The Plan

The Planning Process

The Harbor Estuary Program (HEP) has used a consensus building process among its various stakeholders to develop the Plan. Hundreds of people have participated in this process by serving on committees and participating in public meetings, workshops, and seminars. The Program has come a long way in building the scientific and technical knowledge which was necessary in order to develop the proposed Plan, and to create the public support necessary for the implementation and success of the Plan.

The Citizens Advisory Committee and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee sponsored eight regional HELP THE HARBOR public meetings during October and November 1993. These meetings were designed to give Management Conference participants the opportunity to listen to the public's concerns and priorities regarding the restoration of the Harbor/Bight, and thereby increase the likelihood of a sound and supportable Plan. Many of the recommendations made at these meetings are reflected in the proposed Plan.

The proposed Plan will now be the subject of extensive public review. Management Conference participants will listen to public comments and revise the Plan as appropriate. A final Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan will be submitted to the Governors of New York and New Jersey for their approval, and then submitted to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for final approval. Implementation of the Plan, which has already begun, can then become the top priority of the Management Conference.

Overview of the Plan

The Plan for the Harbor/Bight ecosystem has nine elements. Seven of these elements identify the major problems and use impairments impacting the Harbor/Bight and propose actions to address them. These elements are:

The eighth element of the Plan is a public involvement and education strategy which supports the implementation of the other elements of the Plan. The Harbor Estuary Program has recognized from the earliest days of the program that an informed, educated, and active public is vital to the success of the Plan. A public that understands the problems and possible solutions can help to develop a united and organized constituency to generate support for the clean up, protection, and restoration of the Harbor/Bight. 

The final element of the Plan identifies the mechanisms for implementing and financing the Plan. The proposed management structure, which will oversee implementation of the Plan and direct future work efforts, is described. Also included are estimates of the funds required to implement the actions contained in the Plan and potential funding mechanisms to secure these funds.

In developing this Plan, the Management Conference has used available information, including much developed by HEP, to characterize the causes of ecosystem and human use impairments and to describe the most significant sources contributing to these impairments. Using this information, the fundamental management approach has been to build upon existing programs and to ACT NOW to

• Reduce loadings of pollutants contributing to the impairments;
• Remediate problems due to past discharges;
• Minimize the risk to human health and the environment; and
• Protect and restore ecosystem resources.

In developing the Plan, in response to clear direction from the public, the Harbor Estuary Program endorsed an ecosystem approach to management, which is reflected in the goals, objectives, and actions in the Plan. One aspect of this approach is the recognition that the Harbor is part of a larger ecosystem including the Harbor, Bight, and Long Island Sound.

The Harbor Estuary Program recognizes the need for continuing research, monitoring, and modeling studies to augment our understanding of ecosystem functions. Additional actions will be taken, as necessary over time, based upon these studies.

In response to clear direction provided by the public at the HELP THE HARBOR meetings, the Harbor Estuary Program has ensured that each action contained in the full Plan is identified as either a commitment or a recommendation. For each action in the full Plan, the entity responsible for implementation, the target date for completion, and the estimated cost are also provided. In addition, the Plan identifies whether each commitment is part of an ongoing activity, not initiated or funded by the Harbor Estuary Program, or a new commitment which is a direct result of the Harbor Estuary Program.

In the proposed Plan, no attempt has been made to establish priorities among the numerous commitments and recommendations. One major focus of public comment should, therefore, be to identify which commitments and recommendations should receive highest priority. The final Plan will identify Program priorities.

A significant number of actions are described in the full Plan; this summary provides an overview of those actions. For those interested in further details on the actions, tables are available which list all of the commitments and recommendations (including who will implement them, when they will be implemented, and how much they will cost). The full proposed Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, appendices, and supporting documents are also available for those desiring even further detail.

Habitat and Living Resources

The Problem

Figure 3. Ecosystem Functions
As the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area became the most densely populated area in the Nation and the Harbor evolved into a world class port, the natural environment of the Estuary endured an ever-increasing burden of pollution and habitat disruption. Onceproductive fisheries have been lost or degraded due to overharvesting and natural fluctuations, but there is evidence that water pollution and destruction of physical habitat are significant contributors as well. The use of these fisheries for human consumption has also been impaired by loadings of sewage and industrial waste.

Reshaping the Estuary to accommodate the human population and economy, through the dredging of channels and filling of shorelines, has destroyed coastal habitats and cut off connections to upstream watersheds. Such changes have also impaired the natural functions of the coastal ecosystem to provide freshwater drainage and to withstand flooding and coastal erosion. Natural vegetated systems provide water quality benefits by screening out sediments, nutrients, and other pollutants in land runoff. These benefits are largely unavailable in urban areas where there are impermeable land surfaces and reduced vegetative buffers. Figure 3 shows the pollution control benefits provided by healthy, functioning ecosystems. Urbanization and industrialization have become the dominant land uses and, in some parts of the Harbor core area, only a few green spaces remain. Ironically, this transformation occurred under human design directives, and, yet, free access to much of the Estuary and its shoreline was denied to the general public.

Given the extent of historic environmental change, it is remarkable that the Harbor/Bight ecosystem remains a viable natural resource. Implementation of the Clean Water Act has dramatically upgraded water quality conditions in the Harbor, and marine species sensitive to pollution are returning. Recreational fishing remains an important pastime for people throughout the Harbor/Bight region and is a significant component of the shore economy. The region provides habitat for a variety of coastal bird species, some of which are listed as endangered or threatened; for example, the industrial Arthur Kill waterway supports one of the largest and most diverse assemblages of nesting herons in the entire Northeast. Portions of the coastal environment are undergoing habitat restoration, through active management or the natural succession of abandoned urban or industrial sites. There are also opportunities for restoring public access to many areas of the Harbor shoreline.

While these are hopeful signs for the future, the Harbor Estuary Program (HEP) recognizes that additional commitments are necessary to sustain and enhance the Harbor/Bight ecosystem. Development pressure remains great throughout most of the region and, while environmental improvement has been recorded in portions of the urban core, environmental quality continues to be threatened in the outlying counties of the Harbor/Bight. 

The Plan

The Approach

Due, in part, to public comments in the early planning phase of the Harbor Estuary Program, the focus and priorities of the Program were shifted from purely water quality concerns to include habitat and living resources. While this shift means that the plan for habitat and living resources lags somewhat behind the other elements of the CCMP, HEP has developed an iterative approach which will result in a comprehensive plan to protect and enhance the regional ecosystem. This approach is shown schematically in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Habitat and Living Resources

The first component of the proposed Plan is a renewed focus on existing programs for the management of habitat and natural resources, the provision of compatible human uses, and the encouragement of watershed planning to guide future development. The second component of the proposed Plan targets specific geographical areas of the Harbor/Bight that warrant special natural resource protection. In some cases, area management plans are already being developed and executed; HEP will recommend other planning efforts as appropriate.

The Harbor Estuary Program anticipates that taking steps to improve existing programs and targeting geographic areas of the region for special protection will measurably benefit the Harbor/Bight ecosystem; however, these measures may not be sufficiently comprehensive to ensure long-term sustainability or to redress historic insults to the ecosystem. The comprehensive plan, therefore, includes a third component in which HEP will: 1) assess the progress achieved through currently identified actions to improve existing programs and to protect geographically targeted areas; and 2) identify additional actions necessary to provide long-term protection to the Harbor/Bight ecosystem and to mitigate the continuing adverse impacts of human development.

Program Objectives and Actions

HEP has identified 12 objectives to address habitat and living resources. As summarized below, the Plan calls for several specific actions to achieve each objective.

Objectives H-1 through H-9 are intended to implement a focused application of existing programs: 

Objective H- 1: Control point and non-point loadings of pollutants.

• Develop and implement a pilot project to minimize the export of sediment from the Whippany River, New Jersey. (c-r)¹
• Select, develop, and implement a pilot project to minimize sediment export from a sub-watershed of the Hudson River in New York. (c-r)
• Develop a targeted basin-wide program to minimize sediment export. (c)
• Invest in stream corridor, wetland, and watershed protection actions in the Staten Island Bluebelt. (c)
• Continue to coordinate with local governments to ensure that surface water runoff associated with new development is minimized. (r)
• Encourage additional projects to utilize natural features to minimize the runoff associated with environmentally responsible development. (c)

Objective H-2: Manage coastal development.

• Develop and utilize regional coastal management plans and programs to manage coastal development. (c) 
• Ensure that coastal habitats are afforded protection through the consistency review process of the Coastal Zone Management Program. (c) 
• Encourage and support local comprehensive plans for habitat protection, along with zoning codes to enforce them. (c)
• Identify projects and issues requiring regional cooperation, and facilitate that cooperation. (c)

Objective H-3: Manage shoreline and aquatic habitat modifications.

• Identify appropriate regulatory tools to manage habitat. (c)
• Develop Memoranda of Agreement, as appropriate, to coordinate surveillance, inspection, permitting, and enforcement activities for regulated wetlands. (c)
• Ensure that proposed actions involving less than one acre of fill receive individual agency review. (c-r) 
• Consider changes to existing regulatory programs to regulate activities in the upland zone immediately adjacent to wetland edges. (c)
• Seek to ensure that relevant actions, in the aggregate, result in a net increase in both quality and quantity of aquatic habitat. (c)

Objective H-4: Maintain healthy estuarine conditions by managing freshwater inputs.

• Consider, in water supply and wastewater planning, the impact that upstream freshwater withdrawals and other hydrologic changes may have on salinity levels in the Estuary. (r)
• Develop and implement water conservation strategies as components of state and local water supply programs. (c)

Objective H-5: Minimize human disturbance of natural habitats.

• Sponsor a workshop for federal, state, and local land management agencies on the protection of habitat values. (c)

Objective H-6: Preserve and improve fish and wildlife populations and diversity.

• Maintain full compliance with fisheries management plans approved by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, and implement fishery management measures compatible with applicable provisions of federal fishery management plans. (c) 
• Continue to support efforts to restore the anadromous fishery to Harbor/Bight tributary rivers and streams. (c-r)
• Support the continuing implementation of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. (c)
• Maintain funding levels for Natural Heritage Programs. (c)
• Consider species and habitats recognized as significant by HEP in agency regulatory reviews. (c)
• Continue Artificial Reef Programs. (c)
• Consult with federal agencies on endangered and threatened species issues. (c)

Objective H-7: Increase public access consistent with other ecosystem objectives.

• Ensure improved public access to Harbor/Bight waters. (c-r) 
• Develop user4riendly public access guides. (c-r)
• Develop and maintain the support facilities necessary to promote public access in targeted areas. (r)
• Implement waterfront zoning regulations mandating public access in new residential and commercial developments in New York City. (c)

Objective H-8: Increase public education and involvement on issues related to management of habitat and living resources.
..

• Develop and distribute a "Habitat Options Guide", designed to facilitate the consideration of habitat values in local government and private land use decisions. (c)
• Educate potential users and the general public on the impacts of lifestyle on habitat and living resources. (r)
• Encourage, through environmental education grants, the integration of educational materials into school curricula. (r)
• Make copies of a report on aquatic and coastal habitat values available to libraries. (r)

Objective H-9: Complete ongoing research and initiate special studies on habitat issues.

• Conduct field studies and produce documentation to develop a more comprehensive record of significant coastal habitats throughout the Harbor/Bight region. (r)
• Continue studies on the value of the existing aquatic and coastal habitats in the Harbor/Bight system. (r)
• Complete a two-year study to begin to evaluate the effects of piers, interpier areas, and pile fields on fish habitat values, and initiate an expanded research effort to assess more fully the effects of piers and platforms on habitat values. (c-r)
• Review the success of past habitat restoration efforts in the Harbor/Bight system, to develop appropriate criteria and protocols for the selection of new projects. (c)
• Examine opportunities to restore natural flood plains, coastal erosion hazard areas, and other natural amenities that have been degraded by previous development. (c-r)
• Develop a Geographic Information System (GISI-based inventory of Harbor/Bight habitats. (r)
• Conduct studies on the effects of total suspended solids on water quality and on changes in the physical characteristics of aquatic sites due to sediment inputs. (r)

Objectives H-10 and H-11 address geographically-targeted special efforts:

Objective H-10: Identify significant coastal habitats warranting special protection and restoration.

• Prepare a report which identifies significant coastal habitats warranting special protection, summarizes their conservation status, and presents recommendations for their preservation and restoration. (c)
• Based on this report and other studies, adjust state designations of significant coastal habitats/special areas in the coastal zone, as appropriate. (c)

Objective H-11: Develop and implement plans to protect and restore significant coastal habitats and impacted resources.
.

• Independently review the recommendations of ongoing geographically targeted efforts and recommend their implementation by appropriate members of HEP. (c)
  • Jamaica Bay Watershed Management Plan, Buffer the Bay, and NYS Restoration Plan.
  • Hackensack Meadowlands Special Area Management Plan.
  • Harbor Herons/Greenways to the Arthur Kill plans.
  • Barnegat Bay Watershed Management Plan.
  • Hudson River Estuary Management Plan.
  • Long Island South Shore Reserve.
• Ensure the development and implementation of additional geographically targeted plans. (c)
• Develop a plan to use funds available from a successful natural resources damage claim to restore habitat in Jamaica Bay, Pelham Bay, and Fresh Kills. (c)
• Identify and facilitate the implementation of habitat restoration projects. (c)
• Establish a mechanism for public/private partnerships to preserve habitats. (r)
• Amend, as appropriate, the New York State Open Space Plan to include newly identified, significant upland habitats. (c)
• Seek opportunities for acquisition of significant upland habitats, e.g., the Rahway River watershed in New Jersey. (c)
• Restore and/or increase the funding of federal and state land and water conservation funds. (r)

Objective H-12 promotes the development of a comprehensive regional plan:

Objective H-12: Develop a comprehensive regional strategy to protect the coastal ecosystem and to mitigate continuing adverse human-induced effects.

• Identify the most effective means of using resource management authorities and programs to protect habitat and living resources; recommend modifications to the authorities and programs, as appropriate; and identify the need for additional geographically targeted sub-planning.

Toxic Contamination

The Problem

Toxic substances produced by human activities are now found in the waters, sediments, and biota of the Harbor/Bight where they persist at elevated levels and pose risks to both ecosystem and human health. Harbor Estuary Program (HEP) studies have identified at least 17 chemicals or classes of chemicals of concern including metals, dioxin, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), chlorinated pesticides, and volatile organic compounds. Furthermore, there is evidence of adverse toxic effects on the Harbor/Bight ecosystem and biota which often have not been linked to a causative chemical or chemicals.

Figure 5. Overview of HEP's Plan for Toxic Contamination

Compliance with pollution control requirements, including those of the Clean Water Act, has resulted in a decrease in the loading of toxic substances to the Harbor/Bight; sources remain, however, and toxic contamination is still a major problem. Historically, much of the loading came from industrial sources. Continuing sources of toxic substances include municipal and industrial discharges, combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and storm water discharges, atmospheric deposition, non-point source runoff, accidental spills, tributary inputs, and leachate from landfills and hazardous waste sites. Our understanding of the relative importance of these sources is fairly good for the metals (except mercury) and generally poor for the organic chemicals of concern. In addition, because sediments accumulate contaminants, they continue to act as a source of toxins even after past discharges cease.

Toxic substances contribute to ecosystem and human use impairments by making seafood unsafe for human consumption and by adversely affecting coastal species. Contamination also adversely impacts port operations, because of concerns about dredging and disposal of contaminated sediment.

While our knowledge about toxic substances and our capabilities to detect trace amounts of toxic chemicals are increasing each year, we still have much to learn about the nature and fate of many of these chemicals in the marine environment and their effects on the ecosystem.

The Plan

The Approach

The Harbor Estuary Program's approach to address the toxic contamination problem is illustrated schematically in Figure 5. HEP's Plan calls for actions now to reduce continuing inputs of toxic chemicals and remediate contaminated sediments, while continuing work to understand the contamination problem. The improved understanding gained will be used to develop additional actions to reduce contamination. HEP's Plan also includes actions to minimize human health risks associated with consumption of seafood contaminated with toxic chemicals.

Program Objectives and Actions

HEP has identified 13 objectives to address toxic contamination. As summarized below, the Plan calls for several specific actions to achieve each objective. 

Objectives T-1 through T-8 are intended to reduce continuing inputs of toxic chemicals:

Objective T-1: Reduce municipal discharges of chemicals of concern.

Implement a phased approach to control discharges of four water quality-limiting metals (mercury, copper, nickel, and lead). Phase I permit limits will be based on existing effluent quality. Phase II may include more stringent permit limits based on additional data collection and modeling. (c-r)1

• Identify significant municipal and industrial discharges of organic chemicals of concern, and, subsequently, "Track-down and Clean-up" significant sources of the chemicals in the discharges. (c-r)

Objective T-2: Reduce industrial discharges of chemicals of concern.

• Continue compliance with controls on direct and indirect industrial discharges. (c)
• Focus pretreatment programs on significant industrial users. (c)
• Control industrial discharges of the water quality-limiting metals, and "Track-down and Clean-up" significant industrial discharges of organic chemicals, as described above for municipal discharges. (c-r)
• Promulgate effluent guidelines for various industries. (c)

Objective T-3: Minimize the discharge of toxic chemicals from CSOs, storm water discharges, and non-point sources.
.

Actions addressing this objective are included in the Rainfall-induced Discharges section of the Plan.

Objective T-4: Reduce air emissions of chemicals of concern.

• Implement Clean Air Act requirements addressing hazardous air pollutants, including development of emissions standards for all source categories and regulations for area or small sources of hazardous air pollutants, by 2000. (c)

Objective T-5: Remediate identified solid and hazardous waste sites.

• Develop a GIS-based integrated inventory of active and inactive solid and hazardous waste sites contributing, or potentially contributing, chemicals of concern to the Harbor/Bight. (r)
• Develop site-specific schedules to expedite closure or remediation of the most significant sites. (c-r)

Objective T-6: "Track-down and Clean-up" of other sources of chemicals of concern.

• Conduct screening for ambient levels of mercury and organic chemicals of concern in proximity to potential sources (e.g., in Harbor tributaries), using sensitive monitoring techniques. (c-r)
• Where significantly elevated levels are found, initiate procedures to track-down and eliminate the most significant sources. (c-r) 

Objective T-7: Improve chemical/oil spill response and prevention.

• Review the New York Harbor Bi-State Oil Spill Prevention Conference report, and the U.S. Coast Guard Area Contingency Plan, and incorporate the findings and recommendations, as appropriate, into the final HEP Plan. (c)

Objective T-8: Focus pollution prevention activities on chemicals of concern.

• Identify the largest emitters of chemicals of concern in the Harbor/Bight area, and give these facilities highest priority for pollution prevention actions, including those following. (c-r)
• Implement non-regulatory pollution prevention, including: 1) continuing development of multi-media pollution prevention plans under the New Jersey State Pollution Prevention Act; 2) seeking commitments for voluntary reductions in chemical releases through liaison with municipal and industrial facilities; and 3).pollution prevention measures which can be implemented by citizens. (c)
• Evaluate a facility-wide permit approach to pollution prevention in New Jersey, and, if successful, seek legislative approval to implement. (c)
• Add pollution prevention plan requirements addressing chemicals of concern to NPDES permits. (c)
• Give high priority for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act permitting and enforcement to facilities in the Harbor/Bight area that manage one or more of the chemicals of concern. (c)

Objective T-9 addresses remediation of selected contaminated sediments:

Objective T-9: Identify and remediate selected contaminated sediments.

• Take appropriate steps to remediate known areas of highly contaminated sediments, considering impacts on the Harbor/Bight as a whole. (c) Sites identified include the Diamond Alkali Superfund Site, the Hudson River PCBs Superfund Site, and the Marathon Battery Superfund Site.
• Identify additional areas of highly contaminated sediments, and assess the feasibility and need for remediation. (r)

Objective T-10 is intended to minimize human health risks associated with consumption of seafood contaminated with toxic chemicals:

Objective T-10: Establish a consistent methodology to assess risks and improve communication of fish advisories.
.

• Establish a consistent methodology, as appropriate, to assess human health risks from consumption of locally-caught seafood and to set fish advisories and restrictions. Prepare a report documenting New York and New Jersey methodologies. (r)
• Review available fish tissue criteria and recommend steps necessary to adopt and implement revised criteria as appropriate. (r)
• Target additional risk communication efforts to those sub-populations at greatest risk. Complete pilot projects in New York and New Jersey to develop advisory communication plans tailored to the needs of specific localities in the Harbor area, implement favored approaches Harbor-wide, and develop a regional approach to advisory communication. (c-r)

Objectives T-11 through T-13 are intended to better understand and manage the toxins contamination problem:

Objective T-11: Review and develop criteria for copper and other priority chemicals.

• Adopt site-specific water quality criteria for copper into New York and New Jersey water quality standards.(c)
• Prepare a plan to develop and adopt additional priority criteria, including adoption of water quality criteria for dissolved nickel and lead and other dissolved metals. (c-r)

Objective T-12: Assess ambient levels, loadings, and effects of chemicals.

• Develop ecosystem indicators as quantitative goals and biocriteria, and implement long-term monitoring of the indicators. (c-r)
• Conduct studies to evaluate whether and, if so, which chemicals are causing adverse ecological effects. (c-r)
• Revise the list of chemicals of concern biennially, based on new information. (c-r)
• Complete a sediment quality assessment under the Regional Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (R-EMAP). (c)
• Develop and conduct additional studies to assess sediment quality. (c-r)
• Complete several studies assessing fish, crustacea, and shellfish tissue quality. (c)
• Use the information from these studies to identify additional data collection needs and, as appropriate, to modify fishing advisories and restrictions. (c)
• Continue New York City's Harbor Water Quality Survey at current levels of effort. (c)
• Develop a similar long-term water quality monitoring program in New Jersey. (r)
• Conduct Principal Components Analyses on sediments for PCBs, dioxin, and PAHs. (c) 
• Incorporate new information on atmospheric loadings of contaminants to the Harbor/Bight into the Clean Air Act's "Great Waters" report to Congress. (c)
• Develop guidance on appropriate methods for analyzing chemicals in discharges at low levels of detection. Incorporate the methods for metals into NPDES permits. (c-r) 
• Assess the chemical load reductions expected with implementation of the Plan. (r)

Objective T- 13: Develop mass balances for metals and organic chemicals.

• Consistent with the phased approach to control water quality-limiting metals, conduct monitoring and modeling to support Phase II permit limits, as necessary. (c)
• Develop a system-wide toxins model for mercury and organic chemicals, including a comprehensive monitoring program, to assess the significance of current sources of the chemicals, as well as sediment flux, in causing exceedances of criteria. (c-r) 
• Develop contaminant mass balances within two years, using simpler models, including data collection focusing on loadings, to support interim management assessments of dredged sediment contamination. (c-r)

Dredged Material Management

[Medium Map | Large Map]
Figure 6. Federal Navigation Channels
The Problem

The international Port of New York and New Jersey ("the Port") plays a vital role in the economy of the region, handling more general and containerized cargo than any other East Coast port. The Port is also part of an estuary of national significance. The Harbor is not naturally deep, and rivers continuously transport and deposit sediment, filling in navigation channels and berthing areas. To maintain the Port for modern, deep-draft vessels, large quantities of sediments (historically six million cubic yards annually) must be dredged. A majority of this material was, and continues to be, disposed at the Mud Dump Site located six miles east of Sandy Hook, New Jersey, and eleven miles south of Rockaway, New York. This material must be managed in an environmentally sound manner. Figure 6 illustrates the location of federal navigation channels in the Harbor/Bight and the Mud Dump disposal site.

The Harbor, including many of the berthing areas and channels, contains primarily fine-grained sediment which may be contaminated with heavy metals, PAHs, PCBs, pesticides, and dioxin. Dredging contributes to resuspension of these sediments, which raises concerns about exposing marine organisms and habitats to the contaminants of concern. Concern has also been expressed regarding the impact of dredged material, and its subsequent disposal, on water-dependent industries such as recreation, tourism, and commercial and recreational fishing.

Not all dredged material is contaminated; however, it may contain contaminants at concentrations which require a greater level of management, if the dredged material is ocean disposed, or which preclude the material from ocean disposal. The principal causes of the problem are the presence of contaminants of concern in a large portion of the material that needs to be dredged and disposed and the movement of these contaminants throughout the Harbor/Bight complex.

In addition to contaminated sediments already in the Harbor/Bight, there are sources of pollutants that continue to contaminate sediments in the Harbor/Bight complex. These sources are fully discussed in the section on Toxic Contamination. Until these sources are adequately controlled, the problems associated with dredged material management, (i.e., contaminated sediment) will continue.

Historically, ocean disposal has been the primary disposal option for materials dredged from the New York-New Jersey Harbor. Other disposal options in the region have generally not been used because of the availability and relatively low cost of ocean disposal (until recently), as well as conflicting uses and environmental concerns associated with implementing other alternatives.

Scientific concerns about contaminated dredged material and its disposal have led to changes in the national testing protocols for dredged materials. Uncertainties related to the implementation of these revised test protocols in the New York-New Jersey Harbor region, coupled with specific concerns about dioxin, and lack of available disposal options, have contributed to delays in regulatory decisions with respect to dredging and disposal. The many agencies which are either directly or indirectly involved in regulating dredged material must work more closely to avoid delays in decision-making.

The Plan

The Approach

The primary purpose of the Dredged Material Management element of the Plan is to establish environmentally sound and economically feasible dredged material disposal alternatives. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, through existing programs and the development of its "New York Harbor Dredged Material Management Plan", will provide technical support to achieve the Harbor Estuary Program's (HEP's) objectives. 

Consistent with the current practices of the Harbor Estuary Program, early (pre-CCMP) implementation of selected components of the Dredged Material Management Plan is being undertaken, including the pursuit and implementation of non-ocean dredged material disposal alternatives. In accordance with the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) of 1972, ocean disposal will be denied if it can be demonstrated that there are practicable alternative locations for disposal which would have fewer environmental impacts or potential risks to other parts of the environment.

The Dredged Material Management element of the Plan plays a critical role in establishing and maintaining a healthy and productive Harbor/Bight ecosystem with full beneficial uses.

Objectives and Actions

HEP has identified seven objectives to address management of dredged material. The Plan calls for several specific actions to achieve each objective, as summarized below.

Objective D-1: Develop a future dredged material management structure.

•  HEP has identified the long-term Dredged Material Management Forum/HEP management structure (see the section on Management Structure). (c)1
• The Forum, acting through its Dredged Material Management Integration Work Group (DMMIWG), will identify responsible entities for all actions in the Plan relevant to dredged material management. (c)
• The Forum will continue to review and comment on work plans and other relevant items. (c)
• The DMMIWG will interact with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in development of the USACE long-term plan for dredged material in the New York-New Jersey Harbor. (c)
• Responsible agencies will coordinate plans, proposals, and actions pertaining to HEP's Plan with the Forum. (c)

Objective D-2: Reduce continuing inputs of toxic chemicals and upland sediments and soils.

• To ensure that newly deposited sediments in the Harbor/Bight system become safe for unrestricted ocean disposal, the section of the Plan on Management of Toxic Contamination includes objectives and actions to: reduce continuing inputs of toxic chemicals; remediate selected contaminated sediments; and better understand the toxins contamination problem and take additional management actions as more is learned. To begin reducing the volume of sediments entering the Harbor/Bight system from the upland watershed, and thereby reduce the volume of material requiring dredging, the Habitat and Living Resources section of the Plan includes two sediment export reduction pilot projects.
• Review options that prevent sediments from entering navigational areas through engineering solutions. (c)

Objective D-3: Characterize, categorize, and quantify material to be dredged.

• Develop a plan to implement the interim refined chemical specific bioaccumulation evaluation methodology. (c) 
• Recommend an appropriate reference site for dredged material testing and an approach for establishing a reference sediment database. (c)
• Develop a national guidance document for bioaccumulation decision-making. (r)
• Modify the Mud Dump Site monitoring and management plan to incorporate the regional refined chemical specific bioaccumulation approach. (c)
• Identify draft criteria for upland disposal of dredged material. (c) 
• Categorize dredged material based on the regional refined bioaccumulation approach, and estimate the quantities of dredged material currently pending that could be expected using this approach. (c)
• Perform pro-active sampling and testing (if necessary) to estimate quantities of dredged material in each category. (c-r)
• Develop a table which matches dredged material disposal alternatives with respect to the regional refined chemical specific bioaccumulation approach for the dredged material categories. (c) 

Objective D-4: Identify, evaluate, and select disposal and treatment/decontamination alternatives.

• Confirm a controlling depth for Category II materials at the Mud Dump Site and surrounding environs. (c) 
• Provide design criteria for various mound placement and capping options. (c)
• To provide for the orderly phase-out of ocean disposal of Category II material, agencies responsible for dredged material management are proposing to expand the Mud Dump Site through an EIS process for the disposal of Category I and II materials. The use of the expanded Mud Dump Site for Category II material will be restricted to a specified period of time; this period will be determined prior to the issuance of the proposed site designation. As part of the analysis and EIS process, alternatives will be evaluated, including the no-action alternative (i.e., no expansion of the site). In all cases where environmentally preferred, practicable non-ocean disposal alternatives exist for Category II materials, the use of the Mud Dump Site will be denied. (c)
• Prepare a comprehensive management plan for dredged material. (c)
• Determine the technical practicality of a subaqueous borrow pit in Newark Bay, and conduct a comparison analysis of federal and non-federal sponsorship for implementing a pilot borrow pit in Newark Bay. (c)
• Expedite the Water Quality Certificate determination, and consider requiring the planning of a demonstration program for existing borrow pits in the Lower Harbor. (c)
• Assess the feasibility of soliciting modified sand mining proposals so that suitable borrow pits might be created. (r)
• Monitor the progress of private sector applicants seeking to site and operate upland disposal areas, and continue to seek upland disposal sites. (c)
• Conduct bench-scale studies and, if promising, pilot-scale studies of the Base-Catalyzed Dechlorination technology for treating sediments. (c)
• Arrange for bench and pilot-scale studies of additional viable technologies for treating sediments. (c)

Objective D-5: Develop plans for closure (including remediation and restoration) of the Mud Dump Site and historical disposal areas.
.

• Develop and implement, when appropriate, closure management and monitoring plans for the Mud Dump Site, adjacent areas, and historical disposal sites. Plans will be hierarchical in nature: remediation activities will be the primary concern and restoration opportunities will be considered a goal, when suitable materials are available. (c)

Objective D-6: Improve dredging, transport, and disposal options.

• Recommend specific improvements for equipment and methods used in dredging, transport, and disposal operations. (c)
• Determine if hydraulic dredging is feasible for borrow pit disposal and very confined sites. (c)
• Select a pilot project for dredged material disposal in geotextile bags. (c) 
• Review each permit application and federal project to ensure that volume reduction and dredging techniques have been considered. (c)
• Assess the impact of reducing the width or depth of specific channels. (c)
• Sponsor an economic assessment of tipping fees in the Port. (c)
• Seek Congressional input on the establishment of tipping fees. (c)

Objective D-7: Expedite permit decisions.

• Finalize a draft Memorandum of Understanding for ocean disposal site management and site designation. (c)
• Explore development of joint permit information packages for projects proposing ocean and/or non-ocean disposal. (C)
• Explore development of a federal regional regulatory guidance document which addresses the concerns of the federal resource agencies with appropriate special permit conditions for federal permits. (c)
• Develop a regional state regulatory guidance document which addresses the concerns of the state resource agencies with appropriate special permit conditions for state permits. (c)
• Explore the formation of a federal and state interagency group to integrate federal and state regulatory guidance's. (c)
• Explore the establishment of a unified regulatory process for resolving resource use concerns. (c)
• Explore development of consistent testing requirements for dredged material disposal. (c)
• Provide a status report to the Forum every six months on the efforts of the regulatory agencies to streamline permit processing. (c)

Pathogenic Contamination

The Problem

Pathogenic contamination is one of the major water quality problems of the Harbor/Bight. Pathogens are disease causing micro-organisms, generally including bacteria, protozoans, and viruses. They are present in untreated or inadequately treated human sewage and domestic and wild animal wastes. Primary sources of pathogens include combined sewer overflows (CSOs), inadequately treated sewage, illegal connections to storm sewers, and urban runoff. Other sources that may be locally significant include tributary inputs to the Harbor and coastal back bays and vessel discharges. Pathogenic contamination contributes to ecosystem and human use impairments such as beach closures and prohibitions or restrictions on shellfish harvesting, especially within the Harbor core area. 

At present, pathogenic contamination is primarily measured using bacterial indicators; in the case of the Harbor/Bight region, these indicators are total and fecal coliform bacteria. Water quality standards for shellfishing waters are more stringent than for bathing waters due to the higher risk of ingesting pathogens through shellfish consumption.

Bacterial water quality at recreational beaches throughout the region is generally good, and getting better. The best water quality is found on the ocean beaches of New Jersey and New York; some water quality impairment is evident in the coastal back bays and the Harbor core area. Occasionally, certain beaches are closed because of elevated coliform bacteria concentrations, usually resulting from rainfall-induced discharges to coastal waters.

The entire Harbor core area is closed to direct shellfish harvesting, but restricted harvesting, by means of shellfish relay to cleaner coastal waters or processing at a depuration plant prior to marketing, is permitted in some areas. Restricted harvesting is currently permitted in western Long Island Sound and portions of the Lower, Raritan, and Sandy Hook Bays, and the Shrewsbury and Navesink Rivers. Ocean waters, except for the near-shore portion of the Bight Apex, are generally approved for direct shellfish harvesting.

The Plan

The Pathogenic Contamination element of the Plan seeks to maintain the good water quality that supports existing beaches and productive shellfish beds, and to improve water quality in those areas that have significant potential to enhance or restore such uses. Specifically, the Management Conference has identified the Bight Apex, the Lower Bay Complex (including Sandy Hook and Raritan Bays) within the Harbor core area, and the western end of Long Island Sound as priority areas for recovery and enhancement of bathing and shellfishing uses. In addition, the states have identified the Shrewsbury and Navesink Rivers and Jamaica Bay as priorities for resource recovery. Other waterways within the Harbor core area, which are highly developed and urbanized, have only limited, if any, potential for recovery of bathing or shellfishing uses. 

The Approach 

The phased approach for addressing pathogenic contamination involves the incremental control of sources in order of importance. Historically, sanitary sewage discharges were the primary source of pathogenic contamination; these are now treated region-wide through comprehensive regulatory programs. Implementation of sewage treatment in the region has had a marked effect in reversing water quality degradation. Raw sewage discharges have been eliminated, and, currently, all but two sewage treatment plants are operating at the required secondary treatment level; the remaining two plants are on enforceable schedules to achieve compliance.

A requirement for all sewage treatment plants in the region to provide year-round chlorination has further reduced bacterial concentrations in sewage effluent; however, viruses tend to be more resistant to chlorine disinfection and are now thought to be the most prevalent human disease agents in the Harbor. There is a growing interest, regionally and nationally, in finding a reliable human-specific viral indicator as a supplement to existing bacterial water quality indicators. The Harbor Estuary Program (HEP) has funded two studies to identify such an indicator; NJDEP has taken the lead in coordinating this effort.

Currently, CSOs are the largest source of pathogenic contamination to the Harbor, contributing nearly 90 percent of the loading of coliform indicators. Collectively, rainfall-induced discharges, including CSOs, storm water, and non-point source runoff, account for about 99 percent of the bacterial loading to the Harbor. A specific strategy to address rainfall-induced discharges, which are major sources of other pollutants besides bacteria, has been developed. This strategy and associated actions are discussed in the Rainfall-induced Discharges section.

Intermittent sources that may sometimes be significant include temporary discharges from treatment plants, due to operational failures or maintenance shut-downs, and discharges from vessels. The approach to reduce pathogenic contamination includes prudent actions to minimize these sources as causes of use impairment.

In addition to reducing the sources of contamination, the Pathogenic Contamination element of the Plan recognizes the importance of protecting public health, through regular monitoring of area waters, and by using appropriate standards and beach closure policies. A water quality model developed by New York City will support future decisions on improving area waters and identifying additional actions to restore or enhance beaches and shellfish areas.

Program Objectives and Actions

HEP has identified seven objectives to address pathogenic contamination. The Plan calls for several specific actions to achieve each objective, as summarized below.

Objective: P-1 through P-3 are intended to reduce continuing inputs of pathogenic contamination:

Objective P-1: Reduce loadings of pathogens from CSOs, storm water discharges, and non-point sources to levels protective of public health.
.

Actions addressing this objective are included in the Rainfall-induced Discharges section of the Plan.

Objective P-2: Reduce or eliminate the discharge of raw or inadequately treated sewage due to sewage treatment plant malfunctions and illegal connections.
.

• continue the Beach/Shellfish Closure Action Plan, which includes an assessment of the causes and sources of temporary beach and shellfish closures, and prompt corrective actions and enforcement penalties. (c)1
• Continue programs to identify and eliminate unregulated discharges of raw sewage, during both dry and wet weather. (c)

Objective P-3: Establish marina pumpout facilities and 'no discharge' zones to reduce vessel discharges.

• Issue grants to install pumpout stations at marinas. (c)
• Amend the Clean Water Act to allow states to establish "no discharge" zones, without seeking U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approval. (r)
• Designate "no discharge" zones, on a targeted basis, to restore beneficial uses. (c)

Objectives P-4 through P-7 are intended to continue modeling, monitoring, and research to improve problem characterization and protection of public health:

Objective P-4: Develop additional indicators of pathogenic contamination.

• Complete the current New Jersey pathogenic indicator study, and assess the indicator as a diagnostic tool to identify pathogenic pollution source categories. (c)
• Continue and seek funds, as appropriate, to develop a human-specific indicator that more closely approximates the survival of viruses in the marine environment. (r) 
• Continue to support the National Shellfish Indicator Study, assess its findings in light of the pathogenic indicator study, and determine any necessary changes to shellfish sanitary policy based on these results. (c) 
• Conduct research, as warranted by ongoing studies, to determine the effectiveness of the relay and depuration processes on the purging of viruses from shellfish. (r)
• Conduct a national epidemiological study of beaches, including data sets from the Harbor/Bight region. (r)

Objective P-5: Continue interstate dialogue on beach closure policies.

• Continue dialogue between New York and New Jersey to ensure the protection of public health and effective risk communication. (c)

Objective P-6: Optimize disinfection practices.

• Evaluate the results of New York City's ongoing investigation of alternative methods of wastewater disinfection. As appropriate, issue disinfection guidance. (c)

Objective P-7: Continue appropriate research, environmental monitoring, and modeling to identify remediation activities and support recovery of uses.
.

• Conduct research to 1) investigate opportunities to attain shellfishing depuration standards in Raritan Bay, Jamaica Bay, Shrewsbury and Navesink Rivers, and western Long Island Sound; 2) study the recovery of the Bight Apex Sludge Dump Site; 3) determine the suitability of shellfish for human consumption in areas which may have toxic contamination; 4) determine potential human-induced causes of, and remediation measures for, marine-specific pathogenic outbreaks; and 5) assess alternative wastewater disinfection methods. (r) 
• Continue and enhance pathogen-related monitoring efforts. (c-r)
• Calibrate and verify a water quality model for pathogenic indicators not adequately addressed in New York City's Harbor Water Quality Model. (r)

Floatable Debris

The Problem

Floatable debris has two primary components. One is the discharge of trash and solid waste to the Harbor/Bight through runoff, storm water discharges, combined sewer overflows (CSOs), and poor solid waste handling practices. The other, called Harbor drift, consists of large timbers and other massive items resulting from the decay of shoreline structures, such as piers, bulkheads, and pilings, and sunken or derelict vessels.

Most of the floatable debris originates in the Hudson-Raritan estuary, but can end up on ocean beaches, depending on the force of the flow out of the Harbor as well as prevailing wind and other meteorological conditions. The washup of floatable debris on ocean beaches can create immense problems for shore communities and the regional tourist economy. Just such a scenario occurred during the summers of 1987 and 1988 when widespread washups of floatable debris closed many miles of ocean beaches along the New Jersey and Long Island shorelines. An early report of the Bight Restoration Plan estimated New York's losses in the range of $900 million to $2 billion and New Jersey's from $900 million to $4 billion over the two-year period.

In addition to the potential for closing recreational beaches, washups of floatable debris create an aesthetic degradation of Harbor/Bight shorelines and water vistas and reduce other recreational values. Some floatable debris, particularly plastic and other non-degradable items, can be serious hazards to marine wildlife, and Harbor drift can pose significant hazards to commercial and recreational marine navigation.

The Plan

The Approach

In response to the major floatable debris washups of 1987 and 1988, the participants in the Harbor Estuary Program (HEP) developed and implemented a highly successful joint effort, known as the Short-term Floatables Action Plan. This plan has been implemented since 1989 and is intended to minimize floatable debris washups by intercepting debris slicks within the Harbor. With the help of this plan, the extent of beach closures declined from over 70 miles in 1988 to fewer than 4 miles in 1989, and closures have remained at a low level in subsequent years. The Short-term Floatables Action Plan has four key elements:

• Surveillance--NJDEP, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) conduct regular air and sea patrols of the Harbor to look for and report slicks of floatable debris.
• Regular Cleanups--The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) uses cleanup vessels to collect floatable debris in the Harbor and focuses its activities on conditions when slicks are most likely to occur. In 1993, New York City supplemented these efforts by commissioning its own debris cleanup vessels to police New York City tributaries to the Harbor.
• Non-routine Cleanups--USACE also attempts to capture additional debris slicks in the Harbor when they are detected and reported. State coordinators notify local authorities and beach operators of impending debris washups in order to expedite remedial action.
• Communications Network-USEPA coordinates a reporting network as well as cleanup activities among all the program participants. Citizen hotline numbers are available to report incidents.

As a supplement to this unified effort, New Jersey has implemented a program called "Operation Clean Shores", whereby the state organizes an annual program to remove debris from the New Jersey shorelines within the Harbor. Over 10 million pounds of debris are collected each year through this state initiative.

While the Short-term Floatables Action Plan addresses the immediate issue of trash accumulations in Harbor waters, the Harbor Estuary Program recognizes the need to develop a long-term strategy to address the sources that discharge floatable debris to the Harbor/Bight. As with other pollutant categories, rainfall-induced discharges are primary sources of floatable debris entering the system. The strategy to address these sources is included in the Rainfall-induced Discharges section.

Program Objectives and Actions

HEP has identified six objectives to address floatable debris. The Plan calls for several specific actions to achieve each objective, as summarized below.

Objective F-1: Continue and enhance implementation of the successful Short-term Floatables Action Plan.
.

•  Continue to implement the Short-term Floatables Action Plan. (c)1
• Continue the "Operation Clean Shores" program in New Jersey. (c)
• Develop and implement a companion program to New Jersey's "Operation Clean Shores" in New York. (r)
• New York City has acquired skimmer vessels for use in open water and tributary areas. (c)
• Evaluate the need for additional floatables control measures, including skimmer vessels, for New Jersey tributaries to the Harbor. (c)

Objective F-2: Expand the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Harbor Drift Removal Program without compromising important habitat.
.

• Establish priority sites for the Harbor Drift Removal Program based on an area's potential to contribute floatable debris to the Harbor. (c)
• Implement drift removal projects, in accordance with this prioritization, with federal/state cost-sharing. (r)

Objective F-3: Implement beach cleanups.

• Conduct routine beach cleanups at public and private beaches in the off-season. (r)
• Continue and expand national beach cleanups within the region, to include back bay and tributary areas. (c-r)

Objective F-4: Assess and control landfill and solid waste practices.

• Continue to ensure compliance with permits for solid waste handling at landfills and marine transfer stations in New York City. (c)
• Continue the existing solid waste disposal program in New Jersey. (c)
• Review the results of demonstration projects on recycling at marinas, and expand these programs region-wide. (r)
• Enact legislation to ban or restrict the use of non-degradable plastic products at shore concession stands. (r)
• Develop educational materials to inform the public of the proper disposal techniques for home medical wastes. (c-r)

 Objective F-5: Communicate impacts of marine debris and appropriate disposal practices.

• Post signs at boat launch ramps and other public access sites depicting the impacts of floatable debris and providing information on proper methods of waste disposal. (c-r)
• Enclose information on marine debris in applications for fishing and boating licenses or registrations. (r)
• Seek sponsors to develop and broadcast public service announcements regarding beach and boating litter. (c-r)
• Continue the "Clean Streets/Clean Beaches" campaign. (c)
• Encourage storm drain stenciling activities. (c)
• Communicate and enforce provisions of the international marine pollution convention, MARPOL Annex V, for at-sea disposal of solid waste. (c)

Objective F-6: Reduce loadings of floatables from CSOs, storm water discharges, and other non-point sources.
.

Actions addressing this objective are included in the Rainfall-induced Discharges section of the Plan.

Nutrients and Organic Enrichment

Figure 7.
The Problem

There is strong evidence that eutrophication, induced by excessive discharges of the nutrient nitrogen, from both point and non-point sources, is a significant problem in the Harbor, Bight, and Long Island Sound. The most tangible symptoms of eutrophication in the Harbor, Bight, and Long Island Sound are low dissolved oxygen (hypoxia), noxious water quality conditions, and unusual algal blooms.

Long term trend analyses indicate that low dissolved oxygen continues to be a problem in the Harbor, Bight, and Sound, with some areas showing an improvement and others experiencing a decline in water quality. The general trend for the past 20 years is an improvement in the highly polluted waterways and inner Harbor areas. However, over the past 10 years, a decline in water quality is evident in some of the outlying areas, such as the Sound and Jamaica Bay.

Depressed oxygen levels contribute to ecosystem and human use impairments such as reduced fish and shellfish reproduction, reduced habitat for fish and shellfish, and noxious odors. The dynamics of hypoxia in New York and New Jersey coastal waters are illustrated in Figure 7.

Recent studies indicate a relationship between excessive enrichment from nitrogen and depressed dissolved oxygen levels in the Harbor, Bight, and Sound. Mathematical modeling conducted by the Long Island Sound Study (LISS) has clearly shown that the hypoxia in the Sound is caused by excessive point and non-point source discharges of nitrogen, and that discharges of nitrogen in the Harbor exacerbate the hypoxia problem in the Sound. The LISS is therefore implementing a plan to reduce these discharges. 

In most of the Harbor, the causes of low dissolved oxygen are not as clear. There is evidence, however, that both nitrogen and organic materials (i.e., organic carbon compounds) have a role; Harbor Estuary Program (HEP) studies have shown an inverse relationship between levels of nitrogenous compounds and organic carbon, and levels of dissolved oxygen. In Jamaica Bay, studies show that nitrogen is an important factor in causing low dissolved oxygen.

In the Bight, HEP conducted preliminary mathematical modeling which indicates that nitrogen is the limiting nutrient in the Bight Apex and that the nitrogen flux from the Harbor is an important factor in causing decreased dissolved oxygen levels in bottom waters of the Bight Apex. The analysis in the Bight Apex, however, is not sufficient to quantify the relative contributions of various sources of nitrogen in causing hypoxia.

Excessive nutrients and organic materials also contribute to noxious water quality conditions in tributaries and inner Harbor areas where there is poor circulation. The primary cause of these problems is decomposition of organic materials from combined sewer overflow (CSO) discharges or localized highly eutrophic conditions. Flushing Bay and Gowanus Canal in New York are among the areas that often experience noxious water quality conditions. Also, dense algal blooms have occurred in the Lower Bay Complex, including Raritan and Sandy Hook Bays. The causes of these blooms are not well understood.

.

Figure 7. During the warm, stable weather of summer, the surface waters in much of the Harbor/Bight Sound system heat up and form a distinct layer "floating" over the deeper waters, which are more dense due to greater salinity and cooler temperature. The result is the formation of a sharp density gradient called a pycnocline, which restricts mixing between the two layers. Oxygen added to the surface waters by wave mixing and the photosynthesis of marine plants is thus prevented from mixing into the depths, where it is needed to replace oxygen consumed by marine life and the decomposition of organic material. Nutrients, particularly nitrogen, fuel phytoplankton growth. Important sources of nutrients include runoff, sewage effluent, and atmospheric deposition. In addition, nutrients released from bottom sediments can be mixed into surface waters at times when there is no strong pycnocline.

Based on these studies and analyses, the Plan calls for a phased approach to address discharges of nitrogen, in parallel with actions to better understand the eutrophication problem in the Harbor, Bight and Sound, as explained below. 

The Plan

The Approach

HEP's approach relies on ongoing Clean Water Act programs and a phased approach for additional nitrogen reductions, supported by mathematical modeling and other studies, to achieve HEP's goals.

As shown in Figure 8:

• Upgrading of municipal sewage treatment plants to secondary treatment will contribute to a reduction in discharges of organic materials and, to a lesser extent, nutrients.
• Programs addressing CSO and storm water discharges, described in the Rainfall-induced Discharges section, will contribute to remediation of noxious water quality conditions in inner Harbor and tributary areas. 
• The phased approach for nitrogen reductions includes:
  • Low-cost nitrogen reductions, including ongoing actions and additional actions, as necessary, based on the results of a Harbor-wide Eutrophication Model (HEM). These actions are expected to contribute substantially to, but not necessarily meet, HEP's goal to eliminate the adverse impacts of eutrophication.
  • Additional nitrogen reduction actions, as necessary, based on a System-wide Eutrophication Model (SWEM). These actions are intended to attain HEP's goal to eliminate the adverse impacts of eutrophication. 
• In parallel with development of HEM, the Plan calls for feasibility studies at sewage treatment plants to identify options and costs for nitrogen reduction.
• In parallel with development of HEM, the Plan calls for development of environmental objectives for eutrophication in the Harbor/Bight, consistent with the goal to eliminate the adverse impacts of eutrophication.
• The Plan also calls for a research program, to complement SWEM, to better understand the eutrophication problem and its symptoms, including hypoxia and unusual algal blooms.

Figure 8. Overview of HEP's Approach to Address Nutrient and Organic Enrichment

Program Objectives and Actions 

HEP has identified five objectives to address nutrient and organic enrichment. The Plan calls for several specific actions to achieve each objective, as summarized below.

Objective N-1: Upgrade municipal sewage treatment plants to achieve full secondary treatment.

• complete upgrades of the Newtown Creek and Owls Head treatment plants in New York City. (c)1

Objective N-2: Establish environmental objectives for the Harbor/Bight.

• Develop specific numeric dissolved oxygen targets for the Harbor/Bight. (c)
• Develop specific ecosystem objectives for eutrophication considering, in particular, objectives related to algal growth and unusual algal blooms. (c)

Objective N-3: Develop and implement, as appropriate, low-cost nitrogen reduction actions.

• Complete the Harbor-wide Eutrophication Model (HEM), including monitoring. (c)
• Conduct feasibility studies to identify options and costs for nitrogen reduction, and collect data to quantify nitrogen loadings at sewage treatment plants (STPs). (c-r)
• Implement low-cost actions to reduce nitrogen loads at five New York City STPs in the Harbor which discharge in close proximity to Long Island Sound. (c)
• Implement low-cost actions to reduce nitrogen loads at four New York City STPs discharging to Jamaica Bay (c).
• Implement additional low-cost nitrogen reductions at STPs, as supported by HEM. (c-r)
• Develop pilot projects to demonstrate innovative nitrogen reduction techniques in the Harbor. (c-r)

Objective N-4: Develop and implement additional actions as necessary to eliminate adverse effects of eutrophication, including hypoxia, on marine life in the Harbor, Bight, and Sound.
.

• Develop a System-wide Eutrophication Model (SWEM), including monitoring. (c-r)
• Implement nitrogen reductions and other actions, as necessary, to eliminate the adverse effects of hypoxia caused by human activity in the Harbor, Bight, and Sound, if there is adequate technical justification based on the results of SWEM. (c-r)

Objective N-5: Conduct additional studies to understand the causes of hypoxia, algal blooms, and other eutrophic effects.
.

• Computerize historical water quality data from New York City's Harbor Water Quality Survey. (c)
• Document the past occurrences of unusual algal blooms and their relationship to water quality. (c) 
• Describe "normal" phytoplankton community composition and deviations from it. (r)
• Develop a program of basic research on the causes of low dissolved oxygen. (c-r) 
• Develop a program of basic research on the causes and dynamics of algal blooms. (c-r)

Rainfall-induced Discharges

Figure 9. Combined Sewer System
The Problem

Three sources of pollution to the Harbor/Bight are associated with runoff induced by rainfall. Two of these sources--combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and storm water discharges are regulated as point sources under the Clean Water Act. The third source--non-point source runoff is not currently regulated by federal or state permit requirements. These sources contribute a variety of pollutants to the Harbor/Bight and are addressed as a separate element of the Plan to avoid redundancy throughout the document.

Combined Sewer Overflows

Most of the Harbor is served by "combined sewers", which combine sanitary sewage and storm water (See Figure 9). Overflows occur when large volumes of water generated by rain combine with the regular sanitary waste stream, overwhelming the capacity of sewage treatment plants. The resultant sewage overflow goes directly to the Harbor with little or no treatment. There are over 700 CSO discharge points which discharge to the Harbor; there are no CSOs discharging to the Bight or to the back bays adjacent to the Bight. CSOs are the dominant source of pathogens and important contributors of floatables and toxic metals to the Harbor. They also contribute toxic organic chemicals, nutrients and organic contamination, and cause degradation of habitat.

Storm Water Discharges

Storm water discharges occur when it rains in areas with separate storm and sanitary sewer systems. Significant areas of the Harbor have separate storm sewers; for example, 30 percent of the New York City area is served by storm sewers. Storm water discharges are important contributors of pathogens, many toxic chemicals, and floatables. They also contribute to nutrients and organic contamination and cause degradation of habitat.

Non-Point Source Runoff

Non-point source pollution is created by runoff from the land during rain events. As the rainwater moves over land, it picks up and carries away natural and human-related pollutants. Non-point source runoff contributes pathogens, toxic chemicals, nutrients and organic materials, and floatables to the Harbor/Bight, and also causes degradation of habitat. The impact of non-point source runoff is likely to be most important in tributaries to the Harbor, the Navesink River/Shrewsbury River drainage area in New Jersey, and areas draining to the back bays adjacent to the Bight.

The Plan

Combined Sewer Overflows

Approach

The Harbor Estuary Program's Plan for CSO abatement is based on implementation of the National CSO Control Policy, recently issued by USEPA. The Policy has two parts:

First--implementation of nine measures to ensure a minimum acceptable level of CSO control. For example, among the nine minimum measures are: 1) review and modification of industrial pretreatment programs to assure CSO impacts are minimized; 2) control of floatable materials in CSO discharges; and 3) pollution prevention programs that focus on contaminant reduction.

Second--additional CSO abatement measures, beyond the nine minimum measures, as necessary, to eliminate water quality standards violations and restore beneficial uses impaired by CSOs.

Using the framework provided by the National Policy, the Plan calls for actions that incorporate, and build upon, existing CSO abatement programs in the Harbor/Bight area.

Program Objectives and Actions 

HEP has identified two objectives to address CSO abatement. The Plan calls for several specific actions to achieve each objective, as summarized below.

Objective CSO-1: Implement the nine minimum measures of the National CSO Control Policy.

•  Prepare a report assessing all CSO abatement programs in the Harbor/Bight region in relation to the nine minimum measures. (c)1
• Implement the recommendations in the report to achieve full compliance with the nine minimum measures. (c-r)

Objective CSO-2: Implement additional CSO controls to meet water quality standards and restore beneficial uses.
.

• Continue New York City's long-term CSO abatement program, involving planning and construction of CSO retention facilities and other appropriate control measures. (c)
• The owners and operators of combined sewer Systems in the New Jersey drainage to the Harbor, and the sewage treatment plants to which they discharge, should cooperate in a regional effort to develop long-term CSO abatement plans to prevent violations of water quality standards, restore and/or maintain beneficial uses, and eliminate adverse ecosystem impacts due to CSOs. (c-r)
• Use a New York City water quality model to develop preliminary target areas for priority action to recover or enhance bathing and/or shellfishing uses. (c)

Storm Water Discharges

Approach

The Harbor Estuary Program's approach is based on USEPA's regulations, issued in 1990, which establish permit application requirements for municipal storm water discharges and for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity. These requirements focus on reducing storm water contamination through implementation of best management practices, such as pollution prevention plans. Also, municipal requirements seek to eliminate non-storm water discharges, such as illegal sewer hook-ups to storm sewers.

Additionally, the Plan calls for development of municipal storm water permits for other areas of the Harbor where these discharges have been found to contribute significantly to violations of water quality standards.

Program Objectives and Actions

HEP has identified one objective to address storm water discharges. The Plan calls for several specific actions to achieve this objective, as summarized below.

Objective SW-1: Implement measures to control municipal and industrial storm water discharges.

• Issue proposed modifications to six of New York City's wastewater discharge permits to establish requirements for the City's storm water management program. (c)
• Submit storm water permit applications from 34 New Jersey municipalities or counties draining to the areas of the Harbor where copper, nickel, and lead are water quality-limiting. (c-r)
• Continue programs in New York and New Jersey to issue general permits for control of industrial and construction-related storm water discharges, and adopt the requirements of general permits for construction-related discharges into local codes. (c-r)
• Expand the New Jersey Sewage Infrastructure Improvement Act to include the Harbor core area within New Jersey, with adequate funding for state and local implementation. (r) 
• Develop storm water control projects for potential funding under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. (c)

Non-Point Source Runoff

Approach 

The Harbor Estuary Program's approach builds upon existing non-point source programs under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act and Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments. The Plan focuses additional actions on the areas of the Harbor/Bight that are unsewered. To the extent non-point source pollutant loads are shown to be significant, based on the results of efforts in other elements of the Plan (e.g., modeling for toxins and nutrients), HEP will develop additional actions to address these sources.

Program Objectives and Actions 

HEP has identified four objectives to address non-point source runoff. The Plan calls for specific actions to achieve each objective, as summarized below.

Objective NPS-1: Focus Clean Water Act non-point source programs on Harbor/Bight watersheds.

• Develop non-point source management programs for the Barnegat Bay and Whippany River watersheds in New Jersey. (c)
• complete a project to demonstrate best management practices in the Navesink River watershed in New Jersey. (c)

Objective NPS-2: Develop and implement coastal non-point source management programs under Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments.
.

• Continue efforts to identify gaps in New York and New Jersey coastal non-point source programs, and develop and implement programs consistent with federal guidance. (c)

Objective NPS-3: Focus the Urban Resources Partnership Initiative (URPI) on Harbor/Bight watersheds.
.

• Use a portion of New York City URPI pilot project funds to support non-point source management projects. (r)

Objective NPS-4: Continue and enhance education programs for control of no n-point source pollution.
.

• Continue and enhance such programs in New York and New Jersey. (c)

Public Involvement and Education

The Importance of Public Involvement and Education

The Harbor Estuary Program (HEP) has recognized from the start that an informed and active public is vital to the success of the Program, and that a public that understands the water quality, habitat protection, and related natural resource problems of the Harbor/Bight can make informed choices about their management. Each individual has an opportunity --indeed, an obligation--to contribute to the solutions to those problems. A knowledgeable public is critical to the funding of implementation and restoration actions, and initiating individual and corporate lifestyle changes that are vital to the future of the Harbor/Bight ecosystem. This region is fortunate to have such a public, including activists who have led efforts to adopt an ecosystem approach to environmental protection.

The Plan

The Approach

The challenging task of developing public understanding, appreciation, and stewardship the Estuary has been, and should continue to be, the primary objective of the Harbor Estuary Program's public participation program. HEP has supported an active bi-state

public involvement and education strategy since early 1989, including the formation of a Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC). The CAC provides a mechanism for public involvement in the Program, and public education has been promoted through the publication of fact sheets, newsletters, and posters; through the award of mini-grants for community projects; and through the sponsorship of public meetings and issues forums.

Program Objectives and Actions

HEP has identified seven objectives, with actions, to address public involvement and education, as summarized below.

Objective E-1: Provide for public input to ongoing program and policy decision-making for HEP.

• Review and update the public participation strategy based on the recommendations in the final Plan. (c)

Objective E-2: Build community awareness, appreciation, and understanding of the ecosystem and its importance, and encourage action at the community level.
.

• Continue development and distribution of information products addressing the ecosystem and lifestyle issues. (c) 
• Schedule use of the traveling exhibit; transport at no cost. (c)
• Encourage print and broadcast media to distribute information on Estuary issues. (c) 
• Incorporate HEP issues into ongoing outreach activities conducted by members of the Management Conference. (c)

Objective E-3: Promote understanding of and involvement in the implementation of the Plan recommendations.
.

• Provide information on Plan actions to stakeholders. (c)
• Encourage cooperation among stakeholders to implement the Plan. (c) 
• Hold briefings, meetings, and workshops with stakeholders to stimulate action. (c)

Objective E-4: Increase communication and foster cooperation among stakeholders and others involved with ecosystem management, protection, and stewardship activities.
.

• Continue a Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) and Science and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) within the post-CCMP management structure. (c)

Objective E-5: Promote individual and group involvement and sponsorship of education and stewardship activities to clean up and restore the ecosystem.
.

• Continue a mini-grant program to support education and stewardship. (c)
• Expand the mini-grant program. (c)
• Encourage groups to organize and participate in watershed planning and ecosystem restoration, protection, and monitoring. (c)
• Encourage organizations and institutions to reach broad audiences through special events and exhibits that support HEP goals. (c)
• Continue public stewardship activities in New York and New Jersey. (r)

 Objective E-6: Enhance educational opportunities for all education levels.

• Encourage development and implementation of an Estuary-wide education program for stakeholders and others. (r)
• Integrate activities and outreach materials with educational programs at schools and non-formal educational institutions. (r)
• Make educational materials available through libraries and computer networks. (c)

Objective E-7: Encourage all members of the Management Conference to secure additional funding and raise awareness of funding sources to increase public involvement and education activities.
.

• Encourage organizations involved in public involvement and education to seek outside funding sources and opportunities for the HEP program. (c)
• Seek additional ways to increase funding to the mini-grant program. (c)

(c)¹Throughout this Summary, letters represent the following: c = commitment; r = recommendation; c-r = action is a commitment, in part, and a recommendation, in part.