No abstract

Harbor Island Park of Mamaroneck Harbor is one of the beaches that has been frequently closed to the public due to unsanitary swimming conditions. In 2002, a Gunderboom BPS (Beach Protection System) was reinstalled in Harbor Island Park to lower bacterial levels in swimming areas. The first Gunderboom had been destroyed by an oil spill several years before. The current Gunderboom is an 800 foot curtain made of a treated polypropylene/polyester fabric and the company claims a 99.1% coliform reduction with its use. In this study, water inside and outside the Gunderboom was tested weekly from June to August 2005, and bi-weekly from September to December 2005. Coliscan Membrane Filtration plates were used to recover the relative amounts of Escherichia coli and coliform bacteria from the water. Soft-shelled clams (Mya arenaria) living in both these areas were also tested for their E. coli and coliform bacteria level using 3M Petrifilm plates. Water was also tested from Hudson Park in New Rochelle, a frequently closed beach due to high levels of coliform bacteria, as well as from Read Sanctuary in Rye, a "pristine" beach. Our results showed the amount of E. coli and coliform bacteria recovered from the water inside the Gunderboom were significantly lower (P < 0.05) compared to outside the Gunderboom and Hudson Park. There was 81.9% reduction in E. coli and 51.6% reduction in coliform bacteria inside the Gunderboom as compared to the outside. In addition, significant differences (P < 0.05) were found with lower numbers of E. coli and coliform bacteria recovered from the clams inside the Gunderboom compared to outside the Gunderboom. In conclusion, the Gunderboom system installed in Mamaroneck Harbor resulted in a significant reduction of E. coli and coliform bacteria in the water and clam samples, thus proving its efficiency as a water filter.

Ribbed mussels (Geukensia demissa) were collected from a highly contaminated Guion Creek, Mamaroneck Harbor, NY and were compared with Harbor Island Park and Shore Acres Beach, for amounts of bacteria. Mussels were also collected from a pristine beach, Read Sanctuary, Rye. The water flow rate was measured at all sites. The results showed that the amount of E. coli and coliform bacteria recovered from mussels were significantly higher in Guion Creek and its water flow rate was significantly lower when compared to three other sites. On the contrary, the highest water flow rate and lowest amounts of bacteria were recovered from mussels collected at Read Sanctuary. A negative correlation of water flow rate with amounts of E. coli and coliform recovered from mussels at all sites was found. Results suggested that a slow water flow rate in Guion Creek might be one of the contributing factors to the high bacterial loads.

No abstract

Executive Summary• The cost of a relatively small fever tick outbreak outside of the quarantine zone in Texas would be $123 million in the first year, including capital costs and ongoing variable, annual costs. These are costs beyond current funding.• Annual costs for similar sized outbreaks, once capital costs were paid, would total about $97 million per year.• Current infrastructure of budget, dipping facilities, and personnel would not be sufficient to control an outbreak of this small magnitude, especially if inspection and dipping of all cattle leaving the state was required.• Analysis estimates that a representative 500 cow-calf ranch in Texas would incur costs for following a nine month dipping protocol of $250 per cow, experience a 47 percent increase in cash expenses and an 80 percent decline in net cash farm income.• A representative ranch adjacent to an infested ranch would have an increase in cash expenses of about 8 percent and a decrease in net cash farm income of about 13 percent.• Extending the fever tick outbreak to cases in the historic range of the ticks would result in a minimum cost of $1.2 billion dollars in a year 1 outbreak. That is a lower range estimate due to the lack of inspection and surveillance infrastructure in those states.• There are new products to control fever ticks undergoing testing for the effectiveness and useability. The cost effectiveness of these products will not be known until the effectiveness of the products is known. It is believed that the potential size of the market for new products has limited development due to a lack of profitability by companies.• New practices to continue eradication efforts will likely include a number of products and practices, not just one. A partial list may include, increased funding for inspection, surveillance, and treatment, new treatment products, high fencing, treated corn for deer and wildlife, treated feeders for application of acaricides on deer and wildlife, and others yet to be determined. 6 IntroductionCattle fever ticks were introduced to the new world by early colonists and explorers through importation of livestock. By the beginning of the 20th century, cattle fever ticks were established in 14 states from Texas to Missouri and east to the Atlantic seaboard, plus southern California. The ticks fed on cattle as a host, resulting in poor condition, low weight gain, slow growth and reduced reproductive capacity. In addition, the ticks (Rhipicephalus annulatus and R. microplus) transmitted a pathogen that caused disease in cattle throughout the region. The disease produced high mortality among naïve cattle (no previous exposure) and slowed improvement in southern cattle herds. During the late 1800's, cattle moved from Texas to northern markets spreading ticks and dying cattle along the cattle trails, thus the name Texas Cattle Fever (bovine babesiosis). Scientists discovered the relationships between tick feeding, pathogen transmission and disease, and the impact on cattle management. Since the two cattle fever tick species ...