Clean Ocean Action. August 4, 2005

Transcription

1 Participating Organizations Alliance for a Living Ocean American Littoral Society Arthur Kill Coalition Asbury Park Fishing Club Bayberry Garden Club Bayshore Saltwater Flyrodders Belford Seafood Co-op Belmar Fishing Club Beneath The Sea Bergen Save the Watershed Action Network Berkeley Shores Homeowners Civic Association Cape May Environmental Commission Central Jersey Anglers Citizens Conservation Council of Ocean County Clean Air Campaign Coalition Against Toxics Coalition for Peace & Justice Coastal Jersey Parrot Head Club Coast Alliance Communication Workers of America, Local 1034 Concerned Businesses of COA Concerned Citizens of Bensonhurst Concerned Citizens of COA Concerned Citizens of Montauk Dosil s Sea Roamers Eastern Monmouth Chamber of Commerce Environmental Response Network Explorers Dive Club Fisheries Defense Fund Fishermen s Dock Cooperative Fisher s Island Conservancy Friends of Island Beach State Park Friends of Liberty State Park Friends of Long Island Sound Friends of the Boardwalk Garden Club of Englewood Garden Club of Fair Haven Garden Club of Long Beach Island Garden Club of Morristown Garden Club of Navesink Garden Club of New Jersey Garden Club of New Vernon Garden Club of Oceanport Garden Club of Princeton Garden Club of Ridgewood Garden Club of Rumson Garden Club of Short Hills Garden Club of Shrewsbury Garden Club of Spring Lake Garden Club of Washington Valley Great Egg Harbor Watershed Association Highlands Business Partnership Highlands Chamber of Commerce Hudson River Fishermen s Association/NJ Interact Clubs of Rotary International Jersey Coast Shark Anglers Jersey Shore Audubon Society Jersey Shore Captains Association Jersey Shore Running Club Junior League of Monmouth County Junior League of Summit Kiwanis Club of Manasquan Kiwanis Club of Shadow Lake Village Leonardo Party & Pleasure Boat Association Leonardo Tax Payers Association Main Street Wildwood Marine Trades Association of NJ Monmouth Conservation Foundation Monmouth County Association of Realtors Monmouth County Audubon Society Monmouth County Friends of Clearwater Montauk Fisherman s Emergency Fund National Coalition for Marine Conservation Natural Resources Protective Association Navesink River Municipalities Committee Newcomers Club of Monmouth County NJ Beach Buggy Association NJ Commercial Fishermen s Association NJ Council of Dive Clubs NJ Environmental Federation NJ Environmental Lobby NJ Marine Educators Association NJ PIRG Citizen Lobby NJ Sierra Club NJ Windsurfing Association Nottingham Hunting & Fishing Club NYC Sea Gypsies NY/NJ Baykeeper NY Marine Educators Association Ocean Advocates Ocean Conservancy Ocean County Citizens for Clean Water Ocean Divas Ocean Wreck Divers Outreach/First Presbyterian Church of Rumson Picatinny Saltwater Sportsmen Club Raritan Riverkeeper Riverside Drive Association Rotary Club of Long Branch Saint George s by the River Church, Rumson Saltwater Anglers of Bergen County Sandy Hook Bay Catamaran Club Save Barnegat Bay Save the Bay SEAS Monmouth Seaweeders Garden Club Shark River Cleanup Coalition Shark River Surf Anglers Sheepshead Bay Fishing Fleet Association Shore Adventure Club Shore Surf Club Sierra Club, Shore Chapter Soroptimist Club of Cape May County South Monmouth Board of Realtors Staten Island Friends of Clearwater Strathmere Fishing & Environmental Club Surfers Environmental Alliance Surfrider Foundation, Jersey Shore Chapter TACK I Terra Nova Garden Club nitarian Universalist Congregation of Mon. County United Boatmen of NY/NJ United Bowhunters of NJ Volunteer Friends of Boaters Waterspirit Women s Club of Brick Township Women s Club of Keyport Women s Club of Long Branch Women s Club of Merchantville Zen Society Clean Ocean Action Ocean Advocacy Since 1984 August 4, 2005 Main Office 18 Hartshorne Drive P.O. Box 505, Sandy Hook Highlands, NJ Voice: Fax: SandyHook@CleanOceanAction.org Commissioner Bradley M. Campbell State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 401 East State St. Trenton, NJ Dear Commissioner Campbell; The need to address water quality concerns in Wreck Pond is clear. In response, the State put forth a multi-step action plan and is now moving forward with two of the steps by applying for permits to begin some of the work. While welcome, actions must be appropriate, based on sound science, and consistent with state policy. To reiterate comments made by Clean Ocean Action (COA) during recent public meetings on July 12 and July 18, a thorough analysis and specific, detailed objectives should have been developed for each individual phase, to allow New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and interested parties to adequately analyze and prioritization each phase. The entire project continues to be presented as a whole, and DEP has repeatedly stated that each phase will provide only part of the solution, suggesting significant improvements in water quality in and around Wreck Pond will only be possible if all phases of the project are implemented. This is contradictory to the way the project is being managed. Currently, the public only has the opportunity to evaluate and comment on two phases of the project (the sand dredging and the outfall extension). No detailed information has been provided on the remaining phases and information presented at the July 12 public meeting suggests that neither detailed plans nor funding are currently available for the other phases. How is the public supposed to assess the merits of each phase individually (which is required in the permit process) without the opportunity to assess the critical remaining phases and without any guarantee that these phases will even occur? Furthermore, the fact that both the sand dredging and outfall extension projects have already successfully gone out to bid significantly undermines the ability of the public to have their comments and concerns addressed. COA submits these comments on the Wreck Pond Sand Dredging permit application and trusts that the concerns and flaws in the permit will be addressed. COA has reviewed the DEP Bureau of Coastal Engineering (BCE) application to dredge approximately 80,000 CY of material from Wreck Pond and place it on the adjacent beaches. It is not clear how this particular phase of the project will improve water quality, and in fact, it may adversely affect water quality. In short: there are significant issues with bacteriological threats, beach placement of dredged materials and analyses of water quality improvements. COA s concerns about the project are detailed below. 1 Institute of Coastal Education 3419 Pacific Avenue P.O. Box 1098 Wildwood, NJ Voice: Fax: Wildwood@CleanOceanAction.org Printed on 100% post-consumer recycledpaper.

2 I. Enterococcus and Fecal Coliform Threats: The BCE failed to comply with testing requirements set by the Office of Sediment and Dredging Technology (OSDT) set in the April 19, 2005 letter 1, the limited data that are available indicate the sediments contain harmful concentrations of enterococci and there is a lack of State standards on bacteria in sand. All of these issues represent significant threats to water quality and human health. A. The enterococci and fecal coliform data are not adequate to properly analyze the bacterial contamination load of the sediments to be disposed of on the public beach. The BCE was required to conduct enterococci and fecal coliform analysis on each of 10 core samples, individually, as part of a larger sediment analysis regime. The BCE failed to conduct these bacterial analyses. Instead, at a much later date, the BCE collected 4 cores at different locations to conduct these analyses. This failure to comply with the specific testing requirements is unacceptable. The BCE must complete these analyses as described in the April 19, 2005 letter. B. Although the 4 core data analyzed failed to comply with the requirements, the limited data revealed levels of enterococci that exceed New Jersey s Recreational Bathing Standards. The proposed plan is to deposit these materials on a public beach or in the surfzone. Given these levels of enterococci, this poses a public health concern that has not been addressed in the plan. How does the State plan to protect public health? (see Section I-C.) 1. 3 of the 4 cores analyzed for enterococci and fecal coliform exceeded New Jersey s Recreational Bathing Standards 2 for enterococci of 104 colony forming units (CFU)/100ml and 2 of 4 exceeded New Jersey s 2003 Recreational Bathing Standards for fecal coliform of 200 CFU/100ml (Table 1). These data indicate the dredged material could pose a risk to beachgoers on the beaches and in the water. Table 1. Enterococci and Fecal Coliform Data Core F. Coliform Enterococcus (CFU/100ml) (CFU/100ml) Table reproduced from a summary of the Microbial Analysis Data provided by Mark Davis. 2. It is difficult to tell from the map provided where the location of the 4 cores were taken, but the 3 cores that exceeded the standard for Enterococcus (Cores 2 4) generally correspond to areas that contain only ~75% Sand. 1 Letter from Mark Davis, NJ DEP Office of Dredging and Sediment Technology TO Eugene Keller, NJ DEP Office of Engineering and Construction on April 19, 2005 Regarding: Supplemental Sediment Sampling Plan for Wreck Pond Project, NJ DEP File No New Jersey State Sanitary Code, Chapter IX, NJAC 8:

3 (Table 2: Cores 5-9 from the sediment sampling report). Core # 1 had the highest number of fecal coliforms per samples with 1033 CFU/100ml and appears to have been collected near the outfall pipe, in the general vicinity of cores that contained between % Sand (Table 3: Cores 1-4 from the sediment sampling report), indicating there are considerable bacteria issues even in the sand portion of the project. C. NJ DEP does not currently have a standard for bacteria levels in sand used for beach replenishment, and have consistently stated that bacteria is not a problem in sand. COA has repeatedly asked NJ DEP to provide scientific studies to support their assumption that enterococci and fecal coliform do not survive in sand. A recent report 3 contradicts this assumption by describing several scientific studies that have found significant concentrations of enterococci and fecal coliform bacterial in beach sands. Research suggests that bacteria can adhere to sediment particles in sand, which may also provide a source of nutrients. Furthermore, studies have shown that sand particles provide greater protection from photodegradation than water, which allows bacteria to survive longer in beach sand. Several studies indicated bacteria in sand could also act as a source for high bacterial counts in the water. The placement of enterococci and fecal coliform contaminated sand onto the beaches surrounding Wreck Pond could actually exacerbate water quality problems and increase beach closings by providing a direct source of bacteria. Research suggests that bacteria can survive and thrive in sand for much longer periods than in water, which could result in long term water quality problems at these beaches instead of just pulses during rain events. It is therefore imperative that the State address public health risks suggested by these studies, not just for this project but also for future projects that include placing sand on the beach. II. Grain Size Analysis: There are serious concerns about the quality of the sediments that are being used for beach replenishment including the weakening of standards for the percentage of sand, bacteria levels, compatibility of grain size and cores used for sediment analyses. A. Beach Sand Criteria: The NJ DEP must maintain the criteria established for this project of using only 90% Sand for beach disposal. Several key NJ DEP documents refer to the 90% Sand criteria 4,5,6 (as recent as an April 19, 2005 letter 7, ) State of the Beach Report: Bacteria in Sand, A National Call to Action. Clean Beaches Council, July Available online at 4 State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, Land Use Regulation Program Application Form (LURP # 1), Project: Wreck Pond Dredging, Applicant: State of New Jersey, DEP Bureau of Coastal Engineering, Signed by John Garofalo, Manager, Application for Department of the Army Permit (33 cfr 325), Project: Wreck Pond Dredging, Applicant: State of New Jersey, DEP Division of Engineering and Construction 6 Compliance Statement with Rules on Coastal Zone Management and Environmental Impact Statement for Dredging of Wreck Pond, Boroughs of Spring Lake and Sea Girt, Monmouth County, Division of Engineering and Construction Project # 2144, Prepared by Kelley Donnelly, December 22,

4 However, at some point, this standard was changed to allow 75% Sand. When and why was project criterion was lowered to include material that contained 75% Sand? What is the justification considering the well established bacterial contamination issues? This is clearly a step backwards for both beach and water quality and is unacceptable. The proposed use of sediments in the 75% Sand range would place sediments on the beach that contain at least 1/3 rd Mud/Silt (Table 2). I. Table 2. Cores that contained significantly less than 90% sand CORE % Sand % Silt/Clay Upper Layer Core Recovery of Mud/Silt II. Table 3. Cores that contained 90% or greater sand CORE % Sand % Silt/Clay Upper Layer Core Recovery of Mud/Silt Data reproduced from results of Grain Size Analysis conducted on the 10 Cores collected for sediment analysis. B. Bacteria Levels: Furthermore, the cores that consist of less than 90% Sand represent sediments that contain high levels of enterococci bacteria (see Section I-B) and are not appropriate for beach placement. C. Grain Size Analysis: The methods used to calculate grain size misrepresents the actual composition of the material, making it appear more compatible with current beach sand. The calculations for grain size are based only on the sand portion of the samples. This technique eliminates between 1/3 and 1/2 of the sediments in 5 of the 10 cores (Table 2), and consequently does not accurately assess the grain size of the material that is to go on the beach. These 5 cores represent over 50% of the sediments to be placed on the beach. 7 Letter from Mark Davis, NJ DEP Office of Dredging and Sediment Technology TO Eugene Keller, NJ DEP Office of Engineering and Construction on April 19, 2005 Regarding: Supplemental Sediment Sampling Plan for Wreck Pond Project, NJ DEP File No

5 D. Core Depth: The core depth of the 10 cores used for sediment analysis was between 5.0 and 6.1 ft 8 with an average core recovery depth of only 4.8 ft (See Tables 2 and 3, most were ~4.3 ft). Why was over 1/3 rd of the core content unrecoverable and therefore not analyzed? The result is an inadequate assessment of the contaminant load in the dredged material. III. Analysis of Anticipated Improvements in Water Quality: Significant changes in the overall project design requires a reanalysis of the anticipate effects on water quality and the cost/benefits of the project. A. The project description was changed multiple times and is considerably different then originally proposed. The amount of acceptable dredge material has been modified from 95,000 CY to 80,000 CY, along with a shift in the dredging location. These changes may have significantly impacted the ability of the dredging project to sufficiently improve flow and exchange between Wreck Pond and the ocean. The DEP BCE needs to provide an updated analysis of the expected improvements in water quality and flow with this latest design. B. Based on the above recalculations, the DEP BCE needs to compare the ecological and environmental costs and water quality benefits to determine if this phase is still a necessary and useful project IV. Mitigation Requirements: Because Wreck Pond is designated as Intertidal/Subtidal Shallow according to Coastal Zone Management rules 9, the proposed dredging depth of 6 feet will require mitigation 10. Is the action required to mitigate for pollution of the water column due to dredging or for loss of habitat? In the numerous public meetings regarding this project, there has been no mention of the mitigation requirement or any proposed plan for meeting this requirement. Information needs to be provided to the public on the reasons for mitigation and the proposed action that will be associated with this dredging project. Public review and comment is an integral part of thoughful, fact-based development of a project. To reiterate, it is not clear how the public comments received will be incorporated into the contracts that have already been awarded. It is imperative that each phase of the project stands alone in some capacity and meets some clearly defined objectives that validate the need for the particular phase. NJ DEP has yet to provide these objectives for the Sand Dredging Project, and based on the issues raised above, there are serious questions about the ability of the proposed Sand Dredging Project to improve water quality in and around Wreck Pond. 8 Letter from Crist Robine, Richard Stockton College of NJ Coastal Research Center TO Eugene Keller, NJ DEP Office of Engineering and Construction on May 15, 2005, Regarding the Collection of Sediments Selected for Dredging from Wreck Pond. 9 Coastal Zone Management Rules, N.J.A.C. Section 7:7E-3.15(a) 10 Coastal Zone Management Rules, N.J.A.C. Section 7:7E-3.15(g) 5

6 Please provide a written reply to these comments. Sincerely, Cindy Zipf, Executive Director Jennifer Samson, Ph.D. Principal Scientist cc: Mark Davis, NJDEP Office of Dredging and Sediment Technology 6