Prepared for the Management Conference by
Robert Nyman, Director
New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
290 Broadway, 24 th Floor
New York, NY 10007
212-637-3809
Draft May 20, 2008

2

INTRODUCTION
This work plan is for Fiscal Year 2008 (FY 08) of the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary
Program (HEP) and covers the primary project period of October 1, 2008 - September 30, 2009.
The primary implementation items for the coming year are: (1) assessment of water quality conditions and the development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for toxics, pathogens and nutrients for New York and New Jersey, as necessary; (2) habitat restoration planning, including a grant program to develop conceptual restoration plans and working with the Corps to complete the Comprehensive Restoration Plan for habitat; (3) continuation of the Stewardship grants; (4) support for improving public access to the estuary; (5) developing a communications strategy for habitat restoration, (6) pilot green infrastructure project; and (7) state of the estuary document development.
The following attachments are included as part of this work plan:
Attachment 1 documents that the cost share requirement has been met.
Attachment 2 documents NEP travel expenditures.
Attachment 3 summarizes the HEP Office staff and work group responsibilities.
Attachment 4 is a list of grants provided to local entities.
Attachment 5 is the list of Program and Grant Specific Outcomes.
Attachment 6 is the February 2008 draft of the Action Plan.
3

II. Goals and Accomplishments
Some of the accomplishments from the past year include: (1) completion of draft 2008 Action
Plan (currently undergoing revisions); (2) continued progress in technical analysis and resolving management issues related to TMDL development for nutrients, pathogens, and toxics; (3) formation of a Toxics TMDL Implementation sub-group to augment the efforts of the work group; (4) development of final Target Ecosystem Characteristics (TECs) and ongoing incorporation into the Comprehensive Restoration Plan (CRP) for the Harbor; (5) initiation of a communications plan for the CRP; (6) completion of the Key Species report; (7) completion of the first harbor-wide water quality survey report; (8) expected Summer 2008 completion of the
Regional Sediment Management Work Groups plan to address sediment issues in the Harbor;
(9) initiation of stormwater control/education project in Newark/Elizabeth area;
Focus areas and goals to be accomplished for the coming year are included in Section III. FY 08
Funding.
4

III. FY 08 FUNDING
HEP developed FY 08 budget allocations based on a FY 08 Clean Water Act Section 320 budget of $591,750. A 50% non-federal match is required on these funds and is documented in
Attachment 1. It is also important to note the enormous contributions of time and materials from numerous agencies, organizations and individuals involved in the HEP, which are not readily quantified.
Projects to be Funded under the FY 08 HEP Budget
FY 08 budget tasks focus on implementing various aspects of the CCMP and the 2008 Action
Plan, including: supporting green infrastructure, assessment of data for the NY Bight, communication planning; development of a new state of the estuary publication; development of habitat restoration plans; improving information availability on the website; supporting public access efforts, and stewardship grants. In addition, a second staff position is to be created to oversee habitat efforts. Other work being carried out by the program does not require funding from the current budget cycle.
Table 1 provides a listing of the selected projects and the amounts allocated for each of them.
Following the table are descriptions of each of the projects. All of the activities to be funded here are scheduled to be completed prior to September 30, 2009, except as noted.
Project Title
Newark green infrastructure BMP demos
Assessment of Bight data
OASIS interactive maps.
Habitat planning grants
Communication strategy development
Public access minigrants, GIS support, PA work group staff support.
Tidal Exchange Newsletter
State of the Estuary
Stewardship grants
Two program staff
Website
NEIWPCC grant management
Total Direct Costs
NEIWPCC indirect (8.98% of direct costs)
Total
This work plan is for activities that will take place primarily Oct 1, 2008 - Sept 30, 2009.
*Amount available from Section 320 is $591,750
5
Amount
50,000
23,200
8,082
97,362
40,000
27,000
17,279
50,000
40,000
164,882
7,500
17,685
542,990
48,760
591,750

Project/Activity Name: Implementation and Assessment of the Effectiveness of the Green
Infrastructure Technology for Reducing Combined Sewer Overflows in Newark, NJ
Project/Activity Purpose and Description: New project. Funds will be used to design, construct, instrument, and monitor the water quality and quantity impact of Green Infrastructure
(GI) retrofits in an existing Newark, NJ neighborhood. GI retrofits under consideration include green roofs, porous pavements, curbside infiltration galleries, and rainwater harvesting schemes.
A minimum of two GI technologies will be selected for this project; the number of technologies can be further increased, should additional funds become available. The final technology selection will be conducted in consultation with the Newark Mayor’s office and local developer(s), and will focus on GI technologies with the greatest likelihood of watershed penetration, social acceptance, and ease in permitting. The project will include water quality and quantity monitoring and analyzing the cost-effectiveness of all implemented GI measures and will result in the development of recommendations regarding the technical feasibility, costs, benefits, and implementation guidance for both Newark and other urban areas of the NY-NJ
Harbor.
Responsible Partners and Their Role(s):

New York-New Jersey Baykeeper – overall project lead.

Interstate Environmental Commission – research and monitoring.
 eDesign Dynamics – engineering and design.
Outputs/Products:
Construction of several small scale green technology projects in Newark.
Water quality monitoring results incorporated into final report.
Milestones: 10/01/08 – initiate project; 2/15/09 – commence construction; 11/10/09 – complete water quality sampling; 12/30/09 – submit final report.
Budget:

$50,000 Section 320 funds.

$75,000 match provided by NY-NJ Baykeeper.

$12,500 in-kind services provided by Interstate Environmental Commission.
Outcomes:

Short-term – Improved knowledge of stormwater issues and green technologies.

Intermediate – Willingness to participate in green technology project.

Changes (+/-) in Pressure Targets – Possible reduction in stormwater volume leaving sites.

Long-term – Possible reduction in CSO discharge resulting from reduce stormwater volume.
6

Project/Activity Name: Data assessment for Bight Dissolved Oxygen work
Project/Activity Purpose and Description: New Project. This effort has two tasks. Under the first task, the contractor will perform a comparison of the 2008 data to 1995 data and SWEM
1995 modeling results. The comparison will include plotting along seven spatial transects, analogous to how 1994-95 Bight data were previously presented. The spatial transects run from both east to west and from north to south. Based on this comparison, contractor will prepare recommendations regarding: the planned 2009 sampling program, the comparability of summer
1995 and summer 2008 conditions, the preliminary scope of refinements that may be necessary for improvement of the SWEM calibration in the New York Bight for TMDL purposes, and how the data compare to EPA marine dissolved oxygen criteria. The recommendations will be summarized in a technical memorandum. In the second task, the contractor will also perform a comparison of the 2009 data to 2008 data, 1995 data and SWEM 1995 modeling results. Based on this comparison, the contractor will prepare recommendations regarding: the comparability of summer 1995, summer 2008, and summer 2009 conditions, the final scope of refinements that may be necessary for improvement of the SWEM calibration in the New York Bight for TMDL purposes, and how the 2009 data compare to the EPA marine dissolved oxygen criteria. The recommendations will be summarized in a technical memorandum. The task also includes three conference calls to discuss the memoranda. In addition, this task provides for holding a one-day workshop with stakeholders. The purposes of this workshop are to review the history of SWEM and the Harbor nutrient TMDLs for Bight stakeholders that might be new to the System Wide
Nutrient Work Group (NWG) and to present the plan for addressing the technical needs for Bight
TMDLs.
Responsible Partners and Their Role(s):

HEP Nutrient Work Group will work with the contractor to assess data collected and analyzed by EPA/NOAA collaboration.
Outputs/Products : Two technical memoranda summarizing the results of the comparison of
2008 and 2009 data with 1995 and SWEM modeling results. Information will be used to plan future monitoring and modeling needs.
Milestones: This project would be initiated in October 2008 and completed in October 2009.
Two technical memoranda will be produced during this timeframe.
Budget: Total budget for this analysis is $23,200 of Section 320 funds.
Outcomes:

Short-term – Better awareness of dissolved oxygen issues in Bight.

Intermediate – A better understanding of the adequacy of SWEM for use in the Bight and possibly recommendations for improving it for future use.

Changes (+/-) in Pressure Targets – Not applicable at this time until assessment has been completed.

Long-term – depending on data assessment, HEP may decide to undertake additional modeling and possible TMDL work for the Bight which could ultimately lead to improved dissolved oxygen levels.
7

Project/Activity Name : Support for OASIS Maintenance
Project/Activity Purpose and Description: Ongoing. This project focuses on the maintenance and hosting of the following coordinated data sources via the OASIS website during the 12month term of the grant: 1) combined database of HEP habitat restoration and acquisition sites and Army Corps restoration sites; and 2) public access locations. The project includes the following components: incorporate new/changed HEP sites and also information about each site as compiled by HEP and the Army Corps; digitize and incorporate additional habitat site boundaries and associated information; maintain and enhance Google Earth links for the
HEP/Army Corps data as an option for viewing the data throughout the region, and add similar links for public access data; maintain the feedback email link for habitat data in order to help broaden the constituency concerned about and supportive of protecting and restoring habitat sites in the region, and also help obtain up-to-date information from multiple sources; and maintain and update as needed the special web-based entry form specific to the HEP program.
Responsible Partners and Their Role(s):

The City University of New York Graduate Center is the overall lead for this project and provides all of the technical expertise and any necessary hardware and services.

Other HEP partners provide information to the Graduate Center for inclusion in the site.
Outputs/Products:
Maintained, updated and improved information on OASIS website related to habitat acquisition and restoration opportunities throughout the harbor.
Milestones: Project duration is 12 months beginning October 2008. Periodic updates will be made to the OASIS site as information is provided to them. Quarterly reports are to be supplied.
Budget: $8,082 for personnel, overhead and technology services.
Outcomes:

Short-term – Increased knowledge about acquisition and restoration sites.

Intermediate – Site will be utilized by decision makers.

Changes (+/-) in Pressure Targets – Increase in overall amount of habitat acquired and/or restored.

Long-term – continued progress in acquisition and restoration of sites.
8

Project/Activity Name : Habitat Restoration Planning Grants
Project/Activity Purpose and Description: New project(s), but ongoing program. This project will assist with the restoration of habitat sites through-out the harbor through the development of restoration plans for sites.
It has long been recognized that there is a critical gap in funding availability for necessary preconstruction activities, including collection of baseline data, development of technical plans, schematic design of projects, and financing of construction. The Habitat Work Group proposes to issue one or more grants for planning and design services that will support a select group of the Target Ecosystem Characteristics (TECs) within the Comprehensive Restoration Plan (CRP).
With adequate data, plans and designs in hand, partners will have additional funding options and the pace of implementation will increase. This work is viewed as early implementation of the
HRE-CRP while the CRP plan is being completed. HEP released Request for Proposals for similar efforts beginning in 2004. It is anticipated that the RFP for this project would be released in December 2008 with a 9-12 month project period.

Modify previous Request for Proposals (RFP) as necessary.

Review/modify existing criteria for selecting award recipients.

Solicit applications to conduct planning services to support one or more of the TECs.

Make awards to one or more entities for the identified work.

Awardees would conduct data gathering, planning and design work as appropriate and provide map products, schematics, analyses, and recommendations.
Responsible Partners and Their Role(s) :

The HEP Office staff will take the lead on working with other partners to update the
Request for Proposals and review criteria as necessary.

NEIWPCC will develop a contract with and distribute the funds to the selected entity(s).
Outputs/Products : The main product for this work is the development of one or more site specific restoration plans that can be used to secure construction/implementation funding.
Milestones: It is anticipated that the RFP for this project would be released in December 2008 with a 9-12 month project period. Final report would be submitted at the end of the project and
HEP would seek to work with the recipient to identify funding and to ensure construction of the project.
Budget : $97,361 of Section 320 funds plus any proposed match.
Outcomes: (report anticipated and/or completed accomplishments)

Short-term – increased awareness of habitat restoration need.

Intermediate – increased coordination among restoration experts

Changes (+/-) in Pressure Targets – Potential increase in habitat acreage if construction is funded.

Long-term – If completed plans are ultimately funded by another mechanism, various types of habitat restoration are possible.
9

Project/Activity Name: Outreach for Habitat Restoration Plan.
Project/Activity Purpose and Description: The goal of this project is to fund further development of a communications plan on the restoration of habitat in the harbor. The centerpiece for organizing the restoration effort is the Comprehensive Restoration Plan for the
NY/NJ Harbor. While the CRP is fundamentally a more complex document that most similar public plans due to the great number of sites covered, the inherent complexities of ecological restoration, and the multiplicities of political jurisdictions, agencies, and NGOs involved, it must move forward under no less a high standard of public inclusion.
Public inclusion on a project like this is vital for several key reasons. Foremost, often the public and other stakeholders have great ideas that would complement or supplement the prepared plan.
An expanded knowledge base is better. Secondly, in order to gain the public’s trust and interest in the plan, they must be fundamentally incorporated in its inception and forward momentum. In many cases individual site plans will indeed impact a particular neighborhood, and in other cases, sites plans may have ramifications with respect to other public or private projects in an area (tunnels, subway lines, ferry services, commercial development, etc). Finally, once the plan is complete, it will take years of effort and millions of dollars to complete it. Such funding will only happen if elected officials want it to happen, and that will only occur if such officials know that their constituents feel likewise.
HEP/NEIWPCC is currently working with a contractor on a first phase of this work. A determination will be made as to whether to continue with the current contractor or seek alternate assistance.
Responsible Partners and Their Role(s) :

A small committee of interested Management Committee members and others are working with the current communications contractor on a separate preliminary effort. It is possible that the group will elect to continue to work with the current contractor.
Outputs/Products: The specific scope of work for this project has not been determined, therefore a list of outputs and products has yet to be agreed upon. It is likely that it will include both guidance and materials development.
Milestones: It is anticipated that the project will begin in October 2008 and be completed in 12 months.
Budget : $40,000 of Section 320 funds.
Outcomes:

Short-term – Increased awareness about habitat restoration.

Intermediate -

Changes (+/-) in Pressure Targets -

Long-term - If, as a result of this effort, large scale restorations are enabled, then increased restoration is the outcome.
10

Project/Activity Name: Public Access Work Group Work Program
Project/Activity Purpose and Description: Ongoing. In order to improve public access around the harbor, the Public Access Work Group has created a plan on how to address these issues and distributed this to the Management Committee. Issues to be addressed in the plan include: Creating equity in terms of communities and socioeconomic groups who have access to the waterfront within a 30 minute walk, bike or transit trip; Improving safety in terms of waterfront design (including creating a network of landings), education, and training of waterfront personnel; Dispelling myths about water quality and safety of estuary related recreation; Influencing design of public park projects by outreach to parks planning, design, and operating agencies; and putting public access higher on the agenda of public agencies involved in waterfront development; Tasks include:

Enhance Baseline Data Set to include linear features and data sets such as the Hudson
River Walkway, NJ and NY Segments of East Coast Greenway, NYC Water Trail,
Brooklyn Waterfront Greenway) for inclusion on the basemap ($5,000)
 Repeat “Water Event Day” Minigrant program ($11,000)

Influence Design of Public Park Projects by Outreach to Parks Planning, Design, and
Operating Agencies - Organize a series of meetings and briefings at and with local, state and federal agencies and community based groups involved in waterfront redevelopment
(e.g., NYC Economic Development Corporation, NJDEP, NYSDEC; Local parks groups and conservancies; NYC Department of City Planning; NJ and NY State Parks ($6,000).

Continue formal Nomination process initiated in 2007, and carry these through
Management Committee Approval under HEP. ($3,000)

Produce an Annual Report on Site Nominations, Approved and new Projects that improve public access ($2,000)
Responsible Partners and Their Role(s) :

Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance is the lead and chair of the Public Access Work Group.

NEIWPCC will distribute funds to implement the tasks.
Outputs/Products : Improved baseline access map, multiple water event days around the harbor, meetings with planning officials to discuss access opportunities, and final report.
Milestones: The initiation date is targeted at October 2008 with completion by September 2009.
An RFP will be developed for the Water Event Day minigrants for activities that will take place primarily in spring and summer 2009.
Budget : $27,000 of Section 320 funding.
Outcomes: (report anticipated and/or completed accomplishments)

Short-term – Better understanding of access needs.

Intermediate – Increased communication with planners.

Changes (+/-) in Pressure Targets – Increased number of people using waterfront.

Long-term – Not clear how this would be measured.
11

Project/Activity Name : Publication of the Tidal Exchange newsletter
Project/Activity Purpose and Description: Ongoing. This project will cover professional services for layout and printing of HEP’s Newsletter,
The Tidal Exchange . This publication is an excellent vehicle to update a diverse audience on HEP’s progress towards accomplishing its goals and thus highlight its invaluable role in preserving and protecting the Estuary’s resources.
It also serves as an educational tool to raise awareness on Estuary issues while strengthening links to, and fostering interest in the Estuary by the local community at all levels.
The Tidal Exchange is widely distributed via snail mail and is posted online at HEP’s website. In particular, the newsletter is sent to elected officials including congress representatives, senators, assembly members, council members, majors, and commissioners from the region’s environmental offices. HEP staff makes every effort to keep the distribution database current before mailing out each new issue of its newsletter.
Contents cover a range of topics of importance to the Estuary. For example, the newsletter has included articles on the following subjects: Habitat (e.g., habitat acquisition and restoration efforts by HEP and its partners); Public Access (e.g., programs and activities to promote and facilitate access to the waterfront and water in the region); Stewardship (e.g., activities supported by HEP’s grant program and carried out by local community groups and non-profit organizations); Fishing and Swimming (e.g., updates on the region’s long-term control plans to reduce combined sewer overflows); General Topics
(e.g., educational programs for the area’s high school students); Species Profiles : each issue features a description of a local species, highlighting its value for the local ecosystem.
Responsible Partners and Their Role(s):

HEP Office staff over see production of The Tidal Exchange and will work with contractors to accomplish layout and printing tasks paid for under this task.

Editorial board made up of HEP staff and two states.
Outputs/Products : Production of 3-4 issues of The Tidal Exchange.
Milestones: Target is to produce one seasonal issue for winter, spring, summer and fall just as that season is beginning. Schedule and process for production has been established and is in use.
Budget: $17,279 of Clean Water Act funds have been budgeted for this.
Outcomes:

Short-term – Increased awareness about estuary issues.

Intermediate – Increased involvement with estuary issues.

Changes (+/-) in Pressure Targets - Additional names added to newsletter mailing list.

Long-term – Not clear how this would be measured.
12

Project/Activity Name : Development and production of estuary status publication
Project/Activity Purpose and Description: In 2003, the Hudson River Foundation developed a State of the Estuary report with partial funding from HEP. In preparation for the 400 th anniversary of Henry Hudson’s visit to the estuary, HEP will prepare a new status report on the estuary. The Management Committee will determine whether to commission a revision of the
2003 report, or perhaps a more simplified “newspaper” type status report modeled after the Long
Island Sound version. The funds for this project will be used for the research, writing and layout of the report. Printing funds will be sought from another source.
Responsible Partners and Their Role(s) :

The HEP Office staff will work with the Management Committee to decide on the format, content, etc.

NEIWPCC will secure technical assistance with the preparation of the document.
Outputs/Products : An estuary status publication in a style that is yet to be determined in both hardcopy and electronic formats.
Milestones: It is anticipated that the effort will begin in October 2008 and the report will be completed in spring 2009. Once completed, the product will be distributed in hard copy as well as being made available on various websites.
Budget : $50,000 of Section 320 funds.
Outcomes:

Short-term – Increased awareness of the ecological status of the estuary.

Intermediate – Partners will be involved in preparation of the document.

Changes (+/-) in Pressure Targets - Not clear how this would be measured.

Long-term – Not clear how this would be measured.
13

Project/Activity Name : Competitive Stewardship Grant Program
Project/Activity Purpose and Description: Ongoing. This project will fund efforts to promote stewardship of the NY-NJ Harbor. It will build upon the Stewardship Program started in
2005. For FY 2007, and based on advice provided by the Management Committee and the
Citizens Advisory Committee, HEP sought to fund more substantive projects that could have a greater impact on the Estuary, instead of providing mini-grants as in the past. A similar approach is anticipated for FY 2008.
Projects supported through this grant program will address specific priority topics within the 5 broad goals identified in HEPs Action Plan. Award recipients will develop, implement, evaluate and help disseminate initiatives centered on concrete actions or programs demonstrating stewardship that relay specific messages to defined audiences and lead to positive behavior changes and/or ecosystem improvements.
A Review Team of representatives from HEP CAC, MC, HEP Staff and other committees and workgroups will score the proposals based on an established set of criteria. The criteria, which will be agreed upon by all reviewers and included in the call for proposals, will address these broad categories: relevance to HEP goals, project design, project evaluation, project implementation, and budget. Specific types of projects that may be funded include, but are not limited to: Hands-on Action: provide funding to community groups and non-profit organizations to carry out efforts in categories to be determined; Programmatic Activities: provide funding to conduct a variety of public programs and on-water projects.
Responsible Partners and Their Role(s) :

HEP Office Staff will work with the Management Committee to develop the RFP.

NEIWPCC will manage the RFP process and make the awards. NEIWPCC will also be responsible for tracking progress though recipient progress reports.
Outputs/Products : One or more projects will be selected for funding. Outputs will depend on the nature of the project.
Milestones: It is anticipated that the project will begin in October 2008 at which point a Request for Proposals will be developed. Based on previous efforts, awards will be made in early spring
2009 for projects that will be completed by the end of 2009.
Budget : $40,000 of Section 320 funds.
Outcomes:

Short-term – Increased awareness of estuary issues.

Intermediate - Will depend on project selected.

Changes (+/-) in Pressure Targets - Will depend on project selected.

Long-term - Will depend on project selected.
14

Project/Activity Name : Support for HEP Office Staff
Project/Activity Purpose and Description: One new and one ongoing position. Funding for two positions is included in this request. One position, the Program Associate, is a continuation of an existing position. The second is a new position dedicated to habitat work.
Program Associate Duties: Work with NEIWPCC Lowell staff to manage small grant programs funded by HEP, including habitat planning, stewardship and others, in coordination with HEP partners; Support program technical work groups in developing/updating work plans, implementing program approved actions, and tracking environmental and programmatic progress. New tasks this year may include leading select projects and/or chairing one or more subcommittees; Manage the production of program publications, including newsletter; Lead development of program finance plan that will seek to augment current funding.
Habitat Staff Duties: Oversee/coordinate all habitat related activities undertaken by HEP; Work in coordination with other partners to developing site specific restoration plans and seek opportunities to fund/implement them; Work with OASIS contractor to ensure appropriate site database management and representation of restoration and acquisition sites on on-line maps.
Provide periodic status reports on acquisition and restoration activities by all HEP partners;
Provide administrative support to Habitat Work Group chair and be prepared to chair meetings in the event that chair is unavailable; Work with partners to develop educational products or activities to promote habitat restoration and stewardship.
Responsible Partners and Their Role(s) : Existing and new staff for the HEP Office will be hired through an agreement with the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control
Commission. EPA will continue to house the staff and supply all necessary computers, phones, and other support equipment and supplies.
Outputs/Products: Staff will be responsible for a variety of outputs and products including various support materials for work groups, program newsletter, programmatic tracking products, habitat restoration tracking, working with partners to complete new and existing restoration projects, etc.
Milestones: One staff is currently working with the program and an announcement will be released for the new position after October 2008.
Budget : $164,882 of Section 320 funds for two positions.
Outcomes:

Short-term – Better coordination and improved awareness among partners.

Intermediate – Improved information about restoration and other projects.

Changes (+/-) in Pressure Targets – Additional habitat restoration and other projects.

Long-term – Additional habitat restoration and other project successes.
15

IV. HEP AREAS OF FOCUS IN FY 08
In addition to the items listed above that are being supported with Clean Water Act
Section 320 funds, the Management Conference will also continue to implement other actions and studies in the CCMP. Some of these items are being funded by other sources, while still others do not require much funding, but do require significant agency or volunteer time. Listed below by subject area are some of the main efforts that HEP will be focusing on.
Habitat and Living Resources

The Habitat Work Group will continue to work closely with the Corps of
Engineers and others on the development of the Comprehensive Restoration Plan
(CRP) and other harbor initiatives. This may include assisting with workshops, conferences, and seeking support for the plan. This supports CCMP Objective H-
1: Development of a comprehensive regional strategy to protect the harbor/Bight watershed and to mitigate continuing adverse human induced effects.

The Habitat Work Group (HWG) will continue to work with the states and other entities to acquire and restore habitats identified in the HEP list of significant habitats sites (Objective H-11.4). More focus will be placed on acquisition and restoration of the sites on the list. The new staff person will track successes, assure appropriate presentation of information through OASIS and special publications, assist with seeking funds and restoration planning, and supporting the Habitat Work Group. . This element is in support of CCMP Objective H-
11: Identify significant coastal habitats warranting enhanced protection and restoration.
Toxic Contamination

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are being developed for toxics under the auspices of HEP. The states and EPA will begin utilizing the CARP modeling tool for toxics TMDLs. In addition, the new Implementation sub-group will be assessing options for the TMDL implementation plan. This supports CCMP
Objective T-13: Develop mass balances for metals and organic chemicals.

"Track down and clean up" significant municipal and industrial discharges of chemicals of concern, and ambient "track down and clean up" (Action T-1.2 and
Objective T-6) are a focus of the ongoing Linden-Roselle pilot project. This supports CCMP Objective T-1: Reduce municipal discharges of chemicals of concern.

HEP is considering co-sponsoring a stormwater conference related to toxics with a number of partners. This supports CCMP Objective T-1: Reduce municipal discharges of chemicals of concern.
Dredged Material Management

The HEP Policy Committee approved the formation of a Regional Sediment
16

Management Work Group in early 2006. The RSM has been meeting periodically to develop a regional sediment management plan, covering sediment quality, quantity and dredged material management. It is expected that a draft will be available in the summer 2008.
Pathogenic Contamination

The Pathogens Work Group will continue to utilize the Pathogens Model in the assessment of water quality conditions and the determination of any load reductions or other actions that would be necessary to meet water quality standards. This information will be fed into the development of a pathogen
TMDL by the states and EPA. This supports CCMP Objective P-7: Continue appropriate research, environmental monitoring, and modeling to identify remediation activities and support recovery of uses.

EPA and the states will continue the Beach/Shellfish Bed Closure Action Plan. In addition, the Regional Bypass network to alert authorities on the need to close swimming beaches or shellfish areas due to sewage bypasses will continue to be coordinated by the Interstate Environmental Commission. This supports CCMP
Objective P-2: Reduce or eliminate the discharge of raw or inadequately treated sewage due to sewage treatment plant malfunctions and illegal connections.
Floatable Debris

The short-term floatables action plan will be continued. This plan includes aerial surveillance, regular cleanups of debris and non-routine cleanup of slicks. This supports CCMP Objective F-1: Continue and enhance implementation of the successful short-term floatables action plan.

A variety of groups, including the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners and the American Littoral Society, will continue to conduct shoreline cleanups. This supports CCMP Objective F-3: Implement beach and shoreline cleanups.
Nutrient and Organic Enrichment

The System Wide Eutrophication Model (SWEM) will continue to be utilized by the Nutrient Work Group to develop nutrient TMDLs according to the attached schedule. This supports CCMP Objective N-4: Develop and implement additional actions necessary to eliminate adverse effects of eutrophication, including hypoxia, on marine life in the Harbor, Bight, and Long Island Sound.
Rainfall-Induced Discharges

HEP will work with partners to further develop and implement at least two pilot green infrastructure projects in Newark and Elizabeth, NJ. This supports CCMP
Objectives SW-1: Implement measures to control municipal and industrial storm water discharges and Objective NPS-4: Continue and enhance education
17

programs for control of non-point source pollution.
Post-CCMP Management

The HEP Program Office, located at 290 Broadway, is currently staffed by a
Director, a Program Associate and funding has been set aside for an additional staff person. This supports CCMP Objective S-3: Establish a program office .
Monitoring, Modeling and Research

HEP will utilize various databases for tracking stewardship information, Action
Plan priorities, organizing contacts, and tracking habitat acquisition and restoration. This supports CCMP Objective M-4: Develop and implement longterm data management strategy.

CARP data is currently available on the website www.carpnet.org
, which is linked from the HEP website. This supports CCMP Objective M-4: Develop and implement long-term data management strategy.

The Harbor-wide Survey will continue in the coming year with the majority of the effort being put in by New York City Department of Environmental Protection and the New Jersey Harbor Dischargers Group. HEP will work with these groups in anticipation of a 2010 version of a harbor-wide water quality report based on their data. This supports CCMP Objective M-2: Conduct workshops on monitoring, modeling, and research needs.

A monitoring plan for the Bight will be initiated in 2008 that will include both an ongoing portion, as well as a portion focused on validating SWEM for the Bight.
This supports CCMP Objective N-4: Develop and implement additional actions necessary to eliminate adverse effects of eutrophication, including hypoxia, on marine life in the Harbor, Bight, and Long Island Sound.
Public Outreach and Education

HEP will continue to be involved with outreach activities, including the development of outreach materials, organizing workshops and events, etc. One important aspect of this that HEP is taking the lead on is the development of a communications strategy for habitat restoration . This supports CCMP Objectives
E-1: Provide for public input to ongoing program and policy decision-making for
HEP; and E-2: Build community awareness, appreciation, and understanding of the ecosystem and its importance; and encourage action at the community level;

HEP will continue to participate at symposia and events hosted by other organizations. HEP will be a co-sponsor of the Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance biennial conference in fall 2008. HEP will host the fall 2008 ANEP meeting in
NYC. This supports CCMP Objective E-2: Build community awareness, appreciation, and understanding of the ecosystem and its importance; and encourage action at the community level.
18

IV. Status of Projects that are Ongoing From Previous Year’s HEP Funding
The following summarizes the status of past years' HEP work plan projects.
Public Involvement and Education
Newsletter, “The Tidal Exchange” - The well received newsletter continues to be produced and distributed in both hard copy and on the HEP website. Features over the past year have included articles on the Contamination Assessment and
Reduction Project, Arlington Marsh habitat acquisition, monitoring, public access in Linden, NJ, invasive species impact on waterbirds, contaminants from landfills, and industrial ecology.
HEP Website – In 2008, the HEP website received an updated design and a revised template format that will make future updates much more efficient. As time permits, additional sections will receive content updates. The website will continue to be used to provide information to program participants about ongoing activities as well as to provide more general information to a broader audience.
Communication Strategy – HEP has been working with a communications firm,
Big Duck, Inc, to develop a communications strategy centered on restoration. The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has agreed to let HEP take the lead on developing an overall communication strategy that they and other participants will be able to utilize for their own efforts.
Teachers Education Guide –
The 2003 Exploring Estuary Education, A Teacher’s
Guide to Lessons, Activities and Field Trips in the Harbor Estuary Region , is being updated by New York Sea Grant and is expected to be completed in summer
2008.
Teachers Workshop – Using HEP funds, New York Sea Grant, Cornell University and the American Museum of Natural History conducted a teacher’s workshop at the AMNH in May 2008 that engaged teachers in areal photo interpretation of HEP restoration sites. The program was deemed a great success and a follow up workshop will likely be sponsored by the New York Aquarium.
Kids Discovery Booklet - HEP has partnered with the New York State Hudson
River Estuary Program to develop a 16 page activity booklet for kids ages 8 – 12.
The booklet will highlight estuary history and natural resources. This is expected to be completed in early 2009.
National Outreach Travel
HEP travel funds are administered by NEIWPCC on behalf of HEP. HEP will continue to encourage appropriate use of the available funds, for travel consistent with federal regulations, for attendance of HEP representatives other than federal employees at various national meetings, conferences, symposia, etc. A list of the travel expenditures is included in Attachment III
19

Information Management
HEP awarded its website maintenance funding to NEIWPCC. They in turn developed a contract with a provider to maintain the program’s website
( www.harborestuary.org
).
Harbor-Wide Monitoring Report
The first harbor wide water quality survey report based on the efforts of NYCDEP and the NJHDG was completed in 2008. This was a relatively long process to get to this point because it involved initiating a substantial field and laboratory effort and then integrating data from a separate program run by NYCDEP. Sampling continues on an annual basis and HEP anticipates periodic updates of this report.
Web-based Habitat Map
New HEP habitat acquisition and restoration sites continue to be added to the
OASIS website, which is linked from HEP’s website. This provides an interactive map of the estuary with locational information for all the HEP sites, along with some descriptive information. A Google Earth interface was developed, along with an interactive feature that will allow users to suggested updated information that could be included. The HEP database has been merged with the CRP database so that there will be one version for the harbor.
Conceptual Habitat Plans and Stewardship Program
A joint RFP was developed to seek proposals for both the habitat restoration planning as well as the stewardship projects. The restoration planning would address one or more of the selected Target Ecosystem Characteristics and the stewardship program targets several priority topics. There is a closing date of May
16, 2008 and review committee has been set up and decisions will be made by early summer.
Program Associate
– HEP hired a Program Associate, Gabriela Munoz, in early 2008.
This position is responsible for a wide variety of tasks summarize in a later section.
Gabriela has a strong chemistry background and one of her duties is to assist the toxics TMDL effort in identifying potential actions for a TMDL implementation plan.
20

ATTACHMENT 1: HEP FY 08 Funding and Cost-Share
FEDERAL FUNDS for FY 2008 (CWA Section 320): $ 591,750
NON-FEDERAL COST-SHARE :
In-Kind non-federal match is being provided by Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners in the amount of $591,750. Additional match is available should it be necessary for additional funding.)
DOCUMENTATION THAT COST-SHARE REQUIREMENT IS EXPECTED TO BE
MET :
FY 08 Federal Funds + FY 08 Non-Federal Cost-Share = Total FY 08 Program Expenditures
$591,750 + $591,750 = $1,183,500
Match requirement:
FY 08 Non-Federal Cost-Share / Total FY 08 Program Expenditures = 50%
$591,750 / $1,183,500 = 50%

The FY 2008 CWA 320 funds will receive the required match from the Passaic Valley
Sewerage Commissioners. They will provide in kind match for work they are carrying out related to the harbor-wide water quality monitoring.
21

Attachment 2: HEP National Outreach Travel Funds (October 1, 2004 - present)
All previous travel accounts have been appropriately spent out and closed out. The table below represents the NEP funds that were made available to date.
Date
Processed
Traveler Purpose Anticipated Amount
10/1/204
10/1/2005
New Travel Funds @ NEIWPCC
New Travel Funds @ NEIWPCC ($10,000- $1,871 indirect)
($9,393.00)
($8,129.00)
($4,760.00) 8/2006
10/11-
14/05
K. Kirk-
Pflugh
10/11-
14/05
P. Sattler
9/27/2005 L.Curry
9/27/2005 Steve Nix
9/27/2005 Jay Taft
1/12-13/06 K. Kirk-
Pflugh
2/2/2006 B.
Matuszeski
2/2/2006 M. Wilhere
6/6-6/9/06 P. Sattler
New Travel Funds @ NEIWPCC
ANEP Newport, RI
ANEP Newport, RI
Pathogens MEG Travel
Pathogens MEG Travel
Pathogens MEG Travel
ANEP Cocoa Beach, FL
Business Stewardship workshop
Business Stewardship workshop
NEP Meeting in DC
6/6-6/9/06 K. Kirk-
Pflugh
3/12/2006 Jean Lynch
3/27/2006 S. King
NEP Meeting in DC
Harbor Herons conservation plan work
HEP Stewardship Proposal Review Meeting
RAE Meeting in New Orleans 12/1/2006 J. Lodge
2/1/2007 L. Bartovics Celebration of Teaching and Learning
2/28/2007 L. Bartovics Coastal Watersheds in the Classroom
3/1/2007 P. Sattler NEP in DC
3/1/2007 K. Kirk-
Pflugh
NEP in DC
4/26/2007
L. Bartovics
11/2/2007 R. Joos
Local Travel
Asian Longhorn beetle conf (661.19 + 253)
Expended from NEIWPCC Accounts
Total Amount of Travel Funds Remaining at
NEIWPCC
$485.00
$512.18
$255.88
$263.43
$552.39
$699.05
$336.00
$214.55
$628.26
$746.08
$470.93
$418.34
$677.60
$325.00
$18.25
$603.20
$946.43
$20.00
$954.19
$9,126.76
($13,155.24)
22

23

Attachment 3:
New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program Office Functions and Staffing
Introduction:
The New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program (HEP) Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP) dated March 1996, committed HEP to form a Program Office. In
September 1998, the Policy Committee agreed to form the HEP Office at EPA with an EPA employee as the Director. Since March 1999, the Policy Committee has approved a portion of the HEP budget for additional staff support. Since that time, up to two and half staff positions have been filled at any one time. After a several month vacancy and a reevaluation of Program
Office needs, a Program Associate was hired in early 2008 and funding has been allocated for a second position (Habitat Coordinator) in late 2008.
Organization:
The office consists of a Director and the above mentioned staff, and will maintain the ability to co-locate additional staff in the office that will support the mission of HEP. The Director takes direction from the Policy and Management Committees, but will remain an EPA employee. The
Director is not paid for out of the annual allocation made available to each NEP, but is supported by EPA.
Director:

Overall management of HEP Office including communication among stakeholders.

Facilitates the production of HEP Management Conference outputs.

Chairs Management Committee and acts as liasion to Policy Committee.

Interacts with chairs of work groups to ensure activities are consistent with HEP goals.

In consultation with the Management Conference, prepares the annual work plan, budget and Implementation Review.

Oversees technical, outreach, and communication elements of the program.

Manages grants and contracts awarded by HEP office.
Program Associate Duties:

Work with NEIWPCC Lowell staff to manage small grant programs funded by HEP, including habitat planning, stewardship and others, in coordination with HEP partners.

Support program technical work groups in developing/updating work plans,
24

implementing program approved actions, and tracking environmental and programmatic progress. New tasks this year may include leading select projects and/or chairing one or more subcommittees.

Manage the production of program publications, including newsletter.

Lead development of program finance plan that will seek to augment current funding.
Habitat Staff Duties:

Oversee/coordinate all habitat related activities undertaken by HEP.

Work in coordination with other partners to developing site specific restoration plans and seek opportunities to fund/implement them.

Work with OASIS contractor to ensure appropriate site database management and representation of restoration and acquisition sites on on-line maps. Provide periodic status reports on acquisition and restoration activities by all HEP partners.

Provide administrative support to Habitat Work Group chair and be prepared to chair meetings in the event that chair is unavailable.

Work with partners to develop educational products or activities to promote habitat restoration and stewardship.
Office Interns

HEP has hosted several interns, both in-office and out-of-office, over the past several years. While HEP does not currently have any interns working with the program, the program maintains the capacity to do so.
25

Guidelines and Responsibilities related to HEP Work Groups
(Approved by Management Committee on Nov 16, 2006)

HEP Work Groups report to HEP Management Committee. Chairs should be available to participate in these quarterly meetings as requested.

Work Group chairs are to be recommended by the group membership and approved by the
Management Committee. The chair position should be revisited by the group every two years.
HEP Office will notify groups when this needs to occur.

Work Group chairs are responsible for soliciting feedback from their members and providing leadership that reflects the general consensus of the Work Group.

Work Groups are part of the HEP structure and are to be clearly represented as such.

Work Groups are responsible for ensuring that their activities are consistent with actions and recommendations of the CCMP and Targets and Goals.

Work groups are responsible for developing HEP budget requests that reflect annual work plans.

Work Groups are required to provide timely periodic updates or respond to information requests from the Management Committee and/or Policy Committee.

Meeting summaries and other important documents should be supplied to the HEP Office in a timely manner for posting on the Work Group’s page of the HEP website.

Work Group membership needs to be open to all interested participants.

Meetings are to be held during normal business hours and at locations that are reasonably accessible to the wide range of possible participants.
 Meetings are to be set with at least 3 to 4 week’s notice. Work Group members should be surveyed for best meeting times and locations.

Chairs should use the list serve established by the HEP Office for communicating with their group.

Any public positions taken or that are to be advocated for by the group would need to be discussed with and agreed to by the Management Committee prior to such action.

Any sub-committees formed under a work group must be approved by the Management
Committee. Though sub-committee chairs may be appointed, the subcommittee’s function is the responsibility of the main Work Group chair.
26

Attachment 4:
List of grants provided to local entities with FY 07 Funds
$11,900 for Public Access Events: Alley Pond Environmental Center (Little Neck Bay Festival)

Bayshore Regional Watershed Council (Spend a Day in May Along Raritan Bay)

Brooklyn Community Board 7 (Annual Community Board 7 Waterfront Festival)

Harlem River Boat Club (Learn-to-Row Day)

Hoboken Cove Community Boathouse (Free Kayaking Days)

Jersey City Reservoir Preservation Alliance (Kayak the Reservoir!)

Lower Passaic & Saddle River Alliance (4th Annual Passaic River Paddle Relay)

New York Restoration Project (2007 Harlem River Festival and Peter Jay Sharp Head of the Harlem Regatta)

New York Rowing Association (Learn to Row and Love the River)

New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium (Ocean Fun Day)

Place in History (A Tree for Anable Basin-- Launch Celebration)

Rockaway Waterfront Alliance (Rockaway Canoe Kick-off)

Rocking the Boat (Community Rowing Program)

Sebago Canoe Club (2008 Open Paddle Program)

South Street Seaport Museum (Estuary Access Day)
$230,000 for Habitat Restoration Planning Grants and Stewardship Grants – Projects to be funded include development of restoration plans that can be used to secure construction funds and stewardship projects. Due to HEP Office staff turnover, this process was delayed. The proposal period for these grants ended May 16, 2008 and project selection and awards will be made by early summer.
$10,000 for Support to Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance Biennial Conference – Conference will highlight restoration efforts.
27

Attachment 5: Program and Grant Specific Outcomes as per Grant Guidance
Successful outreach to citizens, teachers, and elected officials on environmental issues resulting in reduce pollution loads and increased participation in stewardship projects, as measured by: participation in programs, meetings, and events; increases in subscriptions to newsletters and web page hits; and projects pursued/undertaken.
Increased participation at regional and national meetings resulting in improved understanding of pollution and habitat restoration issues, as measured by enhanced cooperation in reducing pollution loadings and increasing acres of habitat restored.
Improved habitat restorations resulting from better plans and information about restoration sites as measured by more successful habitat restoration proposals/projects being completed.
Improved recreational access resulting from better information about access sites as measured by more successful access proposals/projects being completed.
Knowledge of water quality conditions for conventional water quality parameters to better manage water pollution control programs, as reported in summary reports.
Planned and realized improvements in water quality resulting from increased scientific knowledge about environmental conditions and the impacts of pollution as measured by water quality monitoring and estimated by modeling.
Improved knowledge of water quality conditions to better manage water pollution control programs, as measured by completion of and requests for technical documents.
28

Attachment 6:
(Draft February 8, 2008 – being revised)
This Action Plan highlights the important environmental issues facing the New York-New Jersey
Harbor Estuary that the participants in New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program (HEP) are striving to address. It is organized around five major themes or goals: Clean Up Pollution in the Estuary; Habitat and Ecological Health; Improve Public Access; Support an Economically and Ecologically Viable Estuary and Port; and Public Education and Community Involvement.
The Plan is an updated revision of HEP’s 2003 Targets and Goals document. It has been renamed, reorganized and rewritten to be more readable and understandable for the environmentally aware stewards of the estuary. This document will be updated periodically to reflect new information, evolving priorities, and progress on recommended priorities. It is meant to be an organizing instrument used to assist with the implementation of the major actions in
HEP’s Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan.
Along with the new plan, is a new Mission Statement. This was crafted and recommended by the members of the Management Committee as a means to more clearly define HEP’s overall purpose.
Designated as an Estuary of National Significance by the Clean Water Act in
1987, the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary is a complex ecological system in the midst of a major urban center.
The New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program works to shape policy and implement actions that positively impact the health of the Estuary by convening a partnership of interested stakeholders, utilizing sound science to analyze the issues, and working to carry out recommendations that are environmentally and economically responsible.
29

Goal 1 – Clean up Pollution in the Estuary: All of the Harbor waters will meet the
Fishable/Swimmable goal of the Clean Water Act.
There are four sub-goals that make up Goal 1: Pathogens, Nutrients, Toxics, and Floatables.
Each is presented separately below.
Goal 1A Pathogens: Increase the area for shellfish harvesting and eliminate bathing beach closures while maintaining protection of human health.
Challenge:
The Final Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) prepared by the New
York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program has identified two human use impairments due to pathogen contamination - beach closures and shellfish bed closures. Pathogens are diseasecausing microscopic 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), sewage treatment plant malfunctions, illegal connections to storm sewers, inadequately maintained infrastructure, vessel sewage discharges, urban runoff and other non-point sources of pollution. Bacterial indicators are currently used to evaluate the potential for pathogen contamination.
Bacterial water quality for recreational bathing is generally acceptable on the New Jersey and
New York coasts on the Atlantic Ocean (New Jersey coastline south of Sandy Hook and the south shore of Long Island). Occasionally, however, certain beaches are closed because of elevated coliform concentrations. These elevated levels usually result from wet weather events as a result of storm water discharges and CSOs, and less frequently, from malfunctions in wastewater collection and treatment systems.
Accomplishments to Date:
Numerous capital projects have been carried out by municipalities in NY and NJ that have resulted in improvements in pathogens in recent decades. These projects include increased inline storage within the sewage system or separate storage tanks such as those at Paerdegat Basin and Flushing Creek to hold excess volume until it can be treated. NYCDEP has developed a comprehensive CSO abatement program to improve water uses throughout the City. The program divides the City into eight CSO planning areas, which together cover the entire City’s waterbodies. NYCDEP and the NJ CSO communities have fully implemented the Nine
Minimum Control requirements of the National CSO Control Policy to reduce the impacts of rainfall-induced discharges, particularly from CSOs. The HEP Pathogens Work Group has been working to develop a TMDL for pathogens for the Harbor by December 2008.
Priority Actions for Pathogens:
1.
Complete Pathogens TMDL for Harbor By December 2008, complete the pathogens
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Harbor, including establishment of necessary reduction targets and compliance schedule. (Responsible entities: Analysis is being conducted and coordinated by the HEP Pathogens Work Group (PWG). TMDLs
30

must ultimately be submitted by the States and implemented by permitees.)
2.
Support for the Green Technology Initiative: By 2009, the PWG will identify means of supporting the use of green technology to minimize the amount of stormwater runoff throughout the NY/NJ Harbor. This support may be grants to groups to purchase rain barrels, research to determine the effectiveness of Green Technology methods or pilot studies. NYC currently has a Stormwater BMP Task Force that is the lead on this within
NYC. (Responsible entities: PWG and NYCDEP )
3.
Expand No Discharge Zone - By 2008, a no discharge zone for sanitary waste from recreational and commercial vessels for New Jersey side of the Hudson River will be completed and will compliment the already approved New York designation. NJDEP and NYSDEC will also evaluate feasibility of establishing additional no discharge zones within the harbor core area.
(Responsible entities: NJDEP and NYSDEC will evaluate feasibility of establishing additional areas of the harbor core area as no discharge zones.)
4.
Expand area permitted for shellfish restoration By 2010, evaluate options for eliminating administrative closures of shellfishing areas in Raritan Bay associated with outfalls, CSOs, stormwater, and other sources as well as adequate enforcement of regulations that would allow for restoration of oyster reefs for ecological purposes and/or shellfishing. (Responsible entities: NJDEP and NYSDEC.)
5.
Complete and Implement CSO Long Term Control Plans By 2011, complete all
CSO Long Term Control Plans and set targets for implementation (Responsible entities:
States responsible for overseeing work by NYC and NJ CSO communities.)
31

Goal 1B Toxics: Eliminate toxicity or bioaccumulation impacts on living resources by reducing contaminant inputs and cleaning up contaminated sites, and manage risk to humans from seafood consumption.
Challenge:
Toxics contamination is perhaps the most serious and challenging problem facing the New
York/New Jersey Harbor Estuary. Organic and inorganic contaminants, including PCBs, dioxins, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), have poured into the estuary over time. While much of the discharges have been curtailed over the years, there are still active inputs of contaminants through leaks and spills, industrial discharges, sewage treatment plants, combined sewer overflows, atmospheric deposition and tributary runoff. Since most of the problematic contaminants are persistent and relatively insoluble in water, they have accumulated in sediments of the estuary, making them troublesome for years to come.
Current public health, economic and ecosystem problems that result from contaminants include:
Fish consumption advisories and bans: Fish and crustaceans in the estuary accumulate hazardous amounts of contaminants prompting officials to issue health advisories for the consumption and commercial fishing bans. Dredged material disposal: Bottom sediments in navigation channels are typically found to be too contaminated to be placed in the ocean. Costly alternative disposal practices must therefore be utilized, escalating port maintenance costs.
Ecosystem damage: While the full range of contaminant effects to the estuarine ecosystem are currently unknown, some effects, like sediment toxicity and impaired benthic community structure, persist.
Accomplishments to Date:
The Contamination Assessment and Reduction Project (CARP) was completed in September
2007. The program undertook a massive field data collection and modeling effort to identify problematic areas, contaminant source categories, and to project the effects of various clean-up and management options. The Lower Passaic River Restoration Project , combining Superfund with the Corps of Engineers’ restoration planning, was initiated to develop cleanup strategies for the severe sediment contamination of the lower Passaic River. Toxics trackdown work has been undertaken by a number of groups including NYSDEC, NJDEP, and the New Jersey Harbor
Dischargers Group. There has been success in refining techniques and identifying a limited number of PCB sources. A trackdown effort within the Linden Roselle system is ongoing. The
New York Academy of Sciences has undertaken an assessment of track-down techniques related to this work. A number of sediment decontamination processes have been developed by a consortium of agencies and institutions and will provide additional options for the management of contaminated sediments.
32

Priority Actions for Toxics:
6.
Complete Toxics TMDL for the Harbor By December 2008, complete the toxics
TMDL for the harbor, including establishment of necessary load reduction targets and compliance schedule. (Responsible entities: Effort is being coordinated by the HEP
Toxics Work Group (TWG) and must ultimately be implemented by the States).
7.
Investigate and Initiate Toxic Reduction Actions – By early 2008, form a toxics implementation work group that will assess practical toxic load reduction methods to be considered when developing a TMDL implementation plan. (Responsible entities: EPA and the states )
33

Goal 1C Nutrients: Eliminate the adverse impacts of hypoxia and nutrient enrichment that result from human activities.
Challenge:
Excessive levels of nutrients, including carbon and nitrogen, have historically caused low dissolved oxygen conditions at locations throughout the New York-New Jersey Harbor. While water quality surveys have demonstrated that average annual conditions have improved significantly since implementation of the Clean Water Act (CWA) began in the 1970’s, some areas of the harbor still do not meet the fishable/swimmable goals of the CWA. A complete assessment of dissolved oxygen in the harbor and development of appropriate actions is a complex undertaking. Conditions in many of the New Jersey waters of the Harbor are only now being more fully documented as a result of a new monitoring and reporting program. Additional factors that need to be considered are the various layers of water quality standards, proposed revisions to some of these standards, field verification of the actual benefits of facility upgrades already underway, and the impact of nonpoint source reductions (i.e. stormwater) and other activities in the watershed. The System Wide Eutrophication Model (SWEM) is the modeling tool that is being utilized by HEP to address dissolved oxygen conditions in the Harbor.
Achievements to Date:
The Nutrient Work Group (NWG) is currently working with a contractor to evaluate water quality conditions , assess loading reduction scenarios necessary to achieve those reductions, and develop management actions needed to achieve the fishable/ swimmable goals of the CWA.
Numerous capital projects have been carried out by municipalities in NY and NJ that have resulted in significant improvements in dissolved oxygen levels in recent decades. Examples include upgrades at Owls Head POTW in NY and Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
(PVSC) in NJ. Additional projects are planned or are being constructed in East River treatment plants, and at other locations, as a result of the Long Island Sound (LIS) Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL). The New Jersey Harbor Dischargers Group (NJHDG) has initiated a water quality monitoring program in New Jersey waters that is in every way, complimentary to the long time NYCDEP Harbor Survey and the results of both efforts are to be combined and reported on an annual basis.
Priority Actions for Nutrients:
8.
Establish baseline loadings – In anticipation of future carbon and nitrogen load reductions, the Nutrient Work Group (NWG) will establish the baseline loadings for point and non-point sources by 2008 from which any future loadings reductions will be made. (Responsible entities: The NWG is coordinating this effort with funding from
HEP for contractor assistance)
9.
Challenge grants for Best Management Practices (BMPs) – By 2012, establish challenge grants for municipalities to implement BMPs to reduce loadings of carbon and nitrogen. Possibilities include revegetating stream buffers, programs to reduce application of fertilizers in areas that are prone to runoff, etc. NYCDEP has established a
Best Management Practices task force for Jamaica Bay and the NWG will likely benefit from their findings and recommendations. (According to informal discussions with
34

NYCDEP, funding on the order of $20 million per year would be desirable, but no funding has been identified to date). (Responsible entities: to be defined.)
10.
Data collection arrays – By 2010, deploy additional data collection arrays to continuously monitor dissolved oxygen in critical areas of the harbor. Data from these arrays would supplement data collected for the harbor-wide survey. The arrays would be operated by PVSC and perhaps NYCDEP at a cost of equipment and maintenance of approximately $15,000 per array. (Responsible entities: PVSC, NYCDEP, others?)
11.
Assess Dissolved Oxygen in New York Bight – Dissolved oxygen modeling work being conducted for the harbor is indicating that there may be a dissolved oxygen issue in the
Bight as well, though the data to support the modeling there is not as extensive as would be desired. Therefore, EPA has embarked on a sampling effort that will be concluded in
2008 that should provide sufficient new data to better calibrate the model for the Bight.
This will allow a better assessment of conditions. (Responsible entities: EPA is collecting and analyzing the data, but funds for recalibration of the model have yet to be identified).
12.
Completion of the TMDL analysis and establishment of TMDLs – The NWG has been working on the analysis of conditions and possible loading reductions as per an established schedule with a target completion date of December 2008. (Responsible entities: It is anticipated that additional contractor support will be necessary to complete this work. Funding is being sought from EPA.)
13.
Financing for Capital Projects: According to cost analysis reports produced by both the
NJHDG and the NYCDEP, the potential cumulative costs for nitrogen and carbon reduction capital projects and operation and maintenance at wastewater treatment facilities run into the multiple billions of dollars. EPA has requested information from
NJHDG and NYCDEP on additional low cost options that could be implemented in the shorter term. However, in order to implement even a portion of these major projects described in the two reports, a federal, state and/or local financing plan will need to be developed. (Responsible entities: to be determined.)
35

Goal 1D: All of the Harbor will be essentially free from floatable debris .
Challenge:
In the 1980s, floatables debris (buoyant waterborne waste material such as wood, cans, bottles, plastic; buoyant sanitary and medical waste) caused significant beach closures in the NY-NJ
Harbor, while also adversely impacting recreational and commercial boating and coastal marine species. These hazards, although reduced over the years, remain a major concern related to the current impact of floatables on the economy and environment in the Harbor. Key sources of floatables in the NY-NJ Harbor include CSOs, storm water discharges, non-point sources (from solid waste handling systems, littering, etc.), decaying shoreline structures and vessel discharges.
Resuspension of already deposited floatable materials during high tide is also a significant contributing factor.
Accomplishments to Date:
Due to the efforts of the interagency HEP Floatables Workgroup, a short-term Floatables Action
Plan was put in place in 1989, resulting in significant reduction in beach closures through identification and collection of floatable debris in the Harbor Complex. In 2004, 2005 and 2006 there were no closures at the NY-NJ Harbor beaches caused by floatables wash-ups, however, in
2007 there were two incidents of beach closures due to floatables at New Jersey beaches.
Control of floatables discharged by municipal sewer systems has been and remains a key challenge. Both New Jersey and New York City are undertaking aggressive floatable control programs as part of their respective CSO abatement programs. In addition, a number of agencies in both New Jersey and New York have beach and/or shoreline clean-up programs in place.
Priority Actions for Floatable Debris:
14.
Reduce Street Litter: Reduce the amount of New York City floatables originated from street litter (predominant source of CSO floatables in the City) by implementing street sweeping and other floatables control measures, as indicated by increasing percentage of streets rated Acceptably Clean from 72% in 1994 to 92% or higher by 2009 (Responsible entities: NYCDEP).
15.
Floatables Action Plan: Continue the multi-agency Floatables Action Plan, coordinated by EPA and designed to identify (by EPA helicopter) and collect (by US Army Corps of
Engineers vessels) floatables slicks in the NY-NJ Harbor before they exit the Harbor and threaten beaches in Brooklyn, Staten Island, and Nassau County on the NY south shore of
Long Island and the NJ bay and ocean beaches. (Responsible entities: USEPA and
Corps)
16.
Floatables Control at CSO Points and on Beaches: Continue and enhance floatables controls at CSO points and shoreline cleanup efforts, to prevent floatables from entering the Harbor (Responsible entities: NYCDEP, NJDEP)
36

Goal 2: Habitat and Ecological Health –
Preserve, manage, and enhance the Estuary’s vital habitat, ecological function, and biodiversity so that the Harbor is a system of diverse natural communities.
Challenge:
As with all urban estuaries, the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary has lost much of its historical natural habitat. The remaining plant communities and habitats are important for their own sake, but are also critically important for sustaining the hundreds of species that depend on them. These valuable natural areas also provide much needed open space for humans. There is intense pressure to develop many of the remaining unprotected habitat areas for commercial, residential, recreation, transportation, and other purposes. Financial resources for the acquisition and protection of these sites is far less than what is needed. In many cases, the owners of the sites are also not willing sellers. Degradation of habitat has also been a problem. Toxic contamination of soil and sediments, historical and illegal filling of wetlands, interference with natural hydrological functions, and overuse are among a few of the stressors in place on habitats in the harbor.
Accomplishments to Date:
The Habitat Work Group (HWG) has continued in its quest to serve as a regional forum and catalyst for efforts focused on maintaining and restoring an ecologically healthy ecosystem.
Specifically the HWG aims to conceive of and help guide programs that will restore the region’s ecosystems in such manner as to promote their biodiversity, increase and protect ecologically important open space, encourage sound watershed management, decrease erosion and pollution of the watershed, increase public access, and increase public awareness of the Harbor’s ecological and recreational values. Currently, the main focus of HEP related to habitat is to assist with the refinement and utilization of the Target Ecosystem Characteristics (TECs) and the ultimate completion of the Comprehensive Restoration Plan (CRP). The CRP is anticipated to be the blueprint for habitat restoration for the harbor. HEP is also: working with the Corps to combine and refine habitat site acquisition and restoration datasets; making site information available on the web through OASIS; supporting the completion of the Harbor Herons
Conservation Plan; and supporting planning for small scale habitat restoration projects (Rahway fish passage and Idlewilde Park wetland restoration).
Priority Actions for Habitat:
17.
Habitat Preservation/Land Acquisition Utilize the HEP site list to focus preservation of an additional 500 acres in Jamaica Bay, Hudson River, Hackensack Meadowlands,
Arthur Kill, western Long Island Sound and Raritan Bay watersheds by 2012. Funding for current state and local acquisition programs should be augmented. (Responsible entities: NJ Green Acres and NY Open Space programs )
18.
Initiate Pilot Scale Restorations: Use the Target Ecosystem Characteristics (TEC)
37

approach to identify and initiate at least 4 small scale pilot habitat restoration projects by
2009. As an outgrowth of the eelgrass TEC workshop, an eelgrass test planting proposal for Jamaica Bay has been submitted by Cornell Cooperative Extension and a permit is pending with NYSDEC. HEP has funded a second year of anadromous fish restoration planning at the Rahway River Water Supply Dam and will hopefully be ready to seek construction funds in 2008. Additional possible projects could include oyster reef restoration demonstrations, waterbird island vegetation restoration, etc. (Responsible
entities: HEP Office will work with restoration partners to identify projects and sites).
19.
Complete Harbor Herons Conservation Plan
– Harbor Herons Work Group shall complete Harbor Herons Conservation Plan by 2008 and set priorities for action.
(Responsible parties: Wildlife Trust will complete the plan by 2008 utilizing HEP funding
to support editing of plan)
20.
Complete the Comprehensive Restoration Plan Complete the Comprehensive
Restoration Plan (CRP) for the harbor by 2008, set priorities for restoration by 2009, and seek funding to complete 3 major projects by 2011 (Responsible entities: Corps and others.)
38

Goal 3: Improve Public Access - Ensure that all residents in the core area of the Harbor have a public waterfront access site within thirty minutes of their home for boating, fishing, swimming and/or waterfront leisure (e.g. walking, bird watching, and picnicking), without harming important habitat areas or compromising waterborne commerce.
Challenge:
The tremendous water quality improvements that have come since the Clean Water Act and other landmark environmental legislation have created the highest ambient water quality in memory.
The emerging public awareness of this improvement has fueled a growing desire for more waterfront and water use. Access to the waterfront and waterways is fundamental to sustaining this momentum to improve water quality. Increasing public understanding of all the processes– particularly the natural processes such as tides and floods can dramatically influence our relationship to the waterfront and waterways. Given the dramatically varied conditions encountered along urban waterways (e.g., tides, currents, marshes, habitat areas) there is a constant need for very site specific treatments that can address the physical conditions needs of each site, including the residential and the natural community that surrounds it. As projects develop, critical elements such as ramps, floats, running water or utilities are cut out of the project as constructions estimates and costs rise. Ultimately, concerns over liability have tremendous and often negative influence over waterfront design and programming, which has the unfortunate consequence of either reinforcing the dated perception that the water is neither clean nor safe.
Accomplishments to Date:
In 2007 the NYNJ Baykeeper and Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance completed a HEP sponsored
Public Access Inventory that will be used as a baseline for existing public access points in order to quantify progress towards improving access. There are a variety of efforts currently underway to help create new access points all over, as well as to tie the region together with continuous routes of access – both along the waterfront as well as on and across the water in the form of greenways and water trails. Projects such as the Liberty State Park to Delaware Water Gap trail are in development, as is the national East Coast Greenway that will connect cities along the east coast of the United States. The Hudson River Water Trail is a network of human-powered boat launches and waterfront campgrounds that line the shores of the Hudson, and the concept of water trails is gaining popularity region-wide.
Priority Actions for Public Access:
21.
Advocate for Policy Changes related to Public Access – In order to improve public access around the harbor, a number of policy changes and activities need to take place.
The Public Access Work Group will create a plan on how to address these issues and present it to the Management Committee by December 2008. Issues to be addressed in the plan include: Creating equity in terms of communities and socioeconomic groups who have access to the waterfront within a 30 minute walk, bike or transit trip; improving safety in terms of waterfront design (including creating a network of landings), education,
39

and training of waterfront personnel; dispelling myths about water quality and safety of estuary related recreation; influencing design of public park projects by outreach to parks planning, design, and operating agencies; and putting public access higher on the agenda of public agencies involved in waterfront development. Projects will be identified and implemented according to the Public Access work plan (Responsible entity: Public
Access Work Group).
40

Goal 4 – Support an Economically and Ecologically Viable Estuary and Port - The Port of
New York and New Jersey will be an integral and complementary part of the world-class NY-NJ
Harbor Estuary that is environmentally sustainable, economically efficient, and safe for commercial and recreational navigation.
There are three sub-goals that make up Goal 4: Sediment Quality, Sediment Quantity, and
Navigation. Each sub-goal is presented separately below.
Goal 4A: Sediment Quality- Reduce sediment hot spots and point and non-point sources of contaminants entering the Harbor, such that levels of toxics in newly deposited sediments do not inhibit a healthy thriving ecosystem and can be dredged and beneficially reused.
Challenge:
The Harbor Estuary suffers from widespread contamination of sediments from current and historical sources. Bioavailable contamination has resulted in reduced recreation, reduced water quality, reduced habitat quality and reduced fisheries. Contamination of navigational dredged materials has resulted in multi-fold increases in dredging costs over the past decade. Although very few of the Harbor Estuary sediments can be considered clean, there are insufficient funds to remediate the entire bottom. Economic benefits of remediation projects are not easily defined.
Multi-jurisdictional complexity has resulted in a lack of movement on identified sediment quality remediation projects, evaluation of needed projects, and development of cost-effective remedial alternatives. Improving sediment quality faces many difficulties including: 1) A wide range of legacy and active pollutant sources, many of which cannot be easily identified or controlled; 2) incomplete understanding of physical and biological processes that transport, alter, and concentrate pollutants in the watershed system; 3) diffuse and fragmented regulatory structure that does not specifically address sediment quality; 4) lack of regulatory consensus on sediment quality standards; and 5) poor recognition by stakeholders of the connection between upper parts of the watershed and the Harbor Estuary. New sediments entering the Harbor Estuary are, for the most part, originating outside of the Harbor proper from erosion of various parts of the watershed. While the current federal and state regulatory system has adopted numerous enforceable criteria and standards for water and biota, there are no such criteria and standards for sediments. There are, however, a few benchmarks that are being used in this region to determine potential effects of contaminated sediments on human health and the environment.
Accomplishments to Date:
The Contaminant Assessment and Reduction Project (CARP) program was completed in 2007 and has produced a state of the art model that identifies areas that present the greatest threat to different water body uses today and in the future. The model allows for the determination of the impact of management scenarios on future surficial sediment quality in the Harbor Estuary.
CARP also identified and evaluated the significance of certain sources such as tributaries, legacy sediments, sewage treatment plants, landfills, wastewater, CSO discharges and stormwater through collection of data and the creation of a modeling tool that will now allow managers to assess the best ways to reduce toxic contamination. Development of a Total Maximum Daily
41

Load (TMDL) for toxics in the Harbor Estuary is underway. Cleanup of major sources (Hudson
River PCB site and the Lower Passiac River) are proceeding slowly. In addition, landfill and brownfield remediation programs in New Jersey and New York have met with success at reducing localized sources. EPA’s REMAP program, which includes chemical measurements and an index of biological integrity, has conducted three separate surveys spanning over ten years. Data from this program will continue be valuable in analyzing trends throughout the harbor. New Jersey and EPA have evaluated sediment decontamination technologies. These technologies are being studied for application to large-scale sediment remediation projects.
Priority Actions for Sediment Quality:
22.
Development of a sediment quality map of NY & NJ Harbor Estuary In order to manage / improve sediment quality in the Harbor a map would need to be developed that identifies priority areas for action based on the effect of sediments in these areas to the overall environment. But before a map could be developed, criteria would need to be identified that could be used to set priorities for action. In order to get this started, a study would have to be done on what existing criteria are out there that could be used for setting priorities, data needs for using those criteria and a survey of Harbor Estuary users, regulators and managers to identify what issues are important to them concerning contaminated sediments, and why - approx. $150,000. (Responsible entity: to be determined.)
42

Goal 4B: Sediment Quantity- Achieve a quantity of sediments entering the Harbor system that supports the ecological health of the estuary, including protection of shallow water habitats, such as oyster reefs, without excessively impairing navigational activities.
Challenge:
The quantity of sediment and how it moves throughout the Harbor Estuary system affects environmental quality and navigational safety. The key to effective sediment quantity management is to ensure that sediment transport within the system is conducive to a healthy ecosystem, minimizes shoaling in navigation channels, and achieves the correct balance concerning input and output to the system. Much of the sediment dredged annually in the
Harbor Estuary is thought to originate outside of the Harbor from erosion of various parts of the watershed. While the Harbor Estuary is nearly built-out, urban sprawl above the Harbor Estuary continues. Conversion of agricultural and forested land to impervious surface creates surges of stormwater runoff that erode streambeds and banks, resulting in high sediment loads that can damage aquatic systems and fill channels in the port. Sediment runoff rates from construction sites can be 1,000 to 2,000 times greater than those of forested lands. In a short period, construction activity can contribute more sediment to streams than would be discharged over several decades. The issue of sediment quantity is not a centralized focus area within most environmental or regulatory agencies. The challenges in trying to establish the connection between the upper parts of the watershed and the Harbor Estuary to meaningfully manage sediment quantity in this RSM plan include: 1) Size and diverse uses of the watershed; 2) diffuse nature of the program, involving many agencies and local planning groups and municipalities; 3) lack of regulatory controls over issues that have been historically considered local, and subject to
"home rule"; 4) multitude of activities that would be applicable (individual construction projects, farming, large developments, road work, etc). The foundation for understanding and managing sediment quantity is to develop an overall sediment budget for the NY & NJ Harbor Estuary core area, including sediment transport modeling that can be adapted to future conditions.
Accomplishments to Date:
Key habitats are being mapped throughout the watershed, including shorelines, tidal and freshwater wetlands, aquatic vegetation, and river bottom. Detailed mapping of New York tidal wetlands greater than 0.5 acres in size along the Hudson River south of the Troy Dam has been completed and is being analyzed to see changes over time. New York and New Jersey have stormwater management regulations that require BMPs to reduce sediment discharges from construction and have initiated educational and technical assistance programs to promote compliance and educate local governments, developers, contractors and designers on design practices that can reduce and improve the quality of stormwater discharges. The NJDEP and the
NYSDEC (especially the Hudson River Estuary Program (HREP)) have partnered with county and local governments to adapt strategies protective of water quality, such as riparian and wetland buffers, comprehensive planning and stormwater ordinances. In the DMMP, the Corps has evaluated reducing dredging needs through engineering approaches to keep sediment out of or moving past maritime facilities. The HREP has conducted extensive outreach to improve public understanding of the interconnection of Hudson Valley streams to the Harbor Estuary and has assisted in establishing and supporting watershed conservation groups and programs on the
Hudson River.
43

Priority Actions for Sediment Quantity:
23.
Re-establishment of former USGS river data stations in the Hudson River and
Tributaries Many of the river data stations managed by the USGS were either shut down or taken over by the NY State DEC. River and tributary data will be essential in order to model sediment transport and sediment budgets (see item 1 above). Annual funding to continue to operate these river stations is necessary - approx. $120,000 per year. (Responsible entities: USGS, NYS, others).
24.
NY & NJ Harbor Sediment Transport / Sediment Budget model - in order to begin to manage sediment quantity and sediment quality issues, a greater understanding of the movement of sediment into and out of the Harbor system is needed, and the mechanisms that drive those movements. The first step would be to flesh out the technical and data requirements for a sediment transport/sediment budget model for the Harbor Estuary and upstream - approx. $100,000. (Responsible entity: to be determined.)
44

Goal 4C: Navigation- Navigation related projects in the Harbor are designed and implemented in an environmentally beneficial manner.
Challenge:
Sediment that accumulates in navigation channels is a renewable resource that can replace nonrenewable resources in a wide variety of applications. However, dredging can adversely affect water quality and aquatic communities by increasing the turbidity, and by spreading and increasing the bioavailability of contaminants. Dredging also can alter or destroy aquatic habitat, remove benthic invertebrates that fish and wildlife feed upon, and interrupt spawning and other activities critical to the fish life cycles.
Dredging and dredged material management is the aspect of sediment management with the greatest visibility and economic impact to the Harbor Estuary. Poor construction practices can compound dredging impacts or result in unintended effects such as the release of contaminants in transit to the processing site. Protective Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce turbidity, the dispersal of sediment-bound contaminants, and residuals need to be improved, implemented consistently, and monitored. Inconsistent regulations, polices, and standards make planning and permitting of dredging projects unpredictable and costly. It is desirable to have only one set of testing protocols and to improve consistency and predictability in technical requirements for dredging decisions.
The States and federal government must articulate clear policies and define priorities for beneficial use of dredged material. With improved coordination between operations and availability of sites for beneficial use, Brownfield/landfill remediation can benefit harbor maintenance by providing demand and placement sites for dredged material. In addition, a public Processing Facility (PPF) to centralize processing of dredged material could reduce dredged material disposal costs, enhance options for beneficial use, and provide more predictability to meet the dredged material processing needs in the Harbor Estuary.
Accomplishments to Date:
The State of New Jersey has taken numerous steps to facilitate the beneficial use of dredged material. Legally, not only has dredged material been explicitly exempted from solid waste regulation but processed dredged material is specifically encouraged for use as a fill and capping material under the "Brownfield’s Law" (PL 1997, Chapter 278, C.58:10B-1 et seq). The NJ
Dept. of Environmental Protection carefully regulates dredging and dredged material management through its Office of Dredging and Sediment Technology (ODST). The ODST connects dredging proponents and those wishing to process or utilize dredged materials. The
Dept. of Transportation Office of Maritime Resources (OMR) provides policy and planning assistance.
45

Priority Actions for Navigation:
25.
Development of a Regional Beneficial Use Plan for dredged material from the NY &
NJ Harbor Estuary - The Regional Sediment Management workgroup agrees that beneficial use of dredged material generated from navigation projects in the Harbor
Estuary should be encouraged whenever possible, and a plan should be developed towards that goal. However, definition of "beneficial use" is the controversial part. In order to get this started, an evaluation would need to be done of possible beneficial uses of dredged material for the Harbor Estuary, linked up with potential sources and quality of dredged material, for review and consensus among interested parties - approx.
$100,000. (Responsible entity: to be determined.)
26.
State Sediment Management Advocates - In both New York and New Jersey an advocate is essential for implementing the RSMP. In the past programs to manage dredging and the disposal of dredged material in both New Jersey and New York only succeeded when there was a high level advocate ensuring all parties were working towards common objectives. Without the focused efforts of such advocates, the shift to regional management will not be realized. (Responsible entity: States of NY and NJ )
46

Goal 5: Public Education and Community Involvement: Promote an informed and educated constituency involved in decisions affecting the ecological health of the Harbor and its living resources.
Challenge:
There are many competing social, economic, and environmental issues facing the Harbor region.
Scores of community and regional groups are interested in estuary issues, but unfortunately, they are only able to reach a relatively small portion of the population. Awareness and appreciation of the estuarine ecosystem that entwines the area does not appear to be a high priority for many people. It is widely recognized that if people are aware of environmental issues and understand the importance of them, they will be more likely to find a way to participate. Therefore, it is one of the charges to the participants in HEP to do their best to enlighten the local residents through whatever means are feasible.
Accomplishments to Date:
In recent years, HEP has allocated a considerable portion of its budget to supporting community groups engaged in estuary-related activities through small grant programs. These grants have supported such activities as providing free kayak opportunities for the public, hosting waterfront events, shoreline clean-ups, teacher enrichment programs, etc. To reach a more academic and management-oriented group, HEP worked with the Hudson River Foundation to produce a State of the Estuary report in 2004 and plans to produce an updated version in 2009. This report provides a scientific assessment of the status and trends of a number of environmental indicators.
HEP is also expecting to release the first annual harbor-wide water quality report shortly. All reports, proceedings, and other materials developed through HEP are made publicly available on the website www.harborestuary.org
. In addition, the HEP Program Office arranges for annual congressional staff briefings to keep legislators informed about estuary issues and what the program is doing.
Priority Actions for Public Education and Community Involvement:
27.
Keep Elected Officials Informed: Keep elected officials within the core Harbor watershed informed of estuary issues and engage them as appropriate. HEP currently publishes a newsletter highlighting these issues that is mailed to over 1,800 individuals and organizations, including all elected officials. (Responsible entity: The Policy
Committee charged the Management Committee to work with the Citizens Advisory
Committee to develop a communications strategy for keeping elected officials informed.
In the interim, individuals and advocacy groups can also provide information to elected officials).
28.
Provide Environmental Status Reports: HEP will produce and make available a State of the Estuary report every five years, with next edition due in 2009 and water quality monitoring reports every year. (Responsible entity: The HEP Office will work with others to produce both of these reports.)
29.
Enhance Estuary Education and Stewardship: Provide small grants to an increasing
47

number of non-profit groups and academic institutions to carry out projects that enhance estuary education and demonstrate stewardship of the estuary. (Responsible entities:
HEP Office and partners. HEP Office can provide some funding, but funds from other partners would be desirable).
Notes:
TMDL stands for Total Maximum Daily Load and is the amount of a pollutant that can be discharged into a water body without causing exceedances of standards.
48