Fourteen selected marine resource problems of Long Island, New York descriptive evaluations

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Coastal Zone
information COASTAL ZONE
Center INFORMATION CENTER

2/FOURTEEN SELECTED MARINE RESOURCE PROBLEMS
OF LONG ISLAND. NEW YORK.
DESCRIPTIVE EVALUATIONS

January 1970
7722- 377 F.A.Smith et al.
L. Ortolano
Prepared by R.M. Davis
R.O. Brush
THE TRAVELERS RESEARCH CORPORATION
a subcontractor under
Sea Grant Project GH63

Regional Marine Resources Council
GC A CommiTTEE OF THE NASSAU-SUFFOLK REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD
1021
N7
F68
1970
Nassau Luffock Regional Planning Bowed Regional Mysisresi Counal

FOURTEEN SELECTED MARINE RESOURCE PROBLEMS

OF LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK:

DESCRIPT117E EVALUATIONS

Prepared for the

Marine Resources Council

Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board

under

Sea Grant Project GH 63

National Science Foundation

F. A. Smith
L. Ortolano
R. M. Davis
R. 0. Brush

January 1970
7722-377

US Department of Commerce
NOAA Coastal Services Center Library
2234 South Hobson Avenue
Charleston, SC 29405-2413

THE TRAVELERS RESEARCH CORPORATION

250 Constitution Plaza Hartford, Connecticut 06103

PREFACE

Under the auspices of the Marine Resources Council of the Nassau-Suffolk

Regional Planning Board, The Travelers Research Corporation has been engaged

during the past year in the first stages of a long-term research program relating to
the management of-the marine resources of Long Isla nd, New York. The program is

Ultimatelv designed to provide analytical assistance, methods, and information for

the design of a compr ehensive planning and management system for dealing with the
complexity of interrelated marine resource problems of coastal zone regions.
An initial step in this program has been the identification and systematic

description of what are considered to be the outstanding marine resource problems of
Long Island in the opinion of Long Island residents and relevant public agency repre-
sentatives. A thorough, albeit preliminar.v, understanding of interrelationships
between the human activities and natural resource characteristics which together
comprise the individual marine resource utilization problems has been considered a

necessary prerequis.ite to a fuller understanding of the broader picture of man's
interrelated uses of the coastal zone. In the process of attempting to understand
individual problems and possibilities for managing them, an effort is also being
made to determine the kinds of knowledge and information that will ultimately be

required by planners and policy makers in the formulation of sound public decisions

for marine resource allocation. An evaluation of the present state of such knowledge

and information should thus contribute significantly to the design of future coastal

zone research and data collection programs NNhich at present appear largely frag-
niented and uncoordinated in relation to the broader needs of management and planning.

This document constitutes a status report on the present state of our research

at the individual problem level. It has been produced with three primary purposes

in mind. The first of these is to provide anyone interested in marine resource problems,
whether on Long Island or elsewhere. with a set of descriptive background case studies

of a wide variety of such problems typical of coastal zone regions. The second purpose

is to present our research results, as well as our conceptual views on these problems,
to those either personally or professionally involved with them in the Long Island

iii

communit.y. It is hoped that in so doing we will generate interest and awareness "is
well as discussion and constructive criticism of our approach to these problems and
of our specific findings. We are thus, in fact, making an appeal to private citizens.
public agency personnel, and scholars, who feel that they have something to contrihIlLe
to a more accurate or complete evaluation of these problems, to communicate their

criticisms or additional information to us.

Finally, this report serves our own longer term purpose as a "backup" document
for a subsequent technical report to the Marine Resources Council dealing explicitlY
with our formulation of information and knowledge requirements pertaining to the
planning and management of marine resources on Long Island.
The overall research program, of which the present report represents an inter-
mediate product is directed by Dr. Robert H. Ellis as Program Manager and Philip B.
Cheney as Principal Investigator. The program is sponsored by the Marine Resources
Council of the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, which provided its initial
funding. Continuation funding has been provided through the Marine Resources Council
since September 1969 under Sea Grant Project GH 63 of the National Science Founda-

tion.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

INTRODUCTION 1

SPORT AND COMMERCIAL FINFISH 5

SHELLFISH 15

E E LGRASS 27

WETLAND DESTRUCTION 35

DOMESTIC AND INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISPOSAL 47

WASTEWATER FROM VESSELS. 57

WASTEWATER FROM DUCK FARMS 61

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 65

THERMAL POLLUTION 71

OIL SPILL POLLUTION 81

CHEMICAL PESTICIDES 89

DREDGING AND DREDGING-SPOIL DISPOSAL 99

SHORELINE RECREATION. 105

COAST STABILIZATION AND PROTECTION 123

INTRODUCTION

Rationale, Purposes, and Objectives

This report consists of a series of fourteen essays, each dealing with

a particular marine resource problem previously identified as a cause for concern
bv residents of Long Island. The identification and evaluation of discretely defined
problems" of the coastal marine environment has constituted a fundamental phase of
a longer term research program designed utlimately to provide knowledge, informa-
tion and methods for more comprehensive management of coastal resources.
Recognizing the inherent complexity of a subject so broadly defined as "coastal
marine resource management," our approach thus far has been based essentially on
two propositions. The first is that a sound understanding of individual "problems,"
properly defined, is a necessary prerequisite to comprehending the broader picture in
which cause and effect relationships underlying a given problem tend to be interrelated
with those of many other problems. In short, one has to begin somewhere, and in order
to make the subject manageable', we have thus chosen to begin by examining individual
(but overlapping) pieces of the much larger puzzle. The second proposition guiding
our approach is a recognition that, while satisfactory comprehension of the complete
puzzle is still a long way in the future, individual problems exist today requiring
practical policy decisions.
The possibility of acquiring information of direct usefulness to resource manage-
ment decisions in the short run and, at the same time, working toward an understanding
of the more complex coastal resource interrelationships, has thus determined our
selection of the "Problem" as our basic "unit of analysis." It has also significantly
influenced the way in which we have chosen to define a "marine resource problem."
Briefly, in our frame of reference, a problem is considered to exist whenever and to
the extent that individuals or organized groups experience dissatisfaction with the

*Alternatively, one might have approached the broader picture by focusing initially
on individual "resources" (such as land, air, and water), or on individual management
institutions (such as the responsible public agencies), or on individual environmental
characteristics, and processes (such as energy flows and nutrient cycles), etc.

existing state of the coastal environment at the level of resource utilization or
46man-environment interaction."* This can range from dissatisfactions with given
natural attributes (such as climate, topography, unfavorable biological changes, etc.),
to conflicts arising from competitive use of a given resource or spacial area. Our
conception is thus policy-oriented, in the sense that it defines marine resource problems
from an explicitly social point of view, rather than from a physical or natural science
point of view. However, it is not intended to include social issues of public policy
formulation pqr se, within its present scope.

This volume thus presents, under one cover, descriptions of fourteen of the

more widely recognized marine resource problems of Long Island as we understand
them from our research thus far. The individual discussions vary somewhat in level
of detail and depth of sophistication, reflecting both the nature of the problems them-
selves, and the incomplete status of our project. In no instance does any individual
discussion purport to be "the last word" on the subject. Indeed, a primary reason for
presenting them at this time is to elicit comment, constructive criticism, and addi-

tional information from Long Island residents, public administrators, and academic
specialists knowledgeable in particular aspects of particular problems.

Organization and Description of Contents

To facilitate comparisons among problems and ready access to particular kinds
of information, each of the fourteen problem discussions is organized according to the

following four-part general outline:

e Introduction. Presents a general conceptual view of the tech-

nical nature of the problem; technical and working definitions; basic
aspects of general cause-effect relationships typically involved; and

other background information as considered necessary to later discussion.

e Evaluation of Problem. Relates explicitly to the Nassau-Suffolk

bicounty regional context. Presents quantitative and qualitative evidence

For a more detailed background discussion, see R. H. Ellis, et al. The Develop-
ment of a Procedure and Knowledge Requirements for Marine Resource Planning: The
Classification of Marine Resource Problems of Nassau and Suffolk Counties, The
Travelers Research Corporation Report 7722-3476 prepared for the Marine Resourc es
Council of the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, April 1969, pp. 9-112.

thus far obtained from interviews and published sources regarding the

present or potential existence of the problem; its local or non-local

causes and consequences; locations and geographical extent of occurrence;

and general time pattern (trends and seasonal or other fluctuations).

9 Public Policy Background. Principally a summary of structure

and functions of public agencies at various governmental levels that have

regulatory or other roles directly relevant in the problem context.
Although not attempting a detailed analysi of policy issues, in some

instances brief interpretive comment is offered regarding the scope

and function of existing policies or other issues brought to our attention

which we have deemed particularly important to an understanding of the

problem.

e Indicated Information Needs. Represents a first attempt to
identify general types of information that-in our opinion, or in the opinion
of various sources referenced-appear fundamental to a fuller understanding
of the problem and/or to its effective potential management and control.

A selected list of references consulted, both in the pertinent literature and in

interviews and communications, is included at the end of each problem discussion.

In addition, for those readers not intimately familiar with Long Island geography, a

reference map, printed on the inside front and back covers of this report indicates the
general geographical configuration of Long Island and identifies principal coastal
features, as well as political jurisdictions and places specifically mentioned in the

problem discussions.
The reader familiar with our initial report to the Marine Resource Council* will

note that three of the seventeen problems originally identified and reported in that

volume are not dealt with here, and a brief word of explanation is in order. The three

problems in question are: salt water intrusion, .preservation of sites of historic or
natural value, and the development of marine-related industry. In each instance, the
decision not to include the problem was based partly on a general desire to limit the

*Ibid., pp. 25-56.

total number of problems at this stage of the project and, in part. on a conclusion that
these three either tended to be inconsistent with our conceptual framework for problem
definition or could be at least partially hirluded as aspects of other problems alre"IdY

dealt with.

Thus, we concluded that salt water intrusion, although a problem of the coastal
zone, could properly be regarded as a problem of fresh-water management and that

its implications for marine resources did not seem sufficiently strong to warralit oul,

detailed attention at this time. Natural and historical site preservation, on the other

hand, can probably be included to a large extent under the wetland destruction problem;

while those aspects of historical site preservation not included are essential ly policy

issues not involving technical man-environment interrelationships. Filially, the

development of marine-related industry is both too broad a topic and too closely related

conceptually to regional planning itself to be conveniently handled within our present

"problem description" framework. Although some aspects of marine industry develop-

ment are dealt with under the finfish and shellfish problems, adequate treatment of the

overall topic requires a much broader analytical approach, and it should probably be
treated as a topic worthy of special project status during a later phase of the research

program.

Introduction SPORT AND COMMERCIAL FINFISH
An evaluation of commercial and sport fishing problems and prospects for

Long Island requires an initial focus on tlie status of the fishery population resource

base. This is the pivotal concern upon which questions of recreational and commercial

success and development depend. Examination of available evidence reveals a

decidedly mixed picture with respect to individual finfish populations. so that it is

extremely difficult to demonstrate a general decline or depletion of -the resource at

this point in time.

It is further evident from the widespread diversity in habitat requirements,

life-cycle patterns, and intensity of exploitation of the various important species,
that individual species must be studied in detail if a satisfactory management program
is to be evolved. The reasons for decline or expansion in numbers of a particular
species are seldom obvious, and marine fishery science has only recently developed
to the point where it can begin to provide tentative answers for only a few of the key
species. However, as illustrated below. existing knowledge does show quite conclu-
sively that the problems -of management for a substantial proportion of finfish popula-

tions necessarily extend well beyond the geographic and legal jurisdictional boundaries

of Long.Island and New York State waters.

Evaluation of Problem

There exist two major sources of empirical information on the current status
of finfish populations in Long Island waters. The first is the records of commercial
landings at Long Island fishing ports compiled by the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [20]. The second general source consists of
specialized population surveys conducted primarily by the Bureau of Marine Fisheries

of the New York State Department of Conservation. Each has its own inherent

strengths and shortcomings, some of which are outlined below in connection with a
brief discussion illustrating the types of knowledge and information which they are

yielding.

The landings statistics are the most widely referenced source of information
on the general status of Long Island fisheries resources. As a data base they possess
three outstanding advantages over other sources: (1) they are current, being gathered
continuously and published monthly; (2) they have been collected over a long period

of time, thus.providing a long-term historical record for trend evaluation; (3) they

are quite comprehensive, covering over 40 individual finfish species. On the other

hand, landing statistics represent only an indirect picture of fishery resource popu-
lations, because they necessarily reflect variable degrees both of actual fishing effort

and of efficiency of capture over time. Further, they also fail to account for sport

fishing results (relatively significant for certain species such as fluke), and can be

quite imprecise regarding where the fish were captured (within or outside Long Island

waters) or the extent to which catches in the Long Island region may be landed at

ports outside the area.* Nor do the published data in and of themselves yield informa-
tion on size- or'year-class distributions or characteristics of individual species

landings, other than total weight, which might provide clues to future population

changes. Thus, although a most significant source of information, these statistics

represent an imperfect measure of the existing state of fishery populations and do not

explain the changes that they reflect.

An examination of these landings statistics for the New York Marine District

over.the past 15 years, presented in Table 1, indicates a decided downward trend in

total weight of finfish landed-varying between 86 and 165 million pounds in the

1954-1963 period as contrasted wit h 24 to 67 million pounds in the 1964-1968 period.
It should be noted, however, that menhaden (a species of fairly low unit value) has
constituted over 80 percent of the weight of total landings in years of high abundance,
and the downward trend for this single species has therefore tended to dominate the

aggregate trend for all species. To a large extent, this explains not only the mar kedly

less steep decline but also the significantly greater stability of the total value of finfish

landings over the period.

*The offshore fisheries of the Georges Bank are of course exploited by the fishing
fleets of numerous foreign nations as well as, those of many other North Atlantic
Coastal States of the U.S.

TABLE 1
FINFISH ]LANDINGS IN NEW YORK MARINE DISTRICT,
1954-1968

Total finfish* Selected commercially important species (million pounds)
-F n Scup Se: Striped Whiting Yellowtail Blackback
Yr Weight Value Bluefishj-@: Fluke Menhade a bass Butterfish
(1,000 lbs) ($1,000) 1 1 bass flounder flounder
1968 38.7 2,880 .6 .4 1.2 17.8 2.8 .1 1.5 3.3 5.6 1.0 1.8
1967 24.3 2,811 .6 .5 2.0 .6 3.3 .1 1.6 3.9 5.5 1.1 2.9
1966 26.4 2,789 .9 .2 2.5 4.9 4.1 .2 1.1 2.0 3.5 .6 3.2
1965 55.4 3,011 1.0 .4 2.5 30.1 7.5 .4 .7 3.3 3.7 .8 2.2
1964 67.5 3,015 .7 .5 1.9 42.4 8.3 .5 1.0 3.1 3.6 1.1 1.4
1963 118.1 3,498 .7 .8 1.3 91.7 9.3 .6 .6 2.4 4.7 1.2 1.8

1962 165.5 3,644 .8 1.0 1.6 138.3 10.7 .5 .6 2.7 3.9 1.6 3.9

1961 111.7 3,467 .5 1.2 2.3 84.1 12.1 .3 .8 2,6 2.0 1.7 1.7

1960 113.0 3,373 .4 1.0 2.5 84.2 13.0 .5 .5 3.6 1.1 1.8 1.6

1959 113.6 3,545 .3 2.0 2.8 75.9 13.5 .6 .4 2.1 .6 2.6 1.3

1958 85.6 3,530 .1 2.2 2.3 55.0 14.3 .8 .3 2.0 .5 3.0 2.0

1957 146.3 4,202 .4 1.8 3.5 116.8 11.8 .8 .5 3.7 .2 2.5 1.5

1956 138.9 3,608 .4 1.3 4.3 114.4 10.9 .5 .3 1.5 .2 1.4 .9

1955 118.2 3,337 .5 2.3 2.6 89.6 13.0 .9 .4 3.9 .2 1.5 .5

1954 125.0 3,422 .4 1.2 3.7 98.1 12.8 1.3 .4 2.2 .1 1.5 .5

*This table does not include unclassified fish for bait, for reduction or for animal food, but does include unclassified fish for food.
Source: Compiled from [25].

Table 1 also illustrates the decidedly mixed trends of landings of individual
species of which the total landings picture is composed. Although landings of cod,
fluke, menhaden, scup and sea bass have been down in recent years, those of blue-
fish, blackback flounder, yellowtail flounder, and striped bass have been generally

increasing, while whiting has remained remarkably constant.

As noted above. these statistics do not in themselves provide definitive answers to

questions of fishery resource abundance ; however, they do provide a valuable indicator
of changes in individual species that may warrant more detailed evaluation.

All biological species exhibit fluctuations (sometimes quite extreme) under

natural conditions. Such fluctuations may be due to a variety of natural factors

including temperature effects on reproduction success or migration patterns, dynamic
predator-prey interrelationships, and many others. It thus becomes extremely

difficult to distinguish the effects of man (both through his harvesting activity and his
impact on local ll@bitat conditions) from the naturally operative causal factors. It is

also difficult in the short run to distinguish between fluctuations in abundance and

changes in longer term trends. Very little is known of the open water stages of most

of the pertinent species and, since a majority of species important to Long Island are

inherently migratory. problems of scientific understanding and management are made

even more difficult.

Species population surveys represent an attempt at direct measurement of current

status together, usually, with an effort to analyze and explain findings in greater scien-

tific detail. Being much more time-consuming and expensive, they are done oil a

sampling basis and depend heavily on the adequacy of sampling techniques and methods

of statistical evaluation. Efforts relating to individual species thus also tend to be

sporadic in time and quite selective in species covered, thus lacking the advantages
of the landings data in terms of time-continuity and comprehensiveness of species

coverage.

Within the constraints of limited research resources, however, a significant
body of knowledge and data regarding Long Island finfish populations is gradually being
accumulated. Principal species studied within the past 12-15 years have included

the weakfish [141, fluke [.15, 8], winter flounder [16,17], striped bass [20, 211,

northern kingfish [231,hake a'nd scup. For the most part, the studies have been directed
at ascertaining sources of origin (spawning area), migration patterns, size, area and
sex distributions as these relate to an explanation of general abundance of given
species in Long Island waters. For example, the drastic decline in weakfish popu-
lations in New York waters in the period immediately after W.W. II has been traced
in significant part to a reduction in southern- spawned fish in Long Island waters
(upon which the Long island fishery was largely dependent), probably due to over-
harvesting by southern Mid -Atlantic -based fleets [14].
The published and interview materials thus far obtained indicate that relatively
lAtle scientific attention has been devoted to questions of how local (Long Island)
habitat conditions, temperature, salinity, pollutant materials, etc. may be related to
observed finfish population changes. This area of knowledge remains largely in a
speculative stage. It has been suggested, for example, that recently observed declines
in fluke (summer flounder) and scup (porgy) may be explicable by a general cooling
trend in coastal waters. However, this has not been rigorously supported as yet.
Although considerable concern has been expressed regarding pollution effects, we
have not found scientific evidence that local pollution has been a significant factor
influencing Long Island finfish populations.

The economic status and development potential of the Long Island commercial
fishing industry depends at least as much on technological capability, market demand,
and regional and international competition as on the health of regional finfish popu-
lations. We have not had the opportunity as yet to investigate these factors in detail.
However, a number of general impressions may be noted.
To a significant degree, the Long Island finfishing industry shares the same
bistory of economic problems as other U.S. Atlantic Coast fleets. These include:
declines in numbers of vessels and employment; depressed rates of return on invested

capital and sub-standard wage scales; and a preponderance of old, largely obsolete
capital equipment with a markedly slow rate of technological improvement by modern
international standards (2]. United States'market demands for finfish have grown very

slowly over time, and an increasingly larger proportion of this demand has been met
by foreign imports (about 76 percent by 1967) [26, p. 46]. Although some of these

difficulties may have stemmed from decreases in the fisheries resource (Perhaps
due to over-harvesting of certain species), the major explanations must be found in
the economic, legal and other institutional factors determining the organization and

competitive abilitv of the U.S. fishing industry itself.

Public Policy Bac kground

The public agency with primary direct authority and responsibility for finfish

resources is the Bureau of Marine Fisheries of the New York Statp Conservation

Department. The Bureau's major functions include, in addition to research activities.

the issuance of non-resident commercial licenses and the supervision and enforce-

ment of various re(,,-ulations regarding permissible methods of fishing, size limits for

certain species. and areas where certain types of fishing are prohibited 1241. For
the most part, the specific regulations themselves are established item h,y item by

the State le-isl4ture under the Fish and Game Laws, and thus tend to be r ather

inflexible over time and subject to private pressure-group influence. These control
measures can apply only to the coastal waters within the jurisdiction of the State of
New York-generally, the three-mile limit for areas other than Long Island Sound.
In an effort to provide a more rational approach to the management of migratory
species, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Compact has been established to provide

a mechanism for coordination of management and control policies and the encourage-

ment of research and development efforts of mutual interest to the Atlantic Coast
states. The Atlantic State Marine 'Fisheries Commission established under this

Compact has advisory powers only, and does not have direct authority to issue

regulations or to decide on matters of conflict among its member states. Its budget
has also been quite limited. Up to the present, its impact has been relatively restricted,

and it is not generally considered a "strong" a,-ency in terms of its ability to influence

interstate management.

At the national level, the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries and the Bureau of

Sport Fisheries and Wildlife of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the

Interior, are the primary agencies. In general, these agencies lack control functions
relative to fisheries in coastal waters, and serve primarily in rese'arch and informa-
tion gathering capacities insofar as finfish mana gement is concerned.

United States federal government involvement is also to be noted in relation to

problems of m anagement in international waters, where greatly increased international
competition has caused growing concern over the past 20 years. In this area, regu-

lation is even more difficult than for inshore coastal waters, since it involves all

the ramifications of international treaty formulation. The beginnings of an institu-

tional structure for obtaining international cooperation and the resolution of conflict

have been createdin the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic

Fisheries (ICNAF).

it has already become evident that "management" of the finfishery resources is
generally in a quite rudimentary state of development. At present it consists mainly
of size limits on a few key species, supplemented by certain regulations on commercial
fishing gear. With the except'ion of construction of a few artificial reefs for sport
fishing, habitat improvement and preservation activities have remained largely beyond
the control of fishery management authorities. The major dependence of Long Island
fisheries on migratory species inherently places the jurisdiction of potential manage-
ment beyond the scope of state or local authority to a very significant degree.

Indicated Information Needs

The information needs for the management and possible development of Long Is land
finfish resource potentials would appear to fall into two major categories relating
to (1) th e status of the fishery resource and its environmental relationships and
(2) the nature of the commercial and recreational activities dependent upon the
fishery populations.
Regarding the former, considerably more information is required regarding

basic population characteristic4 including numbers, size and age distributions and
migration patterns. At present, individual species tend to be studied intensively only
at widely spaced time intervals and after sharp decreases in commercial recoveries
have already been experienced. Effective management requires more systematic
information than now typically exists, in terms of numbers of species covered,
statistical reliability of data, and continuity of observations over time.
However, even though we might collect every possible bit of information about
each individual species population, the picture would still be incomplete. Work is

especially needed on the behavior of populations in the context of the biological
community and habitat in which they are found (ambitiously, the ecosystem). Clearly
this type of knowledge is elusive. hut improved knowledge of optimal habitat condi-
tions and environmental relationships for key species is an indicated requirement if

management is to be concerned with positive measures for maintaining and increasing

natural rates of productivity. This involves directed research and development efforts

toward the ultimate objective of increasing man's basic productivity of highly value( I

species through habitat improvement and other scientific approaches to aquaculture.

Regarding the human activities dependent on finfish resources, the Long Island

commercial finfishing industry has not, to our knowledge, been intensively studied

in terms of its organizational structure, legal and other institutional attributes.

market demand characteristics, and other factors related to its viability and develop-

ment potential. Knowledge along these lines would appear vital to an assessment of
questions relate@ to industry revitalization. It is also quite relevant to questions

regarding the setting of priorities for and evaluating the potential gains from investing

in fisheries research and management programs, because the regional payoff from

such programs depends on the ability of the private fishing sector to exploit the

results in an efficient and profitable manner. More knowledge and information

relating to sport fishing demands and preferences would also be desirable for similar

reasons.

Selected References

1. Alperin, Irwin M. and Richard H. Shaefer, 1965: Marine fishes new or

uncommon to Long Island, New York. New York Fish and Game Journal, 12: 1,

January, pp. 1-16.
2. Bell, Frederick W., 1966: The economics of the New England fishing
industry: The role of technological change and government aid. Research Report
to the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, No. 31, Boston, Mass.

3. Briggs, Philip T., (no date): Comparison of the fish fauna over sand-filled
and natural bottoms of Great South Bay, New York. A Progress Report, New York
State Conservation Department, Ronkonkoma, Long Island, New York, p. 4.

4. Briggs, Philip T., 1969: Salt water fishing on Long Island. Mimeograph,

New York State Conservation Department, Ronkonkoma, New York.

5. -, 1968: The sport fisheries for scup in the inshore waters of eastern

Long Island. New York Fish and Game Journal, 15:2, July, pp. 165-185.
6. -, 1965: The sport fisheries for winter flounder in several bays of
Long Island. New York Fish and Game Journal, 12: 1, January, pp. 48-70.
7. --, 1965: The sport fishery in the surf on the south shore of Long Is la nd

from Jones Inlet to Shinnecock Inlet. New York Fish and Game Journal, 12: 1,

January, pp. 31-47
8. -, 1962: The sport fisheries of Great South Bay and vicinity. New York

Fish and Gaine Journal 9: 1, January, pp. 1- 36.
9. Christy, Francis T., and Anthony Scott, 1965: The common wealth in
ocean fisheries. The Johns Hopkins Press for Resources for the Future, Inc.,

Baltimore, Md.

10. Jenson, Albert C. and John C. Pool, 1968: Fishing with the Russians.
The Conservationist (State of New York Conservation Department), Vol. 22, No. 4,

pp. 2-6.

11. --, 1969: Fishing again with the Russians. The Conservationist. Vol. 23,

No. 5, pp. 10-13 ff.
12. Knickerbocker, Dave, 1968: Decline of fluke can't be explained. News Dim

Long Island, New York, November 13.

13. The Marine Fisheries of New York, 1963. Long Island Commercial

Review, November 21, pp. 11 & 13.

14. Perlmutter, Alfred, William S. Miller and John C. Poole, 1956: The weak-

fish (Cynoscion regalis) in New York waters. New York Fish and Game Journal, 3: 1,

pp. 1-43.
15. Poole, John C., 1966: A review of research concerning summer flounder
and needs for further study. New York Fish and Game Journal, 13:2, July, pp. 226m-231.

16. -, 1966: The use of salt-water coves as winter flounder nursery grounds,

New York Fish and Game Journal, 13:2, July, pp. 221-225.

17. Poole, John C., 1966: Growth and age of winter flounder in four bays of

Long Island, New York Fish and Game Journal, 13:2, July, pp. 206-220.

18. -, 1964: Feeding habits of the summer flounder in Great South Bay.

New York Fish and Game Journal, 11: 1, January, pp. 28- 34.

19. -, 1962: The fluke population of Great South Bay in relation to the sport
fishery, New York Fish and Game Journal, 9:2, July, pp. 93-117.
20. Rathjen, Warren F. and Lewis C. Miller, 1957: Aspects of the early life
history of the striped bass (Roccus saxatilus) in the Hudson River, New York Fish

and Game Journal, 4:1, January, pp. 43-60.

21. Shaefer, Richard H., 1968: Size, age composition and migration of striped

bass from the surf waters of Long Island, New York Fish and Game Journal, 15:1,

pp. 1-51.

22. -, 1967: Species composition, size and seasonal abundance of fish in the

surf waters of Long Island, New York Fish and Game Journal, 14:1, January, pp. 1-46.
23. -, 1965: Age and growth of the northern kingfish in New York State waters,

New York Fish and Game Journal, 12:2, July, pp. 191-216.

24. State of New York, 1967: Fish and game law in relation to marine fisheries.

Albany, N. Y.

25. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of

Commercial Fisheries, 1954-68, New York landings, annual summaries.

26.-, 1968: Fisheries of the United States ... 1967. Washington, D.C., U.S.

'Department of Interior.

27. Wilkins, Bruce T., 1967: Outdoor recreation and the commercial fishery

in the Town of Southold. Department of Conservation, New York State College of

Agriculture, Ithaca, N. Y.

SHE LLFISH

Introduction
Shellfishing represents one of Long Island's oldest and most important marine-

related industries. the dockside value of production outranking that of finfish 111,11I.N,

times over.* In addition, shellfishing constitutes a valued recreational endeavor mid

household food source for thousands of Long Island residents. As was true of finfish

populations discussed in the previous section, the "shellfish problem" must he

evaluated in terms of individual species and specific regional habitats in order to

comprehend the diversity of issues and experience relating to this category of natural

resources.

The principal species of importance to Long Island presently include the hard
and surf clams (Venu metcenaria and Mactra solidissima), the eastern oyster
(Crassostrea virginica), the northern lobster (Homarus americanus), and the ha.v
scallop (Pecten irradians). The soft clam (Mya arenaria), and various conch and
mussel species are also fished commercially but are of secondary importance.
The sea scallop (Pecten magellanicus), though an important speci es in New.York
and adjacent waters, is primarily fished by a specialized dredging fleet landing at

Fulton Market.

Unlike finfish, shellfish are for the most part non-migratory, and this con-.
stitutes both an advantage and disadvantage from the standpoint of population

abundance and effective resource exploitation and management. On the one hand, a

localized natural habitat facilitates the application of intensive cultivation and manage-

ment techniques; and it allows for potential management within local political juris-

dictions over the entire life cycle of the species. One the other hand, the same

characteristic implies that the entire stock of exploitable resource for any given
area is crucially dependen t on the maintenance of favorable habitat conditions in
that same area over its entire cycle of reproduction and growth. This means that

*For the New York Marine District as a whole, shellfish landings in 1968 were
over 3-1/2 times the value of all finfish landings ($11.4 million as opposed to
$2.9 million) [2].

temporarily adverse local conditions (natural or man-caused) cannot be escaped
by temporary out-migration; nor can low resident abundance in any given year be
offset by immigration from other regional populations. in general, this tends to
enhance the possibility of large-amplitude fluctuations in abunaance and also the
potential for local extinction of particular species.

Evaluation of Problem

United States Bureau of Commercial Fisheries statistics on commercial landings
in the New York Marine District (presented in Table. 2 below) reveal a substantialiv

mixed picture for Long Island shellfish production over the past 15 years. On the

one hand, lobster and hard clam landings approximately tripled during this period,
while oysters continued their precipitous long-term decline, and bay scallops

decreased to a 10-year low in 1967 at barely 15 percent of their 1962 peak for the

period. Sea scallops, though showing significant year-to-year fluctuations, evidenced

no particular trend, while surf clams showed a steady and continuous recovery from

a precipitous decrease in the 1956-58 period.

Inferences from total landings data regarding trends in species abundance must

be approached with caution.* This is especially true since data were not readily

available for assessing levels of fishing effort corresponding to annual production

figures. Thus, the landings figures reflect both changes in individual species avail-

abilities as well as changes in effort and efficiency of harvest. Nevertheless, it

seems evident, both from these datd and from the expert opinion of New York State
Bureau of Marine Fisheries personnel, that no sweeping generalizations concerning
the status of Long island "shellfish resources" as a group can be made with accuracy.
, The species of most obvious local concern is the oyster. As recently as 20 years
ago Long Island oyster production yielded gross revenues to producers of about
$10 million from a harvest of some 10 million bushels [141. By 1967, even at a price
more than double the level of the late 1940's, oysters yielded total revenues barely

*Most of the comments regarding landings statistics as a source of information on
species population status that were made previously in the section on finfish also apply
in the present discussion. However, for shellfish, these data do present a much better
indication as to the general location of capture.

MM M MMMM M M M M

TAB LE 2
SHELLFISH LANDINGS:
NEW YORK MARINE DISTRIC'r,
1954-1968

Individual species landings (millions of pounds*) Total landings
Year Lobster Hard Surf Oyster Sea p Bay We ight Value
clams clamS scallo scallop (1,000 lbs) ($1,000)

1968 1.2 7.0 3.0 .2 1.5 .2 14.4 11.4

1967 .9 7.0 2.3 .1 1.4 .2 13.0 9.8

1966 .7 6.6 1.8 .2 2.1 .3 13.4 8.4

1965 .6 5.9 1.5 .2 2.9 .9 13.6 8.9

1964 .5 5.4 1.2 .2 2.0 .7 11.5 6.9

1963 .4 .5.3 1.0 .4 1.9 .3 10.4 5.9

1962 .3 4.8 .8 .7 2.7 1.0 12.0 6.2

1961 .5 4.3 .7 .8 3.0 .8 11.5 5.7

1960 .5 3.9 .7 .8 2.8 .8 10.8 5.3

1959 .6 3.4 .5 .9 3.0 .4 9.8 5.3

1958 .4 3.7 .4 1.0 2.0 .6 9.7 4.5

1957 .4 3.6 1.6 1.1 1.8 .6 10.2 4.8

1956 .5 3.6 2.4 1.1 2.7 .2 11.2 5.2

1955 .3 2.7 2.0 1.4 4.5 .2 12.0

1954 .4 2.5 2.8 1.7 1.9 .1 10.9 4.1

*Weights of edible meants, except for lobsters.
Source: Compiled from reference [ 121, 1954-1968,

over 2 percent of the early postwar years. This steady long-term decline in production
occurred in spite of a substantial research and development effort supported by Federal
and state government and private industry interests.. The .1968 harvest marked the

first year of the past fifteen to show an increase rather than a decrease over the

previous Year's production.

The oyster industry is unique among Long Island fin. and shellfish in that it has

never depended on natural reproduction as the basis for its operations [9]. Long

Island waters have traditionally been utilized principally as growing and fattening

areas, with "seed" largely obtained elsewhere, primarily from Connecticut natural

spawning and setting heds. Long Island oyster misfortunes have largely coincided
r, t, I
with a widespread general decline in mid-Atlantic and Southern New England produc-

tion during past decades [15). Inability to obtain seed oysters from these other areas

has constituted a principal bottleneck in maintaining traditional production practices
on Long Island. In this respect at least, the industry's decline has not been due
solely to purely local environmental conditions.
In response to this situation, four oyster hatcheries have been established on

Long Island; however continuing difficulties have been encountered in rearing the

larvae through the stage of metamorphosis ("setting") to the point where they are
transplantable as young oysters to the growing beds.
According to Loosanoff [7, pp. 14-181, oyster eggs and larvae are relatively
hardy and capable of surviving significant changes in temperature, salinity, turbidity,
and mechanical disturbances. However, they can be extremely sensitive to certain

trace chemical elements naturally present in sea waters, to toxic substances such as

DDT and other pesticides, oils, organic solvents, and detergents, and to a variety of
viral, bacterial, and other disease producing organisms as well as being subject to

a number of parasite and predator species. The precise combination of these and

other factors responsible for poor setting in Long Island waters has not been determined,
but at least four types of developmental programs are underway in order to improve

setting results [9].
The first involves experimentation and research with. salt water ponds as
nursery areas, under the auspices of the Bureau of Marine Fisheries and private

interests. The second, developing the larvae off the bottom on specially constructed
stringers (a technique developed in Japan), has been applied, but as yet has not becii
perfected. , Success in obtaining satisfactory sets has been highly variable due to
unknown factors; and the higher costs of the vertical technique have also proved a
sianificant constraint. The third relates to an experiment utilizing the discharge
basin of the Northport steam electric station as an artificially warmed nursery
area [5]. Since temperatures above 60*F are necessary for successful development
of eggs and larvae, it is believed that the discharge basin may offer a more nearly
optimal habitat than that found in Long Island Sound itself. The fourth is primarily
involved with developing improved strains of disease-resistent, faster growing oysters
as well as an oyster whose larvae does not require a cultch to metamorphose into a

you ng oyster.
In addition to seed supply problems, unusually high mortality rates on the
growing beds has been another major factor in reduced oyster production. For

reasons not entirely known, benthic predator populations of starfish and drills
appear to have increased substantially, in spite of concerted efforts at control. The

technology of vertical culture mentioned above is also relevant here as a possible

means of avoiding benthic predators. However, a number of other environmental

factors relating to water quality (e.g., pesticide residues and nutrient- induced

increases in (Nannochlorus phytoplankton), and disease -producing and parasitic
organisms have also been implicated as causes of adult oyster mortality.
While the oyster industry is highly specialized and almost completely

commercial in nature, clamming still represents a mixed operation, engaged- in by

larger-scaled companies with advanced harvesting equipment, the small-scale "bay-
menl@ utilizing traditional methods (both full and part-time), and also as a family

quasi-recreational pursuit. Some beds are privately owned or le ased others are

publically owned and generally open to the local populace. Good natural clam sets
have been the rule since the early 1960's, following severe hurricane damage in

the 1950's, and commercial productivity has been increased significantly with the

introduction of advanced hydraulic dredges.

There is evidence of over-harvesting of hard clams on the north shore (Huntington
Bay) public grounds, resulting in diminished stocks and decreased productivity f131.
This is a potential problem of any natural fishery in which the entry of harvestors is
unrestricted, and points up the need for public management in situations where resource

exploitation exceeds the capacity of a renewable resource to maintain itself. Reductions

of productivity were not evidenced in the privately leased areas of Huntington Bay.
Nor have they apparently yet occurred in the public shellfish grounds of south shore
bay.
Declining production of bay scallops has also been widely noted for Long Island,
commercial harvest in 1967 being at a 10-year low for the species, followed by only
a small recovery in 1968. It is generally believed by professional fisheries people

that the decline is due to natural causes; and although the precise nature of these

causes has not been ascertained, the observed decline appears to have occurred
universally throughout the geographic range of this species [9]. Since the life span
of the bay scallop is extremely short (18-26 months), and since an individual spawns
only once during its life, one or two years at random of poor spawning success is all
Ahat is necessary to cause an extreme decline in the population. It may be noted from
Table 2 that similarly low levels of harvest occurred in the 1954-56 period, but
that very rapid recovery had taken place within a very few years. As far as can be

determined, management techniques for mitigating the periodic declines of this species

have not been developed or applied. This could represent an important area for basic

research and experimental management.
A substantial portion of shellfish growing areas (about 10 percent) are presently

closed to shellfishing for public health reasons due to bacterial contamination from

domestic and duck wastes.* However, it is not known what portion of closed areas

*Reported figures on total areas open and closed to shellfishing are ambiguous
since the definitional basis of "shellfish areas" has not been precisely defined in the
sources. One unpublished source indicated that 10% of a total of 331 thousand acres
of "shellfish waters" is closed (18% for Nassau and 2%for Suffolk County). Unpublished
Bureau of Marine Fisheries tabulations indicate 7.3% of Nassau-Suffolk "shellfish area-
(out of a total of 671 thousand total acres) is closed all or part of the year.

are in fact currently producing unharvestable shellfish or could. if reopened, con-
stitute potential areas for cultivation and harvest. There is currently operative a
limited, largely experimental, program of transplanting clams from closed to open
areas where the organisms purge themselves of contaminants. The economics of
transplanting constitutes a significant obstacle to its widespread use. since, c.ounting
losses of transplants, transplanting has heen estimated to add upwards of $2.00 per
bushel to the total cost of harvested product [9]. An alternative to transplanting in
relation to possibilities for utilizing the product of contaminated areas is the develop-
ment of "depuration" plants, where biologically contaminated shellfish would be purged

of contaminants. Depuration is practiced extensively in Europe. [3, p. 21, and to some
extent in Maine and Massachusetts [8]. None presently exists on a commercial basis
in New York State, although the Bureau of Marine Fisheries has been operating an
experimental pilot plant, and considerable research and development effort is being
conducted elsewhere in the U.S. However. it is anticipated that at least some portions

of presently closed areas may be reopened with the introduction of improved domestic

sewage treatment plants and changes, in duck waste disposal methods.
There is every reason to believe that Long Island shellfish production is capable
of being substantially increased in the future through the applications of more

advanced scientific knowledge, technological development and better management of

the resource. Most of these species are potentially capable of intense cultivation or

@6aquaculturell [41; and except for oysters, where a strong start has been made the

remaining species are still mainly exploited under a traditional "food gathering

ipproach dependent on natural conditions of reproduction and abundance. However,

cultivation requires not only substantial capital investment but also unified

management of the human, capital and natural resources involved in order to exploit

its potential. This would seem to imply either relatively large-scaled private enter-
prise with proprietary rights to exclusive use of the natural resource base, or a
public-private cooperative endeavor with restricted private entry to the harvesting

stage of production. In either case, adequate demand for the product must exist to

ensure success.*

Public Policy Back-ground

For the most part the governmental agencies with a developmental and/or

regulatory interest in shellfish production are the same as those discussed iii the

section on finfishing.

The principal agency is the New York State Bureau of Marine Fisheries which,
in addition to research and development activities, exercises a wide N@ariety of State

regulatory functions under the New York State fish and game laws. Among the latter

are included: issuing leases for exclusive shellfish cultivation rights to private

enterprises on certain state-owned lands; the licensing of all commercial shellfish

harvesfors; the licensing of shellfish processors and shippers; the enforcement of

regulations regarding fishing seasons and size limits; the determination of areas
to be closed fo@ sanitary reasons, and the enforcement of regulations pertaining to

harvesting, transplanting and shipping of contaminated products.

In contrast with the finfish situation, the State of New York is thus able to

exercise controls over most of the relevant resource base, which in this case is

essentially non-migratory and entirely within its political jurisdiction. It is not,

however, empowered by law to regulate all aspects of the environmental resource

(such as water quality) or to manage all aspects of resource exploitation. In this
latter regard, for example, it does -not have the ability to restrict commercial entry
to public shellfishing grounds or to directly regulate total harvest from these grounds.

Various town governments are also involved in the leasing of town-owned lands
to commercial cultivators and the issuance of permits for commercial harvesting in

town waters.

Shellfish destined for sale in interstate commerce are regulated in terms of
quality under the National Shellfish Sanitation Program of the U.S. Public Health
Service, which both determines the water quality standards under which harvesting

*In this connection, it may be noted that the harvest of hard clams was restricted by
hydraulic dredging companies in 1968 [12, p. 21,. presumably as a measure to, maintain
price levels in the face of abundant supply.

is permissible and the sanitary quality characteristics of product to be shipped. The
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries of the U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, is the primary federal agency involved with shellfish research and development
programs as well as the principal source of industry landings and other statistics.

Indicated Information Needs

As with finfish, information needs for dealing with various aspects of shellfish

production can be grouped under two general categories: one relating to technical
aspects of the resource itself (shellfish species and habitat relationships), and the
other relating to economic, legal and other institutional aspects of shellfish production

and marketing.

The first requirement is for systematic basic scientific knowledge on the life

cvcle processes and ecological factors influencing population numbers and growth
rates for each important species of shellfish. A considerable body of'such knowledge
already exists and major on-going research efforts continue under both public and
private support. Nevertheless, the knowledge thus far attained and (perhaps more
importantly) the ability to integrate the wide variety of physical, physiological', chemical
and other areas of knowledge into a comprehensive whole is apparently insufficient

to the needs of accurate prediction and precise explanation of population changes in
the real-world marine habitat. This seems especially true, for example, in the areas
of "setting conditions," chemical toxicities, and pathology.
In addition to knowledge of how and why shellfish populations prosper or decline,

knowledge is also needed regarding the controlling factors themselves in terms of
possible ways to manipulate them to better advantage. The history of agricultural
science and technology illustrates and suggests the dual possibilities both of altering
species characteristics and of controlling environmental conditions to enhance pro-

ductivity of desired species.*
it is evident that knowledge of local environmental conditions in Long Island
shellfish waters is still far from satisfactory. The shellfish resource itself (including

*Laboratory knowledge is already available for inducing oys Iters to spawn any time
during the year [7], and development of "cultchless" oyster setting techniques is
imminent. The growing of oysters in heated water of electric power stations is another
example of environmental manipulation with great promise.
23

both benthic habitat conditions and shellfish population densities) has never been
systematically surveyed in terms of its existing status and development potential [9).
Such an inventory of present resources, especially if combined with current scientific
knowledge and local knowledge of historically high producing areas, would go a long
way toward providing a basis for future development.
Ability to apply known and prospective scientific and technological knowledge
to preserve and expand production levels must ultimately depend upon economic and
institutional factors relating to shellfish resource management and exploitation. At
present. systematically developed knowledge and information concerning these factors
is almost totally lacking for the Long Island region. Some of the areas and issues
requiring the exploration and analysis of the various social and behaviorial sciences

would include the following:

9 The present legal status relating to private and public proprietary

ri-lits over shellfishing resources in Long Island waters for the whole of

Long Island. Is the present leasing system consistent with the objective of
private development? How much legally leasible acreage is presently
unleased? What would be required politically to increase leasible acreage?

9 The economic structure, organization and performance of the
existing private shellfishing industry. Has the industry been expanding
or contracting in terms of numbers of firms and total employment? Are
individual firms large enough to provide sufficient capital and managerial
ability to exploit the resource efficiently? Where and to what extent is com-
petition excessive, both in terms of excessive harvesting in relation to
conserv ation needs and in terms of substandard profit levels? Would the
restriction of entry to certain public fishing grounds enhance total produc-
tion and could this be accomplished in a politically feasible manner? Is
development capital available to the industry? Are future demand potentials
high enough to accommodate significantly increased production levels at
profitable prices? For which particular species?
9 The role and function of public agencies in regulating and
managing the resource. What functions of public resource managern ent

are necessary to maintain and improve shellfish production? Is the New

York State Bureau of Marine Fisheries properly structured, in terms both
of organization and legal authority, to serve as- an agency for compre-

hensive management and development of shellfish resources? If considered

desirable, in what respects might it be strengthened in this regard?

Selected References

1. Bennett, Clinton, Marine Fisheries Sanitarian, New York State Conservation

Department. Personal interview, May 13, 1969.
2. Cooperative Shellfisheries, 1963: R & D Huntington's key to progress.
j@ong Island Commercial Review, November, p. 11.
3. Furfari, Santo A., 1966: Depuration plant design. National Shellfish Sanita--

tion Program, Public Health Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,

D. C.

4. Gaucher, T. A., 1968: Potential for aquiculture, Chapter 4 of Study of Mea!is tc)
Revitalize the Connecticut Fisheries Industry. Report to the Connecticut Research
Commission by the Electric Boat Division of General Dynamics Corp., January.
5. LILCO to Aid the Oyster Industry, 1967: News Bulletin, Long Island Lighting

Company, July, p. 1-3.
6. Long Island's Underwater Farming Industry Gaining R & D Revival. 1@02@

Island Commercial Review, November, p. 10.

7. Loosanoff, Victor L., 1965: The American or eastern oyste . U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Circular 205. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washingt on, D. C.

8. MacMillan, Bruce, Assistant Sanitary Engineer, New York State Conservation

Department. Personal interview, May 13, 1969.
9. Miller, William, Supervising Aquatic Biologist, Fisheries Management and

Development Unit, New York State Conservation Department. Persona I interview,

May 13, 1969.
10. New York State Fish and Game Law: Part IX, Marine Fishereies, Albany,

New York,1967.

11. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1965: National shellfish
sanitation program manual of operations. Public Health Service Publication, No. 3i,

Parts I and 11, 1965 revision.
25

12. U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Commercial Fi,:@Iwrios.

1954-1968: New York Landings: Annual Summaries.

13. Wallace, David H., Director of Marine Fisheries, New York @fatc Conserva-

tion Department. Personal interview, May 8, 1969.

14. -, 1963: The marine fisheries of New York. Long Island Commercial

Review, November, p. 11.

15. Wallace, Elizabeth M. and G. R. Lunz, 1968: The oyster-a shellfish

delicacy. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Leaflet No. 11 on Marine

Resources of the Atlantic Coast, October, Tallahassee, Florida.

.26

EELGRASS

Introduction

Zostera marina (eelgrass) is one of thirty species of flowering plants known to
grow naturally in the sea. This species of plant is found over a wide geographic range
from Southern Greenland to the Carolinas in the western Atlantic as well as along
the European coast. The abundance of eelgrass throughout its range has historically
been periodically affected by a serious wasting disease of unknown etiology. in the
Eastern United States, the last serious epidemic occurred in the early 1930's. It
was not until the mid-1940's that signs of a widespread recovery were noted; and now,
25 years later, the recovery has progressed to the point where eelgrass is regarded
by many as a major marine resource problem for Long Island.
The rationale for this designation is based on the difficulties encountered by

boating enthusiasts and swimmers utilizing stretches of water where eelgrass
flourishes, such as South Oyster, Great South, and Moriches Bays and adjacent waters,
as well as by people living near the shore line who are exposed to the obnoxious odors
of decaying eelgrass. In addition, standing growth can interfere with shellfish
harvesting and sport fishing activities. On the other hand, the ecological value of this
species as basic habitat and source of primary nutrients for a wide variety of marine
lifeforms is widely heralded by biologists and conservationists.
Considerable scientific. investigation has been devoted within recent decades to
studying the life cycle of e6lgrass and identifying the environmental factors that influence
its growth.* Comparative studies of the seasonal growth and reproduction of Zostera

marina were made as early as 1929 by Setchell [21, who identified four growth and

reproduction stages.
These stages are described by Burkholder and Doheny 11, pp. 7-9] as follows:

The first stage of growth may be regarded as exte nding from
germination of the seed to production of the first turion (bud) at the tip

of the rudimentary stem.

*For an extensive bibliography, see [1, pp 89-1201.

The second stage extends from the beginning of the growth of the
first bud through the development of a rhizome (subterraneous plant stern
capable of producing both roots and shoots) and formation of the second
turion and lateral buds. These stages take place during the first "eason
of growth beginning in the spring and ending in the late fall LIId winter.

9 The third stage takes place in the second season and consists of

the following: (a) the second turion develops into the erect flowering shoot,

then through pollen formation, to fruiting, death, and detachment for

floating: (b) the axillary buds develop into lateral rhizome segments, c:ich

with a terminal turion and lateral buds; (c) the main axis of the rhizone

dies away, leaving lateral rhizone segments free.

e the fourth stage and succeeding stages are essentially like the

processes (a), (b), and (c) of the third stage for each of the rhizome

segments separated and left alive at the close -of the previous growing

season.

Under favorable environmental conditions, this process, together with seed

dispersal by water currents, provides the potential for rapidly increasing (tensity and

geographic distribution.

A number of environmental conditions influence the growth and areal distribution

of eelgrass, including water temperature, light intensity, depth, salinity, character-

istics of benthic materials, and others.

The Wegman report [41 cites stu dies showing that vegetative growth is carried on

primarily in the range of 101C to 15*C while reproduction occurs solely in the interval

of 15*C to 20*C. Water depth has also been extensively investigated, the Wegman
report j41 concluding that in South Oyster Bay growth is heaviest in water depth from

one to four feet and no significant amount was below the nine-foot depth. A later study
by Burkholder and Doheny for the Town of Hempstead [11 also indicated a distinct
inverse relation between eelgrass health (as indicated by length of leaves and general

vigor of plants) and the depth of the water. The species studied in the South Oyster
Bay area demonstrated its best health in depths of water ranging from nine feet to

three feet with light intensities down to 19- 30 '/0 of it s incident value at the surface.

It was concluded that eelgrass does not and can not grow in the turbid waters of the
Bay region below a depth of about 6-8 feet 11, p. 59].

Older reports have indicated the importance of bottom matei-i:ils in the growth of

Zostera, since this marine plant takes its sustenanf@v from the inorganic, nutrient-rich

sediments of the bay bottoms rather than from the water in which it is immersed.

This has also been substantiated by Burkholder and Doheny who measure(] heaviest
growth in rich mud areas, with short leaves and small shoots evident in sandy -ravel
areas [1, p. 62-63]. More detailed study of these and othei- fnctors has continued

since the publication of results in 1968.

Evaluation of Problem

Since its recovery from the wasting disease of the mid-1930's. eelgrass has been
spreading westward from Great South Bay (where limited stands of apparantly disease-
resistent strains survived) into the bays of southern Nassau County as far west as
Great Island Channel in the Town of Hempstead by 1968 [1, p. 47). It has also become
substantially re-established eastward in other bay waters of Suffolk County. Of the
approximately 5,000 acres of water surface in South Oyster Bay, some 60% harbored
eelgrass in concentrations from 1 to 5.6 tons per acre, dry weight, by 1966, with
extremely dense stands yielding up to 14 tons [4]. Wilson and Brenowitz measured
stands in Great South Bay up to 8 tons per acre in 1965; and in July of 1968 the standing
crop in South Oyster Bay was estimated to vary between 1. 1 and 9.2 tons per acre
[1, p. 851.* As noted previously, considerable variation in density occurs, depending
on depth of water, bottom type, turbidity, period of growing season, and length of time
following recovery (or reintroduction) from the earlier period of scarcity.
With the recent reestablishment of large, dense growths of eelgrass, vociferous
indictments of eelgrass have come from boating enthusiasts and landowners along the
Long Island bays. The former group complains that the long slender leaves of the
grass foul propellers and water intakes and impede the passage of small boats. These

*These yields can be compared to average wheat acreage yields for the U.S. of
about one ton per acre, dry weight.

difficulties are created both by the attached plants in the shallower waters :ir(l I .- the
f These floating masses are also prope ll(- d I)v wi ii(k,
loating masses of severed leaves.

and tidal currents until they sink to the bottom or move into the creel,.s and canals
and onto the beaches where accumulation and decomposition lead to the unsi-,:htly and
obnoxious nuisance which is the source of complaint of the landowners. The Wegow-w
report [41 also noted that in some cases, where large amounts of these woods accun, -
ulated on the bottom of quiet bay waters, microbial decomposition became so rapid

that the oxygen was depleted and anaerobic fermentation took place, resulting in foul

odors and destruction of aerobic life on the bottom. Interference with sl-,.Al fish iliv

operations, swimmina. and rod and reel sport fishing during summer and fall 91-ONVOi".'

periods has a ]so been noted.

While the opponents of eelgrass have presented dramatic evidence of the adverse
effects of the species on a number of man's activities, the proponents have been less

successful in dramatizing their case. Since no major practical economic use has been

developed for the species, it has remained for scientific testimony to proclaim the

ecological importance of Zostera. This testimony is based on evidence, as noted ill

.the Town of Hempstead report, that eelgrass growth provides a favorable marine

habitat and primary food production to attract and foster the growth of small life

forms. These communities provide valuable feeding grounds for species such as

oysters, scallops and bait shrimp as well as many other marine forms living on or
near the eelgrass beds. Small animals that live in the vicinity of the eelgrass
community lead into the food chains of various important fish and waterfowl. Despite
the expert testimony of the significance of eelgrass to other marine species, popular
opinion is in favor of the control of its growth where it conflicts with other shore

line uses.

Control of the grass is generally aimed at the collection of floating masses of
broken-off leaves or the removal of the accumulated plants washed up on the beaches
and shore lines@. Amphibious scavengers equipped with mechanically operated booms

and rakes are available for the effective removal of floating grass from the water
and beaches of the, bay. Barges of other collection units are used to transport the
collected grass to disposal areas. This is a relatively expensive method-, however.

detailed cost data were not available.

In the vicinity of marina harbors or boat channels it may be desirable to control

the growth of living plants in the water. Mechanical cutting and uprooting of eelgrass
are common eradication methods which are, at best, only temporary solutions in
that they increase the chances of scattering root segments and do not prevent the
regrowth of the plants. Chemical control (Benclor 3) of eelgrass and macro-algae

has been experimented with and has been found effective, but is considered hazardous

to fish, wildlife and humans. Consequently, at present these chemicals are not

considered a feasible control method for the bays except under strictly controlled

applications.
Although its direct economic importance is negligible at present, historically,
eelgrass has been put to a wide variety of productive household, agricultural and
manufacturing uses [1, pp. 33-341. At various times and places in Europe and North

America, its ashes have been used as fertilizer, and dried fibers have been used for

fuel, insulating material, animal bedding, mattress stuffing, quilting, upholstering,
packing, basket weaving, and mulching. During World War II it was employed as a
substitute for gun cotton in Germany, and patents have been issued for its use as a
paper pulping material. As a primary organic material, it posses a number of
interesting characteristics in addition to its high rate of natural production, including
strength, durability, and resistance to insects and vermin.

If a profitable modern economic use for Zostera were to be developed in the
future, it could have widespread implications for the Long Island marine resource
picture, especially given its presently important ecological functions. In the mean-
time, conflicting interests and values abound concerning the extent to which eelgrass
constitutes a problem or a blessing; and these must somehow be reconciled in the

formulation of management and control policies. If, as is the concensus of expert

expert opinion [1, p. 85],-eelgrass does continue to spread and increase in density in
the bay waters of Long Island, management policy will become an increasingly

important issue in years to come.

Public Policy Background
Aside from conducting and sponsoring research relating to its biological and

ecological characteristics, public agencies are not actively involved in eelgrass

management and control to any significant extent. Some public control is undoubtedly
carried on as an incidental aspect of channel and other dredging operations; and the
protection of eelgrass habitat does constitute an aspect of the New York State Bureau
of Marine Fisheries and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service responsibilities for biological
resource management.*
It is evident that pressures have been mounting at the town and county level for

the introduction of control programs to benefit small boat navigation and shore line
property owners. With the continued spreading and possible increase in growth
densities in certain regions, local governments may well become increasingly involved.

indicated Information Needs

it would appear that the information needs for developing a rational eelgrass

management policy fall under three general categories: (1) biological and ecological
characteristics of eelgrass and eelgrass-dominated ecosystems; (2) human activities

affected by eelgra'ss; and (3) technologies for control and their environmental effects.
Of the three, the first area of information seems the most highly developed.
This involves not only knowledge of environmental factors influencing the quantity and

iocational distribution of eelgrass, but also the quantitative relationships between eelgrass

and other aquatic organisms.
The second area has not, to our knowledge, been seriously explored. Thus, for
example, we do not have well-developed information regarding numbers of people who
consider themselves adversely or beneficially affected by eelgrass or the intensity of
their dissatisfactions as a basis for determining future control policies.
Regarding control technologies, there would appear to be a real need for research
and development relating to alternative mechanical, chemical, or other means of
collection, removal, and localized inhibition of growth. This is necessary to ensure

both effective and economical control where considered necessary while at the same

time avoiding undesired and unintended side effects of particular methods.

*During its earlier period of decimation, these agencies were involved in active
programs of attempted restoration of this species.

Selected References

1. Burkholder, Paul R. and Thomas E. Doheny, 1968: The biology of eelgrass.
Contribution No. 3 from the Department of Conservation and Waterways, Town of
Hempstead, Long Island. Contribution No. 1227 from the Lamont Geological Observ-

atory, Palisade, New York. Department of Conservation and Waterways, Hempstead,

Long jsland, New York.
2-. Setchell, W. A., 1929: Morphological and phenological notes on Zostera

marina. Univ. of Calif. Pub. Bot.,14, pp. 389-452.
3. Udell, H. J., J. Zarudsky, T. E. Doheny and P. R. Burkholder, 1�69:

Productivity and nutrient values of plants growing in the salt marshes of the Town of
Hempstead, Long Island. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 96: 1, pp. 42-5 1.
4. Wegman, Leonard S. & Company, 1967: Channel and eelgrass study. Report
to the Nassau County (N.Y.) Commissioner of Public Works, June 23. Mineola, Long
Island, New York, Department of Public Works.
5. Wilson, Ronald S. and H. Harry Brenowitz, 1966: A report on the ecology of
Great South Bay and adjacent waters. Oakdale, Long Island, New York, Institute of

Marine Science, Adelphi Univ., July.

WETIAND DESTRUCTION

Introduction

There is considerable room for differences in definition associated with the

term "wetlands," concerning the types and extent of land and water areas included.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for example, considers the wetland complex to
include not only salt marsh and salt meadows, but mudflats, open saline and brackish

water seaward from mean low tide, and open fresh coastal waters 112, pp. 6-71. The
Department of Conservation and Waterways of the Town of Hempstead defines wetlands
for its purposes as tidal shorelines, estuaries, waterways in general, salt and brackish
marshes including areas drained by fresh water streams which flow into salt water,
tiny islands (hassocks) in bays and all salt water bottoms that support plants and other

biota [2, P. 11.

The present discussion focuses primarily on the intertidal portion of the wetland

complex comprising the salt marshes and meadows to the limit of spring and storm
tide. It is this zone lying between dry uplands andopen water that is most subjected
to the pressures of urbanization and alternative land use development on Long Island;
and it is these ecologically important marsh and meadow lands that constitute a
permanent concern of conservation interests. Most of the remaining portions of the
broader wetlands complex omitted from this discussion are considered elsewhere in
this report under various aspects of Wastewater Disposal, Dredging, Shellfishing,
Eelgrass, Coast Stabilization, and Shoreline Recreation problems.

Depending on elevation and frequency of flooding, coastal meadows and marshes
are characterized by various dominant plant groups. For example, the natural meadows
that are washed only occasionally by brackish waters during unusually high tides
consist primarily of spike grass (Distichlis spicata and salt meadow grass (Spartin
patens). Near the normal high water line a dwarf form of Spartina patens occurs;
and from the normal high water level to abo ut half way down the intertidal slope, the
salt marsh grass (Spartina alternifoli@) becomes the predominant species [6, p. 511.

In their natural state, these vegetated wetlands perform a number of important
ecological and physical functions in the coastal environment. They are generally
recognized as the most productive of all natural primary food producing environments.
They provide food and habitat directly to a host of invertebrate and vertebrate life
35

forms, and serve as the principal source of primary organic nutrients to adjacent
estuary, bay, and offshore waters [6, 8, 111. As such, they are thus of far greater
biological importance than their relative surface area alone would imply since, to
a significant degree, they constitute the primary base of the food chains upon which
all higher marine organisms depend.
In addition, these marshes serve as a natural buffer to dissipate the energy of
storm waves, thus protecting higher land areas and structures from flooding and

erosion. Marshlands also accelerate the settling of suspended particulates, thus

contributing to improved water quality.

Wetland areas may be destroyed directly, either by excavation to create harbors,

marinas and navigable channels, or by filling and bulkheading to create "new land" for

housing, highway construction and other develo pment purposes. Short of destruction
by excavation or filling, the values of wetlands as stable and productive ecological
areas may be significantly altered by a variety of other unnatural causes. The process
of siltation which normally occurs in estuarine wetlands may be accelerated by
excessively turbid conditions resulting from dredging and spoil disposal and by sand
and gravel washing operations. This in turn can result in replacement of Sparti
alterniflora by less productive plant species [12, p. 71. Various forms of pollution,
such as oils, persistent pesticides, and other chemicals can either directly damage

the primary vegetation or otherwise seriously interfere with biological production.

The drainage of standing water pools as a mosquito control measure can have mixed

effects, not all of which are necessar ily detrimental. The improved flushing action

through wetlands as a result of the drainage ditches can, in some circumstances,
make more food and habitat for fish and waterfowl [7, p. 11.

Evaluation of Problem

Although quite incomplete, evidence on the extent of wetland destruction on
Long Island has been documented in a series of surveys conducted by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service in cooperation with the New York State Conservation Department

over the period 1953-1964. The surveys covered fresh and saline coastal marshlands
of 40 acres or larger, and were not designed to reveal destruction or damage other

than physical loss [12, pp. 3-41.* Table 3 summarizes the survey findings on total
marshland acreage lost.
In the 10-year period up to 1964, the Nassau-Suffolk bicounty region lost over
8,200 acres of marshland by physical destruction, or 24 percent of the total acreage

existing in 1953. Total losses were somewhat greater for Nassau County (4,635) than
for Suffolk (3,582); and, in relative terms, Nassau County's proportionate losses were
even greater (33 percent as compared with 17 percent for Suffolk County). It is also

oi' interest to note that total losses in both Counties were greater, in both relative and

ahsolute acreage terms, in the 1959-64 period than in the preceding 1954-59 period.

TAB LE 3
COASTAL MARSHLAND ACREAGE AND
ACRES OF COASTAL MARSHLANDS LOST IN
LONG ISLAND REGION, 1954-1964*

Nassau Suffolk Total bi- Total
County County county region Long Islanat

1954 acreage 14,130 20,590 34,720 43,215

1959 acreage 11,911 19,208 31,119 37,504

1,964 acreage 9,495 17,008 26,503 30,508

Acres lost 1954-64 4,635 3,582 8,217 12,635
Percentage lost 1954-64 . 33 17 23 29

Acres lost 1954-59 2,219 1,382 3,601 5,711
Percentage lost 1954-59 16 7 10 13

Acres lost 1959-64 2,416 2,200 4,616 6,924
Percentage lost 1959-64 20 12 15 19

*See text for definition of marshlands covered.
fIncludes Bronx, Kings and Queen Counties in addition to Nassau and Suffolk.
Source: Adapted from [12, p. 6].

*The original survey was designed to include only marshlands considered to be
of moderate to high value as waterfowl habitat, (38,214 acres in 1954) but subsequent
revisions were made in later surveys to include an additional 5,001 acres of low to
negligible waterfowl value.

There is no way of knowing preci 'ie extent to which wetlands were reduced
in the years prior to 1954, since develoinental pressures have been taking k rradual
toll for over 200 years, especially in the Metropolitan Counties of eastern Long
Island and, to a lesser extent, in Nassau County. It was stated in the 1964 survey
report, however, that most of the historic losses in Suffolk County had occurred during
the previous decade, indicating that the eastward- spreading pressures of urb-in
development have only recently begun to exert a substantial effect on Suffolk County
marshlands [12, p. 81.*
Comparative information on causes of destruction (type of development) was
also developed in the Fish and Wildlife Service surveys and this is summarized for
Nassau and Suffolk Counties in Table 4.

Housing, recreation (parks, golf courses, etc.), industry, and marinas, docks

and channel developments are all of major importance in the lists of purposes for

marshland destruction in both counties. The "miscellaneous fill" category, second
in i4ortance in both counties, was indicated to be largely spoil disposal from
hydraulic dredging for the immediate purposes of channel and harbor maintenance
or improvement and dock and marina construction. The greater part of this filled

marshland will undoubtedly be built upon eventually. To the extent that marshland

losses from miscellaneous filling constituted an "unintentional" side-effect of

dredging operations (rather than purposeful filling for future unspecified land develop-

ment), it may indicate a simple failure on the part of local county and town authorities
during this earlier period to appreciate the values being destroyed. On the other hand,

filled waterfront land, however created, can represent an opportunity for substantial

private gain; and the joint technological relationship between dredging and land filling
canIthus easily tend to obscure the relative importance of underlying purposes. In
any event, one is struck by the large magnitude of "miscellaneous filling," accounting

*It is interesting to note that Bronx County, which had less than 1900 acres remain-
ing in 1953, lost 97 percent of these marshlands over the next 10 years. Queens County
had lost 31 percent of its 1953 acreage by 1964.

TABLE 4
CAUSES OF COASTAL MARSH LOSSES IN NAS,&-kU AND
SUFFOLK COUNTIES, 1954-1964

Nassau County Suff )k CountY

Acres % of losses Acres of losses

Housing 1,885 41 1,226 34

Nliscellaneous 984 21 905 25
fill

Recreation 487 .10 336

Industry 729 16 31.6

Marinas, docks, 330 7 402
c I i ',.7mnels

Xil-ports 0 - -1

Br!riffes. rf--)ads, 85 2 209
T
parking

Wi.,te disposal 60 1 16

Scilools 75 2 33

Agriculture 0 - 96

Drainage 0 - 39

Total 4,635 100 3,582 1.00

Source: [12, p. 9].

(,.-,r 21 and 25 percent, respectively, of marshland losses in Nassau and Suffolk

Counties dur ng the 10-year period.
Although it is known that -significant additional marshland losses have occurred

i nee 1964, s vsternatic enumeration will not be available until the publication of results
from the 1969 resurvey by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the national wetlands
inventory, currently in preparation [10).
Nor is it possible to present systematic evidence on other types of wetlands or
-)n damages resulting from deterioration in qualit of marshlands as biological

iabitat and primary nutrient producers. Deteorioration due to accelerated siltation

From dredging and spoil disposal activities, as well as from pesticides and other
i -ollution sources is known to be of significance in the bicounty region. For example,

highly productive Spartina alterniflora marshland areas in Great South Bav have
been altered by hydraulically deposited spoil to the extent that they have become
largely inhabited by almost valueless stands of reeds(Phragmite ) [101. This tvpe of
ecological change can occur in as short a period as a single growing season [12, p. 71.
Residues of DDT and other pesticides occur presently in a large number, if not all.

of the marshland areas of Long Island (see essay on pesticides below). Further, e-\tens

ditching of marshes for mosquito control purposes has been a long standing practice in
both counties, especially in south shore bay regions. Although the precise effects of
ditching are debatable, they are considered generally unfavorable by many wildlife

biologists 17, 10].
The question of vulnerability of marsh and other wetlands to future destruction

and deterioriation is of obvious crucial importance. According to an assessment hv

the New York State Conservation Department, Division of Fish and Game, in 1964,
only about 3,500'acres (12 percent) of Nassau and Suffolk County marshlands were nt
that time judged "safe from destruction," due to their ownership [12, p. 10] by public
and private conservation agencies and conservation minded individuals. Of this amount,
less than one-third was owned by the New York Division of Fish and Game, the Nature
Conservancy, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or "other similar agencies as could
reasonably assure preservation"; and about half was privately owned by "wealthy
sportsmen, gun clubs, or conservation- or ie nte d individuals" [12, p. 111. Regarding

the latter, it was further noted that-

Such holdings are (becoming) increasingly unstable. Taxes and
active land acquisition programs by public agencies using condemnation
proceedings when owners are reluctant to sell are factors in this trend.
Wetland preservation unfortunately has not been a primary objective
of these acquisition programs.

Although the public ownership status of Long Island wetlands has improved
somewhat in this regard since 1964 under the Long Island's Wetlands Act (see below)

and federal acquisitions on Fire Island, a complete enumeration of the current wetlands
ownership pattern is not available. A current inventory of wetlands conducted by the
New York State Department of Conservation for the Office of Planning Coordination
has determined the ownership of marshlands in Nassau County and the Town of

Huntington, but encountered extreme difficulties in obtaining accurate and complete
records of ownership in other Suffolk County towns.*

There is every indication that pressures for coastal land development will

continue to increase and spread eastward on Long Island. To a significant degree these

pressures quantitatively are reflected in increased market values for filled shoreline

land, estimated in the mid-1960's at from $5,000 to $15,000 per acre [5, p. 3.37]. As

these values increase, so will the pressures on current private owners to convert

potentially developable natural wetlands into housing and other uses.

Public Policy Background

Public agencies exercise authority or influence over the disposition of wetlands on

Long Island in a number of ways, including: the issuance of permits for dredging,
gaming regulations, property tax policies and condemnation proceedings, drainage
ditching for mosquito control, wildlife management and protection programs, and

outright ownership.

Permits to dredge in the navigable waters offshore of the high water line in
Nassau and Suffolk Counties of New York State are issued by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Whenever wetland areas might be affected by dredging operations, the

Corps is directed to take into advisement the recommendations of state and federal

conservation agencies; however, final authority rests with the Corps of Engineers
whose decision must depend primarily on matters relating to navigationj
Town zoning ordinances.can potentially influence wetlands in a variety of ways
which may either hasten or retard their destruction. For example, a zoning regulation

in Easthampton requires that wetland tracts must be filled to an elevation of seven
feet above mean high water before qualifying as building sites ]3]. However, whether

this or other similar ordinances will stand under a court test is debatable at this time.

*Completed portions of this report are presently in preparation for public *ation by
the Office of Planning Coordination. However, lack of funds and manpower has hampered
completion of the more difficult surveys of Suffolk County Town Records [9].
tIn all other counties of New York State the New York State Water Resources
Commission is the issuing agent, and the Commission is specifically empowered to
deny permits not only with regard to navigation but also when unreasonable, uncontrolled
or unnecessary disruption of natural resources might occur [5, p. 3.40].

Property tax policies and condemnation powers of public agencies can also
influence the preservation of wetlands, as well as their ownership [12, p. 11). These

factors, along with zoning issues,require further study regarding specific local details.

The mosquito control commissions of Nassau and Suffolk Counties have ditched

marshlands extensively for the purpose of reducing mosquito larvae in standing water

bodies [7. p. 11. The effects of the drainage ditches have been mixed, or at least not
altogether adverse. As with the Corps of Engineers, these commissions represent
single-mission-oriented agencies with a considerable degree of autonomy in choice
of methods and locations of operations. Although subject to the advice of the State

Conservation Department, their cooperation in matters relating to wetlands conserva-

tion is voluntary rather than obligatory.
The principal conservation agencies relating to wetlands are the New York State

Conservation Department and the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife of the U.S.
Department of Interior. Aside from lands specifically owned by the State or Federal
Governments and specifically delegated to these agencies for management purposes,

the functions of these agencies appear to be principally advisory or research oriented

in nature as far as coastal marshlands preservation is concerned. Both agencies have

played a primary role in stimulating public awareness and concern regarding wetlands

conservation.

Public agencies exercise firmest control over wetlands through outright owner-

ship. The Long Island Wetlands Act of 1959 was designed to encourage Long Island

towns to dedicate to conservation purposes those wetlands already owned by municipalities.
The Act allows the state to provide financial and professional assistance of up to fifty
percent of the cost of developing and managing the wetlands for conservation. Over
MAO acres of wetlands on the south shore have been dedicated by three towns-500

acres in the Town of Oyster Bay as a wildlife sanctuary, another 4,500 acres of marsh
in Oyster Bay as a wildlife habitat, 550 acres of wildlife habitat have been reclaimed
on Captree and Sexton Islands in the Town of Islip, and 10,000 acres of marsh have

been dedicated in the Town of Hempstead [4].*

*These acreage figures include a variety of wetland types in addition to the marsh-
lands emphasized in our evaluation of acreage data above.

Indicated Information Needs

Although the general ecological importance of coastal marshes as local habitat
and as primary food producing areas for wider coastal regions is well documented in
qualitative terms, basic quantitative information. on these subjects is in an early stage
of development (for example, see reference [101). Objective and quantitative demon-

stration of the biological importance of Long Island marshlands to the broader coastal

region would be invaluable in the development of general policy as well as in arriving
at decisions for specific regional cases involving development conflicts.

At a more applied engineering level. it appears that possibilities for creation of

new morshlands (in conjunction with dred-ing spoil disposal operations),* as well as
the rehabilitation or upgrading of presently degraded or low-productivity marshlands,
hqve received relatively little consideration in wetlands management discussions. As
marshlands become increasingly scarce. the marginal values of upgraded and newly
created marshes will be increased. Technical requirements and specific methods

as well as information relating to the economic practicality of creative management
approaches along these lines remain to be developed.
Better information relating to the institutional structure and processes governing
the disposition and management of wetlands is also indicated. Information on the
present ownership status of Long Island wetlands is only partially complete; and further
work along these line s-es pec ially for Suffolk County-should be given high priority.
In addition to basic information on ownership categories (private individuals and
different varieties of public agencies), an authoritative evaluation of the legal details of

ownership status, relating to special categories of property rights under current zoning
ordinances and other modifying arrangements (such as scenic easements), would be

desirable. Such information is essential to a thorough evaluation of current wetlands
vIulnerabilitIY."

*Practical possibilities for this have been demonstrated, by accident rather than
by intention, in Great South Bay where "stored" volumes of dredging spoil in bay
waters have sometimes become populated by Spartin vegetation, thus "creating" local
marshland habitat [9].

In a similar respect, better understanding of the complex institutional pattern
of agencies and decision-making processes determing decisions on the issuance and
operational details of dredging perm its- including especially spoil disposal considera-
tions and issues relating to enforcement of permit prov is ions -would also be useful.

Selected References

1. Belt, C. B. Letter to Milton S. Heath, Jr., July 9, 1968.

2. Town of Hempstead Department of Conservation and Waterways, Hempstead

Town Conservationist, 1966: Wetlands: Their full meaning. Hempstead, Long Island,

N. Y.

3. Lamb, Donald, 1969: Comments made at Workshop for Conservation Council,

March 29, Riverhead, Long Island, N. Y.

4. Knoch, Ii. W. and A. S. Taormina, 1969: The Long Island Wetlands Act
(mimeograph). New York State Conservation Department, Ronko nkoma, Long Island,

N. Y.

5. Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, Oceanographic Committ ee, 19 66:

The status and potential of the marine environment. Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning

Board, Hauppaugue, Long Island, N. Y.
6. Redfield, Alfred C., 1965: Onotogeny of salt marsh estuary. Science,

Vol. 147(3653), pp. 50-54.
7. Taormina, Anthony S., 1966: Mosquito problems in fish and wildlife manage-

ment in New York (mimeograph). New York State Conservation Department, Ronkonkoma,

Long island, N. Y.

8. -, 1967: The natural values of marine wetlands. The New York State

Conservationist, June-July.

9. -, Regional Supervisor, Division of Fish and Game, New York State Conserva-

tion Department. Personal interview.
10. Taylor, Maurice, Supervisor, Long Island Area Office, Division of River

Basin Studies, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Personal interview and communications.

11. Udell, H. F., J. Zarundsky, T. E. Doheny and P. R. Burkholder, 1969:
Productivity and nutrient values of plants growing inthe salt marshes of the Town of
Hempstead, Long Island. Bull. of the Torrey Botonical Club, 96: 1, January- February,

pp. 42-51.
44

12. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport

Fisheries and Wildlife, 1965: Supplementary report on the coastal wetlands inventory

of Long Island, New York. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of'River Basin

Studies. Boston. Mass.

13. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport

Fisheries and Wildlife, 1967: Waterfowl resource s- Halsey Neck to Hook Pond, Long

island, New York. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Boston, Mass.

DOMESTIC AND INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISPOSAT.

introduction

Domestic wastewater includes the liquid wastes originating in the sanitary

)nveniences of dwellings, business buildings, factories and institutions; i.e., the

spent water supply of the community" [ 5, p. 561 . By comparison, industrial waste-

water consists of the liquids discharged from commercial and industrial establish-
nients including water used for processes, boiler feed, manufacturing, or cooling
purposes. Domestic wastewater is sometimes treated on an individual basis by means
4)1 septic tanks or cess pools, and then discharged to the ground. Alternatively,

(lom.estic wastewater can be collected in sewersand transported to a central treat-
ment plant; following treatment the wastewater (or effluent) is discharged to the
--round and/or a water course.* When a central treatment facility is employed, the

-aste is typically referred to as "municipal wastewater" and usuall.N consists of a

@-ombination of domest ic and industrial waste.

Domestic wastewater consists of complex organic matter which is subject to
attack by i-nicro-organisms that transform it to a stable form. Domestic wastes are
heavily laden with disease-producing bacteria and viruses excreted by persons suffer-
ing from or "carrying" infectious diseases. When domestic waste is treated using
septic tanks or cess pools, it is subsequently discharged to a groundwater table, and,
consequently, such wastes may eventually reach a surface water body. Since the
transmission of wastes to surface water via the ground water table is circuitous, it
is difficult to forecast quantitatively the ultimate effects on surface water quality.
In contrast, the impairment of surface water quality resulting from direct
wastewater discharges is more evident. The impact of such a discharge depends on

the characteristics of the waste stream before treatment, the type of treatment, and
the location of the discharge. Available treatment methods can accomplish everything

from the simple removal of large solid materials to the production of water of highest
quality suitable forhuman consumption. Typically, however, treated municipal waste
discharges affect the following surface water characteristics: pH, turbidity, suspended

*It is also obviously possible to discharge domestic wastes from a sewage col-
lection system "raw" (i.e., without treatment), but this practice is becoming less
common.
47

solids, bottom deposits, concentrations of bacteria and viruses, dissolved oxygen.
phosphorous compounds, nitrogen compounds, and the concentration of oxygen con-
suming organic matter. Industrial wastes (and municipal wastes with significant
industrial waste components) may also influence a number of additional water quality
characteristics, such as concentrations of metallic ions and other chemical elements,
depending on the composition of the industrial waste sources. (Electroplating wastes,
for example, commonly contain chromates and cyanide. Changes in these water

quality characteristics in turn can significantly affect the types and quantities of

biological organisms inhabiting the affected environment.

Changes in the levels of environmental characteristics noted above can influence
a large number of water-related activities which, in the case of waters adjacent to

Nassau and Suffolk Counties, include swimming, boating, water-skiing. and commer-
cial and sport fishing. The specific groups of people affected quite naturally include

all those assodiated with these activities as direct participants, and may even affect

many individuals who do not make direct use of the coastline, insofar as they feel
9ess good" when the environment is degraded. Willeke [ 221 has documented this

intuitively plausible statement using survey research methods in the San Francisco

Bay region. This category of use, while often classified under the elusive rubric
of "aesthetics," may nevertheless represent an extremely significant class of

affected "uses."

Evaluation of Problems

The issues Aiscussed above in general terms are now described in the context

of Nassau and Suffolk counties. As of 1967, more than 56% of the population of

Nassau county employed individual waste disposal systems [6, p. 51; in Suffolk
County the percentage was even higher [ 7, p. 621. The impact of wastes discharged
from septic tanks and cess pools on ground water quality in Long Island has long been
recognized. Numerous studies attest to the deleterious effects these discharges
have had on drinking water supplies [ 8; 6, p. 61 . Concerning the coastal waters,
there are indications that ground waters contaminated by wastes from septic tanks
and cess pools have resulted in the closing of several small beaches in Suffolk

County [ 7, p. 251 . Such wastes have also been cited as one cause for the deteriora-

tion of water quality in Great South Bay [ 6, p. 7; 19, p. 911
48

A significant portion of the wastewater originating in Nassau County is Col-
lected. treated, and discharged to coastal waters. Progress is being made for the
provision of public sewerage throughout the county [6]. In 1968 Suffolk County had a
total of 30 wastewater treatment plants receiving approximately 15 percent of the
total qt,x%,ag(, flow in the county [ 17, p. 621 . Engineering studies for the construction
of regional treatment facilities. have been undertaken for Suffolk County [ 17, p. 621 .
In the above general discussion of impacts of municipal waste treatment plant
effluents, a number of water quality indicators were mentioned. In the Long Island
area, bowe@-er. the environmental factors of current major concern relate to the
concentrntion of disease producing micro-organisms (as indicated by coliform con-
centration). the concentration of dissolved oxygen, and the extent of fertilization of
coastal waters as indicated by concentrations of compounds of phosphorous and
nitrogen. A recent (1968) study [ 11, pp. 38-461 of Hempstead Bay indicated that
wastewater treatment plant effluents were contributing to the violation of bacterial
quality standards for shellfishing and that dissolved oxygen in Hempstead Bay was
below acceptable levels. Another study 19. p. 281 indicated that the fertilization of

Hempstead BaY has caused periodic blooms of phytoplankton.

A current issue of considerable significance relates to whether wastewater

treatment plant effluent discharges should be permitted in the bays along the south

shore. The Nassau County Department of Health has recommended that studies be

undertaken to determine the feasibility of relocating existing outfalls in Hempstead

BaY out of the Bay area [ 10, p. 1131 . In a separate study [ 9, p. 31] , the Town of

Hempstead recommended that sewage effluents from the proposed "Nassau County

District Nc. 2 Water Pollution Control Plant" at Wantagh be dischargod into the

Atlantic Ocean "at a suitable distance ... south of ... Jones Beach." Cosulich, in a

study related to sewerage in the five western towns of Suffolk County [ 3, pp. 2-81,

concluded that ocean disposal would be necessary to avoid "aggrevating the algae

problem" in Great South Bay.

We turn from problems relating'to discharges from individual disposal

systems and municipal treatment works to those associated with industrial waste-

water. Especially significant industrial wastewater problems are also treated

in the separate sections on Thermal Pollution, Oil Pollutioll, and Wastewater from

Duck Farms.

Bowe, Albertson and Walsh [ 2, p. 91 have observed that Suffolk County has
no "large wet industries." They asserted that industrial wastewater in Suffolk County
is relatively low in volume; the predominant wastes are from plating solutions which

contain varying concentrations of hexavalent chromium, cyanide, acids, and heavy

metals. Further, "all industries with any appreciable concentration of these wastes

are providing treatment prior to sub-surface disposal as a protection to the ground

water supply" [ 2, p. 91 . Note that the Suffolk County Health Department has an

inspection program to determine the adequacy of such treatment methods [ 17, p. 661 .

In 1967 the Nassau County Health Department reported that industrial wastewater dis-

charges in the county were "essentially under control," although occasional break-

down in treatment devices were such that industrial wastes were an "intermittent

source of pollution."

One issue, not mentioned above, concerns the waste load contributed to coastal

waters by storm runoff. Although detailed descriptions of the contribution of such

wastes to the coastal waters off Long Island are not available, studies in other parts

of the U. S. have indicated that storm runoff is "akin to sanitary sewage in its
pollutional characteristics..." [ 1, p. 201 .* The Nassau County Health Department has
reported that storm runoff has contributed to the formation of "mud banks"; also,
storm runoff contains nutrients and organic material which contribute to problems

relating to excessive aquat ic plant growth and depressed dissolved oxygen, respec-
tively [ 6, p. 6] . Problems relating to storm runoff in Nassau and Suffolk counties
are obviated to some extent by the use of "recharge basins" which divert storm run-

off to the ground water table.

Public Policy Background

The various public agencies having a direct interest in wastewater disposal

are mentioned below. On the Federal level, the agency having primary responsi-

bilities is the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA). This

*An important difference between sanitary wastewater and storm-water runoff
is that the latter occurs in a discontinuous random fashion.

agency has held "enforcement conferences" with state and local offi-fils to discuss
publiclv the pollution occurring in the Great South Bay-Moriches Ba.\ region 119, 201
The FWPCA also pla.vs a significant role in the establishment of "classifications and
standards" of water quality (discussed below). Grants to help defray the costs of

Municipal wastewater treatment facilities are also available through FWPCA. On the

interstate level, the Interstate Sanitation Commission enforces a tri-state compact

among New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut regulating tidal water quality [6, p. 31.
The jurisdiction of the Commission extends to Fire Island Inlet on the south shore,

and Port Jefferson Harbor on the north shore [ 7, p. 501

The primary state agency concerned with wastewater disposal is the New York
State Department of Health. A grant program which provides for 3() percent of the

cost of construction of municipal wastewater treatment facilities was establishe(I bY

the state under the Pure Waters Act of 1965 119, p. 931 . At the countv level, the

health departments of both Nassau and Suffolk Counties participate in evaluating tho
effectiveness of wastewater treatment works J 6, p. 4; 17, p.'661 . In addition to the
agencies mentioned above, it should be noted that villages, cities, towns and s pecial

districts have played a role in the provision of sewer service to population centers

P. 31.

An institutional issue warranting special emphasis relates to the "classifications

and standards" of water quality prepared by the New York State Department of Health.

These clasgifications, whi ch. have been adopted for the coastal waters off Nassau and

Suffolk Counties, serve to establish the "best usage" of the waters and the associated

standards cf water quality to protect these uses [ 12-161 . These classifications

and standards have long been used to control the character of wastes discharged in
coastal wat?rs. However, the implications of Federal legislation adopted in the mid-

19601 s lend increased significance to the standards. Under provision of the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, the FWPCA has the ability to use the

violation of water quality standards as a partial basis for initiating "enforcement
measures"; this gives the FWPCA increased strength in carrying out its pollution

control mission [ 181 .

Indicated Information Needs

In concluding this discussion, we make note of some of the issues involved in
obtaining information that can be useful in making recommendations and decisions

relative to domestic and industrial wastewater disposal. A basic item of information

concerns the impact of wastewater disposal on the physical, chemical and biological

state of coastal waters; in other words, the "causal activity- environmental condition"

relationships. Figure 2 which summarizes much of the preceding discussion,

serves to indicate typical interactions involved in tracing the impacts of wastewater
disposal. Information describing these interactions can be obtained by various

combinations of field sampling (data collection), physical modeling, and mathematical

modeling. The extent to which the interactions shown in the figure can be described

quantitatively will be discussed in a subsequent report.
A second item of information that is useful in the formulation of policies govern-
ing wastewater disposal relates to the manner in which water-based activities
(see Fig. 2 ) are influenced by environmental characteristics; this is well documented
for some aspects of selected activities. In some instances, water quality standards

dictate whether or not an activity can even be pursued. For example, high bacterial

concentrations maY prohibit shellfishing and water contact sports in a region. In
other instances, environmental characteristics may influence the "quality" of the
activity. For example, high levels of turbidity may not rule out swimming as an

activity, but the quality of the experJence might be diminished for some swimmers.

There is much literature describing the levels of environmental characteristics that

influence water-related activities (e.g., see the Report of the Corn mittee on Water

Quality Criteria [211).

Another set of information needs relates to the costs of wastewater disposal
policies and the benefits or disbenefits of these policies. It is often important to

determine the incidence,as well as the magnitude, of costs and benefits. Cost esti-

mates for different types of waste treatment and effluent discharge configurations can
generally be obtained using standard engineering procedures. However, information
regarding benefits is far more elusive, since many of the affected activities do not have

associated market prices to indicate the extent to which the activity is valued by

participants. The quantitative evaluation of benefits from improved water quality is

COASTAL WATER SECONDARY AFFECTED
ORIGIN TREATMENT DISPOSAL LOCATION CHARACTEPISTICS EFFECTS ACTIVITIES

Domestic Cesspool/ PH
Waste S ptic Tank Ground Tkirbidit Swimming
Municipal Wate r Suspended solids Water
Bottom deposits skiing
treatment Bacteria viruses Aquatic Boating
al Surface Dissolved oxYgen plants Sport
Water Phosphorous Shellfish fishing
Industrial compounds Commercial
treatment Nitrogen com- Finfish fishing
pounds "Aesthetics"
Storm Oxygen consuming
Recharge
Runoff Basins organic matter

OTHER FACTORS
AFFECTING CHARACTERISTICS

Surface runoff
Coastal geometry
(e.g., size and shape of
inlets and channels)
Tidal action
(e.g., extent of tidal
flushing)
Precipitation
Wind
Other waste sources
Industri
Waste I h

(e.g., vessels)

2. Inkpacts of domestic and industrial wastewater disposai.

a topic that is receiving the attention of a number of social scientists (e.g., see
Davidson, et al. [41).

A complete understanding of the nature of the wastewater disposal problem
also requires an appreciation of the jurisdictions and objectives of the various

Federal, state and local agencies involved. Clearly, any recommendations regarding
future wastewater disposal policies must take cognizance of the interests and

authority of such agencies. Also, there may exist effective water quality management
policies that cannot currently be implemented because of the absence of an institution

with appropriate authority. Such policies might involve such nontypical activities as

the use of artificial aeration as a partial substitute for "advanced" wastewater treat-

ment.

Selected References

1. Arneric an Public Works Association-Research Foundation, 1969:

Water Pollution Aspects of Urban Runoff, U. S. Dept. of Interior, FWPCA Pub. No.

WP-20-15.

2. Bowe, Albertson and Walsh, 1965: Report, comprehensive sewerage studies,

five western towns, Suffolk County, New York, Appendix D, N. Y., N. Y.

3. Cosulich, W. F., Appendix G in Bowe Albertson and Walsh, ibid.

4. Davidson, P., et al., 1966: The social value of water recreation facilities

resulting from an improvement in water quality in the Delaware estuary, in Kneese,

AV., and S. C. Smith (eds.), Water Research. Baltimore, John Hopkins, pp. 175-211.

5. Fair, G. M. and J. C. Geyer, 1954: Water supply and waste-water disposal.

Wiley.

6. Flood, F. J., 1968: Water pollution control program Nassau County, Dept.

of Health, Mineola, N. Y., mimeo.

7. Flynn, J. M., and C. G. Lind, 1962: Report on need and feasibility for public

sewage disposal facilities in Western Suffolk, Office of the Suffolk County Executive,

Suffolk County, N. Y.
8. -, et al., 1963: Long Island ground water pollution study, Report for the
temporary New York State Water Resources Planning Commission, mimeo.
9. Hempstead Department of Conservation and Waterways, 1968: Water Quality
Study, Hempstead Bay Estuary-1968, Point Lookout, N. Y.

10. Nassau County Department of Health, 1968: Nassau County, South Shore Bay

Study-1968, Mineola, N. Y.

11. New York State Conservation Department, 1968: Hempstead Bay Shellfish
Growing Area 1, Water Quality Survey Report, Division of Fish and Game,

flonkonkoma, L. I., N. Y.

12. New York State Department of Health, 1968- Classifications and standards

of quality and purity for waters of New York State, Albany, N. Y.

13. New York State Department of Health, 1951: Classifications and standards
2f quality and purity for fresh surface waters and tidal salt waters within the Moriches
Rav Drainage Basin in Suffolk County, N. Y., Albany, N. Y., mimeo.

14. New York State Department of Health, 1953: Classifications and standards

of quality and purity for fresh surface waters and tidal salt waters within the Peconic
River-Flanders Bay Drainage Basin in Suffolk County, N. ., Albany, N. Y.,

mimeo.

15. New York State Department of Health, 1965: Surface waters of Western

Suffolk County, Official Classifications, Albany, N. Y.

16. New York State Department of Health, 1965: Surface waters of Nassau
County, Official Classifications, Albany, N. Y.

17. Suffolk County Department of Health, 1968: Annual Report- 196 8,

Suffolk County, N. Y.

18. U. S. Dept. of Interior, FWPCA, Federal water pollution control act,

Oil pollution control ac , Washington, D. C., undated.

19. U. S. Dept. of Interior, FWPCA,1966: Proceedings, conferences in the

matter of pollution of the navigable waters of Moriches Bay and the Eastern Section

of Great South Bay and their tributaries, September.

20. U.S. Dept. of Interior, FWPCA, 1967: Proceedings, conferences in the
matter of pollution of the navigable waters of Moriches Bay and t he Eastern Section of

Great South Bay and their tributaries, Second Session, June.

21. U. S. Dept. of Interior, FVPCA, 1968: Report of the Committee on Water.

Quality Criteria, Washington, D. C.
22. Willeke, G. E., 1968: Effects of water pollution in San Francisco Bay,
Report EEP-29, Project on Engineering- Economic Planning, Stanford Univ., Stanford,
Calif., October. 55

WASTEWATER FROM VESSELS

Intr6duction

Commercial and pleasure boating in coastal waters can give rise to at least

three types of waste disposal problems, including oil and gas pollution, general littering

from overboard trash disposal, and sanitary wastewater discharges. Of the three,

oil and gas wastes are discussed below in the essay on Oil Pollution, while sanitary

wastewater disposal from vessels constitutes the principal topic for present discussion.

Sanitary wastes originating on vessels generally receive low volumes of flushing

water and, as a consequence, the effluent concentration of coliform bacteria and other

water quality indicators may be very high compared to sanitary wastes originating in
households. However, the magnitude of the waste load originating in a single vessel

is usually negligibly small when considered in isolation and in comparison to the
volume of receiving waters. The extent to which wastewater from vessels noticeably
affects water quality depends on the quantity of waste originating from all vessels over

a particular time period in a particular area, the ability of the watercourse to assimi-

late wastes, and the policies governing disposal (including the extent of treatment and

location of discharge).

Affected environmental characteristics of special significance are similar to

those of domestic wastewaters, including the concentration of disease-causing micro-
organisms (as measured by coliform bacteria*), dissolved oxygen and nutrients. The

activities potentially affected by changes in these characteristics include the complete
gamut of water-based activities mentioned above in the section on Domestic and
Industrial Wastewater Disposal. Activities of special importance, however, include

shellfishing and water contact sports; both these classes of activities are sensitive to

changes in the level of coliform concentration. (Note that shellfish, or "filter feeders,"
concentrate "microorganisms and microparticles of organic detritus from large
volumes of water" [7]. Those affected by waste discharges from vessels naturally
include individuals engaging in water contact sports and shellfishing. Also, insofar as

*Coliform bacteria concentrations are commonly employed as a surrogate for
other enteric, disease-causing microorganisms.

the deterioration of water quality is aesthetically unappealing, the users of boats
may themselves be affected.

Evaluat-ion-of Problem

Tile number of pleasure boats in the waters off Nassau and Suffolk Counties

(including inboard and outboard motor boats and sail boats). was estimated as 175. 000
in 1965 (4, p. '1-34]. The number nf boats used for commercial shell fishing is probably
a very small fraction of the number of pleasure boats [7, p. 3]. Foehrenbach [11 has

reported that in Great South Bay water qunlity is degraded by waste originating on

pleasure boat-,. Udell [7] conducted studies to determine the effects of wastewaters
discharged from small boats off Long island. His study involved water quality sampling
r"

in Huntington Harbor on the north shore, and in several creeks and bays on the South

shore. The water quality parameter of primary interest was coliform bacteria since,

as noted above, this parameter is of special significance with respect to water contact

sports and shellfishing. The study yielded evidence of increased coliform concentra-

tions caused by discharges from pleasure boats. However, the increases were not

sufficient to cause violations of water quality standards for bathing and shellfishing

water [7, p. 2]. Depressed dissolved oxygen levels caused by boat wastes were not

observed. The study concluded that "pollution levels, as determined by bacterial

densities, var@- directly with the levels of boating activity and boat populations." Also,

the importance of factors such as tidal flushing and precipitation in influencing the
impact of wastewater discharge on the environment was stressed.

Public PolicV Background

Problems relating to boat wastes have received attention at both the state and

federal level. Recently (1969) the New York State Conservation Commission issued
an order establishing standards for acceptable marine toilet facilities [5]. The types

of marine toilets acceptable under this order are: sewage retention assemblies,
sewage recirculating assemblies, and sewage incinerating assemblies. Detailed
standards prescribed for each of the three systems are given in reports of the Yacht
Safety Bureau, Inc. [8,9, 10]. One requirement common to all systems is that "there
shallbe no provisions for direct or indirect overboard discharge of sewage" [9, p. 9].

Sewage from incineration units would be burned to a dry ash with a low volume
relative to the original waste. Sewage from systems using holding tankg would be
pumped out at a dockside facility and eventually transported to a wastewater treat-
ment plant. Groups of boat owners have questioned the willingness of marine operators
to provide dockside pump-out facilities 16]. They have also been concerned over the
omission of macerator /chlorinator from the list of acceptable treatment systems [6].
The New York State Departments of Conservation and Health plan to cooperate in

enforcing the regulations governing marine sewage disposal to be effective March 1,

1970. These state agencies plan an extensive public information program to alert

boat owners of the recently adopted regulations [3]. It should also be noted that the

Federal government has considered issuin.- legistation controlling boat wastes, since
variations in regulations for different states would hamper interstate boat Movement [2].

Indicated Information Needs

Regulations prohibiting the direct or indirect discharge of sewage from vessels
are a matter of record. The substantive information requirements at this point
relate to the extent to which these regulations can and will be enforced, Strictly for
completeness, we observe that the sorts of information that would be useful in establish-

ing policies for dealing with boat wastes are similar to the information needs discussed

above (pp. 52-54), in the section on Domestic and Industrial Wastewater.

Selected References

1. Foehrenbach, J., 1969: Pollution and eutrophication problems of Great
South Bay, Long Island, New York. j. Water Pollution Polution Control Fedl, Vol. 41.
No. 8, Part 1, August, pp. 1456-1464.
2. League of Women Voters of the U.S., 1969: Water resources current review,

No. 5, Washington, D.C., February.
3. O'Brien, J. J., Director, Division of Motor Boats, State Conservation

Department, Albany, N. Y. Personal communication, September 1969.
4. Oceanographic Committee of the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board,

1966: The status and potential of the marine environment, December.

5. State of New York, Conservation Department, 1969: Order establishing rules
and regulations of the Conservation Department, relating to standards of safety for

marine toilets, Albany, N. Y.

6. Suydam, J., President, National Party Boat Owners Alliance, Inc. Personal

communication, December 1968.

7. Udell, H. F. (undated): Pollution effect on marine waters from wastes

discharged bV small boats. New York State Department of Health.

8. Yac ht Safety Bureau, Inc., 1969: Requirements for marine retention
assemblies for sewagre. YSB Standard E-45 (Tentative), Westwood, New Jersey, April.

9. -, 1969: Requirements for marine recirculating assemblies for human

waste. YSB Standard E-49 (Tentative), Wes twood, New Jersey, April.

10. -, 1968: Requirements for marine sewage incinerating devices. YSB

Standard E-52, Westwood, New Jersey, June.

WASTEWATER FROM DUCK FARMS

Introduction

Duck farming, as traditionally practiced on Long Island, involves the use of
liolding pens that provide ducks access to both land and water. The quantity of water
used varies between 14 and 120 gallons per day (gpd) for each duck 16, p. 28], but there

are indications that quantities as low as 10 gpd per duck are satisfactory [6, p. 3951.

Duck wastes can enter surface water directly or they can be washed into surface

water by rainfall. Untreated,(raw) wastewater from duck farms generally contains

substantial quantities of suspended solids, BOD,* coliform organisms, and compounds

of phorphorous and nitrogen. The extent to which duck wastes influence the quality of

marine waters depends on the size of individual farms, the characteristics of the raw

waste, the extent of wastewater treatment, the location of waste discharges, and the

characteristics of the receiving waters.
In considering the size of individual farms, it should be observed that the

number of ducks present at any given time will be much lower than the total number
of ducks processed in. a year. This follows because the average duck life is only
two months [3 p. 3-33] while the season for duck farming on Long Island is about
9 months [6, p. 291. Available treatment techniques for duck wastes include the use

of aerated lagoons for removing suspended solids and BOD, chemical precipitation

for removing phosphates, and chlorination for reducing coliform concentrations
[6, p. 393]. The effects of the locations of discharges and the characteristics of
receiving waters are similar to effects for domestic and industrial wastes (discussed

above).
Duck wastes can interfere directly with shellfishing and water contact sports

by raising the coliform concentrations of marine waters above acceptable levels.

Duck wastes also have an indirect influence in that increases in the levels of phosphorous

and nitrogen compounds in marine waters can lead to increased growth of aquatic plants.

*Coliform bacteria concentrations are commonly employed as a surrogate measure
for disease-causing microorganisms. BOD, or biochemical oxygen demand, is a
measure of the quantity of free oxygen required to biologically oxidize (decompose)
the organic material in a unit volurne ofe wastewater.

The latter can interfere with the compl ete garnut of water based activit[es, including
shellfishing, boating, and water contact sports. In addition, excessive growths of
aquatic plants is considered acstheticAly unappealing.
When duck wastes are dischar-ed without treatment to remove suspended solids,
the resulting influence on the marine environment can be quite striking. Turbidity
levels are raised at the point of discharge and organic solids ultimately settle out to
form sludge blankets which can alter drastically the composition of the bottom. In
e.xtreme cases, the oxv-en levels at the bottom of the receiving water can be depleted
in the process of stabilizing the organic material in the sludge blanket. Further
stablization in the absence of oxygen often yields hydrogren sulfide gas with its
offensive odor 16, p. 45]. Sludge blankets can be removed by dredging

Evaluation of Problem

Lands adjacent to Bellport, Moriches and Patchogue Bays in Suffolk County are
major areas for duck production. In 1965 the annua I production in this region was on
the order of 6 million ducks (6, p. 291. The effects of duck far.m waste has been a
significant issue since 1949 when state legislation to abate pollution from duck farms
was passed. Of the total of thirty-two- farms in Suffolk County at the end of 1968,
twenty-seven had installed and operated aerated lagoon- chlorination facilities, four
were using "dry operations," and one had installed a spray irrigation system [5, p. 63].
Waste treatment methods for phosphate removal are being studied by the duck industry.
It is noteworthy that eleven duck farms went out of business during 1968 [5, p. 631.

During the last two decades, duck wastes have been cited as the cause of

significant alterations in the coastal waters off Suffolk County. Two Federal enforce-
ment conferences dealing with pollution in Great South Bay and Moriches'Bay have
emphasized the deleterious influence of duck wastes through suspended solids, BOD,

coliforms, nutrients, and sludge deposits. These changes have resulted in interference

with shellfishing and bathing [6, p. 71. The effects of extensive fertilization of Great

South Bay from duck manure, combined with low flushing rates, have been cited by
Odum [4, pp. 96, 971 as the cause of the elimination of the "blue point" oyster industry
from the area. Foehrenback [1] has indicated that poor, operations of treatment

facilities for duck wastes justifies skepticism regarding the rate at which duck wastes
will cease to be a problem in Great South Bay.
Issues of special importance concern the influence of sludege blankets, formed
by incompletely treated duck wastes, and the impact of programs to remove these
sludge blankets. hennigan (7, pp. 48-52) reported that duck sludge in the Moriches
Bay-Great South Bay area has caused intererence with shellfishing and bathing,
and also represents a significant source of nutrient addition. Dredging programs to
remove duck sludge have been carried out in one instance, however, the resulting
spoil was idsposed of on Fire Island Wetlands causing the disposal area to becone
"unuseable for an indefinite time in the future" (7. p. 50). it should be noted that the
second Federal enforcement conference for the Moriches Bay-Great South Bay region
recommended that no dredged duck wastes be disposed of on wetlands or in adjacent
waters. Also, except under special circumstansces, such spoil is to be disposed of in
the Atalantic at a point at least 1-1/2 miles from Moriches Inlet (7, p. 133).
Public Policy Background
There are several public agencies and private groups involved in the effort
to control waste discharges from duck farms. The Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration has held two enforcement conferences dealing with pollution in the
Great South Bay-Moriches Bay area; these conferences have focused considerable
attention on the influence of duck wastes on alternative uses of the coastal waters.
The New York State Department of Health has issued formal orders to all duck
farmers requiring that they "cease and abate...all discharges of duck wastes..."
(6, p. 179). The Suffolk County Health Department is responsible for the inspection
of waste treastment facilities on duck farms (6, p. 104). Individual duck farmers,
organized as the Long Island Duck Farmers Cooperative, Inc., have sponsored a
number of research studies to determine effective methods for treating duck wastes.
In this connection, note that Suffolk County, the State health Department (6, p. 179),
and Cornell University (2) have, on different occasions, participated in programs to
develop effective techniques for dealing with duck wastes.

Indicated Information Needs

The information needed for devising policies to deal with duck wastes are

essentiallv similar to those items noted earlier in the section oil Domestic an(]

Industrial Wastewater Disposal The key issues relate to the way the constituents
of the wastewater are distributed in the receiving water, and the way other- human
activities are influenced by these changes in the receiving water. In connection with

the duck waste problem, two items deserving special consideration include the

effectiveness of cluck waste treatment processes, and the removal of sludge blankets

formed in the vicinity of duck waste discharges. Both these issues have been dealt

with to some degree by participants in the Federal enforcement conferences cited

earlier. However, more definitive information concerning both issues would he

helpful in establishing policies in the future.

selected References

1. Foehrenbach, J., 1969: Pollution and eutrophication problems of' Great

South Bay. Long Island, New York. J. of Water Pollution Control Fed., Vol. 41, No. 8,

Part 1, August, pp. 1456-1464.
2. Long Island Duck Farmers Cooperative, Inc., 1965: A study of the Dollution

control efforts in Suffolk CountV, New York. as it pertains to the Long island duck

industr , Eastport, Long island, N. Y.

3. Oceanographic Committee of the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board.

1966: The status and potential of the marine environment, December.

4. Odum, E. P., 1967: Fundamentals of ecolog , second edition. W. B. Saunders

and Co., Philadelphia, Pa.

5. Suffolk County Department of Health, 1968: Annual report-1968. Suffolk

County, N. Y.
6. U.S. Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,

1966- Proceedings, Conference in the matter of pollution of the navi@,rable waters of

Moriches Bay and the Eastern Section of Great South Bay and their Tributaries.

Patchogue, N. Y., September.

7. -, 1967: Proceedings, Conference in the Matter of Pollution of the
Navigable Waters of Moriches Bay and the Eastern Section of Great South Bay and

their Tributaries, Second Session. Patchogue, N. Y., June.
64

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
Introduction
As used herin, the term solid waste refers to all the solid material descarded
(and considered no longer useable) by individual households, commercial, industrial
and government units. Such materials include garbage (food waste) rubbish street
refuse, demolition debris, constuction refuse, abandoned automobile hulks, certain
industrial wstes, and sewage treatment residue (sludge). Note that dredging spoil,
which is a solid waste in the literal sense of the term, is discussed separately in the
section on Dredging and Dredging-Spoil Disposal.
On Long Island, the disposal of solid waste is accomplished using incinerators
and sanitary landfills. In a landfill, wastes are covered regularly with a layer of soil
for reasons of public health, safety and aesthetics. Incinerators are used to reduce
the volume of wastes by seventy to eighty percent; the residual waste (incinerator ash)
is buried in landfill. Since sanitary landfills occupy large land areas, the extent to
whcih incineration is used to reduce the need for landfills is greatly influenced by
land costs.
The commonly used methods of solid waste disposal on Long Island have only
indirect effects on the marine environment. One effect is the deterioration of ground
(or surface) water quality caused by the leachate from landfills. Another effect is
the water quality deteriortaion caused by the discharge of quench water and wet-
scrubber effluents from incinerators. The influence of solid waste disposal on the
marine environment is direct under circumstances (not widespread on Long Island
now) where wetlands are used as sites for landfills, or where wastes such as
incinerator ash and construction rubble are disposed of directly at sea.
Evaluation of Problem
The following discussion emphasizes those aspects of disposal that ingluence
the coastal region. Nassau County has a total of 11 landfills involving 197 acres of
remaining land. Suffolk County has 23 landfills with 437 acres of remaining land
(7, p. 40). The primary water-related problem associated with these landfills relates
to the leaching of material from the disposal sites to surface and ground water.
65

While no specific data relating to the Nassau-Suffolk region are available, studies
of pollution from runoff [1, p. 6 1 ] imply that leachates from sanitary landf it Is may
have substantial concentrations of BOD, COD* and coliform organisms. Baffa
[3, p. 191, in a study of solid waste problems in Suffolk County, has reported that
leachate from incinerator residue filt can contain phenols. and water-soluble
organic compounds. Baffa has also observed that under Long Island conditions
"proper drainage and sealing of landfill surfaces can prevent or minimize leachatell
13, p. 191. Since the extent of contamination by leaching is not known, it is impossible
to indicate the extent to which this factor is influencing activities in the coastal zone.

There are 29 incinerators in the bicounty region; Nassau County has an incinerator

capacity of 3.680 tons per day, and Suffolk County has a capacity of 1,800 tons per day

[7, p. 381. The single most significant environmental problem associated with

incinerators is the deterioration of air quality resulting from incinerator stack-gas

emissions. Concerning the coastal zone, the key issues relate to leachates from

incinerator residue fill (noted above), and the disposal of waterwaste effluents
resulting from quenching and stack-gas scrubbing operations. In Suffolk County the

discharge of such effluents into the ground constitutes a potential problem with

respect to phenols which can result in taste and odor in water supplies [3, p. 181.

The extent to which these effluents are interfering with activities in the coastal zone

is not known.

In addition to the impacts of incinerators and upland landfills, the coastal zone

may be affected by the utilization of wetlands for landfill sites. Up to now, wetlands

have been destroyed primarily for real estate developments and dredging spoil

disposal [10, p. 9]. However, there is some concern that wetlands will be considered

increasingly for solid waste disposal sites as upland landfills become saturated. The

consequences of wetland destruction have been discussed in the section on Wetlands.
Another activity having direct influence on the marine environment is the

direct discharge of solid wastes to the ocean. In a preliminary report, Gross [5, p. 51

*COD, or chemical oxygen demand, is a measure of the oxygen consumed in the
chemical- oxidation of organic materials in a unit volume of wastewater.

has indicated that the Corps of Engineers has designated 13 waste disposal sites in
Long island Sound for dumping dredging spoil and for (lisposing of wastes from New
York City during bad weather. Solid wastes disposed of in this manner typically
include ash from coal-burning steam -generating plants, construction 1-11bble. and
industrial wastes or defective products [5, p. 3]: however. Gross has observed that
there is little inform:ttion available on the specific physical and chemical composition
of waste solids dumped in the ocean [5, p. 41.
Because of the expected decreases in available landfill areas, both Nassau and
Suffolk Counties will have to make changes in their solid waste disposal practices. It
has been estimated that by 1985 most of the existing landfills will be saturated ill
Nassau County and western Suffolk County [7 p. 401. Future requirements for land-
fill areas can be decreased by increasing the extent of waste volume reduction. In
addition to factors like changes in population growth and packaging practices. land
area requirements can be influenced significantly by [3, 261:

Crushing or shredding bulky material,
Compaction (or super-compacti on) in landfills"
High-pressure baling, and

Incineration with subsequent compaction of ash.

In addition to the items listed above, the. following approaches have been

mentioned as possible for the Long Island area:

The use of sand and gravel pits for landfill sites. After land-

filling, the land can be used for such purposes as community parks, golf

courses and ski slopes [3, p. 211.*

Long distance rail transportation of wastes to abandoned strip

mines [6, p. 61.

e The use of compaction facilities in conjunction with the building

of offshore land masses for public and private purposes [7, p. 42].

*Difficulties can be encountered from materials that remain soft for many years-,
and there may also be a need for rodent control [3, p. 201.

0 Disposal of compacted refuse or incinerator residue in the
Atlantic Ocean 17, p. 6].

* Use of an incinerator ship in which solid wastes are burned

on the way out to sea; residue is discharged to the ocean [6, p. 61.

Clearly, the last three items might significantly affect the state of the coastal

environment. Determining the impacts of such disposal methods on the coastal environ-
ment appears a fruitful area of continued investigation. It may be noted that a joint
research project involving Harvard's School of Public Health and the University of
Rhode Island's Graduate School of Oceanography has studied the environmental impacts

associated with the last item. There are indications that the report from this research

project, which has been in progress for the past five years, will provide ample informa-

tion to evaluate the benefits and disbenefits associated with the use of incinerator ships [8].
An additional aspect of the solid waste disposal issue relates to the recycling of

solids for productive uses. In a study for Suffolk County, Baffa [3, p. 121 has suggested

that current possibilities for reuse include metal salvage at landfills and the use of

heat from refuse incinerators for power generation. Future possibilities exist in

the manufacture of fertilizer, charcoal briquets, hardboard and building blocks. As

mentioned above, solid wastes can be used effectively in programs for land reclamation.

One practical illustration is the construction of artificial reefs off the south shore of

Long Island to increase fishing opportunities; the reefs were constructed using discarded

automobile bodies and tires, construction rubble, and concrete [4].

Public Policy Background

The primary Federal activity in solid waste disposal is defined by Public Law
89-272, the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965. This Act is administered by the Bureau

of Solid Waste Management, a part of the recently created Consumer Protection and

Environmental Health Service [2]. A substantial portion of the budget of the Bureau

of Solid Waste Management goes for demonstration grants to develop improved methods
for collection, reuse, and disposal of solid wastes. Another Federal agency involved

in solid wastes disposal is the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD);

under the 701 Grants program, HUD awards grants to communities for planning solid

waste disposal systems.

The New York State Public Health Law vests authority in the State Commissioner

of Health to make Grants in Aid for financial studies relating to refuse collection and

disposal. The Public Health Law also prohibits open dumps and open burning at
disposal sites. The Nassau and Suffolk County Health Departments administer state

regulations regarding refuse disposal as they relate to air and water pollution control.

County health department personnel inspect refuse disposal facilities to determine

compliance with the State Sanitary Code [6, p. 3; 9, p. 67]. In both Nassau and Suffolk

Counties the operation of both landfills and incinerators is carried out under the

auspices of individu al towns, cities, and incorporated villages.

Indicated Information Needs

Needs may be summarized in the form of the following questions:

9 What are the quantities and qualities of leachates from landfills?

Do any leachates ultimately influence the quality of coastal waters?

9 What are the quantities, qualities and ultimate disposal sites for

stack-gas scrubber effluents and quench water? What environmental condi-

tions and marine activities are influenced by these effluents? (Note that

Baffa [3, p. 29] has suggested the need for monitoring these effluents and

investigating the means for their reduction and treatment before discharge.)

* What special difficulties are associated with the use of wetlands

as landfill sites?

What are th6 physical, chemical, and biological impacts

associated with the disposal of different forms of solid waste at sea
(e.g., incinerator ash, construction rubble, etc.)?
How would coastal activities be influenced by the use of incin-
e rato:s hips ?
What additional possibilities exist for the reuse of solid wastes?

What are the. costs and benefits associated with the alternative

solid waste management schernes noted above?

Selected References

1. American Public Works Association, Research Foundation, 1969: Water

-pollution aspects of urban runoff. FWPCA Publication No. WP-20-15, U.S. Department

of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

2. Anonymous, 1969: Bureau attacks nation's solid waste. Env. Sci. and Tech.,

_q:8, pp. 705-707.
3. Baffa, J. J., et al., 1969(?): An action plan for solid waste disposal in

Suffolk County, New York, Vol. 1. John J. Baffa, Consulting Engineers, New York,

N. Y.

4. Department of Conservation, 1969: -Artificial reef sites.

5. Gross, M. G., 1969: New York City-A major source of marine sediment.

Tech. Rpt. No. 1 (preliminary draft). Marine Sciences Research Center, State

University of New York, Stony Brook, N. Y., June.
6. Mafrici, D., 1967: Solid waste disposal. Progr ms in Environmental Health,

Nassau County Department of Health, Long Island, N. Y.

7. Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, 1969: Utilities: Inventory and

analysi . Hauppauge, Long Island, N. Y.

8. New England Marine Resources Information Program, 1969: New England

marine resources information 2. Pell Marine Science Library, Narragansett, R. I.,

June-July.

9. Suffolk County Department of Health, 1969: Annual Report 1968. Long Island,

N. Y.

10. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Services, 1965: A supple-

mentary report on the coastal wetlands inventory of Long Island, New York. Boston,

Mass.

THERMAL POLLUTION

Introduction

The discharge of heated industrial wastewaters into natural waterbodies can
produce a wide variety of environmental effects of potential significance for a diversity
of water related activities. The fact that the terms "thermal pollution" and "thermal

enrichment" have both been applied to the general phenomenon of aquatic temperature
additions indicates that the social implications are not clear-cut, and that they may
involve both adverse and beneficial aspects.

Heated effluents may originate in any number of industrial processing and cool-
ing water applications. However, because they produce the largest concentrated

volumes of heated discharges, steam-electric generating stations easily constitute the

most significant source of potential thermal effects on Long Island as elsewhere.
This is essentially due to three basic characteristics of the steam-electric plant: the
low "thermal efficiency" of basiccsteam-cycle technology*; the large size of modern
generating stations; find reliance on water as the condenser cooling medium. Of the
existing and potential alternative technologies for electricity generation, none is
presently competitive with steam as a source of base-load power supply, and none
appears likely to supplant steam in the foreseeable future [ 2, pp. 32-35] .

The volume and temperature of the effluent, together with its outfall location,
are the basic causal variables that initially determine its, environmental impact.
Depending on locational factors affecting generating costs, contemporary condensers
may be designed for a temperature rise in the coolingwater of anywhere from 10 degrees to
30' Fahrenheit. Thus, depending on condenser design, a plant of given size and given
total waste heat load could discharge a relatively large volume of water heated to a

low temperature or a much smaller volume heated to a higher temperature. +

*"Thermal efficiency" relates to the proportion of total fuel energy actually trans-
formed into electric energy. The most efficient fossil-fueled (gas, oil, coal) plants
currently approach 40% thermal efficiency, which means that 60% or more of the fuel
energy results in residual (waste) heat energy, most of which is "disposed of" in the
condenser water effluent. At the present state of technology, nuclear fueled units aver-
age about 50% greater condenser heat discharge per kilowatt than fossil-fueled plants.
For a technical discussion of the basic physics, technology, and economics of
steam-electric power generation, see reference [ 31 .
t Rough estimates of heated water discharged from a plant operating at 38% thermal
efficiency are: 56,000 gallons per hour per me-awatt at a 10' rise or 18,000 gallons
per hour at a 30' rise in temperature.

For purposes of discussion, possible environmental effects of thermal discharges
may be grouped into four broad categories:

0 Temperature changes in the receiving water body,
9 Other physical and chemical changes in the receiving water,
such as dissolved oxygen levels and changes in chemical reaction rates,

Increases in atmospheric moisture and temperature resulting

from evaporative heat exchange at the water surface, and

e Biological responses to changes in the aquatic habitat,

including temperature and other physical and chemical changes.

It should be emphasized that the social implications of any particular environ-

mental change should be evaluated in terms of both the local intensit and the

geographical extent of the change in question.

The pattern of aquatic temperature increase is both the basic determinant of

other environmental effects and the source of potential social effects on temperature-

sensitive activities (such as water-contact sports and cooling water uses). The

temperature change will obviously be greatest at the point of effluent discharge, where

the environmental temperature essentiaUY becomes that of the effluent (10' to 30' F.

warmer). Beyond this point, the assimilative and dissipative capacity of the water

body both moderates the temperature differentials and limits their maximum area]

extent through a complete combination of physical mixing, surface stratification, and

atmospheric heat transfer processes.*
Since many of these factors are subject to significant seasonal, diurnal and
other periodic and random variations, the configuration of the effluent "plume" will

typically be subject to continual shifting. This is especially true of sea coast and
estuarine locations where tidal variations are a dominant factor. In general, it may

be observed that the aquatic heat dispersion and atmospheric transfer capacities of

*The relative strengths of these interrelated physical processes depend on a large
number of local environmental characteristics, among the most important being:
the volume, depth, turbulence, and pattern of currents of the water body, and the
temperature, wind velocity and humidity of the surface atmosphere. For further dis-
cussion and references to the literature on these processes, see [ 2, pp. 39-691

coastal waters are substantial, with the result that significant observed temperature

differentials seldom extend more than a few hundred or a few thousand feet from the

discharge point at observed sites where measured.

The indirect atmospheric effects (humidity and fogging) and the aquatic chemistry
effects of thermal discharges are, for the most'part, not well documented. However,

one aspect of widespread concern, on which recent field studies have shed considerable
light, is the reduction of dissolved oxygen in heated waters. Empirical evide'nee from

West Coast studies indicates no measurable reductions in dissolved ox.vgen, either in

effluent discharge canals or in the immediate outfall vicinitN, 111 , A study recentlv

undertaken b'v the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center of the State Universit.v of

New York will examine the incidence of fog and icing conditions in relation to thermal

additions in the New York City Metropolitan region [ 141

The principal concern for thermal effects in I ong Is land waters relates to the

possibilit.v of adverse biological responses of importance to commercial and recrea-

tional fisheries. Basic biological functions of respiration. growth. survival, and

reproduction are all subject to thermal influences; directl.v, indirectly, and in combina-

tion with other life-influencing environmental conditions. Evolution has adapted the

life-cycle stages of virtually all aquatic species in any given habitat to a relatively
narrow range of seasonal and shorter-term temperature variations. However, in any

given habitat, certain species Ynav be existing at the lower margin of this range while

others are closer to the upper limit of tolerance during one or more life cycle stages.

Thus, certain species may benefit while others may be seriously or fatally affected

bv even modest increases in temperatures.

Biological responses for any regional or sub-regional location will depend so

much on specific local conditions that any general predictions are hazardous, especi-

ally because we are dealing, for the most part, with relatively small temperature

differentials that are seldom beyond the natural variations experienced by a species

over its normal habitat range. Thus manv effects are likely to be relatively subtle and

of a long-term nature, rather than immediate and dramatic.

Social and economic activities affected by biological changes can include

potentially the whole range of coastal commercial and sport fisheries, in a ddition to

the general conservation and aesthetic implications of biological change. 'X-itel,
contact sports might also be influenced by possible changes in nuisance or harmfid
species. As indicated above, an extremely large variety of complex biological r)1-1mrps 77@
are possible, ranging from minor seasonal or average annual shifts in population

balances to the creation of entirely different local ecological COMMUnities. Pre-

dictive evaluation of social effects is further complicated by the fact that different

interests may be affected in opposite ways-certain species of commercial or
recreational importanc e may be increased while others are s im ultaneous ly decreased-and
as a result there ma.v well be conflicting interests among potential gainers and losers

from thermal impacts. This can have important policy implications regarding whriher

and to what extent to control thermal waste disposal.

Evaluation of Problem

There are four major steam-electric stations presently operating within 011,

Nassau-Suffolk region. All are fossil-fueled and all are operated b.N, the I.ong Islan(I
Lighting Co. They vary in size from roughly 375 to 760 megawatt capacities and

would be classed in the small-to-medium category by modern standards of compari-

son.* Of these, the three largest are located on the north shore (Glenwond Landing.
Northport and Port Jefferson) and one is located at Island Park on the south shore

(the E. F. Barrett Station) [4, 111.

We have found no concrete evidence to indicate significant thermal effects for

any of these plants up to the present. In interviews, professional fisheries' biologists

have expressed the opinion that ecological effects have been either indeterminable

or negligible. However, experience at the Northport Station (the largest, at 760 mw)

has been extremely brief: the first unit has been operating only since 1967 and the

second unit for an even shorter time. The discharge water at this plant is relativel.v

warm-about 2V warmer than the L. 1. Sound receiving waters. The New York State

Bureau of Marine Fisheries has just begun a field study of water temperature effects

in the vicinity of the Northport plant, and the Long Island Lighting Co. has also retained
A

*In 1966, there were 15 fossil-fueled stations in the U. S. with capacities in excess
of 1200 megawatts, ranging up to 2000 megawatts 5, p. xxil .

a consulting biologist to evaluate possible ecological changes in this region. At the

time of this writing, however, findings are not available.*
Regarding the near future, much discussion has centered on the announced

construction of Long Island's first nuclear-fueled generating facility at Shoreham.

presently scheduled for startup about 1975 [8, 91 . Designed as an 820-megawatt

facilitY, this would probably carry an approximately 60 percent greater condenser

heat rejection load than the 760-megawatt Shoreharn fossil-fueled station.+

Although this would represent a substantial increase in total heat discharge in

compariso n with existing Long Island experience, there are several much larger

stations currently operating elsew here in the U. S. Further, even by Long Island

regional experience, this would not necessarily imply a significantly different intensity

of thermal effects, or even significant differences in the kinds of effects produced.

Although the total heat load is larger, the precise effluent temperature differential is

not known at this time but it could easily be less than the 24'F, reported for the

Northport facility. Total effluent volume, however, would necessarily be larger,
and this would tend to extend the area of whatever effects are produced.

For the more distant future, it seems apparent that thermal effects issues will

become increasingly important. National projections of both the Federal Power

Commission and private utility groups foresee a continual growth in electricity
generation and capacity expansion on the order of a 100 percent increase each decade

for the remainder of the century. Assuming Long Island capacity expansion were no

great.er than these national average projections, this would mean an eightfold expan-

sion by the year 2000. Combined with the trend toward larger plant sizes, these

projections imply a significantly larger number of larger sized generating stations.

Should control of thermal discharges become necessary, there exist a wide

variety of technically feasible alternatives for management consideration. Among

*The experimental work relating to seed oyster production in the effluent dis-
charge channel (not a part of the natural coastal waters) of the Northport Station has
been discussed in the section on shellfish. If successful, this pilot project may be
taken as prim facie evidence that at least some species may be benefiting from the,
warmer water in the vicinity of the plant discharge.
t This is an engineering calculation based on a general knowledge of current
design practice and the reported plant capacities.

these are the following:

0 Planned location and size of ne-w generating units,
0 . Alterations in condenser designs to manipulate effluent

temperature,

The piping of effluent to alternative discharge points

(single or multiple) where effects will be less severe, and

0 Recycling part or all of the condenser effluent through cooling

towers or cooling ponds, prior either to reuse or discharge.

Anv of these alternatives can involve substantial additions to the cost of power

generation that could be expected to be passed on to electricity users in the form of

higher prices. Evaporati ve type cooling towers, for example, would add from 3 to
12 percent to the cost of generation.* For a large generating station, this would

amount to manv hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional annual costs. Before

costs of this magnitude are imposed arbitrarily, it is essential that decision-makers

have the soundest possible basis for evaluating the environmental and social values

to be preserved by such decisions.

Public Policy Background
In general, the public regulation of thermal discharges into Long Island waters

is subject at state and Federal levels to the same statutory authority and administra-

tive agencies as other aspects of pollution control discussed previously in the section

on domestic and industrial wastewater disposal. Basic responsibility resides in
the Bureau of Water Quality Management of the New York State Department of Health,
and basic policy has been established under the system of "best usage" regional water

classification. Specific water temperature criteria were recently announced, under

which future decisions on allowable temperature changes will presumably be based.

These criteria have been summarized as follows:

For a more detailed discussion of control technologies and the derivation of
these cost estimates, see [2, pp. 116-123, and p. 1351. To our knowledge cooling
towers have not yet been constructed for salt water operating conditions. This could

capital and maintenance costs.
pose technological development requirements and would almost certainly increase

Coastal Waters-no increase of more than 4- in surface temper-

atures over monthly high average during Octobcr-June. nor more than

1.5' during JulY-September beYond radius of 300 feet or equivalent area.

Estuaries-no increase beyond 90' surface temperature at any

single point-, in addition, at least 5017(, of volume of estuary flow, including

at least one-third surface water, may not be raised more than 4' or to

maximum of 83', whichever is less; during July-September, if surface

temperatures exceed 83', increase of not more than 1.5' will be per-

mitted at any given point. Because Long Island Sound and its bays can

be considered either coastal or estuarine waters, criteria for discharges
into them will be established on basis of *site and "best usage" classifica-

ti on alr eady as s i gned t o th em [ 121 .

Regarding coastal waters -presumably including primarily southshore Long

island waters-the criteria appear quite conservative and could well be sufficient in
themselves, if rigidly adhered to, to prohibit effectively the construction of larger
steam electric plants with conventional heat disposal systems. Deep water disposal
at a considerable distance off-shore might, however, constitute a feasible alternative.
Regarding Long Island Sound waters (the major portions of which are presently

classified in the "higher" water use classes), it appears that decisions will be made
on a case-by-case basis. The determining factor in these waters will apparently be
the potential effects on shellfish and other marine organisms. It is not clear at this

time, however, precisely who will be responsible for providing the information or what

specific criteria will be used in arriving at judgments regarding adverse effects on

marine life, but presumably the N. Y. State Conservation Department will have an

important role in this regard.

it may be noted that the State Health Commissioner retains certain discretionary
powers to apply more severe limitations or to authorize conditional exceptions to

temperature standards where "best usage" is not adversely affected. This provides a

necessary flexibility to the authorities in dealing with particular cases.

Indicated Information Needs

It should be evident from our discussion that there are a number of poorly

understood issues related to the aquatic disposal of heated effluents. Among the

most obvious are those relating to environmental effects, both physical and biological.

One fundamental area requiring clarification is systematic empirical data

on the three-dimensional temperature profile of the Northport discharge region

(tinder various seasonal, atmospheric and tidal conditions) in order to establish

precisely the boundaries and intensities of the direct physical temperature effects.
This would not only shed some light on what to expect at Shoreham, but it is also
basic to any ecological analysis at Northport itself.
As generating stations become larger and more numerous, there will be an
increased need to be able to predict in advance both the physical and ecological
effects. In this regard, much basic scientific work remains to be done in the design
and testing of predictive models. Mathematical modeling of physical temperature
effects appears both inherently simpler and much further advanced than pre-
dictive techniques relating responses of biological systems. However, there is

considerable room,even here, for advance in basic science and in applications to

explicitly defined Long Island conditions.
Systematic inquiry also is warranted into the specific kinds of biological

responses of Long Island species, including representatives of all plant and animal
phyla at various life-cycle stages. This should involve not only a comprehensive
literature search but also laboratory and field studies relating to local species.

Especially relevant here is field work in the Northport environs to determine what,
if any, biological changes can be attributed to this "experiment." Similarly, it is not
too early to begin systematic study of the ecology of the Shoreharn area to accumulate
background data as a basis for both prediction and future testing of possible effects

in that region.
Another area of knowledge relevant to decision making relates to our ability to

anticipate and evaluate the effects on various human activities. Among these the

most relevant and important would appear to be water-based recreation and com-
mercial and sport fisheries. The former requires knowledge especially of potential

reactions of water-contact sports enthusiasts to increased seasonal water temper-
atures. The latter-, of course, depends first on abilitY to perceive and predict changes
in species numbers and compositions. Beyond this, however, it requires knowledge
of the preferences and potential reactions of commercial and sporting interests to
such known or predicted changes. Without the latter, knowledge of species changes
alone is inadequate for either basic policy formulation or specific policy decisions

relating to "best usage" of coastal environments.

Selected References

1. Adams, James R., 1969: Thermal power, aquatic life, and kilowatts on the
Pacific Coast, paper presented at the American Power Conference Annual. Meeting,

Chicago, Illinois, April 22-25.

2. Cheney. P. B., F. A. Smith, et al., 1969: A systems analysis of aquatic
thermal pollution and its implications. (The Travelers Research Corporation

Report 7743-341b, prepared for the National Coal Policy Conference, Inc.), Hartford.

The Travelers Research Corp., January.
3.. Cootner, Paul H., and G. 0. G. L6f, 1966: Water demand for steam electric

generation: An economic projection model. Baltimore, The John Hopkins Press for

Resources for the Future, Inc,

4. Federal Power Commission, 1966: Principal electric facilities,

Northeastern Region.

5. -, 1967: Steam.electric plant construction cost and annual production

expenses-1966. Washington, D. C., Federal Power Commission.

6. Gaucher, Thomas A., Thermal enrichment and marine agriculture,

Paper presented at the Conference on Marine Agriculture, Oregon State University,

Marine Science Center, Newport, Oregon, May 23 and 24, 1968.

7. Long Island Lighting Company, 1967: Annual Report.

8. 1965: Atomic power for Long Island.
9. 1967: LILCO to aid the oyster industry, LILCO News Bulletin, July 12.

10. 1966: The Shoreham. Project, April.

11. Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, 1969: Utilities inventory and

Analysis (Comprehensive Plan Series). Hauppaugue, Long Island, N. Y.

12. New York sets up thermal pollution standards based on 'Best Usage'

Classification, 1969: Air/Water Pollution Report, p. 263.

13. Raney, Edward C., and Bruce W. Menzel, 1969: Heated effluents and

effects on aquatic life with emphasis on fishes: A Bibliography Washington, D. C.:

U. S. Department of the Interior, Office of Water Resources Research, April.

14. Weyl, Peter K., 1968: Text of remarks on thermal P011LItion,

(News release by Office of University Relations, State University of New York,

Stony Brook, New York), November 26.

OIL SPILL POLLUTION

Introduction

Oil spill pollution is here defined as the effect of accidental or deliberate release

of oil or related products into the natural marine environment. In this context, "oil"

means a floating or suspended petroleum product including but not limited to a fuel

oil, oil sludge and refuse, and oil mixed with other matter.

While little information is readily available on the sources, risks, and measures
available to cope with oil pollution on Long Island, much can be learned from general

experience in other locations. Oil may enter the environment from either accidental

or deliberate releases. Most accidental releases result from shipping accidents,
malfunction of unloading or loading equipment, storage facility leaks or human failure.
The danger of oil pollution from these sources is increasing as the number of storage
and transfer facilities increases and as ocean transport of oil increases. In the
mid-1960's, forty percent of oceangoing traffic was made up of oil tankers, and both the

number and average size of these vessels has been increasing [101. Not a present

factor in the Long Island region, but of increasing significance in Gulf and West
Coast waters, offshore oil drilling and pumping operations represent another major
source of accidental spills and leaks of obviously increasing concern.
A second major category of oil pollution sources is the deliberate release of

oil by bilge pumping (i.e., pumping out waste oil and water that collects in the holds of

ships), oil and gas emitted from engine exhausts of recreational and commercial
boats, fuel jettisioned from airplanes, and industrial waste. disposal (e.g., refinery
and metal-working wastes). These are generally far less dramatic than the major

accidental spills; but, at the same time, they tend to be more continuous, frequent,

and widespread in occurrance.

The release of oil into the marine environment can have both dramatic short-

term as well as long-term deleterious effects on the ecology of the receiving waters.

In the Santa Barbara (California) disaster, reports described a thick black layer of

oil that gummed birds, and coated seals, whales, and dolphins[6]. This thick layer
also blotted out sun to organisms beneath it. Another effect that.was equally injurious

and perhaps even longer lasting was the thin, almost transparent oil film that resulted

from the oil release. This film can refract light and thereby deprive phytop lank to n
of the essential sunlight needed to produce energy. Neither the extent nor the
longevity of this thin oil film is known. In most oil disasters, the thin film covers .111

area many times greater than the clearly visible blanket and can seriously disrupt the
chain of life 1101.

In the case of Torrey Canyon, oil pollution had its worst effect on the rockv
breeding grounds of many shellfish as well as on many thousands of seabirds. Finfish
outside of the shallowest areas did not appear to be affected by the oil itself, but some
were apparently killed by the detergent-treated oil sinking to the bottom. covering

their area [8, 10].

Closer to Long Island, in 1967 an oil slick drifted onto a 30-mile stretch of

coastline, including recreational beaches, on Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Snails, clams

and other marine life were killed and washed ashore; waterfowl and ducks were

covered with oil, @nany drowning due to loss of buoyancy; and, in the wetlands. salt

grass turned yellow where it came in contact with the oily surface and then the whole

stock died and collected on the water surface [8]. Where the oil came into contact

with swimmers, the substance adhered to their skin and hair and was difficult to

remove. The air was permeated by a strong odor of petroleum.

Many remedial measures, such as detergents, chemical dispersants and

absorbants, used to assist in spill cleanup have themselves produced deleterious

effects, contaminating and poisoning shellfish and other species [ 10).

Effective control of oil pollution can involve a wide variety of management

measures and technological methods, relating both to the prevention of spills and

other discharges as well as to the minimization of damages once a spill has occurred.

In general, prevention requires a systematic appraisal of all relevant factors -production

procedures, technological design, environmental influences-on a source by source
basis, in order to develop means for reducing the frequency and volumes of potential

oil released. For example, reducing the risk of oil pollution from tanker accidents

in a particular coastal region could involve any of the following: improved construc-
tion and design of tankers; redesign of searoutes and traffic patterns; improved
navigational guidance and weather warning systems; imposition of speed or other

coastal traffic restrictions, including more rigid standards for officer and crew train-

ing; and many others. Similar lists of possibilities could be enumerated for coastal

transfer and storage operations, offshore drilling, :ind other potential sources of

accidental or intentional discharges.

Remedial actions for minimizing damages once a spill has occurred include a
variety of possibilities relating to "early alert" procedures and contingency plans
for containment of the spill, recovery and/or other methods of reducing environmental

impacts.. and eventual cleanup or repair of damaged property and coastal resources.
Both management procedures and technological methods in these areas are in a very
early (and largely experimental) stage of development at present. However, it is
apparent that much more could be done than at present with the available technology.
For example, various types of floating booms are available for containing and accumu-
lating large spills so that they can be recovered h.v mechanical skimming devices or
suction hoses [1]. A considerable amount of research and development effort is being
devoted to the formulation of chemical dispersants and oil-cleaning methods [8, 91.

Evaluation of Problem

There is an apparent paucity of readily available information pertinent to
current or potential oil pollution problems in the Long Island region, relating either
to small-scale, local discharge of petroleum wastes or to possibilities for large-

volume spills.

Visual inspection of water surfaces in the vicinity of marinas, docks and harbors
typically reveals evidence of surface films of petroleum wastes from engine exhausts
and/or bilge-pumping from commercial and pleasure boat traffic. To our knowledge,

the significance of this pollution form has not been seriously studied in any detail,
although Foehrenbach [3] has alluded to its locally adverse ecological effects in

qualitative terms for Great South Bay waters.
,Long Island itself, as well as adjacent New York City and Connecticut coastal
areas,. is a major importer of fuel oil and other petroleum products for home heating.
electric power generation, chemical industry processing, and transportation uses.
As a result, Nassau and Suffolk Counties not only.contain numerous petroleum unload-
ing and storage facilities, but they are aIso located adjacent to major coastal shipping

lanes utilized by large volumes of barge and tanker traffic enroute to other New York

and Connecticut destinations.

Complete data on spills from vessels and coastal installations is not readil.v
available to ascertain long-term trends. However, the following summary of known
incidents occurred (luring the brief period of November 1, 1968 to Fehruarv 22, 1969

III, pp. 920, 1010, 10111:

e Bridgeport, Connecticut: :10,000 gallons of No. 4 fuel oil lost
during transfer from barge to tank farm; 90 percent of Bridgeport
Harbor covered by oil film.
* Albany, New York: 100,000 gallons of slop oil lost from storage
tank to Hudson River.

* Providence, Rhode Island: 1,000 gallons of No. 5 fuel oil over-
flowed from storage tank at U.S. Navy Reserve Training Center, creating
slick in Yacht Harbor.

* Block Island, Rhode island: oil barge accident contaminated
beaches f@om Watch Hill Point to Point Judith.

e Rockaway Point, New York: 4,000 barrels of No. 4 fuel lost
from grounding of an oil tanker during heavy storm; largely dispersed
by heavy seas.

Long Island Sound: oil barge grounded on reef; Thames
Science Center in New London reported 1,000 birds killed or injured.

None of these represent major spills by comparison with the Torrey Canyon, Ocean

Eagle, Cape Cod, or Santa Barbara experiences; however, the list is suggestive of

the relative frequency and potential seriousness of the more typical types of oil spill

events.

Although a detailed survey of coastal oil handling and storage facilities has not

been made, major facilities are known to exist in connection with all five of the
principal steam electric generating stations in the immediate Nassau-Suffolk region
(Island Park, Far Rockaway, Glenwood Landing, Northport, and Port Jefferson). The
Northport facility is unique in that it involves an offshore fuel-unloading platform

and underwater pipeline permitting unloading from tankers two miles offshore [4, p.91.

Another public utility, the Northville Dock Corporation, also operates an offshore
unloading platform and pipeline (1,000 feet) at Northville, in addition to a major under-
ground transportation pipeline (the first of its kind in the region) from South Setauket

to Holtsville [5, p. 47]. Offshore unloading, in both instances, eliminates a significant

volume of barge traffic close to shore; and the underground pipeline is said to sig-

nificantly reduce barge and tanker-truck traffic in the Port J efferson area. Offshore

unloading has also reduced the need for dredging of natural shorelines for docking

facilities.

Other areas where possible unloading spills, storage and transfer leaks, or

industrial processing losses could affect the Long Island coastline would be the

heavily industrialized East River estuary end of Long Island Sound and, possibly,

the Lower Hudson River area.

It can be speculated that, at present, the greatest threat of major potential spills

lies not on Long Island itself but in the increasingly heavy oil barge and tanker traffic
in adjacent coastal shipping routes. This is particularly true in Long Island Sound;
but it also applies to tho south shore region, especially the western portions close to
the lower Hudson and New Jersey Coast traffic routes. Heavy traffic in general
cargo enhances possibilities for collison, in addition to possibilities for oil tankers

and barges running aground during periods of bad weather.

Although not presently a consideration in this region, the question of offshore

oil drilling cannot be completely ruled out as a future possibility. "Project Sea

Map," a 1968 East Coast survey conducted jointly by a number of major petroleum
companies,, has generated considerable interest and encouraged further exploratory

effort [7]. Primary attention has apparently focused on Georges Bank, although
possibilities for other continental shelf regions have not been excluded.

Public Policy Background

In instances where marine oil pollution originates from land based sources

such as processing, storage and transfer facilities, it may be regarded for purposes
of public regulation and control as one particular type within the general category of

industrial wastes. As such, it is subject essentially to the same Federal and State
Legislation, public regulatory agencies, and administrative control procedures as
other forms of industrial wastes discussed in the previous section on Domestic and

Industrial Wastewater Disposal.

The U.S. Coast Guard has traditionally had a primary role in matters relating

to coastal transportation in general as well as to specific aspects of marine oil
85

pollution. As summarized recently by Rear Admiral Robert W. Goehring, Chief of'
Coast Guard's Office of Operations 111, pp. 926-928], major Coast Guard responsi-

bilities relate to:

The entire spectrum of involvement in the marine safety field
including ship and equipment design and construction; the licensing,
competence, and performance of shipboard personnel; requirements
for safe operational practices and adequate navigational equipment; the
maintenance of an aids-to-navi,ration system; the enforcement of the
maritime rules of the road; the establishment of sealanes for traffic
separation and general safety requirements for various classes of
vessels ....

In addition, three specific programs are directly involved in
pollution prevention. The Tank Vessel Act (46 U.S.C. 391a) and the
Dangerous Cargo Act (46 U.S.C. 170), together with the regulations
issued thereunder, specifically involve requirements for the handling
and stowage of inflammable or conbustible liquid cargo in bulk and for
the handling and movement of dangerous cargoes in package form.
Regulations involving tanker design, vessel equipment, manning and
operation, looking to pollution prevention, have been issued under both
these acts.

On the shoreside, the Magnuson Act (50 U.S.C. 191), involving
port security and port safety authority, serves as a vehicle for opera-
tional regulations, addressed to pollution prevention from waterfront
facilities.

The Coast Guard is presently involved in the enforcement of the
Oil Pollution Act of 1924, as amended, and the so-called Refuse Act
of 1899 ... [involving] survei'Ilance and the investigation of oil spills,
[and is presently] strengthening that enforcement by expanding our
patrol procedures and by expanding our research and development
program, looking to improved surveillance and detection techniques as
well as more efficient materials and equipment for cleanup.

Under the basic authority of the Rivers and Harbors Act, the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers in concerned with design, construction and maintenance of harbors,

canals and other navigable waterways as well as being a premit-granting agency for

the construction of offshore facilities such as drilling platforms and unloading docks.

Substantial efforts have been underway recently at the federal level to strengthen

interagency coordination and improve contingency planning for the prevention, control
and subsequent cleanup of oil spills. Under the direction of a National Interagency

Committee, composed of representatives of the Departments of Interior, Defens e,

Transportation and Health, Education and Welfare, and the Office of Emergency
Preparedness, policies and procedures are being established for the National Multi-
agency Oil and Hazardous Materials Contingency Plan III, pp. 932-933, 1019-10211.
Thus, for the first time, regional contingency plans are in the process of being pre-
pared in each of the nine FWPCA regional offices, involving both the survey of

potential oil spill sources and existing safeguards, as well as the formulation of

multiagency measures for prevention and emergency response procedures relating

to containmetit and cleanup actions.

Indicated Information Needs

A considerable amount of local area information is required to answer the types
of questions implied by the formulation of the regional contingency plans discussed

above. Some of these questions include [6, p. 4]:

What are the potential sources and types of spills within local

area operations ?

* What safeguards would routinely be observed to prevent spills?
9 What water uses and related resources might be damaged by
any of the-potential spill situations?

e What equipment, materials and supplies may be needed on an
emergency basis to control and clean up a spill?

* Where are such items available in the quantities needed?

* Can mutual aid agreements be developed between public and
private agencies at all levels for emergency control purposes?

Sufficiently detailed answers to these questions would provide a comprehensive
review of the present oil spill risk for the Long Island region as well as an assessment
of the area's preparedness to cope with spills.

Selected References

1. Boyd, WiLliam A., 1968: Report of a feasibility study of an oil spill control
facility for the Connecticut River, prepared for Connecticut Research Commission.

2. Conservationists forecast: Deadly shadow at sea. Water Newsletter, Vol. 11,

No. 12, June 18, 1969.

3. Foehrenbach, Jack, 1969: Pollution and eutrophication problems of Great
South Bay, Long Island, New York. J. Water Pollution Control Federation, 41, 8.

pp. 1456-1465.
4. Long Island Lighting Company, 1968: LILCO Annual Report, 1967.

5. Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, 1969: Utilities inventory and

analysi (comprehensive plan series). Hauppauge, Long Island, N. Y. pp. 47-48.

6. Oil Spills, 1969: Environmental technolog
August 29. _V and economics, Vol. No. 26,
7. Oil Thought to be Under Georges Bank, 1969: New ELigland marine resources
information 1. Pell Marine Science Library, Narragansett, Rhode Island, May, p. :3.
8. Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Transportation, 1968: Oil
pollution-A report on pollution of the nation's waters by oil and other hazardous

substances. Washington, D.C.

9. Two NeW Oil Slick Chemicals are Announced. Air and Water News,

August 4, 1969.

10. U.S. House of Representatives, 1967: Report on international control of oil

pollution. Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO), Washington,

D. C.

11. U.S. Senate, 1969: Water Pollution-1969, Part 4. Hearings Before the Sub-

Committee on Air and Water Pollution of the Committee on Public Works, 91st

Congress, First Session. Washington., D.C.

CHEMICAL PESTICIDES

Introduction

In our initial report identifying the marine resource problems of Long Island,

chemical pesticides and marshland drainage for mosquito control were discussed

together under the headings, "Control of Insects and Related Pests." For reasons of

emphasis and consistency, we have since chosen to deal with chemical pesticides as

a separate proble m and to include marshland drainage for mosquito control in the

category of Wetland Destruction and Alteration.

The issue of greatest concern centers on the side-effects on wildlife, fish, and
shellfish (and, potentially, humans) of persistent, non-specific, chemical insecticides
and herbicides applied for the control of pest species. Singled out for particular

importance has been synthetic -organic, chlorinated. hydrocarbon group which includes

DDT, aldrin, endrin, lindane, dieldrin, chlordane, toxaphene, Methoxychlor, heptachlor,
and others. These are characterized by relatively high toxicity, persistence in the
environment, non-specificity (they are toxic to a wide variety of organisms) and a
tendency to be increasingly concentrated in various vital organs and tissues of

organisms at higher trophic levels in ecological food chains [181. Evidence on the
deleterious effects of pesticide residues on fish and wildlife has been steadily mounting
over the past 20 years, especially with regard to DDT, which has been the most widely

used and the most studied [1, 2, 14, 181.

The newer families of,pesticides of increasing use are the organic phosphates,

including parathion, malathion and tetraethyl pyrophosphate, and the carbamates (of

which sevin is a commercial example). Although experience with these and other,

newer varieties is much less than with older types, most of these pestic.ides are felt
to be less injurious to non-target species because of their lower persistence and/or

greater specificity.
A major difficulty, bothfor scientific understanding and for public policy, lies in
the fact that there are literally tens of thousands of chemical pesticide formulations,

.and more are being developed contitiuallv,* Further, it may take many years for
unanticipated side-effects of particular compounds to be discovered and analyzed.
Pesticides have only quite recently become a widespread public issue, and regulatorv

policy is currently in a state of rapid change. Interest centers both on devising new

chemical formulations less damaging to environmental values and on developing

alternative biologi@al and physical means for pest control, in addition to closer

regulation on the use of existing chemical pesticides-to the point of banning the use

of the more damaging types entirely.

Evaluation of Problem

In our review of the pesticide problem on Long Island, we have concentrated

on five questions as a basis for or--ani,,:ing pertinent information:

(1) What are the @major target species of pests?

(2) 'Who are the major users of pesticides?

(3) What evidence exists on environmental concentrations of

persistent pesticides?

(4) What is the evidence on environmental damage?

(5) What social controls are there on pesticide applications?

Recent Long Island experience regarding the first two of these questions is

outlined in Table 5.

Of the five groups listed, information on types of pesticides, quantities, and

locations sprayed is available (at least in principle) only for the first two. It has'been

reported that public spraying for Gypsy Moths (confined in recent years to the north
shore hardwood stands") has now been discontinued entirely, due to lack of economic
justification and in compliance with the wishes of the New York State Conservation
Department [121. Nassau and Suffolk County Mosquito Control Commissions no longer
use DDT or other chlorinated hydrocarbons (Suffolk County, only since 1966) [10, 111.
They now use primarily malathion and "Flit" (a non-synthetic mineral oil product) and
place a greater reliance on non-chemical control approaches [8, 151.

*It has been estimated that, in the mid- 1960's, 8,000 manufacturing firms were
mixing about 500 chemical compounds into more than 60,000 formulations registered
for use as pesticides [13, p. 2].

TABLE 5
PEST SPECIES AND PESTICIDE USERS IN
RECENT LONG ISLAND EXPERIENCE

Major target Primary applicators
species of pests of pesticides

Mosquitos Nassau and Suffolk County
Mosquito Control Commissions

U.S. Department of Agriculture
and Ne,,N, York State Department
Gypsy Moth of Agriculture and Markets (Con-
tracts with commercial airplane
spraying concerns)

Species affecting
commercial a i Commercial farmers
gri-
cultural crops
Marine shellfish pests
("drills" and other Commercial shellfish
parasites, predators producers
and competitors)

General household,
building, yard and Private households and
commercial contractors
garden varieties

The application of marine pesticides to shellfish beds has not yet been examined,
but in the opinion of New-York State Conservation officials, this practice is, at present,

negligible [5].

The major part of present DDT and other persistent pesticide applications thus

seem to result from private use by households and commercial farmers., either

directly or by contract with commercial applications. Since large numbers of individual

units are involved in both instances, quantitatik@e data on these sources requires a

more extensive research effort than was possible in the present program.
From information developed thus far, however, it does appear that overall DDT

and other "hard" pe sticide usage has decreased significantly on Long Island within

the past few years, due to reductions in applications by governmental agencies. This

is not to say, however, that there may not be local areas of increased application by

the private sector, or that there may not be continuing damages occurring from
environmental residuals accumulated from past uses.
Turning next to evidence on pesticide concentrations in the environment, it has
been only very recently that information has begun to be developed on any kind of
systematic basis. Beginning only in March 1966, as part of the U.S. Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries' pesticides monitoring program, the New York State Department
of Conservation has undertaken a year-round monthly sampling program at 15 marine
locations to test for residual levels of seven chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides in
Long Island shellfish, as indicator organisms for general environmental levels.
Although the sampling locations are of necessity widely spaced, they do provide a
rough coverage of the entire coastline. Of the pesticides routinely tested for, only
DDT (together with its DDD and DDE decay products) and Dieldrin have been found
in measurable quantities 12). For the ma ority of locations sampled in recent months,
shellfish concentrations of DDT and its decay products were found to be less than
0.007 parts per million (ppm) in the shellfish organisms, with combined levels of
DDT,.DDD and DDE reaching upward to 0.1 ppm in the location of greatest measured
concentration [7]. Dieldrin, the only other chlorinated hydrocarbon detected in
addition to the DDT group, was found only at the sampling locations on the northwest

shore (from Hempstead Harbor to Conscience Bay). Concentrations of Dieldrin
generally were less than .03-.04 ppm, with the highest recorded concentration being
slightly over .09 ppm in Huntington Harbor in November 1968.
. Although the accumulated monthly data have not been subjected to rigorous
statistical analysis, casual observation does not reveal obvious trends or seasonal

patterns of variation [2]. No systematic effort has yet been made either to analyze

the environmental significance of these presently observed shellfish pesticide levels

or to trace these measured residuals to the sources of application. Clearly, much

remains to be done in this regard.

Declines or disappearances of local populations of a wide variety of Long Island

species have been attributed to pesticides. These have included shrimp, summer

flounder, blue crab, various amphibia, woodcock, bitterns, herons, and hawks ill, 12, 161.
To the extent that it has occurred, such damage ha s apparently not been of the sudden

and dramatic sort (such as directly observable "fish kills"), but rather of a slower

and more subtle nature. Conclusive direct evidence linking species declines to

pesticides requires possession of directly analyzable remains of recently deceased
organisms. Where direct mortality occurs gradually over time, or where a species
decline is due to diminished reproductive success, extensive controlled laboratory
experiments and indirect comparative field analyses may be required to substantiate
a pesticide effect. In certain instances, a local species may be already decimated to
the point where investigation of cause is virtually impossible.
Unfortunately, scientifically documented evidence on the quantitative extent of
wildlife losses is not available. Nor does it appear that detailed scientific study

has been undertaken for more than a few local areas of the Island. Woodwell, Wurster
and Isaacson, for example, have reported [181 on a study of DDT residues (including
DDD and DDE) for the Carmans River Marsh Area of Great South Bay conducted
in 1966. They found pesticide concentrations in many of the higher organisms
approaching or exceeding levels within the known lethal range for the particular
species. Combined with observed historical declines of such species for the same
area (relatively undisturbed in its physical characteristics), long-term damage from
pesticides maybe inferred with sorne confidence.

Public Policy Background
A variety of public agencies at all levels of government are presently involved
in one way or another, both in regulation and control and in direct use of pesticides.

At the local levels, the primary agencies of interest are the Nassau and Suffolk

County Mosquito Control Commissions, which operate primarily as applicators.
Although subject to policy direction by the County Boards of Supervisors and controlled
by County budgetary allocations, these Commissions operate to a large extent as
autonomous agencies under the New York State Public Health Laws of 1935. Given

their primary statutory function of mosquito and other insect pest control, these

agencies are thus responsible for decisions regarding methods, locations and

frequencies of control actions, including types and quantities of pe s tic ide' applications.

At this time there does not appear to be a routine formal mechanism, either statutory

or administrative, hy which these decisions may be monitored, re-ul.1ted. or coordinated
as part of a broader policy framework for environmental management.
At the state level, at least four public agencies conduct progranis directly
relevant to pesticide issues. The New York State Conservation Department, the

state agency most directly concerned with fish and wildlife damage. does not have

powers of control over insecticide applications, except indirectly through its capacitV

to provide recommendations and advice to other public and private agencies regarding

potential fish and wildlife effects. As noted previously, the Shellfish Sanitation and
1. Aigineering Services Unit of this Departnieni is presently the only agency conducting

systematic monitoring of pesticide residuals in the Long Island coastal elivironnient.

The New York State Health Department, as the State agency responsihle for

establishing and enforcing water quality standards for inland and coastal waters. is,

the agency with the greatest statutory authority for potentially exercising direct

control of pesticide levels in Nassau- Suffo I k waters. However, it has not, to our

knowledge, eSt,Lblished specific water quality standards for pesticide residuals for

New York State waters; nor do we know of specific instances in which tile Health

Department has instituted regulatory action against individual applicators. It is

worth noting in this regard that traditional pollution abatement procedures are, in

principle, extremely difficult to apply in the case of pesticides. One reason is that

pesticides users are extremely numerous, and their intermittent uses of pesticides

do not, for the most part, represent continuous "point sources" of direct discharge to

aquatic environments. Another reason is that the environmental transport mechanisms

by which pesticides reach water bodies are frequently extremely complex; therefore,

tracing observed residual levels back to their individual or multiple sources is

extremely difficult.
At present, the state agency with greatest authority over the suppl of pesticides

distributed within New York State is the Division of Plant Industry of the Department
of Agriculture and Markets (7]. Article II of the Agriculture and Markets Law requires

registration of all formulations transported, distributed, or sold within tile state.
The basic requirement for registration is that the pesticide already be registered
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture; however, the state agency has the authority.

to impose more stringent criteria, and could thereby restrict sales of particular

pesticides for use within the state [6, p. 5]. In 1968, the New York State Legislature

passed Article II-A which requires registration of all commercial enterprises

applying pesticides for hire ("custom applicators") as well as evidence of their

knowledge of the hazards and safety constraints of use. Together, these laws provide
some basic control on types of pesticides and the qualifications of at least one

category of appliers. They do not, however, directly control conditions of applica-

tions or quantities used.

The Pesticide Control Board was established in 1964 under Article 16 of the

Public Health Law to provide an agency for developing "overall policy in the State's
programs for regulating the use, transportation, storage and disposal of pesticides"
[7, p. 11. Housed within the State Health Department, the B oard is composed of the
Commissioners of the Departments of Conservation, Agriculture and Markets,
Commerce, Education, Health, Labor, and Transportation, as voting members, with
ten advisory members representing state colleges of agriculture, forestry and
medicine as well as organized conservationists, pesticide manufacturers and apoliers,
and "ecologists." Although an advisory body only, the Board represents the only
state-level agency with explicitly designated responsibility for surveillance of the

whole range of pesticide issues on a continuing basis. Because of its status and
membership composition, the Board is in a pivotal position to develop and implement

pesticide policies at the state level. The Board presently has under consideration a
resolution recommending that many of the chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides be

restricted to use only by custom appliers and commercial farmers, and only under
a special permit system. If implemented, this would effectively eliminate general

household uses and would provide -additional controls and limits on commercial uses.

At present, the primary regulation of pesticides at the national level (regarding

general environmental effects) resides with the Pesticides Regulation Division of the

U.S. Department of Agriculture under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) passed in 1947. This Act relates essentially to registration
and labeling of pesticide @products sold in interstate commerce, and does not directly

regulate subsequent uses or users. The Department of Health, Education and

Welfare (Consumer Protection and Environmentni Health Service) and the Department
of the Interior advise on, but cannot block approv:11 of USDA's decisions on applicatiolis
for registration. The Food and Drug AdministrLtion also has direct ro@@ulator.v pow(@rs
over those pesticides that relate to food products and to interstate shipmen, of food

products containing p-esticide residues.
The role of the Interior Department in monitoring environmental residues and
in research has been mentioned previously. In addition, many agencies of the federal
,crovernment are themselves direct users of pesticides, including the Forest Service.
I

the National Parks Service and the Department of Defense. A number of these agencies

have recently announced temporary bans on the use of DDT and other persistent
pesticides on federal lands within their jurisdictions.

In this regard, it is worth noting that at least two states (Arizona and Michigan).

as well as many local communities, have banned to varying degrees thc use of DDT

within their jurisdictions. Sweden has banned all uses of DDT for a period of two
years; and bills have recently been introduced in both Houses of the U.S. Congress to
prohibit the interstate sale and shipment of' DDT 12, p. 251. A similar movement is
underway in New York relating to persistent pesticides in general.

Indicated Information Needs

There is already a voluminous and rapidly expanding body of technical literature

on the biological effects of many of the most important pesticides; especiall.v the older

ones, such as DDT. While we are not-in a position to comment on the "completeness"
or adequacy of existing scientific knowledge in this area, there are at least three
kinds of basic information specific to Long Island that would be particularly useful

in understanding and potentially managing pesti cides -related marine resource problems.

The first of these is the monitoring of accumulations of pesticide residuals in
the Long Island coastal environment. As noteo previously, a beginning has been made
by the New York Bureau of Marine Fisheries; however, only shellfish (principally
hard clams) are presently covered, and these at only 15 locations around the entire

coastline. Even if all further pesticide applications were arbitrarily curtailed or
stopped in the. near future, the existence of present quantities of persistent residuals

"stored it in the physical and biological environrren t could be of significance for many

years to come.
96
t I

The second kind of information pertains to the biological significance of existing
residual levels. To our knowledge, no one has yet attempted to analyze in detail the
specific biological implications for Long Island even for the present data on monitored
pesticide residuals. Lacking information of this type, very little can be said regarding

the magnitude of ecological effects or their social significance.
Third, assuming pesticide applications will not be completely stopped in the
-immediate future, detailed information is required on specific locations, types and
quantities of applications. Such information seems essential as a basis for controlling

local uses as well as explaining and predicting levels of environmental concentration.

Selected References

1. Carson, Rachel, 1962: Silent spring. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, Mass.

2. The Conservation Foundation, 1969: Pollution by pestic ides (reprint of

April 25 and May 5, 1969 issues of C. F. Letter). The Conservation Foundation,

Washington, D.C.

3. Foehrenback, Jack, Senior Chemist, Shellfish Sanitation and Engineering
Services Unit, Bureau of Marine Fisheries, New York State Conservation Department.

Personal interview.

4. Headley, J. C. and J. N. Lewis, 1967: The pesticide problem: An economic

approach to public policy. Johns Hopkins Press for Resources for the Future, Inc.,

Baltimore, Maryland.

5. Miller, William, Supervising Aquatic Biologist, Fisheries Management and
Development Unit, Bureauof Marine Fisheries, New York State Conservation Depar@-

ment. Personal interview, May 13, 1969.

6. New York State Department of Conservation, Bureau of Marine Fisheries,

Shellfish Sanitation and Engineering Services Unit. Unpublished data for Pesticide
Analysis Report to U.S. Bureau of Commercial- Fisheries Pesticide Monitoring Program.

7. New York State Department of Health, Pesticide Control Board, 1969: The

use and control of pesticides within New York State. Draft II of Pesticide Information

Leaflet, Albany, N. Y.

8. Sanzone, Joseph, Entomologist, Suffolk County Mosquito Control Commission.

Personal interview, May 9, 1969.

9. Report of Committee on Persistent Pesticides, 1969. Division of Biology
and Agriculture, National Research Council to U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Washington, D.C., May.

10. Suffolk County Mosquito Control Commission, 1965-1967: Annual Reports.

Yaphank, N. Y.
11. Taormina, Anthony, S., 1966: Mosquito problems in fish and wildlife

management in New York. Mimeograph, New York State Conservation Department,

Ronkonkoma, Long Island, N. Y.

12. -, Regional Supervisor, Division of Fish and Game, New York State

Conservation Department. Personal interview, May 12, 1968.

13. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1966: Fish

wildlife, and pesticides.. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

14. -, 1965: The effects of pesticides on fish and wildlife. Fish and Wildlife

Service Circular- 226, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

15. Williamson, C. T., Director, Suffolk County Mosquito Control Commission.

Personal interview, May 9, 1969.

16. Woodwell, George M., 1967: Toxic substances and ecological cycles.

Sci. Am. 216:3, March, pp. 24-31.

17. -, Biology Department, Brookhaven National Laboratory. Personal

interview, May 13, 1969.

18. -, C. F. Wurster and P. A. Isaacson, 1967: DDT residues in an east coast

estuary: A case of biological concentration of a persistent pesticide. Science, Vol. 156,

May.

DREDGING AND DREDGING-SPOIL DISPOSAL

Introduction

As an activity producing direct physical changes and indirect side effects on
environmental conditions, dredging must be considered one of the most important

activities in the coastal region. Dredging operations are inherently conducted in two

phases, the first involving the removal of bottom material by suction or scooping and

the second relating to disposal of the removed -material. These two phases may occur

at one location or at locations remote from each other, as in the case of dumping

spoil at sea.

Depending on specific purposes, methods used, and locations involved, the

environmental effects of dredging and spoil disposal encompass a wide range of
physical, chemical and biological changes. In any specific instance, the environmental

conditions changed because of removal may differ significantly from those affected
by disposal. Thus, the two operations must be evaluated individually.
Dredging of solid material from underwater surfaces may be conducted for a
number of reasons. The.material itself may be desired as sand and gravel for the
construction industry, to replenish the eroding seaward slopes of barrier beaches,

or to provide landfill to raise wetlands above tidal levels, creating new land surfaces.

Alternatively, the desired purpose may be the removal of bottom materials, such as

duck waste sludge, to improve water quality or to restore bottom surface conditions;

or removal may be done to.create and improve navigational waterways, harbors and

mooring areas, and to improve water circulation and tidal flushing action. Some u@

these purposes may be accomplished singly or jointly. For example, the material

dredged to widen a channel may concurrently be used to build nearby beaches or to

fill wetlands for housing development.

The environmental effects of dredging, per se include not only the alteration

of bottom topography and material composition, but also modification of the habitat
of benthic marine forms, such as shellfish. In addition, water quality in the vicinity
of the dredging operation may be significantly altered. To some degree, effects will

depend on the type of equipment and procedures used. For example, hydraulic dredges
typically have less effect on water quality in the vicinity of the removal area since

all of the solid material disturbed is removed through a suction pipe. However, the
slumping of side slopes along hydraulically dredged cuts may cause local turbidity
and resuspension [8, p. 591. By contrast., dipper and clarnshell dredges. in scouring
the bottoms and lifting buckets through the water, may generate turbid conditions at
the removal site and may release to the water column whatever toxic, nutritive or

chemically unstable materials are present in the bottom materia 1. Regardless of the
type of dredge used, benthic communities are disturbed or destroyed, and water
circulation in the dredged area may be altered [10, p. 76].

The social activities affected by dredging t.N-pically include both those which the
dredging is intended to benefit (via navigational improvements, for example), as well
as those affected by unintended or unavoided changes in water quality and biological
habitat conditions (such as water-contact sports, fishing, or shellfish cultivation).

The environmental effects resulting from disposal of dredged materials also

depend significantly on purposes. location. mid type of equipment utilized. as well as
on the type of material involved. For example, because it involves direct pumping
of large volumes of water under pressure along with the dredged material, hydraulic
pumping can create greater turbidity at disposal areas than other forms of trans-

port (8]. Sand and gravel materials. hecause they are typically transported by barges

and because they are destined principallY for inland construction uses, seldom result

in adverse affects on coastal environments ii sofar as disposal is concerned, aside

from washing operations at preparation sites.

Environmental effects associate d with Iie disposal of dredging spoil in open
waters are discussed by Flemer, et al. [5, p. 684]. They observed that sediments

suspended as a result of dredging "can reduc-@ light, change nutrients concentrations

and entrain plankton organisms, clog egg nw:nbranes and gills, and smother benthic

populations." Biggs [1], in a study of the eff(ets of overboard disposal of dredged
spoil in upper Chesapeake Bay, reported that spoil material settled over an area at

least five times the predefined disposal site.

Dredged material destined for use in the replenishment of eroded beach areas
may also (again depending on material type and method of transport) produce adverse
effects on water quality from surface runoff or local nuisance effects from biological
decay processes. Another principal use of dredged material is for filling of coastal

100

wetlands, either for expressed land development purposes or because these areas
may simply provide a convenient disposal site. In either case, the physical and

ecological changes involved rank among the most important of the environmental

impacts of spoil disposal. These have been treated separately in the section on

Wetland Destruction.

Evaluation of Problem

Several adverse effects of dredging in Long Island waters have been observed.
The dumping and resettleffient of dredged spoil over biologically productive marshlands

has caused valued Spartin cordgrass to be replaced by valueless common reeds
[11. P. 7]. Oyster beds covered with dredged silt have been destroyed as shellfishing
areas or repopulated by hard clams instead of oysters [9, 3.24]. Algae blooms and
fish kills have occurred when duck sludge has been dredged during the 'vvarm summer
months [12, p. 11]. Large borrow pits and holes dredged in harbors and bays during
sand and gravel operations are now common to many parts of Long Island. The
environmental effects of these pits,other than the generation of obnoxious gases from
accumulated decomposing organic detritus, have not been thoroughly documented

[91, p. 3.8].
The environmental effects of spoil disposal for Long Island and adjacent waters
are being investigated by Gross [6]. The effects of dredged spoil discharge on the
Continental Shelf are not known, although, in contrast to river-borne sediments, spoil
dumping is usually more localized in space and time [6, p. 15]. Gross has observed

that because of the relatively small area of spoil disposal sites in Long Island Sound,
short" dumping, outside the designated areas, is likely to occur as a result of navi-

gational errors and the exigencies of adverse weather.

The total acreage of wetlands physically destroyed by dredging is not known,
although surveys of Long Island wetlands indicated that at least 23% of the marshlan ds

lost during the decade from 1954 to 1964, amounting to approximately 1,900 acres, were
attributed largely to dumping of hydraulic spoil [11, pp. 8-10]. Additional acreage of

wetlands used for housing, recreatioii and other specific uses were also prepared

originally by depositing dredged spoil.

101

Information on the current intensity of dredging activity in the bicounty region,
in terms of the number of dredges in operation and volumes of material removed,
locations of removal and deposition, is not readily available in summarized form.*

Public Policy Background
Dredging operations in Nassau and Suffolk Counties are administered by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Elsewhere in New York, the State Water Resources

Commission exercises jurisdiction over navigable waters in the state, having the

power to issue or deny permits on the basis of ecological effects and public health as
well as navigation. In the bicounty region. the Corps issues permits for dredging
offshore of the high water line, on the basis of effects on navigation. However, under

the Federal Coordination Act, the Corps must take into consideration the advice of

the Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department of the Interior regarding possible
effects on natural resources. The Corps also receives advisory comments on dredging
permit applications from the Neu, York State Conservation Department and, occasionally,
from the state Departments of Health and Commerce. All State agency comments are
officially transmitted to the Corps through the State Water Resources Commission

[9, pp. 3,39-411.

The Corps of Engineers also has authority over the dumping of dredging spoil

at sea. The Supervisor of New York Harbor, who also serves in the capacity of
District Engineer of the New York District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, designates

and supervises spoil disposal in 19 designated sites in Long Island Sound [6, p. 51.
Several towns in the bicounty region regulate dredging operations. The Town

of Hempstead prohibits all dredging on public lands except for public works construc-

tion, and designates two areas at Jones Inlet as the only sites where material may be
dredged as landfill [7, p. 4]. The Town of Babylon passed a dredging ordinance in

1957 establishing stringent regulations concerning the removal of material from

town-owned wetlands (9, p. 3.41].

*The location and volume of material removed by county-owned dredges in Suffolk
County over the period 1956-1962 was reported by Bishop in Civil Engineering
12, pp. 40, 41].
102

Indicated Information Needs

To apprai se better the intensity of dredging operations, it would be helpful
to obtain data on the volumes of material dredged and disposed of, the location of
each activity. and the agency or firm conducting the operation. Quantitative data

concerning the immediate environmental effects would indicate the severity of the

problem and help to establish clearly the other human activities adversely or

beneficially affected. Changes in the physical parameters, such as turbidity, sedi-

mentation rates.
particle size and water circulation, as well as chemical and biological
changes in the waters surrounding dredging operations, would depend upon the type of
material dredged and the equipment used.
To understand better how dredging is accomplished, additional information
regarding institutional restraints and procedures is needed, such as the processing

and enforcement of dredging permits, local dredging ordinances, and the extent of

jurisdication of the regulating agencies.

Selected References

1. Biggs, R. B., 1968: Environmental effects of overboard spoil disposal.
Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, Vol. 94, No. SA3, Proc. Paper 5979,

June, pp. 477-487.

2. Bishop, H. F., 1962: Suffolk County dredges make new land and water areas.

Civil EngineeKLng, September, pp. 40-41.
3. Brown, D. L. and R. Clark, 1968: Observations on dredging and dissolved

oxygen in a tidal waterway. Water Resources Research, 4(6):1381-1384.
4. Caldwell, J. M., 1969: Corps of Engineers programs in coastal waters.

Proceedings of the 1969 annual meeting of National Security Industrial Association,
Ocean Science and Technology Advisory Committee. Washington, D.C., April 23-24,

pl). 111-42-46.
5. Flemer, D. A.,W. L. Dovel, H. T. Phitzenmyer and D. E. Ritchie, Jr., 1968:
Biological effects of spoil disposal in Chesapeake Bay. Journal of the Sanitary
Engineering Division, ASCE Vol. (SA4), pp. 683-706.

6. Gross, M. G., 1969: New York City-a major source of marine sediment.

Tech. Rpt. No. 1 (preliminary draft 20 June 1969). Marine Sciences Research Center,

SUNY, Stony Brook, N. Y.
103

7. Hempstead Town Conservationist. 1966: Vol. 1. No. 1 (winter 1966), p. 4.
Department of Conservation and Waterwaves. Town of Hempstead, Long I sland, N. Y.

8. Huston, John, 1967: Dredging fundamentals. Journal of the Waterways and

Harbors Division, Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 45-69.

9. Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, 1966: Status and potential of the
marine environment. Report of the Oceanographic Committee to the Regional Planning

Board. Hauppauge, L. I., N. Y.
10. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1968: Water quality criteria. Federal

Water Pollution Control Administration. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,

D.C.

11. U.S. Department of the Interior. 1965: Supplementary report on the coastal

wetlands inventory of Long Island. New York. Fish and Wild life Service. U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Region V. Boston.

12. Wallace, D., 1969: Marine Resources Council of the Nassau-Suffolk
Regional Planning Board. Minutes of the Meeting of May 26, Hauppauge, Long Island,

New York.

13. Yahn W. B. Ellicott Machine Corporation. Personal correspondence,

October 14, 1969.

104

SHORELINE RECREATION

Introduction

Shoreline recreation is of unquestioned importance to Long Island, both for its

amenity values to residents and as the basis of a substantial amount of regional
commerce and industry. " Shoreline recreation" actually subsumes a diversity of

specific consumer-level activities, including swimming, surfing, skin diving, water

skiing, pleasure boating, sport fishing, waterfowl hunting, birdwatching, camping,

picnicking, hiking, and other leisure-time pursuits. Individually, most of these activi-

ties depend upon different combinations of natural environmental characteristics, and

some also require (or are enhanced by) various man-made facilities and services.

All, however, depend upon personal access to areas in which the desired natural

shoreline features are located.

In general, a shoreline recreational problem can be defined as any situation
in which the quantity or quality of opportunities for a particular type of recreational
experience are judged inadequate to satisfy reasonable demands on the part of resident
or non-resident populations. More specifically, some of the more obvious f1demand
and supply" problems relating to shoreline recreation are the following:

0 Quantit of a particular type of natural resource is limited

in natural occurrence relative to demand. This is increasingly typical
of natural coastal recreation resources,as population growth, together

with increased leisure time and family incomes, cause demands to

increase with respect to relatively fixed supplies. The problem is
compounded when original resource bases are decreased by their

development for non-recreational uses. Examples: sandy coastal

beaches are becoming increasingly scarce relative to the numbers of

people desiring to use them; the decrease in coastal marshlands has

significantly reduced opportunities for waterfowl hunting and bird-

watching.

105

0 Quality of natural resources is either originally of low value
for a particular activity or becomes deteriorated over time. Examples:

rocky or muddy beaches are of lo%A- value to sunbathers and swimmers;

pollution-caused turbidity, etc., reduces water quality for personal
contact sports; for many users, crowding reduces the quality of the

recreation experience.

a Access to existing natural resources is precluded to many

potential users, either by absence of public rights of way, exclusive

private ownership, the restriction of particular areas for non-

recreational public purposes, or b.y ]oca] public restrictions against

non-residents.

a Ancillary facilities in short suppl,v restrict (or reduce the quality

of) recreational opportunities otherwise available. Examples: inadequate
boat launching, storage, and service f wilities mav restrict the number

of boats in a particular area or causo long delays at facility sites;

absence of bathhouse, toilet, or other public beach facilities may be a

source of inconvenience and annoyance.

Certain additional issues bearing on shoreline recreation problems are worthy
of note. First, recreation demands on coastal resources are typically subject to

extreme seasonal and daily variations in intensity. For most activities in the New

York region, peak demands obviousIv-occur during the summer*, especially on week-

ends and holidays. Thus, many resource areas and facilities are typically under-

utilized (or not used at all) during much of the year, and the major problems of

"shortage" for most activities occur only during a very few peak-use days during the

activity season.

A second issue, and one with serious policy implications, is that of potential

conflict between resident and non-resident uses of a region's natural resources.

*This is not true of waterfowl hunting (legally restricted for conservation reasons
to the fall and early winter months) or for certain specialized sport-fishing enthu-
siasts whose peak demands are timed to coincide with the maximum availability of
favored migratory species such as striped bass, mackerel or billfish.

106

The extent to which recreational resources are considered adequate by resident

participants will depend significantly on the extent of their use by non-residents.

Local resident participants may well prefer to exclude "outsiders," even while local
commercial interests are seeking to attract them, and state-level development and

planning agencies are attempting to extend these recreational opportunities to all

state residents and out-of-state tourists.
In addition to obvious conflicts between non-recreational and recreation uses,

and between resident and non-resident recreationists, there may also be conflicts
among different kinds of recreational use for the same resource base, for example:

waterfowl hunters vs. birdwatchers and other naturalists, or surfcasters vs. swimmers

vs. waterskiers.

. Finally, it may be noted that problems and issues of all of these types are

inevitable to a certain extent, as both recreationa I and other demands on the same

limited resources continue to expand. Some of the problems can be mitigated in
various ways, such as by investing in resource improvement or facilities construction,
by restricting or preventing incompatible uses of specific areas, by regulating some
activities to avoid depletion or quality deterioration of the resource base, or by trans-

ferring private areas or non-recreational public areas to public recreational uses.

In general, however, such problems can usually be only ameliorated and can seldom
be entirely "solved." And although many recreationists are traditionally accustomed
to the "free use" of natural resources for their particular purposes, it is quite
evident that even the easing of recreational problems will become increasingly cos-iy,

in terms both of direct investments and of other resource uses sacrificed. The extent

to which such costs are worthwhile, as well as the extent to which they should be

born by alternative programs of public subsidies or user fees, or left to private
enterprise sblutions are all relevant issues subject to current debate [2].

Evaluat ion of Problem

ideally, one would like to be able to match demand and supply information for

each specific shoreline recreational activity conducted within specific coastal areas

of the Nassau-Suffolk region. However, the kinds of information necessary to per-

form such evaluations are not generally available at sufficient levels of detail or

107

regional comprehensiveness. Therefore. given the fragmentar.y state of available
information, the present evaluation is developed in the following four parts:

0 The broad picture of coastline recre,LfiOll demand in terms

of general trends and certain features of its composition;

0 Basic factors influencing the quantitative and qualitative aspects

of the natural resource base;

� The question of public at ccssibilit.v; and

� The present role of the private sector, including both com-

al enterprise and private social organizations.

Probably the single most important indicator of recreational demand pressures

in the Nassau-Suffolk region is data on resident population numbers. The population

of Nassau County (approximatel,N? 1.40 millinq in 1969) has increased nearly 2.3

times in the past ZO years and that of Suffolk Count.v (1.06 million) has increased by

more than 3.8 times during the same period [ 8, pp. 5-61 . Projections by the Nassau-

Suffolk Regional Planning Board indicate hirlher increases during the next 10 years

of over 200,000 in Nassau and more than -)00,000 in Suffolk County f 8, p. 141.

Resident demand is of course augmented hv non-resident demand, and, in this respect,

Long island's proximity to New York Cit.\ and its metropolitan environs is of the

greatest significance.

In addition to population increase, per se, changes in per capita participation

rates is a second important demand indicator. Although trend data specific to

Long Island are not available, inferences ma,-, be drawn from national studies which

indicate that participation in coastal recreation has been increasing substantially

more rapidly than population for most major Activities [ 10, pp. 4-51 .* This trend

of increasing participation rates is also expe( ted to continue, based on such deter-

minants as increases in average family incomes, leisure time, and mobility factors.

Either of these trend influences alone Nv-)uld be sufficient to yield substantial

absolute increases in Nassau-Suffolk recreation demands; taken together, their

implications are impressive.

The major possible exception would appear to be waterfowl hunting.

108

General indications of the popularitNI of specific activities'may be inferred from

national studies of the proportions of the population that engage in them and numbers

of "participant days" or "occasions of participation" for various activities [ 10; 141 .

Although definitions vary among studies, the general picture emerges that swimming
is easily the most popular "active" shoreline recreational pursuit, followed by

pleasure boating and fishing, each with about 25 to 30 percent as many individual

participants [ 10, p. 31 . On the average, however, individual boaters and fishermen
apparently participate more frequently during the year, owing in part to longer

seasons; and they spend considerably more money per person than other recreation-

ists.

The only detailed and comprehensive regional study of recreational participation
on Long Island for which results are available is that by Wilkins for the Town of
Southold [ 171 , which includes an interview survey of both activity participation levels

and socio-economic characteristics of participants, for the summers of 1964 and 1965.

The Town of Southold is atypical of most Long Island towns in that it has a low

resident population (only 14,444 in 1965), is still essentially undeveloped, has a

rural environment, and is relatively isolated from metropolitan New York. Never-

theless this study is worth considerable attention,both because it is a potential proto-
type for other Long Island area studies and because it offers many insights into

eastern Long Island recreational patterns.

Selected data from the Wilkins study, presented in Table 6, show summer

levels of participation for the five major activities covered, together with the perma -
nent places of residence of participants. In addition to the generally high levels of
recreational activity indicated, and the outstanding relative popularity of "swimming"

(which in this study included everyone observed on beaches whether they actually

swam or not), the most impressive aspect of the data is the proponderance of non-

resident participation, especially the relative importance of.New York City residents.*

*The original study distinguishes between "visitors" (non-residents spending less
than 31 days in the town) and "seasonal residents" (home owners and other spending
31 days to 24 weeks in the-town). The latter category was estimated to include
approximately 12,000 in 1964 [17, p. 81.

109

OTT

0
0 S= o @d ::rm -i
CD CD P C) u-
CD (D
pq, A
CL -0 -. . . a' CD a, :3 CD 0.
:rq (D p (D
cn " p @s
0 0-t CD 7q
C+ C-1- cr0 a, 0,
w 0 0 (D

CD
0 En
ZZ @r (D
-0 P CD M tri
1 0 C-t-
CD W -1
t

ol
r) tl@ tQ w 00 W- w P;- 00 LID --j cz C
-1 C) 00 Ul L.) vo (Lo 00 w Ull
cz C) -1 t1o (z) r-R --a ul cj ul 00. w Q w
OD I,.,;WC.0 @.o -1 00 L")w C:@ ul I
0, >

C)
cn

C-1 >
w LIZ) Ul Ul Ul

cn
c"

1"D U,
0 M V
>

CD
C/I I - >
0 Z
-ZZ tD P 5 (-"
to U) z
p
En
>

C
ro

11-ID cz t") tQ LQ ri, C4 w
C@ a o Kl- Q w QD w 00 to
0
Ln

0
U,
m
10 0
0
ft

cn
C-4 t:i
t-I
r.0

N cz N co
Z
0 p
I
17= FCZ'$'.-I

Additional participant data accumulated in the Southold survey but not reviewed

here included, for each of the individual activities listed: age distributions, annual

family income, and primary factors attracting participants to the particular activity

or location and to the general Southold area. Less extensive surveys were also

conducted for camping (no formally provided public or private camping areas in the

town) and waterfowl hunting.

Although not vet published, a recent study of recreation on Long Island conducted
Linder the auspices of The, New York State Office of Planning Coordination [ 131 should
shed a much more comprehensive light on some of these same issues for the entire
Nassau-Suffolk region. It will include results from a current survey of public

recreation areas and facilities (together with certain capacity estimates), as well
as information from both an on-site user survey and a mailed questionnaire survey
of Long island households relating to socio-economic characteristics, activity
participation and location preferences, travel distances and modes, and indications of

satisfaction with existing facilities and additional desired opportunities.

Turning next to the supply side of shoreline recreational opportunities on Long
Island, we will first present evidence relating to the quantitative and qualitative
picture for the overall natural resource base itself, and then discuss accesibility to
these resources and the availability of man-made facilities.

Data have been presented previously, in the section on Wetland Destruction,
concerning physical destruction and deterioration of marshlands over the recent past.

During the 1954-64 decade-, Nassau and Suffolk Counties lost an estimated 33 perce - t
and 17 percent, respectively, of their marshland acreages to developmental land

filling, coastal harbor and other marine excavation, and dredging spoil disposal, with
attendant direct losses of waterfowl hunting, bird watching and other natural-area

recreational opportunities.* Additional, but as yet unquantified, marshland losses

are known to have occurred in the period since 1964.

*It should be noted that, of the total losses, seven percent for Nassau County and
eleven percent for Suffolk County were attributed to marine, dock, and channel
construction, which were no doubt largely beneficial to recreational boaters and boat
fishermen.

Further, much of the remaining marshland was considered to have deteriorated

in quality as wildlife habitat because of the presence of pesticide residues and, in

some areas, because of shifts to inferior vegetation types induced by heavy -iltation

from dredging and spoil disposal operations. As a result, some wildlife species.

including certain crustacians and amphibians, osprey, and other shore birds, are

apparently at, or close to, levels of extinction in certain areas [ 151 .

According to a report prepare(] for I tie Outdoor Recreation Resources Review

Commission [ 41 , New York State was estimated to have 196 miles of recreational

beach shoreline at tile heginning of, the present decade, most of this being in the Nassau-

Suffolk region. We have found no evidence that beach land has been destroyed to an.N.
significant degree h.\, man-caused development activities. This is undoubtedly due t()
the recognized commercial and personal values to owners of this type of natural ]-(,:i I
estate. However, some significant losses of beach area, if not shoreline footage,

have occurred through shore erosion, particularly on the ocean side of Fire Island.

in addition, it was reported that eleven beach areas (extent and location unspecified)

were closed to swimming for public health reasons as of the mid 1960's due to
domestic and municipal waste pollution [ 9, p. 3-121

Water quality deterioration has also directly reduced the available acreage of
shellfishing waters, as discussed in the section on Shellfish. Excessive algae blooms,

attributed to the combined influence of domestic and duck waste disposal and reduced

water circulation, have been a periodic nuisance to recreationists in Great South and

Moriches Bays, and have had known ddverse effects on oysters in these same areas.
Offensive odors and other water quality problems from duck waste disposal have also,
as previously noted, been factors adversely affecting recreational opportunities in
Moriches Bay. Whether these various water quality problems will be overcome in

the near future depends of course on how soon and how well the pollution abatement

programs in these areas progress.
It may be noted at this point that, whereas recreational oyster gathering in
Long Islandwaters apparently now exists in memory only, hard clam populations have
significantly increased in many nearshore waters, particularly in Great South Bay,
thus affording expanded recreational opportunities of improved quality.

112

The resource base for sport fishermen, as discussed in the section on Sport and

Commercial Finfish, has always been subject to significant fluctuations, in terms of

abundance of most of the important individual fish species. Several of the species

of greatest importance to the recreational fishery have shown significant declines in
recent years,.@ Most notable among these have been the spotted weakfish (sea trout),

and, more recently, fluke (summer flounder) and porgy (scup). The weakfish decline

has been of such long duration that its natural recovery is extremely doubtful.

Whether the declines in other species are only temporary, and due to natural factors,
are questions that can only be answered by additional research and/or the passage

of time.

Another factor relating to changes in the natural environment of recreationists

is the question of eelgrass growth, also discussed at length previously. Extensive

increases of this densely growing aquatic plant have occurred in most of the south

shore bays in recent decades, with particular acceleration since the 1950's. Its

primary direct recreational impact has been on boating and fishing, with complaints

relating specifically to its presence as a navigational impediment and as an obstruc-

tion to sport fishing, and, in the latter part of the season, to its accumulation on shore-

lines as an unsightly and odorous nuisance. Although various methods have been

applied for its control and removal-primarily mechanical cutting-costs are quite
high; eelgrass management is still essentially in a research and development stage.
A complicating factor is the recognized ecological value of eelgrass as a primary food
producing species and as a source of habitat for marine organisms.
From the standpoint of individual recreationists, accessability to natural
resource areas can be of equal importance to their existence. While we have seen
that the'quantities and qualities of the resources themselves have diminished some-
what, overall access, both for Nassau-Suffolk residents and others, has generally

increased over the past 10 to 20 years through public acquisition programs of federal,

State, County and local governments and as a result of highway and bridge construc-

tion.

Perhaps most notable in this regard has been the establishment of the Fire Island
National Seashore, the only major federal acquisition for recreation on Long Island.

113

Begun in 196 3 and still in process of expansion, this area will ultimately include
30 miles of shorefront preservation involving some 5,100 acres under the National
Park Service f 6, p. 25; 7, p. 61 .

Although the major portion of New York State coastal park and conservation
areas were acquired prior to World War 11, a substantial amount of expansion has
occurred more recently. These coastal areas now include almost 14,000 acres, pre-
dominantly in Suffolk County, making the State by far the largest holder of public
recreation lands in the region. At the county government level, Suffolk Count.y' s acqui-
sition program has been accelerated during the past decade to the point where it now

holds about 3,900 acres in coastal areas; however, seashore holdings tinder Nassau

County government jurisdiction totaled less than 250 acres in 1968 [ 71 .
In addition, most of the towns and villages and a number of unincorporated

local districts own small acreages of beach and other shore areas. In 1968 their

combined holdings totaled some 4,400 acres [ 7) . Although the practice is not

universal, it should be noted, however, that a majority of these areas are restricted

to use by local residents [ 12, p. 95ff.; p. 103ffl
Accessability for activities such as boating and fishing from boats is primarily
a question of availability of launching, docking, and other boat service facilities, as

well as boat rental and commercial charter fishing opportunities. In addition,

shoreline fishing depends significantly in certain areas on the existence of piers,

jetties, breakwaters and other single or multi-purpose access points. Although
comparative historical data are noi available for trend analysis, the quantities of most

such facilities have been increased, both at public areas and on the part of private

commercial enterprise. Relevant 1968 figures indicated 286 private marinas
(primarily commercial) and some 52 publicly operated marinas (including many

restricted to local residency use) [ 7, pp. 72-831 . While numbers and locations of

marinas are known, additional information on overall capacities and utilization rates

for assessing present adequacy of supply relative to demand is not presently avail-

able.*

*The previously mentioned New York State Office of Planning Coordination forth-
coming report [ 131 will contain considerable new information on such facilities for
publically administered areas.

114

The role of the private sector, including both non-profit clubs and social
organizations as well as commercial recreational enterprises of -various types, is

unquestionably the least well-developed area of information pertaining to the supplY of

recreational opportunities in the Nass au-Suffolk region.

Survey data developed by the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board

7, pp. 67-71 11 listed a total of 85 private yacht and beach clubs within the bi-countY

region in 1968. However, although many of these private organizations are known to

be restricted by fee or other entrance requirements to upper income groups, basic

svstematic information on membership numbers, social, economic or residential

composition, and other factors relating to the precise nature and function of these

various private organizations in the overall recreational picture for Long Island is

almost completely lacking.
Certain types of recreational activities and facilities on Long Island are provided
for largely, sometimes completely, by private commercial enterprise. This is typi-
callv true, for example, with respect to charter-boat fishing, boat, motor and other
equipment rentals, and the provision of private-boat launching, docking and other
marina facilities. Assuming sufficient demand for such facilities or services, and
the absence of artificial barriers to entry into the field by private entrepreneurs,
it generally follows from economic theory that competitive markets will ensure an
adequate supply of such facilities and services at reasonable prices [ 21 . We have

thus far found no concrete evidence that such is not the case, at least in reasonable

approximation, for the Nassau-Suffolk region. However, it must be reemphasized

that, to our knowledge, almost no substantative economic research has been conducted

on the private commercial sector.

Public Policy Background

A complete list of public agencies with responsibilities in some way or another

related to shoreline recreation problems would include virtually all the agencies
discussed in previous sections of this report in addition to many not previously
mentioned. To avoid repetition, this section treats only those agencies with direct

recreational responsibilities, including the provision and management of public

recreation lands and facilities, and related fish and wildlife functions.

115

Majorfederal activities relating directly to shoreline recreation are centered

in three agencies within the U. S. Department of the Interior: the National Park

Service, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife (Fish and Wildlife Service), and

the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. The National Park Service is specificallY charg(-d
with acquiring, developing and managing coastal park lands, such as the Fire Island

National Seashore. National parks are managed for a broad spectrum of recreational

activities and are thus developed with the dual purpose of maintaining natural scenic

and wildlife values and providing space and facilities for in tensive-use activities such

as bathing, camping and pleasure boating.

One of the missions of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife has been to

acquire and administer the National system of wildlife refuges, which includes, on
Long Island, the Elizabeth Morton National Wildlife Refuge in Southampton and the

Wertheim National Wildlife Refuge in Brookhaven. These are designed to preserve

breeding, feeding and wintering grounds for waterfowl and other migratorY birds an(]
endangered species, and to provide for limited development of facilities to enhance

recreational opportunities. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife is also

charged with broader research and management functions, including law enforcement.

relating to the conservation and preservation of migratory birds and fish species,*

and with representing wildlife conservation interests with respect to other federal

agency programs, such as dredging and highway construction.

The third of these federal agencies, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, was
established in 1962 to serve as the fe'deral coordinating and extension agencY for out-

door recreation [8, p. 9-101 . In 1964 it was given the added responsibility of

administering the Land and Water Conservation Fund, created by Congress to finance

park and other recreational land acquisition, planning and development programs.

Unde r the act establishing the Fund, sixty percent of the Fund's annual resources

(financed out of federal recreation area entrance and user fees, motorboat fuel taxes,

and other sources) are available to state and local agencies on a 50-50 matching grant

basis, with the remainder going to the various federal agencies for the above mentioned

purposes.
* Major Fbderal ocean fisheries responsibility is centered in the Bureau of
Commercial Fisheries, also within the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

116

At the New York State level, the Long Island State Park Commission and the
Department of Conservation carr.v on functions analogous to those of the federal

agencies discussed above, including acquisition, development and management of

state public park and wildlife areas and the management of fish and wildlife resources.

In manY respects, the activities of the state agencies are more significant to Long

Island than those of the respective federal agencies, since theY presently administer

fai- greater amounts of shoreline acreage (over 13,800 acres as opposed to some
1400 federally managed) and have greater primary responsibilities for local fish and

wildlife., other than waterfowl. The state agencies are also responsible for admin-

istering state -appr opri ated acquisition and development funds as well as the origina-

tion of applications for federal matching grants under the Federal Land and Water

Conservation Fund.

The Nassau County Division of Recreation and Parks (within the Department of
Public Works) and the Suffolk County Park Department represent the major county

level public recreation agencies. Both presentlY manage substantial inland park and

recreation acreages. However, the Nassau County Division of Recreation and Parks,

combined seashore holdings in 1968 included less than 250 acres at but two locations

J 71 , and their use was restricted to CountY residents [ 12, p. 951 . The Suffolk County
Park Department's seashore holdings are somewhat larger-on the order of 3,900
acres in 1968-but include only one large unit, Smith Point Park, which occupies about

1500 acres on Fire Island [ 71 .

Most of the Long Island towns and coastal villages, as well as certain special

districts in unincorporated areas, maintain local shoreline park and recreation arcas.

s in conjunction with or in
Many also provide boat launching and mooring facilitie

addition to their recreational lands. Although the practice is by no means universal,

most of the towns and villages restrict use to residents and guests only [ 12, p. 95ff;

p. 103 ff.] .

Indicated InformatJon Needs

Information is required, basically, to specify where and for what particular

activities and socio-economic groups the major shortages of natural resources or

facilities for shoreline recreation are, or are likely to become, most acute. Specific

117

needs, as we see them, can be grouped for purposes of discussion below under four

major headings:

(1) Characteristics of Long Island shoreline recreation demand.

(2) Char acteri sti(.- s of the'natural resource base for marine

shoreline recreation.

(3) Institutional and legal issues relating to public and private

sector supply possibilities.

(4) The role of private sector supply.

The Wilkins stud.v for the Town of Southold 1171 and the forthcoming report on
the broader Nassau-Suffolk Region by the New York State (Afice of Planning Coordina-
tion [ I')] both contain much pertinent information on socio-economic. residone.v,
and activity participation characteristics of Long Island recreationists. Although both
these studies unquestionably make significant contributions to an understanding of
factors influencing recreational demand, it would appear that neither study digs very

deeply into basic consumer attitudes and preferences, relating for example, to such
questions as the following:

How do resident and non-resident recreationists themselves'

evaluate their Long Island recreational experiences and opportunities?

e To what extent (or at what density levels) does crowding of
space or facilities reduce the value of their experience? What types

of rationing measures would they prefer (higher use fees, advance

reservations, etc.) for reducing over-crowded conditions at particular

sites ?

e How much would they be willing to pay, personally, for

improved opportunities and facilities relating to particular activities

and locqtions?

In addition, the needs of recreation planners would also seem to require an

integrated demand-projection study for the major recreation activities, utilizing

information from the above mentioned sources together with basic population. income

and other regional planning projections.

118

Regarding the coastal natural resource base itself, it would be useful to have

more comprehensive summary information, stated in terms specificallY relevant

to shoreline recreation activities, relating to both the quantitative extent and

qualitative characteristics of existing natural features. Principal shortcomings of

existing resource information include the facts that this information is largely
restricted to public areas and, even for these, is extremely fragmentary on questions

of actual present utilization and potential capacities for increased future utilization

by specific types of activities. Thus future regional surveys should cover all coastal
areas in a region, whether public or private, and should develop data on present

resource utilization for specific activities.

However, before very much can usefully be said about local regional or site

'fresource capacities" to accommodate particular activities, it appears that further

basic research is required on the "recreation e.,perience" itself and the subjective

values of users relating to such issues as crowding and mutual compatibility among

differe@t combinations of activities. The relevance and usefulness of various

'Icapacity standards" currently employed b.y some recreation planning agencies is
quite apparently in need of serious review 110, p. 8; 21 ; and for certain activities
such as fishing and boating, the whole question of capacity-evaluation measures is at

present conceptually undeveloped.
A third area warranting additional investigation is that of existing legal,

political and other institutional factors tending either to discourage or to encourage
private or public sector shoreline recreational developments or utilization. Specific

reference here can be made to the implications of historic land ownership titles and

qualifications, town zoning ordinances, issues relating to public acquisition, and

special legal instruments available for acquiring scenic or other special easements,

public rights of way, and the like. Worthy of special mention in this regard is the

uncertain and ambiguous ownership status of much of the coastal wetlands in certain

areas of Suffolk County for which land title records are either absent or unclear [ 151 .

Finally, the.role of private sector supply in Nassau and Suffolk counties requires

considerable elucidation, with regard both to exclusive and semi-exclusive private

clubs and social groups and private commercial operations. As far as we can

119

determine, these have simply not yet been rigorously surveyed or analyzed in terms
of such characteristics as the social and economic compositions of memberships or
.clientele, activity and facility capacities, intensity of utilization, or capabilities for

future expansion to accommodate increases in regional demands. Effective public
sector planning for efficient development of Long Island coastal recreational poten-

tials could be significantly aided by better information on. private sector capabilities

Selected References

1. Boating Almanac, 1967: G. W. Bromley &Co., Inc. New York, N. Y.

2. Clawson, Marion, and Jack L. Knetsch, 1966: Economics of Outdoor

Recreation. The Johns Hopkins Press for Resources for the Future, Inc.,

Baltimore, Md.

3. Duel, David G., and John R. Clark, 1968: The 1965 Salt Water Angling

Survey. Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Washington, D. C., July.
4. George Washington University, 1962: Shoreline Recreation Resources of the

United States. Report to the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission

(Report 4). Washington, D. C.
5. Nassau County Planning Commission, 1964: Parks and Recreation: A StudV
of Public and Private Recreation' Facilities-An Appraisal of Future Needs. Nassau

County Planning Commission, Mineola, New York.
6. Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, 1968: Existing Land Use. Nassau-

Suffolk Regional Planning Board, Hauppauge, L. I., N. Y.
7. -, 1968. Inventory of Public Lands and Facilities. Nassau-Suffolk Regional

Planning Board, Hauppauge, L. I., N. Y.

8. -, 1969: Population: Current Population and Projections for Nassau and

Suffolk Counties 1965-1985. Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, Hauppauge,

L. I., N. Y.

9. -, 1966: The Status and Potential of the Marine Environment Report of

the Oceanographic Committee. Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, Hauppauge,

L. I., N. Y.

120

10. New England Marine Resources Information Program, 1969: Outdoor

Recreation Uses of Coastal Areas. Publication No. 1. (Reprint of a section of

Volume 3 of the Panel Reports of the Commission on Marine Science Engineering

and Resources). New England Marine Resources Information Program, Narragansett,

R. 1.

11. New York State Conservation Department, 1960: Outdoor Recreation Survey

A Report to the Governor. State of New York Conservation Department, Albany, N. Y.

12. -, 1966: Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Part 2:

Municipal Responsibility. New York State Conservation Department, Albany, N. Y.

13. New York State, Office of Planning Coordination. Long Island Outdoor

Recreation System (in preparation and to be published in 1970).

14. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, 1962: Outdoor

Recreation for America. A Report to the President and to the Congress by the Out-

door Recreation Resources Review Commission, Washington, D. C.
1,@. Taormino, Anthony, Regional Supervisor, Division of Fish and Game,

New York State Conservation Department, Ronkonkoma, L. I., N. Y. Personal

interview, May 12, 1969.
16. U. S. Department of Interior/New York State Department of Conservation,
1961: Preservation of Hempstead and South Oyster Bay Wetlands. U. S. Bureau of

Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Boston, Mass.

17. Wilkins, Bruce T., 1967: Outdoor Recreation and the Commercial Fishel

in the Town of Southold. Department of Conservation, New York State College of

Agriculture, Ithaca, N. Y., June.

121

COAST STABILIZATION AND PROTECTION

Introduction

In the absence of man's intervention. natural processes will demonstrably alter

Iandforms in the coastal zone. Figure 3, which shows temporal variations in the

form of East Rockaway Inlet, dramatizes the extent of possible change.

A I- LLA Ar r i A A,

1860

1879

1909

1-914

1926

1927

A 7' 1, A 0 7., -,,

Fig. 3. Shoreline changes, East Rockway InIet, New York
(after U. S. Army, as presented by Wiegal [8, p. 3791).

123

The various processes bringing about such changes have been succinctly described
by Wiegel 19, p. 3441 as follows:

[Shore changes] ... may be relatively slow, such as the erosion

by waves of resistant headlands or coral reefs; they may be rapid,

as the erosion of a beach foreshore during the course of a storm which

lasts perhaps but a few hours; they may occur at intermediate rates,
like the building of dunes by winds along sections of beaches being

furnished a surplus of sediments by littoral drift; shore changes maY

also alternate, receding in winter and advancing in summer, or between

spring and neap tides. Whatever the physical causes and whatever the

rate. all shores are changing constantly.
I I
The impacts of the natural destruction of coastal areas can be quite diverse.

Such impacts include loss of life and property by storm-induced wave overtopping and
the loss of shore iront recreation opportunities by beach erosion. Also, changing

landforms influence water circulation patterns in bays and estuaries, with conseq u ent

effects on salinity and temperature profiles and on the ability of coastal. waters to

disperse wastewater discharges. Consequently, changes in the type of biological

species present may also be expected.

There are several structural methods to control the direction and rate of change

of coastal landforms or to minimize the impacts of storm inducted wave action. These

include [9, Chapter 171:

* Breakwaters-to cause reductions in wave height.

* Seawalls-to maintain a fixed barrier between land and sea,

and to prevent overtopping by water.

e Jetties-to confine and direct river or tidal flow at estuary
entrances and thereby induce channel scouring to maintain specified

depths.
* Groins-to prevent or retard the erosion of an existing beach,

or to provide a beach where none exists.

124

An additional technique for controlling coastal landforms involves the use of
dredges to remove and redeposit bottom materials (e.g., sand pumping for beach

replenishment). Also, a host of non-structural measures exist for controlling land-

forms (e.g., dune stabilization by planting vegetative cover) and reducing the extent

of pr-operty damage from storms (e.g., restrictive zoning for uses of shorefront

land, and denial of inst irance protection to homeowners building in flood plains).

E\,alu,ition of Problem

We have outlined briefly the causes of coastline modification, the means to

control it, and some of the potential impacts on activities and characteris tics of

the coastal zone. Specific issues concerning the NassaU"Suffolk region are dis-

cussed below. One Such issue is the damage resulting from intermittent hurricanes

and storms. Severe storms in September. 1938 and March, 1962 resulted in danger

to life and substantial damage to propert.@,, especially along the barrier beaches on

the south shore [ 51 . Damage from the storm of 1962 along the Atlantic shoreline

of New York State included "the destruction or loss of hundreds of homes, the erosion

of miles of protective dunes and beach front, destroyed streets and roads, boardwalks

and other facilities and properties..." [ 7, p. 11 .

Problems also result when south shore bay inlets are shoaled or closed by
drifting materials, causing interference witli navigation and tidal exchange. Tidal
exchange is of critical importance for the flushing and dilution of materials in waste-

waters discharged to south shore bays, and there has been considerable discuss,'011

in favor of stabilizing Moriches and Shinnecock Inlets [ 7, p. 22; 8, pp. 295-2981

While such a stabilization program might improve navigation and bay flushing, there
is some question regarding the impact of consequent changes in salinity on bio-
logical activity (notably shellfish production) in these bays [8, pp. 268, 457-4621

Beach erosion, including the complete breakthrough of south shore barrier
beaches, is also an issue. Although beach erosion is accelerated by storm condi-

tions, it also results from continuous natural processes. Beach erosion and break-

through problems as of 1962 are discussed in reference [71. Recently (1969),

Levine [ 31 described a potential barrier beach breakthrough in the vicinity of the

125

Ocean Beach water tower. The use of sand replenishment and groins are being

considered in efforts to stabilize this zone.*

One especially noteworthy aspect of the coastline stabilization problem con-
cerns the use of public funds for private purposes. The Temporary State Commission

on Protection and Preservation of the Atlantic Shore Front described the situation

as follows:

There is no excuse for spending large sums of public money to
improve vacant, privately owned barrier beaches for easy minute
subdivision and huge profits. Nor is it justifiable under the head of

disaster to repair at public expense summer houses built too close

to the ocean and badly planned boardwalks and utilities. A total of

over $22,000,000 of state and local funds has been spent on beach

protection since 1945. This entire expenditure has afforded only

temporary relief and has been of little permanent value [ 7, p. 181 .

Public Policy Background

Responsibilities for stabilizing the coast and minimizing property damage from
storms are shared by Federal, state and local government agencies. The Corps of
Engineers [ 11 has an active program in shore erosion control and storm protection;
their programs often involve cooperative funding between Federal, state, and local
agencies. On the state level, the Superintendent of Public Works is authorized to
construct "erosion control works upon lands and lands under water owned by political

subdivisions, along the Atlantic coas t and the shores of Long Island..." [ 2, p. 1051 .

Local governments participate in coastline stabilization efforts to the extent

that they share the costs of projects undertaken by the Corps of Engineers or the

State Department of Public Works. Local governmental agencies also participate by

means of town or county dredging programs. In terms of non-structural controls,

local governments can influence the extent of storm damages by restrictive zoning

of shorefront lands.

*There is a noteworthy interdependence between dredging activities and coastline
stabilization. Information on the former is contained in the section on Dredging.

126

Major coastline stabilization activities planned for the south shore are noted

in the 1968 Suffolk County Annual Report. The report indicates:

Negotiations are in progress with the Army Corps of Engineers
for the construction of at least six additional erosion-prevention
groins on the Atlantic shorefront, together with dune reconstruc-
tion relative thereto.

Continuous negotiation with the Federal government is in
progress for the.rebuilding of both Shinnecock and Moriches
Inlets [6, p. Ill.

Indicated Information Needs

In developing programs for coastline stabilization, information concerning the

details of design of structural and non-structural stabilization methods is needed.
The technology of structural measures for controlling coastal landforms is well
established, and well known to engineers. (See, for example, Wiegel's Oceanographical

Engineering [ 91). Information relating to non-structural means of coastline stabiliza-
tion is also available, but appears, according to McHarg 14, p. 71, to be little used.

Other relevant information includes the ability to estimate the impact of

proposed stabilization programs on such factors as circulation patterns, salinity
and water temperature. An understanding of how changes in these factors influence

waste dispersion and biological activity is also important.

Available information should be utilized in formulating an overall stabilization

and land use plan for the coastal zone. In this connection, note that the report of the
Temporary Commission on' Protection and Preservation of the Atlantic Shorefrom
[ 71 contains a description of problems and proposed solutions for the south shore.

We have not been able to identify similar documentation for the north shore; such a

study would be worthwhile.

Selected References

1. Caldwell, J. M., 1969: Corps of Engineers Programs in Coastal Waters,
presented at Annual Meeting, National Security Industrial Association, Ocean Science
and Technology Advisory Committee, Washington, D. C., April 23-24, 1969.

127

2. George Washington University, 1962: Shoreline Recreation Resources of

the United States. Report prepared for the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review

Commission, Rpt. No. 4, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C.

3. Levine, H., 1969: Statement at public hearing on water pollution and

estuarine protection, New York Joint Legislative Committee on Environmental

Management and Natural Resources, Mineola, Long Island, New York, October 23, 1969.

4. ?%IcHarg, 1. L., 1969: Design with Nature, (Garden City, New York, Natural

History Press.)

5. Perdikis, H. S., 1967: Hurricane flood protection in the United States,
Proceedings, Amer_.__Soc. of Civil Engrs., Journal of Waterways and Harbors Division,
Vol. 93. No. WWI, February, pp. 1-24.

6. Suffolk County, 1968: Annual Report to the Suffolk County Board of

Supervisors Office of the Count,v Executive, Riverhead, Long Island, New York.

7. Temporar.v State Commission on Protection and Preservation of the

Atlantic Shorefront, 1962: The protection and preservation of the Atlantic shorefront

of the State of New York-Final Rpt, Albany, New York.

8. U. S. Department of Interior, FWPCA, 1966: Proceedings, conference in

the matter of pollution of the navigable waters of Moriches Bay and the Eastern Section

of Great South Bay and their tributaries, Patchogue, New York,September 20-22, 1966.

9. Wiegel, R. L., 1964: Oceanographical engineering, (Englewood Cliffs,
NewJersey, Prentice-Hall, Inc.)

128

waft

CONN.
S

jpi
LONG
lq@ tstANI)
to
114 -4
........ . So c5p=4:1
vo lop

sp
Volk
0
s
po Gardiners Bay
rt'l ig
0@0
/Y RIVERHEAD
8
L HA 0
N,4
I f- P's
HEMPSTEAD 'D ist lp 'Holtsville IV I
4r r
Wantagh'o (Ir"lans F/ SOUTHAMPTON
0,
Rockaway Point Great South Bay

Zi.

14.

ATLANTIC OcEAN

NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR L119RAIIY

3 6668 14110447 3

COASTAL
INFORPUU,