New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program
Including the Bight Restoration Plan
FinalFinal Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
March 1996 Note
Since the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan was finalized in March 1996, there have been a number of significant developments at the federal and state levels related to dredged material management. In particular, the Clinton Administration has announced its plan to close the Mud Dump Site, and to designate the Historic Area Remediation Site in and around the site, where historic dumping has occurred; and the Governors of New York and New Jersey have announced the Joint Dredging Plan for the Port of New York and New Jersey. The Management Conference will, therefore, expeditiously update the Plan to reflect these developments. NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
STATE OF THE HARBOR AND BIGHT...... 1
THE PLAN
Overview of the Plan ...... 15
Management of Habitat and Living Resources ...... 21
Management of Toxic Contamination...... 71
Management of Dredged Material ...... 131
Management of Pathogenic Contamination...... 161
Management of Floatable Debris...... 181
Management of Nutrients and Organic Enrichment...... 197
Rainfall-Induced Discharges ...... 223
Public Involvement and Education ...... 241
IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN
Post-CCMP Management Structure...... 257
Monitoring, Modeling, and Research Strategy...... 263
Reporting on Progress in Implementing the Plan ...... 271
Costs and Financing ...... 273
iii NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
LIST OF TABLES
1(o)...... Causes of Human Use and Ecosystem Health Impairments
2(o). Sources Contributing to Causes of Impairments...... 17
3(hc). Enhanced Program Costs for Habitat and Living Resources ...... 49
4(hc). Project Implementation Costs for Habitat and Living Resources ...... 50
5(hs). SummaryCC Management of Habitat and Living Resources ...... 52
6(t). Chemicals of Concern in the NY-NJ Harbor Estuary and Bight...... 74
7(t). Waterbodies Needing TMDLs...... 76
8(t). POTWs in NY-NJ Harbor Subject to USEPA CWA Section 308 Reporting Requirements for Metals, PCBs, and Dioxin ...... 84
9(t). Status of Actions at Diamond Alkali Superfund Site ...... 92
10(t). Sites Contaminated with PCBs in the Upper Hudson River Basin...... 93
11(tc). Enhanced Program Costs for Management of Toxic Contamination...... 104
12(tc). Project Implementation Costs for Management of Toxic Contamination ...... 107
13(ts). SummaryCC Management of Toxic Contamination...... 109
14(dc). Enhanced Program Costs for Management of Dredged Material ...... 147
15(dc). Project Implementation Costs for Management of Dredged Material ...... 148
16(ds). SummaryCC Management of Dredged Material ...... 150
17(p). Use Impairments by Bacterial Pathogenic Indicator Sources in the Harbor/Bight ...... 165
18(pc). Enhanced Program Costs for Management of Pathogenic Contamination...... 173
19(pc). Project Implementation Costs for Management of Pathogenic Contamination...... 174
20(ps). SummaryCC Management of Pathogenic Contamination...... 176
21(f). Debris Collected ...... 183
22(fc). Enhanced Program Costs for Management of Floatable Debris...... 189
23(fc). Project Implementation Costs for Management of Floatable Debris...... 190
iv NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
24(fs). SummaryCC Management of Floatable Debris...... 192
25(nc). Enhanced Program Costs for Management of Nutrients and Organic Enrichment...... 213
26(nc). Project Implementation Costs for Management of Nutrients and Organic Enrichment...... 214
27(ns). SummaryCC Management of Nutrients and Organic Enrichment...... 216
28(rc). Enhanced Program Costs for Rainfall-Induced Discharges ...... 231
29(rc). Project Implementation Costs for Rainfall-Induced Discharges ...... 232
30(rs). SummaryCC Rainfall-Induced Discharges ...... 234
31(ec). Enhanced Program Costs for Public Involvement and Education ...... 249
32(es). SummaryCC Public Involvement and Education ...... 251
33(ic). Enhanced Program Costs for Post-CCMP Management Structure...... 260
34(is). SummaryCC Post-CCMP Management Structure...... 261
35(ic). Enhanced Program Costs for Monitoring, Modeling, and Research Strategy...... 266
36(is). SummaryCC Monitoring, Modeling, and Research Strategy...... 267
37(is). SummaryCC Reporting on Progress in Implementing the Plan ...... 272
38(is). SummaryCC Costs and Financing ...... 276
39(ic). Summary of Enhanced Program Costs...... 279
40(ic). Summary of Project Implementation Costs...... 280
v NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
LIST OF FIGURES
1. New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary...... 3
2. New York Bight ...... 4
3. Fish and Crab Advisories for New Jersey Waters based on PCB, Dioxin and Chlordane Contamination...... 11
4. Fish Advisories and Health Advice for New York Waters of the Harbor/Bight Area ...... 12
5. Sources of Several Metals to the Harbor under Conditions of High and Low Riverine Flow...... 78
6. Estimated Sources of PCBs to the Harbor...... 79
7. Overview of HEP's Plan for Management of Toxic Contamination ...... 81
8. Loadings of Fecal Coliform to the Estuary...... 164
9. Communications Network for Reporting and Responding to Floatable Debris Slicks ...... 184
10. Areas of Long Island Sound with Minimum Bottom Water Dissolved Oxygen Levels below 5mg/l in the Summers of 1987, 1989, and 1991 ...... 199
11. Minimum Bottom Water Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations in Jamaica Bay, 1993 ...... 201
12. Eutrophication-related Effects in Raritan Bay, 1988-1989 ...... 202
13. Minimum Bottom Water Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations (mg/l) in the Bight, July-September, 1977-1985 ...... 203
14. Distribution of the Nitrogen Load to Long Island Sound among Several Source Categories ...... 205
15. Nitrogen Loadings to New York-New Jersey Harbor...... 206
16. Nitrogen Loadings to Bight Apex ...... 206
17. Long-term HEP Management Structure ...... 258
vi NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
APPENDICES (available separately)
1 List of HEP/New York Bight sponsored reports
2 Management Conference structure and membership
3 How HEP has met several requirements of the Clean Water Act, Section 320 A Characterization of problems B Base program analysis C Action plan D Public participation summary
4 Finance Plan and Implementation Strategy
5 Environmental Monitoring Plan
6 Federal Consistency Report
7 Summary of Responses to the Public Comments received on the Proposed CCMP
vii
NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
THE STATE OF THE HARBOR AND BIGHT
A RESOURCE WORTHY OF PROTECTION And why do people care about the Harbor/Bight? The answer is simple. Despite a legacy of environmental New York-New Jersey Harbor and the New York Bight insults, the ecosystem is alive, and, in some areas, (referred to throughout this document as the even teeming with marine life and valuable natural Harbor/Bight) are extraordinary in many ways -- their resources. abundant resources, their beauty, and their many competing uses. The Harbor/Bight abounds with Although we can never restore this extraordinary diverse natural resources, yet it is the heart of the most resource to a pristine condition, we can make a densely populated region of the nation. It provides difference--each of us can. The goal confirmed by recreational opportunities including fishing, boating, and participants in the Harbor/Bight Estuary Program is to swimming to over 20 million residents, and yet it sup- establish and maintain a healthy and productive ports a world class port for both passengers and cargo. ecosystem with full beneficial uses. To achieve this It yields extensive commercial and recreational goal, each individual has an opportunity and an obliga- fisheries. It is also a repository for municipal and tion to contribute to the solutions. industrial effluents, for storm runoff from the vast metropolitan area, and for the disposal of dredged ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS OF THE material. HARBOR/BIGHT
It provides a livelihood for the local fishing community Despite recent improvements in environmental and citizens who work in the tourism industry. For conditions in the Harbor/Bight, significant problems others, the Harbor/Bight represents a great opportunity remain. These problems include human use to enjoy open space, offering leisure time activities impairments such as fish consumption advisories and which are generally rare in an urban metropolis. intermittent closures of bathing beaches, and ecosystem health and productivity impairments such as For all these reasons and more, those who work and declines in fish and shellfish populations. These play here should consider it a resource worthy of problems are caused, in significant part, by habitat loss protection. The New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary and degradation, toxics, pathogens, floatables, and Program is a testimony to the fact that people care nutrients and organic enrichment. about the Harbor/Bight. Elected officials have authorized the expenditure of millions of taxpayer ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING FOR THE dollars to better understand the problems of the ecosys- HARBOR/BIGHT ESTUARY PROGRAM tem. Hundreds of people have participated in the Man- agement Conference for the past five years to develop a plan for its future. These citizens represent federal, What is an Estuary? An estuary is a semi-enclosed coastal body of water state, and local government agencies, scientists, which connects with the open sea. It is a transition members of the commercial and recreational fishing zone where salt water from the ocean mixes with fresh community, public interest groups, environmental water from rivers and land. The amount of fresh water groups, and business and industry. flowing into the estuary varies from season to season and from year to year.
1 STATE OF THE HARBOR/BIGHT 1 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
This variation, coupled with the daily rise and fall of the Bay, and, in New Jersey, it includes the Hackensack, tides and the consequent movement of salt water up- Passaic, Raritan, Shrewsbury, Navesink, and Rahway and down-river, creates a unique environment. Rivers, and Newark and Sandy Hook Bays. Estuaries are among the most productive of the Earth's systems; more than 80 percent of all fish and shellfish The Bight (Figure 2) is the ocean area extending use estuaries as a primary habitat or as spawning or approximately 100 miles offshore from the Harbor nursery grounds. Estuaries also provide feeding, Transect to the outer limits of the Continental Shelf. nesting, breeding, and nursery areas for other diverse Almost 240 miles of sandy shoreline, stretching from animal life. Cape May, New Jersey to Montauk Point, Long Island form its landward border. There are several back bays What is the Harbor Estuary Program? which are located behind the barrier beaches outside the Congress recognized the significance of preserving and core area of the Harbor. Some of the larger back enhancing coastal environments with the establishment bays adjacent to the Bight are the Great South Bay, of the National Estuary Program in the 1987 Shinnecock Bay, and Moriches Bay in New York, and amendments to the Clean Water Act. The purpose of Barnegat Bay, Great Bay, Great Egg Harbor, and Little the National Estuary Program is to promote the develop- Egg Harbor in New Jersey. ment of comprehensive management plans for estuaries of national significance threatened by pollution, develop- What is the Value of the Harbor/Bight? ment, or overuse. At the request of the Governors of The Harbor/Bight is clearly an economic as well as an New York and New Jersey, the Harbor was accepted ecological asset. Billions of dollars are generated into the program in 1988. In 1987, Congress also annually in the regional economy from boating, required USEPA to prepare a restoration plan for the commercial and sport fishing, swimming, and Bight. Because the Harbor and Bight are linked in so beachgoing. The Port of New York and New Jersey is many ways, USEPA and the Management Conference the largest port on the east coast of the United States agreed to make the Bight Restoration Plan a product of and one of the largest ports in the world. Data from the Harbor Estuary Program (HEP). the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey indicate that 38 million long tons of bulk and general What is the Geographic Scope of the cargo, valued at approximately $54.7 billion, were Program? shipped through the Port of New York and New Jersey The New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary encom- in 1992. The regional economy also benefits from passes the waters of New York Harbor and the tidally other uses of the Harbor/Bight, including ferry transpor- influenced portions of all rivers and streams which emp- tation, which is expanding, and sightseeing. ty into the Harbor. There is a core area (defined by the shading on Figure 1) which includes the tidal waters of While it is fairly easy to quantify the economic value of the Hudson-Raritan Estuary from Piermont Marsh in the Harbor/Bight, there are numerous other values New York State to an imaginary line at the mouth of related to ecology and aesthetics which are much more the Harbor which connects Sandy Hook, New Jersey difficult to price. What is the worth of a salt or and Rockaway Point, New York. This imaginary line is freshwater wetland or a barrier beach as a habitat for a known as the Harbor Transect. variety of plants and mammals, birds and reptiles -- some of which are threatened or endangered? What is The core area includes the bi-state waters of the the value of the personal sense of well-being that Hudson River, Upper and Lower Bay, Arthur Kill, Kill comes from an afternoon of boating or fishing? Van Kull, and Raritan Bay. In New York, it includes the East and Harlem Rivers and Jamaica
2 2 STATE OF THE HARBOR/BIGHT NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
Figure 1. New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary
3 STATE OF THE HARBOR/BIGHT 3 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
Figure 2. New York Bight Although some of this decline may be attributed to overharvesting or natural fluctuations, pollution and
The ecological and economic integrity of the destruction of habitat are clearly contributing factors. Harbor/Bight system are clearly interdependent. For For example, there have been historic declines in once- example, New York, New Jersey, and the federal abundant oyster beds in Raritan Bay. In addition, government have closed some commercial fisheries in thriving habitats portions of the Harbor and Bight. The Port has experi- enced substantial economic losses due to problems associated with the controversial disposal of dredged sediments contaminated with dioxin and other toxic and good water quality contribute to higher shore-line chemicals from the Port Newark complex. residential property values and tourism revenues, and the well-being of every living creature. The uncertainty of future dredging operations has also impacted the volume of shipping in the Harbor. Over What Environmental Problems have been Faced the past 100 years, there has been a decline in the in the Past? abundance of commercially important fish and shellfish. By the early 1900s, nuisance and health conditions in the Harbor/Bight was still poor. There were low related to untreated sewage brought about an increasing levels of dissolved oxygen and high concentrations of demand for effective wastewater management. coliforms, toxic metals, and organics. The region's Treatment plants were constructed in the Harbor/Bight sewage treatment plants (STPs) were discharging area throughout the century, leading to improvements nearly half a billion gallons per day of raw sewage to in environmental conditions. Nevertheless, at the time the Harbor; in addition half of the sewage treatment the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972, water quality plants were discharging effluent with only primary
4 4 STATE OF THE HARBOR/BIGHT NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 treatment, which provides minimal treatment of sanitary the Harbor/Bight. waste and minimal or no treatment of industrial wastes 6 Health advisories in New York and New Jersey discharged to municipal sewage systems. A high percentage of combined sewers in the region were not warn people to limit or avoid consumption of operating properly, allowing additional outpourings of striped bass, eel, blue claw crabs, bluefish, and raw sewage to the Harbor/Bight during dry weather. other species caught in Harbor waters due to In the two decades since the passage of the Clean toxic contamination. A complete list of New Water Act, investments in water pollution control programs have resulted in significantly improved water York and New Jersey fishing advisories for the quality in the region. These improvements have New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary due to occurred despite an ever-increasing number of people and activities in the Harbor/Bight. Obvious sources of toxics is provided at the end of this section (see pollution are now regulated through permit programs Figures 3 and 4 below). and tidal wetlands are protected. New and expanded treatment plants are providing better treatment; only 6 Shellfish harvesting for direct consumption is one sewage treatment plant still operates below sec- prohibited in the Harbor due to the potential ondary treatment levels. Industrial Pretreatment Programs have helped reduce discharges of industrial presence of harmful bacteria and viruses. wastes to municipal sewage systems, resulting in Ë New York has closed its commercial fishery for substantial reductions in loadings of several toxic chemicals including metals. More recently, agencies striped bass in the Harbor and in parts of the Bight have begun to focus on the ecosystem as a whole and due to concerns about PCB contamination. on previously inadequately controlled sources, such as combined sewer overflows (CSOs), storm water, and Ë Trash and litter, flushed to the water from beaches non-point source runoff. and streets, through CSOs and storm water HUMAN USE & ECOSYSTEM HEALTH runoff, pose a hazard to navigation and living IMPAIRMENTS resources.
Despite these improvements, many problems remain. Ë Floatables from decaying waterfront structures The water quality of the Harbor/Bight is far from what remain a persistent problem, impairing commercial it could be, and many uses or values are still impaired uses, recreational navigation, and the enjoyment of from current or old abuses. There are a substantial beaches. reservoir of toxics in the sediments of the Harbor/Bight and problems with toxic contamination of biota. The Ecosystem Health and Productivity major continuing impairments are as follows: Impairments
Human Use Impairments Ë Habitat destruction, pollution, and overfishing have Ë Some beaches are intermittently closed after rain contributed to serious declines in commercial and storms, which may have introduced harmful recreational fish and shellfish stocks. For example, bacteria and viruses to bathing areas. in the Bight there has been a substantial alteration Ë Both New York and New Jersey have advised in the species composition of groundfish stocks. people to limit or avoid consumption of several These declines are expected to persist for years species of fish and shellfish caught in the waters of
5 STATE OF THE HARBOR/BIGHT 5 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
even with aggressive management actions. Ë Low dissolved oxygen levels in some areas of the Bight have reduced the available habitat for fish and Numeric criteria and standards, including water quality criteria and standards, fish tissue action levels shellfish. and advisory levels, sediment quality criteria, and Ë Contaminants in water and sediments have resulted other criteria are designed as surrogates for direct measurement of adverse pollution effects. in the bioaccumulation of toxics in resident biota. Ë Wetlands, intertidal areas, and other habitats have Criteria and standards designed to protect marine life indicate the maximum concentration of a substance been greatly reduced by development and pollution. considered safe to protect sensitive marine organisms For example, of the 100 square miles of wetlands from adverse toxic effects. For example, at concentrations of a substance exceeding criteria or that existed in pre-colonial times in New York City, standards, sensitive organisms may not be able to only 14 square miles remain today. reproduce successfully, or may be killed by exposure to the water or sediments. Ë Levels of copper in Harbor waters approach, and levels of mercury exceed, water quality standards Concentrations of a substance exceeding criteria or standards designed to protect wildlife or human (see text box below). health indicate unacceptable health risks to wildlife or Ë Toxic contamination has historically reduced the humans consuming fish, shellfish, or crustacea reproductive ability of some species of coastal birds. caught in the waterbody. These criteria and standards are usually designed to be compared with concentrations measured in the tissues of edible CAUSES OF THE PROBLEMS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CRITERIA AND species, but may be extrapolated to water or STANDARDS Residential, commercial, and recreational development sediments. For example, some USEPA water quality criteria are based on protection of humans from a 10- have increased pollution, altered land surfaces, reduced 6 open spaces, and restricted access to the shoreline. (one in a million) lifetime risk of cancer due to During the twentieth century, the use of the Bight as a consumption of seafood. disposal site for human and other wastes increased, and densely populated area in the nation and New York- the expanded "paving" of land increased runoff into New Jersey Harbor evolved into a world class port, the coastal waters. Habitat destruction and alteration waterfront changed. At least 75 percent of historical throughout the watershed impacted native wildlife wetlands have disappeared, and one-quar ter of the land populations and reduced the breeding grounds and mass of the island of Manhattan is actually an nursery areas for a variety of species. artificially-filled shallow water habitat. HEP has decided to focus on five primary causes of This loss and degradation of natural habitat is human use and ecosystem impairments. These are attributable to a variety of human activities including the habitat loss and degradation, toxic contamination, filling of wetlands and shallow water habitats, alteration pathogen contamination, floatable debris, and nutrient of shorelines, dredging, and coastal development. and organic enrichment. Although these are the Potential future threats to coastal habitat, including sea primary causes, other factors such as overfishing also level rise, could be exacerbated by human activities. contribute to the problems. Habitat loss and degradation contribute to the following human use and ecosystem impairments: Habitat Loss and Degradation As the New York metropolitan area became the most
6 6 STATE OF THE HARBOR/BIGHT NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
Ë reduction in commercial and recreational fisheries; deposition, leachate from landfills, urban runoff, and other non-point sources. In addition, because
sediments accumulate contaminants, they continue to Ë destruction of shellfish seed beds; act as a source of toxics even after past discharges cease. Ë reduction in diversity and abundance of coastal wildlife; Compliance with pollution control requirements has resulted in a decrease in the loading of toxics to the Ë reduction in open space for recreation and habitat; Harbor/Bight; however, sources remain, and toxic and contamination is still a major problem. Toxics contribute to the following human use and ecosystem Ë loss of tourism revenues. impairments: The plan to address habitat loss and degradation Ë unsafe seafood; includes the focused application of existing programs, as well as the geographic targeting of areas requiring Ë reduction in commercial and recreational fisheries; special protection. Ë reproductive impairments in coastal species; and Toxic Contamination Ë adverse impacts on port operations associated with Toxic substances produced by human activities are now concerns about dredging and disposal of found in the waters, sediments, and biota of the contaminated sediment. Harbor/Bight where they persist at elevated levels and pose risks to both human and ecosystem health. HEP characterization studies have identified at least 15 Historically, much of this contamination came from chemicals or classes of chemicals of concern. These industrial sources. Continuing sources of toxics today include metals, chlorinated pesticides, dioxins, PCBs, include wastewater treatment facilities and CSOs, as and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. well as accidental spills, vehicle exhaust emissions, household chemicals, pesticides, atmospheric While our knowledge about toxic contaminants and our protozoans, and viruses. They are present in untreated capabilities to detect trace amounts of toxic chemicals or inadequately treated human sewage and domestic are increasing each year, we still have much to learn. and wild animal wastes. Primary sources of pathogens Further data collection and analysis will help us include CSOs, sewage treatment plant malfunctions, understand 1) the nature and fate of many of the illegal connections to storm sewers, vessel sewage complex toxic chemicals in the marine environment, 2) discharges, urban runoff, and other non-point sources how to distinguish the negative impacts of toxics from of pollution. Bacterial indicators are currently used to other sources, and 3) the synergistic effects between evaluate the potential for pathogen contamination. various classes of toxics and other pollutants. Pathogens contribute to the following human use and Additional planning and research efforts are needed to ecosystem impairments: support new remedial actions in the future. Ë beach closures; and The plan to address toxics includes specific actions to Ë prohibitions and/or restrictions on shellfish reduce continuing loadings, especially loadings of harvesting. chemicals of concern, and specific actions for in-place contaminated sediments. Bacterial water quality for recreational bathing is generally acceptable on both the New Jersey and Long Pathogen Contamination Island coasts. However, occasionally certain beaches Pathogens are disease causing microscopic bacteria, are closed because of elevated coliform concentrations.
7
STATE OF THE HARBOR/BIGHT 7 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
These elevated levels result, usually, from storm water disease agents in the Harbor. There is a growing na- discharges and CSOs, and, less frequently, from mal- tional interest in finding a reliable human-specific viral functions in wastewater collection and treatment microbial indicator as a supplement to existing bacterial systems. indicators to support management actions for contaminated waters. HEP has funded studies to The entire Harbor core area is closed to direct shellfish identify such an indicator. harvesting. In areas where water quality meets federal and state "special restricted" standards, harvesting The plan to address pathogens includes specific actions through relay and depuration programs is allowed; to reduce the continuing loading of harmful bacteria and harvesting for relay is currently permitted in western viruses to Harbor/Bight waters, and to restore beneficial Long Island Sound and portions of Raritan Bay, Sandy uses. Hook Bay, and the Shrewsbury and Navesink Rivers. There is no approved shellfishing in Jamaica Bay Floatable Debris because of water quality concerns and because of the There are two primary components of floatable debris. U.S. National Park Service=s Jamaica Bay Wildlife The first results from the careless disposal of trash, Refuge management mandate, which has the primary which then enters the ecosystem through runoff, storm aim of conserving the natural resources, fish, and water discharges, CSOs, beach and boat litter, and wildlife. poor solid waste handling operations. The second category, called Harbor Drift, provides the majority of Present regulations require year round chlorination of floatable debris. It is composed primarily of material sewage effluent to reduce microbial bacteria concen- from derelict shoreline structures such as piers, bulk- trations. Modern wastewater treatment facilities and heads, and pilings. conventional disinfection practices have greatly reduced prevalent disease causing bacteriological organisms; as a result, viruses are now the most common human Most of the floatable debris originates around the tourism during the summers of 1987 and 1988. A periphery of the Hudson-Raritan Estuary and is flushed report developed as part of the Bight Restoration Plan out to the Bight by a combination of freshwater high estimated that New York lost between $900 million and flows and spring and storm tides. The intensity of the $2 billion, and New Jersey lost between $900 million freshwater flows and tides dictates the size of the and $4 billion during this time period. Some of this lost floatable load; winds determine the distribution of the revenue resulted from beach closures; the remainder floatable load during the beach season. This debris is was lost when beaches were open but the public accumulated in ocean slicks, which are washed ashore stayed away from fear of contamination. by wind, creating the widespread public perception that the ocean is polluted. Floatable debris contributes to In response to this significant problem, HEP developed, the following human use and ecosystem impairments: and the participating agencies have implemented, a highly successful short-term floatables action plan Ë beach closures; which includes shoreline cleanup activities such as "Operation Clean Shores" and the removal of floatable Ë reduction in aesthetic value of beaches, shores, and slicks. The implementation of this plan has helped to waters; reduce floatable-related beach closings. Ë hazards to marine organisms; and The plan to address floatables includes the continued Ë hazards to commercial and recreational navigation. implementation of the short-term floatables action plan, and the refinement of a long-term plan focused on Floatable debris resulted in significant reductions in preventing floatables from entering Harbor/Bight recreational values and major economic losses to waters.
8
8 STATE OF THE HARBOR/BIGHT NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
increased nitrogen loadings to the Harbor/Bight. Other Nutrients and Organic Enrichment nitrogen sources include runoff from overfertilized There is strong evidence that eutrophication, induced by lawns, atmospheric deposition, and CSOs. excessive discharges of the nutrient nitrogen, from both point and non-point sources, is a significant problem in Excessive nutrients and organic materials also contrib- the coastal waters of the Harbor/Bight. Recent studies ute to noxious water quality conditions in tributaries indicate a direct correlation between excessive and inner Harbor areas where there are many CSOs and enrichment from nitrogen and depressed dissolved poor circulation. The primary cause of these problems oxygen levels in coastal waters. Long-term trend is decomposition of organic materials. Flushing Bay analyses indicate that low dissolved oxygen continues and Gowanus Canal in New York often experience to be a problem in the Harbor/Bight, with some areas noxious water quality conditions. There have also been showing an improvement and others experiencing a dense red tides in the Lower Bay Complex, including decline in water quality. The general trend for the past Raritan and Sandy Hook Bays. 20 years is an improvement in the highly polluted waterways and inner Harbor areas. Over the past 10 Depressed oxygen levels caused by nutrient and/or years, however, a decline in water quality is evident in organic enrichment contribute to the following human some of the outlying areas, such as Long Island Sound use and ecosystem impairments: and parts of Jamaica Bay. Ë reduction in fish and shellfish reproduction; Each day sewage treatment plants discharge large Ë reduction in habitat for fish/shellfish; and amounts of treated effluent containing nitrogen into the Harbor/Bight. Recent requirements for sludge Ë noxious odors. dewatering prior to land disposal have resulted in HEP has concluded that a system-wide eutrophication planning, unilateral regulatory decisions, and court model (SWEM) and a complementary program of basic decisions. research are needed in order to better understand the nature and causes of this problem and the impact of a This program provides the opportunity to make reduction in nutrients on dissolved oxygen concentra- enlightened and educated system-wide decisions based tions. HEP would use this model and studies to identify upon good scientific data, to foresee research and actions necessary to eliminate the adverse impacts of monitoring needs prior to the onset of crises, and to hypoxia and other eutrophic effects in the Harbor, develop sound actions to manage the ecosystem. Bight, and Long Island Sound. With the actions in this Comprehensive Conservation On an interim basis, HEP is considering the and Management Plan, the water quality improvements implementation of low cost nitrogen control measures made in recent years can continue. If these actions, to minimize the discharge of nitrogen to Harbor/Bight which further reduce and control the discharge of waters. pollutants and preserve and enhance coastal habitats, are not taken, people will turn away from the FUTURE WITHOUT A COMPREHENSIVE Harbor/Bight as a source of livelihood and recreation. CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN The regional economy will shrink as people find other places to boat, fish, swim, and live. The collective problems of the Harbor/Bight cut across many jurisdictional boundaries and affect us all. Until MESSAGE TO THE PUBLIC HEP began, however, there was little opportunity for a public dialogue about the future of this ecosystem. Our challenge today is to develop and maintain public Restoration and attainment of full beneficial uses of support for future conservation and management of the Harbor/Bight resources were left to fragmented Harbor/Bight resources. This means more than simple
9
STATE OF THE HARBOR/BIGHT 9 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 information transfer. Information is only one step in a continuum involving awareness, understanding, stewardship, behavioral changes, empowerment, and action. In listening to the public over the past five years, we have learned that, in order to maintain support, HEP's Management Confer ence must establish commitments and take actions. We must appreciate that the public was instrumental in getting HEP underway and sustaining it over the last five years. We must all work together to develop a regional consensus for further action and commit the necessary resources to see that actions are implemented.
It is imperative that the public and private sectors participate in HEP because we are all part of the problem and we are all part of the solution. From the onset of this process, the Management Conference has realized the importance of convincing individuals that there is a problem, that there is a compelling need to take action, and that individual life style choices are equally as important as regulatory actions to reduce pollution. While our knowledge about many of the pollutants impacting the ecosystem is increasing each year, we have not always done a good job of communicating this information to the public. There is a lack of public appreciation for the ecosystem and a lack of knowledge of the interdependence of human activities and ecosystem health.
Our message to the public is simple: learn what you can do to establish and maintain a healthy and productive Harbor/Bight with full beneficial uses. You can make a difference!!
10
10 STATE OF THE HARBOR/BIGHT NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 Figure 3. Fish and Crab Advisories for New Jersey Waters based on PCB, Dioxin and Chlordane Contamination (excerpted from A Guide to Health Advisories for Eating Fish and Crabs Caught in New Jersey Waters, March 1995) LOCATION SPECIES ADVISORY/PROHIBITION New Jersey Statewide General Population High Risk Individuals1 Note: local advisories may be more American eel do not eat more than once a week do not eat specific for the same species. See below. do not eat more than once a week bluefish (over 6 lbs) do not eat consumption advisories vary by area; see below striped bass* consumption advisories vary by area; see below Newark Bay Complex This complex includes Newark Bay, striped bass* do not eat do not eat Hackensack River downstream of Oradell Dam, Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull, American eel* do not eat more than once a week do not eat tidal portions of all rivers and streams that feed into these water bodies and do not eat or harvest2 blue crab* do not eat or harvest2 do not eat more than once a week bluefish (over 6 lbs), white perch do not eat and white catfish Passaic River downstream of Dundee all fish and shellfish* do not eat do not eat Dam and streams that feed into this section of the river. blue crab* do not eat or harvest2 do not eat or harvest2 Hudson River Hudson River includes the river American eel* do not eat more than once a week do not eat downstream of NY-NJ border (about 4 miles above Alpine, NJ) and Upper do not eat more than once a week New York Bay. striped bass* do not eat do not eat more than once a week
bluefish (over 6 lbs), white perch do not eat green gland do not eat and white catfish (hepatopancreas)3
blue crab do not eat green gland (hepatopancreas)3 Raritan Bay Complex This complex includes the New striped bass* do not eat more than once a week do not eat Jersey portions of Sandy Hook and Raritan bays, the tidal portions of the do not eat more than once a week Raritan River (downstream of the bluefish (over 6 lbs.), white do not eat Rte.1 bridge in New Brunswick) and perch and white catfish do not eat green gland the tidal portions of all rivers and (hepatopancreas)3 streams that feed into these water blue crab do not eat green gland bodies. (hepatopancreas)3 Northern Coastal Waters This area includes all coastal waters striped bass* do not eat more than once a week do not eat from Raritan Bay south to the Barnegat Inlet. For More Information For information on New Jersey health advisories, contact: NJ Department of Environmental Protection Division of Science & Research (609) 984-6070 Division of Fish, Game & Wildlife (609) 748-2020 NJ Department of Health Consumer Health Services (609) 588-3123 For background information on the advisories local libraries can refer you to NJ Administrative Code 7:25-14, 18A * Selling any of these species from designated water bodies is prohibited in New Jersey. 1 High risk individuals include infants, children under the age of 15, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and women of childbearing age. They are advised not to eat any such fish or crabs taken from the designated regions since these contaminants have a greater impact on the developing young. 2 No harvest means no taking or attempting to take any blue crabs from these waters. 3 Interim recommendations based on research showing elevated levels of chemical contaminants in the blue crab hepatopancreas, also called the
11
STATE OF THE HARBOR/BIGHT 11 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 Figure 3. Fish and Crab Advisories for New Jersey Waters based on PCB, Dioxin and Chlordane Contamination (excerpted from A Guide to Health Advisories for Eating Fish and Crabs Caught in New Jersey Waters, March 1995) LOCATION SPECIES ADVISORY/PROHIBITION green gland.
12
12 STATE OF THE HARBOR/BIGHT popular sport. Anglers catch a wide variety of THAN ONE MEAL PER delicious fish species. Many eat the fish they MONTH of American eel, catch. However, some fish in certain waters Atlantic needlefish, bluefish, NEWcontain chemicalsYORK-NEW harmful JERSEY to your health, HARBOR even ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP carp, goldfish, largemouth INCLUDINGwhen the fish THE look BIGHT healthy RESTORATION and the water PLAN looks and smallmouth Marchbass, 1996 clean. rainbow smelt, striped bass, What should you consider in deciding walleye, white catfish and whether or not to eat the fish you catch? The white perch and EAT NO New York State Department of Health issues MORE THAN ONE MEAL health advisories for people who eat fish from PER WEEK of other fish waters where chemical contaminants may be a species. problem. You can make an informed decision $ EAT NO MORE THAN 6 blue crabs per about the potential risks from eating week and don=t consume the contaminated sportfish by using this brochure. hepatopancreas (mustard, Health advice is also available through news tomalley, liver) or cooking releases, other brochures and the Department liquid. of Environmental Conservation Fishing Regulations Guide which is available where Harlem River and East River (to the Throgs fishing licenses are sold; or call the Department Neck Bridge): of Health at 1-800-458-1158 ext. 409. $ Women of childbearing age and children WHY IS THIS ADVICE IMPORTANT TO under 15 years of age should ME? EAT NO fish from these waters. Chemicals are found in some fish at levels $ Other people should EAT NO MORE that may be harmful to your health. Some THAN ONE MEAL PER chemicals build up in your body over time or MONTH of Atlantic affect organs such as your kidneys or liver. needlefish, bluefish, striped Women of childbearing age may be at bass and white perch and special risk from eating contaminated fish. EAT NO MORE THAN ONE Chemicals (such as PCBs, dioxins and mercury) MEAL PER WEEK of other found in some fish build up in your body over fish species. time. During pregnancy, and when breast- $ EAT NO American eel. feeding, these chemicals may be passed on to your baby. This can harm the baby=s growth Lower Bay of New York Harbor, Jamaica Bay, and development. Long Island Sound, Peconic/Gardiners Bays, Children under the age of 15 should not eat Block Island Sound and Long Island South contaminated fish as they are still growing and Shore Waters: developing, and are at special risk from $ Women of childbearing age and children contaminants. under 15 years of age should The following guidelines are a shortened EAT NO striped bass from version of the complete health advisory for the Long Island Sound west of Lower Hudson River, New York Harbor and Wading River, New York marine waters of New York. Harbor and Jamaica Bay and For more detailed advice about eating fish, Other people should EAT NO MORE please consult the guide Health Advisories: THAN ONE MEAL PER MONTH of Chemicals in Sportfish and Game. For a copy, striped bass from these waters. call the Health Department at 1-800-458-1158 $ Everyone should EAT NO MORE THAN ext. 409. ONE MEAL PER WEEK of striped bass from Long Island HOW MUCH FISH SHOULD I EAT? Sound east of Wading River, The following advice is for: Peconic/Gardiners Bays, Hudson River between Troy Dam and bridge Block Island Sound and Long at Catskill: Island South Shore waters. $ Women of childbearing age and children $ Everyone should EAT NO MORE THAN er 15 years of age should EAT NO fish from ONE MEAL PER WEEK of se waters. American eel and bluefish. $ Other people should EAT NO fish except erican shad. Eat no more than one meal per ek of American shad.
Hudson River south of Catskill, Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull and Upper Bay of New York Harbor (north of Verrazano Narrows Bridge): $ Women of childbearing age and children er 15 years of age should EAT NO fish from se waters.
WHAT FISH ARE SAFER TO EAT, AND WHERE ARE THE CLEANER PLACES TO FISH? You can limit your exposure to chemical contaminants in these other ways: $ If you catch fish to eat, choose smaller (of legal size). Smaller fish are younger and erally have lower contaminant levels than 13 er, older fish. $ Choose kinds of fish not mentioned in STATEadvisory. OF Those THE fish HARBOR/BIGHT generally have lower 13 els of contaminants. NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
THE PLAN
14
14 STATE OF THE HARBOR/BIGHT NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
15 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 OVERVIEW OF THE PLAN
ToHARBOR establish ESTUARYand maintain PROGRAM a healthy VISION and productive Harbor/Bight ecosystem with full beneficial uses.
In order to achieve this vision, the Harbor Estuary Program established the following goals: Achieving the Harbor Estuary Program vision requires a focus on habitat and living resources. Ultimately, Ë Restore and maintain an ecosystem which our success in implementing the CCMP will be supports an optimum diversity of living resources measured by the condition of the plants and animals inhabiting the Estuary and Bight. Due, in part, to on a sustained basis. public comments in the early planning phase of the Ë Preserve and restore ecologically important habitat Harbor Estuary Program, the focus and priorities of the Program were shifted from purely water quality and open space. concerns to include habitat and living resources. In Ë Attain water quality that fully supports bathing recent meetings on the draft CCMP, the importance of protecting, restoring, and enhancing habitat and and other recreational uses of the Estuary. living resources was reinforced by the public. Ë Ensure that fish and shellfish in the Estuary are HEP is therefore developing a comprehensive regional safe for unrestricted human consumption. strategy (see Objective H-1 below) which will serve Ë Restore and enhance the aesthetic quality of the to further develop and refine the actions in this plan with a focus on protecting, restoring, and enhancing Estuary. habitat and living resources in the Harbor/Bight Ë Actively address emerging issues that impact the watershed.
Estuary. Actions in other sections of the CCMP also contribute Ë Manage and balance the competing uses of the to the protection, restoration, and enhancement of habitat and living resources in several ways: Estuary to improve environmental quality. - In particular, ensure the continued economic - pollution prevention viability of the Port to support safe and - reduction of pollution at the source efficient waterborne commerce without - remediation of existing contamination in the adversely impacting the ecosystem; and Estuary and Bight - Increase public access. - favoring non-structural solutions and the use Ë Manage pollutants within the Estuary so that they of natural systems do not contribute to use impairments outside the - addressing pollution from all media affecting Estuary. the Estuary and Bight
A FOCUS ON HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES Completion of the comprehensive strategy is critical partnerships, and considering the Long Island Sound to achieving HEP's goals. The strategy will be CCMP and local geographic plans in the region. developed in an ecosystem context, working with local governments and through public/private
16
16 OVERVIEW OF THE PLAN NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 HOW THE PLAN IS ORGANIZED Plan. These commitments and recommendations cover permitting, enforcement, monitoring, standard The human use and ecosystem health impairments setting, and resource management activities, as well discussed in the State of the Harbor and Bight section as public involvement and activities associated with are an indication of the challenge we face in achieving plan implementation. The tables at the end of each our goals. Table 1(o) groups these impairments into section indicate, for each action, whether the action is five broad categories and identifies their primary an ongoing commitment, a new commitment as a causes: direct result of the HEP CCMP, or is still at the recommendation stage. The tables also identify the - Habitat Loss and Degradation costs associated with each of the commitments and recommendations. Information on funding is in the - Toxics section on Costs and Financing. - Pathogens HEP has prepared a Public Summary of the CCMP - Floatables which presents an overview of the problems and - Nutrients and Organic Enrichment management approaches, as well as action highlights.
Each of the primary causes is a component of the SCOPE OF THE CCMP AND MANAGEMENT CCMP and is presented as a section of the Plan: APPROACH habitat loss, toxics contamination, pathogens, floatables, and nutrient and organic enrichment. A The CCMP is a comprehensive plan for the separate section has been added on dredged material Harbor/Bight watershed on a regional scale. For management because of its importance to the example, HEP is identifying regionally significant Harbor/Bight. In addition, because combined sewer habitat areas and helping to ensure they are overflows, storm water, and non-point source runoff protected. HEP is also identifying the most significant contribute to all of the primary causes of pollution sources impacting the Harbor and Bight and impairments, a separate section on rainfall-induced focusing on actions to appropriately control them. discharges addresses these sources. Appropriate The Harbor core area is subject to large pollution cross referencing is provided in each section. The loadings which can impact not only the Estuary, but Plan also includes sections on HEP's public also the Bight and Long Island Sound. In focusing on involvement and education strategy, and other the Harbor core area, HEP is considering the impacts activities associated with plan implementation. of pollution from the Harbor on the entire Estuary and adjacent waterbodies. Also, if HEP determines that Each section of the Plan has specific goals that are pollution from upstream in the Harbor/Bight consistent with HEP's vision and the overall goals watershed is significantly impacting the Estuary or stated above. adjacent waterbodies, HEP will recommend the steps necessary to appropriately control this pollution. A comprehensive set of commitments and recommendations is provided for each section of the The Harbor/Bight watershed is, however, a very large includes actions to help foster a regional perspective area with numerous pollution problems and diverse in local planning and transfer successful local planning local interests. In a plan of such broad geographic tools to other localities, but does not intend to scope, it is difficult to include a specific focus on all develop, critique, or oversee local land use plans. locally significant issues. HEP believes its most important role is to maintain a regional perspective, which integrates a local perspective and builds upon local programs. The CCMP reflects this. For example, the CCMP integrates geographically targeted initiatives to protect habitat. Also, the CCMP
17 OVERVIEW OF THE PLAN 17 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
18 18 OVERVIEW OF THE PLAN NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 Table 1(o). Causes of Human Use and Ecosystem Health Impairments
CAUSE HABITAT TOXICS PATHOGENS FLOATABLES NUTRIENTS IMPAIRMENT LOSS
Beach Closures S S
Unsafe Seafood S S -
Damage to Commercial and S S? O? O S? Recreational Fisheries
Damage to Other Coastal Species S S? O? O
Adverse Impacts on Commercial S S O Shipping and Recreational Boating
S = Significant cause of the impairment O = Other contributing cause of the impairment ? = Uncertainty associated with the determination
Table 2(o) presents the most significant sources of pollutants associated with the five primary causes of impairments in the Harbor/Bight.
Table 2(o). Sources Contributing to Causes of Impairments
CAUSE HABITAT TOXICS PATHOGENS FLOATABLES NUTRIENTS SOURCE LOSS
Municipal Discharges (including S S* S Indirect Industrial Discharges)
Direct Industrial Discharges S?
Combined Sewer Overflows S S? S S O
Storm water S S? S S O
In-place Sediments S S S
Atmospheric Deposition S? S
Vessel Discharges S? O
Solid/Hazardous Waste Sites O S? O O
Chemical/Oil Spills S S?
Other Non-Point Sources(1) S O? S? S? O
Decaying Shoreline Structures S
Fill S
Shoreline Modification S
Tributary Inputs S S O O S
(1) Other non-point sources is a broad category that includes sources that are not discharged through a pipe, other than those non-point source categories specifically mentioned. It includes such diverse sources as street runoff, beach littering, and marine transfer operations. S = Significant source ? = Uncertainty associated with the determination
19 OVERVIEW OF THE PLAN 19 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 O = Other contributing source * = Associated with malfunctions; based on existing indicators
20 20 OVERVIEW OF THE PLAN NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 The following approach has been used by the Management Conference in developing this Plan:
1) Use available existing information to characterize the primary causes of human use and ecosystem health impairments. 2) Use available existing information to characterize the most significant sources contributing to the impairments. 3) Act now, based on this information, and building upon existing programs: Ë To reduce loadings of pollutants contributing to the impairments; Ë To remediate problems due to past discharges; Ë To minimize risk to human health and the environment; and Ë To protect and restore ecosystem resources. 4) Conduct research, monitoring, and modeling studies to better understand the functioning of the ecosystem. 5) Take additional actions, as necessary over time, based on this research, monitoring, and modeling.
This approach attempts to maintain a balance between early action and further study. Where we have sufficient information characterizing an environmental problem and understanding its cause, the CCMP includes specific actions to address the problem. However, because we do not always have sufficient information, the CCMP includes actions for further study upon which to base additional management measures.
The CCMP builds on existing base programs of state, local, and federal governments, and others, because these programs are integral to helping to achieve HEP's goals. In many cases the CCMP identifies where these programs must be enhanced to more fully address HEP's goals.
21 OVERVIEW OF THE PLAN 21 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN==S ACTIONS Ë Using enforcement settlement funds (e.g., One of the strengths of the Harbor Estuary Program federal and New York State Supplemental CCMP is that it includes many commitments for action from federal, state, interstate, and local Environmental Project funds) or other agencies participating in the Management Conference. appropriate funding sources in New Jersey to Approximately 75 percent of the actions in the CCMP are commitments. These commitments are implement appropriate CCMP recommended good faith pledges by the responsible agencies that actions; they intend to carry out the actions and are based on current projections of resource availability. The Ë Encouraging existing non-profit organizations commitments entail a substantial effort -- billions of to fund appropriate CCMP recommended dollars -- which, when fully implemented, will result in substantial progress toward HEP=s goals. The actions; and remaining actions in the Plan, although critical to the Ë Continuing to encourage government agencies = ultimate achievement of HEP s goals, in total would to step forward to implement recommended clearly require resources beyond those currently actions as funding becomes available. available or foreseeable in the near future.
HEP has worked hard, in this time of limited resources at all levels of government, to obtain commitments for action. HEP will continue to work hard to turn recommended actions into commitments. The CCMP describes this funding strategy (see AImplementing the Plan@ below) which includes:
PLAN UPDATES
In the future, as new information becomes available (e.g., regarding the health of the environment, funding, legislation, policy), it will be important to update and re-evaluate the CCMP. To do this, HEP is developing a process by which HEP and other responsible implementing entities, in partnership, will systematically track progress and schedule the additional actions necessary to achieve the goals. This continuing planning process includes continuing the Management Conference to oversee CCMP implementation and annual reporting of progress (see AImplementing the Plan@ below).
22 22 OVERVIEW OF THE PLAN NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
23 OVERVIEW OF THE PLAN 23 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
MANAGEMENT OF HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES
IMPAIRMENTS FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO IMPAIRMENTS Pollutant Loadings Habitat loss, fragmentation, and Coastal development degradation Shoreline and aquatic habitat modification Impaired commercial and recreational Alteration of freshwater inputs fisheries Human disturbance of natural habitats Impaired coastal and terrestrial living Overharvesting resources and communities Insufficient/inadequate sites for public Lack of public access access VISION To establish and maintain a healthy and productive Harbor/Bight ecosystem with full beneficial uses. GOALS To restore and maintain an ecosystem which supports an optimum diversity of living resources on a sustained basis. To preserve and restore ecologically important habitat and open space. To encourage watershed planning to protect habitat. To foster public awareness and appreciation of the natural environment. To minimize erosion; to decrease soil and water loadings of sediment and pollutants to the Harbor/Bight. To increase public access, consistent with maintaining the Harbor/Bight ecosystem. OBJECTIVES Comprehensive Regional Strategy H-1Develop a comprehensive regional strategy to protect the Harbor/Bight watershed and to mitigate continuing adverse human-induced effects. Focused Application of Existing Programs H-2Control point and non-point loadings of pollutants. H-3Manage coastal development. H-4Manage shoreline and aquatic habitat modifications. H-5Maintain healthy estuarine conditions by managing freshwater inputs. H-6Minimize human disturbance of natural habitats. H-7Preserve and improve fish, wildlife, and plant populations and biodiversity. H-8Increase public access consistent with other ecosystem objectives. H-9Increase public education, stewardship, and involvement on issues related to management of habitat and living resources. H-10 Complete ongoing research and initiate special studies on habitat issues. Geographically-targeted Special Efforts H-11 Identify significant coastal habitats warranting enhanced protection and restoration. H-12 Develop and implement plans to protect and restore significant coastal habitats and impacted resources.
HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES 21 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 Jersey and New York. Public access to Estuary resources and to the large well-utilized public beaches on the ocean shores enhances public awareness of these rich natural resources and fosters increased appreciation and stewardship of fish and wildlife INTRODUCTION habitat. Opportunities to engage in shoreline activities and environmental improvements can The complex geology and geography of the contribute significantly to the quality of life of urban Harbor/Bight sustains a remarkable diversity of habitat area residents and have great potential for economic types and species within a relatively small area. benefits as well, by making the area surrounding the Several major river systems drain into the Estuary, Harbor more desirable as a place in which to live and merging into a network of tidal channels and bays, work. ultimately flowing into the Atlantic Ocean. This confluence concentrates marine, estuarine, and The Hudson River, including the Harbor Estuary, is diadromous fish in the Harbor core area and New one of the few East Coast estuaries that retains viable York Bight Apex. Within the Harbor core area alone, populations of all of its historical indigenous aquatic over 100 species of fish have been recorded. species. The significant level of native biodiversity remaining in one of the world's most densely The Harbor/Bight area lies on the Atlantic Flyway, a populated regions offers hope that people and natural major pathway for migratory birds, providing both resources can thrive in close proximity to each other. coastal migratory corridors and the north-south The presence of critical habitat for rare and oriented migratory corridors of the Hudson Highlands endangered plant and wildlife is a source of great region. Thus, coastal as well as overland migrating pride to many local citizens and provides outstanding species are channeled through the region. The opportunities for educational and stewardship various habitats in the Harbor/ Bight area provide projects. The task of monitoring, protecting, food and rest for these migratory birds. The Estuary maintaining, and, where appropriate, restoring these also supports large and flourishing populations of precious resources is a unique opportunity to promote aquatic birds. Today, heron populations in the New and utilize government/civic partnerships. York-New Jersey Harbor represent up to 25 percent of all nesting wading birds along the coast from Cape In order to reflect the priorities of the residents of May, New Jersey to the Rhode Island line, clearly a New York and New Jersey, this CCMP focuses on wildlife assemblage of regional importance. identifying important natural habitats still remaining in the Harbor/Bight watershed and uniting public and Finally, the Harbor/Bight is blessed with an private interests to develop a Comprehensive Regional exceptionally diverse plant life on a landscape that Plan. Consistent with HEP=s vision, the objective of varies from glacial outwash plains to unglaciated the Plan is to balance competing interests to sustain shores and uplands. On Staten Island alone, 178 the overall health and welfare of the ecosystem and historical sites of state and/or globally rare plant the general public, as well as to sustain local species have been recorded, 28 of which have economies. These competing interests, such as recently been relocated and confirmed. public access, industry, and Port activities, as well as habitat protection, are considered in the development Recent water quality improvements (e.g., increased of actions throughout the CCMP. dissolved oxygen and decreased turbidity, biological oxygen demand, and bacterial indicators) have led to a waterfront renaissance -- a reawakening of the IMPAIRMENTS recreational and scenic potential of the Harbor/Bight shorelines. Shore recreation is a dominant Habitat Loss, Fragmentation, and Degradation component of the tourist economies of both New As previously noted, the New York-New Jersey habitats, including tidal rivers, salt and fresh tidal Harbor Estuary and Bight together provide diverse marshes, woodlands, shallow bays, barrier beaches,
22 HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 and dune systems. Much of this natural habitat has however, there have been proposals to extend been lost because of human activities, including: the development beyond inner Harbor shorelines on top filling of wetlands and water areas; alterations of of piers and platform structures. The environmental shorelines including the construction of piers and impacts of this type of development are uncertain, platforms; dredging; smothering of marshland due to but the potential cumulative impact of many such washups of floatable debris; and coastal projects presents a new threat to the environmental development. Loss of natural habitats results in integrity of the ecosystem. diminished local and regional biodiversity and negatively impacts the ecological integrity of the Marine and upland habitats in the region have also Harbor/Bight. suffered significant losses, due to development and pollution associated with population increases. In the Coastal wetlands in the Harbor/Bight region, including Harbor core area, particularly New York City, natural salt and fresh tidal marshes, now cover about habitats are found almost exclusively in designated 180,000 acres in New Jersey and about 25,000 parklands, preserves, and other large land holdings of acres in New York. Most of this acreage is located in governments and institutions. Nearshore upland the back bays and tributary watersheds of the Bight, landscapes are significant to the estuarine ecosystem. where productive fin and shellfisheries exist. In and These areas function as buffers against storm around the Harbor, however, wetlands loss has been surges, sea level rise, and non-point source pollution, great. At least 75 percent of the historic tidal and serve as useful wildlife habitat. wetlands in each of New York City's five boroughs has been lost. For example, one-quarter of the land Numerous functions and values are lost with shoreline area of Manhattan Island was created by filling modifications that involve the filling in or removal of wetlands and shallow water areas. Similar losses wetlands. Wetlands provide essential habitat and have occurred in New Jersey counties of the Harbor food for fish and wildlife species. Many species of core area. In addition, as much as 99 percent of waterfowl and fish require wetland habitat for New York City's historic freshwater wetlands may no breeding, nesting, or rearing of their young, as well longer exist. Dams on coastal rivers have blocked the as for resting, migration, or overwintering areas. reach of tidal waters and reduced estuarine habitats Wetlands also exhibit very high rates of plant as well as spawning areas for certain fish. Although productivity, supporting the food web in the all of these examples of habitat loss and degradation surrounding estuarine environment. In addition, are past events, development pressure remains a wetlands act as filters for the aquatic ecosystem, problem and continues to threaten remaining natural providing water quality protection through the areas. processes of sediment trapping, chemical detoxification, and nutrient removal. Other functions Most of the remaining wetlands have been modified provided by wetlands include storm water control, or degraded through diking, impound-ment, which can be important where surrounding areas are channelization, or toxic contamination. For example, paved, and shoreline stabilization. Jamaica Bay, which was once a classic coastal back bay, has been dredged and modified by channel Recent water quality improvements in the deepening, landfilling, wetland fill activities, airport Harbor/Bight have alleviated some of the chronic construction, and other similar activities. Because of impairments to aquatic habitats. Contaminants in these modifications, residence time for water in the some bottom sediments, however, are still a major bay has increased from 11 to 35 days, magnifying concern. In addition, chemical and oil spills remain a the impact of pollutants entering the bay. continuing threat to regional habitat and water quality. Much of the historic large-scale filling of wetlands and shallow water areas within the Harbor Estuary has decreased with the implementation of regulatory programs to control such activities. In recent years,
HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES 23 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 Impaired Commercial and Recreational In addition to declining numbers, commercial fisheries Fisheries within the Harbor core area are restricted due to toxic The Harbor/Bight system continues to support viable and/or pathogenic contamination. New York has recreational and commercial fish populations and closed its commercial fishery for striped bass in the provides a major outlet to hundreds of thousands of Harbor, the Hudson River, and parts of the Bight due the sportsfishing public. Today there remains a very to concerns about PCB contamination. Commercial large and active recreational fishery and party-charter fishing for American eel and blue crabs is also boat fishery in Raritan Bay, Jamaica Bay, Sandy Hook prohibited due to toxic contamination in some areas Bay, the Navesink River, and Shrewsbury River for of the Harbor. Recreational fishing is similarly such species as striped bass, bluefish, fluke, and restricted in the Harbor core area. Consumption winter flounder. However, available information on advisories throughout the region provide warnings commercial fishery landings shows a distinct decline about locally caught fish. The most stringent in the abundance of fish and shellfish in the past 100 advisories in New Jersey recommend no consumption years. In colonial times, tens of thousands of of 1) crabs in the Newark Bay complex, 2) striped bushels of oysters were collected per year, providing bass from all New Jersey tributaries to the Harbor a staple food item for regional residents. Today, no (including those shared with New York), and 3) any commercial quantities exist. Atlantic sturgeon was fish from the Passaic River. New York recommends once so abundant that it earned the title "Albany no, or limited, consumption of striped bass, American beef". Today there is only a modest commercial eel, white perch, white catfish, carp, and goldfish, fishery in the Hudson River for American shad, and and the hepatopancreas of lobsters and crabs from there is an even smaller commercial fishery for the entire tidal portion of the Hudson River, including Atlantic sturgeon. In the Lower Bay area, commercial the Harbor core area. fisheries exist for species such as blue crab, winter flounder, menhaden, bluefish, weakfish, and baitfish. Pathogenic contamination primarily affects shellfish harvesting. Harvesting of shellfish in the Harbor for Fisheries management in the Harbor/Bight region is direct consumption is prohibited, but harvesting, for under the authority of the Atlantic States Marine depuration or relay, is permitted in portions of the Fisheries Commission (in state waters) and the Mid- Lower Bay complex and in the Shrewsbury and Atlantic Fishery Management Council (in federal ocean Navesink Rivers. Direct harvesting is permitted in waters). Commercial fishery landings in the region ocean waters. decreased from 317,000 metric tons in 1957 to 72,600 metric tons in 1987. The human impacts Impaired Coastal and Terrestrial Living (fishing mortality and environmental perturbation) are Resources often difficult to identify and sort out from natural Coastal bird and mammal populations have also factors, but both, in combination or separately, have seriously declined in the Harbor/Bight region. A been responsible for declines in various fish stocks. number of beach-nesting birds are now classified as Since many of the commercially and recreationally endangered or threatened species; yet the region important species are migratory in nature and spend remains vital to the eventual recovery of their part of their time outside of the Estuary, overfishing populations. Some recovery trends are noticeable -- and habitat loss in the New York Bight and Long the osprey, a fish-eating hawk, now nests in portions Island Sound also affect population levels. Scientists of the Harbor core area where it had been absent for from the National Marine Fisheries Service predict that decades. Ten percent of the nesting population of the inshore fishery will crash in ten years without a the federally endangered peregrine falcon, on the East concerted effort to preserve and restore coastal Coast, is located in the New York-New Jersey habitats. Despite these losses, the Hudson River metropolitan area. The Harbor Herons Complex, first remains one of the few East Coast rivers that documented in the industrial Arthur Kill waterway in retains viable populations of all its historic native the 1970s, has become a regionally significant heron species. and egret nesting rookery.
24 HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 On the other hand, much of the native flora and parkland has been created in New York City at the fauna of the region has been lost or drastically World Financial Center and at Roberto Clemente and reduced due to the loss of coastal upland habitats. Riverbank State Parks. In New Jersey, efforts are The diversity and populations of both resident and underway to provide a public walkway, the Hudson migratory species are directly related to the area and Waterfront Walkway, along 18 miles of river and quality of available habitat. harborfront. Liberty State Park, an important urban recreational area, is a major component of the Limited Public Access Walkway. There are two issues associated with restricted public access: physical blockage of the shoreline and private Direct contact with the shore and the ability to ownership of the shoreline. The need for public sunbathe, swim, boat, or engage in study and access to the shoreline was rarely a consideration in research, are limited by the lack of public lands. Even the early development of New York City and the for shoreline areas that are technically "open to the metropolitan areas of New Jersey; consequently, the public," the lack of necessary support facilities, such Harbor shoreline is dominated by industrial and as transportation access and restrooms, effectively commercial uses, from shipping terminals and restricts public access. This problem is especially commercial ports to oil terminals and heavy industrial severe in the more densely populated portions of the sites. In the less developed regions of the Harbor core area and the larger Bight communities. Harbor/Bight, public access is restricted by private Despite these constraints, both New York and New ownership of the shoreline. Nevertheless, according Jersey have a number of large public beach facilities, to Public Trust doctrine, the states hold all and, in fact, shore recreation is a dominant underwater lands up to the tideline for the benefit of component of the tourist economies of both New all citizens.1 Jersey and Long Island. It must also be recognized that many areas available for additional public access In the urban Harbor area, water access is frequently are also areas that offer opportunities to increase fish constrained by the placement of fill and privately and wildlife populations and restore the regional owned shoreline structures, such as bulkheads, piers, ecosystem. revetments, and pile-supported platforms over the water. In addition, the shoreline has often been the FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE site for placing railroad tracks and highways. IMPAIRMENTS
As population expanded and maritime uses declined, Pollutant Loadings the waterfront was viewed as the greatest open Historic pollution, associated with human activities in space opportunity in the region, and pressure for the Harbor/Bight region, has profoundly affected the improved public access for fishing, boating, biking, condition of the natural environment. Fishes, birds, hiking, and passive recreation increased. and mammals that depend on rivers and estuaries are particularly vulnerable to the effects of these Recent efforts have been taken to improve proximity activities. For example, the destruction of once- and visual access, such as walkways, greenways, abundant oyster beds in Raritan Bay can be linked to and expanded ferry service. Public pollution and the smothering of seed beds. Pollution- induced low dissolved oxygen levels in the water can result in fish and shellfish mortalities. Likewise, studies have shown that the prevalence of fish and shellfish diseases is generally more widespread and severe in polluted
1 In the Harbor/Bight system, one notable exception is Jamaica Bay which is held by the
HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES 25 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
federal government for the benefit of all citizens.
26 HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 waters, particularly near inshore sewage outfalls. and New Jersey has resulted in enormous reductions There are breeding colonies of birds which remain in the acreage and quality of natural habitats and a vulnerable to multiple toxic stressors. Trophic resulting decline in native wildlife populations in the transfer studies which link concentrations of toxics in region. This development has also blocked coastal the birds with sources of toxics may clarify factors access for the majority of the citizens of the region. contributing to this problem. The post-industrial period of today provides both Recent advances in pollution controls and the closure opportunities and continuing threats to the regional of ocean disposal sites have improved environmental ecosystem. In some cases, such as the Jamaica Bay conditions, including water quality, in the Wildlife Refuge in New York and Kearny Marsh in the Harbor/Bight. Marine water quality improvements Hackensack Meadowlands of New Jersey, habitat have been documented, some fisheries have recovery in the urban environment is supporting the rebounded from previously depressed populations, return of native wildlife, and these areas are vital recovery trends have been observed for certain components of a preservation and recovery strategy endangered bird populations, and fish and shellfish for the ecosystem. Liberty State Park, a former diseases declined significantly around 1973 (although transport terminal and industrial/ commercial site, is the reasons for this last fact are unclear). The another example of the potential for natural recovery challenge ahead is to maintain these improvements of the inner Harbor landscape. However, as and to enhance the environmental quality of the abandoned inner Harbor sites are turning wild, new Harbor/Bight. sites are being developed at the outer reaches of the metropolitan area. Of particular importance to habitat issues is the discharge of suspended solids and sedimentation. Land use decisions, both in the urban core and in Poorly controlled runoff can carry significant outlying counties, remain a critical factor to the future quantities of sediment that impair living conditions for well-being of the Harbor/Bight ecosystem. It is estuarine resources, from the shoaling of bays and important that such decisions be made based on a channels and destruction of spawning areas to thorough analysis of the true cost of waterfront increases in turbidity. Sediments may also carry development. Frequently, new coastal projects contaminants and add to dredging concerns. require massive public investment in area Implementation of storm water and non-point source infrastructure: water supply and waste disposal; controls is necessary to reduce the discharge of roads; and utilities; as well as shore erosion projects sediments. and damage repair after severe storms.
Oil and chemical spills have been an historic problem, Shoreline and Aquatic Habitat Modification affecting the water and habitat quality in the Harbor New York-New Jersey Harbor has close to 1,000 core area. Following a 1990 rupture of its underwater miles of shoreline (576 miles in New York City pipeline in the Arthur Kill, which threatened a alone), 75 percent of which consists of man-made regionally significant heron rookery, and the resulting structures, such as bulkheads, rip-rap, and piers. civil and criminal lawsuits, Exxon Corporation agreed to a $15 million settlement. The involved federal, Shoreline construction and modifications disrupt state, and local agencies are working together, as the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Obstructions on New York-New Jersey Harbor Spill Restoration tidal rivers reduce available habitat for fresh and Committee, to oversee distribution of these and other saltwater spawning fishes. Structures along the future settlement funds for actions that will remediate shoreline reduce public access to the coast and can environmental damage caused by such spills. reduce the migration of coastal habitats in the event of sea level rise. Construction-related impacts, such Coastal Development as loss of shallows and changes in salinity, as well as Development of the metropolitan region of New York structures, such as riprap,
HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES 27 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 bulkheads, piers, and platforms, may degrade the disturbances by beachgoers, their pets, and value of estuarine habitat. introduced species.
Another issue of great importance is coastal erosion. Overharvesting Natural shorelines are subject to cyclic erosion and There are other impairments to living resources that accretion patterns depending on the prevailing are not strictly associated with habitat conditions. currents, littoral drift, storms, and sea level changes. One of these is overharvesting of available fish or This changing shoreline is integral to the maintenance wildlife stocks. Much of the recent decline in East of coastal habitat diversity. Construction or aquatic Coast fisheries can be attributed to overharvesting. habitat modification activities, within the zone of dynamic coastal processes, may directly reduce Insufficient/Inadequate Sites for Public Access coastal habitat and may also disrupt the process by The region's shoreline is largely developed with which coastal habitats are maintained, affecting privately owned residences or commercial facilities coastal areas well beyond the immediate construction which block public access. There is also reserved site. As buildings are threatened by waves or natural habitat where human intrusion would be erosion, additional investments in shoreline structures undesirable. Initial efforts to provide public parks or may be needed, leading to greater degradation of open space offer visual amenities, but few provide natural habitats. boat launches, fishing piers, or other facilities which enable direct contact with the water. Alteration of Freshwater Inputs The natural mixing of freshwater with saltwater is THE PLAN TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS one of the defining features of an estuary, creating an extremely productive environment for living Overview resources. The estuarine environment of the The Habitat and Living Resources component of the Harbor/Bight has been measurably affected by the CCMP is critical to the establishment and maintenance human alteration and use of its freshwater resources. of a healthy and productive Harbor/Bight ecosystem Water withdrawals from the Harbor/ Bight cause the with full beneficial uses. This component of the Plan salt wedge of tidal rivers to extend further upstream has six goals: and the change in salinity between fresh and saltwater to be more abrupt. Dams also preclude the Ë To restore and maintain an ecosystem which natural mixing of fresh and salt water that produces the salinities characteristic of riverine estuaries. supports an optimum diversity of living resources Coastal groundwater withdrawals may cause on a sustained basis. saltwater intrusion, upsetting established coastal freshwater habitats and contaminating coastal Ë To preserve and restore ecologically important groundwater aquifers. habitat and open space.
Human Disturbance of Natural Habitats Ë To encourage watershed planning to protect Human disturbance of the habitats of native wildlife habitat. populations can have a significant negative effect, even if the habitat areas are adequate. In the Ë To foster public awareness and appreciation of the Harbor/Bight region, coastal habitats, particularly natural environment. beaches and dunes, are among those most impacted by human activity. A number of coastal birds, such Ë To minimize erosion; to decrease soil and water as terns (common, roseate, and least), black loadings of sediment and pollutants to the skimmer, and piping plover, are on state or federal lists of endangered or threatened species. Common Harbor/Bight. threats to all these species are Ë To increase public access, consistent with
28 HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
maintaining the Harbor/Bight ecosystem. It is important to note that habitat and living Ë To increase public education and involvement; and, resources issues were not initial priorities of HEP or Ë To complete ongoing research and initiate special the Bight Restoration Plan. The decision to include studies. these issues as a primary focus of the Plan was based on public comments received at meetings on HEP is currently in the process of identifying the Bight Restoration Plan and, later, at a coastal significant1 coastal habitats warranting special conference on behalf of HEP at Manhattan College, protection and developing options to preserve and New York. restore them. USEPA, on behalf of HEP, has entered into an Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Fish and Due to this refocusing of program priorities, the Wildlife Service (USFWS) to use existing information analysis of habitat and living resources has been to identify habitats, summarize their conservation somewhat delayed relative to the other pollution- status, and present recommendations for their related environmental problems, which were identified preservation and restoration. In addition, HEP has early in the planning process. As a result, this CCMP undertaken studies to evaluate existing habitat recommends an iterative strategy for building a quality, particularly in the most heavily developed comprehensive plan to protect and enhance the portion of the Harbor core area (see Action H-10.3 Harbor/Bight watershed: below). Using the results of these and future studies, HEP recommends special geographically- Ë To develop a comprehensive regional strategy to targeted efforts: protect the Harbor/Bight watershed for the long term and to mitigate continuing adverse impacts of Ë To identify significant coastal habitats warranting human development. enhanced protection; and, HEP has conducted an analysis of existing habitat- Ë To develop and implement plans to protect related programs and recommends a more focused significant coastal habitats and improve water application of those programs: quality. Ë To control point and non-point loadings of HEP anticipates that taking steps to improve existing pollutants; programs and targeting geographic areas of the region for special protection will measurably benefit the Ë To manage coastal development; regional ecosystem; however, these measures may Ë To manage shoreline and aquatic habitat not be sufficiently comprehensive to ensure long-term sustainability or to redress historic insults to the modification; ecosystem. Ë To maintain healthy estuarine conditions by Accordingly, HEP will assess the short-term actions managing freshwater inputs; identified in this section of the Plan to determine their Ë To minimize human disturbance of natural habitats; sufficiency, and recommend additional steps. Ë To manage fish and wildlife stocks; Ë To increase the number and quality of public access 1 The use of the term "significant" to define coastal habitats is descriptive and different from the sites consistent with other ecosystem objectives; regulatory meaning accorded to it by New York State, except where noted. COMMITMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Comprehensive Regional Strategy
HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES 29 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
OBJECTIVE H-1 Develop a comprehensive accounts as appropriate. regional strategy to protect the -- HEP will identify the need for additional Harbor/Bight watershed and to geographically-targeted sub-planning (see Action mitigate continuing adverse human- H-12.2 below). induced effects -- In developing the regional strategy, HEP will work closely with local governments and grassroots ACTION H-1.1 organizations in the region through the watershed Development of a Comprehensive Regional Strategy planning coordinating subcommittee of the HEP will develop a regional strategy to protect Habitat Work Group (see Action H-1.2 below). habitats in the Harbor/Bight watershed, including those identified in the USFWS report (see Action H- ACTION H-1.2 11.1 below). Outreach and Technology Transfer for Watershed Planning and Habitat Conservation To accomplish the following, HEP will encourage HEP and NJDEP will actively foster, through various cooperative partnerships throughout the region to specific activities, the transfer of information and share resources on a coordinated basis. tools which will enhance and encourage watershed planning and habitat conservation throughout the Key components of the strategy are: region. HEP will work through county and local governments and grassroots organizations in these -- HEP will identify regional and local habitats efforts. HEP will establish a watershed planning requiring special protection (see Objective H-11 coordinating subcommittee of the Habitat Work below). Group to coordinate actions at the local government and grassroots levels. HEP's activities will serve -- The responsible resource management agencies, the dual purposes of: counties, and municipal governments will identify the most effective means of using their -- Fostering the exchange of information on authorities, programs, and expertise to protect successful local planning and conservation tools habitats and living resources. to other areas, and incorporating these tools into the Comprehensive Regional Strategy (Action H- -- The strategy will recommend modifications to 1.1). authorities and programs, as appropriate. -- Fostering a regional watershed perspective in local -- HEP will build on existing programs to develop planning to protect Harbor/Bight habitats from the comprehensive regional strategy. For unplanned and fiscally or environmentally unwise example, the New Jersey Landscape Project has development. three phases to protect rare species populations: 1) mapping; 2) coordination of land management Specific activities may include, but are not limited agencies; and 3) coordination of land use to: regulation and planning (see Action H-11.2 below). Conduct regional and watershed workshops and meetings for information exchange. For example, in connection with the "Habitat Options Guide" (see Action H-9.1 below), results of HEP studies will be shared, such as the USFWS significant -- HEP will coordinate with the New York-New coastal habitats report (see Action H-11.1 below) Jersey Harbor Spill Restoration Committee Natural and the piers and platforms study (see Action H- Resources Restoration Plan for Oil and Chemical 10.3 below), as well as NJDEP's Landscape Releases in the New York-New Jersey Harbor Project (see Action H-11.2 below). Estuary, and other natural resources damages
30 HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
-- Enlist services of city and/or county governments surface water runoff associated with development is to bring regional planning to the local level minimized. through grants and other incentives (see Action H-2.5 below). ACTION H-2.1 -- Encourage and develop pilot projects for New Jersey Sediment Control Pilot Project -- integrated watershed planning (see Actions H-2.1 Whippany River and H-2.2 below). As part of a joint strategic plan, USEPA and NJDEP -- Develop a long term data management strategy have agreed to implement programs for the control (see Objective M-4 below) by considering of non-point source runoff in several Harbor/Bight establishment of one or more coordinated regional watersheds impacted by non-point source pollution information management and data resource (see Actions NPS-1.1 and 1.2 below). One such centers for habitat and other environmental watershed in the Harbor drainage area is the information. Whippany River, a tributary of the upper Passaic River located in Morris County, NJ. NJDEP will ACTION H-1.3 supplement this program to address sediment Implementation Agreements export. HEP supports this effort as a potential Upon completion of the Comprehensive Regional model for additional projects elsewhere in the Strategy and its endorsement by the Management Harbor/Bight region. Conference, HEP will seek establishment of memoranda of understanding, or other formal -- NJDEP will develop a pilot project to minimize the mechanisms, among federal natural resource export of sediment from the Whippany River agencies, states, and county and municipal Basin to the Harbor Estuary. governments, to implement the recommendations, to the extent legally permissible and appropriate. ACTION H-2.2 New York Sediment Control Pilot Project Focused Application of Existing Programs New York State is also in the process of developing a pilot project for non-point source pollution control within the Harbor/Bight watershed. OBJECTIVE H-2 Control point and non-point loadings of pollutants -- NYSDEC will select, develop, and implement a pilot project to minimize sediment export from a sub-watershed of the Hudson River or in the watersheds in the Bronx draining to the Harbor. The sections of the Plan on the management of ACTION H-2.3 toxic contamination, dredged material, pathogen Basin-Wide Program contamination, floatable debris, nutrients and HEP, building upon the state pilot projects and organic enrichment, and rainfall-induced discharges programs, will develop a targeted basin-wide present numerous commitments to control pollutant program to minimize sediment export to the Harbor inputs to the Harbor/Bight system. These actions Estuary. to control pollutant inputs will improve conditions by enhancing water quality and fostering the overall health of the regional coastal ecosystem. This objective expands the pollution reduction actions by addressing human-induced increases in turbidity and sedimentation in the Harbor and Bight. This objective also includes an emphasis on utilizing natural drainage features and functions, rather than more expensive sewer infrastructure, to ensure that
HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES 31 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
ACTION H-2.4 and remediation (e.g., landfill closure). Such Staten Island Watershed Actions projects should emphasize the use of natural Southern Staten Island, the least developed area of features and systems. HEP, acting through the New York City, is also the largest area of the City Habitat Work Group, will encourage, develop, and that is unsewered. New York City is implementing seek funding for appropriate projects. For example: a strategy that will utilize and preserve existing drainage features to reduce the need for expensive -- HEP will encourage projects through ongoing sewer infrastructure. HEP supports this low technology transfer and outreach activities (see technology, moderate cost approach to watershed Action H-1.2). protection and runoff control. -- HEP will develop and seek funding for a program of pilot studies for nitrogen reduction through -- NYCDEP will invest in stream corridor and innovative means (see Action N-3.6 below). wetland acquisitions and other watershed -- HEP will encourage projects recommended under protection actions in the Staten Island Bluebelt, in geographic plans which currently exist or are conjunction with limited storm sewer under development (see Objective H-12 below). infrastructure. This action supports the incorporation of natural systems into traditional OBJECTIVE H-3 Manage coastal infrastructure programs. development
ACTION H-2.5 -- HEP will encourage efforts in connection with the Local Watershed Planning to Limit Surface Water Harlem River Restoration. Runoff associated with Development The current regulatory mechanism to control development in coastal regions is the federal Coastal -- HEP will seek funding to encourage city and Zone Management Program, which in New York county governments across the region to bring and New Jersey is administered by the states. A regional watershed planning to the local level complementary program is the Coastal Non-point through grants and other incentives. Pollution Program. New York State has established -- Regional Environmental Planning Councils in a two-tiered boundary for the coastal non-point Monmouth County, New Jersey, which have program: the coast boundary is the first tier; the been established on a watershed basis, are second tier is the watershed area, where coordinating with individual local governments to coterminous. New Jersey administers its Coastal ensure that surface water runoff associated with Zone Management Program through separate new development is minimized. (NJDEP has regulatory vehicles that cover the highly developed provided $100,000 in base program funding to metropolitan area coastline and the less developed Monmouth County for its watershed management bay and ocean shores. These programs are the planning.) basis for better coastal zone management, ecosystem protection, and the achievement of ACTION H-2.6 development/ redevelopment needs. Non-structural, Low Technology, and Low Maintenance Means to Reduce ACTION H-3.1 Runoff and Pollutant Inputs Regional Coastal Development Plans and Programs HEP encourages the use of non-structural, low The states will develop and utilize regional coastal technology, and low maintenance means to reduce management plans and programs to manage coastal runoff and pollutant inputs associated with development. environmentally responsible development, pollution abatement (e.g., CSO and storm water abatement), -- NYSDOS, in cooperation with local governments, for New York City and for Long Island's south will develop regional coastal management plans shore.
32 HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
-- NJDEP will continue administering its coastal zone site designations as appropriate (see Action H- program through a number of regulatory 11.5 below). authorities: $ Coastal Area Facilities Review Act (CAFRA) in ACTION H-3.3 the outer coast and bay shores from Comprehensive Planning Monmouth through Cape May Counties The state Coastal Zone Management Programs will $ Waterfront Development Law encourage and support local comprehensive plans $ Wetlands Act of 1970 for habitat protection, along with zoning codes to $ Hackensack Meadowlands Development enforce them. Commission's Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) -- With support from NYSDOS, New York City is redrafting its Waterfront Revitalization Program to -- NYSDOS and NJDEP will coordinate with other make its policies reflect the priorities of the New ongoing planning efforts, such as the New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan Jersey State Development and Redevelopment (1992). This will be a regional coastal Plan and the New York City Comprehensive management program that will recognize local Waterfront Plan, to steer development and characteristics and habitat concentrations of the redevelopment toward areas with existing New York City region. adequate infrastructure, and to promote conservation of the region's natural resources. ACTION H-3.4 Regional Cooperation -- Under the authority of Section 309 of the Clean HEP, through the watershed planning coordinating Air Act, which establishes the Clean Waters subcommittee, will identify projects and issues Program, USEPA will take into account HEP requiring regional cooperation and will facilitate that issues as part of its responsibility to comment on the environmental impacts of any federal action OBJECTIVE H-4 Manage shoreline and within the Harbor/Bight area. aquatic habitat modifications
ACTION H-3.2 cooperation (see Action H-1.2). Special Protection of Habitats through Consistency Reviews Human activities are directly responsible for NYSDOS, NYSDEC, and NJDEP will ensure that shoreline and aquatic habitat modifications and coastal habitats are afforded protection through the degradation of important upland habitats. Such consistency review process of the Coastal Zone activities are regulated by both federal and state Management Program. legislation, as well as by local zoning and codes. One of the most important federal programs that -- NYSDOS has established regulatory designations protects shoreline and aquatic habitats is Section of Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats 404 of the Clean Water Act, which regulates and will update them in coordination with the disposal of dredged and fill material in "waters of applicable local waterfront revitalization program the U.S." (see Action H-11.5 below). A significant emerging issue, with continued -- NJDEP has identified areas which are afforded development pressure on the shoreline of the special protection and is developing a proposal to Harbor, concerns the use of pile-supported use the designations in the New Jersey State structures. Developers are proposing to erect Development and Redevelopment Plan in the consistency review process; NJDEP will update buildings on existing or newly created pilefields, because of the resistance by regulators to permit
HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES 33 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 further landfilling of underwater lands. HEP has state's tidal wetlands program to the entire partially funded a research study to evaluate habitat tidal portion of the Hudson River (to the Troy conditions of piers, pile fields, and pile-supported Lock and Dam). platform structures in the urbanized Hudson River waterfront. HEP recommends that federal, state, -- Through its delegated freshwater permits and local government regulatory agencies use the program, NJDEP will individually review general results of this study to improve habitat permit applications for projects that affect less management (see Action H-10.3 below). than one acre of non-tidal wetlands. -- HEP recommends that New York State amend its ACTION H-4.1 Freshwater Wetlands Law to require permits for Memoranda of Agreement on the Tidal and wetlands less than 12.4 acres. Presently, only Freshwater Wetlands Programs locally significant freshwater wetlands less than The responsible state and federal agencies will, as 12.4 acres, in addition to all wetlands greater legally permissible and appropriate, develop than 12.4 acres, are protected under this law. Memoranda of Agreement to coordinate surveillance, inspection, permitting, and ACTION H-4.3 enforcement activities for regulated wetlands and Designation of Regulatory Buffer Zones upland areas. Wetlands and other aquatic habitats can be adversely affected by human activities even when ACTION H-4.2 those activities take place above the upland border Freshwater Wetlands of the wetland. Accordingly, the following The states should ensure that proposed actions commitments recognize the need to regulate involving less than one acre of fill receive individual activities within the upland zone immediately agency review. adjacent to wetland edges.
-- HEP recommends that NYSDEC evaluate the need -- When NYSDEC next proposes changes to tidal for, the environmental significance of, and wetlands land use regulations, the issue of the workload associated with water quality definition of "adjacent area" (i.e., regulatory certification for freshwater wetland fill projects boundary, setback requirement) will be affecting less than one acre and identify actions considered. Current regulations prohibit necessary to protect them. structures within 30 feet of the shoreline within a -- NYSDEC, in order to permit regulatory protection regulatory boundary of 150 feet within New York of wetlands through the water quality certification City, and a setback of 75 feet for structures process, will consider development of water within a 300-foot regulatory boundary in the rest quality standards for wetlands. of the marine district. -- Through its Hudson River Estuary Management -- NYSDEC will consider expanding the scope of the Program, NYSDEC will analyze wetland regulatory state's regulatory authority to issue water quality programs to improve protection of Hudson River certificates to include all projects adjacent to wetlands and shallow water habitat, and to wetlands or those that exceed a minimum size. identify gaps in statutory protection. Part of the Currently activities beyond state jurisdiction, such analysis will examine more comprehensive as in previously built-up shoreline areas, are protection to Hudson River wetlands by exempted from water quality certification. extending the reach of the the Harbor Estuary. The buffer will vary depending on the classification of the wetlands and the proximity to tidal waters. NJDEP will explore New Jersey will use its existing authority to changes in statutory authority to regulate buffers regulate development adjacent to wetlands within adjacent to watercourses. The intent would be to
34 HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 OBJECTIVE H-5 Maintain healthy estuarine prohibit development in the buffer zone of a conditions by managing freshwater wetland unless it can be demonstrated that the inputs proposed development will not have a significant adverse impact, and that it will cause minimum clean dredged material. feasible adverse impact on the wetland. Preservation of estuarine habitat requires ACTION H-4.4 maintenance of adequate freshwater flows to Net Increase in Aquatic Habitat coastal waters. HEP, acting through participating agencies, will seek to ensure that relevant actions, in the aggregate, ACTION H-5.1 result in a net increase in both quality and quantity Freshwater Withdrawal Controls of aquatic habitat within the Harbor/Bight, including To protect estuaries, HEP recommends that the upland buffer areas. states recognize the impacts that upstream freshwater withdrawals, and other hydrologic Special emphasis will be placed on key habitat changes, may have on salinity levels and consider types, such as submerged aquatic vegetation. This these impacts in the states' water supply and policy will be implemented through actions identified wastewater planning processes. under Objective H-12 below. ACTION H-5.2 -- New York State will increase the quantity and Water Conservation Strategies quality of tidal wetland resources and, when State and local authorities will develop and feasible and desirable, its freshwater wetland implement water conservation strategies as resources. New York State will also explore a components of their water supply programs, to policy for enhanced protection of all other marine maintain the adequacy of their water supplies, to and estuarine habitats. keep wastewater flows within the capacity of -- New Jersey will work to ensure that actions operating treatment plants, and to reduce or delay impacting habitat in the Harbor core area, in the the need for additional projects that may impact aggregate, result in a net increase in the acreage and quality of aquatic habitat where feasible and OBJECTIVE H-6 Minimize human disturbance appropriate. of natural habitats -- HEP and the participating agencies will examine opportunities to increase habitat and habitat estuaries. value. One means to implement this action is -- New York City initiated a water conservation through Section 1135 of the Water Resources program in 1986, which, to date, has reduced Development Act of 1986 (see discussion on citywide demand by 110 million gallons per day. page 45), in which the USACE can study and -- Since 1981, NJDEP has implemented a water implement habitat restoration measures in areas conservation program. previously impacted by water resources projects. Another means is through the beneficial use of education opportunities, however, are limited by a lack of public access to the water's edge. Coastal shorebird populations are particularly vulnerable to disturbance by beachgoers, beach vehicles, and recreational boaters. Unfortunately, the human population density of the region and the demand for open space and recreational pursuits create conflicts Habitat impairment caused by overuse and abuse of in satisfying requirements for new access fragile coastal dunes and wetlands is generally not opportunities (see Objective H-8 below) and noticed by an uneducated public. Environmental protection of natural habitat areas. HEP supports
HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES 35 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 efforts to retain sufficient habitat areas free of Conservancy and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife human disturbance to perpetuate viable populations Service, is expanding piping plover protection of coastal species, emphasizing protection for those with funds from a natural resources damages recognized as threatened, endangered, or of special account, and will: continue to support beach- concern. HEP will promote a balance of competing nesting bird colonies along the ocean shore from interests for the overall good of the general public Sandy Hook to Cape May, New Jersey; monitor and the natural ecosystem. and manage osprey and peregrine falcon nests; and conduct a five year inventory of colonial ACTION H-6.1 waterbird (e.g., herons, egrets, gulls, and terns) Workshops on Protection of Habitat Values breeding locations. HEP will sponsor workshops on the protection of -- NYSDEC will continue to monitor coastal habitat values for federal, state, and local land endangered species populations in the management agencies, other appropriate agencies, metropolitan area to ensure their continued and other large land owners, that administer parks, viability. An inventory of colonial waterbird beaches, and other open space lands. The breeding locations has been completed. workshops will develop mechanisms to assist these -- Within New York City, the City Department of managers in protecting habitat values. Parks and Recreation and the U.S. National Park Service maintain programs to protect beach- ACTION H-6.2 nesting piping plovers. The Park Service also Protection for Beach-nesting and Coastal Species monitors and manages osprey nests. NYCDEP, Responsible federal, state, and local authorities are in cooperation with NYSDEC, monitors and engaged in efforts to minimize human disturbance manages peregrine falcon nests. to beach-nesting and coastal species which appear on federal and state endangered and threatened ACTION H-6.3 species lists. The majority of these efforts Educational Efforts to Reduce Human Disturbance concentrate on birds, and HEP recommends that to Coastal Species these efforts extend to other species, including HEP encourages appropriate state, local, and private turtles and plants, wherever possible. These sponsors to implement programs to educate the programs are especially important when the habitat general public with regard to reducing human areas are close to active recreation or planned public disturbance to sensitive coastal species. access improvements. HEP recommends continued and expanded funding for these efforts and closer -- NYSDEC, in partnership with the Aquarium for coordination between agencies providing public Wildlife Conservation (Coney Island Aquarium), access and those seeking to protect habitat and will conduct its "Tidal Wetlands Education natural resources. Course", a course to educate violators of the New York State Tidal Wetlands Law on how to -- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. minimize adverse impacts to coastal resources, National Park Service of the Department of the and explore expansion of the course to include Interior, and the National Marine Fisheries Service shorefront owners, local municipalities, students, of the Department of Commerce, directly and in and other interested groups. cooperation with local and state agencies, will -- NYSDEC and the YMCA will fund the Aquarium continue to monitor and protect sensitive coastal to conduct this course for children. wildlife populations. The Aquarium will seek additional funding to expand -- USACE, in performing shoreline protection, beach the course. renourishment, or inlet dredging projects, will -- HEP will encourage additional efforts by state, cooperate with other agencies and local local, and private sponsors to promote public conservation groups to incorporate coastal habitat education with regard to reducing human enhancements wherever possible. disturbance to sensitive coastal species. -- NJDEP, in cooperation with The Nature
36 HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
implement fishery management measures which OBJECTIVE H-7 Preserve and improve fish, are compatible with applicable provisions of wildlife, and plant populations and federal Fishery Management Plans prepared by biodiversity regional Fishery Management Councils and approved by the U.S. Department of Commerce. A number of federal and state agencies have a basic authority to manage species populations and ACTION H-7.3 habitats. In addition, efforts have been undertaken Restoration of Anadromous Fishery Habitat to coordinate species management on a regional and HEP has provided partial funding to the New York- national scale. New Jersey Harbor Baykeeper (American Littoral Society) in support of a project to restore and ACTION H-7.1 improve habitat in the Harbor core area for Biodiversity Initiatives anadromous herring species. In cooperation with New York State has established the Biodiversity community groups and volunteers, the Baykeeper Research Institute, jointly run by the Departments conducted debris removal from banks and channels, of Environmental Conservation and Education and in areas including several small tidal tributaries to the Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historical the Arthur Kill. This effort helped reduce Preservation. Funded through the State's obstructions to anadromous fish and to foster bank Environmental Protection Fund, the Institute's stabilization and revegetation for improved riparian primary activity is the development of a statewide habitat. No heavy equipment was used during the database for fish and wildlife populations operation. Involvement by local residents helped to (coordinated by the Natural Heritage Program), educate them about the environmental resources in including establishment of an entomological their communities, the threats to those resources, clearinghouse, protection of state-owned and the public health issues related to contaminants under(fresh)water lands, and identification of in the environment. The Baykeeper will continue species and groups of organisms which may act as project activities as funding sources are found. The indicators of environmental quality. The Institute habitat improvement measures will be monitored, will also prepare a computer-based inventory of 1) and follow up activities will include dam bypasses scientists knowledgeable about New York's and fish stocking, or "herring heaves", to carry biological resources and 2) collections of biological migrating fish past physical obstructions. specimens located around the state. -- HEP will continue to support efforts to restore the ACTION H-7.2 anadromous fishery (including habitats and Fisheries Management Plans abundance) to Harbor/Bight tributary rivers and Appropriate agencies will comply with and adopt streams. In so doing, HEP will ensure that public fisheries management plans. health risks associated with exposure to contaminants are minimized. -- The States of New York and New Jersey will maintain full compliance with fisheries ACTION H-7.4 management plans approved by the Atlantic Implementation of the North American Waterfowl States Marine Fisheries Commission. Management Plan -- The States of New York and New Jersey will facing waterfowl populations, sets general HEP supports the continuing implementation of the guidelines for addressing problems, and establishes North American Waterfowl Management Plan to population and habitat goals for waterfowl in North enhance and protect high quality wetland habitat in America. The plan is a partnership effort based on North America that supports a variety of wetland- the joint venture concept including private, local, dependent and recreational uses. The plan is a state, and federal interests. broad policy framework that identifies problems
HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES 37 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
-- New York State has made it a top priority to reviews, to the extent legally permissible and implement the Long Island South Shore Focus appropriate. Area Plan, a component of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. ACTION H-7.7 -- NJDEP will use state waterfowl stamp program Implementation of Artificial Reef Programs funds to continue habitat acquisition efforts; this Construction of artificial reefs along the generally will both support the expansion of the Forsythe sandy bottom of the Atlantic Ocean off Long Island National Wildlife Refuge and help meet the goals and New Jersey can enhance regional marine of the North American Waterfowl Management habitat. Reefs can be created by strategic Plan. A combined total of over 10,000 acres is placement of sunken ships and barges, large rock expected to be acquired within the next 10 years rubble, concrete blocks, or other types of clean and various waterfowl habitat improvement construction material on the ocean bottom. Reefs projects will be undertaken. can provide shelter for many marine fish and mobile invertebrates, and the hard surfaces of the sunken ACTION H-7.5 structures provide attachment points for a variety Natural Resources Inventory Funding of sessile organisms. Reefs also increase opportunities for fishing, a regionally important -- States will maintain funding levels for their recreational activity, and provide sites for scuba Natural Heritage Programs to document diving. Both states currently have active artificial occurrences of sensitive species in the region, as reef programs. HEP does not recognize artificial well as habitats that are vital to their continued reefs as a means of waste management. survival. -- HEP will investigate opportunities to enhance -- New Jersey, during the last 11 years, has other ongoing programs and will encourage established a network of 14 reef sites, evenly Natural Heritage Programs to include greater spaced along the coast, over 23.7 square miles coverage of marine systems and species. of sea floor. This program is supported by two ACTION H-7.6 non-profit organizations, the Artificial Reef Agency Regulatory Reviews Association and the Sportfish Fund. Three new reef sites were planned for 1994, at Barnegat -- Federal agencies and New York State will Light Reef, Great Egg Reef, and Wildwood Reef. consider species and habitats recognized as -- Since 1993, USACE, at the request of NJDEP, significant by HEP (e.g., in the USFWS report, has diverted blasted rock, created during the Species of Special Emphasis in the New York construction of deeper navigation channels in the Bight Region), in agency regulatory reviews (see Kill Van Kull and Newark Bay, to an artificial reef Action H-11.1 below). site off Sea Bright, New Jersey. This action not only has produced valuable habitat at no added -- NJDEP will consider species and habitats cost, but it also has provided for beneficial use of recognized as significant by HEP (e.g., in the dredged material that would otherwise have been USFWS report, Species of Special Emphasis in programmed for ocean disposal. the New York Bight Region), in agency regulatory Bank, Shinnecock Inlet, Jones Inlet, and Great South Bay to supplement existing reefs in seven -- New York State, in its Plan for the Development areas. and Management of Artificial Reefs in New York's Marine and Coastal District, will seek funding to Note that, in addition to the above programs, develop new artificial reefs in appropriate areas of NJDEP is implementing a plan for the protection New York waters to increase fishing of rare species in New Jersey, known as the opportunities. Plans have been developed to Landscape Project (see Action H-11.2 below). construct reefs in the Atlantic Ocean off Cholera
38 HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
OBJECTIVE H-8 Increase public access ACTION H-8.1 consistent with other ecosystem Public Access Improvements objectives HEP recommends that federal, state, county, and municipal governments ensure improved public There is a public demand for open space access to Harbor/Bight waters by: opportunities along the coastline. Providing public access can meet this need while building a -- Fully implementing existing projects, including: constituency for enhanced protection of natural $ Hudson River Greenway habitat and species populations. But these benefits will not be forthcoming unless access to the shore $ Hudson Waterfront Walkway is coupled with the right kind of space to $ NYC Greenway Plan accommodate different uses: places to fish, places to swim, places close to wildlife habitat for $ NYSDEC Hudson River Access Plan observation, safe places for boating including $ NYSDEC Marine Recreational Fishing Access support facilities, and places to walk along the water. HEP recognizes that access must not be an Plan afterthought. People must be able to enjoy and $ Greenways to the Arthur Kill appreciate a cleaned up estuary for there to be continuing support for further investments to $ Hackensack Meadowlands public walkway; improve water quality and coastal habitats. HEP -- Employing the Intermodal Surface Transportation supports maintaining a balance between the needs and opportunities for public access and the Efficiency Act (ISTEA) program to fund public requirements for sustaining living resources. access improvements (see Action SW-1.5
Special planning efforts are necessary to require all below); new development to provide public access and to -- Identifying additional projects, including the Bight, ensure implementation of permit requirements, public guides, and improved opportunities on as necessary; existing sites. Both states' coastal programs make -- Enhancing enforcement of existing regulatory public access a priority and encourage localities to incorporate public access into building and zoning programs; and codes. -- Encouraging grass roots work projects (e.g., through the Youth Corps).
ACTION H-8.2 Public Access Guides HEP recommends that the states develop user- friendly public access guides for the major components of the Harbor/Bight system.
-- NJDEP, with partial funding from USEPA, has developed a public access guide for the Hudson Waterfront Walkway, a proposed 18-mile public accessway along New Jersey's Hudson River waterfront from Fort Lee to Bayonne. -- HEP recommends that the States of New York and New Jersey develop additional guides as necessary.
HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES 39 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
ACTION H-8.3 (Note: HEP will seek additional funds to assist Public Access Infrastructure production and distribution of the Guide). HEP recommends that state, regional, and local authorities develop and maintain the support -- HEP will hold workshops to ensure widespread facilities necessary to promote public access in exposure to the principles in the Habitat Options targeted areas. New York City's Greenway Plan Guide, in conjunction with habitat value proposes to increase public use of the waterfront workshops. through development of a series of inter-connecting bicycle and pedestrian paths in all five City ACTION H-9.2 boroughs. Support for Habitat Laws and Programs HEP recommends that appropriate agencies educate ACTION H-8.4 potential users and the general public on the Waterfront Zoning Regulations impacts of lifestyle on habitat and living resources, New York City will implement waterfront zoning as well as the availability of habitat information. regulations mandating public access via waterfront HEP will encourage agencies to: paths and upland connections in new residential and commercial development, in addition to view -- Enlist advocacy and local user groups, and corridors for visual access to the waterfront. educational institutions, to develop new habitat
OBJECTIVE H-9 Increase public education, protection education programs. Topics should stewardship, and involvement on include wetlands values and functions, as well as issues related to management of habitat and living resources shoreline values and shoreline dynamics. -- Initiate and support ongoing pilot programs, such Public education is important to habitat protection as those conducted by the Youth Conservation because it provides an understanding of the human Corps, to conduct habitat enhancement or link to the regional ecosystem and the restoration activities and to focus efforts on responsibilities that people have for maintaining that watershed-scale approaches to conserve ecosystem. In many cases, the public has actively biodiversity. promoted wise stewardship of living resources and -- Support the enforcement potential of citizen is seeking constructive opportunities for personal habitat "watchdog" groups. involvement. HEP supports efforts to fulfill these needs. ACTION H-9.3 Education Programs ACTION H-9.1 HEP recommends that state and local authorities, Habitat Options Guide with federal support through environmental education grants, encourage the integration of -- HEP will develop and distribute a "Habitat Options educational materials and opportunities into school Guide," prepared by the Habitat Work Group, programs at all levels.
which is designed to facilitate the consideration of ACTION H-9.4 habitat values within the framework of local New York City Environmental Fund In 1994, through a negotiated settlement of government and private land use decisions. This environmental violations with the Consolidated non-regulatory approach will complement Edison Utility Company, NYSDEC established a New York City Environmental Fund in cooperation regulatory programs to protect, maintain, and with the Hudson River Foundation (HRF). enhance environmental values across the region.
40 HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
-- NYSDEC, in cooperation with HRF, will use the coastal habitats in the Harbor/Bight system and fund to provide grants to a wide range of conduct additional studies accordingly. The studies community, educational, and volunteer would be used to: organizations, to support environmental restoration, cleanup, education, interpretation, -- Identify habitat types warranting special and related projects in New York City and protection and restoration. Westchester County. -- Refine and augment the HEP-funded report on ACTION H-9.5 significant coastal habitats (see Action H-11.1 Availability of Habitat Report Given sufficient funds for production, HEP will below). provide copies of the USFWS report on regionally -- Identify priority sites for restoration and significant coastal habitats (see Action H-11.1 below) to libraries, local planners, and other interest acquisition. groups in the Harbor/Bight region. -- Evaluate enhancement and restoration
OBJECTIVE H-10 Complete ongoing research technologies. and initiate special studies on -- Estimate the cumulative impacts of individual habitat issues projects on the quantity and quality of existing habitats.
The CCMP contains recommendations and ACTION H-10.3 commitments to maintain, preserve, and restore Piers and Platforms Study habitat and living resources based on our current After years of sporadic studies, scientists still do understanding and knowledge of the regional not fully understand the effects of pile-supported ecosystem. At the same time, HEP recognizes that structures on the value of the habitat in the Harbor. this understanding is incomplete and must be HEP and NYSDEC collaborated with HRF, NMFS, supplemented by additional studies. Continued and Rutgers University to fund a research study to inventory and monitoring efforts will serve as a determine the effects of pile-supported structures critical link to allow for an adaptive management on the growth and survival of recently settled (i.e., approach to habitat improvement. juvenile) fishes, along the developed Hudson River shoreline. A two year study was conducted that ACTION H-10.1 included both fish trapping and holding fish in caged Identification of Significant Coastal Habitats enclosures to analyze growth. Results from the Given additional funding, HEP, acting through trapping study helped provide a synoptic picture of federal natural resources agencies and the states, habitat use at the selected sites; growth studies and in partnership with local stewardship groups, reflected variability in habitat quality. Though will conduct field studies and produce analysis is continuing, preliminary findings indicate documentation to develop a more comprehensive that underpier areas provide poor habitat for juvenile record of significant coastal habitats throughout the winter flounder and tautog, specifically, and Harbor/Bight region. For example, in New Jersey probably for most benthic fish, in general. this effort may enhance the Landscape Project (see Action H-11.2 below). -- HEP will convene a work group, consisting (at a minimum) of federal, state, county, and municipal ACTION H-10.2 agencies that have the authority to control Continuation of Studies on Aquatic and Coastal shoreline development, to develop Habitat Values recommendations to identify appropriate Federal and state agencies should fully evaluate data regulatory tools to manage habitat. gaps on the value of the existing aquatic and
HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES 41 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
-- USACE plans to extend this study to examine Coney Island) primarily, and, secondarily, along fish and wildlife use of abandoned and Long Island Sound and the south shore of Staten deteriorated structures, including pile fields and ship/barge "graveyards". The study will examine Island. the use and mitigation needs of areas in the -- USACE, in cooperation with local sponsors, will Arthur Kill and Kill Van Kull slated for potential continue to execute its responsibility regarding drift removal or stabilization under the Harbor beach erosion projects, including an assessment Drift Removal Program. of the habitat impacts of such projects, with -- HEP recommends appropriate follow up research appropriate remedial measures. to assess more fully the effects of piers, platforms, and pile fields on habitat quality. ACTION H-10.6 GIS Inventory of Habitats ACTION H-10.4 Building on existing efforts, HEP recommends that Assessment of Past Restoration Efforts federal and state agencies develop a Geographic HEP will review the success of past habitat Information System (GIS)-based inventory of restoration efforts in the Harbor/Bight system in Harbor/Bight habitats to aid in management order to develop appropriate criteria and protocols planning. The USFWS coastal habitat inventory for the selection of new projects -- with a maximum funded by HEP (see Action H-11.1 below) will be likelihood of success. the basis for the development of a GIS-based system. ACTION H-10.5 Investigation on Restoring Flood Plains and Erosion ACTION H-10.7 Areas Turbidity and Total Suspended Solids Studies Federal and state authorities should examine HEP recommends studies of the effects of total opportunities to restore natural flood plains, coastal suspended solids on water quality (e.g. clarity, erosion hazard areas, and other natural features and transparency) and on changes in physical functions that have been degraded by previous characteristics of aquatic sites due to sediment development. Federal actions will be guided, in deposition. These studies could be used to develop part, by Executive Order 11988, Floodplain strategies to improve habitat for rooted aquatic Management (May 24, 1977), which charges plants that require good water clarity, to enhance federal agencies to: 1) avoid floodplain habitat value for benthic organisms by providing development where practicable; 2) reduce flood more stable bottom sediments, and to produce a hazards; 3) minimize flood impacts on human side benefit of reducing the sedimentation rate in welfare; and 4) restore and preserve natural values areas requiring dredging. Improved water quality of floodplains. may also lead to greater algal growth; this relationship must be better understood. -- Consistent with the New York State Governor's Task Force Report, NYS will, given adequate funding, identify feasible opportunities and Geographically-targeted Special Efforts evaluate the cost effectiveness of buying out homeowners in disaster prone areas. OBJECTIVE H-11 Identify significant coastal -- New Jersey will update its existing shore habitats warranting enhanced protection master plan that addresses the protection and restoration restoration of flood plains and coastal erosion hazard areas. -- NYSDOS and USACE will implement a physical ACTION H-11.1 Significant Coastal Habitat Study coastal erosion monitoring program for the south shore of Long Island (from Montauk Point to
42 HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
HEP has funded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service mechanism to incorporate rare species habitat to produce a report, based on available information, protection into local land use planning. which identifies significant coastal habitats -- NJDEP will conduct the Landscape Project in two warranting special protection, summarizes their delineated areas, Cape May County and a small conservation status, and presents recommendations portion of the Passaic River watershed in the for their preservation and restoration. The northern Highlands region (e.g., Passaic, Morris, geographic extent of the report includes the entire Somerset, Hunterdon, and Sussex Counties). coastal watershed of New Jersey and Long Island NJDEP has committed $800,000 for these and the lower Hudson River watershed below the efforts. Troy Lock and Dam. Interim products that have -- With additional funding, NJDEP will conduct been completed include: mapping and rare species surveys, coordinate land management practices, and coordinate land $ Species of Special Emphasis in the New York use regulation and planning in the Harbor Estuary Bight Region, a comprehensive list of species and coastal Bight area in New Jersey. of special emphasis, including federal trust species, state species of concern, and an array ACTION H-11.3 of commercially, recreationally, or ecologically Inventory of Potential Habitat Restoration Projects important fish, wildlife, and plant species in the within Significant Regional Habitats project area; and HEP will, given sufficient funding, identify and $ a draft report on regionally significant coastal inventory sites within the designated boundaries of habitats. significant coastal habitats, as defined in the -- USFWS, with HEP review, will complete the USFWS report, which have physical and report on significant coastal habitats warranting institutional characteristics which indicate the special protection. potential for restoration of habitat values. Such -- HEP will supplement the USFWS report, as sites may include former landfills, industrial sites, appropriate, through additional studies identified and transport terminals. In developing the in Objective H-10, and through the New Jersey inventory, HEP will build on existing programs Landscape Project (see Action H-11.2 below), to including state priority lists. Note: HEP and others improve our understanding of habitats and the will also identify and implement restoration projects coastal ecosystem and to focus actions for their in other areas of the Harbor/Bight (see Action H- protection. 12.4 below).
ACTION H-11.2 ACTION H-11.4 New Jersey Landscape Project Protection of Locally Significant Habitats NJDEP is implementing a plan for the protection of Although HEP's focus has been on habitats of rare species in New Jersey, known as the regional significance, HEP recognizes the importance Landscape Project. This effort focuses on the of conserving habitats of local significance. There relationships between organisms and their are a number of areas in the Harbor core area that environment, emphasizing the larger region, or are fragments of formerly contiguous habitat areas, landscape, in which these communities occur. or that are recovering from previous intensive use. Although New Jersey has large parcels of public These sites may be vital to the overall Harbor land and strong regulatory protection, it recognizes ecosystem, either for their existing or potential that there are current weaknesses in the long term future values, in particular, collectively. preservation of rare species that the landscape project must address. These include: 1) -- HEP will identify and inventory sites using readily incomplete information on rare species occurrences available information. The USFWS report and an and habitat requirements; 2) fragmentation of effort being conducted by NJDEP's Division of habitats; 3) lack of coordinated land management Fish, Game, and Wildlife (see below) are among among governmental agencies; and 4) lack of a the information sources expected to be useful in
HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES 43 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
this effort. In addition, a number of such sites were brought to in the coastal zone, to the extent legally HEP's attention at recent public meetings. permissible and appropriate. -- The NJDEP Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife is conducting a Wildlife Assessment and Restoration Project (NJ WARP), which is a wildlife inventory of terrestrial and aquatic species in the bi-state tributaries of the Harbor core area. Data will be gathered from a variety of sources to be entered into NJDEP's computerized Geographic Information System and made available through OBJECTIVE H-12 Develop and implement NJDEP's Bureau of Geographic Information plans to protect and restore Analysis. The information will be used in natural significant coastal habitats and resources damages assessments and may also be impacted resources useful for identifying potential restoration projects in Harbor tributaries, such as the Rahway and There are a number of geographically-targeted Woodbridge Rivers and other Arthur Kill efforts underway within the Harbor/Bight region tributaries. that aim to promote coordinated and comprehensive -- HEP will seek opportunities to protect, enhance, planning, including the protection, acquisition, and and acquire such sites, using existing programs, restoration of natural habitats. Many of the authorities, and funding sources. This will be environmental protection goals of these planning done in coordination with affected state and local efforts support the HEP CCMP, and offer a ready- governments and local stewardship groups. made opportunity to implement CCMP goals and objectives at the local and sub-regional levels. ACTION H-11.5 Following are descriptions of a number of these Adjustment to Significant Habitat Designations ongoing planning efforts. Note that not all aspects within State Coastal Zone Boundaries of these plans have been reviewed by HEP nor have Based on the USFWS report, and other studies of they necessarily been endorsed by all HEP regionally and locally significant habitat, including participants. HEP does, however, hope to build on those noted above: these efforts and foster the implementation of aspects of the efforts which support HEP goals. -- NYSDOS will adjust its designation of significant Further review of these efforts, and initiation of coastal fish and wildlife habitats in the coastal new ones, will be part of HEP's continuing planning zone, as necessary. process. -- NJDEP will consider species and habitats recognized as significant by HEP (e.g., in the Jamaica Bay Significant Coastal Habitat Study) in agency regulatory reviews and special area designations shore of Long Island, lying primarily within the two New York City boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens. Hosting a population of 2 million people within a 5- mile radius, Jamaica Bay's wetlands and open water habitat has been reduced from 25,000 to 13,000 acres, including a 75 percent loss of wetlands. With these changes and population impacts, Jamaica Bay suffers from chronically degraded water quality. NYCDEP (with a Jamaica Bay Steering Committee) has prepared a draft Jamaica Bay is the westernmost bay on the south watershed management plan aimed both to protect
44 HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 the remaining natural habitats of the bay and to for Public Lands and the New York City Audubon reduce structural costs for water pollution Society, is named for a complex of heron nesting abatement by 50 percent ($1.1 billion vs. $2.2 colonies on three islands in the Arthur Kill. The billion for the structural alternative). Other plans for colonies are supported, in part, by foraging areas in this area which are more specifically targeted to the northwestern quadrant of Staten Island, an area habitat acquisition and restoration, and which are covering about 10 square miles. This habitat complementary to the watershed management plan, preservation plan identifies existing habitats are the Buffer the Bay initiative and the New York important to the nesting herons and other urban State Jamaica Bay Restoration Plan. New York wildlife, as well as the conservation status of those State has made Jamaica Bay a priority area for habitats. Of particular importance are more than environmental restoration. The U.S. National Park 1,000 acres of tidal and freshwater wetlands within Service has significant ownership and management the study area. Recommendations are being responsibility for the lands and waters of Jamaica implemented by the New York-New Jersey Harbor Bay pursuant to the establishment of the Gateway Spill Restoration Committee. To date, 26 acres in National Recreation Area in 1972. the vicinity of Goethals Bridge Pond, a critical wetland area, have been acquired and salt marshes Hackensack Meadowlands along the Arthur Kill have been restored.
The Hackensack Meadowlands District is a 32 The Greenways to the Arthur Kill project, square mile area covering portions of 14 coordinated by the New Jersey Conservation municipalities in Bergen and Hudson Counties, New Foundation, encompasses the entire New Jersey Jersey. The resident population of the District is watershed of the Arthur Kill, an area of about 130 slightly over 15,000, with close to 2 million people square miles, including six tributary rivers and living in the immediately surrounding areas. The creeks. The watershed has 690,000 residents Meadowlands, once an almost unbroken expanse of which, at a density of 5,300 per square mile, is coastal wetlands, has suffered at least a 50 percent nearly five times the density for New Jersey as a loss of those wetlands and severe alteration and whole, the nation's most densely populated state. degradation of most of the remaining wetlands. Although heavily developed, the watershed retains a However, of the remaining undeveloped areas large amount of varied and valuable wildlife habitat, within the District, approximately 8,000 acres are including wetlands, floodplain and swamp forests, wetlands; these remaining wetlands are under and upland forests. Some of these habitats are substantial development pressure. protected in county and municipal parks, but many are fragmented pieces of an urban and suburban The Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) is an landscape. interagency environmental initiative among USACE, USEPA, NOAA, HMDC, and NJDEP, which targets The focus of the Greenways Plan is to protect the pollution remediation, natural resource protection, stream corridors for their values related to water and reasonable economic growth in the District. quality, flood prevention, natural habitat, public recreation, and aesthetics, all of which provide Harbor Herons/Greenways to the Arthur Kill economic benefits to the watershed communities. Portions of this plan are also being implemented The Harbor Herons Project and the Greenways to through the New York-New Jersey Harbor Spill the Arthur Kill are two independent, but compatible, Restoration Committee. habitat management strategies for opposite sides of the Arthur Kill, a bi-state Harbor waterway Barnegat Bay separating New Jersey from Staten Island, New York. Barnegat Bay, a 75 square mile back bay ecosystem, is an environmentally sensitive estuary, The Harbor Herons Project, an effort of the Trust replete with aquatic vegetation, shellfish beds,
HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES 45 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 finfish habitats, waterfowl nesting grounds, and One of the more recent regional planning efforts in scenic vistas. Yet the Bay is relatively shallow the Harbor/Bight area is the Long Island South throughout, with slow mixing and flushing. The Shore Estuarine Reserve. Similar to Barnegat Bay, Bay drains a coastal watershed of approximately Long Island's South Shore Bays have had 450 square miles, parts of which contain densely tremendous population growth over the last 40 developed residential areas. The watershed is home years; in fact, the majority of Long Island's 2.6 for nearly 450,000 residents, and this population million residents are located in close proximity to doubles during the summer season. the South Shore. Water quality impairments are severe in some areas, and most of the coastal Recent (post-1950) and continuing land use habitat, including at least 30 percent of historic tidal changes are causing significant degradation of wetlands, has been lost. This effort, to be Barnegat Bay water quality, which stimulated the patterned after the National Estuary Program, is in New Jersey State Legislature to initiate the Barnegat the first phase of a two-phase planning effort. Bay Study. The study resulted in the Barnegat Bay Watershed Management Plan in 1992, which Actions to protect, preserve, and restore habitat provides a series of actions to preserve the values areas and values have a number of potential funding and resources of Barnegat Bay. Most recently, sources, including the following: Barnegat Bay has been accepted into the National Estuary Program, and a separate CCMP will be Section 1135 of the Water Resources Development developed for the Bay over the next three years. Act (WRDA) of 1986
Hudson River Estuary Section 1135 of WRDA (1986), Section 204 of WRDA (1993), and various project-specific In 1987, the New York State Legislature passed the authorizations allow the USACE to study and Hudson River Estuary Management Act, which implement habitat restoration measures in areas directed NYSDEC to develop a management previously impacted by water resources projects. program for the estuary and its shoreline. The Federal funds are cost-shared with state and local purpose of the program is better coordination of sponsors to plan, design, and construct habitat management activities both within the Department restoration projects employing the broad principles as well as with other government agencies of ecosystem-based planning. Many areas responsible for the estuary's resources. NYSDEC is throughout the Harbor and Bight have been issuing the final Hudson River Estuary Management adversely impacted by federal water resources Plan and an Action Plan which highlights priority projects and could be eligible for funding through actions. The Action Plan contains commitments this program. Currently, the USACE is negotiating and recommendations for water quality with NYSDEC, NYSDOS, and NYCDEP to initiate improvement, management of water resources, detailed studies for restoration projects within the protection of biodiversity and habitat, open space lower Hudson River and in Jamaica Bay. management, monitoring, and other concerns. Natural Resources Damages Assessment Accounts Long Island South Shore Reserve
refinery in the Arthur Kill, is administered by a committee of two federal agencies, the U.S. Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic Several enforcement actions in the Harbor region and Atmospheric Administration; two states, New have resulted in natural resources damages York and New Jersey; and New York City (New assessment accounts that can be used for natural York-New Jersey Harbor Spill Restoration resources protection and restoration. One account, Committee), which is developing a plan known as resulting from a 1990 oil spill at the Exxon Bayway the Natural Resources Restoration Plan for Oil and
46 HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 Chemical Releases in the New York-New Jersey ACTION H-12.3 Harbor Estuary. Another account will help Special Efforts to Restore Habitat and Improve remediate environmental damage in Jamaica Bay Water Quality in Jamaica Bay and areas of Staten Island and the Bronx affected by illegal dumping at sanitary landfills. A third -- New York City Audubon Society, with a fund, the New York City Environmental Fund, will demonstration project grant from HEP, has support public education and outreach efforts, undertaken a coastal habitat restoration project at natural resource restoration, and grass roots Dubos Point Wetlands Sanctuary and Bayswater environmental improvement projects (see Action H- State Park, along the southern shoreline of 9.4). Jamaica Bay. The project accomplished the following tasks: trash and debris removal; ACTION H-12.1 removal of concrete and rubble; security fencing Incorporation of Recommendations into CCMP to protect nesting terrapins and birds; vegetation Implementation Schedule control to favor native species; community HEP will independently review the recommendations education activities; monitoring surveys of birds, of ongoing geographically- targeted efforts, which marine invertebrates, plankton, butterflies, seek the preservation and restoration of habitat and dragonflies, flora, and water quality; and photo living resources, and recommend their documentation. implementation by appropriate members of HEP. -- NYSDEC will develop a habitat restoration plan to use approximately $8 million available from a -- HEP will complete an expedited review of NYC=s successful natural resources damages claim to Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan and support special efforts to restore habitat in other Jamaica Bay initiatives (e.g., see Action H- Jamaica Bay. Pelham Bay in the Bronx and Staten 12.3 below). Island are also sites eligible for restoration funding. ACTION H-12.2 -- New York City will finalize an agreement with Additional Geographically-targeted Plans USACE for a cost-shared feasibility study to HEP will ensure the development and investigate alternatives and develop detailed plans implementation of additional geographically- targeted to implement a habitat restoration project for plans. Jamaica Bay, including measures to address water quality problems related to poor flushing -- Upon completion of the HEP-sponsored USFWS and other hydrological alterations. NYSDEC is report on significant coastal habitats, HEP will cooperating in the feasibility study and will cost- identify priority areas warranting protection share (with the $8 million in settlement funds) in beyond the focused application of existing the construction of recommended habitat programs. restoration plans, making it a comprehensive and -- HEP will coordinate with the New York-New integrated federal, state, and local effort. Jersey Harbor Spill Restoration Committee Natural n NYSDEC will seek an agreement with USACE, Resources Restoration Plan for Chemical Releases NYCDEP, and the U.S. National Park Service in the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary. Gateway National Recreation Area to develop a -- HEP will seek state and local sponsors for the comprehensive Jamaica Bay Plan to integrate all development and implementation of activities associated with water quality geographically-targeted plans for priority habitat improvement; habitat protection, restoration, areas. and acquisition; public access; and educational -- HEP will evaluate the extent to which additional opportunities. (Note: HEP will complete an measures are necessary to protect significant expedited review of Jamaica Bay initiatives as upland habitats. stated in Action H-12.1).
HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES 47 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
ACTION H-12.4 Hudson River Restoration Efforts USACE, in cooperation with NYSDEC and NYSDOS, has prepared a reconnaissance report
48 HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 recommending priority habitat restoration sites and studies targeting Jamaica Bay and the Hudson goals for the Hudson River Estuary. River, consideration is being given to the Hackensack and Raritan Rivers, the Arthur Kill, -- USACE, with the cooperation of NYSDEC and Raritan Bay, and Moriches and Great South Bays NYSDOS, will finalize a plan of study that will on Long Island. lead to a cost-shared feasibility study to -- USACE, in cooperation with NYSDEC, NYSDOS, investigate restoration alternatives and develop NJDEP, and other federal, state, and local detailed plans to implement recommended habitat resource and planning/regulatory agencies, will restoration measures throughout the lower river, continue to evaluate habitat restoration as part of from Troy to New York City. ongoing studies under Section 216 of the River -- Following the feasibility study, the three agencies and Harbor and Flood Control Act, as well as will enter into a cost-share agreement to fund Sections 306 and 307 of WRDA, 1990. construction of recommended measures. Restoration opportunities will be identified, cost estimates will be developed, and local non-federal ACTION H-12.5 cost-sharing partners will be sought to implement Habitat Acquisition and Restoration Projects these measures as part of, or independently of, Appropriate federal and state agencies will identify the ongoing study. and facilitate the implementation of habitat -- HEP will coordinate with the New York-New acquisition and restoration projects, with priority Jersey Harbor Spill Restoration Committee Natural given to projects that: Resources Restoration Plan for Oil and Chemical Releases in the New York-New Jersey Harbor $ Provide maximum ecosystem benefits, based Estuary for qualifying habitat acquisition and restoration projects. on research results. $ Can be accomplished largely through the ACTION H-12.6 Public Private Partnerships restoration of natural coastal processes (e.g., HEP recommends the establishment of a mechanism restoring tidal flow, shoaling of dredged areas, for public/private partnerships to preserve and restore habitat. An ecosystem-based Harbor allowing natural plant succession). Habitat Conservancy could be incorporated within $ Can be implemented as part of urban/suburban appropriate local conservancies, such as the Hackensack River Land Conservancy, to negotiate redevelopment efforts. appropriate techniques to preserve the significant -- HEP will identify potential habitat restoration habitats identified by USFWS. The Conservancy projects and techniques, encourage entities with would work cooperatively with existing agencies regulatory authority to implement the projects, and organizations to develop funding and support and facilitate implementation. to implement local conservancies. -- HEP will encourage use of funds available through the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency ACTION H-12.7 Act (ISTEA) program to implement appropriate Amendment to New York Open Space Plan for habitat restoration (see Action SW-1.5). Habitat Acquisition -- USACE will continue to seek funding under NYSDEC, in consultation with its Region II Open Section 1135 (WRDA, 1986) and Section 204 Space Acquisition Committee, will amend, as (WRDA, 1992), as well as individual project appropriate, the acquisition recommendations of authorizations, to implement habitat restoration the New York State Open Space Plan to include measures in areas adversely impacted by past newly identified, significant habitats. water resources projects. In addition to the ACTION H-12.8 NJDEP will seek opportunities for acquisition of Acquisition of Habitats in New Jersey significant upland habitats (e.g., areas within the
HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES 49 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 Rahway River watershed). The Habitat and Living Resources component of the CCMP also includes 23 significant commitments ACTION H-12.9 and recommendations that entail enhanced program Restoring and/or Increasing Land and Water funding. As shown in Table 3(hc) below: Conservation Funds HEP advocates the funding of federal and New York Ë The Plan includes 7 actions for which a total of State land and water conservation funds, which $6,995,500 has been committed by the could be used for implementation of protection and restoration projects or elements of the regional responsible entities. strategy (see Objective H-1). Ë The Plan includes 13 actions for which increased COSTS OF IMPLEMENTING THIS PLAN funding of $1,073,900 plus $550,000 per year is recommended. Many of the commitments and recommendations in the Habitat and Living Resources component of the Ë The Plan also includes three additional CCMP can be accomplished through the effective recommendations for action for which cost use of base program resources. In fact, full estimates will be developed during the continuing implementation of the CCMP relies, in large part, on planning process. continued operation, and funding at current levels, of existing programs to meet habitat and living This CCMP component includes 16 additional resources needs. The Habitat and Living Resources actions that require implementation costs for special component of the CCMP describes 41 new HEP- projects. As shown in Table 4(hc) below: driven commitments to be accomplished using base program resources. Ë The Plan includes 5 actions for which a total of $15,596,000 has been committed by the These actions represent a major commitment to CCMP implementation. responsible entities. Ë The Plan includes 2 additional actions for which a total of $500,000 plus $1 million per year are recommended. Ë The Plan includes 9 additional commitments and recommendations for action for which cost estimates will be developed during the continuing planning process.
50 HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP NCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 Table 3(hc). Enhanced Program Costs for Management of Habitat and Living Resources
ACTION COMMITMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS
Cost Cost/Year Cost Cost/Year
ACTION H-2.1 Enhance pilot project for Whippany River sediment control. $100,000
ACTION H-2.5 Encourage watershed planning at the local level. $50,000
ACTION H-6.3 Conduct/expand educational efforts to reduce human disturbance to habitats. $15,000 $10,000
ACTION H-7.5: Enhance natural resources inventories. *
ACTION H-8.1: Enforce public access programs. $150,000
ACTION H-8.2: Produce Hudson River Public Access Guide. $32,500
ACTION H-8.2: Produce additional public access guides. $50,000
ACTION H-9.1: Distribute Habitat Options Guide. $18,900
ACTION H-9.2: Initiate pilot programs for habitat restoration. $100,000
ACTION H-9.4: Provide environmental education and stewardship grants through the NYC Environmental Fund. $5,000,000
ACTION H-9.5: Distribute USFWS report on coastal habitats. $25,000
ACTION H-10.1: Continue habitat inventory field studies. $150,000
ACTION H-10.2: Continue studies of coastal habitat values. $100,000
ACTION H-10.3: Complete study of piers/platforms habitat value. $208,000
ACTION H-10.3: Continue research on piers/platforms habitat value. *
ACTION H-10.5: Investigate flood plain and coastal erosion area restoration. $50,000
ACTION H-10.5: Implement coastal erosion monitoring program for Long Island. $1,400,000
ACTION H-10.6: Develop GIS inventory of habitats. $200,000
ACTION H-10.7: Study effects of total suspended solids. *
ACTION H-11.1: Identify habitats warranting special protection. $240,000
ACTION H-11.2: Conduct NJ Landscape Project. $670,000
ACTION H-11.3: Identify and inventory potential habitat restoration projects. $50,000
1 TOTAL $6,995,500 $550,000/yr $1,073,900+*
HABITAT* ANDEnhanced LIVING program RESOURCES costs to be developed as part of the continuing planning process. 51 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP NCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
52 HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP NCLUDING THE BIGHTTable RESTORATION 4(hc). ProjectPLAN Implementation Costs for Management of Habitat and Living ResourcesMarch 1996
ACTION COMMITMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS
Cost Cost/Year Cost Cost/Year ACTION H-2.1: Implement full-scale project for Whippany River sediment control. $500,000 ACTION H-2.2: Implement full-scale project for Hudson sub-basin or Bronx sediment control. * ACTION H-2.4: Implement watershed protection in Staten Island (NYC). $6 million ACTION H-2.6: Implement projects using non-structural means to reduce runoff. * ACTION H-7.3: Support Baykeeper to restore spawning habitat.** $170,000 ACTION H-7.3: Implement additional fishery habitat restoration. * ACTION H-8.1: Implement existing public access programs. * ACTION H-8.3: Provide public access infrastructure. * ACTION H-12.3: Implement restoration in Jamaica Bay. -- HEP grant to NYC Audubon. $26,000 -- NYSDEC natural resources damages account. $8 million -- NYC cost-share to federal, state, local projects. * ACTION H-12.4: Implement restoration in Hudson River. * ACTION H-12.5: Use available federal funding for restoration (e.g., Section 1135 of WRDA, ISTEA). * -- Coordinate with natural resources damages accounts for qualifying projects. * ACTION H-12.8: Implement upland habitat protection/acquisition. $1,400,000 ACTION H-12.9: Revive land and water conservation funds. $1 million
1 1 TOTAL $1,000,000/yr $15,596,000+* $500,000+*
* Project implementation costs to be developed as part of the continuing planning process. ** Project is incrementally funded; commitments for full project funding have not yet been acquired. 1 Notation (+*) indicates cost plus additional costs to be determined.
HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES 53 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP NCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
54 HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 BENEFITS OF IMPLEMENTING THIS PLAN Ë incremental progress toward ecosystem goals on a system-wide basis; and Full implementation of the commitments and recommendations in the Habitat and Living Ë restoration and protection of selected ecosystem Resources component of the Plan, including the components and habitat types. development and implementation of a comprehensive regional strategy, would result in This effort will foster the consideration of ecosystem needs at every level of government and Ë the preservation and restoration of the region's among the public so that the economic progress of the region no longer comes at the expense of the ecosystem; natural ecosystem. Quantifiable benefits of the Ë effective management of living resources; measures identified in this Plan must be identified on a case-by-case basis and in consideration of Ë regulation and minimization of erosion and past, present, and future impacts of human activity sedimentation; and in the region. It is important to recognize that many of the benefits of ecosystem protection are Ë enhanced opportunities for public access and non-quantifiable and range from aesthetic coastal recreation. considerations to the maintenance of a healthful environment for the human population. As noted in the opening part of this section, however, we are a long way from reaching these endpoints. Nevertheless, through the focused application of existing programs and the geographic targeting of habitat areas for special protection, the Program will achieve:
HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES 55 Table 5(hs). SummaryCC Management of Habitat and Living Resources
ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2
OBJECTIVE H-1: Develop a comprehensive regional strategy to protect the Harbor/Bight watershed and to mitigate continuing adverse human- induced impacts.
ACTION H-1.1: Develop a comprehensive regional HEP, USACE, USEPA, Draft: Dec 1996 Base program C/N strategy. (Note: In developing the strategy, HEP will NOAA, USFWS, Final: June 1997 need to involve other agencies and local/county NYSDEC, NYSDOS, governments, in addition to those listed. HEP will NJDEP, NYC work to gain the commitment of these entities.)
ACTION H-1.2: Foster information transfer and tools HEP & NJDEP Ongoing Base program C/N to enhance and encourage watershed planning.
-- Establish a watershed planning coordinating HEP, including NJDEP Feb 1996 Base program C/N subcommittee of the Habitat Work Group.
-- Conduct workshops and meetings with local HEP, acting through the Beginning Base program C/N governments and grassroots watershed planning Feb 1996 organizations. coordinating subcommittee & NJDEP
-- Develop pilot projects for integrated watershed HEP, acting through the Dec 1996 Base program C/N planning. watershed planning coordinating subcommittee & NJDEP
ACTION H-1.3: Seek establishment of memoranda HEP By Dec 31, 1997 Base program C/N of understanding, or other formal mechanisms, among agencies to implement recommendations, to
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant.
2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2 the extent legally permissible and appropriate.
OBJECTIVE H-2: Control point and non-point loadings of pollutants.
ACTION H-2.1: Minimize sediment export from the Whippany River Basin through NJ pilot project.
-- Develop pilot project. NJDEP Jun 30,1996 Base program C/N
-- Enhance pilot project. NJDEP Jun 30, 1996 Enhanced program C/N cost - $100,000
-- Implement full scale project. NJDEP By Dec 31, 1998 Project R implementation cost - $500,000
ACTION H-2.2: Minimize sediment export from a sub-watershed of the Hudson River or in the Bronx through NY pilot project.
-- Select pilot project. NYSDEC Jun 1996 Base program C/N
-- Develop and conduct pilot project. NYSDEC Jun 1997 Base program C/N
-- Implement full scale project. NYSDEC By Dec 31, 1997 Project R implementation cost to be estimated by NYSDEC in 1996
ACTION H-2.3: Building upon the state pilot projects HEP Post-CCMP Base program C/N and programs, develop a targeted basin-wide program to minimize sediment transport to the Harbor Estuary.
ACTION H-2.4: Invest in watershed protection to NYCDEP By Dec 31, 1996 Project C/O minimize impacts from development in Staten Island. implementation cost - $6 million over 3 yrs ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2
ACTION H-2.5: Minimize runoff associated with development through local watershed planning.
-- Coordinate watershed planning with local Monmouth County, Ongoing Base program C/O governments. Regional planning (NJDEP has provided councils $100,000 in base program funding to Monmouth County for its watershed management planning.)
-- Seek funding to encourage watershed planning HEP Post-CCMP Enhanced program R regionwide at the local level. cost - $50,000/yr
ACTION H-2.6: Encourage the use of non-structural, low-tech, and low maintenance means to reduce runoff and pollution associated with environmentally responsible projects.
-- Develop projects. HEP Ongoing through Base program C/N Dec 1996
-- Implement projects. HEP & other sponsors Beginning by Project R Dec 31, 1996 implementation cost estimate to be developed
OBJECTIVE H-3: Manage coastal development.
ACTION H-3.1: Develop and utilize regional coastal management plans and programs.
-- Develop regional plan for New York City. NYSDOS & local By Dec 31, 1996 Base program C/N
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant.
2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2 governments
-- Develop regional plan for the Long Island South NYSDOS By Dec 31, 1997 Base program C/O Shore.
-- Utilize elements of coastal program to manage NJDEP Ongoing Base program C/O growth.
-- Coordinate ongoing planning efforts, promote NYSDOS & NYSDEC Ongoing Base program C/O conservation of natural resources, and encourage redevelopment in areas where infrastructure is in place.
-- Coordinate ongoing planning efforts, steer NJDEP Ongoing Base program C/O development and redevelopment toward areas with existing infrastructure, and promote conservation of the region=s natural resources.
-- Consider HEP issues in commenting on the USEPA Ongoing Base program C/O environmental impacts of federal actions in the Harbor/Bight area.
ACTION H-3.2: Ensure that Significant coastal NYSDEC, NYSDOS, Ongoing Base program C/O habitats are afforded protection through the NJDEP consistency review process of the Coastal Zone Management Program.
ACTION H-3.3: Encourage and support local NYSDOS & NJDEP Ongoing Base program C/O comprehensive plans for habitat protection.
ACTION H-3.4: Identify projects and issues requir- HEP Ongoing Base program C/N ing regional cooperation; facilitate cooperation.
OBJECTIVE H-4: Manage shoreline and aquatic habitat modifications.
ACTION H-4.1: Develop memoranda of agreement, USEPA, USACE, By Dec 31, 1996 Base program C/N ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2 as legally permissible and appropriate, to coordinate NYSDOS, NYSDEC, surveillance, inspection, permitting, and enforcement NJDEP activities in tidal wetlands.
ACTION H-4.2: Ensure regulation of proposed actions involving less than one acre of fill in freshwater wetlands.
-- Consider issuing individual water quality NYSDEC Ongoing Base program R certificates for projects that affect <1 acre of freshwater wetlands.
-- Consider development of water quality standards NYSDEC Ongoing Base program C/N for projects affecting wetlands.
-- Take steps to improve protection of Hudson River NYSDEC, through Ongoing Base program C/O freshwater wetlands. Hudson River Estuary Mgmt. Program
-- Require individual reviews of general permits for NJDEP Ongoing Base program C/O projects that affect <1 acre of non-tidal wetlands.
-- Amend the NYS freshwater wetlands law to NY government By Dec 31, 1996 Base program R cover wetlands less than 12.4 acres.
ACTION H-4.3: Use existing authorities to regulate NYSDEC & NJDEP Ongoing Base program C/N activities in upland buffer areas that impact adjacent wetlands.
ACTION H-4.4: Ensure that actions impacting HEP, NYSDEC, NYSDOS, Ongoing Base program C/N habitat in the Harbor core area, in the aggregate, NJDEP result in a net increase in the acreage and quality of aquatic habitat, where feasible and appropriate. Emphasize key habitat types such as submerged
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant.
2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2 aquatic vegetation.
OBJECTIVE H-5: Maintain healthy estuarine conditions by managing freshwater inputs.
ACTION H-5.1: Consider impacts of freshwater NYSDEC & NJDEP Post-CCMP Base program R withdrawals and other hydrologic changes on estuarine salinity.
ACTION H-5.2: Continue to implement water NYSDEC, NYCDEP, Ongoing Base program C/O conservation programs. NJDEP, local NJ authorities
OBJECTIVE H-6: Minimize human disturbance of natural habitats.
ACTION H-6.1: Sponsor workshops to encourage HEP By Dec 31, 1996 Base program C/N federal, state, and local land management agencies, other appropriate agencies, and other large land owners to protect habitat values.
ACTION H-6.2: Protect vulnerable beach-nesting and coastal species.
-- Monitor and protect federally-listed beach-nesting USFWS, USDOI/NPS, Ongoing Base program C/O and coastal species populations. NMFS
-- Incorporate enhancement into coastal civil works USACE, with local Ongoing Base program, plus C/O projects. sponsors project-specific enhancements by local sponsors
-- Protect coastal species from Sandy Hook to Cape NJDEP Ongoing Base program C/O May, NJ.
-- Protect coastal species along Long Island shore. NYSDEC Ongoing Base program C/O
-- Protect coastal species in NYC. NYCDPR, USDOI/NPS, Ongoing Base program C/O NYCDEP, NYSDEC ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2 ACTION H-6.3: Conduct and expand educational efforts to reduce human disturbance to coastal species.
-- Conduct planned course on environmental NYSDEC & Coney Island Ongoing Base program C/O sensitivity. Aquarium
-- Extend course to children. NYSDEC, Coney Island Mar 1996 Enhanced program C/N Aquarium, YMCA cost - $15,000
-- Seek additional funding to expand the course to a NYSDEC, Coney Island Beginning by Enhanced program R wider audience. Aquarium Dec 31, 1996 cost - $10,000
-- Encourage additional efforts to promote HEP Beginning by Base program C/N environmental sensitivity to coastal Dec 31, 1996 species.
OBJECTIVE H-7: Preserve and improve fish, wildlife, and plant populations and biodiversity.
ACTION H-7.1: Develop statewide database of fish NYSDEC Ongoing Base program C/O and wildlife populations through the Biodiversity Research Institute.
ACTION H-7.2: Comply with and implement fisheries management plans.
-- Maintain full compliance with plans approved by NYSDEC & NJDEP Ongoing Base program C/O ASMFC.
-- Implement measures compatible with federal NOAA, NYSDEC, NJDEP Ongoing Base program C/O plans approved by USDOC.
ACTION H-7.3: Support efforts to restore anadromous spawning fishery habitat.
-- Support Harbor Baykeeper efforts in NJ HEP & Harbor Baykeeper Ongoing Project C/N
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant.
2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2 tributaries and Staten Island, NY. implementation cost - $170,000 over 2 yrs (includes $26,000 commitment of HEP funds)
-- Identify additional projects. HEP Completed Base program C/N
-- Implement additional projects. To be determined Post-CCMP Project R implementation costs to be estimated by Dec 1996
ACTION H-7.4: Implement the North American Private, local, state, Ongoing Base program C/O Waterfowl Management Plan. federal interests
ACTION H-7.5: Support natural resources inventories.
-- Maintain funding levels for natural heritage NY & NJ Ongoing Base program C/O programs.
-- Investigate opportunities to enhance other natural HEP Ongoing Base program C/N resources inventory programs, and encourage natural heritage programs to include greater coverage of marine systems and species.
ACTION H-7.6: Conduct agency regulatory reviews.
-- Consider significant HEP species and habitats in USEPA, USACE, Post-CCMP Base program C/N regulatory reviews. NYSDEC, NYSDOS, NYC Dept. of City Planning
-- Consider significant HEP species and habitats in NJDEP Post-CCMP Base program C/N regulatory reviews, to the extent legally ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2 permissible and appropriate.
ACTION H-7.7: Implement artificial reef programs. NY & NJ Ongoing Base program C/O
OBJECTIVE H-8: Increase appropriate public access.
ACTION H-8.1: Federal, state, and local governments should implement existing programs to ensure improved public access.
-- Fully implement existing projects. Federal, state, & local Ongoing Project R governments; regulated implementation costs community to be developed
-- Identify additional projects, as necessary. HEP Beginning Base program C/N Feb 1996
-- Enhance enforcement of existing regulatory State & local Post-CCMP Enhanced program R programs. governments costs - $150,000/yr
ACTION H-8.2: Develop public access guides.
-- Develop guide for Hudson Waterfront Walkway. NJDEP Completed Enhanced program C/N cost - $32,500
-- Develop guides for Harbor/Bight system. NYSDEC & NJDEP By Dec 31, 1996 Enhanced program R cost - $50,000
ACTION H-8.3: Develop infrastructure necessary to NY, NJ, local By Dec 31, 1997 Project R support public access. governments implementation costs to be developed
ACTION H-8.4: Implement waterfront zoning NYC Dept. of City Completed Base program C/O regulations mandating public access via waterfront Planning paths, upland connections, and view corridors.
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant.
2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2 OBJECTIVE H-9: Increase public education, stewardship, and involvement on issues related to management of habitat and living resources.
ACTION H-9.1: Develop and distribute a "Habitat Options Guide".
-- Develop guide. HEP By Dec 31, 1996 Base program C/N
-- Distribute guide. HEP By Dec 31, 1996 Enhanced program R cost - $18,900
-- Sponsor workshops to ensure exposure to guide. HEP By Dec 31, 1996 Base program C/N
ACTION H-9.2: Educate the public on the impacts of lifestyle on habitat and living resources.
-- Encourage local user groups and educational NYSDEC, NYSDOS, Post-CCMP Base program R institutions to develop education NJDEP, local programs. governments
-- Initiate pilot programs to conduct habitat NYSDEC, NYSDOS, Post-CCMP Enhanced program R enhancement or restoration activities. NJDEP cost - $100,000/yr
-- Support citizens habitat "watchdog" groups. HEP, USEPA, USACE, Post-CCMP Base program R NOAA, NYSDEC, NYSDOS, NJDEP
ACTION H-9.3: Encourage the integration of habitat NY & NJ Post-CCMP Base program R educational materials into local school curricula.
ACTION H-9.4: Program New York City Environmental Fund for public education/outreach.
-- Provide grants to support environmental NYSDEC & Hudson River Apr 1996 Enhanced program C/N education and stewardship. Foundation cost - $5 million
ACTION H-9.5: Provide copies of the USFWS report HEP Mar 1996 Enhanced program R on aquatic and coastal habitat values to libraries and cost - $25,000 other interested parties in the Harbor/Bight area. ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2
OBJECTIVE H-10: Complete ongoing research and initiate special studies on habitat issues.
ACTION H-10.1: Continue field studies to develop a HEP, USFWS, NYSDEC, Post-CCMP Enhanced program R comprehensive record of coastal habitats throughout NJDEP, NOAA/NMFS cost - $150,000/yr the Harbor/Bight region.
ACTION H-10.2: Continue studies on coastal and USEPA, USACE, NOAA, Post-CCMP Enhanced program R aquatic habitat values. NYSDEC, NYSDOS, cost - $100,000/yr NJDEP
ACTION H-10.3: Continue assessment of the habitat values of piers and platforms.
-- Complete 2-yr study of effects of piers and NYSDEC & HEP Completed Enhanced program C/N platforms. cost - $208,000
-- Continue research effort, as appropriate. HEP Post-CCMP Enhanced program R cost to be determined
-- Convene a work group consisting (at a minimum) HEP By Dec 31, 1996 Base program C/N of federal, state, and local authorities that have authority to control shoreline development.
-- Develop recommendations. HEP Jul 1996 Base program C/N
-- Examine fish and wildlife use of abandoned USACE Ongoing Base program C/N shoreline structures within reviews for harbor drift removal projects.
ACTION H-10.4: Assess the success of past habitat HEP By Dec 31, 1996 Base program C/N restoration efforts.
ACTION H-10.5: Investigate feasibility of restoring
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant.
2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2 flood plains and coastal erosion hazard areas.
-- Identify feasible opportunities and evaluate the NYS By Dec 31, 1996 Enhanced program R cost effectiveness of buying out cost - $50,000 homeowners in disaster prone areas.
-- Develop a shore protection master plan that will NJDEP Sep 30, 1996 Base program C/O address the restoration of flood plains and coastal erosion hazard areas.
-- Implement a physical coastal erosion monitoring NYSDOS & USACE Ongoing through Enhanced program C/O program for the south shore of Long 2001 cost - $1.4 million Island.
ACTION H-10.6: Building on existing efforts, HEP & appropriate By Dec 31, 1996 Enhanced program R develop GIS-based inventory of Harbor/Bight federal and state cost - $200,000 habitats. agencies
ACTION H-10.7: Study effects of turbidity and total HEP Jun 1996 Enhanced program R suspended solids. costs to be estimated by Jun 1996
OBJECTIVE H-11: Identify significant coastal habitats warranting enhanced protection and restoration.
ACTION H-11.1: Prepare a report of regionally USFWS Draft report: Enhanced program C/N significant coastal habitats warranting special Completed cost - $240,000 protection. Final report: Apr 1996
ACTION H-11.2: Implement New Jersey Landscape Project.
-- Conduct project in Cape May County and NJDEP Cape May - Base program C/O Highlands region. Dec 1997; Highlands - Jun 2000 ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2
-- Conduct project in NJ Harbor/Bight area excluding NJDEP Jun 1997 Enhanced program R Cape May and Highlands. cost - $270,000
-- Coordinate land management practices in NJDEP Beginning by Enhanced program R Harbor/Bight. Dec 31, 1996 cost - $200,000
-- Coordinate land use regulation and planning in NJDEP Beginning by Enhanced program R Harbor/Bight in NJ. Dec 31, 1996 cost - $200,000
ACTION H-11.3: Identify and inventory potential HEP Jun 1997 Enhanced program R habitat restoration projects within the boundaries of cost - $50,000 significant coastal habitats as defined in the USFWS report.
ACTION H-11.4: Identify and protect locally significant habitats in the Harbor area.
-- Identify sites using readily available information. HEP Dec 1995 and Base program C/N continuing
-- Conduct Wildlife Assessment and Restoration NJDEP Ongoing Base program C/O Project (NJ WARP).
-- Seek opportunities to protect, enhance, and HEP Beginning by Base program C/N acquire sites. Mar 1996
ACTION H-11.5: Based upon report, adjust NYSDOS & NYSDEC By Dec 31, 1996 Base program C/N designation of significant coastal habitats, as appropriate. NJDEP By Dec 31, 1999 Base program C/N
OBJECTIVE H-12: Develop and implement plans to protect and restore significant coastal habitats and impacted resources.
ACTION H-12.1: Review ongoing geographically HEP Ongoing; Complete Base program C/N targeted initiatives and incorporate them in the Jun 1997 CCMP, as appropriate.
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant.
2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2
-- Complete expedited review of NYC=s HEP Dec 1996 Base program C/N Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan and other Jamaica Bay Initiatives
ACTION H-12.2: Ensure the development and implementation of geographically targeted plans.
-- Identify priority areas warranting protection HEP Mar 1996 Base program C/N beyond focused application of existing programs.
-- Seek sponsors to develop and implement plans for HEP Post-CCMP Base program C/N priority habitat areas.
-- Evaluate the extent to which additional measures HEP Post-CCMP Base program C/N are necessary to protect significant upland habitats.
ACTION H-12.3: Implement special efforts to restore habitat and improve water quality in Jamaica Bay.
-- Support NYC Audubon Restoration Project. HEP Completed Enhanced program C/N cost - $26,000
-- Develop and implement habitat restoration plan. NYSDEC Initiated 1994 Project C/O implementation cost - $8 million
-- Develop and implement cooperative USACE, NYSDEC, Initiated Project C/N comprehensive restoration plan. NYCDEP Dec 1995 implementation cost to be determined
-- Seek agreement to develop a comprehensive NYSDEC working with Ongoing Base program C/N Jamaica Bay Plan to integrate all USACE, NYCDEP & activities associated with water quality USDOI/NPS, Gateway improvement; habitat protection, NRA ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2 restoration, and acquisition; public access; and educational opportunities.
ACTION H-12.4: Implement Hudson River USACE, NYSDEC, By Dec 31, 1996 Base program C/O restoration efforts. NYSDOS
-- Finalize plan of study to investigate restoration USACE, NYSDEC, Completed Base program C/O alternatives. NYSDOS
-- Enter cost-share agreement to fund USACE, NYSDEC, By Dec 31, 1997 Project C/O recommended actions. NYSDOS implementation cost to be determined
ACTION H-12.5: Identify and facilitate implementation of habitat acquisition and restoration projects.
-- Identify potential habitat restoration projects, and HEP Ongoing Base program C/N encourage and facilitate implementation.
-- Utilize funds available under WRDA and ISTEA to USACE, NYSDEC, Ongoing Project C/O implement habitat enhancement and NJDEP, NYSDOS implementation cost restoration projects. to be provided by USACE
-- Evaluate habitat restoration and improvement USACE, NYSDEC, Ongoing Base program C/O factors as part of all federal navigation NJDEP, NYSDOS maintenance and beach restoration projects.
ACTION H-12.6: Establish a mechanism for HEP Post-CCMP Base program R public/private partnerships to preserve habitat.
ACTION H-12.7: Amend and implement open space NYSDEC Post-CCMP Base program C/O plan to include significant habitats.
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant.
2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2 ACTION H-12.8: Seek opportunities for upland NJDEP Post-CCMP Project C/O habitat acquisition. implementation cost - $1.4 million
ACTION H-12.9: Restore land and water Federal & NYS By Dec 31, 1996 Project R conservation funds. governments implementation cost - $1 million/yr
NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
MANAGEMENT OF TOXIC CONTAMINATION
PROBLEMS SOURCES Unsafe seafood Municipal discharges Adverse impacts on port operations Direct/indirect industrial discharges Damage to commercial and recreational Combined sewer overflows fisheries Storm water Damage to other coastal species Contaminated sediments Atmospheric deposition Chemical/oil spills Tributary inputs Solid/hazardous waste sites Other non-point sources VISION To establish and maintain a healthy and productive Harbor/Bight ecosystem with full beneficial uses. GOALS To restore and maintain a healthy and productive Harbor/Bight ecosystem, with no adverse ecological effects due to toxic contamination. To ensure fish, crustacea, and shellfish caught in the Harbor/Bight are safe for unrestricted human consumption. To ensure that dredged sediments in the Harbor are safe for unrestricted ocean disposal. OBJECTIVES To reduce continuing inputs of toxic chemicals to the Harbor/Bight system: T-1 Reduce municipal discharges of chemicals of concern. T-2 Reduce industrial discharges of chemicals of concern. T-3 Minimize the discharge of toxic chemicals from CSOs, storm water, and non-point sources (see section on Rainfall-Induced Discharges). T-4 Reduce air emissions of chemicals of concern. T-5 Remediate identified solid and hazardous waste sites. T-6 Track-down and clean-up other sources of chemicals of concern. T-7 Improve chemical/oil spill response and prevention. T-8 Focus pollution prevention activities on chemicals of concern. To remediate selected contaminated sediments: T-9 Identify and remediate selected contaminated sediments. To minimize human health risks due to the consumption of fish, crustacea, and shellfish caught in the Harbor/Bight: T-10 Establish consistent methodology to assess risks and improve communication of fish advisories. To better understand the toxic contamination problem and take additional management actions as more is learned: T-11 Review and develop criteria for copper and other priority chemicals. T-12 Assess ambient levels, loadings, and effects of chemicals. T-13 Develop mass balances for metals and organic chemicals.
TOXIC CONTAMINATION 71 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
THE PROBLEMS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CRITERIA AND STANDARDS Overview Toxic contaminants include both man-made and naturally occurring substances that can cause Numeric criteria and standards, including adverse ecosystem or human health effects water quality criteria and standards, fish when exceeding certain concentrations. tissue action levels and advisory levels, sediment quality criteria, and other criteria are Prior to the passage of the Clean Water Act designed as surrogates for direct measurement (CWA) in 1972, pollution of the Harbor/Bight of adverse pollution effects. was worse than today, based in part on the largely uncontrolled release of toxic substances Criteria and standards designed to protect to the environment. Since then, significant progress has been made in abating toxic and marine life indicate the maximum other forms of contamination. For example, as a concentration of a substance considered safe result of major investments in wastewater to protect sensitive marine organisms from treatment infrastructure, discharges of raw adverse toxic effects. For example, at sewage during dry weather periods have been concentrations of a substance exceeding virtually eliminated, and most municipal and criteria or standards, sensitive organisms may industrial wastewater treatment plants are in not be able to reproduce successfully, or may compliance with technology-based effluent be killed by exposure to the water or limits. Also, under laws other than the CWA, certain toxic substances have been banned or sediments. reduced. Concentrations of a substance exceeding Despite these improvements, there is still a toxic criteria or standards designed to protect contamination problem in the Harbor/Bight. wildlife or human health indicate HEP has characterized this problem in two ways: unacceptable health risks to wildlife or humans consuming fish, shellfish, or First, there is direct evidence, from field and crustacea caught in the waterbody. These laboratory studies, of the adverse effects of toxic contamination on the Harbor/Bight criteria and standards are usually designed to ecosystem, as explained below. This is an be compared with concentrations measured in ecosystem or effects-based approach to the tissues of edible species, but may be characterizing toxic contamination. extrapolated to water or sediments. For example, some USEPA water quality criteria Second, levels of a number of chemicals in the are based on protection of humans from a 10- water, sediments, and tissues of edible fish, 6 (one in a million) lifetime risk of cancer due crustacea, and shellfish in the Harbor/Bight to consumption of seafood. exceed the criteria and standards developed by government agencies to protect marine life, wildlife, and human health. This chemical- specific approach, as detailed in the following In general, toxic contamination is worse in the text box, is the principal basis for regulating Harbor than in the Bight. Within the Harbor, chemical contamination. Newark Bay, its tributaries, and the Kills have the most contamination. Contamination is Toxic contamination also interferes with worse in inner Harbor areas and tributaries dredging and dredged material disposal in the Harbor-wide, than in the open-water areas. Harbor/Bight because the sediments have accumulated contaminants from discharges of toxic chemicals. Ecosystem Approach Although specific indicators of the adverse ecological effects of toxic chemicals exhibit the variability typical of all environmental indicators, there is significant evidence of current and past problems in the Harbor/Bight:
72 TOXIC CONTAMINATION NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
Ë Sediments in much of the Harbor and some Chemical-Specific Approach areas of the Bight are toxic to a variety of Perhaps the most tangible result of toxic organisms in laboratory tests. contami-nation in the Harbor/Bight is that some Ë Ambient waters of the Harbor are sometimes fish, crustacea, and shellfish caught in these toxic to sensitive organisms in laboratory waters are considered unsafe for human tests. consumption: Ë In the Harbor/Bight region, reproductive impairment in fish-eating birds has historically Ë New York and New Jersey have advised been caused by DDT, a pesticide. Other people to limit or avoid the consumption of effects, which have not been conclusively several species of fish and crustacea caught in shown to be caused by toxic contamination, waters of the Harbor/Bight and, in some but are believed to be consistent with toxic cases, have prohibited the sale, consumption, contamination, occur in the Harbor and/or and/or harvesting of fish, crustacea, and Bight. For example, some bird species nesting shellfish due to toxic contamination, in the Kills have had decreased reproductive especially PCBs and dioxin. A complete list of success in recent years; and some fish in the New York and New Jersey fishing advisories Harbor/Bight have exhibited fin rot (observed for the Estuary is provided in "The State of in winter flounder), certain types of tumors the Harbor and Bight", Figures 3 and 4. (many tomcod develop liver cancer), Ë New York has closed its commercial fishery for developmental abnormalities, behavioral striped bass in the Harbor, and in parts of the impairments, and altered life histories Bight, due to concerns about PCB (observed in mummichogs). contamination. Ë Preliminary observations suggest that the community of bottom-dwelling organisms HEP has worked to define specific chemicals of (benthos) is degraded in areas of the Harbor. concern in water, biota tissue, and/or sediments This may be due to toxic contamination of the Harbor/Bight. An initial list of chemicals and/or other stressors such as hypoxia. of concern, developed using historical data, included approximately 50 chemicals. HEP has However, effects of toxic contamination on the revised this list by reviewing available new data, Harbor/Bight ecosystem are not well understood. considering data quality, the scope and magnitude of criteria exceedances, and whether One difficulty with using the ecosystem data are representative of current conditions. approach to control chemical contamination is The revised list of chemicals of concern is that a linkage must be established between the shown in Table 6(t); HEP believes these observed effect and the level of contamination. chemicals are problems for the following Where this has been established, HEP's Plan reasons: includes actions to address the contamination. Other HEP actions call for ongoing studies to Metals better characterize toxic effects and the Mercury chemicals responsible for such effects. Even in - Exceeds the water quality standard virtually the absence of firm linkages between observed Harbor-wide. effects and levels of contamination, the - Expected to exceed state advisory levels in ecosystem approach is an indispensable check fish tissue. on the effectiveness of the chemical-specific - Levels in sediments exceed the NOAA Effects approach, which lacks some numeric criteria and Range - Median Value (i.e., the level expected does not consider mixtures of chemicals. to cause adverse effects in biota) at sampling Restoring and maintaining a healthy ecosystem, sites throughout the Harbor; and exceed this with no adverse effects due to toxic substances, level by ten times or more at sampling sites in is the ultimate measure of success. the Hackensack River, Arthur Kill, and Newark Bay.
TOXIC CONTAMINATION 73 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
Table 6(t). Chemicals of Concern in the NY-NJ Harbor Estuary and Bight1
MEDIUM: CHEMICAL NAME WATER BIOTA SEDIMENTS
Metals:
Arsenic "
Cadmium "
Copper # Mercury ! "
PCBs ! ! "
Dioxin ! "
PAHs ! " "
Pesticides:
DDT & metabolites "
chlordane !
dieldrin "
heptachlor "
heptachlor epoxide "
hexachlorobenzene "
gamma-BHC "
Volatile organic compounds:
tetrachloroethylene !
" = Exceedances of unenforceable criteria (i.e., published USEPA criteria or other criteria or screening values such as USEPA fish tissue concentrations and NOAA Effects Range Values). ! = Exceedances of enforceable standards (i.e., state water quality standards, New York State water quality guidance values, USEPA Toxics Rule criteria, and U.S. FDA action levels and state advisory levels for fish tissue). # = Predicted by mathematical modeling to sometimes exceed enforceable standards.
1 It is important to note that inclusion of a chemical in this table, while indicating that management attention is necessary, does not reflect the scope and magnitude of criteria exceedances; data may not be complete for all media. Also the technical validity of some criteria are questionable. See text for further details.
74 TOXIC CONTAMINATION NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
Copper - Levels in sediments exceed New York State - Predicted to sometimes exceed the chronic sediment quality guidance values at sampling water quality standard in portions of the sites throughout the Harbor. Harbor (see Table 7(t)). Cadmium PAHs - Levels have caused New York State to advise - Levels of total PAH and several individual limited consumption of 1) blue claw crabs PAHs at sediment sampling sites in many inner caught in the Hudson River from Troy Dam, Harbor areas and tributaries exceed the NOAA south to the Lower Bay, and 2) Effects Range - Median Value, often by five to hepatopancreas ("tomalley") of lobsters ten times or more; attributed to discharges of caught throughout the Harbor. petroleum and related materials. Arsenic - Recent NOAA studies found a moderate - Levels in mussel tissue exceed the tissue positive correlation among levels of PAHs in concentration on which USEPA water quality Harbor/Bight sediments and toxic responses in criteria for human health protection are based, a variety of laboratory test organisms. by roughly 1,000-10,000 times, at several - Levels of several PAHs in mussel tissue at sampling sites throughout the Harbor. (Note: several sampling sites throughout the Harbor USEPA is reviewing the validity of this water sometimes exceed tissue concentrations on quality criterion.) which USEPA water quality criteria for human health protection are based. PCBs - Levels of four PAHs -- benzo(a)anthracene, - Advisories exist on the consumption of benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene and roughly 16 edible species in the Harbor and/or benzo(k)fluoranthene -- sometimes exceed Bight, and commercial fishing ban is in place water quality standards in Jamaica Bay. on striped bass. - Levels in sediments exceed the NOAA Effects Pesticides Range - Median Value at sampling sites - In various edible species, tissue levels of all throughout the Harbor; exceed this level by the pesticides shown in Table 6(t) greatly five times or more at sampling sites in the exceed tissue concentrations on which USEPA Newark Bay, Passaic River, Arthur Kill, and water quality criteria for human health Raritan Bay; and exceed New York State protection are based. sediment quality guidance values. chlordane - Levels in water in tributaries to the Harbor - Levels in striped bass and American eel have been found to exceed the water quality sometimes exceed FDA advisory levels at standard for protection of human health by locations throughout the Harbor. roughly 1,000 times. VOCs Dioxin tetrachloroethylene (Perc) - New Jersey advises against consuming any - Levels sometimes exceed the New York State fish, crustacea, or shellfish caught in the tidal water quality guidance value for protection of Passaic River; also prohibits sale or human health at many locations in the Harbor. consumption of several species throughout Newark Bay Complex due to dioxin HEP expects that management actions will be contamination. required to control loadings of these chemicals - Levels in tissues of at least eight edible to the system, remediate selected contaminated species sometimes exceed the New York State sediments, and/or protect the public from advisory level in other areas of the Harbor. unacceptable health risks due to consumption - Levels in sediments in portions of the Newark of contaminated seafood. Results of additional Bay Complex limit options for disposal of studies, including some HEP studies, will be contaminated dredged materials.
TOXIC CONTAMINATION 75 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 available soon, and HEP will use this information numeric criteria expressed in terms of total to further revise and update the list of chemicals recoverable metal, established under the of concern. Other limitations on our ability to National Toxics Rule. After the modeling draw conclusions regarding chemicals of analyses were completed, however, USEPA concern are the lack of criteria and doubts about amended the National Toxics Rule. The result the technical validity of criteria. In particular, of this action was the promulgation of water regulatory criteria for sediment quality have not quality criteria in New Jersey based on dissolved been established nationally, or for the Harbor or metal. Thus, exceedances of nickel and lead Bight. However, USEPA has recently proposed criteria need to be reassessed. This is being national sediment quality criteria for five done under a second phase (Phase II) of substances. monitoring and modeling studies.
HEP has focused significant effort on a better The data and modeled predictions enabled HEP understanding of water quality problems due to to assess criteria exceedances on a waterbody- metals. Section 304 (l) of the Clean Water Act specific scale (Table 7(t)). USEPA and the of 1987 requires the development of Individual States of New York and New Jersey, under the Control Strategies (i.e., water quality-based auspices of HEP, are using this information to permit limits) for substances which exceed develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs)1, water quality standards due to point source and waste load allocations (WLAs) and load discharges. For the Harbor, 304 (l) allocations (LAs), for the water quality limiting investigations were conducted under the metals, as discussed below. auspices of HEP. Based on indications, from the historical data base, that levels of metals were exceeding water quality criteria due to point Table 7(t). Waterbodies Needing TMDLs sources, HEP supported studies to characterize the levels of the following metals in waters of the Harbor/Bight: copper, mercury, lead, nickel, zinc, cadmium, silver, and arsenic. Water Waterbody Copper Mercury samples were analyzed using “clean” trace metal Hudson River (MP 50 to 0) X techniques. Results of these studies indicated Inner Harbor (Battery to X significantly lower metal concentrations compared to the historical data. Differences Narrows) were attributed, in large part, to sample Outer Harbor (Narrows to X contamination within the earlier data base and the differing laboratory procedures used to Ocean) collect the two sets of data. Exceedances of Arthur Kill/Kill Van Kull X X water quality criteria were found only for mercury. Subsequent water quality modeling East R./Harlem R. X analyses predicted exceedances of chronic water Jamaica Bay X quality criteria for three additional metals: copper, nickel, and lead. For nickel and lead, Raritan River/Bay X X the predicted exceedances were based on Hackensack River X X Passaic River X X Newark Bay X X
1 A TMDL is the maximum allowable loading of a pollutant to a waterbody that will meet water quality standards. WLAs and LAs represent the portions of the TMDL allocated to the point and non-point source loads, respectively.
76 TOXIC CONTAMINATION NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
For copper, the analyses shown in Tables 6(t) nickel and lead based on criteria for dissolved and 7(t) are based on a proposed site-specific metal, and develop TMDLs as necessary. chronic criterion of 5.6 µg/l dissolved copper, developed under the auspices of HEP. Loads for mercury require further analysis. In developing the mass balances for mercury, it In New York and New Jersey, discharge was determined that most of the load is from a requirements for municipal and direct industrial source not identified during the HEP monitoring discharges include both chemical-specific and effort (Figure 5). USEPA believes much of this Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) limitations. source is attributable to atmospheric deposition. Chemical-specific limitations are imposed to A longer term effort, including further provide compliance with corresponding chemical monitoring to assess mercury partitioning and numeric criteria. WET limitations are imposed to fate, reassess loads, and develop appropriate preclude significant acute toxicity in the models, will be required to fully understand discharges after allowable mixing with receiving mercury loadings. waters. The WET limitations address the effects of mixtures of chemicals in discharges. NYCDEP has documented decreasing trends in loadings of several metals from its sewage SOURCES CONTRIBUTING TO THE treatment plants from 1985 to 1993. Over this PROBLEMS period, decreases in effluent loadings of metals including cadmium (88%) and nickel (84%) are Metals likely attributable primarily to implementation of The studies mentioned above have improved our the industrial pretreatment program (IPP). understanding of the loads of metals to the Decreases over this period in effluent loadings Harbor/Bight and their sources. In order to of other metals, including copper (79%), lead develop TMDLs/WLAs/LAs for those metals (81%), and zinc (68%), are likely attributable which exceed water quality criteria, the data both to implementation of IPP and corrosion collected were used to generate mass balances, control in the City's water supply system. derived from a steady-state toxics model. The Similar decreases have been documented mass balances relate loadings of metals from all Harbor-wide and are likely attributable, in part, sources to the levels of these metals in water to implementation of IPP and other actions in and sediment. Loadings for all the metals, New York and New Jersey. The observed except mercury, are fairly well established decreases may also be attributable, in part, to (Figure 5). Loadings of the metals in the Harbor implementation of "clean” trace metal complex are shown for conditions of high and techniques (i.e., sampling and analytical low riverine flow. Because of the large amount procedures in which extreme care is used to of dilution attributed to fresh water inflows minimize sample contamination), which began from the Hudson River and other tributaries, low in 1991. In particular, mercury and arsenic had flow conditions in these rivers become the the most significant decreases in loading and critical condition for establishment of TMDLs for variability when comparing data from the post- metals. Harbor-wide, important sources of 1991 period with earlier periods. metals, other than mercury, are: municipal and industrial point sources, atmospheric deposition, It is noteworthy that, in response to HEP tributaries, storm water, and CSOs. In the New concerns, the eleven municipal sewerage Jersey tributaries to the Harbor, however, the authorities in New Jersey which discharge to Phase I TMDL model indicates that CSOs and the Harbor joined to form the New Jersey storm water contribute a greater load of most of Harbor Dischargers Group (NJHDG). NJHDG is the metals than municipal and industrial point conducting the studies necessary to support sources. This must be confirmed through a development of Phase II TMDLs. NJHDG is Phase II TMDL monitoring and modeling effort working cooperatively to support (see Action T-1.1 below). Phase II efforts will implementation of several actions in this Plan, also reassess criteria exceedances for including "Track-down and Clean-up" (see Action T-1.2 below), and development of a
TOXIC CONTAMINATION 77 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 Sources of Several Metals to the Harbor under Conditions High and Low Riverine Flow Figure 5.
78 TOXIC CONTAMINATION NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 system-wide eutrophication model (see Action influent samples were also collected during N-4.1 below). single storm events at four of these STPs. Water samples were taken at four major Organic Chemicals tributaries to the Harbor. Total PCB HEP has sponsored studies to estimate pollutant concentrations in the STP effluent ranged from loads, including loads of toxic organic roughly 10 to 100 parts per trillion; total PCB chemicals, to the Harbor/Bight using existing concentrations in STP wet weather influent data. These studies concluded that, except for ranged from roughly 55 to 400 parts per trillion; PCBs, existing data are insufficient to assess the and total PCB concentrations in the tributaries relative importance of various source categories, ranged from roughly 12 to 25 parts per trillion. even on a basin-wide scale. As shown in Figure 6, the relative significance of current sources of The study confirmed that STPs currently total PCBs to the Harbor was estimated as discharge PCBs at levels consistent with the tributary inputs (50%), municipal point sources earlier estimates. This information supports the (22%), storm water (15%), CSOs (10%), need to address continuing discharges of PCBs atmospheric deposition (3%), and landfill and to improve the mass balance. As the next step in addressing continuing discharges of PCBs, USEPA, using Clean Water Act Section 308 letters, required municipal dischargers in the Harbor area to identify the levels of PCBs being discharged (see Action T-1.2 below). HEP has begun a modeling effort to improve the mass balance (see Action T-13.3 below). Sources of other chemicals to the Harbor/Bight are understood only qualitatively. The most significant source of dioxin in causing exceedances of criteria may be sediment flux. In particular, there is a "hot spot" in the lower Passaic River due to past discharges. However, possible continuing discharges of dioxin in the Harbor area must be further investigated. Our current knowledge indicates numerous potential sources of dioxin (including incinerators, other Figure 6. Estimated Sources of PCBs to the Harbor high-temperature industrial processes, other chemical industry sources, and the wood and paper industry). Recent studies which analyze leachate (<1%). The data were considered the mixtures of various congeners of dioxin inadequate to assess loads on smaller scales. present in sediments of the Newark Bay Complex also indicate multiple sources. A preliminary mass balance and food chain model for PCBs indicated that continuing To begin assessing continuing discharges of discharges of PCBs to the lower estuary are dioxin, USEPA, using the same Clean Water Act significant in causing PCB levels in striped bass Section 308 letters noted above, required nine to exceed the FDA standard. However, the STPs discharging to the Newark Bay Complex to estimates of continuing PCB loadings used in sample their influent and effluent for dioxin. the model were based on limited data. Sampling was done during two dry weather and Therefore, USEPA recently conducted a two wet weather periods. Analysis was screening-level analysis of PCB levels in STP conducted for the 2,3,7,8-TCDD congener. discharges to the Harbor. Twenty-four-hour Data reports were recently submitted. composite effluent samples were collected during dry weather at five STPs discharging to the Harbor, representing about half the average STP discharge volume to the Harbor. Composite wet weather
TOXIC CONTAMINATION 79 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
Dioxin was not detected in any samples at the may contribute significant loads of PAHs. PAHs reporting limit required in the Section 308 in sediments of the Bight tend to be the heavier letters (5 parts per trillion). Recent PAHs, indicating that atmospheric deposition improvements in analytical techniques, however, may be the principal source. allowed quantification at much lower levels (1- 100 parts per quadrillion). Even at these Tetrachloroethylene, also known as Perc, is a detection limits, dioxin was quantified in only volatile organic chemical used as a solvent in one of the 54 samples analyzed, a wet weather dry cleaning and other industries. It has been influent sample at 45 parts per quadrillion. detected in New York City STP effluents. Data are not available, however, to assess the Additional monitoring and model development environmental significance of these results (i.e., will be required to further refine the load whether municipal discharges contribute estimates for PCBs, develop comparable significantly to exceedances of criteria for estimates for other organic chemicals, and dioxin). There is no quantitative information on develop mass balances. loadings of dioxin to the Harbor, other than the value reported above, and currently no model to THE PLAN TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS assess bioaccumulation and fate (i.e., mass balance) of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and other dioxin The goals of HEP's toxic contamination congeners. HEP has begun an effort to develop management plan are to: such a model (see Action T-13.3 below). Ë Restore and maintain a healthy and productive Sources of PAHs to the environment are ecosystem, with no adverse ecological effects pervasive. PAHs are present in large quantities due to toxic contamination. in petroleum and related materials and are used Ë Ensure fish, crustacea, and shellfish caught in in the manufacture of materials such as dyes, the Harbor/ Bight are safe for unrestricted insecticides, solvents, and asphalt. Higher human consumption. molecular weight (heavier) PAHs (including Ë Ensure that dredged sediments in the Harbor fluoranthene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, are safe for unrestricted ocean disposal. benzo(a)pyrene, etc.) are products of combustion. Their presence generally indicates In order to achieve these goals, HEP's toxics contamination by atmospheric deposition. The management plan includes objectives to: lower molecular weight (lighter) PAHs (including naphthalene and fluorene) generally derive from Ë Reduce continuing inputs of toxic chemicals unburned petroleum sources. Based on NYCDEP to the Harbor/Bight system (see Objectives T-1 information showing high levels of PAHs in through T-8 below). Jamaica Bay tributaries, and in CSO discharges Ë Remediate selected contaminated sediments and CSO sediment mounds throughout the City, (see Objective T-9 below). CSOs and storm water discharges may be Ë Minimize human health risks due to the significant sources of PAHs Harbor-wide. There consumption of fish, crustacea, and shellfish is, however, a need to collect data on levels of caught in the Harbor/Bight (see Objective T-10 continuing discharges of PAHs Harbor-wide. below). These sources result from runoff and improper Ë Better understand the toxic contamination disposal of waste oil. In addition, direct spillage problem and take additional management of petroleum may also contribute significant actions as more is learned (see Objectives T-11 amounts of PAHs; large spills can have through T-13 below). particularly significant short-term impacts. Petroleum spillage from petroleum transfer operations, shipping, and boat engines also contribute PAHs to the Harbor/Bight. In addition, direct and indirect industrial discharges
80 TOXIC CONTAMINATION NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
- "Chemicals of Concern" exceeding criteria/standards in water/biota/sediments
- Chemicals causing adverse effects on ecosystem/biota
ACTIONS TO MINIMIZE ACTIONS TO REDUCE ACTIONS TO BETTER HUMAN HEALTH RISKS: CONTINUING INPUTS OF UNDERSTAND AND MANAGE TOXIC CHEMICALS: THE TOXICS CONTAMINATION - Risk assessment PROBLEM: - Municipal/industrial - Risk communication discharges - Assess chemical load - CSOs, storm water, and reductions expected with non-point source runoff CCMP implementation - Solid/hazardous waste - Develop simple mass sites balances - Air emissions - Develop system-wide toxics - Chemical/oil spills model - Pollution prevention - Characterize adverse toxic effects and establish ACTIONS TO REMEDIATE causative chemicals CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS
Figure 7. Overview of HEP's Plan for Toxic Contamination
COMMITMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Harbor Estuary Program's approach to address the toxic contamination problem is illustrated schematically in Figure 7. HEP's Plan Actions to Reduce Continuing Inputs of Toxic calls for actions now to reduce continuing Chemicals inputs of toxic chemicals and remediate contaminated sediments, while continuing work to understand the contamination problem. The improved understanding gained will be used to OBJECTIVE T-1 Reduce municipal develop additional actions to reduce discharges of chemicals of contamination. HEP's Plan also includes actions concern to minimize human health risks associated with consumption of seafood contaminated with toxic chemicals. Under the Clean Water Act, dischargers are required to meet secondary treatment requirements. Currently, only one STP in the Harbor, the Newtown Creek STP in New York City, is not meeting these requirements; however, a commitment is in place for this facility. For details, see the section on Management of Nutrients and Organic Enrichment.
TOXIC CONTAMINATION 81 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
It is expected that full implementation of • In New Jersey, USEPA required the studies secondary treatment will reduce discharges of under CWA Section 308 letters (see Table many of the toxic chemicals of concern. 8(t) below). However, this will not be sufficient to eliminate exceedances of water quality standards, restore ACTION T-1.2 beneficial uses, or eliminate other adverse "Track-down and Clean-up" of Significant ecosystem impacts due to municipal discharges Discharges of Organic Chemicals of Concern of toxic chemicals. NYCDEP, NJHDG, and other dischargers in the Harbor area, working with USEPA, NYSDEC, ACTION T-1.1 and NJDEP, under the auspices of HEP, will Control of Discharges of Metals identify, track-down, and abate significant Results of HEP-sponsored studies to define discharges of organic chemicals of concern. water quality-limiting1 metals indicate that USEPA, in coordination with the States and water quality- based control of discharges of dischargers, has already taken steps to begin two metals (copper and mercury) is necessary. implementation of this program. In order to control metals discharges, USEPA, NYSDEC, and NJDEP will implement a phased -- HEP will coordinate development of this TMDL approach for water quality-limiting metals program, including identifying the chemicals by incorporating limits and additional to be included, the dischargers to be requirements into draft permits by December included, and the monitoring techniques 1995. and sampling methodologies to be used. -- HEP will convene seminars to develop the -- Phase I permit limits for municipal program and assist technology transfer. discharges will be based on existing effluent quality (EEQ): An overview of the Track-down and Clean-up • Harbor-wide for mercury. program for discharges is presented on the • In Newark Bay, Kills, Raritan Bay/River, following page. Note that Objective T-6 below Passaic River, and Hackensack River for describes a similar program where the "track- copper. down" begins with monitoring conducted in the -- Phase II may include more stringent permit ambient environment (e.g., Harbor tributaries). limits for copper, and limits for nickel and lead, based on additional data collection -- As discussed previously in this section, and modeling (see Action T-13.1 below). there is clear evidence that PCBs exceed fish These studies are being conducted by the tissue action levels in the Harbor. NJHDG. Furthermore, as discussed previously, -- To prepare for possible reductions in metals USEPA has already collected preliminary loadings, based on the additional data data confirming that municipal discharges collection and modeling, dischargers were of PCBs in the Harbor are significant. required to conduct studies to evaluate the • Therefore, using CWA Section 308 letters, effectiveness of pretreatment, treatment USEPA required municipal dischargers optimization, corrosion control, and throughout the Harbor (see Table 8(t)) to pollution prevention in reducing loadings of identify the levels of PCBs in their metals. Dischargers have submitted the discharges, required reports. • In New York, NYCDEP conducted the required studies under the SPDES permit process.
1 The concentration of a substance in the water column exceeds, or is predicted by mathematical modeling to exceed, water quality standards.
82 TOXIC CONTAMINATION NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
"TRACK-DOWN AND CLEAN-UP" OF SIGNIFICANT DISCHARGES OF ORGANIC CHEMICALS OF CONCERN
This provides an overview of the Track-down and Clean-up program for discharges. Please refer to Action T-1.2 text and Table 13(ts) below, for specific information on program status and implementation.
Selection of Chemicals to be Considered for Track-down and Clean-up
USEPA, NYSDEC, NJDEP, USACE, NYCDEP, NJHDG, and other dischargers, under the auspices of HEP, will review available ambient data, criteria and testing methods, and results, to determine, by mutual agreement, which chemicals should be considered for Track-down and Clean-up. Chemicals to be considered for Track-down and Clean-up must be organic chemicals documented to cause environmental problems in the Harbor and/or Bight, i.e., the chemical: • exceeds enforceable water quality standards, or • exceeds USFDA fish tissue action levels or state advisory levels, or • makes recently deposited sediment unsuitable for unrestricted ocean disposal, or • causes documented adverse impacts on biota (including benthic biota).
HEP's program for Track-down and Clean-up of significant discharges is focusing on organic chemicals of concern, not metals. This is because municipal and industrial dischargers in the Harbor are subject to requirements for water quality-based control of the water quality-limiting metals (see Action T-1.1 below). Municipal and industrial discharges of mercury in the Harbor are believed to contribute only a small portion of the total mercury load (see Figure 5). However, note that there is a large unidentified source of mercury. Therefore, mercury will be considered for ambient Track-down and Clean-up (see Objective T-6 below). Also note that as additional information becomes available indicating that additional chemicals are of concern, or that municipal and industrial discharges of known chemicals of concern are significant, USEPA, the states, and the dischargers, under the auspices of HEP, will consider augmenting the Track- down and Clean-up program.
Identification of Significant Discharges
For those chemicals meeting any of the above criteria, dischargers, as appropriate, will screen their discharges using sensitive monitoring techniques (e.g., see below); dischargers will initiate the screening if there is a reasonable expectation that they are discharging the chemical(s) in question at elevated levels. Upon examination of the data, USEPA, NYSDEC, NJDEP, NYCDEP, NJHDG, and others, under the auspices of HEP, will determine which, if any, discharges are significantly elevated and have reasonable potential to contribute to a violation of the applicable criteria.
Track-down and Abatement of Significant Discharges
TOXIC CONTAMINATION 83 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
Table 8(t). POTWs in NY-NJ Harbor Subject to USEPA CWA Section 308 Reporting Requirements for Metals, PCBs, and Dioxin (see text for details).
REQUIREMENT POTW Metals Evaluation PCB Sampling Dioxin Sampling New Jersey Rahway Valley Sewerage Authority X X X
Linden-Roselle Sewerage Authority X X X Joint Meeting of Essex & Union Counties X X X Middlesex County Utilities Authority X X X
North Bergen Municipal Utilities Authority: - Central STP X X X - Woodcliff STP X X Edgewater Municipal Utilities Authority X X
Hoboken-Union City-Weehawken Sewerage Authority X X West New York Municipal Utilities Authority X X Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission X X X Bergen County Utilities Authority X X X
Secaucus Municipal Utilities Authority X X X New York Port Richmond STP X X
Oakwood Beach STP X Tallmans Island STP X Hunts Point STP X
Owls Head STP X Red Hook STP X Wards Island STP X
North River STP X Jamaica STP X Bowery Bay STP X
Rockaway STP X Newtown Creek STP X Coney Island STP X
26th Ward STP X Yonkers Joint Wastewater Treatment Plant X
84 TOXIC CONTAMINATION NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
including wet weather influent as a were less than the required reporting limit of surrogate for CSO discharge. New Jersey five parts per trillion. dischargers, New York City, and Yonkers -- Available information on other organic Sewer District have submitted the required chemicals of concern must be reviewed to reports. determine whether those chemicals should • USEPA, NYSDEC, NJDEP, NYCDEP, and be considered for track-down and clean-up. NJHDG are using the data collected through • USEPA, NYSDEC, NJDEP, NYCDEP, the CWA Section 308 letters to identify NJHDG, and other dischargers, in which municipal discharges of PCBs are consultation with the appropriate HEP work significant. groups, will review available ambient data • NYCDEP, NJHDG, and other dischargers as on the other organic chemicals of concern, appropriate, will track-down and abate the using the criteria described previously to sources of PCBs to their sewage systems as determine which chemicals should be described previously. considered for track-down and clean-up. • As of July 1, 1995, NYCDEP, under a • As appropriate, dischargers will screen their consent order with NYSDEC, has deployed discharges using sensitive monitoring 18 Passive In-Situ Concentration Extraction techniques to identify the levels of the Samplers (PISCES) in the influent streams of chemicals being discharged. the 14 New York City STPs. The devices • If significant discharges are found, those will be deployed for 12 months to monitor dischargers will track-down and abate the for PCBs and other organic chemicals. By chemicals, or USEPA, NYSDEC, and NJDEP December 1996, NYCDEP will submit a will require control of the chemicals report to NYSDEC on the analytical results. quantitatively, through development of The report will propose the STP drainage TMDLs/WLAs/LAs. basins in which the track-down of PCBs and -- Concurrent with updates of the list of other chemicals will be pursued. In deciding chemicals of concern (see Action T-12.3 which basins will be pursued, NYCDEP and below), HEP will consider new information NYSDEC will consider the results of the and report biennially through HEP CCMP monitoring conducted under the Section updates (see Objective I-1 below), on 308 letters. NYCDEP is currently committed whether additional organic chemicals should to an additional two years of follow-up be considered for track-down and clean-up. efforts on PISCES track-down. -- As discussed previously in this section, there Additional information is needed to fully address is clear evidence that dioxin exceeds fish the adverse impacts of these and other tissue action levels in the Harbor. However, chemicals of concern. This is addressed in there was no quantitative data on the levels "Actions to Better Understand and Manage the of dioxin in municipal discharges to the Problem" (see Objectives T-11, T-12 and T-13 Harbor. below). • Therefore, using the same CWA Section 308 letters noted above, USEPA required municipal dischargers in the Newark Bay Complex [Table 8(t)] to identify the levels of OBJECTIVE T-2 Reduce industrial dioxin in their discharges. The monitoring discharges of chemicals of was required for dischargers in the Newark concern Bay Complex because dioxin contamination is worse in this area than in other areas of the Harbor. • The POTWs listed in Table 8(t) collected influent and effluent samples during two dry Permits for direct industrial discharges to the weather periods, and influent during two Harbor/Bight contain technology-based limits wet weather periods. Analysis of these expected to minimize the discharge of toxic samples indicated that dioxin concentrations chemicals. Indirect industrial discharges to the
TOXIC CONTAMINATION 85 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
Harbor/Bight are subject to the Industrial This is intended to allow a focus on the most Pretreatment Program. significant indirect industrial dischargers of toxic chemicals. ACTION T-2.1 -- As noted previously, NYCDEP has found Continuing Compliance with Controls on significant decreases in loadings of several Industrial Discharges metals, attributable in part to All industrial facilities regulated under NPDES or implementation of the industrial approved pretreatment programs are required to pretreatment program. In New York City, self-monitor their effluents to determine 402 significant industrial users are currently compliance with permit requirements. The under regulation. These include such results of this monitoring are submitted to either industrial categories as electroplating, metal the state or the POTW, as appropriate. The finishing, metals molding and casting, state or POTW reviews these reports for pharmaceutical manufacturing, and organic violations. Violations are acted upon by various chemical manufacturing. NYCDEP has been forms of enforcement response, including, but tracking non-regulated businesses to not limited to, phone calls, inspections, notices improve information on loadings of metals of violation, and formal enforcement actions and toxic organic chemicals. This is helping (administrative and judicial, including civil and New York City target the pretreatment criminal). There is also a routine inspection program on the most significant program where on-site work is conducted to contributors. For example, New York City verify that what is reported is accurate. has recently added forty automobile radiator repair shops to the industrial pretreatment -- NYSDEC, NJDEP, and ISC will assure program. Also, New York City is developing continuing compliance with NPDES permit an industrial control strategy for photo conditions for direct industrial discharges. finishers. (While NYSDEC and NJDEP are the permit- -- As discussed above, levels of issuing agencies, as part of the ISC tetrachloroethylene sometimes exceed the monitoring program, the Commission water quality guidance value in some New performs 24-hour NPDES compliance York City waters in the Harbor. In response sampling of major industrial discharges in to this, New York City is modifying its New York and New Jersey in coordination pretreatment program to reduce discharges with the state environmental departments of this chemical: and USEPA. ISC supplies the results of this • New York City has recently amended its monitoring to the state environmental Sewer Use Regulations to incorporate a departments and USEPA.) prohibition of still bottom residue and filter -- For those facilities which have approved material discharges by the dry cleaning local pretreatment programs, the states and industry. NYCDEP will develop an inventory USEPA will assure that the local of the industry and notify each facility of pretreatment programs remain in the requirements, and will monitor loadings compliance. in STP effluent and report on progress. -- The states and USEPA will assure that • NYCDEP will investigate other potential categorical industrial users which do not sources of tetrachloroethylene. discharge to an approved local pretreatment program remain in compliance. ACTION T-2.3 Additional Requirements for Direct Industrial ACTION T-2.2 Dischargers Pretreatment Program Focus on Significant Industrial Users -- Direct industrial dischargers will be subject USEPA, NYSDEC, and NJDEP will ensure that to requirements to control loadings of municipalities in the Harbor/Bight area focus copper and mercury, and nickel and lead as their pretreatment programs on significant necessary, as described above for municipal industrial users, and additional users as discharges: necessary, not just categorical industrial users.
86 TOXIC CONTAMINATION NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
• Phase I permit limits will be based on EEQ. -- HEP will, given sufficient funding, assess - Harbor-wide for mercury the load reductions of chemicals of concern - In Newark Bay, Kills, Raritan Bay/River, expected with implementation of HEP's plan Passaic River, and Hackensack River for to abate CSO and other rainfall-induced copper. discharges (see Action T-12.13 below). • Phase II may include more stringent technically defensible permit limits based on Storm Water Discharges additional data collection and modeling (see Effective abatement of storm water discharges Action T-13.1 below). is expected to be important in reducing the -- Direct industrial dischargers will also be levels of metals in New Jersey tributaries and considered for "Track-down and Clean-up" may be important Harbor-wide in reducing the of sources of organic chemicals of concern, levels of some of the toxic organic chemicals of as appropriate (see Action T-1.2). concern. Implementation of municipal and industrial storm water permit programs is ACTION T-2.4 expected to reduce storm water discharges. See Effluent Guidelines for Industry Categories the section on Rainfall-Induced Discharges for a USEPA will promulgate effluent guidelines for description of these actions. toxic and non-conventional pollutants in accordance with schedules established in Non-Point Source Runoff biennial plans. Because most of the Harbor area is sewered, there is very little non-point source runoff. -- Rulemaking priorities are being set with Therefore, on a Harbor-wide basis, non-point public input, based on comparative source runoff is not a major source of toxic environmental risk. contamination. (Note that storm water and -- Rulemaking will place limitations on combined sewer overflows, which are point discharges of pollutants not covered by sources, are distinguished from non-point source existing regulations, as well as strengthen runoff, as are other types of non-point sources, existing regulations. such as atmospheric deposition, sediment flux, and landfill leachate, not carried by a discrete conveyance such as a pipe). Non-point source runoff may, however, contribute significantly to OBJECTIVE T-3 Minimize the discharge of loads of toxic chemicals entering the Harbor via toxic chemicals from tributaries and in the Navesink/Shrewsbury CSOs, storm water, and drainage area, and may be significant in the non-point sources Bight. Details of current New York and New Jersey non-point source management programs can be found in the section on Rainfall-Induced Discharges.
Combined Sewer Overflows Additional Actions to Address Rainfall-Induced Effective abatement of CSO discharges is Discharges expected to be important in reducing the levels Currently planned or ongoing investigations by of metals in New Jersey tributaries and may be HEP may provide new information indicating the important Harbor-wide in reducing the levels of need for additional actions to fully address some of the toxic organic chemicals of concern. rainfall-induced discharges of the chemicals of Full implementation of the Final National CSO concern. See "Actions to Better Understand Control Policy and currently planned New York and Manage the Problem" (see Objectives T-11, and New Jersey CSO abatement programs are T-12 and T-13 below). expected to reduce discharges of toxic chemicals. See the section on Rainfall-Induced Discharges for a description of these actions.
TOXIC CONTAMINATION 87 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
-- Through implementation of the CAA OBJECTIVE T-4 Reduce air emissions of requirements, USEPA projects an 85 percent reduction in atmospheric deposition of chemicals of concern metals, nationwide, over the next 10-15 years. This reduction will contribute to the attainment of ambient water quality standards for Current Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements, such mercury in the Harbor/Bight. as the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and New Source Review (NSR), will significantly reduce OBJECTIVE T-5 Remediate identified solid toxic loadings into the air. NESHAPs cover air emissions from industrial sources. NSR rules and hazardous waste sites limit emissions of criteria pollutants and many volatile organic compounds, and, in addition, regulate dioxin and furans from municipal waste incinerators. Both New Jersey and New York Active and inactive solid and hazardous waste have 70 to 99 percent control requirements for sites may contaminate the Harbor/Bight, but the many hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) under their available information has not been analyzed to State Implementation Plan programs. determine which sites are contributing chemicals of concern. HEP recommends using CAA amendments in 1990 enhanced the available information to help set priorities for authority of USEPA and the states to regulate clean closure or remediation of sites more than 189 specific HAPs, emitted from contributing contamination to the Harbor/Bight approximately 180 source categories, and to (Note: Contaminated sediment sites are regulate a large number of area or small sources discussed under Objective T-9 below). of HAPs. ACTION T-5.1 The CAA amendments also established the Great Waste Site Inventory Waterbodies Program, which requires USEPA to HEP recommends that USEPA, NYSDEC, and determine the contribution of atmospheric NJDEP, with assistance from NYCDEP, develop deposition to total pollutant loadings to New a GIS-based integrated inventory of active and York-New Jersey Harbor and other "Great inactive solid and hazardous waste sites in the Waterbodies" and promulgate appropriate Harbor/Bight area contributing or potentially regulations under the CAA to assure protection contributing toxics, especially chemicals of of these waters (see Action T-12.11 below). concern, to the Harbor/Bight. The geographic scope of this effort should include all areas ACTION T-4.0 draining to the Harbor/Bight system, including Implementation of Clean Air Act Requirements the Hudson River to the Troy Lock and Dam. The inventory should use existing state priority -- USEPA, NYSDEC, and NJDEP will continue lists for hazardous waste sites. Existing data to enforce existing air regulations limiting bases, such as the NJDEP Comprehensive Site the emissions of toxic pollutants. List, should be used to develop the integrated -- Under CAA amendments, USEPA will inventory. Also, note that NYSDEC is develop emission standards, based on incorporating information on inventoried maximum achievable control technology, for inactive hazardous waste disposal sites into a all the source categories by the year 2000. GIS. The GIS inventory is complete for sites in -- USEPA will develop regulations for area or New York City. The April 1995 Annual Report small sources of HAPs by the year 2000. of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites in New York State includes maps and descriptive information about each inventoried site. NYSDEC will complete the GIS inventory for sites in Long Island and the Hudson Valley
88 TOXIC CONTAMINATION NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 region in 1996. If funded, NJDEP will provide a Passive In-Situ Concentration Extraction GIS-compatible inventory of known or suspected Samplers [PISCES] for organic chemicals and contaminated sites within the defined low-level detection methods for mercury). boundaries of the Harbor/ Bight, using existing site remediation program data bases such as the ACTION T-6.2 Comprehensive Site List and the Known Tracking and Elimination of Chemicals of Contaminated Sites in New Jersey. Concern Where significantly elevated levels are found, ACTION T-5.2 USEPA, NYSDEC, and NJDEP will initiate Remediation of Sites Contributing Significant procedures to track-down and eliminate, or Contamination to the Harbor/Bight require the elimination of, the sources of the USEPA, NYSDEC, and NJDEP will develop site- chemicals, giving priority to the most significant specific schedules to expedite closure or sources. remediation of the most significant sites. -- Note that HEP's plans to focus pollution -- For publicly funded sites: prevention activities on chemicals of • To the extent feasible, USEPA and the concern (see Objective T-8 below), including states will adjust schedules to address identifying the largest emitters in the priority sites in the Harbor/Bight drainage Harbor/Bight area, may contribute to track- area, within existing resources. down and elimination of sources. • To the extent that these priorities cannot be -- Note that the proposed screening will also addressed within existing resources, USEPA be helpful to focus data collection efforts and the states will identify and seek the for developing mass balances (see Objective additional resources required. T-13 below). -- For privately funded sites, USEPA, NYSDEC, and NJDEP will negotiate with principal ACTION T-6.3 responsible parties to adjust schedules to Arthur Kill, New York PCB Trackdown address priority sites. NYSDEC recently completed an effort to track down sources of PCBs in New York waters of the Harbor using PISCES. Initial Harbor-wide deployment of PISCES in Harbor tributaries in OBJECTIVE T-6 Track-down and clean-up 1991 and 1992 found elevated levels of PCBs in of other sources of several tributaries to the Arthur Kill. This was chemicals of concern confirmed by additional sampling in 1993 and 1994. In one of these tributaries (Mill Creek, Staten Island) several possible discrete sources of PCBs were identified. Sampling at one of Action T-1.2 describes HEP's program to identify these facilities detected PCBs in the storm water and abate significant municipal and industrial discharges. discharges of PCBs, dioxin, and other organic chemicals of concern. The actions below -- This facility has been the subject of a describe a similar program where the "track- NYSDEC multi-media pollution prevention down" originates in the ambient environment. effort. A multi-media Order on Consent requires the facility to conduct PCB soil ACTION T-6.1 testing in conjunction with an investigative Organic Chemical and Mercury Screening work plan and possible remediation if HEP recommends that USEPA, NYSDEC, and contamination is found. NJDEP conduct screening for ambient levels of -- NYSDEC is developing a SPDES permit for organic chemicals of concern and mercury, in the facility which will not allow detectable proximity to potential sources, using sensitive PCB discharge. sample monitoring techniques (for example,
TOXIC CONTAMINATION 89 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
-- HEP recommends additional follow-up work: the creation of hazardous substances or wastes 1) to evaluate other possible sources of prior to treatment, storage, out-of-process PCBs to Mill Creek; and 2) in conjunction recycling, and disposal. HEP's plan for pollution with the Harbor-wide program recommended prevention aims to focus programs both in Actions T-6.1 and T-6.2, to identify geographically (i.e., on the Harbor/Bight), and possible sources of PCBs in the other on HEP's chemicals of concern. For example, tributaries where elevated PCB levels were currently, some significant emitters may not found. have pollution prevention plans. Also, for those emitters which do have pollution prevention plans, additional action could be requested for HEP's chemicals of concern. Pollution OBJECTIVE T-7 Improve chemical/oil spill prevention activities for sources close to the response and prevention Harbor/Bight should target the most significant emitters of chemicals of concern. USEPA, NYSDEC, and NJDEP should incorporate pollution prevention activities addressing these In response to several large oil spills in the sources and chemicals into programs across all Harbor, in 1989 and 1990, the Governors of media. HEP will, given sufficient funding, New York and New Jersey and the responsible assess the load reductions of chemicals of federal agencies joined with industry to form the concern expected with implementation of HEP's New York Harbor Bi-State Oil Spill Response and plan for pollution prevention (see Action T- Prevention Conference. The Bi-State 12.13 below). Conference prepared a final report, including findings and recommenda-tions, to prevent oil ACTION T-8.1 spills and to more effectively respond when they Identification of Large Emitters of Chemicals of do occur. Subsequently, in March 1994, the Concern U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) adopted an Area Contingency Plan, incorporating the -- NYSDEC and NJDEP should review facilities recommendations of the Bi-State Conference. in areas draining to the Harbor core area to identify the largest emitters of chemicals of ACTION 7.0 concern using Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Review of Area Contingency Plan and Bi-State and other data. Conference Report -- To the extent feasible, NYSDEC and NJDEP HEP will review these documents and will give these facilities highest priority for incorporate them, as appropriate, into the pollution prevention actions, including CCMP. those found in Actions T-8.3 through T-8.5 below, within existing resources. -- HEP will provide relevant information to -- To the extent priorities in the Harbor/Bight USCG and the Bi-State Conference to assist cannot be addressed with existing program in updates of the Area Contingency Plan resources, NYSDEC and NJDEP will identify (e.g., see Objective H-10). and seek the additional resources required.
ACTION T-8.2 Focus pollution prevention Non-Regulatory Pollution Prevention OBJECTIVE T-8 Pollution prevention should be implemented activities on chemicals of through non-regulatory measures to the extent concern feasible. -- Under the New Jersey State Pollution Prevention Act, priority industrial facilities Pollution prevention activities focus on are preparing, annually, multi-media eliminating the generation of waste at the source. Pollution prevention is defined as changes in production technologies, raw materials, or products that result in a reduction in the demand for hazardous substances or in
90 TOXIC CONTAMINATION NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 pollution prevention plans. These plans are ACTION T-8.5 envisioned to build pollution prevention into RCRA Permitting and Enforcement day-to-day decision-making. USEPA, NYSDEC, and NJDEP will give high -- HEP, through its liaisons with municipal priority to those hazardous waste treatment, dischargers and industrial facilities in the storage, and disposal facilities in the Harbor/Bight area, will seek commitments Harbor/Bight area that manage one or more of for voluntary reductions in releases of the chemicals of concern. chemicals of concern to all media. -- HEP's public involvement and education -- Permits issued by USEPA will require plan emphasizes measures which can be stringent waste management measures to implemented by citizens to reduce releases prevent releases to the environment, clean- of chemicals of concern, in particular, up of any past releases, and submittal of a petroleum. pollution prevention plan. -- USEPA, NYSDEC, and NJDEP will target ACTION T-8.3 RCRA inspections for those hazardous Facility-Wide Permits waste generators in the Harbor/Bight area NJDEP is evaluating a Facility-Wide Permit that manage one or more of the chemicals (FWP) approach, to integrate air, water, and of concern. hazardous waste permits from a facility with its pollution prevention plan. Actions to Remediate Selected Contaminated Sediments -- NJDEP is currently conducting a FWP pilot project. -- If successful, NJDEP will seek legislative approval to implement the FWP program. OBJECTIVE T-9 Identify and remediate selected contaminated ACTION T-8.4 sediments NPDES Pollution Prevention Currently, NPDES permits may not include pollution prevention plan requirements. For regulatory programs under their purview: Objectives T-1 through T-8 address reduction of continuing sources of toxic chemicals to the -- NYSDEC will add such requirements, Harbor/Bight. However, contamination of addressing the chemicals of concern, to sediments of the Harbor/Bight from past NPDES renewal permits, permit discharges also contributes significantly to the modifications, and new permits. contamination of seafood and to adverse -- NJDEP will consider, if given legislative ecological effects. Contaminated sediments authority, adding pollution prevention may be significant sources of chemicals of requirements addressing the chemicals of concern, including dioxin, PCBs, and mercury. concern to NPDES renewals and permit modifications. HEP endorses a comprehensive management approach to address these contaminants. To [Note: In connection with development of assess the public health and ecological TMDLs for water quality-limiting metals, significance of all sources of contaminants of dischargers were required to evaluate the cost concern, HEP is recommending development of effectiveness of pollution prevention and other mass balances (see Objective T-13 below) and measures to reduce metal discharges (see Action applied research efforts (see Objective T-12 T-1.1)]. below), which may be expensive and technically complex. However, consistent with our management approach, HEP also endorses action now to address significant known sources of contamination.
TOXIC CONTAMINATION 91 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
The principal authorities for remediating Table 9(t). Status of Actions at Diamond Alkali contaminated sediments are the Comprehensive Superfund Site Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, (CERCLA), also known as "Superfund", and related state authorities. ACTION LEAD COMPLETION AGENCY DATE ACTION T-9.1 Remediation of Known Areas Land-based portion of site USEPA and other responsible agencies will take Installation of geotextile NJDEP Completed appropriate steps to remediate known areas of highly contaminated sediments which are fabric over exposed contributing to human health and ecological soils. risks. Interim remedy under USEPA Remedial 1990 Consent Decree design: 1996 Diamond Alkali Superfund Site includes installation of Construction: an impermeable cap, in- 1998 The Diamond Alkali Superfund Site includes a ground slurry wall, and land-based portion (i.e., the former pesticides manufacturing factory at 80 and 120 Lister a system for pumping Avenue in Newark, New Jersey) and the and treating adjoining six-mile reach of the Passaic River, contaminated known as the Passaic River Study Area. The soil groundwater; biennial in the land-based portion of the site and the re-evaluation. sediments in the Passaic River Study Area are Passaic River Study Area contaminated with dioxin and may contribute significant loads of dioxin to the Estuary as a Remedial USEPA 1997 whole. Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC), Investigation/Feasibility a successor to the Diamond Shamrock Study and Record of Chemicals Company, is required to perform the Decision. clean-up activities at the site, with USEPA oversight. • Prior to completion of the RI/FS, USEPA will Table 9(t) shows the status of actions at the assess available data and information and Diamond Alkali Superfund Site. The interim evaluate interim remedial technologies/ remedy for the land-based portion of the site actions likely to apply to the area. will contain the contamination to eliminate • USEPA will issue a Record of Decision potential human exposure to dioxin and other (ROD), specifying the remedial plan for the hazardous compounds and eliminate any Passaic River Study Area in 1997. continuing load of these compounds entering -- USEPA, in concert with HEP, will take the Passaic River from the site. Possible appropriate steps to ensure an effective link remedies for the Passaic River Study Area are between remedial actions at the Diamond being investigated. Alkali Superfund site and impacts on the Estuary as a whole. -- USEPA has reached an agreement with OCC • In developing the ROD, USEPA will assess under which OCC will conduct a Remedial the current impact of dioxin and other Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of the contaminants within the Passaic River Study Passaic River Study Area. The RI/FS will Area and the impact after the characterize the contaminated sediments, implementation of the remedial action. determine what effect they are having on • By June 1997, given sufficient funding, HEP human health and the environment, and will develop improved mass balances for evaluate possible remedial alternatives to dioxin and other contaminants in the mitigate any adverse effects. Estuary, and develop preliminary control scenarios, using relatively simple or existing models (see Action T-13.3 below). The
92 TOXIC CONTAMINATION NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 effort should include data collection to support Table 10(t). Sites Contaminated with PCBs in the Upper assessment of dioxin and other contaminant loadings to the Estuary and model calibration. Hudson River Basin • USEPA will provide relevant data and/or a model to HEP for use in HEP's effort to assess the impact of dioxin and other SITE LEAD STATUS contaminants from the Passaic River Study AGENCY Area on the Estuary as a whole. Hudson USEPA USEPA is conducting a • If HEP's effort is completed prior to issuance River PCBs Reassessment RI/FS; will of the ROD, USEPA will consider the results Superfund select a remedial action for in selecting a remedy for the Passaic River Site the PCB-contaminated Study Area. sediments by September • USEPA has indicated that HEP's effort 1997. should be completed at least 60 days prior -- Remnant USEPA Capped in 1990-91 pursuant to issuance of the ROD, in order to facilitate Deposits to USEPA/GE consent decree; post-construction effective use of the information in USEPA's monitoring continues. decision. HEP will work closely with USEPA to ensure that information is timely. General NYSDEC Interim remedial measures Electric Co. implemented including: Hudson eliminating water flow Upper Hudson River PCBs Sites Falls Plant through an abandoned mill Site structure; removal of Several sites which may contribute loads of contaminated sediments in the mill; installation of seep PCBs to the lower Hudson River have been collection systems and a identified in the upper Hudson River basin. water pretreatment system; These include the Hudson River PCBs Superfund and sealing fractured Site, the Remnant Deposits, which are part of bedrock. GE is continuing investigations. the Hudson River PCBs Site, and three sites upstream [Table 10(t)]. Responsible agencies General NYSDEC Interim remedial measure have taken a number of interim or final remedial Electric Co. implemented: pipe installed Fort Edward to prevent discharge water actions at these sites to reduce the loads of Plant Outfall from coming into contact PCBs reaching the river; additional with contaminated soils. GE investigations are continuing. is continuing investigations. Niagara- NYSDEC Site being investigated; -- USEPA is conducting a Reassessment RI/FS Mohawk impacts thought to be for the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site. Site localized. • USEPA will submit a proposed remedial plan for public review by March 1997. • USEPA will issue a ROD by September • In developing the ROD, USEPA will estimate 1997. the current flux of PCBs from the upper -- USEPA, in concert with HEP, will take Hudson River to the lower River, and the appropriate steps to ensure an effective link flux based on implementation of between remedial actions in the upper remediation planned at all the upper Hudson Hudson River basin and impacts on the River basin PCBs sites. lower River and Estuary. The goal of HEP is • By June 1996, HEP will develop an to ensure no transport down-river of a PCB improved mass balance for PCBs in the load which would result in deposition of Estuary, using relatively simple or existing sediments that would violate human health models and existing data; by June 1997, advisories and protection levels for aquatic given sufficient funding, HEP will further life and fish-eating wildlife. refine and update the mass balance for PCBs, including congener-specific behavior (see Action T-13.3 below). The effort should include data collection to support assessment of PCBs loadings to the Estuary and model calibration.
TOXIC CONTAMINATION 93 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
• USEPA will consider the results of HEP's Actions to Minimize Human Health Risks efforts in selecting a remedy for the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site, to the extent completed prior to issuance of the ROD. • USEPA has indicated that HEP's effort OBJECTIVE T-10 Establish consistent should be completed at least 60 days prior methodology to assess to issuance of the ROD, in order to facilitate risks and improve effective use of the information in USEPA's communication of fish decision. HEP will work closely with USEPA to ensure that information is timely. advisories
Marathon Battery Site
-- With USEPA oversight, the principal Risk Assessment responsible parties have completed the clean-up of the Marathon Battery site. The The States of New York and New Jersey set clean-up included remedial dredging of the fishing advisories and restrictions intended to Hudson River in the Cold Spring, New York protect the public, including local fishing pier area, remedial dredging of East Foundry communities, from health risks due to Cove, remedial dredging and restoration of consumption of locally caught seafood which East Foundry Cove Marsh, and remediation may be contaminated with toxic chemicals. of the upland portion of the site. With some exceptions, these advisories are • Remediation was completed in June 1995. based on criteria promulgated nationally by the • Long-term monitoring will begin in fall Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the U.S. 1995. Department of Commerce (called FDA action levels). The FDA action levels reflect the ACTION T-9.2 balancing of human health risks with factors Identification of Additional Areas such as the economic and social consequences USEPA, NYSDEC, NJDEP, and USACE should of closing or restricting fisheries. identify additional areas of highly contaminated sediments for more in-depth assessment, In developing water quality criteria for including the feasibility of and need for protection of human health, USEPA applies a remediation. risk assessment methodology which is more stringent than FDA's. USEPA's approach is -- As discussed in the section on dredged intended for use in establishing pollution control material management, USEPA and USACE objectives. Although USEPA has not published are conducting studies under Section 405 of fish tissue criteria, it has used the risk the Water Resources Development Act, assessment methodology to calculate fish tissue which may help to develop remedial plans values associated with the published water for contaminated sediments. For example, quality criteria. These "criteria values" have the decontamination technologies being been applied in HEP's evaluation of chemicals of evaluated may prove useful for sediments in concern. There is concern about whether FDA's areas which will not be dredged for approach is adequately protective of higher-risk navigational purposes. segments of the fish-consuming public. The -- If funded, NJDEP will provide a GIS- methods used by New York and New Jersey to compatible inventory of known or suspected set advisories and restrictions are different. sites with contaminated sediments as part of the information supplied under Action T- ACTION T-10.1 5.1. Risk Assessment Methodology The States of New York and New Jersey should Other actions on contaminated sediments are in establish a consistent methodology, as the section on dredged material management. appropriate, to assess human health risks from consumption of locally-caught seafood and to set fish advisories and restrictions.
94 TOXIC CONTAMINATION NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
-- The states should prepare a report In addition, there are segments of the public documenting their methodologies for that are not being adequately informed. These assessing health risks. include people who fish but are not licensed, people below licensing age, or people who fish ACTION T-10.2 in marine waters (where no licensing is Fish Tissue Criteria required). People who are non-English speaking USEPA and the States of New York and New or have little formal education are also of Jersey should review available fish tissue concern since they are less likely to criteria, and recommend necessary steps to comprehend, and therefore utilize, advisory adopt and implement revised criteria as information. Moreover, these groups often appropriate (see Objectives T-11 and T-12 include people who fish for subsistence, whose below). diet is primarily locally caught seafood. Recipients of fish caught by others are also of Furthermore, additional information on the levels concern, since they may not fish themselves of contamination in various edible species in the and, therefore, may not be aware of existing Harbor/Bight is needed. This information is health advisories. important to help develop and modify fish advisories and restrictions. HEP and others are ACTION T-10.3 taking steps to address this (see Action T-12.3 Risk Communication Activities below). The States of New York and New Jersey should target additional risk communication efforts to Risk Communication those sub-populations at greatest risk and develop, with USEPA's assistance, a regional Effective communication of advisories is approach to advisory communication. essential to minimize public health risks. Current efforts routinely conducted by both -- NYSDEC and NJDEP are conducting pilot New York and New Jersey include: 1) providing projects to develop and evaluate advisory advisory information to all those who are communication plans tailored to the needs licensed to fish (Note, however, that in both of specific localities in the Harbor area. The New York and New Jersey, recreational fishing projects include developing improved licenses are not required for marine waters, communications materials (e.g., in including most of the Harbor); 2) issuing press languages spoken by local populations) and releases of advisories, including changes in training local authorities and grass-root advisories; and 3) providing advisory information organizers in advisory communications. The to local environmental groups, local health states will consider implementing favored departments, fishing organizations, bait and approaches Harbor-wide. tackle shops, etc. Actions to Better Understand and Manage the However, recent studies indicate that these Problem efforts have not been sufficient to enable the public to make an informed choice regarding As noted throughout this section, additional consumption. For example, a survey of anglers information is needed to better understand and conducted along the Hudson River found that manage the toxics contamination problem in the less than half of this group (42%), who indicate Harbor/Bight. The following action descriptions that they eat their catch, were aware of any provide an overview of information needs, advisories. Less than seven percent of those followed by recommendations and commitments surveyed had an accurate knowledge of the to address the needs, including a description of advisories. Almost half (49%) of those surveyed ongoing efforts. Both the chemical-specific thought that they could determine, by visual approach and the ecosystem approach are observation or previous experience, whether fish discussed. are safe to eat.
TOXIC CONTAMINATION 95 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
ACTION T-11.2 OBJECTIVE T-11 Review and develop New and Revised Priority Criteria NYSDEC and NJDEP will analyze existing criteria for copper and applicable criteria and adopt new and revised other priority chemicals criteria as appropriate for priority chemicals.
-- USEPA, NYSDEC, and NJDEP, under the auspices of HEP, will prepare a plan for The lack of numeric criteria or doubts about the developing and adopting new and revised validity or proper application of available criteria for priority chemicals. numeric criteria (including, in some cases, regulatory criteria and standards) limit our ability USEPA has recommended that the states to draw conclusions regarding whether a consider adoption of water quality criteria for chemical is of concern in the Harbor/Bight. dissolved metals: Therefore, management options are also limited: -- NYSDEC and NJDEP will adopt water quality criteria for dissolved lead and Ë There are no generally accepted regulatory dissolved nickel. criteria for sediment quality. USEPA is -- As part of their triennial reviews, NYSDEC developing criteria based on equilibrium and NJDEP will consider adoption of water partitioning and has recently proposed draft quality criteria for other dissolved metals, as criteria for the protection of benthic appropriate. organisms for several pesticides and PAH compounds. Many other approaches are available for developing criteria. For example, New York State has developed sediment OBJECTIVE T-12 Assess ambient levels, quality screening criteria for protection of loadings, and effects of human health, wildlife, and benthic chemicals organisms; and NOAA has proposed "Effects Range Values" based on associations between levels of a particular chemical and a variety of observed biological effects. The principal objective of the assessments, both Ë FDA's approach for developing action levels recommended and ongoing, included in this for fish, crustacea, and shellfish tissue may section is improved problem definition. This not be sufficiently protective of people who includes assessing whether a particular chemical regularly consume locally caught seafood. is of concern in water, biota, and sediments, Ë There are concerns about the validity of and assessing relative loadings. Assessments particular criteria, or their application. For for development of mass balances are addressed example, applying water quality criteria for below. Long-term monitoring to assess the metals, based on an analysis of total metals, is success of CCMP implementation is discussed in likely to be overprotective because particulate the sections on Monitoring and Reporting on metal is not as bioavailable as dissolved metal. Progress in Implementing the Plan.
ACTION T-11.1 Ecological Indicators Site Specific Water Quality Criteria for Copper NYSDEC and NJDEP will adopt site-specific ACTION T-12.1 water quality criteria for copper in New York and Quantitative Ecosystem Goals and Biocriteria New Jersey water quality standards regulations. USEPA, NYSDEC, and NJDEP, under the auspices of HEP, should develop ecosystem indicators as quantitative goals and biocriteria, and implement long-term monitoring of the indicators (see sections
96 TOXIC CONTAMINATION NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 on Monitoring and Reporting on Progress in -- HEP conducted studies to assess ambient Implementing the Plan below). water toxicity in the Harbor using sensitive test organisms (a sea urchin and a red alga). -- Based on the Regional Environmental Initial studies indicated that Harbor waters Monitoring and Assessment Program (R- in some areas were sometimes toxic to EMAP) (see text and Action T-12.4 below) these organisms, but temporal variability and other available data, HEP will develop was great. A followup study to characterize an index of benthic degradation for the the variability on small spatial scales, and Harbor/Bight, to distinguish normal benthic evaluate the classes of chemicals communities from those degraded by responsible for the observed toxicity, called pollution, and indicate the relative severity a Phase I Toxicity Identification Evaluation of degradation to the benthic communities. (TIE), was recently completed. This study -- USEPA and the states should develop and also found extreme temporal variability in implement a long-term monitoring program toxicity, which made comparisons among using the benthic index and other stations and seasons ambiguous. Toxicity appropriate indicators. was found infrequently; when found, the -- As part of their triennial reviews, NYSDEC pattern of toxicity reduction obtained and NJDEP should adopt biocriteria based during the Phase I TIE analyses was on the benthic index and other indicators, indicative of toxicity due to cationic metals. as appropriate. -- USEPA, as part of its ongoing program to develop methods for marine sediment TIE, HEP funded a study to compare the reproductive using Water Resources Development Act success of several species of fish-eating birds in (WRDA) funds, is conducting a Phase I TIE the Harbor/Bight region. The investigators to evaluate the classes of chemicals concluded that reproductive success in several responsible for toxicity in interstitial (pore) colonies in the Bight area was impaired. The water at three sites in the Harbor (Newtown cause(s) of the decreased reproductive success, Creek, northern Arthur Kill, and north- however, is not clear and may include predation, central Newark Bay). USEPA, in human disturbance, toxic contamination, and cooperation with the National Biological other factors. Survey of the U.S. Department of the Interior, is also developing whole sediment -- HEP recommends additional efforts to TIE methods and will conduct Phase I TIEs monitor the size and productivity of local in conjunction with this effort. The TIEs populations of herons, egrets, gulls, and/or will use a variety of test organisms including terns, focusing on colonies nesting in the an amphipod, a mysid, and a bivalve. Initial Harbor core area. Where impaired TIE work was completed in October 1995. productivity and/or declining bird -- HEP, in cooperation with USEPA, USACE, populations are found, HEP recommends NYSDEC, and NJDEP, will, given adequate analysis of bird tissue contaminant levels. funding, conduct a sediment TIE program to supplement the above effort. The program ACTION T-12.2 should focus on identifying contaminants Identification of Chemicals Responsible for causing toxicity, or impaired benthos, on a Adverse Ecological Effects Harbor-wide scale (as a follow up to R- Where evidence of adverse ecological effects of EMAP; see below), with additional toxic contamination is found, USEPA, NYSDEC, emphasis on dredged sediment. The NJDEP, and other authorities will conduct program should include Phase I and Phase II studies to evaluate whether, and if so which, TIEs, to identify specific chemicals causing chemicals are responsible. toxicity, in interstitial water and whole sediment. HEP will develop a work plan for this effort.
TOXIC CONTAMINATION 97 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
Synthesis of Chemical-Specific Information recent studies by the Maxus Corporation focusing on the Newark Bay Complex. ACTION T-12.3 Revision to List of Chemicals of Concern ACTION T-12.4 HEP will, on a biennial basis, and given Completion of R-EMAP Assessment sufficient resources, revise and update the list of HEP will complete the R-EMAP project by March chemicals of concern based on new information, 1996. including new and revised criteria (e.g., see Objective T-11), and new data on levels of ACTION T-12.5 chemicals in water, biota, and sediments (e.g., Additional Sediment Quality Studies see Objective T-12). -- HEP will, given sufficient funding, conduct Sediment Quality additional studies to assess sediment quality. Priorities are: Background • Assessment of ambient sediment bioaccumulation potential (i.e., the HEP is currently assessing sediment quality in potential for organisms to accumulate coordination with R-EMAP. The objectives of contaminants in their tissues from ambient the assessment are: 1) to estimate the extent sediments). and magnitude of sediment degradation in the • Assessment of trophic transfer of study area using biological and chemical contaminants and effects on higher trophic measures; and 2) to identify statistical levels, including fundamental research, and associations among chemical contaminants, studies supporting development of mass other stressors, such as low dissolved oxygen, balance models. (Note: The Hudson River and degraded benthos or toxic sediments. The Foundation is funding research to address assessment involves synoptic measurement of PCBs). sediment toxicity, benthic community structure, • Evaluation of the chemicals causing and bulk sediment chemistry (including dioxin sediment toxicity or impaired benthos (Note: and PCB congeners, chlorinated pesticides, USEPA is funding a sediment and pore PAHs, metals, organotins), at stations selected water Toxicity Identification Evaluation; see randomly throughout the New York-New Jersey Action T-12.2). Harbor complex, western Long Island Sound, • Characterization of sediment quality on and Bight Apex (total of approximately 170 small spatial scales, e.g., to identify "hot stations). The study will be complete in March spots" and assess sources and sinks for 1996. The data will be useful to: contaminants in sediments. -- HEP will develop a work plan, including cost Ë Provide a baseline to evaluate the estimates, for these studies. effectiveness of management strategies -- HEP will recommend further management implemented to resolve sediment actions based on all available sediment contamination issues (e.g., by comparing R- quality assessment information. To the EMAP data to future studies to assess trends). extent information is available, the actions Ë Provide a perspective on the relative will address: significance of contamination and other • Defining system-wide and basin-wide source stressors, locally versus larger-scale control and remediation priorities. phenomena (e.g., by comparing R-EMAP data • Providing a basis for developing regional to studies conducted on smaller spatial ecological indicators and biocriteria. scales). • Developing regional and/or site specific sediment quality and management criteria There are several additional ongoing or recently for completed studies which attempt to characterize sediment contamination and biological effects. These include the NOAA Bioeffects Program and
98 TOXIC CONTAMINATION NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 the protection of marine life, wildlife, and ACTION T-12.9 human health. Long-Term Monitoring Program in New Jersey NJDEP should develop a long-term water quality Fish, Crustacea, and Shellfish Tissue Quality monitoring effort similar in design to New York City's. ACTION T-12.6 Studies to Assess Tissue Quality Loadings -- HEP is assessing levels of toxic In general, additional information on continuing contaminants in edible fish, crustacea, and loads of organic chemicals of concern to the shellfish throughout the Harbor. The States Harbor/Bight is needed to identify the most of New York and New Jersey are significant sources and source categories. This collaborating on this effort. A wide variety will help focus management attention on of species is being sampled for all the reducing and eliminating these sources. chemicals of concern noted above. This effort will be complete in December 1995 at -- Data collection associated with a cost of $450,000. development of mass balances for specific -- USEPA, USACE, and NMFS are conducting chemicals of concern, discussed in Actions an assessment of contamination of several T-13.2 and T-13.3 below, is expected to be species of edible fish caught by the instrumental in improving loadings recreational fishing community (completed information for organic chemicals of at a cost of $200,000), and an assessment concern. of contamination in lobsters in the Bight -- USEPA required dischargers to identify the Apex (complete March 1996 at a cost of levels of PCBs and dioxin being discharged $300,000). from municipal STPs and CSOs (see Action -- New York State is also assessing levels of T-1.2). PCBs in striped bass throughout its marine -- Additional information from HEP's pollution waters. prevention plan (Objective T-8), and track- -- HEP will, given sufficient funding, conduct down and clean-up plan (Objective T-6) may future periodic fish tissue monitoring based help set priorities for quantitative on these studies. HEP will develop work assessments of loads of chemicals of plans and seek funding for these studies. concern. ACTION T-12.7 ACTION T-12.10 Modification of Advisories and Restrictions Principal Components Analyses USEPA is conducting Principal Components -- New York State will use the information Analyses for PCBs, dioxin, and PAHs for from the above studies, as appropriate, to sediment samples from R-EMAP and several modify fishing advisories and restrictions other available data sets. This effort is expected and to identify additional data collection to help clarify the source categories responsible needs. for the contamination. -- New Jersey will use the information to identify additional data collection needs, ACTION T-12.11 ultimately resulting in modifications to Atmospheric Loadings under "Great advisories and restrictions. Waterbodies" Program Section 112(m) of the Clean Air Act of 1990, Water Quality which establishes the Great Waterbodies Program, may provide an opportunity to assess ACTION T-12.8 and control atmospheric deposition of toxic New York Harbor Water Quality Survey chemicals and nitrogen compounds to the NYCDEP will continue its New York Harbor Harbor/Bight. Under this program, USEPA, in Water Quality Survey at current levels of effort. coordination with NOAA, is required to determine the contribution of atmospheric
TOXIC CONTAMINATION 99 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 deposition to the total pollutant loading to the developing such guidance for metals; NYCDEP Great Waterbodies (which includes all HEP has implemented "clean techniques" for metals. waters), determine whether loadings of -- USEPA, NYSDEC, and NJDEP will hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) cause or incorporate the methods for metals into contribute to water quality violations, and monitoring requirements for NPDES, CSO, promulgate regulatory revisions to the CAA and and storm water permits. other federal laws necessary to assure protection of the waters. The USEPA Administrator will ACTION T-12.13 promulgate the regulatory revisions based on a Assessment of Load Reductions Expected with determination of need as described in a report to CCMP Implementation Congress, prepared in 1993 and biennially thereafter. -- In parallel with development of simple mass balances for mercury and organic chemicals -- HEP will, given sufficient funding, assess of concern (see Action T-13.3 below), HEP, atmospheric loadings of the chemicals of given sufficient funding, will conduct an concern to the Harbor/Bight, as part of an engineering assessment to estimate the load expedited quantification of chemical reductions of chemicals of concern loadings (see Action T-13.3 below); given expected with implementation of HEP's plan sufficient funding, HEP will also assess to reduce continuing inputs of toxic expected reductions in atmospheric loadings chemicals, and to control rainfall-induced of these chemicals with implementation of discharges. In particular, expected load the Clean Air Act (see Action T-12.13 reductions with implementation of the below). following programs will be assessed: -- Within two years, given sufficient funding, • The nine minimum control measures of the HEP will develop simple mass balances to Final National CSO Control Policy (see assess the relative contribution of all Objective CSO-1 below) sources of the chemicals of concern, • Current CSO abatement programs (see including atmospheric deposition. Objective CSO-2 below) -- USEPA will review this information and, in • Municipal and industrial storm water coordination with HEP, will incorporate it management programs (see Objective SW-1 into the Great Waterbodies Report to below) Congress biennial update not later than • Full secondary treatment (see Objective N-1 1997. The report update will specify below) additional steps and regulatory revisions, as • Pollution prevention (Objective T-8) appropriate, to address atmospheric • "Track-down and Clean-up" (Action T-1.2 deposition of toxic chemicals to the and Objective T-6) Harbor/Bight. • Focusing industrial pretreatment programs on significant industrial users (Action T-2.2) ACTION T-12.12 • Clean Air Act (Objective T-4) Low-Level Detection Methods for Loadings -- HEP would use this assessment to help Assessments of loadings for the purpose of determine whether the above actions will identifying the most significant sources and result in attainment of quantitative load developing mass balances will require high reduction goals for the chemicals of quality data, often involving chemical analyses concern, established under Action T-13.3 at very low levels of detection. Currently, most below, and how long it will take. If it is regulated parties are not prepared to conduct determined that goals will not be attained such analyses for several chemicals, including metals, PCBs, and dioxin. -- USEPA, NYSDEC, and NJDEP should develop guidance specifying appropriate methods, and work with regulated parties as necessary to ensure the collection of high quality loadings data. NJDEP is currently
100 TOXIC CONTAMINATION NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
in a timely fashion, HEP will identify well as sediment flux, in causing exceedances of additional actions to meet the goals. criteria. -- Data on loadings of chemicals of concern from important source categories (see -- HEP is working with USACE to develop a Action T-13.3 below) should be used to help comprehensive toxics model. USACE generate load reduction estimates. prepared a "straw" proposal, which was reviewed by HEP. USACE developed a work plan in response to HEP comments. The Develop mass balances work plan includes a data collection OBJECTIVE T-13 program for mercury and organic chemicals for metals and organic of concern and model development initially chemicals focusing on PCBs. -- Model development and calibration for PCBs would take five years. -- A comprehensive data collection program ACTION T-13.1 addressing PCBs, dioxin, PAHs, pesticides, Monitoring and Modeling for Metals other than and mercury would take three years, and Mercury given adequate funding, will include: Consistent with the phased TMDL approach for • A comprehensive quantitative assessment of water quality-limiting metals: loads of chemicals; • An assessment of levels of chemicals in -- The New Jersey Harbor Dischargers Group is water, biota, and sediments of the conducting additional ambient and effluent Harbor/Bight; and monitoring and modeling, to support Phase • An assessment of environmental transport II TMDLs for the waterbodies where copper, and fate of chemicals. nickel, and lead may be water quality- -- The model would be "state-of-the-art", and, limiting (see Objectives T-1 and T-2). as appropriate, would be used to help -- NJHDG is currently conducting monitoring define optimal management approaches to to determine which metals are water quality- address exceedances, including reduction limiting. They will submit data by February and elimination of continuing discharges 1996. and potential remediation of contaminated -- NJHDG will submit a work plan for sediments, on a geographically specific additional Phase II monitoring and modeling basis. studies by September 1996. -- HEP recommends that USACE seek funds to -- NJDEP will review and approve this work continue the development of the model, plan, in coordination with HEP, by including revising the modeling work plan to December 1996. include a detailed data collection plan and -- NJHDG will conduct the studies and submit cost estimates. load matrices for determining TMDLs by -- HEP will develop and seek funding for a June 1998. program of research to complement the -- USEPA, NYSDEC, and NJDEP will, by toxics modeling effort. December 1998, revise TMDLs as -- HEP recommends that USACE seek appropriate. authorization and funding to conduct modeling and monitoring to address toxic ACTION T-13.2 contamination in the Harbor/Bight, not tied Comprehensive System-wide Model for Mercury to dredged material management. and Organic Chemicals HEP recommends development of mass balances to assess the significance of current sources of organic chemicals and bioaccumulative mercury, as
TOXIC CONTAMINATION 101 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
ACTION T-13.3 • Preliminary evaluations of various control Simple Mass Balance for Mercury and Organic scenarios on toxics response (two years); and Chemicals • Final evaluations of control scenarios and In parallel with development of the final report (three years). comprehensive System-Wide Toxics Model -- A complete model development program, described in Action T-13.2, HEP recommends however, must include data collection to development of simple mass balances for calibrate the model. In particular, to mercury and organic chemicals of concern develop substantially improved mass within one to three years, to be used to support balances, data on loadings of chemicals of interim management assessments of dredged concern from important source categories at sediment contamination. low detection levels are needed; it also may be necessary to collect data on ambient HEP would use the simple mass balances to levels of the chemicals. This data collection assess major sources of chemicals of concern on program should be complete within one a Harbor-wide scale; whether significant year. reduction of the chemicals in dredged sediments -- Following model development, HEP will use can be achieved by reducing continuing inputs, the model to assess control strategies. As and, if so, which sources and how long it will noted above, some of this work is planned take; and to set quantitative load reduction under the HRF project, but full funding has goals. HEP will, given sufficient funding, assess not been identified. Also, additional model whether implementation of actions in the CCMP runs may be required. will result in attainment of these goals (see -- HRF, USACE, and USEPA, under the Action T-12.13). Note that the simple mass auspices of HEP, are developing a work balances which are developed primarily to meet plan, including cost estimates, for the dredged material management objectives can overall modeling program, to supplement also be used to meet ambient water and biota the HRF project. tissue objectives. -- USACE has indicated willingness to fund the model development program and will -- The Hudson River Foundation (HRF), under seek funds as necessary based on the work the auspices of HEP, and with support from plan for the overall modeling program. USACE, the Port Authority of New York and -- HRF, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and USEPA, has initiated a New Jersey, and USACE are already project to develop and validate an committed to partial funding of the model integrated mathematical model for the development program. HEP recommends transport, fate, and bioaccumulation of they continue to fund the program. PCBs, dioxin, and PAHs in the Estuary. An -- HEP recommends that USEPA and/or other existing model will be updated with new appropriate sponsors fund the portions of data and expanded to include PCB the overall modeling program related to use congener-specific behavior. The of the model to assess control scenarios. effectiveness of various control scenarios will be evaluated using recent data on ACTION T-13.4 chemical loadings, in terms of effect on Whippany River Comparative Mass Balance striped bass tissue contaminant levels, Study sediment contamination, and water quality. NJDEP will conduct a comparative study to The project is a three-year effort; full evaluate two differing strategies used to funding is in place for the first year. Key develop soil clean-up standards for hazardous products and time frames are as follows: waste sites. Both strategies use fate and • Updated predictions of PCB striped bass transport modeling to assess mass balance of response given recent data and refined toxics originating from hazardous waste sites. model (one year); NJDEP will assess mass balances of metals and • Development, application, and calibration of organic chemicals originating from numerous model to PCB congener-specific behavior, dioxin, and PAHs (within two years);
102 TOXIC CONTAMINATION NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 waste sites in the Whippany River basin, and Ë The Plan includes 21 actions for which estimate the contribution of the waste sites to increased funding of $1.915 million plus contaminant levels in water, sediments, and $1.75 million per year is recommended. biota. This project will be an additional Ë The Plan includes 7 additional commitments component of NJDEP's Whippany River non- and recommendations for action for which point source management program (see Action cost estimates will be developed during the NPS-1.1 below) and related pilot projects (see continuing planning process. Action H-2.1) and may help to focus implementation of management measures. The toxics management component also includes 9 actions that will or may require the COSTS OF IMPLEMENTING THIS PLAN expenditure of project implementation funds by responsible entities. As shown in Table 12(tc) Many of the commitments and below: recommendations in the Toxics section of the CCMP can be accomplished through the Ë The Plan includes 1 action for which $30,000 effective use of base program resources. In will be required to be committed, and an fact, full implementation of the CCMP relies, in additional 3 actions for which funds will be large part, on continued operation, and funding required to be committed, by the responsible at current levels, of existing programs to address entities, based on regulatory requirements toxic contamination. The toxics management now being developed or finalized. component of the CCMP itemizes 38 new HEP- Ë The Plan includes 5 actions for which driven commitments operating through base additional funds may be required to be programs. These actions represent a major expended by responsible entities, based on commitment to CCMP implementation. the potential outcomes of several ongoing or planned HEP efforts. The toxics management component of the CCMP also includes 44 significant commitments The costs of implementation actions to address and recommendations that entail enhanced toxic contamination may be large. Cost program funding. As shown in Table 11(tc) estimates for these actions will be developed below: during the continuing planning process. Ë The Plan includes 16 actions for which a total of $4.531 million plus $80,000 per year has been committed by the responsible entities.
TOXIC CONTAMINATION 103 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
Table 11(tc). Enhanced Program Costs for Management of Toxic Contamination
ACTION COMMITMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS Cost Cost/Year Cost Cost/Year ACTION T-1.1: Evaluate metals reduction in $100,000 connection with Phase II TMDLs (NJ). ACTION T-1.2: Conduct monitoring per §308 letters $200,000 for PCBs and dioxin. ACTION T-1.2: Conduct additional CWA §308 * monitoring as required. ACTION T-1.2: Deploy PISCES to monitor for PCBs and $216,000 other organic chemicals in NYC STP drainage areas. ACTION T-2.2: Focus pretreatment program on $80,000 $80,000 significant industrial users (NYC). ACTION T-5.1: Develop waste site inventory for $150,000 chemicals of concern in the Harbor/Bight area. ACTION T-5.2: Expedite remediation of the most * significant sites (actions beyond existing program resources). ACTION T-6.1: Track-down sources of chemicals of $200,000 concern. ACTION T-6.3: Track-down PCB sources in NY $32,000 tributaries to the Harbor using PISCES. ACTION T-8.1: Identify the largest emitters of $50,000 chemicals of concern in the Harbor/Bight area. ACTION T-8.1: Give these facilities priority for * pollution prevention actions (actions beyond existing program resources). ACTION T-9.2: Identify additional areas of highly contaminated sediments; use available $100,000 information and develop work plan for additional studies.
104 TOXIC CONTAMINATION ACTION COMMITMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS Cost Cost/Year Cost Cost/Year ACTION T-10.1: Establish consistent risk assessment $100,000 methodology. ACTION T-10.2: Review fish tissue criteria. $100,000 ACTION T-10.3: Conduct advisory communication pilot $129,000 projects. ACTION T-10.3: Implement favored approaches Harbor- * wide. ACTION T-10.3: Develop regional approach to advisory $75,000 communication. ACTION T-11.2: Prepare plan for developing and $45,000 adopting new criteria (NJ). ACTION T-12.1: Develop ecosystem $75,000 monitoring plan. ACTION T-12.1: Implement ecosystem $500,000 monitoring. ACTION T-12.1: Monitor productivity of local Cost included populations of marine birds; analyze tissue in $500,000 $300,000 contaminant levels where impaired productivity estimate and/or declining populations are found. above ACTION T-12.1: Adopt biocriteria as part of triennial $90,000 reviews. ACTION T-12.2: Complete Phase I ambient $100,000 water TIE. ACTION T-12.2: Conduct Phase I sediment $100,000 $200,000 TIE. ACTION T-12.2: Conduct Phase II sediment $200,000 TIE. ACTION T-12.3: Update list of chemicals of $50,000 concern. ACTION T-12.4: Complete R-EMAP $1.5 million assessment. ACTION T-12.5: Conduct additional sediment * studies. ACTION T-12.6: Assess tissue quality: $450,000 * Harbor/Bight. ACTION T-12.6: Assess tissue quality: Bight $200,000 Apex. ACTION T-12.6: Assess lobster tissue quality in Bight $300,000 Apex. ACTION T-12.6: Assess PCBs in striped bass. $350,000 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
ACTION COMMITMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS Cost Cost/Year Cost Cost/Year ACTION T-12.9: Develop and implement NJ water $1 million quality monitoring programs. ACTION T-12.10: Conduct principal components $75,000 analyses. ACTION T-12.12: Develop methods guidance for organic $75,000 chemicals. ACTION T-12.13: Estimate chemical load reductions $100,000 expected with CCMP implementation. ACTION T-13.1: Conduct monitoring/modeling for Phase $360,000+* II TMDLs. ACTION T-13.2: Develop system-wide toxics model. $100,000+* ACTION T-13.2: Develop and implement complementary * research program. ACTION T-13.3: Develop simple mass balances $339,000 including improved information on loadings and $155,000+* ambient monitoring. 1 1 $4,531,000 $1,915,000 TOTAL +* $80,000/yr +* $1,750,000/yr
* Enhanced program costs to be developed as part of the continuing planning process. 1 Notation (+*) indicates cost plus additional costs to be determined.
106 TOXIC CONTAMINATION NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 Cost/Year RECOMMENDATIONS * * * * * * Cost Cost/Year COMMITMENTS * * * Cost $30,000 $30,000+* TOTAL ACTION Table 12(tc). Project Implementation Costs for Management of Toxic Contamination Comply with Phase I TMDLs for metals. Comply with Phase II TMDLs for metals. Implement track-down and clean-up of Implement track-down and clean-up of Comply with requirements of ambient Remediate known sites of contaminated Assess/remediate any additional Comply with any additional Comply with any additional Project implementation costs to be developed as part of the continuing planning process. ACTION T-1.1: ACTION T-1.1: ACTION T-1.2: discharges of PCBs/dioxin. ACTION T-1.2: discharges of other chemicals. ACTION T-6.2: track-down, as appropriate. ACTION T-9.1: sediments. ACTION T-9.2: contaminated sediments. ACTION T-13.2: controls required as a result of system-wide toxics modeling. ACTION T-13.3: actions required as a result of simple mass balances. *
TOXIC CONTAMINATION 107 BENEFITS OF IMPLEMENTING THIS PLAN progress may be reflected in a reduction in fishery restrictions due to toxic contamination HEP's plan to address toxic contamination has and an improvement in the quality of newly two fundamental paths dedicated to solving the deposited sediments. Furthermore, toxic contamination problem. These are implementation of controls required by Phase II proceeding concurrently and are closely linked: TMDLs/WLAs for copper, nickel, and lead will "Actions to Reduce Continuing Inputs of Toxic assure the elimination of violations of water Chemicals" (Objectives T-1 through T-9), and quality standards due to these metals "Actions to Better Understand the Toxic throughout the Harbor. Contamination Problem and Take Additional Management Actions as More is Learned" HEP has defined several key actions which will (Objectives T-11 through T-13). With one help us assess more precisely what benefits we exception noted below, current information is will achieve with implementation of the Actions insufficient for those involved with HEP to to Reduce Continuing Inputs, what additional know whether full implementation of the former actions will be necessary to achieve HEP's group of actions will result in the achievement goals, and how long it will take. Among the of HEP's goals; the latter group of actions is key actions are modeling and monitoring efforts intended to give us this information. to develop mass balances and set quantitative load reduction goals for chemicals of concern Full implementation of the Actions to Reduce on two-year and five-year schedules (Actions T- Continuing Inputs of Toxic Chemicals is, 13.3 and T-13.2, respectively), and an however, expected to result in substantial assessment, on a two-year schedule, to progress toward HEP's goal to establish and determine quantitatively what load reductions maintain a healthy and productive Harbor/Bight of chemicals of concern will be achieved with ecosystem with no adverse ecological effects implementation of the CCMP (Action T-12.13). due to toxic contamination. This Table 13(ts). Summary—Management of Toxic Contamination
ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2
ACTIONS TO REDUCE CONTINUING INPUTS OF TOXIC CHEMICALS
OBJECTIVE T-1: Reduce municipal discharges of chemicals of concern.
ACTION T-1.1: Control discharges of metals.
-- Promulgate Phase I TMDLs for metals. USEPA with concurrence Proposed: Completed Base program C/N of NYSDEC & NJDEP Final: May 15, 1996
-- Incorporate limits based on Existing Effluent Quality NYSDEC & NJDEP Draft permits: Base program C/N into draft permits (Harbor-wide for mercury, and in Completed Newark Bay, Kills, Raritan Bay/River, Passaic River, Final permits: and Hackensack River for copper. Jun 30, 1996
-- Comply with Phase I TMDLs. NYCDEP, Yonkers Sewer Jun 30, 1996 NYC and Yonkers: C/N District, NJ dischargers No additional project implementation cost NJHDG: $30,000
Note: It is HEP’s goal that all the recommendations in the CCMP become commitments.
-- In some cases CCMP actions are recommendations, not commitments, -- In other cases, CCMP actions are recommendations because HEP has not because responsible entities require resources to implement the action. obtained the commitment of regulated entities and other responsible HEP will advocate making these resources available. entities to implement the action. By issuance of this final CCMP, HEP seeks the commitment of the responsible entities and requests that they step forward to voluntarily agree to implement the actions.
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2
-- Phase II TMDLs: Revise/promulgate TMDLs for copper, NYSDEC & NJDEP Dec 1998 Base program C/N nickel, and lead to include more stringent permit limits with USEPA assistance as necessary based on additional data collection and modeling (see T-13.1).
-- Incorporate limits, as necessary, into permits. NYSDEC & NJDEP Draft permit Base program C/N modifications: Jan 1999 Final permit modifications: Jul 1999
-- Evaluate the effectiveness of pretreatment, treatment NJ dischargers Completed Enhanced program C/N optimization, corrosion control, and pollution cost - $100,000 prevention, to reduce metals loadings. NYCDEP Completed Enhanced program C/N completed
Yonkers Sewer District Completed Enhanced program C/N completed
-- Comply with Phase II TMDLs. NYCDEP & NJ To be determined Project implementation cost R dischargers based on Phase II of continuing compliance to TMDLs be provided by dischargers based on Phase II TMDLs
ACTION T-1.2: "Track-down and clean-up" significant discharges of organic chemicals of concern (Note: USEPA, NYSDEC, NJDEP, USACE, NYCDEP, NJHDG, and other dischargers, under the auspices of HEP, will coordinate development of this program, including identifying chemicals to be included, dischargers, monitoring techniques, and sampling methodologies. See text for details).
-- Identify the levels of PCBs and dioxin in municipal discharges (Harbor-wide for PCBs; Newark Bay complex for dioxin).
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation (Continued) Table 13(ts). Summary —Management of Toxic Contamination
ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2
• Require monitoring using CWA Section 308 USEPA Completed Base program C/N letters.
• Conduct monitoring and submit report. NYCDEP Completed Enhanced program cost - C/N $79,000
NJ Harbor Dischargers Completed Enhanced program cost - C/N Group (NJHDG) $120,000
Yonkers Sewer District Completed Enhanced program cost - C/N minimal (less than $1,000)
• Review data to identify significant municipal USEPA, NYSDEC, Apr 30, 1996 Base program C/N discharges of PCBs; develop program to track- NJDEP, NYCDEP, down and abate the sources of PCBs to their NJHDG, and other systems. dischargers, under the auspices of HEP
• Implement track-down and clean-up program for NYCDEP, Yonkers Sewer Apr 30, 1996 Project implementation cost C/N PCBs. District, NJHDG to be estimated by dischargers based on monitoring results
! Deploy PISCES for a 12-month period in the NYCDEP Newtown Creek: Enhanced program cost - C/O influent streams of the 14 NYC STPs to Deployed $216,000 over 3 yrs monitor for PCBs and other organic chemicals. Jun 1995 Other areas: Deployed Jul 1995
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation (Continued) Table 13(ts). Summary —Management of Toxic Contamination
ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2
! Submit report to NYSDEC proposing the STP NYCDEP Dec 1996 Cost included in above C/N drainage basins in which track-down will be estimate pursued, considering the results of the monitoring conducted under the Section 308 letters.
! Follow up with additional track-down efforts. NYCDEP By Dec 31, 1998 Cost included in above C/N estimate
• Review the data to assess whether dioxin is being USEPA, NYSDEC, Completed Base program C/N discharged. NJDEP, under the auspices of HEP
-- Review available information on other organic USEPA, NYSDEC, Jul 1997 Base program C/N chemicals of concern to determine whether dischargers NJDEP, USACE, should identify the levels of these chemicals in their NYCDEP, NJHDG, and discharges. other dischargers, under the auspices of HEP
-- Determine which dischargers should identify the levels USEPA, NYSDEC, Sep 1997 Base program C/N of these chemicals in their discharges. NJDEP, NYCDEP, NJHDG, and other dischargers, under the auspices of HEP
• Conduct screening of these discharges to identify Municipal & industrial Sep 1998 Enhanced program cost to R the levels of chemicals being discharged, and dischargers, as be provided by dischargers submit report, as necessary. appropriate based on monitoring requirements
• Implement program to track-down and abate USEPA, NYSDEC, Dec 1998 Base program C/N sources of other chemicals of concern if NJDEP, and dischargers significant discharges are found, or proceed to as appropriate, under the develop TMDLs/WLAs/LAs. auspices of HEP
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation (Continued) Table 13(ts). Summary —Management of Toxic Contamination
ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2
-- Review new information and report on whether USEPA, NYSDEC, Dec 1996 & Base program C/N additional chemicals should be considered for track- NJDEP, USACE, biennially thereafter down and clean-up. NYCDEP, NJHDG, and other dischargers, under the auspices of HEP
OBJECTIVE T-2: Reduce industrial discharges of chemicals of concern.
ACTION T-2.1: Assure continuing compliance with permit NYSDEC, NJDEP, ISC Ongoing Base program C/O conditions for direct industrial discharges.
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation (Continued) Table 13(ts). Summary —Management of Toxic Contamination
ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2
ACTION T-2.2: Ensure that municipalities in the NYSDEC & NJDEP Ongoing Base program C/O Harbor/Bight area focus their pretreatment programs on significant industrial users, and additional users as NYCDEP Began Jul 1994 Enhanced program C/N necessary, not just categorical industrial users. cost - $80,000/yr
-- Modify pretreatment program to reduce discharges of metals and other chemicals:
• Add 40 automobile radiator repair shops to the Began Jul 1994 pretreatment program. NYCDEP Enhanced program cost - C/N • Develop an industrial control strategy for photo Submitted to $80,000 finishers. NYSDEC Jun 1995
-- Modify pretreatment program to reduce discharges of tetrachloroethylene:
• Amend Sewer Use Regulation. Completed Base program (NYCDEP has NYCDEP committed $100,000 for C/O • Inventory dry cleaning industry and notify. Completed this effort) Jan 1, 1996
• Investigate other potential sources. Dec 31, 1996
ACTION T-2.3: Direct industrial dischargers are subject to the requirements to control loadings of metals (see T- 1.1), as well as consideration for track-down and clean-up of organic chemicals of concern (see T-1.2).
ACTION T-2.4: Publish biennial plans to identify industries USEPA Proposed biennial Base program C/O discharging pollutants and establish schedules for plan May 1994 promulgation of effluent guidelines; promulgate guidelines.
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation (Continued) Table 13(ts). Summary —Management of Toxic Contamination
ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2
OBJECTIVE T-3: Minimize the discharge of toxic chemicals from CSOs, storm water, and non-point sources (Note: see section on Rainfall-Induced Discharges).
OBJECTIVE T-4: Reduce air emissions of chemicals of concern.
ACTION T-4.0: Implement Clean Air Act requirements.
-- Enforce existing air regulations limiting the emissions of USEPA, NYSDEC, NJDEP Ongoing Base program C/O toxic pollutants.
-- Develop emission standards for HAPs based on the USEPA By Dec 31, 2000 Base program C/O maximum achievable control technology for major source categories.
-- Develop regulations for area or small sources of HAPs. USEPA By Dec 31, 2000 Base program C/O
OBJECTIVE T-5: Remediate identified solid and hazardous waste sites.
ACTION T-5.1: Using existing state priority lists for USEPA, NYSDEC, Jun 1996 Enhanced program R hazardous waste sites, develop a GIS-based integrated NJDEP, with assistance cost - $150,000 inventory of active and inactive solid and hazardous waste from NYCDEP, under the sites in the Harbor/Bight area, contributing or potentially auspices of HEP contributing toxics to the Harbor/Bight.
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation (Continued) Table 13(ts). Summary —Management of Toxic Contamination
ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2
ACTION T-5.2: Develop site-specific schedules to expedite clean closure or remediation of the most significant sites.
-- For publicly funded sites.
• As feasible within existing resources. USEPA, NYSDEC, NJDEP Begin by Base program C/N* Jun 1996
• To the extent existing resources are insufficient to USEPA, NYSDEC, NJDEP Jun 1996 Enhanced program costs to C/N* address priority sites in the Harbor/Bight drainage be identified based on area, identify and seek additional resources. Action T-5.13
-- For privately funded sites. USEPA, NYSDEC, NJDEP To be negotiated To be negotiated with R and principal responsible with responsible responsible parties3 parties parties
OBJECTIVE T-6: Track-down and clean-up chemicals of concern.
ACTION T-6.1: Conduct screening for ambient levels of USEPA, NYSDEC, Begin by Enhanced program R organic chemicals and mercury in the Harbor/Bight in NJDEP, under the Jun 1996 cost - $200,000/yr proximity to potential sources, using sensitive sample auspices of HEP monitoring techniques. ACTION T-6.2: Where significantly elevated levels are USEPA, NYSDEC, Begin by Enhanced program cost C/N** found, initiate procedures to track-down and eliminate or NJDEP, under the Jun 1996 included in estimate for require the elimination of sources, giving priority to the auspices of HEP Action T-6.1 most significant sources.
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract * Commitment contingent on completion of Action T-5.1. or grant. ** Commitment contingent on completion of Action T-6.1 and funding of 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP the track-down. C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation 3 Note: Costs may range from $60,000 to $450,000 per acre, depending on the level of closure or remediation needed, and considering prioritization. (Continued) Table 13(ts). Summary —Management of Toxic Contamination
ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2
-- Comply. Regulated entities Begin by Project implementation cost R Jun 1996, as to be determined on case- appropriate by-case basis based on sources to be eliminated
ACTION T-6.3: Track-down PCB sources in New York tributaries to the Harbor using PISCES.
-- Screen for elevated PCB levels in Harbor tributaries, NYSDEC Completed Enhanced program cost - C/O and identify possible PCB sources in those tributaries. $32,000
-- Develop SPDES permit prohibiting storm water NYSDEC By Dec 1996 Base program C/N discharges of PCBs from identified facility discharging to Mill Creek, SI.
-- Conduct additional work to evaluate other possible PCB NYSDEC Begin by Enhanced program cost R sources to Mill Creek and to identify possible PCB Jan 1996 included in Action T-6.1 sources in other Harbor tributaries where elevated levels were found.
OBJECTIVE T-7: Improve chemical/oil spill response and prevention.
ACTION T-7.0: Review the area contingency plan and HEP Dec 1996 Base program C/N recommendations of the final report of the Bi-state Oil Spill Response and Prevention Conference, and incorporate, as appropriate, into the CCMP.
-- Provide relevant information to USCG and the Bi-State Conference to assist updates of the area contingency plan.
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation (Continued) Table 13(ts). Summary —Management of Toxic Contamination
ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2
OBJECTIVE T-8: Focus pollution prevention activities on chemicals of concern.
ACTION T-8.1: Review TRI and other data for industrial NYSDEC & NJDEP, under Jun 1996 Enhanced program R facilities in areas draining to the Harbor core area to the auspices of HEP cost - $50,000 identify the largest emitters of chemicals of concern.
-- Give these facilities highest priority for pollution NYSDEC & NJDEP Begin by Base program C/N* prevention actions including those found in T-8.3 Jun 1996 through T-8.5, to the extent feasible within existing resources.
-- To the extent existing program resources are NYSDEC & NJDEP Begin by Enhanced program cost C/N* insufficient to address Harbor/Bight priorities, identify Jun 1996 estimate to be developed by and seek additional resources. NYSDEC & NJDEP based on Action T-8.1
ACTION T-8.2: Implement non-regulatory pollution prevention. -- Under the NJ State Pollution Prevention law, develop Priority industrial Ongoing Base program C/O and report annually on a multi-media pollution facilities in NJ prevention plan.
-- Seek commitments for voluntary reductions in releases HEP Ongoing Base program C/N of chemicals of concern to all media.
-- Promote measures which can be implemented by HEP Ongoing Base program C/N citizens to reduce releases of chemicals of concern. (Note: see public involvement section).
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract * Commitment contingent upon completion of Action T-8.1. or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation (Continued) Table 13(ts). Summary —Management of Toxic Contamination
ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2
ACTION T-8.3: Evaluate a Facility-Wide Permit (FWP) approach, to integrate the air, water, and hazardous waste permits from a facility with its pollution prevention plan.
-- Conduct pilot project to evaluate FWP approach. NJDEP Complete by Base program C/O Aug 1997
-- Seek legislative approval to implement approach as NJDEP Aug 1997 Base program C/O appropriate.
ACTION T-8.4: For regulatory programs under state purview:
-- Add pollution prevention plan requirements, addressing NYSDEC Begin by Base program C/N* the chemicals of concern, to NPDES renewal permits, Jun 1996 permit modifications, and new permits.
-- Consider, if given the legislative authority, adding NJDEP Begin by Base program C/N* pollution prevention requirements addressing the Jun 1996 chemicals of concern to NPDES renewals and permit modifications.
ACTION T-8.5: Require hazardous waste treatment, USEPA & NYSDEC Begin by Base program C/N* storage, and disposal facilities in the Harbor/Bight area, Jun 1996 that manage one or more of the chemicals of concern, to submit and implement a pollution prevention plan.
-- Target RCRA inspections for RCRA hazardous waste USEPA, NYSDEC, NJDEP Begin by Base program C/N* generators in the Harbor/Bight area that manage one or Jun 1996 more of the chemicals of concern.
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract * Commitment contingent upon completion of Action T-8.1. or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation (Continued) Table 13(ts). Summary —Management of Toxic Contamination
ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2
OBJECTIVE T-9: Identify and remediate selected contaminated sediments.
ACTION T-9.1: Take appropriate steps to remediate known areas of highly contaminated sediments.
-- Issue ROD for the Passaic River Study Area, USEPA By Dec 31, 1997 Base program C/O considering impacts on the Estuary as a whole. (Note: USEPA will provide relevant data and/or model to HEP and, in selecting a remedy, will consider the results of HEP's effort under Action T-13.3, if completed prior to issuance of the ROD).
• Remediate site, as appropriate. USEPA & Potentially To be determined Project implementation cost C/O Responsible Parties based on ROD to be determined based on ROD
-- Submit proposed remedial plan for Hudson River PCB USEPA Mar 1997 Base program C/O site for public review. -- Issue ROD for Hudson River PCBs Superfund site USEPA Sep 1997 Base program C/O considering impacts on the Estuary. (Note: In developing the ROD, USEPA will provide relevant data to HEP and, in selecting a remedy, will consider the results of HEP's effort under Action T-13.3, if completed prior to issuance of the ROD).
• Remediate site, as appropriate. USEPA & Potentially To be determined Project implementation cost C/O Responsible Parties based on ROD to be determined based on ROD
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation (Continued) Table 13(ts). Summary —Management of Toxic Contamination
ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2
-- Complete remediation of Marathon Battery Superfund USEPA & Potentially Completed Paid by Potentially C/O site. Responsible Parties Responsible Parties
• Begin long-term monitoring of Marathon Battery USEPA & Potentially Fall 1995 Paid by Potentially C/O site. Responsible Parties Responsible Parties
ACTION T-9.2: Identify additional areas of highly contaminated sediments for more in-depth assessment, including feasibility of and need for remediation.
-- Identify areas and assess feasibility based on available USEPA, NYSDEC, Sep 1996 Enhanced program R data and information. NJDEP, USACE, under cost - $100,000 the auspices of HEP
-- Develop work plan including cost estimate for USEPA, NYSDEC, Sep 1996 Enhanced program cost R additional studies to identify areas of highly NJDEP, USACE, under included in above estimate contaminated sediments. the auspices of HEP
-- Initiate action to assess and remediate additional sites, USEPA, NYSDEC, Begin by 1996 as Project implementation cost R as appropriate. NJDEP, Potentially necessary to be determined as areas Responsible Parties identified
ACTIONS TO MINIMIZE HUMAN HEALTH RISKS OBJECTIVE T-10: Establish consistent methodology to assess risk and improve communication of fish advisories.
ACTION T-10.1: Establish a consistent methodology as NYSDOH, NYSDEC, Jun 1996 Enhanced program R appropriate to assess human health risks due to the NJDEP, NJDOH cost - $100,000 consumption of locally-caught seafood, and to set fishing advisories and restrictions.
-- Prepare report documenting NY & NJ methodologies NYSDOH, NYSDEC, Jun 1996 Cost included in above R for assessing health risks. NJDEP, NJDOH estimate
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation (Continued) Table 13(ts). Summary —Management of Toxic Contamination
ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2
ACTION T-10.2: Review fish tissue criteria and NYSDEC, NYSDOH, Jun 1996 Enhanced program R recommend steps to adopt and implement revised criteria NJDEP, NJDOH, USEPA cost - $100,000 as appropriate (Note: also see Objectives T-11 and T-12, re: criteria review and development).
ACTION T-10.3: Target additional risk communication efforts to those sub-populations at greatest risk..
-- Conduct pilot projects to tailor advisory communication NYSDEC Oct 1996 Enhanced program C/O plans to local communities. cost - $40,000
NJDEP Sep 1996 Enhanced program C/O cost - $89,000
-- Implement favored approaches Harbor-wide. NJDEP Beginning Enhanced program cost R Oct 1996 estimate to be developed by NYSDEC & NJDEP NYSDEC Oct 1996 depending on approaches to be implemented
-- Develop regional approach to advisory communication. NYSDOH, NYSDEC, Oct 1996 Enhanced program R NJDEP, with USEPA cost - $75,000 assistance
ACTIONS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND AND MANAGE THE PROBLEM
OBJECTIVE T-11: Review and develop criteria for copper and other priority chemicals.
ACTION T-11.1: Adopt site-specific water quality criteria NYSDEC Apr 1996 Base program C/N for copper in New York and New Jersey water quality standards regulations. NJDEP Jun 1996 Base program C/N
ACTION T-11.2: Analyze existing applicable criteria and adopt new and revised criteria as appropriate for priority chemicals.
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation (Continued) Table 13(ts). Summary —Management of Toxic Contamination
ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2
-- Prepare a plan for developing and adopting new and USEPA, NYSDEC, Jul 1996 USEPA & NYSDEC: C/N revised criteria. NJDEP, under auspices of Base program HEP NJDEP: R Enhanced program cost - $45,000
-- Adopt water quality criteria for dissolved lead and NYSDEC Apr 1996 Base program C/N nickel. NJDEP Dec 1996
-- Consider adopting water quality criteria for other NYSDEC Jan 1996 Base program C/N dissolved metals as appropriate as part of triennial review. NJDEP Dec 1996
OBJECTIVE T-12: Assess ambient levels, loadings, and effects of chemicals.
ACTION T-12.1: Develop ecosystem indicators as quantitative goals and biocriteria, and implement long-term monitoring of the indicators.
-- Develop benthic index based on R-EMAP and other HEP Apr 1996 Part of R-EMAP assessment C/N data. (See Action T-12.4)
-- Develop long-term monitoring program for benthic USEPA, NYSDEC, Jun 1996 Enhanced program R index and other indicators. NJDEP, under auspices of cost - $75,000 HEP -- Implement long-term monitoring program. USEPA, NYSDEC, Begin by summer Enhanced program R NJDEP, under auspices of 1996 cost - $500,000/yr HEP
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation (Continued) Table 13(ts). Summary —Management of Toxic Contamination
ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2
-- Monitor size and productivity of local populations of HEP, NYSDEC, NJDEP, Spring 1996 Enhanced program cost - R herons, egrets, gulls and/or terns, focusing on colonies USDOI/NPS $15,000/yr (Note: included in the Harbor core area. in above estimate)
-- Analyze contaminants in bird tissues in cases of low HEP, NYSDEC, NJDEP, Initiate in 1997; Enhanced program cost - R productivity and/or declining bird populations. USDOI/NPS Complete by Dec 31, $300,000 over two years 1998
-- Adopt biocriteria based on the benthic index and other NYSDEC & NJDEP Begin by Enhanced program R indicators as appropriate as part of triennial review. Dec 31, 1997 cost - $90,000
ACTION T-12.2: Where evidence of adverse ecological effects of toxics is found, conduct studies to evaluate whether, and if so which, chemicals are responsible.
-- Complete Phase I TIE on ambient water. HEP Completed Enhanced program C/N cost - $100,000
-- Conduct Phase I TIE on interstitial water and whole USEPA Completed Enhanced program C/O sediment from several sites in the Harbor. cost - $100,000
-- Conduct Phase I sediment TIE program to identify HEP, in coordination with Jun 1996 Enhanced program R contaminants causing toxicity or impaired benthos USEPA, USACE, cost - $200,000 Harbor-wide, including dredged sediment. NYSDEC, NJDEP
-- Conduct Phase II sediment TIE program to identify HEP, in coordination with Dec 1996 Enhanced program R contaminants causing toxicity or impaired benthos USEPA, USACE, cost - $200,000 Harbor-wide, including dredged sediment. NYSDEC, NJDEP
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation (Continued) Table 13(ts). Summary —Management of Toxic Contamination
ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2
ACTION T-12.3: Revise and update the list of chemicals of concern in the Harbor/Bight based on new information including new and revised criteria and new data on levels of chemicals in water, biota, and sediments.
-- Modify list based on readily available and summarized HEP Dec 1995 & annually Base program C/N new data and information. thereafter
-- Modify list based on comprehensive data assessment. HEP Dec 1996 & Enhanced program R biennially thereafter cost - $50,000/yr (work to be conducted biennially)
ACTION T-12.4: Complete R-EMAP baseline sediment USEPA in coordination Apr 1996 Enhanced program C/O quality assessment. with HEP cost - $1.5 million
ACTION T-12.5: Conduct additional studies to assess sediment quality.
-- Develop work plan including cost estimates for priority HEP Mar 1996 Base program C/N studies.
-- Conduct studies. HEP Begin by Enhanced program cost to R Sep 1996 be determined based on work plan
ACTION T-12.6: Assess fish, shellfish, and crustacea tissue quality.
-- Assess levels of chemicals in tissues of edible fish, HEP Draft reports: Enhanced program C/N shellfish, and crustacea in the Harbor/Bight. Completed cost - $450,000 Final reports: Jul 1996
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation (Continued) Table 13(ts). Summary —Management of Toxic Contamination
ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2
-- Assess levels of chemicals in recreational finfish in NMFS, USEPA, USACE Completed Enhanced program C/O Bight Apex. cost - $200,000
-- Assess levels of chemicals in lobsters in Bight Apex. NMFS, USEPA, USACE Mar 1996 Enhanced program C/O cost - $300,000
-- Assess levels of PCBs in striped bass in NY State NYSDEC Completed Enhanced program C/O marine waters. cost - $350,000
-- Conduct future periodic fish tissue monitoring based on the results of the above studies.
• Develop work plans and seek funding. HEP Jul 1996 Base program C/N
• Conduct monitoring. HEP or other responsible Beginning Enhanced program cost to R entity Fall 1996 be determined based on above work plan
ACTION T-12.7: Use new information on tissue quality to NYSDEC, NYSDOH, Mar 1996 Base program C/N identify additional data collection needs to support NJDEP, NJDOH modifications to fishing advisories and restrictions.
-- Use new information on tissue quality to modify fishing NYSDEC & NYSDOH Feb 1996 Base program C/N advisories and restrictions, as appropriate.
ACTION T-12.8: Continue New York Harbor Water NYCDEP Ongoing Base program C/O Quality Survey at current levels of effort.
ACTION T-12.9: Develop and implement a similar long- NJDEP Dec 1995 Enhanced program R term water quality monitoring program. cost - $1 million/yr
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation (Continued) Table 13(ts). Summary —Management of Toxic Contamination
ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2
ACTION T-12.10: Conduct principal components analyses USEPA Apr 1996 Enhanced program C/O for PCBs, dioxin, and PAHs for sediment samples from R- cost - $75,000 EMAP and several other available data sets.
ACTION T-12.11: Review available information on USEPA, in coordination By Dec 31, 1997 Base program C/N atmospheric deposition to the Harbor/Bight developed by with HEP HEP under Actions T-12.13 & T-13.3, and incorporate in Great Waterbodies Report to Congress biennial update; specify additional steps and regulatory revisions, as appropriate, to address atmospheric deposition of toxic chemicals to the Harbor/Bight.
ACTION T-12.12: Implement low-level detection methods for loadings.
-- Develop guidance specifying appropriate methods, and work with regulated parties as necessary to ensure the collection of high quality loadings data [Note: Effort ongoing in connection with CWA Section 308 letters (See Actions T-1.1 and T-1.2)].
• For metals. USEPA, NYSDEC, NJDEP Ongoing Base program C/N
• For organic chemicals such as PCBs and dioxin. USEPA, NYSDEC, NJDEP Jun 1996 Enhanced program R cost - $75,000
-- Incorporate the methods for metals into monitoring USEPA, NYSDEC, NJDEP Jun 1996 Base program C/N requirements for NPDES, CSO, and storm water permits.
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation (Continued) Table 13(ts). Summary —Management of Toxic Contamination
ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2
ACTION T-12.13: Estimate chemical load reductions HEP Sep 1996 Enhanced program R expected with implementation of HEP CCMP. cost - $100,000
-- Use the information to help determine whether CCMP Dec 1996 (See actions will result in attainment of load reduction goals Action T-13.3) (see Action T-13.3) and how long it will take; identify additional actions to meet the goals as necessary.
OBJECTIVE T-13: Develop mass balances for metals and organic chemicals.
ACTION T-13.1: Conduct additional monitoring and NJ Harbor Dischargers Complete Enhanced program C/N modeling to support revised (Phase II) TMDLs for water Group (NJHDG) Jun 1998 cost - $360,000 quality-limiting metals.
-- Submit water and sediment quality data. NJHDG Feb 1996 Cost included in above C/N estimate
-- Submit work plan for Phase II monitoring and modeling NJHDG Sep 1996 Cost included in above C/N studies. estimate
-- Approve work plan for Phase II studies. NJDEP Dec 1996 Base program C/N
-- Submit load matrices for determining TMDLs. NJHDG Jun 1998 Enhanced program cost to C/N be determined based on work plan
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation (Continued) Table 13(ts). Summary —Management of Toxic Contamination
ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2
ACTION T-13.2: Develop a comprehensive toxics model, including defining goals and objectives, scope, and costs. Work plan to include monitoring program.
-- Develop work plan. USACE, under the Completed Base program C/N auspices of HEP
-- Revise work plan, including monitoring plan. USACE, under the Sep 1996 Enhanced program cost - R auspices of HEP $100,000
-- Seek authorization and funding to conduct modeling USACE Ongoing Base program C/N and monitoring to address toxic contamination in the Harbor/Bight, not tied to dredged material management.
-- Conduct monitoring and develop the model, and use as USACE under auspices of By Dec 31, 2000 Enhanced program cost to R appropriate, to help define optimal approaches to HEP be determined based on reduce and eliminate discharges of toxic chemicals and detailed revised work plans potential remediation of contaminated sediments.
-- Develop and seek funding for a program of research to HEP Sep 1996 Base program C/N* complement the toxics modeling effort.
-- Comply with controls which may be required as a result Regulated parties By Dec 31, 2000 Project implementation cost R of improved understanding. to be determined based on controls required
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract * Commitment contingent on funding for completing modeling work plans. or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation (Continued) Table 13(ts). Summary —Management of Toxic Contamination
ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2
ACTION T-13.3: Develop simple mass balances for mercury and organic chemicals of concern (Note: see text for details).
-- Develop and validate an integrated model of organic Hudson River Foundation, Interim result: Enhanced program cost - C/N chemical transport, fate, and bioaccumulation using an under the auspices of Jun 1996 $161,000 existing model. HEP & with USACE, Port Authority, and USEPA Final: Enhanced program cost - C/N support Jun 1998 $178,000 Enhanced program cost - R $155,000
-- Develop overall modeling program work plan to HRF, USEPA, and Feb 1996 Base program C/N supplement the above effort. USACE, under the auspices of HEP
-- Collect data for model development, including chemical USACE or other Complete Enhanced program cost to R loadings and ambient levels. sponsors, under the Dec 1996 be determined based on auspices of HEP work plan
-- Use the model to assess control scenarios. USEPA or other sponsors, Jun 1997 through Enhanced program cost to R under the auspices of Jun 1998 be determined based on HEP work plan
ACTION T-13.4: Conduct comparative study in the NJDEP Dec 1996 Base program C/O Whippany River Basin to assess the use of two mass balance strategies in development of soil cleanup standards for hazardous waste sites.
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation IMPORTANT NOTE:
Due to major changes in dredged material management policy that have taken place since the Management of Dredged Material chapter was written, this chapter is not being implemented as written but is instead in the process of being revised. For more information about the revised version, contact Bob Nyman at the HEP office. NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
PROBLEMS SOURCES CONTRIBUTING TO THE The presence of contaminants of concern in PROBLEMS material that needs to be dredged and Existing, in-place contaminated sediments disposed and the dispersal of the material Continuing inputs of toxic chemicals throughout the Estuary. - Municipal discharges Potential ecological risks, such as - Industrial discharges bioaccumulation and degradation of benthic community structure, which may be - Combined sewer overflows associated with sediment contamination and - Storm water dredging and disposal operations. - Non-point sources of pollution (including Potential human health risks which may be hazardous and solid waste disposal sites) associated with dredging and disposal - Atmospheric deposition operations. - Chemical and oil spills Potential economic effects of dredging and disposal on the shipping industry, fish and - Transport of contaminated sediment from shellfish industry (commercial and upstream rivers and tributaries recreational), tourism, and recreation. Lack of non-ocean disposal options Regulatory delays due to the myriad of agencies regulating dredged material, the lack of available disposal alternatives, and uncertainties related to the implementation of revised testing protocols.
GOALS To establish environmentally sound, economically feasible, dredged material disposal alternatives. To have ongoing coordinated and integrated efforts with various state and federal groups and dredged material management task forces. To maintain the contribution of the Port to the economy and quality of life of the Region. To improve dredged material management plans for the Harbor. To evaluate and implement, where practicable, alternative methods of dredged material disposal including those with beneficial uses, such as habitat restoration, landfill cover, etc. To determine, and where practicable use, the best available technologies/methods for dredging and disposal. To control continuing sources of toxic chemicals to ensure that all sediment entering
DREDGED MATERIAL 131 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
OBJECTIVES D-1 Develop a future dredged material management structure. D-2 Reduce continuing inputs of toxic chemicals and upland sediments and soils. Better understand the toxic contamination problem and take additional management actions as more is learned. D-3 Characterize, categorize, and quantify material to be dredged. D-4 Identify, evaluate, and select disposal and treatment/decontamination alternatives including beneficial uses of dredged material. D-5 Develop plans for closure (including remediation and restoration) of the Mud Dump Site and historical disposal areas. D-6 Improve dredging, transport, and disposal operations. D-7 Expedite permit decisions.
MANAGEMENT OF DREDGED MATERIAL which may be found in sediments are THE PROBLEMS bioaccumulated in marine organisms and may biomagnify up through the food chain and pose The international Port of New York and New a threat to biota and public (human) health. Jersey ("The Port") plays a vital role in the Dredging contributes to resuspension of these economy of the region, handling more general sediments. In addition, ocean disposal raises and containerized cargo than any other East concerns about exposing additional marine Coast port. The Port is also part of an estuary organisms and habitats to these contaminants of national significance. The Harbor is not of concern. Concern has also been expressed naturally deep, and rivers continuously transport regarding the impact of dredged material, and and deposit sediment, filling in navigation its subsequent disposal, on water-dependent channels and berthing areas. To maintain the industries such as recreation, tourism, and Port for modern deep draft vessels, large commercial and recreational fishing. quantities of sediments (historically 6 million cubic yards/annually) must be dredged. A Scientific concerns about these issues have led majority of this material was, and continues to to changes in the national testing protocols for be, disposed at the Mud Dump Site located 6 dredged materials. Uncertainties related to the miles east of Sandy Hook, New Jersey and 11 implementation of these revised test protocols miles south of Rockaway, New York. This in the New York/New Jersey Harbor region, material must be managed in an environmentally coupled with specific concerns about dioxin, sound manner. and lack of available disposal options, have contributed to delays in regulatory decisions The sediments in and around the Harbor contain with respect to dredging and disposal. contaminants at varying concentrations. The presence of contaminants can cause significant Numerous regulatory requirements and concerns environmental problems, including: about resource use may delay the regulatory bioaccumulation within marine organisms (and decisions of the many agencies which are either up the food chain), and changes in benthic directly, or indirectly, involved in regulating community structure. Certain contaminants dredged material. In order to regulate more
132 DREDGED MATERIAL NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 efficiently, all parties must work more closely to the problems associated with the Harbor/Bight avoid delays in decision-making. complex, as well as dredged material management (i.e., contaminated sediment), will FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE continue. PROBLEMS Lack of Disposal Options The New York/New Jersey Harbor, including Historically, ocean disposal has been the primary many of the berthing areas and channels, disposal option for materials dredged from the contains primarily fine-grained sediment which Harbor. Other disposal options in the region may be contaminated with heavy metals, PAHs, have generally not been used because of the PCBs, pesticides, and dioxin. These readily available and relatively low cost of ocean contaminants of concern may impact the disposal (until recently), as well as conflicting ecosystem, depending on concentration. Not all uses and environmental concerns associated dredged material is contaminated; however, it with implementing other alternatives. may contain contaminants at concentrations which require management, if the dredged THE PLAN TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS material is ocean disposed, or which preclude the material from ocean disposal. The principal The primary purpose of the dredged material cause of the problem is the presence of management component of the CCMP is to contaminants of concern in a large portion of establish immediate (within 1 year), short-term the material that needs to be dredged and (1-3 years), and mid-term (3-9 years), disposed and the movement of these environmentally sound, economically feasible, contaminants throughout the Harbor/Bight dredged material disposal alternatives. The U.S. complex. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is developing a New York Harbor Dredged Material Pollutant Loadings Management Plan (DMMP). The DMMP will In addition to contaminated sediments already in include short-, mid-, and long-term alternatives. the Harbor/Bight, there are sources of pollutants USACE, through existing programs and the that continue to contaminate fine-grained DMMP, will provide technical support to achieve sediments, water, and biota. Sources include: the objectives of this CCMP.
Ë Industrial discharges The dredged material component of the CCMP provides immediate and short-term disposal Ë Municipal discharges alternatives for dredged material which meet Ë Combined sewer overflows ocean dumping criteria while allowing for the selection, design, and implementation of mid- Ë Storm water and long-term non-ocean disposal alternatives Ë Non-point sources of pollution for dredged material not suitable for ocean disposal. Ë Atmospheric deposition Ë Chemical and oil spills Consistent with the current practices of HEP, early implementation of selected elements of the Ë Transport of contaminated sediment from dredged material management plan will be upstream rivers and tributaries undertaken, including the pursuit and implementa-tion of non-ocean dredged material Until these sources are adequately controlled,
DREDGED MATERIAL 133 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 disposal alternatives. In accordance with the activities to pre-disposal conditions. Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972, ocean disposal will be denied The interaction of the participants in the if it can be demonstrated that there are Dredged Material Management Forum, as practicable alternative locations for disposal discussed below, has resulted in many proposals which would have fewer environmental impacts to address dredging and disposal concerns. or potential risks to other parts of the Based on these discussions, materials generated environment than ocean dumping. by the Forum, and the goals of the Forum, this plan includes objectives to: The dredged material management component of the CCMP plays a critical role in establishing Ë Develop a future dredged material and maintaining a healthy and productive management structure. Harbor/Bight ecosystem with full beneficial Ë Reduce continuing inputs of toxic chemicals uses. This component of the Plan has the (see Management of Toxic Contamination following goals: section) and upland sediments and soils (see Management of Habitat and Living Resources Ë To establish environmentally sound, section). economically feasible, dredged material disposal alternatives. Ë Characterize, categorize, and quantify material to be dredged. Ë To have ongoing coordinated and integrated efforts with various state and federal groups Ë Identify, evaluate, and select disposal and and dredged material management task treatment/decontamination alternatives. forces. Ë Develop plans for closure (including Ë To maintain the contribution of the Port to remediation and restoration) of the Mud the economy and quality of life of the Dump Site and historical disposal areas. Region. Ë Improve dredging, transport, and disposal Ë To improve dredged material management operations. plans for the Harbor. Ë Expedite permit decisions. Ë To evaluate and implement, where Ë Better understand the toxic contamination practicable, alternative methods of dredged problem and take additional management material disposal including those with actions as more is learned (see Management beneficial uses. of Toxic Contamination section). Ë To determine, and where practicable use, the best available technologies/methods for USACE, through existing programs and the dredging and disposal. DMMP, will provide technical support to meet the objectives of this component of the CCMP. Ë To control continuing sources of toxic chemicals to ensure that all sediment entering the Harbor Estuary will meet COMMITMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Category I criteria (see Action D-3.5 below). Ë To restore, whenever possible, areas of the Bight Apex which have been adversely impacted by dredged material disposal
134 DREDGED MATERIAL NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
positions and concerns to the HEP Policy Committee and the four principal agencies OBJECTIVE D-1 Develop a future (USEPA, USACE, NYSDEC, and NJDEP); and 4) dredged material it serves as an Executive Committee of the management structure Forum. In order to ensure that the DMMIWG can perform these functions effectively, it was agreed that: 1) the DMMIWG may report directly to the HEP Policy Committee without In an effort to address the dredged material going through the Management Committee; 2) management problems in the Port, a Dredged the DMMIWG, at its discretion, may request to Material Management Forum was convened. meet with or report directly to any one or all of The Forum brought together a wide spectrum of the heads of the four principal agencies; 3) the groups, concerned with issues associated with DMMIWG/Forum/HEP Policy Committee will the dredging and disposal of sediments, to seek continue to produce self-standing, independent cooperative and implementable solutions. The dredged material management reports, e.g., Forum became part of HEP because it was the future straw proposals, as well as the CCMP; 4) most efficient and effective way to continue the the HEP Policy Committee will convene and work of the Forum. host the Forum, with USEPA continuing to serve as chair, and the DMMIWG may The Forum created the following work groups: recommend that the Forum be convened from (a) Dredging, Transport, and Disposal; (b) time to time; 5) the DMMIWG will serve as the Criteria; (c) Mud Dump Site; (d) Containment Executive Committee of the Forum as well as Facilities (including borrow pits and represent the Work Groups; and 6) there will be containment islands); (e) Decontamination no distinction between planning and Technologies/Site for Decontamination implementation. Facilities; (f) Sediment Contamination Reduction; and (g) Dredged Material ACTION D-1.2 Management Integration (consisting of the Responsible Parties for Implementing the chairs of work groups a-f above as well as Dredged Material Management Plan representatives of critical stakeholders). The Forum, through the DMMIWG and in consultation with HEP, will identify responsible ACTION D-1.1 parties for all actions and commitments and will Dredged Material Management Structure assist in the development of implementation HEP recently agreed on a long-term programs for these recommendations through its management structure, incorporating the work work groups. of the Dredged Material Management Forum into HEP (see section on Post-CCMP ACTION D-1.3 Management Structure below). In this Reviewing Parties structure, the Dredged Material Management Within the HEP structure, the Dredged Material Integration Work Group (DMMIWG) has several Management Forum will continue to review and important functions: 1) it helps to support and comment on work plans, Statements of Work, coordinate the work of the six working groups; work products, etc. 2) it serves as a committee of the whole to work with USACE on the development of the long ACTION D-1.4 term management plan; 3) it presents policy USACE Dredged Material Management Plan
DREDGED MATERIAL 135 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
The DMMIWG, on behalf of the Forum, will serious environmental risk when dredged and interact with USACE in the development of the disposed and may require costly containment USACE management plan for dredged material and/or remediation techniques. Therefore, in the New York-New Jersey Harbor. tremendous environmental and economic benefits would accrue if dredged sediments ACTION D-1.5 were free of harmful contaminants. Coordination USACE, USEPA, NYSDEC, and NJDEP will The successful long-range management of coordinate plans, proposals, and alternative dredged sediments is dependent upon courses of action pertaining to any matters that aggressive efforts to reduce and eliminate the fall within the scope of this document with the sources of harmful contaminants, particularly relevant work groups of the Forum through the those contaminants with an affinity for DMMIWG or applicable work group. sediments. The Management of Toxic Contaminants section of this CCMP is the The DMMIWG will meet on a regular basis to primary vehicle for addressing toxic review and synthesize the progress of the Forum contamination in the Harbor/Bight complex. work groups. If necessary, the DMMIWG will One of the goals of the Toxic Contaminants prepare an issues paper to be discussed at section is to ensure that dredged sediments in quarterly meetings with the HEP Policy the Harbor are safe for unrestricted disposal. In Committee and/or Forum Principals. an effort to achieve that goal, the Management of Toxic Contaminants section contains objectives and associated actions to: 1) reduce OBJECTIVE D-2 Reduce continuing continuing inputs of toxic chemicals to the inputs of toxic Harbor/Bight; 2) remediate selected chemicals and upland contaminated sediments; and 3) better sediments and soils understand the toxic contamination problem and take additional management actions as more is learned about the problems. A work group, the Sediment Contamination Reduction Toxic Chemicals Work Group, has been convened to ensure that this CCMP addresses the reduction of sediment One goal of this section is that, over the long- contaminant inputs and contamination. One term, all dredged materials within the Harbor specific proposal of the work group is that complex will become sufficiently free of funding be provided to develop better data contaminants and, therefore, not pose a about the specific contaminants of concern, problem with respect to disposal. such as PAHs, for which data are now inadequate. The major factor constraining the selection of dredged material disposal techniques and Actions to address rainfall-induced discharges disposal site locations is the contamination of are also expected to help reduce sediment Harbor sediments by a wide range of chemicals contamination. of concern. Contaminated sediments, demonstrated through toxicity and Upland Sediments and Soils bioaccumulation testing, have limited disposal options. These sediments pose a potentially Reducing the amount of sediment entering the
136 DREDGED MATERIAL NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 waterways from the upland watershed will reduce the volume of material requiring OBJECTIVE D-3 Characterize, dredging. Several actions are being taken, categorize, and through the HEP Habitat and Living Resources quantify material to be component, to control point and non-point dredged loadings of pollutants. These actions include several pilot projects which minimize the export of sediments to the Estuary (Actions H-2.1, H- 2.2, and H-2.3). There is no single "best" disposal or management option for all dredged material -- a ACTION D-2.0 combination of alternatives is needed. Engineering Solutions Establishing implementable disposal alternatives USACE will review options that prevent depends on the quality and quantity of the sediments from entering navigational areas sediments requiring dredging. through engineering solutions. These options, and the steps required to study and implement Characterize - Ocean Disposal Criteria them, will be included in the draft "New York Harbor Dredged Material Management Plan The present bioaccumulation assessment (DMMP) Phase 1 Initial Appraisal Report" which approach uses a statistical comparison of was recently completed. contaminants accumulated by organisms exposed to test and reference sediments. If there is a statistically significant increase in test values compared to reference values, test values are then compared to "matrix" values. Matrix values were developed in the early 1980s by assessing biological tissue levels and the potential for bioaccumulation from ambient water in areas around the Mud Dump Site. Values for four Bioaccumulative Chemicals of Concern (BCCs) -- PCB, DDT, Hg, and Cd -- were established .
Currently, there are no evaluative criteria available for regional BCCs, except for dioxin and the matrix values. A chemical-specific bioaccumulation assessment approach is necessary. USEPA, USACE, and the Criteria Work Group are developing an interim regional chemical-specific approach which utilizes an index of toxicological significance derived through risk-based methodology. Reference and background level databases will also be used in the decision-making framework (i.e., for evaluating and categorizing dredged material). After the approach is developed, it will be
DREDGED MATERIAL 137 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 subject to peer and public review. Based on May 1995 survey to facilitate finalizing comments received, USEPA and USACE will the chemical-specific bioaccumulation make a decision to implement all, none, or part decision framework. Additional surveys of the guidance. The present approach will be were completed in September 1995. used until the regional chemical-specific Ë Conduct peer and public review by June approach is implemented by USEPA and 1996. USACE. Ë Make a decision (USEPA and USACE) on whether to implement the approach, with USEPA is developing a national guidance regards to risk levels and factors in the document to assist regions in bioaccumulation approach, by July 1996. decision-making. The interim regional approach will be employed until USEPA develops this guidance. The national guidance will then be considered for regional implementation, and the use of the interim regional approach will be reevaluated. The national guidance will not contain numerical bioaccumulation threshold values but will provide specific cancer and non- cancer effect levels to the extent that data are available for bioaccumulative contaminants; state-of-the-art ecological risk assessment will also be included. The result of this effort will not be pass/fail bioaccumulative threshold values, but will provide the basis for conducting a site-specific risk assessment of the dredged material disposal actions.
ACTION D-3.1 Development of Chemical-Specific Bioaccumulation Assessment Approach
-- The Criteria Work Group will develop a plan to implement the interim chemical-specific bioaccumulation evaluation methodology. This includes assessing the adequacy of preliminary databases and identifying additional reference and background studies which may be necessary to develop the regional approach. Steps include the following: Ë Develop draft approach based on existing data, if possible by April 1996. Ë USEPA and USACE provided funds for a
138 DREDGED MATERIAL NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
ACTION D-3.2 chemical, and biological tests which determine Reference Site and Database the suitability of material for ocean disposal. Based on the results of these tests, USACE and -- USEPA and USACE will, by February 1996, USEPA have historically classified material into recommend an appropriate reference site. categories according to its suitability for ocean disposal as follows: -- USEPA and USACE, in consultation with the Criteria Work Group, will, by February 1996, Category I - Sediments which meet ocean recommend an approach for establishing a dumping criteria. Test results indicate no reference sediment database. unacceptable toxicity or bioaccumulation in biological test systems. These sediments are ACTION D-3.3 acceptable for "unrestricted" ocean disposal. National Guidance for Bioaccumulation Decision- There are no potential short-term (acute) Making impacts or long-term (chronic) impacts; no HEP recommends that USEPA develop, by June special precautionary measures are required 1997, a national guidance document to assist during disposal. the regions in bioaccumulation decision-making. Category II - Sediments which meet ocean ACTION D-3.4 dumping criteria. Test results indicate no Incorporation of Interim Approach into Mud significant toxicity but a potential for Dump Site Monitoring and Management Plan bioaccumulation. To protect from this potential USEPA and USACE will modify, by October for bioaccumulation, USEPA and USACE will 1996, the Mud Dump Site monitoring and require appropriate management practices such management plan to incorporate the regional as capping. This is referred to as "restricted" chemical-specific, bioaccumulation approach. ocean disposal. Characterize - Upland Criteria Category III - Sediments which do not meet ocean dumping criteria. These sediments are One dredged material disposal option is upland those that fail acute toxicity testing or pose a disposal. The states have the regulatory threat of signifi-cant bioaccumulation that authority for this option. To date, there are no cannot be addressed through available disposal criteria established for upland disposal of management practices. These sediments cannot dredged material. be disposed in the ocean. ACTION D-3.5 Dredged material would be placed into one of Criteria for Upland Disposal the above categories, based on a NJDEP and NYSDEC, in conjunction with the characterization of suitability. These categories Criteria and Containment Work Groups, will are important because of the disposal identify draft criteria for upland disposal. This implications and options associated with each will include, but not be limited to, siting, one. For example, Category I material should sediment types, sampling and testing, and always be used for beneficial purposes, such as facility operation. Formal rulemaking may be beach nourishment, or as an interim or final cap necessary in New Jersey. for borrow pits or ocean disposal sites. Categorize Category II material is suitable for ocean As previously discussed, dredged material is dumping with capping used as a management characterized through a series of physical, tool, but also may be suitable for disposal at
DREDGED MATERIAL 139 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 landfills, as daily or interim landfill cover, or for Quantify Dredged Material In Each Category disposal in borrow pits or containment facilities. Category III material may be suitable for Volume estimates, by category, are necessary treatment and disposal at confined facilities, for for projecting future disposal requirements and sanitary landfill cover, or for borrow pit disposal. the combination of alternatives necessary for dredged material management. It will be necessary to estimate immediate, short, and long-term proportions and quantities of dredged material falling within each dredged material category based on the regional approach. The estimates should initially be used to establish the implementability of alternatives to ocean disposal. USEPA and USACE will assess the type and amount of data that may be available or necessary to establish these estimates.
ACTION D-3.6 Dredged Material Categorization and Quantity Estimate USACE will, by March 19961, categorize dredged material based on the regional bioaccumulation approach. USACE will then estimate the quantities of dredged material currently pending that could be expected using the above chemical-specific approach for evaluating bioaccumulation test results.
ACTION D-3.7 Additional sampling and testing USEPA, USACE, and NYSDEC, will, by March 19961, perform pro-active sampling and testing (if necessary) to estimate quantities of dredged material in each Category. This is contingent upon available, allocated funds.
ACTION D-3.8 Disposal Alternatives vs. Category Table USEPA, USACE, NYSDEC, and NJDEP will, by March 19961, develop a table which matches dredged material disposal alternatives with respect to the regional chemical-specific bioaccumulation approach for the dredged material categories. Use of additional approaches will be needed.
140 DREDGED MATERIAL NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
1 Provided a second peer and public review is not necessary. If necessary, the target date is May 1996.
capping thickness, and storm event magnitudes OBJECTIVE D-4 Identify, evaluate, and are varied. Based on study recommendations, a select disposal and depth will be determined at which little treatment/ sediment resuspension or movement takes decontamination place. Areas with depths greater alternatives
It is imperative that implementable, environment-ally sound alternatives to the existing Mud Dump Site (MDS) be identified now because the MDS is quickly reaching capacity, and new testing protocols may increase the proportion of Category II and III materials to be disposed. Equally import-ant is the selection and implementation of suitable mid-term and long-term disposal operations. For Category I material, disposal alternatives with beneficial use are recommended, as appropriate.
Ocean Disposal Site1
Dredged material has been disposed in the New York Bight Apex since 1914. Consequently, large areas of the Apex floor have been, at a minimum, physically impacted. Additional impacts may have resulted from contaminants present in the dredged material. An expansion of the existing MDS may offer the potential opportunity for 1) providing remediation of contaminated areas by disposal of normal Harbor maintenance and new work dredged material, and 2) as a goal, restoring contaminated areas by disposal of materials which are beneficial to the marine environment.
The MDS, adjacent impacted areas, and historical disposal areas should be covered. USACE-Waterways Experiment Station (WES) is evaluating the erosion risks associated with creating mounds at the MDS if water depths,
DREDGED MATERIAL 141 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 than this depth may be used for disposal of Category II sediments with an added measure of environmental protection -- subsequent expeditious capping with Category I material. Areas with depths between the recommended depth and a controlling depth of -45 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) will be used only for the disposal of Category I materials. Should the MDS be expanded, the results of this expansion could include: 1) short-term disposal of Category II material below the recommended depth, while disposal alternatives are implemented; 2) remediation of contaminated areas by disposing of Harbor maintenance and new work dredged material; and 3) as a goal, restoration of contaminated areas by promoting the disposal of materials which are beneficial to the marine environment. Category I disposal will continue indefinitely (until closure requirements are met) as cover, thereby serving as a beneficial use.
ACTION D-4.1 Confirmation of Controlling Depth USEPA and USACE, in consultation with the Mud Dump Site Work Group, will, by April 1, 1996, confirm a controlling depth for Category II materials at the MDS and surrounding environs.
ACTION D-4.2 Criteria for Mounds USACE will, by August 1, 1996, provide design criteria for various mound placement and capping options to USEPA.
Action D-4.3 Preparation of SEIS and Site Designation Rulemaking In order to provide for the orderly phase-out of ocean disposal of Category II material, USEPA, USACE, NJDEP, and NYSDEC are proposing to expand the MDS (USEPA has designation authority), through the EIS process described
1 USEPA, as requested by the majority of the DMMIWG, will provide a legal interpretation of the laws,
142 DREDGED MATERIAL NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
regulations, and policies governing the ocean disposal of dredged material. The text of the CCMP may be modified based on this interpretation and further discussions/negotiations. However, no policy decision has yet been made regarding this issue.
DREDGED MATERIAL 143 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 below, for the disposal of Category I and II - pits excavated in, or adjacent to, areas of materials. On February 3, 1995, USEPA issued a highly contaminated sediments; public announcement for the SEIS for expansion - pits excavated in the process of sand of the MDS for remediation and restoration. The use of the expanded MDS for Category II mining; material will be restricted to a specified period - existing subaqueous borrow pits; of time; this period will be determined prior to the issuance, by USEPA, of the proposed site - confined disposal facilities (CDFs); designation. The time period will be specified in - ocean subaqueous borrow pits (ocean the final designation rulemaking package and disposal); will be based on a number of factors listed below, including the amount of time required to - containment islands; develop and implement environmentally and - upland disposal; and economically feasible disposal alternatives. As part of the analysis and EIS process, alternatives - beneficial uses such as habitat creation. will be evaluated, including the no-action alternative (i.e., no expansion of the site). In all USACE is developing a long-term management cases where environmentally preferred, plan (DMMP) that evaluates all disposal practicable non-ocean disposal alternatives exist alternatives including ocean and near-shore for Category II materials, the use of the MDS borrow pits, containment islands, CDFs, will be denied. The Mud Dump Site Work beneficial uses, and upland disposal. The Group will consider and make recommendations Dredged Material Management Integration Work (to USEPA, USACE, NJDEP, and NYSDEC) Group will work directly with USACE in regarding the number of years that an expanded developing the long-term management plan. Mud Dump Site could remain open for disposal USACE expects that its plan will provide the of Category II material, the maximum volumes, technical support for Forum recommendations. and site monitoring activities. In doing this, the Work Group should take into account the One component of the long-term management anticipated volumes of Category II material plan is the evaluation of the development and based on the testing criteria, the pace of construction of containment areas/islands in the development of alternatives, detoxification near-shore, offshore, and ocean. USACE and techniques, pilot project implementation the Port Authority have begun to assess the schedules, volume reduction and containment feasibility and logistics of containment input abatement opportunities, and disposal areas/island creation. These areas/ islands incentive fees. should be designed to promote beneficial purposes such as habitat, recreation, or port Non-Ocean Disposal Alternatives operations uses.
There is no single "best" disposal or USACE has issued a Record of Decision on its management alternative for all dredged material. Final Environmental Impact Statement for All concerned parties will work within HEP to operational scale borrow pits and has requested promote beneficial uses of dredged material water quality certification (WQC) from NYSDEC including, but not limited to, enhancement of for the existing borrow pits in the Lower Harbor. habitat, landfill daily cover, etc. The Forum and NYSDEC has expressed a number of concerns, USACE are examining the use of multiple including a potential conflict between the disposal alternatives, including: USACE proposal and sand mining proposals. It
144 DREDGED MATERIAL NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 is recommended that, if NYSDEC cannot issue a these sites, or other sites within the WQC for an operational scale pit, it consider Harbor/Bight complex, should be considered for issuing a conditional WQC for a USACE detailed review in the USACE Dredged Material demonstration scale study of subaqueous Management Plan. The target date for this borrow pit disposal using an existing pit, activity is October 1996. preferably the Lower East Bank Pit. With satisfactory monitoring and conclusive results, ACTION D-4.5 this could be implemented as a short-term Newark Bay Borrow Pits disposal alternative. Following up on a recommendation of the Containment Work Group to the New Jersey The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Governor's Dredging Task Force, several studies is studying the possible use of upland disposal are being conducted related to development of sites within the region. The states will aid the borrow pits in Newark Bay. Port Authority by providing active regulatory guidance. -- The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey will act as lead to implement a Neither of the states will undertake an upland subaqueous borrow pit in Newark Bay as an disposal site pilot project; however, the states applicant to the USACE. Environmental and will develop upland criteria (siting and disposal). engineering studies are being performed. In addition, the states will monitor the progress of private sector applicants seeking to site or operate upland disposal areas with respect to legal, political, and social factors.
ACTION D-4.4 Dredged Material Management Plan USACE will, in consultation with USEPA, DMMIWG, NYSDEC, and NJDEP, by July 1996, prepare an interim report on the comprehensive management plan for dredged material, which evaluates alternatives. This interim report is based on a broad one year investigation and siting of alternatives. The second stage is a focused two year detailed investigation culminating in the design and optimization of those alternatives and sites identified in the interim report. The selected alternatives will be based on ability to meet the immediate and projected dredged material management needs of the region and agreement by the decision makers. The final plan will be produced by July 1998.
New York and New Jersey will review USACE's 1989 recommendations for siting containment islands and provide initial input as to whether
DREDGED MATERIAL 145 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
-- The Containment Work Group has the sand resource to gain environmental use and conducted a comparison analysis of federal benefits. Environmental benefits could be and non-federal sponsorship for conditions of permits issued for sand mining. implementing subaqueous borrow pits in Newark Bay and will continue to make recommendations to the Forum. The Port Authority is currently assessing operation and maintenance costs of the pits. The issues of ownership, ownership transfer, and liability are being reviewed by a committee of the NJ Governor’s Dredged Material Management Team. ACTION D-4.6 Existing Borrow Pits
-- New York State will expedite its WQC determination and consider requiring that USACE plan a demonstration program for existing borrow pits in the Lower Harbor. -- Should the project (operational or demonstration) be approved, USACE will implement the project as soon as possible. -- Should a conditional WQC allow for a demonstration project, then within six months of demonstration project completion and data submittal and review, the State of New York will review the demonstration project and make a determination on whether the WQC conditions were satisfied to allow for an operational scale borrow pit program.
ACTION D-4.7 Consideration of Sand Mining Practices to Create Suitable Pits For Dredged Material Disposal USACE, NYSDEC, and NJDEP should assess the feasibility of soliciting modified sand mining proposals so that suitable borrow pits, outside of navigation channels, might be created through sand mining practices. This should take place in consultation with the Dredging, Transport, and Disposal Work Group. Consideration of sand mining proposals must include an assessment of how to best manage
146 DREDGED MATERIAL NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
ACTION D-4.8 Base Catalyzed Decomposition (BCD) Study Upland Disposal Bench-scale studies have been completed. Small-scale upland disposal may be feasible on a There was greater than 98 percent destruction case-by-case basis. of chlorinated organics (dioxins and PCBs). Removal of PAHs and mercury was 89 percent -- The States of New Jersey and New York will and 95 percent, respectively. An accompanying monitor the progress of private sector pilot-scale design report demonstrated full-scale applicants seeking to site and operate treatment costs at $108 per cubic yard, not upland disposal areas in the Port region. including additional treatment train costs. A These actions will take place in consultation decision to expand to a pilot study has been with the Criteria, Containment, and postponed and will be considered based on the Dredging, Transport, and Disposal Work outcome of other studies described in Action D- Groups. 4.10 below. -- The Port Authority will continue to seek ACTION D-4.10 regional upland disposal sites. Innovative Technologies Study Contracts were awarded for 7 bench-scale Treatment Methods technologies in August 1995. Field collections were completed in October 1995. Bench-scale Treatment (including, but not limited to, demonstrations were underway in November decontamination, physical separation, etc.) is 1995 and were completed in January 1996. not a disposal alternative. Rather, it is a Based upon the success of the bench-scale method which may facilitate the management of effort, pilot-scale demonstrations will commence contaminated dredged material within the in March 1996, if indoor siting facilities are Harbor (whether dredged for navigation and/or made available. If not, and again depending on remediation). The main purpose of current the technology, the demonstration may investigations is to identify effective commence in early spring 1996, with a total technologies, which may be readily applied to project completion date of December 1996. large volumes of contaminated dredged material, in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner, and which yields products which may be used beneficially. The implementation of OBJECTIVE D-5 Develop plans for closure operational scale treatment technologies may (including remediation and require a processing site, possibly a large site, restoration) of the Mud on or adjacent to a waterway. Dump Site and historical disposal areas The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1992 mandated that the USACE and USEPA jointly select decontamination technologies for As previously discussed, the MDS, adjacent contaminated sediments. Resources of $2.7 areas, and historical disposal areas need to be million and $2.3 million were appropriated to managed in the short-term and eventually USEPA in fiscal years (FY) 1993 and 1994, closed, when practicable non-ocean alternatives respectively. Additional funding of $1.8 million become available. Large areas of the ocean floor was appropriated by Congress in FY 1995. have been, at a minimum, physically impacted from dredged material disposal, occurring since ACTION D-4.9 1914. Prior to 1977, dredged material was
DREDGED MATERIAL 147 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 disposed without bioassay/bioaccumulation of contaminated areas (from disposal of sands, analysis and very little chemical analysis. muds, large rubble, etc.).
In October 1994, USEPA and USACE conducted MDS Site Management and Monitoring Plan a sediment toxicity/chemistry survey (utilizing A plan will be developed to evaluate all dredged USEPA's Ocean Survey Vessel PETER W. material disposal areas and determine if they ANDERSON) within the 23 square nautical mile have been adversely impacted by disposal area (MDS and historical disposal areas) activities. The plan will address remediation proposed for expansion. The survey was (and restoration) of the impacted areas, for the conducted in support of the MDS expansion protection of human and ecological health, SEIS and remediation/restoration of historical using Category I materials. The value of sand or disposal areas. Forty-four samples were other material as a final cap will be reviewed. It collected and analyzed for toxicity (using the is the expressed consensus of the Dredged amphipod Ampelisca), sediment chemistry, and Material Management Forum to seek benthic community structure. Worms were also opportunities to restore, to the maximum extent collected and archived for future body burden practicable (considering cost, logistics, analyses. Of the 44 samples analyzed, 27 technology availability), areas of the Bight Apex samples (9 inside the MDS and 18 outside the which have been adversely impacted by dredged MDS) exhibited toxicity. The 27 samples material disposal. represent an area of approximately 10.2 square nautical miles, out of the 23 square nautical ACTION D-5.0 mile study area. Pre- and Post-Closure of Ocean Disposal Sites
The areas inside the MDS can be remediated -- USEPA, in consultation with USACE and immediately by USEPA and USACE by directing the Mud Dump Site Work Group, will Category I dredged material to the desired develop closure management and locations. Some of the areas sampled in monitoring plans for the MDS, adjacent October have already been covered with areas, and historical disposal sites. Pre- and Category I dredged material. The areas outside post-closure monitoring plans will include the MDS require formal designation prior to any physical, chemical, and biological sampling. disposal of dredged material for remediation. The following issues will be addressed: This supports the Dredged Material Management remaining capacity, frequency of post- Forum's plan to prepare an SEIS to expand the closure surveys, costs and funding, and the MDS into historical disposal areas for purposes erosion potential of the existing mounds. of remediation/restoration. Plans will incorporate the controlling depth strategy for Category I and II materials, as The chemical and biological impact of dredged previously described in the "Identify and material in areas outside of the existing MDS is, Select Disposal Alternatives" section. Plans at present, unknown. Dredged material will be hierarchial in nature: remediation disposed prior to the implementation of water activities will be the primary concern and pollution control laws may contain higher restoration opportunities will be considered concentrations of contaminants of concern than a goal, when suitable materials are available. dredged materials disposed at the MDS today. -- USEPA, in consultation with USACE, will The expansion of the MDS offers the potential implement the closure monitoring and opportunity for providing remediation of management plan, when appropriate. contaminated areas and, as a goal, restoration
148 DREDGED MATERIAL NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
utilizing the geotextile containers. Monitoring OBJECTIVE D-6 Improve dredging, was performed and results are expected March transport, and disposal 1, 1996. options ACTION D-6.1 Improvements in Equipment The Dredging, Transport, and Disposal Work Operations Group will continue to recommend specific improvements for equipment and methods used Improved dredging, transport, and disposal in dredging, transport, and disposal operations. operations will reduce the potential environmental risks posed by these operations. ACTION D-6.2 Information on the selection of dredging Borrow Pit Disposal Techniques equipment and on the advantages and USACE will determine if hydraulic dredging is limitations of various types of dredging feasible for borrow pit disposal and very equipment is available. However, its confined sites. applicability to the Harbor region is uncertain. There are two concerns associated with ACTION D-6.3 dredging: resuspension of sediments and Geotextile Containers removal precision. Resuspension can be caused The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey by excavation, barge/hopper overflow, spillage, selected a pilot project for dredged material leakage, spud movement, barge movement, etc. disposal in geotextile bags. Monitoring was Removal precision refers to how accurately a performed and results will be available March 1, given dredge can remove desired areas and 1996. This and other experiments are thicknesses of contaminated sediment. continuing. Precision is important from the standpoint that contaminated and uncontaminated materials Volume Reduction/Selective Dredging might be segregated so that each may be handled in the most appropriate manner Any reduction in the volume of material to be possible. The ability to use improved or dredged is important because it provides greater innovative disposal techniques depends, in part, flexibility with respect to the disposal on the disposal site selected. alternatives available and because of the limited capacity of these disposal alternatives. General Containment of dredged material in geotextile criteria to be considered in every dredging containers has helped solve several difficult permit evaluation are the need for the proposed construction problems in the past few years. work and the practicability of using reasonable More recently, the focus has turned to large- alternative methods to accomplish the objective scale contaminated dredged material disposal in of the proposed work when there are unresolved these containers. Engineering and conflicts as to resource use. Prior to issuing any environmental studies concerning geotextile dredging permit, the need for the dredging must containment are being conducted by USACE- be established. It may, in some instances, be WES to develop and demonstrate dredged feasible to dredge only limited areas of a facility material containment systems that are and still not affect facility operations. Many technically feasible, environmentally sensitive, federal navigation channels, including their and cost effective. The Port Authority of New physical dimensions, were designated at a time York and New Jersey developed a pilot project when the number of ships utilizing the Harbor
DREDGED MATERIAL 149 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 was greater than at present. A channel assessment and reconfiguration in Norfolk, Virginia, using a computer simulation of ship OBJECTIVE D-7 Expedite permit decisions movement, significantly reduced the cost of maintaining channels in that region. There are many complex federal, state, and local ACTION D-6.4 laws, Executive Orders, and regulations Volume Reduction/Innovative Dredging governing dredging and dredged material, with Techniques USACE will, in coordination with overlapping jurisdictions. The result is a the appropriate state agencies, review each cumbersome and sometimes conflicting permit application and federal project to ensure regulatory process. The keys to expediting this that volume reduction and dredging techniques process are appropriate regulatory coordination have been considered. and the availability of disposal sites for the type (category) of dredged material to be disposed. ACTION D-6.5 Channel Assessment and Reconfiguration USEPA and USACE have prepared a regional The Maritime Administration (MARAD) will Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to assess the impact of reducing the width or effectively execute statutory responsibilities depth of specific channels. associated with technical and administrative procedures under MPRSA pertaining to: Tipping Fees monitoring and management of ocean disposal sites; dredging and disposal permit review and The potential exists for the establishment of approval, including regionally appropriate tipping fees for all new and existing disposal sediment testing and evaluation protocols; areas. These fees could be directed to the dredging and ocean disposal permit compliance dredging program to offset general management and enforcement; and appropriate reporting and and operational costs. Tipping fees might record keeping of documents pertaining to provide a financial incentive to reduce the MPRSA activities. It is the intent of the amount of dredging. However, studies must be agencies to minimize duplication of effort, conducted to better understand the regional paperwork, and delays in the management of economic impacts of dredging before any ocean disposal sites and dredging and disposal tipping fee system could be considered. permits and authorizations.
ACTION D-6.6 Joint permit information packages for federal Economic Assessment of Tipping Fees and state regulatory agencies and the DMMIWG will identify a responsible entity, by development of consistent testing requirements October 31, 1996, to sponsor an economic would likely expedite permit processing and assessment of tipping fees in the Port of New regulatory decisions. In addition, a unified York and New Jersey. The target date for regional regulatory guidance document which completion of the assessment is January 1997. clearly and concisely identifies all resource agencies' concerns (e.g., seasonal restrictions ACTION D-6.7 and reaches affected, endangered species) Assessment of Implementation of Tipping Fees should be developed and include generic and DMMIWG will identify a responsible entity, by specific permit conditions. This will allow October 31, 1996, to seek Congressional input regulatory agencies to identify and resolve, if on the establishment of tipping fees. possible, conflicts early in the process.
150 DREDGED MATERIAL NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
ACTION D-7.1 with DMMIWG, are exploring establishment of a Memorandum of Understanding unified regulatory process for resolving resource USACE and USEPA will, by September 1996, use concerns. finalize an MOU for ocean disposal site management and site designation. Site ACTION D-7.7 management plans will be subject to full public Consistent Testing Requirements review and comment. USEPA, USACE, NJDEP, and NYSDEC will explore, by June 1996, development of ACTION D-7.2 consistent testing requirements for dredged Joint Permit Applications material disposal. Separate requirements may be USACE, NJDEP, and NYSDEC, in cooperation needed for ocean, non-ocean, and upland with DMMIWG, are exploring development of alternatives. joint permit information packages for projects proposing ocean and/or non-ocean disposal. ACTION D-7.8 Status of Streamlining Efforts ACTION D-7.3 USACE will provide a status report to the Federal Regulatory Guidance Dredged Material Management Forum every six USACE, USEPA, NOAA-NMFS, USFWS, months on the efforts of the regulatory agencies NYSDEC, NJDEP, and others, in cooperation to streamline permit processing. If any of the with DMMIWG, are exploring development of a above recommended actions cannot be federal regional regulatory guidance document implemented, USACE will provide an which addresses the concerns of the federal explanation as to the reasons, including any resource agencies with appropriate generic, and obstacles encountered. recommended specific, special permit conditions for federal permits. COSTS OF IMPLEMENTING THIS PLAN
ACTION D-7.4 Many of the commitments and State Regulatory Guidance recommendations in the Dredged Material NYSDOS, NYSDEC, and NJDEP, in cooperation Management section of the CCMP can be with DMMIWG, are developing a regional state accomplished through the effective use of base regulatory guidance document which addresses program resources. In fact, full implementation the concerns of the state resource agencies with of the CCMP relies, in large part, on continued appropriate generic, and recommended specific, operation, and funding at current levels, of special permit conditions for state permits. existing programs to address dredged material management issues. The Dredged Material ACTION D-7.5 Management component of the CCMP itemizes Integration Task Force 33 new HEP-driven commitments operating USACE, in cooperation with DMMIWG, will through base programs. These actions represent explore, by April 1996, the formation of a a major commitment to CCMP implementation. federal and state interagency group to integrate federal and state regulatory guidances.
ACTION D-7.6 Conflict Resolution USACE, USEPA, NOAA-NMFS, USFWS, NYSDEC, NJDEP, and others, in cooperation
DREDGED MATERIAL 151 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
As shown on Table 14(dc) below, the Dredged Material Management component of the CCMP also includes 9 significant commitments and recommendations that entail enhanced program funding of $14.4 million, plus target dates for additional cost estimates.
The Dredged Material Management component of the CCMP also includes 7 actions that will or may require the expenditure of project implementation funds by responsible entities. As shown in Table 15(dc) below:
Ë The Plan includes 4 actions for which funds, totaling $126.730 million, have been committed by the responsible entities. Ë The Plan includes 3 actions for which additional funds may be required to be expended by responsible entities, based on the potential outcome of several ongoing or planned efforts.
The costs of implementation actions to address Dredged Material Management may be large, particularly for the longer-term alternatives not discussed in this Plan. Cost estimates for the actions discussed in this Plan will continue to be developed as part of the continuing planning process.
152 DREDGED MATERIAL NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 Cost/Year RECOMMENDATIONS * * Cost Cost/Year 1 COMMITMENTS * * * Cost $300,000 $1.3 million $12.8 million $14,400,000+* TOTAL Table 14(dc). Enhanced Program Costs for Dredged Material Management ACTION Conduct surveys, as necessary, to Perform pro-active sampling and testing Consider expansion of the Mud Dump Develop Dredged Material Management Seek regional upland disposal sites. Perform computer simulation and Perform economic assessment of tipping Perform necessary studies/surveys in support of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Publish a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Publish Rulemaking. Enhanced program costs to be developed as part of the continuing planning process. Notation (+*) indicates cost plus additional costs to be determined. ACTION D-3.1: develop interim chemical specific bioaccumulation evaluation methodology. ACTION D-3.7: to categorize and quantify dredged material. ACTION D-4.3: Site. ------ACTION D-4.4: Plan (Phases I and II). ACTION D-4.8: ACTION D-6.5: assessment of necessary channel dimension. ACTION D-6.6: fees. * 1
DREDGED MATERIAL 153 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 Cost/Year RECOMMENDATIONS Cost * * * * Cost/Year 1 COMMITMENTS ** ** *** Cost $1 million $250,000 (to date)+* $5.48 million $126,730,000+* $80 million for large pit $40 million for small pit TOTAL ACTION Table 15(dc). Project Implementation Costs for Dredged Material Management Implement a Newark Bay subaqueous Perform demonstration pilot project Implement operational scale use of an Conduct bench-scale studies and, if Conduct bench- and pilot-scale studies Implement the Mud Dump Site Closure Perform pilot disposal project using Project implementation costs to be developed as part of the continuing planning process. Costs to be included in the EIS. To be included in closure management and monitoring plan 9/96. Notation (+*) indicates cost plus additional costs to be determined. ACTION D-4.5: borrow pit.** ACTION D-4.6: using an existing subaqueous borrow pit.** ACTION D-4.6: existing subaqueous borrow pit.** ACTION D-4.9: promising, pilot-scale studies of BCD technology. ACTION D-4.10: of innovative treatment technologies. ACTION D-5.0: Monitoring and Management Plan.*** ACTION D-6.3: geotextile containers. * ** *** 1
154 DREDGED MATERIAL NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
BENEFITS OF IMPLEMENTING THIS PLAN Full implementation of the actions associated with the Dredged Material Management HEP's Plan to address dredged material component of this Plan is expected to ensure management will assist in attaining our vision to that the contribution of the Port to the establish and maintain a healthy Harbor/Bight economy and quality of life of the Region is ecosystem and to implement dredged material maintained. The outcome of implementation of disposal alternatives that promote beneficial this Plan may, among other things, be uses. While the Plan is multi-faceted, all facets demonstrated through an improvement in the move along parallel tracks. The Plan provides quality of sediments deposited in the Estuary, environmentally reasonable immediate and short- remediation and restoration of areas adversely term disposal alternatives for dredged material affected by dredged material disposal, the while allowing for the selection, design, and development of alternatives to ocean disposal, implementation of mid- and long-term non- more efficient regulation of dredged material, ocean disposal alternatives for dredged material the development of treatment technologies for not suitable for ocean disposal. The Plan dredged material, and the growth of water- aggressively sets forth an integrated approach dependent industries such as tourism and stressing coordinated and expeditious regulation commercial and recreational fishing. of dredged material and early implementation of alternate disposal options and pollution control measures.
DREDGED MATERIAL 155 Table 16(ds). Summary—Management of Dredged Material
ACTION RESPONSIBLE TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2 ENTITY1
OBJECTIVE D-1: Develop a future dredged material management structure (also see section on Post-CCMP Management Structure).
ACTION D-1.1: Evaluate alternatives and determine Forum/HEP structure.
-- Suggest options for Forum/HEP structure. Chairs - HEP PC reps, HEP Completed Base program C/N CAC, Forum DMMIWG
-- Determine Forum/HEP structure. HEP Policy Committee Completed Base program C/N
ACTION D-1.2: Identify responsible parties for all actions Forum, through the Ongoing Base program C/N and commitments and assist in the development of DMMIWG, in consultation implementation programs for these actions. with HEP
ACTION D-1.3: Review and comment on work plans, DMMIWG Ongoing Base program C/N SOW, work products, etc.
ACTION D-1.4: Interact with USACE in the development DMMIWG on behalf of Ongoing Base program C/N of the long-term plan for dredged material in the New York- the Forum New Jersey Harbor.
Note: It is HEP’s goal that all the recommendations in the CCMP become commitments.
-- In some cases CCMP actions are recommendations, not commitments, -- In other cases, CCMP actions are recommendations because HEP has not because responsible entities require resources to implement the action. obtained the commitment of regulated entities and other responsible HEP will advocate making these resources available. entities to implement the action. By issuance of this CCMP, HEP seeks the commitment of the responsible entities and requests that they step forward to voluntarily agree to implement the actions.
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP 156 R - Recommendation DREDGED MATERIAL (Continued) Table 16(ds). Summary—Management of Dredged Material
ACTION RESPONSIBLE TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2 ENTITY1
ACTION D-1.5: Coordinate plans, proposals, and USACE, USEPA, NJDEP, Ongoing Base program C/N alternative courses of action pertaining to any matters that NYSDEC fall within the scope of this document with the relevant workgroups of the Dredged Material Management Forum.
OBJECTIVE D-2: Reduce continuing inputs of toxic chemicals and upland sediments and soils (see Management of Toxic Contamination section and the Management of Habitat and Living Resources section, Actions H-2.1, H-2.2, H-2.3).
ACTION D-2.0: Review options that prevent sediments USACE Draft: Completed Base program C/O from entering navigational areas. Interim: Jul 1996 Final: Jul 1998
OBJECTIVE D-3: Characterize, categorize, and quantify material to be dredged.
ACTION D-3.1: Develop interim chemical specific bioaccumulation evaluation methodology.
-- Develop plan for implementation. USEPA & USACE, in Completed Feb 1995 consultation with the Base program C/N -- Develop draft guidance. Criteria Work Group Apr 1996
-- Seek authorization/appropriations for surveys, as USEPA & USACE Completed Base program C/N necessary, to facilitate the chemical-specific bioaccumulation decision framework.
-- Conduct surveys as necessary. USEPA & USACE Initial survey: Enhanced program cost - C/N May 1995 $300,000 Final surveys: Sep 1995
-- Conduct peer and public review of guidance. USEPA & USACE Comments due: Base program C/N Jun 1996
-- Make decision to adopt all, part, or none of guidance. USEPA & USACE Jul 1996 Base program C/N
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation (Continued) Table 16(ds). Summary—Management of Dredged Material
ACTION RESPONSIBLE TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2 ENTITY1 -- Implement guidance, as appropriate. USEPA, USACE, Oct 1996 Base program C/N regulated community
ACTION D-3.2: Recommend reference site and reference sediment database.
-- Recommend an appropriate reference site. USEPA & USACE Feb 1996 Base program C/N
-- Recommend an approach for establishing a reference sediment database.
ACTION D-3.3: Develop a national guidance document to USEPA Jun 1997 Base program R assist the USEPA regions in bioaccumulation decision- making.
ACTION D-3.4: Modify the Mud Dump monitoring and USEPA, USACE, in Oct 1996 Base program C/N management plan to incorporate the interim chemical- consultation with Mud specific, bioaccumulation approach. Dump Work Group
ACTION D-3.5: Develop draft criteria for upland disposal. NJDEP, NYSDEC, Criteria NJ: Jan 1996 Base program C/N and Containment Work NY: To be Groups determined
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation (Continued) Table 16(ds). Summary—Management of Dredged Material
ACTION RESPONSIBLE TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2 ENTITY1
ACTION D-3.6: Categorize and quantify dredged material. USACE Mar 1996 Base program C/N
-- Categorize sediments based on the regional bioaccumulation approach.
-- Estimate the quantities of dredged material currently Jul 1996 pending in each category using the interim chemical- specific approach.
ACTION D-3.7: Determine need for pro-active sampling USEPA, USACE, NYSDEC Mar 1996 Base program C/N and testing.
-- Collect data if necessary. Enhanced program costs R to be estimated by Jan 1996
-- Estimate quantities of dredged material in each category. Base program C/N
ACTION D-3.8: Develop a table which matches dredged USACE, USEPA, NJDEP, Mar 1996 Base program C/N material disposal alternatives to regional dredged material NYSDEC, Forum work categories. groups
OBJECTIVE D-4: Identify, evaluate, and select disposal and treatment/decontamination alternatives.
ACTION D-4.1: Determine a recommended depth and USEPA & USACE, in Apr 1, 1996 Base program C/O controlling depth for dredged material at the MDS and its consultation with the Mud environs. Dump Work Group ACTION D-4.2: Provide design criteria for various mound USACE & USEPA Aug 1, 1996 Base program C/O placement and capping options.
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation (Continued) Table 16(ds). Summary—Management of Dredged Material
ACTION RESPONSIBLE TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2 ENTITY1
ACTION D-4.3: Prepare SEIS and site designation Enhanced program - total rulemaking for expanded Mud Dump Site. cost of designating a new, expanded site is estimated at $1.3 million
-- Perform necessary studies. USEPA & USACE, in Initiated: C/N consultation with Mud Oct 1994 Dump Site Work Group Completed: Sep 1995
-- Publish a supplemental EIS. USEPA Oct 1996 C/N -- Publish rulemaking. USEPA Post-Nov 1996 C/N
ACTION D-4.4: Develop management plan for dredged USACE Final: Enhanced program cost - C/O material. (Phase I - completed). Jul 1998 $12.8 million Interim: (Note: Cost for Jul 1996 implementation of the plan to be estimated by Jul 1996.)
-- Review USACE recommendations for siting containment NY & NJ Oct 1996 Base program C/N islands and provide input.
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation (Continued) Table 16(ds). Summary—Management of Dredged Material
ACTION RESPONSIBLE TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2 ENTITY1
ACTION D-4.5: Make decisions on Newark Bay subaqueous borrow pit.
-- Act as lead to implement subaqueous borrow pits. Port Authority as an Ongoing Base program; included C/N applicant to USACE, in in EIS consultation with the Containment Work Group & NJ Governor’s Task Force
-- Conduct comparison analysis of federal and non-federal Containment Work Group Completed Base program C/N sponsorship for implementation. -- Conduct EIS. USACE or Port Authority Dec 1996 Project implementation C/N cost to be included in EIS -- Determine appropriate cooperating agency. USACE, NJDEP, Port Dec 1996 Authority ACTION D-4.6: Make decisions on existing subaqueous borrow pits.
-- Lower Bay Demonstration Scale Borrow Pit. • Make state regulatory decisions on WQC. NYSDEC To be determined Base program C/O
• Implement. USACE To be determined Project implementation C/O* cost to be determined within 3 months of decision on WQC
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or * Contingent upon receipt of State Water Quality Certification. grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation (Continued) Table 16(ds). Summary—Management of Dredged Material
ACTION RESPONSIBLE TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2 ENTITY1
-- Lower Bay Operational Scale Borrow Pit.
• Make state regulatory decisions on WQC. NYSDEC Within 6 months of Base program C/O demo project completion
• Implement (including design and construction). USACE To be determined $80 million for a pit with C/O* 9.3 million cy capacity $40 million for a pit with 4.7 million cy capacity
ACTION D-4.7: Assess feasibility of modifying sand mining USACE, NJDEP, NYSDEC, Ongoing Base program C/O practices for the purpose of creating new borrow pits. in consultation with the Dredging, Transport & Disposal Work Group
ACTION D-4.8: Monitor upland disposal. -- Monitor the progress of private sector applicants seeking NJDEP & NYSDEC Ongoing Base program C/O to site and operate upland disposal areas.
-- Seek regional upland disposal sites. Port Authority Ongoing Enhanced program cost C/N to be determined
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or * Contingent upon receipt of State Water Quality Certification. grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation (Continued) Table 16(ds). Summary—Management of Dredged Material
ACTION RESPONSIBLE TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2 ENTITY1
ACTION D-4.9: Conduct studies of the Base-Catalyzed USEPA, in consultation Total project Dechlorination (BCD) technology. with USACE and the cost - $1 million Decontamination/ Siting Work Group
-- Complete bench-scale studies. Completed C/O
-- Begin pilot-scale studies (if promising). As appropriate C/O
ACTION D-4.10: Arrange for bench- and pilot-scale studies USEPA & USACE, in $5.48 million C/O of viable technologies for treating sediments. consultation with the Decontamination/ Siting -- Award contracts for 7 bench-scale technologies. Work Group Awarded Aug 1995
-- Collect sediments. Collected Oct 1995
-- Complete bench-scale studies. Completed Jan 1996
-- Begin pilot-scale studies (if promising). Initiate pilot: Mar 1996 Project finished: Dec 1996 Feasibility report for full scale operation: Dec 1996
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation (Continued) Table 16(ds). Summary—Management of Dredged Material
ACTION RESPONSIBLE TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2 ENTITY1
OBJECTIVE D-5: Develop plans for closure of the Mud Dump Site and historical disposal areas.
ACTION D-5.0: Develop and implement closure plans for ocean disposal sites.
-- Develop closure management and monitoring plans for USEPA & USACE, in Sep 1996 Base program C/N the MDS, adjacent areas, and historical disposal sites. consultation with the Mud This includes remediation and restoration. Dump Site Work Group
-- Implement the closure management and monitoring plan. As appropriate Base program + project C/N implementation cost to be determined by Sep 1996
OBJECTIVE D-6: Improve dredging, transport, and disposal operations.
ACTION D-6.1: Recommend specific improvements for Dredging, Transport, and Ongoing Base program C/N equipment and methods used in dredging, transport, and Disposal Work Group disposal operations.
ACTION D-6.2: Determine if hydraulic dredging is feasible USACE To be determined Base program C/N for borrow pit disposal and very confined sites. ACTION D-6.3: Conduct pilot dredging projects for disposal Port Authority & USEPA, Completed Results $250,000 C/N in geotextile containers. in consultation with the Mar 1, 1996 Dredging, Transport, and -- Determine need for full scale use of geotextile Disposal Work Group Ongoing Base program containers.
ACTION D-6.4: Ensure consideration of volume reduction USACE, NYSDEC, Ongoing Base program C/O and innovative dredging techniques (if warranted). NYSDOS, NJDEP
ACTION D-6.5: Assess the impact of reducing the width MARAD Ongoing Enhanced program cost C/O or depth of specific channels through computerized to be estimated by Jan simulations. 1996
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation (Continued) Table 16(ds). Summary—Management of Dredged Material
ACTION RESPONSIBLE TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2 ENTITY1
ACTION D-6.6: Sponsor an economic assessment of DMMIWG will identify Oct 1996; Enhanced program cost C/N tipping fees in the Port. responsible entity to Completion by Jan to be estimated by Jan complete 1997 1996
ACTION D-6.7: Seek Congressional input on the DMMIWG will identify Oct 1996; Base program C/N establishment of tipping fees. responsible entity to Completion by Jan complete 1997
OBJECTIVE D-7: Expedite permit decisions.
ACTION D-7.1: Finalize a draft MOU for ocean disposal USEPA & USACE Draft completed Base program C/O site management and site designation. Sep 1995 Final by Sep 1996
ACTION D-7.2: Explore development of joint permit USACE, NYSDEC, NJDEP, Ongoing Base program C/N information packages for projects proposing ocean and/or in cooperation with non-ocean disposal. DMMIWG ACTION D-7.3: Explore development of a federal regional USEPA, NOAA-NMFS, Ongoing Base program C/N regulation/guidance document addressing the concerns of USFWS, NYSDEC, the federal resource agencies. NJDEP, USACE, in cooperation with DMMIWG
ACTION D-7.4: Develop a regional state NYSDOS, NYSDEC, Ongoing Base program C/N regulatory/guidance document which addresses the NJDEP, in cooperation concerns of the state resource agencies. with DMMIWG
ACTION D-7.5: Explore the formation of a federal and USACE in cooperation Apr 1996 Base program C/N state interagency group to integrate federal and state with DMMIWG regulatory guidances.
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation (Continued) Table 16(ds). Summary—Management of Dredged Material
ACTION RESPONSIBLE TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2 ENTITY1
ACTION D-7.6: Explore establishment of a unified USACE, USEPA, NMFS, Ongoing Base program C/N regulatory process for resolving resource use concerns. USFWS, NYSDEC, NJDEP, in cooperation with DMMIWG
ACTION D-7.7: Explore development of consistent testing USEPA, USACE, NJDEP, Jun 1996 Base program C/N requirements for dredged material disposal for both ocean NYSDEC, Criteria Work and non-ocean disposal alternatives. This will be Group, Forum coordinated with the Criteria Work Group and the Dredged Material Management Forum.
ACTION D-7.8: Report on status of efforts to streamline USACE Every 6 months Base program C/N permitting.
1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract or grant. 2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMP R - Recommendation NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
MANAGEMENT OF PATHOGENIC CONTAMINATION
PROBLEMS SOURCES Beach closures Municipal discharges Shellfish bed closures Combined sewer overflows Storm water Vessel discharges Other non-point sources VISION To establish and maintain a healthy and productive Harbor/Bight ecosystem with full beneficial uses. GOALS Preserve, restore, and maintain human uses of Harbor and coastal waters for bathing and shellfishing. Ensure protection of human health from ingestion of pathogens. Protect marine and coastal resources from adverse pathogenic effects. OBJECTIVES Reduce Loadings P-1 Reduce loadings of pathogens from CSOs, storm water discharges, and non-point sources to levels protective of public health. P-2 Reduce or eliminate the discharge of raw or inadequately treated sewage due to sewage treatment plant malfunctions and illegal connections. P-3 Establish marina pumpout facilities and no discharge zones to reduce impacts of vessel discharges. Understand and Manage Risk P-4 Develop additional indicators of pathogenic contamination. P-5 Continue interstate dialogue on beach closure policies to ensure reasonably consistent approach. P-6 Optimize disinfection practices. P-7 Continue appropriate research, environmental monitoring, and modeling to identify remediation activities and support recovery of uses.
THE PROBLEMS Currently, no portion of the Harbor core area is approved for the direct harvesting of shellfish; on Pathogens are disease causing micro-organisms, the other hand, all public bathing areas, which are such as bacteria, protozoans, and viruses, that are primarily in the outer reaches of the Harbor core present in untreated or inadequately treated human area, are currently approved for recreational sewage and domestic and wild animal wastes. bathing. In the Bight, waters are generally approved for shellfishing, except for a Federal Human sewage and related discharges have for a Shellfish Closure Area around the former municipal long time impaired the water quality of the sewage sludge disposal site; all ocean beaches Harbor/Bight. This contamination affects the public are approved for bathing. when recreational beaches are closed, waters for recreational boaters are degraded, and shellfish In the back bays adjacent to the Bight, closed and beds are closed or restricted. Unhealthy water restricted shellfish areas are common in the more quality conditions may also pose risks to living heavily developed areas and in tidal tributaries. marine resources. Storm water and non-point source runoff periodically cause closures of back bay area
PATHOGENIC CONTAMINATION 161 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 bathing beaches which are particularly sensitive to such contamination sources. Beyond the mouth of the Harbor, in the Bight Apex, there is a Federal Shellfish Closure Area at the Assessment Based on Existing Water Quality former 12-mile ocean dump site for municipal Standards sewage sludge. The closure area is generally a Fecal and total coliform bacteria are water quality circle, six nautical miles in radius, and includes indicators that have been used since the early portions of the adjacent shore areas of Long Island 1920s to protect the public from such waterborne and New Jersey. Sewage sludge dumping ceased bacterial diseases as typhoid fever. Water quality at this site in 1987, and a three-year monitoring suitable for bathing and shellfishing is determined study conducted by the National Marine Fisheries by measuring the concentration of these fecal and Service has demonstrated progressive total coliform indicators, which are associated with environmental recovery of the site. Currently, sewage contamination (see highlighted text box). bacterial indicator levels in the Bight Apex waters Samples are not routinely taken for pathogenic meet the standards for direct shellfish harvesting, organisms because they typically exist only but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not sporadically and in low concentrations, making their yet taken administrative action to reopen the detection difficult and costly. New York and New Jersey are two of only four states in the Nation that monitor the entire length of their marine coastlines Water quality, including the choice of water for bacterial indicators. quality indicators, is only one of several factors that must be considered in a Shellfish discussion of bathing and shellfishing use Water quality impairments in New York-New Jersey impairments. To evaluate the potential for Harbor have adversely affected shellfish resources restoration of historic uses within the since the mid-1920s. Currently no area of the Harbor/Bight, the states must also consider: Harbor is approved for direct shellfish harvesting, but restricted harvesting is permissible for portions • proximity to effluent discharges; of the Lower, Raritan, and Sandy Hook Bays and • extent and nature of shoreline the Shrewsbury and Navesink Rivers. Restricted modification; harvesting means that shellfish must be cleansed • navigation lanes and berthing areas; and before being marketed for human consumption. • current and circulation patterns. Pathogenic organisms (as measured by bacterial indicators) are purged, either at a depuration plant Thus, despite the improvements that are or in clean marine waters. Water quality standards possible in Harbor/Bight water quality, full for waters used for harvesting for depuration are recovery of historic uses is not an attainable less stringent than water quality standards for goal. For example, shellfish areas are closed waters used for direct harvesting. There are no around each sewage treatment plant outfall, specific water quality standards for waters used for regardless of effluent quality, as a relay harvesting. Jamaica Bay, New York also has precautionary measure. The regulating a significant shellfish resource, but its waters are authority must avoid potential human health closed because of water quality concerns and risks associated with even a temporary wildlife protection mandates of the U.S. National violation of water quality standards. These Park Service. Hard and soft-shell clams are types of factors are used by both states in currently the most commercially valuable molluscan setting policies for permanent and temporary shellfish in the Harbor. closures of shellfish and bathing beach areas.
162 PATHOGENIC CONTAMINATION NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
Federal Closure area. Both states administer other Fecal and total coliform indicators are useful precautionary closure areas around ocean outfalls surrogates for bacterial disease-causing organisms. and some inlets. New Jersey also designates Currently, however, it is believed that the most shellfish closure areas to protect spawning stock. common marine pollution-related disease agents The most commercially valuable molluscan shellfish are viruses. Coliforms are not as persistent in the in ocean waters are surf clams, ocean quahogs, water environment as viral pathogens and may not and sea scallops. reflect the actual presence of pathogenic viruses and, thus, health risk. Studies are underway at In the back bay regions, closed and restricted both the federal (National Indicator Study) and state shellfish areas are common in the more heavily (New Jersey Alternative Pathogenic Indicator developed areas and in tidal tributaries. In recent Study) levels to evaluate indicators that may better years, New Jersey has restored some back bay assess public health risk or track and identify waters to less-restrictive shellfish classifications. sources of contamination. A continuing trend in Long Island back bays is more restrictive classifications and larger closure areas. A first study conducted by NJDEP with HEP funds Commercially significant shellfish in back bay assessed the utility of a specific viral indicator, waters include hard and soft-shell clams, oysters, F+RNA coliphage. This type of indicator may better blue mussels, and bay scallops. trace the fate of pathogenic viruses in coastal waters than conventional bacterial indicators. The Beaches following conclusions resulted from this study: New York City manages 24 miles of public beaches along its Harbor and ocean shores, and all are The F+RNA coliphage is a promising indicator, approved for bathing. Recent declines in total and it demonstrates a relationship to the coliform loadings have led to the reopening of expected degree of fecal contamination for Seagate Beach on Coney Island and South Beach significant population sources. and Midland Beach on Staten Island. Furthermore, The F+RNA coliphage can potentially differentiate NYCDOH has dropped rainfall advisories human from animal fecal contamination. completely from seven of the ten New York City public beaches and reduced the advisories for the The F+RNA coliphage does not correlate well remaining three. Water quality is a concern and with other, conventional, bacterial indicators of continues to affect a number of private or historical water quality. beach sites in New York City and other The monitoring of waters for F+RNA coliphage is municipalities along the Upper East River, western possible through routine quantitative testing Long Island Sound, Jamaica Bay, and Raritan Bay. procedures.
Ocean beaches in New York and New Jersey are New Jersey is currently undertaking a follow-up generally approved for swimming. Temporary study to further assess the potential of the F+RNA beach closures, in 1987 and 1988, stimulated coliphage as a practicable microbial water quality action to address washups of floatable debris and indicator and to detect the presence of human sewage treatment plant malfunctions. These enteric (pathogenic) viruses in Harbor/Bight waters. actions have resulted in reduced incidences of ocean beach closures since 1988.
Some Bight back bay area bathing beaches have been periodically closed. Storm water and non- point sources, such as boat discharges and waterfowl, have a greater effect on the quality of these back bay beaches than on ocean beaches or Harbor beaches. Assessment Based on Additional Pathogenic Indicators
PATHOGENIC CONTAMINATION 163 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
SOURCES CONTRIBUTING TO THE The tributary flow into the Estuary is greater than PROBLEMS any other source contribution, representing 80 percent of the entire flow, but this source Based on Bacterial Indicators contributes only 1.8 percent of FCOLI. Municipal flow is secondary in volume at 14 percent but Pathogens of human origin enter the aquatic contributes very small quantities of FCOLI (0.04%). environment by a number of pathways. The public On the other hand, CSO flows are low(1.3%) but health significance of each will vary depending on contribute 89 percent of the FCOLI levels; storm the kinds and concentrations of micro-organisms water flows are also low (3.5%) and contribute 8.9 present, the volume of the effluent discharged percent of the FCOLI levels. relative to the volume of the receiving waters (the dilution factor), and the uses to be made of the affected waters. It is important to distinguish between contamination as measured by fecal coliforms (FCOLI) and actual pathogenic contamination. The term pathogenic contamina- tion refers to the full suite of disease causing micro- organisms (viruses, bacteria, protozoans, etc.) in the wastestream, but these are not routinely measured. Characterization of pathogenic water quality conditions in the Harbor/Bight is determined primarily by the coliform bacterial indicators, which are routinely measured, associated with pollution sources, and applied conservatively to protect public health. Figure 8. Loadings of Fecal Coliform to the Estuary Sources of pathogens to the Harbor/Bight, based on conventional pathogenic indicators, include: Sources in Table 17(p) are rated high (H), medium 1) sewage treatment plant effluents, 2) combined (M), or low (L) for their significance to use sewer overflows, 3) storm water discharges, impairments. A source rated high (H1) significantly 4) non-point source runoff, 5) tributary sources, degrades waters for bathing or shellfishing uses; a 6) vessel discharges, and 7) ocean dump sites. source rated H2 requires precautionary closures The relative importance of these sources varies affecting a wide area. A medium-rated source (M) among the several geographically distinct contributes measurable contamination to a water components of the regional ecosystem: the Harbor body, which may restrict uses, but leads to closures core area including the Lower Bay Complex and for only short durations. A source rated low (L) other waters; the Bight; and the back bays. Table contributes little or nothing to the pathogenic 17(p) presents a comparison of the major contamination problem of a water body. In general, pathogenic sources, and their relative significance a given source is more significant in terms of to resource impairment in the Harbor/Bight, for shellfish impairment than bathing beach impairment shellfish beds and bathing beaches. Resource because water quality standards for shellfishing impairment is rated by relative FCOLI contributions waters are much stricter. This analysis does not from the sources, in combination with the extent to directly consider current water quality classifications which additional precautionary actions are for the Harbor/Bight. Information on each of the considered necessary to protect public health. major pollution sources follows Table 17(p).
164 PATHOGENIC CONTAMINATION NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
Table 17(p). Use Impairments by Bacterial Pathogenic Indicator Sources in the Harbor/Bight (for use in understanding relative contributions to use impairments)
SHELLFISH SOURCE HARBOR BIGHT BACK BAYS LOWER BAY COMPLEX* OTHER WATERS**
STPs M H2 M M(LI) n/a(NJ) CSOs H1 H1 M n/a Storm water H1 H1 M H1 Non-point M H1 M H1 Tributaries L M L M Vessels L M L M Dump Sites n/a n/a ? n/a BATHING BEACHES SOURCE HARBOR BIGHT BACK BAYS LOWER BAY COMPLEX* OTHER WATERS**
STPs L M L L CSOs M H1 L n/a Storm water M H1 M H1 Non-point L M L M Tributaries L M L M Vessels L L L L Dump Sites n/a n/a n/a n/a A source rated high (H1) significantly degrades waters for bathing or shellfishing uses; a source rated H2 requires precautionary closures affecting a wide area. A medium-rated source (M) contributes measurable contamination to a water body, which may restrict uses, but leads to closures for only short durations. A source rated low (L) contributes little or nothing to the pathogenic contamination problem of a water body.
* Lower Bay Complex -- Lower Bay, Raritan Bay and Sandy Hook Bay ** Other Harbor Waters -- Generally, Jamaica Bay, Shrewsbury and Navesink Rivers, and west Long Island Sound. There is little potential for shellfishing and bathing uses elsewhere in Harbor and New York City waters. n/a = not applicable LI = Long Island NJ = New Jersey
1) Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) - STPs, as in the Bight; however, CSOs in the Harbor do currently operated in the region, are not normally a contribute to impacts in the Bight Apex. substantial threat to human health based on contributions of FCOLI; however, failures at 3) Storm water - Separate storm water lines also treatment plant operations can have serious and contribute FCOLI, although the public health risk widespread short-term water quality impacts. As a varies. Human pathogens may enter storm lines result, STPs remain a significant source of from leaking sanitary lines or through illegal sewer pathogenic use impairment. connections, but the level of human pathogens is generally low compared to other sources. Storm 2) CSOs - Under current year-round disinfection water may also carry domesticated animal practices at area STPs, CSOs represent the droppings and other street refuse. Storm water greatest discharge of FCOLI to the Harbor. Large discharge occurs frequently throughout the region, volumes of water generated during rain events, and although its contamination level may be lower when combined with the regular sanitary than some other sources, it is often sufficient to wastestream, overwhelm the capacity of the STPs cause water quality degradation. Even in coastal and collection systems, and overflow directly into portions of the Bight, storm water may adversely the Harbor. During dry weather, the Harbor affect bathing beaches and shellfish beds. For generally attains water quality standards, but during storm water, and for non-point and tributary wet weather when CSOs are discharging, water sources, indicators that can differentiate between quality is seriously degraded. There are no CSOs human and animal pathogens may better enable
PATHOGENIC CONTAMINATION 165 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 health officials to determine actual public health THE PLAN TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS risk. Overview 4) Non-point Sources - Non-point sources (NPS) of HEP has identified three major pathogen-related FCOLI include agricultural runoff, which transports goals: animal fecal wastes, and discharges from improperly functioning septic systems. Another Preserve, restore, and maintain human uses of NPS may be the resuspension of sediments. NPS, Harbor and coastal waters for bathing and in combination with storm water, is a major source shellfishing. of beach and shellfish contamination in portions of the Harbor and coastal back bays. Ensure protection of human health from water- borne pathogens. 5) Tributary Sources - Rivers and freshwater Protect marine and coastal resources from tributary flows contain upstream point and non-point adverse pathogenic effects. sources. While their volume is the largest of all of the sources, their contribution of FCOLI is relatively The goals for recovery of beneficial uses are low, and effects on water quality tend to be local. targeted to specific geographic areas of the While these contributions contain a mix of human Harbor/Bight region where a potentially recoverable and animal pathogens, the public health risk of this resource is present and other considerations do not source is uncertain at present. preclude those uses. HEP has identified the Bight Apex, the Lower Bay Complex (including Sandy 6) Marine Vessel Discharges - These can be locally Hook and Raritan Bays) within the Harbor core significant sources of pathogens in coastal waters, area, and the western end of Long Island Sound as particularly in the back bays and protected embay- priority areas for recovery and enhancement of ments of the Harbor core area. This source of bathing and shellfishing uses. The Shrewsbury and contamination does not generally have serious Navesink Rivers and Jamaica Bay also contain effects on bathing beach conditions, but can cause viable recoverable resources and are priorities for intermittent violations of shellfishing standards or recovery by the two states. It is noted that pose the potential for such violations. For example, shellfishing in Jamaica Bay is restricted due to the several thousand acres of potential shellfish waters wildlife management mandates of the U.S. National in the State of New York are restricted based on Park Service, which has jurisdiction over most of their proximity to marinas and vessel discharges. the Bay. Other waterways within the Harbor core area, which are highly developed and urbanized, 7) Ocean Dump Sites - Ocean dump sites have have only limited, if any, potential for recovery of been sources of FCOLI to the Bight. The most bathing or shellfishing uses. significant of these is the former 12-mile site for municipal sewage sludge, which was active from Consistent with the goal of preserving, restoring, 1924 to 1987. Ocean sludge dumping led to the and maintaining human uses, New York State has federal shellfish closure designation in the Bight identified a subgoal to restore water quality, in Apex. Recent surveys show a substantial recovery those portions of the Harbor core area with viable of the waters at this site, but any remaining health shellfish resources, to levels that would permit risk from bottom sediments has not yet been depuration harvesting. Depuration harvesting determined. standards are also protective of bathing beach uses. HEP supports this goal and will seek to achieve it wherever recoverable uses are found in the region.
166 PATHOGENIC CONTAMINATION NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
Based on recent readings of improved estuarine COMMITMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS water quality, New Jersey is in the process of evaluating the possibility of upgrading over 1,000 acres of shellfish waters in the Navesink River to OBJECTIVE P-1 Reduce loadings of the "seasonally approved" classification, which pathogens from CSOs, would permit direct harvest and marketing of storm water discharges, shellfish during the winter. This development came and non-point sources to about through a major interagency initiative in New levels protective of public Jersey, over a period of years, to reduce non-point health source bacterial pollution in the Navesink Estuary.
The links between human pathogenic contamination and disease and mortality in marine Rainfall-Induced Sources species are not clear, but it is presumed that measures to improve water quality to promote Three sources of pollution to the Harbor/Bight -- bathing and shellfishing uses will also benefit the CSOs, storm water discharges, and non-point marine environment. source runoff -- are associated with runoff induced by rainfall. Effective abatement of these sources is In order to achieve the three pathogen-related important in reducing pathogenic use impairments goals, HEP has developed a program with seven in the Harbor/Bight. Details of HEP's plan to objectives: address these sources is found in the section on Rainfall-Induced Discharges. Reduce loadings of pathogens from CSOs, storm water discharges, and non-point sources. Combined Sewer Overflows Reduce or eliminate the discharge of raw or CSOs are the dominant source of bacterial inadequately treated sewage due to sewage indicators in the Harbor. HEP's plan to abate CSO treatment plant malfunctions and illegal discharges includes the following actions connections. addressing pathogen contamination: Establish marina pumpout facilities and no discharge zones to reduce impacts of vessel -- Fully implement the nine minimum control discharges. measures of the National CSO Control Policy (see Objective CSO-1 below). Develop additional indicators of pathogenic contamination. -- Implement additional CSO controls to meet water quality standards and restore beneficial Continue interstate dialogue on beach closure uses (see Objective CSO-2 below). policies to ensure reasonably consistent approach. • New York City is constructing CSO retention facilities and conducting long-term CSO Optimize disinfection practices. abatement planning (see Action CSO-2.1 Continue appropriate research, environmental below). monitoring, and modeling to identify remediation • USEPA and NJDEP will obtain commitments activities and support recovery of uses. from New Jersey CSO owners and operators to develop long-term CSO abatement plans (see Action CSO-2.2 below). HEP encourages the owners/ operators to do this work as a cooperative regional effort.
PATHOGENIC CONTAMINATION 167 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
• HEP is using the New York City water Initiative on Harbor/Bight watersheds (see quality model to refine target areas for Objective NPS-3 below). actions to recover and enhance bathing and/or shellfishing uses (see Action CSO- 2.3 below). OBJECTIVE P-2 Reduce or eliminate the discharge of raw or Storm Water Discharges inadequately treated sewage due to sewage Storm water discharges are important sources of treatment plant bacterial indicators in back bays of the Bight and in malfunctions and illegal portions of the Harbor. HEP's plan to abate storm connections water discharges includes the following actions addressing pathogen contamination:
-- Implement measures to control municipal and Consistent with the requirements of the Clean industrial storm water discharges (see Objective Water Act and regional disinfection policy, all SW-1 below). municipal sewage treatment plants in the region must meet secondary treatment requirements and • Issue NYC storm water permit (see Action year-round disinfection requirements. In 1993, SW-1.1 below). sewage flows from the Tottenville area of Staten • Process storm water permit applications Island were connected to the Oakwood Beach from New Jersey local authorities in areas of sewage treatment plant for treatment. This the Harbor where water quality parameters captured 0.7 mgd of sewage previously discharged violate established standards or without treatment, eliminating the last significant classifications (see Action SW-1.2 below). known area of raw sewage discharge to the Harbor. Since all of the region's STPs are meeting year- • Incorporate requirements of the general round disinfection requirements, they are no longer permits that control construction discharges major sources of bacterial indicators. into local codes (see Action SW-1.3 below). • Expand geographic coverage of the New There are, however, continuing problems Jersey Sewage Infrastructure Improvement associated with: Act (see Action SW-1.4 below). -- Occasional bypasses of raw sewage caused by Non-Point Source Runoff sewage treatment plant and collection system malfunctions; and Non-point source runoff is an important source of -- Scattered, illegal connections of sanitary bacterial indicators in back bays of the Bight and in sewage to storm sewers and to combined portions of the Harbor. HEP's plan to abate non- sewers at points where the flow is not point source runoff includes the following actions intercepted for treatment. addressing pathogen contamination: ACTION P-2.1 -- Conduct non-point source management Beach/Shellfish Closure Action Plan programs for Barnegat Bay, Whippany River, In response to intermittent closures of bathing and Navesink River (see Actions NPS-1.1 and beaches associated with occasional bypasses of NPS-1.2 below). raw sewage caused by sewage treatment plant and -- Develop and implement coastal non-point collection system malfunction, USEPA, NYSDEC, source management programs under the and NJDEP are currently implementing a short-term Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments strategy for prevention and mitigation of these (see Objective NPS-2 below). closures. This strategy, referred to as the Beach/Shellfish Bed Closure Action Plan, was first -- Focus the Urban Resources Partnership implemented in 1989, and has been a continuing
168 PATHOGENIC CONTAMINATION NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 program since then. It includes the following ACTION P-3.1 provisions: Marina Pumpout Stations The states, using funds available under the Clean -- All short-term beach and shellfish closures are Vessel Act, will issue grants to install pumpout assessed for cause and traceability. stations at marinas statewide to serve the boating community. New York and New Jersey have -- Causes that are traceable to discrete sources received $1 million and $700,000, respectively, trigger prompt enforcement corrective action portions of which will be applied to waterways in the and penalties. Harbor/Bight region. Both states will apply for -- These enforcement responses are coordinated additional funds in fiscal years 1995-1997 to meet between USEPA and the affected states. the need for pumpout facilities in harbors and embayments identified as potential "No Discharge" -- The lead agencies make public announcements zones. of the enforcement responses as a further deterrent. ACTION P-3.2 Clean Water Act Amendment ACTION P-2.2 HEP recommends that the Clean Water Act be Reduction in Unregulated Sewage Discharges amended to allow the states to establish "no- HEP recommends that all dischargers in the region discharge" zones and thus eliminate the need for implement continuing programs to track down and the states to seek USEPA approval prior to the eliminate unregulated discharges of raw sewage, designation of no-discharge zones. both during dry weather and wet weather (see Rainfall-Induced Discharges section below). ACTION P-3.3 "No Discharge" Zones -- Under the 1988 SPDES permit, New York City The states, with USEPA concurrence, will has increased surveillance and maintenance of designate, under Section 312(f)(3) of the Clean its sewerage system, including a shoreline Water Act, "No Discharge" zones, where vessel survey program, reducing the discharge of raw discharge of sanitary wastes to protected waters is sewage from 4.84 mgd in 1989 to 0.4 mgd in prohibited. The states will make designations on a 1993. targeted basis, with USEPA assistance, in the back bay areas tributary to the Bight in order to restore beneficial uses. The steps to designate "No OBJECTIVE P-3 Establish marina pumpout Discharge" zones include: facilities and no discharge zones to reduce vessel -- States identify waters that require greater discharges environmental protection than that afforded by existing standards for marine sanitation devices. -- States request a determination from USEPA that adequate facilities for the pumpout and Marine vessel discharges can have local adverse treatment of vessel sewage are available. effects on pathogenic water quality, particularly in -- USEPA makes determinations on the adequacy tributary areas and small embayments where tidal of existing pumpout and treatment facilities. flushing action is reduced. Since tributary areas and embayments are among the most severely -- States designate "No Discharge" zones to impacted in the Harbor/Bight region, HEP prohibit the discharge of vessel waste in the recommends prudent measures to reduce designated waters, if it is demonstrated that pathogenic inputs from this source. adequate pumpout facilities exist.
-- USEPA approves the "No Discharge" zone designation.
PATHOGENIC CONTAMINATION 169 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
ACTION P-4.5 Epidemiological Study of Beaches OBJECTIVE P-4 Develop additional In order to assess the efficacy of existing bathing indicators of pathogenic beach sanitary policies, HEP recommends a contamination national epidemiological study of beaches. The study should include data sets from the Harbor/Bight region.
HEP recognizes the need to develop additional indicators of pathogenic contamination and OBJECTIVE P-5 Continue interstate recommends the following: dialogue on beach closure policies to ensure ACTION P-4.1 reasonably consistent NJ Pathogenic Indicator Study approach NJDEP will complete the current NJ Pathogenic Indicator Study, ascertain the utility of F+RNA coliphage as an additional pathogenic indicator, and the states will assess it as a diagnostic tool to ACTION P-5.0 identify pathogenic pollution source categories. Beach Closure Policies Recognizing that they have differing policies with ACTION P-4.2 regard to beach closures, the states will continue Research to Develop Human-specific Indicator their dialogue in order to ensure the protection of Based on an evaluation of the existing NJ public health and to ensure effective risk Pathogenic Indicator Study (Action P-4.1), HEP will communication. continue and seek funds, as appropriate, to develop a human-specific indicator that more closely approximates survival of viruses in the marine environment. OBJECTIVE P-6 Optimize disinfection practices ACTION P-4.3 National Shellfish Indicator Study USEPA, the states, and other HEP Management Disinfection of treated effluent is one way to control Conference participants will continue to support the the input of pathogenic agents to the Harbor/Bight National Shellfish Indicator Study and assess its system. As stated earlier, chlorination as a findings in light of the ongoing HEP study. The disinfection method is more effective against states will determine any necessary changes to indicator bacteria than it is against pathogenic current shellfish sanitary policies based on these viruses. New York State is considering reducing results. the permitted discharge concentration of chlorine from STPs, prompting managers to explore ACTION P-4.4 alternative disinfection methods. Research on Relay/Depuration Process As warranted by ongoing regional and national ACTION P-6.0 indicator studies, HEP recommends that research Disinfection Methods be conducted to determine the effectiveness of the HEP supports the use of optimal methods of relay and depuration process on the purging of disinfection and recommends that the states human enteric viruses from shellfish. evaluate the results of New York City's investigation, under HEP, of alternative disinfection methods. As appropriate, the states will issue disinfection guidance.
170 PATHOGENIC CONTAMINATION NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
-- NYCDEP will complete a report assessing -- HEP recommends appropriate continuing alternative wastewater disinfection methods. research, as funds are available, based on an evaluation of New York City's study of alternative wastewater disinfection methods. OBJECTIVE P-7 Continue appropriate research, environmental ACTION P-7.2 monitoring, and modeling Environmental Monitoring Agenda to identify remediation NYSDEC, NYCDEP, and NJDEP should continue activities and support and enhance pathogen-related monitoring efforts. recovery of uses ISC will continue to assist the states with collection of data for their monitoring programs.
-- The states will continue regular programs of Billions of dollars have been expended over the bathing beach and shellfish monitoring as past 25 years on the improvement of sanitary water appropriate. quality in the Harbor/Bight region, and recent -- New York City will continue its Harbor Survey monitoring results attest to the effectiveness of program. those measures. In addition, New York City has developed a water quality model of the Harbor to -- New Jersey should consider supplementing help set priorities for future remedial actions and to New York City's Harbor Survey program by predict the outcome of alternative pollution control supplying data from existing supplemental measures. Since problem areas remain, and other survey stations in New Jersey tributaries to the problems become higher priorities as the most Harbor core area. significant pollution sources are addressed, HEP recommends a comprehensive program of research ACTION P-7.3 and monitoring in the region. Modeling Activities HEP recommends that NJDEP, in cooperation with ACTION P-7.1 the responsible dischargers, calibrate and verify a Research Agenda water quality model for pathogen indicators for Appropriate agencies should conduct the following those waters not adequately addressed in New research activities: York City's Harbor Water Quality Model. The model would be used to forecast needed sanitary -- Investigate the feasibility, desirability, and cost improvements to recover beneficial uses, design to attain shellfish depuration standards in remedial measures, and assess the effectiveness specific waters where shellfish resources exist: of actions taken. (Note: This action would build Raritan Bay, Jamaica Bay, Shrewsbury and upon efforts under Action CSO-2.3 below). Navesink Rivers, and Western Long Island Sound. COSTS OF IMPLEMENTING THIS PLAN -- Assess the residual toxic contamination within the sediments and shellfish of the Bight Apex, A number of the actions in the pathogens and in closed shellfish areas of the Harbor, to component of the CCMP can be accomplished determine the suitability of the resource for through the effective use of base program human consumption (see Toxics section). resources. The CCMP itemizes 5 new HEP-driven commitments to control pathogenic contamination -- Review recent studies of marine-specific using base program resources. pathogenic outbreaks to determine potential human-induced causes and develop The CCMP also includes 9 commitments and remediation measures as appropriate. recommendations for pathogens control programs that entail enhanced program funding. As shown in Table 18(pc) below:
PATHOGENIC CONTAMINATION 171 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
The Plan includes 2 commitments for efforts This component of the CCMP includes another 2 started through the HEP planning process, commitments involving implementation costs for which total $281,800. special projects. As shown in Table 19(pc) below, both New York and New Jersey will implement The Plan includes 3 recommendations for marine pumpout station installation programs for a actions which total $325,000 plus $15,000 per total combined expenditure of $1.7 million. These year. funds will be distributed statewide in both states, The Plan also includes 3 additional actions for including the Harbor/Bight region. which cost estimates will be developed as part of the continuing planning process.
172 PATHOGENIC CONTAMINATION NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 1 * * * $145,000$180,000 $325,000+* $15,000 Cost included in estimate for Action CSO-2.2 Cost Cost/Year Cost Cost/Year $25,000 TOTAL $281,800 ACTION COMMITMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS Table 18(pc). Enhanced Program Costs for Management of Pathogenic Contamination Notation (+*) indicates cost plus additional costs to be determined. ACTION P-4.1: Complete NJ pathogenic indicator study.ACTION P-4.2: Continue research on human-specific pathogenic indicator. $256,800 ACTION P-4.4: Conduct research on relay/depuration process. ACTION P-4.5: Conduct comprehensive epidemiological study of beaches. ACTION P-6.0: Complete assessment of optimal methods of disinfection. ACTION P-7.1: Study recovery of NY Bight Apex (sludge dump site). ACTION P-7.1: Continue research, as appropriate, on best alternative wastewater disinfection methods. ACTION P-7.2: Supplement NYC Harbor Survey Program.ACTION P-7.3: Develop water quality model for pathogen indicators. $15,000 *1 Enhanced program costs to be developed as part of the continuing planning process.
PATHOGENIC CONTAMINATION 173 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 Cost Cost/Year Cost Cost/Year $700,000 $1 million (statewide) (statewide) (statewide) TOTAL $1,700,000 ACTION COMMITMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS Table 19(pc). Project Implementation Costs for Management of Pathogenic Contamination ACTION P-3.1: Implement pumpout station installation program in NY. ACTION P-3.1: Implement pumpout station installation program in NJ.
174 PATHOGENIC CONTAMINATION NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
BENEFITS OF IMPLEMENTING THIS PLAN 1) Secure the quality of ocean beaches. 2) Improve the quality of beaches in the Harbor Implementation of the commitments and core area, allowing bathing in some areas for recommendations for the management of the first time in 20 years. pathogenic contamination would move the Program toward the fulfillment of goals to: 3) Slow the degradation of shellfishing areas, even to the point of restoring shellfish water quality in Protect the human uses of the Harbor and certain areas. coastal waters for bathing and shellfishing. With the implementation of a number of short-term Ensure the protection of human health from actions, such as the beach/shellfish closure action ingestion of pathogens. plan, participants of HEP have made additional Protect the marine environment from adverse incremental progress toward the attainment of pathogenic effects. these goals. Aesthetics, recreational opportunities, and the health of the human population and the Through implementation of the Clean Water Act, regional ecosystem will all benefit from the the state and federal governments have helped to: implementation of this Plan component.
PATHOGENIC CONTAMINATION 175 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 2 C/O C/O cost - $1 million federal funding statewide Project implementation cost - $700,000 federal funding statewide TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS Ongoing Base program C/N 1998 not obtained the commitment of regulated entities and other responsible issuance of this CCMP, HEP seeks entities to implement the action. By step the commitment of responsible entities and requests that they agree to implement the actions. to voluntarily forward -- In other cases, CCMP actions are recommendations because HEP has 1 ENTITY NYSDEC, NJDEP, USEPA NYSDEC & NYCDEP OngoingNJDEPNYSDEC Base program OngoingNJDEP By Dec 31, 1996 C/O Project implementation Base program through Ongoing C/O Table 20(ps). Summary—Management of Pathogenic Contamination Table 20(ps). Summary—Management ACTION RESPONSIBLE because responsible entities require resources to implement the action. advocate making these resources available. HEP will Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract grant. accomplish the actions directly Responsible entities may C/O -C/N the HEP CCMP An ongoing commitment, not driven by -R the HEP CCMP commitment, driven by A new - Recommendation OBJECTIVE P-1: Reduce loadings of pathogens from CSOs, storm water discharges, and non-point sources to levels protective public health (see Rainfall-Induced Discharges section). OBJECTIVE P-2: Reduce or eliminate the discharge of raw inadequately treated sewage due to STP malfunctions and illegal connections. ACTION P-2.1: Continue Beach/Shellfish Closure Action Plan. OBJECTIVE P-3: Establish marina pumpout facilities and no discharge zones to reduce impacts of vessel discharges. ACTION P-3.1: Ensure the installation of pumpout stations at marinas serving the boating community. ACTION P-2.2: Reduce unregulated sewage discharges. -- In some cases CCMP actions are recommendations, not commitments, 1 2
176 PATHOGENIC CONTAMINATION NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 2 C/N R R R cost - $256,800 cost - $145,000 Enhanced program cost - $180,000 to be developed prior conducting study TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS Ongoing Base program C/N Ongoing Base program C/N Beginning by Dec 31, 1996 Ongoing Base program C/N 1 (Continued) ENTITY Management of Pathogenic Contamination — US CongressNYSDEC & NJDEP, with USEPA concurrence Dec 31, 1996 By Base program R NJDEPHEPNYSDEC, NJDEP, USEPA 1996 Mar Post-CCMP Enhanced program Enhanced program Federal and state agencies NYSDOH & NJDEP Post-CCMPInterstate Sanitation Enhanced program cost Commission, NYSDOH, NJDEP, local health agencies Table 20(ps). Summary ACTION RESPONSIBLE Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract grant. accomplish the actions directly Responsible entities may C/O -C/N -R the HEP CCMP An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP commitment, driven by A new - Recommendation ACTION P-3.2: Amend CWA to allow "No Discharge" zone designations by the states. ACTION P-3.3: Designate "No Discharge" zones, where vessel discharge of sanitary wastes to protected waters is prohibited. ACTION P-4.2: Continue research to develop a human-specific indicator. ACTION P-4.3: Support the National Shellfish Indicator Study. OBJECTIVE P-4: Develop additional indicators of pathogenic contamination. ACTION P-4.1: Complete the current NJ Pathogenic Indicator Study. ACTION P-4.4: Conduct research on relay/ depuration process. ACTION P-4.5: Conduct comprehensive epidemiological study of beaches across the Harbor/Bight region. OBJECTIVE P-5: Continue interstate dialogue on beach closure policies to ensure a reasonably consistent approach. ACTION P-5.0: Continue dialogue on beach closure policies. 1 2
PATHOGENIC CONTAMINATION 177 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 2 C/N R R cost - $25,000 Enhanced program cost to be developed prior conducting studies cost to be developed based on results NYC report (Action P- 6.0) and other information TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS Begin by Dec 31, 1996 1 (Continued) ENTITY Management of Pathogenic Contamination — Federal agencies (NOAA lead), NYSDEC & NJDEP Federal agenciesNJDEP & NYCDEP 1996 Sep Sep 1996 Base program Enhanced program R Table 20(ps). Summary ACTION RESPONSIBLE Apex and Harbor shellfish beds. outbreaks. alternative wastewater disinfection methods. Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract grant. accomplish the actions directly Responsible entities may C/O -C/N -R the HEP CCMP An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP commitment, driven by A new - Recommendation -- Guidance.OBJECTIVE P-7: Continue appropriate research, environmental monitoring, and modeling to identify remediation activities support recovery of uses. ACTION P-7.1: Research Agenda. -- Assess residual toxic contamination in Bight NYSDEC & NJDEP 1996 Mar Base program C/N OBJECTIVE P-6: Optimize disinfection practices. ACTION P-6.0: Issue guidance on optimal methods of disinfection. -- NYC Report. NYCDEP Completed program Enhanced -- Review studies of marine-specific pathogenic -- Continue research, as appropriate, on best 1 2
178 PATHOGENIC CONTAMINATION NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 2 R R cost - $15,000/yr included in project implementation cost estimate for Action CSO-2.2; project- be to cost specific developed prior to conducting study. TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS Ongoing Base program C/O Ongoing Base program C/O 1 (Continued) ENTITY Management of Pathogenic Contamination — NJDEP, NYSDEC, NYCDEP, local authorities NYSDEC, NJDEP, ISC, some local health authorities NJDEPNJ dischargers Dec 31, 1995 By Dec 31, 1996 By Enhanced program Enhanced program cost Table 20(ps). Summary ACTION RESPONSIBLE as appropriate. by supplying data from existing supplemental survey stations in New Jersey tributaries to the Harbor core area. Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract grant. accomplish the actions directly Responsible entities may C/O -C/N -R the HEP CCMP An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMP commitment, driven by A new - Recommendation ACTION P-7.2: Continue and enhance pathogen- related monitoring efforts. -- Continue bathing beach and shellfish monitoring -- Continue Harbor Survey Program.-- Consider supplementing Harbor Survey Program ACTION P-7.3: Calibrate and verify a water quality model for pathogen indicators. (Note: This effort NYCDEPwould build upon Action CSO-2.3). Ongoing Base program C/O 1 2
PATHOGENIC CONTAMINATION 179 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
180 PATHOGENIC CONTAMINATION NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
MANAGEMENT OF FLOATABLE DEBRIS
PROBLEMS SOURCES Beach closures Combined sewer overflows Adverse impacts on commercial and Storm water discharges recreational boating Non-point sources including littering, landfill Adverse impacts on coastal species practices, and marine transfer operation Decaying shoreline structures and sunken vessels Vessel discharges VISION To establish and maintain a healthy and productive Harbor/Bight ecosystem with full beneficial uses. GOALS Eliminate floatable-related beach closures. Prevent adverse impacts on coastal species resulting from floatables. Prevent adverse impacts on commercial and recreational boating resulting from floatables. OBJECTIVES F-1 Continue and enhance implementation of the successful short-term floatables action plan. F-2 Expand the USACE Harbor Drift Removal Program without compromising important habitat. F-3 Implement beach and shoreline cleanups. F-4 Assess and control landfill and solid waste practices. F-5 Communicate impacts of marine debris and appropriate disposal practices. F-6 Reduce loadings of floatables from CSOs, storm water discharges, and non- point sources.
THE PROBLEMS Floatable debris is waterborne waste material that is buoyant. Examples include wood, beach litter, When the Bight Restoration Plan was enacted in aquatic vegetation, and detritus; street litter (cans, 1987, there was a significant floatable debris bottles, polystyrene cups, sheet plastic, straws, and problem in the Harbor/Bight system. By the paper products); sewage-related wastes (condoms, summer of 1989, an interagency floatables sanitary napkins, tampon applicators, diaper liners, workgroup, convened under the auspices of the grease balls, tar balls, and fecal material); fishing Bight Restoration Plan, had developed and gear (nets, floats, traps, and lines); and medical implemented a short-term floatables action plan, wastes (hypodermic needles, syringes, bandages, effectively controlling the problem. The extent of red bags, and enema bottles). The primary source ocean beach closures declined from over 70 of floatable materials in the Bight is the Hudson- cumulative miles in 1988 to less than 4 miles in Raritan Plume, which 1989. carries Harbor discharges into ocean waters. However, much litter is also generated by beach- goers.
FLOATABLE DEBRIS 181 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
Beach Closures Turtles and mammals are also vulnerable to The wash-up of floatable materials on bathing ingestion of plastic items, such as bags, that are beaches is offensive. Although the real threat to mistaken for squid, jellyfish, or other prey. This public health posed by inadvertent contact with ingestion often leads to suffocation or intestinal these floatable materials is small, the perceived blockage and death. While the frequency of debris- threat is large. In 1976, wash-ups of floatable related deaths of marine wildlife is difficult to debris were responsible for the closing of 60 miles quantify, the fact that several species are of New York beaches. In 1987, wash-ups were threatened and endangered makes this issue responsible for the closing of 25 miles of New significant for the region. In addition, accumula- Jersey beaches in May and 50 miles in August. In tions of floatable debris in coastal marshes and 1988, floatable materials were again responsible for shorelines can effectively smother productive the closing of 60 miles of beaches in New York. vegetated areas. These beach closures generally lasted for periods ranging from several hours at a time to days, and SOURCES CONTRIBUTING TO THE the economic and social impacts were enormous. PROBLEMS The SUNY Waste Management Institute estimates a loss between $990 million and $4 billion in New The sources of floatable debris in the ecosystem Jersey and between $950 million and $2 billion in and the problems caused by this debris are fairly New York in the 1987-1988 time frame. well understood. The sources of floatable debris include: Adverse Impacts on Commercial and Recreational Boating Combined sewer overflows; Floating debris, particularly driftwood, poses Storm water; hazards to shipping and recreational boating in the Harbor/Bight, but quantifying the damage is difficult. Non-point sources including littering, landfill A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) briefing practices, and marine transfer operations; paper on damages to vessels in the New York/New Decaying shoreline structures such as piers, Jersey Harbor estimated that the damage from pilings, sunken barges, and bulkheads; and floating debris in 1987 was $48 million and involved 17,800 vessels. No comparable data are available Vessel discharges. for the Bight, although damages are thought to be much less. The USACE conducts two programs to THE PLAN TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS address floating debris: 1) collection of debris already floating and 2) dismantling deteriorating The floatables component of the CCMP plays an structures before they fall apart and become drift. important role in establishing and maintaining a healthy and productive Harbor/Bight ecosystem Drift materials include timbers, pilings, plastics, with full beneficial uses. This component of the rubber tires, fiberglass boats, polystyrene, rafts, plan has three goals: floating drums, construction materials, and parts of barges, docks, sheds, and other shore structures. To eliminate floatable-related beach closures; Adverse Impacts on Coastal Species To prevent adverse impacts on commercial and recreational boating resulting from floatable Birds, mammals, and sea turtles are found debris; and seasonally throughout the Bight and portions of the Harbor. These living resources are vulnerable to To prevent adverse impacts on coastal species entrapment and entanglement in plastic waste resulting from floatable debris. including six pack rings, fishing line, and nets.
182 FLOATABLE DEBRIS NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
In order to achieve these goals, HEP decided to Table 21(f). Debris Collected address the floatables problem on two tracks. A "fast" track, or expedited action plan, was NJDEP developed and implemented in 1989, and included Floatables Operation Clean specific actions to clean up existing debris after it Action Plan Shores entered the system. A longer term strategy, to (tons) (tons) (miles) reduce the amount of debris entering the system, is 3000 incorporated in this CCMP. 1989 541* (45) 4800 1990 795** Expedited Short-Term Action (48) Because of the ongoing beach closures in the 4688 1991 701** summers of 1987 and 1988, the fast track Action (74) Plan was developed in 1989 and has been 5789 1992 958** implemented each year since then. The intent of (84) this plan is to minimize beach wash-ups of 5750 1993 1088** floatables in the Bight. Its success can be (67) measured by the reduced number of floatables- 3700 1994 1298** related beach closures since 1989, as well as by (62) the improved communication which enables the agencies to intercept debris slicks before they * May 15 to September 15 only. reach the beaches. In spite of abnormally heavy ** Year round collection. rainfall in 1989, only two floatables-related ocean beach closures occurred. There were no closures USEPA) during and following new and full moon of ocean beaches in New Jersey or New York high tides and following storms that cause during the summers of 1991 to 1994 as a result of combined sewer overflows. During the summer floatables wash-ups. As shown in Table 21(f), bathing season (mid-May to mid-September), these thousands of tons per year of floatable debris have cleanups occur daily rather than according to tide or been collected as part of the Floatables Action Plan storm conditions. Starting in 1993, New York City and New Jersey's Operation Clean Shores. supplemented USACE efforts with its own skimmer vessels to clean up tributaries to the Harbor. New This fast track plan contains four key elements: Jersey supplements USACE's efforts with a program called "Operation Clean Shores", initiated Surveillance - NJDEP, USEPA, and the U.S. Coast in 1989, to remove shoreline debris from the New Guard (USCG) conduct helicopter and fixed-wing Jersey side of the Harbor complex in order to aircraft patrols of the Harbor complex to look for prevent resuspension of debris. This program, slicks of floating debris. In addition, there are daily staffed by Department of Corrections inmates and vessel patrols of the Harbor complex by USEPA NJDEP personnel, with assistance from local and USCG, weekly patrols of the Bight by USCG, municipalities, operates year-round from the and daily overflights of the Bight by NJDEP. George Washington Bridge to Raritan Bay; over 10 Continued funding for the USEPA Region II million pounds of debris are collected each year. helicopter is in jeopardy. There is no similar program in New York State.
Regular Cleanups - USACE has an ongoing Nonroutine Cleanups - USACE attempts to program to capture loose timbers and other capture additional slicks within the Harbor navigation hazards in the Harbor complex. As part complex, when these conditions are brought to its of this program, USACE cleans up floatable slicks, attention. In 1989, NJDEP also contracted with employing specially designed nets to collect small fishing vessels to capture slicks. State debris. These cleanups are regularly scheduled at coordinators notify local authorities and beach the Verrazano Narrows and Arthur Kill (locations operators of potential wash-ups. where garbage slicks tend to form, according to
FLOATABLE DEBRIS 183 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
Communications Network - USEPA coordinates a Longer Term Plan reporting network as well as cleanup activities (See The HEP Management Conference recognizes the Figure 9). USEPA, NYSDEC, NJDEP, New York need to supplement the short-term action plan with City Department of Sanitation (NYCDOS), USACE, a longer term strategy to control the sources of and USCG are on-call 24 hours a day. Hotline floatable debris, preventing the debris from entering numbers are available for citizen telephone calls. the system. The management approach for this longer term strategy is as follows: The Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988 defined medical waste; established the requirements for Continue and improve the successful short- packaging, labeling, and transporting the wastes; term floatables action plan; and specified a system to track the medical waste from generation to final disposal. Although this Develop and implement a long-term source- federal legislation expired in 1992, the need to oriented strategy to reduce the amount of educate the public on the proper disposal of home floatables entering the ecosystem; take action medical waste continues (see Action F-4.5 below). as soon as there are commitments and mechanisms in place for implementation; take There are many other ongoing efforts which remove additional actions, over time, as mechanisms debris from the shoreline. One such example is the and commitments are developed; and National Beach Cleanup Program, in which an ever Expand public education and outreach efforts to increasing number of public interest and youth foster lifestyle changes that will reduce the groups (e.g., Boy Scouts, school children) conduct public's contribution to the floatable debris annual cleanups at local beaches. problem.
Figure 9. Communications Network for Reporting and Responding to Floatable Debris Slicks
184 FLOATABLE DEBRIS NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
COMMITMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ACTION F-1.5 Additional Measures in New Jersey NJDEP is requiring that, as part of their permits to manage floatables, the New Jersey discharge OBJECTIVE F-1 Continue and enhance permittees evaluate the need for additional implementation of the floatables control measures, including skimmer successful short-term vessels, for New Jersey tributaries to the Harbor. floatables action plan
OBJECTIVE F-2 Expand the USACE Harbor ACTION F-1.1 Drift Removal Program Short-term Floatables Action Plan without compromising USEPA, USCG, USACE, NYSDEC, NJDEP, important habitat NYCDEP, and NYCDOS will continue to implement the short-term floatables action plan.
-- In order to ensure that USEPA continues its USACE, to date, has awarded 18 construction active involvement in Harbor/Bight surveillance, contracts with a total value of $40 million. This HEP recommends that USEPA Region II effort has removed over 320,000 tons of debris continue to receive base program funding for its from the waters and shorelines of the Harbor core helicopter. area.
ACTION F-1.2 ACTION F-2.1 New Jersey "Operation Clean Shores" Program Prioritization of Sites New Jersey will continue annual implementation of The States of New York and New Jersey and the "Operation Clean Shores" program. USACE will establish priority sites for USACE's Harbor Drift Removal Program based on an area's ACTION F-1.3 potential to contribute significant quantities of New York Companion Program to "Operation Clean floatable debris to the Harbor, without Shores" compromising habitat or navigational safety. HEP recommends that NYSDEC work with other state agencies to develop and implement a ACTION F-2.2 companion program to New Jersey's "Operation Implementation of Drift Removal Projects Clean Shores" in the New York portion of the USACE, with cost-sharing by the states, should Harbor. implement Harbor drift removal projects in accordance with the prioritization in Action F-2.1. ACTION F-1.4 Implementation of these projects is dependent on New York City Skimmer Vessels and Use of Booms annual appropriations by Congress. New York City acquired a large open water skimmer vessel, which became operational in October 1993, to complement the USACE Harbor OBJECTIVE F-3 Implement beach and drift collection vessels. New York City also shoreline cleanups purchased two small skimmer boats, for Flushing and Jamaica Bays, which have been operating since May 1993. New York City has recently acquired two additional small skimmer vessels for ACTION F-3.1 tributary areas of the Harbor. In addition, New York Routine Beach Cleanups City is using booms to catch floatables in the four Beach operators should conduct routine beach CSO abatement tributary planning areas. cleanups at private and public beaches in New York and New Jersey in the off-season.
FLOATABLE DEBRIS 185 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
ACTION F-3.2 on recycling at marinas and work to expand these National Beach Cleanup Expansion recycling programs regionwide. In 1989, HEP States should encourage public interest groups to sponsored such demonstration projects in New continue and expand ongoing national beach York and New Jersey. cleanups to include the back bay and tributary areas. New York and New Jersey are committed to ACTION F-4.4 improving cleanup coordination. Beach and Shoreline Waste Handling
-- HEP recommends that entities responsible for OBJECTIVE F-4 Assess and control landfill managing public open spaces at beaches and and solid waste practices shoreline areas continue and expand effective waste collection, recycling, and handling measures. Waste receptacles, including recycling and disposal containers, should be ACTION F-4.1 provided in sufficient numbers to accommodate New York City Solid Waste Enforcement public users and prevent debris dispersal by New York City marine transfer stations are now all wind and wildlife. enclosed, and procedures are established to -- HEP recommends that entities responsible for prevent spillage while loading. The barges are all managing public open spaces at beaches and netted for the trip to the Fresh Kills landfill in Staten shoreline areas implement, expand, and Island, as a measure to prevent floatables from improve education efforts on litter control and entering the Harbor during trips from marine the effects of plastic debris on marine life. transfer stations to Staten Island. (Objective F-5 below includes specific actions to communicate impacts of debris and appropriate Until a long-term solution is implemented, interim disposal practices.) measures are presently in place to reduce the amount of floatables escaping from the Fresh Kills -- HEP recommends that legislation at the landfill. appropriate government level be enacted to ban or restrict the use of non-degradable plastic NYSDEC and ISC will continue to monitor the products at shore concession stands. provisions stipulated in permits and consent orders, issued to the New York City Department of ACTION F-4.5 Sanitation for solid waste handling at landfills and Education on Disposal of Home Medical Waste marine transfer stations, to ensure compliance. Appropriate agencies should develop educational materials to inform the public of the proper disposal ACTION F-4.2 techniques for home medical wastes. Continuation of NJ Solid Waste Program NJDEP will continue its existing solid waste -- The medical and pharmaceutical industries at disposal program, which requires solid waste to be both the regional and national levels should disposed at specific facilities based on the source develop an educational strategy to encourage of waste generation. the proper disposal of home medical wastes. HEP will inform them of this need. ACTION F-4.3 -- NYSDEC and NYSDOH will develop Expansion of Marina Recycling educational materials for the disposal of home New York and New Jersey coastal communities sharps. should review the results of demonstration projects
186 FLOATABLE DEBRIS NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
OBJECTIVE F-5 Communicate impacts of OBJECTIVE F-6 Reduce loadings of marine debris and floatables from CSOs, storm appropriate disposal water discharges, and other practices non-point sources
ACTION F-5.1 Signs on Debris Impacts and Waste Disposal Three sources of pollution to the Harbor/Bight -- All New York and New Jersey beach and marina CSOs, storm water discharges, and non-point owners and operators should post permanent signs source runoff -- are associated with runoff induced at boat launch ramps and other public access sites. by rainfall. These three sources are significant Signs should depict the impacts of floatable debris contributors of floatables to the Harbor/Bight on marine wildlife and provide information on system. Effective abatement of these sources is appropriate methods for waste disposal. therefore important in reducing use impairments and adverse ecosystem impacts associated with ACTION F-5.2 floatables. HEP's plan to address these sources is Marine Debris Information in Fishing/Boating found in the section on Rainfall-Induced Discharges Applications below. The Plan includes the following actions New York and New Jersey should enclose addressing floatables: information on marine debris in all applications for fishing and boating licenses or registrations. Combined Sewer Overflows
ACTION F-5.3 -- Fully implement the nine minimum control Public Service Announcements measures of the National CSO Control Policy HEP will seek sponsors to develop and broadcast (see Objective CSO-1 below). public service announcements throughout New -- Implement additional CSO controls to meet York and New Jersey regarding the proper disposal water quality standards and restore beneficial of beach and boating litter. uses (see Objective CSO-2 below). ACTION F-5.4 • New York City is implementing CSO control Continue Clean Streets/Clean Beaches Campaign measures, including constructing retention USEPA, NYSDEC, NJDEP, and NYCDEP will facilities, and conducting long-term CSO continue the clean streets/clean beaches campaign abatement planning (see Action CSO-2.1 to educate the public on proper waste disposal. below). • HEP recommends that New Jersey CSO ACTION F-5.5 dischargers cooperate in a regional effort to Stormdrain Stenciling develop long-term CSO abatement plans HEP and its member regulatory agencies will (see Action CSO-2.2 below). encourage local user groups to engage in stormdrain stenciling activities. Stormdrain stencils Storm Water Discharges inform the public that materials thrown into the sewers discharge into local waterways. -- Implement measures to control municipal and industrial storm water discharges (see Objective ACTION F-5.6 SW-1 below). MARPOL V Enforcement USCG will communicate and enforce provisions of • Issue NYC storm water permit modifications MARPOL V for at-sea disposal of solid waste. (see Action SW-1.1 below).
FLOATABLE DEBRIS 187 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
• Incorporate requirements of the general The CCMP also includes 10 commitments and permits that control construction discharges recommendations for floatable debris control into local codes (see Action SW-1.3 below). programs that entail enhanced program funding. As shown in Table 22(fc) below: • Expand geographic coverage of the New Jersey Sewage Infrastructure Improvement The Plan includes 4 commitments to continue Act (see Action SW-1.4 below). and expand existing short-term initiatives, which total $1.750 million per year. Non-point Source Runoff The Plan includes 4 recommended actions for -- Develop and implement coastal non-point which increased funding of $200,000 plus $1.35 source management programs under the million per year is required. Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments The Plan also includes 2 additional (see Objective NPS-2 below). recommended actions for which cost estimates -- Focus the Urban Resources Partnership will be developed as part of the continuing Initiative on Harbor/Bight watersheds (see planning process. Objective NPS-3 below). This component of the CCMP includes 4 additional COSTS OF IMPLEMENTING THIS PLAN actions that require implementation costs for special projects. As shown in Table 23(fc) below: Many of the commitments and recommendations in the floatables component of the CCMP are being The Plan includes 2 actions for which a total of accomplished through the effective use of base $7.4 million has been committed by the program resources. The CCMP itemizes 5 new responsible entities. HEP-driven commitments to control floatable debris The Plan includes 1 recommended action for an using base program resources. These actions existing federally authorized program with an represent a continuing and expanding commitment estimated cost of $2.5 million per year. to CCMP implementation. The Plan includes 1 recommended action for which cost estimates will be developed as part of the continuing planning process.
188 FLOATABLE DEBRIS NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 1 * * $9,000 $140,000 Cost/Year $1.2 million $1,349,000/yr+* RECOMMENDATIONS Cost $200,000 1 $50,000 $100,000 $600,000 $1 million Cost/Year $1,750,000/yr+* $200,000 COMMITMENTS Cost TOTAL Table 22(fc). Enhanced Program Costs for Management of Floatable Debris ACTION Notation (+*) indicates cost plus additional costs to be determined. ACTION F-1.1: Implement the short-term floatables action plan. ACTION F-1.2: Implement "Operation Clean Shores". ACTION F-1.3: Complement "Operation Clean Shores" within NYS. ACTION F-3.2: Continue existing national beach cleanups. ACTION F-3.2: Expand national beach cleanups to new areas. ACTION F-4.3: Expand recycling demonstration projects at marinas. ACTION F-4.5: Develop educational strategy to inform public of proper medical waste disposal. ACTION F-5.1: Post signs advising of proper marine debris disposal. ACTION F-5.3: Develop and broadcast public service announcements. ACTION F-5.4: Continue Clean Streets/Clean Beaches Campaign. *1 Enhanced program costs to be developed as part of the continuing planning process.
FLOATABLE DEBRIS 189 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 * Cost/Year $2.5 million $2,500,000/yr RECOMMENDATIONS Cost Cost/Year COMMITMENTS Cost $4 million $3.4 million (capital cost) (capital Included in the estimate for Action CSO-2.1 TOTAL $7,400,000 ACTION Table 23(fc). Project Implementation Costs for Management of Floatable Debris ACTION F-1.4: Operate 4 skimmer boats in New York City to clean up Harbor tributaries. ACTION F-1.4: Use booms to catch floatables in the four CSO abatement tributary planning areas in New York City. ACTION F-2.2: Implement Harbor drift removal projects. ACTION F-3.1: Perform routine beach cleanups during off-season. ACTION F-1.4: Operate open water skimmer vessel in New York City to clean up Harbor debris. * Project implementation costs to be developed as part of the continuing planning process.
190 FLOATABLE DEBRIS NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
BENEFITS OF IMPLEMENTING THIS PLAN With the implementation of the short-term floatables action plan, the participants of HEP have made Full implementation of the commitments and substantial headway in the attainment of these recommendations for management of floatable goals. Continued commitment to the debris would result in: implementation of a long-term strategy to control floatable debris will ensure continued progress Elimination of floatable-related beach closures; toward the attainment of these goals. Aesthetics, recreational opportunities, navigational safety, and Prevention of adverse floatable-related impacts the regional ecosystem will all benefit from the on coastal species; and implementation of this component of the Plan. Prevention of adverse impacts on commercial and recreational navigation.
FLOATABLE DEBRIS 191 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 2 C/N C/O R cost - $1 million/yr total, including $126,800 for USEPA helicopter cost - $600,000 cost - approximately $1.2 million/yr TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS Ongoing Enhanced program obtained the commitment of regulated entities and other responsible obtained the to implement the action. issuance of this CCMP, HEP seeks the By to step forward requests that they and entities responsible commitment of the agree to implement the actions. voluntarily -- In other cases, CCMP actions are recommendations because HEP has not 1 ENTITY RESPONSIBLE USEPA, USCG, USACE, NYSDEC, NYCDOS, NJDEP, NYCDEP NJDEP Ongoing Enhanced program NYSDEC Summer 1996 Enhanced program Table 24(fs). Summary—Management of Floatable Debris Table 24(fs). Summary—Management ACTION s goal that all the recommendations in CCMP become commitments. ’ because responsible entities require resources to implement the action. HEP require because responsible entities advocate making these resources available. will Responsible entities may accomplish the actionsResponsible entities may directly or via contract grant. C/O -C/N the HEP CCMP An ongoing commitment, not driven by -R the HEP CCMP commitment, driven by A new - Recommendation OBJECTIVE F-1: Continue and enhance implementation of successful short-term floatables action plan. ACTION F-1.1: Implement the short-term floatables action plan. ACTION F-1.2: Implement "Operation Clean Shores" program. ACTION F-1.3: Develop and implement a companion program to "Operation Clean Shores". Note: It is HEP 1 2 -- In some cases CCMP actions are recommendations, not commitments,
192 FLOATABLE DEBRIS NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 2 C/N C/N C/O R R cost - $4 million capital cost (55% USEPA grant) cost - $3.4 million over 3 yrs cost included in estimate for Action CSO-2.1 cost - $2.5 million/yr Project implementation cost to be estimated prior to implementation of program TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS Beginning by Dec 31, 1995 1 — Management of Floatable Debris (Continued) ENTITY RESPONSIBLE NYCDEP Ongoing Project implementation NJDEPNY, NJ, USACE Completed Completed Base programBeach operators Base program(Federal, state, local, and private) C/N C/N Table 24(fs). Summary ACTION CSO abatement tributary planning areas. Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract grant. accomplish the actions directly Responsible entities may C/O -C/N the HEP CCMP An ongoing commitment, not driven by -R the HEP CCMP commitment, driven by A new - Recommendation -- Four skimmer boats.-- Use booms to catch floatables in the four NYCDEP Ongoing Project implementation ACTION F-1.4: Continue use of skimmer boats and booms in New York City. -- Open water vessel. NYCDEP Ongoing Project implementation ACTION F-1.5: Require the evaluation of need for other floatables control measures including additional skimmer boats. OBJECTIVE F-2: Expand the USACE Harbor Drift Removal Program without compromising important habitat. ACTION F-2.1: Establish priority sites for the drift removal program. ACTION F-2.2: Implement drift removal projects. NY, NJ, USACEOBJECTIVE F-3 Implement beach cleanups. ACTION F-3.1: Perform routine beach cleanups off-season. Dec 31, 1996 By Project implementation 1 2
FLOATABLE DEBRIS 193 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 2 C/O R C/N $25,000/yr (NY) cost - $25,000/yr (NJ) cost - NYS: $6,000/yr NJ: cost included above Private: $3,000/yr cost - $140,000 (FY89 Demo project) TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS By Dec 31, 1996 $140,000/yr R 1 — Management of Floatable Debris (Continued) ENTITY RESPONSIBLE NY, NJ, private sector By Dec 31, 1996 Enhanced program NY & NJ Ongoing Enhanced program NYSDEC & ISC OngoingNYSDEC & NJDEP Completed 1990 Base program Enhanced program C/O in NY and NJ Table 24(fs). Summary ACTION (Adopt-a-Beach program in NJ) and tributary areas. Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract grant. accomplish the actions directly Responsible entities may C/O -C/N the HEP CCMP An ongoing commitment, not driven by -R the HEP CCMP commitment, driven by A new - Recommendation -- Expand existing programs to include back bays ACTION F-3.2: Continue and expand national beach cleanups. -- Continue existing beach cleanups. OBJECTIVE F-4: Assess and control landfills solid waste practices. ACTION F-4.1: Monitor provisions of NYCDOS permits and consent orders for solid waste handling at landfills and marine transfer stations to ensure compliance. ACTION F-4.2: Continue NJ solid waste program.ACTION F-4.3: Conduct recycling demonstration NJDEPprojects at marinas. Ongoing Base program C/O -- Expand such projects. Coastal communities 1 2
194 FLOATABLE DEBRIS NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 2 R to be provided by medical and pharmaceutical industries TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS By Dec 31, 1996 Base program R By Dec 31, 1996 Base program R By Dec 31, 1996 Base program R By Dec 31, 1997 Enhanced program cost 1 — Management of Floatable Debris (Continued) ENTITY RESPONSIBLE Appropriate government legislators Open space managers Open space managers HEPpharmaceutical industries Dec 31, 1996 By Base program C/N NYSDEC & NYSDOH Ongoing Base program C/O Table 24(fs). Summary ACTION at shore concession stands. waste handling practices at public shoreline areas, as required. public need and adequate to prevent debris dispersal. industries of need to develop educational strategy. disposal of home sharps. Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract grant. accomplish the actions directly Responsible entities may C/O -C/N the HEP CCMP An ongoing commitment, not driven by -R the HEP CCMP commitment, driven by A new - Recommendation ACTION F-4.4: Provide for beach and shoreline waste handling. -- Ban use of non-degradable plastic products -- Continue, expand, and adopt effective -- Provide waste receptacles sufficient for ACTION F-4.5: Develop educational materials to inform the public of proper disposal techniques for home medical waste. -- Inform medical and pharmaceutical -- Develop educational strategy. and Medical -- Develop educational materials for the 1 2
FLOATABLE DEBRIS 195 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 2 R R C/N to be provided by beach/marina owners/operators cost - $200,000 cost - $100,000/yr TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS By Dec 31, 1996 Enhanced program cost Ongoing Enhanced program 1 — Management of Floatable Debris (Continued) ENTITY RESPONSIBLE HEPowners and operators Dec 31, 1996 By Base program C/N NY & NJ By Dec 31, 1996 Base programUSEPA, NYSDEC, NYCDEP NJDEP, R HEPUSCG Ongoing Ongoing Base program Base program C/O C/O Table 24(fs). Summary ACTION operators. Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract grant. accomplish the actions directly Responsible entities may C/O -C/N the HEP CCMP An ongoing commitment, not driven by -R the HEP CCMP commitment, driven by A new - Recommendation OBJECTIVE F-5: Communicate impacts of marine debris and appropriate disposal practices. ACTION F-5.1: Post signs depicting proper waste disposal methods. -- Inform beach and marina owners -- Post signs. and marina Beach ACTION F-5.2: Enclose information on marine debris in all fishing applications and/or boating licenses. ACTION F-5.3: Develop and broadcast public service announcements on proper disposal of beach and boating litter. ---- Seek sponsors. Develop and broadcast PSAs.ACTION F-5.4: Continue Clean Streets/Clean Beaches campaign. Sponsors HEP Dec 31, 1996 By Enhanced program Dec 31, 1996 By Base program C/N ACTION F-5.5: Encourage local user groups to engage in storm drain stenciling activities. ACTION F-5.6: Enforce provisions of MARPOL V for at-sea disposal of solid waste. OBJECTIVE F-6: Reduce loadings of floatables from CSOs, storm water discharges, and non-point source discharges [see Rainfall- Induced Discharges section]. 1 2
196 FLOATABLE DEBRIS NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
MANAGEMENT OF NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT
PROBLEMS SOURCES Potential damage to living marine resources Nitrogen is the limiting nutrient in the caused by low dissolved oxygen and other Harbor/Bight system; significant sources of eutrophic effects nitrogen include: Noxious water quality conditions - Municipal discharges - Tributary inputs Novel algal blooms - Sediment flux - Atmospheric deposition Other Contributing Sources Include: - Combined sewer overflows - Storm water - Other non-point sources VISION To establish and maintain a healthy and productive Harbor/Bight ecosystem with full beneficial uses. GOALS To eliminate adverse impacts of eutrophication, including hypoxia, resulting from human activities. To better understand the causes of eutrophication and its symptoms including hypoxia, algal blooms, and changes in the abundance and diversity of marine organisms. OBJECTIVES N-1 Upgrade municipal sewage treatment plants to achieve full secondary treatment. N-2 Establish environmental objectives for the Harbor/Bight. N-3 Develop and implement, as appropriate, low-cost nitrogen reduction actions. N-4 Develop and implement additional actions necessary to eliminate adverse effects of eutrophication, including hypoxia, on marine life in the Harbor, Bight, and Long Island Sound. N-5 Conduct additional studies to understand the causes of hypoxia, algal blooms, and other eutrophication effects.
THE PROBLEMS novel algal blooms. Eutrophication may occur naturally or as a result of human activity. Overview Eutrophication, or the excessive enrichment of a These symptoms often result directly in use waterbody by nutrients and organic materials, is a impairments. However, eutrophication may have problem in the Harbor/Bight and Long Island other adverse effects on marine ecosystems which, Sound. The most tangible symptoms of although closely related to the effects noted above, eutrophication in the Harbor/Bight and Sound are are more subtle or difficult to identify. For low dissolved oxygen (DO), noxious water quality example, changes in the forms or concentrations of conditions, and nutrients may result in changes in the species composition and diversity of phytoplankton. These
NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT 197 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 changes may affect higher trophic levels, potentially Over the last nine years, the Long Island Sound leading to an altered ecosystem. Study (LISS) has documented extensive areas of severely depressed DO concentrations. During the Identifying these changes and understanding their summer of 1987, 63 percent of the Sound's bottom causes is difficult because of the confounding waters experienced DO levels less than 5 mg/l, and effects of natural variability in the abundance and 40 percent of these waters had DO levels less than composition of marine organisms, and other 3 mg/l. Severe hypoxia also occurred during stressors, such as toxics. several subsequent summers, although conditions were not as bad as 1987 (see Figure 10). To ensure we meet our goal to eliminate all adverse effects of eutrophication, the Plan includes Analyses of NYCDEP New York Harbor Water development of several environmental objectives Quality Survey data from 1986-1992 indicate for eutrophication effects. These objectives will violations of the New York DO standards help us determine what actions are necessary and throughout the Harbor. During each summer from monitor the effectiveness of the actions taken to 1986-1991, bottom water DO concentrations lower control nitrogen and organic loadings. The Plan than the standard were recorded at least once at also includes efforts to better understand the effects roughly 80 percent of the 52 stations sampled. of eutrophication in the Harbor, Bight, and Sound. Compliance was significantly better in 1992, when violations were recorded at least once at only 50 Low Dissolved Oxygen percent of the sampled stations. Low DO concentrations, called hypoxia, often occur in the bottom waters of portions of the New York- Chronic violations (i.e., mean summer bottom water New Jersey Harbor, the Bight, and western Long DO concentration below the standard) were also Island Sound during the summer months. common, except in 1992, when no chronic violations were found. The ecological effects of hypoxia are severe. DO concentrations of 5 mg/l and above are generally Long-term trend analyses reveal that water quality believed to be protective of marine life. As in some areas of the Harbor is improving, while concentrations fall below that level, mobile other areas are experiencing a decline in DO organisms, such as fish, begin to leave the affected concentrations. Over the last 15 years, there have area; less mobile organisms can become stressed been significant improvements in mean summer and may die. At DO concentrations of 3 mg/l and DO concentrations in bottom waters in portions of below, effects become progressively more severe. the Harlem River, Kill Van Kull, Arthur Kill, and For example, at DO concentrations of 1.5 to 3 mg/l, Upper Bay. However, mean summer DO many organisms leave or die within days to weeks; concentrations in bottom waters have significantly virtually all organisms die when concentrations decreased in western Long Island Sound, parts of below 1.5 mg/l persist for a few days or more. Jamaica Bay, the lower portion of the Arthur Kill, and the Lower Bay. The general trend over this New York and New Jersey water quality standards period of time is improvement in the highly polluted for DO range from not less than 3 mg/l, to support waterways and inner Harbor areas and declines in fish survival, to not less than 5 mg/l in waters with the relatively cleaner bays and outer reaches of the higher designated uses. Harbor. HEP efforts (e.g., see Actions N-4.1 and N-5.1 below) aim to help explain why this trend has occurred.
198 NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
Figure 10. Areas of Long Island Sound with Minimum Bottom Water Dissolved Oxygen Levels below 5 mg/l in the Summers of 1987, 1989, and 1991
NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT 199 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
Dissolved oxygen levels in parts of Jamaica Bay low DO was not as widespread or persistent as the are among the lowest in the Harbor (see Figure 11 summer of 1985. below); for example, in summer 1993, several tributaries experienced minimum DO concentrations It is important to note, however, that DO levels in less than 1.5 mg/l. In addition, the Grassy Bay area the Bight, since 1985, may not reflect an actual experienced minimum DO concentrations less than trend of improving water quality, but may instead be 3.0 mg/l. The DO problem in Jamaica Bay has led due to interannual variability. This interannual NYSDEC and NYCDEP to implement low-cost variation is partially attributable to the prevalence of nitrogen reductions for New York City's sewage storm activity which mixes the water column, treatment plants discharging to the Bay (see Action promoting aeration of bottom waters. Other N-3.4 below). Raritan Bay has also experienced investigators have seen no clear trend in DO levels hypoxia, and other eutrophication-related effects, as in the Bight over the last 40 years or so. shown in Figure 12 below. Field studies have confirmed hypoxic impacts in Areas of the Bight routinely experience hypoxia Long Island Sound. Although effects are less well during the summer, and the Bight has also documented in the Harbor and Bight Apex, summer experienced severe hypoxic conditions. Conditions DO levels are low enough to harm sensitive are generally worse along the New Jersey coast organisms, as documented, for example, by and along the Long Island coast west of Fire Island NJDEP data from Raritan and Sandy Hook Bays. Inlet. An analysis of data from 1977-1985 (see Figure 13 below) shows summer minimum DO Noxious Water Quality Conditions concentrations less than 3 mg/l primarily inshore of Throughout the Harbor region, water quality has the 20 meter depth contour in the Bight Apex. DO historically been poorest in the inner Harbor areas levels less than 1.5 mg/l regularly occur along the and tributaries, in particular those with restricted New Jersey coast inshore of the 20 meter depth circulation. These areas commonly experience contour. anoxia or severe hypoxia during the summer months. Noxious water quality conditions, such as A particularly severe and widespread anoxic (lack odors and localized fish kills, are one result. of DO) event occurred in the summer of 1976 in the Bight. The collapse of a massive bloom of the Novel Algal Blooms dinoflagellate Ceratium tripos resulted in anoxia Some algal blooms which have occurred in the New 2 over an 8,600 km area off New Jersey and mass York-New Jersey Harbor region are unusual in mortalities of shellfish. This appears to have been terms of the type(s) of phytoplankton present, the an isolated occurrence which is attributed to a persistence of the bloom over long periods of time, coincidence of meteorological and oceanographic the vast area affected, and/or the high conditions. concentration of algal cells. These blooms are called novel algal blooms and they can have a Recent reports of the USEPA Bight Monitoring variety of effects: Program have noted a general trend of improving water quality since 1985. Bottom DO levels in the 1) They can discolor the water and cause Bight in recent summers (1992 and 1993) were foaming, or release noxious odors. generally good. Levels below 3 mg/l were recorded infrequently and persisted for only a short time. In 2) They can release toxic substances which affect contrast, water quality was particularly poor in the marine life. mid to late summer of 1985. During this period 3) They can block sunlight through the water. For 2 approximately 1,600 mi of ocean bottom off the example, the "brown tides" that occurred in New Jersey coast experienced DO concentrations Peconic Bay and bays on Long Island's south below 4 mg/l. The summer of 1990 was also a shore in the 1980s and 1990s, caused by a period of relatively poor water quality, although previously uncommon algal species, Aureococcus anophagefferens, blocked
200 NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
Figure 11. Minimum Bottom Water Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations in Jamaica Bay, 1993
NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT 201 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
Figure 12. Eutrophication-related effects in Raritan Bay, 1988-1989 Contours showing distribution of surface chlorophyll a (µg l-1) [a measure of algal bloom concentration] in the Raritan Bay on June 30, 1989, during the phytoflagellate red tide of June 26 - July 2. Black dots and shading indicate areas of bottom hypoxia (dot 2mg l-1; shading 4mg l-1) one to three weeks following the bloom. Black area delineates the portion of shoreline where dead fish were found in summer of 1988.
202 NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
Figure 13. Minimum Bottom Water Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations (mg/l) in the Bight, July- September, 1977-1985
NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT 203 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
sunlight through the water, resulting in reduced Excessive enrichment of waters by nutrients and eel grass beds. organic materials can cause low DO concentra- tions. Waterbodies, and bottom waters in 4) These brown tides also decimated bay scallop particular, are most prone to hypoxia during the populations, in part because the eel grass beds summer because the vertical mixing of water, provide spawning habitat for the scallop, and which replenishes oxygen in bottom waters, is also because A. anophagefferens is indigestible restricted during that season. Nutrients, including to the scallop. nitrogen, fuel the growth of planktonic algae. As 5) The bloom that caused the Bight anoxia of the algae die, they sink to the bottom and 1976 had particularly widespread and severe decompose, consuming additional oxygen. impacts, as noted above. The LISS has developed a mathematical model, Algal blooms, and in particular novel blooms where called LIS 2.0, which establishes that 1) nitrogen is the composition of phytoplankton species deviates the nutrient that limits phytoplankton growth in the from "normal", may provide an indication of the Sound, 2) hypoxia in the Sound is caused by adverse effects of pollution. As noted previously, excessive discharges of nitrogen directly to the subtle changes in phytoplankton may lead to or Sound, and 3) the problem in the Sound is provide an indication of changes in ecosystem exacerbated by both point and non-point function. Such changes have not been discharges of nitrogen in the Harbor. The LISS documented in the Harbor/Bight, and are, in CCMP summarizes the current knowledge of the general, poorly documented in marine systems. hypoxia problem in the Sound. HEP's Plan includes efforts to better document any changes in the Harbor/Bight. In most of the Harbor, the causes of low DO are not as clear. There is evidence, however, that both Trends in the incidence of novel blooms in the New nitrogen and organic materials (i.e., carbon York-New Jersey Harbor region, since the 1950s, compounds) have a role. HEP studies show that are not clear due to the lack of regular quantitative temperature, organic carbon, and ammonia (a measurement of phytoplankton communities. nitrogenous compound) are the dominant factors However, anecdotal evidence indicates that blooms related to DO concentrations in the bottom waters occur frequently. During the summer of 1992 and of the Harbor. In virtually all of the data sets 1993, extensive phytoplankton blooms occurred in examined, inverse relationships were observed the intracoastal bays of New Jersey. Red algal between temperature, nutrients, and carbon versus blooms were predominant in Raritan and Sandy DO levels. In Jamaica Bay, studies show that Hook Bays. In 1992, an isolated area in Stone nitrogen is the limiting nutrient. Harbor, New Jersey, was affected by the same organism, the dinoflagellate Gyrodinium aureolum, A preliminary modeling analysis, conducted by that caused widespread green tides along the HydroQual Inc. for the Bight Restoration Plan, southern New Jersey coast in 1984 and 1985. indicates that nitrogen is the limiting nutrient in the The 1992 bloom only persisted for a short time. Bight Apex off the New Jersey coast and that the nitrogen flux to the Bight from the Harbor (which SOURCES CONTRIBUTING TO THE includes the movement of water masses from the PROBLEMS Harbor to the Bight, called the "Hudson River Plume") causes increased algal production and Low Dissolved Oxygen decreased bottom water DO concentrations in the There is strong evidence that excessive discharges Bight Apex. However, the analysis is not sufficient of nitrogen from both point and non-point sources to quantify the relative significance of the nitrogen are contributing to low DO in the Harbor, Bight, and flux from the Harbor versus other sources of Sound. nitrogen in causing the hypoxia.
204 NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
Figure 14. Distribution of the Nitrogen Load to Long Island Sound among Several Source Categories
NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT 205 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
The sources of nitrogen to Long Island Sound are estimated to contribute approximately 29 percent well documented. Of the 93,600 tons per year, of the total nitrogen load, while all other sources approximately 43 percent is from natural sources contribute the remaining 8 percent of the load.1 and not subject to reductions by management activity (see Figure 14). The remaining 57 percent Estimates of total nitrogen loadings to the Bight is associated with human activities and has the Apex, prepared for the Bight Restoration Plan, potential to be reduced through management indicate that coastal advective flux (i.e., transport actions. Of this load, approximately 20 percent of nitrogen from offshore waters by prevailing enters the Sound through its boundaries -- the East coastal currents), which is primarily not human- River in the west and The Race in the east; efforts caused, is the dominant source of nitrogen to the to reduce the substantial western load are Bight Apex, contributing an estimated 69 percent addressed in HEP's Plan. Most of the remaining of the load. (Note: this is a rough estimate). Flux human-caused load of nitrogen comes from coastal from the New York - New Jersey Harbor (22%) is and tributary point (55%) and non-point source the dominant source of nitrogen to the Bight Apex, (16%) discharges in the Sound's drainage basin which is primarily human-caused. Other sources of and are the subject of the LISS CCMP. nitrogen estimated include sediment flux (5%); dredged material disposal (2%); atmospheric It is clear that municipal point sources are the deposition (1%); and loads from the New Jersey dominant sources of nitrogen entering the Harbor. and Long Island coastal zones, including municipal HEP studies estimate that municipal STPs discharges and runoff (1%). It should be noted contribute approximately 63 percent of the total that some of these sources of loadings may be nitrogen load to the Harbor. Tributary inputs are more significant when viewed on a localized scale.
Figure 16. Nitrogen Loadings to Bight Apex Figure 15. Nitrogen Loadings to New York- New Jersey Harbor
1 The relative significance of direct groundwater flows in nitrogen contributions to the Harbor and Bight is estimated to be minor. Groundwater influences, to the extent they are significant, are inherently included in tributary flows and loadings developed for the Harbor and Bight. Direct groundwater flow to the Harbor and Bight, in addition to the groundwater flow in the tributaries, is estimated to comprise roughly 1% or less of the total flow to the Harbor and Bight.
206 NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
These estimates of nitrogen loads were developed predict the effects of algal processes on hypoxia; prior to implementation of the Ocean Dumping Ban however, understanding other adverse effects of Act (ODBA), which required STPs in the Harbor algal blooms will require additional research. region to implement land-based disposal Investigators have observed that the increased alternatives to the dumping of sewage sludge in incidence of novel blooms in the Bight Apex off the the Atlantic Ocean. To comply with this New Jersey coast is associated with the Hudson requirement, STPs are first dewatering the sludge, River plume. which produces a nitrogen-rich centrate. This centrate is being returned to the STPs and THE PLAN TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS discharged into the Harbor. USEPA estimates that such areas as Raritan Bay, Newark Bay, and the Overview of the Plan Hackensack River are experiencing increases in To solve the problems related to nutrient and ambient total nitrogen levels as high as 6.7 percent organic enrichment, HEP recommends the due to ODBA dewatering operations. following actions:
Studies to date point to the need to develop a Complete upgrades of municipal discharges to comprehensive system-wide eutrophication model secondary treatment. (SWEM) for the Harbor/Bight/Sound system to predict load reductions necessary system-wide to Develop a comprehensive program to control alleviate hypoxia problems. The LISS has nitrogen loadings to the Harbor/Bight. recommended that HEP develop such a model. -- Establish environmental objectives including DO targets. An interim step, currently proceeding under HEP, is New York City's development of a Harbor-wide -- Develop and implement, as appropriate, low- Eutrophication Model (HEM), which will be used to cost actions to reduce nitrogen loads. establish the factors causing hypoxia in the Harbor -- Develop and implement additional actions as and the relative significance of various sources of necessary to eliminate the adverse effects of nitrogen in causing hypoxia in the Harbor/Bight. eutrophication, including hypoxia. Noxious Water Quality Conditions Control rainfall-induced discharges of organic Noxious water quality conditions in tributaries and materials. inner Harbor areas may be caused by the Develop and conduct additional studies to better decomposition of organic materials present in CSO understand and manage the problems related to discharges or may be associated with localized nutrient and organic enrichment. severe eutrophic conditions and poor flushing conditions. The latter is sometimes observed in COMMITMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS tributaries without significant CSO discharges. Complete Upgrades of Municipal Discharges Novel Algal Blooms to Secondary Treatment The causes of algal blooms are only generally Ongoing STP upgrades are expected to continue understood and often may not be related to macro- improving water quality in the Harbor/Bight, by nutrients, such as nitrogen. Multiple environmental significantly reducing loads of nutrients and organic variables appear to contribute to any single bloom. materials. There are 43 municipal STPs These include winds, rainfall, nutrients, water discharging to the Harbor core area and stratification, and decreased zooplankton grazing. approximately 21 STPs discharging to the Bight, For example, a leading theory attributes the including the back bays. Peconic Bay brown tides to unusual hydrodynamic conditions combined with the presence of micro- The Clean Water Act requires all municipal STPs to nutrients, such as iron. With adequate achieve full secondary treatment. Most municipal environmental data, mathematical models can
NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT 207 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
STPs discharging to the Harbor, and all those discharging to the Bight, already meet this OBJECTIVE N-2 Establish environmental requirement. The Owls Head Facility in New York objectives for the has recently been upgraded, and a commitment is Harbor/Bight in place for the one remaining facility that does not meet full secondary treatment.
HEP will use various environmental objectives to OBJECTIVE N-1 Upgrade municipal sewage help determine the actions necessary, and measure treatment plants to achieve the success of actions taken, to solve the full secondary treatment eutrophication problems. In developing such objectives, we will gain a better understanding of the ecological significance of the various symptoms of eutrophication. ACTION N-1.1 Newtown Creek Facility ACTION N-2.1 NYCDEP will upgrade the Newtown Creek facility to Dissolved Oxygen Targets full secondary treatment. In parallel with the development of a program to reduce nitrogen loadings, as supported by the ACTION N-1.2 Harbor-wide Eutrophication Model (HEM), HEP will Owls Head Facility develop specific numeric DO targets for the NYCDEP upgraded the Owls Head facility to full Harbor/Bight, compatible with HEP's goal to secondary treatment in May 1995. eliminate the adverse effects of hypoxia resulting from human activities. HEP's effort will build upon Control Nitrogen Loadings to the LISS efforts to develop area specific DO targets Harbor/Bight and USEPA's efforts to develop DO criteria for The LISS is implementing a phased management marine waters. approach for dealing with the hypoxia problem in the Sound. The first phase, currently being ACTION N-2.2 implemented in New York City, is to freeze Other Ecosystem Objectives for Eutrophication nitrogen loadings to the East River from municipal In parallel with the development of a program to point sources at levels prior to sludge dewatering reduce nitrogen loadings, as supported by HEM, (i.e., 1990 levels). This step, with similar point HEP will develop specific ecosystem objectives for source freezes by New York State and Connecticut eutrophication in the form of quantitative indicators to waters contributing to Long Island Sound, is and/or indices. These will provide managers with expected to prevent hypoxia problems in the Sound more refined tools by which to determine from becoming worse. The second phase, detailed ecosystem change, providing feedback for adaptive in the LISS CCMP, includes significant, low-cost management. In particular, HEP will consider nitrogen reductions at sewage treatment plants, objectives related to phytoplankton and algal including biological nutrient removal (BNR) retrofits, community structure, biomass, and growth rates, that begin the process of reducing the severity and as well as incidence of novel algal blooms. The extent of hypoxia in the Sound. The third phase objectives will be compatible with HEP's goal to will establish nitrogen reduction targets to reduce eliminate the adverse effects of eutrophication known lethal and sublethal effects of hypoxia on resulting from human activities. The effort will the Sound's biota and will lay out the approach for build upon HEP's ongoing work to document novel meeting these nitrogen reduction targets. The algal blooms (see Objective N-5). details of the third phase are being developed using the results of a sophisticated water quality model, (Note: The efforts described in Actions N-2.1 and called LIS 3.0, recently completed. N-2.2 will proceed in parallel with development of SWEM (see Action N-4.1 below), if HEM results do
208 NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 not support the need for low-cost nitrogen reduction (Note: Nitrogen reduction feasibility studies for actions). additional nitrogen reductions may be necessary in parallel with SWEM).
OBJECTIVE N-3 Develop and implement, as ACTION N-3.3 appropriate, low-cost LIS Nitrogen Load Reduction nitrogen reduction actions New York City, under the LISS CCMP, is committed to implementing specific low-cost actions to reduce nitrogen loads from STPs in the Harbor which discharge in close proximity to the ACTION N-3.1 Sound. New York City will reduce its aggregate Harbor-wide Eutrophication Model (HEM) annual nitrogen load from six STPs by 25 percent (approximately 6,500 tons/year). The reductions -- NYCDEP is developing HEM as a preliminary tool are being accomplished by low-cost retrofits and/or to determine the feasibility and effectiveness of operational changes at five STPs (completed); management alternatives for New York City point centrate treatment, or equivalent, at either the source discharges of nitrogen in the Harbor. If Hunts Point or Wards Island STP (by 2000); and feasible options are found, New York City will use installation of step denitrification at the Newtown a System-wide Eutrophication Model to fully Creek STP (by 2007), as part of the upgrade to full evaluate management alternatives (see Action N- secondary treatment and expansion of the facility. 4.1 below). Note that, under LISS interim actions, NYSDEC and New York City have reached full agreement on -- NYCDEP is committed to completing HEM under STP permit limits which freeze nitrogen loads (i.e., the auspices of HEP, with HEP support for data no net increase in load) from the four NYC STPs collection, to ensure that HEM meets HEP's discharging to, or in close proximity to, the Sound needs for a tool to evaluate the necessity of at 1990 levels. Permits to implement the "no net preliminary nitrogen load reductions Harbor-wide. increase" are final; the effective date is January 1, 1997. ACTION N-3.2 Nitrogen Reduction Feasibility Studies and Data ACTION N-3.4 Collection Jamaica Bay Nitrogen Reduction Municipal dischargers to the Harbor core area will Consistent with the January 28, 1994, decision of conduct studies to identify options and costs for the NYSDEC Commissioner, New York City will nitrogen reduction and collect data to quantify implement low-cost nitrogen reductions for STPs nitrogen loadings, as necessary, based on the discharging to Jamaica Bay. New York City will results of HEM. reduce its aggregate annual nitrogen load from four STPs by approximately 500 tons/year. The actions -- NYCDEP has evaluated low-cost process will be achieved by the end of 1996. controls and has conducted additional feasibility studies for nitrogen control and pilot-scale ACTION N-3.5 implementation. Additional Low-cost Nitrogen Reduction -- WCDEF and NJ dischargers should conduct NYSDEC and NJDEP will seek commitments from feasibility studies for low-cost nitrogen reduction STPs discharging to the Harbor/Bight to implement actions and collect loadings data if HEM supports additional low-cost nitrogen reductions, such as the need to implement low-cost reduction process modifications and BNR retrofits, as actions. supported by HEM.
NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT 209 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
Upon completion of HEM, nitrogen reduction -- NYCDEP has initiated the development of SWEM feasibility studies, and associated monitoring and in parallel with the Harbor-wide Eutrophication research, NYSDEC, NJDEP, and dischargers as Model and with HEP oversight. New York City is appropriate, in consultation with HEP, will define developing SWEM to evaluate its options as part the nitrogen reductions to be implemented and of facility planning for the Newtown Creek STP. prepare a plan to implement them, as appropriate. However, New York City's effort will The states and dischargers, in consultation with substantially, though not completely, meet HEP's HEP, will also define any further research, need for a tool to identify the actions necessary monitoring, modeling, or studies needed to help to eliminate the adverse effects of hypoxia and attain HEP's goals related to nutrients and organic other eutrophic effects, system-wide. enrichment. -- HEP is working to ensure that SWEM fully meets HEP's needs. An initial evaluation by HEP's ACTION N-3.6 Modeling Evaluation Group (MEG) indicates the Pilot Projects for Nitrogen Reduction need to address model kinetics (e.g., In parallel with a program to reduce nitrogen zooplankton), and to ensure adequate data loadings, as supported by HEM, HEP will develop collection to support model calibration (e.g., for and seek funding for a program of pilot studies to tributary loads, atmospheric inputs, and algal demonstrate innovative nitrogen reduction species enumerations). In particular, MEG techniques in the Harbor, including wetlands identified a shortfall in data on ambient levels restoration. (Note: This action will proceed in and loadings of nitrogen, and related parameters, parallel with development of SWEM (see Action N- in the New Jersey areas of the Harbor/Bight. 4.1 below) if HEM results do not support the need for low-cost nitrogen reduction actions). • New York City is addressing these concerns with the exception of data collection for the -- The section of the CCMP on Habitat and Living New Jersey areas of the Harbor/Bight. Resources includes several actions for ongoing • The New Jersey Harbor Dischargers Group or planned habitat restoration efforts (e.g., see (NJHDG), composed of the 11 New Jersey Actions H-12.3, H-12.4, and H-12.5). These municipal sewerage authorities in the Harbor may provide an opportunity to develop pilot core area, is collecting the data in the New projects for nitrogen reduction. HEP will work to Jersey areas of the Harbor/Bight. ensure such opportunities are explored and implemented. -- If NYCDEP decides not to complete SWEM, HEP will evaluate options to achieve its goals, including completing SWEM. This will include identifying suitable sponsors, such as USACE, OBJECTIVE N-4 Develop and implement and/or funding. additional actions necessary to eliminate --HEP recommends that USACE seek authorization adverse effects of and funding to conduct modeling and monitoring eutrophication, including to address nutrients and organic enrichment in hypoxia, on marine life in the Harbor/Bight, not tied to dredged material the Harbor, Bight, and Long management. Island Sound --SWEM is HEP's primary vehicle to understand the relationships among nitrogen loadings, algal biomass, and dissolved oxygen in the Harbor, ACTION N-4.1 Bight, and Sound. However, HEP recognizes that System-wide Eutrophication Model SWEM will be insufficient to fully evaluate the Develop a comprehensive system-wide steps necessary to meet HEP's goal to eliminate eutrophication model to identify actions necessary the adverse impacts of eutrophication resulting to eliminate the adverse impacts of hypoxia and from human activities. For example, SWEM will other eutrophic effects.
210 NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
not be suitable to predict the incidence and will develop a research program to better severity of novel algal blooms. HEP is therefore understand the causes of algal blooms and their committed to developing and seeking funding for relationship to water quality factors, including a program of research, in parallel with SWEM, to hypoxia. better understand and manage all the adverse impacts of eutrophication (see Objective N-5). OBJECTIVE N-5 Conduct additional studies ACTION N-4.2 to understand the causes of Further Nitrogen Reduction Actions hypoxia, algal blooms, and NYSDEC and NJDEP will require dischargers to other eutrophic effects implement nitrogen reductions to eliminate the adverse effects of hypoxia in the Harbor, Bight, and Sound, if there is adequate technical justification. ACTION N-5.1 -- Upon completion of SWEM, and associated Evaluation of Past Changes in Water Quality monitoring, research, and studies, NYSDEC and HEP has computerized historical water quality data NJDEP, in consultation with HEP, NYCDEP, from NYCDEP's New York Harbor Water Quality NJHDG, and other dischargers as appropriate, Survey. NYCDEP will use these data to evaluate will define the additional nitrogen reductions to changes in water quality as a result of past be required and prepare a plan to implement management actions. them, as appropriate. The states, in consultation with HEP and the dischargers, will also define ACTION N-5.2 any further research, monitoring, modeling, or Historical Occurrences of Novel Algal Conditions studies needed to fully attain HEP's goal to Using historical data, HEP is documenting the past eliminate the adverse impacts of eutrophication occurrences of novel algal conditions and their caused by human activities in the Harbor, Bight, relationship to water quality conditions. and Sound. ACTION N-5.3 Control Rainfall-Induced Discharges of "Normal" Phytoplankton Community Composition Organic Material HEP will, given sufficient funding, conduct a study The section on Rainfall-Induced Discharges below to describe "normal" phytoplankton community includes actions to control CSO and storm water composition for the Harbor/Bight area and discharges. This includes remediating noxious document deviations from it. water quality conditions in inner Harbor areas and tributaries. ACTION N-5.4 Research on the Causes of Low Dissolved Oxygen Develop and Conduct Additional Studies HEP will develop, and seek funding for, a program HEP will work to understand and minimize the of basic research on the causes of low DO to adverse effects of algal blooms and to better complement SWEM. The program will build upon understand the causes and impacts of hypoxia. the ongoing HEP studies, described above. Actions to address nutrient-induced hypoxia are expected to reduce the adverse effects of algal ACTION N-5.5 blooms in general by reducing the nutrients limiting Research on Causes and Dynamics of Algal Blooms phytoplankton growth. The effect of these actions HEP will develop, and seek funding for, a program on the occurrence and severity of novel blooms is of basic research on the causes and dynamics of unknown. HEP is therefore conducting studies and algal blooms. The program will build upon the ongoing HEP studies, described above.
NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT 211 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
COSTS OF IMPLEMENTING THIS PLAN The Plan includes 2 actions for which increased funding of $325,000 is recommended. Many of the commitments and recommendations in The Plan includes 4 additional recommendations the nutrients and organic enrichment component of for action for which cost estimates will be the CCMP can be accomplished through the developed during the continuing planning effective use of base program resources. In fact, process. full implementation of the CCMP relies, in large part, on continued operation, and funding at This component of the CCMP also includes 7 current levels, of existing programs to address actions that require or may require the expenditure nutrients and organic enrichment. The CCMP of project implementation funds by responsible itemizes 10 new HEP-driven commitments to entities. As shown in Table 26(nc) below: control nutrients and organic enrichment operating through base programs. These actions represent a The Plan includes 4 actions for which $132.5 major commitment to CCMP implementation. million is being committed by New York City. The nutrients and organic enrichment component The Plan includes 3 actions for which additional of the CCMP also includes 10 significant funds may be expended or be required to be commitments and recommendations that entail expended by responsible entities, based on enhanced program funding. As shown in Table potential outcomes of several ongoing or planned 25(nc) below: HEP efforts. The costs of these actions to address nutrients and organic enrichment may be The Plan includes 4 actions for which a total of great. Cost estimates for these actions will be $9.975 million has been committed by the developed during the continuing planning responsible entities. process.
212 NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 Cost/Year 1 * * * * RECOMMENDATIONS Cost $50,000 $325,000+* $275,000+* Cost/Year COMMITMENTS Cost $88,000 $47,000 $1.4 million $8.44 million TOTAL $9,975,000 ACTION Table 25(nc). Enhanced Program Costs for Management of Nutrients and Organic Enrichment Notation (+*) indicates cost plus additional costs to be determined. ACTION N-3.1: Complete HEM. ACTION N-3.2: Conduct nitrogen reduction feasibility studies. ACTION N-4.1: Develop SWEM. ACTION N-4.1: Conduct modeling (USACE) as necessary to supplement SWEM. ACTION N-5.1: Computerize NYC data; use to evaluate changes in water quality as a result of past management actions. ACTION N-5.2: Document algal blooms. ACTION N-5.3: Describe "normal" phytoplankton community. ACTION N-5.4: Conduct research on low DO. ACTION N-5.5: Conduct research on phytoplankton blooms. *1 Enhanced program costs to be developed as part of the continuing planning process.
NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT 213 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 Cost/Year * * * * RECOMMENDATIONS Cost Cost/Year COMMITMENTS Cost $5 million $15 million TOTAL $132,500,000 ACTION Table 26(nc). Project Implementation Costs for Management of Nutrients and Organic Enrichment ACTION N-3.6: Develop innovative nitrogen reduction pilot projects. ACTION N-4.2: Implement nitrogen reductions per SWEM. ACTION N-3.2: Conduct NYC nitrogen reduction feasibility studies. ACTION N-3.2: Conduct NYC nitrogen reduction pilots.ACTION N-3.3: Implement NYC actions under LISS.ACTION N-3.4: Implement NYC Jamaica Bay nitrogen $10 million reduction actions. ACTION N-3.5: $102.5 million Implement additional low-cost nitrogen reduction actions, per HEM. * Project implementation costs to be developed as part of the continuing planning process.
214 NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996
BENEFITS OF IMPLEMENTING THIS PLAN eutrophication, including hypoxia, resulting from human activities. HEM will enable us to better Completion of upgrades of municipal discharges predict the benefits of low-cost nitrogen to secondary treatment (Newtown Creek and reductions actions in reducing hypoxia. Owls Head STPs) will result in improvements in Additional nitrogen reduction actions based on DO in the areas near the affected discharges. SWEM would be intended to achieve HEP's goal (Note: Owls Head upgrade was recently for hypoxia throughout the Harbor, Bight, and completed). Sound. These actions are also expected to Implementation of low-cost actions to reduce reduce other adverse impacts of eutrophication. nitrogen loads is expected to result in additional Actions to control rainfall-induced discharges of improvements in DO, thus reducing the adverse organic materials will eliminate violations of water impacts of hypoxia. Under the LISS plan, New quality standards due to these discharges. York City will achieve approximately 25 percent aggregate annual reductions in nitrogen loads HEP's program of additional studies will help us from six STPs with implementation of low-cost to ensure that actions taken based on SWEM will controls. HEP hopes to achieve a similar have the benefits in reduced hypoxia predicted percentage reduction with low-cost controls in the and will enable us to better address the other Harbor. However, these nitrogen reductions are adverse impacts related to nutrient and organic not expected to be sufficient to achieve HEP's enrichment. goal to eliminate the adverse impacts of
NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT 215 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 2 C/O C/O 3 3 CWA requirement CWA requirement TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS obtained the commitment of regulated entities and other responsible issuance of this final CCMP, HEP entities to implement the action. By seeks the commitment of responsible entities and requests that they agree to implement the actions. to voluntarily step forward -- In other cases, CCMP actions are recommendations because HEP has not 1 ENTITY RESPONSIBLE NYCDEPHEP CompletedHEP program, core Base Dec 1996 Dec 1996 Base program Base program C/N C/N NYCDEP By Dec 31, 2007 Base program, core Table 27(ns). Summary—Management of Nutrients and Organic Enrichment Table 27(ns). Summary—Management ACTION s goal that all the recommendations in CCMP become commitments. ’ because responsible entities require resources to implement the action. advocate making these resources available. HEP will Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract accomplish the actions directly Responsible entities may grant. C/O -C/N the HEP CCMP An ongoing commitment, not driven by -R the HEP CCMP commitment, driven by A new core elements of the Clean Table does not include costs of compliance with - treatment secondary Water Act, specifically Recommendation ACTION N-2.2: Develop specific ecosystem objectives for eutrophication. ACTION N-1.2: Upgrade Owls Head facility to full secondary treatment. OBJECTIVE N-2: Establish environmental objectives for the Harbor/Bight. ACTION N-2.1: Develop specific numeric DO targets for the Harbor/Bight. OBJECTIVE N-1: Upgrade municipal sewage treatment plants to achieve full secondary treatment. ACTION N-1.1 : Upgrade Newtown Creek facility to full secondary treatment. Note: It is HEP 1 2 3 -- In some cases CCMP actions are recommendations, not commitments,
216 NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 2 C/O C/O C/O R R cost - cost NYC: $1 million; HEP/USEPA: $400,000 implementation cost - $5 million implementation cost - $10 million cost to be provided by WCDEF as necessary cost - $275,000 TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS Dec 1996 Enhanced program Completed program Enhanced 1 ENTITY (Continued) RESPONSIBLE NYCDEPNYCDEP CompletedNYCDEP Completed program Base WCDEF Completed C/O Project New Jersey Harbor Dischargers Group (NJHDG) Dec 1996 Project Enhanced program NYCDEP with HEP & NYCDEP with USEPA support for data collection — Management of Nutrients and Organic Enrichment Table 27(ns). Summary ACTION Develop and implement, as appropriate, low-cost nitrogen reduction actions. nitrogen reduction options. reduction such as BNR retrofits and process modifications. reduction options. the results of HEM. the results of HEM. Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract grant. accomplish the actions directly Responsible entities may C/O -C/N the HEP CCMP An ongoing commitment, not driven by -R the HEP CCMP commitment, driven by A new - Recommendation -- Conduct additional feasibility studies for other ACTION N-3.2: Conduct feasibility studies to identify options and costs for nitrogen reduction, collect data to quantify nitrogen loadings for STPs discharging to the Harbor core area. -- Conduct feasibility studies for low-cost nitrogen -- Conduct pilot-scale implementation of nitrogen -- Conduct feasibility studies as necessary based on -- Conduct feasibility studies as necessary based on OBJECTIVE N-3: OBJECTIVE ACTION N-3.1: Complete Harbor-wide Eutrophication Model. 1 2
NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT 217 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 2 C/O C/O Project implementation cost - $102.5 million implementation cost - $15 million TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS Mar 1997 Base program C/N completed; 1 action by Dec 31, 2000; Newtown Creek by Dec 31, 2007. 1 ENTITY (Continued) RESPONSIBLE NYCDEP Dec 1996NYSDEC, NJDEP, Project NJHDG, NYCDEP, WCDEF as appropriate, in consultation with HEP NYCDEP 5 actions — Management of Nutrients and Organic Enrichment Table 27(ns). Summary ACTION associated monitoring and research, define develop an implementation plan for low-cost nitrogen reductions, as appropriate. This will include defining any additional research, monitoring, modeling, and studies necessary to help attain HEP's goals related to nutrients and organic enrichment. Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract grant. accomplish the actions directly Responsible entities may C/O -C/N the HEP CCMP An ongoing commitment, not driven by -R the HEP CCMP commitment, driven by A new - Recommendation ACTION N-3.4: Per recent NYSDEC decision, reduce aggregate annual nitrogen load from 4 STPs discharging to Jamaica Bay by 500 tons/year (Note: permit limits freezing the nitrogen loads from these STPs at levels prior to the de-watering of sludge are currently in force). ACTION N-3.5: Develop and implement additional low-cost nitrogen reductions such as process modifications and biological nutrient removal (BNR) retrofits, as supported by HEM. -- Upon completion of HEM, feasibility studies, and -- Seek commitments to implement reductions. NYSDEC & NJDEP Jun 1997 Base program C/N ACTION N-3.3: Under LISS CCMP, reduce aggregate annual nitrogen load from 6 STPs in NYC by 6,500 tons/year (Note: permit limits freezing the nitrogen loads from four of these STPs at levels prior to the de-watering of sludge are currently in force). 1 2
218 NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 2 R R Project implementation cost to be developed based on above work program Project implementation cost to be provided by dischargers based on results of HEM and feasibility studies Base program C/N TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS Dec 1996 Begin by Dec 1996 Beginning Jun 1997 1 ENTITY (Continued) RESPONSIBLE NYCDEP, WCDEF, responsible agencies HEP NJHDG as appropriate HEP, in concert with — Management of Nutrients and Organic Enrichment Table 27(ns). Summary ACTION Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract grant. accomplish the actions directly Responsible entities may C/O -C/N the HEP CCMP An ongoing commitment, not driven by -R the HEP CCMP commitment, driven by A new - Recommendation -- Implement program. ACTION N-3.6: Develop and seek funding for a program of pilot studies to demonstrate innovative nitrogen reduction techniques in the Harbor, including wetlands restoration. -- Implement. 1 2
NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT 219 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 2 C/O* R cost - $8 million Enhanced program cost estimate to be determined based on need to supplement NYC modeling effort TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS Target date to be developed as necessary HEM, under the auspices of HEP. If NYCDEP chooses not to complete evaluate options to meet its goals including completion SWEM, HEP will of SWEM. * NOTE: NYCDEP has initiated development of SWEM in parallel with 1 ENTITY (Continued) RESPONSIBLE NJHDGUSACE Ongoingauspices of HEP Ongoing $442,000 Base program C/N C/N NYCDEP* Dec 1997 Enhanced program — Management of Nutrients and Organic Enrichment Table 27(ns). Summary ACTION modeling and monitoring to address nutrients organic enrichment in the Harbor/Bight, not tied to dredged material management. NJ areas of the Harbor/Bight, to ensure NYC's effort to develop SWEM fully meets HEP's needs. needs, and also substantially, though not completely, meet HEP's needs. Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract accomplish the actions directly Responsible entities may grant. C/O -C/N the HEP CCMP An ongoing commitment, not driven by -R the HEP CCMP commitment, driven by A new - Recommendation -- Seek authorization and funding to conduct -- Supplement NYC modeling effort as necessary. USACE under the -- Collect data necessary for model calibration OBJECTIVE N-4: Develop and implement additional actions necessary to eliminate adverse effects of eutrophication, including hypoxia, on marine life in the Harbor, Bight, and Sound. ACTION N-4.1: Develop a comprehensive system- wide eutrophication model (SWEM) to identify actions necessary to eliminate adverse effects of hypoxia and other eutrophic effects on marine life in the Harbor, Bight, and Sound. -- Develop SWEM to meet NYC facility planning 1 2
220 NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 2 R Project implementation be to cost developed by dischargers based on SWEM results and feasibility studies TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS By Dec 31, 1998 Base program C/N Begin by Dec 31, 2000 HEM, under the auspices of HEP. If NYCDEP chooses not to complete evaluate options to meet its goals including completion SWEM, HEP will of SWEM. * NOTE: NYCDEP has initiated development of SWEM in parallel with 1 ENTITY (Continued) RESPONSIBLE NYSDEC & NJDEP, in consultation with HEP and dischargers as appropriate NJHDG and other dischargers, as appropriate — Management of Nutrients and Organic Enrichment Table 27(ns). Summary ACTION monitoring, research, and studies, define develop an implementation plan for additional nitrogen reductions to be required, as appropriate. This will include defining any additional research, monitoring, modeling, or studies necessary to fully attain HEP's goal to eliminate the adverse impacts of eutrophication caused by human activities in the Harbor, Bight, and Sound.* Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract accomplish the actions directly Responsible entities may grant. C/O -C/N the HEP CCMP An ongoing commitment, not driven by -R the HEP CCMP commitment, driven by A new - Recommendation ACTION N-4.2: Require dischargers to implement additional nitrogen reductions to eliminate the adverse effects of hypoxia in the Harbor, Bight, and Sound if there is adequate technical justification. -- Upon completion of SWEM and associated -- Modify permits as necessary.-- Comply. NYSDEC & NJDEP Dec 31, 2000 By Base program C/N NYCDEP, WCDEF, 1 2
NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT 221 NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMP INCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996 2 C/N C/N C/N R R cost - $28,000 cost - $60,000 cost - $47,000 $50,000cost to be developed by HEP through work R program (below) be to cost developed by HEP through work program (below) TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS Dec 31, 1996 1 ENTITY (Continued) RESPONSIBLE NYCDEPHEPHEP May 1996HEP 1996 Feb Enhanced program by Begin HEP Enhanced program Dec 1996 Enhanced program Dec 1996 Enhanced program HEP Completed Enhanced program — Management of Nutrients and Organic Enrichment Table 27(ns). Summary ACTION as a result of past management activities. Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract grant. accomplish the actions directly Responsible entities may C/O -C/N the HEP CCMP An ongoing commitment, not driven by -R the HEP CCMP commitment, driven by A new - Recommendation -- Use the data to evaluate changes in water quality ACTION N-5.2: Document past occurrences of novel algal conditions. ACTION N-5.3: Describe "normal" phytoplankton community composition and document deviations from it. ACTION N-5.4: Conduct a program of basic research on the causes of low DO to complement SWEM. -- Develop program and seek funding.ACTION N-5.5: Conduct program of basic research to better understand causes and dynamics of phytoplankton blooms. HEP-- Develop program and seek funding. HEP Jul 1996 Base program Jul 1996 C/N Base program C/N OBJECTIVE N-5: Conduct additional studies to understand the causes of hypoxia, algal blooms, and other eutrophication effects. ACTION N-5.1: Computerize historical data from NY Harbor Water Quality survey. 1 2
222 NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT !!"
! " " " " # $ % # & # ' % # ( ) $ % & $ * ) + & ' , - +. ! + & / * 0 . & % & 1
% ! " + , ,- #$ % & ' ( ) &'() " - * ' +'
##$ !!" ./01 ! ! - - 231 &4 5 677 4 5 ( -# 6728 & ! 9 71 " ! 5 ;?" &4 5 ?@88 ' ( ) ! '() "?@@7&4 () &4 ()' - . - !$ !67" 4 5 ( -# . - ?@@2 '() ?@8@&4 () - !60" &9 & 9 ' ( ) ! & &9'() " !A'-. : )'$ & ! &9'() ' ! -. ! ;
' ! +. !" "# < ! ! ! = $% -= " $ >!& !?? +.= + % ' ! )' ! ! )' ' &4 5 -4 5 -&9 % ! - ' & ! * ! ' * ) = ! ! ! ; > -' ! *
##& !!" 23 - . . > - . - % & & ! !% & !$' 5 ! ' . 2 3 , - - > * '() 5 )' +' = ! + . )'% ; 4 > + &9'() - '!# ! - - - * ! 8" > * . : * = -.= 5 - '!# - $ ?7! 3" "- &9'() )'- - '!# ! . )'% $ ! ! - $ ?7?0" )'
> ' !(( ! B $ " )! * ! %" ! (!(" ! (" # $ ! $ >!& !?7 "" % - & ! &4 () &9()'* ' ! )' - - * - - & ! ' &9()'&9 . 5 ! =
##' !!" )' ( 0?-?@@3-: )'$&9()' ! &4 5 & ' 9 ! ! !. &9()' - - -&9()'% * -&4 ()' ! & 9 $ - &4 5&9 > ! -)' -> &9 ! ! &9 # $ >!& ! 7? 23 5 #+ & $ >!& ! 70 &4 () &4 ()' !$ # & + ! &4 5 5 ! 5? 5 )' * 711C- D? 7 5? . . : ! 57 &4 5 * - - . * -)' 57 ?@@/6 5 711C 57 & ;$ ' /0 " - +' " . D0 - "
$ >!& ! 77 4 5 #+ & )' &9 $ - ' - - E .-&4 5 - ! .01 * - 5 - !
> ! -: )'$ - . - &9()' 5 !
##" !!" ! & &9()' : )'$ ?@@1 * > -&9()' 23 * * . 5 " - - &9()' > - * 5 - - 5 - - - - - . ?@@1* $ >!& # ?0 ?11-111 % 9 & & &4 5 & >$?@@C-: )'$ * - &4 () &9()' ?@@1 : )'$ ;?" -7" $ 711? : )'$ )' &4 5 5 * * ?@@/ &4 5&9 $ >!& # ?? - * + !" " $ $ !! ( ( " !" )! $ >!& # ?2 ( "$!," ()F))(
23 ) & &4 () &4 5 % >$?@@3- . % '() * % * . - -
$ >!& # ?7 4,6& ) & 78
##( !!" $ >!& # ?C * - ) &: % )' 6 + )' &9()'&4 () 5 - - > ) $ > )$" 0?@ #$ *
-$ " ! +! $ " $ ,!" .!/ & , )! "(" $ - 5 & - . - - : )'$ - 0?@ " &4 5& ! & 9 : )'$ - $ >!&&' ?? +'-)' 5 * 4 * ) $ &9 - - : )'$&9()' E .- - #< - ;
) + #)+" $ >!&&' ?7 $ & 2?"6 4 3. &: &9()' & 5< + ?@@3 $ ?00" . + $ ?07" +' " . . +' . -)' - - E .- - + F - < ! 7" .
##) !!" &4 5&9 ' 0& ! ( 9 ?@@C $!" ! " $ &4(! &4 () ! !, ,!" ( !" !1 $ ! 2! ( " &9()'
37?/ G $ & ;&4 () -&4 (! -&9()' 5 < = $ G$<$" ?@@1 * = " &!$$ , # 3 -$ " ! ,- " $"! " - : )'$% .!/ , )! "(" 9 ?@@0
: ( $ : ($" * :< ' . - :<'" - - - : ($% & < - E E -: & '5 - * E # : ( > -: )'$- ). - 5 9 ?@@C6: )'$&!$$ * & . < 4 5 5 : ($ DC11-111 > &4 5 ?@@@$ $ >!&&' 01 = 0.&* $ &4 5 :<' $ >!&&' 71 & : )'$&!$$ 5 &4 5&9 %
##! !!" 4 ! ( ! $ +'= 8 ( $! ,!"# )' $ # 6 " $ +'
$ >!&&' 21 +' C # 6 & &4 () &9()' $ 78 " ; ' 7 D?38-111 % ' 0 )'- . - +' 8 ! - * * . - : )'$- &4 () -&9()' $ 7@ " ; - * ' 0 - D? C D?11-111 &4 5 ' ? &9 D?0 + ' C +' * . > - +' -- )' - - .
#$* !!" ? H H 145 1458, 145 1458, D0C-111 D?00-111 !$F D?38-111 H +,#)- ./ ,0 12 3145461 6 07 ,0 4 2,4 & ;&9()' &9 ! 7@ " $ >!& ! 77; ( &9 ! $ >!& # ?2; ()F))( $ >!&&' ?7; $ >!&&' 21; & 5< $ >!& ! 70; ( H ) ?
#$ !!" &9 ! 7 ? H H D?0 D?0 IH D?11-111 7 ? H H 145 1458, 145 1458, D? C IH D?11-111 D? C !$F ! +,#!- ./ 19, 53:,3,551145461 6 07 ,0 4 2,4 & ;< * &4 ()' & IH" ! $ ! 7? "-&9()' $ ! 77 " $ >!& ! 7?; > &4 $ >!& ! 77;&9 $ >!& # ??; &4 " > ! $ >!& # ?7; &9 - * $ >!& # ?2; ()F))( $ >!&&' 71; > &' $ >!& ! ?7; ! * H ' ? 7
#$# !!" 6 )'% ! 5 > & ! )'% ' . ' > ! &4 5& 9 )'% $ = +' - - . - > )'% - = - )'%
#$$ !!" # & E; 9 01-?@@3 +'-)' 5 * < < > - +' )'
)' &9()' & ( ; +,$*- 4./ 733 ;<6 07 ,0 4 2,4=13+,0 ,>, ?, 61> +5,3,5 '!# ! * )' 5 < ! & $ - )' +' $ - )' +' 5 !" "# ! ! $%6 $ >!& ! ??;' &4 - 4 5 -&9 B ! < * $ >!& ! ?7;<* - - - + E= + &9'() &4 () $?@@3 &9()' & ! & ; > )'B +' > +' - - ? 7
#$& !!" # < ! ! $ ! 7? ! 77H D? 7 ' D0 & 9?-?@@/ ' ( 0?-711C ! - ( ?@@3 < <
7 (8 : )'$J&9()'- &9 ' +,$*- 4./ 733 ;<6 07 ,0 4 2,4=13+,0 ,>, ?, 61> +5,3,5 ! < ! & $ - )' +' $ - )' +' &4 ()'-# ()E-&9 '5 !(( ! $ " )! * ! %" ! (!("! (" # $ ! ""6 $ >!& ! 7?;> &4 ! 5? &4 ()' ( 0?-711C ' 57$ >!& ! 77; ! * - - ! 5 &4 ()' ? 7
#$' !!" # < < & ) & ' D?0 H ) D0C-111 ( : )'$J&9()' ( 0?-?@@/ E ; +?@@3 $ ! 77 H & ;&9()' !
7 (8 ' : )'$J&9()' ( ?@@3&9()' $ & )' ( ; +,$*- 4./ 733 ;<6 07 ,0 4 2,4=13+,0 ,>, ?, 61> +5,3,5 ! < ! & $ - )' +' < $ - )' +' < ( > &9 ! ' E - - $ >!& ! 70;: &4 * & ;$ ' /0 " ? 7
#$" !!" # ! < ' D?11-111 ' &9 * $?@@3 ! * &
7 (8 &4 () $?@@3 &9()'- 5 ! &9 ?@@3 7111- &4 () J&9()'&4 ! ( ?@@C ! < +,$*- 4./ 733 ;<6 07 ,0 4 2,4=13+,0 ,>, ?, 61> +5,3,5 23 * - * < ! & $ - )' +' < $ - )' +' < +5 !" " $ $ !! ( ( " !" )! ( "$!,"6 $ >!& # ??;> . &4 % '() * % $ >!& # ?7;> > - &4 ()' > &9 $ >!& # ?0;> $ * &9()' ?@@3 7111 & ? 7
#$( !!" # & D?00-111 ! ! ( 0?-?@@C ( 0?-?@@8 ( 0?-?@@3
7 (8 &9()' +?@@3 ) &9()' E &4 () J&9()'- 5 +,$*- 4./ 733 ;<6 07 ,0 4 2,4=13+,0 ,>, ?, 61> +5,3,5 < ! $ - )' +' $ >!&&' ?7; & 5< 5-$ " ! +! $ " $ ,!" .!/ , )! "("6 $ >!&&' ??;>&' #< $ >!& # ?2;()F))( $ >!& # ?C;( > ) $ > )$" ? 7
#$) !!" # ! < ! ' :<' &4 () J&9()' ! E ( 0?-711C ! !
7 (8 &4(! J&4 () : )'$J&!$$ -&9()' : )'$J&!$$ &9()' :< ' :<'" &4 () J&9()' ! +,$*- 4./ 733 ;<6 07 ,0 4 2,4=13+,0 ,>, ?, 61> +5,3,5 < ! & $ - )' +' < $ - )' +' < '50& ! ( $!" ! " $! !, ,!" ( !" !1 $ ! 2! ( "6 $ >!&&' 71;( ( 5 $ > 35-$ " ! " $"! " .!/ , )! "("6 $ >!&&' 01;: :<' &4 &' 45 ! ( ! $( $! ,!"#$ # " $ 6 : )'$J&!$$$ >!&&' 21; &4(! -&4 () - 9?@@3 ! ? 7
#$! !!"
#&* !!"
##
! " # $$%&
' & & ( ) ) * + & $$%& , - ) ) . & / 0 1
## ! & "# $ "# %
%$ "# &
## $% !!"
! & ! '! % ( ) 3 ,!, & - , $ ,!, "# ' ( 15 %1 - # 4 ! 0 & $ 0 0 ) 0
$ & & ,
- , & $ ,!, %*+* $ #&6 "# &
,,- "7 8 9 # $ & ,,- ,,- !, ! , .,!,/ $ ,!, %/ & 01/ & - ) 0 2/ , !*!+" ! 3 ,,- ' 4 & . :5;;; / !" ! !# $ ! ! %/ ( # % !!" !! % "# 1/ " ! !"!& ) <
$%$ ## !!"
51 ,( - -. / :%=2;;; $ ! $ ! 7 > 6 < ) 3 , "#
$ & & ( > ( 8 9 , ' 8 %**2 ,!, & <$!, A A " "# $ 8 9 , ,,- $ & 21 , 2=; ! ! $ - 8 0< 3 A$ A $ 8 ? 0- , 7 8 9 0 < && @ 8 9 < # 07 @ 0- 8 8 9 0 - < 7 $ ! ( ,,- , < 8 ? > %**= A A $ 7 > A>$ A "# 0 & ,!, 3 - !%**= < $ ! , %; .<$!,/ ! ()* +( ,,- $ A, < "# ' A A A =+ & 1;; ! AA - $ ,,- A A ! ) < 7 ' , ,,- (& .! (B/ $
## $%' !!"
,,-0 4 & ( C 3 C # C - C 3 ) 4
< & 4 # && A+;;A 0 && 3 && ( ,,- && ' 3 && !A A && ! ( & && && < ! (B < A A ,,- ,,- < - , & "# $ ,,- D $ ,!, $ < 8 9 8 ? - , & & )
$%% ## !!"
!! 1 ! ! +- , # ! !" !" " ! % !,$3'8&1 % !+ !"# . , - 3 3 89< ,8? 89, ,!, <$!, & !,$3'8&% % . ') $&%;/ & & 1 E ' $ > !,$3'8&1 1 ,,- " E ' $ > !,$3'8&% 1 ( % 2 $ # & & 3 && 8? && <$!, ,!, ( 1=& 6 < - ? %**= ? %**F , !,$3'8&1 2 && <$!, ,!, 4% 3 - ,,- 89< ,8? 89, ,!, - ,
&& <$!,,!, !,$3'8&1 5 5 5 6 D - , +/ !% !$ !$! !,$3'8&1 = ! ! !" # & 65 % ! !0! ! " ! !%
,
## $%0 !!"
- +2 , ! ! !" # , ! ! !! ! ! # *, - , 0 ! ! 0 < !,$3'8&2 % ,,- - $$%&6 @<!89< ,8? 89, ,!, !,$3'8&5 1 ,,- 1 6 $ &,,-- , 4
!,$3'8&2 1 - $ & - , 0 89< ,8? 89, ,!, <
- , 0 !,$3'8&2 2 & % @<!89< ,8? 89, ,!, !,$3'8&5 2 $ 75 # - 8? ( ! 6 < # 8 3
+4 , ! ! " ! !! ! +3 ! ! !! # !! # ! !" ! !! ! % % !" !$ !$ !
!,$3'8&= % $ % & !,$3'8&5 % 89< , 8? $ # 6 7 & &,,-- , 4 && 8? & 8 ?
$%" ## !!"
!,$3'8&= 1 !,$3'8&F 1 " % & - &6 89< , 8? ( & & 89< ,8? 89, ,!, <$!, ) ' ( & !,$3'8&= 2 & 8 & !,$3'8&F 2 6 49 $ @<!89< ,8? 89, ,!, <$!, ( !,$3'8&F 5 & 9 & : A+;;A < ! &% 1 ./ 3 !,$3'8&= 5 11 " @<!89< ,8? 89, ,!, !,$3'8&F = <$!, 1 ( ) . ! &2 2/
!,$3'8&= = !,$3'8&B % $ & 1 6 5 2 1 89< , 8? E ' $ >
+5 !! ! !# ! +6 !#! !" ! ! # #! !" ! ! !! !,$3'8&F % ! & E ' $ >
& & && 8? A 8 ? 4! 3 ! A%**5 @<!
## $%1 !!"
< < ) .</ - $ < 8 ? 3 ,,- ,,- 3 ( ,,- > ( $ ,,- %% & 0 ) !,$3'8&B 1 - % 2 $ ,,- %F E ' $ > & ' :1=;;; :%=;;;;
$%2 ## !!" H H G G G G G G G G G .78 .78;( .78 .78;( -(' 3( 45 () .+ 6.7879. :- ,.,(6(8)): 8. & !,$3'8&% 14 < !,$3'8&1 %4 , !,$3'8&2 14 !,$3'8&2 24 !,$3'8&5 %4 !,$3'8&5 14 , !,$3'8&5 24 , !,$3'8&= %4 , ( !,$3'8&= 14!,$3'8&= 24 , & ( & !,$3'8&= 54 !,$3'8&= =4!,$3'8&F %4 , 89 8? :1=;;;.8?/ !,$3'8&F 14 G !,$3'8&F 24 G 3 - ( G :%=;;;;
## $%! !!"
8 > ,,- 3 & 4 $ 3 0 ( I 3 && 0 3 3 & !
$0< ## !!" $ ,"8 &G ' -%**F # ,"8 # ,,- $> @<! < 89 8?89, 89 8? ,!,<$!, ,,- :F*;;;;" ! :2;;;;;. ') <&%/ && 3 ,,- G ,
<$!,,!,89< , 8? <$!,J,!, ' # ,"8 <$!,J,!, ' # ,"8 ' $ > .$>/ -('$3(745 :66 =>:- ,.,(6(8)): 8. # E ,,- - , 7 ,"' &,"8 ! ,,- &7 ! ,,- & 7 && < && - +-7, # ! !" !" " ! % !+ !"# . ,& !,$3'8&% %47 ,,- !,$3'8&% 14- & && , 8 4 3E ,,- && 3 ,,- % 1
## $0 !!" $ ! ,"8 ,"8 ,"8 &G &G # ,"8 &G ' ' ' # &,,- # ,"8 # ,"8 &,,- ,"8 &,,- # ,"8 ? %**F ' :F*;;;;" ! :2;;;;;. ') <&%/ G ,
( !! ) @<!89< , 8? 89, ,!, @<!89< , 8? 89, ,!, @<!89< , 8? 89, ,!, <$!, @<!89< , 8? 89, ,!, @<!89< , 8? 89, ,!, 89< ,8? 89, ,!, $>8? ' ? %**=& # ,"8 89< ,8? 89, ,!,<$!, -('$3(745 :66 =>:- ,.,(6(8)): 8. # 1=& 6 < 7 ,"' &,"8 ! ,,- &7 ! ,,- & 7 !,$3'8&2 24 !,$3'8&1 543 - , !,$3'8&1 =4 E +27, ! ! !" #! ! !! ! ! # *, ! !& !,$3'8&2 %4 ,,- !,$3'8&2 14 !,$3'8&1 24 !,$3'8&1 14@ ( && ( +/7 !% !$ !$! ! ! !" # % ! !0! ! " !% & !,$3'8&1 %4, % 1
$0$ ## !!" $ ,"8 7 ,"8 ,"8 ,"8 ,"8 ,"8 ,"8 ,"8 &G &:%=;;;; &G &G &G &G &G &:1=;;; &G ' ' 7 & 7
( !! ) 89< ,J8? &,,- @<!89< , 8? 89, ,!, <$!, J8? ' ' ' 8? @<!89< , 8? 89, ,!, $ %**F<$!, -('$3(745 :66 =>:- ,.,(6(8)): 8. # 8?, 7 ,"' &,"8 ! ,,- & ! ,,- !,$3'8&= =4, & !,$3'8&= 54 && , & +37! ! !! # ! !" ! ! % !" !$ !$! & !,$3'8&5 %4, !,$3'8&5 14, !,$3'8&5 24, ( +47, ! ! " ! !! ! # !! !! % & !,$3'8&= %4, & 89< ,J8? ' !,$3'8&= 14( & !,$3'8&= 24 89< ,J8? &,,- % 1
## $0' !!" $ & 7 7 ,"8 ,"8 ,"8 &G &G &G &,,- &,,- :F*;;;;" ! :2;;;;;. ') <&%/ G ,
( !! ) $> # 2%%**F 89< ,8? 89, ,!,<$!, ' $> $> &,,- $>$> ' ' # ,"8 # ,"8 -('$3(745 :66 =>:- ,.,(6(8)): 8. # 7 ,"' &,"8 ! ,,- &7 ! ,,- & 7 +57 !! ! !# ! & !,$3'8&F %4 & !,$3'8&F 143 !,$3'8&F 24- ( !,$3'8&F 54, K+;;A !,$3'8&F =4, < # +67 !#! !"! ! ##! !" ! ! !! ! !,$3'8&B %4 !,$3'8&B 14< & % 1
$0% ## !!"
## $00 !!"
!!"
! " # $
"$#"% " "" " # """##" " ' """$#" " $ ' "" #"" $ ' " "" " $$ "#" $ ""'$ "' $ $ "% !! "" #$ 0$#"" $ " " " #%&" $#"#'" "## " #" $ ""#" ( "$#"% " " " # $ ""#"" " " "'" "' $ "$ !$$ "/1( "$#" " ) ""##$# " " "$#" * #' $$ $ "' "$ $# " ) " "" *" " #"% """ " " "' #" ""##' ' #"' ) # " $ " $ ""#' $$ $ ") " "% " " * " + "# $#"$#"% $ "##' '#"## " $ ""#"" "$# # # " """ $ "% '" $ " + "#, "%" "## ## $ $#" " "," -.% $ $ # " 2 34 " 0 -#5% '$$$ # ' !! "" / """
#$% !!"
+) 0 %6 ,+ /0 1 +010/ / ) /) 09 , -, /+/ 05, :,./ 0 02+02/0 +010/, )1;
Policy Committee Dredged Material Management Forum
Scientific/ Management Citizens Advisory Technical Advisory Committee* Committee Committee
Other HEP Workgroups - Pathogens - Floatables Toxics Workgroup DMM Integration Workgroup* * - Nutrients - Habitat - Public Participation - Modeling Evaluation Other DMM Workgroups Sediment Contamination Reduction Workgroup - Dredging, Transport, and Disposal - Containment - Criteria - Decontamination Technologies/Siting - Mud Dump Site Closure/New Ocean Disposal Site
' ()* + ,)-,./ 0+010/,11//00 ,((/+,.20(+/02 0- 0(0//30(,.0 , 4 ,11//00101*0 5100/(0 0(( 4/,. //0/ 00.. 0/,-0 /,,./ 0+010/ ,11//006 (()* + ,)-( ) 0/4 0.0 02/,(/ 0, 4,11//00 0- 0(0//30(6
''+ /,./ 014(0(/30-, 4(()0(((, /025/ / 0 02+02/0 +010/ 0010/,./ 07/ 0+010/,11//005. //0. 08)0/72 0 / ,/ /*0/500 / 0 2/ 0, 4,11//006
#$& !!"
!""' ""##$ " ## " ! 4 3" %$ " " " "##" !" $ " " % '"## # # 3" % / ""# "##' $#" ' ' $$ # " " "" " "" ' 3" % $#" $ " '"$# $ "" " % " # " " "$#") "## % &# ! ! " %! $# # ! # #$$#"$#"'"" "# "" '" "" ""$#" $ ""#"" ' # $ '$$ $ "# " $" $ 68" " # % " ' # #$ "$#$ # $$ $ " "## " "$ # #% 0 " "" ""$#" $ ""#" *# $ "## " ' "#' # # #" "" $# ' " " $ "" " $ " "$"% $$ % "##" " ""# $# $$ $ " $ # # # $ %
0 " $ " " ' ( ! "" $$ ) '' " " " '"## #" 6 3" % "## /" " $ " $" #" " "9" $$ $ " $ " $ " 2 ! " 1%:#5%" 3" %" # " " "" $ ; " #" "$ $ # "" "##" # $ $ 4 $ " $ $$ " "$#"2 34 " 1#5% % # " " !$ " $ $$ " 3" "" 7"003" %
#$! !!" " "" =>??'???@ =>A?'???@ 2=:?'???5@ 2=1??'???5@ ,(/ ,(/>0 ,(/ ,(/>0 3!D =>??'???@ =>A?'???@ *0==9 ;6 02 ,+ 1,(/(., ,(/ +010/ / ) /) 0 $$ % $ % #=>??'???6 %0 ## " "## " #"" '"##" " " $ $#" "## "% """ $ % " "" " "# 2C?'???5@ 38 0< -( """ $ " # "( " ##" " % "" $#" " 2=>B?'???5@ @ "" $ " =BA?'???6 %0 " " # "$ % #
#"< !!" # 2=>B?'???6 5E 2=C?'???5E 8 $ 6
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
#" !!" #
* !+ #-AAB - 6 3" 8 $ 6 *0=?9(;6 )11 4@,(/ +010/ / ) /) 0 A 7 $ "#"" $#" " " # " % 63 6 7 !" "' " ! "' " 7 " " " " $$ " %38 0< F(, "#" $#" "$#"% !38 0< :( $ " "9" $ " 2 ! " 1%: #5% #-AAB =--:'???6 6 38 0< >( #" 6 3" % - 1
#"# !!"
7 7
% & $ % ' ( ( % ' % ) $
$ " " " "$#" ## " "" " "' #"' 6 %##" " $ " % "" " "' $ #$" %, $ "" $"! -AA:" # " " "' !$$ "/:% #$G " #" " #252 !$$ "/:5%" "" $ " " # , - ) 2" " 5" # # "$#"( H " "$#" "9 "" "' # " # " # #"' ' %" "$ ) " "" " $ "% H $ " " "#$ " ""$#"% !03 -%- ) $ * " "" /" "" " ' " !' #$ # $ $ "# #" " "9 " "" " $ G ' " # " % $ G % !03 -%1 + , % # " # #" 3#'0 $ $ $ " $" " "## " "" "" " % #$# 2 ! " F%1#5%3 $ $" #"" , ! . $# ## ' / !#/ "" " $" # ! ! # "$# " $ " "%
"## " "'$ ' " "$#2 #5% !03 1%- "### " " ## -' %( % ( " "' #"' ' . " # " #$" ""# ' " !'# $ #" ' # " # "$$ $ " "" %"## #" "' #"'
#"= !!"
$#2"%%' " #" "#5 " "" 2 !$$ "/:5%! , % 0 # ! # $' $" # ! #$ '" # " $# # ) %
!03 1%1 / + -' +" "$ $ ' " ! $ ' " " $#% D0 "##$ " "$" !' !' 4"#" " % +' +'+'0 '!' ' " " " " "## ""#" $ "" $ ' " "" #$"$#; ' " % " # " %
!03 1%> !03 F%- ) ! % 0 $ ) ) % & $ '"##$ " "$" !' !' " " "' +' +'+'0 ' !'!' "#"" ' " '"## #$"#% !G 3 + #" 23+ 5%
" "" " " " , $ . "#" % # # $ " (
7" " I!6I$ ) !03 >%- # " % "## " " " # ' # " "3+ % $ #'"$#"#' $#" ' " # " #$" "$#"# " "##$ $ $ " % '" # " "$" ' ' '"##$ " "$" !' #" ""# " !' +' +'+'0 ' "3+ '" # " % !'!' '"## " "6 $ !03 F%1 "$#" 1 ) % . % " " # ( !03 >%1 + & $$ $ "$ !' !' +' +'+'0 ' "$#"2 34 " 0 -#5% " ' $ " "" # "$# " ""# " ' " #' ""' % I!6I687 # " # '" # "$ " #' " #' "#" #$ %
#"? !!"
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
#"$ !!" " 1%> >%-@ " F%1@ - ,(/ ,(/>0 ,(/ ,(/>0 =1?'??? =1?'??? =F?'??? =-?'??? =A?'???E@ @ 3!D *0=$9 ;6 02 ,+ 1,(/(., ,/, +7,20+720(0 / /0+4 "2E@5" " $# ""# " % !03 1%-( $ $ #$ " #" "#% !03 1%1( $ " $ "" $ " "' #"' % !03 >%1( 0$# " # " "#% !03 F%-( " % !03 F%1( 7 # % !03 F%>( 0$## % @ $ #$ $ ""$#"$ % -
#"" !!" # 6 1%- $# !$ -AAB =1?'??? =1?'??? #-AAB 6 6 8 $ 6 $# " # "! "
7 7 " " " # "" $ "# "" "$# "%8" " ' " $ "#"" * $ # "# "$# " % 0 ' " " 0 ' " ! ' " ! $# $ '"## $ " "$" !' !' +' +'+'0 ' 8 $ !' $ " "$" !' !' +' 6 +'+'0 ' !'!' ' " ! *0="9(;6 )11 4@,/, +7,20+720(0 / /0+4 $ "#"" *" "$# "% "## " "##% 7 $ "#"" $#" " " # " % 63 6 !" "' " ! "' " !03 -%1(0 """ " % , 1 ! . / !#/ ! ! 2 !03 1%-( $ $ #$ " #" "#% !03 1%1( ""#" $ "" $ " % !03 1%>(+ #$"#% '"## , 1 - ) 2 !03 -%-(+ #$# " "9 " "" " " # " % ( 0" ; ### " " " % 0 " " ' " ' - 1
#"% !!" # 7 1%> >%- $-AAB 8 $ 6 -AAB 8 $ " 6
6 7 ! "' " 7 " * !+ '"## $ " "$" !' !' +' +'+'0 ' !'!' ,-AAB =F?'??? $# 6 =-?'??? 6 '"## $ " "$" !' !' +' +'+'0 ' !'!' 3" +' +' +'0 ' " ' $ 8 $ " "" 6 *0="9(;6 )11 4@,/, +7,20+720(0 / /0+4 " $ "; " #" " #% $% 7 $ "#"" $#" " " # " % 63 !" "' " , %1 0 # ! # # ! )2 !03 F%-( " % !03 F%1(7 # % + #$ $" $ , $1 . # 2 !03 >%-( " "$# % , " "6 !03 >%1(0$#% !' !' - 1
#"& !!" # 7 F%1 "
* !+ ' !' !' +' +' +'0 ' " ' $ " "" '" """D0 *0="9(;6 )11 4@,/, +7,20+720(0 / /0+4 7 $ "#"" $#" " " # " % 63 !" "' " 6 7 ! "' " 7 " !03 F%>(0$## % - 1
#"! !!"
#%< !!" 7$ " "$#"' " #" "
& %&
" " '" "# "$#"% " " "## #"$#"#% ## # 4 " "" "% "$ " " $ " "# " $ $ % " " # "" " " "# $ " "$#"( " #" $ " # " %3 " " " # )/-)/( " " " ""# " $## " ) " " %
)/ ,10( " $ "$$ $ " !030 -%- " #" " " / 68"" $ " /$ "##$ $ # $ $##" # ' " "$ " "$#"' " #$ # "% "$ %# $ "## " # " " " $ " " %" " " $ ( "## 4 $#" "%
3$ ( """ "" !030 -%1 " '' % 2 ! /$#" #'"## " 3""# " '"##$ " " $ "! "0 -%-" # ## " %," # " 0$#" 2!$$ "/F5$ " "$#"' " # "# " "## % " "$#" G " #" "#%! " 3 ( " #" "# #$ $ '""# $ "## 2!$$ "/:5" # " " # " " " $ " " ## $ ) "## 4 $#" "%
#% !!" # 6 6 0 # "/ " 234 " -5 0 # "/ " 234 " -5 + -AAB ## + -AA. ""## 6 7 ! "' " 7 " " " # "" $ "# "" "$# "%8" " ' " $ "#"" * $ # "# "$# " % 0 ' " "
," $ ," $ *0=%9(;6 )11 4@0-, /+, ,+ 0((1-010/+/ 0 A $ "#"" *" "$# "% "## " "##% 7 $ "#"" $#" " " # " % 63 !" "' " !030 -%-( $ # $ " "$#"' " # " " " " )" # $#" "% !030 -%1! $ " # ## " "$#" " # " ; " #" "#% ( 0" ; ### " " " % 0 " " ' " ' - 1
#%# !!" COSTS AND FINANCING
( ( ( ( ' 3
" $ $ 68" " "## """ %" " ! !#/ "$#"#" / ! # # " (-5 $ '15 / / $ ' >5$ 4 ' # # $#$ # *" ""%
" "# $ " $# " "%! "# ," "## !03 -%? 0$#" " $ "!$$ "/ ! & 1 F%, " " #' ' # # $ " $ " #' " $ ' # # ' $ " # # % '"$ "$%"#" " # 4 " ' $ " + + " $ " '"## # # " " ' ' " % "#"#" "% '"" $ " # #"$ " $ " " ' - ""' # # % " # " $ +' +' !' # " '# # ' . !! # ! "$#""" " 3 # "$#""$ % ! " $ " '""' # # %
" " " % 0$#" " " "# " ; # "## *" #" "" %; ""# "" " #%
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
#%? !!" " "" " $$ $ " " !03 1%C #/" " " 5/ / %, " " 0 " " " "#" ""' #$ " " !"## $$ "" /" ##"" % /$ " #"$# " , " " 0 #$ " % "0 ; ## ##"" % #>C2" 5# "9 -- " > " $ "" !03 1%. " $#%" / & ! & " $#" "/" " $ % " $ $ " ' " "##%"## " # "% "#"" ' "## #$#" " " "" " "" " " %
#%$ !!" # 8 $ 6 #-AAB 8 $ 6 !##' 3" 8 $ 6 8 $ -AAB 7 $# 8 $ 8 $ 6 6 " " # "" $ "# "" "$# "%8" " ' " $ "#"" * $ # "# "$# " % 0 ' " "
' !' +' + ' !' +' + ' !' +' + , #' '# # + ' !' +' + *0=&9(;6 )11 4@,(/(2 + K:?-2 52>53 "" " " #$ "$#% " " % 7 $ "#"" $#" " " # " % 63 6 7 !" "' " ! "' " 7 " $ "#"" *" "$# "% "## " "##% !03 1%:( $ " "9" 23 5 $ " % /$ " " /" " !03 1%F( &!% 1 ! !#/ / ! # # / / # # 2 !03 -%?(, #' ' # # " #$ # # % 1 . !! # ! 3 # ! 2 !03 1%-(7 "9#& ! %!03 1%1( #" ," & J $% , # !03 1%>(, # "# " "#$# ' !' +' "$#" % 8+ >-'-AAB $ " $# $ 8 $ 7 ( 0" ; ### " " " % 0 " " ' " ' - 1
#%" !!" # 7 $ " 3 8"" + -AAB 8 $ 6 3" 8 $ 6
* !+ 0 3 ' 2 ""5 !' +' " +L0 ' !' +' + 8 $ 6 L + ! #-AAB 8 $ 6 8 $ 6 *0=&9(;6 )11 4@,(/(2 + " % " "" " $$ $ " " #/" " " '" "## # #"" % "" " "" " " % 7 $ "#"" $#" " " # " % 63 6 7 !" "' " ! "' " 7 " + #$ " " " % L" 3 0$# " $$ $ " + -AAB 8 $ 6@ !03 1%B( $$ "" ' $$ $ "' $$# $$## " #$ 4 " % $$ "" " !03 1%.( ""#$#" " $ % + #$#" " " !03 1%C(0 " " " "#" ""' $$ "" /" /$ " #"$# " % - 1
#%% !!"
) # ! - ! - 3 ! "9 "#>A2" 5#( # ,- " # " #" # " " $ "#"=>B'FBB'??? $ " "# ""# "% =1'->?'???6 % " " " $ %3 " #" # " " %0 ' " $ "#" " $ "# =>'ACA'??? =F'?F:'???6 % "" *" "$# "% "## " #" # ""# "##%0 " ' " " " " " $ " "## " 2 5 # "" #$ " ""$#" $ "#"" "$# "% $ %
&"#$ $ "$#" # " # " "' " " "$#" "" "$#" $ ""#"" % $ "" $##" # " " " # " " " $ 4 %! "9 "#F?2" 5#( " ' "" " #' " #" # " $ 4 " " " % #"=-%1C =:%1C"##" ""$#"$ '"## " =-??'???6 % "" " " " $ "" "" ' #" # " /$ "#' " " ""#$ 4 #"=-%>"##" " %0$ $ ""#' =>':??'???6 % " $#" " " #" # ""# " % " " "## " "" " "% $ 4 " "## #$ " $ " ""$#"$ % (3 " '%%' $ "# " " "#"" ( " # " 2 $ 5'%%' "" " #$ $ " " "#"" % $ ##" $ #%
#%& !!" -
=F'?:F'???6 E@ - =>'ACA'???E@ - ,(/ ,(/>0 ,(/ ,(/>0 =>B'FBB'???E@ =1'->?'???6 3!D *0=!9(;6 )11 4,. 02 ,+ 1,(/( 03 "/" + "# ,## " 7"##?0 +" #" 0 # " " "' #"' 7 7$ " ," " =-F%F"##"E@ =B%AA:"##" =1:'??? =-BC'??? =F%:>-"##" =A?'???E@ ? ? =1C1'??? ? =C?'??? @@ =A%A.:"##" ? ? ? =-%A-:"##"E@ =-%?.F"##"E@ =>??'??? ? =-%.:"##" ? =-:?'???E@ ? =::?'??? =-%.:?"##" ? ? ? ? =>1:'???E@ =1??'??? @@@ M>1:'???E@ ? ? =-:'??? =-%>FA"##" @@ =>A?'??? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? @@@ # " # ""# $ " #$ " ""$#"$ @@@ 0 # "=>??'???6 " $ - 0 # "=>A?'???6 " $ "2E@5" " $# ""# " %
#%! !!" $ =>':??'???6 - =-'>??':??'???E@ - ,(/ ,(/>0 ,(/ ,(/>0 =-'1C>'AB?'??? =:'1C>'AB?'???E@ =-??'???6 3!D *0?<(;6 )11 4,. ,B0 /1-010//,,(/( 03 "/" + "# ,## " 7"##?0 +" #" 0 # " " "' #"' 7 7$ " ," " =-1B%.>?"##"E@ =-:%B"##"E@ =- :"##" ? ? =>?'???E@ ? =-%."##"@@ ? ? =-??'??? =.%F"##" =->1%:"##" ? =-%>"##"E@ ? ? =:??'???E@ ? ? ? ? ? ? =-"##" ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? =1%:"##" ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? @@@ # " # ""#$ 4 "$#" " #$ " ""$#" - # $ " "% "2E@5" " $# ""# " %
#&< !!"
#&