New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Action Plan for

Transcription

1 New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Action Plan for Helping to Protect and Preserve The Waters We Share

2 The New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program Table of Contents Mission Statement and Introduction Page 1 Goal 1 Clean Up Pollution in the Estuary Page 10 Goal 1A Pathogens Page 10 Goal 1B Toxics Page 15 Goal 1C Nutrients Page 19 Goal 1D Floatable Debris Page 23 Goal 2 Habitat and Ecological Health Page 26 Goal 3 Improve Public Access Page 31 Goal 4 Support an Economically and Ecologically Viable Estuary and Port Page 35 Goal 4A Sediment Quality Page 36 Goal 4B Sediment Quantity Page 38 Goal 4C Navigation Page 41 Goal 5 Public Education and Community Involvement Page 44 Regulatory Actions Page 47 Cover photo courtesy of Don Riepe

3 Mission Statement and Introduction Harbor Estuary Program Mission Statement Designated as an Estuary of National Significance by the Clean Water Act in 1987, the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary is a complex ecological system in the midst of a major urban center and port. The New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program provides a forum to develop and implement actions that improve the health of the Estuary by convening a partnership of interested stakeholders, utilizing sound science to analyze the issues, and working to carry out recommendations that are environmentally and economically responsible. This Action Plan highlights the important environmental issues facing the New York- New Jersey Harbor Estuary that the participants in the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program (HEP) are striving to address. It is organized around five major themes or goals: Clean Up Pollution in the Estuary; Habitat and Ecological Health; Improve Public Access; Support an Economically and Ecologically Viable Estuary and Port; and Promote Public Education and Community Involvement. Each of the five themes within this Action Plan describes the challenge, accomplishments to date, and priority actions recommended by HEP. Science, Stewardship, and Policy are important to restoring the harbor as noted in many of the priority actions. HEP recognizes that ongoing dialogue with all interested parties is important to the development of scientifically sound recommendations and actions. HEP will continue to undertake technical discussions and review all scientific analyses within the forum of the various work groups. Regulatory actions taken outside of HEP by individual agencies clearly benefit from the broad participation facilitated by HEP. This document will be updated periodically to reflect new information, evolving priorities, and progress on recommended priorities. It is an organizing instrument to assist implementation of the major actions in HEP s Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Coordination of local and regional plans is important for the overall restoration of the Estuary. Many of these plans, such as the Hudson River Action Agenda, New York Page 1

4 City's PlaNYC, Regional Sediment Management, and the Comprehensive Restoration Plan, have compatible goals and objectives. The Comprehensive Restoration Plan (CRP) evolved out of an objective in HEP s 1996 Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan that called for a regional strategy to protect and restore habitats. The CRP is a collaborative effort that included scientists and stakeholders and has been endorsed by HEP as a path forward for the restoration of the Estuary. It includes focus on habitat restoration and protection, sediment management, water quality, and public access. View the current draft at Background When Henry Hudson arrived in September 1609 he found a rich, bountiful and unspoiled Estuary with over 1,000 miles of coastline supporting over 300 species of birds. According to records, it was described as: as fine a river as can be found wide and deep, with good anchoring ground on both sides. During his short stay, Hudson and his crew enjoyed a rich and bountiful local fare, including oysters, squash, and grapes, and traded for beaver and otter skins with Native Americans as they explored the river. From first sailing the river that now bears his name, Henry Hudson recognized the vast potential of the New York and New Jersey Harbor Estuary. In the centuries since, dramatic changes have occurred to the Estuary in the pursuit of this potential, both beneficial and detrimental. Today, it is a very different place. The Estuary has lost over 85% of the estimated wetlands and mudflats that once existed and suffers from increased saltwater intrusion due to hydraulic and hydrodynamic changes from dredging and freshwater diversion. The Estuary has ubiquitous organic and inorganic contamination of air, water and sediments from numerous industrial and commercial point and non-point sources. It also is the home of numerous superfund and brownfield sites adjacent to or in the tidal waters. Most of the Estuary is closed to shellfishing. In spite of all this, water quality is better today than it has been in decades due to advancements in wastewater treatment and control of pollution discharges. While there are still advisories about consuming some species of fish, there is greater diversity than in recent years and some species have become quite abundant. In the middle of the Estuary is the Port of New York and New Jersey. The port is a major economic driver for the 20 million people that live within the Estuary s borders. It is the leading container, auto and petroleum port on the East Coast, supports over 270,000 jobs locally, and generates $20 billion annually in Gross Domestic Product. The New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary was designated an "Estuary of National Significance" in 1988 by the US Environmental Protection Agency, in response to a request by the two state governors. The HEP was convened as a partnership of Federal, state, and local governments; scientists; civic and environmental advocates; the fishing community; business and labor leaders; and educators. Called the Management Conference, its mission was to develop a plan to protect and restore the Estuary. The geographic area of the program is considered to be the tidal waters from the Tappan Zee Bridge on the Hudson River, south to the Sandy Hook Far Rockaway transect, and includes the waters of Jamaica Bay, Raritan Bay, Newark Bay, the East River and the Page 2

5 tidal tributaries that feed into these water bodies. In 1987, Congress also required the preparation of a restoration plan for the New York Bight, the ocean area extending approximately 100 miles beyond Harbor waters. Because the Harbor and Bight are inextricably linked within the larger ecosystem, the two plans were joined. A Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan was finalized in 1996 and approved by the Governors of New York and New Jersey in the fall of The Action Plan guides implementation to foster improvements to the health of the Estuary. There are numerous causes for the problems that stress the Estuary, some are historical and others are emerging areas of concern. Addressing this complex situation requires a concerted and coordinated effort that has given rise to the collaborative role of HEP. This is embodied in the Management Committee with representation of partners from state, Federal and local governments and agencies, citizens and scientific advisory groups, and others. In addition to the work coordinated through HEP, these partners and other organizations are engaged in planning and implementation efforts that support and complement HEP initiatives. Significant progress has been made over the decades on a wide variety of issues, many of which are detailed in this action plan. The Program has also shifted from a limited approach that focused on the waters of the Estuary to a broader approach that recognizes the influence of the upland watersheds and addresses both problems and solutions from an ecosystems perspective. It should also be recognized that there are other local, state and regional planning efforts that complement, and in some cases, conflict with the HEP efforts. HEP will strive to resolve or minimize these conflicts and at the same time, work to enhance complementary efforts. Broad Challenges Funding and Climate Change Since the adoption of the Management Plan, funding streams have diminished significantly and climate change has emerged as a threat to the health of the Estuary. The fiscal constraints provide a challenge to maintaining hard-won gains. To continue improvement, sources of stable and sufficient funding need to be identified. Climate change is a serious threat to the Harbor Estuary and is being addressed by numerous organizations and agencies with a variety of reports and initiatives. HEP and its partners will need to ensure that those efforts inform decisions concerning the Priority Actions. These two overarching issues are highlighted below and permeate almost every Priority Action item. There are occasions where the long-term goals and policies of the several HEP partners come into conflict given their varied missions, priorities and, for some, regulatory mandates. While it is important to resolve many of these conflicts, reaching resolution of these conflicts can be a challenge. HEP is a key forum for addressing these issues, however, the resolution of those issues can take considerable time and effort and affect the implementation of the agreed upon Goals in this Action Plan. Page 3

6 Funding Challenge The waters and surrounding habitat of the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary have experienced remarkable improvement and restoration from their nadir in the first half of the 20 th century. Prior to the landmark Clean Water Act and corresponding state legislation, untreated municipal wastewater transformed the waters of the Harbor into an open sewer, while industrial discharges of toxics created a legacy of contaminated sediments that continues today. Consequently, demands for public access, recreational use and habitat restoration were inconceivable for most people. But the investment and resulting progress made in the 1970s and early 1980s created a foundation that puts the goals of the Action Plan within reach. Without a doubt, the most significant challenge to achieving the goals outlined in this Action Plan is the identification of funding for implementation of the proposed actions. The proposed actions especially those associated with capital water quality improvement projects, sediment management issues, and habitat protection and restoration will require hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars to implement. Current funding for National Estuary Programs is only sufficient to maintain a program structure and fund stewardship activities and small pilot studies. The previous water quality improvement the Harbor experienced in the 1970s and 1980s was made possible through considerable investment. Future progress regarding water quality, as well as environmental issues that go beyond water quality, will require a similar commitment of funding. The stewards of estuaries and other waters around the nation, such as Puget Sound, Chesapeake Bay, and closer to home Long Island Sound, Lake Champlain and the Great Lakes, have recognized this need and have been successful in securing funding which has helped to undertake the work that needs to be done. This Action Plan requires resources on a comparable scale. In the current fiscal environment, funding is clearly a challenge. Achieving the goals will require a collaboration of Federal, state, local and private sources. But many of the HEP stakeholders including New York State and the State of New Jersey have noted that future success, as well as maintaining the gains made to date, has to start with the restoration of Federal funding for Clean Water Act Section 106 for states to carry out base water quality monitoring, assessment, planning, permitting and compliance activities required by the Act, as well as for other efforts, like state revolving funding for wastewater infrastructure projects and wet-weather grants. Habitat restoration and protection, especially in the face of climate change, will require similar levels of funding. To achieve that end, a great deal of work needs to be done. Fiscal constraints for states and local governments are expected to continue well into the future, and the Federal government s ability to pay for new projects or programs is also anticipated to decrease significantly. In order to achieve the Action Plan s goals, projects must be carefully prioritized and a variety of funding streams will likely need to be identified. To take water quality as an example, USEPA reported in 2000 that, while tremendous Page 4

7 Fundings Enacted (Dollars in Billions) progress has been made in improving water quality, without continued improvements in wastewater treatment infrastructure, future population growth will erode away many of the Clean Water Act achievements in effluent loading reduction. In the coming decades, New York City anticipates the addition of approximately one million new residents. However, as the graph below shows, appropriations in support of wastewater treatment have historically fluctuated. The trend over the past decade is consistent with the inability to maintain long-term funding for wastewater treatment. Nation-Wide Federal Funding Construction Grants and Clean Water State Revolving Fund Clean Water State Revolving Fund 1987 Clean Water Act Title VI Construction Grants Page 5

8 1 Similar issues occur with respect to other Federal funding sources, such as Section 106 Clean Water Act funding, which provides grants to the states to implement water pollution control programs. The Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) has documented the significant divide between the amount which the Federal government provides for CWA activities, and the amount that states need to meet federal mandates. Given current Federal fiscal constraints, this divide is likely to grow. 2 ASIWPCA has recommended that: $5 billion annually be appropriated for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund for wastewater infrastructure, The Clean Water State Revolving Fund be amended to allow for grant funding that states could manage to maximize available funding to needed projects, 1 Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency; Progress in Water Quality: An Evaluation of the National Investment in Municipal Wastewater Treatment. (EPA-832-R ); June, Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators; Call for Change; undated. Page 6

9 A National Water Trust Fund be created to provide dedicated funding, at needed levels, for water and wastewater infrastructure through the State Revolving Funds and programmatic funding, $1 billion annually be appropriated for Federal Clean Water Act implementation by the states under Section 106. Similar funding challenges exist for aspects of the Action Plan beyond water quality, such as habitat restoration and protection, public access, and maintaining an ecologically and economically viable port. Implementing the Action Plan will require the bridging of two divergent issues, dealing with the current trend of diminishing funding and maintaining, if not continuing to improve, the Estuary s environmental health. To effectively manage these two conflicting challenges will take ingenuity and commitment. Implementing the Action Plan is well worth confronting the challenges of this complex mandate. Climate Change A significant challenge over the coming decades will be mitigating or adapting to the impact of climate change. The Earth s climate has, until recently, been variable but stable for several thousand years. In the past 130 years, the earth s temperature has been increasing at an accelerating pace, mostly due to scientists have concluded with a very high degree of certainty human activity. Warming in the last 100 years has caused approximately an increase of.74 C (1.33 F) in global temperature, with more pronounced rises occurring in the metropolitan region, due to urban effects (figure a). During this century, global temperature is likely to rise C ( F). This rise in global temperature is partly responsible for rising sea levels. On a local scale, sea level has risen at an average rate of 1.2 inches per decade (figure b), with approximately two thirds caused by global warming and the other third, by land subsidence (tectonic plates shifting downward). On a regional level, climatic changes are projected to result in an increased frequency of extreme events: heavy precipitation (likely primarily during winter), severe drought, and heat waves. Further, sea level rise will both inundate low-lying areas over time and very likely increase the intensity, frequency, and duration of floods associated with storm surge. For the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary region, the consequences of these projected changes on our buildings and infrastructure, agriculture, human health, ecosystems, and recreation, will have multiple impacts. Increased temperatures and potential reductions in air quality can affect our decisions to be outdoors, as they are debilitating and even deadly, particularly for the elderly. Increased energy use to cool down homes and businesses can lead to more frequent blackouts. Increased flooding affects our structures, transportation, and response. Some of the highest risks, however, are confronted by species that do not have an ability to relocate to more habitable climates, given the rapidity of change. Climate change is likely to exacerbate many of the existing stressors our ecosystems face, such as fragmentation and habitat reduction, invasive species, and habitat quality stresses. Among other concerns, the need for Page 7

10 contiguous, high quality habitat becomes critical as species need to move away from or into the region to survive. The extent to which all of these impacts are realized will depend on whether or not we make a concerted effort as a region to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and build resilience into our structures, emergency response, conservation, and restoration activities. Figures a-b: Observed 20 th century temperature increases (Central Park) and sea level rise (Battery tide gage) in New York City (Horton and Rosenzwieg 2010). a) b) Local, state and Federal agencies, non-governmental organizations, and academic institutions are studying, preparing for, and implementing measures to address climate change at the local, regional and national level: The US Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, are studying, planning, and working to reduce both emissions and build resilience to potential impacts. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative is a mandatory reduction program signed onto by ten states, including New Jersey and New York that aims to reduce state emissions of greenhouse gases 10% by New Jersey has adopted a Global Warming Response Act, which set statewide limits on greenhouse gas emissions in 2007, and mandates a statewide reduction Page 8

11 of 20% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 below 2006 levels. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has created a working group to move adaptation forward. The New York State Climate Action Council prepared a Climate Action Plan interim report to plan for adaptation to climate change pressures New York City has produced several publications on adaptation and climate risk information under its PlaNYC, including a projection of the potential for up to four feet of sea level rise by the 2080s. New York City s recently released Green Infrastructure Plan is projected to control runoff from 10% of the City s impervious surfaces by The potential negative impacts on the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary are serious and permeate almost every aspect of the Action Plan of the Program. The Program will work to incorporate climate change considerations into its activities and priorities, and to identify partnership opportunities. The Program will work toward a long-term goal of reducing human impacts on our climate and Estuary, and of boosting the resilience of our Estuary in the face of changes. Page 9

12 Goal 1 Clean up Pollution in the Estuary: All of the Harbor waters will meet the Fishable/Swimmable goal of the Clean Water Act, where attainable. There are four sub-goals that make up Goal 1: Pathogens, Nutrients, Toxics, and Floatables. Each is presented separately below. Goal 1A Pathogens: Increase the area for shellfish harvesting and eliminate conditions which limit swimming and other water contact activities or cause bathing beach closures while maintaining protection of human health. Challenge: The Final Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) prepared by the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program has identified two human use impairments due to pathogen contamination: beach closures and other restrictions to recreational use, and shellfish bed closures. Pathogens are disease-causing microscopic bacteria, protozoans, and viruses. Pathogens are present in untreated or inadequately treated human sewage and domestic and wild animal wastes. Primary sources of pathogens include Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), sewage treatment plant malfunctions, illegal connections to storm sewers, inadequately maintained infrastructure, vessel sewage discharges, urban runoff and other non-point sources of pollution. Maintaining pump out stations in service has also proven difficult. Bacterial indicators are currently used to evaluate the potential for pathogen contamination. Bacterial water quality for recreational bathing is generally acceptable on the New Jersey and New York coasts on the Atlantic Ocean (New Jersey coastline south of Sandy Hook and the south shore of Long Island). Occasionally, however, certain beaches are closed because of elevated coliform concentrations. Open waters within the Harbor frequently do not meet primary contact recreational standards. Further, virtually no waters meet the shellfishing standard. Not only does this impact commercial and recreational shellfishing, it also puts major constraints on restoration of oysters and other shellfish for ecological purposes. These elevated levels usually result from wet weather events as a result of storm water discharges and CSOs, and less frequently from malfunctions in wastewater collection and treatment systems. Water quality improvements through enhancement and replacement to infrastructure to alleviate CSO pathogen contamination will require significant funding of capital projects. These efforts can be complemented through local projects and pilot programs that could be undertaken to improve water quality. CSO and stormwater control are very costly endeavors. One traditional approach relies on detaining excess combined and stormwater runoff until the flow has diminished sufficiently, at which point the flow can be redirected to the waste-water treatment plant. New York City has completed several such projects and others are underway, but the cost is very high. Alternative methods include so-called green infrastructure approaches. Such techniques rely on increasing the infiltration of water into the ground through the installation of pervious pavement, rain gardens, and green roofs. While the green infrastructure approach cannot completely eliminate the need for more traditional CSO Page 10

13 control projects, they can be an effective complement. However, these types of projects would need to be installed on a very broad scale in order to make meaningful pollution reductions. Accomplishments to Date: As noted above, the effective control of pathogens needs to take the form of both large scale capital projects as well as smaller scale best management practices that can be undertaken by many stewards. Numerous capital projects have been carried out by municipalities in New York and New Jersey that have resulted in improvements in the level of pathogens in recent decades. These projects include increased in-line storage within the sewage system or separate storage tanks such as those at Paerdegat Basin and Flushing Creek to hold excess volume until it can be treated. NYCDEP has developed and is implementing a comprehensive CSO abatement program to improve water uses throughout the City. The program divides the City into eleven CSO planning areas, which together cover the entire City s waterbodies. NYCDEP has fully implemented the Nine Minimum Control requirements of the National CSO Control Policy to reduce the impacts of rainfall-induced discharges, particularly from CSOs and NJDEP is working to ensure that its permittees are meeting the requirements as well. The HEP Pathogens Work Group completed a technical analysis for the attainment of water quality standards for pathogens, including reduction targets. The data and modeling results of this work will be considered by the states as they develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the Harbor waters. Improved stormwater management will ultimately have positive impacts on CSO discharges in combined systems. HEP partners are increasingly looking to green infrastructure, such as green roofs and rain gardens, to assist in the reduction of CSO events. Green roof over a portion of the Paerdegat Basin CSO facility on Jamaica Bay demonstrates a method of reducing stormwater and CSO flow to the system. Photo courtesy of NYCDEP Page 11

14 The Bronx River Initiative is a program resulting from an enforcement settlement. Under that settlement, approximately $7 million worth of stormwater control projects are to be completed in the Bronx River watershed. Some of the projects already awarded control runoff from parking lots and maintenance areas, redirect roof runoff to rain gardens, and replace impervious surfaces with pervious ones. In September 2010, NYCDEP released for public review the NYC Green Infrastructure (GI) Plan. This plan supports the use of green infrastructure and other stormwater source controls to improve water quality. The NYCDEP proposes to include key components of the GI plan with their CSO Long-Term Control Plans (LTCP), mandated by a 2005 Consent Order with NYSDEC. As part of the overall LTCP CSO control strategy for the City, the NYCDEP will evaluate green infrastructure in combination with other traditional grey strategies to control CSO and achieve water quality goals. The DEP initially proposes to control runoff from new and existing development by capturing and managing the first inch of rain from 10% of the impervious areas in NYC over the next 20 years. Preliminary analysis shows green infrastructure can reduce CSOs by 1.5 billion gallons a year as a component of an adaptive management strategy that includes costeffective grey infrastructure, water conservation and system optimization. The actual impact on the amount of CSO reduction expected and resulting ambient water quality improvement from implementation of the Green Infrastructure Plan has not yet been determined. NYSDEC is currently in discussions with NYCDEP on the details of the Plan. As the most densely developed city in the United States, New York City generates a tremendous volume of runoff from rooftops, streets, and other impervious surfaces every time it rains. These rain events are expected to increase with climate change. Reducing CSO remains one of the most significant challenges to achieving water quality goals in the Harbor waters. The City has made great progress over the past 20 years as CSO capture has increased from 30% in the 1980s to Streetside swale on 99th Avenue helps retain stormwater runoff. Photo courtesy of NYCDEP Page 12

15 over 72% annually today, while sewage makes up a smaller proportion of total flow. Green infrastructure projects to control runoff provide a valuable complement to more traditional approaches. Strides have been made at eliminating discharges including the creation of the New Jersey clean marina program, the addition of western Long Island Sound and Hells Gate as no discharge zones and two pump out vessels working with New York/New Jersey Baykeeper. An evaluation was recently completed to identify areas around Sandy Hook Bay where the size of shellfish closures may be reduced by implementing enhanced stormwater and CSO controls. Priority Actions for Pathogens: 1.1 Complete Pathogens Assessment for Harbor. Policy: As of early 2011, EPA and the states have worked with a contractor to complete the analysis as to what pathogen load reductions would be needed from various sources to meet primary contact recreational and shellfishing standards where waters are so classified by the states. The next step is for the states to select which standards will be utilized and to put in place a program to achieve those reductions. (Responsible entities: NYSDEC, NJDEP and the HEP Pathogens Work Group (PWG.)) 1.2 Complete and Implement CSO Plans. Stewardship: Upon completion of pathogen load allocation effort, complete all CSO Long-Term Control Plans and set targets for implementation. (Responsible entities: NYC and NJ CSO communities responsible for preparation of plans; states responsible for overseeing and approving plans.) 1.3 Support for the Green Technology Initiative. Stewardship: Identify means of supporting the use of green technology to minimize the amount of stormwater runoff throughout the NY/NJ Harbor. This support may be through grants to groups to purchase rain barrels, develop Green Roofs and/or Blue Roofs, and carry out research and pilot studies to determine the effectiveness of green technology and construction methods. NYC currently has a Green Infrastructure Plan and Task Force that is the lead for this effort within NYC. Existing New Jersey regulatory and incentive programs will continue to encourage green stormwater technologies. (Responsible entities: PWG and NYCDEP.) Page 13

16 1.4 Expand area permitted for shellfish restoration. Science: Continue to evaluate potential water quality improvements expected by implementing pathogen load reductions and identify additional areas where the size of the shellfish closure could be reduced and promote adequate enforcement of regulations that would allow for restoration of shellfish populations for ecological purposes and/or shellfishing while assuring public health protection from the consumption of tainted shellfish harvest. Continue improvements in water quality and sediments. (Responsible entities: NJDEP and NYSDEC.) 1.5 Expand No Discharge Zone. Stewardship: By 2013, a no discharge zone for sanitary waste from recreational and commercial vessels for the New Jersey side of the Hudson River will be completed. (Responsible entity: NJDEP.) Stewardship: Increase the number of recreational vessel wastewater pumpout facilities available to the boating public, such that by 2013 vessel waste No Discharge Zones can be established in all recreational boating waters of New York State. Specifically this will require additional No Discharge Zone designations in the New York Harbor and other waters of the state. (Responsible entity: NYSDEC.) HEP activities for pathogens are overseen by the HEP Pathogens Work Group. Additional information about the Work Group plans, deliberations and activities may be found at: Enhanced tree pits along streets can help reduce stormwater runoff. Photo courtesy of NYCDEP Page 14

17 Goal 1B Toxics: Eliminate toxicity or bioaccumulation impacts on living resources by reducing contaminant inputs and cleaning up contaminated sites, and manage risk to humans from seafood consumption. Challenge: Toxics contamination is perhaps the most serious and challenging problem facing the New York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary. Organic and inorganic contaminants, including PCBs, dioxins, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), have poured into the Estuary over time. While many of the discharges have been curtailed over the years, there are still active inputs of contaminants through industrial discharges, and sewage treatment plants. Non-point and accidental sources include: leaks and spills, erosion of historically contaminated sediments, combined sewer overflows, atmospheric deposition and tributary runoff. As most of the contaminants are persistent and relatively insoluble in water, they have accumulated in sediments of the Estuary, making them troublesome for years to come. Passaic River passing through Newark has been the subject of an intensive study for contaminant remediation. Photo courtesy of the Passaic River Institute Current public health, economic and ecosystem problems that result from contaminants include: Fish consumption advisories and bans: Fish and crustaceans in the Estuary accumulate hazardous amounts of contaminants prompting officials to issue health advisories for consumption as well as commercial fishing bans. The actions of the states in issuing health advisories and posting warning signs are not consistent. Dredged material disposal: Bottom sediments in navigation channels are typically found to be too contaminated to be placed in the ocean and/or require Page 15

18 substantial additional costs to dispose. Costly alternative disposal practices must therefore be utilized, escalating port maintenance costs. Ecosystem damage: While the full range of contaminant effects to the estuarine ecosystem is currently unknown, some effects, such as sediment toxicity and impaired benthic community structure, persist. Emerging issues: A number of issues are emerging which will require action by the Program. These include the persistence and impact of additional contaminants such as pharmaceuticals and the role of the Program in emergency planning and response teams. (Actions on these issues may be recommended by the Regional Sediment Management Work Group.) The costly clean up of contaminant hot spots at numerous Superfund and other sites around the Harbor will go a long way to reducing ongoing sources of many persistent toxic contaminants. However, some contaminants, such as PCBs, mercury, and PAHs, are so widely distributed in the environment from diverse sources that include atmospheric deposition from upwind coal-burning power plants and vehicle exhaust it is not clear how or when their complete cleanup will be accomplished. Accomplishments to Date: The Assessment Phase of the Contamination Assessment and Reduction Project (CARP) was completed in September The project undertook a massive field data collection and modeling effort to identify problematic areas and contaminant source categories, and to project the effects of various clean-up and management options. As a next step, CARP plans to move into the Implementation Phase. The Lower Passaic River Restoration Project, combining Superfund with the USACE s restoration planning, was initiated to develop cleanup strategies for the severe sediment contamination of the lower Passaic River. EPA with their partners USACE, NJDEP, USFWS and NOAA are currently evaluating early actions available to address and remediate contaminated sediments within the lower 8 miles of the Passaic River, while a broader study of 17 miles of the lower Passaic River moves forward. EPA Region 2 listed the Berry s Creek site as a Superfund site the remediation of which will address a source of contamination flowing into the Estuary. Toxics trackdown work has been undertaken by a number of groups including NYSDEC, NJDEP, and the New Jersey Harbor Dischargers Group. Through a partnership with the Hudson River Estuary Program, contaminant trackdown and sediment monitoring outside the boundaries of the core area helped add up-river information to the CARP model. There has been success in refining techniques and identifying a limited number of PCB sources through a trackdown within the Linden- Roselle System. The New York Academy of Sciences has undertaken an assessment of trackdown techniques related to this work. A number of sediment decontamination processes have been developed by a consortium of agencies and institutions and will provide additional options for the management of contaminated sediments. As part of the TMDL analysis, the measured and model-predicted concentrations from the CARP project were compared to EPA, NY, and NJ endpoints. A list of contaminants that exceeded the states water Page 16

19 quality standards was developed. For a number of chemicals, reductions required to meet water quality standards were estimated using the existing CARP model and additional matrices developed for the TMDL analysis. The matrices allow the user to estimate the response of water, sediment and biota concentrations to changes in various source components, and the reduction in those components required to meet standards. This work continues with respect to model calculations and chemicals requiring TMDLs. For several chemicals there are outstanding issues which prevent finalizing the analysis, and some refinements of the CARP model were performed and are being reviewed. New York is revising water quality standards for two polyaromatic hydrocarbons. Reductions required to meet these revised standards are being identified to complete the TMDL analysis for the two chemicals. As part of the HRE Comprehensive Restoration Plan Contaminated Sediment TEC (Target), the CARP data was used to highlight hot spots of contaminated sediments within the Harbor for each major Contaminant of Concern. Priority Actions for Toxics: 1.6 Data and Monitoring Needs for Toxics Science: Data needs identified in the HRE Comprehensive Restoration Plan for the sediment contamination reduction target include the evaluation of: 1) current and historical bathymetry to aid in identification of sources of sediment contamination; 2) additional hydrodynamic data collection to better understand sediment transport within the HRE; 3) ambient conditions within the HRE ; 4) identification of point and nonpoint sources of contamination; 5) coordination of active remedial investigations within the HRE; and 6) sediment contamination on biota within the Estuary. In addition, it is necessary to evaluate the current status of sediment contamination within the Estuary as it has been ten years since the CARP models were developed and used to forecast future sediment contamination concentrations. Surface sediment concentrations and toxicity need to be Water quality sampling during a PCB track-down study in the Linden-Roselle Sewerage Authority system. Photo courtesy of the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners Page 17

20 measured through REMAP or other efforts, and a full review of dredged material testing data needs to be evaluated for temporal and spatial changes. Changes in contaminant loadings to the Estuary also need to be analyzed. Depending upon the analysis of the field samples, the models may need to be rerun to update the 40-year forecasts of CARP. (Responsible Entities: Toxics Work Group, Regional Sediment Management Work Group, and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee.) 1.7 Complete Toxics Assessment for the Harbor. Science: Complete the technical analysis for the attainment of standards for toxics, including establishment of any necessary reduction targets. Incorporate information into Total Maximum Daily Load for toxics. (Responsible entities: Effort is being coordinated by the HEP Toxics Work Group (TWG) and must ultimately be implemented by the states.) 1.8 Fish Advisory Information. Stewardship: Create coordinated state fish consumption advisory informational materials for shared waters of the Estuary. (Responsible entities: NYSDEC and NJDEP.) HEP activities for toxics are overseen by the HEP Toxics Work Group. Additional information about the Work Group plans, deliberations and activities may be found at: Page 18

21 Goal 1C Nutrients: Eliminate the adverse impacts of hypoxia and nutrient enrichment that result from human activities. Challenge: Excessive levels of nutrients, including carbon and nitrogen, have historically caused low dissolved oxygen conditions at locations throughout the New York-New Jersey Harbor. While water quality surveys have demonstrated that average annual conditions have improved significantly since implementation of the Clean Water Act (CWA) began in the 1970 s, some areas of the Harbor still do not meet the fishable/swimmable goals of the CWA. A complete assessment of dissolved oxygen in the Harbor and development of appropriate actions is a complex undertaking. Conditions in many of the New Jersey waters of the Harbor are only now being more fully documented as a result of a new monitoring and reporting program. Additional factors that need to be considered are the various layers of water quality standards, proposed revisions to some of these standards, field verification of the actual benefits of facility upgrades already underway, and the impact of non-point source reductions and other activities in the watershed. The System Wide Eutrophication Model (SWEM) is the modeling tool utilized by HEP to address dissolved oxygen conditions in the Harbor. Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen is another significant source in many systems, including the Harbor. Proposals are under consideration at the national level by EPA to further reduce this source and, if finalized, new load reduction estimates should be considered in the Harbor analysis. An increased emphasis on reducing the air component of nitrogen load will take pressure off expensive wastewater treatment alternatives, and will help to reduce climate change impacts. The cost for many of these water quality improvements will likely be significant; therefore, a phased approach to implementation may be in order. According to initial cost analysis reports produced by both the New Jersey Harbor Dischargers Group (NJHDG) and the NYCDEP, the potential cumulative costs for nitrogen and carbon reduction capital projects and operation and maintenance at wastewater treatment facilities run into billions of dollars. However, in order to implement even a portion of these major projects described in the two reports, a Federal, state and/or local financing plan will need to be developed. Once the management actions are identified, a cost analysis will be conducted by the states. Achievements to Date: The Nutrient and TMDL Oversight Groups have been working with a contractor to evaluate water quality conditions, assess loading reduction scenarios necessary to achieve those reductions, and develop management actions needed to achieve the fishable/swimmable goals of the CWA. While much of the technical work has been completed, significant policy choices must now be made that will determine the outcome of this effort. Numerous capital projects have been carried out by municipalities in New York and New Jersey that have resulted in significant improvements in dissolved oxygen Page 19

22 levels in recent decades. Examples include upgrades at Owls Head Publicly Owned Treatment Works in New York and Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners (PVSC) in New Jersey. Additional projects are planned or are being constructed in East River treatment plants, and at other locations, as a result of the Long Island Sound Total Maximum Daily Load. The NJHDG has initiated a water quality monitoring program in New Jersey waters that is complementary to the long time NYCDEP Harbor Survey and the results of both efforts are to be combined and reported on an annual basis. Additionally, other institutions are working under the aegis of Hudson River Environmental Conditions Observing System to improve monitoring. New York City DEP has committed $1.4 billion to reducing total nitrogen discharges to Long Island Sound and Jamaica Bay via the Modified Phase I Biological Nitrogen Removal (BNR) Facility Plan. In 2010 the NYC DEP completed BNR upgrades at two of its facilities: the 26 th Ward Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and the Hunts Point WWTP. Nitrogen discharges to Jamaica Bay have been reduced by 20%t and nitrogen discharges to the East River have been reduced by 50%. Newtown Creek Waste Water Treatment Plant digesters are part of a major upgrade by NYCDEP to reduce pollution. Photo courtesy of NYCDEP In February 2010, the NYCDEP, NYDEC, and constituent stakeholders reached agreement on $100 million of additional upgrades in the Jamaica Bay watershed. NYCDEP will further upgrade the 26 th Ward WWTP to a higher level of BNR by adding supplemental carbon, and the Jamaica WWTP will now receive BNR enhancements as Page 20

23 well. Over $10 million has been committed to restoring sensitive marshlands within Jamaica Bay, and the NYCDEP is studying further opportunities to improve Jamaica Bay water quality through piloting natural bioattenuation opportunities such as eelgrass planting and oyster harvesting. A New York State Dishwasher Detergent and Nutrient Runoff Law (Chapter 205 of the laws of 2010), was signed into law in July This law will improve water quality in New York by reducing phosphorus runoff into the state's waterbodies. It will also reduce costs to local governments and private entities required to remove excess phosphorus from stormwater and wastewater, and will expand recreational uses of the state's waters. New Jersey recently passed a bill to reduce non-point source pollution targeting fertilizers. The bill will require that all lawn fertilizer sold or used in New Jersey contain at least 20% of its nitrogen in slow release form. The bill also bans phosphorus outright in fertilizers, restricts application during the winter months, requires certification for professional applicators, and creates a small buffer area to restrict fertilizer application near waterways. In early 2011, NJDEP adopted and submitted to EPA for approval narrative nutrient criteria to all waters of the state. All waters require some level of nutrients. However, excessive nutrients cause the types of conditions described in the narrative criteria. "Except as due to natural conditions, nutrients shall not be allowed in concentrations that render the waters unsuitable for the existing or designated uses due to objectionable algal densities, nuisance aquatic vegetation, diurnal fluctuations in dissolved oxygen or ph indicative of excessive photosynthetic activity, detrimental changes to the composition of aquatic ecosystems, or other indicators of use impairment caused by nutrients." NJDEP is working to develop thresholds to be used in evaluating whether these conditions are present. These methods will be detailed in NJDEP s Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Methods Document. Priority Actions for Nutrients: 1.9 Support and Promote Best Management Practices (BMPs). Stewardship: Establishment of one or more challenge grant programs for municipalities to implement BMPs would enable additional projects to be undertaken. Possible projects could include revegetating stream buffers, programs to reduce application of fertilizers in areas that are prone to runoff, etc. NYCDEP has established a Best Management Practices Task Force for Jamaica Bay and the Nutrients Work Group will likely benefit from their findings and recommendations. (Responsible entities: states.) 1.10 Data collection assessment. Science: Assess existing data collection efforts to determine if the relevant and appropriate data is being collected and determine if a broad Page 21

24 study of data collection is warranted to ensure that the appropriate information is collected with respect to parameters, locations, and frequency. (Responsible entities: NJHDG and NYCDEP.) 1.11 Assess Dissolved Oxygen in New York Bight. Science: Dissolved oxygen modeling work being conducted for the Harbor is indicating that there may be a dissolved oxygen issue in the Bight as well, though the data to support the modeling is not as extensive as would be desired. EPA embarked on a sampling effort from 2008 through 2010 to collect new data to better assess the calibration of the model for the Bight. Initial assessment of the data indicates that the model is adequate for assessment of the Bight. Once a management plan and/or TMDLs are developed for the Harbor, attention will be focused on the Bight. HEP will also consider other technologies, such as gliders, for providing additional dissolved oxygen data. (Responsible entities: EPA is collecting the data and initial analysis is funded by HEP. Funds for any future recalibration of the model have yet to be identified. NJDEP will take the lead on assessing the applicability of glider-based information to this effort.) 1.12 Complete Nutrients Assessment for the Harbor. Science: By 2011, complete the technical analysis for the attainment of water quality standards for nutrients, including establishment of any necessary reduction targets. Incorporate information into Total Maximum Daily Load for nutrients. (Responsible entities: Effort is being coordinated by the HEP Nutrients Work Group (NWG) and TMDL Oversight Group and must ultimately be implemented by the states.) HEP activities for nutrients are overseen by the HEP Nutrients Work Group. Additional information about the Work Group plans, deliberations and activities may be found at: Page 22

25 Goal 1D: All of the Harbor will be essentially free from floatable debris. Challenge: In the 1980s, floatable debris (buoyant waterborne waste material such as wood, cans, bottles, plastic; buoyant sanitary and medical waste) caused significant beach closures in the NY-NJ Harbor, while also adversely impacting recreational and commercial boating and coastal marine species. Many other harbor shorelines and waterways historically were, and to some extent continue to be, blighted by trash. These hazards, although significantly reduced over the years, remain a major concern related to the current impact of floatables on the economy and environment in the Harbor and reducing floatables at their sources continues to be a challenge. Key sources of floatables in the NY-NJ Harbor include CSOs, storm water discharges, non-point sources (from solid waste handling systems, littering, etc.), decaying shoreline structures, and vessel discharges. Resuspension of already deposited floatable materials during high tide is also a significant contributing factor. Accomplishments to Date: Due to the efforts of the interagency HEP Floatables Workgroup, a Floatables Action Plan was put in place in 1989, resulting in significant reduction in beach closures through identification and collection of floatable debris in the Harbor Complex. This plan was updated and enhanced in In 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008 and 2009 there were no closures at the NY-NJ Harbor beaches caused by floatables wash-ups, however, in 2007 there were two incidents of beach closures due to floatables of undetermined origin at New Jersey beaches. Floatable debris removal by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Keith Meyers/New York Times Page 23

26 The USACE s Drift Removal Program consists of locating, collecting, removing and disposing of up to 530,000 cubic feet or drift and floatables per year, which equates to about 450 TEUs (Twenty-foot Equivalent Units) of inter-modal cargo containers, or 225 forty-foot highway tractor-trailers, from the NY/NJ Harbor annually. A number of stewardship groups, such as the American Littoral Society, Clean Ocean Action and NJDEP s Adopt a Beach Program, conduct volunteer debris cleanup programs in tributaries, wetlands and other important areas of the Harbor. There are also large-scale full-time cleanup operations operated by the USACE, Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners Passaic River Restoration Program and NJDEP s Clean Shores Program that remove hundreds of tons of debris from the harbor each year. NYCDEP conducts an extensive program to monitor floatables conditions along City shorelines and in City waters. A new PVSC skimmer vessel operations and maintenance facility has been added to the Passaic River. Control of floatables discharged by municipal sewer systems has been and remains a key challenge. Both New Jersey and New York City are undertaking aggressive floatable control programs as part of their respective CSO and stormwater abatement programs. In addition, a number of agencies in both New Jersey and New York have beach and/or shoreline clean-up programs in place. Floatable control measures at a New York City Combined Sewer Overflow Photo courtesy of NYCDEP New Jersey has adopted the most stringent CSO Solids/Floatables Control requirement in the nation. All New Jersey CSO permittees must capture and remove solids/floatables that cannot pass through a bar screen having bar spacing of ½ inch. Overall, 83% of New Jersey s CSOs discharging to the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Complex have Long-Term CSO Solids/Floatable Control Measures constructed and operational. In addition, New Jersey also implements a strong stormwater program, particularly for its Phase II MS4s. New Jersey designated the entire state for MS4 permit coverage, issuing four MS4 permits: (1) densely populated and coastal communities, (2) rural communities, (3) public complexes, and (4) highway agencies. New York City employs a multi-faceted approach to floatables control that emphasizes source controls where possible. Street sweeping, catch-basin controls, and maximizing wet-weather capture of combined sewage at treatment plants are used in conjunction with NYCDEP s extensive outfall booming and skimming program to provide a very high level of floatables control. In addition, the impact of NYCDEP s CSO Long-Term Control Facilities, such as the Flushing Bay CSO Retention Facility, are also improving floatables control. NYCDEP is also engaged in various ongoing public education and Page 24

27 outreach efforts, such as the Water On-The-Go program to provide alternatives to the use of disposable water bottles, and the Clean Streets = Clean Beaches program to discourage littering and dumping into catch basins. Priority Actions for Floatable Debris: 1.13 Control Floatables at their Sources. Stewardship: Reduce the amount of floatables originating from street litter and continue and enhance floatables controls at CSO and stormwater points to prevent floatables from entering the Harbor (Responsible entities: NYCDEP, NJDEP.) 1.14 Support Shoreline Clean-ups Stewardship: Support efforts to remove debris from shorelines around the Harbor to enhance habitat, aesthetics, safety, and to prevent resuspension and dispersal of the material. (Responsible entities: Federal, state, and municipal governments.) 1.15 Floatables Action Plan. Stewardship: Continue the multi-agency Floatables Action Plan, coordinated by EPA and designed to identify and collect floatables slicks in the NY-NJ Harbor before they exit the Harbor and threaten swimming beaches and other shorelines. (Responsible entities: USEPA, USACE, NYCDEP, NJDEP and PVSC.) Students participating in shoreline clean up on Jamaica Bay Photo courtesy of Don Riepe, American Littoral Society Page 25

28 Goal 2: Habitat and Ecological Health Preserve, manage, and enhance the Estuary s vital habitat, ecological function, and biodiversity so that the Harbor is a system of diverse natural communities. Challenge: As with all urban estuaries, the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary has lost much of its historical natural habitat. The remaining plant communities and habitats are important for their own sake, but are also critically important for sustaining the hundreds of species that depend on them. These valuable natural areas also provide much needed open space for humans. There is intense pressure to develop many of the remaining unprotected habitat areas for commercial, residential, recreation, transportation, and other purposes. Financial resources for the acquisition and protection of these sites are far less than what is needed. In many cases, the owners of the sites are also not willing sellers. Degradation of habitat has also been a problem. Toxic contamination of soil and sediments, historical and illegal filling of wetlands, interference with natural hydrological functions, and overuse are among a few of the stressors in place on habitats in the Harbor. Through the Comprehensive Restoration Project (CRP), HEP has set goals for restoration and will be tracking efforts so that success can be measured. USACE, Hudson-Raritan Estuary Comprehensive Restoration Plan: DRAFT- Volume 1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District, New York, NY Page 26

29 Accomplishments to Date: The draft CRP was completed in March 2009 and is expected to be finalized in mid-2011 following all the public outreach meetings. Meaningful coordination between the CRP and adjacent efforts, such as the New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan, the NYSDEC Hudson River Estuary Program s Habitat Restoration Plan (upriver, north of Tappan Zee), Long Island Sound Study and other large-scale restoration efforts will be necessary to enhance success. The Restoration Work Group (RWG), an outgrowth of and successor to the Habitat Work Group (HWG), has continued in its quest to serve as a regional forum and catalyst for efforts focused on maintaining and restoring an ecologically healthy ecosystem. Specifically the RWG aims to conceive of and help strategically guide programs that will restore the region s ecosystems in such manner as to promote their biodiversity, increase and protect ecologically important open space, encourage sound watershed management, decrease erosion and pollution of the watershed, increase public access, and increase public awareness of the Harbor s ecological and recreational values. The work of the RWG touches on aspects of the primary purpose of several other work groups (for example, Regional Sediment Management, Public Access, Toxics and others) and therefore requires coordination and communication of RWG activities with those other work groups. With regard to habitat, HEP is focusing on the 11 Target Ecosystem Characteristics (TECs) outlined in the Hudson Raritan Estuary Comprehensive Restoration Plan to restore the Estuary. HEP is also partnering with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NY District, to advance the Hudson-Raritan Estuary Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study. The Study is combining and refining habitat site acquisition and restoration data-sets; making site information available on the web through OASIS, and supporting planning for small-scale habitat restoration projects (Rahway fish passage and Idlewild Park wetland restoration). From HEP partners, including NJDEP, NYSDEC and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey acquired 5,211 acres for protection, many of these will be subject to restoration. In addition, restoration projects were completed in 691 acres throughout the Estuary in the same period. In 2010, oyster restoration was advanced by a consortium of partners through the construction of six experimental reefs within the Harbor to collect data on the future creation of sustainable reefs that will advance the goals set forth in the HRE CRP. Monitoring these reefs will continue through Oyster restoration targets were set with 500 acres over distinct sites by 2015 and a long-term target of 5,000 acres by Oyster restoration is a shared goal with the NYSDEC Hudson River Estuary Program. In 2010, a two-year study funded by NYSDEC examining oyster restoration feasibility in the Tappan Zee region of the Estuary was completed. Page 27

30 Planning for fish passage at two dams on the Bronx River have been selected for funding by HEP in early In 2008, HEP helped fund the integration of habitat restoration into plans for the daylighting of the Saw Mill River in the downtown section of Yonkers. Groundwork Hudson Valley worked to incorporate habitat components into the daylighting project including tidal marsh, installation of a fish ladder, and oyster beds. A ground-breaking ceremony was held in December In 2007, HEP helped fund the Eastern Preparing experimental oyster reef. Queens Alliance, Inc., to complete design Photo courtesy of Dennis Suszkowski, Hudson River Foundation drawings, develop, and administer construction documents for a wetland restoration project within Idlewild Park. NYSDEC provided funding for the restoration. New Jersey recently adopted a new flood hazard area control act that establishes riparian habitats to protect ecologically significant habitat to enhance water quality. In 2010, the Harbor Herons Work Group completed the Harbor Herons Conservation Plan and set priorities for action. Priority Actions for Habitat: 2.1 Habitat Preservation/Land Acquisition. Stewardship: Utilize the CRP site list to focus preservation efforts on an additional 500 acres in Jamaica Bay, Hudson River, Hackensack Meadowlands, Arthur Kill, western Long Island Sound and Raritan Bay watersheds. Funding should be augmented for current state and local programs to acquire from willing sellers, land for preservation. Preservation and restoration information will be tracked in the OASIS program when it becomes available. The Hudson River Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study will be evaluating CRP sites (included in OASIS) and will identify sites for acquisition, preservation and restoration. In addition, habitat restoration and public access opportunities will be identified and coordinated. Where appropriate, habitat restoration and public access sites should be co-located. This activity serves as a key coordination step to co-locate habitat and public access restoration. (Responsible entities: NJ Green Acres, NY Open Space program, Port Authority of NY and NJ, RWG, USACE, NY/NJ Baykeeper, Trust for Public Land, and others.) Page 28

31 2.2 Initiate Pilot Scale Restorations that advance the state of the science of each TEC outlined within the HRE CRP. Stewardship: Advance the goals and data collection needs outlined in the Comprehensive Restoration Plan for each Target Ecosystem Characteristic (TEC) and initiate at least four small-scale pilot habitat restoration projects by HEP 2010 funding has been committed to the Oyster Restoration Research Project (ORRP) with the partner agencies to advance the Oyster TEC goals of the CRP. In addition, the TEC goal for eelgrass beds is to create one test bed in each HRE Planning Region by As an outgrowth of the eelgrass TEC workshop, an eelgrass test planting proposal for Jamaica Bay has been submitted by Cornell Cooperative Extension and a permit is pending with NYSDEC. In 2011 HEP will be supporting additional work to improve tributary connections with benefits to anadromous fish. Additional possible projects could include waterbird island vegetation restoration, tributary connection pilots, etc. (Responsible entities: HEP Office will work with restoration partners to identify projects and sites.) Arctic Scaup at the Gateway National Refuge Area with the Marine Parkway Bridge in the Background. Photo courtesy of Don Riepe American Littoral Society 2.3 Update Harbor Herons Conservation Plan. Science: By 2013 update Harbor Herons Conservation Plan including recommendations for research, protection, and restoration. (Responsible entity: Harbor Herons Subcommittee.) Page 29

32 2.4 Advance the TEC goals outlined in the Hudson-Raritan Estuary Comprehensive Restoration Plan. Science: CRP established 11 Target Ecosystem Characteristic priorities and associated quantitative goals for restoration, including support for ongoing and planned signature preservation and restoration projects such as Liberty State Park, Lincoln Park, and various projects within Gateway National Recreation Area, as well as seeking funding to complete 3 additional projects by 2015 that will advance these goals. (Responsible entities: NJDEP, NYSDEC, NYCDEP, USACE, NPS, and others.) 2.5 Consider Climate Change in Planning Habitat Restorations. Science: Undertake action to better understand the impact of climate change on habitats of the Estuary. (Responsible entities: all.) 2.6 Develop Recommendations for Collaborative Action on CRP Goals Policy: In order to achieve the goals outlined in the Comprehensive Restoration Plan, agencies need to work collaboratively to overcome impediments and challenges for implementation of restoration. The Restoration Work Group will provide recommendations to the Management and Policy Committees to address these challenges, impediments, policies, and regulatory processes that influence our ability to achieve the regional restoration goals that have been established for 2015 and (Responsible entities: Restoration Work Group.) HEP activities for habitat are overseen by the HEP Restoration Work Group. Additional information about the Work Group plans, deliberations and activities may be found at: Information about the Harbor Herons may be found at Page 30

33 Goal 3: Improve Public Access Improve direct access to and from the water and create linkages to other recreational areas, as well as provide increased opportunities for fishing, boating, swimming, hiking, education or passive recreation. The 2015 goal is to create one access point and upgrade one access point in each HRE Planning Region per year. By 2050, the objective is to make waters of the Hudson River Estuary and tributary rivers accessible to all residents within a short walk or public transit trip. Challenge: As the population of the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary continues to expand, development must also continue to increase in order to keep pace with demand. Combined with the tremendous water quality improvements resulting in the highest ambient water quality in memory, the emerging public awareness of this improvement has fueled a growing desire for more access to the waterfront and water use. However, without a focused and comprehensive approach, opportunities to provide public access to the waterfront will diminish. Access to the waterfront and waterways is fundamental not only to an improved quality of life but also to sustaining the momentum to improve water quality. In addition, public access has been identified as an important priority within the Comprehensive Restoration Plan that has established the Goal described above for 2015 and Kayakers in New York Harbor Photo courtesy of Stephan Stanne Page 31

34 The challenges will be to explore new and innovative opportunities to provide public access to and from the waters of the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary; to build on the efforts of partner organizations to maintain and enhance existing access opportunities; and, to look to opportunities where the provision of public access may also serve to abate nonpoint sources of pollution, provide habitat corridors, serve to minimize the impacts of coastal flooding, or abate other negative impacts of climate change. Managing these resources in a way that balances and minimizes conflicts between recreational and commercial activities will require both planning and the education of all users to ensure safety and to sustain both commercial and recreational values of the Hudson River Estuary. As existing public access sites are maintained or reconstructed and new sites are developed, funding will be required to address new and emerging issues, such as more rapid degradation of access points by increased human use and the presence of destructive organisms in the cleaner waters. Accomplishments to Date: In 2010, HEP partners collaborated with the Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance on the City of Water Day Festival that brought 12,000 people to the waterfront and out on the water in five locations throughout the Estuary. In addition HEP supplied Red Hook Boaters with equipment to run free kayaking and beach clean-up programs. In 2009, HEP funded New York/New Jersey Baykeeper cruises for educational tours that took 200 area residents out on the water. In 2008, HEP helped fund a new ramp and dock to improve access to Paerdegat Basin in Jamaica Bay. In 2007, the New York/New Jersey Baykeeper and Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance completed a HEP sponsored Public Access Inventory that has been used as a baseline for existing public access and has been included in the OASIS online database. This Public Access Inventory was also used in the CRP identifying the existing 437 sites. In 2010, the New Jersey Sea Grant Consortium completed a public access survey for New Jersey. There have also been a variety of efforts to help create new access points throughout the region and to form continuous routes of access, both along the waterfront as well as on and across the water in the form of greenways and water trails. Projects such as the Liberty State Park to Delaware Water Gap trail are in development, as is the national East Coast Greenway that will connect cities along the east coast of the United States. The Hudson River Water Trail is a network of human-powered boat launches and waterfront campgrounds that line the shores of the Hudson. The increased interest in kayaking and canoeing has resulted in the development of formal (self-guided) water trails on almost all of the tidal tributaries within the Estuary region. The Lower Passaic Watershed Alliance, with assistance from the National Park Service, completed the Lower Passaic Canoe & Kayak Trail Action Plan that identifies current access points and opportunities for future access points for the trail. New Jersey continues to develop the Hudson River Waterfront Walkway as a continuous public pedestrian access trail along the Hudson River from the George Washington Bridge to the Bayonne Bridge. In 2010, HEP again supported the publication of the New York City Water Trail map being developed by Going Coastal, Inc. HEP intends to work with its partners to expand Page 32

35 the geographic scope of the water trail system and to recognize the efforts of its partners through the development of a comprehensive water trail map. A partnership project of the NYSDEC Hudson River Estuary Program and the Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance provided new docks at seven priority locations in Harbor waters. Over the years, HEP partners have acquired or restored significant acreage. Examples and estimates follow below. From HEP partners, including NJDEP, NYSDEC, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, New York/New Jersey Baykeeper, and the Trust for Public Land acquired 48 sites totaling 5,221 acres. While the acquisitions were mainly for habitat protection, providing public access opportunities was an important benefit in at least five of these sites. In addition, restoration projects were completed in 691 acres throughout the Estuary in the same period. The following are examples of land acquisitions providing public access opportunities: In 2010, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) provided approximately $4 million to Jersey City, NJ for the acquisition of a 32.5 acre property for the Hackensack Riverfront Park, and approximately $7 million was provided to Essex County for the acquisition of a acre property in Newark, NJ for the Riverbank Park Extension, both of which will provide public access to the waterfront. In 2007, lots totaling acres were added to Cheesequake State Park by the New Jersey Green Acres program. This acquisition by the State of New Jersey was meant to improve and/or increase educational or recreational opportunities in addition to protecting open space and habitat for birds and other wildlife. New York acquisitions totaling approximately 15 acres include Beach 88 th street along Jamaica Bay and Idlewild Marsh in Queens, and the North Shore Marina on Staten Island. Priority Actions for Public Access: 3.1 Recognize and Address Challenges to Public Access. Stewardship: Improving public access requires a balancing of land ownership, public safety, liability concerns, habitat protection and various regulatory requirements. The Public Access Work Group will: i. Use the existing OASIS database to identify areas within the region where public access is limited and opportunities to develop access should be explored more actively in partnership with local advocacy organizations. ii. Work to develop a formal nomination and recording process whereby public access sites brought before the PAWG for consideration will receive recognition and be included/tracked along with restoration and acquisition sites. Page 33

36 iii. Work to increase the visibility and need for public access to be placed higher on the agenda of public agencies involved in waterfront development. iv. Continue to fund a small grant program that supports the activities of partner organizations that promote and or enhance opportunities for access to the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary. v. Foster the development and delivery of public education concerning water safety on the Estuary in an environment where multiple users of recreational and commercial watercraft operate in the same waterways. vi. Work with partners to develop a comprehensive Hudson River Estuary-wide water trail map recognizing existing water trail efforts, assisting in the development of enhanced and new water trail opportunities. vii. Work with the RWG to ensure that public access is coordinated with restoration opportunities relating to the nomination, evaluation, and potential co-location of sites. (Responsible entity: Public Access Work Group.) Additional information about restoration and public access opportunities identified in the CRP may be found though a hyperlink on the following webpage: Head of the Passaic River Rowing Regatta. Photo courtesy of the Passaic River Institute Page 34

37 Goal 4 Support an Economically and Ecologically Viable Estuary and Port The Port of New York and New Jersey will be an integral and complementary part of the world-class NY-NJ Harbor Estuary that is environmentally sustainable, economically efficient, and safe for commercial and recreational navigation. There are three sub-goals that make up Goal 4: Sediment Quality, Sediment Quantity, and Navigation. Each sub-goal is presented separately below. HEP activities for Goal 4 are overseen by the HEP Regional Sediment Management Work Group. Additional information about the Work Group plans, deliberations and activities may be found at: The Regional Sediment Management Plan may be found at: The harbor facilitates transportation of goods and is an important part of the regional economy. Photo courtesy of Dennis Suszkowski, Hudson River Foundation Funding Challenges: Regional sediment management (RSM) is the concept that binds together a number of different issues related to the biological and physical quality of the estuarine environment and the viability of the Estuary as a world-class port. But there is no single agency that has RSM as one of its primary missions and there is no constituency that advocates for RSM. As a result, there is no specific funding set aside for RSM related efforts. Accomplishments in RSM can be made only by leveraging other mission funding. This is becoming exceedingly difficult in this time of budget cutbacks and program austerity. There is often not enough funding for the primary purpose mission, let alone additional effort for accomplishing the goals of RSM. In some cases there is no primary purpose mission that can be leveraged to accomplish the goals of RSM, for example establishing sediment budgets for the NY & NJ Harbor Estuary. What this amounts to is implementing only some of the aspects of RSM, where other missions and funding levels can accommodate, instead of addressing it on a programmatic basis. Page 35

38 Goal 4A: Sediment Quality- Reduce sediment hot spots and point and non-point sources of contaminants entering the Harbor, such that levels of toxics in newly deposited sediments do not inhibit a healthy thriving ecosystem and can be dredged and beneficially reused. Challenge: The Harbor Estuary suffers from widespread contamination of sediments from current and historical sources. Bioavailable contamination has resulted in reduced recreation, reduced water quality, reduced habitat quality, and reduced fisheries. Contamination of navigational dredged materials has resulted in multi-fold increases in dredging costs over the past decade. Although very few of the Harbor Estuary sediments can be considered clean, there are insufficient funds to remediate the entire bottom. Multi-jurisdictional complexity makes identifying sediment quality remediation projects, evaluation of needed projects, and development of cost-effective remedial alternatives more challenging. Improving sediment quality faces many difficulties including: 1) A wide range of legacy and active pollutant sources, many of which cannot be easily identified or controlled; 2) incomplete understanding of physical and biological processes that transport, alter, and concentrate pollutants in the watershed system; 3) diffuse and fragmented regulatory structure that does not specifically address sediment quality; 4) lack of regulatory consensus on sediment quality standards; and 5) poor recognition by stakeholders of the connection between upper parts of the watershed and the Harbor Estuary. New sediments entering the Harbor Estuary are, for the most part, originating outside of the Harbor proper from erosion of various parts of the watershed. While the current Federal and state regulatory system has adopted numerous enforceable criteria and standards for water and biota, there are no such criteria and standards for sediments. There are, however, a few benchmarks that are being used in this region to determine potential effects of contaminated sediments on human health and the environment. Funding has proven to be a significant challenge in several areas. These include: the necessary study to produce a sediment quality map of prioritized areas, Hudson River and tributary data stations for 2012 and beyond. Other significant funding needs include research and monitoring to better characterize and manage sediment flow throughout the system and financing maintenance dredging at numerous small marinas throughout the Estuary. Accomplishments to Date: The Contaminant Assessment and Reduction Project (CARP) program was completed in 2007 and has produced a state-of-the-art model that identifies areas that present the greatest threat to different water body uses today and in the future. The model allows for the determination of the impact of management scenarios on future surficial sediment quality in the Harbor Estuary from a dredge materials management perspective. CARP also identified and evaluated the significance of certain sources such as tributaries, legacy sediments, sewage treatment plants, landfills, wastewater, CSO discharges and stormwater through collection of data and the creation of a modeling tool. The modeling tool will allow managers to evaluate different scenarios to assess their potential contribution to the quality of the Harbor Estuary. Development of a Total Maximum Page 36

39 Daily Load (TMDL) for toxics in the Harbor Estuary is underway. Investigation and cleanup of major contaminant sources (Hudson River PCB site and the Lower Passaic River) are proceeding. Both the Regional Sediment Management Plan and the Comprehensive Restoration Plan (CRP) have identified acceleration of these two cleanup efforts as critical due to the significant impact contaminated sediments from these areas have on the Harbor Estuary. Two additional major cleanup sites have also been identified (Gowanus Canal and Newtown Creek) and remediation plans are being formulated. In addition, landfill and brownfield remediation programs in New Jersey and New York have met with success at reducing localized sources. EPA s REMAP program, which includes chemical measurements and an index of biological integrity, has conducted three separate surveys spanning over ten years. Data from this program will continue to be valuable in analyzing trends throughout the Harbor. New Jersey and EPA have evaluated sediment decontamination technologies. These technologies are being studied for application to large-scale sediment remediation projects. River bottom maps produced with side scan sonar by the NYSDEC Hudson River Estuary Program for the deep waters of the Hudson, including upper New York Bay, provide bathymetry that will be useful for contaminant and sediment management as well as Harbor habitat restoration. Priority Actions for Sediment Quality: 4.1 Development of a sediment quality map of NY & NJ Harbor Estuary. Science: In order to manage/improve sediment quality in the Harbor data is being assembled for a map that will help identify priority areas for action based on the effect of sediments in these areas on the overall environment. Before a map can be developed, criteria need to be identified that could be used to set priorities for action. In order to get this started, a study is needed on what existing criteria exist that could be used for setting priorities, data needs for using those criteria, and a survey of Harbor Estuary users, regulators and managers to identify what issues are important to them concerning contaminated sediments, and why. Although the map data gathering has been initiated, this Priority Action is hampered by a lack of funding to support the initiative. Approx. $150,000. (Responsible entity: Regional Sediment Management Work Group.) Page 37

40 Goal 4B: Sediment Quantity- Achieve a quantity of sediments entering the Harbor system that supports the ecological health of the Estuary, including protection of shallow water habitats, such as oyster reefs, without excessively impairing navigational activities. Challenge: The quantity of sediment and how it moves throughout the Harbor Estuary system affects environmental quality and navigational safety. The key to effective sediment quantity management is to ensure that sediment transport within the system is conducive to a healthy ecosystem, minimizes shoaling in navigation channels, and achieves the correct balance concerning input and output to the system. Much of the sediment dredged annually in the Harbor Estuary is thought to originate outside of the Harbor from erosion of various parts of the watershed. While the Harbor Estuary is nearly built-out, urban sprawl above the Harbor Estuary continues. Conversion of agricultural and forested land to impervious surface creates surges of stormwater runoff that erodes streambeds and banks resulting in high sediment loads that can damage aquatic systems and fill channels in the port. Sediment runoff rates from construction sites can be 1,000 to 2,000 times greater than those of forested lands. In a short period, construction activity can contribute more sediment to streams than would be discharged over several decades. The issue of sediment quantity is not a centralized focus area within most environmental or regulatory agencies. The challenges in trying to establish the connection between the upper parts of the watershed and the Harbor Estuary to meaningfully manage sediment quantity in this RSM plan include: 1) size and diverse uses of the watershed; 2) diffuse nature of the program, involving many agencies and local planning groups and municipalities; 3) lack of regulatory controls over issues that have been historically considered local and subject to home rule ; 4) multitude of activities that would be applicable (individual construction projects, farming, large developments, road work, etc). The foundation for understanding and managing sediment quantity is to develop an overall sediment budget for the NY & NJ Harbor Estuary core area; this will complement the efforts that are underway with the CARP sediment transport modeling. Accomplishments to Date: Key habitats are being mapped throughout the watershed, including shorelines, tidal and freshwater wetlands, aquatic vegetation, and river bottom. Detailed mapping of New York tidal wetlands greater than 0.5 acres in size along the Hudson River south of the Troy Dam has been completed and is being analyzed to see changes over time. New York and New Jersey have stormwater management regulations that require BMPs to reduce sediment discharges from construction and have initiated educational and technical assistance programs to promote compliance and educate local governments, developers, contractors and designers on design practices that can reduce and improve the quality of stormwater discharges. The NJDEP and the NYSDEC (especially the Hudson River Estuary Program) have partnered with county and local governments to adapt strategies protective of water quality, such as riparian and wetland buffers, comprehensive planning and stormwater ordinances. The Hudson River Estuary Program, NYCDEC Division of Water, and USGS have collaborated to install a network of nine sediment monitoring stations in the Estuary and six of its major tributaries. Early Page 38

41 results of this study indicate that Hudson River tributaries are a significant source of suspended sediment and should be targeted for management strategies. In the Dredge Material Management Plan, the USACE has evaluated reducing dredging needs through engineering approaches to keep sediment out of or moving past maritime facilities. The Hudson River Estuary Program has conducted extensive outreach to improve public understanding of the interconnection of Hudson Valley streams to the Harbor Estuary and has assisted in establishing and supporting watershed conservation groups and programs on the Hudson River. Dredging is key to maintaining access to the harbor for increasingly large vessels. Photo courtesy of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Priority Actions for Sediment Quantity: 4.2 Re-establishment of former USGS river data stations in the Hudson River and tributaries and development of new monitoring capability. Science: Many of the river data stations managed by the USGS were either shut down or taken over by the NYSDEC. River and tributary data will be essential in order to model sediment transport and sediment budgets. HEP allocated funding for one year for 2011 to continue the data stations. Future annual funding to continue to operate these river stations is necessary (approximately $120,000 per year for 2012 and beyond). In addition, NYSDEC has partnered with a host of academic and agency partners to establish a real-time observing network (HRECOS.org) for the Hudson River Estuary, with stations in both New York and New Jersey waters from the capital region near Albany to upper New York Bay. HRECOS can be used to link sediment conditions with weather, stream flow, tidal information, oxygen, and other information. Funding is needed to enhance the capabilities of HRECOS stations, add a new station at Pier 26, and to maintain the HRECOS website at Stevens Institute. HEP allocated funding for 2011 to support HRECOS. (Responsible entities: USGS, New York State, others.) Page 39

42 4.3 NY & NJ Harbor Sediment Transport / Sediment Budget model. Science: In order to begin to manage sediment quantity and sediment quality issues, a greater understanding of the movement of sediment into and out of the Harbor system is needed, and the mechanisms that drive those movements. The first step would be to evaluate the existing results of the CARP Model and determine the need for additional data and modeling activities. The effects of sediment quantity on both the ecological health of the Estuary and on navigation channels and port facilities need to be better understood. (Responsible entity: Regional Sediment Management Work Group.) Page 40

43 Goal 4C: Navigation- Navigation related projects in the Harbor are designed and implemented in an environmentally beneficial manner. Challenge: Sediment that accumulates in navigation channels is a renewable resource that can replace non-renewable resources in a wide variety of applications. However, the dredging of sediments from channels can adversely affect water quality and aquatic communities by increasing the turbidity, and by spreading and increasing the bioavailability of contaminants. Dredging also can alter or destroy aquatic habitat, remove benthic invertebrates that fish and wildlife feed upon, and interrupt spawning and other activities critical to fish life-cycles. Nevertheless dredging is often necessary to maintain commercial navigation and is often a preferred means of addressing contaminated sediments because it permanently removes those sediments from the impacted ecosystem. It is also important to consider the short- and long-term impacts and benefits of a dredging project from an environmental, economic and navigational perspective. Dredging and dredged material management is the aspect of sediment management with the greatest visibility and economic impact to the Harbor Estuary. Proper construction practices must be used so as not to compound dredging impacts or result in unintended effects such as the release of contaminants in transit to the processing site. Protective Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce turbidity, the dispersal of sediment-bound contaminants have proven effective over the years in addressing these issues. The States of New York and New Jersey have implemented consistent BMP conditions in permits issued for dredging projects in the NY/NJ Harbor, and both states are working toward a consistent set of standards for the management of dredged material at beneficial use sites within the Region. The states and Federal government must articulate clear policies and define priorities for beneficial use of dredged material. With improved coordination between operations and availability of sites for beneficial use, brownfield/landfill remediation can benefit harbor maintenance by providing demand and placement sites for dredged material. In addition, a Public Processing Facility (PPF) to centralize processing of dredged material could reduce dredged material disposal costs, enhance options for beneficial use, and provide more predictability to meet the dredged material processing needs in the Harbor Estuary. Accomplishments to Date: The State of New Jersey has taken numerous steps to facilitate the beneficial use of dredged material. Legally, not only has dredged material been explicitly exempted from solid waste regulation but processed dredged material is specifically encouraged for use as a fill and capping material under the Brownfield s Law (PL 1997, Chapter 278, C.58:10B-1 et seq). The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection carefully regulates dredging and dredged material management through its Office of Dredging and Sediment Technology (ODST). The ODST connects dredging proponents and those wishing to process or utilize dredged materials. The Department of Transportation Office Page 41

44 of Maritime Resources (OMR) provides policy and planning assistance. The Regional Dredging Team for the NY & NJ Harbor Estuary, made up of Federal, state and local agencies involved with regulating and managing dredging projects, is responsible for matching dredging projects with possible placement locations. Their goal is to beneficially utilize the dredged material and they have been very successful in achieving this goal. Also, the US Army Corps of Engineers policy is to use dredged material generated from their navigation projects for beneficial uses whenever possible. As a result of these efforts, which have been partially funded voluntarily by project partners such as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, dredged material from numerous Federal and private dredging projects in the NY & NJ Harbor Estuary have been used for beach nourishment, marsh habitat creation, artificial fishing reefs, Historic Area Remediation Site remediation, and numerous landfill or brownfield remediation projects over the past few years. Priority Actions for Navigation: 4.4 Development of a Regional Beneficial Use Plan for dredged material from the NY & NJ Harbor Estuary. Science: The Regional Sediment Management workgroup agrees that beneficial use of dredged material generated from navigation projects in the Harbor Estuary should be encouraged whenever possible, and a plan should be developed towards that goal. However, the definition of "beneficial use" is the controversial part. In order to get this started, an evaluation will need to be done of possible beneficial uses of dredged material for the Harbor Estuary, linked up with potential sources and quality of dredged material, for review and consensus among interested parties. Because of their regulatory role, this effort needs the partnership of both the States of New York and New Jersey (approximately $100,000). USACE has identified some start-up funding that they are currently using to assemble data on recent beneficial uses of dredged material in the NY & NJ Harbor Estuary. A list of these sites will be generated to be used for further discussion by the RSM Workgroup on next steps in developing a beneficial use plan. (Responsible entities: States of New York & New Jersey, USACE.) 4.5 Convene Technical and Policy Workshops on the appropriate development and use of seasonal no-dredging windows for dredging projects Science: Seasonal no-dredging windows have been developed to protect fish and wildlife resources but often they are based on perceptions instead of scientific information. Also, there are inconsistencies between the States of New York and New Jersey in their implementation of these windows. In order to appropriately develop and implement scientifically valid and consistent approaches to use of seasonal no-dredge windows, a Page 42

45 series of workshops will be held to look at the science behind windows in terms of the impacts of dredging, its effects on biological resources and the distribution of those resources, and the policies behind the use of windows in a regulatory framework. The goal will be to have a common understanding on how to appropriately develop and implement windows and to identify areas of further research and/or policy development. The workshops will not be limited to the NY & NJ Harbor Estuary area but will also include all of Long Island. (Responsible entities: States of New York & New Jersey, USACE.) 4.6 State Sediment Management Advocates - In both New York and New Jersey an advocate is essential for implementing the RSMP. Stewardship: In the past. programs to manage dredging and the disposal of dredged material in both New Jersey and New York only succeeded when there was a high level advocate with an understanding of state programs, priorities, activities and constraints ensuring all parties were working towards common objectives. Without the focused efforts of such advocates, the shift to regional management will not be realized. (Responsible entity: States of New York and New Jersey) 4.7 Develop and Implement Consistent BMPs for Navigation Dredging Science: Develop and implement a consistent set of best management practices (BMPs) for navigation dredging projects. This item was identified as RSM Recommended Action DM-1.1. The USACE has identified some start-up funding to identify BMPs that have been added to navigation dredging permits over the past few years. Once the BMPs have been summarized, they will be sent to the States of New York and New Jersey for further discussion. The goal will be to have a consistent set of BMPs that can be used for navigation dredging projects by both states, and to identify the conditions under which the BMPs will be used. The purpose is to give greater predictability and consistency to the regulatory requirements for navigation dredging. (Responsible entities: USACE New York District, NJDEP, NYSDEC.) Page 43

46 Goal 5: Public Education and Community Involvement: Promote an informed and educated constituency involved in decisions affecting the ecological health of the Harbor and its living resources. Challenge: There are many competing social, economic, and environmental issues facing the Harbor region. Scores of community and regional groups are interested in Estuary issues. Unfortunately, they are only able to reach a relatively small portion of the population. Awareness and appreciation of the estuarine ecosystem that surrounds the area does not appear to be a high priority for many people. It is widely recognized that if people are aware of environmental issues and understand their importance, they will be more likely to find a way to participate. Therefore, one of the charges to the participants in HEP is to do their best to enlighten the local residents through whatever means are feasible. In order for HEP to take a more active role in public education and community involvement, additional staff and resources need to be dedicated to the effort. An overall HEP communications strategy needs to be developed and requires the involvement of all HEP committees and work groups. Other ongoing efforts by entities throughout the Harbor need to be coordinated and integrated as appropriate. Accomplishments to Date: In recent years, HEP has allocated a considerable portion of its budget to supporting community groups engaged in Estuary-related activities through small grant programs for projects that enhance Estuary education, demonstrate stewardship of the Estuary, and/or provide public access to the water/waterfront. These grants have supported such activities as stormwater drain marking, hosting events at the waterfront and in the water, conducting shoreline clean-ups, educating businesses and the general public on recycling, interactive Harbor education classes for elementary school students, and green infrastructure projects, among others (see This is an ongoing program and its focus may vary from year to year based on Citizen Advisory Committee recommendations. In addition to its formal grants programs, HEP has provided funds for numerous resources supporting this goal, including teacher enrichment programs, water trail maps, pump out facilities map, local conferences, and seminar series. New York Sea Grant is considering a more active role in urban Estuary education and there are opportunities for synergistic collaboration. To reach a more academic and management-oriented group, HEP worked with the Hudson River Foundation to produce a State of the Estuary report in 2004 a scientific assessment of the status and trends of a number of environmental indicators. HEP is currently working to produce an updated and simplified version of this report in early This report will be aimed at educating and engaging a more general audience on a variety of Estuary-related issues. As part of the Comprehensive Restoration Plan, starting in 2010 and to be completed in Page 44

47 2011, significant public outreach activities have been conducted within each HRE Planning Region for the CRP. HEP, with USACE, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and other partners, contributed to the development of the Waters We Share brochure which was used in CRP outreach. ( HEP continues to publish its newsletter, The Tidal Exchange, which is mailed to over 1,800 individuals and organizations (including elected officials) and is further distributed through visitor centers, museums and other public places. In 2010, in an effort to better reach out to municipal officials, HEP participated in the New Jersey League of Municipalities Conference and hosted a special workshop on the benefits of restoring the Harbor. HEP released its first annual harbor-wide water quality report in 2008 and is working on a second edition to be published in HEP has revamped its website ( and continually updates it, making publicly available all reports, proceedings, and other materials developed through HEP as well as information on scheduled meetings and community events. HEP worked with NY Sea Grant to produce a Teacher s Guide in 2003 and a revised version in This guide highlights many of the region s Estuary-related education programs, including sample activities, and other useful resources. Approximately 1,000 copies have been distributed and many more have been downloaded from the website. This guide could serve as a first step for a more comprehensive survey of existing Estuary-related curricula to determine whether there is a need for a new Harbor based curriculum. HEP could possibly fund such a project as part of a future update of the Teachers Guide. HEP has also collaborated with the Hudson River Estuary Program to produce Project Wet, an activity guide for children on the Hudson River, the Estuary and the watershed. In addition, the HEP Program Office arranges for annual congressional staff briefings to keep legislators informed about Estuary issues and what the program is doing. Hands-on learning about the Estuary. Photo courtesy of the Passaic River Institute. Page 45