid- and lower Bay.
• The Bay has indeed been affected, but not yet to a critical degree except in some
tributaries.
• Demographic projections and the present evidence of undesired effects are
portents of possible serious future losses of quality and usefulness of parts of the
Chesapeake Bay system.
A different, recent, brief summary has emphasized the very great role of sediments
in the nutrient sequence in the Chesapeake Bay and other estuaries (Bertine et al.,
1980).
Much of the nutrient entering the system becomes associated with the sediment
and is deposited but may be regenerated from that sink at later dates. The processes
involved are partially understood and include sediment deposition, biological
activity in the sediment, resuspension, and interface transport. In the Chesapeake,
25
the sediments return much of their nutrient burden to the aquatic systems, but a
portion remains in the long-term sink.
Only limited and comparatively trivial efforts are yet underway to recapture
nutrients and use them advantageously, despite the abundance of soil in the region
impoverished by long cultivation of corn and tobacco.
Efforts to model and budget the nutrient sequence in the Chesapeake and its tribu-
taries have been progressive and promise value in management. Among them:
• A two-dimensional quasi-linearized steady-state model of nutrient-phytoplank-
ton interactions in the upper Bay was constructed to guide allocations (Hydro-
science, Inc., 1975). It indicates that phosphorus is thecontrolling nutrient above
the Potomac and that the primary nutrient sources are the Baltimore
metropolitan area and the Susquehanna River. Much of the introduced nutrient
is retained in sediments near the source.
• A one-dimensional tidal-time model was employed. Its purpose was to assist esti-
mation of the environmental effects resulting from complete implementation of
the Water Quality Control Act of 1972 and its amendments (Kuo et al., 1975).
• Applying model results to projection of biological impacts from changing the
loading of nutrients and from oxygen-demanding pollutants yielded estimates.
But this application also demonstrated the overwhelming complexity of such
efforts (Roberts et al., 1975).
• From elementary raw data, a mass balance nutrient budget for the total Chesa-
peake Bay was constructed on a monthly basis (Laniak, 1979). Yearly loadings of
nitrogen and phosphorus from point sources (the principal source of phospho-
rus), the tributaries (principal for nitrogen), and the air were estimated, as were
outputs by advection and ocean loss. Seventy percent of the 1,212 X 10s kg/yr
(2,666 X 10' lb/ yr) of total nitrogen received and 99 percent of the 164 X 10s kg/yr
(360 X 10" lb/yr) of total phosphorus apparently remain in the Bay. Substantial
seasonal variation occurs. The results are interpreted in relation to adequate
monitoring of nutrient-related materials and processes.
• A major analysis of the sources of nutrients and the scale of "eutrophication"
problems in estuaries included, among others, consideration of the external
budget of the Chesapeake (Jaworski, in press). In 1971, 41,400 kg day (91.080
lb day) of phosphorus (69 percent from wastewater discharges) and 297,900
kg/ day (655,380 lb day) of nitrogen (68 percent from upper basin land runoff)
entered the system. Variation between months and years, changes in the forms of
nitrogen and phosphorus, and the gradients with distance downstream are dis-
cussed and related to a suggested scale of"eutrophication"and related to parts of
the Bay and the total system.
From its inception, the Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay
Program has recognized and emphasized the importance of excessive nutrients in the
Bay system. Under the inappropriate term "eutrophication" it has arranged for an
important and valuable series of studies and research projects. None of the final
reports are yet available, but the studies include (Wells et al., 1979 and Davies, 1980):
• Definition of Chesapeake Bay Problems of Excessive Enrichment or Eutrophi-
cation
• An Assessment on Nonpoint Source Discharge, Pequea Creek Basin, Lancaster
County. Pennsylvania
• Evaluation of Water Quality Management Tools in the Chester River Basin
• Intensive Watershed Study (Patuxent River Basin)
• Evaluation of Management Tools in Two Chesapeake Bay Watersheds in
Virginia
• Modeling Philosophy and Approach for Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed
Studies
• Fall Line Monitoring of the Potomac, Susquehanna, and James Rivers
• Assessment of Nutrients from Various Sources
26
• Land Use and Point Source Nutrient Loading in the Chesapeake Bay Region
• Chesapeake Bay Circulation Model
• Water Quality Laboratory for Chesapeake Bay and Its Subestuaries at Hampton
Institute
• Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Dynamics
• Chesapeake Bay Circulation and Water Quality Mathematical Models (two
projects)
• Development of Assessment Tool to Evaluate Nutrient Transport and Fate in the
Lower Susquehanna River
• Intensive Watershed Study (Chester River Basin)
• A Water Quality Modeling Study of the Chesapeake Bay Watersheds.
Growth in understanding and in the ability to manage nutrients rationally in the
Chesapeake Bay region will be substantial. Since the population is predicted to
double within about 40 years — with probable further subsequent increases — the
need for adequate knowledge and effective management remains urgent.
Sediments
As in every estuary, there is continuous input of materials that become sediments.
These arise from transport from the total basin by river water, from erosion of
shores, from the products of biological activity, and, in some cases, from the sea.
Sediments are deleterious to uses through filling of channels, progressive deposition
in headwater areas, interference with light penetration, and smothering of benthic
biota. Smothering is an occasionally serious event (Chesapeake Research
Consortium, 1976), and reduced light penetration is under evaluation as a
contributor to the extensive diminution of submerged aquatic vegetation over much
of Chesapeake Bay since 1971 (Stevenson and Confer, 1978).
Inputs into the Chesapeake system are not precisely known, but the main stem of
the Bay has been estimated to receive about 1.07 X 106 tons per year from the Sus-
quehanna, .60 X 106 tons from shoreline erosion, an unknown quantity from bio-
logical sources, and about .20 X 106 tons from the ocean (Schubel and Carter, 1976).
The large tributaries are sinks for their own materials, and part of the Bay load
moves into them. The Bay is filling at an average rate of about .8 mm/year — about
3.5 to 4.0 mm/ year at its head (Schubel and Carter, 1976). The reservoirs of the Sus-
quehanna River dams were long considered to be sinks, but Tropical Storm Agnes
flushed much of the accumulation in 3 days (Chesapeake Research Consortium,
1976).
The contribution of human activity to the input, dispersion, deposition, and resus-
pension and redeposition of sediments is not clear. In general, land clearing for agri-
culture or construction increases riverine input. Excessive nutrients increase plank-
ton biological production, and wakes from ships and boats add to natural shoreline
erosion. Particulate industrial wastes and urban runoff add sediments, and upland
alterations that modify the "flashiness" of river flow will affect the sediment input
and distribution. These have not been quantified for this estuary, but some of these
human effects have been discussed (Schubel and Williams, 1976; Schubel and Wise,
|979).
The most important problems related to sediments are those associated with the
continuous and external filling of channels where shipping or boating is desired and
with the remarkable affinity of sediments for chemicals. Sediments have long been
recognized as the source of large-scale economic and, more recently, environmental
problems in the Chesapeake Bay region, where major cities (Baltimore, Washington.
Richmond) lie on the fall line, above sites of natural deposition (Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, 1969). Channels must be wide and deep enough
for shipping, and the beam, depth, and number of ships continue to increase (Villa et
al., 1977). Maintenance of depths is a cost of pollution to the degree that the
accumulating sediments result from human activities. In the Chesapeake, present
channels require maintenance dredging of about 7,600,000 m\ yr (10,000,000
27
yd'/ year). Proposed new channels and enlargements would generate about
197,600,000 nr (260,000,000 yd1), including about 76,000.000 nr (100,000,000 yd')
for the authorized completion of a 15 m (50 ft) channel from Baltimore to the
Atlantic Ocean (McGarry. 1976; Villa et al., 1977). Although dredging can release
suspended sediments and sometimes associated chemicals, the greatest associated
problems are related to placement of the dredged materials. On-land sites are
expensive and limited. The states of Virginia and Maryland as well as federal
agencies object strenuously to wetland placement. Overboard placement is only
conservatively permitted — and only for relatively clean materials, not defined as
contaminated. And theseasonand dredgingtechniquesare controlled. In Maryland,
it is specifically illegal to place any of the sediments from Baltimore Harbor,
containing large quantities of many pollutants as the result of centuries of casual use,
overboard in the waters of Chesapeake Bay (Tsai etal., 1979). Long and acrimonious
arguments have followed a proposal to create a large diked containment structure at
Hart and Miller Islands to receive about 39,520.000 m3 (52,000,000 yd'), of
contaminated sediments and the project has not yet received full approval.
Proposals to place contaminated sediments on old spoil sites and dewater them to
produce useful land have not been enthusiastically received. Special concern has
been expressed over the chemical characteristics of the water released. Meanwhile,
Virginia has utilized a large diked area at Craney Island in the James River, but the
capacity of that facility may soon be saturated (Villa et al., 1977).
Potential pollution from the dredging and placement of sediments has therefore
become a principal issue in the Chesapeake Bay region, as in all coastal areas where
major shipping occurs. This has been ranked as a major regional issue for the North
and Mid-Atlantic regions (Horn et al., 1980). The input of sediment continues, but
adequate accepted long-term solutions have not yet been found.
Sediments have, however, a different important relation to pollution in the Chesa-
peake Bay and other estuaries in that they are frequently associated, physically or
chemically, with chemical materials introduced to or present in the estuary.
Nutrients, heavy metals, pesticides, and many other inorganic and organic elements
and compounds sorb to or chemically react with sedimentary particles. The source,
routes, rates, and effects of these materials are largely determined by the related
processes for the sediments.
The general components and processes for some sediment-related chemical
materials are known for the Chesapeake Bay system, but new investigations are
underway in the Chesapeake Bay Program (Office of Research and Develop-
ment EPA, 1980). These include intensive studies of the processes of nutrient
deposition; nutrient modification in and release from sediments; research on the dis-
tribution, physical properties, budgets, and rates of sediments and sedimentation;
research on the transport, fate, and transformation of metals related to suspended
and deposited sediments; development of improved techniques for extraction and
analysis of organic compounds in sediments and tissues; studies of the chemistry of
pore waters; and examination of the relationships among sediments, associated
chemicals, and the organisms living in the sediments. Only preliminary reports are
presently available from these system-wide studies. They should make enormous
contributions to the understanding of sediments and pollutants in the Chesapeake.
Flow Alteration
Modification of the flow into an estuary has not traditionally been considered as
possible pollution, but it falls under a somewhat extended interpretation of intro-
duction of deleterious conditions as the result of human activity. The many impor-
tant influences of freshwater input upon estuaries were recently reviewed in an exten-
sive literature summary (Snedaker et al., 1977) and were the subject of a major
symposium (Coastal Ecosystem Project, 1980). Both demonstrate that substantial
changes in the quantity or pattern of input can have enormous effects on the
physical, chemical, and biological content and processes of an estuary — and there-
fore upon the human uses of it.
28
The Chesapeake was subjected to the effects of Tropical Storm Agnes in June of
1972. The storm, which had been of hurricane strength before it reached the Mid-
Atlantic region, was obviously not a human activity, but it is relevant because it
affected pollutants and revealed fundamental patterns of pollutant behavior and
effects. Average basin rainfall over a 3-day period was in excess of 1 2 cm (5 in), with
approximately one-third of the area receiving 30 cm (12 in) and isolated locations
recording 46 cm ( 18 in) (Chesapeake Research Consortium, 1976). Theeffects of this
100- to 200-year storm event were dramatic, and observations were exceptionally
thorough because the scientific community and, later, the management agencies
recognized the importance of the event and arranged for extensive detailed observa-
tion. The Virginia Institute of Marine Science, the Chesapeake Biological Labora-
tory of the University of Maryland, and Chesapeake Bay Institute of the Johns
Hopkins University were especially prompt and effective in their research, and the
Corps of Engineers provided essential financial assistance. Highlights of observa-
tions include:
• The dominating Susquehanna had 7-day flows 15.5 times greater than normal,
peaking at 1 ,130,000 cfs. The James flowed at as much as 24.4 times normal and
the Potomac at 19.7 times normal.
• The Susquehanna debouched more sediment in 10 days than during the preceding
10, perhaps 25 or more, years, about 31 million metric tons against an annual
average of one-half to one million tons.
• Dissolved nitrates and nitrite were 2 to 3 times normal in the northern half, but
little affected downstream. Phosphate remained near normal. The nutrients were
rapidly lost to the sediments.
• Trace metal and pesticide concentrations were not drastically changed. Oil input
was substantial.
• Soft-shell clams, oysters, and some aquatic plants suffered heavy mortalities. Fin-
fish, crabs, and hard clams were relatively unaffected.
• Bacterial contamination forced temporary closure of the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries to the harvest of shellfish, but reopening was possible within weeks or
a few months.
• The entire biological community was disrupted, but most effects had disappeared
after 2 years.
• The Chesapeake Bay ecosystem demonstrated great resilience to this extreme
natural event.
• The storm increased heterotrophic activity in parts of the Bay, reduced phyto-
plankton in the upper Bay but stimulated greater production in the lower Bay,
raised nitrogen in the lower estuary, moderated algal production in some areas by
shading, and was followed by reduction in dissolved oxygen concentration
(Chesapeake Research Consortium, 1976).
The studies are detailed in the last-named reference by a large number of authors
who cannot be individually credited here. They provided a remarkable record and
achieved important advances in estuarine science.
An artificially constructed waterway, the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal, was
dug in 1829, converted from a locked sequence to a sea-level canal in 1927, and
enlarged from 8 by 75 m to 10 by 135 m (27 by 250 ft to 35 by 450 ft) in the period
between 1958 and 1972. In 1974, nearly 11,000 vessels carrying 12,400,000 tons
transited the canal. Concern over the possible environmental effects of enlargement,
including possible diversion of large volumes at periods of low flow, resulted in
extensive research and analysis of the hydrologic patterns created and of effects on
the biota (Cronin, 1977). It was concluded that the physical hydrography, chemical
environment, and biotic populations of the canal and areas of approach had been
substantially altered. Long-term net transport from the Chesapeake was estimated
to increase from 900 to about 2,450 cfs in a highly complicated hydrologic sequence
with eastward and westward maximum flows of about 48,800 and 37,900 cfs. A new
29
site for intensive spawning of striped bass was created by building the sea-level canal,
but it may transport eggs and larvae into unfavorable water. Biota are generally
diverse and abundant. Later analysis has shown that longer periods of hydrographic
observations than those of this study are required for accurate estimation of the net
transport in this very dynamic pipeline between estuaries. The best present estimate
is that there is probably little long-term net transport despite massive short-term
movement in response to tides and meteorological events (Pritchard. 1980).
Future modifications in freshwater flow are of serious concern. Demand for
consumptive loss from the principal tributaries for irrigation, consumptive
industrial uses, and modest export for water supply outside of the Chesapeake
watershed may reach 5,360 cfs in summer by 2020 (Robinson, 1980). In contrast,
the low flow of record, experienced in 1 966, was 4,720 cfs and the long-term average
for the driest month, September, is 28,400 cfs. The Baltimore District of the Corps of
Engineers has initiated extensive studies involving the Chesapeake Bay Hydraulic
Model and contracted biological analysis to estimate the changes in salinity that
might result from future losses and the effects on specific biota and on the uses of the
Bay system (Shea et al., 1980; Withers, 1979). At the time of writing, the effects have
been simulated in the huge model, the largest estuarine hydraulic model in the world,
but analysis has not been completed.
Heat
Heat, in the form of wasted energy from large power plants fired by fossil fuels or
nuclear energy, caused some of the most vociferous arguments in the Chesapeake
Bay region in the late 1960s and through the 1970s. They focused on the proposals to
construct nuclear facilities at Calvert Cliffs near Cove Point and at Douglas Point in
the center of the striped bass spawning areas of the Potomac River. Concern
centered on effects of heat on migratory aquatic species and on entrainment losses
from the combined impacts of mechanical, thermal, and chemical stresses.
It is not appropriate to detail here the long and convoluted efforts to achieve
adequate environmental protection along with adequate supplies of electricity.
Several principal events and trends have emerged:
• High temperatures have been precluded by general restriction of thermal rise
across condenser systems to 10° F. This has, however, required enormous
quantities of water — Calvert Cliffs requires an estimated 5,500 cfs of Bay water,
making it the fourth largest "tributary" of the Bay.
• Large areas are warmed. Calvert Cliffs warms about 500 square miles of water
less than 10° F as heat moves through the water to the atmosphere. Against high
natural variation in termperature, any effects are difficult to identify and
evaluate.
• More recent permits have required cooling towers rather than pass-through
cooling, precluding heating effects on the open system and reducing, but not
eliminating, aquatic losses.
Maryland has had a Power Plant Siting Law since 1971, which provides a tax of
. 1-.3 mil per kw of production. The resultant fund of about $5 to $6 million per year
has been applied in a wide variety of research projects related to generating opera-
tions and their effects as well as in evaluation of proposed sites, monitoring, and
acquisition of potential sites for utilities. About 290 research and study reports have
been supported, most of which deal with estuarine questions. The Second Thermal
Workshop of the U.S. International Biological Program was held at the Chesapeake
Biological Laboratory of the University of Maryland and focused on research in the
Chesapeake Bay and other estuaries (Mihursky and Pearce, 1969). Twenty-nine
papers and workshop summaries were presented. It is not yet possible to determine
whether or not the management of generating plants has eliminated significant
injury to estuarine uses, but it is clearly based on a large and expanding body of
relevant knowledge.
30
Future projections suggest increase in "demand" for electricity for the Chesapeake
Bay Market Area of approximately 13.5 times from about 1975 to 2020 (Corps of
Engineers, 1977). While this projection may be modified by changes in priorities and
costs for fuel, it is clear that effective protection of water quality must indeed be
based upon well-informed and careful management of the facilities.
Spills
Accidental spills and deliberate releases are never fully documented at large
centers of shipping and industry like Baltimore and Norfolk-Newport News, but the
recording and response to these localized accidental releases and to accidents in
transit are improving under 1970 federal direction to the U.S. Coast Guard and im-
proved cleanup programs by Virginia, Maryland, and involved industries.
Petroleum products and toxic chemicals cause the greatest concern, but hundreds of
other materials are sometimes released into the system. The general topic of "Preven-
tion and Control of Spills" was treated extensively by a workshop report and
extended discussion at the Bi-State Conference on the Chesapeake Bavin 1977 (Hess
et al., 1977). In 1975 and 1976 an annual average of 740 spills releasing 334,700
gallons of materials were reported. Petroleum products provided 72 percent, mostly
heavy oils. Several serious groundings and other accidents have occurred, and the
workshop report and others at' that Conference stressed the critical importance of
adequate operating requirements for vessels, safe techniques for transfers, improved
vessel traffic management, better data management, and increased public concern
and action (Hess et al.. 1977; Villa et al., 1977).
Petroleum products have been the center of increased attention. Bulk oil traffic,
about 39,000,000 short tons in 1970, has been projected to double by the year 2020
(Corps of Engineers, 1977). Spills of up to 240,000 gallons in this nearly enclosed,
slowly flushed, biologically useful system have prompted much concern. Drawing
from research and experience both within the Chesapeake region and from other
sources, several summaries and general analyses of probabilities, fate, and effects of
oil spills have been developed. (Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 1977; Cronin, L., 1976;
Farrington, 1977; Hess et al., 1977; Rose, 1974). At least one reviewer noted that oil
spills in the Chesapeake are far below a reported world average of . 16 percent of total
transport and attributed this fact to care in navigation, piloting, handling in port,
and other effective methods of prevention (Cronin, 1976).
The fate of a hypothetical oil spill near the center of the Chesapeake Bay was
modeled with estimation of the sites, kinds, and magnitudes of effects (Kelly. 1976).
A 120.000-gallon crude oil spill might contaminate 144 to 320 km (90 to 200 mi) of
shoreline and substantially damage wetlands, waterfront, and commercially
valuable invertebrates over at least 2 to 4 years. The Bay appears to be on borrowed
time, and a major spill and very serious damage seem inevitable within a decade or so
(Cronin, 1976; Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 1977).
Only one oil refinery is operated in the Bay region, at Yorktown, Virginia. No
catastrophic effects have been reported, but there has been strong opposition to a
refinery proposed in the Baltimore area, a refinery at Portsmouth, Virginia, and a
large oil terminal at Piney Point in the Potomac River. Objections have been based
on the dangers of spillage from transfers and operations, the existence of critically
important aquatic resources near each of these sites, and the probability that delete-
rious effects would last for many years. The Baltimore and Potomac proposals have
been defeated or withdrawn, but the Portsmouth terminal and refinery has, at this
time, passed many local, state, and federal hurdles. It has not yet been constructed
(Chambers. 1979)".
Toxicants
Metals and other chemicals that can be detrimental to uses of the Bay are intro-
duced in sewage and also from industry, accidents, surface runoff, and from the
tributary rivers. One study found that sewage treatment plants introduce about as
much cadmium, copper, zinc, and lead to the Bay system as is received from the
31
tributary rivers (Huggett et al., 1974). For manganese, iron, cobalt, and nickel, the
river inputs substantially exceed treatment plants. Near one large sewage outfall,
concentrations of heavy metals in sediments were 10 to 100 times those in uncon-
taminated areas, indicating that most of the metals were deposited near the source.
Other surveys and studies of heavy metals could not identify the sources, especially in
Baltimore Harbor and Elizabeth River, where large quantities of metals are present
in sediments, but both industries and sewage treatment plants have contributed
(Cronin et al., 1974).
Potentially toxic chemicals are frequently, perhaps continuously, introduced into
the Chesapeake Bay from sources other than sewage treatment plants. They have
been identified as one of the three most serious threats to the health of the Bay
(Huggett et al.. 1977; Cronin et al., 1977). Substantial efforts have been made to
preclude introduction of toxicants, as in the Federal Toxic Substances Control Act
of 1976, Maryland's Safe Disposal of Designated Hazardous Substance Act, and
similar legislation in Virginia (Huggett et al., 1977). While it is by no means certain
that industrial and domestic wastes meet present standards of National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System permit statements, every new industry is required to
assure compliance. Principal problems appear to arise from old industries, old
sewage treatment systems, and the vast accumulations of metals, oils, and
unidentified pollutants in the sediments of Baltimore Harbor, Elizabeth River, and,
to a lesser concentration, other sites ( Jaworski, 1 98 I ; Office of Water Planning and
Standards, 1977; Tsai et al., 1979).
The Environmental Protection Agency's Chesapeake Bay Program gave early and
high priority to some of the problems of toxics in the food chain. They have sup-
ported or are supporting projects on:
• Sedimentology of the Chesapeake Bay
• Baseline Sediment Studies to Determine Distribution, Physical Properties, Sedi-
mentation Budgets, and Rates
• Chesapeake Bay Sediment Trace Metals
• The Characterization of the Chesapeake Bay: A Systematic Analysis of Toxic
Trace Elements
• Investigation of Organic Pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay
• Interstitial Water Chemistry
• Sediment and Pore Water Chemistry
• Monitoring Particle-Associated Toxic Substances and Suspended Sediment in
the Chesapeake Bay
• Fate, Transport, and Transformation of Toxics: Significance of Suspended Sedi-
ment and Fluid Mud
• Animal Sediment Relationship
• The Biogenic Structure of Chesapeake Bay Sediments
• Inventory and Toxicity Prioritization of Industrial Facilities Discharging into the
Chesapeake Bay Basin
• Chemistry of Wet and Dry Fall to Lower Chesapeake Bay
• Aqueous Effluent Concentrations for Biotesting
• Toxic Point Source Assessment of Industrial Discharges to the Chesapeake Bay
Basin
• Biofractionation of Industrial Discharges
• Evaluation of Bioassay Methodology for Application to Chesapeake Bay and
Other Estuaries (Davies, 1980; Office of Research and Development, 1980).
Excellent descriptions of the chemical burden of waters, sediment, and biota will
result, and much is being learned about the sources. Only the last project is directed
toward improved comprehension of the biological effects of toxicants in this and
other estuaries — a critical area for future studies.
Chlorine is the most widely used biocide to disinfect the effluents from sewage
treatment plants, some food processing plants, and other materials. It is also
employed to minimize sliming and fouling in the tubes and pipes of generating
32
stations for production of electricity. Recent figures in Maryland indicate that
chlorine release to Bay water (assuming no degradation) is about 12 million kg/yr
(27 million lb/ yr) from sewage treatment plants and 1 million kg/yr (2.2 million
lb yr) from power generation (Davis and Middaugh, 1977). Perhaps 1 percent of this
becomes halogenated organic compounds and persists in the system. The toxicity of
chlorine and of chlorine-produced oxidants has been established for some Chesa-
peake species, and the larval stages are generally the most susceptible ( Bertine et al.,
1980; Chesapeake Research Consortium, 1977; Davis and Middaugh, 1977; Roberts
et al.. 1979).
Massive kills of four species offish in the James River in 1973 resulted in vigorous
cooperative studies and analyses by state agencies (Douglas, 1979; Virginia Marine
Resources Commission, 1 979). Chlorine and its derivatives were clearly implicated.
Operational improvements in treatment plants, dechlorination, and perhaps the use
of bromine chloride, an effective disinfectant of lower estuarine toxicity, are useful
in reducing mortalities — which were in fact lowered to acceptable levels (LeBlanc et
al., 1978; Douglas, 1979). A chlorination workshop in 1977 provided 16 summaries
of available knowledge of the fate and effects of chlorine, the problems and
techniques involved in analysis of chlorine and residual chemicals, uses in cooling
systems, bioassay of plants and animals, and the behavioral and physiological
responses of estuarine organisms (Block and Helz, 1977).
Recently, concern for chlorine effects has again surfaced, and controversy over the
balancing of protection of public health versus injury to valuable estuarine species is
receiving fresh attention (Horton, 1980). A public conference titled "Chlorine
Bane or Benefit'.'" is scheduled for the spring of 1981.
Herbicides have been used for agricultural purposes, especially in no-till practices,
in increasing quantities in the last decade. No-till practices, which reduce runoff but
require the use of herbicides, began about 1969, and by 1977 application of triazines
in the Bay region reached 1,500 to 15,000 tons, depending upon the estimator (Citi-
zens' Program for the Chesapeake Bay, 1978). A small percentage, on the order of 1.5
to 2.0 percent, may be carried off into water. Some reaches the estuary. In the same
period, submerged aquatic vegetation progressively declined in abundance over
much of the Chesapeake system — about 50 percent in the number of sites (among
625) that were vegetated in Maryland, and extensively in Virginia (Citizens' Program
for the Chesapeake Bay, 1978). The coincidence has been noted and argued
extensively (Cronin et al., 1977). An extensive summary of knowledge about such
vegetation in the Bay noted that these chemicals can injure such plants in laboratory
experiments, that the extent of damage in the Bay system is unknown, and that a
considerable number of other factors may affect submerged aquatic vegetation
(turbidity, salinity, fauna, temperature, sediments, chlorine, nutrients, boating, etc.)
(Stevenson and Confer, 1978). The Chesapeake Bay Program includes related
projects on (Wells et al., 1979; Davis. 1980):
• Distribution of Submerged Vascular Plants in the Chesapeake Bay, Maryland —
1978 and 1979
• Distribution and Abundance of SAV in the Lower Chesapeake Bay, Virginia —
1978 and 1979
• Zostera marina: Biology, Preparation, and Impact of Herbicides
• Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Chesapeake Bay: Its Role in the Bay Eco-
system and Factors Leading to Its Decline
• Assessment of the Potential Impact of Industrial Effluents on Submerged
Aquatic Vegetation
• Effects of Recreational Boating, Turbidity, and Sedimentation Rates in
Relationship to Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
• Factors Affecting and Importance of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Chesa-
peake Bay (Wells et al.. 1979; Davis. 1980).
There are also valuable projects on the functional roles of aquatic vegetation and
their use as habitats for important species.
33
It is to be hoped that the important uncertainties about possible relationships
between valuable agricultural activities and valuable estuarine resources will be
definitively resolved and either corrected or dismissed, as may be appropriate.
Chlorinated hydrocarbons were the subject of both concern and research, and the
knowledge of their effects was brought before Chesapeake Bay interests (Walsh,
1972). Concern has declined along with use, although decay products have been
reported in Bay sediments. Special problems have arisen with the storage of PCBs in
inadequate facilities, the transfer to improved containment, and proposed incinera-
tion, but no serious pollution is known to have occurred.
Radioactivity has not been shown to be detrimental to the uses of the Chesapeake
Bay. There are two nuclear generating stations on the estuary. The well-known Three
Mile Island is in the middle of the largest source of freshwater. Completion of a series
of nuclear plants is underway with some in the series operative and some proposed
on the Susquehanna. Cleanup and decontamination of Three Mile Island have not
been completed, and 2,646,000 1 (700,000 gallons) of highly contaminated water
must be disposed of. Public agencies and the citizens of the Chesapeake area are
deeply concerned but hopeful that the established safety levels for radionuclides are
valid.
The Kepone Saga
Release into the James River of a relatively unknown pesticide developed to
control ants, cockroaches, and Central American banana root borers created an
estuarine catastrophe that will last indefinitely. The later stages of the sequence are
well documented and may be summarized as follows (Associated Press, 1980; Cronin
et al., 1979; Huggett and Bender, 1980; Huggett et al., 1980; Lunsford et al., 1980;
Nichols et al., 1979):
• From 1966 to 1975, Kepone was discharged into the environment, the sewage
treatment system, and the tidal river at Hopewell, Virginia, on the James River.
• Recognition of dangers occurred when employees displayed serious health prob-
lems and subsequent investigation uncovered heavy contamination of soils,
water, and estuarine sediments, and threatening quantities in benthicand pelagic-
organisms.
• Kepone is toxic to many aquatic species, concentrated in a number of species, and
transferred through the food web.
• About 140 kg (308 lb) of Kepone are concentrated in the biota of the system.
• An estimated .5 metric tons now remain in or near the source area. 10.4 metric
tons are distributed in the sediments of the estuary over a distance of 88 km
(55 mi).
• All major components of the James estuary contain Kepone biota, water, and
sediments. The pathways of cycling have been approximated and include plants,
benthos, plankton, nekton, and birds.
• Kepone is highly persistent, and a wide variety of proposed corrective measures
(stabilizations in sediment, covering of sediments, incineration, etc.) are costly
and unfeasible. The least expensive plan would cost over $3 billion.
• The economic impact is enormous, since the river was closed in 1976 to the entire
\aluable recreational and commercial fisheries.
• Modest improvement has occurred, and recreational fisheries are now permitted
to retain their catch and short-exposure fish such as shad can be retained. Medical
tests are reported to show that humans can eliminate Kepone more effectively
than test rats and mice.
• Kepone is slowly buried by more recent sediments in areas of high sedimentation,
but high contamination persists in much of the biota.
• Reexamination of old analytic data and archived samples reveaied the early
history of introduction when the problem was unsuspected (Cronin et al., 1979).
Documentation of the fate, effects, costs, and possible remedial measures has been
exceptionally thorough. Involved investigators have noted that "our ability to
34
correct such widespread contamination is extremely limited both technically and
economically" ( Huggett and Bender, in press) and that "Kepone is an example of but
one of thousands of potentially toxic new substances being manufactured every
year" (Nichols ei al.. 1979).
Ultimately, recommendations for dealing with Kepone rest with the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, working in coordination with Virginia and Mary-
land. This is a massive burden to have resulted from inadequacy in operation, moni-
toring, and regulation.
RECOGNITION OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY AS A SYSTEM
With increasing emphasis, the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries are being
regarded, studied, and managed as a single entity with physical, chemical, and bio-
logical continuity. In an estuarine system of this size, diversity, political subdivision,
and complexity, the approach has been achieved slowly and despite parochial reluc-
tance. The earliest recognition of the Bay's unity came to those navigators who used
the great single transportation network it provided. Subsequently, the scientific
community studied the physical system, the migratory species of invertebrates, fish,
and birds, the chemical continuity, and other aspects that required consideration of
its totality (Chesapeake Research Consortium, 1976; Cronin, L., et a I., 1971 ; Cronin,
W., 1971; Huggett et al., 1977; Kuoetal., 1975; Lynch etal., 1977; McErlean et al.,
1972; Schubel. 1972). There is now broad but incomplete acceptance that "an
ecosystem must be ordered and husbanded within its own terms"( Hedgepeth, 1972),
and that the total Chesapeake is indeed such an ecosystem.
Approach to the entity has been demonstrated in several areas in the last decade. A
series of conferences, supported by the states, citizens' groups, professional societies,
federal agencies, and several coalitions of state and federal agencies all focused on
the total Chesapeake Bay system (American Water Resources Association, 1976;
Bergoffen. 197 1 ; Chesapeake Research Consortium, 1977; National Aeronautic and
Space Administration, 1972; National Aeronautic and Space Administration. 1978;
State of Maryland. 1968; Washington Academy of Sciences, 1972). The reports from
these contain valuable overviews and integrated summaries.
Research analysis and planning have become more comprehensive. The Chesa-
peake Research Consortium, Corps of Engineers, and Environmental Protection
Agency have developed broad program statements and implemented them ( Beers et
al., 1971 ; Office of Research and Development. 1980; Prentiss, 1972). The design of
research for some of the species considers the full estuary (State of Maryland and
Commonwealth of Virginia, 1980). Analysis of important issues and of the
application of research in their resolution has employed the complete Bay region as
the target (Douglas. 1979). Total system models have been attempted for nutrients
(Hydroscience, Inc.. 1975; Jaworski, 1981; Kuo et al., 1975; Laniak, 1979) and one
conceptual ecological model for Chesapeake Bay has been prepared (Green, 1978).
The largest estuarine hydraulic model, a fixed-bed geometrically distorted model at
1:1000 horizontal scale and 1:100 vertical scale, has been constructed, verified, and
employed in an initial series of studies ( McKay, 1976). The model occupies about 9
acres on Kent Island. Numerical analogues for hydrographic behavior and
containment dispersion in one-, two-, and three-dimensional models exist for
various portions of the Bay and for the system (Ulanowicz. 1976). Further
development and application of two- and three-dimensional models are
incorporated in the Chesapeake Bay Program. Models are essential for theoretical
and practical purposes, and these values are being employed and will be enhanced.
Data systems abound. Twelve institutional systems have been identified ( Kohlen-
stein. 1972). and a large number of files exist for specific purposes. Quality control
varies as well as purpose and scope, and no unifying solution has yet been effected.
The most optimistic possibility for unification appears to be in a Primary Chesa-
35
peake Bay Data Bank, employing common and accepted data units, terms, and
programs, plus local or institutional specialized data systems as compatible as
possible with each other and with the Primary Bank (Cronin et at., 1979). This has
not been achieved and is not in sight.
The most recent effort to unify consideration and study of Chesapeake Bay is the
"Chesapeake Bay Research Coordination Act of 1980" introduced by Senator C.
McC. Mathias and Representative Robert Bauman, both of Maryland. It is
intended to assure effective research planning and coordination of all Bay-related
research supported by federal funds (Congress of the United States, 1980). The law
did not go into effect until October 1981.
Summaries and syntheses are increasingly available. In addition to, or as part of,
the conference reports noted above:
• Individual authors have presented overviews of the physical, chemical, and bio-
logical knowledge of the Bay and commented on its condition (Cronin, L., 1967;
Cronin, L., 1978; Cronin et al., 1977; Lippson and Lippson, 1979; Pheiffer et al.,
1972; Schubel, 1972).
• Two atlases have been completed, presenting general data on the biota and envi-
ronment of the Maryland portion of the Bay and detailed information on the
Potomac River estuary (Lippson, 1973; Lippson et al., 1980).
• Teams have developed concensus summaries, interpretations, and recommen-
dations on various problem areas and on the "condition" of the Bay (Cronin et
al., 1977; Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1969; Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1970; Hess et al., 1977; Hugget et al., 1977; Lynch et al., 1977;
Sullivan et al., 1977).
• Historical trends have been examined (Heinle et al., in press).
• One valiant description has been completed of the present (ca. 1973) and future
(2000 and 2020) conditions of the Bay "including, but not limited to the
following: navigation, fisheries, flood control, noxious weeds, water pollution,
water quality control, beach erosion, and recreation" (Corps of Engineers,
Baltimore District, 1974, 1977).
Federal law treats the Chesapeake Bay as a unit, but administrative practices do
not always do so. The tidal Chesapeake system is in one region ( 1 1 1) for many federal
agencies, divided between two in several, and split into three districts of the Corps of
Engineers (Friedlander, 1979). The State of Maryland and the Commonwealth of
Virginia know well where the boundaries are, but each frequently refers to its portion
of the system as "the Chesapeake Bay" (Wallace et al., 1972).
IMPROVED MANAGEMENT OF POLLUTION
Since implementation of The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (PL
92-500) and its amendments, major changes have occurred in the management of
pollutants in and around Chesapeake Bay. Maryland and Virginia are "designated"
states, with programs accepted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and
therefore hold primary responsibilities for water quality. Virginia created a State
Water Control Board in 1972 that has expanded substantially and has vigorously
attacked Bay problems. Maryland has undergone several administration changes,
and primary responsibility for water quality was recently placed in a new Office of
Environmental Programs in the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, which
is also responsible for air quality, hazardous substances, and waste management.
Both states are negotiating agreements with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency for more efficient planning, management, and technical assistance. Efficient
meshing of federal and state responsibilities, action, and funding is difficult, but it is
being seriously attempted.
In the last decade, the federal government has made three major attempts to
improve understanding and management of waterquality in the Chesapeake region.
The Corps of Engineers' Chesapeake Bay Study, authorized in 1965, assembled its
36
Existing Conditions Report in 1974 and Future Conditions Report in 1977, sup-
ported three years of hydrographic study of the Bay, constructed the Chesapeake
Bay Model, and began its use with outside support for some of the studies (Corps of
Engineers, Baltimore District, 1974, 1977; McKay, 1976; Shea et al., 1980; Withers,
1979). The National Science Foundation, through its program on Research Applied
to National Needs (RANN), funded the operation of the Chesapeake Research
Consortium, established in 1972 by The Johns Hopkins University, University of
Maryland, Smithsonian Institution, and Virginia Institute of Marine Science to
conduct interdisciplinary and interinstitutional research on principal problems, and
supported that effort over a period of about 4 years. In fiscal year 1976, Congress di-
rected the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a 5-year, $25 million
Chesapeake Bay Program of research directed to assess the principal adverse factors
impacting the Bay's environment, improve related data systems, and assist in better
management of the system (Office of Research and Development/ EPA, 1980). The
products of the RANN investment are completed and widely disseminated; the
Corps' reports are readily available, but the model studies have not been completed;
and the results of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's program are
beginning to appear. Such uneven federal funding of relatively short-term attention
to long-term problems has important value, but is inadequate in meeting the needs of
the region (Cronin, 1979).
Other important federal and state-federal programs were also initiated. Both
Virginia and Maryland established Sea Grant Programs and Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Programs in cooperation with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Sea Grant Programs appear to be well established. Maryland has
established a Coastal Resources Division as a permanent center for coastal zone
efforts, while Virginia has chosen to forego federal support and leave these matters
as tasks of various agencies.
Research efforts have escalated, albeit unevenly and largely in response to funding
opportunities. The Chesapeake Research Consortium functions through the four
largest academic centers, with about two-thirds of the non-federal scientists of the
area and the principal research facilities. It exists to identify the problems of the
region, to conduct multi-institutional research toward their solution, and to assist
management agencies. The Smithsonian Institution has established a Chesapeake
Bay Center for Environmental Studies, and the University of Maryland has re-
grouped its Bay-related programs to create a Center for Environmental and
Estuarine Studies as a new branch of the University. All of these and a large number
of other federal laboratories, academic institutions, consulting firms, and other
organizations have participated in research related to pollution and the Bay eco-
system (Chesapeake Research Consortium, 1978).
The states of Maryland and Virginia have undertaken cooperative ventures that
are highly innovative in this region where state rights are rigorously protected. As the
result of a study by the Chesapeake Bay Legislative Advisory Commission, created
by legislative action in 1978, a permanent Chesapeake Bay Commission was estab-
lished in 1980 by the two states. Present roles are limited to review of long-term
needs, advisement of state legislative and executive branches and the federal govern-
ment, and assessment of coordinated efforts between the states and with the federal
government (Gartlan et al., 1980). In 1979. a complementary Bi-State Working
Committee was established for continuing direct interaction between the executive
agencies of Virginia and Maryland. The Commission and Committee may be highly
important in assessment and control of pollution.
It is appropriate to note that a Susquehanna River Basin Commission and Inter-
state Commission on the Potomac River exist, so that there are now complementary
commissions for the entire watershed. The managerial network would appear to be
in place. The achievements obviously lie in the future and cannot now be assessed.
37
PUBLICITY, EDUCATION, PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, AND
PERCEPTIONS
Notable improvements have occurred in the availability of reliable information
about Chesapeake Bay, media attention, and in the involvement of its many publics
in the processes of management. The Chesapeake Bay in Maryland — an Alias of
Natural Resources, presenting extensive material in readable narration and excellent
graphics, is widely used in schools as well as by scientists and managers ( Lippson,
1973). An Environmental Atlas of the Potomac Estuary contains similar graphics,
detailed summary of many aspects of this sub-estuary, text-like presentations on the
physical, chemical, and especially the biological aspects of estuaries in rich detail,
and a set of folio maps on cultural landmarks, topography, sediments, aquatic vege-
tation, benthos, spawning region migrations, wastewater, and boat waste discharges
(Lippson et al.. 1980). This is the finest estuarine treatment of this type. No single
complete description and interpretation of Chesapeake Bay has yet been achieved,
but interest has been expressed.
Movies, slide shows, booklets, and other formal educational materials are
increasingly available, as are newsletters, brochures, and periodic information from
citizens' groups, agencies, and commissions. Some school systems have units on
Chesapeake Bay. Frequent press attention is given to news and views about the Bay,
and major features appear from time to time in local and regional papers, on tele-
vision, and in the National Geographic and other magazines ( Fisher, 1980; Hoffman,
1979; Kanigel. 1979; Perkinson et al., 1973). These usually deal with specific
problems ( Kepone, nuclear power plants), appreciation of the Bay, the simultaneous
fragility and resilience of the ecosystem, active programs, or general assessment of
conditions and needs.
Public involvement is substantial in several forums. The Chesapeake Bay Foun-
dation (a member organization). Citizens' Program for Chesapeake Bav (an um-
brella for groups), and the Maryland and Virginia Conservation Councils are highly
active. The Chesapeake Bay Program includes one of the largest federal investments
in public participation, supporting extensive forums, mini-grants, information ex-
change and a Citizens' Steering Committee to advise on the program (Wells et al.,
1979; Davis, 1980).
Public opinion on water quality problems and otherenvironmental issues is being
assessed. Pollution was considered in 1971 to be of the greatest importance among
Bay problems, especially from domestic wastes, industrial wastes, pesticides, and oil
spills. Marylanders rated air and water pollution as serious environmental problems
in 1979, with water pollution the more critical (Baltimore Environmental Center.
1980). A Sea Grant-sponsored telephone survey in 1979 found pollution to be the
overriding concern of the citizens sampled with 69 percent ranking it first in relation
to Chesapeake Bay ( Florestano and Rathbun, 1980). Seventy-two percent disagreed
with the statement that the Bay is in good shape. Eighty-four percent feared that an
increase in waterfront industry would injure air and water quality. Vigorous punish-
ment for dumping and pollution was supported. Among other results, the authors
concluded that interest groups are generally in consonance with citizens' opinions,
that few citizen users know about the active interest groups, and that many "interest
groups" are in fact quite small sets of people organized to convey their views to
agencies and to the media. An additional survey indicated that air and water
pollution are of the greatest concern in Maryland, that industrial wastes are thought
to be the major cause of water pollution, that nuclear facilities on the Bay were
opposed by a majority, that citizens are uncertain whether improvements in
environmental conditions have occurred in the past 10 years, but that they expect
improvement in the next 10 (Rathbun and finder, 1980).
38
RESEARCH NEEDS
rhere have been several catalogues of research needs for Chesapeake Bay. in-
cluding those related to pollution (Beers et al., 1971; Chesapeake Research Con-
sortium, 1977; Corps of Engineers. 1977; Ellis, 1973; Office of Research and
Development EPA. 1980). Eight areas of research and related activity merit
emphasis:
1 . Improved comprehension of the components and fundamental processes of the
total Chesapeake Bar system. The physics, chemistry, and biology of the Bav
have received much attention, but there are serious gaps that preclude the
understanding necessary as a basis for adequate management. The routes,
rates, sinks, and effects of materials entering the systems, including pollutants,
are not sufficiently known. The food webs and flows of materials and energy in
them are only grossly described. Knowledge of the requirements of the organ-
isms of the Bay is so meager that only a small number of the 2.700 species larger
than microorganisms can be carried through their full life history in laboratory
culture.
2. Development of technical methods tor converting wasted resources from pol-
lutants to useful materials. Wasted heat and nutrients, chemical wastes,
channel sediments, and the byproducts from processing of wood and foods are
all large-scale pollutants of the Chesapeake Bay with such potentials.
3. Research responsive to the needs recognized by management agencies for
application in meeting short-term and long-term needs. Competent and objec-
tive investigation of a large number of practical and managerial problems is
needed. It must be protected from use as a cosmetic, mere defense of stated
position, and the prostitution of the process of objective research.
4. Improved understanding of the social and economic characteristics of the Bay
region and improved capability to predict the effects of alternative practices.
Pollution control and other management efforts are anthropocentric. but there
is a limited understanding of the social and economic needs, wishes, and trends
of the region. Without it, the danger of misdirected management is great.
5. Research to assist protection and enhancement of the desired conditions and
products of the Bay, and to minimize undesired ones, by means consistent with
the capacities and limitations of the ecosystem. Improvement of fisheries by
intelligent protection of their critical areas of spawning, nursery use. feeding,
and migration is possible, but the knowledge base is very limited. Control oi
disease, of vegetation that interferes with use, of sea nettles, and of other com-
ponents undesired by some users may become feasible, but we have at least
learned that they must be approached in the context of balanced use and the
total effects on a complex system. Knowledge is not yet sufficient to permit
these achievements
6. Improved capability to predict the possible effects of proposed chemical intro-
ductions, physical alterations, biological modifications, and resultant environ-
mental conditions in the Bay is essential for adequate management. For
example, we cannot state with sufficient precision to guide management
agencies the effects, full costs, and full benefits of doubling or halving nutrient
loads; releasing small quantities of toxicants or stimulants; cumulative con-
struction of bulkheads, groins, small channels, and piers; large-scale extraction
of commercially useful species; development of resistant bacteria; diminishing
the freshwater flow from tributary rivers or altering the annual cycle of fresh-
water flow; or many other changes that have been, are, and will be proposed.
Present knowledge can be very valuable in evaluation of such proposals, but it
is not sufficient. Such research will involve basic studies, improved models of
many kinds and, especially, improved means of experimentally testing the
effects of change prior to risking a portion of the Bay. One of the most urgent
needs for improving prediction of effects in Chesapeake Bay (and other
39
estuaries) lies in development of abilities to perform feasible laboratory bio-
assay tests and to predict realistically the impacts of the tested chemical or
conditions on the principal organisms of the Bay and on the ecosystem. Present
standard tests do not provide such prediction, except in very gross terms.
Testing for acute and chronic effects, behavioral and physiological response
measurement, extension of laboratory results to predict responses in the
estuary — these and other difficult research areas must be explored far more
fully.
7. Development, testing, anil permanent maintenance of excellent inventory and
monitoring of the Bay. Inventory of components and proper monitoring are
needed to provide long-term descriptions, detect important changes, assist
effective enforcement, and indicate vacancies where additional research is
required. The vital signals of the system must be tracked for the total system
and for the significant subdivisions — individual tributaries and inherently
different segments of the open Bay.
8. Development and use of comprehensive systems for the management and
distribution of data and information. Massive quantities of data are required
and are now being produced. Better approaches are required, however, if they
are to be adequate in scope, efficiently integrated, and readily available for
retrieval, interpretation, and use. Similarly, technical and popular information
must be better assembled, expressed, and distributed to users.
Assessment
The decade of the 1970s has been a period of exceptional change in pollution
aspects of Chesapeake Bay, much of which favors improvement in protection of
water quality. Notable federal legislation and a substantial body of recent state law
has set new goals and established new mechanisms for regulation and enforcement.
New and stronger management agencies have been created. Related research has
been conducted at unpredicted levels of funding and sophistication. Analytic capa-
bilities have improved until they sometimes threaten to overwhelm with informa-
tion. Fresh assessments have been made of water quality in the estuary and in the
watershed, and comprehensive projections have been essayed for the future 40 years.
Maryland and Virginia have progressed from occasional reactive cooperation to
establishment of positive and continuing interaction on Bay problems and needs at
both executive and legislative levels. Public awareness and concern have been
enhanced and support high environmental quality in the Bay.
However, not all changes in the 1970s demonstrate or promise improvements in
environmental quality. Population growth continues at many sites, some of which
are already heavily loading the estuary. Exotic toxic organic chemicals, to which the
Bay biota is quite vulnerable, are continuously generated and sometimes released.
The Kepone tragedy is a frightening example of failure of agencies and procedures
established to protect the environment and a disturbing case of the extensive and
enduring damage that is possible. Spills and near-spills (for example, the Maria
Costa) continue, and shipping is expanding. A severe tropical storm demonstrated
the capacity of natural events to overwhelm treatment facilities and management
programs. Nuclear generating systems on the estuary and on the tributaries
exemplify the very large scale of potential engineering changes and the massive
uncertainties of the environmental effects of failure of a nuclear operation. Battles
over power plant and refinery siting, placement of toxic dredged material and sewage
sludge, and the management of sewage have not provided guarantees that
environmental quality will be assured in these and other matters.
A principal protection device, the National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System, appears to be grossly inadequate in describing or controlling pollution from
industrial and domestic systems. Nutrient concentrations of threatening levels have
been shown to be progressing down the tributaries and the main stem of the Bay.
Conversion of wastes to useful resources has not been adequately accomplished.
40
Several hangovers from the past exist. The long-term accumulations of known
toxicants and probably of unknown ones, especially in Baltimore Harbor and the
Elizabeth River, exist as complex reservoirs of pollutants, readily available for
release and access to the biota, as does Kepone in the James. In old domestic and
industrial systems, some ancient pipes, valves, outfalls, and practices are difficult to
correct and expensive to replace. At many sites waste treatment capacity and
practice fail to stay ahead of loading. Substantial reduction has occurred in the 1970s
in numbers of important Bay plants and animals, and the role of water quality has
not been determined.
Uses are not yet rationally zoned in accordance with the primary characteristics
and capacities of the Bay system, and means for controlling the distribution and
density of human populations are limited and local. The enormous role of land usage
in affecting water quality is rather dimly seen and does not yet affect many decisions
to permit or refuse various land-based activities.
There is no continuing source of funding for long-term research and monitoring
designed to comprehend the Bay and assist in its management.
On balance, the potentials for achieving and sustaining high water quality in the
tidal system of the Chesapeake Bay have been greatly enhanced and they may
possibly be realized in the next decade or two. However, very serious problems
remain, and the obstacles to such achievement are formidable.
The vast values of the Chesapeake for many uses merit conservative guarantees,
within the limits of human capability, that the environmental quality, inherent
processes, and biological health of the Chesapeake Bay will indeed be assured for the
indefinite future. Almost every important and desired use depends on that
achievement. Recent progress is impressive. Further progress is imperative.
REFERENCES
American Water Resources Association, National Capitol Section. 1976. Symposium — the
future of Chesapeake Bay. Am. Water Res. Assoc. Nat. Cap. Sect.
Anonymous. 1980. Sludge: that slimy goo is very hard to get rid of. Baltimore Evening Sun.
October 3. 1980.
Associated Press. 1980. Recreational fishermen can keep Kepone-filled fish. Baltimore
Evening Sun. September 24, 1980.
Austin, H. 1979. Major environmental impact affecting Virginia fisheries. Part 1. Conference
on Virginia Fisheries and the Environment, B. Theberge, ed. Marshall-Wythe School of
Law, College of Wiiliam and Mary. pp. 21-27.
Baltimore Environmental Center. 1980. Environmentalism enters the 80's: public opinion in
an era of policy trade-offs. Baltimore Environmental Center.
Beers, R.F., F. Bender, L.M. Brush, Jr., R.J. Byrne, L.E. Cronin, R.L. Green, W.J. Hargis,
Jr., E.B. Joseph, L.C Kohlenstein, R.W. Krauss, R.H. Roy, A.B. Schulz, and F.T.
Sparrow. 1971. The Chesapeake Bay — a research program to assist in better manage-
ment of complex environmental systems. The Johns Hopkins University, University of
Maryland, and Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
Bellanca, M.A. Inprers. Management implications of nutrient standards for estuaries. Enrich-
ment of estuaries, B.J. Neilson and L.E. Cronin. eds. 1980.
Bender, M.E., R.J. Huggett, and H.D. Slone. 1972. Heavy metals — an inventory of existing
conditions. J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 62(2): 144-1 56.
Bergoffen, W. 1971. Conference report. Citizens' program for the Chesapeake Bay. Nat-
ural Resources Institute, University of Maryland. Ref. 71-77. Mimeo.
Bertine, K., J.K. Cochran, L.E. Cronin, W.P. Davis, C.S. Martens, L.R. Pomeroy, J.
Schubel, J.L. Taft, J. Teal, and R. Wilson. 1980. Estuaries. Assimilative capacity of U.S.
coastal waters for pollutants. Proceedings of a workshop, E. Goldberg, ed. Working
Paper No. 1: Federal Plan for Ocean Pollution Research, Development, and Monitoring.
FY 1981-1985. Environmental Research Labs, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce,
pp. 59-97.
Block, R.M., and G.R. Helz. 1977. Proceedings of the chlorination workshop. Sixteen
papers on chlorine use, analysis of residuals, organochlorides, bioassay, and physio-
logical responses related1 to chlorine. Chesapeake Science, 1 8( I ):93— 160.
41
Brush, L. 1974. Inventory of sewage treatment plants for Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Re-
search Consortium, Publication No. 28.
Chambers, J. 1979. Major environmental impacts affecting Virginia fisheries. Part 2. Con-
ference on Virginia Fisheries and the Environment, B. Theberge, ed. Marshall-Wythe
School of Law, College of William and Mary. pp. 27-31.
Champ, M.A. Nutrient loading in the nation's estuaries. Estuarine pollution control and as-
sessment. Proceedings of a conference. Office of Water Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1:237-256.
Chesapeake Bay Foundation. 1977. The Bay on borrowed time: transportation and handling
of oil and other hazardous materials on Chesapeake Bay waters. Chesapeake Bay
Foundation.
Chesapeake Research Consortium. 1976. The effects of Tropical Storm Agnes on the
Chesapeake Bay System. Summary and 47 technical reports on hydrological effects, geo-
logical effects, water quality effects, biological effects, economic impacts, and public health
impacts. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Chesapeake Research Consortium. 1977. Proceedings of the Bi-State Conference on the
Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Publication No. 61.
Chesapeake Research Consortium. 1978. Chesapeake Bay directory. Chesapeake Research
Consortium, Publication No. 63.
Citizens' Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc. 1978. Forum on herbicides in the Chesapeake
Bay. Mimeo.
Coastal Ecosystem Project, Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. In
press. National Symposium on Freshwater Inflow into Estuaries, September 9-1 1, 1980.
Colwell, R.R. 1977. Bacteria and viruses — indicators of unnatural environmental changes
occurring in the nation's estuaries. Estuarine pollution control and assessment. Pro-
ceedings of a conference. Office of Water Planning and Standards, Vol. II. U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, pp. 507-518.
Colwell, R.R., and J. Kapper. 1978. Distribution, survival and significance of pathogenic bac-
teria and viruse in estuaries. Estuarine interactions, M. Wiley, ed. Academic Press, New
York. pp. 443^57.
Congress of the United States. 1980. Chesapeake Bay Research Coordination Act of 1980.
96th Congress, 2d Session.
Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District. 1974. Chesapeake Bay existing conditions report.
Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District. 1977. Chesapeake Bay future conditions report.
Cronin, L.E. 1967. The condition of the Chesapeake Bay. Thirty-second Wildlife and Nat-
ural Resources Conference, Wildlife Management Institute, pp. 137-150.
Cronn, L.E. Ecology. 1976. Symposium on the future of Chesapeake Bay. Am. Water Res.
Assoc, Nat. Cap. Sect. pp. 93-1 1 1 .
Cronin, L.E. 1976. The effects of increased oil tanker traffic on the Chesapeake Bay.
Citizens' Program for Chesapeake Bay. Mimeo.
Cronin, L.E. 1978. A biologist views Chesapeake Bay. Proceedings of the 68th Convention, In-
ternational Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, pp. 7-12.
Cronin, L.E. 1979. Testimony for the Chesapeake Research Consortium on coordination of
research related to Chesapeake Bay. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Governmental
Efficiency and the District of Columbia, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S.
Senate, 96th Congress, 1st Session.
Cronin, L.E., M.G. Gross, M.P. Lynch, and J.K.. Sullivan. 1977. The condition of the
Chesapeake Bay — a consensus. Proceedings of the Bi-State Conference on Chesapeake
Bay. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Publication No. 61:37-57.
Cronin, L.E., M.P. Lynch, and M.J. Karweit. 1979. Data importance in relation to
Chesapeake Bay pollution. Proceedings of the 6th International Codata Congress,
B. Dreyfus, ed. Pergamon Press, Oxford, pp. 21-30.
Cronin, L.E., D.W. Pritchard, T.S.Y. Koo, and V. Lotrich. 1977. Effects of enlargement of
the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. In: Estuarine processes. Vol. II, M. Wiley, ed. Aca-
demic Press, NY. pp. 18-22.
Cronin, L.E., D.W. Pritchard, J.R. Schubel, and J. A. Sherk, eds. 1974. Metals in Baltimore
Harbor and upper Chesapeake Bay and their accumulation by oysters. Chesapeake Bay
Institute, The Johns Hopkins University; and Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, Uni-
versity of Maryland.
Cronin, W.B. 1971. Volumetric, areal and tidal statistics of the Chesapeake Bay estuary and
its tributaries. Chesapeake Bay Institute, The Johns Hopkins University, Special Report
20.
Davies, T.T. 1980. EPA Chesapeake Bay program. Personal communication.
42
Davis, W.P.,and D.P. Middaugh. 1977. Impact of chlorination on marine ecosystems. Estu-
arine pollution control and assessment. Proceedings of a conference. Office of Water
Planning and Standards, Vol. II. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, pp. 415-423.
Douglas, J.E., Jr. 1979. Summary report of the select inter-agency task force on chlorine. Va.
Mar. Res. Comm.
Ellis, R.H. 1973. A method for applying research to environmental planning and management:
a case study of issues important to the Chesapeake Bay. The Center for the Environment
and Man, Inc.
Farrington, J.W. 1977. Oil pollution in the coastal environment. Estuarine pollution control
and assessment. Proceedings of a conference. Office of Water Planning and Standards,
Vol. II. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, pp. 385-401.
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. 1969. The national estuarine pollution study.
Chesapeake Bay. 3:V-265-V-285.
Fish and Wildlife Service. 1970. National Estuary Study. 7 vol. Vol. 3, Chesapeake Bay. pp. 65-
112.
Fisher, A.C., Jr. 1980. My Chesapeake— queen of bays. National Geographic 158(4):428-467.
Flemer, DA, and D.R. Heinle. 1974. Effects of wastewater on estuarine ecosystems. Ches-
apeake Research Consortium. Publication No. 33.
Florestano, P.S., and P. A. Rathbun. 1980. The relationship between resource users and in-
terest group representation on the Chesapeake: a summary. University of Maryland Sea
Grant Project Report. Mimeo.
Friedlander, S. 1979. Jurisdictional breakdown of the Chesapeake Bay by federal agen-
cies. Report to the Chesapeake Bay Legislative Advisory Commission. Md. Dept. Leg. Ref.
Mimeo.
Garreis, M.J. 1980. Acres of Maryland shellfish waters closed on basis of bacterial survey,
1970- 1980. Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Mimeo.
Gartlan, J.V., Jr.. L.E. Cronin, et al. 1980. Report of the Chesapeake Bay Legislative Advis-
ory Commission to the General Assemblies of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the
State of Maryland.
GCA, Technology Division. 1979. Inventory and toxicity prioritization of industrial facil-
ities discharging into Chesapeake Bay. Contract Report to Inventory/Prioritization
Workshop, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Green, K.A. 1978. A conceptual ecological model for Chesapeake Bay. Coastal Ecosystems
Project, Office of Biological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services. FWS/OBS 78 69.
Hedgepeth, J. 1972. Symposium summary— the fate of the Chesapeake Bay. J. Wash. Acad.
Sci. 62(2):218-223.
Heinle. DR., J.L. Taft, C.F. D'Elia, J.S. Wilson, M. Cole-Jones, A.B. Vivian, and L.E.
Cronin. In press. Historical review of water quality and climatic data from Chesapeake
Bay with emphasis on enrichment. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Report. Chesapeake
Research Consortium, Publication No. 84.
Hess, RE., RE. Bowles, V. Keith, N.G. Kelly, P.J. O'Connor, J. Porricelli. H. Schwartzman,
E.C. Weber, and R. Wilcox. 1977. Workshop report on prevention and control of spills.
Proceedings of the Bi-State Conference on Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Research Con-
sortium. Publication No. 61:141-163.
Hoffman. D. 1979. Who's killing the Chesapeake Bay? The Washington Post Magazine. April
29, 1979.
Horn, D.A., N. Doelling, D.A. Levey, B. Davies, R.W. King, L. Koppelman, F. Monastero,
B. Neilson, and J.R. Schubel. 1980. Report of the North and Mid-Atlantic Regional
Conference on Ocean Pollution Research. Development and Monitoring. MIT Sea
Grant College Program.
Horton. T. 1980. Water treatment with chlorine blamed for decline in Bay life. Baltimore Sun,
July 14, 1980.
Huggett, R.J., and M.E. Bender. In press. Pesticides in the James River Estuary. Environ-
mental Science and Technology.
Huggett, R , R.M. Block, O. Bricker, T. Felvey, and G.R. Helz. 1977. Workshop Report on
Toxic Substances. Proceedings of the Bi-State Conference on Chesapeake Bay. Chesa-
peake Research Consortium, Publication No. 61:121-127.
Huggett, R.J.. M.M. Nichols, and M.E. Bender. 1980. Kepone contamination of the James
River Estuary. R.A. Baker, ed. Contaminants and sediments. Vol. I. pp. 33-52. American
Chemical Society, Washington, DC.
43
Huggett, R.J.. O.P. Bricker, G.R. Helz, and S.E. Sommer. 1974. A report on the concen-
tration, distribution and impact of certain trace metals from sewage treatment plants on
the Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Publication No. 31.
Hydroscience, Inc. 1975. The Chesapeake Bay waste load allocation study. Report prepared
for the Water Resources Administration, Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
Janssen, W. A., and CD. Meyers. 1968. Fish: serologic evidence of infection with human path-
ogens. Science 159:547-548.
Jaworski, N.A. In press. Sources of nutrients and the scale of eutrophication problems inestu-
aries. In: Enrichment of estuaries, B. Neilson and L.E. Cronin, eds. Humana Press,
Clifton, NJ.
Jensen, E.T. 1976. Pollution. Symposium on the Future of Chesapeake Bay. American
Water Resources Association, Nat. Cap. Sect. pp. 66-92.
Kanigel, R. 1979. How fragile is the Bay? Johns Hopkins Magazine 30(4):28-36.
Kelly, N.G. 1976. The estimated impact of a hypothetical oil spill off Smith Point, Vir-
ginia. Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
Kohlenstein, L.C. 1972. Systems for storage, retrieval and analysis of data. Chesapeake
Science 3(suppl):S157-S168.
Kuo, A.Y., A. Rosenbaum, J. P. Jacobson, and C.S. Fang. 1975. Analysis and projection of
water quality. In: The Chesapeake Bay: a study of present and future water quality and its
ecological effects. Vol. I. Report to the National Commission on Water Quality. Virginia
Institute of Marine Science.
Laniak, G.F. A nutrient balance of the Chesapeake Bay: with application to moni-
toring of nutrients. Chesapeake Bay Program, Reg. 3, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Nutrient Work Paper No. 1.
LeBlanc, N.E., M.H. Roberts, Jr., and D.R. Wheeler. 1978. Disinfection efficiency and rel-
ative toxicity of chlorine and bromine chloride: a pilot plant study in an estuarine envi-
ronment. Special Report Applied Marine Science, No. 206, Virginia Institute of
Marine Science.
Lippson, A. J., ed. 1973. The Chesapeake Bay in Maryland: an atlas of natural resources.
The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore.
Lippson, A. J., M.S. Haire, A.F. Holland, F. Jacobs, J. Jensen, R.L. Moran-Johnson, T.T.
Polgar, and W.A. Richkus, 1980. Environmental atlas of the Potomac Estuary. Envi-
ronmental Center, Martin Marietta Corporation.
Lippson, R.L., and A.J. Lippson. 1979. The condition of Chesapeake Bay — an assessment of
its present state and its future. Presented to Marine Environmental Quality Committee, Int.
Counc. for Expl. Sea, Warsaw, Poland. Mimeo.
Lunsford, C.A., C.L. Walton, and J.W. Shell. 1980. Summary of Kepone study results, 1976-
1978. Va. State Water Control Bd. Basic Data Bull. No. 46.
Lynch, M.P., W.F. Conley, T.S.Y. Koo, G. Krantz. R. Lippson, J. Merriner, J.F. Percival,
and W.R. Prier. 1977. Workshop Report on Fisheries and Wildlife. Proceedings of the Bi-
State Conference on the Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Publication
No. 61:189-209.
McErlean, A. J., C. Kerby, and M.L. Wass, eds. 1972. Biota of the Chesapeake Bay. Includes
overview articles on the biota; summaries for 27 large taxa; status reports on effects of
sediment, nutrients, metals and pesticides; sample inventories for 8 species or groups; and
other material. Chesapeake Science 13 (suppl.).
McGarry, R.S. 1976. Channelization and shipping. Symposium on the Future of Chesa-
peake Bay. American Water Resources Association. Mimeo. pp. 20-40.
McKay, J. H., Jr. 1976. The hydraulic model of Chesapeake Bay. In: Estuarine processes.
Vol. II, M. Wiley, ed. Academic Press, NY. pp. 404-415.
McKewen, T.D. 1972. Human wastes and the Chesapeake Bay. J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 62(2): 157-
161.
Mihursky, J.A., and J.B. Pearce, eds. 1969. Proceedings of the 2nd Thermal Workshop of the
U.S. International Biological Program. Chesapeake Science. 10(3-4).
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 1972. Remote sensing of the Chesapeake
Bay. Report of a conference. Includes 23 talks plus reports from group discussions. NASA
SP-294.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 1978. Application of remote sensing to the
Chesapeake Bay region. Vol. 2, proceedings, W.T. Chen, G. W. Freas, G.D. Hickman, D.A.
Pemberton, T.D. Wilkerson, I. Adler, V.J. Laurie, eds. 26 papers, 9 group reports, 3
resource contributions.
44
Nichols, M.M., N.H. Cutshall, and R.C. Trotman. 1979. Tracing Kepone contamination in
James Estuary sediments. Workshop on Sediment and Pollution Interchange in Shallow
Seas, Int. Couac. Expl. Sea.
Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. Ches-
apeake Bay. Research Summary. USEPA-600/8-80-0I9.
Office of Water Planning and Standards. 1977. Evaluation of the problem posed by in-place
pollutants in Baltimore Harborand recommendation of corrective action. USEPA 440/5-
77-015A&B.
Perkinson, W.J., B. Burton, and D. Mills. 1973. The Chesapeake at bay. Illustrated re-
port on water pollution. The Baltimore Evening Sun.
Pheiffer, T.H., D.K. Donnelly, and D.A. Possehl. 1972. Water quality conditions in the Ches-
apeake Bay system. Annapolis Field Office, Reg. Ill, EPA, Tech. Rept. 55.
Prentiss, L.W., Jr. 1972. The Corps of Engineers Chesapeake Bay Study. J. Wash. Acad. Sci.
62(2): 190-195.
Pritchard, D.W. 1968. Chemical and physical oceanography of the Bay. Proc. Gov. Conf. on
Ches. Bay:II-49— 1-74.
Pritchard, D.W. 1971. A brief comment on the most serious water quality problems of the
Chesapeake Bay and tributary tidal waterways. The estuarine environment— estuaries and
estuarine sedimentation. AGI Short Course Lecture Notes. Mimeo. pp. XV 9-11.
Pritchard, WE. 1980. Marine Science Research Center, State University of New York, Stony
Brook. Personal communication.
Rathbun, P., and G. Linder. 1980. Attitudes toward the environment: a survey of Maryland's
citizens. Prepared for the Maryland Coastal Zone Management Program. Maryland
Opinion Survey, University of Maryland.
Roberts, M.H., Jr., D.F. Boesch, and M.J. Bender. 1975. Analysis and projection of ecologi-
cal conditions. In: The Chesapeake Bay: a study of present and future water quality and its
ecological effects. Vol. II. Report to the National Committee on Water Quality. Virginia
Institute of Marine Science.
Roberts, M.H., Jr., R.J. Diaz, M.J. Bender, and R.J. Huggett. 1975. Acute toxicity of chlorine
to selected estuarine species. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 32( 12):2525-2528.
Roberts, M.H., Jr., C.E. Laird, and J.E. Ulowsky. 1979. Effects of chlorinated seawater onde-
caped crustacean and Mulinia larvae. EPA-600/ 3-79-03 1 . Env. Res. Lab., U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Gulf Breeze, FL.
Robinson, A.E. 1980. Chesapeake Bay study. Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District,
Personal communication.
Rose, CD. 1974. Petroleum in the estuary. NR1 Special Report No. 5. Contr. 584, Nat-
ural Resources Institute, University of Maryland.
Schubel, J.R. 1972. The physical and chemical conditions of the Chesapeake Bay. J.
Wash. Acad. Sci. 62 (2):56-72.
Schubel, J.R., and H.H. Carter. 1976. Suspended sediment budget for Chesapeake Bay. In:
Estuarine processes, Vol. II, M. Wiley, ed. Academic Press, NY. pp. 48-62.
Schubel, JR., and A.D. Williams. 1976. Dredging and its impacts on upper Chesapeake Bay:
some observations. Time-stressed coastal environments: assessment and future action.
Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference on Coastal Soc. pp. 70-1 15.
Schubel, JR., and W.M. Wise, eds. 1979. Questions about dredging and dredged material dis-
posal in the Chesapeake Bay. Marine Science Center, S.U.N.Y. Special Report 20.
Shea, G.B.. G.B. Mackiernan, L.C. Athanas, and D.F. Bleil. 1980. Chesapeake Bay low flow
study:biota assessment. Phase I: final report. Western eco-systems technology. 2 vol.
Snedaker, S., D. deSylva, and D. Cottrell. 1977. A review of the role of freshwater in estu-
arine ecosystems. Final report to the Southwest Florida Water Management District.
Rosen. School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami.
State of Maryland. 1968. Proceedings of the Governor's Conference on Chesapeake Bay.
State of Maryland and Commonwealth of Virginia. 1980. Chesapeake Bay striped bass re-
search program. Introduction. Mimeo.
Stevenson, J.C., and N.M. Confer. 1978. Summary of available information on Chesapeake
Bay submerged vegetation. Coastal Ecosystems Team, Office of Biological Services,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS - 78/66.
Sullivan, J.K., E.R. Collins, D.L. Correll, P. Fisher, J.C. Kirsch, T.H. Pheiffer, and R.F.
Schoenhofer. 1977. Workshop report on non-point pollution. Proceedings of the Bi-State
Conference on the Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Publication No.
61:223-240.
45
Tsai, C. 1975. Effects of sewage treatment plant effluents on fish: a review of literature. Ches-
apeake Research Consortium, Publication No. 36.
Tsai, C, J. Welch, K. Chang, J. Schaeffer, and L.E. Cronin. 1979. Bioassay of Baltimore Har-
bor sediments. Estuaries 2(3): 141 — 1 53.
Ulanowicz, RE. 1976. Modeling the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries: a synopsis. Ches.
Sci. 1 7(2): 114-122.
Villa, O., F. Hamons, C.G. Hill, M. Moriarty, A.E. Robinson. L.W. Willett, FT.
Wootton, and J.M. Zeigler. 1977. Workshop report on maritime development. Pro-
ceedings of a Bi-State Conference on Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Research Consor-
tium, Publication No. 61:65-96.
Virginia Marine Resources Commission. 1979. Proceedings of a seminar held by the Select In-
ter-Agency Task Force on Chlorine. Va. Inst. Mar. Sci. Mimeo.
Wallace, McHarg, Roberts and Todd, Inc. 1972. Maryland Chesapeake Bay study.
Walsh, G.E. 1972. Insecticides, herbicides and polychlorinated biphenvls in estuaries. J.
Wash. Acad. Sci. 62(2): 122-139.
Washington Academy of Sciences. 1972. Symposium — science and the environment (11): the
fate of the Chesapeake Bay. J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 62(2) :51-223.
Wells, H.W., W.C. Allen, and H.E. Rector. 1979. The Chesapeake Bay Program: project sum-
maries. Chesapeake Bay Program, Office of Research and Development and Region 111,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Wiley, C.W. 1980. Condemned shellfish areas, 1970-1980. Bureau of Shellfish Sanitation, Vir-
ginia State Department of Health. Personal communication.
Williamson, F.S.L. 1972. Biology and the Chesapeake Bay. J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 62(2):88-102.
Wilson, H.O. 1977. Letter of June 22, 1977, to W.D. Johnston, 111.
Withers, G.K. 1979. Testimony to Subcommittee on Governmental Efficiency and the Dis-
trict of Columbia, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, 96th Congress.
46
POLLUTION IN THE NEW YORK BIGHT:
A CASE HISTORY
Joel S. O'Connor
Office of Marine Pollution Assessment
Northeast Office
Old Biology Building, SUNY
Stony Brook, New York 1 1794
and
Douglas A. Segar
President, SEAMOcean
P.O. Box 1627
Wheaton, Maryland 20902
DESCRIPTION OF THE BIGHT
Physical Features
Geographically, the New York Bight is a relatively sharp angle in the northeastern
U.S. continental shelf south of Long Island, New York, and east of New Jersey. The
shelf is about 180 km (112 mi) wide and has an areal extent of about 39,000 km:
(15,000 n mi:). Depths over much of the Bight are between 30 to 60 m (98 to 197 ft),
and the shelf break is defined at a depth of 200 m (656 ft). The broad, gently sloping
shelf of the Bight is bisected by the Hudson Shelf Valley.
The morphology of the Bight floor and the distribution of its surficial sediments
are controlled by sea-level fluctuations from continental glaciation over the past
several million years. At the time of the last major ice advance, the North American
ice sheet extended from Canada to Long Island and northern New Jersey. Sea level
was lowered to about 145 m (480 ft) below the present level about 1 5,000 years ago;
hence, the continental shelves became dry land. Since then, the ice has been melting
and the shoreline has retreated over the shelf to its present position. Many features
on the shelf today are the result of this fall and rise of sea level (Freeland and Swift,
1978).
Extensive sampling of surficial sediments has provided rather detailed knowledge
of grain size distribution. The dominant material on the shelf floor is sand, 0 to 10 m
(0 to 33 ft) thick, resting on Holocene clays. Unconsolidated fine sediments are regu-
larly resuspended and ultimately carried back into the estuaries or off the shelf edge.
Some persistent areas of muds or fine sediments occur in low areas, in the Christiaen-
sen Basin, Hudson Shelf Valley, and in smaller"mud patches" near Long Island. The
muds accumulate in relatively quiet, deep areas because these regions have less in-
tense wave and current energy. Nearshore mud patches develop because high con-
centrations of suspended sediments are available for deposition during calm periods
(Freeland and Swift, 1978).
47
Fine sediments enter the Bight by discharge from rivers and tidal inlets, and by
dumping, particularly of dredged materials that have accumulated in New York
Harbor. Domestic and industrial wastes from land also contribute to elevated con-
centrations of organic carbon and toxic metals (Swanson, 1977) and a wide variety
of synthetic organic compounds (O'Connor, J.M., et al., 1981) in the sediments.
Water movements in the Bight are highly variable. Over the middle and outer
shelf, waters generally move to the south-southwest, parallel to the bathymetric con-
tours. The average flow is about 5cm/s(0. 1 knots) near the surface, reduced to about
1 cm/s (0.02 knots) near the bottom. On the outer shelf, storm-induced winter cur-
rents of 3 to 10 days are common (Mayer, et al., 1979). Water temperature follows
the well-known seasonal cycle of heating and stratification in summer and vertical
homogeneity in winter.
While boundaries between the inner and outer Bight are poorly defined and con-
stantly changing, the inner Bight does have two important features that tend to limit
its capacity to flush contaminants to the open ocean:
1 . The two-layer flow near the mouth of New York Harbor is dominated by flow
from the Hudson-Raritan estuary. The less dense surface layer flows seaward,
generally parallel to the New Jersey coast. The lower, denser water of the Bight
flows into the estuary. Fine sediments that are rich in pollutants and organic
carbon tend to sink, be entrained in the bottom waters, and undergo the par-
tially closed cyclical transport common in estuaries.
2. East of the region of strong river influence, a clockwise circulation gyre is evi-
dent for part of the time. Its western edge tends to be located over the head of
the Hudson Shelf Valley. While water flow can be up or down valley, up-valley
flow has been measured for extended periods of time (Beardsley, et al., 1976).
These impermanent up-valley flows and the clockwise gyre tend to reduce the
flushing of contaminants from the inner Bight or apex.
Historical Changes
The broad historical trends in human influences on the Bight are functions of
striking increases in population density and energy usage. The human population of
the counties bordering the Bight increased exponentially from about 10,000 in 1675
to over 16 million in 1970. Population stabilized in the period from 1970 to 1980 for
the first time since American Indians were driven from the region by Europeans in
the 1600s (O'Connor, J.S., 1981).
From the 1850s to 1940, energy usage very gradually increased in the coastal fringe
of the Bight. Even in the early 1800s, however, the New York metropolitan region
was established as the rapidly expanding focus for development in the United States.
By 1810, New York City's population exceeded that of Boston, and the city became
the largest in the nation. Prosperous European nations invested heavily with capital,
goods, and technology in North America, and New York was a principal beneficiary
of this investment through trade, services, and manufacturing (Squires, 1981). The
Port of New York reached its peak in 1 87 1 as an import/ export center, handling 7 1
percent of the nation's foreign trade, but as this share declined. New York's commer-
cial, financial, and industrial growth continued (Boddewyn, 1981).
Beginning in the 1940s, energy consumption soared. This spurt of energy con-
sumption coincided with continuing growth in population and (with some excep-
tions) industry and services through the 1960s (O'Connor, J.S., 1981).
Until the mid-l700s, garbage and other wastes were dumped into open gutters,
rivers, or onto land to feed pigs and chickens. These practices continued into the
1850s in some areas while sewers and cesspools were being constructed. By 1806 it
was clear to the New York City Board of Health that more extensive sewers needed
to be constructed throughout the populated areas and that thecity aquifers could no
longer provide enough potable water (Loop, 1964). By 1842 the original Croton
aqueduct carried water to the city from 60 km (37 mi) to the north. This aqueduct was
48
replaced and extended to 150 km (90 mi) from the city in 1915, and another aqueduct
brought freshwater from the Delaware basin by 1944. The system's 1 1 reservoirs
provide apparently safe yields of at least 565 m /s (1,290 mgd) even during the
1961-1967 drought. Per capita consumption of water has increased from 380
1/capita/day (100 gcd) in 1900 to 660 led (175 gcd) in 1977 (Gunnerson, 1981). This
rapid increase in usage of water for domestic and industrial purposes has led to
increasingly difficult wastewater disposal problems.
By 1972 separate and combined sewers were serving most of the New York/ New
Jersey metropolitan area and parts of the New Jersey coast. These sewers contributed
1 14 nr/s(2.6 mgd) of municipal discharges to the Hudson-Raritan estuary and New
York Bight. Industrial discharges were 27 m3/s (0.61 mgd) of which 47 percent went
through municipal systems. Total wastewater flows (domestic, industrial, and urban
runoff) to the Bight averaged 173 m'/s (3.95 mgd). These wastewaters represented
about 22 percent of the total freshwater flow (790 m\ s or 18 mgd) to the Bight
(Mueller, et al., 1976).
So-called solid wastes, some of which are primarily water, have historically been
dumped on (then) lower valued lands to create new land through shoreline exten-
sion, and at harbor and ocean dump sites at increasing distances from population
centers. Prior to 1970 about 1.4 billion nr ( 1 .9 billion yd3) of total waste solids were
dumped in New York waters. This amount exceeded the suspended sediment dis-
charge of all the Atlantic coast rivers (Gross, 1976).
Street sweepings, garbage, and refuse were dumped first in New York Harbor and
from 1900 to 1934 in the inner Bight. However, in response to the garbage washing
up on the beaches, a Supreme Court decision forbade further ocean discharge of gar-
bage. Since 1934 these floatable wastes have been incinerated or landfilled (Gross,
1976).
Sediments have been dredged from ship channels of New York Harbor since at
least the early 1800s. Sewage sludges and acid wastes dumped in the Bight are pri-
marily liquid. They contain about 5 percent and <1 percent solids, respectively. The
sludges from sewage treatment plants have been dumped at sea since 1924 (Gross,
1976) and acid wastes since 1948 (MESA, 1975). Relatively nontoxic solid wastes
from construction and demolition have also been dumped at a specific ocean dump
site since the early 1800s (Gross, 1976).
The volumes of domestic and industrial wastes of the Bight region increased sub-
stantially as the 1 970s approached. Two changing characteristics of this waste stream
posed increasingly difficult problems for what was to become residuals management.
First, the wastewaters became increasingly toxic as oils, toxic metals, and then syn-
thetic organic compounds were discarded. Secondly, the ecologically hazardous
wastes had become diluted in volumes of water that could be treated, even superfi-
cially, only at great cost.
Ecosystems Structure and Function
The structure and ecosystem productivity of the Bight are generally comparable to
those of other temperate coastal environments. Averaged over the entire Bight, the
biomass of primary producers and herbivores is about 2 g C/m each, carnivore
biomass is about 6 g C/ m2, and the biomass of decomposers averages about 4 g C/ m"
(O'Connor, J.S., 1981). The annual primary productivity (200 to 300 g C/m2 yr)
organic content of shelf sediments (0.5 to 1%, dry wt.) and fish yields (10
tons/ km2/ yr) is comparable to that of other mid-latitude continental shelves (Walsh,
1980). However, the inner Bight has been perturbed by human activity resulting in
elevated primary productivity and sediment organic concentrations, diseased fish
and shellfish, prohibitions against harvesting of filter feeding shellfish because of
pathogen contamination, and other biotic effects (O'Connor, J.S., 1976; 1981).
The planktonic organisms of the taxonomic groups characteristic of inshore
waters are typically more abundant and productive than those of offshore waters,
particularly in the apex, which is enriched by organic carbon and nutrient wastes
49
from several sources. Phytoplankton productivity of the apex, for instance, averages
about three times higher than that of the outer Bight (Malone et al., 1979).
The predominantly sandy and muddy sand sediments of the Bight are particularly
hospitable environments for four groups of larger benthic invertebrates: bivalve
molluscs, annelid worms, the echinoids (sea urchins and sand dollars), and
crustacean shellfish. Both the total numbers of benthic invertebrates and their total
weight decrease markedly from nearshore to the edge of the continental shelf.
Benthic biomass depends as well upon sediment type, increasing by a factor of
almost 20 from sand-gravel (94 g/m ) to silty sand (1,800 g m") (Wigley and
Theroux, 1976).
As a consequence of long-term carbon and toxicant loadings to the inner Bight, an
area of sediments greater than 240 km" (93 m~) in the apex is enriched with carbon,
toxic metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, and synthetic organic compounds. These
same sediments typically contain depauperate benthic communities, with very high
standing crops of a very few species. Organic enrichment of fine-grained sediments
seems to be the major factor altering the preexisting competitive balance among
many species whose feeding strategies differ. The high standing stocks and reduced
species diversity observed in parts of the apex may be caused by this mechanism.
Additional stresses that may contribute to these effects include the production of
toxic sulfide ions and resuspension of other toxicants that tend to exclude predators
and reduce cropping. Until recently, observations of benthic community alterations
had been restricted primarily to the benthic macrofauna. However, recent studies
have shown parallel disturbances in meiofaunal species assemblages of affected
sediments (Tietjen, 1980).
Fish populations of the Bight are dominated by migratory species. Temperature is
a strong stimulus for the migration of most coastal fishes, and temperature changes
also stimulate spawning. The abundance of individual fish species within the Bight
has commonly fluctuated by a factor of four in the past 25 years. While the major
cause of year to year fluctuations is climatic variability, sport and commercial fishing
caused serious declines in nearly all commercially important species from I960 to the
mid-1970s. From 1967 to 1974 the total biomass of finfish caught by bottom trawls
declined by more than 50 percent in the region from Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras.
Sport fishing has also increased rapidly. Recreational catches are estimated to be
about as large or larger than domestic commercial catches for striped bass, bluefish,
weakfish, summer flounder, winter flounder, black sea bass, cod, and mackerel.
Since 1974 more restrictions have been imposed to reduce commercial fishing levels,
and fish stocks as a whole have increased (Grosslein and Azarovitz, 198 1). The most
significant finfishes in the Bight for commercial and sport fishing demands include
cod, summer flounder, bluefish, striped bass, Atlantic mackerel, winter flounder,
black sea bass, and weakfish.
Shellfish are also important commercial and recreational resources. Based upon
sampling in 1976, the estimated biomass of ocean quahogs was 2,450,000 t of meats;
surf clam meats were estimated at 875,000 t. Sea scallops are another major offshore
resource for which biomass estimates are not available.
The food webs built up from plant material and detritus lead to continual
replenishment of harvestable fish and shellfish resources of the Bight. However,
within the Hudson-Raritan Estuary several fish and shellfish species no longer grow
and reproduce adequately to sustain exploitation. Even those species maintaining
harvestable densities within the estuary contain PCB concentrations that approach
or exceed FDA limits and cannot be harvested commercially. Filter feeding shellfish
within the estuary and the inner Bight contain concentrations of coliform bacteria
that prohibit commercial exploitation.
The massive discharges of particulate material from the New York metropolitan
region both limit the primary productivity within the estuary and stimulate the
detrivores that feed upon organic particles. However, the limited information
available indicates that the rates of carbon degradation within the estuary have not
50
increased commensurate with increases in historical organic carbon loadings. The
excess organic carbon has both accumulated in the estuarine sediments and been
transported to the Bight. The aesthetic and recreational value has been compromised
by oil sheens, floatable wastes, and odors that are widespread within the estuary. To
a lesser extent, oil sheens and floatable wastes are frequent features of the Bight as
well.
The most important economic function of the Bight and estuary is as a vehicle for
coastal and foreign transport. The total foreign and domestic waterborne commerce
to and from the Port of New York was about 175 X I06 t yr during the 1970s.
RECENT MODIFICATIONS OF THE ECOSYSTEM
Environmental Issues — 10 Year Changes
Few striking trends over the past 10 years are evident in the structure or function of
the ecosystem. This lack of evidence may well be due partially to the combination of
limited measurements and the large variability in biotic responses to natural environ-
mental fluctuations. Only a few attributes of the Hudson-Raritan Estuary were
monitored over the past decade, and limited monitoring of the Bight did not
begin until 1976. Also, research measurements during the 1970s were seldom con-
ducted over time periods long enough to detect possible trends. However, a few
ecosystem features are known well enough to document the existence or probable
absence of significant decadal trends. Changes are evident in the community struc-
ture and commercial catch of demersal fishes and shellfish (Grosslein and Azarovitz,
1981). However, no major trends are noticeable in bacterial measures of water
quality nor in the locations of contaminated sediments of the inner Bight. It would
not be surprising if additional trends in contaminant loadings and ecosystem impacts
did occur during the 1970s but went undetected.
Bathing Hater Quality In the New York and New Jersey coastal zone, swim-
ming is the most popular outdoor recreation (Carls, 1978). The City of New York has
increased its public beachfront from 1.6 km ( 1 mi) in 1933 to 29 km( 18 mi). Increas-
ing sewage loadings to the New York Harbor since the 1 800s havecaused widespread
closures of bathing beaches (Suszkowski, 1973). Despite continuing efforts to man-
age sewage wastes since the early 1900s, the entire inner harbor is not classified as
acceptable for bathing. Of the 12 recognized beaches in Lower Bay, most were open
to bathing, with intermittent closures, during the late 1970s (New York City, 1979).
There is no evidence of serious disease associated with swimming in the harbor since
1920, but upper respiratory inflammations and gastroenteritis have been associated
with swimming in recent years. The bacterial or viral agents of these diseases are not
yet identified, but the probability of illness among swimmers can be predicted rather
reliably from concentrations of appropriate indicator bacteria in bathing waters.
Based upon epidemiological observations at beaches of Coney Island and western
Long Island, Enterococcus and Escherichia coli were the best indicators of swim-
ming-associated gastrointestinal symptoms (vomiting, diarrhea, nausea, or stom-
achache). The probability of contracting such symptoms was generally higher at the
Coney Island than at the Long Island beaches. These studies also documented an
appreciable incidence of gastroenteritis from swimming in approved bathing waters
(Cabelli, 1981).
There is no evidence that municipal waste discharges from Long Island have
diminished water quality beyond existing bathing standards. Municipal wastewaters
from New York City and the New Jersey coast seldom cause coliform densities to ex-
ceed bathing water standards, at least along the open coast (Cabelli, 1981).
Although bacterial and other water quality data for the 1970s over the Bight re-
gion are incomplete and not exhaustively analyzed, there seem to have been no
striking wide-scale trends in bathing water quality since 1970 (Gunnerson, 1981;
Cabelli, 1981).
51
Shellfish Sanitation— Concentrations of total and fecal coliform bacteria, indi-
cators of human pathogens, have been high enough for several years to require clo-
sure of most Hudson-Raritan Estuary waters to shellfish harvesting. Even the New
York Harbor waters classified for shellfishing use (Raritan and Sandy Hook Bays)
have not met the New York State or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency coli-
form standards for shellfishing in recent years (New York City, 1979). Similar clo-
sures were instituted in the apex in 1970 and extended geographically in 1974
( Verber, 1976). Measurements in the water column of the apex indicate that coliform
bacterial concentrations from sewage sludge dumping reach background levels with-
in 3 to 5 km (2 to 3 mi) of the barge discharge site, whereas elevated concentrations in
the estuarine plume extend much farther into the apex (O'Connor, D.J., et al.,
1977).
Petroleum Pollution — Petroleum hydrocarbons have been identified as a class of
contaminants of concern within the Bight region. Of particular concern are the poly-
nuclear aromatics (PNAHs) such as the benzenes, naphthalene, and benz-anthra-
cenes. Because of their toxicity, carcinogenicity, and relatively high concentrations
in the ecosystem, the PNAHs have been characterized as "major perceived threats
that require continued study" in the Bight region (O'Connor, J.S., and Stanford,
1979). Petroleum hydrocarbons have also formed surface slicks, have fouled
beaches, and have tainted fish and shellfish.
The daily chronic input of oil and grease to the Bight region has been estimated at
870 1/ day (Mueller et al., 1976). Assuming that 60 percent of this material constitutes
petroleum hydrocarbons (N AS, 1975) with an average density of 0.95, the average
daily oil input would be about 520 t or 550 m\/d (0. 1 5 mgd). This estimate does not
include atmospheric inputs from fossil fuel burning that have been estimated at 17 to
42 nv/d (Gibson et al., 1979). Thus, total chronic petroleum hydrocarbon loadings
are estimated at 570 to 590m3/d (0.15 to 0.1 6 mgd). The quantities lost from routine
ship operations are unknown.
Individual oil spills can release large quantities of oil in small regions, resulting in
major impacts. However, the average quantities released from spills appear to be
much less .han those from chronic oil losses to the Bight region. The U.S. Coast
Guard Pollution Incident Reporting System (PIRS) records that all known spills of
petroleum hydrocarbons from 1974 through 1979 have averaged 0.01 m'/d (0.003
mgd), i.e., much less than 1 percent of all petroleum hydrocarbons introduced to
the Hudson-Raritan Estuary and New York Bight.
Despite the substantial dispersal of petroleum hydrocarbons by dissolution, evap-
oration, and degradation, large quantities are found in the Bight region. A large pro-
portion of the introduced petroleum hydrocarbons reach the sediments. Sediments
with high hydrocarbon concentrations are particularly evident in the Hudson-
Raritan Estuary. Concentrations of PNAHs alone in sediments of the estuary range
from 3 to 180 ngj g dry wt. The hydrocarbons in particularly high concentrations are
naphthalene, phenanthrene, and fluoranthene (Anderson, 198 1 ). Concentrations of
all petroleum hydrocarbons in sediments of the Bight range from 500 to 3,000 /ug/g
dry wt. in fine sediments of the apex to about 10 jug/gdry wt. on the continental shelf
(Farrington and Tripp, 1979).
The organisms analyzed appear to accumulate naphthalene and biphenyl more
than the other PNAHs. Digestive glands of lobsters accumulate higher concentra-
tions and a broader spectrum of PNAHs than any of nine other species analyzed
(MacLeod et al., in press). The degree of hydrocarbon tainting in food species and
chronic effects on biota require further analysis (Anderson, 1981).
The above estimates are based upon data gathered throughout the 1970s. Avail-
able data do not permit any reliable assessment of trends in petroleum hydrocarbon
input rates or accumulation in the ecosystem over the past 10 years.
Dredged Material— The large quantities of natural riverborne sediments and
anthropogenic particulate inputs are rather effectively trapped in New York Harbor.
These sediments tend to accumulate in the 386 km (240 mi) of federally maintained
52
channels and commercial / recreational channels required for vessel traffic in the har-
bor. Dredging of these channels has removed an average of about 8 million m\ yr( 10
million yd /yr) from the harbor during the 1970s and only slightly less per yearsince
1930. During the 1970s most of the dredged material has been disposed of at the
"mud dump" site in the apex.
Because most toxicants introduced to harbor waters tend to adhere to particles
and settle to bottom sediments, concern has long been expressed over the distur-
bance and ocean dumping of contaminated sediments. The degree of dredged mate-
rial contamination varies greatly. One assessment indicates that about 10 percent of
the material dredged from the harbor is clean sand and at least 10 percent is highly
contaminated and cannot be dumped into the ocean under existing regulatory
criteria (Gordon et al., 1981).
For several years, the wide variety of organic and inorganic toxicants in dredged
materials has stimulated concern about effects upon the ecosystem of the Bight and
toxicant accumulations in marine food resources. This concern has heightened since
1976, when large quantities of PCBs were identified in sediments of the Hudson
River. From 200,000 to 300.000 kg (440,000 to 660,000 lb) of PCBs remain in the sed-
iments of the Hudson from discharges by capacitor manufacturing plants about 400
km (250 mi) upstream from Manhattan. Although the rate of transport of this PCB
reservoir to the harbor has not been estimated, there is a high probability that large
proportions are being carried to the harbor (O'Connor, J.M., et al.. 1981). While
additional measurements of PCB inputs to the Bight will be required for reliable
estimates, it appears that dredged materials are already a major source of PCBs to
the Bight and that these materials may accumulate significantly higher PCB concen-
trations than existing ones from the Hudson River (O'Connor, J.M., et al., 1981).
Environmental Crisis— Real or Imaginary
At the outset of the 1970s, public awareness of environmental problems was in-
creasing rapidly and an intense review was taking place aimed at identifying and
eliminating the unacceptable or unnecessary impacts of human activities on the envi-
ronment. During this period attention was focused most sharply on the more imme-
diately visible sources of pollution such as the automobile and its smog-producing
ability and floatable materials from sewage discharges. In the New York region, at-
tention became focused on the large quantities of sewage sludge barged out to sea
and dumped in the ocean. During the seventies several environmental crises oc-
curred in the New York Bight, each of which was linked in its own way with the
ocean dumping issue.
Sewage Sludge: Beach Pollution anil Anoxia — Public concern over the impacts of
ocean dumping in the New York Bight grew out of a series of observations of envi-
ronmental damage. The most important of these observations was the detection of
high concentrations of coliform bacteria in waters near the dredged material and
sewage sludge ocean dumpsites (Buelowet al., 1968) as a direct consequence of which
an area of radius 1 1 km (7 mi) around the sewage sludge dumpsite was closed to
shellfishing in May 1970. This was apparently the first instance of shellfish habitat
closure on any open U.S. continental shelf. At the same time, the Congress was con-
sidering the need for legislation to regulate and control ocean dumpingand dumping
in the Great Lakes. Media accounts prompted by the early stage of the Congressional
consideration of this legislation contained reports that the dumping had created a
"dead sea" in the Bight, that the contaminated area, then 50 km" (20 mi:), was
"growing rapidly," and that this could necessitate closing New York City area
beaches in the coming (1970) summer ( Madden, 1970). All these contentions were
unsupported by the meager scientific information then available and were seriously
misleading. However, the public accounts did detail the indications of environmen-
tal degradation that did exist, including evidence of depauperate benthic fauna, dis-
53
eased fish and shellfish, unusually high coliform bacterial counts in Bight waters and
sediments, and high metal concentrations in the sediments.
Later in 1970 the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) published a report on
ocean dumping. This report reviewed the limited scientific information available at
that time, much of which was contained in unreviewed technical reports, and con-
cluded that ocean dumping was "not a serious, nationwide problem," but that "in
some areas the environmental conditions created by the ocean disposal of wastes are
serious" (CEQ, 1 970). This latter conclusion was substantially qualified in the report
itself by the statement that "knowledge of ocean pollution is rudimentary, and gener-
ally it has not been possible to separate the effects of ocean dumping from the
broader issue of ocean pollution (CEQ, 1970). This statement is particularly relevant
to the Bight because there are so many sources of pollution. Despite the considerable
acknowledged uncertainty and lack of adequate data, the CEQ report made strong
recommendations that ocean dumping should be subject to regulation and that
ocean dumping of sewage sludge and polluted dredged material should be phased
out (CEQ, 1970).
In response primarily to the call of the CEQ report for strong national legislation
to regulate ocean dumping, the Congress enacted the Marine Protection Research
and Sanctuaries Act, which became law in October of 1972(33 USCSI401 et seq).
The Act states that:
The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States to regulate the
dumping of all types of materials into ocean waters and to prevent or strictly limit the
dumping into ocean waters of any material which would adversely affect human
health, welfare or amenities or the marine environment ecological systems or eco-
nomic potentialities. (PL-95-532, 33 USC S140I)
Immediately before and after the passage of the Act a number of research pro-
grams were initiated to investigate more fully the effects of ocean dumping in the
New York Bight. In December 1973 and early in 1974, the popular press obtained
preliminary unpublished observations from limited sampling that constituted the
early results of such studies. Press accounts that followed included references to: 1 ) a
"dead sea" from the sewage sludge dumping (Sharov, 1973), 2) migration of the
sludge "bed" to within one-half mile of Long Island bathing beaches (Bird, 1973), 3)
predictions of the sludge would soon begin to wash up on the beaches (Bird, 1973;
Pearson, 1974; Carroll, 1974), and 4) warnings about potentially serious public
health hazards from heavy metals, bacteria, and viruses (Carroll, 1974; Kline, 1974;
Pearson, 1974).
Other accounts claimed that the existing sewage sludge dumpsite could be used for
only one more year because the "dead sea" created by sludge was moving toward
Long Island beaches. This ominous prediction for onshore displacement of the
sludge bed gained credibility because it was attributed to "an authoritative EPA
source" (Pearson, 1974), that is, to a responsible regulatory agency. During this
period of time, stories and predictions of environmental disaster such as those cited
above appeared in national magazines and more than 100 newspapers, including
newspapers from the West Coast, and were heard on radio and television (Kidder,
1975; Souci, 1974). In addition the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency itself
issued a report stating: "We clearly recognize that the practice [of ocean sewage
sludge dumping] over the past 45 years has created a dead sea in the general area of
this site" (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Briefing Report, 1974).
In response to the public and political pressures to take some action concerning
the newspaper media reports of impending environmental disaster caused by con-
tinued sewage sludge dumping, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1974
notified the municipalities responsible for dumping sewage sludge that they would be
expected to use an alternative offshore sludge dumping site within 2 years. During
the months following this announcement, the Environmental Protection Agency
evaluated the available scientific information concerning sludge dumping in the
ocean in order to develop an environmental impact statement in which moving the
existing sewage sludge dumpsite to alternate sites further offshore was considered.
54
The draft of this environmental impact statement (EIS) was issued in February of
1976 (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EIS. Draft. 1976; Final Report.
1978). The conclusions of the draft, which remained unchanged in the Final EIS
issued in September 1978, include the following:
• Sewage sludge dumping at the existing site has not significantly affected the
water quality off Long Island or New Jersey beaches.
• Dumping of current volumes of sewage sludge will not have a significant effect
on the rather limited benthic community at the existing site. The benthic com-
munity would not recover in the near future if the existing site were abandoned.
Furthermore, areas now closed to shellfishing would not be reopened in the
near future, even if the existing site were abandoned.
• Continued dumping of present volumes of sewage sludge at the existing site will
not have a significant additional effect on the water quality in the Bight apex.
• Small quantities of floatables derived from sewage sludge are present at the ex-
isting dumpsite for short periods immediately after dumping occurs. There is
no direct evidence that the wash-up of floatables on Long Island and New
Jersey is attributable to sewage sludge dumping. The probability that these
materials result directly from sludge dumping activities is low.
These conclusions led the Environmental Protection Agency to recommend that
the existing sewage sludge dumpsite should continue to be used, although they be-
lieved that the development and implementation of land-based alternatives that are
environmentally acceptable, technically feasible, and economically reasonable
should be carried forth as expeditiously as possible. At the same time, this draft envi-
ronmental impact statement contained references to several ongoing and completed
studies that indicated sewage sludge was only a minor contributor to the overall pol-
lution problem within the New York Bight apex (Mueller et a 1., 1976; MESA. 1975;
Segar and Cantillo, 1975; Segar et al.. 1975; Drake. 1974).
In June 1976 almost all of Long Island's major public ocean beaches were closed to
swimmers for varying periods of time because of floating trash and pollutants.
Waterborne debris has been a constant irritant to beach users in recent years, but the
concentrations during June 1976 were the heaviest ever known. The unprecedented
closings began with the restriction of 32 km (20 mi) of Fire Island beaches on June 15,
1976. By the third week of June 1976, most of Long Island's south shore beaches were
closed. By July 1, 1976, these beaches were again opened, but during the interval,
normal summer beach use decreased, causing inconvenience and annoyance to pro-
spective swimmers and economic loss to local businesses. The problem was such that
on June 23, 1976, the area was declared a disaster area by the Governor of the State
of New York. Because much of the material washing up on the beaches appeared to
be derived from sewage, there was public suspicion that the source of the material
was the sewage sludge dumped into the ocean off the shore of Long Island. This sus-
picion persisted despite the Environmental Protection Agency's finding in the envi-
ronmental impact statement that floatables from the sewage sludge dumping were
negligible in quantity. In February 1977, a detailed analysis of the Long Island beach
pollution incident was reported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-
ministration (MESA, 1977). This report concluded that no source could be identified
as the single major contributor of floatables. However, the report continued, most of
the material was probably derived from the outflow of the Hudson-Raritan Estuary
and, although sewage sludge dumping was a possible source of floatables, the contri-
bution from it was "relatively minor."
In July 1976 fishermen reported large numbers of dead surf clams and other bot-
tom-dwelling organisms in an 8,600 km: (3,320 mi:) area off the New Jersey conti-
nental shelf. The phenomenon continued through October of that year. The mor-
talities were caused by extremely low concentrations of dissolved oxygen and by
hydrogen sulfide poisoning in some bottom waters. At the height of the event, dis-
solved oxygen values in the water approached and in some instances reached zero in
55
an area lying 10 to 100 km (6 to 62 mi) off the coast between Sandy Hook and Cape
May. Mortalities were greatest among surf clams, ocean quahogs, and other benthic
animals. Lobster catches declined almost 50 percent during the period. These events
have been described in detail by Swanson and Sindermann ( 1979). As a result of this
crisis, in November 1976, the federal government declared the New Jersey coast a re-
source disaster area. Estimates of losses to the commercial and recreational fishing
industries and related processing and service businesses were as high as $550 million.
Local fishermen were also concerned about the long-term impact of this event on
their fisheries. Despite the fact that the sewage sludge dumping was known to con-
tribute only a small proportion of the oxygen demand within the New York Bight
apex (Segar and Berberian, 1976), once again sewage sludge dumping became the
object of suspicion among the public.
Here then in 1976 in the floatables incident and the oxygen depletion event were
two environmental disasters of just the nature that had been predicted in the early
1970s. What could be more natural than for the public to conclude that the earlier
investigators had been correct and that the sewage sludge dumping was indeed
responsible for these two environmental events? Public pressure for government ac-
tion to prevent the happenings of 1 976 from recurring was extremely strong. The real
causes of these two events were floatables entering the rivers from diverse sources in
the New York region (MESA, 1977)and natural changes in the physical and biologi-
cal characteristics of the waters of the New York Bight, augmented by nutrient inputs
from the estuary and ocean outfalls and to a lesser extent from ocean dumping
(Swanson and Sindermann, 1979). Therefore, the Congress reacted in 1977 by
enacting an amendment to the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act that
established a mandatory deadline of December 31, 1981, for the termination of
"harmfuTsewage sludge dumping in the ocean. This Congressional action was based
largely upon public misconceptions rather than scientific fact and did not consider
the impacts of land-based alternatives as fully as ocean dumping alternatives. The
deadline established by the 1977 amendment was not absolute but applied only to
sewage sludge that would "unreasonably degrade or endanger human health, wel-
fare, amenities or the marine environmental ecological systems or economic poten-
tialities" (PL 95-153, 33 USC S 1401). Despite this clear statement by the Congress
that dumping of some sewage sludges into the ocean after 1981 was acceptable,
provided that unreasonable degradation did not occur, the amendment has been
consistently misinterpreted in the public arena as an absolute ban on all dumping of
all sewage sludges.
As we have described, during the period between 1970 and 1976 two real environ-
mental crises preceded by one imaginary environmental crisis occurred in the New
York Bight. Sewage sludge is an inherently aesthetically displeasing substance to our
society. Therefore, it is not surprising that the media were able to generate consider-
able public concern when it appeared likely that the sewage sludge would affect Long
Island beaches. The technical information gathered and reviewed when the moving
of the dumpsites was considered indicated that sewage sludge dumping in the New
York Bight apex contributed only a minor portion of the contaminant inputs causing
environmental degradation and the potential for environmental crises (U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, 1978). The institutional response to the 1976 oxygen
depletion and beach pollution events did not take into account this technical infor-
mation, since the single governmental action was to establish a statutory deadline for
phasing out ocean dumping of sewage sludge. While stoppage of sewage sludge
dumping will diminish inshore eutrophication minimally and reduce toxicant
loadings to some extent, the other anthropogenic sources dominate impacts upon
the Bight. There has been no comparable regulatory action to minimize the discharge
of floatable materials or toxicants to the estuary and Bight.
Dredged Material/ Bioaccumulation — The waters in New York Harbor are natu-
rally shallow, and dredging is required to maintain channels deep enough for the safe
navigation of ships. For about 200 years, open water disposal sites located near the
56
entrance to New York Harbor have been utilized to receive materials from dredging
of the harbor's access channels and ship berths. The disposal sites have been moved
several times, the present disposal grounds in the New York Bight being approxi-
mately 10 km (6 mi) east of Highlands, New Jersey, and 16 km (10 mi) south of
Rockaway Beach (Gross, 1976). Dredged material consists of natural material orig-
inating in the watersheds of the Hudson and other rivers entering the harbor; solid
material entering the waterways through sewage treatment plant discharges, storm
sewers, and other outfalls; and material brought in with tidal flow from the Atlantic
Ocean. Dredged material varies from clean sand with very low organic content and
extremely low concentrations of trace metals and synthetic organic contaminants to
contaminated sediments containing several percent of organic matter and high con-
centrations of trace metals and synthetic organic compounds. The ongoing issue of
the environmental impact of disposal of large quantities of dredged material with
associated quantities of toxic metals and synthetic organics has been discussed
above. However, ocean dumping of polluted dredged material has created a recent
environmental "crisis." Although the "crisis" addressed only a portion of the over-
all problem, it focused public attention on this issue.
The dumping of dredged material in the ocean has been regulated under the
Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act since 1972. In view of the lack of
understanding of the environmental impact of solid wastes disposed in the ocean, the
regulations pursuant to the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act were
amended in Janua-ry 1977, so that criteria for determining whether a material is suit-
able for ocean disposal are based on the use of bioassay techniques and bioaccumu-
lation tests (40 CFR Part 227; 42 Fed Reg 2476-89, January 11, 1977). Implementa-
tion of the bioassay procedures began early in 1978. All dredged materials from the
New York area were found to pass the new bioassay-based criteria as these were
interpreted by the Corps of Engineers, although significant questions have been
raised concerning the Corps' interpretation of the criteria. This issue is the subject of
an ongoing lawsuit brought by the National Wildlife Federation (Kamlet, 1981).
Bioaccumulation testing was required after February 1979. When bioaccumulation
data began to become available for dredged material, it became apparent that, at
least with respect to PCBs, many contaminated dredged materials could not pass the
bioaccumulation criteria as interpreted by the Environmental Protection Agency
and that under existing guidelines, no permit for ocean disposal could be issued for
these dredged materials.
This situation raised the serious question of whether parts of the Port of New York
and New Jersey would be forced to close, since without an ocean disposal permit,
there was no reasonable means of disposing of material resulting from maintenance
dredging of essential ship channels. The potential economic and social disruption
that would have been caused by such a closure was sufficient to generate consider-
able.public concern, and the issue of dredged material disposal in the ocean became
an environmental "crisis." During the early months of 1979, several permit applica-
tions for maintenance dredging in the Port of New York and New Jersey were sus-
pended while the Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency tried to
decide whether or not these permits could be issued in view of the positive findings of
the bioaccumulation tests for PCBs. Channel and berth siltation, meanwhile, contin-
ued, and the availability of adequate berths was in doubt for the liners Queen Eliza-
beth II, Rotterdam, and Norway due to arrive in April and May. The necessary
dredging permits were finally issued in March.
Under the ocean dumping regulations, certain specified contaminants including
PCBs can be ocean dumped only when present in ocean dumped materials "in such
forms and amounts . . . that the dumping of the materials will not cause significant
undesirable effects, including the possibility of danger associated with the bioaccu-
mulation in marine organisms" (40 CFR 227.6b). The Environmental Protection
Agency/Corps of Engineers' implementation manual that specifies the bioaccumu-
lation test procedures states that "in order to ensure environmental safety, it must be
57
assumed that any statistically significant bioaccumulation relative to animals not in
dredged material but living in material of similar sedimentological character, is
potentially undesirable" (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Corps of Engi-
neers, 1977). The manual further recommends "the environmentally protective
approach of assuming that any statistically significant differences in tissue concen-
trations between control and exposed organisms are a potential cause for concern."
However, noting that at present "tissue concentrations of most constituents in most
species cannot be quantitatively related to biological effects," the manual calls upon
the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers to "objectively
consider the magnitude of bioaccumulation shown, the toxicological significance of
the material bioaccumulated, the proportion of sediment sampling sites which
produce uptake, the number of different constituents bioaccumulated from the sedi-
ments in question, the position in the human and nonhuman food webs of the species
showing uptake, the presence of motile species at the site which might serve as trans-
portation vectors removing bioaccumulated materials from the disposal area, and
other factors relative to the particular operation in question."
In a January 9, 1979, letter to the New York District of the Corps of Engineers,
Environmental Protection Agency Region II adopted the following position on
interpretation of bioaccumulation test results: "In view of existing FDA criteria
limiting the parameters to be tested in the bioaccumulation studies and thereby
identifying them as potential threats to public health and welfare, and consistent
with the intent of Section 226.6 [c] of the regulations and the COE EPA Manual,
paragraph G32, any statistically significant bioaccumulation would be considered
cause for denial, unless such.statistically significant difference is shown to have no
significant adverse effect on public health and welfare."
Early in 1980, the Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency
formed a joint task force that was charged with preparing a matrix for developing
more interpretive guidelines to evaluate the PCB problem. Meanwhile, the various
dredging permits concerned were being held in abeyance. The task force developed
an interpretive matrix under which dredged materials could be considered for
approval for ocean dumping if a statistically significant increase of PCB concentra-
tions occurred in a bioaccumulation test. This bioaccumulation test used three
organisms: a worm, a clam, and a shrimp. If statistically significant increases occur in
all three test organisms, then the material is not in compliance with the criteria and,
therefore, cannot be ocean dumped. If a statistically significant increase occurs in at
most two of the test organisms, the material is considered in compliance with the
criteria and can be ocean dumped without constraint, provided that the level of bio-
accumulation (final tissue concentration observed) in both of the organisms showing
statistically significant increase is below specified threshold values. If a statistically
significant increase occurs in at most two of the test organisms and the magnitude of
the uptake exceeds these threshold values, the material is considered to be unsuitable
for unconstrained ocean dumping. On a case by case basis, the acceptability of ocean
dumping this material under certain circumstances (for example, when it is capped
by clean material) remains open.
This rather complex matrix is an expression of the difficulty in interpreting bio-
accumulation data, because information concerning the ecological significance of
bioaccumulation of toxic components in laboratory organisms is scarce. This is a
limitation inherent in applying any laboratory bioassay or bioaccumulation test to
the determination of the potential for environmental impact. While the development
and use of such laboratory tests is less expensive than field data collection and anal-
ysis, the use of such tests alone, as exemplified by the dredged material problem, is
often unsatisfactory and leads to poor decision making.
At present the dumping of dredged material in the ocean is still controlled by-
criteria requiring bioaccumulation tests and a matrix approach to interpreting the
results of those tests. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engi-
neers have stated that this matrix is only to be used on an interim basis and that
58
attempts will be made within the immediate future to review the ocean dumping
criteria and to develop new criteria that might more accurately reflect the potential
for environmental degradation. Such revised criteria should take into account the
need for an assessment of ecological effects in the region of the dumpsite itself either
to replace the laboratory bioassays and bioaccumulation tests or to supplement these
laboratory results and facilitate their interpretation. Criteria revised in this manner
would not only allow the current bioaccumulation test controversy to be resolved
but would also aid in better identifying the nature and extent of the overall environ-
mental impact of dredged material ocean disposal.
LIMITATIONS OF STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
Historically, the seventies will be viewed as the decade of environmental legisla-
tion. The decade began with the signing into law of the National Environmental
Policy Act [NEPA] on January 3, 1970. After NEPA came the Clean Air Act of 1970
and then, in the 92d Congress, six new statutes came into being: the Federal Water
Pollution and Control Act; the Federal Insecticide. Fungicide and Rodenticide Act;
the Marine Mammal Protection Act; the Marine Protection Research and Sanctu-
aries Act; the Noise Control Act; and the Coastal Zone Management Act. The 93d.
Congress passed the Endangered Species Act. the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the
Deep Water Port Act. The 94th Congress enacted the Toxic Substance Control Act
and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The 95th Congress passed major
amendments to the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Safe
Drinking Water Act, and the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
One major drawback to the piecemeal approach taken to environmental protec-
tion in the 1970s is that it resulted in a disjointed management of the environment by
medium, rather than an integrated approach to dealing with environmental prob-
lems. Regulations promulgated pursuant to the various environmental laws each
adopt substantially different approaches to determining whether discharge or dis-
posal of a material is acceptable under each given Act. As a result instead of compar-
ing waste disposal options in different media and selecting the optimal option on
environmental, social, and economic grounds, an industry or a municipality faced
with the need to dispose of its wastes will often seek to find the option that is least
stringently regulated. One particularly notable example of this problem relates to the
disposal of dredged material, which is regulated under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act for inland waters and the territorial sea (40 CFR S230), and under the
Marine Protection. Research, and Sanctuaries Act for the territorial sea and contig-
uous ocean (40 CFR S220-229). The regulations for ocean disposal are significantly
more stringent than those for inland water disposal, thus encouraging inland water
disposal, which may be more harmful than ocean disposal. Aside from the problems
caused by fragmentation of statutes and regulations, additional problems occur be-
cause of inexperience with environmental law and regulations and their operation.
Ten years is simply too short a time for a body of case law to be laid down sufficient
to identify all the problems with existing legislative and regulatory approaches let
alone to permit amendment and modification of the approaches such that they result
in efficient application.
Our ability to efficiently and effectively manage and control pollution of the envi-
ronment in general and the ocean environment in particular is constrained by the
lack of conformity among the various environmental statutes and also by short-
comings in the regulatory framework built around those statutes. During the next
decade it should be our aim to learn to apply the existing statutes, to modify them so
as to bring a degree of uniformity and efficiency into their operation, and, as an out-
come, to produce optimal solutions to environmental problems. The areas where
such amendments to statutes or to regulations will be needed are numerous. It is
instructive to rev iew a few of these areas as they apply to problems within the New
York Bight.
59
NPDES and SPDES Inadequacies
The New York Bight is contaminated predominantly by discharges either directly
into the ocean or into the river and estuary system through pipelines. The contami-
nants enter the New York Bight directly through ocean outfalls, or after they are dis-
charged through an estuarine or river outfall and carried out to sea by the estuarine
outflow. They may also enter the Bight as a component of dredged material taken
from the channels within the estuarine system. Pipeline discharges to the ocean or
river and estuarine system are regulated under the Clean Water Act and are subject
to the permit procedures of this Act, known as the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) or the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(SPDES), where a state assumes permitting responsibility under the terms of the
Act.
The NPDES program relies on the direct control of waste discharges through a
series of effluent concentration standards in order to achieve the desired ambient
water quality characteristics. Central among the issues concerned with the NPDES
strategy and its implementation is the effectiveness of relying on uniform national or
regional effluent standards. The adoption of uniform effluent standards is advanta-
geous, particularly given the ease of the negotiation process between government
and a discharger (Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., 1975). However, the
adoption of uniform national standards has led inevitably to numerous cases in which
variances from these standards may be justifiable because o/ local environmental
conditions or constraints, or economic considerations, but no adequate mechanism
for granting such variances exists. At present any variances must be granted through
statutory exemption (Blumm, 1980). Such variances have been granted on a class by
class basis rather than on an individual discharger basis. The formal variances that
currently exist are those for power plants (Section 3 1 6 [a] of the Clean Water Act of
1977) and exemptions of municipal wastewater treatment plant discharges from the
secondary treatment requirement if discharge is through an ocean outfall where a
large amount of dilution is probable (Section 301 [h] of the Clean Water Act of
1977). It is likely that more variances will be requested as other parts of the Clean
Water Act, such as toxic substances controls, are implemented (Blumm, 1980) and as
more information concerning local environmental conditions becomes available. If
these variances from the national standards do in fact proliferate, particularly if they
are justified largely by local water quality conditions, then it has been suggested that
this would constitute a de facto movement back to standards based on water quality
and water use as opposed to the current technology-based standards (Blumm
1980).
One shortcoming of the NPDES system is the problem of monitoring compliance
with permit conditions. Little hard information is available to enable the dimensions
of this problem to be adequately identified. However, it appears likely that because
of the self-monitoring aspects of the permit procedures and the limited data that the
permit procedures require, significant violations of permit conditions may take place
without detection.
One of the major difficulties in applying the current national effluent standards
approach is that the standards are established on an industry by industry basis and,
where combinations of discharges occur or where unique plant or process streams
are concerned, the effluent stream may not fit into one of the categories for which
standards have been promulgated. In this case the effluent discharge limitations in-
cluded in the permit must be designed specifically for the particular discharger. This
situation leads to the possibility that a particular industry or process stream can ob-
tain a de facto variance from the effluent standards by establishing that the process
stream or plant concerned is unique and that different effluent standards should then
be written for it.
A major inadequacy in the current NPDES program is the limitation of the
NPDES system in controlling toxic substances. Prior to the 1977 Clean Water Act,
the NPDES program and its predecessor concentrated primarily on conventional
60
pollutants, though the permit applications often listed all of the characteristics of
wastewater discharges including toxic substances. While the 1972 Act did require
toxic substance standards to be developed and implemented through the NPDES
system, this plan never came to fruition for reasons related to the complexity of set-
ting toxic standards and industry resistance (Blumm, 1980). The Clean Water Act
has intensified the emphasis of the statute on toxic substance standards. Instead of
adopting widely applicable toxic effluent standards, implementation of regulations
concerning these substances in waste process streams will take place through tech-
nology-based standards for NPDES discharges, pretreatment standards for dis-
charges through publicly owned waste treatment plants (where toxic substances
prove to be incompatible with plant operation), and specific standards for new
sources (Blumm, 1980). It is not clear that this essentially complex system will be suc-
cessful in substantially reducing the load of toxic substances entering the waterways
of the New York region and thereby entering the New York Bight.
Nonpoint Sources of Contaminants
Although the many existing statutes of environmental law control the placement
of waste materials in all media including the oceans, the atmosphere, the land and
underground water tables, and the release of contaminants from specific point
sources such as industrial plants to the atmosphere and the water and land environ-
ment, a multitude of nonpoint sources of contaminants to the environment still exist
that are not adequately regulated. In a coastal ecosystem such as the New York
Bight, these nonpoint sources are limited to atmospheric fallout and precipitation,
erosion of and runoff from the land, together with the many minor events of uncon-
trolled and undocumented disposal of wastes by the public or small businesses, and
discharges from the many vessels utilizing the New York Bight. The quantity of con-
taminants introduced to the ocean by these nonpoint sources can in some instances
be quite large. Duce et al. ( 1976), for example, have estimated that up to 1 3 percent
of the lead, 8 percent of the zinc, 5 percent of the iron, and 1 to 2 percent of the cad-
mium entering the New York Bight may do so by way of the atmosphere through
particulate fallout and rainfall. Kneip et al. ( 198 I ) have similarly estimated that the
contribution of PCBs through atmospheric fallout to the New York Bight is signifi-
cant compared to other sources.
The most important nonpoint source of contaminants to the estuarine and ocean
system appears to be the runoff of storm water, washing contaminant-laden material
off the streets and the land. Street and land runoff contain diverse contaminants such
as agricultural chemicals, hydrocarbons from crankcase and other waste oils, and
synthetic organics including PCBs and trace metals from a multitude of diverse
sources. In urban areas such as the New York-New Jersey region, where sewer sys-
tems and storm drain systems are combined, much of the material from nonpoint
sources entering the water environment does so through combined sewer overflows
during periods of rainfall, as discussed in more detail below.
Although the nonpoint sources of contaminants entering the New York Bight are
at present small compared to the direct sources, they will constitute a growing pro-
portion of the total contaminant load as the concentrations or loadings of toxic con-
taminants in direct sources are brought under control by the various environmental
statutes. For at least some contaminants, it is certain to prove necessary or desirable
to reduce contaminant loadings to levels that will require control of the nonpoint
sources. This is particularly likely for petroleum hydrocarbons. At present, the ex-
isting environmental statutes do not adequately address the need or the means to
reduce such nonpoint sources and the technological problems that exist with devel-
oping such legislation and control practices are difficult. The lack of regulations to
control nonpoint sources of contaminants is a potentially serious environmental
problem. The development of such regulations and technologies whereby the regula-
tions can be implemented should be a matter of priority.
61
Treatment Plant Inadequacies
Although almost all municipal and industrial waste discharges into the aquatic en-
vironment are now regulated, large quantities of contaminants are still contained in
the permitted waste discharges owing to operational and maintenance inadequacies
of treatment plants that restrict the degree to which permitted discharge rates can be
maintained. Over 70 percent of the sewered areas in the New York metropolitan
region have combined sewers. During dry weather they function as sanitary sewers,
conveying all flows to the treatment plants. During wet weather, large volumes of
rainfall runoff enter the system — the average storm triples the normal dry weather
flow, but peak flow can be as much as 50 times the normal flow. Waterfront regula-
tors are built into the sewage systems to act as relief valves to prevent flooding of
treatment plants during wet weather. These regulators allow no more than twice the
average dry weather flow to reach the plants so that even during the average storm a
large proportion of the combined flow is simply discharged through the regulators
without treatment. In addition many of the regulatorsare not in good operating con-
dition and leak during dry weather.
Table 1 shows the average daily quantities of various contaminants released by
New York and New Jersey municipal wastewater treatment works. The New York
City raw bypass is untreated sewage discharged where no treatment plant has yet
been constructed and where several treatment plants were closed for construction.
The noncontrolled discharges (regulator leakage, combined sewer overflows, and
storm runoff) contribute a large proportion of the total amount of the various con-
taminants released. Although there are plans to upgrade and repair regulators and to
partially treat combined sewer overflows, it is unlikely that these inputs can be sub-
stantially reduced and maintained at a low level unless major technological progress
is made or major new treatment capabilities constructed.
For comparative purposes, the total quantities of the same contaminants in
sewage sludge generated by the New York-New Jersey treatment plants are also in-
cluded in Table I. The quantity of the metals released through the effluents of oper-
ating treatment plants, not even considering storm runoff, combined sewer over-
flows, and regulator leakage, far exceeds the quantity retained in the sewage sludge
and barged for ocean dumping. This is an important point, since at present the laws
and regulations governing wastewater treatment and disposal emphasize more
strongly the elimination of ocean sewage sludge dumping than control of the other
treatment plant discharges and storm runoff. This may not be the optimal strategy
for achie\ing the maximum immediate environmental benefit through use of the
limited funds available for environmental improvement.
The general areas of regulatory shortcomings briefly discussed above are only
three of many. The process of amending our young body of environmental laws and
regulations into a coherent and effective whole will take several years, but further ef-
forts should be made in the interim either to enforce or rescind existing regulations
not being implemented.
In the realm of regulatory techniques or strategies, it is clear that there are con-
straints on monitoring compliance, particularly when regulating the large numbers
of small sources or nonpoint sources not now regulated or ineffectively regulated. In
recognition of these constraints, a system of incentives must be developed to ensure
that the discharger seeks to maintain good management practices, not simply to
avoid possible detection and prosecution of v iolations that the discharger knows are
unlikely but out of self interest. Designing such a scheme of incentives may well be
the greatest environmental challenge of the 1980s.
One of the most vital scientific information needs for improved environmental
management is the determination of the capacity of natural ecosystems to assimilate,
or otherwise cope with, various wastes and waste components (Goldberg, 1979).
Such knowledge is essential not only to enable limits to be placed on the quantities of
contaminants released to the environment but also to allow forthe management of
the releases themselves in the most environmentally sound and cost effective manner.
62
CO
0
JQ
CO
H
>^
o
CN
O
o
o
O
k.
^3
o
n
CN
o
CD
p-
CO
Q_
o
<*
05
CN
r^
E
E
3 >
T3
\
to
J3
o
o
O
o
O
o
coz
C
o
« —
r^
o
O
O
N
00
00
*~
CO
CN
*~
cn
CO *
0 -*
> i-
. .
•.= o
CO
o
ro
O
o
o
o
£ 2
CO
o
LO
r^
O)
CD
cn
a;
2
Z
CM
«-
•sf
CO
0 0
c
CM
< ^
_w
o
r-
o
o
O
o
^ ®
CO
L.
o
■<$
r^
^r
^r
r~
0 >.
%
u
CD
CN
■—
00
LO
cn
E 2
5
gj co
co CO
TJ
O
CO
o
o
o
O
£ -o
C
3
O
LO
0)
o
t —
00
CD c
CO
u
CN
ro
CO
Cn
r^
CD ro
>
CO
CN <=
-(—
ID 0
CD-,-
W to
3
(0
Ul
co
o
E
o
a.
b
;D
o
X
b
X
in
b
X
b
X
b
X
c
(0
Li.
"5
cj
S
oo
co
p-
CN
CN
CO
to c
♦J
CD
•-
*-
•"
00
n ra
CD
. —
. 3
DC
c
CD TO
c
0)
05
CN
CO
<*
CO
pv
CO to
0) o
o
o
CN
"3-
O
T—
-tf
ro
^ CJ
(A
J;
O
CO
ro
«~
00
•a .E
■o
3
^
E
o
CN
X
— ~
3 O)
CO c ,_
co co «-
o