NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS NE 167
Assessment and Characterization
of Salt Marshes
in the Arthur Kill
(New York and New Jersey)
Replanted after a Severe Oil Spill
by
David B. Packer, Editor
National Marine Fisheries Serv., 74 Magruder Rd., Highlands, NJ 07732
Print
publication date December 2001;
web version posted June 24, 2004
Citation: Packer DB, editor. 2001. Assessment and characterization of salt marshes in the Arthur Kill (New York and New Jersey) replanted after a severe oil spill. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS NE 167; 218 p.
Download complete PDF/print version
Preface
For
further information on the oil spill in the Arthur Kill, as well as pictures
of the marsh sites and plantings, see the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Damage Assessment
and Restoration Program (DARP), Exxon
Bayway Wetland Acquisition and Restoration webpage (http://www.darp.noaa.gov/northeast/exxon/index.html).
DARP is a collaborative
effort among NOAA’s National Ocean Service, National Marine Fisheries
Service, and the Office of General
Counsel. DARP’s mission is to restore coastal and marine resources
that have been injured by releases of oil or hazardous
substances and to obtain compensation for the public’s lost use
and enjoyment of these resources.
Abstract
On January 1 and 2, 1990, a 576,000-gal oil spill seriously damaged the
salt marshes of the Arthur Kill, the strait separating Staten Island, New
York, from New Jersey. The New York City Salt Marsh Restoration Team (SMRT)
implemented a multiyear restoration and monitoring project to restore those
parts of the marshes directly impacted by the oil spill. Restoration activities
included successfully reintroducing Arthur-Kill-propagated saltmarsh
cordgrass, Spartina alterniflora, and monitoring several parameters both
in oiled marshes that were replanted and in oiled marshes that were left for
natural recovery. Those parameters included: peak standing biomass, stem and
flower density, and height of S. alterniflora; sediment total petroleum
hydrocarbons (TPH); density of ribbed-mussels
(Geukensia demissa); fish abundance and
diversity; and wading bird (i.e., egret) foraging success.
Results of the monitoring suggest that the replanting of S. alterniflora was
very important for recovery and restoration of the saltmarsh ecosystem.
This replanting of S. alterniflora provides much of the structural
component of the marsh; restoring this component to levels found elsewhere
in the Arthur Kill is important to the other members of the food web,
such as the mussels, mummichogs, and birds. It is particularly significant
in an urbanized landscape, where habitats are few and isolated.
However, questions remain as to the ecological viability and functional
equivalency of these marshes. The problem is compounded because not only
was almost every low marsh within the Arthur Kill affected to some extent
by the 1990 spill, but this estuary is heavily urbanized and degraded;
its marshes are continuously impacted by contaminants and other anthropogenic
influences. In 1996 and 1997, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
sought to supplement the SMRT monitoring efforts via a preliminary characterization
and assessment of marshes that were oiled and replanted, marshes that
were oiled but not planted, and nearby pre-existing S. alterniflora reference
marshes, with a view toward noting any differences among the marshes,
especially those that might be attributable to the replanting efforts.
The measured parameters include trace metal and hydrocarbon contaminants
in ribbed-mussels and sediments, sediment biogeochemistry, age and growth
of ribbed-mussels, macrobenthic distribution and abundance, and diets
of the mummichog (Fundulus heteroclitus). Sampling occurred in
fall 1996 and spring-summer 1997.
Results of the NMFS study are less clear than those of the previous
SMRT monitoring effort with regard to the benefits of replanting, or
even to the differences among sites. Trace metal concentrations in the
sediments at each marsh were site specific and more dependent upon the
general characteristics of the sediment, such as the percentage of fine-grained
sediments and iron content, than upon whether or not the marsh was replanted.
Compared to concentrations from a reference marsh outside the Arthur
Kill, metal concentrations in sediments from the entire Arthur Kill were
elevated. There were no consistent differences in metal concentrations
in mussels collected from replanted and unplanted marshes, while concentrations
of many metals in mussels from two of three reference marshes were significantly
lower. However, as with the metal concentrations in the sediments, replanting
may not have had a great effect on the levels of trace metals in the
mussels.
The TPH concentrations in surface sediments from the southernmost reference
marsh were numerically the lowest, those from the northernmost oiled
and replanted marsh were intermediate, and those from one oiled but unplanted
barren marsh were the highest; residual oil is still evident in sediments
at this latter marsh. The lower levels of oil at the reference and replanted
marshes may be due to oxidation and weathering of the oil, perhaps caused
by the physical disturbance of planting and by the mineralization of
oil by microbes around the roots of S. alterniflora. The TPH concentrations
in mussels from all marshes were low, were not significantly different,
and showed no temporal trend; thus, replanting efforts do not appear
to have affected the levels of TPH in the mussels.
For biogeochemistry, the spatio-temporal patterns of porewater redox
potential, soluble sulfide, and total organic carbon in the marsh sediments
showed statistically significant differences with depth and season. However,
these differences were not meaningful for assessment of replanting success
because they appeared to owe more to the peculiarities of individual
sampling stations within each of the marshes than to replanting status.
Quantitative differences among station data within each marsh were so
large, and distributions of values at those stations were so skewed,
as to render differences uninterpretable in terms of replanting. No patterns
characteristic of replanted, unplanted, or reference marshes were identified,
nor were characteristic differences among sites fitting these treatment
categories evident. The biogeochemistry appears to be mediated by factors
not clearly related to replanting. The marshes were heterogeneous with
respect to these factors, confounding efforts to identify replanting-specific
effects. Among those confounding factors were differences in grain size
distribution, surface and subsurface hydrology, macrobiotic activity,
and anthropogenic influences.
Ribbed-mussels from the replanted sites were younger, smaller, weighed
less, and grew slower than mussels from the southernmost Arthur Kill
reference site. The older, larger mussels collected at the reference
marsh represent cumulative growth processes over many generations at
a mature and relatively undisturbed marsh that was minimally affected
by the oil spill. The younger, smaller mussels collected at the replanted
sites most likely reflect growth processes since replanting. Although
the chronic effect of oil from the spill and the disturbance caused by
the replanting process may have affected growth rates at the replanted
sites, other natural and anthropogenic site-specific factors may also
have been responsible.
The invertebrate taxa found within the sediments of the Arthur Kill
marshes appear to be similar to invertebrate taxa found in S. alterniflora marshes
elsewhere. Abundances of most taxa were highest in the spring. Although
there may be similarities in invertebrate abundances between the replanted
and reference marshes, quantitative evaluation was confounded due to
the low number of replanted and reference sites sampled and to the high
variability in the data, which is typical of benthic surveys.
The high percentages of detritus and algae, as opposed to live prey,
in the mummichog stomachs may indicate a poor diet in a polluted environment,
as suggested by previous studies. The mummichog diets may or may not
have been site specific. A more thorough investigation would be necessary
to discern such patterns in the data, as has been demonstrated for several
of our other investigations.
In conclusion, although replanting of the oil-damaged Arthur Kill marshes
by SMRT may have successfully "restored" them, at least structurally,
to the level of the existing marshes found within the Arthur Kill, because
this is an urban estuary, the extent to which the ecological functions
of these marshes have been restored is more difficult to ascertain due
to confounding factors such as pollution and other anthropogenic impacts.
Also, the time span of the NMFS studies may have been too short and the
number of treatment sites chosen may have been too small to accurately
assess the performance of the replanted marshes, especially given the
many scales of natural spatial and temporal variability and anthropogenic
perturbations inherent in this ecosystem. Nevertheless, SMRT continues
to replant and monitor these marshes where necessary, insuring that this
vital habitat is protected from further loss and degradation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
NMFS funding was provided by the NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation/Restoration
Center. The authors would particularly like to express their appreciation
to New York City's Salt Marsh Restoration Team: Carl Alderson,
Andrew Bergen, Robbin Bergfors, and others from that office who helped us with
the study and allowed us access to
their restoration sites.
We thank Beth Leimburg and others for help in the field with sampling
of ribbed-mussels during the age, growth, and allometric relationships
phase of this study. We greatly appreciate the work of Vickie Bejda and
her students in the Advanced Biology Class at Ocean Township High School,
Ocean Township, New Jersey, for doing the weight and length measurements
and compiling those data. We also thank Bob Reid and Anthony Paulson
for helpful comments on earlier drafts of the chapter on age, growth,
and allometric relationships of ribbed-mussels.
We thank Andrew Draxler for help with sampling the benthic invertebrates,
and Fred Triolo for sorting most of those samples.
Acronyms
AAS = atomic absorption spectrophotometry
ANOVA = analysis of variance
BOD = biological oxygen demand
CPI = carbon preference index
DARP = (NOAA) Damage Assessment and Restoration
Program
DDI = double de-ionized
DIW = de-ionized water
FID = flame ionization detection (detector)
GC = gas chromatography (chromatogram)
GC-FID = gas chromatography - flame
ionization detection
GC/MS = gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
HDPE = high-density polyethylene
HP = Hewlett-Packard
LC = labile carbon
MDL = method detection limit
MS = mass spectrometry
nd = not detected
NIST = (U.S. Department of Commerce) National Institute
of Standards and Technology
NJDEP = New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection
NMFS = (U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA) National Marine
Fisheries Service
NRC = National Research Council
NYCDEP = New York City Department of Environmental
Protection
OC = organic carbon
PAH = polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon
PCA = principal component analysis
PD = percent difference
QA = quality assurance
RPD = relative percentage difference
RSD = relative standard deviation
SMRT = (New York City Department of
Parks and Recreation) Salt Marsh Restoration Team
SRM = standard reference
material
TIPH = total of individual petroleum hydrocarbons
TOC = total organic
carbon
TPH = total petroleum hydrocarbons
WI = weathering index
