Final Restoration Plan 

And 

Environmental Assessment 

Applied Environmental Services 

(Shore Realty) Superfund Site 

September 2002 

Hazardous Substances Releases

Prepared by: 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Table of Contents

I. Summary..............................................................................................................................................................5

1.0 Introduction (Purpose and Need).....................................................................................................................6

1.1 Background .....................................................................................................................................................6

1.2 Affected Environment.....................................................................................................................................7

1.3 Natural Resource Trustees and Authorities.....................................................................................................8

1.4 Natural Resource Damage Settlement.............................................................................................................8

1.5 Public Participation .........................................................................................................................................9

2.0 Restoration Planning .....................................................................................................................................10

2.1 Selection Criteria...........................................................................................................................................10

2.1.1. Goals of the Restoration Project....................................................................................................................10

2.2 Scope of Restoration Actions Considered.....................................................................................................10

2.2.1 Primary Restoration in Hempstead Harbor and Motts Cove adjoining AES (the Site).................................11

2.2.2 Compensatory Restoration ............................................................................................................................11

2.2.2.1 Alternatives Considered and Analyzed.....................................................................................................11

2.2.2.1.a. Alternative 1: No Action.....................................................................................................................11

2.2.2.1.b. Alternative 2: Restoration of In-Kind Natural Resources at the Same Location ................................12

2.2.2.1.c. Alternatives 3-5: Restoration or Replacement of In-Kind Natural Resources within Hempstead 

Harbor in the Vicinity of the Loss .......................................................................................................12

2.2.2.1.d. Alternatives 6-10: Replacement or Acquisition of Similar Resources within the 

Estuary Watershed ...............................................................................................................................14

2.2.2.1.e. Alternatives 10-13: Restoration or Replacement of Out-of-Kind Natural Resources 

in the Watershed ..................................................................................................................................14

2.2.2.2 Evaluation of Alternatives and Environmental Consequences.................................................................14

2.2.2.2.a. Alternative 3: North Hempstead Bar Beach Lagoon ..........................................................................15

2.2.2.2.b. Alternative 4: North Hempstead Tidal Pool .......................................................................................16

2.2.2.2.c. Alternative 5: North Hempstead Tidal/Phragmites Marsh..................................................................16

2.2.2.3 Preferred Project.......................................................................................................................................17

3.0 Proposed Restoration Project ........................................................................................................................18

3.1 Site Selection.................................................................................................................................................18

3.2 Project Design ...............................................................................................................................................19

3.3 Permitting Considerations.............................................................................................................................21

3.4 Monitoring Requirements and Performance Criteria ....................................................................................21

3.5 Proposed Project Implementation..................................................................................................................22

3.6 Compliance with Environmental Laws.........................................................................................................23

3.6.1 Anadromous Fish Conservation Act .............................................................................................................23

3.6.2 Archeological Resources and Historical Preservation...................................................................................23

3.6.3 Clean Air Act ................................................................................................................................................23

3.6.4 Clean Water Act............................................................................................................................................23

3.6.5 Coastal Zone Management Act .....................................................................................................................23

3.6.6 Endangered Species Act................................................................................................................................24

3.6.7 Estuaries Protection Act ................................................................................................................................24

3.6.8 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act..............................................................................................................24

3.6.9 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act ..............................................................................................................24

3.6.10 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act .............................................................25

3.6.11 Marine Mammal Protection Act ...............................................................................................................25

3.6.12 Migratory Bird Treaty Act........................................................................................................................25

3.6.13 National Environmental Policy Act..........................................................................................................26

3.6.14 Rivers and Harbors Act ............................................................................................................................26

3.6.15 Executive Order 11514 Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality, as amended by 

Executive Order 11911 Relating to Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality.......................26

3.6.16 Executive Order 11990 Protection of Wetlands.......................................................................................26

3.6.17 Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and

Low-Income Populations and Executive Order 12948 Amendment to Executive Order No. 12898 ............26

3.6.18 Executive Order 12962 Recreational Fisheries.........................................................................................26

3 
4.0 Public Notice and Comments........................................................................................................................27

5.0 References.....................................................................................................................................................27

Exhibit I. Location Map of Candidate Restoration Projects ................................................................................29

Exhibit II. Fish and shellfish species in Hempstead Harbor near Motts Cove ......................................................30

Exhibit III. Summary of Essential Fish Habitat Designation for Waters within Long Island Sound Affecting 

Hempstead Harbor...............................................................................................................................32

Exhibit IV. Map of Town of Hempstead Harbor Shoreline Trail Project...............................................................33

Exhibit V. Estimated Budget for Bar Beach Lagoon Restoration Project.............................................................34

Exhibit VI. Photographs of Proposed Restoration Project Bar Beach Lagoon.......................................................35

Exhibit VII. Public Comments and Trustees Response ...........................................................................................44

Exhibit VIII. Finding of No Significant Impact........................................................................................................49

4
I. Summary 

This Final Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment (Final RP/EA) has been jointly prepared by the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) on behalf of the Department of the Interior (DOI), and the New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). Pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation 

and Liability Act (CERCLA) these federal and state agencies share trusteeship authority over the natural resources 

affected by releases from the Applied Environmental Services (a.k.a. “AES” and “Shore Realty”) Superfund Site 

and are collectively referred to as the Natural Resource Trustees (“the Trustees”) (42 USC 9607(f)(2)). 

Under CERCLA, the Trustees are authorized to act on behalf of the public to assess damages for injury to, 

destruction of, or loss of natural resources caused by the release, or threatened release, of hazardous substances, and 

to hold responsible parties liable for those damages (42 USC 9607). Natural resource trustees ensure that funds 

recovered from responsible parties are used to “restore, replace or acquire the equivalent” of the natural resources 

that were injured and ecological services that were lost (42 USC 9607(f)(1)). 

The Trustees referenced above, NOAA, DOI and the NYSDEC, determined that natural resources in the Hempstead 

Harbor/Motts Cove environment were injured by the release of hazardous substances from the Applied 

Environmental Services Superfund Site (“the Site”), which is located in Glenwood Landing, New York. In August 

1992, the State of New York, the United States, and the Performing Parties Group (“the PPG”) - which includes 

cooperating past and current owners, operators, and generators - entered into a Consent Judgment settling claims 

under CERCLA relating to the existence, release, or threat of release of hazardous substances at or from the Site. 

On August 5, 1992 the Consent Judgment was entered by the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York. 

Under the terms of the Consent Judgment, the PPG is required to perform remedial activities, pay natural resource 

damages and perform or fund restoration activities, to settle their liability under CERCLA. 

Section X. of the Consent Judgment specifically requires the PPG to restore salt marsh in the mudflats to the east 

and south of the Site after it is determined that “...discharges to the shoreline and mud flats adjacent to the Site have 

been sufficiently abated by the remedial program.” However, water levels in Motts Cove and Hempstead Harbor 

adjoining the Site currently do not provide optimum conditions for the long-term survival of a salt marsh 

community. Although the Consent Judgment required planting appropriate salt marsh vegetation, it did not require 

the PPG to fill to appropriate grade; neither the Trustees nor the PPG support adding fill to the area. For these 

reasons, the Trustees propose to relocate the restoration project off-Site to ensure long-term survival of the 

restoration project and to obtain at least the equivalent resources and services as proposed under the Consent 

Judgment. The Trustees are now in the process of selecting an appropriate and feasible off-Site project that would be 

conducted in lieu of the initial on-Site project. 

This Final RP/EA describes the history of the Site, the on-Site restoration project the PPG is required to perform 

under the terms of the Consent Judgment, the reasons why on-Site restoration is not feasible, the range of restoration 

alternatives the trustees considered and evaluated, and the process by which the Trustees selected a preferred 

restoration alternative – the North Hempstead Bar Beach Lagoon Project. 

Additionally, in Section X. of the Consent Judgment the PPG was also required to pay to the Trustees $50,000 for 

natural resource damages to be used to fund off-Site, compensatory restoration. This Final RP/EA differs from the 

original Draft RP/EA in that the Trustees now propose to use all or part of the $50,000 the Trustees set-aside for offSite, compensatory restoration to supplement the budget for the North Hempstead Bar Beach Lagoon Project 

Finally, the comment received during the public comment period is included in Exhibit VII along with the response 

to the commenter. The Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is found in Exhibit VIII. 

5
1.0 Introduction (Purpose and Need) 

1.1 Background 

The Applied Environmental Services Superfund Site is a 3.2-acre site located at One Shore Road, Glenwood 

Landing, Nassau County, New York on part of a peninsula surrounded by the waters of Motts Cove, and Hempstead 

Harbor, which is located off of Long Island Sound. Since 1939, numerous petrochemical operators have used the 

Site. Starting in 1974, part of the property was used for distribution and storage of chemical solvents. Between 

1980 and 1983, a hazardous waste facility operated on the Site. AES accepted many types of hazardous waste, 

including waste oil, chlorinated organic solvents, acids, paints, benzene, toluene, heavy metals, and a variety of 

other organic chemical compounds. Shore Realty and NYSDEC performed a Site cleanup during 1985 and 1986. 

Cleanup activities in the mid-1980s included removing hazardous waste stored in drums, containers, and tanks 

contaminated with toluene, ethyl benzene, naphthalene, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The Site was placed 

on the National Priorities List (NPL) in June of 1986. 

Remedial investigations documented the presence of volatile organics, semi-volatile organics, and metals in Site 

media. Site contaminants measured at the highest concentrations include ethyl benzene, toluene, and xylene. 

Several decades of improper handling and spills of chemicals have contaminated soil, sediments, and groundwater. 

The highest soil concentrations were detected along the western portion of the Site (in the vicinity of the access road 

and the bulkhead) and under the elevated tank farm. The greatest groundwater contamination was recorded from 

water table wells along the western portion of the Site. Contaminate leachate flowed from behind the deteriorated 

bulkheads to the mudflats and into Motts Cove and Hempstead Harbor. Another main pathway of toxic 

contamination was the discharge of shallow groundwater containing non-aqueous phase organic chemicals onto the 

mudflats during low tide. 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) 1991 Record of Decision (ROD) selected a remedy 

to directly address contaminants in the groundwater and soils of the Site, thereby indirectly addressing contaminants 

migrating to the sediments, surface water, and air. The remedy included active venting by vacuum extraction of 

contaminated unsaturated soils, extraction of contaminated groundwater from a series of shallow extraction wells, 

treatment of collected groundwater via air-stripping, reinjection of treated groundwater supplemented with nutrients 

and a chemical source of oxygen, and treatment of vapors from the treatment processes before release to the 

atmosphere. The treatment plant started normal operations in July 1995. 

The performance standards for soils, groundwater, sediments, air and surface water set forth in the 1991 ROD are as 

follows: (a) reduce soil concentrations of benzene and methylene chloride such that their presence at the Site does 

not present an added cancer risk of more than one in a million under the most conservative scenario; (b) reduce soil 

concentrations of organic contaminants so they don't leach into and contaminate groundwater above standards, to the 

extent feasible; (c) reduce contaminant concentrations in groundwater to below NYS groundwater standards, to the 

extent technically feasible; (d) indirectly remediate sediments by treating the source of contamination to the 

sediments, Site soils and groundwater, (e) eliminate the exceedances of ambient air standards above the mudflats; 

and (f) eliminate the sheen on surface waters to comply with applicable surface water standards. 

The selected remedy of groundwater source control should eliminate the flow of contaminated leachate and 

groundwater into Hempstead Harbor and Motts Cove and indirectly help to remediate contaminated sediments in the 

near shore harbor and the cove. 

Supplemental investigations of Site soils and sediments has been undertaken, in order to determine: (a) whether soil 

excavation of certain areas is warranted to expedite cleanup of soils and groundwater; and (b) demonstrate that 

sediment contaminant concentrations (in particular benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene (BTEX) and 

petroleum hydrocarbons) have been reduced from pre-remedial conditions. A determination of whether the 

sediment remediation goal - indirect remediation by treating the source of contaminants to the sediments, Site soils, 

and groundwater - has been met will be based on the sampling results and analysis. A successful remediation of 

sediments will be attained when source contaminant levels in these 3 phases meet performance standards set forth in 

the ROD. 

6
A section of perimeter bulkhead on the northern side of the property has deteriorated. The 1992 Consent Judgment 

set forth conditions under which the PPG would be required to repair, replace or renovate the bulkhead. Section X 

directed the PPG "to ensure... that the bulkhead no longer serves as a source for the release of hazardous substances, 

which were the subject of the ROD. Such actions may include, but are not limited to, renovation of the bulkhead, 

replacement of the bulkhead, or removal of the bulkhead along with shoreline reconstruction which preserves and/or 

enhances the biological and physical integrity of the shoreline and mud flats." The Trustees and USEPA have 

reached agreement with the PPG to replace the existing wooden bulkhead with a new steel bulkhead, which will 

stabilize the area and improve source control of Site-specific contamination. 

The supplemental sediment and soil sampling was conducted in 2001and the bulkhead replacement is planned for 

2002. The findings of the soil sampling are being used to refocus and upgrade the SVE system (e.g., the installation 

of a few more sparge wells). These improvements should expedite cleanup of recalcitrant soil contamination. 

1.2 Affected Environment 

The Site is located on the southeastern side of Hempstead Harbor (the Harbor), a major water body off of Long 

Island Sound. It is bordered by the Harbor to the west, Glen Cove to the south, a boat repair/reconditioning facility 

and road to the east, and an industrial property (Harbor Oil) to the north. There are two mudflat areas associated 

with the Site – a small inlet on the Hempstead Harbor side and the shoreline along the Glen Cove site. These two 

areas, Hempstead Harbor and Motts Cove, are identified in Appendix G to the Consent Judgment and in Exhibit I. 

Motts Cove is connected to Hempstead Harbor near the inland half of the harbor, which is constricted by a point of 

land. The land constriction reduces the rate and volume of tidal flushing in the inland half of the Harbor and Motts 

Cove. This restricted tidal flushing and the absence of any freshwater tributaries to the harbor area increase the 

probability of long residence times for polluted waters entering the inland half of the Harbor. 

Prior to the releases of site-related contaminants, there were mudflats and tidal salt marsh adjacent to the Site. 

Volatile organic compounds, semi-volatile organic compounds, and metals impacted the aquatic environment. 

According to the ROD, some PAHs and metals exceeded NYSDEC guidance values but it was acknowledged that 

off-Site sources may have contributed to the PAH contamination. A surface water sheen issue, as addressed in the 

ROD, was also attributed to Site releases. Once Site releases were documented, sampling demonstrated the presence 

of toxic levels of contaminants in these habitats. Bioassessment results indicated that leachate migrating from the 

Site adversely impacted estuarine biota in Motts Cove and the Harbor. The greatest impact has occurred in the 

mudflats and salt marsh adjacent to the existing wooden bulkhead on Hempstead Harbor. Approximately 2 to 3 

acres of mudflat and salt marsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) were severely impacted as a result of Site releases. 

The Hempstead Harbor mudflats and marshes provide important spawning, nursery and foraging area for numerous 

aquatic species. NYSDOS and NYSDEC designated Hempstead Harbor as a significant coastal fish and wildlife 

habitat (Ozard 1984). Anadromous, catadromous, euryhaline and marine finfish, and invertebrates use the Harbor 

and Motts Cove; some of these species have commercial and recreational importance (NOAA 1991). Exhibit II 

summarizes finfish and shellfish species usage of the Harbor near Motts Cove. These waters have also been 

designated as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) by the NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for 15 species 

under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) (Exhibit III). 

The USFWS also recognized the western harbors of Long Island, including Hempstead Harbor, as a significant 

habitat area for many fish and wildlife species, including wintering waterfowl and wading birds, in their Significant 

Northeast Coastal Habitats report (USFWS 1997). Hempstead Harbor, along with the waters of Manhasset Bay and 

Little Neck Bay to the east, and adjoining portions of Westchester County shoreline, support an average of more 

than 10,000 scaup, representing 26% of the state's wintering population (National Audubon Society, 1998). The 

Harbor also supports significant numbers of canvasback, and American black duck, along with Canada goose, 

Atlantic brant, common goldeneye, oldsquaw, bufflehead, red-breasted merganser, and American widgeon. 

Loss of wetlands and other aquatic habitats in the project area within Hempstead Harbor results in incremental 

adverse impacts (i.e., reduced productivity) to marine and estuarine fish and wildlife resources using not only these 

habitats but other habitats of Long Island Sound and other East Coast coastal waters for cover, foraging, spawning 

and nursery. Adverse affects on wintering populations could potentially result in more significant perturbations of 

waterfowl populations. 

7
1.3 Natural Resource Trustees and Authorities 

Trusteeship authority is designated pursuant to §9607(f)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (42 USC § 9601 et seq.; CERCLA), Subpart G of the National Oil and Hazardous 

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300.600(b); NCP), and Executive Order 12580 (January 23, 

1987). NOAA and DOI are the designated federal trustees for natural resources affected by releases from the 

Applied Environmental Services Superfund Site. NYSDEC, designated by the Governor of the State of New York, 

serves as the state trustee for natural resources affected by releases from the Site. 

Pursuant to §9607 of CERCLA, parties responsible for unauthorized releases of hazardous substances are liable for 

damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources, including the costs of assessing damages (42 USC 

9607(a)(4)(c)). Natural resource trustees act on behalf of the public to investigate releases of hazardous substances 

and establish liability; assess injury to natural resources and seek damages from responsible parties; and ensure that 

funds recovered from responsible parties are used solely “to restore, replace, or acquire the equivalent of the injured 

resources.” (42 USC 9607(f)(1)) 

1.4 Natural Resource Damage Settlement 

In August of 1992, the State of New York, the United States, and the Performing Parties Group (a group composed 

of AES/Shore Realty cooperating past owners, operators, and generators, hereinafter referred to as “the PPG”) 

executed a Consent Judgment settling claims under CERCLA relating to the existence, release, or threat of release of 

hazardous substances at or from the Site. The Consent Judgment was thereafter entered into the U.S. District Court, 

Eastern District of New York on August 5, 1992. 

The Consent Judgment called for the PPG to perform certain remedial activities at the Site. Section X of the 

Consent Judgment settled natural resources damages claims between the federal trustees and the PPG by requiring 

the PPG to implement primary restoration activities in the mudflats to the east and south of the Site after it is 

determined that "...discharges to the shoreline and mud flats adjacent to the Site have been sufficiently abated by the 

remedial program to ensure that the mud flats and shoreline are in satisfactory condition to allow for the success of 

such planting". Under the terms of the Consent Judgment, the PPG is responsible for restoring salt marsh areas in 

Hempstead Harbor and Motts Cove, adjacent to the Site. The PPG must plant salt marsh grasses (e.g., Spartina 

alterniflora, S. patens, and/or Distichlis spicata) in these areas and possibly regrade the sediments. However, 

physical alteration of the mudflats to achieve optimal survival over the broadest area is not required under the 

Consent Judgment. If the initial plantings are unsuccessful, the PPG would then be required to plant more 

halophytic grasses - to make the planted areas sustainable and able to support biota, including marine and/or 

estuarine fish and invertebrate species. 

Under the Consent Judgment, the PPG’s combined cost commitment for the primary restoration, including initial 

and follow-up plantings is $50,000. Additionally, the PPG paid $60,000 to the Trustees "for the design and 

implementation of a post-planting monitoring program" to determine the functional success of the wetlands 

restoration. 

The PPG also paid the federal Trustees $50,000 in natural resource damages "for the past injury to, destruction of 

and loss of natural resources". Under the terms of the Consent Judgment the Trustees would utilize this $50,000 

compensatory restoration award “for past injury to, destruction of and loss of natural resources” to “restore, replace, 

or acquire the equivalent of the affected natural resources” off-Site. 

Due to concerns regarding the potential success of restoration in the inlet adjacent to the Site, which are unrelated to 

historical releases of hazardous substances from the Site, the Trustees have determined, and the PPG agrees, that the 

primary restoration actions proposed for Motts Cove and the Hempstead Harbor inlet should be relocated. Two 

major factors have led to this determination. First, there are a number of nearby sources of pollution and debris that 

impact the original on-Site restoration area. The area is vulnerable to erosion events. Storm water runoff from 

storm water culverts draining the adjacent county road and upgradient areas east of the Site directly impacts the inlet 

and Motts Cove. The inlet is a natural collection point for trash and other floating debris in the Harbor. It is not 

protected from wave action caused by marine traffic and storm events. The Motts Cove marsh area is adjacent to a 

8
boat marina, and is also a natural collection point for trash and other debris of various sizes - some of which is not 

readily removable (e.g. large concrete-based dock). Both areas (the inlet and Motts Cove marsh) are subject to 

trespassing and potential incidental dumping. Second, and of greatest concern to the Trustees, water depths on the 

Hempstead Harbor side (in the inlet) exceed those required for successful growth of Spartina for a substantial part of 

the area originally set aside for restoration. 

All of these factors would reduce the efficacy and acreage of S. alterniflora marsh ultimately restored at the inlet 

adjacent to the Site. Likewise, the ecological services provided from such a restoration would be less or 

substantially different than originally envisioned. Hence, the Trustees have decided to seek an alternate restoration 

project/location to ensure that natural resources and the ecological services they provide are satisfactorily restored. 

This decision was made for the reasons discussed above, the restrictions set forth in Paragraph X.1. of the Consent 

Judgment, and the added costs to the Trustees to implement the activities (i.e., debris removal, fill to grade) not 

required under the Consent Judgment. 

In lieu of conducting the on-Site restoration actions called for in the Consent Judgment, the Trustees and the PPG 

have explored other restoration options available in the Hempstead Harbor/Town of North Hempstead area. Off-Site 

restoration options have a high probability of success and would produce ecological benefits at least equivalent to 

those derived from the on-Site restoration project presently required in the Consent Judgment. The PPG has 

indicated its desire to perform an alternative off-Site project for a cost not to exceed $50,000 (high end of cost range 

in Consent Judgment) plus the cost of the project design and has participated in the identification and review of 

candidate projects. 

The Trustees now also propose to utilize all or part of the $50,000 in natural resource damages paid to the federal 

Trustees by the PPG for compensatory restoration to implement or augment the Bar Beach Lagoon restoration 

project which would be conducted in lieu of on-Site restoration required in the Consent Judgment. 

1.5 Public Participation 

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC § 4321 et seq.; NEPA), DOI and NOAA have 

prepared this Environmental Assessment to determine whether the proposed restoration project is expected to have a 

significant effect on the quality of the human environment. If a significant effect is expected, an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared, which will publicly analyze alternatives to the proposed project. If no 

significant effects are expected, the NEPA process concludes with the EA and issuance of a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI). 

In analyzing the potential significance of a proposed project, federal agencies must consider: 

1) the nature of the impacts - whether beneficial or detrimental; 2) impacts on public health and safety; 3) unique 

characteristics of the geographic area of the project; 4) whether the project is likely to generate controversy; 5) 

whether the project involves uncertain impacts or unknown risks; 6) the type of precedent created by implementing 

the project; 7) cumulative impacts of this project with future projects; 8) impacts on nationally significant cultural, 

scientific, or historic resources; 9) impacts on threatened or endangered species or their habitats; and 10) potential 

violations of federal, state or local environmental protection laws. 

NOAA and DOI welcome input from the public in evaluating these significance criteria and in analyzing restoration 

alternatives that might minimize impacts on the environment. This input helps Trustees measure the likely success 

of the project in making the environment and the public whole for losses suffered from hazardous substance 

releases. Analysis based on information currently available suggests that the proposed restoration project will not 

have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. If no new substantive information is received 

during the public comment period that would change the evaluation of the restoration alternatives and the selection 

of the preferred alternative, then the NEPA process will likely conclude with a FONSI. The proposed action will be 

implemented once the Stipulated Order to the 1992 Consent Judgment (modification of Consent Judgment) has been 

lodged in court, and state and federal permits authorizing the action are obtained. 

This document was made available for public review and comment in June 2001 and in July 2002. One comment 

was received and a written response was provided to the commenter (see Exhibit VII). 

9
2.0 Restoration Planning 

2.1 Selection Criteria 

The trustees used criteria based on 43 CFR 11.82(d) to evaluate alternative actions to accomplish restoration 

requirements. General evaluation criteria include the following: 

1. Effectiveness: The extent to which each alternative can return the injured natural resources to baseline (primary 

restoration) or make the environment whole for the interim lost services provided by the resources 

(compensatory restoration); 

2. Protectiveness: The extent to which implementation of the alternative avoids additional injury to the 

environment; 

3. Technical feasibility: The level of uncertainty in the success of each alternative; 

4. Cross-benefits: The extent to which each alternative benefits more than one resource and/or service; 

5. Collateral effects: Concurrent effects of each alternative on the environment; 

6. Consistency: Consistency with policies and compliance with federal, state, and local law; and 

7. Cost considerations. 

2.1.1. Goals of the Restoration Project 

The restoration project’s primary goal is to compensate for natural resources and services that were lost or adversely 

affected by releases from the Site. Restoration includes returning an injured resource to its prior condition, as well 

as the acquisition of other resources to compensate for those that were lost. It is the Trustee's policy, in this case, to 

consider restoration projects in the following priority order: 

1. Restoration of in-kind natural resources at the same location, if cleanup or remediation will be sufficient to 

prevent future contaminant problems for an on-Site restoration 

2. Restoration or replacement of in-kind natural resources in the vicinity of the loss 

3. Replacement or acquisition of other similar resources nearby 

4. Out-of-kind restoration 

"In-kind" means that the work focuses on habitats and species comparable to those that were injured, destroyed, or 

lost. "Out-of-kind" means that the work focuses on resources different than those that were injured, destroyed, or 

lost. Projects involving out-of-kind restoration are given lower priority than those entailing in-kind restoration. 

Acquisition means substituting an injured resource with another resource that provides the same or substantially 

similar services by acquiring a site for protection from potential development or alteration. The lowest priority is 

given to the acquisition of other resources. The Trustees will not select a project that solely requires acquisition of 

land for Federal management unless we determine that other restoration options are not possible. 

2.2 Scope of Restoration Actions Considered 

Both USEPA and NYSDEC signed the Record of Decision in 1991. The selected remedy required direct 

remediation of soils and groundwater and indirect remediation of surface water, sediments, and air. As such, the 

selected remedy addresses the principal threats posed by removing the source contaminants from the soils and 

groundwater. Actions to address the deteriorating condition of the wooden bulkhead facing Hempstead Harbor (see 

Section 1.1) will reduce the threat to the aquatic environment. 

The injured resources considered for restoration consist of the approximately 2 to 3 acres of wetland habitat adjacent 

to the AES facility. Some indirect remediation of the sediments has occurred due to on-Site remedial activities. 

Based on visual observations, sheens on the mudflats and surface water appear to be less prevalent, and there may be 

some recovery of aquatic species. A determination of whether the sediment remediation goals have been met will be 

based on sampling and analysis –conducted in 2001.As noted in the 1992 Consent Judgment, several natural 

resources were actually or potentially injured by Site releases to Hempstead Harbor and Motts Cove. As a 

restoration project had been previously selected and described in the Consent Judgment, the Trustees have agreed 

that the objectives of revised restoration planning for these injuries should fulfill the obligations previously set forth 

to replace lost habitat and ecological services with at least equivalent habitat close to the Site. What follows is a 

10
discussion of a range of feasible alternatives for restoration at an off-Site location. These restoration alternatives 

were reviewed during an April 7, 2000 field visit by representatives from the NYSDEC, the Town of North 

Hempstead, and the PPG. A total of eleven sites were evaluated during the initial field visit. On May 11, 2000 

representatives of NOAA conducted a subsequent field visit to several of the sites. 

2.2.1 Primary Restoration in Hempstead Harbor and Motts Cove adjoining AES (the Site) 

As previously mentioned, the low substrate elevations in Motts Cove and Hempstead Harbor immediately proximate 

to the Site currently do not provide optimum conditions for the long-term survival of a salt marsh community of the 

size originally envisioned. Since the Consent Judgment required planting appropriate salt marsh vegetation but did 

not require the PPG to fill to an appropriate grade, the Trustees and the PPG have agreed to relocate the restoration 

project off-Site to obtain at least the equivalent habitat and services proposed under the Consent Judgment. Natural 

recovery and indirect remediation will serve as primary restoration at the Site, which may not return the area to 

baseline conditions (i.e., the ecological conditions that were present before the incident). 

Since primary restoration alone will probably not fully compensate for the adverse impacts to natural resources, 

compensatory restoration actions are necessary. This RP/EA focuses on the evaluation of alternatives for achieving 

compensatory restoration. 

2.2.2 Compensatory Restoration 

This section details the restoration alternatives considered for replacing or acquiring the equivalent of those 

ecological resources and lost services that could not be restored in areas of Hempstead Harbor and Motts Cove 

adjoining the Site. 

The salt marsh and mudflat injury began at the time of Site releases and may not reach baseline naturally, i.e. natural 

recovery. Restoring the same or ecologically similar habitat at a site near the injured wetland communities can 

provide compensation for the loss of ecological services. 

2.2.2.1 Alternatives Considered and Analyzed 

The Trustees are required to assess a reasonable number of possible restoration alternatives. A map showing the 

location of the candidate restoration projects is provided in Exhibit I. 

A project may consist of a single action or a set of actions that may be undertaken. In their initial review of 

restoration alternatives, the Trustees identified desired characteristics for potential projects: 1) the restored habitat 

must be similar in type to the habitat impacted and provide similar services; 2) the project must be in the same 

watershed as the impacted wetland; and 3) the project must provide long-term or perpetual benefits to those 

resources that were known to have been or were potentially impacted, including fish and wildlife. 

The Trustees also considered the potential success and longevity of the proposed project. Physical and logistical 

factors that could affect the success of a project, or the ability of the project to compensate for the natural resources 

and services that were lost, were considered. A restoration site that could not be protected from future development 

would generally be disfavored over one where future land use is restricted. 

The Trustees evaluated the following 13 potential restoration alternatives: 

2.2.2.1.a. Alternative 1: No Action 

No Action is the alternative to which all other alternatives are compared in an EA as required by federal regulations. 

Under the No Action Alternative, no restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition actions would occur. 

This alternative costs the least because no action would be taken, but such savings must be weighed against the 

potential for recovering loss. 

In general, if no action is taken, natural recovery sometimes restores lost resources, but it may take much longer than 

if restoration action is taken; or it may result in different conditions than existed before the injury. Often, restoration 

11
plans can be designed to restore the resource as closely to its undamaged condition as possible and achieve this 

sooner than natural recovery would. If the No Action Alternative were selected and it would not replace the lost 

resources at all, or would replace them with very different resources, the public and environment would not be made 

whole for past injuries from Site releases. 

Natural recovery to baseline conditions in Motts Cove and the Hempstead Harbor inlet adjacent to the Applied 

Environmental Services Superfund Site is not expected in the short-term and possibly the long-term. This is because 

water depths in the area specified by the Consent Judgment for salt marsh restoration are not conducive to survival 

of salt marsh vegetation that otherwise might naturally colonize available substrate. Also, many sources of pollution 

and debris will remain locally regardless of actions taken on-Site, and these could inhibit growth of or destroy 

recovering salt marsh vegetation. There are no future land use restrictions on the Site and Site development is 

likely. Development may further impede recovery prospects because unrestricted normal commercial or residential 

activities may be harmful to growth and continued survival of salt marsh vegetation. Consequently, if the No Action 

Alternative were selected, the public would not be compensated since the result would be no replacement of lost 

resources or services. 

The No Action alternative cannot be selected as the preferred alternative since compensatory restoration is already 

required by the August 1992 Consent Judgment but Alternative 1 is retained for comparative purposes. 

2.2.2.1.b. Alternative 2: Restoration of In-Kind Natural Resources at the Same Location 

The Site is surrounded by industrial, commercial, and suburban residential areas on the eastern shore of Hempstead 

Harbor directly north of Motts Cove. Restoration of natural resources on-Site, whether in-kind or out-of-kind, is not 

feasible or is potentially less viable than restoration in off-Site areas primarily because of a lack of intertidal habitat 

favorable for Spartina survival and growth (non-optimal elevations and water depths) within the Hempstead Harbor 

inlet. In addition, on-Site storm water culverts, trash inputs, and wave action, are not conducive to the survival of 

desirable salt marsh vegetation. Addition of sediment to create intertidal habitat suitable for growth and survival of 

Spartina was not considered because the Consent Judgment only required the PPG to regrade the area and the 

Trustees could not force the PPG to implement a project with such a requirement. Also the local NYSDEC office 

indicated that permits would not be issued for projects requiring fill. On the Motts Cove side of the property, salt 

marsh recovery has proceeded naturally and little additional benefit would be achieved from enhancement of 

wetlands immediately adjacent to the Site. In addition, a concrete-bottom dock has settled in Motts Cove adjacent to 

AES. The Trustees considered removing the concrete-bottom dock located adjacent to the Site as a component of 

the restoration project as its removal might have allowed for supplemental plantings, but such an action could be 

costly. Moreover, the dock may serve the function of reducing sediment erosion and increasing sediment accretion; 

therefore, removing the dock could increase erosion and adversely affect the existing vegetation. The Trustees 

therefore agreed this action should not be undertaken. The owners of the AES Site currently plans to sell the 

property, or a portion thereof, and it would be subject to redevelopment, which could negatively impact the 

sustainability of the proposed restoration. Adjacent land within Motts Cove is also privately held and is influenced 

by the same environmental conditions described above. Ultimately, the Trustees did not support active restoration 

in this area with the funds available. For these reasons, the Trustees re-evaluated the on-Site restoration option 

originally specified in the Consent Judgment, determined that it is no longer feasible, and now propose an off-Site 

location as the preferred restoration alternative. 

2.2.2.1.c. Alternatives 3-5: Restoration or Replacement of In-Kind Natural Resources within Hempstead 

Harbor in the Vicinity of the Loss 

Three potential in-kind restoration projects were identified: the Bar Beach Lagoon Area (preferred restoration 

alternative, Alternative 3), North Hempstead Tidal Pool (Alternative 4), and North Hempstead Tidal/Phragmites 

Marsh (Alternative 5). All three of these potential restoration alternatives are included in the conceptual design of 

the Town of North Hempstead’s Hempstead Harbor Shoreline Trail Project (Landtech Design 1997). The town of 

North Hempstead owns the Trail Project, which is adjacent to Hempstead Harbor, and is located directly across from 

the Site. The trail currently runs 1,500 feet along Hempstead Harbor, not far enough to reach the Tidal Pool or the 

Tidal/Phragmites Marsh. Further trail construction requires the purchase of privately owned lots. Each alternative 

is discussed in more detail below. 

12
Alternative 3: North Hempstead Bar Beach Lagoon (Area 1 designation in Exhibit IV) 

The 5+-acre tidal cove comprising Alternative 3 is situated within a Town of North Hempstead-owned park (Bar 

Beach). It is located across from the Site on the western shore of Hempstead Harbor and immediately east of West 

Shore Road in Port Washington, New York. The project area consists of a mosaic of intertidal mudflat, sand flat, 

patchy low salt marsh dominated by smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), and shellfish beds dominated by 

ribbed mussel (Geukensia demissa) and American oyster (Crassostrea virginica). In general, localized habitat loss 

and disturbances have adversely affected the tidal cove community reducing the full-functioning capacity of the 

ecological system and the services provided to invertebrates, fish and wildlife. The presence of fill, shoreline 

erosion, decreased density of Spartina, near shore 10 to 50+ feet wide fringes of common reed (Phragmites 

australis), and freshwater inputs contribute to the degraded conditions. As noted above, this preferred restoration 

alternative is the only in-kind alternative in the vicinity of the Applied Environmental Services Superfund Site. This 

project area is also adjacent to a recently constructed Hempstead Harbor Shoreline Trail. 

Restoration activities: Several restoration alternative components that could be conducted at this site are listed in 

decreasing order of significance, as determined by the Trustees. Restoration tasks could include salt marsh 

restoration by analyzing and removing fill (comprised of pea gravel and sand), regrading, and Spartina alterniflora 

planting; coastal shoreline restoration by removing concrete rubble along the shoreline, regrading and contouring, 

installing erosion controls and plantings of coastal species; Phragmites removal or control; and erosion control by 

retrofitting a 42"-diameter culvert with an outfall riprap apron or through diversion of the storm water input. If this 

project is ultimately selected for implementation, then Trustees will make a determination of the final project scope 

based on information provided by the consultant, within the confines of the existing budget. 

Alternative 4: North Hempstead Tidal Pool (Area 2 designation in Exhibit IV) 

This area is also on the western shore of Hempstead Harbor located to the south of the Old Barge/Conveyor facility. 

It consists of a small intertidal pool and creek that has been significantly affected by sedimentation from a former 

sand and gravel mining operation west of West Shore Road. A large silt and clay delta has formed at the intertidal 

zone. The grain size, unconsolidated condition, and elevation of this material prevent salt marsh plants from 

establishing in this area, estimated at 8,000 square feet. The tidal creek area has been invaded by Phragmites due to 

the freshwater influx. The surrounding uplands area is vegetated by early successional species, indicative of a 

disturbed area. There is a man-made berm vegetated by locust on the northern portion of the upland. The 

southwestern portion remains barren as it consists of a large dredge material disposal area. Another small tidal pool 

and creek are present to the southeast of the barren area, with Phragmites and old-field species to the south. The 

area currently attracts numerous shore birds. The nature trail constructed by the Town of North Hempstead does not 

extend as far south as this project area and Town funding is not currently available to extend the project. 

Restoration activities: Numerous sediments/soils would have to be tested to detect the presence or absence of 

contamination potentially associated with the former sand and gravel mining operation, the concreted upland 

surfaces and disposed dredge material would have to be removed, salinity measured to verify that the planned 

restoration is appropriate for the area, and the site graded and contoured before revegetation with desirable species 

could be undertaken. 

Dense stands of Phragmites (estimated at 1.5 acres) have invaded both the marine and freshwater portions of this 

tidal creek. However, if the Phragmites was removed along with their associated roots and rhizomes and the 

intertidal substrate lowered, this tidal pool could be restored to a higher functioning condition. To do so may require 

removing an earthen berm midway between the shore and the Harbor. At the head of the creek, where freshwater 

mixes with the tidal waters, sweet pepperbush, marsh hibiscus, narrow-leaved cattail, bulrushes, and other species 

that can survive in low brackish regimes would best replace Phragmites. Groundsel bush and other salt-tolerant 

shrub species along with salt meadow may be best suited for the transitional zones and smooth cordgrass for the 

lowest elevations in the creek intertidal zone. Restoration of the marsh along this tidal creek offers an opportunity to 

re-establish a more diverse plant community in contrast to the current monotypic stand of Phragmites. 

13
Alternative 5: North Hempstead Tidal/Phragmites Marsh (Area 3 designation in Exhibit IV) 

This project is also on the western shore of Hempstead Harbor located south of the North Hempstead Tidal Pool 

area. The project area is very flat and covered by an extensive tidal marsh consisting of both Spartina alterniflora 

and Phragmites areas. The shoreline area currently occupied by Phragmites is very wide (about 300 feet in width), 

dense, and extensive (about 6.6 acres). Small tidal creeks in this area provide a source of fresh water and continue 

to support the expansion of the Phragmites colony. A narrow band of upland is also present bordering West Shore 

Road. The Town's design for the Hempstead Harbor Shoreline Trail envisioned that it would be located along the 

base of the West Shore Road embankment but funding to construct the trail in this area is not currently available. 

Restoration activities: This area has a large stand of Phragmites at the base of the highway slope, which interferes 

with the view at the base of the slope. Mechanical removal of the Phragmites and their associated root mass 

followed by herbicide application will be required to restore the area invaded by Phragmites. In addition, opening 

the area for more tidal water exchange will aid in controlling the re-establishment of the Phragmites, which 

generally does not establish in intertidal zones with normal salinities of 22 parts per thousand (ppt) or higher. 

2.2.2.1.d. Alternatives 6-10: Replacement or Acquisition of Similar Resources within the Estuary Watershed 

Four such restoration alternatives were identified. These alternatives are the Village of Roslyn-Bulkhead 

(Alternative 6), Mill Pond-Bayside (Alternative 7), the Leeds Pond-Bayside (Alternative 8), and the Forgey Estate 

(Alternative 9). These projects entail specific activities like replacing or removing bulkheads, Phragmites removal 

and control, collection of trash and debris from wetlands, and shoreline regrading. However, the proposed 

restoration sites are farther removed from the Site than the projects identified in Sections 2.2.2.1.b. and 2.2.2.1.c. 

and the impacted resources that the Trustees wish to replace. Since there are an adequate number of in-kind sites 

that were of higher priority for restoration per Section 2.1.1, the Trustees did not give further consideration to the 

four replacement/acquisition alternatives identified above. 

2.2.2.1.e. Alternatives 10-13: Restoration or Replacement of Out-of-Kind Natural Resources in the 

Watershed 

Four potential out-of-kind restoration projects were identified: Old Barge Dock (Alternative 10), Roslyn Pond ParkSilver Lake (Alternative 11), Mill Pond (Alternative 12), and Leeds Pond (Alternative 13). These projects include 

large debris removal, sediment removal and freshwater wetland creation/enhancement, and Phragmites removal 

from a very low brackish pond. The services restored by these out-of-kind projects are not comparable to those lost 

from releases at the Site; hence, they provide less ecological benefit than the projects identified in 2.2.2.1.b. and 

2.2.2.1.c. of this section. The Trustees did not give further consideration to these alternatives since there is adequate 

number of in-kind restoration sites that have a high probability of success and are considered higher priority for 

restoration per Section 2.1.1. 

2.2.2.2 Evaluation of Alternatives and Environmental Consequences 

The Trustees are required to evaluate each of the possible restoration projects based on all relevant considerations, 

including the following factors: technical feasibility; the relationship of the expected costs of the proposed actions 

to the expected benefits; the results of any actual or planned response actions; the potential for additional injury 

resulting from the proposed actions, including long-term and indirect impacts; the natural recovery period of the 

injured resources; the ability of the resources to recover with or without alternative actions; the potential effects of 

the action on human health and safety; consistency with relevant Federal, State, and tribal policies; and compliance 

with applicable Federal, State, and tribal laws. The Trustees must also give consideration to their ability to secure 

protection of the restoration site. 

The Trustees retained three of the 13 proposed restoration projects (Alternatives 3-5) described above for further 

evaluation. The No Action Alternative is the basis for comparison for each of these three alternatives. The No 

Action Alternative would cost the least of any alternative, but would also probably result in the least recovery of lost 

resources and services because of the unsuitable water depth for salt marsh restoration, continued problems with 

local pollution and debris, and the likelihood of renewed unrestricted normal commercial or residential activities on 

the Site. Each of the other three alternatives would cost more than the No Action Alternative, but offer more 

14
recovery of lost resources and services. A 1992 Judgment settling natural resource damage claims provides funding 

for a restoration project. 

2.2.2.2.a. Alternative 3: North Hempstead Bar Beach Lagoon 

The North Hempstead Bar Beach Lagoon project is in the same watershed as, and is in close physical proximity to, 

the Applied Environmental Services Superfund Site. Implementation of this project would increase the acreage of 

existing salt marsh, improve the function of the existing habitat, restore the equivalent of the resources injured or 

lost, and has a high potential for success. 

Compared to the No Action Alternative, which is not likely to produce any significant recovery of the salt marsh 

(i.e. return to prerelease conditions), this project would produce approximately two acres of salt marsh within one or 

two growing seasons from the completion of the project. About a half acre of uplands will also be restored. This 

salt marsh and upland area is on property owned by the Town of North Hempstead, will be preserved in perpetuity, 

and would not be subject to commercial or residential development. This proposed restoration site is also not as 

subject to pollution or debris from adjacent property as the on-Site former salt marsh area. 

Implementation of the Bar Beach Lagoon project, the preferred restoration alternative, will not result in any 

additional injuries to fish and wildlife resources, as it will ensure protection of those resources at the property, and 

compensate for injuries at the Site. The proposed restoration is expected to improve fish and shellfish habitat and 

detrital export function of this tidal community. It should also attract migratory birds including passerines, waders, 

waterfowl, and shorebirds. These resources are similar to those injured at the Site. 

The proposed project will have no adverse impacts on human health or safety, and is consistent with relevant 

Federal and State policies. In implementing the project, the PPG, the Town, and USFWS will ensure compliance 

with applicable Federal and State laws. The project will be protected and provide ecological benefits in perpetuity. 

This action does not require the acquisition of land as the property is owned and managed by the Town of North 

Hempstead. 

The Bar Beach Lagoon restoration project will be integrated into an ongoing Hempstead Harbor Shoreline Trail 

Project with the Town, and the Town is committed to protecting the site in perpetuity. There is also a high potential 

for public benefit and use due to the construction of this trail and the physical location of the lagoon within the 

town-owned Bar Beach Park. 

Additional factors make this project especially promising. The Town has been awarded a grant from the 

NOAA/NMFS Restoration Center Community Outreach program. These monies, which required matching funds 

and community involvement, are available for the Bar Beach Lagoon project. This partnership would increase the 

overall budget for the restoration project by $59,896 in the form of in-kind services, goods, and volunteer work 

(Exhibit V). In addition, the Long Island Wetland Restoration Initiative may mechanically remove, or provide 

assistance toward the physical control of, Phragmites australis in Bar Beach Lagoon in partnership with the 

Trustees, the PPG, and the Town of North Hempstead. Ducks Unlimited, in partnership with NOAA/Restoration 

Center may conduct supplemental restoration activities within Bar Beach Lagoon separate from the Trustees/PPG 

preferred restoration project. Likewise, the PPG has spent monies above those awarded in the natural resource 

damage settlement toward the design of the Bar Beach Lagoon project in connection with the preparation of this 

document. Together, the restoration component of the natural resource damage settlement combined with these 

partnerships provide for a more comprehensive project than could have been accomplished with only the settlement 

money. It is anticipated that most, if not all, of the restoration tasks identified in Section 2.2.2.1.c. for this 

Alternative can be accomplished under the currently revised budget which includes the potential to utilize all or part 

of the $50,000 in natural resource damages the PPG paid to the federal Trustees for off-Site, compensatory 

restoration. 

15
2.2.2.2.b. Alternative 4: North Hempstead Tidal Pool 

The North Hempstead Tidal Pool is in the same watershed as, and in close physical proximity to, the Site. 

Implementation would benefit similar species but this marsh restoration project presents more of a challenge than 

the Bar Beach Lagoon project and has a higher risk of failure. A freshwater creek, created by storm water flow or 

by groundwater seepage, flows through this area. Salinity levels vary along the creek. The input of freshwater 

supports the spread of Phragmites allowing for the establishment of Phragmites in both the estuarine or brackish and 

freshwater portions of the creek. Increasing tidal flow into this area and or diverting these creeks to promote growth 

of Spartina over that of Phragmites presents a greater engineering challenge than that posed by the storm water 

input from the culvert at Bar Beach Lagoon. 

Other factors make this project less desirable and all could add to the project costs. These include the following: (1) 

Some of the property is privately owned and may not be available for purchase. (2) Sediment/soil contamination is 

likely but the extent is unknown. (3) The removal of concrete spoil covering the land surface could be difficult. (4) 

The Phragmites is denser in this area, may therefore be more difficult to remove permanently, and could require 

more long-term maintenance. (5) Phragmites removal would generate more waste material due to the presence of 

more reeds. 

In contrast, at Bar Beach Lagoon area (Alternative 3), the sand/pea gravel fill slated for removal is not presumed to 

be contaminated, all of the property is publicly owned, the Phragmites is less dense so there would be less waste 

material to dispose of, and concrete removal is directed at debris disposed along the shoreline rather than a 

contiguous layer covering the upland surface. Also, the North Hempstead Tidal Pool area is not currently adjacent 

to an existing nature trail. 

To derive the necessary benefits of restoration would require implementing a comprehensive plan to address 

concrete spoils, potential sediment contamination, removal of Phragmites, regrading/fill, and re-vegetation of 

desirable marsh species. Hence, there is greater uncertainty associated with achieving a successful restoration. The 

high costs required to complete this project limit the feasibility within the constraints of the current natural resources 

damage settlement. The anticipated costs for Alternative 4 are high enough that partnerships developed for 

Alternative 3 would not cover the additional expenses. The potential for public benefit is less than with Alternative 

3 since the project is more removed from the town-owned Bar Beach Park and the public nature trail does not extend 

this far south. In all other respects, however, this is a highly desirable restoration project that would yield significant 

ecological benefits to invertebrates, fish and wildlife and restore services equivalent to those lost at the Site. 

If this project was selected instead of the preferred Bar Beach Lagoon project, no adverse impacts on human health 

or safety are expected, and the project would be consistent with relevant Federal and State policies. If implemented, 

the PPG would ensure compliance with applicable Federal and State laws. This action requires the acquisition of 

land as the property is only partially owned and managed by the Town of North Hempstead. If the private parcel 

could not be purchased, the project could not be implemented in its entirety. This would jeopardize the restoration 

of some injured natural resources and lost services. Hence, this project could result in less ecological benefit than 

Alternative 3. 

Compared to the No Action Alternative, which is not likely to produce any significant recovery of the salt marsh 

(i.e. return to pre-release conditions), this project would enhance existing salt marsh and benefit invertebrates, fish, 

and wildlife, as well as restore services equivalent to those lost at the Site. The Town of North Hempstead owns at 

least some of the potential project property. Hence the project would be preserved in perpetuity and would not be 

subject to commercial or residential development. Also, this tidal pool area is not as subject to pollution or debris 

from adjacent property as at the Site. 

2.2.2.2.c. Alternative 5: North Hempstead Tidal/Phragmites Marsh 

The North Hempstead Tidal/Phragmites Marsh is in the same watershed as, and in close physical proximity to, the 

Site. Implementation would benefit similar species but this marsh restoration project presents more of a challenge 

than Alternatives 3 and 4 and has the highest probability of failure. The primary focus of this project is to convert a 

Phragmites community into a Spartina marsh. Phragmites is difficult to remove chemically without subsequent 

treatments, so this would require long-term and possibly yearly treatment to control the regrowth of the Phragmites. 

16
Conversations with the NYSDEC permitting office suggest that this regulatory agency may not issue permits for 

large-scale or long-term herbicidal control of Phragmites. An alternative approach would be to alter the project area 

enough to significantly increase tidal exchange. Under this scenario, Phragmites might be controlled naturally. 

Channelization of the area may eliminate or substantially reduce Phragmites growth and improve tidal exchange. 

However, the Phragmites is so extensive and so pervasive (approximately 6.6 acres), mechanical means would not 

be practical or within the financial scope of this project. Also, there is an access problem. The Phragmites marsh is 

adjacent to steeply sloped terrain making it technically more difficult to maneuver equipment into the project area. 

Phragmites trenching would most likely have to be done by hand and would be labor-intensive due to the soft, 

unconsolidated nature of the substrate. 

If successful, on the other hand, this restoration activity would result in equivalent benefit to the lost natural 

resources and services by improving habitat of invertebrates, fish and wildlife and augmenting services derived from 

tidal salt marshes. However, the projected cost to complete the work exceeds the monetary settlement available for 

restoration and appears to exceed the additional funds available through grant awards (if the Town used its award for 

this project instead of the Bar Beach Lagoon project). The Trustees also believed that it would be difficult to forge a 

partnership with the Long Island Wetland Restoration Initiative on this project. The North Hempstead 

Tidal/Phragmites Marsh requires the removal of much more Phragmites than at Bar Beach Lagoon and is the 

primary component of the project. The partnering group does not have adequate experience, time or equipment to 

implement a project on the scale of Alternative 5. 

The lack of financial resources available to complete this project would make it technically infeasible at this time. 

In addition, these restoration activities would not be cost-effective relative to other options given the requirement for 

long-term maintenance to control Phragmites. The settlement package was for a fixed dollar amount and there are 

insufficient funds for long-term maintenance, especially given the large acreage of Phragmites involved relative to 

Alternatives 3 and 4. There is a greater potential risk of failure if the yearly Phragmites maintenance is not 

undertaken. In addition, the potential for public benefit is less than with Alternative 3 since the project is farther 

removed from the town-owned Bar Beach Park and the public nature trail does not currently extend this far south. 

Hence, the ultimate benefits derived from this project could be less than from Alternative 3. 

If Alternative 5 was implemented instead of the preferred project, no adverse impacts on human health or safety 

would be expected, and the project would be consistent with relevant Federal policies. However, the requisite 

herbicidal treatment may not be consistent with State policies. If implemented, the PPG would ensure compliance 

with applicable Federal and State laws. This action does not require the acquisition of land as the property is owned 

and managed by the Town of North Hempstead. The project would be protected and but the amount and quality of 

ecological benefits provided in perpetuity would depend on the Town’s ability to commit to and implement a longterm maintenance program to control Phragmites. 

Although this project is very costly and the outcome is less certain than the previous two projects, compared to the 

No Action Alternative, which is not likely to produce any significant recovery of the salt marsh (i.e. return to prerelease conditions), this project would enhance existing salt marsh and benefit invertebrates, fish, and wildlife, as 

well as restore services equivalent to those lost at the Site. This salt marsh is on property owned by the Town of 

North Hempstead so no matter what degree of improvement is achieved, this marsh would be preserved in 

perpetuity and would not be subject to commercial or residential development. Also, the Tidal/Phragmites Marsh is 

not as subject to pollution or debris from adjacent property as at the Site. 

2.2.2.3 Preferred Project 

Based on the evaluation and comparison of projects, the Trustees have selected Alternative 3, the Bar Beach Lagoon 

Project, as the off-Site in-kind Preferred Project. Our reasons for selecting the Bar Beach Lagoon project as the 

preferred restoration project are as follows: 1) The project is located across from the injured resources and the 

restoration activities will benefit the same or similar biological resources to those injured by Site releases; 2) The 

project has the highest potential for success; 3) The project will be conducted with other ongoing restoration 

activities planned by the Town that will increase the ecological value of this alternative; 5) The project can be 

conducted within the constraints of the existing budget; 6) The project appears as though it will provide the greatest 

amount of ecological benefit relative to the other projects for the limited budget that is available; and (7) The 

17
Town’s shoreline trail runs adjacent to the project area providing the public opportunities to view wildlife utilizing 

this habitat. 

Expected improvements include increased vegetative cover and density derived directly from upland plantings 

(about a half acre), from salt marsh plantings (approximately 0.6 acre) and indirectly from salt marsh site 

enhancement (approximately 2 acres). Amelioration of substrate conditions (i.e., reduced erosion, and reduced 

freshwater input) should abate the degrading conditions and increase Spartina over current conditions through 

natural colonization. Habitat quality will improve due to increases in vegetative cover and structural complexity 

thereby benefiting macroinvertebrates, fish and birds. 

Finally, the Town owns the property and has made a long-term commitment to preserve this area for conservation 

purposes. Thus, the benefits conferred by this alternative will be preserved in perpetuity. 

This represents our planned action to restore natural resources and ecological services. The Trustees have determine 

that this project will make the environment and public "whole" from the loss of such resources due to past releases 

from the Applied Environmental Services Superfund Site. 

3.0 Proposed Restoration Project 

The Bar Beach Lagoon project is the preferred restoration alternative. Details of the proposed restoration activity 

are provided immediately below. Photos of the preferred restoration site can be found in Exhibit VI. 

The Bar Beach Lagoon and the Hempstead Harbor Shoreline Trail Project will augment each other and increase 

opportunities for public use of the area. For a description of the Hempstead Harbor Shoreline Trail Project, please 

see the 1997 document entitled Design Report for the Hempstead Harbor Shoreline Trail (the “Trail Report”). 

The Bar Beach Lagoon restoration project, will restore natural resources, and make the environment and public 

“whole” from the loss of such resources and services resulting from Site releases. 

3.1 Site Selection 

The Trustees have selected Bar Beach Lagoon as the preferred restoration alternative. The preferred restoration 

alternative is located on the southern side of Bar Beach, which is a high use recreational beach, boat-launching park. 

The lagoon is a 5+-acre tidal cove that is connected to Hempstead Harbor providing services to the same or similar 

resources injured by Site releases, is in close physical proximity to the Applied Environmental Services Superfund 

Site where injury to natural resources occurred, and is near the trailhead for the Hempstead Harbor Shoreline Trail. 

The resources to be restored at Bar Beach Lagoon are similar to those that were injured by the releases from the Site. 

The currently degraded lagoon was historically occupied by salt marsh or smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), 

whose cover has decreased due to changes in the topographic elevation of the lagoon substrate resulting from 

erosion, subsidence and/or a rise in sea level. In its present state, the lagoon is mostly open water habitat consisting 

of a mosaic of intertidal mudflat, sandflat, patchy low salt marsh dominated by Spartina alterniflora, and shellfish 

beds dominated by ribbed mussel (Geukensia demissa) and American oyster (Crassostrea virginica). Phragmites, 

an undesirable invasive plant species, occurs at the northwest edge and southwestern corner of the lagoon where it 

abruptly transitions to upland woody vegetation. The influx of fresh water from the large storm water outfall also 

supports the spreading of Phragmites, which is mildly salt-intolerant. This lagoon is currently in a downward 

degradation trend, which unless corrected, will most likely result in the loss of habitat diversity and the creation of a 

strictly open water system surrounded by Phragmites, which will have out-competed all other vegetative species. 

This habitat type has a very low ecological value. The County-owned storm water discharge may be contributing 

locally to minor erosion of the intertidal sediments. Drainage channels in the tidal flats created by these freshwater 

releases are most obvious during low tide intervals. 

The lagoon is the first natural feature that trail users will see once the Hempstead Harbor Shoreline Trail is open for 

public use. The town may construct a viewing platform with benches and a wooden walk leading to the trailhead 

near the northern shoreline of Bar Beach Lagoon. Hence, the public using the trail will receive direct benefit from 

18
the enhancement of this area. The lagoon area has fairly good access for construction crews and equipment, with the 

Bar Beach parking lot serving as a good construction staging location. 

The $50,000 the PPG is required to expend for primary restoration under the terms of the Consent Judgment, along 

with the $60,000 the PPG paid to the Trustees for project monitoring will not be sufficient to resolve all of the 

ecological and anthropogenic challenges facing the lagoon. Therefore, the Trustees propose to use all or part of the 

$50,000 the PPG paid to the federal Trustees as natural resource damages to be used for off-Site, compensatory 

restoration to supplement the funds available for the Bar Beach Lagoon Project. The Trustees and the Town of 

North Hempstead are also working cooperatively with each other and with the Long Island Wetland Restoration 

Initiative and Ducks Unlimited to potentially fund and implement additional projects in this same lagoon that are to 

be conducted with or complementary to the Preferred Restoration Alternative. These additional projects will allow 

restoration of additional aspects of the lagoon that were not addressed by the funds allocated by the PPG for the 

Preferred Restoration Alternative. In addition, the Town of North Hempstead has money dedicated to investigating 

and mitigating storm water entering Bar Beach Lagoon through the 42” culvert at West Shore Road. This synergy 

of projects will confer a greater benefit to the ecological resources and to the public in a highly cost-efficient 

manner. A description of the current project design follows. 

3.2 Project Design 

The Preferred Restoration Alternative would improve fish, bird, and shellfish habitat; enhance the detrital export 

functioning of this tidal community; and provide an opportunity for the public to enjoy this ecosystem due to its 

proximity to the Hempstead Harbor Shoreline Trail. The project design described below summarizes the draft Bar 

Beach Restoration Project design document (EEA 2002). Changes in the final project design will be driven by 

costs, permitting constraints, Town requirements, Trustee obligations, and site conditions. The following specific 

tasks and activities, which would be conducted as part of the Preferred Restoration Alternative, are presented in 

decreasing order of priority and ecological significance: 

Salt Marsh Restoration 

This task will involve removing pea gravel and other non-native fill material from a peninsula in the northwest 

corner of the tidal cove. An area of approximately 6,025 square feet (0.14 acres) of low salt marsh appears to have 

been filled in this location. An average of 3 to 3.5 foot excavation depth is proposed to return this area to optimal 

intertidal elevations capable of supporting the growth and colonization of planted smooth cordgrass and other low 

marsh vegetation. 

Implementing this task will require performing an initial topographic survey tied into vertical benchmark(s) with 

known tidal datum. This information will be provided in a base map indicating both existing and proposed 

elevations. To complete this salt marsh restoration, a backhoe or front-end loader will be needed to excavate the 

estimated 600 cubic yards (cy) of fill material. Equipment will access the fill peninsula via the nearby parking lot 

and disturbed uplands. Before beginning the excavation, silt fence will be installed at mean high water (MHW) to 

minimize the potential for sedimentation to the nearby marsh and mudflat. The excavation will proceed, beginning 

from the tip of the peninsula and progressing landward. The peninsula may be subgraded at least 6 inches and 

backfilled with clean plantable soils to avoid the potential for gravel or other debris in the final grade elevation. All 

excavated material will be transferred to a designated upland site. Approximately 2,200 smooth cordgrass plugs will 

then be planted in the final graded area. High marsh species will be planted between the upland and the low marsh 

vegetation. Excavation activities are planned for Fall 2002 and final grading/planting for early Spring 2003. 

Precautions will be taken to minimize potential erosion over the winter including overwinter monitoring. 

Coastal Shoreline Restoration

This task involves removing and regrading the northern shore of the tidal cove, which currently consists of concrete

rubble, other solid waste debris, and fill historically placed in this location as part of the construction of the adjacent

parking area for Bar Beach Park. The specific area to be addressed during this task is a section of shoreline, 

approximately 300 feet long. Fill will be removed, and the bank will be regraded using clean soil and then stabilized 

with plantings of native wetland and coastal upland plant species. 

The work will involve excavating debris and regrading an area of approximately 1,500 sq. ft. Before beginning 

excavation, silt fencing will be properly installed at mean high water (MHW). A backhoe will be needed to 

19
complete the excavation, although caution will be used to prevent significant disturbance to the low salt marsh 

community at and below MHW. Where possible, rubble will be removed manually. Particular attention will be 

given to stabilizing an eroding 30-foot bank segment in the northern terminus of this shoreline work area. 

All excavated material will be transferred to a designated upland site. Should debris and/or poor soils be 

encountered at the proposed final grade, the area will be subgraded to a maximum depth of 1 foot below final grade 

and backfilled with clean, plantable soils to the depicted final grades. As much as 150+ cy of clean, plantable soil 

may be required. Once the excavation and grading is completed, the work area will be covered with jute mesh to 

minimize potential erosion. A rapid-germinating, salt-tolerant seed mix may also be applied to prevent erosion 

potential. This excavation work will be completed during late fall 2002. 

Once all grading is completed, shrubs, trees and emergent plants will be installed to approximate a zoned coastal 

shoreline community. Native species and regional stock will be used including beach plum (Prunus maritima),

marsh elder (Iva frutescens), groundsel bush (Baccharis halimofolia), Seaside goldenrod (Solidago sempervirens) or

other appropriate native species. American beach grass (Ammophila breviculata) may be used to temporarily

stabilize the south-facing slope. Approximately 1,900 smooth cordgrass and 100 black grass (Juncus gerardi) plugs 

will also be planted within the intertidal zone at the toe of the slope, preferably during the early growing season. 

High marsh species will be planted between the upland and the low marsh vegetation.

Invasive Plant Control

This task involves removing and controlling Phragmites australis, an invasive undesirable species that dominates

the western and southwestern portions of the tidal cove shoreline. This invasive plant has taken over the relatively 

narrow high marsh (irregularly flooded) zone within the tidal cove and varies from 10 to 50+ feet wide. Its

colonization and growth is likely attributed to freshwater inputs (groundwater and surface runoff) from the upland 

slopes immediately adjacent to the marsh. Phragmites is generally intolerant of pore-water salinity levels greater 

than 20 ppt, and is intolerant of regular flooding by full-salinity seawater.

The control of Phragmites at this site, an area estimated at 5,000 to 10,000 sq. ft. (0.1 to 0.2 acres), will be

accomplished by mechanical, physical, and/or chemical techniques in the Fall of 2002. The current plan to is to 

implement mechanical or physical controls. Mechanical techniques would focus on excavation activities to remove

roots and rhizomes and increase water depth, thereby decreasing the suitability of the addressed habitat for

recolonization by Phragmites. Such activities would also increase the likelihood of natural colonization by desirable 

species and decrease the available Phragmites seed stock and rhizomes extending into other restored areas of the Bar 

Beach Lagoon. A rapid-germinating seed mix may also be applied to upland disturbed areas to prevent erosion.

Spartina (approximately 3,000 plugs), other high and low marsh species, and upland species will be planted in

Spring 2003 (April-early May) after meeting specifications for the final grade. Where mechanical techniques cannot

be employed, physical changes in the environment’s hydrology might be implemented. For example, a ditch could

be dug around the perimeter of the Phragmites. Additional ditches could be dug through the Phragmites to increase 

the movement of more saline water into the area and to help break down the root mass. Alternatively, saline harbor

water could be pumped into the perimeter-ditched area. 

Herbicide treatment was considered to manage any Phragmites regrowth, but this method does not appear to meet 

NYSDEC permit requirements. Cutting and herbicide application, if deemed appropriate and acceptable by 

regulatory agencies, would be overseen by a qualified landscaper/herbicide specialist and completed in the late 

summer to early fall months with a second application, as needed, the following growing season. The current plan 

utilizes mechanical/physical means to control any regrowth. All plant cuttings will be removed to the town landfill. 

Storm Water Outfall Retrofit

This task involves actions to attempt to minimize the adverse impacts of the storm water outfall upon sediments and 

substrate quality. A 42-inch diameter culvert owned by Nassau County is located at the western portion of the 

lagoon, with the pipe invert elevation situated near mean high water. The culvert transports storm water runoff from

nearby West Shore Road and surrounding uplands. On May 11, 2000, staff from NOAA and the Town of North

Hempstead observed clear base flows passing from the culvert into the cove. Immediately down gradient of the 

outfall, scattered boulders and debris form a poorly functioning riprap apron. Excessive flow velocities have caused

minor erosion (i.e., gully formation) of the intertidal substrate at this outfall during low tide cycle periods. 

20
The proposed work focuses on modifying the existing riprap apron to eliminate future erosion. This will be 

achieved by temporarily removing the existing boulders, installing a geofabric, and placing the stockpiled and 

additional stone (9” to 14” diameter) along the sides and outer edge of the existing apron. It is anticipated that this 

stone outlet protection and energy dissipation device will extend about 15” beyond the present apron and fan out to a 

maximum of 26 feet. Approximately 60 cy of stone will be needed to eliminate this minor erosion area. Final 

dimensions of riprap improvements and size of stone may vary once design document is finalized. Alternatively, the 

discharge of storm water may be relocated to beyond the salt marsh perimeter 

Sequencing of Events 

The principal components of the preferred alternative are salt marsh restoration and shoreline stabilization. 

Retrofitting the culvert or diverting the storm water input will be implemented if deemed critical by the contractor. 

Phragmites control may be implemented as a secondary component of the project. The implementation and scope 

of Phragmites control is contingent upon resolving access issues, and on the Long Island Wetland Initiative's 

success at operating the equipment for said purposes. If all four subprojects are undertaken, then the four will be 

integrated and sequenced appropriately. It is anticipated that the Phragmites removal will be completed first, which 

may require some regrading of the slope to the south of the culvert and to the fill area to the north of the culvert. At 

around the same time, rubble removal from the shoreline adjacent to the parking lot can commence. Final grading 

and planting will be the last tasks completed. Our current plans schedule construction activities later in 2002, 

overwinter monitoring to assess site stability and identify erosion problems, and corrective action, final grading and 

planting in 2003. Money placed in escrow for contingency planting may ultimately be used to restore other areas 

(i.e., increase Spartina density) within the tidal cove once monitoring results have been evaluated. 

Should any unobligated funds remain after completion of the North Hempstead Bar Beach Lagoon project, the 

Trustees will determine the appropriate use/s of the funds to further benefit natural resources affected by releases 

from the Site. The Trustees may, at their discretion, provide any part, or all, of the remaining funds to the Town of 

North Hempstead for the maintenance or enhancement of the North Hempstead Bar Beach Lagoon Project. 

3.3 Permitting Considerations 

In order to perform the preferred restoration project, permits will need to be obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Permit applications will 

be jointly submitted by all appropriate parties to NYSDEC and USACE under Article 25 (wetland permit) and will 

seek confirmation of applicability of a Nationwide Permit #27. 

Slight modifications or adjustments may have to be made to the restoration project design based on input received 

during the USACE/NYSDEC permitting process and on the final budget. The implemented project will provide 

ecological benefits at least equivalent to those envisioned in the current preferred alternative and will compensate 

for the loss of resources and services due to releases from the Site. 

3.4 Monitoring Requirements and Performance Criteria 

Under the terms of the Consent Judgment, the Federal and State Trustees were awarded $60,000 to develop and 

implement a detailed monitoring program to assess the success of this and any other Site-related restoration projects. 

The Trustees are preparing a draft-monitoring plan for the Bar Beach Lagoon restoration project according to 

NYSDOS guidelines (2000). Implementation of all or a subset of the components identified below will ultimately 

depend on whether they can be accomplished within the $60,000 budget. 

Permanent shoreline transects and salt marsh plots will be chosen for the assessments. Photographs of each area will 

be taken at designated locations depicted on a site map and measurements will be collected to assess the extent of 

plant survival and growth and improvement in marsh functioning. The basic components of the wetland restoration 

monitoring will include an evaluation of the major indicators of ecosystem functioning, along with features most 

important to the public (Pinit and Bellmer 2000; Wilbur et al. 2000). The study will include at least one reference 

location selected in the vicinity of the restoration project. The duration of the monitoring study should be a 

minimum of 5 years. Monitoring events shall take place as follows: (a) vegetation plot monitoring - once per 

growing season during the period August 1-September 30; and (b) fish, macro-invertebrate, and wildlife monitoring 

- twice per year during the periods of April 1-June 15 and September 1-November 15. 

21
Monitoring components will include assessment of the survival of the salt marsh and shoreline plantings, physical 

stability of substrate, and surveys of macroinvertebrates, fish and birds using the marsh and stabilized shoreline. 

Parameters measured will include substrate elevation; percent plant (i.e. S. alterniflora) cover, height, density, and 

vigor; usage by waterfowl, wading, and shore birds; species composition and numbers of macroinvertebrates 

(excluding insects), especially fiddler crabs, bivalves, and gastropods; and fish use (species richness, abundance, and 

age class). The experimental design will consist of ten vegetative plots in the restoration area and at least 6 in the 

reference area(s). These plot locations will be shown on a scaled site map. 

The performance criteria for the restoration project are: 1) 90% survival of Spartina alterniflora plantings after two 

full growing seasons; 2) 90% survival of planted shoreline vegetation after two full growing seasons; (3) 85% cover 

of the restoration area (marsh and stabilized coastal shoreline) within 5 years of initial planting; 4) minimal reestablishment of Phragmites australis and other undesirable invasive vegetation to 10% or less of the total restored 

area; and (5) species abundance, richness, and composition of macroinvertebrates, fish and birds similar to (i.e., 

demonstrating strong positive trend toward or not significantly different from) reference marsh. 

The Trustees will utilize the data and information gathered from the monitoring program to assess the success of the 

project and determine whether mid-course corrections to the restoration plan are necessary to achieve the restoration 

goals specified in the performance criteria. For example, monitoring of vegetative success will be completed during 

the latter portion (mid August to early September) of the first and second growing seasons to determine if 

performance criteria (1) and (2) are met. In the event that the success criteria are not met, the Trustees will 

determine the amount and type of corrective action required. Such actions could include supplemental planting of 

salt marsh and shoreline vegetation and controlling invasive species per the contractor's guarantee, government 

permits and the criteria set forth in the preceding paragraph. 

Any and all contracts issued in connection with the restoration site will include a provision whereby the contractor, 

and any subcontractor, guarantees that project implementation and construction complies with the approved design. 

Project completion is dependent on meeting the performance criteria described above. The Trustees will use the 

data and observations from the monitoring program to evaluate the success of the restoration actions and to 

determine whether the contractor will be required to perform additional plantings per the contractual guarantee, 

government permits, and requirements set forth in this document. All appropriate parties will be responsible for 

compliance with all permit requirements. 

In addition, a small portion of money may be placed in an interest-bearing escrow account to cover potential future 

plantings in case of unexpected plant die-off, or other restoration site disturbances, beyond the scope of the 

contractor's guarantees or regulatory agency permit requirements. If the Trustees do not utilize the money from this 

account for replanting or other site modifications, the Trustees will determine how that additional money will be 

spent to further benefit the affected resources. The Trustees may provide money from the escrow account to the 

Town of North Hempstead to be used for the maintenance, or enhancement, of the Bar Beach Lagoon restoration 

project. In that event, the Town of North Hempstead would be required to coordinate those activities with the 

Trustees and obtain their approval. Alternatively, the Trustees may direct the money to another project in the area. 

Should any unobligated funds remain after completion of the North Hempstead Bar Beach Lagoon project, the 

Trustees will determine the appropriate use/s of the funds to further benefit natural resources affected by releases 

from the Site. The Trustees may, at their discretion, provide any part, or all, of the remaining funds to the Town of 

North Hempstead for the maintenance or enhancement of the North Hempstead Bar Beach Lagoon Project. 

3.5 Proposed Project Implementation 

The PPG is responsible for the design of the Preferred Restoration Alternative, subject to Trustee approval prior to 

implementation, and for securing contracts for the performance of the restoration work. The PPG's responsibilities 

focus, to the greatest extent, on the salt marsh restoration and coastal shoreline stabilization components. Postdesign tasks include removing fill material, regrading the marsh and shoreline, purchasing plants, and overseeing the 

plantings. The PPG proposes to use the services of a qualified wetland consultant (e.g., PWS, Society for Wetland 

Scientists) from the region for portions of the restoration activities at the proposed site, including salt marsh 

22
restoration in the fill area and shoreline stabilization. The final selection of a contractor(s) will be based on the 

Trustees evaluation and approval of the design and construction bid packages. 

The Town of North Hempstead brings additional resources to the restoration project. The Town's funds through the 

NOAA Community Outreach grant and in-kind services will cover expenses associated with equipment and 

equipment operators, transport and disposal of dewatered fill and debris from the restoration site to the town landfill, 

tipping fees, technical oversight, sampling and analysis of soils from the fill removal area, coordination with and 

logistics associated with local community group volunteers, and supplies. Volunteers from local non-governmental 

organizations under the guidance of the Town of North Hempstead will plant desired species. The NOAA grant 

money awarded to the Town may also supplement the purchase of plants. The Long Island Wetland Restoration 

Initiative may attempt to remove Phragmites along the perimeter of Bar Beach Lagoon and/or assist in the 

modification of the local hydrology to diminish the survival of Phragmites and enhance the habitat for more 

desirable species. 

3.6 Compliance with Environmental Laws 

3.6.1 Anadromous Fish Conservation Act 

The Anadromous Fish Conservation Act (16 USC 757a et seq.) provides authority to conserve, develop, and 

enhance anadromous fishery resources. The preferred alternative should improve habitat quality thereby enhancing 

anadromous fish resources. 

3.6.2 Archeological Resources and Historical Preservation 

Numerous acts afford protection to antiquities, abandoned shipwrecks, archeological resources, historic buildings 

and historic sites. These include the Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 (43 USC 2102 et seq.), the Archeological 

Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 USC 470, et seq.), the Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 USC 461-467), the 

Historical and Archeological Data Preservation Act (16 USC 469-469c), and the National Historic Preservation Act 

of 1966 as amended (16 USC 470-470t, 110). 

The Trustees have coordinated with the Town of North Hempstead (owner of property), NYSDEC and New York 

State Historic Preservation (SHPO). No known historic or pre-historic data, sites, or relics that may be lost or 

impacted by the proposed project have been identified. 

3.6.3 Clean Air Act 

The Clean Air Act directs USEPA to set limits on air emissions to ensure basic protection of health and the 

environment. All construction activity will be done with conventional equipment in compliance with all local 

ordinances. 

3.6.4 Clean Water Act 

The Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 USC 1251, et seq., is the principal law governing pollution control and water 

quality of the nation's waterways. Section 404 of the law authorizes permit program for the disposal of dredged or 

fill material into navigable waters. The USACE administers the program. In general, restoration projects that move 

material into or out of waters or wetlands -- for example, hydrologic restoration of marshes -- require Section 404 

permits. These restoration activities will be addressed under nationwide permit #27. 

3.6.5 Coastal Zone Management Act 

The goal of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), 16 USC 1451, et seq., 15 CFR Part 923, is to 

preserve, protect, develop and, where possible, restore and enhance the nation's coastal resources. The federal 

government provides grants to states with federally approved coastal management programs. The State of New 

York has a federally approved program. Section 1456 of the CZMA requires that any federal action inside or 

outside of the coastal zone that affects any land or water use or natural resources of the coastal zone shall be 

consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of approved state management 

23
programs. It states that no federal license or permit may be granted without giving the State the opportunity to 

concur that the project is consistent with the state's coastal policies. The regulations outline the consistency 

procedures. 

The Trustees, the PPG and the Town sought and obtained general concurrence from the State of New York that our 

preferred restoration alternative is consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with the enforceable policies of the 

state coastal program (Resler 2001; 2002; Rosman 2001, 2002). 

3.6.6 Endangered Species Act 

The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), 16 USC 1531, et seq., 50 CFR Parts 17, 222, 224, directs all federal 

agencies to conserve endangered and threatened species and their habitats and encourages such agencies to utilize 

their authority to further these purposes. Under the Act, NMFS and USFWS publish lists of endangered and 

threatened species. Section 7 of the Act requires that federal agencies consult with these two agencies to minimize 

the effects of federal actions on endangered and threatened species. Prior to implementation of these projects, the 

Trustees will conduct Section 7 consultations in conjunction with EFH consultation. 

Except for occasional transient individuals, no Federally listed or proposed endangered or threatened species under 

our jurisdiction are known to exist in the Bar Beach Lagoon area. In addition, no habitat in the project impact area 

is currently designated or proposed "critical habitat" in accordance with provisions of the Endangered Species Act 

(87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 USC 1531 et seq.). Therefore, no Biological Assessment or further Section 7 

consultation under the Endangered Species Act is required with the Service. Should project plans change, or if 

additional information on listed or proposed species or critical habitat becomes available, this determination may be 

reconsidered. 

3.6.7 Estuaries Protection Act 

The Estuary Protection Act, 16 USC 1221-1226, highlights the values of estuaries and the need to conserve natural 

resources. It authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with other Federal agencies and the States, to 

study and inventory estuaries of the US, to determine whether such areas should be acquired by the Federal 

Government for protection, to assess impacts of commercial and industrial developments on estuaries, to enter into 

cost-sharing agreements with States and subdivisions for permanent management of estuarine areas in their 

possession, and to encourage State and local governments to consider the importance of estuaries in their planning 

activities related to Federal natural resource grants. The proposed activity includes federal funding to the Town of 

North Hempstead through a NOAA/NMFS/RC Community Grant award. The preferred alternative will enhance the 

ecological habitats in the surrounding area of Bar Beach Lagoon. 

3.6.8 Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act 

The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980, 16 USC 2901 and 50 CFR 83, provides for the consideration of 

impacts on wetlands, protected habitats and fisheries. The restoration project will enhance habitat thereby benefiting 

natural resources. In addition, public access is not restricted and the Town of North Hempstead's nature trail 

provides the public wildlife viewing opportunities. 

3.6.9 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), 16 USC 661, et seq., states that wildlife conservation shall receive 

equal consideration with other features of water-resource development. The Act requires Federal permitting and 

licensing agencies to consult with NOAA/NMFS, USFWS, and state wildlife agencies before permitting any activity 

that in any way modifies any body of water to minimize the adverse impacts of such actions on fish and wildlife 

resources and habitat. 

NOAA and USFWS are joint federal natural resource trustees who have worked cooperatively on evaluating various 

restoration projects and in selecting the preferred alternative. As part of the process, NOAA/CPRD consulted with 

NOAA/NMFS. No adverse impacts are expected; in fact, the Trustees expect the project to benefit fish and wildlife 

resources and habitat. 

24
3.6.10 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA), 16 USC 1801, et seq., as amended 

and reauthorized by the Sustainable Fisheries Act (Public Law 104-297), established a program to promote the 

protection of essential fish habitat (EFH) in the review of projects conducted under Federal permits, licenses, or 

other authorities that affect or have the potential to affect such habitat. After EFH has been described and identified 

in fishery management plans by the regional fishery management councils, Federal agencies are obligated to consult 

with the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce with respect to any action authorized, funded, or 

undertaken or proposed to be authorized, funded, or undertaken, by such agency that may adversely affect any EFH. 

The Bar Beach Lagoon salt marsh restoration project will take place in Hempstead Harbor, which is part of Long 

Island Sound. The portion of Long Island Sound affecting Hempstead Harbor has been designated EFH for one or 

more life stages of fifteen species of fish (Exhibit III). These species are managed by the New England and MidAtlantic Fishery Management Councils under the following fishery management plans (FMP): Northeast 

Multispecies; Summer Flounder, Scup and Black Sea Bass; Atlantic Mackerel, Squid, and Butterfish; and Bluefish 

FMPs. 

The Bar Beach Lagoon salt marsh restoration project described in Sections 3.0 to 3.2 proposes to enhance a 

degraded salt marsh adversely impacted by dumping of rubble along the shoreline, placement of fill in the wetland 

proper, subsidence or erosion of sediment, loss of Spartina alterniflora, and spread of an undesirable plant species, 

Phragmites australis. While the design document will contain exact project details and describe current conditions, 

the Trustees propose four main tasks to improve current conditions. These tasks were outlined previously and 

include coastal shoreline stabilization, salt marsh restoration, Phragmites control, and apron riprap retrofitting. The 

proposed restoration project will provide better-quality habitat and a more stable environment. Removal of fill and 

Phragmites, along with the optimization of marsh elevations, will increase acreage suitable for Spartina growth. 

This will create new foraging habitat and refugia. As such, salt marsh fish, shellfish, and invertebrates will directly 

benefit from the shoreline and wetland stabilization, grading, planting, and erosion control efforts. Implementation 

of appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) should minimize turbidity and any impacts should be shorttermed and localized. For the foregoing reasons, the Bar Beach Lagoon salt marsh restoration project will not 

adversely affect EFH for any of the species or life stages listed above and therefore EFH Consultation is not required 

pursuant to section 305(b)(2) of the MSFMCA. 

After conceptual restoration project details were developed, the Trustees evaluated and coordinated their plans with 

the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Northeast Region to ensure no adverse impacts to EFH. If 

the proposed project plans are substantially revised or if new information becomes available that affects this 

analysis, then consultation with the NMFS Northeast Region will be undertaken prior to project implementation. 

3.6.11 Marine Mammal Protection Act 

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 USC 1361, et seq.) establishes a moratorium on the taking and importation 

of marine mammals and marine mammal products, with exceptions for scientific research, allowable incidental 

taking, subsistence activities by Alaskan natives, and hardship. The Act provides authority to manage and protect 

marine mammals, including maintenance of the ecosystem. The Trustees coordination with NOAA/NMFS shows 

no interaction with marine mammals in the area of the proposed restoration. 

3.6.12 Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 16 USC 715, et seq., provides for the protection of migratory birds. The 

MBTA does not specifically protect the habitat of these birds but may be used to consider time of year restrictions 

for remedial activities on sites where it is likely migratory birds may be nesting and/or to stipulate maintenance 

schedules that would avoid the nesting seasons of migratory birds. 

25
3.6.13 National Environmental Policy Act 

Congress enacted NEPA in 1969 to establish a national policy for the protection of the environment. NEPA applies 

to federal agency actions that affect the human environment. Federal agencies are obligated to comply with NEPA 

regulations adopted by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). NEPA requires that an Environmental 

Assessment (EA) be prepared in order to determine whether the proposed restoration actions will have a significant 

effect on the quality of the human environment. If an impact is considered significant, then an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) is prepared. If the impact is considered not significant, then a Finding of No Significant 

Impact (FONSI) is issued. 

The Trustees have integrated this Restoration Plan with the NEPA and CEQ processes to comply, in part, with those 

requirements. This integrated process allows the Trustees to meet the public involvement requirements of NEPA 

and CEQ concurrently. 

3.6.14 Rivers and Harbors Act 

The federal Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA), 33 USC 401, et seq., regulates development and use of the nation's 

navigable waterways. Section 10 of the Act prohibits unauthorized obstruction or alteration of navigable waters and 

vests the USACE with authority to regulate discharges of fill and other materials into such waters. Restoration 

actions that require Section 404 Clean Water Act permits are likely also to require permits under Section 10 of the 

RHA. However, a single permit usually serves for both. Therefore, the Trustees can ensure compliance with the 

RHA through the same mechanism. These restoration activities will be addressed under the U.S. Corps of Engineers 

nationwide permit. 

3.6.15 Executive Order 11514 Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality, as amended by 

Executive Order 11911 Relating to Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality 

Executive Orders 11514 and 11991 require that federal agencies monitor, evaluate and control their activities to 

protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's environment to sustain and enrich human life; inform the public 

about these activities; share data gathered on existing or potential environmental problems or control methods; and 

cooperate with other governmental agencies. The preferred alternative fully addresses the intent of the Executive 

Order. 

3.6.16 Executive Order 11990 Protection of Wetlands 

Executive Order 11990 (40 CFR 6392 (a) and Appendix A) requires federal agencies to avoid the adverse impacts 

associated with the destruction or loss of wetlands, to avoid new construction in wetlands if alternatives exist, and to 

develop mitigative measures if adverse impacts are unavoidable. 

The preferred alternative is in compliance with and fully addresses the intent of the Executive Order. 

3.6.17 Executive Order 12898 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations and Executive Order 12948 Amendment to Executive Order No. 12898 

Executive Orders 12898 and 12948 require each federal agency to identify and address, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on 

minority and low-income populations. The Trustees have concluded that there are no low income or ethnic minority 

communities that would be adversely affected by the proposed restoration activities. The preferred alternative will 

be implemented on property owned by the Town of North Hempstead and is adjacent to Bar Beach Park and to the 

Hempstead Harbor Shoreline Trail. This nature trail provides public access and bird watching opportunities. 

3.6.18 Executive Order 12962 Recreational Fisheries 

Executive Order 12962 requires that federal agencies, to the extent permitted by law and where practicable, and in 

cooperation with States and Tribes, improve the quantity, function, sustainable productivity, and distribution of U.S. 

26
aquatic resources for increased recreational fishing opportunities. The Trustees (NOAA, USFWS and NYSDEC) 

worked in cooperation to select the preferred alternative and to assure compliance with the intent of the Executive 

Order. 

4.0 Public Notice and Comments 

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) requires the Trustees to 

develop and adopt a Restoration Plan before settlement monies can be used for such activities. In doing so, there 

must be adequate public notice and opportunity for hearing and consideration of all public comment. Accordingly, 

the Trustees published and distributed a Draft Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment (Draft) and a 

Revised Draft Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment (Revised Draft) and sought comments on both. No 

comments were received on the original Draft and one was received on the Revised Draft. Both the comment and 

our response are provided in Exhibit VII. 

A copy of this Final Plan has been placed at the following locations: (1) Michelle Schimel, Town Clerk, Town of 

North Hempstead, 200 Plandome Road, Manhassett, NY 11030 (516-869-7646); (2) USEPA Administrative 

Records Office, 290 Broadway, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10007 (212-637-4308); (3) Bryant Library, 2 Paper Mill 

Road, Roslyn, NY (516-621-2240); (4) Port Washington Library, Manorhaven Blvd, Port Washington (516-883-

4400); (5) Lisa Holst, Long Island Sound Study Habitat Restoration, NYSDEC Bureau of Marine Resources, 205 

North Belle Meade Road, Suite 1, East Setauket, NY (631-444-0469); (6) Steve Sanford, NYSDEC/NRDU, 

Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources, 625 Broadway, Albany, NY (518-402-8997). It is also available 

on two websites: NOAA’s at http://response.restoration.noaa.gov/cpr/library/publications.html and USFWS's at 

http://contaminants. fws.gov/Issues/Restoration.cfm. 

A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued in September, 2002. This determination concluded that the 

Bar Beach Lagoon restoration project would not pose significant impacts to the environment and that an 

Environmental Impact Statement was not required (see Exhibit VIII). 

5.0 References 

EEA, Inc. 2002. Draft Technical Specifications for Bar Beach Lagoon Restoration Project, Town of North 

Hempstead, New York. Prepared by EEA Inc. for Campbell, George and Strong, L.L.P. 

Kusler, J.A. and M.E. Kentula (eds.). 1990. Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Island 

Press: Washington, D.C. and Covelo, California. 

National Audubon Society. 1998. Important Bird Areas in New York State. 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1991. Preliminary Natural Resource Survey, Findings of Fact. 

Seattle: Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division, NOAA. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2000. Guide to Essential Fish Habitat Designations in the Northeastern United 

States. Available at: http://www.nero.nmfs.gov/ro/doc/STATES4/conn_li_ny/40507330.html 

Niedowski, N. 2000. New York State Salt Marsh Restoration And Monitoring Guidelines, prepared for New York 

State Department of State, Albany, NY and –New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, East 

Setauket, NY, December 15, 2000. 

Ozard, J. 1984. Procedures Used To Identify, Evaluate and Recommend Areas For Designations As Significant 

Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats. Technical Memorandum. Albany: New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation. 

Pinit, P.T. and R.J. Bellmer. 2000. Habitat Restoration. Monitoring Toward Success: A Selective Annotated 

Bibliography. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-42. Silver Spring, National Marine Fisheries Service. 

21 pp. 

27
Landtech Design. 1997. Design Report for the Hempstead Harbor Shoreline Trail, DPW Project No. 95-08, 

Hempstead Harbor Shoreline Trail. Town of North Hempstead, New York: Town of North Hempstead Department 

of Public Works. 74 pp. 

Resler, S.C. 2001. Letter from Steven Resler, NYSDOS, Division of Coastal Resources, NY Coastal Management 

Program to Denise Harrington and Steve Hoelscher, Re: F-2001-0945 (FA), NOAA Community Outreach Grant and 

Superfund Off-Site Restoration Project – Bar Beach Tidal Lagoon Restoration and Hempstead Trail Wetland 

Restoration, Phillips Petroleum as PPG (Performing Party Group) and the Town of North Hempstead, Hempstead 

Harbor, Town of North Hempstead, Nassau County, General Concurrence, Nov 20, 2001. 

Resler, S.C. 2002. Letter from Steven Resler, NYSDOS, Division of Coastal Resources, NY Coastal Management 

Program to Lisa Rosman, Re: F-2001-0945 (FA) - Modification, NOAA Community Outreach Grant and Superfund 

Off-Site Restoration Project – Bar Beach Tidal Lagoon Restoration and Hempstead Trail Wetland Restoration, 

Phillips Petroleum as PPG (Performing Party Group) and the Town of North Hempstead, Hempstead Harbor, Town 

of North Hempstead, Nassau County, General Concurrence, Feb 11, 2002. 

Rosman, L. 2001. Letter from Lisa Rosman, NOAA/OR&R/CPRD to Steve Resler, NYSDOS, requesting coastal 

zone consistency on behalf of the federal government, the Town of North Hempstead, and the Performing Parties 

Group, July 28, 2001. 

Rosman, L. 2002. Letter from Lisa Rosman, NOAA/OR&R/CPRD to Steve Resler, NYSDOS, Notice of additional 

funds available for the project, Feb 5, 2002. 

USFWS. 1997. Significant Habitats and Habitat Complexes of the New York Bight Watershed. Charlestown, Rhode 

Island: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southern New England-New York Bight Ecosystems Program. 

Wilbur, P., G. Thayer, M. Croom, and G. Mayer (eds.) 2000. Goal setting and success criteria for coastal habitat 

restoration. Ecological Engineering 15(3/4): 165-265. 

28
Exhibit I. Location Map of Candidate Restoration Projects 

3 

10 

4 

5 

3. N. Hempstead Bar Beach Lagoon 4. N. Hempstead Tidal Pool 5. N. Hempstead Tidal /Phragmites Marsh 10. Old Barge Dock 

29 
30

Exhibit II. Fish and shellfish species in Hempstead Harbor near Motts Cove 

Common Name Scientific Name Spawning 

Ground

Nursery 

Ground

Adult 

Forage

Comm. 

Fishery

Rec. 

Fishery

Anadromous

Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis ♦ ♦

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus ♦ ♦

American shad* Alosa sapidissima ♦ ♦

Striped bass Morone saxatilis ♦ ♦ ♦

Catadromous

American eel Anguila rostrata ♦ ♦

Euryhaline

Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus ♦ ♦

Mummichog Fundulus heteroclitus ♦ ♦ ♦

Striped killifish Fundus majalis ♦ ♦ ♦

Atlantic silversides Menidia menidia ♦ ♦ ♦

Marine

Black sea bass* Centropristis striata ♦

Weakfish* Cynoscion regalis ♦ ♦

Northern kingfish* Menticirrhus spp. ♦ ♦

Oyster toadfish Upsanus tau ♦ ♦ ♦

Summer flounder* Paralichthys dentatus ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Bluefish Pomatomus saltatrix ♦ ♦

Winter flounder* Pseudopleuronectes 

americanus

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Windowpane Scophalmus aquosus ♦ ♦ ♦

Northern puffer* Sphoeroides maculatus ♦

Scup Stenotomus chrysops ♦ ♦ ♦

Tautog Tautoga onitis ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Red hake Urophycis chuss ♦ ♦

White hake Urophycis tenuis ♦ ♦
 

Common Name Scientific Name Spawning 

Ground

Nursery 

Ground

Adult 

Forage

Comm. 

Fishery

Rec. 

Fishery

Invertebrates

Blue crab* Callinectus sapidus ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Sand shrimp Crangon septemspinosa ♦ ♦ ♦

American lobster Homarus americanus ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Hard shell clam+ Mercenaria mercenaria ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Soft shell clam Mya arenaria ♦ ♦ ♦

Blue mussel Mytilus edulis ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Grass shrimp Paleomonetes pugio ♦ ♦ ♦

Manta shrimp Squilla empusa ♦ ♦ ♦

* Rare or infrequent in Hempstead Harbor (Zawacki, pers. comm. 1990) 

+ Hard shell clams harvested west of Matinicock Point (including Hempstead Harbor) must be transferred to certified 

waters in eastern Long Island Sound for depuration lasting at least 21 days (Hastback, pers. comm. 1990 and 1991) 

Taken from NOAA (1991)

31
 

Exhibit III. Summary of Essential Fish Habitat Designation for Waters within Long Island Sound Affecting 

Hempstead Harbor

Species Eggs Larvae Juveniles Adults

Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) X X

Pollock (Pollachius virens) X X

Red hake (Urophycis tenuis) X X X X

Winter flounder (Pleuronectes americanus) X X X X

Windowpane flounder (Scopthalmus aquosus) X X X X

Atlantic sea herring (Clupea harengus) X X

Bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) X X

Atlantic mackerel (Scomber scombrus) X X X X

Summer flounder (Paralicthys dentatus) X

Scup (Stenotomus chrysops) X X X X

Black sea bass (Centropristus striata) X

King mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) X X X X

Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus maculatus) X X X X

Cobia (Rachycentron canadum) X X X X

Sand tiger shark (Odontaspis taurus) X

Created from http:www.nero.nmfs.gov/ro/STATES4/conn_li_ny/40507330.html

32
13. Leeds Pond 

Exhibit IV. Map of Town of Hempstead Harbor Shoreline Trail Project 

9

3

10 

4 

2 

5 

7, 12 

8, 13 

6

11

10. Old Barge Dock 

11. Roslyn Pond Park 

12. Mill Pond 

9. Forgey Estate 

Restoration Alternatives: 1. No Action 5. N. Hempstead Tidal/Phragmites Marsh 2. NPL Site 6. Village Roslyn Bulkhead 3. N. Hempstead Bar Beach Lagoon 7. Mill Pond-Bayside 4. N. Hempstead Tidal Pool 8. Leeds Pond-Bayside 

33 
Exhibit V. Estimated Budget for Bar Beach Lagoon Restoration Project

1 

Matching Funds 

PPG-Trustee NRDA settlement 

Town of North Hempstead Match 

Volunteer Match 

Match Subtotal 

NOAA/NMFS/RC Grant Award To Town 

Total Project Cost 

Project Cost In Cash 

Engineering Consultant

Soil Sample Testing by Analytic Lab

Project Construction 

Wetland Plants 

Equipment Rental

Cash Subtotal 

Project Cost In Goods and Services 

Volunteer Work 

Town Match 

Goods and Services Subtotal 

Cash Subtotal 

Total Project Cost 

Estimated Cost Breakdown of Project

3 

$ 100,000 

$ 32,584 

$ 2,400 

________ 

$ 134,984 

$ 24,912 

________ 

$159,8962 

$ 12,350 

$ 2,500 

$ 46,900 

$ 5,000 

$ 8,162 

________ 

$ 74,912 

$ 2,400 

$ 32,584 

________ 

$ 34,984 

$ 74,912 

________ 

$109,896 

1 These estimates do not include cost of project area field survey design or monitoring. The PPG 1992 settlement with the 

Natural Resource Trustees set aside $60,000 for monitoring. The PPG has also agreed to fund the cost of the restoration 

design. 

2 The $59,896 increase in budget above the NRDA settlement stems from our partnership with the Town of North 

Hempstead. Their contribution includes goods and services ($32,584), volunteer labor ($2,400) and the 

NOAA/NMFS/RC grant ($24,912). 

3

 This budget likely underestimates final costs. The PPG is putting the project out to bid again. The original budget, 

shown, was based on bids received prior to development of a design document. Pending bid proposals should allow 

the trustees to refine the design of the restoration project to meet budgetary constraints. In addition, the cost for a 

performance bond and maintenance bond (or equivalent) required by the Town of North Hempstead was not 

incorporated into the current estimate of project costs. 

34
Exhibit VI. Photographs of Proposed Restoration Project Bar Beach Lagoon 

Photograph 1: Bar Beach Lagoon at low tide, facing inland from Hempstead Harbor. In the background is Shore 

Road. In the middle of the photograph one of several channels that meander through the lagoon can be seen along 

with an area where small clumps of Spartina remain (darker green area in middle of photograph). The light brown 

area that is along the perimeter of the tidal flats is the area that has been invaded by Phragmites. 

Photograph 2: Bar Beach Lagoon at high tide, facing inland from Hempstead Harbor. In the background is Shore 

Road. The only vegetation that appears in this photograph is the brownish Phragmites. No emergent grasses are 

present in this photograph because they are submerged. Spartina may become visible in a month once it has re-grown 

from its winter dieback. 

35
Photograph 3: Bar Beach Lagoon at low tide, facing the south side of the lagoon with Hampstead Harbor on the left 

and Shore Road on the right. Historical pier pilings can be seen in the foreground and Spartina clumps scattered in the 

middle of the tidal flats area. 

Photograph 4: Bar Beach Lagoon at high tide, facing the south side of the lagoon with Hampstead Harbor on the left 

and Shore Road on the right. Only a small portion of the historical pier pilings can still be seen on the left side during 

high tide. In the foreground a few Phragmites stems/blooms can be seen. 

36
Photograph 5: Bar Beach Lagoon at low tide, facing Shore Road which is at the top of the photograph. Historical 

pier pilings can be seen in the foreground. Spartina is the green area immediately above the pilings, with Phragmites 

(light brown) above the Spartina. 

Photograph 6: Bar Beach Lagoon at high tide, facing Shore Road. The historical pier pilings cannot be seen and are 

submerged below the open water area, only Phragmites remain above the water surface. Upland trees makeup the 

outer perimeter of this lagoon/inlet. 

37
Photograph 7: The northern most shoreline of the Bar Beach Lagoon, which is adjacent to the Bar Beach parking lot. 

Note the sharp slope containing rubble and debris. The material that makes up the shoreline is a mixture of loosely 

consolidated soil and rubble/debris, which makes the shoreline moderately unstable. 

38
Photograph 8: Close-up of the material that makes up the shoreline. The shoreline is mostly loosely consolidated 

soils with a significant amount of cobble sized (and larger) rubble. 

Photograph 9: Another view of the northern shoreline of the Bar Beach Lagoon. In this photograph large rubble 

debris can be seen. The tall light brown vegetation is Phragmites. The green vegetation found along the high water 

line is mostly Spartina. This shoreline could be recontoured to create additional inter-tidal area appropriate for 

Spartina colonization. The rubble may need to remain in order to stabilize and trap sediments. 

39
Photograph 10: Close-up of the material that makes up the shoreline. The shoreline is mostly loosely consolidated 

soils with a significant amount of cobble sized (and larger) rubble. 

Photograph 11: Additional soil material that is owned by the Town of North Hempstead, which may be available for 

fill material. 

40
Photograph 12: A view of Bar Beach Lagoon from the trail along Shore Road, looking out towards Hempstead 

Harbor. Phragmites can be seen in the foreground of the photograph along with sediment fencing that has been placed 

along the trail way to prevent shoreline erosion. 

41
Photograph 13: Another view of the Bar Beach Lagoon from the trail way along Shore Road, looking out towards 

Hempstead Harbor. The light brown, tall vegetation is Phragmites. The darker green areas and clumps are Spartina. 

This photograph clearly shows the difference in topographic elevation of the tidal flat areas and the Spartina clumps. 

Additional sediment would have to be placed in the tidal flat areas for Spartina planting to be successful. If the 

Phragmites were removed the elevation would most likely be reduced to an elevation appropriate for Spartina recolonization. 

Photograph 14: The southern shoreline of Bar Beach Lagoon as viewed from the trail way, is inundated by 

Phragmites. 

42
Photograph 15: The 24’ stormwater outfall that discharges into the Bar Beach Lagoon that runs under Shore Road 

and the trail way discharges into the lagoon once it enters the lagoon. This photograph was taken at low tide in the 

lagoon and on a clear non-rainy day, thus the outfall appears to have a continuous discharge. The discharge appears to 

have created the channels that meander throughout the tidal flats. The County, according to Denise Herrington of the 

town of North Hempstead, apparently owns the outfall. 

43
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Exhibit VII. Public Comments and Trustees Response 

Patrice Benneward 

President, Glewnood/Glen Head Civic Association, Inc. 

PO Box 23, Glenwood Landing, NY 11547 

212-505-2255, x 518 work phone / 516-674-9104, home phone & fax

August 22, 2002 

To: Lisa Rosman, NOA 

Re: Venue Change / Motts Cove, TNH, LI, NY

I am writing to you on behalf of the Glenwood / Glen Head Civic Association and as a frequent participant in and 

supporter of the activities of the Hempstead Harbor Protection Committee and the Town of North Hemptsead’s many 

environmental restoration efforts. 

The July 2002 analysis of the Performing Parties Group (PPG) with regard to the Applied Environmental Services 

(Shore Realty) Superfund Site is impressive and the Bar Beach Lagoon Project is clearly worthy. However, the 

GW/GH Civic Association believes that a Motts Cove Project would be equally worthy. Although we support the Bar 

Beach Lagoon Project, we strongly question the wisdom of accomplishing it or any other project with funds intended 

for Motts Cove. 

In our opinion, the Revised Draft Restoration Plan (RDRP) appears to dismiss Motts Cove as a recipient of these funds 

due to its industrial history, vulnerability to trespass, and adulteration with litter. If these were valid arguments, the 

impressive restoration successes now evident on the western shore of the inner harbor would never have been realized. 

Indeed, it could be argued that Motts Cove is presently in the state the western shore was merely a decade ago. 

In fact, despite years of environmental neglect and assault, Motts Cove thrives with terrestrial, avian, and marine life. 

It is bordered mostly by private homes and a long established, upscale restaurant. At the present time, the only other 

active business is a combination boat yard and engine repair shop. The GW/GH Civic Association and several other 

community groups hope that the Shore Realty site, the nearby Harbor Fuel Site, and three adjacent town lots can be 

remediated and preserved as open space. Ultimately, we hope they will serve as southern lynchpins for a Glenwood 

Landing Waterfront Greenway. 

The most recent revision of the NYS Open Space Plan specifically designates establishment of a GWL Waterfront 

Greenway as a priority. The GWL Greenway would extend the concept of the Hempstead Harbor Trail currently being 

constructed on the western side of the harbor to the eastern shore. It would link Roslyn Harbor in the Town of North 

Hempstead, with the North Hempstead portion of Glenwood Landing, through the Town of Oyster Bay portion of 

Glenwood Landing, and continue on to Powerhouse Park, Tappen Beach Park, and Sea Cliff. 

The Town of Oyster Bay is about to adopt a Glenwood Landing Waterfront Redevelopment and Revitalization Plan. 

The plan, funded by the NYS Dept. of State, supports the GWL Greenway concept. TOB is seriously exploring the 

possibility of purchasing two waterfront lots currently owned by LIPA/KeySpan that would serve as the GWL 

Greenway’s northern lynchpins. 

The GWL Redevelopment and Revitalization Plan also endorse passive recreational marine uses as appropriate for the 

harbor. The same concept was recently supported at a stakeholder meeting held by the Hempstead Harbor Protection 

Committee in connection with the Hempstead Harbor Management Plan currently under development. The 

Brownfields mentioned above surround the termination of Scudders Lane—which literally bottoms out into the water, 

creating a natural access for this type of watercraft. 

44
As the RDRP points out, synergy is an important component for the success of any restoration project. The synergy 

evident on the western shore is impressive. It is equally impressive on the eastern shore. 

As the RDRP indicates, there has been some passive, indirect improvement of habitat due remediation on the Shore 

Realty lot. This improvement has occurred despite the recent—and in our opinion ill considered—construction of at 

least four homes directly on the shoreline. All the more reason to give Motts Cove the protection and assistance it 

deserves. 

The RDRP states that Motts Cove is not an appropriate location for marsh grass. This seems odd since a considerable 

amount of marsh grass thrives at this location despite environmental assaults. The report does not explain why filling 

in sediment in Motts Cove is unacceptable but removing sediment from Bar Beach Lagoon is. 

In addition, communities on this side of the harbor have been trying for years to upgrade outflow pipes, such as the 

one at the termination of Scudders Lane. If I am not mistake, the Bar Beach Lagoon Project calls for this very activity. 

In conclusion, in our view, the RDRP makes little effort to analyze the unique circumstances of Motts Cove or to 

determine how to best protect and restore its considerable resources. Although I am obviously not an expert, I have 

every confidence that both of these goals are achievable. If the funding in question is diverted from Motts Cove to 

another location, the GW/GH Civic Association strongly requests assurances that additional funding will be set aside 

to accomplish these goals. 

Thank you for your time, attention, and commendable efforts on behalf of Hempstead Harbor and Long Island Sound. 

45
U.S. DEPARTMENTOF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Ocean Service 

Office of Response and Restoration 

Coastal Protection and Restoration Division

290 Broadway, Rm 1831 

New York, New York 10007

September 13, 2002

Patrice Benneward 

President of the Glenwood/Glen Head Civic Association, Inc. 

P.O. Box 23 

Glenwood Landing, NY 11547

Dear Ms. Benneward: 

On behalf of the Natural Resource Trustees (“the Trustees”) I would like to thank you and the 

Glenwood/Glen Head Civic Association, Inc. for submitting a comment on the Revised Draft Restoration Plan and 

Environmental Assessment for the Applied Environmental Services (“AES”, a.k.a. “Shore Realty”) Superfund Site 

(“the Site”). 

Please be assured that the Trustees’ decision to move from on-Site restoration to off-Site restoration, and to 

propose the restoration of the Bar Beach Lagoon area in North Hempstead, was not made lightly. Under the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), the Trustees are required 

to utilize funds recovered as natural resource damages to, “restore, replace, or acquire the equivalent of,” the injured 

natural resources [CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(f)(1)]. Although the Trustees often prefer to undertake restoration at 

the site of the injury, CERCLA does not require on-site restoration. Sometimes on-site restoration is just not 

feasible. Other times using settlement funds off-site will allow the Trustees to secure greater restoration benefits. 

Given the available settlement funds, it is not feasible to restore the Motts Cove area. The 1992 Consent 

Judgment specified that the Performing Parties Group (“PPG”) would begin on-Site restoration work upon 

completion of the remedial activities. The Consent Decree also specified that the PPG’s liability for on-Site 

restoration costs is limited to $50,000. In 2000, five years after the treatment plant started normal operations, the 

Trustees and the PPG began restoration planning and learned that a number of factors would make it impossible to 

restore the Hempstead Harbor inlet/Motts Cove area for a cost of $50,000 or less. 

The Trustees’ main concern with the Hempstead Harbor inlet/Motts Cove area was that there is insufficient 

intertidal marsh habitat for replanting salt marsh vegetation. Elevations and water depths in the area are not suitable 

for planting smooth cordgrass, Spartina alterniflora, without the addition of fill. Under the terms of the Consent 

Judgment, however, the PPG was only required to regrade the area. The Trustees do not have the authority to 

require the PPG to implement a project with a fill requirement. Furthermore, the local NYSDEC office also 

indicated that it would not be possible to obtain permits for projects requiring fill. Finally, the costs to add 

sediment at the Site in order to create intertidal habitat suitable for growth and survival of Spartina, along with the 

other necessary restoration components, would exceed the $50,000 liability limitation of the PPG. 

46
The Trustees also believe that adverse impacts from wave action, storm water culverts, and large debris in 

the Hempstead Harbor inlet/Motts Cove area would lower the likelihood of restoration success and sustainability. 

The fetch and flows from the culverts increase sediment erosion potential thereby lowering elevations. The 

Trustees considered removing the concrete-bottom dock located adjacent to the Site as a component of the 

restoration project as its removal might have allowed for supplemental plantings, but such an action could be 

costly. Moreover, the dock may serve the function of reducing sediment erosion and increasing sediment 

accretion; therefore, removing the dock could increase erosion and adversely affect the existing vegetation. The 

Trustees therefore agreed this action should not be undertaken. 

The possibility of the future sale and development of the Site also counseled against on-Site restoration 

since future use of the land could impede or degrade restoration efforts. We understand that the owners of the 

Site plan to sell the property, or at least portions thereof, in the future. Adjacent land within Motts Cove is also 

privately held and is influenced by the same environmental conditions described above. The Trustees do not 

have any authority to prohibit the transfer or limit the development of the Site, or other private property. Nor do 

the Trustees have sufficient funds to purchase land in the Motts Cove area, or elsewhere along Hempstead 

Harbor. Our restoration funds are limited to those obtained from the 1992 Consent Judgment. The concepts you 

outlined in your letter as part of the New York State Open Space Plan, the Glenwood Landing Waterfront 

Redevelopment and Revitalization Plan, and the Glenwood Landing Waterfront Greenway, sound promising. At 

this time, however, the land in the Motts Cove area is privately owned and subject to development. From the 

Trustees’ perspective, the potential sale and development of the Site or other private property in the Hempstead 

Harbor inlet/Motts Cove area makes the ability to, and the value of, restoring those properties more dubious than 

restoration of public land which is maintained for conservation purposes now and will be in perpetuity. 

The Trustees also recognized, as referenced in your letter, that salt marsh recovery has proceeded naturally 

on the Motts Cove side of the AES property and considered this in evaluating the suitability of other areas within 

the Cove for salt marsh restoration. While salt marsh is present within Motts Cove but limited to the area 

adjacent to AES, salt marsh is absent in other intertidal habitat of the cove. This is in contrast to the proposed 

Bar Beach Lagoon project where salt marsh is more expansive but its degraded condition is due to the presence of 

fill in the wetland, invasion by Phragmites and disposal of rubble along the shoreline. The Trustees believe that 

there are natural and anthropogenic impediments to the current survival of salt marsh vegetation in Hempstead 

Harbor inlet and unvegetated areas of Motts Cove. Without removing the debris, adding soil, re-grading the area 

to appropriate elevations, controlling storm water inputs, controlling wayward docks, minimizing trespass, and 

undertaking various other tasks, the AES associated Hempstead Harbor inlet/Motts Cove area and the remainder 

of Motts Cove would be less hospitable to sustainable salt marsh growth than other off-Site areas, such as the 

proposed Bar Beach Lagoon project. There is also the concern of protecting the salt marsh in perpetuity, as this 

would be difficult without acquiring lands currently in private ownership. The Trustees considered all of these 

factors and determined that it would not be possible to restore the affected resources on-Site under the existing 

ecological, economic, and legal limitations. 

In light of this conclusion, the Trustees and the PPG decided it would be necessary to look at other 

restoration options. After identifying and reviewing many restoration alternatives, the Trustees determined that 

the Bar Beach Lagoon Project would be the best use of the settlement funds to “restore, replace, or acquire the 

equivalent of,” the injured natural resources for a number of reasons. 

First, the natural resources which will be restored at the Bar Beach Lagoon are very similar to those injured 

by releases from the Site. The Bar Beach Lagoon Project is located on the western shore of Hempstead Harbor 

immediately east of West Shore Road, across from, and in close proximity to, the Site. It is, thus, one of the 

restoration alternatives closest to the Site. The restoration project area consists of a mosaic of intertidal mudflat, 

sand flat, patchy low salt marsh dominated by smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora), and shellfish beds 

dominated by ribbed mussel (Geukensia demissa) and American oyster (Crassostrea virginica). High and low 

salt marsh habitat was injured adjacent to the Site. The Bar Beach Lagoon Project will create and enhance both 

of these habitat types, as well as stabilize the shoreline. The project will improve habitat for the same fish, 

invertebrate, and wildlife species that were adversely affected by releases from the Site. 

47
Second, the Bar Beach Lagoon property is owned by the Town of North Hempstead and designated as 

parkland to be protected in perpetuity. When the Trustees were reviewing restoration alternatives, to the best of 

our knowledge, there was not any publicly owned land in the Motts Cove area, which we could restore and hope 

to have protected in perpetuity. By restoring the Bar Beach Lagoon area the Trustees will assure that the 

restoration benefits will accrue for the natural resources, and the public, and will be sustained for future 

generations. 

Third, the Bar Beach Lagoon Project provides a great opportunity for public use and enjoyment of the area. 

The plans for the Glenwood Landing Waterfront Greenway are more conceptual at this time, as you noted in your 

comment, while the North Hempstead Harbor Trail project is well underway. As noted above, the Town of North 

Hempstead owns the Bar Beach Lagoon area, which is part of the North Hempstead Harbor Trail. The Bar Beach 

Lagoon Project will augment the North Hempstead Harbor Trail by improving both ecological conditions and the 

experience of the people utilizing the area. 

Finally, the enthusiasm and commitment of the PPG and the Town of North Hempstead to contribute 

additional funds and in-kind services for restoration of the Bar Beach Lagoon property will allow the Trustees to 

obtain greater restoration, in terms of both size and quality, than what could have been achieved in the Motts 

Cove area. The PPG has agreed to pay for the restoration design, above and beyond their $50,000 liability under 

the terms of the Consent Decree. The Town of North Hempstead applied for, and was awarded, a NOAA/NMFS 

Restoration Center Community Outreach Grant. Those funds and their in-kind services will further supplement 

the Bar Beach Lagoon Project. 

The Trustees would also like to address some of the other specific concerns you raised in your letter. 

First, you question why it is possible to upgrade storm water culverts and remove fill from the Bar Beach Lagoon 

project area, but not possible to upgrade outflow pipes and add fill at the Motts Cove area. We understand how 

this could seem incongruous, or unfair. Actually, the Bar Beach Lagoon project does not include the direct 

upgrade of the outflow pipe. Rather, the project design includes improvements to the riprap apron located 

beyond the culvert. Please also recall that one of the added benefits of the Bar Beach Lagoon Project is that the 

Town of North Hempstead is providing additional in-kind services and contributing additional funding it received 

from the NOAA/NMFS Restoration Center Community Outreach Grant. These additional sources of funds and 

in-kind contributions tied to the Bar Beach Lagoon Project significantly increased the number and breadth of 

activities possible to implement, as compared to the on-Site restoration alternative. As noted above, it would also 

not be possible to obtain the necessary permits for adding fill at the Motts Cove area. 

Second, you note that development is continuing in the Motts Cove area and urge us to “give Motts Cove 

the protection and assistance it deserves.” You also, “request assurances that additional funding will be set 

aside,” to protect and restore Motts Cove. While your desire to see the area protected and/or augmented is 

admirable, and one we share, it is not within the authority of the Trustees to do so. Our mandate under CERCLA 

is to pursue natural resource damages for injury caused by the release or threatened release of hazardous 

substances into the environment, and to use recovered funds to restore those injured resources. Our authority, 

and our funds, are not limitless. The only funds we have available are those we recover via settlement or 

litigation with responsible parties and we must use the recovered funds wisely. 

We were pleased to hear that you were “impressed” with our analysis and believe the Bar Beach Lagoon 

Restoration effort is “clearly worthy”. We hope this more detailed explanation will help you understand how we 

determined that restoring the Motts Cove area is not feasible and why we selected the Bar Beach Lagoon Project 

as the preferred restoration alternative. 

Thank you, and the other members of the Glenwood/Glen Head Civic Association, Inc. for your comment 

and your stewardship efforts. 

Sincerely, 

Lisa Rosman 

Coastal Resource Coordinator 

48
49
50
51
52