Suspended Solids Report - The New York Academy of Sciences
Transcription
Suspended Solids Report - The New York Academy of Sciences
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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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 LIST OF CONSORTIUM MEMBERS AND PARTICIPANTS 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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 LIST OF CONSORTIUM MEMBERS AND PARTICIPANTS 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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. LAND SOURCES OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS WITHIN THE WATERSHED 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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. LAND SOURCES OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS WITHIN THE WATERSHED 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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 (T/yr) 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. LAND SOURCES OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS WITHIN THE WATERSHED 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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. LAND SOURCES OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS WITHIN THE WATERSHED 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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. LAND SOURCES OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS WITHIN THE WATERSHED 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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/. PRACTICES AND TECHNOLOGIES TO REDUCE LOADS OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS TO SURFACE WATERS 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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]. PRACTICES AND TECHNOLOGIES TO REDUCE LOADS OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS TO SURFACE WATERS 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed – 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]. PRACTICES AND TECHNOLOGIES TO REDUCE LOADS OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS TO SURFACE WATERS 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed – 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. PRACTICES AND TECHNOLOGIES TO REDUCE LOADS OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS TO SURFACE WATERS 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed (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. PRACTICES AND TECHNOLOGIES TO REDUCE LOADS OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS TO SURFACE WATERS 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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). PRACTICES AND TECHNOLOGIES TO REDUCE LOADS OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS TO SURFACE WATERS 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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. REGULATORY STRUCTURE RELATED TO STORMWATER AND THE MOBILIZATION OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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. REGULATORY STRUCTURE RELATED TO STORMWATER AND THE MOBILIZATION OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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). REGULATORY STRUCTURE RELATED TO STORMWATER AND THE MOBILIZATION OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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). REGULATORY STRUCTURE RELATED TO STORMWATER AND THE MOBILIZATION OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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. REGULATORY STRUCTURE RELATED TO STORMWATER AND THE MOBILIZATION OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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. APPENDIX B. DETAILED RESULTS, BY SOURCE 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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. APPENDIX B. DETAILED RESULTS, BY SOURCE 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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. APPENDIX B. DETAILED RESULTS, BY SOURCE 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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. APPENDIX B. DETAILED RESULTS, BY SOURCE 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- Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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. APPENDIX B. DETAILED RESULTS, BY SOURCE 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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. APPENDIX B. DETAILED RESULTS, BY SOURCE 73 Table 17. Suspended solids from auto dismantlers in the Watershed Facilitiesa Erosion (T/yr) Sediment yield (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) Sediment yield (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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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 Sediment yield (T/yr) 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]. APPENDIX B. DETAILED RESULTS, BY SOURCE 75 Table 20. Suspended solids from facilities handling concrete or clay in the Watershed Facilitiesa Emissions (T/yr) Sediment yield (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 Sediment yield (T/yr) 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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. APPENDIX B. DETAILED RESULTS, BY SOURCE 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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. APPENDIX B. DETAILED RESULTS, BY SOURCE 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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. APPENDIX B. DETAILED RESULTS, BY SOURCE 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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. APPENDIX C. BMPS FOR MINOR SOURCES OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed – 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]. APPENDIX C. BMPS FOR MINOR SOURCES OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed 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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed [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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed [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. Accessed August 20, 2007. [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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed [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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed [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. Accessed August 20, 2007. [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. Accessed August 28, 2007. [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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed [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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed [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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed [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. Accessed August 21, 2007. [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 Sources of Suspended Solids to the New York/New Jersey Harbor Watershed