Environmental Impact Statement for Rehoboth Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant's ocean outfall project has major flaws
The Delaware Chapter of the Sierra Club has concerns pertaining to the Environmental Impact Statement for the City of Rehoboth Beach proposed ocean outfall. The Environmental Impact Statement recommends a plan for an ocean outfall for treated wastewater from the Rehoboth Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant as “the most technically feasible, cost effective and environmentally friendly alternative.” To accommodate a summer peak flow of 7.2 million gallons of wastewater per day, the plan considers a 6,000’ pipe of 24” diameter that would release effluent at a depth of 40’. To protect the dune area and surf zone, the construction is proposed to include 3,000’ of horizontal directional drilling, with open cut installation for the remainder of the pipe. While the EIS attempts to weight the strengths and weaknesses of the ocean outfall option in comparison to other wastewater treatment options, there are numerous shortcomings in the report, rendering it inadequate to understand the environmental impacts of the project.
Effluent composition and pharmaceutical contamination
The EIS describes the effluent from this project, including nutrients, pathogenic organisms and chemicals that include pharmaceuticals, metals, and toxins. Samples used in this EIS were collected by Envirocorps Labs on June 29-30, 2010, July 6-7, 2010 and July 13-14, 2010; by DNREC on November 18, 2010 and June 30, 2011; and earlier samples collected by DNREC in 1998 and 2006. Samples were tested for nutrients metals, volatile organic compounds, and pathogens. Water samples were not specifically tested for pharmaceutical compounds.
The EIS cites research (Kahn and Ongerth, 2005) that reports that wastewater treatment processes are able to remove various pharmaceutical agents from effluent, from 0% to 99%, depending on the particular compound. This referenced research, conducted by a team at the University of New South Wales, utilized data from seven sewage treatment plants in Australia, Germany and the United States, including samples collected from Bondi, New South Wales Australia on May 26, 1999, Castle Hill, Sydney Australia, December 2001, Berlin Germany in 2001, East Bay Municipalities District in California, and San Jose / Santa Clara, California in November 2001. None of the samples that informed the assessment in the EIS about the ability of wastewater treatment to remove pharmaceutical agents were from Delaware, or from the Rehoboth Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant. The specific characteristics of the seven tested wastewater treatment plants in the Kahn and Ongerth study were not compared to specific processes at the Rehoboth Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant, and the composition of untreated waste was also not compared.
The EIS is not able to make claims about the Rehoboth Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant’s ability to remove pharmaceuticals from effluent. There is no scientific basis for making claims about the environmental and health impact of pharmaceutical contamination from the Rehoboth Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant’s proposed ocean outfall in the EIS, and this assessment is not equipped to assess the impact of pharmaceutical contamination on the environment and public health.
Pharmaceutical contamination could have specific and detrimental impacts on the environment and public health. Peer-reviewed scientific research suggests that aquatic life experience significant harm by chronic exposure to pharmaceutical contamination, including disruptions in reproductive processes, embryo mortality, androgyny and intersex mutations, endocrine disruption, decreased density of fish, reduced ability of fish to endure stress, and disappearance of resident fish species (Barber et al., 2012; Galus et al., 2013; Ings, Servos and Vijayan, 2011; Sanchez et al., 2011; Zhou et al., 2009).
We therefore ask that the EIS be amended to include specific data collected and assessed for pharmaceutical agents and should be done in relation to the abilities and type of waste that the Rehoboth Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant will have. This should be compared to thresholds for environmental protection, particularly for the vitality and sustainability of aquatic life, as well as for bioaccumulation.
Impacts on Benthic Life
The EIS expects short-term impacts on benthic life from trenched portion of the outfall pipe due to dredging and backfill operations, and minor long-term impacts for life in the vicinity of the outfall. Justification for minimal long-term impacts in vicinity of the outfall are based upon one study of an ocean outfall in Southern California (Diener et al., 1995). This study found that “natural features, primarily water depth, accounted for 82% of the variability in the infaunal community, while discharge-related effects represented less than 8% of the variability.”
We challenge the appropriateness of the findings of this one study as providing justification for minimal impacts on benthic life at the Rehoboth Beach ocean outfall. The outfall assessed in the Diener et al. study was discharged at a depth of 183.7’, and was located 22,966’ from shore. In comparison to the Rehoboth Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant, this Diener et al. study offered justification for minimal impacts by examining a Pacific Ocean outfall pipe that was 359% deeper and 282% further out from shore from the proposed project in the EIS. Given the vast ecological differences between California’s offshore environment in comparison to Delaware, and the dramatic differences in the characteristics of the outfall pipe, extending claims of minimal environmental harm at one California project as evidence for minimal environmental harm in Delaware is inappropriate and misleading.
We ask that data on local impacts to benthic life be collected in the EIS, instead of relying upon this California example. The nearby South Bethany ocean outfall would provide a more appropriate site for the assessment of impacts on benthic life.
Impacts on Plankton
The EIS suggests that although construction of the trenched portion of the outfall pipe would increase turbidity, mortality of phytoplankton caused by construction would not be as great as natural morality rates under normal circumstances. For this point, the EIS references a report prepared for the U.S. Department of Interior which suggested that “naturally high densities of phytoplankton, zooplankton, and larval organisms found in coastal waters are not significantly impacted by dredging activities” (The Louis Berger Group Inc., 1999: 3-24). This report, in turn, referenced two studies for this claim that were conducted or the Town of Hilton Head Island (Van Dolah et al., 1992) and Folly Beach South Carolina (Van Dolah, 1994). These reports were not peer-reviewed, and neither considered the local impacts in the region of the Rehoboth Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant’s proposed ocean outfall. The EIS therefore has assumed the relevance of documentation for specific projects in different areas and extrapolated the results to processes that are occurring in a distant environment. This is an inappropriate use of scientific information that is misleading in the EIS.
We therefore ask the EIS to collect and consider locally-relevant impacts to plankton. Given that plankton is the foundation of the food web for numerous aquatic species, the impacts of this project on plankton are important to understand before any action is taken that would disrupt their habitat. The nearby South Bethany ocean outfall would provide a more appropriate site for the assessment of impacts on benthic life.
Impacts on Fish
The EIS reports minor short-term impacts on fish resulting from physical injury due to dredging or the disruption of food resources. Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat were assessed only for recreationally- and commercially-valuable species, and are described as having the potential to impact a small fraction of habitat area. Significant impacts are not expected in the EIS, as the fish that utilize this region are described as highly mobile and migratory.
However, the assessment process of dredging and backfilling in the EIS only takes a cursory approach to the impacts on fish and considers direct contact, habitat disruption and turbidity. The EIS fails to consider acoustic pollution has been demonstrated to cause significant impacts on fish and aquatic life (Parsons et al., 2009; Popper, 2005; Popper et al., 2005; Slabbekoorn et al., 2010; Weilgart, 2007), and fails to include the importance of specific habitats to the seasonal patterns of migratory species.
We ask that the EIS take a more comprehensive assessment of impacts on fish by incorporating non-commercial and recreational species in the analysis, and take the noise pollution of the project and the migratory habitat needs of fish into consideration in the assessment of environmental impacts.
Impacts on Endangered Species
The EIS predicts non-significant risks to Atlantic sturgeon including physical injury due to contact or disruption of food sources, as well as increases in turbidity. However, the EIS does not consider the migration routes of Atlantic sturgeon, and the probability of the dredging for the outfall pipe transecting their spawning migration route along the coast of Delaware.
Disruption of the sea floor and turbidity could have devastating impacts on Atlantic sturgeon. The fragile condition of Atlantic sturgeon has warranted their recent listing on the federal Endangered Species List in February 2012. As researchers at Delaware State University suggest, “because Atlantic sturgeon are anadromous and utilize a combination of river, estuary and ocean habitats, damage to any of the three can have detrimental effects” (Simpson and Fox, 2007: 7).
Every effort should be made to prevent the extinction of species due to human activities, including the sewage disposal needs of Rehoboth Beach. Because the EIS does not compare the migration path of Atlantic sturgeon to the location of the outfall pipe, the EIS’s assessment of risks posed to Atlantic sturgeon is incomplete. We suggest that the EIS utilize existing passive telemetry monitoring data (Breece, 2012; Savoy et al., 2012) and collect more data if necessary to provide an accurate assessment of how the outfall pipe would transect migration pathways of Atlantic sturgeon.
The EIS provides a table of Endangered Species in Delaware. However, the Endangered Species List is currently undergoing regulatory review, and DNREC held a public hearing on February 6, 2013 on changes to the Endangered Species Regulations that would add several new fish, marine mammals, and reptiles onto the Endangered Species List in Delaware. This list of species should be reviewed for impacts by the project in the EIS.
Impacts on Marine Mammals
The EIS reports marine mammal species observed in the vicinity of the outfall include harbor, gray, harp, and hooded seals; bottlenose dolphins; harbor porpoises; and humpback, fin, and right whales. Minor impacts are anticipated in the EIS, including construction in the winter months causing harm to dolphins and seals. Use of equipment that produces bursts of sound or pressure can impact the acoustic ability of marine mammals, and these impacts are not adequately considered in the EIS.
The following marine mammals are under consideration for the Endangered Species List in Delaware: Blue, Fin, Humpback, North Atlantic Right, Sei and Sperm. Preserving the coastal environment in Delaware is essential to the protection of endangered whale species.
While the EIS does provide some insight into a plan to minimize the impacts to some marine mammals based upon seasonal construction, a clear plan is not put forward in the EIS. We therefore ask for a proposed construction plan that would consider the impacts to wildlife that utilize this region for habitat, including fish, marine mammals and reptiles.
The proposed ocean outfall would release treated waste into the coastal zone, which is protected under Title 7 of the Delaware Code, the Coastal Zone Act, and is a nonconforming use according to its environmental impact. We ask that the Delaware Coastal Zone impacts and proposed offsets be included in the EIS, in addition to the need for a consistency determination for the Federal Coastal Zone. This analysis should include the indicators established by the Coastal Zone Environmental Indicators Technical Advisory Committee (1999). These indicators are:
Air Quality Indicators: ambient air quality, affected populations, accidental releases, and atmospheric deposition.
Water Quality Indicators: benthic community, contaminants/toxicity, ambient water quality, watershed pollutant load, affected populations, accidental releases, and non-point source nutrient mass balance.
Habitat/Land Cover Indicators: habitat Change and wetland inventory.
Living Resources Indicators: keystone species, biodiversity, and benthic community.
We understand that the alternatives presented in the Environmental Impact Statement have associated costs and environmental risks. However, the EIS as it is currently written has numerous flaws, an embedded bias, lacks relevant data, and extends claims beyond the scope of cited research. These shortcomings call the integrity of the EIS into question. That the EIS has come before the public in this condition is disappointing.
The EIS is unable to provide the necessary information needed to understand the environmental impacts of this project or to compare this project to other waste treatment options. Furthermore, the EIS is not equipped to recommend that the ocean outfall is “the most technically feasible, cost effective and environmentally friendly alternative.”
In order for the Department to make the soundest judgment on the environmental costs and benefits of each of the available options, we ask the EIS to be revised to include a comprehensive assessment of accurate and relevant scientific information, as we have recommended in this letter. DNREC should require that the errors in the document be corrected and that meaningful local data be collected before decisions on the project are made. The nearby South Bethany Outfall would provide a local example that could assist in bolstering the EIS. To restore trust in this process, we also ask that the revised EIS be peer-reviewed to provide assurance to the public that it is a scientifically rigorous and objective document.
Barber, Larry B., Alan M. Vajda, Chris Douville, David O. Norris, and Jeffery H. Writer. 2012. "Fish Endocrine Disruption Responses to a Major Wastewater Treatment Facility Upgrade." Environmental Science & Technology 46, no. 4: 2121-2131.
Breece, Matthew. 2012. Migratory Behavior and Riverine Distribution of Spawning Atlantic Sturgeon in the New York Bight. Dover: Delaware State University.
Coastal Zone Environmental Indicators Technical Advisory Committee. 1999. Environmental Goals and Indicators for Delaware's Coastal Zone. Dover: Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.
Diener, D. R., S. C. Fuller, A. Lissner, C. I. Haydock, D. Maurer, G. Robertson, and T. Gerlinger. 1995. "Spatial and temporal patterns of the infaunal community near a major ocean outfall in Southern California." Marine Pollution Bulletin 30, no. 12: 861-878.
Galus, Michal, Judy Jeyaranjaan, Emily Smith, Hongxia Li, Chris Metcalfe, and Joanna Y. Wilson. 2013. "Chronic effects of exposure to a pharmaceutical mixture and municipal wastewater in zebrafish." Aquatic Toxicology.
Ings, Jennifer S., Mark R. Servos, and Mathilakath M. Vijayan. 2011. "Exposure to municipal wastewater effluent impacts stress performance in rainbow trout." Aquatic Toxicology 103, no. 1-2: 85-91.
Kahn, S. and J. Ongerth. 2005. Occurrence and Distribution of Pharmaceutical Residuals in Bay Sewage and Sewage Treatment. Final Report for Bay Area Clean Water Agency. . University of New South Wales.
Parsons, E. C. M., S. J. Dolman, M. Jasny, N. A. Rose, M. P. Simmonds, and A. J. Wright. 2009. "A critique of the UK's JNCC seismic survey guidelines for minimizing acoustic disturbance to marine mammals: Best practice?" Marine Pollution Bulletin 58, no. 5: 643-651.
Popper, Arthur. 2005. A Review of Hearing in Sturgeon and Lamprey. Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Popper, Arthur, Michael E. Smith, Peter A. Cott, Bruce W. Hanna, Alexander O. MacGillivray, Melanie E. Austin, and David A. Mann. 2005. "Effects of exposure to seismic airgun use on hearing of three fish species." Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 117, no. 6: 3958-3971.
Sanchez, Wilfried, William Sremski, Benjamin Piccini, Olivier Palluel, Emmanuelle Maillot-MarÃ©chal, StÃ©phane Betoulle, Ali Jaffal, SÃ©lim AÃ¯t-AÃ¯ssa, FranÃ§ois Brion, Eric Thybaud, Nathalie Hinfray, and Jean-Marc Porcher. 2011. "Adverse effects in wild fish living downstream from pharmaceutical manufacture discharges." Environment International 37, no. 8: 1342-1348.
Savoy, Tom, Jeanette bowers-Altman, Heather Corbett, Matthew Oliver, John Madsen, Dewayne Fox, and Matthew Fisher. 2012. Semi-Annual Progress Report: Sturgeons in the Mid-Atlantic Region: A Multi-State Collaboration of Research and Conservation. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Simpson, Philip C. and Dewayne A. Fox. 2007. Atlantic sturgeon in the Delaware River: contemporary population status and identification of spawning areas Completion Report: Award NA05NMF4051093. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Slabbekoorn, Hans, Niels bouton, Ilse van Opzeeland, Aukje Coers, Carel ten Cate, and Arthur N Popper. 2010. "A noisy spring: the impact of globally rising underwater sound levels on fish." Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25, no. 7: 419-427.
The Louis Berger Group Inc. 1999. Environmental Report: Use of Federal Offshore Sand Resources for Beach and Coastal Restoration in New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, and Virginia. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Interior Minerals Management Service.
Van Dolah, Robert F. 1994. Environmental Evaluation of the Folly Beach Nourishment Project: Final Report. Marine Resources Division, South Carolina Department of Natural Resources.
Van Dolah, Robert F., Priscilla H. Wendt, Robert M. Martore, Martin V. Levisen, and William A. Roumillat. 1992. Final Report for A Physical and Biological Monitoring Study of the Hilton Head Beach Nourishment Project. Charleston, SC: Marine Resource Research Institute.
Weilgart, L. S. 2007. "The impacts of anthropogenic ocean noise on cetaceans and implications for management." Canadian Journal of Zoology-Revue Canadienne De Zoologie 85, no. 11: 1091-1116.
Zhou, J. L., Z. L. Zhang, E. Banks, D. Grover, and J. Q. Jiang. 2009. "Pharmaceutical residues in wastewater treatment works effluents and their impact on receiving river water." Journal of Hazardous Materials 166, no. 2-3: 655-661.