PaEtn,ership$ irnl EnrvlfQ,nm,enltal Mamafjement for 1lIiIe Seas; ,of East Asj,a

Depmm,ent of Env!;ronlilile<nt ind Natural Riesol!lrces

Manila lay Inlilill IRii,sk

AsseSlmienl

Apr'i'l 2001

G,EFiU N D PflM.O Reg ional Proglr.atDme 'on Partnerships in in\1l1'onmentaB Managemient 'for the seas o,f East Asia,

MANILA BAY: INJTIAL nrsrc ASSESSMENT

April :200l

P'!.lbH$hl!d by the GEHUNDPIlMO Regional Pmgramrnc on Huikling Part11ct-sh~p$ in E L1V [fOr) men [0:) ~ M anagc men [ f Q r

tn(; Seas Q fE;l ~t As! ~ {P E~tv1 S I:::\}af! d the

D epartme ut -of En vi ronment .md N amra I R~.-;,ou rc ~5" Republ~.; (If the Philippines

PEMSEA, 200 L Manila Bay: initial risk assessment. PEMSfA Technical Information ltc-pon No. 2()Ol101 112 p. Globail I!r\Viro[)m~rn l'acility/Unncd Nauons Lkvcl¢pm~m ~)I.-ogr:J.nln1clhncr[]iltioJ1al Maritime Org~rljzati(H~ R"giol"!~l Progr.()Jnn~e on Building Partnerships in Envjrol~lw!mal MilnJgement for the Seas of East Asia (FE M SEA), QUi:.lIQ I) C' il), J Ph iJi P P ines.

A GH Project Implemented by UNDP

The contents ofthls publication do not necessarily rellcct the vlews Or policies of the GIobal Environment Facility (GEF), the United Nations De\'~k)rm~m Programme (WDP). the ] n N~r:rUH tOI1J I. Mari rime Orga n iza rion (1 M 0) > and Lit!! O~ hcr [l an it Lp~Hi ng organizations, The designation employe-a and ~h,,; prL;$cn'tllrion d.o not imply expression ~f npjnien, whatscever em the p~11 of GEF, l)NDP, lMO, or [be Regional Programme on Bu: 1<1 Lrlg Partnersh ips ~L1 E I:JYLfOI1 mental Pro tee t Lon ,3 nd Management fa r the Seas 0 fEast Asia (PEMSEA) concerning the legal status of any country or territory .. or its aUlhority or concerning the delimitacon of its bcundaries,

Tbl.: Glob:.!! Environment 1~:lCllily/Urlil,,;J Nltiml:5 DL:ve,>IQpmeI1t Progl'~l1:lIm::'[ntcm:llion:i1 Marililw,:

Orguuizatlon Regiona] Prcgr;:Hljm~ ou J3uildin:;; Partnerships in Environmcnml [\,I.lIlagemel1t JiJI" the Seas of E.,~t .,A,~i~l. ~yt:[I.·1SEA} ~lim~ to promote J shared \'ision f[lr lhe Seas 0 r EJs~ Asia:

TII,~ eleven p:Htj~i~1i1tlng countries arc: Brune] D"ru1>~ul',LI~l. Cambodia, Democratic People's kepublie 01' Kurt';" llhl\JiH:~ia. jo,lalOly'.:>PJ. P~'OJll~'5 Rrpllbl ic r,d"ChLH,I, Philippines. Republic oj" KOL-,,;'ll. ~iltgjpoJ~, Thaikmd and Vietnam. The collective efforts of these countries in irnpkllmlling IhL: su uiegics ;lI1U OI~'livio~~ \'. ill rcsuh it' dfcClivc pL,licy and manugcmern intcrvenrions, ':lila in I;L1I1ml~Lli\!(:' I:llob[]1 cnvirnmnental bcnctirs, thcrelry contributing towards the achievement of rhe ulumoro gQ:llu r pmLcding IlIHj sustaining Lh~ liii: support $ys"l~tm i il [he cuustal and iutcrnauoual waters over the hJllg term

'·'1111.: r";~OLlI'';~ systems 01' the S~~S (If F,:N Asia are a 1'<llHral hCl"i.ljg~·., soreguarclng ~us~.a;[lllbh; aud healthy food supplies, livclihcod, properties ~mJ investments. ami socml, cultural :1uJ ccolcglcal values for lilt;' people or tbe n.:giQJI, while conrnbuung io economic prosperity nnd global markers ihrotrgh safe ;Lnli ci"iicl(:'tll maritime trade. IbC'r!:by promoling J peaceful and 11JrmOtlDOU$ ()'l:XiS10IlC<! for present :md tuture E:(:[H:n~,nlJns."

rEM S fA (l}L'USeS 011 builJing intl.:rg~)q:,mm('f1(Jl.imC'r;Jg,,;rlI::' and mtersectoral partnerships It) ::icr~'ng;lil;[l environmental rn;;ln:tgC'mt:'~lI capabi litles ,H the ]oJt:llr national :1Ild rcgajl1:.l1 Ic'Q.:!5. and develop 11ll! collect ivc cnpacuy tc implement appropriate srrategics ;U1J cnvimnmental acnon rrn~r,:Jms on self-reliant basis.

Sf1~'L"i li'cally. PL'vlS EA will carry out tile following:

~ build national und regional capaciry to impk-meu: illtegr,ll1,!J ~'()as~:ll mrr.n[l~x·rn('IH programs:

~, promote mulu-ccuntry initial ives in addr ... ~siltg pnoriry rransboundarv t·li\·LrOl1nli.::l1~ issues L'II sub-regionat ~C;] arr"~ .. 1tl!:l pollut ion hotsPl:.ts;

.. rein force and ~'~t~blisll a range Q(l'mlCliQn~ll ne',\\'!.xb 10 suppon ~n\· ironmenurl IU:l!lUgi.:lllCJL1;

,~ i.J.(:'~Hir)' enviroruncntul inv~~nn~I~'1 and '1111;.llllcing opponunhics ~H1d promote mechanisms, illc:h 3~ public-private partnerships, cnvironrucnen projects for financing and ~l[b~T terms 01 developruental assistance:

• advance scient i fie O1ml technicul inpLH$ 10 !;UPp0[1 decision-making;

• develop inl(:'g],J~edintoI111~lion management systerus I ink ing Sdo,;Cl~'d sites into J r~g.!on:ll network 6Jf dura sharing and techrrlcal sl.lpporl; .

• establish the t:n~lbiIHg cnvirunmcnt to rein r~)r~~ delivery capabil lncs and advance lite cunccrns \JI non-government lim! cOln:l1lmily-1;:l..s~·J. mguHiz':lIia-tls, em'il.'Ol;1;le111~ I journal i:.I:5, rL''liglUIJ.::i gl'OUP$ and other s(:jk!.:holJe]'~:

• strengthen national C3PJ~Hi.es for de\'ckl]1Lr.g ;l1k~gra(d coastal and marine PQJides as pan of ~'la1c policies fur sustcinnble sccro-economic development; tllHJ

• promote l'eg1on;li commitment for inrplcmcnting imcmuuunul conventions, and ~lrt:'ngtht'neng regional and sub-rcgiorral cuuperaliun und collnboraucn u~ing II sustainable regional mechanism,

Dr, CilU::! Tll;;l-Ellg Regiollal Prugramrnc Dirn'lor PEr-.1SEA

Contents

LI ST' OF T,\ IH_ES., ... ,' " .. ," ,,"" ...... , """'" .--" ,_ .. -.," ---" , u . . -_,' n""" _", •• ,"" .,"", •• ,'" "",.,",. __ , \'

LtSl Ol~ FIGLl'l:.ES.", ,', .. ,' ," .. -,., " ..... ,' " .. "'" _,," ," """""""""""" ,-"", .. '" -"""""""" \' l

Lls'l OF ABBREVI.-\T10:\S ,'\ND ACRONYMS "_,,_""--,', ...• "',.,"',.,""-"', .. ,"'--", .. -"'_"""""' __ " vii

i\CK,:-';O\VLEDG[\", ENTS _"" , .... "" . ., , .• ""., ' __ """""""""'"'''''''''''''''''_''' _- .. ,' ''"_.'' , __ '" __ , ,,'""""',' ". IX

[!.XECUTI VE SUlvlfl.1.ARY ,"'"'''''''''''''''''' '-"" -.""" ---",' , ," ---" ', ... ", __ "" " ," ," ,', .. ," ,,'" ... ,,',' xi

SU1'-tf'..1AR YOI' RLcm1.\IL'" I lX1IO>"S .. " __ ,' , .... ," .... ,,'" ,', ... ," .. ," .... ,' " ," ,' -_" " ,' , ". :-:.: .... i

BI\CI(G RO'll[~': I) ,, __ "' , ," H .. '" ." " ... , ,' ..... ,' , ,.-_" .... ,' , , , ..... ,' __ " .. __ .,' , __ '"_"" '" __ ~

o n,J EClI'[ \,'ES .. ", .. ,," " ,', ... ,'" ,'.""" ," . " " " __ "" __ '_" __ '" , ...• " " _ .. ", __ '" """" , __ "" , 3

SOUl~CES OF U\]~ORMA H ON .... , ,' . ., , .. __ . " " ._--.', __ ," ' ... ," __ "', .. ,",.,'" ""'" ,.,"', .. ,' 5

DE F[ N 11'1 n~ OF ~":'EY TERI\IS __ , , ,' " ' ," '_""""""""'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' __ "', ... ," 7

DESCH.] PTl O:"\' OF IV] AN [L;\.BA Y .'",._"", """", .. "",."", .. ", ,_", ... ," _--" _" __ "" "" 9

THE RJSK ,'\.S~E~Sl\I ENT ,A P PROACH , .. -"'" -'" .--." , " , "," __ " """", ,' , , '._'" ". 1 l

RETJH)S PECHVE It[ S I{ ASS ESSJ'vm E~T .. " .. __ " ..... ," ._." , ... ,', .. ,', ... ,', ... ,', ," .. ,' , ,', .. 1 J

INTH.O[)Ut'TtON ".--". --:. ,- ", .. - .. " ', .. ,'" ,", .. ," .... ,', ... ,' " ... ,', ... ,' .. ,,'" , ... ,' , ... ," -" " ..... ," .-.,13

METHlJIJGU]Cj Y ... ,', .. ," ,,'" .. ""., ' , ,. __ " , " .. . , .. _ .• ". __ .....•... , __ ., ",.,',. _."" .. """",.""",.",1 j.

Problem Fcrrnulation .. ". "', ,", .. ,', .. ,"'" -"" ... ,'" ,--., ,, __ __ .. ""_"",. .. ,_ ,. __ " , ," ._"", ~ J

Ret.rospCClivc R isk Assessment " .. ,", .... ,' , ... ," '''''''''''' ,', " , , ... ,' ,' .-., ,' ,._ .. , ]4

P .. ES()U RCES."" .... " .... , " ..... " .. _,., .... """ .• " .. ., ..... , .. __ .. , ,., __ "", ," _""'"'''''''''''''''''''''' ! 6

,Fi::;hcric$ ... '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' _ _ '"" , ., "_"", .. __ ., ., .. ", __ "'" ,' ._., " ..... ,' ._." ", ," , .... ,' l G

She!lfi!\~1eries" ... " " .... ,' ...... ,' """""""" ," .... ,," ""'''''''''''''''' ,'_-", ,' .. __ ., ,',"'"" __ " ".' ". , 19

Seaweeds , ... ,'" __ ., ,. __ .. ,. .. ,. __ -- ... _.,., _ .. ""._""" .. "" -"""""'"'''' ,'" _"" " .. __ ., _." .. .. '2 ,

l'hyiop I nnkrcn __ ., " "'."'" __ '" ,'" .. _a" , ,' •• _."' ,, ,' " ,,', .. ," ,', .. ," ," ,' 21

F[ A R [1',::'" T T '{P E S , ..... , , , , " , , , . , ••• '. , , , _. , , ". , , " < •• __ ••• " , , • , .. __ ., ... _ •••• __ .. , •• __ • , , , .. , , , , , • _, , , , , , 23

Mauerovcs.; .. ,. __ ._ .. __ """'''''''''''''''''''' ,_""" .. "" -""'''''' .. " ,. __ .. " __ " .. __ , ,' .. _".,' .. ,:23

Coral Reefs, " .. ,'" .' .. ," .. __ _, __ " , "."'.,' '" __ ., , .. , ," ,._." , ", , " " ... ,' .... ,' " ... " ,' " ... ," " .. 24

Seagrass beds ., ,' ,' " ,,", ,' "', .... ," " " .. ,'" ,' ," " ,' ,,_.,' . , .. __ .. n-- __ ."" .. , lG

So n· Bot toms.; , ,' _-- , __ -- __ "" __ ""', .. ," '_"""""'"'''''''''''''''''''''''' __ " , .. . ' ,' 2"7

j\.!lud flats, Sand flats, Beaches, and Rocky Shores .. " , __ ., " "._", ... ," ... ,' , ,', ," ,. 19

S U0il MARY.", "._." ", ,', .. ,", .... ,", .... ,' ... ,," " ... ," ,'" _.,' , ," ._.,' , .. _ _--" ... __ ., _ " .. "", J U

Resources __ ., _-- _.", .'"'''''''''''' ".,"',.,"', ,'" ".,', ,'" .-_"" " .... " ", ---_, , - .. , __ .. , .. _ 30

1-' abitats ,. __ '" __ .. , .. __ .. "". , ' , .. ,' _ .. ", " ,'" ._., ,' , ," ,', .. , " ' , ,' ,', .. ," ,",. J 1

PRO~SPECTl VER] SK ASSESSIVIEl'"l.', "", .. ", , .. ,'" '''''' , ,', .. ,', .. ,," , ,' , ," _"" ," ._. J 3

lNTRODUCTI.O;-"" .,'" ''".,' " .... ,," ,,, ... ," " ... ,', .. ,", .. ,"', ... ," .... ,,', ... ,', ... ,", .. ," .. "" .---" ,''"_ .... -." .-_._" .. -- .. 33

NUTRlE:--:TS ", .... ," , ., __ -_.',. "" , .. " .. _ .. '.'.""""""'''.'''''''''''''''''' _"',.,"',.,"',.,'" __ " " ,'" .. _.,' 3i1

DOlBO DieOO", .. ", .... ,,',. ." , .. "",. __ __ "., .. ", , ," . ., '" .. , .. " ,' ._"" '"''''""''' ,,'" .... ",37

TOTAL StSPEl'.'DED SOUDS (TSS) , .. ,", ," , .. - .. , , ," .--.,' '''''' ,_-.,' , ," __ ., ,. __ ., .. _ ... ' ," , ",.41

TOTAL ORGAN Ie CARBON (TOe) ,.,", .. ,"", .. ,'" ,",.,"',.,"',.,"', .. ,'" _"', .. ,'" _" ""_'" . , , ... 42

HI

COLIFORM:;; .• ,. '" ,""""', .. ,',.,,"", .. ,"", , " , .. .. " " .. , ," ,' "', ," ,' , ,' ,' , 43

PEST](~J DrS" •.. ." ,'" ,' """"" ,' "" ," ," " ,' ,_----.,' __ - .. "" __ .", " ," ,._."", ,"".,'" 44

Tox Ie ALGAE __ " .. _", .. ., , ..•.• ',. __ ., " •...• ,.,. __ """', .. ,"'" _"""", ---- .... ---., "'-"-." .. __ .", , ," __ ., " .;1.0

H I.:AVY ~'[ l.:"'L·\ rs " ... " .. __ .... "_._ .. __ " ,.,.""_., ... _ .. "", " ... ,,'" " .... ,"'" ,,'" .-.,," , ," .- .. ," , ,' -_.,' , ,4 6

POLYCYCUC AROMATIC 1 '[YIJlWCAREJ.ON (PAJ is)--- .. "." .. ""-.-- --""" " .. __ .''''' .. ''''_"", 5~

O'I:L 8; GREASE " .. " __ " ,. "_.", , .. ,"",.,""" ,"" _-"""'" .-- -- -- "-- " "- -- .. ".-- 53

Q[L SPl L LS ".,"",.,'" ,. __ ,." .. _ . ,," __ .", " ," ."_ .. ", ,,, ,"" ,," " ,," """" " ,', ," ..•. ,' .. 5 5

COM~"AIl.'-\TJ VE R[SI:{ AND tJNC~·~RT.<\,IN'rY,<\SSESS:\'[El'\T " ... ","" " "', ... ",,. 59

t NTll(JI)UCTIO;'; . __ .... .. , " ..... ,' '_"'" .... ," ... ,'" " .... ,"" ... ,'" "" ..... ,,'" , .. -.," ...... , ,_-.,' , ...... ". ---, " .... ," ---.59

COfI.W,\I(,A, II v E ASS[SS.\1E!,;T OF RISKS TO TH [ ECUlOGY OF

I'vl s \I .... nLA R·\]' FROM WATER·IJOI.~~\:E SUBST.t\ ;":'('1:$ " .. •••.... '" " .. ,'" __ "" ... ,'" ,_.", " .. ," ,,59

CO!Vll'A..R.1\ rtvt J\S.SESS.ME~T 01.; RJSKS ro Til E ~~COLOGY OF

1'vfAf'.: I LA I3A Y FRO 1"'1 S.EI)L""lEi\:T~BOR;":E S1.;BST,~l'nS """""""" , .. ""."""."", .. "", .. ""."",62 COMPARATrVE ASSI::SSNIENT OF RJSKS TO Hl_.'M,;N HL\LTH ... " ..... ," __ "·" .... ,"' __ .,', ... ," __ .,,, .. 65

CO""';CLUS[ONS. D .. \T~\ GAPS ,ANn L!(\'CELlTAlxnES ,,, ,', ,",, .. ,"', .. ,", ... ,', .. ,"'. G9

.RETROS.PECTI v I~ rZlSV. ASSESSM [NT " .... ,'" .. _ .. "" , .... ,""', .. ,"'" , ,', ," '''''''''''''' " .. ," , .. ," , ... 69

PROSPE[,l~\'I': RlSI.(' ,ASSJ~%i\1I;:NT __ ., ,, __ -_, .. , , __ --_ ..... _-- .. "" " .. ,',. __ ",. ".,', .. _ .. " ' ... ". _ .. "" .. 70

.DATA (JAPS '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' _""" ._._, " t "' "' __ ••••• ..... ,"""._" •• __ " "'_"" __ •• , ,._ ••• , __ ." , .. _. '7 l

R£COj"]J\·IENn.,U'JO~S A[\'~) PH.OJ'OSED ACT~O[\'S ,,, ... ,,,, .. ,,, .... ,,, ,,, .... ,, ... ,., .... 13

Rt:COfvI:VI.l:ND.-\TJO;-"S ,"::',ND PROPOSI':U . .'\(TI()~S 1;01\ REFIt--:ING Till.::

H.lst:. .ASSESSi'dENT .. ,_". ... , .• ,' __ ." , .... ,'" " __ .""" " ,"" """', ,"" _"""""""""'"'''''''''' , , ,7)

Fisheries.: .. "" "" __ "" ,.-.,. __ ,.,. __ ", .. : .,' _ .. " ,. __ ., , '" _ .. " ' ,' __ ., ,., , 73

PiJyr()p!ollk;on ,', .... ,' .... ,' ... ,,' "'" ... ,' ," ," ,,. .. ,,,, , ,' ,--,., , , , __ .. , " , ,. __ " ,., , 73

Sofi-bottonis " ,' _--., " .. ",. . , ,. .. .,' , ._ .. ,.", , ', .. __ '" ,,, .. ,.,. __ ,.,' " .. ",. __ .. " , " "73

(,·olijul+fll "._."" , .. ,"',.,"" """""'" ,'" __ ""'" , .. ,"" _-"""" ._._- __ ,.," __ .... __ "", , __ - __ ", __ 74

Nutrients.. __ " " .... ,'" ".", " .. ,," ,'" ... ,,'" ," ..... ," " ,., ," , .... ", . ."" , ,., , ,',. 7.4

Heavy .,.\'fctarr ,_.,., .. ., __ .. , .. ' ," __ ."", ,',. ""'" ,"'" __ "", .. ,'" _."", "" _."" .. "".74

Dissolved O;rygcfl--.". __ -- .. __ ., , .. " __ __ ., '., __ .. , .. .. ", "., ,"" ._ .. ", , ," " , ,' " ,., .. ,""_ 7 5

Pesticides "" , ... ,', .... ,' , " ... ,' , ," _-.," , ," .- .. ," " ,'" ,.---'" , ,' _-"" " ," __ .. , ,., .... ,' 7 s-

Uil atu] Grease . " , ,. __ "', ," ._.""" ,"', .. ,""" , ,""',.,""',.,",.,""', .. ,", .. ,", .. ,""" 7 5

TOlal Suspended Solids .. . , .. _ .. " .", " ,',. '" ", ,"" __ .", " ," __ "" , ," __ ." , ," ._., 76

Data Gaps and SOW'ellS of Un certa in,'_)' .," ... ,'" , ,'" ,.,. .. " " ,' ,- .. ,' , ,", ... ,' ," "., 76

SUMi\lARY OF .vr,.\JOR AREAS Or- C()NCER?"--: FROM TI-IE: PR(JSP!::C71Vt

RI SK AS.sI~S:SJ\it:;\··r ,' .. __ __ .: ,. __ ., " , .. " , ." ,., .. _ ,':. .", , ". " , _ __ .. " ., ,.7~

I.l E FE REN(]~S __ ... , , ," _."" ,", ... ," " ... ,,"", ... ,'" , ,,""', ... ,"'" ,,', ... ," """"""" , ,', ... ," 8 l

G LOSSA.R:'.' , .... ,", ," , ," _-. ", ," ---" ". , ... ----, ", "_,, .. , --- __ " ", ,' ---" """"'" __ .. ,' , ," ., ". 8 S"

,"\PPENDICES , .. .. , '" __ .", , .. ," , ... ,"", .. ,""" _.""" """" _.""", , ," ._."" ' ... ,,',. __ ." " .. ," __ """ 9 ~

Appendix f Retrospective Risk Assessment: Summar]' a/Likelihood "', .. ,'" ,.,""""" 93 At" 1 ,I' .? '-":"" - I'D' > . ........ (I"

,"]pp~ I,(I_\ ~. ,J'()d,/ ~ ~;} oJ (<It! __ " ,., .... ,,'" ,. .", , ,"'" __ """'" " .• _ ••• ". __ .", '"'_''' .. , .• _ .. ,. __ .", , • ., f

Appendix 3. Sampling Stations .. ,, __ ----"" , , ------'" , "---" ''' ,' , "" .. " 1 0 I

Appendix 4 .. Cri{aiaISrand(m/s .. ,"" ---""" , .. ,""" --"""""'''''''''''''''''''''' ,.,,"' .. ,', .. ,'" i OJ

rv

Table J, Tabk 2, T:1bl~ 3, Tab.k:: 4, T>]bl~ 5, Trible 6, T<1blc 7. TOlbll! 8. Table 9,

TJbll! 10-.

Table- II ,

Table ~ ~ .. TL1b!e 13, T~ble 14, Table 15 .. Table 16, Table 17, T3bk is. Table 19. T(lbl~ 2(},

Table 21" T~ble 22. T'-lblc 23. T<lble 24. Table 25. Table 26. f;.Lole 27. T';lble28. Tabl.e 19.

Lis' 01 Tables:

RNl"OSPCClivc Analysis I~)]" Fisheries in Marti la lsay.; , ," ,'" ."_., ",. __ .. 16

Retrospective Analysis fur Sbell fisheries in ~vlanila !3;JY , ,.,,"', , ," , .19

Retrospective Analysis for Seaweeds ~11 Man i In Bay, "'"'' ".,,""""", .. ,,'" 22

Retrospective A~Mt.y5[S for Phytoplankton In Manila l3ay, " .. _."" , .. "., .2:2

Retrospective AI13.[y~~~ for Mangroves in Manila Bay, -" , ," .. -.," , .... ,'" ",,23

Retrospective Analysis 1'01" COI"v:j Reds in Manilxl 13J)', "" .. "" .. -.""" .. ", .. --- .25,

Retrospective Analysis for Seagrassin Man ila Gay .... _." ,'" ._"." , .. __ , ... ---" ,2.6

Retrospective Analysis lor Saf'l-Buuorns in Manila Bay ,' ,' , ,'" ,"" ,19

Retrospect ive Analysis for Mud flats, Sand 11 ats, Beaches,

and Rocky Shorcsi n Manila Bay, .. ,"" .. _ .. " , ,' . __ " .. " .. ," '. __ ----."",,30

Summary of evidences 0 r decline, areal e:'UC'rHS, \lnd the

con:::~ql!~nCeS in the decline ofresources in Manila Bay, ,."""" .. "". __ ..... , . .3 I Summary of evidences 0 f dedi ne, areal extents, and the

consequences in the dec 1 inc ofhab itats in M:1nil~ Bu·y·,, , . __ .,' , ..... ,' ,._ .. ,'" J:2

RQs 0 t' Nutrients in !,vl anjla B~v., ..... "" , .. - .. ,"'" .... ,"""", .. ,"",.,"'" .. ,'" , __ ,,"" , 36

RQs of Oxygen Demand Pal"(Jmctcrsin Manila Bay. ", ",.--- ... ""--- .... - ... , ---3:-)

RQ~ for Nutrients in Four Major Ri vcr Systems, .. ", __ .. , ," . __ .. , , ,'" __ .," , 40

RQs for BOD21l1d DO in Four Major River Systems ",.""", .. ,,", .. ,,"'".,,",, .41

RQs Q [" Heavy Metals in Mani la Gay., ,"'" , .... ,,'" , .. ,' , ,'" ."'" ''"".,',. __ ,.,' '"" .<-17

RQs of l lca vy Metals in Ri ver Mouths " .. ,., __ ," ., , .. __ ." , .4 7

RQs .a f Heavy Metals i tl Sediments ,." ,,'" _.,,' .. "",, .. ,,",.,,""""'" ".4 ~

RQs () CH~a vy J\4t;:t~1::; in Tissue. ,"" ,"" , ," .. ," " .. ,'" ," ,'" " .. ," ,50

Maximum R.Q of Heavy M~[J1s inTissue for Cbildn::n_ ,. __ .". ., 5l

PAHs ill Sed irnents from Mani ln Bay " "" .. __ "" .. _"" , ,""""'" ".53

Oll 311U Greasein Water, .. --.," , ,'" , .. -,."" " ,,'" ," .. ,,'" ," ,'" ," " 54

Li5[ of Oi l Spil ll nc idcms in the Manila Bi1Y Area in the 1 '990s."., ." -- .. -.5 7

In irial Ris.k Assessment Summary for \Vater , .. __ __ ., _"_ __ ."", . __ .. _ .60

Cornpurati vc Risk Assessment fur \'Vall.:r_ " ,' ,. __ ., , ,'" ," ," , ," , ,61.

In [Iinl Risk Assessment S~l!nmary for Sediment. " .. ,.,' .. ,"" __ ,.,' __ .. " , .. ,63

Cornparati vc R tsk Assessment for Sed irnent. .... ," ,_.", ," ,. __ " ,."" ." '"----- 64

1 Il il ial R~sk Assessment Summary for Human H~a!lh , .. __ .,' , ," ,' ,' ,66

Comparative Risk Assessment for Human Health. _"', .. ,"',.,"",.,"""""" ,', ... ,6"7

Lisl of Figlues

Figure i. S i mpl i fled risk pathways for M anil .. Bay. _" , ," . .", ,' . __ ., _ __ ., , __ _ I 2.

Figure 2:. Combined results of the Schaeffer and F O'X surplus production mode 1.::;,,, " ,. 18

Figure 3a. Scatter plot or data f0f NO ~~N _- --_ --- .. ''' '.'. --- .. , ,. -- -- .. :. ---. , -- 35

Figu rc. 3b, Scaucr plot or data. for N H ,:~N. "" , ,", .. --' - ' --- ' , -- _"". --." , .. ,', , 35

Figure 3c, Scatter plot of data for PO~·P, ... ,', ,", .... ,", ,", ,', ,', ,', ", ... ", .. ", ,35

Figure 4, Scatter plot of DO in Manila Bay , ... ---- .... " .. --- .. ,. __ --., .. -- .. '. __ .' .. --- .. , ... , .. --., 33

Figure 5, Frequency of oi I. spi 11 occurrences ill Mani 1::1 Bay (rom I 990~ 1999. "" .. ", .. ,,' 56 Figure G, Volume ofoil spilled til Mani ill Bay from 199C~99". " .... ,", .. ," ... ,'" ... ,', ... , .... ". 5()

Lis,t of Abbrlev'iaUons and Acronyms

/\S 1::.-\ N BF.'\R BOD COD CPljE DAO 34 nITKR DO

E1A F\llH F$P·HE,\ FNRJ Geurnean lK'\ lSQV LC.so LOAEL LUC MEC MEL. MEY MPN ]v]Sy fvj\l.,'SS NRl

KO~

PA.R

PCB

PCG PEe

PEL PFMSEA PNEC PNEL IPO~, l11UU' PSi'

JtQ

RQ"L"""i~"n ROM • .'. S[~\,l P

TBT

TDI TP.'\~! TSI-! Toe TSS USFDA USEPA

A ssoei u t ion ~l r South east Asi an N rlti on s

13 ureau ofFi K heri ~~ and Aq IJJ atic Reso urce s b iochem i~.1! oXYSl:t1 demand

chem ical oxygen d erna rHI

ca tch per un i t of effort

OENN., Administrative Or~~cT No, 34

Departmem of Envi!"Ollll1Cnl and Natural Resources dissolved oxygen

~!1\' ironmcmal i m pa cl as scssrnent Env i rem men ra l M [111 agem ern R urcuu

Fisheries Sector Pmgran1 - Resource and Ecologi~al Assessment Food and Nutrition Research Instinne

geometric mean

ill it i a'i rl ~k asses sm ent

i ncC[ im sed lment qual j t)' val ucs 0. f H 0 n g 1<.0[1 g

concentration or toxicant that C~)U$t:~ denthin 5~f~/o of an exposed populatinn lOWC~1 observable adverse effect level

level of concern

mea su IT'J en v ironm en ta I cone en tJ<H i Gil mea ~!m;ll em' irenm erua I ] cv els maximum efficiency )'It:ld

most probable number

maximum sustainable Yle~{l

MwopoliJ81l Water In,d Scwt:T"<lgc SyHeln amnrcma

nnraie

fl,olycycbc eromaric hydrocarbon pc I yehloro b i.phcny I s

P fH1i pp inc Coast GUJ rd

predicted environme nta l concen traliCl n predicted en vrrcnm en (;'I I. le vels

Partnerships in linvironmenta) Management foil' Iht~ SC:'L~ nf F.a.~~ .,4,~i~. p redi cted tl o-e rfecls co ncentration

p red i c'.ea no-effects level

phuspb:nlC

Pal>ig River Rehabilitation Project paralytic shellfish poisoning

fisk quotient: MEC (or PEC)fPN[;C (or Thresbold)

mean risk q ueti cnt MEC (or P EC) ~t(lfl1~~r/P NEe (or Th rlr sh old) maximum risk quotient; MEC (or PEC,) "II",iPNEC (or Thrcsholdj slm Leg] c en vi 1"0 I~ mel ital management p] an . I ri !Xl tyll.i 11

lokrabk daily intake

1(1t;) 1 po lycyc lie :JJ~)m utic h I'd rocarbons iota l snu rated h yd rocarh (Ins

tetal Or gan ic carbo n

rota I S LIS pendcd sol i d s

UTliwd States rood and Drug AJI~,j~l;~IL-:llion United Suuos En\'~ronI11clH Prorecrinn Agi::llcy

-Illis p~p~:- 'S:LS itl§li:tl~Ji prcp<lre-d th~ring thu Regiu~lal Training COLLl·S(! ou Rd .. ,.>!..~~l'~,;:n~nL hdu trorn I. -; -2~ July 1~)I.)O ill rvl:mi I~. Pbili[lptn~s. The lr:lining course wus organi/L'd bv the ('j r::F/L,\:DPII \hJ Regl011al P:'ogr.,m:nc on Bll~khng Partnerships in r::n ... iroumerual ~b!l:JSl:"tl1cnl l'Or the SC-3.S 1)( F:::J~' ~\~i;l (p'lirvl~EA) .. ~ he report represents O~lC: component of the J\1:mil:1 n:ly Jinviromnemnl ~L!I~:;g(:nl~'~U Pl'njec!, which is t:cw.~ nnptemenred in collaborarion with several govcmmcm JCp;I!1Hl(!r1IS and .1g...:ncic~ Qf the Phil ippine gQ'''cillm~nl_ These etforts are jointly coordrnared by Hre M::mi IJ 1J.~y En\'il'onm.:-ntal .\.1;lJlJgemcn~ Proj,ct, Department 01' ll1'.'ltQlll11.l:!H and KJlllr~[ 1\.~~Ol,Jr~~~ ~.lJt::["\~H), ~r:J the lJ U, 1 S"LA. Regiunal Programme Office (RrO}.

PI"I.)I·, P'~lei' Calow. The l·l~ivCfsity of Shctlield. L'nued K~n~JQm and Dr. V~.h:ry Forbes. R(I~ki]J~ l.lulvcrsity, Dcumark.jhe resource persons for the course;

The p[!nLt·i.p~Llth 10 t111: Regloll.ll Training Course on Etl\'ir0il1l:lC."[H~! Risk Ass~ssm";l1~ Ildl.! [IQ:1'I 17"28 July 2(][H1: fiurn ll~~ Phi]ippine~, t::n·gr.. Geranlu J\1(l:tui or tbc D~parllw::nl (II Hcalth-Euvirunurcutul Henlth Servtct'$, iVI~_ lrnclda V elusquc« 01' the Marine Science 11l~~iLUlt', Unin:r::>iLy i):' thr PhiJippim:-s. D~I iman. En~I'. Victorio \I(lliml 01" tbt' Collc-gc of Public llcuhh. U[ljv{:r~tLy ()~ Ihc- Phiii.ppinl:"s.M:mib, Dr. limerencmna B. IJllr:m rrO.l~l the ,"\ lomsc R('~~ardl Division of lbl~ PI~i lirpil~~' Nud":-:.Lf R['s.::mh I n'Li1Llt~,·. Ellgr Amokl Vill;lilos. FI:gr. \"il.'I;"IlLe TLH1J:w, Jr., EngF. l.conanlo U lxa, jo,_,h_ Ncl!a QHinnnl's fLlll~l '::iril}ll~ o111~~s 0f the rkp:mll:~'nr of Fnvnonrncnt and N:rlllr;3l Rnmlrc{'~, 1'",[[. Fdilh'_;lW Nas;lY;.l1l. M ,. Vi!Il~:l (':"lbading.. ;11)(1 ,\h. :":ilcb A:lling of the 1\.ll:lI1Lla B.1Y Em'aronmellL.:ll M::In:lsemt:"!l~ PmjcC't. 1"1''.'10. ,:1I1{~ i\,'l~ Crisune I ngrid S- Narcisc :md MI'. i\ lexandcr T. Guintu U I" the PEt\/1 S[A.rL·!;110n:ll PrQgramml: OI·II,,;:~~, a~ well JS, _ .... ts, Nen.1 ,';Ildin and DI'. Edg:1r~!o Vendiola tofllei~11 L.lLW;T'\·Cf~) - also from the M~lli:;; U:l~' Environmental .M:'InJgc'IUt':'H 1'I'Ojc'l.:~-[l.\m, and Dr P:~ul I.Zw~n-Sing Lam ~md Dr, l{enl~cTIl K.lm-Wing Lo trom Cluna (HOI1g Kong] and [Vlr, Minghua M:l and Ms .. Juying W.111gJlso from Chm;~ (DJ1~,1Iv'D0h,li).1\11'. Pnchocucnoke Jmtasaeranee nnd Mr. PIULI!lOOI'l Mokkongpai from Tb,1H<~nJ. and Mr, Nguyen LJ~n Anh and Mr. Nguyen ro-tinh Cuong from Vietnam.

Various ollicialstlom ditletcnrageucies lor their comnrents and suggestiens lor providi!;J:. m'\V informntion, wliicb were crucial in rdj!~illg the paper, II~cl~~djn~: ;'vl<lJin·e Science Instirute ofthe University or 1;11: Phllippiues-Diliman, Philippine Council fOL" Aquaucaud Marine 1.\.e~eJrcb Development, NJtiollJ.1 lJLSl[M~ of Ge0]ogi.,,;~[ SC]CllC~~ or the Cniversiry otthe Philippines-Dillman, the School of Environmental Science and ivlJnaetement of the Uruverslty of the Philippines-Los l3~LLlos, Bureau or Soils and ';\later M<mag';:lJem.-D~punm~l)t of Agriculnrre, DENR-N<llloilJi CapilJ~ Rl.::gion, DENR:-Rt:gtOH W, DE1\'RIt(:'gilJ[l [V, P~l~i~ River Rehabilieation Commission. Philippine Porth /\.uthunly!, DENR-EllvirCII~lH!';[lt~lt ~\hll[l!!O:HIl:"lLl Bur~:.J.tI, nrnl DEN R.E~'oSy~lClll~ Rcscurch und Development l3url:uLI.

Th c- 01"11 c c- n r D F: '\ 1\ Umk rsec retury rv1:J ri II Ro 1\0, ;J~ wcl I ux, f'o.k _ Ftl i I h~~ rW :--.. a~t!._V:Jo OJ I.U 1\0[[, C:lI'llJS t\1:l,~I~I),. limllt:1' and present Directors 01 the ivl:.mib Fh_y FI1VLmaHl'lC-IH:.Ll Mm~:!gclHcl:'l Pr(~jc-CI O,,']BFlv!f'}, and l~lC 5~:]J( 01 the MAEM P for :!S~i31allC'C- in cnonlill~Hin~ [he C()lTlpicl ion or Ill!:; a~~CSSI11L·n! ~! I)ll l be re po rt,

TI~c R:q~il1t1::d F'rQgr:llnl!lt: O:ilk,. or P'EMSE:\, illL'hlllil~g h]S, Crisune Ingrid S ....... ';mj~~ end ~\k t\k'~:lI~(~~'r L (JUiIlLl~ l'Or k~~'I:ni'L'lLl rctlncmcnts of Lh~' dr:lf1; ~~o';l.L'Itlcm, M~, 8r~:;iid;L tvL Gcrvacio nrul 0.L. f.1:.ui;) CQr:L7GIl \1 Eb;!rYla for tc-dHli,c~11 editing and {'op_vC'ditLng, arrd lhc lntormauon Services Unil lor the cover design :mJ byo'llt

Mr, S AdriJll Rtws ofthe GHnJNDP!i;"'10 R~gional Pmgl'~-mun~ on Buildin]; Partnerships in [n~'irC:l'lm('illal J\lan\Lg~mcnt (01' the S~\H of Eas; ,'\~LJ is the pri ucipal cconlmator "or The r.,IJli ikl Fki;.' [n\'Ll'lJtlrn~nLlll [\'i~lnagC[·n'!m Project.

EXlecu.fiveSlimmary

Environmental risk assessment estimates the likelihood of harru heing dune to identified targets (IS a result of factors emanating from human activ lly. bui rcachi ug the targets throughthe environment. This combines knowl edge about the factors ~h3t bring about hazards, their levels in the environment, and the pathways to the targets.

The poternial harm to human ;;![!d cnvironmcnta' targets may arise (rom exposure to contaminants In theenvironment, These contaminants comefrom activi ties that bring economic erowth and contribute benefits to society, There can be 1\VO approachcsro

- ..

protect the environment and human health. One approach is 10 el im i nQI~ the conrarninarn

or stop the acti vity lh~t produces ~L Another approach is to prevent the contaminant level Jr01"ll exceeding (Ill allowable level tb;:lt presents a('~I.'l'l)tabk :rJsk. Elim i nat ion of CCH1Iami nation to zero concentration may rcqui rc large 1I1VCS~ merus, and discontinui ng economic acti vi tics may hinder the deli very of goods and services that contri butc to human welfare and economic development,

The second approach, tile risk~bii!S6d methode logy. presumes: that there are conta minnm lcvcls jn [he environment that present low or acceptable risks 10 hu ma 11. health and the environment, and that there is not 1:11 ways \1. need Cor 7.C[,O emission levels. Scienti Ik studies have speci ned threshold values below whi ch adverse effects arc n01 likely 10 occur. T~1CSC studies also present possible consequences 1'0[, contaminant levels that exceed the threshold values, This implies that economic development [let ivitics C;)i1 be managed ;H levels that promote human health and environmemal protection, y~l mai uta in ad ivities that produce economic benefits, This c:n"J.pha~izt;:~ the irnporta nee 0 t' cost-benefit analyses In. sustainable development In i tint i ves.

Potential harm 10 environmental t~rg~~t~. may also arise n"QIH ind iscriminnre extraction of resources and physica l dcst ruction of h;lhhatR. The environmental impacts or these activities stern from the loss of ecological functions and conseq ucnt disn .. iptiou of ecological balance. The impact') may nul be as evident .:15 impacts from polh~[;lr1ilS but could be irreversible and IW1Y lead to greater losses. Risk assessment evaluates the consequences of rhese activities and weighs the adverse effects to the cnviromnem against {hl.3 contributions to economic d~w[opln~nt and benefits (0 society

The risk assessment auemptcd [0 answer two questions: "what evidence is there lor harm being done to targets in llv; bay?" (freer! cd to as retrospective risk assessment) and "\',0 hat problems m ighr occur asa conseq Lienee of conditions known tc cxist, or possibly exist in the: future?" (n:fcrrG'd to as prospective risk asscssmcm),

To ~:m5WC[, these questions, it is necessary to identify appropriate targets, assessment endpoints, and corresponding mcasurcmcn ( cndpoi rits, Assessment cndpui nts arc features related ro the continued ex istcucc am] I'll nction i ng of the i dentificd targers such as communiiy structure or diversity, production, density changes nnd mortality. These .. however, may 11m be easy 01' would take III uc h time to measure. So other features related to the assessmentendpoints and which arc easier to rneusurc arc used instead.

These ure cajlcd measurement endpoints. For the curlicrmcntioncd assessment QtHJpO ints, I h~ corrcsponding measirremcnt endpoints are prcscnc~ a r indicutor species (for community structure/diversity), biomass (for production), abundance (for density changes), LC~() or biomarkers (lor mortality) U,,'~PP-EAS: 1999~~)"

The initial risk assessment of Mani la Bay was conducted as J preliminary SliJP h) the re nOl;U ri sk ~SS,C$~.mcnL ~ l prov idcs a gfimpsc or en vironmcntul conditions in lhl! bay usi ng a vni lablc secondary data. 'It serves HS a screening rnechan ism to idcmi fy priori ty' cnvironmcata I, concerns in the bay, identi fy data gaps and uncertainties and recommend areas for i rumediatc management intervention or for further assessment. h identifie» contaminants tll:H prescm acceptable risks and hence ~ may not need furtherassessment ~ and h [ghl lghts contarni nantsthat present risks to the cnvi ronmeru and/or to human hca lrh It also idcnti fics I'CSOUl'CCS and habitatsthat arc at risk and recognizes signincant causes 10 f risks. The resu I.IS or the: ini rial risk assessment will be used to forrnulurc an action plan for a mcrccomprchensi ve risk usscssment thatis focused on [he idcnri fled priority .3r~~3S o fCQncem. Evaluating the rcsul ts '0 f the initial risk assessment will abo fucil itatc i mprovement and refinement a r the methods U$C'(l.

The inlti;l~ risk assessment also draws attention to theimportnnce of collaboration among J i lfereru guvcmmenl ;:~g~llci,~~:j, uni versi tics and scientific and technical research i nsti turicnsand the roles t118t these groups may undcrtnke i n the risk assessment. The wide range of expertise and knowledge of these different groups would comribute tattle efficient conduct and success of ~ he risk assessment. .A. mechanism 10 tacilitatc sharing of i nformation and access to eXI sting dona should a I so be put ill place.

~ n the refined risk assessment, the methodologies, conclusions and recommendations in the ini tial risk assessmeruwil I be verified and. if possible, updated .. The assessment will be focused on the identified human health and ecological issues, More in-depth chamctcrizntion of contam ination with respect to sp~Hiol disiri but ion wi 1.1 be conducted geared at idcnri eying hOL spots and determining the relative contribution of various sources of contaruinat ion, Predicting ~ he levels and d istribution of ct.\nlarnln.~n~~ will be made possible by employing models that incorporate informat LOI] (lil conmm i 11(1 m releases, inputs from tributaries and major point sources, fate of pollutants and the hydrodynamics of the bay, l\'lorc sophisticated techniqueswill also be used to improve uncertainty analyses. And, for parameters for which data nrc not (Ivai lable ~ the refined r[sk~S$tSsrW':I1L ,~'i n include ;,~ systematic collection of pri mary data,

The I."";SU ltso r the risk assessmcrn >- wh;)~ is at rtsk and how 11 can be protected agai nstthc ri sk - areesscrnial 10 ensure its sustaiuabi I ity. 1[. gives tnnnagcment decisions :1 certain degree of confidence and i t is hoped that refinement will provide resource managers the opportunity to predict specific ecological chauges brought by specific strcssors for usc in alternative m~m:1gement decis tons, R isk assessment as ['l management tooti::; expected [0 play \:l. significant role In strcngthcni ng marine pollution risk management.

XI!

In risk management. options lor addressing priority environmental concerns arc idem iflcd, The benefits andcosts to society of cmp loyi ng (he identified t11 ... uiagemcm 0pU'OflS ;uet;onsider~d as well :1::; stakeholder l'orl~~nSU$ CH~ appropri.;H~ management intervcnt iO!TIs, Tile approved risk rnanageruent interventions wi Il be incorporated til the Strategic En virom11CIHJ 1 lV!.:magement Plan (SE1""tP) for J\,] ani la Bay.

The ~niliill risk assessment of Man i la Buy began with the delineation of the boundaries 0 f the bay as study area for the risk assessment. The study Mea and administruiive boundaries an: presented in the following figure.

The Adrnl n lstrative Bounda ries (L'C3 Us) and Study Area of the Manila Bay Project

Man i I.<~ B~lyi S a scm i-cnc loscd estuary which is connected to the South China Sea lila a 16,7 km-wide entrance (P!fRlJ, (999).h rovers three regions: Region I ~ ~ ~ Region lV andthe National Capital Region tNCR) and is bordered by NCR and the provinces of

6ataaro

• BIJI~,r;<ln

C~vll~ lo.gunr. Metro Ma rnl a iNIJ8'1@ Ecija P.ampang<l Rtl<ll

Tarlac

approximation of study area

XIII

G~.'l~._m, POlmpanga. Bulacanand Cavitc. It receives drainage from approximately 17,,000 kn/ 0 f watershed consisting 0 f 16 'Catchment areas, The catchment area is bounded b ':! Ihe' Sierra Madre moumain range to the cast, the Caraballo mountains ro the north, the Zamb .. iles mountains to the northwcsi and I he: Bataan mountains to the west (B fA R. 19~ 5).

MO;I,nilO;l Bay has acoastl inc )0 ( approx i male1y 190 km ana a surface area of about l~SOO km~, It consists of a gently sloping basin with the depth increasing at a rate of 1 m per km from the interior 10' the entrance and has ail av~ragc depth of 17 m (P RR.P~ 1999).

The popllla~jOr1 in the. overall drainage area, as of 1995, is approximately 16 mi Ilion (NSO, 1996)" Economic acti vi tics in catchments and around [he perimeter 0 [ the Bay range from n:jhing and agriculture to a variety of j ndustrics including an expanding petrochemical sector.

The study ureu consists of the immediate watersheds drai ning ill to M on ila Ray through tributari es and major river waterways (area delineated \\' i all dashed I ines). l t covers almost the whole of the Cavite, 13U~<lC;')I1, and P~.m.lIpar'l1;;a provinces, as well as. National Capital Rrglon, andabout h31 C of the provi nee or B;;l.H.W!l- This inc I udes ll~~~ rnunicipalnics [OWKt. w i thin nil area 111;)1 starts off at the Li mil Point j n Cavi tc, co v eri ng nl most the whole provi nee LIS its watersheds start to drain lrom 111~ Taguytay Ridge that j s found III the south easternmost part of the province. The- study area abo covers the cit ies and municipalities of [he National Capital Region, except for portions of a few municipalhics that have waterways tbbl.'l drain into Laguna Lake. The PrQVLE""lC'CS. oi' Bulacan and Pampanga arc ~~1.s0 part or the study area si nee I he: rivers ;1rld w::tlcnvays found in bo[11 provinces eventually drain imo the bay. In the province or Bataan, headwaters of rivers start Irum the mountainous .mu hilly' <H'C'~~S of the Mt. Natib and Mt, M::.'I ri vclcs and other SJl1:l ~ lcr mounts i n nnd hi II ranges which form a ridge that [I] most divides theBataan peninsula into lWO up [0 Cochinos Point in Marivcles, 131.l1~l.m, with one hal r or lb~ province draining ill to the bay ,tfld 11.](: {jilin lI.tlf i nll.1 the South Chin.'l S'?::-I_

The results of [he retrospecti ve and prospective risk asseSS!11eJTL<; arc summarized in the following. sections.

nE'~·HOSl'f_.n·]VE RISh:: A.sS[SS"lIE1\T

~ n the retrospective ri sk assessment. qual itmive and quan ri taiive observations 011 the resources and habitats were assessed in re fC['C'tKG 10 earlier observations to determine if there ~H'C significant changes, p .. nt icularly dccl inc _ Potential agents were ld~rHi fico rmd the t i kcl i hood that these ;]gCtHS caused the i rnpacts on the resources and hab i tats were del e r111i. n ed.

Data forthe rei respect ive assessment were mostly taken from the- Resource and [co 1 ogical Assessment Dr Manila Gay (BFA R, 1995) that was completed in 1995 under the Fisheries Sector Program 0 [. th~ B urcau or Fisheries and. Aquatic Resources. (FSP· BF A R), Other sources of i n form at jon include IIH: Philippine J ournal or Fisheries of

:-'1\'

1.3 F AIZ~thc eompilai ion of studiesand reportsfrom the T3m buyog Development Center lI990), and the reports prepared by the Department ol' Environment and N <1lL!n.d Resources (DENR) [{CglClll 3 (1999) and [\~UdQll;ll Cap i tal Region (1999 J on the watershed of [' v 1 auila Bay wi thin their respect ive jurisdictions.

The resources cousi dercd include: ~) fisheries, :2) she 11 n ShCfLCS, :1) seaweeds, and ..t) phytoplankton. For habitats, the following were assessed: 1) mangroves, 2) coral reefs 3} s'cagrass beds 4) soft-bottoms, 5) rnudtlats, 6) sandllars and beaches ... ind 7) rock v shores,

-~

/\ clear evidence of decline based 011 research informati on (13 FAR.. 199 5 ~ Turnbuyog D~vl.:lurmcnt Center, i 9)10: and fSP-DA, .~ 911~) was established for fisberies, shellfisheries and mangroves. FC;Jf coral reefs, there were 110 records or the previous extent of cover but there were unpublished accounts i no icaiing that there lH1S been [I decline in the q uali ty and cover of the reefs.

For fisheries and shell fisheries. the idcnti fled primary agents were ovcrfishi ng or overccllection and the use of destructive nshing mctbods, Discharges Il-ombnd-:.lml sea-based acti vit ies have 1111::;0 brought adverse ceo logical effects tlvtl may have contributed to the dedi nc in these resources. especially for she I] fish, This is evidenced by the low dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water column indicating increased O.:\;::1;;;:n demand on the bay for degradat ion 0 I.' organic L!lpuIS. The low DO h<!~ bC!;'11 suspected ~l:i H1C major cause of decline ill the benthos, which bas consequent adverse effects on organisms at higher trophic levels that 31'0 supported by the benthic community. Exposure to toxic contami r!:3111Si n the water col urnnmay aJ.~CI have adverse CCil;;Ct'S Oil the reproductive processes and growth of these resources, Another factor uhat has contributed 10 the decline til fisheries/shellfisheries is the destruotion or habitats such ·as mangroves and corals thnt has led tothe loss of rhcir ecological functions as brccdi ng, ~p3wnjng and nursery grounds [or various mari ne life.

For she llfisheries, it. isi mportant to note that although overcn llection was identified at) the most likely agent for the decline, several factors need to be considered in i ntcrprct ing production dam and altribut i ng C{WSC:-:i or decline, These factors incl UGC' tile distinction between collections from cu lturc farms and from the wild, and the possible effects Q r the red tide episodes on the demand for ~h~ll fish from the hJY.

The primary factors idcnrified in the. dec line 0 frnanerovo COVN were ph vsical

~ ~ ~

removal for \,~lI'iQUS purposes such as reclamation [or development projec ts, con version to

fishponds andcollection for alternative livcl ihood. The effects or pol lutiou cannot be disregarded but this is not as signi ficaru as the i mpuct 0 f[ he idcmi ned primary agent. There were reports of pest infestation thal has contri butcd 10 the di.!cilflC but this \VOlS local izcd and m:JY be one of [he mani [i:::stllio!ls 0 l' the effects or pol ~ U[ ion, An ecosystem (e.g, mangrove) under stress may be susceptible to \'<1rlOUS pests.

The decl i ne i It coral cover was attributed to physicul destruction from collection activities and from Improper fishing practices as well as smothering 0 r the corn I s due to increased scdimcnnuion from reclamation and other land usc conversionactivities. The levels 0 [some chemical contam i nants in the water column and sediments rna y also ha vc coruributcd (0 the decl ine,

Phytoplankton is anintponanr resource I,,hat supports higher trophic levels in 1]](.' bay. There were no available data that could be" used [0 asccnai Il i r this resource is at risk but U'lt'-! en chiorophy ll-a ~ an index. of primary productivity was availabl e. Based on the incrcnsing jrcnd of chlorophyll-a concentrations and also th~ elevuicd lcve 1::; ol' nutrients that arc required for primary production, lr was obvious tluu phytoplankton i-; not at risk in the ba \" On the contrary. it should be treated [is [111 ind icator or ccolosical

_. .. - . ,..,_

problems (:lS signa! 0 C currophication and harmful phytoplankton blooms).

Fur other rCs.W,lfCC'S and habi uus, retrospective risk .~$S!.3'SSnlCIU could not be performed due to lack of information on previous extent or cover and distribution in the bay.

PROSPbC'TIV[ J1'~SK AS,SESSfI,1:E:NT

ln the prospective risk assessment, potent ial stressors in the area or [merest were idem i fied and ~ he measured cnvi ronmentat conccmrations (M EC~) o f'lhl!$": stressors were compared with threshold V;JhH!S Or predicted no effect conccmrations (PNECs) 'to obtain rl~k quotients {RQs). An RQ less thnn Oi~C ind icares acceptable risk and suggests little concern wh ile nn RQ greater than one si gill ties cause forconcern, The level Q C concern increases withincrease in RQ.

The primary SOl.IP.:e of 1 n formation ~or the prospective risk ~L~0~·~~mCJH W;)S U~L Pasig Ri vcr Rehab i,]i.t;;t.(ic,m J'rogram P .. cport (PRRP .19~9). Ol/lel" references 1.I~jr were used include tile Fisheries Sector Program Resource and Ecological Assessment of Tv1;)]1 ila Bay (BFAR, ~ 99S:)~ the Report ur lll~' Manila Bay Mou iioriug Project (1::;[\·1 BDE1\ R, 1991)., the Philippjnc En viroruncnta I Qua I ity Repon for 1990~ 1996 (EMEID EK Rj! 996)) and several published articles from scicnti fie journals and proceedings. A detai lerll ist of rhe sources (1 fdaJa for each parameter is gi vcn in Appendix 2_ 11 incl udcs descriptions of the data and ::;~mp[j ng stat ions,

Most 0 r the data used were presumed to be: accurate and reliable although prelim inary M,:n.:C'ning \v~1S done for some data for wb iclr ranges of concentrarions in d l ffercnt environmental conditions are known,

r~H!PRRP ( 1999) 'Study was conducted from 1996 10 1998. The study covered 10 men itoring stations for watercolumn pnrantcters every month and 10·18 stations for sedi ment parameters twice a year, These stations were spread across the enti re b3.Y,. The man [taring stations for ussuc parameters were lim itcd to Bulacan, Paranuque and Cavue. The other studies covered nearshore stations around the bay or some sections of the bay onlv

,.,) _,

XV!

The PRRP (~999) study provided the most extensi ve :-ipaJial study of the water column and sediments, The stations covered, were, however, st il ~ limited and may not represent. conditions in the entire bay. The PMP sampling stations for warer quality, sediment and shellfish tissue are presented in Appendix. 3 {a - c), along witb the: sampling srai tons for PA!'js in sediments n-om a separate study (Sanl~8g(),1997).

The threshold values or PNEC::; jor water quali ty were fro.m the Water Quality Criteria for Coastal and Marine W(lt~r::i in the Philippines (DAO 34, 1990), .ASEAN~ Canada Propose-d Marine \V mer Quality Criteria (Jusoh et al., 1999).~ US-EPA. Quality Cri retia for Water for regulator); purposes (US-EP A, 2000) and the. Chinese Standards for Different Class; fications (National Standards of P, R. China, 1995).

For sediments, IbePNECs were taken from the HOf!@, Kong lnteri III Sediment Quality Criteria, Threshold/Probable E rf\!'cts Levels from Canada nile! the NOAA Effects Range (EVS Environment Consultants, 19%).

For human health guidelines, the tolerable daily intake values (TDr) were mostly [rom the United States f-ood and Drug Administration (http ://vnu::iSJo, fda.gov ~ cited in MPP-EAS, 1999b) and the rates of seafood consumption came from the FOQd and Nutrition Research ] nstinue (FKRt 1987), The list or cri teria ispresented as Appendix 4,

The choice of threshold values was based on what W;;lS 11 vuilable wilh the assumption that. these values were suitable for Manila Bay. Mma cri teria and standards a vailable have been generated 111 b;:mperate regions, $0 their relevance in a trop leal area should be reviewed,

Average and worst-case (maximum) risk quotients from water-borne and sediment-borne substances and from consumption or contaminated seafood were calculated and used for comparati VL! risk assessment. Cornpan:Hjyc risk assessment pro v ides a baywide perspective through the average RQs and a hotspot perspective through rhc worst-case R:Qs, It abo shows the relative concern among the different chemical contaminams. "His approach is COtlSCr'I.'Jlt vc in that the worst-case conditions arc presented, h. also effectively screens out COfll~mtnants\vhl;'!1 the worst-case ccncenuntions still do not indicate signlficam cause for concern, and th is is the value of the initial risk assessment

Results

The followi ng are the results of the Comp3I'U1LV"C risk asscssmcn l 0 [ both human he alth and cc 0 log ical risks,

l , H uman heal rh risk arises from bath i ng in fcca t coli fonn-cornaminatcd waters (RQmEx= 4,500) and from consumption of seafood conraminated with fecal coli form (RQIl1~~ = 2,667). Additional. risks associated with high levels or some metals and pesticides in tissue also i ndicatc that these arc priority concerns.

2., Ecologica lly, in the water column. highes: risk was associated w ith high phosphate it:'id~.High RQs for DO~ toral suspended solids (TSS ),<1nd ammonia were- also obmincd, Intermediate fisk was shown for nitrate. oil and gr~~s(;' aml certain pesticides. .1 leavy metal levels showed 10\\0 concern {RQ ..:_ 1) although vcry limited d~IU Wl.:fi,;" avui lab lc fur ihi s parameter so til is hns to be \ crt fied Ll'>il1g other dulu.

J. I n the !)'.:'ui merits, h1gb rlsk \\',1:5 assoc i:1h;dwi ~ It copper arul cadm i LJm. lmcuucdiatc risk \ViIS 5l10\\'n for mi£:rcury.. chrorniu m, lead and ccrtai n pestici des, Polycyclic nromutic Jtydrocarbons (PA H), j u scncraL showed acceptable risk except fur ;,lin i solatcd value or diberrzoia.h };m!hraCCHc\ a carcinogen ic PAH. 1 hal showed i mermed i ;HC' ri sk.

It is i mportant to emphasize that [11k: a VCI':1g..: RQs exceeded the. val U~ "!" Car the nll!Q\ving parameters: total muJ fC~J l coliform ill U1C' water column and tissue. phosphate in the water culumn ;1ml l'oppCr In sed interns. This signals a generalcause [or concern, at least t~OI' all (he stations where samples were taken. for DOl although the 3. verage RQ d ld not exceed orrc .. ~QW DOcomJi t ions over short peri ods may have considerable j m P8C!. on Iauna ~ P;,lrt iLU 1<ll"Iy benth ic animals. F or the other parameters, ih~ ]O\V average RQ5 j nd iellt'.; localized risks.

Duta Gaps

The risk assessment ~ aside [rorn h ighl ight i ng arens 0 fconccrn, also identified the fa llowing potential ly important data gaps:

I , For water co I umn, there \VCJ~ no avu i lable data on GODlCOD i n the bay. PAl ls Jl1(J other organic chemicals and Ii mited information on h,,:~n'y IHl~l3.1s~ pesticides ami oil and grease.

2, For sediments lhl;:fl.' were no avuilablc ~L~u on other org:lBlC chcnucals, puriicu lurly organoiins, a nd yet levels (1 C shipping would SUg.g~Sl ihar these arc potcru ially important contaminants derived from anti- foul ing paints, And generally, there was H lack o f appropriate criteria fur pC~ll(."iJt;:s and ~:l.)r TOe"

~~ ~I~ lC"rntS of human healrh risks, there was a lack of available dara Car some

pestle ides and heavymetal s in n;:;h. There \'inc: no avai l"lUk data for pesticides, hca vy metals and coli form in sh~ll [ish tissue as well :l!S co I i form i n W;H~r trom the western section ofthe bay. There was total.'>" no available dena on PAI-f.'l and TBT in tissue. There \\'I.:Tl! also lew TDIs for the pesticides, no TOIs for essential metals, und IlO criteria or standard for total cch forms in she l~ fish ,mJ Cisb1 tissue .

..I, There was alsoi nadequate data on phytoplankton i n the water column, cyst counts j n sediments and PSI' leve Is .i n shell fish t0- conduct a risk assessment for lQX]C a~g;) I blooms,

5- There W~l::; lack of information nccl.'ssJ11' to be able to assess the likelihood of accidental oil spills from shipping and the consequent effects on the ecosystem. Rate of ship movements uno and out of ~ he bay, quanti ly and qU31 ity of cargo, expc r ience of crew, age of vessel, and various other factors shou ld be considered ..

I. j\.'IECs and PNECs

The risk qUOI ients obtained and the conclusions drawn depend largely on the [Iccuracy or the measured concentrations as well as the suitabi li.ly of n-lt; lhrc~bold values tluu were used in calcu L~H i tlg H1~ risk q lW~ iCIHS"

Considerable e [Tun has been put [0 cval ua1ing the rei iability o r the data uscd i ~I UW ri sk 3SS~SSlm:n[ although for some parameters for which therewere very lew (1:1[:1, the risk assessment was done using [he avai lablc dam.

F or the th rcshold val ues, unccrtninty may arise from the usc 0 f" criteria or standards that WNC' spec ified fortemperate regions or otherlocations. The' suitabil ity of these values in the tropics, particularly in Manila Bay, sti II 11M to be veri fled,

I n the assessment of risk to human health using tissue 'd,Ha, RQs for I,[i n~r\fnt 'Lg'..' gH)lIPS .LfC obtained by dividing the measured coruaminant levels in seafood tissue by the threshold v',11 ue lor di rfer~nt age groups. The threshold VLlIllCS arc called levels of concern (lOCs)cmd are obtained by-dividing the tolerable u;J.dyinl:':lk<.' (TOI) Iorcach age grmlp by the consumption raw of the correspond lng age group" 111 'the init ial risk assessment. on Iy the loca 1 consumption rate was available :SO this was used 10 get ihc LOC lor :1l1 ag'c groups. If the consumption rate for the younger age bracket would be considerably less than that for the olderage bracket, the use of aVC1"3.@:c ccnsunrpt i on rate for the former WQu1d gen~rJtt' a high LOC and, consequently, high RQ. This would lend 10 over-estimate 1111.": risk raj" the younger ,1g~ group ..

2. Lirni tee! data

Tb(:1 irnited number of' rnoui wring stations for all the p:U<.Lmelc:rs does not allow bay-wide gCr.ler<:ll iZ;;l.lion.'j; to be made. 11 \VOU.tJ be safe 10 apply the statements only to the ::I rcas where mC<lSmCITH:nlS \VCOFe taken.

The! irniicd data used for some parameters brings uncerta inty to [be results 'Of the ri sk assessment Th is is the case for heavy metals in water for which acceptable ri sks were shown and ccrtai n pesticides in the water colu mn lor which [ned [Urn cause for concern was obtained.

Worst-case conditions indicate potential hot spots bUL these were 11m identified.

This would require analysis or sp;niaJ variability. Contaminant levels may also be :lff ectcd seasona lly so tempore I variability should also be assessed.

The in i I ial risk assessment has been based on average and worst-case com] iticns. [:'1'10]"(: detai led uncertainty analyses would be needed to clari ~y some of 111l~ ;lSS~SSIIl~~lb. Consideration of spatial and tempera l variabili ly in the data would also enab 1~ more detai led and sped fie assessmen [S [0 be mnde such as determination or re lationships bel. ween predominant human activities and levels or COn\;1111 inants. This would particularly be useful [11 the idcnti llcation of contaminant sources and setting up of interventions.

A 1 this point, i[ \, .... ould be .. vis~ to re iterate that the results of the risk assessment arc not always representative of the enure bay. For some- of th..: parnmctcrs, the data represented on ly certain areas in the bay. E ven for the purametcrst hal were taken lrcm S[:1H0tl:i spread across the bay, the largl! distunces bet WCCIl stations do not allow :.1 bsolutc gencraHzalion" to be made. i n usinc the results 0 r the initial ri ~k assessment. j t. would be

~ ~ ,

more .L'I.;CLlrJlC to state clearly whether the staterncrus apply 10 certain locations only or arc being. applied, with caution, to the whole bay, A more in-depth analysis Qf the (131;) in the refined risk assessment may be' able to address this.

xx

Human health risk arises from fecal col i form cuntam inution III the water column a ltd in seafood tissue, The high bacterial loadis amibulcd mai nly to sewage generated from households and commercial, agricuhural, institutional and industrial csmblishmcnrs tlnu discharge d i rcctl y [0 the bay or to the drainage and river systems which eventually enter 111(; bay. To address this problem, several short-term and intermediate/long-term risk management recommendations arc provided.

The following short-term recommendations arc designed to COil f rim bascli ne information on the impact of sewage discharges iiuo ~bni la Bay as \\'d l as to avoid bu man health probl ems.

~1.)M.alnt3ln and analyze morbidity and mortality datu in communities surrounding Manila Hny.

b) Conduct routinemonitoring of water and shellfish in bivalve-growing 'Irr.::(!1., fishand sbcl l tisb in market places, and waters ~Il beaches or contact recreation areas.

c) Centro I. food supply from c;onl;1min;}led hi valve-growing areas and regulate the use of C0t1k1m inated beaches and bathing sunions,

d) Conduct i n (ormatico campaigns. on the resuhsof monitoring and establ ish other measures to pH~V~tU possible human contact \v irh contaruinatcd waters and food,

e) Gather secondary data on coli term contamination or coliform loadings for all rnaj or tributaries,

o Models should be used to idcnti fy and cval uatc i mpacts [IS wel ~ as management options.

g) Perform benefit-cost analysis [0 idem: fy appropriate irucrvcnt iuns.

The following management recommendations am des; gncd to address the: root cause of sewage conraminaticn 111 Manila BJY" These recommendations wi II rcq uirc rnassi ve in vestment and take considcrablc firnc, but. rhc III i tial ri sk nssessment Iras dctcrm [ned these as priority are;J.s (or consideration :1S part of the risk management program.

0;1) Accelerate sewage collection and treatment programs in watershed areas

b) E~ i nu nate d i rcci discharges (i.e., no treatment) of domestic, indusiri al and Olgricu]lUfal waste.jncluding septic or sludge disposal to Manila Bay and its tributaries

c )h]1plc~J11Cnl control programs for inducct discharges, SLJd~ 8:) urban and agricLil rural run-o fr, 10 Mani la Bay and its tri burarics.

d) Provide sufe potable water supply to households

Although the data used [I] the initial risk assessment only came from Metro Nkmi la, the likelihood 0 r similar situations {i.c, ~ no centralized sewagecollection) exists so these recommendations should be considered for rhc emireManila Bay watershed.

Risks to human health .11"(: OlSSOC iated wi rh higb Icvc Is of" s-ome metals and pesticides in seafood tissue. The following arc the recommendations for (he refined risk assessment :

a) ldcntify rnorbiduy and mortality statistics in 3.[,C'::IS surrounding Manila Bay and, if' feasible, identi fy the: ex tent to Vd1 ich human health has 00;,;n a IrC'c[~d by the levels Q r metals and pesticidesin seafood tissue and identify vul ncrublc groups,

b) O ... mduct rapid apprOllS!.l.1 or heavy metal and pesticide loadings 10 the bay

c) Usc models to predict the fate of hCClVY metals and pesticides in the D;)Y a ltd estimate HH:: levels in water, sedimentsand l~$Stl.e.

u} Pur the computation 0 r risk quotients, use loca I consumption rates ami tolerable da lly intake (1'0'1) data for different age groups" Consurnptiun ra[(;:"~ in coastal areas l'1':1rty also di ffer trorn consumption r3lCS i n i,I1~I;:II1d arcus. Appropri .. l~ TD1s [oresscntiul metals should also beused,

As P;]rt of an overall environmental Ilwnagemtnt or [he bay, devc lop an integrated men ituring program to conduct rami ne monitori ng or heavy metals and pest if i des in SC~l food, particularly sbcll fish tLSSLlC' ..

ln the sediments, high risk was associated with cop p'C' r and cad mium.

I nicrmediatc ri sk was shown for mercury, chrom iurn, 1C'~~d. certain pesticides :.H1d PAl-L Except for coppct'j elevated lcvc Is 0 ( the other abovementioned C0I11am~1l;.Ull:j were localized.

There is no d ircct evidence that contarui nanis in the scdi merits pose- risks ro human health but b~f:;J.U.S~ cf hunurn activities wi thin [he watersheds, It is prudent 1.0 inc 1 udc heavy metals, pesticides and PA Hs in sediments as part of the refined risk

assessment. The pathways to humans of heavy metals in sediments should also be determined.

3. Ecological risk from nutrients

Phosphate was determined to be a priority area of concern throughout the bay. On the other hand, ammonia was shown to be a localized high concern while nitrate was a localized intermediate concem.

Nutrients are required for primary productivity but elevated concentrations may cause eutrophication and may lead to phytoplankton blooms and, potentially, may trigger harmful algal blooms. These have implications on dissolved oxygen levels in the bay and, eventually, on the benthos and other sessile organisms.

To be able to determine the areas in the bay where high nutrient concentrations were obtained and where marked impacts may be more likely to occur, a detailed analysis of spatial variability is necessary. Analysis of temporal variability would also be needed to determine seasonal effects on the nutrient concentrations. A more detailed assessment of the linkage between elevated nutrient concentrations and phytoplankton blooms would also be a useful first step toward understanding the environmental and economic implications of nutrient discharges.

Spatial and time-series data of nutrients and dissolved oxygen at the sedimentwater interface and in sediments will also be useful in assessing changes in the benthic community. Collaboration with research groups conducting such studies should be considered.

The possible sources of nutrients in Manila Bay are domestic, commercial and institutional waste and sewage, untreated or partially treated industrial effluents, particularly from the detergent and fertilizer industries, and agricultural discharge or runoff. AU of these are contributing significant amount of nutrients to the bay but there is a need to determine the most significant sources to be able to prioritize interventions. This can be done by estimating or gathering information on loadings from the identified sources and by modeling.

4. DO/BOD/COD

The low levels of dissolved oxygen (DO) in the bay, especially in bottom waters, may have significant ecological consequences on the benthos and shellfisheries and, indirectly, on the organisms that feed on the benthos. Anoxic conditions also adversely affect aesthetics.

The main cause of reduced dissolved oxygen levels is the oxygen demand for the decomposition of organic materials in the bay. Organics come from continuous organic discharges from land-based human activities, tank-cleaning or operational discharges from ships and also from phytoplankton blooms.

xxiu

130 [) and COD arc i mportant water qual it)' ind ices that re n eet the: amount of organic contaminants in the water, The problem is that there are [1L.) establishedstandard methods tor BOD and COD dcrerminauon in seawater. The importance or these parameters in M:;Hl ila Baycan he gathered tram the high BOD and CO 0 levels in [he rivers draining tothe bay and the lewmeasured DO concentrations i n the bay.

'l'h i 5 .Q em CHI 51 ra[cs. the need to estimate the oxyg.,en demand in the bay using rapid nppraisal. 1 ( also highl ights the need to' deve lop <.I mode I, for organic loading and the potential impacts in the bay. The estimated organic loud using t he mode! can be veri fled using tile rcsu hs 0 I" the rapid appraisal and the BOD and CO D mcnsurcments from the riser systems, The predicted impacts in the: bay can be veri ned using lh(,;' d issol vcd l).\/gC'11 measurements from tuonitori ng nell vitics.

To asccrtai n the degree 0 C ecological impact of reduced DO levels in di Hercnt arcns in lh~ bay and also to idcnti iyprincipa ~ sources I) f organic lOJcI, l~ is recommended tbllt a dc[ni I ed analysis of spatia) variabi I.i ly he performed.

1\ detailed analysis of DO. measurements through time (temporal analysis) should also be performed to detcrrni ne the duration or exposure of organisms to low DO and theII ke I.)' acute or chrun ic c ffects.

!;1 formation on Db mensurcmcnts during phytop lankton blooms shcu Id be gathered to determine the degree to which blooms ;;dT~Cl DO levels, ~.\tt:nl of <:!r~;,( ~ [reeled and duration of exposure o r organ i smsto low DO l~\',C'.1 so,

ll hi also r\;t,;c.>mfnt:nd.l:"u. Ihal~~~n[ n~,L[!l s~ .. wrn;:-; of the: urganic !.oaU be identified and I he rela: i vc eontribut ton of industries be. determined,

S uspcnded solids in the. water column InJY reduce l iglu penetration in the water ::"[[I(J iJ 11P~!j r photcsyuthcsis thereby a rr~~cti[lg pr.i rn;:lry prod uction ::Ind,CQLL$cQW2'[lUy, the organ i sms 'H higher trophic leve 1:;, Suspended sol ids may cause smotheri ng of corals and. potentially, adversely affect scagra:sses, Suspended sands m::ly also serve J5 adsorption surfaces for toxic ("ool~~mi nanls and a Ira nspon route to the bottom SI,,'dLiHC'"n[s_

Suspended solids refer to organic and inorganic fine solid partie lcs suspended in rhc seawater. H includes contributions from biological components like plankton and the excretion and remains of rl1r::l.ri.il€ organisms. Other natural sources include eroded soil and rocks and lahar that arc carried [0 the sea by ru no IT::; , Suspended solids may also be derived from various land-usc practices ill Ilhc- watersheds ::1l1d a long [he coast like bntl reclnmation projects, aq uacultureand agricuhural acrivi Ll~S, and mining activities: from coastal erosion as J consequence of i1abit<.1ldcsmlct ion and sea level rise; from rcsuspcnsion of bouornscdi me 1"11 ts ~)S a consequence of dredging. lr8. wli ng and natura!

,{XLV

nuxutg: and frorn i ndustrial solid wastes, waste water • domestic d~dlilrg~:j a rul W;-l,S~.G dumping.

There i:; a need for a dcrai led analysis o r spatial and temporal variab i t i ty 1:0 determine the areas where elevated ISS concenrrarions were obtained and [be variabil ity in the concentrations with ti me,

There is uncertainty in the use o C [1](;' interim standard or the Department of l:nvirol1mclH of M:llnysia for TSS (50 rng/l) <IS threshold level lor 'rss m Munila B;JY. Other criteria do 110t sped fy va 1 LWS for TSS but insteadi ndicatc that the threshold should nut be: 30 rng/l gn:alt:r than the annual a Vt;T<lgl:. {DAO 34} or should not be 1 Q% greater I ha 11 the seasonalaverage (A SEAN) si nee there is fKH ural variability in suspended so I id conccntnuions in di ffercnt locations. In formation on background levels or TSS in the hay should be g<.ll.hl!fCd or seasonal or annuala verages should be culcu laicd so that [he TSS levels in the bay C~Jl also be assessed usi ng other cri reria.

In h~n1tQI1Y with a hydrodynamic model or the bay, models showing the fate 0 C suspended soli ds in the bay and II~c potential unpucis onhabi tats and I'CSOlll'CCS should he utilized.

Ccasta l erosion, \"bid.l m;lY be related to S~H level ri se, has implications on human acti viti es especially along the coast. The relationship between coastal erosion and ~ca level rise and the Impact on economic activities in lh~~'O;"lsl~~ areu need further consideration as part Q f the rtf! ned risk ussCSSU1cnL

For en vironmcntal management, !.hCI'~ is a need lor a dctailctl ~lmlly0b of the relative contributions of various sources 0 I· suspended so lids. T~lC comri burions or vurious pOl~llti;:L1 sources, c;:spt~(,,;Lcdly those associated VVlIb human activities .. should be eva luated. Fnvi ronmernal impact assessments (EI A) II f reclamation a[lU ciJa~tal development projects, in particular, should carefully assess the potential comributions of ~hc~t activities 'to' ::llISPI:!H.h:d solids i n Man ila Buy,

6" Oil and grease

The initial risk assessment i ndicated rued tum concern 1'01" 0 i 1::'I1ld grcase In the \V~W':I: C.OllII1l11. This result S'':.CI11Ct! incompatible with thi.!' amOll11:l::1 or Qi! and gie~'se \11:'11 arc visually observed :.'II. nearshore ':l.I_~Q~ especially neur the port, a il and gr,,;<lsc: in Or(S~10re locations in the bav ma v 11m be elevated but measurements III ncar-shore arcus

~ . ... ~ .. . .. . .

especially ncar ports. refineries and industries .may be higher and should he assessed.

The results of the risk assessmeru depended largely on the criteria value that was used as P~EC" Comparison of critical val ucs for oil and grease from various sources showed di tfcrcnccs by orders of tnagn itude. TIl is. would mean that the usc of critica l values from the lower end of the range could result to higher RQs ! him Wh.H were obtnincdi n the in itial risk assessment,

The complex mixture of organic compounds in oiland grease m;:!), have differenl adverse effects on murine life particularly shellfisheries and benthic erganisms. [1 also has implications on oxygen demand lQr biological degradation ami an aesthetics nrrd recreation. Several medium and long-term recommendations are provided 11) address these concerns.

Oi I and gr~ase in the rnari t1G covironmeru mOlY come from Vo.!rl(JL~S land-based sources, in particular, municipal wastes, urban run-off and petroleum refineries. It may also corne from sea-based sources sue It as shipping ncriviti ~S.

It is recommended that:

a) more consideration and care be gtvcn to the choice 0 r critical water concentraiions for oil and grease in n)C refined riskassessment.

b) the major organic constituents or 0 i ~ and grease in the bay be identified La enable the determination 0 f ccotoxico logico I. risks that these present to the ecosystem.

c) more ill formation be garhcrcd Oil [he sensi tivity .L){ t!1C resources and habitats .i n the bay to oil and grease. preferably 1.0 the toxic organic COI1SlilUt:ni.S, to determine lh~ areas in the bJy Lh~Ll arc most ccologicall Y O,J,t risk from large volume ali! discharges.

d) ':l refined risk assessment of oil •. uid gr!;'~~~ in Manila I3'-l.Y be m'HI~ with special consideration of the relative importance of various laud-based and sen-based sources. The ri sk assessment shou ld lake into ;]CCt1Ul1t both controlled or cpcralit .. mal discharges and uncontrolled or accidental dischurges from industrial nnd shipping OC[ i vi lies ..

c) men itoring of IJ il and gr~3.:SC- i~1 bi va l Vc:~gL\)W ing<lrl:a~ and near Ult; port be done ns P;]f[ of the environmental mon il()I.-i'ilg component of (he project.

n addit ioual i [1 (I,)m1<HiO[i on accidcn tal oi i d isdlm)~~l·~ be gathered. Tilt:

frequency) 1 oc.uion and volume of accidental oil spi lls as wei I as 1"C'1~~v;Jm information on the source of spill should be properly documcnrcd 10 dC[Ct'l11 inc areas whGI'C spi lls are mostli kcly to OCCli r and to ~t:ll:rm ine other £:1C101"5 cornributing 'LO the occurrence 0 f accidental spi II s. All these j n formation ,,,.ill be v .. ll uable inputs to a model for prcd [chon or the ~ ikclihocd of accidental all sp i II s from shi ppi tlg and the i rnpact on tile natural resources.

7,

Ecological risks from lieavv metals

~ )! -

For heavy meta 18 i n l!1.\J\v;HCr COIUrLl!1} tile initi ai risk assessment showed ]0\.\0' risks associated wi til hea vy metals in the water, The ri skasscssmcnt \V3.S, however, performed usi ng very limi ted d~:H3. .A ref ned risk assessment for hca vy metals j n t11~

xxvi

water 1;0] umn 1$ n~LCSS;).ry. Data on heavy metals m [he water colu III 11 may ~ however r not be avai lable. It i s rccorn mended that a rapidappraisal be- conducted for heavy metals. Depending on the resu Its or the rapid appraisal, hca vy metals in the water column may be included in the en viroumcntal monitoring component of the project.

~ n the sediments, high risk was associated with copper and cadmium. inrcrnrcdiatc risk was shown for mercury, chrom i lim and lead. Except Cor copper, elevated levc ls 0 t" the other abov~m~l1ti~ncd!;-envy metals were localized. These assessments, however, WI;;H.' made using data obtained from 3 limited number or stations in HlC bay,

The data used 10r sediments were obtained from a lim ired number of stations in the bay. lt is recommended HH'Il data from other researches covering other orcas in the bay be used to gel an nSSGSSH1cnt that is more representative of the bay, It should be noted that data from various sources might notneccssaril y be comparable, so separate assessments for difTerl.::fl( dam sets may be needed, bw thiswif sri]! be abl¢ ro jndi(·;.!I~ trendsin the spat ial distribution of heavy metal contam ination.

It is further recommended that (k13 i led analysisof Sjxuial variabil ity lit done to determine areas in the bav where elevated concentrations of heavv metals were found.

~ . il

HCi;:l\'Y metals may COrne from both land and sea-based SOl.ll"CCS 15m the contributions from variousland-based acti vities such as industrial and mining acti vibes may be more signillcnnr. It is recommended that sign ificam SOlIH;l!'S 0 f heavy metals b\.' idcnti fled, Models may be used to show the sources, distribution and fate of heavy metals in thebay.

lt is recommended that the sediment criteria used as PNECs he evaluated. These criteria were proposed for Hong Kong and their suitability for use in M~H1l1a B~lY needs to be reviewed. Gra in sizei san important [actor that i uflucnces the c~)nCC[11 rati on 0 C heavy rncrals 'i n scdi rnents and Mani la BOlY sediments an: fi ne-grained and muddy andmay uulurully ha vc higher cunccutrations of metals than sediments from other locations. This can be doneby dclcrmi ning the background conccntraticns Gf heavy metals in Mani la 13;))" These background concentrations mOlY come from vertical sediment profiles 'Or from offshore or reference sites, and may be a vailable from gcvcrnmcnt agencies O~· research inst itutions.

8_ Ecological riskfrotn pesticides

Local ized intermediate risk was shown fQr certain pesticides i n the: water column and sed i mcms, There arc very [cw d~l:~ lor the \\'1l1C'1" column wh ilc the data for ~ 1M': sediments were taken from a lim ired number of stat ions i n the hay, There mny not be much a vailable data on pcsricidcsvin Mani la Bay W:H('E'S and sediments. H is recommended that a fHr id appraisal u r pcsticidcs jn ~vbni.la Bay be conducted. ~J tbr: rapid appraisal shows ~dgnlficunUy elevated concentrat ions of pesticides i n the bny, it is

recommended th~H pesticides in the W~HC!' col umn and in sed nncms be included ill the en vironmental moni lori.ng component of the project.

it is recommended 1hat detailed analysis of spatial variability be done to determine areas in 'the bay where elevated conccntrar ions of pesticides wou ld be obtained,

The major possible sources 0 I· PCS[ icidcs in [he bay are agriclll1ural run-off and d ischargcs from agrc-bascd ; ndustries engaged ill manufacturing pestle ides. If is recommendedthat the rclati vc contributions of the tributaries, especially Pampangn Ri vcr where there are cxtcnsi vc ;)grl~l! lturnl act i vi lies, and other sources, be determined.

For other pesticides, RQs could not be computed due to lack or threshold values, [[ is recommended [h~H a I itI.:T,;:HlH\~ search be conducted for standards or criteria for pesticides especially since the RQs presented here ind icate the need for a closer i nspcction or pesticide levels in Man] la 8.3Y,

9. Ecological risks fron: PA lis

The initial risk assessment of wli.l.l PAl-{ (TPAH) and c~tr(,::jl1(]g~nt~ PAHs from iii study by Santi ago (l997)i ndicated I ntermed iate ri sk (RQ> ~) for TPAH and acceptable risk (RQs <: I) for the carcinogenic PAH~, This study, uowcvcr, showed that PAHlevels j 11 the eastern area, ;:1 more connucrc i a l.iz~d. IIlld urban i zed area, were higher than the levels in the western side, indicating the anthropogcn ic SOUJCC of PA H s, .A nether study (p.RR . .P, [999) also shewed l wo stations in the bay \ v here an RQ of I.O! and 0.82 \"'t:fi; obtained ror the curci n(lg~[] ic PAH d ibellZ(l(a,l:l) anthracene.

PAH in water \1/85 not assessed d Ll.C to lack or available data. There were d~u~ uvai lablc on P!\ H. in tissue but risk assessment COLi ld not be carried out because ~ he va I ucs were all reported as less tlrun the detec lion limit, which \N04::; even higher than the threshold value.

The study conducted by Santiago (1997) identi lied the PA!'Is in Manila Bay sediments ::\::; C0l11 ing from pet rogcn ic and pyrolyt ic sources. Pctrogcnic PAI-Is may come from oi i discharges from shi ps, refineries and industries and pyrelyric PAI-:{s arc derived [rom combustion processes. Some PAl-h may either be petrogeuically or pyrolyticnllyderived. A more derai led analysis of the percentage composition 0 [' indi v idual P AHs rnjy indicate the. more dominant source 0 (PABs in M.:m lin Gay.

ltis recommended that the levels or PABs in the bay be verified. The avajlability of mcnitoring or research data em PA1{s lS not certain so it is recmnnl¢ndcd lh.~\ PAl-is in W:HCI', sediments and tissue be included 111 ru.t~re moni wring activitiesi n the bay.

xxviu

JO. Other organics

Then: were no avai lable dataon PCBs in water and scdimcnisand 1'81' in (III m~dia .. H is recommended thatthese data gilP::; !:.H; I1J.I.cd" The Ievcl of shipping activities in the bay indicates the need to IOQk at the possible OCCL.ltTCJ1CC of orgunotins, especially si t'IC~ tile neguti vceflccts of TBT on the reproductive processes 0 r marine- organisms, particularly mollusks, are well established, I\ka~.urc:'d CQllGCn~~'Jl~OnS of TRT may, however, not be available. Rapid assessment o f TBT ill Malli la R.n:y can be done using estimates 0[" leached TBT from Sili ps and other users of anti- fouling paints, Jl'the results or the rap id asscssmern wartants [1 more thurough evaluation ofTBT levels in \\'31('1'. sediments and tlSS.UC, this puramcter can be included in the en vironmental monitoring component of the pro] cct. ~ nvesligmi ens on the. OCCUtTCl1Cr: or shell deform itics and/or imposcx (:i mpcsiticn of male characters on rl.;'m~k gonad format ion) in oysiers shou I.d also be conducted.

I! _ Narmjl.!/ algo! blooms

There I::; also 3 need for a detailed understanding of the dynamicsof toxic ;:,]g~11 blooms and thci 1.- interaction with en vi ronmcntul conditions. Prcd icri ve models arc currently under deve lopment and it j s recommended that 1'1. more derailed risk assessment be done in collabornuonwnh the agencies and institutions involved in toxic algal bloom stud ics.

Other non-toxic phytoplan kt(,111 blooms were not included in lhl.! iuitial risk assessment ,. F requently, phytoplankton blooms indicate ecological problems in the bay such as eutrophication. These blooms may also affect d issol vee oxygen levels with consequent effects on o rganisms in the buy and ::;hoL11J bi;" evaluatcd i n the refined risk n s ~ es Sl ~1 en r,

Chlorophyll-a concentrations were also nut cJb(;'us~cJ iu the in iual risk assessment. H is, however, arr jrnlcx or plankton biornass and could indicate when phytoplankton in the bay should be treated as a resource or an agent. and should therefore be included iurhe refined risk ;)SSCSSm~nL

Moni toring data on occurrences of phytoplankton blooms and lc\'dslJ [' ch lorophyl I~j in Manila Gay may be available from various g\)vcm mcnt agcnc irs, and research lnstirutions.

.I], Hahitats

The I'CSll hs of the inlti;ll risk assessment have shown ll.lal mangroves and cora! reefs are JI risk in Maniln B:J,y,.

n is recommended that benefit-cost analysts of restoration or mangroves and protection of corals be conducted as port or an overall Mani In Bay S tratcgic Environmental Managemenr P lan (SEM P)- This analysis should incorporate the socia l,

economic and ecological benefitsand costs, The: quest ion thai needs to be addressed is "Arc these hahi rats worrh restoring consider: ng other existing and p0t~I1[ [;],1 economic uctivi ties in the bay?".

Economic benefit-cost analysis ofall reclamation projects should also be requi red O,)~ part o]' government approval process,

In corning up with land and water usc plans as part of the S G:IVI P, an appropriare balance between rhe resources of the bay and economic activities should be t"lTgeled_ Tradcoffs shou lel be idem! tied and evaluation of 111C value among the: schemes. especially in terms or the resources and corresponding economic activities sltou ld be conducted.

Fisheries and shc/ijislwrirs

Tile decreasing trends in catch peruniteffor; ((PUE}, stock density aitd demersal b iumass, and the changes In caleb composit ion, like the decrease in f nfish population. i ndi caw that there is ;] decline in Marti la Bay fisheries. Ovcrflshing and destruct! ve; fishi ngmethods have been ident: fled as the maincauses lor the decline and [he f sh ing prc$sme exerted on the bay is indicated by the increase in number or Ilshcrs/km coastline and increase in number of boats/lent C()~lSlHnC' .. Dcgradarion or habitats like mangroves, SCJ.\~FlSSes and coral reefs \1[::;0 contri buied to the decline, These have led to reduced fish biodi vcrsity, loss oteconornically important species, reduced 11:::;11 yie ld, and consequent ecologica I, cconom ic and social losses.

A general decline W\:lS reported i n rhc com bincd production or oyster and mussel til JVl ani In Hay from 1933 w 1988 and the w: ndowpane oyster that used to be gathered in the eastern areas (r.·1etro Manila) u [- rbe buy iii di suppearing. Ovcrbarvcsting/ovcrcol lection had been idem ified as the: main cause for the decline of the windowpane oyster ~n the bay, aggravated by po llut ion ~'I11d destructive fisb i ng methods. For the production decline iroru 1934 to ]988, low harvest Jut: to low demand as J consequence of ~ he red tide episodes !lltLy I.Fl\"C been (1 sign t ficant factor although further eval uation js Ilecessa[), to confirm this. I r is also importanr ro distingu ish between impacts andcauses of decline in shellfish fromculture farms and from the wi ld,

The resu lts of' fhe initial risk assessment dearly :i nd icate that fisheries and shellfisheries in Manila Gay ;)In: ;H risk and callaucnuon to the strengthening of fisheries rnanagcmern in the bay, lt is rccorruneudcd tluu maximum sustainable yield. dynamic maximum efficiency yield, and depreciation val LlCS be' dctetrni ned, M axirnum sustainable yLdd {l\,rS'{) ref~TS 10 the maximum amount of resources that can be collected and st i 11 mai ntai n rhc level of rcproducti 011 (I r these. resourccs i n IIH~ bay _ Tb i s,howc\'cJ:j mJY not be able to JnCilSULC sufficiency over time or efficiency of her v estingof natural resources. Maxim urn c Ificicncy yidJ (MEY} refers 10 the state where the marginal cost o l· c tfon is cq uul to ~ 11t; marginal benefits. Sirnul laneuusly, tile lU.i li ry and appropriateness or using the JvI SY for evaluation of fisheries exploitation in the bay should also be assessed, and other :.lrpro~Khes,cspecially those [hat have been successfully applied ill oUWI" locat ions, should also be; considered. Dynamic IvlEY uses a discounting factor to

take into account changes in values aCrQSS ti me) i .c .. the state where the present value of margi nat cost equals the present value >0 f marginal benefits, Depreciation indicates thal. the rate of change in the 3SSC[ value or the stock is negati vc.

It is also recommended lh;J:t interventions that W III help in the [ee-owry or restoration of the resources at risk be defined as pan or the S EJvl P forManila Bay.

J 4, Erosion and sedimentation

Erosion and sedi mentation ITa ve been discussed in this report as contributors to suspended solids in the water column and as agents in the dedi nc or some resources and h~!.bi1.:J' s. These processes .. however, which result from both natural and rnan-ind uccd factors, CJn have more wide-ranging physical ami biological us well us social and economic e freelS. and merit further assessment. Several studies have ideriti fled areas in Manila Bay wh: .. ~rc coastal erosion arid sed i mMI uccrcri on have occurred.

Erosion and. sediment accretion arc on-goi ng natural processes along all coasts.

Natural 1~l(t010 that influence the GOdSl such as waves, tides, currents and wind arc beyond hurna n control, but human acriv i rics that can add 10 the destruction of natural processesc:ln be identified and cl irninatcd or minim [zed. These activities includeclearance of mangrove ;"m:!as and coastal vcgetariont .... hich decrease the stabil ity 0 I." the shorcli ne, construction of harbors, j etties, seawalls and si rnilar shore line structures which change the normal wave patterns and C~Ul CiU1Cl' accelerate erosion or interfere with long snore currents that. c3rry sand from one place: to another, and coastal developments and upl and act! vi lies that affect sediment suppl y, These ;,rctf vities that lead La alteration o f natural coastal processes could Jead 10 uudcslrablccfG,!~1~ on habitats and change com munity structure. Consul erosion could also increase the risk 0 fflooding and loss of infrastructure arrd shore-based r~Lcili ties, and result in economic losses \,I.::> w(':11 as i ncreascd cost 1'01" sborcli nc protect ion. Coastal accrct ion, 011 the O[ her hamlcrcatcs new land for agricu IJUre and aquaculture but the associated rapi d si ltarion cou td have an effect on pub lie and pri vale in VL'$lInCnL Siltation ncar pons. En instance, increases the need tl.) i nvesti 11 dredging raGLl ities to improve access to ports .

. ~n lhl.: refined ri5k aS$CSSHlcnL areas in r-,4anil~ Bay whl;n; shorelirrc changes have O(;(UfTC'd ShNlld be assessed to ; (lcnti fy possible- C8.LL5C'S of erosi on or ;'1 C"C re ( i on .md determine if these changes pose risks 10 [he ecosystem, coastal communities and thecc{)rwmy, The contributions of coastal and watershed acti viti L:S 10 shoreline change should also be- considered in rhe development 0 I'lhe .slfj.l~gic en vironrncrunl management plan 1'01' the bay,

15. In-depth risk characterizanon

The ecological component of the In i.t ial risk assessment has been d ircctcd to nsscssi rlg effects of Stl'CSSOI'S to tho ccosys(cm i n gcn!;,~ral_ An in-depth risk C'b:lr'-1Clef~l.;Hion\vou!d be needed. to deternune the effects 0 r stressors to spcci fie ecological entities. This would require PNEC5 thatare specifically defined for particular

:;;XXL

targets (habitats or species). Some targct-spccificccotoxiculogical darn may JIO'N be availah le a lthough more work wi II be requi red to produce this. ki nd of data (0.1 PP~Ei\ S, 1999b).,

A I tcrnative ly, concepural models thar indicate spec rue cxpoHlrc pathwnys for di n;;'rt:rll contam inants C:i.U1 be: deve loped. These would demonstratewhat stressors ha ve primary O~' secondary effects on the targets, and ,11.50 dcrcrrni uc the li kcli hood or recovery. These would also indicate what other 0313 WOLt ld he needed for a. more: stressor/target-speci nc: risk characterization.

! o. Solis: wastes

501 id '\y::lS1C'S in the bay (and the Si.I rrounding dvcr systems) pose risks lU Iwv~g;Hicm, human health, ecological SySletJ1S and aesthetics. The RQ appronch used in [he ri sk assessment bas not been suitable for dealing with risks posed by so lid wastes, 1 [ is recommended th;)l altcrnat ivc methods be used to assess these risks.

i 7, Coordinated monitoringprograms

The in [I.ial risk assessment has shown the need for moni [C/I"i ng (b~:.l lor several parameters, It is recommended that systematic and coordinated en vironmentul monitoring programs be developed ,The cnv ironmcnra! monitoring program should be aimed at systematic and cost-effective snrnpli tlg acrivi tics and standardization 0 I' analylici,ll procedures.

Theinirial risk n5:S~SSmGnt has also shown that retrospective risk assessment could not be: carried (JuL Iorsome resources and habitats due lo lack 0 f' in formation. It is recommended that systematic and coerd iuatcd ecologica L surveys be developed, The ecologica 1 ~lJrveys should be' ai med :It moreprecise i nveniories of n;~~ ural resource . s and determination of appropriate assessmcm and measurement endpoints.

IS, Cotlaboratton

Partnerships between different government agcnc I CS~ uiuvcrs ULCS and scicnti ~.IC and technical research institutions. local government units, corrmumities. nongovcrnnrcmal organizations, and theprivate ~(,,'dur would be vital to the development and susrainubiliry of environmental mnnngcmcnt programs Cor the buy and should be promoted.

! 9. 11cccss to data

A SYS1Cr1l!Q facil irate sharing of information and expertise shou ld be' developed.

xxxu

20, Cost-benefit analysis

The development 0 f management program::; should involve the quanti fication of costs and benefits {loom al ternati ve management strategies and from the activities U13.1 may be associated with envirotuucmal impacts. Thisi s reconunended for cunsidcrat ion in [he risk Imllulgcmcnl program and subsequent. strategic crrvirormrcrual tnauagcmom plan and action plans.

All the assumptions ,lUG data sources used i n every aspect 0 I' the risk assessment should be recorded and inc ludcd as appendix i.n order to maintain the transparency of the process and enable checks and upd;.!tes to be made on the assessments-

:0:.:-: x 1.11

Background

The R~glomd Programme 011 ParHwl'slrips in En\" i romncntal Management for the Seas of East Asia (PE[\'lSEA) has identified Manila 8,J), LlS one of the three subregional SI::<.l areas/pollution hot spots [0 tbc region to develop and jrnplcmcm a Slr<.ikgl~:

Environmcmal Management Plan inpartnership with the national gov¢rnll1~tU om! ~OC(!! srakeho lders In the public and private sectors.

Risk rlSSCSSIt1CIU is one (If The si x componcm activiti es or the M an ~ 1'1 l3ay Environmental. Mal1jgcmcm Project. Risk assessrnem is usc-din a wide- r:.mgc of pmieSStOl1SJnd d isciplines and is now increasingly bei ng used ill examining ("I1\' ironmcntal problems. J..:: nv i ronmcntal risk assessment (EIZAJ uses SClCIU Hie (I nd rechn ica 1 HSSeS.~I·nem o r availahl e information [0 determine the signi ficancc of risk posed by various factors emanating lrorn human activities en luuuun health and the; ecosystem,

The gradual shi l't in cnvircnmcrual policy and rcgu lari on from hazard-based to risk-based approaches was p<:!.rUy due to the recognition that ";.0;(;'1'0 discharge" objectives arc unobtai nablc and I hn~ rhcre are levels of conmmi narus i 11. ~ he cuv i rournent thut present "acceptable" risks (Fairman et al., 10.0 l )..'\ irni ng for "zero di schargc' level s or usi ng the best avai lable technology m:ly not be cost-crlccuve awl could result in cxcessi VI.: economic btl rdcnsto soddy nnd adversely artcct ~ he provision 0 r goods a ud services that contribute to hurnnn welfare. Risk assessment lS a SYSICtn[1tlC and transparern Pl"oct:;ss that provides cemprchcusi Yt::::wdlugi.cal inlormation to en vironrnental manugers und decision-ina kcrs for i dCIH~fy~ng rariona] rn~UljgC'mCIt[ LJPI ions, l dcru i fyi tlg,Ut~,lS or concern through the risk assessment also prevents the pit ell I L~ of wasting effort and n;:-;;iJLln:~s on rumor concerns,

Various methodologies and techniques for eRA have been developed and di Ilercnt organizations are presently iuvol v(,:'t! in Iinther improving this management tool tA DB, 1990; U:'J I:Y-i I:, 1995; UN FP~H:TC, 1996; Fn~ rmnnct nl., 20U 1), The apprcac 11 adopted by P]::;:M SCA lS based on the risk quorieru (RQ) approuch. It starts si mply using worSH:::1SC and a vcraue scenarios and uroorcsscsl tthc results show the need for I [lO~:\;

v ~ ~.

refined assessmera and more sophisticated. WJy~ of assessing and n.ddre.),~ing the.

uncerta intics associated wi th the RQ technique, The initial risk assessment of Manila Bay is, a pre! i minary step to idcnti fy priority cnvironnrcnrnl concerns in the bay that will be the rC)CU~ o r a more comprehensive refined risk assessment.

The initial risk assessment of Mani 1:1 Buy was in i t ially conducted dllrlllg lh~~ Regional Training Course on Environmental RIsk Assessment held from July ]7 to 28, 2000 at the PEIv1S EA Regional Prognull 0 fficc , Department of Env ironment rind Natural Resources (DENR) Compound. Visavas /\VCtHlC. Quezon City, Philippines. ThG participants or the training GOUn-lC were from China, Thailand, Vietnam and the Phi lippincs, The parllcip~LrH'3 [rom the Phi] ippines included experts and technical personnel from various government agenciesand inst i turions who wi II be invol vcdi n the Manila Bay Environmental Management Project. Refine-men L o r [he ini tja] draft was done jQ~IQwilJg comments from vurjous instiuulons.

The objective of the study is (Q conduct an in itial environmental risk assessment of Manila Buy u$i~~g ,t vuilable inforrnaiion w determine tile effects of 'factors derived from hLU1HlIJ [lC( iv ities on human (1110 ceo logical targets in the bay.

I. evaluate the irripa\,;L':; or various pollutants in the bay on human and ecolcgiccl targets and identify [be priority cnvironmcrual concerns:

,., identify activities [hal contribute to pollutionin the bay;

3. idenli(v g~ps and uncertainties Lh,H wi ~ l need more e ffort in [he refined risk assessmcm:

4.. make rccornmcndarionstor a refined risk J.S::;C$SIHCll t that is focused 01"1 the illenliEeu (lPI.!::ls.(J{' {;,QI1~en1.~

5" idcnt i fy agencies and j nstitutions that can p lay sign ifieam roles in the ref ned risk asscssrncnt and in the I()ng~l~rnl management of the b::ly; and

6, idcnti fy priori ty clJnct:rn~ 10 be addressed under" risk management.

J

S'ources of In:formaUo n

DaUI for the retrospccri VC' assessment \VC'fC most 11' taken from lhL.: RcS0UfC:C and Ecological Assessment (REA) of M.<lI\H::l Bay (BFAR, ~ 995} that was completed ~n1995 under the Fisheries Sector Program fFSP) of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (13FAR). A majority or the informat i all on resources andhabi l~l::;, particularly on the decl inc of mangroves and corals, and on thestatus or Scagrass, seaweeds, benthos, and fisheries were taken from this j1<lrLi\,'I,!lar 'Study, In addition, data (or fisheries were taken from researches o [' th~ Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources conducted ;,I::; early <IS 19'" 7 (Blanco, 1947), Another major source of dOlt.! {m fisheries a nd soc i 1)economic fi ~urc~/j~a[lln:::s is. the cornpi lation or stud LC'S and reports trom tile Tambuyog IJcvdapmcnt Center. The reports prepared by the Dcpnruncru 0 [' Enviromnent and Natural R(;SGLWC~S (OENR) R.~g.ion 3 and National Capital Region on the watershed of Mani la 13(lY \vi th in their respective jurisdicticns have also been \.t0~rLL!.

The primary source of'i n formut ion for the prospective risk assessment WJ::i the Pusig River Rchabi I itation Program Report (~999). This wil ~ be referred toi n the text as l'R.RP \ 19(9). Other materials that. were used are ;.J 1:::0 cited j n the text A detailed list of the sources or data for each parameter/resource isgiven in Appendix 1, which abo includes descriptions 0 C the data, Sampling stations arc Sh0\Vn in App~I)J ix 3 (<1 - c), The criteria used. wh ich were also taken lrom various ::;QLLI."CCS,,;]fC found in Appendix 4.

Most 0 r the dam used were presumed to be accurate and reliable, attbough prcli rninary screening was done lor some data forwhich ranges of co ncen trurions in di ffcrcn( en vironmeutal conditions nrc known, I deull y, th~ f'C'll;;lbllily or daia shou ld be more systematically assessed based on the sarnpling dcsigu and laboratory rcchn iqucs used to produce the dat~t a:;i \~ ellas ! he period v .. .hcn these were obtained. A mere thorough assessment of data should be made ~n the re fined risk assessment.

The choice uf crucria W<:lS based all what ' v ere ava i labl C widl the assurnpeion that these values were suitable for r_·1ani la Bay, Mo::;t. criteria and standards J vailab lc ha vc been generated I n temperate regions so their rclovau .. A,~ in <l tropical area should be reviewed,

The following an: key terms used in risk assessment {a more cemprehensivcl ist of terms, <i::; Jr)(HJinL;"U from U.S, EPA ([997), U.S, EPA U 998) ami ~UPAC (l993) is Iound in the G IliSSJ.!"Y):

Effc,C1S assessment - The component 'of a risk sH;11y~1:S concerned with quant l tyiug the manner in which the frequency andintensity of effects increase with increasing c.;XP\)~Ul.·\: to substance,

Exposu re mi,SCSS!HNH - The component of a risk analysis that estimates the em issions, pathways and rates of tnQVCIlICrJt (J r a dl~111le3.1 in t he environ ment, and. its transformation or dcgrad.uion, in order 10 csrim.uc the conccntrmions/dcscs to which tile: system Q r j merest m;11' be exposed,

Hazard asscssruen ( ~ Comparison or the i ntrinsic abil i ty 0 r a SUbSl~~!Ke to C'HlSC harm (i.e., to have ad verse dT~ClS for humans or the environmeut) with its expected environmcrual conccntrat lou, o ften u comparison of PEe 3110 P:.J EC, Sometimes referred to as risk assessment.

J-] azard .id~nl.mcal[un" Idcnljjje:lliQI'l 0 C the adverse ctfccrs t hal: (,1 sobsumce 113$ an :i nhercnt capac ity to cause, or iii certa ttl C1SCS, the assessment of a particular effect, It i ncludcs ! he idcmification of the target populations and conditions or exposure.

Risk . The probab: lily of an :lCl-iCI'SC cffcci 011 humans or the en vironrnern resulting from a given exposure to n substance. Itis usually expressed as the probabi I ity uf I1D au vcrs~' e fleet occurring, Q.g" the CXPC'H:J ratio bet ween the number of ina i v iduals 111m \VOU I.d experience an ad verse effect in a given ti meand the total number 0 f indi viduals CXPOSI.:O (0111(:' risk 1:1c1or,

R.~sk asscssmen t - A process will ch ent.ails S011:1C or an of the follow iug clements: hazard identi ficui ion, c lfccts assessment, exposure assessment, and ri sk characterization. lt is the identification and quanti fication of HlG risk resu lting from a speci fie LJS~ 0 I" occurrence of a chemical including the' determination of exposure/dose-response relationships and the ideuti [lC:HLon or target populations, I [ may r;.wgl: [;rQml~lrgcly qual itativc (for situarions in which dal~l ere limited) to fully quantitative (when enough information is a v ailablc sothe prcbnbiliiies can be calculated),

Risk dwrnctcl'lZ:Jlion - The step in the risk assessment process v .. -here the results 0 r the exposure assessment (e,g.,., P EC, dail y intake) ~111d the effects assessment (c .g., PNEC. NOAEL) orecompared. If possi blc, on unccnai nty unalys!s is can-led out, wh ich, i r it results j n ['l quautifiable overajl uncertainty, produces an esrimation of the risk.

Risk elnssiflcatlon - The weighting of risks in order to decide whether risk reduction is rcqu i red. I t includes the study of risk perception andthe balaucing or perceived risks and perceived benefits

Man ila Bay js a semi-enclosed estuary racing the South China Sea. The cutchment artOl is bQUJHkJ bv the Sierra M<HJre mountain range to the east, the Caraballo rnou ntai ns to 1 he north, the Zambalcs imoutnai ns jo the northwest and the Flma:m mountai ns (0 the west. Mani la Bav is connectetl to the South China Sea via C1 ]6, i kill wide entn . mce, The ~l!rJac~ area 0[: the bay is 1.S00 kH~~. I t consists of ~ gently ~llJPll1g basin with the depth i ncrcasi ng at a rate or l m/krn from the interior 10 the en trance. The mean depth to r the bay is 17m, and the volume is 3! knr' (PI.tRP. 1999),

[vlal1ihJ Gay receives drainage from approximately ~ 7.000 kJl1~ of ware r shed consisting 0 f 16 catchment areas, The (\,'/0 main contributory areas ure the Pa:i[g and the P3Ulpanga rl vcr basi ns. .JvIOSl of the river systems in the provi nee of Pampanga, Bulacan and Nueva Ecija drain into the Parnpanga River (BF AR. ]995)" Freshwater inflow bJS been estimntcd at approximately 25 km\'year., but this figure is probably an overestimate, Seasonal and annual variations in d ischargcs arc pronounced \\' ith rhc largest i nput occurri ng ~11 August .. md the lowest in April. The typica 1 rctcnt i on 1 i me fOI~ freshwater .i Il [he bay is between two weeks and one month, depending on the season (PRRP, 1999),

The popular ion in the overal I drain,age urea, :;I~ rn i llion (N SO. i 996). rYIJl1i la Oily covers three r egi ens:

National Capital R.~giGn"

of 19l)5, is opproxirnately H} RC:i!ion I [1. Rczion IV and the

...,. . ~

The tideis predcrni nantly diurnal wi rh an average tidal range 0 f ~.2 ru during -spring tide and 0.4 III during neap tide, Seasonal wind systems [i.c., the monsoons) and diurnal tm':-'~7Jes :lIYC'Cl the current pattern especia llyi n shallov .. '\""lltC'r. The s.:~ 1 inity or [he water column is homogeneous in the dry ~:H.:aS(Jn but increases from surface to bottom during the W("1 SC~)SOH, Mco.i.an salinity at all depths is between approximately 30 and J 5%n. a little less rbun the open. ocean. with level s droppi ng, e.<;pec ially in surface waters dud ng LlH.:' rainy season, Seasonal IiUJ temporal variat i{)11S in \\ ater temperature arc slight nnd vary arou I1d 30";C (P Rlo:. P,I ()99)-

In terms Q [' the loca l and national economics the rnujor natural resources include fisheries, she lltisheries and aquacu lture-I-Iar"l:estillg of mangroves is 8 lso of some irnuortancc. Other natural resources include coral reefs, scazrasses, seaweeds and algae.

. _. ~

I mportant clements 0 [. the lcod C"h~ti ns within the buy incl ude tlrc phytoplankton ~l~ a sou ITC of pri mary production and belli hos as a source of secondary product ion that is used 3.S ;1 source of food for fishes, which can be used directly [or human consumption, H is also impouunt w recognize tha] Hl~ IJbysic;..ll habitats provided by the mangrove forests, WI"J I, reefs uud $CJgl":lSS beds ere intpormnt refuges and nu I"scry grounds for counncrcinl and non-commercial fish and shell fish.

The primary econorn ic O;1C~~ \'~I ies j n catchments and 31"OU no [he peri meter 0 ( thc Bay .lI'C agriculture, forestry and fishery, There is also 3 variety or i ndustrial activities that range ~l"om manu facturing 10 mining and q uarrying. The major manu f:.Jcturing i ndustries i 1.1C lude food aHd beverage, chem lC<:1!, pharmaccuucnl, petrochemical a I1d

d,,;c{rQni'Ci11(j~l5lriI!5. These arc a lso the types of industries causing the most cnv ironmcnla l GOtH;cnL There is considerable reliance on a fishing.trade that in vel V(\~. bOI h local and di srant fishing grounds ~.., ith the Port of Navoras bci ng the focus Q f activity and representing one or the largest Iishi I1g ports with til the Philippines. There i::i a lso a sh ipping inullstry invol v i Llg transport of passengers o.:!~, well as oil and couta i ncrs 0 C various k ~nd~. There arc reclamation ;;lUU. construction L"I~t iv i iies that canhave effects 01"1 the habi l .. us and also contribute to suspended HWICrl3l5 in the bay, Agricultural and C0r(.;~l.ry activ irics, especi :Illy in the catchment areas or the ri vcrs, C,;Hl a lso coruri bute to pol lui i onloadings from agrochemiculs, 'lg.ri.cL!lttlr~! wastes end soi l erosion,

Domes: icacti v uies lead to the: product ion of sol id wa';JlCS and SCWJgc: wh ich enter the bay from rL vercatchmcnts and d i rectlyIrom around the perimeter .. Po·11 uuonhrought about by ani nadcquate solid W3$t.C progrGl m continues to be :J . serious environmental problem, For example, between 5~OOO LO 6.000 tons of sand waste arc g~ncraleJ daily in Metro .M a ni I J wjth less. than this capacity being h~Hldkd by (he so] id waste rn.magcmcru r~lCtl i tics. A considerable amount of sol id W~'lS[C is therefore able [0 enter the. Bay directly (rom the PC'I-tr:!1dCL mdi rectly from catchments via the ri ver systems, Or directly from sb i pping,

Al present) less IlMIl 7% of rhc population in t;' leven major en LCS ~lHd m uu ic ipn I it icsi n MCll"O M.rm ita, wi ih estimated combined populni ion of about;).4 mill ion people based on the 1995 census (NSO~ 1996)., has access 1.0 adequate sewerage systems ~Q Lha.t about ~ million people in Il:~s~ areas nre contribunng domestic li(!tl.id waste po I lut ion either directly tothe Bay or via theriver systems (PFJZP ~ 1998), M oreover, the existing seweragesystem dircrtly leads to an outfall into the- bay, with :;;c\vage being dischurgcd with no treatment. in consequence. the BOD loading Q ~.' rivers is very considerable, H is clear lbat the di~chargc.s of untreated domcsr ic S(!\V;3gC into ri WI" ::;YStt.:1W5 and ,1,l11Jng the shoreline have cnnrri bU1Cd sign i ficantly to the deteriorating qunl it y '01' the 13~q in genera I"

In

The Risk. Assessmenl App roach

Risk is the prohabil iry of an adverse effect on hum;:ulsor the: en vironrnent resulting lrorn a gin:n exposure to a substance. It can be carried 01,.11 rIS,! retrospective risk assessment or a prQSpCCIL ve risk assessment. For the rctrospccti ve 1'1 sk assessment, the fundamcntai qUCSt.lOIl concerns lilt;' extern to wluch conditions arc likely io have causedadverse .~ n:h'u observed ill sped ric targets Prospccti vc risk assessment considers Lh(.~ extent to which current condit i ons, and/or those likely to pertain to the future due 1(') new developments, would likely cause harm, Both CJH be used us a basis Cor environmental management and emply the desire to control ~1Gt l v iries <lind conditions to levels that do no! cause harm nnd \\']1 ich are likely lobe nonzero. 111 the :vl ani la Bay Environmental Management Pro] ect, a combination or retrospecti ve and prospective approaches is used. A retrospccu vc approach is appl i cd to cxp In i n observed dcrcriorat ion in ecological targets and/or the ocrU1T(~nGC or human health problems j n terms ofl ikcly levels 0 r exposure and their causes, A prosper live approach is applied to consider and compare the 1 i Icc ly ad verse cffectsem::mming from observed cnv ironmcmal concentrations or chcrn icals. The approaches cCHwC'rgc [0 i nd i caw the relative importance or di ffcrent adverse effects and thei I" causes, Th is should lead w appropriate. cost-cffecti ve management programs.

The fundamental features of both retrospective and prospective: risk assessment ;"In;' Lh1,ll tileyitknlj fy problems and their C~U1SCS based. on systematic and ! rnnsparcnt pri IKi plcs lh~t can be j usti f ed in publi c and can be revisited as more information and understanding become available, The key concept for riskassessment is the comparison between cnviroumcntal conditions (c .. g, ~ cnvironrncntn I C0BCI:'JU rot i ous ofchcrn ica ~s) u nd thrcsho I d Vil~UCS 1 ikely h1 came adverse effectsin {be targets under consideration. In prospective risk assessment, this ismade explici L as <.I. risk quotient (RQ). that is the ratio or an environmental concentration (either predicted (PECj or measured {M EC}) with n predicted no-effect concentration (PNEC) for the target ofconcern (RQ""p(M)'ECrPNEC). An RQ ~~ I indicates a ~()W, and thus a~(:'l.;pt<Lb lc risk, and anRQ ::. 1 indicates <1 level uf concern and possibly [he i mplemcntation of nprropriou€ mauagemem pl'ogram<.;.

The basic principle'S and techniques for both rctrospccti vcnnd prospect j lie risk assessment are described In En virruunernnlR iesk Assessment 1\1 anua 1: A Pract ical Guide for Tropical Ecosystems, T cchnicul Report. 21,. G Er/UNDPilI'vl0 Regional Programme for the Prevention and Management o r Marine Pollution Prevcnuon in 111,,;" East Asian SC~1S, Quezon City. Pili i i ppi ncs (M PP- liAS, [999.1),

The simpli fll!d r[~k pmhways j u Mnn ila Bay (FiglJr(! l) brings together the possi b le sources of hazards to human heal th and the ell vironrneut .<J.nd shows the possibl e effects on the economy, It also indicates the relationships between the- sources of hazards and v~riOLLS economic and SQCi3] dri vcrs. This quali [::lJ i vci HIJstr3.1L0l1 draw", uttcnt ion to' speci fie acti \"ll ies that rnay cause problems to human heuhb and. the environment andaids t!1 the prioritization 0 [ concerns for risk assessment and, ulti matcly, risk nWllag~mcllt,. especi.:J 11 y when human heal th and environmental protection \\' i 11 need to be weighed aguinsteconorn lC rcali tics.

Figtjre 1. Simplified risk pathways tor Mani la Bay.

a:~rn'fc!Social

.DnVf.YS U:fI=t.~

;y:1t,~~

Ft:.hk& M,J<):ullf~

t.ynlilm &rUt~lry

EJfuc1s Oij§XJmmy

TI).rr.m

......... -.,-, ~II,,' ,'I. A-.-rl~)I."Yl

Muft;dLEnJ (tc.':(J,o'!:':m:·,as I~~~~. cl.y- .

r.iri'l,1 i\rl:J Q,l"¥1)o1l"J

R:WCUIl1 R1If.l'nOS

Io.nem

O:nl'rrcr;j II~!) I rrr~, to;.fJ!j

-fIOOCI [Jill~

• ~C:{l )'"n): ...... ~Ju !I!~.

I-,:n:f r€d"lllllkrr; O:r·~t[j.J;lq,

1.:;.'1:1

., ~ 1111'1 L: II ;_'~J'; If <~~I»t..l1O:::'l,

s-irnr"l-1 Gl:;Dlr~!

~.=ioy:;

IJo.t,-U-:;f)1 (Q.1a1 V;Iu.:l

Madl{1rove CuWnQ {In.oj Cun V~j':>i(lll

R'etnJspecUve Risk Assessment

IN THO D ucr rox

Retrospective risk a~SC~:SIHenl is an evaluation 0 r the causal lin kugcs between observedecological effectsand stressorrs) in the environment. It i;lddrr:~t;(!~ risks irom actions that began tn the past and can therefore be assessed based on measurements ·01' the state of the environment (SU1Cl\ 1998). It nttempts to answer the question: "What evidence is there for harm bei ng done to targets in the bay?" (Mrr-EAS, 1999b). In retrospective studies, it is important to h.h:ntify ~ign] ficant effects (targets and cndpoin ts) and ascribe causation, The approach involves maki Il£; in tercnces about the causes of observed effects (Sutcl"j.1998) - and this often requires temporal and ';;P<:l.'ll'-ll series ofdata forcomparmivc purposes. Comparison Iaci ~j tales the H'SCI".i hi ng of risks to a particular source.

The rctrospectiveapprouch employed for Manila llay was of the "effects-driven assessment" lYPI;; thu: addresses apparent ecological G fr'C CIS tl'1j( !W vc unccrtai n magn itudcs and ca uses [Suter, 1998).. Under rhis pcrspccti vc, risk ]5 viewed us th'!.:' likeli hood that current impacts an! occurring and Ih<H demonstrating these exist i tlg i rnpacts confirms that il riskexists. II IS i mportam h) note that impacts have pri mat)' 'Or secondary effects - us these rnaycausc d i rcct or indirect changes inidenti lied l:ll,"gd~. These impacts range from those occurring inland and ncar the coastto d1O:;~ occurring in the b!1Y itsel r as consequences 0 f developments and ecosystem exploiuuion.

1\'; liTHODOLO.G'l'

A considerable volume of materials em .M unila 13,~.y" Iroru various studies, reports, and projects, were reviewed and relevant data on idem ified targets (habitats ami rcsour, .. :C's) i It rhc bay were PUL together for the retrospective risk assessment. Steps prescribed in the Enviromnerual Risk Assessment Manual (MPP-EA S, ] ~N(_)<l) were, likewise, applied,

Prahlem Formulatlou

'1 I H': problem formulation phase: involved defining the targe: and the w~~y it is impaired by recognizing that an undesirable cflcctcn an ccologica l system or human population has already occurred, identifying suspected (or known) agents, and considering the i inks between the agents and the ad verse effects Oil the targets \\/~ lh au C1 irn 10 eventually manage these agents in order to reduce harm.

it is also important LO determine the assessment and measurement endpoints in [he targets, Assessment endpoints arc lcaturcs related [0 the comi nued existence arul [unction ing of thc Ident i tied targets (e.g. produc Lion, densi ty changes and morral ity), which mill' rlO~ be e:lsy or would take much time to measure, So measurement eudpoiars, which arc features related to the assessment cndpoi nts but are easier to measure <Ire used

instead such as biomass (for production), abundance (for d~~nsily changes) ~:mJ LC~o or biomarkers (Cor mortality),

To elaborate on the interrel aredness uf<l.gcnl:. and targcts. H simplified risk pathway (Figure 1) was used.

The suspected agents for the different resources and habil::llsincluuc: j) overfishlng (ovcrwl1r.:'(.~llc.>n/oycrha['vcst ing), b) destructi ve and j llegal fisl1 ing. c) physic;11 di sturbuncc, d) physical remove l/clearance.e} sedimentation, f) insect in testation. g) dissolved o:.;ygen, 11) biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). ~) chemical oxygen demand 0( COD), j) nutrients, k) coli form, ,I) 10.'IjC algae, m) heavy metals, n) pest ic ides, Q )tola I suspended solids (TSSL p) ~o[al organic carbon (TOe)., q) oil and greJ:fiC. r) polyarornutic hydrocarbons {P Al+s), s) polych lorimucd b iphcnyls (PCBs) and other organics, and L) oil spills.

The identified targets for t'(,::SOUfC'CS include: a) fisheries, b) shell fisheries, 1;') seaweeds. d) be-mhos, and e) phytoplankton, whi lc the rdcnti 11 cd targets for habitats were tile 1'0 1 lowi ng: i1) Imngrovcs, b) cora I reefs, co) seagrass beds d) SQ tr-bottoms. c) mudflats, f) sandflats and beaches, and g) rocky shores.

Ret respect lve llfsk Assessment

Under the retrospective risk HS~CSSrnC[H phase, a set. of questions. answerable by yes (Y), no (N)~ unlikely (uul), or unknown (unk), \1'/;)$ formulated in order 10 establish evidences of decline, and the. causes and consequences of the decline. The following questions WI:'l"C ild~plc:J Jrorn lIw Environmental Risk Assessment r\:l~l nual (M PP-E,..c\S, 1999a},

2) Was there any Icss/cs that occurred following c x posurc? Was there any loss/es correlated through space?

3} Docs the cxpostarc concentration exceed the threshold where adverse effect starts [Q happen?

4) Do the results from contra llcd exposure in llcldcx peri mcnts lead to the $~lm~ effect? Wi llrernoval of the agentlead to arne! iorarion?

5) Is 1.1.1CPC spcci ftc evidence i 11 the target as a result of exposure to the agent?

G) Docs it make sense (logical Iy and sc ienri flea Ily)?

The di fie-rem categories of likelihood of harm are <.15 roH()\~'~;

i) Like 1y (I) - based on knowledge 0 C CXpO,~IJJC tothe agent and either established effect concentrations (i .e., criteria used jn prospccti VI; analyses) or other evidence (such us knowledge about intentional harvesting, field observations (c.g. or i nfeslation), I.lw agent ts l;~ .. .nsidcrcd 10 be a likely caus-e of decline in the resource or habitat;

2) Possibly (p) - bused on <1,V\~ i lablc i nformatiouubcut exposure and c rrC(;t levels, this ageut cannot be excluded as acause '0 C decline in the resource 01' habitat;

3) Unlikely (unl) ~ based on nvai lablc ll1 (ormatlon about 'CX,PQsun: and effect levels, this agent is unli kel v to lra vc caused dccli no in the

~ ~. .

H':~OLIH;"t.: or habitat. 1-l owcver, agents in this category may have ind irect effects on the resource, For example, nutrients, thcmse 1 ves, would not havea negative effect on benthos (defined here as unlikely), but by enhancing primary productivi ty (algal b IOOlllS), increased nutrients could k:Hl to lowered DO, whichis likely to have II negative i rnpact nn benthos: and

.:() U nknown (un h). there IS not enough i nfermation ~~.V<.J.l lable on exposure and/or effect levels to Ol~SI..'~S whet!Jer agcnrs in tlus category have led to dccl inc iii the resource,

In order to facil itate the assessment, all the abovementioned quest ions were tabulated in .1 matrix where each of the n~rgcts was subjected to the series of questions. The HllS\VCI"S to the questions were based on available infonnation on the largCt~ ;:md agents, The matrices are ll..:nn~u here as "decision tables", Using these rahles, agerus [~la[ w\;n; likely to h3\'C caused adverse effects have been systematically screened.

Upon screening, SW1Hil<1.r[CS 0 r 1.i kc.1 ihood ~somcidcllti fled iIgents C311Si ng decl in~ in resources and habitats (sec Appendix I) were prepared and were made part o [Ihe basis for the results of the retrospective risk assessment. It is important ro note that the summaries of likelihood were established 011 the basis of the retrospective analyses (dec is ion tables) and on the prospecti ve risk assessments (or different agents summarized in the Cornparati vc Risk Assessment sect ion.

After esrabl ishing evidences of decline in the resources and habitats, the ecological, economic, and social conscq ucnccs Q f' dccli ne were ('V3.[ll:HCd.

Evidence for D~dinc

The fbllowi ng arc based on d<,liO,l .g:\'!I1~T~lLi.:"J by tile' Rc:--;ourc(:' ~lI1J Ecologica l !-\ S~L'SSl1net1( of [vt.mi la Day (BFAR. 1 ~9:'). the compi lat ion ~1 ( stud i cs by Tarnhuyog D~v~JQpm~nt Cl.:n!cr (1 S190}.and Ihe Socioeconomic and lnvcsuncnt Opportunuies Study in J\.LmHa Gay (fS r:q).J,., 199"2), Tab le ~ summarizes lh'~~ n;:lro5pccli vc analys i s Cor fishcrLL'S in fl..hl111a 811\',

I

lrnpact I

Reso.! .. m;;'1l Type

Likely:

~ DynOlmile fiSI11f",g

• Lew 00

Results

Areal Extent

QUllnll~y:

~ CPUE rkg/iy) decline: 46 t.o 13.8 (19'l7-19'5~:1 ~J.1 " to 27.9 (1970·t923) 14 to 10(1986-1993)

• I r.CII""I)!<)'S e in (is hersrkm coastliir1e: 70 to 2 ~3 (10.8 7- 1993}

'. I ncre <I S8 Ln OQiJ,Vkm ccastl ine: 74 {19BO}. 95 ~ 1991),105 (1993)

"' lDeme rsal biorn 8 S:S

MOSl ~Ik;ely

~ 0 veri is 11 il"'IIJ - ~n crease In HH:l tH.J rnber of fi~ hers ann use of gears with

in crsaseo G! ffide nq fa r ~ catcbi n g (m.alrl~G d .

.n CICil"5C in tra wl ~ ~,,~

capacitv) •

cstlrnstes: 4 .. 61 mUkm: or ~ Dewuction ot h::ltlftats·

6,280 tons to O,~ 7 ~I.{~·ml~ or PQSSibly: .

840 tOr!s (1847·1.90;;3) ii H63VY Me~,aJs,

OJ ISS

Quaiily:

~ D 19 croaseo ti nti sh pop ulat ion - ir~c,rN$ed i nverte b rate PQPU tatlo n e f lbe ,;::emer~,)1

(isIHi:ries ("squids. "a laflHln:;" ,

<lr'ld '0 th (') r cru s taceans]

r· D IS.3I ppe a ra n ceir.ear ,WSf:H1CEl or some s peci~ s: '-.;:- __ ~;-:-:;"""--::h::--:;;:--L.._--,,-,(e:..:.: .. I)~.Jii!urid<! twnbll')

SO:JrG~S" 8H·.H, 1995·, T,;,mlJuYG\:iI Developm811l Center. 1990 and FSP-O .. A, 1992.

Oil and Grease

Loss o~ occnornrcaty impOrlJ["'Lt species

. . . I

Reduced yield

((lshcry

p t co ucnon:

SPe'CL~:;; suecss &i Q n

1I se 0 f gears with lncreased ei fi ci;e ncv to C?lh:::r.

(1~ 1,1 a i n~ng.l c;(rSlin[1 dOminaf1~. species

Catch per unit or e ffort (CPU E) is the number or weight 0 r n~ll l~alJght by a unit or fishing effort, e.g. weightin kilograms (kg)ihOLlI' or searching. [1 i1i often L1tscd as H. measure or fish abundance. The trend in CPU E c lcarly i no icates that there L~ a decline in the Marti I ~l Buy fisbcrics. Es! imatcs madei n 1993 5Iw\\' that should the trend contin lIC, present CPUE would be lower than [I] kg/hr. There was ,L red uct ion (rom 46 kg/he to 13.S kg/hr from 1947 to 1959. .A s i L11ll.~H' [rend W~lS observed in 1970 to 1983 when the CPUE dropped from 94, l kg/hr ro 27.9 .kg/ilL In 1986 to 19S13. the CPUE again dropped from l -+ kg/hr to ~ 0 kgillr. The seeming: lnconsi stoney, particu I <)]"1::: 0 r the 194 7 ~ 1959 period with those of the recent estimates, is mainly due to design differences in fishing

gc~trs. which had lower cat . ching efficiency based on the tcchnolcgy a vuilublc durlll~ the period.

Based (H1 rhc B F/d< study (l995). demersal biomass estimates were made utilizing the swept urea method for both the .19-17 :1nd t 99::!-1 Y03 sets of observations. Biornussis the total quantity lHt any given time) of living org • misrns or" 011..:' or more species pCI' unit 01 "P;)CC (SPCclCS biomass). or of ~11 Ult: ~p(;,ci.c~ Ell a biotic communirrcommunitv biomass). The mdhoJ used. in reference 10 demersal trawl s. makes LlSG of

- . ~ ...

tfl(; swept-urea, \\. h ichis the area o I· lite sea. floor over which tile net is dr,;tg.gt:d Jl~rl!1g i I;:; operation. The swept-areais csiimutcd by mulliplyinj; the width or the net mouth by the distancethe net is dragged. from dat:' Oil [he. densities of fish (;)tight in aunt' i.1I'Gl1 swept. an cstim .• ate or the biomass ln lilal part or the sea can be obtained. For the- bay (approx i mutely hJV i.ng a surface ~rl;'Cl or UlOO"q uarc ki lomctcrs), i r was estab lishcd in ! 947 that there was. supposed to b~ a stock d~'ll:;;ity of 4J1] metric tons pCI' square X ilornctcr (_l1lt/km") or about g ,.290 nn of dcmcrsa l biomass. while ill 1993 there was only an estimated 0...17 nw'kJl1~ nr em cqu i valent offHO rnt.

\V i [h l he upplicatjun IJ [" the Schacficr u nd Fox surplus production mode 1 s or! the :.Wl 0 l-lr'JwJ fisheries datu, the max irn um sustainable yield (r..'i.Sl') for demersal catch \\ as computed (BF ,\ R} 1995 J, Surplus production nh)(_h:l~ involve the usc 0 f·--s~lrp 1 us product ion" ,\'/h ich is tile- production of new weight. b,;' a fishab le stock, pi us recruits added toil. less what is rernex .. ed bv natural mortaln \', This is LISU:;d l v esri n1:11~d ~l3 IbL'

, -.,-' .. _. '.-

catch in a given yc~H' plus theincrease i n stock size (M less the decrease). The rcsu lts or both models (summarized in Ftgu I"C 2) show [Iut the maximum susrai nublc yield F)I' demersal cruch is around 15,000 mt/annum \\' i tho a fishing moria lity of about 6.3 _ The study suggests that thi s level may ha ve been reached asearly as 1970, so that the rate of cxpl IJl!:Hionl n] 093 was \\';)), 3 bovc the m,IX imum ~ ffort which C::Hi produce the max imurn yield.

Si mi la 1"1;:, 1 here was also i:l. declinein terms of the q uality or t1sh yield ill the b'LY., particu I :1r1 y in the composition or species caugl,H. The population of fin fish decreased wh ic hied to ,~ corresponding increase in the invertebrate populati on or the demersal species. Maj 01" changes noted in, catch t:'onlposdio·n include" i n~TC'3S~ in the abundance 0 C squ id, shrimp, and small pclugi c species, such as hcrri ngs and anchovies. the disappearance 0 f turbois and lncrarids, and the dccli nc Q r usu .. d ly kngC' connucrc ~8 [ .~rcc i cs like snapp~rs, ~I.!'I cat fish, and mackerels" (8 FA R" 19·95},

One particular species, the kdLISO Ol' Greater.Cornnron Liz<lnJ Fish tSuurid(~ tumbit), used to be (,;,wghti n large- numbers ill the past but <J I\.~ ]lOW very few and, i 1" C'\'C:(JLlgIH~ arc usually small in size.

DUI! tocxccssi ve fish if~g andrho cvcnrua 1 lied ine in mature fish population, some spcci cs were u noble to complete their li ~~ cycle, from j uvcnile sl~~gc 10 nuuurity, w~!,b more being caught st ill at the juvenile ::>1 <'I gc . TIHI~. there \\!~lS an observed srunll and/or reduced size (.1l.!lIg(h) of n"h c:mgltL Fisil i ng pressure W~I:S J 180 exerted on small dCml::ni.3.1 and pelagic species, and has further led ro their disappearance or a reduct ion i [J (hCI r

17

populauou. i [ is suspected that this nt;]y ha vc i ikcly disrupted the natura I success! 011 0 C l~~sll species in the bay (13 [:.A.lZ. 1 995}.

Figure :2, Combined results of the Scha(lifer and Fox. surplus prcductlcn models.

E.

o o

o 20+-------------~~--------------------~~----------_4

»c

"1/

O~Tlrnn,. ~TTnn"",~n.~.Trrn.".Tn·~n,<TTrnn,.,.TITr~.~rc.r;~.,,~

0-·0' "1.1) 2.0 3_0 .1.0' 5.0 6_0 7,0 Q.o 1J.() 10AJ 1'"1.0

Fish i 119 rna rt~lity

----Sel'l~~rre' F'J~

Source' Resource and cwlogical Assessrrent of Manila IJay (BFAR.1995).

Ovcrfish ing was ide-uti lied as "l~1C' most 1 ikdy cause for Hl~ dccl i nc in fisb popu I arion .nld catch - both in terms 0 C species composition and size, Til lS C.:lO be correlated .It, ith the corresponding increase ill the number of fishers per kilometer or th~ C0<15.1lln..;, from 70 to 253 in ! 987 up to 1993. Accompanying the increase ill fishers is J 11 increase in tile number of !Juab (rnun ic i pal) pet kilometer of Ill(;' roast line. estimated by dividing the reported number of bears by the approximutc length or- [he ~t:mll~, Bay COiJ51lirK' (l90 km), Tilt'! number of boats Increased from 74 lmi~5/~m ir~19i'\O (i';CSO Census on Fisheries, 19S0cil..::d III Tambuyog, 1990) to 95 un ~I s/km l n 199 i (FSP-DA. 1 ~0:n) a 11(1 to WS units/kru in [992-1903 (lJF AI<, 1995 j.which indicates the j nrcnsity o f fishing effort in the bay"

! n add i lion. destruct ive ;;InJ j Il.cgal fish i ng methods, the destruction of habitats, and pol lution (e.g .. ,. increased organ ic load and conscq uent low DO) were ;l[SO considered 10 have adversely affected fishery productivity in. the bay, F~M meshed nets, trawls, and morori zed pushnets .. commonly used in the bay, coupled with the nvai la bil i ~y 0 tand easy a<.:ces:-;. [0 cxplosi vcs by Iishcrfo 1 ks have led to such destructi vc and i I ]<:~;}! practices.

The ·t'ITC'c(';i of other pollutants such <:IS heavy metals, pesticides, o~1 and grease, and high 101:~ l suspended so 1 ids (TSS) on the Jishcries cot! lei not be total J y exc ludcd aml, In \".Lrying level s and actions. may ha VI,; contributed to the observed decline.

Overfishinu has led 10 reduced fish bi odiversitv ~ l!. 1;;':_ decrease j n the finfish

. - ..,_,:. - .... .,._. .

pcpulation and ;:111 increase in invertebrate population or the dcmersa I fishes), ~O~"S o C C'C(l!10L11 ically important spec ic~, red Heed fish yield, and the consequent economic and social losses.

The l1~C of si rnple fishing ~C'ar~ ts 110 longer C ITeel i ve. Fishcrfo I ks, particu lurlv those who jicpend on subsisicncc flstnug are. th~·I"(.:JIJ].~c, econornicully ~l[lJ bo(:~~.dl.]' Ji sadvautagcd,

Shel lflshvries

The main shellfish SpCclCS cultured ill the bay arc Perna viridis, locally known J:::' tahong, and Cr:::"sSOSlrCCI iredale. the rock oyster. l0C<lHy known as ialaba.

A pro 11k of cconom ic activiri t.:~ tfl ;vl;;md3 B:lY (part o C the COl1lP i latiort of studies 011 ~'!.:m i 1<1 Bel)' prepared by the Tambuyog Development C'::I1~cr) shows the trends 0 r shellfish production trom t 9SJ to .1 Yi:5S::1S cited [1'0111 the l3un;atJ of Agricuhural Sl:l1 is[ics (B A S) 19~~ Fishery S tati sties, Th1.; Jau she .. vcd increase in production from i 983 10 1984 for both oysters anq mussels, lollowed by decreasing trends from 1984 w 1·9~ 8. The combined productional' oysters and nrusse ls shows th.~{ from 3. p(:~~k of 17.292 1011 ; l) 198~, production went Gown to [0,388 mt in 1 %8, 1 n l 987, particularly, oyster production decreased ~h'1TP.ly by 4,173 nu wh ile musselproduction decreased b)' 2.174 mt.

TOleh} 2. Retrospective Analysis for Sll(;lm~$heri!es ~n Mal'1lHa 8<1y.

R'C''SQurcc Typ'l

1-:-:------.---

Sho llfls 'len e" Sm a It 0 uan1 i1 y'

Meal, Extent

R9sults

Loss cf

{~CTI narn .cally lmporiaru

..

ovster, stsacv dG'clio<;; (r;m 6."292. In'l int9M ttl 1.730 ml in 1983

specles Reduced yfeld

(prQd.u c t' Q n1

'I rnu ssel: decf ne from L i:lce 11':

'11.0'18 ml in 1984 10 Q,f.58 • Pollu:tJJon_ Dumping of

mt inj~58 nomesuc and tndustrial

• d isappL9 a ring win dcwpa n tl 58wagei ~·,f?'a .... y mel Oils , T S S.

'oyGtle~ (fWm'~ 5,0 to 460 pc sridd e s •• PA H. oLI ~ncJ

seQ'dlingS-i'm~ in grease

ParatJaque in t 9~ 7) '. De$HUCnC,n o( habitats

(th rc uS] h rc cl a m OJ ~iQn/

Ollalily: canversion and destructive

Co rna rr.i r1<311 ion of shell fi 5 h fi sh ing me lhoc: 50

tl5SI.1e w:i~11 coliform, Ilt>avy " Pt"lytopl3nkton b:laoms.

meWls and pesticides (C8usinq ancxlc concinons

Sourc:'Cs;

Brf~R, 1 S95. ur~EPfl:~J'.B·DEMr(! 1 991, Tambuvoq Development Center. 199-0. anc BI3:")CO. 19.!7.

19

[11 addii ion, the windowpane oyster that used h) be g.<lth~T~d ;J:nJ actua] ty cultured inthe eastern areas (Metru Mallna) or I'vl~nil;J Bay is drsappcaring. Ra~cd on the rcp~}Il or the Proposed River Rehabiliurtiou Program tor the )'·'[an I la Bay Region rUNEPil:L--.fl3· DE:--'; F, ] ~~) ] ), the windowpane: oyster is disappearing <.IS <l result uf 0 \"~n:"\ plot.uion und pollution,

A 19 .. l7 publication 0 t' rhe Phil ippine J ou I"IlJi 0 C fbhcr1lts (Blanco. :19-17) reported rhar the windowpane oyster, Plac • .'ww plcN,;f,;"fl,'Ll. locallyknown in the Philippines as Lapis, u~{;ll 10 be extensive I ycu I t i vatcd in Bacoor, Cav i leo The kapi s seed] ings were sourced 1"l"lJIll \\"11,1[. was [h~J1 P:)r~~ll:lqu.G. Rizal (now Parauaque. vletro Y!;,J,nih.l) \vha,~ t;O to lOO seedlings/It of [he. sandy, exposed wet beach and from ,450 [o4()OsccJlin~sim~ in [he shallow lagoons were ~~ou nd. Secdl ings wen: also gathered at Navotas, Riza I. (now l\;;J.\·Oi:lS, f'd crro Man ~13) where a socdlins collector usual! v wasab I.~' to ",alilcr Irom 5,.(01)

r ._. _. ....

to 1 0, ..,{)OO pieces from curly mom [rig 1(.) sunset

I n terms Q r the qU;) 1 iiy 0 f the- shell fish resources, spcci fica II y lor h unum consumpt inn. the results of the prospective ri sk assessment i ndicatcd high concern for the level '> or fecal coli fi)rm, hen \/';/ metals and certu i n pesticides ~ll she! 1 tish tissue.

Attrib utcd Causes

For the windowpane oyster, the rnai n factor lor the decline 'was the enormous demand for kap is she lis, cspcci ill iy the thin and transparentshells of the young oysters. Other r"Wl~,}rS tlrat accounted lor the decline include pollu lion, suffocation dlJ~ to dcposiuor: of mudand sand on U1C natural beds and absence of food for its propel" growth.

The shellfish peed uction data presented here wen: obtained (1 Iter ~ he fi rst red t~dc episode in [11(' bay l.~ 933) and on subsequent years ([98.:1 - 1938) which were also marked with several red ride occurrences. This m;,iY be one; or" the reasons lor the sharp d~C'Pt:3.::;C' in proJuctl0n in .11)8/. Increased public J wareucss abour t he hurnnn he~:d 1.1.1 i mpncis of [he red 1 ide OC;;CLJlTCIL'C~S Ill;]), ha H~ signi ficantly lowered the market demand for shell fish from the bay or sh ifted the demand to other .. ireas, i.l.l though [he effect of PI.) llutiori cannot be U isrcgurdcd. The prospecu ve risk assessment 11m shown i hell i I:c levels of Jl utricnts, suspended solids, heavy metals. pest i rides and O'i.1 and gn.!as~ in the bav orescni considerable risks lo the ecosvstem. Low dissol vcd ox vlJen levels, uris i[l\2

~ I' .. ... .::J ......

from cxccssi vc organic loadi I1g. can have adverse. i.mpJc[s on sbc-lll"ish;.:rl0$.

Other faClOrs that 111ay have contributed. [0 the decline include destruction of hab i t:1[S through reclamation . JUG conversion of nearshore areas Iha.l were formerly uti 1 ized as shellfishery grounds. and, to 311 extent, destructive fishing methods.

Anotbcr contarni nam that is known 10 adversely ;jffcct the rcproducf V~ processes o t'somc organisms, particu larly moll usks, is rributylt in (TBT)., n substnnce used in am itculing pain rs for ships (S\ v cnnen .. 1996t cited in MPF"EASt 199%), There were fL'O

10

:.l, v::i[];Jbk data on TBT and its effects on organisms Jn ~ Ill: bay, hut It is 1.1 kely h) occur In the b;JY,. and should be taken into account,

Another tlnc~~' 10 shell CtsherL~~,. both ell l~ i vatcd and fcund in the wi kl, :3fC rhe phytcplankron b looms which inc lude the red tide phenomenon. In ]987 'J,[ the Bacoor Day, there: were documented reports uf c~d lured mussels anJ 0; srcrs l11~11 perished J L~C' lu reduced DO k'\ cls during! he: height or I he H.~J ride bl uom.

All of the agents mentioned ha ve severelyaffected the she! l fisheries 0 l the bay 10 all extent where economical ~y important spec lCS ~H'C disappearing. as j n the CCbC lJf LlH: windowpane oyster, and the yield 0 r- the other rGmal1llng spec I cs are conri IHJ()usly dccl ining.

A spin-off I:'fl~c' of the red [ide phenomenon is the lowered demand ["or shell fish as the public has. become better i nforrned of the fatal effects of paralytic shell fish poisoning (PSV), Economically, shellfish culture and Iarrniug industries \\-CfC' adversely ::tlTI.:~tI..:'J.

\Vllh the lack of available GOmp;]I'LltlVC historical inforrnatlon, itwas not possible {Q deterrn ine OJ dedi nein seaweedsin th~ bay. Based on the. Resource and Ecologi.cal Assessment of Manila Bay (BFAR, 1995), the available information only pertains IU nX:CtH d istribution, being widespread, with 52 species found belongi ng to 33 genera" 21 rami] ics, and 15 ~['dcrs.w ilh Rhodophyta, Phucophyta, and Cholorophyta as tbl~ most cornnrun orders. III addition, S{j'Fg:::r,>sUJ/J and Gracilaria were found TO be U1C dam inant species, TI1e retrospective analysis of seaweeds is presented in TO.Ibl~ 3.

From c-i.ghl sam piing stations within the hay, i t was establ ishcd j n 199 J that seaweeds had low mean abundance, 25 10 J l individuals per 0,5 square rueter (lUJlO.5 ;l!~) i~~ Iv~ ~rlvtlc~ and Orion ill Bataan, ltl Mulolos, Bulacan, and C orrcgidor Island, There were noted in tcrrnediate mean abundance US to 47 ind/O.S m;) in Paranaque, Metro M.<.lnila, and ill Bacoor and Tanza, Cavite: and high HH;',m ~buml;m:e. 61 indiO.S In~. in Tcrnatc, C~:H' de _ Di versi ty i nd ices me distributed :1::; 1'0 I lows: lugh 19re:n cr i han 2,<1} .i n Marivclcs, BJlJ.;)E1 and in Tcrnatc, Cavitc and Corrcgidor Island, intermediate (1.6 to 1,9) in P;.~r.~i'lJql!(:,. i'vIetro Manila and l3acoor. Cavitt', and low (0.3 to l.O) in Orion, Bataan and ~/[nlolos, Bu lacan.

AHribu wcl Causes

Potential ugcnts known [0 ad verscly affect seaweeds include sedi mcmarion, uti] izauon, and po 11 Lit i on,

~ l

CUI! sequences

j\ declinein 'jr~w{:"ed ubundunce and diversitv rnav lead 1() lew; of ccononucull \'

., , . _. - - - - - - ' - ~' '.' _,

i mportant species as \v~11 as rhc [(ISS of its (:Cl,)1.0~ll.;:,tl Iu n (1 l 011.') ,

Table 3. RetrospectivQ At1t1lys~s for Seaweeds in M;3!'il~ B~y.

Resource Type

S~3WI:H~ds

.PhylO planktun

-

• loss Df

Arll~1 11-------- RO'_'Su_l_lS, -----;

Ex tent ell .. n.g.el sObs e rved IdYl nt ifi cd Ag e ntis

-----+---------~---------_1

S mall I n.forma t iar. p ro ~'idBd if'l av ~ itd t le l- SeJI rrien t<'~ll{ln

lil,eri:3ture: Utilization

• :5 2 f;peci% .' Pol'I utlo n:

~ most common o;cers: Oil and Grease

R 110dophyta. Ph aeophyta, 0 rl Sp ills

::lnd (hIQr'cphym Hea .... y Met;:,ls

Svrga,~sum and Grad/aria Pe~1icid(l5

as com i!'~ fl~ spe ci e sPA 1-1

cconormcan y

i mporta n l sr; (~cie s

~ LQ55 of ecologlC3,~ r UII1Gl!On S

!oQd to r mar 1M In.imol$

- $curce of nutrtents

There arc no avai Jab lc datu to 5l!g:g~::;t the .dec line of phytoplankton iu !vI auila Bay.

An inventory-assessment made ;):j part of tile Resource ;..mu. Ecological Assessment of ['vlan ila Bay {BFAR, 1995) showed thar, for the sampli ng stat ions occupied, there were si xty-thrce genera 0 r si x algal di v t5iom tbal were identified, Haec ilariophyrn dominated l!K species gWllp througl10Lll [he- year, Highest phytoplankton density und diversity W:3~ noted from J ~:umary to M arch 199'3. accounting for 57 of [he [0[<1] 63 genera known to be present in the bay but which decreased abruptly LQ 35 during the dry St;USO~l {.i\Wi I 1 ~)~}J. Table ~ summarizes the findings () f the rei !"OspCCI ivc ::l!l::t!ysi$ fur ph ywpli:.lnkto!l,

Based 011 other a vailablc und related data (PRRP, ~ 99lJ), c h lorophy II -a measurements werenoted to be increas iug, ind LG;);[ Lng that phytoplanktou ill the bay also mcreuscd duri ng the time of observation ( 1996-l99R)_

Table 4. Rotrospective A.nally5~s for Pbytopl~n!<lon in Manila Bay,

ResoutcQ Type

Pl:iytopl@nk.tofl

Firndings

Are<l~ !::xlcnl

I nform.3~ ion from a va i 1<3 01 e releva 1"11 Ii teraiu re:

.1 gene.rd present - 63

~ corninant group_ l:accilmioph.y1.d (alrrloogr;talions;,

.. D~riod of i,ighest diversity -'InC! d~h~ily is; Jan-Mar' 993, w,hdQ peri cc e f lowe5~ c:i'.'IHS it v and dens i tv Is Apr i[ 19931

So orce: Bf AR 1 985,

Although there was no observed decline in phy toplankton, nncntion s.hmtld also be g i vcn U") t he potent ial effects of suspended so 1 ids and other po 11 utants ill the water column to primary prcductivi ty. High amounts ol ~ll~pl'nd.(;u ::i'oliu;:-, may reduce or even inhibit primary product! viiy. The fed ucuon or in lubition 0 C primary prod LJt.:~ ivn y wi 1:1 hnvc a chain c,nCL~t on succeeding trophic levels, The ccological Imponancc 0 C this resource makes II as val uable as the other resources di,!p~mh;"nt ~Qr j L in Hu: Iood chui n-

Evidence (or decline

A majority 0 [' the data ut i 1 ized tor the assessment '0 f mangroves Wel:::; taken from the: RCSQun;:e and Ecological Assessment 0 [ Man i 1:1 Bay (8 r·"AFt 1995), Tile study mcrnioncd c01iH1:HC~ ofaround 5~,000 hectares of m~1ngr()v~ roresrs in rVI::"lntl3 Bay at the Him of I he century (~890), Further estimates showed that after 100 years (I 990) there were only .2,000 hectares len, but which were further reduced L0 79~ J 7 IH.:L;I;W:~ based on computations in! 905., ThG ro 1 lowing provinces ~1QVC [lad the most significant rna n_gt'On~ forest 10~)e~: Pampanga, Batuan. I3!J];:U:'C!1l and UtI! town ofNavotas ill Metro M::mil::L The retrospect l \'C analysis of mangroves in Manila Bay is shown in Table 5,

Table 5, RGtrosp~(:Uve' Analysis for Mangroves lin Manila Gay,

I

lmpact

H,o:ib,it03l Type

A.rca~ Ext~nt

Sm~l!

Q. uantity: Wry lei. rg'll d~dine ·IMOSt Likely: ~

'b8yw1de I, Physical FemQva~ fOf ~11Q

• frernen ,estimated ff. activities: "

S.:.,()OO ,11~Cl<lmS in 1890 Conversion (Le. (0,[

tu 2,000 11ec12lf8S ~r1 aeaaculture and sal~

1990: 8 nd trorn 2,000 b E:ds)

hecta re S in 1990 to L<3 nd recta matic n ~ nd

79~" 37 11 Bela re s in \ 995

ether

•

Degrad811un Or luss of h8bi1at and

r l,w;;e,y Greu nd~ LOf>S of natural erote et .on Re(~UCo;d,

biod ivsrsi ty CO<~S tal t: r osi 0 n and sllta t Ion l.css of carbon stmHg€:

Redu;;;ed delntus Second 3 ry aoverse irnp<lc:s to adjaceru coral: ~e8fs. 583 qrass berts, anc oU1Er 11 ab ita ts

activities

~ Cu~1 i ng tc rl~[(glwC (}Q ;;I nQ • housing)

Sed i rn en t,,! Ion (rom U plaooj &,cli 'Ii tles

j

Pcsslblv:

• Pall U lie 11; OJ,1 S P i~1 s, j;le5~ic «ses

• P p.:s1 Infe S ta~ ior. (lcca I i1:ed)

• l.ah a r s ufrocal i on [locJ:Ii.!8 d}.

I

The major cause of the decrease 0 f rnangrovc is clearance [;0" COil versi (til into uquacu lturc emu sult beds. lund rec lamation for human settlement, industri J I. dcvcloprncm J nd other development act iv i.1 !~S, Physical removal [or fuel w!Jof.l wa::: also one C;!IU.'lf;: of decline. Wood trorn munsrovc stands is known as excclleru rircwood tor ovens li':ll"J ill

~ .

Other factors attributed to cause the dec I inc in n1;lllgrovc rorcsts j I1C 1 ude pollution, J.C. _ li'I)H1 lJ il spill~, L'l1~mi~·.d~, .md tlcuiing solid debris/wastes H13t clog the rOllt ~ysl em o I" mangrove s[flnds,~nd scdi mentation as J result u r upland/upstream ucti vities. .P~Sl i nfestaticn ma v have contributed to tile decline a 1 thouuh on n morc locut izcd level. as

. ~. ~..

nccurrencc was observed on ly in the: mangrove stands found with In lllC~CR area, The i I1~T~a.s~d susccpubi Lily of [he mangroves to pestS rll;J11)·~ i,l m.mi fCsl:ulon o [' ~H1 ecosystem under stress, ns ~l consequence of po II ut Lon and phys i(31 J i sturbancc _ l .. h'LI" :)lIITIK~H~on has also contributed h) the dec l.l 11 I.: 1 n mangrove forests in Pampanga.

Co nsequeuces

Dest ruction of rna ngro','c 10t'C~lS. inVLw ila Bay have led to the loss of ccclogi cal tuncti ens such as breeding, ~paw[~i [19, and nursery grounds, natural prQtec tion Cri .. nn wa \'C action. protection fromcoastal erosion and siltati on, sud. storage for carbon. It also hus secondary udversc Impacts 10 adj~h~clll cQ'r;:!l reefs, sea grass beds .. endother huh i rats. Consequently, productivity 0 ( marine ani m;'Ilsl pan icularly the commcrciully-importurtt SPC(!~~Sr is adversely affected. The reduced fish productivity 11 hi matcl y n rfecrs the GC0!10111Y and the- people dependent on Iislung ior livelihood, especiallythe stnall-scale lishcrs. The loss 0 C natural coastal protection also affects the safety o 1" L'(J;,)~l-.J,~ communuics from floods awJ ~yphoun':>,

There. hJS been a decline in curul reels in Manila Bay, but there 1'> no definirc li:Yl~h.' or estimate for rhe said decline. /\ resource and ccolo::;iL'al assessment conducted in 1992 ~. l SlY3 (I3F AR. 1995) reported that a large section of the. reef at H1C ('n1L;Hl~C Qf the bay, part icu I.~~ rly ! Ill' 11.1 ick growth of Acropora sp" had already been damaged. Other til [orm.uion lrom the same report were i i mired h) p~r~'\.:nti.!!g~' Q [" coral cover, species diversity, snuc \'LI rc, location .. and distribution. Percentage of live cover j~ .:.l~ follows: 20 in L\buivclcs, 40 to 80 in C,~V ite (Umbones Cove), and 20 in Corrcgidor ls land, There were abour H rami 1 ies of hard corals . one bm i ly lor so n coral composed 0 r .3 8 gl!ncr::l and 53 SpCdC5 that were categorized as ecologically poor in cond ition. Structure-wise, those tound \VC[,C' or the fri ngi ng type composed of generally encrust ing forms and massi ve in habit wi th ]10 50l id stands, and are mostly di sp1.:'r~cd and occurring i n parches. [\'10$( col onies \Vt:I-"~ found to be young and smal L TI~r: surnmary of the retrospective analysis fur coral ref fs is fou nd til Table 6.

AI rrl bu ted C::I USes

The ~~LI!l in!;l)' sparse distribution of coral reefs. mosilv occurring i n putchcsaud ill young and small colonies. in the bay could be attributed io various Iactors including physica) destruction l dynurni LC tishing). cyanidc/peison fish i ng i 11 lite reef area. siltation. gathering, US'-~ or fishing gears and attachrnents (trawls and motorized pusluictsl, jJl!.::rC~1:::;C In boat anchcrage. and pollution (rom metals, pesiic ides and oil spills. l.urt her nna lys is of species composition and iU'l.:ll.li Iication or dorn i nant species could provide insighrs into environmental chnracicrist ics of di ffereru reel' areas and aid in idenri tying rnuj or ~.:~lUS~;) () I" tfC'cl inc i 1'1 d i ffcr,enl I ocations.

Table 6. Retrospective Analysis for Coral Reefs in M~tiiila8ay"

Habitat Areal Ri?sults I Impact
Type I!:::;.:tenl C:ll a rig l'ii/:s a b serve d: I Identified Agent),;> I
Coral Reef:;, Sm31~ Quantity: there WElS decllnt: but • Fhysical • Degmdalion or less
no Llctud.iJ'estimated ligures de s lrllC~ ion (i, e<., or nabnat
avai~ablele.calog,lci:l1 sratus dynamite nshing) .' ReClu ced fi s 11e ry
C[J leg:orl ze d as poor , CyJ n ider peisoo pfQductio r,
Cisnmg I n ~ 110 reef ., Reducec lou ri s rn
A.~ of 1992 - 19'J3: area poie-nti;:JI
,. [) ualily: No d a ta Ini"orma110rl from av ail ~j b le relevant literatureislUd,es'

• structure: fringing ~:,pe

co m pas f:ld '0 r gene ra Ily encrus li ng clnd massive in 11i3I1bi~ J no ::'01 id stan ds I dis pec'S€d and OC( u rri ng In patches I must colonies

~ __ ~~~-L~~ __ ~~young3nd2~ail ~ ~ __ ~~ :

Source: IBFAI:;;:, 199-5

percent live cover ;W in ;0 Marivcle~. 40 to 80 in Cavite .' {lLn100neS Cove). and 20 in Cor egl uor I'~ land

'14 f<ln1llic~ c r hard (I;: r;:lls, one r rami I '{ for SO~l coral compose d of 3 tI g'~ nera ~m!, '53 specles

SII t<)110(1 "

Gathering

FI:;hi.ll'J gears and .. attachments ~lra,.· .. 15

;)nd motortzeo •

p U'~ 11 nc~~}

I ncressec :b08~ anchcraqe

RI3duced physical p relec 11011 Reducmj

ui{]d ivers il '~.

Los'S c r ca rbo n sequestra li 0 n

~,

The consequences of coral reef degradation or loss arc reduced bicdiversuy, reduced [ish~r)' production, reduced tourism potent ia I, ~I.nd reduced phys ica] protection.

15

A vai I J ble daia (B FAR. 1995) only inc I udc l~1 fornnu i on on specks. nbundance, and diversity. itolophila ovalls and llalodule pinotoiia were the two dominant species found in the sampling stations ~l lhl! ITlQi"Hh 1.,)[' the bay (O('iou-~\I;:H'i\'clcs~Con\~gidor-Umbow;~ cove area), LJ m bones h:;Jd the h ighcsi recorded abundance .. 23 ind;,O_S m ~. followed hv

. ~

Orion, 12 ind/O.5 m\ and with M<lrivde.':l and Corregidor the. lowest at 5 10 6in.diO.5 m.

Generally. the diversity was cutegorized as ]U\'-': Orion, l.unboncs. and Co['rcgkiUf wen: round 10 have Q. sy to 0_60 divcrsi ly i Illl ices, \\'h i lc Mnrivclcs had 21 \·cry low i ndex (O},

Since there wen: no avai lable estimates o r;)rCClS previously covered by Se:l::,T;1SSI.:~ in Muni la L3JY. csti 1ll::UCS of losses cannot he oblni ned. The results 0 r, he assessment arc found in T able 7,

Table 7, RotrosiP~ctiva Analysis 'for Soagr~ss it, Manila Bay.

flCibil .• H Type

S'~8gr8ss

Small IAvailable ltnfcrll1<!110nl0ri lyfive spec ies -

.' Dom:ir1atl;:d oy lWtJ (2} s pE:G:es - .Ffa,'oplJII!J ovaUs and f-liJ'jociule 'Otllers'

pinoh;;lii;1 • Conversic n of CO.3 S l.1l ..

• Almndar.ce Cin.c'!I(J,5 m\ 81re3S lor open water

Orion, 6~ld.::3j) - i nte r med iate flSf·i cu ltu rs

(,2} • DynClmlte (.Ishlng and.

MCiJrI\{elf.s, E!nlJ:an -low {5 and c:tf",er destructive

'G}

Lirnbcnes - Ngh (23) ..

C c rrel1 idor Is Ia:rll~ - low (5 and 6)

~. (Ii.' .... cr5i~}, Index:

Orion, Bataan - i'igl·, (0_59 - 0.G9)

M;) rive les. Batd3n - 10'01.' (O} Llrnboncs - high (0.5'9 - 0.(9) COrl€qi d 0 r lsi a nd - 11 igr. (0.59 - fl.69}

Over - ",~I - low d iv ers i11'

--------~------------------~----------~

Ar~JI ! FindiFl~s

E xt.e tot I 0 t;l sorvano ns

Source: BFAR, 1~95.

p·os:;; ih Ie Ag c nUs

~ ... 19WlS~ly:

• Sedimenla~ion

fbhil1[J methods Cis.chOirge from. domestic <Jnd seWJ;gc' or ifllC'ustri a I '''''<1:3 le s:

• 0 I~ :;JnCl G rtH.lS~ •

- OJISpills

- Hern/y Met::ll~

- Pestici d es.

~rAH

Impact

L()~;;; cf

e cor.on1Kall 'f I rnporta n t soecies

Loss of stlo;~!ine prote ctlon

{s ta bil izes ~ 11f:.: acucn of \'.'av8s}

Los t or halli t~1 and nursery gr~und~ R,erluced

detr tus

Scdimcueuion i s 11 potcnrial factor for causing .~1 possible dccl inc j n scngrass i rJ 1hL bay - Other factors include conversion 0 r eoastol areas I.Qr open water fish culture. dyuam i re fhh i ng and other destruct] ve fishi Ilg mel hods, and po ll ution of 1!1(; water and sed imcnt witb 0[1 and grease, oi I spi ~ l5 .. heavy Il1CU1Is" pcstici des and P 1\ Hs.

26

Dec I inci n seagrasswill lead lu theloss Qrc,,~'conmnicall:, j mporumt species, k~:)s u r pnJlc~tion (~S it stabilizes the action of W,.lVC::;), 10::;::; Dr hnbiun and nursery ::!-ro~.md~. and nxluct ion ill dCH'll:11 matter.

So [[.-[lon oms

The so ft-bouom comrmm it i.'CS3l"C composed of the benthic organi sms made up of <111 assemb I o:l.go::: o r i nvcrtebrate org::misll'lis, T~1c distri bution and seasonal variati un o I" lb~ so tt-beuom C~lun'J mil)' depend on severn 1 ~11 vironmcmnl lnctors s.u..;h ;.15 temperature, S~ lini [Y.. character of the substrate, seasonal changes and others.

The r~SLL Its 0 l' the Resource urul Ecologica~A:)sc%m~n'l of !\'1 anila Bay ~,GF A R" 1905)< conducted from J LIly 1992 to October 1993, showed how tile di siribut ion of organisms in tbe h,iy were in flucnced by envi ron mental cond i r ions,

In general, there was no signi flcant SCJSot~,) t vnriabi I i.!y i.n the mean population (jensi ty of the so 11.- bottom benthos, but there were sign: ficunt di ffcrencexi n ['l0PIJ lati on densuy and distribui . ion between ;il~HioJn::;, with Corrcgidor recording the highest E11(;':m population density of the- major groups of soft-bottom fauna and Na votas ha vi ng the lowest density for the sa me grol.ll1S of oruanisms. For exam ple .. in Mnv ] 99 3, there \\ ere:

.. .,. . ._ ..... - - ~

735 l ind/rn ~ In Correc [dot and 45 ind/rn' j u N avotas, This mav be ascribed ~.u HUe narurc

. ~ ,_"

of the substrure. Heterogeneity in sed~!l1~rJt compusitiun prornutes hubi rat J i versi fi(.:':lltOll, The substrate of Corrcgidor W:I::; composed or gr.,ti nsthat were not well-sorted whi le the substrate ill :.JaV013S WClS finc-gra i ned and clayey. Aside from this factor, however. the study ulso showed that the contrast in populati on densities might be indicut i ve or the ex] sting environmental conditions. Based 011 the water quality study, Corrcgidor had nearly pristine ecological conditionswhile Nuvotas had vel)' poorwater quality,

The study also showed that there wen: highly toleraru H%C'mbbgcs- ih:H rm!\'3ik'd III muddy substrates ncar sewerage, organ ic waste and c lflucnt out ralls, and that there were ether com munirics that dominated areas wi til good sediment sorting and less environrnemal disturbances.

/\ more recent study, the Pasig River Rchubi li taricn Project {PRRP, ]999). conducted from 1996 10 1998, showed that Cor the rnaj Of taxonumic groups 0 l' b(mlh()::; (pclychactu .. bivalvia, gasuupoda ~lIld ~TLI~l'KC:.l), there was a decline in terms of mean abu tlCh-i.11CC' and mean biomass.

Me:m abundance dec lined lrum 70G and 690 ~ ot;~IInl~ in March and September/October 1996. respectively, h) 2.] 4 and J 40 to1aL'm~ in /\ pri l and September i 997, and 50 and ~. 1 Silt M;w.:h and NO\ ern bcr ] 9Sl(l,

TI1,,;;n:: was also a decl inc i n rneutt biomass from :22 aml 9(; granl~ wet \\"Cigl1i pG-r square meter (g \\'\VhH:} in March and September.October .1 ~06, respective ly to S, 2. and 9.5 (~ \\i\iv/m::') in April and September 1997, and 7,9 and 1.0 ~!1lvbrl'h uud Novcmbcr I L)9~S· (gww;m~).

There \V~lS ;:L bo ;J noted sh i fl. i 11 terms 10 C communi ly struc lure, i'rwn a bi','al \C~ dominated community to an increasingly pclychuetc-dominutcd comrnunuy. Tnblc B derails the retrospective ;'H'l,Lly.~i~ 10r soft-bottoms in Manila Ray .

. ·\t I ri11 utcd en uses

Pollution has been .idt:m~E~d 10 CJ.Li.~e rhc dec 1 inc Tn benthos, parricularly munifcsrcdin the low dissolved oxygen levels ill thl! buy waters, The low DO. especially at the bottom, creating almost ;,JiIlQ\lC condi tions is due to 'the conti rHL0UH organic loading ill lht.:bay and the consequent h igh biochcm icul OXygG11 demand {GO D) and chemical oxygen demand (CD D) particularly in areas where major rivers drai n, Other po 11 utnms like 0 i ~ and grease. heu \,yrnetals .. pestle lJC5 .. PA lls and rhc sol id wastes that accumu I.~HG <..!~. the bOHQm In~ly also have afTccled 1Iw quality and quantity 0[' the benthos. with consequent eftects on demersal fi sh catch.

Other j mpouant n~cIHS [hal caused the' dcclinci n benthos were sedimenuuionand phy~jc:) 1 disturbance. ]-1 ca vy sedimentut ion is ussociutcd wlth reclamation aciiv i t ics particularly in the urban :1rC~I~ and physica I. d isturbancc/dcstruct ion is assoc iated with tra \~ l fishing, LtS~ (If motorized pushnets and other activi ti I;!S that di sturb the bottom sediments,

Consequences

A study ~ 13 FAR, ~ 995) has shown that the composition of the soft-bottom couuuunuy has au effect all the f sheries, A posi rive correlation was reported bet ween mean catch rate 0 f demersal fish stock and benthos population density (I" - 0 ,Y5 " P < (J,O 5) am! species di versity (BF AI<, I SlY5 J, lt WQS noted iha: i n areas where there was high benthos popu lnt i 011 density and species diversity, tlsh catch rates were also high, Whi ll' 111 areas ncar discharge or outfalls ol' sewers and in po 1 lut lou sin ks, wh ich h3':'C observed high concern rations Q r hcav y metals andorher debri S" there \\'Q.S lowbenthos dens; ly and low fish catch.

BI.:!llh i C' organisms also play a signi [icant rol e' in the degradation of organic materials in the sed i rnemand, therefore. aid in the rcgu laiion or organic kF'IC.J, The loss of ben thos h~1S consequent effects em this i mpurtunt ccolcgica l funet ion.

T a bll e 8, Re t rosp ecttve Anallys.~ so for Soft- Bottoms i rl M a n II a B J Y .

H .. b,il"~ iyp~

Oll s C rvauons P ess i b,le .A £len Us

F-~------'_------~---------------- --~----~~----~--------------I

::; Of1 B ou 0 ms l<Jrg~ r 1 992 - 1 90g 3 (Bf AR. 1995}, ~,,,'ost l~kl?lv. 0 e g rsdauon or 10 3S of

'SigniliC31'1! ditferl3'nces In mean lew DO tHJt:ll.al

~Q pu~,::ltl on d ens ily be twee n Sacl rnenrailo n .' lQS~ or ben t hie

A r'G1>1 I E.xwnt

FindLng~

stations

• Cnrr~gicQr.llIgt;est densi!.y

- N 8'/0 t8 s-lowest d('.F1 sHy ~

o iHef'~ nt com i 11af",1 corrmeni Ue s

l:: l3 tween sianons

~ i 996 - .908 {PRRP, '1999}:

Quanlily:

- Oedine .n rne .. n. al~lInd:FJnGe of ITIJ [c r taxonorrlc glOUpS

(rota Ifrth 705 anc 690 '0; MJ r . and S€pUOct, 1 ~96.

re sP(J ~flvel ~i to 2 14 a nd 140 ill Apr. ';:!nO Sept. 1997, resp. to SOO and 118 in M~r. .md Nev.

1 [;98, resp.

. Decli 11 e i 11 mea n bio rn ass of major l~xonomic Group~ ((j

v, ·wilrh nand 98 in Mar, .and S~pl.jciGI. l 996, resp. [0 B.2 and 9,5 in Apr, <Ina Sept. 1997, resp., dna!.9 3r'id 1.0 in M3r ·and Nov, 1998. rcsp,

0;'1<lli1y·

Com mu nity stru ctule . Com i naled by poly~h,uctc';i/ 10' .... 'S pccle s tliv~r~i'\f

SOlJrCQ-;;: BFAR. 1995 and PRRP, 19'~9,

Impact

~ rec li3Im31 io n organ is I us, r e:d u C:t:: d

sci iv iHe s;' dLV€!"rsuy

PI,~sical t Decline in fish

I) :51 U rb r-lm; ~ (11Sh Ing pfQd~Jcllon

.30;: li vi ly) • loss. of flJr:ctio~ in

r(;lg utat Ion of Qrg;, n IG lOdGing

Oil and Greas~ H(~,wy M~lals .I P<::'SliciCE!S

o ther Qrgan! C~ PAI-t

TSS

Based on H1<;;' Resource and Ecological Assessmcm oiMunila Buy (BFAR. l Sl~5\ lite total area occup icd by mudflats i So estimated to be around 4,600 l1<1. Fi fry three percent (53'7"\) of the mudflats arc found in Bulacan, 19% in Parnpanga, and 17'Yu in Bataan, Based. on lh~> same study, total sand Ilat areais 1,500 ha, and this composite is d i stri butcd i n Butaan (47%], Cavite (3 G%), and Lvfelro[l.-f:mib (10°;';), whil e non~ are round in Parnpanga and Bulacan, There were no estimates made on beach areas, but tb~ same study mentioned particular areas i n Tcrnate, C,[ vi tc and souther» part of r\'ldmpo~ ita n Mani 13. as well as i 11 Coch lM5 POilU in Mariveles, Bataan, J n addition, these areaswere found 10 have composite floral cover of herbs (6:2 ,20%). trees (11.50%)), shrubs (9.50%). and. vines (7. SO%).

There is paucity or data on the location, condition and area occupied by rocky shores in ]\il ani la B~lY, Although bused on rllaps ava ilabl c. the urea of such habitats ts qu ftc small. These are considered as lcasi important - and therefore least studied - compared with other habitats or resources found within the b<1Y,.

29

Table 9. Retrospective Analysis for Mudflats, sand nars. BeJctN-s, and Rocky Sil"!ore:s in Manila Bay_

Habitat Type

I

I Areal

, Extent

Impact

Filldings

I Possible Age~H.ls

o bse rv at ions

MuJ'f13lS

MCiJ·~f3le TotSI ,a..re3: .:.·600113 II3UI8COln' ~,457 hOI

P .amjJ~r!rJd: 1,14 0 ~',3 ISa.taim; 803 na

IReG! a rna t Ion Icon .... ers on

DegroC a t Ion a I1d.'c r loss I 01 rm.bll,;;;.;

D(:Qradation and/or loss, of nJibll31

TOlal Al.ea, 1.500 ha

Ba!<'lmT 7: 3 ha Cavite: 537 ha

Metro Mon,f.:l: 24.0 ha

Comoosita f1cral cover; herbs (62_.20%), trees (2t .5n~,{,). shrubs 9.50'~"Hand vines 17 .. 80%)

Rec !<1I11'l.! ,on Conversion Pol[utlQn

Rod,-'! Sh::Jlr'(l~

,Small

I

Total A Fe a: no data

LOC<:ltion: Ternate C,wHe, southern pan or M,erroPQ.li tar:! M@ni:la. and COCfUrlOS Poi n~, Mrlrlv~ les Bataan

I::'>eclam al io n 0 egraQatio.n a[lC ,'or 10 S S

,Co nve r S io"', cf bclbi!;) l

iPI1 :s<cal Coes nu ct iorr

Esti mates of loss or degradation of mudflats. sand flats, beaches, and rocky shores cannot be obtained since there was insuffleicnt comparable mformation. Table 9 provides the find i!lg~ or 1 he retrospect! veanalys is (or each o t' the aforcnrent i oucd habil ::.HS,

At trlhuted ca uses

Rec larnation activit ies and continuous conversion, am! in some cases, po lluricn. may contribute to the Jegr'1J~1ljOn or lo~~ of these habitats.

Resources

For resources, tl C lear evidence or dccl inc \V,l:::' cstu bl i shed for fisheries (13F Al( ] 995; Tambuvoa, 1990: and l':'SP-DA. 1992) and shellfisheries {BFAR~ 1.99.:5:

UNEPi[f\,'1B-DENR,. 1991; Tarnbuyog D~vdopm,,;nL Center, ]990; and Blanco, 19-17). The adverse ccologicnl, econom ic, and social consequences (I r dec line in the 1 WlJ resources :l1"G both considered large evcn i f shcl I fisheries are I inured to certain P;:UTS of the bay only and are small i L1 terms of areal extent.

There were no avai lable ccmparati vc data on phytoplankton dCJ1$iIY and dive r siiy tv suggest .1 dec line L1 f phytoplankton in Manila Bay, but based on increasing chlorophylla measurements from 1996-l99::J (PJ<RP, 1999), phytoplankton ,\iDS n~)1 a I'C~OLJrCC ~H risk in the bay,

There \\ ere 110 in tormut ion Ol1 previous. extent or cover and distribution (1 ( seaweeds III the bay so retrospective risk assessment cou Id not be carried out.

30

Table 1 0, Summary of evidences of decHne, areal extents" ;;)nd the consoquE!r1CQS in the decl~r1!e 'Of resources in Manila Bay.

E co 10 g leal

Social

RnSOllfCC I Evlchmce of I
Decline
FIsl1eries I Mu~h
SI1eli fi sheri o s ~ t' .. luch
Seaweeds I No dJrJ
Ph ytc: p~,;j r,k~c n J .'lJo d;;~.;1
snlalt
moderate
I.~rge A~Il~1 E){ttml (D I strl b u t~ on)

I

I

Table I G presents how much information was available 1O estahlish decline tn [Itt:' resources, the a rea 1 extent of d istribuilon of the resources ,i n the bay. and the ecological. cconcrn ic • md social consequences of decline that. has occu rrcd Ell" fisheries, shcllfisbcries and bem 11OS. might 11JVC occurred l"or~C':l weeds, or m ight occur (or phytopl.inkton. The- economic canscquctlC,,;S re tcr to Lite market values or the particu lar rC'SGl.IITf.' and do norinc I LIJt non-market \'3] Lies such as option and existence \'J lues. }' or cxamp lc, the economic consequence Qrd~d i nc til seaweedswas considered moderate because this ,,';)S based on the market val LtC or the seaweeds and did not consider '[he; loss o r ecological functions and contributio» to dccl ine i It fisheries.

Habitats

For habitats {Table 11}, dear evidence 0 r dccl i nc \V~1S established only (or mangroves {!3 F/\R, 1995}, For coral reefs, there were no records of tile previous extent of cover but there were unpubl ished accounts lndicati ng that there had been ~l dl.'!d inc in the q uali ty and cover 0 I' 1I1~ reels. Th is dcstruvtion 0 lmongrovcs and coral reds \.,,',11 have large ecological consequences due to the 10::;s of their ecological funrtion-, :.I'" breeding, spawning and nursery grounds for various marine life.

For soil-bottoms, a study conducted in ]992 -1993 (8F.AR, 1995) shewed sign: Iicam eontrast in papt! lation dcnsu lCS and dorninamconim un iiics for areas in ~hl! bay with ucarlv ·I)rist inc ceo loaicu [ condiuons {c. C':-. Corrcgidor) and ~l1"CaS with veri I}Oor

~ ..... O:_,,;..... ri'

water qual ity (e.g, Navotas), Data lrom 1996~ ~ 9% (PRRP, 1999) showed L:viuci1Ct: u l·

ut:di nc in mean abundance and mean biomuss of themajor tuxouomic groups and in species diV'~rs.i ty, This dec I. ine ill bemhos will l!~lV(! I~}(g~ ecological conscoueuccs as shown in H study (BFA R, 1(95) tluu presented the relationship b~'[\\ cen benthos ;nld fish productivity in J\:~::mil.::1 Gay. Fish caleb was higher in areas where there was high benthos popul at iO[1 density and species di vers i ty and f sh catch \\';1'1 low inpol l ution 5; nk~ 1 the sewers and discharge o utfa I ls.

For the other h:lblt~~~S (c.g., scagrass, m udflats, sand f1~ls und beaches, and rocky shores), rctrospccti ve risk assessment could not be carried out due tol : .. ick ,0 r comparative ill formation to determine what changes have. taken pi JCC.

JI

TL1b~e 11 shows the amount or evidence used 10 establish decline in the habitats, the arealextent.of distribution of the habitats in the buy ~ nnd the ccolog leal, economic ,,1 nd social consequences of decl ine that has occurred for tni:lngmvcs and cOJ~LlI reefs, or rn ight have occurred for the other habitats. A'S discussed for the resources, the economic consequences or dec line n::rtr only [0 the market val ues LJ·f I he part icular ha bitat.

1iab~e 11 .. Summary of evidences at decline, areal extents, <lind the consequences in tho decline of 11i01ibit.'lts tn ManHa Bay"

Habitat

EvjdOtnc~ of Decl~ne

~colilomic'

coroi Reefs

Uttl~

Areal

Extent {Ol strlb u tl 0 n}

Soclal

MuCh

NOlie

SoH -bottorns

Moderate-

None

Sandn'H"5 f Bead1es·

None

Rocl<:y S 11 ores

Ncnc

fnod(lf[m:: ~arg~

J2

Pr,o,sp'eClive Risk As:sessment

~ NTROfNJCTl 0':\

fA prospective riskassessment aims to determine if measured or predicted levels of envi ronnrental parameters areIi kely [0 cause harm to targets 0 f interest. "[his is accomplished byidentilying thelikely targets then comparing the measured or predicted environmental conccutrations (MECs or PEes) with appropriate threshold values (PN ECs) to gel risk quotients (RQs)..For human health, risk I hrough SC~l food ingcsti: .. Hl is estimated by comparing measured or predicted cnvironmemat level s (M E Ls or PELs) \\i ith levels or concern (LOCs) :J.S PNECs,

In an ecological point or view, different rhrcsholds should be spc6ficd lor di ffcrcnt targets, and i I these 3rCi1Q( avai lablc, as is Qne'll the case, ccoroxico logical endpoints can be extrapolated to ecosystem endpoints using appropriate application factors (MPP~EAS, 1999;]).

F or \1[[[') i la Bay; a simp] i fied ecological risk usscssmcut was carried out lIS~[lg standards and cri retia values from the literature as thresholds to estimate tho risk 10 the entire ecosystem, The principles and techniques applit:u '-:lrC' described in MPP-EAS ( 1999a).

F 01" the ccologica I risk assessment, RQs ~H'C tile ratios or ~vJEC::; (or PEe!;) and.

PNECs. For human health, RQs arc (he ratios of .MEL~ ~or PELs) (mel LOCs, LOCs are obtained by divIding the tolerable daily intakes (TDIs) by the consumption rates, When an RQ is less than I~ it is presumed th;'11 the likelihood orad\'c-r5~ Cn:t:d~ is low, When all RQ 'is greater than ~ 1 there is a likel ihood of adverse effects the magnitude of'w hich increases with increase in RQ .

. For ecological risk assessment

ME ('{ »re C' \

RO _ -- . ~ J

~ PA'EC

RQ == AIEL(orl:ELJ LOC

Where RQ

LO\v risk High risk

The rc 1 bbll ity of tile assessment depends 1 argcly 01t the quali ty of the data usedas .M. ECs and on the gua lity and relevance ·of the threshold values used [is PNECs, A 1 though

there may be unccrtninues associated with the MECs and r.lK ECs used ill the risk assessment, lh~ utility of the RQ:;in signnlling porcntial areas of concern is sign: Iicunt. The unccua tnt ies can be minirni zedthrough the cOlrdulsclcctlo.n 0 f good q uali ty data and relevant thresholds or these cun be described so rhnt future usc o [" the results {1 r (he risk assessment would take the. possi ble cITeCIs, 0 Cth~ uncertaintiesinto consideration.

Uncertainties call also arise from. the variubiluy in lheRQs obtai ned. An [11 irial measure of uncertainty \V35 cbra incd by raki ng the averag.e and worst-case (maxi mum) RQ~, Amon.:: q uanutative measure of uncertainty CJI1 be carried out using the Monte Carlo csti motion, a resampling technique \\'l1i(:11. randomly rc-snmplcs pa i rs of 1\1 ECs lind PNECs to come up with the percentage of the measured V:.ll.U.CS exceeding the: threshold ..

Data for the initial risk usscssment of Man: la Bay carne primarily tromt he Pasig Ri ver Rebubilumion Project Report {PRRr ~ 1999), A description 0 r the data and sampling locations fur PRRl) and other references (an be found J11 Appcndi x 2.

The threshold values used as PN ECs C~Hm: from various SOl,.lI."CI!S (Appendix 4) and will be detailed in the discussion for each. paranrctcr. Included in Appendix 4 is the rh~hppinc \Vatt:r Quality Criteria (O[KR Administrative Order No. 3 .. :1 or DAO 34~ 1990). In the DAO 34, criteria values arc given for different waterclassifications based on current best beneficial usc. Water classi fica l.icms ore" arranged j:ll the order 0 C the degree of protection required, with Class SA having generally the most stringent quality for marine/coastal waters, and C.l3Ss SO having the least ~lriltg0nt \\'<1[(;[' quality for' marine waters. For Ireshwatcrs, ChL% AA and Class 0 arc tile mast stringent andleast stringent classifications. respective ly.

. .

Water Column

The data for nutrients j n the watercolumn were taken from the PRRP Report (1999). The data used was obtained monthly from eight stations spread across the bay from 1996 \0 1998. The criteria values were from the proposed ASEAN MarinI! Water Quality Criteria (Jusoh et al, 19.99).

l nil ial assessment a r the quality of the dL11n usi ng scatter plot distributions (Figures 3.1. 3b, .3 c), showed 1l1;;rL tltc rnaxi mum values (.I'v1ECr-.bx) seemed 10 be outliers. A c loser inspection of I he d.;l~.3 For PO~ revealed that 30 'y., of the data was not di ssolved i norgunic PO, but particulate P04, and this IS where most of the high values carne from. This i nformation was stated in the text of the report but. was not read ily known lromthe data tables. This emphasizes the need Cor u more tt10rnugh review of data employcdi n risk assessment calculations. TbcP,Qs reported here for rOJ were calculated after the particu late data and another outlier (high value coming from a relatively cleaner sWI.~()n) \V~TC: token out For the other nutrients, it was not easy to take out suspected outliers because the maximum concentrations were l'l1CflSULCd front expected hot spots, These highvalues were, there fore, relo·rnedJ.nd used to calculate the RQ.'.1il~.'

34

Figu re 3a. Scatter plot of data for NO.3-N.

'N'IO K '. rl.

~I)O
~
~u J!fJU
c Jill)
G
I~ 200
:!:J'
c
;'"J
~I.; lOO
~
c
U
0
r) ••

10

:n Dwp.l~ ClUJ

Source: FRRF, 1999,

Figure 3b, Scatter plot of data for NH].N,

-. ] (Ji)O
c::-
~ soo
~ '"
!:: Wi] ..
_.
g .iIA) : .-
~
'.J
.... .:200
~
c
t_.,
(I I(] a : :

.~lJ

it;

4(1

Depth ~ Ill)

Source: PRRP, 1999,

Fi,gura 3c. Scatter plot of data for POJ.~P.

2j,OO 1-
~~) ;W{)O ..
-
-:= I::'OC)
G I. ..
r; 1000
E I. ...
~ ..:.:
~ 501)
!;;
c tit oa,
u II
0 10 .' •
0 • • 20 Deplh (m)

JO

Source: PREP, 1999,

The RQ.\ll~ Cor nutrients, therefore, represent only the areas were the rncusu remcnrs were taken. A better rcprcseutat ion of nutrient coudit ions ~ It the bay

35

would be the RQgeomean which was calculated usmg the geometric mean of the measurements.

The average and maximum RQs for the nutrients are given in Table 12. All the values for the worst-case RQs for nutrients are greater than 1. Phosphate indicates significant concern because the maximum RQ is very high (RQ worst-case = 146) and the average RQ was also greater than 1. The RQGeomcJl1 for N03 (n = 772) and NH3 (n = 766) were less than 1. This shows that, on average, the environmental concentrations for the two parameters are below the critical level. Phosphate (n = 558) on the other hand exceeded 1 (RQG~omean = 5.9). Thus, phosphate is an important agent of concern.

Table 12_ RQs of Nutrients in Manila Bay.

Agent I MECGeomean (mg/l) I MECMax (mg/l) I PNEC (mgfl) I RQG.om.an ROM". I
N03-N I 0.027 I 0.387 I 0.06 I 0.4 6 I
PO.-P I 0.029' I 0.714 I 0.0049 I 5.9 I 146 I
NH3-N 1 0.003 I 0.779 I 0.070 I 0.04 I 11 I , PO" MECGeomean IS the average of 3 geometric means (total n - 558) Source for MEG: PRRP (1999).

Source for PNEG: Jusoh et al., 1999.

The maximum MEC for P04 was sampled from the bottom in a station near Bulacan River. Data from other depths in the water column taken on the same outing were much lower so there is reason to suspect that the high value might have been due to remineralization from the sediment. A more detailed analysis of vertical and horizontal variability in the water column as well as temporal variability may be able to verify these statements.

The possible sources of nutrients

domestic/commercial/institutional waste and sewage, industrial effluents and agricultural discharge or run-off.

in Manila Bay are

untreated or partially treated

All of these are contributing significant amount of nutrients to the bay, but domestic/commercial/institutional waste and sewage can be considered as the major sources of contaminants and these can be discharged or transported to the bay through the river systems.

With regard to phosphate, elevated values in the water column can be attributed to the extensive use of feeds, fertilizers and detergents with high phosphate contents.

Nutrients are required for primary productivity but elevated concentrations may cause eutrophication and may trigger phytoplankton blooms. This has implications on dissolved oxygen levels in the bay and, eventually, on the benthos and other sessile organisms.

36

Uncertain ly An :lli[ysis

The risk quotients obtained highly depend on the M ECs and p~ EC::; (:'mpRoYl'd in the calculations, Some or thcvalucs USI.:U In the assessment rorr\O~ and N H, were ~lJsp~ ... .ted to he' OLL[I icrs, <:lS shown ill the SGJU";-I" plots l Fl)!:LI rc 3a "c), for Nl b, values greater than 300 pgil represent approximately I'~/il of the. total sample size (n = 7/0 )._ These l~igil .... alucs, bG\\'CVGL \\'CrG taken Irom stations Il\.'O"Ir the major rivers so these WCTCretained to prevent disregarding values that may represent real hot spots. /\ more refined risk assessment is i 11 o rdcr , focused on veri fylng the val LLC'~ used in this in Lllal ri~k assessment and 011 u mere detailed analysis of spatialand temporal variations 10 ennb I ~ the i demi.!k;:Hion 0 r possible sources JS well <'IS dcl.rnnin;:llion II.) r nauuul seasonal variability, Load ings from maj or ri vers can also becvalumcd to determine their rclati \.1,,;. conrribuuons 10 nutrient levels in L1](; buy. An uhcnmti vc method rlun {_~811 id(!nl ify whcrhcr nutrients ill ihc bay nrc coming trorn sources inside cr outside rhe bay is. [he calculat i en of nutrient budgets in (he bJY, Th is \\.'(JuILl be a usefu I support to. ::h \\ C H. ::IS ;:J means h) verify, the assessments made on the bJY. This. however, would need nutrient d:n~ from sediment interstiiiul waters,

The PNEC used I;l)r phosphate (0,015 mg/l I)O~) is the pl'OPOSl~J criteria value tor ~'l)usl;11 waters, There is amn her proposed cri tcria for estuarine waters (0,0-15 mgil PO~) that could consi dcrably reduce the RQs (or phG.~rha~t:, but there are rescrvauons in u.:;[ns: this for Manila Bay since (he bay is reluti vely better rn ixcd and fl ushcd than [he typical estuary.

nO/BOD/CoOn

\Va rer Column

r or dissolved oxygt:l"l, unl i ke w irh the other parameters, concentrations lower lh;'Hl the threshold value :::jgn~1 deteriorating environmcnta l cond iuons. RQ, there tore, IS not the rnrio 01 M ECs and PNECs, but [he reciprocal or tht [;;LUU. fur 1300 and COD, RQs cannot be calculated because. ti1GI"(; arc no available data from the buy. Contributious from major rivers diuiuing into the bay will be CO]lSl dered instead.

The data L!SedWC1S from [he PRR P Report (1999 J and was taken at the sante rime ;:IS the nutrient J~U~L The criteria value was from the DAO 34 (1990) for Class SC \\,~l[CI"~.

The P,-Q~I~t~ for dissol VGd oxygen (DO }c.\ccedcd i (RQ;"1;,x ~ :5) while the .RQ.~~u'i·m (n ::::; 756) is ~lppro;lch[ngl (Table 13} TI.w bighest RQ was obtained for a measurement near the bottom al [he station near Bulacan River, The scauer plot (Flg'UI""; 4) shows lh~ distribution 0 r DO values :11 [he surface, mi~~"dcplh .1.r1J near-bottom. tv] ost o r the h igh RQs \\'Cl"C obtained from bottom DO. measurements ;J lthough some high RQ-.; were obtained from mud-depth and a Jt:w J}Ot11 the surface. An uncertainty analysis would be needed to de re rm inc the probn bi thy 0 C the RQ vu I LH: exceeding I lor the ,;". hole dura set a lid also for the di fferent depths.

37

Tabla B. RQ:s. of Oxygen Dc-m.md Parameter~ in Mani~a '8.ay.

5.0

(1,87

PNEC {mgll.)

::.0

BOD Na {j rita

---COD~~----~N~o~d~a~w~---4------------~---------------------4--------~

DO I 5.71)

-S"--· c-u_;;r~'-'\: ':-fc-n:-:-',1 =-EC~_. --=P-=R=-'RP~( 1 ;g.e9).

SOL.rc(l lc r F N EC DA:O 34 (1 9 ;:to] Icr CI:;l:;~ SC wO!!~f$.

,00

Figure 4. SC;,JiUer ptot of DO in Manila Bay

DO

:I'J
_. I 5
I r: """
~:, I ()
: .... c
"..-! ._ ;:
I _
.." (I
~ ) 1--------------------- - --_ -- -

SQurce; PRRP,t999,

The results fur DO may' reflect the possible BOD/COD profiles of the bay since increase til the oruanic loau 'lS5Q~l<llCJ w ith the hi uh BOD values can si ~ni ficalli l v cause

.."". ....... "'_ ...

depletion of DO.

The depletion of DOi n the water column can be: uurib utcd to the pass i b I c sources or nutrients 015 mcru roned above.

ThI!10\\/ levels of DO in the bay, especially in bottom waters, n1JY han: s ign i. fieant 3d\'CI'SC consequences on the benthos and she ll n"~h~r~c_~ and, indirectly, on the org~j.1lism::; 1]J;Jt fe~d on ~lI~ hL'tHl.10S_. Low DO also has implicatious O.1l the dccompusiuon of organics in the bay and mil)' promote ~IIlQ'{i C cond l tions, which also adversely n ffeci ~l ~ s'l h ct ic s.

Since tllCRQlic·o.ll~K'~1l was very c lose [0 oncvthc jq oruc Carlo estimation was appl i cd. The results showed that the probabil ill' of RQ exceeding l is approximately 40% (S. D, = 1.9",). "~ more detai led spatial analysis \Y0LII.J LJ~nlL fy the areas in the bay whcrc Iow DO occurs most frequently and .1 more detailed temporal analysis would estab I 'ish how long the DO stays 'H low conceutrations that could ad vcrscly aff cct the organi smsi n the bay"

ss

Considerntiun of Con: ribun!) ns from Fnu r .'\bjor Rlver Systems

To corroborate the assessment of nutrient and oxygen demand in ~ I~~ b:JY, nutrient.

DO and BOD rneasureincnts from foul" ri v ers systems considered as major pathways 0[' materials to the bay were ,;]lS0 assessed. There were I1Q measurements fm CUD, "1"11(' BO D nsscssmeru is paniculurly important S.i~lC(' this parameter could not be assessed in the bay due to luck uf data. C ontributions from major ri verswoul d give the potential nOD scenario in~j(k the bay.

ThG data used to (;:'{)mp1.IIG f01" RQs were average values; of measurements from 19.91 llJ 1'999 from d i ffercm sraricns [11 each riser system, The criteria \',11 U\,,'~ U'~.~U w(,;'n,; tor C lass C of the DAO 34 (! 990) water ~[l!.di ty cd tcria tor fresh waters.

Nutrieuts

The maximum [:\'1 ECs for all the nutrient parameters (Table 14} were derived from the lW:JI1 0 r the max i mu m concentration or di ffcrctH stations in each ri ver ~y$~C01 fro ill ] 9~6 to 1 !)98 C\C~Pt for j\;ICH'O Manila {l990~i 998}, The' geometric mean was C;J I cu laied based on the average conccntratien of nutrients from din\!rcm stations it) each river system, The criteria \'~ I UI.:'S used were 10 mg/1 for nitratc-N and. OAmgil for phosphatc-P. Tile erireria value used for :-lOJ~:J. however, applies only to lakes, and reservoirs and si mi larly impounded waters and is more conservative.

AU cclculatcd maximum RQs fur ro~~p were grcarcrthnn I ill all river systems exam [ned. A verugc PO-l-PRQs for 1.1.~c Cavite nnd Pampanga river SYStCt11:; were 11.:$5 than ] while \1VC-l";lgC HQs for IJu lac 8. 11 and Metro Manila river systems were 4_24 and l,n, respectively. All maximum NO,;;-N RQs were less than 1 CXC~Pl in the Metro Manila River Sy::;l~>m (RQ.\li~~ -I ,26), ,\ verage NO)-~~~ RQs for an the rive!' systems \V~'r~ less than 1 , There are no environmental criteria far anmrouia in the water colum n ,[11m the RQ value [or this parameter was notca leu luted,

l3ased on MECs, nitrogen in most uf the 1-] vcr ~ySlcms :lppears to have- h igher concentrations thanP, but RQ values suggeststhat the level 0 C P can pose a risk to the water column. Higher concentrations of P than 1\ were only observed in Lillo' B~ElaC:l1I R l vcr System.

The results 0 (the ri skassessment lor rhe ri ver systems confirm U1C greatC'r I e', cl of concern fur POl ihu: wus shown in tile risk assessment for Manila Bay. lt also tocuses aucnt ion on rhc potential. contributions of the di fferent major ri vers ~1l1i1ough the data used were n01 sutflcienttn establish the rd~lJivl~ contributions. Reports of nutrient river load i ngs would be n~ed~J raj" such aSSCSSIHl!Jl ts.

Table 14, RQs for Nutrient.s In FCl>iJr Major River Systems.

Agent I IMECG~o'''~~'l (m,gll), MECrM (mgt!) PNEC (mg/l) RQCoom""~ RQoiIla.
Cavit,e • , I
NO;·N I 029 I 483 10 I 003 0_5
PO~-p 02.1 1.26 O.·~ , 0.6 3
NH,·I\I 0.05 :.85 No data I
Butacan
NOl-N 0.0::;; 2.111 '0 Q.Ms 0.2
PO.·p 1.70 9.17 GA I <I 23
~JH~-N '1 (J7 I 4.14 No da'.J
P.Jlnf)anga I
NO:l-t'-J 0.13 I 0.6137 10 8_01 CdJ?
PO.,-P (1.12 I o J95 0.4 0.:1 I 1 2
NH1-N 00;;; I 0."4t No cata
Metro M.:Jnil:J I I
NO:s·N 0.38 I ·,2.GO I 10 I 0.04 1 j I
P.O~·p 0_<18 7_25 , Q .• ~ ! 1.2 18
I'-I .. "h-N 1.29 45.00 No data I
~ - .. .- s(,: u rcos for ME. L. F 8 S'9 I~. ~'.lf f,eU1,~ t 11.,;Jl,on Se~re I a r,tlE (u I ~PLJt)IISI1(!d) SCLrCQS for P~EC: DAO 3~. rsso. for Class C w';1~·$.

II ncertul Illy Analysis

The data usedto obtain [he geometric means or :.:.11 thenutrient parameters for ~lll the river systems were average values fur each of the ::H'Uh)HS in the rivers. Since 'lho;.":~\_· w ... .rc arithmetic 111~~m~, [he values may have been b i ascd toward the hi gher values, i\ ref ned ri sk assessment shou ld ~ISi; the ru w datu to get a more uccuratc estimate Clf en vironmental risk from nctrieuts.

The criteria values given inthe D,t,O 3.::1 lor Class C waters also seemed rather high (10 mg/l lor ]'\'OJ-N and 0.4 mg/l [or rQ.J.·p) but these were the only criteria available for fresh water when t he ill itial risk assessment was conducted. It would be useful to compare t]lCSC values with other nutrient criteria Ior Iresh \ v atcr.

BOD/DO

All. maximum RQ values ror ROD and DO were greaterthan ~ (Table IS). Ofthe four river systems, the Metro ~'bnj la river system (Pasig Riverand major tributuricsj liad the highest DOD (RQ= 27.14) lbllu\\ eJ by the 13 ulacan ri vcr SYS!Cll1 (RQ =17. i.:.l). Consequently, both river systems abo gave the lowest DO (MEC - 0) in the water column. For the computation of RQ. the zeros were replaced with 0.0 l. The RQ<i obtained for DO were very high (RQ$'" :500) and suggests 3 need for immediate action.

Bulacan, Metro 'M.mila and Pampanga River Systems had <.Icvu.lge DO RQ$ greater than 1 while Cavite River System had average DO RQ that W~IS approaching 1 (RQG~'~I~~:l11 = 0.98). F 01" BOD, the average RQs were greater than I tOE' B uiacan and MClru M anila. These pararnctcrs shoul d thus be considered as parameters of concern for I hcsc systems and also for Man [1;1 Buy since- loads from the ri vers considered evcntuall y end lip i n the bay.

4U

Table 15. RQs for BOD and 'ClO ln Four Major River Systems.

Agent I ME: C Ue"i"~OIl .( rtig",'1 j. MECMo .• (mg/I) 1 PNEC (lTIgfl} I RQ"~Qm'l~R I ROM". _J
Ca .... ite
BOD I 3.()jj 11.01] I ~ I 0.4 I 2
~ (
DO I ~,'11 I 0.80 I 5.0 I 098 I 62
Sul.Jearn
BOO I 18.44 I 120 I 7 I :3 , 17
00 I 0.'14 I n 01 I 5.0 I " I sun
Pampilnga
BOD I :2.92 I 25 J 7 I 0.<: I ..: I
DO I I 0.3 I 5.0 I iR~ J ,
J 56 17
Metre MtirliHa
800 I 11.33 I '19000 I 7 I 2 I 21
DO I 2.78 I 0.,01 I 50 I 1.8 I ::00
Sources lor MEC: Pasi R,'/m R.c na bil il<llion Secrc la riat I un ytJ!ished. 9 , P

Scur.;;a:; lor PI\1l!c. DAO 3J. '990. for CI"S5 C w"lers.

U II certui Illy Ana lysis

The Monte Carll) estimation \\'1115 applied [U the DO data from the Cl\'iJC riVCI' sys t em. since the average RQ obtained was dose to I. The results showed thai DO lu~ 30% probability of exceeding I (S.D .. = 1.64).

The preceding analys i 5, 11 O'\\'C\· c 1", may nor pro· ... ·idethc real scenario in lilt: ri .... er svstcms around the b:.t v since the calculated ecomctric means were all based on the

p ~ - - - - ......

a vcragc concentrations from each ri ver from I 996-1 ~9~: which mi ght have i ntrcduccd some hL8iS toward higher concentrations.

TOTAL SUSPE;:-';U ED SO I .. IDS (TSS)

The data for total suspended so 1 ids w~~ Jrorn PRRP -( 1 99Sl) and \\ as taken at the same lime- ~'!S the nutrient and DO data used in I he prcccd Lng sccrions.

The highest conccntrution o ( total suspended sol ills (TSS) In M311il~ B;-l Y, eq ui v,~ lent 1O~ 1048 .l111,/l: \V~IS observed in the cstabl ishcd monitori ng station ncar the Man ila Port An~J and Pasig P .. ivcr (l4')36 'N, 12Q~ S4 ' E). Lsing a rhreshold \'::l11J~ 0 [' 5Q mg/l, the ] ruerirn standard of the Department or En vironment 0 r Malaysia (MPP-E.A.S" 199%)t j maxi mum RQ or 21 was obta i ned. 011 I he O[ her hand, ihc g(!Qllktril; mean of J!I obse rV:1! LO]l$ (11-=772) \ as 23.32 mgll which gave an RQ of 0.5.

S uspcndcd S0~ ids rc ter to organic nnd morgan ic line ::;o~id partie les suspended i 11 the seawater and can be filtered through OA5 pm membrane. These n1I!!Y be produced by natural processes Or by human activities. B iclogical components li ke the plankton and the cxcret ion and remui Ii~ Q tmari ne ~)rgiln isms contri butc to suspended sol ids. ttl Ivl an il!l Bay, suspended solids may also come from domestic s~\\'age and industrial wastes,

agricultural and aquaculture act iviues, in nux of large volumes 0 C Ireshwatcr with. high sediment loads from the: watersheds during the rainy SC"3S0n, soil erosion \Vl~ h COnS\!qkl~IH nUH1fC from land directly into (he bay 01' W irstributaries, coastal em s ion due to ltabirnt degradation, reclamation and dn:dging acuviries, dynamite fishing. upwelling cd' sediments due W wi I1d action and movement of bouts, ~nJ deposition or air-borne pollmams.

Suspended so lids render the water turbid and reduce ligh l p(;,!1C'lralion and \' isibility, a condition also associated with IU\N dissolved 0;:>,.),' gcn and i 11( renscd anaerobic conditions, Because of the resultant high (urbidi [Yl there is u dCCl\~<lSC in primary producti v ity Elnd in food supply for diffcrcrn trophic levels, The ~oJius also serve [IS a surface on which oil and other La.de PQlllJt::nns can be adsorbed, Eventually, [he suspended solids may dcposi t on coral reefs, ~n effect causi ng their suffocation and J~ 1 ~ri 0 ra l i Q n,

The threshold vn! uc used was all i merim vulcc from rv'kll~y:s i a (M r P~EAS. 199%), II. was not c lear how this val Ll.C 'vas obtained and i l was difficult to compare this with other criteria since TSS criteria arc 0 ttcn 110t sped fie val ues but are c(JncC"l1lral~o.ns N percentages above the annuul or seasonalaverages. In the DAO 34 (1990)~ UlC criteria value for C~::lSS SC requires UKLl TS S concentrations shou ld not be 30 mg/l. greater than the alH1UO:l] avcr3.ge,~n the proposed A SEAN marirrcwater quality criteria (J~5Qh et al, ,. 1999), the TSS conccntrarions should. not be 1 Q % grt:3.tcr than the seasonal averages. This method 0 r setting fb~ TSSc:ri tcria shows that ;;tl111 ua I or scascnal avcl":1gcs vary bet ween bodies or 'W<l[C!' a ud that it is ([i [ficult to set a specific val ue, The risk quotient nllpi-oach~ however, needs a sped tic threshold value 10 compute for P,Qs, To come up with threshold values for Manila lJay using the DAO 34 and proposed ASEAN criteria, [he rcqu i red <1 11 11 ua I or seasonal a verages could becomputed, then 30 mg/[ can be added to the annual avcrag~ or I O~jo can be added to the SC3$OlHll a vcrngcs,

TOTAL OHGA:-; Ie CA ImON (TOC)

Sediment

T oral organic carbon In surface sediment (tine-sized fractions) coli ected from coastal areas of 1\·la(!i]a Bay ranged from 0.40% ro 2.84% with a geometric mean (n = 37) of 1_28~Y() based on a paper publ ished by Santiago in 1997 , TOe is d~r~ vcd from aruhropogenic organic pollummsand b iogcnic SUDSt3rlCCS from marine and land-based sources, The study showed that [}<;} TOe on tilt; western side of the bay 1 varying from 0_98%.1 to 1,93%, is more homogenous than on the eastern side, where values Emgcd more considerably from 0.4I~1l to 2,841%., High levels of total saturated hydrocarbons (TSH). ictal aromatic hydrocarbons (TAB) and total polycycl ic aromatic hydrocarbons (1'PA~. t) appear LO correlate with high %TOC. Unfortunately, no PNfC value for TOe is available 1O allow calculation of RQ.

42

COLIFORMS

\Vater column

Monthly coliform measurements from 10 stations used for swimming or bathing at the eastern and southwestern section of the bay taken from 1996 to 1998 (PRRP, 1999) were analyzed. The threshold values were from the DAO 34 (1990) for Class SC for total coliform and Class SB for fecal coliform, There was no value set for fecal coliform for Class sc.

Results of the analysis showed that geometric mean counts for total coliforms of 13,488 MPNIlOO mI (n = 237) and fecal coliforms of 7,898 MPNIlOO ml (n = 237) far exceeded the respective thresholds of 5,000 (Class SC) and 200 MPNIl 00 ml (Class SB). The calculated mean RQs were 3 for total coliforms and 40 for fecal coliforrns. Based on the highest MECs observed, the maximum RQ was 480 for total coliforms and 4,500 for fecal coliforms. These RQs suggest a serious concern for human health risk.

The high bacterial load may be attributed mainly to voluminous sewage and domestic wastes generated from households that discharge directly to the bay or to the drainage and river systems which eventually enter the bay. Other sources include commercial and agricultural establishments such as slaughterhouses, markets, livestock farms, hospitals, and topsoil run-offs.

There are 4 major rivers discharging into the bay. A study on one of these rivers, Pasig River, shows that 60% of the pollution load is contributed by domestic wastes, 35% by industrial wastes and 5% by solid wastes and run-off. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources-National. Capital Region (DENR-NCR) reported that the water quality of Tullahan and Parafiaque River systems is even worse than that of Pasig.

The government formulated an Action Plan in 1993 to fast-track, among others, the upgrading and expansion of the sewage and sewerage system of the Metropolitan Water and Sewerage System (MWSS) which at present serves only about 10% of Metro Manila households.

Seven of the 10 bathing stations monitored were beach resorts at the southwestern section of the bay. It is believed that responsible agencies including local government units should sanction the owners of resorts or bathing establishments that are not in compliance with the criteria for bathing water quality, and close those that present a clear risk to the public. An intensive information and education campaign should also be conducted to inform the public of the adverse effects of bathing in these contaminated waters.

Shellfish

The data on shellfish are limited to a few observations and represent a few sites at the eastern section of the bay (PRRP, 1999). Based on the available data, however, the

43

bacterial load in shellfish was a serious concern as well. The highest total coliform concentration observed was 16,000,000 MPN from Bacoor, Cavite. For fecal coliforms, the highest concentration of 800,000 was observed also in Bacoor, Cavite, Geometric mean values observed were 56,439 MPN for total colifonns and 15,752 MPN for fecal coliforms. There are no criteria values available for total coliform in shellfish. For fecal coliform, using the European Union limit of 300 MPN (EEC, 1979, cited in MPP-EAS, 1999b) as criteria gave a mean RQ of 53 and a maximum RQ of 2667. These high RQ values indicate the serious health risk posed by consumption of contaminated shellfish from certain areas in Manila Bay. The source of these bacteria can be attributed again mainly to untreated domestic sewage.

Uncertainty analysis

The risk assessment done on the water column was based only on data from the eastern section, the most populated and urbanized area around the bay. The results of the risk assessment, therefore, represent only the Metro Manila area, and cannot be generalized for the whole bay. Data from the other areas of the bay should be gathered for the refined risk assessment.

The data for coliform in shellfish tissue was also limited to a few sites at the eastern section of the bay although these may be the sites where bivalves for commercial purposes are grown and harvested. It would then be useful to ascertain if the sampling sites are the important bivalve-growing areas although there would still be a need to gather data taken from the other areas of the bay.

From the high RQs obtained for water and tissue data and the hazards that such contamination levels pose on human health, risk assessment should be taken further by gathering health data from areas around the bay to determine the extent to which human health has already been affected by bathing in contaminated waters and more importantly, by consumption of contaminated tissue.

PESTICIDES

Water column

Data available for aldrin, 4,4' -DDT, dieldrin, and heptachlor gave values of 0.004, 0.0005. 0.006 and 0.021 ug/l, respectively. Based on initial risk analysis using the marine chronic criteria from the U.S. EPA water quality criteria for regulatory purposes, the maximum RQs obtained were equal to 0.5 for DDT, 3.16 for dieldrin and 6 for heptachlor. There were no marine chronic criteria for aldrin.

Sediment

Concentrations of 16 commonly used pesticides in surface sediment from 10 established monitoring stations (PRRP, 1999) were measured in 1996. Except for alphaBHC, the values observed were at or near detection limits. PNEC values from the Hong

44

Kong Interim Sediment Quality Values (EVS1 1996) were .. available only for 4,4~-DDE and its precursor, 4,4' ~DDT. The calculated RQswere 1.8 for 4.4~·D 0 E and 5.7 for 4.4' g DDT, Calculation of RQ was also made for aldrin, dieldrin and heptachlor using water quality criteria and sediment-water partition coefficient , that estimates the equi libriurn part uioni ng of'a chemical between the water 'and scdiment-bcund phases, to estirnare the critical sediment concentrarion, The RQ values for these three pesticides " v ere Illl less than 1.

Tissue

The levels of 1 G commonly used pesticides were also measured in shellfish taken from five stations at the CJSH:m section of the bay in ! 996 (PR.RJ?, 1999). Tolerable daily intake (TOI) values were available on ly for aldrin, 4.4 '-DDEj 4,.4 '~DDT, dieldrin, endosul fan 1, endosul fan 2, endosul fan sul fate, and endrin, RQs were calculated for said pesticides using an average consumption rate of 10 g/person/day for shellfish (FNIU~ 1987). For an pesticides analyzed with the exception of cndosulfan sulfate, the RQwas less than 1, The RQ for endosulfan sulfate was 1.22.

C oncerurations Q r aldrin, alpha-Bl+C and heptachlor were :Ji!SQ determined in fish (Tuazon and Ancheta, 1992). . RQs were calculated using a consumption rate of 92 g/person/day for fish (FNRl, 1987), High RQs of 24 for aldrin and 65 for heptachlor were obtained. There was no Tor for alpha-Bl+C so RQ could nOI be computed. These results show that the ingestion pathway appears to pose a health risk to theconsuming publ ic, at least for aldrin and heptachlor.

TI.}c major possible sources of pesticides it1l the bay ant run-offs from agricultural farms in the provinces of Pumpunga, Cavite, Bulacan and Bataan. Other sources include agro-bascd industries engaged in manufacturing pesticides in Bataan and Metro Manila. Wh ilc not a II the pest i ci d e levels observed m.:l)l be a l arm i 11 gat present, th c re su its 0 J []U~ initi alrisk assessment s~g:n(:ll C·:lU::)1! for concern since pesticides c ... m be persistent and the cum u lativc, chron i c effects may become apparent over time,

There was vcry 1 irnitcd data forpesticides [11 water but the RQs obtained from the few data points suggest that this parameter should be examined more closely using additional data , For sediments and tissue, there was relatively adequate number of measurements for ! 6 pesticides. For some pesticides in tissue, the RQs obtained were high, The tissue data, however, came from the eastern section of the bay on ly, For the sediments, all the data. for which threshold values werea v ailablc were reported as less than the detection limit «0.004 mg/kg DW for 4,4 ~ -DDE and <0.,010 tug/kg DW for 4.,4' -DDT). For compuiauon purposes, however, ;)Jl the data [or 4,4' ~DDE and 4,4 '-DDT were replaced with 0.0039 rug/kg DW and 0.009 rug/kg DW, The average RQs obtained for these pesticides in scdimcrus were greater than one. H is, however, unccrtai ni r these RQs ;He indicating risks. from these pesticides or showing the need for more sensitive met hods of detection. 1:; or other pesticides, RQs could Bot be computed due to L1Ck of

45

threshold values. For some of the pesticides where water criteria were available, threshold values for sediments were estimated using partition coefficients. The RQs obtained for these pesticides were all less than the value" I" although the suitability of the estimated critical sediment concentrations for use as PNECs should still be verified.

Additional data for water and tissue in the other areas of the bay should, therefore, be gathered especially near Pampanga River where there are extensive agricultural acnvrties. More criteria values would also be needed to compute RQs for the other pesticides especially since the RQs presented here indicate the need for a closer inspection of pesticide levels in Manila Bay.

TOXIC ALGAE

Harmful bloom of toxic algae (dinoflagellates) or red tide was first observed in the Philippines in 1983 and, in Manila Bay, in 1987. The latest episode was observed in 1998. Although there are several species of dinoflagellates observed in the Bay, the dominant toxic species is Pyrodinium bahamense var. compressum. The toxin produced by these species is saxitoxin and neosaxitoxin which cause paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP). Between the period 1988 to 1999, 30 deaths out of a total of 46 deaths due to PSP nationwide were· attributed to contaminated shellfish from the Bay. In addition, there were 706 cases of PSP nationwide who survived, 472 of whom ingested contaminated shellfish from the Bay. The limit imposed by the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources is 40 ug toxinJlOO g of shellfish meat or 200 MUIIOO g of shellfish meat by live mouse bioassay.

The sources of toxic algae or the causes for its bloom have not been clearly established. Eutrophication, and in particular increased phosphorus, climatological changes, and transport processes which cause the algal cysts on the surface sediment to be resuspended into the water column, are subject of continuing studies. Models are also being developed to aid in predicting harmful algal blooms.

HEAVY IVIETALS

Water Column

Concentrations of several heavy metals were measured in water samples taken from three locations in the bay (EMB-DENR, 1991) and different river mouths (BFAR, 1995). Criteria values from several sources were available only for copper (Cu), lead (Pb), zinc (Zn), cadmium (Cd), and silver (Ag). The marine chronic criteria of the USEP A water quality criteria for regulatory purposes, the most conservative values, were used. These values are very similar to the ASEAN Proposed Marine Water Quality Criteria. There was no chronic criteria value for silver so the acute criteria value was employed. The RQs for these metals are shown in Tables 16 and 17.

46

Table 16. RC,s of Heavy Metals, in Manila Say.

I --
Heavy Metals MECG~ailll~~n (fJgn} M'E C~'a. (lJ9 Ill' IPNEC {!JIg/I} IRQG,"'l'fn~"n RQr~ ...
Cu 0.15 0.2 2.9 I ().Q50 D.Di
Po 0.6 0.8 I 5.6 0.1 O. i
Zf1 0.14 0.43 S5 0.0030 O,QW
All 0.04 0.05 I 2.3 0,02 0.02
Cd 0.1Q 0.11 93 0010 0.0110
tv1n 05 0.6· . -
Fe 0.43 1;7 - - -
Co 23 24 - I
1 . '".. -
U I 1.2 1 .:. ,.
Sources for ME:C EMB·DENR. 1!l91. Table 17. RQs of Heavy Met1:lls in River Mouths.

Heavy MECGMrt''''~ii MECM3~ [JAD 34 (Phil.) I U.S. EPA ruarlne chronlc crit@ri;'l
PNEC PNEC
Metals '[fJ·gfl) (fJg/1) h.lg/ll) ROc"om.o" R.QM~. (1J!=1/1) R:OG@mD~n RQ..,~~
Cu: 4.9 46.5 50 0.098 Q.93 2.9 1.7 1'13
Pb 13.2. 13.8. 50 0.26 0.28 5.6, 2.4 2.5
Zn 26.0 42.5 55 D.ll? 0.7"7
Ao - ~ . . -, -
Cd 0.8 1.6 10 0.08 I 0.2 9.3 0.09 O.H
Mn ~ - . - -, -
IFe I . - - ~ - .
Go - - . . . ~ ~ .
Hog O.G ~ .0 :2 0.3 0.5 I - '"
~. SourC{'-~ Ic r MEG. ElF" R. 1 995 Souwes ter pm~c; 0;..0 34, 1 !J!;'IQ .mel I.J.S. EPA ' .... 'ater QualiLy Critcn;) for RegulJlory IPl.Jrpo~e~

For water samples taken in Manila Bay, Bacoor has the h ighcst couccntrations of all the meta 15 studied. Results, however, showed Lh~l ,,,]1 maximum RQ:) were ElL lower than 1, the high~:;}~. being O.I!iJi' Pb a ltd the lowest U.O lO for ?;n.

for water samples taken !I'UII1 thl.' river mouths on 2 samphng periods (Sept-Oct. 1992 and Feb-Mar. 1993)~ the highest concentrations of Cu andPb were found in Cavitc, ;':11 and Hg in Pamp;lng:l, and Cd ill Metro Manila, These metal ccnccmrations ,In: h.i1;h("T than the concentrations inside the bay. Bu~~d 011 tile a vail able P;..J ECs for Class C water (Ph ilippi ncsl.Jiowcvcr, a 1.1 the calculated maximum EQ:; were sti 11 below one, with the highest RQ of 0.93 for Cu .. The smallest maximum RQ of 0.1 was obtained for OJ. The criteria used for Cu was for Class SC water (l1113ri 11\.~ water) because thCI'CW£lS 110 ell criteria for C lass C (Ircsh water). although criteria val ues for the two c lassi n:c:Jill.on.~ for the other metals were the same.

TIl~ U.S. f: PA m .. nine chronic cri reria for \V;}lcr \\'3$ also used as p\J EC and the results were average and maxi mum RQs greater [11<111 one for Pb (RQtIo'(II)' = 2.5; RQCi,'O~~'~~ =- 2.4) and Cu (RQtvju.~ = l6; RQGCQIlK~n = 1. 7) ~Lll~lOugh Cu is an essential metal and may not pOS1..: <l sign: tlcant problem, Although I he criteria values an! for marine waters. the results g:.l'ltC' an indication of the range of RQs that would be obta incd it" criteria values that d i lfcr j n degree or proiecti vencss w~r{: used ..

Uncertainty An~lysis

TI.lC' RQs for heavy metals in M anila Bay waters indicate low concern (or this parameter although 1 imited datawas used for the risk assessment, The resul ts, therefore. need to be veri ned especially when BlOl"C recent data becomes 8, varia blc, The RQ~ obtained for heavy metals in the river samples using two SCI.S of criteria also demonstrate the uncertainty associated with the v<.1I.1..II::s used as PNECti,

Sedlment

The data used in this assessment carne from the PRRP Report (1999), B E~A!l ( 1995), EMB-DEN R (1991 J. Prudente ct a I, (1994) and Narcisc <lind Jacinto (1997). Thl!! criteria values used were from the Hong Kong Interim Sediment Qualuy Values or ISQ\/.s, (EVS, ~ 996).

The RQ'l1~> (Table; l8) for Cd and Cu were obtai ned (RQ~ cq ual to 36 and 12, respectively) at stations near lsataan although It\VJS only Cu that ga vc an RQ greaterthan 1. It may be worth mentioning that the maximum Jv~ EC for Cd, measured in Murch 1998 was suspected 10 be an OlH lief, It.was tour orders 0 [' magnitude greater Hum the fl vc other measurements done :i n the same location on Scptcrn ber ~ 996 W March 1.997 and September ~ 998 (all below detection limit). The RQ obtained if the highest Cd eonccntmt ion is considered an outlier and the ncx t max imum value is used can also be [ound in the table, for OJ, although the RQm.1~\Vas obtained from a station onthe western side (Bataan) or the bay, elevated concentrations were also measured in the eastern side, particul arly in Metro Man i la,

Table 18. IRQs of Heavy' Metals in Sediments.

602

PNEC (mgtKg, R Q'GI!'Dlmdu n FlQMo,x
65 1.2 12
7~ 0.22 3.4
1.5 00.1 36
80 [1.4 Q
0.28 n.04 -1.3
200 G.6 3,
1,5 0_1 12 WI EC Foila. (rn g/K.g)

Cu 76

Pb 17

253

ce 0,2

1--_--c:c:::-:>r __ ....;-_~____:J::::.:3::...-- 459

1-19 0.(111.2

ZI' 112 573

~. 0.00 ~

. Ne~l l~ighL'.?8t r..tE'C fotF Cd

SQurc~s for M!;C, PRRF', ~~'W; BFA.R, 1';95; EMI!3-0iE;~~R, 1991; Prudeme et ~I" 19~~; 3nd Nmcise and Jacinto. t997. S(lU[C;es fer PN I:: C: EVS, 1996

for Hg, Pb and Cr, the RQrll~~ were 4.3, 3-4 and 5.,7, respectively, and were calculated fer samples taken ncar Metro Manila (near [he portarca.Pasig River [or Hg and ncar Bulacan River/Navotas for Pb and Cr). The mean RQ ror Hg \vas less than 1 and less than 0-5 for Pb and Cr.

for Zn. the RQitL;J~ was 3.37 and was obtained usi ng data taken ncar the rneuthof Parnpauga River. The average RQ for Zn was less than l ,

Two major areas of metal conuuninaticn were idem i ri~d - Bataan and. Metro MO;l,!1J la, Several iudustrics, refineries and a power plant are located in Bataan (particularly Limay) whi I~ Metro Manila is a highly urbanized and commercial/industria! urea where an international port is also located,

A pre! lIB i nary uncertainly analysis for Cr and Ph was conducted using the Mente Carlo S1 mulation, whichrandomly re-sampled pairs of ,MECs and Pt\'ECs to gel a set 0 r RQs. The analysis showed thatthere is a 26% probabil ity that RQs will exceed one. fOT Cr and a ]5% probabi lit)' that RQs will exceed. one for Pb,

Data Ircm several studies were used for this ri sk aSSCSS.I1lCflt. The eomparabi ~ ~ly of these data, however, needs to he veri ned because di ffcrcrH sample pre-treatment methods were employed .. The criteria used as PNECs wen: proposed for another location and their suitabi lily for use in Man ila Bay also needs to be: reviewed, Grai n size is an irnpertant Iacior that influences the conccnuntion of heavy metals rn sediments and Manila Bay sed i ments nrc fine-grained ana muddy and may naturally have higher concentrations Q f metals 11'1an sediments from other locations. Heavy' meted data from an offshore or rdcr~ncc site th .. H is texture 1 ~y and mineralogically representative of the bay or vertical prof les or sediments would be valuable 10 establish the background concentrations or metals in the bay. These valuesrnay nOI be equivalent to threshold valuesbut these represent. pre-contamination concentrations and would give pollution indices for the. bay ..

Tissue

The data on shellfish tissue were taken from the PRRP Report (1999)1 8 FA~{ (1995) and Prudentcctal. (1997) while the data on fish !lSSUe came from EMB-DENR ( ~ 991) and Prudente d. al. (J 997),.

For the LOCs or PN ECs,. the TIJ I values were taken from lheMrr- EAS (i 999b), which used TD]v<1lues for non-essential metals (Ali, Cd, CI.' , Hg, Ni and Pb) from 11.1C' United States F God and Drug Administration (U.S., FDA at bnp://vnn.,cfsan.fda,gov): and recommended daily allowances (RDA) for essential metals (Cu, Mn, Zn and Fe) from com mercia! nutritional supplements. RDAs were used because TOIs for csscntia I, metals were not found" In using the H . .DAs, it should be noted that on 1<:Q greater than one for an essential metal is less I ikel v to cause a risk to human health than an RQ of one for a non-

. ~

essential metal, The samestudy found that the difference between [he TDI (U ,5. FDA)

and RDA. [Of Cr was a factor of 4, The average sheHfish consumption rate WJ$ ] 9, I 8 g/person/day whi le the ;)overage fish consumption rate \\oTIS 92. g/person/day (FNRJ, 19~7)j obtained by taking the sum of rhcavcragcconsurnprion rates for fresh fish (69.04), dried fish (12,05) and processed fish (10".96) ..

49

Fish

The contents of Cd. Cu. Pb, Mn and Hg in fish samples purchased from fishers at ports of Coastal Road have been investigated. The maximum RQ values 0[:11.1 the metals (Table 19) were generally higher than one. The maximum RQ values or copper (10 .. 72 for 1,·10 yr old, 2, l4 for adult) were found W be the highest among the six metals studied. Copper is an essemial metal SI.) it is bel ieved that an RQ greater than OU(: may not represent us much cause for concern as for toxic metals, but a maximum ItQ value greater than tell suggcststha; copper levels ill fish may pose a risk to human heal ttl.

Table 19. r.:Qs of Heavy Metats in Tissue"

HG3VY Metals MECo",om.an MJEC~"u PN:EC R.QC;;;o'no:1!'1
,mgMg) (mgtKg) ,(mg/Kg}
Fisl,
Cadmium 0.03 0.72 0.6 0.06
Copper" 3.1 ~6.6 4.35: ,21,73 0.72;0.14
Lead" 0.117 0.30'1 0.070; 0.16: 027: '1.8; 0.72; 0..43;
0.81 0.14
Manoanese· 15_3 59.8 1 [U~6: '2.7.16 1.41; 0_560
MelfcU'ry 0.11 1.39 0.' I' 0_61
Z"ir1c" 4t 124 54.32; 162.gS 076; 0.25
Shollfish
I Cadmium 0.4 2.5 2.87 I 0.1
Cop_Qer' 20 1QQ .20.86; 104.28 '1; 0.2
Lead·· 0.4 1.1 0.31; 0.78; 1.30; 3.91 1; 0.5; 0-3; ,1
Zinc· 361 4000 26.0 _69 ; 782JJ6 '_·39; 0.5
Sliver 18 107:2.14

.: .6; 1.8; 1.1; 0.37

5.$0: 2.20

B.O

2.28: 0.76

O.Sr

,t . .so; 0.96

3.5: 1.4: 0.84; 0,28

1.5.34; 5_11

S-ourc.es for M EC: PRRF. 1999. E r.1 B·DENR I HII:H, '13 FAR. 1995 and I~rudem~ ~t a~ • 19'ti I'

S ou~~es for PNEC, F'i~h COn51.Jnn~ lie n r .;te (~:2 gfp.(t"rsonrda'i) and sne 1l1'i5tl cons u I11p1~Qn rate (19 .13 gi~ erso n/l.jay} usod for all the age groulJ~ ..... ere UHl av C!r<Jqc: for the populeli 01"1 {F N R I, 1987). 'Til€! t"lemt:'le c ally Jilla~.,a·$ (TDI5) d the metals wem taken from the U.S. FDA (Appendix 4). TDls were cividM b'y 11\1il fisn consumption rate I~ g·~t U11;) levels of concern Or PNECs_

• Fer rNEC, RQ,~..,..., •••. and RO,.. •• : (j -lIJ.,Y-r$ Ole: Adult)

.. For PNEC. ROc.o"";}f" and RC4,,,; (OJ.l },1;1. ala. 7 -Adillr.s; rug(J.13fll. t~)

SheUfish

The coraents of Cd, Cu, 'pb~mI Zn in shellfish samples (mussels and oysters) from M anila Buyand tile mouth or rhc Pasig River were 'also investigated. The maximum RQ (Table 19) value of zinc (15,3.:1 for J -l 0 yr old, 5 .. 11 for adult) was found to be the highest among the four metals studied. Zinc is alsoan essential metal. so less importanceis attached to RQ values greater than one, but an RQ value greater than ten represents a. cause for concern. A high RQ value of 3.52 was obtained for lead in children {O.B4 lor pregnant women 1.4l for 7 yr old - adults) and this suggests that lead in shellfishmay pose 01 signi ficant risk to human hcahh.R.Q for Ag was not calculated due to a lack of Pl\EC.

In the calculation of the RQ values gi ven in Table' ! 9, an average fish consumption rate of 92 g/pcrson/day was used for all the age groups in the population On the other nand; results of a surveyor seafood consumption rates in the USA iridic • ite

50

that adults consume :2 - 3 limes as much shellfish per day as 2~5 year olds, Applying III i s to seafood in general and assuming that such an age-specific dllTcFt'[lC.;ein seafood consumption rate Is applicable to the Phi lippi nes, mnxhnurn RQ:.; for children in relation to various metal coruaminunts in seafood collected from Mani [a Bay arc caleulmed and g.L\'(.:n in T<:Ibll;! :20.

Ti3bIO' 20. M<l~~mum RQ of Heavy Motals in Tlssue fQr Children.

Heavy Metals

Copper

Fish

5.36

lead

2,31

Line

1.14

Mal'lgan,ese

,2,7(;

She:llfistl

Copper

2.4Q

1.7G

Zinc

i,67

·'~&5Unling mot aouil$ CQnSul'ilij 2 tunes as much senteceas 2·~, ~ei:lr oro: ctl ild ren

U ncertainty Analysis

III derermming risks to 11111H~ln health from 11 en vy metals in seafood t issue from i'vlal1ila Bay, . shellfish tissue would be a better representative sample than fish tissue. The f sh samples used In the analysis were collected Irom the market and. itwould be difficult to cstabl ish if the uptake of hcavvmctals occurred in Manila Bav.

. ~

A nether possible source 0 1'utll:crlainly was the use of local a .... crag~ consumption rates in gcni ng the RQs for di ffcrcru age groups, Local consumption rates for d [tT~rent agl." groups and, if available, separate consum ption rates for coastal population, shou ld be used, There was also unccrta inty in using the sum of nverngc COIL'll! r11 p~ ion rates for fresh fish, dricJ fish and canned ~S~} asaverage local fish ccnsumption rate because the dried and canned (ish consumed by p\'!opte around the bay do not <come exciu::;ivl!ly from Manila 133Y, Even the fresh fish supply dQC'$ not all come from the buy,

Uncertainty is <1L:;;Q ;aSSQC iatcd with the usc of RDA.s instead 0 r TDls for essential metals. This uncertainly shou [d be reduced when information regarding rhc toxic effects of these mctnls in humans becomes available. Even the TDb need to be reviewed since val ues varv considcmblv bet ween countries.

,,"' . ..,;1. "" .

31

Sources

The hcavv metals in Manila Bav rnav come from a varicrv of sourcesthat f,;)I1!lC'

.. -... _, . _, "r=

from land-based sources (domestic sewage. run-off, industrial effluents. combustion

emissions, m ining operation and rnctall urgicul acri viiics) lQ sl!~-b~;:)~d S01.m:~s (port and ritar~tiH1C Hel ivit ies).

Although thc bcavy metal concentrations in water insiu(! the bOJ)' arc low and cause no COIKcrn ~ the h ighcr conccntranons in the river mouths may show {hat land-based acri vities along the river rnav be contributinc sizniflcantlv to heavv metal load to M ani la

..... .., """" 'or, .. '"

Bay.

The hcavv metal load in the bav is belle!' rneni rested in rho hi gil eOI1CCrMOHLOllS in

~ ,~. .~.

sediments, I-I~3. vy metals n'~y be removed n-om the water colum 11 through adsorption and coagulation processes and the ultimate sink is the bouorn sedi memo. )\ clear illustrationo C this would be a vcnical profile or sedi mcnt concentnuious 0hQwillg precontamination concemrations and theincrease in concentrnrions over time,

Heavy metals in the water m~1y also be taken In by organisms ~Il the bay through bioaccumulatiou. S0!11e metals are essential to organisms, some arc metabolized and excreted or retained in ti:iSLICS in less harmful forms. and some arc non-essential, but even rile csscntia [ metals, when 'uptake or ingestion nne lS faster than the rate that these can be' processed could he bioconccntratcd and become harmful to organisms, The accumulated metals, pan icu larly those iluuuudergc biomagnilicatiou, could ('11::;0 pose potentia l risks tohuman health lhrQu.ghc,;on~urnpli(Jn 0 r contaminated seafood,

Identification of sources of hea ..... )' metals cntcri ng rhe bay and quantification or ~.hc rclati vc contribution of different sources would need U<.!W 1 ike metal conccnrratiousin [he various S()LlrCC~ or i npulS (ri vers, discharge pipes, outfalls, .rUJl-O iT and ships). volumes of inputs. and the partitioning of metals between the dissol vcd r:l.l1d solid phase and Sl..1 bsequent dcposi [ion [0 the bottom or the- bay.

POLYCYCLIC An.O:'lJATIC HYDROCARBON' (r AHs)

Scdimcn(

T!1C. data used in Table 2l came from 1\\'0 SOLLL'CC5: the study by Santiago (199:7) and the PR..Rr Report (~999).. The data in Santiago (1997) was measured frornl9 stations a~ the western section and 16 stations attheeastern section of [he bay til 19%. The PIU{.P (~999) data were taken from lO stationsacross (he bay in March .• md October 1996.. The assessment considered only total PA H (T.P.AH) and the carcinogenic PAI-l S" The criteria v,Ll ues used were taken from the Hong Kong ~ ntcrim Sediment Qual ill' Values (EVS. ~ 9%).

52

Table 21. PAHs Tn SedimGnls from Manrlltl B<'iIY.

Chry~CM 0.0' 0,1 Z

[)ib,f;!nzn(a,h) Q,G02 0.01

!\Inth racen e

PNEC ·lug/g) R'QG~",;",q .. n ~.QM".
0.4:3 0,03 0,25
0,384 0.02 0.30
O.063tJ ().O3 O. 113
4 02? n_":J 1 7Y;:-
1
0.43 U05 Q05
-
0.38"i 0.06 0.52
Q,0634 0.4 11,0 MECM~. (ug:fg}

Total I'AH,'

0.71

PRRP 0999)

Nc.x~ ~! IgtlC ~~ M EC

T PAH {SHinmalion cT 1 a [n,jivid u ~ I P AH 1 SO'IJ~c;e 5 of ME C:, S<lIn1.iiago, 1 887 a ["l,j P R Rfi ,1 999. SOUJC~5 of PHI; C~ EVS, 1996.

0.02 O.{12

0.064

02

He nzo (a} iPvren f3 Cnrvsene

O"C-2

D ibem~:o( a, I,} An t:lracerte

0.02

The initialrisk assessment of total Pr\ 1-1 (TPAH) and carcinogenic PAlls (n = 35! jhJU1 Santiago (1997) indicated intermediate risk (RQ= L7S) lor TPAH and acceptable risk (RQs < I) Cor U1C carcinogenic PAHs. This study, however, showed that PAH levels in the eastern area, 3 more commercialized and urbanized area, were higher limn the levels in ihe wcsrern side. pointing to lilt' influence of human activities 011 Pi~ H distribution, The other study (PRRP, 1999) showed t\VO stations in the bay where an IZQ or 1,0 • md OJ:12 were obtained tor 1I1C carcinogenic PAH dibenzora.h) anthracene.

These resu hs show the need for periodic monitoring to keep track o f possible incrcasi ng trends. PAHs can persist in the marine en vironment and have been shown 10 exhibittoxicity and cause tumor and reproductive problems 1O various marine organisms, Consumption of aquat ic orgarli.sms contaminated wi~ h P A 1.1::; could ;1.1 so potentially C3.LL~C cancer 10 Ill! mans.

Santiago (1997) ~d(:nti ficd the PA H::; ill Man ila B'-l.y sed] rrtents as coming from pctrogcnie and pyro 11"1 ic sources, Petrogcnic PAHs: may come Irorn oi [ discharges f'rom sh ips, refineries and industries and pyrclyt if: PAHs arc dcri vcd from combustion processes. These enter the bay through l"iVC1'S, discharge pipes, outfulls, surface I1ln-QiT and, to a lesser extent, atmospheric depesi don.

'Vater Column

Oil JJ1U grease cornpri SG very compl ex mix turcs 0 [ thousands of organic compounds with d~ ffcrcnt behaviors and hence d i ffcrent possible effects on marine li Ic and. ulti mutely, on humen beahh. Once released into the envircnmemvall of these compounds arc subject [Q continuous and variab Ie change due to biological degradation, plWIQ oxidation, and other processes.

53

The oil and grease" concentrations J n water were recorded in lJ di ffereru sites ill Manila B3Y ttl 1 ~85, 1992 and 1993 (13 FA R, i 995), Records showed that. there i~ no sigui fIC<.1I1ti ncrease 'of oil and grease concentration over the period indicated. The criteria value used as PNEC W;JS taKen from. the DAO 34 (]990) for C I ass SC waters, Note that this value was reponed for the organic fraction extract. Some oi 1 and grei.l~(;, nWJSU I"cmC!H$ are reponed using rhe water-soluble lruction and should be used with [he suitable (l"110:riJ.

Theworst case was measured in a sample taken lrom An1rJ, Mari voles in Bataan.

The maximum concentration reached as high as ] 6,55 mgil and rhe mnximum RQ 'W;lS 55 (Table 12 )., These. observations may he explained hy the prcsenc~ of 0,11 refineries ill nearby coastal areas in MOUlVclcs and Limay, Bataun, 1'vk~!I'l RQ. was however computed to be low at 0.466 wiib mean oil and grease conccmrat ion in warer al l.40 mg/l,

Table 22. Oil and Grease in Water (PN EC := 3 mgtl).

Minimum 0.01

CQnceintmbOri (mgtl)

RQ

05

(LOO]

S~U rces for MEC. B F AFt 1. 885.

S ClL.rc~s tor PNEC DAO 341,1 99a for CI.~ S~. 3C wale rs,

MOSl Or the: stations CllSQ exceeded the 31JO\""~UKt: I eve] or 3 ,0 ppm at least once during the duration of the sway,

I l should be nul.;rJ lhat there .IS Ja!,11c variab I~ ltv in available cri tical water

o .... .. .

concentrations foroil and grease" MPP-EI\S ([ 999b) prCSCtHS critical values fromvarious studies ranging from 0.001 mg/l to 7 rng/l. This bas iuiportuntimplicauons ont he risk assessment results and shou ld be considered in more dCL"Ii.I ~n fl.lhlr·e assessments"

For the marine environment on a gtolbal scale.uhc primary inputs of oil arc believed to occur [rom land-based sources, til particular refineries, mun icipal wastes and urban runoff (G GSA MP, 1.993, cited in M pp_ [AS, 1.999b). Sea- based :i'Om'CI.:S, li10L: ships and motorized bouts, arc also contributors, with the level o r contribution bet WCC[l land and sea-bused SQt!I"I,:'tS varying depend i ng on the ci rcurnsiances of the si teo For I:vlnnilJ Bay, a sirnpl e model nwy be developed to determine the ~ ikcly contribution Irout these two sources,

li I1cC'l'laimy A.ll.:1.I.ysis

The RQg~()r,!t~:I'l obtained ind icaresthat the levels 0 r oil and grease in the bay were low but the RQ'l~~' shows that in specific locations, oil and grease levels may exceedthe threshold value, although the RQilm~ still seemed inconrputible wi th the amounts of Q~ I and grease that arc ViSLl~11,~J.' observed (11 near-shore areas especially ncar the port Oil that ~nwr.s rhe marine environment In:)Y be broken down by wave action and dispersed. It mayalso undergo degradution processes depend ingonits reaction with iSU nhght. oxygen.

W~H~r and organisms, Oil and gn::ase in offshore locutions in the 1):1), may not be ekv;.ut:'d but measurernents in near-shore areas especiallyncar pons, rc fineries and industries may be lrighcrand should bc furl her assessed.

There was no a vailable data on the different orga uic const [WCIUS of oi I a no gfC:l'S(" in Man i I.Cl Bay, The complex In i ,\[U reo forgan i c compounds j 11 oi I and greas G ma y Ita \' c different adverse effects on marine life particularly shellfisheries and benthic organisms. Idemification Q f these various organic constituents \\' t ll cnablc thc dctcrnrinauon of ccotoxicological risks ~ bot U1C8~ present to the ecosystem.

In termsof the PNEC~> the order of magnit udc d i ffCTCT]C~S tn cri ri cal va lues from various SOllPCCS suggest lIu11 more consideration and care should be gi vcn to the choice of criteria value for oi land grcJsc.

OIL SPIU.S

Table 13 shows both spills from sh ipsand industries from! gyO to ]995 and 1999.

Data for 1996 FJI998werc not avai lable when the risk aSSG:5:smCI1( \V3S conducted. Tlh~5C' may be accidental discharges, Other oil spill incidems may be uTlrn'Qnh:d, especially the rcgul:lr low-volume discharges,

The volumes of oil discharged to the buy ill the recorded oil spill incidents (Table 23) W't:TC' n:PQrh::u in different units (liters, barrels: drums, ionncs) so [he un its were converted to liters (assumption: oil density - 0.90 gil) for comparability, For the spills reponed in drum units, conversion WI.9S not done because the sizes o [' drums were variable, Tile volume of other recorded spi lls were U ndctcrrnincd.

An oil spill I::; considered ;;I. ]>lrgl! spill Wh(H th~~ volume (J r I.J il ui~c.hargcJ is 2,rl~3ICr than 1,500 metric tons (MT). The h ighest volume of oil spi llcd til the bay was 74'7 I\1T and fa] Is under .';1'naI1 sri i ls, Three of the four spil ls where the vol urnes of oi I discharged were highest were from ships"

The frequenc ies of oi) spi ll i nc [dents per yeJr arc shown i 11 Figure 5, The highest Ireq ueucy of oi I spillincident (11) was in i 995. FiglLn; 6, Oll the otlrcr ~~n ud, shows that the highest toral volurne of oil spilled in the bay \\,;10;(1'0111 rhe 1WO oil spiils in 1999, These incidents occurred in the Manila South Harber and Limay, Bataan, T~bl.e.22 shows that the frequency olo i~ spill occurrences Wj$ highest in Metro Marti la \\'1t11 19 incidents recorded, fo llowcd by Bataan with 8incjdenls. and COl vite and. R ~7,jl win) one incident cacho

The high frequency 0 l' oil spi ~ 1 ~ i n Merro Mani 1,1 areu I.:JU be due to the large number 0 I.' ships and acti vitics at the N orth and Soiuh Harbors, the. presence 0 [ an 0) l tcrrni nal, and discharges from industries located ~Il.lng the ri vers, 0 i I spil Isi n Batuan can be due prirnari Iy to shippi ng activities and discharges from industries nlong the CO:1S,L

5S

Data on the number of ships entering Manila Bay were not on handwbcn tlrc asscssmemwas made, .I renee, the rclationsnip between the num boer or oil sp ills frolT'! shi ps and the number or ships in the bay was not obtained,

Figura 5. fre'quency of oil spm QC(;U rrencas in Manila Bay from 1990·1999.

Oi~ Spin

12 /,.-_- _

10 '

/.---

/,

8 ----

5",~ ---

~:;~U-Ol=~~~= '}~~)

o r - - ._;::::::_;

----_j !

I

SO 91 92 83 94 95 96 97 98 99 Year

SQurCE!: Er v 1S-DENR.1996,

FigurI:l '6. VQ~ume of oil spiHed in Mal1Ua Bay from 1990·99.

Volume of Oi.1 Spined

l'~OOOOO 1 1200000 ... ,

~---~--------

...I 1000'000/1

800000 '1f------------

6G.OO. Ci.J). .~ _

400000 . -------------1

200000 ;'rr01~~·.,----. • -----01 .•. '-. --- _~-_-~ __ ~_I

o k:::_l ----'"~ .-==__ __ ~_.' __ --_ _ b.. 1,7

90 '91 92 93 94 95 96 g7 93 99

Source: EMI3·0ENR. i896.

- '-

J

-

,1-

Table 23. 'List of Of! Spoil Incidents. irl the Manila ISay Area. in the 1990s,

I Quantity I
Source Date Olil Product SpiHed Area A,ffl.:'ctc'o I Reported I Convel1edto I
L (assume
c.IensilygiJ.9)
MI Ftlrr1ando J.j 24·J.Hl·gO Industrial f.ucloil L!)m;:lQ, Lim~1', Bataan .200000 L :100000 i
MV A'I Talu'di 2·Auq~'90 ! Bunker oil Mani'la H) drums
Bat.3.3 n R efi n e~ Corp...: 22-0Cl·90 I Bunker oil Lima .. Bataan 5 barrels 1667
MV C"'riot<3 8·M<lr·91 I Oilv water M;.lrive~i;~, Bataan 5 drums
MTlv ..... .5·!~pr.91 li1c:1u strial tu B I oi'l t.arnao Llmav. Bataan 20 harruls 5667
MT Naz.3I·1 20·0flC·91 Autod iesel 0 il 1 Pier 8, Manila iosoo L \ 10600
Sea Oi' Petroleum 2-Sepl·g'2. Bun.ker oil Manila 2 drums
Corp.
MT 8<lCOlod Citv 22-Sep-92 Bunker 011 Manila tOOL 100
PNOClPSTC 8·0eN12 'Bunker oil PilndtiC<ln, Monil<J 2druft1$
Undetermmed Feb·93 Bunker oil Brgy. M<.'lrIn8. u. f~-
sources Marl ~·el e s, B3 taar'l
- -----
r ... n Calumpit 1'3-Apr-93 tubs 011 Petron T errn inal, 20 drums
Pandacan, Manila:
MV N,ekkei Ghallenqe "l9-Jul-93 GralFt c"h<lff South Harbor. Manila U.A I
Phil V iI1,,' I Co nsortl u rn '7·Mar·'J4 I~Qs;:!riQ. Co vi re U-A.
PBRC 19·Apf·94 Bunker 011 t.lmav. Bata a n 2 drums
Petro Queen 8-fo.ug-B4 ~ Bunker aLi M al1~1 a Sa" 6 (0 barrels 223333
01 sec v ery ,I ndustri a I , 3-Aug-9J I 8unke-r oil pasig Ri'Jer 600 L 600
Cor';;).
Allied Thread Co. 11·J.)n·95 Bunker oil rvlarik.ina Ri\'~r I 400 L 40n I
Rockwe II The rrnal . . __ . ----:-- --63000---;
1J-Jan-95 B'unker r uel P<I~.i\:l Rlv~r 63000 L
PILlnt I
.MT 6£1ihis _lBBCl} ~ 20·.J.an-95 -
Pilillal Rizal U.A.
R~ pub lac Asah i G las s 3-M.ar-95 Bunker/fuel ci'l ~il'l,)gbul';:l'l;;ln. P';1$ig 1QL or:2 10
Ci['1 drums
P U'I at Steel Corp 3-M;Jr·95 8u n ker/fu e I oil Pasig River, 50 t070 L 5010lU
M;:lnC'ol uvc nq City .'
PJCifiC GIi,1sS Product 1S-Ma,-% [3unkBF OLI ,San Juan f~lver gOQ'l or 7 1400
drums
---- .-
PI5COH 20·Mal:.95 Diesel oil Ma 1l'!::1\:la han. P a sig 20L 20
CII>.'
MT P.mt!1 12·Msy·95 lndustrls: fUGI ell I Limal', i3ala<ln 50Ql I ~,OO
Resin Corp 15·Jul·95 !ndustrial fuel oil Pasig City 3001} L ~)OOO
-
V.arne. Lambert Corp 21-JIJI·9S Im!u5trial fuel oil Pasiu Cil v 2000 L .:WOQ
MV I, ...... 'i leo n X 22-Sep-~'c, ['FO/bunker OLI Fifer 18, M.;lI"tU;:l 2 10n5 or 2000
2000 L
I nl8gf81 C hemica~ '1.:1,-Oct-95 Diesel, oil MJ M;:J I u ~'Orlg 100 L 100
Carp
r;"\ T Sea l3.rot ners I 19·M.;iI'·99 BUlnker eil Soull, Harbor. Manila 420tonf1es .t6Elfi90
M T Mar}' Ann.e '·Jun·99 Li nHW, Bataan -~
747 ionnes 8J·G041 SGltrG>J. ~CG 35 enee Hi EMS-OEM;:, '996, PGG., pers. eorrvn., 1m '999 cata .

• ' IJ.A_ - Ul'lcelC!rmlncd Amount

Go mpar.alive Risk and Uncertainty Assessme:m't

Compnrativc ri sk asscssmems (or the range 0 [" agents considered of potential concern for Man ila Bay have been curried out separately for water column, sediment.und seafood tissue. The results of theseanalyses arc summarized ~H T ablcs 24 - 2Y, .. \n in itiul i ndicurion of uncertainty in the risk assessments is provided by compari ng di IT(''l'~W';~S between a \',_;rJ.ge and \\,orS.l·CJ::>C (i.e., maximum MEC~ )cot1.(ji~ion5. In add ition, the comparative risk assessments highl ight data g~lpS, both in terms ofa lack of iV'l ECs nn(j ill terms 0 f a lack of criteria.

For all taruets. a vcrauc and maximum ['viECs for [he 1"3HC!,(: 0 t' aacnts ;)n: shown.

• -" 01.:.; - • • ..... • -.r ...... - --

A vcrngc MECs were calculated a'> geometric means since data of [his kind oftcrr follow ~i lognormal distribution, and ill such cases the geometric mean will provide a less biased measure of the a .... cr::1gc than will the arithmetic mean. For each contaminant. the criteria used for calcu luting [he risk quotients an; shown in CD] umn 4 o C Tables 9 _I, 9 J. and '9.5. These criteria were chosen from those provided in Appendix .:1. The last two co 1 umns of these tables provide avcrage and m:.1XlmLlIU risk quotients.

CO,\U'AR.:I,:rrVE ,.\.SSESS:\IENT OF RlSI"::S TO THE ECOLOGY OF J\1 ... \~'IL-\ ll-\l' FROM \VXl'EIHHJl.t."'-E ::;UBST,'\ ..... :CES

From Table 24 it is clear that \;)f all contaminant» [or which .... vutcr column ~bl;,l were available only PO.l and collforms (both 10t::!1 and (ccal) have avcrnge EQs exceeding the critical threshold 0 r one. J Iowever, in addition to these t\VO coruam iuants, KO], N 1 [3, DO, oil anu. grc:.tst:', ISS, dieldrin 311d hcptaclilur han; maximum RQ~ that ~;;'I;~(,>J l. There were no JvI r:Cs rwnilD.bi~ for Wf)[U cohnnn con·cC'!l1r.'1II.iOJ1S or HO IJ~ CO D1 PAHs, other pesticides, other organics, or toxic algae, No criteria were availeb le for several of the heavy metals lor which MECs \~'cn: :.r\'~~il.:.lbk (i.e, I\·ln, F~, Co, U).

Table 25 compares the range oen.Qs (from average to maximum) across COIUmnlnJr1lS i n order of magnitude bands 0 r R(,t From this tab lc it is C learthat, [nr Uw water col umn, ri sk:1 to the ecosystem o r Manila HOly associated wi [.11 fO:1 and co H (orms arc priority concerns, For N01, l\J.~b, DO. oil and grease, rss, dieldrin and heptachlor, the max i mu In lZQs exceed ing one i I1d iC:HC localized ri SKs from potent i a 1 hot spots,

MEG':;"llw"",," MEC!.~,.
O.C27 O.38i
0.02Y 0.7' "
0.003 lJ,77:J
I No IJflla
COD No O<H~
00 (mg.lq 5.7a i.n {min)
Or! at1d Gr~a5e I 1.39;.1 113.55 ",11, , , • ,
,
COPPtlr O.1~ 0.2. I 2Q 0.05 fj 07
,
,
Lcac 0.6 08 5.6 I 0 1 0.1
Zinc O.1ll o.·n 55 O.OO3C 0.0 '0 I
Sil'."cr I 0.0<1 0.05 2.3 CO2 ~J1}2 I
Cadmium 0,10 o.n 8.3 0.01,0 0.010 _J
, -M a ngane~o 0.5 'O.E NQ cala I
Iron O"~3 ',7 No dOl\;:;i I
Caban 123 24 No data I
Uranium 1.2 I 1.4 No data I
PAHs NQ O"ta I
'. -
Other o(~anics No O::l!'.l I
To!;)1 Cctitorrn 13.':88 2.-100000 5,000 27 1<80 I
(M~N/1 oc f~11J.
F13cal Coliform 7,898 900,00G 2.000 39.5
I (MPNi10Q ml) 4500
TSS (ffigiL) 23.32 '0~5 5G 0.117 21 I
I P'c :;~iCid~$ (pigil} I I I I I
I Aldnn 1 I 0.00<10 No data I I
.i!.J'-ODT 0,0005 I U.001 I 05 I
D~eldrin [Jomm I 0.0019 3, \6
-
Heptachlcr 0.0210 O.0{n5 6 , ToxIc Alg_ae_; __ ~J..1 _~_.o_d_,a_'w_~ __

61J

A'genl

>1,000

RO

10-100

, 00-1 .000

NO~ (l1\gl L) PO~ (mgiL}

NH] (n1gfL} 13,00

t\lo MEC:;

COD

DO (mgiL)

I No MECs I

m: and GI,ease (mgfL,}

Me!.als (mg/L.)

Copper

Lead

,

-

Sliver

Cadrmurn

Mangan.ese

; - ,

No PNEC

Imn

No PN6C

Cobalt

No PNEC

UrJ.nium No Pi'lEC

----

PAHs t"Jo MECs

- --I

Otner org 3 nics T'e tal. Coli form (MF'~itOO ml)

No ME.Cs

Focal Col lforrn {r v 1 PhIJ1 00 ml)

TSS {mgll)

Aldrin

.-

No PNEC

Dlieldrin

·1,4'-DDT

T ox~c Alg'a e

'II!

NoMECs

COMPAR.,\Tn'E ASSESSi\]ENT OF ~USKS TO THE ECOLOGY QF )\IAf>;]L-\, 13.A '( FRO\I SEDDIE['I;"T-BORNE SlIlJ!:.iTi\;"'CES

From Tabb;: 26it is clear that or <111 t:~nt~rnin.;,ml~ f0r which sediment U~.tl were ~~\!;ii1~bk, Cu. DDT and its metabolite DUE ~MV~ average RQs exceeding the critical threshold or onc,I-(O\vcvcr, in addition 10 these conrnrninonts, Cd, Ph. Cr. Zn, Hg, .N i, dibenzora.h) nnthraccne and total PAl I have maximum RQ'::> that exceed one. Oil and greaseare generally not measured in scdiLUCI1L and there were also no IvIECs available for sediment conccntrm ions (,f other organks and few M[O; for most o I~ the pesticides .. Criteria values were lacking for several or the hea vy metals, particulurlyM [1, F1;, CQ, f:vIo .. and U, as wcl L as for UlOS[ of the pest icides, TOC a nd roxie algae.

Table 27 comp<J]"r.;s the r .. mgcQf RQs (from average to vmuximum) across sediment-associated contaminants in order or nurgnuudc bands of RQ, From this 13DIc Ll is c I car thai, tor sediment, risks 10 rhc ecology o I' Man ila 11:1)' associated. witb heavy rnerals, and in particular, Cu, arc priority concerns. For Cd, Pb, Cr, In. l lg, J\'i. dibcnzof ~J)) anthracene and total PAH, the maximum RQs cxcecdmg . .. »tc indicate 10(:::1 i [zed risks I'll poss iblc hOI spot areas,

G2.

Table 26·, Initial Risk Assessment Summary tor Sediment.

Ag(mt

No Data

"NEe

MEG~cant.~n

17

Mcta~s fmgJkg)

Capper

Lead

802 (;5 L~: 12
253 J5. 0.22 3.~
I 54 I '_5 0.1 36
459 1 SO O.~ I 6-
6n 20U 0 6 :)
1511.00 No daqa
I 2062 No d3t3
1 2. 0.2B 0.0<1 4.3
I 0,8 1,0 0.03 0.8
I 28 No data
86 <10 0,44 2,2
.:=. NQ (lata
, .2 No nata I 33

Cadmium

I 02

112

Cluornaim

25438'.7

723,0

Iron

I (H11

Manmmese I Mercury

12

i Sil.ver

iB

7.17(j

I 1..022

Mclvbdenum

Uranium

0.64

. C,a,rd 110 g,e n lc PAHs·

~g/k9.~)· ~ ~=- -+~~ __ ~~~ ~=- __ ~~=- __ ~

Be n Lot 8)EY..::..:rt1::_-rt=6;:'___II_O~'~Cl..;;.~ I_O~,~'_=_1----t___=_0__=. i.:-=3--:-- __ --+_;O:'-'-,-=-G?=_)---+O:-:.,-=-2~=_) __ -----I

Chrvsene 0.01 0,1"2 0384 0,.02 0.30

TOlal PAH

Oib~n:;::Q(n,h} O.OG2 O.G64 0.063;1 0.03 1.0

anthracene

Other orgarlh:s

Pe5tidd~5 {I-Iglg}

CU13

No Data

DeU,J-BHC 0.001 S;' NQ data I

Gamrn3·BHC 0.0019 No data I

4,4'-DDE 0,0039 0.0022

4,4'-DDT 0,0090 O.OO1(l

Dieldrin 0,0039 0-66'

l::.ndosuifan I IJ.D039 f\Jo Daw

Endcsultan II _;:O:-'-.O.:._O:....:3:....:;'9 --+ -----;_;_N_o"-D;::_··.-"-8~_"'8 +-----t_---_____i

E nco$ulf an D .. G090 N Q Da~ a

Sulpllt'lte

0,0039

No Dilt<l

i .8

5.7

0.006

003

H<?pt;]cl,1or 'T-iep~,acl' lor E po :>:.ide

OOOHl I CW019

Me thOxvch!Qr

Toe ~%l

Toxic Algae

B I 00 m {Gy.$t~/rTll wei sed imeliU

I 0 .. 0090

1_2$

128<:

38.17

Table 27, Comparative R~5k Assessment for Sediment.

RQ
Agent <1 I 1·1 a 10·100 100~t.OOO :> 1,(ma
Oil and Gre~se No r._,1EC:s; i
Met,,' 5 mg/~g I I
r Copper -
lCOId I
'Cadmlum I
ChrOn1Lum
Iii''::
Iron I No PNEC
M<lnaanesc I No PNEC
MerCll'r~
Silver ,~
Cobalt No PNEC
NICI<,el I
Mcl"bdenurn N,o PNEC ~
Uramum Nu P:NEC I
Cardnog,enic l
P'AHs {ugJlo;g}
Be n~Q( 61 )pym no ~, I
_CJlrysene _,
Dibef!zo{a,h) I I
antbracooe
TOlal PAH
Otl1~r.Jl rg Q.!lics No r',.fEes I
Pesticides {ug{gl I
Aldnrl •
_ . --
. ::llpha-BHC No PNEC
l3et<lf-8HC No r->NEC ,
d,ella-I3HC No PNEC -
G am ma-B I-:le No PNEC I
~.~.-DD No PNEC I
[ 4 ~'.DDE -_ ~
I 01 ~'-DDT I •
r Dieldrin -
..
, 'El1cos'.:lfali I
No PNEC
Endosulfan " I No PNEC
EllJO~ ulf3i1" No PNI:C
Sulph~te
En,drid1 NQ PNEC
H epta ch I'()lr III
H B pta ohio r Epoxid e iNa PNEC
Met hoxvchlor No PNEC 64

COi\.IPA!7l-\. 'fIVE ASSESSZllEi'';T OF RI.SKS TO HU:VIAN II IrAl.TH

From Table 23 ,it is dear that coruantinet ion of seafood with Ft.:c;~l coli forms is extremely high, both under average and worst-case cond iticns. In addit ion, or theother contaminants for which seafood tissue data were available Cu. Pb, Mn, Zn (particularly in younger IJge groups of consumers), aldrin nnd heptachlor have an:r::tge .RQs exceeding the critical threshold or one. A ll of the rncmls have max irnum RQs tha t exceed one, as does endosulfan sulfate. Oil and grease: are generally not measuredin S~aIOQof~~ andthere were abo no [vlEes a vailable for tissue \:OIKCIHmt ions of r AI-I. other organics or toxic algae. Criteria values were lacking for Ag, as well. as for total col iforms, lOXiL' alga~, and for many 0 C the pesticides,

Table 19 compares t!le j;,tnge of If._Qs (from average to maximum) (\)r coruami nants contained 11] seafood in order of magnitude bands of RQ. For the 1lC'~L vy metal S. the Iower :1 imit represents rhcaccrage RQ for [he least seusi tive age group (adulrsjand the higher limit represents the maximum RQ for the most sensitive age group (chi ldrcn). From this table ,i [ is clear that the risk to hu man health arl,':>Lng n-om consumption of seafood COnHH11in~1l~d with rt:cal coliforms j s serious, A vcrLlg~RQ is equal [0 53 and (he maxirnurn RQ exceeded 1 ~OOO, Other agents or concern for lurrnan health nrc; someof the h!..!'<,LVY metals, particularly Cu. Zn, Hg, Pb rind Mn, ClI1 Zn 'll\t.l Mn are essential metals, so RQs In CXCC$,S 0 r one 3H';:' probably less serious than for rhc nonessenti <:11 metals. For ell and Zn, however, maxi mum RQ~ were greater than l O, signal ing potential risks, or the pesticides, aldrin andheptach lor both signaled C<.lU0C for concern with RQ~ exceed! ng ] 0,

Table 28. [nitfal :RJsk Assessment Summary for Human Health.

Ag,ant

Oil and Gmas~

No Data

_Mela~s~g/kg} __ -r -r ~ -r ~ ~

F"ish:

0,06 1 2

PNEC

Copper'

(),03 O,7~ Q,·6
:;3 1 46 if) ,~ .;~5: 21.7::3
0.117 0.,301 0:070; o.re: 0.27:
0.8t
i 5,3 5.9,;3 10,86; 27,16
0.11 1.39 0.17
Jt 12':: '54.32: W2.95
0.4- 2.5 2.87
20 100 20,86; 10~.2B
0,4 1.1 0.31: OJH: 1.30: 3.91
361 4000 260.69; 782 06
'Q.6S 18 Nadala
No [lat.a,
0.05 0.05 14
No O<lt.J
5.6,4.39 H3x 10" Nad8ia
15,752. BOO,OOO 300 0.76; 0.25 2 2e; 0.760

r~'ercurv

Zinc·

Shelmsh:

PAHs

PCBs (mgik:q}

Pest~cides (ugJg}

SheHflsh:

Aldrin 0_0065'9 (l.0090Q 0.24 0027 0.03B

~~~~=-----~~~~--~~~~~-I-~--------------I --------------

Alpho·BHC 0.00659 0,00900 [:>,10 data

0.72: 0.'4 1 Col: 2_14

0,61 I 8,0

007

007

GamflKl-HHC 0_02115 0,07100 No dalD

4.4-DD []_06HOU No oal3

4A'·DDE 0.007$,6 0,0,.900 0.1,.0

0.002 o.uos
(102(1 o. i 7
Oo07~
0.1 s 0,7.:1
0 11 0.2B
(I.ill 1.2
(1,24 0,63 1-::-4',:-,-4..,-'·-D=-:D=-1-,-.- +-v;:-' ""Q8:::.:2:.:,::6'7:3 1....:::.:0.68'000 a.o

Oidarin 0.01900 0.24

Endnsulfan I 0036G3 0.17BOO 0.24

Endosulfall II O.027G4 0.061300 0.24

Encfrin

Endosulfan 0-09950 0,30600 0,24

Sulphate

0.152'00

0.05747

O.0225n

0.05700

HeptJiC'J"Jlor _§Qoxide

Melh ox\'c:~~1 e r

0.01535

0,13000

No d,<lta

O.0590G

Nodala

Fish:

.!\Icrfn 1 ,20

0.05

2'4

Heptae 111Qr :3,25

Toxtc algae bloom ~Ja data

0-05

40 IJgtl 00 9 sh®!lrish meat or .200 MU/1 00

• Fer PNEC, fm.;..._.".,", RO~.,: (1·W yrs Qld: 6lliI11)

.. For PNEC, RCc"""", •• , ROM •• (O:iJ.!§. Old; 7-Awlli; ~gnOlj"jt.~}

65

NOIIl; fJi e ii sn COIlSU~rI ;lion (,lte (92 '!Jiper~onida i) ano shollfl sh cl)nsL:lnptiQr~ r a l~ {20 g.'pl!r:;orJday) U sed for ::111 LI~c age

grOIJPS was ~iW a~E;:mge 1m the pO~RI];.jll[)n .

66

:- 1,000

RQ

No MECs

100·,1,000

OH and G rea se

1·101

10·100

FiSI,. Cadmium Copper'

Lead Zinc

Silver No pN.r:C

....:;::..:,;..;.;;;;.;----1

PA.!"!::: No M:ECs

LeJJcj"'

M;;Jnq;;lnCSe' ~ r~~ e rC~1r1'

I Zinc

,I Shellfish I Cadmium

Coppe(

-

PCB (rngfkg) i""

Other ercanlos No MECs

To" O! I Col if orrn No p~ EC

(MPNi100 mil

Fec~1 Coliform 2,6G7. I

(MPNl10G mil

Aldrin ~

Alpha-BI,C No PNEC

Beta-HHC No PNE.C

~D"",e;.;:lla=--."",B.:....:H='.C:",:"""=_+--_-=--:N-7'lo;:_.=-P~N~E',;:,C_I ~+~~ -I __ -----1 --

Gnmmn-8,HC No PNcC

4.4·00

, "-,.r-ODE

-:."1"-ODT Dleldri-n-

. Endo·sulf.m ~

....

'-"

Endasullan 'II

IEndosulf<!n SulpJ1ate Endrin

No PNEC

HElp la chi ur

Heptachlor Epoxide

Mel11o;O:\ichl 0 r

_I

Toxic: alg;:H~ ~Q9_m __ ,_

No PNEC

No PNEC

R 1:1' RO,\ P E C' r I v E R lSI':: Ass ES$!I t 'E1'>'T

F or n~hl:dc:) and shellfisheries, [he retrospective risk assessment particu larly draws attention rooverfishing/ovcrcollccrionas being the irnpnrtaruagent in the decline of these resources, Other factors like pol luiien and destruction of habi tats ha \'C also contributed h) the dccli.[]c.

There is a need to determine [he extent and Jevel or overfishing for these particular resources by comparing actual yield \\' i [11 the maximum sustainable yield. Cost-benefit analysis of fishing activities in thebay C3.n be done through the maximum efficiency yield which ( . .omparcs the uggrcgute ~ncJ marginal CO~lS 0 r fish ing 'with the aggregate and marginal benefits, The su itab i lit)' of US! Ilg the ['vlS Y for ;)SSC-SSLllg nshcri~$ expl oitnlioni n 1110 bay should also be further evaluated. Other approaches in deternri ning: the ex rent 0 r fisheries exploitation 1 ike the dynam ic MEl' and depreciation values should be considered as well, Dvnarnic IV! EY uses a d i scounti n~ factor to take into account

- . ~ . ...... - . - - - _ ....

changes i n \.",;} 1 uesacross lime, i.c., the stare where the present value of marginal cost equals the. present val LIe 0 C marginal benefits, Depreciation valuci ndicatcs that the rate of chauacin the asset value o1'111c stock is nceative.

"-"' - . ''_

For shel lfisheries, more in fiJrm<:l.llOn is requi red in making a clear distinction bel ween dccl inc in shell fisheries from (Ull11fC farms and from the wild, ;:UlJ in auributing causes of decl inc. further work ;)1 so needs 10 he done to di si iT1gui~h the contrihetion 0 r low market demand due to red tide to the decline in production values, In addition, for shell fisheries, gi vcn the observed coliform contamination in the tissues, immediate actions ape deemed nece;:;s.;:uy Tile disappearance and/or ncar absence .or other spec ies l ike the greater l izurd [hh iSaurid« lumoft), locally known as kalaso, "lrld tbe wi ndowpune oyster tPlacuna placenta), local ~y known as: kapi s, should also be m i r igatcd.

There is evidence for a dcf nile- decline in the abundance and bi~ .. nnassol' benthic f3I:1113. with [I shl n in community srructure from a hi valve-dominated toward a polychaetedominated system, The systematic approach or the initial risk assessment confirms the view that oxygen depiction is likely to be the major contributory C.~n.ISC, Other r<l~'lur:') might also be, impl icated, but those for which exposure data are avai lable appear w be unimportant, There is nevertheless the possibi lity that SUb~lJnCCS for which no uicasurcmcnts an: currently a VHi ~21blc could PI;' contributil1g to dec li [1~::; in the benthos, e.g., contaminants, sue has substances used i n aruifou ling pnints on ship'S .. nshi Ilg gear and in aquaculture.

o [[GI:'I, emphasis is placed on r~1ywpbn ktou as i ndicators 0 [ eco logical problems (c.g, conditions leading to toxic blooms or LlS signals or cutrcpuicntion). Phytoplankton, however ~ arc abo clearly ani mpOft3.111 resource for support i Ilg higfH~'l" trophic levels in the bay, The retrospecti ve risk assessment should therefore be in terms of both risks from and risks to this resource, The retrospective analysis undertaken also i rid icmcs thal SCV('~'~ll or lh~ ug~nJs might have ad verse e rre~:J::; on phytoplankton abundance and

69

community structure, and this may ha vc an impact on primary product ion with knock-on effects for fisheries and benthos. An increasi ng trend, however; has been observed in chlorophyl l-a measurements, intlic:.HLng ~QW risk for phytoplankton wit h respect 10 pri!l\clJY preducriv ity

Consideration of risks from toxic blooms is J iscusscd III the prospect: VC' risk assessment. The prospect l vc risk ';;JSSG!sSI1~CIU ~.I soindicates that nutrient level s arc such 3S to cause genera l b looms. Such 11 looms wi 11 have consequences for oxygen levels with imp! ications for fisheries and benthos ..

The mangrove areas withi n Manila BJY hLW~ obviously declined over the past

. .

decades. The. retrospective risk ;,ISS'I,;'Ssm(;,~ll implicates a combination or factors with

physical removal for reclamation, land conversion, and ~ol lection a" bci ng pri mary agents. Chemical. contamination and physical disruption of the habitat by sedimentation and solid wastes might also be contributing factors. Anotbcr r~iC'LOr that contributed to the decli ne in mangroves in certain areas is pest infestation, which may be one mani fCSla'lion of an ecosystem under stress, ;l.llowing rests to ihri ve.

I" or coral reefs, cornparati ve hisioncnl information is SP,;lJ"SC 10 <-lSSC'SS theextent () r dccl inc, but unpubl isi1ccir!ccaulus and the current poor suuc 0 f the reel's indicate that rhcrc might. have been n decl ine, Physicul destruction [~rOJ11 ~O~ lcction activities and improper Iishing practices ~1S well as smother: I1g of ~ be: corab from coastal si ltation mi gin have been Ibe !C:;'ldillg causes for the decline. The levels of some chemicalcontaminams in the water col urnn and sediments migl1t hi:! vebcen contributory factors.

For se<lgro~scs [Ina seaweeds, there is uncertainty a bout the extent or decl ine of these resources within Manila Bi:I)' sincecornparati vC hi~L()rj('ai i[lfornWilio[1 is sparse, T~lC rctrespccti vc riskasscssmctns nevertheless suggest Ibm illlpact~ are possible (rom various r;)C:lOrs such a~ sedimentation. pollutinn.und destructive fishing practices.

For mudflats, SAnd flats, beach areas and rocky shores, retrospective risk nssessment could not be carried om. due tolack of avui lablc information.

The analysis shows that for human health, lhl' m~lj (,)1' risks both from bathi Ilg and rrom SC~) food consumption arise from bacterial sewagecontaminmion. Addi tional risks associated with consumption of sea food contaminated with some heavy metals am] certain pesticides also signal cause fur concern.

From an ecological point 0 C view the highest RQ values were obtained for nutrients, especially phOSP~l;HC, in the water column and copper in the scdi mcnts, RQs for dissol vcd oxy gcn III the water col LI mnwere in a lower band, but note should be taken here of the rllC[ Ihu.l ihc EQ r~nge for DO cannot go beyond a certain limit. The impact or DO is likely to be 0 [ an acute form, which \V] Il depend UJ::lOIl exposure times. Thus anoxic conditions over short periods m.ay have considerable impact on fauna. particularly

70

benthic an i rna Is. Levels of TSS.~ oil and grelJisc and certain pesticides In (hIJ \YaWL column and Cd, Cr, I lg, Zn, Pb, Ni, some pesticides, total PAH and dibenzo (a.h) anthracene tn lh~ sediments werealso above critical values in some areas,

The initial risk .. issessment suggests '[hal metals in the water col umn and PCBs in shell fish tissue arc associated wiU) low/acceptable risk ;:J lthough rcsul Hi for hca vy metals need ~.O be verified. There are very few studies on hcavymceals i tl seawater and no new data may be available, so monitoring for heavy metals in seawater may be nCC(!SS<lfY,

Rctrospecti \'C risk assessment was not carried QUi for some rcsou rccs and habitats due to lack of comparative informarion, The j nitial risk assessment also identi ned other data that would be necessary ;;IS starting points for n5hcrie~l~he 11 fisheries m .. rnugemenri n the bay.

I} For economically i m]10r1:,)I1t resources such as fish and shell fish, there is a need 10 acquire survey datu, preferably from more recent surveys, Production data" preferably on 0} per species classification, inc luding corresponding economic information, i.evmarket <'Im1 non-market values, would he necessary for the development or a model dcscri bing fish and shell fiS~1 popular ion dynamics find hence indicate sustainable and efficicncv viclds. f or shell fish .. dum on tissue

~ ~ .

qculity and information On the possible health jmpli~atio[.)s or bacterial/culiforru contaminat ion, as wei I as, red tide occurrences, shou ld be gathered,

2} For seagruss, seaweeds, coral n;!;'[s, mudflats. sarnl J13b und bc~dIC·~, jt1U rocky shores, there were 110 avai lab l~ time series and S]Mlial d iS1.ribLuior'l dam. There were alsono information on access and usc ofmudflats, sand flat') and beaches, ~LnJ rocky shores.

3) There 'were no a vailable data on phytupl .. mkton composition, abundance ;;mrJ biomass.

Prospective risk assessment W;;lS not carried OUL for seine parameters due to bd" or measured environmental conccntrat ions OJ' lack of th rcshold values, The fo I !owi ng potentially important data gnrs were identified in the initial risk assessment and would need further effort in the refined risk assessment

~) For Willer column, there were no data on BOD/COD in the bay, P/i,!-Is and other organic chemical sand :1 imitcd in formation all hca vy metals, pesticides and 0[1 and grease,

2) For sediments there were 1.1('1 datu em other organic xhcmicals, panicularly organoti ns, and yc~ levels of sh i ppi tl.g would suggest that these are porern i a lly important contaminarus derived from anti-fouling paints. And generally, there \V~!sa 1 uck of <:~pprQPrlale critcriu for pesticidesund [or TOe.

71

3) In terms or human health risks, there was a lack of data for some pesticides and heavy metals in fish. There were no data for pesticides, heavy metals and coli formin shellfish tissue as well as col rform inw;:Hcr from the western section or the bay, There were no data on PAJ-!s and rBf in tissue" There were abo few TDIs for pesticides, WJ TDIs for essenual metals, and no criteria [Qr total col ilo rm s in shcl lf sh and fi s h tis sue ,

On the basis of past experience, the risks r-Q~(':"u by toxic a1J:.;cll blooms arc considerable and obviously important for human heal ih. There have been no reports or toxic blooms during tIH .. ': P~S[ l wo ye[ll'..~f but this cannot preclude further occurrences in the future. Plankton dahl in [be water column, cyst counts in sediments and PSP levels in she llfish arejrnportant indicators of this phenomenon,

Another source of risk that has been addressed in a pre! irninary \yay comes from. accidental spills from shipp ing, Herevthere ought to be concern <Loom 1 ikcliheod 0 C occurrence 0 r accident and the consequent i ikcly cxposm'c. These nrc functions of tile rare ofsbip movements into and out of ~he. bay, quantity and quality of cargo, experience of crew, age or vessel, and various other factors. The only dataavailable nrc! he number or ships havingaccidents per year and the average vo) umes of spills from them. Effort was simply limited to the computation of the likely average release or oil into the bay per

. .

annum, with the assumption rhar the past conditions in all the aforcmcmioucd factors do

not change for the future (rcm~lin constant). Data on. the abovcmernioncd factors should be gathered a nd used as i nputs to a model that will predict the likelihocd I) facciden tal oi i spills and [he likely impacts on the bay,

Aside from accidental oil spills from shipping, operal[onal discharges should also be assessed. This also goes [or refineries and industries wbcrccontrot led and uncontrolled ad d ischargcs O~ClLr, A lthough accidental oi l spi 11s draw .. mention due to the volume of oi I releasedinto the environment .over a short period, oil c()mjn~ from J.3.~~y operational acti vitics [1'0111 shipping and indust rial act i viti cos also contribute sign i flcantly tothe oi l and grease levels in the rnari nc environment.

RecommendaliolRS and Pro.posed Actions

Fi~hl'rjes

In order to understand and hence appropriately manage fish ing activi tics it \v i II be: necessary to develop moJds that describe the dynamics of thetish and shell n sh pnpulat iOI1~ ,Hid ltcncci nd icatc susrai nabl e and efficiency yields. A comparison wi th these yields wi Il give a more obj ecti VE: ind ication 0 r tlir.:' level o r overfishi ng and the extent to which other factors might be contributing to declines in stocks. For risk management, partial bans 011 fishing activity have been used in some areas to ::tssc~s empirically how redllCtim)sin harvesting may lead to recovery or stocks. TI11: effectiveness of such bans is Slit] being evaluated,

P hy (0 P I a n l·.;J 0 n

F 01" phytoplonk ion, it would be useful ~0 systematically assess spatial and temporal changes in phytoplankron biomass, production and species corn posi uon with the development and establishment 0 fa rnoni wring program. These should be des igncd to give further insight into U1C interact il.)rJs hct ween ell virunmcnral agents and population dyn::l[.llicsof the phytoplankton. lt would appear that much d'for\ is being rut into consideration or the relationship between euvironmcntal conditions and phytoplankton blooms, with emphasis on phytoplankton as indicators o [" ecological problems, but possibly, emphasis also needs lO be directed toward the extent to which toxic couramiuams mightimpair prhnary production - rhis being: the basis or marine food chai I1S. A dose working rclaiionsh ip needs to be developed between the Manila Bay team and the various research groups. that arc world ng in this area,

Soft-bottoms

Dl..:'tcriorl'll i ng ell vi roumcntul condi ticns, particularly man; rested i 11 the dccl i no ill dissolved oxygen. apl1ears to be; :l major factor ill the decline 01' the benthic vommunity. There is a need to further ascertain the degree with which almost or practically anoxic condi [ions ha vc ad verscly affected benthic organisms, The dccl LnG ;11 disso 1 ved oxygen indicates an increased oxygen demand on the bay flJr the decomposi [ion of organic load. To prevent further reduction of dissolved oxygen, risk management should address the need 10 prevent excessive inputs of organic 111[1.lCrl31& into the bay, It is also possible that exposure 10 other chemicals might be contributing to tile decline in the benthos. There is, [here fore, also a need to determine the I."',X tent 1.0 which other possi ble agents like orgunotins and otherchemicals, and fishing activities that disturb the bottom scdlments, have contri butcd to the dec] ine j 11 benthos. Organctins, pan icularly, arc known to ha ve disruptive c fleets on hormones or marine orga nisrns, especially mollusks, '1 cading 10 stcril ity and reduct ion in reproductive success.

ij

Coliform

The human health risk presented by col iform ill the Wi.llCr co I urnn and biota had

bern adequately established ill rile initial risk assessment. The following

recom mcndations 3J"~ far the risk management phase or the pro] eel.

An urgent need is for the development of management plans for controlli tlg E)Gd supplies from critical I Y contam inatcd sites. h wi llalso be important LO put in place ;,) mere systematic assessment of tissue contamination in flsh foods: for example 111l::; cou ld in vel ve routine assessment Q r land ings Zit the main fi shjng p()rt( s).

There is also a need for ~. routine monitoring of coliform levels in bathing areas ,;.mu for rcsponsib lc agencies 01" I oca 1 government units to sanction [he owners of rcSOi1S ~ha1 present a dear risk to the publ ic, An intCJ1111VC in formation and education campaign should also be conducted toinform the public of the adverse effects or bathing in, and more importantly, ingesting seafood from, contam inated waters. Thereisalso ~ need 1.0 perform morbidi ty and mortality statistics analyses in areas surrounding the bay to determine the extent to which coliform contamination has affected human health.

More importantly, l here is a need to address the source of col l form COI1[am ination. ;rh~ higb bacterial load may be attributed mainly lO sewage generated from households and commercial, agricunura), institutions l and industrial csiabl idl merits tluu discharge directly (0 [he b~IY or to the drainage and river systemswhich eventually enter the bay. There is ~ need to fast [rack sewage collection and treatment programs in watershed areas. Direct discharges of domestic, industrialand agricultural wasi«, inc] ud I.ng septic or sludge disposal to Manila Bay and Its tributaries should be stopped. ,/1. control program 1'01' indirect discharges, such as urban and agrkuhura~ run-offto Manila Bay and its. tributaries shoul d al so be implemented.

Cost-benefit analysis should be perI~)mleJ to identify the most appropria te interventions, Models should be used to idcnt: fyand evaluate benefits and costs of the various interventions.

Nu{rients

F!'Om an ecological point of view, more infonnauon wi 11 be needed for nutrients 10 terms 'uf $flatialand temporal distributions, but in particular, identification of likely sources from agri culture and domestic activities is required, N:P ratios in the baymay indicate trends j n nutrient loading and should also be determined. Predicti vc models might be developed here to identify rclati ve i mponance or Sources, and hence draw f~neJHion to appropriate management,

For heavy metals, particular attention needs to be given to spatial distributions of ell. in s.edirrtems and Cu .. Zn, I 19 and Pb in seafood 11ss"1..IC, again win, consideration being