MARINE POLLUTION

WHAT EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW®

MARINE POLLUTION
WHAT EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW®

JUDITH S. WEIS

1
 3
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide.
Oxford New York
Auckland  Cape Town  Dar es Salaam  Hong Kong  Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and certain other countries.
“What Everyone Needs to Know” is a registered trademark of
Oxford University Press.
Published in the United States of America by
Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016
© Oxford University Press 2015
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed
with the appropriate reproduction rights organization.
Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the
above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Weis, Judith S., 1941–
Marine pollution : what everyone needs to know / Judith S. Weis.
pages cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978–0–19–999668–1 (alk. paper)
1. Marine pollution.  2. Marine ecology.  I. Title.
GC1085.W45 2015
577.7'27—dc23
2014009013

1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper
 CONTENTS

PREFACE XV
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS XIX

1. Introduction to the Marine Environment

and Pollution 1

What is the marine environment? 1

What are some basics of marine ecosystems and food webs? 1
Why is there concern about the state of the oceans? 3
What is a contaminant? Is there a difference between a contaminant
and a pollutant? 4
What are the major sources of pollution in the marine environment? 5
What are the major ways that land-based pollutants enter the marine
environment? 6
Which pollutants enter the ocean from the air? 7
Can objects in the water cause pollution? 8
How can aquaculture cause pollution? 8
Once in the water, what happens to the pollutants? 9
How do chemicals get into marine animals? 10
What is toxicity? 11
What effects can pollutants have besides killing living things? 12
vi Contents

How is the degree of toxicity measured? 14

How can field studies be used to understand toxicity? 14
Why are some species more sensitive to pollution than others? 15
What laws regulate marine pollution? 16
Why are some contaminants that have been banned still a problem? 18
How extensive and severe is marine pollution around the world? 18

2. Nutrients 20

Why are nutrients considered pollutants, since they are required

for life? 20
Where do the nutrients come from? 20
How does a sewage treatment plant work? 22
What is Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)? 24
What are Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)? 25
What effects do excess nutrients have, or what is eutrophication? 26
What effects are seen in seagrasses? 27
What effects are seen in coral reefs? 28
What is a dead zone? 29
Can excess nutrients damage salt marshes? 30
How widespread is eutrophication? 31
What are Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs)? 32
What are some harmful algal species? 33
How widespread is their occurrence? 35
What can be done to reduce farm runoff? 36
What can be done to reduce runoff from cities and suburbs? 38
What can be done about combined sewer overflow? 39
What techniques in the water can reduce effects of eutrophication? 40
What is the prognosis for eutrophication in the future? 41
 Contents vii

3. Marine Debris 42

Why is marine debris so abundant? 42

Where does marine debris come from? 42
What are the major constituents of debris? 43
What happens to the plastic? Does it break down? 44
How is debris in the ocean measured? 45
How much is there? 45
Why does debris accumulate in large patches in the middle of the ocean? 46
Where else does debris accumulate? 47
Granted it is ugly, but can the litter harm marine life? 48
What problems are caused by derelict fishing gear? 53
What are the biggest pieces of marine litter? 55
Can marine debris harm people? 56
What can be done about it? Can cleanups be effective? 56
What about public education? 58
Are there laws to reduce marine litter? 58
Can new technologies reduce the problems of marine debris? 61

4. Oil and Related Chemicals 63

What are the components of oil? 63

What are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)? 63
What are the major sources of oil in the ocean? 65
What happens to the oil after it is spilled? 66
What happened with the Exxon Valdez? 66
What were the causes of the accident? 67
What actions were taken after the spill to protect shorelines? 68
How was the spill cleaned up? 68
Have there been some resulting policy changes to prevent future spills? 70
viii Contents

What happened with the well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico? 70

What responses were taken? 70
Why was the use of dispersants so controversial? 71
What happened to the oil and dispersants? 71
What were the overall impacts to the ecology of the Gulf? 73
What happens when oil reaches shorelines? 74
How does oil harm marine birds and mammals? 75
What kinds of toxic effects does oil produce in other marine animals? 75
How long do effects of oil spills last? 78
Can oiled birds and sea otters be rehabilitated? 80
How can oil spills be cleaned up? 80
What are the trends in oil spills over the decades? 81

5. Metals 83

What are the major sources of metal pollutants? 83

What are some highly mercury-contaminated sites? 85
How does the chemical form of the metal affect what it does? 86
Where do metals concentrate in the environment? 88
What are the toxic effects of different metals? 89
What can organisms do to defend themselves against metal toxicity? 94
Can elevated levels of metals in seafood be a risk to humans? 94
What are the trends in metal pollution? 95
What can be done to reduce metal pollution? 95
What is natural attenuation? 96
What is capping? 96
What is Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD)? 97
What is bioremediation of metals? 97
What is phytoremediation? 98
 Contents ix

6. Pesticides and Industrial Organic Chemicals 102

What are the sources of pesticides to the marine environment? 102

What happens to these chemicals after they enter the water? 102
What is the importance of the book Silent Spring? 105
What are some newer types of pesticides? 105
What are “third-generation” pesticides? 107
How are pesticides regulated? 108
What is integrated pest management? 109
What are the effects of pesticides on nontarget organisms? 109
What is endocrine disruption? 110
What are biomarkers? 112
What kinds of population level effects can be produced? 112
What community level effects can be produced? 113
What can marine organisms to do defend themselves against
toxic effects? 113
What are the trends in pesticide contamination? 114
What are polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)? 114
How did PCBs get into the marine environment? 115
What are Dioxins? 118
How do they get into the marine environment? 119
What effects do they have? 120
Can PCBs or dioxins be a risk to people who eat seafood? 120
What can be done about organic chemical pollution? 121

7. Emerging Concerns 122

What other types of contaminants are we beginning to learn about? 122

Why are pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs)
a concern? 122
What can be done about PPCPs? 126
x Contents

What are polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and why are they a
concern in the marine environment? 126
What is the problem with fluorinated compounds? 128
What is the concern about alkylphenols? 129
What are nanoparticles and what is the concern about them? 129
Are existing regulations adequate to protect against harm to marine
life, wildlife, and humans by these new chemicals? Are there any
technological improvements? 132
What is Noise pollution? 132
What types of noise occur in the ocean? 133
What effects are produced by noise pollution? 134
What can be done about noise pollution? 136
Are there concerns about radioactivity in the marine environment? 139
What is light pollution? 140
What can be done about light pollution? 141

8. Bioaccumulation and Biomagnification 143

What is bioaccumulation and what is biomagnification? 143

What happens once a metal is taken up into an organism? 143
Where and how are metals stored in organisms? 144
How are organic contaminants taken up by organisms? 145
How do organisms metabolize organic contaminants? 146
Which marine organisms are good sentinels for bioaccumulation and
biomagnification of chemicals? 147
What are safety issues for humans who consume seafood that may be
contaminated? 148
What is Minamata disease? 149
Are there any concerns about mercury pollution in seafood today? 150
Can metal pollution be found in calcium supplements derived from
oyster shells? 152
What problems can result from eating seafood containing organic
contaminants? 152
 Contents xi

Can dioxin contamination be found in seafood? 155

Can contaminants be found in fish oil supplements? 156
How can eating fish or shellfish that have accumulated HAB toxins
cause disease? 157
What is Paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP)? 157
What is diarrhetic shellfish poisoning (DSP)? 158
What is neurotoxic shellfish poisoning (NSP)? 159
What is amnesic shellfish poisoning (ASP)? 159
What is Ciguatera? 160
How can the incidence of poisoning by marine toxins be reduced? 161

9. Climate Change and Ocean Acidification 163

What causes global warming or climate change? 163

What problems are happening or expected to happen in the marine
environment because of climate change? 163
Why are coral reefs particularly vulnerable? 164
What happens in polar regions? 166
Can climate change affect the distribution of species? 167
Can climate change have effects on aquaculture? 168
Can climate change affect the size of animals? 169
Can climate change affect predator/prey interactions? 169
What effects can happen from sea level rise? 170
Why is sea level rising faster than was predicted? 172
What can be done about sea level rise? 172
What is pH? 173
What is ocean acidification? 173
What effects are produced by ocean acidification? 174
Hasn’t ocean pH changed in the past? Why is this different? Will
marine organisms be able to adapt? 176
Which species are most threatened by ocean acidification? 176
xii Contents

How can organisms protect themselves against effects of

warming and acidification? 180
What economic effects could result from Ocean Acidification? 182
What can we do to mitigate effects of ocean acidification? 182

10.  Biological Pollution 186

Where does microbial pollution come from? 186

How is microbial pollution detected? 187
What kind of diseases may result from exposure? 187
How can people know if it is safe to swim at their favorite beach? 188
What are invasive species? 189
How do they get to new locations? 189
What are some invasive marine fishes and what harm do they do? 192
What are some invasive jellies and what harm do they do? 193
What are some invasive crabs and what harm do they do? 195
What are some invasive sedentary attached organisms and what
harm do they do? 198
What are some invasive seaweeds and what harm do they do? 199
What are some invasive marsh plants and what harm do they do? 200
Can an alien species do some good? 201
What can be done to prevent new invasive species from arriving? 202
What can be done after an invasive species has arrived? 204
What can be done after a species has become abundant? 205
Can invasive species be controlled by eating them? 207

11.  Regulating and Reducing Pollution 210

What is the Ocean Health Index? 210

What is the Law of the Sea? 212
What is MARPOL? 212
What is the London Convention? 213
 Contents xiii

What national laws in the United States promote clean water? 213
What is NOAA’s Role in the United States? 218
How does the European Union regulate marine pollution? 219
What are some success stories? 221
How can we reduce pollution from aquaculture? 223
What is “Green Chemistry?” 224
Since climate change is such a major threat, are there any effective
national and international policies to curb it? 225
What steps can local and state governments take to reduce pollution? 226
What actions can individual citizens take to reduce marine pollution? 230
What are the overall status and trends of marine pollution? 233

REFERENCES 237
INDEX 253
 PREFACE

Many people throughout the world were horrified to read daily

reports about the huge volume of oil spewing from the drilling
rig Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico for many months
in 2010. People were similarly riveted reading the news and
seeing on TV photos of the oil-covered birds and sea otters
in Prince William Sound, Alaska after the Exxon Valdez spill
in 1989. These spectacular tragic events are fortunately rare.
People may also become aware of marine pollution through
some smaller events such as a fish kill in a local area, excessive
debris or seaweed littering the beach, or discolored water from
an algal bloom. These visible signs of marine pollution are not
all there is. There are many types of pollution that have no
visible signs and are only detected by sophisticated chemical
analysis. In this case, what you don’t know can sometimes hurt
you—and if it doesn’t hurt us, it might hurt marine organisms.
The marine environment is under assault from overfishing,
habitat loss, and pollution. New kinds of pollutants (“contami-
nants of emerging concern”) include both new pollutants and
old pollutants that no one ever paid attention to before. These
include pharmaceuticals that are designed to have effects on
the body at very low concentrations. The unsightly volumes
of marine debris, mostly plastic, washing up on beaches and
collecting in great garbage patches in the oceans is something
that most people have heard about. Marine debris made the
xvi Preface

headlines in March and April 2014 when the search and res-
cue teams seeking the missing Malaysia Airlines Flight 370
discovered that the ocean is full of garbage. When ships were
able to retrieve “suspicious” items that planes had spotted, it
turned out not to be debris from the missing plane, but ordi-
nary garbage swirling around in the ocean.
New awareness of the damaging effects of loud noise on
marine animals, especially mammals, is of great concern,
as it may relate to whale beaching incidents. There has been
increasing concern and attention in recent years to the effects
of ocean acidification, caused by increased levels of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere. While much of the concern and
attention is about impaired shell formation, people are also
discovering effects of ocean acidification on physiology and
behavior as well. Perhaps the most widespread and serious
type of pollution worldwide is eutrophication due to excess
nutrients, which stimulate algal blooms and reduce the level of
oxygen. While eutrophic areas and “dead zones” are increas-
ing around the world, there is also some good news in that
many persistent organic pollutants have been banned and are
no longer manufactured (even though they still remain in sed-
iments and accumulate in marine life). Also, the frequency of
oil spills has gone down in the past few decades. In addition
to this reduction of inputs of some historical pollutants, efforts
have begun to physically remove highly contaminated sedi-
ments from some of the estuarine toxic hot-spots in the United
States under the auspices of the Superfund Program.
This book, like others in the What Everyone Needs to Know®
series, is intended for the general public, including policymak-
ers, naturalists, environmentalists, students, and scientists in
other fields. I hope it will provide greater understanding and
stimulate greater interest in the topic, and I hope that a more
educated public will strongly support taking action to reduce
marine pollution. In this book I cover the visible and the invis-
ible types of marine pollution—where it comes from, what
it does, and how we might be able to reduce it. Chapters are
 Preface xvii

organized by type of pollution. In addition to the usual types

of pollution, there is a chapter dealing with invasive species,
not always considered a type of pollution, under the category
of biological pollution. I  also have a chapter about climate
change—comprising global warming, sea level rise, and ocean
acidification—and effects on marine life. Within each chapter
I include questions that you may have thought about, includ-
ing potential effects of the pollutants on our own health, and
many questions you may not have wondered about, including
topics such as the fate of chemical pollutants in the marine
environment, what effects pollutants have on marine organ-
isms, and how marine organisms cope with different types of
pollutants. I hope that in both cases you will find the answers
interesting and useful. Perhaps they will stimulate you to
think of additional questions that you would like to know
about. The final chapter covers prospects for the future and
includes sections on international and national laws regulat-
ing pollution, how states and municipalities can reduce pollu-
tion, and steps that individuals can take to reduce pollution.
A large number of suggestions are provided on how you can
make a difference in reducing marine pollution.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my husband, Dr. Peddrick Weis, for his

valuable suggestions as I was writing this book, his assistance
with the figures, and his role as a frequent research partner
during many years of studying effects of pollution on marine
organisms. I am very grateful to Rachel Carson for her books
about the sea that fostered my interest in marine biology,
and for writing Silent Spring, which stimulated my interest in
pollution. I also thank John and Winona Vernberg, Anthony
Calabrese, and Fred Thurberg, who organized a series of con-
ferences on marine pollution in the 1970s and 1980s that were
instrumental in guiding my early research directions in the
field. The many graduate students and postdocs who worked
in my lab on pollution-related research topics have contributed
a great deal. I thank Jeremy Lewis of Oxford University Press
for his encouragement and sound advice throughout the pro-
cess of creating this book. I am also grateful to the governmen-
tal and nongovernmental environmental organizations that
are working to reduce pollution in the oceans and elsewhere.
MARINE POLLUTION
WHAT EVERYONE NEEDS TO KNOW®
 1
INTRODUCTION TO THE
MARINE ENVIRONMENT AND
POLLUTION

What is the marine environment?

As used in this book, the marine environment covers not only
the ocean, but estuaries (e.g., bays), which are coastal areas
where the seawater is diluted with freshwater coming from
rivers and streams, or sometimes groundwater. Much of the
pollution is concentrated in these shallow coastal areas, which
are often next to urban centers and other concentrations of
humans who are responsible for the pollution.

What are some basics of marine ecosystems and food webs?

Marine ecology is a branch of ecology dealing with the inter-
relations of organisms living in the oceans, shallow coastal
waters, and on the sea shore. Organisms interact through the
roles they play as producers, consumers, and decomposers.
Primary producers are plants that take in inorganic carbon
dioxide and water, and through the process of photosynthe-
sis make organic materials (sugars) using light energy from
the sun. They are the first step of the food web. Primary con-
sumers are herbivorous animals that eat the plants; secondary
consumers are carnivorous animals that eat the herbivores;
2  Marine Pollution

third-level consumers are carnivores that eat other carnivores;

and decomposers are microorganisms (such as bacteria and
fungi) that break down the organic materials from the plants
and animals (excretory products and dead bodies) into inor-
ganic materials, which are eventually reused by producers.
The decomposers are concentrated in the sand or mud on
the bottom, and play an essential role in recycling materials.
There are more producers than consumers, more primary con-
sumers than secondary consumers, and so on up the chain,
because at each step in the food chain a great deal of energy is
lost—it is not efficient. So top carnivores (for example sharks)
are the rarest animals.
The most important primary producers in the ocean are a
diverse group of microscopic floating single-celled photosyn-
thetic organisms called phytoplankton. They are the basis of
the food web that supports the rest of oceanic life. They are
widely distributed in huge numbers, but occur near the sur-
face of the water only down as far as light penetrates, since
light is essential for photosynthesis. Phytoplankton are eaten
by small floating animals called zooplankton. Zooplankton
consist of a wide variety of different types of generally small
animals, some of which spend their whole life as small plank-
ton, while others are larval stages of larger animals such as
clams or crabs that will subsequently go to the bottom to live
as adults. Zooplankton, in turn, are eaten by small fish, which
are eaten by larger fish, which may be eaten by very large fish
(or other large animals such as marine mammals). Animals
that live on the bottom are called benthos; some benthic ani-
mals obtain their food by filtering the plankton, while others
consume decaying plant or animal material (called detritus)
that sinks down to the bottom.
In shallow coastal areas or estuaries, additional kinds
of primary producers are found:  larger algae (seaweeds) or
rooted plants like seagrasses that live attached on the bottom,
since the light can penetrate through the shallow water. These
 Introduction to the Marine Environment and Pollution  3

Marine
Tuna, mammals
4 billfish Large
squids
Misc.
fish
Small
squids
3 Small Mesopelagics
Trophic level

pelagics Benthic
fish
Large
zooplankton
Benthic
Small invertebrates
2 zooplankton

1 Phytoplankton Detritus

Figure 1.1  Marine food web showing different trophic levels (from Wikimedia)

are consumed by various animals, but mostly after they have

died and decayed into detritus (Figure 1.1).

Why is there concern about the state of the oceans?

For centuries, it was thought that the oceans were so vast
that nothing people could do could possibly have an impact
on them. However, contrary to this belief, it turns out that
we have been doing so for many years. Back in 1951, Rachel
Carson wrote in The Sea Around Us that people could not
change the ocean the way we have plundered the continents,
but she subsequently changed her opinion. We are now
aware that many fish populations are declining from over-
fishing, that warming is melting the polar ice and raising
sea levels, and that portions of the ocean are full of trash—
plastic bottles and bags, balloons, and lost fishing nets. We
have witnessed disastrous oil spills. We find abnormalities
in marine animals due to subtle effects of man-made chemi-
cals and find large coastal areas with water devoid of oxygen,
and therefore of marine life, due to wastes released into the
waters.
4  Marine Pollution

Marine ecosystems are very important for the health of both

marine and terrestrial environments. Coastal habitats account
for about one-third of all marine biological productivity, and
some estuarine ecosystems (i.e., salt marshes, seagrasses,
mangrove forests) are among the most productive regions
on the planet. In addition, other marine ecosystems, namely
coral reefs, provide food and shelter to the greatest amount
of marine biological diversity in the world. The ocean plays a
key role in cycles of carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and other
important chemicals. Ocean chemistry has been changing
due to human activities both in coastal waters and in the open
ocean. Some of the greatest impacts are on carbon, nitrogen,
and dissolved oxygen, which affect biological functioning.
Decades of pollution, along with destruction of coastal habi-
tats and overfishing, have had devastating impacts on marine
biodiversity and habitats. The increasing demand for seafood
worldwide has depleted many fish populations, along with
the economies of some coastal communities. On top of this,
climate change is altering the oceans in ways that we are only
beginning to understand. There is growing scientific evidence
demonstrating serious—sometimes disastrous—impacts of
pollution in the marine environment. Chemical pollutants
of greatest concern are those that are widespread and persis-
tent in the environment, accumulate in organisms, and cause
effects at low concentrations. Toxic chemicals are varied and
often difficult to detect.

What is a contaminant? Is there a difference between a

contaminant and a pollutant?
A contaminant is a biological, chemical, or physical substance
or energy normally absent or rare in the environment, which
is present and which, in sufficient concentration, can adversely
affect living organisms. A  pollutant is substance or energy
introduced into the environment that has undesired effects.
So if a contaminant is present in high enough concentration,
 Introduction to the Marine Environment and Pollution  5

it is a pollutant. It could be something that occurs naturally

in the environment (e.g., metals) but is in excess, or could be
something that is man-made. Pollutants may be classified by
their origin, by their effects on organisms, by their properties
(such as toxicity), or by their persistence in the environment.
Toxic chemicals are very varied, numerous, and expensive to
monitor.

What are the major sources of pollution in the marine

environment?
Land-based sources pollute estuaries and coastal waters with
nutrients, sediments, and pathogens (disease organisms), as
well as potentially toxic chemicals including metals, pesti-
cides, industrial products, and pharmaceuticals. Following the
Industrial Revolution, more and more material has been dis-
charged from industries, sewage treatment plants, and agri-
culture, eventually reaching marine ecosystems. But pollution
does not come exclusively from land-based sources. Highly
visible events such as the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska and
the Deepwater Horizon gusher in the Gulf of Mexico have pol-
luted the seas with oil from ships, and from drilling platforms
in the ocean itself. These highly publicized events have raised
public awareness of marine pollution. Other water-based
sources of pollution are less spectacular, and include dis-
charge of waste from vessels, the leaching of antifouling paints
from ships, and leaching of wood preservatives (e.g., creosote
or chromated copper arsenate) from wooden bulkheads and
dock pilings. Aquaculture operations such as floating cages in
which salmon are raised can pollute nearby waters with fish
wastes, uneaten food, antiparasite chemicals, and antibiotics.
Pollution can also enter the ocean from the atmosphere. For
example, the metal mercury is released as a gas into the atmo-
sphere from burning coal, and subsequently can be depos-
ited in the oceans. Nitrogen, in the form of nitrogen oxides
from the burning of fossil fuels, is also an air pollutant before
6  Marine Pollution

being deposited into the ocean in precipitation and becoming

a water pollutant.

What are the major ways that land-based pollutants enter

the marine environment?
“Ocean dumping” refers to transporting materials in a barge
and physically dumping them in the ocean. The dumping of
industrial, nuclear, sewage, and many other types of waste
into oceans was legal in the United States until the early
1970s, when it became regulated; however, dumping still
occurs illegally everywhere. The movement to ban ocean
dumping of sewage sludge gained momentum in the United
States when contaminated wastes from sewage-derived
microorganisms were discovered at public beaches, along
with unsavory items such as hypodermic syringes and tam-
pon applicators. Most of the chemical pollution in the ocean
comes into the water through pipes rather than dumping.
While many pollutants are discharged (legally) from indus-
trial or residential areas, others come from agricultural areas.
Factories and sewage treatment plants release their wastes
into receiving waters through a pipe, referred to as a “point
source,” which can be monitored and regulated by environ-
mental protection agencies. Since passage of the Clean Water
Act in the United States in 1972, much progress has been
made in controlling pollution from point sources. Combined
sewer overflow (CSO) occurs in older cities, however, where
storm drains connect to pipes going to sewage treatment
plants from homes and industries. Heavy rainfall can over-
whelm the capacity of the sewage treatment plants, causing
everything to go out into the water untreated. The resulting
bacterial contamination from sewage leads to beach closures
for health reasons.
In recent decades attention has moved from point sources to
diffuse runoff and atmospheric deposition (called “nonpoint
sources”). Contaminants that wash into the water from soil,
 Introduction to the Marine Environment and Pollution  7

Rural homes

Cropland

Suburban
development

Animal feedlots
City streets

Figure 1.2  Nonpoint source runoff from rural and urban landscapes (permission from
Dr. Peddrick Weis)

streets, construction sites, and so on during rainfall can enter

water bodies in many places, as do pollutants from the atmo-
sphere that come down in rainfall. This pollution is not so eas-
ily regulated. Nonpoint sources such as farms, roadways, and
urban or suburban landscapes remain largely uncontrolled,
and are major sources of continuing pollution inputs (Figure
1.2). If it is not directed to sewage treatment plants causing
CSO, urban stormwater runs directly into water bodies, bring-
ing with it sediments, grease, litter, oil, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), and metals from highways.

Which pollutants enter the ocean from the air?

Nitrogen gases, mercury, carbon dioxide, and radioactive
isotopes come largely from the atmosphere. Some organic
chemical pollutants (e.g., polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs)
can also be transported long distances in the air before being
deposited in the ocean.
8  Marine Pollution

Can objects in the water cause pollution?

Antifouling paints on vessels are designed to reduce attach-
ment of organisms like barnacles and algae, and do so by
being toxic. The chemicals are released slowly from the boat
paint and thus deter settlement by the planktonic stages of
these organisms. However, the chemicals are also toxic to
other organisms nearby. The most popular antifouling chemi-
cal that was used in the past was tributyltin (TBT), which is
now banned throughout most of the world (and will be dis-
cussed in detail in later chapters). Other antifoulants include
copper, which is especially toxic to mollusks and algae (it is
used as an algicide and molluscicide). Since bans and restric-
tions on TBT came into effect, researchers have developed
and produced new types of chemicals. Irgarol is now a com-
mon antifoulant, and is highly toxic to nontarget plants. It is
found in water and sediments near marinas at levels that may
be high enough to cause changes in phytoplankton commu-
nities. Another antifouling biocide, diuron, is also found in
water and sediments.
When wooden structures are placed in the water in the
form of dock pilings or bulkheads, they are subject to decay
by microbes and destruction by wood-boring animals such
as some amphipods (gribbles) and shipworms (which are
really mollusks). Therefore, the wood gets treated with
high concentrations of toxic chemicals, such as creosote or
chromated-copper-arsenate (CCA), to prevent this destruc-
tion. These chemicals also leach from the wood and can accu-
mulate in the environment and get taken up by nearby plants
and animals, causing toxic effects.

How can aquaculture cause pollution?

Aquaculture is the raising of marine organisms for food—
farming the sea—similar to agriculture on land. Fish farms,
especially open cage culture of salmon, have been found to
 Introduction to the Marine Environment and Pollution  9

be sources of pollution in local waters. Thousands of fish con-

centrated in open net pens produce tons of feces. Combined
with uneaten food, this waste sinks to the bottom and affects
the local environment, polluting the water and smother-
ing plants and animals on the seafloor below the cages. For
example, the nutrients in unused fish feed and fish feces can
cause local algal blooms, which lead to reduced oxygen in
the water, which in turn can lead to the production of ammo-
nia, methane, and hydrogen sulfide, which are toxic to many
aquatic species. Low oxygen can also directly kill marine life.
Many types of aquaculture use chemical treatments such as
antibiotics or antiparasite chemicals for a successful harvest.
The amount of these chemicals released into the environment
determines their effects on other organisms. A wide range of
chemicals is currently used in the aquaculture industry—pri-
marily pharmaceuticals such as antibiotics and antiparasitic
chemicals, and antifouling agents such as copper for the cages.
In some areas, such as Southeast Asia and South America,
overuse of antibiotics has led to increased resistance of bacte-
ria to treatment, which can make them much more harmful to
the cultured species and potentially to other species, includ-
ing humans.

Once in the water, what happens to the pollutants?

Ocean currents and organisms may redistribute pollutants
considerable distances. However, sediments tend to bind met-
als, and many organic contaminants concentrate in the bot-
tom sediments. The historic use of some chemicals that are no
longer manufactured in the United States (e.g., DDT, PCBs) has
left a legacy of contamination in the sediments, which remain
contaminated with these persistent chemicals that continue to
cycle through the environment and affect marine life decades
after their input has ceased. Contaminated sediments also
pose a problem for dredging operations, because the dredg-
ing process can release the contaminants from the sediments
10  Marine Pollution

and make them more available to biota. Another thorny issue

is where to put the contaminated sediments once they have
been dredged up from the bottom. Solving these problems is
a major reason for long delays in dredging for deepening ship
channels and for cleanups of toxic hot spots. Organisms can
take up or bioaccumulate chemicals from the environment.
Once taken up into the body, the chemicals can exert toxic
effects.

How do chemicals get into marine animals?

Aquatic animals take pollutants into their body through the
skin, gills, and digestive tract, and excrete them in their waste
or expel them through the gills. When the rate of uptake is
greater than removal, the chemical builds up in the body.
Chemicals that have low solubility in water and bind to sedi-
ments tend to accumulate to greater concentrations in organ-
isms, especially in their fatty tissues. Chlorinated hydrocarbon
pesticides, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and methyl-
mercury are among those toxic substances with low water
solubility that concentrate in organisms and are not readily
metabolized or excreted.
Contaminants are transferred through food webs from
prey to predator (trophic transfer), and some chemicals tend to
become more concentrated during this process—a phenome-
non called biomagnification. Persistent organic chemicals like
PCBs and DDT, as well as methylmercury, tend to build up or
biomagnify as they go from prey to predator, causing the larg-
est, long-lived top predator to have the highest levels (Figure
1.3). An animal in a polluted area accumulates toxic chemicals
from each item of contaminated food that it eats; concentra-
tions are higher in consumers than in their food, and are high-
est in the top carnivores such as large fish, fish-eating birds,
marine mammals, and humans. Because of biomagnification,
methylmercury levels can be quite high in large carnivorous
fish like swordfish and tuna, even though they live in the open
 Introduction to the Marine Environment and Pollution  11

Seawater 0.000 002

Sediment 0.005–0.16

Plant plankton
(= phytoplankton) Marine mammals 160
8

Animal plankton
(= zooplankton)
10

Invertebrates Sea birds 110

5–11
Fishes
PCB concentration in milligrams per litre 1–37
or milligrams per kilogram of fat

Figure 1.3  Biomagnification of contaminants up the food web (© Walther-Maria Scheid,

Berlin, Germany, for World Ocean Review 2010)

ocean far from any source of mercury. It is recommended that

people (particularly pregnant women and young children) not
eat a lot of these fish. Chlorinated pesticides, PCBs, and dioxin
also undergo biomagnification, but metals other than methyl-
mercury do not do so.
The sex of a fish may affect how much of a contaminant
it accumulates. Egg yolk is a fat-rich substance that can store
large quantities of organic contaminants, and some females
put large amounts of these fat-soluble chemicals into eggs,
reducing the levels in their bodies. This maternal transfer of
contaminants is found in egg-laying birds and reptiles as well
as fishes. While it is a good for the females to reduce their own
pollutant level, it certainly does not benefit the offspring to
start out their lives already loaded with toxic chemicals.

What is toxicity?
A toxic substance is one that harms living things at low
concentrations. (Almost anything can be harmful if there is
12  Marine Pollution

enough of it!) Toxic effects have been studied primarily in

laboratory experiments (bioassays), although there have been
some field studies of effects on populations of marine organ-
isms. Early studies of pollutant effects relied on tests that
measured lethality (death). The LC50—the concentration of a
chemical that caused 50% of the test animals to die (typically
in 96 hours)—was the benchmark. Regulations under laws
such as the US Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA) for developing safe levels of pesticides to protect
aquatic life require the standard LC50, which is of little eco-
logical relevance. Toxicity tests are required for a few spe-
cies:  rainbow trout, bluegill, and daphnids—one cold-water
fish, one warm-water fish, and one crustacean, all freshwater
species. Unfortunately, even today, over half a century later,
this approach—measuring what percentage of the animals die
in 96 hours—is still considered most useful in a regulatory
context. These tests do not consider sublethal effects that occur
over longer periods of time, or toxicity that is delayed, or dif-
ferences in life history among species. Knowing about effects
of longer-term, lower-dose exposures on physiology, behav-
ior, and development is essential for understanding overall
impacts of pollutants in nature.

What effects can pollutants have besides killing living things?

Extensive research has shown that toxic chemicals can disrupt
metabolic, regulatory, or disease defense systems, and reduce
reproduction. Behavior, development, and physiology are all
sensitive to pollutants. Learning about these sublethal effects
can help us understand the mechanisms of action of different
chemicals, and also to understand ecological effects in the real
world. We have learned that early life processes and stages—
eggs and sperm, fertilization, embryonic development, and
larvae—are very sensitive to contaminants, so setting “safe”
levels based on how much of a chemical will kill adults will
not protect these young stages. The hormonal control of
 Introduction to the Marine Environment and Pollution  13

reproduction can be affected by many chemicals, now called

“endocrine disruptors.” Exposures during early life may cause
effects that do not appear until later, sometimes many years
later. Thus, long-term delayed effects and indirect effects are
important. There has been some progress toward greater eco-
logical realism, but advances have been mainly in freshwater
ecosystems.
The effects of chemicals on individuals may cause
changes in populations and result in reduced population
growth rate, lower population size, reduced birth rates, and
higher death rates, producing a population dominated by
younger, smaller individuals with reduced genetic variability.
Reduced genetic variability happens when the more suscep-
tible individuals disappear from the population and the more
pollution-tolerant ones become predominant, as has been
seen with insecticide-resistant insects or antibiotic-resistant
bacteria.
Toxic effects appear first at the biochemical level, and later
at the cellular level, then the level of the whole organism, the
population, and eventually the ecological community as a
whole. Initial biochemical changes observed can be altered
enzymes, changes in DNA and RNA, or the production of par-
ticular proteins that can detoxify the chemical. At the cellular
level, chromosome damage, cell death, abnormal structures,
or cancer can occur. Some chemicals affect the immune system
and increase susceptibility to infectious diseases. At the level
of the whole organism, changes in physiology, development,
growth, behavior, or reproductive capacity may occur, and at
high concentrations, the animal or plant can die.
Fortunately, we have seen in many locations that when the
input of pollutants decreases or toxic waste sites are cleaned
up, the incidence of diseases and other problems dimin-
ishes. Tolerance to the contaminants may be lost as well. In
a contaminated marsh near a former battery plant close to
the Hudson River that released cadmium for decades, Jeffrey
Levinton and colleagues from Stony Brook University showed
14  Marine Pollution

that the worms in the sediments had become highly tolerant

to cadmium. Some years after the pollution was cleaned up, as
required by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
scientists revisited the site and found that the worms had lost
their cadmium tolerance over relatively few generations.

How is the degree of toxicity measured?

“The dose makes the poison.” It is important to have accu-
rate measurements of how much of a given chemical causes a
given effect. Contaminants generally occur in low concentra-
tions, but small concentrations such as parts per million and
parts per billion can cause effects. A  part per million (ppm)
seems like a very small amount—and it is. One ppm (or mg/l)
is equivalent to one drop of a substance in about 13.2 gallons of
water. One ppb (or μg/l) is one part in 1 billion—much smaller
than a ppm. One drop in one of the largest tanker trucks used
to haul gasoline would be 1 ppb. Some chemicals, including
dioxin and tributyltin are toxic at levels below 1 ppb. It is
difficult and expensive to measure these low concentrations
of contaminants. Sophisticated equipment such as atomic
absorption spectrophotometers or gas chromatograph/mass
spectrometers is needed.

How can field studies be used to understand toxicity?

Integrated field approaches are important, along with labora-
tory studies to provide insights into effects at the population
and community level. Field experiments can investigate con-
taminated environments—but hardly ever, only under very
restricted conditions, may scientists release known amounts
of chemicals in the field to observe effects in controlled experi-
ments. Attempts to bring the field closer to the lab include stud-
ies on multiple species placed together in microcosms (small
containers) or mesocosms (large containers), which can be used
to investigate community level effects of contaminants. They
 Introduction to the Marine Environment and Pollution  15

allow for replication, so dose-response relationships under

controlled conditions can be studied. These kinds of studies
can show the differential sensitivity of different species and
can be used to learn about biological interactions. There is
much to be learned from such approaches. However, dosing
of complex mesocosms with known concentrations of specific
chemicals still does not really duplicate the natural environ-
ment in which organisms are subjected to many different pol-
lutants at different concentrations (which vary over time), and
where some of the species may have evolved increased resis-
tance to some contaminants. Thus, there remains uncertainty
with ecological risk assessments and with translating meso-
cosm results to real-world field situations.
It is usually very difficult to attribute problems seen in
the field to particular contaminants, because generally there
are many different contaminants at a site. In some rare cases,
observations on natural populations in the field called atten-
tion to effects of certain chemicals. This was the case with tri-
butyltin’s (TBT) effects on oysters in Europe (see Chapter  8).
Since the abnormalities produced by TBT are unique and not
produced by other chemicals, the causal connection between
observed effects (abnormal shells in oysters) and the particu-
lar chemical (TBT) could be seen more easily.

Why are some species more sensitive to pollution than others?

Differences in sensitivity are due to differences in physiol-
ogy, generation time, and life cycle among species, which can
all affect initial responses and the ability to recover from the
effects. Species that are short-lived and produce large numbers
of offspring can exploit changing environments, including
contaminated ones. Such species with short generation times
also are more likely to be able to evolve tolerance to contami-
nants. High metabolic rates can lead to more rapid breakdown
of pollutants. In contrast, species that are long-lived, slow to
mature, and have relatively few offspring are less likely to be
16  Marine Pollution

able to evolve resistance to contaminants. Also, long-lived spe-

cies tend to be higher up on the food web, fewer in number,
and to accumulate higher levels of contaminants over a long
period of time. Their slow reproduction makes potential pop-
ulation recovery from declines very slow. Slow reproduction,
combined with high accumulation of contaminants, makes
them particularly vulnerable to reproductive effects. Transfer
of fat-soluble contaminants (e.g., PCBs, DDT) from females
into the yolk of developing eggs exposes the next generation
to these chemicals even before they are hatched.

What laws regulate marine pollution?

The ocean, as well as marine pollution from land-based
sources, is governed by legal frameworks at the international,
national, state, and local levels. Multilateral and bilateral trea-
ties and other agreements are in place for fishery management,
shipping, protecting biodiversity, and pollution. The multina-
tional treaty on pollution is the International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, commonly known
as MARPOL, which regulates discharges into the ocean.
MARPOL is a comprehensive treaty that regulates pollution
from ships. Six annexes to the treaty set out regulations for
different aspects of pollution. Annex I  covers prevention of
pollution by oil from operational measures and from acciden-
tal discharges; Annex II regulates pollution by noxious liquid
substances carried in bulk (some 250 substances were evalu-
ated and included in the list); Annex III specifies requirements
for the issuing of detailed standards on packing, marking,
labeling, documentation, stowage, and quantity limitations
for “harmful substances”; Annex IV contains requirements to
control pollution by sewage (the discharge of sewage is prohib-
ited, except when the ship has an approved sewage treatment
plant or is discharging disinfected sewage using an approved
system); Annex V governs garbage and bans discharge of plas-
tic from ships; and Annex VI limits sulfur oxide and nitrogen
 Introduction to the Marine Environment and Pollution  17

oxide emissions from ship exhausts and prohibits emissions

of ozone depleting substances into the air. MARPOL, admin-
istered by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), cre-
ates obligations for both flag states (the country certifying a
vessel, from which a vessel launched, or under which a vessel
sails) and port states (where a vessel lands). Both flag states
and port states may inspect vessels to make sure they are in
compliance with the treaty and can impose sanctions if it is in
violation of the terms. In the United States, the Coast Guard
has the primary responsibility.
Like marine-based sources, land-based sources are reg-
ulated by all levels of government. The United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is an interna-
tional treaty that covers many aspects of ocean governance
and includes obligations to control land-based sources of pol-
lution. In addition to UNCLOS, regional treaties and domes-
tic laws attempt to control land-based pollution. For example,
the Cartagena Convention’s Protocol Concerning Pollution
from Land-Based Sources and Activities seeks to prevent
land-based solid waste from coming into the Caribbean Sea.
The terms of this treaty include preventing “persistent syn-
thetic and other materials” from harming the ocean. Treaties
like this provide both a legally enforceable framework and a
forum in which countries can come together to exchange best
practices and voluntary approaches to combat pollution.
In the United States, the Clean Water Act (CWA) seeks to
control land-based sources of pollution. The CWA made it
unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source (pipe
or man-made ditch) into navigable waters unless a permit was
obtained. It is enforced by the EPA. The EPA’s National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is a permit program
that controls point source discharges into the aquatic environ-
ment. Individual homes that are connected to a municipal sys-
tem, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge
do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal,
and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go
18  Marine Pollution

directly to surface waters. The CWA also provided funding

for municipalities to construct or upgrade sewage treatment
plants. The EPA has implemented pollution control programs
such as setting wastewater standards for industry, and has set
water quality standards for a large number of contaminants
in surface waters. Beyond this, there are additional controls
for waters that are impaired by pollution. Section 303 of the
Clean Water Act authorizes states to identify impaired waters
and calculate limits on the levels of various pollutants that can
enter the impaired water. These limits are called total maxi-
mum daily loads (TMDLs). In 2007, California created a TMDL
for the Los Angeles River in an attempt to reduce the amount
of garbage entering that river, which would in turn reduce the
amount of garbage entering the Pacific Ocean. The CWA will
be discussed further in Chapter 11.

Why are some contaminants that have been banned still

a problem?
National and international laws can regulate or ban chemi-
cals, but “legacy pollution” from persistent contaminants (e.g.,
DDT, PCBs, metals) can remain in sediments for decades after
their use or discharge has been banned, and sediments are
a continuing source of contaminants to organisms. In addi-
tion, many pollutants are still not regulated, and there are
inadequate controls on nonpoint sources. Environmental
regulations and the level of compliance vary widely among
countries. Nevertheless, much has improved in US waters as a
result of the Clean Water Act, which stimulated many munici-
palities to build or upgrade sewage treatment plants.

How extensive and severe is marine pollution around the world?

While humans depend on the oceans for a variety of goods
and services, we have altered and impaired the oceans both
directly and indirectly. A Global Map of Human Impact on Marine
 Introduction to the Marine Environment and Pollution  19

Ecosystems, a high-resolution map and atlas combining numer-

ous data sets of the world’s oceans, was published a few years
ago by a large study group. It reveals that human activities
have strongly affected approximately 40% of the marine area
and have left only about 4% relatively pristine. It covers 17 dif-
ferent types of human activities, including climate change and
fishing, as well as pollution. The authors compiled data from
a variety of sources and fed them into a model that assigned a
single number to each square kilometer of ocean, reflecting the
overall human impact at that spot. The most highly affected
marine areas are the eastern Caribbean, the North Sea, and
Japanese waters, and the least affected ones are around the
poles. The most heavily affected types of environments are
continental shelves, rocky reefs, coral reefs, seagrass beds, and
seamounts. There are few areas of coral reefs, mangroves, or
seagrass beds in the world that are relatively unaffected. While
not all affected areas are affected by pollution, many of them
are. The major types of pollution are excess nutrients (eutro-
phication), marine debris, oil spills, and toxic contaminants.
 2
NUTRIENTS

Why are nutrients considered pollutants, since they are

required for life?
Input of excess nutrients such as nitrogen (N) and phosphorus
(P) causes major problems in the aquatic environment. While
phosphorus tends to be the main cause in freshwater, nitrogen
is the major source of problems in the marine environment.

Where do the nutrients come from?

Sources of nutrients include sewage and food wastes plus ani-
mal wastes and fertilizers that are discharged or run off from
agricultural areas. From land, excess N flows from agricultural
fields, suburban lawns, and stockyards, entering freshwater
and going down to estuaries via streams and rivers, altering
water chemistry and ecology. As stormwater runoff flows over
the land or impervious surfaces such as paved streets, park-
ing lots, and building rooftops, it accumulates debris, chemi-
cals, sediment, and other pollutants that can impair water
quality. Urban areas contribute food wastes, human sewage,
animal wastes, and lawn fertilizers. Even after treatment, sew-
age contains high levels of nutrients. Waste from septic tanks
enters estuaries through seepage into groundwater. Wherever
there is more residential development and more septic tanks
in the neighborhood, more nitrogen seeps into nearby bod-
ies of water, marshes, and estuaries. Nutrient enrichment due
to excessive amounts of N is the primary cause of impaired
 Nutrients 21

coastal waters worldwide. Nitrogen is an essential nutrient

and a fertilizer that is important for agricultural productivity,
but when too much of it gets into the water it is a pollutant.
The ability to synthesize N into fertilizer on an industrial
scale increased crop yields throughout the twentieth century.
Synthetic fertilizer not only fueled this growth, it also sup-
ported human population growth, providing a steady and
cheap supply of grains. Synthetic fertilizer was a benefit in
terms of crop yield but is an ongoing environmental problem,
primarily because of nutrient runoff into aquatic ecosystems.
The increased use of commercial fertilizers has increased N
inputs by tenfold in many parts of the world. Only about 18%
of the N in fertilizer actually gets into the produce; the rest is
absorbed in the soil, runs off into the water, or enters the atmo-
sphere. The amount of manure produced by huge herds of live-
stock may exceed the ability of the croplands to absorb it, so the
rest runs off into the streams that lead eventually to estuaries.
Nutrients also come from the atmosphere—N released
from the burning of fossil fuels returns and gets deposited on
the land or in the water. The burning of fossil fuels, which emit
nitrogen oxides into the atmosphere, initially creates acid rain
and air pollution, followed by water pollution once it comes
down in precipitation. These nutrients cause algal blooms, fol-
lowed by hypoxia (low oxygen) in deeper waters, a process
called eutrophication (Figure 2.1).
The global rise in eutrophication is due to increases in
intensive agriculture, industrial activities, and the human
population. There are variations in the importance of each
source among regions. For example, in the United States
and Europe, agricultural sources (animal manure and fertil-
izers) are generally the primary contributors, while sewage
and industrial discharges (both of which are regulated and
usually receive treatment prior to discharge) are a secondary
source. Atmospheric sources are also a significant contributor
of N in coastal areas. In the Chesapeake Bay, for example, the
atmosphere is a major source of all controllable N that enters
22  Marine Pollution

The Big Picture

Sunlight Minimal Excessive Sunlight

Nutrient Nutrient Inputs
Inputs

Algal Bloom

Healthy Balanced
Bay Grasses Algae Growth Reduced
Bay Grasses
Healthy Eutrophic
System System Algae Die-off

Algae
Decomposition
Adequate
Oxygen No/Low
Oxygen

Figure 2.1  Eutrophication (courtesy Chesapeake Bay Program)

the bay. In Latin America, Asia, and Africa, wastewater from

sewage and industry are often untreated and may be the pri-
mary contributors to eutrophication. In addition to nutrients,
wastewater and animal feces also contain harmful microbes
that can be removed by sewage treatment plants. Otherwise,
these microbes released into waterways may cause disease.
This is discussed further in Chapter 10.

How does a sewage treatment plant work?

Sewage treatment removes contaminants from wastewater.
The treatment includes physical, chemical, and biological pro-
cesses to remove physical, chemical, and biological contami-
nants. The objective is to produce an environmentally safe
liquid waste stream (or treated effluent) and a solid waste (or
treated sludge) suitable for disposal or reuse (usually as farm
fertilizer).
Primary treatment involves the physical separation of sol-
ids and liquids. Sewer pipes carry wastewater from homes
 Nutrients 23

and industries to the treatment plant. Screens let water pass,

but not trash (such as rags, diapers, etc.), which is collected
and disposed of. The sewage is then held temporarily in a
settling basin where heavy solids settle to the bottom while
oil, grease, and lighter solids float to the surface. The settled
and floating materials are removed and the remaining liq-
uid may be discharged to the environment (if primary treat-
ment is all there is), or it flows to the next (secondary) stage
of treatment.
Secondary treatment involves biological processes by
which microorganisms break down organic matter (just like
microbes do in the natural environment) in the separated liq-
uid and solid phases. Air is pumped in to the mixture of pri-
mary wastewater and microorganisms, whose growth is sped
up by the aeration. Final settling basins allow the clumps of
microorganisms to settle from the water by gravity. Most of
this mixture, called activated sludge, is returned to the aera-
tion basins to maintain the needed amount of microorgan-
isms. Secondary treatment may include a separation process
to remove the microorganisms from the treated water prior to
discharge or tertiary treatment. The final effluent (liquid por-
tion) may be disinfected (e.g., with chlorine, ozone, UV) before
it is discharged, to reduce the microorganisms in the water
before it is released into the environment.
Some sewage treatment plants include tertiary processes
to remove more pollutants before the effluent is released. In
some cases it is pumped to constructed wetlands (with cat-
tails or other plants) for further treatment. Plants in treatment
wetlands take up some of the remaining nutrients from the
effluent. Other forms of tertiary treatment use biological nutri-
ent removal technology to remove most of the organic N by
converting it to N2 gas, which is harmless and released into
the atmosphere (which is mostly N2 anyway). Effluents must
meet EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) criteria. Improving wastewater treatment systems is
a major way to improve water quality.
24  Marine Pollution

The sludge from primary treatment is pumped to a sepa-

rator, where inorganic solids (grit) are separated from the
lighter weight organic solids, which are then concentrated and
pumped to the anaerobic digesters with bacteria that work
in the absence of oxygen. Stabilized sludge has little odor.
Methane gas is produced by this anaerobic digestion and
can be used as fuel. The final sludge (biosolids) can be used
in an environmentally acceptable manner as a fertilizer and
soil conditioner except in urban areas, where the sludge may
contain high concentrations of metals and other toxic pollut-
ants from industry and must be disposed of. In the past, it was
barged out to certain sites in the ocean and dumped, but due
to its negative impacts, dumping became illegal. (Virtually all
material dumped in the ocean in the United States today is
sediments dredged from the bottom of water bodies in order
to maintain navigation channels.)

What is Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)?

Older cities like New  York and those in Europe have com-
bined sewer systems built in the nineteenth century that
combine sewer pipes from buildings with pipes and sew-
ers for stormwater from streets. This was a major advance
from the cesspools and gutters that formerly carried waste to
nearby waterways. In the first half of the twentieth century,
many sewage treatment plants were designed and built. At
that time, combined sewers seemed like a good way to carry
away stormwater along with the garbage, animal waste, and
other refuse that collected on city streets. Sewage plants were
designed to handle twice the average flow of wastewater,
but because of population increases, what was considered
excess capacity is no longer adequate after a storm. While
the volume of water entering sewage treatment plants can be
managed during dry weather, during storms the increased
volume of water from the storm sewers combined with the
wastewater is more than the plants can process. Many sewer
 Nutrients 25

systems were designed to accommodate a so-called five-year

storm—a rainfall so extreme that it is expected to occur, on
average, only twice a decade. But in 2007 alone, New  York
City had three 25-year storms—storms so strong they would
be expected only four times each century. Severe storms
are likely to intensify with the forecasted climate change.
When treatment plants are swamped, the excess water spills
from overflow pipes. To avoid wastewater backing up into
homes or streets, outlets allow untreated water, including
untreated feces and industrial waste, to be released directly
into the waterways (such as the infamous Gowanus Canal in
Brooklyn). When a treatment plant releases untreated waste,
it is breaking the law. Sewage systems are frequent violators
of the Clean Water Act. In the past several years, over 9,000 of
the nation’s 25,000 sewage systems—including those in major
cities—have released untreated or partly treated human
waste, chemicals, and other hazardous materials into water
bodies. The raw sewage ruins the water quality, including
at nearby bathing beaches. Hundreds of older municipali-
ties with combined sewer systems face the same water qual-
ity problems during major rainstorms; however, the cost of
replacing these systems with systems that separate wastewa-
ter from stormwater is very high. Combined sewer overflows
have become a major source of pollution, and the resulting
bacterial contamination from the sewage can become con-
centrated in shellfish, rendering them unfit for consumption.
Holding tanks and additional treatment plants have been
built to cope with the overflow, but permanently correcting
the CSO problem will take a sustained policy and many bil-
lions of dollars.

What are Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)?

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) with
dense concentrations of farm animals generate tons of manure
containing nutrients; pathogens, including bacteria and
26  Marine Pollution

viruses; sediment; antibiotics; and metals, such as copper or

arsenic. While farms can apply manure to crops, the amount
of manure that CAFOs generate often exceeds local needs.
The problem of excess manure—associated with large ani-
mal facilities—is found in many areas. Chesapeake Bay is an
estuary with major inputs from industrial-scale chicken farms
on the Eastern shore. The EPA is charged with protecting our
waters from such pollutants, but its regulations have not kept
pace with the rapid growth of CAFOs.

What effects do excess nutrients have, or what is

eutrophication?
Nutrient enrichment of marine waters promotes excessive
growth of algae, both attached multicellular forms such as
sea lettuce (Ulva) and microscopic phytoplankton blooms.
Small increases in algae can increase productivity in food
webs and sustain more fish and shellfish. However, over-
stimulation of algal growth can severely degrade water
quality and threaten human health and living resources.
When algal blooms eventually die off the dead cells sink
to the bottom, where they stimulate bacteria to decompose
them. The decomposition process uses up dissolved oxy-
gen from the water. If the aeration of water by mixing is
less than the oxygen used up by bacterial metabolism, the
bottom waters will become hypoxic (low oxygen) or anoxic
(no oxygen), creating stressful or lethal conditions for bot-
tom dwellers. Hypoxia is a major problem in many estuar-
ies, especially in late summer and early fall, and has been
increasing globally.
Zones of low oxygen reduce the abundance and diversity
of adult fish and reduce the growth rate of newly settled lob-
sters, crabs, and juvenile flounder. Blue marlin, other billfish,
and tunas are rapid swimmers that need high levels of dis-
solved oxygen, and the expansion of hypoxic areas shrinks
the useable habitat for these valuable fishes. Species that
 Nutrients 27

cannot move or move slowly may die in low-oxygen zones;

disease resistance can be compromised, and reproduction
and embryonic development can be impaired. Fish larvae
are poor swimmers, and become more vulnerable to preda-
tion. In general, animals attempt to cope with low oxygen by
reducing their activity in order to consume less oxygen. This
often means feeding for shorter periods of time and eating
less food. When bottom water is hypoxic, buried clams move
up closer to the surface of the sediments and are more eas-
ily eaten by blue crabs that are more tolerant of the low oxy-
gen and can make brief trips into the hypoxic zone. Marine
worms that have high tolerance for low oxygen show sub-
lethal effects—they have lower respiration and feeding rates,
and the fertilization and development of their embryos are
abnormal.
Sometimes in warm weather, crabs and other animals
swarm into shallow water and may actually crawl out of
oxygen-depleted water as they try to breathe. This phenom-
enon has been referred to as a jubilee. This may result in the
crabs surviving hypoxia long enough to be caught for dinner
by humans, who gave the name jubilee to this event (although
the crabs are clearly not happy).

What effects are seen in seagrasses?

Phytoplankton blooms make the water more turbid, reduc-
ing the light available to submerged aquatic vegetation
(seagrasses) on the bottom. Seagrasses are an important
component of the ecosystem, and they have been in decline.
They provide a nursery habitat and play an important role
in ecosystem structure and function. They are damaged by
both the shading of light and sulfide toxicity from eutrophi-
cation. The shading by dense phytoplankton blooms reduces
their ability to photosynthesize. Submerged aquatic veg-
etation (SAV) such as eel grass also declines because of the
growth of small algae (called epiphytes) attached on its grass
28  Marine Pollution

blades. Epiphytes cover the blades with a layer of fuzz and

further reduce the amount of sunlight that can reach leaves
for photosynthesis.
Epiphytes can be controlled to some degree by small animals
like amphipods that graze on them. Grazing by these small
animals can be important in keeping seagrass beds healthy,
and the more diverse the grazers are the better they clean the
epiphytes off the blades. SAV declines usually involve sud-
den decreases in abundance rather than gradual changes, and
high salinity and temperature intensify the effects. Seagrasses
also suffer from blooms of sea lettuce, which causes reduc-
tion in their shoot density, leaf growth, and carbon content.
Seagrass and the detritus it generates provide food and shelter
for a variety of animals, and when its growth is reduced the
associated animal community declines. Sadly, there are only
a few cases of seagrass recovery following the reduction of
nutrient inputs.

What effects are seen in coral reefs?

Agricultural runoff with nutrients and sediments is trans-
ported to coral reefs by river discharge. Eutrophication is
especially harmful to coral reefs, where the nutrients stimu-
late benthic algae to grow over, cover, and smother the corals,
eventually leading to the replacement of the coral reef com-
munity with an algal community—especially when grazers
(e.g., sea urchins, parrotfish) are not plentiful. Only if the reef
has large populations of grazing herbivores to control the
algae can the corals survive and prevail in this competition.
All too often, these grazing herbivores are reduced due to
fishing, and reefs get covered with algae. Reefs off the Florida
Keys are degraded because of wastes from too many people,
while parts of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia suffer from
agricultural runoff. Degradation represents a major loss to
tourism, since divers prefer to be in areas with rich coral reef
environments.
 Nutrients 29

What is a dead zone?

In many areas hypoxia is so severe that the areas are referred
to as “dead zones” because nothing (aside from bacteria) can
live there. When the dissolved oxygen (DO) declines below 0.5
mg/l, mass mortality occurs. Areas with oxygen sufficient to
sustain some life (below 2 or 3 mg/l) have reduced benthic
communities, comprised of very small animals. When the ben-
thic community is stressed by low DO, only short-lived, small
surface deposit-feeding worms remain; other animals like
crustaceans, bivalves, and gastropods can no longer survive.
Increasing numbers of dead zones have been reported glob-
ally, a result of runoff and nitrogen deposition from burning
fossil fuels. Certain species of phytoplankton including tiny
forms (e.g., Cyanobacteria) are favored over diatoms, which are
more important in the food web. About 150 dead zones have
been identified around the world, including a very large one
in the Gulf of Mexico that receives water from the Mississippi
River, which drains much of the agricultural center of the
United States. This watershed encompasses 41% of the contig-
uous United States and contains a large portion of the nation’s
agricultural land. While hypoxia has been noted in the past,
it did not become widespread until the 1960s. It tends to be
overlooked until fish kills occur and benthic fisheries collapse.
Ecosystems that experience long periods of hypoxia have low
levels of benthic fauna and productivity of fishes. As docu-
mented by Nancy Rabalais and her colleagues from Louisiana
Universities Marine Consortium, every summer the oxygen
in the Gulf of Mexico dead zone drops to less than 0.5 mg/l
(ppm)—conditions under which hardly anything other than
microbes can live. The high nutrients from the runoff lead to
an overgrowth of phytoplankton that causes the formation
of the hypoxic water mass, which lasts from spring through
late summer annually. Hypoxic conditions have become more
severe since the 1950s as the N input from the Mississippi
River into the Gulf has tripled. This hypoxic zone threatens
30  Marine Pollution

valuable commercial and recreational Gulf fisheries. The size

of the 2012 dead zone was the fourth smallest since monitor-
ing began in 1985, at about 2,889 square miles. This was due
to the drought that reduced the amount of runoff. In contrast,
in 2011, flood conditions, carrying large amounts of nutrients,
resulted in a dead zone measuring 6,770 square miles, the size
of the state of New Jersey. In 2013 it was up to 5,840 square
miles—a bit bigger than Connecticut.
Dead zones now affect more than 400 systems, and cover
vast areas of the ocean—more than 475,000 square kilometers
(183.4 sq miles). While trends show increases worldwide, some
localized areas are improving. Of the 415 areas around the
world identified as experiencing some form of eutrophication,
169 are hypoxic and only 13 are classified as being in recov-
ery. In Chesapeake Bay the dead zone affects the distribution
and abundance of fishes including croaker, white perch, spot,
striped bass, and summer flounder, which are key parts of the
ecosystem and support commercial and recreational fisher-
ies. Scientists saw a drastic decline in species richness, species
diversity, and catch rate under low dissolved oxygen condi-
tions, suggesting that the fishes begin to avoid an area when
levels of DO drop below about 4 milligrams per liter, as they
start to suffer physiological stress. The response at this value
is interesting because it is greater than the 2 mg/l that is the
formal definition of hypoxia. Efforts to reduce inputs of fertil-
izers, animal waste, and other pollutants into Chesapeake Bay
appear to be helping. The size of summer dead zones in deep
channels of this bay has been declining.

Can excess nutrients damage salt marshes?

Coastal wetlands support fisheries, protect coasts from storms,
and provide habitat for wildlife. They are also able to absorb
nutrients from runoff, thereby protecting the nearby estuar-
ies. Salt marshes have been disintegrating and dying over the
past two decades along the US Eastern seaboard and other
 Nutrients 31

developed coastlines for unknown reasons. Small-scale exper-

iments have shown that nutrient addition results in a decrease
in the ratio of plant roots to shoots, an increase in above-ground
tissues, a change in plant species composition, and increased
vulnerability of plants to herbivores. Linda Deegan and a
team of scientists working on entire tidal creeks added nutri-
ents to the water coming into a marsh on rising tides, similar
to nutrient-enriched estuaries, and compared the responses
with control creeks over nine years. As expected, plants grew
smaller roots because nutrients were easier to find, and the
decomposition of organic matter in the soil increased because
the extra nutrients enabled bacteria to break it down more
easily. But other results were unexpected. After a few years,
cracks formed in the banks of the high-nutrient creeks, which
then collapsed down into the creeks—eventually turning the
vegetated marsh into a mudflat, which is less productive and
does not provide equivalent habitat for fish and wildlife. The
loss of roots and organic matter reduced the stability of the
creek-bank soils, leading to the collapse of creek banks and the
eventual conversion of salt marsh into mudflat. These results
demonstrate the value of long-term field studies and show that
salt marshes have a finite ability to absorb nutrients before
they themselves are damaged.

How widespread is eutrophication?

Reports of marine and coastal hypoxic areas or dead zones
have been increasing in recent years, with increased popula-
tion growth, urbanization, and expansion of agriculture. The
World Resources Institute has compiled maps and identified
415 areas around the world that are experiencing eutrophi-
cation, but there are many areas where there is not enough
information to determine the extent of eutrophication or
identify sources of the nutrients. The increase in reports of
hypoxic areas may also be due in part to more scientists look-
ing for them. Many areas in the United States and Europe
32  Marine Pollution

are improving as a result of environmental legislation in the

1970s. An interactive map is available at http://www.wri.org/
project/eutrophication/map.

What are Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs)?

Some phytoplankton species, usually dinoflagellates, pro-
duce toxins that can impair respiratory, nervous, and other
functions and even cause the death of fish, shellfish, sea-
birds, and mammals. HABs have been called red tides or
brown tides because of water discoloration when they occur,
though many kinds of harmful algae do not discolor the
water. Their economic impacts can be severe if shellfish
harvest and fishing are closed. Reports of HABs have been
increasing worldwide, and some correlations have been
shown with N inputs. There are examples from around the
world where increases in nutrient loading have been linked
to the development of large blooms with toxic effects. Not
only has the frequency of reports of HABs been increasing,
new toxin-producing species have been discovered to cause
problems. However, attempts to relate trends in HABs to
nutrients are difficult because of variability in geographical
regions and over time. They are also complicated by other
factors, including increased monitoring and reporting and
the influence of climate change. Evidence of a link in one
region should not be considered evidence of a general link-
age of HABs to nutrients everywhere. Possible causes for
the apparent expansion of HABs include natural dispersal
of species by currents and storms and dispersal through
human activities such as shipping, shellfish translocation,
and eutrophication. There are also more scientists out there
looking for HABs. Some aspects of the global expansion of
HABs could also be due to improved detection of HABs in
places where toxic species have always been present and
were not stimulated by the human activities.
 Nutrients 33

What are some harmful algal species?

HABs have occurred periodically along the coast of southwest
Florida for over a century, causing the death of many species
including turtles, manatees, dolphins, and crabs. Decreased
abundance of shrimp and several fish species have also been
noted, and shellfish farms have been forced to shut down.
Mass mortality of birds after eating fish that had consumed
toxic algae has been reported. The microscopic dinoflagellate
that causes these blooms (Karenia brevis) produces a powerful
toxin, brevetoxin, which paralyzes animals that ingest it. It not
only kills fish, but this lipid-soluble toxin can biomagnify up
the food chain to top carnivores like dolphins. It can also cause
skin irritation and burning eyes among swimmers; people who
are not even in the water may cough and sneeze when winds
blow its toxic aerosol onshore. Along the Gulf Coast, K.  bre-
vis blooms directly affect human health. Eating shellfish with
brevetoxins causes neurotoxic shellfish poisoning. In addition,
brevetoxin levels in dead fish and fish-eating birds collected
from beaches and rehabilitation centers during blooms sug-
gest that brevetoxin can cause bird mortality. These blooms
are stimulated when seasonal changes in wind patterns move
nutrients east from the Mississippi River. The N-rich river
water spurs the growth of the algae, which are pushed by
winds toward Florida, concentrating them into larger blooms.
In the spring of 2013 a record number of manatee deaths
(more than 500) was attributed to this HAB, plus other causes.
Scientists thought that toxins in the bloom settled onto the sea-
grasses that manatees eat, causing them to become paralyzed
and eventually to drown. Bottlenose dolphins are also vulner-
able to the toxin. In 1999–2000, 152 dolphins in the area died
following extensive K. brevis blooms; brevetoxin was detected
in 52% of the animals. Dolphin stomachs frequently contained
brevetoxin-contaminated menhaden fish. In 2005–2006, 90
bottlenose dolphins died when there were high densities of
K. brevis. Most (93%) of them tested positive for brevetoxin.
34  Marine Pollution

In New England, the dinoflagellate Alexandrium produces

a toxin, saxitoxin, which accumulates in mussels and clams
that consume phytoplankton. Humans who eat the shellfish
can become seriously ill with paralytic shellfish poisoning
(PSP). Toxins from algae can transfer through the marine food
web as well, sometimes with a lethal impact on fish or marine
mammals.
Diatoms of the genus Pseudo-nitzschia produce domoic
acid, the cause of amnesic shellfish poisoning (ASP). Blooms
of Pseudo-nitzschia are common in Monterey Bay, California,
causing sea lion mortality. Pseudo-nitzschia and domoic acid
have been detected in the open ocean in addition to fjords,
gulfs, and bays, demonstrating their presence in diverse envi-
ronments. The toxin has been measured in zooplankton, shell-
fish, crustaceans, echinoderms, worms, marine mammals,
birds, and sediments, which shows how it transfers through
the marine food web.
In the 1990s a very bizarre organism, a dinoflagellate
called Pfiesteria (nicknamed the “cell from hell”) showed
up in the waters of North Carolina and Chesapeake Bay,
producing open sores and killing billions of fish (mostly
menhaden) and, frighteningly, causing neurological symp-
toms in the investigators who were studying it. Researchers
found that its toxins cause neurological symptoms includ-
ing memory loss, disorientation, and speech impediments.
One researcher had to be hospitalized before adequate labo-
ratory precautions were worked out. Pfiesteria spends much
of its life as harmless-looking microscopic cysts in the sedi-
ment. But when large numbers of fish are present under the
right conditions, it goes through a remarkable transforma-
tion in which the cysts turn into toxic flagellated vegeta-
tive cells, move toward the fish, release a toxin that kills
the fish, and then transform themselves into large amoebae
that eat the dead fish. When finished feeding, they revert
to their cyst form and return to the sediment. Other stages
of this remarkable organism are able to photosynthesize
 Nutrients 35

using chloroplasts that they retain from algae that they ate
previously.
Pfiesteria was a major problem in water with high nutrient
levels from sewage and agricultural runoff. It made headlines
and caused considerable concern and controversy in the scien-
tific community for many years. Part of the controversy was
due to an inability to isolate a toxin from the cells. The toxin
was finally identified chemically, and was found to be a very
unstable chemical that disappears from the water quickly,
which accounts for the difficulty in finding it. Pfiesteria toxicity
varies from nontoxic to highly toxic. Toxic strains are capable
of killing fish by both toxins and physical attack from feeding
upon the skin. Some strains do not produce enough toxin to
kill fish, but can kill fish larvae by physical attack. From 1991
to 1998 Pfiesteria was linked to major kills of juvenile Atlantic
menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus) in the two largest estuaries on
the US mainland, but for some reason, it hasn’t been heard
from lately.
In the 1980s a brown tide of tiny organisms, Aureococcus
anophagefferens, in eastern Long Island had severe impacts on
eel grass populations and the once-thriving Peconic Estuary
bay scallop industry, estimated at one time to be worth $2 mil-
lion. This population has not recovered after many years dur-
ing which there have been only occasional reoccurrences of
moderate brown tides.

How widespread is their occurrence?

HABs have been known throughout history and their inci-
dence appears to be increasing, but there is also greater aware-
ness and research into the problem. The varieties of toxic algae
include many species, and HABs have been appearing more
frequently around the world. This increase includes more fre-
quent blooms of familiar species as well as blooms of new spe-
cies not previously known to be harmful or not known at all.
Over the past two decades many more toxic species have been
36  Marine Pollution

identified. The number of reported outbreaks of PSP increased

from fewer than 20 in 1970 to more than 100 in 2009. However,
some of the apparent increases may be due to increased
surveillance.
Efforts are under way to improve detection, so it can be done
in real time directly in the ocean. An optical sensor called the
BrevBuster can measure K.  brevis and beam the information
back to shore via satellite. A  technology that could be used
for more algal species is the environmental sample processor
(ESP), a robotic lab that collects water samples, extracts and
sequences DNA, and transmits the results back to shore. It will
provide an accurate, fast, and cheap method to detect HAB
cells and their toxins.

What can be done to reduce farm runoff?

Inputs from agriculture can be reduced by using certain types
of tillage that reduce runoff and planting buffer strips or trees
along stream edges to absorb runoff. There are various farming
techniques that reduce runoff, and incentive programs have
been set up to encourage farmers to adopt them. Boards placed
in farm ditches can block the water in the ditch from enter-
ing the drains. This both reduces the amount of water going
into streams and slows down the water, giving the N more
time to convert to N2 gas, which dissipates. Reducing fertilizer
use and recycling manure will remove sources of nutrients.
Unlike point sources of pollution, runoff control and reduction
is largely voluntary. There is funding available from the US
Department of Agriculture’s Conservation Reserve Program,
which encourages farmers to reduce erosion and runoff from
their farms. Large animal-feeding operations (CAFOs)—the
huge sheds containing hogs and chickens—are supposed
to be regulated as point sources under the Clean Water Act
like factories, but they are not. To control nutrients in runoff,
farmers can implement nutrient management plans, which
optimize crop yields while protecting the environment. These
 Nutrients 37

plans identify the correct timing and amounts of fertilizer that

should be applied to fields, thereby reducing the chance for it
to be carried away in runoff. Farmers can use manure or litter
generated by their cows or poultry as fertilizer for their fields.
However, the amount of manure and litter generated on a farm
may exceed the amount that is needed for the crops. To help
farmers avoid stockpiling extra manure, some states support
nutrient transport programs that export it to farms where the
nutrients are needed.
Some groups are working to find new uses for manure
which might be used in energy production or sold as fertil-
izer. Some creative approaches include anaerobic digesters
that convert the methane from cow manure into electricity
that runs the farm and produces extra electricity that can be
sold to the power company to provide electricity for nearby
homes. This approach not only reduces methane emissions
(which contribute to global warming) and turns a waste into a
resource, but it also eliminates runoff.
The state of Pennsylvania is trying to get farmers to
reduce runoff by letting them apply for pollution credits that
can be sold to developers to build sewage treatment plants.
Pennsylvania has asked farmers to build barriers to reduce
runoff into Chesapeake Bay and, with monetary incentives, to
plant crops year-round so that the roots will prevent the soil
from washing away in big storms. The state will estimate how
much pollution has been eliminated, using an equation that
combines the impact of the improvement and the distance of
the farm from the bay.
Much effort and a huge amount of money has been expended
over the years in attempts to improve water clarity, seagrass
populations, and oxygen levels in Chesapeake Bay, but the
results have been disappointing. Every year, people wade into
the bay to see how deep they can go and still see their feet, a
test of water clarity. The deeper they can go, the clearer the
water. Unfortunately there has not been much improvement as
the number of people in the watershed continues to increase.
38  Marine Pollution

In order for significant progress to be made, more coopera-

tion from farmers and substantial financial assistance are
necessary, along with upgrades to sewage treatment plants.
Changes in land-use practices are required in states that are
hundreds of miles away from the affected estuaries. Some
individual farmers are changing their practices to reduce pol-
lution, which may also improve the quality of their topsoil and
sustainability of their farm. There is some good news:  since
2006, farmland with cover crops increased from 12% of acres
to 52% in the Chesapeake Bay region. Farmers are using a vari-
ety of other conservation practices, such as no-till, that help
keep nutrients and sediment on farm fields and out of nearby
waterways. Some form of erosion control has been adopted on
97% of cropland acres in the watershed.
We do not yet understand how much reduction in nutrient
inputs is needed to produce the needed improvement in water
quality, and what the time lag will be before improvements are
seen. Voluntary efforts to control nonpoint runoff have been
encouraged for two decades, but they don’t seem to be able to
deal with the magnitude of the problem.
For areas with impaired water quality, the EPA has outlined
steps needed for pollution reduction called the total maximum
daily load (TMDL), which calls for states to reduce nutrients
flowing into their estuaries, using data and modeling to calcu-
late how much reduction is called for. Much needs to be done
to help state and local authorities address eutrophication, and
the federal government is providing information and techni-
cal assistance. A  systematic, nationwide plan is necessary to
make real progress in reducing the damage to coastal areas,
and making sure that no other healthy areas become affected.

What can be done to reduce runoff from cities and suburbs?

In urban areas, Clean Water Act regulations require opera-
tors of stormwater systems to implement stormwater man-
agement programs. Stormwater runoff is a top issue in urban
 Nutrients 39

areas where water bodies are no longer fishable and swimma-

ble (goals of the Clean Water Act). Stormwater not only adds
nutrients, but also contributes to flooding in low-lying coastal
areas and cities, which have miles of impervious surfaces that
cannot absorb the water. Urban inputs can be controlled by
reducing the amount of impervious surfaces, sweeping litter
off streets before it gets into the water, and improving sewage
treatment plants. New  York City, for instance, has instituted
zoning laws requiring new parking lots to include landscaped
areas to absorb rainwater, established a tax credit for green
roofs with absorbent vegetation, and begun environmentally
friendly infrastructure projects. Philadelphia is building rain
gardens and sidewalks of porous pavement and planting thou-
sands of trees. Rain barrels and rain gardens are the subject of
educational programs for numerous communities and school
groups. These programs provide homeowners with informa-
tion on installation and maintenance and typically include a
hands-on training where homeowners install a rain garden in
a community. These are all excellent ways of chipping away
at the problem. But unless cities require developers to build
in ways to minimize runoff, the volume of rain flowing into
sewers is likely to grow.

What can be done about combined sewer overflow?

Some cities have built retention basins—tanks that hold
sewage until the water volume following a storm decreases.
Other municipalities have reconfigured treatment facilities
to expand and maximize flow rate. Still others have adapted
green infrastructure—green roofs, porous pavements and bio-
swales, or planted ditches that filter contaminants—to reduce
the amount, speed, and toxicity of water drainage after a
storm. A  new technology, inflatable dams, has recently been
installed in two locations in Brooklyn, NY. These large cylin-
drical rubber structures are placed within sewer mains and
inflate during heavy rain to block the flow of rain water and
40  Marine Pollution

sewage. They turn the sewer mains into wastewater storage

sites; however, if the water level gets too high and threatens
to back up into homes or streets, sensors deflate the dam to
release some water. Each dam can retain about two million
gallons of water until the rain decreases and the dam deflates
to allow water to flow to the treatment plant. The dams are
expected to save about 100  million gallons of sewage from
flowing untreated into the harbor each year.

What techniques in the water can reduce effects of

eutrophication?
Marinas can provide pumpout facilities for boats so that they
do not discharge their wastes into the water. Techniques to
absorb N once it reaches the water are also possible using
biology—seaweed farms will absorb nutrients; culturing oys-
ters, clams, or other bivalves will consume large amounts of
phytoplankton, reducing eutrophication and at the same time
providing food. Oysters are powerful filter feeders that can
clear the water as they feed. One adult oyster can filter and
remove nutrients from 1.5 gallons of water in an hour. Oyster
populations have declined greatly along the East Coast of
North America in the past century from overharvesting, pol-
lution, and diseases. It is estimated that one hundred years
ago Chesapeake Bay was clear, because the oysters filtered it
every three weeks as opposed to every three years today. To
help overcome this loss of oysters, planting of oyster reefs has
become a very popular restoration procedure. Many pounds of
N can be removed by oyster reefs through the process of deni-
trification by associated bacteria—which returns the N to the
air in the form of N2 gas. In the Chesapeake, scientists found
that one acre of oyster reef could remove 543 lbs of N in a year,
25% more than intertidal sediments without oysters. Oyster
reefs not only reduce eutrophication but also provide habi-
tat for many other organisms (at a site in Chesapeake, 24,000
organisms were living on one square meter of oyster reef!).
 Nutrients 41

Shrimp, blue crabs, gobies, blennies, and many other animals

live on oyster reefs. Oyster reefs also serve to reduce wave and
storm surge impacts in coastal areas and support fishing, since
some commercially important fish are more abundant in oys-
ter reefs than in nearby mudflats.
Coastal wetlands can also absorb a lot of the nutrients in
runoff. There are many projects restoring salt marshes for the
numerous services they provide, of which absorbing nutri-
ents is only one. (But as the Deegan study discussed earlier
showed, marshes have their limits before they, too, are dam-
aged by excess nutrients.) Marshes also protect the coastline
from storm surges, and provide habitat and food for many
marine animals and terrestrial ones like shore birds.

What is the prognosis for eutrophication in the future?

While coastal ecosystems may recover when nutrient inputs
are reduced, it is a very slow process. Currently, hypoxia is
among the most harmful human influences in the marine envi-
ronment. Although there has been legislation in Europe, lev-
els have not been improving, except in Danish waters. Where
eutrophication has been reduced it has generally been from
improvements in point sources (sewage treatment) rather than
reducing nonpoint runoff or atmospheric deposition, which
are much more difficult to control. There has been little prog-
ress in reducing nonpoint sources. Global river nutrient export
has increased steadily since 1970, with South Asia accounting
for at least half of the increase. Under various future scenar-
ios, nutrient exports could change significantly over the next
30 years. Eutrophication is likely to continue to impact fresh-
water and coastal ecosystems into the foreseeable future.
 3
MARINE DEBRIS

Why is marine debris so abundant?

Marine debris is any solid manufactured item that enters the
marine environment, including cigarette butts, fishing line,
diapers, bottles and cans, syringes, and tires. It is a pervasive
pollution problem that has been made worse by the increas-
ing use of plastics, which are the most common constituent
of the debris. The UN estimated that 6.5 million tons reaches
the ocean yearly—roughly 17,000 tons every day. Over 4.5 tril-
lion cigarette butts are discarded annually and are not only
unsightly, their constituents (e.g., nicotine) are toxic to marine
life. Plastic debris in the oceans is now so common that
even very remote beaches have plastics washed up on them.
Depending on the weight and size, marine debris may float,
but most of the litter sinks to the seabed.

Where does marine debris come from?

Land-based sources are responsible for 80% of marine debris,
after being blown into the water or coming from creeks or riv-
ers or storm drains. Sources include sewer overflows, solid
waste (landfills), and litter from streets. Improper control of
solid waste in many countries is responsible for much of the
debris, which may enter the water directly or indirectly. Other
debris comes from ships, recreational boats, offshore drilling
rigs, and fishing piers. Materials can be dumped, swept, or
blown off vessels and platforms, or can result from littering,
 Marine Debris  43

dumping in rivers and streams, and spillage of materials dur-

ing production or transportation. Commercial fishing is a
major source of lost nets and ropes. Derelict vessels sit on the
bottom of ports and waterways, creating a threat to naviga-
tion. Many sink at moorings, or remain partly submerged in
the intertidal zone or stranded on the shoreline. One unusual
source of a great deal of debris, large and small, was the 2011
earthquake and tsunami in Japan, which sent houses, docks,
cars, and everything they contained adrift in the Pacific Ocean.

What are the major constituents of debris?

Plastics, as mentioned before, comprise a large proportion of
the debris, and the variety and quantity of plastic items has
increased dramatically, including domestic material (shop-
ping bags, cups, bottles, bottle caps, food wrappers, balloons)
(Figure 3.1), industrial products, and lost or discarded fishing
gear. As these materials are commonly used, they are common
in marine debris. Derelict fishing gear includes nets, lines,
crab and shrimp pots, and other recreational or commercial
fishing equipment that has been lost, abandoned, or discarded
in the water. Modern gear is generally made of synthetic mate-
rials and metal, so lost gear can persist for a very long time.
Monofilament fishing line can persist for hundreds of years.
Glass, metal, and rubber are used for a wide range of products.
While they can be worn away—broken down into smaller and
smaller fragments—they generally do not biodegrade entirely.
Today, most of what we use comes packaged in plastic, which
can last for centuries. It is this stability and resistance to deg-
radation that causes it to be so problematic. A generation ago,
products were packaged in reusable or recyclable materials
like glass and paper. Today, we use products that we dispose
of at the end of their short life, and which end up in landfills,
on our beaches, and in the ocean as marine litter.
In addition to the visible litter on beaches, microscopic
plastic debris from many sources including the breakdown of
44  Marine Pollution

Figure 3.1  Marine debris on a beach (photo from NOAA)

larger pieces as well as residue from washing synthetic fab-

rics is accumulating in the marine environment and could be
entering the food chain. Researchers traced some microplastics
back to synthetic clothes, which release thousands of tiny fibers
when they are washed. Microplastic is abundant on shorelines,
especially near urban areas, and consists of polyester, acrylic,
and polyamides (nylon). Litter also accumulates in the deep
sea, not an eyesore to us, but a problem for deep sea animals.

What happens to the plastic? Does it break down?

Plastic is extremely slow to degrade and tends to be buoyant,
which allows it to travel in ocean currents for thousands of
miles. Most plastics become brittle when exposed to ultra-
violet (UV) light and break down into smaller and smaller
pieces, forming microplastic. These pieces, as well as plastic
pellets, are already found in most beaches around the world.
No one knows just how small these pieces become—they are
 Marine Debris  45

very difficult to measure once they are small enough to pass

through the nets typically used to collect them. Their impacts
on the marine environment and food webs are still poorly
understood. These tiny particles are known to be eaten by
various animals and to get into the food chain. Due to its low
density, plastic waste is readily transported long distances
and concentrates in gyres, which are systems of rotating ocean
currents. We don’t know how long plastic remains in the
ocean. Current research suggests that most commonly used
plastics will never fully degrade. Because most of the plastic in
the ocean is in very small fragments, there is no practical way
to clean it up. One would have to filter enormous amounts of
water to collect a relatively small amount of plastic.

How is debris in the ocean measured?

The most common way to measure floating plastic in the ocean
is to collect it using very fine-meshed nets towed at the ocean
surface from a ship. These nets collect planktonic organisms,
as well as plastic and any other floating debris, which is sorted
to pick, count, and preserve all plastic samples collected dur-
ing the tow. However, a lot of the debris floats below the sur-
face and is not collected by towing nets at the surface.

How much is there?

Annual cleanups pick up millions of pounds, mostly plastic,
from beaches, although most beaches around the world are not
cleaned up. We don’t know how much trash is out there because
no one monitors it carefully. There are also large quantities of
small debris mixed in the sand or within the water column.
The Ocean Conservancy, a Washington, DC-based environ-
mental organization that organizes cleanups, released its 2012
list of trash collected during its International Coastal Cleanup.
More than 10 million pounds of debris was collected by volun-
teers globally, with over 769,000 pounds from California alone.
46  Marine Pollution

The top ten items found during the cleanup were (1)  ciga-
rettes/filters, 2,117,931; (2) food wrappers/containers, 1,140,222;
(3) plastic beverage bottles, 1,065,171; (4) plastic bags, 1,019,902;
(5)  caps/lids, 958,893; (6)  cups, plates, forks, knives, spoons,
692,767; (7)  straws/stirrers, 611,048; (8)  glass beverage bottles,
521,730; (9) beverage cans, 339,875; and (10) paper bags, 298,332.
Of course, cigarettes would comprise a much smaller fraction
if the amounts were calculated by weight or volume.
The Cayman Islands’ main tourist attraction is its marine
life and beaches. From far away these beaches look beauti-
ful, but during an international coastal clean-up, in one and a
half hours volunteers filled 98 garbage bags with about 1,500
pounds of trash from just six miles of Caymans’ beaches. Most
of the waste was, not surprisingly, plastic, with bottles and
containers accounting for over 50% of the waste. Of the 12 seas
surveyed by the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP) between 2005 and 2007, the Southeast Pacific, North
Pacific, East Asian Sea, and Caribbean coasts contained the
most litter, and the Caspian, Mediterranean, and Red Seas
had the least. Studies of the Baltic Sea, Northeast Atlantic, the
United States coastline, and the North Atlantic Subtropical
Gyre indicated no major changes in the amount of litter
between 1986 and 2008. Within the United States, however, lit-
ter increased from 1997–2007.
The actual amounts are far greater than estimated from
surveys of floating litter, since much of the heavier material
sinks, and much of the lighter material is pushed downward
in the water by currents. Winds blow light pieces of plastic
down below the surface, causing researchers to greatly under-
estimate the amount of plastic.

Why does debris accumulate in large patches in the

middle of the ocean?
Marine debris that does not accumulate along shorelines can be
blown by the wind or follow the flow of ocean currents, often
 Marine Debris  47

ending up in the middle of oceanic gyres (circular current

patterns) where currents are weakest. The ocean water is con-
stantly moving, carrying water, organisms, and debris around
the globe. As material is captured in the currents, wind-driven
surface currents gradually move floating debris toward the
center, trapping it in the region. Flotsam from San Francisco
can reach the North Pacific Gyre in as little as six months.
Crab trap tags and floats lost from the state of Oregon during
2006–2007 were recovered four years later in the Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is a vast
region of the North Pacific Ocean. Estimated to be double the
size of Texas, the area contains over 3 million tons of plastic,
mostly in small pieces. In this area waste material from across
the North Pacific, including coastal North America and Japan,
are drawn together. Contrary to what its name implies, the area
is not a concentration of trash visible in satellite or aerial pho-
tographs. There is not a giant island of solid garbage floating
in the Pacific. Rather, there are millions of small and micro-
scopic pieces of plastic floating over a roughly 5,000 square km
area of the Pacific. The amount has increased significantly over
the past 40 years, and plastic debris there apparently already
outweighs zooplankton by a factor of 36 to one. Islands within
the gyre frequently have their coastlines covered by litter that
washes ashore—prime examples being Midway and Hawaii,
where plankton tows sometimes come up with many more
plastic pieces than plankton. The next largest known marine
garbage patch is the North Atlantic Garbage Patch, estimated
to be some hundreds of kilometers across. There are other
smaller patches in the Southern Hemisphere.

Where else does debris accumulate?

Litter can end up anywhere. Not all of it floats; some of it is
heavy and sinks out of sight. Scientists at the Monterey Bay
Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI) analyzed 18,000 hours
of underwater video collected by remotely operated vehicles
48  Marine Pollution

(ROVs) on the bottom of the deep Monterey Canyon. In this

region, researchers noted over 1,150 pieces of debris on the sea-
floor. About one-third was plastic objects, and of these more
than half were plastic bags. Metal was the second most com-
mon type of debris; about two-thirds were cans of aluminum
or steel. Other common debris included rope, fishing equip-
ment, glass bottles, paper, and cloth. The trash was concen-
trated on steep rocky slopes. Surprisingly, it was common in
the deeper parts of the canyon, below 2,000 meters (6,500 feet).
In the same areas where trash accumulated, there was also
wood and other natural debris that originated on land, lead-
ing researchers to conclude that much of the trash came from
land-based sources rather than ships. Previous studies under-
estimated the extent of marine debris in the deep due to lack
of technology for observing deep bottoms. In another study,
microplastics were found in remote deep-sea sediments col-
lected at locations ranging in depth from 1,100 to 5,000 meters.
Researchers collecting samples in the Southern Ocean that
encircles Antarctica have detected high levels of plastic pollu-
tion in an area that was considered unspoiled. Similarly, the
sea bed in the Arctic deep sea is becoming covered with litter.
Photographs taken to investigate biodiversity of sea life pro-
vided evidence of increasing debris. Waste, primarily plastic,
was seen in 1% of the images from 2002, but in the images from
2011 it had doubled. While 2% does not seem like much, the
deep-sea Arctic Ocean has been considered to be one of the
most remote and pristine parts of the oceans.

Granted it is ugly, but can the litter harm marine life?

Effects of marine litter are primarily physical rather than
chemical. Debris that washes in and covers salt marshes or
mangroves injures the plants, the base of the food web in these
tidal wetlands. Injuries and subsequent recovery depend on
the extent and type of debris. Marine debris affects animals
through ingesting it or getting entangled in it; it is estimated
 Marine Debris  49

that up to 100,000 marine mammals, including endangered

species, are killed each year by marine debris. Very serious
effects happen when marine animals become entangled in
debris such as fishing line and six-pack rings. Birds get fish-
ing line entangled around their legs, which get injured and
may be lost. Large amounts of plastic debris have been found
in the habitat of endangered Hawaiian monk seals, includ-
ing in areas that serve as nurseries. Entanglement in plastic
debris has led to injury and deaths in endangered Steller sea
lions, with packing bands the most common entangling mate-
rial. Hatchling sea turtles run down the beach to the ocean, a
critical phase in their life cycle. Debris can be a major impedi-
ment if they get entangled in fishing nets or trapped in con-
tainers such as plastic cups and open canisters. Marine debris
is an aspect of habitat quality for nesting sites and may help
explain declines in turtle nest numbers on certain beaches.
Many marine birds such as Northern Gannets use plastics as
nesting material. Gannet nests studied contained an average
of 470 grams of plastic, which translates to an estimated col-
ony total of 18.46 tons. Most of the plastic used was synthetic
rope. About 63 birds were entangled each year at one study
site, totaling 525 individuals over eight years, the majority of
which were nestlings.
Many marine animals consume flotsam by mistake, as it
often looks similar to their natural prey. Sea turtles, for exam-
ple, may mistake plastic bags or balloons for jellyfish, a favor-
ite food. At study of stranded sea turtles in Australia found
that larger individuals had a strong preference for soft, clear
plastic, lending support to the idea that they ingest debris
that resembles jellyfish. Smaller turtles were less selective in
their feeding, though they tended to prefer rubber items such
as balloons. Young sea turtles in the western Atlantic have a
stage described as their “lost year,” when they are thought
to live among the floating seaweed Sargassum. Juveniles col-
lected from Sargassum have been found to ingest plastic debris
that floats along with the seaweed. Plastics in diet samples
50  Marine Pollution

averaged 13%, suggesting that the Sargassum habitat comes

with a risk of ingesting much debris. A study of fishes from
the general region of the North Atlantic gyre found exten-
sive marine debris ingestion in seven species with 58% in
one species (Lampris sp., small-eye). Of all sampled individu-
als, 19% contained some debris, mostly plastic or fishing line.
Surprisingly, species that ingested the most debris are ones
considered to live in intermediate depths rather than near the
surface and therefore unlikely to come into contact with sur-
face debris, suggesting that there is more debris below the sur-
face than we thought.
It is difficult to prove that a dead animal died from ingest-
ing debris, however. In 2008 two sperm whales were stranded
along the California coast with large amounts of fishing net
scraps, rope, and other plastic debris in their stomachs. Plastic
debris that becomes lodged in digestive tracts, blocking the
passage of food, can cause death through starvation. A sperm
whale that beached itself in 2012 in Spain had a large amount
of garbage blocking its stomach, including some 36 square
yards of plastic canvas, a dozen meters of plastic rope, plastic
sheeting used on the outside of greenhouses, plastic sheeting
used inside, and even two flower pots. The whale was emaci-
ated because its intestines were totally blocked by the plas-
tic debris. A Risso’s dolphin in the Hudson River in May 2013
likely starved to death because of four plastic bags lodged in
its stomach. The dolphin, which was 10 feet long and weighed
600 pounds, had four intact plastic bags in its stomach. The
largest bag was 4 feet by 2 feet and was rolled into a sphere,
about 8 inches in diameter, blocking its stomach.
Debris is also ingested by marine birds, which may starve or
become strangled if an object becomes lodged in their throats
or digestive tracts. Ingested marine debris is commonly found
in dead birds, turtles, and other animals, although one can-
not assume the debris caused the death (Figure 3.2). Scientists
quantified the stomach contents of 67 Northern Fulmars from
beaches in the eastern North Pacific in 2009–2010 and found
 Marine Debris  51

Figure 3.2  Bird carcass with ingested plastic (photo from NOAA)

that 92.5% of the birds had ingested an average of 36.8 pieces,

or 0.385 g of plastic. Compared to earlier studies, this shows
an increase in plastic ingestion over the past 40  years. New
approaches allow the study of stomach contents in living birds
by giving them ipecac, so that they vomit. Almost half the
storm petrels sampled in Newfoundland had ingested plastic.
Many adult seabirds feed ingested plastic to their offspring, so
chicks likely have a higher plastic burden than their parents.
Tiny floating microplastic particles also resemble zooplank-
ton, so they can be eaten by filter feeders and enter the food
chain. Approximately 35% of filter-feeding fish studied near
the North Pacific Gyre had ingested plastic in their stomachs,
averaging 2.1 pieces per fish. Catfish studied in Brazilian estu-
aries had plastic in their stomachs; 18% of the individuals of
one catfish species and 33% of the individuals of the other
species. All developmental stages (juveniles, subadults, and
adults) were contaminated. Nylon fragments from fishery
activities were the major constituent. Plastic contamination
52  Marine Pollution

was high in Norway lobsters; 83% of the animals sampled con-

tained plastics (mostly filaments) in their stomachs. Tightly
tangled balls of plastic strands were found in 62% of the ani-
mals. Some of the microfilaments in the gut contents could be
traced back to fishing waste.
To add insult to injury, chemical pollutants like DDT and
PCBs (described in Chapter 6) collect on the surface of plastic
debris, thus making the plastic a source of toxicity, transferring
chemicals into the food web where they can then accumulate
in birds and other marine animals that eat the plastic. Plastic
debris was collected in the North Pacific Gyre and analyzed
for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), organochlorine pesti-
cides like DDT, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
(see Chapter 6). Over 50% of the plastic contained PCBs, 40%
contained pesticides, and nearly 80% contained PAHs. The
concentrations of pollutants found ranged from a few parts
per billion (ppb) to thousands of ppb. The types of PCBs and
PAHs found were similar to those found in marine sediments.
In addition to these chemicals on their surface, marine plastics
contain additives such as plasticizers, antioxidants, antistatic
agents, and flame retardants. Some additives (e.g., nonylphe-
nol, bisphenol A) cause endocrine disruption—they interfere
with body processes mediated by hormones. This can result
in impaired nervous system development, abnormalities in
behavior, malformations, and disruption of normal sexual
development and reproduction.
Consuming plastic is an entry point for contaminants that
were either initially a constituent of the plastic, or gathered
from the water, into the marine food web. Plastic debris can
become more toxic as bigger pieces break up into smaller
pieces, increasing the surface area available for gathering
pollutants. The smaller the debris, the greater the likelihood
it can be ingested and introduce contaminants into the small
organisms low on the food web. Mark Browne and colleagues
found that toxic concentrations of pollutants and additives
enter the tissues of animals after eating microplastic. They
 Marine Debris  53

exposed lugworms (Arenicola marina) to sand with 5% micro-

plastic that also contained common chemical pollutants (non-
ylphenol, phenanthrene) and additives (triclosan, PBDE-47)
and showed that the pollutants and additives from ingested
microplastic were present in the worms’ tissues at concentra-
tions that can cause harmful effects. A  companion paper by
Stephanie Wright and colleagues found that when there is a
lot of microplastic in the sand, lugworms eat less and have
reduced energy levels. Lugworms are common benthic bur-
rowers that can comprised up to one-third of the mass of ben-
thic organisms on some shores; they churn up the sediments
like earthworms on land and are consumed by birds and fish
and used as bait by fishermen.
Worldwide, over 250 species are known to become entan-
gled or to ingest marine debris and an estimated 100,000
marine mammals and turtles are killed annually by litter.
Debris can damage habitats if it covers coral reefs, marshes, or
seagrass beds. When plastic film settles to the bottom, it can
suffocate immobile plants and animals or wrap around corals.
One piece of good news for one species is that the floating
litter provides a habitat for marine insects called sea skaters.
These relatives of pond water skaters live at the surface of the
water and lay their eggs on floating objects. They are able to
use the plastic garbage as a new site for depositing their eggs,
leading to an increase in egg densities in the North Pacific
Subtropical Gyre. Small pieces of plastic also provide habitat
for multitudes of microbes colonizing and thriving on flecks of
plastic—a new human-made environment for microbial com-
munities that has been termed the “plastisphere.”

What problems are caused by derelict fishing gear?

Lost fishing nets (made of nondegradable plastic) and traps
may settle onto the bottom and continue to trap fish for years
(this is known as ghost fishing). Lost fishing gear catches
ecologically and economically important animals, including
54  Marine Pollution

protected and endangered species. It is estimated that about

5,000 crab pots are lost annually from the Alaskan crab fishery
alone. Abandoned or lost fishing gear can be a navigation haz-
ard and have significant economic impacts. In a study of lost
gillnets in Puget Sound, Washington, scientists estimated the
daily catch rate of a single lost gillnet, which still catches crabs,
and developed a model to predict overall mortality. They cal-
culated that over 4,000 Dungeness crabs would be entangled
during the lifetime of a single derelict net, which is a loss of
over $19,000 to the fishery, compared to a cost of only $1,358 to
remove the net. Scientists recovered almost 32,000 derelict blue
crab pots from Chesapeake Bay that had trapped 40 differ-
ent species and over 31,000 organisms. Blue crabs themselves
were the most common species in lost pots with an estimated
900,000 killed each year, a potential annual loss to the fishery
of $300,000.
Entanglement of the monk seal in Hawaii, an endangered
species, is the major impediment to the species’ recovery.
Monofilament line is single-strand, high-density nylon line on
fishing reels. Used line discarded into aquatic environments
can damage boat motors and wildlife. Marine animals can-
not see discarded monofilament line, so it is easy for them to
become entangled and starve, drown, or lose a limb. Illegal
driftnets in the Mediterranean Sea are a major hazard to
marine mammals, reptiles, and fish. The use of driftnets has
been banned by the UN for 20 years and the EU more recently,
but an estimated 500 vessels from Morocco, France, Italy,
Turkey, Algeria, and Tunisia continue to use them, inadver-
tently killing whales, dolphins, sharks, and sea turtles.
Australia is home to six of the world’s seven threatened spe-
cies of marine turtles. During a recent cleanup of ghost nets on
beaches, 80% of the animals found in trapped in the nets were
marine turtles, including Olive Ridley, Hawksbill, Green, and
Flatback turtles. Getting tangled in ghost nets is one of the
most common causes of death for marine turtles in Australia.
Scientists used data on the number of ghost nets found during
 Marine Debris  55

beach cleanups in the Gulf of Carpentaria and combined that

with a model of ocean currents, to simulate the likely paths
that nets took to get to their landing spots on beaches. They
combined that model with data about where turtles exist in
the Gulf, and combined the predictions about where turtles
would wash ashore in ghost nets with data on turtle distribu-
tion to see where the hotspots are, making it possible to inter-
cept nets before they reach the high-density turtle areas.

What are the biggest pieces of marine litter?

Remnants of buildings and other land-based structures as
well as docks were sent adrift by the Japanese earthquake
and tsunami of March 2011, along with whole ships that were
sent afloat. The Japanese government estimates that approxi-
mately 5  million tons of debris washed out to sea. Of that
mass, about 1.5 million tons probably floated away and could
be transported to the beaches of the northeast Pacific Ocean,
including the West Coast of the United States and Canada.
Some of these large floating materials are accumulating on the
coasts of Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, and Alaska and in the
Pacific gyre, a potential human and environmental hazard.
Oceanographic studies and models suggest that about 75% of
the floating debris will not come ashore. The rest is likely to
land along the coast of Alaska over several years. The estimate
is that no more than 138,000 tons is likely to land along the
coasts of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia in any
single year, with 11,000 tons as a more probable amount. If dis-
tributed evenly along the shoreline, this mass of debris would
be between 0.5 and 6.7 tons/mile of beach. However, individ-
ual beaches may receive significantly more or less accumula-
tion due to local oceanographic effects. The government of
Japan has given the United States $5 million in funds to help
with clean up of marine debris from the tsunami.
Since hard surfaces are home to many species of attached
organisms, this debris can transport many organisms to new
56  Marine Pollution

places like the Northwest Pacific Islands, where there are some
of the best coral reefs in the world, as well as the Pacific Coast
of the United States. This issue will be discussed more in
Chapter 10, which covers invasive species.

Can marine debris harm people?

Debris can affect human health when broken glass, cans, and
medical wastes such as syringes wash up on recreational
beaches. Swimmers and divers can become entangled in aban-
doned netting and fishing lines. Debris that enters the water
with sewage (e.g., tampon applicators) may indicate a more
serious sewage pollution problem with pathogenic bacteria.
Since microplastics pick up toxic pollutants and get into food
webs, it is likely that they are getting into our seafood, which
is another source of those toxic chemicals for us. Aesthetic
problems of ugly litter on the shoreline can easily result in
economic effects on coastal communities when tourists stop
coming.

What can be done about it? Can cleanups be effective?

Worldwide efforts are underway to monitor and remove
marine debris, and to prevent further pollution by control-
ling litter at its source. Marine debris is a solvable problem
if people can identify sources and control them. During the
annual International Coastal Cleanup sponsored by the Ocean
Conservancy, millions of volunteers in 127 countries around
the world pick up debris from beaches and record data.
Participants fill out a data sheet to record the specific items
collected, indicating the types of activities that produced the
litter. This produces an extensive database of information (as
well as cleaner beaches) around the world. Every September,
volunteers have removed debris from nearly 288,000 kilome-
ters of coast, 60% of which is comprised of fishing lines and
nets, beach toys, and food wrappers. Another 29% is cigarette
 Marine Debris  57

butts and filters. Marine debris items range from 4 to over

48,000 items per kilometer of shoreline. The author partici-
pated in a cleanup in January 2009 on a no-smoking beach in
Southern California, and plastic, especially Styrofoam, was far
more abundant than anything else collected; cigarette butts
were extremely rare.
A nonprofit organization called the Rozalia Project has
developed an underwater trash robot that uses sonar to detect
objects and picks up litter under the water before it can foul
the beaches. In 2011 in Boston Harbor, the sonar revealed
tires, large pieces of metal, and piles of beer cans and plas-
tic cups (as well as crabs walking along the bottom). It found
and picked up over 880 pieces of marine debris from a single
pier. This trash robot is expensive, but supported by various
corporations.
Fishing for Energy is a partnership designed to provide
commercial fishermen with a free disposal solution for unus-
able fishing gear. The program gives them a convenient place
to dispose of gear—bins at busy fishing ports—to eliminate the
expense and hassle of disposal of unusable fishing gear in land-
fills. The program increases the likelihood that derelict gear
does not become marine debris. Another example is a multire-
gional effort to remove abandoned crab traps, which are boat-
ing hazards and needlessly trap and kill fish. Monofilament
recovery programs have been started in some states in which
the fishing public deposits used line in containers. The line is
collected and sent to the manufacturer for recycling. The com-
pany melts down the line and uses it to manufacture new plas-
tic fishing products such as tackle boxes and spools for lines.
New crab pots are being made with a biodegradable panel that
will provide an escape for animals trapped in lost pots.
However, the most viable option to reduce litter is to reduce
its production in the first place, improve reuse and recycling,
and enhance environmental awareness. As a result of public
pressure, some plastics manufacturers are responding. When
evidence was found that one of the sources is microbeads used
58  Marine Pollution

as exfoliants in facial scrubs and personal care products, efforts

were made by environmental groups to get the manufacturers
of these products to stop using the beads and use biodegrad-
able alternatives. Johnson & Johnson agreed to phase out the
use of polyethylene microbeads in personal care products such
as Neutrogena, and Clean and Clear and has stopped devel-
oping new products containing plastic microbeads. Unilever
and The Body Shop have also committed to phasing out micro-
beads by 2015.
California is spending nearly half a billion dollars annually
to prevent trash from polluting its beaches, rivers, and ocean.
The money is being used by municipalities for river and beach
cleanups, street sweeping, the installation of devices to cap-
ture stormwater, cleaning and maintaining stormwater drains,
cleanup of litter, and public education.

What about public education?

This issue is also amenable to public education and monitor-
ing. Major educational programs and outreach to community
groups and schools have been developed, including a YouTube
video from cartoonist Jim Toomey (www.youtube.com/watch?
v=DtfAhy2lgAA&feature=youtu.be).
An environmental documentary called “Trashed” with
Jeremy Irons was released in 2012. A  trailer for the movie is
on YouTube (www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UM73CEvwMY&
feature=youtu.be).
People who fish can be educated to hold on to their waste line
and put it in bins instead of tossing it into the water. However,
no matter how careful individuals are, tackle can get snagged
underwater and retrieving it may be practically impossible.

Are there laws to reduce marine litter?

Rules and regulations can be more effective than volun-
tary cleanups. Some countries have laws and policies for
 Marine Debris  59

debris control. There are also international agreements such

as the London Dumping Convention and the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(MARPOL). In the United States, the Beaches Environmental
Assessment and Coastal Health Act (BEACH) of 2000 was
designed to reduce the risk of disease to beach-goers and
includes a provision for monitoring and assessment of floatable
materials. The federal government is involved in programs to
reduce marine litter. NOAA’s Marine Debris Program partici-
pates in many beach and river cleanups, removals of derelict
fishing gear and abandoned boats, but focused most of its
energies in 2012 on the Japanese tsunami debris monitoring
and cleanup. They also developed a research strategy, stan-
dardized methods for monitoring and assessment of marine
debris on shorelines and surface waters, and participated in
over 100 outreach events, educating nearly 20,000 people about
marine litter issues.
Appropriate management of wastes can prevent items
such as disposable plastic bags from becoming marine debris.
Plastic bags are a major component of litter and are being
banned in some areas. The California Coastal Commission
found that plastic bags comprise 13.5% of shoreline litter; the
City of Los Angeles found that plastic bags make up 25% of the
litter in storm drains. Programs are being developed to recycle
plastic bags. Recycling of plastic film climbed 4% to reach one
billion pounds annually in 2011 for the first time. The category
of plastic film includes plastic bags, product wraps, and com-
mercial shrink film. A report developed by Moore Recycling
Associates noted that the recycling of plastic film has grown
55% since 2005.
San Francisco and some other municipalities passed ordi-
nances that would ban most retail locations from distributing
plastic bags and begin charging customers a dime for each
paper bag (or compostable plastic bag) they use. In Toronto,
as of January 1, 2013, retailers are prohibited from giving cus-
tomers single-use plastic bags, including those advertised
60  Marine Pollution

as compostable, biodegradable, or photodegradable. As of

October 1, 2012, the importation, manufacture, or sale of plastic
bags and disposable foam products was banned in Haiti. Most
such products are currently imported from the Dominican
Republic. It is unknown how well this law will be enforced.
Unless there are readily available alternatives and consistent
enforcement of the ban, it will be ineffective and may well end
up hurting some of the people most directly affected by the
litter problem when sewer systems back up.
Market-based solutions, such as asking people to pay for
plastic bags at checkout, have been effective in Washington, DC
and in Ireland. Shoppers in China, Mexico, India, and countries
throughout Africa and Europe shop without single-use bags.
They bring their own bags to the market. This idea is catching
on in the United States, and there are many efforts encouraging
shoppers to bring their own bags. Eighth-grade student Emily
Miner in Pacific Palisades, California created and sold reus-
able shopping bags with an historical Pacific Palisades photo.
Dan Jacobson, legislative director of Environment California,
has included her bag in his collection of creative alternatives
to plastic bags. He travels throughout California showing this
kind of grassroots effort to reduce single-use bags.
In Louisiana, where marshes are being lost at an alarming
rate, recycled plastic will be used to protect restored marshes
in Lake Pontchartrain. Seventeen floating islands five feet
wide by twenty feet long will be built and placed in front of
a man-made marsh. The floating islands, which will be about
18 inches thick, are made from layers of what looks like Brillo
pads but are actually recycled plastic bottles. The floating
islands are stocked with native plants and microbes and then
anchored on the bottom.
An island on the Great Barrier Reef has stopped sell-
ing water in plastic bottles to reduce litter. Several other
market-based approaches have been explored, such as deposit
schemes to encourage the return and multiuse of plastic bottles
and taxation on single-use plastics that do not fit into deposit
 Marine Debris  61

return systems. An organization called the Plastic Bank is set-

ting up plastic repurposing centers around the world in areas
with an abundance of both plastic waste and poverty. Their
goal is to remove plastic from the environment while helping
people rise from poverty. They will provide education and the
opportunity to trade reuseable plastics for credits that can be
used for microfinance loans or other projects. However, there
has been little widespread application of these approaches.
Despite the abundance of information, projects, and regula-
tions, marine debris remains a major problem because people
still generate the debris and laws are not well enforced. The
amount of marine debris is highly variable, but amounts have
been increasing by about 5% per year.

Can new technologies reduce the problems of marine debris?

Recycling of plastic is highly effective in some countries
(Switzerland, 98%; Germany, 95%), but open landfills and no
recycling are still the norm in many places. Ecover, a European
cleaning brand, announced that it will use plastic waste from
the sea to create a new type of sustainable and recyclable plastic
bottle. The company is working to combine plastic waste with
a plastic made from sugar cane and recycled plastic for pack-
aging. Boats with trawls will collect plastic waste for cleaning
and recycling, while other fishermen will collect plastic debris
mixed with bycatch and deposit it at special collection points.
The sorted waste will be sent to a recycling plant, where it
will be turned into the plastic for the new bottles. A  carpet
tile company and the Zoological Society of London are coop-
erating in a program called Net-Works that pays people in the
Philippines for used nets, which are recycled into carpet tiles.
The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is partnering with
the Bionic Yarn Co, and Parley for the Oceans in The Vortex
Project, which removes plastic from the ocean and transforms
it into fashion. The Vortex Project takes waste from the oceans
and shorelines, and recycles, enhances, and reuses it for yarn
62  Marine Pollution

and fabric, for consumer products such as denim. They will

also seek to close the loop by again recycling these products at
the end of their product life and manufacturing new products
in such a way as to not further pollute.
Biodegradable fishing gear can greatly reduce problems
caused by ghost fishing. Biodegradable fishing line, based
on dissolvable surgery suture technology, has been devel-
oped. Modifications are needed to disarm gear once it is lost.
Researchers developed an oval panel for fish traps that would
degrade, leaving an opening for animals. Once the panel dis-
solves, any animal that can enter the trap can also escape. Crab
pots with a biodegradable panel were tested in the blue crab
fishery in Chesapeake Bay. Commercial crabbers deployed
pots with the panels as well as standard pots and found no
reduction in the catch, showing that biodegradable panels can
be a viable solution to derelict pots.
 4
OIL AND RELATED CHEMICALS

What are the components of oil?

Oil is a complex combination of various hydrocarbons
(carbon-based compounds with hydrogen atoms attached).
Petroleum hydrocarbons are the primary constituents in oil,
gasoline, diesel, and a variety of solvents. Oil and related
substances don’t generally mix with water (as you may have
heard) but float on the surface, although some lightweight
components (the water-soluble fraction) do dissolve, and some
evaporate. Hydrocarbons include straight-chain compounds of
various lengths, such as octane with eight carbons (Figure 4.1),
branched compounds, and compounds in which the carbons
form a ring. Aromatic hydrocarbons have alternating double
and single bonds between carbon atoms forming a six-part
ring. The configuration of six carbon atoms in aromatic com-
pounds is known as a benzene ring, after the simplest pos-
sible such hydrocarbon, benzene. Aromatic hydrocarbons can
have more than one ring, and are termed polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAH). The smallest one is naphthalene, with
two rings (Figure 4.2).

What are polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)?

Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are major toxic com-
ponents of oil. There are thousands of different compounds
in this group; the larger molecules (with more rings) are less
soluble in water, more soluble in fats, and tend to be more
64  Marine Pollution

H H H H H H H H

H C C C C C C C C H

H H H H H H H H

Figure 4.1  Octane molecule, a straight chain hydrocarbon

H H

C C
H C C C H

H C C C H
C C

H H

Figure 4.2  Naphthalene molecule, a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon

carcinogenic (cancer-causing), mutagenic (causing genetic

mutations), or teratogenic (causing embryonic malformations).
PAHs are broken down in the liver into compounds that can
be excreted, and generally do not increase in concentration
as they make their way through the food chain. However,
in some cases the intermediate breakdown products can be
more toxic than the original PAHs. In aquatic environments
PAHs may evaporate or be degraded by bacteria, but they
often become more toxic after exposure to light (phototoxic-
ity), and they may become incorporated into sediments where
they degrade very slowly. High concentrations in sediments
are associated with liver and skin cancers in bottom-dwelling
(benthic) fishes. Because mollusks cannot metabolize PAHs,
they continue to accumulate them and are thus useful for
biomonitoring programs, in which their bodies are analyzed
to evaluate the levels of PAH pollution of a particular envi-
ronment. In addition to oil spills, PAHs enter the marine
 Oil and Related Chemicals  65

environment from other sources—they can be released into

the atmosphere through burning, and reach aquatic systems
in rainfall. Large quantities of PAHs are also released directly
into the water by chemicals leaching from creosote-treated
wood that is used for bulkheads and docks in shallow water.
There was an interesting case in which an unfortunate female
herring laid her eggs on a creosote bulkhead in California,
and all the eggs were highly abnormal or dead. This particular
bulkhead was over forty years old and releasing far less creo-
sote than it did when it was new, but it still was lethal to all the
embryos, as Carol Vines and coinvestigators at University of
California, Davis found. PAHs also are found in runoff from
asphalt-paved surfaces. Parking lots and roads may be sealed
with PAH-containing coal-tar sealants, and, especially after
the paving has recently been treated, large amounts of PAHs
leach out into runoff whenever it rains.
PAHs are emitted into the air when fossil fuels are burned.
They come down into the ocean in precipitation, and can affect
marine life. Corals are particularly sensitive to these aerosol
particles, which contain soot (carbon with attached PAHs) and
sulfates from fossil fuels.

What are the major sources of oil in the ocean?

Petroleum hydrocarbons (including both linear compounds
and PAHs) have been a long-standing problem in the marine
environment. There is great public concern about oil spills and
the resultant shoreline fouling and deaths of large numbers
of marine birds and mammals. Oil spills can be spectacular
and do a considerable amount of damage; the most obvious
effects being seen in marine birds and mammals that live at
the surface or must come up to the surface to breathe, while
other marine organisms lower in the water may suffer chronic
effects. Since oil spreads as a thin layer on the surface, spills
can pollute large areas and represent serious environmental
hazards. The major source of accidental oil input into seas is
66  Marine Pollution

from tankers and pipelines (about 70%), while the contribution

of offshore drilling is lower. Most spills are relatively small
and result from routine operations such as loading and dis-
charging in ports or oil terminals. The largest spills arise from
accidents (groundings and collisions) involving tankers carry-
ing large amounts of oil. Catastrophic spills that release more
than 30,000 tons of oil are relatively rare but can cause the most
serious ecological damage (primarily for sea birds and mam-
mals) and produce long-term environmental damage as well
as major economic impacts. The highly publicized 1989 spill
of the Exxon Valdez in Prince William Sound, Alaska caused
unprecedented damage to the fragile Arctic ecosystem. The
other major oil disaster in recent years is the blowout of the
mile-deep BP well Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico,
which gushed oil continually for four months.

What happens to the oil after it is spilled?

Floating oil has its greatest effects on animals that live at the
sea surface such as birds and sea otters. Over time the lighter
components evaporate, leaving behind the heavier compo-
nents. When the oil comes into shallow water and coastal
marshes it can coat and smother the resident communities. If
it arrives on rocky shores and coats rocks, the lighter compo-
nents of the oil evaporate, leaving behind the heaviest com-
ponents and turning the oil into tar that covers the rocks but
eventually erodes away due to wave action. Under those cir-
cumstances, biological communities will return rather rapidly
since the oil is removed relatively quickly. However, when the
oil reaches soft substrates like salt marshes or beaches, it can
sink below the surface and persist for many decades.

What happened with the Exxon Valdez?

On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez oil tanker struck Bligh
Reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska and spilled 11 million
 Oil and Related Chemicals  67

gallons (equivalent to 17 olympic-sized swimming pools) of

crude oil. The ship had encountered icebergs in the shipping
lanes, and Captain Hazelwood ordered the helmsman to go
out of the shipping lanes to go around the ice. He then handed
over control to the third mate with instructions to turn back
into the shipping lanes when the tanker reached a certain point.
They failed to make the turn back into the shipping lanes soon
enough, and the ship ran aground. For the first few days after
the spill, most of the oil was concentrated in a large patch near
Bligh Island, but no effective cleanup had started. On March
26, a storm with winds over 70 mph weathered much of the
oil, thickening it into mousse and tar balls and distributing it
over a large area. By March 30, the oil extended 90 miles from
the spill site. The spill occurred at a time of year when the tidal
fluctuations were nearly 18 feet, causing the oil to spread onto
shorelines way above the normal zone of wave action. The oil
eventually covered 1,300 miles of coastline, and 11,000 square
miles of ocean. Of the 1,300 miles of coastline, 200 miles were
heavily or moderately oiled (the impact was obvious) and 1,100
miles were lightly or very lightly oiled (light sheen or occa-
sional tar balls). This spill was the largest ever in US waters
at that time in terms of volume released. In addition, Prince
William Sound’s remote location, accessible only by helicop-
ter, plane, or boat, made government and industry response
efforts difficult and slow.

What were the causes of the accident?

The National Transportation Safety Board investigated
the accident and found that the probable causes of the
grounding were:

1. The failure of the third mate to properly maneuver the

vessel, possibly due to fatigue and excessive workload;
2. The failure of the master to provide a proper navigation
watch, possibly due to impairment from alcohol;
68  Marine Pollution

3. The failure of Exxon Shipping Company to supervise the

master and provide a rested and sufficient crew for the
ship;
4. The failure of the US Coast Guard to provide an effective
vessel traffic system;
5. The lack of effective pilot and escort services.

What actions were taken after the spill to protect shorelines?

Five trials of dispersants (which are like detergents, making
the oil soluble in water) took place between March 25 and
March 28, but by March 29 the regional response team decided
that dispersants were no longer feasible. Federal, state, and
local agencies decided that fish hatcheries and salmon streams
had the highest priority. Containment booms were deployed
as physical barriers to protect these areas; about 100 miles of
boom was deployed. Almost all the types of boom were used
and tested. Due to the extent of the spill it was necessary to
employ inexperienced workers to deploy and tend booms, and
this led to some booms being incorrectly used or handled,
and sometimes damaged. The primary means of open water
oil recovery was with skimmers. In general, most skimmers
became less effective once the oil had spread, emulsified,
and mixed with debris. Sorbents were used to recover oil in
cases where mechanical means were not feasible. The use
of sorbents was labor intensive and generated large quanti-
ties of solid waste. Sorbent booms were used to collect sheen
between layers of offshore boom, and from the beach during
tidal flooding.

How was the spill cleaned up?

It took more than four summers of cleanup efforts before
efforts were ended. At the height of the response, more than
11,000 personnel, 1,400 vessels, and 85 aircraft were involved
 Oil and Related Chemicals  69

in the cleanup. Not all beaches were cleaned, and some

beaches remain oiled today. It is believed that wave action
from winter storms did more to clean the beaches (moving
the oil elsewhere) than all the human effort involved. Exxon
says it spent about $2.1 billion on the cleanup effort. A num-
ber of techniques were attempted. Beach applications of dis-
persants were tried in several locations. Corexit® 7664 was
applied on Ingot Island, followed by a warm water wash.
No significant change in oil cover or the physical state of
the oil was observed as a result of this treatment, however.
High-pressure cold water treatment and hot water treat-
ment involved dozens of people spraying the beaches with
fire hoses. The water, with floating oil, would trickle down
the shore and be trapped within several layers of boom and
either be scooped up, sucked up, or absorbed using special
oil-absorbent materials. Hot water treatment was stopped
after it was found that it seemed to be causing more damage
than the oil by effectively cooking small organisms in the
sand. Mechanical cleanup was attempted on some beaches
using backhoes and other heavy equipment to till the
beaches, exposing the oil underneath which could be washed
out. Many beaches were fertilized to promote growth of
bacteria that metabolize or break down the hydrocarbons.
This type of bioremediation was extensive in 1990, with 378
shoreline segments fertilized to promote bioremediation.
Monitoring of the effectiveness of bioremediation on over 20
beaches determined that oil degradation had been enhanced,
but some disagreement existed over whether bioremedia-
tion was solely, or even largely, responsible. This method of
bioremediation was successful on beaches where the oil was
not too thick. A few solvents and chemical agents were used,
although none extensively. An important observation was
that natural cleaning processes were often very effective at
degrading the oil. It took longer for some sections of shore-
line to recover from invasive cleaning methods (hot water
flushing in particular) than from the oiling itself.
70  Marine Pollution

There is still a considerable amount of oil remaining in sedi-

ments; fifteen years later some fish and wildlife species injured
by the spill had not fully recovered. It is less clear, however,
what role oil played in their inability to bounce back. An eco-
system is dynamic and continues its natural cycles and fluctua-
tions while responding to oil. As time passes, it becomes more
difficult to separate natural changes from oil-spill impacts.

Have there been some resulting policy changes to

prevent future spills?
The US Coast Guard now monitors tankers via satellite as they
pass through Valdez Narrows, cruise by Bligh Island, and exit
Prince William Sound. In 1989, the Coast Guard watched the
tankers only through Valdez Narrows and Valdez Arm. In 1990,
the US Congress enacted legislation requiring that all tankers in
Prince William Sound be double-hulled by the year 2015. It is esti-
mated that if the Exxon Valdez had had a double-hull, the amount
of oil spilled would have been reduced by more than half.

What happened with the well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico?

On April 20, 2010, the Macondo well blowout occurred
approximately five thousand feet below the surface of the
Gulf of Mexico, causing the BP-Transocean drilling platform
Deepwater Horizon to explode, killing eleven workers and
injuring others. About five million barrels of crude oil were
released into the sea—on average, sixty thousand barrels a
day (about 11,350 tons of gas and oil per day) before the gusher
was finally capped on July 15. Over 630 miles of Gulf Coast
shoreline were oiled, mostly in Louisiana.

What responses were taken?

There were over 400 controlled burns, which killed hundreds
of sea turtles and unknown numbers of dolphins and other
 Oil and Related Chemicals  71

animals. To protect marshes from incoming oil, booms were

set around islands and shorelines, and two million gallons of
the dispersant Corexit® were applied on and beneath the sur-
face of the sea to break up the oil. Dispersants are complex
mixtures of chemicals that have surfactant (wetting) proper-
ties, which allows them to act as emulsifiers, essentially letting
the oil and the water mix. After extensive use, oil was no lon-
ger visible on the surface of the water, and some claimed that
it was gone and degraded by microbes.

Why was the use of dispersants so controversial?

By enhancing the amount of oil that physically mixes into
the water column, dispersants reduce the amount of oil that
reaches the shoreline. Dispersants also stimulate the natural
process of aerobic biodegradation by breaking oil up into tiny
droplets that are so diluted that the natural levels of available
nitrogen, phosphorus, and oxygen are sufficient for microbial
growth to degrade the oil. On the other hand, once the oil is
dispersed in deep water, it cannot be recovered. When com-
bined with dispersants in the water, oil may be more toxic than
either the oil or the dispersant alone. Most studies found that
the combination of oil and dispersant increased toxicity. Two
dispersants, Corexit® 9500 and 9527A, were used. Although
they are EPA-approved, they are ranked by EPA as more toxic
and less effective than other dispersants.

What happened to the oil and dispersants?

The well blowout occurred in deep water, where a turbulent
discharge of hot pressurized oil and gas mixed with seawa-
ter and dispersed by itself into droplets, emulsions and gas
hydrates without the use of chemicals. This naturally dispersed
mixture did not rise to float on the surface as oil typically
does but stayed in a subsurface plume. Amid reports of the
oil being nearly “all gone,” a plume of hydrocarbons about 22
72  Marine Pollution

miles long in deep water over 3,000 feet below the surface was
discovered, residue from the well blowout. The continuous
plume of oil persisted for months without substantial biodeg-
radation. Dissolved oxygen concentrations suggest that micro-
bial respiration in the plume was low. The dispersants created
dispersed oil plumes in deep water because the high pressures
and low temperatures made the mixture of oil, dispersants,
seawater, and methane neutrally buoyant. Subsequently, it
was found that much of the dispersant itself was contained in
the plume in the deep ocean and had still not degraded three
months after it was applied; it seemed to have become trapped
in deepwater plumes. The toxicity of this mixture on deep sea
communities is unknown, as are the impacts on planktonic
filter feeders and fish eggs and larvae in the water column.
Eventually microbial activity degraded the oil. If dispersants
had not been used, the surface oil might have been weathered
into tar balls by the time it reached the coast. This would have
created a public relations nightmare on beaches and affected
the socioeconomic activities of residents and tourists. The
dispersed oil below the ocean surface appears to have killed
benthic animals in intertidal and shallow subtidal regions on
and near sandy beaches. In the wetlands only the fringe-edge
marsh plants were damaged by the toxic oil and dispersants,
since these plants appear to have absorbed the chemicals that
caused the death of shoots.
The Deepwater Horizon blowout was unprecedented
because of the use of dispersants at the wellhead, resulting
in subsurface retention of oil as finely dispersed droplets and
emulsions and deepwater retention of plumes of natural gas
that underwent rapid microbial degradation. Eventually nat-
ural oil-degrading bacteria worked on the plumes and rapid
degradation took place, despite the low 5°C temperature. This
took place in the deep water, as a result of the geography of the
Gulf of Mexico, which is fairly enclosed. When the hydrocar-
bons were released from the well, bacteria bloomed and then
swirled around in the currents and often came back repeatedly
 Oil and Related Chemicals  73

over the leaking well. Thus, water that already had a bacterial
community got a second input of hydrocarbons, and the micro-
organisms that had already bloomed and degraded hydrocar-
bons immediately attacked and degraded the new oil.
In addition to the one-fourth of the oil that was degraded,
the Unified Command, led by the US Coast Guard, physi-
cally removed about a third of it, and burning at the surface
removed another 5%. However, the oil budget they published
was criticized as incomplete. Samantha Joye of the University
of Georgia said that data she collected showed that oil at depth,
as well as gas, lingered much longer than the oil budget sug-
gested. There was also the residual oil unaccounted for, some
of which is still out there—on or under beaches, in marshes,
down on the bottom, or floating as tar balls.

What were the overall impacts to the ecology of the Gulf?

At the time this book is being written, mostly in 2012 and 2013
there have been relatively few published reports on effects,
as many scientists are not permitted to publish their findings
and it is too early to say anything about long-term effects on
the Gulf ecosystems. Three years after the accident, fish in
the Gulf were found with high levels of petroleum hydrocar-
bons in their tissues, presumably because dispersants made
them more available. The floating brown alga Sargassum is an
oasis of biodiversity and productivity, functioning as habitat
for a diverse collection of attached and mobile animals. The
Deepwater Horizon oil contacted much of the Gulf of Mexico’s
Sargassum. Aerial surveys during and after the spill showed
loss and subsequent recovery of the seaweed. Dispersant
and dispersed oil caused it to sink and reduced the local dis-
solved oxygen. Sargassum accumulated oil, exposing animals
to toxicants; application of dispersant sank the Sargassum,
thus removing the habitat and transporting oil and dispersant
deeper; and low oxygen levels around the algae stressed the
resident animals.
74  Marine Pollution

Coral larvae were damaged by the oil, and even more so by

the dispersants. Scientists also found that dispersants enabled
the oil to penetrate more deeply into sand on the seabed,
where low oxygen levels would slow down its degradation.
Severe injury was seen in some deep sea corals. The presence
of recently damaged and dead corals beneath the known path
of a plume from the well is strong evidence that the oil dam-
aged deepwater ecosystems. It is too early to assess the over-
all impacts of this disaster, but a committee of the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommended an ecosystem
services-based evaluation. The people who live and work in
the Gulf region depend on ecosystems for services such as
food and fuel, flood and storm protection, and tourism and
recreation. Damage to natural resources from the oil spill
could impair these services, leading to social and economic
impacts that may not be apparent from an assessment of envi-
ronmental damage alone. The NAS committee introduced
an ecosystem services approach that requires understand-
ing environmental impacts from a disruption, the resulting
decrease in goods and services, and the cost of those losses to
individual communities and society at large. They illustrated
how this approach might be applied to coastal wetlands, fish-
eries, marine mammals, and the deep sea—each of which pro-
vide key ecosystem services in the Gulf.

What happens when oil reaches shorelines?

When spilled oil reaches a rocky shoreline, lighter components
of the oil evaporate, leaving behind the heavier components
and turning the oil into tar, which will erode away due to
wave action, and biological communities will return rather
quickly. In marshes, however, oil can sink below the surface
and remain for many years. Oil accumulated in marsh sedi-
ments undergoes some microbial breakdown, but the process
is very slow, and marshes have the slowest rates of recovery
from oil spills. Marshes and sediments in Prince William
 Oil and Related Chemicals  75

Sound in Alaska retained oil for many years after the massive
oil spill of the Exxon Valdez in 1989. What remains controver-
sial is how long the effects persisted. In a cold environment
like Alaska oil degrades much more slowly than in warmer
regions, and salmon embryos in the sediments a decade later
did not develop properly. After over a decade pockets of oil
remained in these marshes, and mussels, clams, harlequin
ducks, and other birds that feed on sediment-dwelling inverte-
brates showed evidence of harm in some localized areas. Fish
embryos continued to be affected by oil trapped in gravel and
sediments for many years after the spill, according to Ronald
Heintz and colleagues from NOAA.
Knowledge about long-term consequences of spilled oil
should be included when assessing oil-impacted areas. It will
take many years to understand the overall impacts of the enor-
mous oil pollution that gushed into the Gulf of Mexico from
the Deepwater Horizon in the spring and summer of 2010.

How does oil harm marine birds and mammals?

There are three primary ways oil injures wildlife: (1) it coats
the fur and feathers and destroys the insulation causing the
animals to die of hypothermia (they get too cold); (2) animals
eat the oil, either while trying to clean it off their fur and feath-
ers or while scavenging, and the oil is toxic; (3)  oil impairs
them in long-term chronic ways, such as damaging the liver or
impairing reproduction. An impaired animal cannot compete
for food and avoid predators.

What kinds of toxic effects does oil produce in

other marine animals?
Corals
An oil spill in Panama initially caused coral bleaching (sym-
biotic algae are expelled from coral tissue), tissue swelling,
76  Marine Pollution

mucus production, smaller gonads, and dead areas on cor-

als, even in reefs that had not been in direct contact with the
oil. Hydrocarbons in reef sediments were correlated with
the degree of injury and with reduced growth. The probable
cause of high injury was chronic exposure to sediments mixed
with partially degraded oil that had moved from mangroves
onto reefs. There was no evidence of recovery five years after
the spill. Years later, reduced colony size and decreased size
of gonads were seen, which can reduce the number of repro-
ductive colonies. Oil damages the coral reproductive system
resulting in fewer breeding colonies, fewer ovaries per animal,
fewer larvae, premature release of larvae, abnormal behav-
ior of larvae, and lower growth rates. Dispersants appear to
increase the damage done by the oil.

Fish and Crabs

Oil has major impacts on fish embryos that may produce
delayed effects when they become adults. Pink salmon that
had been exposed as embryos to Exxon Valdez oil and survived
to migrate to the ocean, returned from the sea at only half
the normal rate. These adults showed reproductive impair-
ment and their embryos had reduced survival. Thus, the
second generation was affected by the exposures their par-
ents had had as embryos. Oil spill effects on fish eggs have
been intensively studied, with studies initially focusing on
the water-soluble fraction (WSF) containing mostly one- and
two-ringed aromatic hydrocarbons. After the Exxon Valdez
spill, which occurred during the breeding season of many
fish, fish embryos were exposed to partially weathered oil
including the larger three-, four-, and five-ringed hydrocar-
bons, which had been thought to be less toxic than the WSF.
These PAHs affected pink salmon and herring eggs at concen-
trations far lower than had been previously known to be toxic.
Ronald Heintz and colleagues found more deformities and
chromosomal abnormalities in embryos from oiled than from
 Oil and Related Chemicals  77

unoiled locations, even years after the accident. Furthermore,

the toxicity of some oils to fish embryos is greatly increased
by light (phototoxicity). John Incardona and colleagues stud-
ied Pacific herring embryos following the Cosco Busan spill
in San Francisco Bay and found that components of the oil
accumulated in embryos, then interacted with sunlight at low
tide to kill them. Three months after the spill, embryos caged
at deeper sites in oiled areas had sublethal heart toxicity (as
expected from exposure to PAHs), but intertidal embryos that
were exposed to oil in the light had very high rates of mortal-
ity. The toxicity of dispersed oil tends to be higher than that of
crude oil.
After the Deepwater Horizon blowout, Gulf killifish
embryos exposed to sediments from areas that had been oiled
in 2010 and 2011 showed developmental abnormalities includ-
ing heart defects, delayed hatching, and reduced hatching suc-
cess. Killifish are abundant in the coastal marsh habitats and
are important members of the ecological community. Because
they are nonmigratory, measurements of their health reflect
their local environment.
Atlantic bluefin tuna and other large fishes spawn in the
vicinity of the Deepwater Horizon, raising the possibility that
their eggs and larvae, which float near the surface, were dam-
aged by the oil. The developing hearts of tuna were found by
John Incardona and colleagues to be damaged by oil, which
interrupts the ability of the heart cells to beat effectively. Oil
interferes with heart cell contraction and relaxation—essential
for a normal heart beat. Authors concluded that deaths of early
life stages of Gulf populations of tunas, amberjack, swordfish,
billfish, and others that spawned in oiled surface habitats were
likely.
PAH-exposed fish may also develop tumors. Liver tumors
in English sole (bottom dwellers, exposed to sediments) in
Puget Sound were associated with PAHs in the sediments,
as seen by Myers and colleagues from the NOAA Lab in
Seattle. The fish with the highest frequencies of liver tumors
78  Marine Pollution

were from the urban Duwamish Waterway (16%) and Everett

Harbor (12%), while sole from other areas had only 0 to 5.5%
incidence of tumors. Sediment PAH concentration was corre-
lated with tumors.
Oil is also associated with changes in behavior. Juvenile
coho salmon exposed to the water soluble fraction of crude
oil showed reduced swimming activity, which was affected
by the concentration and time of exposure. When fish were
put into clean water, normal activity was restored within
eight hours. Awantha Dissanayake and colleagues compared
cellular (immune function), physiological (heart activity),
and behavioral (feeding) responses in shore crabs collected
from a PAH-contaminated site and two cleaner sites and
also looked at responses of crabs exposed in the laboratory
to pyrene, a four-ring PAH. While no significant cellular or
physiological impacts were seen in contaminated crabs, feed-
ing was impaired: when given a cockle (bivalve), the field and
laboratory-exposed crabs took longer to handle and break the
shells. Therefore, behavior was more sensitive than the cellu-
lar and physiological responses.

How long do effects of oil spills last?

Many of the major spills had long-term consequences because
the oil came into estuaries and marshes. The persistence of oil
is influenced by several factors, such as water solubility, weath-
ering rate, and sediment grain size. The residues may last for
decades and continue to affect biological functions including
behavior, development, genetics, growth, feeding, and repro-
duction. Long-term effects have been studied after spills, and
they vary depending on the nature of the oil, the temperature,
and the nature of the area of the spill. After a spill, most of the
oil undergoes a weathering process. However, in marshes or
sandy beaches oil can sink down to depths where it persists
for decades in the absence of oxygen. The major effects of a
rather small oil spill (190,000 gallons of number two fuel oil)
 Oil and Related Chemicals  79

in Falmouth, Massachusetts in the late 1960s lasted for over

a decade, according to a team of scientists from the nearby
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute led by Howard Sanders,
a distinguished benthic ecologist who had been studying
the area. It is rare that a spill occurs right in an area that has
been intensively studied and was well understood prior to
the spill, so their information was particularly useful, though
hotly contested by the oil companies. Fiddler crabs were par-
ticularly sensitive and were still affected seven years after the
spill. The oil affected their burrow construction—the burrows
did not go straight down, but leveled off to a horizontal plane,
perhaps avoiding the oil below. While this was not a problem
during the summer, when winter came the crabs were not
deep enough to be below the freezing zone, so they froze to
death. Benthic communities took about a decade to return to
normal. Over thirty years later, the site of the spill was studied
by another generation of Woods Hole scientists, led by Jennifer
Culbertson, who found that there was still substantial unde-
graded oil residue several inches below the marsh surface,
and fiddler crab burrows in oiled areas were shorter in length
often turned horizontally below 10 cm, sometimes even turn-
ing upward. They found that crabs exposed to the oil avoided
burrowing into oiled layers, had slower escape responses,
reduced feeding rates, and lower population density. Marsh
grass in areas that had some oil remaining grew less densely
than in clean areas, and the loss of marsh grass (especially
roots) made the sediments more likely to erode away. Ribbed
mussels were still experiencing effects of the remaining oil. In
an experiment, mussels were transplanted from a control site
into the oiled site for short-term exposure, and others that had
been exposed to the oil were transplanted from the oiled site to
the control site. Both the short- and long-term exposure trans-
plants had slower growth, shorter shell lengths, and decreased
filtration rates compared to control mussels.
After the Exxon Valdez spill the subsurface oil persisted, and
chronic exposures continued to affect organisms for over a
80  Marine Pollution

decade. Three years after the spill most of the remaining oil
was in places where it could not degrade, such as below the
surface sediments or under mussel beds. Heavily oiled coarse
sediments protected oil reservoirs below the surface, prevent-
ing oil from weathering in intertidal sites. These sites often
contained fish eggs and other vulnerable organisms. In a cold
environment like Alaska oil degrades much more slowly than
in warmer regions, and salmon embryos developing in the
sediments a decade later still did not develop properly. After
more than a decade, pockets of oil remained in these marshes
where many species continued to show evidence of harm. Fish
embryos continued to be affected by oil trapped in gravel and
sediments many years after the spill.

Can oiled birds and sea otters be rehabilitated?

Marine birds and mammals are the most obvious victims after
spills, since they are large and at the surface of the water. Birds
try to clean up oil on their feathers by preening and end up
swallowing oil, which is toxic to them, affecting their immune
system and making them more vulnerable to disease. Nine
years after the Exxon Valdez spill, most injured populations
had not recovered. Many people have spent a great deal of
time and effort to clean oiled birds and marine mammals after
oil spills. A  study of oiled and rehabilitated brown pelicans
found that long-term injury had taken place, and the birds did
not breed or show normal behavior or survivability. A study
of released oiled, oiled and rehabilitated, and unoiled surf
scoters (Melanitta perspicillata) after a spill found that scoters
tolerated the rehabilitation process itself well, but they subse-
quently had markedly lower survival than unoiled birds.

How can oil spills be cleaned up?

Considerable expense and effort is associated with attempts
to clean up oil spills, which may take months or even years
 Oil and Related Chemicals  81

to clean up. Methods for cleaning up include skimming,

which requires calm waters and removes the oil quickly with-
out damaging the environment. Bioremediation is the use of
microorganisms or biological agents to break down or remove
oil. It can be effective, but takes a long time. Controlled burn-
ing can effectively reduce the amount of oil in the water if done
properly, but it can only be done in low wind and can cause
air pollution and kill surface dwelling animals. Dispersants
act as detergents, clustering around oil globules and allowing
them to dissolve in the water. This improves the surface aes-
thetically and mobilizes the oil. Smaller oil droplets, scattered
by currents, may cause less harm and may degrade more eas-
ily. However, the dispersed oil droplets penetrate into deeper
water and can affect marine organisms, since they are toxic.
Another approach is to just wait; in some cases, natural attenu-
ation of oil may be most appropriate, because of the potential
harm associated with some of the methods of remediation,
particularly in ecologically sensitive areas. Remedial actions
after oil spills are controversial, and some of them (e.g., aggres-
sive cleaning with large heavy equipment) may be worse than
the original problem, as was seen with some of the attempted
clean up techniques after the Exxon Valdez oil spill. However,
an oil company advocating for natural attenuation instead of a
cleanup would have a major public relations problem.

What are the trends in oil spills over the decades?

The number of spills from tanker ships has decreased greatly
over the past three decades. There were about three times as
many spills in the 1970s as in the 1990s. However, the number
of spills does not consider the volume of oil; the frequency of
large spills has decreased as well as the frequency of small
ones. Although more oil is being transported in larger super-
tankers, technical, political, and legal experience in managing
the problem has been gained in many countries and interna-
tionally through conventions initiated by the International
82  Marine Pollution

Maritime Organization (IMO). As a result of the Exxon Valdez

spill, the United States passed the Oil Spill Act of 1990 requir-
ing all newly built tankers to have a double hull. Any time a
tanker is carrying oil it runs the risk of a spill, and now they
need to have insurance for unlimited damages—which is
good motivation for being very careful. Overall, US oil spill-
age has decreased over 200% since the 1970s and 150% since
the 1980s, despite the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon.
International trends are similar. This is encouraging, because
there has been an increase in oil transport worldwide in the
past two decades. The reduction in oil spills may be due to
improved safety standards, and the realization that spills in
the United States could result in enormous costs for which the
spiller would have unlimited liability according to the Oil Spill
Act of 1990. One would predict that oil spills will continue to
diminish as there will be less reliance on oil and increased use
of alternative energy sources in the future. Furthermore, oil
that is transported by sea will be more likely to be contained
in double-hulled tankers.
 5
METALS

What are the major sources of metal pollutants?

Metals are naturally occurring elements in the earth’s crust
that can become contaminants when industrial activity con-
centrates them at higher than normal levels. Since they are
elements, they cannot break down into anything else. Metals
released from mining and industrial processes are among the
major contaminants of concern in coastal environments, where
they accumulate in sediments and coastal organisms. Mercury,
cadmium, copper, zinc, chromium, and silver are major con-
taminants from industrial processes, including power plants.
Since coal contains mercury, when it is burned the mercury
enters the atmosphere where it can be transported long dis-
tances before being deposited far from its source. Mercury
(Hg) deposited from the atmosphere is a significant fraction of
the mercury entering coastal waters and approximately 90% of
the Hg in the open ocean. It contaminates seafood commonly
eaten by people in the United States and globally. Over the past
century, Hg in the surface ocean has more than doubled as a
result of human activities. While some metals such as copper
(Cu) and zinc (Zn) are essential for life at low concentrations,
other metals (Hg for example) play no normal biological role.
While most metal contamination originates from land-based
industrial sources, metals also are used in antifouling paints
for ships. Since fouling (attached) organisms such as barnacles
and algae can accumulate on ship bottoms (increasing drag,
thus increasing fuel consumption), antifoulant coatings have
84  Marine Pollution

been developed. For thousands of years ship hulls have been

treated with various substances to reduce fouling. Paints con-
taining copper have been used for many years. Beginning in
the 1940s organotin compounds (organic chemicals includ-
ing tin) were developed, and one of the most effective and
long-lasting is tributyltin (TBT), which is also one of the most
toxic to other organisms.
When marshes were being filled in for development, house-
hold and industrial wastes such as metal cans and paint cans
with pigments that contain metals were a common component
of the fill material. Mercury, cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), and cop-
per (Cu) from pipes, antifouling paints, and CCA (chromated
copper arsenate)-treated wood bulkheads and pilings were
common contaminants. While copper is essential for some
biological processes and is not generally a concern for human
health, it is extremely toxic to algae and invertebrates, and is
even used as an algicide and molluscicide.
Lead comes in runoff from road surfaces during rain, from
its previous use as a gasoline additive, even though leaded gas
is not used any more. Pb remains in the environment and does
not break down, so some otherwise fairly pristine marshes
have elevated amounts in the sediments as a result of decades
of hunting ducks and other waterfowl with lead shot. Lead
shot contaminates marsh soils, and birds that normally pick
up small pebbles for grit in their digestive system to grind up
seeds can consume the spent shot, sometimes resulting in fatal
lead poisoning.
Other metals that can be environmental problems include
cadmium, chromium, zinc, and copper. Selenium (Se) can be
found in different chemical forms and can bioaccumulate in
animals and cause deformities under some circumstances,
although in other instances it can counteract the toxic effects of
mercury. It affects the immune system, alters genes and dam-
ages the nervous system, and is particularly toxic to develop-
ing embryos. Inorganic mercury and methylmercury (a more
toxic form) tend to be more concentrated in sediments with
 Metals 85

marsh plants than in bare sediments, perhaps due to higher

microbial activity in sediments around roots. Common reeds
can release a volatile form of inorganic mercury into the air,
thereby removing some from contaminated sites but sending
it elsewhere.

What are some highly mercury-contaminated sites?

In the late 1950s and 1960s, thousands of people in Minamata,
Japan suffered from mercury poisoning. This community had
a factory that discharged mercury into Minamata Bay, from
which the people ate fish that had accumulated the poison in
their tissues. Local residents developed severe neurological
and developmental defects, a condition now called Minamata
disease, sending a wake-up call to the rest of the world that
exposure to mercury can have life-long neurological effects.
Thousands suffered from poisoning, which in extreme cases
led to insanity, deformation, and death. Many children whose
mothers had eaten contaminated fish were born with severe
disabilities, even when their mothers had no overt symptoms.
Berry’s Creek Marsh, a contaminated Superfund site in the
Hackensack Meadowlands of New Jersey, also has extremely
high concentrations of mercury in its sediments as a result
of industrial pollution. The Hackensack and Passaic Rivers
and Newark Bay formed a major center of the Industrial
Revolution. Paper, paint, chemical factories, and plants that
manufactured gas were some of the early manufacturing
facilities in the area, and the factories used the rivers and estu-
ary for wastewater disposal, which at the time was quite legal.
As a result, the entire system—not only Berry’s Creek—is
highly contaminated with PCBs, dioxins, PAHs, and mercury.
Fortunately, the mercury has largely not become methylated
and has not accumulated to Minamata-type levels in local fish,
because of other factors. In this area, there is so much sulfide
in the sediments as a result of years of accumulating wastes
from sewage treatment plants that the mercury is chemically
86  Marine Pollution

bound to the sulfide and is not available for bacteria to methyl-

ate. Nevertheless, mercury levels in the fish do exceed levels
that are considered safe, so fish advisories are posted through-
out the system warning people not to consume fish or crabs.
While there are other estuaries in the country that are highly
contaminated with toxic substances, this one was designated
by EPA at the time as the most Hg-contaminated one in the
nation.

How does the chemical form of the metal affect what it does?
Knowing the chemical form (species) of a metal is necessary
in order to understand its toxicity and the risk it poses. In
general for many metals, the free ion—for example, copper
with two positive charges (Cu2+)—is the most available and
toxic form of the metal found in the water. In aquatic environ-
ments copper exists in particulate, colloidal, and soluble states,
predominantly as metallic (Cu0) and cupric copper (Cu2+). It
forms complexes with both inorganic and organic molecules.
The toxicity of Cu is directly related to the free ion, as is the
toxicity of Cd, so measurements of total Cu or total Cd in the
water overestimate the amount that is bioavailable and poten-
tially toxic. Chromium6+ is much more toxic than Cr3+. Organic
forms of mercury (e.g., methylmercury) and tin (e.g., tributyl-
tin) are far more toxic than the ionic forms.
Once metals are taken up into an organism, they may
be stored in granules within their cells or attached to
metal-binding proteins that keep the metals unavailable to
the animal (and out of trouble), but metals attached to these
proteins can get transferred to a predator that eats the organ-
ism. Feeding, or trophic transfer, is the most important way
that metals move up the food web into large fish and birds.
Plants generally pick up metals from the soil in which they
grow, and different species store different proportions in their
roots, stems, or leaves, and can pass metals along to animals
that consume them.
 Metals 87

1. DEPOSITION OF Hg(II)

.. . . ..
...
2. SEDIMENTATION
... ..
. ...
Hg(II)

..
. .. .. 5. BIOMAGNIFICATION of CH3Hg
... .
. 4

3. Hg(II) → CH3Hg (METHYLATION)

Figure 5.1  Mercury methylation and biomagnification (courtesy Dr. P. Weis)

Although Hg toxicity in highly contaminated areas such as

Minamata Bay is well documented, it can also be a threat to the
health of people and wildlife in environments that are not so
obviously polluted. The risk is determined by the form of mer-
cury and the chemical and biological factors that influence how
it moves and changes form in the environment. Inorganic mer-
cury can get transformed into organic mercury compounds.
Methylmercury (meHg) is a more toxic form, which is pro-
duced from inorganic Hg by the action of bacteria (Figure 5.1).
Bacteria capable of methylating Hg2+ have been isolated from
sediment, water, soil, and fish tissue. MeHg is the form of Hg
that is most likely to bioaccumulate in fish and other organ-
isms. MeHg, in addition to being far more toxic than inorganic
forms of the metal, also is biomagnified up the food chain, so
tissue concentrations increase as it moves up the food chain.
Mercury contamination and its health implications are impor-
tant internationally. Throughout the world, elevated meHg has
been found in some fish species that are of economic impor-
tance, including shark, swordfish, tilefish, king mackerel, tuna,
and Spanish mackerel, as well as freshwater species such as
bowfin, largemouth bass, and chain pickerel.
The other organometal of concern is tributyltin, but unlike
Hg, tributyltin (TBT) breaks down in the environment,
88  Marine Pollution

gradually losing its butyl groups over time, reducing its tox-
icity as it eventually becomes dibutyltin, then monobutyltin
and then inorganic tin, which is not toxic at all. Organotins are
very toxic, but inorganic tin is not toxic at all.

Where do metals concentrate in the environment?

Metals do not generally reach high concentrations in water
but bind to sediment particles, from which they are available
to varying degrees to marine organisms, particularly ben-
thic (bottom-dwelling) ones, from which the metals move up
the food chain. Bioavailability of sediment-bound metals is a
critical issue for their toxicity. Since smaller sediment particles
have more surface area for binding metals, the fine particles
of silt and clay in estuaries and marshes bind more metal
than sand, resulting in high contaminant levels in the fine
sediments that are consumed by some benthic animals. These
bottom-dwellers can also absorb the metal from the water sur-
rounding the sediment particles, known as pore water, while
others directly eat the sediments. Acid volatile sulfide (AVS)
in sediments binds metals and has been used to predict the
toxicity in sediments of some metals, including copper (Cu),
cadmium (Cd), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), and zinc
(Zn). The rationale is that the AVS in sediment reacts with
the metal to form an insoluble metal sulfide that is relatively
unavailable for uptake. Estuarine sediments tend to have high
levels of sulfide (as in Berry’s Creek), and thus relatively low
bioavailability of sediment-bound metals. Ironically, elevating
the oxygen in overlying water decreases AVS, thereby increas-
ing metal availability. Thus, increased oxygen from water
quality improvements can increase the availability of metals
and may cause metals that had been bound to sediments to
leach into the water.
Hg can be readily taken up by worms living in the sediments.
Polychaete worms are abundant and diverse in intertidal mud-
flats and are an important source for Hg biomagnification in
 Metals 89

food webs. Hg at the surface of the sediment is correlated with

Hg in surface-feeding worms, but deeper burrowing worms
contain greater Hg and meHg, showing that feeding ecology
is important for predicting Hg bioaccumulation.
Mercury can be transported in the atmosphere far from
its source—for example, to the Arctic. It appears that the
long-range transport of mercury from Asia is an important
source of atmospheric Hg to the Arctic. This Hg enters the
water and becomes meHg, which is both toxic and biomagni-
fies in food webs. Mercury concentrations in organisms have
increased and are controlled by a combination of meHg level,
food web structure, and animal behavior (e.g., feeding behav-
ior). Inuit people in the Arctic have high Hg in their blood and
hair. Their reliance on traditional foods such as marine mam-
mals, which are high in the food web, for subsistence means
that they are particularly at risk from Hg exposure, even
though they live very far from any Hg sources.

What are the toxic effects of different metals?

Mercury (Hg), especially meHg, is by far the most toxic. It
affects embryonic development and is particularly neurotoxic,
as is lead (Pb). Any chemical that affects the nervous system is
likely to affect behavior at low concentrations. Reduced feed-
ing and digestion are commonly observed after exposure to
a variety of pollutants, including metals. Decreased feeding
is not only a general response to contaminants, but the poor
nutrition that results can in turn make animals more suscep-
tible to contaminants and other stresses. Many organisms
respond to reduced food intake with reduced activity, which
may mean slower movements and reduced ability to catch
food and to escape from predators. In this way, alterations in
feeding and nutrient uptake can affect a population, and also
could have ecosystem-wide repercussions.
Various metals reduce the respiration and metabolic rate of
many organisms. Scientists usually measure oxygen consumption
90  Marine Pollution

to determine changes in metabolic rates. Reduced respiration

can be a response to reduced food intake as a way of conserving
resources and energy. Metals (Cu, Pb, Zn, and Cd) also reduce
the photosynthesis by the symbiotic algal cells (zooxanthellae)
that live within coral animals and which are responsible for much
of the nutrition of these animals. Exposure to metals, especially
copper, can impair osmoregulation, the ability to maintain inter-
nal salt concentrations. Maintaining a constant internal chemical
environment is particularly important in animals living in fluctu-
ating environments such as estuaries. Some animals, called osmo-
regulators, maintain their body fluids at concentrations different
from the surrounding water and must actively regulate salts. In
the salty ocean, they drink seawater to offset water loss due to
osmosis and then excrete the excess salt from the gills. This has
an energy cost. If the animal moves to a lower salinity part of an
estuary, it finds itself in an opposite environment—one where it
will absorb water through osmosis, and where it must work to
retain its salts and excrete this excess water. Exposure to contami-
nants can disrupt osmoregulation, which is performed primarily
by enzymes in the gills.
Exposure to contaminants can alter reproduction. One par-
ticular concern is that very low levels of some environmental
chemicals can interfere with the endocrine system, which is
known as endocrine disruption. Metals and other contami-
nants can also directly affect gamete production, mating, and
fertilization. These various stages of the reproductive process
are clearly connected to one another. However, since most
marine organisms normally produce enormous numbers of
embryos, it is not clear how much reproductive impairment it
takes to reduce the population size, which is rare.
One clear example of effects at the population level is that
of TBT (tributyltin) on dog whelk snails. This chemical was
formerly a very popular and effective component of antifoul-
ing paints used on boats. The first indication that there might
be a problem with this effective antifoulant was observations
in France by Alzieu and colleagues that oysters living near
 Metals 91

marinas looked abnormal. They grew very thick shells, became

ball-shaped with very little meat inside, and were unmarket-
able. As a result of some excellent detective work, scientists
traced the deformity back to the paint used on the boats that
were concentrated in the marinas. A second observation was
that dog whelk snail populations were crashing and female
snails near marinas throughout Europe were growing penises.
This condition was termed “imposex,” and when severe, the
male structures imposed on the female ones and blocked
the oviduct so that eggs could not be deposited and females
could not reproduce, as found by Peter Gibbs and Geoff Bryan.
This effect was due to increased amounts of male hormones,
which caused male reproductive structures to develop in the
females. This abnormality, which rendered females sterile, led
to drastic population declines. It also spurred the development
of regulations, restrictions, and ultimately bans on the use of
TBT on recreational boats. Imposex in female snails was dis-
covered and studied several years before the term endocrine
disruption was coined to describe such effects. Endocrine
disruption will be discussed in greater detail in the chapter
on organic contaminants (Chapter 6), since far more of them
cause endocrine effects. Mollusks are not the only animals
affected by TBT; they just are much more sensitive than oth-
ers. They were affected at concentrations that were too low for
the instruments in the late 1980s to measure, which spurred
development of more sensitive instrumentation.
Early life stages are generally more susceptible to environ-
mental contaminants than later stages. Embryos can be exposed
to developmental toxicants such as meHg during egg develop-
ment (oogenesis) in females, during the brief period between
shedding of gametes into the water and fertilization, and after
fertilization. Chemicals that are incorporated into the egg
during oogenesis can produce malformations in the embryos
that later develop from these eggs. Subsequently, embryos can
be exposed to chemicals after fertilization. Exposures can be
throughout embryonic development or during shorter time
92  Marine Pollution

periods. Common responses include delayed development,

formation of abnormalities, and reduced hatching. Some
chemicals can produce effects that do not become apparent
until later stages such as larvae or even adults. Most marine
animals hatch out as small planktonic larvae with little resem-
blance to the adult form that they will eventually become.
Larvae may be even more sensitive than embryonic stages of
the same organism, since embryos are protected by an outer
membrane that may reduce contaminant uptake and which
is no longer present after hatching. Larvae also must usually
swim and obtain food for themselves. Most benthic inver-
tebrates have planktonic larvae, which at a certain stage of
development must settle to the bottom to metamorphose into
a juvenile in an appropriate habitat. Larval exposures to con-
taminants can lead to impaired settlement or to delayed physi-
ological problems as juveniles or adults.
Developmental processes in later life can also be impaired
by exposure to contaminants such as metals. Growth is an
obvious and easily measured response that is frequently
traced back to reduced food intake, but even without reduced
feeding it may occur because organisms must expend energy
to defend themselves against contaminants. The more energy
needed to detoxify pollutants, the less will be available for
growth. In addition to overall body growth, molting, regen-
eration, development of calcified structures (shell and bone),
carcinogenesis (cancer), and smoltification (defined below)
are other developmental processes that take place after larval
stages and that are all sensitive to environmental contaminants
such as metals. Salmon breed and embryos hatch upstream
in shallow freshwater streams where they live for some time
before migrating down to the sea. They undergo a develop-
mental process called smoltification, which enables them to
osmoregulate and live in salt water. This is hormonally con-
trolled (by thyroid hormone) and can be impaired by a vari-
ety of contaminants. Aluminum (Al) is a normal constituent
of soil and is generally not an environmental problem because
 Metals 93

it is not bioavailable. However, under low pH (acidic) condi-

tions in freshwater that can result from acid rain, it becomes
available. If a freshwater stream is affected by acid rain, young
salmon get exposed to Al as well as to acidity, both of which
cause toxic effects. Short-term Al-exposure and moderate
acidification increase mortality in fish migrating downstream,
and can reduce Atlantic salmon populations, according to
Frode Kroglund and Bengt Finnstad. Al reduces their ability
to adjust to salinity changes, so these young fish die when they
approach seawater. Al also decreases growth hormone levels,
and can cause stress and death.
Behavior is a particularly sensitive response to contami-
nants. Noticeable changes in behavior can be found at low con-
centrations of chemicals such as methylmercury (meHg), lead
(Pb), or copper (Cu). In addition to being sensitive, behavioral
changes can produce ecological effects at the population and
community level, as shown by Weis and colleagues. Behaviors
that have been studied include swimming, burrowing, migra-
tion, prey capture, predator avoidance, reproductive behav-
iors, aggression, and social interactions. Effects on behavior
may be direct or indirect. Indirect effects include alteration of
activity or reproductive success due to reduced feeding, and
thus less energy. Behavior can be seen in larval or older stages
after earlier exposure to pollutants during embryonic stages.
It is also possible to trace behavioral alterations back to
underlying neurological effects of the contaminants. For exam-
ple, Cu is especially toxic to the olfactory system of fish, which
means that species that rely on their sense of smell for naviga-
tion or detecting the presence of predators (or prey) cannot do
so as well. If salmon streams are contaminated with Cu, the
very sensitive early stages of these migratory fish are dam-
aged and their navigation during subsequent migration can
be impaired, according to James Hansen and colleagues. Cu is
also especially toxic to snails, which retreat into their shells and
remain inactive while it is present. Oysters, on the other hand,
can accumulate high concentrations of copper, so much that in
94  Marine Pollution

high copper environments their tissues acquire a green color-

ation like the Statue of Liberty. Snails that eat these oysters get
affected and become sluggish and reduce their feeding.

What can organisms do to defend themselves against

metal toxicity?
There are a number of mechanisms that organisms use to
reduce the toxicity of metals once they have taken them
up. These include storing them in nontoxic forms such as
metal-binding proteins or granules. Other mechanisms
include stress proteins, and the evolution of tolerance. These
are discussed in detail in Chapter 8.

Can elevated levels of metals in seafood be a risk to humans?

Since meHg biomagnifies in food webs, eating a lot of large
fish that are high up in the food web, like tuna and swordfish,
can be risky. Mean Hg concentrations for each type of seafood
are highly variable. The high variability in Hg in common
seafood has ramifications for public health and complicates
the development of guidelines for how much should be eaten.
Prenatal exposure to meHg has been associated with impaired
performance on attention tasks, but the extent to which this
translates into behavioral problems is not clear. In a study of
Inuit mothers (who consume large quantities of fish) and their
children, umbilical cord blood Hg concentration was associ-
ated with attention problems and ADHD symptoms in chil-
dren, according to O. Boucher and colleagues.
Large tuna and swordfish together account for more than
half of the Hg intake from seafood for the US population.
American children may be ingesting high levels of Hg with
their tunafish sandwiches. Research by the Mercury Policy
Project, a consumer advocacy group (www.mercurypolicy.
org) found that canned tuna has high levels of mercury. The
group says albacore or white tuna can triple a child’s Hg
 Metals 95

exposure, and recommends that schools and parents not serve

it. The group also says children under 55 pounds should limit
“light” tuna to one meal, once a month and twice a month for
children over that weight. They also recommend that no child
should eat tuna every day. The European Union recommends
that pregnant or breastfeeding women not eat tuna more than
twice a week, while the US Food and Drug Administration
says they should avoid shark, swordfish, or king mackerel,
but that some tuna should be included in their diet. Some feel
these guidelines are out of date and stricter rules are needed
to avoid the risk that even low levels of Hg could lead to prob-
lems in fetuses and young children.

What are the trends in metal pollution?

Overall decreases are seen, but improvement is very slow. Trace
metals have been monitored in the Baltic Sea waters and biota
with mixed trends. While the Baltic Sea remains much more
contaminated than ocean waters, a slow decrease in dissolved
Cd and Cu has been observed in many sites over a decade, but
this was attributed to increasing hypoxia due to eutrophication,
which precipitated the metals, rather than to an actual decrease
in the metal contamination. Decreasing Pb was attributed to
the switch to unleaded gasoline. Sediments, however, were still
highly contaminated. Mercury and zinc also showed downward
trends. Various fish species used for human consumption showed
similar decreases. Declines in concentrations of Cd and Hg were
seen in all the fish species studied by Lucyna Polak-Juszczak.
Similarly, Pb in the livers of a number of fishes used for human
consumption showed a significant declining trend.

What can be done to reduce metal pollution?

Metal pollution can be reduced by reducing inputs in the first
place, and by remediating areas that have already been con-
taminated, which is the focus of the Superfund program of the
96  Marine Pollution

US Environmental Protection Agency. Superfund is the fed-

eral law that identifies the most highly contaminated sites in
the country and eventually impels their cleanup. Technologies
for remediating contaminated sediments are at various stages
of development. Removing the contaminated sediments
by dredging and subsequently putting them in a contained
facility is the most common technique used. Volume reduc-
tion (i.e., removing only the sediments that require treatment
and retaining as little water as possible) reduces costs; preci-
sion dredging techniques can reduce the volume of sediments
that need remediation and thus reduce costs. Treatment costs
may also be reduced through pretreatment. When sediments
must be moved off-site for treatment or confinement, efficient
hydraulic and mechanical methods are available for removal
and transportation. Most dredging technologies can be used
successfully to remove contaminated sediments.

What is natural attenuation?

Natural recovery (doing nothing and letting nature repair itself)
is of low cost and, in some situations, may have the lowest risk
of human and ecosystem exposure to contaminated sediments.
It is most likely to be effective where surface sediment contami-
nant levels are relatively low and are being naturally covered
over rapidly by cleaner sediments, or where natural processes
destroy or modify the contaminants, so that contaminant
releases to the water decrease over time. A disadvantage, how-
ever, is that the more contaminated sediments remain under-
neath, and could potentially be exposed if the overlying cleaner
sediments are resuspended—for example, by severe storms.

What is capping?
Capping involves covering the contaminated sediments with
a deep layer (typically one meter thick) of clean sediments,
which forms the cap. Capping isolates the contaminated
 Metals 97

sediments and should prevent them from getting resuspended

by storms. The original sediment bed must be able to support
the cap, suitable capping materials (clean sand) must be avail-
able, and suitable water conditions (including depth) must
exist to permit placement of the cap and to avoid compromis-
ing its integrity. Changes in the local substrate, burrowing
benthic animals, or the depth at a site where new sediments
are naturally deposited may subject the cap to erosion. A bar-
rier to the use of capping is the Superfund legislation, which
prefers more permanent controls, and capping is not consid-
ered to be a permanent control.

What is Confined Aquatic Disposal (CAD)?

Confined aquatic disposal (CAD) involves digging a deep pit
in the bottom and placing the contaminated sediments inside
it, then capping it. This technique is applicable to contami-
nated sites in shallow waters where capping is not possible
and is good for the disposal and containment of slightly con-
taminated material from navigation dredging. Although the
methodology has been developed, CAD has not been widely
used. Among its advantages are that it can be performed
with conventional dredging equipment and that the chemi-
cal environment surrounding the cap remains unchanged.
Disadvantages include the possible loss of contaminated sedi-
ments during movement and placement.

What is bioremediation of metals?

Bioremediation is the process of using naturally occurring
microbes to take up, digest, or convert waste material into
harmless substances. Technologies can be generally classi-
fied as in situ or ex situ. In situ bioremediation involves treat-
ing the contaminated material at the site, while ex situ involves
removing the contaminated material and treating it elsewhere.
Bioremediation can occur naturally with the microorganisms
98  Marine Pollution

already present at the site (natural attenuation or intrinsic bio-

remediation), or can be accelerated with the addition of fertil-
izers. Particular microbe strains can be added to enhance the
resident microbe population’s ability to remediate the contami-
nants. Special genetically-engineered strains can be used. Not
all contaminants, however, are easily treated by bioremediation.
For example, metals such as Cd and Pb are not readily absorbed
or captured by microbes. The assimilation of metals such as Hg
into the food chain may have more negative than positive out-
comes. Appropriate microbes should be tolerant to metals, have
high metal-binding capacity, and synthesize metal-binding pro-
teins in response to metal exposure. In some microbes, highly
specific biochemical pathways have evolved to protect the
microbial cells themselves from metal toxicity. A good example
is the microbial reduction of mercury. In other cases, microbes
can sequester toxic metals within soils or sediments or produce
materials that can bind metals in contaminated soils. The mobi-
lized metals can then be pumped out of the soil or sediment.
Metals can be extracted from contaminated environments by
two mechanisms. First, some heterotrophic microorganisms
(those that need food, like animals) mobilize metals by produc-
ing organic acids. Secondly, some highly specialized autotrophic
bacteria (those that make their own food, like plants) generate
large amounts of metal-leaching sulfuric acid from the oxida-
tion of elemental sulfur. Some multiple metal tolerant fungi and
bacteria have been identified that can be used to adsorb multi-
ple metal pollutants. Bioremediation is cost-effective, and much
less expensive than landfill disposal. New tools and techniques
for use in bioremediation (e.g., genetically engineered organ-
isms) are contributing to the rapid growth of this field.

What is phytoremediation?
Plants such as are found in salt marshes and mangroves can
reduce the amount of metal pollution entering estuaries, and
can remediate—to a degree—the contaminants in sediments.
 Metals 99

Wetland sediments accumulate contaminants, and there are

many cases in which wetland plants can remove pollutants,
including metals. The use of plants to remove or stabilize con-
taminants is referred to as phytoremediation, and there are dif-
ferent mechanisms that can be utilized. Phytoremediation is a
relatively recent technology and is perceived as cost-effective,
efficient, and ecofriendly, with good public acceptance. It is an
area of active current research. The approach in salt marshes
is generally one of phytostabilization, where the plants are
used to immobilize the metals and store them below ground
in roots or soil, in contrast to phytoextraction, in which cer-
tain plants that can accumulate very high concentrations in
aboveground tissues (hyperaccumulators) are used to remove
metals from the soil and concentrate them above ground.
Hyperaccumulators must in turn be harvested and disposed
of to prevent recycling of the accumulated high concentra-
tions of metals once they die and decompose. This is done
frequently in terrestrial sites. However, wetland plants gener-
ally do not hyperaccumulate and, in any case, the mechanical
aspects of harvesting plants would be destructive to wetlands
with rooted plants.
Wetland sediments are generally considered a “sink” for
metals and may contain very high concentrations of metals in a
reduced state, especially in sediments with low oxygen. In such
areas the bioavailability of the metals is very low compared to
terrestrial systems, which have oxidized soils. Different forms
of metals have different availability: water-soluble metals are
the most available, while metals precipitated as inorganic com-
pounds, or combined with humic materials are potentially
available, and metals precipitated as insoluble sulfides (e.g.,
AVS) or bound within the structure of minerals are essentially
unavailable. In estuaries, much of the metals are tightly bound
to sulfides (e.g AVS) in anoxic sediments. However, some wet-
land plants (e.g., cordgrass, Spartina alterniflora) can oxidize
the sediments near their roots by moving oxygen downward,
and this oxidation can remobilize the metals, thus increasing
100  Marine Pollution

their otherwise low availability. By oxidizing the soil right by

the roots, plants can alter the distribution of metals in wet-
land sediments. Concentrations of metals tend to be higher in
vegetated soils than in unvegetated ones, and are particularly
high in soils near plant roots. Molecular tools are being used
to better understand the mechanisms of metal uptake, trans-
location, sequestration, and tolerance in plants.
Salt marsh plants can absorb available metals from the sed-
iments and store them largely in their roots. When wetland
plants move metals up from root tissue they accumulate in
leaves and stems. The degree of upward movement is depen-
dent on the species of plant, the particular metal and various
environmental conditions. Cordgrass transports significant
levels of metals to aboveground tissues, and so plays a role in
the transfer of metals through estuarine food webs. The met-
als that are moved up into stems and leaves become available
to the marsh ecosystem if they are excreted from the leaves,
which is what cordgrass does. Cordgrass has salt glands on
the underside of its leaves for excreting salt; metals can be
excreted from them as well. The release of metals from leaf tis-
sues is a way for the plant to reduce its tissue levels of metals,
but this increases the availability of metals in the ecosystem,
with potential uptake into estuarine food webs. Metals not
excreted from leaves will be in the leaves and stem when the
plant dies, falls to the marsh surface and decays. The detritus
produced as a result of this decay, will have elevated metals
that will then be available to animals such as mollusks and
small crustaceans that eat the detritus. In contrast to cordgrass,
the invasive common reed Phragmites australis is widely used
in constructed wetlands for treatment of wastewaters contain-
ing metals. P.  australis concentrates more of its metals below
ground in root and rhizome tissue, moving smaller amounts
to aboveground tissues.
It has been shown that concentrations of metals such as iron,
nickel, and chrome are 10 to 100 times higher than normal in
mangroves downstream from mining sites and that mangrove
 Metals 101

trees absorb contaminants. However, their extent is decreas-

ing in tropical areas because of human population growth and
urbanization along coastlines, conversion of mangrove swamps
to shrimp farms, and the use of their wood for fuel. Without
the dense network of vegetation provided by the mangrove
trees, sediments loaded with pollutants can enter lagoons and
estuaries, which are sites of biodiversity and major sources of
income for local populations through fishing and aquaculture.
 6
PESTICIDES AND INDUSTRIAL
ORGANIC CHEMICALS

What are the sources of pesticides to the marine environment?

Pesticides from agriculture, lawns, golf courses, and gardens
wash into streams and rivers and ultimately down into estu-
aries. These chemicals are designed to kill agricultural pests
(generally insects) on land. After being sprayed on land, they
wash into the water when it rains and can affect aquatic ani-
mals. Some spraying happens directly in coastal habitats.
Because salt marshes are well-known as breeding areas for
mosquitoes, biting flies, and other nuisance insects, they are
sites of direct pesticide applications. On the West Coast, where
burrowing shrimp are considered pests in oyster-growing
estuarine areas, the pesticide carbaryl is used to kill the
shrimp. Estuarine and marsh organisms can also be exposed
to herbicides used on the marshes to kill unwanted plants
such as common reeds on the East Coast and cord grass on the
West Coast. In addition to the pesticides used directly in salt
marshes or estuaries, other insecticides and herbicides wash
in from upland areas.

What happens to these chemicals after they enter the water?

Those chemicals of greatest concern are those that are persis-
tent (i.e., that don’t break down), that bioaccumulate in organ-
isms, and that are toxic at very low concentrations. Some of
 Pesticides and Industrial Organic Chemicals  103

Cl
Cl Cl

Cl Cl

Figure 6.1  DDT molecule (in all organic molecules with hexagons, a carbon atom is at each
point of the hexagon)

these, such as DDT, are banned in many countries, but they

nevertheless persist in marine sediments. In some countries
they are still used and continue to run off into aquatic envi-
ronments. Organochlorine chemicals (mostly DDT-related
pesticides, PCBs, and dioxins) have been studied intensively
for decades. Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) (Figure
6.1), the most powerful pesticide the world had ever known,
can kill hundreds of different kinds of insects.
Its ability to kill insects was identified in 1939 by the chem-
ist Paul Müller, who won the Nobel Prize for Physiology and
Medicine. DDT was used in World War II to clear South Pacific
islands of malaria-causing insects, and was used as a delous-
ing powder. When it became available for civilian use it was
considered a marvel, because it could be applied as a pow-
der on the water in relatively small amounts and would keep
killing mosquito larvae for months after only one application.
It could kill all kinds of insects, was not particularly toxic to
humans, and enjoyed great success until the development of
resistance by both mosquitoes and eventually the public. DDT
and related chemicals are fat-soluble and highly persistent.
Insect populations can develop resistance because not all of
the insects are killed when they are sprayed by the chemical.
The few remaining resistant individuals breed, and their off-
spring are also more resistant to the chemical, an example of
selection—evolution—at work. The insects eventually become
104  Marine Pollution

so resistant that a different chemical has to be used. Because of

their persistence in the environment and low water solubility,
chlorinated hydrocarbons tend to accumulate in sediments and
in tissues. Related pesticides included aldrin, dieldrin, chlor-
dane, heptachlor, and toxaphene, which caused fish kills when
applied near the water. Chlorinated hydrocarbons remain in
the environment (especially sediments) for many decades, so
they continue to be found long after they have been banned
and continue to be sources of contamination to marine life.
They can be moved by winds and currents far from their site of
origin; for example, pollutants from Europe, Russia, and North
America are transported to the Arctic. Furthermore, commer-
cial bottom trawling (pulling fishing nets across the bottom
to catch fish) churns up the sediments, releasing pollutants,
as shown by Lycousis and Collins. Furthermore, animals can
take up high levels of contaminants released by trawling. After
only one month of exposure, mussels living near the bottom
near trawling areas exceeded the EU limit for the chlorinated
chemicals that cause developmental and reproductive abnor-
malities, so the high levels in edible mussels are of particular
concern for public health.
Organisms can take up contaminants from the water, the
sediments, and from their food, and may acquire tissue lev-
els much greater than those in the environment. Not only do
these chemicals remain in sediments for a very long time,
they also biomagnify through food chains, increasing from
one step to the next. DDT and other chlorinated hydrocar-
bons concentrate in fatty tissues. Animals accumulate and
concentrate these chemicals from their food, and each tro-
phic level will have greater concentrations than the level
below it, so that the highest concentrations are in the top
carnivores—big fish, predatory birds, marine mammals,
and humans. Because of biomagnification, large carnivorous
fish may have hazardous levels of contaminants, and health
advisories may be issued to protect humans from consum-
ing them.
 Pesticides and Industrial Organic Chemicals  105

What is the importance of the book Silent Spring?

Rachel Carson’s writing about the dangers of DDT was stimu-
lated by bird kills that she observed following DDT sprayings.
Silent Spring described how DDT entered the food chain and
accumulated in fatty tissues of animals, including humans, caus-
ing cancer and genetic damage. She noted that a single applica-
tion on a crop killed insects for weeks and months (not only the
targeted insects but many others), and remained toxic even after
dilution by rainwater. She concluded that DDT and other chlo-
rinated pesticides had harmed birds and other animals and had
contaminated the world food supply. The book alarmed read-
ers and triggered an indignant response from chemical industry
spokesmen, who said that if people were to follow her advice we
would return to the Dark Ages, and insects and diseases would
inherit the earth. Anticipating such a reaction, Carson had writ-
ten the book with numerous scientific citations and a list of sci-
entific experts who had approved it. Many eminent scientists,
as well as President Kennedy’s Science Advisory Committee,
supported the book. As a result, DDT came under much closer
government scrutiny and was eventually banned. Most of the
other chlorinated hydrocarbons were also gradually phased out
in subsequent decades. An important legacy of Silent Spring was
a new public awareness that nature was vulnerable to human
activities. The growth of the environmental movement was
partly a response to this new awareness. Most uses of DDT
and other chlorinated hydrocarbons were banned in the 1970s.
In the United States, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires that adverse ecological effects
be balanced against the economic costs of regulating pesticide
use and the benefits the pesticide provides.

What are some newer types of pesticides?

Since the 1960s, the variety of pesticides has increased greatly.
Hundreds of chemicals are now in use, and they generally
106  Marine Pollution

occur in mixtures. Newer chemicals are less persistent than

the chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides and do not generally
cause fish kills. However, they can produce sublethal effects
such as endocrine disruption, altered development and behav-
ior, reduced growth, and other effects. “Second-generation”
pesticides such as organophosphates and carbamates are
much less persistent in the environment, but if spraying coin-
cides with the time of reproduction and early life stages of sus-
ceptible organisms, they can harm sensitive early life stages.
Organophosphates break down in the environment in a mat-
ter of weeks. They were developed from chemical compounds
similar to nerve gas and, not surprisingly, they affect a chemi-
cal in the body that is important for the transmission of nerve
impulses. At high doses, organophosphates can overstimulate
the nervous system and cause nausea, dizziness, or in cases of
severe poisoning, convulsions and respiratory paralysis. One
organophosphate commonly used in salt marshes is temephos
(Abate®), which is considered hazardous to fish, birds, insects
(beneficial species as well as the pests), shrimp, and crabs.
Reductions in fiddler crabs and zooplankton have been seen
after its use for mosquito control, and it was found to accumu-
late in salt marsh organisms, including sheepshead minnows,
mussels, and fiddler crabs. Malathion can be applied as a fog
from a moving vehicle, and it will permeate through vegeta-
tion, killing adult mosquitoes. It is considered one of the safest
organophosphates, and has been used in large pest eradica-
tion programs. However, honeybees are quite sensitive to it,
and colonies are sometimes affected downwind from an appli-
cation. It degrades rapidly in the environment, especially in
moist soil, and has relatively low toxicity to estuarine organ-
isms, birds, and mammals. It is usually broken down within
a few weeks by water and sunlight and by bacteria in soil and
water, but it can affect nontarget estuarine organisms before
it is completely broken down. Current use pesticides are fre-
quently detected in the environment and tissues of animals,
even though they are less persistent than the earlier chemicals.
 Pesticides and Industrial Organic Chemicals  107

Many different pesticides (fungicides, herbicides, and insecti-

cides) are found in water, sediments, and aquatic organisms of
estuaries in agricultural areas.

What are “third-generation” pesticides?

As people have realized the widespread effects of both first-
and second-generation pesticides, attempts have been made
to develop new pesticides that are more specialized in their
toxicity to insects. Insect growth regulators are much less
toxic to birds, mammals, and fishes. Some of these newer
pesticides target the molt cycle of insect larvae by mimick-
ing their specific biology or hormones. Larvicides target the
insect’s larval stages and are less harmful to nontarget organ-
isms, and generally more effective and specific than chemicals
that focus on adults. Larvicides target the limited breeding
habitat before adults have had a chance to disperse widely.
One larvicide in use is methoprene, an insect growth regu-
lator that mimics the insect’s juvenile hormone (JH), which
normally prevents larvae from metamorphosing prematurely
into adults. When the insect stops secreting JH during the
pupal stage, it is then ready to develop into an adult. If metho-
prene is present in the insect’s system when it begins the
pupal stage, the triggering of adult development is prevented
and it dies as a pupa. While few impacts have been observed
in nontarget aquatic organisms, there is concern that these
chemicals might have harmful effects on crustaceans, which
are closely related to insects. Another larvicide is Dimilin®
(diflubenzuron), a chitin synthesis inhibitor. Chitin is a major
constituent of the outer exoskeleton of arthropods (including
both target insects and nontarget crustaceans). A chitin syn-
thesis inhibitor prevents the larvae from molting, resulting
in their death. Unfortunately for crustaceans, they have the
same chitin in their exoskeletons and also need to molt, so
they can be severely harmed when diflubenzuron is sprayed.
Crustaceans make up the majority of small animals in the
108  Marine Pollution

zooplankton, and reduced numbers of zooplankton means

less food for small fishes. Also affected are larger crustaceans
such as shrimps and crabs, particularly when they are in lar-
val stages and must molt frequently.
Bacteria that cause insect diseases can also be used as
pesticides. The principal one used on salt marshes is Bacillus
thuringiensis israelensis (Bti), which produces protein crystals
that are selectively toxic to mosquito larvae. After being eaten,
they rupture the digestive tract of the host, causing rapid death.
When specific diseases of insects are used as pesticides there is
less likelihood of harm to nontarget organisms, but honeybees,
butterflies, dragonflies, and other useful insects may also be at
risk.

How are pesticides regulated?

In the United States, FIFRA requires that the adverse ecologi-
cal outcomes of a pesticide be balanced against its beneficial
effects in controlling pest populations (e.g., increased agri-
cultural production). In registering pesticides for use, it has
always been easier to document its financial benefits than to
estimate ecological costs, and the toxicity testing is done by
the manufacturer of the pesticide, who has an interest in min-
imizing its adverse effects. Most of the toxicity testing under
FIFRA is based on lethal effects (LC50, or the concentration
that kills 50% of the exposed animals) rather than sublethal
effects. The LC50 is not relevant to real-world effects of pes-
ticides, since it does not encompass species differences, sub-
lethal effects, or delayed effects. Most of the standard aquatic
test organisms are freshwater species—rainbow trout, blue-
gill, and daphnids. Individual chemicals are evaluated by
these standardized tests; in nature, however, animals are
exposed to a variety of chemicals, with new ones coming into
use every year, and the toxicity of complex mixtures is not
well understood at all.
 Pesticides and Industrial Organic Chemicals  109

What is integrated pest management?

Insect control is slowly evolving from a reliance on chemical
insecticides to “integrated pest management” that includes
surveillance of pest populations, source reduction, larvicides,
and biological control. Surveillance programs in salt marshes
track adults, larvae, and larval habitats, and only when pest
populations exceed some set level are control activities initi-
ated. Source reduction involves elimination of larval habitats,
and includes open marsh water management and rotational
impoundment management where the marsh is minimally
flooded during the summer by temporary impoundments—
reducing mosquito breeding. Biological control includes the
use of predators to eat mosquito larvae, such as aquatic inver-
tebrates, mosquitofish, and killifish.

What are the effects of pesticides on nontarget organisms?

In the 1960s, predatory birds such as brown pelicans, eagles,
and ospreys in coastal areas of the United States accumulated
such high levels of DDT and related pesticides that they had
reproductive failure and were in danger of becoming extinct
until the chemical was banned in 1970. DDT and related pes-
ticides caused these birds to lay eggs with very thin eggshells,
so that the eggs broke when the birds sat on them, resulting in
reproductive failure.
Toxic effects can be lethal or sublethal. Effects can be docu-
mented in laboratory exposures or observed in organisms in
the field. Effects can be studied at various levels of biological
organization from the molecular level (e.g., effects on enzymes
or DNA), to the organism (e.g., effects on growth, physiology,
behavior, development), to the population (e.g., changes in
population density, birth rate, or age structure), to the com-
munity (e.g., effects on the number of species present). Effects
on the organisms’ immune system, endocrine system, nervous
system, reproductive system, and so on are critical. Of great
110  Marine Pollution

concern are chemicals with the ability to cause embryonic

malformations (teratogenesis), genetic alterations (mutagen-
esis), endocrine disruption, or cancer (carcinogenesis).
Chlorinated hydrocarbons such as DDT, which bio-
magnify and take a long time to break down, can prevent
marine larvae from developing normally, reduce respiration
and metabolism, impair growth, and impair salt and water
balance. Organophosphate and carbamate pesticides, the
“second-generation” pesticides, still have harmful effects. The
insecticide Sevin® (carbaryl), used to control ghost shrimp in
Pacific oyster beds, is also very toxic to commercially impor-
tant Dungeness crabs. Their larvae are highly sensitive to other
insecticides and fungicides as well, as reviewed by Feldman
and colleagues. Malathion slows down larval development by
delaying molting; Abate® affects behavior, making animals
more susceptible to predators.

What is endocrine disruption?

There is particular concern about chemicals that, even at very
low concentrations, alter the development and functioning of
the endocrine system and affect development. These chemi-
cals are called endocrine disruptors, a term coined by Theo
Colborn. Known endocrine disruptors include DDT and other
chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides, certain PCBs and dioxins,
some metals, plastics, detergents, and flame retardants. These
chemicals have different mechanisms of action, depending on
the life stage at which the animal is exposed, and they may
have effects that are not seen for years after exposure. The most
commonly studied chemicals are those affecting reproduc-
tion, and they may mimic natural hormones or inhibit them
so that reproduction may be disrupted, intersex offspring may
be produced, and metamorphosis may be delayed, accelerated,
or prevented.
The first documented examples of endocrine disruption in
the estuarine environment were in dog whelks and mud snails
 Pesticides and Industrial Organic Chemicals  111

that were affected by the use of tributyltin (TBT) in antifouling

paints applied to boats to prevent algae and barnacles from
attaching to the hull (see Chapter  5). Previously, copper had
been the main toxic ingredient in these paints, but TBT was
more effective and long-lasting. As discussed in the previ-
ous chapter, tin-based chemicals, even at extremely low lev-
els, caused female snails to develop male sexual organs and
to become sterile, and populations crashed. TBT is now pro-
hibited in marine paints in most countries, and snail popula-
tions are recovering. Most boats are again being painted with
copper-based paints that are far from benign but are much
less toxic than TBT, and research efforts are underway to find
nontoxic or less toxic methods to prevent fouling. One popular
formulation being used is adding a substance called irgarol
to copper-based paints to boost their effectiveness. Though
not an endocrine disruptor, irgarol is highly toxic to plants,
including phytoplankton, seaweeds, and seagrasses. It is fairly
stable in water and sediment, and has become a widespread
contaminant in the vicinity of marinas and poses a continual
risk to the environment.
Some other pesticides and industrial chemicals in very
low concentrations also may affect hormone functions, and it
is suspected that reported decreases in human sperm counts
and increases in sperm abnormalities may be a result of expo-
sure. Many reproductive abnormalities in different animals
have been reported in nature. Alligators from Lake Apopka in
Florida that were exposed to pesticides had reduced penis size
and sperm abnormalities. Intersex frogs appear in areas where
the herbicide atrazine is used. Mosquitofish near paper mills
have intersex conditions in which females grow an extended
anal fin called a gonopodium, typically seen only in males.
The eggshell thinning noted in birds exposed to DDT was
probably also an example of endocrine disruption, although
that term had not yet been coined when the problem occurred.
Endocrine disrupting chemicals appear to be involved with
increased incidence of hermaphroditism in some fishes and
112  Marine Pollution

marine mammals. Polar bears, living far away from any

source of contaminants but at the highest trophic level in the
Arctic where contaminants concentrate, seem to be exhibiting
abnormal genitalia.

What are biomarkers?

Biomarkers are changes (generally biochemical) that can be
used to assess responses to contaminants. Some molecular
biomarkers include the induction of cytochrome P-450 1A (or
CYP1A), which indicates exposure to aromatic hydrocarbons
and is an enzyme system that is used to metabolize them.
Another biomarker is vitellogenin (yolk protein) production in
males, which indicates exposure to estrogenic chemicals and
is normally produced only by females. The eggshell thinning
of birds described above could also be considered a biomarker.

What kinds of population level effects can be produced?

Population level effects such as reduced numbers can be seen
from chemicals that do not necessarily have direct impacts on
reproduction. For example, chemicals that are neurotoxic can
affect behavior, including reproductive behavior. If reproduc-
tive behavior is abnormal, reproduction will be impaired and
the population may diminish. If the chemicals affect feeding
behavior and the organisms eat less, they will not grow as
well and may not be able to reproduce as well or live as long
as unaffected individuals. If contaminants impair the ability
to avoid predators, the animals will not live as long and may
not leave offspring. If chemicals affect the immune system, the
organisms will be more vulnerable to diseases. These are just
some of the ways that populations could decrease as a result
of contaminant exposure. Populations in chronically polluted
areas can also respond by becoming more tolerant to the con-
taminants, which can select for more tolerant individuals. This
 Pesticides and Industrial Organic Chemicals  113

selection (an evolutionary response) results in a genetically

different population.

What community level effects can be produced?

Once populations of sensitive species are affected, changes
in communities can result. In general, communities become
less diverse because of the loss of some sensitive species.
Shifts in community composition also occur in which toler-
ant species become more abundant, while the more sensitive
species decline. Community-level effects are most com-
monly studied in benthic communities that are composed
largely of polychaete worms and bivalve mollusks that live
in the sediments and cannot move away quickly. A  useful
approach devised by Peter Chapman is to measure concen-
trations of contaminants in the sediments, the toxicity of the
sediments (by sediment toxicity tests), and the benthic com-
munity structure. This is referred to as the sediment quality
triad. While it cannot indicate which particular contami-
nants are responsible for toxicity, it is very useful for com-
paring different areas or changes in a given area over time.
Contaminated sites tend to have multiple contaminants that
may interact in different ways. Because of these interactions,
it is very difficult to predict biological effects based only on
knowledge of the types and concentrations of contaminants
at a particular site.

What can marine organisms to do defend themselves

against toxic effects?
Animals have enzyme systems that can detoxify organic chem-
icals and break them down. These are discussed in Chapter 8.
Over the long term, chemicals can select for individuals that
are more tolerant, and thus evolution of more tolerant popula-
tions may take place.
114  Marine Pollution

What are the trends in pesticide contamination?

Persistent contaminants in coastal sediments and biota in
the United States have been generally decreasing over the
past two decades. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) has run a monitoring program for
140 contaminants in bivalve populations (mussels and oys-
ters) in 300 sites nationwide. For butyltins (TBT having been
banned), 88 sites showed a significant decrease while none
showed an increase. For organic contaminants such as chlo-
rinated hydrocarbon pesticides (most of which were banned
in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s), 133 sites showed
a significant decrease while none showed an increase. The
Canadian government has been monitoring contaminants in
bird eggs and has found decreases in chlordane, dieldrin, and
DDT-breakdown product DDE (banned pesticides) in eggs of
the great blue heron, double-crested cormorant, and osprey.

What are polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)?

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are also chlorinated hydro-
carbons, and were manufactured from 1929 until they were
banned in the United States in 1979 (Figure 6.2). PCBs are chem-
ically related to organochlorine pesticides. Each molecule con-
sists of chlorine atoms attached to a double carbon-hydrogen
ring (a biphenyl). There are 209 different PCB molecules (or
congeners) that differ in the number and location of the chlo-
rine atoms on the rings. In general, PCBs with more chlorine
atoms are more toxic than PCBs with less chlorine. Like chlori-
nated hydrocarbon pesticides, they remain in the environment
for a long time, have low water solubility, and accumulate
in fat. PCBs are suspected of causing cancer and have been
linked to male sterility and birth defects. In birds and fish they
decrease egg hatchability, alter behavior, and decrease immune
response. There are two distinct categories of PCBs: coplanar
and non-coplanar (or ortho-substituted) congeners. Coplanar
 Pesticides and Industrial Organic Chemicals  115

3’ 2’ 2 3

4’ 4
para

5’ 6’ 6 5

meta ortho

Figure 6.2  PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl) molecule, showing the various sites where
Cl atoms may be attached to carbon

PCBs have a fairly rigid flat structure, with the two phenyl
rings in the same plane, which gives the molecule a structure
similar to polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs; see
below) and allows them to act in the same way as these mol-
ecules. Non-coplanar PCBs, with chlorine atoms at the ortho
positions, are not part of the extremely toxic dioxin group.
Nevertheless they have neurotoxic and immunotoxic effects,
but not at such low levels as those related to dioxins. Due to
their nonflammability, chemical stability, high boiling point,
and electrical insulating properties, PCBs had hundreds of
industrial and commercial applications including electrical
equipment; as plasticizers in paints and rubber products; in
pigments, dyes, and copy paper; and many others.

How did PCBs get into the marine environment?

Unlike pesticides, PCBs were never intentionally sprayed in
the environment. They were used in industry and got into the
environment through carelessness during their manufacture
and use. They can still be released into the environment from
poorly maintained hazardous waste sites, illegal or improper
dumping of PCB wastes, leaks from electrical transformers
containing PCBs, and disposal of PCB-containing products
into landfills not designed for hazardous waste. PCBs may
also be released to the environment by the burning of some
116  Marine Pollution

wastes. They can be carried long distances and have been

found in snow and seawater in areas far away from where they
were released, and therefore they are found all over the world.
In general, the lighter the PCB (the fewer chlorine atoms per
molecule), the further it can be transported. PCBs accumulate
in aquatic biota, including plankton and fish, and like chlo-
rinated pesticides and meHg, PCBs biomagnify. Thus, fishes
higher on the food chain have higher concentrations than
smaller ones (Figure 1.3).
General Electric plants in upstate New  York dumped an
estimated 1.3 million pounds of PCBs into the upper Hudson
River over a 30-year period until they were ordered to stop in
1977. Since that time, the spread of PCBs throughout the river
created a widespread toxic waste problem. The contaminated
sediments have dispersed to cover a much larger stretch of
the river than they did originally, making the cleanup more
extensive and far more expensive. An approximately 200-mile
stretch of the river is designated a Superfund site. Though
required by the law to clean up the PCBs, General Electric
battled the EPA in the courts for decades until an agreement
was finally reached in 2005 and cleanup finally started in 2011.
The New  York State Department of Environmental
Conservation initiated intensive monitoring of PCBs in fish
and banned commercial fishing for striped bass in the region
in 1976 following the discovery of high levels in this spe-
cies. Since then, the PCBs levels in the fish around New York
Harbor have dropped and then stabilized at an acceptable
level. PCBs in fish in the upper Hudson, however, still exceed
what is considered safe, according to a 2013 report by the
Hudson River Natural Resource Trustees (comprised of the
State of New  York, Department of Commerce—NOAA, and
Department of Interior). Most of the PCBs in the lower Hudson
originate from the upper Hudson, but about 40% of the ele-
vated levels in the New York/New Jersey Harbor come from
local sources.
 Pesticides and Industrial Organic Chemicals  117

PCB levels in white perch from the Chesapeake Bay area

were found by King and colleagues to be strongly related
to the percentage of suburban and urban development in
the local watershed. They considered the intensity of devel-
opment in watersheds using four measures of developed
land-use (%  impervious surface, % total developed land, %
high-intensity residential + commercial, and % commercial)
to represent potential source areas of PCBs to the subestuar-
ies. When development of the land in the watershed reached
about 20% of the total area (which is not particularly dense
for our coastal states), PCBs in the fish begin to exceed recom-
mended limits for consumption. PCBs historically produced
or used in commercial and residential areas are apparently
persisting in the environment and the amount of developed
land close to the subestuary had the greatest effect on PCB
levels in the fish.
PCBs have been banned in the United States since the 1970s,
but continue to be redistributed and dispersed. More than
30 years after their prohibition, they are still accumulating in
fish tissue to such an extent that state agencies recommend that
people do not eat striped bass or blue crabs from the Newark
Bay area, and eat no more than one meal a week of seafood
from other areas in the New York Harbor estuary.
Another PCB-contaminated site is an 18,000 acre tidal estu-
ary in New Bedford, Massachusetts, where manufacturers of
electric devices used PCBs and discharged wastes into the
harbor directly as well as through the city’s sewage system.
PCB levels in fish and lobsters exceed the Food and Drug
Administration’s limit for PCBs in edible seafood. There is
an increased risk of cancer and other diseases for people who
regularly eat seafood from the area. While some species have
disappeared, Diane Nacci and colleagues at EPA found that
the killifish at the site have become very tolerant to the PCBs.
The fish adapted to the high levels of PCBs through genetic
changes by developing an abnormal biochemical pathway.
118  Marine Pollution

What are Dioxins?

Dioxins and furans are some of the most toxic chemicals known.
Dioxin is a general term that describes a group of hundreds of
chemicals that are highly persistent in the environment. The
most toxic compound is 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin or
TCDD (Figure 6.3). Polychlorinated dibenzofurans are similar
to dibenzodioxins, but with a single oxygen connecting the
two benzene rings instead of two oxygens.
The toxicity of other dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs are mea-
sured in relation to TCDD. Dioxins and furans are not made
on purpose, but are formed as unintentional byproducts of
industrial processes that use chlorine, such as chemical and
pesticide manufacturing, pulp and paper mills that use chlo-
rine bleach, the production of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plas-
tics, the production of chlorinated chemicals, and incineration
of wastes containing plastic. Dioxin, a contaminant in the
herbicide Agent Orange, was found at Love Canal in Niagara
Falls, New  York, and was the basis for evacuations at Times
Beach, Missouri and Seveso, Italy. The industrial accident in
Seveso led to many cases of Acquired Dioxin-Induced Skin
Haematoma, in which the skin acquires disfiguring red lumps.
Dioxins, like PCBs, are organic molecules with varying
numbers and arrangements of chlorine atoms. They are partic-
ularly toxic to the immune system and to developing embryos,
in which effects may occur immediately or may be delayed for
a long period of time, perhaps impairing reproduction once

10
1 9
O
2 8

3 7

4
O 6
5

Figure 6.3  Dioxin molecule, showing the various positions where Cl atoms may be attached.
2,3,7,8 TCDD is the most toxic
 Pesticides and Industrial Organic Chemicals  119

the individual matures. They are known to alter hormones,

and to cause reproductive problems, liver damage, wasting
syndrome, and cancer. Judging from the Seveso and other
incidents, humans appear to be much less susceptible to the
immediate acute effects than other species. At Seveso, most
farm animals died, while people just got skin hematoma.

How do they get into the marine environment?

There is an estuarine/marsh dioxin-contaminated site in
Newark in the lower Passaic River right before it enters
Newark Bay. The Diamond Shamrock Company manufac-
tured the herbicide Agent Orange there during the Vietnam
War and released dioxins as a byproduct. Newark Bay and the
lower Passaic have layers of polluted sediment contributing
to dangerous dioxin levels in blue crabs, fish, and fish-eating
birds. The dioxin levels recorded in Passaic River and Newark
Bay blue crabs are among the highest ever measured in aquatic
animals, and crabbing is banned in the area because the con-
tamination poses a high cancer risk.
The presence of dioxins in Newark Bay sediments has made
the disposal of dredged materials from deepening the channel
for the Port of Newark a highly controversial issue. In February
2004, the EPA determined that pollution in the bay posed an
imminent and substantial risk to human health and to the
environment, and it ordered the company that was respon-
sible for the pollution in the lower Passaic River to carry out a
comprehensive study under EPA supervision and to design a
cleanup plan. At this site and at many others in need of reme-
diation, there is concern that when the bottom is dredged as
part of the cleanup process, sediments could be stirred up and
contaminants that are tightly bound to the sediments will
be mobilized and released, causing additional exposure and
risk of toxicity to animals and plants in the area. Under the
Superfund Program, the clean up of the lower Passaic finally
started in 2012.
120  Marine Pollution

What effects do they have?

Dioxins, like chlorinated hydrocarbons, are persistent in sedi-
ments of marine systems, where their effects continue long
after they are banned. They also biomagnify through food
webs, and long-term effects are generally not well known.
Fish embryos are highly sensitive and develop a syndrome
that prevents their normal development. Ironically, pollution
can have some indirect positive effects on crabs. Blue crabs
in industrialized northern New Jersey accumulate such high
concentrations of dioxin that fishing for them is banned out
of concern for human safety. Consequently, their population
is growing and individuals grow larger than in clean areas
where they are still fished for.

Can PCBs or dioxins be a risk to people who eat seafood?

People who ingest fish or other seafood with high levels of
PCBs or dioxins, such as in Newark Bay may be exposed to high
concentrations. Toxic fish can be found in many other urban-
ized estuaries. Fish from the Columbia River near Portland,
Oregon have PCB levels thousands of times above what the
EPA considers safe for unrestricted consumption. Many riv-
ers in the Columbia Basin, including sections of the mainstem
Columbia River, have fish advisories that warn people not to
consume certain types of fish, but people do not always heed
the signs.
Maternal exposure to PCBs and dioxins was associated with
an increased risk of asthma and more frequent upper respira-
tory tract infections in babies. Furthermore, maternal expo-
sure to PCBs and dioxins was also associated with reduced
antibody response to a measles vaccine. Thus, prenatal dietary
exposure to PCBs and dioxins may increase the risk of asthma
and susceptibility to infectious diseases in early childhood.
 Pesticides and Industrial Organic Chemicals  121

What can be done about organic chemical pollution?

Obviously, removing or cleaning up contaminated sediments
will result in a cleaner environment over time. Fortunately,
PCB and dioxin levels have been declining in the past few
decades and have been the subject of a number of federal and
state regulations and cleanup actions in the United States.
A  number of Superfund projects have removed highly con-
taminated sediments (e.g., Hudson River PCBs). One looks
forward to the day, probably decades from now, when people
can safely consume fish and crabs from around Newark Bay
and the rest of New  York/New Jersey Harbor, New Bedford
Harbor, the Columbia River estuary, and other contaminated
sites.
 7
EMERGING CONCERNS

What other types of contaminants are we beginning to

learn about?
Contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) have been defined
as any man-made or naturally occurring chemical or microor-
ganism that is not generally monitored in the environment but
has the potential to enter the environment and cause adverse
ecological or human health effects. In some cases release of
these contaminants has been going on for a long time, but
they have not previously been regarded as contaminants and
are already widespread. They can come from municipal, agri-
cultural, and industrial wastewater sources. Some examples
are:  brominated flame retardants, phthalates (plasticizers),
alkylphenols (used as detergents and known to disrupt the
reproductive system), pharmaceuticals, and triclosan (trichlo-
rohydroxydiphenyl ether), an antibacterial agent in many per-
sonal care products and which poses risks to humans and the
environment. There are also a plethora of new chemicals that
have recently come into use (e.g., some drugs, nanoparticles).
They came into widespread use before we know anything
about their environmental impacts.

Why are pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs)

a concern?
Pharmaceuticals are prescription and over-the-counter
drugs, including antibiotics, birth control pills, tranquilizers,
 Emerging Concerns  123

painkillers, and other medications, while personal care prod-

ucts include soaps, fragrances, sunscreen, and cosmetics. Even
caffeine (in food and beverages as well as some pharmaceu-
ticals) has been found in coastal waters. There are mounting
concerns about pharmaceuticals that are being found wherever
they have been looked for in waterbodies. There are several
reasons for the concern. Large quantities of pharmaceuticals
and personal care products (PPCPs) enter the environment
after use, and sewage systems are not equipped to remove
them. Most treatment plants filter and chlorinate sewage to
remove disease-causing microbes and excess organic matter
but do not remove pharmaceuticals, which go right through
traditional treatment processes. When treatment plants release
treated sewage (effluent), drug-tainted water is released
directly into the receiving waterbody. Researchers such as
Daughton and Kearns have found antibiotics, blood-pressure
reducers, hormones, psychiatric drugs, and painkillers in the
water leaving sewage plants and in the waterbodies receiving
this wastewater. The risks posed to aquatic organisms and to
humans are unknown, because the concentrations are so low.
Since pharmaceuticals are designed to have biological effects
at very low concentrations, it is not surprising that they should
have effects on aquatic organisms. Two of the major concerns
about pharmaceutical pollution have been the development
of resistance to antibiotics by microbes and endocrine dis-
ruption by natural and synthetic sex steroids (such as birth
control pills). Many other PPCPs have unknown effects. These
contaminants are being discovered in water and fish tissue at
very low concentrations. It is likely they have been present in
the environment for as long as they have been in use. Many
PPCPs remain in the water because as they degrade more are
continually being added, and their use is increasing. Because
of increasing concentrations, environmental effects are being
noticed.
When endocrine disruption was first being studied in
aquatic animals in the early 1990s, people looked to the
124  Marine Pollution

“usual suspects,” the chlorinated hydrocarbons (which do

have endocrine effects). Later it was noticed that actual hor-
mones themselves were in the water, coming out from sew-
age treatment plants, and scientists realized that estrogens
from birth control pills were playing a major role. Waters
contain pharmaceuticals, such as metabolized birth control
pills, that people excrete and which can affect fish and other
animals. Currently, there is considerable interest in investi-
gating the pharmaceuticals and personal care products that
end up in aquatic ecosystems, and numerous studies have
found endocrine effects in aquatic organisms. Altered sex
ratios and abnormal female fish have been seen downstream
of treatment plants, as well as intersex fish with both male
and female reproductive tissue. It would not be at all sur-
prising if pharmaceutical pollution produces greater endo-
crine effects than the usual suspect pollutant chemicals,
because the biology of humans is very similar to that of fish
in this regard. When impacts of CECs from wastewater were
investigated in Southern California by Steven Bay from the
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project and col-
leagues, CECs were found in effluents from the major munici-
pal wastewater dischargers, as well as in seawater, sediments,
and fish near the outfalls. Fish hormones were altered; they
had reduced stress response, altered estrogen, and reduced
thyroid hormone, but responses could not be definitively
linked to the discharges. However, thyroxine was lower in
fish from all discharge sites, and estradiol was lower at three
of the four outfall sites. The physiological changes, however,
did not apparently lead to decreased reproduction.
Glucocorticoids (adrenal hormones) are also found in the
environment at concentrations that may be high enough to
affect aquatic life. A  team of scientists that reviewed hun-
dreds of studies concluded that there are no safe doses for
hormone-altering chemicals. Such chemicals have effects at
low levels, which are often completely different than effects at
high concentrations.
 Emerging Concerns  125

Tranquilizers, antidepressants, and other neuroactive phar-

maceuticals may affect the behavior of fish and wildlife. Beulig
and Fowler studied “fish on prozac”—the effects of the selec-
tive serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) fluoxetine (Prozac) on
fish. They found that it alters the amount of the neurotrans-
mitter serotonin (just as it is designed to do in humans), which
causes the fish to reduce their swimming and feeding behav-
ior. It also has some toxic effects on algae. Even low levels of
oxazepam caused perch to become more antisocial, risk-prone,
and hyperactive, making them easier targets for predators.
Only about 20% of the dose of commonly used cholesterol
lowering drugs (statins) is metabolized in the body; the rest
is excreted and finds its way into aquatic systems, where their
effects are largely unknown. Antibiotics such as erythromy-
cin and tetracycline can stimulate the evolution of (or selection
for) antibiotic-resistant bacteria that can later cause illness in
wildlife and humans. Also detected are caffeine, nicotine, acet-
aminophen, ibuprofen, and many other familiar substances—
a veritable drug cocktail. While they are not likely to be toxic
in the traditional sense, they are biologically active and likely
to have effects on aquatic animals.
In addition to pharmaceuticals, personal care products
such as cosmetics, lotions, sun blocks, and insect repellants
(for example, DEET) are not broken down or removed in sew-
age treatment plants, and when they enter aquatic systems
the chemicals in these products can affect aquatic plants and
animals. Triclosan, an antibacterial commonly used in per-
sonal care and household products, is one of the most fre-
quently found chemicals in wastewater in the United States.
It is a potent endocrine disruptor with effects on the thyroid
gland, and is also toxic to aquatic plants. Furthermore, there
is no evidence that over-the-counter antibacterial soap prod-
ucts are any more effective at preventing illness than wash-
ing with plain soap and water. Other antibacterial compounds
are released from sewage treatment plants, and wherever they
have been looked for, they have been found.
126  Marine Pollution

What can be done about PPCPs?

Education is a major approach to pharmaceutical pollution.
“Don’t Rush to Flush” became the motto used to teach the
public about the risks of flushing or improperly disposing of
unwanted or unused over-the-counter medications, pharma-
ceuticals, and personal care products. However, most of the
problem is not due to unused medications improperly flushed
down the toilet, but those that were taken properly and later
excreted in urine. Conventional methods of filtering waste-
water in sewage treatment plants can’t completely remove
medicine residues. New technologies for treatment plants
are needed, but not yet ready for use. Chemical processes are
being devised and tested that can remove persistent chemicals
and pharmaceuticals from wastewater. Pollutants can also be
removed effectively from wastewater with selective adsorb-
ers. A  biological filter has been developed in which specific
enzymes (called laccases) break down pharmaceuticals. These
are still in the experimental stage and have not been put to
use anywhere, but provide an idea as to approaches that can
be taken. Another new water treatment technology called
membrane distillation separates drug residues from sewage
by heating. Water vapor passes through a thin membrane and
through an air gap, where it condenses onto a cold surface.
Drug residues collect on one side of the membrane and water
on the other. In a test with oxazepam in wastewater, the level
was reduced to less than 1% of the original concentration. This
technology is also in the very early stages of development.

What are polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and why are

they a concern in the marine environment?
Other emerging contaminants are flame retardants that are
used in a variety of consumer products including clothing,
furniture, curtains, carpets, and toys. They are intended to
slow the rate of ignition and fire spread, giving people time
 Emerging Concerns  127

to escape from a fire or extinguish it. They have been found

at very high levels in aquatic systems and are also common
in landfills. Attention to these contaminants is recent, since
no one had bothered to look for them before. The chemicals
are polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs); their structure is
reminiscent of PCBs and dioxins, but with bromine attached
instead of chlorine, and (not surprisingly, given the similar
chemistry of chlorine and bromine) they are also persistent,
toxic, and bioaccumulative (Figure 7.1). They also have many
neurological, endocrine, and developmental effects similar to
PCBs and dioxins, and they are extremely potent thyroid hor-
mone disruptors. In recent years PBDEs have generated inter-
national concern over their widespread distribution in the
environment, their potential to bioaccumulate in humans and
wildlife, and their suspected adverse health effects. Production
of PBDEs in the United States began in the 1970s and peaked in
the late 1990s. An investigative report from the Chicago Tribune
suggests that their widespread use was pushed by the tobacco
companies, which were under fire (as it were) for cigarettes
causing house fires. The industry insisted it couldn’t make a
fire-safe cigarette that would appeal to smokers and instead
promoted flame retardant chemicals in furniture—shifting
attention from cigarettes to the couches and chairs that were
going up in flames. They pushed the use of retardant chemi-
cals in furniture and even got the fire marshals association to
promote it—even after it was found that the chemicals were
escaping and accumulating in people and the environment.
With furniture treated with flame retardants, people could
still smoke but not die in burning houses. That way they could
continue buying cigarettes and smoke for more years (until
they died of lung cancer).
PBDEs move from consumer products to the outdoor envi-
ronment and have been found by Barry Kelly and colleagues
in tissues of marine mammals in the Arctic, far from any con-
sumer products. PBDE concentrations in the US marine envi-
ronment are among the highest in the world, perhaps because
128  Marine Pollution

Br Br

Br O Br

Br Br Br Br

Br Br

Figure 7.1  PBDE molecule showing all the positions where Br can be attached

most of the production has been in the United States. PBDE lev-
els in tissues of people in the United States are 10 to 100 times
higher than levels in Europeans and Asians. Canadians have
somewhat lower levels than the United States, but surprisingly,
children have higher levels than adults. These chemicals can
cause long-term adverse effects in marine animals, and major
reductions in reproductive success in fish and crustaceans.

What is the problem with fluorinated compounds?

Fluorinated compounds are also of concern. Perfluorinated
compounds (PFCs) are a family of man-made chemicals
that are used to make products that resist heat, oil, stains,
grease, and water. Common uses include nonstick cookware,
stain-resistant carpets and fabrics, coatings on some food
packaging (e.g., microwave popcorn bags and fast food wrap-
pers), and fire-fighting foam. These chemicals, such as per-
fluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA), are persistent and ubiquitous in the environment.
They are also likely to be toxic and bioaccumulative. They are,
like DDT, PCBs and dioxin, halogenated. Halogens include
fluorine (F), chlorine (Cl), and bromine (Br). Halogenated com-
pounds, with either F, Cl, or Br in their structure are resistant
to microbial degradation. Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid has
been detected by Jessica Reiner and colleagues in tissues of
 Emerging Concerns  129

marine mammals from Arctic waters, suggesting widespread

global distribution. PFOS in nursing Hudson Bay beluga
whale calves exceeds the oral reference dose (the level con-
sidered safe for humans), which raises concern for harmful
effects in sensitive Arctic marine wildlife. One wonders why,
when there was so much concern and attention to chlorinated
chemicals (DDT, PCBs) decades ago, people didn’t realize that
brominated and fluorinated chemicals would be likely to have
similar behavior in the environment and similar effects and
look into them.

What is the concern about alkylphenols?

Alkylphenols are chemicals used in the production of deter-
gents and other cleaning products, personal hair care prod-
ucts, and commonly used plastics. They are also known to be
endocrine disruptors, specifically estrogen mimics. One alkyl-
phenol, bisphenol-A (BPA), has been the subject of concern and
controversy regarding its potential adverse effects on human
health, particularly children’s development, and until recently it
was commonly used in plastic baby bottles and other products.
In 2008 Canada banned the use of BPA in baby bottles. Most
scientists who study alkylphenols consider them serious envi-
ronmental hazards with hormone disruptive effects in humans
and wildlife, including marine animals. For example, scientists
have found extensive contamination in lobsters in urban areas,
and that alkylphenols are toxic to them at low doses, interfer-
ing with metamorphosis and shell hardening. Reproductive
and developmental effects of BPA in fishes include decrease of
male hormones, death of testicular cells, inhibition of sperm
and egg production, and decreased hatchability of larvae.

What are nanoparticles and what is the concern about them?

Nanotechnology is used in many areas of modern life, includ-
ing the manufacture of paints, batteries, fuel additives, catalysts,
130  Marine Pollution

transistors, lasers, lubricants, medical implants, water purifiers,

sunscreens and cosmetics, and food additives. Nanoparticles are
microscopic particles that are larger than individual molecules,
and have at least one dimension less than one hundred nano-
meters (a nanometer is one billionth of a meter or one millionth
of a millimeter). Nanomaterials or nanoparticles (NPs) (<100
nm) can be made of different materials; some come from com-
bustion like diesel soot, and some are manufactured. Because of
their size, they have unusual properties that make them useful
for drug delivery, gene therapy, and other biomedical uses, as
well as in the optical, cosmetics, materials science, and electron-
ics fields. They may be made of carbon (nanotubes, fullerenes),
transition metals (gold, platinum, silver), metal oxides (titanium
dioxide, zinc oxide), plastic (polystyrene), or silica, and are being
manufactured in increasing amounts. Fullerenes, named after
Buckminster Fuller (the designer of geodesic domes), are hollow
spherical molecules composed of 60 atoms of carbon. Informally
called buckyballs, they resemble soccer balls.
One reason for concern about nanomaterials is that since
they are so small, they may interact with the environment and
living things in unexpected ways. They are extremely diverse,
exhibiting a wide variety of properties. Particular classes are of
concern because of their potential impacts on human and envi-
ronmental health, including nanosilver, carbon nanotubes, and
fullerenes. NPs pose possible dangers because they are reactive
and can pass easily through cell membranes. They can cause
inflammation in the lungs, and because of their tiny size they
are highly mobile and able to move from their original site (the
lungs from being inhaled) to other parts of the body. Inside
cells, NPs can stimulate the formation of reactive oxygen species
(ROS) that interfere with DNA, proteins, and cell membranes.
Greater use of NPs has led to their release into the envi-
ronment in runoff and sewage effluent, and their accumula-
tion in coastal environments. They have come under scrutiny
as potential pollutants. For example, the nanoparticle form of
titanium dioxide after exposure to ultraviolet radiation can be
 Emerging Concerns  131

toxic to marine life. A field of nanoecotoxicology is develop-

ing. Investigating effects of NPs in the aquatic environment
is important, since it receives runoff and wastewater from
domestic and industrial sources containing nanoparticles.
While metal NPs may have fates similar to other forms of
the same metal, metal NPs tend to be more toxic than regular
forms of the metal. However, metals in NPs may be tightly
bound to the core material and not readily dissociated. In the
aquatic environment NPs tend to agglomerate, which means
they will settle into sediments and be taken up by organisms.
Danielle Cleveland and colleagues compared the environmen-
tal fate of nanosilver in consumer products, two silver (Ag)
NP standards, and ionic silver (Ag+) in estuarine mesocosms
containing a variety of species, and found that the consumer
product (a stuffed teddy bear) released high amounts of Ag
(>80%) over 60 days, which moved from the water into clams,
grass shrimp, mud snails, cordgrass, biofilms, and sediment.
Ag was initially adsorbed from the water onto the sediment,
then from there moved into the clams and other residents in
the tank. Significant amounts were taken up into animals by
consuming sediments and smaller organisms.
Research is ongoing to develop methods to measure NPs
in water and sediment, and to determine their environmen-
tal occurrence, the sources and pathways of their release, their
transport and fate, and their potential effects. There is a need
to develop standardized analytical techniques, understand the
role of wastewater treatment plants on their environmental
fate, and determine mechanisms of their transport and fate in
the environment. This will be difficult, since so many chemi-
cals can be in the nanoparticle form, but will not be able to be
measured in the same way.
NPs accumulate in estuarine organisms, with effects
largely unknown. A  limited number of studies have shown
toxic effects, but the effects are highly specific to the chemi-
cal nature of the NP and the organism. Fullerenes and nano-
tubes produced adverse effects on fish, and metal NPs caused
132  Marine Pollution

deleterious effects in several fish species and invertebrates.

Because of limited data, scientists and regulators have been
reluctant to propose broad guidelines limiting their use. This
is an example of something becoming widespread in the envi-
ronment before we have learned much about its effects.

Are existing regulations adequate to protect against harm to marine

life, wildlife, and humans by these new chemicals? Are there any
technological improvements?
The current regulatory framework cannot keep up with the fast
pace of new chemical development and new uses. It seems that
chemicals get regulated in the US only after they have become
widespread, have been proven to be harmful, and after they
have caused extensive damage. That is a basic failing and weak-
ness of the toxic substance law, the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA), which currently seems to protect the chemical manu-
facturers to a greater degree than the environment or human
health. New methods of measurement and better review of the
ecological risk of new chemicals is needed. Undoubtedly addi-
tional types of pollutants that we know nothing about will con-
tinue to be found once we know to look for them.
However, research in 2013 found out what happens to
nanosilver in a wastewater treatment plant—it does not
remain in metallic form for long, but is transformed into a sil-
ver sulfide salt. This is good news, because the silver sulfide
salt causes much fewer problems because this form of Ag is
much less soluble. In sewage treatment plants, about 95% of
the nanoparticles were bound in the sewage sludge, leaving
only 5% in the treated wastewater. This percentage could be
further reduced by using better filters.

What is Noise pollution?

Noise pollution in the ocean is another emerging concern.
For millions of years, the oceans have been filled with sounds
 Emerging Concerns  133

from natural sources such as the clicks and songs of whales,

and the grunts, croaks, and drumming of fishes named after
their sounds. Many marine species have acute hearing, echo-
location, and communication abilities. Time was when a blue
whale call could be heard by others of its species many miles
away, but since the advent of the propeller engine 150  years
ago, that has changed. An increase in boats, commercial ship-
ping traffic, exploration and extraction of oil and minerals,
air guns used for seismic exploration, sonar, and even jet skis
contribute to the increased level of underwater noise. Sound
travels four times faster in water than in air so it travels farther
under water. High intensity sound can travel for thousands
of miles. Since water is denser than air, sound waves travel
though water at higher energy levels and are therefore louder.

What types of noise occur in the ocean?

Underwater noise has been divided into two main
types: (1) impulsive—loud, intermittent or infrequent noises,
such as those generated by pile driving and seismic surveys;
and (2) continuous—lower-level constant noises, such as those
generated by ship engines and wind turbines. These two types
of noise have different impacts on marine life. The frequency
or pitch of the noise is also important, as animals are sensi-
tive to different frequencies. For instance, most of the noise
produced by pleasure boats is low frequency, below 1.5 kilo-
hertz (kHz). Although most sensitive to sounds above 15 kHz,
bottlenose dolphins could be disturbed by these boat noises
because they hear in the wider range 0.075–150 kHz and some
of their calls are below 2 kHz.
One new noise source having immediate and obvious
negative effects has been the development and testing of
low-frequency active (LFA) sonar that has a potential world-
wide deployment by the US Navy. Several tests of this sonar
have resulted in deaths of many marine animals. The oil and
gas industry uses arrays of airguns which release intense
134  Marine Pollution

impulses of compressed air into the water about once every 10

to 12 seconds. Seismic surveys produce sounds with pressures
higher than those of other man-made sources besides explo-
sives. In seismic airgun testing, a ship tows a seismic airgun
that shoots extremely loud blasts of compressed air through
the ocean and miles under the seafloor to locate oil and gas
deposits. These airguns must be incredibly powerful in order
to penetrate the water and the earth’s crust and then bounce
back up to the surface. In fact, this sound is 100,000 times more
intense than a jet engine. Tests would last 24 hours for 33 days
and would kill or injure marine mammals (some of them
endangered species), including whales, dolphins, porpoises,
seals, and otters. This powerful disturbance drives whales,
dolphins, sea turtles, and fish away from feeding or fishing
grounds, disrupts important behaviors like mating or caring
for their young, and could cause permanent hearing loss or
death. A  deaf marine mammal cannot survive as they rely
on hearing to communicate, navigate, and find food. There is
no way of knowing if an impact kills an animal outright or
whether it dies later from hearing loss or environment impact.
Seabirds and other species, such as endangered sea turtles,
could be affected as well. Fishermen are concerned about det-
rimental effects on their livelihoods.

What effects are produced by noise pollution?

Noise pollution can cause both lethal and sublethal effects, as
reviewed by Weingart. Most animals are alarmed by the loud
sounds, which may damage internal organs (especially ears),
and cause panic. Normal communication between marine
animals can be disrupted by noise. Scientists are investigat-
ing which frequenc  1ies and at what levels noise negatively
affects marine life. Sea mammals have excellent hearing to
take advantage of sound and to compensate for poor visibil-
ity—the heads of whales and dolphins are full of resonant
chambers that give them extraordinary hearing. Naval sonar
 Emerging Concerns  135

is comparable to bomb explosions. The navy estimated that

approximately 2,000 cetaceans (whales and dolphins) died
from exposure to sonar and more than 5  million suffered
some degree of hearing loss after training exercises. The navy
estimates that even from 300 miles away, a sonic blast is 100
times stronger than marine mammals can withstand. Deaths
of animals, especially cetaceans, often occur hours after expo-
sure to extremely loud underwater noise. For example, whales
die after beaching themselves shortly after a tactical sonar
exercise; this is a rather common occurrence that has been
reported in Greece, Madeira, Hawaii, Spain, and the coastal
United States—areas where sonar exercises are common. In
March 2000, at least 17 whales stranded themselves in the
Bahamas, and a federal investigation identified testing of a US
Navy active sonar system as the cause. Upon examination of
the whale carcasses scientists discovered blood on their brains,
ruptured ear canals, and bubbles in their systems similar to
when people contract decompression sickness (the bends).
Beaked whales are the most common ones affected. Scientists
attached digital devices to Cuvier’s beaked whales off the coast
of California to measure the noise they were exposed to and
their response. When a simulated sonar signal was sounded at
200 dB and between 3 km and 10 km away, the whales stopped
feeding and swimming, swam rapidly away from the noise,
and some performed unusually deep and long dives.
Chronic effects of lower level exposures are also seen.
Marine biologists have linked the loud noises to reduced
vocalization, which suggests reduced communication, forag-
ing, and breeding. Humpback whale song in the Stellwagen
Bank National Marine Sanctuary was reduced during trans-
missions of an Ocean Acoustic Waveguide Remote Sensing
experiment approximately 200 km away.
Other animals are also sensitive. Giant squid were found
dead along the shores of Spain in 2001 and 2003 following the
use of air guns by offshore vessels; autopsies indicated that
the deaths were related to excessive sound exposure. A study
136  Marine Pollution

of low frequency sound exposure by Andre and colleagues—

similar to what the giant squid would have experienced—in
four cephalopod species found that all of the exposed squid,
octopus, and cuttlefish had massive acoustic trauma in the
form of severe damage in their hearing organs.
Very loud, short, sounds, such as those produced during
pile driving, can harm nearby fish. Organs most sensitive are
those with gas/tissue interfaces (e.g., ears, swim bladders, air
sacs). Fish with swim bladders are particularly susceptible
to loud noises, such as from pile driving, because the gas in
their swim bladders is expanded by sound pressure, which
can cause the swim bladder to rupture. Other injuries include
disruption of cells and tissues, internal bleeding, and audi-
tory damage. However, more moderate underwater noises
of longer duration, such as those produced by vessels, could
potentially impact much larger areas and involve many more
animals. For example, the foraging habits of chromis, a coral
reef fish, were reduced due to boat noise, which also disrupted
normal orientation and movements in larvae of cardinalfish.
Playback of noise recorded from ships altered the feeding of
sticklebacks and minnows, which consumed less food and
showed startle responses.
There have not been many studies on effects of noise on
other marine animals, but the few studies suggest widespread
chronic effects. For example, crabs exposed to recordings of
ship noise showed an increased metabolic rate, indicating ele-
vated stress. Crabs also had reduced prey capture ability and
were less able to escape predators when subject to loud noise.
Effects were more severe on larger crabs than smaller ones.

What can be done about noise pollution?

While the use of sonar may be necessary in times of war, sonar
training should not be held in areas inhabited by cetaceans.
Training personnel about whale migration patterns would
reduce unnecessary harm to these animals. In March 2013,
 Emerging Concerns  137

the California Coastal Commission rejected a US Navy explo-

sives and sonar training program planned off the Southern
California coast that critics said could harm endangered
marine life. The commissioners ruled that the navy didn’t
have enough information to support its claim that the threat
to marine mammals would be negligible, and were concerned
that the increased sonar activity could harm endangered ani-
mals such as the blue, fin, and beaked whales. While the navy
estimated that 130 marine mammals could die and another
1,600 could lose hearing from the program (which plans over
50,000 explosions and 10,000 hours of high-intensity sonar
use annually), critics considered this a gross underestimation
because the area encompasses 120,000 nautical square miles off
the coast of Southern California, including a corridor between
it and Hawaii, waters used by many endangered cetacean spe-
cies. The commission wants the navy to create safety zones
with no high-intensity sonar activity near marine sanctuaries,
protected areas, and areas with high seasonal concentrations
of blue, fin, and gray whales.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) is documenting human-made noises in the ocean
and turning the results into large sound maps, which use
bright colors to symbolize the sounds in the oceans. The scale
goes from red (115 decibels at the top) to orange and yellow,
and then to green and blue (40 decibels at the bottom), and
presents the results in terms of annual averages rather than
peaks. Many areas of the ocean surface (where whales and
other marine mammals spend most of their time) are orange,
indicating high average levels. The project’s goal is to better
understand the nature of the noise and its impact on mam-
mals. The maps are enabling scientists, regulators, and the
public to visualize the serious risk that noise poses to marine
life. The findings are likely to prompt efforts to reduce the
problem through laws, regulations, treaties, and voluntary
noise reductions, nationally and internationally. However, one
might question the validity of using annual averages rather
138  Marine Pollution

than the maximum—if there is very loud noise for one week
and none during the rest of the year, the average will be very
low, but many animals could be killed or maimed during that
one week.
Many vessels used for fishing and research are being
designed to create less noise. The government already
has some authority to regulate oceanic sound in United
States waters through the Endangered Species Act and the
Marine Mammal Protection Act. The International Maritime
Organization (IMO) of the United Nations also has the author-
ity to set acoustic standards. In the past few years, it began
discussing how to achieve voluntary noise reductions. Since
many commercial vessels are foreign and most shipping
noises are in international waters, IMO’s backing is important
for reductions to be substantial enough to be effective. Ships
can be built that are far quieter than those in use. These new
designs will also be more efficient and pollute less. It would be
very expensive, however, to retrofit existing ships.
In June 2013 a coalition of conservation groups (the Natural
Resources Defense Council, the Gulf Restoration Network, the
Center for Biological Diversity, and the Sierra Club) announced
a major agreement with the Department of the Interior and oil
and gas industry representatives to protect whales and dol-
phins in the Gulf of Mexico from high-intensity airgun sur-
veys by the oil and gas industry. The settlement requires new
safeguards, including putting biologically important areas
off-limits, expanding protections to additional at-risk species,
and requiring the use of listening devices to better ensure that
surveys do not injure endangered sperm whales. In November
2013, NOAA Fisheries announced final regulations requir-
ing the US Navy to implement protective measures during
training and testing activities in the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf
of Mexico to reduce effects on marine mammals. The mea-
sures include establishing marine mammal mitigation zones
around each vessel using sonar; using navy observers to shut
down sonar operations if marine mammals are seen within
 Emerging Concerns  139

designated zones; ensuring that explosives are not detonated

when animals are detected within a certain distance; imple-
menting a stranding response plan with a shutdown provi-
sion in certain circumstances; allowing the navy to contribute
in-kind services to NOAA Fisheries if the agency has to con-
duct a stranding response and investigation; and using spe-
cific mitigation measures to reduce effects on North Atlantic
right whales.

Are there concerns about radioactivity in the marine

environment?
Concerns about radioactivity were greatly reduced after the
nuclear test ban treaties several decades ago. Nevertheless,
there have been many incidents in which radioactive material
has been dumped or discharged into the oceans, accidentally
or on purpose. A  British nuclear fuels plant has repeatedly
released radioactive waste into the Irish Sea, a French nuclear
reprocessing plant has discharged radioactivity into the
English Channel, and the Soviets dumped large amounts of
radioactive material into the Arctic Ocean and Barents Sea.
However, it took the meltdown of the Fukushima plant in
Japan following the March 2011 earthquake to reawaken con-
cerns about radioactivity in the ocean, including levels in fish
near Japan as well as in migratory fish that could carry radioac-
tivity with them across the ocean. Both short-lived radioactive
elements, such as iodine-131 (with a half-life of eight days) and
longer-lived elements such as cesium (Cs)-137 (with a half-life
of 30 years) can be absorbed by phytoplankton, zooplankton,
kelp, and other marine life and move up the food chain into
fish, marine mammals, and humans. Studies show that radio-
active material moves with ocean currents, is deposited in
marine sediments, and moves up the marine food web. Once
taken up by the body it gets into the bloodstream, from which
it is deposited in bones and other tissues, potentially causing
genetic damage or cancer. Depending on the chemical form
140  Marine Pollution

which organisms take up, radiation may also concentrate as it

moves through the food chain.
The wrecked Fukushima power plant released very high
amounts of radiation into the Pacific, where cesium levels shot
up to 45 million times the background level. Thousands of tons
of radioactive water were released into the ocean, and smaller
amounts continue to be released. In June 2012, 15 months after
the accident, 56% of fish tested by the Japanese government
were contaminated with cesium-137 and Cs-134, products of
nuclear fission. Over 9% of the fish catches exceeded Japan’s
official ceiling for Cs. Radiation levels were high in many spe-
cies that Japan exports, such as cod, sole, halibut, carp, trout,
and eel. Tuna, octopus, and anchovies have declining Cs levels
after much higher contamination in the months just after the
accident. However, 69% of anchovies still had some Cs contam-
ination in June 2012, as did 32% of the tuna. Commercial fish-
ing has been banned along the Fukushima coastline, although
the discovery of contaminated fish outside the region prompts
concerns that the radiation has spread farther away. Tuna can
migrate across the ocean, and of 15 Pacific bluefin tuna caught
off the California coast in 2012 and analyzed by Madigan
and colleagues, all had radioactive Cs. Although levels were
well below the standard, this confirms that radiation from
the disaster has been carried around the world by migrating
fish. In March 2013, additional information about radioactiv-
ity in fish near Japan revealed a continued cause for concern.
A newspaper reported that one greenling registered very high
levels, as did a rockfish. These were individual fish and not a
representative sample, but nevertheless, the levels were very
high. Reports of continued leakage of highly radioactive water
continued in 2013.

What is light pollution?

Light pollution is excessive or obtrusive artificial light. Like
any other form of pollution, it can disrupt ecosystems and
 Emerging Concerns  141

have adverse health effects. The most well-known marine

effect of nighttime lighting is the disorientation of hatching
sea turtles, which emerge from nests on beaches at night and
need to orient to the ocean. They wait just beneath the sand
surface until conditions become cool. This temperature cue
prompts them to emerge primarily at night, although some
emerge in the late-afternoon or early-morning. They find the
ocean by moving away from the dark silhouette of dunes and
their vegetation. Sea turtle hatchlings have an inborn ten-
dency to move in the brightest direction. On a natural beach,
the brightest direction is the open view of the night sky over
the ocean. Hatchlings also tend to move away from darkly sil-
houetted objects associated with the dune. This behavior can
take place during any phase and position of the moon, which
indicates that they do not depend on lunar light to lead them
to the sea. They become disoriented by the brightness and
glare of artificial lights from hotels, condominiums, and other
buildings near the beach. To a hatchling, an artificial light
appears bright because it is relatively close by, but not intense
enough to brighten the sky. The glare makes the direction of
the source appear much brighter than the other directions, so
they will move toward the artificial light no matter where it
is relative to the sea. While crawling the wrong way on the
beach, hatchlings exhaust their limited energy stores, which
they need once they reach the ocean where they must swim
out as far as 60 miles offshore toward the floating Sargassum
seaweed. Disoriented hatchlings may wander inland, where
they can die of dehydration or predation, or may be run over
or drown in swimming pools. Artificial lighting causes thou-
sands of hatchling deaths each year in Florida alone, and is a
significant marine turtle conservation problem.

What can be done about light pollution?

Reducing the amount of artificial light that is visible from nest-
ing beaches is the first step to reducing light pollution. Coastal
142  Marine Pollution

communities around the world have passed laws that require

residents to turn off beachfront lights during turtle nesting
season. At Gulf Islands National Seashore, about half the nests
had a high level of hatchling disorientation. But after an educa-
tion program, there was a 6% reduction in just one year, show-
ing how educating the public about light pollution can benefit
sea turtles. There are also new types of lighting fixtures, red or
amber lights, which are considered sea turtle-friendly because
turtles do not detect these wavelengths readily.
 8
BIOACCUMULATION AND
BIOMAGNIFICATION

What is bioaccumulation and what is biomagnification?

Organisms take pollutants up from the environment through
their skin, gills, or digestive system. The term bioaccumulation
is generally used to describe uptake, but there are specific terms
that refer to specific ways they do so. Bioaccumulation refers to
uptake from all sources in the environment. The bioaccumula-
tion factor (BAF) refers to the concentration of the chemical in
the organism compared to that of the sediment, when that is
the major source of uptake. Bioconcentration is a more specific
term that refers to uptake from water. The bioconcentration fac-
tor (BCF) is the concentration of a chemical in the organism rel-
ative to that in the water. Biomagnification refers to increasing
levels of a contaminant from one trophic level to the next in a
food chain (Figure 1.3), due to accumulation from food (trophic
transfer). The biomagnification factor (BMF) is the concentra-
tion in a species at one trophic level divided by that at the tro-
phic level below (the food of the species in question). Warmer
temperatures cause greater bioaccumulation, probably because
animals need to eat more due to their elevated metabolism.

What happens once a metal is taken up into an organism?

Once a chemical is taken up, the organism may store it, metab-
olize it, or eliminate some of it through gills or urine. Metals
144  Marine Pollution

can’t be metabolized, so they tend to be stored to varying

degrees. Essential metals, for example copper (Cu) and zinc
(Zn), tend to be regulated to some optimum concentration,
above which the animal will excrete the excess. Potentially
toxic metals must either be excreted or stored in a nontoxic
form if they are not to cause damage. Toxicity occurs when the
concentration exceeds the amount that can be stored in these
nontoxic forms or excreted. Metals tend to be stored in spe-
cific tissues such as the liver, which generally has the highest
concentration of Cd, Zn, Cu, Pb, and Cr. However, significant
levels may also be found in muscle, which has implications
for human consumption of edible species. For example, some
edible crustaceans, such as blue crabs, store Hg largely in
muscle. Since crustaceans must periodically molt their shell,
depositing metals in the shell prior to molting it is a useful
way to get rid of contaminants. In corals, the symbiotic algae
that live in the coral tissue (zooxanthellae) accumulate greater
metal concentrations than the skeleton or living coral tissue
itself. The loss of zooxanthellae during stress (bleaching) may
help reduce metal levels in the corals. Mollusks secrete a lot of
mucus when stressed, which is also a way to get rid of metals.
Fishes take up metals from water or food, but the type of food
influences the degree of trophic transfer to the fish. Most of the
Hg in fish tissues is in the form of meHg, which biomagnifies
through the food chain and accumulates over time, reaching
highest levels in old large carnivorous fish.

Where and how are metals stored in organisms?

The location inside a cell where metals are placed strongly
affects their toxicity since metals associated with sensitive
organelles and enzymes can impair cell functioning. Metals
tend to bind to proteins and may prevent the protein from
functioning normally. For example, metals can bind to active
sites of essential enzymes, which are proteins, changing their
shapes and inhibiting their activities. However, there are
 Bioaccumulation and Biomagnification  145

special proteins (metal-binding proteins, e.g., metallothio-

neins, MT) that can bind metals and make them unavailable.
MTs are low molecular weight, heat-stable proteins that bind
high amounts of metals and prevent the metals from doing
damage. There is a limit to how much the MTs can store, how-
ever. Some animals, such as crustaceans, can also store met-
als in the form of insoluble metal-rich granules or deposits
in tissues. Thus, metals may be toxic and available or may be
unavailable, depending on where they are located and what
they are bound to. In those animals that can accumulate high
concentrations of metals without major effects, most of the
metal is in nonavailable form such as MT and granules, which
may explain their ability to survive in highly contaminated
environments. The site of storage can also affect how much
metal will get trophically transferred to predators, as found
by William Wallace and Samuel Luoma. A predator would be
better off eating prey with its metals tied up in granules rather
than bound to MT, which is more trophically available to the
predator.

How are organic contaminants taken up by organisms?

After taking up foreign hydrocarbons organisms may metab-
olize, store, and/or excrete them. Small zooplankton take up
organic contaminants from the water, while benthic species
accumulate them mostly from sediments, which generally
have higher levels than the water. Concentrations of chlori-
nated organics (e.g., PCBs, DDT) in mollusks can exceed those
in nearby sediments tenfold. Chlorinated organic chemicals
tend to be metabolized slowly if at all, and are bioaccumulated
and stored in the liver (or hepatopancreas, the comparable
organ in invertebrates), or in blubber of marine mammals.
These chemicals accumulate in fatty tissues, including yolk
and liver, and biomagnify up the food web. In general, the
most important factor determining an animal’s concentrations
of these chemicals is the trophic level, followed by the lipid
146  Marine Pollution

content of the animal. Therefore, fatty predatory fishes (e.g.,

bluefish) will have higher concentrations than less fatty fish
(e.g., striped bass) at the same trophic level in the same loca-
tion. Chemicals tend to increase with the age and size of the
animal. For animals high on the food web, food is the major
source of uptake. Fish can accumulate PCBs directly from sed-
iments and food. The amount of accumulation may be affected
by the prey, the magnitude of contamination, movement pat-
terns, trophic level, growth rate, and length of exposure (i.e.,
age). Female fish are able to eliminate some of their PCBs by
putting them into the eggs (yolk is very rich in lipids to which
PCBs bind). This accounts for observations such as those of
Haim von Westernhagen and colleagues of female fish having
lower PCB levels than males. While it is good for the female to
reduce her PCBs, it doesn’t seem like a good long-term strategy
for the sensitive early life stages of the next generation to start
out life with a built-in dose of these chemicals. Marine birds
and mammals, high in food webs, accumulate high concentra-
tions of PCBs and chlorinated pesticides. Walruses and whales
in the far north, far from any use of such chemicals, also have
high concentrations. Similar to the situation of fish with eggs,
nursing mammals pass high levels on to their babies, which
then start off their lives with elevated body burdens of toxic
chemicals.

How do organisms metabolize organic contaminants?

PAHs (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons), which are accumu-
lated primarily in the liver, can be transformed into chemi-
cals that can be excreted via the gills and kidneys. There is
an enzyme system that breaks down these chemicals. The
enzymes responsible for oxidation of foreign compounds are
called mixed function oxidases (MFOs), which include the
highly studied cytochrome P-450 (CYP) system. Found in
many organisms and tissues, CYPs are involved in metabo-
lism of a wide range of organic compounds including PAHs,
 Bioaccumulation and Biomagnification  147

PCBs, pesticides, and other chemicals. The reactions have two

steps. Phase I reactions hydrolyze or oxidize the molecule in
order to make it more water soluble. Phase II reactions involve
combining the product of phase I with a substance that makes
it less bioactive and more readily excreted. Sometimes, prod-
ucts of phase I are more toxic than the original pollutant.
Highly chlorinated compounds are metabolized very
slowly, so they tend to accumulate. Lesser chlorinated com-
pounds can be more rapidly metabolized and eliminated.
Organophosphorus pesticides can also be oxidized by the
MFO system.

Which marine organisms are good sentinels for

bioaccumulation and biomagnification of chemicals?
Sedentary bivalve mollusks like mussels are often used for
monitoring pollutants in local areas. They tend to be relatively
low on the food web and not accumulate very high levels. In
the oceans, mammals such as seals and cetaceans are useful
sentinels for pollution. Their blubber accumulates high levels
and can be sampled without harming the animal. Seabirds
are also useful, and can be cheaper and easier to sample. They
range widely across oceans, feeding as they move, but return
every year to breed in the same location. In a seabird colony
biologists can sample blood, feathers, oils, and biopsies, which
can provide information on pollution at different spatial and
time scales. Bird eggs, rich in lipids (fats), are excellent accu-
mulators of fat-soluble chlorinated organic chemicals that
are of most concern. Birds with different feeding habits can
be sampled—for example, cormorants that forage mainly on
fish in near-shore environments, auks that feed on smaller
fish and zooplankton on the continental shelf, and pelagic
seabirds such as storm petrels that range offshore, feeding on
zooplankton and larval fishes. They all return to breed in colo-
nies, where they can be sampled for contaminants and tagged
for tracking. Seabird egg monitoring documented the decline
148  Marine Pollution

of the persistent organic pollutants such as DDT in coastal

habitats by the early 1980s, but DDT persisted at lower concen-
trations at that time. However, even DDT may now be finally
disappearing.
Many pollutants are adsorbed onto plastics in the ocean,
which are found in seabird stomachs (see Chapter 3). Species
that eat a lot of plastic also have elevated contaminant levels
and may experience toxic effects. In the past decade, other
contaminants have emerged that are similar to chlorinated
organic chemicals but have bromine or fluorine instead of
chlorine (see Chapter  7). Eggs archived in specimen banks
have enabled scientists to analyze the history of such pollut-
ants of emerging concern.

What are safety issues for humans who consume seafood that
may be contaminated?
Chemical contaminants in fish and other seafood may pose
a potential health hazard to people who eat them over a long
time. The hazard is from long-term exposure rather than a sin-
gle exposure, (for example one meal) which might be the case
with food that had microbial contamination. Fish are harvested
from waters with varying levels of industrial chemicals, pes-
ticides, and metals, which may accumulate to levels that can
harm human consumers. There is concern about these con-
taminants in fish from freshwater, estuaries, and near-shore
coastal waters more than from the open ocean. Pesticides used
near or in aquaculture operations may also contaminate both
wild and farmed fish. Federal safe levels and guidance levels
are established for some of the most toxic and persistent con-
taminants found in seafood. States often use these levels to
decide whether to issue advisories or to close waters for com-
mercial harvesting of all or certain species of fish. Fish can
accumulate inorganic chemicals including arsenic, cadmium,
lead, mercury, selenium, copper, zinc, and iron—of which the
most concern is mercury, which is the most toxic. In the case of
 Bioaccumulation and Biomagnification  149

mollusks, agencies use the degree of chemical contamination

as part of the classification of harvesting waters; they allow
harvesting from some waters, not from others, or only at cer-
tain times or under certain conditions.

What is Minamata disease?

The first example that made the world aware that the accumu-
lation of contaminants in edible seafood could harm humans
was in Minamata, Japan. This community had a factory that
used Hg in the production of plastics and discharged Hg
into the nearby bay, from which the people ate fish that had
accumulated it in their tissues. From 1932 to 1968, the Chisso
Corporation dumped an estimated 27 tons of Hg compounds
into Minamata Bay. The Hg became methylated in the sedi-
ments of the bay, and then biomagnified up the food web.
Methylmercury, the form that is especially toxic and biomag-
nifies in food webs, is produced by bacteria in the environment
(Figure 5.1). Thousands of residents developed severe neu-
rological and developmental defects, a condition now called
Minamata disease, alerting the world that exposure to Hg can
cause permanent behavioral and neurological effects. Severe
cases led to insanity, deformation, and death. Many children
whose mothers had eaten contaminated fish while pregnant
were born with major disabilities. Congenital Minamata dis-
ease was observed in babies born to affected mothers, but also
to mothers who did not have severe problems. These babies
had symptoms of cerebral palsy. Affected people had numb-
ness in their limbs and lips, slurred speech, and impaired
vision. Some people had serious brain damage. Even before
the symptoms appeared in the people, the cats in the village
showed symptoms of Hg poisoning. The cats, which ate scraps
of fish from fish markets and the table, died with symptoms
similar to those only later seen in humans. People initially
thought the cats were going insane when they witnessed their
odd behavior. This led researchers to believe that the outbreak
150  Marine Pollution

was caused by some kind of food poisoning, with contami-

nated fish and shellfish being the prime suspects. Hg in the
fish was finally linked to the disease. Hair samples were taken
from affected people and from the Minamata population in
general. In patients the maximum Hg level was 705 ppm (parts
per million), indicating very heavy exposure. In unaffected
Minamata residents the level was 191 ppm, compared to an
average level of 4 ppm for people living outside Minamata.

Are there any concerns about mercury pollution in

seafood today?
While gross pollution such as in Minamata is a thing of the
past, there are still two major concerns. One is eating fish from
mercury-contaminated areas. Agencies in each state moni-
tor fish for the presence of contaminants and alert the public
through bans (closures) and advisories when a threat to human
health may occur from the consumption of contaminated fish.
In waters with bans, possession and consumption of fish and/
or shellfish is prohibited. An advisory is a recommendation to
limit consumption to specified quantities, species, and sizes
of fish. Those areas that are known to have elevated Hg will
have commercial fishing prohibited and have warning signs
for recreational fishers to not eat the fish. It is not known how
many anglers ignore these signs in favor of a free meal (with
no extra charge for the mercury).
The second major concern is the buildup of Hg in large car-
nivorous fishes that are not from contaminated areas, but are
high in the food web. This Hg comes mostly from atmospheric
sources, especially from burning of coal in power plants.
While other industries have had considerable reductions in
emissions, Hg pollution from electric utilities is still of con-
cern. The Hg released from coal burning power plants near
coastal areas goes into the air and eventually comes down into
the ocean. Over the past century, Hg in the surface ocean has
more than doubled. Nearly all fish and shellfish contain traces
 Bioaccumulation and Biomagnification  151

of meHg. However, large carnivorous fish that live longer have

the highest levels, because they have had more time to accu-
mulate it. These large fish (swordfish, shark, king mackerel,
and tuna) pose the greatest risk.
The greatest concern about Hg exposure is for a develop-
ing fetus. As seen in Minamata, some women who showed
no signs of poisoning gave birth to children with severe brain
damage. This is because meHg readily crosses the placenta.
It can also be passed through breast milk to infants. This is
of particular concern, because young children are more sus-
ceptible to Hg toxicity and the brain may be more affected as
it develops. There is a correlation between prenatal exposure
to Hg and decreased performance of infants and children on
neurobehavioral tests including tests of attention, fine motor
function, language skills, visual-spatial abilities, and memory.
While the danger of Hg poisoning may seem like a good
reason to avoid consuming fish, the benefits of eating fish may
outweigh many of the risks. Fish are high in protein, low in
saturated fats, and contain important nutrients such as heart
healthy omega-3 fatty acids. Eating fish reduces the risk of
heart attacks, lowers blood pressure, and improves arterial
health. So it is a matter of choosing the right fish to eat.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have issued con-
sumption advisories for certain groups of people. They advise
women who may become pregnant, pregnant women, nursing
mothers, and young children up to age six is avoid fish high
in Hg and limit the amount of fish consumed each week. They
advise them not to eat shark, swordfish, king mackerel, or tile-
fish at all because they contain high levels of Hg (>1 ppm), but
to eat up to 12 ounces (two average meals) of fish and shell-
fish that are low in Hg per week. Children should only eat
six ounces of fish. Low Hg fish and shellfish include shrimp,
canned light tuna, pollock, salmon, and tilapia. Albacore
tuna contains moderate amounts of mercury. The EPA and
FDA advise eating only 6 ounces of albacore tuna a week and
152  Marine Pollution

advise the public to check for local advisories on fish caught

from local waters that may be more greatly affected by pollu-
tion sources. These guidelines are not meant for adult men or
for woman past childbearing age, but individuals concerned
with exposure to Hg should follow them as well. The best solu-
tion may be to refrain from eating the large fish species often
and to focus on eating smaller fish that do not have high lev-
els of Hg. Cod, salmon, haddock, herring, and sardines, for
example, do not have high levels.

Can metal pollution be found in calcium supplements derived

from oyster shells?
Calcium is needed for prevention or treatment of osteoporo-
sis, but some calcium supplements have been found to have
elevated metals. Lead (Pb) has been found in some calcium
carbonate supplements labeled as oyster shell. Pb is a neuro-
toxin that affects the brain and nervous system. The level of
contamination has decreased recently, but still may present a
health risk. Calcium supplements rarely list their Pb content,
which should be less than 2 parts per million. California scien-
tists analyzed the Pb in a variety of calcium supplements and
found that two-thirds of them failed to meet the California’s
criteria for acceptable Pb levels in consumer products, which
are stricter than the national criteria. Alternatives to so-called
natural calcium supplements are plain calcium carbonate pills
or calcium citrate.

What problems can result from eating seafood containing

organic contaminants?
Persistant PCBs and related chemicals may remain a problem
for quite some time. Because they become attached to par-
ticles in the water, they settle out in the sediments. When
bottom dwelling animals feed, they ingest the contaminated
sediments and pass them up the food chain, where they
 Bioaccumulation and Biomagnification  153

biomagnify and become most concentrated in carnivorous,

fatty, large fishes. They tend to build up primarily in fatty
tissue and to a less extent in muscle tissue. Scientists have
found over a dozen different chlorinated organic compounds
at higher concentrations in farmed salmon than wild salmon.
PCBs are not highly toxic with a single dose (as in a single
meal), but continued low levels of exposure (for example, eat-
ing contaminated fish over an extended period of time) may
be harmful. There are standards set by EPA and FDA for safe
levels of consumption. These numeric levels are based on
lab tests of high concentrations on rats or mice followed by
extrapolation downward to estimate what level would be safe
in the rats or mice, and then extrapolation from rodents to
people— so there is a large amount of uncertainly about these
numbers, and no one should consider a concentration slightly
above the standard to be alarming or a concentration just
below it to be totally safe. The EPA considers PCBs to be prob-
able human carcinogens, because they cause cancer in labora-
tory animals. Other tests on laboratory animals show damage
from PCBs to the circulatory, nervous, immune, endocrine,
and digestive systems. Risks to humans are highest in the
fetus or nursing infant (as with Hg), when the mother is or
has been exposed to PCBs. Women of childbearing age, espe-
cially those pregnant or nursing, are advised to minimize risk
by avoiding eating fish from areas known to contain PCBs. In
terms of chronic low-level exposure to PCBs over time, less is
known about potential adverse health effects. However, sci-
entists suspect that long-term exposure to small amounts can
contribute to a variety of health problems including devel-
opmental problems in children, liver damage, and cancer.
Some studies showed that children of mothers who ate fish
from the Great Lakes with high PCBs had smaller head size,
reduced visual recognition, and delayed muscle develop-
ment. A mother’s exposure to PCBs and other chemicals was
linked to slight effects on her child’s birth weight, short-term
memory, and learning. Adults who ate fish containing PCBs
154  Marine Pollution

and other contaminants had lower scores on several measures

of memory and learning.
While none of these studies are a “smoking gun,” they do
provide reasons to avoid eating fish with high PCB levels.
Since PCBs accumulate in fat, some procedures for prepar-
ing the fish can be useful. The amount of PCBs in fish may be
significantly lower after cooking because lipids, along with
lipophilic compounds like PCBs, tend to be removed from
the fish during cooking. Before cooking one should remove
the skin, the fat (found along the back, sides, and belly),
internal organs, and the tomalley of lobster and the mus-
tard of crabs, where these chemicals are likely to accumu-
late. When cooking, the fat should be drained away. Frying
fish seals in the pollutants in the fish’s fat, while grilling or
broiling allows the fat to drain away. This can remove 20 to
30% of the PCBs. To smoke fish, it should first be filleted and
the skin removed.
Organic chemicals associated with petroleum (PAHs)
can also accumulate in seafood if it is exposed to the oil.
The types and properties of oil influence whether seafood
is contaminated. Crude oils and the products derived from
them are complex and variable mixtures of hydrocarbons of
different molecular weights and structures. Once exposed
to oil, an organism becomes contaminated to the extent that
it takes up and retains petroleum compounds. The BP oil
spill of 2010 contaminated a very productive fishery with
PAHs that accumulate in seafood, and are carcinogens and
developmental toxicants. Seafood can be analyzed chemi-
cally for these contaminants, which is very time-consuming
and expensive. Another way that seafood can be considered
unfit for consumption, according to the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), is if it smells
or tastes like petroleum; this is known as taint. A  product
tainted with petroleum is not permitted to be sold as food
under US law. Petroleum taint in and of itself is not necessar-
ily harmful, and may be present even when PAHs are below
 Bioaccumulation and Biomagnification  155

harmful levels. An open question is whether some fish could

have higher levels of some PAHs that could not be detected
by smelling it.
In response to the BP catastrophe, the FDA developed risk
criteria and established thresholds for allowable levels of
PAH contaminants in Gulf Coast seafood. Federal and state
laboratories tested over 10,000 fish and shrimp for traces of
certain PAHs from oil to be sure they were far below levels
that could make anyone sick before commercial fishing was
allowed to resume. However, some scientists, led by Miriam
Rotkin-Ellman, disagreed with the levels that the FDA set
because they failed to account for the increased sensitivity of
fetuses and children. The scientists thought that the FDA also
did not use appropriate seafood consumption rates, did not
include all relevant health end points, and did not include pro-
tective estimates of exposure duration and acceptable risk. For
two particular PAHs, benzo[a]pyrene and naphthalene, these
scientists felt that safe levels should have been set far below
the level that the FDA set, and that according to that lower
standard up to 53% of shrimp samples were above levels of
concern for pregnant women who eat a lot of seafood. It may be
that the government was anxious to reopen the fishery sooner
rather than later in order to reduce the already-devastating
economic effects of the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe to the
fishing industry in the Gulf.

Can dioxin contamination be found in seafood?

Dioxins and furans are among the most toxic chemicals, and
they biomagnify up food chains. The amount of data on diox-
ins and dioxin-like PCBs in food is very limited and analytical
measurements of these chemicals are difficult and very expen-
sive. The greatest concentrations in food appear to be in fresh-
water fish. However some marine fish that are rich in lipids
can accumulate worrisome levels. For example, 50 samples of
Greenland halibut were analyzed for dioxins and dioxin-like
156  Marine Pollution

PCBs, of which 10 had concentrations that exceeded the EU’s

upper allowable limit. Atlantic halibut were analyzed for diox-
ins and dioxin-like PCBs, of which eight out of 14 belly sam-
ples showed very high levels of dioxins and dioxin-like PCB,
exceeding the EU’s upper allowable limit.
An industrial site in the Passaic River in Newark, New
Jersey was contaminated with dioxin from the production of
herbicides (Agent Orange) used in the Vietnam War. Dioxin
is elevated in fish and blue crabs. There are warning signs
posted in the area, yet many recreational anglers continue to
eat the crabs they catch. A risk assessment done by the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection suggests that
people consuming whole crabs have a high risk of developing
cancer. The site is on the Superfund list for pending cleanup,
but the companies responsible for the cleanup suggested an
alternative remedy—that instead of thoroughly cleaning up
the whole river, they would start an aquaculture facility in
Newark to grow clean fish, and station people along the river
to trade their clean fish for the contaminated fish caught by
fishermen. This plan, which ignored the fact that most of the
catching and consumption was of crabs not fish, was criticized
and ridiculed by environmental groups and in editorials in
the local newspapers.

Can contaminants be found in fish oil supplements?

Since chlorinated organics concentrate in fish fat and oil, it is
possible to find contamination in fish oil supplements. Large
predatory fish like sharks, swordfish, tilefish, and tuna may
be high in omega-3 fatty acids, but since they are at the top of
the food chain, they also have high levels of persistent toxic
substances. The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) sur-
veyed 75 companies that manufacture fish oil supplements
and found that most supplements are adequately purified and
safe. Consumers who take fish oil supplements should pur-
chase them from companies that verified they have met strict
 Bioaccumulation and Biomagnification  157

standards for contaminants. California has stricter require-

ments than the FDA. Consumer Reports published a survey
that revealed PCBs in amounts that could require warning
labels under California’s Proposition 65 (a consumer right-to-
know law) in some of the supplements.

How can eating fish or shellfish that have accumulated

HAB toxins cause disease?
Some single celled algae, both dinoflagellates and diatoms,
produce toxins that can accumulate in the food chain and
affect human consumers. Toxin-producing algae are normally
found in the ocean at low concentrations and pose no prob-
lems. However, when they undergo a bloom, often in response
to nutrients (see Chapter 2), it is called a harmful algal bloom
(HAB). Filter-feeding shellfish pump water through their sys-
tems, filtering out and eating algae and other food particles.
When they eat toxic algae, the toxin can accumulate in their
tissues, often without affecting them much. Most cases of
seafood poisoning are in people who ate shellfish that accu-
mulated the toxins. When the bloom subsides, the shellfish
eventually flush the toxin from their systems. In contrast with
chemical pollutants that need to build up in one’s system
over a long time, when people eat a single meal or only a few
HAB-contaminated shellfish, acute symptoms start shortly
thereafter.

What is Paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP)?

Paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) is a severe neurological con-
dition caused by eating shellfish contaminated with saxitoxin,
which is produced by the dinoflagellate Alexandrium. Blooms
of Alexandrium are common in New England. Clams, mussels,
oysters, and scallops can accumulate the toxin, as can some
snails. Symptoms include tingling, numbness, burning, giddi-
ness, drowsiness, fever, rash, and staggering. Effects generally
158  Marine Pollution

last only a few days in nonlethal cases. The most severe cases
can result in respiratory arrest within 24 hours of consump-
tion, because the toxin paralyzes the diaphragm, making it
impossible to breathe. PSP is prevented by large-scale moni-
toring programs (measuring toxin levels in shellfish) and rapid
closures of toxic areas to harvesting of shellfish. In addition to
measuring toxin levels in shellfish, predictions of blooms are
based on the amount of Alexandrium in its cyst (dormant) stage
detected in sediments the previous fall. In order to protect pub-
lic health, shellfish beds are closed when toxicities rise above a
certain level, often during the peak harvesting season. Due to
effective monitoring by state agencies, there have been no ill-
nesses from legally harvested shellfish recently, despite some
major blooms. However, there have been some severe poison-
ings of individuals who ignored closure signs. The toxin is not
destroyed by cooking the shellfish. Some shellfish can store
the toxin for several weeks, but butter clams can store it for up
to two years. PSP has been implicated as a cause of deaths of
marine mammals such as sea otters after eating butter clams
that accumulated saxitoxin. Ingestion of saxitoxin-containing
mackerel was implicated in the deaths of some humpback
whales. Deaths of fish including endangered sturgeon have
also been associated with Alexandrium blooms.

What is diarrhetic shellfish poisoning (DSP)?

Diarrhetic shellfish poisoning (DSP), as its name suggests,
causes diarrhea, although nausea, vomiting, and cramps are
also common. Symptoms usually set in shortly after ingest-
ing infected shellfish, and last for about one day. The toxin is
okadaic acid, which causes intestinal cells to become very per-
meable to water, resulting in diarrhea with a risk of dehydra-
tion. The causative organism is the dinoflagellate Dinophysis,
which is widely distributed. DSP is a significant problem in
northern Spain, Ireland, and the Mediterranean/Adriatic Sea.
The toxin has been detected in shellfish in Eastern Canada.
 Bioaccumulation and Biomagnification  159

While no cases of DSP have been reported along the West

Coast of the United States, Dinophysis is commonly found in
British Columbia and Puget Sound in Washington State. As no
life-threatening symptoms occur, no fatalities from DSP have
been recorded.

What is neurotoxic shellfish poisoning (NSP)?

Neurotoxic shellfish poisoning (NSP) is caused by consump-
tion of shellfish contaminated with brevetoxins primarily
produced by the dinoflagellate Karenia brevis. Blooms of K. bre-
vis, called Florida red tide, occur frequently along the Gulf of
Mexico. Symptoms of NSP include gastrointestinal and neuro-
logical symptoms: nausea and vomiting; paresthesias (tingling
sensation) of the mouth, lips, and tongue; and distal paresthe-
sias, ataxia, slurred speech, and dizziness. Neurotoxic shell-
fish poisoning causes a mild gastroenteritis with neurologic
symptoms comparable to paralytic shellfish poisoning. With
the inhalation of aerosolized toxins, especially brevetoxins
from sea spray exposure, respiratory irritation and other health
effects occur in humans and other mammals. Neurological
symptoms can progress to partial paralysis. Shellfish beds in
Florida are routinely monitored for the presence of K.  brevis
and other brevetoxin-producing organisms. As a result, few
NSP cases are reported from the United States. However, an
alarmingly large number (several hundreds) of endangered
Florida manatees were apparently killed by the toxins in 2013.

What is amnesic shellfish poisoning (ASP)?

Amnesic shellfish poisoning (ASP) is caused by domoic
acid, which is produced by marine diatoms in the genus
Pseudo-nitzschia, the first example of a toxin-producing diatom.
When shellfish accumulate domoic acid in high concentrations
during filter feeding, the toxin can be passed on to humans
that eat them. Both shellfish and finfish can accumulate this
160  Marine Pollution

toxin without apparent ill effects. The toxin can bioaccumulate

in other phytoplankton eaters, such as anchovies and sardines.
Domoic acid is a neurotoxin, causing short-term memory loss,
brain damage, and death in severe cases. It has been respon-
sible for several deaths and both permanent and transitory ill-
ness in over a hundred people. Amnesic shellfish poisoning
was first discovered in late 1987, when a serious outbreak of
food poisoning occurred in eastern Canada where a number
of patients died and others suffered long-term neurological
problems. Because the victims had memory loss, it was called
amnesic shellfish poisoning. However, since the toxin has
been found in finfish and the chemical structure of the toxin
is now known, a more accurate term is domoic acid poisoning.
It not only affects humans, but marine birds and mammals as
well. Marine mammal and seabird strandings and deaths off
the Southern California coast have been linked to this toxin.
Most of the animals found dead, including sea lions and har-
bor seals, tested positive for domoic acid.

What is Ciguatera?
The most widely reported HAB toxin disease is ciguatera,
which results not from eating shellfish but from consumption
of contaminated reef finfish. It is estimated that at least 50,000
people per year who live in or visit tropical and subtropi-
cal areas suffer from ciguatera worldwide. Patients suffer for
weeks to months with debilitating neurological symptoms. The
dinoflagellate Gambierdiscus toxicus produces ciguatoxin (CGX)
and similar toxins. The dinoflagellates are eaten by herbivo-
rous fishes, which are then eaten by larger carnivorous fishes.
The toxins move up the food web and concentrate in the fish.
Larger individuals of species high up on the food chain in
tropical and subtropical waters, such as barracudas, snappers,
moray eels, groupers, triggerfishes, and amberjacks, are most
likely to cause ciguatera poisoning, although other species may
cause it. Ciguatoxin is odorless, tasteless, and heat-resistant, so
 Bioaccumulation and Biomagnification  161

fish cannot be detoxified by cooking them. Symptoms include

gastrointestinal effects such as nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea,
and neurological symptoms such as headaches, muscle aches,
numbness, vertigo, and hallucinations. Severe cases can also
produce a burning sensation on contact with cold. Symptoms
have developed in otherwise healthy people after sexual inter-
course with someone with ciguatera poisoning, showing that
the toxin may be sexually transmitted. (However, it is not clear
why someone with those symptoms would be in the mood for
having sex.) Diarrhea and rashes have been reported in breast-
fed infants of poisoned mothers, suggesting that the toxins get
into breast milk. The symptoms last from weeks to years, and
in extreme cases up to 20 years, often leading to long-term dis-
ability. Most people recover slowly over time, but some patients
recover and then subsequently get recurring symptoms. Unlike
beds of sedentary shellfish that can be monitored and closed
when HAB toxins are found, fish are very mobile and the occur-
rence of ciguatera is very spotty. In addition, the Gambierdiscus
don’t need to bloom in order for fish to become contaminated.
In a trawl full of fish caught at a given location, some may have
ciguatera while others of the same species and size will not.
Therefore it is very difficult to monitor it and reduce the occur-
rence of this debilitating disease. Although sensitive labora-
tory analyses can detect and confirm CTX in fish, no practical
field tests are available for monitoring programs and detecting
CTX in fish quickly enough before it would spoil. Prevention
depends on educating the public, seafood suppliers, and dis-
tributors about known ciguatera areas and high-risk fish spe-
cies. The only sure way to prevent it is to not eat fish when in
the tropics—this is hardly a satisfactory solution to the problem.

How can the incidence of poisoning by marine toxins

be reduced?
Ongoing surveillance and rapid detection are essential to
reduce the incidence of poisonings. However, conventional
162  Marine Pollution

sample collection at sea followed by analysis in a land-based

laboratory is cumbersome and can take several days. One
cannot wait that long before eating one’s dinner. Some new
technologies are available, including robotic environmental
sampling processors (ESP) that use molecular probes to detect
microorganisms in water and automated technology to pro-
vide near real-time information on what’s in the water. The
instrument was tested in Puget Sound in the summer of 2013
for its ability to provide early warnings of harmful algae, their
toxins, and shellfish pathogens. Because the ESP can detect
harmful algae and bacteria in the water in near real time, it can
provide early warning of developing blooms before they con-
taminate shellfish. This information can help shellfish grow-
ers and public health officials make decisions to ensure safe
seafood to protect public health.
 9
CLIMATE CHANGE AND OCEAN
ACIDIFICATION

What causes global warming or climate change?

The burning of fossil fuels emits carbon dioxide into the atmo-
sphere, which results in the greenhouse effect—less heat can
be re-radiated away from the earth, thus raising the tempera-
ture of the atmosphere and ocean. In the past century the
oceans have warmed by about 1 degree F to a depth of 200 feet,
and the overwhelming scientific consensus is that increasing
levels of human-caused greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
are the principal cause.

What problems are happening or expected to happen in the

marine environment because of climate change?
Climate change is the biggest single threat to our oceans’
health. The warming of the oceans will have numerous effects
on all organisms, most basically elevating their metabolic rates,
which ultimately affects life history, population growth, and
ecosystem processes. Elevated metabolic rates create increased
demand for oxygen at the same time that the warmer water
can hold less oxygen. The uptake of toxic contaminants is also
accelerated by elevated metabolic rates.
Variation in temperature can also affect the abundance
and distribution of plankton. As the ocean’s surface warms, it
becomes more stratified—with greater temperature differences
164  Marine Pollution

between warm surface water and cooler deeper water. Vertical

water movements (upwelling), which bring nutrient-rich water
up from deeper layers to surface waters (where most of the
phytoplankton live), are reduced. Consequently, phytoplank-
ton receive less nutrients and are less productive, because
productivity requires nutrients. Upwelling can be stimulated
by mixing due to winds. Less wind means less mixing, fewer
nutrients for phytoplankton, and fewer phytoplankton to sus-
tain fish populations. Concurrent with climate change, the
annual primary production of the oceans has decreased since
the 1980s. Modest changes in temperature have altered trade
wind intensity in the Caribbean, reducing the supply of nutri-
ents to phytoplankton and ultimately causing the collapse of
some fisheries. Since late 1995, monthly observations of physi-
cal factors, including nutrient and chlorophyll levels and mete-
orological readings, have been collected at a site off the coast
of Venezuela to establish a long-range record. The sea surface
temperature increased about 1o C (1.8o F) and winds decreased.
But the effect on marine life was dramatic: populations of phy-
toplankton dropped, along with the local harvest of sardines.
Changes in ocean currents caused by climate change could
lead to shifts in regional climate and weather patterns.

Why are coral reefs particularly vulnerable?

Among the most sensitive groups of organisms are seagrasses,
mangroves, salt marsh grasses, oysters, and corals, which all
create habitat for thousands of other species. Current and future
CO2 levels will produce changes in ocean temperature and
chemistry beyond what corals have experienced. Some scien-
tists fear that conditions have already reached a “tipping point”
for corals, which now are less able to recover from additional
change. They are considered one of the most sensitive ecosys-
tems to climate change, like the canary in the coal mine. Coral
reefs have been in existence for over 500 million years, but their
continued persistence is uncertain. With increases in ocean
 Climate Change and Ocean Acidification  165

temperature, corals can bleach (Figure 9.1). Bleaching occurs

when the corals lose their symbiotic single-celled algae, the zoo-
xanthellae, which photosynthesize and provide food to the cor-
als, and in turn receive protection and the nutrients needed for
photosynthesis. Bleached corals appear white. Zooxanthellae
are sensitive to stresses including temperature changes, and
when they die or leave, bleached corals are usually unable to
meet their energy requirements by filter feeding alone. In some
cases, zooxanthellae return and the coral will survive. Coral
death by bleaching and diseases due to increased heat and irra-
diation, as well as decreased calcification caused by ocean acidi-
fication (discussed later), are among the most important threats.
Since the 1980s, major bleaching events have increased around
the globe—for example, in 1998, 80% of the coral reefs in the
Indian Ocean bleached, causing 20% of them to die.
Reef recovery is thought to depend on arrival of larvae from
distant, interconnected reefs. Observations of relatively rapid
recovery of corals following a mass bleaching event suggests

Figure 9.1  Coral Bleaching (photo from NOAA)

166  Marine Pollution

that corals can recruit from local sources, especially in the

absence of human-caused disturbances, which slow down
recovery.
Scientists have found an early warning sign for corals that
may bleach—some proteins in the zooxanthellae respond
rapidly and dramatically to temperature stress. Before actual
bleaching, hemoglobin genes are expressed at a higher level.
Because of this sensitivity, hemoglobin production by the
algae may be able to be used as an early warning indicator of
stress. Scientists have also found some heat-resistance genes
that enable corals in some areas to avoid bleaching and to sur-
vive in conditions that kill other corals. This is an encouraging
finding.

What happens in polar regions?

Polar ecosystems are also very vulnerable to climate change.
Their temperatures are increasing more rapidly than else-
where (more than 5 times the global average). Warming ocean
currents have been speeding up the melting of the Arctic sea
ice sheet and the decline and breakup of Antarctic ice shelves.
The Arctic ice sheets have been shrinking, with the lowest
recorded level in the summer of 2012. It is predicted that the
Arctic will be totally ice-free during the summer in less than
30 years. Greenland is losing about 100 billion tons of ice annu-
ally as a result of melting. Sea levels are now projected to rise
much faster than predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007, because of this accelerated
melting, which further threatens coastal habitats. As the tem-
perature has risen, plankton blooms typical of the region have
decreased, and the phytoplankton community has shifted
from large species to smaller ones. This shift has affected the
zooplankton. Shrimp-like krill, which are inefficient at graz-
ing on small phytoplankton, are declining, while salps, which
are efficient, are increasing. Krill also depend on diminish-
ing sea ice for their reproduction. Furthermore, according to a
 Climate Change and Ocean Acidification  167

study by Schofield and colleagues, other species that depend

on ice, like Adelie penguins in Antarctica, are also decreasing,
while other penguin species have increased. Changing wind
patterns also affect Antarctica’s plankton. Retreating sea ice
and stronger winds have caused seawater to mix more deeply,
a process that moves phytoplankton into deeper water, which
has less light for photosynthesis. As a result, phytoplankton
are declining, resulting in fewer krill (important food for
baleen whales) and fish larvae. Krill are also affected by the
loss of sea ice which is a refuge from predators.
The loss of sea ice also will stimulate major increases in
shipping over the North Pole and Arctic Ocean in the future.
Ships traveling in the Northwest Passage and through the cen-
tral Arctic Ocean will likely bring new, potentially invasive,
species to the Arctic as well as to northern ports. As the Arctic
ice melts, new ports will be connected and shorter passages
between existing ports will provide new opportunities for
invasive species to spread. Shorter routes also mean that more
organisms attached to the hull or in ballast water will survive
the voyage. Invasive species, as a type of biological pollution,
will be discussed at length in the next chapter.

Can climate change affect the distribution of species?

In response to warming, the geographical ranges of marine
species are likely to change, including migration to higher
latitudes (toward the poles) and to deeper depths where the
temperature is more suitable. Phytoplankton are predicted
to move toward the poles and away from the equator. If the
oceans continue to warm as predicted, there will be a fur-
ther decline in the abundance and diversity of phytoplankton
in tropical waters and a shift toward the poles. The pole-
ward movement of many marine animals has already been
observed. However, animals that already live in polar regions
are finding their habitat shrinking as the ice melts. Polar bears,
for example, require sea ice, which is disappearing from the
168  Marine Pollution

Arctic at an alarming rate. The breeding population of chin-

strap penguins has declined significantly as Antarctic temper-
atures have warmed. Two of the three chief penguin species in
the Antarctic Peninsula—chinstrap and Adélie—are declin-
ing in a region where the temperatures over the last 60 years
have warmed by 3oC (5oF). In contrast, Gentoo penguins are
expanding both in numbers and in range.
Fish can respond to changes in ocean temperature by mov-
ing poleward to avoid warmer temperatures, or moving into
deeper water. As water warms, fishermen are finding some
new species that come from warmer regions. A  2009 report
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s
Northeast Fisheries Science Center found that about half of
the species it studied were shifting their range further north
or into deeper colder water, including Atlantic cod, haddock,
and hake—keystones of New England’s ground fishery. The
commercial lobster fishery is disappearing in southern New
England. If animals cannot change their geographic or depth
distribution, there may be changes in growth, reproduction,
and mortality rates. Warmer water may lead to loss of produc-
tivity, but also to the opening of new fishing opportunities,
depending on interactions between climate impacts, fishing
grounds and fishing fleets.

Can climate change have effects on aquaculture?

Aquaculture is the fastest growing food sector in the world,
according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO), with most of the production coming from the develop-
ing world, where it makes a major contribution to the economy.
Currently about half the world’s seafood comes from aqua-
culture, and the proportion is expected to grow. Traditional
fisheries are thought to be near their maximum capacity and
future increases in seafood production will need to come
largely from aquaculture. Animals can grow faster in warmer
water provided they have enough food, which could be a
 Climate Change and Ocean Acidification  169

boon for aquaculture and fish native to warmer waters could

be farmed in new places. However, fish and shellfish disease
is a greater problem for aquaculture in tropical countries.
Diseases are more deadly and progress quicker in warmer cli-
mates. Outbreaks in tropical regions can wipe out entire fish
stocks in a relatively short time, with major consequences for
the economy and food security. Such outbreaks could become
more severe with climate change.

Can climate change affect the size of animals?

As the climate changes, many species are expected to shift
to smaller sizes. One reason for this is the need for oxygen.
Aquatic animals are sensitive to low oxygen, which would
likely accompany climate change. A recent study tested how
organisms’ mass changed with temperature. With each 1o C
increase in temperature, aquatic animals that were 100 mg
reduced their body mass by 5%, while land animals of the
same size reduced their mass by only 0.5%. Using computer
modeling, scientists found that fish sizes could shrink by
about 20% from 2000 to 2050, due to warmer temperatures and
less oxygen. There has already been a decline in growth and
body size of North Atlantic cod in the United States, Canada,
and Europe in response to warmer water. Smaller fish can
have economic consequences on communities that depend on
fish for food and trade.

Can climate change affect predator/prey interactions?

Temperature stress can affect predator/prey interactions.
Many rocky shore intertidal organisms already live very
close to their thermal tolerance limits. At cooler sites, mussels
and barnacles are able to live high on up the shore, above the
range of their aquatic predators (mainly sea stars). However,
as temperatures rise they are forced to live lower down, plac-
ing them at the same level as predatory sea stars. Daily high
170  Marine Pollution

temperatures during the summer months at sites in California

have increased by almost 3.5o C (6.3o F) in the last 60  years,
causing the upper limits of the habitats to retreat 50 cm (about
20  inches) down the shore, while the location of predators
and the position of the lower limit have remained constant.
Additional effects on predator/prey interactions come from
ocean acidification, to be discussed later.

What effects can happen from sea level rise?

Sea level rise (SLR) is caused by thermal expansion of the
warmer ocean water and by melting glaciers and ice sheets that
contribute new water to the ocean. Although average global
sea level remained relatively constant for almost 3,000 years,
it increased by about 17  cm (7  inches) during the twentieth
century, and is projected to rise by 40–80 cm by 2100. Over
the twentieth century, global sea level increased at an average
rate of about 2 mm per year, substantially greater than the rate
of the previous three millennia. Measurements from 1993 to
2008 indicate that sea level is already rising twice as fast as in
previous decades and is already exceeding the rise predicted
by climate models. There are also differences in the amount of
SLR in different parts of the earth. Although there is consider-
able variability associated with these and other estimates, 25
to 50% of SLR since 1960 has been attributed to thermal expan-
sion. Small glaciers and ice caps shrunk considerably during
the twentieth century and freshwater runoff from melting
land-based ice will increase in the future. However, over the
past 20 years melting ice sheets have become the biggest con-
tributors to SLR, and will remain the dominant contributor in
the twenty-first century if current trends continue. Sea level
rise could be up to 1 m by 2100.
Studies indicate that we have already committed ourselves
to a SLR of 1.1 m (3.6 ft) by the year 3000 as a result of green-
house gas emissions up to now. This could be more severe,
depending on the how much mitigation will take place. If
 Climate Change and Ocean Acidification  171

we were to follow the high emissions scenario of the IPCC, a

sea-level rise of 6.8 m could be expected in the next thousand
years. The two other IPCC scenarios project SLRs of 2.1 and 4.1
meters. Rising sea levels could make entire areas, even island
nations, uninhabitable or extremely vulnerable to flooding
and storms. Because of dense concentrations of humans and
development in coastal zones, many countries are vulnerable
to SLR and coastal flooding. Tens of millions of people around
the world are already exposed to coastal flooding from tropical
cyclones. Global warming has the potential to increase flood-
ing from more severe hurricanes and sea level rise. Developing
countries, particularly small islands and low-lying areas, are
especially vulnerable and have limited capacity to adapt to
rising sea levels or to recover. Low-lying areas in developed
countries such as Long Island, New  York and South Florida
in the United States are also at great risk. Coastal populations
are particularly vulnerable to natural disasters including tsu-
namis, floods, and hurricanes. Since over a third of the world’s
population lives in coastal zones within 100 kilometers (62
miles) of the shore, the effects could be disastrous. According
to IPCC, many millions more people will be flooded due to
SLR by the 2080s.
SLR affects natural intertidal ecological communities such
as salt marshes and mangroves at the edge of the water. These
communities will have to migrate inland or increase their
elevation in order to avoid being submerged by rising seas.
As these are important habitats for birds and marine animals
that use them as nursery habitats, many species are at risk if
these wetlands cannot either migrate inland or increase their
elevation. In many areas, marshes are not expected to be able
to increase their elevation fast enough to keep up with SLR.
However, if storms transport new sediments into the marshes,
they may be able to increase elevation and persist for a longer
time. In developed areas there are roads, houses, and other
man-made structures just landward of the marshes, which
prevent them from migrating inland.
172  Marine Pollution

Why is sea level rising faster than was predicted?

The IPCC report in 2007 projected a global SLR between 0.2–
0.5 m by the year 2100. Current measurements meet or exceed
the high end of that range, however, and suggest a rise of 1 m
(3.3 feet) or more by the end of the century. The reason for the
underestimate is that the models did not include critical feed-
backs that speed everything up. These feedbacks are melting
of Arctic sea ice and the Greenland ice cap. While ice is bright
and reflects much of the sun’s radiation back (this is called
albedo), water is dark and absorbs it, causing more warming.
Melting sea ice—which is already in the ocean—does not itself
raise the sea level, but when it melts it releases more freshwa-
ter from the Arctic, which is then replaced by inflows of saltier
warmer water from the south. That warmer water pushes the
Arctic toward more ice-free waters, which, because of their
dark color, absorb sunlight rather than reflect it back into
space the way ice does. The more open water there is, the more
heat is trapped in the water, and the warmer things can get.
There are gigantic stores of ice in Greenland and Antarctica
that are melting. This was clear in the summer of 2012 when
Greenland had a record-setting melt. Another missing feed-
back is the groundwater being extracted all over the world
to mitigate droughts. That water is ultimately added to the
oceans. All these feedbacks will speed up SLR.

What can be done about sea level rise?

A major challenge is how to both mitigate and adapt to the
impacts of climate change since impacts are now inevitable
even if aggressive action is taken quickly to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, which seems unlikely. In order to protect coastal
cities and towns, adaptation involves improving and increas-
ing salt marshes and mangroves that reduce storm surges, and
building sea walls and other structures to hold back the ocean.
Restoring and constructing coastal wetlands, oyster reefs, and
 Climate Change and Ocean Acidification  173

coral reefs is one approach to reducing the amount of surge

during storms, which are predicted to become more severe in
the future. Vegetation and reefs can reduce current speeds and
dissipate some of the energy because these organisms provide
drag force in the water. Another approach is to retreat—to
move houses and communities back from the shore, a strategy
that runs into considerable political opposition. Perhaps if it
were called something else—perhaps “move-back”—it would
not sound like defeat and cause so much opposition.

What is pH?
The pH is a scale from 0 to 14 used to measure of hydrogen
ion concentration in water. A  pH of 7 is neutral, and repre-
sents equal amounts of hydrogen ion (H+) and hydroxide ion
(OH–). Pure water is neutral. Solutions with a pH less than 7
have more H+ than OH– and are acidic, while solutions with a
pH above 7 are basic or alkaline; 0 is as strong as an acid can
be, and 14 is the strongest alkali. Seawater is slightly alkaline,
with a pH around 8.2. Since pH is a logarithmic scale, a dif-
ference of one pH unit is equivalent to a tenfold difference in
hydrogen ion concentration. So a pH decrease from 8.2 to 8.1
represents a 30% increase in acidity (even though the water is
not really acidic, but is less alkaline).

What is ocean acidification?

When CO2 from fossil fuel burning enters the atmosphere,
about 1/3 of it ends up dissolving in the ocean. While this is
good for us since it slows down global warming, it is bad for
the ocean. In the ocean, the CO2 combines with water to form
carbonic acid, which becomes bicarbonate ions (HCO3 –) and
hydrogen ions (H+), reducing the pH of the water by making
it more acidic. Since the industrial age began, the pH of the
oceans has declined by 0.1 pH unit, which, because the scale
is logarithmic, represents a 30% increase in acidity. This is
174  Marine Pollution

lower than the pH has been in 20 million years. The extent to

which human activities have raised ocean acidity has been
difficult to calculate because it varies naturally between
seasons, from one year to the next, and among regions and
specific locations. In addition, direct observations go back
only 30 years. If CO2 emissions continue at the present rate,
often called the business-as-usual scenario, models project
an average worldwide decrease of 0.2–0.3 units by 2100 on
top of what has already happened, doubling the current acid-
ity. The Southern Ocean is an important carbon sink—about
40% of the CO2 absorbed by the oceans enters there. Rather
than being absorbed uniformly into the deep ocean in vast
areas, CO2 is drawn down by currents. Winds, currents,
and massive whirlpools (eddies) that carry warm and cold
water around the ocean create localized pathways and acidic
patches.
Reduced pH or ocean acidification (OA) threatens not only
the ecological health of the oceans, but also the economic
well-being of the people and industries that depend on a
healthy productive marine environment. Eutrophication—
algal blooms resulting from increased nutrients (see
Chapter 2)—is another source of CO2 in coastal waters. When
combined with CO2 from the atmosphere, the release of
CO2 from decaying organic matter is speeding up the acidi-
fication of coastal seawater. The pH in the lower part of the
Chesapeake Bay is declining at a rate three times faster than
the open ocean, partly because of nutrients from farming and
other activities. These combined effects make the job of mini-
mizing harmful impacts of OA that much more difficult.

What effects are produced by ocean acidification?

The increased acidity of the oceans is expected to harm a wide
range of ocean life—particularly those with calcium-containing
shells (Figure 9.2). Many organisms use calcium and carbonate
ions from seawater to produce calcium carbonate for shells.
 Climate Change and Ocean Acidification  175

Decreased pH reduces the saturation of calcium carbonate,

making it more difficult for some organisms to accumulate
calcium and carbonate to make their hard shells and skel-
etons. Two common mineral forms of calcium carbonate are
aragonite and calcite. Those animals that use aragonite (cor-
als, pteropods, and bivalves) are expected to be more severely
affected than calcite calcifiers (coralline algae, sea urchins)
because of differences in solubility—aragonite is a more sol-
uble mineral form than calcite. (It is interesting to note that
otoliths, the bony structures in fish ears, appear to get larger
in acidified conditions rather than smaller as would be pre-
dicted.) It appears that larval mollusks and some other calci-
fying organisms are already experiencing harmful effects on
shell formation at some locations. Delicate corals may face an
even greater risk because they require very high levels of car-
bonate to build their skeletons. Acidity slows reef-building,
which could lower the resiliency of corals and lead to ero-
sion. Since coral reefs are home to a host of other organisms,
their loss would have extensive effects throughout the marine

Ocean Acidification
1
Atmospheric Less acidic more acidic
carbon dioxide
CO2

2 3
Dissolved Carbonic Hydrogen
carbon dioxide Water Acid lons

CO2 H2 O H2CO3 H+

Bicarbonate
lons Carbonate
lons
Intact shells HCO3–1
CO3–2

Deformed shells

Figure 9.2  Ocean Acidification (taken from Chesapeake Quarterly, Maryland Sea Grant
College Program)
176  Marine Pollution

environment and have profound social impacts in the trop-

ics—especially on fishing and tourism. The loss of coral reefs
would also reduce the protection that they offer coastal com-
munities against storm surges and hurricanes.

Hasn’t ocean pH changed in the past? Why is this different?

Will marine organisms be able to adapt?
Ocean pH has changed in past geological ages. But the rate of
change then was very slow—over many thousands of years.
Today’s pH change is extremely fast—over one or two hun-
dred years. In the slow changes, processes like rock weath-
ering and seafloor mineral dissolution could counteract some
of the changes. But now the change is happening too fast for
slow geological processes to counteract. While some marine
organisms will be able to tolerate these conditions or evolve
adaptations, the changes may be happening too fast for many
organisms to tolerate or be able to evolve adaptations.

Which species are most threatened by ocean acidification?

Ocean acidification impairs the process of calcification for
building shells, which means that calcareous plankton (includ-
ing some phytoplankton at the base of oceanic food webs), cor-
als, shellfish—anything that builds a shell—is at risk. Among
the plankton in the oceans are tiny mollusks called pteropods
that play an important role in the oceanic food web. Because
they produce an aragonite shell, they are expected to be very
sensitive to ocean acidification. They make up a large part
of the diet of Alaska’s juvenile pink salmon, which could be
affected indirectly through loss of food. Shellfish with weaker
thinner shells would be less able to resist shell-crushing
predators.
Some acidity is natural in some regions. Water off the
Pacific coast of the United States already has a low carbon-
ate saturation state. When surface winds blow the top layer of
 Climate Change and Ocean Acidification  177

water out from coastal regions, deeper water with high acid-
ity (called corrosive water) can upwell, and harm shellfish.
Periodic upwelling of CO2-rich water has already happened on
the US West Coast, where larval oyster survival has been very
low for several years because of these events. A few decades
ago, such upwelling events weren’t as acidic and probably
wouldn’t have been cause for concern. Hatcheries are having
trouble producing and rearing larval oysters. There has been a
reduced natural set of juvenile oysters in some estuaries where
the commercial shellfish industry relies on natural reproduc-
tion of oysters. This is due largely to the upwelling of acidic
deeper water. Workers at Oregon’s Whiskey Creek Shellfish
Hatchery suspected that low pH water was killing their oys-
ter larvae. Working with Oregon State University and NOAA,
they were able to show that that was the case, and now they
monitor the pH of the ocean and time their water intakes to
ensure that oysters are exposed to less acidic water. A small
investment in pH-monitoring equipment saved the industry
millions of dollars.
In addition to the stress of warmer water, corals are very
sensitive to acidification and construct weaker shells. To add
insult to injury, when seawater is both acidic and warm (as will
be the case), corals become even more fragile due to microbor-
ers such as algae, blue-green algae, and fungi that bore tiny
holes in the coral, further weakening the skeleton. Corals will
not only have less material to build their reefs, but older parts
will erode faster due to both acidity and boring. If current
trends continue, there will be major decreases in global coral
reefs with declines in associated fishes and invertebrates.
Increasing CO2 may be an additional stress driving a shift
from corals to seaweeds on reefs. In an experiment, coral deaths
from contact with a reef seaweed increased two- to threefold
between background CO2 levels and a level of CO2 projected
for late twenty-first century. Thus, coral reefs may become
more susceptible to overgrowth by seaweeds and be replaced
by them. Other members of the reef community, however,
178  Marine Pollution

may enable corals to be more resilient. Herbivorous fishes and

invertebrates such as sea urchins play an important role in
reef health by mowing down and eating weedy algae and thus
clearing settling spots for young corals. Those herbivores may
help damaged reefs to recover. However, not all species of cor-
als respond the same way. Some species have a degree of toler-
ance to lower pH, while others experience harmful carryover
effects through developmental stages or even generations after
short-term exposure. Bleaching, acidification, and diseases are
expected to compound each other, and will reduce survival,
growth, reproduction, larval development, settlement, and
postsettlement development. Interactions with local stresses
such as pollution, sedimentation, and overfishing will likely
intensify the effects of climate change.
Ocean acidification effects are not restricted to shell pro-
duction. Mussels use stiff, stretchy structures called byssus
threads to attach onto surfaces. In lower pH, the threads break
more easily and lose elasticity; the mussel’s ability to hang on
drops by about 40% in more acidic water. Effects have been
seen on behavior and development of a number of marine ani-
mals. Fish use gills to regulate pH balance, but the early larval
stages don’t have gills and cannot regulate pH balance in this
way. Exposure of eggs and larvae of a common estuarine fish
to elevated CO2 severely reduced survival and growth. The
eggs were more vulnerable to high CO2-induced mortality than
the larvae. Atlantic longfin squid eggs raised in seawater with
elevated CO2 were slower to hatch than those raised in normal
seawater. Mineral structures called statoliths, which help the
squid sense movement, were smaller in acidified water; they
had more pores and were oddly-shaped. With abnormal stato-
liths, the squid might have trouble orienting and swimming.
Behavior is also altered in many animals. For example,
young clownfish (familiar as the cartoon fish, Nemo) nor-
mally stay close to the reef in which they live. But as the water
becomes more acidic they tend to wander farther and far-
ther from home. This boldness is not good for their survival
 Climate Change and Ocean Acidification  179

because the farther away they go, the more likely they are
to get eaten by predators. Furthermore, Philip Munday and
colleagues studying coral reefs next to natural seeps near
New Guinea (where carbon dioxide bubbles are made by vol-
canic activity), have found that fish lose their fear of preda-
tors. Living in this acidic environment makes small reef fish
become attracted to the smell of their potential predators. In
another example of reduced olfactory behavior, homing abil-
ity is impaired in cardinalfish in low pH. All these modified
behaviors can increase mortality. But predatory behavior can
also be impaired. The brown dottyback (a coral reef fish) in
elevated CO2 levels shifted their behavior from preference to
avoidance of the smell of injured prey, and decreased their
feeding activity.
The Chilean abalone, a snail that adheres to rocks along
wave-swept shores, quickly rights and reattaches itself when
it is dislodged, an important skill. But when CO2 levels were
increased (pH decreased), snails were slow to right them-
selves or did not do so at all. Responses of hermit crabs to food
odors were disrupted under reduced pH. Crabs in reduced
pH seawater had lower antennular flicking rates (the sniffing
response), were less successful in locating an odor source, and
had reduced activity compared to those in untreated seawater.
Since there is great variation in sensitivity to OA, we can
expect that some species will thrive while others will diminish
greatly, thus causing major changes in marine communities.
For example, some large crustaceans such as crabs and lobsters
do not seem to be impaired by excess CO2, but instead seem
to grow larger, despite their need for calcium in their shells.
Under high CO2, they have been found to molt faster. After
molting, they undergo a growth spurt while in the soft-shell
stage. Extra carbon speeds the molt cycle so that they become
bigger, potentially less vulnerable to predators and possibly
better predators themselves. These studies are all preliminary,
and much work needs to be done to understand effects in a
variety of organisms. In acidified conditions mollusks grow
180  Marine Pollution

less and have weaker shells, making them more vulnerable

to predators. Sea urchins also seem resistant to OA, largely
because they have genes that provide resistance and can evolve
rapidly. Researchers raised larvae in water with either low or
high CO2, sampled the larvae, and used DNA-sequencing tools
to determine which parts of the genetic makeup changed. By
looking at the function of each gene that changed, researchers
were able to identify which particular genes were critical for
sea urchin survival under acidic conditions.
Ocean acidification can degrade entire ecosystems, result-
ing in homogenized communities dominated by fewer plants
and animals. In the waters by Castello Aragonese, an island off
the coast of Italy, volcanic vents naturally release CO2, creat-
ing different levels of acidity, which provide a glimpse of what
the future communities could look like. Three zones—low,
high, and extremely high acidity—representing conditions
of the present day, 2100, and 2500 respectively were selected
for sampling. Researchers removed animals and vegetation
from rocks and examined the rocks periodically for recovery.
In more acidic water the number and variety of species was
reduced. In both high and extremely high acidic plots, fleshy
algae increased and took over, because sea urchins and other
grazers were either not present or did not graze on the algae,
while they did so in the lower acidity zone. Calcareous grazers
are important in maintaining the balance in marine ecosys-
tems and are among the most vulnerable species to OA.

How can organisms protect themselves against effects of

warming and acidification?
Many studies consist of placing marine animals in labora-
tory tanks with low pH water for a few days or months to
see how they respond. Fish and shellfish larvae often fail to
thrive and don’t grow as big or live as long as those in more
alkaline waters. But some species show substantial resilience.
Unlike most laboratories, organisms in the real ocean live in a
 Climate Change and Ocean Acidification  181

community with many different species and a complex web of

interactions. Some species are competitors for space and food;
others are potential prey or predators. Limited laboratory
studies also cannot tell you the long-term effects or if a species
can adapt to acidification. Our present understanding relies
mostly on results from short-term studies. Longer studies may
reveal that some species can adapt over time. Animals can be
impaired when abruptly exposed to elevated CO2, but individ-
uals that are gradually acclimated to high CO2 may be able to
adjust over the long term. For example, coral in high CO2 for
one week reduced calcification by about 25% in a pH decrease
of 0.1 units. In contrast, the coral could acclimate to this pH
over six months, and have even a slightly greater calcification
rate. This shows acclimation of a coral to ocean acidification.
Some mollusks have also been able to increase their tolerance
to low pH through acclimation. In one study, elevated CO2
caused oyster larvae to reduce growth, slow their development,
and reduce survival. But when adult oysters were exposed to
elevated CO2 while their gonads were ripening, the larvae
they later produced were larger and developed faster in the
high CO2 conditions. Also, selectively bred larvae were more
resistant to elevated CO2 than wild larvae. Thus, some marine
organisms may be able to acclimate or adapt to elevated CO2.
Another approach is studying wild populations that have
already adapted to acidic waters, which occur naturally in
some parts of the world. For example, along North America’s
West Coast, the waters off Oregon have low pH due to upwell-
ing. While this does severe harm to oysters as described
above, sea urchin larvae there tolerate acidic water better than
ones from California. This suggests that these sea urchins
have the resilience and genetic variation sufficient to tolerate
ocean acidification. Researchers have found indications that
some corals have genes that provide increased resilience to
acidification.
Some corals can adapt to higher temperatures and resist
bleaching. For example, corals in the Persian Gulf withstand
182  Marine Pollution

summer temperatures up to 10°C higher than corals else-

where and have recovered from extreme temperature events in
10 years or less. Their heat-tolerance suggests that other coral
populations might also be able to adapt to increasing tempera-
tures. Recovery from bleaching events is faster when there are
enough herbivorous fishes on the reef to keep algae in check.
Researchers found that because of overfishing, densities of her-
bivores on Red Sea reefs near Saudi Arabia were far lower than
other Red Sea reefs, which can explain the very slow recovery
of these reefs. Some corals can adapt to acidification. Scientists
have found that corals near the island of Palau are able to thrive
in highly acidic water. So it is possible that other corals in other
areas will be capable of adapting to acidification as well.

What economic effects could result from Ocean Acidification?

Ocean acidification may impact tourism and fisheries and the
jobs and revenue that depend on them. Regions that depend
heavily on coral reef tourism or coral reef based fisheries will
have severe impacts from OA, which could decrease rev-
enue if the quality of reefs or fish harvests decline. It is also
important to realize that changes in shellfish harvests, coral
reef-associated industries, or tourism will affect other busi-
nesses and communities that depend on the affected industry.
This could really amplify the overall economic effects of ocean
acidification. Commercial fisheries, especially for shellfish,
can be severely affected. Vulnerability of different countries to
decreases in mollusk harvests will depend on their nutritional
and economic dependence on mollusks. Countries with low
adaptability, high dependence on mollusks, and rapidly grow-
ing populations will be the most vulnerable.

What can we do to mitigate effects of ocean acidification?

Reduction of CO2 emissions and increased sequestering of
carbon are approaches that are being considered. While there
 Climate Change and Ocean Acidification  183

is much discussion about planting more trees and restoring

rain forests, seagrasses and mangroves fix carbon at a much
higher rate than land-based systems and could be an approach
to climate mitigation (known as “blue carbon”), which also
preserves the important ecosystem services of these habi-
tats. Because these approaches are long-term, expensive, and
unlikely to be enacted soon, Washington State has decided
to try to buy time for itself. They will monitor ocean acid-
ity carefully and create an acidity budget—an assessment of
how much acidity is coming from which sources. Then it will
attempt to reduce carbon inputs from land-based sources such
as agricultural and urban runoff. They will also develop prac-
tical steps to offset carbon, like planting seagrasses. They will
include an extensive campaign to educate the public, business
leaders, and policymakers about the risks of increasing OA.
There are many efforts underway internationally to restore
and plant new salt marshes and seagrasses not only as buffers
for climate change, but for the habitat they provide for marine
animals and the shore protection they provide to human com-
munities. There are also efforts underway to restore damaged
coral reefs. These projects are very labor intensive, involv-
ing growing small pieces of coral in the laboratory and then
cementing them in place on a reef. Restoring oyster reefs
has become very popular in the United States for a number
of reasons. The oyster reefs provide habitat for a wide vari-
ety of other animals, the reefs serve as a buffer against storm
surges, and their calcium-containing shells can help to coun-
teract decreasing pH. In addition, oysters filter huge amounts
of water and can help to combat eutrophication by eating a lot
of phytoplankton.
Geoengineering technologies—technical fixes—can play a
role in tackling climate change. Iron fertilization is one that
has actually been tried in order to increase CO2 uptake from
the atmosphere into the ocean. In areas where the growth
of phytoplankton is limited by low availability of iron, extra
iron is added. This stimulates plant growth, increasing
184  Marine Pollution

photosynthesis and hence carbon uptake into the ecosystem.

Some of this extra carbon should end up in the deep ocean, car-
ried there in the bodies of dead organisms. Twelve large-scale
experiments have been undertaken, mainly in the Southern
Ocean, with mixed results. Overall, they have produced little
evidence that the technique will reliably sequester carbon.
Most scientists think that such efforts are not likely to be effec-
tive. New calculations take into account not only the CO2 that
will be sequestered in the deep sea but also subtract losses due
to ventilation, greenhouse gas production, and the burning of
fossil fuels in order to produce the iron salts, transport them,
and distribute them at sea. These calculations suggest that a
single iron fertilization event will sequester just 10 tons of car-
bon/sq km at a cost of almost $500/ton of CO2. In July 2012,
Russ George of Planktos, Inc. dropped 100 tons of iron sulfate
into the Pacific Ocean off Canada’s West Coast. He claimed
that this study was meant to mitigate climate change by spur-
ring the growth of plankton. Satellites show that there was a
plankton bloom over 10,000 square kilometers. The Canadian
government launched an investigation to determine whether
he violated international treaties including the Convention on
Biological Diversity and the London Convention on Dumping
of Wastes at Sea. Much of the scientific community condemned
his actions because the project had violated international
agreements, including a moratorium declared by the United
Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.
In contrast, energy efficiency is a win-win situation. Much
more must be done to develop energy efficient cars, buildings,
and appliances. Efficient technologies can contribute large
emission reductions, since they offer high cost savings and
can significantly reduce emissions. Unfortunately, small-scale
innovations that improve efficiency go unnoticed because they
don’t have the glamour of solar panels and wind turbines, and
don’t benefit from the market interests and political influence.
Recycling can combat climate change because it reduces
the need to mine and process new materials which produces
 Climate Change and Ocean Acidification  185

greenhouse gases. By reducing the amount of trash, we cut

both CO2 emissions from incinerating waste and methane (a
potent greenhouse gas) emissions from trash decomposing in
landfills. Recycling paper reduces the cutting down of trees
that absorb greenhouse gases. The US recycling rate has been
rising steadily since the 1970s when the rate was only 7%; 34%
of trash was recycled in 2010. This is good, but we still have
a way to go. The almost 10  million tons of paper containers
and packaging we throw away annually could save the energy
equivalent of 1.6 billion gallons of gasoline.
Despite all these efforts, global CO2 continues to rise. In the
United States, the Energy Information Administration (EIA)
statistics for total domestic carbon dioxide emissions reveal a
2.32 % increase in US carbon emissions during 2013, over 2012
levels. It is urgent that remedies to halt ocean degradation be
established; the rate, speed, and negative impacts of climate
change in the global ocean are greater and faster than previ-
ously thought.
 10
BIOLOGICAL POLLUTION

Where does microbial pollution come from?

Microbial pollution comes from sewage that has not been
properly treated. Fecal contamination is a concern because
some of the microbes it contains can cause illness. High levels
of pathogens may be present in effluent from sewage plants
that do not have secondary treatment. Older cities that have
combined sewer systems combining storm sewers and house-
hold and industrial waste can discharge untreated sewage
during heavy rains when the volume of water exceeds the
capacity of the system. There is no national record-keeping of
how many illnesses are caused by sewage releases, but it is
estimated that as many as 20 million people each year become
ill from drinking water containing pathogens from untreated
waste that entered the water upstream from drinking water
sources. Nonpoint runoff is another source of microbes into
coastal waters—from animal feces, livestock operations, or
dense concentrations of wild animals. Hepatitis A virus, and
pathogenic bacteria (e.g., Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes,
Vibrio cholerae, and Vibrio parahaemolyticus) have been reported
in coastal waters.
Microbiological contamination can build up in marine life
(shellfish) when sewage is released to coastal waters or arrives
in river flow. Bacteria and viruses from humans and animals,
usually attached to fine particulate matter, can affect bath-
ing water quality, another potential source of illness. A study
estimated that as many as four million people become sick
 Biological Pollution  187

each year in California from swimming in water with pol-

lution linked to sewage. In urban rivers such as the Hudson
near New York City, bacteria have been found that are resis-
tant to antibiotics. The stretches of the river with the most
sewage-indicator bacteria also generally contained the most
antibiotic-resistant ones. The resistant bacteria include poten-
tially pathogenic strains of Pseudomonas, Acinetobacter, Proteus,
and Escherichia (as in E.  coli). Scientists have also isolated
Vibrio and other bacteria from seawater and sand of recreation
beaches on the Baltic Sea and found that they were resistant to
many antibiotics. Overall, however, the microbiological qual-
ity of coastal waters has been improving in recent decades fol-
lowing better wastewater treatment.

How is microbial pollution detected?

Enterococci (e.g., E. coli) are microbes that are naturally occur-
ring in the digestive systems of mammals and birds, but are
also opportunistic pathogens that cause millions of infections
annually. Because they are shed in human and animal feces,
can be easily cultured in the laboratory, and their density can
predict health risks from exposure to polluted recreational
waters, they are used as surrogates for waterborne pathogens
and as fecal indicator bacteria in water testing laboratories
around the world.

What kind of diseases may result from exposure?

Microbial pollution by pathogens from sewage or animal
waste is a major concern for drinking water supplies, but is
also an issue in coastal waters where swimmers may become
ill after rain has washed bacteria in from combined sewers or
in runoff. In comparison with drinking water, infections and
illness due to recreational water contact are generally mild and
difficult to detect. Even when illness is severe, it is often dif-
ficult to attribute a particular case to coastal water pollution.
188  Marine Pollution

Epidemiological studies have shown gastrointestinal and

respiratory infections associated with recreational water,
which is why bathing beaches may be closed after major rain
storms when elevated bacterial pollution has been detected.
Another concern is accumulation of pathogenic bacteria and
viruses in edible shellfish, which can cause more severe ill-
ness in people who eat them. Gastroenteritis and hepatitis
A are the most important diseases transmitted through shell-
fish; however, cholera and typhoid fever (from Vibrio cholerae
and Salmonella typhi) were the first to be linked to eating con-
taminated shellfish. Viral outbreaks are also associated with
eating contaminated shellfish. Initially the analysis of disease
outbreaks was based on epidemiological data, but advances in
molecular biology and the ability to detect low levels of enteric
viruses in shellfish now provide better information on shell-
fish as a source of disease. Officials close shellfish beds when
tests indicate elevated bacterial levels. Vibrio parahaemolyticus
is a leading cause of seafood-borne bacterial gastroenteritis.
An outbreak of V. parahaemolyticus-related gastroenteritis was
linked to consumption of raw oysters in Washington State.
Humans are not the only ones at risk from pathogens washed
into the water. Many sea otter deaths have been attributed to
diseases known in terrestrial mammals. M. A. Miller and col-
leagues have found an association between sea otter deaths from
a particular pathogen and increased stream flow that took place
30 to 60 days earlier, supporting the idea that runoff from land
brought fecal pathogens from land animals to the sea otters.

How can people know if it is safe to swim at their

favorite beach?
In 2000 the US Congress passed the Beach Act, which extended
pollution protections to coastal waters and required states to
set up monitoring programs for pathogens. Municipalities and
counties generally close beaches when the counts exceed cer-
tain standards. However, most health departments monitor for
 Biological Pollution  189

bacteria once a week, which may not be often enough. Models

can be used to predict how long after a rainfall a particular
beach will be affected by microbial pollution, but if you are
concerned, it might be best not to swim for a couple of days
after a major rainfall. The Waterkeeper Alliance has developed
a swim guide and a website at www.theswimguide.org, which
provides up-to-date information about many beaches.

What are invasive species?

When a species arrives in a new environment, it is unlikely to
have the natural controls that kept its population numbers in
balance in its native area. Without control by predators, par-
asites, or disease, some species increase rapidly, to the point
where they can take over their new environment and harm
native species. Marine organisms have been moved around the
world for thousands of years by ocean currents and attached to
driftwood, and more recently aided by human activities. What
is new is the speed and volume at which marine organisms are
now transported. Recently, marine invasive species have had
major impacts on biodiversity, ecosystems, fisheries, human
health, and economics. Although most introductions fail, a
small percentage of species can thrive and become a problem
in the new area. Certain traits—for example tolerance of envi-
ronmental stress—characterize species that become invasive.
Environments that are stressed (e.g., polluted, eutrophic, low
in native diversity) appear to be more vulnerable to invasions.
As demonstrated by Andrew Cohen and James Carlton, San
Francisco Bay appears to be a hotspot for invasions, containing
many of the invasive marine species in western North America.

How do they get to new locations?

Aquatic species can be transported by various means (vec-
tors), either accidentally or on purpose:  in ship ballast water
or by attaching to hulls, as hitchhikers clinging to boots or
190  Marine Pollution

scuba gear, as consignments of live organisms traded to pro-

vide live bait or food, and as symbionts or parasites carried by
other organisms. The mechanisms, extent, and consequences
of marine and estuarine invasions have been reviewed by
Gregory Ruiz and colleagues. In the 1800s, trans-Atlantic ship-
ping increased dramatically and many species were trans-
ported between Europe and the East Coast of North America.
The periwinkle snail (Littorina littorea) arrived in the early
1800s and is now widespread on rocky shores from Canada to
New Jersey. It has greatly altered the ecology of these shores.
Increased trade and shipping moves more organisms around
the world in ship ballast water in one month, than used to be
moved in a century. It is estimated that 7,000 species are car-
ried around the world in ballast water every day and 10 bil-
lion tons of ballast water are moved each year. Which species
will survive in a new location, and which ones may thrive and
cause problems cannnot easily be predicted, a phenomenon
that James Carlton has termed “ecological roulette.”
Fouling by attached organisms is another important vec-
tor. Organisms attach to the hull, to propellers and propeller
shafts, anchors, and anchor chains. Paints with tributyltin
are being phased out due to environmental concerns. With
less effective antifoulants, fouling will likely transport more
organisms in the future.
Many marine species including oysters, marsh grasses,
and fish were deliberately introduced for food or for erosion
control, with little knowledge of the impacts they could have.
Fish and shellfish have been intentionally introduced all over
the world for aquaculture, providing food and jobs, but they
can escape and become a threat to native species, ecosystem
function, or livelihoods. Pathogens or parasites associated
with the species that are moved can infect native species and
even humans. Atlantic salmon are reared in ocean net-pens
in Washington State and British Columbia. Many escape each
year, and they have been recovered in both saltwater and
freshwater in Washington State, British Columbia, and Alaska.
 Biological Pollution  191

Recreational fishing can also spread invasive species. Bait

worms from Maine are popular throughout the country. They
are commonly packed in seaweed which contains many other
organisms. If the seaweed is discarded, it or the organisms on
it can colonize new areas. Wading boots, recreational boats,
and trailers can pick up organisms at one location and move
them elsewhere.
The aquarium trade can also be responsible for marine
invasions. Many people keep exotic fish, marine plants, inver-
tebrates, or corals in aquariums. One of the most infamous
marine invaders, a strain of the tropical seaweed Caulerpa
taxifolia, now carpets large areas of the Mediterranean Sea.
Molecular studies by O. Jousson and colleagues indicated that
it was derived from an aquarium strain. Since the alga was first
spotted right under windows of the Oceanographic Museum
in Monaco, it probably came from that aquarium. The lionfish,
one of the most devastating invaders in the Caribbean, prob-
ably originated from aquarium pets that were released.
Debris washed out to sea by the Japanese tsunami in 2011
is washing ashore in North America, carrying with it large
numbers of hitchhikers; thus far over 60 Japanese species have
come on floating debris to the west coast of the United States
and Canada. Of special concern are docks, piers, buoys, and
vessels that were in seawater at the time of the tsunami and
would have already had populations of attached organisms.
What makes this different from boat transport is that boats
move too quickly between ports for many organisms to hang
on. Also, the communities transported on slow-moving tsu-
nami debris can arrive along the whole coastline rather than
just at ports. Of great concern is the Northern Pacific seastar,
a shallow-water species that eats shellfish. After it invaded
Australia its population grew to 12 million in two years and
it had major impacts on aquaculture. A  fast-growing sea-
weed called wakame kelp has also been found on much of the
Japanese debris. Shellfish including blue mussels, Pacific oys-
ters, brown barnacles, and clams from Japan have also been
192  Marine Pollution

discovered, along with worms and sea urchins. In 2012 a 66

ft-long commercial shipping dock washed ashore in Oregon.
Of the 100 species attached to its sides, two-thirds were native
to Asia, including seaweeds, mussels, sea stars, barnacles,
crabs, and oysters, which survived at sea for 14  months and
about 5,000 miles. Fish native to East Asia were discovered on
a Japanese fishing boat set adrift by the tsunami that washed
ashore in Washington state two years later. Sea anemones,
scallops, crabs, worms, and sea cucumbers were also found
on the boat. The West Coast states and Hawaii have developed
response plans. A  Japan Tsunami Marine Debris Taxonomic
Assessment Team, with experts familiar with marine
organisms of the North Pacific will examine photographs
quickly to indicate if a species is potentially invasive so that
decision-makers can determine a response strategy.

What are some invasive marine fishes and what harm

do they do?
Lionfish (Pterois volitans), native to the Indo-Pacific and avail-
able in the tropical fish trade, were spotted first in the early
1990s off the coast of Florida and were believed to have either
been released from aquaria or when Hurricane Andrew
flooded aquarium and pet stores near the coast (Figure 10.1). In
the Atlantic they are taking food and habitat from native fishes
that are important to the local ecology and economy. They have
no natural predators, and are now found in large numbers in
nearly all marine habitats in the Atlantic along the Southeast
United States and continuing along the South American coast,
as well as in the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean, to which they
have spread. They have a potent venom in their spines that
deters predators. Their sting normally is not deadly, but it is
extremely painful. As shown by Mark Albins and other inves-
tigators, their densities have surpassed some native reef fish in
many areas, and they grow larger and are far more abundant
in the invaded areas than they are in their Pacific native range;
 Biological Pollution  193

Figure 10.1 Lionfish Pterois volitans (photo from NOAA)

in some areas they make up almost half of the total biomass

of predators. The ecological impacts of this invasion range
from disrupting the structure and function of reef communi-
ties to impacts on commercial fishing and tourism. Lionfish
eat ecologically important species such as algae eaters (e.g.,
parrotfish) that keep algae in check on coral reefs. On heavily
invaded reefs, lionfish can remove over 60% of prey fish, some
of which include economically important species like snapper
and grouper. The socioeconomic impacts can be severe, espe-
cially to fishing and tourism, which are critically important
to many Caribbean and Atlantic countries. Off the coast of
North Carolina they are eating so well that, like obese people,
they are found to have globs of fatty tissue on their internal
organs—not a normal condition for a fish.

What are some invasive jellies and what harm do they do?
One of the worst marine invasions occurred in the early 1980s
when the North American comb jelly Mnemiopsis leidyi (Figure
194  Marine Pollution

Figure 10.2  Comb jelly Mnemiopsis leidyi (photo from NOAA)

10.2) arrived in the Black Sea. Comb jellies, or ctenophores,

superficially resemble jellyfish but are biologically quite dif-
ferent. They do not sting, and belong to a different phylum
(Ctenophora), so are not really jellyfish. In its native Atlantic
estuaries, abundance is restricted by predators and parasites,
and it tolerates a wide range of temperature and salinity. It
reaches 10 cm in length and eats zooplankton, including fish
eggs and larvae. Populations can reach very high densities.
When it arrived, it rapidly took hold in the Black Sea. By 1989,
there were about a billion tons of them eating vast quantities
of fish eggs and larvae as well as the zooplankton that com-
mercially important fish feed on, leading to the collapse of fish
stocks and the ecosystem of the Black Sea, as documented by
T.  Shiganova. Genetic analyses showed that they had come
from both the Gulf of Mexico (e.g., Florida) and the northern
part of the native range (e.g., Rhode Island). The high genetic
diversity in the Black Sea population indicates release of a
large number and multiple invasions, which is consistent with
ballast water transport and their extensive distribution in the
Atlantic. In a strange turn of events, in 1997, another comb jelly,
 Biological Pollution  195

Beroe ovata, invaded the Black Sea. A larger species, it feeds on

M. leidyi and caused a dramatic fall in their number, helping
the ecosystem to recover. Growing populations of zooplank-
ton, phytoplankton, and fish have been seen. It is possible to
use Beroe ovata as a biological control for Mnemiopsis leidyi.
However, purposely using another alien species for control of
an invader should be a last resort, given that it carries its own
risks of becoming invasive too.

What are some invasive crabs and what harm do they do?
The green crab (Figure 10.3) (Carcinus maenas) is native to the
Atlantic coasts of Europe and Northern Africa, where it lives
on protected rocky shores, pebbly beaches, mud flats, and
tidal marshes. It thrives in a wide range of salinity and tem-
perature, and has invaded South Africa, Australia, and both
coasts of North America. Its larvae spend about two months
in the plankton, dispersing many miles along the coast. Then
they are swept by tides and currents into coastal waters and

Figure 10.3  Green crab Carcinus maenas (photo from Peddrick Weis)

196  Marine Pollution

estuaries, where they molt and settle out as juveniles. If condi-

tions are suitable they will survive and reproduce, establish-
ing a new population. Green crabs arrived on the Atlantic
Coast of the United States in the 1800s, probably on ship hulls,
and settled in coastal bays from New Jersey to Cape Cod. Later
they began moving north, and their arrival in Maine coin-
cided with dramatic declines in the soft clam fishery. They
are a major predator of soft-shelled clams and quahogs. They
also feed on oysters, worms, and small crustaceans. They can
crack open clams and mussels faster than other crabs, and can
out-compete native crabs for food. A  second major invasion
was detected in 1989 in San Francisco Bay, where they prob-
ably arrived as larvae in ballast water or in seagrass or kelp
used in packing shipments of lobsters and bait worms to the
West Coast. Ted Grosholz and Gregory Ruiz documented their
spread and effects. Their arrival was associated with losses of
up to 50% of the Manila clams in California. As they continue
to move north there is concern for Dungeness crab, oyster, and
clam fisheries in the Pacific Northwest. They also are detri-
mental to eelgrass beds since adults uproot the eelgrass, and
juveniles graze on it.
In North America green crabs have fewer parasites and
actually grow larger than they do back home in European
waters, which may contribute to their success. On the East
Coast, snails and mussels that have been living with green
crabs for over a century have developed thicker shells as a
defense, making them harder to crush than those that have
not been exposed to green crabs. The crabs, in turn, develop
stronger claws—an example of an evolutionary “arms race.”
The Chinese mitten crab (Erocheir sinensis) is a burrowing
crab native to the Yellow Sea in Korea and China. It gets its
name from the dense patches of hairs on its claws. They are
believed to have been accidentally released in ballast water
in the early 1900s in Germany. In the 1920s and 1930s they
expanded into many northern European rivers and estuar-
ies. The Thames River in England has also had a population
 Biological Pollution  197

explosion. They travel long distances upstream into freshwa-

ter, feeding on native species. They also burrow into stream
and river banks leading to bank collapse. British zoologists
fear that this crab could both eat and out-compete vulner-
able freshwater species and that native crayfish (which are
already in decline) could be affected. Economic impacts in
Europe from fishery losses due to mitten crabs are estimated at
around 80 million Euros. Many animals prey on them, includ-
ing raccoons, river otters, wading birds, and fishes, but they
apparently do not eat enough of the crabs to slow down their
invasion.
Considered a delicacy in Asia, live mitten crabs have been
imported illegally into seafood stores in the United States.
They became established on the West Coast in the 1990s and
are considered a threat to native invertebrates, to the structure
of freshwater and estuarine communities, and to some com-
mercial fisheries. They may imperil California’s endangered
salmon, due to their appetite for salmon eggs. They can walk
on land and enter new rivers to disperse far and wide. Another
problem in California is their impact on water diversion and
on fish salvage facilities. In the summer of 2006 they appeared
in Chesapeake Bay, and by 2007 were spotted in Delaware Bay
and the New  York/New Jersey vicinity. New  York and New
Jersey have issued alerts for crabbers to report any sightings.
Sightings along the East Coast have been sporadic without
any indication (so far) that a population is established and
growing.
The Asian Shore Crab, Hemigrapsus sanguineus, a small spe-
cies, was first observed by John McDermott in New Jersey
in 1988 after it probably arrived as larvae in ballast water. It
has extended its range to Maine and North Carolina, becom-
ing abundant in pebbly intertidal and shallow water habi-
tats. They reproduce readily in a wide range of conditions,
and are found in very high densities; in some areas they have
displaced green crabs, possibly because they prey on small
green crabs. H. sanguineus is now the dominant crab in rocky
198  Marine Pollution

intertidal habitats along much of the northeast coast of the

United States. There is little evidence that they have major
predators or parasites. They also like the moist, shady envi-
ronment created by cord grass and mussels in salt marshes.
The cord grass attracts ribbed mussels by giving them some-
thing to attach to; the mussels, in turn, give the crabs crevices
in which to avoid predators, a process referred to as a facilita-
tion cascade. The cord grass provides valuable shade for both
mussels and crabs. In this case, the crabs’ use of the habitat
does not seem to crowd out native species. It is encouraging
that the salt marsh habitat can apparently accommodate this
new resident without severe problems. However, its broad
ecosystem effects and economic impacts are as yet unclear,
and there are indications that their populations are declining
in favor of native species.

What are some invasive sedentary attached organisms and

what harm do they do?
Tunicates or sea squirts are fouling organisms that attach to
hard substrates. Invasive tunicates are found mostly associ-
ated with artificial structures like floating docks, pilings, and
aquaculture installations, but they also settle on natural habi-
tats. Some invasive tunicates, (golden star tunicate, Botryllus
schlosseri; violet tunicate, Botrylloides violaceus) settle on eel
grass blades and reduce light penetration, thereby reducing
the growth and survival of the grasses, which are important
habitats for numerous animals. The sea squirt, Didemnum vex-
illum, has a history of invading and overgrowing marine com-
munities in temperate waters, including New England and
mid-Atlantic coasts, as summarized by Gretchen Lambert. It
reproduces rapidly, spreads easily, and can colonize and domi-
nate large areas of benthic habitat. They can overgrow native
organisms such as mussel beds. Areas with large amounts of
open space, regardless of species richness, are vulnerable to
Didemnum. Processes that fragment its colonies may accelerate
 Biological Pollution  199

the spread of this invader, which is able to reproduce while in

a fragmented state. Thus, trying to remove it by cleaning off
fouled surfaces and dredging probably aids the spread of this
species unless it can be contained and totally removed from
the water.

What are some invasive seaweeds and what harm do they do?
Large areas of seabed in the northern Mediterranean are now
carpeted by Caulerpa taxifolia, an invasive seaweed that pushes
out native marine life, disrupts ecosystems, and affects fish-
ermen’s livelihoods. In the late twentieth century it was very
popular in the aquarium trade. The public aquarium in Monaco
apparently released small amounts of the seaweed into the
wild. After remaining as a patch in front of the aquarium for
a while, it expanded and covered the seabed along 190 km of
coast. By 2001, it had spread to many other harbors around the
Mediterranean on boat anchors or fishing nets. It starts out by
overgrowing and shading native seaweeds or seagrasses, and
then affects animals that rely on the native species for food.
Animals that cannot move away quickly, such as shellfish, are
smothered. This seaweed protects itself by producing a toxin,
so there are relatively few species that can eat it. One species
that does is the Mediterranean bream, which accumulates the
toxins but is not directly harmed.
Japanese kelp or wakame (Undaria pinnatifidia) is native to
Japan, China, and Korea, where it is harvested for food. It tol-
erates a wide range of conditions and can grow on any hard
surface, including rope, boat hulls, bottles, mollusk shells, and
other seaweeds. It may form dense forests outcompeting native
species for space and light. It was intentionally introduced
into France for commercial use and then spread to the United
Kingdom, Spain, and Argentina. It was unintentionally intro-
duced into Australia, New Zealand, and Italy. It can interfere
with aquaculture by attaching to cages or ropes, either slowing
the growth of or displacing the farmed species.
200  Marine Pollution

What are some invasive marsh plants and what harm

do they do?
The common reed Phragmites australis (Figure 10.4) is native
to the United States. However, a different genetic strain from
Europe is a major invader in East Coast brackish and freshwa-
ter marshes. It outcompetes native plants, replacing diverse
plant assemblages in freshwater and brackish wetlands. In
brackish marshes its effects on aquatic animals vary; some spe-
cies are not affected by its takeover of the marsh, while killifish
(mummichogs) (and people) clearly prefer the native cordgrass,
Spartina alterniflora. Detritus from Phragmites gets into food
webs the same as the detritus from Spartina, so it has a similar
trophic function. The invader can sequester pollutants better
than the native cordgrass, and is an effective buffer against
storm surge, so it has both negative and positive effects.
The Atlantic cordgrass Spartina alterniflora, native to the East
Coast of the United States, is a highly valued native. It has been
planted elsewhere for coastal protection and sand dune sta-
bilization. However, when moved to new areas, such as the

Figure 10.4  Common reed Phragmites australis (photo from Peddrick Weis)

 Biological Pollution  201

West Coast, it can become invasive, as documented by Curtis

Daehler and Donald Strong of the University of California,
Davis. Its invasion of Willapa Bay, Washington is transform-
ing vast areas of tidal mudflats into dense vegetation, affecting
migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds that forage
in the open mudflats. In San Francisco Bay, it has hybridized
with native Spartina species, threatening the native flora in
marsh areas. The hybrids are tougher than their parent spe-
cies and become even better invaders. Cordgrass was intro-
duced to China in 1979 from the United States for reducing
coastal erosion. It grows vigorously in China and has spread
over much of the coastline, where it is competing with native
Phragmites (some irony here?). It has also invaded mangrove
areas in which the canopy was opened by human disturbance.
Some fear that it could gradually replace these mangroves in
midsalinity regions of Chinese estuaries.

Can an alien species do some good?

Some alien species have been found to benefit native species
and the local environment. In Chesapeake Bay, for example,
the exotic red alga Gracilaria vermiculophylla has flourished
and dispersed widely. It turns out to provide nursery habi-
tat for juvenile blue crabs at places where native eelgrass has
declined (largely due to eutrophication). Phragmites is an effec-
tive barrier providing storm and flood protection and is very
effective at sequestering pollutants. Furthermore, it produces
more detritus and litter than Spartina, so it increases the marsh
elevation and may enable tidal marshes to keep ahead of ris-
ing sea levels.
In degraded New England salt marshes, green crabs can do
some good. Because of overfishing, natural predators of the
marsh crab, Sesarma reticulatum, have been depleted so that
marsh crab populations exploded. This native crab eats large
amounts of cordgrass, so their dense populations destroyed
large areas of salt marsh. Mark Bertness and Tyler Coverdale
202  Marine Pollution

of Brown University found that when green crabs invaded

these marshes they ate and displaced the Sesarma, and actu-
ally promoted recovery of the marsh grass.

What can be done to prevent new invasive species

from arriving?
It is much harder to eradicate an alien species in a marine
environment than on land, but not impossible. If eradication
is not possible some type of control may be achievable, even
though it will need to be ongoing and is very expensive. In all
cases, it is better to prevent the introduction in the first place.
Surveillance and monitoring are essential to detecting a new
arrival in time to deal with it before it turns into a problem.
Prevention through management of ballast water is gaining
much attention, since ballast water discharges are a major vec-
tor of introductions. Because of international regulations, ves-
sels are now supposed to exchange ballast water in the open
ocean before arriving at their destination. Organisms in ballast
water taken on in a port are likely to be adapted to estuarine
or river conditions so they will not survive in the open ocean
when released. The ship refills its tanks with ocean water;
oceanic species should not be able to survive when released
in ports and harbors. However, it is not always possible for
ships to use this method because of safety concerns, such as
in rough seas. Also, emptying the water does not remove the
sediments on the bottom of the ballast tanks. Many organisms
inhabit these sediments, including dinoflagellate cysts, some
of which are toxic, presenting a possibility of harmful algal
bloom (HAB) problems in the new location. Also living on
the bottom of ballast tanks are adult invertebrates including
green crabs, mud crabs, periwinkles, soft shell clams, worms,
and blue mussels, which are not removed by midocean water
exchange and live their whole adult lives cruising on the seas.
While their densities are usually low, invasion risk may still
be significant, especially during reproductive seasons. Gravid
 Biological Pollution  203

female crabs may carry thousands to millions of eggs, and

after release of larvae new clutches may be fertilized by sperm
retained from an earlier mating. While ballast water exchange
can help to reduce marine invasions, it should not be the only
measure. Research is ongoing into methods of destroying
organisms in ballast water using sterilization, ozone, or heat
treatment. Another option is to build treatment plants in ports
that take ballast water from the ships and sterilize it before
releasing it or returning it to another ship. Implementation
of onshore treatment should be practical in busy ports that
receive high volumes of ballast water. This also would not take
care of the invertebrates cruising around in the mud on the
bottom of the ballast tanks.
To reduce the risk of new invaders, standards are being
proposed that establish upper concentration limits for organ-
isms in ballast discharge. Standards have been established
by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the US
Coast Guard, the US Environmental Protection Agency, and
individual states in the United States. Australia, Canada, and
New Zealand have established ballast water regulations. The
IMO established discharge standards based on the number of
viable organisms per volume of ballast discharge for different
organism size classes. The EPA has developed more stringent
numeric standards limiting the release of organisms in ballast
water.
Education for aquarists, fishers, and others can go a long
way toward reducing the introduction and spread of new
invasive species. In some areas new techniques are being used
in the aquaculture industry to reduce the risk of invasion. For
example, farmed mussels can be manipulated to have addi-
tional sets of chromosomes, making them sterile and thereby
reducing the risk of wild populations establishing.
New technology can improve monitoring and control. The
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
Centre for Mediterranean Cooperation has released a new app
for smart phones to help managers of marine protected areas
204  Marine Pollution

control the spread of invasive species in the Mediterranean

Sea. The app, which includes an identification guide to the
most important invasive species found in the Mediterranean,
will help to spot invasive species in marine protected areas
so that monitoring and control programs can be put in place
quickly before they damage native species.

What can be done after an invasive species has arrived?

Once a species has arrived in a new area it is important to
locate it and take action very quickly, before it has a chance
to establish and spread. This can be difficult. Eradication suc-
cesses are rare in the marine environment. But if an invader is
found while it occupies a relatively small area, it may be eradi-
cated if the response is quick enough. Surveys are important
and can be site-specific, such as in ports where species may be
introduced, or species-specific (targeting those that are known
to pose high risks). Surveys can be carried out by organiza-
tions with responsibility for detecting invasive species.
An eradication of the brown mussel Perna perna from a
deep soft-sediment area in New Zealand was undertaken
following its discovery among fouling organisms physically
removed from a drilling rig. A total of 227 dredge tows were
undertaken, removing about 35 tons of material that had been
removed from the rig, and which was disposed of in a land-
fill. The removal of these bivalves from relatively deep (>40
m) soft sediments indicates that, with appropriate tools and
other resources (including substantial funding), eradication is
feasible even in challenging environments. They did not claim
to have removed all the mussels, but said that when total elim-
ination is not feasible, density-based success criteria can be
developed that can effectively mitigate risks.
A relatively small Caulerpa infestation in Southern
California was spotted and quickly eradicated by covering the
seaweed with plastic sheets and poisoning it with chlorine.
The cost of this eradication was $2.33  million in 2000–2001,
 Biological Pollution  205

for control and monitoring, with an ongoing annual surveil-

lance cost of $1.2 million until 2004. Application of coarse sea
salt was used with moderate success in Australia to eradicate
Caulerpa taxifolia. Croatia attempted eradication by cover-
ing the seaweed with plastic sheeting, which was reasonably
successful in a limited area. Eradication has also occurred in
South Australia and New South Wales, and manual removal
by scuba divers was successful in eradicating a small patch in
the French Mediterranean. However, these methods are very
resource intensive and if even a tiny piece is missed, the spe-
cies can easily recover.
Caulerpa sold in the aquarium trade has the potential to
invade US waters. Surveys of southern California aquarium
retail stores in 2000–2001 showed that 26 of 50 stores sold at least
one Caulerpa species, with seven stores selling C. taxifolia. In late
2001, California banned the importation, sale, or possession of
nine Caulerpa species. To determine the effectiveness of the ban,
Caulerpa availability at previously sampled stores in Southern
California was investigated four years after the ban. Of 43
stores, 23 still sold Caulerpa with four stores selling C. taxifolia,
suggesting that the ban has not been very effective and that the
aquarium trade is still a source for distributing Caulerpa.

What can be done after a species has become abundant?

It is extremely difficult to control a marine organism once it
is established. Many marsh restoration projects in the East
Coast of the United States involve the removal of Phragmites
and replanting of Spartina, which is very labor intensive and
expensive and may require numerous applications of toxic
herbicides. This type of restoration may also involve lowering
the marsh elevation to favor the growth of cordgrass. However,
such restored marshes may eventually become inundated
sooner by rising sea levels. In some cases, re-establishing nor-
mal tidal flow is sufficient for the Phragmites to decline and
206  Marine Pollution

Spartina to return because the reed cannot tolerate the higher

salinity while cordgrass can.
A successful eradication of the black striped mussels from
marinas in Australia took place. Chemicals were used to kill
everything in the marinas, including all native marine life.
The operation involved chemically treating three marinas and
420 vessels, engaging 270 people (including sharpshooters to
protect divers from crocodiles) over four weeks at a total cost
of 2.2  million Australian dollars. In Hawaii’s Kaneohe Bay a
“supersucker” vacuum device is used to remove alien algae
(Gracilaria salicornia) that forms a thick mat smothering and
killing coral.
Because lionfish are so damaging ecologically and envi-
ronmentally, countries have developed outreach and manage-
ment strategies to reduce their populations. Control efforts can
reduce lionfish densities and impacts, and in stressed systems
even a small reduction in impact could have long-term ben-
efits. Removal can be by professionals or staff of nongovern-
mental organizations (NGOs), using divers and volunteers.
Fishing and spearfishing tournaments have been organized
that include education about basic biology, ecology, impacts,
collecting, and handling techniques. Data collected during
lionfish derbies can be used to monitor populations over space
and time. Some derbies in Mexico and the Bahamas have
removed over 2,000 lionfish in a single day. Monthly ongo-
ing removal contests offer prizes and recognition to divers
and dive operators, some of whom include lionfish collecting
in their regular dive activities; customers are encouraged to
search for lionfish during their dives and notify the divemas-
ter. Lionfish are rather sedentary and bold, allowing a close
approach with a spear, but they have quick escape reflexes.
In Bermuda, divers are allowed to remove lionfish from areas
traditionally off-limits. They must attend a workshop for
safety. The fish can also be removed effectively with nets, and
they go into fish traps. A study followed divers who removed
lionfish weekly from several sites off Little Cayman Island,
 Biological Pollution  207

Caribbean. Researchers asked divers not to remove lionfish

from one particular area so it could be used as a control site.
At removal sites lionfish density decreased, and those that
remained were smaller, while fish numbers increased at the
control site. When the study began, many lionfish were about
16 inches long, but at the end of the study the removed fish
were less than half this length. Size is important, as larger fish
consume bigger prey and lay a lot more eggs. One potential
problem that may result from intensive culling is that the fish
can learn to change their behavior to become less visible to
divers. A recent study compared behavior of lionfish from an
area where spear fishing had occurred with fish from areas
where hunting had not taken place. On culled reefs, fewer fish
were active during the day, and they hid themselves much
more effectively.
Divers in some areas have attempted to entice top predators
(sharks, barracudas, groupers, snappers) to consume captured
lionfish, in the hope that predators will learn to hunt and prey
on them. To date, there is no evidence that predators are learn-
ing to prey on lionfish. Unexpected effects of these activities
include aggressive behavior of predators during encounters
with divers, with subsequent injuries to the divers.

Can invasive species be controlled by eating them?

If you can’t beat ‘em, eat ‘em: if you can’t persuade sharks to eat
the lionfish, you can encourage people to do so.
Lionfish, it turns out, are very tasty, and many countries are
developing incentives for people to eat them. Many fishers rely
on their catch to provide much of the diet for their families and
consider lionfish good eating. Eating the catch is also a strong
incentive for recreational fishers. Promoting consumption of
lionfish encourages their removal, but education in handling
the fish, with their toxic spines, is essential. Restaurants in
Mexico, the Caymans, and Caribbean islands are beginning
to serve them, and cookbooks have been written. The news
208  Marine Pollution

magazine of North Carolina Sea Grant, Coastwatch, published

several lionfish recipes in their autumn 2013 issue.
There has been considerable interest in developing com-
mercial markets for lionfish. Consistent, high-volume removal
efforts may halt population growth, diminishing their dev-
astating effects on native fish populations. In Belize’s Barrier
Reef Reserve System, efforts are underway to do just that.
Conservationists from Blue Ventures, a British nongovern-
mental organization, are working together with local com-
munities and the Placencia Producers’ Cooperative Society in
developing a new international export market for the fish.
One criticism of fishing is the potential for juveniles to be
left in favor of larger, market-ready fish. One way to prevent
this is to also create a market for juveniles in the aquarium
trade. Puerto Rico currently exports approximately 200 to
300 juvenile lionfish per week to supply the US aquarium
trade, and Florida Keys collectors also remove and sell juve-
niles. While the aquarium trade is likely the initial source of
the invasion, the number of fish released was few. Even if a
small percentage of collected fish were to end up back in the
wild, the numbers removed are greater and could contribute
to a reduction in impacts. While there are economic benefits
to fishers and collectors for lionfish removals, there is concern
that allowing aquarium trade in invasive lionfish could lead to
additional introductions.
In South East Asia mitten crabs are a delicacy, especially
the ovaries and testes. Consequently, they are eaten primarily
during the fall migration period when the gonads are ripen-
ing. Crabs in Europe are being considered for consumption.
The Dutch have developed a fishery for them. A large popu-
lation is established in the Thames River, England, and com-
mercial exploitation is being considered. A  report considers
that the population is large enough to support artisanal fish-
ing and that fishing should be limited to certain months. This
could reduce crab numbers and provide financial benefits for
local fishermen. Although the Thames crabs had accumulated
 Biological Pollution  209

some contaminants, the report concluded that the harvesting

of mitten crabs from the Thames for moderate consumption
would not pose serious risks.
On the other hand, one fishy invader that would never do
for eating is a species of pufferfish that has invaded Lebanon,
Cyprus, Turkey, Greece, and Egypt. This Indo-Pacific native
eats large amounts of smaller fish and damages fishing nets. It
arrived in the Mediterranean about ten years ago and contains
a highly potent toxin in its tissues.
Even though we may be able to control invasive species
by harvesting them as food, some caution must be taken.
A possible problem is that developing a market creates pres-
sure to maintain the species and if it becomes an economic
resource, people may try to extend the market in new areas by
introducing it. Turning an invasive species into an economic
resource may prompt the local community to protect the spe-
cies. Therefore, projects aimed at controlling invasive species
through human consumption should be carefully examined
for both benefits and potential problems.
 11
REGULATING AND REDUCING
POLLUTION

What is the Ocean Health Index?

Using a new comprehensive index designed to assess the ben-
efits to people of healthy oceans, a group of scientists led by
Ben Halpern have evaluated the ecological, social, economic,
and political conditions for every coastal country in the world.
The Ocean Health Index is the first broad, quantitative assess-
ment of the important relationships between people and
the ocean in terms of the benefits we derive from the ocean.
Instead of simply assuming any human presence is negative, it
evaluates how our impacts affect the things we care about. The
Ocean Health Index defines a healthy ocean as one that deliv-
ers a range of benefits to people both now and in the future.
A  healthy ocean can maintain or increase its benefits to us
(food and services) in the long term, without jeopardizing the
marine life that provides these benefits. ​This index aggregates
ten different measures into a score of how well the oceans are
doing. It is not a measure of how pristine the ocean is, but mea-
sures how sustainably it is providing the things we care about.
The measures—which include water quality and factors such
as food provision, carbon storage, tourism value, fisheries,
aquaculture, coastal protection, and biodiversity—were cho-
sen to reflect both ecosystem sustainability and human needs.
The index was derived from existing data on such things
 Regulating and Reducing Pollution  211

as the percentage of live coral on reefs, to the percentage of

coastal people served by adequate sanitary facilities, and the
extent of arctic sea ice. The developers of the Index analyzed
over 200 data sets and measured each country’s score against
reference points that set standards of maximum sustainable
use. The Index can provide guidance for ocean policy since
it includes current status, trends, and factors affecting sus-
tainability. It should enable managers to focus on important
actions to improve the health of the ocean, promote awareness
of the state of the oceans, and be a guide for decision-makers.
The overall global score was 60 out of 100 (barely passing).
Almost one-third of the world’s countries earned a score of 50
or lower. But 5% of the nations scored higher than 70, show-
ing that there are successes. Developing nations, which are
generally less able to plan and control ocean usage, tended
to have lower scores, and developed nations generally had
higher scores. The United States received a score of 63; Britain,
61; India, 52; and China, 51. Jarvis Island (an uninhabited 1¼
square mile island in the Pacific) had the highest score of 86.
The Clean Water category averaged pollution intensity
from chemicals, excessive nutrients, pathogens, and trash; the
target (for a score of 100)  was to have zero pollution. Russia
was rated first for clean water, with a score of 97, and Benin in
West Africa was the lowest, with a score of 22. Four measures
contributed to the score:  the amount of pollution, the trends
(percent rise or fall over the past five years), the stresses, and
resilience (actions taken to reduce stresses). Countries with
long coastlines relative to their size (e.g., islands) tended to
have higher scores. Some small islands got high scores because
they are relatively uninhabited (e.g. Jarvis Island) or located in
remote regions with reduced pressures. On the other hand,
Russia and Canada, which have very long coastlines, scored
well because they have long uninhabited coastlines along the
Arctic, and because they manage water quality well in their
populated regions.
212  Marine Pollution

What is the Law of the Sea?

The United Nations Convention on the Territorial Sea and
the Contiguous Zone (1958) outlined the rights and respon-
sibilities of States in their offshore waters. In 1982, the UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea (LOS) further developed
the role of States in their marine areas and beyond. While
the United States ratified the 1958 Convention, by the end of
2013, it had not signed onto the 1982 Convention. The LOS
sets forth a legal framework for the sea, the seabed, and
its subsoil, plus the protection of the marine environment
and its resources. It requires countries to adopt regulations
and laws to control marine pollution and establishes juris-
dictional limits on the ocean area that countries may claim,
including a 12-mile territorial sea limit and a 200-mile exclu-
sive economic zone limit. (The practice of nations claiming
jurisdictional rights over activities in waters off their coast
dates back to the seventeenth century, where a three-nautical
mile territorial sea was recognized as the limit of a state’s
control over activities off its coast.) The United States rec-
ognizes that the principles in the 1982 LOS Convention
reflect customary international law, but it is not bound by
the agreement itself.

What is MARPOL?
In 2008 the United States became a Party to Annex VI of the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships (MARPOL). MARPOL Annex VI addresses vessel air
pollution; large, diesel-powered ocean-going vessels such
as container ships; tankers; cruise ships; and bulk carriers,
which must limit their emissions of nitrogen oxides and use
cleaner-burning fuels to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions.
Parties may also designate areas off their coasts—called SO2
emission control areas—where more stringent controls apply.
Since air pollution comes down in precipitation to become
water pollution, this will improve the marine environment as
 Regulating and Reducing Pollution  213

well as air quality. Other types of marine pollution are also

covered in MARPOL, as described in Chapter 1.

What is the London Convention?

The London Convention and London Protocol establish global
rules and standards for reducing and controlling pollution of
the marine environment from dumping. The main objective of
the London Convention is to prevent indiscriminate disposal
at sea of wastes that could create hazards to human health or
marine life, damage amenities, or interfere with other legiti-
mate uses of the sea. The 1982 United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea (LOS) directs states to adopt laws and regu-
lations that are no less effective than the rules and standards
of the London Convention and Protocol. It follows a black list/
grey list approach to ocean dumping: Annex I materials (black
list) generally may not be dumped (though certain materials
may be allowed if present only as trace contaminants or rapidly
rendered harmless), and Annex II materials (grey list) require
special care. The United States implements the Convention’s
requirements through the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act.

What national laws in the United States promote clean water?

The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal law gov-
erning water pollution. Passed in 1972, the act set goals of
eliminating releases of high amounts of toxic substances into
water, eliminating additional water pollution by 1985, and
ensuring that surface waters would meet standards neces-
sary for human sports and recreation (fishable and swimma-
ble) by 1983. (These goals were not met by 1983 and have not
been met yet.) The CWA uses two methods to protect water
quality:  monitoring the water quality, and controlling dis-
charges from point sources. The National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) is a permit system used by the
214  Marine Pollution

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for regulating point

sources such as sewage plants or industrial facilities like man-
ufacturing, mining, and oil and gas extraction. Point sources
may not discharge pollutants to surface waters without a per-
mit from EPA, in partnership with state environmental agen-
cies. The permit describes what and how much is allowed to be
discharged. EPA requires technology-based standards, which
are developed for each category of dischargers based on pol-
lution control technologies, without regard to the conditions
of a particular water body. The idea was to establish a basic
standard for all facilities in a category, using the best-available
technology. Water bodies that do not meet water quality stan-
dards with technology-based controls alone are placed on a
list of water bodies not meeting standards. If water quality
still remains impaired (probably because many sources dis-
charge into the same waterbody), then the permit agency (state
or EPA) may add water quality-based limitations to the permit.
These limitations are more stringent and require the facility to
upgrade and install additional controls. They must develop a
total maximum daily load (TMDL), which is a calculation of
the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can
receive and still meet water quality standards. The TMDL
is determined after study of the water body and the pollut-
ant sources contributing to the noncompliance. Water qual-
ity standards include designated uses (the best being fishable
and swimmable), water quality criteria, and antidegradation
policy. Water quality criteria can be numeric levels of specific
pollutants. A narrative criterion serves as the basis to limit tox-
icity of waste to aquatic species. A biological criterion is based
on the aquatic community—the number and types of species
present in a water body. A nutrient criterion protects against
nutrient overenrichment, and a sediment criterion describes
conditions of contaminated and uncontaminated sediments in
order to avoid undesirable effects.
After passage of the Clean Water Act, communities
upgraded their sewage treatment plants, factories upgraded
 Regulating and Reducing Pollution  215

their technology, and the water quality in most areas of the

country improved considerably. Nonpoint sources (e.g., run-
off) are not regulated to the extent that point sources are, and
remain a major continuing source of impairment of water
bodies even though the CWA nonpoint source program pro-
vides grants for demonstration projects, technology transfer,
education, training, assistance, and related activities to reduce
nonpoint source pollution. It would appear that this voluntary
approach is not as effective as regulations that can be enforced.
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
(MPRSA) or Ocean Dumping Act was passed by Congress
in 1972. The MPRSA regulates the transportation of waste
for ocean dumping beyond the territorial limit (three miles
from shore) and prevents or strictly limits dumping mate-
rial that “would adversely affect human health, welfare, or
amenities, or the marine environment, ecological systems, or
economic potentialities.” A government report indicated that
in 1968, 38 million tons of dredged material (which was 34%
polluted), 4.5  million tons of industrial wastes, 4.5  million
tons of sewage sludge (which was significantly contaminated
with metals), and 0.5 million tons of construction and demoli-
tion debris were dumped in US waters. The MPRSA autho-
rized EPA to regulate ocean dumping of materials including
industrial waste, sewage sludge, biological agents, radioactive
agents, garbage, chemicals, and other wastes, into the territo-
rial waters of the United States through a permit program. The
EPA can issue permits for dumping of materials other than
dredge spoils if the agency determines, after a full public
process, that the discharge will not unreasonably degrade or
endanger human health or welfare or the marine environment.
Although ocean dumping was rare, it was a major controversy
in the New York/New Jersey area for many years. The 12 Mile
Dump Site, 12 miles off the coast of New Jersey, was where all
of New York City’s sewage sludge as well as sludge from some
New Jersey communities was dumped—over six million tons
annually. The area became contaminated with high levels of
216  Marine Pollution

organic contaminants, pathogens, and metals, which formed a

layer of black muck on the bottom where few organisms could
live. In 1987, after over 60 years of operation and amid public
protest, the dump site was moved to deeper water 106 miles
from shore, where the wastes could disperse more effectively,
but the controversy continued and a federal law was passed
banning all ocean dumping. On June 29, 1992, the New  York
Times reported:  “Late this afternoon the ocean barge Spring
Brook will slip quietly into the East River and head to sea, car-
rying for the last time one of America’s least loved cargoes: 400
tons of New  York City’s processed sewage. It has been four
years since Congress voted to ban the common practice of
using the ocean as a municipal chamber pot, and with the
Federal deadline set for tomorrow, New York is the only city
that still does it. For environmentalists and many politicians,
the final barge journey will be a moment of triumph, one they
say will make the planet a cleaner, healthier place.”
Superfund is the federal government’s program to clean up
hazardous waste sites. It is also enforced by the EPA. Officially
known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), it was
enacted after the discovery of toxic waste dumps in places
such as Love Canal and Times Beach in the 1970s. It allows the
EPA to clean up such sites and to compel responsible parties
to either perform cleanups or reimburse the government for
doing so. The process is complicated and includes assessment
of sites, placing them onto a national priorities list, and estab-
lishing and implementing cleanup plans. This is a long-term
process, and some sites have waited over 30 years to be cleaned
up. Part of the reason is that establishing liability for the con-
tamination and determining who is responsible for paying for
the cleanup leads to lengthy lawsuits. There are often many
responsible parties, some of which may be companies that
have since gone out of business or have been swallowed up
by other companies (which are still considered responsible
for cleaning up the mess). While most Superfund sites are on
 Regulating and Reducing Pollution  217

land, many coastal areas have been polluted by industries that

discharged their toxic wastes into tidal marshes or estuaries.
A number of estuarine Superfund sites in New York and New
Jersey discussed in this book have been cleaned up (e.g., the
cadmium-contaminated Foundry Cove in the Hudson River),
are in the process of being cleaned up (polychlorinated biphe-
nyls (PCBs) in the Upper Hudson River; dioxin in the Passaic
River), or are still awaiting cleanup (mercury-contaminated
Berry’s Creek in the Hackensack Meadowlands).
The Clean Air Act has also provided incidental benefits to
coastal water quality. For example, air pollution controls have
greatly reduced the amount of nitrogen that enters bodies of
water. It had been estimated in the 1980s that about one-third
of the nitrogen coming into Chesapeake Bay came from atmo-
spheric sources. These sources were greatly reduced in the
1990s due to tailpipe emission standards for vehicles, changes
in gasoline formulations, cleaner engines, and less pollution
from ships and other entities that burn oil, gas, or coal. The
1990 Clean Air Act amendments aimed at curbing acid rain
forced reductions in emissions of nitrogen oxides by utilities.
While these were enacted to protect human health, they have
had positive effects on water quality.
The presence of toxic chemicals in our waters is determined
in part by laws that regulate and control which chemicals
are in use. For chemicals used as pesticides, the law is FIFRA
(the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act). As
discussed earlier, new pesticides must undergo some toxic-
ity tests and toxicity is balanced against the benefits they
provide. While some of the most notorious pesticides have
been banned under FIFRA, others that are banned in Europe
remain in use in the United States. In the case of tributyltin
(TBT), Congress had so little faith in FIFRA’s process that it
passed a separate law restricting its use in antifouling paints
on boats. For chemicals that are not pesticides, the federal law
is TSCA, (the Toxic Substances Control Act). When this law was
passed in the 1970s it “grandfathered” in tens of thousands
218  Marine Pollution

of chemicals (estimated 60,000) already in use. For new chemi-

cals, TSCA, unlike FIFRA, does not require any toxicity testing
unless EPA puts forth a strong case that it ought to be tested.
In other words, a chemical is innocent until proven guilty. As
a result, in the four decades since the law was passed, only a
handful of chemicals (out of an estimated 80,000 by now) have
been restricted or banned. If the law took a more precaution-
ary approach, our environment wouldn’t be full of polybro-
minated diphenyl ethers and other harmful chemicals. Many
people feel EPA should be empowered to demand more health
and safety information from the chemical industry and shift
the burden of proof to chemical companies. However, attempts
to put teeth into this law and make its approach more conser-
vative are strongly opposed by politicians who, interestingly,
use that term to describe themselves.

What is NOAA’s Role in the United States?

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration plays
an important role in administering the Law of the Sea: Its nau-
tical charts provide the baseline that marks the inner limit of
the territorial sea and the outer limit of internal waters, such
as bays and rivers, which determines where US territorial
waters begin for purposes of international law. The boundar-
ies of offshore areas are revised due to shoreline changes such
as accretion and erosion. The location of maritime boundaries
can have far-reaching effects. NOAA works with other federal
agencies, such as the US Department of State, to keep track
of maritime boundaries and to represent such boundaries on
navigational charts.
Although NOAA is a regulatory agency for fisheries, some
parts of the Endangered Species Act, and the Coastal Zone
Management Program, it does not regulate water pollution.
However, it is involved in developing educational programs
about marine pollution, especially nonpoint sources and marine
debris, providing technical assistance and advice in the United
 Regulating and Reducing Pollution  219

States and Caribbean countries to reduce pollution inputs, and in

beach cleanups. In addition, the MPRSA charged the Secretary
of Commerce (delegated to NOAA, within the Department of
Commerce) with monitoring and researching ocean dumping
and conducting research on long-term effects of pollution, over-
fishing, and other human-induced changes in the ocean. NOAA
has several laboratories that study marine pollution, including
ocean acidification. NOAA scientists were heavily involved in
oil spill research after the Exxon Valdez and Deepwater Horizon
accidents. NOAA has had a Mussel Watch program for over
three decades, analyzing bivalves from certain sites for contami-
nants. This long-term data has enabled in-depth knowledge over
time about hot spots and seafood safety, and provides valuable
data on background levels and trends of chemicals including
about 50 polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are
potentially cancer-causing. When cleaning up an oil spill, for
example, such long-term data provides important knowledge on
how clean the place was before the spill.

How does the European Union regulate marine pollution?

The European Union (EU) has established a community
framework for water protection and management. Member
states must identify and analyze individual river basins and
districts and then adopt management plans and measures for
each body of water. The objectives include preventing and
reducing pollution, promoting sustainable water use, environ-
mental protection, improving aquatic ecosystems, and miti-
gating effects of floods and droughts. Its ultimate objective is
to achieve good ecological and chemical status by 2015. Each
member state is expected to analyze each river basin, review
impacts of human activities, analyze the economics of water
use, develop a list of areas requiring special protection, and
survey all bodies of water used for extracting water for human
consumption and producing more than 10 m³ per day or serv-
ing more than 50 persons.
220  Marine Pollution

For marine waters, member states have to draw up strate-

gies in cooperation with other countries to protect and restore
marine ecosystems and to ensure the ecological sustainabil-
ity of marine-related economic activities. Europe’s seas are
divided into four regions: the Baltic Sea, North-East Atlantic,
Mediterranean, and Black Sea. The three seas are unique in
that they are mostly enclosed. In each region, the member
states must coordinate their actions with the other countries
involved. At the regional level, member states must assess the
ecological status of their waters and the impacts of human
activities. This assessment covers the characteristics of these
waters (physical and chemical features, types of habitat, ani-
mal and plant populations), an analysis of the main impacts
and pressures from human activities (e.g., toxic contamina-
tion, eutrophication, nonindigenous species, damage by ship
anchors), and an economic and social analysis of the use of
these waters and cost of the degradation. Member states must
then determine the “good ecological status” of the waters
based on biodiversity, presence of nonindigenous species,
stock health, the food chain, eutrophication, hydrographic
conditions, contaminants, and noise pollution. On the basis
of this evaluation, they must define objectives and indicators
to achieve this status. Objectives must be measurable, consis-
tent within a region, and tied to a definite timetable. Member
states draw up specific measures to achieve the objectives,
and must consider economic and social consequences. Before
implementation, the measures are subject to impact assess-
ments and cost/benefit analyses. Member states also establish
coordinated monitoring programs to evaluate the status of the
waters and the progress toward their objectives.
For regulating the manufacture and use of chemicals, a
precautionary principle is used in the EU, a very different
approach than that of the United States. Environmental qual-
ity standards are developed for priority substances or groups
of substances that pose substantial risk. The Water Framework
Directive establishes a list of 33 priority substances including
 Regulating and Reducing Pollution  221

metals, benzene, PAHs, and DDT. Regarding pollution from

ships, legislation states that polluting discharges constitute in
principle a criminal offence; this relates to discharges of oil or
other noxious substances from vessels. In 2014 the European
Parliament passed a directive aimed at cutting the use of thin
single-use plastic bags by 50 percent by 2017. Many develop-
ing countries have legislation on the books but it is not always
enforced.

What are some success stories?

Many highly contaminated waterways in the United States
have been improving over the past few decades as a result
of the Clean Water Act. The Elizabeth River in Virginia was
highly degraded during its industrial heyday, with creosote
wood preserving operations and ship repair yards. Toxic
spills, explosions, and inadequate containment and disposal
practices at these sites caused extensive sediment contamina-
tion from compounds such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocar-
bons (PAHs) and a variety of metals. Bacterial contamination,
measured by fecal coliform levels, from upland runoff and
discharges from malfunctioning sewage treatment plants,
also contributed to the river’s placement on the EPA’s list of
impaired waters. However, over the last few decades, the
effects of long-term toxic discharges and sediment contamina-
tion have been reduced. There has been progress in improving
the river’s sediment and water quality. Vibrant salt marshes
and productive oyster reefs can now be found along the river
in the midst of industrial operations that now are partners in
its restoration.
The Hackensack Meadowlands in Northern New Jersey
has undergone an impressive recovery after decades of abuse.
This twenty-one thousand acre marsh system has its eastern
edge three miles west of Manhattan, and is the largest brack-
ish marsh system in the New York/New Jersey area. As part
of the most densely populated region of North America, it
222  Marine Pollution

was disturbed by extensive development, drainage, diking,

filling, garbage dumps, and sewage. Wetlands were consid-
ered useless and were polluted with industrial wastes, cov-
ered by asphalt, and used as legal and illegal waste dumps.
Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, it was subject to uncontrolled
dumping of millions of tons of garbage at 24 dumps covering
2,500 acres. Since no distinction was made between house-
hold waste and hazardous waste, all sorts of toxic materials
including paint, petroleum, chemical, plastics, and pharma-
ceutical wastes were mixed with the garbage. This history has
left hotspots of chromium, PCBs, mercury, and many other
contaminants throughout the area. The river also received
pig waste from rendering plants, and effluent from 13 sew-
age plants which, until the late 1960s, was mostly untreated.
Most people considered the area an unpleasant wasteland.
It has seven Superfund sites including Berry’s Creek, one of
the most mercury-contaminated sites in the nation. Just adja-
cent to the district is the lower Passaic River, one of the most
dioxin-contaminated sites in the country.
The turnaround began in 1969 with the formation of the
Hackensack Meadows Development Commission (HMDC) by
an act of the New Jersey legislature to provide for the reclama-
tion, planned development, and redevelopment of the area. The
commission was responsible for waste management, develop-
ment, and conservation, which are at best difficult to balance.
They closed down and capped unregulated landfills, in some
cases leaving toxic contaminants under a layer of dirt, so that
leachate continues to ooze out into the river. They decreased
illegal dumping, prohibited dumping of New  York garbage,
and cleaned up remaining landfills; all of these actions
reduced the release of contaminants into the air and ooz-
ing into the river and wetlands. The federal Clean Water Act
stimulated municipalities to upgrade and build effective sew-
age treatment plants that greatly reduced wastes coming into
the water. Changes in the economic base also helped improve
the environmental quality as polluting industries closed and
 Regulating and Reducing Pollution  223

nonpolluting businesses were established. As the water qual-

ity in the Hackensack River improved dramatically, there have
been striking increases in the numbers of fish, bird, and inver-
tebrate species. More than 50 species of fish now use the estu-
ary for parts of their life cycles. Despite the fact that sediments
remain contaminated and consumption of fish and crabs is
prohibited, the lower Hackensack River has been declared
an “essential fish habitat” by the National Marine Fisheries
Service, an action mandated by Congress for each federally
managed fish species. Much marsh restoration is ongoing, and
the area is pleasant to visit. Social and recreational uses (e.g.,
ecotours) of the Meadowlands are increasing and provide ben-
efits to urban populations, including awareness and appre-
ciation of the environment and local wildlife. Recreational
facilities such as parks, trails, overlooks, boardwalks, wildlife
observation sites, an environmental park offering canoe trips,
nature walks, bird watching, and an environmental center are
functioning in the midst of this densely populated region just
three miles from Manhattan.

How can we reduce pollution from aquaculture?

While floating cage cultures release fish waste, contami-
nants, and uneaten food, closed farms onshore contain their
wastes and other byproducts, making them easier to handle.
US fish farmers are experimenting with enclosed, recircu-
lating systems, which filter wastewater and compost solid
wastes to reduce impacts of untreated wastes. These farms
can be located away from sensitive habitats where fish feed
and breed. Freshwater tilapia, catfish, cobia, and trout are
raised inland in the United States. Arctic char can also be
raised onshore in systems that recirculate water, reducing
disease transfer and pollution. All of these species are deli-
cious alternatives to ocean-farmed species; most any fish—
even salmon—can be farmed far away from sensitive marine
habitats.
224  Marine Pollution

Even offshore aquaculture methods can be modified to

reduce pollution. Mobile fish pens that move around over
different areas are one new approach. Methods are being
developed to recycle fish sewage, and new feed formula-
tions are being developed that use smaller amounts of wild
fish and replace it with vegetable protein—for example,
from soy. Multitrophic aquaculture, or integrated farms, put
salmon pens near farmed plants and animals that consume
the salmon wastes, species that can later be marketed them-
selves. Seaweeds are efficient waste recyclers that can extract
about 40% of the dissolved nutrients available. Seaweed can
be grown on ropes dangling from rafts downstream from
salmon pens and grow in the wastewater, primarily ammonia
(excreted by salmon) and decaying food. Filter-feeding mus-
sels can also be cultured nearby to grow on particles of excre-
ment and food scraps.

What is “Green Chemistry?”

Plastics can be manufactured that are degradable. Microbes
have been genetically engineered to produce biodegradable
plastics, which could benefit the oceans. Standards for measur-
ing how plastics break down in particular environments have
emerged recently and are still in development. Comparisons
among plastics are complicated by the fact that no one entity
is recognized as setting those standards. Nevertheless, there is
consensus on distinctions among the key terms “degradable,”
“biodegradable,” and “compostable.” Degradable means that
chemical changes take place, maybe due to sunlight or heat,
that alter a plastic’s structure and properties, like clouding
or fragmenting. Biodegradable more narrowly indicates that
degradation results from naturally occurring microorgan-
isms (bacteria, fungi, or algae), but makes no guarantee that
the degradation products are nontoxic or make good compost.
Compostable goes a step further: the microorganisms’ break-
down products must yield CO2, water, inorganic compounds,
 Regulating and Reducing Pollution  225

and biomass and leave no visible, distinguishable, or toxic resi-

due. The only standard for biodegradation of plastics in the
marine environment requires that within six months it must
have disintegrated into pieces smaller than two millimeters
and that biodegradation must have progressed so that 30%
of the carbon has been converted into CO2. Bioplastics can be
manufactured from corn or sugarcane. Green chemistry may
also be able to design less toxic or persistent compounds to
replace ones currently in use.

Since climate change is such a major threat, are there any

effective national and international policies to curb it?
It is recognized that climate change is the biggest threat to
the world’s oceans (to the land, wildlife, agriculture, and to
human health) yet there have been no effective policies estab-
lished largely because of expense. A possible way of dealing
with it would be by establishing a carbon tax, but people in
developed countries will likely have to modify their lifestyles.
The countries that are the most responsible for carbon emis-
sions (e.g. United States and Europe) over the years are not
the same ones that are bearing the brunt of the effects (e.g.
coastal low-lying countries like Bangladesh and small island
nations). China has become a major emitter. Countries will
have to agree on who is responsible for curtailing how much
of their emissions. Meanwhile, global emissions during the
first decade of this century grew nearly twice as fast as during
the previous 30 years. Within the United States (apparently not
so much elsewhere), powerful moneyed interests such as oil
companies are promoting the idea that climate change is con-
troversial within scientific circles. This is not the case—97%
of climate scientists agree that it is happening and that we are
responsible for it. The controversy exists in politics not sci-
ence, but the media feel obligated to provide equal time for
the deniers and skeptics as if they had as much credibility as
the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association
226  Marine Pollution

for the Advancement of Science and other esteemed scientific

organizations. While President Obama has put forth a climate
plan, the opposing party in US politics stands firmly against
any policies to deal with this urgent issue.
While there has not been significant progress in mitigation,
there are many efforts toward adaptation or resilience, espe-
cially after the devastation of Hurricane Sandy. Huge numbers
of buildings and other infrastructure have been damaged or
destroyed by powerful hurricanes and floods. Programs are
being designed to reduce the vulnerability of coastal struc-
tures and water-resource infrastructure.

What steps can local and state governments take to

reduce pollution?
Runoff
The federal government should, but has not led the fight
against the massive pollution from runoff and other diffuse
sources. Much of the degradation is from chemical fertilizers
and animal feed lots. In the absence of federal leadership, state
and local governments can take steps to reduce the amount of
runoff. They can purchase property in vulnerable areas and
turn it into open space (natural areas). They can develop pro-
grams to use nature’s defenses (green infrastructure) to buffer
and restore marshes and barrier islands that can absorb pollu-
tion and protect inland property. They can plant forest buffers,
and plant street trees in urban settings to absorb stormwater
and reduce the heat island effect. They can develop rain gar-
dens and green roofs, and replace impervious paved areas
with permeable surfaces that absorb rainfall. Stormwater
management should include bioretention systems that capture
stormwater and treat urban runoff. For effective stormwater
management, they should use landscape vegetation and spe-
cially designed filters that remove bacteria, metals, nutrients
and suspended solids naturally. They should eliminate illegal
 Regulating and Reducing Pollution  227

discharges that drain into stormwater systems, and initiate

programs to pick up pet wastes. Municipalities with old sew-
age systems and combined sewer overflows (CSOs) should
develop systems for storing water after heavy rainfalls. This
can be done by creating bioswales, which are planted areas
designed to collect and absorb stormwater. Each system (20 x
5 ft) can manage over 2,000 gallons of street and sidewalk run-
off during a storm. Underground, they filter and store excess
stormwater in layers of broken stone and soil. In 2012–2013,
New York City constructed many in Queens, the Bronx, and
Brooklyn, and more are being planned. This is an innovative
way to address street flooding and reduce sewer overflows
into nearby bodies of water such as Jamaica Bay, Newtown
Creek, and the Gowanus Canal. Together, these projects will
keep over seven million gallons of stormwater out of the sewer
system annually. When combined sewer overflows do occur in
Newtown Creek after rain, sensors can send twitter and text
message alerts to residents of the watershed to limit their toilet
flushing.
Green roofs are planted areas on roofs that serve to absorb
rainwater, provide insulation, create a habitat for wildlife, and
help to lower urban summer air temperatures to mitigate the
heat island effect. There are two types of green roofs:  inten-
sive roofs, which are thicker and support a wider variety of
plants but are heavy and require much maintenance; and
extensive roofs, which are covered in a thinner layer of vegeta-
tion and are lighter. Switzerland, particularly Basel, has the
highest area of green roofs per capita in the world. Since the
1990s, Switzerland has required every new building that has a
suitable roof pitch to have a green roof—the building’s owner
must plant and maintain some kind of natural greenery. The
use of green roofs was stimulated by financial incentives and
building regulations. About 23% of Basel’s flat roof area was
green in 2006. For developers, installing green roofs is now
routine, and developers do not object to installing them.
228  Marine Pollution

Toronto approved a law in May 2009 mandating green roofs

on residential and industrial buildings.

Climate Change
For climate change, municipalities should utilize smart-growth
principles to develop new neighborhoods that don’t require
automobiles and that maximize walking and bicycling and
include as much open space as possible. They should put
bike lanes along streets and make streets pedestrian- and
bike-friendly. They should use and encourage citizens to
use alternative fuels, improve public transportation with
well-designed stations, and put new housing and businesses
near train stations to spur use of public transportation.
Municipal fleets should use alternative fuels (green fleets),
and anti-idling policies should be established and enforced.
High-efficiency, green-design commercial, residential, and
municipal buildings should be constructed, preferably with
green roofs. For buildings that cannot support green roofs,
white roofs can reflect more sunlight and thus reduce warm-
ing, even if they don’t have the additional advantages of green
roofs. Solar panels on roofs of buildings in sunny areas should
be encouraged. Wetlands should be built and restored that can
absorb carbon as well as provide habitat and protect inland
structures from storms. For coastal areas that are frequently
flooded, managed retreat, or, as the UK’s environmental
agency refers to it, “managed coastal realignment” is a sen-
sible response.

Emerging Concerns
For contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) sewage plants
should be upgraded to advanced methods of sewage treat-
ment. Sewage plants should require pretreatment or pollu-
tion prevention plans for facilities that are likely to release
emerging contaminants, including hospitals, long-term care
facilities, hospices, veterinary hospitals, and compounding
 Regulating and Reducing Pollution  229

pharmacies. Some states have legislation in the works to pro-

hibit the manufacture, distribution, and sale of personal care
cosmetic products containing plastic microbeads. State and
national proposals to regulate toxic fire retardants should be
supported and flammability standards should be changed so
that toxic fire retardants such as PBDEs are not mandated in
upholstery and furniture.

Debris
Effective waste reduction and recycling programs should be
developed. In the Los Angeles area, 20 tons of plastic frag-
ments—from grocery bags, straws, and soda bottles—are car-
ried into the Pacific Ocean every day. The state is focusing on
preventing garbage from entering the sewer systems in the
cities in the watershed, because those sewers lead to the Los
Angeles River. To keep garbage out of the sewers, the state
is regularly cleaning the streets, educating the public about
proper garbage disposal, and providing public garbage cans.
In addition, the state is removing garbage that enters the sew-
ers by using devices that sieve out much of the garbage from
the sewers before it reaches the river. Getting the EPA and
state agencies to set strict water-quality standards for plastic
pollution will help promote early detection and prevention of
plastic waste as well as the cleanup of beaches and oceans. It
will encourage states and municipalities to develop new ways
to limit the plastic entering the waste stream, and stimulate
creative solutions to this pervasive problem.

Toxic Chemicals
In the absence of strong federal laws, state laws should be
strengthened to reduce pollution from industrial chemicals. In
California, Proposition 65 requires businesses to notify peo-
ple about the chemicals that are in consumer products or are
released into the environment. The list of chemicals includes
many substances that are known to cause cancer, birth defects,
230  Marine Pollution

or other reproductive harm, including additives or ingredi-

ents in pesticides, common household products, food, drugs,
dyes, or solvents. By providing this information, Proposition
65 enables Californians to make informed decisions about
their chemical exposure. It also prohibits businesses from
knowingly discharging significant amounts of listed chemi-
cals into sources of drinking water. This law has increased
public awareness about adverse effects of chemical exposure
and has provided an incentive for manufacturers to remove
listed chemicals from their products. It has been responsible
for reformulation of many consumer products to eliminate
toxic chemicals.
In 2014 the Vermont Senate passed one of the toughest
policies in the nation to regulate toxic chemicals found in all
consumer products, but business lobbyists downsized the bill
in the House, limiting the scope of the chemical reporting
requirement to children’s products. Currently, the state regu-
lates chemicals one at time, and has done so only for mercury,
bisphenol A (BPA), lead, and flame retardants.

Invasive Species
Monitoring should be done frequently and carefully, and
when a known invasive species is detected forces should
be mobilized quickly to eradicate it. In a classic example
of better-late-than-never, the Florida Fish and Wildlife
Commission in 2014 banned the import of lionfish for the
aquarium trade. This action, taken many years after the inva-
sion, was explained as a way to limit new introductions into
Florida waters.

What actions can individual citizens take to reduce

marine pollution?
Individual actions can make a big difference in reducing
marine pollution.
 Regulating and Reducing Pollution  231

Runoff
There are many things citizens can do to reduce nonpoint
source pollution, including the following:  for eutrophication
and runoff, plant grass, trees and shrubs in bare areas. They
will reduce and absorb runoff, and their roots will hold the
soil together, reducing erosion and runoff. Use a rain barrel to
capture some rainfall. Use fertilizers and pesticides sparingly.
If you have property along the water, keep a natural shore-
line with marsh vegetation that can absorb runoff, buffer the
water from chemicals, and buffer the property from wind and
storms. Volunteer for marsh restoration plantings or oyster
gardening projects (oysters filter a lot of phytoplankton out of
the water, reducing eutrophication). If you live in a tropical
area, volunteer for mangrove or coral reef restoration projects
if there are any. If you are a boater, use sewage pump-out facil-
ities. Slow down in shallow areas to reduce boat wake erosion
in areas with submerged aquatic vegetation, salt marshes, and
wildlife. If you are a farmer, use conservation tillage or no-till,
plant buffers at the edge of streams, use efficient irrigation sys-
tems, and manage manure. Grow lots of legumes (e.g., peas,
beans, lentils), which use nitrogen from the air and don’t need
fertilizer. There are organic farms that use no commercial
fertilizer, spray no chemicals, and reuse all their stormwater.
A farmer named Walden (appropriate name) in York County,
Pennsylvania uses animals to do the work. Chicken waste,
from chickens in mobile pens on wheels, is used to fertilize
the fields; pigs and cattle eat the weeds and graze on the grass.

Litter
Be careful to manage trash. Go on stream or beach walks,
removing trash and debris. Recycle plastic, glass, and paper.
Use alternatives to plastic bags. Go shopping with your own
reusable bags. Avoid single-use, nonrecyclable plastics (cut-
lery, plates, disposable plastic or Styrofoam cups). Travel
with a permanent coffee cup rather than constantly trashing
232  Marine Pollution

plastic-lined paper or Styrofoam cups, and patronize busi-

nesses that avoid single-use plastics (e.g., go to a farmer’s mar-
ket rather than a store that gives away hundreds of plastic bags
daily). Less trash generated means less ending up in the ocean.
Keep trash out of storm drains, where it will either clog the
drain or end up in the water.

Climate Change
Conserve energy in your home, and you will also save money
and give less to the power company. Insulate your home so less
heat escapes and you will save money. Use compact fluores-
cent light bulbs. Buy an energy-efficient automobile, but try to
carpool or take public transportation whenever you can. Take
a bicycle or walk as much as possible—it will also help you
stay in shape. If your house is in a sunny area, consider put-
ting solar panels on the roof or making a green roof. Reduce
your carbon footprint by consuming less, and recycling and
reusing more.

Invasive Species
If you tire of your fish tank or any resident in it, don’t bring it
to a nearby water body—take it to a pet store or find another
home for it. If you have wading boots, wash the mud off before
going to another location. If you fish, don’t release any live bait
organisms. If you are a gardener, focus on native plants.

Toxic Chemicals
Safe disposal of household hazardous wastes (e.g., oil, drugs,
electronics, batteries) is important. Take unneeded paints, sol-
vents, and pesticides to hazardous materials collection. Do
not pour chemicals on the ground or into storm drains, where
they will get into a stream or river. Don’t throw out old batter-
ies in the regular garbage. Take used motor oil to oil recycling
facilities. To reduce pesticide use, control pests with beneficial
insects such as ladybugs and praying mantises. Survey your
 Regulating and Reducing Pollution  233

yard to see what pests are there and then use pesticides only if
natural predators cannot keep them in check.

Emerging Concerns
Do not flush unused pills down the toilet. Avoid products
with CECs including paints, room fresheners, plastic shower
curtains, clothes, and other items made with PVC fabric. Do
not use antimicrobial hand cleaners containing triclosan or
triclocarban. Warm water and soap or alcohol-based sanitiz-
ers are equally effective at removing germs. If you use exfoli-
ants to massage your skin, check the ingredients. Also check
the ingredients in your toothpaste, shampoo, and soap. If you
see “polyethylene” or another type of plastic, you are releasing
plastic microbeads into the water when you wash the product
off. There are alternative products that use natural ingredients.
And in general, talk to people about ocean pollution.
Consider becoming active by lobbying (e.g., writing letters
to the editor, visiting politicians, advocating to chambers of
commerce and rotaries for more recycling and strengthening
policies to prevent water pollution) and joining groups whose
policies you support.

What are the overall status and trends of marine pollution?

Overall, there is good news and bad news. Some of the major
types of pollutants are decreasing, including persistent
organic pollutants like DDT and PCBs, which are no longer
being manufactured or used in most countries. Levels of trace
metals, however, have not shown overall downward trends.
The persistence of contaminants in bottom sediments is one
reason that things are not improving as fast as we might like.
New activities such as seabed mining, especially in vulnerable
environments such as the deep ocean or the Arctic, are likely
to produce new pollution unless preventative measures and
regulatory frameworks are put in place beforehand. Getting
234  Marine Pollution

out ahead of emerging threats before they become major prob-

lems would be a refreshing new approach to pollution.
Oil spills have been decreasing over the past two decades,
and tankers built in the United States will have double hulls.
In response to the Deepwater Horizon the government set up
panels to provide expert advice to prevent future blowouts.
A presidential commission recommended many measures to
improve drilling safety. However, the government has not fol-
lowed important recommendations for increasing safety, such
as the design of the blowout preventer which could not stop
blowouts in deep water. There are plans to expand offshore
drilling into deeper waters, making a future disaster more
likely.
Other types of pollution have been increasing, includ-
ing nutrients that cause eutrophication, as indicated by the
increasing number of hypoxic zones and harmful algal
blooms around the world. In the future, there may be greater
controls on point sources that will result in further decreases
of persistent organic pollutants and sewage wastes. Whether
regulations will be developed to reduce nonpoint sources of
pollution is an open question. More recently recognized pol-
lutants, including flame retardants, pharmaceuticals, and
nanoparticles, will become increasingly important sources
of toxicity until they are eventually—hopefully sooner rather
than later—controlled by regulations. Marine debris is an
increasing problem that has not yet been controlled. Invasive
species will probably continue to arrive in new locations,
although ballast water regulations will reduce the importance
of this vector. Climate change will exacerbate effects of toxic
contaminants; warmer water will increase metabolic rates of
marine organisms, which will generally increase toxic effects.
Increased temperature will cause huge changes in the ocean
ecosystems, and the lowered pH from ocean acidification will
cause its own harmful effects, especially on shell-forming
species. Climate change will likely also exacerbate the effects
of eutrophication, as warmer water will hold less oxygen
 Regulating and Reducing Pollution  235

and remain stratified longer, intensifying hypoxia in deeper

waters. Warmer water is likely to be conducive to blooms of
nuisance algae.
Healthy oceans provide food, jobs, and recreation for large
numbers of people and are a potential source of clean energy
and new medications. There is no shortage of international
recommendations and action plans for restoring the oceans’
health. Countless reports have come out from different organi-
zations that sound an alarm about the state of the oceans and
call for action—with little response from the powers that be.
Individual countries cannot do it alone but have to cooperate
since pollution does not honor national boundaries, nor does
marine life. A 2013 report from the International Programme
on the State of the Ocean (IPSO), a nongovernmental group of
leading scientists, has concluded that the world’s oceans are
under greater threat than previously believed from a deadly
trio of global warming, declining oxygen levels, and acidifica-
tion. The report indicated that conditions are ripe for the sort
of mass extinction event that has happened in the past, but
for the most part, the public and policymakers are failing to
recognize—or are ignoring—the severity of the situation. The
report makes it clear that deferring action will increase costs
in the future and lead to even greater, perhaps irreversible,
losses. These findings, while not really new, are a cause for
alarm, as well as a blueprint for action. In order to protect the
worlds’ oceans and their resources that we depend on, it is
vital that nations and the international community take major
steps to reduce inputs of marine pollutants and reduce green-
house gases. In 2014, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change reported that global emissions of CO2 rose 2.2% annu-
ally between 2000 and 2010.
To paraphrase Bob Dylan’s famous civil rights and anti-war
song, “How many floods will it take . . .? and how many dead
coral reefs will it take . . .?” Let us hope the answer is rapid and
effective and not just “blowin’ in the wind.”
 REFERENCES

Chapter 1
Carson, R. 1951. The Sea Around Us. Oxford University Press, 278 pp.
Halpern, B.  S. et  al. 2008. A global map of human impact on marine
ecosystems. Science 319: 948–952.
International Maritime Organization (IMO) International Convention
for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL). www.imo.
org/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-
Conve nt ion-for-t he -Pr eve nt io n- of-Pol lut ion-f rom- Sh ip s -
%28MARPOL%29.aspx
Long, E. R. 2000. Degraded sediment quality in US estuaries: A review
of magnitude and ecological implications. Ecological Applications
10: 338–349.
Rowe, C.  L. 2008. The calamity of so long life:  life histories, contami-
nants, and potential emerging threats to long-lived vertebrates.
BioScience 58: 623–631.
US EPA Summary of the Clean Water Act. www2.epa.gov/
laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act

Chapter 2
Anderson, D. M. 2004. The growing problem of harmful algae. Oceanus
Magazine, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Woods Hole, MA.
www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=11913&tid=282&cid=2483.
238 References

Anderson, D. M., B. Reguera, G. C. Pitcher, and H. O. Enevoldsen 2010.

The IOC international harmful algal bloom program: History and
science of impacts. Oceanography 23: 72–85.
Boesch, D. F. et al. 1997. Harmful algal blooms in coastal waters: Options
for prevention, control and mitigation. NOAA Coastal Ocean
Program, Decision Analysis Series No. 10, Silver Spring, MD.
Deegan, L. A. et al. 2012. Coastal eutrophication as a driver of salt marsh
loss. Nature 490: 388–392.
Diaz, R.  J. and R. Rosenberg 2008. Spreading dead zones and conse-
quences for marine ecosystems. Science 321:926–929.
Diaz, R. J., M. Selman, and C. Chique-Canache 2010. Global eutrophic
and hypoxic coastal systems: Eutrophication and hypoxia—nutrient
pollution in coastal waters. World Resources Institute, Washington,
DC. www.wri.org/project/eutrophication
Rabalais, N.  N. et  al. 2010. Dynamics and distribution of natural and
human-caused hypoxia. Biogeosciences 7: 585–619.
Selman, M., Z. Sugg, S. Greenhalgh, and R. Diaz 2008. Eutrophication
and hypoxia in coastal areas:  A  global assessment of the state of
knowledge. World Resources Institute, Washington DC. www.wri.
org/publication/eutrophication-and-hypoxia-in-coastal-areas.

Chapter 3
Avery-Gomm, S. et  al. 2012 Northern fulmars as biological monitors
of trends of plastic pollution in the eastern North Pacific. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 64: 1776–1781.
Bergmann, M. and M. Klages 2012. Increase of litter at the Arctic
deep-sea observatory HAUSGARTEN. Marine Pollution Bulletin
64: 2734–2741.
Bilkovic, D. M., K. J. Havens, D. M. Stanhope, and K. T. Angstadt 2012.
Use of fully biodegradable panels to reduce derelict pot threats to
marine fauna. Conservation Biology 26: 957–966.
Browne, M.  A., S. J.  Niven, T. S.  Galloway, S. J.  Rowland, and R.
C.  Thompson 2013. Microplastic moves pollutants and additives
 References 239

to worms, reducing functions linked to health and biodiversity.

Current Biology 23 (23): 2388 DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.10.012.
Galgani, F., S. Jaunet, A. Campillo, X. Guenegen, and E. His. 1995.
Distribution and abundance of debris on the continental shelf of
the north-western Mediterranean Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin
30: 713–717.
Hammer, J., M. H.  Kraak, and J. R.  Parsons 2012. Plastics in the
marine environment:  The dark side of a modern gift. Reviews of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 220: 1–44.
Laist, D.  W. 1997. Impacts of marine debris:  Entanglement of marine
life in marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with
entanglement and ingestion records. In:  Marine debris:  Sources,
impacts, and solutions. Ed. J. M.  Coe and D. B.  Rogers. Springer
Verlag, NY, pp 99–140.
Law, K.  L. et  al. 2010. Plastic accumulation in the North Atlantic sub-
tropical gyre. Science 329: 1185–1188.
Martinez, E., K. Maamaatuaiahutapu, and V. Taillandier 2009. Floating
marine debris surface drift:  Convergence and accumulation
toward the South Pacific subtropical gyre. Marine Pollution Bulletin
58: 1347–1355.
Moore Recycling Associates 2012. Plastic Recycling Collection: National
Research Study:  2012 Update. http://www.moorerecycling.com/
UpdatedREACHReportMay2013.pdf
National Academies of Science 2008. Tackling marine debris in the 21st
century. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 218 pp.
Ocean Conservancy 2013. Ocean Trash Index. http://www.oceancon-
servancy.org/our-work/international-coastal-cleanup/2012-oc
ean-trash-index.html.
Schlining, K.  S. et  al. 2013. Debris in the deep:  Using a 22-year video
annotation database to survey marine litter in Monterey Canyon,
central California, USA. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic
Research Papers, 2013; DOI: 10.1016/j.dsr.2013.05.006.
240 References

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 2011. UNEP Year

Book 2011, Plastic Debris in the Ocean. www.unep.org/year-
book/2011/pdfs/plastic_debris_in_the_ocean.pdf.
US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); J.-P. Gattuso (Topic Editor)
2007. Marine Debris. In:  Encyclopedia of Earth. Ed. C. Cleveland.
Washington DC, National Council for Science and the Environment.
Wright, S.  L., D. Rowe, R. C.  Thompson, and T. S.  Galloway 2013.
Microplastic ingestion decreases energy reserves in marine worms.
Current Biology 23(23): R1031 DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2013.10.068.

Chapter 4
Culbertson, J. B., I. Valiela, E. E. Peacock, C. M. Reddy, A. Carter, and
R. VanderKruik 2007. Long-term biological effects of petroleum
residues on fiddler crabs in salt marshes. Marine Pollution Bulletin
54: 955–962.
Dissanayake, A., C. Piggott, C. Baldwin, and K. A.  Sloman 2010.
Elucidating cellular and behavioural effects of contaminant
impact (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, PAHs) in both
laboratory-exposed and field-collected shore crabs, Carcinus maenas
(Crustacea: Decapoda). Marine Environmental Research 70: 368–373.
Dubansky, B., A. Whitehead, J. Miller, C. D.  Rice, and F. Galvez 2013.
Multi-tissue molecular, genomic, and developmental effects of the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill on resident Gulf killifish (Fundulus
grandis). Environmental Science & Technology 47: 5074–5082.
Etkin, D.  S. 2001. Analysis of oil spill trends in the United States
and worldwide. Paper presented at 2001 International Oil Spill
Conference, pp 1292–1300.
Heintz, R., J. W. Short, and S. D. Rice 1999. Sensitivity of fish embryos
to weathered crude oil: Part II. Increased mortality of pink salmon
(Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) embryos incubating downstream from
weathered Exxon valdez crude oil. Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry 18: 494–503.
 References 241

Huijer, K. 2005. Trends in oil spills from tanker ships, 1995–2004. Paper
presented at the 28th Arctic and Marine Oilspill Program (AMOP)
Technical Seminar, Calgary, Canada.
Incardona, J., et al. 2012. Unexpectedly high mortality in Pacific herring
embryos exposed to the 2007 Cosco Busan oil spill in San Francisco
Bay. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109 (2): E51–E58
Incardona, J., et  al. 2014. Deepwater Horizon crude oil impacts the
developing hearts of large predatory pelagic fish. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences 111:  E1510–E1518. doi:10.1073/
pnas.1320950111
Myers, M. S., J. T. Landahl, M. M. Krahn, L. L. Johnson, and B. B. McCain
1990. Overview of studies on liver carcinogenesis in English sole from
Puget Sound; evidence for a xenobiotic chemical etiology I: Pathology
and epizootiology. Science of the Total Environment 94: 33–50
Patin, S. 2008. Oil spill. In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Ed. C. J. Cleveland.
Washington, DC:  Environmental Information Coalition, National
Council for Science and the Environment. www.eoearth.org/
article/Oil_spill.
Peterson, C. H., S. D. Rice, J. W. Short, D. Esler, J. L. Bodkin, B. E. Ballachey,
and D. B.  Irons 2003. Long-term ecosystem response to the Exxon
Valdez oil spill. Science 302: 2082–2086.
Sanders, H. L., J. F. Grassle, G. R. Hampson, L. S. Morse, S. Garner-Price,
and C. C.  Jones 1980. Anatomy of an oil spill:  Long-term effects
from the grounding of the barge Florida off West Falmouth,
Massachusetts. Journal of Marine Research 38: 265–324.

Chapter 5
Alzieu, C. 1990. Environmental impact of TBT: The French experience.
Science of the Total Environment 258: 99–102.
Boucher, O. et  al. 2012. Prenatal methylmercury, postnatal lead expo-
sure, and evidence of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder
among Inuit children in Arctic Québec. Environmental Health
Perspectives 120: 1456–1461.
242 References

Gibbs, P. E. and G. W. Bryan 1986. Reproductive failure in populations

of the dog-whelk, Nucella lapillus, caused by imposex induced by
tributyltin from antifouling paints. Journal of the Marine Biological
Association of the United Kingdom 66: 767–777.
Hansen, J. A., J. D. Rose, R. A. Jenkins, K. G. Gerow, and H. L. Bergman
1999. Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and rainbow trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) exposed to copper:  Neurophysiological and
histological effects on the olfactory system. Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry 18: 1979–1991.
Kirk, J.  L. et  al. 2012. Mercury in Arctic marine ecosystems:  Sources,
pathways, and exposure. Environmental Research 119: 64–87.
Klerks, P. and J. S.  Weis 1987. Genetic adaptation to heavy metals in
aquatic organisms: A review. Environmental Pollution 45: 173–206.
Kroglund, F. and B. Finnstad 2003. Low concentrations of inorganic
monomeric aluminum impair physiological status and marine sur-
vival of Atlantic salmon. Aquaculture 222: 119–133.
Levinton, J.  S., E. Suatoni, W. Wallace, R. Junkins, B. Kelaher, and
B. J. Allen 2003. Rapid loss of genetically based resistance to met-
als after the cleanup of a Superfund site. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 100: 9889–9891.
Polak-Juszczak, L. 2009. Temporal trends in the bioaccumulation of
trace metals in herring, sprat, and cod from the southern Baltic Sea
in the 1994–2003 period. Chemosphere 76: 1334–1339.
Weis, J. S., G. Smith, T. Zhou, C. Bass, and P. Weis 2001. Effects of con-
taminants on behavior:  biochemical mechanisms and ecological
consequences. BioScience 51: 209–218.
Weis, J.  S. and P. Weis 2004. Metal uptake, transport, and release by
wetland plants: Implications for phytoremediation and restoration.
Environment International 30: 685–700.
 References 243

Chapter 6
Carson, R. 1962. Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin, NY. 381 pp.
Colborn T., F. S. vom Saal, and A. M. Soto 1993. Developmental effects
of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in wildlife and humans.
Environmental Health Perspectives 101: 378–384.
Chapman, P. 1990. The sediment quality triad approach to determin-
ing pollution-induced degradation. Science of the Total Environment
97–98: 815–825.
De Guise, A., A. Lagace, and P. Beland 1994. True hermaphroditism in a
St. Lawrence beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas). Journal of Wildlife
Diseases 30: 287–290.
Feldman, K., D. Armstrong, B. R. Dumbould, T. H. DeWitt, and D. Doty
2000. Oysters, crabs and burrowing shrimp: Review of an aquatic
conflict over aquatic resources and pesticide use in Washington
State’s (USA) coastal estuaries. Estuaries 23:141–176.
Hudson River Natural Resource Trustees 2013. PCB Contamination
of the Hudson River ecosystem:  Compilation of contamination
data through 2008. 38 pp. www.fws.gov/contaminants/restora-
tionplans/HudsonRiver/docs/Hudson%20River%20Status%20
Report%20Update%20January%202013.pdf.
King, R. S., J. R. Beaman, D. F. Whigham, A. H. Hines, M. E. Baker, and
D. E. Weller 2004. Watershed land use is strongly linked to PCBs in
white perch in Chesapeake Bay subestuaries. Environmental Science
and Technology 38: 6546–6552.
Lykousis, V. and M. Collins 2005. Impact of natural and trawling events
on resuspension, dispersion and fate of pollutants. (INTERPOL).
Introduction to Special Issue. Continental Shelf Research 25: 2309–2314.
Matthiessen, P. and P.E. Gibbs 1998. Critical appraisal of the evi-
dence for tributyltin-mediated endocrine disruption in mollusks.
Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 17: 37–43.
244 References

Nacci, D. et al. 1999. Adaptations of wild populations of the estuarine

fish Fundulus heteroclitus to persistent environmental contaminants.
Marine Biology 134: 9–17.
NOAA Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment. Mussel Watch
Contaminant Monitoring. http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/about/coast/
nsandt/musselwatch.aspx.
Scholz, N.  L. et  al. 2012. A perspective of modern pesticides, pelagic
fish declines, and unknown ecological resilience in highly managed
ecosystems. BioScience 62: 428–434.

Chapter 7
André M. et al. 2011. Low-frequency sounds induce acoustic trauma in
cephalopods. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 9: 489–493.
Baun, A., N. B. Hartman, K. Grieger, and K. O. Kusk 2008. Ecotoxicity of
engineered nanoparticles to aquatic invertebrates—A brief review
and recommendations for future toxicity testing. Ecotoxicology
17: 387–395.
Bay, S. et al. 2011. Sources and effects of endocrine disruptors and other
contaminants of emerging concern in the Southern California
Bight coastal ecosystem. Technical Report 650 from the Southern
California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP), pp 11–20.
Beulig, A., and J. Fowler 2008. Fish on prozac: Effect of serotonin reup-
take inhibitors on cognition in goldfish. Behavioral Neuroscience
122: 426–432.
Cleveland, D. et al. 2012. Pilot estuarine mesocosm study on the envi-
ronmental fate of Silver nanomaterials leached from consumer
products. Science of the Total Environment 421–422: 267–272.
Daughton, C.D. and T.A. Ternes 1999. Pharmaceuticals and per-
sonal care products in the environment:  agents of subtle change?
Environmental Health Perspectives 107 Supplement 6: 907–938.
Jobling, S., M. Nolan, D. R.  Tyler, F. Brightly, and J. P.  Sumpter 1998.
Widespread sexual disruption in wild fish. Environmental Science
and Technology 32: 2498–2506.
 References 245

Kelly, B. et al. 2009. Perfluoroalkyl contaminants in an Arctic marine food

web:  Trophic magnification and wildlife exposure. Environmental
Science and Technology 43: 4037–4043.
Madigan, D.  J., Z. Baumann, and N. S.  Fisher 2012. Pacific bluefin
tuna transport Fukushima-derived radionuclides from Japan
to California. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
109: 9483–9486
Purdom, C. E., P. A. Hardiman, V. J. Bye, N. C. Eno, C. R. Tyler, and J.
P. Sumpter 1994. Estrogenic effects of effluents from sewage treat-
ment works. Journal of Chemical Ecology 8: 275–285.
Reiner, J. S., G. O’Connell, A. J. Moors, J. R. Kucklick, P. R. Becker, and
J. M.  Keller 2011. Spatial and temporal trends of perfluorinated
compounds in Beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) from Alaska.
Environmental Science and Technology 45: 8129–8136.
US EPA Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs).
Frequently Asked Questions. http://epa.gov/ppcp/faq.html_www.
nhs.uk/news/2008/11November/Pages/NanoparticleQA.aspx.
Weingart, L. S. 2007. The impacts of anthropogenic ocean noise on ceta-
ceans and implications for management. Canadian Journal of Zoology
85: 1091–1116.

Chapter 8
Bergey, L. and J.S. Weis 2007. Molting as a mechanism of depuration of
metals in the fiddler crab, Uca pugnax. Marine Environmental Research
64: 556–562.
Bignert, A. 2004. PCB concentration in fish muscle. Helsinki Convention.
www.helcom.fi/environment2/ifs/archive/ifs2004/en_GB/
pcbfish/.
Bignert, A., E. Nyberg, and S. Danielsson 2007. Lead concentrations in
fish liver. Helsinki Convention. www.helcom.fi/environment2/ifs/
ifs2007/en_GB/lead_fish/.
Elliott, J. E., and K. H. Elliott 2012. Tracking marine pollution. Science
340: 556–558.
246 References

Fein, G.  G., J. L.  Jacobson, S. W.  Jacobson, P. M.  Schwartz, and Jeffrey
K. Dowler 1984. Prenatal exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls: Effects
on birth size and gestational age. Journal of Pediatrics 105: 315–320.
Ministry of Environment of British Columbia 2007. Environmental
trends:  Long-term trends in persistent organic pollutants in bird
eggs. www.env.gov.bc.ca/soe/et07/05_contaminants/technical_
paper/contaminants.pdf.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2008.
National status and trends mussel watch program: An assessment
of two decades of contaminant monitoring in the nation’s coastal
zone from 1986–2005. Washington, DC.
Pohl, C. and U. Hennings 2008. Trace metals in Baltic seawater. In: State
and Evolution of the Baltic Sea 1952-2005. Ed. R. Feistel, G. Nausch,
and N. Wasmund. John Wiley & Sons, NJ, pp 367–393.
Rotkin-Ellman, M., K. K. Wong, and G. M. Solomon 2012. Seafood con-
tamination after the BP Gulf oil spill and risks to vulnerable popu-
lations: A critique of the FDA risk assessment. Environmental Health
Perspectives 120: 157–161.
Von Westernhagen, H., P. Cameron, D. Janssen, and M. Kerstan 1995.
Age and size dependent chlorinated hydrocarbon concentrations in
marine teleosts. Marine Pollution Bulletin 30: 655–659.
Wallace, W. G. and S. N. Luoma 2003. Subcellular compartmentalization
of Cd and Zn in two bivalves. II. Significance of trophically avail-
able metal (TAM). Marine Ecology Progress Series 257: 125–137.

Chapter 9
Baumann, H., S. C. Talmage, C. J. Gobler, 2012. Reduced early life growth
and survival in a fish in direct response to increased carbon diox-
ide. Nature Climate Change 2: 38–41.
Cazenave, A. and W. Llovel, 2010. Contemporary sea level rise. Annual
Review of Marine Science 2: 145–173.
Cooley, S. R., N. Lucey, H. Kite-Powell, and S. C. Doney 2012. Nutrition
and income from molluscs today imply vulnerability to ocean acidi-
fication tomorrow. Fish and Fisheries 13: 182–215.
 References 247

De’ath, G., K. E.  Fabricius, H. Sweatman, and M. Puotinen 2012. The

27-year decline of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef and its causes.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 44: 17995–17999.
De la Haye, K. L., J. Spicer, S. Widdicombe, and M. Briffa 2012. Reduced pH
sea water disrupts chemo-responsive behaviour in an intertidal crus-
tacean. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 412: 134–140.
Dyurgerov, M.B., and M. F. Meier 2005. Glaciers and the changing earth
system:  A  2004 snapshot. Occasional Paper 58. Institute of Arctic
and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO.
Form, A.  U. and U. Riebesell 2012. Acclimation to ocean acidification
during long-term CO2 exposure in the cold-water coral Lophelia
pertusa.Global Change Biology 18: 843–853.
Forster, J., A. G. Hirst, and D. Atkinson. 2012. Warming-induced reduc-
tions in body size are greater in aquatic than terrestrial species.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 19310–19314.
Hoegh-Guldberg, O. and J. F. Bruno 2010. The impact of climate change
on the world’s marine ecosystems. Science 328: 1523–1528.
Hoegh-Guldberg, O. et al. 2007. Coral reefs under rapid climate change
and ocean acidification. Science 318: 1737–1742.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2011. Summary for
policymakers. In: Intergovernmental panel on climate change spe-
cial report on managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to
advance climate change adaptation Eds. Field, C. B. et al. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
International Programme on the State of the Ocean 2013. OPSO State of
the Ocean Report. www.stateoftheocean.org/index.cfm
Munday, P. L., A. J. Cheal, D. L. Dixson, J. L. Rummer, and K. E. Fabricius
2014. Behavioural impairment in reef fishes caused by ocean
acidification at CO2 seeps. Nature Climate Change DOI:  10.1038/
NCLIMATE2195.
Narita, D., K. Rehdanz, and R. Tol 2012. Economic costs of ocean acidi-
fication:  a look into the impacts on global shellfish production.
Climatic Change 113: 1049–1063.
248 References

Parker, L. M., P. M. Ross, W. A. O’Connor, L. Borysko, D. A. Raftos, and

H. O. Pörtner 2012. Adult exposure influences offspring response to
ocean acidification in oysters. Global Change Biology 18: 82–92.
Rignot, E. 2008. Changes in West Antarctic ice dynamics observed
with ALOS PALSAR. Geophysical Research Letters 35, L12505.
DOI: 10.1029/2008GL033365.
Schofield, O., H. W.  Ducklow, D. G.  Martinson, M. P.  Meredith, M.
A. Moline, and W. R. Fraser 2010. How do polar marine ecosystems
respond to rapid climate change? Science 328:1520–1523.
Sunda, W.  G. and W-J Cai 2012. Eutrophication induced CO2-
acidification of subsurface coastal waters: Interactive effects of tem-
perature, salinity, and atmospheric pCO2. Environmental Science &
Technology 46: 10651–10659.
Taylor, G. T. et al. 2012. Ecosystem responses in the southern Caribbean
Sea to global climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 109: 19315–19320.

Chapter 10
Albins, M. 2013. Effects of invasive Pacific red lionfish Pterois volitans
versus a native predator on Bahamian coral-reef fish communities.
Biological Invasions 5: 29–43.
Bertness, M. D. and T. C. Coverdale 2013. An invasive species facilitates
the recovery of salt marsh ecosystems on Cape Cod. Ecology. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1890/12-2150.1.
Clark P.  F., P. Campbell, B. Smith, P. S.  Rainbow, D. Pearce, and R.
P.  Miguez 2008. The commercial exploitation of Thames mit-
ten crabs:  a feasibility study. A  report for the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs by the Department of
Zoology, the Natural History Museum, London. DEFRA reference
FGE 274. pp. 1–81 + appendices 1–6.
Carlton, J. T. and J. B. Geller 1993. Ecological roulette: The global trans-
port of marine organisms. Science 261: 78–82.
 References 249

Cohen, A. and J. T. Carlton 1998. Accelerating invasion rate in a highly

invaded estuary. Science 279: 555–558.
Daehler, C. and D. Strong 1996. Status, prediction and prevention of
introduced cordgrass Spartina spp. invasions in Pacific estuaries,
USA. Biological Conservation 78: 51–58
Donovan, E. P. et al. 2007. Risk of gastrointestinal disease associated with
exposure to pathogens in the sediments of the Lower Passaic River.
Applied and Environmental Microbiology 74: 1004–1018.
Frazer, T. K., C. A. Jacoby, M. A. Edwards, S. C. Barry, and C. M. Manfrino
2012. Coping with the lionfish invasion:  Can targeted removals
yield beneficial effects? Reviews in Fisheries Science 20: 185–191.
Green, S. J., J. L. Akins, A. Maljković, and I. M. Côté 2012. Invasive lion-
fish drive Atlantic coral reef fish declines. PLoS ONE 7(3):  e32596.
www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.
pone.0032596.
Grosholz, E. and G. Ruiz 1995. Spread and potential impact of recently
introduced European green crab, Carcinus maenas, in Central
California. Marine Biology 122: 239–247.
Johnston, C. A. and R. N. Lipcius 2012. Exotic macroalga Gracilaria ver-
miculophylla provides superior nursery habitat for native blue crab
in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 467:137–146.
Jousson, O., J. Pawlowsky, L. Zaninetti, A. Meinesz, and C.
F. Boudouresque 1998. Molecular evidence for the aquarium origin
of the green alga Caulerpa taxifolium introduced to the Mediterranean
Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 172: 275–280.
Lambert, G. 2009. Adventures of a sea squirt sleuth:  Unraveling the
identity of Didemnum vexillum a global ascidian invader. Aquatic
Invasions 4: 5–28.
McDermott, J. J. 1991. A breeding population of the Western Pacific crab
Hemigrapsus sanguineus (Crustacea:  Decapoda:  Grapsidae) estab-
lished on the Atlantic Coast of North America. Biological Bulletin
181: 195–198.
250 References

Miller, M.  A. et  al. 2002. Coastal freshwater runoff is a risk factor for
Toxoplasma gondii infection of southern sea otters (Enhydra lutris
nereis). International Journal for Parasitology 32: 997–1006
North Carolina Sea Grant 2013. Ingesting invaders: Serving up lionfish.
Coastwatch 4: 35–37.
Nuñez, M.  A., S. Kuebbing, R. D.  Dimarco, and D. Simberloff 2012.
Invasive species: to eat or not to eat, that is the question. Conservation
Letters 5: 334–341.
Ruiz, G., J. Carlton, E. Grosholz, and A. Hines 1997. Global inva-
sions of marine and estuarine habitats by non-indigenous spe-
cies:  Mechanisms, extent, and consequences. Integrative and
Comparative Biology 37: 621–632.
Shiganova, T. 1998. Invasion of the Black Sea by the ctenophore
Mnemiopsis leidyi and recent changes in pelagic community struc-
ture. Fisheries Oceanography 7: 305–310.

Chapter 11
Bosch, D. F., R. H. Burroughs, J. E. Baker, R. P. Mason, C. L. Rowe, and
R. L. Siefert 2001. Marine pollution in the United States. Prepared
for the Pew Oceans Commission, 55 pp. www.pewtrusts.org/. . . /
Reports/. . . ocean. . . /env_pew_oceans_pollution.pdf.
Copeland, C. 2010. Ocean dumping act:  A  summary of the law.
Congressional Research Service, CRS Report to Congress, 9 pp
www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/gcil_crs_oda.pdf.
Dylan, Bob 1963. “Blowin’ in the Wind” www.bobdylan.com/us/
node/25835
Halpern, B. et al. 2012. An index to assess the health and benefits of the
global ocean. Nature. DOI:  10.1038/nature11397 www.oceanhealth-
index.org/Countries.
International Programme on the State of the Oceans 2013. The state of
the ocean 2013:  Perils, prognoses and proposals. www.stateofthe-
ocean.org/research.cfm.
 References 251

NOAA National Status and Trends Program. Mussel watch program.

NOAA National Status and Trends. An assessment of two decades
of contaminant monitoring in the Nation’s Coastal Zone. http://
ccma.nos.noaa.gov/publications/MWTwoDecades.pdf.
US Environmental Protection Agency. A summary of the Clean Water
Act. www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act.
US Environmental Protection Agency. Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Overview.
www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/cercla.htm.
US Environmental Protection Agency. Clean Water Act Section 319.
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/cwact.cfm.
US Environmental Protection Agency. National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES). http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cwa.
cfm?program_id=45.
US Environmental Protection Agency. Summary of the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act. www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/
summary-marine-protection-research-and-sanctuaries-act.
 INDEX

Page numbers followed by f indicate figures.

Abate® (temephos), 106, 110 harmful algal species, 33–35

abnormalities, 3, 76–77, 92, 104, invasive, 199
111 prevention, 111
acidity budgets, 183. See also single-celled (dinoflagellates
ocean acidification and diatoms), 157
acid volatile sulfide (AVS), 88 single-celled (zooxanthellae),
adaptation, 39, 117, 172, 226 90, 144, 164–166
corals, 181–182 small (epiphytes), 27–28
marine organisms, 176 symbiotic, 75–76, 144
organisms in ballast water, 202 alien species. See invasive species
Adélie penguins, 167 alkylphenols, 129
adrenal hormones aluminum (Al), 92–93
(glucocorticoids), 124 amnesic shellfish poisoning
Africa, 22, 60 (ASP), 34, 159–160
Agent Orange, 118–119, 156 amphipods (gribbles), 8
agricultural sources of pollution, anoxic, 26
21–22 Antarctica, 48, 167, 172
air-based pollutants, 5 antifoulants, 8, 83–84, 90–91
Alaska, 55, 190 aquaculture
Albins, Mark, 192–193 effects of climate change on,
Alexandrium, 34, 157–158 168–169
algae (seaweeds), 2–3, 8, 26–28, pollution from, 8–9, 223–224
32–35, 73, 83, 84, 125, 162, 175, aquarium trade, 191, 199, 205, 208,
177, 178, 180, 182, 224, 235 230
eaters, 193 aquatic animals. See marine
Gracilaria salicornia, 206 wildlife
harmful algal blooms (HABs), Aragonite, 175, 176
32, 36, 157, 202–203, 234 Arctic ice sheets, 166–167, 172
254 Index

Arctic Ocean, 48, 139–140, 167 behavior, 12, 13, 78, 93

Arenicola marina (lugworms), Abate® affecting, 110
52–53 altered in animals, 178–179
Argentina, 199 animal, 89
aromatic hydrocarbons, 76, 112. cats, 149
See also polycyclic aromatic chemical effect, 89, 112
hydrocarbons (PAHs) hatchlings, 141
artificial light, 140–142 of larvae, 76
Asia, 22, 41, 46 of lionfish, 207
Asian shore crab (Hemigrapsus neuroactive pharmaceuticals
sanguineus), 197–198 effect, 125
Atlantic bluefin tuna, 77 ocean acidification effects, 178
Atlantic cordgrass (Spartina oil, 78
alterniflora), 99–100, 200–201, predatory, 179
205–206 reproductive, 112
Atlantic menhaden (Brevoortia Belize, 208
tyrannus), 35 Benin, 211
Atlantic Ocean, 49–50, 138–139, Bermuda, 206
192–193 Beroe ovata (comb jelly), 194–195
atmospheric pollution, 6–7, 21–22, Berry’s Creek, 85, 88, 217, 222
150–151 Berry’s Creek Marsh, 85
Aureococcus anophagefferens, 35 Bertness, Mark, 201–202
Australia bicarbonate (HCO3), 173
ballast water regulations, 203 bioaccumulation, 143–162
invasive species, 191, 202–205 bioaccumulation factor (BAF), 143
marine debris, 49, 54–55 bioconcentration factor (BCF), 143
biodegradable fishing gear, 62
Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis biodegradable plastics, 224–225
(Bti), 108 biodiversity, 4, 16–17, 48, 73, 101,
Bahamas, 206 189, 210–211, 220
ballast water, 167, 196 biological pollution, 186–209
organisms in, 202 biomagnification, 10–11, 143–162
regulations, 203 of contaminants, 10–11, 11f
ship, 189 of mercury, 87, 87f, 88–89
Baltic Sea, 46, 95, 187, 220 biomagnification factor (BMF),
Barents Sea, 139–140 143
Barrier Reef Reserve System biomarkers, 112
(Belize), 208 Bionic Yarn Co, 61–62
Basel, Switzerland, 227–228 bioplastics, 225
beaches, 188–189 bioremediation
Beaches Environmental of metal pollution, 97–98
Assessment and Coastal of oil spills, 69, 81
Health Act (BEACH) (US), 59, biosolids, 24
188–189 bioswales, 227
 Index 255

birds, 80, 147–148 California

bisphenol-A (BPA), 129 climate change, 169–170
Black Sea marine debris, 45
invasive jellies, 193–195, 194f marine debris cleanup efforts,
regulation of marine pollution 58
in, 220 Proposition  65, 157, 229–230
bleaching, coral, 164–165, 165f total maximum daily loads
Bligh Island, 70 (TMDLs), 18
Bligh Reef, 66–67 California Coastal Commission,
blue carbon, 182–183 59, 137
blue crabs, 54 Canada, 55, 203, 211
bluefin tuna, 77 capping, 96–97
blue-green algae, 177 carbamates, 106
Blue Ventures, 208 carbaryl (Sevin®), 110
The Body Shop, 58 carbon, 4
Botrylloides violaceus (violet carbonate, 174–176
tunicate), 198–199 carbon dioxide (CO2), xvi, 1, 7, 163,
Botryllus schlosseri (golden star 164–165, 173–175, 177–181,
tunicate), 198–199 184–185, 224–225
bottlenose dolphin deaths, 33 carbon dioxide emissions, 163,
BPA. See bisphenol-A 185, 235
BP-Transocean, 70 carbon emissions, 185
Brazil, 51 carbon taxes, 225
BrevBuster, 36 Carcinus maenas, 195–198, 195f
brevetoxin, 33 Caribbean, 19, 46, 164, 192,
Britain, 211 206–207
British Columbia, 55, 190 Carlton, James, 189–190
brominated flame retardants, 122 Carson, Rachel, 3, 105
Brooklyn, NY, 39–40 Cartagena Convention, 17
Browne, Mark, 52–53 Caspian Sea, 46
Bryan, Geoff, 91 Castello Aragonese, 180
buckyballs, 130 catfish, 51
burning, controlled, 81 Caulerpa taxifolia, 191, 199, 204–205
Cayman Islands, 46
cadmium (Cd), 84, 88, 90, 95, 98, CCA (chromated-copper-
148 arsenate), 8, 84
calcification, 165, 176, 181 Center for Biological Diversity,
calcite, 175 138–139
calcium, 174–176, 179, 183 Centre for Mediterranean
calcium carbonate, 152, 174–176 Cooperation, 203–204
calcium carbonate supplements, CERCLA (Comprehensive
152 Environmental Response,
calcium citrate, 152 Compensation, and Liability
calcium supplements, 152 Act of 1980) (US), 216–217
256 Index

cesium  -134, 140 climate change

cesium  -137, 139–140 causes of, 163
Chapman, Peter, 113 effects on animal sizes, 169
chemicals, 63–82 effects on aquaculture, 168–169
endocrine disruptors, 12–13 effects on coral reefs, 164–166
industrial, 102–121 effects on distribution of
in marine animals, 10–11 species, 167–168
persistent, 102–103, 106–107, 118, effects on marine environment,
120, 126–129 163–164
toxic, 12–15, 229–230 effects on predator/prey
chemistry, green, 224–225 interactions, 169–170
Chesapeake Bay policies to curb, 225–226
crab pots, 54, 62 ways to protect against,
dead zone, 30 180–182, 228, 232
invasive species, 197, 201 climate mitigation, 182–183
nutrients, 21–22, 26, 37–38, coastal habitats, 4, 77, 102, 147–148,
40–41, 217 166
PCBs, 117 coastal health, 59, 188–189
Pfiesteria (“cell from hell”), actions to protect, 68
34–35 effects of oil spills on, 74–75
Chicago Tribune, 127 coastal realignment, 228
China, 60, 201, 211 Coastal Zone Management
Chinese mitten crab (Erocheir Program (US), 218
sinensis), 196–197 Coastwatch, 208
chinstrap penguins, 168 Cohen, Andrew, 189
Chisso Corporation, 149–150 Colborn, Theo, 110
chlorinated hydrocarbons, 10, Columbia River, 120
104–105, 110, 114 combined sewer overflow (CSO),
chlorinated organic chemicals, 6, 24–25, 39–40, 227
145–147, 153, 156 comb jelly Beroe ovata, 194–195
chlorinated pesticides, 11, comb jelly Mnemiopsis leidyi,
105–106, 116, 146 193–195, 194f
chromated-copper-arsenate community
(CCA), 8, 84 aquatic, 214
chromium (Cr), 86, 144 bacterial, 73
chromosomal abnormalities, ecological, 77
76–77 phytoplankton, 166
ciguatera, 160–161 reef, 177–178
ciguatoxin (CTX), 160–161 community-level effects, 93, 113
Clean Air Act (US), 217 composting, 224–225
cleanups, 56–58 Comprehensive Environmental
Clean Water Act (CWA) (US), 6, Response, Compensation,
17–18, 38–39, 213–215, 221–223 and Liability Act of 1980
Cleveland, Danielle, 131 (CERCLA) (US), 216–217
 Index 257

Concentrated Animal Feeding crab pots

Operations (CAFOs), 25–26, biodegradable, 62
36–37 derelict, 54
confined aquatic disposal (CAD), crabs, 54, 196–197, 208–209
97 invasive, 195–198, 195f
Conservation Reserve Program toxic effects of oil on,
(US), 36–37 76–78
Consumer Reports, 157 creosote, 8
consumers, 1–2, 10–11 Culbertson, Jennifer, 79
contaminants. See also pollutants currents, 9–10, 139–140, 164–167,
banned, 18 174, 189, 195–196
definition of, 4–5 circular or rotating (gyres),
in fish oil supplements, 156–157 45, 47
in fish or shellfish, 157 Cyprus, 209
maternal transfer of, 11 cytochrome P-450 (CYP), 146
persistent, 18, 114, 148, 156–157
safety issues for humans, Daehler, Curtis, 200–201
148–149 dams, inflatable, 39–40
in seafood, 152–155 DDT. See dichlorodiphenyl­
trophic transfer of, 10–11, 11f, trichloroethane
86, 143–144 dead zones, xvi, 29–30
contaminants of emerging debris. See marine debris
concern (CECs), xv–xvi, 122, decomposers, 1–2
124 Deegan, Linda, 31
ways to reduce, 228–229, 233 Deepwater Horizon well blowout,
controlled burning, 81 xv, 5–6, 66, 70, 73, 75, 77, 234
Convention on Biological DEET, 125
Diversity, 184 Delaware Bay, 197
copper (Cu), 83–84, 86, 88, 95 detergents, 110
bioaccumulation of, 144 detritus, 2
toxic effects of, 90, 93–94 developmental abnormalities, 77,
coral bleaching, 75, 144, 164–166, 103–104
165f, 182 Diamond Shamrock Company,
coralline algae, 175 119
coral reefs, 182 diarrhetic shellfish poisoning
effects of climate change on, (DSP), 158–159
164–166 diatoms, 157
effects of pollution in, 28 dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
vulnerability of, 164–166 (DDT), 52, 102–104, 103f, 105,
cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), 109–110, 147–148
99–100, 201, 205–206 Didemnum vexillum (sea squirt),
Corexit®, 69, 71 198–199
Cosco Busan spill, 77 diflubenzuron (Dimilin®), 107
Coverdale, Tyler, 201–202 Dimilin® (diflubenzuron), 107
258 Index

dinoflagellates, 157 fat-soluble contaminants

Dinophysis, 158–159 transfer, 16
dioxins, 110, 118–119, 118f, 120 fish eggs in intertidal sites, 80
in marine environment, 119 oil spill effects on fish eggs, 76
in seafood, 120, 155–156 PAH effect, 76
dispersants, 68, 71, 81 sea skaters, 53
Dissanayake, Awantha, 78 seabird, 147–148
dissolved oxygen (DO), xvi, 4, yolk, 11, 146
26–27, 29–30, 72, 90-91, 95, Egypt, 209
118, 130, 163, 169, 235 embryo(s), 27
nutrients effect, 9, 21 fish, 75, 76
levels in Chesapeake Gulf killifish, 77
Bay, 37 intertidal, 77
dispersant and dispersed oil salmon, 80
effect, 73-74 emerging concerns, xv–xvi,
elevation in overlying water, 88 122–142, 228–229, 233
diuron, 8 emissions, 185, 212–213, 235
diversity Endangered Species Act (US),
biodiversity, 4, 16–17, 48, 73, 101, 138, 218
189, 210–211, 220 endocrine disruptors, 12–13, 52,
of phytoplankton, 167–168 110–112
species, 30 energy efficiency, 184
dog whelk snails, 90–91 Energy Information
dolphin deaths, 33, 50 Administration (EIA) (US),
Dominican Republic, 60 185
domoic acid, 159–160 English Channel, 139–140
“Don’t Rush to Flush” motto, 126 Environmental Defense Fund
driftnets, 54 (EDF), 156–157
dumping, 6, 24, 42–43, 115–116, Environmental Protection
213, 215–216, 222 Agency (EPA) (US), 14, 26,
Dungeness crabs, 54 117, 203, 213–214, 216
Duwamish Waterway, 77–78 consumption advisories,
Dylan, Bob, 235 151–152
East Asian Sea, 46 National Pollutant Discharge
ecological roulette, 190 Elimination System (NPDES),
economic effects 17–18, 23
Exxon Valdez cleanup costs, 70 Superfund program, xvi, 85,
of ocean acidification, 182 95–96, 119, 156, 216–217
ecosystems, 1–3 total maximum daily loads
Ecover, 61 (TMDLs), 38
eel grass, 27–28 environmental sample processors
egg(s), 12, 91, 148 (ESPs), 36, 162
bird, 147 Environment California, 60
exposure of estuarine fish, 178 epiphytes (small algae), 27–28
 Index 259

Erocheir sinensis (Chinese mitten fiddler crab, 79, 106

crab), 196–197 field studies, 14–15
essential fish habitats, 222–223 Finnstad, Bengt, 93
estuary, 26, 35 fish
tidal, 117 algae eaters, 193
for wastewater disposal, 85 catfish, 51
Europe, 60 effects of oil on, 76–78
European Union (EU) essential habitats for, 222–223
marine pollution regulation, Gulf killifish, 77
219–221 invasive marine fishes, 192–193
Water Framework Directive, lionfish (Pterois volitans),
220–221 192–193, 193f, 206–208
eutrophication, xvi, 19, 21–22, 22f, overfishing of, xv–xvi, 3–4, 178,
26–27, 174 181–182, 201–202, 219
effects on coral reefs, 28 PAH-exposed, 77–78
global spread of, 31–32 pufferfish, 209
prognosis for, 41 swordfish, 94–95
techniques to reduce effects of, that have accumulated HAB
40–41 toxins, 157
Everett Harbor, 77–78 tuna, 77, 94–95, 140
Exxon Valdez oil spill, xv, 5–6, Fishing for Energy, 57
66–67 fishing gear
actions to protect shorelines biodegradable, 62
after, 68 derelict, 53–55
causes of, 67–68 fish oil supplements, 156–157
cleanup efforts, 68–70, 81 flame retardants, 110, 122
effects of, 79–80 Florida Fish and Wildlife
effects on birds and sea otters, Commission, 230
80 Florida Keys, 28, 208
effects on fish and crabs, 76–78 Florida red tide, 159
effects on shorelines, fluorinated compounds, 128–129
74–75 fluoxetine (Prozac), 125
Food and Agriculture
Falmouth, Massachusetts oil Organization (FAO) (UN),
spills, 78–79 168–169
farms Food and Drug Administration
Concentrated Animal Feeding (FDA) (US), 95, 151–152
Operations (CAFOs), 25–26, food webs
36–37 contaminants in, 10–11, 11f
ways to reduce runoff from, marine, 1–3, 3f
36–38 fouling, 190
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, organisms, 83, 198
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) shoreline, 65
(US), 12, 105, 108, 217–218 Foundry Cove, 217
260 Index

France, 199 Gowanus Canal, 25, 226–227

Fukushima plant, 139–140 Gracilaria salicornia, 206
Fuller, Buckminster, 130 Gracilaria vermiculophylla, 201
fullerenes, 130 Great Barrier Reef, 28, 60
furans, 118, 155–156 Great Pacific Garbage Patch, 47
future directions Greece, 209
CO2 levels, 164 green chemistry, 224–225
contaminants of emerging green crab Carcinus maenas,
concern (CECs), xv–xvi, 122, 195–198, 195f
124, 228–229, 233 green design, 228
diminishing oil spills, 82 green fleets, 228
emerging concerns, xv–xvi, Greenland, 166–167, 172
122–142, 228–229, 233 green roofs, 227–228
fouling, 190 gribbles (amphipods), 8
healthy ocean, 210 Grosholz, Ted, 196
increasing freshwater runoff, growth, 13, 92
170 of algae, 26, 33
loss of sea ice, 167 of bacteria, 69
policy changes to prevent of environmental movement,
future spills, 70 105
prognosis for eutrophication, human population, 21
41 insect growth regulators, 107
traditional fisheries, 168 microorganisms, 23
of phytoplankton, 183
Gambierdiscus toxicus, 160–161 plant, 183–184
General Electric, 116 seagrass and detritus, 28
Gentoo penguins, 168 Gulf Islands National Seashore,
geoengineering, 183–184 142
George, Russ, 184 Gulf killifish, 77
Germany, 61 Gulf of Mexico
ghost nets, 54–55 dead zone, 29–30
Gibbs, Peter, 91 Deepwater Horizon well
gills, 10, 90, 143, 146, 178 blowout, xv, 5–6, 66, 70, 72,
A Global Map of Human Impact 73, 75, 77, 234
on Marine Ecosystems, ecology, 73–74
18–19 invasive jellies from, 193–195,
global warming 194f
causes of, 163 invasive marine fish, 192–193
protection against effects of, noise pollution, 138–139
180–182 Gulf Restoration Network,
glucocorticoids (adrenal 138–139
hormones), 124 gyres, 45, 47
golden star tunicate (Botryllus
schlosseri), 198–199 habitat loss, xv–xvi
 Index 261

habitats, 30–31, 40–41, 49, 53, 73, human population growth, 21,
164–165, 183, 227 24–25, 31–32, 101
coastal, 4, 77, 102, 147–148, 166 Hurricane Andrew, 192
essential fish, 222–223 Hurricane Sandy, 226
intertidal, 197–198 hydrocarbons, 63, 64f
larval, 109 hypoxia, 21, 26. See also dead
marine, 192–193 zones
nursery, 27–28, 201
salt marsh, 197–198 imposex, 91
shallow water, 197–198 Incardona, John, 77
Hackensack Meadowlands, 85, India, 60, 211
217, 221–222 Indian Ocean, 165
Hackensack Meadows individual actions, 230–233
Development Commission industrial discharge, 21–22
(HMDC), 222–223 industrial organic chemicals,
Hackensack River, 85, 223 102–121, 148
Haiti, 60 inflatable dams, 39–40
halogenated compounds, 128 Ingot Island, 69
halogens, 128 integrated pest management, 109
Halpern, Ben, 210 Intergovernmental Panel on
Hansen, James, 93 Climate Change (IPCC),
harmful algal blooms (HABs), 166–167, 235
21–22, 22f, 32, 234 International Coastal Cleanup,
fish or shellfish that have 45–46, 56–57
accumulated toxins International Convention for the
from, 157 Prevention of Pollution from
spread of, 35–36 Ships (MARPOL), 16–17, 59,
ways to prevent, 202–204 212–213
harmful algal species, 33–35 International Maritime
Hawaii, 47, 54–55, 192, 206 Organization (IMO), 17,
Hawaiian monk seals, 49 81–82, 138, 203
hearing loss, 133–134 International Programme on the
Heintz, Ronald, 75–77 State of the Ocean (IPSO), 235
Hemigrapsus sanguineus (Asian International Union for the
shore crab), 197–198 Conservation of Nature
hepatopancreas, 145 (IUCN), 203–204
herbivore, 1, 28, 31,178,182 intertidal habitats, 197–198
hermaphroditism, 111–112 invasive crabs, 195–198, 195f
history, 35–36 invasive jellies, 193–195
Hudson Bay, 129 invasive marine fishes, 192–193
Hudson River, 50, 116, invasive marsh plants, 200–201
187, 217 invasive seaweeds, 199
Hudson River Natural Resource invasive sedentary attached
Trustees, 116 organisms, 198–199
262 Index

invasive species Lampris, 50

aquatic, 189–192 land-based pollutants, 6–7
beneficial effects of, 201–202 land use, 38, 117
edible, 207–209 larva(e), 12, 92
ways to control, 205–209, behavior, 93
232 coral, 74
ways to eradicate, 204–205 fish, 27, 167
ways to prevent new arrivals, mosquito, 109
202–204 sea urchin, 181
iodine  -131, 139–140 larval habitats, 109
Ireland, 60 larvicides, 107–108
irgarol, 8 Latin America, 22
Irish Sea, 139–140 Law of the Sea (LOS), 17,
iron fertilization, 183–184 212–213
Irons, Jeremy, 58 laws, 16–18, 58–61
lead (Pb), 84, 88, 95, 98
Jacobson, Dan, 60 bioaccumulation of, 144
Jamaica Bay, 227 in calcium supplements from
Japanese kelp or wakame oyster shells, 152
(Undaria pinnatifidia), 199 toxic effects of, 89–90, 93
Japanese waters, 19, 55, 140, Lebanon, 209
191–192 legacy pollution, 18
Japan Tsunami Marine Debris legislation
Taxonomic Assessment laws to reduce marine litter,
Team, 192 58–61
Jarvis Island, 211 laws to regulate marine
jellies, invasive, 193–195 pollution, 16–18
Johnson & Johnson, 58 Levinton, Jeffrey, 13–14
Joye, Samantha, 73 light pollution, 140–142
juvenile hormone (JH), 107 lionfish (Pterois volitans), 192–193,
193f, 206–208
Kaneohe Bay, 206 litter, 231–232. See also marine
Karenia brevis, 33, 36, 159 debris
Kelly, Barry, 127–128 Little Cayman Island, 206–207
killifish, 77, 117 Littorina littorea (periwinkle snail),
krill, 166–167 190
Kroglund, Frode, 93 liver, 64, 95, 144–146
liver cancer, 64
LC50 (lethal concentration for liver damage, 75, 119, 153
50%), 12, 108 liver tumors, 77–78
Lake Apopka, 111 lobsters, 51–52
Lake Pontchartrain, 60 local governments, 226–230
Lambert, Gretchen, London Convention on Dumping
198–199 of Wastes at Sea, 59, 184, 213
 Index 263

London Protocol, 213 marine environment, xv–xvi, 1–19

Los Angeles, California, 59 definition of, 1
Los Angeles River, 18, 229 effects of climate change on,
Louisiana, 60 163–164
Louisiana Universities Marine sources of pollution in, 5–6
Consortium, 29–30 ways that land-based
Love Canal, 118, 216 pollutants enter, 6–7
low-frequency active (LFA) sonar, marine food webs, 1–3, 3f
133–134 marine habitats, 192–193
lugworms (Arenicola marina), 52–53 marine litter. See marine debris
Luoma, Samuel, 145 Marine Mammal Protection Act
(US), 138
malathion, 106, 110 marine organisms
Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, xvi defense against toxic effects,
managed coastal realignment, 228 113
manatee deaths, 33 protection against effects of
mangrove trees, 100–101 warming and acidification,
marinas, 40–41 180–182
marine debris, xv–xvi, 42–62 sentinels for bioaccumulation
abundance of, 42 and biomagnification,
accumulation patterns, 46–48 147–148
biggest pieces, 55–56 marine pollution. See also
cleanups, 56–58 pollution
constituents of, 43–44, 44f global distribution of, 18–19
effects on marine life, 48–53, 51f land-based pollutants, 6–7
harmful effects of, 56 overall status, 233–235
invasive species, 191–192 regulation of, 16–18, 219–221
Japan Tsunami Marine Debris sources of, 5–6
Taxonomic Assessment trends, 233–235
Team, 192 Marine Protection, Research, and
laws to reduce, 58–61 Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA)
market-based approaches to (US), 213, 215, 219
reduce, 60–61 marine toxins, 161–162
measurement of, 45 marine wildlife
public education about, 58 chemical contamination of,
quantity of, 45–46 10–11
sources of, 42–43 distribution of species, 167–168
top ten items, 46 effects of climate change on,
ways to reduce, 61–62, 229, 169
231–232 effects of marine litter on,
what can be done about, 56–58 48–53, 51f
Marine Debris Program (NOAA), effects of noise on, 133–136
59 effects of oil on, 75–78
marine ecosystems, 1–3, 18–19 invasive marine fishes, 192–193
264 Index

marine wildlife (Cont.) metals, 83–101

invasive sedentary attached bioaccumulation of, 143–145
organisms, 198–199 in calcium supplements from
invasive species, 189–192 oyster shells, 152
protection against effects of chemical forms, 86–88
warming and acidification defense against, 94
for, 180–182 endocrine disruptors, 110
species most threatened by environmental concentrations,
ocean acidification, 176–180 88–89
market-based approaches, 60–61 natural attenuation of, 96
MARPOL (International pollution trends, 95
Convention for the in seafood, 94–95
Prevention of Pollution from sources of, 83–85
Ships), 16–17, 59, 212–213 toxic effects of, 89–94
marsh grasses, 201–202 ways to reduce pollution from,
marsh plants, invasive, 200–201 95–96
McDermott, John, 197 methoprene, 107
Mediterranean Sea methylmercury (MeHg), 93–94
derelict fishing gear, 54 Mexico, 60, 206
invasive species, 191, 199, microbial pollution, 186–188
203–205 Midway Island, 47
marine debris, 46 Miller, M. A., 188
regulation of marine pollution Minamata, Japan, 85
in, 220 Minamata Bay, 85, 149–150
Melanitta perspicillata (surf Minamata disease, 85, 149–150
scoters), 80 Miner, Emily, 60
mercury (Hg), 7, 83–85, 87–89, mitigation, 139, 170, 183, 226
95, 98 mitten crabs, 196–197, 208–209
bioaccumulation of, 145 mixed function oxidases (MFOs),
concerns about, 150–152 146
environmental concentrations, Mnemiopsis leidyi (North
88–89 American comb jelly),
methylation and 193–195, 194f
biomagnification of, 87, 87f, mollusks, 64–65, 91, 147–148
88–89 monk seals, 54
in seafood, 94–95 monofilament recovery
toxic effects of, 86, 89 programs, 57
mercury-contaminated sites, Monterey Bay Aquarium
85–86 Research Institute (MBARI),
Mercury Policy Project, 94–95 47–48
metabolic rates, 15–16, 89–90, 136, Monterey Canyon, 47–48
163, 234 Moore Recycling Associates, 59
metal-binding proteins, 145 Müller, Paul, 103–104
metallothioneins (MTs), 145 Munday, Philip, 179
 Index 265

Mussel Watch program (NOAA), New Guinea, 179

219 New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection,
Nacci, Diane, 117 156
nanoecotoxicology, 131 Newtown Creek, 227
nanomaterials, 129–132 New York City, New York, 25, 39,
nanoparticles (NPs), 129–132 215–216, 227
nanosilver, 131–132 New York Harbor, 116–117
nanotechnology, 129–132 New York State Department
nanotubes, 131–132 of Environmental
naphthalene, 63, 64f Conservation, 116
National Academy of Sciences New York Times, 216
(NAS) (US), 74 New Zealand, 199, 203–204
National Marine Fisheries Service nickel (Ni), 88
(US), 223 nitrogen (N), 4–7, 20–22, 29, 40–41,
National Oceanographic and 71, 217
Atmospheric Administration legumes using, 231
(NOAA) (US), 77–78, 114, 154, tertiary treatment use, 23
177, 218–219 HABs and, 32
Fisheries, 138–139 N-rich river water, 33
Marine Debris Program, 59 absorption, 40
Mussel Watch program, 219 noise pollution, 132–139
Northeast Fisheries Science nongovernmental organizations
Center, 168 (NGOs), 206
sound maps, 137–138 nonpoint sources, 6, 7f
National Pollutant Discharge North American comb jelly
Elimination System (NPDES) (Mnemiopsis leidyi), 193–195,
(US), 17–18, 23, 213–214 194f
National Transportation Safety North Atlantic Garbage Patch, 47
Board (NTSB) (US), 67–68 North Atlantic Subtropical Gyre,
natural attenuation, 96 46, 50
Natural Resources Defense North Carolina Sea Grant, 208
Council, 138–139 Northeast Atlantic Ocean, 46, 220
Nemo, 178–179 Northeast Fisheries Science
Net-Works, 61 Center, 168
neurological Northern fulmars, 50–51
condition, 157 Northern Gannets, 49
effects, 85, 93, 127, 149 Northern Pacific seastar, 191–192
symptoms, 34, 159, 160, 161 North Pacific Ocean, 46–47, 50–51,
neurotoxic shellfish poisoning 192
(NSP), 159 North Pacific Subtropical Gyre,
Newark Bay, 85, 119–120 47, 51–53, 55
New Bedford, Massachusetts, 117 North Pole, 167
Newfoundland, 51 North Sea, 19
266 Index

Northwest Pacific Islands, 56 policy changes to prevent, 70

Northwest Passage, 167 trends, 81–82
Norway, 52 olfactory system, 93
nursery habitats, 201 Oregon, 55, 181, 192
nutrients, 20–41 Oregon State University, 177
organic chemicals. See also
Obama, Barack, 226 chemicals
ocean acidification (OA), 173–174, bioaccumulation of, 145–148
175f biomagnification of,
effects of, 174–176, 182 147–148
protection against effects of, chlorinated, 145–146
180–182 industrial, 102–121
species most threatened by, metabolism of, 146–147
176–180 in seafood, 152–155
ways to mitigate effects of, organophosphates, 106
182–185 overfishing, v–xvi, 3–4, 178,
Ocean Acoustic Waveguide 181–182, 201–202, 219
Remote Sensing experiments, oxygen, dissolved (DO), 4, 26–27,
135 29–30, 72, 95
The Ocean Conservancy, 45–46, oyster reefs, 40–41
56–57 oysters, 15, 40–41, 93–94
ocean dumping, 215–216 oyster shells, 152
Ocean Health Index, 210–211 Pacific Ocean, 43, 229
Oceanographic Museum, 191 Panama, 75–76
octane, 63, 64f paralytic shellfish poisoning
oil, 63–82 (PSP), 34, 157–158
oiled birds and sea otters, 80 Parley for the Oceans, 61–62
Oil Spill Act (US), 82 Passaic River, 85, 119, 156, 217, 222
oil spills, 66 pathogens, 5, 25–26, 186–188,
bioremediation efforts, 69 190–191, 216
cleanup efforts, 68–70, 80–81 shellfish, 162
Cosco Busan spill, 77 PCBs. See polychlorinated
Deepwater Horizon well biphenyls
blowout, xv, 5–6, 66, 70–75, Peconic Estuary, 35
77, 234 penguins, 168
effects of, 78–80 Pennsylvania, 37
effects on birds and sea otters, perfluorinated compounds
80 (PFCs), 128–129
effects on fish eggs, 76–78 perfluorooctanesulfonic acid
effects on shorelines, 74–75 (PFOS), 128–129
Exxon Valdez accident, xv, 5–6, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA),
66–70, 74–81 128–129
Exxon Valdez cleanup costs, 69 periwinkle snail (Littorina
methods for cleaning up, 80–81 littorea), 190
 Index 267

Perna perna, 204 Phragmites australis, 100, 200, 200f,

Persian Gulf, 181–182 201, 205–206
persistence phytoplankton, 167–168
chronic exposures, 79–80 phytoplankton blooms, 26–28
coral reefs, 164 phytoremediation, 98–101
of oil, 78 Placencia Producers’ Cooperative
SLR, 171 Society, 208
persistent chemicals, 9–10, 72, Planktos, Inc., 184
102–107, 118, 120, 126–129, 225 plastic, 44–45
persistent contaminants, 18, 114, biodegradable, 224–225
148, 156–157 chemical contents, 52
persistent pollutants, i, xvi, 4–5, compostable, 224–225
9–11, 18, 78–79, 147–148, degradable, 224–225
233–235 endocrine disruptors, 110
persistent synthetic and other marine debris, 42
materials, 17, 43, 74–75 recycled, 59–60
persistent toxic substances, 156 recycling of plastic film, 59
pharmaceuticals and personal waste, 48
care products, 122–126 Plastic Bank, 61
pesticides, 102–121 plastisphere, 53
chlorinated, 10–11, 105–107, 110, point sources, 6
114, 146 poisoning
community-level effects, 113 amnesic shellfish poisoning
defense against, 113 (ASP), 34, 159–160
effects on nontarget organisms, diarrhetic shellfish poisoning
109–110 (DSP), 158–159
endocrine disruptors, 110–112 marine toxin, 161–162
metabolism of, 147 mercury (Hg), 85–86
newer types, 105–107 neurotoxic shellfish poisoning
population-level effects, 112–113 (NSP), 159
regulation of, 108 paralytic shellfish poisoning
second-generation, 106, 110 (PSP), 34, 157–158
sources of, 102 Polak-Juszczak, Lucyna, 95
third-generation, 107–108 polar bears, 112, 167–168
trends in contamination from, polar regions, 166–167
114 pollutants. See also contaminants
Pfiesteria (“cell from hell”), 34–35 air-based, 7
pH, 173, 176, 181 contaminants of emerging
pharmaceuticals, 122–126 concern (CECs), xv–xvi,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 39 122–142
Philippines, 61 definition of, 4–5
phosphorus (P), 20, 71 effects of, 12–14
photosynthesis, 1–2, 90, 165, 167, land-based, 6–7
184 metal, 83–85
268 Index

pollutants (Cont.) polyvinyl chloride (PVC), 118

nutrients, 20 population, 93, 181, 198
persistent, xvi, 4, 9–11, 18, Black Sea, 194
78–79, 148, 233–235 breeding, 168
water-based, 8 coastal, 171
water distribution, 9–10 coral, 182
pollution, xv, 1–19. See also marine dog whelk snail, 91
debris fish, 3, 4, 208
agricultural sources, 21–22 grass, 35
from aquaculture, 8–9, 223–224 insect, 103
biological, 186–209 level effects, 112–113
effects on coral reefs, 28 of marine organisms, 12
effects on seagrasses, 27–28 Oyster, 40
global distribution of, 18–19 urban, 223
legacy, 18 population growth, human, 21,
light, 140–142 24–25, 31–32, 101, 163
major types of, 19 population-level effects, 13, 93,
marine, 16–18 112–113, 120
mercury, 150–152 predator/prey interactions
metal, 95 effects of climate change on,
microbial, 186–188 169–170
noise, 132–139 effects of ocean acidification
nonpoint sources, 6–7, 7f on, 178
organic chemical, 120 primary producers, 1–2
point sources, 6 primary production, 164
reducing, 210–235 Prince William Sound. See Exxon
regulating, 16–18, 210–235 Valdez oil spill
sensitivity to, 15–16 producers, 1–2
sources of, 5–6 Protocol Concerning Pollution
total maximum daily loads from Land-Based Sources
(TMDLs), 38 and Activities (Cartagena
toxic effects of, 12–14 Convention), 17
polybrominated diphenyl ethers Prozac (fluoxetine), 125
(PBDEs), 126–128, 128f Pseudo-nitzschia, 34, 159–160
polychlorinated biphenyls Pterois volitans (lionfish), 192–193,
(PCBs), 7, 10, 52, 110, 114–117, 193f, 206–208
115f public education
bioaccumulation of, 145 about marine debris, 58
in seafood, 120, 152–155 about pharmaceuticals and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons personal care products
(PAHs), 7, 52, 63–65, 64f (PPCPs), 126
effects on fish, 77–78 to prevent arrivals of new
metabolism of, 146–147 invasive species, 203
in seafood, 154–155 public policy
 Index 269

to curb effects of climate farm, 36–38

change, 225–226 stormwater, 38–39, 226–227
to prevent oil spills, 70 ways to reduce, 36–39, 226–228,
Puerto Rico, 208 231
pufferfish, 209 Russia, 211
Puget Sound, Washington, 54,
77–78, 162 safety issues
PVC. See polyvinyl chloride at beaches, 188–189
with contaminated seafood,
Rabalais, Nancy, 29–30 148–149
radioactivity, 139–140 sonar safety zones, 137
reactive oxygen species (ROS), salmon, 92–93
130 Salmonella typhi, 188
recycled plastic, 59–60 salt marshes, 30–31, 41, 183, 198
recycling, 59, 184–185 Sanders, Howard, 79
Red Sea, 46, 182 San Francisco, California, 59–60
regulation San Francisco Bay, 77, 189, 196,
of industrial organic chemicals, 201
132 Sargassum, 49–50, 73, 141
of pesticides, 108 SAV (submerged aquatic
of pollution, 16–18, 210–235 vegetation), 27–28
to reduce marine litter, The Sea Around Us (Carson), 3
58–61 seafood
rehabilitation of oiled birds and contaminated, 148–149,
sea otters, 80 152–155
Reiner, Jessica, 128–129 dioxins in, 120, 155–156
reproduction, 12, 13, 177 HAB toxins in, 157
direct impacts on, 112 invasive species as, 207–209
slow, 16 metal levels, 94–95
reproductive abnormalities, 104, PCBs in, 120
111–112 safety issues, 148–149
resistance, 9, 180 seagrasses, 27–28, 183
bacteria, 187 sea lettuce (Ulva), 26
disease, 27 sea level rise (SLR), 166,
halogenated compounds, 128 170–173
heat-resistance genes, 166 Sea Shepherd Conservation
individuals, 103 Society, 61–62
sea urchins, 180 sea skaters, 53
stability and, 43 sea squirt (Didemnum vexillum),
Risso’s dolphin, 50 198–199
Rotkin-Ellman, Miriam, 155 sea turtles, 54–55
Rozalia Project, 57 seaweeds (algae), 2–3. See also
Ruiz, Gregory, 190, 196 algae
runoff invasive, 199
270 Index

sediment(s), 5, 88 skin cancer, 64

AVS in, 88 sludge
contaminated, 9, 10, 121 activated, 23
high concentrations in, 64 biosolids, 24
hydrocarbons in reef, 76 from primary treatment, 24
marine, 52 sewage, 215
Newark Bay, 119 stabilized, 24
PAH concentration, 78 treated, 22
quality triad, 113 small algae (epiphytes),
sediment-dwelling 27–28
invertebrates, 75 smoltification, 92–93
soft, 204 snails, 90–91, 190
toxicity, 113 sonar, 133–134, 137
Wetland, 99 sonar safety zones, 137
selenium (Se), 84–85 soot, 65
sensitivity to pollution, 15–16 sound maps, 137–138
Sesarma reticulatum, 201–202 South Asia, 41
Seveso, Italy, 118 Southeast Pacific, 46
Sevin® (carbaryl), 110 Southern California Coastal
sewage, 21–22 Water Research Project, 124
combined sewer overflow Southern Ocean, 48, 174
(CSO), 6, 24–25, 39–40 South Pacific, 103–104
microbial pollution from, Spain, 199
186–187 Spartina alterniflora (Atlantic
sewage treatment plants, 22–24 cordgrass), 99–100, 200–201,
shallow water habitats, 197–198 205–207
shellfish, 157 sperm abnormalities, 111–112
shellfish pathogens, 162 sperm whales, 50
shellfish poisoning Spring Brook, 216
amnesic, 34, 159–160 state governments, 226–230
diarrhetic, 158–159 Stellwagen Bank National Marine
neurotoxic, 159 Sanctuary, 135
paralytic, 34, 157–158 Stony Brook University,
shells, 152 13–14
shipworms, 8 stormwater runoff, 38–39,
shorelines 226–228
actions to protect, 68 Strong, Donald, 201
effects of oil spills on, 74–75 Styrofoam, 57
managed coastal realignment, submerged aquatic vegetation
228 (SAV), 27–28
Sierra Club, 138–139 suburbs, 38–39
Silent Spring (Carson), 105 success stories, 221–223
silver. See nanosilver sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions,
skimming, 81 212–213
 Index 271

Superfund program, xvi, 85, of oil, 76–78

95–96, 119, 156, 216–217, 222 sediment toxicity tests, 113
surf scoters (Melanitta shellfish poisoning, 34,
perspicillata), 80 157–160
Switzerland, 61 ways to reduce, 229–230,
swordfish, 94–95 232–233
synthetic materials, persistent, Toxic Substances Control Act
17 (TSCA) (US), 132, 217–218
trash, 231–232
TCDD. 2,3,7, See “Trashed,” 58
8-tetrachlorodibenzo- tributyltin (TBT), 8, 15, 4, 87–88,
p-dioxin 217–218
technology endocrine disruption by,
geoengineering, 183–184 110–112
nanotechnology, 129–132 toxic effects of, 90–91
to reduce marine debris, 61–62 triclosan, 53, 122, 125
temephos (Abate®), 106, 110 trophic transfer, 3, 10–11, 86, 104,
teratogenesis, 110 112, 143–146, 200
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo- tumors, liver, 77–78
p-dioxin or TCDD, 118, tuna, 77, 94–95, 140
118f Turkey, 209
Thames River, 196–197, 208–209 12 Mile Dump Site, 215–216
Times Beach, Missouri, 118, 216
tolerance, 13 Ulva (sea lettuce), 26
cadmium, 14 Undaria pinnatifidia (Japanese kelp
degree of, 178 or wakame), 199
heat-tolerance, 182 underwater noise, 133–134
metal tolerant fungi and Unified Command, 73
bacteria, 98 Unilever, 58
microbes, 98 United Kingdom, 199, 228
of environmental stress, 189 United Nations Convention of
species, 113 the Territorial Sea and the
Toomey, Jim, 58 Contiguous Zone, 212
Toronto, Canada, 59–60, 228 United Nations Convention
total maximum daily loads on Biological Diversity,
(TMDLs), 18, 38, 214 184
toxicity, 11–14 United Nations Convention on
defense against, 113 the Law of the Sea (LOS or
field studies of, 14–15 UNCLOS), 17, 212–213
from harmful algal blooms United Nations Environment
(HABs), 157 Programme (UNEP), 46
measurement of, 14 United Nations Food and
metal, 89–94 Agriculture Organization
nanoecotoxicology, 131 (FAO), 168–169
272 Index

United States National Academy of Sciences

ballast water regulations, 203 (NAS), 74
Beaches Environmental National Marine Fisheries
Assessment and Coastal Service, 223
Health Act (BEACH), 59, National Oceanographic and
188–189 Atmospheric Administration
carbon dioxide emissions, 185 (NOAA), 59, 77–78, 114,
carbon emissions, 185 137–138, 154, 168, 177, 218–219
Clean Air Act, 217 National Pollutant Discharge
Clean Water Act (CWA), 6, Elimination System (NPDES),
17–18, 38–39, 213–215, 17–18, 23, 213–214
221–223 National Transportation Safety
clean water legislation, 213–218 Board (NTSB), 67–68
Coastal Zone Management Northeast Fisheries Science
Program, 218 Center, 168
Comprehensive Environmental Ocean Health Index, 210
Response, Compensation, Oil Spill Act, 82
and Liability Act of 1980 oil spills, 82
(CERCLA), 216–217 policy changes to prevent oil
Conservation Reserve spills, 70
Program, 36–37 recycling rate, 185
Endangered Species Act, 138, success stories, 221–223
218 Superfund program, xvi, 85,
Energy Information 95–96, 119, 156, 216–217, 222
Administration (EIA), 185 Toxic Substances Control Act
Environmental Protection (TSCA), 132, 217–218
Agency (EPA), 14, 17–18, 23, United States Coast Guard, 17, 70,
26, 38, 96, 117, 151–152, 203, 73, 203
214–218 United States Department of
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Agriculture (USDA), 36–37
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), United States Department of
12, 105, 108, 217–218 State, 218
Food and Drug Administration United States Department of the
(FDA), 95, 151–152 Interior, 138–139
International Convention for United States Navy, 133–134,
the Prevention of Pollution 137–139
from Ships (MARPOL), University of California, Davis,
212–213 65
and Law of the Sea (LOS), 212 upwelling, 164, 177, 181
Marine Mammal Protection
Act, 138 Vermont, 230
Marine Protection, Research, Vibrio cholerae, 188
and Sanctuaries Act Vibrio parahaemolyticus, 188
(MPRSA), 213, 215, 219 Vines, Carol, 65
 Index 273

violet tunicate (Botrylloides Whiskey Creek Shellfish

violaceus), 198–199 Hatchery, 177
vitellogenin, 112 Willapa Bay, 201
von Westernhagen, Haim, 146 wood preservatives, 5
The Vortex Project, 61–62 Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institute, 79
wakame (Undaria pinnatifidia), 199 World Resources Institute,
Wallace, William, 145 31–32
Washington, DC, 60 Wright, Stephanie, 53
Washington State, 55, 183, 190, 192
Water Framework Directive (EU), Yellow Sea, 196–197
220–221
Waterkeeper Alliance, 189 zinc (Zn), 83–84, 88, 90, 95, 144
water-soluble fraction (WSF), 63, Zoological Society of London, 61
76 zooplankton, 2, 166–167
whales, 135 zooxanthellae, 90, 144, 164–166