[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
National :MV Inventory The Quality of Shellfish Growing Waters on the East Coast of the United States Dorothy L. Leonard, Marlene A. Broutman and Kristen 1:-. Harkness March 1989 10, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration SH 365 A4 os't L L46 1989 E14, Of NOAA's National Estuarine Inventory The National Estuarine Inventory (NEI) is a series of related activities of the Office of Oceanography and Marine Assessment (OMA), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to develop a national estuarine data base and assessment capability. The NEI was initiated in June 1983 as part of NOAA's program of strategic assessments of the Nation's coastal and oceanic resources. No comprehensive inventory or data base for the Nation's estuaries could be found prior to the NEI in spite of the high value, intense use, frequent overuse, and thousands of scientific studies related to various aspects of estuaries. Without this fundamental set of information developed forthe NEI, it is impossible to analyze or compare the estuaries that make up the Nation's estuarine resource base. The cornerstone of the NEI is the National Estuarine Inventory Data Atlas. Volume 1, completed in November 1985, identifies 92 of the most important estuaries and subestuaries of the contiguous USA; presents information through maps and tables on physical and hydrologic characteristics of each estuary; and specifies a commonly derived spatial unit for all estuaries, the estuarine drainage area (EDA), for which data are compiled. These estuaries represent approximately 90 percent of the estuarine water surface area and 90 percent of the freshwater inflow to estuaries of the East Coast, West Coast, and Gulf of Mexico. Volume 2 presents area estimates for seven categories and 24 subcategories of land use as well as 1970 and 1980 population estimates. Land use data are compiled for three spatial units: (1) the estuarine drainage area; (2) U.S. Geological Survey hydrologic catalog units; and (3) counties that intersect EDAs. Population estimates are compiled for EDAs only. With these two volumes the NEI represents the most consistent and complete set of data ever developed for the Nation's estuarine resource base. The Shellfish Program Work on classified shellfish growing waters began with the 1985 National Shellfish Register of Classified Estuarine Waters (FDA and NOAA, 1985), a compilation of classification of shellfish growing waters by state. Data were later reorganized by estuary, for all NEI estuaries. (Broutman and Leonard, 1986). Additional information on administration of state programs, reasons for classification, pollution sources, and trends in classification were added to improve the utility of the data for assessing water quality in estuaries. Assessments are now complete for the Gulf of Mexico (Broutman and Leonard, 1985) and the East Coast. A report on West Coast waters will be completed in 1989. Preparing for the 1990 Register Data collection forthe 1990 NationalShellfish Registerof Classified Estuarine Waters will begin in January, 1990. For the first time, data will be entered into a Geographic Information System (GIS). This system will store spatial information, calculate areas, printdataonto nautical charts, and calculate changes in classification between 1985 and 1990. In preparation, 1985 data will be entered into a GIS. Updated information on administration of state programs and pollution sources will also be added to the Register data base. The Quality of Shellfish Growing Waters on the East Coast ofthe United States Dorothy L. Leonard, Marlene A. Broutman and Kristen E. Harkness March1989 Sanitary Surveys r IntervieWs Assessment a.- Reports A-- a,- - A_@ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Oceanography, and Marine Assessment Ocean Assessments Division Strategic Assessment Branch 11400 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 r5h 67 t @ J?ZO]PeZtY Of CSC Library L .Estuarine waters are classified for the commercial harvest of oysters, clams, and mussels based on presence of actual or potential pollution sources and coliform bacteria levels in surface waters. To protect the public health of shellfish consumers, harvest limitations are placed on waters that may be potentially contaminated with pathogenic bacteria or viruses. The Ouality of Shelffish Growing Waters on the East Coast provides consistent information on health and use of coastal waters for national and regional level decisionmakers. This work examines the status of classified shellfishing waters in 1985, trends in classification from 1971 to 1985, and pollution sources affecting shellfishing waters. Data were compiled through interviews with state shellfish control agency personnel responsible for classifying waters and through reviews of written materials. Major findings of this study are: Status a 82 percent of shellfishing waters on the East Coastwere approved for harvest in 1985. * 18 percent of East Coast waters were harvest-limited: 14 percent were prohibited to harvest at all times; 2 percent were conditionally approved (maybe harvested under some conditions); and 3 percent were restricted (may be harvested if shellfish are purified before marketing). 9 The large percentage of approved waters on the East Coast (82 percent) as compared to the Gulf (42 percent) and West Coast (30 percent) is mainly due to physical differences in the estuaries of these regions. About 50 percent of approved waters on the East Coast are large, open water, nonproductive areas associated with large estuarine systems (Long Island Sound, Chesapeake Bay, and Pamlico Sound). * The Mid-Atlantic subregion had the highest percentage of approved waters (90 percent). The Northeast was 77 percent approved and the Southeast was 75 percent approved. Trends * Efforts to assess trends in classified waters from 1971 to 1985 fell shortbecause states often reclassified areas after improving monitoring efforts (e.g., sampling in areas that were not previously sampled, orsampling under worst case conditions) rather than as a result of actual declining or improving water quality. * Less than halt of the changes in classification in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic subregio0s could be related to changes in water quality. Major changes in the administration of shellfish programs in South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida accounted for almost all classification changes in these states. Pollution Effects 9 The 1.5 million acres of harvest-limited waters on the East Coast were affected by ten types of pollution sources. e In the Northeast, the major contributing sources were associated with urban areas: sewage treatment plants affected 413,000 acres or 80 percent of harvest-limited waters in the subregion; combined sewers and urban runoff each affected over 275,000 acres (54 percent). * In the Mid-Atlantic, causes of shellfish bed closures reflect a more suburban or rural character, i.e. only 52 percent attributed to wastewater treatment facilities and 42 percent to urban runoff. Other sources affecting Mid-Atlantic waters were boating activities and marinas (47 percent), wildlife (23 percent), agricultural runoff (17 percent), and septic systems (17 percent). * The Southeast is predominantly rural: sewage treatment facilities are identified as a contributing source in only 44 percent of harvest-limited waters, and urban runoff in only 27 percent. Agricultural runoff (37 percent), wildlife (29 percent), septic systems (16 percent), and boating activities (12 percent) are important sources in the Southeast subregion. Table of *r*T1,1M1,&- Introduction 1 Section 1. BackgrQund 2 Shellfish-borne Illnesses 2 The National Shellfish Sanitation Program 3 Regional Characteristics 4 The East Coast Shellfishing Industry 6 Administration of State Programs 8 Section 11. Status and Trends of Classified Shellfishing Waters 11 1985 Classification of East CoastWaters 11 Classification by Subregion 13 Trends in Classified Shellfishing Waters, 1971-19135 14 Trends by Subregion 14 Section Ill. Sources of Pollution 17 Concept of Contributing Source 18 Sources of Pollution in the Subregions 22 Pollution Sources and the Public Health Debate 23 Concluding Comments 23 References 24 Appendix A. Personal Communications 29 Appendix B. Waters Reclassified as a Result of Water Quality Changes 33 Appendix C. Sources of Pollution in East Coast Shellfishing Waters 39 Glossary Inside back cover List of Tables Figures Table 1 Definition of classifications 3 2 Classification of East Coast estuaries, 1985 11 3 Description of sources of pollution 17 4 Sources of pollution in Charleston Harbor 18 Figure 1 Predominant land use in the East Coast region 5 2 Landings of clams and oysters, 1985 6 3 Landings of clams and oysters, 1964-1984 7 4 State budgets for classifying waters, 1985 8 5 Number of sampling stations by state 9 6 Classification by subregion, 1985 12 7 Area of waters reclassified by subregion, 1971-19135 15 8 Area affected by pollution sources, by subregion 19 ,TTL7*To Me) Morethan eight million acres of estuarinewaters on the East Coast of the United States are classified for the commercial harvest of oysters, clams, and mussels based on public health concerns. These molluscan shellfish are filter feeders, capable of pumping large volumes of water through their systems and accumulating particles or pollutants present in water. Bacterial or viral pathogens may accumulate in shellfish tissue and digestive systems and may be passed to humans who consume partially cooked or raw shellfish. To protect public health, harvest for human consumption is not allowed in waters that are near potential pollution sources or contain high levels of coliform bacteria. While coliform bacteria are not harmful, they are measured in water to indicate possible presence of pathogenic bacteria and viruses of sewage origin. This report examines the quality of shellfishing waters in estuaries along the East Coast. Section I provides background information on shellfish- bome diseases and the NationaiShellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP). Land use and regional characteristics of three subregions, the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast, aredescribed because of their influence on classification. A shift in production of molluscan shellfish from the Mid- Atlantic to the Gulf of Mexico and Florida's East Coast is identified. State shellfish programs are described in terms of the budget, staffing, and other resources committed to classifying waters. Section 11 examines the status - bf classified shellfishing waters, showing that 82 percent of waters on the East Coast are approved for harvest; although half of this is nof naturally productive. An examination of trends in classified waters from 1971 to 1985 concludes that classifications are often changed because of administrative factors, such as increased monitoring, rather than because of improvements or declines in water quality. Improvements in sewage treatment have opened some waters to harvest, whereas increased use of the coastal zone for housing and recreation has closed waters. Section III identifies the sources of pollution affect- ing classified waters in the three subregions. Sewage treatment plants, combined sewers,,and urban runoff are the major contributing factors in restricting harvest in shellf ishing waters of the highly urbanized Northeast. In the less developed estuar- ies of the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast, boating, ag- American Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) ricultural runoff, and wildlife affect shellfishing waters. Section 1. Background Public health concerns forconsumers of shellfish in the United States have existed since early colonial Enteric Pathogen& The majorenteric diseases as- times when shellfish were an important staple of the sociated with consumption of shellfish from sew- diet. Early settlers gathered a bountiful harvest of age-contaminated waters are hepatitis A, Norwalk oysters and clams from coastal estuaries. However, virus, and nonspecific gastroenteritis. Nationwide, by 1658, the Dutch Council of- New Amsterdam, reported incidences of these viral diseases have concerned about the depletion of the resource, increased in recent years, while bacterial illnesses passed an ordinance regulating the harvest of have declined (Richards, 1985). Since 1954, there oysters from the East River. Although most early have been no reported outbreaks of typhoid fever, legislation (New York, 1715; New Jersey, 1730; a bacterial illness and the predominant shellfish- and Rhode Island, 1734) was designed to regulate borne disease of the early twentieth century. shellfish harvesting, presumably as a conservation measure, it also succeeded in protecting public A recent report by the U.S. General Accounting health in waters affected by wastes from Office (1988) concluded that illnesses associated concentrated human populations. with the consumption of molluscan shellfish for the period 1979to 1982 accounted foronly 2.5 percent By the early twentieth century, illnesses associated of all food-bome illnesses. However, shellfish from with the consumption of raw oysters, clams and the East Coast have been implicated in more than mussels were on an increase. In 1924, following an 900 cases of hepatitis and over 2,000 cases of outbreak of typhoid fever traced to oysters gastroenteritis since 1961 (Richards, 1986). In contaminated by sewage, public health authorities 1982, outbreaks of shellfish-borne gastroenteritis requested action by the Surgeon General of the reached "epidemic"proportions in New York State, U.S. Public Health Service (PHS). A conference of with 103 documented outbreaks in which 1,017 public health officials, meeting in February 1925, people became ill (Morse, 1985). Norwalk virus formulated a program of public health controls was identified as the cause of disease in the New including the issuance of "certificates" (permits to York outbreaks. The shellfish were traced to coastal operate) to shellfish shippers. This program, the waters of several northeastern states. Since the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) is early 1980s the states have increased monitoring now administered as a cooperative effort between efforts and the industry has undertaken national states, industry, and the Federal government education programs for both the shellfish handier through the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation and the consumer in order to reduce the incidence Conference (ISSC). Under the NSSP, the Food of shellfish-bome disease. and Drug Administratiow (FDA) appraises each state's shellfish program to determine if their Marine Biotoxins. Coastal waters are occasion- procedures are consistent with the current Manual allyaffected by bloomsof toxin-producing plankton, of Operations (interstate' Shellfish Sanitation that, when ingested, may lead to nervous system Conference, 1986). disorders or death. These blooms are often referred to as "red tides" and occur in all regions of the U.S. During blooms, large quantities of toxin-producing organisms are ingested by shellfish that become Shellfish-borne Illnesses highly toxic to humans. Occurrence and transport of red tides are related to physical factors, including The NSSP is based on the assumption that a temperature, salinity, currents, and tides. In deep relationship exists between sewage pollution of water, a biological clock may transform the organism shellfish growing areas and human disease. Patho- from an inactive cyst that settles tothe bottom of the gens are transmitted through a fecal-oral route and water column to an active form. In shallow water, may enter the waters through direct discharges of temperature and light are controlling factors in untreated or poorlytreated human wastes. Bivalve dormancy and blooms. molluscs, such as oysters, clams, and mussels are filter ieeders.' These organisms strain food and The majority of shellfish-growing states have particulate matter that is carried to their location by developed management plans to control the currents. Because theyfilter large volumes of water mon0oring and closure of growing waters during relative to their size, molluscan shellfish may con- toxic blooms. These management plans are centrate pollutants and pathogens that may be separate fromthose developed to control harvest of present in the water. sewage-contaminated shellfish. UndertheNSSP, 2 state shellfish control agencies regularly collect Dinophysis fortfl, has been found in US wate 'rs, no and assay samples of shellfish fromgrowing areas confirmed illnesses have been reported. The where the blooms are likely to occur. If the toxin symptoms closely resemble gastroeriteritis caused level reaches 80 micrograms per 100 grams of the by sewage-associated viruses and are difficult to edible portions of raw shellfish meat, the area is diagnose. A recent study by Stamman, et. aL closed to harvest and the public advised against 1:1987) concluded that the outbreaks of harvest and consumption from designated areas. gastroenteritis in the New York area were more The management of marine biotoxins is an intensive likely viral diseases than DSP because onset times and expensive responsibility for affected states. were longerthan 12 hours (the onset time for DSP). For example, Maine spends over $150,000 per There have been no closures based upon the yearforbiotoxin monitoring activities, ascompared incidence of DSP and none of the states interviewed to $150,000 for laboratory services and $66,500 routinely monitor for the occurrence of Dinophysis. (1985) for shellfish sanitation activities. Northeast waters are primarily affected by lffit:@ National Shellfish Sanitation Program Protogonyaulax tamarensis, a dinciflagellate that produces a neurotoxin in shellfish that can result in 'The NSSP ensuresthe safetyof shellfish for human paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP). PSPproduces consumption by preventing harvest from waters symptoms within 30 minutes, including a burning -that may contain pathogenic organisms or other sensation of the lips, gums, and tongue, and may contaminants. Waters are classified into one of four progress to numbness, possible loss of motor categories (Table 1) based on presence of actual or coordination, muscular paralysis, and death. Maine potential pollution sources, and levels of coliform was 1he first state to develop a PSP management bacteria levels in surface waters. In accordance plan in 1958 following an outbreak of 20-30 cases with NSSP guidelines, each state classifies their in 1957. In 1980, there was an estimated loss in waters following sanitary surveys that: (1) identify excess, of $7,000,000 due to recurrent costs actual or potential pollution sourcesthat mayaffect. associated with preventative shellfish monitoring shellfish growing waters (a "shoreline survey"); (2) programs (Shumway, et. aL, 1988). In 1972, evaluate hydrologic and meteorological conditions M assachusetts found high levels of toxin in shellf ish affecting pollutant transport; and (3) sample waters resulting from a bloom of P. tamarensis and for bacteriological quality. subsequently closed shellfishing areas. Connecticut took similar actions in 1985. Table 1. Definition of Classifications Southeastern waters are affected by a different type of dinciflagellate, Ptychodiscus brevis. P. brevis, first identified in waters off the west coast of Classification Description Florida in 1844, was transported via the Florida current and Gulf Stream to North Carolina in the Approved Waters may be harvested 1987 and South Carolina in 1988. In North Carolina, for the direct marketing of the red tide event closed 98 percent of clam and 50 shellfish at all times. percent of oyster harvesting areas in the State's CondidonallyApproved Waters do not meet the southern and central waters, resulting in economic criteria for approved waters losses estimated at $2.3 million (Tester and Fowler, at all times, but may be in preparation). P. brevis produces several harvested when criteria are neurotoxins that accumulate in fifter-feeding shellfish met. and, although not fatal to humans, can cause Restricted Shellfish may be harvested neurotoxic shellfish poisoning (NSP), respiratory from restricted waters if irritation in humans and finfish, shellfish toxicity, subjected to a suitable and fish kills. Shellfish control agencies in both purification process. North and South Carolina have developed NSP Prohibited Harvest for human con- management plans to monitorconcentrations, close sumption cannot occur at shellfish areas when quarantine levels are reached, any time. and alert the public. The term "harvest-limited" is used to refer to conditionally Another marine biotoxin disease, diarrhetic shellfish approved, restricted, orprohibited waters. Aclosure area is an poisoning (DSP) has occurred in other countries. area in which some restriction on harvest has been placed, Although the suggested causative organism, e.g. a harvest-limited area. .3 The NSSP standard for approved waters is eithera Regional Characteristics median or geometric mean total coliform bacteria concentrationof less than 70 Most Probable Number The report has been organized by three East Coast (M PN) of cells per 100 milliliters (mL), with no more subregions: 1) the Northeast, including 22 estuaries than 10 percent of the samples exceeding 230 M PN in the states of Maine, New Hampshire, per 100 mL; or a fecalcoliform standard of 14 MPN Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New per 100 mL, with no more than 10 percent of the York, and northern New Jersey; 2) the Mid- samples exceeding 43 MPN per 100 mL (interstate Atlantic, including 12 estuaries in New Jersey, Shellfish Sanitation Conference, 1986). MPN is a Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia; and 3) the statistical test for determining number of bacteria. Southeast, including 21 estuaries in North Carolina, The fecal coliform standard more specifically South Carolina, Georgia and Florida (Figure 1). indicates presence of fecal material. New Jersey is the only state to be divided into two The total and fecal coliform standards are used subregions. The 55 estuaries examined in this routinely to ascertain the possible presence of report represent approximately 95 percent of the enteric pathogens. However, evidence suggests total estuarine surface area on the East Coast. thatthese standards are not reliable as indicators of Northeast. The Northeast subregion extends from viral pathogens because enteric (intestinal) viruses Passamaquoddy Bay in Maine through the Hudson are more resistant than coliforms to temperature River/ Raritan Bay system. A region of cities, its and chlorination, and may accumulate and depurate natural resource base is stressed by a population in in the host at different rates. Although it is accepted excess of 37 million. Although the population by state health departments that guidelines increase for the Northeast was a low 0.3 percent restricting the levels of enteric virus contamination (1970-1980), a few estuarine areas registered in shellfish would reduce the incidence of shellfish- significant population jumps, including Cape Cod borne disease, the research to ascertain the most Bay (57 percent), Narraguagus Bay (31 percent), effective indicators has not yet been conducted. Saco Bay (23 percent), and Great Bay (24 percent). Waters that do not meet approved standards may This growth reflects an increasing demand for be harvested under certain conditions. A coastal development and recreational opportunities management plan clearly defines predictable in close proximity to urban areas. periodsduring which conditionally approved waters Land use in the Northeast has its origins in historic meet approved standards and may be harvested. settlement patterns and. economic forces that In general, East Coast conditional areas are opened shaped the location of transportation, industry, and to harvest except after rainfall when runoff transports agriculture. Major population centers of New coliform bacteria to surface waters. Conditionally England are located near the coast, close to major approved areas in New Jersey are closed to harvest ports and industries dependent upon ocean in summer when use of coastal beaches and marinas transport. Despite the large metropolitan areas in increases. One conditionai area in Florida is this region, urban land is dominant in the estuarine managed based on salinity as well as rainfall. drainage area of only Boston Bay and Great South Shellfish from restricted waters *must be purified, Bay. Urban land use ranks third behind forest and through depuration or relaying, before harvesting agricultural activities in the Northeast region. This for human consumption. In depuration, shellfish is the case even in the Hudson River/Raritan Bay are placed in tanks where bacteria-free water is Estuary where the human population approaches circulated, usually for 48 hours. The water is 12 million and complex industrial patterns/public purified with ultraviolet light or ozone. Depurated infrastructure support the huge New York shellfish are tested for bacteria levels before being metropolitan area. Forest and agricultural lands released for market. In relaying, shellfish are upstream from this urban center account for nearly transferred to approved waters and remain there 75 percent of land use in this estuarine drainage for at least fourteen days priorto harvest for human area. Forests account for an average of 80 percent consumption. Relaying shellfish from prohibitedto of the estuarine drainage areas in 15 Northeas t approved waters also occurred until 1986, when estuaries. the practice was disallowed by the revised NSSP Mid-Atlantic. The Mid-Atlantic subregion, as Manual of Operations (Interstate Shellfish Sanitation defined for this project, extends from the Barnegat Conference, 1986). Bay estuary in.New Jersey to the southernmost reach of Chesapeake Bay in Virginia. Settlement 4 and Rappahannock rivers (27 percent), subestuar- ies of the Chesapeake Bay. Agricultural land use is still predominant in the subregion, occupying over 30 percent of the estuarine drainage areas of the Delaware, Chincoteague, and Chesapeake bays. The Northeast megalopolis now extends in a continuous span of urban areafrom Portland, Maine, to Norfolk, Virginia, with increasing pressures for recreational opportunities and supporting infrastructure crowding the historic activities such as agriculture and fishing. Shellfish resources are stressed and declining in density throughout the Mid-Atlantic estuaries. @Southeast. The Southeast subregion stretches from Albemarle Sound in North Carolina to the Indian River in Florida. Of the three subregions, the Southeast has estuaries that arethe least populated. Major urban areas are located directly on the coast (the seaports of Charleston, South Carolina, and Savannah, Georgia) or along historic heads of navigation (eg. Raleigh, North Carolina and Columbia, South Carolina). Despite its low population, the Southeast grew rapidly between 1970 and 1980 due to increases in light industrial activity and pulp and paper production. Of greater impact on shellfisheries is the rapidly expanding -tourism and vacation home development. Unlike the urban areas of the Northeast, where cities radiate out from inner cores, residential development, particularly in Florida and North Carolina, has spread along the narrow coastal strip in a series of suburban, vacation home, and condominium developments. All of the estuarine drainage basins in the Southeast have experienced growth ranging from almost ten percent in New River, North Carolina, to over 50 percent in St. Catherines/Sapelo Sound. Urban Forest Wetland Agriculture Extensive wetlands, agriculture, and pine forests are the outstanding features of the land surrounding estuaries of the Southeast. Forested land is Figure 1. Predominant land use in the East Coast region dominate in 13 ofthe estuaries, and comprises 40 percent of the Nation's commercial forest. Wetlands cover over 25 percent of the estuarine drainage areas in the Southeast - the greatest wetland and land use in this region were influenced signifi- density of any coastal region or subregion in the cantly by the historical head of navigation, or"fall country. Two well-known and extensive wetland line" separating the coastal plain from the Pied- areas are the Dismal Swamp in Virginia and the mont physiographic province. Examples are the Okefenokee Swamp in Florida. A dramatic wetlands Delaware, Potomac, and James Rivers where feature of the subregion is the Sea Islands complex cities such as Trenton, New Jersey; Washington, of South Carolina and Georgia, a vast area of DC; and Richmond, Virginia were founded. intricate estuarine channels and marshlands about Although Delaware and Chincoteague Bays seven miles wide at the mouths of St. Helena experienced a decline in population (1970-1980), Sound, Broad River, Savannah River, Ossabaw significant population growth occurred in Barnegat Sound, St. Catherines/Sapelo Sound, Altamaha Bay (47 percent) j- as well as the York (40 percent) River and St. Andrews/St. Simons Sound. 5 ir__1*P MG W3.0M I In ,I clined, forcing watermen out of the industry or redi- recting harvesting efforts in Chesapeake Bay to Molluscan shellfish harvested in East Coast soft-shell clams and blue crabs and, in New Jersey, estuaries include the hard clam or quahog to surf clams and ocean quahogs. Rising demand (Mercenaria mercenaria), soft-shell clam (Mya for shellfish has been met by imports (NOAA, arenaria), American oyster (Crassostrea virginica), National Marine Fisheries Service, 1987) and by and bay mussel (Mytilus edulis). Soft-shell clams increasing production along the Gulf Coast. Re- predominate from Maine to Massachusetts, hard ductions in harvestable shellfish resources in the clams from Rhode Island to New Jersey, soft shell Northeast and Mid-Atlantic subregions is attributed clams and oysters in the Mid-Atlantic, and oysters to overharvesting, disease, predation, and environ- and hard clams in the Southeast. Although this mental impacts. report concerns the quality of shellfishing waters in estuaries, the inclusion of information on oceanic Overharvesting. Hargis and Haven (1988) report species is necessary (Figure 2), not only because that overharvesting from publicly owned and man- of their economic importance, but also to address aged grounds was the single most important factor the issue of classifying ocean waters. New Jersey in the decline of Virginia's oyster production. The classifies 280,000 acres of oceanicwaters, someof report attributes the decline to oystermen who, which are adjacent to outfalls from regional waste- since the early 1900s, have consistently taken water treatment plants. The NSSP requires that more market oysters from public bottoms than were states establish a buffer or "safety zone" around replaced. Overharvesting is a major factor in the sewage treatment outfalls classified as prohibited. Northeast as well. In Great South Bay, hard clam Other coastal states are also considering ocean landings dropped dramatically as a result of over- outfalls as a possible solution to the cleanup of harvesting from over 700,000 bushels in 1976 to productive estuaries. Presumedly, they will then less than 105,000 in 1986 (Kassner, 1988). classify those waters as prohibited. Ocean spe- cies, prevalent from New Jersey through Virginia, Disease. Lewis (1987) argues that although pollu- include the ocean quahog (Arctica islandica) and tion and overharvesting are important, diseases surf clam (Spisuia sofidissima). are the predominant reason for recent declines in shellfish production in the Mid-Atlantic region. The The Mid-Atlantic subregion led the Nation in land- parasitic diseases MSX (Haplosporidium nelsoni) ings of oysters and clams until the early 1980s and dermo (Perkinsus marinus) have thrived in (Figure 3). In recent years the industry has de- recent drought years as high salinity waters have 70 60 C .2 E 40- 30 75 20- 10 0 ME NH MA R1 CT NY NJ DE MD VA NC SC GA FL State Estuarine Oceanic 14LOZ Figure 2. Landings of clams and oysters, 1985 6 spread to upper areas of the estuaries. Inthe 'wake using the 6 ysters to provide attachment and hiding of MSX, private oyster-growing leaseholders re- places. Clams are preyed upon by gastropods, duced their planting efforts, resulting in consistent crabs, starfish and some species of finfish. If not low levels of oyster production from leased beds. controlled, predation can eliminate shellfish popu- These low levels of oyster production from leased lations. Predators can be controlled by pesticides, beds will continue until growers are willing to risk although their use is often prohibited. new plantings. Work is in progress at Rutgers University and Maryland's Oxford Laboratorytode- Pollution. Dredging activities and pollution have velop disease resistant oysters. However, to date also been implicated in the decline of shellfish re- this work has produced only limited successes, and sources. The most obvious effect of pollution is the the hope that disease resistant oysters will solve reduced availability of traditional oyster grounds the problems of the Mid-Atlantic shelifishery in the and clam beds because the shellfish may be con- near future is small. taminated with bacteria and viruses from domestic a sewage. Sublethal effects of heavy metals, pesti- Predation. Another majorcause of declining shell- cides, and petroleum residues have been identified fish populations is predation, particularly during in laboratory experiments. For example, silver in larval or juvenile life stages. Oyster predators are concentrations as low as 0.1 ppm alters oxygen numerous in high salinity areas such as Long Island consumption in bivalves (Thurberg, et. al., 1974). Sound and lower Chesapeake Bay. In Long Island Petroleum contaminants reduce fertilization of oyster Sound, major predators are starfish and oyster eggs (Renzoni, 1973). At the larval stage, oysters drills. In addition, slipper shells kill spat by compet- are extremely sensitive to pollutants such as ing for attachment surfaces or growing over them. detergents, pesticides, herbicides, and heavy Barnacles are also lethal competitors (Grosslein metals. (Davis, 1961; Calabrese and Davis, 1976; and Azarovitz, 1982). In more southern estuaries Calabrese et. al., 1982). Effects of pollutants are the oyster drill is the major predator, boring a hole more difficult to identify in the natural environment. through the shell and extracting the meats. Che- Acute toxic effects on oyster larvae from chloramines sapeake Bay oysters are also preyed upon by were observed in Virginia waters on the James anemones, blue crabs, starfish, cow-nosed rays, River.@ Chloramines are formed when chlorine from and moon snails which feed on both juvenile and treated sewage effluents and cooling waters reacts adult oysters. Some species of finf ish feed on free with nitrogenous compounds found in sewage. swimming larvae as well as adult shellfish. Fish and Chloramines are particularly toxic when mixed with other invertebrates are abundant on oyster beds, seawater. Increased nitmgen levels from agricultural 100 so- 0.0 X 60 cri 40- 20- 0- 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 Year a Northeast 0 Mid-Atlantic E southeast E3 Gulf of Mexico West Coast Figure 3. Landings of clams and oysters, 1965-1984 7 runoff and sewage effluent lower-oxygen levels, reduced reproductive success, and deteriorating causing shellfish mortality. In 1976, anoxia de- waterquality resulting in closures of harvest grounds stroyed 140,000 tons (69 percent) of New Jersey's (Suffolk County Planning Department, 1987). Many offshore surf clams, valued at approximately $123 of the Suffolk County harvesters have relocated to million (Figley, et. aL, 1979). the Indian River in Florida. Florida laws do not prevent out-of-state clarnmers from entering the Landings in the Southeast, although small com- fishery before establishing residency, but the re- pared to the other regions, are on the increase in sentment of the local fishermen and the additional recent years. Florida hard clam landings, increased pressure on the fishery may alter requirements . from 60,000 pounds in 1976 to 1.7 million in 1984 (Busby, 1986), and 3.5 million pounds in 1985 (M. Berrigan, personal communication). The rises in F-ireriliTRVIT Moii, of State Programs Florida clam populations are attributed to increased salinities favorable to clams and increased nutri- Availability of financial resources, professional ents entering waters from human activities and staffing, andequipment has adirect impact on state heavy rainfalls in 1982, 1983, and 1984. Other efforts to classify shellfish growing waters. A ques- factors affecting the growth of the hard clam indus- tionnaire was used to collect information on the try are the increase in state-approved purification administration of state programs, including budg- activities, including relaying and depuration (see ets, staffing, sampling and shoreline survey proce- glossary). dures. Data reflect resources that are used to monitor and classify all shellfishing waters in each The economic success of the Florida clamming state. Information was also collected on the budget industry has attracted large numbers of northern and personnel for laboratories, seafood plant in- harvesters who move south during winter months. spections, and management of shellfish resources. In Suffolk County on Long Island, hard clam land- Resource requirements vary from state to state ings declined 76 percent between 1976 and 1985, depending on physical characteristics of the estu- resulting in loss of jobs, diminished economic impact aries, such as miles of shoreline, and how waters on local economy, and erosion of the county's are classified, with conditionally approved waters position as a leading producer of hard clams in the generally requiring the most resources. EastCoast United States. The decline was caused by over- states (except New Jersey) classify only estuarine fishing, illegal harvest of seed clams and clams waters. New Jersey also classifies 280,000 acres from uncertified areas, changes in bay salinity, of open oceanic waters. 2.5- 2.0- E 0 1.5- 1.0- E 0.5 0.0.. ME NH MA Rl CT NY NJ DE MID VA NC SC GA FIL Figure 4. State budgets for classifying waters, 1985 8 About 2.5 million dollars are spent by East Coast The NSSP guidelines suggest that a minimum of states to survey and classify waters (Figure 4). five water samples be taken annually at each sta- Most spend 10 to 30 cents per acre; however, tion. In most cases the states far exceed this some states spend much more. South Carolina requ irement with monthly sampling the norm. Water spends more than one dollar per acre, and Massa- samples are taken near the surface and often chusetts and New Jersey spend 80 and 75 cents include other parameters such as salinity and per acre, respectively. Some East Coast states temperature. Weather conditions are noted since have continually well-supported programs (New the samples should reflect waterquality after major Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina), pollution events such as heavy rainfall and high while others have managed within limitations river stage. States may also note presence of birds imposed by shrinking state budgets and limited po- or boats in the area. litical support (Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Delaware, and Recent Developments. Since 1985, the base North Carolina). In Maine, monitoring and labora- ear for this report, several states have made tory activities must focus on marine biotoxins dur- substantial changes in their shellfish programs. In ing the spring and summer, reducing the resources November 1985, Massachusetts Marine Fisheries available for bacteriological work. published a White Paper outlining economic, envi- ronmental, and management problems facing East Coast states monitor for levels of total or fecal commercial and recreational fisheries. The shell- coliform bacteria at 20,000 sampling stations, or fish program has since been reorganized, resulting about one station for every 510 acres of growing in improved monitoring and shoreline surveys. waters. Massachusetts and New Jersey lead in Georgia has added staff and increased their moni- unit number of sampling stations: one per 240 toring and survey activities. Connecticut has in- acres in the former and one per 170 acres for the creased support for aquaculture development; latter (Figure 5). Some of these stations are however, the state has not conducted shoreline permanent locations with regularly scheduled surveys and monitoring necessary to classify pro- sampling. Others are established to monitor con- ductive waters. Thus Connecticut's newly devel- 'ditionally approved waters or in an effortto improve op'ed oyster industry is unable to harvest matured classifications where pollution sources have been oysters from waters that are still classified prohib- cleaned up. Red. North Carolina faced a bloom of Ptychodiscus 4.5 to 4.0- 3.5- 3.0 E01 2.5 2.0- 1.5 1.0- E 0.5 0.0 ME NH MA R1 OT NY 14J DE MD VA NC SC GA FL Figure S. Number of sampling stations by state 9 brevis in 1987 that stressed limited resources, adversely impacting the bacteriological monitoring and shoreline survey efforts. The North Carolina legislature is considering reorganizing and expand- ing the State's shellfish program. State shellfish control agencies are adapting more sophisticated methods for managing conditionally approved waters.. Management plans must clearly definethe conditions underwhich these waters will be opened or closed to harvest. The most ad- vanced system is used by Florida, where the De- partment of Natural Resources (DNR) has con- tracted with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to install and maintain a permanent monitoring station in the Intracoastal Waterway near Indian River. The station consists of a solar panel, conductivity and temperature probes, and water level and rain- fall gauges. An on-site data logger collects the probe and gauge data and transmits it via antenna to a GOES satellite. The information is transferred by USGS to DNR computers every 15 minutes. The Indian River Management Plan requires clo- sure of the growing area if one inch or more of rain falls within a 24 hour period or if the salinity drops below 26.3 parts per thousand (ppt). The first year cost was $31,000 with $14,000 in maintenanceand operation costs for each ensuing year. Limited resources prevent most states from installing sys- tems similar to the test station in Florida. In Maryland, conditionally approved waters are closed to harvest on the basis of rainfall. An elaborate management plan relies on volunteers to report rainfall information to the agency. Additional information on tides and stream levels are obtained from NOAA and USGS, respectively. The large resources requiredto predict environmental thresh- olds by analyzing comprehensive data bases, as well as to obtain current environmental information, prevent many states from classifying areas as conditionally approved. Hard Clam (Morcenaria mercenaria) 10 Section 11. Status and Trends in Classified Shellfishing Waters This section examines the status of classified Table 2. Classification of East Coast estuaries, 1985 shellfishing waters as of 1985 and trends in classification between 1971 and 1985. Classification data were derived from charts of the 1985 and 1971 Estuary Area Classified (acres) versions of the National Shellfish Register of Approved Conditional Restricted Prohibited Classifqled Estuarine Waters. Data were clarified through interviews with state agency personnel Northeast and reviews of written materials. Passamaquoddy Bay 33,590 13 0 6,126 Englishman Bay 56,485 222 804 1,997 Narrauagus Bay 55,555 41 0 1,290 Blue Hill Bay 71,144 0 7064 2,898 Penobscot Bay 197,972 3,163 3,259 27,349 Muscongus Bay 41,940 2,099 575 1,507 1985 Classification of East Coast Waters Sheepsoot Bay 35,962 2,310 1,933 23,116 Casco Say 91,892 2,273 998 12,286 Saco Bay 9,849 0 1,379 1,581 About 6.6 million acres, or 82 percent of East Coast Great Bay 3,599 0 548 8,671 Merrimack River 0 0 218 2,243 classified waters were approved for harvest of Massachusetts Bay 4,385 0 3,918 17,100 Boston Bay 0 0 3,853 11,533 molluscan shellfish in 1985 (Table 2). Two-thirds of Cape Cod Bay 45,812 213 0 3,160 this approved area is found in the three largest East Buzzards Bay 117,846 309 0 9,259 Narragansett Bay 70,226 11,179 0 24,343 Coast estuaries: Chesapeake Bay (2.4 million acres Gardiners Bay 124,094 31 0 2,288 Long Island Sound 718,183 5738 0 134,912 approved shellfishing waters), Pamlico Sound (1.3 Conneticut River 0 0 0 4,951 million acres), and Long Island Sound (0.7 million Great South Say 75,593 547 0 26,578 Hudson River/Raritan Bay 0 0 20,186 144,211 acres). Much of the approved area is not productive Northeast total 1,754,127 28,138 34,520 450,913 because of extreme salinities, or lack of suitable % of Northeast classified area 77 1 2 20 depth, substrate, or habitat for molluscan shellfish. The open water areas of Chesapeake Bay, Long Mid-Atlantic Island, and Pamlico sounds are largely Barnegat Bay 37,958 8,034 0 10,218 little Egg Hartbor 24,801 2,423 0 2,038 nonproductive and are on the order of 50 percent of Reed/ Absecon Says 14,299 4,607 64 7437 the total approved shellfishing waters on the East Cape May Says 3,733 360 903 9,607 Delaware Bay 351,040 6,274 0 41,419 Coast. Delaware Inland Bemis 12,269 3,348 0 3.548 Chesapeake Bay 2,377,394 32,933 111,667 65,43 Potomac River 252,846 1,364 3,225 3,102 Rappohannock River 70,810 89 4,263 0 Eight estuaries in the region had no approved York River 32,682 212 5,481 0 shellfishing waters. These were either small river James River 45,461 15,018 82,959 9,105 systems (e.g. Altamaha River) or highly urbanized Chincoteague Bay 98,815 0 0 724 Mid-Atlantic total 2,920,309 55,979 112,634 140,427 areas such as Boston Bay, Hudson River/Raritan % of Mid-Atlantic classified area 90 2 3 4 Bay, and Charleston Harbor. Southeast Of the three subregions, the Mid-Atlantic had the Albemarle Sound 351,445 0 0 253,703 most approved waters (2.9 million acres, or 90 Parnlico Sound 1,264,095 5,519 0 101,610 Parnlico/Pungo Rivers 52,325 0 0 60,657 percent of classified shellfishing waters). Neuse River 76,071 2,288 0 35,640 Surprisingly, the Southeast with acoastal population Bogus Sound 42,083 25,413 0 8,309 New River 0 13,412 0 9,422 of only 7.5 million and considerable undeveloped Cape Few River 0 9,387 0 17,717 shoreline, had the lowest percentage of approved Winyah Bay 398 292 0 18,720 Charleston Harbor 0 5,059 0 19,009 waters, 75 percent (1.9 million acres). The North & South Santee Rivers 2,693 0 0 3,927 St. Helena Sound 51,137 0 0 602 Northeast, with a coastal population of more than Broad River 70,962 71 0 8,844 Savannah Sound 4,706 0 0 12,276 20 million, had 1.75 million acres or 77 percent of Ossabaw Sound 7,594 0 14,467 0 St. Catherines/Sapeio Sounds 76,031 0 37,020 864 classified waters approved for harvest. Altarnaha River 0 0 2,526 0 St. Andrew/Simons Sounds 43,817 0 5,933 31,350 Effects of Salinity and Freshwater Inflow. A Indian River 22,002 19,972 0 26,071 comparison of 1985 classifications in the East Southeast tow 1,936,963 79,125 59,946 512,424 Coast subregions to those of the Gulf and West % of Southeast classified area 75 3 2 20 coasts is shown in Figure 6. Classified shellfishing East Coast total 6,611,399 163,242 207,100 1,103,764 waters were 42 percent approved along the Gulf % of East Coast classified area 82 2 3 14 Coast and 30 percent approved on the West Coast, *Italicized estuaries are subestuaries; estuary totals include value of subestuaries. much lower percentages than the East Coast, a/ Officially classified as approved or prohibited, but mananaged as conditionally approved. subregions. These large regional differences exist because physical characteristics of estuaries have ,a major influence on classification. Salinity is a the prbhibfted classification most often, comprising prime determinant of classification. Coliform 1.1 million acres or 14 percent of total classified areas bacteria levels are inversely related to salinity; (Table 1). These prohibited classifications are based bacteria levels aee high in fresh waters and very upon the 1985 NSSP definition underwhich shellfish low in highly saline waters. Originally, scientists may not be harvested for market but may be relayed believed the bacteria died in saline waters. from these waters to approved or conditionally However, recent studies suggest that bacteria approved waters for at least two weeks and then may persist under certain conditions, but their harvested for human consumption. The 1986 revision numbers may be underestimated using standard of the NSSP Manual of Operations allows relaying measurement techniques (Rhodes, et. al., 1983; only from restricted waters. Anderson, etaL, 1979). Waters are classified as conditionally approved 4 water quality changes are predictable and if waters 100 are productive (productivity is needed to justify the additional cost and management requirements). Only two percent of East Coast waters were conditionally approved in 1985. By comparison, 27 percent of Gulf Coast waters were conditionally approved (this 00 00 includessome Gulf waters that were officially classified 0" '0 00 00 0! 40- 10 10 as prohibited but managed as conditionally approved). oo 10 Along the Gulf Coast, entire estuaries are closed to oo harvest when flooded by river systems, even those 20 draining unpopulated watersheds. For example, the & Mobile River has a large, but not highly developed Northent Idicl-Aflantic"South"al Gulf of Mexim West Cont drainage basin and is a greater source of coliform bacteria than the sewage treatment plants and urban 13 App--d 0 Cmvidional M P-trided 0 Prohibited runciff from the entire Mobile metropolitan area. Along the East Coast, rivers have less impact because of Figure 6. Classificaflon by subregion, 1985 greater tidal ranges and larger volume systems. In Long Island Sound, where volume and salinity are high, pollution effects of the densely populated coastal Salinity is related to many factors, including the communities, particu lady along coastal Connecticut, size of the estuary and watershed; the amount of are reduced as the rivers reach the Sound. freshwater inflow from precipitation, runoff and rivers; and the influence of tides. In the Gulf, About 207,000 acres, or three percent of East Coast estuaries are smaller in size and tidal range than waters were classified as restricted in 1985. The East Coast systems. Rivers entering the Gulf restricted classification may be used when a sanitary may reduce surface water salinity to near survey shows that an area has a limited degree of freshwater throughout an estuary. As a result, pollution. Restricted waters from which shellfish are many estuaries are closed to ha 'rvest when river taken for depuration have a maximum acceptable stages are high. On the East Coast, freshwater coliform level (waters may not exceed a median inflow effects are dampened by largervolumes of col iforim level of 700 M PN per 100 mL and not more estuarine water and higher tides. For example, than 10 percent of the samples may exceed 2,300 per the Connecticut rivers entering Long Island Sound 100 mL). Waters classified as restricted but not used drain a highly populated watershed, but affect for deputation have no associated coliform bacteria only small areas of the Sound. Albemarle Sound, standard, leaving states to define conditions under the East Coast estuary with the greatest tidal which waters may be classified as restricted. fresh zone, is 42 percent prohibited. I n neighboring Pamlico Sound, with similar land use Depuration was developed in response to pollution characteristics but higher salinities, only eight problems in the more urbanized estuaries, such as percent of waters are classified as prohibited. Boston Bay and Hudson/Raritan. The depuration plant in Massachusetts, for example, was built in the Harvest-Limited Waters. Waters that do not 1920sand handles most of the harvest inthe northern meet standards for approved status may be part of the State. Shellfish from about 34,000 acres classified prohibited, conditionally approved, or of estuarine waters in Maine, Massachusetts, and restricted, depending on state preferences and New Jersey are purified at depuration facilities. Waters water quality conditions. East Coast states used in these states are classified as restricted it depu ration 12 is the intended use. Florida established standards f rorn shellfish bed closures was estimated at $12.1 and procedures for depuration plants after 1985 million, half of the $24 million in landings reported and has since reclassified some waters as restricted. for Massachusetts' inshore shellfisheries in 1983. In Georgia and Virginia, waters are classified as iWid-Atlantic. Inthe Mid-Atlantic, 90 percent of the restricted based on water quality considerations; shellfish growing waters were classified asapproved these waters are not used for depuration and may for harvest, the highest percentage of any region or or may not be used for relaying. I n Georgia, waters subregion nationwide. Two percent of waters in the that have reasonably good water quality and are subregion were conditionally approved. Conditional not near pollution sources are restricted. These waters in New Jersey are closed seasonally when areas are generally found between the approved people occupy summer homes along the beaches. waters of the outer marshes and the prohibited Restricted areas were found in Virginia's waters of areas of the upper regions of the estuary. In Chesapeake Bay and in Reed/Absecon and Cape Virginia, 112,000 acres were classified as restricted, May bays. as compared to only 9,000 acres of prohibited waters (all in the Elizabeth River). Virginia classifies 'The Chesapeake Bay is the largest estuary in the areas around sewage treatment plant outfalls as Mid-Atlantic, comprising 2.6 million of the 3.2 million restricted; this is a violation of NSSP requirement acres classified for shellfish harvest. Onlyabout36 fthat a closed safety zone around outfalls be percent of these classified waters provide potential classified as prohibited. shellfish habitat. Of the 1.3 million acres classified forharvest in Maryland, 530,000 acres are potentially productive. Oyster habitat covers approximately by Subregion 230,000 acres, of which only 10 percent is currently productive. Ninety percent of these oyster grounds Nottheast. Seventy-seven percent of shellfishing are.. in% approved waters. Clam habitat is found in waters were approved for harvest in the Northeast about 300,000 acres, but less than 20,000 acres Subregion. However, four estuaries have no are currently productive (George Krantz, personal approved waters: Merrimack River, Hudson River communication, February 1989). /Raritan Bay, Connecticut River, and Boston Bay. Waters in New Hampshire, although classified, are Of the 1.3 million acres of Chesapeake Bay not commercially harvested at the present time. classified bytheStateof Virginia, 413,000 acres are Massachusetts classifies productive tidal flats of potentially productive. Public oystergrounds (called Boston Bay rather than waters of the estuary. the BaylorSurvey Grounds) cover243,000 acres of the Bay. An additional 110,000 acres outside the Studies conducted in Maine and Connecticut have public grounds are privately leased for oyster estimated the amount of productive areas closed cultivation (Insley, 1987). Clams are found in 20,000 because of pollution. Thp Maine/New Hampshire or 30,000 acres of the Baylor Survey Grounds and Sea Grant Program (1983) estimated that nearly 30 in an additional 60,000 acres of Chesapeake Bay percent of Maine's productive shellfish waters were bottom in Virginia (Royal Insley, personal closed to harvest in 1983 'because of pollution communication@ February 1989). problems. In 1980, 75 percent of Connecticut's 60,000 acres of productive shellfish beds were Two major areas in the Mid-Atlantic subregion are closed to harvest for water quality reasons not included in this analysis. About 73,000 acres in (Connecticut Department of Environmental upper Chesapeake Bay are not classified by the Protection, 1984). Stateof Maryland because they are nonproductive. However, State officials believe that these waters Massachusetts has also estimated the area of would meet the approved standard throughout most productive waters that is harvest-limited of the year. Also not included are about 280,000 (Massachusetts. Division of Marine Fisheries, 1985). acres of Atlantic Ocean waters classified by New All productive waters in Boston Harbor are either Jersey. prohibited or restricted. North of Boston, productive areas (intertidal flats with commercial quantities of Southeast. About 75 percent of shellf ishing waters soft-shell clams) are 45 percent prohibited and 15 in the Southeast were classified as approved for percent restricted. Along the south shore, where harvest, 20 percent as prohibited, 3 percent as oysters, mussels, andquahogs are also harvested, conditional ly approved, and 2 percent as restricted. about 20,000 acres are classified as prohibited, of Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds are the largest which 80 percent are productive. Economic losses systems in the subregion and account for 1.6 million 13 of the 1.9 million acres of approved waters, much sampling under worst case conditions. Manyremote of which is nonproductive. In 1986, North Carolina areas or small creeks were approved for harvest in Department of Natural Resources conducted a 1971 even though they had not specifically been study of 657,000 productive acres throughout the surveyed. Furthermore, the actual reason for State and concluded that 602,000 acres, or 92 changing classification is often lost with personnel percent, were classified as approved. changes in the state management agencies. Conditionally approved waters in North Carolina Trends were evaluated by examining differences are classified by the State as either approved or between the 1971 and 1985 charts of the National prohibited, and opened or closed under Shelifish Register series. State shellfish managers appropriate conditions. Areas classified as were asked to provide a reason for the change in prohibited have management plans describing classification and to distinguish changes that resulted conditions under which waters may be opened. from changes in water quality and pollution sources Areas classified as approved do not- have fromtho'se that were primarily administrative changes. management plans but have been closed due to A summary of changes are shown in Figure 7; those high coliform levels, especially after rainfall. related to changes in waterquality changes are listed Classification data for Georgia are for 1988. In in Appendix B. 1985, many areas in the State were classified as prohibited becausethey lacked adequate sanitary #TJ IN - M1 - - - surveys. Approximately 100,000 acres in Georgia have not yet been classified and are not included Northeast. About 120,000 acres in the Northeast in this analysis. Acreage figures for Georgia subregion changed classification between 1971 and estuaries include areas of intertidal marshes as 1985. Less than half of these changes, 51,000 acres, well as open waters. Productive shellfish grounds could be related to changes in pollution sources or are found in the marshes and tidal creeks rather waterqualfty: 24,000 acres were water quality related than in the open waters. upgrades; 28,000 acres were water quality related downgrades. Upgrades were primarily a result of The only National Estuarine Inventory system abatements in sewage treatment or septic systems, classified for shellfish harvest on the East Coast while downgrades were due to increasing coastal of Florida in 1985 was the Indian River. Florida populations with increases in shoreline development manages a conditionally approved area in the and boating activities. Indian River on the basis of rainfall or salinity. Models show that waters will not meet the 14 M PN In Maine, sand filter septic systems were installed in fecal coliform standard when salinities fall below unsewered areas to provide greater protection to 26.3 ppt, even if there is no rain event. The public estuarinewaters thanthe existing leach f ield systems. health significance of this result has not been Maine, with assistance from the U.S. Environmental addressed. Protection Agency began a project in 1973 to identify and correct sewage violations affecting shellfish growing waters. The State estimates that k rends in Classification, 1971-1995 improvements made during 1980 and 1981 resulted in a harvest of morethan $600,000 of soft shell clams In the time period from 1971 to 1985, major (Maine/New Hampshire Sea Grant College Program federal and state efforts were directed at improving and Maine Department of Natural Resources, 1983). water quality in estuarine waters. At the same time, there were major population shifts into the In Massachusetts, major improvements were made coastal zone. Trends in shellfishing water in the sewage treatment facilities along the Merrimack classifications were examined to determine if River. These improvements allow waters to be improving or declining water quality conditions classified as restricted rather than prohibited and were reflected in the reclassification data. shellfish to be used fordepuration. Clams harvested Unfortunately, a trends evaluation is difficult in northern Massachusetts are depurated at a plant because waters are reclassified for reasons other that was built in 1927, suggesting that pollution than water quality. Boundary markers are moved problems in this area date back to the early part of the to simplify enforcement. Waters that were not century. Increased monitoring was the reason for previously surveyed are opened aftercompletion downgraded classifications along shoreline areas ofa sanitarysurvey, orwaters that were monitored between Boston Harbor and the Merrimack River. under favorable conditions are closed after 14 water quality. Much of the additional closure is a 120 result of increased monitoring, particularly in small creeks and marsh areasthat arefarfrom population 100 centers or human sources. Many have questioned the validity of the coliform standard that identifies 7 so- relatively pristine areas as public health problems, especially areas that were harvested for years 60 without reported problems. 40 Mid-Atlantic. Changes occurred in about 220,000 20 acres in the Mid-Atlantic subregion, greater than elsewhere along the East Coast. Again, 01 administrative factors accounted for more than 50 NortheaW W"flantic percent of the changes. Of the changes related to classification upgrades water quality, 64,000 acres were downgrades and 12D - 26,000 acres were upgrades. As in the Northeast, upgrades were primarily due to improvements in sewage treatment while downgrades were due to coastal development and increased boating S 80- activities. so Areas that changed classification because of changes in water quality or pollution sources are 22 40 identified in Appendix B. Classification upgrades occurred primarily because of improvements in 20 sewage treatment. New Jersey and Maryland constructed regional sewage treatment facilities 0. Northeast Mid-Atlandc with open wateror offshore outfalls. Thesereplaced septic systems and smallersewage treatment plants Classification Downgrades that discharged to estuarine waters. Changes reiated to water quajity Ea Administrative or other changes However, sewage treatment improvements did not Figure 7. Area of waters reclassified by subregion, 1971-1985 always result in upgraded water quality. Some states reported that sewerage actually resulted in additional closures because of the ensuing development. In other cases, existence of other South of Boston, the Massachusetts Division of sources, especially nonpoint sources, keep coliform Marine Fisheries' Assessment at Mid-Decade levels above approved water standards. NewJersey (1985) reported that southern shellfish bed clo- hoped to open growing waters in the Navesink and sures increased by 28 percent between 1980 and Shrewsbury River after making investments in 1985. These additional closures were mainly in sewage treatment. Unfortunately, waters could nonurbanized areas without sewage treatment only be upgraded to restricted because of the effect plants or industry. The closures on Cape Cod have of nonpoint sources. increased by 200 percent since 1982. The additional closures are partially a resu It of increased monitoring Southeast Changes in the Southeast were almost efforts and awareness of nonpoint sources. entirely administrative. Major changes have been However, real declines in water quality due to made in the programs in South Carolina, Georgia, development are also implicated. The year-round and Florida. In Georgia, most prohibited waters population on Cape Cod has increased to 170,000, wereclassified as such because they lacked sanitary and in summer, the population exceeds 500,000 surveys from 1971 through 1985. The data (Kurtz, 1988). presented in the status section is 1988 classification. Some areas still lack sanitary surveys, but these About 120,000 acres in the Northeast and 220,000 areas are designated as administrative closures. acres in the Mid-Atlantic were reclassified between 1971 and 1985 (Figure 7). Greaterthan 50 percent In North Carolina, an analysis of trends was of these changes resulted from administrative conducted bythe Department of Human Resources factors and do not represent any real changes in The study showed an overall downward 15 trend in closures since 1971, but an increase in closures since 1981 as a result of increased coastal development and real declines in water quality. The study was conducted in 46 active -growing areas covering about 650,000 acres. Nonproductive areas, including many of the open water areas of Albemarle and Pamlico Sound were not included in the analysis. Since 1971, the area closed to harvest as a result of wastewater treatment plants has declined from 33,000 acres to 12,000 acres. However, closures from urban runoff, septic systems, agricultural runoff and marinas have increased since 1971. Overall, closed areasdeclined from 70,000 acresto 55,000 acres. Soft-shell Clam (Mya arenada) 16 Section Ill. of Pollution This section summarizes information collected on Table 3. Description of pollution sources pollution sources affecting shellfishing waters. Pollution sources that contribute to the permanent Pollution Source Description or temporary closure of East Coast waters were identified foreach harvest-limited area (prohibited, conditionally approved, and restricted) in the Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Southeast subregions. Dischargesof inadequately treated effluentfrom older plants, malfunctioning disinfection systems, or from These sources are described in Table 3. Pollution bypassing of raw sewage through an outfall pipe dur- sources that discharge directly to estuarine waters ing overload periods. Buffer zones are established aredistinguished from upstream sourcesthat affect around outfalls to protect public health in case of waters indirectly through tributaries. Forexample, emergencies. "upstream sources"describe pollution sources from Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) the Providence Riverthat affect Narragansett Bay. During periods of heavy rainfall sanitary wastes are Data were obtained by site visits to shellfish- combined with stormwater runoff and discharged to producing states and from interviews with state Me waterbody. personnel, sanitary and shoreline surveys, and Direct Discharges other studies. Raw sewage discharged from units not connected to collection systems or septic systems. of Contributing Source Industry Fecal coliform from seafood processors, pulp and paper mills, or from human sewage discharged with Only those sources that are significant factors in Industrial wastes. There may be potential hazards classifying the area were identified. The effect of a from toxics or heavy metals. pollution source on shellfish growing waters Septic Systems depends on several factors, including the numbers Nonpoint pollution from unsewered areas either from of coliform bacteria discharged by the source to leaching of faulty septic systems or surface runoff surface waters, the volume of water into which the from a residential area. discharge occurs, and the flushing ability of the Boating and Shipping Activities receiving waters related to tides and circulation. Disposal of raw sewage from boats to coastal waters. Presence of marinas, shipping lanes,or intracoastal The effect of a source will depend on the size of the waterways. harvest-limited area and the presence of other sources. A marina, which could be significant in a Urbark/Rural Runoff small remote area, might not be identified as a Storm sewers, drainage ditches, or overland runoff from urban areas containing fecal material from pets, contributing source if it islocated in a major urban birds, and rodents. area. A pollution source may be identified as a contributing factor in a shoreline survey, although Agricultural Runoff the actual contribution of fecal coliform bacteria Runoff from agricultural fields. - may be small. In the case of a sewage treatment Wildlife plant (STP) buffer zone, the shellfish growing area Fecal material from waterfowl, rodents, rabbits, bea- may be closed as a safety zone because of the vers, doer, etc. potential effect of plant failure, rather than the actual contribution of fecal coliform bacteria to the system. percentcontribution forsources in an estuaryusually sum.to greater than 100 percent. To assess the effect of a pollution source, each source identified as a contributing factor for a Contributing pollution sources are shown for classified area is weighted by the acreage of the Charleston Harbor, for example, in Table 4. Two area. Acreages identified for each source are then major harvest-limited areas in the Harbor and the summed by estuary to determine total acreage 'Wando River accounted for 95 percent of the total affected by a source. Percent of estuary affected Iharvest-limited area of Charleston Harbor. These by each source is the ratio of the total affected two areas were affected by sewage treatment plants acreage to the total harvest-limited area of the (STPs) and urban runoff. Septic systems were the estuary. Because multiplecontributing sources are likely pollution source in the upper Wando River, often identified for a single harvest-limited area, contributing to 5 percent of the closures. A 31 acre 17 marina closure in the Folly River was less than one Sewage treatment plant failure is a common prob- percent of the Harbor's closed area. lem in the heavily populated Northeastern estuar- ies. In August 1988, malfunctioning treatment The area in which a pollution source is identified as plants discharged millions of gallons of raw sewage a contributing cause is summarized by subregion in into Boston Harbor and Quincy Bay, closing pro- Figure 8 and by estuary in Appendix C. ductive shellfish beds and posing a major public health risk. About 320 million gallons of sewage was rerouted from the overtaxed Deer Island plant Sources of Pollution in the Subregions to an antiquated plant at Moon Island. In five days, an estimated 25 million gallons of untreated sew- Northeast. In the highly developed corridor of the age were discharged into the Harbor, while the Northeast, shellfish growing waters were affected remainder was treated only with chlorine before by a combination of sources associated with urban being released from Moon Island z(Armstrong, areas: effluent from sewage treatment plants 1988). Discharges of raw sewage from to the affected 413,000 acres or 80 percent of Northeast Hudson and East rivers from northern New Jersey growing areas; and combined sewers and urban and New York City have been estimated at 285 runoff, each affected over 275,000 acres (54 percent) million gallons per day (Conway, 1988). of growing waters. The relative impact of each of these sources is extremely difficult to determine, Many major cities will have to update antiquated particularly during heavy rainfall eventswhen runoff sewage treatment plants, collection systems, and from pavement combines with overflowing combined sanitary and storm sewers in order to manholes, storm sewers, combined sewers, and solvea majorportionof their waterquality problems. treatment plants. In Massachusetts Bay, for For example, Boston has begun construction on a example, closeto90 percentof waters weredirectly, $6.1 billion plant that will provide secondary affected by sewage treatment plants, combined treatment to 480 million gallons of sewage produced sewers, and urban runoff from the Boston daily by 2.5 million people. However, a recent metropolitan area. The urban areas of Boston, report on Boston Harbor (Caulkins, et. aL, 1988) Providence, and the New York City metropolitan cites combined sewer overflows (CSOs), rather area, including coastal Connecticut and Long Island than sewage treatment plants, as a major cause for had a major impact on Massachusetts Bay, the closure of shellfish beds in the outer harbor. Narragansett Bay, Long Island Sound, and Raritan The report estimates that controlling CSOs alone Bay. would result in an additional harvest valued at $315,000 per year at several affected beds. When functioning properly, sewagetreatment plants do not contaminate shellfish growing waters. New Bedford Harbor (in Buzzards Bay) has However, in order to protect public health, state problems similar to Boston Bay. A recent report on shellfish control agencies classifythe areas adjacent New Bedford (Conservation Law Foundation of to the outfalls of treatment plants as "closed safety New England, 1988) states that sewage pollution zones" or "buffer zones"to protect shellfish beds in rather than polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) is the event of a system failure. The safety zones keeping vast areas of the Outer Harbor and Clarks surrounding outfalls are sized according to loadings, Cove closed to shellfishing. New Bedford's sewage hydrographic conditions, and emergency now receives only minimal treatment before being installations and procedures. dumped in the Outer Harbor. The sewage treat- Table 4. Sources of pollution in Charleston Harbor Classified Area (acres) Pollution Sources (acres) Area Name Prohibited Conditional STP Septics Urban Runoff Boating Folly River Marina 31 31 Charleston Harbor 17876 17876 17876 Upper Wando River 1102 1102 Wando River 5059 5059 5059 Total 19009 5059 22935 1102 22935 31 % of harvest-limited area 95 5 95 <1 18 Northeast A Total Harvest-l-Imited Area Sewage Treatment Plants Combined Sewers Industry septic systems Urban Runoff Boating 0.11 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Mid-Atlantic Total Harvest-Urnited Area Sewage Treatment Plants Industry Septic Systems Urban Runoff A9 Runoff Wildlife Boating W 0.11 0.2 @A 0'4 Southeast Total Harvest-Urnited Area Sewage Treatment Plants Industry Septic Systems Urban Runoff Ag Runoff Wildlife Boating 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 d5 0.'6 0.7 0.8 Area (million acres) Figure S. Area affected by pollution sources, by subregion S ment plant has not met the standards for primary I ewage treatment plants, combined sewers, and treatment on a consistent basis since its construc- urban runoff affected over 150,000 acres (97 per- tion in 1973. CSOs from New Bedford discharge cent of harvest-limited waters) in the Hudson/Rari- over 1.5 billion gallons peryear into Buzzards Bay. tan complex and 125,000 acres in Long Island Affected shellfishing waters are estimated to con- Sound (89 percent). The Interstate Sanitation tain over500,OOO bushels of quahogs at a potential Commission (11987), representing Connecticut, New annual economic benefit of over $13 million (Con- York, and New Jersey, estimates that 50 million servation Law Foundation of New England, 1988). gallons per day (MG D) of raw sewage are released to Hudson/Raritan and Long Island Sound waters. In Narragansett Bay, the combination of sewage This is an improvement over previous discharges treatment plants and combined sewers in Provi- estimatedtobe as high as 1,066 MGD. Inaconstant dence and Newport affected more than 30,000 struggle to upgrade facilities, the Commission acres of shellfishing Waters. A conditionally ap- increased the flow of sewage receiving secondary proved area in the lower Providence River was treatment from 2 MGD in 1936 to 2,411 MGD in closed to harvest after one-half inch of rain be- 11986. However, two sewage treatment plants in cause of the effects of rainfall on combined sewers Connecticut and two in New York still operate at and treatment plants. Less urban areas of the Bay primary treatment level and discharge into Long were affected by septic systems and boating activi- Island Sound. In addition, 14 primary plants in New ties. Jersey discharge into Raritan Bay. 19 In Great South Bay, urban runoff was identified as uted to closures of 64 percent and 84 percent, re- the'contributing cause in 96 percent of harvest- spectively. Wildlife were the likely source of coli- limited waters, while sewage treatment plants af- form bacteria in many marsh areas closed to har- fected only 12 percent of waters. This conclusion is vest. Septic systems, boating, and wildlife were -@supported by the Suffolk County Executive Annual also important factors in shellfish bed closures in Environmental Report (1987) that cites stormwater Buzzards Bay. runoff as an increasing cause of shellfish bed closures. In addition to bacteria, stormwater runoff These results are consistent with information re- transports nutrients to surface waters, potentially ported by the states. A preliminary report on resulting in phytoplankton blooms with subsequent sources of pollution in shellfish growing waters in depletion of dissolved oxygen. Massachusetts (Hickey, 1986) found that waters southof Boston were primarily affected by nonpoint Outside the major urban areas, smaller communi- sources, except for three urban areas: 1) Taunton ties may be partially or entirely served by septic River-Mount Hope Bay; 2) New Bedford Harbor- systems. Similartosewagetreatment plants, septic Clarks Cove; and 3) Plymouth Harbor. The Massa- systems do not contaminate waters when function- chusetts study estimates that eighty-nine percent ing properly. Although septic system failures affect- of closed waters on Cape Cod were affected only ing surface waters can be easily located, subsur- by nonpoint sources. face leaching problems are difficult to identify. Because the shellfish classification system is based Mid-Atlantic. The Mid-Atlantic subregion (New upon public health, regulators identify septic sys- Jersey through Virginia) reflects a contrasting tems as the cause of contamination, even in cases development pattern. Although the Northeast where there are no obvious malfunctions. megalopolis now extends in a continuous span of urban area from Maine to Virginia, major cities in Point sources (sewage treatment plants,combined this subregion are located inland, with increasing sewers, direct discharges, or industry) were con- pressures for coastal recreational opportunities tributing factors in 85 percent of harvest-limited and supporting infrastructure crowding the historic waters in the Northeast. Areas that were not af- coastal activities such as agriculture and fishing. fected by point sources were found along the coast This is reflected in the causes of shellfish bed of Maine, in the small embayments north of Boston closures, ie., only 52 percent attributed to waste- Bay, in Cape Cod, Buzzards, Gardiners, and Great water treatment facilities and 42 percent to urban South bays, and in the Navesink and Shrewsbury runoff. rivers in northern New Jersey. New Jersey built large regional sewage treatment Nonpoint source problems in Maine were often a plants that discharge directly intothe Atlantic Ocean, result of residential growth in poorlydrained coastal reducing the impact of sewage treatment plants in regions. All but one estuary Was affected by septic many of the back bays. Although it was once effluent. In an attempt to solve the sewage prob- believed that elimination of point sources would lem, some Maine towns adopted overboard dis- open shellfish harvest areas, these waters remain charge ordinances that may allow development in harvest-limited because of urban runoff and boat- areas where soils are unsuitable for sub-surface ing, both related to coastal recreation. Urban runoff disposal. Solids settle out in a septic tank, the and boating were the major contributing factors in effluent is then pumped through four sand filters, closing waters in Bamegat Bay (100 percent and 79 treated with chlorine and discharged into the receiv- percent of harvest-limited waters, respectively), ing waters. The systems are not entirely effective Little Egg Harbor (83 percent and 75 percent), due to maintenance problems, lack of chlorination, Reed/Absecon Bays (89 percent and 52 percent), and pipes that do not extend far enough for dilution and Cape May Bays (95 percent and 64 percent). and dispersal. Coastal homeowners and develop- ers are faced with a 1992deadline forthe shutdown Boating activity (including marinas and adjacent of any systems polluting shellfish areas. bufferzones) was a major factor affecting 47 percent of Mid-Atlantic harvest-limited shellfishing waters. Massachusetts waters south of Boston Harbor, The significance of sewage discharge from boats except for a few urban areas like New Bedford, has been controversial nationwide. Boaters were affected primarily by nonpoint sources. On generally argue that theirdischarges are insignificant Cape Cod, for example, septic systems serving whilefederal and state regulators demand stronger residential areas affected 30 percent of harvest- controls. Studies in the 1950s and 1960s showed limited waters, while boating and wildlife contrib- that sampling stations associated with heavy boat 20 use had higher levels of fecal coliformthan stations percent of harvest-limited waters, mainly along the outside anchorage areas. However, where tidal sparsely populated creeks and marshes found in exchanges were large, no detectable increases in several estuaries in the subregion. Agricultural pollution levels attributable to boats were appar- runoff from crop lands surrounding Delaware and ent. A positive correlation between the number of Chesapeake Bays affected 17 percent of harvest- boats in Rhodes River Estuary (Chesapeake Bay) limited waters. and fecal coliform concentrations was reported by Faust and Goff (1978). Boating and marinas were Southeast. Although Southeast estuaries are contributing factors in 54 percent of harvest-limited affected by the coastal location of historic seaports waters in Chesapeake Bay. such as Charleston and Savannah, the subregion is the most rural of the East Coast, dependent on To protect public health from the effect of boat agriculture and the timber industry. Municipal wastes, the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Confer- wastewatertreatment facilities limited the harvest of ence (1985) developed a marina policy that re- shellfish in only 44 percent of harvest-limited waters quires states to establish buffer zones around !in the more developed estuaries, the lowest per- marinas and canals. The area within the marina centageof three East Coast subregions, while runoff proper must be classified as prohibited or re- -from urban areas affected only 27 percent. stricted. An additional closed area beyond the marina may be required. Many shellfish producing In the rural estuaries, closures were attributed to states are developing techniques for closing areas agricultural runoff, affecting 37 percent of harvest- based on dilution, dispersion, die-off or residence limited waters in the subregion. Most of the agricu I- time, -and hydrodynamics, as.well as marina de- tural activity occurs in North Carolina. In Albemarle sign, quality, and usage. Artificial canals, included and Pamlico Sounds, for example, almost half of the within this category, are prohibited to shellfish Albemade-Pamlico Peninsula is farmland (Epperly harvest because of limited circulation, high con- and Ross, 1986). centrations of boats, and runoff from lawns. The Southeast grew rapidly between 1970 and The lower James River, surrounded by urban 1980, due to increases in light industrial activity, Norfolk, had the largest harvest-limfted area and pulp and paper production, tourism, and vacation accounted for much of the urban-related closures home development. This growth was reflected in in Chesapeake Bay. In the Mid-Atlantic subregion the sources of pollution affecting the limitation of three-fifths of all sewage treatment plant-related harvest; 27 percent by urban runoff, 16 percent due closures and one-half of urban runoff closures to septic systems, and 12 percent boating. Pulp were in the James River. Many of the closures in and paper activities and, to a lesser degree, sea- the remaining partsof Chesapeake Baywere small food processing were factors in 24 percent of har- areas adjacent to towns and rural communities, vest-limited waters. rather than major urban 1reas. Opinions vary on the impact of septic systems in the Industries were reported as a contributing cause in Southeast. Sanitary surveys of counties in coastal closing 65,000 acres (21 percent) in the Mid-Atlan- Georgia conclude that despite the unsuitability of tic subregion. Of this, 50,060 acres in the lower soils, septic systems function adequately and do not James River were closed due to heavy industrial appear to be contaminating waters (Veazey and development (in addition to effects from sewage Stevens, 1988). Florida, on the other hand, con- treatment plants and urban runoff). Industrial dis- cludes that septic systems are a likely source of charges are of concern.to public health officials contamination because they are often sited in un- because of potential effects from toxics and heavy suitable soils in low lying coastal areas with high metals. Seafood processing plants, located in water tables (Florida Department of Natural Re- coastal areas, may have an impact on the level of sources, 1986). Unsewered areas affected 16 fecal coliform bacteria in adjacent waters by dis- percent of harvest-limited waters in the Southeast, charging processing and sanitary wastes into either from leaching septic systems or from surface sewage treatment facilities, or in some cases, runoff. directly into receiving waters. Many areas along the Southeast Coast are unde- Only 17 percent of shellfish growing waters in the veloped wetlands, and low-lying creeks. Wildlife Mid-Atlantic were affected by unsewered develop- associated with these areas affected 29 percent of ments, eitherfrom leaching septic systems orover- waters with an additional 10 percent attributed to land runoff. Wildlife was a contributing factor in 23 upstream wildlife sources*.-,,, 21 The public health significance of fecal contamina- Additional shellfish waters are affected predomi- tion of animal origin is in question. Enteric viruses, nantlybyurban runoff , containing only animal wastes the major disease-causing agent when shellfish are in most cases. The Results of the Nationwide harvested from sewage contaminated waters, are Urban Runoff Program (NURP), produced by EPA human. specific and are not believed to be passed - (1983), attributes high bacteria levels to heavy from animals to humans. In the Southeast, 230,000 loads of animal wastes (primarily pets) in urban acres of shellfish growing waters are harvest-lim- runoff. The study also questions the significance of Red because of wildlife or agricultural runoff with no using coliform bacteria as an indicator of sewage human sources. This is one-third of the total contamination when urban runoff is the source. harvest limited acreage in the subregion. Scientists and regulators have raised questions In Georgia, low dilution creeks adjacent to upland regarding the relationships between pollution areas do not meet standards regardless of the land sources, indicators, and shellfish-borne diseases. use of the upland area. These areas were once There are several efforts underway to provide thought to be contaminated from adjacent river answers regarding the public health significance of systems. Recent data show that the coliform the coliform bacteria indicator, particularly in non- counts in the upper reaches of the creeks are higher point runoff containing fecal matter of nonhuman than those in the lower reaches, suggesting that origin. FDA, in cooperation with the Texas Depart- runoff from the upland area is the source of con- ment of Health, is measuring pathogens in growing tamination. In the undeveloped upland areas, the areas in Texas affected by wildlife. A NOAA/EPA presumed source of fecal contamination is wildlife study (Dufourand White, 1985) uses epidemiologi- (Veazey and Stevens, 1988). cal studies to examine relationships between indi- cators and disease at sites affected by potential Similarly, a sanitary survey along a sparsely popu- point sources (STPs) of human pathogens. lated stretch of coastal South Carolina concluded that freshwater inflow determined pollution condi- In addition, the National Collaborative Shellfish tions in the area, and that pollution sources in the Pollution Indicator Study is a proposed four-year upper part of the drainage basin had minimal ef- studyto evaluatethe relationships between indica- fects on water quality of growing waters (South tors and incidence of shellfish-borne disease. Field Carolina Department of Health and Environmental studies will evaluate proposed alternate indicators Control, 1988). of fecal pollution and health risks associated with consumption of shellfish from sites affected by human/animal and only animal sources. Validation ffir:@ Public Health Debate on Pollution Sources of specific indicators in the environment and verifi- cation of the public health risk through epidemiol- Contamination of waters with human sewage is a ogical studies will provide a scientific basis to de- major cause of shellfish-bomp diseases. Potential velop mean ingfu I numerical standards on which to sources of human sewage contamination include base classification of shellfish growing waters. sewage treatment plants, combined sewers, direct discharges, septic systems,-and boats. -However, the public health significance of nonhuman sources of fecal pollution is less certain. Fecal contamination from animal sources may be less of a public health concern because human entericviruses, theprimary etiologic agents in shellfish-borne diseases, are passed specifically between humans. A pathway from humans to animals to shellfish and back to humans has not been demonstrated. Vast tracts of shellfish beds are closed to shellfish harvest where human sources are virtually nonex- istent: 36 percent of harvest-limited waters in the Southeast in 1985; 11 percent in the Gulf; 8 percent in the Mid-Atlantic; and less than one percent in the Northeast. These are areas affected only by wild- life or agricultural runoff. The West Coast is also -affected by animal-related closures. 22 Concluding Comments years produced only modest results. About23,000 acres intheNortheast and26,000acres intheMid- The molluscan shellfish industty is an important Atlantic were upgraded in classification as a result economic activity of the East Coast. However, in of improved water quality. Many of these upgrades harvests have declined dramatically were to conditionally approved or restricted. as a result of diminishing shellfish resources and Although point source discharges were reduced, reductions In available harvest grounds. The nonpoint sources prevented many areas from industtyhasrespondedbyshiftingtonewharvesting achieving approved standards. areas and implementing relay, depuration, and conditionally approved management options for Pollution sources affecting shelifishing waters safely harvesting in unapproved waters. Hope for varied by subregion. Most shelffishing waters in the industry may lie in better management of -the Northeastthat did not meet approved standards shellfish resources andin developing newindicators 'were affected by a combination of pollution sources that are better determinants of risk of shelffish- -from urban areas, including sewage treatment borne disease. plants (a contributing factor in 80 percent of all Northeast closures), combined sewers (54 In 1985, 6.6 million acres (82 percent) of East percent), and urban runoff (54 percent). In the less Coast waters were approved for harvest. However, urbanized Northeast estuaries of Maine and close to 50 percent of this area is nonproductive. southern Massachusetts, nonpoint sources, Many areas meeting approved standards have including runoff fromunsewered areas and leaching extreme salinities or depths, conditions that are septic systems, contributed to closures. The unsuitable for shellfish. Of the 1.5 million acres of influence of urban areas declines in the Mid- harvest-limited waters, 34,000 acres were Atlantic and Southeast regions, where coastal harvested for depuration and 163,000 acres were developments are smaller and often related to harvested under conditionally approved recreation. For example, boating activities had management plans. Additional areas were greater impacts, affecting 47 percent of harvest- available for relaying. These approaches are limited waters in the Mid-Atlantic. Wildlife costly and place additional burdens on the state contributed to closures in the less developed shellfish control agency and the industry. estuaries, especially in the coastal marshes in the Southeast (29 percent of Southeast harvest-limited Over the past 15 years, the East Coast shellfish areas). Septic systems affected about 15 percent industry experienced a severe decline in shellfish of harvest-limited waters in each of the three available for harvest, with a related reduction in regions. Agricultural runoff was a factor in 36 landings. This loss is a result of overharvesting, percent of closures in the Southeast and 17 percent shellfish mortality from shellfish diseases and in the Mid-Atlantic, mainly from croplands predation, and increased closures of harvesting surrounding Pamlico and Albemarle Sounds, and areas due to pollution. Although the industry is Chesapeake and Delaware Bays. inclined to blame harvesting losses on increased closures, reduced fecundity, increased mortality, The public health significance of animalsources: of and overharvesting are more influential in the fecal coliform b.acteria, including urban and decline. In the oyster grounds of the Mid-Atlantic, agricultural runoff and wildlife, hasbeen questioned including Delaware and Chesapeake Bays, the by scientists and regulators. Evidence suggests diseases MSX and dermo have devastated the that human enteric viruses are not passed from resource. In Maine, and more recently North and animals to humans through shellfish. Shellfish South Carolina, closures due to paralytic or harvesting areas affected only by agricultural runoff neurotoxic shellfish poisoning caused additional or wildlife accounted for 36 percent of harvest- closures beyond those experienced dueto pollution. limited waters in the Southeast and 8 percent of Harvest for clams has shifted to the Indian River in the Mid-Atlantic. Urban runoff affected 38 percent Florida, due partially to new Florida programs that of harvest-limited waters along the East Coast and allow for relay and depuration. Harvest of oysters is the major pollution source in urban or suburban has movedtothe Gulf Coast, particularly Louisiana. areas where sewage treatment plant discharges have been cleaned up or eliminated. A trends analysis of changes in classification from 1971 to 1985 was limited because many areas Additional research is required to resolvethe public were reclassified as a result of administrative health questions. Several studies to investigate factors, particulary increased monitoring. Overall, the relationships between indicators and shellfish- water quality improvement efforts over the past 20 borne diseases are in -progress or in planning 23 stages. Development of a new indicator system Caulkins, P., C. Binkley, C. Ruf, and C. Miller. 1988. 'The role may open for harvest waters that are not affected of economic benefits analysis in funding marinecombined sewer overflow projects - case study of Boston Harbor." by human sources. FDA, in cooperation with the Journal Water Polludon Control Federation. 60(7):1275- Texas Department of Health, is measuring 1280. .-pathogens in growing areas in Texas affected by domestic animals and wildlife. A NOAA/EPA Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. 1984. A marine resources management plan for the State of epidemiological study is currently examining Connecticut. Hartford, CT. pp 182-185. indicators and incidences of disease at sites Conway, C. 'The trashing of the Jersey shore." The Philadel- affected by sewage treatment plants (human point phia Inquirer. July 31, 1988. pp 28-35. sources) and will be expanded to include a wildlife Conservation Law Foundation of New England. 1988. Lost site (nonhuman nonpoint source). A proposed harvest Sewage, shefifish and economic losses in the fouryear National Collaborative Shellfish Pollution New Bedford area. Boston, MA. 27 pp. Indicator Study will examine several sites Davis, H.C. 1961. 'Effects of some pesticides on eggs and nationwide affected by human and nonhuman, larvae of oysters (Crassostrea virginka) and clam s (Venus point and nonpoint sources.Validating relationships mercenaria). Commercial Fisheries Review. 23(12):8- between indicators and disease through 23. epidemiological studies will provide a scientific Dufour, A.P. and H. White. 1985. Health effects associated basis for developing meaningful numerical with sheffishconsumption. NOAA/EPA IAG RW1 3931029. standards forclassified shellfish harvesting waters. Rockville, MD. 29 pp. The Quality of Shellfish Growing Waters series Environmental Protection Agency, Water Planning Division. provides regulators and managers with information 1983. Results of the nationwide urban runoff program. on estuarine water quality and other issues related Executive summary. Washington, D.C. 21 pp. to harvest of molluscan shellfish. The series will be Epperly, S. P. and S. W. Ross. 1986. Characterization of the completed this year with an assessment of West North Carolina Pamlico-Albemarle estuarine complex. Coast shellfishing waters. This work provides a NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFC-1 75. sound basis for future data collection efforts, Faust, M.A. and N.M. Goff. 1978. "Sources of bacterial beginning with the 1990NAtibnalShellfish Register pollution In an estuary.* CoastalZone'78. Proceedings of Classified Estuarine Waters. of the symposium on technical, environmental, socideco- nomic, and regulatory aspects of coastal zone manage- ment. pp 819-839. Figley, W., B. Pyle, and B. Halgren. 1979. " Socioeconomic impacts.' in Oxygen depletion and associated benthic mortalities in New York Bight. R. L. Swanson and C. J. Sinderman (eds). NOAA Professional Paper 11. Wash- ington, D.C. pp 315-322. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Shellfish Environ- References mental Assessment Section. 1986. Comprehensive sheilfish harvesting area survey. Duval County, Florida. Anderson, 1. C., M. Rhodes, H. Kator. 1979. 'Sublethal stress in Tallahassee, FL. Escherichia colf : a function of.salinity.' Applied and Food and Drug Administration, Shellfish Sanitation Branch, Environmental Microbiology. 38(6):1147-1152. and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Armstrong, D. 'Hub sewage overflow threatens beaches, closes Strategic Assessment Branch and National Marine Fish- shellfish beds.' The Boston Herald. August 10, 1988. eries Service. 1985. 1985 national shellfish register of ciassified estuarine waters. Rockville, MD. 19 pp. Busby, D. 1986. An overview of the Indian River clamming industry and the Indian River Lagoon. Florida Sea Grant Food and Drug Administration, Shellfish Sanitation Branch. Technical Paper 44. Gainesville, FL. pp. 1-5. 1971. 1971 nattonal shelifish register of classified estuar- ine waters. Northeast Technical Services Unit. Davisville, Calabrese, A., E. Gould, and F. Thurberg. 1982. 'Effects of toxic RI. 19 pp. metals in marine animals of the New York Bight: some laboratory observations." In Ecological stress and the New Grosslein, M. D. and T. R. Azarovitz. 1982. Fish distribution. York Bight. science and management. G. Mayer (ed). MESA New York Bight Alas Monograph 15. New York Estuarine Research Federation. Columbia, SC. pp 281- Sea Grant Institute. Albany, NY. 182 pp. 197. Hargis, W.J. Jr. and D.S. Haven. 1988. 'Rehabilitation of the Calabrese, A. and H. C. Davis. 1976. *Effects of 'sofr detergents troubled oyster industry of the lower Chesapeake Bay." onembryosand larvae of the American oyster (Crassostrea Journal of Shellfish Research. 7(2): 271-279. virginica).* Proceedings National Sheffisheries Associa- don. 57:11-16. 24 Hickey, M.J. 1986. Prellminaty report. Estimatedacreage of Renzoni, A. 1973. ' Influence of crude oil derivatives and closed shellfish waters as a result of point and nonpoint dispersants on larvae". Marine Pollution Bulletin. 49-13. pollution sources. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries. Sandwich, MA. Richards, G. P. 1985. "Outbreaks of shellfish-associated enteric virus illness in the United States: requisite for Insley, R. C. 1987. 'An overview of the Virginia oyster fishery development of viral guidelines". Journal of Food Protec- management plan.* Proceedings of the 1987 Interstate don. 48(9):815-823. SeafoodSeminar. Virginia Department of Health, Divi- sion of Shellfish Sanitation. Richmond, VA. pp 209-235. Rhodes, M. W., 1. C. Anderson, and H. 1. Kator. 1983. "In situ development of sublethal stress in Eschefichla coli : Interstate Sanitation Commission. 1987. 1986annualreport.. effects on enumeration." Applied and Environmental New York, NY. 70 pp. Microbiology. 45(6):1870-1876. Interstate Sanitation Commission. 1988. 1987annualreport.. Shumway, S. E., at al. 1988. "Paralytic shellfish poisoning in New York, NY. 80 pp. Maine: monitoring a monster." Red Tide Newsletter. 1(2):8. Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference. 1985. Marina policy. Texas Department of Health, Shellfish Sanitation South Carolina Departmentof Health and Environmental Control. Division. Austin, TX. 1 pp. 1988. Statewide waterqualityassessmentFY1986-198Z Columbia, SC pp. 69-94. Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference. 1986. National Shellfish Sanitation Program manual of operations. Part Stamman, E., D.A. Segar, and P.G. Davis. 1987. Apreliminary 1. SanitatfonofshelffishgroWrigareas. FDA. Washing- epidemiological assessment of the potential for alarrhedc ton, DC. 135 pp. shellfish poisoning in the Northeast United States. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 34. Rockville, MD. 18 Kassner,J. 1988. 'The consequence of baymen: The hard pp- clam (Mercenada mercenaria Unne) management situ- ation in GreatSouth Bay, NewYork." Journalof Sheffish Suffolk County Executive. 1987. Annual environmental report Research 7(2):289-293. - 198Z Suffolk County, NY. 75 pp. Kurtz, H. 1988. 'Cape Cod building ban suggested.' The Suffolk County Planning Department. 1987. Strategies and Washington Post. June 2. rewmmendationsforrovitalizingthehardclam fisheriesin Suffolk County Now York- 198Z Hauppauge, NY. pp 2. Lewis, E.J. 1987. "Dermo (Perkinsus marinus), SSO (14ap- 'rester, P.A and P.K. Fowler. in preparation. "Effects of toxic losporidium costale), and MSX (Haplospoddlum nelsoni) - current impact on shellfish.' Proceedings of the 1987 dinoflagellate Ptychodiscus brevis on contamination, tox- Interstate Seafood Conference. Virginia Department of icity, and depuration of Crassostrea virginica and Merce- Health, Division of Shellfish Sanitation. Richmond, VA. nada mercenaria. " pp 113-127. Thurberg, F.P., Calabrese, A and Dawson, M.A. 1974. *Effects Maine/New Hampshire Sea GrantCollege Program and Maine of silver on oxygen consumption of bivalves at various Departmentof Marine Resources. 1983. Increasingc1am salinides."PolluiYonandPhysiologyof Marine Organisms. harvests InMaine:apracdcalguide. University of Maine, New York, NY. pp 67-78. Orono. 60 pp. U.S. General Accounting Office. Resources, Community, and Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries. 1985. Assess- Economic Development Division. 1988. Seafoodsafety. ment at mid-decade. Boston, MA. 31 pp. Seriousnessofproblemsandeffortstoprotectconsumers. GAO/RCED-88-135. Washington, DC. 77 pp. Morse, D.L., at. al. 1986. 'Widespread outbreaks of clam- and oyster- associated gastroenteritis. Role of NorwWkvirus.* Veazey, J.E. and S.X Stevens. 1988. A description of biologi- Now England Journal of Medicine. 314(11):678-681. cal and physicalparameters affecting the sanitary quality of Georgia's shellfish resources: a sanitary survey. Geor- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National gia Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Resources Marine Fisheries Service. 1987. Fisheries of the United Division. Brunswick, GA. States, 1986. Washington, D.C. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Strategic Assessment Branch. 1985a. National estuarine inven- torydata sides. Volume 1:physicalandhydrologic charac- teristics. Rockville, MD. 103 pp. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Strategic Assessment Branch. 1985b. National estuarine inven- tory data adas. Volume 2: land use characteristics. Rockville, MD. 40 pp. North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Shellfish Sanitation Program. 1988. Trends and causes of clo- sures of shellfish waters in North Carolina. Morehead City, NC. 11 pp. 25 A. Personnal Communications B. Waters Reclassified as a Result of Water Quality Changes C. Sources of Pollution in East Coast Shellfishing Waters 27 Appendix A. &'4;T@TTTl Communications Ammen, S. Division of Law Enforcement, Office of Environ- Critchlow, G. Chief of Bureau of Shellfisherles, New Jersey mental Affairs. Boston, MA. Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife. Trenton, NJ. Anderson, W. South Carolina Wildlife and Marine Resources. Croonenburgh, R. Virginia Department of Health. Richmond, Charleston, SC. VA. Backer, T. Connecticut Coastal Fishermen's Association. Nor- Davidson, M. Executive Director of South Carolina Sea Grant walk, CT. Consortium. Charleston, SO. Baker, J. Tallmadge Brothers Oyster Company. New Bern, Davies, D. Suffolk County Planning Department. Hauppauge, NC. NY. Barker, S. Maine Department of Marine Resources. Augusta, Dqvles, T. Shellfish Section, South East Region, Department of ME. Environmental Quality. Lakeville, MA. Bartsch, E. Division of Water Programs, Virginia Department of Davis, R. DHHSIPHSIFDA. Philadelphia, PA. Health. Richmond, VA. Delaney, J. Chief of Lawrence Experimental Agency, DECIE. Beek, A. USEPAIERLN. Narragansett, RI. Lawrence, MA. Benton, R. Chief of Shellfish Sanitation Program, North Caro- Delaney, R. Massachusetts Office of the Executive. Boston, lina Department of Human Resources. Morehead City, MA. NO. deQuilifeldt C. Bureau of Shellfish, NewYorkState Department Berrigan, M. Environmental Administrator. Bureau of Marine of Environmental Conservation. Stony Brook, NY. Resource Regulation and Development, Florida Depart- ment of Natural Resources. Tallahassee, FL. DlStefano, P. Standards and Certification, Maryland Depart- ment of the Environment. Baltimore, MD. Bickings, H. Petersons Packing Company. Port Norris, NJ. Dowgert, M. State Programs Branch, DHHS/PHS/FDA. Boston, Bigford, T. Chief of Habitat Conservation Branch, North East MA. Region, National Marine Fisheries. Gloucester, MA. Eisele, W. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protec- Bloom, H. Tallmadge Brothers, Inc. Norwalk, CT. ton. Leeds Point, NJ. Branche,J. Bureau of Marine Resource Regulationand Devel- Ellingsen, Col. D.N. Director, Division of Law Enforcement, opment Rorida Department of Natural Resources. Tall- Florida Department of Natural Resources. Tallahassee, lahassee,FL. FL Brands, R. Investigating Branch, DHHS/PHS/FDA. Baltimore, Fair, J. Marine Fisheries Resources. Boston, MA. MD. Ford, S. Rutgers University. Bivalve, NJ. Butterfield, M. Chief of Law Enforcement, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department. Concord, NH. Foster, W. Maine Department of Marine Resources. Augusta, ME. Cabelli, V. Microbiology Department, University of Rhode Is- land. Kingston, RI. Fowler, P. Shellfish Sanitation Program, North Carolina Depart- ment of Human Resources. Morehead City, NC. Carpenter, A.C. Potomac River Fisheries Commission. Colo- nial Beach, VA. Futch, C.R. Bureau of Marine Resource Regulation and Devel- opment, Florida Department of Natural Resources. Tal- Chadwick, D. Division of Marine Rsheries. Newburyport, MA. lahassee, FL. Chesebrough, D. New Hampshire WaterSupply and Pollution Gaines, J. Food and Drug Administration. Northeast Technical Commission. Concord, NH. Services Unit. Davisville, RI. Coffin, G. Maine Department of Marine Resources. Augusta, Garrels, M.J. Standards and Certification, Maryland Depart- ME. ment of the Environment. Baltimore, MD. Coker, M. Environmental Quality Manager, Shellfish and Rec- Gilbert, G. Shellfish Sanitation Program, North Carolina Depart- reational Waters Division, South Carolina Department of ment of Human Resources. Morehead City, NC. Health and Environmental Control. Columbia, SC. Grant, G. New Jersey Fisheries Development Commission. Colby, S. Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Trenton, NJ. Affairs. Boston, MA. Harden, B. Acting Chief of Division of Food Control, Maryland Cole, R. Division of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Natural Departmentof Healthand Mental Hygiene. Baltimore, MD. Resource and Environmental Control. Dover, DE. 29 Haskins, H. Rutgers University. Bivalve, NJ. McCoy, E. Law Enforcement, Division of Marine Fisheries. Morehead City, NC. Hastback, W. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Shellfisheries. Stony Brook, NY. McGroary, A. Director of Division of Law Enforcement Affairs. Boston, MA. Hell, D.C. Environmental Administrator, Bureau of Marine Resource Regulation and Development, Florida Depart- Migliorl,J. Departmentof Environmental Management, Division ment of Natural Resources. Tallahassee, FL of Water Resources. Providence, RI. Hickey, J.M. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries. Miller, D. Bureau of Environmental Health, Department of Sandwich, MA. Health and Social Service. Dover, DE. Hope, J. Bureau of Shellfish Sanitation, Virginia State Depart- Moore, K. Environmental Quality Manager, Shellfish and Rec- ment of Health. Richmond, VA. reational Waters Division, Deparanent of Health and Environmental Control. Columbia, SC. Howell, R. Directorof Sanitary Engineering, Bureau of Environ- mental 'Health, Department of Health and Social Service. Morgan, C. Morgan Seafood. Weems, VA. Dover, DE. Morgan, W. Morgan Seafood. Weems, VA. Hughes, W. Atlantic Coast Shellfish Council. Atlantic High- lands, NJ. Morris, D. Bureau of Marine Resource Regulation and Devel- opment Department of Natural Resources. Tallahassee, Hurst, J. Bureau of Marine Sciences, Maine Department of FL Marine Resources. West Boothbay Harbor, ME. Mulnick, J. DHHS/PHSIFDA. Brooklyn, NY. lanuccl, W. Rhode Island Department of Health. Providence, RI. Munden, F. Division of Marine Fisheries. Morehead City, NC. Insley, R. C. Virginia Marine Resources Commission. Newport Nelson, J. Fisherman's Harvest. Anahuac, TX. News, VA. Newell, C. Great Eastern Mussel Farm, Tenants Harbor, ME. Jenson, P. Fisheries Administration, Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Annapolis, MD. Nunally, A.L. South Carolina Department of Health and Envl- ronmental Control. Sulfivans island, SC. Joseph, J. National Marine Fisheries Service. Charleston, SC. Nuzzi, R. Suffolk County Department of Health. Hauppauge, Karp, C. Project Manager of Narragansett Bay ProjecL Provi- NY. dence, RI. Peachey, R. Bureau of Shellfish Sanitation, Vrginia State Kassner, J. Town of Brookhaven, Division of Environmental Department of Health. Richmond, VA. Protection. Patchogue, NY. Pecora, R. Maryland Department of the Environment. Bait- Kipp, K. EPA Region 1. Boston, MA. more, MD. Krantz, G. Director, Oxford Laboratory. Maryland Department Pruell, R. USEPA. Narragansett, RI. of Natural Resources. Oxford,'MD. Raiche, P. Bureau of Environmental Health, State Department Leedy, M. General Manager of United Shellfish Company, Inc. of Health and Welfare. Concord, NH. Grasonville, MID Relyea, F. Frank M. Fowlers and Sons. Bayville, NY. Leland, R. Industry Area. McClellanville, SC. Richards, G. National Marine Fisheries Service. Charleston, Levere, A- Department of Environmental Protection, Natural SC. Resource Center. Hartford, CT. Richardson, K. University of Rhode Island. Narragansett, RI. Lynch, T. Division of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Environ- mental Management. Wickford, RI. Ridley, N. Director of Division of Food and Drugs, Massachu- setts Department of Public Health, State Lab Institute. MacFarlane, S. Orleans Shellfish DepartmenL Orleans, MA. Jamaica Plains, MA. Mallowes, H. H.L. Mallows and Son. Marlon, MA. Sample, J. National Marine Fisheries Service. Charleston, SC. MaImberg, V. Chief of Bureau of Laboratory Services, Depart- Sansbury, C. South Carolina Department of Health and Envi- ment of Health and Welfare. Concord, NH. ronmental Control. Columbia, SC. Markland, R. Assistant Commissioner, Law Enforcement, Vir- Schneider, J.W. Chief, Bureau of Marine Resource Regulation ginia Marine Resource Commission. Newport News, VA. and Development, Florida Department of Natural Re- sources. Tallahassee, FL. Marshall, M. Division of Marine Fisheries. Morehead City, NC. 30 Shute, M. Connecticut State Department of Health Services. Wilkinson, E. Enforcement Division, Rhode Island Department Hartford,CT. of the Environment Providence, RI. Siddall, S. Marine Sciences Research Center, State University Winters, H. Maine Department of Marine Resources. Augusta, of New York. Stony Brook, NY. ME. Wolf, G. Consumer Health Services, New Jersey Department Sieling, W. Office of Seafood Marketing, Maryland Department of Health. Trenton, NJ. of Agriculture. Annapolis, MD. Wri^ M. Bureau of Shellfish Sanitation, Virginia State De- Siewickl, T. National Marine FisheriesServioe. Charleston, SC. partment of Health. Richmond, VA. Silver, K. ARFDD for Intergovernmental affairs, DHHS/PHS/ FDA. Brooklyn, NY. Simns, L. President of Maryland Watermen's Association. An- napolis, MD. Sisson, R. Division of Fish and Wildlife, Departmentof Environ- mental Management. Wickford, RI. Smith, S. Author. Cape Cod, MA. Somerset, 1. State Programs Branch, DHHS/PHS/FDA. Bos- ton, MA. Stacy, P. Connecticut Departmentof Environmental Protection. Hartford, CT. Stevens, S. Coastal Resources Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources. Brunswick, GA. Stokes. A. Waddell Aquaculture Center. Hilton Head, SC. Taylor, J. Director of Laboratories Bureau of Marine Resource Regulation and Development Florida Department of Natural Resources. Tallahassee, FL. Thieling, D. Marine Resource Division. Charleston, SC. Travelsted, J. Virginia Marine Resources Commission. New- port News, VA. Tryon, K. Connecticut Shellfish Company. Branford, CT. Tucker, J. Director of Laboratories, Lab Division, Connecticut State Department of Health. Hartford, CT. Van Volkenburgh, P. Chief of Bureau of Shellfish, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Stony Brook, NY. Veazey, J. Coastal Resources Division, Georgia Departmentof Natural Resources. Brunswick, GA. Verber, J. FDA Refired. North Kingstown, RI. Volk, J. Chief of Aquaculture Division, Department of Agricul- ture. Milford, CT. West, N. Assistant Professor, Department of Geography and Marine Affairs, University of Rhode Island. Kingston, Rl. Wetherell, R. Food and Drug Administration. Northeast Tech- nical Services Unit. Davisville, Rl. Wenkel, R. Deputy Chief of Marine Law Enforcement Bureau, New Jersey State Police. West Trenton, NJ. Wiley, C.W. Director, Bureau of Shellfish Sanitation, Virginia State Department of Health. Richmond, VA. 31 Appendix B. Waters Reclassified as -i Result of Water Quality Changes Estuary/Area Classification Acres Changed Reason for Change 1971 1985 losses gains Northeast Passamaquoddy Bay Rogers I a P 221 development Carryingplace Cv a P 69 development, malfunction of local sources Pleasant Pt a P 22 new STP Cutler p a 28 abatement of septics Englishman Bay Howard Cove a p 257 development Machias R P c 142 now STP Holmes Bay P c 222 abatement of herring plant Narraguagus R Pigeon Hill c a 48 abatement of local sources We Moose I P a 38 abatement of local sources Blue Hill Bay East Blue Hill a p 48 shore development Blue Hill Harbor p a 510 STP removed local sources Penobscot Bay Center Harbor c p 33 shore development Stonington a p 143 shore development South Doer I a p 77 shore development Fort Point Cove p r 1488 sewage abatement in Penobscot R Sears I P c 1492 sewage abatement in Penobscot R Searsport Harbor r p 179 expanded STP Penobscot R, E shore p r 890 sewage abatement in Penobscot R Penobscot R, E shore a p 1762 local development Belfast Bay r a 1566 municipal abatement Belfast Bay r p 4794 shore development Frohock Brook a p 35 shore development Isleboro a c 58 shore development Harborside a P 64 shore development Billings Cove a p 23 shore development Deer I - NW Hrb p a 20 abatement of local sources Vinalhaven a P 28 shore development Pulpit Harbor c P 123 local sources Camden p a 280 STP replaced local sources Rockport Harbor a p 2542 shore development Tenants Harbor I? c 220 abatement of septics Long Cove a p 28 shore development Sprucehead I p a 77 abatement of septics Harrington Cove p a 36 abatement of septics Muscongus Bay St. George R P r 504 STP Improvements Bird Point a P 92 malfunctioning septic at single home Hupper I a p 265 collection system, no treatment Friendship c P 313 collection system, no treatment Friendship a p 110 malfunctioning septic at single home MuscongusSound c a 79 abatement of septics New Harbor a p 33 shore development New Harbor a c 10 shore development Abbreviations: a, approved; p, prohibited; c, conditional; r, restricted. Continued 33 (Continued) Estuary /Area Classification Acres Changed Reason for Change 1971 1985 losses gains Sheepscot Bay Wiscasset c p 120 now STP buffer zone Wiscasset c a 148 new STP Back R P a 2850 abatement of septics Montsweag Bay P a 2400 abatement of septics Damariscotta p a 34 abatement of septics Pemaquid R p c 386 abatement of septics Rutherford I P c 107 abatement of septics, & str. pipes Rutherford I a P 153 development Linekin Neck a P 71 shore development Southport I P c 48 abatement of straight pipes Hodgdon Cove c P 24 shore development Sheepsoot R P c 60 abatement of straight pipes Casoo Bay Sabino a P 64 shore development Winnegance a P 170 shore development Harborl P a is abatement of septics & str. pipes Gurnet Str/Doughty Cv p c 79 abatement of septics & str. pipes Gurnet Str/Doughty Cv a c 115 shore development Buttermilk Cove a P 66 shore development Lowell Cove c P 122 shore development Bailey I a P 155 shore development S Harpswell P a 534 abatement of septics & str. pipes Basin Cove c a 168 abatement of septics & str. pipes Stover Cove a p is shore development Middle Bay a p 51 shore development Barnes Pt P a 18 abatement of septics Mere Pt a P 31 shore development Bunganuc Ldg P r 168 abatement of straight pipes Harraseeket R P c 714 new STP Cousins R P r 107 abatement of septics ChandlerCove a p 143 shore development Sunset Point P a 21 abatement of septics Wildwood Pk/Waites Lg p r 162 new STP Wildwood Pk/Waites Lg p c 339 new STP Wildwood Pk/Waites Lg p a 300 new STP Portland p r 533 now STP Portland a P 1665 development Saco Bay Nonesuch R p r 794 STP Goosefare Brook a P 457 STP buffer Saco R P r 685 STP Little R P a 194 area became sewered Cape Porpoise P a 81 area became sewered Mousam R P c 357 STP Mousam R a c 161 STP buffer Little R a p 20 shore development Ogunquit R P c 71 STP Great Bay Spruce Cr p r 219 improved septics Spinney Cr p r 108 improved septics Merrimack R Marshes p r 216 upgraded STPs; improved WO Massachusetts Bay Gloucester Hbr a p 1097 more fish processing Nanatasket Bch P a 251 STP upgrade Abbreviations: a, approved; p, prohibited; c, conditional; r, restricted. Continued- 34 (Continued) Estuary /Area Classification Acres Changed Reason for Change 1971 1985 losses gains Cape Cod Bay Welifleat a p 53 more boats Cape Cod Canal a p 74 Maritime Academy STP Cape Cod Canal a P 62 Maritime Academy STP Plymouth Hbr a P 985 increased boating, STP overload Kingston Bay a p 530 more boating, declining WO Green Hbr R a p 118 development, new STP outfall Buzzards Bay W Falmouth/Megansett p a 1500 recovery from oil spill Cataumet a c 36 expanding marina Back R a p 74 development Buttermilk Bay a P 638 development Wareham p a 118 area became sewered Sippican Hbr a c 166 Increased boating Sippican Hbr P a 24 mercury problem cleaned up Smiths Neck a P 707 STP outfall Cuttyhunk Pond a P 33 Increase in houses on septics Cutryhunk Pond a c 71 increased boating Narragansett Bay Mount Hope Bay a p 2400 declining WO, STP problems Jamestown P 0 10 eliminated sewer outfall Jamestown c p 191 new STP buffed Kickamuit River a p 66 decline In water quality Mt Hope Bay/Sakonnet a p 849 decline in water quality Wickford a c 218 increased boating activities Wickford c p ISO increased boating activities Pearson Yacht STP a P 19 new STP buffer Long Island Sound C)ld Saybrook p c 197 corrected septics open areas c a 42 corrected septics Haycock Pt p a 30 removed outfall Southport c P 66 decline in water quality Westoott Cove p a 1500 upgraded lift stns Cove Hbr P c 310 improved STPs Cockenoe Hbr P c 285 upgraded pump stris Mt Sinai a P 16 increased boats Mt Sinai a c 63 increased boats Huntington Hbr a p 303 deteriorating STP & admin Plum Point a P 38 new STP buffer Gardiners Bay Hashamomuck a c 152 possibly due to development Hudson/Raritan Sandy Hook a r 2880 declining water quality Sandy Hook r P 551 declining water quality Navesink/Shrewsbury a r 1017 declining water quality Total Northeast Region 28145 24026 Mid-Atlantic Barnegat Bay Metedeconk R a c 292 shoreline development, nonpoint sources Seaweed Point a c 158 shoreline development, nonpoint sources Lavallette a c 268 shoreline development, nonpoint sources Goodluck Point a c 2700 shoreline development nonpoint sources Holly Park a c 722 shoreline development, nonpoint sources Waretown P c 479 regional STP eliminated local discharge Bamegat Beach P c 778 regional STP eliminated local discharge Abbreviations: a, approved; p, prohibited; c, conditional; r, restricted. Continued... 35 (Continued) Estuary /Area Classification Acres Changed Reason for Change 1971 1985 losses gains Little Egg Harbor Manahawkin Bay p c 156 regional STP eliminated local discharge Horse Point P c 152 regional STP eliminated local discharge Little Egg Harbor p c 1263 regional STP eliminated local discharge Reed/Absecon Bays Read Bay p'c a 1365 regional STIR eliminated local discharge Absecon Bay P c 1026 regional STP eliminated local discharge Lakes Bay p,r c 1816 regional STP eliminated local discharge Great Egg Hbr Inlet ppc a 1921 regional STP eliminated local discharge Scull Bay p a 637 regional STP eliminated local discharge Steelman Bay c a 72 regional STP eliminated local discharge Ocean City Shoreline p c 224 regional STP eliminated local discharge Great Egg Harbor Bay c a 1396 regional STP eliminated local discharge Great Egg Harbor Bay p a 255 regional STP eliminated local discharge Great Egg Harbor R c P 477 Increased flow through STP Mill Thorofare a p 395 Increased flow through STP Ingram Thoro/So. Chan a P 523 Increased flow through STP Great Sound p c 100 regional STP eliminated local discharge Nummy Island a P 256 increased flow through STP Jenkins Sound a p 659 Increased flow through STP Delaware Bay Bidwell Cr c p 224 nonpoint sources Dennis Cr a P 530 nonpoint sources Thompson Bch a C 2917 septics exposed by storm Dividing/Fishing Cr a c 846 nonpoint sources Back/Cedar Cr a c 2782 nonpoint sources Delaware Inland Bays Indian R Bay a c 2499 seafood processing wastes, now ag runoff Indian R Inlet a p 191 Increased boating and shipping Rehoboth Bay P C 669 area became sewered Chesapeake Bay Manokin R a P 100 sanitary violations Little Choptank R P a 5060 correct septics, eliminate livestock Choptank R P a 4239 improved STP and sewers, eliminated violations Tar Creek a p 120 failing septics, some administrative Upper Harris Cr a P 477 septics, domestic animals Cummings Cr a P 385 septics St. Michaels a P 96 new STP (Talbot County #2) Spencer/Little Neck Crs p a 63 sewers replaced septics Hunting Cr a P 266 failing septics, Kent Narrows a c 193 development, more septics Marshy Cr a c 289 development, more septics Kent Island a p 19 now STP outfall Cox Cr P a 140 regional STP eliminated local STP Little Cr a P 35 failing septics, direct discharges Upper Chester R P a 859 improved STP Corsica R P a 107 improved STP Rock Hall P a 584 regional STP replaced STP, septics Magothy R a p 1624 development, urban runoff Tydings on the Bay a P 32 new STP (Broadneck) Severn R P a 2853 improved STP, pumping stations Fishing Cr a p 244 Coast Guard STP (eliminated after 1985) Rhode 8 a P 396 sanitary violations, marinas Duvall Cr a p 94 failing septics, boats Selby Bay a P 151 failing septics, boats Franklin Manor a P 84 new STP (Broadwater) Island Cr a p 169 failing septics Battle Cr a p 240 failing septics, Town Cr a P 61 marinas, septics Pine Hill Run a p 317 moved STP outfall offshore St. Jerome Cr, No. Br a P 120 nonpoint sources Abbreviations: a, approved; p, prohibited; c, conditional; r, restricted. Continued 36 (Continued) Estuary /Area Classification Acres Changed Reason for Change 1971 1985 losses gains Herring Bay p a 1752 STP improvements, elim septic failures Upper Miles R a P 1264 sanitary violations Wye Island a p 1227 domestic animal runoff Potomac R Whites Neck Cr a P 215 failing septics, ag runoff, dom. animals St. Patrick Cr a P 214 failing septics, urban runoff Cuckold Cr a P 60 buffer for new STP (Swan Point) Breton Bay a P 638 failing septics Herring Cr a P 266 failing septics and domestic animals Piney Point Bch a P 200 STP SL Marys R P a 1283 regional STP replaced STP & septics Locust Grove Cove a p 11 nonpoint sources Schoolhouse Br a p 28 animal pollution Schoolhouse Br a c 133 water quality decline Coan Cr a c 507 water quality decline Coan Cr a c 130 water quality decline Coan Cr a c 224 water quality decline Jackson Cr a c 200 water quality decline Davis Cr a c 43 seasonal boating activity Timberneck Cr P c 74 water quality improvements Lower York R a P 2811 buffer zone for new STP Lower York R a c 138 water quality decline Ocean View a c 9955 water quality decline Long & Grunland Crs a P 129 water quality decline Long & Grunland Crs a c 96 water quality decline Back R SW Br a c 296 water quality decline Back R SW Br p c 122 water quality improvements Back R SW Br a c 10893 water quality decline Upper Warwick R P c 160 water quality improvements Lower Warwick R P c 133 water quality Improvements Pagan R P c 631 water quality improvements Pagan R a c 192 water quality decline Nansemond R a c 617 water quality decline Nansemond R a c 1522 water quality decline Hampton Roads a p 548 buffer zone for new STP Broad Bay a c 715 rapid development Broad Bay a P 30 rapid development Lynnhaven Bay a P 625 rapid development Lynnhaven Bay a c 1364 rapid development Tangier Isl a P 1098 buffer zone for new STP Orancock Cr P c 459 by-passing STP Orancock Cr a c 1397 by-passing STP Orancock Cr a c 53 boating activity Total Mid-Atlantic Region 64860 25668 Abbreviations: a, approved; p, prohibited; c, conditional-, r, restricted. 37 Appendix C. Sources of Pollution in *M@ Coast Shellfishing Waters Class Ifleation 4acres) Pollution Sources (acres) Upstream stale Estuary Area ".1tibitedCondidonal Restricted STP CSO; Direct Ind Septics Ur/Suburb Ag Wildlife Boating STP Ur Discha Rural Runoff Runoff ME Passamaqxddy Bay Carryingplace Cv 8 9 so Pembroke 127 127 Dennis R 48 48 St. Croix R 4203 4203 Bar Harbor 482 4a2 Pleasant Pt 22 22 Eastport 275 275 Reynolds Pt 28 26 North I - 415 415 Crane Mill Brook 13 13 Broad Cv 303 303 Lubec Necit 156 158 Total Psasamaquoddy Day 6126 1 3 4225 1075 39 Percent of total 69 31 1 Englishrrian Bay Holmea Bay 222 222 Huntley Crook 41 41 Randall Flats 804 804 Hows CQVQ 2:7 257 Magma R -1 a 9 1699 Total Englishman Bay 1997 222 $04 1962 1061 Pereent of total 6 5 35 Narraguagus Bay Jonesport 340 340 Pidgeort Hill Bay 41 41 13118111 WNW 115 115 qua R 826 826 Total Nwraquague Bay 1290 41 1331 Percent of total 100 Me HIS Say Me= R 2606 2008 2606 Blue Hill Harbor 222 222 Ban Harbor 20 704 724 McHeard Cv 49 49 Total Blue Hill Bay 2S96 704 2829 3378 Percent of total 79 94 Penobscot Bay Duddrap Hamm 60 so Rockland Hobts 22-11 2275 Duck 209 209 North Haven $26 926 Camden Harbor 104 164 Dow Island Thorofare 311 31t Gilkey Harbor 796 796 Dow IWO so so passagassaaadwag R 199 199 199 Belfast say 4794 4794 4794 Sears Island 1492 1492 1492 Seareport 360 380 360 Cape Jellison 4570 4570 Northern Bay 722 722 Ft. Point Cove 1448 1449 1448 Penobscot R 5702 5702 5702 Gilkey Harbor 202 202 Rockport Harbor 4942 4942 Castine 2216 2218 Harborside 179 179 Soufh Brooksville 13 13 Harbor Island 300 300 Billings Ov 23 23 Center Harbor 101 101 Morse Or ago ago 890 Wadsworth Cv ISO Is$ Stonington 268 268 Pulpit Harbor 123 123 123 Inner Harbor 77 77 Sabbadiday Harbor 265 265 Total Penobscot Bay 27349 3163 3250 17987 123 2275 29394 Percent of total 53 .1 7 84 Muscongus Bay Port Clyde 324 324 Ord CV 92 92 Below Waidoborc, 71 71 Haffse Point 432 432 Waldoboro 71 71 Thomaston 504 504 Low StGoorge R 156a 1568 Upper StGoorge R 248 24a Lawrey Is Round Pond (dosed) 3 3 Round Pend 99 99 ple, Pt 30 38 Her" Cv 716 716 Total Muscongue Bay 1507 2099 575 2894 1207 -Percent of total 6 9 31- 39 classification (&or*@) Pollution Sources (acres) Upstream $taw Estuary Area Prohibited Conditional Restricted STP CSOR Direct Ind Septics Ur/Suburb Ag Wildlife Boating STP Ur Discho Rural Runoff Runoff Shaq-)Ot Say Rutherford Island 620 620 Christmas Cove 107 107 Hockamock Bay 2740 2740 2740 Macmatum lot" 112 112 Wiscasest 592 592 592 Rve Idwift 128 128 Damariscoft, 438 438 Back R 250 250 Hogdol Or so so pig con 48 48 Boothosy Harbor 4362 4362 Utde R 222 222 Unekin Say 1448 1448 East BoMboy 110 110 Goorgebon 15 Is Morryrnesting Bay 13326 13326 13326 Karrebee R 1033 1933 1933 Cozy Harbor 26 28 PwrwWW Harbor t73 173 Porraquid 388 368 Hendricks 253 Total Shospocat say 23116 2310 1933 23001 15509 7297 173 Percent of total 24 57 27 1 cows" Harpsurell Harbor Is Is Prince PI 14 14 Scruth HarprAWI 293 293 Orm Island 1558 1559 ChandwCv 143 143 Buttermilk Cc" 66 Go Gumet 194 104 Middle Grourd 201 201 Macworth 533 $33 533 POMOW 8912 $912 8912 Caldow 314 314 Oxdys Harbor 105 105 Sobasco Harbor t02 102 WON Pt 31 31 Weston Polit 38 38 Harmackst A 1090 1000 Bung- too Sabkw 64 64 Broad Con 73 73 Falmoullh For 339 339 CaLmim R 107 107 107 Morcol"t say 449 449 Mom Pt Nock 31 31 Royal R 304 304 WWW*9- Bay 280 280 Wildwood park Be 89 so Hartswell Nock 5 1 Total Cases, Day 12226 2273 999 11620 3827 so 9445 7S 25 Saco Bay Saco R 1073 1073 it* Pool 585 595 Scarborough R 27 27 Nonesuch R 794 724 Goossfare brook 481 481 Total Saco Bay 1381 1379 1554 794 Per 4% ME Great Say Portsmouth 1385 1365 Crockells Nock 219 219 Sobvion RIPortorrupith 8 993 993 993 Eagle Point 66 66 Spruce Cr 221 221 221 spirmy Cr 108 too NH Great Say SqL-Scoftflamproyr Re 475 475 Portsmouth 1520 760 760 Plecartaciis R 3297 3297 3297 3297 Weeks Bav 955 955 955 Total Groat Say 9671 54S 7396 760 2277 955 3297 3297 Percent of total so a 25 1 0 36 3 6 MA Merrimack R Merrimack R 2243 2243 2243 2243 Plum Island R 216 2t6 216 216 216 216 Total Merrimack R 2243 216 2243 216 216 216 21f 2 16 2 2 4 3 2 2 4 3 Percent of total 91 9 9 9 0 9 of of 40 Classification (acres) Pollution Source@ (acres) Upstream stall Estuary Area Prohibited Conditional Restricted STP CBM Direct Ind Sairtics Ur/Suburb Ag Wildlife Boating SrP Ur DISChq Rural Runoff Runoff MA Massachusetts Bay Town Hearl 30 3 6 36 Gloucester Hbr 1527 1527 1527 1527 1527 Blynnum Canal 65 as 65 55 Manchester Say 226 226 226 Salern Sound Share 140 146 Danvers R 1286 121116 1286 1286 1286 Winter, 1 24 24 Salem Harbor 054 954 954 9S4 No. Shore Marbl 40 40 M"ehgad Hbr 504 504 504 Phillips Beach 40 40 Nahant Beach 271 271 271 CQha$M Marsh 115 115 115 Its CohassetCove 140 140 140 140 Scituate Hbr 259 259 258 258 Boston Bay Hingham Harbor 472 472 White Head fttg ISIS ISS Fox Pt at at 611 61 61 Ouincy Say Marsh 43 43 43 43 Planters no 148 149 Hole Pt Reach 190 196 '196 196 196 Rock Island Cv 243 243 243 243 North WayrrvAh 182 182 182 182 We"outh 33 33 33 33 owincy Pt ISO ISO 150 ISO 150 Khp ow 29 28 28 29 28 Sm(>, 285 285 285 285 Weymouilh R as 68 69 as Nantasket made 570 570 South Ctiannal 289 289 289 289 Allarlon 98 98 Winthrop 212 2t2 212 212 212 SqAnWm 281 281 218 281 Governors, Island 327 327 327 327 327 DOW Island 39 39 39 39 oufty 316 316 318 318 318 Sqmw0wpel Rocks 46 46 46 46 Surtside, 130 130 130 130 NA Island 33 33 33 33 Vft Great Hill 106 106 106 106 106 Hull 25 25 25 25 25 25 Slorlders Nock 30 30 Eno Weymouth 20 20 20 20 Hinghar. Salt 130 130 Weir R 82 82 82 Dorchester Yacht Club so 56 56 so Darchesto Say 87 87 97 87 oulncy any 135 135 135 135 Oriard Heights 476 476 476 476 476 476 Pleasure Bay 149 149 149 149 149 EaxItSouthBoston 2393 2393 2323 2393 2393 C;alumbIa Point 2t5 215 215 215 215 Old Harbor 23 23 23 23 23 Pt Shirley 67 67 67 67 67 Dorothy Cove 43 43 43 Broad Sourd 6132 6132 6132 6132 Seaplane Basin 108 108 108 Pines R 110 110 110 Chelsea Point 70 70 70 70 70 Winthrop Beach 34 34 34 34 34 Snake Island 100 100 too 100 100 R 358 358 358 TotafBastarrBay 11533 3853 13453 6844 6838 532 13519 554 6592 percent of torst -87 45 44 3 GO 4 43 Total Massachusetts Bay 17100 3918 17446 9676 2365 1110 19115 669 10070 Percent of total 8 3 4 6 40 5 -9-1 3 48 Cap@CodBey Plymouth Harbor 1264 1964 1964 Providencelvien Marsh 45 45 Maraspin Cr 41 41 41 41 Ouxbury 13 13 "Stan a" Gas Gas Gas 685 685 Green Harbor 45 4 5 45 45 Welifiest Harbor 53 53 53 Providencelown (dosed) 61 61 at Providerocetown Harbor 170 170 170 Cape Cod Canal 163 163 153 SandvAch Harbor 32 32 Scorton Harbor 43 43 43 Coda" 58 se all Told Cape Cod Day 3160 213 204 1072 4 5 1001 5 a 729 2936 2164 Percent of total 6 3 2 1 3 0 - 2_2 2 a 4 6 4 41 Classification (acres) Pollution Sources (acres) Upstream state Estuary Area Prohibited CoMitional Restricted STP CSC& Direct Ind Septic@ Ur/Suburb Ag Wildlife Boating STP Ur Di Rural Runoff Runoff Buzzards Bay Red Brook Harbor 36 38 36 Ouis"t Harbor 36 36 36 Soudi Dartinouth 33 33 Wed Cullyfaink Pond 33 3 3 3 3 33 East CLdyhjr* Pond 7 1 7 1 71 71 Maltapdoeft Hbr 28 28 Now Bildfard 7661 7661 7661 Great Harbor 83 83 83 83 Sippicen Harbor 166 ISO Hatmell Ov 10 10 Back R 74 74 74 74 C"Codcarad 62 62 Butteffnilk Say 533 533 533 533 533 533 Saltent/Mishaurn Pis 707 707 Mier Cv 19 1 a I Ed Pond 17 17 17 Total Buzzards Bay 9259 3 a 9 $451 732 $268 $37 $1111 $07 544 9 a 9 96 9 6 6 6 MA Narragansett Bay Mount Hope BayfIlsuron R 5624 5624 5624 5624 5624 Palaw/Runnins R 117 117 '1117 117 RI Narragansett Say The Glen 20 20 Dutch Harbor 10 10 Taylor Poht 101 101 mccorde Point 26 25 Hundmmcl Acre Com 465 465 465 Jantedown Powism Yachts STP 19 19 Bull Pt 27 97 97 97 Davlaville Pier 71 71 Outinfat 712 712 Flat" Cove 218 216 Wickford 227 227 227 Beam ow so so so Providelmot R 5618 5018 Sets 5618 5618 upper Bay 10100 10100 10100 Bwrkom R 632 832 832 032 Ut Hope Say 6846 6846 6946 6646 Ihs Cove ISO ISO Wistal Yedt Club 115 115 Bristal Harbor 566 566 566 566 pottw ov 102 102 Greemmich Bay 148 148 AppwwgCom 11115 115 115 115 Wainvick Ow 120 120 120 120 Grearwich Cv 291 291 291 291 Gould Mand 33 Sakonnet Flobw 13 13 Newport 2344 2344 2344 2344 2344 Molvillo 376 370 South Farm 52 52 Total Narragansett Bay 24343 11179 22915 20432 $936 6250 6572 3335 197 5 4 5 3 1010 0 2 3 5 9 5 6 6 42 CIRO 8location (Bar*@) Pollution Sources Jacres) Upstream State Estuary Ar" Prohibited Conditional Restricted STP CSM Direct Ind Sopdcs Ur/Suburb Ag Wildlife Boating StP Ur Dischq Rural Runoff Runoff Cr Connecticut R Connecticut R 4951 49SI Long Island Sound Connecticut R delta 11876 1876 Indlantown 300 300 Plum Bank Bch 107 197 C41nton . 337 337 337 337 Stanington & Pawfucked 2086 2086 2086 West Ov 39 39 Mystic: Harbor 1049 1049 1049 New Haven Buffer Zone 142 142 142 Connecticut R Delta 319 319 Upper Thomas R 1597 1507 1597 Watts Island 154 154 smm's ev 48 48 48 Keeny Cv 38 39 Upper Mante, A 196 lee 196 Lower Mande R Is Is Mande say entrance 19 Is Is Jades Or 121 121 Law Thimes.11 6574 6574 65114 6574 6574 Mumford Ohr 305 305 swoon Pool 444 444 Towshend Lodge 2343 2343 2343 soeview 2 2 Wobider 2 2 BrIclo Ouffal 39 39 P"tK9110 133 133 133 Sechom and West As 1662 1969 1862 1862 Slone Cr 1199 1189 11,1412 Ila# Branford Harbor 1939 1939 1939 Now Haven Habol 13313 13313 13313 13313 Housatonic R 1897 1897 1897 *1ho Gulf 920 920 920 Penfield Rest 3111 31`11 31111 Psyres Road 5131 5131 5131 Bridgeport 12242 12249 12249 12249 Soulhpart 66 66 66 Holy Pond too lee Standard Harbor 3178 3179 3178 W. "" OV 269 269 269 OW !Us boo 310 310 310 1hoVA 168 leg lee 168 Avernils, R 121 121 Sheffield Harbor 1301 1301 1301 Norwalk Harbor 1589 1589 11589 1599 1589 car"d Island 65 55 Cockorm hbr 2678 2679 2678 2676 2678 Saugskick Harbor 613 $13 613 613 Sherwood nd Pond 100 100 100 Wilson Cv 75 75 75 Greewleh Pt 8029 6029 8029 NY Long Islard Sound Part Jefferson H 854 854 854 854 854 854 Wading Pond so 56 StNm Cand 10 10 10 Cold Spring Harbor 215 215 215 215 215 Smithtown Bay 1300 1300 Frost Or 2 2 Stony Brook 9 0 9 Crab Meadow Cr 4 4 4 4 NIssw;uogL* R 555 555 555 555 Huntington Harbor 393 393 393 393 393 Plum Pt 39 38 38 Oyster Say Harbor 375 375 375 375 Ilhocave Be Mill Nock Or 304 304 304 Mattituck 170 170 170 170 Stony Brook Harbor 10 10 Ingot Point 300 300 300 Mt Sinai 16 63 18 Is 63 effluent lagoon a a Northport Harbor 339 339 339 Northport basin 27 27 27 Western Sound 50877 50877 50877 50677 Fishers island 910 910 Cent ort Harbor 49 49 Total Long Island Sound 134912 5738 125376 07893 1189 3 5 4157 111912 1277 6942 14600 111111163 6574 Percent of total Be 62 1 .1 3 a 0 1- 5 1 0 12 5 43 Classification (acres) pollution Sources (acres) Upstream Surw Estuary Ars@ ProhlbitedConclitional Restricted STP CSM Direct Ind Soptics Ur@Suburb Ag Wildlife Boa*V STP Ur Di Rural Runoff Runoff W Gardners Bay Turtte Cv 13 13 Mill or 28 28 Blirch Cr 46 46 South Jamesport 10 10 East Cr Is 15 15 15 Fww" Pt ISO Igo Mianno" Lgn 7 7 Chasollor 40 40 40 sag H IS$ 155 NcrthSaa 12 12 Now Suffolk 10 10 10 10 Sthilng Basin 52 52 52 52 52 Randw Bay 1395 1395 1395 1395 Hashamomuck Pond 170 170 170 170 Lake Montauk 150 31 31 150 Simmons Pt 5 Total Gardiners Bay 228$ 31 307 1711 1492 1494 409 Percent of total 1 7 74 73 a 5 1 9 NY Great Sot Bay Marlichas Say 3945 3945 3945 3945 Bellport Bay 405 495 Islip 1143 111163 Attlandque to 10 Babylon 3155 3155 PwIchV- Bay 3235 3235 3235 3235 Davis Park 120 120 Brookhaven 547 547 547 547 Chany Cove 150 ISO shinnecock Bay 254 254 254 254 Cktanliuck 163 183 South OYSM ft 220 220 220 Looter South Oyster Say ..2990 2990 Short 09sch Island 47 47 Eno 10011 10611 Total Great South Buy 26378 547 3233 8201 26130 4907 754 Percent of total 1 2 30 06 1 a 3 NY H, Rf Lmw Say 51125 51125 51125 51125 Raritan Bay Hudson R 33489 33486 33488 3341118 Now York Hbr 14698 14698 14629 14608 Wosbef Long Mand Sol 7493 7493 7483 7483 Vaidson FV Parkets 106 106 too Rafflan Say 00"row Cr so 60 60 Blackberry Cr 51 51 51 Town Nadi Cr 28 28 28 sum Cr 41 41 41 HAbwR 2966 2968 2966 MAK" R 1325 1325 1325 Sandy Hook Bay 15904 15904 15904 Rarl=Mowwk Bays 29284 29284 29284 Raritan R 2207 2207 2207 Red Bank 3S5 385 385 Stv@ffilsveslnk R 4282 4282 4282 Mcclass FAY 20 20 20 OV- say 28 29 GaJlw 23 23 23 Rwoon Island 84 84 Long Brand Marine a a Pleasure say .252 252 252 UnionGelvedere Beaches 551 Total Hudeardillaritan 144211 2 0184 1594 3 6 159 031 112154 4305 544 Percerd of total 9 7 9 7 6 a 3 .1 Total Northeast subregion 440913 28130 34320 413168 277032 9 714 4175 7 74 5 0 2 275656 10197 21247 44376 29206 32412 Percent of total so 54 2 a is 54 2 4 9 6 6 44 Classification (acres) Pollution Sources (acres) Upstream Sources State Estuary Area Prohibited Conditional Restricted STP Direct Industry Sepdcs Urbanl Ag Wildlife Boating STP Ur DIsdV Rural runoff runoff Wildlife NJ Barregat Say Martasquan R 1350 1350 1350 4 Metedlecork R 1593 1593 1593 Say Head Harbor 292 292 292 Mantoloking 24 24 24 Swan Point 22 22 22 Island Beach 1513 1513 1513 Middle Sedge 268 269 268 Keft Cr 951 851 $51 Seaweed Point 159 ise Ise Seaweed Point Marine 7 7 Havens Point Marine 51 51 HWAMCOVO 7 7 Sloops Point 5 5 Goose Cr Manna 342 342 342 TOM a 1442 1442 1442 Say Seaside Park 2700 2700 Say, Holy Park 639 639 639 Cedar Cr 489 462 499 Bay-.Ceder Beach 722 722 Sunrise Beach Marina 94 94 94 stouls Cr 84 84 84 Forked River to Waroltown 441 441 441 Off Sands Point Harbor 479 479 479 479 Bamagat Light 59 so 59 Marsh 2 2 2 Silver Say 904 904 904 Barnegat Marina 5 5 Loveladies Marina 2 2 2 Bay1ovelacks 115 115 115 Lovelades Harbor 30 30 30 Woo Long Beach Island 55 55 55 Wnseys Pond 4 4 Say:Hway Cedws 46 46 46 Harvey Cr 3 3 Harvey Pond a 9 BayJang8sach 2 2 Pebble Beach 167 167 167 167 Bam"M Beach 776 778 779 778 Say-131fif CRY 397 397 397 Surf City Lagoon 4 4 Manalunakin Bay 38 39 38 Cedar Cr 60 00 60 Total Bernegat Bay 10219 $034 1424 16173 12013 Percent of total 9 100 79 Little Egg Harbor Wells Island 24 24 24 Big Thorofare 190 190 100 190 Halgals 30 30 30 Helgals Marine Is Is 141". 7 7 Landing Cr 75 75 Oyster Cr 25 25 25 25 Mon Cr 76 76 76 76 Nscols Or 112 112 112 1 12 Upper Mullica R 750 750 750 750 Lower Mullica R 201 201 201 Graveling P1 2 2 Graveling Lgn 3 3 Manahawkin Say 206 206 206 Thorofare 191 156 Ise 150 Ship Bottom Lgn 4 4 Long Beach 20 20 Bay.t" Beach 1313 1313 1313 Home Pt 152 152 152 152 Wos*CLR* Cr 138 138 138 138 Parkers Run 77 77 77 77 77 Thompson Cr 12 12 12 12 12 Gaurtt Pt 51 5 1 51 TUckerton Cr 79 79 79 7 9 Thorofare Pt 134 134 134 BasaR 224 224 224 224 Ballenger Cr 10 10 10 LxxV Beach Lgn 3 3 Bay: Beach Haven 287 287 287 Beach HE C480 Guanl 6 Judles Cr 2 2 2 Winter Cr 3 3 3 Ballenger Marsh 25 25 25 Roundabout Cr 48 48 48 Total Little Egg Harbor 2038 2423 1 $32 3721 1629 3347 201 260 Percent of total 34 8 3 37 73 5 6 45 Classification jacr*v) Pollution Sources 4acres) Upstream Sources State Estuary Area Prohibited Conditional Restflcted STP Direct Industry Septic$ Urban/ Ag Wildlife Sooting STP Ur DI Rural runoff runoff Wildlife Re"Absecon Says W Atlantic City 140 140 Upper Great Egg Hbr R 20 20 Lakes Say ISIS Isis Great Island 29 28 anamwe Ouarterl; 13 13 13 Bonita Tldww" lea I$$ GMMdEgOC484GArd 9 9 Occoncty 94 84 Tuckshos RUdwn Cc 101 101 Peck Bay Mwina 36 36 Duck Thorofare 84 64 GreaUSeach Thorofare 856 856 856 veno r City 675 876 670 LUW"to City 856 956 SSG Great Egg Harbor R 734 734 Tuckshoo R 232 232 Great Egg Robot R 1776 1776 1776 1770 Lakes CuEnglish Cr Landrq 306 306 306 JOtW$ LgrK" 140 140 140 Somors Mush to to so Absecon Cr 51 51 61 Absecon Shorolkw 145 145 145 145 Absecon Bay 1389 1388 13aa 1388 Rum Point l12 112 112 Mankillor Say 909 909 909 ClamlDuck Thorofare sea sea 568 Bay Pock Beach 334 334 334 Pg"v er 104 104 104 cww 10 to samome" 66 66 Somors P1 Of 61 61 Rainbow Channel too 140 1140 Boss Harbor 36 36 Ship Channel a a ocean 2 Total Reed Absecon Bar 7437 4607 64 1774 10799 5121 $264 Percent of total 1 5 so 42 3 2 cap May Bay Halknile Point Marsh 100 100 100 Gra"ly Run 237 237 237 Jervidne, Sound 1992 1992 1992 1902 hViort Thorofare 300 300 300 300 St" Harbor 1288 1288 11236 1288 Reubsno Thomism 288 288 288 Upper Thoroters 184 184 164 Midde Thordwe 403 403 403 Crook Hom Cr 335 335 335 335 Strathmore 25 25 Whole Or 260 260 260 Whole esech 10 to 10 Ludlam Thomfore 513 513 513 $13 War* Thorofare 178 179 178 178 Towmend So 395 395 305 395 Tomrsand Channel 35 35 35 Sbas Sound 237 237 237 237 Cape May Harbor 71 7 1 71 Cape May Cans! 270 270 270 270 270 Cape May 375 375 375 Taylor Cr 125 125 125 Jones Cr 130 130 130 Richardson act 727 727 727 727 W11dwood Crest 720 720 720 720 Grassv Sound 1672 1672 1672 1672 Total Cape May Say 0607 360 903 0473 $32 10327 4204 6976 Percent of total 79 6 93 39 64 46 Classification (acres) Pollution S*ur**9 4scres) Upstream Sources Slate Estuary Area Prohibited Conditional Restricted STP Direct Industry Septics UrbanJ Ag Wildlife Scaling STP Ur Discl runoff Wildlife NJ Delaware Bay Jacobs Cr 25 25 Catoinsey R 1920 1920 1920 1920 Qxlar Cr 298 298 298 Lower Nantuxord Cr 20 20 20 Upper Nandiment Cr 200 200 200 Newport Nock 12 12 12 Bidwell Or 224 244 224 Owe may 11842 11842 P--*-n Cove 30 30 Fortlecus Cr see gas 686 Bee Fortescue 141 141 141 141 Dividing Cr 581 581 581 Oranoakan Cr 174 174 Maurice R 2654 2654 2654 2654 Maurice R Cow* 2917 2917 2917 2917 FlIggins Ditch 316 316 316 West Cr 133 133 133 Roaring Ditch 153 153 153 Dennis Cr ale ale 816 816 Dias Cr 51 51 51 Goshen Or 15 15 15 Cr NorttvAmold Point 20 20 Stow Cr 510 aid Bay Side 10 10 Bacons Neck 10 10 coharmycr 15 Is Is Cohinewccive 326 326 325 326 Dyer cove 449 449 449 Saw and Pigs Cr 6 6 Back Cr 683 $83 663 Nwykxwd Go" 1601 1601 1601 Acrold Point Shoal 5681 5661 5661 5661 5861 DE Delaware Say Cader Bch ..1163 1163 1163 1163 Mispillon R 449 449 449 449 Murdorkill-R-- 306 306 306 306 Murclorkill Nock 4131 4131 --413l- 4,131 St. Jansas R 1061 1061 1061 1061 Lslpsk: R. 2070 2070 Mahan R 408 408 Shylons R 1153 1153 Broadkill 683 603 683 683 Learee Rehoboth Canal 357 357 LOW" SCIVareakwater Hbr 3213 3213 3213 3213 3213 Total Delaware Say 41419 6274 26498 3213 14269 341 12123 35494 1353 9394 5661 3661 Percent of total Be 7 30 1 25 74 3 2 0 1 2 1 2 DE Delaware Wand Bays Inclan River Iniet 191 191 Rehabodt Bay (closed) 237 237 Rehoboth Say 507 507 Lverse Rehoboth Carad 357 - 357 White Oak 127 127 White Oak Cr 189 189 Rehoboth add Es" 475 475 Indian Rkw (closed) 1933 1833 Indian River 2499 24:9 Salt Pond 163 1 3 White Crook (Closed) 165 ids White Cr 153 153 Total Delaware Inland Says -3840 3348 1535 4495 $Be Percent of total 22 Be 1 3 47 Classification (acres) P71-1010-n8ources, (acres) Upstream Sources State Estuary Area Prohibited Conditional Restricted STP Direct Industry Sepdcs Urbani All Wildlife BoatIng STP Ur Discho Rural runoff runoff Wildlife MO Chesapeake Say Marurnsco Cr 255 255 255 William Pt 1449 1449 Chesapeake Bay at Ping Hit 317 317 Nardtooke R 3324 3324 Wicornima R 1321 1321 Monte Cr go go Uttle Monte Cr 70 70 Back Cr 87 67 87 St. Petel Cr 184 184 Manokin R 100 100 100 Hall Cr 65 55 Daug!" Cr Canal so 59 Uttle Anntarwasex R 960 960 960 960 StJorome Cr/NordiProng 120 120 Ping Hill Run 206 206 Cunvrdngs Cr 395 385 St. Michaels Harbor 79 79 70 79 Miles R 0 Parrot Pt 96 go Upper POANt R 3728 3728 3720 3728 Mill Cr 18 Is is Indian Cr 143 148 148 148 Trent Hall 151 151 151 151 Washington & Pw&ftnon Cn 196 196 196 196 so" Cr 380 390 390 380 Island Cr 194 124 194 104 Town Cr 61 111 Of Soliornan Island Crs 640 640 $40 640 Choplank R 08ow Knom Pt 247 247 247 Comics R 505 505 OLOWNIWM Cr 319 319 Grays Imn Cr 535 535 Mello" R 1397 1397 Forked Cr 76 76 DmpCr 76 76 Comfield Cr 94 04 He" Say 773 773 Bch to Plurn Pt 1346 1346 MIgArmarn Island 1282 1282 Ballays NOck 6 6 6 6 Tar OV 120 120 120 120 Town Cr 115 115 115 115 LA Trappe Or 515 515 Jenkins Cr go 90 Choptank All-Ashlbrooks bar Be go Hudson Cr 312 312 312 Rshing & Church Crs 1331 1331 1331 Severn R 3714 3714 3714 3714 Gmm Bay 255 255 255 255 Duvall Cr 94 04 94 Rohing Cr 270 270 270 270 Be" Bay 170 170 170 Rwrmy Lake 137 137 137 White MamhA3*ar Nack Crs 135 135 Fox/Mudy BoavxL" CAs 202 202 202 LordwSmMvSouth Cre 647 647 647 Cade Cr 59 59 59 Parish Cr I LIS 125 125 Franklin Maw 94 84 shipping Cr go 90 Uttle Cr 35 35 35 Kord IsWW Narrows 339 339 339 339 Mar" Cr 326 326 Mornorial Bridge Sewer 59 59 Wye RiSkIpton, Pickering Cr 3410 3410 34110 Wye R. wharf 7 7 Harris CrjNW 477 477 477 Cralghtill Channel Spoll 77 77 Upper Round Bay 1373 1373 1373 Mill Cr 269 269 Leads Cr 419 4119 419 419 Hun" Cr 375 375 375 Oak Cr let 151 MilftAoldslooraLghlGleloa Or 1264 t264 1264 Trod Avon 1086 1686 lase lose San Dorningo Cr 207 207 207 Choptank R 0 Cambrialge 1706 1700 Whitehall Cr 115 115 Its Indian Or 74 74 74 GoosoCr 38 38 38 Warwick R 255 255 Sandy Pt Bridge I I Tracy and Roddlold Cro 192 192 1192 192 Rodt Hal Harbor 145 146 145 TavemfSwan Crs $53 663 653 653 Whitehall/ Meredith Creeks 317 317 317 Pine Nil Run South 41 41 Ping Hill Run North 41 41 Patapsco R:Bay entrance 5225 5225 South R 1679 1679 1679 1679 Ummar Chester A 2390 2390 2390 2390 48 Classification (acres) Pollution sources (acres) Upstream Sources State Estuary Area Prohibited Condlitional Restricted STP Direct Industry Septics Urbani Ag Wildlife Boating STP Ur OlsOn Rural runoff runoff Wildlife MD PoWnvcR Whites Neck Cr 21S 215 Schoolhouse Branch 130 130 Chaptloo Bay 620 620 620 620 arston say 975 975 975 Herring Cr 266 266 286 266 Locust Grove Ov so so so Nods Sound 232 232 P" PI STP 200 200 Charleston Cr 130 130 130 Cuckold Cr 60 so St Patricks Cr 214 214 214 VA PctomscR Goldman Cr 22 22 22 Cabin Pt Or 102 102 102 Gardner Cr 143 143 Upper Machodoc Cr 511 Sit 511 511 entrance Upper Machodoc, Cr 145 145 145 Upper Mattox Or 286 286 286 Presley Cr 66 66 Low Machodoc Cr -East 41 41 41 Lower Machodoe Cr - Wed 62 62 62 Lipper Coan R lot 181 181 Lower Comn R 507 607 507 Lipper Hui Cr 138 139 Popm Cr 306 306 306 306 Monme Cr 306 306 306 306 Lower Mallox Cr 724 724 724 Peirce Cr 112 112 112 Mid Namird Cr 133 133 CcdCr 31 31 Roder Cr 194 194 194 Upper Nomini Cr 302 302 302 Sonum Cr 82 82 Jackson Cr 61 at Mid Cam R 38 39 38 Hook Cr go 96 go RappahervxKk R Parrom Cr 122 122 122 E Br Carroloman R so 89 89 ToUnkey, Cr 757 757 757 757 LaVange Or 352 352 352 W Br C;ormtcrnan R 259 259 259 259 dwrellneiRappaherwocck 25 25 Carter Cr 477 477 477 Whiting Cr 135 135 Mill Cr at 51 51 Rapipbelow Urbanna 1046 1046 1046 1046 1046 1046 "am Or 58 58 5$ Paynes Cr 28 28 Upper E Or Cwrotoman R 224 224 Bush Park Cr 60 60 Lancester Or 167 157 167 Famhami Or 263 263 263 Wincirnill Pt so 68 Broad Cr 79 79 Greenvale Cr 92 92 92 Yhr* R Jones Or 44 44 SkIrnino, Cr 44 44 44 C.G. and Worrrdey Cr 2891 2801 2891 2891 2891 Indian Field Cr as 65 Cedarbush Cr so so so Upper Timbemock as as 65 Lower Timbemeck 74 74 74 York R Cliffs 403 403 403 Sarah Cr 329 329 329 Cheatham Arv= 660 sea 660 Aberdeen Cc 73 73 73 Carter Cr Norlh 54 54 54 54 54 Taskinas Or 14 14 14 Carter Cr 22 22 22 22 Perrin R 88 as Hockey Cr 13 13 Ousenor 200 200 200 Morris Say 138 138 138 PropotanivAdamWindan Ore 384 384 Fox Cr&4wpon Nock t 5 15 ware Or 67 67 67 87 49 Classification (&art@) Pollution Sources (acres) Upstream Sources State Estuary Area Prohibited Conditions! Restricted STP Direct Industry Sepdcs Urban/ Ag Wildlile Boating STP Ur DI Rural runoff runoff Wildlife James R Mulberry Island 10893 10893 Knotts Cr 90 90 go 20 Streeter a Lower Warwick R 231 931 931 Upper Warwick R 478 478 478 478 Eastern Branch 194 194 Upper Cant Narvemand R 1522 1522 Lower Cart Namismand R 1915 1915 Upper Pagan R 631 531 531 Lower Pagan R 1091 1091 1091 1091 I(Ings Cr Is Is 18 Is Lower Chucka%xk Cr 192 192 192 Upper Chuckatucl; Cr 560 560 560 Norialk/Elizaboth Hafbors 6571 6571 6571 0571 6571 6571 Deep Cr 802 892 892 892 Upper James R 16683 16683 1166113 10683 116683 16683 16663 Lipper Nanstanord 617 617 617 617 617 Bennett Cr 170 170 170 Willoughby Bank 232 232 232 232 232 James R 35567 35567 35567 Hamplon Rasida 25303 25303 25303 25303 25303 Lower Elizabeth R 695 695 Laftylatte R 1839 1839 VA Chesapeake Bay Little Or 1235 1235 1235 lbarrdorm Cr 60 60 60 vkm R 283 283 283 Wilson Cr 94 94 94 powaim R 472 472 472 North R, Back Cr 44 44 Tangier Island 1093 1098 logo Jacobus Cr so so Nassawadox Cr ?a 78 Monday Cr 262 282 282 282 Back Cr 230 230 230 Chlornan Cr 406 405 Onervock Cr 1956 1856 Chesconstasti 41 41 Huraft & Do" Cm 285 285 285 Berm Cr 51 51 51 51 51 PocamcksSound 1409 11499 1499 1499 Starting Cr 46 48 Little Cr 537 537 537 537 two PAdn so so 99 E ar Lynnham R 714 714 714 I""- Bay 1364 1364 1364 Unkhorn Say 630 836 936 Broad Say 715 715 715 W or Lynnhavon R 591 591 Pleasure mom C!, 204 204 204 Larv Cr 262 262 262 off Broad Say 1 30 30 oil Broad Bey 11 40 40 oil Broad Say 111 38 38 Brick IGIn (dosed) 209 209 Brick Kiln 9 Willoughby Bank 9995: 9955 9955 Han"m Raads; to$ 195 105 195 195 Cape Charles 306 306 306 Chesapeake Bay brOgiturand 19 19 Ow cc 41 47 SW Or Back R 418 418 418 418 SW or Back R 765 765 765 765 Harris R 235 235 235 Long & Grundand Cra 120 129 129 Whits Ham Or 89 so Daft Cr 43 43 43 NSISMAKkm Cr 95 95 95 Nandat 131 131 131 131 punq0tesgue Cr 219 219 219 219 Taylor Cr 1111 111 Gr Wlcomloo Ft. Sells Cr so 59 59 Mal Cr 102 102 Indian Cr 247 247 247 Tebbe Cr so 89 so 89 Dyntor Cc 153 153 153 Narrows Pt 54 54 54 54 Sluft Cr 69 69 69 ounmcr 90 90 Prentles Cr 8 a 8 DMdng Cr. Highland Ldg 20 20 20 DMdng Cr, Natty Pt Cv a a a Upper Dividing Cr 43 43 43 Harborlon 53 53 53 East R/Put-in Cr 132 132 132 132 Poqjoson R, Larr" Cr los 105 Great Wicornica R 130 130 130 Willoughby bank 11196 1196 11196 1196 11196 Jackson Cr 200 200 Plankalank R 224 224 Cockrell Cr 875 875 875 Great Wcornico R 319 319 319 Upper Plankatank R 1066 1068 1068 1068 Onancock Cr 2 0 20 20 2 0 Healy Cr 38 3 8 Ham Harbor 84 84 50 Classification (acres) Pollution Sources (acres) Upstream Sources State Estuary Area Prohibited Condlitional Restricted STP Direct Industry Septics UrbanJ Ag Wildlife Boating STP Ur Cisc:hq Rural runoff runoff Wildlife Total Chesapeake Bay 63436 3 29 3 3 11166 7 122603 6 6 61082 34820 $9167 36877 25814 112829 266383567016683 'Percent, of total so .1 29 1 7 42 1 8 1 2 54 1 3 1 7 a Total P01011MICA110OF $102 1364 3225 2732 Od 3008 680 4234 750 4430 Percent of total 3 1 39 a 55 Total RSADRh&-'Ock AFvW 0 so 4283 2373 1188 2206 0 3120 0 3306 Percent Of rural 56 27 52 0 7 Total Yor* River 0 212 5481 4030 467 4479 0 3151 329 4300 Percent of total 71 8 79 0 5 Total James River 91105 15010 82959 90871 32214 3058 07681 0203 65352 16683 16683 16683 Percent of total as 49 3 63 0 Of -16 16 is MO Chincoteague Johnson Bay 0 Taylor Land. 120 120 VA Mosquito Cr 102 102 102 Swarm GLA Cr 78 78 76 Chincoteague Channel 415 415 415 415 Greenbackville 9 9 Total Chincoteague Bay 724 517 535 78 To $26 Percent of total 71 74 11 11 73 Total lillild-Atlantle Subregion 140427 55979 112634 161402 6 6 649 3 0 5 275 3 13 0 5 2 7 5 3 5 7 3 7 2 2 6 2 144 9 7 4 3 6 0 3 2 4 15 3 2 2 2 6 2 4 Percent of total 52 .1 21 1 7 _4 2 1 7 23 47 1 2 1 3 7 51 Classification (acres) Pollution Sources (acres) Upstream Sources State Estuary Prohibited Conditional Restricted STP Direct Industry Soptice Ur Ag Wildlife Boating STP Ur Wildlife Dischq runoff runoff W -Abomade Sound KJRV HaWBLazard Bays 7428 7426 7426 Marino Harbor 5 5 Crosson Sound 235 235 Alligator R 30335 30335 Scuppernoing R 9425 9425 9425 CallaghantSpenceir Cris 306 - 306 Pwq*nsm R 3703 3703 Little R 7629 7629 Big Ratty Cr 683 683 Yoom R logo logo PasqAtork R 22945 22945 22945 Alligator R-Inset 367 357 Alligator R 1471 1471 Northern Currttuck Sound 45411 45411 Southern Currituck Sound 29089 29099 Shallowball say 952 952 952 Ballast Pt 184 184 Engagernent Hill 10 10 Albemarle Sound 73340 73340 73340 73340 Albemarle Sound - - 5926 5928 North R 12262 12262 Total Albemarle Sound 253703 97247 73340 16051 1204117 107214 17992 Percent of total 38 29 7 51 42 7 M Parrdlco Sound Cedar Bush Say 255 255 255 Bay R Sol 561 501 561 Gab Cr 153 153 sw Cr 30 30 Sum" Pt Bay 745 745 745 MkUotwm Cr 77 77 Wysocldrq Say 163 163 163 Norlh Blutl P11 214 V4 Oyster Cr 20 254 20 Sacanquartar Bay 51 51 51 Raw a" 62 62 Willis Cr 57 57 57 Sam Cr 163 163 163 waxtow 408 409 408 White PI 3 3 Aillarnic Marine I I I Allamic Bodyard I I I Sleep PI Mama 2 2 Pamilcollorry landing a Jarrett Say 2373 2373 wadocir 23 23 Williston Cr 44 44 Smirma Cr 51 61 ALion 2 2 Sawa 2 2 Say R Inset 1612 1612 1812 1612 Far Cr 697 697 697 Silver Lake 41 41 ferry lancing/Hanswas 31 31 "I'lidif Bay t33 133 133 Middens Or 52 52 Broad Cr 20 20 Roder" 2 2 Sellers Cr 192 192 Small and Nelson Cm 21 21 hC Pamlico Pungo Re Salley, Rose & North Crs. -- 800 Boo ICIN from Goose Cr 22 22 22 22 South Or 3639 3639 Pamko R 39141 38141 ICW to Jones Bay 10 10 10 10 Satterthwaits/Wright Cr 317 317 317 317 PAW R 17728 17728 17728 17728 17729 W Neuse R Oubloot & Mitchell Cre 842 842 $42 Nouse R 23649 23548 23648 Dawson Cr 390 390 Harlows Canal 95 95 95 Upper Nouse A 7003 7903 7203 Adiumi Or Canal & BOA* Cr 775 775 Smith, Kershow, arid Greens Cra Boo 865 865 South R 1122 2288 3410 Told Pamlico Sound 101610 5519 51617 1923 22435 50575 67944 3422 3214 Percent of total 40 2 21 47 63 3 3 Total Pamfic090 60657 17760 32 18045 17728 59825 Soo 049 Percent Of IdW 29 VI 30 29 99 1 1 Total news R 35840 2288 31551 865 1327 31551 5122 065 Percent Of total 83 2 3 83 14 2 52 Classification 4acres) Pollution Sources 4acresi Upstream Sources State Estuary Prohibited Conditions] Restricted STP Direct Industry Septic$ Ur Ag Wildlife scaling SIP Ur Wildlife Discho runoff runoff Boguo so Harlters Island Marina 10 10 Harkent I Is is 15 OLMWIS Cr 219 219 off Ousens Cr 28 28 Hunting Island 31 31 Goose Or 68 so Broad Cr 61 of Broad Cr Marina 2 2 Jurnpirig Run 31 31 Jumping Cr Marine 5 5 Bogus Sourid Marine 2 2 salter Pam 136 136 136 Swansboro 1316 190 1506 1506 1506 White Oak R 1256 6432 7688 Starkey Cr 20 20 Petfilord Cr 92 92 Dudley Island Marina 2 2 Norlh R 316 10200 10516 Morehead dty 1071 1071 Casco Or 1000 1000 - 1000 Shaclidefoot Channel 37 37 Bear C!, 146 146 Gallant Pt 286 286 290 286 Davis Say 797 280 1077 1077 1077 Spooners Cr 71 71 Pine Knoll Shares 22 22 22 Poletler Cr 122 122 122 Adardic Bch 52 52 Money ]stand Bay 60 60 60 Hadows Cr 63 100 163 Newport R 070 7160 970 7169 8139 Ckwe C!, 377 377 Shadmilloot Ourvoll Sao 665 Money IstandL Marina 2 2 Total B"ue Sound 0309 211114113 3614 1499 1370 17547 1 B902 161 allot Percent of total 1 1 4 4 52 so .1 17 PC New R S Cr 94 94 Everett Cr 99 99 Fullard Cr 120 120 120 120 Stonee, Bay autall 138 138 Fare" Cr 138 138 138 Swiss Bay 5410 5410 Alligator & Chadwick Says 56 1690 1680 56 EMS Cove 1521 1521 ICWYonelow Bch as 68 Wilkins bluff 54 S4 54 Trappe Say 2213 2213 ffiglins Cr 38 38 38 38 Upper Bay 25aS 2549 Farnell & Morgan Says 6178 8170 9178 Frenchs Cr 439 439 Total Now River 9422 13412 8903 8474 13708 155 21110 Percent of total 3 9 3 7 6 0 1 1 W Cape Fear R Cape Few R 13301 13301 13301 13301 Cape Few R 4367 9387 13754 13754 13754 13754 Snows Cut 49 49 49 Total Cape Fear River 17717 9387 2705$ 13754 27104 27104 Percent of total 100 5 1 100 100 W Winyah Bay Mud Bay 100 100 100 Winyah Bay 16120 1161190 16190 Saff" R 2530 2530 2530 2530 2530 Clambank Cr 192 192 192 Total WInyah Bay 18720 292 2530 18720 2722 292 10020 Percent of total 1 3 9 a 1 4 2 9 North and South Santa@ Rivers 3927 3927 Percent of total 100 Charleston Harbor Folly R Marina 31 31 Charleston Harbor 17876 17876 17876 Upper Wanda R 1102 1102 Wanda R 5059 5059 5059 Total Charlesto nHarbor 19009 $059 22935 1102 22935 31 Percent of total 95 5 95 .1 53 Classification Wros) Pollution Sources (acres) Upstream Sources State Estuary Prohibited Conditional Restricted SIP Direct Industry Seplics Ur Pg Wildlife Boating STP Ur Wildlife Disft runoff runoff St Helena Sound Fripp Island Canal 26 26 26 Rahing cc t28 128 128 Big Say Cr 73 73 73 Lucy Pt Or 343 343 sc87 Old House Or 32 32 32 Total St. Helena Sound 002 3 2 2 6 128 343 12B 131 7 3 Percent of total 5 4 2 1 5 7 2 1 2 2 -1 2 Broad R Broad R STP 183 163 Middle Cr 115 115 Battery Cr 451 451 Beaufort R 6361 6361 McCalloys Cr 426 426 Huspa Cr 425 425 425 87 Laerlon Canal 43 43 shelter C'No so 50 so Mackay Cir 26 26 Skull Cr 173 173 Laurs! Bay 64 84 Hog Isl 47 47 Palmetto Say 40 40 40 Long C40 31 31 31 Baynard Ov Cr 110 110 Braddock Cove 35 35 Broad Cr at of C., C', 64 84 64 Calboge Show 28 28 Harbor Town as as as Whale Branch-- 488 488 Total Broad River 9944 41114 ?917 489 42$ 425 704 Percent of total as 5 5 5 a W Savarinsh R 10139 10139 10139 10139 Jolly Area 27 27 27 2110 2110 Total Savannah Sound 12276 10166 10139 10166 2110 2110 Percent of total 83 93 03 1 7 1 7 Ossabaw Sound Adams Cr 458 458 458 459 Bradley R 14010 14010 Told Onsabsee Sou 14461 458 458 434 14018 Percent of total 3 3 3 97 SL Cathadnesi Upper Jullelon R 679 678 678 Sapolo Sounds Upper Johnson Cr 644 $44 Cable Pon Cr 1187 1187 Vandyke, Cadar, As" Cm 8823 8823 8823 06"baw Slough 401 407 Wed Ossabaw, Ward 8043 8043 Ossabser Island Marsh 220 220 Colorefta Island 2093 2093 Blackboard Cr 1956 1059 Rockdodundy Wand 80fil 8018 8018 Decoy & CanrnodOnl Islands 864 a64 864 Sol AQKn $250 6950 Total St. Cotherineal Sepals Sounds 964 37020 064 678 30071 0823 0950 15932 Percent of total 2 2 79 23 1 0 4 2 Altamaha River 2526 2526 100 SL Androw/St. Brunswidt R 23468 23468 Simone Sol Upper Mackay R 396 399 398 398 398 Hampton R 1456 1458 1468 Stafford Wand Soo Soo Saline R 3577 3677 3577 3577 Jekyll Cr 1517 1577 Jekyll Souncl 3653 3653 3653 Uttle Cumberland Island 2712 2712 'Total St. Andrew/St. Simon* Sounds 31350 593S 5230 23469 1459 399 10442 399 3377 5433 Percent of total 1 4 6 3 4 1 2 8 1 1 0 1 9 FL Indian River Vero Beach & Fort Pierce 9230 9230 9230 9230 Bonsventure 877 4233 5110 4233 5110 Malabar 224 10690 109114 10014 Hutchins 1 11622 11822 11822 Turnbull. Cr 541 541 Railway Bridge 969 069 Sebastion 2408 5049 2408 5049 Total Indian River 26011 19972 21052 39484 14432 16504 silo Percent of total 46 a 6 3 1 3 6 1 1 Total Southeast Subregion 512424 79550 5 9 9 4 0 2 58 75 0 864 143331 92336 160598 2 16 2 5 6 17 2161 6 9 7 2 8 21 10 12 6 3 7 5 6 6 9 4 Percent of total 44 .1 24 1-6- 27 3 7 2 9 1 2 .1 2 1 0 54 ,Approved Waters Waters from which shellfish may be harvested for direct marketing. Closure Area An area in which limitations are placed on shellfish harvest. Coliform Bacteria Agroupof bacteria present in sewagethat are used to indicate possible -presence of enteric pathogens of sewage origin. Fecal coliform bacteria are a subset of the total coliform bacteria group and more specifically indicate presence of fecal material. Conditionally Approved Waters Waters that meet approved classification standards under predictable conditions. These waters are opened to harvest when conditions are met and are closed at all other times. Depuration A controlled purification process in which shellfish from restricted areas are placed in tanks containing bacteria-free water usually for 48 hours before marketing. s Entenic pathogen Human intestinal bacteria or viruses that cause gastroenteritis or hepatitis. Harvest-limited Waters that are classified as prohibited, conditionally approved, or restricted. -National Shellfish Sanitation Program A cooperative program of the iU.S...Food and Drug Administration, shellfish-producing states, and the shellfish industry to control harvest and distribution of molluscan shellfish for human consumption. Prohibited Waters Waters from which shellfish may not be harvested for direct marketing. Until 1986, relaying was allowed in prohibited waters. Relay The transferof shell-fish from restricted (or prohibited until 1986) waters to approved watersfor natural cleansing usingthe ambient environment as a treatment system. Restricted Waters Waters from which harvest may occur only if shellfish are relayed or depurated before direct marketing. Sanitary Survey The evaluation of all factors determining the classification of waters, including actual and potential pollution sources, hydrographic and meterorologic conitions, and coliform bacteria sampling results. Shellfish Edible species of oysters, clams, and mussels. Shellfishing Waters Waters that are classified for the commercial harvest of shellfish for human consumption under the National Shellfish Sanitation Program. IIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 3 6668 14103 0884 _@ 4 rolk*l 1.4 a % e_ $-. 11 104 - f 'S@Arzs of vo "" OF co, 11+ V @*A f