channels and commercial / recreational channels required for vessel traffic in the har- 

 bor. Dredging of these channels has removed an average of about 8 million m\ yr( 10 

 million yd /yr) from the harbor during the 1970s and only slightly less per yearsince 

 1930. During the 1970s most of the dredged material has been disposed of at the 

 "mud dump" site in the apex. 



Because most toxicants introduced to harbor waters tend to adhere to particles 

 and settle to bottom sediments, concern has long been expressed over the distur- 

 bance and ocean dumping of contaminated sediments. The degree of dredged mate- 

 rial contamination varies greatly. One assessment indicates that about 10 percent of 

 the material dredged from the harbor is clean sand and at least 10 percent is highly 

 contaminated and cannot be dumped into the ocean under existing regulatory 

 criteria (Gordon et al., 1981). 



For several years, the wide variety of organic and inorganic toxicants in dredged 

 materials has stimulated concern about effects upon the ecosystem of the Bight and 

 toxicant accumulations in marine food resources. This concern has heightened since 

 1976, when large quantities of PCBs were identified in sediments of the Hudson 

 River. From 200,000 to 300.000 kg (440,000 to 660,000 lb) of PCBs remain in the sed- 

 iments of the Hudson from discharges by capacitor manufacturing plants about 400 

 km (250 mi) upstream from Manhattan. Although the rate of transport of this PCB 

 reservoir to the harbor has not been estimated, there is a high probability that large 

 proportions are being carried to the harbor (O'Connor, J.M., et al.. 1981). While 

 additional measurements of PCB inputs to the Bight will be required for reliable 

 estimates, it appears that dredged materials are already a major source of PCBs to 

 the Bight and that these materials may accumulate significantly higher PCB concen- 

 trations than existing ones from the Hudson River (O'Connor, J.M., et al., 1981). 



Environmental Crisis— Real or Imaginary 



At the outset of the 1970s, public awareness of environmental problems was in- 

 creasing rapidly and an intense review was taking place aimed at identifying and 

 eliminating the unacceptable or unnecessary impacts of human activities on the envi- 

 ronment. During this period attention was focused most sharply on the more imme- 

 diately visible sources of pollution such as the automobile and its smog-producing 

 ability and floatable materials from sewage discharges. In the New York region, at- 

 tention became focused on the large quantities of sewage sludge barged out to sea 

 and dumped in the ocean. During the seventies several environmental crises oc- 

 curred in the New York Bight, each of which was linked in its own way with the 

 ocean dumping issue. 



Sewage Sludge: Beach Pollution anil Anoxia — Public concern over the impacts of 

 ocean dumping in the New York Bight grew out of a series of observations of envi- 

 ronmental damage. The most important of these observations was the detection of 

 high concentrations of coliform bacteria in waters near the dredged material and 

 sewage sludge ocean dumpsites (Buelowet al., 1968) as a direct consequence of which 

 an area of radius 1 1 km (7 mi) around the sewage sludge dumpsite was closed to 

 shellfishing in May 1970. This was apparently the first instance of shellfish habitat 

 closure on any open U.S. continental shelf. At the same time, the Congress was con- 

 sidering the need for legislation to regulate and control ocean dumpingand dumping 

 in the Great Lakes. Media accounts prompted by the early stage of the Congressional 

 consideration of this legislation contained reports that the dumping had created a 

 "dead sea" in the Bight, that the contaminated area, then 50 km" (20 mi : ), was 

 "growing rapidly," and that this could necessitate closing New York City area 

 beaches in the coming (1970) summer ( Madden, 1970). All these contentions were 

 unsupported by the meager scientific information then available and were seriously 

 misleading. However, the public accounts did detail the indications of environmen- 

 tal degradation that did exist, including evidence of depauperate benthic fauna, dis- 



53 



