Output 1 Pollution Source Survey and Assessment of the Farm River Watershed in East Haven and Branford, Connecticut. 2012 Lauren Brooks1, Lori Romrick2, *Michael A. Pascucilla2 1Yale University, 2East Shore District Health Department *Correspondence to mpascucilla@esdhd.org Completed October 2012 Funding provided by the Connecticut Department of Agriculture Farm Viability Grant Competing interests for research and grant funding All other authors declare no competing interests. All authors declare that there is no conflict of interest with this research report, grant funding and its publication. 1 The CT Agriculture Viability Grant “Project Scope of Work” Summary: Part I: Pollution Source Survey and Assessment of the Farm River Watershed in East Haven and Branford, CT Water quality monitoring was conducted in both the Lower Farm River in Branford and East Haven as well at Cosey Beach in East Haven. Sampling was expanded to a total of 11 sites. Water samples were collected from the sites approximately once a week since April of 2011 through August of 2012, with sampling scheduled at low tide and after rainfall when possible. Collected samples were analyzed for both colony forming units of traditional fecal coliform indicator bacteria as well as genetic analysis of Bacteroides to distinguish between human and non-human sources of bacteria. Samples at public bathing beaches were analyzed for Enterococci indicator bacteria. Sanitary surveys have been conducted throughout the area to identify potential sources of bacteria entering the Farm River or Long Island Sound. The fecal coliform samples were analyzed for National Shellfish Sanitation Program criteria to reclassify a section of East Haven. As a result of this analysis, we have found one area of interest which has consistently experienced elevated levels of bacteria, leading to additional sites added to the area, as well as pollution source surveys of the area including sampling of catch basins draining to the Farm River. A pollution source study was conducted beginning in 2011. Approximately 377 homes were surveyed (80 in Branford and 297 in East Haven) with and GPS locations plotted, and records made for those properties requiring additional follow-up action. There were approximately 301 homes connected to the public sewers, three homes with holding tanks, and 48 with septic systems. There is a total of approximately 80 properties in need of follow-up surveillance or verification of connection to the public sewers. Approximately 201 catch basins were plotted using GPS and visually inspected for flowing water, odors, foam, discoloration and/or sheen with approximately two requiring follow-up investigation. An inventory was completed of all locations surveyed and actual and potential pollution sources were noted. (See attached.) Locations were marked on area maps utilizing ArcMap GIS mapping program. A total of 207 samples were collected from the Farm River area sites over 34 collection dates. A total of 127 samples were analyzed by PCR for Bacteroides and human marker. There were 65 samples found with human specific marker. (See Table page 16.) These samples indicated that sewage is entering the tributaries and LIS where both swimming and shellfishing are occurring. Water parameters such as temperature and salinity were measured and recorded. Sample results were analyzed for trends using tides and rainfall amount to correlate elevated results. The PCR analyses method was significantly modified and refined. This methodology will be submitted to the EPA for evaluation as a new “approved method.” 2 Part 1: Pollution Source Survey and Assessment of the Farm River watershed in the towns of East Haven and Branford, CT: Introduction Like many shellfish beds along the Connecticut coast, the proposed recreational shellfishing area at Cosey Beach, East Haven and the “Prohibited” area in Short Beach, Branford experience bacteria loading from a variety of sources. Many of the sources of bacteria are non-point sources, originating from a combination of sources rather than a single, identifiable point. These non-point sources of pollution can range from a variety of diffuse sources, including but not limited to urban and agricultural runoff, leaking septic tanks, improper boat waste disposal, pet waste, and wildlife. The nature of non-point sources makes identification, and thus remediation, extremely challenging. Both Cosey Beach and Short Beach are located near the outflow of the Farm River and are impacted by pollution loading from the river. The Farm River flows approximately 16 miles, primarily through the towns of North Branford, Branford, and East Haven with a watershed area of approximately 26 square miles. The river flows through a variety of land cover types, including forested, agricultural and urban designations (University of Connecticut Center for Land Use Education and Research – UCONN CLEAR). The Farm River also contains a variety of coastal habitats, including a tidal estuary, part of which has been designated as the Farm River State Park. In addition to impacting recreational shellfishing areas, the lower portion of the Farm River has many natural seed beds for both oysters and clams. Also, many privately leased beds are within or impacted by the Farm River. This abundant natural resource is currently classified as “Restricted” or “Prohibited” by the CT Department of Figure 1 Farm River and the Farm River Watershed Agriculture Bureau of Aquaculture (DA/BA) due to elevated fecal bacteria levels in the river. This study has been conducted with the following objectives: 1) to identify sources of pollution in the Lower Farm River (below the outlet of Lake Saltonstall) and Cosey Beach, 2) to establish monitoring stations at these locations to determine conditions in which bacteria levels are 3 elevated 3) collect data that can be used to develop a watershed management plan to address issues uncovered during this project. All of these individual objectives are to be used ultimately to improve the water quality in the Farm River as well as in Cosey Beach. Following improvements in the water quality of these areas, it may be possible to upgrade the areas from their current “Prohibited” or “Restricted” classifications to an “Approved” or “Conditionally Approved” status. Methods Site Description Cosey Beach The proposed recreational shellfishing area is located at Cosey Beach in East Haven. The area being considered for opening is about half a mile long, and is centered around the East Haven Town Beach, a public beach open to all for recreation activities including swimming. The beach is surrounded by residences including condominium complexes as well as single-family houses and is also in close proximity to several restaurants and a small recreation area including a baseball park. Farm River The Farm River, also known as the East Haven River, runs from Wallingford to Long Island Sound. For the purposes of this study, the Lower Farm River Watershed is considered to be the area south of Lake Saltonstall, a drinking water reservoir managed by the Regional Water Authority (RWA website). The river is a tidal estuary, containing a state park as well as other attractions including the Shoreline Trolley Museum. Historically, the watershed has been home to many farms, however, much of the land has since been converted to residential and commercial properties (Friends of the Farm River Estuary (FFRE) and UCONN CLEAR). The river separates the Figure 2 Map showing highlights of the Farm River Estuary (from towns of East Haven and Branford, and Friends of the Farm River Estuary) drains into Long Island Sound at Kelsey Island, immediately East of Cosey Beach (See Figure 2). 4 Catch Basin and Sanitary Surveys To determine potential sources of bacterial loading into the Farm River and Cosey Beach, sanitary surveys were conducted in the Lower Farm River Watershed and Cosey Beach, with a focus on the areas located within a close proximity of the areas of interest, highlighted in green (Figure 3). These preliminary surveys were conducted in addition to water sampling to provide supplemental information regarding all potential sources of bacteria within the watershed. Primarily, the focus of the surveys was to detect any failing septic tanks within the area of interest, although other relevant features were also noted. The highlighted areas were examined using a mixture of field inspections and record review. Using information available from the East Shore District Health Department (ESDHD), a list of addresses which were not on record as being connected to the sewer Figure 3 Streets targeted for catch basin mapping and sewer verification and was compiled. From this list, houses inspection. classified as unverified or not connected were visually inspected for notable signs of septic failure and records were updated as warranted by the inspection. Using a handheld global positioning system (GPS) unit, all storm drains within the highlighted area have been marked and visually inspected. The marked locations have been used to generate an electronic map showing all catch basins in the area to readily identify potential sources of bacteria loading in the future. Additionally, all identified catch basins have been examined at least once during the study for suspicious activity and unusual odors. Several catch basins have been sampled for fecal coliforms as described below. Two catch basins were sampled repeatedly as part of the general sampling conducted for the DA/BA at the Cosey Beach site. 5 Water Sampling East Haven Town Beach In 2010, sampling stations were established by the DA/BA for monitoring of the proposed recreational shellfishing area at East Haven Town Beach (Figure 4). The area consisted of nine sampling locations along the shore, including two stormwater drains, and one sample site accessible only by boat. Included in this sample area are those sites considered to be part of the proposed recreational area (2.2, 2.3, and 2.8) as well as samples in the surrounding areas. Figure 4 From Bureau of Aquaculture, map of proposed recreational area and sampling locations. Samples have been collected at ebb and low tides as recommended by the DA/BA, with a focus on collection following rainfall events. Rainfall was recorded at the Branford Wastewater Pollution Control Facility. Samples were collected at depths of approximately 12 inches from the river stations and <12 inches from the storm drains and pipes. In 2012, sampling was limited to only those sites within the proposed area. As seen in Chart 1, samples have been collected for nearly two years at this site, with higher sampling frequency taking place during the summer seasons. An additional gap in sampling collection between September and November 2011 was due to damage caused by Tropical Storm Irene. 6 Chart 1: Samples Collected at East Haven Town Beach 11/18/2010 2/26/2011 6/6/2011 9/14/2011 12/23/2011 4/1/2012 7/10/2012 Lower Farm River Sampling stations in the Lower Farm River Watershed were created in March 2011 and have been sampled repeatedly as indicated by Figure 6. Samples are collected usually at ebb tide, at least one hour past high tide, and sampling events have been focused on capturing information inclusive of all times and weather conditions, although sampling was more intense in the summer season when higher counts were anticipated. Original sampling stations were chosen to represent locations spread throughout the lower river, without introducing redundancies. The Figure 5 Farm River Sampling locations original six sampling stations (FR1-FR6, Figure 5) were expanded to include a seventh station immediately below Lake Saltonstall (FR0), in order to capture the water quality levels as they leave Lake Saltonstall. At the end of the summer sampling season, sampling stations were modified to include two new sample sites (FR8 and FR9), while also discontinuing samples at three of the original sites as the sites were spaced close to one another (FR3, FR5 and FR6) and results from these locations did not differ significantly. 7 Chart 2: Samples collected from Farm River 2/26/11 6/6/11 9/14/11 12/23/11 4/1/12 7/10/12 Fecal Coliform Monitoring Water samples collected for the purpose of fecal coliform testing were collected in sterilized bottles provided by the DA/BA. Following Bureau of Aquaculture protocols, water samples were collected and transported on ice to the DA/BA laboratory in Milford, Connecticut. At the time of collection, a temperature control was also collected to verify the appropriate handling of the samples. Samples were brought to the DA/BA lab and processed within 24 hours of collection following DA/BA protocols for the membrane filtration method reporting results in colony forming units (CFUs). Bacteroides Sampling In addition to monitoring for fecal coliform levels, water samples were also collected from the Farm River to be analyzed for host specific Bacteroides markers. These are markers which have been shown to be present only in Bacteroides from human sources, and are therefore able to indicate whether or not human sources of bacteria are loading into the sample site. These samples were collected at the same time as the fecal coliform samples, and at least one sample per month was collected for host specific analysis. Samples were collected in sterile one-liter bottles and stored on ice until brought to the DNA Analysis Facility at Yale University. Samples were stored at 4°C for no more than 6 hours prior to filtration. Subsamples of 250 milliliters were filtered through 20µm pore sized cellulose filters to collect the bacteria. DNA was extracted directly from the filters using the MoBio Power Water DNA Isolation Kit. Extracted DNA was diluted 1:5 to reduce inhibitors and analyzed for the presence of a human specific host marker using the HF183 (5’ATCATGAGTTCACATGTCCG3’)/265R (5’TACCCCGCCTACTATCTAATG3’) primer pair in 25 µl reactions following SYBR Green Chemistry recommendations. Thermal cycling program consisted of 2 minutes at 94C, followed by 40 cycles of 15 seconds at 94C, 32 seconds at 60C and all analyses were conducted on an ABI 7500 Fast Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) Machine. All samples were run in triplicate on the machine, and a sample was considered “positive” for the human specific marker if all three replicates amplified. Specificity of the amplicon was evaluated by comparing the melting temperature to that of a known positive control. Additionally, a general (not 8 specific to human hosts) Bacteroides marker was tested for in a similar way with the exception that TaqMan chemistry was used for the detection of the general Bacteroides marker. YSI Probe In addition to the bacteria monitoring, a Yellow Springs Instruments (YSI) Quatro Professional Plus probe capable of measuring temperature, pH, salinity, and dissolved oxygen (DO) was used to monitor the water quality in the Farm River. The probe was received in the fall, after the summer sampling season and was only used in 2012. The probe was calibrated on a regular basis, for pH and DO following the manufacturer’s instructions. Regression Modeling Multiple Linear Regression models were developed using the R statistical package. All sample sites were analyzed to determine factors that are most correlated with elevated bacteria counts and models were constructed. Factors considered included: rainfall (on Days 0-3 before sampling as well as total), month collected, time of collection, time before low tide, and high and low air temperatures for the day of sampling. These additional analyses can show interactions between potential factors that are missed using single factor comparisons. Results and Discussion Sanitary Survey and Catch Basins Using the information at the ESDHD regarding connections to the public sewer lines, houses that were not listed as “connected” were visually inspected and if possible, connection was verified. All houses that were not listed as connected were then visually inspected for any obvious signs of septic failure or discharge. All locations were mapped by address producing the map shown below (figure 6). The houses highlighted in Figure 6 were either not connected to the sewers or were located in positions that are likely to impact the water quality if the current systems were to fail. While there were no failures at this time, these sites could cause future concerns if appropriate maintenance fails. Figure 6. Houses not connected to sewers 9 All catch basins with potential to impact the study areas were marked using the GPS unit to generate the map pictured in Figure 7. This map was previously unavailable in electronic form and will be helpful in the future if any problems arise. However, during this study, no abnormal discharges or high counts were observed, with one exception described below. Figure 7 Catch Basins within the study area. Site 2.1D at Cosey Beach Avenue 10 2.1D is a catch basin on Cosey Beach Avenue that drains directly to Long Island Sound just east of the proposed recreational shellfish area. This site was monitored by the Bureau of Aquaculture as site 2.1D for nearly two years. During this monitoring period, elevated levels of bacteria occurred on multiple events. Additionally, neighbor complaints were reported on both the color and smell of the water in the catch basin; however, upon inspection no problems were observed. All source tracking investigations in this area were unsuccessful at locating a source, as the elevated bacteria levels appeared to be intermittent and not correlated with common factor such as rainfall (Chart 3). This lack of correlation suggests other sporadic sources, in addition to usual nonpoint runoff. Chart 3 Site 2.1D CFU with Rainfall 8000 y = 221.2x + 674.74 R² = 0.0094 6000 4000 2.1D 2000 Linear (2.1D) 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Rainfall (inches) In spite of these high levels and the close proximity to the proposed recreational area, these high counts did not seem to impact the bacterial levels at the proposed bed as there was no correlation between high levels of bacteria within the drain and elevated counts at the proposed bed. However, if counts are consistently elevated, this location should be remembered as a potential source. Water Sampling Cosey Beach After nearly two years of sampling the East Haven Town Beach, the DA/BA decided to limit the sampling sites to those being considered for the potential recreational area. The repeated sampling has consistently shown that the area has potential to be conditionally approved with a 0.5 or 1.0 inch rainfall required to trigger the closing of the area. Monitoring of areas outside of the potential area is to be discontinued and only samples collected at those three sites will be continued. 11 Fecal coliform (CFU/100ml) In depth analysis of the data is ongoing by the DA/BA; however, a brief analysis will be presented here. In general, the data suggest that overall, the area has a general trend of low fecal coliform counts, with the majority of sample results below the cutoff set by the National Shellfish Sanitation Program at 14 CFU/100 ml (shown in red in Chart 4). However, as seen in Chart 4, not all the sample values are below this threshold. Chart 4: Cosey Beach Proposed Recreational Shellfish Bed Water Sample Results 160 140 120 100 044-2.2 80 044-2.3 60 40 044-2.8 20 Cutoff (14 CFU) 0 1/22/10 8/10/10 2/26/11 9/14/11 4/1/12 10/18/12 Date of Sample Collection Inspecting the sites based on rainfall shows that bacteria levels at each of these sites is correlated with rainfall. This correlation with rainfall allows the potential for a conditional recreational bed, with a closing trigger to be determined by future water and meat sampling, but likely to be set at either 0.5 inch or 1 inches of rainfall. 12 Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100ml) Chart 5: Cosey Beach Proposed Recreational Shellfish Bed Water Sample Results Within Three Days After Rain 160 140 120 100 044-2.2 80 044-2.3 60 044-2.8 40 Cutoff (14 CFU) 20 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Rainfall (inches) YSI Monitoring Month Salinity Temperature DO The YSI probe was used to track water (ppt) (Celsius) (%) quality parameters other than bacteria January 25 4.1 (39.4 F) 127 March 25 4.8 (40.6 F) 129 levels. Water from Cosey Beach was April 24 10.5 (50.9 F) 128 analyzed with the probe once per month in May 25 15.6 (60.1 F) 121 2012 for the parameters shown on the left. June 26 22.2 (72.0 F) 109 All measurements are within normal and expected bounds for the area. Readings were recorded at depths of <12 inches. The probe will continue to be used for measuring parameters for meat collection at the proposed recreational shellfish area as required by the Bureau of Aquaculture. 13 Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100ml) Lower Farm River Fecal coliform monitoring in the Lower Farm River has revealed several trends in the Farm River. Most notable in these results is the consistent spiking in the fecal coliform counts seen at Site #2. Bacteria levels at this site are consistently elevated relative to the other sites under both dry (Chart 6) and wet (Chart 7) conditions. While actual counts may be difficult to interpret from this graph, the general trend of increased fecal coliform counts at Site 2 is clearly shown. * Additionally, two wet weather dates in which counts exceeded 8,000 CFU at Site 2 were left out of this graphic as it altered the scale past a visible level. Chart 6: Fecal Coliform results for dry days (<0.5 inches rainfall on days 0-4) at all sites by date 3/22/11 1200 3/28/11 4/6/11 1000 4/27/11 5/5/11 800 5/11/11 6/1/11 600 6/8/11 6/15/11 400 6/22/11 6/28/11 200 7/7/11 7/21/11 0 7/28/11 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Site Number Chart 7: Fecal Coliform results for wet days (>0.5 inches rainfall on days 0-4) at all sites by date 3/2/11 3500 3/9/11 3000 3/14/11 2500 4/14/11 2000 5/26/11 1500 8/17/11 1000 12/1/11 500 4/26/12 0 5/10/12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Site Number 14 Fecal Coliforms (CFU/100ml) Fecal Coliform (CFU/100ml) Traditional survey work provided possible sources, but no definitive cause as catch basins surveyed in the area were not experiencing bacteria levels as high as those seen in the river and regions immediately up or downstream had lower coliform counts. Other potential sources in the region of Site 2 were noted during the survey work, including several houses in the area, the Shoreline Trolley Museum, and a nearby farm (birds), none of which appeared to be potential sources of bacteria due to distance from the water or lack of problems noted. Using Real-Time PCR to detect host specific markers, the presence of human specific fecal Bacteroides was detected at least once at each of the sites (with the exception of site 0 at the outflow of Lake Saltonstall), with Site 2 experiencing the most frequent detection at 91% (Table 1). Both Sites 1 and 2 experienced more frequent presence of human sources of bacteria relative to the downstream sampling locations. Additionally, these sites typically had the highest fecal coliform counts as well, suggesting that this area is negatively impacted by human sources of bacteria loading. However, it cannot be stated that other, non-human, sources are not also contributing to the bacteria loading in this area, and should still be considered in future investigations as well as any remediation attempts. (See Appendix 1.) PCR Analyses Detection Frequency Results Site Number Bacteroides Human Specific Number of Detection Bacteroides Samples Frequency Detection Frequency (% of samples) (% of samples) 0 100 0 4 1 100 82 23 2 100 91 23 3 100 45 11 4 100 27 23 5 100 27 11 6 100 45 11 8 100 36 11 9 100 22 11 Regression Modeling Multiple linear regression models were constructed for each site within the Farm River as well as the three sampling sites within the proposed shellfishing area. These models provide useful information about other parameters that are correlated with elevated bacteria levels, while they should not be used to predict bacteria counts. The models constructed for the sites at Cosey Beach showed a general trend of rainfall on Day 1 (one day before samples were collected) being the most significantly correlated with bacteria counts. Rainfall on Day 2 and Day 3 were also significant, as was total rainfall in days 0-4, as 15 was the month in which the sample was collected. No other parameters had significant correlation with the bacteria levels. Models for the Farm River sites varied greatly between sample sites, but all had rain on Day 1 as the most significant predictor. However, each site differed with respect to the relative significance of other parameters, but in general all models showed correlation between rainfall and bacteria levels. Conclusions As a result of this project, valuable water quality data has been collected in both the Farm River as well as at Cosey Beach. This new information provides a more in-depth examination, adding to the historical data collections to create a holistic picture of water quality in this study area. Additionally, valuable information about other aspects of the region has been gained, including electronic maps showing catch basins as well as houses not connected to the sewers, which will provide valuable resources should future issues arise. Water samples in the proposed recreational shellfishing area at Cosey Beach continue to be collected on days 0 through 4 after a 0.5 to 1.0 inch rainfall. Additionally, oyster and clam meat samples will be collected in the proposed area for bacterial analysis by the DA/BA. While collecting tissue samples, it will also be necessary to use the YSI probe to monitor water temperature and salinity at the time of collection, as these parameters are required by the Bureau of Aquaculture. With an adequate number of samples indicating the site has acceptable bacteria levels, there is potential to open the area for recreational shellfishing. Further investigations into the area surrounding Site #2 are also planned, as the location of the town sewer line has not been verified, but may be located nearby. The sewer line is thought to run under the Farm River at a location near Site #2, and could be one more possible source of the bacteria loading. If reasonably close, the sewer line will be tested to attempt to detect any potential leaks. If any leaks are detected, the necessary actions will be taken to ensure the sewer line is functioning properly. Additionally, the Lower Farm River Watershed was studied extensively for nearly 18 months, providing in depth information regarding the water quality within the estuary. Overall, the water flowing out of the Farm River did not have significantly elevated bacteria counts. While Site #2 did have consistently elevated bacteria counts, it is located above a marsh which acts as a filter. Sites below the marsh consistently had lower counts than those upstream, as well as fewer detections of the human specific marker. As a result of this filtration and possible dilution by other feeder streams, water entering Long Island Sound has significantly lower 16 bacteria counts than anticipated based on sampling upstream in the Farm River. While the bacteria levels in the river are still high enough to prohibit shellfishing activities in the river, they are likely not impacting the shellfish beds at the adjacent beaches. The ESDHD will continue to monitor and assess catch basins, pipes and homes with subsurface sewage disposal systems and holding tanks in the coming year(s). Survey locations summary: 201 catch basins inspected – 2 require follow-up sampling and investigation. 377 homes surveyed - 301 homes were connected to public sewers. 3 homes had holding tanks 48 homes had subsurface sewage disposal systems 80 locations require rechecks or some type of follow-up action. 17 Works Cited: 1. University of Connecticut, CLEAR Connecticut's changing landscape. Retrieved from http://clear.uconn.edu/projects/landscape/index.htm 2. Friends of the Farm River Estuary (FFRE). Retrieved from http://www.friendsoffarmriver.org/ 3. Gawler, A. H., J. E. Beecher, et al. (2007). "Validation of host-­­specific Bacteriodales 16S rRNA genes as markers to determine the origin of faecal pollution in Atlantic Rim countries of the European Union." Water Research (16): 3780-­­3784. 4. Seurinck, S., T. Defoirdt, et al. (2005). "Detection and quantification of the human-­­specific HF183 Bacteroides 16S rRNA genetic marker with real-­­time PCR for assessment of human faecal pollution in freshwater." Environmental Microbiology (2): 249-­­259. 5. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1983. Health Effects Criteria for Marine Recreational Waters. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC EPA-600/ 1-80-031. 50 pp. 10. Kreader, 6. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. Microbial Source Tracking Guide Document. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC EPA-600/R-05/064. 131 pp. 18 Appendix 1: Farm River Sites Raw Data The data below includes the Site Number, Date of sample collection, Rainfall on Days 0 through 3, Total Rainfall, CFU as reported by the Bureau of Aquaculture, and the presence or absence of both the general Bacteroides marker, as well as the Human Specific Marker (0 = no detection, 1 = detected, - - = not analyzed) Rain Rain Rain Rain Rain Total Fecal coliform Human Site Date Day 0 Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 inches CFU Bacteroides marker 1 3/2/2011 0 0 1.13 0.06 1.19 81 -- -- 2 3/2/2011 0 0 1.13 0.06 1.19 81 -- -- 3 3/2/2011 0 0 1.13 0.06 1.19 1 -- -- 4 3/2/2011 0 0 1.13 0.06 1.19 81 -- -- 5 3/2/2011 0 0 1.13 0.06 1.19 56 -- -- 6 3/2/2011 0 0 1.13 0.06 1.19 58 -- -- 1 3/9/2011 0 0 0.24 1.05 1.29 73 -- -- 2 3/9/2011 0 0 0.24 1.05 1.29 68 -- -- 3 3/9/2011 0 0 0.24 1.05 1.29 81 -- -- 4 3/9/2011 0 0 0.24 1.05 1.29 81 -- -- 5 3/9/2011 0 0 0.24 1.05 1.29 81 -- -- 6 3/9/2011 0 0 0.24 1.05 1.29 81 -- -- 1 3/14/2011 0 0 0 0.61 0.61 120 -- -- 2 3/14/2011 0 0 0 0.61 0.61 78 -- -- 3 3/14/2011 0 0 0 0.61 0.61 48 -- -- 4 3/14/2011 0 0 0 0.61 0.61 8 -- -- 5 3/14/2011 0 0 0 0.61 0.61 2 -- -- 6 3/14/2011 0 0 0 0.61 0.61 2 -- -- 1 3/22/2011 0 0.25 0 0 0.25 161 -- -- 2 3/22/2011 0 0.25 0 0 0.25 161 -- -- 3 3/22/2011 0 0.25 0 0 0.25 152 -- -- 4 3/22/2011 0 0.25 0 0 0.25 114 -- -- 5 3/22/2011 0 0.25 0 0 0.25 126 -- -- 6 3/22/2011 0 0.25 0 0 0.25 102 -- -- 1 3/28/2011 0 0 0 0 0 28 -- -- 2 3/28/2011 0 0 0 0 0 46 -- -- 3 3/28/2011 0 0 0 0 0 2 -- -- 4 3/28/2011 0 0 0 0 0 8 -- -- 5 3/28/2011 0 0 0 0 0 10 -- -- 6 3/28/2011 0 0 0 0 0 2 -- -- 1 4/6/2011 0.01 0.09 0.03 0 0.13 54 -- -- 2 4/6/2011 0.01 0.09 0.03 0 0.13 40 -- -- 3 4/6/2011 0.01 0.09 0.03 0 0.13 22 -- -- 4 4/6/2011 0.01 0.09 0.03 0 0.13 8 -- -- 5 4/6/2011 0.01 0.09 0.03 0 0.13 24 -- -- 19 6 4/6/2011 0.01 0.09 0.03 0 0.13 18 -- -- 1 4/14/2011 0.01 0.69 0.5 0 1.2 161 -- -- 2 4/14/2011 0.01 0.69 0.5 0 1.2 801 -- -- 3 4/14/2011 0.01 0.69 0.5 0 1.2 161 -- -- 4 4/14/2011 0.01 0.69 0.5 0 1.2 161 -- -- 5 4/14/2011 0.01 0.69 0.5 0 1.2 161 -- -- 6 4/14/2011 0.01 0.69 0.5 0 1.2 161 -- -- 1 4/27/2011 0 0 0 0.11 0.11 160 -- -- 2 4/27/2011 0 0 0 0.11 0.11 100 -- -- 3 4/27/2011 0 0 0 0.11 0.11 50 -- -- 4 4/27/2011 0 0 0 0.11 0.11 70 -- -- 5 4/27/2011 0 0 0 0.11 0.11 60 -- -- 6 4/27/2011 0 0 0 0.11 0.11 70 -- -- 1 5/5/2011 0 0.35 0 0 0.35 146 -- -- 2 5/5/2011 0 0.35 0 0 0.35 690 -- -- 3 5/5/2011 0 0.35 0 0 0.35 161 -- -- 4 5/5/2011 0 0.35 0 0 0.35 161 -- -- 5 5/5/2011 0 0.35 0 0 0.35 161 -- -- 6 5/5/2011 0 0.35 0 0 0.35 161 -- -- 1 5/11/2011 0 0 0 0 0 112 -- -- 2 5/11/2011 0 0 0 0 0 260 -- -- 3 5/11/2011 0 0 0 0 0 64 -- -- 4 5/11/2011 0 0 0 0 0 82 -- -- 5 5/11/2011 0 0 0 0 0 74 -- -- 6 5/11/2011 0 0 0 0 0 98 -- -- 1 5/19/2011 0.14 0.9 0.85 0.14 2.03 801 1 1 2 5/19/2011 0.14 0.9 0.85 0.14 2.03 8001 1 1 3 5/19/2011 0.14 0.9 0.85 0.14 2.03 801 1 1 4 5/19/2011 0.14 0.9 0.85 0.14 2.03 801 1 1 5 5/19/2011 0.14 0.9 0.85 0.14 2.03 801 1 1 6 5/19/2011 0.14 0.9 0.85 0.14 2.03 801 1 1 1 5/26/2011 0 0 0.41 0.24 0.65 240 1 0 2 5/26/2011 0 0 0.41 0.24 0.65 300 1 1 3 5/26/2011 0 0 0.41 0.24 0.65 210 1 1 4 5/26/2011 0 0 0.41 0.24 0.65 260 1 0 5 5/26/2011 0 0 0.41 0.24 0.65 160 1 1 6 5/26/2011 0 0 0.41 0.24 0.65 110 1 1 1 6/1/2011 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 210 1 1 2 6/1/2011 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 100 1 1 3 6/1/2011 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 20 1 1 4 6/1/2011 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 10 1 0 5 6/1/2011 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 20 1 0 6 6/1/2011 0 0 0.2 0 0.2 90 1 1 20 1 6/8/2011 0 0 0 0 0 161 1 1 2 6/8/2011 0 0 0 0 0 530 1 1 3 6/8/2011 0 0 0 0 0 96 1 0 4 6/8/2011 0 0 0 0 0 86 1 0 5 6/8/2011 0 0 0 0 0 92 1 0 6 6/8/2011 0 0 0 0 0 86 1 0 1 6/15/2011 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.18 0.45 140 1 1 2 6/15/2011 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.18 0.45 1000 1 1 3 6/15/2011 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.18 0.45 30 1 1 4 6/15/2011 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.18 0.45 40 1 1 5 6/15/2011 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.18 0.45 50 1 1 6 6/15/2011 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.18 0.45 70 1 0 1 6/22/2011 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.09 161 1 1 2 6/22/2011 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.09 300 1 1 3 6/22/2011 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.09 96 1 1 4 6/22/2011 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.09 92 1 0 5 6/22/2011 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.09 8 1 0 6 6/22/2011 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.09 80 1 0 1 6/28/2011 0 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.08 161 1 1 2 6/28/2011 0 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.08 150 1 0 3 6/28/2011 0 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.08 72 1 0 4 6/28/2011 0 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.08 64 1 0 5 6/28/2011 0 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.08 70 1 0 6 6/28/2011 0 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.08 72 1 1 1 7/7/2011 0 0 0 0 0 161 1 1 2 7/7/2011 0 0 0 0 0 410 1 1 3 7/7/2011 0 0 0 0 0 94 1 0 4 7/7/2011 0 0 0 0 0 98 1 0 5 7/7/2011 0 0 0 0 0 106 1 0 6 7/7/2011 0 0 0 0 0 64 1 0 0* 7/7/2011 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 7/21/2011 0 0 0 0 0 161 1 1 2 7/21/2011 0 0 0 0 0 460 1 1 3 7/21/2011 0 0 0 0 0 32 1 0 4 7/21/2011 0 0 0 0 0 46 1 1 5 7/21/2011 0 0 0 0 0 54 1 0 6 7/21/2011 0 0 0 0 0 34 1 0 0* 7/21/2011 0 0 0 0 0 30 1 0 1 7/28/2011 0 0 0 0 0 161 1 1 2 7/28/2011 0 0 0 0 0 700 1 1 3 7/28/2011 0 0 0 0 0 90 1 0 4 7/28/2011 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 5 7/28/2011 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 0 21 6 7/28/2011 0 0 0 0 0 74 1 1 0* 7/28/2011 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 1 8/4/2011 0 0 0.47 0.47 161 1 1 2 8/4/2011 0 0 0.47 0.47 780 1 1 3 8/4/2011 0 0 0.47 0.47 114 1 0 4 8/4/2011 0 0 0.47 0.47 70 1 0 5 8/4/2011 0 0 0.47 0.47 68 1 0 6 8/4/2011 0 0 0.47 0.47 42 1 0 0* 8/4/2011 0 0 0.47 0.47 6 1 0 1 8/10/2011 0.82 0.01 1.1 1.93 >800 1 1 2 8/10/2011 0.82 0.01 1.1 1.93 >8000 1 1 3 8/10/2011 0.82 0.01 1.1 1.93 560 -- -- 4 8/10/2011 0.82 0.01 1.1 1.93 380 1 1 5 8/10/2011 0.82 0.01 1.1 1.93 320 -- -- 6 8/10/2011 0.82 0.01 1.1 1.93 140 -- -- 0* 8/10/2011 0.82 0.01 1.1 1.93 <100 -- -- 1 8/17/2011 0 0.33 2.33 2.66 400 1 1 1.1 8/17/2011 0 0.33 2.33 2.66 100 1 1 2 8/17/2011 0 0.33 2.33 2.66 2900 1 1 2.1 8/17/2011 0 0.33 2.33 2.66 100 -- -- 4 8/17/2011 0 0.33 2.33 2.66 150 1 1 0* 8/17/2011 0 0.33 2.33 2.66 30 -- -- 8 8/17/2011 0 0.33 2.33 2.66 360 1 1 9 8/17/2011 0 0.33 2.33 2.66 120 1 1 1 8/25/2011 0 0 0 0 460 1 0 1.1 8/25/2011 0 0 0 0 210 1 1 2 8/25/2011 0 0 0 0 360 1 1 2.1 8/25/2011 0 0 0 0 120 -- -- 4 8/25/2011 0 0 0 0 42 1 0 8 8/25/2011 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 9 8/25/2011 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 1 12/1/2011 0 0.05 0.58 0 0.63 1400 1 1 2 12/1/2011 0 0.05 0.58 0 0.63 700 1 1 4 12/1/2011 0 0.05 0.58 0 0.63 640 1 0 0* 12/1/2011 0 0.05 0.58 0 0.63 30 -- -- 8 12/1/2011 0 0.05 0.58 0 0.63 540 1 0 9 12/1/2011 0 0.05 0.58 0 0.63 490 1 0 1 12/14/2011 0 0 0 0 0 50 1 1 2 12/14/2011 0 0 0 0 0 60 1 1 4 12/14/2011 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0* 12/14/2011 0 0 0 0 0 12 -- -- 8 12/14/2011 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 9 12/14/2011 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 22 1 1/25/2012 0 0 0.23 0.02 0.25 99 1 1 2 1/25/2012 0 0 0.23 0.02 0.25 100 1 1 4 1/25/2012 0 0 0.23 0.02 0.25 110 1 0 0* 1/25/2012 0 0 0.23 0.02 0.25 90 -- -- 8 1/25/2012 0 0 0.23 0.02 0.25 9 1 0 9 1/25/2012 0 0 0.23 0.02 0.25 20 1 0 1 3/7/2012 0 0 0 0 0 9 1 0 2 3/7/2012 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 4 3/7/2012 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0* 3/7/2012 0 0 0 0 0 1 -- -- 8 3/7/2012 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 9 3/7/2012 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 3/21/2012 0 0 0 0 0 70 1 0 2 3/21/2012 0 0 0 0 0 20 1 1 4 3/21/2012 0 0 0 0 0 16 1 0 0* 3/21/2012 0 0 0 0 0 1 -- -- 9 3/21/2012 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 4/3/2012 0 0 0.16 0.12 0.28 200 1 1 2 4/3/2012 0 0 0.16 0.12 0.28 99 1 1 4 4/3/2012 0 0 0.16 0.12 0.28 10 1 0 0* 4/3/2012 0 0 0.16 0.12 0.28 9 -- -- 8 4/3/2012 0 0 0.16 0.12 0.28 20 1 0 1 4/26/2012 0.05 0.01 0 1.27 1.33 300 1 1 2 4/26/2012 0.05 0.01 0 1.27 1.33 300 1 1 4 4/26/2012 0.05 0.01 0 1.27 1.33 230 1 1 8 4/26/2012 0.05 0.01 0 1.27 1.33 70 1 1 9 4/26/2012 0.05 0.01 0 1.27 1.33 50 1 1 1 5/10/2012 0.5 0.7 0.06 0 1.26 2100 1 1 2 5/10/2012 0.5 0.7 0.06 0 1.26 1700 1 1 4 5/10/2012 0.5 0.7 0.06 0 1.26 60 1 0 0* 5/10/2012 0.5 0.7 0.06 0 1.26 40 -- -- 8 5/10/2012 0.5 0.7 0.06 0 1.26 390 1 1 9 5/10/2012 0.5 0.7 0.06 0 1.26 370 -- -- 1 5/30/2012 0.01 0.04 0.3 0.02 0.37 700 -- -- 2 5/30/2012 0.01 0.04 0.3 0.02 0.37 600 -- -- 4 5/30/2012 0.01 0.04 0.3 0.02 0.37 240 -- -- 8 5/30/2012 0.01 0.04 0.3 0.02 0.37 60 1 1 1 6/18/2012 0 0 0 0 0 260 1 1 2 6/18/2012 0 0 0 0 0 360 1 1 4 6/18/2012 0 0 0 0 0 20 1 0 8 6/18/2012 0 0 0 0 0 10 1 0 9 6/18/2012 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 *Station 0 = site just south of the Lake Saltonstall reservoir entry. 23 Part II: Local Shellfish Marketing and Promotional Program Two free family recreational clam digs were held with and additional educational booth set-up at a local festival event. The digs were so popular the Shellfish Commission and ESDHD decided to make them an annual town event. Areas were stocked with local hard clams and local harvesters also donated clams for “tastings.” Recipes and shucking guides were provided. An informational booth was set-up during the Branford Festival and the Branford Town Clerk was on-site to issue recreational shellfishing permits to festival goers. Local shellfishing information, recipes, shucking guides, tide charts and other various Long Island Sound brochures were handed out to hundreds of residents during this annual town festival. The first local “Clam Dig” was held in July of 2011 at Limewood Beach with more than 42 clammers of all ages turning out. A local commercial harvester worked with the Shellfish Commission to stock the area prior to the dig and also provided fresh locally harvested CT Clams for a locally licensed caterer to steam and serve to the participants. Prizes were awarded for those finding specially marked clams. Residents were also shown how to open their catch! A table was set-up providing informational brochures on Long Island Sound, water quality, and shellfish. A new awareness pamphlet was created to reduce bacterial loading by educating shoreline residents about the hazards of pet waste and the importance of proper disposal. The second “Clam Dig” was scheduled in September at the Owenego Club but had to be cancelled the morning of the event due to heavy rain closing the area. 24 The 2012 Clam Dig was hosted by the Owenego Inn on Sunday September 9, 2012 from 11:00 AM – 1:00 PM during low tide. The two-hour event was free to all. The grounds of the Owenego Inn were beautiful with trees providing shade and gorgeous views of Long Island Sound and the nearby Branford islands. The weather was perfect; calm and sunny with warm air and water temperatures! The clamming area was generally soft and sandy and less than waist high at low tide. The Shellfish Commission restocked the area two days prior with 6,000 locally harvested clams from a local commercial harvester. The ESDHD had a table with information on Long Island Sound, water quality, shellfishing, seafood safety, and shellfish recipes. The first 50 families received an insulated food bag (promoted by CT Sea Grant, CT Seafood Council and CT Department of Agriculture) with an ice pack promoting food safety! Prizes were awarded for those lucky enough to find a green colored clam! There were between 125 and 150 people at the event with more than 60 people out clamming at any one time. There were six (6) “loaner” rakes available that were used for the entire event with several new- clammers waiting for a rake! Instructors walked new clammers out and taught them how to rake for the clams. 25 The Owenego made two special chowders, a clear-broth, and creamy New England chowder along with fresh locally harvested steamed clams which were all donated by a local commercial harvester. A PowerPoint presentation on “How to Host a Clam Dig” was developed and presented at the Annual CT Shellfish Commission gathering at the New Haven Sound School in January. A clamming video was made by a local student and several different educational brochures on shellfish safety, animal waste, and wastewater were also developed. 26 Output 2 "In Press" t, nelia National Environmental Health Association January 9, 2023 Michael A. Pascucilla, MPH, REHS, DAAS CEO/Director of Health East Shore District Health Department 688 East Main Street Branford, CT 06405 Dear Michael Pascucilla, Thank you for submitting your revised manuscript, Bacterial Contamination in Long Island Sound: Using Preemptive Beach Closure to Protect Public Health, for review. I am pleased to inform you that it has been accepted for publication as a guest commentary article and is scheduled to appear in the April 2023 issue of the Journal of Environmental Health. Thank you for your patience during the review process. Your manuscript files will soon be submitted to our copy editor. Please note that it is not always necessary for the copy editor to contact the corresponding author, as clarification may not be needed to complete the copy-editing process. As soon as copy proofs are available, they will be sent to you with an assignment of copyright form for your review and signature. Please let us know as soon as possible if you will, at any point, have different contact information. Thank you for your considerable contribution to the Journal. Sincerely, f�,-� Kristen Ruby-Cisneros Managing Editor, Journal of Environmental Health 720 S. Colorado Blvd. Ste. 105A. Denver. CO 80246 I neha.org JOURNAL OF Output 3 Environmental Health Dedicated to the advancement of the environmental health professional Volume 85, No. 5 December 2022 Published by the National Environmental Health Association www.neha.org f i f t e e n d o l l a r s JOURNAL OF Environmental Health Dedicated to the advancement of the environmental health professional Volume 85 No 5 December A B O U T T H E C O V E R ADVANCEMENT OF THE SCIENCE Microbial Source Tracking in the Sasco Brook, Lower Farm River, and Goodwives Shortcomings in River Watersheds of Long Island Sound ..................................................................................... 8 traditional methods to understanding Special Report: Biological Factors That Impact Variability of Lead Absorption sources of bacterial contamination in and Blood Lead Level Estimation in Children: Implications for Child Blood Lead water bodies limit Level Testing Practices ................................................................................................................ 18 the ability of public health o! cials to Special Report/International Perspectives: Brownfi elds in Romania and the adequately protect United States: A Visual Tour ....................................................................................................... 28 public health and mitigate pollution sources. This month’s cover article, “Microbial Source Tracking in the Sasco ADVANCEMENT OF THE PRACTICE Brook, Lower Farm River, and Goodwives River Watersheds of Long Island Sound,” used Direct From AAS: The Ethics of Professionalism in Environmental Health .................................. 40 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as a tool for microbial source tracking to attempt to identify Direct From CDC/Environmental Health Services: Using E! ective Communication host species contributing bacteria to three Strategies to Help Teens Manage Stress After Natural Disasters ................................................... 44 watersheds that fl ow into Long Island Sound. While the study had limitations and further Direct From U.S. EPA/ORD: Science and Science-Based Tools to Address Persistent research is needed, DNA analysis can be an Hazardous Exposures to Lead ...................................................................................................... 46 e" ective public health tool toward bacterial source identifi cation that can aid in determining if source bacteria are a potential threat to public health and to guide remediation e" orts. ADVANCEMENT OF THE PRACTITIONER See page 8. Environmental Health Calendar ............................................................................................... 50 Cover images © iStockphoto: KenWiedemann, deliormanli, Lubo Ivanko Resource Corner ........................................................................................................................ 51 JEH Quiz #3 ............................................................................................................................... 52 A D V E R T I S E R S I N D E X YOUR ASSOCIATION American Public Health Association .................... 27 EMSL Analytical, Inc. ........................................... 67 President’s Message: The Happiest Profession on Earth ...........................................................................6 HS GovTech (Formerly HealthSpace) .................. 68 Special Listing ........................................................................................................................... 54 Inspect2GO Environmental Health Software ......... 2 A Tribute to 2022 JEH Peer Reviewers ....................................................................................... 56 NEHA-FDA Retail Flexible Funding In Memoriam ............................................................................................................................. 58 Model Grant Program ............................................ 5 NEHA News .............................................................................................................................. 60 Ozark River Manufacturing Co. ........................... 17 Private Well Class ................................................... 5 NEHA 2023 AEC ....................................................................................................................... 64 DirecTalk: Manasota Beach ........................................................................................................ 66 Copyright 2022, National Environmental Health Association (www.neha.org) December 2022 • our al o E ro me tal Healt 3 A D VA N C E M E N T O F T H E SCIENCE Microbial Source Tracking Lauren Brooks, PhDBiology Department, in the Sasco Brook, Lower Utah Valley University Adalgisa Caccone, PhD Farm River, and Goodwives Department of Ecologyand Evolutionary Biology, River Watersheds of Long Yale University Mark Cooper, MPH, RS Island Sound Westport–Weston Health District David Knauf, MPH, MS, REHS Health Department, Town of Darien Michael A. Pascucilla, MPH, REHS, DAAS East Shore District Health Department structure, sites that continue having elevated Abst ract bacterial counts (possibly due to fecal con-Shortcomings in traditional methods for under- tamination) experience contribution from standing sources of bacteriological contamination limit the ability of pub- numerous and di! cult-to-identify nonpoint lic health o! cials to adequately protect public health and mitigate pollution sources of fecal matter or bacteria. An impor- sources. This study used polymerase chain reaction (PCR) as a tool for micro- tant fi rst step in the process of source iden- bial source tracking to attempt to identify host species contributing bacteria tifi cation is the ability to identify the species contributing to elevated FIB counts. to three watersheds fl owing into Long Island Sound. Samples were collected Source identifi cation is particularly rel- once a month near the mouth of each watershed and analyzed for other E. coli evant at the watershed scale where numerous (a traditional fecal indicator) and genetic markers for members of the phy- sources likely contribute to contamination. lum Bacteroidetes. Genetic markers included host-specifi c markers that can be Without being able to quickly identify fecal used to identify sources of contamination such as humans, domestic animals, contamination sources via testing, water quality managers rely on time-consuming and wildlife. Despite observing elevated E. coli levels in all three watersheds, and costly surveys that are often unsuccess- we could not make a conclusive determination of actual sources using the ful at identifying the sources. Additionally, available tools. Additionally, as there was disagreement between the E. coli unknown sources limit the ability for miti- levels and the presence of the general Bacteroidetes marker, it is important to gation and risk assessment in watersheds evaluate the accuracy of this indicator with respect to recent fecal contamina- that experience contamination. Our project design was an attempt to remove proxy mea- tion and human health risks. Limitations posed by using indicator organisms, sures used to make public health decisions such as enterococci, illustrate the need to develop other methodologies for and use DNA source tracking to determine assessing actual sources of bacterial contamination. the sources of bacteria as a means of assess- ing risk levels. To address the limitations of traditional Introduction (e.g., rainfall amount) often are used for such FIB monitoring, a microbial source tracking The presence of fecal matter is a cause of closures, a common means to trigger the clo- toolbox has been developed that includes a water body impairment in the U.S. and glob- sure of water bodies is the detection of fecal range of methodologies (Scott et al., 2002). ally. Fecal contamination poses public health indicator bacteria (FIB) such as E. coli or One promising option within this toolbox is risks associated with pathogens (Cabral, enterococci that are found primarily or exclu- the amplifi cation of selected DNA fragments 2010; Wade et al., 2010) as well as other sively in feces, which can be easily quantifi ed. via polymerase chain reaction (PCR). PCR concerns such as excess nutrients leading to Although monitoring for FIB has been used can be used to amplify a variety of mark- eutrophication (Pinckney et al., 2001). Water to assess water quality for decades, there are ers including those found in fecal patho- bodies often are declared closed when impair- many limitations of this method, including a gens (Harwood et al., 2014; Korajkic et al., ment is suspected, causing loss of access poor correlation with health risks (Colford et 2018) or the same FIB traditionally used for by both recreational and commercial users, al., 2007) and a lack of information regarding culture-based detection (Chern et al., 2011; thereby resulting in economic damages in the the source of the contamination. While point Haugland et al., 2010; Kildare et al., 2007). community (Rabinovici et al., 2004). While sources of fecal contamination have been By targeting genetic markers within the bac- proxy measures associated with impairment addressed largely through improved infra- teria that are specifi c to a given host (i.e., 8 Volume 85 • Number 5 and is of special interest because of recre- ational and commercial shellfishing. As all FIGURE 1 three watersheds feed into LIS, addressing Map of Connecticut Showing the Location of the Three impairments in water quality at these sites Targeted Watersheds may also help to alleviate pressures on this estuary of national significance. Standardized Sample Collection, Processing, and Monitoring of Traditional Fecal Indicator Bacteria Sampling locations were selected near the mouth of each watershed. Water samples were collected once a month between January and December 2016 at low or ebbing tides to avoid tidal influence. For each sample, approximately 500 ml of water was collected in a sterile container from between 6 and 12 in. below the surface of the water. Samples were placed in an insulated cooler on ice for transport to the Harbor Watch Laboratory in Westport, Connecticut. E. coli enumeration was conducted at the Lower Farm River, Branford Harbor Watch Laboratory using m-FC media following standard method 9222D (National Environmental Methods Index, n.d.). Individ- Sasco Brook, Westport ual CFUs were counted to estimate bacterial Goodwives River, Darien abundance in the water samples. For the genetic analysis, two independent 100-ml water subsamples were vacuum fil- tered on a 0.2-μm pore size polycarbonate host-specific genetic markers), it is possible ing water samples from each watershed, we filter (GE Osmotic 04CP04700) to concen- to identify species that contribute to fecal attempted to identify the sources of bacteria, trate bacterial cells. Following filtration, the contamination in a body of water (Bernhard evaluate the actual risk the bacteria pose to filter was removed aseptically and placed into & Field, 2000). This approach could pro- public health, better understand fluctuations cryo-safe tubes with glass beads or in a sterile vide water quality managers with possible in bacterial counts a!ecting the water qual- polypropylene tube with a screw cap. These contamination sources, which is a valuable ity of LIS, and establish mitigation programs filters were stored at -80 °C in the Connecti- starting point to begin source tracking and based on these results. cut Agricultural Experiment Station (CAES). eventual mitigation in a targeted way. DNA extractions were conducted on the first In our study, three local health departments Methods set of filters at CAES as previously described in Connecticut collaborated to use host-spe- (Shanks et al., 2016). cific genetic markers to provide information Watershed Selection on possible contamination sources in three The Sasco Brook (Westport), Lower Farm Analysis With qPCR watersheds in coastal Connecticut. All three River (Branford), and Goodwives River Analysis for host-specific genetic markers was selected watersheds outlet into the Long (Darien) watersheds (Figure 1) all have conducted at the Center for Genetic Analyses Island Sound (LIS), an Atlantic Ocean tidal experienced unexplained elevated bacte- of Biodiversity in the Yale Institute for Bio- estuary that the U.S. Congress declared to be rial counts that were especially pronounced spheric Studies. Quantitative PCR (qPCR) of national significance. Water quality in LIS after precipitation events. Both Sasco Brook was used (ABI 7500 Fast Real-Time PCR) to is threatened by localized urbanization and and Goodwives River have been identified by amplify all markers using either SYBR Green the >9 million people who live within the the Connecticut Department of Energy and or TaqMan chemistry (Table 1). watershed area (Save the Sound, 2022). Environmental Protection (CT DEEP; State of TaqMan reactions were a total volume of The LIS estuary has been the focus of many Connecticut, 2019) as impaired water bodies 20 μl consisting of 10 μl of TaqMan Fast Uni- remediation e!orts (Schimmel et al., 1999; for not meeting state water quality standards versal Master Mix (ThermoFisher 4352042), State of Connecticut, 2020), yet still experi- for fecal coliform bacteria (i.e., a class of FIB 500 nmol/l of each primer, and 250 nmol/l of ences frequent elevated fecal bacteria counts, that includes E. coli). The Lower Farm River probe. SYBR Green assays were conducted especially after rainfall events. By analyz- site has also experienced elevated FIB levels similarly, with 20 μl reactions consisting of December 2022 • Journal of Environmental Health 9 A D VA N C E M E N T O F T H E SCIENCE TABLE 1 List of Primers and Probes Used Assay Host Primer Group Reference and Probe TaqMan GenBac3 General F: GGGGTTCTGAGAGGAAGGT Dick & Field, 2004; Bacteroidetes R: CCGTCATCCTTCACGCTACT Siefring et al., 2008 P: [FAM]-CAATATTCCTCACTGCTGCCTCCCGTA-[TAMRA] HF183 Human F: ATCATGAGTTCACATGTCCG Bernhard & Field, 2000; R: CTTCCTCTCAGAACCCCTATCC Seurinck et al., 2005 P1: [FAM]-CTAATGGAACGCATCCC-[MGB] P2: [VIC]-AACACGCCGTTGCTACA-[MGB] HumM2 Human F: CGTCAGGTTTGTTTCGGTATTG Shanks et al., 2009 R: TCATCACGTAACTTATTTATATGCATTAGC P1: [FAM]-TATCGAAAATCTCACGGATTAACTCTTGTGTACGC-[TAMRA] P2: [VIC]-CCTGCCGTCTCGTGCTCCTCA-[TAMRA] Rum2Bac Ruminant F: ACAGCCCGCGATTGATACTGGTAA Mieszkin et al., 2010 R: CAATCGGAGTTCTTCGTGAT P: [FAM]-ATGAGGTGGATGGAATTCGTGGTGT-[BHQ-1] CowM2 Cattle F: CGGCCAAATACTCCTGATCGT Shanks et al., 2009 R: GCTTGTTGCGTTCCTTGAGATAAT P: [FAM]-AGGCACCTATGTCCTTTACCTCATCAACTACAGACA-[TAMRA] LA35 Poultry F: ACCGGATACGACCATCTGC Nayak et al., 2015 R: TCCCCAGTGTCAGTCACAGC P: [FAM]-CAGCAGGGAAGAAGCCTTC GGGTGACGGTA-[BHQ-1] DogBact Canine F: CGCTTGTATGTACCGGTACG Schriewer et al., 2015 R: CAATCGGAGTTCTTCGTG P: [6-FAM]-ATTCGTGGTGTAGC GGTGAAATGCTTAG-[BHQ-1] Sketa22 Quality assurance F: GGTTTCCGCAGCTGGG Haugland et al., 2005 R: CCGAGCCGTCCTGGTCTA P: [FAM]-AGTCGCAGGCGGCCACCGT-[TAMRA] SYBR Green GFD * General avian F: TCGGCTGAGCACTCTAGGG Green et al., 2012 R: GCGTCTCTTTGTACATCCCA GFC * Gull F: CCCTTGTCGTTAGTTGCCATCATTC Green et al., 2012 R: GCCCTCGCGAGTTCGCTGC * Assays were not successfully optimized. 10 μl of Fast SYBR Green Master Mix (Ther- a range of 105 to 101 markers per reaction and was processed following the same protocol as moFisher 4309155) and 500 nmol/l of each used to construct calibration curves for quan- described above to detect contamination in primer. All reactions were performed in trip- tification for each run. the collection and processing steps. To ensure licate in MicroAmp optical 96-well plates Troubleshooting to achieve amplification of e"ective DNA extraction and detect inhibi- with optical adhesive film. Cycling param- the two SYBR Green assays was performed to tors that could interfere with amplification, eters included a 2-min start at 94 °C followed reach specific and reliable amplification. These sample process controls consisting of salmon by 40 cycles of 15 s at 94 °C and 32 s at 60 °C. optimization steps included variations in melt- DNA were added into the extraction bu"er as Cycle threshold for each run was determined ing temperature, magnesium chloride, and previously described (Shanks et al., 2016). by the instrument software. PCR additives such as bovine serum albumin. Inhibition was measured by comparing the Standards were constructed for each amplification e#ciency (i.e., cycle threshold) plate using synthetic plasmids consisting of Quality Assurance and Controls of the blanks compared with the samples. sequences corresponding to the selected mark- For each round of sampling, one negative Internal amplification controls (Supplemen- ers (Supplemental Table 1, www.neha.org/jeh- control filtration blank (i.e., sterile water tal Table 1) were used to detect inhibition by supplementals). Standards were diluted from known to contain no FIB or genetic markers) comparing the cycle threshold of no-template 10 Volume 85 • Number 5 TABLE 2 Raw Counts Generated for the Two General Markers Quantified in the Three Targeted Watersheds Date Lower Farm River, Branford Goodwives River, Darien Sasco Brook, Westport E. coli Levels GenBac3 Counts E. coli Levels GenBac3 Counts E. coli Levels GenBac3 Counts (CFU/100 ml) (Markers/100 ml) (CFU/100 ml) (Markers/100 ml) (CFU/100 ml) (Markers/100 ml) 1/19/2016 12 346 14 320 54 3,024 2/16/2016 14 330 650 337 70 903 3/29/2016 190 1,568 38 153 52 558 4/26/2016 84 138 900 1,460 470 1,490 5/10/2016 80 94 82 47 74 455 6/23/2016 92 321 308 439 520 102 7/26/2016 168 369 22,000 1,248 1,100 401 8/22/2016 760 566 13,600 1,704 19,600 1,346 9/21/2016 140 208 1,200 301 300 194 10/18/2016 80 237 116 241 132 154 11/21/2016 350 490 138 133 350 1,940 12/19/2016 138 2,630 138 350 350 1,242 Note. The two general markers quantified in this study were not host associated. control wells in each plate with those con- evidence of inhibition, as internal amplifica- The GenBac3 marker is found in members taining samples or standards. tion controls were appropriately detected. of the phylum Bacteroidetes but is not asso- Two assays failed to pass the screening for ciated with a specific host. Organisms from Data Analysis and Interpretation successful runs and indicated nonspecific the phylum Bacteroidetes such as E. coli are Each run was assessed visually for perfor- amplification. Steps taken to optimize both found in the gut of many animals, although mance using ABI 7500 Fast software. Runs the GFC and GFD assays (Table 1) failed to the bacteria are also known to occur in the were screened for amplification in negative improve performance, resulting in nonspe- environment without contributions of fecal controls, high standard deviation among cific amplification or no amplification. Due to matter (Fiksdal et al., 1985). Like E. coli, replicates, successful amplification in posi- these failings, we did not include these assays the GenBac3 marker is an indicator of fecal tive controls, and a standard curve con- in further analyses. contamination from multiple sources, and structed from plasmids. For each plate that the two are often correlated (Bower et al., was considered a successful run, results were General Indicators of Fecal 2005; Savichtcheva et al., 2007). We found exported into Excel using ABI 7500 Fast soft- Contamination only a weak relationship, however, between ware. Analysis of the results and graphics Traditional monitoring for E. coli at the E. coli and GenBac3 (Figure 2). We found a were produced using RStudio (2015 version). three watershed sites revealed the occur- slightly higher correlation between the levels rence of elevated bacterial counts as defined of E. coli and the general marker GenBac3 (R2 Results by the Connecticut bathing beach standard = .44) at Goodwives River. This correlation, of 104 CFU/100 ml (Table 2). The Lower however, is largely influenced by the elevated Quality Assurance and Controls Farm River had lower E. coli levels relative GenBac3 counts and E. coli levels in July and Quality assurance and controls were imple- to the other locations, but still had elevated August, whereas there is little to no correla- mented at various stages of the project to levels in 50% of the samples. E. coli levels tion when considering other samples from ensure the reliability of the data. Field blanks at the Goodwives River exceeded regulatory the same sites (R2 = .19) when high counts revealed no evidence of contamination at any limits in 75% of samples, while samples col- were removed from the analysis. stage of the sample handling process. The lected in Sasco Brook suggested impairment salmon DNA used as a control spike revealed 67% of the time. E. coli levels were higher at Host-Specific Markers environmental inhibition in all undiluted sam- both the Goodwives River and Sasco Brook In addition to identifying general indicators ples, which was addressed by a dilution factor in summer months, with samples in July of fecal bacteria, we also examined the pres- of 5, after which no samples showed interfer- and August exceeding 10,000 CFU/100 ml ence of host-specific markers that provide ence. Similarly, diluted samples showed no at one or both sites. information on the source of contamination December 2022 • Journal of Environmental Health 11 A D VA N C E M E N T O F T H E SCIENCE (Table 1). We found little evidence of chronic human contamination at any site, although human markers were detected sporadically FIGURE 2 below the lower limit for quantification but Relationship Between E. coli Levels and GenBac3 Counts in the still above the limit of detection (Supple- Three Targeted Watersheds mental Table 2). The ruminant marker was also detected infrequently at the Lower Farm A. Lower Farm River, Branford River and Sasco Brook, while there was no detection at Goodwives River (Supplemental Table 1). The sporadic detection of mark- 2.5 ers at these sites does little to explain the sources of contamination, as the detection of these markers did not correspond to elevated 2.0 counts of E. coli (Figure 3). Markers associ- ated with contamination by poultry, dogs, and cattle feces were not detected in any of 1.5 the samples (Supplemental Table 2). Discussion 1.0 The aim of this project was to develop a 2.0 2.5 3.0 microbial source tracking program in coastal Log10 GenBac3 (Markers/100 ml) Connecticut and establish a scientific method B. Goodwives River, Darien for assessing the sources of fecal contamina- tion that can lead to water body impairment. This study, however, did not detect signifi- 4.0 cant human, domesticated animal, or wild- life contributions to the elevated bacteria levels in the three targeted watersheds. Our 3.0 results suggest that the tested sources might not contribute to the observed elevated bac- teria levels. This information is valuable con- 2.0 sidering the potential threat to public health that the discovery of human markers would have represented. Not finding a definitive 1.0 answer on the contamination source, how- 2.0 2.5 3.0 ever, prevents the development of action- Log10 GenBac3 (Markers/100 ml) based remediation recommendations. While genetic markers associated with C. Sasco Brook, Westport human, poultry, dog, ruminant, and cattle feces were successfully implemented, the 4.0 markers for avian (including seagull) con- tamination failed quality assurance proce- 3.5 dures. At the time of this study, alternative markers for avian contamination had not yet 3.0 been tested for use in studies of this type. A more consistent and reliable marker for 2.5 geese is needed as well as additional mark- ers to enable the detection of other potential 2.0 sources of bacterial contamination such as rodents or other wildlife. 1.5 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 CT DEEP, and other agencies recognize Log10 GenBac3 (Markers/100 ml) that indicator bacteria are not the basis of a human health risk but rather a proxy for Note. The results demonstrate a weak correlation between E. coli levels and GenBac3 counts for any of the sampling sites. other more serious disease-causing organ- 12 Volume 85 • Number 5 Log10 E. coli (CFU/100 ml) Log10 E. coli (CFU/100 ml) Log10 E. coli (CFU/100 ml) gut for long regardless of the season (Ahmed et al., 2014; Ballesté & Blanch, 2010; Kreader, FIGURE 3 1998), E. coli can persist outside the host for Absence and Presence of Human-Associated (A) and Ruminant- longer periods in specific environments (Ishii Associated (B) Markers in the Three Targeted Watersheds & Sadowsky, 2008). A Limitations Goodwives River Lower Farm River, Branford Sasco Brook Our findings serve to not only advance the understanding of water quality in coastal Con- 4 necticut but also help to highlight the limita- tions of using molecular markers to identify 3 Human Marker sources of fecal contamination. Major limita- Absent tions include the lack of correlation between Present indicators and pathogens (Korajkic et al., 2 2018) and an inadequate understanding of the persistence of traditional and newer fecal indi- cators (Korajkic et al., 2019). 1 We also acknowledge the limitations of the tested DNA sources. The tested bird sources did not pass quality assurance, which—along with the fact that other nontested bacteria B sources (e.g., rodents, etc.) might have been present in the sample—means that at this Lower Farm River, Branford time it is not possible to correlate E. coli with 4 bacteria-specific sources of bacterial contami- nation. Further research into source tracking Ruminant Marker as a means of determining public health risk 3 Absent is warranted. Present An additional or alternate direction for future studies could be to employ next-gener- 2 ation sequencing technologies to assess likely sources of bacteria and to detect actual patho- 1 gens rather than focusing on surrogate indi- cators. Moreover, a series of sampling points along each river in conjunction with a more aggressive sampling schedule that included precipitation events would have been the pre- Note. The presence of the human-associated and ruminant-associated markers did not correlate with elevated E. coli levels. ferred collection methodology. Due to limited project resources, however, a single sample location was selected for each targeted water- shed, with collections conducted in such a isms that might be present when indicator resulting in elevated E. coli levels in summer way as to avoid tidal influence. bacteria are detected at concentrations above months (Alderisio & DeLuca, 1999). Addi- the water quality criteria. tionally, birds are known to have low levels of Conclusion While the results reported here support Bacteroidetes, further supporting the hypoth- This study confirmed past findings that the past findings by CT DEEP that all of these esis that geese or other birds could have con- targeted watersheds were consistently a!ected watersheds have had fecal contamination tributed E. coli while not adding to the levels by elevated levels of fecal contamination after (State of Connecticut, 2022), the lack of cor- of Bacteroidetes detected. a rainfall event as detected by the indicators relation between E. coli levels and GenBac3 Another possible explanation for the lack E. coli and GenBac3. In addition, through counts presents challenges in identifying of correlation is that conditions were more the use of host-associated molecular markers sources of E. coli. As the elevated E. coli lev- favorable to support E. coli persistence out- used for microbial source tracking, we found els were predominantly in the summer, one side of the gut environment in summer no evidence to support the hypothesis that possibility is that the E. coli originated from months when the water is warmer (Korajkic any of the sites were chronically impacted by avian sources, particularly geese, which are et al., 2019). While Bacteroidetes are anaero- human, ruminant (including cattle), poultry, known to have gut microbiota fluctuations bic and thus do not survive outside the host or canine feces. December 2022 • Journal of Environmental Health 13 Log10 E. coli (CFU/100 ml) Log10 E. coli (CFU/100 ml) Jan 2016 Jan 2016 Apr 2016 Apr 2016 Jul 2016 Jul 2016 Oct 2016 Oct 2016 Jan 2016 Jan 2016 Apr 2016 Apr 2016 Jul 2016 Jul 2016 Oct 2016 Oct 2016 Jan 2016 Jan 2016 Apr 2016 Apr 2016 Jul 2016 Jul 2016 Oct 2016 Oct 2016 A D VA N C E M E N T O F T H E SCIENCE As more evidence mounts that E. coli lev- tance of considering the properties of determining if source bacteria are a potential els are not necessarily associated with human indicators when designing exploratory threat to public health and to guide remedia- health risks (Colford et al., 2007; Wade et studies such as this one. As we used both tion e!orts. Further use of this technology al., 2010), it is important to bear in mind live-culture and genetic markers to identify should be evaluated, and its use considered that elevated E. coli levels might not actually contamination, counts between these two by regulatory agencies as the DNA laboratory mean higher amounts of pathogens or feces. di!erent methods might have been more methodology is refined. Future studies are necessary to address if the similar if samples had targeted flushes of observed levels are associated with higher fresh fecal contamination (e.g., after storm Acknowledgements: This project was funded health risks and other indicators for fecal con- events). Collecting samples after a storm by CT DEEP through a CWA Section 319 tamination. Additionally, other approaches to event could increase the chance of detect- Grant. Additional funding and in-kind ser- microbial source tracking—such as detect- ing fresh fecal matter, which would likely vices were provided by all authors. The ing viral markers through PCR amplification improve both the finding of a correlation authors would also like to extend a sincere (Elkayam et al., 2018) or identifying chemi- between the general indicators and the thanks to Chris Malik of CT DEEP, Douglas cal tracers (González-Fernández et al., 2021; detection of host-specific genetic markers Dingman of the Connecticut Agricultural Paruch & Paruch, 2021)—have been devel- that decay rapidly in the environment. Experiment Station, and Pete Fraboni of oped and could be used to complement the Future studies should include more fre- Earthplace for their valuable input through- tools used in this study. More data regarding quent water sampling associated with pre- out this water quality study. specific components of fecal contamination cipitation events and a more comprehensive could provide additional information that sampling scheme to evaluate each watershed Corresponding Author: Michael A. Pascucilla, would help determine sources that contribute at multiple locations to pinpoint sources of CEO/Director of Health, East Shore District to contamination and also assess the poten- contamination so that e!ective mitigation Health Department, 688 East Main Street, tial for human health risk. strategies can be instituted. DNA analysis Branford, CT 06405. In addition to needing more reliable can be an e!ective public health tool toward Email: mpascucilla@esdhd.org. markers, this study highlights the impor- bacterial source identification that can aid in References Ahmed, W., Gyawali, P., Sidhu, J.P.S., & Toze, S. (2014). Relative Cabral, J.P.S. (2010). Water microbiology. Bacterial pathogens and inactivation of faecal indicator bacteria and sewage markers in water. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public freshwater and seawater microcosms. Letters in Applied Microbiol- Health, 7(10), 3657–3703. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph7103657 ogy, 59(3), 348–354. https://doi.org/10.1111/lam.12285 Chern, E.C., Siefring, S., Paar, J., Doolittle, M., & Haugland, Alderisio, K.A., & DeLuca, N. (1999). Seasonal enumeration of fecal R.A. (2011). Comparison of quantitative PCR assays for Esch- coliform bacteria from the feces of ring-billed gulls (Larus delawa- erichia coli targeting ribosomal RNA and single copy genes. rensis) and Canada geese (Branta canadensis). Applied and Environ- Letters in Applied Microbiology, 52(3), 298–306. https://doi. mental Microbiology, 65(12), 5628–5630. https://doi.org/10.1128/ org/10.1111/j.1472-765X.2010.03001.x AEM.65.12.5628-5630.1999 Colford, J.M., Jr., Wade, T.J., Schi!, K.C., Wright, C.C., Gri"th, J.F., Ballesté, E., & Blanch, A.R. (2010). Persistence of Bacteroides spe- Sandhu, S.K., Burns, S., Sobsey, M., Lovelace, G., & Weisberg, S.B. cies populations in a river as measured by molecular and cul- (2007). Water quality indicators and the risk of illness at beaches ture techniques. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 76(22), with nonpoint sources of fecal contamination. Epidemiology, 7608–7616. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00883-10 18(1), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ede.0000249425.329 Bernhard, A.E., & Field, K.G. (2000). A PCR assay to discriminate 90.b9 human and ruminant feces on the basis of host di!erences in Bac- Dick, L.K., & Field, K. (2004). Rapid estimation of numbers of fecal teroides-Prevotella genes encoding 16S rRNA. Applied and Environ- Bacteroidetes by use of a quantitative PCR assay for 16S rRNA mental Microbiology, 66(10), 4571–4574. https://doi.org/10.1128/ genes. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 70(9), 5695–5697. AEM.66.10.4571-4574.2000 https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.70.9.5695-5697.2004 Bower, P.A., Scopel, C.O., Jensen, E.T., Depas, M.M., & McLellan, Elkayam, R., Aharoni, A., Vaizel-Ohayon, D., Sued, O., Katz, Y., S.L. (2005). Detection of genetic markers of fecal indicator bac- Negev, I., Marano, R.B.M., Cytryn, E., Shtrasler, L., & Lev, O. teria in Lake Michigan and determination of their relationship to (2018). Viral and microbial pathogens, indicator microorganisms, Escherichia coli densities using standard microbiological meth- microbial source tracking indicators, and antibiotic resistance ods. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 71(12), 8305–8313. genes in a confined managed e#uent recharge system. Journal of https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.12.8305-8313.2005 Environmental Engineering, 144(3), Article 05017011. https://doi. org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0001334 14 Volume 85 • Number 5 References Fiksdal, L., Maki, J.S., LaCroix, S.J., & Staley, J.T. (1985). Survival Kreader, C.A. (1998). Persistence of PCR-detectable Bacteroides and detection of Bacteroides spp., prospective indicator bacteria. distasonis from human feces in river water. Applied and Environ- Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 49(1), 148–150. https:// mental Microbiology, 64(10), 4103–4105. https://doi.org/10.1128/ doi.org/10.1128/aem.49.1.148-150.1985 AEM.64.10.4103-4105.1998 González-Fernández, A., Symonds, E.M., Gallard-Gongora, J.F., Mieszkin, S., Yala, J.-F., Joubrel, R., & Gourmelon, M. (2010). Phy- Mull, B., Lukasik, J.O., Rivera Navarro, P., Badilla-Aguilar, A., logenetic analysis of Bacteroidales 16S rRNA gene sequences from Peraud, J., Brown, M.L., Mora Alvarado, D., Breitbart, M., Cairns, human and animal e!uents and assessment of ruminant faecal M.R., & Harwood, V.J. (2021). Relationships among microbial pollution by real-time PCR. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 108(3), indicators of fecal pollution, microbial source tracking markers, 974–984. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2009.04499.x and pathogens in Costa Rican coastal waters. Water Research, 188, National Environmental Methods Index. (n.d.). Standard methods: Article 116507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2020.116507 9222D: Membrane filtration test for fecal coliforms. https://www. Green, H.C., Dick, L.K., Gilpin, B., Samadpour, M., & Field, K.G. nemi.gov/methods/method_summary/5587/ (2012). Genetic markers for rapid PCR-based identification of Nayak, B., Weidhaas, J., & Harwood, V.J. (2015). LA35 poultry fecal gull, Canada goose, duck, and chicken fecal contamination in marker persistence is correlated with that of indicators and patho- water. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 78(2), 503–510. gens in environmental waters. Applied and Environmental Microbi- https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.05734-11 ology, 81(14), 4616–4625. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00444-15 Harwood, V.J., Staley, C., Badgley, B.D., Borges, K., & Korajkic, A. Paruch, L., & Paruch, A.M. (2021). Cross-tracking of faecal pollu- (2014). Microbial source tracking markers for detection of fecal tion origins, macronutrients, pharmaceuticals and personal care contamination in environmental waters: Relationships between products in rural and urban watercourses. Water Science & Tech- pathogens and human health outcomes. FEMS Microbiology nology, 83(3), 610–621. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2020.603 Reviews, 38(1), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/1574-6976.12031 Pinckney, J.L., Paerl, H.W., Tester, P., & Richardson, T.L. (2001). Haugland, R.A., Siefring, S.C., Wymer, L.J., Brenner, K.P., & Dufour, The role of nutrient loading and eutrophication in estuarine ecol- A.P. (2005). Comparison of Enterococcus measurements in fresh- ogy. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109(Suppl. 5), 699–706. water at two recreational beaches by quantitative polymerase chain https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.01109s5699 reaction and membrane filter culture analysis. Water Research, Rabinovici, S.J.M., Bernknopf, R.L., Wein, A.M., Coursey, D.L., 39(4), 559–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2004.11.011 & Whitman, R.L. (2004). Economic and health risk trade-o"s Haugland, R.A., Varma, M., Sivaganesan, M., Kelty, C., Peed, L., of swim closures at a Lake Michigan beach. Environmental Sci- & Shanks, O.C. (2010). Evaluation of genetic markers from the ence & Technology, 38(10), 2737–2745. https://doi.org/10.1021/ 16S rRNA gene V2 region for use in quantitative detection of es034905z selected Bacteroidales species and human fecal waste by qPCR. Save the Sound. (2022). Long Island Sound report card. https://www. Systematic and Applied Microbiology, 33(6), 348–357. https://doi. savethesound.org/report-card org/10.1016/j.syapm.2010.06.001 Savichtcheva, O., Okayama, N., & Okabe, S. (2007). Relationships Ishii, S., & Sadowsky, M.J. (2008). Escherichia coli in the environ- between Bacteroides 16S rRNA genetic markers and presence of ment: Implications for water quality and human health. Microbes bacterial enteric pathogens and conventional fecal indicators. and Environments, 23(2), 101–108. https://doi.org/10.1264/ Water Research, 41(16), 3615–3628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jsme2.23.101 watres.2007.03.028 Kildare, B.J., Leutenegger, C.M., McSwain, B.S., Bambic, D.G., Rajal, Schimmel, S.C., Benyi, S.J., & Strobel, C.J. (1999). An assessment of V.B., & Wuertz, S. (2007). 16S rRNA-based assays for quantita- the ecological condition of Long Island Sound, 1990–1993. Envi- tive detection of universal, human-, cow-, and dog-specific fecal ronmental Monitoring and Assessment, 56(1), 27–49. https://doi. Bacteroidales: A Bayesian approach. Water Research, 41(16), 3701– org/10.1023/A:1005967923353 3715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2007.06.037 Schriewer, A., Odagiri, M., Wuertz, S., Misra, P.R., Panigrahi, P., Korajkic, A., McMinn, B.R., & Harwood, V.J. (2018). Relation- Clasen, T., & Jenkins, M.W. (2015). Human and animal fecal con- ships between microbial indicators and pathogens in recreational tamination of community water sources, stored drinking water water settings. International Journal of Environmental Research and hands in rural India measured with validated microbial source and Public Health, 15(12), Article 2842. https://doi.org/10.3390/ tracking assays. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and ijerph15122842 Hygiene, 93(3), 509–516. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.14-0824 Korajkic, A., Wanjugi, P., Brooks, L., Cao, Y., & Harwood, V.J. Scott, T.M., Rose, J.B., Jenkins, T.M., Farrah, S.R., & Lukasik, J. (2019). Persistence and decay of fecal microbiota in aquatic habi- (2002). Microbial source tracking: Current methodology and tats. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 83(4), e00005- future directions. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 68(12), 19. https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00005-19 5796–5803. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.68.12.5796-5803.2002 continued on page 16 December 2022 • our al o E ro me tal Healt 15 A D VA N C E M E N T O F T H E SCIENCE References continued from page 15 Seurinck, S., Defoirdt, T., Verstraete, W., & Siciliano, S.D. (2005). State of Connecticut, Department of Energy and Environmental Detection and quantification of the human-specific HF183 Bacteroi- Protection. (2019). Connecticut nonpoint source management 2018 des 16S rRNA genetic marker with real-time PCR for assessment of annual report. https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DEEP/water/nps/annu human faecal pollution in freshwater. Environmental Microbiology, alreports/CT3192018AnnRptpdf.pdf 7(2), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2004.00702.x State of Connecticut, Department of Energy and Environmental Shanks, O.C., Kelty, C.A., Oshiro, R., Haugland, R.A., Madi, T., Protection. (2020). 2020 integrated water quality report. https:// Brooks, L., Field, K.G., & Sivaganesan, M. (2016). Data accep- www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/documents/2020-ct-inte tance criteria for standardized human-associated fecal source grated-rpt.pdf identification quantitative real-time PCR methods. Applied and State of Connecticut, Department of Energy and Environ- Environmental Microbiology, 82(9), 2773–2782. https://doi.org/ mental Protection. (2022). Integrated water quality report to 10.1128/AEM.03661-15 Congress. https://portal.ct.gov/DEEP/Water/Water-Quality/Water- Shanks, O.C., Kelty, C.A., Sivaganesan, M., Varma, M., & Haugland, Quality-305b-Report-to-Congress R.A. (2009). Quantitative PCR for genetic markers of human fecal Wade, T.J., Sams, E., Brenner, K.P., Haugland, R., Chern, E., Beach, pollution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 75(17), 5507– M., Wymer, L., Rankin, C.C., Love, D., Li, Q., Noble, R., & 5513. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00305-09 Dufour, A.P. (2010). Rapidly measured indicators of recreational Siefring, S., Varma, M., Atikovic, E., Wymer, L., & Haugland, R.A. water quality and swimming-associated illness at marine beaches: (2008). Improved real-time PCR assays for the detection of fecal A prospective cohort study. Environmental Health, 9(1), Article 66. indicator bacteria in surface waters with di!erent instrument and https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-9-66 reagent systems. Journal of Water & Health, 6(2), 225–237. https:// doi.org/10.2166/wh.2008.022 Now Available! Updated Registered Environmental Health Specialist/Registered Sanitarian (REHS/RS) Study Guide, 5th Edition Fresh visual layout to enhance reading and studying experience 15 chapters covering critical exam content Insights from 29 experts Helps you identify where to focus your studying so you can pass the exam! neha.org/rehs-study-materials 16 Volume 85 • Number 5 Copyright 2022, National Environmental Health Association (www.neha.org) Output 4 OPINIONS, IDEAS, & PRACTICE Improving Water Quality in the Short Beach Neighborhood of Branford, Connecticut, 2019—A Citizen Science Project Sarah Esenther, MPH, Katie Schlick, BA, Christopher Jossart, MPH, Ningjing Wang, MPH, Robert Dubrow, MD, PhD, and Michael Pascucilla, MPH We initiated a collaboration between local government, academia, and citizen scientists to investigate high frequencies of elevated Escherichia coli bacteria levels in the coastal Short Beach neighborhood of Branford, Connecticut. Citizen scientist involvement enabled collection of short-duration postprecipitation outfall flow water samples (mean E. coli level54930 most probable number per 100 mL) and yielded insights into scientific collaboration with local residents. A records review and sanitary questionnaire identified aging properties with septic systems (3.3%) and holding tanks (0.6%) as potential sources of the E. coli contamination. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(9):1261–1264. https://doi.org/10.2105/ AJPH.2022.306943) Long Island Sound has suffered ele- compromised stormwaters on local permits, construction documents, sew-vated levels of fecal bacteria for water quality in Long Island Sound, a age hookup requests, and ownership decades.1 Although fecal contamina- team of students and faculty collabo- transferals maintained by Branford’s tion from stormwater outfalls is a rec- rated with the local health department Engineering Department. The team ognized public health risk,2 the short with the aims of mapping local sewage investigated the properties without duration of stormwater outfall flows fol- disposal systems to assess possible records through a questionnaire asking lowing rain events poses obstacles to sources of contamination and using residents about their sewage disposal identification and monitoring of these local resident capability and expertise method and year of connection. Ques- sources. Partnerships between health by implementing a citizen science tionnaire accuracy was verified by com- departments and local citizen scientists water-sampling program. paring answers with neighboring homes may enhance such outfall sampling. and informally interviewing long-term Sewage Disposal Records residents. INTERVENTION AND IMPLEMENTATION A 2017 report identified leaking holding Volunteer Water Sampling and septic tanks as a likely source of The coastal Short Beach neighborhood water contamination.5 Similar to other All eight stormwater outfalls in Short of Branford, Connecticut, and its popu- communities, the town of Branford did Beach that flow directly into Long Island lar beach have experienced high fre- not maintain sewage disposal records Sound were sampled (Figure 1). In part- quencies of elevated Escherichia coli until after most Short Beach homes nership with the Civic Association of bacteria levels compared with nearby were constructed, so the sewage sys- Short Beach, the health department waters,3 possibly from sanitary sewage tem type of 383 coastal properties was and students assembled a team of system breaches into stormwater.4,5 unknown. To assess these properties, eight citizen science volunteers, primar- To better understand the influence of the student team reviewed records of ily retirees, from association meeting Notes From the Field Esenther et al. 1261 AJPH September 2022, Vol 112, No. 9 OPINIONS, IDEAS, & PRACTICE SD1 BS1 PS1 CA3 CA2 CA1 Legend Storm outfalls RA1 Vacant properties Properties connected to municipal sewer RA2 Properties with subsurface sewage disposal systems Properties on holding tanks Undetermined 400 0 200 400 1:2400 Feet FIGURE 1— Map of Short Beach Neighborhood: Branford, CT, 2019 Note. Volunteers checked eight outfalls (RA1, RA2, CA1, CA2, CA3, BS1, PS1, SD1) that discharge into the Long Island Sound for flow following rain events. The majority of properties in Short Beach are connected to the municipal sewer, with a cluster of subsurface sewage disposal systems near outfalls RA1 and RA2. attendees and their contacts. The vol- ME) to determine the most probable shell-fishing water quality,7 this study unteers were trained and supplied a number (MPN) per 100 milliliters.6 aimed to (1) identify possible sewage dis- written protocol for sample collection, posal system sources of beach water labeling, and delivery of water samples PLACE, TIME, AND E. coli contamination; (2) quantify and to the state public health laboratory, PERSONS identify outfall sources of this contamina- then tasked with collecting samples tion; and (3) foster engaged relationships from any outfalls that flowed intermit- The Short Beach neighborhood is between academia, local government, tently after every rain event. Volunteers located at the southern end of the and neighborhood residents. coordinated assignment of collection Farm River Watershed in New Haven dates and sampling locations among County. This study was conducted in EVALUATION AND themselves. The health department spring, summer, and fall 2019 in collab- ADVERSE EFFECTS supplied sampling bottles and paper- oration with local residents and four work to the citizen scientists. university students. The records review revealed potential The Connecticut State Public Health contamination from septic or holding Laboratory processed samples to deter- PURPOSE tanks, and the water sampling, con- mine E. coli levels. Samples were tested ducted by citizen scientists and students, using the SM 9223B Enzyme Substrate To inform efforts to improve long- documented E. coli contamination of Test (IDEXX Laboratories, Westbrook, impaired neighborhood recreational and outfall flows. 1262 Notes From the Field Esenther et al. AJPH September 2022, Vol 112, No. 9 OPINIONS, IDEAS, & PRACTICE Sewage Disposal Records (e.g., observing dog walkers discard dog Web site,9 and sensitivity regarding its feces into stormwater outfall grates, regulatory power to force public sewer Of the 383 properties with unknown which the health department subse- connections, preferring to work along- sewage system type, the type of 314 quently investigated). side the community to achieve a mutu- (82.0%) was determined from records The volunteers and students collected ally beneficial and mutually understood and 24 (6.3%) by questionnaire; the 24 E. coli water samples from outfalls on outcome.10 type of 45 (11.7%) remained unknown six different dates. The E. coli levels from lack of records or survey response. ranged from 270 to 24196 MPN per 100 SUSTAINABILITY Of the 338 properties with known type, milliliters (mean54930 MPN/100 mL; 325 were connected to public sewage SD55147 MPN/100 mL; Table 1). Strong engagement of citizen scientists (96.2%), 11 had septic tanks (3.3%), and Strong engagement from community and students permitted minimal sam- 2 had holding tanks (0.6%). Thus, the members and the scientific integrity pling involvement by health department study identified several aging coastal of the volunteer samplers increased staff, and the data obtained provided properties that lack public sewage research capacity. As some outfalls unique insight into the state of water access, posing a possibly elevated risk flowed for only 15 minutes following a contamination in the neighborhood. of water contamination from failing sep- rain event, many samples would have Although the initiative ended owing to tic systems or holding tanks. Most been unattainable without citizen scien- the COVID-19 pandemic, with increased houses along public sewer lines are tists. Residents expressed concerns at citizen science involvement, the health attached to the public sewer system Civic Association meetings, including department–citizen scientist collabora- with gasketed PVC (polyvinyl chloride) whether they may be forced into costly tion has the potential to be sustainable and are considered unlikely to be dilapi- public sewer connections if failing septic beyond student participation, with dis- dated enough for substantial sewage systems were found at fault and lack of cussion of reinstatement ongoing. leakage.8 public access to past reports and data. Lessons learned by the local health Full transparency with citizen science col- department on working with citizen sci- Volunteer Water Sampling laborators requires acknowledgment of entists during this project will facilitate power differences and potential conflicts future intervention design. Communi- Students and health department mem- of interest. Openly recognizing the legiti- cation is essential with all volunteers: to bers attended Civic Association meet- macy of resident concerns and the value maintain open communication and ings to give project updates, answer that cooperation brings to the health trust, volunteers need to feel that the questions, and garner input. Meeting department is key to maintaining bal- value of their contributions is recog- attendees recommended policies for ance between collaborators. The health nized.10,11 To that end, the citizen sci- improving local water quality based on department is committed to ongoing entists were honored at a local awards their experiences in the neighborhood discussion, data sharing through its event. Engagement of dedicated TABLE 1— Escherichia coli Results From the 8 Outfalls Sampled on 6 Dates: Branford, CT, 2019 Escherichia coli (MPN/100 mL), Outfall Identification Date BS1 CA1 CA2 CA3 PS1 RA1 RA2 SD1 July 12, 2019 NA NA NA NA NA 2300 NA 650 July 17, 2019 NA 270 NA NA NA NA NA NA July 18, 2019 7 900 3400 24 000 7600 7 600 2000 NA 290 July 23, 2019 8 200 2400 3300 24 196 9 800 2300 4900 8700 July 24, 2019 NA 1300 810 NA NA NA NA NA August 8, 2019 1 200 3100 8700 NA 6500 1200 NA 2300 Outfall average 5 767 2094 9203 15 898 7 967 1950 4900 2985 Note. MPN5most probable number; NA5nonflow. Notes From the Field Esenther et al. 1263 AJPH September 2022, Vol 112, No. 9 OPINIONS, IDEAS, & PRACTICE community members from the outset Katie Schlick is with the Yale College Environmen- HUMAN PARTICIPANT tal Studies Program, Yale University. Michael of research design, establishment of all PROTECTIONPascucilla is with the East Shore District Health parties’ expectations and a con ict-of- Department, Branford, CT. No protocol approval was necessary because nofl human participants were involved in this study. interest policy, and health department willingness to adapt in light of commu- CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence should be sent to Michael Pas- REFERENCES nity knowledge and concerns are cru- cucilla, 688 East Main St, Branford, CT 06405 1. Long Island Sound Study Pathogen Contamina- cial to the vitality and sustainability of a (e-mail: mpascucilla@esdhd.org). Reprints can be tion. Long Island Sound Study. 2022. Available at: 11 ordered at http://www.ajph.org by clicking the https://longislandsoundstudy.net/about/our-relationship with the community. Dis- “Reprints” link. mission/management-plan/pathogen- cussion of citizen science program contamination. Accessed June 2, 2022. duration and funding commitment at 2. Ahmed W, Hamilton K, Toze S, Cook S, Page D. APUBLICATION INFORMATION review on microbial contaminants in stormwater the outset may also increase initiative Full Citation: Esenther S, Schlick K, Jossart C, runoff and outfalls: potential health risks and longevity. Wang N, Dubrow R, Pascucilla M. Improving water mitigation strategies. Sci Total Environ. 2019; 692:1304–1321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. quality in the short beach neighborhood of Bran- scitotenv.2019.07.055 ford, Connecticut, 2019—a citizen science project. 3. National Water Quality Monitoring Council. Water PUBLIC HEALTH Am J Public Health. 2022;112(9):1261–1264. quality data. May 2021. Available at: https://www. SIGNIFICANCE Acceptance Date: May 6, 2022. waterqualitydata.us/portal. Accessed June 2, 2022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.306943 4. Brooks L, Romrick L, Pascucilla M. Pollution Source Survey and Assessment of the Farm River Although neither the US Environmental Watershed in East Haven and Branford, Connecti-CONTRIBUTORS cut. Branford, CT: Yale University and East Shore Protection Agency nor the Connecticut S. Esenther recruited and liaised with the citizen Health Department; 2012. Department of Public Health provide scientist volunteers and wrote the first draft of 5. Lehane A, Marks B, Ramsden D, Chen R. Bacterial the article. S. Esenther, K. Schlick, C. Jossart, and Contamination in Long Island Sound: Improvingthreshold guidelines for E. coli levels Beach Closure Policy and Assessing the Impact of N. Wang performed water quality analyses and from stormwater outfalls, all samples Climate Change. New Haven, CT: Yale School ofassisted in records review and report writing. Public Health and East Shore District Health exceeded the Connecticut Department S. Esenther, K. Schlick, and N. Wang sampled out- Department; 2017. falls. S. Esenther, R. Dubrow, and M. Pascucilla of Public Healths 235 MPN per 100 milli- 6. US Environmental Protection Agency. 2012 Rec-’ reviewed multiple drafts of the article C. Jossart reational water quality criteria. 2012. Available at: liters E. coli threshold for recreational delivered samples to the laboratory. R. Dubrow https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015- 12 partnered with the East Shore District Health 10/documents/rec-factsheet-2012.pdf. Accessedwaters. This suggests that the outfalls Department and supervised the students. June 2, 2022. could be a critical pathway for transfer of R. Dubrow and M. Pascucilla conceptualized the 7. Connecticut Department of Energy and Environ- study. M. Pascucilla arranged sample testing at mental Protection. Estuary 8: Branford/East fecal matter and associated pathogens the state laboratory and records review access Haven, watershed summary. September 2013. to recreational bathing waters. and provided the resources of the East Shore Available at: http://www.ct.gov/deep/lib/deep/ District Health Department for sampling. water/tmdl/statewidebacteria/estuary8_branford_ This project provided the students easthaven.pdf. Accessed June 2, 2022. with an opportunity to experience 8. Folkman S. PVC pipe longevity report: affordabil-ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ity and the 1001 year benchmark standard. May real-world public health practice, and The research study was conducted by the East 2014. Available at: https://digitalcommons.usu. edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1170&context= their involvement enabled the records Shore District Health Department and Yale Uni- mae_facpub. Accessed June 2, 2022. versity with in-kind funding and support from the review and established the framework High Tide Foundation. 9. East Shore District Health Department. 2022. Available at: https://www.esdhd.org. Accessed for the sampling campaign. Without citi- M. Pascucilla presented a preliminary version June 2, 2022. of this project at the American Public Health zen scientists, the breadth and fre- Associations October 24 28, 2020 Virtual Annual 10. Strasser BJ, Baudry J, Mahr D, Sanchez G, Tan-’ – coigne E. “Citizen science”? Rethinking science and quency of sampling would not have Meeting and Expo. public participation. Sci Technol Stud. 2019;32(2): been possible. Furthermore, citizen sci- The authors would like to thank the staff of the 52–76. https://doi.org/10.2398July sts.60425Connecticut Department of Public Health Labora- 11. Hecker S, Bonney R, Haklay M, et al. Innovation entists identified an outfall, RA2, not in tory for their timely and conscientious analytical in citizen science—perspectives on science- the original sampling plan. Citizen sci- support, with special thanks to environmental policy advances. Citiz Sci. 2018;3(1):4. https://doi. microbiology supervisor Kim Holmes-Talbot et al., org/10.5334/cstp.114 ence can increase data capture in the Town of Branford Engineering Department, 12. State of Connecticut Department of Public water sampling as well as in other pub- and the Short Beach, Connecticut, community. Health. State of Connecticut guidelines for moni- The Civic Association of Short Beach, particularly toring swimming water and closure protocol. lic health programs relying on highly Ann Davis, were invaluable partners. We also 2016. Available at: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/ time-sensitive collections. thank the High Tide Foundation for its generous Departments-and-Agencies/DPH/dph/ support. environmental_health/recreation/pdf/ 030316GuidelinesforMonitoringSwimming ABOUT THE AUTHORS Waterpdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed June 2, 2022. Sarah Esenther, Christopher Jossart, Ningjing CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Wang, and Robert Dubrow are with the School of The authors have no potential or actual conflicts Public Health, Yale University, New Haven, CT. of interest to declare. 1264 Notes From the Field Esenther et al. AJPH September 2022, Vol 112, No. 9 Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt Output 5a EFS ID: 40916184 Application Number: 17077151 International Application Number: Confirmation Number: 9722 Title of Invention: Systems and Methods for Solar-Electric Pump-Out Boat First Named Inventor/Applicant Name: Michael A. Pascucilla Customer Number: 54975 Filer: Michael Todd Abramson/Toni Sousa Filer Authorized By: Michael Todd Abramson Attorney Docket Number: 094000.10472 Receipt Date: 22-OCT-2020 Filing Date: Time Stamp: 12:55:20 Application Type: Utility under 35 USC 111(a) Payment information: Submitted with Payment yes Payment Type CARD Payment was successfully received in RAM $1820 RAM confirmation Number E20200LC55454720 Deposit Account 502324 Authorized User Toni Sousa The Director of the USPTO is hereby authorized to charge indicated fees and credit any overpayment as follows: 37 CFR 1.16 (National application filing, search, and examination fees) 37 CFR 1.17 (Patent application and reexamination processing fees) 37 CFR 1.19 (Document supply fees) 37 CFR 1.20 (Post Issuance fees) 37 CFR 1.21 (Miscellaneous fees and charges) File Listing: Document Number Document Description File Name File Size(Bytes)/ Multi Pages Message Digest Part /.zip (if appl.) 111105 1 Application Data Sheet ADS.pdf no 8 59e78890aba6432399eced36b2482562e91 f64b7 Warnings: Information: This is not an USPTO supplied ADS fillable form 107338 2 PatentApplication.pdf yes 19 0230843c168ad68625066d36f23d676ed8e 0a648 Multipart Description/PDF files in .zip description Document Description Start End Specification 1 14 Claims 15 18 Abstract 19 19 Warnings: Information: 947866 3 Drawings-only black and white line no 5drawings Figures.pdf 8f2244c0a841cd267d37ff26420cc9620795 223c Warnings: Information: 136407 4 Oath or Declaration filed ExecutedDeclaration.pdf no 2 c83f467c576c55cac5a70ef90479450d12dd 9816 Warnings: Information: 218425 5 TransmittalLetterandPOA.pdf yes 2 ce21c64adb40f81954ff86015616ab881f20 757f Multipart Description/PDF files in .zip description Document Description Start End Transmittal Letter 1 1 Power of Attorney 2 2 Warnings: Information: 35214 6 Fee Worksheet (SB06) fee-info.pdf no 2 01cbf1f7c05ea3c4de25c78072b1a39198d6 f319 Warnings: Information: Total Files Size (in bytes): 1556355 This Acknowledgement Receipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTO of the indicated documents, characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable. It serves as evidence of receipt similar to a Post Card, as described in MPEP 503. New Applications Under 35 U.S.C. 111 If a new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary components for a filing date (see 37 CFR 1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP 506), a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date shown on this Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the filing date of the application. National Stage of an International Application under 35 U.S.C. 371 If a timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions of 35 U.S.C. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCT/DO/EO/903 indicating acceptance of the application as a national stage submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt, in due course. New International Application Filed with the USPTO as a Receiving Office If a new international application is being filed and the international application includes the necessary components for an international filing date (see PCT Article 11 and MPEP 1810), a Notification of the International Application Number and of the International Filing Date (Form PCT/RO/105) will be issued in due course, subject to prescriptions concerning national security, and the date shown on this Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the international filing date of the application. Electronic Patent Application Fee Transmittal Application Number: Filing Date: Title of Invention: Systems and Methods for Solar-Electric Pump-Out Boat First Named Inventor/Applicant Name: Michael A. Pascucilla Filer: Michael Todd Abramson/Toni Sousa Attorney Docket Number: 094000.10472 Filed as Large Entity Filing Fees for Utility under 35 USC 111(a) Description Fee Code Quantity Amount Sub-Total in USD($) Basic Filing: UTILITY APPLICATION FILING 1011 1 320 320 UTILITY SEARCH FEE 1111 1 700 700 UTILITY EXAMINATION FEE 1311 1 800 800 Pages: Claims: Miscellaneous-Filing: Petition: Patent-Appeals-and-Interference: Description Fee Code Quantity Amount Sub-Total in USD($) Post-Allowance-and-Post-Issuance: Extension-of-Time: Miscellaneous: Total in USD ($) 1820 PTO/AIA/14 (02-18) Approved for use through 11/30/2020. OMB 0651-0032 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it contains a valid OMB control number. Attorney Docket Number 094000.10472 Application Data Sheet 37 CFR 1.76 Application Number Title of Invention SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SOLAR-ELECTRIC PUMP-OUT-BOAT The application data sheet is part of the provisional or nonprovisional application for which it is being submitted. The following form contains the bibliographic data arranged in a format specified by the United States Patent and Trademark Office as outlined in 37 CFR 1.76. This document may be completed electronically and submitted to the Office in electronic format using the Electronic Filing System (EFS) or the document may be printed and included in a paper filed application. Secrecy Order 37 CFR 5.2: Portions or all of the application associated with this Application Data Sheet may fall under a Secrecy Order pursuant to 37 CFR 5.2 (Paper filers only. Applications that fall under Secrecy Order may not be filed electronically.) Inventor Information: Inventor 1 Remove Legal Name Prefix Given Name Middle Name Family Name Suffix Michael A. Pascucilla Residence Information (Select One) US Residency Non US Residency Active US Military Service City Guilford State/Province CT Country of Residencei US Mailing Address of Inventor: Address 1 55 Ocean View Road Address 2 City Guilford State/Province CT Postal Code 06437 Country i US All Inventors Must Be Listed - Additional Inventor Information blocks may be generated within this form by selecting the Add button. Add Correspondence Information: Enter either Customer Number or complete the Correspondence Information section below. For further information see 37 CFR 1.33(a). An Address is being provided for the correspondence Information of this application. Customer Number 54975 Email Address patentdocketing@hklaw.com Add Email Remove Email Application Information: Title of the Invention SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SOLAR-ELECTRIC PUMP-OUT-BOAT Attorney Docket Number 094000.10472 Small Entity Status Claimed Application Type Nonprovisional Subject Matter Utility Total Number of Drawing Sheets (if any) 5 Suggested Figure for Publication (if any) EFS Web 2.2.13 PTO/AIA/14 (02-18) Approved for use through 11/30/2020. OMB 0651-0032 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it contains a valid OMB control number. Attorney Docket Number 094000.10472 Application Data Sheet 37 CFR 1.76 Application Number Title of Invention SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SOLAR-ELECTRIC PUMP-OUT-BOAT Filing By Reference: Only complete this section when filing an application by reference under 35 U.S.C. 111(c) and 37 CFR 1.57(a). Do not complete this section if application papers including a specification and any drawings are being filed. Any domestic benefit or foreign priority information must be provided in the appropriate section(s) below (i.e., “Domestic Benefit/National Stage Information” and “Foreign Priority Information”). For the purposes of a filing date under 37 CFR 1.53(b), the description and any drawings of the present application are replaced by this reference to the previously filed application, subject to conditions and requirements of 37 CFR 1.57(a). i Application number of the previously Filing date (YYYY-MM-DD) Intellectual Property Authority or Country filed application Publication Information: Request Early Publication (Fee required at time of Request 37 CFR 1.219) Request Not to Publish. I hereby request that the attached application not be published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b) and certify that the invention disclosed in the attached application has not and will not be the subject of an application filed in another country, or under a multilateral international agreement, that requires publication at eighteen months after filing. Representative Information: Representative information should be provided for all practitioners having a power of attorney in the application. Providing this information in the Application Data Sheet does not constitute a power of attorney in the application (see 37 CFR 1.32). Either enter Customer Number or complete the Representative Name section below. If both sections are completed the customer Number will be used for the Representative Information during processing. Please Select One: Customer Number US Patent Practitioner Limited Recognition (37 CFR 11.9) Customer Number 54975 Domestic Benefit/National Stage Information: This section allows for the applicant to either claim benefit under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) or indicate National Stage entry from a PCT application. Providing benefit claim information in the Application Data Sheet constitutes the specific reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 120, and 37 CFR 1.78. When referring to the current application, please leave the “Application Number” field blank. Prior Application Status Remove Filing or 371(c) Date Application Number Continuity Type Prior Application Number (YYYY-MM-DD) Claims benefit of provisional 63030012 2020-05-26 Additional Domestic Benefit/National Stage Data may be generated within this form by selecting the Add button. EFS Web 2.2.13 PTO/AIA/14 (02-18) Approved for use through 11/30/2020. OMB 0651-0032 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it contains a valid OMB control number. Attorney Docket Number 094000.10472 Application Data Sheet 37 CFR 1.76 Application Number Title of Invention SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SOLAR-ELECTRIC PUMP-OUT-BOAT Foreign Priority Information: This section allows for the applicant to claim priority to a foreign application. Providing this information in the application data sheet constitutes the claim for priority as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b) and 37 CFR 1.55. When priority is claimed to a foreign application that is eligible for retrieval under the priority document exchange program (PD X ) i the information will be used by the Office to automatically attempt retrieval pursuant to 37 CFR 1.55(i)(1) and (2). Under the PDX program, applicant bears the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that a copy of the foreign application is received by the Office from the participating foreign intellectual property office, or a certified copy of the foreign priority application is filed, within the time period specified in 37 CFR 1.55(g)(1). Remove Application Number Countryi Filing Date (YYYY-MM-DD) Access Cod e i (if applicable) Additional Foreign Priority Data may be generated within this form by selecting the Add button. Statement under 37 CFR 1.55 or 1.78 for AIA (First Inventor to File) Transition Applications This application (1) claims priority to or the benefit of an application filed before March 16, 2013 and (2) also contains, or contained at any time, a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013. NOTE: By providing this statement under 37 CFR 1.55 or 1.78, this application, with a filing date on or after March 16, 2013, will be examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. EFS Web 2.2.13 PTO/AIA/14 (02-18) Approved for use through 11/30/2020. OMB 0651-0032 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it contains a valid OMB control number. Attorney Docket Number 094000.10472 Application Data Sheet 37 CFR 1.76 Application Number Title of Invention SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SOLAR-ELECTRIC PUMP-OUT-BOAT Authorization or Opt-Out of Authorization to Permit Access: When this Application Data Sheet is properly signed and filed with the application, applicant has provided written authority to permit a participating foreign intellectual property (IP) office access to the instant application-as-filed (see paragraph A in subsection 1 below) and the European Patent Office (EPO) access to any search results from the instant application (see paragraph B in subsection 1 below). Should applicant choose not to provide an authorization identified in subsection 1 below, applicant must opt-out of the authorization by checking the corresponding box A or B or both in subsection 2 below. NOTE: This section of the Application Data Sheet is ONLY reviewed and processed with the INITIAL filing of an application. After the initial filing of an application, an Application Data Sheet cannot be used to provide or rescind authorization for access by a foreign IP office(s). Instead, Form PTO/SB/39 or PTO/SB/69 must be used as appropriate. 1. Authorization to Permit Access by a Foreign Intellectual Property Office(s) A. Priority Document Exchange (PDX) - Unless box A in subsection 2 (opt-out of authorization) is checked, the undersigned hereby grants the USPTO authority to provide the European Patent Office (EPO), the Japan Patent Office (JPO), the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO), the State Intellectual Property Office of the People’s Republic of China (SIPO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and any other foreign intellectual property office participating with the USPTO in a bilateral or multilateral priority document exchange agreement in which a foreign application claiming priority to the instant patent application is filed, access to: (1) the instant patent application-as-filed and its related bibliographic data, (2) any foreign or domestic application to which priority or benefit is claimed by the instant application and its related bibliographic data, and (3) the date of filing of this Authorization. See 37 CFR 1.14(h) (1). B. Search Results from U.S. Application to EPO - Unless box B in subsection 2 (opt-out of authorization) is checked, the undersigned hereby grants the USPTO authority to provide the EPO access to the bibliographic data and search results from the instant patent application when a European patent application claiming priority to the instant patent application is filed. See 37 CFR 1.14(h)(2). The applicant is reminded that the EPO’s Rule 141(1) EPC (European Patent Convention) requires applicants to submit a copy of search results from the instant application without delay in a European patent application that claims priority to the instant application. 2. Opt-Out of Authorizations to Permit Access by a Foreign Intellectual Property Office(s) A. Applicant DOES NOT authorize the USPTO to permit a participating foreign IP office access to the instant application-as-filed. If this box is checked, the USPTO will not be providing a participating foreign IP office with any documents and information identified in subsection 1A above. B. Applicant DOES NOT authorize the USPTO to transmit to the EPO any search results from the instant patent application. If this box is checked, the USPTO will not be providing the EPO with search results from the instant application. NOTE: Once the application has published or is otherwise publicly available, the USPTO may provide access to the application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.14. EFS Web 2.2.13 PTO/AIA/14 (02-18) Approved for use through 11/30/2020. OMB 0651-0032 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it contains a valid OMB control number. Attorney Docket Number 094000.10472 Application Data Sheet 37 CFR 1.76 Application Number Title of Invention SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SOLAR-ELECTRIC PUMP-OUT-BOAT Applicant Information: Providing assignment information in this section does not substitute for compliance with any requirement of part 3 of Title 37 of CFR to have an assignment recorded by the Office. Applicant 1 If the applicant is the inventor (or the remaining joint inventor or inventors under 37 CFR 1.45), this section should not be completed. The information to be provided in this section is the name and address of the legal representative who is the applicant under 37 CFR 1.43; or the name and address of the assignee, person to whom the inventor is under an obligation to assign the invention, or person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter who is the applicant under 37 CFR 1.46. If the applicant is an applicant under 37 CFR 1.46 (assignee, person to whom the inventor is obligated to assign, or person who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest) together with one or more joint inventors, then the joint inventor or inventors who are also the applicant should be identified in this section. Clear Assignee Legal Representative under 35 U.S.C. 117 Joint Inventor Person to whom the inventor is obligated to assign. Person who shows sufficient proprietary interest If applicant is the legal representative, indicate the authority to file the patent application, the inventor is: Name of the Deceased or Legally Incapacitated Inventor: If the Applicant is an Organization check here. Organization Name East Shore District Health Department Mailing Address Information For Applicant: Address 1 688 East Main Street Address 2 City Branford State/Province CT Countryi US Postal Code 06405 Phone Number Fax Number Email Address Additional Applicant Data may be generated within this form by selecting the Add button. Assignee Information including Non-Applicant Assignee Information: Providing assignment information in this section does not substitute for compliance with any requirement of part 3 of Title 37 of CFR to have an assignment recorded by the Office. EFS Web 2.2.13 PTO/AIA/14 (02-18) Approved for use through 11/30/2020. OMB 0651-0032 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it contains a valid OMB control number. Attorney Docket Number 094000.10472 Application Data Sheet 37 CFR 1.76 Application Number Title of Invention SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SOLAR-ELECTRIC PUMP-OUT-BOAT Assignee 1 Complete this section if assignee information, including non-applicant assignee information, is desired to be included on the patent application publication. An assignee-applicant identified in the "Applicant Information" section will appear on the patent application publication as an applicant. For an assignee-applicant, complete this section only if identification as an assignee is also desired on the patent application publication. If the Assignee or Non-Applicant Assignee is an Organization check here. Prefix Given Name Middle Name Family Name Suffix Mailing Address Information For Assignee including Non-Applicant Assignee: Address 1 Address 2 City State/Province Country i Postal Code Phone Number Fax Number Email Address Additional Assignee or Non-Applicant Assignee Data may be generated within this form by selecting the Add button. Signature: NOTE: This Application Data Sheet must be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33(b). However, if this Application Data Sheet is submitted with the INITIAL filing of the application and either box A or B is not checked in subsection 2 of the “Authorization or Opt-Out of Authorization to Permit Access” section, then this form must also be signed in accordance with 37 CFR 1.14(c). This Application Data Sheet must be signed by a patent practitioner if one or more of the applicants is a juristic entity (e.g., corporation or association). If the applicant is two or more joint inventors, this form must be signed by a patent practitioner, all joint inventors who are the applicant, or one or more joint inventor-applicants who have been given power of attorney (e.g., see USPTO Form PTO/AIA/81) on behalf of all joint inventor-applicants. See 37 CFR 1.4(d) for the manner of making signatures and certifications. Signature /Michael T. Abramson/ Date (YYYY-MM-DD) 2020-10-22 First Name Michael T. Last Name Abramson Registration Number 60320 Additional Signature may be generated within this form by selecting the Add button. EFS Web 2.2.13 PTO/AIA/14 (02-18) Approved for use through 11/30/2020. OMB 0651-0032 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it contains a valid OMB control number. Attorney Docket Number 094000.10472 Application Data Sheet 37 CFR 1.76 Application Number Title of Invention SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR SOLAR-ELECTRIC PUMP-OUT-BOAT This collection of information is required by 37 CFR 1.76. The information is required to obtain or retain a benefit by the public which is to file (and by the USPTO to process) an application. Confidentiality is governed by 35 U.S.C. 122 and 37 CFR 1.14. This collection is estimated to take 23 minutes to complete, including gathering, preparing, and submitting the completed application data sheet form to the USPTO. Time will vary depending upon the individual case. Any comments on the amount of time you require to complete this form and/or suggestions for reducing this burden, should be sent to the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Department of Commerce, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. DO NOT SEND FEES OR COMPLETED FORMS TO THIS ADDRESS. SEND TO: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. EFS Web 2.2.13 Privacy Act Statement The Privacy Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-579) requires that you be given certain information in connection with your submission of the attached form related to a patent application or patent. Accordingly, pursuant to the requirements of the Act, please be advised that: (1) the general authority for the collection of this information is 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2); (2) furnishing of the information solicited is voluntary; and (3) the principal purpose for which the information is used by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is to process and/or examine your submission related to a patent application or patent. If you do not furnish the requested information, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may not be able to process and/or examine your submission, which may result in termination of proceedings or abandonment of the application or expiration of the patent. The information provided by you in this form will be subject to the following routine uses: 1 The information on this form will be treated confidentially to the extent allowed under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a). Records from this system of records may be disclosed to the Department of Justice to determine whether the Freedom of Information Act requires disclosure of these records. 2. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, in the course of presenting evidence to a court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal, including disclosures to opposing counsel in the course of settlement negotiations. 3 A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Member of Congress submitting a request involving an individual, to whom the record pertains, when the individual has requested assistance from the Member with respect to the subject matter of the record. 4. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a contractor of the Agency having need for the information in order to perform a contract. Recipients of information shall be required to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(m). 5. A record related to an International Application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization, pursuant to the Patent CooperationTreaty. 6. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to another federal agency for purposes of National Security review (35 U.S.C. 181) and for review pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 218(c)). 7. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Administrator, General Services, or his/her designee, during an inspection of records conducted by GSA as part of that agency's responsibility to recommend improvements in records management practices and programs, under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906. Such disclosure shall be made in accordance with the GSA regulations governing inspection of records for this purpose, and any other relevant (i.e., GSA or Commerce) directive. Such disclosure shall not be used to make determinations about individuals. 8. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the public after either publication of the application pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(b) or issuance of a patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 151. Further, a record may be disclosed, subject to the limitations of 37 CFR 1.14, as a routine use, to the public if the record was filed in an application which became abandoned or in which the proceedings were terminated and which application is referenced by either a published application, an application open to public inspections or an issued patent. 9. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency, if the USPTO becomes aware of a violation or potential violation of law or regulation. EFS Web 2.2.13 H&K Docket No.: 094000.10472 Holland & Knight LLP Inventor: Michael A. Pascucilla 10 St. James Avenue Boston, MA 02116-3889 Systems and Methods for Solar-Electric Pump-Out Boat Related Cases [001] This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/030,012, filed on 26 May 2020, the contents of which are all incorporated by reference. Government Funding [002] This invention was made with government support under the Clean Vessel Act Grant Program Agreement, Identification Number 2017-190 awarded by Federal Clean Vessel Act Grant Program Agreement, Identification Number 2017-190. The government has certain rights in the invention. Background [003] Generally, environmental regulations, such as Conn. Gen. Stat. § 15-175, may require, e.g., boat owners, to dispose of human waste collected within their hulls in a manner that is up to code and environmentally conscious. This helps prevent the dumping of such waste and sewage into waterways. Brief Summary of Disclosure [004] In one example implementation, a solar electric pump-out boat for removing human waste may include, but is not limited to a boat hull, wherein the boat hull may include a bow, a stern, and a self-draining sole disposed therein. The pump-out boat may further include at least one outboard motor disposed on the stern for powering movement of the pump-out boat. The pump-out boat may further include a holding tank disposed within the hull underneath the self-draining sole for collecting waste. The pump-out boat may further include a console disposed approximately center of, and on a top surface of 1 H&K Docket No.: 094000.10472 Holland & Knight LLP Inventor: Michael A. Pascucilla 10 St. James Avenue Boston, MA 02116-3889 the self-draining sole. The pump-out boat may further include a top having a top surface and extending vertically from a center point of the self-draining sole such that the top aligns overhead of the console. The pump-out boat may further include a solar panel disposed on the top surface of the top for absorbing sunlight to convert into electrical power. The pump-out boat may further include a pump disposed within the console. The pump-out boat may further include at least one battery disposed within the hull and underneath the self-draining sole, the at least one battery being electrically connected to the at least one outboard motor, the pump, and the solar panel, such that the solar panel charges the at least one battery to provide the electrical power to operate the pump and the at least one outboard motor. [005] One or more of the following example features may be included. The boat hull may be composed of aluminum. An additional solar panel may be disposed on the stern of the boat hull. Six 24v dc 200AH Lithium-Ion batteries may be wired in series- parallel to achieve a 48v dc 600AH battery bank. The holding tank may have a capacity of at least 400 gallons. The top may be composed of at least a hydrophobic material, wherein the hydrophobic material may include at least one of plastic, wood, and vinyl. [006] In another example implementation, a solar electric pump-out boat for removing human waste may include, but is not limited to a boat hull, wherein the boat hull may include a bow, a stern, and a sole disposed therein. At least one motor may be disposed on the stern for powering movement of the pump-out boat. A holding tank may be disposed within the hull underneath the sole for collecting a liquid. A console may be on a top surface of the sole. At least one solar panel may be disposed on the pump-out boat for absorbing sunlight to convert into electrical power. A pump may be disposed on the pump-out boat. At least one battery may be disposed on the pump-out boat, the at least one battery being electrically connected to the pump and the solar panel, such that the solar panel charges the at least one battery to provide the electrical power to operate the pump. 2 H&K Docket No.: 094000.10472 Holland & Knight LLP Inventor: Michael A. Pascucilla 10 St. James Avenue Boston, MA 02116-3889 [007] One or more of the following example features may be included. The at least one battery may be further electrically connected to the at least one motor, and wherein the electricity generated by the solar panel may further power operation of the at least one motor. The console may be disposed approximately center and on a top surface of the sole. The sole may be self-draining. The pump may be disposed within a forward end of the console. The pump may be disposed behind the console. The pump may be a Rotho Model M-34, 1 hp 48v dc motor. The at least one motor may include an outboard motor. The liquid may include human waste. A top having a top surface and extending vertically from a center point of the sole may be included such that the top aligns overhead of the console. The at least one solar panel may be disposed on the top surface of the top. The at least one battery may be disposed on the pump-out boat within the hull and underneath the sole. The top may be a bimini top. An additional solar panel may be disposed on the stern of the boat hull. [008] The details of one or more example implementations are set forth in the accompanying drawings and the description below. Other possible example features and/or possible example advantages will become apparent from the description, the drawings, and the claims. Some implementations may not have those possible example features and/or possible example advantages, and such possible example features and/or possible example advantages may not necessarily be required of some implementations. Brief Description of the Drawings [009] Fig. 1 is an example diagrammatic view of a side perspective view of a solar powered pump-out boat according to one or more example implementations of the disclosure; [0010] Fig. 2 is an example diagrammatic view of a top perspective view of a solar powered pump-out boat according to one or more example implementations of the disclosure; 3 H&K Docket No.: 094000.10472 Holland & Knight LLP Inventor: Michael A. Pascucilla 10 St. James Avenue Boston, MA 02116-3889 [0011] Fig. 3 is an example diagrammatic view of a side cross-sectional perspective view of a solar powered pump-out boat according to one or more example implementations of the disclosure; [0012] Fig. 4 is an example diagrammatic view of a side perspective view of a solar powered pump-out boat according to one or more example implementations of the disclosure; and [0013] Fig. 5 is an example diagrammatic view of an electrical configuration of a solar powered pump-out boat according to one or more example implementations of the disclosure. [0014] Like reference symbols in the various drawings may indicate like elements. Detailed Description [0015] Generally, environmental regulations may require, e.g., boat owners, to dispose of human waste collected within their hulls in a manner that is up to code and environmentally conscious. Notably, there are federal and state “no discharge” areas throughout the country, such as Long Island Sound. This helps prevent the dumping of such waste and sewage into waterways. As such, recreational boats may either dispose of their collected waste at designated pump out stations (typically located at fuel docks), or through gas powered pump-out service boats that are capable of driving out to the boat to be emptied. [0016] While these gas powered pump-out boats present advantages to boat owners from accessibility and antiseptic standpoints, they may simultaneously present several disadvantages ranging from, e.g., high greenhouse gas emissions, high levels of noise pollution, and high operation costs. Research has revealed that a conventional gas powered pump-out boat emits approximately 17 pounds of carbon dioxide for each holding tank it pumps out – about equivalent to the levels of carbon dioxide released by driving a car with an average fuel efficiency of 25 miles per gallon for 23 miles. 4 H&K Docket No.: 094000.10472 Holland & Knight LLP Inventor: Michael A. Pascucilla 10 St. James Avenue Boston, MA 02116-3889 Ironically, these conventional gas powered vessels designed to prevent pollution are contributors to pollution themselves. [0017] Since the year 2000, over 8 million gallons of boating sewage has been pumped out of recreational vessels in the state of Connecticut alone. These numbers demonstrate the high usage of conventional gas powered pump-out boats in high traffic areas, and simultaneously indicates the large amounts of gas (and resultant expulsion of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere) used to maintain operation of these pump-out boats over time. Pollution has been known to affect all species and is commonly defined as the presence in or introduction into the environment of a substance or thing that has harmful or poisonous effects. [0018] Some studies show that carbon emissions from human activity account for approximately 65%-76% of the greenhouse gases present in the Earth’s atmosphere, which may be contributing to increases in the Earth’s temperature. There are approximately 12 million recreational boats currently in operation in the United States alone, and their combined use emits at least as much carbon dioxide per year as the operation of 1.3 million cars. Furthermore, sound pollution has been documented to affect mammals, fish, and invertebrate species whenever it has been examined. Several studies have observed the effects and responses to noise in marine mammals and found that effects of noise can range from mild responses (change in vocalizations, respiration, swim speed and foraging behavior) to lethal consequences (population displacement, elimination of population members and decreased reproduction). At smaller ports and marinas, though marine sound pollution is directly related to boat motors, little has been (or can be) done to ameliorate its effects. [0019] In addition, sound pollution from boat motors is known to affect whales, crabs, and eels behavior and the physiology of fish embryos. Alleviating sound pollution is one management strategy that can affect marine environments positively. The impact of sound pollution has been documented to affect mammals, fish and invertebrate species 5 H&K Docket No.: 094000.10472 Holland & Knight LLP Inventor: Michael A. Pascucilla 10 St. James Avenue Boston, MA 02116-3889 whenever it has been examined (e.g., effects of noise on marine mammals can range from mild responses (change in vocalizations, respiration, swim speed and foraging behavior) to lethal consequences (population displacement, elimination of population members and decreased reproduction). In fish, noise has been documented to increase the heart rate of juveniles, and in invertebrates, noise has been documented to increase the heart rates of mussels, and increase shelter seeking and decrease the foraging time in Carcinus maenus. Compared to other types of “pollution” sound pollution has been little studied, yet has been documented to have negative effects on marine communities. [0020] As such, as will be discussed below, the present disclosure may, e.g., provide a pump-out boat powered by electricity that is at least partially generated via solar panels, provide a pump-out boat with lower overall operation costs, provide a pump-out boat that emits noise at lower overall decibel levels, provide a pump-out boat that maximizes energy efficiency and onboard battery capacity without sacrificing maneuverability and ease of use, and/or provide a solar electric pump-out boat that emits as little as, e.g., 1.5 pounds of carbon dioxide per pump-out. Additionally, as will be discussed below, sound levels and marine life protection really separates the present disclosure from other traditional gasoline powered vessels. In addition, the vessel has a reduced “human impact” as the sound levels (noise pollution) impact boaters during pump-out service, and there is no exhaust fumes entering the cabins/living spaces of the the surrounding docked recreational vessels. These exhaust exposures are both mentally/socially disruptive and considered a mode of transmission and explosive to expelled caragenic fossil fuels). [0021] As discussed above and referring also at least to the example implementations of Figs. 1-5, a solar electric pump-out boat (e.g., pump-out boat 10) for removing human waste may include but is not limited to a boat hull (e.g., hull 11), wherein the boat hull may include a bow (e.g., bow 10a), a stern (e.g., stern 10b), and a sole (e.g., sole 12) disposed therein. At least one motor (e.g., motor 24) may be disposed on the stern for powering movement of the pump-out boat. A holding tank (e.g., holding tank 13) may be 6 H&K Docket No.: 094000.10472 Holland & Knight LLP Inventor: Michael A. Pascucilla 10 St. James Avenue Boston, MA 02116-3889 disposed within the hull underneath the sole for collecting a liquid. A console (e.g., console 14) may be on a top surface of the sole. At least one solar panel (e.g., solar panel 20) may be disposed on the pump-out boat for absorbing sunlight to convert into electrical power. A pump (e.g., pump 40) may be disposed on the pump-out boat. At least one battery (e.g., battery 22) may be disposed on the pump-out boat, the at least one battery being electrically connected to the pump and the solar panel, such that the solar panel charges the at least one battery to provide the electrical power to operate the pump. [0022] As noted above, and referring also to Figs. 1-5 (and respective views 100, 200, 300, 400, and configuration 500), in some implementations, a solar electric pump- out boat (e.g., pump-out boat 10) for removing human waste is shown. In some implementations, pump-out boat 10 may have a length overall (“LOA”) of approximately 25 feet, although this length may vary without departing from the scope of the present disclosure. [0023] In some implementations, pump-out boat 10 may include a boat hull (e.g., hull 11), wherein hull 11 may include a bow (e.g., bow 10a), a stern (e.g., stern 10b), and a sole (e.g., sole 12) disposed therein. In some example implementations, hull 11 may be formed as a moderate dead rise V bottom chine hull, with a full-shouldered V bow. In some implementations, hull 11 may be composed of aluminum. However, it will be appreciated that other materials and combinations of materials may also be used without departing from the scope of the present disclosure (e.g., epoxy, polyester, vinylester and some kind of fiber cloth such as fiberglass, kevlar, dynel, carbon fiber, etc.). In some implementations, sole 12 may be self-draining (e.g., via transom 15) and may be disposed within hull 11. In some implementations, a holding tank (e.g., holding tank 13) may be disposed within the hull underneath sole 12 (interior floors) for collecting a liquid (e.g., via a pump discussed further below). In some implementations, the hull may be specifically designed as a displacement hull, rather than a planing hull (e.g., moves water away, with little propulsion and reduces drag) to allow for reduced horsepower. 7 H&K Docket No.: 094000.10472 Holland & Knight LLP Inventor: Michael A. Pascucilla 10 St. James Avenue Boston, MA 02116-3889 Specifically, the hull may be a purpose-built, aluminum workboat, with moderate dead rise V bottom and a full shouldered V bow. Weight displacement may be, e.g., approximately 6,800 lbs in light condition (about 1,800 lbs of which is for batteries); and 10,000 lbs with full tank. This design may be beneficial to handle sea conditions such as pitching and rolling to maintain properly buoyant in fluctuating conditions to include varible weight distribution. It should be noted, that the hull may maintain essentially level trim over the full range of empty to full tank loads, as the aluminum hull weight of a 26 ft LOA (length overall) boat, design included added processes of sheet rolling, welding, and bolting to ensure longevity and strength stabilization. [0024] This may allow the vessel longer operational time and reduces energy use. In some implementations, the liquid may include human waste (e.g., collected from boat lavatories). However, it will be appreciated that other liquids, such as gas, oil, water, etc. may also be collected (even if in a different holding tank). In some implementations, holding tank 11 may have a capacity of at least 400 gallons, but it will be appreciated that the capacity may vary without departing from the scope of the present disclosure. [0025] In some implementations, at least one motor (e.g., motor 24) may be disposed on the stern for powering movement of the pump-out boat on top of the water (e.g., lake, pond, ocean, etc.). In some implementations, motor 24 may include an outboard motor, such as a 2x4 hp electric outboard 48v dc, or a 4.0 outboard motor. It will be appreciated that other types of motors, as well as engines if needed for backup purposes, may be used without departing from the scope of the present disclosure. [0026] In some implementations, a console (e.g., console 14) may be on a top surface of the sole. For example, in some implementations, console 14 may be disposed approximately center and on a top surface of sole 12, extending perpendicularly from sole 12. However, it will be appreciated that console 14 may be located anywhere that is appropriate. A control panel (e.g., color, LCD, etc.) and/or relays for motor 24 and pump 40 may further be disposed on console 14. Notably, because pump-out boat 10 has a 8 H&K Docket No.: 094000.10472 Holland & Knight LLP Inventor: Michael A. Pascucilla 10 St. James Avenue Boston, MA 02116-3889 holding tank of 400 gallons, and the batteries weight is significant, the console must need to be balanced with a full and empty holding tank and durning rough seas. This balancing makes the difference between a high efficiency vessel and an under-performing vessel (such as gas powered vessels), and without it may also mean the vessel will capsize in significant weather/marine conditions. The hull research and design played a major role in balancing pump-out boat 10 in all situations. In some implementations, open space may be provided completely around the periphery of console 14 to allow for the proper handling of dock lines and/or hoses, etc. [0027] In some implementations, a roof or top (generally referred to interchangeably as top 16) may be included, where, in some implementations, top 16 may be a bimini top (e.g., metal frame which supports a canvas that is open on the sides). In some implementations, top 16 may extend vertically from a substantially central point of sole 12, such that top 16 substantially aligns overhead of console 14. In some implementations, top 16 may be composed of at least a hydrophobic material, wherein the hydrophobic material may include at least one of plastic, wood (e.g., treated wood), vinyl, or other umbrella type fabric. It will be appreciated that top 16 may be made of an common materials typically associated with bimini tops or boat roofs. [0028] In some implementations, a pump (e.g., pump 40) may be disposed on the pump-out boat. For instance, in some implementations, pump 40 may be disposed within a forward end of console 14 (shown in at least Fig. 2), and in some implementations, pump 40 may be disposed behind console 14 (i.e., behind the boat's operator) and/or within a forward end of console 14 (as shown in Fig. 4). Pump 40 may be used as the mechanical device that retrieves, or sucks out and empties the waste (sewage) from other boat’s holding tanks via a discharge hose, which is then placed into holding tank 13 of pump-out boat 10. The discharge hose feeds holding tank 13 from the head and empties into the top of holding tank 13. The pump-out hose allows one to use a pump-out facility (and in the case of the present disclosure, pump-out boat 10), to pull from the bottom of 9 H&K Docket No.: 094000.10472 Holland & Knight LLP Inventor: Michael A. Pascucilla 10 St. James Avenue Boston, MA 02116-3889 the non-pump-out boat’s holding tank, so that the waste may be placed into pump-out boat’s holding tank 13. In some implementations, the pump may be a Rotho Model M- 34, 1 hp 48v dc motor. However, it will be appreciated that other pumps may be used without departing from the scope of the present disclosure. Additionally/alternatively, gas and/or electric powered hybrid pumps may be used when necessary. [0029] In some implementations, at least one solar panel (e.g., solar panel 20) may be disposed on the pump-out boat for absorbing sunlight to convert into electrical power, and in some implementations, solar panel 20 may be disposed on the top surface of top 16. For example, solar panel 20 may be disposed on the top planar surface of top 16 to provide maximum exposure to sunlight. In some implementations, an additional solar panel may be disposed on the stern of hull 11. For example, at least one additional solar panel 20 may further be disposed on the aft (rear) portion, or stern 10b of pump-out boat 10. Example solar panels 20 may be 8 x 100W, 12v flexible solar panels, however, it will be appreciated that solar panels with varying sizes and specifications may also be used without departing from the scope of the present disclosure. [0030] In some implementations, at least one battery (e.g., battery 22) may be disposed on pump-out boat 10, where battery 22 may be electrically connected to, e.g., pump 40 and solar panel 20, such that solar panel 20 charges battery 22 to provide the electrical power (stored in battery 22) to operate pump 40, and in some implementations, battery 22 may be further electrically connected to motor 24, wherein the electricity generated by solar panel 20 (and stored in battery 22) may further power operation of motor 24. An example electrical configuration 500 showing the connections of solar panel 20 with battery 22, pump 40, motor 24, as well as console 14, is shown in Fig. 5. It will be appreciated that other auxiliary components and devices may also be connected to battery 22 without departing from the scope of the present disclosure. In some implementations, in addition to the solar panel, battery, and motor configurations described throughout, distributor blocks that split a primary power cable into a number of 10 H&K Docket No.: 094000.10472 Holland & Knight LLP Inventor: Michael A. Pascucilla 10 St. James Avenue Boston, MA 02116-3889 secondary circuits and provide a fixed tap-off point may be used for system input and output. In some implementations, a pump-out boat 10 may be designed to cool and vent the batteries, especially given the extreme temperate variations (within a day or seasonal fluctuations to include current non-traditional climate trends), high-moisture/humidity, salt water operating environment. The lithium-ion batteries may be fully below an elevated, self-draining sole, and with specially designed and positioned vents throughout the specially designed displacement hull that were installed to protect, cool, and maintain low moisture levels for maximun battery preformance. [0031] A color control panel and relays for motor 24 and pump 40 may further be disposed on console 14. In general, and in some implementations, the electrical circuits may be sized and fused to meet or exceed guidelines, such as the American Boat and Yacht Council guidelines. In some implementations, pump-out boat 10 may need to run for, e.g., 10-12 hours per day without access to electrical support. Therefore, solar- electric pump-out boat 10 may be needed to operate in sunny and cloudy conditions to run all power needs – electronics, engines and a waste pump to both pull human sewage from recreational boats and off (pull) sewage from its own holding tank to an approved land-based waste water treatment plant. It should be noted that waste pumps require a significant amount of energy to properly operate and is used throughout an operational day as this is the main function of a pump-out vessel. [0032] Solar panels mounted on the boat convert sunlight into electricity that is stored in batteries housed onboard. Energy from the batteries drives the propeller of an outboard electric motor. The energy output of the solar cells mounted to a solar-electric boat can vary widely, with maximum outputs ranging from a few hundred watts to several dozen kilowatts. The energy output of a solar panel is directly proportional to (1) the intensity of the sunlight it receives and (2) the size of the panel, as measured by surface area. The surface area-dependent energy output of a solar panel places some nontrivial constraints on the design and construction of a solar-electric boat; unless custom-built for the 11 H&K Docket No.: 094000.10472 Holland & Knight LLP Inventor: Michael A. Pascucilla 10 St. James Avenue Boston, MA 02116-3889 specific purpose of complete solar autonomy, the upper deck of a boat rarely has sufficient surface area to generate the electricity needed to propel the boat exclusively on solar power, even in intense sunlight. More commonly, the batteries of electric boats are charged by drawing electricity from conventional sources (i.e. the land-based electrical grid), and make use of boat-mounted solar panels to supply supplemental energy to the motor while on the water. [001] In some implementations, battery 20 may be disposed within hull 11, underneath sole 12, and adjacent to the holding tank 13. In some implementations, battery 22 may include, e.g., six 24v dc 200AH Lithium-Ion batteries wired in series- parallel to achieve, e.g., a 48v dc 600AH battery bank. However, it will be appreciated that various other wiring configurations, voltages, and number of batteries may be used without departing from the scope of the present disclosure. In some implementations, battery 22 may further be recharged with electricity supplied through a land-based “shore power” hookup 42 connected to a main power grid. [002] As such, solar panel 20 may absorb sunlight and convert it into energy needed to charge battery 22 (and/or directly power electrically connected components without battery 22). In some implementations, the conversion to electricity as a primary power source may allow pump-out boat 10 to emit as little as, e.g., 1.5 pounds of carbon dioxide per pump-out – a 90% improvement over the conventional gas powered pump-out boats. Another unexpected but non-limiting advantage of this conversion may be the ability of pump-out boat 10 to operate in a manner that emits substantially fewer decibels on average when compared to conventional gas powered pump-out boats. [003] In some implementations, pump-out boat 10 may further be configured with standard deck and safety equipment, including, but not limited to: fire extinguishers, flotation devices, boarding ladders, marine radios, LED navigation lights, bilge pumps, anchors, dock lines, cleats, gunwale guards, access hatches, solar vents, etc. [004] Thus, the present disclosure may provide one or more of the following 12 H&K Docket No.: 094000.10472 Holland & Knight LLP Inventor: Michael A. Pascucilla 10 St. James Avenue Boston, MA 02116-3889 example and non-limiting advantages: 1) a solar electric pump-out boat capable of operating with lower overall operation costs (e.g., as a traditional gasoline marine engine runs on fossil fuel and require regular maintenance, whereas a solar-electric motor only has a few moving parts and does not require regular fuel fill-ups and engine maintenance, such as oil and fluid changes, spark plugs, winterization, etc); 2) a solar electric pump-out boat that operates in a manner that emits substantially fewer decibels on average; 3) a solar electric pump-out boat that maximizes energy efficiency and onboard battery capacity without sacrificing maneuverability and ease of use (e.g., operating in tight situations like marines and docks, in high wind and strong current conditions).; 4) a solar electric pump-out boat which operates in a manner that emits substantially fewer pounds of carbon dioxide on average when compared to conventional gas powered means; and 5) a solar electric pump-out boat that is capable of self-recharging through the use of solar panels. Team Acknowledgement [005] While not necessarily rising to the level of inventorship in the present disclosure, the team members responsible for bringing the present disclosure to fruition is to be acknowledged. For example, sincere thanks is extended to Kate Hughes Brown of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (CT DEEP) and to Lisa van Alstyne of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Further thanks is extended to Jeremy Maxwell of Pilots Point Marina (Westbrook, CT); Thomas Swarr of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Sciences (New Haven, CT); Brianna Weller of the East Shore District Health Department (Branford, CT); and Libby Yranski of the States’ Organization for Boating Access (Warren, RI). [006] The terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing particular implementations only and is not intended to be limiting of the disclosure. As used herein, the singular forms "a", "an" and "the" are intended to include the plural forms as well, 13 H&K Docket No.: 094000.10472 Holland & Knight LLP Inventor: Michael A. Pascucilla 10 St. James Avenue Boston, MA 02116-3889 unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. As used herein, the language “at least one of A, B, and C” (and the like) should be interpreted as covering only A, only B, only C, or any combination of the three, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. It will be further understood that the terms "comprises" and/or "comprising," when used in this specification, specify the presence of stated features, integers, steps (not necessarily in a particular order), operations, elements, and/or components, but do not preclude the presence or addition of one or more other features, integers, steps (not necessarily in a particular order), operations, elements, components, and/or groups thereof. [007] The corresponding structures, materials, acts, and equivalents (e.g., of all means or step plus function elements) that may be in the claims below are intended to include any structure, material, or act for performing the function in combination with other claimed elements as specifically claimed. The description of the present disclosure has been presented for purposes of illustration and description, but is not intended to be exhaustive or limited to the disclosure in the form disclosed. Many modifications, variations, substitutions, and any combinations thereof will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art without departing from the scope and spirit of the disclosure. The implementation(s) were chosen and described in order to explain the principles of the disclosure and the practical application, and to enable others of ordinary skill in the art to understand the disclosure for various implementation(s) with various modifications and/or any combinations of implementation(s) as are suited to the particular use contemplated. [008] Having thus described the disclosure of the present application in detail and by reference to implementation(s) thereof, it will be apparent that modifications, variations, and any combinations of implementation(s) (including any modifications, variations, substitutions, and combinations thereof) are possible without departing from the scope of the disclosure defined in the appended claims. 14 H&K Docket No.: 094000.10472 Holland & Knight LLP Inventor: Michael A. Pascucilla 10 St. James Avenue Boston, MA 02116-3889 What Is Claimed Is: 1. A solar electric pump-out boat, comprising: a boat hull, wherein the boat hull includes a bow, a stern, and a self- draining sole disposed therein; at least one outboard motor disposed on the stern for powering movement of the pump-out boat; a holding tank disposed within the hull underneath the self-draining sole for collecting waste; a console disposed approximately center of, and on a top surface of the self-draining sole; a top having a top surface and extending vertically from a center point of the self-draining sole such that the top aligns overhead of the console; a solar panel disposed on the top surface of the top for absorbing sunlight to convert into electrical power; a pump disposed within the console; and at least one battery disposed within the hull and underneath the self- draining sole, the at least one battery being electrically connected to the at least one outboard motor, the pump, and the solar panel, such that the solar panel charges the at least one battery to provide the electrical power to operate the pump and the at least one outboard motor. 2. The solar electric pump-out boat of claim 1 wherein the boat hull is composed of aluminum. 3. The solar electric pump-out boat of claim 1 further comprising an additional solar panel disposed on the stern of the boat hull. 15 H&K Docket No.: 094000.10472 Holland & Knight LLP Inventor: Michael A. Pascucilla 10 St. James Avenue Boston, MA 02116-3889 4. The solar electric pump-out boat of claim 1 wherein six 24v dc 200AH Lithium- Ion batteries are wired in series-parallel to achieve a 48v dc 600AH battery bank. 5. The solar electric pump-out boat of claim 1 wherein the holding tank has a capacity of at least 400 gallons. 6. The solar electric pump-out boat of claim 1 wherein the top is composed of at least a hydrophobic material, wherein the hydrophobic material includes at least one of plastic, wood, and vinyl. 7. A solar electric pump-out boat, comprising: a boat hull, wherein the boat hull includes a bow, a stern, and a sole disposed therein; at least one motor disposed on the stern for powering movement of the pump-out boat; a holding tank disposed within the hull underneath the sole for collecting a liquid; a console on a top surface of the sole; at least one solar panel disposed on the pump-out boat for absorbing sunlight to convert into electrical power; a pump disposed on the pump-out boat; and at least one battery disposed on the pump-out boat, the at least one battery being electrically connected to the pump and the solar panel, such that the solar panel charges the at least one battery to provide the electrical power to operate the pump. 16 H&K Docket No.: 094000.10472 Holland & Knight LLP Inventor: Michael A. Pascucilla 10 St. James Avenue Boston, MA 02116-3889 8. The solar electric pump-out boat of claim 7 wherein the at least one battery is further electrically connected to the at least one motor, and wherein the electricity generated by the solar panel further powers operation of the at least one motor. 9. The solar electric pump-out boat of claim 7 wherein the console is disposed approximately center and on a top surface of the sole. 10. The solar electric pump-out boat of claim 7 wherein the sole is self-draining. 11. The solar electric pump-out boat of claim 7 wherein the pump is disposed within a forward end of the console. 12. The solar electric pump-out boat of claim 7 wherein the pump is disposed behind the console. 13. The solar electric pump-out boat of claim 7 wherein the pump is a Rotho Model M-34, 1 hp 48v dc motor. 14. The solar electric pump-out boat of claim 7 wherein the at least one motor includes an outboard motor. 15. The solar electric pump-out boat of claim 7 wherein the liquid includes human waste. 16. The solar electric pump-out boat of claim 7 further comprising a top having a top surface and extending vertically from a center point of the sole such that the top aligns overhead of the console. 17 H&K Docket No.: 094000.10472 Holland & Knight LLP Inventor: Michael A. Pascucilla 10 St. James Avenue Boston, MA 02116-3889 17. The solar electric pump-out boat of claim 16 wherein the at least one solar panel is disposed on the top surface of the top. 18. The solar electric pump-out boat of claim 7 wherein the at least one battery is disposed on the pump-out boat within the hull and underneath the sole. 19. The solar electric pump-out boat of claim 7 wherein the top is a bimini top. 20. The solar electric pump-out boat of claim 7 further comprising an additional solar panel disposed on the stern of the boat hull. 18 H&K Docket No.: 094000.10472 Holland & Knight LLP Inventor: Michael A. Pascucilla 10 St. James Avenue Boston, MA 02116-3889 Abstract A solar electric pump-out boat for removing human waste. The pump-out boat may include a boat hull, wherein the boat hull may include a bow, a stern, and a self- draining sole disposed therein. The pump-out boat may further include a holding tank disposed within the hull underneath the self-draining sole for collecting waste. The pump-out boat may further include a console disposed approximately center of, and on a top surface of the self-draining sole. The pump-out boat may further include a solar panel for absorbing sunlight to convert into electrical power. The pump-out boat may further include a pump disposed within the console. The pump-out boat may further include a battery connected to a motor, the pump, and the solar panel, such that the solar panel charges the battery to provide the electrical power to operate the pump and the motor. 19 #79091530_v1 100 15 Side View FIG. 1 200 Top View FIG. 2 300 40 22 13 Side Cross-Sectional View FIG. 3 400 40 Side View FIG. 4 500 10 Motor 24 Motor 24 Pump Motor Console 40 24 14 Wall hookup Battery Battery 42 22 Battery 22 22 Solar Panel 20 FIG. 5 PTO/ (06-12) Approved for use through /3 /20 . OMB 0651-0032 U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. DECLARATION (37 CFR 1.63) FOR UTILITY OR DESIGN APPLICATION USING AN APPLICATION DATA SHEET (37 CFR 1.76) Title of Systems and Methods for Solar-Electric Pump-Out Boat Invention As the below named inventor, I hereby declare that: This declaration is directed to: The attached application, or United States application or PCT international application number ____________________ filed on ________________________________ The above-identified application was made or authorized to be made by me. I believe that I am the original inventor or an original joint inventor of a claimed invention in the application. I hereby acknowledge that any willful false statement made in this declaration is punishable under 18 U.S.C. 1001 by fine or imprisonment of not more than (5) years, or both. WARNING: Petitioner/applicant is cautioned to avoid submitting personal information in documents filed in a patent application that may contribute to identity theft. Personal information such as social security numbers, bank account numbers, or credit card numbers (other than a check or credit card authorization form PTO-2038 submitted for payment purposes) is never required by the USPTO to support a petition or an application. If this type of personal information is included in documents submitted to the USPTO, petitioners/applicants should consider redacting such personal information from the documents before submitting them to the USPTO. Petitioner/applicant is advised that the record of a patent application is available to the public after publication of the application (unless a non-publication request in compliance with 37 CFR 1.213(a) is made in the application) or issuance of a patent. Furthermore, the record from an abandoned application may also be available to the public if the application is referenced in a published application or an issued patent (see 37 CFR 1.14). Checks and credit card authorization forms PTO-2038 submitted for payment purposes are not retained in the application file and therefore are not publicly available. LEGAL NAME OF INVENTOR Inventor: _M__ic__h_a_e__l _A_.__P_a__s_c_u_c__il_la_____________________________ Date (Optional) :_____O__c__to__b_e_r__1_0_,_2_0__2_0_ Signa tu r e : _ _ _ _ M___ic__h_a__e_l_ A__. _P__a_s_c__u_c_i_l_l_a____________________________________________________________ Note: An application data sheet (PTO/SB/14 or equivalent), including naming the entire inventive entity, must accompany this form . Use an additional PTO/A form for each additional inventor. This collection of information is required by 35 U.S.C. 115 and 37 CFR 1.63. The information is required to obtain or retain a benefit by the public which is to file (and by the USPTO to process) an application. Confidentiality is governed by 35 U.S.C. 122 and 37 CFR 1.11 and 1.14. This collection is estimated to take 1 minute to complete, including gathering, preparing, and submitting the completed application form to the USPTO. Time will vary depending upon the individual case. Any comments on the amount of time you require to complete this form and/or suggestions for reducing this burden, should be sent to the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Department of Commerce, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. DO NOT SEND FEES OR COMPLETED FORMS TO THIS ADDRESS. SEND TO: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. If you need assistance in completing the form, call 1-800-PTO-9199 and select option 2. Privacy Act Statement The Privacy Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-579) requires that you be given certain information in connection with your submission of the attached form related to a patent application or patent. Accordingly, pursuant to the requirements of the Act, please be advised that: (1) the general authority for the collection of this information is 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2); (2) furnishing of the information solicited is voluntary; and (3) the principal purpose for which the information is used by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is to process and/or examine your submission related to a patent application or patent. If you do not furnish the requested information, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may not be able to process and/or examine your submission, which may result in termination of proceedings or abandonment of the application or expiration of the patent. The information provided by you in this form will be subject to the following routine uses: 1. The information on this form will be treated confidentially to the extent allowed under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C 552a). Records from this system of records may be disclosed to the Department of Justice to determine whether disclosure of these records is required by the Freedom of Information Act. 2. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, in the course of presenting evidence to a court, magistrate, or administrative tribunal, including disclosures to opposing counsel in the course of settlement negotiations. 3. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Member of Congress submitting a request involving an individual, to whom the record pertains, when the individual has requested assistance from the Member with respect to the subject matter of the record. 4. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a contractor of the Agency having need for the information in order to perform a contract. Recipients of information shall be required to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(m). 5. A record related to an International Application filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization, pursuant to the Patent Cooperation Treaty. 6. A record in this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to another federal agency for purposes of National Security review (35 U.S.C. 181) and for review pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. 218(c)). 7. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the Administrator, General Services, or his/her designee, during an inspection of records conducted by GSA as part of that agency's responsibility to recommend improvements in records management practices and programs, under authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906. Such disclosure shall be made in accordance with the GSA regulations governing inspection of records for this purpose, and any other relevant ( i.e., GSA or Commerce) directive. Such disclosure shall not be used to make determinations about individuals. 8. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to the public after either publication of the application pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(b) or issuance of a patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 151. Further, a record may be disclosed, subject to the limitations of 37 CFR 1.14, as a routine use, to the public if the record was filed in an application which became abandoned or in which the proceedings were terminated and which application is referenced by either a published application, an application open to public inspection or an issued patent. 9. A record from this system of records may be disclosed, as a routine use, to a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency, if the USPTO becomes aware of a violation or potential violation of law or regulation. Not yet assigned Herewith Michael A. Pascucilla Systems and Methods for Solar-Electric Pump-Out Boat Unknown Unknown 094000.10472 /Michael T. Abramson/ 22 October 2020 Michael T. Abramson 60320 ✔ 2 ✔ 54975 ✔ ✔ Michael A. Pascucilla Michael A. Pascucilla CEO/Director of Health ✔ 2 Output 5b Output 5c Output 6 © 2020 The Authors Water Practice & Technology Vol 15 No 3 781 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.063 Environmental and health impacts of electric service vessels in the recreational boating industry Colin Hemeza,b,*, Joy Chiub, Emma C. Ryanc, Jia Sund, Robert Dubrowe,f and Michael Pascucillae,g a Systems Biology Institute, Yale University, West Haven, CT 06516, USA b Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA c Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Tufts University, Boston, MA 02111, USA d College for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO 63104, USA e Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT 06520, USA f Yale Center on Climate Change and Health, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT 06520, USA g East Shore District Health Department, State of Connecticut, Branford, CT 06405, USA *Corresponding author. E-mail: colin.hemez@yale.edu Abstract Recreational boating is increasing in popularity worldwide, prompting challenges concerning pollution manage- ment, aquatic ecosystem preservation, and waterway access. Electric boating technology may provide a sustainable alternative to gasoline-powered boats, helping to address these challenges. In this study, the environ- mental and health impacts associated with using electric service vessels in the recreational boating industry were assessed. The focus was on pump-out boats, which enable the sanitary management of human waste gen- erated onboard recreational vessels, as a tractable model of the whole recreational boating service sector. To query stakeholder attitudes about changing to electric technology, surveys were distributed to a nationwide net- work of pump-out boat service providers. A wide range of attitudes exists among this group towards the adoption of electric technology, and financial concerns dominate the anticipated barriers to electric technology adoption. A life-cycle assessment of electric and gasoline-powered pump-out boats revealed that electric boats have lower lifetime greenhouse gas emissions than do gasoline-powered equivalents, especially when electric boats are charged using renewable resources. Our study demonstrates that already-existing electric technology is a sus- tainable alternative to gasoline combustion in the boating service sector, and identifies the key challenges remaining for the widespread adoption of electric service boats. Key words: carbon emissions, climate change, electric boats, environmental policy, life cycle assessment (LCA), water quality Highlights • Electric pump-out boats have smaller carbon footprints than gasoline-powered equivalents. • Electricity source strongly influences the carbon footprint of electric pump-out boats. • Financial and performance concerns hinder the adoption of electric pump-out boats. • Policymakers should consider lowering financial and regulatory barriers to entry for electric service boat technology. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits copying and redistribution for non-commercial purposes with no derivatives, provided the original work is properly cited (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/15/3/781/745305/wpt0150781.pdf by guest on 13 December 2021 Water Practice & Technology Vol 15 No 3 782 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.063 Graphical Abstract INTRODUCTION The recreational boating industry in the United States has grown continuously since 2011, and partici- pation in boating activities is also increasing among Americans (NMMA 2019). While exerting a positive effect on coastal economies (Stoll et al. 1988), the rise in popularity of recreational boating in the United States and worldwide presents numerous challenges in managing air and water pollution, preserving aquatic habitats, and safeguarding access to waterways. Underlying all of these is the need to control the release of untreated human sewage produced on recreational vessels. The uncontrolled release of human sanitary waste has numerous detrimental effects on aquatic ecosystems, including nutrient loading and eutrophication (Vargas-González et al. 2014; Lapointe et al. 2015), the formation of toxic algal blooms (Lapointe et al. 2015; van Beusekom 2018), and the dispersal of human hormones (often in the form of prescription drugs) that disrupt fish development and reproductive physiology (Hallgren et al. 2014; Adeel et al. 2017). Untreated sewage release can also have negative effects on human health by exposing swimmers and beachgoers to pathogens (Soller et al. 2014; Gregory et al. 2019) and inhibiting access to coastal resources (Betancourt et al. 2014). Because of the damage that unregulated sewage discharge can cause to natural environments and human health, recreational and commercial vessels operating near United States coastlines are required by law to ‘pump out’ untreated sewage from their holding tanks into land-based sewage treatment infra- structure (33 USC 1322; 40 CFR 25). To do this, recreational boats may dock at shoreline-based stationary facilities. Alternatively, pump-out boats, which navigate within and between marinas to collect waste from Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/15/3/781/745305/wpt0150781.pdf by guest on 13 December 2021 Water Practice & Technology Vol 15 No 3 783 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.063 other vessels, offer a versatile solution for managing the sewage generated from recreational boating activities. In the United States, federal funding for state- and locally-administered pump-out programs, allocated through the Clean Vessel Act (CVA) and managed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice (USFWS), provides support for the operation and maintenance of pump-out boats (16 USC 777c). Most pump-out boats are the size of a small- or medium-length recreational vessel, and virtually all are powered by gasoline engines. These engines contribute to air, water, and noise pollution around marinas; to greenhouse gas emissions and ozone depletion in the atmosphere; and to the detrimental burden of recreational boating on aquatic ecosystems (Lloret et al. 2008; Hansen et al. 2019). Electri- cally-powered pump-out and other service boats could provide a more sustainable alternative to gasoline-powered vessels. However, the environmental and health effects of operating electrically- powered recreational service vessels have never been quantified. Furthermore, because many service providers in the United States recreational boating sector are federally funded and publicly owned (including CVA-funded pump-out boat operators), the influence of policy and regulation on the adop- tion of low-impact boating technology needs to be explored. In this study, the environmental, health, social, and policy impacts of converting to electric pump-out service vessels were assessed. Life-cycle assessments of electrically-powered and gasoline-powered pump- out boats were analyzed, and national surveys of pump-out boat operators and state-level CVA-funded pump-out boat program coordinators were conducted. The network of CVA coordinators served to gauge attitudes towards electric technology adoption for the recreational boating service sector as a whole. Boats that provide public services other than recreational pump-outs – such as those that monitor water quality, collect and control waterway pollution, and patrol high-use waterways – may experience similar barriers and benefits to adoption as do the pump-out vessels studied in this work. The multifaceted approach presented here enabled the identification of numerous challenges and opportunities that exist for widespread adoption of electric technology in the recreational boating service sector. METHODS Survey development and distribution Two surveys were developed to assess the social and policy impacts of electric technology adoption for recreational service vessels. One was formulated for state-level coordinators of the CVA (50 CFR 85). The second was developed for operators of individual pump-out boat programs, and was designed to quantify the operating and management costs of pump-out boats. Both surveys included questions aimed at assessing attitudes and perceived barriers towards electric pump-out boats. The state coordinator survey was distributed via email once weekly for three weeks to a list of CVA state coordinators maintained by the States’ Organization for Boating Access (SOBA). Distribution of the CVA state coordinator survey began on February 21st, 2018, and respondents were only permitted to complete it once. In order to recruit respondents for the survey of individual program operators, respondents to the state coordinator survey were asked to provide contact information for program operators in their state. Individual survey requests were then sent to those program operators for whom contact information had been obtained. The first emails to individual program operators were sent out on February 28th, 2018. One follow-up request was sent to operators who did not respond to the initial recruitment email. Life-cycle assessment A life-cycle assessment (LCA) was conducted using the methodology outlined in protocol 14044 of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (Rebitzer et al. 2004; Curran 2013). It was Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/15/3/781/745305/wpt0150781.pdf by guest on 13 December 2021 Water Practice & Technology Vol 15 No 3 784 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.063 hypothesized that the boat’s propulsion method (i.e. internal combustion engine or electric motor using electricity generated from various power grid sources) and the heaviest boat components would dominate the environmental and health profile of recreational service vessels. The LCA’s scope was therefore lim- ited to investigating the influences of propulsion method and boat hull origin on the environmental and health impacts of a pump-out boat over its lifetime. Models of pump-out boats were constructed to isolate the effects of these variables (Table 1). The reference configuration for the LCA is an industry-standard pump-out boat with a recycled aluminum hull and a gasoline-powered engine. The modeled electric vessel derives 10% of its electric energy from onboard solar panels and obtains the remainder (90%) from power grid infrastructure. It was assumed that all boat configurations modeled are functionally equivalent; that is, all pump-out boats have the same lifespan and operating constraints, and perform the same number of pump-outs over the courses of their lifetimes. Table 1 | Pump-out boat configurations modeled in the LCA Configuration number Energy source Electricity source Hull type 1 Gasoline n/a Primary aluminum 2a Gasoline n/a Secondary (recycled) aluminum 3 Gasoline n/a Repurposed 4 Electric Coal (90%), onboard solar panels (10%) Secondary (recycled) aluminum 5 Electric Oil (90%), onboard solar panels (10%) Secondary (recycled) aluminum 6 Electric Solar (90%), onboard solar panels (10%) Secondary (recycled) aluminum 7 Electric Nuclear (90%), onboard solar panels (10%) Secondary (recycled) aluminum 8 Electric Wind (90%), onboard solar panels (10%) Secondary (recycled) aluminum aDenotes the reference configuration. In partnership with the Connecticut East Shore District Health Department (Branford, CT) and local stakeholders, Pilots Point Marina (Westbrook, CT) designed and constructed the first full-size (7.5 m length overall), fully electric pump-out boat in September 2018, to the Health Department’s specifications. The specifications provided by the Marina (personal communication) enabled compi- lation of a system bill of materials (SBOM) for this vessel, which served as the prototype electric pump-out boat for this study. Using the manufacturers’ estimated component lifetimes for the electric boat’s propulsion system (onboard solar panels, batteries, and electric motors) enabled inclusion of replacement components in the SBOM for the electric boat. Specifically, it was estimated that half of the boat’s 2 m2 solar panels, two of its six batteries, and one of its two electric motors would need to be replaced during its ten-year service lifetime. The electric boat’s motor and battery sub-assemblies were modeled by scaling analogous electric automobile components to the final weights of those used in the boat constructed by the Marina (Burnham et al. 2006). A conventional gasoline-powered pump-out boat was modeled in the same manner, replacing electric-power-related sub-assemblies with components for an outboard internal combustion motor. The lifetime energy needs of the electric boat were modeled using operational par- ameters specified by the Marina, while the lifetime fuel needs of the gasoline-powered boat were estimated from the results of the pump-out boat operators’ survey (see Survey development and dis- tribution in the Methods section). The Sustainable Minds software (http://www.sustainableminds.com/, Cambridge, MA) was used to evaluate the associated environmental discharges from all materials and processes identified in the SBOMs. Sustainable Minds collates data on the environmental discharges associated with the Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/15/3/781/745305/wpt0150781.pdf by guest on 13 December 2021 Water Practice & Technology Vol 15 No 3 785 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.063 manufacture, use, and disposal of product configurations modeled by the user, and is compliant with ISO protocol 14044 (ISO14044 2016). The software then uses the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) Tool for Reduction and Assessment of Chemicals and other Environ- mental Impacts, version 2.1 (TRACI 2.1) to normalize environmental discharges to a set of predefined impact categories (Gloria et al. 2007; USEPA 2015b). These environmental and health impacts were interpreted in the context of priorities voiced by pump-out service providers through the national surveys. RESULTS The CVA state coordinators’ survey responses enabled the assessment of attitudes and concerns regarding the adoption of electric pump-out boats. It also enabled the recruitment of individual pump-out program operators for a second survey aimed at quantifying the operational and financial characteristics of pump-out boating across the United States. Many findings from the operator survey (including average days of use per annum of pump-out boats, average annual gasoline usage, and average engine replacement frequency) were incorporated into the LCA of gasoline-powered and elec- tric boats. There is a wide range of attitudes towards adopting electric vessels among pump-out boat service providers During survey distribution (February to March 2018), 65 CVA state coordinators were registered with SOBA. Thirty-two completed surveys were collected from them, yielding a 49% response rate. Twenty-seven states were represented; two responses were received from Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and North Carolina, respectively. Numerical responses from the two respondents in the same state were averaged, and non-numerical responses were counted as separate responses. Of the 27 states that responded, 16 operated both pump-out boats and stationary pump-out stations (Table 2). The sizes of pump-out boat programs varied considerably, with the number of pump-out boats operated by each state ranging from 1 to 66 (mean: 15) (Figure 1). The number of CVA- funded pump-out programs in each state – including both pump-out boat programs and stationary ser- vices – ranged from 1 to 96 (mean: 11). CVA state coordinators leverage many different strategies to encourage recreational boaters to pump out their sewage rather than discharge it into waterways. When advertising their programs and distributing promotional materials, they often focus on the environmental and recreational benefits of vessel pump-outs by emphasizing the potentials for water quality improvements (52% of respondents), for swimming and beach-going (52%), and for rec- reational shellfishing (44%). Less emphasis is placed on commercial and economic benefits associated with vessel pump-outs (15%), although the presence of human waste in waterways can cause substan- tial economic losses in coastal regions by disrupting tourism and commercial fishing operations (Rabinovici et al. 2004; Soller et al. 2014). CVA state coordinators most frequently identified lower carbon emissions (41% of respondents) and reduced air and water pollution (41%) as the primary benefits of converting pump-out boat fleets to electric power (Figure 2(a)). Financial and operating performance concerns dominated the anticipated barriers to adopting electric boat technology (Figure 2(b)). 41% of respondents cited the high implementation cost as a major barrier and 30% cited budget uncertainty, suggesting that year-to-year public funding fluctuations may make such service providers averse to adopting high-cost electric technologies. 30% of state coordinators indicated that using an elec- tric vessel in open water (i.e. between service points at marinas along coastal regions) could Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/15/3/781/745305/wpt0150781.pdf by guest on 13 December 2021 Water Practice & Technology Vol 15 No 3 786 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.063 Table 2 | Responses from the CVA state coordinator and pump-out vessel operator surveys Field Value (range) CVA State Coordinator Survey Number of respondents (n) 32 (n/a) Response rate (%) 49 (n/a) States represented (n) 27 (n/a) States with pump-out boat programs (n) 16 (n/a) Percentage of responding states with pump-out boat programs (%) 59 (n/a) Mean number of pump-out boats per state (n) 15 (1–66) Mean number of CVA-funded pump-out programs per state (n) 11 (1–96) States represented in the survey: Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois (duplicate responses), Indiana, Kansas (duplicate responses), Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts (duplicate responses), Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey (duplicate responses), New York, North Carolina (duplicate responses), Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont Pump-Out Boat Operator Survey Number of respondents (n) 14 (n/a) Average number of months per year a pump-out vessel is in service (n) 7.6 (5–12) Average number of days per week a pump-out vessel is in service (n) 5.3 (1–7) Average number of hours per day a pump-out vessel is in service (n) 6.6 (2–11) Average number of days per year a pump-out vessel is not in service due to engine problems (n) 9.4 (0–120) Average number of days per year a pump-out vessel is not in service due to problems other than 2.6 (0–5) engine failure (n) Average number of times, in the past ten years, that a pump-out vessel has needed an engine 1.1 (0–5) replacement (n) Average cost per engine replacement (USD) 14,718 (5,000–50,000) Average number, in the past ten years, of pump-out vessel replacements per program (n) 0.77 (0–4) Average amount of money spent to replace a pump-out vessel (USD) 59,593 (10,000–98,500) Average annual maintenance cost per pump-out boat (USD) 5,368 (800–16,000) Of which is devoted to gasoline engine maintenance (USD) 4,001 (500–15,000) Average annual cost for the winterization of a gasoline engine per pump-out vessel (USD) 704 (300–1,800) Average annual gasoline usage per pump-out vessel (liters) 1,360 (190–2650) States represented in the survey: Connecticut (7 responses), Maine (2), Massachusetts (1), North Carolina (2), South Carolina (1), Rhode Island (1) present an operational performance barrier, and 30% also cited concern over the boats’ charge capacities. Public regulations also generated substantial concerns. 11% of respondents noted that regulatory hurdles could hinder the adoption of electric technology, and two additional state coordinators commented that they could not stipulate the propulsion method of their state-funded boats. Attitudes towards adopting electric boat technology varied widely among CVA state coordinators (Figure 2(c)). Sixteen respondents answered an optional question asking them to gauge their state’s receptiveness towards converting to electric pump-out vessels. Among these, 44% believed that their state would be neutral towards the adoption of this technology. The CVA state coordinator survey results suggest that pump-out boat program managers are aware of the environmental benefits associated with electric technology, but have wide-ranging concerns about the financial and oper- ational performance aspects arising from adoption. Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/15/3/781/745305/wpt0150781.pdf by guest on 13 December 2021 Water Practice & Technology Vol 15 No 3 787 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.063 Figure 1 | The nationwide distribution of CVA-funded pump-out boat programs per state. Electric vessels have lower anticipated operating costs than gasoline-powered vessels A major concern among pump-out boat service providers is the cost of converting to electric technology. CVA state coordinators most frequently cited the cost of implementation as a barrier to adoption (Figure 2(b)). To assess the basis for this, the operating and maintenance costs of gasoline-powered and electric pump-out boats were compared using data from the national surveys. Currently, operators spend an average of US $5,370 annually per gasoline- powered pump-out boat (Figure 3). US $4,000 of this is devoted to maintenance items associ- ated with using a gasoline engine. The remaining US $1,370 is spent on maintenance items that would also be incurred for an electric boat (including maintenance of the pump-out unit, the application of antifouling paint, and hull repairs). By contrast, the annual operating and maintenance costs of an electric boat with onboard solar panels for supplemental charge was estimated to be US $3,220 per boat per year, or 40% less than the gasoline-powered average. The majority of cost savings comes from the use of electricity (US $400 annually) instead of gasoline (US $1080 annually) as an energy source, as well as from the lower maintenance costs for an electric system (US $1,450 for an electric motor versus US $2,220 for a gasoline- powered engine). Energy source dictates the lifetime greenhouse gas footprint of an electric pump-out boat To test the hypothesis that propulsion method influences the lifetime health and environmental impacts of pump-out boats, LCA models of gasoline-powered and electric boats were constructed. The gasoline-powered boat uses an internal combustion engine, and responses from the pump-out boat operator survey indicated that a typical boat consumes an average of 1,360 liters of fuel annually. The electric boat is powered using electricity generated from coal, oil, solar, nuclear, or wind energy, and its annual energy requirements were estimated to be 2,100 kWh. The greenhouse gas emissions Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/15/3/781/745305/wpt0150781.pdf by guest on 13 December 2021 Water Practice & Technology Vol 15 No 3 788 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.063 Figure 2 | Benefits, barriers, and potential receptiveness identified by CVA State Coordinators towards the adoption of electric service vessels. per pump-out were assessed for each boat configuration, assuming that pump-out performance was identical for all models. The LCA indicated that the gasoline-powered reference configuration generates 7.7 kilogram equiva- lents of CO2 (kg CO2-eq) per pump-out, amounting to 37,800 kg CO2-eq over its ten-year service Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/15/3/781/745305/wpt0150781.pdf by guest on 13 December 2021 Water Practice & Technology Vol 15 No 3 789 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.063 Figure 3 | Comparison of the yearly operation and maintenance costs for gasoline-powered and electric pump-out boats. Each pie represents a US $5,370 annual operation budget, all of which is spent for a gasoline-powered pump-out boat (left). Expenses common to both types of boat (totaling US $1,370 per year) are represented in yellow. The estimated operational cost savings for the electric pump-out boat (right), totaling US $2,150 per year, are denoted in green. lifetime (Figure 4). Use-stage carbon emissions for the gasoline-powered boat account for 95% of all carbon emissions over its entire life cycle. Electric pump-out boats powered with non-renewable energy sources – coal and oil – have lower carbon footprints than does the gasoline-powered equivalent at 5.4 and 4.1 kg CO2-eq per pump-out, respectively. Using renewable electricity, however, leads to dramatic reductions in the boat’s use-stage carbon footprint. Electricity derived from infrastructural solar energy reduces carbon emissions to 0.90 kg CO2-eq per pump-out, and nuclear- or wind-derived electricity leads to carbon emissions of 0.70 or 0.69 kg CO2-eq per pump-out, respectively. For the wind-powered electric pump-out boat, use-stage carbon emissions account for 54% of lifetime carbon emissions. Figure 4 | Greenhouse gas emissions per pump-out for gasoline-powered and electric pump-out boats. One pump-out rep- resents one functional unit for the pump-out vessel. All boat configurations shown in this figure are modeled with recycled (secondary) aluminum hulls. It is assumed that 10% of the electricity used to power electric boats is generated from onboard solar panels (NEWE: eGRID New England subregion; NYLI: eGRID New York Long Island subregion; NYUP: eGRID upstate New York subregion; MROE: eGRID eastern Wisconsin subregion). These results highlight the profound impact that energy source has on the lifetime greenhouse gas footprints of pump-out boats. To study these effects in real-world settings, the actual per-pump-out carbon emissions of an electric vessel operating in the United States and drawing electricity from regional mixed resource grids were estimated. Using the 2016 version of the USEPA’s Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) tool, it was estimated that a present-day electric pump-out boat in the northeast (NEWE) region would emit 1.6 kg CO2-eq per pump-out (USEPA Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/15/3/781/745305/wpt0150781.pdf by guest on 13 December 2021 Water Practice & Technology Vol 15 No 3 790 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.063 2015a). 50% of the electricity produced in the NEWE region derives from natural gas (USEPA 2016), whose combustion emits some 50–70% less greenhouse gas per unit of electricity produced than coal combustion (Weisser 2007; Sovacool 2008). Another 3% of the region’s electricity derives from non- renewable fossil fuels such as oil and coal, and the remaining 47% is generated from near carbon-neu- tral sources including nuclear energy, hydroelectric power, and biomass (USEPA 2016). A boat identical to that modeled in the LCA would emit 2.7 kg CO2-eq per pump-out using electricity gener- ated on New York’s Long Island (NYLI) grid, only 30 km from the NEWE-based grid. Within the electricity grid with the lowest carbon footprint in the United States – that of upstate New York (NYUP) — the boat would emit as little as 1.1 kg CO2-eq per pump-out. Within the country’s worst performing electrical grid – the Wisconsin region along Lake Michigan (MROE) — the same vessel would emit 3.5 kg CO2-eq per pump-out. Environmental and health impacts of pump-out boats vary by energy source The USEPA’s TRACI 2.1 framework was used to compare boat configurations over eight environ- mental and health impact categories (Figure 5(a)) (Gloria et al. 2007; USEPA 2015b). TRACI- calculated impact scores were normalized to the total impact score for the reference configuration. Constructing a gasoline-powered pump-out boat by repurposing an existing hull led to modest impact reductions, while manufacturing a new hull from primary aluminum raised the boat’s adverse environmental and health impact by 40%. This is primarily due to the release of carcinogenic com- pounds attributable to aluminum mining and refining (Wesdock & Arnold 2014). Regardless of electricity source, all electric pump-out boat configurations modeled had lower total impacts than a Figure 5 | Energy source dictates the lifetime environmental and health impacts of pump-out boats. (a) Normalized TRACI 2.1 impact scores for gasoline-powered and electric pump-out boats. (b) Percentage differences in TRACI 2.1 impact scores between the gasoline-powered reference configuration and an electric boat powered using various electricity sources. Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/15/3/781/745305/wpt0150781.pdf by guest on 13 December 2021 Water Practice & Technology Vol 15 No 3 791 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.063 comparable gasoline-powered vessel. Powering the boat using electricity generated from non-renew- able fossil fuels led to smaller reductions in environmental and health impact than powering it using nuclear, wind, or solar electricity. While all electric boat configurations had lower total impacts than gasoline-powered boats, they performed more poorly than the gasoline-powered counterpart with regard to particular environ- mental and health effects (Figure 5(b)). Electric pump-out boats powered with non-renewable electricity contributed equally or greater than gasoline-powered vessels to ocean acidification (sulfur dioxide release), respiratory health effects (PM2.5 release), smog production (nitrous oxide and volatile organic compound release), and CO2 release during manufacture. For electric boats pow- ered using solar, nuclear, or wind electricity, the greatest impact reductions occurred with regard to ecotoxicity (measured via comparative toxic units for ecosystems), eutrophication (nitrogen release), global warming (lifetime CO2 emissions), ozone depletion (chlorofluorocarbon release), fossil fuel depletion (surplus energy generated from non-renewable sources), smog, and CO2 emissions during use. These findings confirm the role that energy sources play in determining the impacts of rec- reational service vessels on the environment and human health. Rechargeable battery manufacture dominates the production-stage carbon footprint of electric pump-out boats The LCA indicated that electric pump-out boat manufacture led to the emission of 55%more CO2 into the atmosphere than gasoline-powered boat manufacture (Figure 5(b)). To understand the basis for this, the manufacturing-stage CO2 emissions of electric and gasoline-powered pump-out boats with recycled aluminum hulls were analyzed (Figure 6). The electric boat’s lithium-ion batteries played the largest role in increasing its carbon footprint during construction. Synthesizing organometallic compounds, including lithium hexafluorophosphate, for the batteries has a high carbon cost relative to other electric vessel manufacturing processes. Figure 6 | Estimated greenhouse gas emissions involved in the manufacture of gasoline-powered and electric pump-out boats. DISCUSSION Electrically powered vessels represent a promising opportunity to reduce the adverse environmental and health effects of recreational boating services. However, the feasibility and impact of converting service vessels to electricity remain uncharacterized. In this study, national-scale surveys and LCAs of pump-out boats were conducted to shed light on the environmental, health, social, and policy factors affecting the conversion of service vessels to electric technology. The study was focused on pump-out boats because there exists an accessible national network of pump-out service providers, and models Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/15/3/781/745305/wpt0150781.pdf by guest on 13 December 2021 Water Practice & Technology Vol 15 No 3 792 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.063 of gasoline-powered and electric pump-out vessels could be generated using available data. Narrowing the study’s scope to pump-out boats enabled precise appraisal of the benefits, barriers, and conse- quences associated with adopting electric technology in the recreational boating service sector. A wide range of attitudes exists among pump-out boat service providers towards the conversion to elec- tric technology in the United States. The LCA demonstrated that electricity-powered pump-out vessels have lower adverse environmental and health impacts than gasoline-powered boats, regardless of electricity source. The analysis also revealed that boats powered using non-renewable electricity sources show only modest reductions in lifetime greenhouse gas emissions relative to the gasoline- powered standard. The CVA state coordinator survey (Figure 2) indicates that administrators in the recreational boat- ing service sector are aware of the reduced environmental impacts of electric boat technology, a perception confirmed empirically with the LCA (Figures 4 and 5). CVA state coordinators identified implementation costs (coupled with budget uncertainty) as the greatest barrier to entry for electric pump-out boats. Costs notwithstanding, 31% of survey respondents also indicated that their states would be either ‘not receptive’ or ‘not at all receptive’ to adopting electric pump-out boats, suggesting that cultural and policy norms may hinder the transition to low-impact boating technology even if cost concerns are allayed. Motivating this transition may thus require initiatives extending beyond cost reduction or technology development and into policy action. A national-scale pump-out boat operator survey enabled quantification of pump-out programs’ oper- ational characteristics, and estimation of the costs associated with operating and maintaining gasoline-powered pump-out boats in the United States. The operational cost analysis indicated that existing electric pump-out boat technology can address the financial concerns (and concerns associ- ated with budget uncertainty) voiced by CVA state coordinators (US $3,220 per year for electric boats versus US $5,370 per year for gasoline-powered boats) (Figure 3). The costs associated with decommissioning an existing gasoline-powered pump-out boat and repla- cing it with an electric vessel are likely too high for many pump-out programs – the electric boat upon which the LCA is based cost approximately US $200,000 to design and build (personal communi- cation). The pump-out boat operator survey, by contrast, indicated that a conventional gasoline- powered pump-out boat costs US $59,600, on average, to replace (Table 2). This replacement cost may be an underestimate of the cost of an entirely new gasoline-powered pump-out boat, since many boat components – for example, navigation systems, safety equipment, and the pump-out unit – can be salvaged and reused. The electric pump-out boat on which the LCA was based, on the other hand, used all new components, and a significant share of its expense came from fixed costs for research and development. It is expected that reduced research and development costs, as well as economies of scale, will lower the price of electric pump-out boat construction in the future. The LCA enabled identification of important design and operating issues for minimizing service vessels’ detrimental impacts on the environment and human health. Holding all other design con- siderations constant, charging electric vessels using combinations of wind, solar, and/or nuclear electricity would lead to an order of magnitude reduction in the per-pump-out carbon footprint com- pared to the conventional gasoline-powered standard (Figure 4). This finding is similar to previously reported results on the effects of electricity source on the lifetime emissions for automobiles (Bauer et al. 2015; Onat et al. 2015; Elgowainy et al. 2016; Woo et al. 2017), and emphasizes the dominant role that energy sources play in determining total greenhouse gas emissions of personal-scale trans- portation. The electric pump-out vessel models were based on the assumption that onboard solar panels generate 10% of needed electricity, with the remaining electricity derived from infrastructural (i.e. grid) sources. Because of this, the use-stage carbon footprint of an electric pump-out boat with no onboard solar panels (i.e. entirely dependent on infrastructural power) is likely underestimated by approximately 10%. However, it should be noted that in the first year of operation of the prototype boat, the solar panels provided well over 10% of its electricity needs (personal communication). Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/15/3/781/745305/wpt0150781.pdf by guest on 13 December 2021 Water Practice & Technology Vol 15 No 3 793 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.063 Converting a pump-out boat to electric power leads to substantial reductions in a range of adverse environmental and health impacts, regardless of the electricity source used to charge the vessel (Figure 5(b)). The largest reductions result from the use of low-carbon electricity, including solar, nuclear, and wind power sources. However, conversion to electric power also shifts the balance of environmental and health effects relative to those of a gasoline-powered equivalent. The LCA results suggest that, for electric vessels charged using solar, nuclear, or wind power, the smallest reductions in TRACI-defined impact categories occur for emissions capable of causing ocean acidification, for car- cinogens, and for particles that cause respiratory health issues. For low-carbon electricity-powered vessels, environmental and health effects (particularly carcinogen release) arise predominantly from the manufacture of batteries and electric motors, not from use-stage emissions associated with electricity generation. Even a pump-out boat using the current mix of renewable and non-renewable electricity available in the northeastern United States offers a substantial reduction in use-stage carbon emissions compared to that of a conventional gasoline-powered boat (Figure 4). As with elec- tric automobiles, the remaining carbon and other emissions – along with their environmental and health effects – are non-local and occur primarily at electricity generation and electric motor construc- tion sites (Tessum et al. 2014; Holland et al. 2016). Pump-out boats provide a crucial service for recreational boaters by collecting the sewage generated on vessels that lack onboard waste treatment systems. The work presented here comprises a compre- hensive study of pump-out boating practices in the United States. The range of attitudes expressed among pump-out boat administrators suggests that the widespread adoption of electric technology requires addressing the numerous environmental, social, financial, technological, and policy factors that govern decision making in the recreational boating service sector. This is similar to the con- straints placed on the transition to electric-powered automobiles (Egbue & Long 2012; Bakker & Trip 2013). The CVA program coordinator survey showed that awareness of electric technology’s environ- mental benefits is high, but that aversion to its costs and doubts about budget stability hinder its adoption among pump-out boat service providers (Figure 2). Bringing the technology to scale is thus as much an issue of implementing suitable incentives through policy interventions as of further developing a technology that has demonstrated environmental and health advantages over the gaso- line-powered standard. Encouraging the adoption of electric technology in the boating service sector – through financial subsidies at the federal (i.e. CVA) and/or state levels – could lead to immediate reductions in the sector’s carbon footprint. Doing so would also lead to significant short- and long- term operational cost savings for service vessel operators. This study demonstrates that sustainable change in the recreational boating service sector will require federal administrators, state CVA coordinators, and local stakeholders to design and demand initiatives that incentivize the adoption of existing electric technologies through partnerships with local boat builders, public relations campaigns, and realignments in federal funding structures. Electric boat technology can grow to become the preferred alternative for pump-out boats, other boat- ing service sector vessels, and recreational vessels themselves. Operators of publicly owned fleets, state and local government administrators, and marina managers should all consider adoption of elec- tric technology as an option to reduce the boating industry’s carbon footprint, and its adverse environmental and health impacts, immediately. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS MP and RD formulated the study. JC, ER, and JS developed the surveys. CH conducted the life-cycle analysis. CH, JC, and ER analyzed the data and generated figures. CH, MP, and RD wrote the Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/15/3/781/745305/wpt0150781.pdf by guest on 13 December 2021 Water Practice & Technology Vol 15 No 3 794 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.063 manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript, provided feedback, and approved the manuscript for submission. COMPETING INTERESTS The Connecticut East Shore District Health Department, which MP directs, received a grant from the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, using funds received from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, for the purpose of construction of an electric pump-out boat. This boat served as the prototype electric pump-out boat described in this study. A Provisional Patent Application for the prototype electric pump-out boat has been filed for a consortium of the East Shore District Health Department, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, and the Pilots Point Marina. FUNDING The Yale Climate Change and Health Initiative (New Haven, Connecticut) supported this work through a grant from the Overlook International Foundation. The United States Fish & Wildlife Ser- vice and the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (grant number 2017– 190) also supported this work. The Connecticut East Shore District Health Department and its com- munity partners provided additional funding. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We extend sincere thanks to Kate Hughes Brown of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, and Lisa van Alstyne of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for valuable input throughout this study and for assistance in distributing nationwide surveys to CVA pro- gram coordinators and pump-out boat operators. We also thank Jeremy Maxwell of Pilots Point Marina for providing information regarding the design and construction of an electric pump-out boat; Thomas Swarr of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Sciences for expertise on life-cycle assessments; Brianna Weller of the East Shore District Health Department for providing information on regional pump-out boat programs; and Libby Yranski of the States’ Organization for Boating Access for assisting with survey distribution. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information. REFERENCES 16 USC 777c. Division of annual appropriations 1992, United States Code, title 16, section 777c, Cornell Legal Information Institute, Ithaca NY, USA. 33 USC 1322.Marine sanitation devices; discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels 1996, United States Code, title 33, section 25, Cornell Legal Information Institute, Ithaca NY, USA. 40 CFR 25.Marine sanitation device standard 1976, United States Code of Federal Regulations, title 40, section 25, Government Publishing Office, Washington DC, USA. 50 CFR 85. Clean vessel act grant program 1992, United States Code of Federal Regulations, title 50, section 85, Government Publishing Office, Washington DC, USA. Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/15/3/781/745305/wpt0150781.pdf by guest on 13 December 2021 Water Practice & Technology Vol 15 No 3 795 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.063 Adeel, M., Song, X., Wang, Y., Francis, D. & Yang, Y. 2017 Environmental impact of estrogens on human, animal and plant life: a critical review. Environment International 99, 107–119. Bakker, S. & Trip, J. J. 2013 Policy options to support the adoption of electric vehicles in the urban environment. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 25, 18–23. Bauer, C., Hofer, J., Althaus, H.-J., Del Duce, A. & Simons, A. 2015 The environmental performance of current and future passenger vehicles: life cycle assessment based on a novel scenario analysis framework. Applied Energy 157, 871–883. Betancourt, W. Q., Duarte, D. C., Vásquez, R. C. & Gurian, P. L. 2014 Cryptosporidium and Giardia in tropical recreational marine waters contaminated with domestic sewage: estimation of bathing-associated disease risks. Marine Pollution Bulletin 85(1), 268–273. Burnham, A., Wang, M. & Wu, Y. 2006 Development and Applications of GREET 2.7 – The Transportation Vehicle-Cycle Model. Oak Ridge, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, USA. Curran, M. A. 2013 Life cycle assessment: a review of the methodology and its application to sustainability. Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering 2(3), 273–277. Egbue, O. & Long, S. 2012 Barriers to widespread adoption of electric vehicles: an analysis of consumer attitudes and perceptions. Energy Policy 48, 717–729. Elgowainy, A., Han, J., Ward, J., Joseck, F., Gohlke, D., Lindauer, A., Ramsden, T., Biddy, M., Alexander, M., Barnhart, S., Sutherland, I., Verduzco, L. & Wallington, T. 2016 Cradle-To-Grave Lifecycle Analysis of U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle-Fuel Pathways: A Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Economic Assessment of Current (2015) and Future (2025–2030) Technologies. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL, USA. Gloria, T. P., Lippiatt, B. C. & Cooper, J. 2007 Life cycle impact assessment weights to support environmentally preferable purchasing in the United States. Environmental Science & Technology 41(21), 7551–7557. Gregory, L. F., Gitter, A., Muela, S. & Wagner, K. L. 2019 Should contact recreation water quality standards be consistent across hydrological extremes? Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education 166(1), 12–23. Hallgren, P., Nicolle, A., Hansson, L.-A., Brönmark, C., Nikoleris, L., Hyder, M. & Persson, A. 2014 Synthetic estrogen directly affects fish biomass and may indirectly disrupt aquatic food webs. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 33(4), 930–936. Hansen, J. P., Sundblad, G., Bergström, U., Austin, Å. N., Donadi, S., Eriksson, B. K. & Eklöf, J. S. 2019 Recreational boating degrades vegetation important for fish recruitment. Ambio 48(6), 539–551. Holland, S. P., Mansur, E. T., Muller, N. Z. & Yates, A. J. 2016 Are there environmental benefits from driving electric vehicles? The Importance of Local Factors. American Economic Review 106(12), 3700–3729. ISO14044 2016 Environmental Management – Life-Cycle Assessment – Requirements and Guidelines. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland. Lapointe, B. E., Herren, L. W., Debortoli, D. D. & Vogel, M. A. 2015 Evidence of sewage-driven eutrophication and harmful algal blooms in Florida’s Indian River Lagoon. Harmful Algae 43, 82–102. Lloret, J., Zaragoza, N., Caballero, D. & Riera, V. 2008 Impacts of recreational boating on the marine environment of Cap de Creus (Mediterranean Sea). Ocean & Coastal Management 51(11), 749–754. NMMA 2019 2018 Recreational Boating Statistical Abstract. National Marine Manufacturers Association, Chicago, IL, USA. Onat, N. C., Kucukvar, M. & Tatari, O. 2015 Conventional, hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicles? state-based comparative carbon and energy footprint analysis in the United States. Applied Energy 150, 36–49. Rabinovici, S. J. M., Bernknopf, R. L., Wein, A. M., Coursey, D. L. & Whitman, R. L. 2004 Economic and health risk trade-offs of swim closures at a Lake Michigan beach. Environmental Science & Technology 38(10), 2737–2745. Rebitzer, G., Ekvall, T., Frischknecht, R., Hunkeler, D., Norris, G., Rydberg, T., Schmidt, W.-P., Suh, S., Weidema, B. P. & Pennington, D. W. 2004 Life cycle assessment: part 1: framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environment International 30(5), 701–720. Soller, J. A., Schoen, M. E., Varghese, A., Ichida, A. M., Boehm, A. B., Eftim, S., Ashbolt, N. J. & Ravenscroft, J. E. 2014 Human health risk implications of multiple sources of faecal indicator bacteria in a recreational waterbody. Water Research 66, 254–264. Sovacool, B. K. 2008 Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: a critical survey. Energy Policy 36(8), 2950–2963. Stoll, J. R., Bergstrom, J. C. & Jones, L. L. 1988 Recreational boating and its economic impact in Texas. Leisure Sciences 10(1), 51–67. Tessum, C. W., Hill, J. D. & Marshall, J. D. 2014 Life cycle air quality impacts of conventional and alternative light-duty transportation in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111(52), 18490–18495. USEPA 2015a Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID). United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/energy/emissions-generation-resource-integrated- database-egrid. USEPA 2015b Tool for Reduction and Assessment of Chemicals and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI). United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/chemical-research/tool- reduction-and-assessment-chemicals-and-other-environmental-impacts-traci. USEPA 2016 eGRID Summary Tables. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/energy/egrid-summary-tables. Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/15/3/781/745305/wpt0150781.pdf by guest on 13 December 2021 Water Practice & Technology Vol 15 No 3 796 doi: 10.2166/wpt.2020.063 van Beusekom, J. 2018 Eutrophication. In: Handbook on Marine Environment Protection. Springer International, pp. 429–445. Available from: https://www.springerprofessional.de/en/eutrophication/15430710. Vargas-González, H. H., Arreola-Lizárraga, J. A., Mendoza-Salgado, R. A., Méndez-Rodríguez, L. C., Lechuga-Deveze, C. H., Padilla-Arredondo, G. & Cordoba-Matson, M. 2014 Effects of sewage discharge on trophic state and water quality in a coastal ecosystem of the Gulf of California. The Scientific World Journal 2014, 618054. Weisser, D. 2007 A guide to life-cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electric supply technologies. Energy 32(9), 1543–1559. Wesdock, J. C. & Arnold, I. M. F. 2014 Occupational and environmental health in the aluminum industry. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 56(5 Suppl), S5–S11. Woo, J., Choi, H. & Ahn, J. 2017 Well-to-wheel analysis of greenhouse gas emissions for electric vehicles based on electricity generation mix: a global perspective. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 51, 340–350. Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/wpt/article-pdf/15/3/781/745305/wpt0150781.pdf by guest on 13 December 2021