Natural Resource Trustee Partnering in the Urban River Restoration
Initiative
Jonathan P. Deason, Ph.D., P.E.
The George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
Keywords: Natural resource damage assessment, urban rivers, contaminated sediments,
environmental restoration
ABSTRACT: Many urban rivers in the United States contain severely contaminated
sediments that adversely affect aquatic life and limit recreational and economic uses. The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated in 1997 that more than 1.2 billion cubic
yards of contaminated sediment exist nationwide. In response to this situation, a new
interagency cooperative program to restore rivers affected by contaminated sediments is
being undertaken. This program, called the Urban River Restoration Initiative, offers a
new opportunity for natural resource trustee agencies to address problems on a watershed
basis in partnership with other Federal, state and local entities.
On July 2, 2002, the Corps and EPA signed a Memorandum of Understanding entitled
“Restoration of Degraded Urban Rivers” to coordinate remedial, water quality, and
environmental restoration activities under the Clean Water Act, Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, and the Water Resources Development Acts. The MOU calls for the
identification of eight pilot projects to be announced and undertaken within one year of the
date of the MOU.
The principal Federal natural resource trustee agencies (Interior and NOAA) are likely to
be heavily involved with the Corps, EPA and state and local agencies in preparing
comprehensive, watershed based plans for the eight pilot projects, and in undertaking such
plans. A model for such partnering already is evolving in the Passaic River, New Jersey
watershed, where a cooperative study currently is being planned for a project that is likely
to be named as one of the eight pilots. The Passaic River, located in the heartland of the
U.S. industrial revolution, is one of the most complex riverine restoration challenges in the
Nation. The “Passaic River Restoration Initiative,” as the project is called, involves a
partnership among four Federal and two state agencies. These are Interior, NOAA, the
Corps, EPA, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and the New Jersey
Office of Maritime Resources. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been designated as
the administrative trustee for the effort.
1
Introduction
Many urban rivers in the United States contain severely contaminated sediments that
adversely affect aquatic life and other natural resources. The most comprehensive
assessment of chemical contaminants in river, lake, ocean and estuary bottoms in the
United States conducted to date was undertaken by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency in response to a congressional directive in the Water Resources Development Act
of 1992. The resulting reports, The Incidence and Severity of Sediment Contamination in
Surface Waters of the United States (first and second editions), examined 1,372 (65%) of
the 2,111 watersheds in the continental United States [1, 2].
These screening-level assessments of sediment chemistry and related biological data
identified 96 watersheds that contain “areas of probable concern” with regard to
contaminated sediments. Adverse environmental conditions in these watersheds are
caused by variety of sources, including urban runoff, municipal waste discharges,
industrial effluents, and agricultural residues. EPA estimates that more than 1.2 billion
cubic yards of contaminated sediment exist nationwide.
Contaminated sediments pose significant hazards to human and ecological health across
the Nation. Threats cited in EPA’s Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy include
possible juvenile neurological and IQ impairment from food chain poisoning, increased
incidence of cancer, and long-term damage to aquatic ecosystems [3].
2
The Urban River Restoration Initiative
In response to this situation, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are undertaking a new cooperative program to
restore rivers affected by contaminated sediments. On July 2, 2002, these two agencies
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to address environmental remediation and
restoration of degraded urban rivers and related resources throughout the United States [4].
(A copy of the MOU is provided at Appendix A.)
Under the Urban River Restoration Initiative (URRI), the Corps and EPA are undertaking
cooperative project planning and development processes, in conjunction with Federal, state
and Indian trustee agencies, to identify and apply the most feasible technical solutions to
achieve environmental restoration and economic revitalization in degraded urban river
corridors. The URRI is an outgrowth of an investigation of 262 brownfield redevelopment
case studies undertaken under sponsorship of the Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers in 1996-1998. That investigation found that urban river water quality
degradation problems are key ingredients at 37 (14.1%) of the sites [5]. When viewed in
light of the 425,000 brownfield sites estimated to exist in the U.S. by the General
Accounting Office [6], the potential contribution that the URRI can make to the national
brownfields redevelopment initiative becomes apparent.
As a first step in the URRI, the Corps and EPA are identifying eight demonstration
projects that will include, projects for water quality improvement, contaminated sediment
removal and remediation, and riparian habitat restoration. The first four pilots were
announced in the spring of 2003 [7, 8, 9, 10, 11].
3
Need for A Watershed Approach
As the Corps and EPA undertake the URRI, they will need to undertake a comprehensive
watershed approach to solving the myriad problems confronting these urbanized rivers to
achieve successful economic revitalization and environmental restoration. The term
“watershed approach” refers to an integrated perspective in water resources planning that
provides a framework for integrating economic, natural and social considerations that share
the same geographic space [12].
Important elements of the watershed approach include assessment of natural, social and
economic resources, interdisciplinary identification of priority problems, identification of
goals and objectives, facilitation of high levels of stakeholder involvement, development
integrated solutions that make use of the expertise of multiple agencies, utilization of
management techniques based on sound science, and measurement of success through
monitoring and other types of data collection. Under the watershed approach, appropriate
agencies compare lists of high priority areas, meet with each other and with other
stakeholders, and look for opportunities to leverage finite resources to meet common goals
[13].
The watershed approach framework facilitates coordination of all public and private sector
efforts to address problems within hydrologically-defined geographic areas. Key among
these problems, for rivers containing contaminated sediments, is the need to restore
degraded natural resources. Therefore, it is critically important for natural resource trustee
agencies to participate with the EPA and the Corps in the URRI as full partners. How can
this be done?
While the details of implementing the URRI in each of the pilot areas have yet to be
worked out, the Corps-EPA MOU specifies that the agencies are to enter into watershedspecific coordination agreements. These agreements are to “be carried out in conjunction
with other appropriate Federal, state and local agencies to identify and implement projects
to protect public health, remediate and restore urban rivers in the interest of ecological
restoration and economic revitalization.” [7] This language provides an opportunity for
natural resource trustee agencies to partner with the Corps and EPA to ensure that natural
resource concerns are identified and addressed during the URRI planning process.
Benefits to the trustee agencies in partnering with the EPA and the Corps under the URRI
potentially are enormous. Rather than attempting to address natural resource concerns on a
piece-meal basis within watersheds, the URRI provides an opportunity for trustee agencies
to address natural resource concerns on a comprehensive, watershed basis. Rather than
fighting formidable legal and political forces on a PRP-by-PRP basis (and risking failure to
recover even assessment costs), trustee agencies have an opportunity under the URRI to
greatly expand the geographic scope of their efforts, potentially leading to dramatically
increased success in terms of achieving actual, on-the-ground, restoration results more
cost-effectively and expeditiously.
By working in a cooperative fashion with the Corps, EPA, PRPs and other stakeholders on
a watershed basis, trustee agencies not only can influence the planning activities of the
Corps and EPA in urbanized watersheds toward natural resource restoration project
components, but they can also capture the economies of scale inherent in multiagency
planning processes with related goals. In addition, to the extent that trustee agencies can
involve PRPs and other non-Federal stakeholders the cooperative planning processes of the
URRI, they can facilitate the redirection of public and private PRP funds from litigation
and litigation support expenditures into productive restoration investments, and capitalize
on restoration opportunities beyond traditional NRD objectives.
4
Nature of the Partnering Process
In considering partnerships under the URRI, trustee agency personnel may have
experienced partnering activities with EPA, due to interactions under the Superfund
program [14], but not with the Corps. Questions may arise regarding the degree to which
the missions and authorities of the agencies are sufficiently compatible to allow
partnerships such as those addressed in this paper to succeed. Because of such concerns, a
brief summary of recently enacted legislative authorities provided to the Corps, along with
implementing guidance recently promulgated by the Corps, is provided below.
Although it is not yet widely understood, Congress in recent years has provided authority
to the Corps to undertake single-purpose ecosystem restoration initiatives or multiple
purpose projects that include ecosystem restoration as a purpose. Such authorities are
referred to by such names as Aquatic System Restoration [15], Ecosystem Restoration and
Protection [16, 17], and Environmental Dredging [18, 19, 20]. Collectively, these recently
enacted authorities enable the Corps to undertake all aspects of ecosystem protection and
restoration studies and project implementation [21].
For its part, the Corps has moved strongly to incorporate these authorities into its
programs. For example, in April 2000 the Corps established a new planning objective for
its civil works planning studies. The new objective, the National Ecosystem Restoration
(NER) objective, is intended to increase the quantity and quality of ecosystem resources.
Under new Corps guidance, single purpose ecosystem restoration plans may be formulated
and evaluated in terms of their contributions to increases in ecosystem values [22].
In addition, the Corps has adopted guidance such as the following into its internal planning
documents:
Ecosystem Restoration is one of the primary missions of the Civil Works
program. The purpose of Civil Works ecosystem restoration activities is to
restore significant ecosystem function, structure, and dynamic processes
that have been degraded. Ecosystem restoration efforts will involve a
comprehensive examination of the problems contributing to the system
degradation, and the development of alternative means of their solution
[23].
The new ecosystem restoration missions of the Corps, combined with the agency’s
expertise with watershed-based analytical tools such as GIS, GPS, and sophisticated
planning-oriented computer programs, make the Corps a potentially powerful partner for
trustee agencies in achieving natural resource restoration objectives in degraded urban
river basins.
5
Birthplace of the URRI: The Passaic River Basin, New Jersey
When the eight URRI pilots are identified, it is likely that one of them will be the lower
Passaic River, New Jersey. It was the emerging cooperative process on the Passaic that
provided the model for the URRI, and the July 2, 2002 Corps/EPA MOU was based on the
Passaic model. While a lack of agreement between the State of New Jersey and the
Federal government to share URRI study costs prevented the Passaic from being named
among the first four pilots, that obstacle appears to have been overcome recently. The
importance of the Passaic to the URRI effort is reflected by the fact that it was specifically
referred to in the announcement of the first four pilots [7].
The Passaic River basin drains almost 935 square miles in northeastern New Jersey and
southeastern New York. The lower part of the river (downstream of the Dundee Dam)
flows through a very urbanized, highly industrial area [24]. It is located in the heartland of
the U.S. industrial revolution that began in the late 19th century. As a result, the
environmental and economic problems in the Passaic Basin are extensive and complex.
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, literally hundreds of chemical, paint, and
pigment manufacturing plants, petroleum refineries, and other large industrial facilities
have been located along the banks of the Passaic [25]. Industrial effluents from these
facilities over the years have combined with the contamination associated with massive
urbanization and population growth to cause severe degradation of the sediments
underlying the river. High concentrations of dioxins, mercury, lead, polychlorinated
biphenyls and other chemicals characterize this highly degraded river system [26].
Not only is there extensive contamination of the river bottom, more than a century of
heavy industrial use and other development of the area has resulted in extensive physical
shoreline impacts, including an almost complete loss of tidal and freshwater wetland
habitat through bulkheading and other anthropogenic structural changes [27]. Impacts to
fish and shellfish have been extensive, as have impacts to birds and mammal populations.
In addition, a number of historical tributaries to the Passaic have been converted to storm
sewer drains or filled in, reducing freshwater inflows dramatically. Human uses such as
fishing, rowing, boating, swimming, picnicking and wildlife observation have been
severely degraded [28]. Other dimensions of complexity include pathogenic microbial
contamination, floatable debris, excessive levels of waterborne nutrients, and non-point
source discharges [24].
Another dimension of complexity, in addition to the extensive contamination and
degradation of ecosystem and recreational values that has occurred, involves the large
number of stakeholder groups having interests in the watershed, including municipalities,
environmental organizations, industries and other entities. Environmental justice is yet
another issue in the Passaic Basin, where minorities and economically disadvantaged
people tend to live in close proximity to the river and shorelines [29].
6
The Road to Trustee Partnering in the Passaic
The first step toward implementing the URRI concept in the lower Passaic River occurred
on April 17, 2000, when the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee of the U.S.
House of Representatives passed a resolution authorizing the Corps of Engineers to
conduct a reconnaissance-level investigation entitled the Passaic River Environmental
Restoration Study [30]. Since that time, cooperative activities have been undertaken by
three remedial-oriented agencies and three restoration-oriented agencies. The former
group, which is focused primarily on addressing the contaminated sediments in the river, is
composed of the New York District of the Corps of Engineers, Region 2 of the
Environmental Protection Agency, and the New Jersey Office of Maritime Resources. The
latter group, which is focused primarily on restoration of natural resource services in the
Basin, is composed of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection.
The former group has been working over the past three years to develop study plans and a
Federal/non-Federal cost-sharing agreement to pay for the PRRI investigation. The
primary funding source for the PRRI planning activities to date has been the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations bill, which has provided study funding in fiscal years,
2001, 2002 and 2003.
In a similar manner, the restoration group has been working recently to compile
information that will be needed to conduct a Pre-Assessment Screen and prepare a Damage
Assessment Plan. (See Table 1 for a summary of the Natural Resource Damage
Assessment and Restoration process.) And, while a trustee MOA has to yet been executed,
the group has agreed that the Fish and Wildlife Service will serve as the Administrative
Trustee for the PRRI.
The work to date of the six agencies identified above provides an excellent foundation for
a productive partnership between the three trustee agencies and the three remedial
agencies. It may be that the site-specific coordination agreement provided for by the July
2, 2002 URRI MOU between the Corps and EPA will provide a mechanism to set forth the
parameters of the six-agency partnership envisioned herein. Such a partnership, in
conjunction with other public and private entities in the region, could enable all remedial
and restoration concerns of the participating agencies to be addressed in a report to
Congress providing the basis for authorizing implementation of the recommendations
contained therein.
By addressing all remedial and natural resource restoration concerns on a comprehensive
basis, the report could provide the basis for global liability relief to participating public and
private PRPs in the region, thus providing a strong incentive for such entities to contribute
financially to the effort, and to work on a cooperative basis with the agencies, rather than
battling the agencies in court, as has too often been the case in the past with sites involving
long histories of contamination, large numbers of dischargers, complex mixes of
contaminants, and problems with on-going pollution. As suggested earlier, PRPs could
make larger financial contributions to remedial and restoration solutions under the URRI
than under other approaches, while realizing overall savings, by reducing or eliminating
transaction costs.
Table 1. Overview of the Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration
Process [31]
NRDAR Phase
Description
Damage Assessment










Restoration Planning


Preliminary Review
Pre-Assessment Screen
Assessment Planning
Restoration Implementation



Conducted on a large number of sites
Reconnaissance-level review
Determines if trust resources are present
Uses readily available information
Determines if NRDA is justified
Limited to review of existing information
Plan for damage assessment investigation
PRPs notified and invited to participate
Plan made available for public review
Conducted in injury determination,
quantification and damage determination
phases
Quantifies damages in monetary terms
Restoration alternatives identified and
evaluated
Natural recovery taken into account
Account established for monetary recoveries
Restoration, rehabilitation, replacement or
acquisition activities undertaken
While the precise geographic area of the PRRI has not yet been identified, it is expected to
include the lower 17 miles of the Passaic River from Dundee Dam to Newark Bay, and
may include some of the upper Passaic watershed and possibly a part of Newark Bay.
Specific actions to be undertaken in the cooperative planning process could include project
actions that will:
 Restore Passaic River water quality, sediments and watershed drainage areas, and
possibly nearby wetlands in the upper Newark Bay.
 Protect river biota from contact with concentrations of multiple chemicals in the
river sediments to help restore aquatic habitat.
 Raise submerged, unvegetated mudflats in the Passaic to create vegetated shallows
(similar to pre-bulkhead conditions) that provide habitat value.
 Incorporate restored vegetated shallows into riverfront developments for
recreational, municipal and commercial uses.
 Restore and enhance degraded wetlands in the adjacent river systems to nurture
expanded bird and fish populations.
 Reduce and control pollutants now entering the river from storm water runoff and
outfalls to assist with restoration and to maintain the restored habitat.
The lower Passaic River represents an excellent opportunity to test the concepts of the
URRI for a number of reasons. The complexity of the situation, as described above,
demands a comprehensive, watershed-based approach to the problem. Although such
complexity may be intimidating, a great deal of information collection and stakeholder
team building already has occurred in the Basin. Considerable work in the Passaic Basin,
for example, has been performed by the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program
[32]. The Corps of Engineers itself recently reviewed the lower Passaic as part of its
related Hudson-Raritan Estuary Environmental Restoration Study [33]. In addition,
private companies located in the basin have invested over $30 million in relevant research
studies on the River in recent years, providing a strong analytical foundation for
identifying and evaluating corrective measures.
As is the case with other URRI pilots, the PRRI offers considerable synergy with other
related efforts, such as the Urban Initiatives and the Community Based Environmental
Protection goals of the EPA Region II Strategic Plan [34], and the EPA Brownfields
Economic Redevelopment Initiative. Restoration of the Passaic River also may be
instrumental to the success of Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots in the region,
such as those in Paterson, Newark, Jersey City, Middlesex County, Hackensack
Meadowlands, and Hudson County, New Jersey [35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40].
7
Conclusion
Since publication of the landmark National Research Council report Contaminated Marine
Sediments: Assessment and Remediation in 1989 [41], much has been learned about how to
address the difficult problems associated with contaminated urban river corridors. With
many stakeholders involved in the problem, consensus building among such parties is
essential to success. It is in this environment that the URRI approach described herein
appears to be more promising than approaches that involve extensive litigation.
Approaches allowing the application of limited public and private resources to real
solutions rather than confrontation and conflict, non-adversarial processes such as the
URRI are needed.
In recent years, we have begun to see several examples of successful trustee/non-trustee
agency partnerships where substantive results, not endless process, are emerging. These
include those in the Ashtabula River Basin, Ohio [34]; Grand Calumet River Basin,
Indiana [35]; and others the in the Great Lakes region [36]. Hopefully, the URRI will
enable natural resource trustee agencies, in partnership with other Federal, state and local
entities, to build upon the lessons learned from these and other success stories, and move
away from confrontational and litigious situations toward more timely and comprehensive
solutions.
REFERENCES
[1] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “The Incidence and Severity of Sediment
Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States,” EPA 823-R-97-006, Washington,
D.C., September 1997.
[2] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “The Incidence and Severity of Sediment
Contamination in Surface Waters of the United States, National Sediment Quality Survey:
Second Edition,” EPA 823-R-01-01, January 8, 2002 (draft).
[3] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Contaminated Sediment Management
Strategy,” EPA 823-R-98-001, Washington, D.C., April 1998.
[4] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
“Memorandum of Understanding on Restoration of Degraded Urban Rivers,” Washington,
D.C., July 2, 2002.
[5] J.P. Deason, “Report on the Brownfields Case Study Review Project,” Institute for
Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C., September 1998.
[6] U.S. General Accounting Office, “Barriers to Brownfield Redevelopment,”
Washington, D.C., June 1996.
[7] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Memorandum entitled “Urban River Restoration
Initiative Pilot Projects,” CECW-PD, 13 March 2003.
[8] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Urban
Rivers Restoration Pilot Fact Sheet Anacostia River Watershed Restoration,” Washington
D.C. and Maryland February 25, 2003.
[9] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Urban
Rivers Restoration Pilot Fact Sheet Blackstone-Woonasquatucket Rivers and
Communities, MA and RI,” February 26, 2003.
[10] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Urban
Rivers Restoration Pilot Fact Sheet Elizabeth River Basin, Virginia,” February 25, 2003.
[11] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Urban
Rivers Restoration Pilot Fact Sheet Tres Rios, Arizona,” February 25, 2003.
[12] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Watershed Approach Framework,”
Washington, D.C., June 1996.
[13] National Research Council, “New Strategies for America's Watersheds,” National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1999.
[14] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Natural Resource Damages: A Primer,”
http://www.epa.gov/oerrpage/superfund/programs/nrd/primer.htm.
[15] Section 206, Public Law 104-303, Water Resources Development Act of 1996,
Washington, D.C., 1996.
[16] Section 1135, Public Law 99-662, Water Resources Development Act of 1986,
Washington, D.C., 1986.
[17] Section 204, Public Law 102-580, Water Resources Development Act of 1992,
Washington, D.C., 1992.
[18] Section 312, Public Law 101-640, Water Resources Development Act of 1990,
Washington, D.C., 1990.
[19] Section 205, Public Law 104-303, Water Resources Development Act of 1996,
Washington, D.C., 1996.
[20] Section 224, Public Law 106-53, Water Resources Development Act of 1999,
Washington, D.C., 1999.
[21] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Ecosystem Restoration – Supporting Policy
Information,” EP 1165-2-502, September 30, 1999.
[22] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “Civil Works Planning Guidance Notebook,” ER
1105-2-100, Washington, D.C., April 22, 2000.
[23] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Civil Works Ecosystem Restoration Policy, ER 1652-501, Washington, D.C. (30 September 1999).
[24] New York/New Jersey Harbor Spill Restoration Committee, “Natural Resource
Restoration Plan for Oil and Chemical Releases in the New York/New Jersey Harbor
Estuary,” May 1996.
[25] C.E. Dinkins and K.M. Tice, “New Solutions for Old Problems in Newark Bay,”
Seton Hall Law Review, 29/1, pp. 60-75, 1998.
[26] L.A. Wolfskill and R. McNutt, “An Environmental Study of the Passaic River and Its
Estuary. Seton Hall Law Review,” 29/1, pp. 37-59, 1998.
[27] D. Ludwig, T. Iannuzzi, W. Desvousges, R. Dunford, J. Kinnell, D. Jefferson, and S.
Cox, “History of Natural Resources Loss in an Urban River System: The Passaic River,
New Jersey,” Triangle Economic Research, Durham, N.C., 2000.
[28] R. Dunford, J. Kinnell, and D. Jefferson, “History of Recreation Activities in the
Passaic River,” Triangle Economic Research, Durham, N.C., 1999.
[29] T. Schettler, G. Solomon, M. Valenti, and R. Webster, “Generations at Risk: How
Environmental Toxins May Affect Reproductive Health in New Jersey,” Trenton, New
Jersey Public Interest Research Group, Trenton, N.J., 1999.
[30] U.S. House of Representatives, Passaic River, “New Jersey Environmental
Restoration Study,” Docket 2628, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, D.C., April 11, 2000.
[31] Deason, J.P. and Taylor, W.R., “Natural Resource Damage Assessment and
Restoration: The Outlook for Federal Facilities”, Federal Facilities Environmental
Journal, Volume 8, Number 4 (Winter 1998), pp. 49-61.
[32] New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program, “Final Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan,” March 1996)
[33] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Reconnaissance Study, “Hudson-Raritan Estuary
Environmental Restoration Study, Section 905(b) WRDA 86 Preliminary Analysis,” New
York, June 2000.
[34] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Region II Strategic Plan, Phase I,” U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, New York, October 1998.
[35] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Brownfields Assessment Demonstration
Pilot, Paterson, N.J.,” Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C.,
July 1998.
[36] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Brownfields Assessment Demonstration
Pilot, Newark, N.J.,” Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C.,
May 1997.
[37] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Brownfields Assessment Demonstration
Pilot, Jersey City, N.J.,” Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington,
D.C., April 1997.
[38] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Brownfields Assessment Demonstration
Pilot, Middlesex County, N.J.,” Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Washington, D.C., July 1998.
[39] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Brownfields Assessment Demonstration
Pilot, Hackensack Meadowlands, N.J.,” Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Washington, D.C., June 1999.
[40] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Brownfields Assessment Demonstration
Pilot, Hudson County, N.J.,” Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Washington, D.C., July 1998.
[41] National Research Council, “Contaminated Marine Sediments: Assessment and
Remediation,” National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1989.
[42] N.S. Jones, L.A. Wolfskill and R. Taylor, “An Overview and Analysis of the
Ashtabula River Partnership,” The Point Group, March 1999.
[43] International Joint Commission, “Beacons of Light: Successful Strategies Toward
Restoration of Areas of Concern,” March 1998.
[44] J.H. Hartwig and N.L. Law, “Progress in Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans:
Implementing the Ecosystem Approach in Great Lakes Areas of Concern,” Wayne State
University, Detroit, September 1994.