new york-new jersey harbor estuary program · 2018. 11. 16. · new york state to an imaginary line...

New York-New JerseyNew York-New JerseyHarbor Estuary ProgramHarbor Estuary ProgramIncluding the Bight Restoration PlanIncluding the Bight Restoration Plan

FinalFinalComprehensive ConservationComprehensive Conservation

and Management Planand Management Plan

March 1996March 1996

Note

Since the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan was finalized inMarch 1996, there have been a number of significant developments at the federaland state levels related to dredged material management. In particular, the ClintonAdministration has announced its plan to close the Mud Dump Site, and todesignate the Historic Area Remediation Site in and around the site, where historicdumping has occurred; and the Governors of New York and New Jersey haveannounced the Joint Dredging Plan for the Port of New York and New Jersey. TheManagement Conference will, therefore, expeditiously update the Plan to reflectthese developments.

NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMPINCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996

iii

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


iv

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). SummaryCCManagement 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 308Reporting 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). SummaryCCManagement 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). SummaryCCManagement 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). SummaryCCManagement 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


v

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

24(fs). SummaryCCManagement 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). SummaryCCManagement 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). SummaryCCRainfall-Induced Discharges ....................................................................... 234

31(ec). Enhanced Program Costs for Public Involvement and Education ........................................ 249

32(es). SummaryCCPublic Involvement and Education ............................................................... 251

33(ic). Enhanced Program Costs for Post-CCMP Management Structure...................................... 260

34(is). SummaryCCPost-CCMP Management Structure............................................................. 261

35(ic). Enhanced Program Costs for Monitoring, Modeling, and Research Strategy......................... 266

36(is). SummaryCCMonitoring, Modeling, and Research Strategy................................................ 267

37(is). SummaryCCReporting on Progress in Implementing the Plan ............................................. 272

38(is). SummaryCCCosts and Financing ................................................................................ 276

39(ic). Summary of Enhanced Program Costs........................................................................ 279

40(ic). Summary of Project Implementation Costs................................................................... 280


vi

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 andChlordane 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 Highand 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 toFloatable Debris Slicks ............................................................................................ 184

10. Areas of Long Island Sound with Minimum Bottom Water Dissolved OxygenLevels 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 amongSeveral 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


vii

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 320A Characterization of problemsB Base program analysisC Action planD 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


STATE OF THE HARBOR/BIGHT 11

THE STATE OF THE HARBOR AND BIGHT

A RESOURCE WORTHY OF PROTECTION

New York-New Jersey Harbor and the New York Bight(referred to throughout this document as theHarbor/Bight) are extraordinary in many ways -- theirabundant resources, their beauty, and their manycompeting uses. The Harbor/Bight abounds withdiverse natural resources, yet it is the heart of the mostdensely populated region of the nation. It providesrecreational opportunities including fishing, boating, andswimming to over 20 million residents, and yet it sup-ports a world class port for both passengers and cargo. It yields extensive commercial and recreationalfisheries. It is also a repository for municipal andindustrial effluents, for storm runoff from the vastmetropolitan area, and for the disposal of dredgedmaterial.

It provides a livelihood for the local fishing communityand citizens who work in the tourism industry. Forothers, the Harbor/Bight represents a great opportunityto enjoy open space, offering leisure time activitieswhich are generally rare in an urban metropolis.

For all these reasons and more, those who work andplay here should consider it a resource worthy ofprotection. The New York-New Jersey Harbor EstuaryProgram is a testimony to the fact that people careabout the Harbor/Bight. Elected officials haveauthorized the expenditure of millions of taxpayerdollars to better understand the problems of the ecosys-tem. Hundreds of people have participated in the Man-agement Conference for the past five years to developa plan for its future. These citizens represent federal,state, and local government agencies, scientists,members of the commercial and recreational fishingcommunity, public interest groups, environmentalgroups, and business and industry.

And why do people care about the Harbor/Bight? Theanswer is simple. Despite a legacy of environmentalinsults, the ecosystem is alive, and, in some areas,even teeming with marine life and valuable naturalresources.

Although we can never restore this extraordinaryresource to a pristine condition, we can make adifference--each of us can. The goal confirmed byparticipants in the Harbor/Bight Estuary Program is toestablish and maintain a healthy and productiveecosystem with full beneficial uses. To achieve thisgoal, each individual has an opportunity and an obliga-tion to contribute to the solutions.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS OF THEHARBOR/BIGHT

Despite recent improvements in environmentalconditions in the Harbor/Bight, significant problemsremain. These problems include human useimpairments such as fish consumption advisories andintermittent closures of bathing beaches, andecosystem health and productivity impairments such asdeclines in fish and shellfish populations. Theseproblems are caused, in significant part, by habitat lossand degradation, toxics, pathogens, floatables, andnutrients and organic enrichment.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING FOR THEHARBOR/BIGHT ESTUARY PROGRAM

What is an Estuary?An estuary is a semi-enclosed coastal body of waterwhich connects with the open sea. It is a transitionzone where salt water from the ocean mixes with freshwater from rivers and land. The amount of fresh waterflowing into the estuary varies from season to seasonand from year to year.


2 STATE OF THE HARBOR/BIGHT2

This variation, coupled with the daily rise and fall of thetides and the consequent movement of salt water up-and down-river, creates a unique environment. Estuaries are among the most productive of the Earth'ssystems; more than 80 percent of all fish and shellfishuse estuaries as a primary habitat or as spawning ornursery grounds. Estuaries also provide feeding,nesting, breeding, and nursery areas for other diverseanimal life.

What is the Harbor Estuary Program?Congress recognized the significance of preserving andenhancing coastal environments with the establishmentof the National Estuary Program in the 1987amendments to the Clean Water Act. The purpose ofthe National Estuary Program is to promote the develop-ment of comprehensive management plans for estuariesof national significance threatened by pollution, develop-ment, or overuse. At the request of the Governors ofNew York and New Jersey, the Harbor was acceptedinto the program in 1988. In 1987, Congress alsorequired USEPA to prepare a restoration plan for theBight. Because the Harbor and Bight are linked in somany ways, USEPA and the Management Conferenceagreed to make the Bight Restoration Plan a product ofthe Harbor Estuary Program (HEP).

What is the Geographic Scope of theProgram?The New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary encom-passes the waters of New York Harbor and the tidallyinfluenced portions of all rivers and streams which emp-ty into the Harbor. There is a core area (defined by theshading on Figure 1) which includes the tidal waters ofthe Hudson-Raritan Estuary from Piermont Marsh inNew York State to an imaginary line at the mouth ofthe Harbor which connects Sandy Hook, New Jerseyand Rockaway Point, New York. This imaginary line isknown as the Harbor Transect.

The core area includes the bi-state waters of theHudson River, Upper and Lower Bay, Arthur Kill, KillVan Kull, and Raritan Bay. In New York, it includes theEast and Harlem Rivers and Jamaica

Bay, and, in New Jersey, it includes the Hackensack,Passaic, Raritan, Shrewsbury, Navesink, and RahwayRivers, and Newark and Sandy Hook Bays.

The Bight (Figure 2) is the ocean area extendingapproximately 100 miles offshore from the HarborTransect to the outer limits of the Continental Shelf. Almost 240 miles of sandy shoreline, stretching fromCape May, New Jersey to Montauk Point, Long Islandform its landward border. There are several back bayswhich are located behind the barrier beaches outside the core area of the Harbor. Some of the larger backbays adjacent to the Bight are the Great South Bay,Shinnecock Bay, and Moriches Bay in New York, andBarnegat Bay, Great Bay, Great Egg Harbor, and LittleEgg Harbor in New Jersey.

What is the Value of the Harbor/Bight?The Harbor/Bight is clearly an economic as well as anecological asset. Billions of dollars are generatedannually in the regional economy from boating,commercial and sport fishing, swimming, andbeachgoing. The Port of New York and New Jersey isthe largest port on the east coast of the United Statesand one of the largest ports in the world. Data fromthe Port Authority of New York and New Jerseyindicate that 38 million long tons of bulk and generalcargo, valued at approximately $54.7 billion, wereshipped through the Port of New York and New Jerseyin 1992. The regional economy also benefits fromother uses of the Harbor/Bight, including ferry transpor-tation, which is expanding, and sightseeing.

While it is fairly easy to quantify the economic value ofthe Harbor/Bight, there are numerous other valuesrelated to ecology and aesthetics which are much moredifficult to price. What is the worth of a salt orfreshwater wetland or a barrier beach as a habitat for avariety of plants and mammals, birds and reptiles --some of which are threatened or endangered? What isthe value of the personal sense of well-being thatcomes from an afternoon of boating or fishing?



Figure 1. New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary


4 STATE OF THE HARBOR/BIGHT4

Figure 2. New York Bight

The ecological and economic integrity of theHarbor/Bight system are clearly interdependent. Forexample, New York, New Jersey, and the federalgovernment have closed some commercial fisheries inportions of the Harbor and Bight. The Port has experi-enced substantial economic losses due to problemsassociated with the controversial disposal of dredgedsediments contaminated with dioxin and other toxicchemicals from the Port Newark complex.

The uncertainty of future dredging operations has alsoimpacted the volume of shipping in the Harbor. Overthe past 100 years, there has been a decline in theabundance of commercially important fish and shellfish.

Although some of this decline may be attributed tooverharvesting or natural fluctuations, pollution and

destruction of habitat are clearly contributing factors. For example, there have been historic declines in once-abundant oyster beds in Raritan Bay. In addition,thriving habitats

and good water quality contribute to higher shore-lineresidential property values and tourism revenues, andthe well-being of every living creature.

What Environmental Problems have been Facedin the Past?

By the early 1900s, nuisance and health conditionsrelated to untreated sewage brought about an increasingdemand for effective wastewater management. Treatment plants were constructed in the Harbor/Bightarea throughout the century, leading to improvementsin environmental conditions. Nevertheless, at the timethe Clean Water Act was passed in 1972, water quality

in the Harbor/Bight was still poor. There were lowlevels of dissolved oxygen and high concentrations ofcoliforms, toxic metals, and organics. The region'ssewage treatment plants (STPs) were dischargingnearly half a billion gallons per day of raw sewage tothe Harbor; in addition half of the sewage treatmentplants were discharging effluent with only primary



5

treatment, which provides minimal treatment of sanitarywaste and minimal or no treatment of industrial wastesdischarged to municipal sewage systems. A highpercentage of combined sewers in the region were notoperating properly, allowing additional outpourings ofraw sewage to the Harbor/Bight during dry weather.

In the two decades since the passage of the CleanWater Act, investments in water pollution controlprograms have resulted in significantly improved waterquality in the region. These improvements haveoccurred despite an ever-increasing number of peopleand activities in the Harbor/Bight. Obvious sources ofpollution are now regulated through permit programsand tidal wetlands are protected. New and expandedtreatment plants are providing better treatment; onlyone sewage treatment plant still operates below sec-ondary treatment levels. Industrial PretreatmentPrograms have helped reduce discharges of industrialwastes to municipal sewage systems, resulting insubstantial reductions in loadings of several toxicchemicals including metals. More recently, agencieshave begun to focus on the ecosystem as a whole andon previously inadequately controlled sources, such ascombined sewer overflows (CSOs), storm water, andnon-point source runoff.

HUMAN USE & ECOSYSTEM HEALTHIMPAIRMENTS

Despite these improvements, many problems remain. The water quality of the Harbor/Bight is far from whatit could be, and many uses or values are still impairedfrom current or old abuses. There are a substantialreservoir of toxics in the sediments of the Harbor/Bightand problems with toxic contamination of biota. Themajor continuing impairments are as follows:

Human Use ImpairmentsË Some beaches are intermittently closed after rain

storms, which may have introduced harmful

bacteria and viruses to bathing areas.

Ë Both New York and New Jersey have advised

people to limit or avoid consumption of several

species of fish and shellfish caught in the waters of

the Harbor/Bight.

6 Health advisories in New York and New Jersey

warn people to limit or avoid consumption of

striped bass, eel, blue claw crabs, bluefish, and

other species caught in Harbor waters due to

toxic contamination. A complete list of New

York and New Jersey fishing advisories for the

New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary due to

toxics is provided at the end of this section (see

Figures 3 and 4 below).

6 Shellfish harvesting for direct consumption is

prohibited in the Harbor due to the potential

presence of harmful bacteria and viruses.

Ë New York has closed its commercial fishery for

striped bass in the Harbor and in parts of the Bight

due to concerns about PCB contamination.

Ë Trash and litter, flushed to the water from beaches

and streets, through CSOs and storm water

runoff, pose a hazard to navigation and living

resources.

Ë Floatables from decaying waterfront structuresremain a persistent problem, impairing commercialuses, recreational navigation, and the enjoyment ofbeaches.

Ecosystem Health and ProductivityImpairments

Ë Habitat destruction, pollution, and overfishing have

contributed to serious declines in commercial and

recreational fish and shellfish stocks. For example,

in the Bight there has been a substantial alteration

in the species composition of groundfish stocks.

These declines are expected to persist for years


6 STATE OF THE HARBOR/BIGHT

6

even with aggressive management actions.

Ë Low dissolved oxygen levels in some areas of the

Bight have reduced the available habitat for fish and

shellfish.

Ë Contaminants in water and sediments have resulted

in the bioaccumulation of toxics in resident biota.

Ë Wetlands, intertidal areas, and other habitats have

been greatly reduced by development and pollution.

For example, of the 100 square miles of wetlands

that existed in pre-colonial times in New York City,

only 14 square miles remain today.

Ë Levels of copper in Harbor waters approach, and

levels of mercury exceed, water quality standards

(see text box below).

Ë Toxic contamination has historically reduced thereproductive ability of some species of coastal birds.

CAUSES OF THE PROBLEMS

Residential, commercial, and recreational developmenthave increased pollution, altered land surfaces, reducedopen spaces, and restricted access to the shoreline. During the twentieth century, the use of the Bight as adisposal site for human and other wastes increased, andthe expanded "paving" of land increased runoff intocoastal waters. Habitat destruction and alterationthroughout the watershed impacted native wildlifepopulations and reduced the breeding grounds andnursery areas for a variety of species.

HEP has decided to focus on five primary causes ofhuman use and ecosystem impairments. These arehabitat loss and degradation, toxic contamination,pathogen contamination, floatable debris, and nutrientand organic enrichment. Although these are theprimary causes, other factors such as overfishing alsocontribute to the problems.

Habitat Loss and DegradationAs the New York metropolitan area became the most

densely populated area in the nation and New York-New Jersey Harbor evolved into a world class port, thewaterfront changed. At least 75 percent of historicalwetlands have disappeared, and one-quarter of the landmass of the island of Manhattan is actually anartificially-filled shallow water habitat.

This loss and degradation of natural habitat isattributable to a variety of human activities including thefilling of wetlands and shallow water habitats, alterationof shorelines, dredging, and coastal development. Potential future threats to coastal habitat, including sealevel rise, could be exacerbated by human activities. Habitat loss and degradation contribute to the followinghuman use and ecosystem impairments:

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CRITERIA ANDSTANDARDS

Numeric criteria and standards, including waterquality criteria and standards, fish tissue action levelsand advisory levels, sediment quality criteria, andother criteria are designed as surrogates for directmeasurement of adverse pollution effects.

Criteria and standards designed to protect marine lifeindicate the maximum concentration of a substanceconsidered safe to protect sensitive marine organismsfrom adverse toxic effects. For example, atconcentrations of a substance exceeding criteria orstandards, sensitive organisms may not be able toreproduce successfully, or may be killed by exposureto the water or sediments.

Concentrations of a substance exceeding criteria orstandards designed to protect wildlife or humanhealth indicate unacceptable health risks to wildlife orhumans consuming fish, shellfish, or crustaceacaught in the waterbody. These criteria andstandards are usually designed to be compared withconcentrations measured in the tissues of ediblespecies, but may be extrapolated to water orsediments. For example, some USEPA water qualitycriteria are based on protection of humans from a 10-

6 (one in a million) lifetime risk of cancer due toconsumption of seafood.



7

Ë reduction in commercial and recreational fisheries;

Ë destruction of shellfish seed beds;

Ë reduction in diversity and abundance of coastal

wildlife;

Ë reduction in open space for recreation and habitat;

and

Ë loss of tourism revenues.

The plan to address habitat loss and degradationincludes the focused application of existing programs,as well as the geographic targeting of areas requiringspecial protection.

Toxic ContaminationToxic substances produced by human activities are nowfound in the waters, sediments, and biota of theHarbor/Bight where they persist at elevated levels andpose risks to both human and ecosystem health. Historically, much of this contamination came fromindustrial sources. Continuing sources of toxics todayinclude wastewater treatment facilities and CSOs, aswell as accidental spills, vehicle exhaust emissions,household chemicals, pesticides, atmospheric

deposition, leachate from landfills, urban runoff, andother non-point sources. In addition, becausesediments accumulate contaminants, they continue toact as a source of toxics even after past dischargescease.

Compliance with pollution control requirements hasresulted in a decrease in the loading of toxics to theHarbor/Bight; however, sources remain, and toxiccontamination is still a major problem. Toxicscontribute to the following human use and ecosystemimpairments:

Ë unsafe seafood;

Ë reduction in commercial and recreational fisheries;

Ë reproductive impairments in coastal species; and

Ë adverse impacts on port operations associated withconcerns about dredging and disposal ofcontaminated sediment.

HEP characterization studies have identified at least 15chemicals or classes of chemicals of concern. Theseinclude metals, chlorinated pesticides, dioxins, PCBs,and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

While our knowledge about toxic contaminants and ourcapabilities to detect trace amounts of toxic chemicalsare increasing each year, we still have much to learn. Further data collection and analysis will help usunderstand 1) the nature and fate of many of thecomplex toxic chemicals in the marine environment, 2)how to distinguish the negative impacts of toxics fromother sources, and 3) the synergistic effects betweenvarious classes of toxics and other pollutants. Additional planning and research efforts are needed tosupport new remedial actions in the future.

The plan to address toxics includes specific actions toreduce continuing loadings, especially loadings ofchemicals of concern, and specific actions for in-placecontaminated sediments.

Pathogen ContaminationPathogens are disease causing microscopic bacteria,

protozoans, and viruses. They are present in untreatedor inadequately treated human sewage and domesticand wild animal wastes. Primary sources of pathogensinclude CSOs, sewage treatment plant malfunctions,illegal connections to storm sewers, vessel sewagedischarges, urban runoff, and other non-point sourcesof pollution. Bacterial indicators are currently used toevaluate the potential for pathogen contamination. Pathogens contribute to the following human use andecosystem impairments:

Ë beach closures; and

Ë prohibitions and/or restrictions on shellfishharvesting.

Bacterial water quality for recreational bathing isgenerally acceptable on both the New Jersey and LongIsland coasts. However, occasionally certain beachesare closed because of elevated coliform concentrations.



8

These elevated levels result, usually, from storm waterdischarges and CSOs, and, less frequently, from mal-functions in wastewater collection and treatmentsystems.

The entire Harbor core area is closed to direct shellfishharvesting. In areas where water quality meets federaland state "special restricted" standards, harvestingthrough relay and depuration programs is allowed; harvesting for relay is currently permitted in westernLong Island Sound and portions of Raritan Bay, SandyHook Bay, and the Shrewsbury and Navesink Rivers. There is no approved shellfishing in Jamaica Baybecause of water quality concerns and because of theU.S. National Park Service=s Jamaica Bay WildlifeRefuge management mandate, which has the primaryaim of conserving the natural resources, fish, andwildlife.

Present regulations require year round chlorination ofsewage effluent to reduce microbial bacteria concen-trations. Modern wastewater treatment facilities andconventional disinfection practices have greatly reducedprevalent disease causing bacteriological organisms; asa result, viruses are now the most common human

disease agents in the Harbor. There is a growing na-tional interest in finding a reliable human-specific viralmicrobial indicator as a supplement to existing bacterialindicators to support management actions forcontaminated waters. HEP has funded studies toidentify such an indicator.

The plan to address pathogens includes specific actionsto reduce the continuing loading of harmful bacteria andviruses to Harbor/Bight waters, and to restore beneficialuses.

Floatable DebrisThere are two primary components of floatable debris. The first results from the careless disposal of trash,which then enters the ecosystem through runoff, stormwater discharges, CSOs, beach and boat litter, andpoor solid waste handling operations. The secondcategory, called Harbor Drift, provides the majority offloatable debris. It is composed primarily of materialfrom derelict shoreline structures such as piers, bulk-heads, and pilings.

Most of the floatable debris originates around theperiphery of the Hudson-Raritan Estuary and is flushedout to the Bight by a combination of freshwater highflows and spring and storm tides. The intensity of thefreshwater flows and tides dictates the size of thefloatable load; winds determine the distribution of thefloatable load during the beach season. This debris isaccumulated in ocean slicks, which are washed ashoreby wind, creating the widespread public perception thatthe ocean is polluted. Floatable debris contributes tothe following human use and ecosystem impairments:

Ë beach closures;

Ë reduction in aesthetic value of beaches, shores, and

waters;

Ë hazards to marine organisms; and

Ë hazards to commercial and recreational navigation.

Floatable debris resulted in significant reductions inrecreational values and major economic losses to

tourism during the summers of 1987 and 1988. Areport developed as part of the Bight Restoration Planestimated that New York lost between $900 million and$2 billion, and New Jersey lost between $900 millionand $4 billion during this time period. Some of this lostrevenue resulted from beach closures; the remainderwas lost when beaches were open but the publicstayed away from fear of contamination.

In response to this significant problem, HEP developed,and the participating agencies have implemented, ahighly successful short-term floatables action planwhich includes shoreline cleanup activities such as"Operation Clean Shores" and the removal of floatableslicks. The implementation of this plan has helped toreduce floatable-related beach closings.

The plan to address floatables includes the continuedimplementation of the short-term floatables action plan,and the refinement of a long-term plan focused onpreventing floatables from entering Harbor/Bightwaters.



9

Nutrients and Organic EnrichmentThere is strong evidence that eutrophication, induced byexcessive discharges of the nutrient nitrogen, from bothpoint and non-point sources, is a significant problem inthe coastal waters of the Harbor/Bight. Recent studiesindicate a direct correlation between excessiveenrichment from nitrogen and depressed dissolvedoxygen levels in coastal waters. Long-term trendanalyses indicate that low dissolved oxygen continuesto be a problem in the Harbor/Bight, with some areasshowing an improvement and others experiencing adecline in water quality. The general trend for the past20 years is an improvement in the highly pollutedwaterways and inner Harbor areas. Over the past 10years, however, a decline in water quality is evident insome of the outlying areas, such as Long Island Soundand parts of Jamaica Bay.

Each day sewage treatment plants discharge largeamounts of treated effluent containing nitrogen into theHarbor/Bight. Recent requirements for sludgedewatering prior to land disposal have resulted in

increased nitrogen loadings to the Harbor/Bight. Othernitrogen sources include runoff from overfertilizedlawns, atmospheric deposition, and CSOs.

Excessive nutrients and organic materials also contrib-ute to noxious water quality conditions in tributariesand inner Harbor areas where there are many CSOs andpoor circulation. The primary cause of these problemsis decomposition of organic materials. Flushing Bayand Gowanus Canal in New York often experiencenoxious water quality conditions. There have also beendense red tides in the Lower Bay Complex, includingRaritan and Sandy Hook Bays.

Depressed oxygen levels caused by nutrient and/ororganic enrichment contribute to the following humanuse and ecosystem impairments:

Ë reduction in fish and shellfish reproduction;

Ë reduction in habitat for fish/shellfish; and

Ë noxious odors.

HEP has concluded that a system-wide eutrophicationmodel (SWEM) and a complementary program of basicresearch are needed in order to better understand thenature and causes of this problem and the impact of areduction in nutrients on dissolved oxygen concentra-tions. HEP would use this model and studies to identifyactions necessary to eliminate the adverse impacts ofhypoxia and other eutrophic effects in the Harbor,Bight, and Long Island Sound.

On an interim basis, HEP is considering theimplementation of low cost nitrogen control measuresto minimize the discharge of nitrogen to Harbor/Bightwaters.

FUTURE WITHOUT A COMPREHENSIVECONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN

The collective problems of the Harbor/Bight cut acrossmany jurisdictional boundaries and affect us all. UntilHEP began, however, there was little opportunity for apublic dialogue about the future of this ecosystem. Restoration and attainment of full beneficial uses ofHarbor/Bight resources were left to fragmented

planning, unilateral regulatory decisions, and courtdecisions.

This program provides the opportunity to makeenlightened and educated system-wide decisions basedupon good scientific data, to foresee research andmonitoring needs prior to the onset of crises, and todevelop sound actions to manage the ecosystem.

With the actions in this Comprehensive Conservationand Management Plan, the water quality improvementsmade in recent years can continue. If these actions,which further reduce and control the discharge ofpollutants and preserve and enhance coastal habitats,are not taken, people will turn away from theHarbor/Bight as a source of livelihood and recreation. The regional economy will shrink as people find otherplaces to boat, fish, swim, and live.

MESSAGE TO THE PUBLIC

Our challenge today is to develop and maintain publicsupport for future conservation and management of theHarbor/Bight resources. This means more than simple



10

information transfer. Information is only one step in acontinuum involving awareness, understanding,stewardship, behavioral changes, empowerment, andaction. In listening to the public over the past fiveyears, we have learned that, in order to maintainsupport, HEP's Management Conference must establishcommitments and take actions. We must appreciatethat the public was instrumental in getting HEPunderway and sustaining it over the last five years. Wemust all work together to develop a regional consensusfor further action and commit the necessary resourcesto see that actions are implemented.

It is imperative that the public and private sectorsparticipate in HEP because we are all part of theproblem and we are all part of the solution. From theonset of this process, the Management Conference hasrealized the importance of convincing individuals thatthere is a problem, that there is a compelling need totake action, and thatindividual life style choices are equally as important asregulatory actions to reduce pollution. While ourknowledge about many of the pollutants impacting theecosystem is increasing each year, we have not alwaysdone a good job of communicating this information tothe public. There is a lack of public appreciation for theecosystem and a lack of knowledge of theinterdependence of human activities and ecosystemhealth.

Our message to the public is simple: learn what you cando to establish and maintain a healthy and productiveHarbor/Bight with full beneficial uses. You can make adifference!!



11

Figure 3. Fish and Crab Advisories for New Jersey Waters based on PCB, Dioxin and ChlordaneContamination (excerpted from A Guide to Health Advisories for Eating Fish and Crabs Caught in New JerseyWaters, March 1995)

LOCATION SPECIES ADVISORY/PROHIBITIONNew Jersey Statewide General Population High Risk Individuals1

Note: local advisories may be morespecific for the same species. Seebelow.

American eel

bluefish (over 6 lbs)

striped bass*

do not eat more than once a week


consumption advisories vary byarea; see below

do not eat

do not eat

consumption advisories vary byarea; see below

Newark Bay ComplexThis complex includes Newark Bay,Hackensack River downstream ofOradell Dam, Arthur Kill, Kill Van Kull,tidal portions of all rivers and streamsthat feed into these water bodies and

striped bass*

American eel*

blue crab*

bluefish (over 6 lbs), white perchand white catfish

do not eat


do not eat or harvest2


do not eat

do not eat


do not eat

Passaic River downstream of DundeeDam and streams that feed into thissection of the river.

all fish and shellfish*

blue crab*

do not eat


do not eat


Hudson RiverHudson River includes the riverdownstream of NY-NJ border (about4 miles above Alpine, NJ) and UpperNew York Bay.

American eel*

striped bass*

bluefish (over 6 lbs), white perchand white catfish

blue crab




do not eat green gland(hepatopancreas)3

do not eat

do not eat

do not eat


Raritan Bay ComplexThis complex includes the NewJersey portions of Sandy Hook andRaritan bays, the tidal portions of theRaritan River (downstream of theRte.1 bridge in New Brunswick) andthe tidal portions of all rivers andstreams that feed into these waterbodies.

striped bass*

bluefish (over 6 lbs.), whiteperch and white catfish

blue crab




do not eat

do not eat


Northern Coastal Waters

This area includes all coastal watersfrom Raritan Bay south to theBarnegat Inlet.

striped bass* do not eat more than once a week do not eat

For More InformationFor information on New Jersey health advisories, contact:NJ Department of Environmental ProtectionDivision of Science & Research (609) 984-6070Division of Fish, Game & Wildlife (609) 748-2020

NJ Department of Health Consumer Health Services (609) 588-3123For 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 developingyoung.

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



12

Figure 3. Fish and Crab Advisories for New Jersey Waters based on PCB, Dioxin and ChlordaneContamination (excerpted from A Guide to Health Advisories for Eating Fish and Crabs Caught in New JerseyWaters, March 1995)

LOCATION SPECIES ADVISORY/PROHIBITIONgreen gland.



13

popular sport. Anglers catch a wide variety ofdelicious fish species. Many eat the fish theycatch. However, some fish in certain waterscontain chemicals harmful to your health, evenwhen the fish look healthy and the water looksclean.

What should you consider in decidingwhether or not to eat the fish you catch? TheNew York State Department of Health issueshealth advisories for people who eat fish fromwaters where chemical contaminants may be aproblem. You can make an informed decisionabout the potential risks from eatingcontaminated sportfish by using this brochure. Health advice is also available through newsreleases, other brochures and the Departmentof Environmental Conservation FishingRegulations Guide which is available wherefishing licenses are sold; or call the Departmentof Health at 1-800-458-1158 ext. 409.WHY IS THIS ADVICE IMPORTANT TOME?

Chemicals are found in some fish at levelsthat may be harmful to your health. Somechemicals build up in your body over time oraffect organs such as your kidneys or liver.

Women of childbearing age may be atspecial risk from eating contaminated fish. Chemicals (such as PCBs, dioxins and mercury)found in some fish build up in your body overtime. During pregnancy, and when breast-feeding, these chemicals may be passed on toyour baby. This can harm the baby=s growthand development.

Children under the age of 15 should not eatcontaminated fish as they are still growing anddeveloping, and are at special risk fromcontaminants.

The following guidelines are a shortenedversion of the complete health advisory for theLower Hudson River, New York Harbor andmarine waters of New York.

For more detailed advice about eating fish,please consult the guide Health Advisories:Chemicals in Sportfish and Game. For a copy,call the Health Department at 1-800-458-1158ext. 409.

HOW MUCH FISH SHOULD I EAT?The following advice is for:

Hudson River between Troy Dam and bridgeat Catskill:

$ Women of childbearing age and childrener 15 years of age should EAT NO fish from

se waters.$ Other people should EAT NO fish except

erican shad. Eat no more than one meal perek of American shad.

Hudson River south of Catskill, Arthur Kill,Kill Van Kull and Upper Bay of New YorkHarbor (north of Verrazano Narrows Bridge):

$ Women of childbearing age and childrener 15 years of age should EAT NO fish from

se waters.

THAN ONE MEAL PERMONTH of American eel,Atlantic needlefish, bluefish,carp, goldfish, largemouthand smallmouth bass,rainbow smelt, striped bass,walleye, white catfish andwhite perch and EAT NOMORE THAN ONE MEALPER WEEK of other fishspecies.

$ EAT NO MORE THAN 6 blue crabs perweek and don=t consume thehepatopancreas (mustard,tomalley, liver) or cookingliquid.

Harlem River and East River (to the ThrogsNeck Bridge):

$ Women of childbearing age and childrenunder 15 years of age shouldEAT NO fish from thesewaters.

$ Other people should EAT NO MORETHAN ONE MEAL PERMONTH of Atlanticneedlefish, bluefish, stripedbass and white perch andEAT NO MORE THAN ONEMEAL PER WEEK of otherfish species.

$ EAT NO American eel.

Lower Bay of New York Harbor, Jamaica Bay,Long Island Sound, Peconic/Gardiners Bays,Block Island Sound and Long Island SouthShore Waters:

$ Women of childbearing age and childrenunder 15 years of age shouldEAT NO striped bass fromLong Island Sound west ofWading River, New YorkHarbor and Jamaica Bay and

Other people should EAT NO MORETHAN ONE MEAL PER MONTH ofstriped bass from these waters.

$ Everyone should EAT NO MORE THANONE MEAL PER WEEK ofstriped bass from Long IslandSound east of Wading River,Peconic/Gardiners Bays,Block Island Sound and LongIsland South Shore waters.

$ Everyone should EAT NO MORE THANONE MEAL PER WEEK ofAmerican eel and bluefish.

WHAT FISH ARE SAFER TO EAT, ANDWHERE ARE THE CLEANER PLACES TOFISH?

You can limit your exposure to chemicalcontaminants in these other ways:

$ If you catch fish to eat, choose smaller (of legal size). Smaller fish are younger anderally have lower contaminant levels thaner, older fish.

$ Choose kinds of fish not mentioned in advisory. Those fish generally have lowerels of contaminants.



14

THE PLAN


15


16 OVERVIEW OF THE PLAN

16

OVERVIEW OF THE PLAN

In order to achieve this vision, the Harbor EstuaryProgram established the following goals:

Ë Restore and maintain an ecosystem which

supports an optimum diversity of living resources

on a sustained basis.

Ë Preserve and restore ecologically important habitat

and open space.

Ë Attain water quality that fully supports bathing

and other recreational uses of the Estuary.

Ë Ensure that fish and shellfish in the Estuary are

safe for unrestricted human consumption.

Ë Restore and enhance the aesthetic quality of the

Estuary.

Ë Actively address emerging issues that impact the

Estuary.

Ë Manage and balance the competing uses of the

Estuary to improve environmental quality.

- In particular, ensure the continued economic

viability of the Port to support safe and

efficient waterborne commerce without

adversely impacting the ecosystem; and

- Increase public access.

Ë Manage pollutants within the Estuary so that theydo not contribute to use impairments outside theEstuary.

A FOCUS ON HABITAT AND LIVINGRESOURCES

Achieving the Harbor Estuary Program vision requiresa focus on habitat and living resources. Ultimately,our success in implementing the CCMP will bemeasured by the condition of the plants and animalsinhabiting the Estuary and Bight. Due, in part, topublic comments in the early planning phase of theHarbor Estuary Program, the focus and priorities ofthe Program were shifted from purely water qualityconcerns to include habitat and living resources. Inrecent meetings on the draft CCMP, the importanceof protecting, restoring, and enhancing habitat andliving resources was reinforced by the public.

HEP is therefore developing a comprehensive regionalstrategy (see Objective H-1 below) which will serveto further develop and refine the actions in this planwith a focus on protecting, restoring, and enhancinghabitat and living resources in the Harbor/Bightwatershed.

Actions in other sections of the CCMP also contributeto the protection, restoration, and enhancement ofhabitat and living resources in several ways:

- pollution prevention

- reduction of pollution at the source

- remediation of existing contamination in the

Estuary and Bight

- favoring non-structural solutions and the use

of natural systems

- addressing pollution from all media affectingthe Estuary and Bight

Completion of the comprehensive strategy is criticalto achieving HEP's goals. The strategy will bedeveloped in an ecosystem context, working withlocal governments and through public/private

partnerships, and considering the Long Island SoundCCMP and local geographic plans in the region.

HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM VISIONTo establish and maintain a healthy and productive Harbor/Bight ecosystem with full beneficial uses.


OVERVIEW OF THE PLAN 1717

HOW THE PLAN IS ORGANIZED

The human use and ecosystem health impairmentsdiscussed in the State of the Harbor and Bight sectionare an indication of the challenge we face in achievingour goals. Table 1(o) groups these impairments intofive broad categories and identifies their primarycauses:

- Habitat Loss and Degradation

- Toxics

- Pathogens

- Floatables

- Nutrients and Organic Enrichment

Each of the primary causes is a component of theCCMP and is presented as a section of the Plan: habitat loss, toxics contamination, pathogens,floatables, and nutrient and organic enrichment. Aseparate section has been added on dredged materialmanagement because of its importance to theHarbor/Bight. In addition, because combined seweroverflows, storm water, and non-point source runoffcontribute to all of the primary causes ofimpairments, a separate section on rainfall-induceddischarges addresses these sources. Appropriatecross referencing is provided in each section. ThePlan also includes sections on HEP's publicinvolvement and education strategy, and otheractivities associated with plan implementation.

Each section of the Plan has specific goals that areconsistent with HEP's vision and the overall goalsstated above.

A comprehensive set of commitments andrecommendations is provided for each section of the

Plan. These commitments and recommendationscover permitting, enforcement, monitoring, standardsetting, and resource management activities, as wellas public involvement and activities associated withplan implementation. The tables at the end of eachsection indicate, for each action, whether the action isan ongoing commitment, a new commitment as adirect result of the HEP CCMP, or is still at therecommendation stage. The tables also identify thecosts associated with each of the commitments andrecommendations. Information on funding is in thesection on Costs and Financing.

HEP has prepared a Public Summary of the CCMPwhich presents an overview of the problems andmanagement approaches, as well as action highlights.

SCOPE OF THE CCMP AND MANAGEMENTAPPROACH

The CCMP is a comprehensive plan for theHarbor/Bight watershed on a regional scale. Forexample, HEP is identifying regionally significanthabitat areas and helping to ensure they areprotected. HEP is also identifying the most significantpollution sources impacting the Harbor and Bight andfocusing on actions to appropriately control them. The Harbor core area is subject to large pollutionloadings which can impact not only the Estuary, butalso the Bight and Long Island Sound. In focusing onthe Harbor core area, HEP is considering the impactsof pollution from the Harbor on the entire Estuary andadjacent waterbodies. Also, if HEP determines thatpollution from upstream in the Harbor/Bightwatershed is significantly impacting the Estuary oradjacent waterbodies, HEP will recommend the stepsnecessary to appropriately control this pollution.

The Harbor/Bight watershed is, however, a very largearea with numerous pollution problems and diverselocal interests. In a plan of such broad geographicscope, it is difficult to include a specific focus on alllocally significant issues. HEP believes its mostimportant role is to maintain a regional perspective,which integrates a local perspective and builds uponlocal programs. The CCMP reflects this. Forexample, the CCMP integrates geographically targetedinitiatives to protect habitat. Also, the CCMP

includes actions to help foster a regional perspectivein local planning and transfer successful local planningtools to other localities, but does not intend todevelop, critique, or oversee local land use plans.


18 OVERVIEW OF THE PLAN18



Table 1(o). Causes of Human Use and Ecosystem Health Impairments

CAUSEIMPAIRMENT

HABITATLOSS

TOXICS PATHOGENS FLOATABLES NUTRIENTS

Beach Closures S S

Unsafe Seafood S S -

Damage to Commercial andRecreational Fisheries

S S? O? O S?

Damage to Other Coastal Species S S? O? O

Adverse Impacts on CommercialShipping and RecreationalBoating

S S O

S = Significant cause of the impairmentO = 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 ofimpairments in the Harbor/Bight.

Table 2(o). Sources Contributing to Causes of Impairments

CAUSESOURCE

HABITATLOSS

TOXICS PATHOGENS FLOATABLES NUTRIENTS

Municipal Discharges (includingIndirect Industrial Discharges)

S S* S

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 sourcecategories specifically mentioned. It includes such diverse sources as street runoff, beach littering, and marine transfer operations.

S = Significant source ? = Uncertainty associated with the determination



O = Other contributing source * = Associated with malfunctions; based on existing indicators



The following approach has been used by theManagement 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 balancebetween early action and further study. Where wehave sufficient information characterizing anenvironmental problem and understanding its cause,the CCMP includes specific actions to address theproblem. However, because we do not always havesufficient information, the CCMP includes actions forfurther study upon which to base additionalmanagement measures.

The CCMP builds on existing base programs of state,local, and federal governments, and others, becausethese programs are integral to helping to achieveHEP's goals. In many cases the CCMP identifieswhere these programs must be enhanced to morefully address HEP's goals.



IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN==S ACTIONS

One of the strengths of the Harbor Estuary ProgramCCMP is that it includes many commitments foraction from federal, state, interstate, and localagencies participating in the Management Conference. Approximately 75 percent of the actions in theCCMP are commitments. These commitments aregood faith pledges by the responsible agencies thatthey intend to carry out the actions and are based oncurrent projections of resource availability. Thecommitments entail a substantial effort -- billions ofdollars -- which, when fully implemented, will result insubstantial progress toward HEP=s goals. Theremaining actions in the Plan, although critical to theultimate achievement of HEP=s goals, in total wouldclearly require resources beyond those currentlyavailable or foreseeable in the near future.

HEP has worked hard, in this time of limitedresources at all levels of government, to obtaincommitments for action. HEP will continue to workhard to turn recommended actions into commitments. The CCMP describes this funding strategy (seeAImplementing the Plan@ below) which includes:

Ë Using enforcement settlement funds (e.g.,

federal and New York State Supplemental

Environmental Project funds) or other

appropriate funding sources in New Jersey to

implement appropriate CCMP recommended

actions;

Ë Encouraging existing non-profit organizations

to fund appropriate CCMP recommended

actions; and

Ë Continuing to encourage government agenciesto step forward to implement recommendedactions as funding becomes available.

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 toupdate and re-evaluate the CCMP. To do this, HEP isdeveloping a process by which HEP and otherresponsible implementing entities, in partnership, willsystematically track progress and schedule theadditional actions necessary to achieve the goals. This continuing planning process includes continuingthe Management Conference to oversee CCMPimplementation and annual reporting of progress (seeAImplementing the Plan@ below).


HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES 21

MANAGEMENT OF HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES

IMPAIRMENTS

Habitat loss, fragmentation, anddegradationImpaired commercial and recreational

fisheriesImpaired coastal and terrestrial living

resources and communitiesLack of public access

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO IMPAIRMENTSPollutant LoadingsCoastal developmentShoreline and aquatic habitat modificationAlteration of freshwater inputsHuman disturbance of natural habitatsOverharvestingInsufficient/inadequate sites for public

accessVISION 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/Bightwatershed and to mitigate continuing adverse human-induced effects.

Focused Application of Existing ProgramsH-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-8 Increase public access consistent with other ecosystem objectives.H-9 Increase public education, stewardship, and involvement on issues related tomanagement of habitat and living resources.H-10 Complete ongoing research and initiate special studies on habitat issues.Geographically-targeted Special EffortsH-11 Identify significant coastal habitats warranting enhanced protection andrestoration.H-12 Develop and implement plans to protect and restore significant coastalhabitats and impacted resources.


22 HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES

INTRODUCTION

The complex geology and geography of theHarbor/Bight sustains a remarkable diversity of habitattypes and species within a relatively small area. Several major river systems drain into the Estuary,merging into a network of tidal channels and bays,ultimately flowing into the Atlantic Ocean. Thisconfluence concentrates marine, estuarine, anddiadromous fish in the Harbor core area and NewYork Bight Apex. Within the Harbor core area alone,over 100 species of fish have been recorded.

The Harbor/Bight area lies on the Atlantic Flyway, amajor pathway for migratory birds, providing bothcoastal migratory corridors and the north-southoriented migratory corridors of the Hudson Highlandsregion. Thus, coastal as well as overland migratingspecies are channeled through the region. Thevarious habitats in the Harbor/ Bight area providefood and rest for these migratory birds. The Estuaryalso supports large and flourishing populations ofaquatic birds. Today, heron populations in the NewYork-New Jersey Harbor represent up to 25 percentof all nesting wading birds along the coast from CapeMay, New Jersey to the Rhode Island line, clearly awildlife assemblage of regional importance.

Finally, the Harbor/Bight is blessed with anexceptionally diverse plant life on a landscape thatvaries from glacial outwash plains to unglaciatedshores and uplands. On Staten Island alone, 178historical sites of state and/or globally rare plantspecies have been recorded, 28 of which haverecently been relocated and confirmed.

Recent water quality improvements (e.g., increaseddissolved oxygen and decreased turbidity, biologicaloxygen demand, and bacterial indicators) have led toa waterfront renaissance -- a reawakening of therecreational and scenic potential of the Harbor/Bightshorelines. Shore recreation is a dominantcomponent of the tourist economies of both New

Jersey and New York. Public access to Estuaryresources and to the large well-utilized public beacheson the ocean shores enhances public awareness ofthese rich natural resources and fosters increasedappreciation and stewardship of fish and wildlifehabitat. Opportunities to engage in shorelineactivities and environmental improvements cancontribute significantly to the quality of life of urbanarea residents and have great potential for economicbenefits as well, by making the area surrounding theHarbor more desirable as a place in which to live andwork.

The Hudson River, including the Harbor Estuary, isone of the few East Coast estuaries that retains viablepopulations of all of its historical indigenous aquaticspecies. The significant level of native biodiversityremaining in one of the world's most denselypopulated regions offers hope that people and naturalresources can thrive in close proximity to each other. The presence of critical habitat for rare andendangered plant and wildlife is a source of greatpride to many local citizens and provides outstandingopportunities for educational and stewardshipprojects. The task of monitoring, protecting,maintaining, and, where appropriate, restoring theseprecious resources is a unique opportunity to promoteand utilize government/civic partnerships.

In order to reflect the priorities of the residents ofNew York and New Jersey, this CCMP focuses onidentifying important natural habitats still remaining inthe Harbor/Bight watershed and uniting public andprivate interests to develop a Comprehensive RegionalPlan. Consistent with HEP=s vision, the objective ofthe Plan is to balance competing interests to sustainthe overall health and welfare of the ecosystem andthe general public, as well as to sustain localeconomies. These competing interests, such aspublic access, industry, and Port activities, as well ashabitat protection, are considered in the developmentof actions throughout the CCMP.

IMPAIRMENTS

Habitat Loss, Fragmentation, and Degradation

As previously noted, the New York-New JerseyHarbor Estuary and Bight together provide diverse

habitats, including tidal rivers, salt and fresh tidalmarshes, woodlands, shallow bays, barrier beaches,



and dune systems. Much of this natural habitat hasbeen lost because of human activities, including: thefilling of wetlands and water areas; alterations ofshorelines including the construction of piers andplatforms; dredging; smothering of marshland due towashups of floatable debris; and coastaldevelopment. Loss of natural habitats results indiminished local and regional biodiversity andnegatively impacts the ecological integrity of theHarbor/Bight.

Coastal wetlands in the Harbor/Bight region, includingsalt and fresh tidal marshes, now cover about180,000 acres in New Jersey and about 25,000acres in New York. Most of this acreage is located inthe back bays and tributary watersheds of the Bight,where productive fin and shellfisheries exist. In andaround the Harbor, however, wetlands loss has beengreat. At least 75 percent of the historic tidalwetlands in each of New York City's five boroughshas been lost. For example, one-quarter of the landarea of Manhattan Island was created by fillingwetlands and shallow water areas. Similar losseshave occurred in New Jersey counties of the Harborcore area. In addition, as much as 99 percent ofNew York City's historic freshwater wetlands may nolonger exist. Dams on coastal rivers have blocked thereach of tidal waters and reduced estuarine habitatsas well as spawning areas for certain fish. Althoughall of these examples of habitat loss and degradationare past events, development pressure remains aproblem and continues to threaten remaining naturalareas.

Most of the remaining wetlands have been modifiedor degraded through diking, impound-ment,channelization, or toxic contamination. For example,Jamaica Bay, which was once a classic coastal backbay, has been dredged and modified by channeldeepening, landfilling, wetland fill activities, airportconstruction, and other similar activities. Because ofthese modifications, residence time for water in thebay has increased from 11 to 35 days, magnifyingthe impact of pollutants entering the bay.

Much of the historic large-scale filling of wetlands andshallow water areas within the Harbor Estuary hasdecreased with the implementation of regulatoryprograms to control such activities. In recent years,

however, there have been proposals to extenddevelopment beyond inner Harbor shorelines on topof piers and platform structures. The environmentalimpacts of this type of development are uncertain,but the potential cumulative impact of many suchprojects presents a new threat to the environmentalintegrity of the ecosystem.

Marine and upland habitats in the region have alsosuffered significant losses, due to development andpollution associated with population increases. In theHarbor core area, particularly New York City, naturalhabitats are found almost exclusively in designatedparklands, preserves, and other large land holdings ofgovernments and institutions. Nearshore uplandlandscapes are significant to the estuarine ecosystem. These areas function as buffers against stormsurges, sea level rise, and non-point source pollution,and serve as useful wildlife habitat.

Numerous functions and values are lost with shorelinemodifications that involve the filling in or removal ofwetlands. Wetlands provide essential habitat andfood for fish and wildlife species. Many species ofwaterfowl and fish require wetland habitat forbreeding, nesting, or rearing of their young, as wellas for resting, migration, or overwintering areas. Wetlands also exhibit very high rates of plantproductivity, supporting the food web in thesurrounding estuarine environment. In addition,wetlands act as filters for the aquatic ecosystem,providing water quality protection through theprocesses of sediment trapping, chemicaldetoxification, and nutrient removal. Other functionsprovided by wetlands include storm water control,which can be important where surrounding areas arepaved, and shoreline stabilization.

Recent water quality improvements in theHarbor/Bight have alleviated some of the chronicimpairments to aquatic habitats. Contaminants insome bottom sediments, however, are still a majorconcern. In addition, chemical and oil spills remain acontinuing threat to regional habitat and waterquality.



Impaired Commercial and RecreationalFisheriesThe Harbor/Bight system continues to support viablerecreational and commercial fish populations andprovides a major outlet to hundreds of thousands ofthe sportsfishing public. Today there remains a verylarge and active recreational fishery and party-charterboat fishery in Raritan Bay, Jamaica Bay, Sandy HookBay, the Navesink River, and Shrewsbury River forsuch species as striped bass, bluefish, fluke, andwinter flounder. However, available information oncommercial fishery landings shows a distinct declinein the abundance of fish and shellfish in the past 100years. In colonial times, tens of thousands ofbushels of oysters were collected per year, providinga staple food item for regional residents. Today, nocommercial quantities exist. Atlantic sturgeon wasonce so abundant that it earned the title "Albanybeef". Today there is only a modest commercialfishery in the Hudson River for American shad, andthere is an even smaller commercial fishery forAtlantic sturgeon. In the Lower Bay area, commercialfisheries exist for species such as blue crab, winterflounder, menhaden, bluefish, weakfish, and baitfish.

Fisheries management in the Harbor/Bight region isunder the authority of the Atlantic States MarineFisheries Commission (in state waters) and the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (in federal oceanwaters). Commercial fishery landings in the regiondecreased from 317,000 metric tons in 1957 to72,600 metric tons in 1987. The human impacts(fishing mortality and environmental perturbation) areoften difficult to identify and sort out from naturalfactors, but both, in combination or separately, havebeen responsible for declines in various fish stocks. Since many of the commercially and recreationallyimportant species are migratory in nature and spendpart of their time outside of the Estuary, overfishingand habitat loss in the New York Bight and LongIsland Sound also affect population levels. Scientistsfrom the National Marine Fisheries Service predict thatthe inshore fishery will crash in ten years without aconcerted effort to preserve and restore coastalhabitats. Despite these losses, the Hudson Riverremains one of the few East Coast rivers thatretains viable populations of all its historic nativespecies.

In addition to declining numbers, commercial fisherieswithin the Harbor core area are restricted due to toxicand/or pathogenic contamination. New York hasclosed its commercial fishery for striped bass in theHarbor, the Hudson River, and parts of the Bight dueto concerns about PCB contamination. Commercialfishing for American eel and blue crabs is alsoprohibited due to toxic contamination in some areasof the Harbor. Recreational fishing is similarlyrestricted in the Harbor core area. Consumptionadvisories throughout the region provide warningsabout locally caught fish. The most stringentadvisories in New Jersey recommend no consumptionof 1) crabs in the Newark Bay complex, 2) stripedbass from all New Jersey tributaries to the Harbor(including those shared with New York), and 3) anyfish from the Passaic River. New York recommendsno, or limited, consumption of striped bass, Americaneel, white perch, white catfish, carp, and goldfish,and the hepatopancreas of lobsters and crabs fromthe entire tidal portion of the Hudson River, includingthe Harbor core area.

Pathogenic contamination primarily affects shellfishharvesting. Harvesting of shellfish in the Harbor fordirect consumption is prohibited, but harvesting, fordepuration or relay, is permitted in portions of theLower Bay complex and in the Shrewsbury andNavesink Rivers. Direct harvesting is permitted inocean waters.

Impaired Coastal and Terrestrial LivingResourcesCoastal bird and mammal populations have alsoseriously declined in the Harbor/Bight region. Anumber of beach-nesting birds are now classified asendangered or threatened species; yet the regionremains vital to the eventual recovery of theirpopulations. Some recovery trends are noticeable --the osprey, a fish-eating hawk, now nests in portionsof the Harbor core area where it had been absent fordecades. Ten percent of the nesting population ofthe federally endangered peregrine falcon, on the EastCoast, is located in the New York-New Jerseymetropolitan area. The Harbor Herons Complex, firstdocumented in the industrial Arthur Kill waterway inthe 1970s, has become a regionally significant heronand egret nesting rookery.



On the other hand, much of the native flora andfauna of the region has been lost or drasticallyreduced due to the loss of coastal upland habitats. The diversity and populations of both resident andmigratory species are directly related to the area andquality of available habitat.

Limited Public AccessThere are two issues associated with restricted publicaccess: physical blockage of the shoreline and privateownership of the shoreline. The need for publicaccess to the shoreline was rarely a consideration inthe early development of New York City and themetropolitan areas of New Jersey; consequently, theHarbor shoreline is dominated by industrial andcommercial uses, from shipping terminals andcommercial ports to oil terminals and heavy industrialsites. In the less developed regions of theHarbor/Bight, public access is restricted by privateownership of the shoreline. Nevertheless, accordingto Public Trust doctrine, the states hold allunderwater lands up to the tideline for the benefit ofall citizens.1

In the urban Harbor area, water access is frequentlyconstrained by the placement of fill and privatelyowned shoreline structures, such as bulkheads, piers,revetments, and pile-supported platforms over thewater. In addition, the shoreline has often been thesite for placing railroad tracks and highways.

As population expanded and maritime uses declined,the waterfront was viewed as the greatest openspace opportunity in the region, and pressure forimproved public access for fishing, boating, biking,hiking, and passive recreation increased.

Recent efforts have been taken to improve proximityand visual access, such as walkways, greenways,and expanded ferry service. Public

parkland has been created in New York City at theWorld Financial Center and at Roberto Clemente andRiverbank State Parks. In New Jersey, efforts areunderway to provide a public walkway, the HudsonWaterfront Walkway, along 18 miles of river andharborfront. Liberty State Park, an important urbanrecreational area, is a major component of theWalkway.

Direct contact with the shore and the ability tosunbathe, swim, boat, or engage in study andresearch, are limited by the lack of public lands. Evenfor shoreline areas that are technically "open to thepublic," the lack of necessary support facilities, suchas transportation access and restrooms, effectivelyrestricts public access. This problem is especiallysevere in the more densely populated portions of theHarbor core area and the larger Bight communities. Despite these constraints, both New York and NewJersey have a number of large public beach facilities,and, in fact, shore recreation is a dominantcomponent of the tourist economies of both NewJersey and Long Island. It must also be recognizedthat many areas available for additional public accessare also areas that offer opportunities to increase fishand wildlife populations and restore the regionalecosystem.

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THEIMPAIRMENTS

Pollutant LoadingsHistoric pollution, associated with human activities inthe Harbor/Bight region, has profoundly affected thecondition of the natural environment. Fishes, birds,and mammals that depend on rivers and estuaries areparticularly vulnerable to the effects of theseactivities. For example, the destruction of once-abundant oyster beds in Raritan Bay can be linked topollution and the smothering of seed beds. Pollution-induced low dissolved oxygen levels in the water canresult in fish and shellfish mortalities. Likewise,studies have shown that the prevalence of fish andshellfish diseases is generally more widespread andsevere in polluted

1 In the Harbor/Bight system, one notable exception is Jamaica Bay which is held by the



federal government for the benefit of all citizens.



waters, particularly near inshore sewage outfalls. There are breeding colonies of birds which remainvulnerable to multiple toxic stressors. Trophictransfer studies which link concentrations of toxics inthe birds with sources of toxics may clarify factorscontributing to this problem.

Recent advances in pollution controls and the closureof ocean disposal sites have improved environmentalconditions, including water quality, in theHarbor/Bight. Marine water quality improvementshave been documented, some fisheries haverebounded from previously depressed populations,recovery trends have been observed for certainendangered bird populations, and fish and shellfishdiseases declined significantly around 1973 (althoughthe reasons for this last fact are unclear). Thechallenge ahead is to maintain these improvementsand to enhance the environmental quality of theHarbor/Bight.

Of particular importance to habitat issues is thedischarge of suspended solids and sedimentation. Poorly controlled runoff can carry significantquantities of sediment that impair living conditions forestuarine resources, from the shoaling of bays andchannels and destruction of spawning areas toincreases in turbidity. Sediments may also carrycontaminants and add to dredging concerns. Implementation of storm water and non-point sourcecontrols is necessary to reduce the discharge ofsediments.

Oil and chemical spills have been an historic problem,affecting the water and habitat quality in the Harborcore area. Following a 1990 rupture of its underwaterpipeline in the Arthur Kill, which threatened aregionally significant heron rookery, and the resultingcivil and criminal lawsuits, Exxon Corporation agreedto a $15 million settlement. The involved federal,state, and local agencies are working together, as theNew York-New Jersey Harbor Spill RestorationCommittee, to oversee distribution of these and otherfuture settlement funds for actions that will remediateenvironmental damage caused by such spills.

Coastal DevelopmentDevelopment of the metropolitan region of New York

and New Jersey has resulted in enormous reductionsin the acreage and quality of natural habitats and aresulting decline in native wildlife populations in theregion. This development has also blocked coastalaccess for the majority of the citizens of the region.

The post-industrial period of today provides bothopportunities and continuing threats to the regionalecosystem. In some cases, such as the Jamaica BayWildlife Refuge in New York and Kearny Marsh in theHackensack Meadowlands of New Jersey, habitatrecovery in the urban environment is supporting thereturn of native wildlife, and these areas are vitalcomponents of a preservation and recovery strategyfor the ecosystem. Liberty State Park, a formertransport terminal and industrial/ commercial site, isanother example of the potential for natural recoveryof the inner Harbor landscape. However, asabandoned inner Harbor sites are turning wild, newsites are being developed at the outer reaches of themetropolitan area.

Land use decisions, both in the urban core and inoutlying counties, remain a critical factor to the futurewell-being of the Harbor/Bight ecosystem. It isimportant that such decisions be made based on athorough analysis of the true cost of waterfrontdevelopment. Frequently, new coastal projectsrequire massive public investment in areainfrastructure: water supply and waste disposal;roads; and utilities; as well as shore erosion projectsand damage repair after severe storms.

Shoreline and Aquatic Habitat ModificationNew York-New Jersey Harbor has close to 1,000miles of shoreline (576 miles in New York Cityalone), 75 percent of which consists of man-madestructures, such as bulkheads, rip-rap, and piers.

Shoreline construction and modifications disruptaquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Obstructions ontidal rivers reduce available habitat for fresh andsaltwater spawning fishes. Structures along theshoreline reduce public access to the coast and canreduce the migration of coastal habitats in the eventof sea level rise. Construction-related impacts, suchas loss of shallows and changes in salinity, as well asstructures, such as riprap,



bulkheads, piers, and platforms, may degrade thevalue of estuarine habitat.

Another issue of great importance is coastal erosion. Natural shorelines are subject to cyclic erosion andaccretion patterns depending on the prevailingcurrents, littoral drift, storms, and sea level changes. This changing shoreline is integral to the maintenanceof coastal habitat diversity. Construction or aquatichabitat modification activities, within the zone ofdynamic coastal processes, may directly reducecoastal habitat and may also disrupt the process bywhich coastal habitats are maintained, affectingcoastal areas well beyond the immediate constructionsite. As buildings are threatened by waves orerosion, additional investments in shoreline structuresmay be needed, leading to greater degradation ofnatural habitats.

Alteration of Freshwater InputsThe natural mixing of freshwater with saltwater isone of the defining features of an estuary, creating anextremely productive environment for livingresources. The estuarine environment of theHarbor/Bight has been measurably affected by thehuman alteration and use of its freshwater resources. Water withdrawals from the Harbor/ Bight cause thesalt wedge of tidal rivers to extend further upstreamand the change in salinity between fresh andsaltwater to be more abrupt. Dams also preclude thenatural mixing of fresh and salt water that producesthe salinities characteristic of riverine estuaries. Coastal groundwater withdrawals may causesaltwater intrusion, upsetting established coastalfreshwater habitats and contaminating coastalgroundwater aquifers.

Human Disturbance of Natural HabitatsHuman disturbance of the habitats of native wildlifepopulations can have a significant negative effect,even if the habitat areas are adequate. In theHarbor/Bight region, coastal habitats, particularlybeaches and dunes, are among those most impactedby human activity. A number of coastal birds, suchas terns (common, roseate, and least), blackskimmer, and piping plover, are on state or federallists of endangered or threatened species. Commonthreats to all these species are

disturbances by beachgoers, their pets, andintroduced species.

OverharvestingThere are other impairments to living resources thatare not strictly associated with habitat conditions. One of these is overharvesting of available fish orwildlife stocks. Much of the recent decline in EastCoast fisheries can be attributed to overharvesting.

Insufficient/Inadequate Sites for Public AccessThe region's shoreline is largely developed withprivately owned residences or commercial facilitieswhich block public access. There is also reservednatural habitat where human intrusion would beundesirable. Initial efforts to provide public parks oropen space offer visual amenities, but few provideboat launches, fishing piers, or other facilities whichenable direct contact with the water.

THE PLAN TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS

OverviewThe Habitat and Living Resources component of theCCMP is critical to the establishment and maintenanceof a healthy and productive Harbor/Bight ecosystemwith full beneficial uses. This component of the Planhas six goals:

Ë To restore and maintain an ecosystem which

supports an optimum diversity of living resources

on a sustained basis.

Ë To preserve and restore ecologically important

habitat and open space.

Ë To encourage watershed planning to protect

habitat.

Ë To foster public awareness and appreciation of the

natural environment.

Ë To minimize erosion; to decrease soil and water

loadings of sediment and pollutants to the

Harbor/Bight.

Ë To increase public access, consistent with



maintaining the Harbor/Bight ecosystem.It is important to note that habitat and livingresources issues were not initial priorities of HEP orthe Bight Restoration Plan. The decision to includethese issues as a primary focus of the Plan wasbased on public comments received at meetings onthe Bight Restoration Plan and, later, at a coastalconference on behalf of HEP at Manhattan College,New York.

Due to this refocusing of program priorities, theanalysis of habitat and living resources has beensomewhat delayed relative to the other pollution-related environmental problems, which were identifiedearly in the planning process. As a result, this CCMPrecommends an iterative strategy for building acomprehensive plan to protect and enhance theHarbor/Bight watershed:

Ë To develop a comprehensive regional strategy toprotect the Harbor/Bight watershed for the longterm and to mitigate continuing adverse impacts ofhuman development.

HEP has conducted an analysis of existing habitat-related programs and recommends a more focusedapplication of those programs:

Ë To control point and non-point loadings of

pollutants;

Ë To manage coastal development;

Ë To manage shoreline and aquatic habitat

modification;

Ë To maintain healthy estuarine conditions by

managing freshwater inputs;

Ë To minimize human disturbance of natural habitats;

Ë To manage fish and wildlife stocks;

Ë To increase the number and quality of public access

sites consistent with other ecosystem objectives;

Ë To increase public education and involvement; and,

Ë To complete ongoing research and initiate specialstudies.

HEP is currently in the process of identifyingsignificant1 coastal habitats warranting specialprotection and developing options to preserve andrestore them. USEPA, on behalf of HEP, has enteredinto an Interagency Agreement with the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (USFWS) to use existing informationto identify habitats, summarize their conservationstatus, and present recommendations for theirpreservation and restoration. In addition, HEP hasundertaken studies to evaluate existing habitatquality, particularly in the most heavily developedportion of the Harbor core area (see Action H-10.3below). Using the results of these and futurestudies, HEP recommends special geographically-targeted efforts:

Ë To identify significant coastal habitats warranting

enhanced protection; and,

Ë To develop and implement plans to protectsignificant coastal habitats and improve waterquality.

HEP anticipates that taking steps to improve existingprograms and targeting geographic areas of the regionfor special protection will measurably benefit theregional ecosystem; however, these measures maynot be sufficiently comprehensive to ensure long-termsustainability or to redress historic insults to theecosystem.

Accordingly, HEP will assess the short-term actionsidentified in this section of the Plan to determine theirsufficiency, and recommend additional steps.

1 The use of the term "significant" to define coastalhabitats is descriptive and different from theregulatory meaning accorded to it by New York State,except where noted.

COMMITMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Comprehensive Regional Strategy



ACTION H-1.1Development of a Comprehensive Regional StrategyHEP will develop a regional strategy to protecthabitats in the Harbor/Bight watershed, includingthose identified in the USFWS report (see Action H-11.1 below).

To accomplish the following, HEP will encouragecooperative partnerships throughout the region toshare resources on a coordinated basis.

Key components of the strategy are:

-- HEP will identify regional and local habitatsrequiring special protection (see Objective H-11below).

-- The responsible resource management agencies,counties, and municipal governments will identifythe most effective means of using theirauthorities, programs, and expertise to protecthabitats and living resources.

-- The strategy will recommend modifications toauthorities and programs, as appropriate.

-- HEP will build on existing programs to developthe comprehensive regional strategy. Forexample, the New Jersey Landscape Project hasthree phases to protect rare species populations: 1) mapping; 2) coordination of land managementagencies; and 3) coordination of land useregulation and planning (see Action H-11.2below).

-- HEP will coordinate with the New York-NewJersey Harbor Spill Restoration Committee NaturalResources Restoration Plan for Oil and ChemicalReleases in the New York-New Jersey HarborEstuary, and other natural resources damages

accounts as appropriate.-- HEP will identify the need for additional

geographically-targeted sub-planning (see ActionH-12.2 below).

-- In developing the regional strategy, HEP will workclosely with local governments and grassrootsorganizations in the region through the watershedplanning coordinating subcommittee of theHabitat Work Group (see Action H-1.2 below).

ACTION H-1.2Outreach and Technology Transfer for WatershedPlanning and Habitat ConservationHEP and NJDEP will actively foster, through variousspecific activities, the transfer of information andtools which will enhance and encourage watershedplanning and habitat conservation throughout theregion. HEP will work through county and localgovernments and grassroots organizations in theseefforts. HEP will establish a watershed planningcoordinating subcommittee of the Habitat WorkGroup to coordinate actions at the local governmentand grassroots levels. HEP's activities will servethe dual purposes of:

-- Fostering the exchange of information onsuccessful local planning and conservation toolsto other areas, and incorporating these tools intothe Comprehensive Regional Strategy (Action H-1.1).

-- Fostering a regional watershed perspective in localplanning to protect Harbor/Bight habitats fromunplanned and fiscally or environmentally unwisedevelopment.

Specific activities may include, but are not limitedto:

Conduct regional and watershed workshops andmeetings for information exchange. For example,in connection with the "Habitat Options Guide"(see Action H-9.1 below), results of HEP studieswill be shared, such as the USFWS significantcoastal habitats report (see Action H-11.1 below)and the piers and platforms study (see Action H-10.3 below), as well as NJDEP's LandscapeProject (see Action H-11.2 below).

OBJECTIVE H-1 Develop a comprehensiveregional strategy to protect theHarbor/Bight watershed and tomitigate continuing adverse human-induced effects



-- Enlist services of city and/or county governmentsto bring regional planning to the local levelthrough grants and other incentives (see ActionH-2.5 below).

-- Encourage and develop pilot projects forintegrated watershed planning (see Actions H-2.1and H-2.2 below).

-- Develop a long term data management strategy(see Objective M-4 below) by consideringestablishment of one or more coordinated regionalinformation management and data resourcecenters for habitat and other environmentalinformation.

ACTION H-1.3Implementation AgreementsUpon completion of the Comprehensive RegionalStrategy and its endorsement by the ManagementConference, HEP will seek establishment ofmemoranda of understanding, or other formalmechanisms, among federal natural resourceagencies, states, and county and municipalgovernments, to implement the recommendations,to the extent legally permissible and appropriate.

Focused Application of Existing Programs

The sections of the Plan on the management oftoxic contamination, dredged material, pathogencontamination, floatable debris, nutrients andorganic enrichment, and rainfall-induced dischargespresent numerous commitments to control pollutantinputs to the Harbor/Bight system. These actionsto control pollutant inputs will improve conditionsby enhancing water quality and fostering the overallhealth of the regional coastal ecosystem. Thisobjective expands the pollution reduction actions byaddressing human-induced increases in turbidity andsedimentation in the Harbor and Bight. Thisobjective also includes an emphasis on utilizingnatural drainage features and functions, rather thanmore expensive sewer infrastructure, to ensure that

surface water runoff associated with development isminimized.

ACTION H-2.1New Jersey Sediment Control Pilot Project --Whippany RiverAs part of a joint strategic plan, USEPA and NJDEPhave agreed to implement programs for the controlof non-point source runoff in several Harbor/Bightwatersheds impacted by non-point source pollution(see Actions NPS-1.1 and 1.2 below). One suchwatershed in the Harbor drainage area is theWhippany River, a tributary of the upper PassaicRiver located in Morris County, NJ. NJDEP willsupplement this program to address sedimentexport. HEP supports this effort as a potentialmodel for additional projects elsewhere in theHarbor/Bight region.

-- NJDEP will develop a pilot project to minimize theexport of sediment from the Whippany RiverBasin to the Harbor Estuary.

ACTION H-2.2New York Sediment Control Pilot ProjectNew York State is also in the process of developinga pilot project for non-point source pollution controlwithin the Harbor/Bight watershed.

-- NYSDEC will select, develop, and implement apilot project to minimize sediment export from asub-watershed of the Hudson River or in thewatersheds in the Bronx draining to the Harbor.

ACTION H-2.3Basin-Wide ProgramHEP, building upon the state pilot projects andprograms, will develop a targeted basin-wideprogram to minimize sediment export to the HarborEstuary.

OBJECTIVE H-2 Control point and non-pointloadings of pollutants



ACTION H-2.4Staten Island Watershed ActionsSouthern Staten Island, the least developed area ofNew York City, is also the largest area of the Citythat is unsewered. New York City is implementinga strategy that will utilize and preserve existingdrainage features to reduce the need for expensivesewer infrastructure. HEP supports this lowtechnology, moderate cost approach to watershedprotection and runoff control.

-- NYCDEP will invest in stream corridor andwetland acquisitions and other watershedprotection actions in the Staten Island Bluebelt, inconjunction with limited storm sewerinfrastructure. This action supports theincorporation of natural systems into traditionalinfrastructure programs.

ACTION H-2.5Local Watershed Planning to Limit Surface WaterRunoff associated with Development

-- HEP will seek funding to encourage city andcounty governments across the region to bringregional watershed planning to the local levelthrough grants and other incentives.

-- Regional Environmental Planning Councils inMonmouth County, New Jersey, which havebeen established on a watershed basis, arecoordinating with individual local governments toensure that surface water runoff associated withnew development is minimized. (NJDEP hasprovided $100,000 in base program funding toMonmouth County for its watershed managementplanning.)

ACTION H-2.6Non-structural, Low Technology, and LowMaintenance Means to ReduceRunoff and Pollutant InputsHEP encourages the use of non-structural, lowtechnology, and low maintenance means to reducerunoff and pollutant inputs associated withenvironmentally responsible development, pollutionabatement (e.g., CSO and storm water abatement),

and remediation (e.g., landfill closure). Suchprojects should emphasize the use of naturalfeatures and systems. HEP, acting through theHabitat Work Group, will encourage, develop, andseek funding for appropriate projects. For example:

-- HEP will encourage projects through ongoingtechnology transfer and outreach activities (seeAction H-1.2).

-- HEP will develop and seek funding for a programof pilot studies for nitrogen reduction throughinnovative means (see Action N-3.6 below).

-- HEP will encourage projects recommended undergeographic plans which currently exist or areunder development (see Objective H-12 below).

-- HEP will encourage efforts in connection with theHarlem River Restoration.

The current regulatory mechanism to controldevelopment in coastal regions is the federal CoastalZone Management Program, which in New Yorkand New Jersey is administered by the states. Acomplementary program is the Coastal Non-pointPollution Program. New York State has establisheda two-tiered boundary for the coastal non-pointprogram: the coast boundary is the first tier; thesecond tier is the watershed area, wherecoterminous. New Jersey administers its CoastalZone Management Program through separateregulatory vehicles that cover the highly developedmetropolitan area coastline and the less developedbay and ocean shores. These programs are thebasis for better coastal zone management,ecosystem protection, and the achievement ofdevelopment/ redevelopment needs.

ACTION H-3.1Regional Coastal Development Plans and ProgramsThe states will develop and utilize regional coastalmanagement plans and programs to manage coastaldevelopment.

-- NYSDOS, in cooperation with local governments,will develop regional coastal management plans

for New York City and for Long Island's southshore.

OBJECTIVE H-3 Manage coastaldevelopment



-- NJDEP will continue administering its coastal zoneprogram through a number of regulatoryauthorities:$ Coastal Area Facilities Review Act (CAFRA) in

the outer coast and bay shores fromMonmouth through Cape May Counties

$ Waterfront Development Law$ Wetlands Act of 1970$ Hackensack Meadowlands Development

Commission's Special Area Management Plan(SAMP)

-- NYSDOS and NJDEP will coordinate with otherongoing planning efforts, such as the NewJersey State Development and RedevelopmentPlan and the New York City ComprehensiveWaterfront Plan, to steer development andredevelopment toward areas with existingadequate infrastructure, and to promoteconservation of the region's natural resources.

-- Under the authority of Section 309 of the CleanAir Act, which establishes the Clean WatersProgram, USEPA will take into account HEPissues as part of its responsibility to comment onthe environmental impacts of any federal actionwithin the Harbor/Bight area.

ACTION H-3.2Special Protection of Habitats through ConsistencyReviewsNYSDOS, NYSDEC, and NJDEP will ensure thatcoastal habitats are afforded protection through theconsistency review process of the Coastal ZoneManagement Program.

-- NYSDOS has established regulatory designationsof Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitatsand will update them in coordination with theapplicable local waterfront revitalization program(see Action H-11.5 below).

-- NJDEP has identified areas which are affordedspecial protection and is developing a proposal touse the designations in the New Jersey StateDevelopment and Redevelopment Plan in theconsistency review process; NJDEP will update

site designations as appropriate (see Action H-11.5 below).

ACTION H-3.3Comprehensive PlanningThe state Coastal Zone Management Programs willencourage and support local comprehensive plansfor habitat protection, along with zoning codes toenforce them.

-- With support from NYSDOS, New York City isredrafting its Waterfront Revitalization Program tomake its policies reflect the priorities of the NewYork City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan(1992). This will be a regional coastalmanagement program that will recognize localcharacteristics and habitat concentrations of theNew York City region.

ACTION H-3.4Regional CooperationHEP, through the watershed planning coordinatingsubcommittee, will identify projects and issuesrequiring regional cooperation and will facilitate that

cooperation (see Action H-1.2).

Human activities are directly responsible forshoreline and aquatic habitat modifications anddegradation of important upland habitats. Suchactivities are regulated by both federal and statelegislation, as well as by local zoning and codes.One of the most important federal programs thatprotects shoreline and aquatic habitats is Section404 of the Clean Water Act, which regulatesdisposal of dredged and fill material in "waters ofthe U.S."

A significant emerging issue, with continueddevelopment pressure on the shoreline of theHarbor, concerns the use of pile-supportedstructures. Developers are proposing to erect

buildings on existing or newly created pilefields, because of the resistance by regulators to permit

OBJECTIVE H-4 Manage shoreline andaquatic habitat modifications



further landfilling of underwater lands. HEP haspartially funded a research study to evaluate habitatconditions of piers, pile fields, and pile-supportedplatform structures in the urbanized Hudson Riverwaterfront. HEP recommends that federal, state,and local government regulatory agencies use theresults of this study to improve habitatmanagement (see Action H-10.3 below).

ACTION H-4.1Memoranda of Agreement on the Tidal andFreshwater Wetlands ProgramsThe responsible state and federal agencies will, aslegally permissible and appropriate, developMemoranda of Agreement to coordinatesurveillance, inspection, permitting, andenforcement activities for regulated wetlands andupland areas.

ACTION H-4.2Freshwater WetlandsThe states should ensure that proposed actionsinvolving less than one acre of fill receive individualagency review.

-- HEP recommends that NYSDEC evaluate the needfor, the environmental significance of, andworkload associated with water qualitycertification for freshwater wetland fill projectsaffecting less than one acre and identify actionsnecessary to protect them.

-- NYSDEC, in order to permit regulatory protectionof wetlands through the water quality certificationprocess, will consider development of waterquality standards for wetlands.

-- Through its Hudson River Estuary ManagementProgram, NYSDEC will analyze wetland regulatoryprograms to improve protection of Hudson Riverwetlands and shallow water habitat, and toidentify gaps in statutory protection. Part of theanalysis will examine more comprehensiveprotection to Hudson River wetlands byextending the reach of the

state's tidal wetlands program to the entiretidal portion of the Hudson River (to the Troy

Lock and Dam).

-- Through its delegated freshwater permitsprogram, NJDEP will individually review generalpermit applications for projects that affect lessthan one acre of non-tidal wetlands.

-- HEP recommends that New York State amend itsFreshwater Wetlands Law to require permits forwetlands less than 12.4 acres. Presently, onlylocally significant freshwater wetlands less than12.4 acres, in addition to all wetlands greaterthan 12.4 acres, are protected under this law.

ACTION H-4.3Designation of Regulatory Buffer ZonesWetlands and other aquatic habitats can beadversely affected by human activities even whenthose activities take place above the upland borderof the wetland. Accordingly, the followingcommitments recognize the need to regulateactivities within the upland zone immediatelyadjacent to wetland edges.

-- When NYSDEC next proposes changes to tidalwetlands land use regulations, the issue of thedefinition of "adjacent area" (i.e., regulatoryboundary, setback requirement) will beconsidered. Current regulations prohibitstructures within 30 feet of the shoreline within aregulatory boundary of 150 feet within New YorkCity, and a setback of 75 feet for structureswithin a 300-foot regulatory boundary in the restof the marine district.

-- NYSDEC will consider expanding the scope of thestate's regulatory authority to issue water qualitycertificates to include all projects adjacent towetlands or those that exceed a minimum size. Currently activities beyond state jurisdiction, suchas in previously built-up shoreline areas, areexempted from water quality certification.

New Jersey will use its existing authority toregulate development adjacent to wetlands within

the Harbor Estuary. The buffer will vary dependingon the classification of the wetlands and theproximity to tidal waters. NJDEP will explorechanges in statutory authority to regulate buffersadjacent to watercourses. The intent would be to



prohibit development in the buffer zone of awetland unless it can be demonstrated that theproposed development will not have a significantadverse impact, and that it will cause minimumfeasible adverse impact on the wetland.

ACTION H-4.4Net Increase in Aquatic HabitatHEP, acting through participating agencies, will seekto ensure that relevant actions, in the aggregate,result in a net increase in both quality and quantityof aquatic habitat within the Harbor/Bight, includingupland buffer areas.

Special emphasis will be placed on key habitattypes, such as submerged aquatic vegetation. Thispolicy will be implemented through actions identifiedunder Objective H-12 below.

-- New York State will increase the quantity andquality of tidal wetland resources and, whenfeasible and desirable, its freshwater wetlandresources. New York State will also explore apolicy for enhanced protection of all other marineand estuarine habitats.

-- New Jersey will work to ensure that actionsimpacting habitat in the Harbor core area, in theaggregate, result in a net increase in the acreageand quality of aquatic habitat where feasible andappropriate.

-- HEP and the participating agencies will examineopportunities to increase habitat and habitatvalue. One means to implement this action isthrough Section 1135 of the Water ResourcesDevelopment Act of 1986 (see discussion onpage 45), in which the USACE can study andimplement habitat restoration measures in areaspreviously impacted by water resources projects. Another means is through the beneficial use of

clean dredged material.

Preservation of estuarine habitat requiresmaintenance of adequate freshwater flows tocoastal waters.

ACTION H-5.1Freshwater Withdrawal ControlsTo protect estuaries, HEP recommends that thestates recognize the impacts that upstreamfreshwater withdrawals, and other hydrologicchanges, may have on salinity levels and considerthese impacts in the states' water supply andwastewater planning processes.

ACTION H-5.2Water Conservation StrategiesState and local authorities will develop andimplement water conservation strategies ascomponents of their water supply programs, tomaintain the adequacy of their water supplies, tokeep wastewater flows within the capacity ofoperating treatment plants, and to reduce or delaythe need for additional projects that may impact

estuaries.-- New York City initiated a water conservation

program in 1986, which, to date, has reducedcitywide demand by 110 million gallons per day.

-- Since 1981, NJDEP has implemented a waterconservation program.

Habitat impairment caused by overuse and abuse offragile coastal dunes and wetlands is generally notnoticed by an uneducated public. Environmental

education opportunities, however, are limited by alack of public access to the water's edge. Coastalshorebird populations are particularly vulnerable todisturbance by beachgoers, beach vehicles, andrecreational boaters. Unfortunately, the humanpopulation density of the region and the demand foropen space and recreational pursuits create conflictsin satisfying requirements for new accessopportunities (see Objective H-8 below) andprotection of natural habitat areas. HEP supports

OBJECTIVE H-5 Maintain healthy estuarineconditions by managing freshwaterinputs

OBJECTIVE H-6 Minimize human disturbanceof natural habitats



efforts to retain sufficient habitat areas free ofhuman disturbance to perpetuate viable populationsof coastal species, emphasizing protection for thoserecognized as threatened, endangered, or of specialconcern. HEP will promote a balance of competinginterests for the overall good of the general publicand the natural ecosystem.

ACTION H-6.1Workshops on Protection of Habitat ValuesHEP will sponsor workshops on the protection ofhabitat values for federal, state, and local landmanagement agencies, other appropriate agencies,and other large land owners, that administer parks,beaches, and other open space lands. Theworkshops will develop mechanisms to assist thesemanagers in protecting habitat values.

ACTION H-6.2Protection for Beach-nesting and Coastal SpeciesResponsible federal, state, and local authorities areengaged in efforts to minimize human disturbanceto beach-nesting and coastal species which appearon federal and state endangered and threatenedspecies lists. The majority of these effortsconcentrate on birds, and HEP recommends thatthese efforts extend to other species, includingturtles and plants, wherever possible. Theseprograms are especially important when the habitatareas are close to active recreation or planned publicaccess improvements. HEP recommends continuedand expanded funding for these efforts and closercoordination between agencies providing publicaccess and those seeking to protect habitat andnatural resources.

-- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S.National Park Service of the Department of theInterior, and the National Marine Fisheries Serviceof the Department of Commerce, directly and incooperation with local and state agencies, willcontinue to monitor and protect sensitive coastalwildlife populations.

-- USACE, in performing shoreline protection, beachrenourishment, or inlet dredging projects, willcooperate with other agencies and localconservation groups to incorporate coastal habitatenhancements wherever possible.

-- NJDEP, in cooperation with The Nature

Conservancy and the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, is expanding piping plover protectionwith funds from a natural resources damagesaccount, and will: continue to support beach-nesting bird colonies along the ocean shore fromSandy Hook to Cape May, New Jersey; monitorand manage osprey and peregrine falcon nests; and conduct a five year inventory of colonialwaterbird (e.g., herons, egrets, gulls, and terns)breeding locations.

-- NYSDEC will continue to monitor coastalendangered species populations in themetropolitan area to ensure their continuedviability. An inventory of colonial waterbirdbreeding locations has been completed.

-- Within New York City, the City Department ofParks and Recreation and the U.S. National ParkService maintain programs to protect beach-nesting piping plovers. The Park Service alsomonitors and manages osprey nests. NYCDEP,in cooperation with NYSDEC, monitors andmanages peregrine falcon nests.

ACTION H-6.3Educational Efforts to Reduce Human Disturbanceto Coastal SpeciesHEP encourages appropriate state, local, and privatesponsors to implement programs to educate thegeneral public with regard to reducing humandisturbance to sensitive coastal species.

-- NYSDEC, in partnership with the Aquarium forWildlife Conservation (Coney Island Aquarium),will conduct its "Tidal Wetlands EducationCourse", a course to educate violators of theNew York State Tidal Wetlands Law on how tominimize adverse impacts to coastal resources,and explore expansion of the course to includeshorefront owners, local municipalities, students,and other interested groups.

-- NYSDEC and the YMCA will fund the Aquariumto conduct this course for children.

The Aquarium will seek additional funding to expandthe course.

-- HEP will encourage additional efforts by state,local, and private sponsors to promote publiceducation with regard to reducing humandisturbance to sensitive coastal species.



A number of federal and state agencies have a basicauthority to manage species populations andhabitats. In addition, efforts have been undertakento coordinate species management on a regional andnational scale.

ACTION H-7.1Biodiversity InitiativesNew York State has established the BiodiversityResearch Institute, jointly run by the Departmentsof Environmental Conservation and Education andthe Office of Parks, Recreation, and HistoricalPreservation. Funded through the State'sEnvironmental Protection Fund, the Institute'sprimary activity is the development of a statewidedatabase for fish and wildlife populations(coordinated by the Natural Heritage Program),including establishment of an entomologicalclearinghouse, protection of state-ownedunder(fresh)water lands, and identification ofspecies and groups of organisms which may act asindicators of environmental quality. The Institutewill also prepare a computer-based inventory of 1)scientists knowledgeable about New York'sbiological resources and 2) collections of biologicalspecimens located around the state.

ACTION H-7.2Fisheries Management PlansAppropriate agencies will comply with and adoptfisheries management plans.

-- The States of New York and New Jersey willmaintain full compliance with fisheriesmanagement plans approved by the AtlanticStates Marine Fisheries Commission.

-- The States of New York and New Jersey will

implement fishery management measures whichare compatible with applicable provisions offederal Fishery Management Plans prepared byregional Fishery Management Councils andapproved by the U.S. Department of Commerce.

ACTION H-7.3Restoration of Anadromous Fishery HabitatHEP has provided partial funding to the New York-New Jersey Harbor Baykeeper (American LittoralSociety) in support of a project to restore andimprove habitat in the Harbor core area foranadromous herring species. In cooperation withcommunity groups and volunteers, the Baykeeperconducted debris removal from banks and channels,in areas including several small tidal tributaries tothe Arthur Kill. This effort helped reduceobstructions to anadromous fish and to foster bankstabilization and revegetation for improved riparianhabitat. No heavy equipment was used during theoperation. Involvement by local residents helped toeducate them about the environmental resources intheir communities, the threats to those resources,and the public health issues related to contaminantsin the environment. The Baykeeper will continueproject activities as funding sources are found. Thehabitat improvement measures will be monitored,and follow up activities will include dam bypassesand fish stocking, or "herring heaves", to carrymigrating fish past physical obstructions.

-- HEP will continue to support efforts to restore theanadromous fishery (including habitats andabundance) to Harbor/Bight tributary rivers andstreams. In so doing, HEP will ensure that publichealth risks associated with exposure tocontaminants are minimized.

ACTION H-7.4Implementation of the North American WaterfowlManagement Plan

HEP supports the continuing implementation of theNorth American Waterfowl Management Plan toenhance and protect high quality wetland habitat inNorth America that supports a variety of wetland-dependent and recreational uses. The plan is abroad policy framework that identifies problems

facing waterfowl populations, sets generalguidelines for addressing problems, and establishespopulation and habitat goals for waterfowl in NorthAmerica. The plan is a partnership effort based onthe joint venture concept including private, local,state, and federal interests.

OBJECTIVE H-7 Preserve and improve fish,wildlife, and plant populations andbiodiversity



-- New York State has made it a top priority toimplement the Long Island South Shore FocusArea Plan, a component of the North AmericanWaterfowl Management Plan.

-- NJDEP will use state waterfowl stamp programfunds to continue habitat acquisition efforts; thiswill both support the expansion of the ForsytheNational Wildlife Refuge and help meet the goalsof the North American Waterfowl ManagementPlan. A combined total of over 10,000 acres isexpected to be acquired within the next 10 yearsand various waterfowl habitat improvementprojects will be undertaken.

ACTION H-7.5Natural Resources Inventory Funding

-- States will maintain funding levels for theirNatural Heritage Programs to documentoccurrences of sensitive species in the region, aswell as habitats that are vital to their continuedsurvival.

-- HEP will investigate opportunities to enhanceother ongoing programs and will encourageNatural Heritage Programs to include greatercoverage of marine systems and species.

ACTION H-7.6Agency Regulatory Reviews

-- Federal agencies and New York State willconsider species and habitats recognized assignificant by HEP (e.g., in the USFWS report,Species of Special Emphasis in the New YorkBight Region), in agency regulatory reviews (seeAction H-11.1 below).

-- NJDEP will consider species and habitatsrecognized as significant by HEP (e.g., in theUSFWS report, Species of Special Emphasis inthe New York Bight Region), in agency regulatory

reviews, to the extent legally permissible andappropriate.

ACTION H-7.7Implementation of Artificial Reef ProgramsConstruction of artificial reefs along the generallysandy bottom of the Atlantic Ocean off Long Islandand New Jersey can enhance regional marinehabitat. Reefs can be created by strategicplacement of sunken ships and barges, large rockrubble, concrete blocks, or other types of cleanconstruction material on the ocean bottom. Reefscan provide shelter for many marine fish and mobileinvertebrates, and the hard surfaces of the sunkenstructures provide attachment points for a varietyof sessile organisms. Reefs also increaseopportunities for fishing, a regionally importantrecreational activity, and provide sites for scubadiving. Both states currently have active artificialreef programs. HEP does not recognize artificialreefs as a means of waste management.

-- New Jersey, during the last 11 years, hasestablished a network of 14 reef sites, evenlyspaced along the coast, over 23.7 square milesof sea floor. This program is supported by twonon-profit organizations, the Artificial ReefAssociation and the Sportfish Fund. Three newreef sites were planned for 1994, at BarnegatLight Reef, Great Egg Reef, and Wildwood Reef.

-- Since 1993, USACE, at the request of NJDEP,has diverted blasted rock, created during theconstruction of deeper navigation channels in theKill Van Kull and Newark Bay, to an artificial reefsite off Sea Bright, New Jersey. This action notonly has produced valuable habitat at no addedcost, but it also has provided for beneficial use ofdredged material that would otherwise have beenprogrammed for ocean disposal.

-- New York State, in its Plan for the Developmentand Management of Artificial Reefs in New York'sMarine and Coastal District, will seek funding todevelop new artificial reefs in appropriate areas ofNew York waters to increase fishingopportunities. Plans have been developed toconstruct reefs in the Atlantic Ocean off Cholera

Bank, Shinnecock Inlet, Jones Inlet, and GreatSouth Bay to supplement existing reefs in sevenareas.

Note that, in addition to the above programs,NJDEP is implementing a plan for the protectionof rare species in New Jersey, known as theLandscape Project (see Action H-11.2 below).



There is a public demand for open spaceopportunities along the coastline. Providing publicaccess can meet this need while building aconstituency for enhanced protection of naturalhabitat and species populations. But these benefitswill not be forthcoming unless access to the shoreis coupled with the right kind of space toaccommodate different uses: places to fish, placesto swim, places close to wildlife habitat forobservation, safe places for boating includingsupport facilities, and places to walk along thewater. HEP recognizes that access must not be anafterthought. People must be able to enjoy andappreciate a cleaned up estuary for there to becontinuing support for further investments toimprove water quality and coastal habitats. HEPsupports maintaining a balance between the needsand opportunities for public access and therequirements for sustaining living resources.

Special planning efforts are necessary to require allnew development to provide public access and toensure implementation of permit requirements,public guides, and improved opportunities onexisting sites. Both states' coastal programs makepublic access a priority and encourage localities toincorporate public access into building and zoningcodes.

ACTION H-8.1Public Access ImprovementsHEP recommends that federal, state, county, andmunicipal governments ensure improved publicaccess to Harbor/Bight waters by:

-- Fully implementing existing projects, including:

$ Hudson River Greenway

$ Hudson Waterfront Walkway

$ NYC Greenway Plan

$ NYSDEC Hudson River Access Plan

$ NYSDEC Marine Recreational Fishing Access

Plan

$ Greenways to the Arthur Kill

$ Hackensack Meadowlands public walkway;

-- Employing the Intermodal Surface Transportation

Efficiency Act (ISTEA) program to fund public

access improvements (see Action SW-1.5

below);

-- Identifying additional projects, including the Bight,

as necessary;

-- Enhancing enforcement of existing regulatory

programs; and

-- Encouraging grass roots work projects (e.g.,through the Youth Corps).

ACTION H-8.2Public Access GuidesHEP recommends that the states develop user-friendly public access guides for the majorcomponents of the Harbor/Bight system.

-- NJDEP, with partial funding from USEPA, hasdeveloped a public access guide for the HudsonWaterfront Walkway, a proposed 18-mile publicaccessway along New Jersey's Hudson Riverwaterfront from Fort Lee to Bayonne.

-- HEP recommends that the States of New Yorkand New Jersey develop additional guides asnecessary.

OBJECTIVE H-8 Increase public accessconsistent with other ecosystemobjectives



ACTION H-8.3Public Access InfrastructureHEP recommends that state, regional, and localauthorities develop and maintain the supportfacilities necessary to promote public access intargeted areas. New York City's Greenway Planproposes to increase public use of the waterfrontthrough development of a series of inter-connectingbicycle and pedestrian paths in all five Cityboroughs.

ACTION H-8.4Waterfront Zoning RegulationsNew York City will implement waterfront zoningregulations mandating public access via waterfrontpaths and upland connections in new residential andcommercial development, in addition to viewcorridors for visual access to the waterfront.

Public education is important to habitat protectionbecause it provides an understanding of the humanlink to the regional ecosystem and theresponsibilities that people have for maintaining thatecosystem. In many cases, the public has activelypromoted wise stewardship of living resources andis seeking constructive opportunities for personalinvolvement. HEP supports efforts to fulfill theseneeds.

ACTION H-9.1Habitat Options Guide

-- HEP will develop and distribute a "Habitat Options

Guide," prepared by the Habitat Work Group,

which is designed to facilitate the consideration of

habitat values within the framework of local

government and private land use decisions. This

non-regulatory approach will complement

regulatory programs to protect, maintain, and

enhance environmental values across the region.

(Note: HEP will seek additional funds to assist

production and distribution of the Guide).

-- HEP will hold workshops to ensure widespreadexposure to the principles in the Habitat OptionsGuide, in conjunction with habitat valueworkshops.

ACTION H-9.2Support for Habitat Laws and ProgramsHEP recommends that appropriate agencies educatepotential users and the general public on theimpacts of lifestyle on habitat and living resources,as well as the availability of habitat information. HEP will encourage agencies to:

-- Enlist advocacy and local user groups, and

educational institutions, to develop new habitat

protection education programs. Topics should

include wetlands values and functions, as well as

shoreline values and shoreline dynamics.

-- Initiate and support ongoing pilot programs, suchas those conducted by the Youth ConservationCorps, to conduct habitat enhancement orrestoration activities and to focus efforts onwatershed-scale approaches to conservebiodiversity.

-- Support the enforcement potential of citizenhabitat "watchdog" groups.

ACTION H-9.3Education ProgramsHEP recommends that state and local authorities,with federal support through environmentaleducation grants, encourage the integration ofeducational materials and opportunities into schoolprograms at all levels.

ACTION H-9.4New York City Environmental FundIn 1994, through a negotiated settlement ofenvironmental violations with the ConsolidatedEdison Utility Company, NYSDEC established aNew York City Environmental Fund in cooperationwith the Hudson River Foundation (HRF).

OBJECTIVE H-9 Increase public education,stewardship, and involvement onissues related to management ofhabitat and living resources



-- NYSDEC, in cooperation with HRF, will use thefund to provide grants to a wide range ofcommunity, educational, and volunteerorganizations, to support environmentalrestoration, cleanup, education, interpretation,and related projects in New York City andWestchester County.

ACTION H-9.5Availability of Habitat ReportGiven sufficient funds for production, HEP willprovide copies of the USFWS report on regionallysignificant coastal habitats (see Action H-11.1below) to libraries, local planners, and other interestgroups in the Harbor/Bight region.

The CCMP contains recommendations andcommitments to maintain, preserve, and restorehabitat and living resources based on our currentunderstanding and knowledge of the regionalecosystem. At the same time, HEP recognizes thatthis understanding is incomplete and must besupplemented by additional studies. Continuedinventory and monitoring efforts will serve as acritical link to allow for an adaptive managementapproach to habitat improvement.

ACTION H-10.1Identification of Significant Coastal HabitatsGiven additional funding, HEP, acting throughfederal natural resources agencies and the states,and in partnership with local stewardship groups,will conduct field studies and producedocumentation to develop a more comprehensiverecord of significant coastal habitats throughout theHarbor/Bight region. For example, in New Jerseythis effort may enhance the Landscape Project (seeAction H-11.2 below).

ACTION H-10.2Continuation of Studies on Aquatic and CoastalHabitat ValuesFederal and state agencies should fully evaluate datagaps on the value of the existing aquatic and

coastal habitats in the Harbor/Bight system andconduct additional studies accordingly. The studieswould be used to:

-- Identify habitat types warranting special

protection and restoration.

-- Refine and augment the HEP-funded report on

significant coastal habitats (see Action H-11.1

below).

-- Identify priority sites for restoration and

acquisition.

-- Evaluate enhancement and restoration

technologies.

-- Estimate the cumulative impacts of individual projects on the quantity and quality of existinghabitats.

ACTION H-10.3Piers and Platforms StudyAfter years of sporadic studies, scientists still donot fully understand the effects of pile-supportedstructures on the value of the habitat in the Harbor. HEP and NYSDEC collaborated with HRF, NMFS,and Rutgers University to fund a research study todetermine the effects of pile-supported structureson the growth and survival of recently settled (i.e.,juvenile) fishes, along the developed Hudson Rivershoreline. A two year study was conducted thatincluded both fish trapping and holding fish in cagedenclosures to analyze growth. Results from thetrapping study helped provide a synoptic picture ofhabitat use at the selected sites; growth studiesreflected variability in habitat quality. Thoughanalysis is continuing, preliminary findings indicatethat underpier areas provide poor habitat for juvenilewinter flounder and tautog, specifically, andprobably for most benthic fish, in general.

-- HEP will convene a work group, consisting (at aminimum) of federal, state, county, and municipalagencies that have the authority to controlshoreline development, to developrecommendations to identify appropriateregulatory tools to manage habitat.

OBJECTIVE H-10 Complete ongoing researchand initiate special studies onhabitat issues



-- USACE plans to extend this study to examinefish and wildlife use of abandoned anddeteriorated structures, including pile fields andship/barge "graveyards". The study will examinethe use and mitigation needs of areas in theArthur Kill and Kill Van Kull slated for potentialdrift removal or stabilization under the HarborDrift Removal Program.

-- HEP recommends appropriate follow up researchto assess more fully the effects of piers,platforms, and pile fields on habitat quality.

ACTION H-10.4Assessment of Past Restoration EffortsHEP will review the success of past habitatrestoration efforts in the Harbor/Bight system inorder to develop appropriate criteria and protocolsfor the selection of new projects -- with a maximumlikelihood of success.

ACTION H-10.5Investigation on Restoring Flood Plains and ErosionAreasFederal and state authorities should examineopportunities to restore natural flood plains, coastalerosion hazard areas, and other natural features andfunctions that have been degraded by previousdevelopment. Federal actions will be guided, inpart, by Executive Order 11988, FloodplainManagement (May 24, 1977), which chargesfederal agencies to: 1) avoid floodplaindevelopment where practicable; 2) reduce floodhazards; 3) minimize flood impacts on humanwelfare; and 4) restore and preserve natural valuesof floodplains.

-- Consistent with the New York State Governor'sTask Force Report, NYS will, given adequatefunding, identify feasible opportunities andevaluate the cost effectiveness of buying outhomeowners in disaster prone areas.

-- New Jersey will update its existing shoreprotection master plan that addresses therestoration of flood plains and coastal erosionhazard areas.

-- NYSDOS and USACE will implement a physical

coastal erosion monitoring program for the south

shore of Long Island (from Montauk Point to

Coney Island) primarily, and, secondarily, along

Long Island Sound and the south shore of Staten

Island.

-- USACE, in cooperation with local sponsors, willcontinue to execute its responsibility regardingbeach erosion projects, including an assessmentof the habitat impacts of such projects, withappropriate remedial measures.

ACTION H-10.6GIS Inventory of HabitatsBuilding on existing efforts, HEP recommends thatfederal and state agencies develop a GeographicInformation System (GIS)-based inventory ofHarbor/Bight habitats to aid in managementplanning. The USFWS coastal habitat inventoryfunded by HEP (see Action H-11.1 below) will bethe basis for the development of a GIS-basedsystem.

ACTION H-10.7Turbidity and Total Suspended Solids StudiesHEP recommends studies of the effects of totalsuspended solids on water quality (e.g. clarity,transparency) and on changes in physicalcharacteristics of aquatic sites due to sedimentdeposition. These studies could be used to developstrategies to improve habitat for rooted aquaticplants that require good water clarity, to enhancehabitat value for benthic organisms by providingmore stable bottom sediments, and to produce aside benefit of reducing the sedimentation rate inareas requiring dredging. Improved water qualitymay also lead to greater algal growth; thisrelationship must be better understood.

Geographically-targeted Special Efforts

ACTION H-11.1Significant Coastal Habitat Study

OBJECTIVE H-11 Identify significant coastalhabitats warranting enhancedprotection and restoration



HEP has funded the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serviceto produce a report, based on available information,which identifies significant coastal habitatswarranting special protection, summarizes theirconservation status, and presents recommendationsfor their preservation and restoration. Thegeographic extent of the report includes the entirecoastal watershed of New Jersey and Long Islandand the lower Hudson River watershed below theTroy Lock and Dam. Interim products that havebeen completed include:

$ Species of Special Emphasis in the New YorkBight Region, a comprehensive list of speciesof special emphasis, including federal trustspecies, state species of concern, and an arrayof commercially, recreationally, or ecologicallyimportant fish, wildlife, and plant species in theproject area; and

$ a draft report on regionally significant coastalhabitats.

-- USFWS, with HEP review, will complete thereport on significant coastal habitats warrantingspecial protection.

-- HEP will supplement the USFWS report, asappropriate, through additional studies identifiedin Objective H-10, and through the New JerseyLandscape Project (see Action H-11.2 below), toimprove our understanding of habitats and thecoastal ecosystem and to focus actions for theirprotection.

ACTION H-11.2New Jersey Landscape ProjectNJDEP is implementing a plan for the protection ofrare species in New Jersey, known as theLandscape Project. This effort focuses on therelationships between organisms and theirenvironment, emphasizing the larger region, orlandscape, in which these communities occur. Although New Jersey has large parcels of publicland and strong regulatory protection, it recognizesthat there are current weaknesses in the long termpreservation of rare species that the landscapeproject must address. These include: 1)incomplete information on rare species occurrencesand habitat requirements; 2) fragmentation ofhabitats; 3) lack of coordinated land managementamong governmental agencies; and 4) lack of a

mechanism to incorporate rare species habitatprotection into local land use planning.-- NJDEP will conduct the Landscape Project in two

delineated areas, Cape May County and a smallportion of the Passaic River watershed in thenorthern Highlands region (e.g., Passaic, Morris,Somerset, Hunterdon, and Sussex Counties). NJDEP has committed $800,000 for theseefforts.

-- With additional funding, NJDEP will conductmapping and rare species surveys, coordinateland management practices, and coordinate landuse regulation and planning in the Harbor Estuaryand coastal Bight area in New Jersey.

ACTION H-11.3Inventory of Potential Habitat Restoration Projectswithin Significant Regional HabitatsHEP will, given sufficient funding, identify andinventory sites within the designated boundaries ofsignificant coastal habitats, as defined in theUSFWS report, which have physical andinstitutional characteristics which indicate thepotential for restoration of habitat values. Suchsites may include former landfills, industrial sites,and transport terminals. In developing theinventory, HEP will build on existing programsincluding state priority lists. Note: HEP and otherswill also identify and implement restoration projectsin other areas of the Harbor/Bight (see Action H-12.4 below).

ACTION H-11.4Protection of Locally Significant HabitatsAlthough HEP's focus has been on habitats ofregional significance, HEP recognizes the importanceof conserving habitats of local significance. Thereare a number of areas in the Harbor core area thatare fragments of formerly contiguous habitat areas,or that are recovering from previous intensive use. These sites may be vital to the overall Harborecosystem, either for their existing or potentialfuture values, in particular, collectively.

-- HEP will identify and inventory sites using readilyavailable information. The USFWS report and aneffort being conducted by NJDEP's Division ofFish, Game, and Wildlife (see below) are amongthe information sources expected to be useful in



this effort. Inaddition, a number of such sites were brought toHEP's attention at recent public meetings.

-- The NJDEP Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife isconducting a Wildlife Assessment and RestorationProject (NJ WARP), which is a wildlife inventoryof terrestrial and aquatic species in the bi-statetributaries of the Harbor core area. Data will begathered from a variety of sources to be enteredinto NJDEP's computerized GeographicInformation System and made available throughNJDEP's Bureau of Geographic InformationAnalysis. The information will be used in naturalresources damages assessments and may also beuseful for identifying potential restoration projectsin Harbor tributaries, such as the Rahway andWoodbridge Rivers and other Arthur Killtributaries.

-- HEP will seek opportunities to protect, enhance,and acquire such sites, using existing programs,authorities, and funding sources. This will bedone in coordination with affected state and localgovernments and local stewardship groups.

ACTION H-11.5Adjustment to Significant Habitat Designationswithin State Coastal Zone BoundariesBased on the USFWS report, and other studies ofregionally and locally significant habitat, includingthose noted above:

-- NYSDOS will adjust its designation of significantcoastal fish and wildlife habitats in the coastalzone, as necessary.

-- NJDEP will consider species and habitatsrecognized as significant by HEP (e.g., in theSignificant Coastal Habitat Study) in agencyregulatory reviews and special area designations

in the coastal zone, to the extent legallypermissible and appropriate.

There are a number of geographically-targetedefforts underway within the Harbor/Bight regionthat aim to promote coordinated and comprehensiveplanning, including the protection, acquisition, andrestoration of natural habitats. Many of theenvironmental protection goals of these planningefforts support the HEP CCMP, and offer a ready-made opportunity to implement CCMP goals andobjectives at the local and sub-regional levels. Following are descriptions of a number of theseongoing planning efforts. Note that not all aspectsof these plans have been reviewed by HEP nor havethey necessarily been endorsed by all HEPparticipants. HEP does, however, hope to build onthese efforts and foster the implementation ofaspects of the efforts which support HEP goals. Further review of these efforts, and initiation ofnew ones, will be part of HEP's continuing planningprocess.

Jamaica Bay

Jamaica Bay is the westernmost bay on the south

shore of Long Island, lying primarily within the twoNew York City boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens. Hosting a population of 2 million people within a 5-mile radius, Jamaica Bay's wetlands and openwater habitat has been reduced from 25,000 to13,000 acres, including a 75 percent loss ofwetlands. With these changes and populationimpacts, Jamaica Bay suffers from chronicallydegraded water quality. NYCDEP (with a JamaicaBay Steering Committee) has prepared a draftwatershed management plan aimed both to protect

OBJECTIVE H-12 Develop and implementplans to protect and restoresignificant coastal habitats andimpacted resources



the remaining natural habitats of the bay and toreduce structural costs for water pollutionabatement by 50 percent ($1.1 billion vs. $2.2billion for the structural alternative). Other plans forthis area which are more specifically targeted tohabitat acquisition and restoration, and which arecomplementary to the watershed management plan,are the Buffer the Bay initiative and the New YorkState Jamaica Bay Restoration Plan. New YorkState has made Jamaica Bay a priority area forenvironmental restoration. The U.S. National ParkService has significant ownership and managementresponsibility for the lands and waters of JamaicaBay pursuant to the establishment of the GatewayNational Recreation Area in 1972.

Hackensack Meadowlands

The Hackensack Meadowlands District is a 32square mile area covering portions of 14municipalities in Bergen and Hudson Counties, NewJersey. The resident population of the District isslightly over 15,000, with close to 2 million peopleliving in the immediately surrounding areas. TheMeadowlands, once an almost unbroken expanse ofcoastal wetlands, has suffered at least a 50 percentloss of those wetlands and severe alteration anddegradation of most of the remaining wetlands. However, of the remaining undeveloped areaswithin the District, approximately 8,000 acres arewetlands; these remaining wetlands are undersubstantial development pressure.

The Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) is aninteragency environmental initiative among USACE,USEPA, NOAA, HMDC, and NJDEP, which targetspollution remediation, natural resource protection,and reasonable economic growth in the District.

Harbor Herons/Greenways to the Arthur Kill

The Harbor Herons Project and the Greenways tothe Arthur Kill are two independent, but compatible,habitat management strategies for opposite sides ofthe Arthur Kill, a bi-state Harbor waterwayseparating New Jersey from Staten Island, NewYork.

The Harbor Herons Project, an effort of the Trust

for Public Lands and the New York City AudubonSociety, is named for a complex of heron nestingcolonies on three islands in the Arthur Kill. Thecolonies are supported, in part, by foraging areas inthe northwestern quadrant of Staten Island, an areacovering about 10 square miles. This habitatpreservation plan identifies existing habitatsimportant to the nesting herons and other urbanwildlife, as well as the conservation status of thosehabitats. Of particular importance are more than1,000 acres of tidal and freshwater wetlands withinthe study area. Recommendations are beingimplemented by the New York-New Jersey HarborSpill Restoration Committee. To date, 26 acres inthe vicinity of Goethals Bridge Pond, a criticalwetland area, have been acquired and salt marshesalong the Arthur Kill have been restored.

The Greenways to the Arthur Kill project,coordinated by the New Jersey ConservationFoundation, encompasses the entire New Jerseywatershed of the Arthur Kill, an area of about 130square miles, including six tributary rivers andcreeks. The watershed has 690,000 residentswhich, at a density of 5,300 per square mile, isnearly five times the density for New Jersey as awhole, the nation's most densely populated state. Although heavily developed, the watershed retains alarge amount of varied and valuable wildlife habitat,including wetlands, floodplain and swamp forests,and upland forests. Some of these habitats areprotected in county and municipal parks, but manyare fragmented pieces of an urban and suburbanlandscape.

The focus of the Greenways Plan is to protect thestream corridors for their values related to waterquality, flood prevention, natural habitat, publicrecreation, and aesthetics, all of which provideeconomic benefits to the watershed communities. Portions of this plan are also being implementedthrough the New York-New Jersey Harbor SpillRestoration Committee. Barnegat Bay

Barnegat Bay, a 75 square mile back bayecosystem, is an environmentally sensitive estuary,replete with aquatic vegetation, shellfish beds,



finfish habitats, waterfowl nesting grounds, andscenic vistas. Yet the Bay is relatively shallowthroughout, with slow mixing and flushing. TheBay drains a coastal watershed of approximately450 square miles, parts of which contain denselydeveloped residential areas. The watershed is homefor nearly 450,000 residents, and this populationdoubles during the summer season.

Recent (post-1950) and continuing land usechanges are causing significant degradation ofBarnegat Bay water quality, which stimulated theNew Jersey State Legislature to initiate the BarnegatBay Study. The study resulted in the Barnegat BayWatershed Management Plan in 1992, whichprovides a series of actions to preserve the valuesand resources of Barnegat Bay. Most recently,Barnegat Bay has been accepted into the NationalEstuary Program, and a separate CCMP will bedeveloped for the Bay over the next three years.

Hudson River Estuary

In 1987, the New York State Legislature passed theHudson River Estuary Management Act, whichdirected NYSDEC to develop a managementprogram for the estuary and its shoreline. Thepurpose of the program is better coordination ofmanagement activities both within the Departmentas well as with other government agenciesresponsible for the estuary's resources. NYSDEC isissuing the final Hudson River Estuary ManagementPlan and an Action Plan which highlights priorityactions. The Action Plan contains commitmentsand recommendations for water qualityimprovement, management of water resources,protection of biodiversity and habitat, open spacemanagement, monitoring, and other concerns.

Long Island South Shore Reserve

One of the more recent regional planning efforts inthe Harbor/Bight area is the Long Island SouthShore Estuarine Reserve. Similar to Barnegat Bay,Long Island's South Shore Bays have hadtremendous population growth over the last 40years; in fact, the majority of Long Island's 2.6million residents are located in close proximity tothe South Shore. Water quality impairments aresevere in some areas, and most of the coastalhabitat, including at least 30 percent of historic tidalwetlands, has been lost. This effort, to bepatterned after the National Estuary Program, is inthe first phase of a two-phase planning effort.

Actions to protect, preserve, and restore habitatareas and values have a number of potential fundingsources, including the following:

Section 1135 of the Water Resources DevelopmentAct (WRDA) of 1986

Section 1135 of WRDA (1986), Section 204 ofWRDA (1993), and various project-specificauthorizations allow the USACE to study andimplement habitat restoration measures in areaspreviously impacted by water resources projects. Federal funds are cost-shared with state and localsponsors to plan, design, and construct habitatrestoration projects employing the broad principlesof ecosystem-based planning. Many areasthroughout the Harbor and Bight have beenadversely impacted by federal water resourcesprojects and could be eligible for funding throughthis program. Currently, the USACE is negotiatingwith NYSDEC, NYSDOS, and NYCDEP to initiatedetailed studies for restoration projects within thelower Hudson River and in Jamaica Bay.

Natural Resources Damages Assessment Accounts

Several enforcement actions in the Harbor regionhave resulted in natural resources damagesassessment accounts that can be used for naturalresources protection and restoration. One account,resulting from a 1990 oil spill at the Exxon Bayway

refinery in the Arthur Kill, is administered by acommittee of two federal agencies, the U.S.Department of the Interior and the National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration; two states, NewYork and New Jersey; and New York City (NewYork-New Jersey Harbor Spill RestorationCommittee), which is developing a plan known asthe Natural Resources Restoration Plan for Oil and



Chemical Releases in the New York-New JerseyHarbor Estuary. Another account will helpremediate environmental damage in Jamaica Bayand areas of Staten Island and the Bronx affectedby illegal dumping at sanitary landfills. A thirdfund, the New York City Environmental Fund, willsupport public education and outreach efforts,natural resource restoration, and grass rootsenvironmental improvement projects (see Action H-9.4).

ACTION H-12.1Incorporation of Recommendations into CCMPImplementation ScheduleHEP will independently review the recommendationsof ongoing geographically- targeted efforts, whichseek the preservation and restoration of habitat andliving resources, and recommend theirimplementation by appropriate members of HEP.

-- HEP will complete an expedited review of NYC=sComprehensive Watershed Management Plan andother Jamaica Bay initiatives (e.g., see Action H-12.3 below).

ACTION H-12.2Additional Geographically-targeted PlansHEP will ensure the development andimplementation of additional geographically- targetedplans.

-- Upon completion of the HEP-sponsored USFWSreport on significant coastal habitats, HEP willidentify priority areas warranting protectionbeyond the focused application of existingprograms.

-- HEP will coordinate with the New York-NewJersey Harbor Spill Restoration Committee NaturalResources Restoration Plan for Chemical Releasesin the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary.

-- HEP will seek state and local sponsors for thedevelopment and implementation ofgeographically-targeted plans for priority habitatareas.

-- HEP will evaluate the extent to which additionalmeasures are necessary to protect significantupland habitats.

ACTION H-12.3Special Efforts to Restore Habitat and ImproveWater Quality in Jamaica Bay

-- New York City Audubon Society, with ademonstration project grant from HEP, hasundertaken a coastal habitat restoration project atDubos Point Wetlands Sanctuary and BayswaterState Park, along the southern shoreline ofJamaica Bay. The project accomplished thefollowing tasks: trash and debris removal; removal of concrete and rubble; security fencingto protect nesting terrapins and birds; vegetationcontrol to favor native species; communityeducation activities; monitoring surveys of birds,marine invertebrates, plankton, butterflies,dragonflies, flora, and water quality; and photodocumentation.

-- NYSDEC will develop a habitat restoration plan touse approximately $8 million available from asuccessful natural resources damages claim tosupport special efforts to restore habitat inJamaica Bay. Pelham Bay in the Bronx and StatenIsland are also sites eligible for restorationfunding.

-- New York City will finalize an agreement withUSACE for a cost-shared feasibility study toinvestigate alternatives and develop detailed plansto implement a habitat restoration project forJamaica Bay, including measures to addresswater quality problems related to poor flushingand other hydrological alterations. NYSDEC iscooperating in the feasibility study and will cost-share (with the $8 million in settlement funds) inthe construction of recommended habitatrestoration plans, making it a comprehensive andintegrated federal, state, and local effort.n NYSDEC will seek an agreement with USACE,

NYCDEP, and the U.S. National Park ServiceGateway National Recreation Area to develop acomprehensive Jamaica Bay Plan to integrate allactivities associated with water qualityimprovement; habitat protection, restoration,and acquisition; public access; and educationalopportunities. (Note: HEP will complete anexpedited review of Jamaica Bay initiatives asstated in Action H-12.1).



ACTION H-12.4Hudson River Restoration EffortsUSACE, in cooperation with NYSDEC andNYSDOS, has prepared a reconnaissance report



recommending priority habitat restoration sites andgoals for the Hudson River Estuary.

-- USACE, with the cooperation of NYSDEC andNYSDOS, will finalize a plan of study that willlead to a cost-shared feasibility study toinvestigate restoration alternatives and developdetailed plans to implement recommended habitatrestoration measures throughout the lower river,from Troy to New York City.

-- Following the feasibility study, the three agencieswill enter into a cost-share agreement to fundconstruction of recommended measures.

ACTION H-12.5Habitat Acquisition and Restoration ProjectsAppropriate federal and state agencies will identifyand facilitate the implementation of habitatacquisition and restoration projects, with prioritygiven to projects that:

$ Provide maximum ecosystem benefits, based

on research results.

$ Can be accomplished largely through the

restoration of natural coastal processes (e.g.,

restoring tidal flow, shoaling of dredged areas,

allowing natural plant succession).

$ Can be implemented as part of urban/suburban

redevelopment efforts.

-- HEP will identify potential habitat restorationprojects and techniques, encourage entities withregulatory authority to implement the projects,and facilitate implementation.

-- HEP will encourage use of funds available throughthe Intermodal Surface Transportation EfficiencyAct (ISTEA) program to implement appropriatehabitat restoration (see Action SW-1.5).

-- USACE will continue to seek funding underSection 1135 (WRDA, 1986) and Section 204(WRDA, 1992), as well as individual projectauthorizations, to implement habitat restorationmeasures in areas adversely impacted by pastwater resources projects. In addition to the

studies targeting Jamaica Bay and the HudsonRiver, consideration is being given to theHackensack and Raritan Rivers, the Arthur Kill,Raritan Bay, and Moriches and Great South Bayson Long Island.

-- USACE, in cooperation with NYSDEC, NYSDOS,NJDEP, and other federal, state, and localresource and planning/regulatory agencies, willcontinue to evaluate habitat restoration as part ofongoing studies under Section 216 of the Riverand Harbor and Flood Control Act, as well asSections 306 and 307 of WRDA, 1990. Restoration opportunities will be identified, costestimates will be developed, and local non-federalcost-sharing partners will be sought to implementthese measures as part of, or independently of,the ongoing study.

-- HEP will coordinate with the New York-NewJersey Harbor Spill Restoration Committee NaturalResources Restoration Plan for Oil and ChemicalReleases in the New York-New Jersey HarborEstuary for qualifying habitat acquisition andrestoration projects.

ACTION H-12.6Public Private PartnershipsHEP recommends the establishment of a mechanismfor public/private partnerships to preserve andrestore habitat. An ecosystem-based HarborHabitat Conservancy could be incorporated withinappropriate local conservancies, such as theHackensack River Land Conservancy, to negotiateappropriate techniques to preserve the significanthabitats identified by USFWS. The Conservancywould work cooperatively with existing agenciesand organizations to develop funding and supportto implement local conservancies.

ACTION H-12.7Amendment to New York Open Space Plan forHabitat AcquisitionNYSDEC, in consultation with its Region II OpenSpace Acquisition Committee, will amend, asappropriate, the acquisition recommendations ofthe New York State Open Space Plan to includenewly identified, significant habitats.

ACTION H-12.8Acquisition of Habitats in New Jersey

NJDEP will seek opportunities for acquisition ofsignificant upland habitats (e.g., areas within the



Rahway River watershed).

ACTION H-12.9Restoring and/or Increasing Land and WaterConservation FundsHEP advocates the funding of federal and New YorkState land and water conservation funds, whichcould be used for implementation of protection andrestoration projects or elements of the regionalstrategy (see Objective H-1).

COSTS OF IMPLEMENTING THIS PLAN

Many of the commitments and recommendations inthe Habitat and Living Resources component of theCCMP can be accomplished through the effectiveuse of base program resources. In fact, fullimplementation of the CCMP relies, in large part, oncontinued operation, and funding at current levels,of existing programs to meet habitat and livingresources needs. The Habitat and Living Resourcescomponent of the CCMP describes 41 new HEP-driven commitments to be accomplished using baseprogram resources.

These actions represent a major commitment toCCMP implementation.

The Habitat and Living Resources component of theCCMP also includes 23 significant commitmentsand recommendations that entail enhanced programfunding. As shown in Table 3(hc) below:

Ë The Plan includes 7 actions for which a total of

$6,995,500 has been committed by the

responsible entities.

Ë The Plan includes 13 actions for which increased

funding of $1,073,900 plus $550,000 per year

is recommended.

Ë The Plan also includes three additionalrecommendations for action for which costestimates will be developed during the continuingplanning process.

This CCMP component includes 16 additionalactions that require implementation costs for specialprojects. As shown in Table 4(hc) below:

Ë The Plan includes 5 actions for which a total of

$15,596,000 has been committed by the

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 andrecommendations for action for which costestimates will be developed during the continuingplanning process.

NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY HARBOR ESTUARY PROGRAM Final CCMPNCLUDING THE BIGHT RESTORATION PLAN March 1996


Table 3(hc). Enhanced Program Costs for Management of Habitat and Living Resources

COMMITMENTS RECOMMENDATIONSACTION

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 humandisturbance 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 grantsthrough 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 arearestoration. $50,000

ACTION H-10.5: Implement coastal erosion monitoring program forLong 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 restorationprojects. $50,000

TOTAL $6,995,5001

$1,073,900+*$550,000/yr

* Enhanced program costs to be developed as part of the continuing planning process.



Table 4(hc). Project Implementation Costs for Management of Habitat and Living Resources

COMMITMENTS RECOMMENDATIONSACTION


ACTION H-2.1: Implement full-scale project for Whippany River sedimentcontrol. $500,000

ACTION H-2.2: Implement full-scale project for Hudson sub-basin or Bronxsediment 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 reducerunoff. *

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 qualifyingprojects. *

ACTION H-12.8: Implement upland habitat protection/acquisition. $1,400,000

ACTION H-12.9: Revive land and water conservation funds. $1 million

TOTAL1

$15,596,000+*

1

$500,000+*$1,000,000/yr

* 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.



BENEFITS OF IMPLEMENTING THIS PLAN

Full implementation of the commitments andrecommendations in the Habitat and LivingResources component of the Plan, including thedevelopment and implementation of acomprehensive regional strategy, would result in

Ë the preservation and restoration of the region's

ecosystem;

Ë effective management of living resources;

Ë regulation and minimization of erosion and

sedimentation; and

Ë enhanced opportunities for public access andcoastal recreation.

As noted in the opening part of this section,however, we are a long way from reaching theseendpoints. Nevertheless, through the focusedapplication of existing programs and the geographictargeting of habitat areas for special protection, theProgram will achieve:

Ë incremental progress toward ecosystem goals on

a system-wide basis; and

Ë restoration and protection of selected ecosystemcomponents and habitat types.

This effort will foster the consideration ofecosystem needs at every level of government andamong the public so that the economic progress ofthe region no longer comes at the expense of thenatural ecosystem. Quantifiable benefits of themeasures identified in this Plan must be identifiedon a case-by-case basis and in consideration ofpast, present, and future impacts of human activityin the region. It is important to recognize thatmany of the benefits of ecosystem protection arenon-quantifiable and range from aestheticconsiderations to the maintenance of a healthfulenvironment for the human population.

1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directlyor via contract or grant.

2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by theHEP CCMP

C/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMPR - Recommendation

Table 5(hs). SummaryCCManagement 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 regionalstrategy. (Note: In developing the strategy, HEP willneed to involve other agencies and local/countygovernments, in addition to those listed. HEP willwork to gain the commitment of these entities.)

HEP, USACE, USEPA,NOAA, USFWS,NYSDEC, NYSDOS,NJDEP, NYC

Draft: Dec 1996Final: June 1997

Base program C/N

ACTION H-1.2: Foster information transfer and toolsto enhance and encourage watershed planning.

HEP & NJDEP Ongoing Base program C/N

-- Establish a watershed planning coordinatingsubcommittee of the Habitat WorkGroup.

HEP, including NJDEP Feb 1996 Base program C/N

-- Conduct workshops and meetings with localgovernments and grassrootsorganizations.

HEP, acting through thewatershed planningcoordinatingsubcommittee & NJDEP

BeginningFeb 1996

Base program C/N

-- Develop pilot projects for integrated watershedplanning.

HEP, acting through thewatershed planningcoordinatingsubcommittee & NJDEP

Dec 1996 Base program C/N

ACTION H-1.3: Seek establishment of memorandaof understanding, or other formal mechanisms,among agencies to implement recommendations, to

HEP By Dec 31, 1997 Base program C/N


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 theWhippany 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 programcost - $100,000

C/N

-- Implement full scale project. NJDEP By Dec 31, 1998 Projectimplementationcost - $500,000

R

ACTION H-2.2: Minimize sediment export from asub-watershed of the Hudson River or in the Bronxthrough 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 Projectimplementation costto be estimated byNYSDEC in 1996

R

ACTION H-2.3: Building upon the state pilot projectsand programs, develop a targeted basin-wideprogram to minimize sediment transport to theHarbor Estuary.

HEP Post-CCMP Base program C/N

ACTION H-2.4: Invest in watershed protection tominimize impacts from development in Staten Island.

NYCDEP By Dec 31, 1996 Projectimplementationcost - $6 million over3 yrs

C/O





ACTION H-2.5: Minimize runoff associated withdevelopment through local watershed planning.

-- Coordinate watershed planning with localgovernments.

Monmouth County,Regional planningcouncils

Ongoing Base program(NJDEP has provided$100,000 in baseprogram funding toMonmouth Countyfor its watershedmanagementplanning.)

C/O

-- Seek funding to encourage watershed planningregionwide at the local level.

HEP Post-CCMP Enhanced programcost - $50,000/yr

R

ACTION H-2.6: Encourage the use of non-structural,low-tech, and low maintenance means to reducerunoff and pollution associated with environmentallyresponsible projects.

-- Develop projects. HEP Ongoing throughDec 1996

Base program C/N

-- Implement projects. HEP & other sponsors Beginning byDec 31, 1996

Projectimplementation costestimate to bedeveloped

R

OBJECTIVE H-3: Manage coastal development.

ACTION H-3.1: Develop and utilize regional coastalmanagement plans and programs.

-- Develop regional plan for New York City. NYSDOS & local By Dec 31, 1996 Base program C/N


governments

-- Develop regional plan for the Long Island SouthShore.

NYSDOS By Dec 31, 1997 Base program C/O

-- Utilize elements of coastal program to managegrowth.

NJDEP Ongoing Base program C/O

-- Coordinate ongoing planning efforts, promoteconservation of natural resources, andencourage redevelopment in areas whereinfrastructure is in place.

NYSDOS & NYSDEC Ongoing Base program C/O

-- Coordinate ongoing planning efforts, steerdevelopment and redevelopment towardareas with existing infrastructure, andpromote conservation of the region=snatural resources.


-- Consider HEP issues in commenting on theenvironmental impacts of federal actionsin the Harbor/Bight area.

USEPA Ongoing Base program C/O

ACTION H-3.2: Ensure that Significant coastalhabitats are afforded protection through theconsistency review process of the Coastal ZoneManagement Program.

NYSDEC, NYSDOS,NJDEP

Ongoing Base program C/O

ACTION H-3.3: Encourage and support localcomprehensive plans for habitat protection.

NYSDOS & NJDEP Ongoing Base program C/O

ACTION H-3.4: Identify projects and issues requir-ing regional cooperation; facilitate cooperation.

HEP Ongoing Base program C/N

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





as legally permissible and appropriate, to coordinatesurveillance, inspection, permitting, and enforcementactivities in tidal wetlands.

NYSDOS, NYSDEC,NJDEP

ACTION H-4.2: Ensure regulation of proposedactions involving less than one acre of fill infreshwater wetlands.

-- Consider issuing individual water qualitycertificates for projects that affect <1acre of freshwater wetlands.

NYSDEC Ongoing Base program R

-- Consider development of water quality standardsfor projects affecting wetlands.

NYSDEC Ongoing Base program C/N

-- Take steps to improve protection of Hudson Riverfreshwater wetlands.

NYSDEC, throughHudson River EstuaryMgmt. Program


-- Require individual reviews of general permits forprojects that affect <1 acre of non-tidalwetlands.


-- Amend the NYS freshwater wetlands law tocover wetlands less than 12.4 acres.

NY government By Dec 31, 1996 Base program R

ACTION H-4.3: Use existing authorities to regulateactivities in upland buffer areas that impact adjacentwetlands.

NYSDEC & NJDEP Ongoing Base program C/N

ACTION H-4.4: Ensure that actions impactinghabitat in the Harbor core area, in the aggregate,result in a net increase in the acreage and quality ofaquatic habitat, where feasible and appropriate. Emphasize key habitat types such as submerged

HEP, NYSDEC, NYSDOS,NJDEP

Ongoing Base program C/N


aquatic vegetation.

OBJECTIVE H-5: Maintain healthy estuarine conditions by managing freshwater inputs.

ACTION H-5.1: Consider impacts of freshwaterwithdrawals and other hydrologic changes onestuarine salinity.

NYSDEC & NJDEP Post-CCMP Base program R

ACTION H-5.2: Continue to implement waterconservation programs.

NYSDEC, NYCDEP,NJDEP, local NJauthorities


OBJECTIVE H-6: Minimize human disturbance of natural habitats.

ACTION H-6.1: Sponsor workshops to encouragefederal, state, and local land management agencies,other appropriate agencies, and other large landowners to protect habitat values.


ACTION H-6.2: Protect vulnerable beach-nesting andcoastal species.

-- Monitor and protect federally-listed beach-nestingand coastal species populations.

USFWS, USDOI/NPS,NMFS


-- Incorporate enhancement into coastal civil worksprojects.

USACE, with localsponsors

Ongoing Base program, plusproject-specificenhancements bylocal sponsors

C/O

-- Protect coastal species from Sandy Hook to CapeMay, NJ.


-- Protect coastal species along Long Island shore. NYSDEC Ongoing Base program C/O

-- Protect coastal species in NYC. NYCDPR, USDOI/NPS,NYCDEP, NYSDEC






ACTION H-6.3: Conduct and expand educationalefforts to reduce human disturbance to coastalspecies.

-- Conduct planned course on environmentalsensitivity.

NYSDEC & Coney IslandAquarium


-- Extend course to children. NYSDEC, Coney IslandAquarium, YMCA

Mar 1996 Enhanced programcost - $15,000

C/N

-- Seek additional funding to expand the course to awider audience.

NYSDEC, Coney IslandAquarium

Beginning byDec 31, 1996

Enhanced programcost - $10,000

R

-- Encourage additional efforts to promoteenvironmental sensitivity to coastalspecies.

HEP Beginning byDec 31, 1996

Base program C/N

OBJECTIVE H-7: Preserve and improve fish, wildlife, and plant populations and biodiversity.

ACTION H-7.1: Develop statewide database of fishand wildlife populations through the BiodiversityResearch Institute.

NYSDEC Ongoing Base program C/O

ACTION H-7.2: Comply with and implementfisheries management plans.

-- Maintain full compliance with plans approved byASMFC.

NYSDEC & NJDEP Ongoing Base program C/O

-- Implement measures compatible with federalplans approved by USDOC.

NOAA, NYSDEC, NJDEP Ongoing Base program C/O

ACTION H-7.3: Support efforts to restoreanadromous spawning fishery habitat.

-- Support Harbor Baykeeper efforts in NJ HEP & Harbor Baykeeper Ongoing Project C/N


tributaries and Staten Island, NY. implementationcost - $170,000over 2 yrs (includes$26,000commitment of HEPfunds)

-- Identify additional projects. HEP Completed Base program C/N

-- Implement additional projects. To be determined Post-CCMP Projectimplementation coststo be estimated byDec 1996

R

ACTION H-7.4: Implement the North AmericanWaterfowl Management Plan.

Private, local, state,federal interests


ACTION H-7.5: Support natural resourcesinventories.

-- Maintain funding levels for natural heritageprograms.

NY & NJ Ongoing Base program C/O

-- Investigate opportunities to enhance other naturalresources inventory programs, andencourage natural heritage programs toinclude greater coverage of marinesystems and species.


ACTION H-7.6: Conduct agency regulatory reviews.

-- Consider significant HEP species and habitats inregulatory reviews.

USEPA, USACE,NYSDEC, NYSDOS, NYCDept. of City Planning

Post-CCMP Base program C/N

-- Consider significant HEP species and habitats inregulatory reviews, to the extent legally

NJDEP Post-CCMP Base program C/N





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 localgovernments should implement existing programs toensure improved public access.

-- Fully implement existing projects. Federal, state, & localgovernments; regulatedcommunity

Ongoing Projectimplementation coststo be developed

R

-- Identify additional projects, as necessary. HEP BeginningFeb 1996

Base program C/N

-- Enhance enforcement of existing regulatoryprograms.

State & localgovernments

Post-CCMP Enhanced programcosts - $150,000/yr

R

ACTION H-8.2: Develop public access guides.

-- Develop guide for Hudson Waterfront Walkway. NJDEP Completed Enhanced programcost - $32,500

C/N

-- Develop guides for Harbor/Bight system. NYSDEC & NJDEP By Dec 31, 1996 Enhanced programcost - $50,000

R

ACTION H-8.3: Develop infrastructure necessary tosupport public access.

NY, NJ, localgovernments

By Dec 31, 1997 Projectimplementation coststo be developed

R

ACTION H-8.4: Implement waterfront zoningregulations mandating public access via waterfrontpaths, upland connections, and view corridors.

NYC Dept. of CityPlanning

Completed Base program C/O


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 "HabitatOptions Guide".

-- Develop guide. HEP By Dec 31, 1996 Base program C/N

-- Distribute guide. HEP By Dec 31, 1996 Enhanced programcost - $18,900

R

-- 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 impactsof lifestyle on habitat and living resources.

-- Encourage local user groups and educationalinstitutions to develop educationprograms.

NYSDEC, NYSDOS,NJDEP, localgovernments

Post-CCMP Base program R

-- Initiate pilot programs to conduct habitatenhancement or restoration activities.

NYSDEC, NYSDOS,NJDEP

Post-CCMP Enhanced programcost - $100,000/yr

R

-- Support citizens habitat "watchdog" groups. HEP, USEPA, USACE,NOAA, NYSDEC,NYSDOS, NJDEP

Post-CCMP Base program R

ACTION H-9.3: Encourage the integration of habitateducational materials into local school curricula.

NY & NJ Post-CCMP Base program R

ACTION H-9.4: Program New York CityEnvironmental Fund for public education/outreach.

-- Provide grants to support environmentaleducation and stewardship.

NYSDEC & Hudson RiverFoundation

Apr 1996 Enhanced programcost - $5 million

C/N

ACTION H-9.5: Provide copies of the USFWS reporton aquatic and coastal habitat values to libraries andother interested parties in the Harbor/Bight area.

HEP Mar 1996 Enhanced programcost - $25,000

R





OBJECTIVE H-10: Complete ongoing research and initiate special studies on habitat issues.

ACTION H-10.1: Continue field studies to develop acomprehensive record of coastal habitats throughoutthe Harbor/Bight region.

HEP, USFWS, NYSDEC,NJDEP, NOAA/NMFS


R

ACTION H-10.2: Continue studies on coastal andaquatic habitat values.

USEPA, USACE, NOAA,NYSDEC, NYSDOS,NJDEP


R

ACTION H-10.3: Continue assessment of thehabitat values of piers and platforms.

-- Complete 2-yr study of effects of piers andplatforms.

NYSDEC & HEP Completed Enhanced programcost - $208,000

C/N

-- Continue research effort, as appropriate. HEP Post-CCMP Enhanced programcost to bedetermined

R

-- Convene a work group consisting (at a minimum)of federal, state, and local authoritiesthat have authority to control shorelinedevelopment.


-- Develop recommendations. HEP Jul 1996 Base program C/N

-- Examine fish and wildlife use of abandonedshoreline structures within reviews forharbor drift removal projects.

USACE Ongoing Base program C/N

ACTION H-10.4: Assess the success of past habitatrestoration efforts.


ACTION H-10.5: Investigate feasibility of restoring


flood plains and coastal erosion hazard areas.

-- Identify feasible opportunities and evaluate thecost effectiveness of buying outhomeowners in disaster prone areas.

NYS By Dec 31, 1996 Enhanced programcost - $50,000

R

-- Develop a shore protection master plan that willaddress the restoration of flood plainsand coastal erosion hazard areas.

NJDEP Sep 30, 1996 Base program C/O

-- Implement a physical coastal erosion monitoringprogram for the south shore of LongIsland.

NYSDOS & USACE Ongoing through2001

Enhanced programcost - $1.4 million

C/O

ACTION H-10.6: Building on existing efforts,develop GIS-based inventory of Harbor/Bighthabitats.

HEP & appropriatefederal and stateagencies

By Dec 31, 1996 Enhanced programcost - $200,000

R

ACTION H-10.7: Study effects of turbidity and totalsuspended solids.

HEP Jun 1996 Enhanced programcosts to beestimated byJun 1996

R

OBJECTIVE H-11: Identify significant coastal habitats warranting enhanced protection and restoration.

ACTION H-11.1: Prepare a report of regionallysignificant coastal habitats warranting specialprotection.

USFWS Draft report:CompletedFinal report:Apr 1996


C/N

ACTION H-11.2: Implement New Jersey LandscapeProject.

-- Conduct project in Cape May County andHighlands region.

NJDEP Cape May -Dec 1997;Highlands -Jun 2000

Base program C/O





-- Conduct project in NJ Harbor/Bight area excludingCape May and Highlands.

NJDEP Jun 1997 Enhanced programcost - $270,000

R

-- Coordinate land management practices inHarbor/Bight.

NJDEP Beginning byDec 31, 1996


R

-- Coordinate land use regulation and planning inHarbor/Bight in NJ.

NJDEP Beginning byDec 31, 1996


R

ACTION H-11.3: Identify and inventory potentialhabitat restoration projects within the boundaries ofsignificant coastal habitats as defined in the USFWSreport.

HEP Jun 1997 Enhanced programcost - $50,000

R

ACTION H-11.4: Identify and protect locallysignificant habitats in the Harbor area.

-- Identify sites using readily available information. HEP Dec 1995 andcontinuing

Base program C/N

-- Conduct Wildlife Assessment and RestorationProject (NJ WARP).


-- Seek opportunities to protect, enhance, andacquire sites.

HEP Beginning byMar 1996

Base program C/N

NYSDOS & NYSDEC By Dec 31, 1996 Base program C/NACTION H-11.5: Based upon report, adjustdesignation of significant coastal habitats, asappropriate. 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 geographicallytargeted initiatives and incorporate them in theCCMP, as appropriate.

HEP Ongoing; CompleteJun 1997

Base program C/N


-- Complete expedited review of NYC=sComprehensive Watershed ManagementPlan and other Jamaica Bay Initiatives

HEP Dec 1996 Base program C/N

ACTION H-12.2: Ensure the development andimplementation of geographically targeted plans.

-- Identify priority areas warranting protectionbeyond focused application of existingprograms.

HEP Mar 1996 Base program C/N

-- Seek sponsors to develop and implement plans forpriority habitat areas.


-- Evaluate the extent to which additional measuresare necessary to protect significantupland habitats.


ACTION H-12.3: Implement special efforts torestore habitat and improve water quality in JamaicaBay.

-- Support NYC Audubon Restoration Project. HEP Completed Enhanced programcost - $26,000

C/N

-- Develop and implement habitat restoration plan. NYSDEC Initiated 1994 Projectimplementationcost - $8 million

C/O

-- Develop and implement cooperativecomprehensive restoration plan.

USACE, NYSDEC,NYCDEP

InitiatedDec 1995

Projectimplementation costto be determined

C/N

-- Seek agreement to develop a comprehensiveJamaica Bay Plan to integrate allactivities associated with water qualityimprovement; habitat protection,

NYSDEC working withUSACE, NYCDEP &USDOI/NPS, GatewayNRA






restoration, and acquisition; publicaccess; and educational opportunities.

ACTION H-12.4: Implement Hudson Riverrestoration efforts.

USACE, NYSDEC,NYSDOS

By Dec 31, 1996 Base program C/O

-- Finalize plan of study to investigate restorationalternatives.


Completed Base program C/O

-- Enter cost-share agreement to fundrecommended actions.


By Dec 31, 1997 Projectimplementation costto be determined

C/O

ACTION H-12.5: Identify and facilitateimplementation of habitat acquisition and restorationprojects.

-- Identify potential habitat restoration projects, andencourage and facilitate implementation.


-- Utilize funds available under WRDA and ISTEA toimplement habitat enhancement andrestoration projects.

USACE, NYSDEC,NJDEP, NYSDOS

Ongoing Projectimplementation costto be provided byUSACE

C/O

-- Evaluate habitat restoration and improvementfactors as part of all federal navigationmaintenance and beach restorationprojects.

USACE, NYSDEC,NJDEP, NYSDOS


ACTION H-12.6: Establish a mechanism forpublic/private partnerships to preserve habitat.

HEP Post-CCMP Base program R

ACTION H-12.7: Amend and implement open spaceplan to include significant habitats.

NYSDEC Post-CCMP Base program C/O


ACTION H-12.8: Seek opportunities for uplandhabitat acquisition.

NJDEP Post-CCMP Projectimplementationcost - $1.4 million

C/O

ACTION H-12.9: Restore land and waterconservation funds.

Federal & NYSgovernments

By Dec 31, 1996 Projectimplementationcost - $1 million/yr

R


TOXIC CONTAMINATION 71

PROBLEMSUnsafe seafoodAdverse impacts on port operationsDamage to commercial and recreational

fisheriesDamage to other coastal species

SOURCESMunicipal dischargesDirect/indirect industrial dischargesCombined sewer overflowsStorm waterContaminated sedimentsAtmospheric depositionChemical/oil spillsTributary inputsSolid/hazardous waste sitesOther non-point sources

VISION To establish and maintain a healthy and productive Harbor/Bight ecosystemwith 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 safefor unrestricted human consumption.

To ensure that dredged sediments in the Harbor are safe for unrestrictedocean 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.

MANAGEMENT OF TOXIC CONTAMINATION


72 TOXIC CONTAMINATION

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CRITERIA ANDSTANDARDS

Numeric criteria and standards, includingwater quality criteria and standards, fishtissue action levels and advisory levels,sediment quality criteria, and other criteria aredesigned as surrogates for direct measurementof adverse pollution effects.

Criteria and standards designed to protectmarine life indicate the maximumconcentration of a substance considered safeto protect sensitive marine organisms fromadverse toxic effects. For example, atconcentrations of a substance exceedingcriteria or standards, sensitive organisms maynot be able to reproduce successfully, or maybe killed by exposure to the water orsediments.

Concentrations of a substance exceedingcriteria or standards designed to protectwildlife or human health indicateunacceptable health risks to wildlife orhumans consuming fish, shellfish, orcrustacea caught in the waterbody. Thesecriteria and standards are usually designed tobe compared with concentrations measured inthe tissues of edible species, but may beextrapolated to water or sediments. Forexample, some USEPA water quality criteriaare based on protection of humans from a 10-

6 (one in a million) lifetime risk of cancer dueto consumption of seafood.

THE PROBLEMS

OverviewToxic contaminants include both man-made andnaturally occurring substances that can causeadverse ecosystem or human health effectswhen exceeding certain concentrations.

Prior to the passage of the Clean Water Act(CWA) in 1972, pollution of the Harbor/Bightwas worse than today, based in part on thelargely uncontrolled release of toxic substancesto the environment. Since then, significantprogress has been made in abating toxic andother forms of contamination. For example, as aresult of major investments in wastewatertreatment infrastructure, discharges of rawsewage during dry weather periods have beenvirtually eliminated, and most municipal andindustrial wastewater treatment plants are incompliance with technology-based effluentlimits. Also, under laws other than the CWA,certain toxic substances have been banned orreduced.

Despite these improvements, there is still a toxiccontamination problem in the Harbor/Bight. HEP has characterized this problem in two ways:

First, there is direct evidence, from field andlaboratory studies, of the adverse effects oftoxic contamination on the Harbor/Bightecosystem, as explained below. This is anecosystem or effects-based approach tocharacterizing toxic contamination.

Second, levels of a number of chemicals in thewater, sediments, and tissues of edible fish,crustacea, and shellfish in the Harbor/Bightexceed the criteria and standards developed bygovernment agencies to protect marine life,wildlife, and human health. This chemical-specific approach, as detailed in the followingtext box, is the principal basis for regulatingchemical contamination.

Toxic contamination also interferes withdredging and dredged material disposal in theHarbor/Bight because the sediments haveaccumulated contaminants from discharges oftoxic chemicals.

In general, toxic contamination is worse in theHarbor than in the Bight. Within the Harbor,Newark Bay, its tributaries, and the Kills havethe most contamination. Contamination isworse in inner Harbor areas and tributariesHarbor-wide, than in the open-water areas.

Ecosystem ApproachAlthough specific indicators of the adverseecological effects of toxic chemicals exhibit thevariability typical of all environmental indicators,there is significant evidence of current and pastproblems in the Harbor/Bight:



Ë Sediments in much of the Harbor and someareas of the Bight are toxic to a variety oforganisms in laboratory tests.

Ë Ambient waters of the Harbor are sometimestoxic to sensitive organisms in laboratorytests.

Ë In the Harbor/Bight region, reproductiveimpairment in fish-eating birds has historicallybeen caused by DDT, a pesticide. Othereffects, which have not been conclusivelyshown to be caused by toxic contamination,but are believed to be consistent with toxiccontamination, occur in the Harbor and/orBight. For example, some bird species nestingin the Kills have had decreased reproductivesuccess in recent years; and some fish in theHarbor/Bight have exhibited fin rot (observedin winter flounder), certain types of tumors(many tomcod develop liver cancer),developmental abnormalities, behavioralimpairments, and altered life histories(observed in mummichogs).

Ë Preliminary observations suggest that thecommunity of bottom-dwelling organisms(benthos) is degraded in areas of the Harbor. This may be due to toxic contaminationand/or other stressors such as hypoxia.

However, effects of toxic contamination on theHarbor/Bight ecosystem are not well understood.

One difficulty with using the ecosystemapproach to control chemical contamination isthat a linkage must be established between theobserved effect and the level of contamination. Where this has been established, HEP's Planincludes actions to address the contamination. Other HEP actions call for ongoing studies tobetter characterize toxic effects and thechemicals responsible for such effects. Even inthe absence of firm linkages between observedeffects and levels of contamination, theecosystem approach is an indispensable checkon the effectiveness of the chemical-specificapproach, which lacks some numeric criteria anddoes not consider mixtures of chemicals. Restoring and maintaining a healthy ecosystem,with no adverse effects due to toxic substances,is the ultimate measure of success.

Chemical-Specific ApproachPerhaps the most tangible result of toxiccontami-nation in the Harbor/Bight is that somefish, crustacea, and shellfish caught in thesewaters are considered unsafe for humanconsumption:

Ë New York and New Jersey have advisedpeople to limit or avoid the consumption ofseveral species of fish and crustacea caught inwaters of the Harbor/Bight and, in somecases, have prohibited the sale, consumption,and/or harvesting of fish, crustacea, andshellfish due to toxic contamination,especially PCBs and dioxin. A complete list ofNew York and New Jersey fishing advisoriesfor the Estuary is provided in "The State ofthe Harbor and Bight", Figures 3 and 4.

Ë New York has closed its commercial fishery forstriped bass in the Harbor, and in parts of theBight, due to concerns about PCBcontamination.

HEP has worked to define specific chemicals ofconcern in water, biota tissue, and/or sedimentsof the Harbor/Bight. An initial list of chemicalsof concern, developed using historical data,included approximately 50 chemicals. HEP hasrevised this list by reviewing available new data,considering data quality, the scope andmagnitude of criteria exceedances, and whetherdata are representative of current conditions. The revised list of chemicals of concern isshown in Table 6(t); HEP believes thesechemicals are problems for the followingreasons:

MetalsMercury- Exceeds the water quality standard virtually

Harbor-wide.- Expected to exceed state advisory levels in

fish tissue.- Levels in sediments exceed the NOAA Effects

Range - Median Value (i.e., the level expectedto cause adverse effects in biota) at samplingsites throughout the Harbor; and exceed thislevel by ten times or more at sampling sites inthe Hackensack River, Arthur Kill, and NewarkBay.



Table 6(t). Chemicals of Concern in the NY-NJ Harbor Estuary and Bight1

CHEMICAL NAMEMEDIUM:

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 valuessuch as USEPA fish tissue concentrations and NOAA Effects Range Values).

! = Exceedances of enforceable standards (i.e., state water quality standards, New York State water qualityguidance values, USEPA Toxics Rule criteria, and U.S. FDA action levels and state advisory levels for fishtissue).

# = Predicted by mathematical modeling to sometimes exceed enforceable standards.

1 It is important to note that inclusion of a chemical in this table, whileindicating that management attention is necessary, does not reflect the scope andmagnitude of criteria exceedances; data may not be complete for all media. Also thetechnical validity of some criteria are questionable. See text for further details.



Copper- Predicted to sometimes exceed the chronic

water quality standard in portions of theHarbor (see Table 7(t)).

Cadmium- Levels have caused New York State to advise

limited consumption of 1) blue claw crabscaught in the Hudson River from Troy Dam,south to the Lower Bay, and 2)hepatopancreas ("tomalley") of lobsterscaught throughout the Harbor.

Arsenic- Levels in mussel tissue exceed the tissue

concentration on which USEPA water qualitycriteria for human health protection are based,by roughly 1,000-10,000 times, at severalsampling sites throughout the Harbor. (Note:USEPA is reviewing the validity of this waterquality criterion.)

PCBs- Advisories exist on the consumption of

roughly 16 edible species in the Harbor and/orBight, and commercial fishing ban is in placeon striped bass.

- Levels in sediments exceed the NOAA EffectsRange - Median Value at sampling sitesthroughout the Harbor; exceed this level byfive times or more at sampling sites in theNewark Bay, Passaic River, Arthur Kill, andRaritan Bay; and exceed New York Statesediment quality guidance values.

- Levels in water in tributaries to the Harborhave been found to exceed the water qualitystandard for protection of human health byroughly 1,000 times.

Dioxin- New Jersey advises against consuming any

fish, crustacea, or shellfish caught in the tidalPassaic River; also prohibits sale orconsumption of several species throughoutNewark Bay Complex due to dioxincontamination.

- Levels in tissues of at least eight ediblespecies sometimes exceed the New York Stateadvisory level in other areas of the Harbor.

- Levels in sediments in portions of the NewarkBay Complex limit options for disposal ofcontaminated dredged materials.

- Levels in sediments exceed New York Statesediment quality guidance values at samplingsites throughout the Harbor.

PAHs- Levels of total PAH and several individual

PAHs at sediment sampling sites in many innerHarbor areas and tributaries exceed the NOAAEffects Range - Median Value, often by five toten times or more; attributed to discharges ofpetroleum and related materials.

- Recent NOAA studies found a moderatepositive correlation among levels of PAHs inHarbor/Bight sediments and toxic responses ina variety of laboratory test organisms.

- Levels of several PAHs in mussel tissue atseveral sampling sites throughout the Harborsometimes exceed tissue concentrations onwhich USEPA water quality criteria for humanhealth protection are based.

- Levels of four PAHs -- benzo(a)anthracene,benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene andbenzo(k)fluoranthene -- sometimes exceedwater quality standards in Jamaica Bay.

Pesticides- In various edible species, tissue levels of all

the pesticides shown in Table 6(t) greatlyexceed tissue concentrations on which USEPAwater quality criteria for human healthprotection are based.

chlordane- Levels in striped bass and American eel

sometimes exceed FDA advisory levels atlocations throughout the Harbor.

VOCstetrachloroethylene (Perc)- Levels sometimes exceed the New York State

water quality guidance value for protection ofhuman health at many locations in the Harbor.

HEP expects that management actions will berequired to control loadings of these chemicalsto the system, remediate selected contaminatedsediments, and/or protect the public fromunacceptable health risks due to consumptionof contaminated seafood. Results of additional studies, including some HEP studies, will be



available soon, and HEP will use this informationto further revise and update the list of chemicalsof concern. Other limitations on our ability todraw conclusions regarding chemicals ofconcern are the lack of criteria and doubts aboutthe technical validity of criteria. In particular,regulatory criteria for sediment quality have notbeen established nationally, or for the Harbor orBight. However, USEPA has recently proposednational sediment quality criteria for fivesubstances.

HEP has focused significant effort on a betterunderstanding of water quality problems due tometals. Section 304 (l) of the Clean Water Actof 1987 requires the development of IndividualControl Strategies (i.e., water quality-basedpermit limits) for substances which exceedwater quality standards due to point sourcedischarges. For the Harbor, 304 (l)investigations were conducted under theauspices of HEP. Based on indications, from thehistorical data base, that levels of metals wereexceeding water quality criteria due to pointsources, HEP supported studies to characterizethe levels of the following metals in waters ofthe Harbor/Bight: copper, mercury, lead, nickel,zinc, cadmium, silver, and arsenic. Watersamples were analyzed using “clean” trace metaltechniques. Results of these studies indicatedsignificantly lower metal concentrationscompared to the historical data. Differenceswere attributed, in large part, to samplecontamination within the earlier data base andthe differing laboratory procedures used tocollect the two sets of data. Exceedances ofwater quality criteria were found only formercury. Subsequent water quality modelinganalyses predicted exceedances of chronic waterquality criteria for three additional metals: copper, nickel, and lead. For nickel and lead,the predicted exceedances were based on

numeric criteria expressed in terms of totalrecoverable metal, established under theNational Toxics Rule. After the modelinganalyses were completed, however, USEPAamended the National Toxics Rule. The resultof this action was the promulgation of waterquality criteria in New Jersey based on dissolvedmetal. Thus, exceedances of nickel and leadcriteria need to be reassessed. This is beingdone under a second phase (Phase II) ofmonitoring and modeling studies.

The data and modeled predictions enabled HEPto assess criteria exceedances on a waterbody-specific scale (Table 7(t)). USEPA and theStates of New York and New Jersey, under theauspices of HEP, are using this information todevelop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs)1,and waste load allocations (WLAs) and loadallocations (LAs), for the water quality limitingmetals, as discussed below.

Table 7(t). Waterbodies Needing TMDLs

Waterbody Copper Mercury

Hudson River (MP 50 to 0) X

Inner Harbor (Battery to

Narrows)

X

Outer Harbor (Narrows to

Ocean)

X

Arthur Kill/Kill Van Kull X X

East R./Harlem R. X

Jamaica Bay X

Raritan River/Bay X X

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.



For copper, the analyses shown in Tables 6(t)and 7(t) are based on a proposed site-specificchronic criterion of 5.6 µg/l dissolved copper,developed under the auspices of HEP.

In New York and New Jersey, dischargerequirements for municipal and direct industrialdischarges include both chemical-specific andWhole Effluent Toxicity (WET) limitations. Chemical-specific limitations are imposed toprovide compliance with corresponding chemicalnumeric criteria. WET limitations are imposed topreclude significant acute toxicity in thedischarges after allowable mixing with receivingwaters. The WET limitations address the effectsof mixtures of chemicals in discharges.

SOURCES CONTRIBUTING TO THEPROBLEMS

MetalsThe studies mentioned above have improved ourunderstanding of the loads of metals to theHarbor/Bight and their sources. In order todevelop TMDLs/WLAs/LAs for those metalswhich exceed water quality criteria, the datacollected were used to generate mass balances,derived from a steady-state toxics model. Themass balances relate loadings of metals from allsources to the levels of these metals in waterand sediment. Loadings for all the metals,except mercury, are fairly well established(Figure 5). Loadings of the metals in the Harborcomplex are shown for conditions of high andlow riverine flow. Because of the large amountof dilution attributed to fresh water inflowsfrom the Hudson River and other tributaries, lowflow conditions in these rivers become thecritical condition for establishment of TMDLs formetals. Harbor-wide, important sources ofmetals, other than mercury, are: municipal andindustrial point sources, atmospheric deposition,tributaries, storm water, and CSOs. In the NewJersey tributaries to the Harbor, however, thePhase I TMDL model indicates that CSOs andstorm water contribute a greater load of most ofthe metals than municipal and industrial pointsources. This must be confirmed through aPhase II TMDL monitoring and modeling effort(see Action T-1.1 below). Phase II efforts willalso reassess criteria exceedances for

nickel and lead based on criteria for dissolvedmetal, and develop TMDLs as necessary.

Loads for mercury require further analysis. Indeveloping the mass balances for mercury, itwas determined that most of the load is from asource not identified during the HEP monitoringeffort (Figure 5). USEPA believes much of thissource is attributable to atmospheric deposition. A longer term effort, including furthermonitoring to assess mercury partitioning andfate, reassess loads, and develop appropriatemodels, will be required to fully understandmercury loadings.

NYCDEP has documented decreasing trends inloadings of several metals from its sewagetreatment plants from 1985 to 1993. Over thisperiod, decreases in effluent loadings of metalsincluding cadmium (88%) and nickel (84%) arelikely attributable primarily to implementation ofthe industrial pretreatment program (IPP).Decreases over this period in effluent loadingsof other metals, including copper (79%), lead(81%), and zinc (68%), are likely attributableboth to implementation of IPP and corrosioncontrol in the City's water supply system. Similar decreases have been documentedHarbor-wide and are likely attributable, in part,to implementation of IPP and other actions inNew York and New Jersey. The observeddecreases may also be attributable, in part, toimplementation of "clean” trace metaltechniques (i.e., sampling and analyticalprocedures in which extreme care is used tominimize sample contamination), which beganin 1991. In particular, mercury and arsenic hadthe most significant decreases in loading andvariability when comparing data from the post-1991 period with earlier periods.

It is noteworthy that, in response to HEPconcerns, the eleven municipal sewerageauthorities in New Jersey which discharge tothe Harbor joined to form the New JerseyHarbor Dischargers Group (NJHDG). NJHDG isconducting the studies necessary to supportdevelopment of Phase II TMDLs. NJHDG isworking cooperatively to supportimplementation of several actions in this Plan,including "Track-down and Clean-up" (seeAction T-1.2 below), and development of a



Figu

re 5

.Sou

rces

of

Sev

eral

Met

als

to t

he H

arbo

r un

der

Con

ditio

ns o

f H

igh

and

Low

Riv

erin

e Fl

ow



Figure 6. Estimated Sources of PCBs to the Harbor

system-wide eutrophication model (see ActionN-4.1 below).

Organic ChemicalsHEP has sponsored studies to estimate pollutantloads, including loads of toxic organicchemicals, to the Harbor/Bight using existingdata. These studies concluded that, except forPCBs, existing data are insufficient to assess therelative importance of various source categories,even on a basin-wide scale. As shown in Figure6, the relative significance of current sources oftotal PCBs to the Harbor was estimated astributary inputs (50%), municipal point sources(22%), storm water (15%), CSOs (10%),atmospheric deposition (3%), and landfill

leachate (<1%). The data were consideredinadequate to assess loads on smaller scales.

A preliminary mass balance and food chainmodel for PCBs indicated that continuingdischarges of PCBs to the lower estuary aresignificant in causing PCB levels in striped bassto exceed the FDA standard. However, theestimates of continuing PCB loadings used inthe model were based on limited data. Therefore, USEPA recently conducted ascreening-level analysis of PCB levels in STPdischarges to the Harbor. Twenty-four-hourcomposite effluent samples were collectedduring dry weather at five STPs discharging tothe Harbor, representing about half the averageSTP discharge volume to the Harbor. Compositewet weather

influent samples were also collected duringsingle storm events at four of these STPs. Water samples were taken at four majortributaries to the Harbor. Total PCBconcentrations in the STP effluent ranged fromroughly 10 to 100 parts per trillion; total PCBconcentrations in STP wet weather influentranged from roughly 55 to 400 parts per trillion; and total PCB concentrations in the tributariesranged from roughly 12 to 25 parts per trillion.

The study confirmed that STPs currentlydischarge PCBs at levels consistent with theearlier estimates. This information supports theneed to address continuing discharges of PCBsand to improve the mass balance. As the nextstep in addressing continuing discharges ofPCBs, USEPA, using Clean Water Act Section308 letters, required municipal dischargers in theHarbor area to identify the levels of PCBs beingdischarged (see Action T-1.2 below). HEP hasbegun a modeling effort to improve the massbalance (see Action T-13.3 below).

Sources of other chemicals to the Harbor/Bightare understood only qualitatively. The mostsignificant source of dioxin in causingexceedances of criteria may be sediment flux. In particular, there is a "hot spot" in the lowerPassaic River due to past discharges. However,possible continuing discharges of dioxin in theHarbor area must be further investigated. Ourcurrent knowledge indicates numerous potentialsources of dioxin (including incinerators, otherhigh-temperature industrial processes, otherchemical industry sources, and the wood andpaper industry). Recent studies which analyzethe mixtures of various congeners of dioxinpresent in sediments of the Newark BayComplex also indicate multiple sources.

To begin assessing continuing discharges ofdioxin, USEPA, using the same Clean Water ActSection 308 letters noted above, required nineSTPs discharging to the Newark Bay Complex tosample their influent and effluent for dioxin. Sampling was done during two dry weather andtwo wet weather periods. Analysis wasconducted for the 2,3,7,8-TCDD congener. Data reports were recently submitted.



Dioxin was not detected in any samples at thereporting limit required in the Section 308letters (5 parts per trillion). Recentimprovements in analytical techniques, however,allowed quantification at much lower levels (1-100 parts per quadrillion). Even at thesedetection limits, dioxin was quantified in onlyone of the 54 samples analyzed, a wet weatherinfluent sample at 45 parts per quadrillion.

Data are not available, however, to assess theenvironmental significance of these results (i.e.,whether municipal discharges contributesignificantly to exceedances of criteria fordioxin). There is no quantitative information onloadings of dioxin to the Harbor, other than thevalue reported above, and currently no model toassess bioaccumulation and fate (i.e., massbalance) of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and other dioxincongeners. HEP has begun an effort to developsuch a model (see Action T-13.3 below).

Sources of PAHs to the environment arepervasive. PAHs are present in large quantitiesin petroleum and related materials and are usedin the manufacture of materials such as dyes,insecticides, solvents, and asphalt. Highermolecular weight (heavier) PAHs (includingfluoranthene, benzo(b)fluoranthene,benzo(a)pyrene, etc.) are products ofcombustion. Their presence generally indicatescontamination by atmospheric deposition. Thelower molecular weight (lighter) PAHs (includingnaphthalene and fluorene) generally derive fromunburned petroleum sources. Based on NYCDEPinformation showing high levels of PAHs inJamaica Bay tributaries, and in CSO dischargesand CSO sediment mounds throughout the City,CSOs and storm water discharges may besignificant sources of PAHs Harbor-wide. Thereis, however, a need to collect data on levels ofcontinuing discharges of PAHs Harbor-wide. These sources result from runoff and improperdisposal of waste oil. In addition, direct spillageof petroleum may also contribute significantamounts of PAHs; large spills can haveparticularly significant short-term impacts. Petroleum spillage from petroleum transferoperations, shipping, and boat engines alsocontribute PAHs to the Harbor/Bight. Inaddition, direct and indirect industrial discharges

may contribute significant loads of PAHs. PAHsin sediments of the Bight tend to be the heavierPAHs, indicating that atmospheric depositionmay be the principal source.

Tetrachloroethylene, also known as Perc, is avolatile organic chemical used as a solvent indry cleaning and other industries. It has beendetected in New York City STP effluents.

Additional monitoring and model developmentwill be required to further refine the loadestimates for PCBs, develop comparableestimates for other organic chemicals, anddevelop mass balances.


The goals of HEP's toxic contaminationmanagement plan are to:

Ë Restore and maintain a healthy and productiveecosystem, with no adverse ecological effectsdue to toxic contamination.

Ë Ensure fish, crustacea, and shellfish caught inthe Harbor/ Bight are safe for unrestrictedhuman consumption.

Ë Ensure that dredged sediments in the Harborare safe for unrestricted ocean disposal.

In order to achieve these goals, HEP's toxicsmanagement plan includes objectives to:

Ë Reduce continuing inputs of toxic chemicalsto the Harbor/Bight system (see Objectives T-1through T-8 below).

Ë Remediate selected contaminated sediments(see Objective T-9 below).

Ë Minimize human health risks due to theconsumption of fish, crustacea, and shellfishcaught in the Harbor/Bight (see Objective T-10below).

Ë Better understand the toxic contaminationproblem and take additional managementactions as more is learned (see Objectives T-11through T-13 below).



- "Chemicals of Concern" exceeding criteria/standards in water/biota/sediments

- Chemicals causing adverse effects on ecosystem/biota

ACTIONS TO REDUCE CONTINUING INPUTS OF TOXIC CHEMICALS:

- Municipal/industrial discharges- CSOs, storm water, and non-point source runoff- Solid/hazardous waste sites- Air emissions- Chemical/oil spills- Pollution prevention

ACTIONS TO REMEDIATE CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS

ACTIONS TO BETTER UNDERSTAND AND MANAGE THE TOXICS CONTAMINATION PROBLEM:

- Assess chemical load reductions expected with CCMP implementation- Develop simple mass balances- Develop system-wide toxics model- Characterize adverse toxic effects and establish causative chemicals

ACTIONS TO MINIMIZEHUMAN HEALTH RISKS:

- Risk assessment

- Risk communication

Figure 7. Overview of HEP's Plan for Toxic Contamination

OBJECTIVE T-1 Reduce municipal discharges of chemicals ofconcern

The Harbor Estuary Program's approach toaddress the toxic contamination problem isillustrated schematically in Figure 7. HEP's Plancalls for actions now to reduce continuinginputs of toxic chemicals and remediatecontaminated sediments, while continuing workto understand the contamination problem. Theimproved understanding gained will be used todevelop additional actions to reducecontamination. HEP's Plan also includes actionsto minimize human health risks associated withconsumption of seafood contaminated withtoxic chemicals.

COMMITMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Actions to Reduce Continuing Inputs of ToxicChemicals

Under the Clean Water Act, dischargers arerequired to meet secondary treatmentrequirements. Currently, only one STP in theHarbor, the Newtown Creek STP in New YorkCity, is not meeting these requirements;however, a commitment is in place for thisfacility. For details, see the section onManagement of Nutrients and OrganicEnrichment.



It is expected that full implementation ofsecondary treatment will reduce discharges ofmany of the toxic chemicals of concern. However, this will not be sufficient to eliminateexceedances of water quality standards, restorebeneficial uses, or eliminate other adverseecosystem impacts due to municipal dischargesof toxic chemicals.

ACTION T-1.1Control of Discharges of MetalsResults of HEP-sponsored studies to definewater quality-limiting1 metals indicate thatwater quality- based control of discharges oftwo metals (copper and mercury) is necessary. In order to control metals discharges, USEPA,NYSDEC, and NJDEP will implement a phasedTMDL approach for water quality-limiting metalsby incorporating limits and additionalrequirements into draft permits by December1995.

-- Phase I permit limits for municipaldischarges will be based on existing effluentquality (EEQ):

• Harbor-wide for mercury.• In Newark Bay, Kills, Raritan Bay/River,

Passaic River, and Hackensack River forcopper.

-- Phase II may include more stringent permitlimits for copper, and limits for nickel andlead, based on additional data collectionand modeling (see Action T-13.1 below).These studies are being conducted by theNJHDG.

-- To prepare for possible reductions in metalsloadings, based on the additional datacollection and modeling, dischargers wererequired to conduct studies to evaluate theeffectiveness of pretreatment, treatmentoptimization, corrosion control, andpollution prevention in reducing loadings ofmetals. Dischargers have submitted therequired reports.

• In New York, NYCDEP conducted therequired studies under the SPDES permitprocess.

• In New Jersey, USEPA required the studiesunder CWA Section 308 letters (see Table8(t) below).

ACTION T-1.2"Track-down and Clean-up" of SignificantDischarges of Organic Chemicals of ConcernNYCDEP, NJHDG, and other dischargers in theHarbor area, working with USEPA, NYSDEC,and NJDEP, under the auspices of HEP, willidentify, track-down, and abate significantdischarges of organic chemicals of concern. USEPA, in coordination with the States anddischargers, has already taken steps to beginimplementation of this program.

-- HEP will coordinate development of thisprogram, including identifying the chemicalsto be included, the dischargers to beincluded, and the monitoring techniquesand sampling methodologies to be used.

-- HEP will convene seminars to develop theprogram and assist technology transfer.

An overview of the Track-down and Clean-upprogram for discharges is presented on thefollowing page. Note that Objective T-6 belowdescribes a similar program where the "track-down" begins with monitoring conducted in theambient environment (e.g., Harbor tributaries).

-- As discussed previously in this section,there is clear evidence that PCBs exceed fishtissue action levels in the Harbor. Furthermore, as discussed previously,USEPA has already collected preliminarydata confirming that municipal dischargesof PCBs in the Harbor are significant.

• Therefore, using CWA Section 308 letters,USEPA required municipal dischargersthroughout the Harbor (see Table 8(t)) toidentify the levels of PCBs in theirdischarges,

1 The concentration of a substance in the water column exceeds, or is predicted

by mathematical modeling to exceed, water quality standards.



"TRACK-DOWN AND CLEAN-UP" OF SIGNIFICANT DISCHARGES OF ORGANIC CHEMICALS OFCONCERN

This provides an overview of the Track-down and Clean-up program for discharges. Please referto Action T-1.2 text and Table 13(ts) below, for specific information on program status andimplementation.

Selection of Chemicals to be Considered for Track-down and Clean-up

USEPA, NYSDEC, NJDEP, USACE, NYCDEP, NJHDG, and other dischargers, under the auspicesof HEP, will review available ambient data, criteria and testing methods, and results, todetermine, by mutual agreement, which chemicals should be considered for Track-down andClean-up. Chemicals to be considered for Track-down and Clean-up must be organic chemicalsdocumented 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 organicchemicals of concern, not metals. This is because municipal and industrial dischargers in theHarbor are subject to requirements for water quality-based control of the water quality-limitingmetals (see Action T-1.1 below). Municipal and industrial discharges of mercury in the Harborare 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 beconsidered for ambient Track-down and Clean-up (see Objective T-6 below). Also note that asadditional information becomes available indicating that additional chemicals are of concern, orthat 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 screentheir discharges using sensitive monitoring techniques (e.g., see below); dischargers will initiatethe screening if there is a reasonable expectation that they are discharging the chemical(s) inquestion 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 aresignificantly elevated and have reasonable potential to contribute to a violation of theapplicable criteria.

Track-down and Abatement of Significant Discharges



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).

POTWREQUIREMENT

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

- Woodcliff STP

X

X

X

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



OBJECTIVE T-2 Reduce industrialdischarges of chemicals ofconcern

including wet weather influent as asurrogate for CSO discharge. New Jerseydischargers, New York City, and YonkersSewer District have submitted the requiredreports.

• USEPA, NYSDEC, NJDEP, NYCDEP, andNJHDG are using the data collected throughthe CWA Section 308 letters to identifywhich municipal discharges of PCBs aresignificant.

• NYCDEP, NJHDG, and other dischargers asappropriate, will track-down and abate thesources of PCBs to their sewage systems asdescribed previously.

• As of July 1, 1995, NYCDEP, under aconsent order with NYSDEC, has deployed18 Passive In-Situ Concentration ExtractionSamplers (PISCES) in the influent streams ofthe 14 New York City STPs. The deviceswill be deployed for 12 months to monitorfor PCBs and other organic chemicals. ByDecember 1996, NYCDEP will submit areport to NYSDEC on the analytical results. The report will propose the STP drainagebasins in which the track-down of PCBs andother chemicals will be pursued. In decidingwhich basins will be pursued, NYCDEP andNYSDEC will consider the results of themonitoring conducted under the Section308 letters. NYCDEP is currently committedto an additional two years of follow-upefforts on PISCES track-down.

-- As discussed previously in this section, thereis clear evidence that dioxin exceeds fishtissue action levels in the Harbor. However,there was no quantitative data on the levelsof dioxin in municipal discharges to theHarbor.

• Therefore, using the same CWA Section 308letters noted above, USEPA requiredmunicipal dischargers in the Newark BayComplex [Table 8(t)] to identify the levels ofdioxin in their discharges. The monitoringwas required for dischargers in the NewarkBay Complex because dioxin contaminationis worse in this area than in other areas ofthe Harbor.

• The POTWs listed in Table 8(t) collectedinfluent and effluent samples during two dryweather periods, and influent during twowet weather periods. Analysis of thesesamples indicated that dioxin concentrations

were less than the required reporting limit offive parts per trillion.-- Available information on other organic

chemicals of concern must be reviewed todetermine whether those chemicals shouldbe considered for track-down and clean-up.

• USEPA, NYSDEC, NJDEP, NYCDEP,NJHDG, and other dischargers, inconsultation with the appropriate HEP workgroups, will review available ambient dataon the other organic chemicals of concern,using the criteria described previously todetermine which chemicals should beconsidered for track-down and clean-up.

• As appropriate, dischargers will screen theirdischarges using sensitive monitoringtechniques to identify the levels of thechemicals being discharged.

• If significant discharges are found, thosedischargers will track-down and abate thechemicals, or USEPA, NYSDEC, and NJDEPwill require control of the chemicalsquantitatively, through development ofTMDLs/WLAs/LAs.

-- Concurrent with updates of the list ofchemicals of concern (see Action T-12.3below), HEP will consider new informationand report biennially through HEP CCMPupdates (see Objective I-1 below), onwhether additional organic chemicals shouldbe considered for track-down and clean-up.

Additional information is needed to fully addressthe adverse impacts of these and otherchemicals of concern. This is addressed in"Actions to Better Understand and Manage theProblem" (see Objectives T-11, T-12 and T-13below).

Permits for direct industrial discharges to theHarbor/Bight contain technology-based limitsexpected to minimize the discharge of toxicchemicals. Indirect industrial discharges to the



Harbor/Bight are subject to the IndustrialPretreatment Program.

ACTION T-2.1Continuing Compliance with Controls onIndustrial Discharges All industrial facilities regulated under NPDES orapproved pretreatment programs are required toself-monitor their effluents to determinecompliance with permit requirements. Theresults of this monitoring are submitted to eitherthe state or the POTW, as appropriate. Thestate or POTW reviews these reports forviolations. Violations are acted upon by variousforms of enforcement response, including, butnot limited to, phone calls, inspections, noticesof violation, and formal enforcement actions(administrative and judicial, including civil andcriminal). There is also a routine inspectionprogram where on-site work is conducted toverify that what is reported is accurate.

-- NYSDEC, NJDEP, and ISC will assurecontinuing compliance with NPDES permitconditions for direct industrial discharges. (While NYSDEC and NJDEP are the permit-issuing agencies, as part of the ISCmonitoring program, the Commissionperforms 24-hour NPDES compliancesampling of major industrial discharges inNew York and New Jersey in coordinationwith the state environmental departmentsand USEPA. ISC supplies the results of thismonitoring to the state environmentaldepartments and USEPA.)

-- For those facilities which have approvedlocal pretreatment programs, the states andUSEPA will assure that the localpretreatment programs remain incompliance.

-- The states and USEPA will assure thatcategorical industrial users which do notdischarge to an approved local pretreatmentprogram remain in compliance.

ACTION T-2.2Pretreatment Program Focus on SignificantIndustrial UsersUSEPA, NYSDEC, and NJDEP will ensure thatmunicipalities in the Harbor/Bight area focustheir pretreatment programs on significantindustrial users, and additional users asnecessary, not just categorical industrial users.

This is intended to allow a focus on the mostsignificant indirect industrial dischargers of toxicchemicals.

-- As noted previously, NYCDEP has foundsignificant decreases in loadings of severalmetals, attributable in part toimplementation of the industrialpretreatment program. In New York City,402 significant industrial users are currentlyunder regulation. These include suchindustrial categories as electroplating, metalfinishing, metals molding and casting,pharmaceutical manufacturing, and organicchemical manufacturing. NYCDEP has beentracking non-regulated businesses toimprove information on loadings of metalsand toxic organic chemicals. This is helpingNew York City target the pretreatmentprogram on the most significantcontributors. For example, New York Cityhas recently added forty automobile radiatorrepair shops to the industrial pretreatmentprogram. Also, New York City is developingan industrial control strategy for photofinishers.

-- As discussed above, levels oftetrachloroethylene sometimes exceed thewater quality guidance value in some NewYork City waters in the Harbor. In responseto this, New York City is modifying itspretreatment program to reduce dischargesof this chemical:

• New York City has recently amended itsSewer Use Regulations to incorporate aprohibition of still bottom residue and filtermaterial discharges by the dry cleaningindustry. NYCDEP will develop an inventoryof the industry and notify each facility ofthe requirements, and will monitor loadingsin STP effluent and report on progress.

• NYCDEP will investigate other potentialsources of tetrachloroethylene.

ACTION T-2.3Additional Requirements for Direct IndustrialDischargers

-- Direct industrial dischargers will be subjectto requirements to control loadings ofcopper and mercury, and nickel and lead asnecessary, as described above for municipaldischarges:



OBJECTIVE T-3 Minimize the discharge oftoxic chemicals fromCSOs, storm water, andnon-point sources

• Phase I permit limits will be based on EEQ.- Harbor-wide for mercury - In Newark Bay, Kills, Raritan Bay/River,

Passaic River, and Hackensack River forcopper.

• Phase II may include more stringenttechnically defensible permit limits based onadditional data collection and modeling (seeAction T-13.1 below).

-- Direct industrial dischargers will also beconsidered for "Track-down and Clean-up"of sources of organic chemicals of concern,as appropriate (see Action T-1.2).

ACTION T-2.4Effluent Guidelines for Industry CategoriesUSEPA will promulgate effluent guidelines fortoxic and non-conventional pollutants inaccordance with schedules established inbiennial plans.

-- Rulemaking priorities are being set withpublic input, based on comparativeenvironmental risk.

-- Rulemaking will place limitations ondischarges of pollutants not covered byexisting regulations, as well as strengthenexisting regulations.

Combined Sewer OverflowsEffective abatement of CSO discharges isexpected to be important in reducing the levelsof metals in New Jersey tributaries and may beimportant Harbor-wide in reducing the levels ofsome of the toxic organic chemicals of concern. Full implementation of the Final National CSOControl Policy and currently planned New Yorkand New Jersey CSO abatement programs areexpected to reduce discharges of toxicchemicals. See the section on Rainfall-InducedDischarges for a description of these actions.

-- HEP will, given sufficient funding, assessthe load reductions of chemicals of concernexpected with implementation of HEP's planto abate CSO and other rainfall-induceddischarges (see Action T-12.13 below).

Storm Water DischargesEffective abatement of storm water dischargesis expected to be important in reducing thelevels of metals in New Jersey tributaries andmay be important Harbor-wide in reducing thelevels of some of the toxic organic chemicals ofconcern. Implementation of municipal andindustrial storm water permit programs isexpected to reduce storm water discharges. Seethe section on Rainfall-Induced Discharges for adescription of these actions.

Non-Point Source RunoffBecause most of the Harbor area is sewered,there is very little non-point source runoff. Therefore, on a Harbor-wide basis, non-pointsource runoff is not a major source of toxiccontamination. (Note that storm water andcombined sewer overflows, which are pointsources, are distinguished from non-point sourcerunoff, as are other types of non-point sources,such as atmospheric deposition, sediment flux,and landfill leachate, not carried by a discreteconveyance such as a pipe). Non-point sourcerunoff may, however, contribute significantly toloads of toxic chemicals entering the Harbor viatributaries and in the Navesink/Shrewsburydrainage area, and may be significant in theBight. Details of current New York and NewJersey non-point source management programscan be found in the section on Rainfall-InducedDischarges.

Additional Actions to Address Rainfall-InducedDischargesCurrently planned or ongoing investigations byHEP may provide new information indicating theneed for additional actions to fully addressrainfall-induced discharges of the chemicals ofconcern. See "Actions to Better Understandand Manage the Problem" (see Objectives T-11,T-12 and T-13 below).



OBJECTIVE T-4 Reduce air emissions ofchemicals of concern

OBJECTIVE T-5 Remediate identified solidand hazardous waste sites

Current Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements, suchas the National Emission Standards forHazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and NewSource Review (NSR), will significantly reducetoxic loadings into the air. NESHAPs cover airemissions from industrial sources. NSR ruleslimit emissions of criteria pollutants and manyvolatile organic compounds, and, in addition,regulate dioxin and furans from municipal wasteincinerators. Both New Jersey and New Yorkhave 70 to 99 percent control requirements formany hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) under theirState Implementation Plan programs.

CAA amendments in 1990 enhanced theauthority of USEPA and the states to regulatemore than 189 specific HAPs, emitted fromapproximately 180 source categories, and toregulate a large number of area or small sourcesof HAPs.

The CAA amendments also established the GreatWaterbodies Program, which requires USEPA todetermine the contribution of atmosphericdeposition to total pollutant loadings to NewYork-New Jersey Harbor and other "GreatWaterbodies" and promulgate appropriateregulations under the CAA to assure protectionof these waters (see Action T-12.11 below).

ACTION T-4.0Implementation of Clean Air Act Requirements

-- USEPA, NYSDEC, and NJDEP will continueto enforce existing air regulations limitingthe emissions of toxic pollutants.

-- Under CAA amendments, USEPA willdevelop emission standards, based onmaximum achievable control technology, forall the source categories by the year 2000.

-- USEPA will develop regulations for area orsmall sources of HAPs by the year 2000.

-- Through implementation of the CAArequirements, USEPA projects an 85 percentreduction in atmospheric deposition ofmetals, nationwide, over the next 10-15years. This reduction will contribute to theattainment

of ambient water quality standards formercury in the Harbor/Bight.

Active and inactive solid and hazardous wastesites may contaminate the Harbor/Bight, but theavailable information has not been analyzed todetermine which sites are contributingchemicals of concern. HEP recommends usingavailable information to help set priorities forclean closure or remediation of sitescontributing contamination to the Harbor/Bight (Note: Contaminated sediment sites arediscussed under Objective T-9 below).

ACTION T-5.1Waste Site InventoryHEP recommends that USEPA, NYSDEC, andNJDEP, with assistance from NYCDEP, developa GIS-based integrated inventory of active andinactive solid and hazardous waste sites in theHarbor/Bight area contributing or potentiallycontributing toxics, especially chemicals ofconcern, to the Harbor/Bight. The geographicscope of this effort should include all areasdraining to the Harbor/Bight system, includingthe Hudson River to the Troy Lock and Dam. The inventory should use existing state prioritylists for hazardous waste sites. Existing databases, such as the NJDEP Comprehensive SiteList, should be used to develop the integratedinventory. Also, note that NYSDEC isincorporating information on inventoriedinactive hazardous waste disposal sites into aGIS. The GIS inventory is complete for sites inNew York City. The April 1995 Annual Reportof Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites inNew York State includes maps and descriptiveinformation about each inventoried site. NYSDEC will complete the GIS inventory forsites in Long Island and the Hudson Valley



OBJECTIVE T-6 Track-down and clean-upof other sources ofchemicals of concern

region in 1996. If funded, NJDEP will provide aGIS-compatible inventory of known or suspectedcontaminated sites within the definedboundaries of the Harbor/ Bight, using existingsite remediation program data bases such as theComprehensive Site List and the KnownContaminated Sites in New Jersey.

ACTION T-5.2Remediation of Sites Contributing SignificantContamination to the Harbor/BightUSEPA, NYSDEC, and NJDEP will develop site-specific schedules to expedite closure orremediation of the most significant sites.

-- For publicly funded sites:• To the extent feasible, USEPA and the

states will adjust schedules to addresspriority sites in the Harbor/Bight drainagearea, within existing resources.

• To the extent that these priorities cannot beaddressed within existing resources, USEPAand the states will identify and seek theadditional resources required.

-- For privately funded sites, USEPA, NYSDEC,and NJDEP will negotiate with principalresponsible parties to adjust schedules toaddress priority sites.

Action T-1.2 describes HEP's program to identifyand abate significant municipal and industrialdischarges of PCBs, dioxin, and other organicchemicals of concern. The actions belowdescribe a similar program where the "track-down" originates in the ambient environment.

ACTION T-6.1Organic Chemical and Mercury ScreeningHEP recommends that USEPA, NYSDEC, andNJDEP conduct screening for ambient levels oforganic chemicals of concern and mercury, inproximity to potential sources, using sensitivesample monitoring techniques (for example,

Passive In-Situ Concentration ExtractionSamplers [PISCES] for organic chemicals andlow-level detection methods for mercury).

ACTION T-6.2Tracking and Elimination of Chemicals ofConcernWhere significantly elevated levels are found,USEPA, NYSDEC, and NJDEP will initiateprocedures to track-down and eliminate, orrequire the elimination of, the sources of thechemicals, giving priority to the most significantsources.

-- Note that HEP's plans to focus pollutionprevention activities on chemicals ofconcern (see Objective T-8 below), includingidentifying the largest emitters in theHarbor/Bight area, may contribute to track-down and elimination of sources.

-- Note that the proposed screening will alsobe helpful to focus data collection effortsfor developing mass balances (see ObjectiveT-13 below).

ACTION T-6.3Arthur Kill, New York PCB TrackdownNYSDEC recently completed an effort to trackdown sources of PCBs in New York waters ofthe Harbor using PISCES. Initial Harbor-widedeployment of PISCES in Harbor tributaries in1991 and 1992 found elevated levels of PCBs inseveral tributaries to the Arthur Kill. This wasconfirmed by additional sampling in 1993 and1994. In one of these tributaries (Mill Creek,Staten Island) several possible discrete sourcesof PCBs were identified. Sampling at one ofthese facilities detected PCBs in the storm waterdischarges.

-- This facility has been the subject of aNYSDEC multi-media pollution preventioneffort. A multi-media Order on Consentrequires the facility to conduct PCB soiltesting in conjunction with an investigativework plan and possible remediation ifcontamination is found.

-- NYSDEC is developing a SPDES permit forthe facility which will not allow detectablePCB discharge.



OBJECTIVE T-7 Improve chemical/oil spillresponse and prevention

OBJECTIVE T-8 Focus pollution preventionactivities on chemicals ofconcern

-- HEP recommends additional follow-up work: 1) to evaluate other possible sources ofPCBs to Mill Creek; and 2) in conjunctionwith the Harbor-wide program recommendedin Actions T-6.1 and T-6.2, to identifypossible sources of PCBs in the othertributaries where elevated PCB levels werefound.

In response to several large oil spills in theHarbor, in 1989 and 1990, the Governors ofNew York and New Jersey and the responsiblefederal agencies joined with industry to form theNew York Harbor Bi-State Oil Spill Response andPrevention Conference. The Bi-StateConference prepared a final report, includingfindings and recommenda-tions, to prevent oilspills and to more effectively respond when theydo occur. Subsequently, in March 1994, theU.S. Coast Guard (USCG) adopted an AreaContingency Plan, incorporating therecommendations of the Bi-State Conference.

ACTION 7.0Review of Area Contingency Plan and Bi-StateConference ReportHEP will review these documents andincorporate them, as appropriate, into theCCMP.

-- HEP will provide relevant information toUSCG and the Bi-State Conference to assistin updates of the Area Contingency Plan(e.g., see Objective H-10).

Pollution prevention activities focus oneliminating the generation of waste at thesource. Pollution prevention is defined aschanges in production technologies, rawmaterials, or products that result in a reductionin the demand for hazardous substances or in

the creation of hazardous substances or wastesprior to treatment, storage, out-of-processrecycling, and disposal. HEP's plan for pollutionprevention aims to focus programs bothgeographically (i.e., on the Harbor/Bight), andon HEP's chemicals of concern. For example,currently, some significant emitters may nothave pollution prevention plans. Also, for thoseemitters which do have pollution preventionplans, additional action could be requested forHEP's chemicals of concern. Pollutionprevention activities for sources close to theHarbor/Bight should target the most significantemitters of chemicals of concern. USEPA,NYSDEC, and NJDEP should incorporatepollution prevention activities addressing thesesources and chemicals into programs across allmedia. HEP will, given sufficient funding,assess the load reductions of chemicals ofconcern expected with implementation of HEP'splan for pollution prevention (see Action T-12.13 below).

ACTION T-8.1Identification of Large Emitters of Chemicals ofConcern

-- NYSDEC and NJDEP should review facilitiesin areas draining to the Harbor core area toidentify the largest emitters of chemicals ofconcern using Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)and other data.

-- To the extent feasible, NYSDEC and NJDEPwill give these facilities highest priority forpollution prevention actions, includingthose found in Actions T-8.3 through T-8.5below, within existing resources.

-- To the extent priorities in the Harbor/Bightcannot be addressed with existing programresources, NYSDEC and NJDEP will identifyand seek the additional resources required.

ACTION T-8.2Non-Regulatory Pollution PreventionPollution prevention should be implementedthrough non-regulatory measures to the extentfeasible.

-- Under the New Jersey State PollutionPrevention Act, priority industrial facilitiesare preparing, annually, multi-media



OBJECTIVE T-9 Identify and remediateselected contaminatedsediments

pollution prevention plans. These plans areenvisioned to build pollution prevention intoday-to-day decision-making.-- HEP, through its liaisons with municipal

dischargers and industrial facilities in theHarbor/Bight area, will seek commitmentsfor voluntary reductions in releases ofchemicals of concern to all media.

-- HEP's public involvement and educationplan emphasizes measures which can beimplemented by citizens to reduce releasesof chemicals of concern, in particular,petroleum.

ACTION T-8.3Facility-Wide PermitsNJDEP is evaluating a Facility-Wide Permit(FWP) approach, to integrate air, water, andhazardous waste permits from a facility with itspollution prevention plan.

-- NJDEP is currently conducting a FWP pilotproject.

-- If successful, NJDEP will seek legislativeapproval to implement the FWP program.

ACTION T-8.4NPDES Pollution PreventionCurrently, NPDES permits may not includepollution prevention plan requirements. Forregulatory programs under their purview:

-- NYSDEC will add such requirements,addressing the chemicals of concern, toNPDES renewal permits, permitmodifications, and new permits.

-- NJDEP will consider, if given legislativeauthority, adding pollution preventionrequirements addressing the chemicals ofconcern to NPDES renewals and permitmodifications.

[Note: In connection with development ofTMDLs for water quality-limiting metals,dischargers were required to evaluate the costeffectiveness of pollution prevention and othermeasures to reduce metal discharges (see ActionT-1.1)].

ACTION T-8.5RCRA Permitting and EnforcementUSEPA, NYSDEC, and NJDEP will give highpriority to those hazardous waste treatment,storage, and disposal facilities in theHarbor/Bight area that manage one or more ofthe chemicals of concern.

-- Permits issued by USEPA will requirestringent waste management measures toprevent releases to the environment, clean-up of any past releases, and submittal of apollution prevention plan.

-- USEPA, NYSDEC, and NJDEP will targetRCRA inspections for those hazardouswaste generators in the Harbor/Bight areathat manage one or more of the chemicalsof concern.

Actions to Remediate Selected ContaminatedSediments

Objectives T-1 through T-8 address reduction ofcontinuing sources of toxic chemicals to theHarbor/Bight. However, contamination ofsediments of the Harbor/Bight from pastdischarges also contributes significantly to thecontamination of seafood and to adverseecological effects. Contaminated sedimentsmay be significant sources of chemicals ofconcern, including dioxin, PCBs, and mercury.

HEP endorses a comprehensive managementapproach to address these contaminants. Toassess the public health and ecologicalsignificance of all sources of contaminants ofconcern, HEP is recommending development ofmass balances (see Objective T-13 below) andapplied research efforts (see Objective T-12below), which may be expensive and technicallycomplex. However, consistent with ourmanagement approach, HEP also endorsesaction now to address significant knownsources of contamination.



The principal authorities for remediatingcontaminated sediments are the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Response, Compensation andLiability Act, (CERCLA), also known as"Superfund", and related state authorities.

ACTION T-9.1Remediation of Known AreasUSEPA and other responsible agencies will takeappropriate steps to remediate known areas ofhighly contaminated sediments which arecontributing to human health and ecologicalrisks.

Diamond Alkali Superfund Site

The Diamond Alkali Superfund Site includes aland-based portion (i.e., the former pesticidesmanufacturing factory at 80 and 120 ListerAvenue in Newark, New Jersey) and theadjoining six-mile reach of the Passaic River,known as the Passaic River Study Area. The soilin the land-based portion of the site and thesediments in the Passaic River Study Area arecontaminated with dioxin and may contributesignificant loads of dioxin to the Estuary as awhole. Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC),a successor to the Diamond ShamrockChemicals Company, is required to perform theclean-up activities at the site, with USEPAoversight.

Table 9(t) shows the status of actions at theDiamond Alkali Superfund Site. The interimremedy for the land-based portion of the sitewill contain the contamination to eliminatepotential human exposure to dioxin and otherhazardous compounds and eliminate anycontinuing load of these compounds enteringthe Passaic River from the site. Possibleremedies for the Passaic River Study Area arebeing investigated.

-- USEPA has reached an agreement with OCCunder which OCC will conduct a RemedialInvestigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) of thePassaic River Study Area. The RI/FS willcharacterize the contaminated sediments,determine what effect they are having onhuman health and the environment, andevaluate possible remedial alternatives tomitigate any adverse effects.

Table 9(t). Status of Actions at Diamond AlkaliSuperfund Site

ACTION LEADAGENCY

COMPLETIONDATE

Land-based portion of site

Installation of geotextilefabric over exposedsoils.

NJDEP Completed

Interim remedy under1990 Consent Decreeincludes installation ofan impermeable cap, in-ground slurry wall, anda system for pumpingand treatingcontaminatedgroundwater; biennialre-evaluation.

USEPA Remedialdesign: 1996Construction: 1998

Passaic River Study Area

RemedialInvestigation/FeasibilityStudy and Record ofDecision.

USEPA 1997

• Prior to completion of the RI/FS, USEPA willassess available data and information andevaluate interim remedial technologies/actions likely to apply to the area.

• USEPA will issue a Record of Decision(ROD), specifying the remedial plan for thePassaic River Study Area in 1997.

-- USEPA, in concert with HEP, will takeappropriate steps to ensure an effective linkbetween remedial actions at the DiamondAlkali Superfund site and impacts on theEstuary as a whole.

• In developing the ROD, USEPA will assessthe current impact of dioxin and othercontaminants within the Passaic River StudyArea and the impact after theimplementation of the remedial action.

• By June 1997, given sufficient funding, HEPwill develop improved mass balances fordioxin and other contaminants in theEstuary, and develop preliminary controlscenarios, using relatively simple or existingmodels (see Action T-13.3 below). The



effort should include data collection to supportassessment of dioxin and other contaminantloadings to the Estuary and model calibration.

• USEPA will provide relevant data and/or amodel to HEP for use in HEP's effort toassess the impact of dioxin and othercontaminants from the Passaic River StudyArea on the Estuary as a whole.

• If HEP's effort is completed prior to issuanceof the ROD, USEPA will consider the resultsin selecting a remedy for the Passaic RiverStudy Area.

• USEPA has indicated that HEP's effortshould be completed at least 60 days priorto issuance of the ROD, in order to facilitateeffective use of the information in USEPA'sdecision. HEP will work closely with USEPAto ensure that information is timely.

Upper Hudson River PCBs Sites

Several sites which may contribute loads ofPCBs to the lower Hudson River have beenidentified in the upper Hudson River basin. These include the Hudson River PCBs SuperfundSite, the Remnant Deposits, which are part ofthe Hudson River PCBs Site, and three sitesupstream [Table 10(t)]. Responsible agencieshave taken a number of interim or final remedialactions at these sites to reduce the loads ofPCBs reaching the river; additionalinvestigations are continuing.

-- USEPA is conducting a Reassessment RI/FSfor the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site.

• USEPA will submit a proposed remedial planfor public review by March 1997.

• USEPA will issue a ROD by September1997.

-- USEPA, in concert with HEP, will takeappropriate steps to ensure an effective linkbetween remedial actions in the upperHudson River basin and impacts on thelower River and Estuary. The goal of HEP isto ensure no transport down-river of a PCBload which would result in deposition ofsediments that would violate human healthadvisories and protection levels for aquaticlife and fish-eating wildlife.

Table 10(t). Sites Contaminated with PCBs in the Upper

Hudson River Basin

SITE LEADAGENCY

STATUS

HudsonRiver PCBsSuperfundSite

USEPA USEPA is conducting aReassessment RI/FS; willselect a remedial action forthe PCB-contaminatedsediments by September1997.

-- RemnantDeposits

USEPA Capped in 1990-91 pursuantto USEPA/GE consentdecree; post-constructionmonitoring continues.

GeneralElectric Co.HudsonFalls PlantSite

NYSDEC Interim remedial measuresimplemented including: eliminating water flowthrough an abandoned millstructure; removal ofcontaminated sediments inthe mill; installation of seepcollection systems and awater pretreatment system; and sealing fracturedbedrock. GE is continuinginvestigations.

GeneralElectric Co.Fort EdwardPlant Outfall

NYSDEC Interim remedial measureimplemented: pipe installedto prevent discharge waterfrom coming into contactwith contaminated soils. GEis continuing investigations.

Niagara-MohawkSite

NYSDEC Site being investigated; impacts thought to belocalized.

• In developing the ROD, USEPA will estimatethe current flux of PCBs from the upperHudson River to the lower River, and theflux based on implementation ofremediation planned at all the upper HudsonRiver basin PCBs sites.

• By June 1996, HEP will develop animproved mass balance for PCBs in theEstuary, using relatively simple or existingmodels and existing data; by June 1997,given sufficient funding, HEP will furtherrefine and update the mass balance forPCBs, including congener-specific behavior(see Action T-13.3 below). The effortshould include data collection to supportassessment of PCBs loadings to the Estuaryand model calibration.



OBJECTIVE T-10 Establish consistentmethodology to assessrisks and improvecommunication of fishadvisories

• USEPA will consider the results of HEP'sefforts in selecting a remedy for the HudsonRiver PCBs Superfund Site, to the extentcompleted prior to issuance of the ROD.

• USEPA has indicated that HEP's effortshould be completed at least 60 days priorto issuance of the ROD, in order to facilitateeffective use of the information in USEPA'sdecision. HEP will work closely with USEPAto ensure that information is timely.

Marathon Battery Site

-- With USEPA oversight, the principalresponsible parties have completed theclean-up of the Marathon Battery site. Theclean-up included remedial dredging of theHudson River in the Cold Spring, New Yorkpier area, remedial dredging of East FoundryCove, remedial dredging and restoration ofEast Foundry Cove Marsh, and remediationof the upland portion of the site.

• Remediation was completed in June 1995.• Long-term monitoring will begin in fall

1995.

ACTION T-9.2Identification of Additional Areas USEPA, NYSDEC, NJDEP, and USACE shouldidentify additional areas of highly contaminatedsediments for more in-depth assessment,including the feasibility of and need forremediation.

-- As discussed in the section on dredgedmaterial management, USEPA and USACEare conducting studies under Section 405 ofthe Water Resources Development Act,which may help to develop remedial plansfor contaminated sediments. For example,the decontamination technologies beingevaluated may prove useful for sediments inareas which will not be dredged fornavigational purposes.

-- If funded, NJDEP will provide a GIS-compatible inventory of known or suspectedsites with contaminated sediments as partof the information supplied under Action T-5.1.

Other actions on contaminated sediments are inthe section on dredged material management.

Actions to Minimize Human Health Risks

Risk Assessment

The States of New York and New Jersey setfishing advisories and restrictions intended toprotect the public, including local fishingcommunities, from health risks due toconsumption of locally caught seafood whichmay be contaminated with toxic chemicals. With some exceptions, these advisories arebased on criteria promulgated nationally by theFood and Drug Administration (FDA) of the U.S.Department of Commerce (called FDA actionlevels). The FDA action levels reflect thebalancing of human health risks with factorssuch as the economic and social consequencesof closing or restricting fisheries.

In developing water quality criteria forprotection of human health, USEPA applies arisk assessment methodology which is morestringent than FDA's. USEPA's approach isintended for use in establishing pollution controlobjectives. Although USEPA has not publishedfish tissue criteria, it has used the riskassessment methodology to calculate fish tissuevalues associated with the published waterquality criteria. These "criteria values" havebeen applied in HEP's evaluation of chemicals ofconcern. There is concern about whether FDA'sapproach is adequately protective of higher-risksegments of the fish-consuming public. Themethods used by New York and New Jersey toset advisories and restrictions are different.

ACTION T-10.1Risk Assessment MethodologyThe States of New York and New Jersey shouldestablish a consistent methodology, asappropriate, to assess human health risks fromconsumption of locally-caught seafood and toset fish advisories and restrictions.



-- The states should prepare a reportdocumenting their methodologies forassessing health risks.

ACTION T-10.2Fish Tissue CriteriaUSEPA and the States of New York and NewJersey should review available fish tissuecriteria, and recommend necessary steps toadopt and implement revised criteria asappropriate (see Objectives T-11 and T-12below).

Furthermore, additional information on the levelsof contamination in various edible species in theHarbor/Bight is needed. This information isimportant to help develop and modify fishadvisories and restrictions. HEP and others aretaking steps to address this (see Action T-12.3below).

Risk Communication

Effective communication of advisories isessential to minimize public health risks. Current efforts routinely conducted by bothNew York and New Jersey include: 1) providingadvisory information to all those who arelicensed to fish (Note, however, that in bothNew York and New Jersey, recreational fishinglicenses are not required for marine waters,including most of the Harbor); 2) issuing pressreleases of advisories, including changes inadvisories; and 3) providing advisory informationto local environmental groups, local healthdepartments, fishing organizations, bait andtackle shops, etc.

However, recent studies indicate that theseefforts have not been sufficient to enable thepublic to make an informed choice regardingconsumption. For example, a survey of anglersconducted along the Hudson River found thatless than half of this group (42%), who indicatethat they eat their catch, were aware of anyadvisories. Less than seven percent of thosesurveyed had an accurate knowledge of theadvisories. Almost half (49%) of those surveyedthought that they could determine, by visualobservation or previous experience, whether fishare safe to eat.

In addition, there are segments of the publicthat are not being adequately informed. Theseinclude people who fish but are not licensed,people below licensing age, or people who fishin marine waters (where no licensing isrequired). People who are non-English speakingor have little formal education are also ofconcern since they are less likely tocomprehend, and therefore utilize, advisoryinformation. Moreover, these groups ofteninclude people who fish for subsistence, whosediet is primarily locally caught seafood. Recipients of fish caught by others are also ofconcern, since they may not fish themselvesand, therefore, may not be aware of existinghealth advisories.

ACTION T-10.3Risk Communication ActivitiesThe States of New York and New Jersey shouldtarget additional risk communication efforts tothose sub-populations at greatest risk anddevelop, with USEPA's assistance, a regionalapproach to advisory communication.

-- NYSDEC and NJDEP are conducting pilotprojects to develop and evaluate advisorycommunication plans tailored to the needsof specific localities in the Harbor area. Theprojects include developing improvedcommunications materials (e.g., inlanguages spoken by local populations) andtraining local authorities and grass-rootorganizers in advisory communications. Thestates will consider implementing favoredapproaches Harbor-wide.

Actions to Better Understand and Manage theProblem

As noted throughout this section, additionalinformation is needed to better understand andmanage the toxics contamination problem in theHarbor/Bight. The following action descriptionsprovide an overview of information needs,followed by recommendations and commitmentsto address the needs, including a description ofongoing efforts. Both the chemical-specificapproach and the ecosystem approach arediscussed.



OBJECTIVE T-11 Review and developcriteria for copper andother priority chemicals

OBJECTIVE T-12 Assess ambient levels,loadings, and effects ofchemicals

The lack of numeric criteria or doubts about thevalidity or proper application of availablenumeric criteria (including, in some cases,regulatory criteria and standards) limit our abilityto draw conclusions regarding whether achemical is of concern in the Harbor/Bight. Therefore, management options are also limited:

Ë There are no generally accepted regulatorycriteria for sediment quality. USEPA isdeveloping criteria based on equilibriumpartitioning and has recently proposed draftcriteria for the protection of benthicorganisms for several pesticides and PAHcompounds. Many other approaches areavailable for developing criteria. For example,New York State has developed sedimentquality screening criteria for protection ofhuman health, wildlife, and benthicorganisms; and NOAA has proposed "EffectsRange Values" based on associations betweenlevels of a particular chemical and a variety ofobserved biological effects.

Ë FDA's approach for developing action levelsfor fish, crustacea, and shellfish tissue maynot be sufficiently protective of people whoregularly consume locally caught seafood.

Ë There are concerns about the validity ofparticular criteria, or their application. Forexample, applying water quality criteria formetals, based on an analysis of total metals, islikely to be overprotective because particulatemetal is not as bioavailable as dissolved metal.

ACTION T-11.1Site Specific Water Quality Criteria for CopperNYSDEC and NJDEP will adopt site-specificwater quality criteria for copper in New York andNew Jersey water quality standards regulations.

ACTION T-11.2New and Revised Priority CriteriaNYSDEC and NJDEP will analyze existingapplicable criteria and adopt new and revisedcriteria as appropriate for priority chemicals.

-- USEPA, NYSDEC, and NJDEP, under theauspices of HEP, will prepare a plan fordeveloping and adopting new and revisedcriteria for priority chemicals.

USEPA has recommended that the statesconsider adoption of water quality criteria fordissolved metals:

-- NYSDEC and NJDEP will adopt waterquality criteria for dissolved lead anddissolved nickel.

-- As part of their triennial reviews, NYSDECand NJDEP will consider adoption of waterquality criteria for other dissolved metals, asappropriate.

The principal objective of the assessments, bothrecommended and ongoing, included in thissection is improved problem definition. Thisincludes assessing whether a particular chemicalis of concern in water, biota, and sediments,and assessing relative loadings. Assessmentsfor development of mass balances are addressedbelow. Long-term monitoring to assess thesuccess of CCMP implementation is discussed inthe sections on Monitoring and Reporting onProgress in Implementing the Plan.

Ecological Indicators

ACTION T-12.1Quantitative Ecosystem Goals and BiocriteriaUSEPA, NYSDEC, and NJDEP, under theauspices of HEP, should develop ecosystemindicators as quantitative goals and biocriteria,and implement long-term monitoring of theindicators (see sections



on Monitoring and Reporting on Progress inImplementing the Plan below).

-- Based on the Regional EnvironmentalMonitoring and Assessment Program (R-EMAP) (see text and Action T-12.4 below)and other available data, HEP will developan index of benthic degradation for theHarbor/Bight, to distinguish normal benthiccommunities from those degraded bypollution, and indicate the relative severityof degradation to the benthic communities.

-- USEPA and the states should develop andimplement a long-term monitoring programusing the benthic index and otherappropriate indicators.

-- As part of their triennial reviews, NYSDECand NJDEP should adopt biocriteria basedon the benthic index and other indicators,as appropriate.

HEP funded a study to compare the reproductivesuccess of several species of fish-eating birds inthe Harbor/Bight region. The investigatorsconcluded that reproductive success in severalcolonies in the Bight area was impaired. Thecause(s) of the decreased reproductive success,however, is not clear and may include predation,human disturbance, toxic contamination, andother factors.

-- HEP recommends additional efforts tomonitor the size and productivity of localpopulations of herons, egrets, gulls, and/orterns, focusing on colonies nesting in theHarbor core area. Where impairedproductivity and/or declining birdpopulations are found, HEP recommendsanalysis of bird tissue contaminant levels.

ACTION T-12.2Identification of Chemicals Responsible forAdverse Ecological EffectsWhere evidence of adverse ecological effects oftoxic contamination is found, USEPA, NYSDEC,NJDEP, and other authorities will conductstudies to evaluate whether, and if so which,chemicals are responsible.

-- HEP conducted studies to assess ambientwater toxicity in the Harbor using sensitivetest organisms (a sea urchin and a red alga). Initial studies indicated that Harbor watersin some areas were sometimes toxic tothese organisms, but temporal variabilitywas great. A followup study to characterizethe variability on small spatial scales, andevaluate the classes of chemicalsresponsible for the observed toxicity, calleda Phase I Toxicity Identification Evaluation(TIE), was recently completed. This studyalso found extreme temporal variability intoxicity, which made comparisons amongstations and seasons ambiguous. Toxicitywas found infrequently; when found, thepattern of toxicity reduction obtainedduring the Phase I TIE analyses wasindicative of toxicity due to cationic metals.

-- USEPA, as part of its ongoing program todevelop methods for marine sediment TIE,using Water Resources Development Act(WRDA) funds, is conducting a Phase I TIEto evaluate the classes of chemicalsresponsible for toxicity in interstitial (pore)water at three sites in the Harbor (NewtownCreek, northern Arthur Kill, and north-central Newark Bay). USEPA, incooperation with the National BiologicalSurvey of the U.S. Department of theInterior, is also developing whole sedimentTIE methods and will conduct Phase I TIEsin conjunction with this effort. The TIEswill use a variety of test organisms includingan amphipod, a mysid, and a bivalve. InitialTIE work was completed in October 1995.

-- HEP, in cooperation with USEPA, USACE,NYSDEC, and NJDEP, will, given adequatefunding, conduct a sediment TIE program tosupplement the above effort. The programshould focus on identifying contaminantscausing toxicity, or impaired benthos, on aHarbor-wide scale (as a follow up to R-EMAP; see below), with additionalemphasis on dredged sediment. Theprogram should include Phase I and Phase IITIEs, to identify specific chemicals causingtoxicity, in interstitial water and wholesediment. HEP will develop a work plan forthis effort.



Synthesis of Chemical-Specific Information

ACTION T-12.3Revision to List of Chemicals of ConcernHEP will, on a biennial basis, and givensufficient resources, revise and update the list ofchemicals of concern based on new information,including new and revised criteria (e.g., seeObjective T-11), and new data on levels ofchemicals in water, biota, and sediments (e.g.,see Objective T-12).

Sediment Quality

Background

HEP is currently assessing sediment quality incoordination with R-EMAP. The objectives ofthe assessment are: 1) to estimate the extentand magnitude of sediment degradation in thestudy area using biological and chemicalmeasures; and 2) to identify statisticalassociations among chemical contaminants,other stressors, such as low dissolved oxygen,and degraded benthos or toxic sediments. Theassessment involves synoptic measurement ofsediment toxicity, benthic community structure,and bulk sediment chemistry (including dioxinand PCB congeners, chlorinated pesticides,PAHs, metals, organotins), at stations selectedrandomly throughout the New York-New JerseyHarbor complex, western Long Island Sound,and Bight Apex (total of approximately 170stations). The study will be complete in March1996. The data will be useful to:

Ë Provide a baseline to evaluate theeffectiveness of management strategiesimplemented to resolve sedimentcontamination issues (e.g., by comparing R-EMAP data to future studies to assess trends).

Ë Provide a perspective on the relativesignificance of contamination and otherstressors, locally versus larger-scalephenomena (e.g., by comparing R-EMAP datato studies conducted on smaller spatialscales).

There are several additional ongoing or recentlycompleted studies which attempt to characterizesediment contamination and biological effects. These include the NOAA Bioeffects Program and

recent studies by the Maxus Corporationfocusing on the Newark Bay Complex.

ACTION T-12.4Completion of R-EMAP AssessmentHEP will complete the R-EMAP project by March1996.

ACTION T-12.5Additional Sediment Quality Studies

-- HEP will, given sufficient funding, conductadditional studies to assess sedimentquality. Priorities are:

• Assessment of ambient sedimentbioaccumulation potential (i.e., thepotential for organisms to accumulatecontaminants in their tissues from ambientsediments).

• Assessment of trophic transfer ofcontaminants and effects on higher trophiclevels, including fundamental research, andstudies supporting development of massbalance models. (Note: The Hudson RiverFoundation is funding research to addressPCBs).

• Evaluation of the chemicals causingsediment toxicity or impaired benthos (Note: USEPA is funding a sediment and porewater Toxicity Identification Evaluation; seeAction T-12.2).

• Characterization of sediment quality onsmall spatial scales, e.g., to identify "hotspots" and assess sources and sinks forcontaminants in sediments.

-- HEP will develop a work plan, including costestimates, for these studies.

-- HEP will recommend further managementactions based on all available sedimentquality assessment information. To theextent information is available, the actionswill address:

• Defining system-wide and basin-wide sourcecontrol and remediation priorities.

• Providing a basis for developing regionalecological indicators and biocriteria.

• Developing regional and/or site specificsediment quality and management criteriafor



the protection of marine life, wildlife, andhuman health.

Fish, Crustacea, and Shellfish Tissue Quality

ACTION T-12.6Studies to Assess Tissue Quality

-- HEP is assessing levels of toxiccontaminants in edible fish, crustacea, andshellfish throughout the Harbor. The Statesof New York and New Jersey arecollaborating on this effort. A wide varietyof species is being sampled for all thechemicals of concern noted above. Thiseffort will be complete in December 1995 ata cost of $450,000.

-- USEPA, USACE, and NMFS are conductingan assessment of contamination of severalspecies of edible fish caught by therecreational fishing community (completedat a cost of $200,000), and an assessmentof contamination in lobsters in the BightApex (complete March 1996 at a cost of$300,000).

-- New York State is also assessing levels ofPCBs in striped bass throughout its marinewaters.

-- HEP will, given sufficient funding, conductfuture periodic fish tissue monitoring basedon these studies. HEP will develop workplans and seek funding for these studies.

ACTION T-12.7Modification of Advisories and Restrictions

-- New York State will use the informationfrom the above studies, as appropriate, tomodify fishing advisories and restrictionsand to identify additional data collectionneeds.

-- New Jersey will use the information toidentify additional data collection needs,ultimately resulting in modifications toadvisories and restrictions.

Water Quality

ACTION T-12.8New York Harbor Water Quality SurveyNYCDEP will continue its New York HarborWater Quality Survey at current levels of effort.

ACTION T-12.9Long-Term Monitoring Program in New JerseyNJDEP should develop a long-term water qualitymonitoring effort similar in design to New YorkCity's.

Loadings

In general, additional information on continuingloads of organic chemicals of concern to theHarbor/Bight is needed to identify the mostsignificant sources and source categories. Thiswill help focus management attention onreducing and eliminating these sources.

-- Data collection associated withdevelopment of mass balances for specificchemicals of concern, discussed in ActionsT-13.2 and T-13.3 below, is expected to beinstrumental in improving loadingsinformation for organic chemicals ofconcern.

-- USEPA required dischargers to identify thelevels of PCBs and dioxin being dischargedfrom municipal STPs and CSOs (see ActionT-1.2).

-- Additional information from HEP's pollutionprevention plan (Objective T-8), and track-down and clean-up plan (Objective T-6) mayhelp set priorities for quantitativeassessments of loads of chemicals ofconcern.

ACTION T-12.10Principal Components AnalysesUSEPA is conducting Principal ComponentsAnalyses for PCBs, dioxin, and PAHs forsediment samples from R-EMAP and severalother available data sets. This effort is expectedto help clarify the source categories responsiblefor the contamination.

ACTION T-12.11Atmospheric Loadings under "GreatWaterbodies" ProgramSection 112(m) of the Clean Air Act of 1990,which establishes the Great WaterbodiesProgram, may provide an opportunity to assessand control atmospheric deposition of toxicchemicals and nitrogen compounds to theHarbor/Bight. Under this program, USEPA, incoordination with NOAA, is required todetermine the contribution of atmospheric



deposition to the total pollutant loading to theGreat Waterbodies (which includes all HEPwaters), determine whether loadings ofhazardous air pollutants (HAPs) cause orcontribute to water quality violations, andpromulgate regulatory revisions to the CAA andother federal laws necessary to assure protectionof the waters. The USEPA Administrator willpromulgate the regulatory revisions based on adetermination of need as described in a report toCongress, prepared in 1993 and bienniallythereafter.

-- HEP will, given sufficient funding, assessatmospheric loadings of the chemicals ofconcern to the Harbor/Bight, as part of anexpedited quantification of chemicalloadings (see Action T-13.3 below); givensufficient funding, HEP will also assessexpected reductions in atmospheric loadingsof these chemicals with implementation ofthe Clean Air Act (see Action T-12.13below).

-- Within two years, given sufficient funding,HEP will develop simple mass balances toassess the relative contribution of allsources of the chemicals of concern,including atmospheric deposition.

-- USEPA will review this information and, incoordination with HEP, will incorporate itinto the Great Waterbodies Report toCongress biennial update not later than1997. The report update will specifyadditional steps and regulatory revisions, asappropriate, to address atmosphericdeposition of toxic chemicals to theHarbor/Bight.

ACTION T-12.12Low-Level Detection Methods for LoadingsAssessments of loadings for the purpose ofidentifying the most significant sources anddeveloping mass balances will require highquality data, often involving chemical analysesat very low levels of detection. Currently, mostregulated parties are not prepared to conductsuch analyses for several chemicals, includingmetals, PCBs, and dioxin.

-- USEPA, NYSDEC, and NJDEP shoulddevelop guidance specifying appropriatemethods, and work with regulated parties asnecessary to ensure the collection of highquality loadings data. NJDEP is currently

developing such guidance for metals; NYCDEPhas implemented "clean techniques" for metals.-- USEPA, NYSDEC, and NJDEP will

incorporate the methods for metals intomonitoring requirements for NPDES, CSO,and storm water permits.

ACTION T-12.13Assessment of Load Reductions Expected withCCMP Implementation

-- In parallel with development of simple massbalances for mercury and organic chemicalsof concern (see Action T-13.3 below), HEP,given sufficient funding, will conduct anengineering assessment to estimate the loadreductions of chemicals of concernexpected with implementation of HEP's planto reduce continuing inputs of toxicchemicals, and to control rainfall-induceddischarges. In particular, expected loadreductions with implementation of thefollowing programs will be assessed:

• The nine minimum control measures of theFinal National CSO Control Policy (seeObjective CSO-1 below)

• Current CSO abatement programs (seeObjective CSO-2 below)

• Municipal and industrial storm watermanagement programs (see Objective SW-1below)

• Full secondary treatment (see Objective N-1below)

• Pollution prevention (Objective T-8)• "Track-down and Clean-up" (Action T-1.2

and Objective T-6)• Focusing industrial pretreatment programs

on significant industrial users (Action T-2.2)• Clean Air Act (Objective T-4)

-- HEP would use this assessment to helpdetermine whether the above actions willresult in attainment of quantitative loadreduction goals for the chemicals ofconcern, established under Action T-13.3below, and how long it will take. If it isdetermined that goals will not be attained



OBJECTIVE T-13 Develop mass balancesfor metals and organicchemicals

in a timely fashion, HEP will identifyadditional actions to meet the goals.

-- Data on loadings of chemicals of concernfrom important source categories (seeAction T-13.3 below) should be used to helpgenerate load reduction estimates.

ACTION T-13.1Monitoring and Modeling for Metals other thanMercuryConsistent with the phased TMDL approach forwater quality-limiting metals:

-- The New Jersey Harbor Dischargers Group isconducting additional ambient and effluentmonitoring and modeling, to support PhaseII TMDLs for the waterbodies where copper,nickel, and lead may be water quality-limiting (see Objectives T-1 and T-2).

-- NJHDG is currently conducting monitoringto determine which metals are water quality-limiting. They will submit data by February1996.

-- NJHDG will submit a work plan foradditional Phase II monitoring and modelingstudies by September 1996.

-- NJDEP will review and approve this workplan, in coordination with HEP, byDecember 1996.

-- NJHDG will conduct the studies and submitload matrices for determining TMDLs byJune 1998.

-- USEPA, NYSDEC, and NJDEP will, byDecember 1998, revise TMDLs asappropriate.

ACTION T-13.2Comprehensive System-wide Model for Mercuryand Organic ChemicalsHEP recommends development of mass balancesto assess the significance of current sources oforganic chemicals and bioaccumulative mercury,as

well as sediment flux, in causing exceedances ofcriteria.

-- HEP is working with USACE to develop acomprehensive toxics model. USACEprepared a "straw" proposal, which wasreviewed by HEP. USACE developed a workplan in response to HEP comments. Thework plan includes a data collectionprogram for mercury and organic chemicalsof concern and model development initiallyfocusing on PCBs.

-- Model development and calibration for PCBswould take five years.

-- A comprehensive data collection programaddressing PCBs, dioxin, PAHs, pesticides,and mercury would take three years, andgiven adequate funding, will include:

• A comprehensive quantitative assessment ofloads of chemicals;

• An assessment of levels of chemicals inwater, biota, and sediments of theHarbor/Bight; and

• An assessment of environmental transportand fate of chemicals.

-- The model would be "state-of-the-art", and,as appropriate, would be used to helpdefine optimal management approaches toaddress exceedances, including reductionand elimination of continuing dischargesand potential remediation of contaminatedsediments, on a geographically specificbasis.

-- HEP recommends that USACE seek funds tocontinue the development of the model,including revising the modeling work plan toinclude a detailed data collection plan andcost estimates.

-- HEP will develop and seek funding for aprogram of research to complement thetoxics modeling effort.

-- HEP recommends that USACE seekauthorization and funding to conductmodeling and monitoring to address toxiccontamination in the Harbor/Bight, not tiedto dredged material management.



ACTION T-13.3Simple Mass Balance for Mercury and OrganicChemicalsIn parallel with development of thecomprehensive System-Wide Toxics Modeldescribed in Action T-13.2, HEP recommendsdevelopment of simple mass balances formercury and organic chemicals of concernwithin one to three years, to be used to supportinterim management assessments of dredgedsediment contamination.

HEP would use the simple mass balances toassess major sources of chemicals of concern ona Harbor-wide scale; whether significantreduction of the chemicals in dredged sedimentscan be achieved by reducing continuing inputs,and, if so, which sources and how long it willtake; and to set quantitative load reductiongoals. HEP will, given sufficient funding, assesswhether implementation of actions in the CCMPwill result in attainment of these goals (seeAction T-12.13). Note that the simple massbalances which are developed primarily to meetdredged material management objectives canalso be used to meet ambient water and biotatissue objectives.

-- The Hudson River Foundation (HRF), underthe auspices of HEP, and with support fromUSACE, the Port Authority of New York andNew Jersey, and USEPA, has initiated aproject to develop and validate anintegrated mathematical model for thetransport, fate, and bioaccumulation ofPCBs, dioxin, and PAHs in the Estuary. Anexisting model will be updated with newdata and expanded to include PCBcongener-specific behavior. Theeffectiveness of various control scenarioswill be evaluated using recent data onchemical loadings, in terms of effect onstriped bass tissue contaminant levels,sediment contamination, and water quality. The project is a three-year effort; fullfunding is in place for the first year. Keyproducts and time frames are as follows:

• Updated predictions of PCB striped bassresponse given recent data and refinedmodel (one year);

• Development, application, and calibration ofmodel to PCB congener-specific behavior,dioxin, and PAHs (within two years);

• Preliminary evaluations of various controlscenarios on toxics response (two years); and• Final evaluations of control scenarios and

final report (three years).-- A complete model development program,

however, must include data collection tocalibrate the model. In particular, todevelop substantially improved massbalances, data on loadings of chemicals ofconcern from important source categories atlow detection levels are needed; it also maybe necessary to collect data on ambientlevels of the chemicals. This data collectionprogram should be complete within oneyear.

-- Following model development, HEP will usethe model to assess control strategies. Asnoted above, some of this work is plannedunder the HRF project, but full funding hasnot been identified. Also, additional modelruns may be required.

-- HRF, USACE, and USEPA, under theauspices of HEP, are developing a workplan, including cost estimates, for theoverall modeling program, to supplementthe HRF project.

-- USACE has indicated willingness to fundthe model development program and willseek funds as necessary based on the workplan for the overall modeling program.

-- HRF, the Port Authority of New York andNew Jersey, and USACE are alreadycommitted to partial funding of the modeldevelopment program. HEP recommendsthey continue to fund the program.

-- HEP recommends that USEPA and/or otherappropriate sponsors fund the portions ofthe overall modeling program related to useof the model to assess control scenarios.

ACTION T-13.4Whippany River Comparative Mass BalanceStudyNJDEP will conduct a comparative study toevaluate two differing strategies used todevelop soil clean-up standards for hazardouswaste sites. Both strategies use fate andtransport modeling to assess mass balance oftoxics originating from hazardous waste sites. NJDEP will assess mass balances of metals andorganic chemicals originating from numerous



waste sites in the Whippany River basin, andestimate the contribution of the waste sites tocontaminant levels in water, sediments, andbiota. This project will be an additionalcomponent of NJDEP's Whippany River non-point source management program (see ActionNPS-1.1 below) and related pilot projects (seeAction H-2.1) and may help to focusimplementation of management measures.


Many of the commitments andrecommendations in the Toxics section of theCCMP can be accomplished through theeffective use of base program resources. Infact, full implementation of the CCMP relies, inlarge part, on continued operation, and fundingat current levels, of existing programs to addresstoxic contamination. The toxics managementcomponent of the CCMP itemizes 38 new HEP-driven commitments operating through baseprograms. These actions represent a majorcommitment to CCMP implementation.

The toxics management component of theCCMP also includes 44 significant commitmentsand recommendations that entail enhancedprogram funding. As shown in Table 11(tc)below:

Ë The Plan includes 16 actions for which a totalof $4.531 million plus $80,000 per year hasbeen committed by the responsible entities.

Ë The Plan includes 21 actions for whichincreased funding of $1.915 million plus$1.75 million per year is recommended.

Ë The Plan includes 7 additional commitmentsand recommendations for action for whichcost estimates will be developed during thecontinuing planning process.

The toxics management component alsoincludes 9 actions that will or may require theexpenditure of project implementation funds byresponsible entities. As shown in Table 12(tc)below:

Ë The Plan includes 1 action for which $30,000will be required to be committed, and anadditional 3 actions for which funds will berequired to be committed, by the responsibleentities, based on regulatory requirementsnow being developed or finalized.

Ë The Plan includes 5 actions for whichadditional funds may be required to beexpended by responsible entities, based onthe potential outcomes of several ongoing orplanned HEP efforts.

The costs of implementation actions to addresstoxic contamination may be large. Costestimates for these actions will be developedduring the continuing planning process.



Table 11(tc). Enhanced Program Costs for Management of Toxic Contamination

ACTION COMMITMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS


ACTION T-1.1: Evaluate metals reduction inconnection with Phase II TMDLs (NJ). $100,000

ACTION T-1.2: Conduct monitoring per §308letters

for PCBs and dioxin.$200,000

ACTION T-1.2: Conduct additional CWA§308

monitoring as required.*

ACTION T-1.2: Deploy PISCES to monitor forPCBs and

other organic chemicals in NYC STP drainageareas.

$216,000

ACTION T-2.2: Focus pretreatment programon

significant industrial users (NYC).$80,000 $80,000

ACTION T-5.1: Develop waste site inventoryfor

chemicals of concern in the Harbor/Bight area.$150,000

ACTION T-5.2: Expedite remediation of themost

significant sites (actions beyond existingprogram resources).

*

ACTION T-6.1: Track-down sources ofchemicals of

concern.$200,000

ACTION T-6.3: Track-down PCB sources inNY

tributaries to the Harbor using PISCES.$32,000

ACTION T-8.1: Identify the largest emittersof

chemicals of concern in the Harbor/Bight area.$50,000

ACTION T-8.1: Give these facilities priorityfor

pollution prevention actions (actions beyondexisting program resources).

*

ACTION T-9.2: Identify additional areas ofhighly

contaminated sediments; use availableinformation and develop work plan for additionalstudies.

$100,000



ACTION T-10.1: Establish consistent riskassessment

methodology.$100,000

ACTION T-10.2: Review fish tissue criteria. $100,000

ACTION T-10.3: Conduct advisorycommunication pilot

projects.$129,000

ACTION T-10.3: Implement favoredapproaches Harbor-

wide.*

ACTION T-10.3: Develop regional approach toadvisory

communication.$75,000

ACTION T-11.2: Prepare plan for developingand

adopting new criteria (NJ).$45,000

ACTION T-12.1: Develop ecosystemmonitoring plan. $75,000

ACTION T-12.1: Implement ecosystemmonitoring. $500,000

ACTION T-12.1: Monitor productivity of localpopulations of marine birds; analyze tissuecontaminant levels where impaired productivityand/or declining populations are found.

$300,000

Cost includedin $500,000estimateabove

ACTION T-12.1: Adopt biocriteria as part oftriennial

reviews.$90,000

ACTION T-12.2: Complete Phase I ambientwater TIE. $100,000

ACTION T-12.2: Conduct Phase I sedimentTIE. $100,000 $200,000

ACTION T-12.2: Conduct Phase II sedimentTIE. $200,000

ACTION T-12.3: Update list of chemicals ofconcern. $50,000

ACTION T-12.4: Complete R-EMAPassessment. $1.5 million

ACTION T-12.5: Conduct additional sedimentstudies. *

ACTION T-12.6: Assess tissue quality:Harbor/Bight. $450,000 *

ACTION T-12.6: Assess tissue quality: BightApex. $200,000

ACTION T-12.6: Assess lobster tissue qualityin Bight

Apex.$300,000

ACTION T-12.6: Assess PCBs in striped bass. $350,000





ACTION T-12.9: Develop and implement NJwater

quality monitoring programs.$1 million

ACTION T-12.10: Conduct principalcomponents

analyses.$75,000

ACTION T-12.12: Develop methods guidancefor organic

chemicals.$75,000

ACTION T-12.13: Estimate chemical loadreductions

expected with CCMP implementation.$100,000

ACTION T-13.1: Conduct monitoring/modelingfor Phase

II TMDLs.$360,000+*

ACTION T-13.2: Develop system-wide toxicsmodel.

$100,000+*

ACTION T-13.2: Develop and implementcomplementary

research program.*

ACTION T-13.3: Develop simple massbalances

including improved information on loadings andambient monitoring.

$339,000 $155,000+*

TOTAL

1

$4,531,000+* $80,000/yr

1

$1,915,000+* $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.



Tabl

e 12

(tc)

. P

roje

ct Im

plem

enta

tion

Cos

ts f

or M

anag

emen

t of

Tox

ic C

onta

min

atio

n

AC

TIO

NC

OM

MIT

MEN

TSRE

CO

MM

END

ATI

ON

S

Cos

tC

ost/

Yea

rC

ost

Cos

t/Y

ear

AC

TIO

N T

-1.1

:C

ompl

y w

ith P

hase

I TM

DLs

for

met

als.

$30,

000

AC

TIO

N T

-1.1

:C

ompl

y w

ith P

hase

II T

MD

Ls f

or m

etal

s.*

AC

TIO

N T

-1.2

:Im

plem

ent tr

ack-

dow

n an

d cl

ean-

up o

fdi

scha

rges

of PC

Bs/d

ioxi

n.*

AC

TIO

N T

-1.2

:Im

plem

ent tr

ack-

dow

n an

d cl

ean-

up o

fdi

scha

rges

of

othe

r ch

emic

als.

*

AC

TIO

N T

-6.2

:C

ompl

y w

ith req

uire

men

ts o

f am

bien

ttr

ack-

dow

n, a

s ap

prop

riate

.*

AC

TIO

N T

-9.1

:Rem

edia

te k

now

n si

tes

of c

onta

min

ated

sedi

men

ts.

*

AC

TIO

N T

-9.2

:A

sses

s/re

med

iate

any

add

ition

alco

ntam

inat

ed s

edim

ents

.*

AC

TIO

N T

-13.

2:C

ompl

y w

ith a

ny a

dditi

onal

cont

rols

req

uire

d as

a res

ult

of s

yste

m-w

ide

toxi

csm

odel

ing.

*

AC

TIO

N T

-13.

3:C

ompl

y w

ith a

ny a

dditi

onal

actio

ns req

uire

d as

a res

ult

of s

impl

e m

ass

bala

nces

.*

TO

TA

L$3

0,00

0+*

*

*Pr

ojec

t im

plem

enta

tion

cost

s to

be

deve

lope

d as

par

t of

the

con

tinui

ng p

lann

ing

proc

ess.


HEP's plan to address toxic contamination hastwo fundamental paths dedicated to solving thetoxic contamination problem. These areproceeding concurrently and are closely linked: "Actions to Reduce Continuing Inputs of ToxicChemicals" (Objectives T-1 through T-9), and"Actions to Better Understand the ToxicContamination Problem and Take AdditionalManagement Actions as More is Learned"(Objectives T-11 through T-13). With oneexception noted below, current information isinsufficient for those involved with HEP toknow whether full implementation of the formergroup of actions will result in the achievementof HEP's goals; the latter group of actions isintended to give us this information.

Full implementation of the Actions to ReduceContinuing Inputs of Toxic Chemicals is,however, expected to result in substantialprogress toward HEP's goal to establish andmaintain a healthy and productive Harbor/Bightecosystem with no adverse ecological effectsdue to toxic contamination. This

progress may be reflected in a reduction infishery restrictions due to toxic contaminationand an improvement in the quality of newlydeposited sediments. Furthermore,implementation of controls required by Phase IITMDLs/WLAs for copper, nickel, and lead willassure the elimination of violations of waterquality standards due to these metalsthroughout the Harbor.

HEP has defined several key actions which willhelp us assess more precisely what benefits wewill achieve with implementation of the Actionsto Reduce Continuing Inputs, what additionalactions will be necessary to achieve HEP'sgoals, and how long it will take. Among thekey actions are modeling and monitoring effortsto develop mass balances and set quantitativeload reduction goals for chemicals of concernon two-year and five-year schedules (Actions T-13.3 and T-13.2, respectively), and anassessment, on a two-year schedule, todetermine quantitatively what load reductionsof chemicals of concern will be achieved withimplementation of the CCMP (Action T-12.13).

Note: It is HEP’s goal that all the recommendations in the CCMP become commitments.

-- In some cases CCMP actions are recommendations, not commitments,because responsible entities require resources to implement the action. HEP will advocate making these resources available.

-- In other cases, CCMP actions are recommendations because HEP has notobtained the commitment of regulated entities and other responsibleentities to implement the action. By issuance of this final CCMP, HEPseeks the commitment of the responsible entities and requests that theystep forward to voluntarily agree to implement the actions.

1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contractor grant.

2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMPC/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMPR - Recommendation

Table 13(ts). Summary—Management of Toxic Contamination


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 concurrenceof NYSDEC & NJDEP

Proposed: CompletedFinal:May 15, 1996

Base program C/N

-- Incorporate limits based on Existing Effluent Qualityinto draft permits (Harbor-wide for mercury, and inNewark Bay, Kills, Raritan Bay/River, Passaic River,and Hackensack River for copper.

NYSDEC & NJDEP Draft permits:CompletedFinal permits:Jun 30, 1996

Base program C/N

-- Comply with Phase I TMDLs. NYCDEP, Yonkers SewerDistrict, NJ dischargers

Jun 30, 1996 NYC and Yonkers:No additional projectimplementation costNJHDG: $30,000

C/N




-- Phase II TMDLs: Revise/promulgate TMDLs for copper,nickel, and lead to include more stringent permit limitsas necessary based on additional data collection andmodeling (see T-13.1).

NYSDEC & NJDEPwith USEPA assistance


-- Incorporate limits, as necessary, into permits. NYSDEC & NJDEP Draft permitmodifications: Jan1999Final permitmodifications:Jul 1999

Base program C/N

-- Evaluate the effectiveness of pretreatment, treatmentoptimization, corrosion control, and pollutionprevention, to reduce metals loadings.

NJ dischargers Completed Enhanced programcost - $100,000

C/N

NYCDEP Completed Enhanced programcompleted

C/N

Yonkers Sewer District Completed Enhanced programcompleted

C/N

-- Comply with Phase II TMDLs. NYCDEP & NJdischargers

To be determinedbased on Phase IITMDLs

Project implementation costof continuing compliance tobe provided by dischargersbased on Phase II TMDLs

R

ACTION T-1.2: "Track-down and clean-up" significantdischarges of organic chemicals of concern (Note: USEPA,NYSDEC, NJDEP, USACE, NYCDEP, NJHDG, and otherdischargers, under the auspices of HEP, will coordinatedevelopment of this program, including identifyingchemicals to be included, dischargers, monitoringtechniques, and sampling methodologies. See text fordetails).

-- Identify the levels of PCBs and dioxin in municipaldischarges (Harbor-wide for PCBs; Newark Baycomplex for dioxin).

(Continued)Table 13(ts). Summary —Management of Toxic Contamination




• Require monitoring using CWA Section 308letters.

USEPA Completed Base program C/N

• Conduct monitoring and submit report. NYCDEP Completed Enhanced program cost -$79,000

C/N

NJ Harbor DischargersGroup (NJHDG)

Completed Enhanced program cost -$120,000

C/N

Yonkers Sewer District Completed Enhanced program cost -minimal (less than $1,000)

C/N

• Review data to identify significant municipaldischarges of PCBs; develop program to track-down and abate the sources of PCBs to theirsystems.

USEPA, NYSDEC,NJDEP, NYCDEP,NJHDG, and otherdischargers, under theauspices of HEP

Apr 30, 1996 Base program C/N

• Implement track-down and clean-up program forPCBs.

NYCDEP, Yonkers SewerDistrict, NJHDG

Apr 30, 1996 Project implementation costto be estimated bydischargers based onmonitoring results

C/N

! Deploy PISCES for a 12-month period in theinfluent streams of the 14 NYC STPs tomonitor for PCBs and other organic chemicals.

NYCDEP Newtown Creek:DeployedJun 1995Other areas:DeployedJul 1995

Enhanced program cost -$216,000 over 3 yrs

C/O





! Submit report to NYSDEC proposing the STPdrainage basins in which track-down will bepursued, considering the results of themonitoring conducted under the Section 308letters.

NYCDEP Dec 1996 Cost included in aboveestimate

C/N

! Follow up with additional track-down efforts. NYCDEP By Dec 31, 1998 Cost included in aboveestimate

C/N

• Review the data to assess whether dioxin is beingdischarged.

USEPA, NYSDEC,NJDEP, under theauspices of HEP

Completed Base program C/N

-- Review available information on other organicchemicals of concern to determine whether dischargersshould identify the levels of these chemicals in theirdischarges.

USEPA, NYSDEC,NJDEP, USACE,NYCDEP, NJHDG, andother dischargers, underthe auspices of HEP

Jul 1997 Base program C/N

-- Determine which dischargers should identify the levelsof these chemicals in their discharges.

USEPA, NYSDEC,NJDEP, NYCDEP,NJHDG, and otherdischargers, under theauspices of HEP

Sep 1997 Base program C/N

• Conduct screening of these discharges to identifythe levels of chemicals being discharged, andsubmit report, as necessary.

Municipal & industrialdischargers, asappropriate

Sep 1998 Enhanced program cost tobe provided by dischargersbased on monitoringrequirements

R

• Implement program to track-down and abatesources of other chemicals of concern ifsignificant discharges are found, or proceed todevelop TMDLs/WLAs/LAs.

USEPA, NYSDEC,NJDEP, and dischargersas appropriate, under theauspices of HEP






-- Review new information and report on whetheradditional chemicals should be considered for track-down and clean-up.

USEPA, NYSDEC,NJDEP, USACE,NYCDEP, NJHDG, andother dischargers, underthe auspices of HEP

Dec 1996 &biennially thereafter

Base program C/N

OBJECTIVE T-2: Reduce industrial discharges of chemicals of concern.

ACTION T-2.1: Assure continuing compliance with permitconditions for direct industrial discharges.

NYSDEC, NJDEP, ISC Ongoing Base program C/O





ACTION T-2.2: Ensure that municipalities in theHarbor/Bight area focus their pretreatment programs onsignificant industrial users, and additional users asnecessary, not just categorical industrial users.

NYSDEC & NJDEP Ongoing Base program C/O

NYCDEP Began Jul 1994 Enhanced programcost - $80,000/yr

C/N

-- Modify pretreatment program to reduce discharges ofmetals and other chemicals:

NYCDEP• Add 40 automobile radiator repair shops to the

pretreatment program.Began Jul 1994

Enhanced program cost -$80,000

C/N• Develop an industrial control strategy for photo

finishers.Submitted toNYSDECJun 1995

-- Modify pretreatment program to reduce discharges oftetrachloroethylene:

NYCDEPBase program (NYCDEP hascommitted $100,000 forthis effort)

C/O• Amend Sewer Use Regulation. Completed

• Inventory dry cleaning industry and notify. CompletedJan 1, 1996

• Investigate other potential sources. Dec 31, 1996

ACTION T-2.3: Direct industrial dischargers are subjectto the requirements to control loadings of metals (see T-1.1), as well as consideration for track-down and clean-upof organic chemicals of concern (see T-1.2).

ACTION T-2.4: Publish biennial plans to identify industriesdischarging pollutants and establish schedules forpromulgation of effluent guidelines; promulgate guidelines.

USEPA Proposed biennialplan May 1994

Base program C/O





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 oftoxic pollutants.

USEPA, NYSDEC, NJDEP Ongoing Base program C/O

-- Develop emission standards for HAPs based on themaximum achievable control technology for majorsource categories.

USEPA By Dec 31, 2000 Base program C/O

-- 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 forhazardous waste sites, develop a GIS-based integratedinventory of active and inactive solid and hazardous wastesites in the Harbor/Bight area, contributing or potentiallycontributing toxics to the Harbor/Bight.

USEPA, NYSDEC,NJDEP, with assistancefrom NYCDEP, under theauspices of HEP

Jun 1996 Enhanced programcost - $150,000

R





3 Note: Costs may range from $60,000 to $450,000 per acre, dependingon the level of closure or remediation needed, and consideringprioritization.

* Commitment contingent on completion of Action T-5.1.** Commitment contingent on completion of Action T-6.1 and funding of

the track-down.

ACTION T-5.2: Develop site-specific schedules toexpedite clean closure or remediation of the mostsignificant sites.

-- For publicly funded sites.

• As feasible within existing resources. USEPA, NYSDEC, NJDEP Begin byJun 1996

Base program C/N*

• To the extent existing resources are insufficient toaddress priority sites in the Harbor/Bight drainagearea, identify and seek additional resources.

USEPA, NYSDEC, NJDEP Jun 1996 Enhanced program costs tobe identified based onAction T-5.13

C/N*

-- For privately funded sites. USEPA, NYSDEC, NJDEPand principal responsibleparties

To be negotiatedwith responsibleparties

To be negotiated withresponsible parties3

R

OBJECTIVE T-6: Track-down and clean-up chemicals of concern.

ACTION T-6.1: Conduct screening for ambient levels oforganic chemicals and mercury in the Harbor/Bight inproximity to potential sources, using sensitive samplemonitoring techniques.


Begin byJun 1996

Enhanced programcost - $200,000/yr

R

ACTION T-6.2: Where significantly elevated levels arefound, initiate procedures to track-down and eliminate orrequire the elimination of sources, giving priority to themost significant sources.


Begin byJun 1996

Enhanced program costincluded in estimate forAction T-6.1

C/N**





-- Comply. Regulated entities Begin byJun 1996, asappropriate

Project implementation costto be determined on case-by-case basis based onsources to be eliminated

R

ACTION T-6.3: Track-down PCB sources in New Yorktributaries to the Harbor using PISCES.

-- Screen for elevated PCB levels in Harbor tributaries,and identify possible PCB sources in those tributaries.

NYSDEC Completed Enhanced program cost -$32,000

C/O

-- Develop SPDES permit prohibiting storm waterdischarges of PCBs from identified facility dischargingto Mill Creek, SI.

NYSDEC By Dec 1996 Base program C/N

-- Conduct additional work to evaluate other possible PCBsources to Mill Creek and to identify possible PCBsources in other Harbor tributaries where elevatedlevels were found.

NYSDEC Begin byJan 1996

Enhanced program costincluded in Action T-6.1

R

OBJECTIVE T-7: Improve chemical/oil spill response and prevention.

ACTION T-7.0: Review the area contingency plan andrecommendations of the final report of the Bi-state OilSpill Response and Prevention Conference, andincorporate, as appropriate, into the CCMP.

HEP Dec 1996 Base program C/N

-- Provide relevant information to USCG and the Bi-StateConference to assist updates of the area contingencyplan.







* Commitment contingent upon completion of Action T-8.1.

OBJECTIVE T-8: Focus pollution prevention activities on chemicals of concern.

ACTION T-8.1: Review TRI and other data for industrialfacilities in areas draining to the Harbor core area toidentify the largest emitters of chemicals of concern.

NYSDEC & NJDEP, underthe auspices of HEP


R

-- Give these facilities highest priority for pollutionprevention actions including those found in T-8.3through T-8.5, to the extent feasible within existingresources.

NYSDEC & NJDEP Begin byJun 1996

Base program C/N*

-- To the extent existing program resources areinsufficient to address Harbor/Bight priorities, identifyand seek additional resources.

NYSDEC & NJDEP Begin byJun 1996

Enhanced program costestimate to be developed byNYSDEC & NJDEP based onAction T-8.1

C/N*

ACTION T-8.2: Implement non-regulatory pollutionprevention.

-- Under the NJ State Pollution Prevention law, developand report annually on a multi-media pollutionprevention plan.

Priority industrialfacilities in NJ


-- Seek commitments for voluntary reductions in releasesof chemicals of concern to all media.


-- Promote measures which can be implemented bycitizens to reduce releases of chemicals of concern.(Note: see public involvement section).








* Commitment contingent upon completion of Action T-8.1.

ACTION T-8.3: Evaluate a Facility-Wide Permit (FWP)approach, to integrate the air, water, and hazardouswaste permits from a facility with its pollution preventionplan.

-- Conduct pilot project to evaluate FWP approach. NJDEP Complete byAug 1997

Base program C/O

-- Seek legislative approval to implement approach asappropriate.

NJDEP Aug 1997 Base program C/O

ACTION T-8.4: For regulatory programs under statepurview:

-- Add pollution prevention plan requirements, addressingthe chemicals of concern, to NPDES renewal permits,permit modifications, and new permits.

NYSDEC Begin byJun 1996

Base program C/N*

-- Consider, if given the legislative authority, addingpollution prevention requirements addressing thechemicals of concern to NPDES renewals and permitmodifications.

NJDEP Begin byJun 1996

Base program C/N*

ACTION T-8.5: Require hazardous waste treatment,storage, and disposal facilities in the Harbor/Bight area,that manage one or more of the chemicals of concern, tosubmit and implement a pollution prevention plan.

USEPA & NYSDEC Begin byJun 1996

Base program C/N*

-- Target RCRA inspections for RCRA hazardous wastegenerators in the Harbor/Bight area that manage one ormore of the chemicals of concern.

USEPA, NYSDEC, NJDEP Begin byJun 1996

Base program C/N*





OBJECTIVE T-9: Identify and remediate selected contaminated sediments.

ACTION T-9.1: Take appropriate steps to remediateknown areas of highly contaminated sediments.

-- Issue ROD for the Passaic River Study Area,considering impacts on the Estuary as a whole. (Note:USEPA will provide relevant data and/or model to HEPand, in selecting a remedy, will consider the results ofHEP's effort under Action T-13.3, if completed prior toissuance of the ROD).

USEPA By Dec 31, 1997 Base program C/O

• Remediate site, as appropriate. USEPA & PotentiallyResponsible Parties

To be determinedbased on ROD

Project implementation costto be determined based onROD

C/O

-- Submit proposed remedial plan for Hudson River PCBsite for public review.

USEPA Mar 1997 Base program C/O

-- Issue ROD for Hudson River PCBs Superfund siteconsidering impacts on the Estuary. (Note: Indeveloping the ROD, USEPA will provide relevant datato HEP and, in selecting a remedy, will consider theresults of HEP's effort under Action T-13.3, ifcompleted prior to issuance of the ROD).

USEPA Sep 1997 Base program C/O

• Remediate site, as appropriate. USEPA & PotentiallyResponsible Parties

To be determinedbased on ROD

Project implementation costto be determined based onROD

C/O





-- Complete remediation of Marathon Battery Superfundsite.

USEPA & PotentiallyResponsible Parties

Completed Paid by PotentiallyResponsible Parties

C/O

• Begin long-term monitoring of Marathon Batterysite.

USEPA & PotentiallyResponsible Parties

Fall 1995 Paid by PotentiallyResponsible Parties

C/O

ACTION T-9.2: Identify additional areas of highlycontaminated sediments for more in-depth assessment,including feasibility of and need for remediation.

-- Identify areas and assess feasibility based on availabledata and information.

USEPA, NYSDEC,NJDEP, USACE, underthe auspices of HEP

Sep 1996 Enhanced programcost - $100,000

R

-- Develop work plan including cost estimate foradditional studies to identify areas of highlycontaminated sediments.

USEPA, NYSDEC,NJDEP, USACE, underthe auspices of HEP

Sep 1996 Enhanced program costincluded in above estimate

R

-- Initiate action to assess and remediate additional sites,as appropriate.

USEPA, NYSDEC,NJDEP, PotentiallyResponsible Parties

Begin by 1996 asnecessary

Project implementation costto be determined as areasidentified

R

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 asappropriate to assess human health risks due to theconsumption of locally-caught seafood, and to set fishingadvisories and restrictions.

NYSDOH, NYSDEC,NJDEP, NJDOH


R

-- Prepare report documenting NY & NJ methodologiesfor assessing health risks.

NYSDOH, NYSDEC,NJDEP, NJDOH

Jun 1996 Cost included in aboveestimate

R





ACTION T-10.2: Review fish tissue criteria andrecommend steps to adopt and implement revised criteriaas appropriate (Note: also see Objectives T-11 and T-12,re: criteria review and development).

NYSDEC, NYSDOH,NJDEP, NJDOH, USEPA


R

ACTION T-10.3: Target additional risk communicationefforts to those sub-populations at greatest risk..

-- Conduct pilot projects to tailor advisory communicationplans to local communities.

NYSDEC Oct 1996 Enhanced programcost - $40,000

C/O

NJDEP Sep 1996 Enhanced programcost - $89,000

C/O

-- Implement favored approaches Harbor-wide. NJDEP BeginningOct 1996

Enhanced program costestimate to be developed byNYSDEC & NJDEPdepending on approaches tobe implemented

R

NYSDEC Oct 1996

-- Develop regional approach to advisory communication. NYSDOH, NYSDEC,NJDEP, with USEPAassistance

Oct 1996 Enhanced programcost - $75,000

R

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 criteriafor copper in New York and New Jersey water qualitystandards regulations.

NYSDEC Apr 1996 Base program C/N

NJDEP Jun 1996 Base program C/N

ACTION T-11.2: Analyze existing applicable criteria andadopt new and revised criteria as appropriate for prioritychemicals.





-- Prepare a plan for developing and adopting new andrevised criteria.

USEPA, NYSDEC,NJDEP, under auspices of HEP

Jul 1996 USEPA & NYSDEC:Base program

C/N

NJDEP:Enhanced programcost - $45,000

R

-- Adopt water quality criteria for dissolved lead andnickel.

NYSDEC Apr 1996 Base program C/N

NJDEP Dec 1996

-- Consider adopting water quality criteria for otherdissolved metals as appropriate as part of triennialreview.

NYSDEC Jan 1996 Base program C/N

NJDEP Dec 1996

OBJECTIVE T-12: Assess ambient levels, loadings, and effects of chemicals.

ACTION T-12.1: Develop ecosystem indicators asquantitative goals and biocriteria, and implement long-termmonitoring of the indicators.

-- Develop benthic index based on R-EMAP and otherdata.

HEP Apr 1996 Part of R-EMAP assessment(See Action T-12.4)

C/N

-- Develop long-term monitoring program for benthicindex and other indicators.

USEPA, NYSDEC,NJDEP, under auspices ofHEP


R

-- Implement long-term monitoring program. USEPA, NYSDEC,NJDEP, under auspices ofHEP

Begin by summer1996

Enhanced programcost - $500,000/yr

R





-- Monitor size and productivity of local populations ofherons, egrets, gulls and/or terns, focusing on coloniesin the Harbor core area.

HEP, NYSDEC, NJDEP,USDOI/NPS

Spring 1996 Enhanced program cost -$15,000/yr (Note: includedin above estimate)

R

-- Analyze contaminants in bird tissues in cases of lowproductivity and/or declining bird populations.

HEP, NYSDEC, NJDEP,USDOI/NPS

Initiate in 1997;Complete by Dec 31,1998

Enhanced program cost -$300,000 over two years

R

-- Adopt biocriteria based on the benthic index and otherindicators as appropriate as part of triennial review.

NYSDEC & NJDEP Begin byDec 31, 1997


R

ACTION T-12.2: Where evidence of adverse ecologicaleffects of toxics is found, conduct studies to evaluatewhether, and if so which, chemicals are responsible.

-- Complete Phase I TIE on ambient water. HEP Completed Enhanced programcost - $100,000

C/N

-- Conduct Phase I TIE on interstitial water and wholesediment from several sites in the Harbor.

USEPA Completed Enhanced programcost - $100,000

C/O

-- Conduct Phase I sediment TIE program to identifycontaminants causing toxicity or impaired benthosHarbor-wide, including dredged sediment.

HEP, in coordination withUSEPA, USACE,NYSDEC, NJDEP


R

-- Conduct Phase II sediment TIE program to identifycontaminants causing toxicity or impaired benthosHarbor-wide, including dredged sediment.

HEP, in coordination withUSEPA, USACE,NYSDEC, NJDEP

Dec 1996 Enhanced programcost - $200,000

R





ACTION T-12.3: Revise and update the list of chemicalsof concern in the Harbor/Bight based on new informationincluding new and revised criteria and new data on levelsof chemicals in water, biota, and sediments.

-- Modify list based on readily available and summarizednew data and information.

HEP Dec 1995 & annuallythereafter

Base program C/N

-- Modify list based on comprehensive data assessment. HEP Dec 1996 &biennially thereafter

Enhanced programcost - $50,000/yr (work tobe conducted biennially)

R

ACTION T-12.4: Complete R-EMAP baseline sedimentquality assessment.

USEPA in coordinationwith HEP

Apr 1996 Enhanced programcost - $1.5 million

C/O

ACTION T-12.5: Conduct additional studies to assesssediment quality.

-- Develop work plan including cost estimates for prioritystudies.

HEP Mar 1996 Base program C/N

-- Conduct studies. HEP Begin bySep 1996

Enhanced program cost tobe determined based onwork plan

R

ACTION T-12.6: Assess fish, shellfish, and crustaceatissue quality.

-- Assess levels of chemicals in tissues of edible fish,shellfish, and crustacea in the Harbor/Bight.

HEP Draft reports:CompletedFinal reports:Jul 1996


C/N





-- Assess levels of chemicals in recreational finfish inBight Apex.

NMFS, USEPA, USACE Completed Enhanced programcost - $200,000

C/O

-- Assess levels of chemicals in lobsters in Bight Apex. NMFS, USEPA, USACE Mar 1996 Enhanced programcost - $300,000

C/O

-- Assess levels of PCBs in striped bass in NY Statemarine waters.

NYSDEC Completed Enhanced programcost - $350,000

C/O

-- Conduct future periodic fish tissue monitoring based onthe results of the above studies.

• Develop work plans and seek funding. HEP Jul 1996 Base program C/N

• Conduct monitoring. HEP or other responsibleentity

BeginningFall 1996

Enhanced program cost tobe determined based onabove work plan

R

ACTION T-12.7: Use new information on tissue quality toidentify additional data collection needs to supportmodifications to fishing advisories and restrictions.

NYSDEC, NYSDOH,NJDEP, NJDOH

Mar 1996 Base program C/N

-- Use new information on tissue quality to modify fishingadvisories and restrictions, as appropriate.

NYSDEC & NYSDOH Feb 1996 Base program C/N

ACTION T-12.8: Continue New York Harbor WaterQuality Survey at current levels of effort.

NYCDEP Ongoing Base program C/O

ACTION T-12.9: Develop and implement a similar long-term water quality monitoring program.

NJDEP Dec 1995 Enhanced programcost - $1 million/yr

R





ACTION T-12.10: Conduct principal components analysesfor PCBs, dioxin, and PAHs for sediment samples from R-EMAP and several other available data sets.

USEPA Apr 1996 Enhanced programcost - $75,000

C/O

ACTION T-12.11: Review available information onatmospheric deposition to the Harbor/Bight developed byHEP under Actions T-12.13 & T-13.3, and incorporate in Great Waterbodies Report toCongress biennial update; specify additional steps andregulatory revisions, as appropriate, to addressatmospheric deposition of toxic chemicals to theHarbor/Bight.

USEPA, in coordinationwith HEP

By Dec 31, 1997 Base program C/N

ACTION T-12.12: Implement low-level detection methodsfor loadings.

-- Develop guidance specifying appropriate methods, andwork with regulated parties as necessary to ensure thecollection of high quality loadings data [Note: Effortongoing 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 programcost - $75,000

R

-- Incorporate the methods for metals into monitoringrequirements for NPDES, CSO, and storm waterpermits.

USEPA, NYSDEC, NJDEP Jun 1996 Base program C/N





ACTION T-12.13: Estimate chemical load reductionsexpected with implementation of HEP CCMP.

HEP Sep 1996 Enhanced programcost - $100,000

R

-- Use the information to help determine whether CCMPactions will result in attainment of load reduction goals(see Action T-13.3) and how long it will take; identifyadditional actions to meet the goals as necessary.

Dec 1996 (SeeAction T-13.3)

OBJECTIVE T-13: Develop mass balances for metals and organic chemicals.

ACTION T-13.1: Conduct additional monitoring andmodeling to support revised (Phase II) TMDLs for waterquality-limiting metals.

NJ Harbor DischargersGroup (NJHDG)

CompleteJun 1998


C/N

-- Submit water and sediment quality data. NJHDG Feb 1996 Cost included in aboveestimate

C/N

-- Submit work plan for Phase II monitoring and modelingstudies.

NJHDG Sep 1996 Cost included in aboveestimate

C/N

-- 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 tobe determined based onwork plan

C/N





* Commitment contingent on funding for completing modeling work plans.

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 theauspices of HEP


-- Revise work plan, including monitoring plan. USACE, under theauspices of HEP

Sep 1996 Enhanced program cost -$100,000

R

-- Seek authorization and funding to conduct modelingand monitoring to address toxic contamination in theHarbor/Bight, not tied to dredged materialmanagement.

USACE Ongoing Base program C/N

-- Conduct monitoring and develop the model, and use asappropriate, to help define optimal approaches toreduce and eliminate discharges of toxic chemicals andpotential remediation of contaminated sediments.

USACE under auspices ofHEP

By Dec 31, 2000 Enhanced program cost tobe determined based ondetailed revised work plans

R

-- Develop and seek funding for a program of research tocomplement the toxics modeling effort.

HEP Sep 1996 Base program C/N*

-- Comply with controls which may be required as a resultof improved understanding.

Regulated parties By Dec 31, 2000 Project implementation costto be determined based oncontrols required

R





ACTION T-13.3: Develop simple mass balances formercury and organic chemicals of concern (Note: see textfor details).

-- Develop and validate an integrated model of organicchemical transport, fate, and bioaccumulation using anexisting model.

Hudson River Foundation,under the auspices ofHEP & with USACE, PortAuthority, and USEPAsupport

Interim result:Jun 1996


C/N

Final:Jun 1998


C/N


R

-- Develop overall modeling program work plan tosupplement the above effort.

HRF, USEPA, andUSACE, under theauspices of HEP

Feb 1996 Base program C/N

-- Collect data for model development, including chemicalloadings and ambient levels.

USACE or othersponsors, under theauspices of HEP

CompleteDec 1996


R

-- Use the model to assess control scenarios. USEPA or other sponsors,under the auspices ofHEP

Jun 1997 throughJun 1998


R

ACTION T-13.4: Conduct comparative study in theWhippany River Basin to assess the use of two massbalance strategies in development of soil cleanupstandards for hazardous waste sites.

NJDEP Dec 1996 Base program C/O

IMPORTANT NOTE:

Due to major changes in dredged materialmanagement policy that have taken place since theManagement of Dredged Material chapter waswritten, this chapter is not being implemented aswritten but is instead in the process of beingrevised. For more information about the revisedversion, contact Bob Nyman at the HEP office.


DREDGED MATERIAL 131

PROBLEMSThe presence of contaminants of concern inmaterial that needs to be dredged anddisposed and the dispersal of the materialthroughout the Estuary.Potential ecological risks, such asbioaccumulation and degradation of benthiccommunity structure, which may beassociated with sediment contamination anddredging and disposal operations. Potential human health risks which may beassociated with dredging and disposaloperations. Potential economic effects of dredging anddisposal on the shipping industry, fish andshellfish industry (commercial andrecreational), tourism, and recreation. Regulatory delays due to the myriad ofagencies regulating dredged material, the lackof available disposal alternatives, anduncertainties related to the implementation ofrevised testing protocols.

SOURCES CONTRIBUTING TO THEPROBLEMSExisting, in-place contaminated sedimentsContinuing inputs of toxic chemicals- Municipal discharges

- Industrial discharges

- Combined sewer overflows- Storm water - Non-point sources of pollution (including

hazardous and solid waste disposal sites)- Atmospheric deposition- Chemical and oil spills

- Transport of contaminated sediment fromupstream rivers and tributaries

Lack of non-ocean disposal options

GOALS To establish environmentally sound, economically feasible, dredged materialdisposal

alternatives.To have ongoing coordinated and integrated efforts with various state andfederal

groups and dredged material management task forces.To maintain the contribution of the Port to the economy and quality of life ofthe

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 habitatrestoration, landfill cover, etc.

To determine, and where practicable use, the best availabletechnologies/methods for

dredging and disposal.To control continuing sources of toxic chemicals to ensure that all sedimententering


132 DREDGED MATERIAL

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 takeadditional 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

THE PROBLEMS

The international Port of New York and NewJersey ("The Port") plays a vital role in theeconomy of the region, handling more generaland containerized cargo than any other EastCoast port. The Port is also part of an estuaryof national significance. The Harbor is notnaturally deep, and rivers continuously transportand deposit sediment, filling in navigationchannels and berthing areas. To maintain thePort for modern deep draft vessels, largequantities of sediments (historically 6 millioncubic yards/annually) must be dredged. Amajority of this material was, and continues tobe, disposed at the Mud Dump Site located 6miles east of Sandy Hook, New Jersey and 11miles south of Rockaway, New York. Thismaterial must be managed in an environmentallysound manner.

The sediments in and around the Harbor containcontaminants at varying concentrations. Thepresence of contaminants can cause significantenvironmental problems, including: bioaccumulation within marine organisms (andup the food chain), and changes in benthiccommunity structure. Certain contaminants

which may be found in sediments arebioaccumulated in marine organisms and maybiomagnify up through the food chain and posea threat to biota and public (human) health. Dredging contributes to resuspension of thesesediments. In addition, ocean disposal raisesconcerns about exposing additional marineorganisms and habitats to these contaminantsof concern. Concern has also been expressedregarding the impact of dredged material, andits subsequent disposal, on water-dependentindustries such as recreation, tourism, andcommercial and recreational fishing.

Scientific concerns about these issues have ledto changes in the national testing protocols fordredged materials. Uncertainties related to theimplementation of these revised test protocolsin the New York/New Jersey Harbor region,coupled with specific concerns about dioxin,and lack of available disposal options, havecontributed to delays in regulatory decisionswith respect to dredging and disposal.

Numerous regulatory requirements and concernsabout resource use may delay the regulatorydecisions of the many agencies which are eitherdirectly, or indirectly, involved in regulatingdredged material. In order to regulate more



efficiently, all parties must work more closely toavoid delays in decision-making.

FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THEPROBLEMS

The New York/New Jersey Harbor, includingmany of the berthing areas and channels,contains primarily fine-grained sediment whichmay be contaminated with heavy metals, PAHs,PCBs, pesticides, and dioxin. Thesecontaminants of concern may impact theecosystem, depending on concentration. Not alldredged material is contaminated; however, itmay contain contaminants at concentrationswhich require management, if the dredgedmaterial is ocean disposed, or which precludethe material from ocean disposal. The principalcause of the problem is the presence ofcontaminants of concern in a large portion ofthe material that needs to be dredged anddisposed and the movement of thesecontaminants throughout the Harbor/Bightcomplex. Pollutant LoadingsIn addition to contaminated sediments already inthe Harbor/Bight, there are sources of pollutantsthat continue to contaminate fine-grainedsediments, water, and biota. Sources include:

Ë Industrial discharges

Ë Municipal discharges

Ë Combined sewer overflows

Ë Storm water

Ë Non-point sources of pollution

Ë Atmospheric deposition

Ë Chemical and oil spills

Ë Transport of contaminated sediment fromupstream rivers and tributaries

Until these sources are adequately controlled,

the problems associated with the Harbor/Bightcomplex, as well as dredged materialmanagement (i.e., contaminated sediment), willcontinue.

Lack of Disposal OptionsHistorically, ocean disposal has been the primarydisposal option for materials dredged from theHarbor. Other disposal options in the regionhave generally not been used because of thereadily available and relatively low cost of oceandisposal (until recently), as well as conflictinguses and environmental concerns associatedwith implementing other alternatives.


The primary purpose of the dredged materialmanagement component of the CCMP is toestablish immediate (within 1 year), short-term(1-3 years), and mid-term (3-9 years),environmentally sound, economically feasible,dredged material disposal alternatives. The U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is developinga New York Harbor Dredged MaterialManagement Plan (DMMP). The DMMP willinclude short-, mid-, and long-term alternatives. USACE, through existing programs and theDMMP, will provide technical support to achievethe objectives of this CCMP.

The dredged material component of the CCMPprovides immediate and short-term disposalalternatives for dredged material which meetocean dumping criteria while allowing for theselection, design, and implementation of mid-and long-term non-ocean disposal alternativesfor dredged material not suitable for oceandisposal.

Consistent with the current practices of HEP,early implementation of selected elements of thedredged material management plan will beundertaken, including the pursuit andimplementa-tion of non-ocean dredged material



disposal alternatives. In accordance with theMarine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act(MPRSA) of 1972, ocean disposal will be deniedif it can be demonstrated that there arepracticable alternative locations for disposalwhich would have fewer environmental impactsor potential risks to other parts of theenvironment than ocean dumping.

The dredged material management componentof the CCMP plays a critical role in establishingand maintaining a healthy and productiveHarbor/Bight ecosystem with full beneficialuses. This component of the Plan has thefollowing goals:

Ë To establish environmentally sound,economically feasible, dredged materialdisposal alternatives.

Ë To have ongoing coordinated and integratedefforts with various state and federal groupsand dredged material management taskforces.

Ë To maintain the contribution of the Port tothe economy and quality of life of theRegion.

Ë To improve dredged material managementplans for the Harbor.

Ë To evaluate and implement, wherepracticable, alternative methods of dredgedmaterial disposal including those withbeneficial uses.

Ë To determine, and where practicable use, thebest available technologies/methods fordredging and disposal.

Ë To control continuing sources of toxicchemicals to ensure that all sedimententering the Harbor Estuary will meetCategory I criteria (see Action D-3.5 below).

Ë To restore, whenever possible, areas of theBight Apex which have been adverselyimpacted by dredged material disposal

activities to pre-disposal conditions.

The interaction of the participants in theDredged Material Management Forum, asdiscussed below, has resulted in many proposalsto address dredging and disposal concerns. Based on these discussions, materials generatedby the Forum, and the goals of the Forum, thisplan includes objectives to:

Ë Develop a future dredged materialmanagement structure.

Ë Reduce continuing inputs of toxic chemicals(see Management of Toxic Contaminationsection) and upland sediments and soils (seeManagement of Habitat and Living Resourcessection).

Ë Characterize, categorize, and quantifymaterial to be dredged.

Ë Identify, evaluate, and select disposal andtreatment/decontamination alternatives.

Ë Develop plans for closure (includingremediation and restoration) of the MudDump Site and historical disposal areas.

Ë Improve dredging, transport, and disposaloperations.

Ë Expedite permit decisions.

Ë Better understand the toxic contaminationproblem and take additional managementactions as more is learned (see Managementof Toxic Contamination section).

USACE, through existing programs and theDMMP, will provide technical support to meetthe objectives of this component of the CCMP.




OBJECTIVE D-1 Develop a futuredredged materialmanagement structure

In an effort to address the dredged materialmanagement problems in the Port, a DredgedMaterial Management Forum was convened. The Forum brought together a wide spectrum ofgroups, concerned with issues associated withthe dredging and disposal of sediments, to seekcooperative and implementable solutions. TheForum became part of HEP because it was themost efficient and effective way to continue thework of the Forum.

The Forum created the following work groups:(a) Dredging, Transport, and Disposal; (b)Criteria; (c) Mud Dump Site; (d) ContainmentFacilities (including borrow pits andcontainment islands); (e) DecontaminationTechnologies/Site for DecontaminationFacilities; (f) Sediment ContaminationReduction; and (g) Dredged MaterialManagement Integration (consisting of thechairs of work groups a-f above as well asrepresentatives of critical stakeholders).

ACTION D-1.1Dredged Material Management StructureHEP recently agreed on a long-termmanagement structure, incorporating the workof the Dredged Material Management Foruminto HEP (see section on Post-CCMPManagement Structure below). In thisstructure, the Dredged Material ManagementIntegration Work Group (DMMIWG) has severalimportant functions: 1) it helps to support andcoordinate the work of the six working groups; 2) it serves as a committee of the whole to workwith USACE on the development of the longterm management plan; 3) it presents policy

positions and concerns to the HEP PolicyCommittee and the four principal agencies(USEPA, USACE, NYSDEC, and NJDEP); and 4)it serves as an Executive Committee of theForum. In order to ensure that the DMMIWGcan perform these functions effectively, it wasagreed that: 1) the DMMIWG may reportdirectly to the HEP Policy Committee withoutgoing through the Management Committee; 2)the DMMIWG, at its discretion, may request tomeet with or report directly to any one or all ofthe heads of the four principal agencies; 3) theDMMIWG/Forum/HEP Policy Committee willcontinue to produce self-standing, independentdredged material management reports, e.g.,future straw proposals, as well as the CCMP; 4)the HEP Policy Committee will convene andhost the Forum, with USEPA continuing toserve as chair, and the DMMIWG mayrecommend that the Forum be convened fromtime to time; 5) the DMMIWG will serve as theExecutive Committee of the Forum as well asrepresent the Work Groups; and 6) there will beno distinction between planning andimplementation.

ACTION D-1.2Responsible Parties for Implementing theDredged Material Management PlanThe Forum, through the DMMIWG and inconsultation with HEP, will identify responsibleparties for all actions and commitments and willassist in the development of implementationprograms for these recommendations through itswork groups.

ACTION D-1.3Reviewing PartiesWithin the HEP structure, the Dredged MaterialManagement Forum will continue to review andcomment on work plans, Statements of Work,work products, etc.

ACTION D-1.4 USACE Dredged Material Management Plan



OBJECTIVE D-2 Reduce continuinginputs of toxicchemicals and uplandsediments and soils

The DMMIWG, on behalf of the Forum, willinteract with USACE in the development of theUSACE management plan for dredged materialin the New York-New Jersey Harbor.

ACTION D-1.5CoordinationUSACE, USEPA, NYSDEC, and NJDEP willcoordinate plans, proposals, and alternativecourses of action pertaining to any matters thatfall within the scope of this document with therelevant work groups of the Forum through theDMMIWG or applicable work group.

The DMMIWG will meet on a regular basis toreview and synthesize the progress of the Forumwork groups. If necessary, the DMMIWG willprepare an issues paper to be discussed atquarterly meetings with the HEP PolicyCommittee and/or Forum Principals.

Toxic Chemicals

One goal of this section is that, over the long-term, all dredged materials within the Harborcomplex will become sufficiently free ofcontaminants and, therefore, not pose aproblem with respect to disposal. The major factor constraining the selection ofdredged material disposal techniques anddisposal site locations is the contamination ofHarbor sediments by a wide range of chemicalsof concern. Contaminated sediments,demonstrated through toxicity andbioaccumulation testing, have limited disposaloptions. These sediments pose a potentially

serious environmental risk when dredged anddisposed and may require costly containmentand/or remediation techniques. Therefore,tremendous environmental and economicbenefits would accrue if dredged sedimentswere free of harmful contaminants.

The successful long-range management ofdredged sediments is dependent uponaggressive efforts to reduce and eliminate thesources of harmful contaminants, particularlythose contaminants with an affinity forsediments. The Management of ToxicContaminants section of this CCMP is theprimary vehicle for addressing toxiccontamination in the Harbor/Bight complex. One of the goals of the Toxic Contaminantssection is to ensure that dredged sediments inthe Harbor are safe for unrestricted disposal. Inan effort to achieve that goal, the Managementof Toxic Contaminants section containsobjectives and associated actions to: 1) reducecontinuing inputs of toxic chemicals to theHarbor/Bight; 2) remediate selectedcontaminated sediments; and 3) betterunderstand the toxic contamination problemand take additional management actions asmore is learned about the problems. A workgroup, the Sediment Contamination ReductionWork Group, has been convened to ensure thatthis CCMP addresses the reduction of sedimentcontaminant inputs and contamination. Onespecific proposal of the work group is thatfunding be provided to develop better dataabout the specific contaminants of concern,such as PAHs, for which data are nowinadequate.

Actions to address rainfall-induced dischargesare also expected to help reduce sedimentcontamination.

Upland Sediments and Soils

Reducing the amount of sediment entering the



OBJECTIVE D-3 Characterize,categorize, andquantify material to bedredged

waterways from the upland watershed willreduce the volume of material requiringdredging. Several actions are being taken,through the HEP Habitat and Living Resourcescomponent, to control point and non-pointloadings of pollutants. These actions includeseveral pilot projects which minimize the exportof sediments to the Estuary (Actions H-2.1, H-2.2, and H-2.3).

ACTION D-2.0 Engineering SolutionsUSACE will review options that prevent sediments from entering navigational areas through engineering solutions. These options,and the steps required to study and implement them, will be included in the draft "New YorkHarbor Dredged Material Management Plan(DMMP) Phase 1 Initial Appraisal Report" whichwas recently completed.

There is no single "best" disposal ormanagement option for all dredged material -- acombination of alternatives is needed. Establishing implementable disposal alternativesdepends on the quality and quantity of thesediments requiring dredging.

Characterize - Ocean Disposal Criteria

The present bioaccumulation assessmentapproach uses a statistical comparison ofcontaminants accumulated by organismsexposed to test and reference sediments. Ifthere is a statistically significant increase in testvalues compared to reference values, test valuesare then compared to "matrix" values. Matrixvalues were developed in the early 1980s byassessing biological tissue levels and thepotential for bioaccumulation from ambientwater in areas around the Mud Dump Site. Values for four Bioaccumulative Chemicals ofConcern (BCCs) -- PCB, DDT, Hg, and Cd --were established .

Currently, there are no evaluative criteriaavailable for regional BCCs, except for dioxinand the matrix values. A chemical-specificbioaccumulation assessment approach isnecessary. USEPA, USACE, and the CriteriaWork Group are developing an interim regionalchemical-specific approach which utilizes anindex of toxicological significance derivedthrough risk-based methodology. Reference andbackground level databases will also be used inthe decision-making framework (i.e., forevaluating and categorizing dredged material). After the approach is developed, it will be



subject to peer and public review. Based oncomments received, USEPA and USACE willmake a decision to implement all, none, or partof the guidance. The present approach will beused until the regional chemical-specificapproach is implemented by USEPA andUSACE.

USEPA is developing a national guidancedocument to assist regions in bioaccumulationdecision-making. The interim regional approachwill be employed until USEPA develops thisguidance. The national guidance will then beconsidered for regional implementation, and theuse of the interim regional approach will bereevaluated. The national guidance will notcontain numerical bioaccumulation thresholdvalues but will provide specific cancer and non-cancer effect levels to the extent that data areavailable for bioaccumulative contaminants;state-of-the-art ecological risk assessment willalso be included. The result of this effort willnot be pass/fail bioaccumulative thresholdvalues, but will provide the basis for conductinga site-specific risk assessment of the dredgedmaterial disposal actions.

ACTION D-3.1 Development of Chemical-SpecificBioaccumulation Assessment Approach

-- The Criteria Work Group will develop a planto implement the interim chemical-specificbioaccumulation evaluation methodology. This includes assessing the adequacy ofpreliminary databases and identifyingadditional reference and background studieswhich may be necessary to develop theregional approach. Steps include thefollowing:

Ë Develop draft approach based on existingdata, if possible by April 1996.

Ë USEPA and USACE provided funds for a

May 1995 survey to facilitate finalizingthe chemical-specific bioaccumulationdecision framework. Additional surveyswere completed in September 1995.

Ë Conduct peer and public review by June1996.

Ë Make a decision (USEPA and USACE) onwhether to implement the approach, withregards to risk levels and factors in theapproach, by July 1996.



ACTION D-3.2 Reference Site and Database

-- USEPA and USACE will, by February 1996,recommend an appropriate reference site.

-- USEPA and USACE, in consultation with theCriteria Work Group, will, by February 1996,recommend an approach for establishing areference sediment database.

ACTION D-3.3 National Guidance for Bioaccumulation Decision-Making HEP recommends that USEPA develop, by June1997, a national guidance document to assistthe regions in bioaccumulation decision-making.

ACTION D-3.4 Incorporation of Interim Approach into MudDump Site Monitoring and Management PlanUSEPA and USACE will modify, by October1996, the Mud Dump Site monitoring andmanagement plan to incorporate the regionalchemical-specific, bioaccumulation approach.

Characterize - Upland Criteria

One dredged material disposal option is uplanddisposal. The states have the regulatoryauthority for this option. To date, there are nocriteria established for upland disposal ofdredged material.

ACTION D-3.5Criteria for Upland DisposalNJDEP and NYSDEC, in conjunction with theCriteria and Containment Work Groups, willidentify draft criteria for upland disposal. Thiswill include, but not be limited to, siting,sediment types, sampling and testing, andfacility operation. Formal rulemaking may benecessary in New Jersey.CategorizeAs previously discussed, dredged material ischaracterized through a series of physical,

chemical, and biological tests which determinethe suitability of material for ocean disposal. Based on the results of these tests, USACE andUSEPA have historically classified material intocategories according to its suitability for oceandisposal as follows:

Category I - Sediments which meet oceandumping criteria. Test results indicate nounacceptable toxicity or bioaccumulation inbiological test systems. These sediments areacceptable for "unrestricted" ocean disposal. There are no potential short-term (acute)impacts or long-term (chronic) impacts; nospecial precautionary measures are requiredduring disposal.

Category II - Sediments which meet oceandumping criteria. Test results indicate nosignificant toxicity but a potential forbioaccumulation. To protect from this potentialfor bioaccumulation, USEPA and USACE willrequire appropriate management practices suchas capping. This is referred to as "restricted"ocean disposal.

Category III - Sediments which do not meetocean dumping criteria. These sediments arethose that fail acute toxicity testing or pose athreat of signifi-cant bioaccumulation thatcannot be addressed through available disposalmanagement practices. These sediments cannotbe disposed in the ocean.

Dredged material would be placed into one ofthe above categories, based on acharacterization of suitability. These categoriesare important because of the disposalimplications and options associated with eachone. For example, Category I material shouldalways be used for beneficial purposes, such asbeach nourishment, or as an interim or final capfor borrow pits or ocean disposal sites. Category II material is suitable for oceandumping with capping used as a managementtool, but also may be suitable for disposal at



landfills, as daily or interim landfill cover, or fordisposal in borrow pits or containment facilities. Category III material may be suitable fortreatment and disposal at confined facilities, forsanitary landfill cover, or for borrow pit disposal.

Quantify Dredged Material In Each Category

Volume estimates, by category, are necessaryfor projecting future disposal requirements andthe combination of alternatives necessary fordredged material management. It will benecessary to estimate immediate, short, andlong-term proportions and quantities of dredgedmaterial falling within each dredged materialcategory based on the regional approach. Theestimates should initially be used to establishthe implementability of alternatives to oceandisposal. USEPA and USACE will assess thetype and amount of data that may be availableor necessary to establish these estimates.

ACTION D-3.6 Dredged Material Categorization and QuantityEstimate USACE will, by March 19961, categorizedredged material based on the regionalbioaccumulation approach. USACE will thenestimate the quantities of dredged materialcurrently pending that could be expected usingthe above chemical-specific approach forevaluating bioaccumulation test results.

ACTION D-3.7 Additional sampling and testingUSEPA, USACE, and NYSDEC, will, by March19961, perform pro-active sampling and testing(if necessary) to estimate quantities of dredgedmaterial in each Category. This is contingentupon available, allocated funds.

ACTION D-3.8Disposal Alternatives vs. Category TableUSEPA, USACE, NYSDEC, and NJDEP will, byMarch 19961, develop a table which matchesdredged material disposal alternatives withrespect to the regional chemical-specificbioaccumulation approach for the dredgedmaterial categories. Use of additionalapproaches will be needed.



OBJECTIVE D-4 Identify, evaluate, andselect disposal andtreatment/decontaminationalternatives

1 Provided a second peer and public review isnot necessary. If necessary, the target date isMay 1996.

It is imperative that implementable,environment-ally sound alternatives to theexisting Mud Dump Site (MDS) be identifiednow because the MDS is quickly reachingcapacity, and new testing protocols mayincrease the proportion of Category II and IIImaterials to be disposed. Equally import-ant isthe selection and implementation of suitablemid-term and long-term disposal operations. ForCategory I material, disposal alternatives withbeneficial use are recommended, as appropriate.

Ocean Disposal Site1

Dredged material has been disposed in the NewYork Bight Apex since 1914. Consequently,large areas of the Apex floor have been, at aminimum, physically impacted. Additionalimpacts may have resulted from contaminantspresent in the dredged material. An expansionof the existing MDS may offer the potentialopportunity for 1) providing remediation ofcontaminated areas by disposal of normalHarbor maintenance and new work dredgedmaterial, and 2) as a goal, restoringcontaminated areas by disposal of materialswhich are beneficial to the marine environment.

The MDS, adjacent impacted areas, andhistorical disposal areas should be covered. USACE-Waterways Experiment Station (WES) isevaluating the erosion risks associated withcreating mounds at the MDS if water depths,

capping thickness, and storm event magnitudesare varied. Based on study recommendations, adepth will be determined at which littlesediment resuspension or movement takesplace. Areas with depths greater



than this depth may be used for disposal ofCategory II sediments with an added measure ofenvironmental protection -- subsequentexpeditious capping with Category I material. Areas with depths between the recommendeddepth and a controlling depth of -45 feet MeanLow Water (MLW) will be used only for thedisposal of Category I materials. Should theMDS be expanded, the results of this expansioncould include: 1) short-term disposal ofCategory II material below the recommendeddepth, while disposal alternatives areimplemented; 2) remediation of contaminatedareas by disposing of Harbor maintenance andnew work dredged material; and 3) as a goal,restoration of contaminated areas by promotingthe disposal of materials which are beneficial tothe marine environment. Category I disposalwill continue indefinitely (until closurerequirements are met) as cover, thereby servingas a beneficial use.

ACTION D-4.1 Confirmation of Controlling DepthUSEPA and USACE, in consultation with theMud Dump Site Work Group, will, by April 1,1996, confirm a controlling depth for CategoryII materials at the MDS and surroundingenvirons.

ACTION D-4.2 Criteria for MoundsUSACE will, by August 1, 1996, provide designcriteria for various mound placement andcapping options to USEPA.

Action D-4.3 Preparation of SEIS and Site DesignationRulemaking In order to provide for the orderly phase-out ofocean disposal of Category II material, USEPA,USACE, NJDEP, and NYSDEC are proposing toexpand the MDS (USEPA has designationauthority), through the EIS process described

1 USEPA, as requested by the majority of the DMMIWG, will provide a legal interpretation of the laws,



regulations, and policies governing the ocean disposal of dredged material. The text of the CCMP may bemodified based on this interpretation and further discussions/negotiations. However, no policy decision has yetbeen made regarding this issue.



below, for the disposal of Category I and IImaterials. On February 3, 1995, USEPA issued apublic announcement for the SEIS for expansionof the MDS for remediation and restoration. The use of the expanded MDS for Category IImaterial will be restricted to a specified periodof time; this period will be determined prior tothe issuance, by USEPA, of the proposed sitedesignation. The time period will be specified inthe final designation rulemaking package andwill be based on a number of factors listedbelow, including the amount of time required todevelop and implement environmentally andeconomically feasible disposal alternatives. Aspart of the analysis and EIS process, alternativeswill be evaluated, including the no-actionalternative (i.e., no expansion of the site). In allcases where environmentally preferred,practicable non-ocean disposal alternatives existfor Category II materials, the use of the MDSwill be denied. The Mud Dump Site WorkGroup will consider and make recommendations(to USEPA, USACE, NJDEP, and NYSDEC)regarding the number of years that an expandedMud Dump Site could remain open for disposalof Category II material, the maximum volumes,and site monitoring activities. In doing this, theWork Group should take into account theanticipated volumes of Category II materialbased on the testing criteria, the pace ofdevelopment of alternatives, detoxificationtechniques, pilot project implementationschedules, volume reduction and containmentinput abatement opportunities, and disposalincentive fees.

Non-Ocean Disposal Alternatives

There is no single "best" disposal ormanagement alternative for all dredged material. All concerned parties will work within HEP topromote beneficial uses of dredged materialincluding, but not limited to, enhancement ofhabitat, landfill daily cover, etc. The Forum andUSACE are examining the use of multipledisposal alternatives, including:

- pits excavated in, or adjacent to, areas ofhighly contaminated sediments;

- pits excavated in the process of sand

mining;

- existing subaqueous borrow pits;

- confined disposal facilities (CDFs);

- ocean subaqueous borrow pits (oceandisposal);

- containment islands;

- upland disposal; and

- beneficial uses such as habitat creation.

USACE is developing a long-term managementplan (DMMP) that evaluates all disposalalternatives including ocean and near-shoreborrow pits, containment islands, CDFs,beneficial uses, and upland disposal. TheDredged Material Management Integration WorkGroup will work directly with USACE indeveloping the long-term management plan. USACE expects that its plan will provide thetechnical support for Forum recommendations.

One component of the long-term managementplan is the evaluation of the development andconstruction of containment areas/islands in thenear-shore, offshore, and ocean. USACE andthe Port Authority have begun to assess thefeasibility and logistics of containmentareas/island creation. These areas/ islandsshould be designed to promote beneficialpurposes such as habitat, recreation, or portoperations uses.

USACE has issued a Record of Decision on itsFinal Environmental Impact Statement foroperational scale borrow pits and has requestedwater quality certification (WQC) from NYSDECfor the existing borrow pits in the Lower Harbor. NYSDEC has expressed a number of concerns,including a potential conflict between theUSACE proposal and sand mining proposals. It



is recommended that, if NYSDEC cannot issue aWQC for an operational scale pit, it considerissuing a conditional WQC for a USACEdemonstration scale study of subaqueousborrow pit disposal using an existing pit,preferably the Lower East Bank Pit. Withsatisfactory monitoring and conclusive results,this could be implemented as a short-termdisposal alternative.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jerseyis studying the possible use of upland disposalsites within the region. The states will aid thePort Authority by providing active regulatoryguidance.

Neither of the states will undertake an uplanddisposal site pilot project; however, the stateswill develop upland criteria (siting and disposal). In addition, the states will monitor the progressof private sector applicants seeking to site oroperate upland disposal areas with respect tolegal, political, and social factors.

ACTION D-4.4 Dredged Material Management PlanUSACE will, in consultation with USEPA,DMMIWG, NYSDEC, and NJDEP, by July 1996,prepare an interim report on the comprehensivemanagement plan for dredged material, whichevaluates alternatives. This interim report isbased on a broad one year investigation andsiting of alternatives. The second stage is afocused two year detailed investigationculminating in the design and optimization ofthose alternatives and sites identified in theinterim report. The selected alternatives will bebased on ability to meet the immediate andprojected dredged material management needsof the region and agreement by the decisionmakers. The final plan will be produced by July1998.

New York and New Jersey will review USACE's1989 recommendations for siting containmentislands and provide initial input as to whether

these sites, or other sites within theHarbor/Bight complex, should be considered fordetailed review in the USACE Dredged MaterialManagement Plan. The target date for thisactivity is October 1996.

ACTION D-4.5 Newark Bay Borrow PitsFollowing up on a recommendation of theContainment Work Group to the New JerseyGovernor's Dredging Task Force, several studiesare being conducted related to development ofborrow pits in Newark Bay.

-- The Port Authority of New York and NewJersey will act as lead to implement asubaqueous borrow pit in Newark Bay as anapplicant to the USACE. Environmental andengineering studies are being performed.



-- The Containment Work Group hasconducted a comparison analysis of federaland non-federal sponsorship forimplementing subaqueous borrow pits inNewark Bay and will continue to makerecommendations to the Forum. The PortAuthority is currently assessing operationand maintenance costs of the pits. Theissues of ownership, ownership transfer,and liability are being reviewed by acommittee of the NJ Governor’s DredgedMaterial Management Team.

ACTION D-4.6Existing Borrow Pits

-- New York State will expedite its WQCdetermination and consider requiring thatUSACE plan a demonstration program forexisting borrow pits in the Lower Harbor.

-- Should the project (operational ordemonstration) be approved, USACE willimplement the project as soon as possible.

-- Should a conditional WQC allow for ademonstration project, then within sixmonths of demonstration project completionand data submittal and review, the State ofNew York will review the demonstrationproject and make a determination onwhether the WQC conditions were satisfiedto allow for an operational scale borrow pitprogram.

ACTION D-4.7 Consideration of Sand Mining Practices toCreate Suitable Pits For Dredged MaterialDisposalUSACE, NYSDEC, and NJDEP should assess thefeasibility of soliciting modified sand miningproposals so that suitable borrow pits, outsideof navigation channels, might be createdthrough sand mining practices. This should takeplace in consultation with the Dredging,Transport, and Disposal Work Group. Consideration of sand mining proposals mustinclude an assessment of how to best manage

the sand resource to gain environmental use andbenefits. Environmental benefits could beconditions of permits issued for sand mining.



OBJECTIVE D-5 Develop plans for closure(including remediation andrestoration) of the MudDump Site and historicaldisposal areas

ACTION D-4.8 Upland DisposalSmall-scale upland disposal may be feasible on acase-by-case basis.

-- The States of New Jersey and New York willmonitor the progress of private sectorapplicants seeking to site and operateupland disposal areas in the Port region. These actions will take place in consultationwith the Criteria, Containment, andDredging, Transport, and Disposal WorkGroups.

-- The Port Authority will continue to seekregional upland disposal sites.

Treatment Methods

Treatment (including, but not limited to,decontamination, physical separation, etc.) isnot a disposal alternative. Rather, it is amethod which may facilitate the management ofcontaminated dredged material within theHarbor (whether dredged for navigation and/orremediation). The main purpose of currentinvestigations is to identify effectivetechnologies, which may be readily applied tolarge volumes of contaminated dredged material,in a cost-effective and environmentally soundmanner, and which yields products which maybe used beneficially. The implementation ofoperational scale treatment technologies mayrequire a processing site, possibly a large site,on or adjacent to a waterway. The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA)of 1992 mandated that the USACE and USEPAjointly select decontamination technologies forcontaminated sediments. Resources of $2.7million and $2.3 million were appropriated toUSEPA in fiscal years (FY) 1993 and 1994,respectively. Additional funding of $1.8 millionwas appropriated by Congress in FY 1995.

ACTION D-4.9

Base Catalyzed Decomposition (BCD) StudyBench-scale studies have been completed. There was greater than 98 percent destructionof chlorinated organics (dioxins and PCBs). Removal of PAHs and mercury was 89 percentand 95 percent, respectively. An accompanyingpilot-scale design report demonstrated full-scaletreatment costs at $108 per cubic yard, notincluding additional treatment train costs. Adecision to expand to a pilot study has beenpostponed and will be considered based on theoutcome of other studies described in Action D-4.10 below.

ACTION D-4.10 Innovative Technologies Study Contracts were awarded for 7 bench-scaletechnologies in August 1995. Field collectionswere completed in October 1995. Bench-scaledemonstrations were underway in November1995 and were completed in January 1996. Based upon the success of the bench-scaleeffort, pilot-scale demonstrations will commencein March 1996, if indoor siting facilities aremade available. If not, and again depending onthe technology, the demonstration maycommence in early spring 1996, with a totalproject completion date of December 1996.

As previously discussed, the MDS, adjacentareas, and historical disposal areas need to bemanaged in the short-term and eventuallyclosed, when practicable non-ocean alternativesbecome available. Large areas of the ocean floorhave been, at a minimum, physically impactedfrom dredged material disposal, occurring since1914. Prior to 1977, dredged material was



disposed without bioassay/bioaccumulationanalysis and very little chemical analysis.

In October 1994, USEPA and USACE conducteda sediment toxicity/chemistry survey (utilizingUSEPA's Ocean Survey Vessel PETER W.ANDERSON) within the 23 square nautical milearea (MDS and historical disposal areas)proposed for expansion. The survey wasconducted in support of the MDS expansionSEIS and remediation/restoration of historicaldisposal areas. Forty-four samples werecollected and analyzed for toxicity (using theamphipod Ampelisca), sediment chemistry, andbenthic community structure. Worms were alsocollected and archived for future body burdenanalyses. Of the 44 samples analyzed, 27samples (9 inside the MDS and 18 outside theMDS) exhibited toxicity. The 27 samplesrepresent an area of approximately 10.2 squarenautical miles, out of the 23 square nauticalmile study area.

The areas inside the MDS can be remediatedimmediately by USEPA and USACE by directingCategory I dredged material to the desiredlocations. Some of the areas sampled inOctober have already been covered withCategory I dredged material. The areas outsidethe MDS require formal designation prior to anydisposal of dredged material for remediation. This supports the Dredged Material ManagementForum's plan to prepare an SEIS to expand theMDS into historical disposal areas for purposesof remediation/restoration.

The chemical and biological impact of dredgedmaterial in areas outside of the existing MDS is,at present, unknown. Dredged materialdisposed prior to the implementation of waterpollution control laws may contain higherconcentrations of contaminants of concern thandredged materials disposed at the MDS today. The expansion of the MDS offers the potentialopportunity for providing remediation ofcontaminated areas and, as a goal, restoration

of contaminated areas (from disposal of sands,muds, large rubble, etc.).

MDS Site Management and Monitoring PlanA plan will be developed to evaluate all dredgedmaterial disposal areas and determine if theyhave been adversely impacted by disposalactivities. The plan will address remediation(and restoration) of the impacted areas, for theprotection of human and ecological health,using Category I materials. The value of sand orother material as a final cap will be reviewed. Itis the expressed consensus of the DredgedMaterial Management Forum to seekopportunities to restore, to the maximum extentpracticable (considering cost, logistics,technology availability), areas of the Bight Apexwhich have been adversely impacted by dredgedmaterial disposal.

ACTION D-5.0Pre- and Post-Closure of Ocean Disposal Sites

-- USEPA, in consultation with USACE andthe Mud Dump Site Work Group, willdevelop closure management andmonitoring plans for the MDS, adjacentareas, and historical disposal sites. Pre- andpost-closure monitoring plans will includephysical, chemical, and biological sampling. The following issues will be addressed: remaining capacity, frequency of post-closure surveys, costs and funding, and theerosion potential of the existing mounds. Plans will incorporate the controlling depthstrategy for Category I and II materials, aspreviously described in the "Identify andSelect Disposal Alternatives" section. Planswill be hierarchial in nature: remediationactivities will be the primary concern andrestoration opportunities will be considereda goal, when suitable materials are available.

-- USEPA, in consultation with USACE, willimplement the closure monitoring andmanagement plan, when appropriate.



OBJECTIVE D-6 Improve dredging,transport, and disposaloptions

Operations

Improved dredging, transport, and disposaloperations will reduce the potentialenvironmental risks posed by these operations. Information on the selection of dredgingequipment and on the advantages andlimitations of various types of dredgingequipment is available. However, itsapplicability to the Harbor region is uncertain. There are two concerns associated withdredging: resuspension of sediments andremoval precision. Resuspension can be causedby excavation, barge/hopper overflow, spillage,leakage, spud movement, barge movement, etc. Removal precision refers to how accurately agiven dredge can remove desired areas andthicknesses of contaminated sediment. Precision is important from the standpoint thatcontaminated and uncontaminated materialsmight be segregated so that each may behandled in the most appropriate mannerpossible. The ability to use improved orinnovative disposal techniques depends, in part,on the disposal site selected.

Containment of dredged material in geotextilecontainers has helped solve several difficultconstruction problems in the past few years. More recently, the focus has turned to large-scale contaminated dredged material disposal inthese containers. Engineering andenvironmental studies concerning geotextilecontainment are being conducted by USACE-WES to develop and demonstrate dredgedmaterial containment systems that aretechnically feasible, environmentally sensitive,and cost effective. The Port Authority of NewYork and New Jersey developed a pilot project

utilizing the geotextile containers. Monitoringwas performed and results are expected March1, 1996.

ACTION D-6.1 Improvements in EquipmentThe Dredging, Transport, and Disposal WorkGroup will continue to recommend specificimprovements for equipment and methods usedin dredging, transport, and disposal operations.

ACTION D-6.2 Borrow Pit Disposal TechniquesUSACE will determine if hydraulic dredging isfeasible for borrow pit disposal and veryconfined sites. ACTION D-6.3Geotextile ContainersThe Port Authority of New York and New Jerseyselected a pilot project for dredged materialdisposal in geotextile bags. Monitoring wasperformed and results will be available March 1,1996. This and other experiments arecontinuing.

Volume Reduction/Selective Dredging

Any reduction in the volume of material to bedredged is important because it provides greaterflexibility with respect to the disposalalternatives available and because of the limitedcapacity of these disposal alternatives. Generalcriteria to be considered in every dredgingpermit evaluation are the need for the proposedwork and the practicability of using reasonablealternative methods to accomplish the objectiveof the proposed work when there are unresolvedconflicts as to resource use. Prior to issuing anydredging permit, the need for the dredging mustbe established. It may, in some instances, befeasible to dredge only limited areas of a facilityand still not affect facility operations. Manyfederal navigation channels, including theirphysical dimensions, were designated at a timewhen the number of ships utilizing the Harbor



OBJECTIVE D-7 Expedite permit decisions

was greater than at present. A channelassessment and reconfiguration in Norfolk,Virginia, using a computer simulation of shipmovement, significantly reduced the cost ofmaintaining channels in that region.

ACTION D-6.4 Volume Reduction/Innovative DredgingTechniques USACE will, in coordination withthe appropriate state agencies, review eachpermit application and federal project to ensurethat volume reduction and dredging techniqueshave been considered.

ACTION D-6.5 Channel Assessment and ReconfigurationThe Maritime Administration (MARAD) willassess the impact of reducing the width ordepth of specific channels. Tipping Fees

The potential exists for the establishment oftipping fees for all new and existing disposalareas. These fees could be directed to thedredging program to offset general managementand operational costs. Tipping fees mightprovide a financial incentive to reduce theamount of dredging. However, studies must beconducted to better understand the regionaleconomic impacts of dredging before anytipping fee system could be considered. ACTION D-6.6Economic Assessment of Tipping Fees DMMIWG will identify a responsible entity, byOctober 31, 1996, to sponsor an economicassessment of tipping fees in the Port of NewYork and New Jersey. The target date forcompletion of the assessment is January 1997.

ACTION D-6.7 Assessment of Implementation of Tipping FeesDMMIWG will identify a responsible entity, byOctober 31, 1996, to seek Congressional inputon the establishment of tipping fees.

There are many complex federal, state, and locallaws, Executive Orders, and regulationsgoverning dredging and dredged material, withoverlapping jurisdictions. The result is acumbersome and sometimes conflictingregulatory process. The keys to expediting thisprocess are appropriate regulatory coordinationand the availability of disposal sites for the type(category) of dredged material to be disposed.

USEPA and USACE have prepared a regionalMemorandum of Understanding (MOU) toeffectively execute statutory responsibilitiesassociated with technical and administrativeprocedures under MPRSA pertaining to:monitoring and management of ocean disposalsites; dredging and disposal permit review andapproval, including regionally appropriatesediment testing and evaluation protocols;dredging and ocean disposal permit complianceand enforcement; and appropriate reporting andrecord keeping of documents pertaining toMPRSA activities. It is the intent of theagencies to minimize duplication of effort,paperwork, and delays in the management ofocean disposal sites and dredging and disposalpermits and authorizations.

Joint permit information packages for federaland state regulatory agencies and thedevelopment of consistent testing requirementswould likely expedite permit processing andregulatory decisions. In addition, a unifiedregional regulatory guidance document whichclearly and concisely identifies all resourceagencies' concerns (e.g., seasonal restrictionsand reaches affected, endangered species)should be developed and include generic andspecific permit conditions. This will allowregulatory agencies to identify and resolve, ifpossible, conflicts early in the process.



ACTION D-7.1 Memorandum of UnderstandingUSACE and USEPA will, by September 1996,finalize an MOU for ocean disposal sitemanagement and site designation. Sitemanagement plans will be subject to full publicreview and comment.

ACTION D-7.2 Joint Permit ApplicationsUSACE, NJDEP, and NYSDEC, in cooperationwith DMMIWG, are exploring development ofjoint permit information packages for projectsproposing ocean and/or non-ocean disposal.

ACTION D-7.3Federal Regulatory GuidanceUSACE, USEPA, NOAA-NMFS, USFWS,NYSDEC, NJDEP, and others, in cooperationwith DMMIWG, are exploring development of afederal regional regulatory guidance documentwhich addresses the concerns of the federalresource agencies with appropriate generic, andrecommended specific, special permit conditionsfor federal permits.

ACTION D-7.4 State Regulatory GuidanceNYSDOS, NYSDEC, and NJDEP, in cooperationwith DMMIWG, are developing a regional stateregulatory guidance document which addressesthe concerns of the state resource agencies withappropriate generic, and recommended specific,special permit conditions for state permits.

ACTION D-7.5 Integration Task Force USACE, in cooperation with DMMIWG, willexplore, by April 1996, the formation of afederal and state interagency group to integratefederal and state regulatory guidances.

ACTION D-7.6Conflict ResolutionUSACE, USEPA, NOAA-NMFS, USFWS,NYSDEC, NJDEP, and others, in cooperation

with DMMIWG, are exploring establishment of aunified regulatory process for resolving resourceuse concerns.

ACTION D-7.7 Consistent Testing RequirementsUSEPA, USACE, NJDEP, and NYSDEC willexplore, by June 1996, development ofconsistent testing requirements for dredgedmaterial disposal. Separate requirements may beneeded for ocean, non-ocean, and uplandalternatives.

ACTION D-7.8 Status of Streamlining Efforts USACE will provide a status report to theDredged Material Management Forum every sixmonths on the efforts of the regulatory agenciesto streamline permit processing. If any of theabove recommended actions cannot beimplemented, USACE will provide anexplanation as to the reasons, including anyobstacles encountered.


Many of the commitments andrecommendations in the Dredged MaterialManagement section of the CCMP can beaccomplished through the effective use of baseprogram resources. In fact, full implementationof the CCMP relies, in large part, on continuedoperation, and funding at current levels, ofexisting programs to address dredged materialmanagement issues. The Dredged MaterialManagement component of the CCMP itemizes33 new HEP-driven commitments operatingthrough base programs. These actions representa major commitment to CCMP implementation.



As shown on Table 14(dc) below, the DredgedMaterial Management component of the CCMPalso includes 9 significant commitments andrecommendations that entail enhanced programfunding of $14.4 million, plus target dates foradditional cost estimates.

The Dredged Material Management componentof the CCMP also includes 7 actions that will ormay require the expenditure of projectimplementation 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 beencommitted by the responsible entities.

Ë The Plan includes 3 actions for whichadditional funds may be required to beexpended by responsible entities, based onthe potential outcome of several ongoing orplanned efforts.

The costs of implementation actions to addressDredged Material Management may be large,particularly for the longer-term alternatives notdiscussed in this Plan. Cost estimates for theactions discussed in this Plan will continue tobe developed as part of the continuing planningprocess.



Tabl

e 14

(dc)

. E

nhan

ced

Prog

ram

Cos

ts f

or D

redg

ed M

ater

ial M

anag

emen

t

AC

TIO

NC

OM

MIT

MEN

TSRE

CO

MM

END

ATI

ON

S

Cos

tC

ost/

Yea

rC

ost

Cos

t/Y

ear

AC

TIO

N D

-3.1

:C

ondu

ct s

urve

ys, as

nec

essa

ry, to

deve

lop

inte

rim c

hem

ical

spe

cific

bio

accu

mul

atio

nev

alua

tion

met

hodo

logy

.

$300

,000

AC

TIO

N D

-3.7

:Pe

rfor

m p

ro-a

ctiv

e sa

mpl

ing

and

test

ing

to c

ateg

oriz

e an

d qu

antif

y dr

edge

d m

ater

ial.

*

AC

TIO

N D

-4.3

:C

onsi

der ex

pans

ion

of the

Mud

Dum

pSite

.$1

.3 m

illio

n

--Pe

rfor

m n

eces

sary

stu

dies

/sur

veys

in s

uppo

rt o

f a

Sup

plem

enta

l Env

ironm

enta

l Im

pact

Sta

tem

ent.

--Pu

blis

h a

Sup

plem

enta

l Env

ironm

enta

l Im

pact

Sta

tem

ent.

--Pu

blis

h Rul

emak

ing.

AC

TIO

N D

-4.4

:D

evel

op D

redg

ed M

ater

ial M

anag

emen

tPl

an (Ph

ases

I an

d II)

.$1

2.8

mill

ion

AC

TIO

N D

-4.8

:See

k re

gion

al u

plan

d di

spos

al s

ites.

*

AC

TIO

N D

-6.5

:Pe

rfor

m c

ompu

ter si

mul

atio

n an

das

sess

men

t of

nec

essa

ry c

hann

el d

imen

sion

.*

AC

TIO

N D

-6.6

:Pe

rfor

m e

cono

mic

ass

essm

ent

of t

ippi

ngfe

es.

*

TO

TA

L1

$14,

400,

000+

**

*En

hanc

ed p

rogr

am c

osts

to

be d

evel

oped

as

part

of

the

cont

inui

ng p

lann

ing

proc

ess.

1N

otat

ion

(+*)

indi

cate

s co

st p

lus

addi

tiona

l cos

ts t

o be

det

erm

ined

.



Tabl

e 15

(dc)

. P

roje

ct Im

plem

enta

tion

Cos

ts f

or D

redg

ed M

ater

ial M

anag

emen

t

AC

TIO

NC

OM

MIT

MEN

TSRE

CO

MM

END

ATI

ON

S

Cos

tC

ost/

Yea

rC

ost

Cos

t/Y

ear

AC

TIO

N D

-4.5

:Im

plem

ent

a N

ewar

k Ba

y su

baqu

eous

borr

ow p

it.**

***

AC

TIO

N D

-4.6

:Pe

rfor

m d

emon

stra

tion

pilo

t pr

ojec

tus

ing

an e

xist

ing

suba

queo

us b

orro

w p

it.**

**

AC

TIO

N D

-4.6

:Im

plem

ent

oper

atio

nal s

cale

use

of

anex

istin

g su

baqu

eous

bor

row

pit.

**$8

0 m

illio

n fo

r la

rge

pit

$40

mill

ion

for sm

all p

it*

AC

TIO

N D

-4.9

:C

ondu

ct b

ench

-sca

le s

tudi

es a

nd, i

fpr

omis

ing,

pilo

t-sc

ale

stud

ies

of B

CD

tec

hnol

ogy.

$1 m

illio

n

AC

TIO

N D

-4.1

0:C

ondu

ct b

ench

- an

d pi

lot-

scal

e st

udie

sof

inno

vativ

e tr

eatm

ent

tech

nolo

gies

.$5

.48

mill

ion

(to

date

)+*

AC

TIO

N D

-5.0

:Im

plem

ent

the

Mud

Dum

p Site

Clo

sure

Mon

itorin

g an

d M

anag

emen

t Pl

an.*

****

**

AC

TIO

N D

-6.3

:Pe

rfor

m p

ilot

disp

osal

pro

ject

usi

ngge

otex

tile

cont

aine

rs.

$250

,000

TO

TA

L

1

$126

,730

,000

+*

*

*Pr

ojec

t im

plem

enta

tion

cost

s to

be

deve

lope

d as

par

t of

the

con

tinui

ng p

lann

ing

proc

ess.

**

Cos

ts t

o be

incl

uded

in t

he E

IS.

**

*To

be

incl

uded

in c

losu

re m

anag

emen

t an

d m

onito

ring

plan

9/9

6.1

Not

atio

n (+

*) in

dica

tes

cost

plu

s ad

ditio

nal c

osts

to

be d

eter

min

ed.




HEP's Plan to address dredged materialmanagement will assist in attaining our vision toestablish and maintain a healthy Harbor/Bightecosystem and to implement dredged materialdisposal alternatives that promote beneficialuses. While the Plan is multi-faceted, all facetsmove along parallel tracks. The Plan providesenvironmentally reasonable immediate and short-term disposal alternatives for dredged materialwhile allowing for the selection, design, andimplementation of mid- and long-term non-ocean disposal alternatives for dredged materialnot suitable for ocean disposal. The Planaggressively sets forth an integrated approachstressing coordinated and expeditious regulationof dredged material and early implementation ofalternate disposal options and pollution controlmeasures.

Full implementation of the actions associatedwith the Dredged Material Managementcomponent of this Plan is expected to ensurethat the contribution of the Port to theeconomy and quality of life of the Region ismaintained. The outcome of implementation ofthis Plan may, among other things, bedemonstrated through an improvement in thequality of sediments deposited in the Estuary,remediation and restoration of areas adverselyaffected by dredged material disposal, thedevelopment of alternatives to ocean disposal,more efficient regulation of dredged material,the development of treatment technologies fordredged material, and the growth of water-dependent industries such as tourism andcommercial and recreational fishing.

Note: It is HEP’s goal that all the recommendations in the CCMP become commitments.

-- In some cases CCMP actions are recommendations, not commitments,because responsible entities require resources to implement the action.HEP will advocate making these resources available.

-- In other cases, CCMP actions are recommendations because HEP has notobtained the commitment of regulated entities and other responsibleentities to implement the action. By issuance of this CCMP, HEP seeksthe commitment of the responsible entities and requests that they stepforward to voluntarily agree to implement the actions.

1 Responsible entities may accomplish the actions directly or via contract orgrant.

2 C/O - An ongoing commitment, not driven by the HEP CCMPC/N - A new commitment, driven by the HEP CCMPR - Recommendation156 DREDGED MATERIAL

Table 16(ds). Summary—Management of Dredged Material

ACTION RESPONSIBLE ENTITY1

TARGET DATE ESTIMATED COST STATUS2

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 determineForum/HEP structure.

-- Suggest options for Forum/HEP structure. Chairs - HEP PC reps, HEPCAC, Forum DMMIWG


-- Determine Forum/HEP structure. HEP Policy Committee Completed Base program C/N

ACTION D-1.2: Identify responsible parties for all actionsand commitments and assist in the development ofimplementation programs for these actions.

Forum, through theDMMIWG, in consultationwith HEP


ACTION D-1.3: Review and comment on work plans,SOW, work products, etc.

DMMIWG Ongoing Base program C/N

ACTION D-1.4: Interact with USACE in the developmentof the long-term plan for dredged material in the New York-New Jersey Harbor.

DMMIWG on behalf ofthe Forum


(Continued)Table 16(ds). Summary—Management of Dredged Material





ACTION D-1.5: Coordinate plans, proposals, andalternative courses of action pertaining to any matters thatfall within the scope of this document with the relevantworkgroups of the Dredged Material Management Forum.

USACE, USEPA, NJDEP,NYSDEC


OBJECTIVE D-2: Reduce continuing inputs of toxic chemicals and upland sediments and soils (see Management of Toxic Contamination section and theManagement of Habitat and Living Resources section, Actions H-2.1, H-2.2, H-2.3).

ACTION D-2.0: Review options that prevent sedimentsfrom entering navigational areas.

USACE Draft: CompletedInterim: Jul 1996Final: Jul 1998

Base program C/O

OBJECTIVE D-3: Characterize, categorize, and quantify material to be dredged.

ACTION D-3.1: Develop interim chemical specificbioaccumulation evaluation methodology.

-- Develop plan for implementation. USEPA & USACE, inconsultation with theCriteria Work Group

Completed Feb 1995Base program C/N

-- Develop draft guidance. Apr 1996

-- Seek authorization/appropriations for surveys, asnecessary, to facilitate the chemical-specificbioaccumulation decision framework.

USEPA & USACE Completed Base program C/N

-- Conduct surveys as necessary. USEPA & USACE Initial survey:May 1995Final surveys:Sep 1995

Enhanced program cost - $300,000

C/N

-- Conduct peer and public review of guidance. USEPA & USACE Comments due:Jun 1996

Base program C/N

-- Make decision to adopt all, part, or none of guidance. USEPA & USACE Jul 1996 Base program C/N






-- Implement guidance, as appropriate. USEPA, USACE,regulated community

Oct 1996 Base program C/N

ACTION D-3.2: Recommend reference site and referencesediment database.

USEPA & USACE Feb 1996 Base program C/N-- Recommend an appropriate reference site.

-- Recommend an approach for establishing a referencesediment database.

ACTION D-3.3: Develop a national guidance document toassist the USEPA regions in bioaccumulation decision-making.

USEPA Jun 1997 Base program R

ACTION D-3.4: Modify the Mud Dump monitoring andmanagement plan to incorporate the interim chemical-specific, bioaccumulation approach.

USEPA, USACE, inconsultation with MudDump Work Group

Oct 1996 Base program C/N

ACTION D-3.5: Develop draft criteria for upland disposal. NJDEP, NYSDEC, Criteriaand Containment WorkGroups

NJ: Jan 1996NY: To be

determined

Base program C/N






ACTION D-3.6: Categorize and quantify dredged material. USACE Mar 1996 Base program C/N

-- Categorize sediments based on the regionalbioaccumulation approach.

-- Estimate the quantities of dredged material currentlypending in each category using the interim chemical-specific approach.

Jul 1996

ACTION D-3.7: Determine need for pro-active samplingand testing.

USEPA, USACE, NYSDEC Mar 1996 Base program C/N

-- Collect data if necessary. Enhanced program coststo be estimated by Jan1996

R

-- Estimate quantities of dredged material in each category. Base program C/N

ACTION D-3.8: Develop a table which matches dredgedmaterial disposal alternatives to regional dredged materialcategories.

USACE, USEPA, NJDEP,NYSDEC, Forum workgroups

Mar 1996 Base program C/N

OBJECTIVE D-4: Identify, evaluate, and select disposal and treatment/decontamination alternatives.

ACTION D-4.1: Determine a recommended depth andcontrolling depth for dredged material at the MDS and itsenvirons.

USEPA & USACE, inconsultation with the MudDump Work Group

Apr 1, 1996 Base program C/O

ACTION D-4.2: Provide design criteria for various moundplacement and capping options.

USACE & USEPA Aug 1, 1996 Base program C/O






ACTION D-4.3: Prepare SEIS and site designationrulemaking for expanded Mud Dump Site.

Enhanced program - totalcost of designating anew, expanded site isestimated at$1.3 million

-- Perform necessary studies. USEPA & USACE, inconsultation with MudDump Site Work Group

Initiated: Oct 1994Completed:Sep 1995

C/N

-- 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 dredgedmaterial. (Phase I - completed).

USACE Final:Jul 1998Interim:Jul 1996

Enhanced program cost -$12.8 million(Note: Cost forimplementation of theplan to be estimated byJul 1996.)

C/O

-- Review USACE recommendations for siting containmentislands and provide input.

NY & NJ Oct 1996 Base program C/N






* Contingent upon receipt of State Water Quality Certification.

ACTION D-4.5: Make decisions on Newark Baysubaqueous borrow pit.

-- Act as lead to implement subaqueous borrow pits. Port Authority as anapplicant to USACE, inconsultation with theContainment Work Group& NJ Governor’s TaskForce

Ongoing Base program; includedin EIS

C/N

-- Conduct comparison analysis of federal and non-federalsponsorship for implementation.

Containment Work Group Completed Base program C/N

-- Conduct EIS. USACE or Port Authority Dec 1996 Project implementationcost to be included in EIS

C/N

-- Determine appropriate cooperating agency. USACE, NJDEP, PortAuthority

Dec 1996

ACTION D-4.6: Make decisions on existing subaqueousborrow 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 implementationcost to be determinedwithin 3 months ofdecision on WQC

C/O*






* Contingent upon receipt of State Water Quality Certification.

-- Lower Bay Operational Scale Borrow Pit.

• Make state regulatory decisions on WQC. NYSDEC Within 6 months ofdemo projectcompletion

Base program C/O

• Implement (including design and construction). USACE To be determined $80 million for a pit with9.3 million cy capacity$40 million for a pit with4.7 million cy capacity

C/O*

ACTION D-4.7: Assess feasibility of modifying sand miningpractices for the purpose of creating new borrow pits.

USACE, NJDEP, NYSDEC,in consultation with theDredging, Transport &Disposal Work Group


ACTION D-4.8: Monitor upland disposal.

-- Monitor the progress of private sector applicants seekingto site and operate upland disposal areas.

NJDEP & NYSDEC Ongoing Base program C/O

-- Seek regional upland disposal sites. Port Authority Ongoing Enhanced program costto be determined

C/N






ACTION D-4.9: Conduct studies of the Base-CatalyzedDechlorination (BCD) technology.

USEPA, in consultationwith USACE and theDecontamination/Siting Work Group

Total projectcost - $1 million

-- 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 studiesof viable technologies for treating sediments.

USEPA & USACE, inconsultation with theDecontamination/ SitingWork Group

$5.48 million C/O

-- Award contracts for 7 bench-scale technologies. AwardedAug 1995

-- Collect sediments. CollectedOct 1995

-- Complete bench-scale studies. CompletedJan 1996

-- Begin pilot-scale studies (if promising). Initiate pilot:Mar 1996Project finished:Dec 1996Feasibility report forfull scale operation: Dec 1996






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 forocean disposal sites.

-- Develop closure management and monitoring plans forthe MDS, adjacent areas, and historical disposal sites. This includes remediation and restoration.

USEPA & USACE, inconsultation with the MudDump Site Work Group

Sep 1996 Base program C/N

-- Implement the closure management and monitoring plan. As appropriate Base program + projectimplementation cost tobe determined by Sep1996

C/N

OBJECTIVE D-6: Improve dredging, transport, and disposal operations.

ACTION D-6.1: Recommend specific improvements forequipment and methods used in dredging, transport, anddisposal operations.

Dredging, Transport, andDisposal Work Group


ACTION D-6.2: Determine if hydraulic dredging is feasiblefor borrow pit disposal and very confined sites.

USACE To be determined Base program C/N

ACTION D-6.3: Conduct pilot dredging projects for disposalin geotextile containers.

Port Authority & USEPA,in consultation with theDredging, Transport, andDisposal Work Group

Completed ResultsMar 1, 1996

$250,000 C/N

-- Determine need for full scale use of geotextilecontainers.

Ongoing Base program

ACTION D-6.4: Ensure consideration of volume reductionand innovative dredging techniques (if warranted).

USACE, NYSDEC,NYSDOS, NJDEP


ACTION D-6.5: Assess the impact of reducing the widthor depth of specific channels through computerizedsimulations.

MARAD Ongoing Enhanced program costto be estimated by Jan1996

C/O






ACTION D-6.6: Sponsor an economic assessment oftipping fees in the Port.

DMMIWG will identifyresponsible entity tocomplete

Oct 1996;Completion by Jan1997

Enhanced program costto be estimated by Jan1996

C/N

ACTION D-6.7: Seek Congressional input on theestablishment of tipping fees.

DMMIWG will identifyresponsible entity tocomplete

Oct 1996;Completion by Jan1997

Base program C/N

OBJECTIVE D-7: Expedite permit decisions.

ACTION D-7.1: Finalize a draft MOU for ocean disposalsite management and site designation.

USEPA & USACE Draft completedSep 1995Final by Sep 1996

Base program C/O

ACTION D-7.2: Explore development of joint permitinformation packages for projects proposing ocean and/ornon-ocean disposal.

USACE, NYSDEC, NJDEP,in cooperation withDMMIWG


ACTION D-7.3: Explore development of a federal regionalregulation/guidance document addressing the concerns ofthe federal resource agencies.

USEPA, NOAA-NMFS,USFWS, NYSDEC,NJDEP, USACE, incooperation withDMMIWG


ACTION D-7.4: Develop a regional stateregulatory/guidance document which addresses theconcerns of the state resource agencies.

NYSDOS, NYSDEC,NJDEP, in cooperationwith DMMIWG


ACTION D-7.5: Explore the formation of a federal andstate interagency group to integrate federal and stateregulatory guidances.

USACE in cooperationwith DMMIWG

Apr 1996 Base program C/N






ACTION D-7.6: Explore establishment of a unifiedregulatory process for resolving resource use concerns.

USACE, USEPA, NMFS,USFWS, NYSDEC,NJDEP, in cooperationwith DMMIWG


ACTION D-7.7: Explore development of consistent testingrequirements for dredged material disposal for both oceanand non-ocean disposal alternatives. This will becoordinated with the Criteria Work Group and the DredgedMaterial Management Forum.

USEPA, USACE, NJDEP,NYSDEC, Criteria WorkGroup, Forum

Jun 1996 Base program C/N

ACTION D-7.8: Report on status of efforts to streamlinepermitting.

USACE Every 6 months Base program C/N


PATHOGENIC CONTAMINATION 161

PROBLEMSBeach closuresShellfish bed closures

SOURCES Municipal dischargesCombined sewer overflowsStorm waterVessel dischargesOther non-point sources


GOALS Preserve, restore, and maintain human uses of Harbor and coastal watersfor bathing and shellfishing.

Ensure protection of human health from ingestion of pathogens.Protect marine and coastal resources from adverse pathogenic effects.

OBJECTIVES Reduce LoadingsP-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 RiskP-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.

MANAGEMENT OF PATHOGENIC CONTAMINATION

THE PROBLEMS

Pathogens are disease causing micro-organisms,such as bacteria, protozoans, and viruses, that arepresent in untreated or inadequately treated humansewage and domestic and wild animal wastes.

Human sewage and related discharges have for along time impaired the water quality of theHarbor/Bight. This contamination affects the publicwhen recreational beaches are closed, waters forrecreational boaters are degraded, and shellfishbeds are closed or restricted. Unhealthy waterquality conditions may also pose risks to livingmarine resources.

Currently, no portion of the Harbor core area isapproved for the direct harvesting of shellfish; onthe other hand, all public bathing areas, which areprimarily in the outer reaches of the Harbor corearea, are currently approved for recreationalbathing. In the Bight, waters are generallyapproved for shellfishing, except for a FederalShellfish Closure Area around the former municipalsewage sludge disposal site; all ocean beachesare approved for bathing.

In the back bays adjacent to the Bight, closed andrestricted shellfish areas are common in the moreheavily developed areas and in tidal tributaries. Storm water and non-point source runoffperiodically cause closures of back bay area


162 PATHOGENIC CONTAMINATION

Water quality, including the choice of waterquality indicators, is only one of severalfactors that must be considered in adiscussion of bathing and shellfishing useimpairments. To evaluate the potential forrestoration of historic uses within theHarbor/Bight, the states must also consider:

• proximity to effluent discharges;• extent and nature of shoreline

modification;• navigation lanes and berthing areas; and• current and circulation patterns.

Thus, despite the improvements that arepossible in Harbor/Bight water quality, fullrecovery of historic uses is not an attainablegoal. For example, shellfish areas are closedaround each sewage treatment plant outfall,regardless of effluent quality, as aprecautionary measure. The regulatingauthority must avoid potential human healthrisks associated with even a temporaryviolation of water quality standards. Thesetypes of factors are used by both states insetting policies for permanent and temporaryclosures of shellfish and bathing beachareas.

bathing beaches which are particularly sensitive tosuch contamination sources.

Assessment Based on Existing Water QualityStandardsFecal and total coliform bacteria are water qualityindicators that have been used since the early1920s to protect the public from such waterbornebacterial diseases as typhoid fever. Water qualitysuitable for bathing and shellfishing is determinedby measuring the concentration of these fecal andtotal coliform indicators, which are associated withsewage contamination (see highlighted text box). Samples are not routinely taken for pathogenicorganisms because they typically exist onlysporadically and in low concentrations, making theirdetection difficult and costly. New York and NewJersey are two of only four states in the Nation thatmonitor the entire length of their marine coastlinesfor bacterial indicators.

ShellfishWater quality impairments in New York-New JerseyHarbor have adversely affected shellfish resourcessince the mid-1920s. Currently no area of theHarbor is approved for direct shellfish harvesting,but restricted harvesting is permissible for portionsof the Lower, Raritan, and Sandy Hook Bays andthe Shrewsbury and Navesink Rivers. Restrictedharvesting means that shellfish must be cleansedbefore being marketed for human consumption. Pathogenic organisms (as measured by bacterialindicators) are purged, either at a depuration plantor in clean marine waters. Water quality standardsfor waters used for harvesting for depuration areless stringent than water quality standards forwaters used for direct harvesting. There are nospecific water quality standards for waters used forrelay harvesting. Jamaica Bay, New York also hasa significant shellfish resource, but its waters areclosed because of water quality concerns andwildlife protection mandates of the U.S. NationalPark Service. Hard and soft-shell clams arecurrently the most commercially valuable molluscanshellfish in the Harbor.

Beyond the mouth of the Harbor, in the Bight Apex,there is a Federal Shellfish Closure Area at theformer 12-mile ocean dump site for municipalsewage sludge. The closure area is generally acircle, six nautical miles in radius, and includesportions of the adjacent shore areas of Long Islandand New Jersey. Sewage sludge dumping ceasedat this site in 1987, and a three-year monitoringstudy conducted by the National Marine FisheriesService has demonstrated progressiveenvironmental recovery of the site. Currently,bacterial indicator levels in the Bight Apex watersmeet the standards for direct shellfish harvesting,but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has notyet taken administrative action to reopen the



Federal Closure area. Both states administer otherprecautionary closure areas around ocean outfallsand some inlets. New Jersey also designatesshellfish closure areas to protect spawning stock. The most commercially valuable molluscan shellfishin ocean waters are surf clams, ocean quahogs,and sea scallops.

In the back bay regions, closed and restrictedshellfish areas are common in the more heavilydeveloped areas and in tidal tributaries. In recentyears, New Jersey has restored some back baywaters to less-restrictive shellfish classifications.A continuing trend in Long Island back bays is morerestrictive classifications and larger closure areas. Commercially significant shellfish in back baywaters include hard and soft-shell clams, oysters,blue mussels, and bay scallops.

Beaches New York City manages 24 miles of public beachesalong its Harbor and ocean shores, and all areapproved for bathing. Recent declines in totalcoliform loadings have led to the reopening ofSeagate Beach on Coney Island and South Beachand Midland Beach on Staten Island. Furthermore,NYCDOH has dropped rainfall advisoriescompletely from seven of the ten New York Citypublic beaches and reduced the advisories for theremaining three. Water quality is a concern andcontinues to affect a number of private or historicalbeach sites in New York City and othermunicipalities along the Upper East River, westernLong Island Sound, Jamaica Bay, and Raritan Bay.

Ocean beaches in New York and New Jersey aregenerally approved for swimming. Temporarybeach closures, in 1987 and 1988, stimulatedaction to address washups of floatable debris andsewage treatment plant malfunctions. Theseactions have resulted in reduced incidences ofocean beach closures since 1988.

Some Bight back bay area bathing beaches havebeen periodically closed. Storm water and non-point sources, such as boat discharges andwaterfowl, have a greater effect on the quality ofthese back bay beaches than on ocean beaches orHarbor beaches.Assessment Based on Additional PathogenicIndicators

Fecal and total coliform indicators are usefulsurrogates for bacterial disease-causing organisms. Currently, however, it is believed that the mostcommon marine pollution-related disease agentsare viruses. Coliforms are not as persistent in thewater environment as viral pathogens and may notreflect the actual presence of pathogenic virusesand, thus, health risk. Studies are underway atboth the federal (National Indicator Study) and state(New Jersey Alternative Pathogenic IndicatorStudy) levels to evaluate indicators that may betterassess public health risk or track and identifysources of contamination.

A first study conducted by NJDEP with HEP fundsassessed the utility of a specific viral indicator,F+RNA coliphage. This type of indicator may bettertrace the fate of pathogenic viruses in coastalwaters than conventional bacterial indicators. Thefollowing conclusions resulted from this study:

� The F+RNA coliphage is a promising indicator,and it demonstrates a relationship to theexpected degree of fecal contamination forsignificant population sources.

� The F+RNA coliphage can potentially differentiatehuman from animal fecal contamination.

� The F+RNA coliphage does not correlate wellwith other, conventional, bacterial indicators ofwater quality.

� The monitoring of waters for F+RNA coliphage ispossible through routine quantitative testingprocedures.

New Jersey is currently undertaking a follow-upstudy to further assess the potential of the F+RNAcoliphage as a practicable microbial water qualityindicator and to detect the presence of humanenteric (pathogenic) viruses in Harbor/Bight waters.



Figure 8. Loadings of Fecal Coliform to theEstuary


Based on Bacterial IndicatorsPathogens of human origin enter the aquaticenvironment by a number of pathways. The publichealth significance of each will vary depending onthe kinds and concentrations of micro-organismspresent, the volume of the effluent dischargedrelative to the volume of the receiving waters (thedilution factor), and the uses to be made of theaffected waters. It is important to distinguishbetween contamination as measured by fecalcoliforms (FCOLI) and actual pathogeniccontamination. The term pathogenic contamina-tion refers to the full suite of disease causing micro-organisms (viruses, bacteria, protozoans, etc.) inthe wastestream, but these are not routinelymeasured. Characterization of pathogenic waterquality conditions in the Harbor/Bight is determinedprimarily by the coliform bacterial indicators, whichare routinely measured, associated with pollutionsources, and applied conservatively to protectpublic health.

Sources of pathogens to the Harbor/Bight, basedon conventional pathogenic indicators, include:1) sewage treatment plant effluents, 2) combinedsewer overflows, 3) storm water discharges,4) non-point source runoff, 5) tributary sources,6) vessel discharges, and 7) ocean dump sites. The relative importance of these sources variesamong the several geographically distinctcomponents of the regional ecosystem: the Harborcore area including the Lower Bay Complex andother waters; the Bight; and the back bays. Table17(p) presents a comparison of the majorpathogenic sources, and their relative significanceto resource impairment in the Harbor/Bight, forshellfish beds and bathing beaches. Resourceimpairment is rated by relative FCOLI contributionsfrom the sources, in combination with the extent towhich additional precautionary actions areconsidered necessary to protect public health.

The tributary flow into the Estuary is greater thanany other source contribution, representing 80percent of the entire flow, but this sourcecontributes only 1.8 percent of FCOLI. Municipalflow is secondary in volume at 14 percent butcontributes very small quantities of FCOLI (0.04%). On the other hand, CSO flows are low(1.3%) butcontribute 89 percent of the FCOLI levels; stormwater flows are also low (3.5%) and contribute 8.9percent of the FCOLI levels.

Sources in Table 17(p) are rated high (H), medium(M), or low (L) for their significance to useimpairments. A source rated high (H1) significantlydegrades waters for bathing or shellfishing uses; asource rated H2 requires precautionary closuresaffecting a wide area. A medium-rated source (M)contributes measurable contamination to a waterbody, which may restrict uses, but leads to closuresfor only short durations. A source rated low (L)contributes little or nothing to the pathogeniccontamination problem of a water body. In general,a given source is more significant in terms ofshellfish impairment than bathing beach impairmentbecause water quality standards for shellfishingwaters are much stricter. This analysis does notdirectly consider current water quality classificationsfor the Harbor/Bight. Information on each of themajor pollution sources follows Table 17(p).



Table 17(p). Use Impairments by Bacterial Pathogenic Indicator Sources in the Harbor/Bight (for use inunderstanding relative contributions to use impairments)

SHELLFISHSOURCE HARBOR BIGHT BACK BAYS

LOWER BAY COMPLEX* OTHER WATERS**

STPs M H2 M M(LI) n/a(NJ)CSOs H1 H1 M n/aStorm water H1 H1 M H1Non-point M H1 M H1Tributaries L M L MVessels L M L MDump Sites n/a n/a ? n/a

BATHING BEACHESSOURCE HARBOR BIGHT BACK BAYS

LOWER BAY COMPLEX* OTHER WATERS**

STPs L M L LCSOs M H1 L n/aStorm water M H1 M H1Non-point L M L MTributaries L M L MVessels 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 awide area. A medium-rated source (M) contributes measurable contamination to a water body, which may restrict uses, but leads to closures for onlyshort 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 applicableLI = Long IslandNJ = New Jersey

1) Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) - STPs, ascurrently operated in the region, are not normally asubstantial threat to human health based oncontributions of FCOLI; however, failures attreatment plant operations can have serious andwidespread short-term water quality impacts. As aresult, STPs remain a significant source ofpathogenic use impairment.

2) CSOs - Under current year-round disinfectionpractices at area STPs, CSOs represent thegreatest discharge of FCOLI to the Harbor. Largevolumes of water generated during rain events,when combined with the regular sanitarywastestream, overwhelm the capacity of the STPsand collection systems, and overflow directly intothe Harbor. During dry weather, the Harborgenerally attains water quality standards, but duringwet weather when CSOs are discharging, waterquality is seriously degraded. There are no CSOs

in the Bight; however, CSOs in the Harbor docontribute to impacts in the Bight Apex.

3) Storm water - Separate storm water lines alsocontribute FCOLI, although the public health riskvaries. Human pathogens may enter storm linesfrom leaking sanitary lines or through illegal sewerconnections, but the level of human pathogens isgenerally low compared to other sources. Stormwater may also carry domesticated animaldroppings and other street refuse. Storm waterdischarge occurs frequently throughout the region,and although its contamination level may be lowerthan some other sources, it is often sufficient tocause water quality degradation. Even in coastalportions of the Bight, storm water may adverselyaffect bathing beaches and shellfish beds. Forstorm water, and for non-point and tributarysources, indicators that can differentiate betweenhuman and animal pathogens may better enable



health officials to determine actual public healthrisk.

4) Non-point Sources - Non-point sources (NPS) ofFCOLI include agricultural runoff, which transportsanimal fecal wastes, and discharges fromimproperly functioning septic systems. AnotherNPS may be the resuspension of sediments. NPS,in combination with storm water, is a major sourceof beach and shellfish contamination in portions ofthe Harbor and coastal back bays.

5) Tributary Sources - Rivers and freshwatertributary flows contain upstream point and non-pointsources. While their volume is the largest of all ofthe sources, their contribution of FCOLI is relativelylow, and effects on water quality tend to be local. While these contributions contain a mix of humanand animal pathogens, the public health risk of thissource is uncertain at present.

6) Marine Vessel Discharges - These can be locallysignificant sources of pathogens in coastal waters,particularly in the back bays and protected embay-ments of the Harbor core area. This source ofcontamination does not generally have seriouseffects on bathing beach conditions, but can causeintermittent violations of shellfishing standards orpose the potential for such violations. For example,several thousand acres of potential shellfish watersin the State of New York are restricted based ontheir proximity to marinas and vessel discharges.

7) Ocean Dump Sites - Ocean dump sites havebeen sources of FCOLI to the Bight. The mostsignificant of these is the former 12-mile site formunicipal sewage sludge, which was active from1924 to 1987. Ocean sludge dumping led to thefederal shellfish closure designation in the BightApex. Recent surveys show a substantial recoveryof the waters at this site, but any remaining healthrisk from bottom sediments has not yet beendetermined.


OverviewHEP has identified three major pathogen-relatedgoals:

� Preserve, restore, and maintain human uses ofHarbor and coastal waters for bathing andshellfishing.

� Ensure protection of human health from water-borne pathogens.

� Protect marine and coastal resources fromadverse pathogenic effects.

The goals for recovery of beneficial uses aretargeted to specific geographic areas of theHarbor/Bight region where a potentially recoverableresource is present and other considerations do notpreclude those uses. HEP has identified the BightApex, the Lower Bay Complex (including SandyHook and Raritan Bays) within the Harbor corearea, and the western end of Long Island Sound aspriority areas for recovery and enhancement ofbathing and shellfishing uses. The Shrewsbury andNavesink Rivers and Jamaica Bay also containviable recoverable resources and are priorities forrecovery by the two states. It is noted thatshellfishing in Jamaica Bay is restricted due to thewildlife management mandates of the U.S. NationalPark Service, which has jurisdiction over most ofthe Bay. Other waterways within the Harbor corearea, which are highly developed and urbanized,have only limited, if any, potential for recovery ofbathing or shellfishing uses.

Consistent with the goal of preserving, restoring,and maintaining human uses, New York State hasidentified a subgoal to restore water quality, inthose portions of the Harbor core area with viableshellfish resources, to levels that would permitdepuration harvesting. Depuration harvestingstandards are also protective of bathing beachuses. HEP supports this goal and will seek toachieve it wherever recoverable uses are found inthe region.



OBJECTIVE P-1 Reduce loadings ofpathogens from CSOs,storm water discharges,and non-point sources tolevels protective of publichealth

Based on recent readings of improved estuarinewater quality, New Jersey is in the process ofevaluating the possibility of upgrading over 1,000acres of shellfish waters in the Navesink River tothe "seasonally approved" classification, whichwould permit direct harvest and marketing ofshellfish during the winter. This development cameabout through a major interagency initiative in NewJersey, over a period of years, to reduce non-pointsource bacterial pollution in the Navesink Estuary.

The links between human pathogeniccontamination and disease and mortality in marinespecies are not clear, but it is presumed thatmeasures to improve water quality to promotebathing and shellfishing uses will also benefit themarine environment.

In order to achieve the three pathogen-relatedgoals, HEP has developed a program with sevenobjectives:

� Reduce loadings of pathogens from CSOs,storm water discharges, and non-point sources.

� Reduce or eliminate the discharge of raw orinadequately treated sewage due to sewagetreatment plant malfunctions and illegalconnections.

� Establish marina pumpout facilities and nodischarge zones to reduce impacts of vesseldischarges.

� Develop additional indicators of pathogeniccontamination.

� Continue interstate dialogue on beach closurepolicies to ensure reasonably consistentapproach.

� Optimize disinfection practices.

� Continue appropriate research, environmentalmonitoring, and modeling to identify remediationactivities and support recovery of uses.


Rainfall-Induced Sources

Three sources of pollution to the Harbor/Bight --CSOs, storm water discharges, and non-pointsource runoff -- are associated with runoff inducedby rainfall. Effective abatement of these sources isimportant in reducing pathogenic use impairmentsin the Harbor/Bight. Details of HEP's plan toaddress these sources is found in the section onRainfall-Induced Discharges.

Combined Sewer Overflows

CSOs are the dominant source of bacterialindicators in the Harbor. HEP's plan to abate CSOdischarges includes the following actionsaddressing pathogen contamination:

-- Fully implement the nine minimum controlmeasures of the National CSO Control Policy(see Objective CSO-1 below).

-- Implement additional CSO controls to meetwater quality standards and restore beneficialuses (see Objective CSO-2 below).

• New York City is constructing CSO retentionfacilities and conducting long-term CSOabatement planning (see Action CSO-2.1below).

• USEPA and NJDEP will obtain commitmentsfrom New Jersey CSO owners andoperators to develop long-term CSOabatement plans (see Action CSO-2.2below). HEP encourages the owners/operators to do this work as a cooperativeregional effort.



OBJECTIVE P-2 Reduce or eliminate thedischarge of raw orinadequately treatedsewage due to sewagetreatment plantmalfunctions and illegalconnections

• HEP is using the New York City waterquality model to refine target areas foractions to recover and enhance bathingand/or shellfishing uses (see Action CSO-2.3 below).

Storm Water Discharges

Storm water discharges are important sources ofbacterial indicators in back bays of the Bight and inportions of the Harbor. HEP's plan to abate stormwater discharges includes the following actionsaddressing pathogen contamination:

-- Implement measures to control municipal andindustrial storm water discharges (see ObjectiveSW-1 below).

• Issue NYC storm water permit (see ActionSW-1.1 below).

• Process storm water permit applicationsfrom New Jersey local authorities in areas ofthe Harbor where water quality parametersviolate established standards orclassifications (see Action SW-1.2 below).

• Incorporate requirements of the generalpermits that control construction dischargesinto local codes (see Action SW-1.3 below).

• Expand geographic coverage of the NewJersey Sewage Infrastructure ImprovementAct (see Action SW-1.4 below).

Non-Point Source Runoff

Non-point source runoff is an important source ofbacterial indicators in back bays of the Bight and inportions of the Harbor. HEP's plan to abate non-point source runoff includes the following actionsaddressing pathogen contamination:

-- Conduct non-point source managementprograms for Barnegat Bay, Whippany River,and Navesink River (see Actions NPS-1.1 andNPS-1.2 below).

-- Develop and implement coastal non-pointsource management programs under theCoastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments(see Objective NPS-2 below).

-- Focus the Urban Resources Partnership

Initiative on Harbor/Bight watersheds (seeObjective NPS-3 below).

Consistent with the requirements of the CleanWater Act and regional disinfection policy, allmunicipal sewage treatment plants in the regionmust meet secondary treatment requirements andyear-round disinfection requirements. In 1993,sewage flows from the Tottenville area of StatenIsland were connected to the Oakwood Beachsewage treatment plant for treatment. Thiscaptured 0.7 mgd of sewage previously dischargedwithout treatment, eliminating the last significantknown area of raw sewage discharge to the Harbor. Since all of the region's STPs are meeting year-round disinfection requirements, they are no longermajor sources of bacterial indicators.

There are, however, continuing problemsassociated with:

-- Occasional bypasses of raw sewage caused bysewage treatment plant and collection systemmalfunctions; and

-- Scattered, illegal connections of sanitarysewage to storm sewers and to combinedsewers at points where the flow is notintercepted for treatment.

ACTION P-2.1Beach/Shellfish Closure Action PlanIn response to intermittent closures of bathingbeaches associated with occasional bypasses ofraw sewage caused by sewage treatment plant andcollection system malfunction, USEPA, NYSDEC,and NJDEP are currently implementing a short-termstrategy for prevention and mitigation of theseclosures. This strategy, referred to as theBeach/Shellfish Bed Closure Action Plan, was firstimplemented in 1989, and has been a continuing



OBJECTIVE P-3 Establish marina pumpoutfacilities and no dischargezones to reduce vesseldischarges

program since then. It includes the followingprovisions:

-- All short-term beach and shellfish closures areassessed for cause and traceability.

-- Causes that are traceable to discrete sourcestrigger prompt enforcement corrective actionand penalties.

-- These enforcement responses are coordinatedbetween USEPA and the affected states.

-- The lead agencies make public announcementsof the enforcement responses as a furtherdeterrent.

ACTION P-2.2 Reduction in Unregulated Sewage DischargesHEP recommends that all dischargers in the regionimplement continuing programs to track down andeliminate unregulated discharges of raw sewage,both during dry weather and wet weather (seeRainfall-Induced Discharges section below).

-- Under the 1988 SPDES permit, New York Cityhas increased surveillance and maintenance ofits sewerage system, including a shorelinesurvey program, reducing the discharge of rawsewage from 4.84 mgd in 1989 to 0.4 mgd in1993.

Marine vessel discharges can have local adverseeffects on pathogenic water quality, particularly intributary areas and small embayments where tidalflushing action is reduced. Since tributary areasand embayments are among the most severelyimpacted in the Harbor/Bight region, HEPrecommends prudent measures to reducepathogenic inputs from this source.

ACTION P-3.1Marina Pumpout StationsThe states, using funds available under the CleanVessel Act, will issue grants to install pumpoutstations at marinas statewide to serve the boatingcommunity. New York and New Jersey havereceived $1 million and $700,000, respectively,portions of which will be applied to waterways in theHarbor/Bight region. Both states will apply foradditional funds in fiscal years 1995-1997 to meetthe need for pumpout facilities in harbors andembayments identified as potential "No Discharge"zones.

ACTION P-3.2Clean Water Act AmendmentHEP recommends that the Clean Water Act beamended to allow the states to establish "no-discharge" zones and thus eliminate the need forthe states to seek USEPA approval prior to thedesignation of no-discharge zones.

ACTION P-3.3"No Discharge" ZonesThe states, with USEPA concurrence, willdesignate, under Section 312(f)(3) of the CleanWater Act, "No Discharge" zones, where vesseldischarge of sanitary wastes to protected waters isprohibited. The states will make designations on atargeted basis, with USEPA assistance, in the backbay areas tributary to the Bight in order to restorebeneficial uses. The steps to designate "NoDischarge" zones include:

-- States identify waters that require greaterenvironmental protection than that afforded byexisting standards for marine sanitation devices.

-- States request a determination from USEPAthat adequate facilities for the pumpout andtreatment of vessel sewage are available.

-- USEPA makes determinations on the adequacyof existing pumpout and treatment facilities.

-- States designate "No Discharge" zones toprohibit the discharge of vessel waste in thedesignated waters, if it is demonstrated thatadequate pumpout facilities exist.

-- USEPA approves the "No Discharge" zone designation.



OBJECTIVE P-4 Develop additionalindicators of pathogeniccontamination

OBJECTIVE P-5 Continue interstatedialogue on beach closurepolicies to ensurereasonably consistentapproach

OBJECTIVE P-6 Optimize disinfectionpractices

HEP recognizes the need to develop additionalindicators of pathogenic contamination andrecommends the following:

ACTION P-4.1NJ Pathogenic Indicator StudyNJDEP will complete the current NJ PathogenicIndicator Study, ascertain the utility of F+RNAcoliphage as an additional pathogenic indicator,and the states will assess it as a diagnostic tool toidentify pathogenic pollution source categories.

ACTION P-4.2Research to Develop Human-specific IndicatorBased on an evaluation of the existing NJPathogenic Indicator Study (Action P-4.1), HEP willcontinue and seek funds, as appropriate, to developa human-specific indicator that more closelyapproximates survival of viruses in the marineenvironment.

ACTION P-4.3National Shellfish Indicator StudyUSEPA, the states, and other HEP ManagementConference participants will continue to support theNational Shellfish Indicator Study and assess itsfindings in light of the ongoing HEP study. Thestates will determine any necessary changes tocurrent shellfish sanitary policies based on theseresults.

ACTION P-4.4Research on Relay/Depuration ProcessAs warranted by ongoing regional and nationalindicator studies, HEP recommends that researchbe conducted to determine the effectiveness of therelay and depuration process on the purging ofhuman enteric viruses from shellfish.

ACTION P-4.5Epidemiological Study of BeachesIn order to assess the efficacy of existing bathingbeach sanitary policies, HEP recommends anational epidemiological study of beaches. Thestudy should include data sets from theHarbor/Bight region.

ACTION P-5.0Beach Closure PoliciesRecognizing that they have differing policies withregard to beach closures, the states will continuetheir dialogue in order to ensure the protection ofpublic health and to ensure effective riskcommunication.

Disinfection of treated effluent is one way to controlthe input of pathogenic agents to the Harbor/Bightsystem. As stated earlier, chlorination as adisinfection method is more effective againstindicator bacteria than it is against pathogenicviruses. New York State is considering reducingthe permitted discharge concentration of chlorinefrom STPs, prompting managers to explorealternative disinfection methods.

ACTION P-6.0Disinfection MethodsHEP supports the use of optimal methods ofdisinfection and recommends that the statesevaluate the results of New York City'sinvestigation, under HEP, of alternative disinfectionmethods. As appropriate, the states will issuedisinfection guidance.



OBJECTIVE P-7 Continue appropriateresearch, environmentalmonitoring, and modelingto identify remediationactivities and supportrecovery of uses

-- NYCDEP will complete a report assessingalternative wastewater disinfection methods.

Billions of dollars have been expended over thepast 25 years on the improvement of sanitary waterquality in the Harbor/Bight region, and recentmonitoring results attest to the effectiveness ofthose measures. In addition, New York City hasdeveloped a water quality model of the Harbor tohelp set priorities for future remedial actions and topredict the outcome of alternative pollution controlmeasures. Since problem areas remain, and otherproblems become higher priorities as the mostsignificant pollution sources are addressed, HEPrecommends a comprehensive program of researchand monitoring in the region.

ACTION P-7.1Research AgendaAppropriate agencies should conduct the followingresearch activities:

-- Investigate the feasibility, desirability, and costto attain shellfish depuration standards inspecific waters where shellfish resources exist:Raritan Bay, Jamaica Bay, Shrewsbury andNavesink Rivers, and Western Long IslandSound.

-- Assess the residual toxic contamination withinthe sediments and shellfish of the Bight Apex,and in closed shellfish areas of the Harbor, todetermine the suitability of the resource forhuman consumption (see Toxics section).

-- Review recent studies of marine-specificpathogenic outbreaks to determine potentialhuman-induced causes and developremediation measures as appropriate.

-- HEP recommends appropriate continuingresearch, as funds are available, based on anevaluation of New York City's study ofalternative wastewater disinfection methods.

ACTION P-7.2Environmental Monitoring AgendaNYSDEC, NYCDEP, and NJDEP should continueand enhance pathogen-related monitoring efforts. ISC will continue to assist the states with collectionof data for their monitoring programs.

-- The states will continue regular programs ofbathing beach and shellfish monitoring asappropriate.

-- New York City will continue its Harbor Surveyprogram.

-- New Jersey should consider supplementingNew York City's Harbor Survey program bysupplying data from existing supplementalsurvey stations in New Jersey tributaries to theHarbor core area.

ACTION P-7.3Modeling ActivitiesHEP recommends that NJDEP, in cooperation withthe responsible dischargers, calibrate and verify awater quality model for pathogen indicators forthose waters not adequately addressed in NewYork City's Harbor Water Quality Model. The modelwould be used to forecast needed sanitaryimprovements to recover beneficial uses, designremedial measures, and assess the effectivenessof actions taken. (Note: This action would buildupon efforts under Action CSO-2.3 below).


A number of the actions in the pathogenscomponent of the CCMP can be accomplishedthrough the effective use of base programresources. The CCMP itemizes 5 new HEP-drivencommitments to control pathogenic contaminationusing base program resources.

The CCMP also includes 9 commitments andrecommendations for pathogens control programsthat entail enhanced program funding. As shown inTable 18(pc) below:



� The Plan includes 2 commitments for effortsstarted through the HEP planning process,which total $281,800.

� The Plan includes 3 recommendations foractions which total $325,000 plus $15,000 peryear.

� The Plan also includes 3 additional actions forwhich cost estimates will be developed as partof the continuing planning process.

This component of the CCMP includes another 2commitments involving implementation costs forspecial projects. As shown in Table 19(pc) below,both New York and New Jersey will implementmarine pumpout station installation programs for atotal combined expenditure of $1.7 million. Thesefunds will be distributed statewide in both states,including the Harbor/Bight region.



Tab

le 1

8(p

c).

En

han

ced

Pro

gra

m C

ost

s fo

r M

anag

emen

t o

f P

ath

og

enic

Co

nta

min

atio

n

AC

TIO

NC

OM

MIT

ME

NT

SR

EC

OM

ME

ND

AT

ION

S

Co

stC

ost

/Yea

rC

ost

Co

st/Y

ear

AC

TIO

N P

-4.1

:C

ompl

ete

NJ

path

ogen

ic in

dica

tor

stud

y.$2

56,8

00

AC

TIO

N P

-4.2

:C

ontin

ue r

esea

rch

on h

uman

-spe

cific

path

ogen

ic in

dica

tor.

$145

,000

AC

TIO

N P

-4.4

:C

ondu

ct r

esea

rch

on r

elay

/dep

urat

ion

proc

ess.

$180

,000

AC

TIO

N P

-4.5

:C

ondu

ct c

ompr

ehen

sive

epi

dem

iolo

gica

lst

udy

of b

each

es.

*

AC

TIO

N P

-6.0

:C

ompl

ete

asse

ssm

ent o

f opt

imal

met

hods

of d

isin

fect

ion.

$25,

000

AC

TIO

N P

-7.1

:S

tudy

rec

over

y of

NY

Big

ht A

pex

(slu

dge

dum

p si

te).

*

AC

TIO

N P

-7.1

:C

ontin

ue r

esea

rch,

as

appr

opria

te, o

nbe

st a

ltern

ativ

e w

aste

wat

er d

isin

fect

ion

met

hods

.*

AC

TIO

N P

-7.2

:S

uppl

emen

t NY

C H

arbo

r S

urve

y P

rogr

am.

$15,

000

AC

TIO

N P

-7.3

:D

evel

op w

ater

qua

lity

mod

el fo

r pa

thog

enin

dica

tors

.C

ost i

nclu

ded

ines

timat

e fo

rA

ctio

n C

SO

-2.2

TO

TA

L$2

81,8

00

1

$325

,000

+*

$15,

000

*E

nhan

ced

prog

ram

cos

ts to

be

deve

lope

d as

par

t of t

he c

ontin

uing

pla

nnin

g pr

oces

s.1

Not

atio

n (+

*) in

dica

tes

cost

plu

s ad

ditio

nal c

osts

to b

e de

term

ined

.



Tab

le 1

9(p

c).

Pro

ject

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n C

ost

s fo

r M

anag

emen

t o

f P

ath

og

enic

Co

nta

min

atio

n

AC

TIO

NC

OM

MIT

ME

NT

SR

EC

OM

ME

ND

AT

ION

S

Co

stC

ost

/Yea

rC

ost

Co

st/Y

ear

AC

TIO

N P

-3.1

:Im

plem

ent p

umpo

ut s

tatio

n in

stal

latio

npr

ogra

m in

NY

.$1

mill

ion

(sta

tew

ide)

AC

TIO

N P

-3.1

:Im

plem

ent p

umpo

ut s

tatio

n in

stal

latio

npr

ogra

m in

NJ.

$700

,000

(sta

tew

ide)

TO

TA

L$1

,700

,000

(sta

tew

ide)




Implementation of the commitments andrecommendations for the management ofpathogenic contamination would move the Programtoward the fulfillment of goals to:

� Protect the human uses of the Harbor andcoastal waters for bathing and shellfishing.

� Ensure the protection of human health fromingestion of pathogens.

� Protect the marine environment from adversepathogenic effects.

Through implementation of the Clean Water Act,the state and federal governments have helped to:

1) Secure the quality of ocean beaches.

2) Improve the quality of beaches in the Harborcore area, allowing bathing in some areas forthe first time in 20 years.

3) Slow the degradation of shellfishing areas, evento the point of restoring shellfish water quality incertain areas.

With the implementation of a number of short-termactions, such as the beach/shellfish closure actionplan, participants of HEP have made additionalincremental progress toward the attainment ofthese goals. Aesthetics, recreational opportunities,and the health of the human population and theregional ecosystem will all benefit from theimplementation of this Plan component.



Tab

le 2

0(p

s).

Su

mm

ary—

Man

agem

ent

of

Pat

ho

gen

ic C

on

tam

inat

ion

AC

TIO

NR

ES

PO

NS

IBL

EE

NT

ITY

1T

AR

GE

T D

AT

EE

ST

IMA

TE

D C

OS

TS

TA

TU

S2

OB

JEC

TIV

E P

-1:

Red

uce

load

ing

s o

f p

ath

og

ens

fro

m C

SO

s, s

torm

wat

er d

isch

arg

es, a

nd

no

n-p

oin

t so

urc

es t

o le

vels

pro

tect

ive

of

pu

blic

hea

lth

(se

e R

ain

fall-

Ind

uce

d D

isch

arg

es s

ecti

on

).

OB

JEC

TIV

E P

-2:

Red

uce

or

elim

inat

e th

e d

isch

arg

e o

f ra

w o

r in

adeq

uat

ely

trea

ted

sew

age

du

e to

ST

P m

alfu

nct

ion

s an

d il

leg

alco

nn

ecti

on

s.

AC

TIO

N P

-2.1

: C

ontin

ue B

each

/She

llfis

h C

losu

reA

ctio

n P

lan.

NY

SD

EC

, NJD

EP

,U

SE

PA

Ong

oing

Bas

e pr

ogra

mC

/N

AC

TIO

N P

-2.2

: R

educ

e un

regu

late

d se

wag

edi

scha

rges

.N

YS

DE

C &

NY

CD

EP

Ong

oing

Bas

e pr

ogra

mC

/O

NJD

EP

Ong

oing

Bas

e pr

ogra

mC

/O

OB

JEC

TIV

E P

-3:

Est

ablis

h m

arin

a p

um

po

ut

faci

litie

s an

d n

o d

isch

arg

e zo

nes

to

red

uce

imp

acts

of

vess

el d

isch

arg

es.

AC

TIO

N P

-3.1

: E

nsur

e th

e in

stal

latio

n of

pum

pout

stat

ions

at m

arin

as s

ervi

ng th

e bo

atin

g co

mm

unity

.N

YS

DE

CB

y D

ec 3

1, 1

996

Pro

ject

impl

emen

tatio

nco

st -

$1

mill

ion

fede

ral

fund

ing

stat

ewid

e

C/O

NJD

EP

Ong

oing

thro

ugh

1998

Pro

ject

impl

emen

tatio

nco

st -

$70

0,00

0 fe

dera

lfu

ndin

g st

atew

ide

C/O

--In

som

e ca

ses

CC

MP

act

ions

are

rec

omm

enda

tions

, not

com

mitm

ents

,be

caus

e re

spon

sibl

e en

titie

s re

quire

res

ourc

es to

impl

emen

t the

act

ion.

H

EP

will

adv

ocat

e m

akin

g th

ese

reso

urce

s av

aila

ble.

--In

oth

er c

ases

, CC

MP

act

ions

are

rec

omm

enda

tions

bec

ause

HE

P h

asno

t obt

aine

d th

e co

mm

itmen

t of r

egul

ated

ent

ities

and

oth

er r

espo

nsib

leen

titie

s to

impl

emen

t the

act

ion.

By

issu

ance

of t

his

CC

MP

, HE

P s

eeks

the

com

mitm

ent o

f the

res

pons

ible

ent

ities

and

req

uest

s th

at th

ey s

tep

forw

ard

to v

olun

taril

y ag

ree

to im

plem

ent t

he a

ctio

ns.

1R

espo

nsib

le e

ntiti

es m

ay a

ccom

plis

h th

e ac

tions

dire

ctly

or

via

cont

ract

or

gran

t.2

C/O

-A

n on

goin

g co

mm

itmen

t, no

t driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

C/N

-A

new

com

mitm

ent,

driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

R-

Rec

omm

enda

tion



(Co

nti

nu

ed)

Tab

le 2

0(p

s).

Su

mm

ary—

Man

agem

ent

of

Pat

ho

gen

ic C

on

tam

inat

ion

AC

TIO

NR

ES

PO

NS

IBL

EE

NT

ITY

1T

AR

GE

T D

AT

EE

ST

IMA

TE

D C

OS

TS

TA

TU

S2

AC

TIO

N P

-3.2

: A

men

d C

WA

to a

llow

"N

oD

isch

arge

" zo

ne d

esig

natio

ns b

y th

e st

ates

.U

S C

ongr

ess

By

Dec

31,

199

6B

ase

prog

ram

R

AC

TIO

N P

-3.3

: D

esig

nate

"N

o D

isch

arge

" zo

nes,

whe

re v

esse

l dis

char

ge o

f san

itary

was

tes

topr

otec

ted

wat

ers

is p

rohi

bite

d.

NY

SD

EC

& N

JDE

P,

with

US

EP

Aco

ncur

renc

e

Ong

oing

Bas

e pr

ogra

mC

/N

OB

JEC

TIV

E P

-4:

Dev

elo

p a

dd

itio

nal

ind

icat

ors

of

pat

ho

gen

ic c

on

tam

inat

ion

.

AC

TIO

N P

-4.1

: C

ompl

ete

the

curr

ent N

JP

atho

geni

c In

dica

tor

Stu

dy.

NJD

EP

Mar

199

6E

nhan

ced

prog

ram

cost

- $

256,

800

C/N

AC

TIO

N P

-4.2

: C

ontin

ue r

esea

rch

to d

evel

op a

hum

an-s

peci

fic in

dica

tor.

HE

PP

ost-

CC

MP

Enh

ance

d pr

ogra

mco

st -

$14

5,00

0R

AC

TIO

N P

-4.3

: S

uppo

rt th

e N

atio

nal S

hellf

ish

Indi

cato

r S

tudy

.N

YS

DE

C, N

JDE

P,

US

EP

AO

ngoi

ngB

ase

prog

ram

C/N

AC

TIO

N P

-4.4

: C

ondu

ct r

esea

rch

on r

elay

/de

pura

tion

proc

ess.

Fed

eral

and

sta

teag

enci

esB

egin

ning

by

Dec

31,

199

6E

nhan

ced

prog

ram

cost

- $

180,

000

R

AC

TIO

N P

-4.5

: C

ondu

ct c

ompr

ehen

sive

epid

emio

logi

cal s

tudy

of b

each

es a

cros

s th

eH

arbo

r/B

ight

reg

ion.

NY

SD

OH

& N

JDE

PP

ost-

CC

MP

Enh

ance

d pr

ogra

m c

ost

to b

e de

velo

ped

prio

r to

cond

uctin

g st

udy

R

OB

JEC

TIV

E P

-5:

Co

nti

nu

e in

ters

tate

dia

log

ue

on

bea

ch c

losu

re p

olic

ies

to e

nsu

re a

rea

son

ably

co

nsi

sten

t ap

pro

ach

.

AC

TIO

N P

-5.0

: C

ontin

ue d

ialo

gue

on b

each

clos

ure

polic

ies.

Inte

rsta

te S

anita

tion

Com

mis

sion

,N

YS

DO

H, N

JDE

P,

loca

l hea

lth a

genc

ies

Ong

oing

Bas

e pr

ogra

mC

/N

1R

espo

nsib

le e

ntiti

es m

ay a

ccom

plis

h th

e ac

tions

dire

ctly

or

via

cont

ract

or

gran

t.2

C/O

-A

n on

goin

g co

mm

itmen

t, no

t driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

C/N

-A

new

com

mitm

ent,

driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

R-

Rec

omm

enda

tion



(Co

nti

nu

ed)

Tab

le 2

0(p

s).

Su

mm

ary—

Man

agem

ent

of

Pat

ho

gen

ic C

on

tam

inat

ion

AC

TIO

NR

ES

PO

NS

IBL

EE

NT

ITY

1T

AR

GE

T D

AT

EE

ST

IMA

TE

D C

OS

TS

TA

TU

S2

OB

JEC

TIV

E P

-6:

Op

tim

ize

dis

infe

ctio

n p

ract

ices

.

AC

TIO

N P

-6.0

: Is

sue

guid

ance

on

optim

al m

etho

dsof

dis

infe

ctio

n.

--N

YC

Rep

ort.

NY

CD

EP

Com

plet

edE

nhan

ced

prog

ram

cost

- $

25,0

00C

/N

--G

uida

nce.

NY

SD

EC

& N

JDE

PM

ar 1

996

Bas

e pr

ogra

mC

/N

OB

JEC

TIV

E P

-7:

Co

nti

nu

e ap

pro

pri

ate

rese

arch

, en

viro

nm

enta

l mo

nit

ori

ng

, an

d m

od

elin

g t

o id

enti

fy r

emed

iati

on

act

ivit

ies

and

sup

po

rt r

eco

very

of

use

s.

AC

TIO

N P

-7.1

: Res

earc

h A

gend

a.

--A

sses

s re

sidu

al to

xic

cont

amin

atio

n in

Big

htA

pex

and

Har

bor

shel

lfish

bed

s.F

eder

al a

genc

ies

(NO

AA

lead

),N

YS

DE

C &

NJD

EP

Beg

in b

yD

ec 3

1, 1

996

Enh

ance

d pr

ogra

m c

ost

to b

e de

velo

ped

prio

r to

cond

uctin

g st

udie

s

R

--R

evie

w s

tudi

es o

f mar

ine-

spec

ific

path

ogen

icou

tbre

aks.

Fed

eral

age

ncie

sS

ep 1

996

Bas

e pr

ogra

mR

--C

ontin

ue r

esea

rch,

as

appr

opria

te, o

n be

stal

tern

ativ

e w

aste

wat

er d

isin

fect

ion

met

hods

.N

JDE

P &

NY

CD

EP

Sep

199

6E

nhan

ced

prog

ram

cost

to b

e de

velo

ped

base

d on

res

ults

on

NY

C r

epor

t (A

ctio

n P

-6.

0) a

nd o

ther

info

rmat

ion

R

1R

espo

nsib

le e

ntiti

es m

ay a

ccom

plis

h th

e ac

tions

dire

ctly

or

via

cont

ract

or

gran

t.2

C/O

-A

n on

goin

g co

mm

itmen

t, no

t driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

C/N

-A

new

com

mitm

ent,

driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

R-

Rec

omm

enda

tion



(Co

nti

nu

ed)

Tab

le 2

0(p

s).

Su

mm

ary—

Man

agem

ent

of

Pat

ho

gen

ic C

on

tam

inat

ion

AC

TIO

NR

ES

PO

NS

IBL

EE

NT

ITY

1T

AR

GE

T D

AT

EE

ST

IMA

TE

D C

OS

TS

TA

TU

S2

AC

TIO

N P

-7.2

: C

ontin

ue a

nd e

nhan

ce p

atho

gen-

rela

ted

mon

itorin

g ef

fort

s.N

JDE

P, N

YS

DE

C,

NY

CD

EP

, loc

alau

thor

ities

Ong

oing

Bas

e pr

ogra

mC

/O

--C

ontin

ue b

athi

ng b

each

and

she

llfis

h m

onito

ring

as a

ppro

pria

te.

NY

SD

EC

, NJD

EP

,IS

C, s

ome

loca

l hea

lthau

thor

ities

Ong

oing

Bas

e pr

ogra

mC

/O

--C

ontin

ue H

arbo

r S

urve

y P

rogr

am.

NY

CD

EP

Ong

oing

Bas

e pr

ogra

mC

/O

--C

onsi

der

supp

lem

entin

g H

arbo

r S

urve

y P

rogr

amby

sup

plyi

ng d

ata

from

exi

stin

g su

pple

men

tal

surv

ey s

tatio

ns in

New

Jer

sey

trib

utar

ies

to th

eH

arbo

r co

re a

rea.

NJD

EP

By

Dec

31,

199

5E

nhan

ced

prog

ram

cost

- $

15,0

00/y

rR

AC

TIO

N P

-7.3

: C

alib

rate

and

ver

ify a

wat

er q

ualit

ym

odel

for

path

ogen

indi

cato

rs.

(Not

e: T

his

effo

rtw

ould

bui

ld u

pon

Act

ion

CS

O-2

.3).

NJ

disc

harg

ers

By

Dec

31,

199

6E

nhan

ced

prog

ram

cos

tin

clud

ed in

pro

ject

impl

emen

tatio

n co

stes

timat

e fo

r A

ctio

nC

SO

-2.2

; pro

ject

-sp

ecifi

c co

st to

be

deve

lope

d pr

ior

toco

nduc

ting

stud

y.

R

1R

espo

nsib

le e

ntiti

es m

ay a

ccom

plis

h th

e ac

tions

dire

ctly

or

via

cont

ract

or

gran

t.2

C/O

-A

n on

goin

g co

mm

itmen

t, no

t driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

C/N

-A

new

com

mitm

ent,

driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

R-

Rec

omm

enda

tion


FLOATABLE DEBRIS 181

PROBLEMSBeach closuresAdverse impacts on commercial and

recreational boatingAdverse impacts on coastal species

SOURCESCombined sewer overflowsStorm water dischargesNon-point sources including littering, landfill

practices, and marine transfer operationDecaying shoreline structures and sunken

vesselsVessel discharges


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-termfloatables action plan.

F-2 Expand the USACE Harbor Drift Removal Program without compromisingimportant 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.

MANAGEMENT OF FLOATABLE DEBRIS

THE PROBLEMS

When the Bight Restoration Plan was enacted in1987, there was a significant floatable debrisproblem in the Harbor/Bight system. By thesummer of 1989, an interagency floatablesworkgroup, convened under the auspices of theBight Restoration Plan, had developed andimplemented a short-term floatables action plan,effectively controlling the problem. The extent ofocean beach closures declined from over 70cumulative miles in 1988 to less than 4 miles in1989.

Floatable debris is waterborne waste material thatis buoyant. Examples include wood, beach litter,aquatic vegetation, and detritus; street litter (cans,bottles, polystyrene cups, sheet plastic, straws, andpaper products); sewage-related wastes (condoms,sanitary napkins, tampon applicators, diaper liners,grease balls, tar balls, and fecal material); fishinggear (nets, floats, traps, and lines); and medicalwastes (hypodermic needles, syringes, bandages,red bags, and enema bottles). The primary sourceof floatable materials in the Bight is the Hudson-Raritan Plume, which carries Harbor discharges into ocean waters.However, much litter is also generated by beach-goers.


182 FLOATABLE DEBRIS

Beach ClosuresThe wash-up of floatable materials on bathingbeaches is offensive. Although the real threat topublic health posed by inadvertent contact withthese floatable materials is small, the perceivedthreat is large. In 1976, wash-ups of floatabledebris were responsible for the closing of 60 milesof New York beaches. In 1987, wash-ups wereresponsible for the closing of 25 miles of NewJersey beaches in May and 50 miles in August. In1988, floatable materials were again responsible forthe closing of 60 miles of beaches in New York. These beach closures generally lasted for periodsranging from several hours at a time to days, andthe economic and social impacts were enormous. The SUNY Waste Management Institute estimatesa loss between $990 million and $4 billion in NewJersey and between $950 million and $2 billion inNew York in the 1987-1988 time frame.

Adverse Impacts on Commercial andRecreational BoatingFloating debris, particularly driftwood, poseshazards to shipping and recreational boating in theHarbor/Bight, but quantifying the damage is difficult. A U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) briefingpaper on damages to vessels in the New York/NewJersey Harbor estimated that the damage fromfloating debris in 1987 was $48 million and involved17,800 vessels. No comparable data are availablefor the Bight, although damages are thought to bemuch less. The USACE conducts two programs toaddress floating debris: 1) collection of debrisalready floating and 2) dismantling deterioratingstructures before they fall apart and become drift.

Drift materials include timbers, pilings, plastics,rubber tires, fiberglass boats, polystyrene, rafts,floating drums, construction materials, and parts ofbarges, docks, sheds, and other shore structures.

Adverse Impacts on Coastal SpeciesBirds, mammals, and sea turtles are foundseasonally throughout the Bight and portions of theHarbor. These living resources are vulnerable toentrapment and entanglement in plastic wasteincluding six pack rings, fishing line, and nets.

Turtles and mammals are also vulnerable toingestion of plastic items, such as bags, that aremistaken for squid, jellyfish, or other prey. Thisingestion often leads to suffocation or intestinalblockage and death. While the frequency of debris-related deaths of marine wildlife is difficult toquantify, the fact that several species arethreatened and endangered makes this issuesignificant for the region. In addition, accumula-tions of floatable debris in coastal marshes andshorelines can effectively smother productivevegetated areas.


The sources of floatable debris in the ecosystemand the problems caused by this debris are fairlywell understood. The sources of floatable debrisinclude:

� Combined sewer overflows;

� Storm water;

� Non-point sources including littering, landfillpractices, and marine transfer operations;

� Decaying shoreline structures such as piers,pilings, sunken barges, and bulkheads; and

� Vessel discharges.


The floatables component of the CCMP plays animportant role in establishing and maintaining ahealthy and productive Harbor/Bight ecosystemwith full beneficial uses. This component of theplan has three goals:

� To eliminate floatable-related beach closures;

� To prevent adverse impacts on commercial andrecreational boating resulting from floatabledebris; and

� To prevent adverse impacts on coastal speciesresulting from floatable debris.



In order to achieve these goals, HEP decided toaddress the floatables problem on two tracks. A"fast" track, or expedited action plan, wasdeveloped and implemented in 1989, and includedspecific actions to clean up existing debris after itentered the system. A longer term strategy, toreduce the amount of debris entering the system, isincorporated in this CCMP.

Expedited Short-Term ActionBecause of the ongoing beach closures in thesummers of 1987 and 1988, the fast track ActionPlan was developed in 1989 and has beenimplemented each year since then. The intent ofthis plan is to minimize beach wash-ups offloatables in the Bight. Its success can bemeasured by the reduced number of floatables-related beach closures since 1989, as well as bythe improved communication which enables theagencies to intercept debris slicks before theyreach the beaches. In spite of abnormally heavyrainfall in 1989, only two floatables-related oceanbeach closures occurred. There were no closuresof ocean beaches in New Jersey or New Yorkduring the summers of 1991 to 1994 as a result offloatables wash-ups. As shown in Table 21(f),thousands of tons per year of floatable debris havebeen collected as part of the Floatables Action Planand New Jersey's Operation Clean Shores.

This fast track plan contains four key elements:

Surveillance - NJDEP, USEPA, and the U.S. CoastGuard (USCG) conduct helicopter and fixed-wingaircraft patrols of the Harbor complex to look forslicks of floating debris. In addition, there are dailyvessel patrols of the Harbor complex by USEPAand USCG, weekly patrols of the Bight by USCG,and daily overflights of the Bight by NJDEP. Continued funding for the USEPA Region IIhelicopter is in jeopardy.

Regular Cleanups - USACE has an ongoingprogram to capture loose timbers and othernavigation hazards in the Harbor complex. As partof this program, USACE cleans up floatable slicks,employing specially designed nets to collect smalldebris. These cleanups are regularly scheduled atthe Verrazano Narrows and Arthur Kill (locationswhere garbage slicks tend to form, according to

Table 21(f). Debris Collected

FloatablesAction Plan

(tons)

NJDEPOperation Clean

Shores(tons)(miles)

1989 541* 3000(45)

1990 795** 4800(48)

1991 701** 4688(74)

1992 958** 5789(84)

1993 1088** 5750(67)

1994 1298** 3700(62)

* May 15 to September 15 only.** Year round collection.

USEPA) during and following new and full moonhigh tides and following storms that causecombined sewer overflows. During the summerbathing season (mid-May to mid-September), thesecleanups occur daily rather than according to tide orstorm conditions. Starting in 1993, New York Citysupplemented USACE efforts with its own skimmervessels to clean up tributaries to the Harbor. NewJersey supplements USACE's efforts with aprogram called "Operation Clean Shores", initiatedin 1989, to remove shoreline debris from the NewJersey side of the Harbor complex in order toprevent resuspension of debris. This program,staffed by Department of Corrections inmates andNJDEP personnel, with assistance from localmunicipalities, operates year-round from theGeorge Washington Bridge to Raritan Bay; over 10million pounds of debris are collected each year. There is no similar program in New York State.

Nonroutine Cleanups - USACE attempts to capture additional slicks within the Harbor complex, when these conditions are brought to itsattention. In 1989, NJDEP also contracted withfishing vessels to capture slicks. State coordinators notify local authorities and beachoperators of potential wash-ups.



Figure 9. Communications Network for Reporting and Responding to Floatable Debris Slicks

Communications Network - USEPA coordinates areporting network as well as cleanup activities (SeeFigure 9). USEPA, NYSDEC, NJDEP, New YorkCity Department of Sanitation (NYCDOS), USACE,and USCG are on-call 24 hours a day. Hotlinenumbers are available for citizen telephone calls.

The Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988 definedmedical waste; established the requirements forpackaging, labeling, and transporting the wastes;and specified a system to track the medical wastefrom generation to final disposal. Although thisfederal legislation expired in 1992, the need toeducate the public on the proper disposal of homemedical waste continues (see Action F-4.5 below).

There are many other ongoing efforts which removedebris from the shoreline. One such example is theNational Beach Cleanup Program, in which an everincreasing number of public interest and youthgroups (e.g., Boy Scouts, school children) conductannual cleanups at local beaches.

Longer Term PlanThe HEP Management Conference recognizes theneed to supplement the short-term action plan witha longer term strategy to control the sources offloatable debris, preventing the debris from enteringthe system. The management approach for thislonger term strategy is as follows:

� Continue and improve the successful short-term floatables action plan;

� Develop and implement a long-term source-oriented strategy to reduce the amount offloatables entering the ecosystem; take actionas soon as there are commitments andmechanisms in place for implementation; takeadditional actions, over time, as mechanismsand commitments are developed; and

� Expand public education and outreach efforts tofoster lifestyle changes that will reduce thepublic's contribution to the floatable debrisproblem.



OBJECTIVE F-1 Continue and enhanceimplementation of thesuccessful short-termfloatables action plan

OBJECTIVE F-2 Expand the USACE HarborDrift Removal Programwithout compromisingimportant habitat

OBJECTIVE F-3 Implement beach andshoreline cleanups


ACTION F-1.1Short-term Floatables Action PlanUSEPA, USCG, USACE, NYSDEC, NJDEP,NYCDEP, and NYCDOS will continue to implementthe short-term floatables action plan.

-- In order to ensure that USEPA continues itsactive involvement in Harbor/Bight surveillance,HEP recommends that USEPA Region IIcontinue to receive base program funding for itshelicopter.

ACTION F-1.2New Jersey "Operation Clean Shores" ProgramNew Jersey will continue annual implementation ofthe "Operation Clean Shores" program.

ACTION F-1.3New York Companion Program to "Operation CleanShores" HEP recommends that NYSDEC work with otherstate agencies to develop and implement acompanion program to New Jersey's "OperationClean Shores" in the New York portion of theHarbor.

ACTION F-1.4New York City Skimmer Vessels and Use of BoomsNew York City acquired a large open waterskimmer vessel, which became operational inOctober 1993, to complement the USACE Harbordrift collection vessels. New York City alsopurchased two small skimmer boats, for Flushingand Jamaica Bays, which have been operatingsince May 1993. New York City has recentlyacquired two additional small skimmer vessels fortributary areas of the Harbor. In addition, New YorkCity is using booms to catch floatables in the fourCSO abatement tributary planning areas.

ACTION F-1.5Additional Measures in New JerseyNJDEP is requiring that, as part of their permits tomanage floatables, the New Jersey dischargepermittees evaluate the need for additionalfloatables control measures, including skimmervessels, for New Jersey tributaries to the Harbor.

USACE, to date, has awarded 18 constructioncontracts with a total value of $40 million. Thiseffort has removed over 320,000 tons of debrisfrom the waters and shorelines of the Harbor corearea.

ACTION F-2.1Prioritization of SitesThe States of New York and New Jersey andUSACE will establish priority sites for USACE'sHarbor Drift Removal Program based on an area'spotential to contribute significant quantities offloatable debris to the Harbor, withoutcompromising habitat or navigational safety.

ACTION F-2.2Implementation of Drift Removal ProjectsUSACE, with cost-sharing by the states, shouldimplement Harbor drift removal projects inaccordance with the prioritization in Action F-2.1. Implementation of these projects is dependent onannual appropriations by Congress.

ACTION F-3.1Routine Beach CleanupsBeach operators should conduct routine beachcleanups at private and public beaches in New Yorkand New Jersey in the off-season.



OBJECTIVE F-4 Assess and control landfilland solid waste practices

ACTION F-3.2National Beach Cleanup ExpansionStates should encourage public interest groups tocontinue and expand ongoing national beachcleanups to include the back bay and tributaryareas. New York and New Jersey are committed toimproving cleanup coordination.

ACTION F-4.1New York City Solid Waste EnforcementNew York City marine transfer stations are now allenclosed, and procedures are established toprevent spillage while loading. The barges are allnetted for the trip to the Fresh Kills landfill in StatenIsland, as a measure to prevent floatables fromentering the Harbor during trips from marinetransfer stations to Staten Island.

Until a long-term solution is implemented, interimmeasures are presently in place to reduce theamount of floatables escaping from the Fresh Killslandfill.

NYSDEC and ISC will continue to monitor theprovisions stipulated in permits and consent orders,issued to the New York City Department ofSanitation for solid waste handling at landfills andmarine transfer stations, to ensure compliance.

ACTION F-4.2Continuation of NJ Solid Waste ProgramNJDEP will continue its existing solid wastedisposal program, which requires solid waste to bedisposed at specific facilities based on the sourceof waste generation.

ACTION F-4.3Expansion of Marina RecyclingNew York and New Jersey coastal communitiesshould review the results of demonstration projects

on recycling at marinas and work to expand theserecycling programs regionwide. In 1989, HEPsponsored such demonstration projects in NewYork and New Jersey.

ACTION F-4.4Beach and Shoreline Waste Handling

-- HEP recommends that entities responsible formanaging public open spaces at beaches andshoreline areas continue and expand effectivewaste collection, recycling, and handlingmeasures. Waste receptacles, includingrecycling and disposal containers, should beprovided in sufficient numbers to accommodatepublic users and prevent debris dispersal bywind and wildlife.

-- HEP recommends that entities responsible formanaging public open spaces at beaches andshoreline areas implement, expand, andimprove education efforts on litter control andthe effects of plastic debris on marine life.(Objective F-5 below includes specific actions tocommunicate impacts of debris and appropriatedisposal practices.)

-- HEP recommends that legislation at theappropriate government level be enacted to banor restrict the use of non-degradable plasticproducts at shore concession stands.

ACTION F-4.5Education on Disposal of Home Medical WasteAppropriate agencies should develop educationalmaterials to inform the public of the proper disposaltechniques for home medical wastes.

-- The medical and pharmaceutical industries atboth the regional and national levels shoulddevelop an educational strategy to encouragethe proper disposal of home medical wastes. HEP will inform them of this need.

-- NYSDEC and NYSDOH will developeducational materials for the disposal of homesharps.



OBJECTIVE F-5 Communicate impacts ofmarine debris andappropriate disposalpractices

OBJECTIVE F-6 Reduce loadings offloatables from CSOs, stormwater discharges, and othernon-point sources

ACTION F-5.1Signs on Debris Impacts and Waste Disposal All New York and New Jersey beach and marinaowners and operators should post permanent signsat boat launch ramps and other public access sites. Signs should depict the impacts of floatable debrison marine wildlife and provide information onappropriate methods for waste disposal.

ACTION F-5.2Marine Debris Information in Fishing/BoatingApplicationsNew York and New Jersey should encloseinformation on marine debris in all applications forfishing and boating licenses or registrations.

ACTION F-5.3Public Service AnnouncementsHEP will seek sponsors to develop and broadcastpublic service announcements throughout NewYork and New Jersey regarding the proper disposalof beach and boating litter.

ACTION F-5.4Continue Clean Streets/Clean Beaches CampaignUSEPA, NYSDEC, NJDEP, and NYCDEP willcontinue the clean streets/clean beaches campaignto educate the public on proper waste disposal.

ACTION F-5.5Stormdrain StencilingHEP and its member regulatory agencies willencourage local user groups to engage instormdrain stenciling activities. Stormdrain stencilsinform the public that materials thrown into thesewers discharge into local waterways.

ACTION F-5.6MARPOL V EnforcementUSCG will communicate and enforce provisions ofMARPOL V for at-sea disposal of solid waste.

Three sources of pollution to the Harbor/Bight --CSOs, storm water discharges, and non-pointsource runoff -- are associated with runoff inducedby rainfall. These three sources are significantcontributors of floatables to the Harbor/Bightsystem. Effective abatement of these sources istherefore important in reducing use impairmentsand adverse ecosystem impacts associated withfloatables. HEP's plan to address these sources isfound in the section on Rainfall-Induced Dischargesbelow. The Plan includes the following actionsaddressing floatables:

Combined Sewer Overflows

-- Fully implement the nine minimum controlmeasures of the National CSO Control Policy(see Objective CSO-1 below).

-- Implement additional CSO controls to meetwater quality standards and restore beneficialuses (see Objective CSO-2 below).

• New York City is implementing CSO controlmeasures, including constructing retentionfacilities, and conducting long-term CSOabatement planning (see Action CSO-2.1below).

• HEP recommends that New Jersey CSOdischargers cooperate in a regional effort todevelop long-term CSO abatement plans(see Action CSO-2.2 below).

Storm Water Discharges

-- Implement measures to control municipal andindustrial storm water discharges (see ObjectiveSW-1 below).

• Issue NYC storm water permit modifications(see Action SW-1.1 below).



• Incorporate requirements of the generalpermits that control construction dischargesinto local codes (see Action SW-1.3 below).

• Expand geographic coverage of the NewJersey Sewage Infrastructure ImprovementAct (see Action SW-1.4 below).

Non-point Source Runoff

-- Develop and implement coastal non-pointsource management programs under theCoastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments(see Objective NPS-2 below).

-- Focus the Urban Resources PartnershipInitiative on Harbor/Bight watersheds (seeObjective NPS-3 below).


Many of the commitments and recommendations inthe floatables component of the CCMP are beingaccomplished through the effective use of baseprogram resources. The CCMP itemizes 5 newHEP-driven commitments to control floatable debrisusing base program resources. These actionsrepresent a continuing and expanding commitmentto CCMP implementation.

The CCMP also includes 10 commitments andrecommendations for floatable debris controlprograms that entail enhanced program funding. As shown in Table 22(fc) below:

� The Plan includes 4 commitments to continueand expand existing short-term initiatives, whichtotal $1.750 million per year.

� The Plan includes 4 recommended actions forwhich increased funding of $200,000 plus $1.35million per year is required.

� The Plan also includes 2 additionalrecommended actions for which cost estimateswill be developed as part of the continuingplanning process.

This component of the CCMP includes 4 additionalactions that require implementation costs forspecial projects. As shown in Table 23(fc) below:

� The Plan includes 2 actions for which a total of$7.4 million has been committed by theresponsible entities.

� The Plan includes 1 recommended action for anexisting federally authorized program with anestimated cost of $2.5 million per year.

� The Plan includes 1 recommended action forwhich cost estimates will be developed as partof the continuing planning process.



Tab

le 2

2(fc

). E

nh

ance

d P

rog

ram

Co

sts

for

Man

agem

ent

of

Flo

atab

le D

ebri

s

AC

TIO

NC

OM

MIT

ME

NT

SR

EC

OM

ME

ND

AT

ION

S

Co

stC

ost

/Yea

rC

ost

Co

st/Y

ear

AC

TIO

N F

-1.1

:Im

plem

ent t

he s

hort

-ter

m fl

oata

bles

actio

n pl

an.

$1 m

illio

n

AC

TIO

N F

-1.2

:Im

plem

ent "

Ope

ratio

n C

lean

Sho

res"

.$6

00,0

00

AC

TIO

N F

-1.3

:C

ompl

emen

t "O

pera

tion

Cle

an S

hore

s"w

ithin

NY

S.

$1.2

mill

ion

AC

TIO

N F

-3.2

:C

ontin

ue e

xist

ing

natio

nal b

each

clea

nups

.$5

0,00

0

AC

TIO

N F

-3.2

:E

xpan

d na

tiona

l bea

ch c

lean

ups

to n

ewar

eas.

$9,0

00

AC

TIO

N F

-4.3

:E

xpan

d re

cycl

ing

dem

onst

ratio

n pr

ojec

tsat

mar

inas

.$1

40,0

00

AC

TIO

N F

-4.5

:D

evel

op e

duca

tiona

l str

ateg

y to

info

rmpu

blic

of p

rope

r m

edic

al w

aste

dis

posa

l.*

AC

TIO

N F

-5.1

:P

ost s

igns

adv

isin

g of

pro

per

mar

ine

debr

is d

ispo

sal.

*

AC

TIO

N F

-5.3

:D

evel

op a

nd b

road

cast

pub

lic s

ervi

cean

noun

cem

ents

.$2

00,0

00

AC

TIO

N F

-5.4

:C

ontin

ue C

lean

Str

eets

/Cle

an B

each

esC

ampa

ign.

$100

,000

TO

TA

L

1

$1,7

50,0

00/y

r+*

$200

,000

1

$1,3

49,0

00/y

r+*

*E

nhan

ced

prog

ram

cos

ts to

be

deve

lope

d as

par

t of t

he c

ontin

uing

pla

nnin

g pr

oces

s.1

Not

atio

n (+

*) in

dica

tes

cost

plu

s ad

ditio

nal c

osts

to b

e de

term

ined

.



Tab

le 2

3(fc

). P

roje

ct Im

ple

men

tati

on

Co

sts

for

Man

agem

ent

of

Flo

atab

le D

ebri

s

AC

TIO

NC

OM

MIT

ME

NT

SR

EC

OM

ME

ND

AT

ION

S

Co

stC

ost

/Yea

rC

ost

Co

st/Y

ear

AC

TIO

N F

-1.4

:O

pera

te o

pen

wat

er s

kim

mer

ves

sel i

nN

ew Y

ork

City

to c

lean

up

Har

bor

debr

is.

$4 m

illio

n(c

apita

l cos

t)

AC

TIO

N F

-1.4

:O

pera

te 4

ski

mm

er b

oats

in N

ew Y

ork

City

to c

lean

up

Har

bor

trib

utar

ies.

$3.4

mill

ion

AC

TIO

N F

-1.4

:U

se b

oom

s to

cat

ch fl

oata

bles

in th

e fo

urC

SO

aba

tem

ent t

ribut

ary

plan

ning

are

as in

New

Yor

k C

ity.

Incl

uded

in th

ees

timat

e fo

rA

ctio

n C

SO

-2.1

AC

TIO

N F

-2.2

:Im

plem

ent H

arbo

r dr

ift r

emov

al p

roje

cts.

$2.5

mill

ion

AC

TIO

N F

-3.1

:P

erfo

rm r

outin

e be

ach

clea

nups

dur

ing

off-

seas

on.

*

TO

TA

L$7

,400

,000

$2,5

00,0

00/y

r

*P

roje

ct im

plem

enta

tion

cost

s to

be

deve

lope

d as

par

t of t

he c

ontin

uing

pla

nnin

g pr

oces

s.




Full implementation of the commitments andrecommendations for management of floatabledebris would result in:

� Elimination of floatable-related beach closures;

� Prevention of adverse floatable-related impactson coastal species; and

� Prevention of adverse impacts on commercialand recreational navigation.

With the implementation of the short-term floatablesaction plan, the participants of HEP have madesubstantial headway in the attainment of thesegoals. Continued commitment to theimplementation of a long-term strategy to controlfloatable debris will ensure continued progresstoward the attainment of these goals. Aesthetics,recreational opportunities, navigational safety, andthe regional ecosystem will all benefit from theimplementation of this component of the Plan.



Tab

le 2

4(fs

). S

um

mar

y—M

anag

emen

t o

f F

loat

able

Deb

ris

AC

TIO

NR

ES

PO

NS

IBL

EE

NT

ITY

1T

AR

GE

T D

AT

EE

ST

IMA

TE

D C

OS

TS

TA

TU

S2

OB

JEC

TIV

E F

-1:

Co

nti

nu

e an

d e

nh

ance

imp

lem

enta

tio

n o

f su

cces

sfu

l sh

ort

-ter

m f

loat

able

s ac

tio

n p

lan

.

AC

TIO

N F

-1.1

: Im

plem

ent t

he s

hort

-ter

m fl

oata

bles

actio

n pl

an.

US

EP

A, U

SC

G,

US

AC

E, N

YS

DE

C,

NJD

EP

, NY

CD

OS

,N

YC

DE

P

Ong

oing

Enh

ance

d pr

ogra

mco

st -

$1

mill

ion/

yr to

tal,

incl

udin

g $1

26,8

00 fo

rU

SE

PA

hel

icop

ter

C/N

AC

TIO

N F

-1.2

: Im

plem

ent "

Ope

ratio

n C

lean

Sho

res"

pro

gram

.N

JDE

PO

ngoi

ngE

nhan

ced

prog

ram

cost

- $

600,

000

C/O

AC

TIO

N F

-1.3

: D

evel

op a

nd im

plem

ent a

com

pani

on p

rogr

am to

"O

pera

tion

Cle

an S

hore

s".

NY

SD

EC

Sum

mer

199

6E

nhan

ced

prog

ram

cost

- a

ppro

xim

atel

y$1

.2 m

illio

n/yr

R

Not

e:It

is H

EP

’s g

oal t

hat a

ll th

e re

com

men

datio

ns in

the

CC

MP

bec

ome

com

mitm

ents

.

--In

som

e ca

ses

CC

MP

act

ions

are

rec

omm

enda

tions

, no

t co

mm

itmen

ts,

beca

use

resp

onsi

ble

entit

ies

requ

ire re

sour

ces

to im

plem

ent t

he a

ctio

n. H

EP

will

adv

ocat

e m

akin

g th

ese

reso

urce

s av

aila

ble.

--In

oth

er c

ases

, C

CM

P a

ctio

ns a

re r

ecom

men

datio

ns b

ecau

se H

EP

has

not

obta

ined

the

com

mitm

ent o

f reg

ulat

ed e

ntiti

es a

nd o

ther

res

pons

ible

ent

ities

to i

mpl

emen

t th

e ac

tion.

B

y is

suan

ce o

f th

is C

CM

P,

HE

P s

eeks

the

com

mitm

ent o

f the

resp

onsi

ble

entit

ies

and

requ

ests

that

they

ste

p fo

rwar

d to

volu

ntar

ily a

gree

to im

plem

ent t

he a

ctio

ns.

1R

espo

nsib

le e

ntiti

es m

ay a

ccom

plis

h th

e ac

tions

dire

ctly

or

via

cont

ract

or

gran

t.2

C/O

-A

n on

goin

g co

mm

itmen

t, no

t driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

C/N

-A

new

com

mitm

ent,

driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

R-

Rec

omm

enda

tion



(Co

nti

nu

ed)

Tab

le 2

4(fs

). S

um

mar

y—M

anag

emen

t o

f F

loat

able

Deb

ris

AC

TIO

NR

ES

PO

NS

IBL

EE

NT

ITY

1T

AR

GE

T D

AT

EE

ST

IMA

TE

D C

OS

TS

TA

TU

S2

AC

TIO

N F

-1.4

: C

ontin

ue u

se o

f ski

mm

er b

oats

and

boom

s in

New

Yor

k C

ity.

--O

pen

wat

er v

esse

l.N

YC

DE

PO

ngoi

ngP

roje

ct im

plem

enta

tion

cost

- $

4 m

illio

n ca

pita

lco

st (

55%

US

EP

A g

rant

)

C/N

--F

our

skim

mer

boa

ts.

NY

CD

EP

Ong

oing

Pro

ject

impl

emen

tatio

nco

st -

$3.

4 m

illio

n ov

er 3

yrs

C/N

--U

se b

oom

s to

cat

ch fl

oata

bles

in th

e fo

urC

SO

aba

tem

ent t

ribut

ary

plan

ning

are

as.

NY

CD

EP

Ong

oing

Pro

ject

impl

emen

tatio

nco

st in

clud

ed in

est

imat

efo

r A

ctio

n C

SO

-2.1

C/O

AC

TIO

N F

-1.5

: R

equi

re th

e ev

alua

tion

of n

eed

for

othe

r flo

atab

les

cont

rol m

easu

res

incl

udin

gad

ditio

nal s

kim

mer

boa

ts.

NJD

EP

Com

plet

edB

ase

prog

ram

C/N

OB

JEC

TIV

E F

-2:

Exp

and

th

e U

SA

CE

Har

bo

r D

rift

Rem

ova

l Pro

gra

m w

ith

ou

t co

mp

rom

isin

g im

po

rtan

t h

abit

at.

AC

TIO

N F

-2.1

: E

stab

lish

prio

rity

site

s fo

r th

e dr

iftre

mov

al p

rogr

am.

NY

, NJ,

US

AC

EC

ompl

eted

Bas

e pr

ogra

mC

/N

AC

TIO

N F

-2.2

: Im

plem

ent d

rift r

emov

al p

roje

cts.

NY

, NJ,

US

AC

EB

y D

ec 3

1, 1

996

Pro

ject

impl

emen

tatio

nco

st -

$2.

5 m

illio

n/yr

R

OB

JEC

TIV

E F

-3 I

mp

lem

ent

bea

ch c

lean

up

s.

AC

TIO

N F

-3.1

: P

erfo

rm r

outin

e be

ach

clea

nups

off-

seas

on.

Bea

ch o

pera

tors

(Fed

eral

, sta

te, l

ocal

,an

d pr

ivat

e)

Beg

inni

ng b

yD

ec 3

1, 1

995

Pro

ject

impl

emen

tatio

nco

st to

be

estim

ated

prio

r to

impl

emen

tatio

nof

pro

gram

R

1R

espo

nsib

le e

ntiti

es m

ay a

ccom

plis

h th

e ac

tions

dire

ctly

or

via

cont

ract

or

gran

t.2

C/O

-A

n on

goin

g co

mm

itmen

t, no

t driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

C/N

-A

new

com

mitm

ent,

driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

R-

Rec

omm

enda

tion



(Co

nti

nu

ed)

Tab

le 2

4(fs

). S

um

mar

y—M

anag

emen

t o

f F

loat

able

Deb

ris

AC

TIO

NR

ES

PO

NS

IBL

EE

NT

ITY

1T

AR

GE

T D

AT

EE

ST

IMA

TE

D C

OS

TS

TA

TU

S2

AC

TIO

N F

-3.2

: C

ontin

ue a

nd e

xpan

d na

tiona

lbe

ach

clea

nups

.

--C

ontin

ue e

xist

ing

beac

h cl

eanu

ps.

(Ado

pt-a

-Bea

ch p

rogr

am in

NJ)

NY

& N

JO

ngoi

ngE

nhan

ced

prog

ram

cost

-$2

5,00

0/yr

(N

J)$2

5,00

0/yr

(N

Y)

C/O

--E

xpan

d ex

istin

g pr

ogra

ms

to in

clud

e ba

ck b

ays

and

trib

utar

y ar

eas.

NY

, NJ,

priv

ate

sect

orB

y D

ec 3

1, 1

996

Enh

ance

d pr

ogra

mco

st -

NY

S: $

6,00

0/yr

NJ:

cos

t inc

lude

d ab

ove

Priv

ate:

$3,

000/

yr

R

OB

JEC

TIV

E F

-4:

Ass

ess

and

co

ntr

ol l

and

fills

an

d s

olid

was

te p

ract

ices

.

AC

TIO

N F

-4.1

: M

onito

r pr

ovis

ions

of N

YC

DO

Spe

rmits

and

con

sent

ord

ers

for

solid

was

te h

andl

ing

at la

ndfil

ls a

nd m

arin

e tr

ansf

er s

tatio

ns to

ens

ure

com

plia

nce.

NY

SD

EC

& IS

CO

ngoi

ngB

ase

prog

ram

C/O

AC

TIO

N F

-4.2

: C

ontin

ue N

J so

lid w

aste

pro

gram

.N

JDE

PO

ngoi

ngB

ase

prog

ram

C/O

AC

TIO

N F

-4.3

: Con

duct

rec

yclin

g de

mon

stra

tion

proj

ects

at m

arin

as.

NY

SD

EC

& N

JDE

PC

ompl

eted

199

0E

nhan

ced

prog

ram

cost

- $

140,

000

(FY

89D

emo

proj

ect)

C/N

--E

xpan

d su

ch p

roje

cts.

Coa

stal

com

mun

ities

in N

Y a

nd N

JB

y D

ec 3

1, 1

996

$140

,000

/yr

R

1R

espo

nsib

le e

ntiti

es m

ay a

ccom

plis

h th

e ac

tions

dire

ctly

or

via

cont

ract

or

gran

t.2

C/O

-A

n on

goin

g co

mm

itmen

t, no

t driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

C/N

-A

new

com

mitm

ent,

driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

R-

Rec

omm

enda

tion



(Co

nti

nu

ed)

Tab

le 2

4(fs

). S

um

mar

y—M

anag

emen

t o

f F

loat

able

Deb

ris

AC

TIO

NR

ES

PO

NS

IBL

EE

NT

ITY

1T

AR

GE

T D

AT

EE

ST

IMA

TE

D C

OS

TS

TA

TU

S2

AC

TIO

N F

-4.4

: Pro

vide

for

beac

h an

d sh

orel

ine

was

te h

andl

ing.

--B

an u

se o

f non

-deg

rada

ble

plas

tic p

rodu

cts

at s

hore

con

cess

ion

stan

ds.

App

ropr

iate

gove

rnm

ent l

egis

lato

rsB

y D

ec 3

1, 1

996

Bas

e pr

ogra

mR

--C

ontin

ue, e

xpan

d, a

nd a

dopt

effe

ctiv

ew

aste

han

dlin

g pr

actic

es a

t pub

lic s

hore

line

area

s, a

s re

quire

d.

Ope

n sp

ace

man

ager

sB

y D

ec 3

1, 1

996

Bas

e pr

ogra

mR

--P

rovi

de w

aste

rec

epta

cles

suf

ficie

nt fo

rpu

blic

nee

d an

d ad

equa

te to

pre

vent

deb

risdi

sper

sal.

Ope

n sp

ace

man

ager

sB

y D

ec 3

1, 1

996

Bas

e pr

ogra

mR

AC

TIO

N F

-4.5

: D

evel

op e

duca

tiona

l mat

eria

ls to

info

rm th

e pu

blic

of p

rope

r di

spos

al te

chni

ques

for

hom

e m

edic

al w

aste

.

--In

form

med

ical

and

pha

rmac

eutic

alin

dust

ries

of n

eed

to d

evel

op e

duca

tiona

lst

rate

gy.

HE

PB

y D

ec 3

1, 1

996

Bas

e pr

ogra

mC

/N

--D

evel

op e

duca

tiona

l str

ateg

y.M

edic

al a

ndph

arm

aceu

tical

indu

strie

s

By

Dec

31,

199

7E

nhan

ced

prog

ram

cos

tto

be

prov

ided

by

med

ical

and

phar

mac

eutic

alin

dust

ries

R

--D

evel

op e

duca

tiona

l mat

eria

ls fo

r th

edi

spos

al o

f hom

e sh

arps

.N

YS

DE

C &

NY

SD

OH

Ong

oing

Bas

e pr

ogra

mC

/O

1R

espo

nsib

le e

ntiti

es m

ay a

ccom

plis

h th

e ac

tions

dire

ctly

or

via

cont

ract

or

gran

t.2

C/O

-A

n on

goin

g co

mm

itmen

t, no

t driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

C/N

-A

new

com

mitm

ent,

driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

R-

Rec

omm

enda

tion



(Co

nti

nu

ed)

Tab

le 2

4(fs

). S

um

mar

y—M

anag

emen

t o

f F

loat

able

Deb

ris

AC

TIO

NR

ES

PO

NS

IBL

EE

NT

ITY

1T

AR

GE

T D

AT

EE

ST

IMA

TE

D C

OS

TS

TA

TU

S2

OB

JEC

TIV

E F

-5:

Co

mm

un

icat

e im

pac

ts o

f m

arin

e d

ebri

s an

d a

pp

rop

riat

e d

isp

osa

l pra

ctic

es.

AC

TIO

N F

-5.1

: P

ost s

igns

dep

ictin

g pr

oper

was

tedi

spos

al m

etho

ds.

--In

form

bea

ch a

nd m

arin

a ow

ners

and

oper

ator

s.H

EP

By

Dec

31,

199

6B

ase

prog

ram

C/N

--P

ost s

igns

.B

each

and

mar

ina

owne

rs a

nd o

pera

tors

By

Dec

31,

199

6E

nhan

ced

prog

ram

cos

tto

be

prov

ided

by

beac

h/m

arin

aow

ners

/ope

rato

rs

R

AC

TIO

N F

-5.2

: E

nclo

se in

form

atio

n on

mar

ine

debr

is in

all

fishi

ng a

pplic

atio

ns a

nd/o

r bo

atin

glic

ense

s.

NY

& N

JB

y D

ec 3

1, 1

996

Bas

e pr

ogra

mR

AC

TIO

N F

-5.3

: D

evel

op a

nd b

road

cast

pub

licse

rvic

e an

noun

cem

ents

on

prop

er d

ispo

sal o

fbe

ach

and

boat

ing

litte

r.

--S

eek

spon

sors

.H

EP

By

Dec

31,

199

6B

ase

prog

ram

C/N

--D

evel

op a

nd b

road

cast

PS

As.

Spo

nsor

sB

y D

ec 3

1, 1

996

Enh

ance

d pr

ogra

mco

st -

$20

0,00

0R

AC

TIO

N F

-5.4

: C

ontin

ue C

lean

Str

eets

/Cle

anB

each

es c

ampa

ign.

US

EP

A, N

YS

DE

C,

NJD

EP

, NY

CD

EP

Ong

oing

Enh

ance

d pr

ogra

mco

st -

$10

0,00

0/yr

C/N

AC

TIO

N F

-5.5

: E

ncou

rage

loca

l use

r gr

oups

toen

gage

in s

torm

dra

in s

tenc

iling

act

iviti

es.

HE

PO

ngoi

ngB

ase

prog

ram

C/O

AC

TIO

N F

-5.6

: E

nfor

ce p

rovi

sion

s of

MA

RP

OL

Vfo

r at

-sea

dis

posa

l of s

olid

was

te.

US

CG

Ong

oing

Bas

e pr

ogra

mC

/O

OB

JEC

TIV

E F

-6:

Red

uce

load

ing

s o

f fl

oat

able

s fr

om

CS

Os,

sto

rm w

ater

dis

char

ges

, an

d n

on

-po

int

sou

rce

dis

char

ges

[se

eR

ain

fall-

Ind

uce

d D

isch

arg

es s

ecti

on

].

1R

espo

nsib

le e

ntiti

es m

ay a

ccom

plis

h th

e ac

tions

dire

ctly

or

via

cont

ract

or

gran

t.2

C/O

-A

n on

goin

g co

mm

itmen

t, no

t driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

C/N

-A

new

com

mitm

ent,

driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

R-

Rec

omm

enda

tion


NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT 197

PROBLEMSPotential damage to living marine resourcescaused by low dissolved oxygen and othereutrophic effectsNoxious water quality conditionsNovel algal blooms

SOURCESNitrogen is the limiting nutrient in theHarbor/Bight system; significant sources ofnitrogen include:- Municipal discharges- Tributary inputs- Sediment flux- Atmospheric depositionOther Contributing Sources Include:- Combined sewer overflows- Storm water- Other non-point sources


GOALS To eliminate adverse impacts of eutrophication, including hypoxia, resultingfrom human activities.

To better understand the causes of eutrophication and its symptomsincluding hypoxia, algal blooms, and changes in the abundance and diversityof marine organisms.

OBJECTIVES N-1 Upgrade municipal sewage treatment plants to achieve full secondarytreatment.

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, algalblooms, and other eutrophication effects.

MANAGEMENT OF NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT

THE PROBLEMS

OverviewEutrophication, or the excessive enrichment of awaterbody by nutrients and organic materials, is aproblem in the Harbor/Bight and Long IslandSound. The most tangible symptoms ofeutrophication in the Harbor/Bight and Sound arelow dissolved oxygen (DO), noxious water qualityconditions, and

novel algal blooms. Eutrophication may occurnaturally or as a result of human activity.

These symptoms often result directly in useimpairments. However, eutrophication may haveother adverse effects on marine ecosystems which,although closely related to the effects noted above,are more subtle or difficult to identify. Forexample, changes in the forms or concentrations ofnutrients may result in changes in the speciescomposition and diversity of phytoplankton. These


198 NUTRIENTS AND ORGANIC ENRICHMENT

changes may affect higher trophic levels, potentiallyleading to an altered ecosystem.

Identifying these changes and understanding theircauses is difficult because of the confoundingeffects of natural variability in the abundance andcomposition of marine organisms, and otherstressors, such as toxics.

To ensure we meet our goal to eliminate all adverseeffects of eutrophication, the Plan includesdevelopment of several environmental objectivesfor eutrophication effects. These objectives willhelp us determine what actions are necessary andmonitor the effectiveness of the actions taken tocontrol nitrogen and organic loadings. The Planalso includes efforts to better understand the effectsof eutrophication in the Harbor, Bight, and Sound.

Low Dissolved OxygenLow DO concentrations, called hypoxia, often occurin the bottom waters of portions of the New York-New Jersey Harbor, the Bight, and western LongIsland Sound during the summer months.

The ecological effects of hypoxia are severe. DOconcentrations of 5 mg/l and above are generallybelieved to be protective of marine life. Asconcentrations fall below that level, mobileorganisms, such as fish, begin to leave the affectedarea; less mobile organisms can become stressedand may die. At DO concentrations of 3 mg/l andbelow, effects become progressively more severe. For example, at DO concentrations of 1.5 to 3 mg/l,many organisms leave or die within days to weeks; virtually all organisms die when concentrationsbelow 1.5 mg/l persist for a few days or more.

New York and New Jersey water quality standardsfor DO range from not less than 3 mg/l, to supportfish survival, to not less than 5 mg/l in waters withhigher designated uses.

Over the last nine years, the Long Island SoundStudy (LISS) has documented extensive areas ofseverely depressed DO concentrations. During thesummer of 1987, 63 percent of the Sound's bottomwaters experienced DO levels less than 5 mg/l, and40 percent of these waters had DO levels less than3 mg/l. Severe hypoxia also occurred duringseveral subsequent summers, although conditionswere not as bad as 1987 (see Figure 10).

Analyses of NYCDEP New York Harbor WaterQuality Survey data from 1986-1992 indicateviolations of the New York DO standardsthroughout the Harbor. During each summer from1986-1991, bottom water DO concentrations lowerthan the standard were recorded at least once atroughly 80 percent of the 52 stations sampled. Compliance was significantly better in 1992, whenviolations were recorded at least once at only 50percent of the sampled stations.

Chronic violations (i.e., mean summer bottom waterDO concentration below the standard) were alsocommon, except in 1992, when no chronicviolations were found.

Long-term trend analyses reveal that water qualityin some areas of the Harbor is improving, whileother areas are experiencing a decline in DOconcentrations. Over the last 15 years, there havebeen significant improvements in mean summerDO concentrations in bottom waters in portions ofthe Harlem River, Kill Van Kull, Arthur Kill, andUpper Bay. However, mean summer DOconcentrations in bottom waters have significantlydecreased in western Long Island Sound, parts ofJamaica Bay, the lower portion of the Arthur Kill,and the Lower Bay. The general trend over thisperiod of time is improvement in the highly pollutedwaterways and inner Harbor areas and declines inthe relatively cleaner bays and outer reaches of theHarbor. HEP efforts (e.g., see Actions N-4.1 andN-5.1 below) aim to help explain why this trend hasoccurred.



Figure 10. Areas of Long Island Sound with Minimum Bottom Water Dissolved Oxygen Levels below5 mg/l in the Summers of 1987, 1989, and 1991



Dissolved oxygen levels in parts of Jamaica Bayare among the lowest in the Harbor (see Figure 11below); for example, in summer 1993, severaltributaries experienced minimum DO concentrationsless than 1.5 mg/l. In addition, the Grassy Bay areaexperienced minimum DO concentrations less than3.0 mg/l. The DO problem in Jamaica Bay has ledNYSDEC and NYCDEP to implement low-costnitrogen reductions for New York City's sewagetreatment plants discharging to the Bay (see ActionN-3.4 below). Raritan Bay has also experiencedhypoxia, and other eutrophication-related effects, asshown in Figure 12 below.

Areas of the Bight routinely experience hypoxiaduring the summer, and the Bight has alsoexperienced severe hypoxic conditions. Conditionsare generally worse along the New Jersey coastand along the Long Island coast west of Fire IslandInlet. An analysis of data from 1977-1985 (seeFigure 13 below) shows summer minimum DOconcentrations less than 3 mg/l primarily inshore ofthe 20 meter depth contour in the Bight Apex. DOlevels less than 1.5 mg/l regularly occur along theNew Jersey coast inshore of the 20 meter depthcontour.

A particularly severe and widespread anoxic (lackof DO) event occurred in the summer of 1976 in the Bight. The collapse of a massive bloom of thedinoflagellate Ceratium tripos resulted in anoxiaover an 8,600 km2 area off New Jersey and massmortalities of shellfish. This appears to have beenan isolated occurrence which is attributed to acoincidence of meteorological and oceanographicconditions.

Recent reports of the USEPA Bight MonitoringProgram have noted a general trend of improvingwater quality since 1985. Bottom DO levels in theBight in recent summers (1992 and 1993) weregenerally good. Levels below 3 mg/l were recordedinfrequently and persisted for only a short time. Incontrast, water quality was particularly poor in themid to late summer of 1985. During this periodapproximately 1,600 mi2 of ocean bottom off theNew Jersey coast experienced DO concentrationsbelow 4 mg/l. The summer of 1990 was also aperiod of relatively poor water quality, although

low DO was not as widespread or persistent as thesummer of 1985.

It is important to note, however, that DO levels inthe Bight, since 1985, may not reflect an actualtrend of improving water quality, but may instead bedue to interannual variability. This interannualvariation is partially attributable to the prevalence ofstorm activity which mixes the water column,promoting aeration of bottom waters. Otherinvestigators have seen no clear trend in DO levelsin the Bight over the last 40 years or so.

Field studies have confirmed hypoxic impacts inLong Island Sound. Although effects are less welldocumented in the Harbor and Bight Apex, summerDO levels are low enough to harm sensitiveorganisms, as documented, for example, byNJDEP data from Raritan and Sandy Hook Bays.

Noxious Water Quality ConditionsThroughout the Harbor region, water quality hashistorically been poorest in the inner Harbor areasand tributaries, in particular those with restrictedcirculation. These areas commonly experienceanoxia or severe hypoxia during the summermonths. Noxious water quality conditions, such asodors and localized fish kills, are one result.

Novel Algal BloomsSome algal blooms which have occurred in the NewYork-New Jersey Harbor region are unusual interms of the type(s) of phytoplankton present, thepersistence of the bloom over long periods of time,the vast area affected, and/or the highconcentration of algal cells. These blooms arecalled novel algal blooms and they can have avariety of effects:

1) They can discolor the water and causefoaming, or release noxious odors.

2) They can release toxic substances which affectmarine life.

3) They can block sunlight through the water. Forexample, the "brown tides" that occurred inPeconic Bay and bays on Long Island's southshore in the 1980s and 1990s, caused by apreviously uncommon algal species,Aureococcus anophagefferens, blocked



Figure 11. Minimum Bottom Water Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations in Jamaica Bay, 1993



Figure 12. Eutrophication-related effects in Raritan Bay, 1988-1989Contours showing distribution of surface chlorophyll a (µg l-1) [a measure of algal bloomconcentration] in the Raritan Bay on June 30, 1989, during the phytoflagellate red tide of June26 - 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 ofshoreline where dead fish were found in summer of 1988.



Figure 13. Minimum Bottom Water Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations (mg/l) in the Bight, July-September, 1977-1985



sunlight through the water, resulting in reducedeel grass beds.

4) These brown tides also decimated bay scalloppopulations, in part because the eel grass bedsprovide spawning habitat for the scallop, andalso because A. anophagefferens is indigestibleto the scallop.

5) The bloom that caused the Bight anoxia of1976 had particularly widespread and severeimpacts, as noted above.

Algal blooms, and in particular novel blooms wherethe composition of phytoplankton species deviatesfrom "normal", may provide an indication of theadverse effects of pollution. As noted previously,subtle changes in phytoplankton may lead to orprovide an indication of changes in ecosystemfunction. Such changes have not beendocumented in the Harbor/Bight, and are, ingeneral, poorly documented in marine systems. HEP's Plan includes efforts to better document anychanges in the Harbor/Bight.

Trends in the incidence of novel blooms in the NewYork-New Jersey Harbor region, since the 1950s,are not clear due to the lack of regular quantitativemeasurement of phytoplankton communities. However, anecdotal evidence indicates that bloomsoccur frequently. During the summer of 1992 and1993, extensive phytoplankton blooms occurred inthe intracoastal bays of New Jersey. Red algalblooms were predominant in Raritan and SandyHook Bays. In 1992, an isolated area in StoneHarbor, New Jersey, was affected by the sameorganism, the dinoflagellate Gyrodinium aureolum,that caused widespread green tides along thesouthern New Jersey coast in 1984 and 1985.The 1992 bloom only persisted for a short time.


Low Dissolved OxygenThere is strong evidence that excessive dischargesof nitrogen from both point and non-point sourcesare contributing to low DO in the Harbor, Bight, andSound.

Excessive enrichment of waters by nutrients andorganic materials can cause low DO concentra-tions. Waterbodies, and bottom waters inparticular, are most prone to hypoxia during thesummer because the vertical mixing of water,which replenishes oxygen in bottom waters, isrestricted during that season. Nutrients, includingnitrogen, fuel the growth of planktonic algae. Asthe algae die, they sink to the bottom anddecompose, consuming additional oxygen.

The LISS has developed a mathematical model,called LIS 2.0, which establishes that 1) nitrogen isthe nutrient that limits phytoplankton growth in theSound, 2) hypoxia in the Sound is caused byexcessive discharges of nitrogen directly to theSound, and 3) the problem in the Sound isexacerbated by both point and non-pointdischarges of nitrogen in the Harbor. The LISSCCMP summarizes the current knowledge of thehypoxia problem in the Sound.

In most of the Harbor, the causes of low DO arenot as clear. There is evidence, however, that bothnitrogen and organic materials (i.e., carboncompounds) have a role. HEP studies show thattemperature, organic carbon, and ammonia (anitrogenous compound) are the dominant factorsrelated to DO concentrations in the bottom watersof the Harbor. In virtually all of the data setsexamined, inverse relationships were observedbetween temperature, nutrients, and carbon versusDO levels. In Jamaica Bay, studies show thatnitrogen is the limiting nutrient.

A preliminary modeling analysis, conducted byHydroQual Inc. for the Bight Restoration Plan,indicates that nitrogen is the limiting nutrient in theBight Apex off the New Jersey coast and that thenitrogen flux to the Bight from the Harbor (whichincludes the movement of water masses from theHarbor to the Bight, called the "Hudson RiverPlume") causes increased algal production anddecreased bottom water DO concentrations in theBight Apex. However, the analysis is not sufficientto quantify the relative significance of the nitrogenflux from the Harbor versus other sources ofnitrogen in causing the hypoxia.



Figure 14. Distribution of the Nitrogen Load to Long Island Sound among Several Source Categories



Figure 15. Nitrogen Loadings to New York- NewJersey Harbor

Figure 16. Nitrogen Loadings to Bight Apex

The sources of nitrogen to Long Island Sound arewell documented. Of the 93,600 tons per year,approximately 43 percent is from natural sourcesand not subject to reductions by managementactivity (see Figure 14). The remaining 57 percentis associated with human activities and has thepotential to be reduced through managementactions. Of this load, approximately 20 percententers the Sound through its boundaries -- the EastRiver in the west and The Race in the east; effortsto reduce the substantial western load areaddressed in HEP's Plan. Most of the remaininghuman-caused load of nitrogen comes from coastaland tributary point (55%) and non-point source(16%) discharges in the Sound's drainage basinand are the subject of the LISS CCMP.

It is clear that municipal point sources are thedominant sources of nitrogen entering the Harbor. HEP studies estimate that municipal STPscontribute approximately 63 percent of the totalnitrogen load to the Harbor. Tributary inputs are

estimated to contribute approximately 29 percentof the total nitrogen load, while all other sourcescontribute the remaining 8 percent of the load.1

Estimates of total nitrogen loadings to the BightApex, prepared for the Bight Restoration Plan,indicate that coastal advective flux (i.e., transportof nitrogen from offshore waters by prevailingcoastal currents), which is primarily not human-caused, is the dominant source of nitrogen to theBight Apex, contributing an estimated 69 percentof the load. (Note: this is a rough estimate). Fluxfrom the New York - New Jersey Harbor (22%) isthe dominant source of nitrogen to the Bight Apex,which is primarily human-caused. Other sources ofnitrogen estimated include sediment flux (5%);dredged material disposal (2%); atmosphericdeposition (1%); and loads from the New Jerseyand Long Island coastal zones, including municipaldischarges and runoff (1%). It should be notedthat some of these sources of loadings may bemore significant when viewed on a localized scale.

1 The relative significance of direct groundwater flows in nitrogen contributions to theHarbor and Bight is estimated to be minor. Groundwater influences, to the extent they aresignificant, are inherently included in tributary flows and loadings developed for the Harborand Bight. Direct groundwater flow to the Harbor and Bight, in addition to the groundwaterflow in the tributaries, is estimated to comprise roughly 1% or less of the total flow to theHarbor and Bight.



These estimates of nitrogen loads were developedprior to implementation of the Ocean Dumping BanAct (ODBA), which required STPs in the Harborregion to implement land-based disposalalternatives to the dumping of sewage sludge inthe Atlantic Ocean. To comply with thisrequirement, STPs are first dewatering the sludge,which produces a nitrogen-rich centrate. Thiscentrate is being returned to the STPs anddischarged into the Harbor. USEPA estimates thatsuch areas as Raritan Bay, Newark Bay, and theHackensack River are experiencing increases inambient total nitrogen levels as high as 6.7 percentdue to ODBA dewatering operations.

Studies to date point to the need to develop acomprehensive system-wide eutrophication model(SWEM) for the Harbor/Bight/Sound system topredict load reductions necessary system-wide toalleviate hypoxia problems. The LISS hasrecommended that HEP develop such a model.

An interim step, currently proceeding under HEP, isNew York City's development of a Harbor-wideEutrophication Model (HEM), which will be used toestablish the factors causing hypoxia in the Harborand the relative significance of various sources ofnitrogen in causing hypoxia in the Harbor/Bight.

Noxious Water Quality ConditionsNoxious water quality conditions in tributaries andinner Harbor areas may be caused by thedecomposition of organic materials present in CSOdischarges or may be associated with localizedsevere eutrophic conditions and poor flushingconditions. The latter is sometimes observed intributaries without significant CSO discharges.

Novel Algal BloomsThe causes of algal blooms are only generallyunderstood and often may not be related to macro-nutrients, such as nitrogen. Multiple environmentalvariables appear to contribute to any single bloom. These include winds, rainfall, nutrients, waterstratification, and decreased zooplankton grazing. For example, a leading theory attributes thePeconic Bay brown tides to unusual hydrodynamicconditions combined with the presence of micro-nutrients, such as iron. With adequateenvironmental data, mathematical models can

predict the effects of algal processes on hypoxia; however, understanding other adverse effects ofalgal blooms will require additional research. Investigators have observed that the increasedincidence of novel blooms in the Bight Apex off theNew Jersey coast is associated with the HudsonRiver plume.


Overview of the PlanTo solve the problems related to nutrient andorganic enrichment, HEP recommends thefollowing actions:

� Complete upgrades of municipal discharges tosecondary treatment.

� Develop a comprehensive program to controlnitrogen loadings to the Harbor/Bight.

-- Establish environmental objectives includingDO targets.

-- Develop and implement, as appropriate, low-cost actions to reduce nitrogen loads.

-- Develop and implement additional actions asnecessary to eliminate the adverse effects ofeutrophication, including hypoxia.

� Control rainfall-induced discharges of organicmaterials.

� Develop and conduct additional studies to betterunderstand and manage the problems related tonutrient and organic enrichment.


Complete Upgrades of Municipal Dischargesto Secondary TreatmentOngoing STP upgrades are expected to continueimproving water quality in the Harbor/Bight, bysignificantly reducing loads of nutrients and organicmaterials. There are 43 municipal STPsdischarging to the Harbor core area andapproximately 21 STPs discharging to the Bight,including the back bays.

The Clean Water Act requires all municipal STPs toachieve full secondary treatment. Most municipal



OBJECTIVE N-1 Upgrade municipal sewagetreatment plants to achievefull secondary treatment

OBJECTIVE N-2 Establish environmentalobjectives for theHarbor/Bight

STPs discharging to the Harbor, and all thosedischarging to the Bight, already meet thisrequirement. The Owls Head Facility in New Yorkhas recently been upgraded, and a commitment isin place for the one remaining facility that does notmeet full secondary treatment.

ACTION N-1.1Newtown Creek FacilityNYCDEP will upgrade the Newtown Creek facility tofull secondary treatment.

ACTION N-1.2Owls Head FacilityNYCDEP upgraded the Owls Head facility to fullsecondary treatment in May 1995.

Control Nitrogen Loadings to theHarbor/BightThe LISS is implementing a phased managementapproach for dealing with the hypoxia problem inthe Sound. The first phase, currently beingimplemented in New York City, is to freezenitrogen loadings to the East River from municipalpoint sources at levels prior to sludge dewatering(i.e., 1990 levels). This step, with similar pointsource freezes by New York State and Connecticutto waters contributing to Long Island Sound, isexpected to prevent hypoxia problems in the Soundfrom becoming worse. The second phase, detailedin the LISS CCMP, includes significant, low-costnitrogen reductions at sewage treatment plants,including biological nutrient removal (BNR) retrofits,that begin the process of reducing the severity andextent of hypoxia in the Sound. The third phasewill establish nitrogen reduction targets to reduceknown lethal and sublethal effects of hypoxia onthe Sound's biota and will lay out the approach formeeting these nitrogen reduction targets. Thedetails of the third phase are being developed usingthe results of a sophisticated water quality model,called LIS 3.0, recently completed.

HEP will use various environmental objectives tohelp determine the actions necessary, and measurethe success of actions taken, to solve theeutrophication problems. In developing suchobjectives, we will gain a better understanding ofthe ecological significance of the various symptomsof eutrophication.

ACTION N-2.1Dissolved Oxygen TargetsIn parallel with the development of a program toreduce nitrogen loadings, as supported by theHarbor-wide Eutrophication Model (HEM), HEP willdevelop specific numeric DO targets for theHarbor/Bight, compatible with HEP's goal toeliminate the adverse effects of hypoxia resultingfrom human activities. HEP's effort will build uponLISS efforts to develop area specific DO targetsand USEPA's efforts to develop DO criteria formarine waters.

ACTION N-2.2Other Ecosystem Objectives for EutrophicationIn parallel with the development of a program toreduce nitrogen loadings, as supported by HEM,HEP will develop specific ecosystem objectives foreutrophication in the form of quantitative indicatorsand/or indices. These will provide managers withmore refined tools by which to determineecosystem change, providing feedback for adaptivemanagement. In particular, HEP will considerobjectives related to phytoplankton and algalcommunity structure, biomass, and growth rates,as well as incidence of novel algal blooms. Theobjectives will be compatible with HEP's goal toeliminate the adverse effects of eutrophicationresulting from human activities. The effort willbuild upon HEP's ongoing work to document novelalgal blooms (see Objective N-5).

(Note: The efforts described in Actions N-2.1 andN-2.2 will proceed in parallel with development ofSWEM (see Action N-4.1 below), if HEM results do



OBJECTIVE N-3 Develop and implement, asappropriate, low-costnitrogen reduction actions

not support the need for low-cost nitrogen reductionactions).

ACTION N-3.1Harbor-wide Eutrophication Model (HEM)

-- NYCDEP is developing HEM as a preliminary toolto determine the feasibility and effectiveness ofmanagement alternatives for New York City pointsource discharges of nitrogen in the Harbor. Iffeasible options are found, New York City will usea System-wide Eutrophication Model to fullyevaluate management alternatives (see Action N-4.1 below).

-- NYCDEP is committed to completing HEM underthe auspices of HEP, with HEP support for datacollection, to ensure that HEM meets HEP'sneeds for a tool to evaluate the necessity ofpreliminary nitrogen load reductions Harbor-wide.

ACTION N-3.2Nitrogen Reduction Feasibility Studies and DataCollectionMunicipal dischargers to the Harbor core area willconduct studies to identify options and costs fornitrogen reduction and collect data to quantifynitrogen loadings, as necessary, based on theresults of HEM.

-- NYCDEP has evaluated low-cost processcontrols and has conducted additional feasibilitystudies for nitrogen control and pilot-scaleimplementation.

-- WCDEF and NJ dischargers should conductfeasibility studies for low-cost nitrogen reductionactions and collect loadings data if HEM supportsthe need to implement low-cost reductionactions.

(Note: Nitrogen reduction feasibility studies foradditional nitrogen reductions may be necessary inparallel with SWEM).

ACTION N-3.3LIS Nitrogen Load ReductionNew York City, under the LISS CCMP, iscommitted to implementing specific low-costactions to reduce nitrogen loads from STPs in theHarbor which discharge in close proximity to theSound. New York City will reduce its aggregateannual nitrogen load from six STPs by 25 percent(approximately 6,500 tons/year). The reductionsare being accomplished by low-cost retrofits and/oroperational changes at five STPs (completed);centrate treatment, or equivalent, at either theHunts Point or Wards Island STP (by 2000); andinstallation of step denitrification at the NewtownCreek STP (by 2007), as part of the upgrade to fullsecondary treatment and expansion of the facility. Note that, under LISS interim actions, NYSDECand New York City have reached full agreement onSTP permit limits which freeze nitrogen loads (i.e.,no net increase in load) from the four NYC STPsdischarging to, or in close proximity to, the Soundat 1990 levels. Permits to implement the "no netincrease" are final; the effective date is January 1,1997.

ACTION N-3.4Jamaica Bay Nitrogen ReductionConsistent with the January 28, 1994, decision ofthe NYSDEC Commissioner, New York City willimplement low-cost nitrogen reductions for STPsdischarging to Jamaica Bay. New York City willreduce its aggregate annual nitrogen load from fourSTPs by approximately 500 tons/year. The actionswill be achieved by the end of 1996.

ACTION N-3.5Additional Low-cost Nitrogen ReductionNYSDEC and NJDEP will seek commitments fromSTPs discharging to the Harbor/Bight to implementadditional low-cost nitrogen reductions, such asprocess modifications and BNR retrofits, assupported by HEM.



OBJECTIVE N-4 Develop and implementadditional actionsnecessary to eliminateadverse effects ofeutrophication, includinghypoxia, on marine life inthe Harbor, Bight, and LongIsland Sound

Upon completion of HEM, nitrogen reductionfeasibility studies, and associated monitoring andresearch, NYSDEC, NJDEP, and dischargers asappropriate, in consultation with HEP, will definethe nitrogen reductions to be implemented andprepare a plan to implement them, as appropriate. The states and dischargers, in consultation withHEP, will also define any further research,monitoring, modeling, or studies needed to helpattain HEP's goals related to nutrients and organicenrichment.

ACTION N-3.6Pilot Projects for Nitrogen ReductionIn parallel with a program to reduce nitrogenloadings, as supported by HEM, HEP will developand seek funding for a program of pilot studies todemonstrate innovative nitrogen reductiontechniques in the Harbor, including wetlandsrestoration. (Note: This action will proceed inparallel with development of SWEM (see Action N-4.1 below) if HEM results do not support the needfor low-cost nitrogen reduction actions).

-- The section of the CCMP on Habitat and LivingResources includes several actions for ongoingor planned habitat restoration efforts (e.g., seeActions H-12.3, H-12.4, and H-12.5). Thesemay provide an opportunity to develop pilotprojects for nitrogen reduction. HEP will work toensure such opportunities are explored andimplemented.

ACTION N-4.1System-wide Eutrophication Model Develop a comprehensive system-wideeutrophication model to identify actions necessaryto eliminate the adverse impacts of hypoxia andother eutrophic effects.

-- NYCDEP has initiated the development of SWEM in parallel with the Harbor-wide EutrophicationModel and with HEP oversight. New York City isdeveloping SWEM to evaluate its options as partof facility planning for the Newtown Creek STP. However, New York City's effort willsubstantially, though not completely, meet HEP'sneed for a tool to identify the actions necessaryto eliminate the adverse effects of hypoxia andother eutrophic effects, system-wide.

-- HEP is working to ensure that SWEM fully meetsHEP's needs. An initial evaluation by HEP'sModeling Evaluation Group (MEG) indicates theneed to address model kinetics (e.g.,zooplankton), and to ensure adequate datacollection to support model calibration (e.g., fortributary loads, atmospheric inputs, and algalspecies enumerations). In particular, MEGidentified a shortfall in data on ambient levelsand loadings of nitrogen, and related parameters,in the New Jersey areas of the Harbor/Bight.

• New York City is addressing these concernswith the exception of data collection for theNew Jersey areas of the Harbor/Bight.

• The New Jersey Harbor Dischargers Group(NJHDG), composed of the 11 New Jerseymunicipal sewerage authorities in the Harborcore area, is collecting the data in the NewJersey areas of the Harbor/Bight.

-- If NYCDEP decides not to complete SWEM, HEPwill evaluate options to achieve its goals,including completing SWEM. This will includeidentifying suitable sponsors, such as USACE,and/or funding.

--HEP recommends that USACE seek authorization and funding to conduct modeling and monitoringto address nutrients and organic enrichment inthe Harbor/Bight, not tied to dredged materialmanagement.

--SWEM is HEP's primary vehicle to understand therelationships among nitrogen loadings, algalbiomass, and dissolved oxygen in the Harbor,Bight, and Sound. However, HEP recognizes thatSWEM will be insufficient to fully evaluate thesteps necessary to meet HEP's goal to eliminatethe adverse impacts of eutrophication resultingfrom human activities. For example, SWEM will



OBJECTIVE N-5 Conduct additional studiesto understand the causes ofhypoxia, algal blooms, andother eutrophic effects

not be suitable to predict the incidence andseverity of novel algal blooms. HEP is thereforecommitted to developing and seeking funding fora program of research, in parallel with SWEM, tobetter understand and manage all the adverseimpacts of eutrophication (see Objective N-5).

ACTION N-4.2Further Nitrogen Reduction ActionsNYSDEC and NJDEP will require dischargers toimplement nitrogen reductions to eliminate theadverse effects of hypoxia in the Harbor, Bight, andSound, if there is adequate technical justification.

-- Upon completion of SWEM, and associatedmonitoring, research, and studies, NYSDEC andNJDEP, in consultation with HEP, NYCDEP,NJHDG, and other dischargers as appropriate,will define the additional nitrogen reductions tobe required and prepare a plan to implementthem, as appropriate. The states, in consultationwith HEP and the dischargers, will also defineany further research, monitoring, modeling, orstudies needed to fully attain HEP's goal toeliminate the adverse impacts of eutrophicationcaused by human activities in the Harbor, Bight,and Sound.

Control Rainfall-Induced Discharges ofOrganic MaterialThe section on Rainfall-Induced Discharges belowincludes actions to control CSO and storm waterdischarges. This includes remediating noxiouswater quality conditions in inner Harbor areas andtributaries.

Develop and Conduct Additional StudiesHEP will work to understand and minimize theadverse effects of algal blooms and to betterunderstand the causes and impacts of hypoxia. Actions to address nutrient-induced hypoxia areexpected to reduce the adverse effects of algalblooms in general by reducing the nutrients limitingphytoplankton growth. The effect of these actionson the occurrence and severity of novel blooms isunknown. HEP is therefore conducting studies and

will develop a research program to betterunderstand the causes of algal blooms and theirrelationship to water quality factors, includinghypoxia.

ACTION N-5.1Evaluation of Past Changes in Water QualityHEP has computerized historical water quality datafrom NYCDEP's New York Harbor Water QualitySurvey. NYCDEP will use these data to evaluatechanges in water quality as a result of pastmanagement actions.

ACTION N-5.2Historical Occurrences of Novel Algal ConditionsUsing historical data, HEP is documenting the pastoccurrences of novel algal conditions and theirrelationship to water quality conditions.

ACTION N-5.3"Normal" Phytoplankton Community CompositionHEP will, given sufficient funding, conduct a studyto describe "normal" phytoplankton communitycomposition for the Harbor/Bight area anddocument deviations from it.

ACTION N-5.4Research on the Causes of Low Dissolved OxygenHEP will develop, and seek funding for, a programof basic research on the causes of low DO tocomplement SWEM. The program will build uponthe ongoing HEP studies, described above.

ACTION N-5.5Research on Causes and Dynamics of Algal BloomsHEP will develop, and seek funding for, a programof basic research on the causes and dynamics ofalgal blooms. The program will build upon theongoing HEP studies, described above.




Many of the commitments and recommendations inthe nutrients and organic enrichment component ofthe CCMP can be accomplished through theeffective use of base program resources. In fact,full implementation of the CCMP relies, in largepart, on continued operation, and funding atcurrent levels, of existing programs to addressnutrients and organic enrichment. The CCMPitemizes 10 new HEP-driven commitments tocontrol nutrients and organic enrichment operatingthrough base programs. These actions represent amajor commitment to CCMP implementation.

The nutrients and organic enrichment componentof the CCMP also includes 10 significantcommitments and recommendations that entailenhanced program funding. As shown in Table25(nc) below:

� The Plan includes 4 actions for which a total of$9.975 million has been committed by theresponsible entities.

� The Plan includes 2 actions for which increasedfunding of $325,000 is recommended.

� The Plan includes 4 additional recommendationsfor action for which cost estimates will bedeveloped during the continuing planningprocess.

This component of the CCMP also includes 7actions that require or may require the expenditureof project implementation funds by responsibleentities. As shown in Table 26(nc) below:

� The Plan includes 4 actions for which $132.5million is being committed by New York City.

� The Plan includes 3 actions for which additionalfunds may be expended or be required to beexpended by responsible entities, based onpotential outcomes of several ongoing or plannedHEP efforts. The costs of these actions toaddress nutrients and organic enrichment may begreat. Cost estimates for these actions will bedeveloped during the continuing planningprocess.



Tab

le 2

5(n

c).

En

han

ced

Pro

gra

m C

ost

s fo

r M

anag

emen

t o

f N

utr

ien

ts a

nd

Org

anic

En

rich

men

t

AC

TIO

NC

OM

MIT

ME

NT

SR

EC

OM

ME

ND

AT

ION

S

Co

stC

ost

/Yea

rC

ost

Co

st/Y

ear

AC

TIO

N N

-3.1

:C

ompl

ete

HE

M.

$1.4

mill

ion

AC

TIO

N N

-3.2

:C

ondu

ct n

itrog

en r

educ

tion

feas

ibili

tyst

udie

s.$2

75,0

00+

*

AC

TIO

N N

-4.1

:D

evel

op S

WE

M.

$8.4

4 m

illio

n*

AC

TIO

N N

-4.1

:C

ondu

ct m

odel

ing

(US

AC

E)

as n

eces

sary

to s

uppl

emen

t SW

EM

.*

AC

TIO

N N

-5.1

:C

ompu

teriz

e N

YC

dat

a; u

se to

eva

luat

ech

ange

s in

wat

er q

ualit

y as

a r

esul

t of p

ast m

anag

emen

tac

tions

.

$88,

000

AC

TIO

N N

-5.2

:D

ocum

ent a

lgal

blo

oms.

$47,

000

AC

TIO

N N

-5.3

:D

escr

ibe

"nor

mal

" ph

ytop

lank

ton

com

mun

ity.

$50,

000

AC

TIO

N N

-5.4

:C

ondu

ct r

esea

rch

on lo

w D

O.

*

AC

TIO

N N

-5.5

:C

ondu

ct r

esea

rch

on p

hyto

plan

kton

bloo

ms.

*

TO

TA

L$9

,975

,000

1

$325

,000

+*

*E

nhan

ced

prog

ram

cos

ts to

be

deve

lope

d as

par

t of t

he c

ontin

uing

pla

nnin

g pr

oces

s.1

Not

atio

n (+

*) in

dica

tes

cost

plu

s ad

ditio

nal c

osts

to b

e de

term

ined

.



Tab

le 2

6(n

c).

Pro

ject

Imp

lem

enta

tio

n C

ost

s fo

r M

anag

emen

t o

f N

utr

ien

ts a

nd

Org

anic

En

rich

men

t

AC

TIO

NC

OM

MIT

ME

NT

SR

EC

OM

ME

ND

AT

ION

S

Co

stC

ost

/Yea

rC

ost

Co

st/Y

ear

AC

TIO

N N

-3.2

:C

ondu

ct N

YC

nitr

ogen

red

uctio

nfe

asib

ility

stu

dies

.$5

mill

ion

AC

TIO

N N

-3.2

:C

ondu

ct N

YC

nitr

ogen

red

uctio

n pi

lots

.$1

0 m

illio

n

AC

TIO

N N

-3.3

:Im

plem

ent N

YC

act

ions

und

er L

ISS

.$1

02.5

mill

ion

AC

TIO

N N

-3.4

:Im

plem

ent N

YC

Jam

aica

Bay

nitr

ogen

redu

ctio

n ac

tions

.$1

5 m

illio

n

AC

TIO

N N

-3.5

:Im

plem

ent a

dditi

onal

low

-cos

t nitr

ogen

redu

ctio

n ac

tions

, per

HE

M.

*

AC

TIO

N N

-3.6

:D

evel

op in

nova

tive

nitr

ogen

red

uctio

npi

lot p

roje

cts.

*

AC

TIO

N N

-4.2

:Im

plem

ent n

itrog

en r

educ

tions

per

SW

EM

.*

TO

TA

L$1

32,5

00,0

00*

*P

roje

ct im

plem

enta

tion

cost

s to

be

deve

lope

d as

par

t of t

he c

ontin

uing

pla

nnin

g pr

oces

s.




� Completion of upgrades of municipal dischargesto secondary treatment (Newtown Creek andOwls Head STPs) will result in improvements inDO in the areas near the affected discharges.(Note: Owls Head upgrade was recentlycompleted).

� Implementation of low-cost actions to reducenitrogen loads is expected to result in additionalimprovements in DO, thus reducing the adverseimpacts of hypoxia. Under the LISS plan, NewYork City will achieve approximately 25 percentaggregate annual reductions in nitrogen loadsfrom six STPs with implementation of low-costcontrols. HEP hopes to achieve a similarpercentage reduction with low-cost controls in theHarbor. However, these nitrogen reductions arenot expected to be sufficient to achieve HEP'sgoal to eliminate the adverse impacts of

eutrophication, including hypoxia, resulting fromhuman activities. HEM will enable us to betterpredict the benefits of low-cost nitrogenreductions actions in reducing hypoxia.

� Additional nitrogen reduction actions based onSWEM would be intended to achieve HEP's goalfor hypoxia throughout the Harbor, Bight, andSound. These actions are also expected toreduce other adverse impacts of eutrophication.

� Actions to control rainfall-induced discharges oforganic materials will eliminate violations of waterquality standards due to these discharges.

� HEP's program of additional studies will help usto ensure that actions taken based on SWEM willhave the benefits in reduced hypoxia predictedand will enable us to better address the otheradverse impacts related to nutrient and organicenrichment.



Tab

le 2

7(n

s).

Su

mm

ary—

Man

agem

ent

of

Nu

trie

nts

an

d O

rgan

ic E

nri

chm

ent

AC

TIO

NR

ES

PO

NS

IBL

EE

NT

ITY

1T

AR

GE

T D

AT

EE

ST

IMA

TE

D C

OS

TS

TA

TU

S2

OB

JEC

TIV

E N

-1:

Up

gra

de

mu

nic

ipal

sew

age

trea

tmen

t p

lan

ts t

o a

chie

ve f

ull

seco

nd

ary

trea

tmen

t.

AC

TIO

N N

-1.1

: U

pgra

de N

ewto

wn

Cre

ek fa

cilit

y to

full

seco

ndar

y tr

eatm

ent.

NY

CD

EP

By

Dec

31,

200

7B

ase

prog

ram

, cor

eC

WA

req

uire

men

t3C

/O

AC

TIO

N N

-1.2

: U

pgra

de O

wls

Hea

d fa

cilit

y to

full

seco

ndar

y tr

eatm

ent.

NY

CD

EP

Com

plet

edB

ase

prog

ram

, cor

eC

WA

req

uire

men

t3C

/O

OB

JEC

TIV

E N

-2:

Est

ablis

h e

nvi

ron

men

tal o

bje

ctiv

es f

or

the

Har

bo

r/B

igh

t.

AC

TIO

N N

-2.1

: Dev

elop

spe

cific

num

eric

DO

targ

ets

for

the

Har

bor/

Big

ht.

HE

PD

ec 1

996

Bas

e pr

ogra

mC

/N

AC

TIO

N N

-2.2

: Dev

elop

spe

cific

eco

syst

emob

ject

ives

for

eutr

ophi

catio

n.H

EP

Dec

199

6B

ase

prog

ram

C/N

Not

e:It

is H

EP

’s g

oal t

hat a

ll th

e re

com

men

datio

ns in

the

CC

MP

bec

ome

com

mitm

ents

.

--In

som

e ca

ses

CC

MP

act

ions

are

rec

omm

enda

tions

, not

com

mitm

ents

,be

caus

e re

spon

sibl

e en

titie

s re

quire

res

ourc

es to

impl

emen

t the

act

ion.

H

EP

will

adv

ocat

e m

akin

g th

ese

reso

urce

s av

aila

ble.

--In

oth

er c

ases

, CC

MP

act

ions

are

rec

omm

enda

tions

bec

ause

HE

P h

as n

otob

tain

ed th

e co

mm

itmen

t of r

egul

ated

ent

ities

and

oth

er r

espo

nsib

leen

titie

s to

impl

emen

t the

act

ion.

By

issu

ance

of t

his

final

CC

MP

, HE

Pse

eks

the

com

mitm

ent o

f the

res

pons

ible

ent

ities

and

req

uest

s th

at th

eyst

ep fo

rwar

d to

vol

unta

rily

agre

e to

impl

emen

t the

act

ions

.

1R

espo

nsib

le e

ntiti

es m

ay a

ccom

plis

h th

e ac

tions

dire

ctly

or

via

cont

ract

or

gran

t.2

C/O

-A

n on

goin

g co

mm

itmen

t, no

t driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

C/N

-A

new

com

mitm

ent,

driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

R-

Rec

omm

enda

tion

3T

able

doe

s no

t inc

lude

cos

ts o

f com

plia

nce

with

cor

e el

emen

ts o

f the

Cle

anW

ater

Act

, spe

cific

ally

sec

onda

ry tr

eatm

ent



(Co

nti

nu

ed)

Tab

le 2

7(n

s).

Su

mm

ary—

Man

agem

ent

of

Nu

trie

nts

an

d O

rgan

ic E

nri

chm

ent

AC

TIO

NR

ES

PO

NS

IBL

EE

NT

ITY

1T

AR

GE

T D

AT

EE

ST

IMA

TE

D C

OS

TS

TA

TU

S2

OB

JEC

TIV

E N

-3:

Dev

elo

p a

nd

imp

lem

ent,

as

app

rop

riat

e, lo

w-c

ost

nit

rog

en r

edu

ctio

n a

ctio

ns.

AC

TIO

N N

-3.1

: C

ompl

ete

Har

bor-

wid

eE

utro

phic

atio

n M

odel

.N

YC

DE

P w

ith H

EP

&U

SE

PA

sup

port

for

data

col

lect

ion

Com

plet

edE

nhan

ced

prog

ram

cost

-N

YC

: $1

mill

ion;

HE

P/U

SE

PA

:$4

00,0

00

C/O

AC

TIO

N N

-3.2

: Con

duct

feas

ibili

ty s

tudi

es to

iden

tify

optio

ns a

nd c

osts

for

nitr

ogen

red

uctio

n, a

nd c

olle

ctda

ta to

qua

ntify

nitr

ogen

load

ings

for

ST

Ps

disc

harg

ing

to th

e H

arbo

r co

re a

rea.

--C

ondu

ct fe

asib

ility

stu

dies

for

low

-cos

t nitr

ogen

redu

ctio

n su

ch a

s B

NR

ret

rofit

s an

d pr

oces

sm

odifi

catio

ns.

NY

CD

EP

Com

plet

edB

ase

prog

ram

C/O

--C

ondu

ct a

dditi

onal

feas

ibili

ty s

tudi

es fo

r ot

her

nitr

ogen

red

uctio

n op

tions

.N

YC

DE

PC

ompl

eted

Pro

ject

impl

emen

tatio

n co

st -

$5 m

illio

n

C/O

--C

ondu

ct p

ilot-

scal

e im

plem

enta

tion

of n

itrog

enre

duct

ion

optio

ns.

NY

CD

EP

Com

plet

edP

roje

ctim

plem

enta

tion

cost

-$1

0 m

illio

n

C/O

--C

ondu

ct fe

asib

ility

stu

dies

as

nece

ssar

y ba

sed

onth

e re

sults

of H

EM

.W

CD

EF

Dec

199

6E

nhan

ced

prog

ram

cost

to b

e pr

ovid

edby

WC

DE

F a

sne

cess

ary

R

--C

ondu

ct fe

asib

ility

stu

dies

as

nece

ssar

y ba

sed

onth

e re

sults

of H

EM

.N

ew J

erse

y H

arbo

rD

isch

arge

rs G

roup

(NJH

DG

)

Dec

199

6E

nhan

ced

prog

ram

cost

- $

275,

000

R

1R

espo

nsib

le e

ntiti

es m

ay a

ccom

plis

h th

e ac

tions

dire

ctly

or

via

cont

ract

or

gran

t.2

C/O

-A

n on

goin

g co

mm

itmen

t, no

t driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

C/N

-A

new

com

mitm

ent,

driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

R-

Rec

omm

enda

tion



(Co

nti

nu

ed)

Tab

le 2

7(n

s).

Su

mm

ary—

Man

agem

ent

of

Nu

trie

nts

an

d O

rgan

ic E

nri

chm

ent

AC

TIO

NR

ES

PO

NS

IBL

EE

NT

ITY

1T

AR

GE

T D

AT

EE

ST

IMA

TE

D C

OS

TS

TA

TU

S2

AC

TIO

N N

-3.3

: U

nder

LIS

S C

CM

P, r

educ

eag

greg

ate

annu

al n

itrog

en lo

ad fr

om 6

ST

Ps

in N

YC

by 6

,500

tons

/yea

r (N

ote:

per

mit

limits

free

zing

the

nitr

ogen

load

s fr

om fo

ur o

f the

se S

TP

s at

leve

ls p

rior

to th

e de

-wat

erin

g of

slu

dge

are

curr

ently

in fo

rce)

.

NY

CD

EP

5 ac

tions

com

plet

ed; 1

actio

n by

Dec

31,

200

0;N

ewto

wn

Cre

ek b

yD

ec 3

1, 2

007.

Pro

ject

impl

emen

tatio

n co

st -

$1

02.5

mill

ion

C/O

AC

TIO

N N

-3.4

: P

er r

ecen

t NY

SD

EC

dec

isio

n,re

duce

agg

rega

te a

nnua

l nitr

ogen

load

from

4 S

TP

sdi

scha

rgin

g to

Jam

aica

Bay

by

500

tons

/yea

r (N

ote:

perm

it lim

its fr

eezi

ng th

e ni

trog

en lo

ads

from

thes

eS

TP

s at

leve

ls p

rior

to th

e de

-wat

erin

g of

slu

dge

are

curr

ently

in fo

rce)

.

NY

CD

EP

Dec

199

6P

roje

ctim

plem

enta

tion

cost

-$1

5 m

illio

n

C/O

AC

TIO

N N

-3.5

: Dev

elop

and

impl

emen

t add

ition

allo

w-c

ost n

itrog

en r

educ

tions

suc

h as

pro

cess

mod

ifica

tions

and

bio

logi

cal n

utrie

nt r

emov

al (

BN

R)

retr

ofits

, as

supp

orte

d by

HE

M.

--U

pon

com

plet

ion

of H

EM

, fea

sibi

lity

stud

ies,

and

asso

ciat

ed m

onito

ring

and

rese

arch

, def

ine

and

deve

lop

an im

plem

enta

tion

plan

for

low

-cos

tni

trog

en r

educ

tions

, as

appr

opria

te.

Thi

s w

illin

clud

e de

finin

g an

y ad

ditio

nal r

esea

rch,

mon

itorin

g, m

odel

ing,

and

stu

dies

nec

essa

ry to

help

atta

in H

EP

's g

oals

rel

ated

to n

utrie

nts

and

orga

nic

enric

hmen

t.

NY

SD

EC

, NJD

EP

,N

YC

DE

P, N

JHD

G,

WC

DE

F a

sap

prop

riate

, in

cons

ulta

tion

with

HE

P

Mar

199

7B

ase

prog

ram

C/N

--S

eek

com

mitm

ents

to im

plem

ent r

educ

tions

.N

YS

DE

C &

NJD

EP

Jun

1997

Bas

e pr

ogra

mC

/N

1R

espo

nsib

le e

ntiti

es m

ay a

ccom

plis

h th

e ac

tions

dire

ctly

or

via

cont

ract

or

gran

t.2

C/O

-A

n on

goin

g co

mm

itmen

t, no

t driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

C/N

-A

new

com

mitm

ent,

driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

R-

Rec

omm

enda

tion



(Co

nti

nu

ed)

Tab

le 2

7(n

s).

Su

mm

ary—

Man

agem

ent

of

Nu

trie

nts

an

d O

rgan

ic E

nri

chm

ent

AC

TIO

NR

ES

PO

NS

IBL

EE

NT

ITY

1T

AR

GE

T D

AT

EE

ST

IMA

TE

D C

OS

TS

TA

TU

S2

--Im

plem

ent.

NY

CD

EP

, WC

DE

F,

NJH

DG

as

appr

opria

teB

egin

ning

Jun

1997

Pro

ject

impl

emen

tatio

n co

stto

be

prov

ided

by

disc

harg

ers

base

d on

resu

lts o

f HE

M a

ndfe

asib

ility

stu

dies

R

AC

TIO

N N

-3.6

: Dev

elop

and

see

k fu

ndin

g fo

r a

prog

ram

of p

ilot s

tudi

es to

dem

onst

rate

inno

vativ

eni

trog

en r

educ

tion

tech

niqu

es in

the

Har

bor,

incl

udin

g w

etla

nds

rest

orat

ion.

HE

PD

ec 1

996

Bas

e pr

ogra

mC

/N

--Im

plem

ent p

rogr

am.

HE

P, i

n co

ncer

t with

resp

onsi

ble

agen

cies

Beg

in b

yD

ec 1

996

Pro

ject

impl

emen

tatio

n co

stto

be

deve

lope

dba

sed

on a

bove

wor

kpr

ogra

m

R

1R

espo

nsib

le e

ntiti

es m

ay a

ccom

plis

h th

e ac

tions

dire

ctly

or

via

cont

ract

or

gran

t.2

C/O

-A

n on

goin

g co

mm

itmen

t, no

t driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

C/N

-A

new

com

mitm

ent,

driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

R-

Rec

omm

enda

tion



(Co

nti

nu

ed)

Tab

le 2

7(n

s).

Su

mm

ary—

Man

agem

ent

of

Nu

trie

nts

an

d O

rgan

ic E

nri

chm

ent

AC

TIO

NR

ES

PO

NS

IBL

EE

NT

ITY

1T

AR

GE

T D

AT

EE

ST

IMA

TE

D C

OS

TS

TA

TU

S2

OB

JEC

TIV

E N

-4:

Dev

elo

p a

nd

imp

lem

ent

add

itio

nal

act

ion

s n

eces

sary

to

elim

inat

e ad

vers

e ef

fect

s o

f eu

tro

ph

icat

ion

, in

clu

din

gh

ypo

xia,

on

mar

ine

life

in t

he

Har

bo

r, B

igh

t, a

nd

So

un

d.

AC

TIO

N N

-4.1

: D

evel

op a

com

preh

ensi

ve s

yste

m-

wid

e eu

trop

hica

tion

mod

el (

SW

EM

) to

iden

tify

actio

ns n

eces

sary

to e

limin

ate

adve

rse

effe

cts

ofhy

poxi

a an

d ot

her

eutr

ophi

c ef

fect

s on

mar

ine

life

inth

e H

arbo

r, B

ight

, and

Sou

nd.

--D

evel

op S

WE

M to

mee

t NY

C fa

cilit

y pl

anni

ngne

eds,

and

als

o su

bsta

ntia

lly, t

houg

h no

tco

mpl

etel

y, m

eet H

EP

's n

eeds

.

NY

CD

EP

*D

ec 1

997

Enh

ance

d pr

ogra

mco

st -

$8

mill

ion

C/O

*

--C

olle

ct d

ata

nece

ssar

y fo

r m

odel

cal

ibra

tion

for

NJ

area

s of

the

Har

bor/

Big

ht, t

o en

sure

NY

C's

effo

rt to

dev

elop

SW

EM

fully

mee

ts H

EP

's n

eeds

.

NJH

DG

Ong

oing

$442

,000

C/N

--S

eek

auth

oriz

atio

n an

d fu

ndin

g to

con

duct

mod

elin

g an

d m

onito

ring

to a

ddre

ss n

utrie

nts

and

orga

nic

enric

hmen

t in

the

Har

bor/

Big

ht, n

ot ti

ed to

dred

ged

mat

eria

l man

agem

ent.

US

AC

EO

ngoi

ngB

ase

prog

ram

C/N

--S

uppl

emen

t NY

C m

odel

ing

effo

rt a

s ne

cess

ary.

US

AC

E u

nder

the

ausp

ices

of H

EP

Tar

get d

ate

to b

ede

velo

ped

asne

cess

ary

Enh

ance

d pr

ogra

mco

st e

stim

ate

to b

ede

term

ined

bas

ed o

nne

ed to

sup

plem

ent

NY

C m

odel

ing

effo

rt

R

1R

espo

nsib

le e

ntiti

es m

ay a

ccom

plis

h th

e ac

tions

dire

ctly

or

via

cont

ract

or

gran

t.2

C/O

-A

n on

goin

g co

mm

itmen

t, no

t driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

C/N

-A

new

com

mitm

ent,

driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

R-

Rec

omm

enda

tion

*N

OT

E: N

YC

DE

P h

as in

itiat

ed d

evel

opm

ent o

f SW

EM

in p

aral

lel w

ithH

EM

, und

er th

e au

spic

es o

f HE

P.

If N

YC

DE

P c

hoos

es n

ot to

com

plet

eS

WE

M, H

EP

will

eva

luat

e op

tions

to m

eet i

ts g

oals

incl

udin

g co

mpl

etio

nof

SW

EM

.



(Co

nti

nu

ed)

Tab

le 2

7(n

s).

Su

mm

ary—

Man

agem

ent

of

Nu

trie

nts

an

d O

rgan

ic E

nri

chm

ent

AC

TIO

NR

ES

PO

NS

IBL

EE

NT

ITY

1T

AR

GE

T D

AT

EE

ST

IMA

TE

D C

OS

TS

TA

TU

S2

AC

TIO

N N

-4.2

: R

equi

re d

isch

arge

rs to

impl

emen

tad

ditio

nal n

itrog

en r

educ

tions

to e

limin

ate

the

adve

rse

effe

cts

of h

ypox

ia in

the

Har

bor,

Big

ht, a

ndS

ound

if th

ere

is a

dequ

ate

tech

nica

l jus

tific

atio

n.

--U

pon

com

plet

ion

of S

WE

M a

nd a

ssoc

iate

dm

onito

ring,

res

earc

h, a

nd s

tudi

es, d

efin

e an

dde

velo

p an

impl

emen

tatio

n pl

an fo

r ad

ditio

nal

nitr

ogen

red

uctio

ns to

be

requ

ired,

as

appr

opria

te.

Thi

s w

ill in

clud

e de

finin

g an

y ad

ditio

nal r

esea

rch,

mon

itorin

g, m

odel

ing,

or

stud

ies

nece

ssar

y to

fully

atta

in H

EP

's g

oal t

o el

imin

ate

the

adve

rse

impa

cts

of e

utro

phic

atio

n ca

used

by

hum

an a

ctiv

ities

inth

e H

arbo

r, B

ight

, and

Sou

nd.*

NY

SD

EC

& N

JDE

P, i

nco

nsul

tatio

n w

ith H

EP

and

disc

harg

ers

asap

prop

riate

By

Dec

31,

199

8B

ase

prog

ram

C/N

--M

odify

per

mits

as

nece

ssar

y.N

YS

DE

C &

NJD

EP

By

Dec

31,

200

0B

ase

prog

ram

C/N

--C

ompl

y.N

YC

DE

P, W

CD

EF

,N

JHD

G a

nd o

ther

disc

harg

ers,

as

appr

opria

te

Beg

in b

yD

ec 3

1, 2

000

Pro

ject

impl

emen

tatio

nco

st to

be

deve

lope

d by

disc

harg

ers

base

don

SW

EM

res

ults

and

feas

ibili

tyst

udie

s

R

1R

espo

nsib

le e

ntiti

es m

ay a

ccom

plis

h th

e ac

tions

dire

ctly

or

via

cont

ract

or

gran

t.2

C/O

-A

n on

goin

g co

mm

itmen

t, no

t driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

C/N

-A

new

com

mitm

ent,

driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

R-

Rec

omm

enda

tion

*N

OT

E: N

YC

DE

P h

as in

itiat

ed d

evel

opm

ent o

f SW

EM

in p

aral

lel w

ithH

EM

, und

er th

e au

spic

es o

f HE

P.

If N

YC

DE

P c

hoos

es n

ot to

com

plet

eS

WE

M, H

EP

will

eva

luat

e op

tions

to m

eet i

ts g

oals

incl

udin

g co

mpl

etio

nof

SW

EM

.



(Co

nti

nu

ed)

Tab

le 2

7(n

s).

Su

mm

ary—

Man

agem

ent

of

Nu

trie

nts

an

d O

rgan

ic E

nri

chm

ent

AC

TIO

NR

ES

PO

NS

IBL

EE

NT

ITY

1T

AR

GE

T D

AT

EE

ST

IMA

TE

D C

OS

TS

TA

TU

S2

OB

JEC

TIV

E N

-5:

Co

nd

uct

ad

dit

ion

al s

tud

ies

to u

nd

erst

and

th

e ca

use

s o

f h

ypo

xia,

alg

al b

loo

ms,

an

d o

ther

eu

tro

ph

icat

ion

eff

ects

.

AC

TIO

N N

-5.1

: C

ompu

teriz

e hi

stor

ical

dat

a fr

om N

YH

arbo

r W

ater

Qua

lity

surv

ey.

HE

PC

ompl

eted

Enh

ance

d pr

ogra

mco

st -

$28

,000

C/N

--U

se th

e da

ta to

eva

luat

e ch

ange

s in

wat

er q

ualit

yas

a r

esul

t of p

ast m

anag

emen

t act

iviti

es.

NY

CD

EP

May

199

6E

nhan

ced

prog

ram

cost

- $

60,0

00C

/N

AC

TIO

N N

-5.2

: D

ocum

ent p

ast o

ccur

renc

es o

f nov

elal

gal c

ondi

tions

.H

EP

Feb

199

6E

nhan

ced

prog

ram

cost

- $

47,0

00C

/N

AC

TIO

N N

-5.3

: D

escr

ibe

"nor

mal

" ph

ytop

lank

ton

com

mun

ity c

ompo

sitio

n an

d do

cum

ent d

evia

tions

from

it.

HE

PB

egin

by

Dec

31,

199

6$5

0,00

0R

AC

TIO

N N

-5.4

: C

ondu

ct a

pro

gram

of b

asic

rese

arch

on

the

caus

es o

f low

DO

to c

ompl

emen

tS

WE

M.

HE

PD

ec 1

996

Enh

ance

d pr

ogra

mco

st to

be

deve

lope

dby

HE

P th

roug

h w

ork

prog

ram

(be

low

)

R

--D

evel

op p

rogr

am a

nd s

eek

fund

ing.

HE

PJu

l 199

6B

ase

prog

ram

C/N

AC

TIO

N N

-5.5

: C

ondu

ct p

rogr

am o

f bas

ic r

esea

rch

to b

ette

r un

ders

tand

cau

ses

and

dyna

mic

s of

phyt

opla

nkto

n bl

oom

s.

HE

PD

ec 1

996

Enh

ance

d pr

ogra

mco

st to

be

deve

lope

d by

HE

Pth

roug

h w

ork

prog

ram

(be

low

)

R

--D

evel

op p

rogr

am a

nd s

eek

fund

ing.

HE

PJu

l 199

6B

ase

prog

ram

C/N

1R

espo

nsib

le e

ntiti

es m

ay a

ccom

plis

h th

e ac

tions

dire

ctly

or

via

cont

ract

or

gran

t.2

C/O

-A

n on

goin

g co

mm

itmen

t, no

t driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

C/N

-A

new

com

mitm

ent,

driv

en b

y th

e H

EP

CC

MP

R-

Rec

omm

enda

tion

�� !!"

� �� ##$

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�� !��

�� "��"��

��

��

��"��"��

��

�� #�$ %�� #��

&��

��#�' %�� #�� (��

� ��

�)�$ %��

��

�&��$ *�� )��+��

��

�&��' ,��

�� -� �+��.��!�� +� ��

�&��/ *��0�� .��&�� % ��

��

�&��1 ��

��

� ��

��

��

��

�� !"��

��

#��$��%�&��'��(��

)�� &'() "��

��

��

��*��'��

��

��

��+'�

��%��

��

+�� ,��

��,-��

��

��

��

��-��

��

��

��

�� !!"

##& � ��

��

�� !" ��"��#

�� !��!��

��$%�

��.��/01�� !��

��-��231��

&��4�5��6�77� ��4�5��

(��-�#��6��728� ��&��

9�� 71��"��

�� !��5

��

� !��

�� -��.��-

��

��.��-��

��-��

��

��!��&��

: )'$�� &�� !��

'��

�� !

��;

� '��

�� !��

� +�.��

��

� <��

�� !��=��

��-��=��

��"�

� +�.��=��

��

� '�� !��

��

� �� !

��

� '��

��

� '��

��*�� !

��

� ) ��=�� !

�� !��

>��-��'��

�� !��

��*��

�� !-��

��

�� !��

��

��

��;��?"� ��&��4�5��?@88

��'��(��)��

� '() "��?@@7�&4 ()��&4�()'

� !�$��!��6��7"� ��

4�5�� (��-�#��

?@@2� '() ��?@8@�&4 ()��

��!��6��0"� ��&��9��

�� &��

9��'��(��)��

�&9'() "�� !�A��'��-��.��

&9'() ��

�� !-��.��

��

��

��

$��>!&�� !�?�?

+�� %��

��

�)'�� !��

��

��

�)'��

&��4�5��-�4�5��-��&��9��

��%�� !��

��-��

�� &�� !��

'��

��*��

!��

�� ;

�� !!"

� �� ##'

��' ��!((��!�

��$��"��

)!��* !��%�"�!�(!�("

!�(��"��#�$�!�

"�"

��2��3��

�� >�� -��

�.�� -� �� %

� !��

��!��%��

5��

2� 3��,��

�� >��*�� '() ��

��

��=�� !��

��4��

�� +�� &9'() ��

��'!�#� �� !-��

��-��*��

��

�� >��*��.��

��=��

��-��.��=��

'!�#� ��-��

��

��"-��&9'() ��

��'!�#� �� !�

$��

�� !��-

�)'��

��

> ��

��B��

��

$��>!&�� !�?�7

%��

�� -

&4 ()��&9()'��*��

��)'

��-��

��

��

�� &9()'��&��9��.��

��

��=��

��-��.��

�.��

&�� &��

��&�� !�$��'��

�� !

��'��.��

� ��

��-��-��

��5�� )'��+'� �

��

+�� .��)'%

��;

�� >��

��-��

��-��

��

��!��8"�

�� :��*��

��

�� 5��-��

��$��?�7��!��

3"�

�� )'��-�� -��

��

�.�� )'%��

�� !��

��$��?7�?0"�

�� &�� !

'�� !��

��-��

��

*��-�� -��

��

&�� !��'��

��5��

�� !�

�� !!"

##" � ��

�)'��

�� !��&��4�5�&��

9��

�� !��

��!��.��

��-��&9()'%��*��-�&4�()'��

�� !��&��

9��$�-��

��&��4�5��&��9��

��-�> ��

�� !��

$��>!&�� !�7�?

��2��3��5� ��#�+�� &��

��&4 ()��&4�()'�� !�$��

!��&��4�5��5

�� !��5�?��

�� 5��

��

711C-�� D?�7��5�?��

�� .��

�� !��5�7��

�� -��-��.��

�� 5�7��

��?@@/6��5��

��711C�� 5�7��

��

��-� ��

+��'��"��.��D0��

��-� ��"�

$��>!&�� !�7�7

��4��5� ��#�+�� &��

�)'��

��&��9��

��-�� '��

��-��

�� !��

�� *��-��

�� -��

�� !��

�� >��

�� !��-�: )'$

��&9()'��

��5��

��

� ��

�� !��

�� (��0?-�?@@3-�: )'$��&9()'��

�� '

��

�� !��

�� &9()'�� -��-��

��

��

>�� !��-��)'

��&��9�� !��

�� &��9��

#��

$��>!&�� !�7�0

��#�� &�� +��

��

��

�� )'��*��

��.��

��:��

&��4�5��*��

��*��-��)'��

��

��

�&��;�$��'�/�0��"

��

��

��

��

��$��

��-��

��E��.��-��&��4�5��-

��.��01��

��5��

��

��

��

��-��.��-��

��

��

��

�� !!"

� �� ##(

��+�� !" ��"��

$�� $��!��!�(

��( "��!��"��)!��

(�"$�!�,�"

��!��&��

: )'$��?@@1��

��*��

��

��

��*��

��

��-��

��>��-��

��*��5��

��-��5��-��

��

��?@@1��*��

��

�� ?11-111��

��&��4�5��

��>��$��?@@C-�: )'$��

��

��*��

��

?@@1��: )'$��

��

$��711?�� : )'$��

��

��5��

��*��

��

��?@@/�

��

$��>!&� #�?�?

��2��3��)��&��

&4 ()��&��4�5��%��

��>��$��?@@3-

�� .

��%� '() ��

��*�� %��

��*��

��.��-� ��-��

$��>!&� #�?�7

�4,6&�� )��&��7�8

&9()'��

��

��>��-�&9()'��

��23��

��

*��.�� 5��

�� "�� -

&9()'��

��

�� -

��-��-��

��-��

��-��.��

$��>!&� #�?�0

% ��9 ��&��&��

&��

��

��-

��&4 ()��&9()'��

��;�?"��

��-��7"��

��

�� )'��&��4�5��

��

��

��*��

��

�� &��4�5��&��9��

�� -

�� *��

��

��

$��>!&� #�?�2

()F)�)(

�� !!"

##) � ��

�� -�$ "��!��+!��$�

��"� �$�

��,�!�"��.!��/

��,��)!��"��("

$��>!&� #�?�C

��)��&��:�� % ��

�� 6�� +��

&9()'��&4 ()��5��

��-��-��

��

��>�� ) ��

$��> �)$"��

��

��

&��

�� $��

��-��5��

��&��

�� -��.��

��-��-��

��-��

��

��!��&��

��

��

��-��

�� +'-��)'��5��*��

��

�� -��

��E��.��-��

��

�� ;

� ��)��+�� #)+"� �

��$��&�2�?"6�

��

� ��$��?0�0"��

��.��+��$��?0�7"� �

��.��

��.��

�� -��)'��

��E��.��-

��

��-��

��-��

��

��

��

�.��

�� *��-

�)'��

��)'��

��

��

��

��0?@� ��#��$��*��

��

��

��: )'$

��0?@��"��

��

��&��4�5��&��

9��: )'$��

��

$��>!&�&' �?�?

��4��*�� )��

$�� &��9��-

: )'$��&9()'��

��-

��#��<��-��

��

$��>!&�&' �?�7

��4�� 3�.��&��:��

&9()'��&��5�<��

��+��?@@3�

��

��+'"��

��

�.�� +'��

��

�� -��-��

��

��+�� F��

<��

��

!��7"�

�� !!"

� �� ##!

�� ' 0�&��!�(��

$�!"�!��"� �$�

�!�!,��,�!�"

�(��!"�!��1��$�

��! ��2!��

��(��"

�� 3 -�$ "��!�

��"� �$�"��!��"��

.!��/��,��)!��"��("

��37?/� ��G��$��

<��=��$��G$<$"� �?@@1

��*��=��

��

��

&!$$��,��#��

��,-��

��-�� : )'$%

9��?@@0��

��

�� *��

�.�� -

�� -�� -��

��-��E��

��-��*��

��

��

��9��

?@@C6��: )'$��&!$$��

��

��.��<��

��5��

>��

?@@@��$��

��

��=��

��

$��>!&�&' �7�1

�� &��

�� : )'$��&!$$��5��

�&��4�5��&��9��

��%��

��

�� &��4�5��&��9��

��9��?@@C�

�� &4(! ��&4 ()��

��

��

�� &9()'��

��

�&��;��&4 ()�-�&4 (! -��&9()'��5

��

��"�

��:� ��(�� $��: ($"��

��:��<��'��

�:<'"��-��

��: ($%�&��<��

��E�� -��:� ��&��'��5

��E��#�� :� �

(�� >��-�: )'$-��

��).��-��5��

��

��

��*�� &��

4�5��

��: ($��DC11-111� �

��&��4�5��

$��>!&�&' �0�1

0.&�*� ��

$�� &��4�5��:<'��

��

��

��

��

�� !!"

#$* � ��

�� 4 �� !�(��!�$�

�( $!��,�!�"�#��

$��#��

"� �$��

$��>!&�&' �2�1

# �� 6�� &��

&4 ()��&9()'��

��

��

��

�� %��

� ��

��

�)'-��.��-��

��

�� !-��

��-�� : )'$-

&4 ()�-��&9()'��

��

��-��*��

�� -��

��

��

+��

��

��+'��

�� >�� -� ��

�� +'��-��-

��-��

��-� ��.��

��

�� +'��=��8

��)'��

��6��

��+'��

��

��+'��C��

��

��$��78��"��;

� ��'��7��

D?38-111��

��

� ��'��0��

��

��

��

�� +'��8��

��*��*��.��

��

��$��7@��"��;

� ��'��0��

D?�C��D?11-111��

��&��4�5��

� ��'��?��

&��9�� D?�0

��

� ��'��C��

��*��.��

��

�� )'

� ��

��

��

��

��

�� !!"

� �� #$

��+�,�#)-��./��,0��12��3��1454�61��6��07�,0��4��2,4

��

��

��

�145

�1458�,��

�145

�1458�,��

$��>!&�� !�7�7;

(��&9�� !

��

H?

$��>!&�� !�7�0;

(��

��

��

D0C-111

$��>!&� #�?�2;()F)�)(

��

$��>!&�&' �?�7;

��&��5�<��

��

��

D?00-111

$��>!&�&' �2�1;

��

��

��

H

�!�$F

D?38-111

H

H)��

?&��;�&9()'�� &9�� !�� 7@��"�

�� !!"

#$# � ��

��+�,�#!-��./��19,�5��3:�,3,�5�5�1��1454�61��6��07�,0��4��2,4

��

��

��

�145

�1458�,��

�145

�1458�,��

$��>!&�� !�?�7;

��*��

��

�� !��

��

H?

H?

$��>!&�� !�7�?;

>��&4�

� !

��

��D?�C��

$��>!&�� !�7�7;

>�� !

��&9�

D?�0��

$��>!&� #�?�?;��

��&4�"�

D?11-111

$��>!&� #�?�7;��&9��

��-��*��

H

$��>!&� #�?�2;()F)�)(��

��

$��>!&�&' �7�1;

>��&'

��

H

�!�$F

7

D?�C��IH

D?11-111

7

D?�0��IH

H'��

?&��;�<�� *��&4�()'��

�� !�� $�� !�7�?��"-��&9()'�� &9�� !

�� $�� !�7�7��"��

7&��IH"��

�� !!"

� �� #$$

��

�)'%�� !��5�

��

��>��

�� &�� !��

'��

��

��>��

�� !��&��4�5��&��

9��)'%��

��

��

>�� )'%��

��=��

�� -

��)'%��

��

�� 6��

��

��

�)'%��

�.��

��'��

��

$��

��=��

��+'��-

��-��.��-��

��-��

�� !!"

#$& � ��

��+�,�$*-�4./��733��;<��6��07�,0��4��2,4=��13+��,0��,>,��?,�6�1>� +�5,3,�5

��

��

��

� ��

��

�� #

��5��

��

�!" ��"��#�� !��!��$%6

$��>!&�� !�?�?;��'��&4�-

4�5��-��&9��B�� !��

��

��<��

��*��

�)'

��

��

��&

$��>!&�� !�?�7;��<�*��-��

�� -��

��-��

��

��

��+��

&4 ()�

$��?@@3

��

��&

��E��=��

&9()'

��

��

��!

��+�� &9'() ��

��'!�#� �� !�

&9()'

(�� ;

��

E��;

9��01-�?@@3

��

��&

&��;

>��)'B��+'��

��>��+'��-��-

��*��

�)'��5��

��>��-��+'��)'��

��

�� +'-��)'��5

�� *��

��

?<��

��

7��!

�$��-��)'��+'

��&

�$��-��)'��+'

<�<��

�� !!"

� �� #$'

7�� (8

��+�,�$*-�4./��733��;<��6��07�,0��4��2,4=��13+��,0��,>,��?,�6�1>� +�5,3,�5

��

��

��

� ��

��

�� #

��

&4�()'-�#�()E-�&9

��

��

9��?-�?@@/

'��

��

��

$�� !�7�?��

� !�7�7H

<

��'5��!((��!��$��"��

��)!��* !��%�"�!�(!�("�!�(��"��#�$�!�� "�"6

$��>!&�� !�7�?;��>��&4�� !

��

��5�?

&4�()'

��(��0?-�711C

'��

��D?�7��

��!

��5�7

&4�()'

��

��(��0?-�711C

'��

��D0��

��

��!

$��>!&�� !�7�7;��

�� !��

�� *��-��

�� -��

�� !�

�� 5��

��

� ��

�� !��

: )'$�J�&9()'-��

&9��

��

��

��

�'��

��

!��-��

(��?@@3

��

��&

?<��

��

7��!

�$��-��)'��+'

��&

�$��-��)'��+'

<�<��

�� !!"

#$" � ��

7�� (8

��+�,�$*-�4./��733��;<��6��07�,0��4��2,4=��13+��,0��,>,��?,�6�1>� +�5,3,�5

��

��

��

� ��

��

�� #

��!�� '

��

�� !��

: )'$�J�&9()'

(��?@@3

��

��&

��E��-��-��

��

��

&9()'

$��

��

(��0?-�?@@/

��

��&

��(��

&9��

��

��

��

�'��

��

(��

��

: )'$�J�&9()'

��

��

)��

��

��

��

<

��>��

'��

��D?�0��H

<

$��>!&�� !�7�0;��:��&4��*��

��

��

�� &��;�$��'�/�0��

��"

�)'

(�� ;

��

E��;

+��?@@3

)��

��D0C-111�

��&

?<��

��

7��!

�$��-��)'��+'

��&

�$��-��)'��+'

<�<��

H&��;�&9()'�� !

�� $�� !�7�7�

�� !!"

� �� #$(

7�� (8

��+�,�$*-�4./��733��;<��6��07�,0��4��2,4=��13+��,0��,>,��?,�6�1>� +�5,3,�5

��

��

��

� ��

��

�� #

��+��5��!" ��"��$�� $��!��!�(��( "��!��"��

�)!��(�"$�!�,�"6

$��>!&� #�?�?;��>�� .�

&4�%� '() ��

��*�� %��

��

&4 ()�

$��?@@3

��

��!

��

&4�()'

��

$��?@@3

'��

��D?11-111��

��!

$��>!&� #�?�7;�>��

��

��

��>��-��

��23��

��

*��

&9()'-��5��

��

!��

��

��&

��>��

&9()'

?@@3��7111

��

��&

��&9��

��-��*��

&9��

?@@3��7111-

��

��

��*��

'��

��

��&9��

��

��*��

<

$��>!&� #�?�0;��>��

��

&4 ()��J�&9()'

!��

��

��!

��$��*��

��

��

&4�

(��?@@C

��

<

?<��

��

7��!

�$��-��)'��+'

��&

�$��-��)'��+'

<�<��

�� !!"

#$) � ��

7�� (8

��+�,�$*-�4./��733��;<��6��07�,0��4��2,4=��13+��,0��,>,��?,�6�1>� +�5,3,�5

��

��

��

� ��

��

�� #

$��>!&� #�?�2;��()F)�)(��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�

$��>!&� #�?�C;��(��

�� >��

�� ) ��$��> �)$"�

&4 ()��J�&9()'-

��5��

��

��

��

(��0?-�?@@3

��

��!

�� 5��-�$ "��!��+

!��$��"� �$��,�!�"��.!��/��,��)!��"��("6

$��>!&�&' �?�?;��>��&' ��

�� #

��<��

&9()'

E��

(��0?-�?@@C��

(��0?-�?@@8

��

��!

$��>!&�&' �?�7;��&��5�<��

��

&9()'

+��?@@3

)��

��D?00-111

��&

?<��

7��!

�$��-��)'��+'

�� !!"

� �� #$!

7�� (8

��+�,�$*-�4./��733��;<��6��07�,0��4��2,4=��13+��,0��,>,��?,�6�1>� +�5,3,�5

��

��

��

� ��

��

�� #

�� '5��0�&��!�(��$�!"�!��"� �$��

!�!,��,�!�"� �(��!"�!��1��$��! ��2!��

��(��"6

$��>!&�&' �7�1;��(��

��

��(��5��

��

&4(! �J�&4 ()�

��: )'$�J�&!$$

��-�&9()'

��: )'$�J�&!$$

��

!��

��

��!

��$��

: )'$�J�&!$$

9��?@@3

��

��!

��>��

&4(! -�&4 ()�-

&9()'

E��

��

(��0?-�711C

'��

��

��

��

��

��!

�� 35��-�$ "��!��"� �$�"��!��"��.!��/��,��)!��"��("6

$��>!&�&' �0�1;��:�� :<'� ��

��

&4��&' ��

:��<��

'��:<'"

!��

��

:<'

<

�� 45�� !�(��!�$��( $!��,�!�"�#��$��#��"� �$�� 6

$��>!&�&' �2�1;��

��

&4 ()��J�&9()'

!��

��

��

��

��&4 ()��J�&9()'

��!

?<��

7��!

�$��-��)'��+'

��&

�$��-��)'��+'

<�<��

�� !!"

#&* � ��

�� !!"

��#��#�� $%

��

��

��

��

!��

��"�#��$$%&�

�� ' &��

��&�

��( �� )��)��

�� *��

��

��+ &��

��$$%&��

��, -��

�� )��)��

��

��. &��

� ��

��

��/ ��

��0 1��

��

��#��#��

��#��#��

�� &

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

!��

��

��"#��

��

�� $��"#��

��

�� %

��

%$��

�� "#��

��&��

�� !!"

$%$ ��#��#��

!��

� ��

� �� !��

��

��

� �� &��

��

��"#��'��

��(��

��

�� #��

��

��!��

��

��

��

$��

� ��

��

��)��

��

��

�� &

�� &��

� ��

%*+*��$��

�� "#��

�� ,,-�

��

�� &��

,,-��

!�,�� !��,��.,!,/��

��

� ��

%/��

��0�1/�� &��

��)��0�� 2/��

� ��

3 �� ,,-��

� �� 4��

�� !�"� �!��!��#��

��$��!�� !��

�#� ��%�� !��!"��!��!��%

"��! �!��"�!��&

�� &

��'�!��%�� (��)

3 ��

��,!,��

��-� �� ,� ��

� �� $��,!,��

��

�� 15��

%1��-��

��

��4

� ��

� ��0

� �� &��

�� 0

� �� 0

� �� 0��

� ��

$��&��

�� ,� ��

-� �� ,��

$��,!,��

��#�&6��

�� &��

�� "7��

8��9��#��$��

��

��

�� ,,-��

$��,!,��

� ��

�� &��

�� -� ��

,��

��!�*�!�+"��!��

' ��

�� &�� .��:5�;;;��/��

��

�� %/�(��

�� "#��1/��

� ��)��

� �� <� ��

�� !!"

��#��#�� $%'

� �� 51��

:%=2�;;;��

$��

��

��

� ��

$��

��

7��>�� 6��<��

��3 ��, ��

$�� &��

(� ��>��(��

��8��9��,��

�� &

� �� "��

��

�� 8��9��,��

��

��,��

!��

�� !��

-��8��0�<�� 3 ��

$� �� 8��?��0�-� ��

,�� 7��8��9��0��<��

@ ��8��9��<�� #��0�7��

@ ��0�-�� 8��8�

9��0�� -�� <� ��7��

,� ��<� ��8��?��

$�� 7��>��

A>��$��A��

��"#��0��

�� &�� ,!,��

<� �� $� ��!��,��

.<$!,/��!� ��(��)��*��+(��

��

�� A,�� <��

'��A�� A�� A�

!��A��A��

��

��$��

��

� ��

'��

�� (��&��

��,(��-��-.�/��

� ��

��

!��

��

��

�� !��

��

�� )��

�� "#��

�� &

�� '�� 8��%**2��,!,��

<$!,�� A��A

��

�� "#��$��

�� ,,-�

�� $�

�� &�� 21��

� ��2=;��

$��

A$�� A��

��

�� &&��

��

$��!�� (��,,-��

>��%**=��

�� A��A

��

��

3 �-�� !��%**=��

�� %;��

��

�� ,,-��$��

�� "#��

�� =+��&��

��1;;��

-� ��

,,-��

��A��A�� !

��)��

��<��7��

,�� ,,-�

.!�� (�B/��$��

�� !!"

$%% ��#��#��

��,,-�0��

�� 4

C 3 ��

� ��

C #��

C -��

C 3��

��

<��

� ��

� ��4

&& �� A+;;A��

��

&& 3��

&& �(��

��

&& '��

&& !��A��A�

&& ! �(�� &��

&& ��

��

&& <��

� ��

!�� (�B��

�� A��A��

� ��,,-��

��

,,-��

-� �� ,� ��

��

$�� ,,-��

�� D��

� ��

��

��$��,!,��

��

-� �� ,� �� &��

��

��

��

�� &

�� (��

� ��

��

� ��

��

��

�� )��4

� ��

�� &��

� #��

� ��

�� 0��

��

� ��

�� ,,-�

��

� 3 ��

��

��

��

� ��

��

��

� � ��

��

� <��

��

� ��

<��

�� &��

��

��"#��

��

��

��

��

$��<��8��9�� 8��?��

��

��

� �� &��

�� )��

�� !!"

��#��#�� $%0

�� +- ,��#��!��

�!"��!"��"�� !��%

��!+ ��!"�#��.�,

�� +/ �� !��%��!��$

��!$��!�

�!��!��!"��#��

��%�� !��

� ��!��0��!��!��"�

��!�� !��%

��

�� !��!��1�� !��!�

!,$3'8��&%�%

&��&��1��

��E�� '��$��>��

��

� ��

,,-��

!,$3'8��&%�1

%��2��$�#��&��&

3��

&& <$!,�� ,!,��

��

�� -� ��

,��

&& <$!,�� ,!,��

�� ,,-�

��

-� �� ,��

&& <$!,��,!,��

��

��

� ��

��

��

��

��,��

��

��

��

��

!,$3'8��&1�%

-��3�� 3��

��89<��,��8?��89,��,!,�� <$!,

��

� �� &��

�� .��'�)��$&%;/�

� ��

� ��

!,$3'8��&1�1

��"��

��E�� '��$��>��

�� (��

��

&& 8?��

�� (�� 1=&��

6��<��

��?� �%**=��?� �%**F�

!,$3'8��&1�2

4��%� ��3��-��

��89<��,��8?��89,�� ,!,��

��

� ��

!,$3'8��&1�5

5��5��6��

D��

� ��

��-� �� ,� ��

��

��

!,$3'8��&1�=

&��6��5��

��

� ��

��

��

�� !!"

$%" ��#��#��

�� +2 ,�� !��!��!"��#

�!��!�� !��!��

� �� !��!��#��*,

�� !��!�

�� +3 �!�� !��!��!�

#��!�� !"

��!��

�!��%��

�!�"� �!�$��!$

�!��

�� +4 ,�� !��!��"��

�!�� !��!��!��

�#��!��!�

��

��!��!��

��%��

!,$3'8��&2�%

-��$$%&�6��

@<��!��89<��,��8?��89,�� ,!,��

�� ,,-��

� ��

��

��

!,$3'8��&2�1

$��&��-��

89<��,��8?��89,�� ,!,��

��

��

!,$3'8��&2�2

%��

@<��!��89<��,��8?��89,�� ,!,��

��

��

�� -��

��

��

�� #��

��

!,$3'8��&5�%

$�#��6 ��7��

��

��&,,-��-� �� ,� ��

��4

� �� -� ��

��,��

��

��-� �� ,� �� 0

� � ��

� �� 0��

� <��

�� ,,-��

!,$3'8��&5�1

1�� 6 ��$��

��

�� &,,-��-� ��

,� �� 4

� �� -� ��

,��0

� <��

�� -� ��

,� �� 0��

� �� &��

��

!,$3'8��&5�2

$��7��5��#��

�� 8?��

�� (��

� �� !�� 6��<��

8�� 3 ��

!,$3'8��&=�%

$��%��&��

89<��,�� 8?��

�� &��

��

&& 8?�� &��

��8��?��

��

�� !!"

��#��#�� $%1

�� +5 �!��!��!��

��!��#��

��!�� +6 ��!��#�!��!"

�!��!��#

#�!��!"��!��

��!�� !��!�

��!��

!,$3'8��&=�1

�"��%��&��

89<��,�� 8?��(�� &��

��

�� )��'��

��(��

��

!,$3'8��&=�2

&��8�� &��

6��

��@<��!��89<��,��8?��89,��,!,�

� ��<$!,��

��

��

��

��

<�!�� &%�1�� .�/�

!,$3'8��&=�5

1��1�� "��

��@<��!��89<��,��8?��89,��,!,�

� ��<$!,��

� ��

�� (��

�� )��

!,$3'8��&=�=

$��&��1�� 6��

�� 89<��,�� 8?��

� ��

!,$3'8��&F�%

�� &��

��E�� '��$��>��

��

��&��

��

&& 8?��

A� �� 8��?��4��!

�� !�� A��%**5�

!,$3'8��&F�1

-��&�6��

&��

89<��,��8?��89,��,!,�� <$!,��

� ��

��

�� &��

��

!,$3'8��&F�2

4��9�� $��

��

��(��

!,$3'8��&F�5

&��9��&��:��

�� A+;;A� ��

�� 3��

��

��

!,$3'8��&F�=

1��

��

��

.��!�� &2�2/�

!,$3'8��&B�%

5�� 2�� 1��

��E�� '��$��>��

��

� ��

�� &��

��

��

� 3� ��

@<��!��

� ��

�� !!"

$%2 ��#��#��

� <��

<�� )��.<��/��

� ��

�� $��<��8��?��

��

�� ,,-��

�� (��

��>� ��

� ��

��

� ��

��

��

!,$3'8��&B�1

-�� %��2��

��E�� '��$��>��

��

�� &��

��

-� ��

��3 ��

��,,-��

��3 ��

�� ,,-��

��

�� (��

� �� $��

��,,-��%%� ��&��

�� 0��

�� )��

��

$��,,-�� %F��

��

� ��

�� ' ��

:1=�;;;�� :%=;�;;;��

��

��

��

�� !!"

��#��#�� $%!

��-�(�' 3(�45��()��.+��6��.787�9.��:-��,.�,(6(�8��)��):��8�.�

��

��

��

�.78

�.78;�(��

�.78

�.78;�(��

!,$3'8��&%�14

<��

��

��

��

G

!,$3'8��&1�%4

,� ��

� ��

��

��

G

!,$3'8��&2�14

� ��

��

� ��

G

!,$3'8��&2�24

��

��

��

G

!,$3'8��&5�%4

,� ��

G

!,$3'8��&5�14

,� ��

��

G

!,$3'8��&5�24

,�� (��

��

��

G

!,$3'8��&=�%4

,� ��

� �&��

:1=�;;;�.8?/

G

!,$3'8��&=�14

�(��

� �&��

G

!,$3'8��&=�24

� ��

��

� ��

G

!,$3'8��&=�54

� ��

��

��

G

!,$3'8��&=�=4

,� �� 89�� 8?�

:%=;�;;;

!,$3'8��&F�%4

� ��

��&

��

H

!,$3'8��&F�14

3 ��

��

��

��

H

!,$3'8��&F�24

-��

��(��

� �

��

��

G

�� !!"

$0< ��#��#��

��

>��

�� 3 ��

��

��

�� 4

� 3 ��

� �� 0

� 3 ��

��

� �� 0��

� 3 ��

��

!��

��

8��

��

��,,-��

�� &

��

$��

��

��

�� (� ��

��I��

��

� ��&��&��

��

�� 3��

��

�� & ��

� ��

��

�� !!"

��#��#�� $0

��-�(�'$3(745��:66��=>�:-��,.�,(6(�8��)��):��8�.�

��#�

��

��

� ��

��

�� $

�� +-7��,��#��!��!"��!"��"�� !��%��!+ ��!"�#��.�,&

!,$3'8��&%�%4��7��

��

�� ,,-��

��

'��$��>��

.��$>/�

-��%**F

#��

,"8

!,$3'8��&%�14�-��

��

�� &�

��

&&,� ��

��

<$!,�J�,!,

' ��

#��

,"8

&&-��

��

,,-��

-� �� ,��

��

<$!,�J�,!,

' ��

#��

,"8

&&<��

��

�� E��

��

��

<$!,��,!,��89<��,�

8?��

' ��

� ��

��&�G

,"8

8��4

3��E�� ,,-��

&&3 ��,,-��

��

��

��

��

&&3 ��,,-��

��

�� #��

,,-��

� ��

��

��

%7��

��

��

1,"'

&! �� ,,-�

,"8

&!� �� ,,-�

7&

7��

��$>�� @<��!��<��89�� 8?��89,�� 89��

8?�� ,!,��<$!,��

��

��,,-��

G,��

�� :F*;�;;;"��!��

�� :2;;�;;;�.��'�)��<&%/�

�� !!"

$0$ ��#��#��

(��!��!��)

��-�(�'$3(745��:66��=>�:-��,.�,(6(�8��)��):��8�.�

��#�

��

��

� ��

��

�� $

�� +/7�� !��%��!��$��!$��!��!��!��!"��#��%�� !�� !��0��!��!��"��!

�� !��%��&

!,$3'8��&1�%4��,� ��

��

��

��

��89<��,��8?��

89,��,!,��<$!,

' ��

� ��

��&�G

,"8

!,$3'8��&1�14��@�� (��

��

��$>

' ��

#��

,"8

&&�� (��

��

1=&�

��6��<��

8?��

?� �%**=�&

?� �%**F

#��

,"8

!,$3'8��&1�24��

��

��

@<��!��89<��,�

8?��89,��,!,

' ��

#��

,"8

!,$3'8��&1�54��3 ��

� ��

��

-� �� ,� ��

��@<��!��89<��,�

8?��89,��,!,�

<$!,

' ��

#��

,"8

!,$3'8��&1�=4��

�� E�

��

��@<��!��89<��,�

8?��89,��,!,

��&,,-�

#��

,"8

�� +27��,�� !��!��!"��#��!��!�� !��!�� !��!��#��*,�� !��!�&

!,$3'8��&2�%4��

�� ,,-�

��

@<��!��89<��,�

8?��89,��,!,

��&,,-�

#��

,"8

!,$3'8��&2�14��

��

� ��

89<��,��8?��

89,��,!,

��&,,-�

� ��

��&�G

,"8

!,$3'8��&2�24��

��

��

@<��!��89<��,�

8?��89,��,!,

' ��

� ��

��&�G

,"8

%7��

��

��

1,"'

&! �� ,,-�

,"8

&!� �� ,,-�

7&

7��

G,��

�� :F*;�;;;"��!��

�� :2;;�;;;�.��'�)��<&%/�

�� !!"

��#��#�� $0'

(��!��!��)

��-�(�'$3(745��:66��=>�:-��,.�,(6(�8��)��):��8�.�

��#�

��

��

� ��

��

�� $

�� +37��!�� !��!��!��#��!�� !"��!��!��%�� !�"� �!�$

��!$��!��&

!,$3'8��&5�%4��,� ��

��

��

' ��

� ��

��&�G

,"8

!,$3'8��&5�14��,� ��

��

��

' ��

� ��

��&�G

,"8

!,$3'8��&5�24�,��

(��

��

��J�8?��

' ��

� ��

��&�G

,"8

�� +47��,�� !��!��"��!�� !��!��!��#��!��!��!��!��

��%�� &

!,$3'8��&=�%4��,� ��

� �&��

89<��,�J�8?��

' ��

� ��

��&�G

,"8

&&,� ��

� �&��

��8?�,��

��

8?��

$��%**F

� ��

��&�:1=�;;;

,"8

!,$3'8��&=�14��(��

� �&��

89<��,�J�8?��

��&,,-�

� ��

��&�G

,"8

!,$3'8��&=�24��

��

� ��

� ��

��@<��!��89<��,�

8?��89,��,!,�

<$!,

' ��

� ��

��&�G

,"8

!,$3'8��&=�54��

��

��

��@<��!��89<��,�

8?��89,��,!,�

<$!,

' ��

� ��

��&�G

,"8

!,$3'8��&=�=4��,� �� &��

��

89<��,�J�8?��

��&,,-�

� ��

��&�:%=;�;;;

7

%7��

��

��

1,"'

&! �� ,,-�

,"8

&!� �� ,,-�

7&

7��

�� !!"

$0% ��#��#��

(��!��!��)

��-�(�'$3(745��:66��=>�:-��,.�,(6(�8��)��):��8�.�

��#�

��

��

� ��

��

�� $

�� +57��!��!��!��!��#��!��&

!,$3'8��&F�%4��

�� &�

��

��

��$>

#��2%��%**F

� ��

��

��

� �

7

!,$3'8��&F�14��3 ��

��

��

89<��,��8?��

89,��,!,��<$!,

��&,,-�

� ��

��

��

� �

7

!,$3'8��&F�24��-

��

��

(��

��

��

' ��

� ��

��&�G

,"8

!,$3'8��&F�54�,� �� K+;;A

��

��

��$>��

��

��&,,-�

� ��

��&�G

,"8

!,$3'8��&F�=4�,� �� <��

#��

��$>

��&,,-�

� ��

��&�G

,"8

�� +67��!��#�!��!"��!��!��#�#�!��!"��!��!�� !��!��!��&

!,$3'8��&B�%4��

� ��

��

��$>

' ��

#��

,"8

!,$3'8��&B�14��<��

��

� �&��

��$>

' ��

#��

,"8

%7��

��

��

1,"'

&! �� ,,-�

,"8

&!� �� ,,-�

7&

7��

G,��

�� :F*;�;;;"��!��

�� :2;;�;;;�.��'�)��<&%/�

�� !!"

��#��#�� $00

�� !!"

��

��

�� !!"

�� #$%

��

��

��

��

�� !��

��" ��#��$��

��

� ��

��

��

��

�� !�!��"�" ��#�$��

��$�� "�� "��

�#��%��&"��$#��"��#��'��" ��

"��#��"�� $�� "�"#"��(

�� "��'��"��"��'��$��"��$��

"�$#��"��"�� )

�� "��"�� "�$#��"��

��$#��"�� )

�� "�"��"��"��"��"��'

��#"��'�� )

�� "��"��#��'�� $$�$"��)��

�� "��"��*��"��

$#��"�$#��"��%

��#��#��

��'�"��$��"��+��

��"�#��,��"��%��"

��" � ��"��,"��-.%

�� '��$��$$��#��

��'�� !�!��"�" ��/��

��"�"��"��

�� "�$#��"��%��"�"�"�

"��#��"��"�"��##��"�� "�� '

��"��"�"��$��#"��"��

$��'��"��"�� #��"�"��

$��'��"��"�" ��"�� $$��

�� "�#�"�� $"��"��'�$��"��'

��$�� $��"��%

��0�$#��"��"��

��"��

�"##��

"�$#��"��%�� " ��"��"��

�#� �� $�� "�"#"�"� �� "��"��

!$$��"/�1(

�� "��"##�$#��

*��#�'�� $$�$"��'��"��$��

��"��"��" �� *�""�� #��"��%

�� #"��"��"##��'�� '

�� #��" �� $��"��$��

�"��"��%

�� +��"�#��

��$ ��"##��'�� '��#�"##

��"�� $�� "�"#"�"� ��"�$#��

��"�� "��"��"�$��"��%

��"##��##��$��$��#"��

$�� $��#�� "

2 ��3�4��"��0�-��#��5%

�� !!"

#$& ��

Policy Committee Dredged MaterialManagement Forum

Management Committee*

Citizens Advisory Committee

Scientific/Technical Advisory

Committee

Other HEP Workgroups- Pathogens- Floatables- Nutrients- Habitat- Public Participation- Modeling Evaluation

Toxics Workgroup DMM Integration Workgroup* *

Sediment Contamination Reduction Workgroup

Other DMM Workgroups

- 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�//00�101*0��5��100/��(��0�0((��4�/,�.��/�/0�/�0�0..��0�/�,-0��/�,��,.�/�0��+010�/

�,11�//006��(�()*+�,)-��(��)��0�/�4��0.0��02�/,��(�/�0��,��4��,11�//00��0-�0(0�/�/�30(6

''��+�/�,.�/�0�1��4�(0�(�/�30�-,��4��(()0(��((,��/02�5�/��/�0��02+02��/0��+010�/

0�010�/�,.�/�0��7�/�0��+010�/��,11�//00�5��.��/�/0�.�08)0�/7�2��0�/��,�/��/�*0/500�

/�0��2�/�0��,��4��,11�//006

��+)�0� %6 �,�+/0�1��+010�/��/�)�/)�0�9��,�-,��/��+�/�0�5,�:�,.�/�0��02+02��/0��

��+010�/��,�)1;

�� !!"

�� #$!

��

��

�!�"��

�� #��

��$ ��#��

��% &��#��!��!

#��!�� #��

��' ��

��(�� !

��) � ��

��"��"�"� ��"��"�"� '��

$��#"��$"��'��"�$#�� $��"�"��"�� %�

��"�� #��"��"��

"�$#��"��)�� "##��

��"�� %��! ��$#��

��#�$��$#��"�$#��"��'�"��" �� "�#

�� "�"� '�"��"�"��"��"�$#��"��

� $�� "�"#"�"� '��#��$� ��

��'��$$�$"��#�

"��#��%

��"##��"�� "$��

0��"�� "�"� ��"��"�$#��"��

� $�� "�"#"��*��#��$� ��

�� #"�"��"

$��"�"$��"��%

0��"�� $��"��"��

��

��"��"�� $$��

��'��'��"��"� ��

��"� '��"##�� #" ��6��

�� 3��"��%��

�$�"�� #��"�� "��

��$��"�� $��

��3��"��%��" ��#��"��" ��

�#"�"��$�$� �# ��"�"� ��"##"��#��

$��"�� $�� $$�� "��

��%��

�#��"��" �� !��$��"�� $��

�$$�� "�� 3��"��"��"�

7��"��00�3��"��%

!��"�"��'� ��"��"##��$��"��##�

�"�� !��4��3��"��%��$"��

��"�� "�� "##��"

� $��"�� "�� %��'��"##��

#��3��"�� %��

��/��"�"��#�� "#��#�'

$��#"��'��'��

�$$�� # �� "��

3��"��%��

"��$�"�� $��68"��

� ��" �� '�� #��#�$��

"�$#��$�� #�� $$�$"��

#��#%

�� "##��"�� '��"��#'��#��#

$#�� '��"��"�� $��"�"��"��

�� $$��%

�� "##�"��"��"�"��#

�� $#�� $$�$"��

#��#� $�� %

��"##��/" �"��$��"�

��"9��"�� $$�$"��

��"�� 2 ��!��"��1%:��#��5%��"

��"��" ��$��; ��"��

$�� $�4��

"�$#��"��2 ��3�4��"��1��#��5%

�� !!"

#"< ��

��*�0�==9��;6��02��,+��1��,(/(�.,��,(/��+010�/��/�)�/)�0

��

��

��

�,(/

�,(/>�0��

�,(/

�,(/>�0��

38��0<�� -(��"��"�"��

$��"��#��"��(

=>??'???@

=>A?'???@

��"��##��"�� "�� %

2=>B?'???5@

��"��"�� $��#"��"��

$��%

2=1??'???5@

��"��"�"��$��%

2C?'???5@

��"��"�" ��"�� "�#

�$$��%

2=:?'???5@

�3�!D

=>??'???@

=>A?'???@

@��"�"��$�� "�� =BA?'???6�%��0��"�"��#�� "��$�� %��#�� "��

��#��=>??'???6�%��0�� ##�� "�� "#��#�� " ��#"�"��'��"##�"��"��"�� "�"��

$��$#��"��"#��#��"��%

�� !!"

�� #"

��*�0�=?9�(;6��)11��4@�,(/��+010�/��/�)�/)�0

��A�

��

��

� ��

� ��

��

��

�� #

38��0<�� -(��"��

��"�"��"��

"�$#��"��%

� ��!

��#�-AAB

=>??'???6�E

�6�

��

��#�-AAB

=>A?'???6�E

7

��"��##��"�� "�� %

2=>B?'???6�5E

��"��"��$��#"��"��$��%

2=1??'???5E

��"��"�"��$��%

2=C?'???5E

��"��"�" ��"�� "�#� �$$��%

2=:?'???5E

�� $�� "��

"�$#��"��%

��"��'

��#"��"��'��

��$ '��"��

��

8� ��$��

�6�

38��0<�� 1(��7��"�� "$��

"��"�� "�"� ��"��"�$#��"��

� $�� "�"#"��*��#��$� ��

�� #"�"��"

$��"�"$��"��%

��

!$�-AAB

8� ��$��

�6�

��(

0��" ��; ��#��##��"�� "��"�� %

��0�� "�� "�� '��"�� '

�� $�� "�#��"�"� ��*�"�� "�$#��"��%�

��"##��"�� "#��#�%

��0�� '��"�� "��

��"��"��#��"�"� ��

� $�� "�#��"�"� ��"�$#��"��%��8��" ��"

��'�� "�� $�� "�#��"�"� ��

�*�� $��#��"#��"�$#��

��"�� %

-7� $�� "�#��"�"� ��$#" ��"�� "��#��"��

��%

1�63

�!��"��"��'��"��

�6�

�!��"��'��"��

7�7��"��

E��"�"��$�� "�� =BA?'???6�%�

0��"�"��#�� "��$�� %��#��

��"��#��=>??'???6�%��0�� ##�� "��

�� "#��#��"��" ��#"�"��'��"##�"��"��

��"�� "�"��$��$#��"��"#��#�

��"��%

�� !!"

#"# ��

*� ��!+

��*�0�=?9�(;6��)11��4@�,(/��+010�/��/�)�/)�0

��A�

��

��

� ��

� ��

��

��

�� #

38��0<�� >(�� #" ��6��

�� 3��"��%

��

��#�-AAB

�� -

�6�

��"��"��"�� $$�� "�� %

� ��!

��#�-AAB

=--:'???6�

�6�

38��0<�� F(��,��"#"�� $#��"��

��"�$#��"��%

��

3��"��

8� ��$��

�6�

38��0<�� :(��$��"��"9��"��

�� $��"�� 2 ��!��"��1%:

��#��5%

-7� $�� "�#��"�"� ��$#" ��"�� "��#��"��

��%

1�63

�!��"��"��'��"��

�6�

�!��"��'��"��

7�

7��"��

�� !!"

�� #"=

�� %�� &��$��

%�� '�� (� ��(��

%�� '��

%� )�� $�

��,�� -�� )��

��,�� !�� .��

� �� /� !�#��/

��!��!�

��7��7� ��

��$��"�� "��

"��"�"� ��"��"��'��#"��'��6��

�� %�� "��" �"��"��'�� $��

�� $�"��!�� -AA:��"�� #��"��

��#�$��G ��"��#��"��"��

�#��2��5�2 ��!$$��"/�:5%��"��"�"� ��

��$�� "�� "��#��

2"��"�� 5��"��#�� #��

�� "�$#��"��(

H ��"��"�$#��"��

� �#��"��#��"��#

"�$�� )��

H ��$��"��"��"��#$��"��

�� "��"�$#��"��%

��"��"�"� ��/" �"��"��"��

$�� $��"�#�� #"��

$�� G �� '��

$�� G ��

��%��

��# ��"��#�� #��"��

��$�"�� "��"##��

��#�$��#��

2 ��!��"��F%1��#��5%��3��$��

��$�"�� #��"��" ��

��$��#��#��#��'

�� "�"��"�� $�"�� #��

��#��"�$#��"�� $��" �� "��%

��"##��"��"��'��$��'��

��"�� "�$#��2 ��#��5%�

��"##��# ��"��"��##

��"��"��'��#"��'�� '

"��#��"��#�$"��"�"��#��

��#"�� '��#��

�� %��"##� ��

��"�� "�$#��"��##

��%��##��"��"�� $ �"�

��#�$"�� %��,�� $��"�"�

"��"��'� ��!$$��"/�:%

�� "9��"��"��"��'

��#"��'�� '�� %��"

"��"��" �"��$��"��%

!��03��-%-

)�� $�*��

��'��"�� !�'�� #�$��#�

��"�� "9�� "��"�"��"��

��"��#� ��"�� %

!��03��-%1

+��,��%��

3��#��'�0 �� $�$��$��"��

"��"�"� ��"��"��"�� %

!��03��1%-

-��'��%��(�%��(��

.��

��'��"�� !�'��#�� $

"��#�"��$$�$"�� "��" � ��

��#��"��"��'��#"��'��

�� !!"

#"? ��

��,�$ ��.� ��

�� #��

��,�% 0��# ��!�� #��

# ��!��

��)

$#��2"%�%'��"��#��"��"��#��5��

�� "��"�"�� 2 ��!$$��"/�:5%��!�

�� $'��$�"��

��#�$��'�"��#��"��$��#��#��

��%

!��03��1%1

/��+��-��'��

��'��"�� !�� $�� '

�"��##�$��"�"$��"�� !'�� !��'

�� +��'��+��'��+��'�0 �'��!�'�� '

�"##��"�"��#�" �� $��"�"�� $ '

��"�� %

!��03��1%>

)�� !�� %��

&��

��'��"��##�$��"�"$��"�� !'�� !��'

�� +��'��+��'��+��'�0 �'� �!�'��!�'��

�� '��"##��#�$��"��#��%

!��03��>%-

��

��"##� ��"��

�� '��#��

��#'��"�$#��"��#��'

"��#��"��#�$"��"�$#��"��#��

�� %

�� '��"��##�$��"�"$��"�� !'

� !��'�� +��'��+��'��+��'�0 �'

�!�'��!�'�� '��"##��

��"��"��6��$��

�� "�$#��"��

�� %

!��03��>%1

+ �� &��

� ��!'�� !��'�� +��'��+��'��+��'�0 �'

��"� '�� $�� "��"�"��

��#��"�$#��"�� "��"��#

��%

+��" ��"�$��$��

��"��"�� $#��%��D0 ��

4�"��#��"��"��%��

" � ��"��"�� "� ��

"� �"��"�� #$�"�$#��; ��'

"��#��"��%

!��03��F%-

��0$�)��)��%��

�$��

��"��" ��"��'��

��"#"��"��'�� "��

� ��!G �3��+��#��"�� 23+� 5%

��" ��"��" �"��"�� "�

��"#"�� %��

�� #��$��"��(

�� 7"�� "��

��I!6I��$�� )��

�� #��"��%

��"��" ��#�

��"�� "��3+� %��$��

��$#��"��'��

��"��"##�$�$��$��"��

�� '�"��#��"�� "$�"��

�� '�� '��

��#��"��"�"��#�� "��

��"��3+� '�"��#��"�� %

!��03��F%1

1�� )��%�� .��

�� "��"� �#��

�� (

�� $$��$��"��$��

"�$#��"��2 ��3�4��"��0�-��#��5%

�� "�� '��"��#'��"�"��'��

I!6I��6��87��#��

��"��#��'�"��#��"��$�� "��#'

��"��#'��"�#��"��#��$� %

�� !!"

�� #"$

�� ,�##��"��"��D0 ��#��

� ��"��#� � %

�� "�� !'� �� '

��"� '��"�� "�� %

�� "��$$�$"��# �� "��#��"��

��$��'� ��" �"��#�$��'�J0

"��'�� 37��"��%

�� "��##�� "$�"�� "��#��"��

I!6I��"��"��%

�� "��##��"�� #��

��"�# �� "�#��#��"�� 2"%�%'��/" �"��

#"��"� �� 7"��,��"��

D"�� 5%

�� ##��"�"�"� ��#�� "��

��*�� "��#"�� %

��; �� $��"��"��'��#"��'��

� ��2!��"��1%-5�"��#��

�� "�� %��

��"�� "��"��

��#�$�� $��"��#��

#��$�"�� '��$�$��

��$��G �� "��"��%��!��

�$�"�� "��"��$��(

�� +��#�$�� '�"��#��"��

�� $��"��"��'��

��$�� "�� "��/��

� ��8"��'��#"��'��%'��

0�� %

�� +��#�$��$�� "��

�� 8"��%

�� #" ��"��

��"��#�"��"��

� �� %

�� #" ��

��6��"��"��"��

��D0 %

�� $�"�� ##��/�#� "��%��!

��$��#��#�� "��

�#��"�� "$ ��$�"�� '��

��#��"�$#��%

��'��"��##�$��"�"$��"�� !'�� !��'

�� +��'��+��'��+��'�0 �'� �!�'��!�'��

�� '��"##�� "��"��"��$��

��#��

��'�� "��"�� "�"#"�� %��

�"##�� "��

��"��#��"��"��

��68"��"� ��"� �"��"��

��"�� %

!��03��F%>

+ �� 1�� )��%��

��$

��'�� !'�� !��'�� +��'��+��'��+��'

0 �'��"� '�� $��

"��"�"��'�"��"��"��"��D0 '� ��#�

"�$#��"�� "��#��

�� %

��

��"�� "��

"��"��"��'��#"��'��7� ��

��$#" ��

��"�� $�� %�

��"��"��'��#"��'��7� ��

��$��"��"9� �C��

�"��"�� >��"�� %�

,��"�� #��

$�� $� ��4��"��

��"�$#��"��%��"��

��"�� "�� "��

�"��$��"��%��! � ��"�

��#��>:2"�5��#��(

� ��#��"��#�� F��"�� '��"��#

=A?'???'��$�� %

� ��#��# ��"��#�� >��"��

$�� "��

� �"��"##��#�$��"��

��"��"��$#��"��$�� %

�� !!"

#"" ��

��*�0�=$9��;6��02��,+��1��,(/(�.,��,��/,��+7��,20��+7��2��0(0��/��/0+4

��

��

��

�,(/

�,(/>�0��

�,(/

�,(/>�0��

!��03��1%-( $�� $��#�$

��"��#��"��"��#��%

=1?'???

!��03��1%1( $�� " �� $��"�"�� $

��"��"��'��#"��'�� %

=1?'???

!��03��>%1(0�$#��"��#

��"��"��#��%

��"��

�� 1%>

��>%-@

!��03��F%-(�� "��

�� %

=F?'???

!��03��F%1(7��#��

�� %

=-?'???

!��03��F%>(0�$#��#��

�� %

��"��

�� F%1@

�3�!D

-

=A?'???E@

@

@��$�� #�$�� $��"��"��$#��"��$�� %

-��"��2E@5�"��"�� $#� ��"�"��#�� "��%

�� !!"

�� #"%

��*�0�="9�(;6��)11��4@�,��/,��+7��,20��+7��2��0(0��/��/0+4

��

��

� ��

��

�� #

��,

��1-�� )�� 2

!��03��-%-(��+��#�$��#� ��"�� "9�

�� "��"�"��"��"��#� ��"��

��%

��'��"��

�!�

��$#��

�� "��#��"��!��"��

��1%-

�6�

!��03��-%1(��0��"��"��"��"��

�� %

0 �

��$#��

8� ��$��

�6�

��,

��1� �!�� .��

�� /� !�#��/��!��!�2

!��03��1%-(�� $�� $��#�$

��"��#��"��"��#��%

��'��"��

�!�

��$#��

=1?'???

�6�

!��03��1%1(��"�"��#�" �� $��"�"�

�� $ ��"�� %

��'��"��

�!��

$�� '��"��##

$��"�"$��"�� !'

� !��'�� +��'

��+��'��+��'�0 �'

�!�'��

!$�-AAB

=1?'???

�6�

!��03��1%>(�+��#�$��"��#��%

��'��"��##

$��"�"$��"�� !'

� !��'�� +��'

��+��'��+��'�0 �'

�!�'��!�'��

��#�-AAB

8� ��$��

�6�

��(

0��" ��; ��#��##��"�� "��"�� %

��0�� "�� "�� '��"�� '

�� $�� "�#��"�"� ��*�"�� "�$#��"��%�

��"##��"�� "#��#�%

��0�� '��"�� "��

��"��"��#��"�"� �� $�� "�#�

��"�"� ��"�$#��"��%��8��" ��" ��'��

��"�� $�� "�#��"�"� ��*�� $

��#��"#��"�$#��"�� %

-7� $�� "�#��"�"� ��$#" ��"�� "��#��"��

��%

1�63

�!��"��"��'��"��

�6�

�!��"��'��"��

7�7��"��

�� !!"

#"& ��

*� ��!+

��*�0�="9�(;6��)11��4@�,��/,��+7��,20��+7��2��0(0��/��/0+4

��

��

� ��

��

�� #

��,

�$1��.� �� #�� 2

!��03��>%-(� ��"�� "�$#��

��%

��

3��"��

8� ��$��

�6�

��,��"��"��6��

��$%

��'��"��##

$��"�"$��"�� !'

� !��'�� +��'

��+��'��+��'�0 �'

�!�'��!�'��

��-AAB

8� ��$��

�6�

!��03��>%1(��0�$#��%

� ��!'�� !��'

�� +��'��+��'

��+��'�0 �'��

��"� '��

$��

"��"�"��

��

��"��

��1%>��>%-

7

��,

�%10��# ��!�� #��# ��

!��

��)2

!��03��F%-(�� "��

�� %

��

,��-AAB

=F?'???

�6�

!��03��F%1(��7��#��

�� %

��'��"��##

$��"�"$��"�� !'

� !��'�� +��'

��+��'��+��'�0 �'

�!�'��!�'��

�$�-AAB

8� ��$��

�6�

��+��#�$��$�"�� $��

"��$��"��; ��"��#��"��"��

�#��%

��

��$#��

=-?'???

�6�

-7� $�� "�#��"�"� ��$#" ��"�� "��#��"�

��%

1�63

�!��"��"��'��"��

��

�6�

�!��"��'��"��

7�

7��"��

�� !!"

�� #"!

*� ��!+

��*�0�="9�(;6��)11��4@�,��/,��+7��,20��+7��2��0(0��/��/0+4

��

��

� ��

��

�� #

!��03��F%>(��0�$#��#��

�� %

��'�� !'�� !��'

�� +��'��+��'

��+��'�0 �'��

��"� '��

$��

"��"�"��'�"�

��"��"��"��D0

��

��"��

��F%1

7

-7� $�� "�#��"�"� ��$#" ��"�� "��#��"�

��%

1�63

�!��"��"��'��"��

��

�6�

�!��"��'��"��

7�

7��"��

�� !!"

#%< ��

�� !!"

�� #%

�� &��%&��

�� 7�$��"�� "�$#��"��'��

��"��"�� '�" ��"�#��

�� #�"�$#��"��#��%��

��"��"��

��$"��"#��" �$�$� �%

��$� ��

"�$#��"��(��

�)/-)/(��"�� "��

��"�� )��

�)/�,10(��"�� $�� "��$$�$"��

��"��#�"��"�� "��

��68"��" �� $��"�� /$��

$�##��"��# '��"�"$��

��"��#�$��#�� "��%

��$��"�� "��

��$�� (

�� 3��$�� (��"��"��"��"�"�

��" ��'��'��%�

! ��/$#�"��#��'��"##��"��

��"�� "��

��"�� %��,"��#��

0�$#��"�� 2!$$��"/�F5�$��"��

��"# ��" ��"##��%

�� 3�� (��"��#��"��"��#��

2!$$��"/�:5�"��#�� "��

$�"��"��##�� $��

��"��#�"��"��

��"�$#��"��%�� "��"�� "##

��##�� # ��4��"��

��"��%�� "�$��"��"��

�� "��"��#�� "��"��

��"�� "�"�#��

��"��

" ��#��"��$��"�� #��

��"�� %��3��"��"�� "��#��

�� "��"��"��#��"�� $�##��

��"��"��%��

!��03��0�-%-

/��

��"##�$�$��#��$��

��"�� "�$#��"��'

�� "��$�� %��#��$��"##

"��#��"�� "��"��

��%��"�� "��"��

�"##�� 4��$��#"��"��%��

!��03��0�-%1

2��

3��"��"�#�� " '��"##��$��

�$��"��!��"��0�-%-��"��#��##

�� "��

"�$#��"��'�� "��#

�� "��"�$#��"��

��G ��"��#��"��"��#��%��! �"��

��#�$�� $��'��"��"�#��$��"##

"��#��"�� "��"��

��)�� "##�� 4��$��#"��"��%

�� !!"

#%# ��

��*�0�=%9�(;6��)11��4@�0-,�/��+�,��,+�0((��1-�010�/��+�/�0��

��A�

��

��

� ��

��

�� #

!��03��0�-%-(��$��#��$��

��"�� "�$#��"��'

"��#��"��"�� "��"��

��)�"��#��$��#"��"��%

��

," ��$��

+��-AAB��

��##��

0��#��"��/�� "��

��

��23�4��"��

�-5

�6�

!��03��0�-%1��!��$��

"��#��##��

��"�� "�$#��"��

��"��#�� "��

��; ��"��#��"��"��#��%

��

," ��$��

+��-AA.��

�"��"�##�

��

0��#��"��/�� "��

��

��23�4��"��

�-5

�6�

��(

0��" ��; ��#��##��"�� "��"�� %

��0�� "�� "�� '��"�� '

�� $�� "�#��"�"� ��*�"�� "�$#��"��%�

��"##��"�� "#��#�%

��0�� '��"�� "��

��"��"��#��"�"� �� $�� "�#�

��"�"� ��"�$#��"��%��8��" ��" ��'��

��"�� $�� "�#��"�"� ��*�� $

��#��"#��"�$#��"�� %

-7� $�� "�#��"�"� ��$#" ��"�� "��#��"��

��%

1�63

�!��"��"��'��"��

�6�

�!��"��'��"��

7�7��"��

�� !!"

�� #%=

�� (��(�� (�� (��

��

�� '��3��

��

�� !��!��#/

��/��!# ��#

� ��/��/

��#��#�

�� .�!!�� #��!��

� 3�� #��

��! � ��

��

COSTS AND FINANCING

�� "��$�$� ��68"��

��"�� "##�� "��"�"��%��" � ��"��

�� "�$#��"��#��"��

��"� (��-5�� $�� '�15��

$�� '��>5�$�4�� '� ��

��$#��$�� #��*�" "�"��%�

��" � ��"��# ��$� �� "��

$#��"��"��%��!��"#��,"��"�#��#��

0�$#��"�� " �$� ��"��!$$��"/

F%��,��"�� "��

$��"�� $��"��#'

��'��#��#�� '��$"��

��'�"��$�� "$%��"#"��"��

��# ��4��"�� '��$��"��

$�� " ��'��"##��#��#��"��

��"#��"#"��"��%

��-� ��

��"��#�� "��

��$�� +��'��+��'�� !'��

��#��"� '�#��#�� '��

"�$#��"��"�"� ��"��

"�$#��"��"��$�� %��

��"�� $��

��"��'��"�"��'��

#��# %

!��03��-%?

!�� &�� 1��

�� #'� ��'��#��#

�� "��$��

��#��# %

�� +��+��"��

��"�� '��'��"� %�

��'�"��" �$��"��#�#��"�$��"��

�� $��"�� "� '��

�"�"��'��#��# %��

��"�� "��"�� %�

0�$#��"�� "�� " ��"�#��

��"��; ��# ��"##��*�"��

�� #��"��"�"��%��; � ��

�� "�"��#��"��" �� "��#��%

�� !!"

#%? ��

!��03��1%-

��-��/��#��

��$�4��"�$#��"��$��

�� '�� #��

&��!��"9��

�� #$��$"��#"9��"� ��7��#�"��,��

$�� "��%

!��03��1%1

�� !��-��'�4��

��'�"��$��"��"�� !'�� +��'��

��+��'��"##�� #" ��"��$��

��#�� $��"�"��"�� "��

��"�$#��"��'�"��#��"��"��"��

��; � �� "�"��#��"��

��"�� %

!��03��1%>

!��&��+ �� $

�� #��"#��,"��"�#��#��

0�$#��"�� 2 ��!$$��"/�F5'

�� " ��"��"9��#��"��#��# '

��#�� "�$#��"��%�

��'�"��$��"��"�� !'�� +��'��

��+��'��"##��"��#�$��$��"

$#�� $��

�� "��"�� %��"��"�#�$#��

"��#�� $��"�"�� "#"��#��#

�� $��*�"��"�$�� %�

�� "��$��"�"��"��#

� " ��#��#�� "��" ��%��

$#��# ��"��#�� "�$#��"��

�� "�� "##��

��"�� "��%

!��03��1%F

!��5��,��*��-��

/��

��$�4��"�$#��"��'��'�"�

��$��"��"�� !'�� +��'��+��'

�"##��# ��"�� $��"�"�

$�4�� "�� $��"�#�#��" #��"��"9��"��

�$$�$"��"�� &!� ��

��&��7� �� +��#�$��!��%

!��03��1%:

��.��,��#��!��

��$�&��

,��"��$�$� ��$��

��"�� #�� $��"��

��"� %��"��"�"��#

��$��"�� "�� "��"��

��"��"�� "�$#�� $� ��"�� %�

��$��"��"9��"�� 2��3 5�� "��

:?-2�52>5��0��#�7��"��##�

�"��"�� "��"�� " ��

�� '��$�$� � ��"��"��" "��

��##�� ; %

��" "�� 3 ��#�$��"��

�� "9��"�� "��#��

"�� $��"�� %��"##��

��3 ��$$�$"��

��"�� %��$#" ��" '��"##(

�� 0��"�� "��

��"��$$�$"��"��

��3 %��,��/��$#�'�� "� '

��"��#��"��"��'��"��#

$�� '�$��"��#�#��

��$#" ��#��"�"� '

��$$�$"��)�� "��"��

��#�� "��#�$��

��%

�� 0��"��/" �"��3 ��"��" "��

��#�$��; %

�� /$� "�� "�� 3 ��

��"��$�� "$��"��"��"��

��"�� #$�"�$#��%

�� &��"��"�� 3 ��#�$��

��"��'��"� �� #

��# '�"��#��"��(

H �#"�"�"��$"�� %

H ,��"��$$�$"��"�� %

H 0��#��"��3��"�"�"� �"��$�� %

�� 3��$$��" ��"

� ��#" �� $�� "��"��/" �"��

��3 %

!��03��1%B

�� &��3��!��

&��$��

� ��!�� +��"##� ��$$��"�"� '��

�$$�$"��'��$$#�� $$#��#��"��#

��4��2 ��5�� "�� %

�� 0 ��"##� ��

�$$��"�"� ��"��

�� !!"

�� #%$

"��"�"��"��$$�$"��"��

�� #��/" ��" ��"��

��%��,��"�� "��

�� #��$��"��"��

��#��#"��"�� %�

,��"�� "�� 0 ��#��$��"�

��"��0 �; �#��#��

��#��#"��"�� %

!��03��1%.

/��&��!��&��

��

�� "� �� $��

$�� "��

��'�� "�� "#��#�%��"##

��"��#�� "��%��"#"��" '��

�"##��#�$��#" ��"��

��"�� "��" "��

��"�"� ��"�� "� %

!��03��1%C

5�/�� /��

0��"��"��"�� "�#��"��"��"��'

� !��"##� ��$$��"�"� ��/"��

�/��$��"��#��"�$#��"��

��%

��#��>C2" 5��#�� "9� �--��

��"�� >��"�� $��"�"��

��" ��$��#��%��"��

��"�� $#" �� "��/" �"��

$�� %�

�� !!"

#%" ��

��*�0�=&9�(;6��)11��4@�,(/(��2��+

��

��

��

� ��

��

�� #

��1� �� !��!��#/��/��!# ��# � ��/��

��/��#��#�2

!��03��-%?(��,��#'� ��'��#��#

��"��#�$�� #��# %

,��#'� ��'�#��#

��

��

8� ��$��

7

��1��.�!!�� #��!�� 3�� #�� ! � ��2

!��03��1%-(��7��"9��#��&

��!��%

,��#��

8��+��>-'�-AAB

8� ��$��

7

!��03��1%1(�� #" ��,"��&

��J��$%

��'�� !'�� +��'

��+��

��-AAB

8� ��$��

�6�

!��03��1%>(��,��#��"#��"��"�#�$#��

��"�$#��"�� %

��'�� !'�� +��'

��+��

��$#��

8� ��$��

�6�

��$��" �$#�� $��

�� "��"�� %

��'�� !'�� +��'

��+��

!��##�'��

��

8� ��$��

�6�

!��03��1%F(� ��

��&!%

��'�� !'�� +��'

��+��

3��"��

8� ��$��

�6�

!��03��1%:(��$��"��"9��"��

2��3 5�� $��"�� %

�� /$� "�� "�� /" �"��

K:?-2�52>5��3 ��"��"��"��

��"�� #$

"�$#��%

��'�� !'�� +��'

��+��

��#�-AAB

8� ��$��

�6�

��(

0��" ��; ��#��##��"�� "��"�� %

��0�� "�� "�� '��"�� '

�� $�� "�#��"�"� ��*�"�� "�$#��"��%�

��"##��"�� "#��#�%

-7� $�� "�#��"�"� ��$#" ��"�� "��#��"��

��%

1�63

�!��"��"��'��"��

�6�

�!��"��'��"��

7�

7��"��

��0�� '��"�� "��

��"��"��#��"�"� �� $�� "�#�

��"�"� ��"�$#��"��%��8��" ��" ��'��

��"�� $�� "�#��"�"� ��*�� $

��#��"#��"�$#��"�� %

�� !!"

�� #%%

*� ��!+

��*�0�=&9�(;6��)11��4@�,(/(��2��+

��

��

��

� ��

��

�� #

��+��#�$��"��"� ��"�� %

��L�"�� 3

+��-AAB

8� ��$��

�6�@

��0�$#��"�� $$�$"��

��"�� %

0�� 3 '��

2��"��"��5

8��"��"��

+��-AAB

��$��

�� "��

��3

7

!��03��1%B(�� $$��"�"� '�� $$�$"��'

��$$#�� $$#��#��"��#�$�4��

��"�� %

� ��!'�� +��'

��"�

��

8� ��$��

�6�

�� $$��"�"� ��"��

"��"�"��"��$$�$"��"��

�� #��/" ��" ��"��

��'�"��"��#��#��#

��#"��"�� %

��+��L�0 �

��

8� ��$��

�6�

!��03��1%.(�� "�"��#�$��#"��

��"��$�� %

��'�� !'�� +��'

��+��

3��"��

8� ��$��

�6�

��+��#�$��#" ��"��"��

�"��" "�� "�"� ��"��

��"� %

��L��+��

��#�-AAB

8� ��$��

�6�

!��03��1%C(��0��"��"��"�� "�#��"��

��"��"��'� ��$$��"�"� ��/"��

�/��$��"��#��"�$#��"��

��%

� !��

��

8� ��$��

�6�

-7� $�� "�#��"�"� ��$#" ��"�� "��#��"��%

1�63

�!��"��"��'��"��

�6�

�!��"��'��"��

7�

7��"��

�� !!"

#%& ��

��) �� #��!-� ��!-� 3��

�� #�� ,-

��"��#�� "��

��"��

$�� "��"#��"�"��#��"��%��

�� "�� "��"��

��$�� %��3��"��

��"�� %��0�� '��"��

��"�� $�� "�#�

��"�"� ��*�"�� "�$#��"��%�

��"##��"��

��"#��#�%��0��"� �� '��"��

��"�� "��

��"�� 2 5��#��"�"� ��

� $�� "�#��"�"� ��"�$#��"��%

&�"#��$�$� �� "��$��#"�

��"��'�� "��

��"�"� ��"�$#��"�� $�� "�"#"�"� %�

��" �� #��"��"��"��

��"�� '��"�"��

��"�� #��'��"��

��"�� "��"�� %��

��"��"��$#��"��$�� '��"##��"��

�� "�"� ��"��"��

��"�� $��"�"��"��" ��'��

�/��$� "�#�'��"�� "��

��"�� %��0��$�$�"��"��#��'��

� �"��

��$#��"��"�� "��

��"��%�

��"##��"��"��" �"��"��%��

�� "�� $�

�� (�3��"�� '��%�%'�� $��"�#� ��"�

�� "��"#"�"� (�� "��

��#�� " �2�� $��5'��%�%'��

��"��"��"��#�$�� $��"��

��"��"#"�"� %�� $� ��

�� ##"�� $��#�%

! � ��"9��"��#��>A2"�5��#��(

� ��#��"��#�� "��

$��"��#"��=>B'FBB'???��

=1'->?'???6��%

� ��#��"��#�� "��

��$��"��#"��

=>'ACA'???��=F'?F:'???6��%

� ��#��"��#�� "�"��#

��"�� "��

$�� "�� "##��

��#�$��"��"��"��$#��"��

$�� %

��# ��"��#�� "��

��"�� "�$#��"��

$��"�"��$�##��"��#��"�� "��

$�4�� %��! � ��"9��"��#��F?2"�5��#��(

� ��#��"��#�� "�� $�4��

��#"��=-%1C��=:%1C��"##"��

��=-??'???6��%

� ��#��"��#�� "��

��"�"��#�$�4�� #"��=-%>��"##"��

=>':??'???6��%

� ��#��"��#�� "�"��#

��"�� "��

$�4�� "�� "##��#�$��

��"��"��"��$#��"��$�� %

�� !!"

�� #%!

��*�0�=!9�(;6��)11��4�,.��02��,+��1��,(/(

�� 03�

��

��

�,(/

�,(/>�0��

�,(/

�,(/>�0��

��"��

=B%AA:��"##"��

?=-%?.F��"##"��E@

=::?'???

��/"�

=F%:>-��"##"��

=C?'???

=-%A-:��"##"��E@

=-%.:��"##"��

+��"�#

=-F%F��"##"��E@

??

?

��

=1C1'???

?=>1:'???E@

=-:'???

,#��#�

?=-%.:?��"##"��

=1??'???

=-%>FA��"##"��

��"��

=A%A.:��"##"��

?M>1:'???E@

?

7�"��##?0��+" ��

=-BC'???

??

?

��#"��0��#��"��

=1:'???

@@

=-:?'???E@

@@@

��

?=>??'???

?=>A?'???

��"��"��'��#"��'��7� ��

=A?'???E@

??

?

7�$��"��

?@@

??

,"��"��

??

??

�3�!D

-

=>B'FBB'???E@

=1'->?'???6�

-

=>'ACA'???E@

-

=F'?:F'???6�E

@

@��

��#�� "��#��"�"��#��$�� "�� #�$��"��"��"��$#��"��$��

@@

0��#��"��=>??'???6��"��$� ��

@@@

0��#��"��=>A?'???6��"��$� ��

-��"��2E@5�"��"�� $#� ��"�"��#�� "��%

�� !!"

#&< ��

��*�0�?<�(;6��)11��4�,.��,B0�/��1-�010�/�/�,��,(/(

�� 03�

��

��

�,(/

�,(/>�0��

�,(/

�,(/>�0��

��"��

=-:%B��"##"��E@

?=:??'???E@

=-��"##"��

��/"�

=>?'???E@

??

?

+��"�#

=-1B%.>?��"##"��E@

??

?

��

=-%.��"##"��@@

??

?

,#��#�

=.%F��"##"��

??

=1%:��"##"��

��"��

=->1%:��"##"��

??

?

7�"��##?0��+" ��

=-�:��"##"��

=-??'???

=-%>��"##"��E@

?

��#"��0��#��"��

??

??

��

??

??

��"��"��'��#"��'��7� ��

??

??

7�$��"��

??

??

,"��"��

??

??

�3�!D

-

=-'1C>'AB?'???��

=:'1C>'AB?'???E@

=-??'???6�

-

=-'>??':??'???E@

=>':??'???6�

@��

��#�� "��#��"�"��#�$�4��"�$#��"�� "�� #�$��"��"��"��$#��"��$��

@@

��#��$� �� "��"��%

-��"��2E@5�"��"�� $#� ��"�"��#�� "��%

�� !!"

�� #&

new york-new jersey harbor estuary program · 2018. 11. 16. · new york state to an imaginary line...

Documents