Suspended Solids Report - The New York Academy of Sciences

Transcription

SOURCES OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TO THE NEW YORK/NEW JERSEY
HARBOR WATERSHED
February 2008
by
Gabriela R. Muñoz
Marta A. Panero
with a preface by
Dr. Charles W. Powers
Chair of the Harbor Consortium
The New York Academy of Sciences
New York, New York
© Copyright 2008, by the New York Academy of Sciences. All Rights Reserved.
Report available from:
The New York Academy of Sciences
7 World Trade Center
250 Greenwich St, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10007
www.nyas.org
Any mention within this report of proprietary products does not imply endorsement or verification
of product claims by the New York Academy of Sciences, the Harbor Project, or the New York/
New Jersey Harbor Consortium.
PREFACE
Suspended solids have had a complicated life in the
work of the New York Academy of Sciences Harbor
Consortium. At one time, in 2004, they were almost
chosen to be the fifth contaminant studied. From its
inception, the Consortium had rigorously limited itself
to the evaluation of only five contaminants because it
knew that there were, in fact, very many toxicants that
negatively impact the Harbor. Therefore, as its unique
approach to combining industrial ecology techniques
with other environmental science approaches was
proving to be technically persuasive and important
in shaping both public policy and regional practice,
Consortium members intensely debated which would
be the last contaminant to be examined. Some urged
us to be on the cutting edge and to study the sources
of endocrine disruptors, materials that were (and still
are) generating increased concern among scientists in
diverse disciplines. Others argued that the Consortium simply could not ignore the perennial concerns
that are posed by the large and complicated family of
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and their effects in surface waters, since both the combustion processes that generate PAHs and the materials in which
PAHs are found are so ubiquitous in the Harbor region. And by a very narrow margin, the majority did,
in fact, select PAHs as the fifth contaminant.
So how did the Consortium end up with a final
scientific report on suspended solids? The answer begins with the fact that the Consortium had devoted
most of its efforts to showing how the diverse methods
of industrial ecology could aid in tracking down the
multiple sources of each contaminant it examined. Its
consensus methods for making recommendations on
managing those contaminant sources had become the
signature achievement of the Consortium process. But
as the work of the Consortium continued, its members
found themselves giving ever more attention to understanding the fate and transport of those materials to
the Harbor if, in fact, their sources were not properly
managed or interdicted. And as Consortium scientists
became more adept at identifying different contaminant sources, they continually found that questions
about the significance of contaminated lands and sites
in the Harbor Watershed as sources of those materials presented major knowledge gaps. Once released,
how did these materials reach surface waters that flow
into the Harbor? Consortium models were quite effective in estimating atmospheric deposition of contaminants. But we found ever more reason to believe that
the major transport mechanisms for the pollutants we
PREFACE
were studying were either particles of the contaminants themselves—suspended and moving through
various land-based media to aqueous environments—
or other suspended particles to which these contaminants bound and with which they moved to surface
waters headed for the Harbor. We had begun to take
into consideration the impact of rain events on different stormwater systems, and even to acknowledge
generally the importance of rain events to contaminant movements. But although evidence was building
that suspended solids provide a transport mechanism,
we had only a very partial understanding of the factors and characteristics of that movement.
The Consortium knew that the effort to describe
more precisely where in the Harbor itself the various
contaminants now reside and by which media of conveyance they reach the Harbor was being addressed
by a parallel effort, the Contaminant Assessment and
Reduction Project (CARP). But how, more generally,
and from where were and are these particulate materials being carried into the Harbor?
Academy scientist Gabriela Muñoz first wrestled
with these questions when trying to understand the
pathways of dioxins (particularly in the lower Passaic
River) as the lead author of the Consortium’s dioxin
report. In late 2006, she began to examine the entire issue more directly, and her work was reported
regularly to the Consortium. Data on the diverse
sources of suspended solids could be verified, and the
impact of diverse development and redevelopment
processes could be specified—for example, data on
how stormwater management practices dramatically
affect which materials reach surface waters and the
Harbor. It was shown that the regulatory authorities
for activities that generate suspended solids burdens
are very diverse and disconnected. The very substantial lack of information available to local authorities,
in particular—who do, in fact, either effectively or
ineffectively manage their redevelopment processes—
emerged clearly. The efforts to “green” all manner of
land use and building processes feeds directly into
the suspended solids story—but were not well understood. In the final Consortium meeting in November
2007, the report on suspended solids received such
strong support and consensus acceptance that we determined to have it published as well.
No simple characterization here of this report’s
findings is adequate. I suspect that most readers will
have an experience similar to my own in reading it.
There will be major parts of this study where you will
3
find data to support generalized ideas you already
had about how suspended materials in water work and
where they come from. You will not be surprised by—
but will welcome the articulation and codification of—
the impact of suspended solids on local sedimentation
and downstream Harbor dredging burdens (both of
contaminated and uncontaminated materials). But
there will also be very many “aha”s in this report, as
you make connections between phenomena and practices that you observe, on both dry and deluge days, in
the industrial and development activities around you.
You will likely find yourself asking whether the best
management practices that Ms. Muñoz and Dr. Marta
Panero—co-author of the report—identify are even
being considered by your local planning and zoning
boards, for example.
So are suspended solids primarily a transport
mechanism—the role that led the Consortium to
first authorize this work? Or are they, in fact, a “sixth
contaminant,” as many of our colleagues suggested
in 2004? Both, I suspect. The authors of this report
clearly identify the very many ways in which suspended solids, once released into surface waters, have adverse impacts. But they also draw our attention to the
fact that today some are “cleaner” than their predecessors, and cover up the more toxic sediments left
4
behind when industrial processes were far less controlled. With what I believe has become a hallmark of
the Consortium’s technical work, the story, as it can be
told (given what we do and do not know), is well and
fully told here. And, thus, the Consortium commends
this report to all those who are seeking pathways into
the “rest of the story” of a more healthy Harbor.
As always, I want to thank the Academy for its support of the scientific staff who undertook the Consortium’s work for seven years. In this particular case,
as they graciously indicate in their acknowledgments,
Ms. Muñoz and Dr. Panero were given support not
only from Dr. Susan Boehme, formerly director of
the Harbor Project, but from diverse technical people
from so many institutions and disciplines, who made
possible the effective scoping, implementation, and review of this report. And we should never neglect to acknowledge gratefully the Port Authority of New York
and New Jersey, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Abby R. Mauzé Trust, which have
again combined to provide the financial support—
without strings—that has been so important to the
integrity of this entire Consortium effort.
Charles W. Powers
Chair of the Harbor Consortium
Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The New York Academy of Sciences and the authors
acknowledge the invaluable contributions of those
who provided information, data, technical assistance,
publications, references, comments, and advice. We
are also grateful to the sponsors who have made this
report possible: the Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey and the Abby R. Mauzé Trust.
Members of and participants in the Harbor Consortium, led by Consortium chair Charles W. Powers,
deserve special mention. This group has been fundamental to the completion of this document by generously providing support, guidance, and expertise
throughout the years.
We are indebted to Susan Boehme (Illinois-Indiana
Sea Grant) for her commitment to the project, indepth review of the manuscript, and priceless suggestions and insights. We also wish to thank Sandra Valle
(research associate, Harbor Project) for her help in using ArcView and for general support throughout the
process. The assistance of Rebecca Fried in gathering
data and transcribing meeting recordings is greatly
appreciated.
We are grateful to the following individuals who provided documents and other materials, technical assistance, comments to the various draft manuscripts, and
contacts, and/or who provided information and suggestions through personal communications or during consultative meetings: Atef Ahmed (The Port Authority of
NY & NJ), Angela Archer (Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant,
Purdue University), Michael Aucott (NJ Department
of Environmental Protection [DEP]), Lisa Auermueller
(Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve), Alan Beers (Rockland Soil and Water Conservation District [SWCD]), Thomas Belton (NJ DEP), Sandra
Blick (NJ DEP), Lynn Bocamazo (U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers [USACE]), David Bowlby (NJ Department of
Transportation [DOT]), Daniel Bowman Simon (The
Gaia Institute), Lawrence Brinker (NYC Builders Association), Elizabeth Butler (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency [EPA] Region 2), Phyllis Cahn (Brooklyn College [retired]; professor emeritus, Long Island University), Robert Canace (NJ DEP Geological Survey [GS]),
Angelo Caruso (Bergen SWCD), Fred Cornell (Sims
Group, Ltd.), Kenneth Corradini (Pennsylvania State
University), Carter Craft (Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance), Teresa Crimmens (Bronx River Alliance; Storm
Water Infrastructure Matters [S.W.I.M.]), Scott Cuppett
(Hudson River Estuary Program [HREP]), Robert Dalsass (NYS DOT Region 11), Brian Deutsch (NYC DEP),
Grisell Diaz-Cotto (U.S. EPA), Drew Dillingham (Roux
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Associates, Inc.), Anthony DiLodovico (Schoor De Palma), Heather Dolland (Roux Associates, Inc.), Michelle
Doran McBean (Future City, Inc.), Robert Doscher
(Westchester County Department of Planning/SWCD),
Barry Evans (Pennsylvania State University), Abbie
Fair (Association of NJ Environmental Commissions
[ANJEC]), Ellie Hanlon (Gowanus Dredgers Canoe
Club), Edward Garvey (Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.), Manna
Jo Greene (Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.), Ines
Grimm (Monmouth & Middlesex SWCD), Yuri Gorikovich (Columbia University), Simon Gruber (Orange
County Water Authority), Paul Harvey (NJ DEP), Ann
Hayton (NJ DEP), Richard Ho (U.S. EPA), Tibor Horvat
(U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]), Barbara Kendall (HREP), Edward Konsevick (Meadowlands Environmental Research Institute [MERI]), Maureen Krudner (U.S. EPA Region 2), Timothy Kubiak (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service [USFWS]), Lily Lee (NYC DEP), David
Lasher (NYS DEC), Michael Lashmet (NYS DOT), Jillian Lawrence (NJ DEP), David Lehning (Pennsylvania State University), Adam Levine (NYS DOT Region
11), Larry Levine (Natural Resources Defense Council
[NRDC]), Leslie Lipton (NYC DEP), Simon Litten (NYS
DEC), James Lodge (Hudson River Foundation), Robert
MacDonough (NYS DEC), Elizabeth Mangle (Hamilton
SWCD), Paul Mankiewicz (The Gaia Institute), Brendan
Manning (General Building Contractors of NY State),
Peter Marcotullio (Hunter College, City University
of New York [CUNY]), Walter Marzulli (NJ DEP GS),
Michael McBean (Future City, Inc.), John McCombs
(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[NOAA]), Betsy McDonald (NY/NJ Baykeeper), Robert
McDonough (NYS DEC), Richard McLaughlin (North
Carolina State University), Brian McLendon (NJ DEP),
Bridget McKenna (Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners), Keith Mellis (NYC Department of Sanitation),
Dorothy Merrits (Franklin & Marshall College), Craig
Michaels (Riverkeeper, Inc.), Robin Miller (HydroQual,
Inc), Robert Miskewitz (Rutgers University Cooperative
Extension), Dominick Montagna (NYS DOT Region 8),
Franco Montalto (Drexel University; eDesign Dynamics LLC), Tatiana Morin (NYC SWCD), Robert Nyman
(U.S. EPA Region 2), David O’Brien (NYS DEC), Christopher Obropta (Rutgers University Cooperative Extension), James Olander (U.S. EPA Region 2), David Orr
(Cornell Local Roads Program), John Osolin (U.S. EPA),
Gayle Pagano (Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority), Dave Palmer (New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, Inc.), Joel Pecchioli (NJ DEP), Eugene Peck
(URS Corp.), Barry Pendergrass (NYS Department of
5
State [DOS]), Lisa Rodenburg (Rutgers University), Eric
Rothstein (eDesign Dynamics LLC), John Rozum (University of Connecticut, NEMO), James Sadley (NJ State
Soil Conservation Committee), Siddhartha Sanchez (Office of Congressman Jose E. Serrano), Paul Schiaritti
(Mercer SWCD), Basil Seggos (Riverkeeper, Inc.), Kate
Shackford (Bronx Overall Economic Development Corporation [BOEDC]), Amy Shallcross (NJ Water Supply
Authority), Bill Sheehan (Hackensack Riverkeeper),
Thomas Snow (NYS DEC), Carter Strickland (NYC Office of Long Term Planning and Sustainability), Shino
Tanikawa (NYC SWCD), Lauri Taylor (Putnam SWCD),
Bruce Terbush (NYS DEC), Chris Tucker (NJ DEP),
Glen Van Olden (Hudson, Essex & Passaic SWCD), René
Van Schack (Greene SWCD), Bhavika Vedawala (Future
City, Inc.), Andrew Voros (Clean Ocean and Shore Trust
[COAST]), Thomas Wakeman (Stevens Institute), Gary
Wall (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]), Barbara Warren
(Consumer Policy Institute/Consumers Union), Allison
Watts (University of New Hampshire), Becky Weidman
(New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission [NEIWPCC]), Judy Weis (Rutgers University),
Don Wilkerson (NJ DEP), Brianna Wolf (NYC Mayor’s
Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability), Suzanne Young (NRDC), Raymond Zabihach (Morris
County Planning Board), Sebastian Zacharias (NYS
DEC Region 2), Daniel Zeppenfeld (NJ DEP), and Rae
Zimmerman (New York University).
Finally, the New York Academy of Sciences would
like to acknowledge the funders that have supported
the efforts of the Harbor Project throughout the years:
the Abby R. Mauzé Charitable Trust (ARMCT), the
Port Authority of NY & NJ (PANYNJ), and U.S. EPA
Region 2 and Headquarters. We are grateful to Penny
Willgerodt (vice president and senior philanthropic
advisor, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors, and ARMCT liaison), who has been an enthusiastic advocate of
our Project and has tirelessly promoted the Project
and its goals. We thank Rick Larrabee, Atef Ahmed,
Bill Nurthen, and Tom Wakeman (currently at Stevens Institute) from the PANYNJ for their continued
and wholehearted support of, and involvement in, the
Project. Finally, we are thankful to Irene Purdy (U.S.
EPA Region 2) for her indefatigable work as a liaison
within EPA. Walter Schoepf (U.S. EPA Region 2) and
Diana Bauer (U.S. EPA Headquarters) have also been
key in providing insightful comments and suggestions
as well as numerous contacts within EPA.
6
LIST OF CONSORTIUM MEMBERS AND PARTICIPANTS
Chair
Charles Powers, Co-Principal Investigator, Consortium
for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation
(CRESP III) and President, Institute for Responsible
Management
Members
Brad Allenby, Vice President, Environment, AT&T Co.;
currently Lincoln Professor of Ethics and Engineering,
and Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Arizona State University
Scott Douglas, Dredging Project Manager, NJ Maritime
Resource, New Jersey Department of Transportation
(NJ DOT)
Donna Fennell, Assistant Professor, Department of
Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University
Leonard Formato, President, Boulder Resources, Ltd.
Russell Furnari, Environmental Strategy & Policy,
Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G)
Edward Garvey, Senior Associate, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
Nada Assaf-Anid, Chair, Department of Chemical
Engineering, Manhattan College
Michael Gochfeld, MD, Professor, Environmental and
Occupational Health Sciences Institute, Robert Wood
Johnson Medical School
Winifred Armstrong, Economist (retired), Regional
Plan Association
Frederick Grassle, Director, Institute of Marine and
Coastal Studies, Rutgers University
Michael Aucott, Research Scientist, New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJ DEP)
Manna Jo Greene, Environmental Director, Hudson
River Sloop Clearwater, Inc.
Adam Ayers, Hudson River Program, General
Electric Co.
Ronald G. Hellman, Director, Americas Center on
Science & Society, The Graduate School and University
Center of The City University of New York (CUNY)
Tom Belton, Research Scientist, NJ DEP
Michele Blazek, Manager of Technology and the
Environment, AT&T Co.
Edward Konsevick, Environmental Scientist,
Meadowlands Environmental Research Institute
(MERI)
Susan Boehme, Coastal Sediment Specialist, IllinoisIndiana Sea Grant
Michael Kruge, Associate Dean, College of Science and
Mathematics, Montclair State University
Joanna Burger, Professor, Environmental &
Occupational Health Sciences Institute, Rutgers
University
Tim Kubiak, Assistant Supervisor, New Jersey Field
Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
Mary Buzby, Principal Scientist, Merck & Co.
Phyllis Cahn, Associate Director (retired), Aquatic
Research and Environmental Assessment (AREAC),
Brooklyn College, and Professor Emeritus, Department
of Biology, Long Island University
Damon A. Chaky, Assistant Professor, Department of
Mathematics and Science, Pratt Institute
Barry Cohen, Section Manager, Remediation Programs,
Environment, Health & Safety Dept., Con Edison
Fred Cornell, Environmental Director, Sims Group, Ltd.
Lily Lee, Chemical Engineer, Bureau of Wastewater,
New York City Department of Environmental Protection
(NYC DEP)
Larry Levine, Counsel, Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC)
Reid Lifset, Associate Director, Industrial Environmental
Management Program, Yale University
John Lipscomb, Captain, Riverkeeper, Inc.
Sheldon Lipke, Superintendent of Operations, Passaic
Valley Sewerage Commissioners (PVSC)
Carter Craft, Director of Programs, Metropolitan
Waterfront Alliance
Simon Litten, Research Scientist, Division of Water, New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYS DEC)
Tara DePorte, Program Director of Environmental
Education, Lower East Side Ecology Center
James Lodge, Project Manager, Hudson River
Foundation
7
Cameron Lory, Green Building Specialist,
INFORM, Inc.
Robin L. Miller, Senior Project Manager,
HydroQual, Inc.
Carlos Montes, Research Scientist, Pollution Prevention
Unit, Division of Environmental Permits, NYS DEC
Ex-Officio Members
Atef Ahmed, Manager of Environmental Programs, the
Port Authority of New York & New Jersey (PANYNJ)
Derry Allen, Counselor, Office of Policy, Economics, and
Innovation, U.S. EPA Headquarters
Eugene Peck, Scientist, URS Corp.
Annette Barry-Smith, Project Manager, Waterways
Development, Port Commerce Dept., PANYNJ
Joel Pecchioli, Research Scientist I, Bureau of Natural
Resource Sciences, Division of Science, Research and
Technology, NJ DEP
Diana Bauer, Environmental Engineer, Office of
Research and Development, U.S. EPA Headquarters
Lisa Rodenburg, Assistant Professor, Department of
Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University
Manuel Russ, Member, Citizens Advisory Committee to
NYC DEP on Pollution Prevention
Martin Schreibman, Director, AREAC, and
Distinguished Professor of Biology, Brooklyn College,
The City University of New York
Elizabeth Butler, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. EPA
Region 2
Kathleen Callahan, Deputy Regional Administrator,
U.S. EPA Region 2
Steven Dorrler, Scientist, PANYNJ
Roland Hemmett, Regional Science Advisor, U.S. EPA
Region 2
Stephen Shost, Research Scientist, Bureau of Toxic
Substance Assessment, Division of Environmental
Health Assessment, New York State Department of
Health
Maureen Krudner, Environmental Scientist, Clean
Water Regulatory Branch, U.S. EPA Region 2
Dennis Suszkowski, Science Director, Hudson River
Foundation
Bernice Malione, PANYNJ
Lawrence Swanson, Director, Waste Reduction and
Management Institute, State University of New York at
Stony Brook
John T. Tanacredi, Professor, Department of Earth and
Marine Sciences, Dowling College
Nickolas Themelis, Professor, Earth Engineering Center,
Columbia University
Andrew Voros, Executive Director, Clean Ocean and
Shore Trust (COAST)
Thomas Wakeman, Deputy Director, Center
for Maritime Systems, and Professor of Civil,
Environmental and Ocean Engineering, Stevens
Institute
Richard Larrabee, Director, Port Commerce Department,
PANYNJ
Joseph Malki, Project Engineer, Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) Programs Branch, U.S. EPA
Region 2
William Nurthen, Manager of Strategic Support
Initiatives, PANYNJ
Robert M. Nyman, Director, NY/NJ Harbor Estuary
Program Office, U.S. EPA Region 2
Irene Purdy, Industrial Ecology Project Officer,
Watershed Management Branch, U.S. EPA Region 2
Mark Reiss, Marine Environmental Scientist, Dredged
Material Management Team, U.S. EPA Region 2
Walter Schoepf, Environmental Scientist, Strategic
Planning and Multimedia Programs Branch, U.S.
EPA Region 2
Barbara Warren, Director, New York Toxics Project,
Consumer Policy Institute/Consumers Union
Ted Smith, Pollution Prevention and Toxics Reduction
Team Leader, Great Lakes National Office, U.S. EPA
Judith Weis, Professor, Marine Biology & Aquatic
Toxicology, Department of Biological Sciences, Rutgers
University
Pamela Tames, Remedial Project Manager, Emergency
and Remedial Response Division, U.S. EPA Region 2
Rae Zimmerman, Professor, Institute for Civil
Infrastructure Systems, Wagner Graduate School of
Public Service, New York University
Participants and Observers
8
Robert Alpern, Director of Re-engineering and Strategic
Planning (retired), NYC DEP
Clinton Andrews, Director, E.J. Bloustein School of
Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers University
Barbara Kendall, Watershed Special Projects
Coordinator, Hudson River Estuary Program
Kirk Barrett, Director, Passaic River Institute, Montclair
State University
David Kosson, Professor and Chair, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Vanderbilt University
Lisa Baron, Project Manager, Harbor Programs Branch,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Robert Lange, Director, Bureau of Waste Prevention,
Reuse and Recycling, NYC Sanitation Department
Sanchita Basu Mallick, Future City, Inc.
David Lasher, Environmental Engineer 2, NYS DEC
Sandra Blick, Stormwater Management Implementation
Team, NJ DEP
Leslie Lipton, Chief, Division of Pollution Control &
Monitoring, NYC DEP
Daniel Bowman Simon, Green Roof Coordinator/Low
Impact Development Analyst, The Gaia Institute
Daniel Massey, Graduate Research Assistant,
Pennsylvania State University
Bennett Brooks, Senior Associate, CONCUR, Inc.
Anthony DiLodovico, Schoor De Palma
Paul S. Mankiewicz, Executive Director, The Gaia
Institute
Michelle Doran McBean, CEO, Future City, Inc.
Peter Marcotullio, Hunter College, CUNY
Andrew Caltagirone, Superintendent, Industrial Waste,
Industrial Pollution and Control, Passaic Valley
Sewage Commission
Michael McBean, Future City, Inc.
Ted Caplow, Executive Director, New York Sun Works,
Center for Environmental Engineering
William McMillin, Senior Technologist, CH2M HILL
Robert Chant, Assistant Professor, Institute of Marine
and Coastal Studies, Rutgers University
Teresa Crimmens, Bronx River Alliance and Storm
Water Infrastructure Matters (S.W.I.M.)
Mick DeGraeve, Consultant to Passaic Valley Sewerage
Commissioners, Great Lakes Environmental Center
Brian Deutsch, NYC DEP
Thomas Fikslin, Head, Modeling and Monitoring
Branch, Delaware River Basin Commission
Eugenia Flatow, Board Chair, New York City Soil and
Water Conservation District (SWCD)
Betsy McDonald, NY/NJ Baykeeper
Bridget McKenna, Process Control Engineer 2, PVSC
Craig Michaels, Riverkeeper, Inc.
Robert Miskewitz, Senior Project Manager, Rutgers
Cooperative Research & Extension, Water Resources
Franco Montalto, Professor, Drexel University,
Department of Civil Architecture & Environmental
Engineering, and President, eDesign Dynamics LLC
Tatiana Morin, Stormwater Technician, NYC SWCD
Scott Nicholson, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
David O’Brien, Environmental Program Specialist 1,
Division of Solid & Hazardous Materials, NYS DEC
James Olander, U.S. EPA Region 2
Kevin Gardner, Contaminated Sediments Center,
University of New Hampshire
Dave Palmer, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest,
Inc.
Tristan Gillespie, Environmental Protection Specialist,
Strategic Planning and Multimedia Programs Branch,
Division of Environmental Planning and Protection,
U.S. EPA; currently Attorney at Law, Scarinci &
Hollenbeck, LLC
Lauren Prezorski, Lower Hudson Coalition of
Conservation Districts
Ellie Hanlon, Gowanus Dredgers Canoe Club
Ann Hayton, Technical Coordinator, Bureau of
Environmental Evaluation and Risk Assessment,
NJ DEP
Bob Hazen, Division of Science, Research Technology,
NJ DEP
Lisa Rosman, Coastal Resource Coordinator, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Eric Rothstein, eDesign Dynamics LLC
Siddhartha Sanchez, Office of Congressman Jose E.
Serrano
Basil Seggos, Chief Investigator, Riverkeeper, Inc.
Kate Shackford, Bronx Overall Economic Development
Corporation (BOEDC)
9
Amy Shallcross, Principal Watershed Protection
Specialist, NJ Water Supply Authority
Leslie M. Shor, Research Assistant Professor, Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Vanderbilt
University
Julie Stein, NYC DEP
Carter Strickland, NYC Office of Long Term Planning
and Sustainability
Shino Tanikawa, District Manager, NYC SWCD
Bhavika Vedawala, Future City, Inc.
Daniel Walsh, Chief, Hazardous Waste & Petroleum
Remediation Section, NYS DEC
Alison Watts, College of Engineering and Physical
Sciences, University of New Hampshire
Peddrick Weis, Professor, Department of Radiology,
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey–
New Jersey Medical School
Bryce Wisemiller, Programs and Project Management
Division, New York District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Wayne Wittman, PSE&G
Brianna Wolf, NYC Mayor’s Office of Long-Term
Planning and Sustainability
Suzanne Young, NRDC
Raymond Zabihach, Planning Director, Morris County
Planning Board
Sebastian Zacharias, Environmental Engineer I, NYS
DEC Region 2, Division of Water
NYAS Staff
Léon Dijk, Research Fellow, Harbor Project
Rebecca Fried, Intern, Harbor Project
Gabriela Muñoz, Research Associate, NY/NJ Harbor
Project
Marta Panero, Director, Harbor Project
Beatrice Renault, Chief Scientific Officer, NYAS
Sandra Valle, Research Associate, Harbor Project
10
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE................................................................................................................................. 3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................. 5
LIST OF CONSORTIUM MEMBERS AND PARTICIPANTS ............................................................. 7
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. 11
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS .................................................................................................... 13
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 15
1.1. Research Scope ............................................................................................................................ 15
1.2. Impacts: Why Do We Care About Suspended Solids? ............................................................... 15
1.3. Background on Processes Influencing Suspended Solids Loads.............................................. 16
2. LAND SOURCES OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS WITHIN THE WATERSHED..................................... 21
2.1. Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 21
2.1.1. Water Erosion ..........................................................................................................................21
2.1.2. Wind Erosion ...........................................................................................................................23
2.1.3. Note on the Expression and Uncertainty of Estimates ...........................................................23
2.2. Summary of Results ..................................................................................................................... 24
2.2.1. By Land Cover: GWLF Results ...............................................................................................24
2.2.2. By Activities: Total Loadings ...................................................................................................25
2.2.3. Comparison with Other Estimates ..........................................................................................28
2.2.4. Observations on Major Sources of Suspended Solids to the Harbor .....................................30
3. PRACTICES AND TECHNOLOGIES TO REDUCE LOADS OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS
TO SURFACE WATERS ....................................................................................................... 32
3.1. Overview....................................................................................................................................... 32
3.2. Practices to Prevent Streambank Erosion................................................................................... 33
3.3. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Land Development and Construction Activities ...... 35
3.3.1. Land Use Planning ..................................................................................................................35
3.3.2. Low Impact Development .......................................................................................................36
3.3.3. Construction Sites ....................................................................................................................37
3.3.4. Post-Construction BMPs: Stormwater Management ..............................................................39
3.4. Agriculture ................................................................................................................................... 42
3.4.1. Cropland ..................................................................................................................................43
3.4.2. Grazing.....................................................................................................................................44
3.5. Coastal Erosion ............................................................................................................................ 44
4. REGULATORY STRUCTURE RELATED TO STORMWATER AND THE MOBILIZATION
OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS ..................................................................................................... 46
4.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 46
4.2. Summary of Regulations ............................................................................................................. 46
4.3. Gaps and Barriers to the Implementation of Stormwater BMPs............................................... 50
APPENDIX A. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS for SUSPENDED SOLIDS ............................................ 59
APPENDIX B. DETAILED RESULTS, BY SOURCE....................................................................... 60
B.1. Streambank Erosion .................................................................................................................... 60
B.2. Agriculture .................................................................................................................................. 61
TABLE OF CONTENTS
11
B.2.1. Crop Land ...............................................................................................................................61
B.2.2. Livestock Production: Grazing/Pastures .................................................................................62
B.3. Land Development and Construction Activities ....................................................................... 62
B.3.1. Construction sites ....................................................................................................................62
B.3.2. Land Development/Impervious Surfaces ...............................................................................64
B.4. Forests and Forest Harvesting (Logging) ................................................................................... 66
B.5. Roadways and Roadside Erosion ............................................................................................... 67
B.6. Landscaping and Golf Courses .................................................................................................. 69
B.7. Surface Mining and Barren Land .............................................................................................. 69
B.8. Minor Sources of Suspended Solids in the Watershed ............................................................. 70
B.8.1. Road Abrasives for Winter Road Maintenance ......................................................................70
B.8.2. Industrial Activities .................................................................................................................71
B.9. Wetlands ...................................................................................................................................... 80
B.10. Mill dams: Legacy Sediments................................................................................................... 80
B.11. Coastal Erosion.......................................................................................................................... 82
APPENDIX C. BMPs FOR MINOR SOURCES OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS ....................................... 83
C.1. Logging ........................................................................................................................................ 83
C.2. Roadside Erosion ........................................................................................................................ 83
C.3. Landscaping and Golf Courses .................................................................................................. 83
C.4. Mining.......................................................................................................................................... 84
C.5. Road Abrasives ............................................................................................................................ 84
C.6. Industrial Activities .................................................................................................................... 85
C.6.1. Automobile Dismantling Operations and Metal Recycling ....................................................85
C.6.2. Cement Kilns and Concrete/Clay Facilities.............................................................................85
C.6.3. Landfills ...................................................................................................................................86
C.6.4. Incinerators and Power Plants ................................................................................................86
C.6.5. Contaminated Sites .................................................................................................................86
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 87
12
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
AVGWLF
ArcView-GWLF
BMP
best management practice
C-CAP
NEMO
Nonpoint Education for Municipal
Officials
Coastal Change Analysis Program
NPS
nonpoint source
CSO
combined sewer overflow
NSPS
CSS
combined sewer system
Nonstructural Stormwater Management
Strategies Point System
OSHA
CARP
Contaminant Assessment and Reduction
Project
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
PAHs
DEC
Department of Environmental
Conservation
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PAM
polyacrylamide
DEP
Department of Environmental
Protection
PCBs
polychlorinated biphenyls
PM
particulate matter
DEQ
Department of Environmental Quality
PVSC
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
DOT
Department of Transportation
RUSLE
Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation
EF
emission factor
SSO
sanitary sewer overflow
GWLF
Generalized Watershed Loading
Function
SWCD
Soil and Water Conservation District
SPDES
GIS
geographic information system
State Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
g
gram
SPPP
stormwater pollution prevention plan
HREP
Hudson River Estuary Program
TMDL
total maximum daily load
kg
kilogram (1,000 grams)
TEQ
toxic equivalent
LER
lateral erosion rate
TSS
total suspended solids
LID
low impact development
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
LTCPs
long-term control plans
USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
T
metric ton (1,000 kg)
U.S. EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
mg
milligram (one thousandth of a gram)
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
MS4s
municipal separate storm sewer systems
USLE
Universal Soil Loss Equation
NLCD
National Land Cover Database
WWTPs
wastewater treatment plants
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
WEPP
Water Erosion Prediction Project
WEE
Wind Erosion Equation
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
WEPS
Wind Erosion Prediction System
NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
WQWQCP
water quality and water quantity control
plan
NEIWPCC
New England Interstate Water Pollution
Control Commission
NYC
New York City
NYS
New York State
NJPDES
NJ Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
13
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Research Scope
The body of work developed by the New York Academy
of Sciences’ Harbor Project and the Harbor Consortium in the past seven years has identified opportunities
for pollution prevention at the source for five contaminants: mercury, cadmium, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), dioxins, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs) [14,17,87,149,242]. Because most of these pollutants attach to particles, preventing the mobilization
of particles or intercepting them offers additional opportunities to curb loads of these contaminants to the
Harbor, as well as addressing direct problems caused
by these solids. In this report we refer to suspended
solids as particles that do not dissolve in water but can
still be transported (in suspension) by flowing water
(e.g., streams, stormwater runoff). Although this wider
definition includes sediment particles suspended in the
water column in waterbodies, the focus of this document is on land sources of particles that make their way
to the NY/NJ Harbor Watershed.
Large amounts of suspended solids enter the NY/
NJ Harbor from various sources—an estimated 2,400
T/day in 1991 [230] (~0.9 million T/yr). Tributaries
have been identified as the major source (~80%) of suspended solids to the NY/NJ Harbor [169,230], with the
Hudson and Mohawk Rivers making up ~60% of the
tributary loadings [169]. According to estimates used as
input for the Contaminant Assessment and Reduction
Project (CARP) model, suspended solids loads to the
Harbor ranged from ~0.7 to 1.9 million T/yr from 1988
to 2000, with 73% to 89% coming from tributaries, of
which ~17% to 43% came from the Upper Hudson and
Mohawk Rivers [33]. Note that most of the particles carried by these rivers into the Harbor originate—whether
at present or in the past—from activities on land.
The purpose of this document is to identify and
quantify, when possible, activities on land that can
contribute to suspended solids loadings to the NY/
NJ Harbor and its watershed, as well as practices and
technologies that can be implemented to reduce these
inputs. This report does not attempt to characterize
how sediments move within waterbodies, although we
acknowledge that this is important in understanding
how much of the particles that enter the Watershed upstream make their way into the Harbor and how river
bottom sediments remobilize during storm events. The
1.
2.
model developed by the CARP provides insights into
sediment movement and its implications for the Harbor in terms of sediment inputs as well as contaminant
redistribution, burial, or loss [33]. Our report also does
not consider sources of particles from locations other
than the NY/NJ Harbor Watershed, such as winds that
carry dust particles from other regions or continents.1
1.2. Impacts: Why Do We Care About
Suspended Solids?
Most human activities have an impact on the ecosystem
in which they take place. In particular, as we alter the
natural landscape, the interaction between rainwater2
and soil changes dramatically, with consequences to
erosion, sediment deposition, and sediments entering
surface waters. Land use planning decisions, the types
of developments we build, agricultural practices, industrial and other activities, all have direct and/or indirect
effects on the movement of solid particles from land.
Although in some cases the result may be a detrimental
decrease in particle deposition (e.g., Jamaica Bay does
not receive enough sediments to maintain its marshes),
most areas receive excessive sediment loads, with a series of negative impacts summarized below.
Excessive amounts of particles that are transported
from their original location and deposited elsewhere
can result in negative impacts both at the location
from which particles were removed (e.g., impacts related to soil erosion) and at the site of deposition. On
land, an excess of solids deposition can smother crops,
clog roadside drainage systems, and block roads.
Suspended solids entering waterbodies can be considered to be pollutants and can lead to the following
[11,15,40,131,212,227]:
Increase in water temperature as suspended
particles absorb heat
Turbidity, leading to reduced sunlight pen-
etration that affects photosynthesis and, thus,
the survival of submerged vegetation and the
whole food chain that depends on it
Raised riverbed leading to
– Habitat loss
– Decreased availability of drinking and
process water
African winds contribute about half of breathable air particles in the U.S. Southeast [5].
Rainwater is the major transporter of particles from land to surface waters.
INTRODUCTION
15
– Aggravation of flooding events
– Impacts on navigation and recreation
– Increased need for maintenance dredging
Dislodging of plants and invertebrates, reduc-
ing food supply for other species
Decreased fish population, as sediments
– Bury fish spawn areas and eggs themselves
– Cause gill fouling, damage of mucous
layers that protect fish eyes and scales
increasing potential for infections
Increased mechanical wear of water supply
pumps and distribution systems
Increased treatment costs for water suppliers
Further adverse effects of suspended solids are caused
by particle-active substances that may attach to them,
including nutrients (which can cause eutrophication)
and toxic contaminants such as heavy metals and
organic chemicals [227]. These toxics affect water
quality and biota,3 and increase the cost of dredging
activities, if dredge material is not clean enough for
beneficial reuse or ocean disposal.4
The implications of the above-mentioned impacts
of suspended solids are numerous, spanning economic and national security, in addition to compromised
ecosystem health. Commercial and recreational fisheries, tourism, and waterfront recreation—which
represent billions of dollars to local economies—are
affected. Larger sediment loads to the Harbor—especially when they carry pollutants—increase the costs
of dredging and disposal. Currently, an estimated
three million cubic yards per year must be dredged
and placed somewhere else to maintain channels and
berths that are needed for commerce, tourism, recreational marinas, ferry terminals, and defense.5
There are tradeoffs to reducing the sheer amount
of sediment inputs to the Watershed, and in particular
the Harbor itself. Because most particles entering the
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
system today are cleaner that those already in place,
they can slowly bury some of the contaminated sediments, as the CARP modeling predicts [32].6 However,
this does not represent a permanent or ideal solution,
because of potential re-exposure of contaminated
sediments during extreme weather events or dredging for navigational purposes. A possible criterion to
prioritize actions that reduce suspended solids loads
is to focus first on sources contributing contaminated
materials (e.g., contaminated land sites). This could
result in great benefits to the Harbor, as it is projected
that even if all of the contaminated sediments in the
Harbor were completely remediated, current pollutant loads to the system would eventually result in
varying levels of recontamination [32]. Although this
historical contamination is not addressed in the present report—which deals with land sources of particles—contaminated sediments already in the Watershed that remobilize and enter the Harbor contribute
significant amounts of pollutants.7
1.3. Background on Processes Influencing
Suspended Solids Loads
General definitions
In this document we are concerned with loadings of
particles (which are typically carried suspended in
water or air, hence the term suspended solids) from
land into waterbodies within the NY/NJ Harbor Watershed.8 These solids include soil particles (e.g., from
agricultural fields, lawns, construction sites); minerals
(e.g., from mines); particulate matter from automobile exhaust; and particles from tire and brake wear,
and rust. Soil particles normally constitute the largest
fraction of suspended solids in surface runoff.
The removal of particles from the soil surface by
water, wind, or other forces is termed erosion. These
particles may deposit on land further down the slope
and will not necessarily reach a waterbody. Sediment
yield refers to particles that actually reach surface wa-
The importance of reducing contaminant levels in sediments in the Harbor is exemplified by oysters, a filter feeder organism that is very sensitive to dioxins. It
was recently determined that both bedded sediments and suspended sediments should contain no more than ~3 pg/g (parts per trillion) of 2,3,7,8 tetrachloro
dibenzo dioxin (TCDD) to avoid harm to these organisms [1,68].
Dredged material management costs increased dramatically (about 20 times) in the 1990s when it was realized that sediments from the Harbor were too
contaminated for ocean disposal. At that point, sediments started to be managed through upland disposal (e.g., for brownfields remediation, landfill closures,
habitat remediation, artificial reef material, land reclamation in Pennsylvania). However, recent increases in energy costs are rendering these alternatives less
economically viable. Current costs range between $45 and >$100 per cubic yard. Eugene Peck (scientist, URS Corp.), personal communication, November 27,
2007.
Eugene Peck (scientist, URS Corp.), personal communication, November 27, 2007.
Projections for 2040 anticipate that if no action is taken for dioxins, clean sediment deposition would make most surface sediments throughout the Harbor
clean enough (as far as dioxins are concerned) to be used to cover the Historic Area Remediation Site (HARS) within the inner New York Bight.
For example, dioxins from the Diamond Alkali Superfund site continue to spread to the rest of the Harbor [87], and large amounts of PCBs are transported
downstream from the Hudson River PCBs Superfund site [149].
We do not attempt to analyze or quantify the movement of solids or sediments within the waterbodies themselves.
16
Figure 1. Combined and separate sewer systems
A. SEPARATE SEWER SYSTEM
Stormwater Sewer
(stormwater runoff)
Raw sewage
Sanitary sewer
(raw sewage)
Stormwater
Sewage & stormwater
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
Treated wastewater
Treated wastewater
B. COMBINED SEWER SYSTEM
B.1 DRY WEATHER
B.2 WET WEATHER
(No discharge
during
dry weather)
Combined
sewer
overflow
Raw sewage
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
Wastewater
Treatment
Plant
Treated wastewater
Treated wastewater
Adapted from DC Water and Sewer Authority [36] and Kentucky Division of Water [65].
INTRODUCTION
17
FIGURE 2. Areas served by MS4s in New York City
Source: L. Lee, NYC DEP (pers. comm., 2006).
ters. Further details on the erosion process are provided in the section on measures to reduce suspended
solids in runoff. The consequences of soil erosion are
summarized in Appendix A.
Once suspended solids settle out of the carrying water, they are termed sediments, regardless of whether
they have been deposited on land or at the bottom of
a waterbody. This general definition of sediment will
be used throughout this document.
Tools to estimate soil erosion by water include the
Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and the Water
Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP), which calculate
erosion by rain based on characteristics of the climate, soil, vegetation, and terrain [15].9 Both tools
are designed to deal with small parcels of land, al-
though WEPP can be applied to small watersheds
[187]. Simulation models of varying complexity, such
as the Generalized Watershed Loading Function
(GWLF) and the Hydrologic Simulation Program
FORTRAN (HSPF), estimate runoff volume, soil
erosion, and sediment delivery in whole watersheds.
Alternatively, simple equations can be used to estimate the volume of runoff in an area, and combined
with measurements of suspended solids concentrations in runoff.
Tools to estimate wind erosion at individual sites
include the Wind Erosion Equation (WEQ, a simple
equation)10 and the Wind Erosion Prediction System
(WEPS, a computer simulation that can be applied to
small watersheds) [185].
9. A detailed level of information about the area is needed to apply these models.
10. The expression of this equation is similar to the USLE (see section on contaminated sites).
18
FIGURE 3. Combined sewer overflow locations around the NY/NJ Harbor
Sources: NJ DEP [110] and NYC DEP [122]
Stormwater and suspended solids
Rain and snowmelt water that infiltrates the soil is an
invaluable resource: it recharges groundwater and
slowly flows underground, eventually reaching surface waterbodies. The soil acts as a filter, retaining
particles and water-insoluble substances. As the imperviousness of land surfaces increases, so does the
amount of stormwater runoff, at the expense of water
infiltration. Water flowing over the land becomes a
problem, aggravating land and streambank erosion,
and carrying pollutants and particles that are discharged either directly from land into waterways or
indirectly via stormwater sewers. Furthermore, runoff increases the likelihood and severity of flooding.
In combined sewer areas, increases in stormwater
runoff also increase the volume of water in need of
treatment at wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs)
and the chances of sewer overflows. Growing populations and/or increasing demands on water supplies
can exacerbate these effects.
Sewer systems in cities have traditionally been designed to move stormwater rapidly away from the surface. In separate sewer systems, sanitary wastewater is
conveyed to WWTPs, while stormwater is piped separately and discharged directly to surface waters (see
Fig. 1). These systems have the advantage of limiting
the volume treated by WWTPs, but stormwater carrying suspended solids and pollutants is discharged untreated. If the sanitary system is faulty, discharges of
raw sewage—sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs)—may
occur, for example, out of manholes onto city streets
and into streams.11
In combined sewer systems (CSSs), domestic and
industrial wastewater along with stormwater are
11. This can have a variety of causes, usually related to deteriorating or improperly maintained systems: stormwater infiltration into leaky/broken pipes, roof
drains connected to sewers, insufficient sewer capacity to accommodate new development, and pump and power failures [207].
INTRODUCTION
19
transported through the same pipes to WWTPs and
treated (see Fig. 1). During large storm or snowmelt
events, the volume of water may exceed the capacity
of the sewer systems or the treatment plant, and result
in overflows that are discharged without treatment
through combined sewer overflows (CSOs). This creates public health concerns because of possible surface
water contamination by pathogenic microorganisms
in raw sewage. The occurrence of CSOs is immensely aggravated by sediments accumulating within the
sewers because such sediments diminish the capacity
of the system.12
Combined sewer systems are typical of older cities. Nowadays, separate sewers are preferred. In NYC
~70% of the sewer system is combined [123]. We estimate that 78% of the NYC area is served by CSSs (Fig.
2). Although most municipalities in NJ are serviced by
separate sewer systems,13 combined sewer systems are
located primarily along the tidal portion of the Raritan River, along the Passaic River in Paterson, and
throughout the NY/NJ Harbor Complex [103] (Fig. 3).
Based on municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)
permit data, we estimate that ~10% and 3% of the area
of Hudson and Essex counties, respectively, are served
by CSSs, while the other NJ counties surrounding the
Harbor Watershed mostly have MS4s.
Decentralized sewer systems are also possible. In
this case, sanitary wastewater can be handled at the
household or small development level, commonly relying on septic tanks. This is more common in areas
with low population density that are not served by a
central WWTP. If septic systems are not properly designed, built, and/or maintained, they may contaminate groundwater and surface waters, typically with
pathogens and nutrients [209].
Some new green buildings have started to incorporate on-site water treatment to turn gray water into
water that can be reused in toilets, cooling systems,
irrigation, and other purposes [6]. This approach decreases both the burden on the WWTP and the demand for drinking-quality water to the building, and
can reduce water costs for the building.
12. CSOs usually have a chamber (regulator) in front of the outfall with a weir to contain normal sanitary flows. If stormwater entering the system reaches a certain
level, the weir is overtopped, and the combined storm and sanitary flows are discharged. Over time, in many areas, such as in Jersey City and Hoboken,
sediment has filled the regulators, resulting in overtopping of weirs even in dry weather flows. Eugene Peck (scientist, URS Corp.), personal communication,
November 27, 2007.
13. Dan Zeppenfeld (PE, PP, NJ DEP, Division of Water Quality, Bureau of Financing and Construction Permits), personal communication, March 5, 2007.
20
2. LAND SOURCES OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS WITHIN THE WATERSHED
2.1. Methodology
This section identifies sources of suspended solids
with the potential to affect the NY/NJ Harbor. Estimates of suspended solids contributions are provided
for all land cover classes as well as specific activities in
the area. Results are presented for the whole Watershed region as well as the counties immediately adjacent to the Harbor—Bergen, Essex, Hudson, Passaic,
and Union in NJ, and the five NYC boroughs in NY—
termed “Region 1” in this report (Fig. 4).
2.1.1. Water Erosion
2.1.1.1. Suspended Solids Contributions Based on
Land Cover
Soil erosion by water is expected from all types of land
surfaces at varying rates.
We estimated soil erosion and sediment yield from
different land covers within the NY/NJ Harbor Watershed by applying the Generalized Watershed Loading
Function (GWLF). This is a model that can be applied
to complex watersheds [43] and utilizes weather data
FIGURE 4. Sub-basins and regions in the Watershed
1
3
2
4
5
6
Sub-basins are as follows:
1) Upper Hudson
2) Mohawk
3) Sacandaga
4) Hudson-Hoosic
5) Schoharie
6) Middle Hudson
7) Rondout
8) Hudson-Wappinger
9) Lower Hudson
10) Hackensack-Passaic
11) Raritan
12) Queens-Kings
13) Sandy Hook-Staten Island
7
8
9
10
12
11
13
The circles represent Regions 1, 2, and 3 (15-, 50-, and 150-mile radius, centered in the Harbor)
LAND SOURCES OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS WITHIN THE WATERSHED
21
Construction sites, including roads and
and environmental characteristics (hydrology, land
cover, soils, topography) to calculate a water balance
(i.e., water infiltration, evapotranspiration, and runoff), and to estimate stream flows and nutrient and
sediment loads to surface waters14 [43].15
The necessary input files to run GWLF were generated from geographic information system (GIS) data
layers with ArcView GWLF (AVGWLF),16 a program
developed at Pennsylvania State University.17 AVGWLF also allows estimating streambank erosion (details are provided in Appendix B). Fig. 5 summarizes
the steps followed to estimate erosion and sediment
yield in our area.
GIS data layers for NY were obtained from the New
England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPCC),18 except as noted in Table 1. GIS
data layers for NJ were created based on the data
sources summarized in Table 1.19,20A series of other
parameters had to be specified to run the model.21
AVGWLF was run using weather data for a recent period: 2000–2004. Therefore, results represent a yearly
average based on weather during these years.
2.1.1.2. Suspended Solids Contributions by
Specific Activities
One of the goals of this report is to estimate suspended solids contributions by specific activities on land
(rather than from generic land cover types). We evaluated the following:
Agriculture
buildings
Forest harvesting
Golf courses
Impervious surfaces (developed land)
Industrial activities
– Automobile dismantling operations
– Contaminated sites
– Facilities handling or producing solids
y Cement/concrete/clay products
y Incinerators
y Coal power plants
– Landfills
– Metal shredding facilities
Landscaping
Mill dam legacy sediments
Mining
Use of abrasives during winter road
maintenance operations
Depending on the relationship between a given activity and the land cover types it comprises, soil erosion
and sediment yield caused by water were estimated in
one of three ways (details for each source are provided
in Appendix B):
a) For activities with a 1:1 correlation to land
cover, such as agriculture (i.e., agricultural
Coastal erosion
FIGURE 5. Running GWLF
GIS
data layers
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
AVGWLF
GWLF
input
files
GWLF
Erosion /
sediment yield
Erosion and sediment yield estimates are based on the Universal Soil Loss Equation and other considerations.
A detailed description of this model is provided in the GWLF manual [56].
AVGWLF computes average parameters that reflect the environmental characteristics of the selected area.
Software and manuals (for both AVGWLF and GWLF) can be downloaded from the Pennsylvania State University, AVGWLF web page: http://www.avgwlf.psu.
edu/.
AVGWLF was recently calibrated, and data layers created for the New England region, including NY [152].
Guidance for manipulating and formatting data is available from the AVGWLF format guide [41] and NEIWPCC manual [152]. Additional assistance, including
technical assistance in using AVGWLF, was kindly provided by Dr. Barry Evans, Kenneth Corradini, and David Lehning, Pennsylvania State Institutes of the
Environment, The Pennsylvania State University.
Invaluable assistance in using ArcView was kindly provided by Yuri Gorikovich, Columbia University.
The growing season was assumed to run from April to November. It was assumed that manure was applied in March, April, November, and December (this is
not crucial for our purposes, as it affects only phosphorous and nitrogen outputs). Default values were chosen for the evapotranspiration calculation method
(Hammond) and the fraction of irrigation water that returns to surface/subsurface flow (0.40).
22
TABLE 1. GIS data layers required for AVGWLF and sources of data for New Jersey
Data layer
Weather stations
Basins
Streams
Counties
Animal density (NY & NJ)
Soils
Land cover22 (NY & NJ)
Elevation
Source
NOAA National Climatic Data Center (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/)
NJ DEP, HUC11 (http://www.nj.gov/dep/gis/stateshp.html#HUC11)
USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) (http://nhd.usgs.gov)
NJ DEP (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/gis/stateshp.html#NJCO)
2002 Agricultural Census [190,191] (http://www.nass.usda.gov/Census_of_Agriculture/index.asp)
USDA Geospatial Data Gateway (http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/)
2001 NLCD (http://gisdata.usgs.net/website/MRLC/)
National Elevation Dataset (http://seamless.usgs.gov/)
activities take place only in areas classified as
cropland or pasture land; at the same time,
agriculture is the only activity taking place in
this type of land): from GWLF results.
b) For activities that would comprise only a fraction of the area under a certain land cover (e.g.,
golf courses would be included in the “developed–open space” land cover class,23 but this
category also includes homes with large lawns):
based on GWLF results, scaling down according to the affected area. In this case, care was
taken to ensure that the total erosion and sediment yield from a given land class still added to
the amount estimated with GWLF.
c) For activities that were not included under any
specific land cover (e.g., use of road abrasives,
old mill dams): based on the level of activity and an appropriate emission factor. These
amounts were added to GWLF estimates.
2.1.2. Wind Erosion
Wind erosion takes place when dry soil or other particles are moved by strong enough winds. The threshold for wind to pick up particles increases with particle size and moisture content [51]. Therefore, wind
erosion is more prominent in dry climates and fine
textured soils. According to the 2003 National Resources Inventory of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), wind erosion does not take place
in NY and NJ on agricultural land [192]. Based on
this information, we also assumed that wind erosion
was negligible in wetlands and forests.24
However, wind is likely to cause some erosion in
barren or disturbed soil, or carry particles from
stockpiles at industrial facilities. In addition, certain
sectors—such as the mineral products industry—
may generate dust during their operations [220].
Emission factors are available for some of these activities and for construction sites [220]. However,
they involve many assumptions and they are applicable under a limited range of conditions. Emission
factors are intended to be applied at specific sites,
with a thorough knowledge of local conditions and
practices. As a first approximation, we applied these
factors to the numerous sites within the Watershed.
The validity of these estimates is unknown, and they
are likely to overestimate the contribution of construction sites and other mostly bare land, because
they have been developed for semiarid climates (see
section on construction sites in Appendix B).
Assuming that particles eroded by wind settle evenly throughout the Watershed, and considering the
proportion of water and land surfaces, we estimate
that roughly 4% of windborne particles will deposit
directly on water.
2.1.3. Note on the Expression and Uncertainty
of Estimates
GWLF provides an estimate of suspended solids
loads from land to waterbodies on a watershed or
subwatershed (sub-basin) basis.25 Figure 4 shows a
22. NLCD data were used to run GLWF and AVGWLF. A related dataset is the NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP), which was used for some other
estimates in this report. A breakdown of land cover by county based on C-CAP data was kindly provided by John McCombs, I.M. Systems Group at NOAA
Coastal Services Center, Coastal Remote Sensing. Both datasets are based on a nationally standardized database developed using remotely sensed imagery
[90]. C-CAP develops a national baseline of coastal land cover and change data, and has worked in close coordination with the interagency Multi-Resolution
Land Characteristics (MRLC) consortium and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 2001 effort.
23. This category refers to large-lot single-family housing units, parks, lawns, and golf courses, with less than 20% impervious surfaces. For complete land cover
class definitions, see U.S. EPA [224].
24. In reality, at least a small amount of wind erosion probably does take place in agricultural fields, but is much less likely in forests, which are generally less
susceptible to erosion. Wetlands, being moist, would not be vulnerable to wind erosion.
25. We chose 8-digit hydrologic units (shown in Fig. 4) as the basis of our calculations.
23
map of the sub-basins along with the counties they
cover. To be consistent, data and estimates (for both
water and wind erosion) for specific activities are
also provided by sub-basin. However, when these
data were available only by county, the attribution
by sub-basin was estimated based on the proportion
of each county within a given basin. Suspended solids contributions from Region 1 were estimated on
a county basis, based on data by county when available, or proportional to relevant attributes (e.g.,
land cover).
GWLF runs do not provide an estimate of the uncertainty of suspended solids loads. The uncertainty
of GWLF results stems from the model assumptions
and calibration, and the quality of the input data.
Calibration and verification of AVGWLF for a few
basins throughout the Northeast suggested that the
model provides reasonable estimates of mean annual loadings; however, suspended solids predictions
were somewhat less accurate than other outputs
[152]. In our case, because of the large size of the
area modeled, low-resolution data layers were used.
Other sources of uncertainty include the following:
(1) NJ basins included in our project were not part
of the Northeast calibration of AVGWLF; (2) GWLF
has been developed for agricultural/rural land and
may not be the best tool for highly developed areas
such as those closely surrounding the Harbor; (3)
our model runs were not adjusted for practices that
might decrease erosion, such as no-till agriculture
or best management practices (BMPs) at construction sites.26 Although it is not possible to provide a
specific number, in considering the previous factors
it should be assumed that the degree of uncertainty
of GWLF estimates of suspended solids loads is at
least medium. Note that this uncertainty also affects
estimates of suspended solids from specific sectors,
which ultimately are based on GWLF erosion and
sediment yield rates.
Larger uncertainties should be assumed for estimates of wind erosion because of all the assumptions
noted in Section 2.1.2. However, the largest uncertainties are associated with estimates of suspended
solids from coastal erosion and old mill dams, which
are based on very limited available data.
2.2. Summary of Results
A summary of estimated suspended solids loads is
presented in the following two sections. Results are
shown both according to general land cover classes (as
provided by the GWLF model) and as apportioned to
specific activities or sectors.
2.2.1. By Land Cover: GWLF Results
According to GWLF, about 55% of all sediment loads
to the Watershed are the result of streambank erosion,
and the rest is attributable to soil erosion (Table 2, Fig.
6). The largest sediment yields from land originate
in croplands, followed by forests (natural processes
only, not including human disruption of forests), barren land, grazing land and grasslands, and developed
open space (see footnote 23).
As explained in Appendix B, streambank erosion
occurs in response to increased flows and other perturbations—for example, narrowing and straightening—and allows a stream to regain a stable size and
pattern [174]. Flow increases typically occur when
changes in land use decrease soil perviousness and
increase runoff. Larger runoff volumes mean that
when it rains or when snow melts, water reaches
streams over a shorter period, 27 causing sudden
and dramatic increases in flow and, thus, in erosion. These effects are more pronounced in heavily
developed areas because of the large extent of impervious surfaces. Therefore, although these types
of land do not contribute large amounts of particles
directly (see Fig. 6) because there is little soil available for erosion, they do contribute sediments indirectly through increased streambank erosion. In
fact, in mostly urban and suburban basins (Lower
Hudson, Queens-Kings, Hackensack-Passaic, Sandy
Hook, and Raritan) more than three-quarters of all
sediments are contributed by streambank erosion
(Table 2).
Figure 6 also illustrates the larger sediment contributions per unit area from barren land and cropland, and the lower contributions by wetlands and
forests.
Table 2 shows sediment contributions to surface waters within the Watershed by sub-basin (see Fig. 4),
according to GWLF.
26. Although this would be optimal, the task of assessing the types, degree of adoption, and efficacy of a variety of measures to decrease suspended solids
loads from nonpoint sources is beyond the scope of this report. The Pollutant Reduction Impact Comparison Tool (PRedICT) developed at Pennsylvania State
University allows (among other features) accounting for suspended solids reductions by adoption of certain BMPs (some BMPs are not included because of
the degree of site specificity or because they cannot be handled by the model [42]).
27. In undisturbed areas, a large proportion of the water reaches streams through infiltration and groundwater flows. This path is much slower than surface runoff
and thus there is a delay between rainfall and the time water reaches a stream. As a result, increases in flow and streambank erosion after a storm are not as
marked.
24
FIGURE 6. Sediment yield in the Watershed
(Total: 850,000 T/yr)
5%
16%
Grassland
Cropland
Forest
Wetland
Developed-Open
Developed
Barren
Stream Bank
8%
0.1%
62%
3%
5% 1%
Land Use (2001 NLCD)
Total Acreage: ~10 million
Sediment Yield-Land Erosion
Total: 330,000 T/yr
0.3%
8%
11%
14%
2%
8%
13%
6%
8%
10%
0.2%
21%
42%
57%
Figure 7 shows sediment contributions per basin.
On a mass basis, the largest sources of sediments to
the NY/NJ Harbor Watershed are the Mohawk, MidHudson, and Hackensack-Passaic basins. Sediment
loads from most other basins are somewhat lower but
still important, except for Kings, Queens, and Staten
Island. When normalized by basin area, contributions
per basin are generally more evenly distributed, although the relative contribution of the Lower Hudson
basin is prominent and that of the Hackensack-Passaic
still stands out. For these two basins, the vast majority
of sediments are from streambank erosion—94% and
83%, respectively (Table 2).
2.2.2. By Activities: Total Loadings
GWLF provides estimates of suspended solids contributions from land cover classes but does not always identify
specific activities that may take place within those land covers. For example, suspended solids from barren land may
originate at surface mines, certain industrial sites, and construction sites, among other activities. Our goal is to identify the primary sources of sediments to then determine
what types of actions and practices could help decrease
loads to the Harbor and its Watershed. Consequently, we
attempted to refine the picture provided by GWLF by allocating estimated suspended solids loads to specific activities, and by adding wind erosion contributions.
25
Table 3 summarizes the estimated average annual
sediment yields from all land covers, activities and categories considered for the Watershed and Region 1 [197],
including water and wind erosion. Although not shown
in Table 2, erosion estimates are, on average, almost 25
times those of sediment yields (see Appendix B). The discrepancy between the “Total + streambank erosion” line
in Table 3 and “Total sediment yield” column in Table 2
FIGURE 7. Sediment yield by sub-basin
Total sediment normalized by area
Total sediment: ~850,000 T
TABLE 2. Sediment loads to surface waters within the NY/NJ Watershed
Sub-basin
Area
(acres)
Sediment yield from
land (T/yr) a
Streambank erosion
(T/yr)
Total sediment yield
(T/yr)
Sacandaga
Mohawk
Schoharie
Upper Hudson
Hudson-Hoosic
Mid Hudson
Hudson-Wappinger
Lower Hudson
Queens-Kings
Staten Island
Rondout
Hackensack-Passaic
Raritan
Sandy Hook
Total Watershed
644,958
1,587,949
588,958
1,022,574
1,199,831
1,513,465
579,212
375,992
43,440
37,396
748,906
697,986
697,296
214,053
9,953,289
7,029
69,178
42,734
28,388
31,764
52,506
24,199
5,015
237
55
29,948
14,936
18,759
2,856
327,604
11,091
67,888
15,583
20,958
41,783
88,191
36,133
73,535
1,123
7
25,223
70,509
56,311
12,733
521,069
18,121
137,067
58,316
49,345
73,547
140,696
60,332
78,550
1,360
62
55,171
85,445
75,070
15,590
848,672
Total Region 1b
1,368,867
23,099
157,908
181,007
a Includes all land covers: forests, pastures, cropland, wetland, development, and barren land.
b Includes basins shaded in light gray. This is an overestimate, mostly because the Lower Hudson basin includes portions of Westchester, Putnam, and Rockland
counties, which are outside Region 1.
26
is the result of adding sources of particles not accounted
for by GWLF (i.e., streambank erosion and road abrasives) and adjusting erosion and sediment yield estimates
provided by GWLF. For example, we estimate that some
of the land classified as forest is in reality recovering from
logging operations and thus has a significantly higher
erosion rate than that estimated by GWLF. Details on
these calculations are provided in Appendix B.
When all activities are considered, a different picture emerges. Coastal erosion—almost exclusively
from the NJ shore—seems to contribute the largest amount of particles (~70%). However, these estimates span only coasts outside the Harbor itself
and are thus not directly comparable to the rest
of the values in Table 3, which represent particles
reaching surface waters within the Watershed. Par-
Table 3. Estimated sediment loads to the Watershed from different land uses and activitiesa
Water erosion
Area (acres)
Region 1
Crops
612,941
4,291
0.22
137,821
Grazing
252,428
346
0.04
10,666
9
–
–
Grasses
715,826
2,294
0.04
30,173
62
–
–
Developed–
open space
Region 1
516
Watershed Region 1
–
–
515,840
–
1.35
31,248
–
–
–
5,347,887
79,231
0.01
64,046
949
–
–
25,416
12,867
1.32
33,650
17,035
13,281
6724
148
148
NA
12
12
?
?
Metal recyclers
70
56
1.32
93
74
37
29
Auto dismantlers
8
5
1.32
10
7
4
3
Concrete/clay
29
6
NA
0.3
0.07
0.06
0.01
2
–
NA
0.03
–
52
–
NA
NA
1.32
–
–
0.01
0.005
Incinerators
Coal power
plants
Other
Golf courses
NA
NA
NA
–
–
0.03
0.01
726,471
232,378
0.01
6,092
1,949
–
–
97
21
0.03
3
0.3
–
–
Other c
749,330
84,865
0.03
25,395
2,876
–
–
Surface mining
14,609
366
1.32
19,341
485
7,634
192
796
–
1.32
1,054
-
416
–
Landfills
Barren land
Watershed
Undisturbed
Construction
sites
Contaminated
sites (15 sites)
Clinker
Developed
land
Sediment yield (T/yr)
Watershed
Loggingb
Forest
Sediment yield
rate (T/acre/yr)
Activity/land use
Agriculture
Wind erosion
Other
Wetlands
Road bank erosion
d
Road abrasivesd
Total land sources
Streambanksd
26,436
1,552
1.32
19,231
1,129
13,814
811
963,831
37,737
0.001
803
31
–
–
42,441
3,685
0.64
27,162
2,358
–
–
50,747
14,109
0.01
582
55
–
–
9,952,017
456,015
407,381
27,550
35,238
7758
34,511
6,753
15.68
521,069
157,908
–
–
928,450
185,458
35,238
7758
NA
NA
NA
1,750,262
5,918,138e
123,960
–
–
Total + streambank erosion
Mill dams
Coastal erosion
a Cells shaded in darker gray represent the top six sources of suspended solids (excluding old milldams and coastal erosion).
b Area of new forest harvesting in the Watershed is ~36,850 acres. In any given year, 14 times this area is assumed to be disturbed from logging operations
from the past 14 years. See explanation in Appendix B.
c This includes mostly single-family houses, parks, and lawns with less than 20% impervious surfaces [224].
d Values in miles or per mile (not acres).
e Approximately 1100 and 6,000,000 T/yr from NY and NJ shores (outside the Harbor), respectively. It is not known how much will reach the Harbor and its
watershed.
NA: not applicable.
27
ticles removed from NY shores in Long Island are
generally transported from east to west, but even if
all these materials entered the Harbor, they would
be negligible (~1,100 T/yr) compared with all sediments attributable to land and streambank erosion.
A much larger amount of material is estimated to
be removed from a shorter length of NJ shores (~6
million T/yr), representing, in fact, the single largest source of solids. It is known that some of these
particles reach the Sandy Hook area, while the rest
moves offshore, although estimates of these amounts
are not available at this point. In any case, while solids from coastal erosion that make their way into the
Harbor may increase the need for dredging, the material is mostly clean sand (pollutants tend to stick to
fi ner particles such as silt and clay). In view of the
large discrepancies between coastal erosion in NY
and NJ, and the uncertainty regarding transport of
these materials into the Harbor, more research in
this area would help elucidate whether this is a concern for our region.
Legacy sediments from old mill dams are potentially among the largest sources of particles to the
Watershed, representing ~65% of all sediments (excluding coastal erosion). This estimate is also not
directly comparable with land and streambank erosion because some of the released sediments (as well
as new particles from land and streambank erosion)
could become trapped behind other dams downstream. Starting in the 17th and extending into the
early 20th centuries, mill dams were built in creeks
and small streams as a source of energy for mills
and other operations. Sediments accumulated behind these dams throughout the years, and these
structures were generally not maintained. Nowadays
it is common for these dams to breach, releasing a
small fraction of the stored sediments, while other
mill dams are purposely removed. Our estimate of
sediments from old mill dams is based on limited
data from the Chesapeake Bay watershed and is thus
highly uncertain. Because this overlooked source
may represent the majority of suspended solids—
often contaminated—being remobilized in the Watershed, further research is warranted.
Apart from coastal erosion, streambank erosion is the
largest source in the region of “new” sediments to the
Watershed.28 Other salient contributions in the whole
Watershed arise from cropping, grazing and other
grasslands, and construction sites. Although forests are
among the largest contributors of suspended particles,
this is only because a large area is forested; woods otherwise provide one of the most protective types of land
cover (see sediment yield rates in Table 3).
In Region 1, streambanks account for a larger proportion of particles entering surface waters, as explained in the previous subsection. Other significant
sources of suspended solids to the Watershed include
construction sites, developed land, and road banks.
It is fair to ask whether these values represent excessive soil erosion. Soil-loss tolerance rates for U.S.
agricultural soils range from 1 to 5 tons/acre/yr [165].
These values—which vary with soil characteristics—
represent the maximum soil erosion that would still
support agricultural production indefinitely [157].
From this standpoint, estimated erosion in the Watershed is, on average, slightly above this range for
croplands (~5.6 tons/acre/yr),29 and is lower for all
other land covers/uses except for those involving barren land (see Appendix B). However, tolerance rates
are not established to ensure water quality in nearby
waterbodies, and different criteria are needed for
these purposes [157]. It should also be noted that the
amount of sediments entering waters within the Watershed could increase if the frequency of high-intensity rain events increases, as predicted by expected
climate change scenarios [25,47].30
2.2.3. Comparison with Other Estimates
Through modeling efforts, it has been estimated that
the amount of sediments from terrestrial sources
entering the Lower Hudson River was ~80,000 to
100,000 T/yr in 1992 and 1993 [73]. This compares
well with our estimates for roughly the same area31 of
~150,000 T/yr,32 in spite of the different time period
and methodology.33
Our total estimated suspended solids loads to waterbodies (excluding mill dams and coastal erosion)
within the Watershed amount to ~0.9 million T/yr, of
28. Our estimates consider only lateral erosion, but streams may also cut down as well as laterally.
29. Cropland erosion is substantially above this value (and thus deemed unsustainable) for some basins: Upper Hudson, Hudson-Wappinger, Schoharie, and
Mohawk.
30. Another concern, although much less predictable and manageable, is earthquakes, which could remobilize sediments within the Watershed and contribute
to dam failure. The Northeast has experienced several large, and many more small, seismic events. The potential for damage in this region is large because
structures are typically not designed to withstand earthquakes, and many are old and in poor condition [2,121]
31. The area modeled in the cited study included roughly the following basins: Rondout, Lower and Mid-Hudson, and Hudson-Wappinger.
32. Including sediment yield from both water and wind land erosion for all land covers and sectors (not streambank/coastal erosion and mill dams).
33. This study applied the Hydrologic Simulation Program Fortran (HSPF), which is somewhat more representative of the range of physical characteristics of a
watershed than GWLF.
28
which ~20% originates in Region 1 (Table 3). Adding
old mill dams would roughly triple this amount (to a
total of ~2.7 million T/yr), and coastal erosion would
add an additional 5.9 million T/yr. Loads to the Harbor calculated for the CARP model for 2000–2001 and
2001–200234 were ~2.5 and 0.8 million T/yr, respectively [33], spanning our estimates with and without
the contribution of mill dams. This suggests that (1)
our estimates are consistent with currently accepted
inputs to the Harbor; (2) in spite of large uncertainties
it is likely that old mill dams are significant sources of
sediment; and (3) the contribution of particles from
coastal erosion to the Harbor is probably small.
Table 4 shows our estimates of suspended solid
loads to surface waters for selected sub-basins, alongside recent measurements of suspended solids loads
from tributaries to the Harbor.
Our estimated sediment yield for the Hudson River
is somewhat lower than, but close to, actual measurements of sediment load. Values for the Raritan River
are virtually the same, while those for the Hackensack/Passaic and Rahway/Elizabeth are substantially
higher. However, these two sets of numbers are not
directly comparable, and there are several reasons for
discrepancies:
erosion that reach surface waters within
the Watershed. These solids may settle
along riverbeds or accumulate behind
the numerous dams in the region. In
particular, the dam in the Hackensack is
known to accumulate sediments,35 and
this could account for at least part of the
difference.36
– Our estimates for the NJ tributaries
include loadings below the head of tide,
while measured loadings do not.37
– Measured sediment loads from tributaries
include only particles suspended in the
water column, but not those that move
along the riverbed [253].
– AVGWLF runs were made with “worst
case scenario” as default conditions—that
is, assuming that no BMPs or streambank
stabilization measures are currently
in place in the region,38 and that all
streambanks are erodible, when in reality
some are bulkheaded or hardened.
Factors that may decrease our estimates versus
Factors that may increase our estimates over
observed tributary sediment loads.
– Our sediment yield estimates represent
particles from streambank and land
observed loads.
– Field measurements of suspended solids
loads include remobilization of sediments
previously deposited in riverbeds, which we
do not account for.
TABLE 4. Tributary sediment loads and estimated sediment yields
River
Hudson
Raritan
Hackensack/Passaic
Rahway/Elizabeth
Total
Sediment load measured at
head of tide (T/yr) a
737,000
93,000
23,420
1,300
854,720
Our estimates of
total sediment yield (T/yr) b
644,000c
97,000d
100,000d
12,000d,e
853,000
a Sources: Hudson River (measured at Poughkeepsie, NY), G. Wall, USGS (pers. comm., 2007); New Jersey rivers, USGS (2007) [253].
b Including loads from all land cover classes and specific activities. Detailed data are available from Appendix B.
c Only basins approximately above Poughkeepsie were included: Upper Hudson, Sacandaga, Schoharie, Hudson-Wappinger, Middle Hudson, Hudson-Hoosic,
Mohawk, and Rondout.
d Includes areas below the head of tide.
e The Rahway and Elizabeth Rivers constitute the northern fraction of the Sandy Hook basin and contribute ~50% of the total sediment load for this basin, according to GWLF.
34. Some of our estimates (e.g. mill dams, coastal erosion) cannot be assigned to a particular timeframe, but most are based on GWLF averages for 2000 to
2004.
35. Robert Miskewitz (senior project manager, Water Resources Program, Rutgers Cooperative Research & Extension), personal communication, July 7, 2007.
36. Some dams, such as the Dundee and Troy dams, do not slow flow enough to cause significant sedimentation. Ed Garvey (senior associate, Malcolm Pirnie,
Inc.), personal communication, June 27, 2007.
37. For the Hudson River comparison, only basins approximately above Poughkeepsie were included (see Table 4 footnotes).
38. GWLF allows modification of these scenarios and accounting for certain BMPs. Another program developed by Evans et al. (PRedICT) provides a tool for
forecasting the effect of different practices on erosion. Incorporating this information would reduce our predicted sediment loads to the Watershed, but is
beyond the scope of this report.
29
– Our estimates as shown in Table 4 do not
include coastal erosion or legacy sediments
trapped behind old mill dams.
Each of these factors may play differently in different basins, leading our estimates to be higher or lower
than measured sediment loads.
In addition, models—especially those such as
GWLF that forecast highly complex processes in large
areas—have considerable associated uncertainties.
These models, by necessity, provide a simplified representation of natural processes. According to some
estimates, erosion predictions by any model would be,
at best, within 50% of the true value [38].39 In addition, GWLF was developed for agricultural land and
natural settings, and is not the best choice for urbanized areas such as those surrounding the Harbor.40
However, GWLF is still useful to provide an idea of
the relative contribution of different sources of suspended solids in our region. In spite of all these caveats, actual measurements lend confidence to our
estimates, which seem to be compatible with ground
observations.
2.2.4. Observations on Major Sources of
Suspended Solids to the Harbor
A wide variety of sources contribute to the sediments
entering the NY/NJ Harbor Watershed. According
to our estimates, the vast majority of these particles
originate upstream from the Harbor (Table 3), and it
is known that these sediments make up a significant
portion of all the solids entering the Harbor [33,169].
However, the suspended solids contributions (including streambank erosion) per unit area from each subbasin are generally much more evenly distributed
(Fig. 7). Exceptions include Staten Island, Queens,
and Kings, with lower than average contributions per
unit area, and the Lower Hudson basin, with the highest (Fig. 7). While some of the more heavily urbanized
basins may be responsible for relatively low amounts
of particles to the Harbor, they may have other important impacts, including CSOs with their associated pathogen loads and intensification of flooding.
At the same time, suburban basins with a high density
of impervious areas per capita combined with nondeveloped land do seem to contribute large amounts of
suspended solids. Rural basins upstate in New York
are fairly similar in their rate of suspended solids
loads, except Sacandaga and Upper Hudson. These
two basins have much smaller areas devoted to agriculture than other upstate basins, with forests being
the dominant type of land cover. Comparison of these
two basins with the other rural basins demonstrates
the effect of agriculture on soil erosion and sediment
yield.
Regardless of the allocation of contributions from
different basins, all communities across the whole Watershed need to be actively involved and embrace a
common goal in order to address sedimentation issues in the Harbor, including the loads of associated
pollutants. It may be difficult to engage upstream
communities unless they fully understand both their
dependence on a healthy harbor and the direct and
indirect effects of their actions. While downstream
communities are commonly affected by the cumulative impact of upstream activities, they should realize
that they typically contribute their fair share to the
problem, either directly—through erosion—or indirectly, as they also benefit from many upstream activities, including agriculture, various industries, and
resource extraction. Much education is needed to instill these concepts widely in the population, as well as
point out that measures that decrease sediment yield
to surface waters not only alleviate loads to the Harbor, but also typically result in substantial additional
benefits where they are applied. For example, reduced
or no-till practices in agriculture keep an invaluable
resource—fertile soil—in place, helping secure the
productivity of fields into the future, reduce negative effects of sediments in local waterbodies, and decrease sedimentation in irrigation furrows. Measures
to reduce stormwater runoff decrease flooding and
improve water quality in local waterbodies. Preventing streambank erosion also preserves the functionality and beauty of riparian areas, and provides highly
valuable real estate, recreation, and tourism opportunities. Both upstream and downstream communities
also depend on the Harbor as a commercial port.
Another important component of efforts to address
sediment-related problems in the Harbor should be
ecosystem restoration: the return of disturbed land to
a more natural state. This includes abandoned industrial sites, contaminated sites, inactive mines, and any
other site where human activity has altered ecosystem
39. After calibrating GWLF (i.e., adjusting its parameters to optimize the correlation between predicted and actual erosion) in selected basins in Pennsylvania, it
was found that model outputs, on average, were within 5% of actual erosion in test basins, although for individual basins under- or overestimates of ~50%
were common [44].
40. GWLF does not account for runoff entering sewer systems or being conveyed to water treatment plants (where some sediment could be trapped). A better
option would be to apply models such as U.S. EPA’s Storm Water Management Model (SWMM), but these require extensive data and are much more labor
intensive and complex to use than GWLF. Such an undertaking is beyond the scope of the present report.
30
functions. In most cases, human activities result in
increases of suspended solids loads—often contaminated—because of increased soil erodibility and/or
changes in stormwater runoff patterns. As mentioned
before, efforts to curb suspended solids loads could
be prioritized according to the level of pollution of
the particles. An obvious set of starting places is the
myriad of contaminated land sites and brownfields.
Restoring these sites not only would prevent the erosion of potentially contaminated soils, but could also
provide habitat for wildlife and places for public recreation and education, adding value and beautifying
communities while strengthening links and consciousness among their members.
It is important to acknowledge that further research
is needed to better understand the relative contributions of suspended solids sources considered in the
present report. Coastal erosion estimates are probably
the most uncertain because (1) erosion estimates from
NY and NJ coasts are based on very limited available
data and are widely disparate; and (2) it is likely that
most eroded materials move offshore and thus have
no impact on the Harbor,41 while those that do enter
the Harbor are mostly clean, coarse particles. Old mill
dams could be the largest contributors of sediments to
the Watershed, but our estimates are based on a single study in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Although
both New York and New Jersey have programs to address dams, they do so from the perspective of security and/or dams as barriers, and do not focus specifically on mill dams or sediment mobilization.
Regarding suspended solids loads from land activities, the picture presented here could be refined
by surveying and taking into account the effects of a
variety of already adopted soil erosion and sediment
control measures, including BMPs at construction
sites and agricultural fields; streambank protection;
and low-impact design and stormwater management
practices. In addition, a better understanding of the
impact of particles entering the Harbor would be attained by the quantification of pollutants contributed
by different sources of suspended solids. An analysis
of the CARP data could provide a first approximation: pollutant levels in suspended solids in stormwater runoff from urban and rural areas could be used
to estimate pollutant loads from particles eroded
from land. However, this approach would miss the
contribution of polluted or potentially polluted areas
such contaminated and industrial sites. Expanding
our research on contaminated sites (e.g., by conducting a comprehensive inventory of contaminated sites
and brownfields) would be important in identifying
the sources of specific toxic substances in suspended
solids loadings. This would also help improve our understanding of the actual impact of contaminated sites
on the Harbor and other surface waters. Similarly, additional research is needed to shed light on the pollutant load share of industrial sites such as cement facilities and auto salvage yards. Although not the focus of
the Harbor Project body of research, knowledge on
nutrient loads associated with suspended solids is also
of the utmost importance to our region.
41. Shore erosion nevertheless has important local impacts (e.g., on the integrity of coastal structures) and must be dealt with in any case.
31
3. PRACTICES AND TECHNOLOGIES TO REDUCE LOADS OF
SUSPENDED SOLIDS TO SURFACE WATERS
3.1. Overview
Measures to prevent soil or other particles on land
from being mobilized and carried to surface waters
can generally be classified as one of the following:
1. Source control or erosion control. These are
practices to minimize particle detachment and
are generally based on managing the factors at
play during soil erosion,42 for example, keeping
water from coming in contact with bare or disturbed soil, or reducing surface runoff velocity.
2. Treatment control or sediment control. These
refer to measures to capture suspended solids
in runoff before they enter stormwater sewers
or waterbodies. These tend to be structural
and, therefore, more expensive, and they do
not prevent stormwater from picking up particles in the first place.
From a pollution prevention, resource conservation,
and cost-efficiency perspective, source control measures should be applied first. Treatment control options can then be considered if additional measures
are required. The recently updated New York State
Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control emphasize planning and source control
measures to minimize erosion at construction sites
[140]. The New Jersey Stormwater Management Rules
[N.J.A.C. 7:8-5.2(a)] require nine specific nonstructural strategies in major developments to minimize hydrological changes and to control erosion [111].
The selection of BMPs or sets of BMPs is highly
site specific, and generalizations cannot be made as
to which options are best. Numerous factors need
to be evaluated to determine whether a practice is
appropriate for a particular site or situation.43 A description of the tools for BMP selection and design,
as well as their pros and cons, is beyond the scope
of this report, but several resources for technical details are provided throughout the text. A new tool
to facilitate BMP selection is being developed by
researchers at Virginia Polytechnic Institute. It is a
software application that will factor in a wide range
of site-specific criteria to choose optimal BMPs. It
will be applicable in regions with geographic and climatic environments similar to Virginia, and it will be
freely available to engineers, planners, localities, and
BMP review authorities [31].
While temporary erosion and sediment control
methods are sometimes implemented to provide immediate protection, permanent solutions should be
implemented as early as possible. The importance of
regularly inspecting and maintaining these practices
cannot be overemphasized: most of them will deteriorate with time and eventually become ineffective at
protecting soils or trapping sediments. NJ Stormwater
Management Rules require that all structural BMPs
have a maintenance plan [107]. The NJ Stormwater
BMP Manual includes information that aids those responsible for BMP operation and maintenance in developing and following these plans [107].
Practices—including innovative technologies44 —
suitable to prevent suspended solids mobilization
and loads from specific activities are described in
the following subsections for the three sources that
contribute the most suspended solids in Region 1:
streambank erosion, construction sites, and land development (which is also a main cause of streambank
erosion). Also included are agricultural activities—
large sources of suspended solids in the whole watershed and contributors to streambank erosion—and
coastal erosion, a potentially large source of sediments
to the Harbor. BMPs for minor sources of suspended
solids are described in Appendix C.
Note that although many BMPs are listed throughout this report, these are only examples presented
from a large pool of available options. Also, although
many examples of innovative technologies and tools
for suspended solids control are mentioned in this
document, such mention does not imply product endorsement or verification by the Harbor Project, the
Harbor Consortium, or the NYAS.
42. For a summary of factors affecting soil erosion, see Appendix A.
43. For example, BMPs that promote stormwater infiltration could result in soil and groundwater contamination if not properly designed or if applied to sites with
soils containing water-soluble pollutants.
44. Many web sites for companies offering innovative products are listed in footnotes throughout this section. These are provided only as examples—many more
are available—and mention of these companies does not imply endorsement of their products. Most of these offer several options for erosion and sediment
control as well as stormwater management technologies. Please see these web sites for examples of innovative products. Additional resources include
the following, among others: Erosion control products: North America Green http://www.nagreen.com/, and TenCate http://www.tencate.com. Stormwater
products: Contech http://www.contechstormwater.com/, CDS Technologies http://www.cdstech.com/, and BaySaver http://www.baysaver.com/.
32
Habitat Protection and Restoration
Coastal and marine habitats include tidal marshes,
wetlands, seagrass beds, maritime forests, tidal flats,
and rivers. Among many valuable functions, these
habitats provide the following [54]:
Protection against the destructive effects of
wind, waves, and flood
Homes and food for marine animals, birds,
fish, and shellfish (ecosystem)
Resources for the fishing (commercial and rec-
reational) and tourism industries
Recreation and tourism
The need to protect and restore these ecosystems cannot be overstated. The NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program (HEP) is actively working in this area, identifying sites that are particularly valuable, acquiring sites
when possible, and promoting and facilitating restoration. A recent report to the PANYNJ by the Hudson
River Foundation identifies target ecosystem characteristics (TECs) [12]. These are specific types of habitats deemed as having critical societal and ecosystem
function value in our region.
Habitat protection and restoration should be integrated with other measures for suspended solids
control whenever possible. Two particularly relevant
areas are coastal and streambank protection and
restoration. Resources on habitat restoration include
the NY/NJ HEP (http://www.harborestuary.org), the
Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment
(http://restoration.gulfofmaine.org/index.php), and
NOAA (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/habitat/restoration/)
As an example, wetlands are significant traps for
sediments and the pollutants attached to them. Wetlands protect coasts and streambanks from erosion
and can also break down contaminants. Therefore,
measures to promote conservation of existing wetlands and efforts to construct wetlands are fundamental to decrease sediment and pollutant loads to waterbodies.45 It should be noted that upslope measures
are still needed to avoid overloading wetlands and
turning them into sources of remobilized pollution.
Further details on wetland protection are provided in
the succeeding subsections.
3.2. Practices to Prevent Streambank Erosion
Based on the factors affecting streambank erosion in
our analysis (see Streambank Erosion, Appendix B),
general measures to reduce the erosion rate, or to
avoid its increase, include the following:
1. Keeping developed (impervious) surfaces to a
minimum or minimizing their impact. These
measures will be discussed in the section on
land use planning and low impact development.
2. Minimizing soil disturbance by grazing animals, especially in areas immediately adjacent
to streams. These measures will be discussed in
the section on BMPs for agriculture.
3. Protecting and restoring streambanks. These
are discussed below.
Streambank protection seeks to reduce the force of
water flow against a bank (e.g., through revetments
and fences) and/or to increase a bank’s resistance to
erosion (e.g., by lining with rock or concrete) [194].
The use of brushy vegetation typically provides both
types of protection. Whenever vegetation is involved,
it may be necessary to impede access by livestock to
prevent animals eating the plants and further damaging the banks. Streambank protective measures can
be classified as follows:46
Vegetative measures (planting, transplanting,
and seeding) are typically applicable to banks
with marginal erosion problems.
Wetland protection and restoration. Wetlands
at the margins of lakes, rivers, bays, and the
ocean provide natural protection against shoreline and streambank erosion. Plants hold the
soil in place with their roots, absorb the energy
of waves, and break up the flow of stream or
river currents. Resources on wetland restoration, protection, and creation are available
from the USDA [195] and U.S. EPA [228]. Specific measures to protect wetlands and riparian
areas include the following [195,223,228]:
– Wetland protection
y Evaluate their pollution control
potential, and assess and monitor their
functions and values.
45. For example, although many hazardous waste sites are located along the Hackensack River, this pollution generally is not exported to the Harbor because of
the presence of wetlands in the lower Hackensack River. Edward Konsevick (senior environmental scientist, Meadowlands Environmental Research Institute
[MERI]), personal communication, November 2, 2007.
46. For details, please see the USDA guide on bioengineering [71], the NYS Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control [140], and the Michigan
DEQ streambank stabilization guidebook [153].
PRACTICES AND TECHNOLOGIES TO REDUCE LOADS OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS TO SURFACE WATERS
33
y Develop protective zoning ordinances
and provisions in developing
regulations to restrict activities that
have a negative impact on wetlands.
y Provide outreach and education to
the population on the need to protect
these areas. Many specific measures
can be applied by individuals who own
wetlands and/or adjacent areas.
y Minimize disturbance within
floodplains.
y Promote greenway/green space
programs, which can connect
developed areas with wetland
and riparian resources, providing
stormwater filtering and groundwater
recharge as well as recreational
opportunities [49].
y Implement pretreatment practices
such as constructed wetlands, filter
strips, detention/retention basins, and
infiltration trenches to reduce the
pollutant load reaching these areas.
These practices are mentioned in the
section on stormwater management.
y Other specific practices include
the following [95]: build docks or
boardwalks to cross a wetland rather
than filling it in for access paths; avoid
diverting water to or from wetland
areas; avoid clearing or replacing native
vegetation along the wetland edge;
control exotic and invasive plant species.
– Wetland restoration is needed to
bring degraded wetlands to a situation
resembling predisturbance conditions as
much as possible. This involves restoring
native plant species and soil through either
natural succession47 or the introduction
of plant and soil materials. It may require
streambank protection measures.
Soil bioengineering/biotechnical measures
rely on live woody vegetation, combining principles of engineering and plant science. Roots
47.
48.
49.
50.
help hold the banks together while providing
riparian habitats, shade, organic matter, and
improvements in aesthetic value and water
quality. These measures require an establishment period and maintenance, and are typically susceptible to seasonal and weather changes.
Some of the most common techniques include
the following [71]:
– Bank protection through live staking
(planting stakes that can develop roots),
vegetated rock gabions (live branches
placed through gabions48 and anchored
to the soil), brush mattresses (layers of
hardwood brush anchored by a grid
of stakes and wire), branchpacking
(alternating layers of live branches and
compacted backfill to repair small holes),
and live cribwalls (boxes made with logs,
filled with soil and live stakes, built at the
base of a slope).
– Slope length and steepness reduction can
be achieved by log terracing (logs used
to create stable terraces where vegetation
can establish),49 live fascines (bundles
of branches staked into shallow trenches
that are then filled with soil), and brush
layering (similar to live fascines).
Structural measures are those that create a
revetment or embankment to protect the bank.
They tend to be expensive and may diminish
the stream’s natural beauty [174]. Common
practices include riprap (a layer of rocks), gabions, tree revetment (whole trees, without the
root mass, anchored to the streambank), native
material revetment (made of wood or stone),
and piling revetment (a row of pilings with a
facing geotextile material)
Stream restoration refers to measures to bring an
eroded stream section to conditions similar to those
prior to disturbance. It usually involves complex engineering operations to reshape the stream to a stable
form,50 along with practices to protect the banks. A
variety of practices can be adopted, depending on
site-specific characteristics. Careful analysis is needed
Natural succession is the sequence of changes in vegetation and other organisms on a particular site, with no human intervention.
Wire-mesh rectangular baskets filled with rock and stacked along a bank forming a protecting sidewall.
Other materials, such as fiber rolls, can be used to create the terraces.
Stream morphology (bed shape and material size, slope, sinuosity) can be related to stability and erosion potential. A widely acknowledged classification
system has been developed by David Rosgen [161]. A brief summary of stream processes and morphology is provided in section 3.2 of the Schoharie Creek
Management Plan [52]. Resources on stream restoration are available from the Greene County SWCD Stream Management Program (http://www.gcswcd.
com/stream/) and Wildland Hydrology web page (http://www.wildlandhydrology.com/html/references_.html).
34
before attempting to stabilize a section of a stream,
including whether the erosion is natural or human-induced. Otherwise, negative effects can result, such as
simply transferring the problem further downstream
[153]. There is limited information on the effectiveness of streambank restoration to control streambank
erosion, but it has been estimated that restoration at
the Batavia Kill (Greene County, NY) decreased erosion by ~75% [22].51 As previously mentioned, streambank restoration should be a part of comprehensive
efforts, including habitat restoration. Useful resources
on integrated streambank restoration are available
from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/ahg/ispgdoc.htm).
Local examples of stream restoration efforts include those by the Putnam County Soil and Water
Conservation District (SWCD), helping landowners
with stream erosion issues on their properties,52 and
the Greene County SWCD, which has a stream restoration program with projects at several locations.53
3.3. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
Land Development and Construction Activities
According to our estimates, the construction sector
is one of the largest contributors of suspended solids
to the Watershed, in particular within Region 1 (see
Table 3). Because the entire construction process has
the potential to impact stormwater runoff and suspended solids mobilization, it needs to be considered
in its entirety, from land use planning (by municipalities), to site design (by engineers and architects),
through construction site management and postconstruction BMPs.
To reduce the impacts of land development and the
associated increase in impervious surfaces, several approaches can be taken:
Land use planning
Low impact development
Construction site BMPs
Stormwater management
3.3.1. Land Use Planning
Changes in land use are commonly the result of a series of isolated decisions on individual development
projects that are based on short-term economic benefits rather than regional planning or other concerted
efforts [72]. The current trend in most of the Watershed can be classified as “urban sprawl” and consists of
developing formerly rural land, increasingly far from
existing cities and towns. Some of its characteristics
include large impervious areas per capita, car dependence (and associated road infrastructure and parking areas),54 and lack of a city center and community
areas (leading, for example, to the impracticability of
public transportation). At the same time, existing cities are at risk of being emptied (urban blight), leaving
their already disturbed areas under- or unutilized.
The effects of this trend go beyond Watershed health,
and include human health, reliance on fossil fuels for
transportation, and segregation or diminished sense
of community. A collaboration between ecologists,
economists, and Watershed planners has recently developed a model of the relationship between economic
activity (e.g., new jobs by a local industry), land use, and
indicators of stream health in Dutchess County, NY
[39,72]. Such models can provide useful tools to help
communities foresee the full range of consequences of
development decisions made today and avoid undesirable outcomes [72].55 The Center for the Environment
at Purdue University is finalizing the “Local Community Decision-Maker,” an online GIS-based tool for
land use planning aimed at economic and land use
planners, and government officials. The tool facilitates selecting economic development opportunities
most appropriate for a community, and identifying
the quantity and placement of green infrastructure
necessary to support these opportunities.56
An alternative to unplanned development is growth
management. More specifically, smart growth57 —although it has been variously defined—recognizes the
need to balance development with the protection of
natural resources [55]. Some common goals of smart
growth include open-space preservation, favoring de-
51. Streambank erosion measurements after restoration were used to calibrate a predictive model based on stream characteristics. Stream features prior to
restoration were used to estimate prerestoration erosion [22]. A publication of the Center for Watershed Protection provides an assessment of various
practices in urban streams [16].
52. Two recent projects restored ~400 ft of streams each, at Mahopac High School and at the east branch of the Croton River. Lauri Taylor (district manager,
Putnam SWCD), personal communication, March 5, 2007.
53. For more details, see the Green County SWCD web page: http://www.gcswcd.com/stream/
54. It is estimated that ~65% of impervious surfaces are transportation related (parking lots, roads, driveways) and the rest are buildings and structures [9].
55. Attempts to use this tool in actual communities showed that stakeholders need to learn more about watershed processes and related topics before they are
ready for these types of discussions. Jon Erickson, presentation at “Modeling and Measuring the Process and Consequences of Land Use Change in Hudson
River Tributaries,” a seminar at the Hudson River Foundation, October 3, 2006.
56. Angela Archer (web technician, Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant, Purdue University), personal communication, January 29, 2008.
57. Many resources and links on smart growth are available from U.S. EPA at http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/.
35
velopment in existing communities (as opposed to undeveloped areas), mixed land use, compact building
design, mixed-income housing, walkable neighborhoods, and access to public transportation [55].58 A
recent publication by the Citizens Housing and Planning Council and the Regional Plan Association analyzes in detail land use patterns in the NYC Metropolitan area, and recommends aggressively adopting
a smart growth approach (for environmental reasons
and to satisfy housing needs) and carefully planning
for and investing in public transportation [23].
One approach to smart growth is through the development of local master plans, zoning, and subdivision regulations that discourage sprawl [94].59 These
regulations can be reviewed and revised to provide
for options that address stormwater management and
development impacts, from the general (e.g., adopting new urbanism60 and urban revitalization or infilling) to the specific (e.g., use of permeable pavement)
[50].61 Municipalities should have an inventory of environmental and natural resources identifying areas
that should not be developed, and the master plans
should reflect this. A technical paper by the Nonpoint
Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO) program
provides a detailed guide on how to accomplish these
goals [50]. Valuable resources on urban watershed
management are available from U.S. EPA web sites on
urban nonpoint source pollution.62
3.3.2. Low Impact Development
Low impact development (LID) is a technique that
minimizes increases in runoff and pollutants. LID
starts with planning to preserve a site’s hydrology by
controlling water at the source; applying simple, non-
structural measures (e.g., minimizing site disturbance,
preserving important site features); and creating a
multifunctional landscape [156].63 LID also includes
structural stormwater management measures.
The general goals of LID are the following [156]:64
Minimize stormwater impacts by minimiz-
ing land disturbance and conserving natural
resources and ecosystems; maintaining natural
drainage courses; minimizing imperviousness
and disconnecting impervious surfaces; favoring stormwater infiltration; reducing the use of
pipes; minimizing clearing and grading (which
compacts the soil); and other techniques.
Route flows and control their discharge.
Provide runoff storage throughout a site using
detention.
Public education programs targeted at hom-
eowners, landowners, developers, and regulators to encourage individuals to adopt pollution
prevention measures and maintain the stormwater management practices.
Some specific elements of LID are listed below:
Avoid development in areas susceptible to
degradation (e.g., steep slopes, wetlands) or in
very permeable soils (it is preferable to develop
less valuable soils such as barren or low-permeability soils)
Minimize paved surfaces
– Roads account for most of the impervious
surfaces in traditional subdivisions.
Certain road patterns, shared driveways,
58. A recent book from the Center for Clean Air Policy (Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change) points to smart growth as an
important tool to reduce carbon emissions, as it reduces miles driven by providing pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods with access to public transportation [21].
59. For example, zoning laws typically require large lot sizes, detached housing, and separation of residential and commercial/industrial areas, perpetuating
sprawl tendencies [94].
60. New Urbanism (also called Traditional or Neo-Traditional Neighborhood Design) is a development style that shares many smart growth goals [199].
Its compact design is reminiscent of 18th and 19th century American towns. More details are available in a publication from the U.S. Department of
Transportation [199].
61. Land use and other ordinances allow towns to shape site design by requiring specific measures to address stormwater issues, including reducing impervious
surfaces, requiring on-site drainage of stormwater, encouraging riparian buffers, and requiring low impact development strategies [9].
62. See http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/urban.html and http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/urbanmm/index.html.
63. NJ Stormwater Rules require nonstructural strategies to be incorporated into the site design of a major development [111]. The New Jersey Nonstructural
Stormwater Management Strategies Point System (NSPS) provides a tool for planners, designers, and regulators to assess whether the strategies have been
used to the “maximum extent practicable,” as required by the Rules [111]. The NSPS also is helpful to quantify the value of existing sites for nonstructural
stormwater management, and provides a target and a comparison for post-development conditions. Sandra Blick (Stormwater Management Implementation
Team, NJ DEP Division of Watershed Management), personal communication, December 4, 2007.
64. A full description of the LID concept, guidelines, and specific elements can be found in a manual prepared by Prince George’s County, MD and U.S. EPA [156].
Additional resources, including details on the design process as a whole and for specific techniques, are available from the NJ Stormwater BMP Manual [107];
U.S. EPA (http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/); Stormwater Manager’s Resource Center (http://www.stormwatercenter.net/); The Low Impact Development
Center (http://www.lowimpactdevelopment.org/); Virginia DCR Better Site Design (http://www.dcr.virginia.gov/chesapeake_bay_local_assistance/publica.
shtml#bsd); Builders for the Bay (www.buildersforthebay.net); Greener Prospects Conservation Design (http://www.greenerprospects.com/); Urban Design
Tools for LID techniques (http://www.lid-stormwater.net/); and NRDC’s Stormwater Strategies [70]. Valuable information is also available from case studies,
including NOAA’s Alternatives for Coastal Development (http://www.csc.noaa.gov/alternatives/); U.S. EPA’s Reducing Stormwater Costs through Low Impact
Development (LID) Strategies and Practices (http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/costs07/documents/reducingstormwatercosts.pdf); and Seattle, WA (http://
www.ci.seattle.wa.us/util/About_SPU/Drainage_&_Sewer_System/Natural_Drainage_Systems/Street_Edge_Alternatives/index.asp).
36
narrow streets and driveways, reduced
street parking, and sidewalks on only
one side of the road can reduce the
extent of impervious surfaces (however,
some of these practices may discourage
walking, exacerbate car dependence, and
run contrary to smart growth and New
Urbanism concepts).
– Use a variety of pervious paving
materials: Porous asphalt and pervious
concrete contain little or no fine
materials, hence their permeability.
Plastic, concrete, or cement grid pavers
are interlocking blocks or synthetic grids
with open areas that are fi lled with soil
and grass, sand, gravel, or crushed stone.
Pavers are appropriate for lots that are
used less frequently, such as overflow or
seasonal-use parking.65
– Favor vertically rather than horizontally
spread out buildings to minimize roof
surfaces.
Disconnect flows from impervious areas
– Direct flows from roof drain and paved/
impervious areas to stabilized vegetated
areas.66
– Break up flow directions from large paved
surfaces.67
In addition to site designs that minimize hydrological
impact, LID calls for practices to manage stormwater
from developed sites. These are discussed later in the
section on post-construction.
Both smart growth and LID recognize the need to
protect the natural environment, including wetlands
and riparian areas. These areas protect streams from
nonpoint source pollution (including suspended solids), regardless of its source, by intercepting runoff
and allowing sediment settling and removal of pollut-
ants and pathogens. When these areas are degraded,
they stop acting as pollution barriers and can become
sources of pollution themselves [223]. Various regulations provide for the protection of wetlands (see Section 4 on regulations). Keeping wetlands healthy ensures that they can perform their ecosystem functions
[223]. Restoring degraded wetlands and creating wetlands can help preserve or enhance water quality by
tackling nonpoint source pollution. (Wetland protection measures are provided in the previous section on
streambank erosion.)
3.3.3. Construction Sites
In our region, construction sites that disturb one or
more acres (or >5,000 ft2 in NJ) need to include an
erosion and sediment control plan. Several technologies and BMPs are available to prevent and/or control
the mobilization of suspended solids from construction sites (including roads and other infrastructure).
These may be classified under two large categories, as
described in the overview:
1. Preventing suspended solids from being carried by runoff or wind (i.e., source or erosion
control).
2. Capturing suspended solids in runoff before
they reach surface waters or sewer systems (i.e.,
treatment or sediment control).
The selection of specific technologies or BMPs lies
with the engineers developing the construction project, and is site specific. It is not clear to what extent
planners and engineers in the design phase will favor
source versus sediment control.
The following is a brief description of some common BMPs for construction sites.68 Many of these
BMPs can be also applied to other activities, including surface mines, contaminated sites, and landfills.
Guidelines and technical details can be found in a variety of manuals and other resources.69
65. Pervious materials cannot be used in sites with high risk of spills, such as gas stations, or in sites heavily sanded during the winter (sand clogs the pores).
Proper installation and maintenance are needed to avoid failure. The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center provides technical specifications for
porous asphalt [241] and is currently studying whether reduced amounts of deicer are adequate for these surfaces [240]. Also see footnote 89.
66. These vegetated areas (e.g., swales) are commonly designed to provide different degrees of treatment: nutrient uptake, biodegradation of organics, and metal
adsorption to soil. Directing flow through these areas is an improvement over discharging untreated runoff to sewers—and eventually to waterbodies—but
it may be necessary to excavate these areas periodically and fill them with clean soil. At certain sites, pretreatment (e.g., oil/grit separator) may be needed.
Allison Watts (postdoctoral associate, Dept. of Environmental Engineering, University of New Hampshire), personal communication, November 16, 2007
67. For example, backyard as opposed to frontyard parking avoids oversized impervious areas (i.e., comprising the parking lot, street, and the opposite property’s
parking lot).
68. Resources dealing specifically with road or highway construction include the Arkansas 2004 Erosion and Sediment Control Design and Construction Manual
[8], the Oregon DOT Erosion Control Manual [148], and fact sheets from NYS DOT (available at https://www.nysdot.gov/portal/page/portal/main/businesscenter/engineering/cadd-info/drawings/standard-sheets/209-soil-erosion-and-sediment-control).
69. These include the NYS Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control [140], the NJ Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control [97], the
California Stormwater BMP Handbook [18], StormwaterAuthority.org [172], the Wisconsin Construction Site BMP Handbook [257], the Idaho DEQ Compendium
of BMPs [60], the Twin Cities Urban Small Sites Best Management Practice Manual [81], and the Wyoming DEQ’s Urban BMPs for NPS Pollution [258].
37
Source or Erosion Control
Minimize soil disturbance, especially in areas
most susceptible to erosion (such as steep
slopes) or likely to have a greater negative
impact on surface water quality (e.g., close to
waterbodies). LID projects provide more opportunities for reduced soil disturbance. This
is important to minimize soil compaction in as
much of the site as possible to decrease runoff
and erosion both during and after construction.
– Schedule and sequence construction
activities according to local conditions (e.g.,
avoid periods of high rainfall frequency/
intensity).
– Preserve existing vegetation in areas that
will remain vegetated, or where activities
are scheduled at a later time.
Protect soil or other surfaces from stormwater
and wind. This may involve the following:
– Vegetative measures. All aspects of
establishing vegetation must be considered,
including soil conditioning, best choice of
species, and need for watering. The soil
typically needs protection until vegetation
emerges.
– Nonvegetative measures
y Covering soil or solids temporarily
or permanently with a variety of
natural and synthetic materials (e.g.,
mulch, riprap, geotextiles,70 turf
reinforcement mats,71 plastic sheets) or
with structures such as roofs.
y Additives to improve soil structure and
hold particles together. These can be
natural (e.g., compost) or synthetic
(e.g., soil binders or adhesives such as
polyacrylamide [PAM]72).
y Measures specific for wind erosion
or dust control include windbreaks
(natural or constructed barriers to
reduce wind velocity); sprinkling or
irrigation to moisten the surface; and
other practices such as limiting work
on dry and windy days, lowering
vehicle speed limits, and cleaning roads
with vacuum sweepers.
Reduce the length and/or steepness of slopes
to decrease runoff velocity. This can be
achieved by practices such as terracing, surface
roughening, or placing physical barriers along
a slope to slow down flow (options include
fiber rolls, gravel- and sand-filled bags, filter
berms—which also provide filtration, and perforated pipes73).
Route runoff to prevent contact with disturbed
areas or other sources of particles. Usually,
runoff is diverted by means of ditches, waterways, pipes, and other structures. The channels
and the point or area of discharge need to be
protected to avoid erosion.
Treatment or Sediment Control
Sediment barriers such as straw bales, silt
fences, and compost berms74 can be used to
trap sediment from water moving uniformly on
the surface (sheet flow).
Devices to settle and/or filtrate solids are typi-
cally used to treat concentrated flows, such as
those coming out of ditches. Common examples include the following:
– Sediment traps and basins are structures
where runoff is temporarily detained,
allowing sediment to settle out before being
discharged. Dewatering bags can be used
to filter sediment from a pump discharging
water from a trench or excavation.75
70. Geotextiles are woven synthetic fabrics made of a variety of plastics, glass, or mixtures [140,172], as well as innovative, patented materials that provide
improved strength and durability. Other innovations include weaving methods, and combining materials to control biodegradation rate (see www.geotextile.
com).
71. These are geotextiles made of a three-dimensional, durable net, offering better erosion control in places where full vegetation establishment is not expected.
They can be nondegradable or may biodegrade after varying periods.
72. PAM is a polymer that improves the soil structure and facilitates settling of suspended solids in stormwater runoff. PAM is nontoxic but may contain traces of
the toxic acrylamide monomer (AMD) from which it is made. Available research suggests that no adverse effects are caused by PAM [166]. Further information
is available from the USDA PAM Research Project web page (http://www.nwisrl.ars.usda.gov/pampage_NWISRL.shtml).
73. This innovative product consists of a flexible, lightweight, perforated pipe covered by a mesh. The pipe collects stormwater (filtered through the mesh) and
conveys it away from the site. (See SlopeGard2, http://www.kristar.com).
74. Also called filter socks, this new product consists of a tubular mesh filled with compost-based filter media. They can be used as an alternative for silt fences
and straw bales, for inlet protection, and for outflow filtration (see http://www.filtrexx.com).
75. These are made of nonwoven geotextiles (i.e., a punched layer of material) and are designed to be fitted to discharge pipes [67]. They also may be used to
provide outlet protection, and can be reused depending on the design.
38
– Storm drain inlet protection refers to
devices that trap sediments and prevent
them from entering an enclosed drainage
system. Internal devices are usually
semiporous materials that filter large
particles. External devices (silt fences
and mats,76 sediment traps, gravel bags,
weighted fiber rolls77) form a barrier
around the inlet that impounds water and
allows suspended solids to settle.
Chemical additives are sometimes used to
improve flocculation of suspended sediments.
They should be nontoxic and be used only
when large volumes of turbid water cannot be
avoided or controlled effectively by standard
BMPs.
In sites adjacent to streams, a turbidity barrier
(low-permeability fabric placed in a waterbody,
parallel to its flow) can be used to retain suspended solids [256].
Vegetative buffer strips (grassed fi lter strips,
fi lter strips) are vegetated areas that receive
sheet flow from adjacent surfaces, allowing
it to slow down, infi ltrate, and fi lter sediments [172].
Vehicle tracking controls are areas of asphalt
or rock separating a construction site from
public roads to help remove sediment from
vehicle tires [258]. This can be combined with
a tire wash area (wash water must be conveyed
to a sediment control device) and with street
sweeping and vacuuming in and outside the
construction site.
Most of the BMPs listed above are applicable to construction sites in urban areas, including protection of
exposed soil and material stockpiles, vehicle tracking
control, and sediment control measures. Urban sites
are likely to be close to storm drains, in which case it
is particularly important to install drain inlet protection measures. Some of the above measures (such as
preserving existing vegetation) may not be relevant in
metropolitan areas. Some guidelines to select BMPs
are provided in the Twin Cities Urban Small Sites BMP
Manual [81].
3.3.4. Post-Construction BMPs: Stormwater
Management
Cities and other developed areas possess the infrastructure to manage stormwater through combined
or separate sewer systems (see section on stormwater
and suspended solids in the Introduction). Separate
sewers, however, do not prevent suspended solids and
other pollutants carried by stormwater from entering
waterbodies. Combined sewers can be overwhelmed—
causing many negative impacts—as impervious areas
and population increase, particularly during highintensity rain events. Although changes in infrastructure may help mitigate some of the impacts of
increased imperviousness, these end-of-pipe solutions
are typically more expensive and complex, and less effective than decentralized control measures aimed at
reducing stormwater volume at the source [154].
A range of options is available to mitigate or treat
stormwater (including that from roads)78 at the point
where it is generated, before it enters the sewer system.
Stormwater management practices are engineered to
capture, store, treat, or infiltrate the increased volume
of stormwater runoff produced by new development.
These practices—which can be implemented by municipalities, developers, and property owners—are applied at the development level and should be defined
at the site planning stage. They may benefit municipalities by reducing the need for costly infrastructure
to manage stormwater, and may translate into lower
property acquisition costs [156].
Structural measures for stormwater management
are easier to implement during new development and
redevelopment. Retrofitting of existing developments
may require changes in regulations and/or subsidies to
attain change. Preliminary analyses suggest that applying green infrastructure in public places and providing incentives/subsidies for individuals (e.g., to install
green roofs, rain gardens) may result in greater stormwater reductions than the same spending in stormwater infrastructure [154]. The Green Values Stormwater
Toolbox is an online resource that compares cost and
performance of green vs. conventional management
practices (http://greenvalues.cnt.org/calculator).
It is crucial to carefully choose stormwater treatment practices that are most appropriate for a given
site and expected runoff characteristics, taking into
76. Silt mats consist of a curled wood mat that filters suspended solids and an overflow bypass to avoid ponding; mats are fitted to the drainage inlet [67].
77. This product adds weight to regular fiber rolls so they do not need to be fixed in place [67].
78. Runoff from curbed roadways typically goes to the sewer system, and stormwater inlet protection BMPs may be applied [168]. In uncurbed roadways, runoff
flows away from the roadway in fill sections or to roadside channels (e.g., swales or ditches) in roadway cut sections [115]. Water from ditches can be
conveyed to a waterbody, subsurface infiltration structures, or detention and retention structures, or can be dispersed as sheet flow over a large area [115].
39
account their capabilities to remove pollutants, recharge groundwater, and detain floods. This is particularly relevant when relying on practices that increase infiltration, to ensure that they do not result in
soil and/or groundwater contamination.79 Guidance
on BMP maintenance and inspection is available from
U.S. EPA [205]. Some common and innovative80 decentralized stormwater management approaches and
BMPs are summarized below:81
Green infrastructure uses vegetated areas to
increase water infiltration, evapotranspiration,
or reuse, while providing additional benefits
such as cleaner air; decreased urban temperatures; community benefits through improved
aesthetics, livability, and property values;
increased energy efficiency; and prevention
of CSOs [80,204,229,231]. It is more effective
when combined with other decentralized approaches (e.g., porous pavement, rain barrels)
[231]. Some common practices include the following:
– Green roofs are roofs covered at least
partially with vegetation to absorb,
evapotranspire, and store precipitation,
and take up some nutrients. Green roofs
can also provide insulation and lower
energy usage.82
– Rain gardens (bioretention) are vegetated,
shallow, depressed areas designed
to infiltrate stormwater and to filter
pollutants that stick to soil particles.83
Small ones are suitable for the ultra-
urban environment84and can be located
in medians, parking lot islands, or along
streets [198].85
– Green streets include a series of vegetative
options to manage street stormwater on
site.86 They can be combined with specific
designs to increase stormwater infiltration
(see Box).
– Protection of natural features including
wetlands, riparian areas, floodplains,
aquifer recharge areas, mature trees,
woodlands, and other wildlife habitat.
– Vegetated swales (see vegetated systems
under “stormwater filtering” below).
– Green parking refers to several techniques
to reduce the impervious cover of parking
lots. These include the use of vegetation
(e.g., bioretention areas) combined with
other measures that decrease stormwater
volume, such as capping the number of
parking lots, minimizing the dimensions of
individual spaces, using pervious materials,
encouraging shared parking, providing
adequate mass transit, and promoting
carpooling.
Infiltration technologies include various
practices to capture stormwater temporarily, allowing more time for infiltration. Some
suspended solids can settle, and nutrients and
pollutants may be retained by the soil as it is
soaked by the water. This can be achieved by
several means:
79. Many resources are available that provide design, performance, applicability, and other relevant information about stormwater management practices,
including those listed throughout this section and in several presentations by the Center for Watershed Protection (e.g., from May 2001, “A Review of
Stormwater Treatment Practices,” “Selecting the Most Effective Stormwater Treatment Practice,” and “Sizing of Stormwater Treatment Practices,”). NJ DEP is
working to ensure that increased reliance on infiltration practices does not compromise groundwater and soil quality (see Section 4.3 on Gaps and Barriers to
Implementation of Stormwater BMPs).
80. The University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center has tested a number of innovative technologies for their ability to reduce suspended solids and other
pollutants, as well as their effect in reducing peak flow. One-page summaries are available at http://www.unh.edu/erg/cstev/fact_sheets/index.htm. NJ DEP
is developing a list of certified technologies for stormwater management (most certifications are interim) [98]. NSF International and U.S. EPA are verifying
several new technologies through the Environmental Technology Verification Pilots (http://www.nsf.org/business/water_quality_protection_center/index.
asp?program=WaterQuaProCen).
81. Numerous publications and resources provide technical information and further details, including the U.S. EPA’s National Menu of Stormwater BMPs (postconstruction) [204]; the NJ stormwater manual [107]; the Center for Watershed Protection (http://www.cwp.org/stormwater_mgt.htm); the Stormwater
Center (http://www.stormwatercenter.net/); the Stormwater Authority library (http://www.stormwaterauthority.org/library/); the Portland [24], Minnesota
[84], Georgia [4] and Washington [246,247] stormwater manuals; the New Development and Redevelopment Handbook of the California Stormwater Quality
Association [19]; the University of Connecticut NEMO web page (http://nemo.uconn.edu/tools.htm); the Low Impact Development (LID) Center (http://www.
lid-stormwater.net/index.html); and Wisconsin DNR Storm Water Management Technical Standards (http://dnr.wi.gov/runoff/stormwater/techstds.htm).
82. Other benefits include increased acoustic insulation and durability [204]. An impermeable membrane protects the roof from the growing media. Special plants
are needed. For technical details see, for example, the U.S. EPA Menu of BMPs [204].
83. Details can be found, for example, in a publication of the NJ Water Resources Research Institute [162].
84. Ultra-urban areas are those with very high levels of development, and are thus the most in need of stormwater management measures but have severe space
constraints for BMP implementation.
85. See footnote 66 for considerations about groundwater and soil contamination.
86. Options include swales, planters, trees, tree boxes, and curb extensions [24]. Technical details and examples are available, for example, from the Portland
(OR) Bureau of Environmental Services (http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?c=eeeah&). Manuals on green streets can be ordered from Portland
Metro (http://www.metro-region.org/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=235).
40
– Infiltration basins refer to shallow
impoundments to infiltrate water into the
soil.
– Dispersion (natural or engineered)
ensures that runoff water enters an
infiltration area as sheet flow.
– Subsurface infiltration refers to several
underground structures, such as
infiltration trenches, drywells, and
several innovative infiltration chambers.87
These technologies are suitable for ultraurban areas because they are completely
underground.88
– Porous pavements are alternatives to
traditional impervious pavement that allow
water infiltration and are appropriate for
ultra-urban settings. Materials include
porous asphalt, pervious concrete, and grass
or permeable pavers (see section on LID).89
Detention and retention practices temporar-
ily store stormwater and provide some treatment.90,91 They can be implemented in ultraurban areas by creating several small ponds.
Dry detention ponds are basins that detain
runoff for some time, allowing particles to
settle. They do not have a large permanent
pool of water. Wet ponds have a permanent
pool of water and provide biological uptake of
pollutants, particularly nutrients. A variation is
stormwater (or constructed) wetlands that incorporate wetland plants, providing additional
aesthetic and habitat value.
Stormwater filtering systems.
– Sand filters consist of a chamber for
settling large particles, followed by a
filter bed filled with sand or other media
for filtering finer particles and other
pollutants. Many systems have been
developed for use in heavily urbanized
areas (e.g., by making them relatively
accessible for maintenance) [198].
– Vegetated systems can be used to slow
water flow and allow settling of particles
and removal of pollutants. Examples
include biofiltration (or grass) swales
(shallow channels to convey water)92 and
filter strips (to treat sheet flow and provide
some infiltration; commonly used in ultraurban settings along roads).
– Media filtration systems are innovative
products that use a series of filtration
cartridges to remove larger amounts of
RETROFITTING URBAN STREETS
TO INCREASE STORMWATER
INFILTRATION
Seattle Public Utilities has retrofitted urban
streets to increase stormwater infiltration [75].
Streets were narrowed and shaped to follow a
gently curving (as opposed to straight) path,
while the sidewalks were planted with shrubs.
This pattern helps direct water to unpaved
areas. The cost of retrofitting urban streets
is ~$300,000 per block but would be lower if
designed in this manner from the outset. Benefits of this approach include decreasing the
cost of treating or storing excess stormwater,
and protecting streams from erosion and flooding during high intensity rain events. This project
was welcomed by residents as more aesthetic
than traditional models [170,171,248].
87. Infiltration chambers are underground units that receive and hold stormwater and promote water infiltration into the surrounding soil. One patented system
features an open bottom that provides a large infiltration area where—similar to a septic drain field—a biomat of microorganisms forms, taking up nutrients
and degrading pollutants. See Hydrologic Solutions StormChamberTM (http://www.hydrologicsolutions.com/), and Hydro International Stormcell® and SuperFlo™ (http://www.hydrointernational.biz/us/stormwater_us/a_overview.php).
88. Suitability is dependent on soil and groundwater table characteristics, and maintenance costs may be high [198].
89. Porous pavements are not suitable for all locations, especially for areas at high risk of oil and other spillages (Allison Watts, postdoctoral associate, Dept.
of Environmental Engineering, University of New Hampshire, pers. comm., November 16, 2007). In fact, most sites where spills are likely are required to
have impervious surfaces because it is generally easier to contain and remediate spills on impervious surfaces, for example, by using absorbents (David
O’Brien, environmental program specialist, NYS DEC, Division of Solid & Hazardous Materials, Bureau of Hazardous Waste Regulation, pers. comm., October
31, 2007). In driveways and parking lots there is a potential for oil leaks from automobiles but these fluids normally reach surface waters through the sewer
system if the surface is impervious, while pervious pavement offers an opportunity for sequestration and/or degradation of pollutants (Alison Watts, pers.
comm.) In buildings heated with fuel, spills are also possible, especially around tanks. Commercial (but typically not private) buildings are normally required to
have secondary containment around these tanks. Also see footnote 65.
90. Further details on these and other detention options are available from the U.S. EPA National Menu of Stormwater Best Management Practices (postconstruction) http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm.
91. Innovative chambers are available. See, for example, CONTECH volumetric separation products(http://www.contech-cpi.com/stormwater/products/14).
92. Flow can be slowed further by barriers such as check dams.
41
pollutants and oil, and finer suspended
solids.93
– Catch basin inserts are designed to remove
oil/grease, trash, debris, and/or sediment.
Innovative products for stormwater inlets
include a variety of hydrodynamic separators94
and other treatment units95 that can be fitted to
catch basins or pipelines carrying stormwater
from a developed site. These products are commonly designed to separate suspended solids
and oil/grease, and are suitable for ultra-urban
areas, but need frequent inspection and cleaning to maintain effectiveness [198].
Other measures to reduce stormwater volume
involve water reuse and conservation.
– Rain barrels (cisterns, water harvesting)
are used to capture runoff from roofs,
which can be used later; for example, for
irrigation.96 Rain barrels can be used by
individual homeowners.
– Water conservation refers to measures
to reduce water consumption (and thus
wastewater generation). Similarly to
recycling, it may decrease CSOs. Specific
measures include repairing leaks, taking
shorter showers, and other simple actions
that individuals can take, as well as
installing high-efficiency toilets, low-flow
showerheads, faucet aerators, and waterefficient appliances.97
– Changing water usage patterns by asking
community members to wait to run
dishwashers, washing machines, and
showers until some time after a rainstorm.
– Wastewater recycling may help reduce
CSOs (in combined sewer areas) and
possibly streambank erosion at receiving
waterbodies (by decreasing water
inputs to streams during wet weather
events). Buildings may capture and
treat wastewater,98 and reuse it for toilet
flushing, air conditioning, and irrigation
[6]. Industries may also use recycled water
for some of their processes (e.g., cooling
water).99 A new system is being tested in
Germany that can be used in residences to
collect and purify rainwater to drinking
water standards, and later purify
wastewater to bathing water standards
[250].
Measures to reduce the contribution of sus-
pended solids from paved areas.
– Sweeping/cleanup. Mechanical and hand
tools can be used to remove sediments and
debris from roads and other impervious
surfaces to avoid their transport by
stormwater. Stormwater rules and
other regulations require sweeping by
certain municipalities (see Section 4 on
regulations).
– BMPs for abrasives. These are described
in Appendix C
3.4. Agriculture
A wide variety of management practices are available to reduce the impact of suspended solids from
agricultural fields. As the agriculture industry is well
aware, keeping soils in place is in their best interest.
Many factors (including climate, site conditions, and
economic feasibility) determine what set of practices
are most appropriate. The U.S. Department of Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation Service
93. Filter media, configuration, and other parameters can be adjusted to specific needs. Maintenance includes replacing filter cartridges periodically and cleaning
sedimentation areas. Some of these systems have been used in concrete facilities. For details see, for example, CONTECH media filtration system (http://
www.contech-cpi.com/stormwater/products/filtration/mfs/559), Environment21 PuriStormTM (http://www.env21.com), Hydro International Up-FloTM Filter
(http://www.hydrointernational.biz/us/stormwater_us/upflo.php).
94. These units have a chamber where the water forms a vortex. Solids settle in the inner part of the vortex, and clean water exits the chamber. Many designs
are available; for example, some trap floatables (including oil), others use oil baffles or sorbents. Sediments need to be removed periodically. These units
have been used to treat runoff from highways and mass transit stations. For technical details see, for example, Hydro International First Defense® and
Downstream Defender® (http://www.hydrointernational.biz/us/stormwater_us/a_overview.php); CONTECH in- and offline, and drop inlet units (http://www.
contech-cpi.com/stormwater/13); Environment 21 UnistormTM and V2B1TM (http://www.env21.com); CONTECH hydrodynamic separator (http://www.
contech-cpi.com/stormwater/products/14).
95. In other engineered stormwater treatment units, water typically enters a chamber where nonturbulent flow allows settling of suspended solids. Oil and
floatables rise and remain trapped in the chamber. Maintenance includes removing trapped oil and sediments. See, for example, Stormceptor (http://www.
stormceptor.com/) and Royal Environmental Systems ecoStorm® (http://www.royalenterprises.net/).
96. Details can be obtained from Duluth Streams (http://www.duluthstreams.org) [10] and the Minnesota Stormwater Manual [84].
97. More resources are available from the U.S. EPA WaterSense web site (http://www.epa.gov/watersense/) and NYC DEP’s water saving tips (http://www.nyc.
gov/html/dep/html/ways_to_save_water/hcisw.shtml). NYC DEP has launched a plan to promote water conservation measures [123].
98. Typically graywater, or that used for washing—as opposed to blackwater, or that coming from toilets.
99. Redwood City, CA has recently begun delivery of recycled water to commercial sites [249]. Additional resources and guidelines for water reuse are available
from U.S. EPA [215,232,233].
42
(USDA–NRCS) and local soil and water conservation
districts (SWCDs) can assist with planning and application of erosion control practices.100 The Electronic
Field Office Technical Guide (http://www.nrcs.usda.
gov/technical/efotg/) provides numerous state- and
county-specific resources and contact information.
Additional support may be provided by local Cooperative Extension offices, which can be located at http://
www.csrees.usda.gov/Extension/.
Many BMPs for agricultural fields (both crop and
grazing land) are similar to those for construction
sites (and will thus only be mentioned here) and can
be classified in the same way:
1. Erosion control. Vegetative measures include
establishing permanent vegetation on highly
erodible areas (critical area planting) and buffer strips at the edge of streambanks. Nonvegetative soil protection measures include applying
mulch and soil conditioners, such as compost
and manure. Slope reduction can be achieved
by terracing. Areas prone to erosion can also
be protected by diverting runoff from them.
Avoiding heavy vehicle traffic close to a stream
(often achieved by fencing) is an effective way
of protecting streambanks [63]. Wind erosion
or dust control can be provided by windbreaks
consisting of trees or shrubs, growing crops in
strips (strip cropping), or establishing herbaceous wind barriers within the field (always
across the prevailing wind direction). Various
measures can be applied to minimize erosion
from roads providing access to, and within,
farms. Access road improvement includes
barriers to reduce slope length (e.g., logs), and
roadside protection with vegetation, other
covers, or biotechnical measures (see section on
roadside erosion in Appendix C).
3.4.1. Cropland
The following list summarizes common BMPs to reduce suspended solids contributions from cropland.
Further details can be obtained from many publication sources, including U.S. EPA [223] and NYS
DEC [3].
Erosion control
Minimizing soil disturbance can be achieved
by several crop residue management systems,
including no till and minimum till,101 which
leave all or part of crop residues on the soil
surface (thus also providing surface protection)
and reduce machinery traffic.
Surface protection
– Vegetative measures
y Cover crop/green manure: dense
grasses, legumes or small grains
are grown in between regular crop
production. This also increases organic
matter and nutrients, suppresses weeds,
and improves soil physical conditions.
y Conservation cover: establishing
permanent vegetation on land retired
from agricultural production.
y Conservation crop rotation: a sequence
of crops that includes species that
provide organic matter residue to
maintain or improve soil quality.
– Nonvegetative measures
y Seasonal residue management: using
plant residues to protect fields during
critical erosion periods.
y Soil binders: polyacrylamide (PAM;
see section on construction sites) and
other polymers—added to irrigation
water or applied to irrigation
furrows—have been promoted recently
to reduce soil erosion by irrigation
water [167].
2. Sediment control practices include filter strips,
sediment retention ponds, and sediment control
basins, which are described in the sections on
construction sites and stormwater management.
Additional BMPs and technical details can be obtained from a multitude of resources, including the
NYS catalogue of agricultural management practices
[3], U.S. EPA’s management measures to control nonpoint pollution from agriculture [223], and the National Conservation Practice Standards [193].
Reducing slope length and steepness
– Contour farming: crop rows are run
perpendicular to the slope. They can be
alternated with rows of grass and other
vegetation.
100. Local USDA–NRCS service centers can be located at http://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app. Soil conservation districts can be found at http://www.
nacdnet.org/resources/cdsonweb.html.
101. Tillage is the practice of turning the soil to incorporate plant residues and loosen the soil.
43
Avoid runoff contact with surfaces
– Irrigation water management provides for
crop water needs while reducing erosion
and protecting water quality. It can be
achieved by scheduling (irrigating when
needed as opposed to on a regular basis)102
and/or by systems that minimize water use
such as trickle irrigation (water applied
directly to the root zone).
3.4.2. Grazing
A comprehensive list of BMPs and their definitions is
provided in the National Conservation Practice Standards [193]. Some common practices are summarized
below:
Erosion control BMPs are generally aimed
at minimizing soil disturbance by animals by
restricting their access to certain areas.
– Nonvegetative measures for surface
protection include managing grazing so
different areas are grazed at different
times; allowing vegetation to recuperate;
fencing to exclude sensitive areas (such
as streambanks) from animal traffic; and
providing animals with an alternative
water supply to discourage their access
to natural waterbodies—protecting
streambanks and reducing discharges of
animal wastes to surface waters [63].
Sediment control: Barnyard runoff manage-
ment systems are used to keep runoff from
areas where animals concentrate separated
from clean runoff. A combination of practices
is generally needed to convey and treat this
contaminated runoff water, such as grassed
waterways, settling tanks, and filter strips.
3.5. Coastal Erosion
As is the case with streambanks, shorelines can be protected by vegetation, soil bioengineering measures,
structures, or a combination, but additional factors
must be evaluated [194]. Special consideration must
be given to the type of shore (e.g., lakes, estuaries,
ocean fronts). Shoreline protection measures include
the following:103
Land use management transfers management
responsibilities from the individual owner to
the community. This can be difficult to implement; however, it can result in long-term advantages and cost savings by reducing the need
for structural practices (such as those described
below), reducing degradation of water quality
and ecological fragmentation, and increasing property values. Land use management
includes limiting development in areas that
provide natural protection from erosion, and
preserving protective features such as dunes,
bluffs, and beaches. Coastal erosion management programs should be encouraged in affected municipalities. The following tools can
be used to advance land use management:
– Planning for long-term natural changes
in coastlines, including shifting beaches,
and changes in marshlands, inlets, and
estuaries. This includes restoration and
reclamation, managed retreat (removing
coastal protection and allowing coastal
areas to be flooded), and green planning.
– Regulations may include requirements
for buffers, setbacks, and construction
standards.
– Incentives such as conservation easements,
current use tax, and rolling easements.
– Acquisition.
Regional sediment management (RSM) re-
fers to the utilization of sediment resources
in an environmentally effective and economical manner, and has the goal of maintaining
or enhancing the natural exchange of sediments within the boundaries of the physical
system [159]. For example, sandy materials
dredged while maintaining an inlet or bay may
be placed in a nearshore berm of an eroding
beach [159]. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has RSM programs in a few areas of the
U.S., including the NY/NJ Harbor.
Vegetation can be used to protect shores,
banks, and bluffs, while providing a more
natural shoreline. Certain plants are known to
break down specific contaminants so vegeta-
102. Innovative tools to aid irrigation management include neutron gauges to monitor soil moisture, and computer software that considers information such as
rainfall, irrigation water applied, and crop water use [3].
103. Technical details and resources on understanding and controlling coastal erosion are available from several publications and web sites, including the Coastal
Engineering Manual [179], Environmental Engineering for Coastal Shore Protection [178], Chapter 16 of the USDA Engineering Field Handbook [194], the National Academy of Sciences [27], NYS DEC [125], and the Marine Construction and Coastal Engineering web site (http://www.vulcanhammer.net/marine/).
44
tion can act both to prevent sediment loss and
to trap contaminants. Vegetation can also be
integrated into comprehensive solutions that
include habitat restoration.
– Wetland protection and restoration (see
section on BMPs for streambank erosion).
– Creating marshes. This typically involves
planting grasses and other species, while
addressing the original causes of marsh
loss. The success of this practice is well
documented.
– Submerged vegetation such as seagrass
stabilizes sediments.
– Vegetated dunes. Dune grasses are key
to establishing dunes, which add sand to
shorelines.
Soil bioengineering measures (see section on
BMPs for streambank erosion) best suited for
shorelines (typically not for ocean fronts) are
live stakes, live fascines, brush mattresses, live
siltation (similar to brush layering), and reed
clump constructions (root divisions mixed with
soils and manure, wrapped in natural geotextiles, placed in trenches, and staked).
Structural measures
– Shoreline hardening refers to fixed
structures that create a barrier to erosive
forces. Because it has been applied widely,
there is better knowledge of specifications
and expected performance, perpetuating
its use. Disadvantages include loss of
ecosystems and their services as well
as beachfront and scenic amenities. In
addition, hardening may increase erosion
in adjacent areas, including an increase
in water depth that can undermine the
structure.
y Bulkheads are vertical structures
made of wood, concrete, vinyl, or steel,
anchored to and parallel to the shore.
y Seawalls are similar to bulkheads but
can withstand greater forces and are
typically made of concrete.
y Revetments are protective structures
made of rock, precast concrete, timber,
gabions, or other materials installed to
fit the slope and shape of the shoreline.
y Breakwaters are structures placed
offshore to reduce wave action. They
are typically made of locally available
materials such as rock, broken
concrete, formed concrete, and tires.
– Trapping and/or adding sand or gravel
y Beach nourishment is the addition
of sand to a shoreline to replenish
sand lost to erosion and to enhance or
create a beach area while providing
protection. It is sometimes combined
with groin or breakwater systems
y Groins are finger-like structures
installed perpendicular to the shore
to trap littoral drift,104 which acts as a
buffer. Incoming waves break on this
entrapped material and lose most of
their energy. These structures—as well
as hardening and jetties—also have
adverse effects nearby: they increase
erosion on the side downcurrent of the
structure, because sediment is trapped
and unable to continue moving along
the shore.105
Several nontraditional and innovative methods
have been developed. A few examples—at different stages of testing—are provided here:106
– Patented precast concrete units to form
breakwaters.
– Geotextiles that can be rolled into long
tubes and used as revetments for dune
protection, breakwaters, and groins.
– Beach drains or dewatering systems
where the groundwater table is lowered by
pumping systems.
– Sea webs, which are similar to groins and
are made of fish net [175].
104. Material moving parallel to the shore.
105. Judy Weis (professor, Marine Biology & Aquatic Toxicology, Department of Biological Sciences, Rutgers University), personal communication, November 30,
2007.
106. Further resources are available from USACE’s Coastal Engineering Manual [179], Florida DEP [45], and the Florida Shore and Beach Preservation Association
(http://www.fsbpa.com/index.html). Companies offering innovative shore stabilization products or technologies include TenCate (http://www.tencate.com)
and WhisprWave (http://www.whisprwave.com).
45
4. REGULATORY STRUCTURE RELATED TO STORMWATER AND THE
MOBILIZATION OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS
4.1. Introduction
Stormwater regulations play a key role in addressing
the quantity and quality of stormwater discharges
by requiring measures to reduce stormwater volume
and to keep stormwater from contacting pollutants
(including suspended solids). Regulations concerning
land use may greatly diminish suspended solids loads
to surface waters. For example, protecting wetlands
helps maintain shores or streambanks with low erodibility while helping conserve buffer zones that can
retain particles, nutrients, and pathogens in stormwater. Regulations and codes governing what can be
built and where also have an impact on stormwater:
zoning and subdivision regulations that tend to promote sprawl result in larger areas of development and
larger impacts per capita compared with more compact types of development.
Several federal, state, and local regulations address
stormwater quality and quantity directly or indirectly.
Relevant regulations in our region are summarized
below.
4.2. Summary of Regulations
Federal Regulations
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits are required for pointsource stormwater discharges into waters of the
U.S. This program is based on requirements
by the Clean Water Act—which prohibits pollutant107 discharges—and is managed by each
state (details about this program in NY and NJ
are provided in the subsection on state regulations). The program started in 1990 with Phase
I, and its coverage was expanded in 1999 when
Phase II was established.108 NPDES permits
establish effluent limits, monitoring and reporting requirements, best management practices
(BMPs),109 and other conditions [211]. Currently,
permits are required for most municipalities
and public complexes with separate storm sewer
systems (MS4s), certain industrial activities,110
and construction sites affecting ≥ 1 acre. Municipalities subject to MS4 permits must develop
a stormwater management program to prevent
pollutant discharges into surface waterbodies.
Some of the specific requirements for industrial
facilities are listed in Appendix C on BMPs for
minor sources of suspended solids. Small MS4s
covered by the general permit111 are required
to implement six minimum control measures,112
develop goals for the program and assess its effectiveness, and adopt and enforce an ordinance
to reduce pollution from development and redevelopment [108,109,141]. Other state and municipal regulations for stormwater are based on
NPDES regulations and may include additional
requirements to address local needs. NPDES
permits provide a tool to address stormwater
pollution from industrial facilities.113
Areas with combined sewers are regulated
separately. The U.S. EPA issued a national
combined sewer overflow (CSO) policy in 1994
that includes permit requirements for CSOs
and mandates nine minimum controls.114,115
107. Including conventional pollutants (five-day biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids [TSS], pH, fecal coliforms, and oil and grease), toxic or priority pollutants (including metals and man-made organic compounds), and nonconventional pollutants (such as nutrients and chemical oxygen demand) [211].
108. Phase II permits became effective in March 2003.
109. Once the permitting agency provides a list of possible BMPs, these become enforceable.
110. Including manufacturing; mineral, metal, oil and gas; hazardous waste treatment or disposal; landfills; recycling facilities; steam electric plants; transportation facilities; treatment works; light industrial activity; and any facility with an effluent limitation [208].
111. Typically, municipalities with population under 100,000 that are wholly or partly urbanized, and other public entities that operate separate storm sewers
(e.g., NY DOT, local housing authorities). This is not a standard requirement of “individual permits,” which are issued to municipalities with populations over
100,000 on a city-by-city basis. For example, these requirements are not in NYC’s permit, although there is legislation pending in the City Council (Intro.
630) that would require the development of a sustainable stormwater management plan by fall 2008. Larry Levine (attorney, NRDC), personal communication, November 20, 2007.
112. The six measures are (1) education of citizens about stormwater and water quality; (2) encouragement of public participation; (3) detection and elimination
of illicit discharge; (4) developing an erosion and sediment control program for construction activities that disturb at least one acre in a small MS4; (5) a
post-construction runoff plan for new development and redevelopment; and (6) pollution prevention/good housekeeping at municipal operations, including
staff training on pollution prevention practices (e.g., street sweeping, reduction in the use of street salt, catch basin cleaning) [222].
113. NYS DEC SPDES Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity, Permit GP-0-06-002.
114. Jim Olander (U.S. EPA Region 2), personal communication, August 6, 2007.
115. U.S. EPA [219].
46
Federal regulations (the Wet Weather Water
Quality Act of 2000) require municipalities
with combined sewers to implement longterm control plans (LTCPs) [154] to avoid wet
weather overflows (see section on state regulations for more details).116
The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to
establish a total maximum daily load (TMDL)
for specific pollutants in impaired surface
waters (i.e., surface waters with water quality
violations for specific pollutants). TMDL is the
maximum amount of a specified pollutant that
a waterbody can receive and still meet water
quality standards.117 TMDLs are allocated
among point and nonpoint sources. Stormwater permits and stormwater management plans
need to be consistent with TMDLs.
The Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control Program delegates authority to states
to implement coastal land-use management
measures for controlling nonpoint source pollution.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires a
permit before dredged or fill material may be
discharged into waters of the United States,
including wetlands. Regulated activities include
fill for development, water resource projects
(e.g., dams, levees), infrastructure development
(e.g., highways, airports), and mining projects.
Certain farming and forestry activities are
exempted [213].
The U.S. EPA Underground Injection Con-
trol (UIC) program identifies and tracks Class
V118 wells for potential pollutant discharges to
groundwater.
Federal regulations affecting wetlands include
[214] the following:
– The Rivers & Harbors Appropriation Act
of 1899 established a program to regulate
activities affecting navigation in waters of
the United States, including wetlands.
– The Federal Agriculture Improvement
and Reform Act of 1996 (the Farm Bill)
established four programs related to the
conservation of wetlands on agricultural
land.
– The Endangered Species Act (ESA)
provides a program for the conservation
of threatened and endangered plants and
animals and the habitats in which they are
found.
State Regulations
Various state programs address nonpoint sources and
stormwater management.
New York
– The NY State Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYS DEC) is responsible
for issuing State Discharge Elimination
System (SPDES) permits under Title 6, Part
750 of the New York Code of Rules and
Regulations (6 NYCRR 750). These are
the same as the NPDES permits described
above, as U.S. EPA delegated authority to
the states to administer the Clean Water Act
permitting program. SPDES permits for the
discharge of industrial wastewater to the
waters of New York State address discharges
to groundwater [130].119 Construction sites
of one to five acres involving single-family
residences require only the development
of an erosion and sediment control plan
(ESCP). All other construction sites ≥ 1 acre
are required to develop a full stormwater
pollution prevention plan (SPPP). This
includes an ESCP and a water quality and
water quantity control plan (WQWQCP)
[129]120 The WQWQCP requires the
design and installation of post-construction
stormwater controls that must meet the
NYS DEC Stormwater Design Manual
[136] criteria. These include retention of
the water quality volume121 and detention
116. A guidance document for LTCPs is available [218].
117. In the U.S., sediments are the third leading cause of water impairment, after mercury and pathogens. More than 2,000 TMDLs have been approved for this
pollutant, although none of them in our region [210]. NYS has 35 waters listed as impaired because of sediments, while NJ has one [210].
118. Class V injection wells are typically shallow disposal systems that are used to place a variety of uncontaminated fluids below the land surface, into or above
underground sources of drinking water [201].
119. Permits and guidance materials for SPDES covering industrial facilities are available from NYS DEC at http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6287.html.
120. Permits and guidance materials for SPDES covering stormwater runoff from construction sites are available from NYS DEC at http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/8468.html. NYS DEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity, Permit No. GP-02-01.
121. The water quality volume is the volume of runoff generated during a rainfall event, which includes 90% of the storms for a one-year period (NYS DEC Design
Manual, Section 4.2).
REGULATORY STRUCTURE RELATED TO STORMWATER AND THE MOBILIZATION OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS
47
y The Wild, Scenic and Recreational
Rivers Program, administered by the
NYSDEC under 6 NYCRR Part 666
of the difference between existing and
proposed flows for specific storms. All MS4s
in urbanized areas of the state must obtain
a SPDES permit that includes development
of a Stormwater Management Program
(SWMP) to reduce pollutant discharges.122
A municipality’s SWMP must include the
U.S. EPA’s six minimum control measures
[137]. In the next round of SPDES permits,
certain areas east of the Hudson River
will be required to comply with enhanced
requirements for MS4s, including street
sweeping before and after storms and
regular catch basin vacuuming.
– In addition to managing stormwater
runoff, the NYSDEC SPDES Program also
covers erosion and sediment control on
construction sites.
y Flood Plain Management Program,
administered by the NYSDEC under 6
NYCRR 500-505
y State Environmental Quality Review
(SEQR), administered by the NYSDEC
under 6 NYCRR Part 617
– The Local Waterfront Revitalization
Program (LWRP) is delegated by the state
to, and implemented by, local entities. The
LWRP adds local considerations to the
Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Program [134].
New Jersey
– The Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control Program is administered by
the NYS Department of State (DOS) to
implement coastal land use management
measures for controlling nonpoint source
pollution.
– The NY Nonpoint Source (NPS)
Management Program involves several
programs—implemented by government
agencies and other organizations—to
address NPS pollution, including
regulations such as the following:123
y The Adirondack Park Land Use and
Development Program
y The Freshwater and Tidal Wetlands
Permit Programs: 6 NYCRR Part
661 and 6 NYCRR Parts 663- 665,
respectively (these are two different
programs)
y The Protection of Waters Program:
6 NYCRR Part 608, which includes
rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds
y The Mined Land Reclamation
Program: 6 NYCRR Parts 420-425
– In New Jersey, the Stormwater
Permitting Rules (N.J.A.C. 7:14A) are
one component of NJ DEP’s Stormwater
Program, which issues New Jersey
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NJPDES) permits (similarly as in New
York, NJ DEP has authority to issue
NPDES permits required under the
CWA).124 Most permittees are required to
develop an SPPP describing a program
to meet water quality requirements.125
For construction activities, the SPPP
must include a certified soil erosion
and sediment control plan.126 Tier A
municipalities (those with a greater
impact on water quality)127 must exceed
the Statewide Basic Requirements
(SBRs) through additional water quality
ordinances, by implementing measures
to control solids and floatables, and by
minimizing pollution from municipal
maintenance yards [108,109].
– New Jersey’s Stormwater Management
Rules (N.J.A.C.7:8) are the second
component of its Stormwater Program.
These rules govern how municipalities
122. NYSDEC SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from MS4s, Permit No. GP-02-02.
123. For a complete list and details, please refer to NYS DEC [134].
124. Permits are also required for other discharges to surface water or groundwater, including discharges from swimming pools and from construction dewatering
(lowering the groundwater table), both of which require measures to reduce suspended solids.
125. Guidance materials are available from the NJ DEP Bureau of Nonpoint Pollution Control (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/msrp_home.htm).
126. Waste management is also required to prevent runoff contamination. The Industrial Stormwater Permitting Program is administered by NJ DEP in coordination
with the NJ Department of Agriculture and the State Soil Conservation Committee through local soil conservation districts, which issue general permits for
construction sites.
127. See tier assignment at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/images/tier_slide_clr.jpg.
48
regulate new development,128 provide the
basis for stormwater management plans
and the associated ordinances required by
the NJPDES,129 and lay the framework for
developing regional stormwater plans.130
Municipalities can choose to address storm
and/or combined sewers, and may also
regulate existing development [143]. These
rules also designate areas within 300 ft of
Category 1 waters131 and their upstream
tributaries within the same subwatershed
as Special Water Resource Protection
Areas (SWRPAs), which receive further
protection and are intended to act as
buffers.
– NJ DEP administers its Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Program, which
contains enforceable policies, including the
Coastal Zone Management rules (N.J.A.C.
7:7E), the Coastal Permit Program rules,
(N.J.A.C. 7:7), the Freshwater Wetlands
Protection Act rules, (N.J.A.C. 7:7A),
Stormwater Management rules, (N.J.A.C.
7:8), and NJPDES rules, (N.J.A.C. 7:14A,
Subchapters 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 18,
19, 20, 21, 24 and 25) [99,100].
– The NJ Soil Erosion and Sediment
Control Rules (NJAC 2:90-1)132 are
implemented by local soil and water
conservation districts and require all
construction sites > 5,000 ft2 to develop a
sediment and erosion control plan [106].
– The Flood Hazard Area Control Act Rules
regulate activities within floodplain and
riparian zones associated with a regulated
water area.
LONG-TERM CONTROL PLANS TO REDUCE CSOS
Long-term control plans (LTCPs) offer an opportunity to adopt stormwater source controls, but there is a
tendency to rely heavily on end-of-pipe engineering solutions. Reasons for this include (1) uncertainty of the
effectiveness of source controls, (2) barriers or lack of incentive in current regulations to implement source
control BMPs, and (3) the complexity of the system, where CSO operators do not have authority over stormwater requirements.
New York City’s plan to increase stormwater storage capacity involves collecting excess stormwater in
tanks for treatment after wet weather events [93]. It is estimated that this strategy will capture 75% of the
city’s CSOs, but will allow discharges of ~22 billion gallons/yr [13,93]. Provisions for source control may be
realized through the Mayor’s Sustainability Plan. The New York City Interagency BMP Task Force—part of
PLANYC—is currently working to identify the most suitable stormwater management BMPs, and is analyzing
ways to incorporate these BMPs into the design and construction of projects, both public and private, on a
citywide basis.
In NJ, municipalities have submitted cost-benefit analyses of CSO alternatives, which NJ DEP is currently
reviewing. Some municipalities are already separating their combined sewer systems (CSSs) and others are
considering whether stormwater storage or CSO disinfection—which requires prior removal of suspended
solids—would be more cost effective.1 Local groups, such as NY/NJ Baykeeper, are working closely with
communities and the NJ DEP to pilot test and promote the widespread implementation of various source
control BMPs.
1 D. Zeppenfeld, NJ DEP, (pers. comm., 2007).
128. New development disturbing ≥ 1 acres or increasing existing impervious surfaces by ≥ 1/4 acre must maintain predevelopment groundwater recharge volumes, implement runoff quality controls, and preserve buffer areas [144].
129. Stormwater management plans need to be consistent with any other existing water quality and quantity plans such as regional stormwater plans and TMDL
implementation plans, or be amended after such plans are adopted.
130. Regional stormwater plans allow specific issues to be addressed within watersheds, and need to be at least as protective as municipal SWMPs. Sandra Blick
(Stormwater Management Implementation Team, NJDEP Division of Watershed Management), personal communication, April 19, 2007.
131. Those providing drinking water, habitat for endangered species, or for recreational/commercial species.
132. Available at http://www.nj.gov/agriculture/divisions/anr/pdf/Rules2006.pdf.
49
– NJ DEP’s Statewide Nonpoint Source
Pollution Management Program
coordinates nonpoint source water
pollution control with U.S. EPA and with
other states, as well as with local programs
such as Coastal NPS implementation,
TMDLs, stormwater management,
stormwater permitting, land use
regulation, water quality management
planning, and water supply administration
[105].
A summary on how NYC and NJ are approaching
CSO control is provided in the box. CSO operators
also need to obtain an NJPDES or an SPDES permit,
and are required to implement measures to reduce
debris and floatables, which may decrease concentrations of fine particles133 [104,133].
Local Regulations
Municipalities have their own regulations, laws, and
ordinances that may directly or indirectly address suspended solids in runoff. For example, many municipal
ordinances include provisions for waterfront development, protection of steep slopes, wetland protection,
landscaping, and others, with the goal of minimizing erosion and protecting surface waters. Local law
should reflect NPDES program requirements134 [141].
New York City
– NYC Watershed Rules and Regulations
impose requirements in addition to those
of the SPDES Program for areas within
the NYC drinking water watershed.
These regulations address discharges
of stormwater and sediment, and the
construction of impervious surfaces,
among other activities. NYC is in the
process of modifying their watershed rules
and regulations.
– NYC’s plan to address CSOs and the role
of the Mayor’s Sustainability Plan are
summarized in the box.
In New York and New Jersey, each municipal-
ity develops its own master plans, as well as
zoning and subdivision regulations.
The Westchester County Department of Plan-
ning has compiled ordinance provisions within
the county [252], many of which relate to suspended solids.
The Local Waterfront Revitalization Program
(LWRP), coadministered by local entities, adds
local considerations to the Coastal Nonpoint
Source Pollution Control Program [134].
Green buildings and LEED certification
The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has a nationally accepted rating system for green building certification and professional accreditation: the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED.
Site selection and water management, as well as measures for soil erosion and sediment control, are evaluated during the certification process.135 The system
rewards measures to reduce water use, reduce runoff, and reuse rainfall and gray water.136 The LEED
system provides an incentive for developers to meet
and exceed regulatory requirements. Over 150 governments, including New York City, require LEED
certification for projects they fund.137
4.3. Gaps and Barriers to the Implementation
of Stormwater BMPs138
Options to address stormwater include engineering
measures (e.g., expanding the capacity of existing sewers by adding storage tanks), stormwater treatment
BMPs (e.g., vortex separators that reduce the amount
of suspended solids and oil/grease before discharging
stormwater to the sewer), and retention and infiltration
133. When debris accumulates on netting, it acts as a filter for smaller particles. Dan Zeppenfeld (PE, PP, NJ DEP, Division of Water Quality, Bureau of Financing
and Construction Permits), personal communication, March 5, 2007.
134. Sandra Blick (Stormwater Management Implementation Team, NJDEP Division of Watershed Management), personal communication, March 23, 2007.
135. Eugene Peck (scientist, URS Corp.), personal communication, November 27, 2007.
136. Ibid.
137. Ibid.
138. Preparation of this section was based on discussions with many individuals, to whom we are especially grateful: Atef Ahmed, PANYNJ; Lisa Auermueller,
Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve; Tom Belton, NJ DEP; Sandra Blick, NJ DEP; Charles Bontempo, RS Engineering; Daniel Bowman Simon, The Gaia Institute; Lawrence Brinker, NYC Builders Association; Elizabeth Butler, U.S. EPA Region 2; Carter Craft, Metropolitan Waterfront Alliance; Teresa Crimmens, Bronx River Alliance and Storm Water Infrastructure Matters (S.W.I.M.); Richard Dely, RS Engineering; Drew E. Dillingham, Roux Associates,
Inc.; Anthony DiLodovico, Schoor De Palma; Heather Dolland, Roux Associates, Inc.; Michelle Doran McBean, Future City, Inc.; Robert Doscher, Westchester
County Department of Planning/SWCD; Abbie Fair, ANJEC; Ellie Hanlon, Gowanus Dredgers Canoe Club; Simon Gruber, Orange County Water Authority;
Barbara Kendall, HREP; Maureen Krudner, U.S. EPA Region 2; Lily Lee, NYC DEP; Larry Levine, NRDC; Leslie Lipton, NYC DEP; Paul S. Mankiewicz, The Gaia
Institute; Brendan Manning, General Building Contractors of New York State; Peter Marcotullio, Hunter College, CUNY; Michael N. McBean, Future City, Inc.;
Brian McLendon, NJ DEP; Betsy McDonald, NY/NJ Baykeeper; Bridget McKenna, Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners; Craig Michaels, Riverkeeper, Inc.;
50
BMPs—often referred to as green BMPs—that minimize the amount of stormwater discharged to sewers.
It is generally acknowledged that engineering
measures may be needed to tackle stormwater issues,
especially in the context of complying with federal
requirements for CSO control.139 However, there is
widespread agreement in the NY/NJ Harbor region
on the need to emphasize addressing stormwater problems at the source. The U.S. EPA has recognized that
green infrastructure approaches are effective source
control measures to decrease stormwater volume and
prevent CSOs [229]. Several cities in the U.S. (Chicago, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Portland,
and Seattle) have adopted a hybrid approach acknowledging that end-of-pipe approaches alone would not
solve CSO problems [93].
The regulatory framework (summarized in the previous subsection) is complex and presents challenges
as well as opportunities to address stormwater issues
in our region. The main barriers to source control,
along with current initiatives and further suggestions
to overcome them, are described below.
Knowledge gaps
Some of the most significant knowledge gaps include
the following:
Perception of stormwater as waste
Stormwater has historically been regarded as waste by
both the authorities and the general public. Within
this mindset, cities have made every effort to provide
appropriate infrastructure to pipe stormwater away
from land as fast as possible. Most people share this
notion, driven by fear of water entering and damaging
their properties. This view is also commonly reflected
in local law requirements (see regulatory barriers and
gaps). However, this misperception of stormwater is
slowly starting to change, at least within certain circles.
There is growing awareness of the negative impacts of
this view, which include CSO discharges leading to
impaired waters, flooding, and streambank erosion.
These impacts are aggravated by increases in development, water use, and frequency of high-intensity rain
events.140 In addition, it is becoming clear that there
are many benefits to considering stormwater as a resource. Infiltration helps secure water supplies either
from groundwater or surface water,141 while retaining
suspended solids and pollutants in the soil. Stormwater and wastewater reuse decrease water demand and
the need for centralized water treatment. Vegetative
stormwater management practices beautify and enhance the livability of communities, provide cleaner
air, and decrease urban temperatures [229].
Education is needed at all levels to change the
present perception of stormwater as waste. Municipal officials—who ensure compliance with regulatory requirements, and are charged with passing and
enforcing ordinances—must understand the benefits
of this new perspective. A new view of being part of a
watershed could help convince individuals that each
of our actions has consequences. Thus, a proactive
approach is needed to avoid unwanted outcomes,
even if the effects are not apparent today.142 Any educational campaign—especially for the general population—should communicate these concepts clearly
and concisely, while suggesting measures that individuals can adopt to help address stormwater problems. Issuing advisories or reports in the local news
on the quality status of waters could serve to increase
public awareness.143 Meteorologists are particularly
Franco Montalto, Drexel University and eDesign Dynamics LLC; Tatiana Morin, NYC SWCD; Robert Nyman, U.S. EPA Region 2; Christopher Obropta, Rutgers
Cooperative Extension; James Olander, U.S. EPA Region 2; Gayle Pagano, Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority; Dave Palmer, New York Lawyers for
the Public Interest, Inc.; Eric Rothstein, eDesign Dynamics LLC; James Sadley, NJ State Soil Conservation Committee; Siddhartha Sanchez, Office of Congressman Jose E. Serrano; Paul Schiaritti, Mercer County SWCD; Basil Seggos, Riverkeeper, Inc.; Kate Shackford, BOEDC; Amy Shallcross, NJ Water Supply
Authority; Bill Sheehan, Hackensack Riverkeeper; Thomas Snow, NYS DEC; Carter Strickland, NYC Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability; Shino Tanikawa, NYC SWCD; Lauri Taylor, Putnam SWCD; Bhavika Vedawala, Future City, Inc.; Suzanne Young, NRDC; Brianna Wolf, NYC Mayor’s Office of Long-Term
Planning and Sustainability; Raymond Zabihach, Morris County Planning Board; Sebastian Zacharias, NYS DEC Region 2; Daniel Zeppenfeld, NJ DEP.
139. For example, in NJ, state plans often send development to already developed areas. While this avoids sprawl and its various negative impacts, many of these
areas have antiquated sewers that can barely handle current use. One possible solution for these older sewer systems is to add capacity and build a system
of gates and dams that allows movement of water to sections of the system that are not overwhelmed.
140. Throughout the Northeast, it is predicted that climate change caused by global warming will result in a higher frequency of high-intensity rain events and an
increase in precipitation in winter (in place of snowfall) [47]. In addition, the degree of expected sea level rise in the NYC metropolitan area (4.3–11.7 inches
by the 2020s, with further increases thereafter) would result in more damaging floods [25]. For example, the probability of a ‘100-year flood’ is predicted to
increase to once in 43 to 80 years by 2020 [25]. A recent study by the Metropolitan Transportation Agency (MTA), NYS DEC, and Columbia University’s Center for Climate Systems Research (CCSR) assessed the likelihood of experiencing severe storms and flooding in the near future [82]. The report found some
indication that the frequency of intense rain events leading to flooding has increased since 1990, and is expected to keep increasing in the NY Metropolitan
region, although longer term monitoring is needed to rule out natural variation [82].
141. It has been shown that most water in reservoirs is recharged via groundwater flow. Paul S. Mankiewicz (executive director, The Gaia Institute), personal communication, September 12, 2007.
142. There may be lessons to learn from approaches to educating people on climate change.
143. The Philadelphia Water Department, with funding from U.S. EPA, created the “Rivercast” web site (http://www.phillyrivercast.org/), which provides a daily
forecast of water quality for the Schuylkill River.
51
well positioned to educate the public about local environmental issues and to emphasize the close link
between weather and the environment, because they
are trusted public figures who reach large audiences
[35,89].144 Given the national impact of this problem, a coast-to-coast campaign on nonpoint sources
of stormwater pollution could be more effective in
reaching the general population. A recent survey
in Brooklyn suggests that people are interested in
learning more about this topic and participating in
solutions. Groups such as the Association of NJ Environmental Commissioners (ANJEC) are already
playing a role in educating both local officials and
the general public.
Recommendations
Educate municipal board and commission
members and staff on the need to view stormwater within the larger picture of the water
cycle, change the paradigm of stormwater as
waste, and find ways to utilize this resource.
Educate the general public and municipal of-
ficials on the consequences of our current land
use and stormwater management decisions,
and possible alternatives.
For the above-mentioned topics, consider na-
tionwide educational campaigns for problems
that are common to all communities, and local
ones for community-specific problems and
solutions.
Air daily reports in different media on the
quality status of local surface waters.
Educate and utilize meteorologists to reach out
to individuals on actions with which they can
positively impact the quality of their stormwater (e.g., conserving water, installing rain
barrels)
Insufficient knowledge about the performance
of BMPs
In choosing an alternative feature (e.g., green roofs,
porous pavement), property owners desire demonstrated acceptable performance. Before implementing
a given BMP, municipalities and permit holders must
determine whether the proposed practices will help
meet regulatory requirements and achieve local goals
(e.g., reduction in stormwater quantity, improvement
of stormwater and surface water quality). This issue
is also crucial for TMDLs when determining and enforcing loads and source allocation. A related concern
is whether increased reliance on stormwater infiltration BMPs may result in pollutant loads to groundwater. Highly developed urban areas present a greater
potential for polluted runoff from hard surfaces, and
typically have a larger occurrence of sites with contaminated soil (e.g., brownfields), which could negatively impact groundwater. These concerns are linked
to the absence in urban settings of plants and ecosystems that normally retain and/or degrade these pollutants.
Although information is available for several BMPs,
some are relatively new and data on their effectiveness
are limited. Others have been applied successfully in
other regions [93] but some stakeholders are uncertain about their local applicability. Specific local conditions that may limit the use of some BMPs include
widespread disturbance and lower quality of soils in
urbanized areas (e.g., compaction; absence of the fertile, organic matter–rich top layer; added fill materials); shallowness of bedrock in some areas of NYC; local rain patterns that include short and intense rain
events, as opposed to evenly distributed precipitation;
below-freezing temperatures, which present additional challenges;145 the hydrology of urban watersheds,
which is more complex than in traditional watersheds;
and the effects of high-density roads, pipes, and other
infrastructure.
Several groups have been working on evaluating
BMP effectiveness and applicability to this region:
For a BMP to be considered for inclusion in
the NYS DEC Stormwater Design Manual, it
must meet water quality goals and strict testing protocols.146 The manual includes a summary of some suggested design modifications
that address primary concerns for individual
BMPs in cold climates. Sizing examples are also
included.
144. The National Environmental Education and Training Foundation and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have begun a weathercaster outreach program (Earth Gauge). Earth Gauge provides tools and training to broadcast meteorologists to cover and communicate basic environmental information to their
viewers [88] (see http://www.earthgauge.net). This web site offers some information on CSOs (http://www.earthgauge.net/wp/category/environmentaltopics/water-quality/combined-sewer-overflow).
145. A publication by the Center for Watershed Protection gathered information on current BMPs in cold climates, evaluated challenges, and suggested recommendations for BMP use in cold regions [20].
146. Criteria include the following: the BMP must be monitored in the field (not in a lab) in at least two locations, with each practice sampled at least five times;
the studies may not be conducted by the vendor or designer; the practice must have been in the ground for at least one year at the time of monitoring; and at
least one storm event in each study must be greater than the 90% storm event for the location (NYS DEC Stormwater Design Manual, section 5.3 [136]).
52
NJ DEP is developing a list of certified tech-
nologies for stormwater management (most
certifications are currently interim) [98]. The
NJ Corporation for Advanced Technology
(NJCAT)147 verifies the claims of BMP performance based on data from lab and/or field testing. NJ DEP evaluates the verification issued
by NJCAT and establishes the removal rate for
which the BMP is certified for use in NJ.148
Drexel University in the Bronx is currently devel-
oping a method to simulate the impacts of widescale implementation of decentralized LID technologies on CSO abatement and water quality.150
The Stormwater Center of the University of
New Hampshire has been testing BMP performance in the Northeast since 1997.151
The Center for Watershed Protection is a
nonprofit corporation that provides technical
tools for surface water protection, taking into
account the many aspects of watersheds. The
Center has been actively involved in innovative
BMP research, as well as in the dissemination
of available tools through numerous reports,
presentations, and other resources.152
NJ regulations require that every development
assess whether infiltration could affect groundwater. NJ is currently working on guidance for the
developing community and to determine if and
what additional soil tests may be necessary. The
Groundwater Committee of the NJ section of the
American Water Resources Association is working with consultants, academia, municipal officials, and engineers on how to avoid impacting
groundwater when applying infiltration practices.
NY/NJ Baykeeper and eDesign Dynamics LLC
(a consulting firm) are piloting BMPs in New
Jersey in Newark and Bayonne.
NSF International153 and U.S. EPA are verify-
ing several new technologies through the Environmental Technology Verification Pilots.154
Recommendations
Support efforts to characterize BMP perfor-
mance in our region and keep abreast of studies under similar conditions.155
In NYC, the Mayor’s Office of Long-Term Plan-
ning and Sustainability has launched a BMP
Task Force that is evaluating the applicability
and performance of several BMPs through
data-gathering and pilot projects.
NYSDOT completed a study of manufactured
stormwater management practices to provide a
literature review evaluating various stormwater
runoff treatment systems and technologies; laboratory tests of catch basin insert technologies and
field tests of catch basin inserts and water quality
inlets; and a generic protocol for evaluating treatment systems to be used in future projects [66].149
Develop local performance standards for BMPs.156
Rely more on green solutions to re-establish
higher quality soil and the biota needed to
replenish the water table with clean water.
To ensure adequate operation, support and
consider requiring continuing education and
training for design engineers, field inspectors,
regulatory agencies, and onsite construction
workers on proper BMP design, installation,
maintenance, and protection during construction.157
147. NJCAT is a private/public partnership that includes business and industry, academia, and government working to promote the development and commercialization of new energy and environmental technologies [117].
148. Sandra Blick (Stormwater Management Implementation Team, NJ DEP Division of Watershed Management), personal communication, December 4, 2007
149. Drew E. Dillingham (Roux Associates, Inc.), personal communication, October 31, 2007.
150. Franco Montalto ( Drexel University), personal communication, December 10, 2007.
151. See http://ciceet.unh.edu/about/about_ciceet_who.html.
152. See http://www.cwp.org/. Many specific resources on BMPs for land development and construction activities are cited in Section 3.3 of this report.
153. A not-for-profit, nongovernmental organization that focuses on standards development, product certification, education, and risk management for public
health and safety.
154. http://www.nsf.org/business/water_quality_protection_center/index.asp?program=WaterQuaProCen
155. There are several resources currently available, including U.S. EPA’s Green Infrastructure web site (http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=298)
and Resource List for Stormwater Management Programs [226], the International Stormwater BMP Database (www.bmpdatabase.org), local and statewide
stormwater design manuals (many are cited elsewhere in this report), and numerous resources on better site design listed in Section 3.3 of this report.
156. See previous footnote.
157. Several education programs for these types of personnel are currently available, including seminars, conferences and webcasts provided by the American
Public Works Association; the Center for Watershed Protection; Certified Professionals in Erosion and Sediment Control, Inc.; the International Erosion Control Association (IECA); SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry; NYS DEC; and U.S. EPA. (For further information, see http://www.dec.ny.gov/
chemical/8699.html.) Other resources for education, training, and information include the Erosion Control Technology Council (http://www.ectc.org/education.asp) and Dirt Time (a TV show on erosion and sediment control BMPs, see http://www.dirttimetv.com/main.sc).
53
Require better supervision and monitoring
of projects before, during, and—for a limited
period—after construction.158
Increase the number of regulatory field en-
forcement personnel and/or supplement with
contracted consultants159; increase regulatory
enforcement.
Insufficient knowledge of regulations by
enforcing officials
It is not uncommon for municipalities to go through
the process of approving ordinances without fully
understanding and discussing their contents—NJ
DEP and NY DEC provide templates for local law or
ordinances. This can lead to a lack of enforcement
because the ordinances are often outside the knowledge base of officials and inspectors.160 Regulatory
authorities may be notified by environmental and
other local action groups that perceive that their municipalities are not fully or properly complying with
all requirements.
NJ DEP and NYS DEC (through external resources)
periodically conduct workshops for municipalities to
educate local officials about stormwater regulations,
deadlines, and related issues, and to address their
questions and concerns. However, not all municipal
officials attend these meetings, and this audience is
obviously very hard to reach. Currently in NJ, all new
planning or zoning board members are required to
attend five hours of training, which may include a
stormwater management component.
Recommendations
Include or require stormwater management
training of both the general public and of local
planning and zoning board members. This
training could be incorporated into MS4 permit development. An educated population can
better oversee their local officials.
Regulatory barriers and gaps
Nonpoint sources: new development,
redevelopment, and existing development
Regulations address direct pollutant discharges to
separate sewer systems, but do not address nonpoint
source (NPS) discharges, discharges to a combined
sewer system, or discharges from storm sewers that are
not part of a municipal system (e.g., direct discharges
from shopping centers or strip malls to surface waters161). Much of this relates to stormwater runoff from
existing development.
Current regulations address new development and
redevelopment, although NJ DEP redevelopment requirements are typically not as stringent as those for
new development. NYS DEC provides incentives for
development to reduce the preconstruction impervious area. The current regulations serve to avoid the
intensification of stormwater issues. However, no improvements can be realized (both in terms of stormwater quality and quantity) without addressing existing development.162 This is a major challenge in our
region because the NY/NJ Harbor is surrounded by a
highly developed metropolitan area. Retrofitting and
watershed revitalization would require targeting substantial areas and changes to housekeeping and other
routines by property owners.
Many groups and initiatives are involved in trying
to find ways to promote and incorporate stormwater
BMPs into existing development. In NYC, the goal
of the Storm Water Infrastructure Matters (S.W.I.M.)
Coalition is to ensure that waters around the City are
suitable for primary contact (i.e., swimming), through
sustainable stormwater management practices. The
Gaia Institute has completed several green stormwater
control projects within the NY/NJ/CT area. The NYC
Mayor’s PLANYC is ambitious and includes planting a million street trees over the next few years, the
construction of green parking lots, and green roofs
as well as other stormwater source control practices.
158. This has begun in NY State because of redevelopment incentives and increased enforcement efforts. Drew E. Dillingham (Roux Associates, Inc.), personal
communication, October 31, 2007.
159. Florida has adopted this approach of supplementing inspections by state employees with inspections by private consultants under state contracts. Currently,
some NYS DEC regions are seriously understaffed, and inspectors do not investigate retroactive violations in conjunction with current violations. Drew E.
Dillingham (Roux Associates, Inc.) personal communication, October 31, 2007.
160. As an example, NJ regulations require 300-ft buffers in land adjacent to Category 1 waterbodies (see section on regulations). Because of lack of knowledge
by local governments, some developers are able to obtain local permits and start building without applying for a permit from NJ DEP. If these situations come
to light, lawsuits follow.
161. Because these sites do not discharge to an MS4, illicit discharge detection and elimination investigations, which are part of the MS4 permitting process, will
not address these discharges.
162. Current development is partly addressed by the first three steps of the MS4 permitting process—public education and outreach, public participation/involvement, and illicit discharge detection and elimination—by requiring municipalities to implement practices such as street sweeping, catch basin cleaning, and
halting stream erosion caused by stormwater outfalls. Redevelopment typically occurs in areas that have virtually no vacant land, such as New York City, and
is characterized by replacing existing development. Retrofitting is dependent on voluntary measures. NJ Stormwater Management Rules provide opportunities for retrofitting when a new development cannot comply with all stormwater requirements due to space constraints. In such cases, and to mitigate their
water quality impacts, developers must implement or fund appropriate measures in another site within the same drainage area.
54
In NJ, NY/NJ Baykeeper has been working with NJ
DEP to induce stormwater control, including LID. NJ
DEP is considering ways to incorporate requirements
for source control measures at the state level. A recent
publication by the Center for Watershed Protection
provides strategies and options for retrofit projects,
and may be a valuable resource for our region [164].
Recommendations
Strengthen rules so that all requirements for
new development apply to redevelopment.
Provide incentives or subsidies for owners to
implement sustainable BMPs on their properties.
Consider the development of stormwater utili-
ties,163 which provide mechanisms to address
existing development while generating a pool
of dedicated funds for implementation of a
variety of measures. Stormwater utilities can
also provide incentives to property owners to
decrease their stormwater runoff,164 and can
implement a variety of projects addressing
existing development.165
Develop regional stormwater management
plans, in which municipalities work together
to restore and protect surface waters that are
common to and valued by multiple towns.
Cleanup of contaminated sites
Current cleanup standards focus on soil and groundwater contamination, but do not target stormwater
runoff. There is no legal mechanism to address discharges of contaminated runoff to storm sewer systems from former contaminated sites. The U.S. EPA
is currently evaluating whether cleanup standards
should be developed for stormwater runoff from Superfund sites, and is also working to ensure that TMDLs are compatible with the Superfund framework.
This is a challenge because the corresponding sets of
regulations have different goals.
Recommendations
Continue current efforts to develop cleanup
standards that adequately protect stormwater
quality.
Require due diligence for identification of
formerly contaminated sites in redevelopment
regulations and/or require regulations to address stormwater contaminant levels based on
receiving waters.
Barriers in local regulations
Local law (e.g., building and zoning codes) may
prevent or discourage the implementation of certain BMPs. For example, NYC zoning codes currently do not limit the area and imperviousness of
driveways and parking lots.166 The NYC building
code167 currently requires that stormwater drainage on private property be routed into the city
sewer system in most cases. Most of these requirements are also codified in local laws adopted by the
City Council.
Current efforts to address this issue include NRDC’s
development of a checklist to identify legal barriers
in local regulations [92], and the Mayor’s BMP Task
Force, which is identifying provisions in City codes
that do not allow BMPs and determining what revisions would be needed.
Recommendation
Support efforts that will simplify local
regulations and encourage better stormwater
management.
Economic barriers
Implementing BMPs at the scale needed to influence water quality for the Harbor Watershed also
presents an economic challenge. Although municipalities tend to agree that stormwater permits
are necessary, most do not have sufficient funds
to implement and enforce them. Existing development owners are reluctant to invest in retrofitting
or adding new features—such as rain harvesting—
to their properties. One common concern is higher
maintenance costs. Developing comprehensive cost
estimates for source controls is a complex task but
would help identify viable alternative stormwater
management practices.
Many groups conducting pilot tests of several BMPs
are gathering data to evaluate the economic feasibility
163. Homeowners, businesses, and other users of this utility are charged a fee for a service (i.e., stormwater management). Stormwater utilities are already
functioning in states such as Florida, Washington, Oregon, and California [64].
164. Stormwater utilities identify the actions needed to address existing stormwater problems and develop an action plan. The fees collected by the utility are
used to implement these actions. A reduction in their stormwater utility fees is an incentive for property owners to take steps to decrease stormwater runoff.
165. Stormwater utility plans are reviewed periodically and could include retrofitting of existing property as part of their goals.
166. This code currently does not require the use of porous pavements, increased tree planting, and perimeter landscaping, or regulate the amount of pervious
surface that must be retained on private development.
167. N.Y.C. Building Code RS 16 p.110 2(b).
55
of these practices.168 According to some of these evaluations,169 certain BMPs can be more cost-beneficial
than conventional engineering approaches. All potential economic gains of BMPs should be considered
when conducting cost-benefit analyses. For example,
BMPs that rely on vegetation can lead to energy and
medical cost savings by reducing temperatures (and
thus the incidence of heat waves and the need for air
conditioning) and by providing cleaner air (e.g., resulting in lower asthma incidence). In addition, these
BMPs can increase property values by providing
green spaces.170
Recommendations
Consider stormwater utilities as a possible
source of dedicated funds to implement BMPs
widely.
Continue gathering data on the economic feasi-
bility of implementing source control BMPs.
Consider the full range of costs and benefits
when performing these analyses.
Increase state and local funding for enforcing
stormwater regulations (adequate number of
staff and training).
Coordination and communication barriers
Integration among parties
The coordinated efforts of many parties are needed
to implement source control BMPs for existing and
new development. This includes federal, state, and local agencies with authority over land use, planning,
development, design, health, environmental issues,
transportation, parks, and public works. A key factor
in these coordinated efforts is timing, because practices need to be adopted within a time frame that allows
regulated entities to meet their legal requirements.
This is an important issue because of the many obstacles to be addressed before widespread adoption of
decentralized BMPs is possible.
The NYC Interagency BMP Task Force is uniting
federal, state, and local agencies to identify and assess
the most suitable BMPs for the City and to find means
of facilitating these measures. NJ DEP has been hold-
ing meetings with environmental groups and promoters of green technologies to explore integration of
these solutions on a statewide level.
Recommendations
Continue and expand current efforts to unite
all subject parties in finding and implementing
the most beneficial and comprehensive solutions to stormwater and water quality issues
Assign clearly defined roles and responsibilities
to municipal agencies, and hold these agencies accountable for making timely progress
towards achieving measurable goals of water
quality improvement
Integration among regulations
In NY, communities often struggle to comply with different regulations and requirements of federal, state
and local authorities (e.g., NYC Watershed Rules and
Regulations affect municipalities outside of the City).
Similarly, developers must crystallize applicable regulations from several agencies while confronted with a
lack of coordination. NYS DEC has worked with NYC
DEP to make SPDES and NYC Watershed Rules as
consistent as possible. NYC is about to modify their
Watershed Rules and Regulations, while NYS will renew MS4 and general construction permits in 2008.
NYC DEP has also been coordinating with the state
and with U.S. EPA, and will open this process to the
public in the future. The NYC Builders Association
has been reaching out to NYC DEP, NYS DEC, and
other agencies, and is encouraging ongoing discussions with the Association’s membership to facilitate
conflict resolution with different regulatory agencies
and compliance by the construction sector.
Recommendations
Support current efforts toward greater integra-
tion and consistency between federal, state, and
local regulations.
Consider instituting formal discussion forums
for municipalities, the construction sector, and
other involved parties to interact with regulatory agencies, with the goal of addressing issues
168. These include the Mayor’s BMP Task Force and NY/NJ Baykeeper in conjunction with eDesign Dynamics, LLC. Section 9.5 of the NYS DEC Stormwater Design
Manual [136] provides costs of green BMPs.
169. These include several case studies throughout the U.S. summarized in NRDC’s publication, “Rooftops to Rivers” [93]. A local effort involved pilot tests in
Brooklyn by eDesignDynamics, LLC: using a model, it was found that a decentralized approach to reduce CSOs using porous pavements, green roofs, and
rainwater harvesting features potentially represent a cost-effective approach over a wide range of performance and cost scenarios [86].
170. Among efforts currently underway are assessments of the economic benefits of urban trees (e.g., in terms of water quality, air quality) by PLANYC (http://
www.milliontreesnyc.org/html/urban_forest/urban_forest_benefits.shtml) and CaseyTrees (http://www.caseytrees.org/resources/index.html#dctrees)
Casey Trees has also modeled the benefits of trees and green roofs (http://www.caseytrees.org/programs/planning-design/gbo.html).
56
encountered when trying to comply with multiple regulations.
Communication between engineers and builders
There is lack of effective communication between
engineers designing soil erosion control plans and
contractors implementing these plans. The General
Building Contractors of New York State has been
conducting outreach to engineers and building contractors through training and education in order to
improve communication and thus enable proper installation and maintenance of BMPs at construction
sites.
Recommendations
Expand current efforts to make educational
opportunities more available statewide to both
contractors and engineers.
Engage other local builder and contractor
associations in informing their members of
these issues, and creating and/or disseminating
educational materials.
57
APPENDIX A. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS FOR SUSPENDED SOLIDS
Soil is a complex natural body composed of minerals,
organic matter, and biota, in which plants can grow. The
formation of soil is a very slow process that takes place
over millennia. It begins when rocks are weathered into
mineral particles. Organisms of increasing complexity settle in this material and contribute organic matter
through their secretions and when they die and decay.
Organic matter, fungi, and roots help give soil its structure: particles stick together, forming aggregates with
pores that facilitate the movement of gases and water
needed for the survival of soil organisms.
Consequences of soil erosion. Because erosion removes topsoil—rich in organic matter and nutrients—
it decreases the soil’s capacity to sustain life, leading to
soil degradation and, if left unchecked, to desertification. Some amount of erosion is unavoidable and a necessary component of natural cycles.171 However, while
natural erosion is a very slow process that is typically
countered by new soil formation, human activities can
greatly accelerate it. This may cause the irreversible
loss of productive soil and the mobilization of larger
amounts of sediments than natural ecosystems can accommodate, with a wide range of adverse effects (see
Section 1.2 on impacts of suspended solids). Activities
that remove or diminish vegetation cover expose soil
to the erosive action of wind and water. Soil erodibility is increased further by soil disturbance, including
traffic by heavy machinery; grazing animals; and agricultural operations such as tilling.
1. Rain erosivity depends on rainfall intensity
and raindrop size. The greater the intensity of
the impact of raindrops on the soil surface (i.e.,
the energy it conveys to the soil), the greater
their ability to perturb the soil structure and
detach its particles.
2. Soil properties (particle size, mineral composition, organic matter, porosity) determine its
erodibility. For example, organic matter acts as
glue, keeping soil particles together, decreasing detachment by wind or water, and creating pores that facilitate water infiltration and
decrease runoff. Therefore, maintaining soil
health (e.g., avoiding organic matter depletion)
can help minimize soil erosion.
3. Topography: Steep and long slopes allow runoff to accelerate, gaining energy to detach and
carry more and larger particles over longer
distances. Hence, some options to curb soil
runoff focus on protecting steep slopes, leveling terrain, or shortening slope length.
TYPES OF SOIL EROSION
4. Surface cover such as vegetation, plant litter, or
geotextiles attenuates the erosive power of rain
and wind by receiving their impact in place of
the soil and by slowing down runoff on slopes.
In addition, plant roots secrete organic compounds that help sustain a healthy biota and
contribute additional organic matter as plants
die and decay, generally improving soil properties and structure.
Sheet erosion is the uniform removal of thin soil layers by a fairly uniform sheet of water flowing over the
land surface [58]. More typically, runoff concentrates
in narrow channels and leads to rill erosion [58]. As
rills become deeper and wider, the process turns first
into channel erosion, and then gully erosion [58,186].
Erosion from concentrated overland flow is more severe than sheet erosion.
5. Ground surface properties: Impervious surfaces—such as asphalt—do not allow any water
infiltration and result in increased runoff that
has more potential to move any solids in its way
(whether soil further down its path, riverbanks,
or various particles deposited on the impervious surfaces). Measures to keep surfaces pervious thus decrease erosion.
FACTORS AFFECTING SOIL EROSION
Understanding the mechanisms behind soil erosion
is useful to identify the main activities or conditions
leading to the mobilization of suspended solids in
runoff and, thus, options to prevent it. The amount
of soil carried by runoff depends on several interconnected factors, including the following:
171. For example, sediments in rivers, which provide habitat and nutrients to aquatic ecosystems, originate from eroded particles [40].
APPENDIX A. ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS FOR SUSPENDED SOLIDS
59
APPENDIX B. DETAILED RESULTS,
BY SOURCE
B.1. Streambank Erosion
According to our estimates—and apart from coastal
erosion and mill dam sediments—streambank erosion is the single largest source of suspended solids
to surface waters in our region, contributing an average of ~54% of the total sediment yield. These values,
along with total sediment yield in the Watershed, are
summarized in Table 5. The discrepancy between total sediment yield shown in Table 5 and that shown
in Table 2 is the result of adding sources of particles
not accounted for by GWLF (i.e., streambank erosion
and road abrasives), adding wind erosion, and adjusting erosion and sediment yield estimates provided by
GWLF (see explanation in summary of loadings by
activities, Section 2.2.2). Our estimates of streambank
erosion for basins draining into the Hudson River
(~300,000 T/yr)172 are consistent with current measurements of suspended solids loads from the Hudson
(~737,000 T/yr).173 Estimates of streambank erosion
in NY in the 1970s (~2,000,000 T/yr for the Hudson
and Mohawk basins [197]) were almost one order of
magnitude higher than, and thus inconsistent with,
current observations.
Streambanks are eroded by flowing water. This erosion may occur laterally and may include the collapse
of banks. In addition, streams may also erode their
beds, deepening their channels and changing the
stream dynamics.174 Estimates in this report consider
only lateral erosion. Excessive erosion occurs when a
stream adjusts to increased flows or other perturbations to regain a stable size and pattern [174]. Flow increases may occur because of changes in land use that
increase the volume of surface runoff (i.e., the peak
discharge increases175) at the expense of water infiltration, such as replacing forests with agricultural land
or generally increasing the extent of impervious surfaces [76,174]. In areas with high permeability soils,
most water infiltrates the soil and reaches streams via
groundwater. The resulting delay between rainfall or
snowmelt and increases in stream flows makes these
Table 5. Streambank erosion and total sediment yield in the Watershed
Basin
Sacandaga
Mohawk
Schoharie
Upper Hudson
Hudson-Hoosic
Mid-Hudson
Hudson-Wappinger
Lower Hudson
Queens-Kings
Staten Island
Rondout
Hackensack-Passaic
Raritan
Sandy Hook
Total Watershed
Total Region 1 c
River milesa
Streambank erosiona
1,921
5,123
1,695
2,990
3,680
4,813
1,916
3,750
60
9
2,464
2,139
3,157
795
11,091
67,888
15,583
20,958
41,783
88,191
36,133
73,535
1,123
7
25,223
70,509
56,311
12,733
24,276
150,025
62,575
40,493
83,190
150,366
70,032
88,720
7,016
2,660
63,236
100,346
96,647
24,009
34,511
6,753
521,069
157,908
963,598
193,286
Total sediment yield (T/yr) b
a From GWLF and AVGWLF runs for the Watershed.
b From all land covers and all activities, including wind erosion, plus streambank erosion.
c Includes Lower Hudson, Staten Island, Queens-Kings, Hackensack-Passaic, and Sandy Hook basins (therefore, this area does not exactly coincide with what we
define as Region 1; see Section 2.1 on methodology).
172. Sacandaga, Mohawk, Schoharie, Rondout, Upper and Middle Hudson, Hudson-Hoosic, and Hudson-Wappinger basins combined (see Table 5 and Fig. 4).
173. Measured at Poughkeepsie, NY. Gary Wall (USGS), personal communication, February 2, 2007. Note that these numbers are not directly comparable (see
discussion in the Overall Summary).
174. Eugene Peck (scientist, URS Corp.), personal communication, November 27, 2007.
175. Peak discharge is the rate of discharge of a volume of water passing a given location.
60
changes less sudden, with less dramatic effects on
streambank erosion. On the other hand, as permeability decreases, larger volumes of water reach waterbodies directly from runoff with virtually no delay
(i.e., the time of concentration176 decreases) and great
increases in streambank erosion. Stream perturbations include narrowing, widening, straightening,177
improperly designed bridges, removal of streambank
vegetation, and grazing178 [174,260]. It has been estimated that streambank erosion contributes 17% to
92% of the total amount of suspended sediments entering a stream. Streams in highly urbanized areas
tend to contribute a greater proportion of sediments
than those in agricultural areas, where soil erosion
plays a greater role [44]. This holds true in our region
as well (Table 5).
Ideally, streambank erosion is assessed in the field
by directly observing the lateral recession of the bank
(usually by inserting stakes or pins perpendicular to
the bank) and the area of the eroding surface after a
storm event [196]. However, assessing streambank erosion directly is a time-consuming process, and only a
limited extent of streams can be surveyed. Most local
organizations have no or limited resources to undertake such a task and, thus, have not generally been
involved in streambank erosion assessment, although
many have played a role in restoration efforts (see section on BMPs for streambank erosion). Models provide
an alternative way to estimate streambank erosion in
large areas (e.g., whole watersheds), although they
may not be appropriate to assess a particular stretch
of a river. AVGWLF calculates the lateral erosion rate
(LER)179 in streams as a function of the mean monthly
stream flow (Q)180:
LER = a x Q0.6
where a is the “erosion potential” factor, which is related to watershed characteristics [44]. Evans et al.
[44] found that the erosion potential is best expressed
as a linear function of the percentage of developed
land, animal density, area-weighted curve number,181
area-weighted soil erodibility, and mean topographic
slope. According to this model, apart from soil erodibility, the main factors affecting streambank erosion
are the extent of land development and the density
of animals in the area. Note that this model does not
take into account morphological features of streams
that may influence erosion.
Streambank erosion is highly variable and episodic:
banks may experience virtually no erosion for years,
then lose several feet in a single major storm [196].
Thus, it is very difficult to estimate a meaningful average annual erosion rate for any given streambank
section, even if it has been observed directly, and it is
even more difficult when rates measured at a limited
number of locations are extrapolated to entire streams
or regions.
B.2. Agriculture
Agriculture is the second contributor of suspended
solids to the Watershed, but it is a negligible contributor in Region 1. Agricultural activities include crop
and livestock production, which can greatly affect soil
cover and its properties, increasing soil loss and sediment yield. It has been estimated that 3% to 10% of
soil eroded from croplands eventually reaches surface
waters [155]. The GWLF model estimates this amount
to be ~4% for our region (Table 6). Based on the 2003
NRCS National Resources Inventory, it was assumed
that no wind erosion takes place in agricultural land
in the Watershed [192].
B.2.1. Crop Land
Crop production relies on clearing land of native vegetation and cultivating selected plant species, typically diminishing the vegetative soil cover. In particular, row crops such as corn tend to leave bare soil
between rows. Many conventional cropping practices
such as tillage, harvesting, and machinery traffic (e.g.,
to apply fertilizers and biocides) disturb soils.182 Agricultural soils often remain bare for variable periods after harvesting and before the growth of a new
crop, increasing soil erosion. In addition, crop activities may compact the soil and decrease its permeability, increasing runoff and the potential for land and
streambank erosion.
176. The time it takes for water to travel from one point in a watershed to another.
177. The presence of meanders (curves) in streams reduces the erosive power of water. When streams are channelized, water flows faster and the erosive power
moves downstream of the channel [177].
178. If animals have access to the banks, they can remove some of the protecting vegetation and further damage the banks and surrounding areas as a result of
their traffic.
179. The LER (in m/yr) can be converted to T/yr using the soil density (assumed to be 1.5 T/m3 in our region [44]).
180. Q (in m3/sec) is estimated by AVGWLF/GWLF based on a water balance for the area in question.
181. This is a measure of runoff properties for a particular soil and ground cover.
182. Alternative practices such as no-till agriculture are addressed in Section 3 of this report.
APPENDIX B. DETAILED RESULTS, BY SOURCE
61
B.2.2. Livestock Production: Grazing/
Pastures
B.3. Land Development and Construction
Activities
Grazing animals remove or diminish the vegetative
cover as they feed, leaving soils vulnerable to erosion.
Animal traffic disturbs and compacts the soil, decreasing its permeability, and increasing runoff and
the susceptibility to erosion. In addition, animals are
attracted to waterbodies as sources of water and can
damage their banks, increasing streambank erosion
and pollutant loads from manure. Animals can graze
in pastures (specifically cropped for grazing) or ranges (areas of natural vegetation used for grazing).
Table 6 shows the extent of areas devoted to crop, pasture or hay production, and grasslands,183 along with
GWLF estimates of soil erosion and sediment yield. Other
tools, such as RUSLE2 and WEPP, are more appropriate
to estimate erosion at individual agricultural fields.
Construction sites are the third largest contributor
of suspended solids in the Watershed and the second
largest in Region 1. Developed land itself is an important source of sediments in Region 1 (Fig. 6 and
Table 3) and an underlying cause of streambank erosion (see Section B.1).
B.3.1. Construction sites
Construction activities greatly disturb the soil surface,
leaving soils exposed for variable periods. Soil is purposely excavated, moved, and compacted, while heavy
machinery traffic damages it and mobilizes sediments.
Construction sites result in the greatest rates of soil
loss per unit area (see Table 3), but the disturbance is
transient (it lasts only as long as the construction pe-
TABLE 6. Erosion and sediment yield from agricultural areas in the Watershed
Erosiond
Agriculture
Croplanda
Basin
Grazing
landb
-----------------------Acres----------------------
Sacandaga
Mohawk
Schoharie
Upper Hudson
Hudson-Hoosic
Mid-Hudson
Hudson-Wappinger
Lower Hudson
Queens-Kings
Staten Island
Rondout
Hackensack-Passaic
Raritan
Sandy Hook
2,696
169,199
31,527
2118
82,373
66,099
28,325
1,119
–
1,567
85,165
8,982
122,957
10,821
Total
612,949
252,428
4,291
346
Region 1
e
Other
grasslandc
4,974
2,281
62,983
202,962
24,586
65,449
2,078
–
27,948 145,304
49,232 153,984
22,311
46,409
3,214
11,596
–
334
3
259
22,238
49,353
5,697
2,398
23,259
33,080
3,906
2,418
Agriculture
Sediment yieldd
Other
grassland
Agriculture
Other
grassland
-----------------------------T/yr----------------------------8,733
1,227,272
497,778
19,121
251,708
368,326
302,639
6,502
–
426
367,587
36,519
268,288
12,662
1,234
160,176
149,398
–
117,280
160,639
40,675
5,616
45
7
52,468
3,244
7,216
317
367
53,865
21,902
707
11,075
14,924
13,316
312
–
17
17,715
2,106
11,268
912
52
6,840
6,574
–
5,160
6,583
1,790
270
4
0
2,361
215
303
23
715,826
3,367,561
698,314
148,487
30,173
2294
9,824
977
526
62
a Computed by AVGWLF software, based on the 2001 National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD).
b Land used for pasture and grazing from the 2002 Census of Agriculture [190,191] (original data by county).
c Difference between various grasslands (AVGWLF, based on 2001 NLCD) and grazing land from the Census of Agriculture. Areas assumed to be disturbed by
logging were also subtracted (see section on logging).
d Computed by AVGWLF. For grasslands, erosion and sediment yield were assigned to grazing land or other grassland in proportion to acreage.
e Estimated based on agricultural land acreage in Region 1 counties, applying mean erosion and sediment yield rates for basins surrounding the Watershed.
183. The methods used by the USDA Census of Agriculture to estimate agricultural land differ from those of the NLCD and C-CAP (i.e., surveys vs. satellite images
and computer software). Estimates of cropland are similar, and NLCD data were used here because they are easier to handle for erosion calculations. For
pastures, NLCD data are about three times larger than Census data. We assumed that the difference represented grasslands that are not used for grazing.
62
riod). On the other hand, the creation of impervious
areas is permanent and increases surface runoff, with
its associated problems (see Section B.1 and next section on land development).
Additional stormwater quality issues from construction sites include the use of biocides to control pests
and weed growth, and the potential for releases of
petroleum products (e.g., motor oil from construction equipment) and chemicals (e.g., paints, cleaning
solvents) [227]. These pollutants may be carried by
stormwater, either dissolved or attached to particles.
Also, contaminated soils from past activities at the site
may be exposed during excavation [227]. This highlights the importance of proper practices to avoid
stormwater contamination.
Table 7 shows the estimated extent of land affected
by construction, assumed to be included in the “developed land” class in the NLCD.184 Table 8 shows the
estimated soil erosion and sediment delivery from all
construction activity. It was assumed that construction
sites remain disturbed over a whole year. Note that
these values could be overestimates because they do
not consider reductions in suspended solids by currently adopted BMPs.
A wind erosion factor for construction sites is
available from U.S. EPA’s Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors [220]. This factor (1.2 ton/acre/
month) was derived from just one set of field studies
and is most applicable to sites with medium activity level, moderate silt content, and semiarid climate [220].
We applied this factor to roughly estimate wind erosion from construction activities in our region, but the
limitations of this approach must be borne in mind.
Our approach suggests that 332,031 and 168,090 T/yr
are eroded by wind from construction sites in the Watershed and Region 1, respectively, while 13,281 and
6,724 T/yr reach surface waters.
Estimates of disturbed soil during current road repairs in NYC were provided by NYS DOT, Region 11
(i.e., NYC), based on NYS DOT contracts. Table 9 shows
Table 7. Estimated area under construction within the Watershed
New residential
construction sites
Area affected by other construction (acres) c
No. of permits
(2005) a
Area
(acres) b
554
853
341
338
1,174
1,525
1,187
1,448
2,365
1,297
1,289
4,267
3,660
2,725
205
316
126
125
434
564
439
536
875
480
477
1,579
1,354
1,008
127
358
133
112
325
735
642
2,005
1,575
482
594
2,422
1,283
1,042
Total Watershed
23,021
8,518
Total Region 1
10,703
3,960
Basin
Sacandaga
Mohawk
Schoharie
Upper Hudson
Hudson-Hoosic
Mid-Hudson
Hudson-Wappinger
Lower Hudson
Queens-Kings
Staten Island
Rondout
Hackensack-Passaic
Raritan
Sandy Hook
Hwy, road,
bridges
Total area
(acres)
17
48
18
15
44
99
87
281
213
65
94
549
305
248
30
83
31
26
76
171
149
471
366
112
144
667
360
292
379
805
308
278
879
1,569
1,318
3,293
3,029
1,139
1,309
5,217
3,303
2,591
11,836
2,084
2,979
25,416
6,248
1,091
1,568
12,867
Nonresidential
Utility
systems
a Sources (original data by county): U.S. Census Bureau, 2004 or 2005 data (NJ, NY Region 1, Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, and Westchester) [182];
single family building permits, 2003 (Ulster) [237]; estimated from Census 2000, based on year residences were built (other counties) [180].
b Based on the median lot size for new housing construction reported in 2005 (0.37 acres) [181].
c Estimated based on dollar value of construction, assuming a similar value/area rate as for residential construction (Watershed mean: ~$1 million/acre; 2002
Economic Census [183,184]
184. The “barren land” category of the NLCD was smaller than the estimated areas of construction sites. It was therefore assumed that these sites were included
in one of the developed land classes. However, it is possible that we are overestimating the areas under construction in a given year.
63
Table 8. Estimated soil erosion and sediment delivery from construction activities
Sediment delivery (T/yr) a
Basin
Total soil erosion
(T/yr) a
Residential Nonresidential
Utility
systems
Hwy, road,
bridges
TOTAL
Sacandaga
Mohawk
Schoharie
Upper Hudson
Hudson-Hoosic
Mid-Hudson
Hudson-Wappinger
Lower Hudson
Queens-Kings
Staten Island
Rondout
Hackensack-Passaic
Raritan
Sandy Hook
11,827
25,123
9,606
8,668
27,414
48,973
41,115
102,766
94,529
35,547
40,836
162,779
103,062
80,835
271
418
167
165
575
747
581
709
1,159
635
631
2,090
1,793
1,335
169
474
176
148
430
973
850
2,655
2,085
638
786
3,207
1,699
1,380
23
64
24
20
58
131
115
372
282
86
124
727
404
328
39
110
41
34
100
226
198
624
485
148
191
883
477
387
502
1,066
408
368
1,163
2,078
1,744
4,360
4,011
1,508
1,733
6,907
4,373
3,430
Total Watershed
793,080
11,277
15,670
2,759
3,944
33,650
Total Region 1
401,494
5,243
8,271
1,444
2,077
17,035
a Based on total area under construction from Table 28 and applying the mean soil erosion and sediment yield rates for barren land in the Watershed of ~31 and
1.3 T/acre/yr, respectively (based on GWLF results).
TABLE 9. Estimated area of soil disturbed by road construction in New York City
Estimated disturbed area (acres)
County
NYS DOT dataa
Based on
census datab
Extrapolated from NYS DOT
to all NYC roadsc
Bronx
Kings
New York
Queens
Richmond
7.3
19.2
23.6
29.3
17.0
88
242
127
326
112
181
1,542
939
1,318
597
Total NYC
96.4
895
4,576
a Projects active as of February, 2007. Data provided by R. Dalsass and A. Levine, NYS DOT Region 11 (pers. comm., 2007).
b From Table 28.
c Based on road mileage from Table 36.
these data, as well as our estimates based on value of
construction of highways, roads, and bridges (from Table 8). Although NYS DOT data are lower, they encompass only roads under DOT jurisdiction. Extrapolating
to all road miles in the region exceeds our estimates of
disturbed soil, suggesting that our numbers are probably conservative (on the low side).
B.3.2. Land Development/Impervious
Surfaces
Developed land is characterized by the prevalence
of impervious surfaces.185 The extent of imperviousness is considered an indicator of adverse impacts to
surface waters, because it increases stormwater peak
discharge and decreases the time of concentration
185. Land cover classes as defined in the 2001 NLCD include high, medium, and low intensity development, with 80% –100%, 50% –79%, and 20% –49% impervious surfaces, respectively [224].
64
FIGURE 8. Pervious and impervious surfaces in the Watershed (acres)
100%
635,608
90%
238,998
80%
70%
60%
50%
14,788,450
40%
373,820
30%
20%
10%
0%
Watershed
Region 1
Pervious
Impervious
TABLE 10. Suspended solids from developed land within the Watershed
Basin
Developed land (acres) a
Erosion (T/yr) b
Sediment yield (T/yr) b
Sacandaga
Mohawk
Schoharie
Upper Hudson
Hudson-Hoosic
Mid-Hudson
Hudson-Wappinger
Lower Hudson
Queens-Kings
Staten Island
Rondout
Hackensack-Passaic
Raritan
Sandy Hook
1,815
60,048
5,242
3,436
44,147
68,590
39,282
54,504
37,080
19,712
19,112
155,528
120,127
97,848
350
22,719
7,026
2,659
14,906
45,919
23,632
31,246
5,570
854
15,482
24,074
19,027
9,142
12
778
165
78
529
911
602
860
174
17
353
681
532
393
Total Watershed
Total Region 1
726,471
232,378
222,972
71,322
6,092
1,949
a Computed by AVGWLF based on 2001 NLCD. Because AVGWLF classifies development as low or high intensity, while the NLCD includes low, medium, and high,
medium intensity was assigned as low intensity. The estimated areas of construction sites and industrial sites were subtracted (see footnote 184).
b From AVGWLF/GWLF runs.
65
(see Section B.1 on streambank erosion). Developed
regions typically have limited areas of erodible soils,
and thus their direct contribution of suspended solids
tends to be lower than that of other land covers (see
Table 3). However, larger volumes of surface runoff
have a greater potential to erode any exposed soils
and to transport any contaminants and particles on
the land, contributing to nonpoint source pollution.
In addition, land development entails many other indirect, negative impacts, including increased streambank erosion, occurrence and severity of flooding
and—in areas with combined sewer systems—releases
of untreated wastewater through CSOs.
It is estimated that ~65% of impervious surfaces are
transportation related (roads, parking lots, driveways),186
and the rest are buildings and structures [9]. As the area
surrounding the Harbor (Region 1) is more intensely
developed than the rest of the Watershed, its impervious
surface is proportionally much higher (~40% vs. 4%, see
Fig. 8187). Although urban areas have traditionally been
designed to convey runoff water quickly from paved areas to stormwater drains, an undetermined amount of
runoff may reach surface waters directly from land [74].
Table 10 shows total developed land along with estimates of erosion and sediment yield.
B.4. Forests and Forest Harvesting (Logging)
Undisturbed forests represent the third largest source
of suspended solids in the Watershed; however, this is
only because of the large extent of forested areas. Their
erosion rates are among the lowest (Table 3), and should
be considered as normal, unavoidable components of
the natural cycle. Logging affects ~1% of all the forested area in our region (Table 11) and is the fourth largest source of suspended solids in the Watershed, with
all activity taking place outside of Region 1. Table 11
summarizes the extent of forested and logging areas,
along with erosion and sediment yield estimates.
Table 11. Suspended solids contributions from forests and logging in the Watershed
Undisturbed forests
Basin
Sacandaga
Mohawk
Schoharie
Upper Hudson
Hudson-Hoosic
Mid-Hudson
Hudson-Wappinger
Lower Hudson
Queens-Kings
Staten Island
Rondout
Hackensack-Passaic
Raritan
Sandy Hook
Total
Region 1
Logging
Area
(acres) a
Erosion
(T/yr) b
Sediment
yield (T/yr) b
Area
(acres) c
499,925
736,855
390,323
814,022
652,722
899,241
292,773
192,547
865
5,075
385,325
224,549
220,694
32,972
127,601
79,583
242,000
262,217
229,246
380,911
50,119
15,654
5
86
97,029
29,735
3,775
341
5,359
3,550
10,648
9,702
10,087
15,328
2,205
751
0.5
3
4,329
1,899
159
25
5,347,887
1,518,301
64,046
36,846
743,994
31,248
79,231
22,494
949
–
–
–
3,552
5,544
1,093
5,228
3,383
4,326
2,836
1,762
–
–
2,884
3,303
2,733
201
Erosion
(T/yr) d
71,732
111,949
22,078
105,559
68,302
87,348
57,263
35,585
–
–
58,237
66,697
55,186
4,057
Sediment
yield (T/yr) d
3,013
4,702
927
4,433
2,869
3,669
2,405
1,495
–
–
2,446
2,801
2,318
170
a Computed by AVGWLF, based on the 2001 NLCD minus the area disturbed by logging operations.
b Computed by GWLF, adjusted for area disturbed by logging operations.
c Area of new forest harvesting based on volume of trees removed vs. total volume of trees in timberland areas. Data source: USDA, Department of Forestry [188]
(by county; NY: 1993, NJ: 1999). Any given year, 14 times this area is assumed to be disturbed from logging operations from the past 14 years. See explanation
in this section.
d Total erosion from all areas affected by logging. Erosion rates (in T/acre) are as follows: yr 1, 5.1; yr 2–5, 4.0, 2.8, 1.7, and 0.6, respectively); yr 5–14, 0.6. Sediment yield: 4.2% of erosion rate. See explanation in this section.
186. Roads must be built to convey water rapidly away from their surface because water on the pavement is a safety hazard [115].
187. Land cover by county based on C-CAP data (as of 2001) was provided by John McCombs, I.M. Systems Group at NOAA Coastal Services Center, Coastal
Remote Sensing.
66
Forest soils have very low erosion rates, mainly because of a thick protective layer of litter. In addition,
high amounts of organic matter in soil increase water
infiltration and absorption, while trees provide additional protection against the erosive power of precipitation (they can intercept up to 15% of water and
absorb rainwater energy) and wind. Streambanks in
forested areas can be very stable.188 Logging is the removal of trees for wood harvest or forest management.
Logging typically does not leave the soil completely
bare, because other vegetation and wood residues
may be left in place, but it does remove an important
protective cover. Heavy machinery is commonly used
to cut and move the trees, and can compact and degrade the soil, making it more susceptible to erosion.
Roads are built to access the site, transport the logs,
and other operations. Once trees are felled, they are
dragged along paths called skid trails to a log landing
where the wood is gathered for subsequent processing
or transport. Roads and skid trails tend to be major
sources of suspended solids, although they typically
account for less than 5% of the site area [158].
Estimating erosion
Erosion from logging sites depends on many variables189 and thus estimates vary widely—from virtually equal to undisturbed forest to ~10 times higher
[79,151,158,259]. Clearcutting followed by prescription burning may increase erosion over 1,000 times.190
Erosion rates from skid trails and access roads may be
~100 to 800 times higher than that of undisturbed
forests [79,151,259]. Another study estimated a threefold increase, including logging and roads [158]. Logging affects forests for several years, but the largest
increase in soil erosion occurs within the year logging
is carried out, with erosion rates rapidly decreasing
afterwards as vegetation regrows [38].
GWLF provides an estimate of erosion from forested land but not from logging sites. Several models
have been developed to estimate soil erosion from forests under a variety of conditions (e.g., fires, logging,
forest roads) but these are intended for individual sites
and are not suitable for large areas such as the NY/NJ
Harbor Watershed.191
In light of the available information, we applied the
average GWLF erosion rate for croplands (5.1 T/acre,
or ~18 times that of forests) for the year logging is
undertaken (year 1) and assumed that the rate would
decrease linearly, reaching a rate twice that of undisturbed forests (0.6 T/acre) by year 5. It was also assumed that this rate would remain constant through
year 14, and that by year 15 the rate would return
to that of an undisturbed forest.192 Under this model—and assuming that the same extent of new forest
area goes into logging each year—in any given year,
an area 14 times the size of new logging sites will be
affected. Sediment yield was estimated as 4.2% of the
erosion rate (the average rate for forests in the Watershed according to GWLF). We also assumed that no
significant erosion is caused by wind in forests or logging areas (see Section 2.1.2 on wind erosion).
The 2001 NLCD does not include a specific category for logging.193 Recently harvested areas (within ~1
year) would likely be classified as either bare land or
grasslands in the NLCD, while areas logged ~5 years
ago may be classified as shrub/scrub.194 Based on available land cover data and expected reforestation after
harvesting [38], we assumed that logging areas were
classified as grasslands from year 1 to 3 and as forests
thereafter (i.e., for another 11 years).195 Grassland and
forest areas and erosion/sediment yield estimates by
AVGWLF and GWLF were adjusted accordingly, as
explained in the Methodology section.
B.5. Roadways and Roadside Erosion
Roadsides (or road banks) are estimated to be the fifth
largest contributor of suspended solids in the Watershed, and the fourth in Region 1. Table 12 summarizes road miles in the Watershed along with estimated
roadside erosion and sediment yields. Because road
banks are typically at least partially covered by vegetation, it was assumed that wind erosion would not be
significant.
188. Eugene Peck (scientist, URS Corp.) personal communication, November 27, 2007.
189. Including type of harvesting method, machinery, site design, time elapsed since logging and road construction, and management practices, in addition to all
the other factors that usually govern erosion (see Appendix A).
190. According to an example application of the “Disturbed WEPP” soil erosion model [38].
191. Two such models are Forest Erosion Simulation Tools (FOREST) from the Colorado State University [244] and the USDA Forest Service WEPP Interfaces (a
series of models based on the WEPP) [189].
192. This scheme was adapted from, and based on, the example of forest clearcut and prescription burn presented in the “Disturbed WEPP” model documentation [38], although different start and end erosion rates were chosen.
193. The 1992 NLCD included forest clearcuts within the “transitional barren land” category [206].
194. John McCombs (I.M. Systems Group, NOAA Coastal Services Center, Coastal Remote Sensing), personal communication, June 18, 2007.
195. Because barren land areas in the C-CAP data were typically smaller than the area estimated to be under logging, it was assumed that newly harvested areas
had been classified as grasslands.
67
Table 12. Road banks in the Watershed and associated suspended solids
Basin
Sacandaga
Mohawk
Schoharie
Upper Hudson
Hudson-Hoosic
Mid-Hudson
Hudson-Wappinger
Lower Hudson
Queens-Kings
Staten Island
Rondout
Hackensack-Passaic
Raritan
Sandy Hook
Total Watershed
Total Region 1
Road milesa
Erosion (T/yr) b
Sediment yield (T/yr) c
1,220
4,633
1,968
1,351
2,945
6,172
2,752
3,671
–
330
2,957
5,614
6,189
2,638
19,520
74,131
31,490
21,616
47,123
98,757
44,024
58,738
–
5,272
47,313
89,822
99,031
42,214
781
2,965
1,260
865
1,885
3,950
1,761
2,350
–
211
1,893
3,593
3,961
1,689
42,441
679,052
27,162
3,685
58,954
2,358
a Road mile data (by county, 2005) from NYS DOT [142] and NJ DOT [116]. Roadside erosion was considered to be zero in predominantly developed counties (The
Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, and Hudson); and in areas of high and medium intensity development, based on 2001 NLCD (Richmond, Bergen, Essex, Union,
and Passaic counties).
b Estimated as 16 T/mile/yr based on the Minnesota roadside erosion survey [173].
c Based on GWLF results for the Watershed, on average ~4% of eroded material reaches surface waters.
This section considers erosion from roadsides, after
construction has finished. Road construction activities often require extensive soil disturbance—including excavation, fill, and compaction196 —and involves
heavy machinery traffic. As a result, once construction
is completed, road banks are typically devoid of vegetative cover, compacted, and highly disturbed, and
thus are particularly susceptible to erosion, especially
shortly after construction. Other factors that contribute to road bank degradation include the use of
chemical deicers (salt negatively affects soil structure)
and abrasives (which smother vegetation and decrease
soil quality and its ability to sustain vegetation; see
Section B.8.1 on road abrasives) for winter road maintenance operations. In addition, roadsides are often
designed to convey stormwater through open channels or ditches, culverts, or storm drain systems away
from their surfaces and to a safe outfall [83]. Although
stormwater outfalls should not cause damage, concentrated water flows can contribute to erosion if the outfall is not properly designed. Typically, open channels
need to be cleaned periodically to remove accumu-
lated sediment this tends to leave bare soil exposed at
the side of the road. In addition to soil, pavement and
tire wear, atmospheric dust, and abrasives are sources
of suspended solids in highway runoff [59].
According to a 1970s survey, the average roadside
erosion in NY was ~34 T/road bank mile/yr [197]. A
more recent survey throughout Minnesota estimated
that the median roadside erosion amounted to ~16
T/road mile [173].197 Because the details of the NY
survey are not available, it is difficult to evaluate its
merits and applicability. Therefore, the Minnesota
survey seemed to provide the best available estimate
of roadside erosion. Roadside erosion rates in Minnesota are substantially lower than in NY, even though
the survey (1) was conducted at times when vegetation cover was not at its peak, and (2) likely included
material eroded during more than one year (however,
to be conservative we will assume this is a yearly erosion rate). Roadside areas would be included in various land cover classes. However, roadside erosion was
added directly to GWLF estimates of erosion because
the rate we used seems to account only for erosion in
196. For example, the cut-and-fill road design requires soil to be excavated from one side of the road (upslope or from the cut slope) and filled on the other side
(downslope or in the fill slope).
197. Note that this is per road mile (not per bank mile, as in the NY survey), which further lowers the erosion rate. We estimate that in NY (excluding the metropolitan area) there are on average ~1.5 miles of erodible banks per road mile.
68
excess of expected erosion in similar, nonroadside terrain.198 Roads in metropolitan areas around the Harbor were excluded because they are not typically surrounded by soil, but rather by nonerodible sidewalks.
B.6. Landscaping and Golf Courses
Lawns and gardens are the sixth largest source of sediments in the Watershed and the third in Region 1.
Golf courses, because of their relatively small area, are
negligible contributors but are considered within the
same land cover type. Estimates of the extent of these
areas and their erosion and sediment yield contributions are presented in Table 13. It was assumed that
wind erosion is negligible.
Areas shown in Table 13 are those classified as “developed, open space” in the 2001 NLCD. This includes
areas with mostly lawn grasses and some construction,
such as large-lot single-family houses, parks, and golf
courses [224].
Soil erosion can result from gardening and landscaping activities such as planting, tilling, and water-
ing [78]. Overwatering a lawn or garden adds to water
runoff and can carry soil, fertilizer, and pesticides to
waterbodies, while consuming water resources. This
can also be the case in golf courses and sports fields,
where maintenance typically involves large amounts
of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. Soil erosion
may be of concern primarily during the construction
of golf courses, but is not usually identified as an issue
once the golf course is completed. Soil erosion is more
likely to be a problem in sports fields, where traffic
can disturb the soil.
B.7. Surface Mining and Barren Land
Sand and gravel mines and barren lands are estimated to be important sources of suspended solids in
our region (Table 3). Table 14 summarizes information on local mines assumed to include land disturbance and to contribute suspended solids. This table
also shows estimates of erosion from barren land, after adjusting for the acreage affected by mining and
landfi lls.199
Table 13. Erosion and sediment yield from golf courses and lawns in the Watershed
Golf coursesa
Basin
Sacandaga
Mohawk
Schoharie
Upper Hudson
Hudson-Hoosic
Mid-Hudson
Hudson-Wappinger
Lower Hudson
Queens-Kings
Staten Island
Rondout
Hackensack-Passaic
Raritan
Sandy Hook
Total Watershed
Total Region 1
Number
3
40
4
8
21
32
19
27
7
2
19
67
51
33
333
73
Area (acres)
Lawns
area (acres) b
Sediment
yield
Erosion
(T/yr) c
0.1
7
0.5
1
5
9
6
8
1
0.3
4
24
22
8
18,532
11,192
24,331
56,570
4,245
1,449
96,939
60,267
66,533
77,063
52,517
166,672
74,004
39,016
15,753
7,919
47,177
64,737
292
290
143,540
34,012
45,048
52,224
68,801
61,828
13,651
5,155
583
333
2,076
2,848
12
28
5,806
1,497
2,162
2,351
3,125
3,633
573
371
97
21
749,330
84,865
560,429
63,471
25,398
2,876
a Data (originally by county) from Reference USA (http://www.referenceusa.com/, accessed on November 17, 2006, and queried for SIC code 7997 for all Watershed counties). This database provided an approximate size for each facility.
b All areas classified as “developed, open space” by the 2001 NLCD (as computed by GWLF) after discounting areas assigned to golf courses.
c Computed by GWLF. This land cover category was treated as “turf grass/golf course” by the model.
198. The Minnesota survey estimated soil loss only from visibly eroded areas >100 ft2 and ≥6 in deep, or >50 ft3 [173].
199. The 1992 NLCD included a category for “quarries/strip mines/gravel pits” [206]. In the 2001 NLCD, mines were lumped with barren land [224]. Other facilities and activities that may include barren land (construction sites, auto dismantlers, and metal recyclers) were assumed to be classified as developed land
in the NLCD because the extent of barren land was small and could not contain all those sites.
69
Table 14. Surface mines and barren land in the Watershed
Number of mines a
Basin
Active
Total
disturbed
Other
area
(disturbed) (acres) b
Sacandaga
Mohawk
Schoharie
Upper Hudson
Hudson-Hoosic
Mid-Hudson
Hudson-Wappinger
Lower Hudson
Queens-Kings
Staten Island
Rondout
Hackensack-Passaic
Raritan
Sandy Hook
38
94
29
42
95
122
57
8
–
–
54
30
21
9
1
5
2
1
4
16
4
1
–
–
7
6
7
5
640
2,316
1,055
656
2,019
3,067
1,569
358
–
–
1,057
960
618
291
Total Watershed
598
59
14,609
14
3
366
Total Region 1
e
Barren landd
Mines
Erosion
(T/yr) c
19,972
72,272
32,917
20,477
63,010
95,715
48,972
11,185
–
–
32,991
29,958
19,278
9,092
455,839
11,435
Sediment
yield
(T/yr) c
Area
(acres)
Erosion
(T/yr)
Sediment
yield
(T/yr)
847
3,066
1,397
869
2,673
4,061
2,078
475
–
–
1,400
1,271
818
386
2,024
531
568
50
951
703
1,527
121
94
536
254
906
15,727
2,443
5,232
10,252
12,887
31,235
53,224
31,899
62,919
2,119
163
108
21,367
46,624
130,915
13,224
220
431
567
1,156
2,342
1,318
2,768
102
16
4
967
2,891
5,498
952
19,341
26,436
422,168
19,231
485
1,552
24,784
1,129
a Sources (original data by county): NYS DEC (2006) [128] and NJ DEP (1991 and 2004 data) [114]. It was assumed that all registered mines in NJ were active
(this may be a slight overestimate because some mines could have multiple permits). Of the remaining mines, 92% (as in NY) were assumed to be reclaimed
and thus were not considered here.
b Disturbed area for NY mines from NYS DEC [128]; for NJ mines, the average disturbed area was assumed to be equal to that of NY mines (~20 acres/mine).
c Applying average rates for bare land throughout the Watershed computed by GWLF (30 and 1.3 T/acre/yr for erosion and sediment yield, respectively).
d From AVGWLF and GWLF. Areas from surface mines and landfills were subtracted, and erosion and sediment yield were adjusted accordingly.
e For barren land, estimated in proportion to barren areas in Region 1 counties based on C-CAP land cover breakdown by county (J. McCombs, see footnote 22).
There are several surface mines in NY and NJ where
sand and gravel are extracted, typically for use in road
and building construction [139]. Surface mining greatly disturbs the land and exposes particles that can be
carried offsite by water and wind. Heavy equipment
is used to remove soil and rocks covering the deposit. Then, excavators are used to extract the minerals.
These operations leave large affected areas where vegetation cannot grow unless the site is reclaimed.
Wind erosion from mines and barren land was assumed to be similar to that of construction sites. Under
this scenario, an additional 190,842 T/yr would be eroded from mines in the Watershed (7,634 T/yr reaching
surface waters) and 4,788 T/yr from mines in Region
1 (192 T/yr reaching surface waters). For barren land,
345,347 and 20,274 T/yr would be expected to be eroded in the Watershed and Region 1, respectively, of which
13,814 and 811 T/yr might deposit directly on surface
waters, respectively. The remainder would redeposit on
land (see Wind Erosion in section on Methodology).
70
B.8. Minor Sources of Suspended Solids in the
Watershed
The following subsections present details on calculations
of suspended solids loads from sectors that do not seem
to contribute substantial amounts of suspended solids
within our region. However, that does not necessarily
imply that pollutant loads associated with these particles
would be negligible. For example, soils from industrial
sites and contaminated land sites have the potential to be
significantly contaminated. Further research is needed
to couple particle and pollutant loadings.
B.8.1. Road Abrasives for Winter Road
Maintenance
Two main products may be used during winter road
maintenance operations for traffic safety: chemical
deicers and abrasives.
Chemical deicers are typically inorganic salts that
are spread on roads to melt snow and expose pave-
ment for safe vehicle circulation.200 Salts are watersoluble and do not contribute directly to suspended
solids loads, but they can damage vegetation and affect soil quality, leaving roadside soils prone to erosion
[7,251]. Other environmental impacts may result from
salt use.
Abrasives are particles used to increase vehicular
traction. The most common one is sand—also called
grits—but finely crushed rock or gravel, bottom ash,
slag, and cinders can also be used [7,236]. Abrasives
can be used in addition to salt when extra friction is
needed (e.g., on steep hills) or by themselves where salt
would not work properly or would be impractical (e.g.,
when temperatures are very low, or on roads with a
low level of service) [7]. Abrasives have many downsides and are less safe from a traffic perspective:
Abrasives can clog stormwater inlets and sewers
and eventually end up in waterbodies.
Most sand is swept off roads rapidly by vehicle
traffic. Therefore,
– The small improvement in traction
provided by sand is short-lived [96].
– Frequent reapplications are needed,
increasing overall cost and environmental
impacts.
Sand can diminish the quality of roadside soils
by “diluting” the organic matter and finer particles. This decreases the soil’s ability to sustain
a protective vegetative cover and increases erosion [69]. In addition, abrasives smother roadside vegetation [7].
Fine particles in abrasives may contribute to
PM10 emissions, affecting air quality.
Salt is commonly added to abrasives (to prevent
freezing and lumping) in enough quantities to
create environmental problems and corrosion
[7].
Abrasives pit windshields and paint on vehicles.
Abrasives may create a skidding hazard on bare
pavement
State departments of transportation and local jurisdictions are responsible for winter road maintenance,
and each sets its own application standards. Sand use
by the NYS DOT has been declining steadily, with
~600,000 tons applied statewide per winter in the
early 1990s and ~14 tons in 2005–2006.201 NJ DOT
stopped applying sand on roads five years ago because
of clogging problems.202 However, the majority of road
miles in the Watershed (88%) are under county or local jurisdiction (Table 15).
Most county roads surrounding the Harbor (Region 1) in NJ do not use abrasives,203 and no abrasives are applied to NYC roads, which are managed
by the Department of Sanitation.204 Several municipalities and cities within Region 1 in NJ were contacted and, based on those who responded, ~21% use
sand, although the amounts are typically unknown.
To estimate abrasive use in the area, it was assumed
that, where applied, the rate was similar to that used
by NYS DOT roads (~0.4 T/mile). The road miles
receiving sand in each county were adjusted by the
proportion of municipalities using sand, if data were
available; otherwise, the rate was applied to all roads.
These estimates are presented in Table 15. Based on
sediment yield/erosion rates for land erosion from
GWLF, the amount of abrasives reaching waterbodies
was estimated to be 4%. Estimates by basin are shown
in Table 16. Total amount of sand applied shown in
Table 15 includes whole counties, but portions of some
counties are outside the Watershed. This has been accounted for in Table 16 and, consequently, total sand
applied is lower.
It is possible that a portion of abrasive particles
becomes airborne because of vehicle traffic or wind,
especially if applied on dry surfaces with no deicers.
However, to the best of our knowledge, no emission
factors are available and no estimates are presented
at this point. Note, however, that road abrasives contribute a small amount of suspended solids relative to
other sources (Table 3).
B.8.2. Industrial Activities
The following subsections describe several industrial
activities that take place in our region, and provide
estimates on their contribution to suspended solids in
runoff. For sites with exposed or disturbed soils, it was
assumed that all the surface area of the facilities was
bare soil. Even under this worst-case scenario, the con-
200. Sodium chloride (table salt) is the most common deicer because it is inexpensive and effective, but other compounds can be used, such as calcium, magnesium, or potassium chloride; acetate-based salts; and urea.
201. Michael Lashmet (Snow and Ice Program engineer, NYS DOT), personal communication, October 30, 2006.
202. David Bowlby (NJ DOT), personal communication, November 1, 2006.
203. Personal communications with Departments of Public Works in Hudson, Union, and Passaic counties.
204. Keith Mellis (NYC Department of Sanitation), personal communication, November 27, 2006.
71
Table 15. Sand applied during the 2005–2006 winter season in the Watershed
Road mileage a
County
Bergen
Essex
Hudson
Passaic
Union
Bronx
Kings
New York
Queens
Richmond
Hunterdon
Mercer
Middlesex
Monmouth
Morris
Somerset
Sussex
Albany
Columbia
Delaware
Dutchess
Essex
Fulton
Greene
Hamilton
Herkimer
Madison
Montgomery
Oneida
Orange
Otsego
Putnam
Rensselaer
Rockland
Saratoga
Schenectady
Schoharie
Sullivan
Ulster
Warren
Washington
Westchester
Total Watershed
Total Region 1
a
b
c
d
Sand application (T/yr) d
State
State
DOT
County
Local b
Other c
State
DOT
County
Local b
Other c
Total
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
106
61
35
55
65
32
19
15
54
21
115
119
137
205
162
104
111
290
264
341
372
330
143
193
179
241
165
179
425
366
290
134
267
99
268
149
188
202
283
220
232
453
441
212
49
235
178
–
–
–
–
–
238
170
295
362
296
229
314
290
267
270
393
357
144
262
94
578
438
394
593
315
477
117
334
172
361
220
321
387
426
246
285
168
2,408
1,382
513
1,022
1,161
734
1,492
517
2,353
712
1,034
1,197
2,068
2,848
2,073
1,375
885
1,420
974
1,603
1,628
666
565
720
188
687
839
423
1,798
1,778
1,326
588
1,170
856
1,491
542
663
1,461
1,547
773
1,071
2,733
34
17
25
14
23
22
21
45
29
8
16
22
52
52
16
–
102
42
18
4
40
10
2
29
–
26
18
39
48
101
4
–
9
78
2
16
3
9
75
7
3
45
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
165
18
57
261
54
102
732
49
168
67
414
45
562
20
–
–
4
1
10
27
–
4
–
5
193
93
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
104
75
129
159
130
100
138
127
117
119
172
157
63
115
41
254
192
173
260
138
209
51
146
75
158
97
141
170
187
108
125
74
528
121
–
336
–
–
–
–
–
–
97
112
194
268
195
129
83
623
427
703
714
292
248
316
82
301
368
186
788
780
582
258
513
375
654
238
291
641
679
339
470
1,199
15
7
11
6
10
10
9
20
12
3
7
10
23
23
7
–
45
19
8
2
18
4
1
13
–
11
8
17
21
44
2
–
4
34
1
7
1
4
33
3
1
20
736
222
11
342
10
10
9
20
12
3
209
197
347
449
332
230
266
768
717
841
961
714
366
545
856
615
736
442
1,484
1,007
1,355
329
663
485
817
342
443
842
898
454
596
1,297
7,687
463
10,931
1,115
51,282
12,294
1,128
238
2,765
–
4,591
286
14,129
985
495
104
21,979
1,376
Sources: NYS DOT [142]; NJ DOT [116].
Includes roads under the jurisdiction of municipalities, cities, towns, and villages.
Includes roads under the jurisdiction of authorities and parks.
NYS DOT data: M. Lashmet, NYS DOT (pers. comm., 2006). NJ DOT data: D. Bowlby, NJ DOT (pers. comm., 2006). NYC data: K. Mellis, NYC Department of
Sanitation (pers. comm., 2006). County roads data (where available): Dept. of Public Works (DPW; pers. comm.); otherwise, an application rate of ~0.4 T/
mile (mean NYS DOT rate) was assumed. Local roads data: 0.4 T/mile rate assumed, corrected by proportion of municipalities applying sand (where available;
DPW, pers. comm.).
72
Table 16. Abrasive use and sediment yield by basin
Road milesa
Sand applied (T/yr) a
1,220
4,633
1,968
1,351
2,945
6,172
2,752
4,629
2,458
740
2,984
8,592
6,313
3,988
665
2,124
786
731
1,115
2,521
1,083
1,448
14
3
1,049
1,817
833
367
27
85
31
29
45
101
43
58
1
0
42
73
33
15
Total Watershed
50,747
14,557
582
Total Region 1
14,109
1,376
55
Basin
Sacandaga
Mohawk
Schoharie
Upper Hudson
Hudson-Hoosic
Mid-Hudson
Hudson-Wappinger
Lower Hudson
Queens-Kings
Staten Island
Rondout
Hackensack-Passaic
Raritan
Sandy Hook
Sediment yield (T/yr) b
a For data sources, see footnotes to Table 15.
b Based on GWLF results for the Watershed, on average ~4% of eroded material reaches surface waters.
tribution from industrial facilities is much lower than
that from construction sites (see Table 3). For facilities
where a soil erosion estimate is provided, the areas
were subtracted from AVGWLF and GWLF results.
Landfills were assumed to be included with barren
land, and the rest within developed land.
B.8.2.1. Automobile Dismantling Operations
These facilities—commonly known as salvage yards
or junkyards—compact disposed cars for subsequent
shredding and metal recycling, after draining fluids
and recovering parts for reuse. Salvage yards may
contribute suspended solids to runoff (including soil,
rust, dust, and particles from vehicles), which can be
contaminated with oil, grease, mercury from broken
switches (unless they are removed), and other fluids.
Fluids may leak from old vehicles or be spilled during
draining and dismantling activities, handling, and/
or when crushing cars if fluids were incompletely or
not drained. Mercury switches may corrode during
storage or break during crushing [135]. As a result,
dioxins and PAHs (from used motor oil), and mercury—among other toxics—can end up in stormwater
runoff and eventually reach the Harbor. Measures
can be taken to minimize spills and prevent runoff
from carrying suspended solids and contaminants
(see section on measures to prevent mobilization of
suspended solids in Appendix C).
Table 17 provides a summary of auto dismantlers
in the Watershed, along with estimates of suspended
solids loads, assuming that the only source is from exposed or disturbed soils.
B.8.2.2. Metal Recycling
These facilities accept scrap metal (including from
automobiles, appliances, and ships) and shred it, separating the nonmetal components or fluff and typically sending the metal to secondary smelters for rerefining [163]. Heavy machinery circulates in these
sites, which typically include bare soils, highly susceptible to erosion.205 The scrap that metal recyclers
receive may already be contaminated with various
fluids and mercury (see section on automobile dismantling) [145,163]. Small, PCB-containing capacitors from old appliances may break and release their
contents during crushing and shredding [29]. However, metal recyclers typically have inbound quality
control programs, and require auto dismantlers and
other scrap metal providers to remove switches and
fluids.206
205. The major source of suspended solids from these sites is internal roads for machinery traffic. Some facilities are moving towards concrete surfaces. Fred
Cornell (manager, Environmental, Health & Safety, Sims Group, Ltd.), personal communication, March 2007.
206. Ibid.
73
Table 17. Suspended solids from auto dismantlers in the Watershed
Facilitiesa
Erosion (T/yr)
Number
Area (acres)
Water b
Wind c
Water b
Wind c
Sacandaga
Mohawk
Schoharie
Upper Hudson
Hudson-Hoosic
Mid Hudson
Hudson-Wappinger
Lower Hudson
Queens-Kings
Staten Island
Rondout
Hackensack-Passaic
Raritan
Sandy Hook
1
4
–
–
4
3
9
8
32
2
3
40
25
39
0.03
0.11
–
–
0.23
0.20
0.60
0.34
1.26
0.06
0.09
1.72
1.64
1.58
0.90
3.58
–
–
7.16
6.27
18.80
10.75
39.40
1.79
2.69
53.73
51.04
49.25
0.37
1.50
–
–
3.00
2.62
7.87
4.50
16.49
0.75
1.12
22.49
21.37
20.62
0.04
0.15
–
–
0.30
0.27
0.80
0.46
1.67
0.08
0.11
2.28
2.17
2.09
0.01
0.06
–
–
0.12
0.10
0.31
0.18
0.66
0.03
0.04
0.90
0.85
0.82
Total Watershed
170
8
245
103
10
4
Total Region 1
142
5
170
71
7
3
Basin
a Source: Reference USA (http://www.referenceusa.com/, accessed on November 17, 2006, and queried for all Watershed counties for SIC code 5015). Database
provided an approximate area.
b Assuming mean rates for barren land in the Watershed (based on GWLF model results) of ~31 and ~1.3 T/acre/yr for erosion and sediment yield, respectively.
c Applying conditions for construction sites (erosion rate: 1.2 T/acre/month; sediment yield: 4% of erosion; see section on construction sites).
Table 18. Suspended solids from metal recyclers in the Watershed
Facilitiesa
Erosion (T/yr)
Number
Area (acres)
Water b
Wind c
Water b
Wind c
1
5
–
–
2
11
4
16
25
4
5
38
10
24
0.6
3.1
–
–
0.3
4.6
2.3
7.0
13.4
1.9
1.1
17.5
5.3
13.0
18
98
–
–
9
143
72
219
418
58
36
546
166
405
7
41
–
–
4
60
30
92
175
24
15
229
69
170
0.8
4.1
–
–
0.4
6.1
3.0
9.3
18
2.5
1.5
23
7.0
17
0.3
1.6
–
–
0.1
2.4
1.2
3.7
7.0
1.0
0.6
9.1
2.8
6.8
Total Watershed
145
70
2,188
916
93
37
Total Region 1
109
56
1,750
733
74
29
Basin
Sacandaga
Mohawk
Schoharie
Upper Hudson
Hudson-Hoosic
Mid-Hudson
Hudson-Wappinger
Lower Hudson
Queens-Kings
Staten Island
Rondout
Hackensack-Passaic
Raritan
Sandy Hook
a Source: Reference USA (queried for SIC code 5093; see footnotes to Table 17).
b Assuming mean rates for barren land in the Watershed (based on GWLF model results) of ~31 and ~1.3 T/acre/yr for erosion and sediment yield, respectively.
c Applying conditions for construction sites (erosion rate: 1.2 ton/acre/month; sediment yield: 4% of erosion; see section on construction sites).
74
Estimates of suspended solids contributions from
metal recyclers are provided in Table 18.
B.8.2.3. Cement Kilns and Concrete/Clay
Facilities
Cement kilns produce clinker starting from gypsum
and other minerals. Clinker can be mixed with sand,
stone, water, and other materials to produce concrete. Facilities handling concrete include those that
produce Portland cement concrete and ready-mix207
(SIC code 3273), and those that manufacture concrete
bricks or blocks (SIC 3272) and other products (SIC
3271). Among facilities dealing with clay are those
that produce electric insulators (SIC 3264) and refractory products (SIC 3255).
These facilities handle and/or produce a variety of
solids (minerals) that are typically stored outdoors and
thus can be carried by stormwater or wind [102] to the
Harbor and other waterbodies if precautions are not
taken. Because concrete is damaged by exposure to water, contact with stormwater is avoided as much as possible. However, concrete particles have been measured
in runoff [102], and they also may be dispersed as dust
during handling and transportation [102]. Estimates of
particle contributions—both by water and by wind—
from cement kilns and facilities handling concrete and
clay are shown in Table 19 and Table 20. Fugitive emissions of dust other than stockpiles (e.g., caused by vehicle traffic on unpaved roads) were not estimated.
B.8.2.4. Landfills
Trucks and heavy machinery operate in landfills to
load and compact waste and spread daily cover materials. Because the land is disturbed in these operations,
and soil or other solids may be used as landfill cover,
soil erosion is expected in these facilities [150,260].
Estimates are presented in Table 21. These numbers
are low, even though it was assumed that no measures
were taken to reduce transport of suspended solids
(e.g., diverting runoff around the landfill, installing
siltation basins), because landfill areas are relatively
small. Any water that comes in contact with the active
part of the landfill is considered landfill leachate and
is required to be treated as such.
B.8.2.5. Incinerators and Power Plants
These types of facilities generate combustion residues
or ashes that have the potential to be dispersed to the
environment and eventually reach waterbodies, carried either by stormwater or wind.
In coal-fired power plants, additional solids may be
mobilized during coal unloading and crushing, and
from stockpiles. In one power plant in our region coal
is kept in a large, outdoor storage pile,208 while in another unloading occurs in an enclosed structure and
coal is stored in piles or silos [127]. Emissions from fly
ash were assumed to be negligible in our region because information from Title V permits (for air emissions in NY) indicates that handling typically occurs
Table 19. Suspended solids from cement kilns in the Watershed
Facilities
Basin
a
b
Emissions (T/yr)
c
Water f
Wind g
336
973
0.01
0.02
13
39
1
1,309
0.03
52
–
–
–
–
No.
Area (acres)
Water
Hudson-Hoosic
Mid-Hudson
1
2
0.9
1.5
0.3
0.4
Total Watershed
3
2
Total Region 1
–
–
d
Wind
e
There are no cement kilns in the rest of the Watershed.
Data (originally by county) from several sources cited in the Harbor Project report on dioxins [87].
Estimated from Reference USA database (see footnotes to Table 17).
Based on runoff volume (from GWLF) and typical total suspended solids (TSS) concentrations in stormwater from concrete products facilities (~200 mg/L) from
NJPDES permit documentation [102].
e Emissions from process + fugitive emissions from stockpiles. Process: estimated as clinker production [87] times particulate matter (PM) emission factors
(EF) for kilns, grinding, screening, and other typical processes [220]. Stockpiles: based on EF for coal piles (see Table 22 footnotes), it was estimated that
~0.00004% of stockpiled material (assumed to be equal to the mass of clinker produced) was carried by wind.
f Based on GWLF results for the Watershed, on average ~4% of eroded material reaches surface waters.
g Assuming that the particles will settle evenly throughout the Watershed, roughly 4% will deposit directly on water.
a
b
c
d
207. The ready-mixed concrete industry produces ready-to-use concrete for construction activities. Operations range from family-owned businesses to multinational corporations, and are scattered throughout the region because they produce a perishable product that typically has to be delivered within 60 to 90
minutes [91]. This sector also uses large quantities of industrial byproducts, including fly ash from coal burning power plants, slag from iron manufacturing,
and silica fume from the silicon/ferrosilicon metal industry [91].
208. Storage bunkers, crusher, and fly ash storage silos have fabric filters [126].
75
Table 20. Suspended solids from facilities handling concrete or clay in the Watershed
Facilitiesa
Emissions (T/yr)
No.
Area
(acres)
Production
(thousand
T/yr)
Water b
Wind c
Water d
Winde
Sacandaga
Mohawk
Schoharie
Upper Hudson
Hudson-Hoosic
Mid-Hudson
Hudson-Wappinger
Lower Hudson
Queens-Kings
Staten Island
Rondout
Hackensack-Passaic
Raritan
Sandy Hook
–
7
–
–
3
7
4
4
3
–
3
13
12
10
–
1.9
–
–
2.1
3.1
1.0
1.4
0.4
–
0.7
6.3
6.6
5.5
–
191
–
–
211
314
103
147
44
–
73
649
678
561
–
0.5
–
–
0.6
0.9
0.3
0.4
0.1
–
0.2
1.8
1.9
1.6
–
0.1
–
–
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.02
–
0.04
0.4
0.4
0.3
–
0.02
–
–
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.00
–
0.01
0.07
0.08
0.06
–
0.004
–
–
0.005
0.007
0.002
0.003
0.001
–
0.002
0.015
0.015
0.013
Total Watershed
66
29
2,970
8
1.6
0.3
0.06
Total Region 1
19
6
657
1.8
0.4
0.1
0.01
Basin
a Source: Reference USA (queried for SIC codes 3255, 3264, and 3271–3273; see footnotes to Table 17). Production estimated from the USGS Minerals Yearbook 2004 [235].
b Based on runoff volume and TSS in stormwater from concrete products facilities (see Table 19 footnotes).
c From processes + fugitive emissions from stockpiles. Processes: PM EFs from U.S. EPA [220] are ~1.1 and 0.9 lb/US ton for ready-mix (batch process) and brick
production, respectively. Stockpiles: estimated as ~0.00004% of all materials (see Table 19 footnotes).
d Based on GWLF results for the Watershed, on average ~4% of eroded material reaches surface waters.
e Assuming that the particles will settle evenly throughout the Watershed, roughly 4% will deposit directly on water.
Table 21. Suspended solids contributions from landfills in the Watershed
Facilities
Basin a
Mohawk
Upper Hudson
Mid-Hudson
Rondout
Raritan
Sandy Hook
Total Watershed
Total Region 1
a
b
c
d
e
Number b
Erosion (T/yr)
Area (acres) c
Water d
Wind e
Water d
Wind e
2
2
5
1
1
1
195
5
213
50
233
100
6,085
156
6,643
1,560
7,270
3,120
2,547
65
2,781
653
3,044
1,306
258
7
282
66
308
132
102
3
111
26
122
52
12
796
24,835
10,397
1,054
416
–
–
–
–
–
–
No active landfills are located in basins not listed in the table.
Municipal solid waste and construction and demolition landfill data from several sources as cited in the Harbor Project report on dioxins [87].
Sources: NJ, landfill database (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dshw/lrm/landfill.htm); NY, D. Lasher, NYS DEC (pers. comm., 2008).
Assuming mean rates for barren land in the Watershed (based on GWLF model results) of ~31 and ~1.3 T/acre/yr for erosion and sediment yield, respectively.
Applying the same rates as for construction sites (erosion rate of 1.2 T/acre/month and a sediment yield of 4% of erosion (see section on construction sites).
76
in enclosed structures equipped with fabric filters.
At least one local coal power plant collects and treats
runoff from coal piles to capture suspended solids before discharging to the Hudson River. It was therefore
assumed that the amount of suspended solids in runoff is negligible.
For incinerator ash, it was assumed that no practices were in place to avoid dispersion of solids. This
is likely not the case, but even under this worst-case
assumption, emissions are very low.
Table 22 summarizes the number of incinerators
and coal power plants, along with ash production
and estimated dust generation. These numbers likely
overestimate dust contributions,209 but nonetheless
the amounts are very small.
B.8.2.6. Contaminated Sites
Industrial operations can leave behind soil contamination. There are numerous contaminated sites
throughout the Watershed, many of which are located
close to waterbodies discharging to the Harbor. In
our previous reports, we identified 179 Superfund
sites contaminated with PCBs, 18 with dioxins, and 51
with PAHs [87,149,242]. These pollutants are particle
reactive and thus can be mobilized with suspended
solids. In addition, there are numerous contaminated
sites managed by state programs, as well as brown-
fields, and other sites known or suspected to be contaminated with these toxics. Contaminated sites often
have poor vegetation, and sometimes even bare soil
from which particles can be transported.
The Delaware River Basin Commission developed
a model based on the Universal Soil Loss Equation
(USLE) to estimate PCB loads to the Delaware River
from contaminated sites on land [37]. We had applied
a similar approach to three dioxin-contaminated sites
[87], and now we are expanding on this approach to
estimate the contribution of several more land sites
as sources of contaminated sediments to the Harbor.
Soil erosion was calculated using a revised version of
USLE (RUSLE 2, see Box). If the concentration of contaminants in topsoil at the site is known, the amount
mobilized with suspended solids can be calculated by
a simple multiplication:
Contaminants in suspended solids =
soil loss x contaminant concentration
Information was obtained for several on-land contaminated sites throughout the NY/NJ Harbor Watershed. We have focused on sites located in NJ, nearby
the Harbor or its tributaries (there are no Superfund
sites listed for NYC, which surrounds the Harbor on
the NY side). Table 23 summarizes the amounts of suspended solids and associated contaminants estimated
Table 22. Suspended solids from incinerators and coal power plants in the Watershed
Incineratorsb
Basin a
Mohawk
Hudson-Hoosic
Mid-Hudson
Hudson-Wappinger
Lower Hudson
Hackensack-Passaic
Raritan
Sandy Hook
Total Watershed
Total Region 1
Coal power plantsb
Number Ash (T/yr) No.
Particles contributed by wind
Coal combusted
(T/yr)
Dust generation
(T/yr) c
Sediment yield
(T/yr) d
3
4
2
2
1
6
3
5
7,893
50,463
3,407
34,400
147,019
194,914
4,783
102,228
–
–
–
1
1
1
–
–
–
–
–
774,278
347,050
520,985
–
–
0.003
0.02
0.001
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.002
0.04
< 0.001
0.001
< 0.001
0.01
0.008
0.01
< 0.001
0.002
26
545,108
3
1,642,313
0.9
0.03
8
292,924
1
520,985
0.3
0.01
a There are no incinerators or coal power plants in basins not listed in the table.
b Data from Harbor Project report on dioxins [87]. Includes municipal solid waste, hazardous waste, medical waste, and sewage sludge incinerators.
c From coal storage piles and ash from incinerators, assuming they are stored outdoors. Emission rate estimated from U.S. EPA [220], applying a sample calculation for a coal stockpile (~0.0004% of coal lost from a two-ton pile).
d Assuming that the particles will settle evenly throughout the Watershed, roughly 4% will deposit directly on water.
209. The amount of dust from stockpiles carried by wind is highly dependent on site-specific conditions, including the size, shape, and orientation of the pile; how
often and how it is disturbed (by loading and unloading materials); and wind conditions (particularly wind gusts). As a rough first approximation, we applied
an emission rate from an example in U.S. EPA’s compilation of EFs [220]: for a coal pile (in a drier area of the U.S.) holding two tons of coal, it is calculated
that ~0.0004% of its contents will be lost as dust in a year.
77
to be carried annually in surface runoff from these
sites. A brief description of the sites follows the table.
Caution on these estimates
As with any model, RUSLE has limitations.
For example, RUSLE is expected to provide
20-year average erosion values but cannot predict the effect of individual rain events. More
important, models such as RUSLE are simplifications of very complex processes, and their
results must be taken with caution (see last
paragraph in Section 2.2.3 Comparison with
Other Estimates).
These estimates are based on limited available
data and could be improved with additional
information about the sites.210
UNIVERSAL SOIL LOSS EQUATION
The USLE is an empirical equation, originally
based on field observations on soil erosion
under varying conditions, mostly in agricultural
fields. Soil loss from a field is expressed by
multiplying factors that account for the erosive
power of rain (R), the susceptibility of the soil to
being eroded (K), the length and steepness of
the slope (LS), the type of surface cover (C), and
practices to mitigate erosion (P):
Soil loss = R x K x LS x C x P
Factors were tabulated or could be calculated
using relatively simple equations for different
soils, climates, and conditions. The USLE was
later refined (e.g., interactions between factors
were added) and software was developed to deal
with increasingly complex calculations. The latest
version is RUSLE 2, which can be downloaded
from the USDA-ARS (Agricultural Research Service) National Soil Erosion Research Lab site,
along with databases and training materials
(http://fargo.nserl.purdue.edu/rusle2_dataweb/
RUSLE2_Index.htm)
The USLE only estimates “soil delivery” to
the end of a slope. This soil will not necessarily end up in a waterbody. Suspended solids
may deposit further down the land; in adjacent
fields; may be captured totally or in part by
vegetated areas, sedimentation basins, or other
management practices; or may indeed reach
a waterbody either directly or indirectly (e.g.,
via a ditch or channel). This level of detail is
not typically available from contaminated site
documentation and may require field visits. An
approximate sediment yield was estimated by
applying the average rate computed by GWLF
for the area (4% of soil erosion).
We have not estimated wind erosion from these
sites, but this is another pathway for soil and
other fine solids to enter the Harbor. Many
sites have bare or poorly covered areas that
may generate dust under dry and windy conditions, which would increase our estimates.211
The following is a brief description of the sites listed in
Table 23, which, due to their proximity to the Harbor,
are likely to have a higher impact on this waterbody:
Bayonne Barrel and Drum. This site is ~1,800
ft from the Passaic River and has several
stormwater catch basins that possibly discharge
into drainage ditches connected to the Passaic.
Contamination resulted from drum cleaning
and reconditioning operations.
Standard Chlorine. Situated by the Hacken-
sack River, runoff from this site is collected in a
ditch that discharges into the River. The plant
at this site formerly manufactured chlorinated
aromatic chemicals. The highest dioxin concentrations are found in two lagoons that had
received wastewater discharges. Soils around
the lagoons contain low levels of dioxins, while
those along the ditch are even lower (in the
ppb range).
Sherwin Williams. Sited by the Passaic River,
contaminated areas are surrounded by vegetation that may intercept runoff.
Syncon Resins. Paints, varnishes, and resins
were manufactured at this site, within a coastal
wetlands management area bordered by the
210. Field visits to the sites by knowledgeable individuals are ideally required to accurately determine site characteristics needed for the RUSLE.
211. In addition, the USLE estimates only sheet erosion, but further soil loss may be caused by gully erosion, which has to be measured directly in the field. Types
of erosion are defined in Appendix A.
78
Table 23. Pollutants in runoff from contaminated sites in New Jersey
Pollutants in runoff a
Site name
County
Area
(acres)
Erosion
(T/yr)
Sed. yield Dioxins
(T/yr)
(g TEQ/yr)
PCBs
(g/yr)
PAHs
(kg/yr)
Bayonne Barrel & Drum
Essex
16
32
1.9
1.1–9.4
?
?
Standard Chlorine
Hudson
25
87
5.2
3
not tested
not tested
Sherwin Williams
Essex
11
6.1
0.4
0.001
1.5
–
Syncon Resins
Hudson
15
16
1.0
–
8(up to 83)
0.2 (up to 2)
Evor Phillips Leasing
Higgins Farm
Middlesex
Somerset
6
75
6.5
47
0.4
2.8
–
0.0003
up to 31
–
up to 0.7
5.8
148
194
12
1.1–9.4
Total
Chemical Control
Union
Kin-Buc Landfill
Middlesex
Prentiss Drug & Chemical Essex
US Metals & Refining
Middlesex
Pratt-Gabriel
Passaic
Givaudan Chemical
Essex
Rockland Chemical
Essex
Economics Laboratory
Middlesex
Myers Property
Schnitzpahn Garden
Center
Hunterdon
Brady Iron and Metals
Brook Industrial Park
Essex
Somerset
9.5 (up to 115) 6 (up to 8.6)
Soils have been capped or otherwise covered.
No contaminated runoff expected.
Soils have been remediated.
No contaminated runoff is expected b
Middlesex
a Estimates are provided as a range, mean, or upper bound, depending on available data.
b These sites are still listed as contaminated, likely because other contaminants may remain in certain areas or because the effectiveness of remedial measures
has to be re-evaluated (particularly in the case of sites where contaminants can migrate to groundwater).
Passaic River. Many drums and tanks with
hazardous substances were stored at the site.
Process waste was disposed in unlined ponds.
Large areas of soil are contaminated with
PCBs.
Evor Phillips Leasing. This site is located
~2,000 ft from a stream discharging into the
Raritan River. It was a waste treatment and
storage facility where some materials were
incinerated for metal recovery. Operations
left soils contaminated with PCBs and PAHs,
among several toxics.
Higgins Farm. Currently a cattle farm, hazard-
ous wastes were previously disposed at this site.
Remediation took place to protect groundwater, but soil contamination was not addressed.
This site drains to a brook but is not located
close to any major stream and is not likely to
have a major impact on the Harbor.
The following sites have been contained or remediated and are no longer expected to be significant contributors of contaminated runoff:
Chemical Control. Located by the Rahway
River at the Arthur Kill, this was a hazardous
waste storage, treatment, and disposal facility
that accepted various wastes, including PCBs.
As part of remedial activities, drums were removed, and some soil was replaced with gravel.
Later, the site was enclosed: surface soils were
solidified with concrete, graded, and covered
with gravel; slurry walls were constructed
around the perimeter to the depth of a clay
layer [200].
Kin-Buc Landfill. This landfill is located by
the Raritan River. Cleanup included containment of the landfill by a slurry wall and an
RCRA cap. Other contaminated areas were
capped with a clay layer [202].
79
Prentiss Drug & Chemical (a.k.a. Albert Steel
Drum). Contaminated soils have been removed
and capped.212
US Metals & Refining. The site has been rede-
veloped and no contaminated soils are currently exposed.213
Pratt-Gabriel. Contaminated areas were
capped in place.
Givaudan Chemical. The site had dioxin
contamination, but has been remediated and
is no longer considered to be a contaminated
site.
Rockland Chemical. Same as above.
Economics Laboratory. Same as above.
Myers Property. Same as above.
Schnitzpahn Garden Center. Same as above.
Brady Iron and Metals. Same as above.
Brook Industrial Park. Previous dioxin con-
tamination has been removed.
B.9. Wetlands
Wetlands tend to trap sediments and thus are negligible as sources of suspended solids. The following
table summarizes suspended solids for wetlands. No
wind erosion is expected from these areas.
B.10. Mill dams: Legacy Sediments
Legacy sediments may be defi ned as having eroded
from land after the arrival of early Colonial American settlers and during centuries of intensive land
uses, deposited along stream corridors, and often
accumulated behind low-head mill dams.214 Many
dams were built from the 1600s to the early 1900s
along streams and creeks to provide energy for mills
and to process water for mines and other operations. During this time, soil management was poor
and erosion rates were much higher than today,
leading to large amounts of sediments accumulating behind these dams. When dams are breached
naturally or are purposely removed (e.g., for safety
reasons and/or to improve fi sh habitat and passage),
these accumulated sediments move downstream. In
Table 24. Suspended solids contributions from wetlands in the Watershed
Basin
Area (acres) a
Erosion (T/yr) a
Sediment yield (T/yr) a
Sacandaga
Mohawk
Schoharie
Upper Hudson
Hudson-Hoosic
Mid-Hudson
Hudson-Wappinger
Lower Hudson
Queens-Kings
Staten Island
Rondout
Hackensack-Passaic
Raritan
Sandy Hook
69,292
197,366
30,260
108,210
135,853
113,251
49,420
18,023
566
4,853
92,141
80,784
44,997
18,814
1,957
6,014
657
3,238
1,280
2,461
572
127
2
10
1,400
603
404
140
82
263
29
120
56
99
25
6
0
0
64
31
17
10
Total Watershed
Total Region 1b
963,831
37,737
18,864
739
803
31
a Area, erosion, and sediment yield were computed by AVGWLF and GWLF.
b Estimated in proportion to wetland areas in Region 1 counties based on C-CAP land cover breakdown by county (provided by J. McCombs; see footnote 22).
212. Ann Hayton (technical coordinator, Bureau of Environmental Evaluation and Risk Assessment, Site Remediation Program, NJ DEP), personal communication.
213. Paul Harvey (case manager, NJ DEP) personal communication.
214. Adapted from the definition by the Legacy Sediment Workgroup of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), cited in Walter et al.
[243].
80
Pennsylvania, it has been estimated that roughly
half of the sediments trapped behind these dams
have been released since the beginning of the 20th
century [243].215
Within the NY/NJ Harbor Watershed there are
~3,900 to 6,500 mill dams that may be contributing
a significant amount of sediments to the region. According to our estimates (Table 25), old mill dams are
potentially among the largest sources of sediments to
the Harbor, but more research is needed to confirm
this. This is an emerging concern, and research has
only recently begun in Pennsylvania, prompted by efforts to reduce sediment loads to the Chesapeake Bay.
It is hypothesized that this source has been overlooked
thus far because today many of these dams are totally
filled with sediments and blend into the riparian scenery, and because modern society has lost knowledge
of them [243]. It has been estimated that 45% to 122%
of the sediment load from one of the tributaries in
the Chesapeake Bay watershed was from legacy sediments [243].
NYS DEC’s Hudson River Estuary Program (HREP)
has been involved in inventorying and characterizing
dams and other barriers in NY local waterways. HREP
has undertaken this effort because these obstructions
negatively impact streams216 and they need to be addressed by any holistic watershed restoration project.
However, the project does not focus particularly on old
mill dams as sources of suspended solids. HREP conducted a preliminary identification of dams in two watersheds in the Hudson Valley217 through remote sensing images, and later verified and characterized them
onsite. In both cases, the survey doubled the number of
dams known to NYS DEC. This project also found that
after a recent major rain event, two out of ten dams under study were damaged and released undetermined
amounts of sediment (in one case contaminated), suggesting that remobilization of sediments accumulated
behind these obstructions is fairly common.218 It is expected that climate change will increase these occurrences, as heavy-precipitation events are predicted to
become more frequent in our region [47].
Table 25. Estimated contribution of suspended solids from old mill dams in the Watershed
Basin
Sacandaga
Mohawk
Schoharie
Upper Hudson
Hudson-Hoosic
Mid-Hudson
Hudson-Wappinger
Lower Hudson
Queens-Kings
Staten Island
Rondout
Hackensack-Passaic
Raritan
Sandy Hook
Total Watershed
Total Region 1
Number of
millsa
Stored sediments
(million T/yr) b
Released sediment
(T/yr) c
180–335
392–672
167–333
188–175
188–298
393–720
161–307
125–246
6–12
11–21
170–257
225–368
163–271
49–51
72–369
157–739
67–367
75–193
75–328
157–791
65–338
50–271
2–13
4–23
68–282
90–405
65–298
20 –56
97,108–181,103
211,502–362,698
89,997–179,994
101,506–94,514
101,445–160,986
211,956–388,547
87,152–166,021
67,470–133,015
3,198–6,396
5,752–11,503
91,891–138,667
121,251–198,575
87,925–146,214
26,631–27,508
2,416–4,066
967–4,473
1,304,783–2,195,741
182–277
73–305
98,156–149,765
a Estimated from a map showing mill density by county [243].
b Assuming an average storage per dam as in the Conestoga River watershed (0.4–1.1 million T/dam) [243].
c Assuming an average release of 540 T/yr/dam based on research in the Conestoga River watershed [243].
215. Recent research in Pennsylvania identified 166 of these dams in the Conestoga River watershed (covering ~450 square miles), which are estimated to store
~68 to 180 million T of sediment. It has also been estimated that over 60% (~90,000 T/yr) of the sediment load emptied annually at the mouth of this river
originates in these legacy sediments [243]. Assuming that all of these sediments originate from the old dams, roughly 540 T of sediments are released per
dam per year (~0.05 to 0.1% of sediment stored).
216. Among other adverse effects, they hamper the movement of fish, trap sediments (sometimes contaminated), and increase water temperatures.
217. The Fishkill Watershed in Dutchess County and the Moodna Creek Watershed in Orange County. Scott Cuppett (HREP, Watershed Program coordinator, NYS
DEC/Cornell University), personal communication, November 15, 2007.
218. Ibid.
81
The NJ DEP Bureau of Dam Safety and Flood Control regulates and keeps track of all dams at least 5
ft in height. If a dam is in violation or represents a
safety concern, the owner is required to repair or remove it.219 NJ DEP’s Division of Fish and Wildlife provides comments on any dam project to avoid negative
impacts, such as releases of contaminated sediments,
and tries to provide for fish passage whenever possible.220
B.11. Coastal Erosion
Shorelines (whether open to the ocean or sheltered in
bays or estuaries) are eroded by natural causes, including waves, wind, currents, tides, surface runoff, and
groundwater seepage. Human activity can intensify
erosion by removing vegetation that protects the soil,
increasing overland runoff from impervious surfaces,
and by construction of hardened structures on the
shore that may direct waves to, and increase erosion
in, adjacent shoreline [27,125]. Other activities that
increase erosion include dredge and fill operations,
wetland drainage, boat traffic, and channel dredging
[27]. Sea level rise increases the likelihood of flooding and associated hazards, including the loss of waterfront areas. As the coastline moves, new areas are
exposed to erosion. The eroded materials, however,
tend to be composed mostly of sand (coarse particles)
and are typically not contaminated. Our estimates of
coastal erosion span only coasts that are outside the
Harbor itself—its southern boundary is defined as a
line connecting Sandy Hook with the western tip of
Long Island.221 Some of this material may make its
way to the Harbor, but estimates are not available at
this point.
In NY, NYS DEC’s Coastal Erosion Management
unit addresses issues related to coastal erosion, focusing mostly on protecting human life from erosion hazards. Coastal areas in NY include the Atlantic Ocean
coast, Long Island Sound, and the coasts of Lakes Ontario and Erie. New York’s Coastal Erosion Hazard
Areas Act (Article 34 of the Environmental Conservation Law) authorizes NYS DEC to identify and map
coastal erosion hazard areas and to develop coastal
erosion management regulations (6 NYCRR Part 505)
for activities within coastal erosion hazard areas [124].
The mapping was done in the early 1980s evaluating
data from the previous 40 years.222 Some estimates of
coastal recession rates have been made in a limited
number of communities, but most hazard areas are
located on lakes in the western part of the state. 223
As part of the NY Coastal Management Program, the
Atlantic Coast of New York Erosion Monitoring Program is gathering information on beach changes and
coastal processes from Coney Island to Montauk.224
However, it is difficult to translate these data into erosion rates. According to a 1999 sediment budget for
the barrier island from Fire Island to Montauk Point,
this ~130-km stretch is losing sand at a rate of ~650
m3/year [160]225 (~1,100 T/year).226 Most eroded materials move westward in this area and some could enter
the Harbor.
Coastal areas in NJ include the Raritan Bay Shore
and from Sandy Hook south. Historically, this shore
has suffered continued erosion, and some areas along
the Monmouth coast have not had beaches for long
periods.227 Since 1996, ~21 million cubic yards of
sand have been added to beaches from south of Sandy
Hook to Manasquan Lake (on the southern end of the
Monmouth coast) as part of a restoration project of
the NJ DEP Bureau of Coastal Engineering.228 It is
estimated that roughly 4 to 5 million cubic yards per
year (~5–7 million T/yr) of sand are eroded from this
~27-mile coastal stretch, some of which is transported
offshore, while some moves north, mostly to Sandy
Hook and its channel. 229
219. Jillian Lawrence (NJ DEP Bureau of Dam Safety and Flood Control), personal communication, December 10, 2007.
220. Don Wilkerson (NJ DEP, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Office of Environmental Review), personal communication, December 10, 2007.
221. As defined in the mass balances for PCBs, dioxins, and PAHs (see previous Harbor Project reports [87,149,242]).
222. Robert MacDonough (NYS DEC, Coastal Management Unit), personal communication, March 5, 2007.
223. Ibid.
224. This is a cooperative effort by NYS DOS, NYS DEC, USACE, and NY Seagrant. Data available at http://dune.seagrant.sunysb.edu/nycoast/. Barry Pendergrass (NYS DOS Coastal Management), personal communication, July 9, 2007.
225. This includes sea level rise, island breaching, and net sand transport from east to west. It does not include sand purposely removed from the area [160].
226. Assuming sand density is ~1,750 kg/m3 [15,34].
227. Chris Tucker (senior engineer, NJ DEP, Bureau of Coastal Engineering), personal communication, February 16, 2007.
228. Lynn Bocamazo (senior coastal engineer, USACE, NY District), personal communication, March 6, 2007.
229. Ibid.
82
APPENDIX C. BMPS FOR MINOR SOURCES OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS
C.1. Logging
Some common practices to minimize suspended solids mobilization from logging operations are listed below. Technical details can be obtained from publications from various sources, including NYS DEC [132];
Cornell Cooperative Extension [48]; Missouri Conservationist [57]; the Indiana Department of Natural
Resources [62]; the Ohio State University Extension
Research [146]; and the Maryland Department of the
Environment [77].
1. Erosion control: Minimize soil disturbance by
evaluating the equipment to be used, properly
timing the operation, locating and designing
roads and skid trails based on local topography (e.g., minimize steep segments) and other
conditions, and avoiding traffic in wet areas
and close to streams. Reduce slopes by constructing depressions or installing a variety
of barriers across roads and trails. Provide
adequate drainage for roads. Protect sensitive
soil with gravel. The selection of slash handling
practices can also have an impact on erosion.230
After harvesting, revegetate the site and install
traffic barriers to prevent the use of roads.
2. Sediment control: Provide a stabilized entrance (e.g., with sheets of wood) similar to construction sites. Other common measures (e.g.,
silt fences, straw bales) may be needed.
Measures to protect streams include the establishment of riparian buffers where traffic and operations
are avoided, removing logging debris from stream
beds to avoid flow changes and associated streambank
erosion, and special procedures when constructing
stream crossings to access logging areas (see, for example, Maryland’s manual for forest harvest [77]).
C.2. Roadside Erosion
Once construction is over, measures are needed to
manage and mitigate the effects of runoff and associated pollutants generated by impervious surfaces, as
well as for road bank stabilization.
Road banks can be protected from erosion by most
of the surface protection practices for erosion control
listed for construction sites. In particular, compost
application, has recently been gaining acceptance
as an erosion control method for road bank protection [53,221]. Compost provides organic matter and
nutrients, improving soil texture, increasing water infiltration, decreasing erodibility, and facilitating the
establishment and maintenance of healthy vegetation
[28,225]. Most of the soil bioengineering and biotechnical measures described for streambank protection
can also be applied to road banks, including [140]
planting, transplanting, seeding, live staking, branchpacking, live cribwalls, log terracing, live fascines, and
brush layering. Sediment control measures such as
vegetative buffer strips can also be applied.
C.3. Landscaping and Golf Courses
Recommendations for gardening and other landscaping activities are available from the Cooperative Extension of the University of Florida [238], the North
Carolina State University Extension [78], Connecticut
Water [30], and the University of Hawaii Cooperative
Extension Service [239], including the following:
Vegetate or cover soil with mulch or straw
(especially steep slopes), keeping bare areas to a
minimum.
Avoid heavy traffic in sensitive areas, such as
under trees and shrubs (where sturdy grasses
do not grow), or protect the areas by mulching
or planting shade-tolerant species.
Apply organic matter such as compost to im-
prove soil condition and reduce its erodibility.
Use “mulching mowers” and leave grass clip-
pings on the ground.231
Keep vegetated buffers around streams, ponds,
and stormwater drains.
Use a variety of vegetation (this slows runoff
more effectively than lawns).
Minimize water use by watering as needed
rather than on a schedule or relying on automatic watering systems; by applying only
enough water to moisten the top 4-6 inches232;
by choosing drought-tolerant, native plants; by
230. Slash is the debris left behind after logging. Certain practices such as slash burning can dramatically increase soil erosion because they reduce the protective soil organic layer.
231. Regular mowers leave behind large grass clippings that must be removed to avoid suffocating the grass. Mulching mowers finely chop the clippings so they
can be left on the ground, improving soil condition, physically protecting the soil, and reducing watering needs (clippings retain moisture).
232. Applied water can be measured by placing shallow containers on the ground to collect irrigation water.
83
avoiding irrigation when rain is forecast; and
by collecting rainwater in rain barrels and using it for irrigation.
Golf courses are not generally viewed as a concern
from a soil erosion standpoint because the surface is
permanently covered by grass. The main water quality issues in golf courses are related to fertilizers—in
particular nitrogen—and biocides that might contaminate stormwater. Thus, BMPs specifically targeted to
golf courses do not address suspended solids, except
during the construction phase, when BMPs for construction sites apply.
C.4. Mining
Most BMPs applicable to sand and gravel mining sites
are similar to those for construction sites [119]. Details
on practices for surface mines are available from the
Best Management Practices for Mining in Idaho [61] and
the Washington State Department of Ecology (http://
www.ecy.wa.gov/PROGRAMS/WQ/sand/swppp.html),
among others.
1. Erosion control practices: Minimize surface
disturbance by timing extraction in different
sections of the mine. Protect the surface with
vegetation (in areas that come out of production) or temporary covers. Keep materials that
are stockpiled outdoors covered. Minimize
slopes by grading and/or practices similar to
those for logging roads. Route runoff around
erodible areas.
2. Sediment control can be achieved by cleaning
vehicles before exiting the mine; by installing
straw bales and silt fences around the site; and
by stormwater management practices such as
biofiltration, infiltration basins, detention basins, and constructed wetlands [245].
Both active and inactive mines should be inspected
to maintain BMPs and assess their adequacy. After
mining has ceased, the land should be brought back
to useful purposes. This typically involves removing
large rocks, grading, topsoiling, and vegetating the
area. Ideally, reclamation should be done progressively as materials are exhausted, even when other areas
continue to be mined [147]. Former mines throughout
the U.S. have been reclaimed to parks, residential and
office developments, wetlands, and golf courses.233 Resources on surface mine reclamation include the Best
Management Practices for Reclaiming Surface Mines in
Washington and Oregon [118].
C.5. Road Abrasives
For most paved roads, plowing and salting is preferred
to the short-lived benefits in traction provided by sand
[96]. In fact, NYS DOT has steadily been decreasing
sand use, and NJ DOT, many NJ municipalities, and
the NYC Department of Sanitation have discontinued
its use altogether. A report for the Iowa DOT suggests
that abrasives be used only on roads and intersections
where traffic slows down below 30 mph, while snow
grooming only is suggested for unpaved roads [96].
An extensive list of BMPs related to road abrasives
can be found in two publications by the Transportation Association of Canada [176] and the Cornell Local Roads Program [7], including the following:
BMPs for abrasives application: Do nothing
if not required (e.g., light snow that will either
melt or be blown off because of weather conditions). Maximize the effect of abrasives by
adding salt to the stockpile, heating, or mixing
with brine or warm water when spreading (to
partly melt the ice or snow and stick particles
to the surface).234 Calibrate spreaders to avoid
over- and underapplication. Innovative alternatives to decrease application of abrasives
(and deicers) include having an electrically
conductive concrete overlay on roads that can
be heated to melt snow and ice [69],235 and remote sensors in roads or monitoring vehicles to
measure a variety of parameters to determine
whether salt or abrasives are needed.236
Other BMPs: Reduce the speed limit to mini-
mize dispersion by traffic. Proper road design
can decrease snow accumulation and deicing
needs [7].
BMPs for road maintenance yards: Locate
yards far from waterbodies, and store abrasives
and deicers indoors or under cover.237 Collect
233. Several examples can be found on the Mineral Information Institute’s web page (http://www.mii.org/recl.php).
234. Little research is available on the improvements gained [96].
235. Electricity could be provided by solar panels or windmills. This technology has been successful in bridges, and preliminary research for road applications has
been conducted at Clarkson University.
236. Some sensors have been used at airports, but more economic models are being developed for road use.
237. NJ stormwater regulations require municipal maintenance yards to store deicing materials in enclosed structures.
84
– The areas where fluids are removed and
where shredded materials are stored
should be covered and contained, and
should allow for capturing fluids. Crushers
should be on an impermeable surface to
allow collection, testing, and disposal of
fluids. Have spill kits available.
and treat stormwater. Sweep vehicles prior
to washing, and collect wash water (reuse for
brine or treat at least with an oil/grit separator).
C.6. Industrial Activities
As a general rule, BMPs at any site should aim at minimizing soil disturbance and preventing stormwater from
contacting sources of suspended solids or contaminants
(e.g., stockpiles, disturbed or bare soil) as much as possible. When this is not feasible, sediment control BMPs
are required to minimize impacts downstream. The
selection of specific BMPs depends on the type of industrial activity and on site-specific conditions. General
guidelines can be obtained from U.S. EPA stormwater
management guidance materials for industrial activities
[216]. In addition, each state’s stormwater permits establish specific requirements or discharge goals that must
be taken into account when determining the set of practices that are best suited for an individual facility.
Practices to prevent mobilization and trans-
port of solids offsite [113,138,234].
– Minimize soil disturbance and protect
exposed surfaces by stabilizing susceptible
areas and soil piles239 and by covering
stockpiles (other measures are listed in the
section on construction sites).
– Divert runoff away from storage areas via
dikes, berms, culverts, and other practices.
Sediment control practices include sweeping
impervious areas; installing stormwater inlet
devices to treat stormwater runoff (e.g., to remove solids and oil/grease) before discharging
to the sewer; sediment traps; vegetated swales
and strips; sand filters to separate sediments;
and silt fences or other barriers around shredder fluff, stockpiles, and other sources of solids.
C.6.1. Automobile Dismantling Operations and
Metal Recycling
Some common BMPs for auto dismantlers and metal
shredders are provided below. Many of these BMPs
are required by current regulations, including NY and
NJ stormwater discharge permits [113,138] and NYS
Chapter 180 of the Laws of 2006 (Article 27, Title 23 of
the Environmental Conservation Law). Additional resources are available from the Florida Automotive Recyclers’ Handbook [46], Wisconsin BMPs for auto recyclers
and for scrap and waste material recyclers [254,255],
and U.S. EPA Region 8 materials [234]. Useful publications and resources for facilities are available from the
Environmental Compliance for Automotive Recyclers
(ECAR, at http://www.ecarcenter.org/)
A priority for these types of operations is to
avoid contamination of stormwater by oil and
other fluids [113,138,234].
C.6.2. Cement Kilns and Concrete/
Clay Facilities
Mineral processing facilities may generate dust during storage and handling of raw materials and products, and during certain processes such as crushing,
grinding, sieving, and drying. Some options to minimize the impact of concrete/clay product companies
are described in the NJ Stormwater Permit [101], NY
Multi-sector SPDES [138], U.S. EPA’s Stormwater Management for Industrial Activities [216], and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA)
Dust Control Handbook for Minerals Processing [85]:
– Minimize contamination of materials: in
general, auto dismantlers remove fluids,
switches, and parts that may contain PCBs,
while metal shredders and recyclers have
quality control programs for incoming
materials.
Source control. Minimize fugitive dust emis-
– Drain and recover fluids as completely as
possible, and store, recycle, and/or dispose
of them properly.238
sions by (1) storing all materials indoors—in
silos, buildings, or innovative structures (see
footnote 243); (2) covering materials with tarps
or plastic sheets; (3) using a windbreak, restricting operations on the leeward side of the pile,
minimizing traffic around the pile, and/or using specialized equipment to minimize stockpile disturbance; and (4) minimizing the height
of material discharge to the pile.240
238. NJ DEP stormwater discharge permits provide guidelines for managing fluids, wastes, and solvents [113].
239. Stricter practices are needed if soil contamination is suspected or confirmed.
240. Special equipment for this is described in Chapter 2 of the OSHA handbook [85].
85
Sediment control. Sweep paved areas. Treat
contaminated stormwater before discharging
(e.g., in sedimentation basins).
Measures to control dust from processes are
described in OSHA’s Dust Control Handbook [85]
and include (1) fitting processing equipment
with dust control devices241; (2) wetting materials (less effective but more economical); (3) using
alternate equipment or improved equipment
design, or introducing changes in the process if
appropriate; and (4) providing shrouds, covers,
or enclosures around a dust source.242
C.6.3. Landfills
Measures to minimize mobilization of solids from landfills are similar to those applied at construction sites.
Vegetative and nonvegetative measures are applied
to stabilize exposed soils, channels, and slopes permanently or temporarily. Geosynthetics are increasingly
used, especially on steeper slopes that need stronger
protection [120]. Terracing, surface roughening, and
grading are used to keep slopes shallow. Diversions
and slope drains are used to channel stormwater.243
Dust occurs mostly on access roads, when handling
and transporting soil or daily cover, and when unloading dusty waste. Dust can be minimized by handling
these solids with care, moistening them, and minimizing activities in windy conditions. Dust suppression
measures listed in the section on construction—such
as sprinkling, applying calcium chloride, paving permanent roads, and reducing vehicle speed—may also
be applied. Sediment control measures include siltation
basins to settle suspended solids before discharging
runoff to waterbodies, and detention and retention basins to control flows through drainage systems. Further
details are available from U.S. EPA’s Solid Waste Disposal
Facility Criteria Technical Manual [217] and the Washington State Solid Waste Landfill Manual [150].
C.6.4. Incinerators and Power Plants
avoid dispersing solids in the environment. Incinerators can be designed to handle ash in totally enclosed
systems up to the point of transport for disposal or
management [26]. Personnel should be trained and
certified to ensure proper procedures are used.
The NY Multi-sector SPDES [138] lists a few BMPs
for power plants (some apply to incinerators as well):
1. Source control: Minimize fugitive dust (and
in most cases particles in stormwater) in coalhandling areas and stockpiles by covering or
enclosing stockpiles (e.g., in silos or geodesic
domes244), and by sprinkling or applying conventional or innovative dust-suppressing additives245 (additional measures are listed in the
previous section). Minimize the tracking of solids off-site by using special tires and by washing
vehicles before they leave the area (wash water
must be treated). Ensure that vehicles transporting residues are in good condition (e.g., the
bed or container does not leak), and that the
load is properly covered. Ensure that stormwater does not get contaminated around disposal
ponds or onsite landfills by keeping all access
roads to these areas clean of ash.
2. Sediment control (e.g., settling ponds) may be
needed to treat stormwater that has come in
contact with stockpiles and solids in general.
C.6.5. Contaminated Sites
The optimal measure is to clean contaminated sites
to applicable standards. Prevention of soil erosion—
and remobilization of attached pollutants—is often
achieved by capping and revegetation (with or without previous excavation of contaminated soil). While
a contaminated site awaits remedial activities, practices similar to those applied to construction sites can
be used to temporarily protect surfaces from erosion,
prevent stormwater from contacting disturbed surfaces, and trap particles from runoff before it is discharged.
Good operation practices are needed when handling
and storing combustion residues (ash) and coal to
241. For example, dust collectors such as fabric filters, electrostatic precipitators, or wet scrubbers.
242. For example, dust curtains made of rubber are used to contain dust within a conveyor enclosure.
243. Federal regulations (40 CFR 258.26) require landfills to prevent surface water from flowing into the active area of the landfill. Water that comes in contact
with landfill contents becomes landfill leachate and has to be conveyed to the leachate collection system [217].
244. These are structures that consist of a frame of interconnected tubes covered with metal panels; they can be used to store solid materials at power plants,
cement plants, and other facilities. These structures have larger capacities and are more cost effective than silos. See, for example, Geometrica, Inc.
(http://www.geometrica.com/Bulk_Storage/index.html).
245. Excessive water application for dust control may make coal harder to burn. Several patented additives—typically polymer or resin emulsions—are available
to control wind and water erosion (e.g., see Midwest Industrial Supply, Inc., http://www.midwestind.com/coalsales.htm). It is necessary to exercise caution
to ensure that these products do not cause negative environmental impacts. Patented enclosed systems avoid dust without using dust suppressants (e.g.,
see the Dustless Transfer® system at http://www.aircontrolscience.com/index.php).
86
REFERENCES
[1]
Focused Feasibility Study for the Lower Passaic River (Draft). Available online at http://www.ourpassaic.org/projectsites/
premis_public/index.cfm?fuseaction=EarlyAction. Accessed December 11, 2007.
[2]
Jacob, K, and C Turkstra, eds.1989. Earthquake Hazards and the Design of Constructed Facilities in the Eastern United
States, Vol. 558.
[3]
Agricultural Management Practices Sub-Committee of the NYS Nonpoint Source Management Practices Task Force, and
NY State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water, Bureau of Water Quality Management. 1996.
Agricultural Management Practices Catalogue for Nonpoint Source Pollution Prevention and Water Quality Protection in
New York State.
[4]
AMEC Earth and Environmental Center for Watershed Protection, Debo and Associates, Jordan Jones and Goulding,
and Atlanta Regional Commission. 2001. Georgia Stormwater Management Manual. Volume 2: Technical Handbook.
Available online at http://www.georgiastormwater.com/. Accessed August 9, 2007.
[5]
American Geophysical Union. 1999. African Dust Called A Major Factor Affecting Southeast U.S. Air Quality. ScienceDaily. July 14. Available online at http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/07/990714073433.htm. Accessed December
19, 2007.
[6]
American Water. 2007. American Water Receives Approval For “Green” Water Recycling. Press Release, January 29, 2007,
Voorhees, NJ [Online] http://www.amwater.com/awpr1/newsroom/press_releases/page13609.html. Accessed July 3, 2007.
[7]
Amsler, DE. 2006. Snow and Ice Control. CLRP No. 06-7. Cornell Local Roads Program. Ithaca, NY.
[8]
Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. 2004. Erosion and Sediment Control Design and Construction Manual. Available online at http://www.arkansashighways.com/Construc/2004_E&S_Control_Manual/11-04%20E%20
SC%20MANUAL%20FINAL.pdf. Accessed August 3, 2007.
[9]
Association of NJ Environmental Commissions (ANJEC). 2007. Stormwater Management for Municipalities. (CD compiling numerous resources on stormwater management). Order online at http://www.anjec.org/html/pubs_water.htm. Accessed March 3, 2008.
[10] Axler, R, M Lonsdale, C Hagley, G Host, J Reed, J Schomberg, E Ruzycki, N Will, B Munson, and C Richards. 2005.
LakeSuperiorStreams. Rain Barrels: Useful runoff solutions! [Online]. University of Minnesota-Duluth, Duluth, MN
55812. http://duluthstreams.org/citizen/rainbarrel.html. Accessed July 3, 2007.
[11] Axler, R, M Lonsdale, C Hagley, G Host, J Reed, J Schomberg, E Ruzycki, N Will, B Munson, and C Richards. 2005.
LakeSuperiorStreams. Water Quality Impacts: Erosion [Online]. University of Minnesota-Duluth, Duluth, MN. http://
www.duluthstreams.org/understanding/impact_erosion.html. Accessed January 22, 2007.
[12] Bain, M, J Lodge, DJ Suszkowski, D Botkin, R Diaz, K Farley, JS Levinton, F Steimle, and P Wilber. 2007. Target Ecosystem Characteristics for the Hudson Raritan Estuary: Technical Guidance for Developing a Comprehensive Ecosystem
Restoration Plan. A report to the Port Authority of NY/NJ. Hudson River Foundation. New York, NY. Available online at
http://www.harborestuary.org/reports/TECReport07.pdf. Accessed January 22, 2008.
[13] Berkshire Regional Planning Commission. 2001. The Massachusetts Unpaved Roads BMP Manual: A Guidebook on How
to Improve Water Quality While Addressing Common Problems. Prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Resource Protection; and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1. Pittsfield,
MA. Available online at http://p2library.nfesc.navy.mil/stormwaterbmp/fi les/dirtroad.pdf. Accessed December 18, 2006.
[14] Boehme, S, and M Panero. 2003. Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Cadmium in the New York/New
Jersey Harbor. New York Academy of Sciences. New York, NY. Available online at http://www.nyas.org/programs/harbor.
asp. Accessed April 8, 2005.
[15] Brady, NC, and RR Weil. 1999. The Nature and Properties of Soils. 12th ed. Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ.
[16] Brown, K. 2000. Urban Stream Restoration Practices: An Initial Assessment. Final Report. Center for Watershed Protection. Prepared for the U.S. EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds and Region V. Ellicott City, MD. Available
online at http://www.cwp.org/Downloads/elc_usrp.pdf. Accessed October 5, 2007.
REFERENCES
87
[17] C de Cerreño, A, M Panero, and S Boehme. 2002. Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Mercury in the
NY/NJ Harbor. New York Academy of Sciences. New York, NY. Available online at http://www.nyas.org/programs/harbor.
asp.
[18] California Stormwater Quality Association. 2003. Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook: Construction. Available online at http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/Construction.asp. Accessed December 18, 2006.
[19] California Stormwater Quality Association. 2003. Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook: New Development
and Redevelopment Handbook. Available online at http://www.cabmphandbooks.com/Development.asp. Accessed August
9, 2007.
[20] Caraco, D, and R Claytor. 1997. Stormwater BMP Design: Supplement for Cold Climates. Center for Watershed Protection. Prepared for U.S. EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds and U.S. EPA Region 5. Ellicott City, MD. Available online at http://www.cwp.org/cold-climates.htm. Accessed October 5, 2007.
[21] Center for Clean Air Policy. 2007. Less Auto-Dependent Development is Key to Mitigating Climate Change. Press Release,
September 20, 2007, Washington, DC [Online] http://www.ccap.org/transportation/documents/Growing%20Cooler%20
Press%20Release%20--%20FINAL.pdf. Accessed October 30, 2007.
[22] Chen, Y, SK Bhatia, J Buchanan, D DeKoskie, and R VanSchaack. 2005. Effectiveness of Stream Restoration in Reducing Stream Bank Erosion: The Case of Batavia Kill Stream Restoration Projects, New York. In Proceedings of the 2005
Watershed Management Conference. “Managing Watersheds for Human and Natural Impacts: Engineering, Ecological,
and Economic Challenges”. Williamsburg, VA. July 19–22, 2005. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
[23] Citizens Housing and Planning Council, and Regional Plan Association. 2006. Balanced Housing for a Smart Region:
Policies for Addressing the Housing Problems of the New York Metropolitan Region. Available online at http://www.chpcny.org/pdf/Smart_Region.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2007.
[24] City of Portland, Oregon. 2004. Stormwater Management Manual. Revision #3. Bureau of Environmental Services. Available online at http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?c=35122. Accessed August 9, 2007.
[25] Columbia University. 2005. What Changes in Climate Are Projected for the Region? Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Climate Change Information Resources - New York Metropolitan Region (CCIRNYC). Available online at http://ccir.ciesin.columbia.edu/nyc/pdf/q2a.pdf. Accessed November 16, 2007.
[26] Committee on Health Effects of Waste Incineration, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, and National
Research Council. 2000. Waste Incineration and Public Health. National Academies Press. Washington, DC. Available
online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5803.html. Accessed June 28, 2006.
[27] Committee on Mitigating Shore Erosion along Sheltered Coasts, National Research Council. 2007. Mitigating Shore Erosion along Sheltered Coasts. National Academies Press. Washington, DC. Available online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.
php?record_id=11764#toc. Accessed August 22, 2007.
[28] Composting Council Research and Education Foundation, and United States Composting Council. Compost Use on State
Highway Applications. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/compost/highway/. Accessed January 11,
2007.
[29] Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Guide for Removal, Storage, and Disposal of PCB Small Capacitors [Online] http://dep.state.ct.us/wst/pcb/removal.htm. Accessed January 25, 2007. Last update October 2005.
[30] Connecticut Water. Maintain Your Yard and Garden to Conserve and Protect Water Resources. (Brochure).
[31] Constantinescu, A. 2007. Innovative Civil Engineering Application Developed at Virginia Tech Promises Cleaner Waters
[Online]. Virginia Tech News. September 4, 2007. http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/story.php?relyear=2007&itemno=481. Accessed September 6, 2007.
[32] Contamination Assessment and Reduction Project (CARP). 2007. A Model for the Evaluation and Management of Contaminants of Concern in Water, Sediment, and Biota in the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary: Contaminant Fate & Transport &
Bioaccumulation Sub-models. Prepared by HydroQual. Available online at http://carpweb.org/main.html. Accessed November 12, 2007.
88
[33] Contamination Assessment and Reduction Project (CARP). 2007. A Model for the Evaluation and Management of Contaminants of Concern in Water, Sediment, and Biota in the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary: Sediment Transport/Organic Carbon
Production Sub-model. Prepared by HydroQual. Available online at http://carpweb.org/main.html. Accessed November
12, 2007.
[34] Cornell Cooperative Extension, and Department of Floriculture and Ornamental Horticulture, Cornell University. 1997.
Bulk density and Physical Support [Online] http://www.hort.cornell.edu/department/faculty/good/growon/media/bulkd.
html. Accessed August 30, 2007.
[35] Coyle, K. 2005. Environmental Literacy In America: What Ten Years of NEETF/Roper Research and Related Studies
Say About Environmental Literacy in the U.S. The National Environmental Education & Training Foundation. Available
online at http://www.greenbiz.com/toolbox/reports_third.cfm?LinkAdvID=65913. Accessed November 13, 2007.
[36] DC Water and Sewer Authority. Overview [Online] http://www.dcwasa.com/education/css/combined_sewer.cfm. Accessed
January 25, 2008.
[37] Delaware River Basin Commission. 2003. Calibration of the PCB Water Quality Model for the Delaware Estuary for
Penta-PCBs and Carbon. West Trenton, NJ. Available online at http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/TMDL/CalibrationRpt.pdf. Accessed December 14, 2004.
[38] Elliot, W, D Hall, and D Scheele. 2000. Disturbed WEPP: WEPP Interface for Disturbed Forest and Range Runoff, Erosion and Sediment Delivery. Technical Documentation. DRAFT. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station
and San Dimas Technology and Development Center. Available online at http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/distweppdoc.html. Accessed July 13, 2007.
[39] Erickson, JD, K Limburg, J Gowdy, K Stainbrook, A Nowosielski, C Hermans, and J Polimeni. 2005. Anticipating Change
in the Hudson River Watershed: An Ecological Economic Model for Integrated Scenario Analysis. p. 341–370. In R
Bruins and M Heberling (eds.) Economics and Ecological Risk Assessment: Applications to Watershed Management. CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL
[40] European Sediment Network (SedNet). Sediments [Online] http://www.sednet.org/content/view/67/106/. Accessed January
22, 2007.
[41] Evans, BM, and KJ Corradini. 2006. AVGWLF Version 6.x: A Guide to Creating Software-Compatible Data Sets. Penn
State Institutes of the Environment, The Pennsylvania State University. University Park, PA. Available online at http://
www.avgwlf.psu.edu/download.htm. Accessed August 28, 2007.
[42] Evans, BM, DW Lehning, KJ Corradini, and SA Sheeder. 2006. PRedICT Version 2.0. Users Guide for the Pollutant Reduction Impact Comparison Tool. Penn State Institutes of the Environment, The Pennsylvania State University. University Park, PA. Available online at http://www.predict.psu.edu/download.htm. Accessed April 4, 2007.
[43] Evans, BM, SA Sheeder, and KJ Corradini. 2006. AVGWLF Version 6.3: Users Guide. Penn State Institutes of the Environment, The Pennsylvania State University. University Park, PA. Available online at http://www.avgwlf.psu.edu/download.htm. Accessed April 4, 2007.
[44] Evans, BM, SA Sheeder, and DW Lehning. 2003. A Spatial Technique for Estimating Streambank Erosion Based on Watershed Characteristics. Journal of Spatial Hydrology 3 (1) Available online at http://www.spatialhydrology.com/journal/
Vol3No1Spring2003.htm. Accessed February 1, 2007.
[45] Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Workshop on Innovative Shore Protection Technology [Online] http://
www.dep.state.fl.us/beaches/workshop.htm. Accessed August 23, 2007.
[46] Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Hazardous Waste Compliance Assistance Program, and Florida Center
for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management. 1999. Florida Automotive Recyclers’ Handbook: Reducing and ManagingWastes. Available online at http://www.hinkleycenter.com/brochures_bulletins/automotive_recyclers_handbook.pdf.
Accessed August 21, 2007.
[47] Frumhoff, PC, JJ McCarthy, JM Melillo, SC Moser, and DJ Wuebbles. 2007. Confronting Climate Change in the U.S.
Northeast: Science, Impacts, and Solutions. Synthesis report of the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment (NECIA).
Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). Cambridge, MA. Available online at http://www.climatechoices.org/assets/documents/climatechoices/confronting-climate-change-in-the-u-s-northeast.pdf. Accessed November 16, 2007.
REFERENCES
89
[48] Gailor, L, and R Schneider. BMPs, logging aesthetics, and streamside management. Cornell Cooperative Extension of
Warren County, and Department of Natural Resources, Cornell University. Available online at http://www.dnr.cornell.
edu/ext/forestrypage/pubs/infobroch/by%20topic/BMP_gailor_schneider.htm. Accessed October 24, 2006.
[49] Georgia Department of Community Affairs. Riparian Area and Wetland Protection/Enhancement/Restoration [Online]
http://www.dca.state.ga.us/watersheds/BMP%20descriptions.doc/(7)wetland%20protection.doc. Accessed September 10,
2007.
[50] Gibbons, J. 1998. NEMO Technical Paper #1: Addressing Imperviousness in Plans, Site Design and Land Use Regulations. Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO). Available online at http://nemo.uconn.edu/tools/impervious_
surfaces/planning_design.htm. Accessed December 7, 2006.
[51] Government of South Australia, Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation. Wind Erosion Processes [Online] http://www.dwlbc.sa.gov.au/land/topics/wind/index.html. Accessed July 27, 2007.
[52] Greene County Soil & Water Conservation District. 2007. Schoharie Creek Management Plan. Available online at http://
www.gcswcd.com/stream/schoharie-eastkill/SchoharieCreekSMP/. Accessed August 22, 2007.
[53] Grobe, K. 2006. Compost Use for Erosion Control in California. Biocycle 47 (4):56–58.
[54] Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment. Benefits of Restoration [Online] January 22, 2008. Accessed January
22, 2008.
[55] Haines, AL. 2003. Smart Growth: A Solution to Sprawl? The Land Use Tracker. Vol.2 (4). Spring 2003. Newsletter of the
Center for Land Use Education, a joint venture of Cooperative Extension and the College of Natural Resources at the
University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point. Available online at http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/landcenter/tracker/spring2003/SmartGrowth.html. Accessed January 29 2007.
[56] Haith, DR, R Mandel, and RS Wu. 1992. GWLF: Generalized Watershed Loading Functions User’s Manual. Version 2.0.
Cornell University. Ithaca, NY. Available online at http://www.avgwlf.psu.edu/download.htm. Accessed August 28, 2007.
[57] Hanley, TE. Logging BMPs Protect Land and Water. Missouri Conservationist. Available online at http://www.mdc.
mo.gov/conmag/2002/08/20.htm. Accessed October 24, 2006. Last update August 13, 2002.
[58] Hillel, D. 1998. Environmental Soil Physics. Academic Press. San Diego, CA.
[59] Hyman, WA, and D Vary. 1999. Best Management Practices for Environmental Issues Related to Highway and Street
Maintenance: A Synthesis of Highway Practice. NCHRP Synthesis 272. National Cooperative Highway Research Program,
National Research Council, Transportation Research Board, American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, and U.S. Federal Highway Administration. National Academy Press. Washington, DC. Available online at http://
ntl.bts.gov/lib/21000/21800/21818/PB99143489.pdf. Accessed January 9, 2007.
[60] Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. 2003. Compendium of Best Management Practices to Control Polluted
Runoff: A Source Book. Joan Meitl and Todd Maguire, Editors. Available online at http://www.deq.state.id.us/water/data_
reports/surface_water/nps/compendium_report_2003_part2.pdf. Accessed December 18, 2006.
[61] Idaho Department of Lands. 1992. Best Management Practices for Mining in Idaho. Available online at http://www.idl.
idaho.gov/Bureau/Minerals/bmp_manual1992/bmp_index.htm. Accessed August 20, 2007.
[62] Indiana Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry. 1998. Logging and Forestry Best Management Practices.
Field Guide for Water Quality in Indiana [Online] http://www.in.gov/dnr/forestry/index.html?http://www.state.in.us/dnr/
forestry/bmp/log1.htm&2. Accessed October 24, 2006. Last update November 16, 2006.
[63] Iowa Department of Natural Resources. 2006. How to Control Streambank Erosion. Prepared by the Iowa Department
of Natural Resources In cooperation with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Available online at http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/erosion/manuals/streambank_erosion.pdf. Accessed April 13, 2007.
[64] Kaspersen, J. The Stormwater Utility: Will it Work in Your Community? [Online]. Stormwater. http://www.forester.net/
sw_0011_utility.html. Accessed September 5, 2007.
[65] Kentucky Division of Water. What Are Combined Sewers and Combined Sewer Overflows? [Online] http://www.water.
ky.gov/permitting/wastewaterpermitting/KPDES/seweroverflows/cso_questions-1.htm.
90
[66] Kostarelos, K, and E Khan. 2007. Final Report Stormwater Management Practices (Closed Drainage) Study (C - 01 - 74):
Laboratory Simulation and Field Studies. Submitted to NYSDOT, Environmental Science Bureau. Available online at
https://www.nysdot.gov/portal/page/portal/divisions/engineering/environmental-analysis/repository/c-01-74.pdf. Accessed
January 15, 2008.
[67] KriStar Enterprises, Inc. Construction Site Sedimentation Control Products (brochure).
[68] Kubiak, T, C Stern, and M Foster. 2007. Development of a Preliminary Remediation Goal (PRG) for Dioxin in Sediment
for the Passaic River/Newark Bay and Raritan Bay Complex, New Jersey, Using a Reproductive EndPoint in the Eastern
Oyster. Presented at the SETAC 28th Annual Meeting. Milwaukee, WI, Nov 11-15.
[69] Langen, TA, M Twiss, T Young, K Janoyan, JC Stager, J Osso Jr., H Prutzman, and B Green. 2006. Environmental Impacts of Winter Road Management at the Cascade Lakes and Chapel Pond. The Final Report. Clarkson Center for the
Environment. Report #1. Available online at http://people.clarkson.edu/~tlangen/Reprints/CascadeLakesFinalReport.pdf.
Accessed October 25, 2006.
[70] Lehner, PH, GPA Clarke, DM Cameron, and AG Frank. 1999. Stormwater Strategies: Community Responses to Runoff
Pollution. Natural Resources Defense Council. Available online at http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/storm/stoinx.asp.
[71] Lewis, L. 2000. Soil Bioengineering: An Alternative for Roadside Management. A Practical Guide. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service. San Dimas, CA. Available online at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/eesc/design/roadside/SB/pdf/
Soil%20bioeng.pdf. Accessed January 11, 2007.
[72] Limburg, KE, KM Stainbrook, JD Erickson, and JM Gowdy. 2005. Urbanization Consequences: Case Studies in the Hudson River Watershed. p. 23–37. In LR Brown, RH Gray, RM Hughes and M Meador (eds.) The Effects of Urbanization on
Stream Ecosystems. American Fisheries Society Symposium 47. Available online at http://www.esf.edu/efb/limburg/Pubs/
Limburg_etal_05_Urb_consequences.pdf. Accessed January 29, 2007.
[73] Lodge, JM. 1997. A Model of Tributary Sediment Input to the Tidal Hudson River. M.S. Thesis. State University of New
York at Stony Brook, Marine Sciences Research Center.
[74] Lower Hudson Coalition of Conservation Districts. 2001–2002. Non Point Source Assessment of Lower Hudson River
Watersheds. Available online at http://www.lhccd.org/pdf/complete.nps.pdf. Accessed February 8, 2007.
[75] Lubick, N. 2006. Using Nature’s Design to Stem Urban Stormwater Problems. Environmental Science and Technology
40 (19):5832–5833. Available online at http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag/40/i19/pdf/100106tech.pdf. Accessed
October 1, 2006.
[76] Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Rivers and Streams. Stream Bank Erosion [Online] http://www.dnr.state.
md.us/streams/res_protect/erosion.html. Accessed October 17, 2006.
[77] Maryland Department of the Environment, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and State Soil Conservation
Committee. 2005. 2005 Maryland Erosion and Sediment Control Standards and Specifications for Forest Harvest Operations. Draft. Available online at http://www.mde.state.md.us/Programs/WaterPrograms/SedimentandStormwater/erosionsedimentcontrol/forestharvestoperations.asp. Accessed August 14, 2007.
[78] McLaughlin, R, D Osmond, A Bruneau, A Russell, and J Young. Improving Lawn Care and Gardening. HomeASyst
North Carolina. Environmental Stewardship for Homeowners. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. Vol.5
Available online at http://www.soil.ncsu.edu/assist/homeassist/LawnHAS.pdf. Accessed December 11, 2006.
[79] Megahan, WF, and WJ Kidd. 1972. Effects of logging and logging roads on erosion and sediment deposition from steep
terrain. Journal of Forestry 70 (3):136–141.
[80] Metro (Portland Metro Regional Government). Green Streets: Innovative Solutions for Stormwater and Stream Crossings
[Online] http://www.metro-region.org/article.cfm?articleid=262. Accessed August 9, 2007.
[81] Twin Cities Metropolitan Council. 2001. Urban Small Sites Best Management Practice Manual: Stormwater Best Management Practices for Cold Climates. Prepared by Barr Engineering Company. St. Paul, MN. Available online at http://www.
metrocouncil.org/environment/Watershed/bmp/manual.htm. Accessed January 25, 2006.
[82] New York Metropolitan Transportation Agency. 2007. August 8, 2007: Storm Report. Available online at http://www.mta.
info/mta/pdf/storm_report_2007.pdf. Accessed December 6, 2007.
REFERENCES
91
[83] Minnesota Department of Transportation. 2007. Road Design Manual. Available online at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/tecsup/rdm/index.html. Accessed July 13, 2007.
[84] Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2006. Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Version 1.1. Report wq-strm-03. Created by
the Minnesota Stormwater Steering Committee. St. Paul, MN. Available online at http://www.pca.state.mn.us/water/stormwater/stormwater-manual.html. Accessed August 9, 2007. Last update October 31, 2006.
[85] Mody, V, and R Jakhete. 1987. Dust Control Handbook for Minerals Processing. Prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Mines
by Martin Marietta Corporation, Martin Marietta Laboratories. Baltimore, MD. Available online at http://www.osha.gov/
SLTC/silicacrystalline/dust/dust_control_handbook.html. Accessed August 21, 2007.
[86] Montalto, F, C Behr, K Alfredo, M Wolf, M Arye, and M Walsh. 2007. Rapid Assessment of the Cost-Effectiveness of Low
Impact Development for CSO Control. Landscape and Urban Planning 82:117–131.
[87] Muñoz, G, and M Panero. 2006. Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Dioxins in the New York/New Jersey Harbor. New York Academy of Sciences. New York, NY. Available online at http://www.nyas.org/programs/harbor.asp.
[88] National Environmental Education and Training Foundation. 2007. Earth Gauge [Online] http://www.earthgauge.net/wp/
why/. Accessed November 13, 2007.
[89] National Environmental Education and Training Foundation. 2007. Why Do We Need an Earth Gauge? [Online] http://
www.earthgauge.net/wp/why/. Accessed November 13, 2007.
[90] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal Services. Land Cover Analysis: NOAA Coastal
Change Analysis Program [Online] http://www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/lca/ccap.html. Accessed July 12, 2007. Last update June
22, 2007.
[91] National Ready Mixed Concrete Association. Ready Mixed Production Statistics [Online] http://www.nrmca.org/concrete/
data.asp. Accessed March 16, 2007.
[92] Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 2002. Out of the Gutter: Reducing Polluted Runoff in the District of Columbia. Principal Author: JW. Woodworth, Jr. Contributing authors: GA Clarke, W Huang, and N Stoner. Available online at
http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/gutter/gutterinx.asp. Accessed June 18, 2007.
[93] Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 2006. Rooftops to Rivers: Green Strategies for Controlling Stormwater and
Combined Sewer Overflows. Prepared by Christopher Kloss, Low Impact Development Center and Crystal Calarusse,
University of Maryland School of Public Policy. Available online at http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/rooftops/contents.
asp. Accessed July 6, 2007.
[94] Nebel, BJ, and RT Wright. 2000. Chapter 24: Sustainable Communities and Lifestyles. In Environmental Science. 7th ed.
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
[95] New York Sea Grant Extension. Protect Your Wetlands [Online] http://www.nysgextension.org/glhabitat/epacd/
pages/6tipspages/wetlands.htm. Accessed September 10, 2007.
[96] Nixon, WA. 2001. The Use of Abrasives in Winter Maintenance. Final Report of Project TR 434. IIHR Technical Report
No. 416. Iowa Department of Transportation and The Iowa Highway Research Board. Iowa City, IA. Available online at
http://www.transportation.org/sites/sicop/docs/Abrasives%20report.pdf. Accessed October 25, 2006.
[97] NJ Department of Agriculture. NJ Erosion Control Standards [Online] http://www.nj.gov/agriculture/divisions/anr/nrc/
njerosion.html. Accessed August 3, 2007.
[98] NJ Department of Environmental Protection. Certified Technologies: Storm Water Treatment Technologies [Online]
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/bscit/CertifiedMain.htm. Accessed August 30, 2007.
[99] NJ Department of Environmental Protection. Coastal Management Program. Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program [Online] http://www.state.nj.us/dep/cmp/czm_cnpp.html. Accessed February 20, 2007.
[100] NJ Department of Environmental Protection. Coastal Management Program. Enforceable Policies. [Online] http://www.
state.nj.us/dep/cmp/czm_enforcepolicies.html. Accessed February 20, 2007.
[101] NJ Department of Environmental Protection. Concrete Products Manufacturing Industry Specific Permit. NJ0108456.
Available online at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/pdf/final_cpm_gp.pdf. Accessed January 25, 2007.
92
[102] NJ Department of Environmental Protection. Fact Sheet for the Draft Renewal of the Concrete Products Manufacturing
Facilities General Permit (NJ0108456). Available online at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/pdf/cpm_fs.pdf. Accessed January 25, 2007.
[103] NJ Department of Environmental Protection. New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) General
Permit for Combined Sewer Systems (CSS) NJPDES No. NJ0105023. Available online at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/
pdf/cso_rfa.pdf. Accessed February 13, 2007.
[104] NJ Department of Environmental Protection. NJPDES Permit Number: NJ0105023. Surface Water Master General
Permit Revoke & Reissue. Available online at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/pdf/cso_final_gp.pdf. Accessed February 13,
2007.
[105] NJ Department of Environmental Protection. Nonpoint Source Pollution [Online]. Division of Watershed Management.
http://www.nj.gov/dep/watershedmgt/nps_program.htm. Accessed February 20, 2007. Last update September 26, 2006.
[106] NJ Department of Environmental Protection. 2000. New Jersey Nonpoint Source and Stormwater Management Program Plan. Available online at http://www.nj.gov/dep/watershedmgt/DOCS/npsplan2001.pdf. Accessed February 20,
2007.
[107] NJ Department of Environmental Protection. 2004. New Jersey Stormwater Best Management Practices Manual. Division of Watershed Management. Trenton, NJ. Available online at http://www.njstormwater.org/bmp_manual2.htm. Accessed August 29, 2007. Last update April 23, 2007.
[108] NJ Department of Environmental Protection. 2004. Tier A Municipal Stormwater Guidance Document. NJPDES General Permit No. NJ0141852. Division of Water Quality, Municipal Stormwater Regulation Program. Available online at
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/tier_a_guidance.htm. Accessed July 6, 2007.
[109] NJ Department of Environmental Protection. 2004. Tier B Municipal Stormwater Guidance Document. NJPDES General Permit No. NJ0141861. Division of Water Quality, Municipal Stormwater Regulation Program. Available online at
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/tier_b_guidance.htm. Accessed July 6, 2007.
[110] NJ Department of Environmental Protection. 2006. New Jersey Combined Sewer Overflow Control Program. Presentation by Shadab Ahmad, and S. Dan Zeppenfeld, Division of Water Quality, Municipal Finance & Construction Element,
to the NY-NJ Harbor Estuary Program, Citizen’s Advisory Committee, New York, NY, October 11 [Online] http://www.
harborestuary.org/pdf/CAC/NJDEP-HEPCAC-Oct112006.pdf. Accessed August 24, 2007.
[111] NJ Department of Environmental Protection. 2006. New Jersey Nonstructural Stormwater Management Strategies Point
System (NSPS). User’s Guide. Available online at http://www.njstormwater.org/pdf/nsps_userguide2006013.pdf. Accessed
February 13, 2007.
[113] NJ Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Quality. Stormwater Discharge General Permits. Scrap
Metal (SM). Available online at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq/gp.htm. Accessed August 30, 2007.
[114] NJ Department of Environmental Protection, and New Jersey Geological Survey. 2005. Selected Sand, Gravel and Rock
Surficial Mining Operations in New Jersey. DGS05-1. Trenton, NJ. Available online at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/njgs/
geodata/dgs05-1.htm. Accessed October 5, 2006.
[115] NJ Department of Transportation. Roadway Design Manual (U.S. Customary Units). Section 10: Drainage Design. Available online at http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/eng/documents/RDME/sect10E2001.shtm. Accessed August 13, 2007.
Last update January 16, 2004.
[116] NJ Department of Transportation. Roadway Information and Traffic Counts. Public Roadway Mileage and Vehicle Miles
Traveled. Mileage by jurisdiction. Year ending 2005 [Online] http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/roadway/pdf/
hpms2005/05njprmbj.pdf. Last update January 12, 2006.
[117] NJCAT (NJ Corporation for Advanced Technology). About NJCAT [Online] http://www.njcat.org/. Accessed September
28, 2007.
[118] Norman, DK, PJ Wampler, AH Throop, EF Schnitzer, and JM Roloff. 1997. Best Management Practices for Reclaiming
Surface Mines in Washington and Oregon. Open File Report 96-2. Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources. Available online at http://www.dnr.wa.gov/geology/pdf/bmp.pdf. Accessed August 20, 2007.
REFERENCES
93
[119] North Dakota Department of Health, Division of Water Quality. Notice of Intent to Obtain Coverage under NDPDES.
General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial or Mining Activity. Available online at http://
www.health.state.nd.us/WQ/Storm/Mining/MiningSWPPP.pdf. Accessed October 24, 2006.
[120] Northcutt, G. 2006. Cashing in on Geosynthetics to Protect Landfi lls and Profits. MSW Management. January/February
2006. Available online at http://www.forester.net/mw_0601_cashing.html. Accessed August 20, 2007.
[121] Northeast States Emergency Consortium (NSEC). Earthquakes [Online] http://www.nesec.org/hazards/Earthquakes.cfm.
Accessed December 11, 2007.
[122] NY City Department of Environmental Protection. 2006. NYC CSO Long Term Control Plan. Presented to the Harbor
Estuary Program, Citizen’s Advisory Committee, October 11, 2006 [Online] http://www.harborestuary.org/pdf/CAC/
NYCDEP-HEPCAC-Oct11-2006.pdf. Accessed August 24, 2007.
[123] NY City Department of Environmental Protection. 2006. Water Conservation Program.
[124] NY State Department of Environmental Conservation. Coastal Erosion [Online] http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/28923.html.
Accessed Augst 29, 2007.
[125] NY State Department of Environmental Conservation. Coastal Erosion Control Permit Program [Online] http://www.
dec.ny.gov/permits/6064.html. Accessed August 28, 2007.
[126] NY State Department of Environmental Conservation. Issued Title V Permit for Danskammer Generating Station.
Available online at http://www.dec.ny.gov/dardata/boss/afs/permits/333460001100017.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2007.
[127] NY State Department of Environmental Conservation. Issued Title V Permit for Lovett Generating Station. Available
online at http://www.dec.ny.gov/dardata/boss/afs/permits/339280001000039.pdf. Accessed July 23, 2007. Title V main
web page at http://www.dec.ny.gov/dardata/boss/afs/issued_atv.html.
[128] NY State Department of Environmental Conservation. New York State Mining and Reclamation Data [Online] http://
www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dmn/minedata.htm. The site subsequently moved to http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/5374.html.
Accessed October 19, 2006. Data was downloaded by selecting the link “Download selected fields from the mined land
database” (updated nightly).
[129] NY State Department of Environmental Conservation. Permit Needed for Construction Activities [Online] http://www.
dec.ny.gov/permits/6310.html. Accessed July 2, 2007.
[130] NY State Department of Environmental Conservation. State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) [Online]
http://www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6054.html. Accessed July 6, 2007.
[131] NY State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1992. Reducing the Impacts of Stormwater Runoff from New Developments. Division of Water, Bureau of Water Quality Management. Available online at http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/29080.html. Accessed July 9, 2007.
[132] NY State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1993. Silviculture Management Practices Catalogue for Nonpoint
Source Pollution Prevention and Water Quality Protection in New York State. Prepared by the Silviculture Management
Practices Sub-Committee of the NYS Nonpoint Source Management Practices Task Force.
[133] NY State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1998. Division of Water Technical and Operational Guidance
Series (1.3.3). SPDES Permit Development for POTWs. Available online at http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/togs133.
pdf. Accessed July 6, 2007.
[134] NY State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2000. Nonpoint Source Management Program. Available online
at http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/npsmgt.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2007.
[135] NY State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2003. Environmental Compliance and Pollution Prevention
Guide for Automobile Recyclers. Available online at http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ppu/vehdismanltr.html. Accessed
January 25, 2007.
[136] NY State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2003. New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual.
Prepared by the Center for Watershed Protection. Available online at http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/29072.html. Accessed September 13, 2007.
94
[137] NY State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2003. Overview of the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
(MS4) Phase II Stormwater Permit Program: A Summary of MS4 Phase II Permit Requirements. Available online at
http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/ms4_overview.pdf. Accessed July 2, 2007.
[138] NY State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2006. SPDES Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity. Permit Number GP-0-06-002. Issued Pursuant to Article 17 Titles 7, 8 and
Article 70 of the Environmental Conservation Law. Available online at http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/gp0601.pdf.
[139] NY State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Mineral Resources. New York State Oil, Gas and Mineral Resources 2004: Annual Report (Part 5). Available online at http://www.dec.ny.gov/pubs/4823.html. Accessed July 13,
2007.
[140] NY State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water. 2005. New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control. Prepared by NYS Soil and Water Conservation Committee. Albany, NY. Available online at http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dow/toolbox/escstandards/index.html. Accessed October 18, 2006.
[141] NY State Department of Environmental Conservation, and NY State Department of State. 2004. Stormwater Management Guidance Manual for Local Officials: Construction and Post-Construction Stormwater Runoff Management. Available online at http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/9007.html. Accessed July 9, 2007.
[142] NY State Department of Transportation. NYSDOT 2004 Highway Mileage Summary [Online] http://www.dot.state.ny.us/
tech_serv/high/highwaym.html. Accessed January 23, 2007.
[143] Obropta, CC, and S Goodrow. 2005. Municipal Stormwater Management Planning. FS557. Rutgers Cooperative Research & Extension, (NJAES), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. Available online at http://water.rutgers.edu/
Fact_Sheets/fs557.pdf. Accessed March 16, 2007.
[144] Obropta, CC, and S Goodrow. 2005. New Jersey’s Stormwater Regulations. FS556. Rutgers Cooperative Research &
Extension, (NJAES), Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. Available online at http://www.water.rutgers.edu/Fact_
Sheets/fs556.pdf. Accessed March 16, 2007.
[145] Ohio EPA, Small Business Assistance Office. 2003. SBAO Fact Sheet Number 23. Managing Mercury Switches: Information for Auto Recyclers. Columbus, Ohio. Available online at http://www.epa.state.oh.us/ocapp/sb/publications/mercuryswitches.pdf. Accessed January 25, 2007.
[146] Ohio State University Extension. BMPs for Erosion Control for Logging Practices in Ohio. Bulletin 916. Available online
at http://ohioline.osu.edu/b916/index.html. Accessed August 14, 2007.
[147] Ontario Stone, Sand & Gravel Association. Rehabilitation of Pits and Quarries. Available online at http://www.apao.com/
Downloads/publicationsPFDs/RehabilitationOSSGA.pdf. Accessed August 20, 2007.
[148] Oregon Department of Transportation. 2005. Erosion Control Manual: Guidelines for Developing and Implementing
Erosion and Sediment Controls. Prepared by Harza Engineering Company And ODOT Geo/Environmental Section.
Available online at http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/GEOENVIRONMENTAL/docs/Erosion_Control_Manual_nav.
pdf. Accessed August 3, 2007.
[149] Panero, M, S Boehme, and G Muñoz. 2005. Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Polychlorinated Biphenyls in the New York/New Jersey Harbor. New York Academy of Sciences. New York, NY. Available online at http://www.
nyas.org/programs/harbor.asp.
[150] Parametrix, Inc. 1987. Solid Waste Landfill Manual. Prepared for Washington State Department of Ecology. Available
online at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/87013.pdf. Accessed October 4, 2006.
[151] Patric, JH. 1976. Soil Erosion in the Eastern Forest. Journal of Forestry 74:671–677.
[152] Penn State Institutes of the Environment, Pennsylvania State University. 2007. Summary of Work Undertaken Related to
Adaptation of AVGWLF for Use in New England and New York. Submitted to the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission. Submitted by: Penn State Institutes of the Environment, Penn State University.
[153] Peterson, A, R Reznick, S Hedin, M Hendhes, and D Dunlap. 1997. Stream Bank Stabilization. Guidebook of Best Management Practices for Michigan Watersheds. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Surface Water Quality Division.
Available online at http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-swq-nps-WholeGuidebook.pdf. Accessed October 17, 2006.
REFERENCES
95
[154] Plumb, M. 2007. Sustainable Raindrops: Cleaning New York Harbor by Greening the Urban Landscape. Riverkeeper.
Available online at http://riverkeeper.org/campaign.php/pollution/we_are_doing/986. Accessed March 20, 2007.
[155] Prey, J, L Chern, S Holaday, C Johnson, T Donovan, and P Mather. The Wisconsin Stormwater Manual. Part One:
Overview. WR-349-94. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Water Resources Management, Nonpoint
Source and Land Management Section.
[156] Prince George’s County, Maryland, Department of Environmental Resources Programs and Planning Division. 1999.
Low-Impact Development Design Strategies: An Integrated Design Approach. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/
owow/nps/lid/. Accessed December 7, 2006.
[157] Renard, K, G Foster, G Weesies, D McCool, and D Yoder. 1996. Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). Agriculture Handbook No 703. USDA Agricultural Research Service. Available online at http://www.ott.wrcc.osmre.gov/library/hbmanual/rusle703.htm. Accessed July
17, 2007.
[158] Rice, RM, FB Tilley, and PA Datzman. 1979. A Watershed’s Response to Logging and Roads: South Fork of Caspar
Creek, California, 1967-1976. Research Paper PSW-146. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Berkeley, CA. Available online at http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/8616.
[159] Rosati, JD, BD Carlson, JE Davis, and TD Smith. 2001. The Corps of Engineers’ National Regional Sediment Management Demonstration Program. ERDC/CHL CHETN-XIV-1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Available online at http://
chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/library/publications/chetn/pdf/chetn-xiv-1.pdf. Accessed December 6, 2007.
[160] Rosati, JD, MB Gravens, and WG Smith. 1999. Regional Sediment Budget for Fire Island to Montauk Point, New York,
USA. p. 802–817. In Proceedings of the Coastal Sediments ‘99 Conference. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
[161] Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. 2nd ed. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, CO.
[162] Rusciano, G. 2004. Bioretention Systems: Policy and Research Topics. New Jersey Flows. Vol.5 (1): Spring 2004. Available
online at http://www.njwrri.rutgers.edu/newsletters/NewsletterSpring2004b.pdf. Accessed December 7, 2006.
[163] Sastry, R, Orlemann, P.E., James, and P Koval. Mercury Contamination from Metal Scrap Processing Facilities: A Study
by Ohio EPA. Paper #: 947. Available online at http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dapc/atu/mercpaper.pdf. Accessed January 25,
2007.
[164]Schueler, T, D Hirschman, M Novotney, and J Zielinski. 2007. Urban Subwatershed Restoration Manual 3: Urban Stormwater Retrofit Practices. Version 1.0. Center for Watershed Protection. Prepared for the Office of Wastewater Management, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ellicott City, MD. Available online at http://www.cwp.org/PublicationStore/
USRM.htm. Accessed October 5, 2007.
[165] Smith, R, and W Stamey. 1965. Determining the Range of Tolerable Erosion. Soil Science 100 (6):414-424. As cited in
Renard et al., 1996.
[166] Sojka, RE, and RD Lentz. 1997. A PAM Primer: A Brief History of PAM and PAM-Related Issues [Online]. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. http://www.nwisrl.ars.usda.gov/pamprim.shtml. Accessed February 1, 2007.
[167] Sojka, RE, RD Lentz, DL Bjorneberg, and JK Aase. The PAMphlet: A Concise Guide for Safe and Practical use of
Polyacrylamide (PAM) for Irrigation-Induced Erosion Control and Infi ltration Enhancement. Note #02-98. USDA-ARS
Northwest Irrigation and Soils Research Laboratory Station. Kimberly, ID. Available online at http://www.nwisrl.ars.
usda.gov/sojka/pamphlet.html. Accessed August 30, 2007.
[168] State of California Department of Transportation. 2003. Construction Site Best Management Practices (BMPs) Manual.
Available online at http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/construc/stormwater/manuals.htm. Accessed August 29, 2007.
[169] Steinberg, N, DJ Suszkowsky, L Clark, and J Way. 2004. Health of the Harbor: The First Comprehensive Look at the
State of the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary. A Report to the NY/NJ Harbor Estuary Program. Husdon River Foundation. Available online at http://www.harborestuary.org/reports/harborhealth.pdf. Accessed September 2004.
[170] Stiffler, L, and R McClure. 2006. Low-Impact Methods Have High Impact on Ecosystems: Rain Barrels, Green Roofs
Play a Key Role in Saving Orcas. Seattle Post-Intelligencer. October 11, 2006. Available online at http://seattlepi.
nwsource.com/specials/brokenpromises/288235_stormwatersolutions11.asp. Accessed October 11, 2006.
96
[171] Stiffler, L, and R McClure. 2006. Toxic Stormwater is One of the Sound’s Biggest Threats: Knowledge Goes only so far
in Controlling Polluted Runoff. Seattle Post-Intelligencer. October 11, 2006. Available online at http://seattlepi.nwsource.
com/specials/brokenpromises/288238_stormwater11.asp. Accessed October 11, 2006.
[172] StormwaterAuthority.org. Construction BMPs [Online] http://www.stormwaterauthority.org/library/library.aspx?id=189.
Accessed December 18, 2006.
[173] Sullivan, R, and LE Foote. 1983. Roadside Erosion Causes and Factors: Minnesota Survey Analysis. Transportation Research Record 948:47-54.
[174] Surry Soil and Water Conservation District, Stone Mountain Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Pilot View Resource Conservation and Development, Inc., Southwestern Resource Conservation and Development, Inc., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission. Streambank Erosion. Stream Notes. Vol.1 (2): Available online
at http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/wqg/sri/erosion5.PDF. Accessed October 17, 2006.
[175] Tackney, D. 2005. Sand Web Installation Naples, Florida. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology. Destin, FL. February 2-4.
[176] Transportation Association of Canada. Syntheses of Best Practices. Road Salt Management [Online] http://www.tac-atc.
ca/english/informationservices/readingroom.cfm#syntheses. Accessed November 7, 2006.
[177] Tualatin Soil and Water Conservation District, and Small Acreage Steering Committee. Small Acreage Factsheet # 4:
Protecting Streambanks from Erosion. Available online at http://www.oacd.org/factsheet_04.html. Accessed April 13,
2007.
[178] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1989. Environmental Engineering for Coastal Shore Protection. EM 1110-2-1204. Available online at http://www.vulcanhammer.net/marine/. Accessed August 23, 2007.
[179] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2002. Coastal Engineering Manual. EM 1110-2-1100. Available online at http://www.
vulcanhammer.net/marine/. Accessed August 23, 2007.
[180] U.S. Census Bureau. American Fact Finder. Tables for vacant and occupied units [Online] http://factfinder.census.gov.
Accessed February 16, 2007. Tables were generated by following these links: housing, physical characteristics, datasets,
decennial census, “Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data”, quick tables, choose state and counties, and selecting tables QT-H5 (for vacant units) and DP-4 (occupied units).
[181] U.S. Census Bureau. American Housing Survey for the United States: 2005. Current Housing Reports, Series H150/05.
Washington, DC. Available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/ahs/nationaldata.html. Accessed August
28, 2006.
[182] U.S. Census Bureau. Manufacturing, Mining, and Construction Statistics. Building Permits. Permits by County or Place.
[Online] http://censtats.census.gov/bldg/bldgprmt.shtml. Accessed August 28, 2006.
[183] U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. New Jersey: 2002. 2002 Economic Census. Construction: Geographic Area Series. EC02-23ANJ. U.S. Department of Commerce. Economics and Statistics Administration. Available online at http://www.census.gov/
prod/www/abs/construction-geo2002.html. Accessed February 22, 2007.
[184] U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. New York: 2002. 2002 Economic Census. Construction: Geographic Area Series. EC02-23ANY. U.S. Department of Commerce. Economics and Statistics Administration. Available online at http://www.census.gov/
prod/www/abs/construction-geo2002.html. Accessed February 22, 2007.
[185] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, and Kansas State University. Wind Erosion Simulation
Models [Online] http://www.weru.ksu.edu/weps.html. Accessed July 30, 2007.
[186] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, The National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory. Soil
Erosion and WEPP Technology [Online] http://topsoil.nserl.purdue.edu/nserlweb/weppmain/overview/intro.html. Accessed November 28, 2006.
[187] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, The National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory. WEPP
[Online] http://topsoil.nserl.purdue.edu/nserlweb/weppmain/overview/wepp.html. Accessed November 28, 2006.
REFERENCES
97
[188] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Department of Forestry. RPA 2002 Tabler/Mapmaker Version 1.0 [Online] http://ncrs2.
fs.fed.us/4801/fiadb/rpa_tabler/webclass_rpa_tabler.asp. The database was queried for all counties in NY and NJ for the
following “attributes of interest”: all live number of trees, growing-stock number of trees on timberland, volume of growing stock on timberland, and removals of growing stock on timberland.
[189] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Forest Service WEPP Interfaces [Online] http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/
fswepp/index2.html. Accessed July 12, 2007. Last update June 30, 2004.
[190] U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2004. 2002 Census of Agriculture. New Jersey.
State and County Data. Volume 1, Geographic Area Series. Part 30. AC-02-A-30. Available online at http://www.nass.
usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/nj/index2.htm. Accessed January 23, 2007.
[191] U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2004. 2002 Census of Agriculture. New York.
State and County Data. Volume 1, Geographic Area Series. Part 32. AC-02-A-32. Available online at http://www.nass.
usda.gov/census/census02/volume1/ny/index2.htm. Accessed January 23, 2007.
[192] U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service. 2007. National Resources Inventory 2003 Annual NRI: Soil Erosion. Available online at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/NRI/2003/nri03eros-mrb.html. Accessed
June 1, 2007.
[193] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. National Conservation Practice Standards.
Available online at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Technical/Standards/nhcp.html. Accessed December 18, 2006.
[194] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1996. Engineering Field Handbook. Chapter
16: Streambank and Shoreline Protection. Available online at http://www.info.usda.gov/CED/ftp/CED/EFH-Ch16.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2007.
[195] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1997. Engineering Field Handbook. Chapter
13: Wetland Restoration, Enhancement, or Creation. Available online at http://www.info.usda.gov/CED/ftp/CED/EFHCh13.pdf. Accessed September 10, 2007.
[196] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Wisconsin Field Office Technical Guide. 2003.
Streambank Erosion.
[197] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, New York Soil Conservation Districts Association, Inc., and New York State Soil and Water Conservation Committee. 1975. Erosion and Sediment Inventory.
[198] U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Stormwater Best Management Practices in an
Ultra-Urban Setting: Selection and Monitoring. Available online at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ultraurb/. Accessed August 8, 2007.
[199] U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation.
Lesson 6: Neo-Traditional Neighborhood Design [Online] http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/univcourse/swtoc.htm. Accessed December 7, 2006.
[200] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Chemical Control Corporation. New Jersery. EPA ID# NJD000607481. Site
Description. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/Region2/superfund/npl/0200037c.pdf. Accessed August 25, 2006.
[201] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Fact Sheet - Class V Injection Wells.
[202] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Kin Buc Landfill. New Jersery. EPA ID# NJD049860836. Site Description.
Available online at http://www.epa.gov/Region2/superfund/npl/0200346c.pdf. Accessed August 25, 2006.
[203] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mid-Atlantic Water Protection: Combined Sewer Overflows & Sanitary Sewer
Overflows [Online] http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/cso/. Accessed January 23, 2007. Last update December 28, 2006.
[204] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): National Menu of
Stormwater Best Management Practices [Online] http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm. Accessed August 8, 2007. Last update April 9, 2007.
[205] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): National Menu of
Stormwater Best Management Practices: BMP Inspection and Maintenance [Online] http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm?action=factsheet_results&view=specific&bmp=91. Accessed August 30, 2007.
98
[206] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NLCD 1992 Classification System [Online] http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/definitions.
html#1992. Accessed May 17, 2007. Last update December 28, 2006.
[207] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sanitary Sewer Overflows: Frequently Asked Questions [Online] http://cfpub.epa.
gov/npdes/faqs.cfm?program_id=4. Accessed July 3, 2007. Last update February 1, 2007.
[208] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Sectors of Industrial Activity that Require Permit Coverage [Online] http://cfpub.
epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/swcats.cfm. Accessed June 26, 2007. Last update February 2, 2007.
[209] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Septic (Onsite) Systems: Frequent Questions [Online] http://cfpub.epa.gov/owm/
septic/septic.cfm?page_id=261. Accessed July 3, 2007. Last update July 3, 2007.
[210] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Total Maximum Daily Loads Reports [Online] http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/.
Accessed February 6, 2007.
[211] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Water Permitting 101. Office of Wastewater Management, Water Permitting.
Available online at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/101pape.pdf. Accessed June 26, 2007.
[212] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Watershed Assessment of River Stability & Sediment Supply (WARSSS). Introduction to Sediment & River Stability [Online] http://www.epa.gov/warsss/sedsource/index.htm. Accessed January 22,
2007. Last update January 22, 2007.
[213] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Wetland Fact Sheet Series: Wetland Regulatory Authority. EPA43-F-04-001. Office of Water. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/reg_authority_pr.pdf. Accessed
December 6, 2007.
[214] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Wetlands: Laws, Regulations, Treaties [Online] http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/laws/. Accessed September 25, 2007. Last update June 22, 2007.
[215] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1991. Municipal Wastewater Reuse: Selected Readings on Water Reuse. EPA
430-09-9 1-002. Available online at http://www.p2pays.org/ref/18/17176.pdf. Accessed August 9, 2007.
[216] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1992. Stormwater Management for Industrial Activities: Developing Pollution
Prevention Plans and Best Management Practices. EPA-832-R-90-006. Office of Water. Available online at http://cfpub.
epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/swppp-msgp.cfm. Accessed January 25, 2007.
[217] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria Technical Manual. Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (5305). Washington, DC. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/landfi ll/techman/. Accessed October 5, 2006. Last update April 1998.
[218] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. Combined Sewer Overflows: Guidance for Long-Term Control Plan. EPA
832-B-95-002. Office of Water. Washington, DC. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0272.pdf. Accessed July 3, 2007.
[219] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. Combined Sewer Overflows: Guidance for Nine Minimum Controls. EPA
832-B-95-003. Office of Water. Washington, DC. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0030.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2007.
[220] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Volume 1: Stationary Point
and Area Sources. AP-42. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air and Radiation. Research Triangle
Park, NC. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html. Accessed May 31, 2007.
[221] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Innovative Uses of Compost Erosion Control, Turf Remediation, and
Landscaping. EPA530-F-97-043. Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/
non-hw/composting/pubs.htm. Accessed January 11,2006. Last update October 30, 2006.
[222] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Stormwater Phase II Final Rule: Federal and State-Operated MS4s: Program Implementation. Fact Sheet 2.10. EPA 833-F-00-012. Office of Water. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/
pubs/fact2-10.pdf. Accessed February 6, 2007.
[223] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. National Management Measures for the Control of Nonpoint Pollution
from Agriculture. EPA-841-B-03-004. Office of Water. Washington, DC. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/nps/
agmm/index.html. Accessed August 24, 2006.
REFERENCES
99
[224] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. NLCD 2001 Land Cover Class Definitions, July 25, 2003 DRAFT [Online]
http://www.epa.gov/mrlc/definitions.html. Accessed May 16, 2007. Last update December 28, 2006.
[225] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Texas Roadside Composting. Golden Compost [Online] http://www.epa.
gov/epaoswer/non-hw/green/projects/tx_road.htm. Accessed January 11, 2006. Last update July 18, 2006.
[226] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Resource List for Stormwater Management Programs. EPA 833-F-04-003.
Available online at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/sw_resource_list.pdf. Accessed November 14, 2007.
[227] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. National Management Measures to Control Nonpoint Source Pollution
from Urban Areas. EPA-841-B-05-004. Office of Water. Washington, DC. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/nps/urbanmm/pdf/urban_guidance.pdf. Accessed January 22, 2007.
[228] U.S. environmental Protection Agency. 2005. National Management Measures to Protect and Restore Wetlands and
Riparian Areas for the Abatement of Nonpoint Source Pollution. EPA-841-B-05-003. Office of Water. Washington, DC.
Available online at http://www.epa.gov/owow/NPS/wetmeasures/#10. Accessed September 10, 2007.
[229] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Memorandum: Using Green Infrastructure to Protect Water Quality in
Stormwater, CSO, Nonpoint Source and other Water Programs. Memorandum from Benjamin H. Grumbles, Assistant
Administrator, to EPA Regional Administrators.
[230] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Marine and Wetlands Protection Branch, Region II. 1991. Task 7.1 Assessment
of Pollutant Loadings to New York–New Jersey Harbor. Prepared by HydroQual, Inc.
[231] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Low Impact Development Center (LID), and Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution
Control Administrators (ASIWPCA). 2007. Green Infrastructure Statement of Intent. Available online at http://www.epa.
gov/npdes/pubs/gi_intentstatement.pdf. Accessed January 9, 2008.
[232] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Water Recycling and Reuse: The Environmental Benefits [Online]
http://www.epa.gov/region09/water/recycling/index.html. Accessed August 9, 2007. Last update June 5, 2007.
[233] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Agency for International Development. 2004. Guidelines for Water
Reuse. EPA/625/R-04/108. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/625r04108/625r04108.pdf. Accessed August
9, 2007.
[234] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8, Hazardous Waste Management Division. 1992. Fact Sheet: Pollution
Prevention Opportunities for the Automotive Recycling Industry. Hazardous Waste Minimization Program.
[235] U.S. Geological Survey. 2004. Minerals Yearbook. Volume II--Area Reports: Domestic. Available online at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/myb.html. Accessed May 30, 2007.
[236] U.S. Roads. 1997. Using Salt and Sand for Winter Road Maintenance. Road Management Journal. Reproduced from
Wisconsin Transportation Bulletin No. 6: Using Salt and Sand for Winter Road Maintenance. (Revised March 1996).
Available online at http://www.usroads.com/journals/p/rmj/9712/rm971202.htm. Accessed October 4, 2006. Reproduced
from Wisconsin Transportation Bulletin No. 6: Using Salt and Sand for Winter Road Maintenance. (Revised March
1996).
[237] Ulster County, Planning Department. Total Residential Building Permits 1980-2003 [Online] http://www.co.ulster.ny.us/
planning/db2004/bldperm.pdf. Accessed February 16, 2007.
[238] University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences, Cooperative Extension Service, and U.S. Department
of Agriculture. 2003. A Guide to Environmentally Friendly Landscaping. Florida Yards and Neighborhoods Handbook,
2nd Ed. SP 191. Available online at http://www.floridadep.org/water/nonpoint/docs/nonpoint/fyn_handbook.pdf. Accessed December 11, 2006.
[239] University of Hawaii, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, and U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Cooperative Extension Service. 2000. Runoff Control in Your Yard and Garden. HAPPI-Home 12. Available online at
http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/HH-12.pdf. Accessed August 20, 2007.
[240] University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center. What’s New [Online] http://www.unh.edu/erg/cstev/. Accessed August
8, 2007.
100
[241] University of New Hampshire Stormwater Center. 2007. UNHSC Design Specifications for Porous Asphalt Pavement and
Infi ltration Beds. Available online at http://www.unh.edu/erg/cstev/pubs_specs_info/unhsc_pa_apec_07_07_final.pdf. Accessed August 8, 2007.
[242] Valle, S, L Shor, and M Panero. 2007. Pollution Prevention and Management Strategies for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in the New York/New Jersey Harbor. New York Academy of Sciences. New York, NY. Available online at http://
www.nyas.org/programs/harbor.asp. Accessed November 9, 2007.
[243] Walter, R, D Merritts, and M Rahnis. 2007. Estimating Volume, Nutrient Content, and Rates of Stream Bank Erosion
of Legacy Sediment in the Piedmont and Valley and Ridge Physiographic Provinces, Southeastern and Central PA: A
Report to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Available online at http://edisk.fandm.edu/dorothy.merritts/DEP_LegSedReportWalterMerrittsFeb232007_Text.pdf. Accessed August 28, 2007. Figures and appendices
are available at http://edisk.fandm.edu/dorothy.merritts/DEP_LegSedReportWalterMerrittsFeb232007_Figures.pdf and
http://edisk.fandm.edu/dorothy.merritts/DEP_LegSedReportWalterMerrittsFeb232007_Appendices.pdf.
[244] Warner College of Natural Resources, Colorado State University. Forest Erosion Simulation Tools: FOREST [Online]
http://www.warnercnr.colostate.edu/frws/people/faculty/macdonald/cwemodel/forest_helpfiles/forest_help.html. Accessed
July 12, 2007. Last update April 5, 2004.
[245] Washington State Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program. Sand & Gravel General Permit: Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan [Online] http://www.ecy.wa.gov/PROGRAMS/WQ/sand/swppp.html. Accessed August 20, 2007.
[246] Washington State Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program. 2005. Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern
Washington. 04-10-076. Available online at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/tech.html#wsdotmanual. Accessed August 20, 2007.
[247] Washington State Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program. 2005. Stormwater Management Manual for Western
Washington. 05-10-029 through 05-10-033. Available online at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/tech.
html#wsdotmanual. Accessed August 20, 2007.
[248] Washington State Department of Ecology, Water Quality Program. 2005. Stormwater Management Manual for Western
Washington. Volume IV: Source Control BMPs. Publication No. 05-10-32. Available online at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/
pubs/0510032.pdf. Accessed January 11, 2007.
[249] Water Online. 2007. Increasing Freshwater Demand Increases Growth in Water Recycling and Reuse Systems Market.
July 7, 2007. Available online at http://www.wateronline.com/content/news/article.asp?docid=8f46512b-5c83-4efb-8f73ba42dfcc4880. Accessed July 9, 2007.
[250] Water Online. 2007. Self-Contained Water Recycling System Developed [Online] http://www.wateronline.com/content/
news/article.asp?docid=403b14ff-bcef-4b3f-9079-2e50dac5f339. Accessed October 29, 2007.
[251] Wegner, W, and M Yaggi. 2001. Environmental Impacts of Road Salt and Alternatives in the New York City Watershed.
Stormwater. Vol.2 (5): July/August 2001. Available online at http://www.forester.net/sw_0107_environmental.html. Accessed October 4, 2006.
[252] Westchester County Department of Planning. 2003. Local Planning Law Resource Guide. Available online at http://www.
westchestergov.com/planningdocs/planlawresourceguide/localord.pdf. Accessed February 14, 2007.
[253] Wilson, TP, and JL Bonin. 2007. Concentrations and Loads of Organic Compounds and Trace Elements in Tributaries
to Newark and Raritan Bays, New Jersey. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5059. Available
online at http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/usgspubs/sir/sir20075059. Accessed November 28, 2007.
[254] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Best Management Practices for Dismantling of Vehicles for Parts Selling
and Salvage. Available online at http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cea/assistance/scrap/stormwater/auto/practices.pdf.
[255] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Best Management Practices for Scrap Recyclers. Available online at http://
www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cea/assistance/scrap/stormwater/scrap/practices.pdf. Accessed August 21, 2007.
[256] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Storm Water Management Technical Standards. Construction Site Erosion
& Sediment Control [Online] http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/water/wm/nps/stormwater/techstds.htm#Construction. Accessed January 14, 2007. Last update January 12 2007.
REFERENCES
101
[257] Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Watershed Management. Wisconsin Construction Site Best
Management Practice Handbook.
[258] Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. 1999. Urban Best Management Practices for Nonpoint Source Pollution. Produced by the Point and Nonpoint Source Programs Water Quality Division of the WY DEQ.
[259] Yoho, NS. 1980. Forest Management and Sediment Production in the South: A Review. Southern Journal of Applied
Forestry 4 (11):27–36.
[260] Zaimes, GN, RC Schultz, TM Isenhart, SK Mickelson, JL Kovar, JR Russell, and WP Powers. 2005. Stream Bank Erosion
under Different Riparian Land-Use Practices in Northeast Iowa. In Proceedings of the North American Agroforestry
Conference. 9th North American Agroforestry Conference. Rochester, MN. June 12-15, 2005.
102

Suspended Solids Report - The New York Academy of Sciences

Transcription

Similar documents

2010 - Nine Mile Run Watershed Association

Untitled - Stormwater Management

Lockwood Folly River Restoration Plan

Lowe`s Home Improvement

2015 Award Winning Projects - Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff

this case study

hydrodynamic separation

Cheddars Cypress Creek Site Plan

Lower Pen. - Great Mall 9-1-11.indd

VortSentry® HS Guide Operation, Design, Performance and