ML072060439

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
ML072060439
Person / Time
Site: Oyster Creek
Issue date: 05/02/2002
From:
Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Davis J NRR/DLR/REBB, 415-3835
Shared Package
ML072060321 List:
References
Download: ML072060439 (188)
v • d • e


Text

Barnegat Bay National,. Estuary Program Page 1 of 2 IIM Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan - Approved Nlay 2002 Table of Contents:

C'haplT..J..:1Itouto Chapter 2: Understanding the Barnecat Watershed

3. A s CE. p t e4.. Earl v Chapter 4: Introductio'n to Action Plan Chapter 5: Water QUalityW..ater. S.uppy ActionPI an Chapter 6: Habitat and Living Resources Action Plan Chapter 7: Human Activities and Co mpetina Uses Action Plan Chapter 8: Public Participation and Education Action Plan C~halte9: Monitoring Prograim Plan Chapter 10: Data Management Chapter 1I: Unfinished Agenda Chapter 12: CCMP Implementation ARpen. Rf e e..re n:c Alpenpdix B: Public Responsiveness Document Appendix C-:--EarlN- Acti~on Rsl ans Sumre-s Jd-n(

Appendix D: Public Outreach

.r.p.l , 1K:

Appendix . .!i anagemient

'! Con ference Members

.:.*g ! .......................

.[ !.......

T ApNjendix F: Federal Consistency Review Appendix G: Base Program Anal sis http://www.bbeo.org/ccmo.htm

, I I

  • I 6/29/2007

Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program Page 2 of 2 Appgndix I-I Glossary http://www.bbep.org/cc-np.htm 6/29/2007

Compehesive.

MM2*Y 2002 1Ž >j i PHOTO BY LASZLO SELLY

When the sea is everywhere from horizon to horizon...

when the salt and blue fill a circle of horizons...

I swear again how I know the sea is older than anything else.

-- Carl Sandburg, North Atlantic

This document is available on the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program website:

www.bbep.org or write or call the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program:

Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program Ocean County College College Drive P.O. Box 2001 Toms River, NJ 08754-2001 This document was completed under a cooperative agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, with the support of the Ocean County Board of Chosen Freeholders, Ocean County Planning Department, Ocean County Mayors Association, and the concerned citizens of Ocean County, New Jersey.

Treat the earth well; it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children.

-. Ancient Indian proverb

Acknowledgements The Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program'si (BBNEP)

- Comprehensive Conservation" and Management Plan (CCMP)

Was'made possible bythechard workand. perseverance of Wi many people and organizatio's*. In addition to the agen-cies and individuals identified as Barnegat Bay National,

'EtayProgram-Manag'emfenht Conference members and jpartictpants (Appendix E)' we egtend" oou ratitude to 7 those individuats who have contributed to the develop-ment, design, production, and dissemination of the CCMP, as well as those' who havae participafed inand supported the Pro'gram during the last six years, inctuding':Al THE OCEAN COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS Joseph H. Vicari, Director John C. Bartlett, Jr., Deputy Director John P. Kelly James F. Lacey James Mancini OCEAN COUNTY Stephen L. Pollock, Ocean County Administrator Alan W. Avery, Jr., Ocean County Planning Director Joseph J. Harding, Ocean County Management and Budget Director FEDERAL ELECTED OFFICIALS Senator Robert G. Torricelli Senator Jon S. Corzine Congressman H. James Saxton Congressman Christopher H. Smith STATE ELECTED OFFICIALS Senator Andrew R. Ciesla Senator Leonard T. Connors, Jr.

Senator Robert W. Singer Assemblyman Christopher J. Connors Assemblyman Melvin Cottrell Assemblyman James W. Holzapfel Assemblyman Joseph R. Malone Assemblyman Jeffrey W. Moran Assemblyman David W. Wolfe OCEAN COUNTY MAYORS Dolores J. Coulter, Barnegat Township Kirk 0. Larson, Barnegat Light Borough Arthur P. Petracco, Bay Head Borough Deborah C. Whitcraft, Beach Haven Borough May 2002

OCEAN COUNTY MAYORS, continued William T. Hornidge, Beachwood Borough Jason J. Varano, Berkeley Township Joseph C. Scarpelli, Brick Township Raymond P. Fox, Dover Township John P. Kelly, Eagleswood Township Jonathan S. Oldham, Harvey Cedars Borough David M. Siddons, Island Heights Borough Joseph D. Grisanti, Jackson Township Ronald L. Sterling, Lacey Township Stephen F. Childers, Lakehurst Borough Marta Harrison, Lakewood Township Thomas J. Walls, Lavallette Borough Brian Rumpf, Little Egg Harbor Township James J. Mancini, Long Beach Township Michael Fressola, Manchester Township William K. Dunbar, III, Mantoloking Borough Daniel M. Van Pelt, Ocean Township Peter A. Terranova, Ocean Gate Borough Russell K. Corby, Pine Beach Borough Ronald S. Dancer, Plumsted Township William C. Schroeder, Pt. Pleasant Borough John E. Pasola, Pt. Pleasant Beach Borough P. Kenneth Hershey, Seaside Heights Borough Alexander B. Condos, Seaside Park Borough John Peterson - former mayor, Seaside Park Borough William HueLsenbeck, Ship Bottom Borough George J. Greitz, Jr., South Toms River Borough Carl W. Block, Stafford Township Leonard T. Connors, Jr., Surf City Borough Elizabeth Moritz, Tuckerton Borough Current members of the Policy Committee and Management Committee are acknowledged in Appendix E.

We would like to acknowledge the following who helped with the development of the CCMP:

Jeanne M. Fox (fornier Policy Committee Co-chair, USEPA)

Robert Shinn (former NJ Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner)

Stephen Whitney (former Management Committee Chair, NJDEP)

Terry Fowler (former Program Director, NJDEP)

Heidi D'Ascoli (former Public Outreach Coordinator, BBNEP)

Alison Gerding (Program Associate, BBNEP)

Thomas Dunn (Technical Editor)

Dennis Joyce (former Program Associate, BBNEP)

We would also like to acknowledge the following who helped with the visual development of the CCMP:

GRAPHIC DESIGN/LAYOUT : Carla Coutts-Miners (former Public Outreach Coordinator, BBNEP)

NEW JERSEY VINTAGE PHOTOGRAPHY AND ENGRAVINGS: Ocean County Historical Society, Tuckerton Seaport, a project of the Barnegat Bay Decoy and Baymen's Museum, Tom's River Seaport Society, Down BarnegatBay-A Nor'easter Midnight Reader, by Robert Jahn, Plexus Publishing Inc., Medford, NJ.

AERIALS: Studio Nine, Waretown, NJ BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

BARNEGAT BAY NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM Mission Statement.

In cooperation with our community, the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program (BBNEP) is. committed to action to restore, maintain, protect, and enhance the natural resources of the Barnegat Bay Estuary and contributing watersheds through the 21st century. We are guided by the following principles:

" Encouraging and motivating residents and visitors to maintain an ethic of responsibility for the bay and watershed.

" Educating people about the cultural heritage, historic traditions and natural estuarine resources of the BBNEP When region for today.

" Implementing community-based environmental planning for an increased quality of life and economic viability for the region. w k

  • Integrating scientific data to prioritize the focal issues genera of point and nonpoint sources of pollution, habitat
    • loss/open space, water quality degradation, and the multiple interests in the watershed region.

" Promoting sustainable management, of operative efforts of citizens, businesses, local, state, and federal governments and other stakeholders.

  • Acknowledging and planning for the rising population and increased uses of ground and surface water.

Maintaining recreational and commercial fisheries through a healthy watershed.

MAY2002

Cedar Creek leading into BarnegatBay. PHOTO BY STUDIO NINE,WARETOWN, NJ BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .............................

. .".. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 1.1 Barnegat Bay ....................................

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 1.2 Estuaries & Watersheds ..............................

1.2.1 Estuaries .................. .............

.. . . . I . . . . . . . . . . .4 1.2.2 Watersheds ..............................

. . . . . . . . . . ". . . . . . 4 1.2.3 Interactions ........................... ..

1.2.4 Human Impacts .......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 1.3 Understanding Barnegat Bay .........................

. . . . . . . . . . . ". . . . . 5 1.4 The Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program (BBNEP) ........

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 . 5 1.4.1 Statement of Purpose ......................

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 1.4.2 BBNEP History ...........................

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 1.4.3 National Estuary Program ....................

................. '6 1.4.4 The CCM P ................................

1.4.5 BBNEP Structure .......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 1.5 Watershed Approach ...... ......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8 1.6 Vision for the Future ..............................

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 1.7 Organization of the CCMP ...........................

CHAPTER 2: UNDERSTANDING THE BARNEGAT BAY WATERSHED .11 2.1 The Abundance of Barnegat Bay ....................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 2.2 Hydrological Resources ............................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 2.2.1 Barnegat Bay and Estuary ................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 2.2.2 Freshwater Resources ....................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 2.3 Biological Resources ............................... . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .15 2.3.1 Fisheries . ........ ................. ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 2.3.2 Birds and Wildlife ......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 2.3.3 Wetlands ................. .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 2.3.4 Barrier Island-Coastal Dune Scrub/Shrub Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 2.3.5 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 2.3.6 Upland Watershed ......................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2.3.7 Wildlife Habitat Map ....................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 2.4 Economic Value .................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2.4.1 Tourism/Recreation ........................ . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .17 2.4.2 Commercial Fisheries/Seafood ................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17 2.5 Land Use ................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 2.5.1 Population Growth ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 18 Z.5.2 Land-Use Trends ........................... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 18 2.6 Priority Problems ................................. .. ..... ... ...... 18 2.6.1 Kirkwood-Cohansey Aquifer .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21 2.6.2 Water Quality: Stormwater/Nonpoint Source Pollution ...... . 21....... .

2.6.3 Water Quality: Nutrient Loading ............... 23 .

MAY 2002 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.6.4 Water Quality: Pathogens ............................................................. . . ............ ........... 25 2.6.5 Water Supply......................................................... . . ....................... .......... 26 2.6.6 Habitat Loss and Alteration .............................................................................................. 27 2.6.7 Human Activities and Competing Uses ................................................................................ 28 2.6.8 Fisheries Decline ................................................................................................................. 30 CHAPTER 3: EARLY ACTIONS ................................................................................................. 33 3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 35 3.2 "Action Now" Agenda ........ *................................................................................................... 35 3.3 Action Plan Demonstration Projects .................................................................................. 36 3.4 Local Government Involvement .................... ..................  :............................... 37 3.5 Public Participation and Education .................................................................. ....................... 38 3.6 Federal/State Programs Supporting the BBNEP .................................... 39 3.7 Barnegat Bay Environmental Fund ..................................................................................... 39 3.8 Special Public Health Projects ............................................................................................ 39 3.9 Survey Review of the Barnegat Bay Watershed .................................................................... 40 CHAPTER 4: INTRODUCTION TO ACTION PLANS ................................................................... 41 4.1 Management Strategies ......... .................................................43 4.2 Action Plans ............................... ......................................................................................

I 43 4.2.1 Water Quality/Water Supply Action Plan ............................................................... 43 4.2.2 Habitat and Living Resources Action Plan .............................................................. 43 4.2.3 Human Activities and Competing Uses Action Plan ................................................. 43 4.2.4 Public Participation and Education Action Plan ...................................................... 44 4.3 Action Plan Priorities ........................................................................................................... 44 4.4 Objectives ......................... .......................................................................... ......... 44 4.5 Action Items ........................................................................................................................ 57 CHAPTER 5: WATER QUALITY/WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN ..................... 59 5.1 Introduction--State Watershed Management Rules ............................................................... 61 5.2 Water Quality/Water Supply Action Items ........................................................................... 73 CHAPTER 6: HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES ACTION PLAN ....................................... 101 6.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 103 6.2 Habitat and Living Resources Action Items .......................................................................... 110 CHAPTER 7: HUMAN ACTIVITIES AND COMPETING USES ACTION PLAN ............................... 121 7.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 123 7.2 Human Activities and Competing Uses Action Items ............................................................... 124 i1 BARNEGATBAY FINAL CCMP

TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 8: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND EDUCATION ACTION PLAN .......................... 139 8.1 Introduction.............................................................. .............. 141 8&2 The Diversity of Stakeholders ...................................................... ....... *........145 8.3 The Outreach Strategy .............................................................................. 146 8.4 Public Outreach Accomplishments to Date .......................................................... 146 8.5 Citizen Involvement in the Development of the CCMP and the Public Outreach Strategy for Implementation ........................................................................ 146 8.6 Action Items ........................ :..****..* ............................................ ... 150.

CHAPTER 9: MONITORING PROGRAM PLAN ............. ......................................... 169 9.1 Introduction......................................................................................... 171 9.2 Existing Monitoring Programs in the Barnegat Bay Watershed ................... 176 9.2.1 Watershed-Based Monitoring Programs .............................  ;....................... 176 9.2.2 Other Monitoring Programs..............i................................................... 182 9.3 Development of the Monitoring Program Plan ...................................................... 184 CHAPTER 10: DATA MANAGEMENT PLAN ........................................................... 189 10.1 Data Management.................................................................................... 191 10.2 Data Management Goals ............................................................................. 191 10.3 System Elements .................................................................................... 191 10.4 Next Steps ................................................ ................... ...................... 192' CHAPTER 11: UNFINISHED AGENDA ................................................................ 193 11.1 Introduction......................................................................................... 195 11.2 Data Gaps ........................................................ z.................................. 195 11.3 Additional Research Needs .......................................................................... 198 CHAPTER 12: CCMP IMPLEMENTATION............................................................... 199 12.1 Oversight of the CCMP............................................................................. 201 12.2 Implementation Meetings ........................................................................... 202 12.3 Agency Participation ................................................................................. 202 12.4 Watershed-Based Planning and Implementation .................................................... 203 12.5 Barnegat Bay Watershed and Estuary Foundation .......................................... I..........203 12.6 BBNEP Post-CCMP Implementation Structure ....................................................... 203 12.6.1 BBNEP Program Office ...................................................................... 203 12.6.2 Program Director ......................................................................... 204 12.6.3 Policy Committee..........................I............................................... 204 12.7 Tracking Information ............................................................................. 204 12.7.1 Framework ............................................................................... 205 12.7.2 Implementation Review .................................................................. 205 12.7.3 Annual Progress Review.................................................................... 205 MAY2002 iff

TABLE OF CONTENTS 12.7.4 Assessment of Estuarine/ Watershed Health ....................................... ........ 205 12.8 Financing the BBNEP................................................................................ 206 12.8.1 Financial Strategy.......................................................................... 206 12.8.2 Costs Summary............................................................................. 207 12.8.3 Current Funding ............................ _............................................... 207 12.8.4 Additional Funding Opportunities ......................................................... 209 12,9 Water Quality Management Planning ............................................................... 220 12.9.1 WOM Planning in Ocean County............................................................ 220 12.9.2 Update of the Initial Ocean County WQM Plan ............................................ 221 12.9.3 Wastewater Management Plans............................................................. 221 12.10 Compliance with National and State Historic Preservation Laws and the Endangered. Species Act when Implementing the CCMP.................................... 222 LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1. Nonpoint Source Pollutants and Their Impacts ................................................ 4 Table 2-1. The Barnegat Bay and Its Watershed ......................................................... 13 Table 2-2. 1998 Tourism Input to the Ocean County Economy .......................................... 17 Table 2-3. .U.S. Census Data for the Barnegat Bay Watershed ........................................... 18 Table 2-4. Land Use in the Watershed, 1994-1995 ...................................................... 18 Table 2-5. Water Bodies with Known Water Quality Impairment ............................. I......I......19 Table 2-6. Water Bodies Where Use Impairment is Not Known, Confirmation Needed................... 20 Table 2-7. Nutrient Inputs to the Barnegat Bay Estuary ................................................ 24 Table 3-1. Projects and Funds Awarded for Fiscal Years 1997 and 1998................................. 36 Table 4-1. Water Quality and Water Supply Action Plan Criteria for Priority Setting................... 45 Table 4-2. Habitat-and Living Resources Action Plan Criteria for Priority Setting...................... 49 Table 4-3. Human Activities and Competing Uses Action Plan Criteria for Priority Setting ............ 52 Table 4-4. Public Participation and Education Action Plan Criteria for Priority Setting ........... *..... 54 Table 5-1. Water Quality/Water Supply Action Items ................................................... 64 Table 5-2. Indicators and Monitoring ProgramIs for Measuring Progress toward Objectives.............. 70 Table 5-3. Percentage of Municipalities Affected and Range of Per Capita Costs for Six Minimum Measures ........................................................................... 78 Table 6-1. Habitat and Living Resources Action Items ................................................. 105 Table 6-2. Indicators and Monitoring Programs for Measuring Progress Toward Habitat and Living Resources Action Plan Objectives..................................................... 108 Table 7-1. Human Activities and Competing Uses Action Table........................................ 125 Table 7-2. Indicators and Monitoring Programs for Measuring Progress Toward Human Activities and Competing Uses Action Plan Objectives...................................... 128 Table 8-1. Public Participation and Education Action Items............................................ 142 Table 8-2 Indicators and Monitoring Programs for Measuring Progress Toward Public

- Participation and Education Action Plan Objectives ........................................ 148 Table 9-1. Linkages Between the Environmental Action Plans and the Monitoring Program Plan .... 172 iV BARNEGATBAY FINAL CCMP

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1. The Barnegat Bay Estuary and Watershed ...... ............................. .14 Figure 5-1. Water Quality/Water Supply Actions . ............ .............................. 72 Figure 6-1. Habitat and Living Resources Actions ...................................... 109 Figure 7-1. Human Activities and Competing Uses Action Plan ............................ 129 Figure 8-1. Public Participation and Education Actions .................................. 149 Figure 12-1. Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program Implementation Organizational Structure ...... 202 LIST OF APIPENDICES MAPS APPENDIX A: References Barnegat Bay Watershed ........... 12 APPENDIX B: Public Responsiveness Document Recreational Bathing Sites .......... 34 APPENDIX C: Early Action Results and Summaries Ocean County Wetlands ............ 100 APPENDIX D: Public Outreach Barnegat Bay Boater's Guide ........ 102 APPENDIX E: Management Conference Members Ocean County Boat Count .......... 122 APPENDIX F: Federal Consistency Review Submerged Aquatic Vegetation ....... 170

.APPENDIX G: Base Program Analysis APPENDIX H: Glossary MAY2002 V

PHOTO COURTESY TUCKERTON SEAPORT, A PROJECT OF THE RARNEGATBAY DECOY AND BAYMEH'S MUSEUM, IHC.

BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

LIST OF ACRONYMS ALO ............................................................................................... Alliance for a Living Ocean AMNET ............................................ Ambient Biomonitoring Network ANJEC ...................................................... Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions ANJEE .......................................................................... Alliance for NJ Environmental Educators APDP .......................................... Action Plan Demonstration Project BBDBM ..................................................................... Barnegat Bay Decoy and Baymen's Museum BBNEP .......................................................................... Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program BBPWCTF .................................................................. Barnegat Bay Personal Watercraft Taskforce BBWA ................................................................................ Barnegat Bay Watershed Association BBWEF ............................... Barnegat Bay Watershed and Estuary Foundation BMP ...... .. ................................... ........................................ Best Management Practices CAC ............................................................................................... Citizen Advisory Committee CAFRA ................................................................................... Coastal Area Facilities Review Act CCMP ............................................................ Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan CEHA .................................................................................... County Environmental Health Act CMP .................................................................................................. Coastal Management Plan CPP .............................................................................................. Continuing Planning Process CRSSA ....................................... Center for Remote Sensing & Spatial Analysis, Rutgers University <:. .,

CVA ......................................................... Clean Vessel Act ,

CWA ................................................................................................................ Clean Water Act CWSRF ................................................................................... Clean Water State Revolving Fund CZARA ................................................................. Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendment CZMA ........................................................................................ Coastal Zone Management Act  :

d ............................................................................................................. day......................

day DMUA ................................................................... Dover Township Municipal Utilities Authority DOH ............................................................................................................ Division of Health ELC ........................................................................................... Environmental Learning Center EMAP .............................................................. Environmental Monitoring & Assessment Program I EMP ......................................................................................... Environmental Monitoring Plan EO .................................................................................................................. Executive Order ERS ................................................ Ecoregion Reference Station FMP........................................................................................... Fishery Management Plan MAY200 Vii

LIST OF ACRONYMS FREC ........................................... ........ Forest Resource Education Center FTP ......................................................................................................... File Transfer Protocol gat .............. galton g...........................................

SGIS ......................................................................................... Geographic Information System GPS ............................................................................................ .. Global Positioning System H*A*S ................. .......................................... ............................................... Home*A*Syst HSHW ........................................... Healthy Soil/Healthy Watershed IMCS ........................................................................... Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences IPM .............................................................................................. Integrated Pest Management JCNERR .................................................... Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve k g ........................................................................................................................... kilogram s

....................................................................................... ............................................ liter tb ................................................................................................................................ p ou n d LGC ............................................................................................. Local Government Committee

,, MAFPE ............... ............... Mid-Atlantic Federal Partners for the Environment MARE ....................................................................... Marine Activities Resources and Education mg .......................................................................................................................... milligram ml ............................................................................................................................ milliliter MLUL ................................................................................................. Municipal Land Use Law MOA ............................................................................................. Memorandum of Agreement MSD .................................................................................................. Marine Sanitation Device MTBE ................................................................................................. methyl tert-butyl ether MW ....................................................... .................................................................. Megawatt NEMO ............................................. .......................... Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials NEP .................................................................................................. National Estuary Program NEPA ................................................................................... National Environmental Policy Act NEPPS ................................................... National Environmental Performance Partnership System NJDEP .......................................................... New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection NJDOT ........................................................................ New Jersey Department of Transportation NJFS ............................................................................................. New Jersey Forestry Services NJMSC ..................................... New jersey Marine Sciences Consortium NJPDES ......................................................... New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NJPC ................................................................................... New Jersey Pinelands Commission Viii BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

LIST OF ACRONYMS NOAA ............................................................. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES .............................................................. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NPL ..................................................................................................... National Priorities List NPS ................................................................................................. Nonpoint Source Pollution NRCS ................................... US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service NRI .............................................................................................. Natural Resources Inventory NSSP .............................................................................. National Shellfish Sanitation Program OCADB ................................................................. Ocean County Agricultural Development Board OCED ............................................................................. Ocean County Engineering Department OCHD..................................................................................... Ocean County Health Department OCNGS .......................................................................... Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station OCPD ................................................................................. Ocean County Planning Department OCUA ..................................................................................... Ocean County Utilities Authority OCSCD ........................................................ ................. Ocean County Soil Conservation District OCVTS ....................................................................... Ocean County Vocational-Technical School OMWM ............................................. Open Marsh Water Management ONLM ........................................ Office of Natural Lands Management PRM ................................................. Potomac-Raritan-Magothy PSA ............... ............................................................................ Public Service Announcement PSU ..................................................................................................... Primary Sampling Units PWC .......................................................................................................... personal watercraft RBP.......................................................................................Rapid Bioassessment Protocol RCD ............................................................................. Resource Conservation and Development RCE ................................................................... Rutgers Cooperative Extension of Ocean County R-EMAP .............................................. Regional Environmental Monitoring & Assessment Programn RISE .......- ....................................................................... Resource Information Serving Everyone SARA ............................................................... Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SAV ............................................................................................ submerged aquatic vegetation SDCG ..............................................  ;........................... Sustainable Development Challenge Grant STAC ...................................................................... Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee SWAP .................................... ............................................... Source Water Assessment Program TMDL..................................................................................... ........... total maximum daily load TPL ........................................................................................................ Trust for Public Land MAY2002 iX "

LIST OF ACRONYMS STSS ............................................................ total suspended solids USACE ......................................................................... United States Army Corps of Engineers USDA ..................................... I............... ,.............. United States Department of Agriculture USEPA ............................................................... United States Environmental Protection Agency USFS ............................................................................................. United States Forest Service USFWS ........................................................................... United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS ............................................ United States Geological Survey

> VOC ................................................................................................ volatile organic compound WHIP .................... ............................... Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program WMP .................................................................................. water management plan Wom ................ I................................................................................ water quality management SWRAS ............................... ............................................ Watershed Restoration Action Coalition YES ....................................... ............................................. Youth Environmental Society y r ..................................................................

C................................................................ year

  • Ji*m ...... ......................................................................................................... ............. m icron X BARNEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

\

Fishing off BarnegatLighthouse, FROMAPPLETON'S JOURNAL, 1871 MAY 2002 1

The earth does not belong to us, we belong to the earth.

We did not weave the web of life; we are merely a strand in it.

Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.

-- Chief Seattle, 1854

INTRODUCTION Chapter 1 1.1 BARNEGAT BAY storms by the barrier islands, or fingers of land, mud, or sand that define an estuary's seaward boundary.

The Barnegat Bay - Little Egg Harbor Estuary is locat-Estuaries come in all shapes and sizes and go by many dif-ed along the central New Jersey coastline within the ferent names. They are often known as bays, lagoons, Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province. Its harbors, inlets, or sounds. Whatever the name or type, watershed encompasses most of the 33 municipalities estuaries provide valuable functions. They are among the in Ocean County, as well as four municipalities in most productive habitats on earth and are vital spawning, Monmouth County. Although long recognized for its nursery, and feeding grounds for fish and shellfish. They great aesthetic, economic, and recreational value, are critical to the survival of tens of thousands of birds, this backbay system is now affected by an array of fish, and other wildlife. Many different habitat, types are human impacts that potentially threaten its ecologi-found in and around estuaries, including shallow open cal integrity.

waters, freshwater and salt marshes, sandy beaches, mud and sand flats, tidal pools, sea grass beds, and wooded Historically, the arrival of European settlers in Ocean swamps.

County first affected the environment through changes in land use and the creation of colonial industries. As The wetlands bordering many estuaries perform valuable extractive natural resources were depleted, the colonial functions, including water quality, flood protection and industries (e.g., lumbering and sawmills, bog iron man-water storage. Many upland areas drain to fresh and salt ufacture, and charcoal manufacture) disappeared.

marshes that act as filters, removing pollutants from Some people left Ocean County with the demise of the runoff. Wetland plants and soils also act as a natural main industries, but the people who remained in the buffer between the land and the ocean, absorbing flood-colonial settlements endured and survived by farming, waters and dissipating storm surges. Salt marsh grasses hunting, fishing, and berry harvesting. In the last half and other estuarine plants also prevent erosion and of the 19th century, the recreational tourist industry stabilize the shoreline.

began to expand, and this industry helped to produce the tremendous growth experienced in Ocean County during the last half of the 20th century.

Today, many residents of Ocean County rely upon Barnegat Bay and its resources for the livelihood of their families. Commercial and recreational fishing, tourism, and other water-dependent recreation gener-ate many jobs, as do other industries based in or near the estuary.

1.2 ESTUARIES & WATERSHEDS 1.2.1 ESTUARIES An estuary is a partially enclosed body of water formed where fresh water from rivers, streams, and groundwa-ter flows to the ocean, mixing with the salty seawater.

Although influenced by the winds and tides, an estuary is protected from the full force of ocean waves, winds, and MAY2002 3

INTRODUCTION 1.2.2 WATERSHEDS activities going on along the shoreline and by pollu-tants coming from the land.

A watershed is a geographic land area that drains to a common surface water body. Groundwater recharge 1.2.3 INTERACTIONS

  • areas are also part of a watershed. Because all water-Since a watershed is made up of several components that sheds are defined by natural hydrology and ultimately are interrelated, it is important to remember that what drain to coastal waters, they are good focal points for happens on the land affects the water. For example, a managing coastal resources.

river or stream that flows through a residential develop-A watershed has several components. It originates at ment can pick up lawn fertilizer and pesticides, pet the headwaters of the streams and rivers that ultimate- waste, improperly disposed-of household chemicals, ly drain into coastal waters. Headwaters include wet- untreated sewage from failing septic tanks, petroleum lands, which often are adjacent to the flowing waters of hydrocarbons from automobiles and runoff from imper-rivers or streams. As the streams and rivers flow to vious surfaces like parking lots, agricultural operations, coastal waters, they are influenced by land and water uses, such as farming, housing, businesses, recreation, and conservation. Upon reaching the coastal areas, the rivers empty into estuaries. Near-shore waters, the areas directly offshore from the beach, are part of the coastal watershed because they are influenced by the TABLE 1-1. Nonpoint Source Pollutants and Their Impacts Po~titType Sore Impacts , §+ t Soil

  • Construction sites
  • Muddy waters that smother
  • Farms bottom-dwelling organisms

" Exposed Dirt

  • Decreased tight reaching the sea grass beds
  • Sediments clog fish gills

. Transport to coastal waters of pollutants bound to sediments Nutrients

  • Lawn fertilizers
  • Excessive growth of algae
  • Pet and farm animal waste (microscopic plants)

" Decaying plant material 0 Decreased light reaching sea

  • Failing septic tanks grass beds
  • Atmospheric deposition
  • Oxygen depletion from decay of algae

" Small, inefficient sewage

  • Some algae (including Pfiesteria treatment plants piscicida and those causing harmful algal blooms (red tides) can kill fish or shellfish and be harmful or fatal to humans Toxics
  • Pesticide from lawns, . Fish kills gardens, farms . Loss of recreational and
  • Lead, oils, greases from commercial uses roadways
  • Industrial plants
  • Small wastewater treatment plants Pathogens
  • Untreated or poorly treated Fecal coliform bacteria can result (microscopic organisms sewage in beach closures, shellfish bed like bacteria and viruses)
  • Pet and farm animal waste closures, fish kills, human health problems 4 BARNEGATBAY FINAL CCMP

CHAPTER 1 and sediment from construction sites. These pollutants principally undeveloped and agricultural to suburban.

run off the land into nearby streams and storm drains. Boat traffic, including personal watercraft, has also sig-nificantly grown on the bay, raising concerns with respect Upon reaching the coastal area, streams or rivers can be to both use conflicts and the cumulative impacts on the affected by commercial and recreational boating, dis- bay's water quality.

charges from industrial and municipal facilities, and recre-ational activities on beaches. All of these pollutant dis- The magnitude and intensity of different land uses in the charges, called. nonpoint source pollutants, can have an Barnegat Bay watershed are having significant and often adverse impact on the estuarine resources (Table 1-1). degrading effects. Surface and groundwater quality in the watershed are being degraded by nonpoint sources of pol-lution. The relationship between land use and water 1.2.4 HUMAN IMPACTS quality and quantity has been clearly established. It is generally recognized that the increase in impervious sur-Estuaries are unique and highly productive waters that faces associated with development exacerbates this situa-are critical to the nation's ecological and economic vitality.

tion by reducing the opportunities for infiltration of Yet, despite their value, almost every estuary in the United water into the ground. Development also impacts the States is experiencing tremendous stress from pollution, estuary's fisheries and other biological resources through development, and rapid population growth in coastal cities nonpoint source pollution and habitat loss.

and counties.

It is the cumulative impacts of everyday activities in the Human activities in the watershed can adversely affect a Barnegat Bay watershed that are slowly degrading the variety of marine and freshwater resources. Pollutant dis-environmental quality of this sensitive ecosystem. An charges, as welt as structural alterations, can lead to loss of assessment of the estuary, presented in Chapter Two, indi-breeding and feeding grounds of fish, other aquatic animals cates that human activities in the watershed and estuary and birds, as well as loss of recreational uses. Both surface have led to measurable degradation of water quality, and groundwater can serve as a transport mechanism to destruction of natural habitats, and -reduction of living deliver pollutants to an estuary and its tributaries.

resources in the system.

1.3 UNDERSTANDING 1.4 THE BARNEGAT BAY NATIONAL BARNEGAT BAY ESTUARY PROGRAM (BBNEP)

The Barnegat Bay Estuary is a 75-square-mile environ-mentally sensitive estuarine system, consisting of aquatic 1.4.1 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE Barnegat Bay is a productive estuarine resource, rich in vegetation, shellfish beds, finfish habitats, waterfowl native fish and wildlife populations and supporting both nesting grounds, and spectacular vistas. Its 660-square-recreational and commercial water-dependent activities.

mile watershed is now home for approximately 500,000 The economy of many coastal areas in Ocean County relies people, a population which more than doubles during the on the natural beauty and bounty of the Barnegat Bay summer season. Municipalities on the barrier islands bor-Estuary. When those natural resources are imperiled, so dering the bay on the east may experience a ten-fold are the livelihoods of the many people who live and work increase in population. Moreover, the entire watershed along the coast. Therefore, protecting these resources is has undergone dramatic growth since 1950. During the critical to the future sustainability of the Barnegat Bay 1990s the municipalities surrounding the bay reported area.

population expansions that on average exceeded 20 per-cent. The development accompanying the increasing pop-ulation growth has resulted in land use changing from MAY2002 5

INTRODUCTION 1.4.2 BBNEP HISTORY interest to maintain the ecological integrity of estuaries through the long-term planning and management pro-In response to growing concerns about the impacts that gram set forth under Section 320 of the Act.

extensive development was imposing on Barnegat Bay, the New Jersey Legislature passed an act in 1987 requir- The purpose of the NEP, which is managed by the USEPA, ing a study of the nature and extent of the impacts that is to address the many complex issues, including the development was causing on the bay. The Act, P.L. 1987, increase in coastal population and the resulting demands Chapter 397, created the Barnegat Bay Study Group and for development that can contribute to the deterioration mandated a study of the bay and its watershed. of the major estuaries in the United States. The program's goals include the protection and improvement of surface The planning process that resulted from the Barnegat Bay and groundwater quality, as well as the protection and Study Act involved significant coordination and public enhancement of living resources.

participation with citizens who Live, work, and recreate in the bay area. A citizens advisory group was formed to The USEPA is required to identify "nationally significant" identify the issues and objectives of most concern to the estuaries and oversee development of Comprehensive citizens of the Barnegat Bay watershed and define the Conservation and Management Plans (CCMP) for each focus of the plan. The work of the Study Group resulted estuary. Governors nominate individual estuaries in their in a three-part study of Barnegat Bay:

states to the NEP. The USEPA Administrator then reviews

  • Profile of the BarnegatBay was a characterization of con- the nominations and accepts estuaries into the program ditions and trends in bay water quality, ecosystem vitality, on the basis of the following factors:

and human activities that rely on or affect the bay.

  • The ecological significance of the estuary;
  • Management Recommendations for the BarnegatBay was an assessment of alternatives for managing the bay. It was " The biological productivity of the estuary and its contri-based on the above publication as well as issues of impor- bution to commercial and recreational fish and wildlife tance to the public. resources; o A Watershed Management Plan for the Bay defined a e The impact of commercial, residential, recreational, or multi-objective management approach directed at achiev- industrial activities on the health of the estuary; and ing meaningful and measurable improvements to the qual-
  • The degree to which comprehensive planning manage-ity of life and resources in the bay area. ment may contribute to the ecological integrity of the After release of the third and final report, members of a cit- estuary.

izens advisory committee formed the Barnegat Bay Since its formation, the NEP has expanded from six estuaries Watershed Association (BBWA). This led the Governor of to its current list of 28, all of which are now in the process of New Jersey to petition the U.S. Environmental Protection implementing their management plans.

Agency (USEPA) to nominate Barnegat Bay into the National Estuary Program (NEP). The USEPA accepted the nomination of the Barnegat Bay Estuary into the NEP on 1.4.4 THE CCMP July 6, 1995.

The USEPA is required to coordinate the development of 1.4.3 NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM CCMPs to restore and protect the ecological health and bio-logical integrity and diversity of the NEP estuaries. The Congress recognized the importance of preserving and development of a CCMP is a complex process focused on enhancing coastal environments with the establishment identifying priority problems and their solutions, and main-of the NEP in the federal Clean Water Act Amendments of taining consensus among all stakeholders throughout the 1987. Congress clearly stated that it was in the national process.

6 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMF

CHAPTER 1 The CCMP is built from the results of a number of prelim- and federal leaders, as well as a member representing

[mary planning activities. These include: a base program the Citizens Action Committee and the Scientific and analysis; technical characterizations of the water quality Technical Advisory Committee.

and environmental resources of the watershed; and a

  • Management Committee refines the definitions of series of pilot projects known as Action Plan/

watershed problems and develops strategies to solve Demonstration Projects.

them, provides oversight to the scientific characterization of the watershed, prepares action plans for the CCMP, and A CCMP is intended to address all uses affecting the plans programs to implement the CCMP. It is comprised of restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, representatives from federal, state, and county agencies and biological integrity of the estuary. The plans include and the chairs of the Citizens Advisory Committee, recommended actions on a full range of issues, such as Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee, Local habitat protection, polluted runoff controls, stormwater Government Committee, and the BBWA, now the BBWEF.

pollution, resource management, protection of ground and surface water supplies and land-use planning. The

  • Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee challenges will, in some cases, take decades to accom- .guides the environmental characterization of the plish. Therefore, a high level of local government and cit- Barnegat Bay watershed and provides oversight of techni-izen participation is critical in order to maintain long- cal activities. It also produces text, provides research rec-term community support and commitment to implemen- ommendations, reviews findings and results, and works to tation of the actions recommended in the CCMP. clarify sources of problems and identify practical solu-tions. It is composed of scientists, engineers, environ-1.4.5 BBNEP STRUCTURE mental professionals, planners, citizen interest groups, Shortly after Barnegat Bay's acceptance into the NEP, the representatives from federal, state, and local govern-USEPA and the State of New Jersey negotiated a Conference ments, and individuals from academia and industry.

Agreement and convened a Management Conference

  • Citizens Advisory Committee, drawn from citizen lead-responsible for the development of Barnegat Bay's CCMP.

ers, works to inform the public and develop strategies to The purpose of the Management Conference is to assure full involve all citizens in the decision-making process. It participation by federal, state, and local agencies, educa-develops educational programs and conducts public meet-tional institutions, affected industries, various user groups, ings and forums to solicit public input.

and the general public. The Management Conference was charged with identifying the environmental problems fac-

  • Local Government Committee, represented by the ing the estuary, recommending interim corrective actions, Ocean County Mayor's Association, meets monthly and outlining compliance schedules to address the pollution provides the BBNEP with a forum to interact with Ocean problems, and ultimately constructing a CCMP that. will County municipalities.

receive approval of the Governor of New Jersey and the e Financial Planning Committee is represented by state, USEPA Administrator. county, legislative, and private interests with expertise in financial planning, grant making, and fund raising.

One of the first responsibilities of the Management Conference was to set up a management structure for developing the CCMP. The following committees were cre- 1.5 WATERSHED APPROACH ated:

The resources and problems of the Barnegat Bay region were assessed through a scientific characterization

  • Policy Committee provides overall direction and sets describing existing technical data and other relevant priorities for the BBNEP, defines Management information. As discussed in Chapter Two, this character-Committee membership, and selects the Program ization indicates that the priority problems in the Director. It is comprised of municipal, county, state, Bamegat Bay watershed are:

MAY2002 7

INTRODUCTION

  • Water supply and water quality, including the issues of the future economic and recreational vitality of the com-contaminated stormwater and polluted runoff, nutrient munities of Ocean County. The Action Plans. in this CCMP loading, pathogen contamination; groundwater contami- outline the actions and commitments that wilt help assure nation, and future water supply deficits; successful achievement of these goals.

" Habitat Loss and alteration; Since the environmental issues in the Barnegat Bay water-shed are confined primarily to Ocean County, the 33 munic-

  • Fisheries decline; and ipalities should be prepared to address many of these con-cerns. The BBNEP is committed to assisting Ocean County

" Human activities and competing uses. and its municipalities in planning and implementing envi-ronmental management actions designed to protect and The broad scope of environmental issues associated with restore the natural resources of the Bamegat Bay water-the Barnegat Bay region and the actions necessary to shed. It is recognized that the municipalities continue to address them provide an opportunity for watershed-based have primary authority to establish land-use policy that planning and management. A watershed protection affects both the type and rate of development.

approach has as its premise that many water quality and ecosystem problems are best solved at the watershed level rather than by the political subdivision or through uniform regulatory standards. Major features of a watershed 1.6 VISION FOR THE FUTURE approach are:

Many of the activities and processes that occur in the

" Target priority problems and geographic areas of concern; Barnegat Bay Estuary and its watershed are inevitably con-nected to environmental disturbance and degradation of

" Promote a high-level of stakeholder involvement; natural resources. Proper use of management techniques wilt contribute to the economic and environmental vitality

" Use the expertise/authority of multiple agencies; and of the Barnegat Bay watershed. Appropriate land and water management practices can be selected to guide short-

" Measure success through monitoring and other data col- and long-term activities in the watershed.

lection.

The Barnegat Bay CCMP provides an opportunity to make This approach recognizes the holistic nature of environ- enlightened and informed watershed-based decisions mental problems in the Barnegat Bay watershed. In other grounded in sound scientific data. The CCMP allows for the words, the priority problems are intimately linked to one development and implementation of specific actions direct-another and share a common cause: population growth and ed towards the protection of the natural resources of its accompanying development of the watershed. Barnegat Bay and its watershed. The challenge is to initi-ate and maintain public support for future conservation The BBNEP recognizes that management of individual and protection of all Barnegat Bay resources, while recog-actions, both on land and on the water, is the only way to nizing the need to protect the rights of all citizens to use prevent cumulative impacts to Barnegat Bay and its water- and enjoy the vast resources of the bay and its watershed.

shed. Correction of ongoing problems must receive a high The involvement, cooperation, and commitment of all priority if trends in degradation of the watershed's stakeholders are key to the success of the CCMP.

resources are to be reversed. A mutti-faceted approach, involving stakeholders from the federal, state, county; This vision should include participation by all levels of municipal, industrial, and private sectors, must commit to government in coordination with a broad base of stake-working together to ensure the future protection and holders in the watershed to encourage environmentally restoration of the Barnegat Bay watershed and its valuable sound stewardship of land and water resources.

resources. This will involve control of existing pollution Environmentally sensitive areas need to be protected sources and prevention of new sources, as well as protec-white ensuring that personal property rights are tion against depletion of resources necessary to maintain 8 BARNEGATBAY FINAL CCMP

CHAPTER 1 STATEMENT i:uumg Lue tast sx years w"tters iedstakeholders who live" wc OF GOALS omn this process are:

1.The Barnegat Bay estuary and it-,

and wildlifeý f sishI

<2. The natural water cycle ,witt he b~

plies; and b) maintain orarestore ec ary and watershed.

3. Wiater quality in the estuary aric vesting and the ntegnty of the fre
4. Municipalities imthe watershedýr
  • use recreation where appropnat,. ,

'5 All citizens and visitors wil ud tershed and the water .,ift 6 Thdivrse sers of the estu respected. All citizens of the Barnegat Bay watershed The CCMP is organized as follows:

should have adequate access to the bayshore in order to Chapter One introduces the Barnegat Bay Estuary and enjoy fishing, picnicking, boating, and other water-based the BBNEP.

recreation. Those who swim, fish, and enjoy boating Chapter Two summarizes the state of the watershed. It should also be able to use the bay with a sense of safety.

addresses biological and hydrological resources, the.

All residents and visitors to Ocean County need to be made impacts of human activities on the watershed, and cur-aware of the valuable natural resources of the Barnegat Bay rent status and trends.

watershed, its sensitive ecosystem, and how they can con-Chapter Three describes ongoing activities and initia-tribute to protecting and restoring its health. Stewardship tives that are furthering the goals of the BBNEP.

of Barnegat Bay and its watershed should become the ethic Chapter Four lays out the framework and strategies for of each citizen.

the Action Plans to be implemented. This includes Action Plan objectives, action priorities, and measurable end points.

1.7 ORGANIZATION OF THE CCMP Chapters Five through Ten describe various action items for each of the priority areas discussed in Chapter This CCMP is a comprehensive environmental manage-

2. These chapters represent the essence of the CCMP, as ment plan for the Barnegat Bay watershed that identi- they describe a systematic approach to reach the BBNEP fies priority environmental problems and issues of con- goals.

cern, management actions to deal with the priority Chapter Eleven discusses unfinished agenda addressing problems, agencies and organizations responsible for issues relating to water quality, habitat and living implementing the action plans, resources to carry out resources, human activities, monitoring, and future implementation, and institutional alternatives. The environmental issues and other areas of concern.

CCMP will be used by the implementing organizations Chapter Twelve summarizes the implementation and and stakeholders as a blueprint for long-term actions funding strategies of the CCMP.

and measurement of success.

MAY2002 9

INTRODUCTION The Appendices contain:

" References;

" Early Action Results and Summaries;

" Public Outreach Early Accomplishments;

  • Management Conference Members;

" The Federal Consistency Review;

" Base Program Analysis;

" Public Responsiveness Document; and

  • Glossary.

In addition, a comprehensive Characterization Report, which has helped to develop Program priorities and action plans, is a supporting document to this CCMP.

A%!.

A;:G-l<,

7 :. _

10 BARNEGATBAYFINAL CCMP

Along the Metedeconk. FROM THE LITHOGRAPH BY G.R. HARDENBERGH, 1909, COURTESY OF MR. & MRS. CURLES J. HULSE MAY2002 11

UNDERSTANDING THE BARNEGAT BAY WATERSHED The Barnegat Bay Watershed 12 BARNEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

Chapter 2 2.1 THE ABUNDANCE A nearly continuous barrier island complex runs along the eastern edge of Barnegat Bay, separating it from the OF BARNEGAT BAY Atlantic Ocean. Seawater enters the Barnegat Bay sys-tem through the Point Pleasant Canal via the The Barnegat Bay Estuary is an ecological treasure. The Manasquan Inlet in the north and Barnegat Inlet and bay's ecological productivity and broad appeal make Little Egg Inlet in the south. The U.S. Army Corps of this coastal area one of the most valuable "living" Engineers (USACE) recently completed a large-scale resources in the nation. An array of environmentally reconfiguration of the Barnegat Inlet. The full impact sensitive habitats exists here, such as sand beaches, bay of this project on the circulation and flushing patterns islands, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), finfish of the estuarine system are beginning to be examined.

nursery areas, shellfish beds, and waterfowl nesting grounds. Its biological resources are rich, and include The physical nature of the bay makes it vulnerable to migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, degradation. . The bay itself is very shallow, with a rel-and commercially and recreationally important species atively small amount of freshwater flowing from tribu-of fish and shellfish.

taries and a limited connection to the ocean. These fac-tors cause a slow flushing time and thus a long resi-A Scientific Characterization, describing existing tech-dence time for pollutants harmful to plant and aquatic nical data-and other relevant information on the estu-life.

ary and its watershed (Table 2-1), has been compiled by a diverse group of stakeholders and technical experts. 2.2.2 FRESHWATER RESOURCES This chapter is a summary of that work. More detailed information beyond this summary can be found in the The freshwater supply in the region derives from four BBNEP characterization document, which is available sources:

upon request.

  • Surface water flow;

'-Groundwater from the unconfined Kirkwood-Cohansey 2.2 HYDROLOGICAL RESOURCES aquifer system;

  • Groundwater from deeper, confined aquifers; and 2.2.1 BARNEGAT BAY AND ESTUARY
  • Water transferred into the region from adjacent areas.

The Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor (referred to as Freshwater inflow from surface water discharges and "Barnegat Bay" for the remainder of this document) direct groundwater input affects salinity and circulation estuarine system is composed of three shallow, microti-in the estuary. Hence, it is important to determine the dal bays: Barnegat Bay, Manahawkin Bay, and Little Egg relative magnitude of the various freshwater sources.

Harbor (see Figure 2-1).

TABLE 2-1. The Barnegat Bay and Its Watershed MAY2002 13

UNDERSTANDING THE BARNEGAT BAY WATERSHED To this end, a hydrologic budget has been produced for water discharges (763 ft3/s, 22.9 m3/s) exceed direct the region that details the movement of fresh water groundwater seepage (103 ft3/s, 3.1 m3/s) and incident through the system. precipitation. Freshwater discharge into the estuary from both surface water and groundwater amounts to Most freshwater inflow to the estuary is groundwater 7.5 x 107 ft3/d (2.25 x 106 m3/d). Maximum stream that either discharges to streams that flow into the bay flows occur during the winter and spring.

or that seeps directly into the bay. Stream surface Figure 2-1.

The Barnegat Bay Estuary and Watershed.

I 14 BARNEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

Chapter 2 The principal sources of surface water flow to the sys-tem include the Metedeconk River, Kettle Creek, Toms Ptýomznrent speci-,,,s f6ýind in the sstem- include-P,/",er fiounderjwhit,ý;e perch,inadzvese River, Cedar Creek, Forked River, Mill Creek, West Creek, irthern? pipefishi, bluefishi, wP.eakfish, striped bass;,

and Tuckerton Creek. In the northern section of the blue crab, dnd'hard shellclams.

system, the Manasquan River connects with Barnegat Bay via the Point Pleasant Canal; however, there is not a substantial interchange of fresh and salt water Most major biological groups are represented, including between the bay and river. Portions of the Manasquan approximately 180 species of phytoplankton (single-River watershed are also included in the study area. celled plants), nearly 100 species of benthic flora (algae and vascular plants), more than 200 species of Tributary water quality is altered most greatly in devel- benthic invertebrate fauna, and about 110 species of oped areas of the watershed where higher concentra- fish.

tions of nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfate, and other inorganic constituents have been observed. Elevated 2.3.1 FISHERIES values of pH and specific conductance have also been observed in these areas. The instream concentrations Barnegat Bay and Little Egg Harbor sustain important of the inorganic constituents appear to be related to local and regional fisheries. The estuary and the sur-the intensity of development upstream of the surface rounding wetlands are important nursery areas for a water sampling sites. The constituent loads transport- variety of shellfish and finfish, many of which are com-ed by tributary systems to the estuary depend primar- mercially valuable and/or prized by recreational ily on the size of the drainage basin and the type of anglers. In-addition, anadromous fish, which migrate land cover existing there. Urban centers and heavily from the ocean to freshwater streams to reproduce, use developed residential areas with considerable impervi- the bay during their migrations.

ous cover contribute greater constituent loads than rural areas with vegetative cover. 2.3.2 BIRDS AND WILDLIFE The Barnegat Bay system is used by an abundance of wildlife. Colonial waterbirds, shorebirds, songbirds, 2.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES waterfowl, and raptors use the bay and wetlands for a variety of purposes, including breeding, nesting, and Since Barnegat Bay exists in the zone where rivers and foraging. The threatened diamondback terrapin (an streams meet salt water, many plants and animals that estuarine turtle) uses the bays for all of its life stages.

are adapted to salt water, fresh water, and brackish water inhabit its ecosystem. This transitional zone, or Barnegat Bay serves as the breeding habitat .for the area where two ecological zones meet, is biologically gull-billed tern, common tern, least tern, great blue rich because species tolerant to these zones coexist heron, herring gull, great egret, snowy egret, little and form unique ecological communities. blue heron, tricolored heron, black-crown night heron, glossy ibis, laughing gull, great black-backed gull, and The shallow depth of Barnegat Bay creates an environ- black skimmer. However, the populations of some of ment in which significant amounts of sunlight can these bird species are in decline. The bay also provides reach submerged aquatic plants, producing thriving habitat for several endangered and threatened bird benthic (bottom) plant communities. Microscopic species, including the piping plover, least tern, and organisms, such as phytoptankton and zooplankton, Ipswich sparrow.

form the basis of the estuarine food chain. Large, diverse populations of aquatic life, which, depend on Migratory birds of the Atlantic flyway utilize Island phytoplankton and submerged aquatic vegetation, Beach State Park for feeding and resting on their flourish in the shallow salt marshes of the estuary. migration. The bay is also an important wintering site for many species of waterfowl, including the Atlantic brant.

MAY 2002 15

UNDERSTANDING THE BARNEGAT BAY WATERSHED Up to 80 percent of the Atlantic brant along the

  • It is an important primary producer, helping to Atlantic flyway winter in the bay. oxygenate bay waters; 2.3.3 WETLANDS " Some animals, such as fish, ducks, and muskrats, graze on SAV; and Wetland forests cover 25 percent of the total water-shed. In the past, coastal wetlands were destroyed in " SAV provides critical habitat for numerous order to open up areas for more shoreline develop- organisms in the estuary.

ment. However, since the passage of the Wetlands Act of 1970, tidal marsh disturbance for lagoon residential There is some indication of the loss of SAV beds in the construction has virtually ceased.

estuary in recent years, although differences in map-ping methods make it difficult to unequivocally estab-In the Barnegat Bay watershed, salt marshes, freshwa-ter marshes, and forested wetlands create natural lish the occurrence of a major dieback and loss of eel-buffers that minimize the impacts of coastal storms grass area. One study, which compared a number of and wind on coastal and inland habitats. Coastal wet- SAV surveys, suggests that there has been loss of eel-lands are able to withstand major storms without suf- grass in the deeper waters of the estuary resulting in fering lasting damage, while at the same time protect- the restriction of the beds to shallower subtidal flats, ing inland communities. In addition, freshwater wet- less than 6.5 feet (2 meters) deep. The loss appears to lands have the capacity to temporarily store large have been most severe in Barnegat Bay north of Toms quantities of floodwaters, releasing waters over an ,River but is also evident in southern Little Egg Harbor.

extended period of time into groundwater and adjacent Because of the uncertainty regarding the conclusions water bodies. The wetlands also effectively filter sed-of this analysis, however, more investigations of SAV iments and reduce erosion.

distribution in the estuary are recommended.

2.3.4 BARRIER ISLAND-COASTAL DUNE 2.3.6 UPLAND WATERSHED SCRUB/SHRUB COMPLEX Upland forests cover 37 percent of the Barnegat Bay Island Beach and Long Beach Island form a nearly con- watershed. A portion of this consists of critically tinuous barrier island complex that separates the estu- important Pinelands habitats that are protected by reg-ary from the Atlantic Ocean. Barrier islands also adjoin ulations and local, state, and federal management pro-the shallower portions of Little Egg Harbor. This sys- grams. The Pinelands habitats support unique fish, tem of coastal barriers minimizes the impacts of amphibian, reptilian, mammalian, and avian popula-coastal storms and wind. tions. Largely unprotected tracts of interior contiguous pine/oak forests include the Forked River Mountains, The dune scrub/shrub and woodland communities of Berkeley Triangle, Heritage Minerals tract, and Maple the barrier islands, with the exception of the eight Root Branch/Long Brook tract in Jackson Township.

miles of Island Beach State Park, have been substan-tially altered and in many cases destroyed. 2.3.7 WILDLIFE HABITAT MAP 2.3.5 SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION A list of animal and plant species of special emphasis has been developed for the Barnegat Bay estuarine sys-More than 70 percent of New Jersey's total SAV acreage tem as a general indicator of biodiversity. Species that

-is located in the Barnegat Bay Estuary, where approxi- are either commercially or recreationally important, mately 32 percent of the benthic area has been mapped threatened or endangered, or otherwise ecologically as potential SAV. Commonly known as eelgrass or sea- significant, have been compiled and cross-referenced grass beds, SAV serves several major functions in the with their respective habitats. This list may be found estuary: in the publication, "Scientific Characterization of the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor Estuary and Watershed 16 BARNEGAT BAY FINALCCMP

Chapter 2 Report" (September 2001) which can be found on the Recreational activities such as fishing and boating lure www.bbep.org website or a copy can be obtained on many visitors to this portion of the New Jersey coast.

CD-ROM from the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Recreational boating, including motorboats, sailboats, Program Office. yachts, canoes, kayaks, and personal watercraft, sup-ports a total of 182 marinas situated within the water-shed (Ocean County Planning Dept., 1999). Many more 2.4 ECONOMIC VALUE private slips are located in lagoon developments.

2.4.1 TOURISM/RECREATION Both Little Egg Harbor and Barnegat Bay are important to the state's recreational fishing industry as actual The Barnegat Bay Estuary supports a thriving tourism fishing grounds and as important habitat for juvenile industry, with thousands of people visiting Ocean fish that may be caught in other areas of the state.

County each year. In 1995, tourists expended $1.71 Recreational fishing is a popular summer activity and billion in Ocean County. At that time, roughly 45,000 helps to support many small businesses.

tourist industry jobs were registered in the county, accounting for more than $631 million in annual pay-roll. A more detailed study by Longwoods International b`LlAeen:40and 50 pefrcent of ull commercial K found that in 1998 tourists spent more than $1.67 bit- ,:nsnore~ihardclam loadinys in New Jersey lion in the county (Table 2-2).

ow in ocean Count'aýr, Table 2-2. 1998 Tourism Input to the Ocean County Economy 2.4.2 COMMERCIAL FISHERIES/SEAFOOD (Longwoods International, 1998).

Barnegat Bay contributes valuable fishery resources to Total Expendit'ure by Tourists 167 billiona the Mid-Atlantic region. In 1994, the combined value Restaurants,. 152 ra~$5Oitiiiin of the Mid-Atlantic commercial finfish and shellfish

,Retail Sates ~ $501 million landings totaled approximately $149 million. In that KiLodging ~ S274 mnillion' same year New Jersey's commercial finfish and shell-2:Auto & Travel ExpensesT $240 rmillion fish landings totaled approximately 202 million Expenses $132 Million 5RecrOatiorat pounds, valued at approximately $100 million. In Jobs Created . j51 ,300.

Annual Payroll' ~ $726.5 midllion< 1997, Ocean County vessels landed more than 21 mil-State Taxes G~enerated < $220.3 miillion lion pounds (961,000 kilograms) of finfish and nearly L~ocal TaxesI Gen~erated1 $89 million j 20 million pounds (888,000 kilograms) of shellfish.

The most valuable commercially caught species in the area is the inshore hard clam. In some years revenues derived from hard clam represent as much as 80 per-cent of the total value of commercial fisheries in Ocean County. Another important' shellfish species found in Barnegat Bay is the blue crab. Blue crab landings from this area comprise about 10 to 15 per-cent of the state's total blue crab landings.

MAY2002 17

UNDERSTANDING THE BARNEGAT BAY WATERSHED 2.5 LAND USE

  • The barrier islands, which are heavily developed with the exception of Island Beach State Park; 2.5.1 POPULATION GROWTH " The less densely developed southeastern mainland area with protected environmentally sensitive The Barnegat Bay watershed Lies almost entirely in areas such as the Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge Ocean County, one of the most rapidly growing coun- and the State Manahawkin Fish and Wildlife ties in the northeastern United States. Since 1950, Management Area; and Ocean County's population has increased by more than
  • The western side (upland) of the watershed, which 775 percent.

has very low density development and is partially protected by the Pinelands Comprehensive

~s6th brre isladsd may

...... Management Plan.

  • >exerienc~aJO-¢faldaicrease~in::io ldarctti4 aifng :

fthpumnner.~

Residential development is the primary land use in the watershed (Table 2-4). As new people arrive to this area, they require housing, services, and roads. The The watershed area's population is now approximately area of the watershed under residential, commercial, 500,000 (Table 2-3),.a figure that more than doubles industrial, or institutional development inicreased from during the summer season. During the 1990s, year-18 percent to 21 percent to 28 percent from 1972 to round population in the municipalities surrounding 1984 to 1995, respectively.

the bay on average increased 20 percent.

More than 70 percent of the Barnegat Bay estuarine The population is concentrated in the northeastern shoreline buffer zone is developed or altered, leaving and central portions of the watershed, as well as along only 29 percent in natural land covers. Approximately the barrier island system.

45 percent of the estuarine shoreline is bulkheaded.

Table 2-3. U.S. Census Data for the Barnegat Bay Watershed. Table 2-4. Land Use in the Watershed, 1994-1995.

Year% Watershed ~ ~Year A Watershed V Popuilation ~ Population>

1940 40,000 1980 346,000 Forested 45.9 1960 108,000 1990 - 433,000 Wetlands (tidal & freshwater) 25.2 1970 208,000 2000 >500,000 Urban/Residential 19.5

_(estimated)

Agricultural/Grasslands 6.6 Barren Lands .1.9 Water Bodies 0.9 2.5.2 LAND-USE TRENDS A strong gradient of decreasing human development 2.6 PRIORITY PROBLEMS and subsequent habitat loss and alteration is evident when proceeding from northern to southern sections of The Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program CCMP was developed to identify and control priority problems in the watershed and estuary. There are four distinct land the watershed. The Barnegat Bay watershed is highly use areas:

susceptible to environmental degradation.

  • The northeastern mainland area, which is heavily Historically, these waters have served as repositories developed with very little dedicated public open for raw sewage, sewage effluent, toxins, and garbage.

space; Estuarine wetlands and shorelines and inland areas have been destroyed or modified to accommodate 18 BARNEGATBAY FINAL CCMP

Chapter 2 development.

Water quality degradation has led to the loss of com- Population growth and accompanying development mercial and recreational fishing opportunities, closed within the watershed contributed to each of these shellfish harvesting waters and swimming areas, and environmental problems.

contributed to oxygen-depleting algae blooms and sub-sequent fish kills. Suburban growth has contributed to There are several areas within the watershed that suf-the magnitude of coastal storm damage resulting from fer from known water quality impairment. Table 2-5 loss of wetlands and other natural lands. Misuse and lists water bodies that have, or are expected to have, abuse of Barnegat Bay and its watershed are threaten- the following violations:

ing the viability of its ecologically and economically

  • Exceedance of chemical/physical criteria (minus valuable resources.

metals and ammonia);

The characterization study of the Barnegat Bay Estuary

  • Exceedance of chemical/physical criteria obtained and its watershed indicate that the most significant from the BBNEP (minus metals);

threats to the watershed are: " Fish and shellfish consumption advisories;

" Water quality and water supply, including the

  • Shellfish harvesting restrictions; and issues of stormwater and nonpoint source
  • Public lakes having undergone detailed pollution, nutrient loading, and pathogen assessments under the Clean Lakes Program.

contamination;

  • Habitat loss and alteration; Human activities and competing uses; and
  • Fisheries decline.

WtrBody ~Reach #/~ Pollution/ Impact: ~ Poltutanti/Impact: - use Table 2-5. ~lhName K Loca'ti'on 'Water Quality Violati oil~ ~Biological~i Irlipirme'nt' Water Bodies Metedeconk Fecal coliform Shellfish with Known River Estuary consumption Water Quality Lake Carasaijo Lakewood, Mercury in fish Fish Impairment. Ocean County tissue consumption Pohatcong/ Ocean County Elevated bacteria, phosphorous, Heavy macrophyte Boating and Tuckerton sedimentation. Current source: growth fishing Lake nonpoint sources including suspended solids from surrounding urban areas, bacteria and phosphorus from surrounding septic systems.

Manahawkin Elevated bacteria, phosphorus. Localized heavy Primary contact Lake Current source: resident goose macrophyte growth recreation, some and gull population. Former boating and source, surrounding septic fishing systems, most have been impairment eliminated through sewering.

Toms River 02040301-018-022 fecal coliform Shellfish

  • Estuary consumption Toms River 02040301-018-080/ pH, fecal coliform Primary Contact, nr Toms River Aquatic Life Support Barnegat Bay Portion adjacent fecal coliform Shellfish to Toms River consumption MAY2002 19

UNDERSTANDING THE BARNEGAT BAY WATERSHED Table 2-6 lists water bodies in the Barnegat Bay Heavy metal violations obtained through the Estuary that meet the following criteria: Harbor Estuary Program; and

" Moderately impaired AMNET sites; Public takes having undergone cursory

  • 304(l) listings; assessments under the Clean Lakes Program.

" Metals and ammonia violations recorded through ambient monitoring; Table 2-6. Water Bodies Where Use Impairment is Not Known, Confirmation Needed.

R Book Twp. Polution/ImpNact: I se Water Body Reach #/Location Water Qualityi rd ua e Rai e Violatiok Impairment SBiological Metedeconk Aldrich Rd., moderately impaired Aquatic Life River N.Brook Howell Twp. Support Metedeconk Rt. 9, Lakewood moderately impaired Aquatic Life River N. Brook Support Haystack Brook Southard Rd. moderately impaired Aquatic Life Howell Twp. Support Metedeconk Rt. 88, Lakewood moderately impaired Aquatic Life River N.Brook Support Cabinfield Brook Lanes Mill Rd., moderately impaired Aquatic Life Lakewood Support Metedeconk R S Jackson Mills Rd., moderately impaired Aquatic Life Brook Jackson TwSupport Metedeconk R S Cedar Bridge Rd., moderately impaired Aquatic Life Brook Lakewood Support Metedeconk R S Chambers Bridge Rd.s, moderately impaired Aquatic Life Brook Brick Twp. Support Beaver Dam Rt. 88, Brick Twp. i moderately impaired Aquatic Life Creek Support Forked R N @ powerlines, moderately impaired Aquatic Life Brook Lacey Twp. Support Mill Creek Rt. 72, Manahawkin moderately impaired Aquatic Life

________________Support Mill Brook Nugentown Rd., moderately impaired Aquatic Life Nugentown Support Toms River 02040301-018 arsenic, cadmium, Aquatic Life chromium, copper, Support iron, lead, mercury, zinc Toms River 02040301-017 zinc, iron Aquatic Life Support Toms River 02040301-014 arsenic, copper, lead, Aquatic Life nickel Support Toms River Paint Island Rd., moderately impaired Aquatic Life Millstone Twp. Support Toms River Rt. 571, Holmson moderately impaired Aquatic Life Support 20 BARNEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

Table 2-6. (continued)_

Wae Boy Rah/oai PluinIpc.Polluta~nt/'Impact: UJse WaterBd L

Name Rac/Lato

~ ~

Wa&Qaiy Violation Biological IImpairment Maple Root Bowman Rd., moderately impaired Aquatic Life Brook Jackson Twp. Support Blacks Brook Rt. 70, Lakehurst moderately impaired Aquatic Life Support Union Brook Colonial Dr., moderately impaired Aquatic Life Manchester Twp. Support Sunken Brook Mule Rd., moderately impaired Aquatic Life Berkeley Twp. Support Jakes Brook Dover Rd., moderately impaired Aquatic Life Berkeley Twp. Support Jakes Brook Double Trouble Rd., moderately impaired Aquatic Life So. Toms River Support Toms River Rt. 37, Dover Twp. moderately impaired Aquatic Life Tributary Support Kettle Creek New Hampshire Ave., moderately impaired Aquatic Life Lakewood Twp. Support Kettle Creek Moore Rd. moderately impaired Aquatic Life Brick Twp. Support Cedar Creek Double Trouble South. moderately impaired Aquatic Life Park, Lacey Twp Support Webbs Mill Brook Rt. 539, Lacey Twp. moderately impaired Aquatic Life

__ _Support 2.6.1 KIRKWOOD-COHANSEY AQUIFER Groundwater from the unconfined Kirkwood-Cohansey Groundwater in this aquifer system is generally acidic with aquifer system is critical to surface water quality in the low ionic strength and alkalinity. Its pH ranges from 4.4 to watershed. It is regarded as the largest source of fresh 6.7, and the total dissolved solids concentration is less than water for the estuary because most of the flow in local 100 mg/I. Nitrogen and phosphorus levels are generally low.

streams consists of base flow, which is discharge entering stream channels from groundwater. For example, 63 to 73 2.6.2 WATER QUALITY:

percent of the total stream flow in the Metedeconk River STORMWATER/NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION between 1973 and 1989 was calculated as base flow.

Similarly, 80 to 89 percent of the total stream flow in the PROBLEM Toms River between 1929 and 1989 was calculated as base flow. Virtually all of the flow in streams during periods of Development in the watershed increases the probability of little or no rainfall consists of base flow. The ratio of sur- water quality degradation in bay tributaries. Nutrients and face runoff to base flow increases during periods of precip- chemical contaminants enter these influent systems from itation. point source discharges and nonpoint sources, such as stormwater runoff, groundwater influx, and atmospheric Because of the significant volume of groundwater inputs to deposition. Nonpoint sources can extend throughout the tributary systems, the quality of groundwater in the watershed, and can include pollutants originating from Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer is critical to the quality of agricultural, residential, and commercial properties, and freshwater inflow to the estuary. rights-of-ways (e.g., highway and railway borders).

MAY200? 21

UNDERSTANDING THE BARNEGAT BAY WATERSHED POTENTIAL CAUSES TRENDS AND STUDY RESULTS To support the rapidly growing population in the region, Ocean County in particular, land use within the watershed Due to the land-use patterns of the bay system, pollut-has become increasingly more developed and urbanized. ed runoff is a greater concern in the northern portion of As a result of this development, wetlands, forests, and the system. There is a significant need for a Natural other natural areas have been replaced with impervious Resources Inventory (NRI) to provide a more detailed surfaces, such as roofs and pavement. The increase in analysis regarding the impact human land-based activities impervious surface area affects the water quality of has on the water quality of the estuary..

Barnegat Bay and its tributaries. Without natural land to absorb excess rain and to filter contaminants, greater con- Essentially, the NRI is a statistical, intensive watershed-centrations of contaminants in more significant flows based survey which has been designed and implemented reach the estuary. to assess conditions and trends of soil, water and related natural resources. The NRI is conducted by the Natural stormwater and other forms of runoff, particularly from Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), in cooperation with older developments and municipal streets where no deten- the Iowa State University and the local soil conservation tion is required, contribute to water quality problems in district. It is important to note that it acts to enhance the following ways: local understanding of natural resources and their condi-tions. (This could be significant to connect residents on

" Impervious surfaces as a result of development lead the land to the bay.) Data are collected at the field level to an increase in runoff and sedimentation; by technical personnel who have been trained in soil and water conservation.

" Groundwater transports pollutants to Barnegat Bay and tributaries; Toxic chemical contaminants may be locally important in

" Marina activities contribute oil and grease; the Barnegat Bay Estuary (e.g., near marinas).

  • Gas stations/auto repair shops contribute Comprehensive monitoring of shallow groundwater in the petroleum products and other automotive watershed reveals widely scattered occurrences of volatile contaminants; organic compounds, mercury, and radium isotopes. When found, these contaminants generally exhibit low concen-
  • Spills and illegal discharges of acute and persistent trations. However, there are some areas where the levels toxicants; of these contaminants in groundwater exceed the maxi-

" Household and agricultural waste contribute mum permissible levels for public drinking water. The bacteria and nutrients; number of volatile organic compounds and the concentra-tion of methyl tert butyl ether (MTBE) in streams tend to

" Agriculture contributes bacteria and nutrients. increase with residential and industrial land use.

The most extensive database on chemical contaminants in IMPACTS the estuary exists on trace metals and radionuclides.

" Impaired water quality and water clarity; Other toxic chemical contaminants (e.g., halogenated

" Impaired habitat; hydrocarbons and potycyctic aromatic hydrocarbons) are not sufficiently characterized. Because of their potential

  • Loss of drinking water supply; carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic effects on estuar-
  • Adverse impacts to waters supporting water ine organisms, additional study of these contaminants is recreation, including beach and shellfish closures; warranted.
  • Toxic contaminants can accumulate in tissue of fish and shellfish, rendering them unsafe to eat.

22 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

Chapter 2 Barnegat Bay Estuary. The estimated total nitrogen load to 2.6.3 WATER QUALITY: NUTRIENT LOADING the system amounts to -1.74 x 106 lb/yr (7.9 x 105 kg/yr). This value is considered to be an underestimate PROBLEM because it does not account for:

Nutrient loading, primarily nitrogen and phosphorus, is one " Nitrogen in storm runoff that discharges directly to of the primary problems confronting the nation's estuaries. the estuary; Excessive levels of these nutrients stimulate the growth of " Nitrogen released from bottom sediments of the algae in Barnegat Bay. As the algae grow, they block sun- estuary; and light needed by the submerged aquatic vegetation of the

  • Nitrogen in ocean water entering the system on flood bay; when the algae die and decay, they reduce the level of tides.

oxygen in the water, which can result in large fish kills.

Some species of algae are toxic to aquatic organisms and Total nitrogen concentrations in the estuary range from humans. 20 to 80 pM. Organic nitrogen is the dominant form of nitrogen in the bay, with a concentration approximate-POTENTIAL CAUSES ly 10 times greater than the concentration of dissolved inorganic nitrogen. Highest concentrations of organic Excess inputs of nutrient constituents, nitrogen and phos- nitrogen (approximately 40 pM) have been reported phorus can be caused by the following: during the summer.

" Urban runoff; Sampling between 1989 and i996 indicates that mean sea-

" Leaking or failing septic systems; sonal ammonium and nitrate levels amount to 2.5 jiM and

" Animal waste; less than 4 pM, respectively. While the highest concentra-

  • Fertilizer use (household landscaping and tions of ammonium occur in the summer, nitrate levels agriculture). peak during the winter. Dissolved inorganic nitrogen lev-els are higher in the northern part of the estuary due to IMPACTS greater nitrogen loading to the rivers in this region.

Phosphate concentrations, in contrast, do not exhibit any Excess nutrient inputs can result in widespread negative obvious spatial patterns.

ecological and health effects:

Mean annual phosphate concentrations are less than 1 pM;

  • Reduced oxygen can kill fish and make the water highest phosphate levels arise during the summer, a sea-unsuitable as nursery habitat; sonal pattern typical of other Mid-Atlantic estuaries.

" Impaired habitat in creeks for fish and possibly wildlife; Fertilizers used on domestic lawns are considered to be

" Reduced light levels result in loss of submerged major contributors to Barnegat Bay's high nitrogen levels.

aquatic vegetation (eelgrass); Highest phytoplankton biomass values occur in the north-

" High nutrient levels can make water unsafe to drink; ern estuary during the summer months in response to

" Atmospheric deposition; greater nutrient inputs from more developed areas of the

" Boater discharges. watershed. During the late spring and summer period in recent years, the southern estuary has been the site of intense blooms of phytoplankton. For example, large TRENDS AND STUDY RESULTS blooms of Aureococcus anophagefferens, a species of brown algae, were documented in Little Egg Harbor during 1995, Nutrient inputs to the Barnegat Bay Estuary originate 1997, and 1999. The NJ Department of Environmental essentially from nonpoint sources, mainly stream and river Protection (NJDEP) found biologically stressed conditions discharges, atmospheric deposition, and groundwater (dissolved oxygen concentrations less than 5.0 mg/l) at influx. Table 2-7 lists some of the nutrient inputs to the five stations in the central part of the estuary between MAY2002 23

w II C:

nitrogen nitrate Surface Water 8.7 x 10' lb/yr 50 " Much is derived from base flow Discharge (3.9 x 10' kg/yr) 0~

" Highest total nitrogen loads from Wrangle Brook, r+

Toms River, Mill Creek Basins

" Lowest total nitrogen loads from Long Swamp Creek Basis Nitrogen Direct 6.7 x 10' Ib/yr 39 0 Originates principally from nitrous oxide emissions from Atmospheric (3.0 x 10' kg/yr) fossil fuel combustion .0-4 Deposlion Nitrogen Nitrate, Direct 2.0 x 10 lb/yr 11 0 Concentration of nitrogen species in shallow ground-Nitrite Groundwater (9.1 x 10 kg/yr) water exceed 10 mg/l in some areas of watershed Discharges

  • Median concentrations of nitrogen species are less than 0.2 mg/I til
  • Total concentration of nitrogen in shallow groundwater (D appears to represent a potentially significant reservoir of this nutrient to the estuary W Nitrogen Total Nitrate Surface Water 3.6 x 10' lb/yr NA e Highest in watershed areas characterized by moderate to Plus Nitrite Load Discharges (1.6 x 104 kg/yr) high urban land cover La e Highest yields in Wrangle Brook and Toms River Basins SU W<
  • Much smaller yields from less-impacted Westecunk and (A

Cedar Creek Basins Nitrogen Ammonia Surface Water 1.1 x 10', lb/yr NA

  • Median Value, 0.05 mg/I Discharges (5.0 x 10' kg/yr) a Highest yields from Mill Creek, Toms River, Oyster Creek Basins
  • Lowest yield from Wrangle Brook Basin Nitrogen Total Ammonia Surface Water 4.6 x 10' lb/yr NA 4 Storm water appears to be important source of total Plus Organic Discharges (2.1 x 10, kg/yr) ammonia plus organic nitrogen Nitro gen
  • Highest yield from Mill Creek, Oyster Creek, Toms River Basins
  • Lowest yield from Long Swamp Creek Basin Phosphorus Surface Water 2.3 x 10' lb/yr NA
  • Highest yield from Toms River, Wrangle Brook, Oyster Discharges (1.0.x 10' kg/yr) Creek Basins
  • Lowest yield from Jakes Branch Basin

Chapter 2 Toms River and Dipper Point during the 1990s.

  • Overboard discharges from boats; High phytoplankton biomass and production during the

" Waterfowl; warmer months of the year contribute to elevated turbid-ity readings. Phytoplankton, together with suspended " Agricultural runoff.

sediments, detritus and colored dissolved organic mole-cules, reduce water clarity and limit light penetration in IMPACTS the water column. This shading effect is detrimental to Human health can be significantly affected by pathogen-benthic flora. For example, benthic algal production is ic contamination:

reduced by high summer turbidity, and SAV distribution may be restricted by this effect as well, especially in the " Gastroenteritis, hepatitis, and other diseases can result northern estuary. One way to measure turbidity is with a from ingestion of pathogen-contaminated seafood or secchi disk. A secchi disk model formulated for the water; Barnegat Bay system strongly suggests that light penetra-tion is a major factor controlling the distribution of sea- " Closure of shellfish areas with its attendant loss grasses, which appears to be more restricted today than of commercial and recreational activity; during the past several decades. " Closure of recreational beaches.

2.6.4 WATER QUALITY: PATHOGENS TRENDS AND STUDY RESULTS PROBLEM Highest concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria in the Disease-causing microorganisms called pathogens are Bamegat Bay Estuary are recorded under rain conditions.

found in human and animal wastes. Pathogens in coastal From 1988 to 1998, 834 beach closings were registered in waters pose health risks to humans who eat contaminated the estuary as a result of elevated fecal coliform counts in shellfish or who recreate in beach waters. Gastroenteritis, water samples, with the highest numbers reported in 1989 hepatitis, and other diseases can result from ingestion of (175), 1990 (186), and 1994 (127). Beachwood Beach in pathogen-contaminated seafood or water. Beachwood, Windward in Brick, and Money Island in Dover had the greatest frequency of beach closings.

Fecal coliform and total coliform are indicators of pathogens. For this reason, beaches and shellfish beds are In general, areas north of Barnegat Inlet exhibited the closed or restricted when standards for fecal coliform bac- most degraded water quality conditions based on beach teria or total coliform are exceeded. New Jersey has an closings data (e.g., Lavellette, Seaside Heights, Seaside extensive recreational beach-monitoring program that Park, Island Beach, Brick, Point Pleasant, Dover, Island includes mandatory closure requirements when water Heights, Beachwood, Pine Beach, and Ocean Gate).

quality standards for swimmer safety are exceeded. However, water quality has improved in these areas in Though Barnegat Bay no longer has any major point recent years. Since 1995, for example, there have been sources of coliform pollution, nonpoint source runoff dur- fewer than 50 beach closings reported each year through-ing wet weather can cause some beaches along the out the estuary.

Barnegat Bay shore to close for short periods of time. With regard to shellfish harvesting, the general trend in the estuary has been toward less restrictive shellfish grow-POTENTIAL CAUSES ing classifications. For example, more than 5,000 acres of shellfish waters were upgraded by the State in Barnegat The causes of pathogenic contamination are largely of Bay in 2000 alone.

human or human-related origins:

However, local areas of water quality degradation persist.

  • Urban and stormwater runoff; The largest areas of shellfish harvesting restriction are found in Barnegat Bay tributaries from Toms River north-

" Faulty septic systems; ward as well as in backbay locations along Island Beach.

" Domestic-animal wastes; Shellfish harvesting is also prohibited from marinas and manmade lagoons.

MAY200 225

UNDERSTANDING THE BARNEGAT BAY WATERSHED The most dramatic improvement in water quality of the TRENDS AND STUDY RESULTS estuary occurred during the 1970s when the Ocean County Utilities Authority commenced operation of a state-of-the- In 1990, estimated average groundwater withdrawals from art wastewater treatment system. Prior to operation of private wells for residential use totaled 8.2 x 106 gal/d this system, wastewaters were discharged to the estuary (3.16 x 107 l/d), and average groundwater withdrawals and fecal coliform levels were elevated. Pipeline outfallts from wells for public supply, as well as for commercial, now discharge wastewaters one mile (1.6 kilometers) off- industrial, and irrigation uses, totaled 4.4 x 107 gal/d shore in the Atlantic Ocean, thus bypassing the estuary. (1.71 x 108 lI/d). Groundwater supplies have been lost in some areas of the watershed due to saltwater intrusion and streamflow reduction related to excessive withdrawal 2.6.5 WATER SUPPLY of well water. The regional threat of saltwater intrusion has led to state mandated reductions on withdrawals from affected aquifers. In an extreme case, drought conditions PROBLEM during the summer of 1999 culminated in statewide restrictions on nonessential groundwater use.

The increase of impervious surfaces resulting from devel-opment within the watershed results in a reduction in the There are two areas in the region where saltwater amount of water that would otherwise recharge the intrusion has affected wells drawing water from the groundwater that serves as drinking water supply and sus- Kirkwood-Cohansey. aquifer system. Salt water has tains stream base flow. Excessive water withdrawals from adversely affected public-supply wells in Seaside area aquifers are also a concern because they can cause Heights and Point Pleasant Beach. There are numerous saltwater intrusion problerhs and reductions in stream other public and private wells that are located near flow. brackish water along the coast.

POTENTIAL CAUSES Although saltwater intrusion into the major confined aquifers is not known to be a problem for supply wells Problems with available water supply can be caused by the in the Ocean County area, there are wells in several following: areas that are potentially threatened by saltwater intrusion. These areas include:

Development within the watershed, increasing contaminant loads in the groundwater and " Long Beach Island (Atlantic City 800-ft. sand reducing recharge; aquifer);

Excessive water withdrawals.

  • Bamegat Light, Seaside Heights, and Seaside Park (Piney Point aquifer);

IMPACTS Point Pleasant, Lavalette (Englishtown aquifer The impacts of a degraded water supply include the system);

following: - Point Pleasant, Chadwick and Lavalette (upper aquifer of the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer

  • Decreased drinking water supply; system); and

" Decreased supply of water for irrigation/agri-Lavallette, Toms River, and other locations in cultural purposes; Northern Ocean County (middle aquifer of the

  • Degraded flow regimes in freshwater tributaries; Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system).

" Disturbance to salinity gradients in the bay that sustain estuarine biota.

26 BARNEGATBAY FINAL CCMP

Chapter 2 2.6.6 HABITAT LOSS AND ALTERATION and the health of living resources in the estuary. New res-idential construction is subject to peak rate runoff reduc-PROBLEM tions that were designed to control nonpoint source pol-lution. There are laws that mandate control of stormwa-Human activities-both in watershed areas and on open ter runoff from commercial and other development.

bay waters -have impacted habitats and living resources of the system. Habitat fragmentation and human distur- Along the estuarine perimeter, marsh filling and bulk-bance in the watershed adversely affect many plant and heading, diking and ditching, and dredging and lagoon animal species. The construction of residential, commer- construction have disrupted salt marsh and shallow water cial, and industrial structures, as well as the building of habitats and altered biotic communities. The use of per-roadways not only destroy natural habitat in the water- sonal watercraft (PWC) and boats has also disturbed some

.shed but also can create pollution problems in receiving parts of the estuarine shoreline. Increased nutrient inputs waters. These impervious surfaces facilitate surface runoff, and human activities such as dredging and boating, have which promote the transport of pollutants (e.g., fertilizers, affected eelgrass in the estuary. These two activities alone herbicides, pesticides, oil, metals, etc.) to waterways. have physically altered the habitat and have reduced the sunlight penetration needed to sustain submerged POTENTIAL CAUSES aquatic life.

The causes of habitat loss and alteration include various A strong gradient of decreasing human development and human development activities: subsequent habitat loss and alteration is evident when proceeding from the northern to southern sections of the

  • Dredging operations in marinas and the watershed and estuary. Development in the watershed has Intracoastal Waterway; resulted in the following habitat losses:

" Development of coastal wetlands, barrier islands, and other natural areas in the watershed; 0 33,916 acres (13,731 hectares) or 20 percent of upland forest between 1972 and 1995;

  • Bulkheading, diking, or other modifications to wetlands;
  • 4,631 acres (1,875 hectares) or 6 percent of fresh
  • Construction of buildings and roadways. water wetlands during the same period; and about 33 percent of tidal wetlands, or upwards of 10,000 IMPACTS acres, during the past 100 years.

The impacts of habitat degradation include the following: As of 1988, freshwater wetlands were jointly regulated by

" Increased coastal storm damage and flooding due to the USACE and the NJDEP. In March 1994, New Jersey assumed jurisdiction of the federal 404 program of the loss of wetlands; Clean Water Act. Between March 2, 1994 and June 30,

" Adverse impacts on endangered or threatened 1998, 510 acres (207 hectares) of freshwater wetlands species populations; were impacted by statewide development activities and

  • Loss of SAV and other aquatic nursery habitats; granted Statewide General Permits under the permit pro-gram of the NJDEP Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act Loss and fragmentation of upland and coastal Rules. The filling of isolated wetlands totaled 173 acres habitat adversely affects fish and wildlife resources; (70.1 hectares) during that same time period, and minor
  • Loss of coastal beaches. road crossings totaled 65 acres (26 hectares) (NJDEP, 1999). Between 1990 and 1998, filling of wetlands for TRENDS AND STUDY RESULTS development declined, leaving a total of approximately 300,000 acres (121,500 hectares) of freshwater wetlands Where development is most extensive, in the northern that remain in the state (New Jersey Future, 1999).

mainland watershed area and on the barrier island com-plex, nonpoint source pollution can degrade water quality MAY2002 27

UNDERSTANDING THE BARNEGAT BAY WATERSHED Apart from dredging and infilling, mosquito control mea- IMPACTS sures (parallel grid ditching) have significantly altered salt

  • Habitat loss and alteration, i.e., bulkheads, sea marsh habitat. Approximately 14,548 acres (5,890 walls, docks, dredging, suburban development, hectares) of Barnegat Bay salt marshes have been ditched resulting in reduced carrying capacity for the bay's to reduce mosquito-breeding habitat. This represents biological resources; about two-thirds of the existing tidal salt marsh area.

However, parallel grid ditching is no longer a desirable

  • Restricted shore access for public.

management technique of mosquito control in this system and is being replaced by alternative open marsh water TRENDS AND STUDY RESULTS management techniques.

Growth and development in the watershed raise several More than 70 percent (10,433 acres, 4,224 hectares) of the important issues. Accelerated population growth during Barnegat Bay estuarine shoreline buffer zone is devel- the last half of the 20th century has led to changes in land oped/altered, leaving only 29 percent (4,283 acres, 1,734 use for homes and businesses. Since the most populated hectares) in natural land covers. Approximately 45 per- areas are located in the north-central portion of the coun-cent of the estuarine shoreline is now bulkheaded (36 per- ty, in Dover, Brick, Lakewood, Manchester, Jackson and cent when tidal creeks are included). Bulkheading elimi- Berkeley Townships (Ocean County Planning Board, 1998),

nates shoreline beach habitat important for shorebirds and these areas have experienced the most commonly recog-terrapin turtles. It also deepens adjacent nearshore estu- nized effects of land-use changes.

arine waters.

There has been a dramatic rise in the amount of impervi-2.6.7 HUMAN ACTIVITIES ous surfaces in the northern part of the watershed.

AND COMPETING USES Current development practices may be severely compact-ing the soil underlying new residential developments, PROBLEM thereby restricting soil permeability and groundwater recharge capabilities. Soil erosion, sedimentation, and Rapid population growth within the Barnegat Bay water- compaction also accelerate nonpoint source problems shed during the 20th century has led to intense competi- throughout the watershed. Impervious surfaces that do tion for resource use. The areas of conflict can be placed not drain into detention basins are of particular concern.

in three general categories: land-use activities; competi- Beyond soil compaction, direct riparian construction is a tion between recreational and commercial fisheries; and cause for concern. The dredging of navigation channels conflicts between boats and PWC. also has an adverse impact on the bay.

LAND-USE ACTIVITIES Tourism has been a focus of business development over the past 10 years. The coastal waters of Barnegat Bay are the POTENTIAL CAUSES final destination for many visitors. Losing access to the water due to lack of public access has presented problems.

The causes of conflicting uses are activities that place a high demand on limited space: These are among the most common impacts created by modern land-use changes in the watershed. Some of the

  • Real estate development (residential, industrial, categories mentioned are controlled by state environmen-commercial); tal regulations (e.g., wetland impacts, soil erosion, and sediment control), whereas others are not. The dredging
  • Tourism. and filling of wetlands in tidal waters are also regulated by federal agencies. Some of the causes of pollution listed above are not being addressed because of the lack of clean-up funds or reduced enforcement budgets. A number of 28 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

Chapter 2 these impacts can be attenuated by more effective plan- BOATS AND PERSONAL WATERCRAFT ning and development, but some problems may have no immediate solution and will require an intense public out- POTENTIAL CAUSES reach effort aimed at education and personal behavioral

  • High-intensity vs. low-intensity recreational pursuits; modification.
  • Lack of boater education.

FISHERIES CONFLICTS IMPACTS POTENTIAL CAUSES

  • Destruction of seagrass beds;
  • Resource decline;
  • Shoreline erosion;
  • Lack of natural stock restoration;
  • Destruction of fish larval habitat;
  • Commercial and recreational overharvesting
  • Disruption of colonial nesting birds, of fish and shellfish.

nest abandonment; IMPACTS

  • Distress to waterfowl (reproductive problems,
  • Distrust between/among user groups; behavioral changes);
  • Economic losses.
  • Habitat loss/increased water turbidity;
  • Disturbance to other recreational water users; TRENDS AND STUDY RESULTS
  • Interference with fishermen.

There are few written sources of information on the prob-lems or conflicts between commercial fishermen and recre-TRENDS AND STUDY RESULTS ational anglers in the Barnegat Bay Estuary. According to the NJDEP, conflicts between commercial and recreational Recreational boating has experienced tremendous growth clammers in the estuary are so minor that they are not within the last decade. Many marinas are located on both perceived to be an issue requiring regulatory action. the east and west sides of Barnegat Bay and Little Egg Clamming conflicts are related to the minimal stocks in Harbor, and along the major inland tributaries. The tidal the estuary (Flimlin, 1999). portions of the Manasquan River also provide boating facil-ities that are connected to Barnegat Bay by the Point In recent years, the blue crab fishery has become a limit- Pleasant Canal.

ed entry system. There are currently only 312 commercial crabbing licenses for the State of New Jersey, and each Conflicts exist between recreational clammers and boaters license holder in the Barnegat Bay Estuary is limifted to no when boats speed past people treading for clams. The more than 400 crab pots for each license (Halgren, 1999). boaters are not sensitive to the safety issues of overboard Since the crabs are a limited resource, there have been treaders in the congested bay. Recreational clammers have complaints to the NJDEP from recreational crabbers, who complained that the boat traffic is so intense around Swan feel that the commercial crabbers take an unfair propor- Point that they cannot work the clam beds (Flimlin, 1999).

tion of available crabs, and that there are not enough Commercial clammers complain about the improper use of crabs left in the bay for them. That perception has caused personal watercraft and inconsiderate boaters (Hook, recreational crabbers to blame commercial crabbers for a 1999).

perceived lack of crabs. However, placing blame on the commercial crabbers may not be justified. Local baymen Weekend boaters will attest to the crowded conditions that with personal knowledge of the bay have stated that the can be found in many areas of Barnegat Bay; however, location chosen for crabbing has more to do with the size actual use patterns by time and location have not been of the catch than the number of crabs taken by commer- quantified.

cial crabbers (Hook, 1999).

MAY2002 29

.UNDERSTANDING THE BARNEGAT BAY WATERSHED According to the NJDEP, Bureau of Sheilfisheries, boaters 2.6.8 FISHERIES DECLINE complain that commercial crab pots interfere with boat navigation in shallow bay areas (Joseph, 1999). Boaters PROBLEM complain that they cannot navigate in areas where there Historical accounts of fishing in the Barnegat Bay Estuary are many crab pots (Bochenek, 1999).

are replete with descriptions of the vast amounts of fish available to recreational and commercial fishermen. Based PWC are classified as boats in New Jersey, but there are on these descriptions, it is almost inconceivable to think several major differences between boats and personal that such vast numbers of fish could be depleted and that.

watercraft, the major one being the depth of water in human use could outstrip the resource's ability to replen-which the PWC can operate. The PWC can maneuver in ish itself. Human exploitation and habitat loss, however, shallow waters that often contain SAY. These are also are affecting the abundance of fish and impacting the important habitats for fish and wildlife.

commercial fishing industry, as well as the recreational angler.

Although no studies have been performed to assess PWC impact on the larvae in Bamegat Bay, the U.S. Fish and POTENTIAL CAUSES Wildlife Service (USFWS) estimates that approximately two-thirds of commercial and recreational species of fish - Increased and unsustainable fishing effort; and shellfish rely on estuarine marshes for spawning and

  • Excess bycatch; as nursery habitat (Chin, 1998). SAV beds have also been designated as a habitat area of particular concern for sum-
  • Habitat loss/lowered carrying capacity; mer flounder by the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management
  • Impaired water quality.

Council.

IMPACTS Crabbers, anglers, public officials, and members of the pub-lic have expressed concerns about the use of PWCs on

  • Economic losses to commercial and recreational Watershed Association, 1998). Given the popularity of interests.

this type of watercraft, more research is needed to identi-fy all the specific problems with their use in the Barnegat TRENDS AND STUDY RESULTS' Bay area. Conflicts between PWC users, the public, and other boaters will continue to exist until environmental Fishery resource quality is highly dependent on water restrictions are developed to protect the estuarine quality, which can affect the health and bioaccumulation resources. of toxins in fish and shellfish and in organisms that serve as food sources for important fishery species. Other than the condemnation of shellfish beds, there is little infor-mation available to determine the effect that water quali-ty has had on fishery resources or the organisms on which i7"*

they feed.

With regard to fishery resource quantity, there is no infor-mation available on the size or sustainable yield of Barnegat Bay populations. Nor is there information on the total harvest of fishery resources from the bay.

The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, created under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, has a Scientific and Statistical Committee and Advisory Panel to provide expertise for development of Fishery Management Plans 30 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

Chapter 2 (FMPs). A number of FMPs have been developed for species never be Lifted due to the Limited resources available and in the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor region. These plans the fear by regulators that lifting the limit would further, can require size limits, bag limits, quotas, limits on the deplete the clam stocks.

number of vessels, restriction on net mesh size, closed areas and seasons, or any other measure to control fishing The blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) commercial crabbing activity. They can affect both commercial and recreation- industry is a "limited entry fishery," with the goal to at fishermen. reduce the number of crab pot fishermen over time. There are currently 312 commercial crabbing licenses for the Contemporary clam stocks are much lower than the level State of New Jersey, and each license holder in the of historical resource stocks. There is an effort on the Bamegat Bay Estuary is limited to no more than 400 crab recreational side to have Sunday clamming approved in pots for each license (Hatgrert, 1999).

New Jersey, but the restriction on Sunday clamming may A more detailed scientific and technical description of the Barnegat Bay Watershed can be found in the report, "The Scientific Characterization of the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor Estuary and Watershed" (2001).

Hard Clams in Barnegat Bay sneakboxes and harvested in Barnegat, February 20, 1930. PHroTcouRrTsY ocEAN COUNTY HISTORiCAL SOCiETY MAY2002 31

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.

Teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life.

- Chinese proverb

PHOTO COURTESY TUCKERTON SEAPORT, A PROJECT OF THE BARNEGAT BAY DECOY AND BAYMEN'S MUSEUM, LNC.

MAY2002 33

RECREATIONAL BATHING SITES IN OCEAN COUNTY 0 Rvcere.tionzk Batthing Sites Streams jocean Count-t 34 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

EARLY ACTIONS Chapter 3

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Barnegat Bay was accepted into the NEP in July 1995. The Each of these categories of actions is summarized in this newly formulated partnership of federal, state, and local chapter. Detailed results of these actions can be found in interests which now comprises the BBNEP recognized that Appendix C.

development of the CCMP would take several years. At that point, .however, the State of New Jersey and other regional and Local interests had compiled a substantial 3.2 "ACTION NOW" AGENDA body of data indicating that the environmental quality of Barnegat Bay was already threatened. Water quality The BBNEP Management Conference committed to devel-degradation, loss and alteration of natural habitat, and oping a preliminary Action Plan or "Action Now" Agenda competition among the bay's human population were all as part of the BBNEP's USEPA/NJDEP Joint Conference identified as critical issues. The BBNEP recognized the Agreement that was approved on April 16, 1996. The need to develop and implement quick, short-term actions objective of developing the agenda was to identify short-to address these issues while the CCMP was being written. term 'actions that could be implemented immediately dur-This suite of Early Actions was guided by recommenda- ing the development of this CCMP. As a result of this com-tions from several sources, including the 1993 Watershed mitment,. the "Action Now" Agenda was published on June Management Plan for the Barnegat Bay, the Ocean County 25, 1997. The actions identified in the agenda built upon Water Management Strategic Plan, the Barnegat Bay the actions that were previously recommended in "A Management Conference Committees, Local Government -Watershed Management Plan for the Barnegat Bay" (1993)

Roundtables, and citizen input. Since the goals of the by examining processes for implementing the plan's 1993 Watershed Management Plan are similar to the cur- actions, engaging action item stakeholders in a construc-rent goals of the BBNEP, the early actions were consistent tive dialogue, and where appropriate, implementing imme-with the current priorities. diate actions that would directly benefit Bamegat Bay, its watershed, and its inhabitants.

The following categories of Early Actions were developed and implemented: Since the objective of developing the agenda was to imme-diately implement actions that would provide benefit, the BBNEP identified actions that the Management Conference

" Action Now Agenda; had previously approved for implementation and that required little or no additional funds or staff. The 47

  • Action Plan Demonstration Projects; action items included in the agenda were categorized into
  • Local Government Involvement; the following environmental management issues:
  • Ocean County Local Government Environmental Roundtable; " Watershed Management;
  • Point and Nonpoint Source Pollution;

" Public Participation and Education;

  • Sensitive Areas;
  • Nonpoint Source Watershed Protection Projects;

" Water Area and Use;

" Survey Review of the Barnegat Bay Watershed;

  • Fisheries Management;

" Special Public Health Projects;

  • Public Participation; and
  • Trust for Public Land; and
  • Research and Monitoring.

The agenda included actions that could be initiated by the BBNEP, as well as actions that could be initiated under MAY 2002 35

EARLY ACTIONS existing federal, state, and local programs. It also provid- selected for early implementation provided integral infor-ed information on who would lead the actions, and the mation leading to the development of several action items schedule and estimated cost for implementation. As a in the CCMP.

result of the completed agenda, the NJDEP now has some guidance for prioritizing funding in the watershed, and The criteria used to select the grant recipients included:

allowing the BBNEP the opportunity to initiate beneficial activities within the watershed during the CCMP planning " Applicability to action items identified in the "Action and development process. "Agenda Now" activities have Now" Agenda; been under way since 1997. An update on the "Action " Amount of non-federal match offered in the proposal; Now" Agenda progress is included in Appendix C.

" Breadth and diversity of scope, target audience and 3.3 ACTION PLAN practical effect; and DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS " Award of funds to as many worthwhile proposals as possible.

The Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program (BBNEP) was charged with identifying and implementing projects that Table 3-1 lists the projects and funding awarded for each utilize innovative and unique management strategies to fiscal year. A short description of each project and the address priority watershed issues. These projects, titled, lessons learned are included in Appendix C.

"Action Plan Demonstration Projects" (APDP) were used as a mechanism for effective implementation of the "Action The APDP results were considered in both the planning Now" Agenda. The BBNEP Management Conference and development of the CCMP and various action items.

solicited proposals and awarded funds totaling $150,000 These projects were also initiated as examples of actions to grant recipients for 12 projects. These 12 projects that others in the watershed could duplicate.

TABLE 3-1: Projects and Funds Awarded for Fiscal Years 1997 and 1998 Funding 1997 * , ,;

Eco-Tour of the Barrier Island $ 5,000.00 Watershed Signs at Public Access Points $ 9,280.00 Environmental Educator's b ! D .. o.n.t a.!.*...

.P .. Roundtable

.. [.... o* t sf..............

.a. ..............

............ 16,000.00

. .oo o..........

Public Demonstration of Marine Pumpout Vessel $ 15,000.00 Barnegat Bay Ecosystem Restoration $ 29,720.00 Total $ 75,000.00 Funding 1998 Managing our Endangered Species Heritage $ 9,996.00 Dredged Materials Disposal and Habitat Restoration $ 10,567.00 Adopt-a-Storm Drain $ 3,070.00 Watershed Demonstration Garden $ 12,000.00 Coastal Decision-Making Resource Center $ 16,995.00 Coordination of the Pump Out Boat $ 15,000.00 BBWA Local Government Outreach (partial funding) $ 7,372.00 Total $ 75,000.00 36 BARNEGATBAYFINAL CCMP

Chapter 3 cal stakeholder group to this process. Therefore, the 3.4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BBNEP established a Local Government Committee (LGC).

INVOLVEMENT The Ocean County Mayors' Association has served as LGC for three years and has provided a forum for exchange of Central to the operation of the BBNEP is the principle that information between the Management Conference and the Management Conference should serve in an advisory local government agencies. The Management Conference capacity and should facilitate the implementation of is committed to encouraging active participation from the actions and policies through increased awareness and LGC and has, therefore, developed the following actions to stakeholder participation in the development and imple-ensure that local governments support and commit to the mentation of the CCMP. Local governments are one criti-implementation of the CCMP.

ro gram Policy.> ContinuaL input e, the folliowing three a~ctions are Iltatble meetings in; each of the Ocean .County ' ,2**-/,.,

ih'ave already. been conducted in Brick, Stafford, and, rring these* oundtables are indorpiorated in this UCMP.

can be found iii Appendix B..

MAY2002 37

EARLY ACTIONS PRINCIPLES OF THE BBNEP COMMITMENT TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (CONTINUED)

Utilize public outreach and Ocean County informational services as vehicles to distribute information to local governments, including Monmouth County municipalities located in the Bamegat Bay watershed, on issues related to the protection and restoration!of the bay, its rivers, and streams.*

  • Develop informational materials that are I communicate and share information with effort.

3.5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION actively participate in protecting and restoring the bay by AND EDUCATION funding environmental education projects that will direct-ly benefit Barnegat Bay and its watershed area.

Applicants were invited to submit a proposal in one of the MINI-GRANT PROJECTS following subject areas: nonpoint source pollution preven-tion/water quality control, estuarine education, habitat The BBNEP recognizes that public participation and edu- enhancement/ preservation, citizen monitoring, and pub-cation is integral to promoting environmental awareness lic participation. Mini-Grants were awarded in 1997, 1998, and stewardship and is necessary for successful imple- and 2000 totaling $70,000. The grants are listed in mentation of the CCMP. Therefore, the Mini-Grant program Appendix D. The successful completion of these projects was established to foster public awareness and education increased public awareness through education, with of the Barnegat Bay Estuary and its surrounding tatmhed. emphasis on the ecosystem as a living environmental and The program was designed to motivate the public to social resource.

38 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

Chapter 3 3.6 FEDERAL/STATE PROGRAMS. specifically habitat protection and water quality/water supply protection. After a long public comment period, SUPPORTING THE BBNEP the NJDEP decided that $1,975,000 would go into a land trust fund to purchase public access and environmentally SECTION 319(h) COMPETITIVE GRANTS sensitive areas. The remaining $525,000 would be placed in an Environmental Grant Fund, which would support The objective of the 319(h) coastal watershed protection grants to non-profit organizations for environmental plan-projects is to coordinate nonpoint source pollution and ning, education, monitoring, research, or stewardship.*

stormwater runoff control demonstration projects by fund-The Trust for Public Land (TPL) was designated as the ing local group activities that provide long-term results administrator of the Ciba-Geigy donation. Expenditure of and serve as successful project "models" for future projects funds under these two programs is made with approval of within other subwatersheds in Ocean County. The NJDEP the Barnegat Bay Environmental Grant Fund Advisory provides coordination and financial and technical assis-Board.

tance. This is due, in large part, to the BBNEP being part of the NEP and having developed a watershed management plan. 3.8 SPECIAL PUBLIC HEALTH PRO3ECTS Nonpoint source pollution and watershed protection pro-jects have been implemented in various sections of the In the third year of the BBNEP, the USEPA provided Barnegat Bay watershed over the last several years. BMPs $36,500 for special public health project activities. The for the purposes of protecting the surface and groundwa- following projects were funded:

ter resources have been instituted. Within Ocean County

1. Support of Citizens Water Quality the primary objective of the projects has been to reduce the nonpoint source pollution loadings to Barnegat Bay Monitoring Program and its watershed, including contaminated stormwater The Barnegat Bay Watch Monitoring Program was cre-runoff, so that beneficial uses of the bay and its tributaries ated to provide ongoing monitoring of health and eco-will be protected and restored. logical conditions in the Barnegat Bay/Little Egg, Harbor ecosystem by citizen volunteers through the Through the conduct of these projects it is expected that Alliance for a Living Ocean (ALO). Currently. the pro-significant sources of nonpoint source pollution will be gram is monitoring between 25 and 50 sites through-identified and targeted actions will be developed and out the watershed. The activities of the program are implemented to reduce those sources through innovative designed to produce data which will aid in detection of approaches, including public education and outreach, and episodic events and identification of trends or changes through the development of creative partnerships and in habitats and water quality in order to provide elect-institutional arrangements. The effectiveness of each of ed officials, resource managers, and scientists with these projects will be monitored, and, if successful, these information on the health and vitality of the ecosys-valuable techniques will be applied to other subwatersheds tem. During the third year, the BBNEP provided'$5,000 in the Barnegat Bay watershed. Descriptions of each of Public Health funds to support the Barnegat Bay 319(h) grant project are provided in Appendix D. Watch Monitoring Program. The $5,000 was used to pur-chase replacement chemicals and equipment for the 1999 sampling season. The ALO received the "Governor's 3.7 BARNEGAT BAY Award" for environmental protection in 1999.

ENVIRONMENTAL FUND On February 26, 1992, the Ciba-Geigy Corporation made a donation of $2,500,000 to NJDEP for enhancement and

  • The Barnegat Bay Environmental Grant Fund serves to protection of the Barnegat Bay watershed. This is direct-ly related to several priority issue areas in the CCMP, support many of the Action Items.

MAY2002 39

EARLY ACTIONS

2. Support of the Barnegat Bay Marine 3.9 SURVEY REVIEW OF THE Sewage Pumpout Boat BARNEGAT BAY WATERSHED As part of a coalition of agencies and organizations, the As part of the NJDEP grant entitled "A Partnership for BBNEP has been active in supporting the establishment Nonpoint Source Pollution Control in the Barnegat Bay and continuation of a marine sewage pumpout vessel on Watershed," the Ocean County Soil Conservation District Barnegat Bay. This vessel has now been purchased and (OCSCD) established a cooperative effort among various launched and has had two successful years (1998 and 1999 conservation agencies to develop an effective communica-boating seasons), pumping out more than 7,000 gallons of tion and conservation education program for teachers, sewage from bay boats each year. The vessel covers the municipalities, environmental commissions, and the pub-waters of Barnegat Bay and provides pumpout services to lic. To effectively develop the communication and edu-moored vessels. cation strategy it was necessary to determine the level of general public knowledge about nonpoint source pollution This provides a convenience to vessel owners who might and its effects on Barnegat Bay. Therefore, the OCSCD not otherwise have reasonable access to .a marine sewage developed a survey entitled "Understanding and pumpout device.

Communicating With People About People Pollution in the Watershed of Bamegat Bay" and distributed it at three pub-The presence of the vessel should mitigate the sense lic events - the Ocean County Fair in July 1995 and of need some vessel owners have to dispose of their September 1996, and September 1997 at the Barnegat Bay waste in the bay waters. Hence, there will be a direct Decoy and Gunning Show. This predates the organization of decrease in public health hazards associated with public outreach efforts for the Barnegat Bay Estuary illicit discharges. The BBNEP has committed $16,500 Program. The following summarizes the responses received:

of Public Health funds to support the second year of operation of the pumpout vessel. Twenty percent Most respondents understood what a watershed was, yet match was provided by the State of New Jersey's only a small percentage knew that they lived within a "Shore to Please" license plate fund. Also, the watershed; Barnegat Bay Pumpout Boat Program and its organiz-Although respondents knew that there were water quali-er, Pete McLain, were recognized by the USEPA with the 1999 Environmental Quality Award. ty problems in Barnegat Bay, there was little under-standing of the term "nonpoint source pollution," or of

3. Barnegat Bay No Discharge Zone the impact of nonpoint source pollution; Application Although about one-half of the respondents said that they maintained their own lawns, only a small percent-The N.J. Marine Sciences Consortium was retained to age of that number ever tested the soil for nutrients or develop an application for a No Discharge Zone for pH level; Barnegat Bay. This designation wilt make it illegal to discharge either treated or non-treated sewage from Most respondents had volunteered, or would be willing to boats into Barnegat Bay and will assist in protecting volunteer, in a local conservation effort, but only a small bathing and shellfish water quality. The NJDEP has percentage would consider doing so as part of an orga-submitted an application to USEPA Region 2 and is nization or would want to attend a meeting such as a currently working to provide the necessary documen- hearing or seminar; tation on the area boating population and the avail-ability of sufficient pumpout capacity to allow USEPA The preferred method for receiving conservation informa-to grant approval of this application. tion was through newspapers, radio, or TV These results helped to focus the Bamegat Bay National Estuary Program's public outreach efforts on the topics to discuss and the segments of the watershed popula-tion to reach.

40 BARNEGATBAY FINALCCMP

Racing sloops in Barnegat Bay, circa 1930. PHOTO COURTESY OF OCEAN COUNTYHISTORICAL SOCIETY MAY2002 41

The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones.

-Keynes

INTRODUCTION TO ACTION PLANS Chapter 4 4.1 MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES populations have resulted from fragmentation and. loss of habitats and ecosystems; pollution and decreased The CCMP has been divided into four major water quality due to increases in the runoff of sedi-Action Plans: ments, nutrients, and chemicals; and overexploitation of resources.

1. Water Quality/Water Supply; The Habitat and Living Resources Action Plan, present-
2. Habitat and Living Resources; ed in Chapter Six, contains a suite of Action Items to combat loss and alteration of habitat. Also discussed
3. Human Activities and Competing Uses; and is the decline in fisheries stocks.
4. Public Participation and Education.

4.2.3 HUMAN ACTIVITIES AND COMPETING USES ACTION PLAN 4.2 ACTION PLANS A key to effective environmental management is to realize that environmental degradation involves indi-4.2.1 WATER QUALITY/WATER SUPPLY vidual actions among stakeholder groups.

ACTION PLAN Effective management requires careful consideration of Water quality in the Barnegat Bay watershed is being the balance between appropriate and necessary uses on degraded by nonpoint and point sources of pollution. the one hand, and protection of natural resources on Excessive nutrient inputs, coupled with bacterial pol- the other. Given Ocean County's increasing population lution, upset the natural balance of the Barnegat Bay and popularity as a resort area, the BBNEP recognizes ecosystem and can directly impair human uses of the the need to limit constraints on the use of Barnegat bay, including restrictions on shellfish harvesting and Bay and its watershed.

swimming. A significant amount of this pollution is attributed to development on land and the activities The Human Activities and Competing Uses Action Plan, associated with development (e.g., impervious cover, presented in Chapter Seven, targets two primary areas vehicle use, lawn and garden maintenance, and septic of competing uses:

systems) although other sources, such as boats and

  • Land use and development activities that threaten wildlife populations, also contribute to the problem.

environmental quality; and The Water Quality/Water Supply Action Plan in Chapter Five presents Action Items designed to effectively " Contention over the use of boats and personal remediate the impacts impairing water quality and watercraft (PWC).

quantity throughout the watershed.

This Action Plan complements the Habitat and Living 4.2.2 HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES Resources and Water Quality/Water Supply Action Plans by presenting actions individual citizens can take ACTION PLAN to positively impact Barnegat Bay and its watershed.

The continued health and biodiversity of marine and estuarine systems depends on the maintenance of high-quality habitat. Threats to habitat in the Barnegat Bay watershed include conversion of open land and forest to residential and commercial devel-opment, highway construction, marinas, dredging and filling, and bulkheading. Declines in fish and wildlife MAY2002 43

INTRODUCTION TO ACTION PLANS 4.2.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 4. There is vigorous public support for this action; AND EDUCATION ACTION PLAN

5. This action supports more than one program The BBNEP recognizes that the public is essential to objective; the protection of Barnegat Bay. The Public
6. There is a regulatory mandate to do this action; Participation and Education Action Plan presented in and Chapter Eight was developed to increase the public's understanding of the workings of the bay and its 7. There is great interest on the part of one or more watershed and how individual actions impact the bay of the agencies involved in the BBNEP in this and its natural resources. The Action Items presented action.

in this plan address all the priority problems by foster-ing a stewardship ethic among Ocean County residents Each Action Item in the CCMP was then rated as either and visitors through citizen monitoring programs, "High", "Medium", or "Low" priority, based on these increased estuarine awareness, and environmental edu- seven criteria. In general, the Action Items in each cation. Action Plan chapter were grouped in order of priority, from highest to lowest. Action Items were rated as a 4.3 ACTION PLAN PRIORITIES "High" priority for implementation if more than four of the seven criteria were satisfied. Action Items were The BBNEP priority issues and associated Action Items rated as a "Medium" priority if three or four criteria were refined following public comments received from: were satisfied. Action Items were rated as a "Low" pri-

  • An extensive series of public meetings throughout ority for implementation if one or two criteria were the Barnegat Bay Watershed; satisfied.
  • Local government workshops and meetings;
  • Postings on the Barnegat Bay Estuary Program Tables 4-1 through 4-4 include the assessment of pri-website; and ority for each of the Action Items in Chapters 5
  • 130,000 mailings of a 12-page newspaper insert through 8. In addition, the summary tables of Action describing the BBNEP and priority issues of concern Items in each of those chapters include a column des-ignating the relative priority of each action.

The Barnegat Bay Estuary Program, represented by the Policy Committee, the Management Committee, 4.4 OBJECTIVES Science and Technical Advisory Committee, and the Citizens Advisory Committee, developed a set A critical step in the development of the Action Plan of criteria that were used to prioritize the Action chapters (i.e., Chapter 5. Water Quality/Water Supply; Items in each of the Action Plan chapters of the Chapter 6. Habitat and Living Resources; Chapter 7.

CCMP. This included Chapter 5. Water Quality/ Human Activity and Competing Uses, and Chapter 8.

Water Supply; Chapter 6. Habitat and Living Public Participation and Education) was the identifica-Resources; Chapter 7. Human Activities and tion of quantifiable objectives, environmental indica-Competing Uses; Chapter 8. Public Participation tors for the measurement of success in achieving those and Education; and Chapter 9. Monitoring. objectives, and agencies responsible for facilitating and monitoring progress. Measuring environmental indica-tors will be achieved through existing or future moni-The seven criteria of equal weight that were devel- toring programs which will, in turn, help document the oped are as follows: progress in attaining the quantifiable objectives.

1. Importance of achieving a program objective; Trends identified through continued monitoring will serve the program by noting the achievement of mile-
2. Future actions depend on getting the action done; stones or helping to redirect future remedial action.
3. There is an existing commitment by a viable A timeline for start-up and completion of Action Items entity to do this action; has also been included as an adjunct for tracking mile-44 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

0-4 r+

Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for areas listed on the 303(d) list of V/ V V/ V. H 5.2 Iimpaired waterbodies.

Complete a high-intensity

-b -4 _________ -4 .4 4-Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) to identify pollution sources from land use informa-

/ V/ V/ V, V/ H (D tion and site conditions.

5.3 Retrofit retention or detention basins, and retrofit stormwater / / / M M

V basins to increase infiltration 0A and recharge of rainfall runoff. "_"

5.4 Implement Phase II Municipal Stormwater Barnegat BayRules in the Watershed. / V/____

5.5 Encourage native species land-scaping to minimize water use F+.

andfertilizer and pesticide V/ V/ M application.

5.6 Develop a financial incentives mechanism, "Water Quality '-4 Rebate", for implementing Best V/ V VI M Management Practices on non- CD federal, non-agricultural lands.

5.7 Institute the Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials

( NEMO) program within the V -

'-I arnegat Bay Watershed.

k<'

5.8 Promote existing technical and CA financial assistance programs t o ./ V V / M M.-

implement soil management practices on agricultural lands.

r-9 (D

JS' 01.

Ln

I-.

Ch' 0+ 0 0

Identity the extent ot water quality problems emanating tram livestock farms and work with livestock producers to V/ V/ L reduce runoff from manure 5.10 Develop a management strategy to reduce the congreation of / / / / M Canada Geese populations in V V urban areas.

5.11 Sample and analyze water to evaluate fertilizer and pesticide residues introduced into surface

/

V

. VI / M water systems.

5.12 Continue publication of "Pesticides for New Jersey" to include site-specific recommen- V V V dations for the use of pesticides on golf courses and public lands.

Promote Home*A*Syst for the 5.13 Bornegot Bay Watershed 1998) through (RCE, widespread IVM distribution.

5.14 Periodically examine technical and permit data on small point source discharge permit holders M in order to promote and V /

maintain an understanding of their relationship to the overall ecological health of the bay.

tol 40 e-I

"*tIUUýdtLLy UAd.IIL-LL L-LLIL-L and permit data on the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in order to promote and main-tain an understanding of its

/ VI V/ M relationship to the overall ecological health of the bay.

5.16 Eliminate the discharge of boat bay bypumpout sewage into thesewage promot- / / / /

ing the use of facilities.

5.17 Acquire an additional sewage pumpout boat for Barnegat Bay _H and its major tributaries......

5.18 Apply to the USEPA for federal designation of Barnegat Bay as a / V VI

/ V H No Discharge Zone.

5.19 Develop a "Clean Marinas" pro-gram to help marina owners and managers use their facilities in a / H manner that employs BMPs to the maximum extent.

5.20 Establish a comprehensive water supply plan for the Barnegat Bay watershed that will guide water supply development, use, / V V V V V H and reuse throughthe year 2040 and, to the maximum extent possible, maintain the natural ydrology of the watershed. -i

-i VU o

4-,

00 0

0-M 0

0 IV iueveiop a worKptan anu institute controls for management of water V/ VI V/ V/ V/ H demand/water conservation.

5.22 Integrate existing shallow groundwater protection I'/ /

V / H programs.

5.23 Establish a network of three weather stations in the water-shed tied to the South Jersey V1 L Resource Conservation &

Development RISE network.

5.24 Establish a demonstration proj-ect for wastewater reuse, which will be discharged back to the watershed, and which alleviates V/ V/ M the need for potable water for irrigation of lawns, golf courses, or other public areas.

5.25 Assist municipalities in their involvement in the NJDEP Shellfish Waters and Bathing / V/ V/ H Beaches protection strategies for the Barnegat Bay watershed.

eil rroiecr & improve vegetaiea buffer zones adjacent to coastal wetlands & freshwater tributar-ies to maintain continuous ripar-ian corridors, for habitat V, VI V/ V, V, H protection and low-impact 6.2 Conduct a Barnegat Bay ecosystem restoration V'/ V// / H feasibility study.

6.3 Control erosion in threatened / L shoreline areas. V V 6.4 Manage tidal wetlands to In preserve unditched wetlands &

to rehabilitate wetlands or L that have been ditched otherwise altered.

6.5 Maintain intact large blocks of Pinetands habitat within state parks & forests & other publicly VM owned lands.

%0

L7I 0

0 C,

0 H

to.

-C 0

tVn Implement more ettective enforcement of current regulations regarding sensitive V/ V/ VI VI/ M coastal habitats.

6.7 Coordinate and integrate management of federal lands // V V/ M for natural habitat values.

6.8 Facilitate partnerships for habitat protection and VI

/ / / V/ H restoration projects.

6.9 Revise municipal master plans to encourage subwatershed planning to / / / V/

minimize impervious coverage H

& maintain natural habitat and landscape values. n

~Y1 0

'.4.

I-'.

Assess the eftectiveness ot CAFRA II regulations within the Barnegat Bay Coastal V/ V/ V/ V/ V, VI H Zone Boundary.

6.11 Identify and manage impaired sub-watershed through local government V/ / V/ M cooperation to address water resource issues that cross municipal boundaries.

6.12 Develop a cooperative approach among the Pinelands Commission, state parks, state wildlife manage-ment areas, state forests, and

-V V/ V/ -.

other state agencies to coordi-nate watershed protection on state lands.

CD

u, W

Future setn aem Mandatehfor foImportance Depend Eite Public i endod Interst SppsThere is a 7.oseoithItemP fo 71e Daftea Barea u t Baynegat W. n aement stratiegy areais m t f H W "BoDafte' setting Gudet Barnegatempa Bays Uthrb Roaner A for state proand wide ptlicy n.

LittleEgHrbor"fto proma- Ite m Mti ma_

7.2 Pomote the contiued o ti Outrea0 Proec 6use PwithiV L poducDonno comtuenite Coareas, by '/ M 7.3 Frolmowtu mtieai the ante setto Municpa of_the impats wotrsuty anwide pnoaralsy "Cmmunigtyn Conneripcti on"VV nwsaeterqult andwithral "Community awardsion programs. Z 7.4 Use environmental commissions to foster the M watershed approach. _ _ __

7.5 Support the Barnegat Bay Watershed and Estuary Foundation (BBWEF) to V/ / / / H protect Barnegat Bay and its watershed resources. 0 r+,*

(D1 0L Establish a Barnegat Bay Blue Card Certification L

program on soil health, low-input landscapes, and V/ V/

balancing the water cycle.

7.7 Use data & information from the Natural Resource Inventory (NRI) to promote */ L the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs).

7.8 Design and construct environmentally sensitive demonstration gardens in all /

municipalities.

7.9 Construct an environmentally sensitive demonstration lawn for homeowners to use as a V V V M model for landscaping plans.

7.10 Conduct survey.

shellfish resource __/ M un W

U.'

tv

~ V C~) -~

z I-...

0 z

Post tne eineLands Curriculum Guide Lessons 9/

for Grades 4-6 and 7-8 on the World Wide Web.

/ L 00 0

8.2 Conduct two, two-day summer teacher workshops through the Ocean County Vocational-Technical School (OCVTS) that V/ M focus on the Barnegat Bay Estuary and watershed.

0 8.3 Revise & reprint the Barnegat Bay Watershed Educational I / / / M Resource Guide.

8.4 Conduct an annual Environmental Educators Roundtable. V/ / / / M 8.5 Support the Sea Grassesfor Classes Project - Institute of H Marine & Coastal Sciences V (IMCS), Rutgers University.

8.6 Develop the Forest Resource Education Center (FREC) as a resource and interpretive center that promotes an ./ VI V m understanding of the human & 0 resource connections & a stew-ardship ethic among students, scouts, & the general public.

r-0.

r+4 U-4

to1 0+

0./ uevetup d DdaIIiydi Ddy Watershed Education Campaign, to be implemented in schools via a mascot, elementary Crab V/ V/ IV V/ M Barnie the 88 Develop a Barnegat activity watershed-specific Bay.//"% VV /%/

H guide.

8.9 Continue the Alliance for a Living Ocean (ALO) Ecotour of a Barrier Iand for schoolchildren and the general public.

8.10 Promote the development &/I/M use of outdoor classrooms. V/__ __ / M 8.11 Establish a Bay Keeper Program as a public watchdog for the protection of Barnegat Bay.

8.12 Create a Barnegat Bay-specific Educational Guide outlining the natural and cultural .

ecotourism opportunities inL Central New Jersey, with an emphasis on the Barnegat Bay watershed region.

8.13 Establish one waterway cleanup per year within the I I M Barnegat Bay watershed.

(ID

-PS LIM uLn

L, Ch tol a 0

1>

0 0

r+

0 0

Provide interpretive exhibits, programs, and activities focusing on the historical human uses of the environmen- I/ V / V/ H tal resources within the R~rneaat Pay watershed.

8.15 Provide education and technical training to local gov-ernment officials & other coastal / / / / H1 H

decision makers in the Barnegat Bay watershed guide.

8.16 Revise and reprint the "Low-Maintenance Landscaping / VI / M Homeowners' Guide."

8.17 Educate professional landscapers, municipal grounds personnel, and facility managers on more M efficient and environmentally sensitive use of pesticides.

8.18 Promote the use of IPM methods. "' / _ M 8.19 Incorporate BBEP outreach and education displays and programs at the V/

Environmental Learning Center of Ocean County.

8.20 Experience Barnegat Bay, a project of YES.

Chapter 4 Action Items were refined following public comments STATUS: Note the programmatic status of the action received from several sources such as, an extensive (recommendation, commitment, or partial commit-series of public meetings throughout the Barnegat Bay ment). "Recommendation" indicates organizational Watershed, local government workshops and meetings, willingness and capability to carry out the prescribed postings on the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program action item, but funding has not yet been secured.

website, and 130,000 mailings of a 12-page newspaper "Commitment" indicates that funding is available to insert describing the BBNEP and priority issues of con- carry out the Action Item.

cern. Each of the Action Plan chapters cited above includes a table of quantifiable objectives as well as a WHO: Identify the agency, authority, citizens group, timeline chart for action item implementation. governmental body, trade association, corporate body, or private individual who is responsible or who has 4.5 ACTION ITEMS agreed to assume responsibility to complete or lead implementation of the action.

The individual Action Items that comprise the four actions plans were developed in an effort to achieve HOW: Give a description of the means and methods program goals and objectives. During the course of one used to accomplish the specific action.

year, four draft versions of the CCMP have been reviewed and revised in accordance with the recom- WHEN: Note a schedule of milestones, including start mendations of the Policy Committee, the Management and finish dates of subtasks where possible.

Committee, the Science and Technical Advisory Committee, and various agencies. These reviews and WHERE: Describe the location and boundary of where revisions were done prior to release to the public for the action is to take place.

review and comment. A summary of BBNEP's response to comments received is located in Appendix B. MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Give a qualita-tive or quantitative measurement to evaluate the effec-

.Each Action Plan contains an Action Item Summary tiveness of the Action Item. The effectiveness of Table listing the Action Items, their status, lead Action Items will also be assessed through the responsible agencies or organizations., tentative sched- Monitoring Program Plan (Chapter Nine). The linkages ule, and estimated cost. It is recognized that many between Action Items and the Monitoring Program Plan Action Items overlap priority issues and, therefore, wilt are indicated in Table 9-1.

provide multiple benefits. Where Action Items are cross cutting (e.g., are applicable to more than one COST ESTIMATE: State the total cost of the action, Action Plan), a notation is made in the "Other Action and include unit costs (per acre, per year) as appropri-Plan Supported" column of the Summary Tables. ate. The cost of some Action Items can only be deter-mined on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, in some The following template was used to present individual cases, specific unit costs cannot be determined.

Action Items.

FUNDING SOURCES: Sources of funding for action items are listed wherever they are currently commit-ted. For action items that are recommendations, often a funding source has not yet been determined. See the general discussion of financial strategy in Chapter 12 for a listing of funding sources that the Program expects to be available for the purposes of implemen-SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Explain how this action tation. Rather than presuppose an individual funding contributes to the overall objectives of the Barnegat source for a- recommended action, the Program prefers Bay watershed program. This should be no more than to leave that designation to the continuing negotiation a short paragraph. process among -the Program stakeholders.

MAY2002 57

INTRODUCTION TO ACTION PLANS REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: State if the proposed action requires new regulation, ordinance, or policy.

.- j4 4

'4K 58 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

Development in Ortley Beach and beyond, looking toward Point Pleasant,late 1990s. PHOTO BY STUDIO NINE, WAUTOWN, NJ MAY 2002 59

Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink.

-- The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, Samuel Taylor Coleridge

WATER QUALITY/WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN Chapter 5

5.1 INTRODUCTION

-STATE Over the last several years, the NJDEP has required the submittal of more comprehensive evaluations of the direct WATERSHED MANAGEMENT RULES and indirect environmental impacts of wastewater treat-ment systems in the course of reviewing WMPs, area-wide The completion of this CCMP coincides with the NJDEP WOM plans, and plan amendments under the rules. These watershed planning and management process. The cen- evaluations are necessary because development has effects terpiece of this process is the Water Quality and Watershed on water resources beyond those related directly to waste-Management Rules document, published for public com- water management.

ment in the New Jersey Register on July 3, 2000, after an extensive stakeholder input process, from March to October On January 11, 2000, Governor Whitman signed Executive 1999. Order No.109, which supports this direction and calls for the consideration of the applicability of alternative analy-The existing Water Quality Management Planning Rules, ses that address water supply issues, land use, environ-which are being proposed for repeal, were initially adopt- mental build-out, and pollutant loading during the ed in 1989. They established a process. for the NJDEP to NJDEI~s review of plans and plan amendments. Executive develop and approve Wastewater Management Plans Order No.109 applies to all new and pending applications (WMPs) as amendments to area-wide Water Quality for wastewater management plans and plan amendments Management (WQM) plans. These rules also established a that directly affect 100 or more acres of land or the dis-process for review and approval of project-specific amend- position of 20,000 gallons of wastewater or more per day ments to area-wide WQM plans. In implementing the until these rules are adopted.

process, the NJDEP works with the designated planning agencies, such as the Ocean County Planning Board The proposed new Water Quality and Watershed (OCPD), to develop the area-wide WQM plans and adopts,all Management rules represent a fundamental shift in water plan amendments on behalf of the Governor under the resource protection planning. Rather than focusing on Water Quality Planning Act. The rules provide a base level how to address point sources of wastewater by considering of detail on the examination of the potential impacts on various treatment scenarios, the new rules reflect a holis-natural resource capacity of the development which the tic approach to water resource protection. They require plans and plan amendments accommodate. The rules consideration of both point and nonpoint sources of emphasize instead the impact of sewer service area wastewater and pollutants generated from residential, changes on wastewater treatment needs, which are deter- agricultural, industrial, and commercial development and mined through the land use development patterns identi- activities. This evaluation includes alternative treatment fied in the municipal master plans. Nonetheless, the exist- technologies (including reuse), best management practices ing rules have had important environmental benefits, (BMPs), and land use alternatives to assess the direct and because: (1) they have helped ensure better conformance indirect environmental impacts of development and to between local zoning and utility plans; (2) provided help determine how and where development can occur updated and more realistic projections of sewer service with minimal adverse impact to the water resources of the areas and needs; and (3) identified potential conflicts State.

among regional sewer systems and between the regional systems and local wastewater facilities.

MAY2002 61

WATER QUALITY/ WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN The proposed new rules also reflect a change from a pri- to address water quality, water quantity and ecosys-marily point source "command and control" regulatory tem health issues and achieve the desired results for approach to a more cooperative, place-based planning a specific watershed management area. There are framework that considers alternative wastewater treat- similarities between the public processes in the merit and land use as key to sound management of water NJDEFs proposed planning efforts and the NEP resources. The proposed new rules are also intended to process, including public outreach through a reinvigorate regional planning based on "nature's bound- consensus process. This will facilitate the BBNEP's aries," with the objective of maintaining, enhancing, and ability to serve the role as a watershed management restoring water quality, water quantity, and ecosystem forum, primarily through action plan implementa-health. The proposed new rules set the framework for tion; determining the water resource capacities for a region through Watershed Management Area planning. These " Establish watershed management area plans as capacities are then used as the "limits" for more detailed dynamic and flexible planning tools. They will infrastructure and land use planning at the local level. consist of certain mandatory statewide elements but also incorporate components specific to each While the proposed new rules emphasize wastewater facil- watershed; ities planning, they also recognize the importance of assessing and managing by non-structural means stormwa-

  • Support the integration and coordination, of planning ter, water supply, and habitat preservation. Thus, the efforts across all planning levels (state, regional, rules encompass and promote both "green" and "gray" county, and municipal) and across NJDEP programs infrastructure planning. Specifically, the proposed new (wastewater, water supply, and land use);

rules:

Improve and expand the environmental assessments Emphasize that the primary objective of water quality and analyses which will be required as part of waste-and watershed management planning is, wherever water management planning. These include:

attainable, to restore, maintain, and enhance water pollutant loading analysis; environmental build-out quality, water quantity, and ecosystem health. These analysis; population, household, and employment objectives are comparable to the goals of the CCMP; projection analysis; land use projection analysis; alternatives analysis; coordination and integration Establish the process for integrating surface and with state, county, watershed and municipal plans, groundwater quality standards and assessments, anti- including the State Development and Redevelopment degradation, total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), and Plan; consumptive water use analysis; environmental water quality maintenance in watershed management and public health needs assessments; and wastewater planning. These features of watershed management and water supply projection analysis. The CCMP planning support the CCMP and its various action action plans call for some of these analyses to be plans; performed in order for appropriate water strategies to be accomplished; Emphasize Watershed Management Area planning as the primary vehicle for conducting regional water " Ensure that all new development outside of existing resources planning and for integrating water designated sewer service areas will be evaluated for resource protection measures and land use develop- its water resource impacts. This includes develop-ment scenarios in order to achieve water resource ments totaling six units or more that will use septic objectives; the CCMP is the first iteration of a water- systems and that have not already received municipal shed management area plan for the Barnegat Bay approval; watershed;

  • Enhance the wastewater plan amendment process by:
  • Articulate the roles and responsibilities of the various utilizing impervious cover as a screening tool to participants in the development of effective strategies promote infill development; requiring mandatory 62 BAPNEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

Chapter 5 The Shack, a landmark seen from LBI Causeway circa, 1950. PHOTO COURTESY OFTHEOCEANCOUNTYHISTORICAL SOCIETY.

pre-planning conferences for projects with the brates, drinking water, recreational use, and industrial and.

potential to result in direct, indirect, or cumula- commercial uses. Fresh water from the watershed is also tive impacts to clarify for the applicant the applica- needed as inflow to the estuary, to maintain the unique tion process and requirements; requiring statements ecosystem where fresh and salt water mix and create a of local plan consistency and local consents at the vital nursery for life along this section of the Atlantic time of application to ensure that there is local coast.

support for a project prior to the expenditure of substantial state resources and to enhance state/local Many activities that occur within the bay and its water-communication; and incorporating timeframes for the shed have a profound effect on these water resources. As processing of plan modifications to increase discussed in Chapter 2, some resulting priority water predictability for applicants and to support the resource problems include increased nutrient loading to NJDEP's goal of Open and Effective Government under the streams of the watershed and to the bay; withdrawal its Strategic Plan; and of water that disrupts the natural hydrologic cycle; increased pathogen loadings; and an ever-increasing pop-Incorporate aspects of the continuing planning ulation that requires fresh water for its subsistence.

process (CPP) required by the federal Clean Water Act However, to merely treat the priority problems as they (CWA), including area-wide water quality manage- become known would be similar to treating only the symp-ment plans, TMDLs, and procedures for revisions to toms of a larger problem. To effectively remediate the water quality management plans. Other aspects of impacts that are impairing water quality and quantity the CPP are implemented under other NJDEP throughout the watershed, it is necessary to develop a regulations and programs. strategy that effects change at the source of the impair-ment (e.g., stormwater runoff, point sources).

As the state adopts its new proposed rules, the BBNEP is strategically positioned to make productive use of the Because of the anticipated population growth in the existing relationship of its member agencies to implement, watershed area, an effective water quality and supply plan where appropriate, various aspects of watershed manage- must target both present and future conditions. As a ment and to accomplish the goals of the CCMP. The result, action items have been developed that specifically Barnegat Bay watershed will continue to directly benefit address future population needs, and components of many from the funding which the NJDEP is providing to Ocean action items have been designed to predict and manage County for watershed management efforts in the Barnegat impacts of the anticipated growth.

Bay watershed.

The scope of the various Action Items germane. to the The second chapter of the CCMP demonstrates the wealth quality and supply of water within the Barnegat Bay of water resources that are a part of the Bamegat Bay and watershed involve consideration of the quality of the its watershed. Both in terms of water quality and quanti- water in the bay, waters from tributaries running off into ty, the watershed provides needed fresh water, through the bay, and the supply and use of groundwater from streams, lakes, and groundwater, for the many freshwater which the majority of residents draw their drinking water aquatic uses, including fish and wildlife, aquatic inverte- (Table 5-1).

MAY2002 63

Im Development of TotaL Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for areas immediately. If TMD L CD cn listed on the 303(d) list of TMDLs are neces-impaired waterbodies. -C sary, it is expected that they will be completed by June 2006.

5.2 Complete a high-intensity H OCSCD, USFWS, The pilot area $375,000 See Chapter 12 Natural Resources Inventory USDA-NRCS and inventory could for the pilot area (NRI) to identify pollution Ocean County begin immediately sources from land use informa- municipalities and be complete tion and site conditions. -R within 2-3 years.

5.3 Retrofit retention or detention M NJDEP, Division Completed within 5 $3,000 to See Chapter 12 basins, and retrofit stormwater of Watershed years upon receipt $7,000 per basin basins to increase infiltration Management of funding. and $85,000 for and recharge of rainfall runoff, and OCSCD mapping

-R 5.4 Implement Phase II Municipal H NJDEP 12/99-03/2003 See Table 5.1 Public Eligible State Stormwater Rules in the Participation and Loan Programs Barnegat Bay Watershed. -C Education 5.5 Encourage native species M NRCS Implement within Enhanced Habitat and See Chapter 12 landscaping to minimize water two years of final program funding; Living Resources use and fertilizer and pesticide approval of the no estimate application. -R CCMP Status: Priority:

R = Recommendation H = High C = Commitment M= Medium PC = Partial Commitment L = Low

tz1 r,

J6* Develop a financial incentives M OCSCD As soon as funding A start-up grant Public See Chapter 12 mechanism, "Water Quality is available of approximately Participation and Rebate", for implementing Best $75,000 Education Human Management Practices on is necessary Activities and non-federal, non-agricultural Competing Uses lands. -R 5.7 Institute the Nonpoint M RCE Two years to futty $65,000 per year Habitat and N3DEP Funding Education for Municipal impiement in a Living Resources Officials (NEMO) program with- small sub-watershed in the Barnegat Bay watershed.

-PC 5.8 Promote existing technical and M NRCS and the Upon completion $4,000 per year, See Chapter 12 financial programs to imple- OCSCD ofthe Soil or $20,000 mini-ment soil management prac- Management mum tices on agricultural lands. -R Systems technical standard action item. Outreach to begin when funding becomes available.

5.9 Identify the extent of water H OCSCD and 5 years from date $66,000 Human Activities Eligible Federal quality problems emanating NRCS of NRI data and Competing and State from livestock farms and work Uses Funding. See with livestock producers to Chapter 12 reduce runoff from manure stockpiles. -R

. -- S Status: Priority:

R = Recommendation H = High C = Commitment M = Medium PC = Partial Commitment L = Low (D

Lii

~to 0

Z-9 C31 t.lU Develop a management strate- M Uli) ungomg nase program laitat ann Ocean County gy to reduce the congregation funding Living Resources Health Dept.

of Canada Geese populations in urban areas. - C 5.11 Sample and analyze water to M RCE 2002-2005 $25,000 - $49,750 Human Activities See Chapter 12 Iv W<

evaluate fertilizer and pesticide and Competing residues introduced into sur- Uses face water systems. - R -4 5.12 Continue publication of M RCE Immediately to Estimated to be Human Activities Rutgers "Pesticides for New Jersey" to coincide with the $1,000. and Competing Cooperative include site-specific recommen- annual update of Uses Extension dations for the use of pesti- Pesticides for New cides.on golf courses and pub- Jersey riclands. - PC 5.13 Promote Home*A*Systfor the M RCE Implement upon $7,000 for 1,500 Human Activities See Chapter 12 Barnegat Bay Watershed (RCE, availability of guidebooks and Competing 1998) through widespread dis- funds. Uses tribution. - R 5.14 Periodically examine technical M BBEP To begin immedi- $1,500/year BBEP Program and permit data on small point STAC ately after approval Funding source discharge permit holders of the CCMP in order to promote and main-tain an understanding of their relationship to the overall eco-logical health of the bay. - R Status: Priority:

R = Recommendation H = High C = Commitment M = Medium PC = Partial Commitment L = Low

r-.

r'eIuo(lcaLLy examinIIIe LecInIICaL and permit data on the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in order to promote and maintain an understanding of its relationship to the over-all ecological health of the bay. - R 5.16 Eliminate the discharge of boat H NJ Clean Vessel Planning for Cost to print and Public NJ Clean Vessel sewage into the bay by pro- Program pumpout facilities distribute the Participation and Program moting the use of sewage to begin immedi- Barnegat Bay Education pumpout facilities. - C ately. Fact sheets Boaters Fact Sheet Human Activities to be distributed $1,000. and Competing annually beginning Uses this Spring.

5.17 Acquire an additional sewage H NJ Clean Vessel To begin immediate- Cost of acquiring Clean Vessel Act pumpout boat for Barnegat Bay Program iy upon CCMP and equipping a Funding and its major tributaries. - C approval pumpout boat is

$35,000. Annual operation cost is

$22,000 5.18 Apply to the USEPA for federal H NJMSC Draft application $15,000 Habitat and BBEP and NJ designation of Barnegat Bay as completed. Living Resources Marine Sciences a No Discharge Zone. - C Human Activities Consortium and Competing Uses Status: Priority:

R = Recommendation H = High C = Commitment M= Medium PC = Partial Commitment L = Low (D

I-'

Ch 14

Ch t-4 00 bii U,

'-a 0

I.-.

~rLdill U~PULL:U DeveLop a "Clean Marinas" pro- Marine Trades upon ULM' Shuu initiaL costs Human Activities iNJutt ano LJ grai to assist marina owners Association of approval and $1500 per and Competing Marine Trades and managers to use their New Jersey year, thereafter Uses Assn.

facilities in a manner that employs BMPs to the maximum extent. - C 5.20 Establish a comprehensive H NJDEP, Division Completed four $500,000 for staff Human Activities Eligible Federal water supply plan for the of Watershed years after CCMP support over 4 and Competing and State Barnegat Bay watershed that Management approval years; additional Uses Funding. 1<*

will guide water supply devel- costs not yet See Chapter 12 opment, use, and reuse determined through the year 2040 and, to the maximum extent possible, maintain the natural hydrology of the watershed. - R 5.21 Develop a workplan and insti- H NJDEP, Division Complete within $125,000 for staff Human Activities See Chapter 12 tute controls for management of Watershed two years of CCMP support over 2 and Competing of water demand/water conser- Management implementation years plus Uses vation, - R undetermined additional project costs 5.22 Integrate existing shallow H NJDEP, Division Upon initiating, No additional Human Activities No Additional groundwater protection pro- of Watershed this action will be funds are needed and Competing Funding is grams. - R Management ongoing for this action. Uses Required 5.23 Establish a network of three L South Jersey Immediately upon $6500 per weath- Public See Chapter 12 weather stations in the water- RC&D funding er station to Participation and shed tied to the South Jersey establish; $250 Education Resource Conservation & per year to Development RISE network. - R operate Status: Priority:

R = Recommendation H = High C = Commitment M = Medium PC = Partial Commitment L = Low

to PL r+

~Actioni Action Item, Tentative ~ Approx. Other Actionl Funding

'Item No.; Titeand Statuis ~ Priority AedSchedule costj Plani Supported Source 5.24 Establish a demonstration proj- M OCUA Three years from Not yet Human Activities See Chapter 12 ect for wastewater reuse, which project initiation determined I and Competing will be discharged back to the Uses watershed, and which allevi-ates the need for potable water for irrigation of lawns, golf courses, or other public areas.

-R 5.25 Assist municipalities in their H BBEP Ongoing $500,000 Clean Water SRF involvement in the NJDEP i and Others Shellfish Waters and Bathing Beaches protection strategies for the Barnegat Bay water-shed. - C Status: Priority:

R = Recommendation H = High C = Commitment M = Medium PC = Partial Commitment L = Low r+

I'D P4

~0

WATER QUALITY / WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN

BBNEP WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY The detailed action items in this chapter are intended Action Plan Objectives: to achieve the objectives noted in the text box. Table 5-2 and Figure 5-1 show how the achievement of those Restoreandnmaintain a productive ecosystem with no adverse effectscdue to objectives wilt be measured by the specific parameter pollution; and monitoring program within the Barnegat Bay watershed and give the timetine for implementation of
  • :Ensure that edible seafood is safe for

>unrestricted human consumption; the action items in this chapter. The monitoring pro-grams listed are those that are currently administered

  • 'Minimiize h1ealth risks ~tocontact wa~ter uses; by the referenced agencies. The BBNEP will help coor-

<EstimTate adverse impacts of eutrophication, dinate these programs in order that they may serve the incldujing Iypoxia;, resulting from hiuhman purpose of measuring the success of the CCMP imple-activities; mentation.

PProvide a sustainable water supply to the hunman population without adversely, ,.,

impacting natural water regimes.

TABLE 5-2. Indicators and Monitoring Programs for Measuring Progress toward Objectives.

Restore and maintain a The measure of success in this objective The loadings of phosphorus and productive ecosystem with wilt be no net increase in phosphorus and nitrogen to the Bay wilt be no adverse effects due to nitrogen (P-N) loadings to the Bay over the monitored by, or estimated pollution. implementation of the management plan. from, data collected in the fol-P-N are good indicators of human impact to Lowing programs:

the system, and they are readily measured

  • Surface Water Quality Data in most areas by existing monitoring pro-grams. Currently, we have an estimated -The NJDEP/USGS coopera-tive Ambient Surface Water loading of P-N from streams, the atmos-phere direct to the Bay surface, and from Monitoring Network and the ground water direct to the Bay. This load- Toms River Nonpoint Source ing estimate was primarily generated from Study.

actual monitoring data, although addition-

  • Ground Water Quality Data al data are needed in some areas. The pro- -The NJDEP/USGS coopera-gram wilt periodically compare these esti- tive Ground Water mates against new estimates to see if the Monitoring Network.

management actions are effective in reduc-

- Atmospheric Deposition ing current loads while the projected popu-Monitoring Data-The lation increase occurs. Our objective is to National Atmospheric hold the loadings at no net increase while Deposition Program.

continuing research occurs on the role of nutrients in the Bay.

  • New Jersey DEP TMDL Monitoring Program Ensure that edible seafood The measure of success in this objective Monitoring wilt continue is safe for unrestricted will be the status and trends in the acreage through the existing National human consumption. of shellfish beds open for unrestricted Shellfish Sanitation Program shellfish harvest. The program goal is to operated by the Bureau of reduce microbial loadings from all sources Marine Water Monitoring, to the Bay to the point that all shellfish NJDEP.

beds can be opened for unrestricted shell-fish harvest.

70 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

Chapter 5 TABLE 5-2. (continued)

,Water Quality and" OQuantity Objectives o h Br gat Bay National, 'EnvironnmentalIndicators I Monitoring Pr64r,111sýf~r Estar Program of th'e BBEPf ,,Indicat'rs~

Minimize health risks to For Primary Contact Recreation at Bay The programs that monitor for contact water uses. Beaches, the measure of success of this these indicators are as follows:

objective will be if Less than 10 percent of 100 beach days are closed per'year. For Primary Contact Recreation Recreation Uses of Estuarine Waters, the at Bay Beaches measure of success of this objective will be -The Cooperative Coastal if the NJ Surface Water Quality Standard Monitoring Program Ocean for SE Waters for secondary contact uses is and Bay Beach Closure data fully supported. This measure is supported collected by the Ocean if the fecal coliform geometric average was County Health Department less than 200 MPN/10OmL and less than 10 and cooperating health percent of the individual samples exceeded agencies and coordinated by 400 MPN/100ml. the NJDEP.

Recreation Use of Estuarine Waters-The marine and coastal water quality FC data collected by the Bureau of Marine Water Monitoring, NJDEP.

Estimate adverse impacts The measure of success in this objective This indicator will be moni-of eutrophication, includ- will be to complete research adequate to tored by the BBEP ing hypoxia resulting understand the role of nutrients and other Management Committee and from human activities, contaminants that contribute to eutrophi- the Scientific and Technical cation and hypoxia and the effects of these Advisory Committee to deter-conditions on living resources of the Bay. mine when the indicator has Once the program has achieved conclusive been achieved.

results on the role of human activities affecting eutrophication and its impact, this objective will be met. If it is deter-mined that there is an adverse impact from eutrophication, new objectives to mitigate the impacts will have to be developed.

Provide a sustainable The measure of success in this objective Water demand will be moni-water supply to the will be to achieve the following measures tored by programs of the human population with- with associated indicators: NJDEP's Water Allocation and out adversely impacting Safe Drinking Water Bureau.

natural water regimes. 1. Meet 2040 water demand as measured by the Water Allocation and Safe Streamflow will be monitored Drinking Water Program. by the U.S. Geological Survey's

2. Maintain adequate streamfiow to meet streamflow monitoring net-aquatic biota needs as measured by work.

stream gauging stations in the water-shed with streamflow meeting the Saltwater intrusion will be requirements identified as a result of monitored by the U.S.

Action 5.20. Geological Survey's New Jersey

3. No evidence of increase in saltwater Coastal Plain Synoptic and intrusion as measured by the Coastal Chloride Network.

Plain Synoptic and Chloride Monitoring Network operated by the U.S. Geological Survey and NJDEP.

MAY 2002 71

NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROLS Develop TMDLs (5.1)

Conduct Natural Resources Inventory (5.2) L, Z [I Retrofit Stormwater Basins (5.3)

Implement Phase II Stormwater Rules (5.4) m - ___

Encourage Native Species Landscaping (5.5)

Develop "Water Quality Rebate" Program (5.6) ,-..

Institute NEMO Program (5.7)

Promote Soil Management Programs (5.8)

_____.44 44 Identify and Manage WQ Problems of Livestock Farms (5.9) ________ v'v~v44 ________ _______ <4444,4.4.4 Develop Strategy for Canada Geese Control (5.10)

- - _____ E_____ tD Evaluate Fertilizer and Pesticide Residues (5.11) ____~44_____

Continue Publication of "Pesticides for New Jersey" (5.12)

IN Promote Home "A" Syst (5.13)

Assist Municipalities in Shellfish and Bathing Beach Protection (5.25) - - 'I - - - I- I- I- -

POINT SOURCE CONTROLS Examine Technical and Permit Data on Point Sources (5.14) .4<..44<4444,4.4.4444'.. 44.944444~.4< vwwvvv4. '.4v.4*w.4v'

.4,4.4w', 3: _______ 44.4' -444.4.44wvv 44' Examine Data on Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (5.15)

BOATING CONTROLS AND MARINAS MANAGEMENT 0 Eliminate Discharge of Boat Sewage (5.16) Zj  ::,Z Acquire Additional Pumpout Boat (5.17)

Apply for NO DISCHARGE ZONE Designation (5.18)

Z, Develop "Clean Marinas" Program (5.19)

MANAGEMENT OF EXISTING AND FUTURE WATER SUPPLY Establish Comprehensive Water Supply Plan (5.20)

Develop Workplan for Water Demand/Conservation (5.21)

Integrate Existing Shallow Groundwater Protection Programs (5.22) - -- F- - - -- - -

Establish Three Additional RISE Network Weather Stations (5.23)

Establish Wastewater Reuse Demonstration Project (5.24) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 YEAR OF CCMP IMPLEMENTATION PRE-EXISTING COMMITMENT 4 J HIGH PRIORITY vMEDIUM PRIORITY L LOW PRIORITY

Chapter 5 5.2 WATER QUALITY/WATER SUPPLY MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: FoUow-up monitor-ing by NJDEP for the pollutant(s) of concern will be per-ACTION ITEMS formed to determine effectiveness of TMDLs should they be necessary.

COST ESTIMATE: $300,000 per TMDL.

FUNDING SOURCES: NJDEP will schedule funding as appropriate within its schedule for implementing plans for the state's Watershed Management Areas.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Implementation of the TMDL REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY is intended to bring the impaired water bodies into com-CHANGES: Not yet determined.

pliance with the Federal Surface Water Quality Standards.

At this time the baseline information available is not strong enough to support actual implementation of TMDLs in the Barnegat Bay watershed. Therefore, this action is a commitment to assess the potential need for TMDL devel-opment.

STATUS AND PRIORITY: Commitment, High Priority.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The successful completion of WHO: TMDL development and monitoring will be per-a NRI will provide comprehensive baseline information formed by NJDEP (Lead) with input from all stakeholders.

that will assist in achieving many of the water quality and supply action plan objectives; data from the inventory will HOW: The streams identified in Chapter 2 as potentially support strategies to address nonpoint and point source impaired waterways (Table 2-5) are located within the Pine pollution and water supply, and will provide information Barrens and are naturally acidic with a high dissolved min-necessary to allocate resources and target critical areas for eral content. These waters support a highly adapted fauna implementation.

and flora that are unique to the Pine Barrens, of which many species are listed as rare and endangered; yet, Specifically, the data will be used to:

because water quality readings of these waters may fall

  • Establish TMDLs at the sub-watershed level; outside the acceptable limits of a typical freshwater sys-tem, they may be mistakenly labeled as "impaired." Establish flow requirements for streams and Therefore, the stream data need to be re-examined and into the estuary; compared to other typical Pine Barren streams to deter-mine impairment. If it is determined that these water Compare existing conditions to future build-out bodies are, in fact, impaired, the state can begin the scenarios; process of TMDL development.
  • Determine sources of stream impairments; WHEN: Monitoring and data evaluations are to begin
  • Identify specific BMPs for implementation; immediately. If TMDLs are necessary it is expected that
  • Support water conservation, reuse, and recharge they will be completed by June 30, 2006. projects; WHERE: Impaired, or potentially impaired, water bodies
  • Assist in the development of alternative occur throughout the watershed but are concentrated in landscape designs; the Metedeconk and Toms River subwatersheds in the
  • Develop soil health restoration activities; northern half of Ocean County.

MAY2002 73

WATER QUALITY / WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN

  • Implement Section 402 of CWA (Phase H of Storm WHEN: It is estimated that an NRI of the Toms River sub-Water Rules) for small MS4s: <100,000 people and watersheds (beginning with Long Swamp Creek) would

>1000 people per square mile, including federally begin when funding is available and take two to three owned installations; and years to complete with the addition of one full-time Ocean County staffer. More areas and/or faster turn-around can

" Target actions and fiscal resources to critical areas.

be accomplished with additional funding/staff.

STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, High Priority.

WHERE: The Toms River sub-watershed will be the pilot watershed for the project. The Metedeconk sub-watershed WHO: OCSCD, U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural wilt follow when funds become available.

Resources Conservation Services (NPCS) and Ocean County municipalities (Lead). Other partners, including Ocean County MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: The results will be Planning and Health Department (OCPHD), NJDEP, and USGS used to: (1) help determine the priority of actions; (2) would be consulted to ensure the data could be used for pur-measure the effectiveness of actions taken; (3) help to poses intended under the various other action items.

begin the TMDL development process; and (4) help with water supply planning efforts. The number of agencies HOW: The nationally recognized NRCS NRI method will deter-partnering in the inventory, and the number of projects or mine the location of specific NPS-impacted sub-watersheds actions that use the NRI data, would be tracked and repli-and/or number of primary sampling units (PSUs) needed for cated in other watersheds, including the Metedeconk sub-statistically significant resource infonnation.

watershed.

The selected/random PSUs within sub-watershed(s) will COST ESTIMATE: For an inventory of this scope, it is esti-coincide with the proposed USGS enhanced stream-gaug-mated to cost $2,500 per PSU. The total number of PSUs ing network; to accurately reflect the major land use/land required will depend on the area selected, the detail cover types (agriculture, forest, urban, suburban, barren demanded by other action items, and the level of statisti-land, shore land). On-site data collections will be specific cal accuracy desired. Based on current information, it is to the land use type. All data points will be located with estimated that $375,000 will be required for the pilot area.

GPS and all data entered into the GIS system.

FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments. See poten-DATA TO COLLECT tial funding sources in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.

Urban/suburban:Lot size, percent open space, open REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY space cover, degree of soil profile disturbance, soil bulk CHANGES: None.

density, water source, sewerage system, point source dis-charges, lawn maintenance (owner or contractor), erosion rate, irrigation type and water source, stream length, water body size, nature/extent of riparian forest.

Agricultural/forest: Crop, irrigation used, irrigation Seining at BayFest-type, water source, type of animal, animal density, animal in Berkeley Island waste handling, land slope, soil type, soil bulk density, County Park conservation treatments, erosion rate, woodland harvest-ing, stream length, water body size and nature/extent of riparian forest.

Barren land/shore land: Erosion rate, soil type, soil bulk density, pH, land cover, point source discharges, land shape, water fetch, land slope, orientation, on- and off-shore traffic.

74 BARNEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

Chapter 5 adding BMPs (such as settling chambers or sand filters)

ACTION 5.3 into the stormwater collection system to reduce the load-ing on the basin, reducing the amount of impervious area Retrofit ireteti.noor date contributing runoff to the system, or any combination ft stormwater basiris to increase- infilt:-ation and~

ri~echarge ,offranfatt runoff.* i*. thereof. Some specific recommendations for significantly enhancing the BMP objectives include:

" Modifying the outfall to create a two-stage release SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: As a watershed is developed, to better contain smaller storm discharges while not the hydrology, hydraulics and pollutant loadings all compromising the structure for controlling larger change in ways that may not have been accounted for storm outflow; when the existing retention/detention basins were designed and constructed. Retention/detention basins are " Incorporate a settling chamber in the stormwater primarily designed to hold excess stormwater runoff gen- system prior to discharging intothe basin; erated by a specific development and to release it at a rate

" Eliminating or altering concrete low-flow channels that will not adversely affect the receiving water body by and replacing with meandering stone-lined swales to causing flooding or severe erosion. Existing retention/

promote infiltration and/or filtering; detention basins in developments can be retrofitted to reduce the adverse hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quali-

  • Eliminating low-flow bypasses; ty effects that the developments cause. Increasingly over
  • Eliminating or altering concrete low-flow channels; the last decade, some basins are also being used to provide a measure of water quality treatment either by settlement " Incorporating low berms to lengthen the flow path of suspended solids and/or by using plants to take-up pol- and eliminate short-circuiting; lutants settled out or in solution. " Incorporating forebays and micropools at the inlet and outlet, respectively; Keeping the water cycle in balance is a major concern for the watershed program and making provision for the full " Regrading the basin bottom to create a wetland area groundwater recharge of the one-year storm would help near the outlet or re-vegetating parts of the basin address the bulk of stormwater runoff and provide ade- bottom with wetland vegetation to enhance quate water cycle balance. There are over 1,000 stormwa- pollutant removal, reduce mowing, and improve ter facilities within existing developments where preven- aesthetics; tive strategies are obviated. Restoring some level of infil-tration and storage in these facilities can effectively " Creating a wetland shelf along the periphery of a reduce impacts from the development and come closer to wet basin to improve shoreline stabilization, predevelopment hydrologic conditions for the site. enhance pollutant filtering, and enhance Retrofitting existing basins will implement measures to aesthetics; and reduce stormwater runoff volume and peak flow rate main-taining base flows and decreasing the severity of high flow " Installing a "floating riser" that will take flow from events in streams. the top of the temporary pool through a filter, allowing higher sediment trap efficiency.in the basin.

STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Medium Through completion of the GIS stormwater facility Priority.

database and the NRI recommended in Action Item 5.2, the OCPB, OCED, NRCS, USGS and the OCSCD target WHO: NJDEP, Division of Watershed Management and.

basins for potential retrofitting. Basins will be selected OCSCD (Leads), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), OCPD, and for retrofitting based on their ability to enhance Ocean County Engineering. District (OCED). groundwater recharge and improve water quality. The.

District and NRCS will supervise the installation of HOW: Stormwater basins can be retrofitted to improve retrofits to: construct forebays; remove low flow chan-water quality by: improving the settling capacity of the nels; modify outlet structures including installation of basin, adding vegetation to improve pollutant uptake, floating risers; reduce soil compaction to encourage MAY 2002 75

WATER QUALITY / WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN groundwater recharge; planting of herbaceous and Monitoring by USGS, and others, as part of the BBNEP's woody plants to filter and absorb nutrients and related environmental monitoring plan should measure changes practices. Such retrofits will help to protect water quality in base flow, reduced suspended solids and nutrients in and to encourage infiltration to reduce runoff volume. receiving streams. The BBNEP and participating agencies Portions of older dry basins can be converted into wet will work to secure the necessary funding.

pond marsh systems to minimize nonpoint sources and to help filter the water prior to recharge runoff into ground-COST ESTIMATE: Based upon data provided by NRI the water.

tosts per basin are estimated to be between $3,000 and

$7,000 per basin. The total number of basins to be retro-WHEN: Upon availability of funds, storm drain mapping fitted would be determined by the technical watershed can be completed within one year, and retrofitting can be committee. The mapping portion is estimated to cost completed within a total of five years.

$85,000. Approximately 50 basins will be identified using the 303(d) list as a priority.

WHERE: Priority sites include the Toms River and Metedeconk sub-watersheds. Beyond the five-year time FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments. See discus-frame, it is expected that this action will be implemented sion of potential funding sources in Chapter 12.

throughout the watershed.

REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Each retrofitted CHANGES: Residential maintenance of stormwater man-detention basin will be evaluated based on the specific agement structures is a problem because homeowner objective for the action. If a basin is retrofitted to associations often do not have the necessary resources enhance flood control, effectiveness will be measured by for the work. Should the responsibility fall to the pub-the change in flow rate from the basin. If the retrofit sup-lic to ensure maintenance, a dedicated funding source ports enhanced water quality, monitoring will be conduct-must be identified.

ed by measuring the pollutants of concern in the basin influent and effluent.

Existing stormwater basins are designed to control peak runoff rates and not mimic pre-development watershed hydrology. Improper design of some existing basins may lead to elevation in water temperatures and may acceler-ate downstream erosion. The cumulative impacts that these site-specific stormwater basins have on the water- SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Implementation of the Phase shed's hydrology and water quality is a concern because II Rules will reduce the NPS pollution contribution to the many of these basins were installed only to reduce the bay and its watershed, thereby protecting public health impacts of site-specific development. To effectively assess and the natural resources of Ocean County.

whether a specific basin is a candidate for retrofitting, the following must be considered. STATUS AND PRIORITY: Commitment, High Priority.

Will the retrofit or selected BMP: WHO: NJDEP Bureau of Nonpoint Source Control (Lead) is the permitting authority by delegation from USEPA.

" Reduce nonpoint source pollution; The regulated municipalities, alone or working together

" Encourage groundwater recharge; with other stakeholders, are responsible for implementing the six minimum control measures of the Phase II Rules.

  • Assist in maintaining base flows; or These Rules will be satisfied through the state's own
  • Reduce the severity of potential flooding and down- Stormwater Management Rules, which call for implement-stream erosion? ing BMPs related to Statewide Basic Requirements in a Stormwater Management Plan and a Stormwater Control Ordinance. In addition, optional measures such as wildlife 76 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

Chapter 5 management may be implemented if the municipality so 1,000/square mile." According to existing Census data chooses. Further measures may be required when a TMDL and NJDEPs designation of all municipalities regulated has been specified or when a Watershed Area Management under the SIIA, all municipalities in the Barnegat Bay Plan or a Regional Stormwater Management Plan has been watershed will be required to obtain general permit autho-adopted for the watershed. BBNEP will assist with public rization.

outreach and education.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: The effectiveness of HOW: Permitted municipalities will be required to imple- this action will be measured by the number of municipal-ment the six minimum control measures, as embodied in ities achieving compliance.

the statewide basic requirement for:

" Local public education and outreach; COST ESTIMATE: See Table 5-3.

  • Public involvement/participation; FUNDING SOURCES: Some projects such as construction
  • Improper disposal of waste; of new stormwater basins, construction of new storm sew-ers, replacement of existing storm sewers, purchase of

" Floatables and solids control; storm sewer maintenance equipment and controls to pre-

" Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for vent runoff from salt storage facilities are eligible for loans municipal operations; and through NJDEP. The BBNEP will provide the resources nec-essary for public outreach activities.

" Post-construction stormwater management in new development and redevelopment to be addressed through REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY the required Stormwater Management Plan and a CHANGES: Municipalities may need to adopt ordinances Stormwater Control Ordinance. (Construction site in order to implement some of the statewide basic require-stormwater runoff control will continue to be implement- ments.

ed through Chapter 251 Plan certification by the Ocean County Soil Conservation District.)

ACTION 5.5~

WHEN: The following schedule is anticipated for the vEnoiae IInative speciesilandscaping t i-*ominize finalization of the rules:

December 8, 1999 -- USEPA rules become final; October 27, 2000 -- USEPA issues menu of BMPs SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Among the secondary for regulated municipalities; impacts of development is the creation of artificial vegeta-December 8, 2002 -- NJ modifies NJPDES rules; tive landscapes consisting of alien plant species that require specific applications of fertilizer, pesticides, and December 8, 2002 -- NJDEP issues general permit(s); water. Such maintenance procedures result in increased March 10, 2003 -- Regulated municipalities pollutant loads in runoff destined for the local tributaries.

submit permit application. Artificial landscapes can also attract nuisance wildlife. For example, Canada Geese are attracted to open landscapes of Program fully implemented. close-cropped lawns. Developments that entail large open spaces requiring landscaping, such as corporate parks or WHERE: All municipalities which operate separate munic- campus-like settings, can be designed using native species ipal storm sewers and meet the USEPA definition of an that require less maintenance and that recreate a sem-urbanized area as determined by the 2000 Census, and blance of natural habitat. This would have the salutary those municipalities designated by N3DEP, will be required effect of providing habitat more conducive to local native to obtain a permit. USEPA defines an urbanized area as "a wildlife, discourage introduced or nuisance species, reduce central place (or places) and the adjacent densely settled long-term maintenance costs, and reduce the load of NPS surrounding area that together have a minimum popula- pollution to the bay and watershed.

tion of 50,000 and a minimum average density of MAY2002 77

WATER QUALITY / WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN TABLE 5-3. Percentage of Municipalities Affected and Range of Per Capita Costs for Six Minimum Measures.

Percentof& ' igh-End Range

~~/*Pcr (apita>

First Permit Cycle:

Public Education 39 $0.02 $0.34 Public Involvement 100 $0.19 $0.20 Illicit Discharge D&E 90 $0.04 $2.61 Const. Site SW Runoff Control 83 $0.04 $1.59 Post Construction SW Mgt. 4 $1.09 $1.09 PP/GH of Municipal Ops. 71 $0.01 $2.00 2nd and 3rd Pernit Cycles:

Public Education 39 $0.01 $0.34 Public Involvement 100 $0.12 $0.12 Illicit Discharge D&E T 73 $0.04 $2.17 Const. Site SW Runoff Control 80 $0.01 $0.83 Post Construction SW Mgt. 4 $1.09 $1.09 PP/GH of Municipal Ops. T 67 $0.01 $1.08 STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Medium MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Effectiveness will Priority be gauged by the number of developments that choose to employ less-intensive landscaping within their design.

WHO: NRCS (Lead), OCSCD, to provide technical informa- Over the long term, the measure of success can include tion and guidance for large-scale developments within the large lawn areas that are converted to a lower mainte-watershed. nance form of landscaping.

HOW: The agencies will utilize their authorized programs COST ESTIMATE: Enhanced funding for public education to provide technical materials, guidance, and assistance to and outreach programs for the agencies is necessary; no the regulated community. estimate is currently available..

WHEN: This action is targeted to be implemented by FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments. See poten-2004. tial funding sources in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.

WHERE: This action will target areas in the watershed REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY undergoing active development, particularly areas that are CHANGES: None.

environmentally sensitive, such as riparian zones, flood-plains, and rare species habitats.

78 BARNEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

Chapter 5 WHEN: Implement by target date of 2004.

WHERE: This action is linked to Action 7.7 and will focus on the municipalities in the Metedeconk and Toms River sub-watersheds.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Initially, effective-ness will be measured by the participation rate (percent of SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Current U.S. Department of eligible households) in the program. Once the administra-Agriculture (USDA) cost share programs are available only tion of the program is turned over to a local utility, the to agricultural landowners. However, in the Bamegat Bay utility could track cost/benefit in water usage and/or watershed, the majority of land is owned and managed by water quality at strategically selected monitoring sites fol-residential and commercial owners, who collectively have lowing storm surges.

a tremendous impact on groundwater recharge, bayshore and riverfront areas, NPS pollution, and runoff volume. It COST ESTIMATE: A start-up grant of approximately is well established that financial incentives are powerful $75,000 would be needed to initiate the program and pro-tools for changing behavior. A "water quality rebate" pro- vide the early rebates. This estimate does not include the gram could be established to provide that incentive to costs to implement the HSHW program. It is anticipated homeowners and commercial property managers and that the program will become self-sustaining through cost would also offer tremendous public relations potential to reductions over the long term.

educate the public on the watershed project goals.

FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments. See poten-STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Medium tial funding sources in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.

Priority.

REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY WHO: OCSCD (Lead) will administer the pilot program ini- CHANGES: None.

tially. However, it would be more appropriate for a public utility to administer the program. 0CSCD would provide training to the public utility.

HOW: A list of recommended BMPs will be developed based on data from the NRI (Action Item 5.2) and avail-able technical references. The OCSCD will make site visits to develop specific BMP plans for each owner, and follow up with visits to ensure the BMPs have been implemented SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: NEMO is a public service pro-prior to paying the "rebate." gram to teach local officials about imperviousness/water quality through local mapping and modeling. Education Grant money will be needed to fund the start-up of the of these officials supports the water quality goals estab-program. Rebates would be available only to individual cit- lished in this CCMP.

izens, public or private entities such as municipalities or golf courses who have completed the Healthy Soil/Healthy The dramatic increase in impervious surface cover within Watershed (HSHW) program (see related Action Item 7.7) the Barnegat Bay watershed during the past half-century and who choose to implement BMPs on areas they manage. has significantly contributed to water quality degradation.

Emphasizing the link between water quality and land use, Ultimately, it is hoped that utility authorities and other NEMO is a program that teaches local officials about the entities that benefit from the BMPs through reduced costs rote of impervious surfaces in the transport and concen-will fund the program. tration of pollutants. Focusing on local decision makers as MAY 2002 79

WATER QUALITY / WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN the key to this link, NEMO brings advanced tools and tech- REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY nology to elected officials, planning board members, and CHANGES: No changes are required to implement NEMO.

town planners. NEMO's use of GIS modeling enables towns However, recommended outcome/solutions may include to compare, combine, and analyze multiple layers of infor- changes to regulations, ordinances, and policies.

mation at once, using computer technology, natural resource and municipal databases, and satellite images.

The technology can also be used to model the water resources impacts of projected future levels of develop-ment, based on zoning build-out analyses, and to allow local officials to plan accordingly.

STATUS AND PRIORITY: Partial Commitment, Medium Priority.

WHO: Rutgers Cooperative Extension Services of Ocean County (RCE) (Lead) and existing NEMO staff.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Modern farming practices HOW: The NEMO program uses several delivery methods contribute to loss of organic matter and structure in soil, including a slide presentation that includes local pho- and contribute to increased compaction below and within tographs, educational materials, images from GIS, and a the plow layer. Compacted soils produce more runoff and video on NPS pollution entitled "Luck Isn't Enough." less infiltration, and are more easily eroded. These factors NEMO also uses the World Wide Web as an information and reduce stream base flow and affect ecological health.

educational tool. Employing all these tools, NEMO spells Although agriculture is a minor land use within the water-out the problem, shows the cumulative effects, and shed, it can be managed to increase the surface area avail-demonstrates potential solutions and results. Data from able to infiltration, helping to recharge aquifers as well as the NRI (Action Item 5.2) on current local land uses and reducing sedimentation and nutrient runoff.

potential nonpoint pollution sources would be used.

STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Medium WHEN: Once initiated, it is estimated the various NEMO Priority.

tasks will take approximately two years to fully implement in a small sub-watershed (consisting of a maximum of four WHO: NRCS and the OCSCD (Leads) wilt be responsible for municipalities). The target date to begin is 2002. this action with assistance provided by the New Jersey Forestry Service. The Ocean County Agricultural WHERE: The goal is to implement the NEMO program in Development Board (OCADB) will also provide assistance as every municipality in the Bamegat Bay Watershed. necessary.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Effectiveness will HOW: Informational mailings on soil compaction and be measured by the number of municipalities participating nutrient runoff will be sent to farmland-assessed proper-in NEMO. ties. The Forestry Service will assist by providing mailing lists of properties assessed as farmlands in Barnegat Bay COST ESTIMATE: Project expenses would include salaries counties and by providing staff time and postage for dis-with fringe benefits, travel, equipment, supplies, and tribution of the mailings should funding be available. If administrative costs estimated at $65,000 per year.

justified by the NM data, priority area funding under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program or a Land FUNDING SOURCES: The NJDEP is currently funding Treatment Watershed project for the implementation of Rutgers (Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences (IMCS))

on-farm conservation practices wilt be pursued. Practice to conduct a build-out analysis of the Barnegat Bay water-selection wilt be based on the Soil Management Systems shed. No other funding sources* have been identified at technical standard.

this time.

80 BARNEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

Chapter 5 Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) was FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments. See dis-established through the 1996 Farm Bill to offer volun- cussion of potential funding sources in Chapter 12, tary conservation assistance to farmers. Nationally, it Section 12.8.1.

provides educational, financial and technical assis-tance to farmers targeted to livestock-related resource REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY problems and to general conservation assistance. The CHANGES: None.

Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) has the leadership role in EQIP and works in conjunction with the USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA) to establish pro-grams and priorities. NRCS establishes local work groups made up of Districts, NRCS, FSA, Cooperative Extension, DEP and others interested in natural resource conservation. EQIP works to establish priori-ty areas for critical farm conservation needs. Contracts are provided to farmers to provide incentive payments and compensation for conservation practices. Cost sharing can pay up to, 75 percent of costs for some SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The Federal Clean Water practices. Practices can include grassed waterways, Action Plan identifies national environmental concerns, manure management, etc. Incentive payments can also such as the toxic microbe, Pfiesteria, that are linked to be developed to encourage a farmer to install certain animal feeding operations. The USEPA and the U.S.

management practices such as soil management, nutri- Department of Agriculture (USDA) have targeted larger ent management, Integrated Pest Management, and Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs), known as Concentrated irrigation. Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), for stricter regulatory control. Under this regulatory requirement the EPA has WHEN: Implement following the completion of the requested that the NJDEP (and most other states) prepare Soil Management Systems technical standard. Outreach a statewide strategy that outlines how AFOs and CAFOs began in 2002. Priority area funding or additional will be managed and/or regulated. The NJDEP work could not begin until 2004. Commissioner signed the Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations Management in December 2000 and submitted WHERE: Watershed-wide, coinciding with areas iden- it to the EPA for use in the Federal Unified National tified by the NRI. Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations. This strategy is consistent with NJDEP's Strategic Planning Goal of Clean MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Effectiveness and Plentiful Water, as well as the point and nonpoint pol-will be measured against goal of 20 percent of the total lution elimination objectives of both the state's Strategic number of farms identified in the watershed with soil Plan and the Performance Partnership Agreement with management plans being implemented over a five-year USEPA Region 2..

period.

Preliminary inspections by the NJDEPs Water Compliance COST ESTIMATE: Costs include preparing and mailing and Enforcement (WCE) Office have confirmed that, in appropriate information at regular intervals over a some cases, significant pollution is entering surface and period of five years. The total number of contacts will ground waters, as a result of poor animal management be determined by the results of the NRI coupled with practices in the state. The first step in the process will be farmland assessment records. A rough estimate is to identify CAFOs through watershed inspections and

$4,000 per year, or $20,000 minimum. other means, and then to permit those facilities.

MAY2002 81

WATER QUALITY / WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Low Priority. tices. AFOs that have a reasonable potential to impact sur-face and groundwater quality will be the highest priority WHO: The NJDEP Division of Water Quality, Bureau of for the development and implementation of conservation, Nonpoint Pollution Control, Compliance and Enforcement nutrient, and animal waste management plans and prac-Element, Division of Watershed Management and the NJ tices. The NJ Department of Agriculture will develop a Department of Agriculture will work together to achieve progress reporting system that will establish the number state and federal water quality goals. related to animal of facilities that are implementing the necessary manage-feeding operations. The NJDEP will implement regulatory ment practices.

activities for CAFOs and assist the NJ Department of Agriculture to implement voluntary management mea- Storage structures on farms and other BMPs recommended sures for other AFOs. can be costly to install and maintain. The NJDEP will work with the NJDA and NRCS to identify and procure funding HOW: The NJ Department of Agriculture will identify to assist the agricultural community in implementing both AFOs not classified as CAFOs. NJDEP will follow a multi- CAFO and AFO management practices.

faceted approach in identifying and inspecting CAFOs:

WHEN: Inventory is targeted for completion by the

1) Utilize information provided by the NJ Department end of 2003. It is estimated that five years will be of Agriculture and other agencies, existing statistical needed to contact landowners and involve them in cur-data and land use inventory databases to identify rent voluntary programs.

potential sites. The NJ Forest Service has agreed to iirovide information (NRI data) to assist in this WHERE: Specific sites in the Metedeconk and Toms River effort. NRI data will be used as the base for locating sub-watersheds will be targeted initially and will be deter-the livestock operations in the Metedeconk and Toms mined from NRI data.

River sub-watersheds and will provide necessary information to map these locations; MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Effectiveness will be measured by the percentage of livestock farms that

2) When specific discharges or improper animal waste-have implemented BMPs to protect water quality in the water management practices are identified by either targeted watershed. The targeted goal is 100 percent third-party complaints or local governments, NJDEP participation.

will actively investigate those sites; and COST ESTIMATE: Planning/implementation costs are esti-

3) NJDEP, as a function of its watershed management mated at $50,000 for Year One of this action (2003),

process, will conduct stream surveys and and $4,000 per year for Years Two through Five of post-investigations to identify potential discharges of CCMP implementation. The high cost estimate in Year wastes. Where such discharges are identified, NJDEP One is attributable to costs necessary to fund on-site will actively investigate those sites.

visits, which may involve staff overtime for working nIon-office hours, as many farmers work full- or part-The NJDEP will assist the NJ Department of Agriculture in time off-farm. Cost estimates include preparing and outreach activities aimed at informing all AFOs of the mailing appropriate information at regular intervals applicable program requirements. These two agencies will over the course of the project period.

provide educational information to and through agricul-tural publications, advisory groups, and organizations.

Costs to implement onsite BMPs (e.g., storage struc-Current animal waste disposal methods will be determined tures, etc.) or other solutions cannot be estimated at through site visits. Upon completion of an inventory, tar-this time. The percentage of cost sharing that can be get areas will be prioritized according to relative impact to provided to individual farmers through existing pro-the watershed. Alternative management practices will be grams will depend on individual farmer eligibility, farm explored for implementation. The NJ Department of location, structure size, and yearly-appropriated fund-Agriculture and the Conservation Program Partnership will ing levels.

promote voluntary implementation of management prac-82 BARNEGAT BAYFINALCCMP

Chapter 5 FUNDING SOURCES: The NJDA and the Conservation STATUS AND PRIORITY: Commitment, Medium Priority.

Program Partnership will provide funding to secure accel-erated implementation where possible and deemed appro- WHO: OCHD (Lead). The BBNEP will work in conjunction priate. Section 319, US Department of Agriculture, NRCS, with the Monmouth County Health Department, other federal funds, and state funds, to the extent avail- Monmouth County Water Resources Association, and able, will be used to support this effort. Loans under the Navesink River Municipalities Committee.

Environmental Infrastucture Financing Program may also be available to provide funding. The NJDA and the NRCS HOW: Management measures to discourage geese from have established a joint State Conservation Cost Share and congregating in urban areas include:

Federal Environmental Quality Incentives Program which

" Install a shoreline barrier, such as a tow fence, Mylar will enhance the implementation of needed management tape or some other type of obstruction; practices.

" Install vegetative barriers in landscaped areas consisting REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY of various types of shrubs and grasses to create a visual CHANGES: Not yet determined. impediment to geese and discourage their use of these areas;

  • Use of swans. Swans with young are very aggressive and tend to keep geese away;

" Implement a no-mow policy by establishing a high grass strip around water bodies and mow only once in late summer or early fall to remove seed heads, a potential attractant;

" Install an 18-inch-high, chicken wire fence with two-inch mesh (possibly covered with hedge);

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Canada Geese acclimate easi- " Use scarecrows, or red, orange or black plastic ly to urban areas because of a good food supply, access to sheets/flags (1 per 25 feet);

open water, and good habitat.

" Twist reflective Mylar tape from stake to stake along The fecal matter from a large flock of Canada Geese con- the edge of the water; tains a large amount of nutrients. It has been determined " Install dead goose decoys; that four geese are capable of producing as much phos-phorus as one septic system. This extra nutrient load can " Relocate geese to other areas (this can be done in June contribute to algae blooms, especially small ponds, lakes or July during molting). Geese should be relocated at and shallow estuarine areas, such as Barnegat Bay. High least 200 miles away to prevent them from returning to densities of geese can also elevate the bacterial levels of original nesting areas; lakes, ponds and the bay, which results in the closing of " Leave the eggs in the nest to prevent the geese from swimming areas or restrictions on shellfish harvesting in laying more eggs; and the watershed. Geese are also a public health concern because they carry known pathogenic microbes, such as " Work with local municipalities to promote ordinances Salmonella, Chlamydia, Giardia, and Cryptosporidium. supporting these management measures.

It is important to note that Canada Geese are a protected Since the intense grazing of shorelines or adjacent Lawns species under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918.

by geese can also create localized erosion problems and Therefore, any actions taken to support the control of the bank instability, reduction in Canada Geese populations geese populations must be consistent with the guidelines would also support the goals and objectives of the Habitat of that Act.

and Living Resources Action Plan.

MAY2002 83

WATER QUALITY / WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN WHEN: Ongoing action by Ocean County' Health STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Medium Department. Priority.

WHERE: Action will be taken in all applicable areas of WHO: RCE.(Lead) will coordinate sampling and devel-the Barnegat Bay watershed. op recommendations regarding the adoption of BMPs.

NJDEP wilt assess samples and compare data. Georgian MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Reduction of Court College will provide student assistance with the nuisance complaints by municipalities and the public research study.

in locations where geese typically congregate will mea-sure effectiveness. A reduction in bird-related beach HOW: Water samples from waterways and/or Super-closures due to water quality will also be a useful mea- fund site wells adjacent to a golf course and cranberry sure. bog will be tested on a regular basis to evaluate pesti-cide/fertilizer residues introduced into surface water COST ESTIMATE: Base program funding. systems. Sampling will be intensified following a rain event. Data will be analyzed for levels of pollutants FUNDING SOURCES: Initial implementation costs to and adjusted for seasonal levels.

be borne by the BBNEP, in addition to base program funding. Water samples from areas immediately adjacent to sub-urban housing will likewise be analyzed.

REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: New local ordinances are needed to support WHEN: Sampling will be taken quarterly over a three-this action. year period commencing January 2002.

WHERE: Six sites will be determined, preferably at least one from each of the three categories.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Data trends will determine the need for further action and identify appropriate remedial measures.

COST ESTIMATE: Current estimates are $25,000-

$49,750 (personnel, travel, equipment, supplies, ana-lytical costs)/year.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Pesticides and fertilizers represent a major category of NPS pollution. It would FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments. See be advantageous to natural resource management to potential funding sources in Chapter 12, Section determine the major source of these inputs into the 12.8.1.

environment. Points downstream from golf courses, suburban new housing developments, and cranberry REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY bogs are to be studied. CHANGES: None.

The Rutgers Cooperative Extension of Ocean County (RCE) and Dr. Roy Meyers of NJDEP propose a research study to evaluate residues introduced into surface water systems. A 1999 study previously looked at the movement of pesticides applied to a golf course on the surrounding watershed system, confirming cause for concern.

84 BARNEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

/

Chapter 5 fications can be counterproductive. As an example, the ACTION 51 timing of the application and the source of the nitro-

~<~Continue Publication ofl 'Peýsticdesý for New Jersey ' gen can be more significant than the amount being to nclcý-sif,- ci-ic recbmmendations forthus applied. Similarly, subtle changes in pesticide formu-of pesicide on (gdll ur ad publicla lation can affect the behavior of a product in the envi-ronment.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Fertilizer and pesticide runoff from golf courses and public lands is a concern to The development of site-specific product and formula-both the public and the turf industry. The potential for tion recommendations is a complex endeavor. The RCE a fertilizer or a pesticide to contribute to NPS pollution has substantial experience with developing unbiased recommendations. By reviewing existing data and cre-is a function of rate, timing, application techniques, and ating appropriate models, the behavior of both fertiliz-the interaction between specific product formulation or er components and pesticide products can be predicted chemical properties and the environment in which it is used. Which factor is most significant varies from loca- across a broad spectrum of environmental scenarios.

tion to location; however, differences in formulation can This process would then allow the risk models to be greatly affect the impact on the environment. Pesticide developed and products to be recommended based on and fertilizer technology is constantly improving, and is geographic, hydrologic, meteorological, and agronomic becoming increasingly complex. Fertilizer technology parameters.

now offers sophisticated nutrient release mechanisms.

With careful timing and by utilizing semi-permeable Circulation of this pesticide document will be part of coatings, polymer urea chemistry, and natural organic RCE's established public outreach.

byproducts, nutrient availability in the soil can be syn-chronized with plant needs. Matching the appropriate WHEN: This project could begin in 2002. and would technology to the site is the key to sustainable develop- coincide with the annual update of Pesticides for New ment and maintenance practices. Creation of a resource Jersey.

for decision makers to use in selection of fertilizer for-mulations and pesticide formulations should reduce or WHERE: The recommendations would be tailored to eliminate NPS threats from golf course and public lands site-specific conditions, and would be of value to maintenance. appropriate areas throughout the Barnegat Bay water-shed.

STATUS AND PRIORITY: Partial Commitment, Medium MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: A survey of pes-Priority.

ticides for New Jersey golf courses and other land-scaped public lands which use this document and WHO: The RCE (Lead) publishes "Pesticides for New employ prescribed methods of pesticide applications Jersey"(E045M) each year, which informs users about will be conducted.

pesticide and fertilizer products, and recommends rates and timing for applications. RCE would work with the COST ESTIMATE: Estimates for data review and analy-USGS which retains the data and the format for model-sis and development of recommendations have not yet ing fertilizer and pesticide movement.

been determined. However, it is anticipated that annu-al publication costs will be approximately $1,000 HOW: The choice of a fertilizer or pesticide formula-above base program level of funding.

tion is a function of a number of factors: availability, habit, price, practicality, and knowledge. It is critical FUNDING SOURCES: Funding is already in place for that decision makers have access to the information the publication of "Pesticides for New Jersey."

needed to understand the relationship between site Additional funding will be sought from other potential and product. Attempts at regulation that address rates sources identified in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.

without recognizing the benefits of formulation modi-MAY2002 85

WATER QUALITY / WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY WHO: RCE (Lead) would be responsible for reproduc-CHANGES: None. Existing laws and regulatory agencies tion of the H*A*S for the Barnegat Bay Watershed are adequate. Given the litigious nature of society it guidebook. The BBNEP's responsibility would be to would be in the best interest of any golf course to follow serve as a marketing consultant, and much more recommendations created by The State University. importantly, to potentially provide funding for repro-duction of the document.

WHEN: Implement upon availability of funds, with a target date of 2003.

WHERE: Throughout Ocean County. The 1990 Census indicates 168,147 households in Ocean County, an area nearly coincident with the Barnegat Bay watershed.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Although Ocean County already maintains a household hazardous waste collec- MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Initial funding tion program twice a year, hazardous chemicals are not for the H*A*S guidebook supported publication of always disposed of properly, whether through negli- 1,500 copies of the document. Public requests for gence or lack of awareness. Most human activities and H*A*S during the first year have depleted the entire residential developments produce polluted runoff and supply. Requests continue to be received at a similar stormwater discharges that contribute to the deterio- rate, indicating that the "market is not yet near satu-ration of Barnegat Bay's water quality. Measures to ration." Additionally, it is recommended that periodic reduce contamination need to be suggested and imple- surveys of home usage kits be conducted, with the first mented to reduce such degradation. It is important to survey being conducted within two years of action focus not only on technical solutions, but also on pol- item implementation.

lution prevention via public outreach. It is also impor-tant to focus not only on new development and rede- COST ESTIMATE: $7,000 for publication of 1,500 velopment, but also on NPS pollution resulting from guidebooks. Given sufficient funds, RCE could enhance existing land uses. The Home*A*Syst (H*A*S) pro- its marketing techniques to distribute the guides.

gram is structured to facilitate such individual behav-ior modification through a voluntary residential pollu- FUNDING SOURCES: Initial funding came from a tion prevention program. USEPA Section 319(h) pass-through grant from NJDEP's Office of Environmental Planning. No firm commit-STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Medium ments for future funding. See discussion of funding Priority. services in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.

HOW: H*A*S is an environmental risk assessment REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY guide for the home and residential property. The guide CHANGES: None.

conveys useful information about the basics of hydrol-ogy, watersheds, and groundwater for the individual homeowner. It also includes site assessment work-sheets that landowners can use to increase their under-. a standing -of water pollution risks that are unique to their property. Collectively, the document builds a community's capacity for proper environmental man-agement of water resources. Circulating this document r I,&

at public outreach events will help draw in the public as active participants in reducing hazardous waste.

86 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

Chapter 5 the overall Program.

~'ACTION5.14 COST ESTIMATE: $1,500/year for a research assistant.

Exanine technial( and pernit, data *.* on aL i)pý6;Sii

~source ~discharge permtit holders i~n order tpomo FUNDING SOURCES: BBNEP base program funding, or

.and mairtaint an uniderst*andig of the relatinship other funding source that has not yet been identified.

,ofthe discharges to the ovrl clgia elho REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The Barnegat Bay watershed is the site of some 20 small point-source discharge per-mit holders, none of which have been associated with any particular wafer quality problem. Permitted dis-charges in the watershed are regulated by state authori-ties. A principal goal of the BBNEP is to identify and address ongoing human activities that may have detri-mental effects in the watershed and estuary. An aware-ness of actions related to point-source discharges by the BBNEP will help to ensure efficient coordination among the discharges, environmental monitoring efforts, and other Estuary Program activities. SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS), a 630 MW (net) electric STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Medium generating facility located between Oyster Creek and Priority. Forked River, affects environmental conditions in the watershed, airshed, and estuary through permitted WHO: The BBNEP Science and Technical Advisory releases of chemical biocides and thermal discharges. It Committee (STAC) (Lead) will establish the technical group. also directly impacts estuarine organisms via impinge-ment on intake screens and entrainment in plant con-HOW: A technical group wilt assemble on an ad hoc basis densers. In addition, the OCNGS alters water flow in to examine environmental reports completed by the per- Forked River and Oyster Creek. The OCNGS is by vol-mittees on small point-source discharge permit holders by ume the most significant point source discharger to the industry, government, and independent sources to identi- Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor estuary. Activities of fy trends in estuary or watershed conditions that correlate this permitted facility are regulated by federal and with point-source discharges, to identify related issues state authorities. A principal goat of the BBNEP is to that need to be addressed by the BBNEP, and to ensure identify and address ongoing human activities that efficient coordination with other Estuary Program activi- may have detrimental effects in the watershed and ties. estuary. An awareness of OCNGS actions by the BBNEP wilt help to ensure an efficient coordination among WHEN: The re-examination wilt commence in 2002 at the OCNGS activities, environmental monitoring efforts, beginning of the implementation phase of the CCMP. and other BBNEP activities.

Findings wilt be reported directly to the Director of the BBNEP. STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Medium Priority.

WHERE: This action encompasses the entire Bamegat Bay watershed. WHO: The BBNEP Science and Technical Advisory Committee (Lead) will establish the technical group; it MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: The effectiveness will coordinate with the NCDEP (NJPDES Permit Program) of the action will be reflected in the integration of the and with the existing OCNGS Citizens Task Force.

technical group findings into the monitoring protocol for MAY2002 87

WATER QUALITY / WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN HOW: A technical group will assemble on an ad hoc basis In 1992, Congress passed the Clean Vessel Act (CVA) to to examine environmental reports completed on the reduce overboard sewage discharge by providing funds OCNGS by industry, government, and independent for the construction, renovation, operation, and mainte-sources to identify trends in estuary or watershed condi- nance of pumpout stations for holding tanks and dump tions that correlate with OCNGS information, to identify stations for portable toilets. Federal funds provide up to related issues that need to be addressed by the BBNEP, 75 percent of all approved projects with the remaining and ensure efficient coordination with other BBNEP funds provided by the state or marinas. A secondary goal activities. The reports will contain technical and permit of the CVA is to provide information and education to data from the zone of monitoring around the power plant boaters about the advantages of pumpout stations.

and Oyster Creek.

Under CVA regulations, any boat with an installed toilet is WHEN: The examination will commence at the begin- required to have one of three types of certified Marine ning of the implementation phase of the CCMP. Findings Sanitation Devices (MSD), whether it treats the sewage will be reported directly to the Director of the BBNEP. and discharges it, or holds the sewage for future disposal.

WHERE: Oyster Creek, Forked River, and nearby portions Boat sewage dumped into Barnegat Bay and its tribu-of Barnegat Bay. taries threatens aquatic vegetation, fish, shellfish beds, and other wildlife species, not to mention public health.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: The effectiveness The nutrients, microorganisms, and chemicals contained of the action will be reflected in the integration of the in human waste from boats have a negative impact on technical group findings into the monitoring protocol for coastal and inland waterways, resulting in a decrease of the overall Program. marine life, as well as contamination of bathing areas and shellfish beds.

COST ESTIMATE: $2,500/year for a research assistant.

Recent efforts to reduce water pollution have resulted in the resurgence of blue crabs, clams, oyster beds, finfish, FUNDING SOURCES: BBNEP base program funding, or and other wildlife in coastal waters. The proper use of other funding source that has not yet been identified.

pumpout facilities can continue to increase fish and shellfish populations and protect recreational uses for all REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY to enjoy.

CHANGES: None.

STATUS AND PRIORITY: Commitment, High Priority.

WHO: NJ Clean Vessel Program (Lead), NJDEP Fish and Wildlife, NJ Marine Trades Association, NJ Sea Grant Advisory Service, National Clean Boating Campaign.

HOW: The BBNEP will work with the marina and boat-ing industries to encourage and promote fuller use of sewage pumpout facilities. In conjunction with the SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Eliminating discharges by National Clean Boating Campaign, the BBNEP will devel-promoting the use of pumpout facilities will further op and distribute the following information, in the form reduce bacterial contamination of shellfish waters, of a "Barnegat Bay Boater Fact Sheet," to owners of bathing beaches, takes, and drinking water supply boats, marinas and other appropriate facilities and intakes, resulting in increased public health protection. venues including:

The number of sewage pumpout facilities can also be " NJ Clean Vessel Program; used to support the designation of No Discharge Zones " National Clean Boating Campaign website; and (See Action Item 5.18).

" U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Pumpout Hotline.

88 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

Chapter 5 WHEN: Meet with cooperating agencies during the start to encourage county and local governments to consider of the spring 2001 boating season to plan next steps. the acquisition of pumpout boats to be used in areas Develop "Barnegat Bay Boater Fact Sheets" by spring where there is heavy boat traffic, which results in the 2001 and distribute annually to marinas, yacht clubs, dumping of sewage from boats' holding tanks overboard.

and boaters by Memorial Day. This is an ongoing activity. Silver Bay and Tuckerton are being considered as areas that would benefit from a pumpout boat.

WHERE: This action targets Barnegat Bay, Little Egg Harbor and all tidal waters flowing to these embayments. STATUS AND PRIORITY: Commitment, High Priority.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Successful distrib-WHO: The NJ Clean Vessel Program (Lead) will coordi-ution of "Barnegat Bay Boater Fact Sheet" to marinas, boat nate with other state and county agencies and local gov-yards, yacht clubs, trade organizations, boat dealers and ernment as appropriate, to foster acquisition and use of press/media, followed by monitoring the use of available pumpout boats.

pumpout facilities and the installation of new ones.

HOW: Commitments are currently being negotiated with COST ESTIMATE: Print and distribute the Barnegat Bay appropriate local officials. Technical assistance and a 13-Boaters Fact Sheet, $1,000. minute slide show of the Tice's Shoal pumpout boat will be provided to educate and encourage acquisition and FUNDING SOURCES: NJ Clean Vessel Program, $50,000 use of additional pumpout boats in Barnegat Bay tidal annually, of which a portion is available for public out- waters. One new vessel per year will be purchased over reach materials. the next two years.

NJ Clean Vessel Program, in conjunction with NJ Fish and WHEN: This program will commence at the beginning of Wildlife, have committed to developing information per- the implementation phase of the CCMP.

taining to the Clean Vessel Program, assist in the devel-opment of the Clean Marinas Program, and distribute WHERE: Local marinas, boat basins and local and coun-funds through the Clean Vessel Coordinator for pumpout ty governments in Ocean County wilt be supplied with and dump station construction in the estuary. information on the pumpout boat program.

REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION- One of the goals of the BBNEP is to reduce nonpoint source pollution and pro-tect public health. One way to accomplish this is to obtain an additional mobile sewage pumpout boat on the Bay similar to the one currently in operation off Tice's Shoat near the Borough of Seaside Park, and to develop a public information program to promote use of the pumpout boat. It is the overall objective of this action MAY2002 89

WATER QUALITY / WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: The results of disposal of vessel-generated sewage into the bay, the the May to October 1999 pumpout boat use at Tice's waters of Barnegat. Bay should be designated a No Shoal resulted in a total of over 8,000 gallons removed Discharge Zone. This designation will help protect and from the area on summer weekends. The public coop- enhance the natural resources of the bay. In addition, erated with the pumpout boat as a convenient and this designation would also satisfy Action Plan 4.27 of practical method of reducing the volume of boat the 1993 Barnegat Bay Watershed Management Plan.

sewage in specific areas of the bay. Monitoring of the number of gallons of sewage pumped will indicate STATUS AND PRIORITY: Commitment, High Priority.

degree of success of the pumpout boat. Over time, the annual increase in the number of gallons pumped will WHO: The NJ Marine Sciences Consortium (NJMSC) be a continuing measure of success. (Lead) will be assisted by the Ocean County Vocational and Technical School (OCVTS).

COST ESTIMATE: The current cost of acquiring and equipping a pumpout boat is about $35,000 and oper- HOW: The NJMSC wilt gather the necessary infor-ation of a boat for a season is approximately $22,000 mation to prepare an application that NJDEP can sub-for captain and boat operations. Public outreach will mit to the USEPA on behalf of the citizens in the be provided by the NJ Clean Vessel Program. The Barnegat Bay watershed.

Barnegat Bay sewage pumpout boat (the first of its kind in New Jersey) was purchased.with funds provid- WHEN: The completed draft application was submit-ed under Wallop-Breaux legislation, which authorizes ted to the USEPA by NJDEP in May 2000, and the appli-the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to award fed- cation is pending approval.

eral CWA Section 106 grants for that purpose.

WHERE: The No Discharge Zone application will cover FUNDING SOURCES: Federal funding through the the navigable waters of Barnegat Bay, Manahawkin Clean Vessel Act is available for one new boat in 2000 Bay, Little Egg Harbor Bay, and their tributaries.

and the NJ Clean Vessel Program committed to sup-porting the maintenance of the pumpout boat for five MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Designation of years. Barnegat Bay as a No Discharge Zone will be the ulti-mate measure of success of this action.

REQUIRED REGULATORY ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: Other than fulfilling all federal and state COST ESTIMATE: Approximately $15,000 will be need-regulations pertaining to the purchase of pumpout ed to complete a survey of the boating population boats utilizing federal CVA funding, no new regula- using Barnegat Bay.

tions, ordinances, or policy are required.

FUNDING SOURCES: The BBNEP will provide funding for the project and the NJMSC will provide necessary matching funds.

REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None required-authority is provided under Section 312 of the CWA.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Vessel discharges in the shallow, poorly flushed waters of Barnegat Bay result in coliform bacteria pollution and can contribute to the closure of shellfish beds and bathing beaches, as well as to the general impairment of the bay's recre-ational resources. In an order to provide federal, state and local officials with the authority to prohibit the 9 0 BARNEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

Chapter 5

2. Once BMPs have been selected, all marina staff will be educated about "Clean Marina" techniques; and Develop a "Clean Maninas" program to assist 3. Once staff receive training on the BMP program, mainavowners and cmanagers touse BMPs they will educate customers and solicit their help in making the marina a cleaner environment and proý SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The program will help to tecting its waters from marina-related pollutants.

restore and maintain a productive ecosystem with no adverse effects due to pollution, and ensure that edi- WHEN: Implementation began in 2002.

ble seafood is safe for unrestricted human consump-tion. This can be accomplished by targeting marinas WHERE: Barnegat Bay, Little Egg Harbor and all tidal for participation in a "Clean Marinas" program, aimed waters flowing to these embayments.

at reducing pollutant discharges to shellfish waters.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: The success of STATUS AND PRIORITY: Commitment, High Priority. this program will be measured by the number of facili-ties in Barnegat Bay designated as a "Clean Marina."

WHO: NJ Marine Trades Association (Lead), National The target number is at least five new "Clean Marinas" Clean Boating Campaign, NJDEP, NJ Pollutant Discharge per year.

Elimination System (NJPDES), NJ Clean Vessel Program, and NJ Sea Grant Advisory Service. COST ESTIMATE:

Item 1. Develop and distribute "Clean Marina" check-HOW: The BBNEP will work with the marina and boat- list and BMP information to marinas: $500; ing industries to develop a Barnegat Bay "Clean Source: N.J Marine Trades Association, NJDEP, Division Marinas" program for new and existing marinas. It will of Watershed Management.

also develop an award program to designate facilities showing substantial progress on implementing Best Item 2. Provide permanent signs for marinas designat-Management Practices as a "Clean Marina." Designated ed as "Clean Marinas": $1,000/year; and marinas will have implemented pollution prevention Source: NJDEP, Division of Watershed Management.

measures addressing the siting, design and/or opera-tion of the facility, and shall address both point and Item 3. Promote Public Education Program: $500/year.

NPS of pollution. The NJ Marine Trades Association, in Source: BBER cooperation with NJDEP, will provide technical guid-ance. New and expanding marinas and boat yards are FUNDING SOURCES: See above. In addition, NJ Fish subject to stormwater permitting requirements imple-and Wildlife will provide limited information and mented through the NJPDES permit program, including Education Program staff time to work with the respon-implementation of pollution prevention measures.

sible agencies to develop the Clean Marinas Program.

Since marinas are located at the water's edge, assis-tance will be given to help all marinas comply with REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY permitting requirements.

CHANGES: None.

Components of this program are:

1. Use BMPs which have proved to work in other marinas, are cost effective, easy to do, based on existing technology, and can help improve and protect water quality; MAY 200291

WATER QUALITY / WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN Management. After the workplan is in place, the follow-ing technical efforts need to be accomplished:

1. Establish a Forum on In-stream Flow Requirements: The NJDEP needs to establish an ongoing forum on in-stream flow requirements in the coastal plain of New Jersey. This forum would assemble information on the ecological, recreational, industrial, agricultural, and public supply uses and requirements for stream flow in the coastal plain. It would debate the relative merits of the various uses and would provide SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The watershed area of the guidance to NJDEP programs on the freshwater BBNEP includes the portions of the state experiencing in-stream flow requirements that meet the state's the most rapid increase in population growth. This pop- needs. The NJDEP should convene the forum with ulation growth is dependent on a sustainable supply of representation from the agricultural community, water. The state's Water Supply Master Plan has identified freshwater and estuarine ecologists and the Barnegat Bay watershed as an area of significant water hydrologists, recreational users, water supply supply deficit by the year 2040. At the same time, the purveyors, county and state planners, county soil conservation districts, industrial users and the withdrawal of potable water for this area is almost totally public-at-large. The objective would be to consumptive to the watershed, as most of the wastewater develop freshwater flow requirements for all is discharged to the ocean resulting in reduced streamflow in-stream uses and for the receiving water bodies.

and saltwater intrusion. Additionally, current modifica-tions to the landscape change the natural hydrology of the 2. Determine In-stream Flow Requirements for watershed by reducing recharge and increasing runoff. A Barnegat Bay Estuary: It is recommended that comprehensive water supply plan is required for the USGS and IMCS lead an effort to develop interim watershed in order to ensure that all of the important freshwater in-stream flow requirements while the human and ecological needs are met. above forum develops the final flow requirements.

These two partners will need substantial input STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, High Priority. from the NJDEP, NRCS, NJ Pinelands Commission (NJPC), the OCPD and OCSCD. Local interests will also need to be inventoried in this effort. Since WHO: The NJDEP, Division of Watershed Management the NRI action item (Action Item 5.2) inventories (Lead) will coordinate the effort. Other contributing par-resources and identifies sources of NPS pollution, ties will be: USGS, OCPD, OCSCD, OCUA, IMCS and Jacques this will be an essential prerequisite to this Cousteau NERR (JCNERR), Purveyors of the Barnegat Bay action. Therefore, the NRI will have multiple watershed, USDA-NRCS and the NJ Forestry Services benefits that include the inventory of and (NJFS). planning for water supply actions. It is estimated that this step will take two to three years.

HOW: A plan will be completed that is accepted by all parties and provides for definite measures to ensure a sus- 3. Establish a Monitoring Program for Saltwater tainable water supply for the population and the ecology Intrusion: Saltwater intrusion continues to be a of the bay and watershed. The BBNEP will provide the major concern along the New Jersey coastal plain forum for discussion. aquifers. The current monitoring network is inadequate for providing. early warning, or out-post monitoring for movement of chlorides. This DETAILED STEPS: In order to make this plan a reality, is particularly true in the area of Barnegat Bay.

there are a number of steps that need to be accomplished, The NJDEP and USGS will work together to involving numerous agencies and parties. The execution propose a monitoring network for water use and will require an overall workplan and budget, which should saltwater intrusion in the surficial and confined be developed by the NJDEP, Division of Watershed 92 BARNEGATBAY FINAL CCMP

Chapter 5 aquifers in the Barnegat Bay region. It is take the lead on this step with assistance from estimated that this step will take six months. the NRCS, the.OCPD, OCSCD, OCUA, and the USGS.

Three years is the estimated time required for

4. Inventory Water Availability, Withdrawal, this step.

Use, and Discharge Information: A detailed inventory will be developed of water availability, 9. Evaluate Institutional Arrangements and withdrawals, uses and ultimate discharge. This Financial Analysis for Alternatives: Various information wilt serve in part as the basis for institutional arrangements for implementing the developing future recommendations on water alternatives and the conservation, reuse, and supply alternatives. The NJDEP wilt take the lead recharge measures wilt be evaluated. The NJDEP on this effort with major input from the USGS. wilt take the lead on this step. The OCPD will The OCPD, OCUA, and the area purveyors wilt assist. This step is estimated to take two provide assistance and feedback. It is estimated months. The financial analysis is generally that this step wilt take nine months. conducted by a consultant hired by the NJDEP and wilt require approximately four months to

5. Establish Water Withdrawal Thresholds complete.

and Action Triggers: A series of water with-

10. Select Water Supply Alternatives: Using all the drawat thresholds wilt be established white the outputs from steps 1 to 9, decision-makers will investigations are continuing. The thresholds select a set of water supply alternatives for wilt be used to control continued water supply implementation. The NJDEP and the water supply development and prevent adverse or irreversible purveyors of the area will take the lead on this impacts to the environment while the sustainable step. The OCPD will assist. Selection of an alter-water supply levels and practices are being native will take six months.

established. During this step, population projections and water use estimates will be refined. The NJDEP wilt take the'lead on this WHEN: The entire action is expected to be completed step, with assistance from the USGS. The OCPD within four years of CCMP approval.

wilt provide assistance. It is estimated that this step wilt take one year. WHERE: This action encompasses the entire Barnegat Bay watershed.

6. Integrate Constraining Factors with Water Supply Projections: All of the constraining factors on water supply development will be MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Completion of integrated with the projections for future water an approved Barnegat Bay Watershed Supply Plan in supply demand. Projects will be carried through four years.

to the year 2050. The NJDEP and the OCPD will take the lead on this step. This step is estimated COST ESTIMATE: Minimum staffing needs would be to require three months. about two full-time personnel for each of four years at

7. Develop Water Supply Alternatives: This step a cost of approximately $500,000. Additional cost esti-involves the thorough evaluation of alternative mates would be developed during the course of action sources of water for present and future demand. implementation.

The NJDEP wilt take the lead on this step with input from the area water-supply purveyors. The FUNDING SOURCES: Federal, state, and other sources OCPD wilt assist. It is estimated that this step identified in Chapter 12 may each contribute partially will take one year. to this action. See Section 12.8.1.

8. Evaluate Water Conservation, Reuse, and Recharge Technologies: In this step, the alter- REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY natives for water conservation, wastewater and CHANGES: No legislation is required for the studies.

gray water reuse, stormwater recharge, alternative .Legislation may be required to implement the recom-landscape design and soil health measures will be mended actions based on the studies.

evaluated for implementation. The NJDEP will MAY2002 93

WATER QUALITY / WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN supply systems. The largest advantage is that

'ACTION 5.21 ~ purveyors withdraw water from different sources, each of which varies in its susceptibility to

<<Develop a iirplAn'ninstituite controls for drought conditions. By having interconnections araemehto ater denian/ae cnev between various systems, water could be moved from sources that are more "drought-proof" to those that are very susceptible to drought. It is SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The watershed area of the recommended that the NJDEP undertake a study to BBNEP, as with every other portion of the state, is sub- determine if significant advantage could be gained ject to drought. Drought is caused by prolonged peri- by inter-connecting the water supply purveyor ods of below-normal precipitation and drought warn- systems in the watershed. It is estimated that this ings and emergencies can be called on the grounds of step would-take nine months.

agricultural impacts, water supply, and environmental

2. Assessment of Irrigation Systems in the factors. In addition to this normal susceptibility to Barnegat Bay Watershed: It has been suggested drought, this watershed has a significant population that irrigation systems play a very large role in with shallow irrigation wells for residential and com-water usage during the growing-season months and mercial/recreational use. Increased use of shallow particularly during droughts. As such, it would be groundwater during drought conditions further prudent to conduct an assessment of irrigation depletes the baseflow of streams in the watershed and, systems in the watershed to verify this usage.

therefore, reduces the freshwater inflow to the estuary.

The assessment would include:

One of the goats of the BBNEP is to maintain a balanced hydrologic cycle in the watershed and estuary. In

  • Developing an inventory of irrigation systems order to achieve this goal, demand must be controlled and the sources from which they *obtain their and water conserved during periods of drought.

water; STATUS AND .PRIORITY: Recommendation, High

  • Estimating the amount of water used for Priority.

irrigation, by source; WHO:, NJDEP, Division of Watershed Management

  • Developing an educational component on how (Lead) in cooperation with the USGS, OCPD, OCSCD, residents and commercial establishments can purveyors of the Barnegat Bay watershed, NRCS. reduce the amount of irrigation water used through measures like proper site planning and HOW: Convene all responsible agencies to discuss and use of soil moisture information; and carry out the following steps.
  • Linking this action to Action Item 5.23 for DETAILED STEPS: To successfully complete this plan, exploring long-term water supply alternatives.

there are a number of steps that need to be accom- Irrigation water would be a prime candidate for plished involving numerous agencies and parties. The re-use of treated wastewater.

execution will require an overall workplan and budget, which should be developed by the NJDEP, Division of It is recommended that OCSCD take the lead on this Watershed Management. The following are general effort with major input from the NJDEP, the NRCS, and technical actions that should be planned and imple-the OCPD. Local interests will have to be inventoried mented by convening all responsible agencies:

and accounted for in this effort. Data from the NRCS effort under the NRI will be essential to this process.

1. Evaluate the Opportunities for Water Supply The time frame for this assessment is estimated at two Interconnections between Adjacent Public years.

Supply Systems: Significant advantages can be gained from interconnecting adjacent public water 94 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

Chapter 5

3. Develop Public Service Announcements (PSAs) for FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitment. See discus-Water Conservation, Water Demand Management, sion of potential funding sources in Chapter 12, Section and Drought Awareness: It is recommended that the 12.8.1.

BBNEP develop PSAs that identify the need for water conservation and water demand management. These REQUIRED REGULATORY ORDINANCE, OR POLICY announcements should be particularly tailored to CHANGES: Legislation may be' required for implementa-include information on the impacts-that occur to a tion of the actions from the studies. Specific changes will freshwater/estuarine system from consumptive use of be determined once the workplan is complete.

fresh water and reduction in freshwater inflow to the estuary. The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) of ACTION 5.22 -

the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program should identify an entity to produce the PSAs. The time I teestng shallow groundwatCe protectLonI frame for this effort is estimated at nine months.

4. Evaluate the Potential to Reinstate Conjunctive SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Groundwater in the shallow Use of the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer unconfined aquifer system of the Barnegat Bay watershed System in the Barnegat Bay Watershed During provides an important source of water supply for the grow-Periods of Drought: As an emergency measure, the ing watershed population. This groundwater also feeds NJDEP should evaluate the potential for utilizing the streams that flow into the bay, and some groundwater Potomac-Raritan-Magothy (PRM) Aquifer System in seeps directly into the bay. As a result, the quality of the watershed area as a safe water supply during groundwater can also affect the water quality of the bay.

periods of drought. Under this action, the PRM would The shallow, unconfined aquifer system is vulnerable to only be utilized during the period of time that the contamination from human activities, especially in areas drought warning and emergency are in effect. After where overlying soils are sandy and highly permeable.

the drought has abated, the PRM would then be left Contaminants from human activities at the land surface to recover. The NJDEP would have to evaluate the can enter the aquifer system and can then migrate to technical, financial and regulatory viability of this water supply wells or to the bay. Actions designed to pro-action. The N3DEP would take the lead on this action, tect groundwater quality for water supply objectives and with major input from the USGS, the OCPD, and the actions designed to protect groundwater for estuary pro-local water supply purveyors. This information will tection objectives can be mutually beneficial, and should also serve in part as the basis for recommending be coordinated, to the extent practicable, with ongoing future actions on water supply alternatives. efforts to achieve a comprehensive approach to resource The time frame is estimated at one year. protection.

WHEN: Establishing a plan for the Barnegat Bay water- STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, High Priority.

shed that wilt control water demand and conserve water to the maximum extent possible by 2003. WHO: NJDEP, Division of Watershed Management (Lead),

USEPA, USGS, OCHD, Municipalities of the Barnegat Bay WHERE: This action encompasses the entire Barnegat Bay watershed, water-supply purveyors.

watershed and all associated water source areas.

HOW: Specific steps for integrating groundwater programs MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Successful compte- will be developed by cooperating parties, and a plan to tion of the workplan will determine effectiveness. protect groundwater supplies developed by linking the fol-lowing efforts. The data collected will be entered into the COST ESTIMATE: Minimum staffing needs would be about NJDEP GIS.

one full-time worker over two years, or approximately

$125,000. Additional costs would be developed during the detailed action steps.

MAY 2002 95

WATER QUALITY / WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN Additional steps may be identified in conjunction with WHEN: Beginning in 2003, this action, which targets pro-results of ongoing groundwater protection efforts. tection of water supplies and estuarine water quality, will be conducted on an ongoing basis.

1. Integrate New and Ongoing WQ Studies: Recent state legislation authorized establishment of a WHERE: This action encompasses the entire Barnegat Bay project to assess the quality of water resources and watershed.

contaminant sources in the Metedeconk River and Toms River sub-watersheds and to recommend actions MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: A draft protection that will address identified problems. The project is plan should be produced within three years. The measure being conducted by the USGS in cooperation with the of effectiveness will be the comprehensiveness of program NJDEP, and is expected to provide more detailed integration and the area of the Barnegat Bay watershed information about the distribution of contaminants covered by it.

present in shallow groundwater. Results of this study, due in 2003, and other ongoing and future COST ESTIMATE: No additional resources are required for studies of groundwater quality should be integrated this action.

with results from other protection programs and reflected in CCMP action items, as appropriate. FUNDING SOURCES: No additional funding is required.

2. Integrate Source Water Assessment Program and REQUIRED REGULATORY ORDINANCE, OR POLICY Other Groundwater Program Results: As part of the CHANGES: To be determined. Legislation may be implementation of the 1996 Amendments to the Safe required for implementation of actions that result from Drinking Water Act, efforts are under way- nationwide the various ongoing protection efforts.

to assess the sources of all public drinking water supplies. Results of the assessment in New Jersey will include a comprehensive inventory of potential contaminant sources, which may provide valuable information about potential water-quality concerns for the bay. The results of the Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP) for New Jersey should be integrated with results from other groundwater protection programs and reflected in CCMP action items, as appropriate.

3. Coordinate Protection Programs: Groundwater protection programs that are administered at the state, county, and municipal level, as well as those instituted by water-supply purveyors, should be SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Weather data from local coordinated at the watershed level to the extent weather stations can be used by residents, farmers, and practicable: examples of such programs include land managers to efficiently schedule appropriate irri-Superfund, the groundwater discharge gation cycles tied to local real time weather con-permitting process; groundwater monitoring ditions. An existing network of weather stations, programs; well testing programs; and well head including one station in Toms River, already provides protection zoning ordinances. As new information or irrigation data to hundreds of South Jersey farmers, program elements emerge, coordination meetings golf course managers, and professional weather fore-should be held, as appropriate, with participation by casters. The addition of two stations in the Barnegat the BBNEP. Bay watershed would provide additional highly local-ized data.

96 BARNEGATBAY FINAL CCMP

Chapter 5 If the effectiveness of irrigation water use by the largest REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY users (residential and commercial areas) can be increased, CHANGES: None.

the total demand for water during peak times will decrease. Less water being used means savings to water utilities (taxpayers), and less need to create new water supplies. It also means slower draw down of aquifers, and less direct discharge to streams and stormwater facilities.

STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Low Priority.

WHO: South Jersey RCD (Lead), OCSCD, the BBNEP Public Outreach Program would assist in educating users.

HOW: South Jersey RCD has a process in place for locat-ing and establishing weather stations once funding is secured. An education and outreach plan for each user group (farmers, suburban homeowners, corporate campus-es, golf courses) would promote the concept and benefits of irrigation scheduling. Data collected by this network can be made available to the public at no additional cost. SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The population growth with-in the Barnegat Bay watershed will be dependent on a sus-WHEN: Commence immediately upon funding. Targeted tainable supply of water. Presently, almost all wastewater for 2002. (50+ million gallons per day of freshwater effluent) is dis-charged into the ocean, slowly lowering the groundwater WHERE: Stations would be set up to maximize spatial levels and degrading the health of the Barnegat Bay coverage within the watershed. ecosystem. The 1999 drought focused the attention of, and sensitized the general public to, the importance of MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: The number of wise use of water resources, a concern already recognized users accessing the weather station data through the in the August 1996 Statewide Water Supply Plan.

existing Internet site will be tracked to determine the effectiveness of the broadcasting. Water utility data can STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Medium be used to monitor water use before and after weather sta- Priority.

tion data installation so as to measure the effectiveness of the action item. A goal for the action is to increase by 30 WHO: OCUA (Lead), NRCS, NJDEP, NJPC, Ocean County percent the number of institutional (government, park, Board of Chosen Freeholders, OCSCD, Township of Berkeley, school, etc.) water users that practice irrigation schedul- and the Ocean County Parks Department.

ing techniques based on real weather and soil moisture data. HOW: Divert a portion of the OCUA Central Wastewater Treatment Plant effluent through a tertiary, new treatment COST ESTIMATE: $6,500 per weather station to establish; process. Pump the final treated effluent for use in irri-

$250 per year to operate. The BBNEP Public Outreach gating existing and future golf courses near the facility.

Program would cover public outreach costs.

WHEN: Complete necessary treatment and distribution FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitment. Funding infrastructure planning by 2003.

could come from among the potential funding sources identified in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1. WHERE: The demonstration project will occur within the Toms River and Cedar Creek sub-watersheds.

MAY 2002 97

WATER QUALITY / WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Qualitative and terial and pathogen loadings. The hard clam harvest has quantitative evaluations of effectiveness will need to be experienced a steady decline over the past 50 years, and conducted by independent agencies and/or universities. short-term closure of recreational bathing beaches has These measures will include reductions in the use of been a chronic problem, though the trends for bathing potable water for lawn irrigation, golf courses, etc., result- beaches have shown a great improvement over the last ten ing from establishment of the demonstration project. years.

COST ESTIMATE: Not yet determined. To ensure that shellfish or contact recreational uses of bathing waters do not endanger the public health or jeop-FUNDING SOURCES: No finn commitments. See poten- ardize commercial fishing and recreational interests, it is tial funding sources in Chapter 12. essential that these resources be protected from point and NPS of pollution. Protection demands that a comprehen-REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY sive assessment and identification of pollution sources be CHANGES: NJPDES permit changes will be necessary. undertaken cooperatively by state and local agencies.

The Sanitary Survey, in conjunction with an Intensive (land-based) Survey where appropriate, includes a water-shed assessment and land use analysis to determine potential point and NPS of pollution originating from:

  • Treatment plants not meeting NJDEP's permit condition;
  • Septic system failures;
  • Urban/suburban stormwater runoff; SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: It is a goat of the BBNEP to
  • Marina and boating-related discharges; and ensure that edible seafood is safe for unrestricted human
  • Agricultural waste.

consumption and to minimize bathing beach closures.

Point sources are not major contributors of pollution to New Jersey's stringent water quality monitoring program Barnegat Bay, since all treated municipal wastewater is has resulted in the upgrading of thousands of acres of discharged through ocean outfatls; though nonpoint shellfish-producing waters in Barnegat Bay alone over the sources continue to be a threat.

past ten years. The shellfish resources of Barnegat Bay (i.e., clams and mussels) currently support a commercial Subsequent to the identification of pollution sources in a fishery with a dockside value in excess of $3 million, as watershed, efforts will focus on the degree of contamina-well as an important recreational fishery. Bathing beach-tion from all sources, the potential for improving, upgrad-es are also a significant recreational resource to the water-ing, and/or preventing further degradation of shellfish shed's year-round residents and support and attract more and recreational bathing waters, and implementation of a than $1.5 billion in tourism revenues for Ocean County, comprehensive action plan for pollution control through-primarily focused on the ocean beaches. However, pollu-out the watershed.

tion, habitat destruction, the tremendous demand for seafood, and in some cases, other environmental factors STATUS AND PRIORITY: Commitment, High Priority.

have placed a heavy burden on these seafood and recre-ation resources.

WHO: NJDEP, with the cooperative support of BBNEP, OCHD and municipalities.

Both of these significant economic and recreation resources are vulnerable to impairment from the same HOW: The BBNEP will serve as a forum to serve county environmental and human health impacts: primarily bac-and local governments. The objective of this action plan 98 BARNEGATBAY FINALCCMP

Chapter 5 is to ensure that the existing shellfish and recreational MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Follow-up monitor-bathing water quality planning and management strategy ing of the Barnegat Bay and its tributaries will continue to is fully comprehensive. The identification of nonpoint be conducted at least six times a year by the NJDEP pollution sources, and the institution of mitigative mea- (Bureau of Marine Water Monitoring and the Cooperative sures for their control by state and local cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program) to determine whether the action, wil[ be performed in conjunction with the regula- quality of shellfish waters and their tributaries has tion of new and existing point sources of pollution man- improved as a result of new management practices.

agement activities by appropriate governmental agencies Measurement of effectiveness will be carried out in con-and private concerns. junction with a reclassification survey of the shellfish growing waters by the Bureau of Marine Water Monit6ring The implementation of point and/or nonpoint source pol- that will be implemented to determine if upgrading of the lution controls will be coordinated by the NJDEP through waters is warranted. Monitoring trends in the annual num-its watershed management program. Integral components ber of beach closures will provide a measure of effective-of this shellfish and recreational bathing beach water ness for actions targeting recreational beach waters.

quality management plan include:

1. Point Sources Controls; COST ESTIMATE: $500,000 for all activities.
2. Malfunctioning Septic Systems; and FUNDING SOURCES: Clean Water State Revolving Fund
3. Urban/Suburban Stormwater Runoff.

(CWSRF), 319(h), WRAS, 6217, Environmental Infrastructure. Trust (available) to municipalities for WHEN: Ongoing.

stormwater remediation (Structural BMPs).

WHERE: Barnegat Bay and Little Egg Harbor.

REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.

MAY2002 99

Ocean County Wetlands Map 7""

Municipal Boundary County Parks Wetlands Land N

i4 4 48 0 mies!

A 4 ~

<~~A Cutting Mosquito trenches in the salt marsh. PHOTOCOURTESYOCEANCOUNTYHISTORICAL SOCIETY. 1/2 MAY 2002 10 1

BARNEOA T BA Y LITTLE EGGHARBOR BARNEGAT BAY BOATER'S GUIDE 102 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

HABITAT and LIVING RESOURCES ACTION PLAN Chapter 6

6.1 INTRODUCTION

Increased demands for housing in the Barnegat Bay The distribution and abundance of estuarine fish and watershed and a corresponding increased recreational wildlife depend on factors, such as tight, turbidity, use of Barnegat Bay have had negative impacts on nutrient availability, temperature, salinity, and habi-environmentally sensitive natural habitats. Declines in tat, and food availability. Human-induced activities fish and wildlife populations have resulted from frag- that disturb or change environmental conditions affect mentation and loss of habitats and ecosystems, pollu- the distribution and abundance of estuarine species.

tion and decreased water quality, and over-exploitation of resources. The same areas that often attract human Barnegat Bay has historically supported a major com-development also provide essential food, cover, migra- mercial hard clam sheLlfishery; since 1990, however, tory corridors, and breeding/nursery areas for coastal there has been a substantial decline in the commercial and marine organisms. In addition, these habitats also landings of this species. Landings from 1991 to 1996 perform other important functions, such as water qual- dropped approximately 75 percent, to 110 metric tons.

ity and, flood protection, and water storage. A growing fraction of the meat yield in recent years has originated from aquaculture operations and relay and Ecosystems can be degraded through loss of habitat or depuration programs, with catch statistics derived from through a change or degradation in habitat structure, natural beds diminishing dramatically. Overharvesting function, or composition. Threats to habitat in the of hard clam beds, together with the lack of successful Barnegat Bay watershed include conversion of open recruitment, appears to have contributed to the land and forest to residential and commercial develop- reduced catch. Barnegat Bay also has supported major ment, highway construction, marinas, dredging and commercial and recreational fisheries for winter floun-filling, and bulkheading. Proper management of pub- der, American eel, and blue crab, but Little recent data lic lands, such as the Lakehurst Naval Air Station, is exist with which to assess the health of those stocks.

also a concern. Development activities in the water- There are serious concerns regarding the impact of har-shed result not only in direct loss of habitat, but also vesting and pollution on finfish and benthic communi-in habitat degradation due to increased runoff of sedi- ties in the estuary. One of the priority management ments, nutrients, and chemicals. initiatives for the Barnegat Bay Estuary Program is to MAY 2002 103

HABITAT and LIVING RESOURCES ACTION PLAN design a study to examine this issue. This chapter does not specify individual actions to address the issue of harvestable fishery resources within Barnegat Bay since the data are lacking to support such actions; but it is noted that Action 7.10 does recommend that a shellfish resource survey of the Bay be conducted to examine the possible causes of stock decline in hard shell clams. When implemented, this action would be a first step in the collection of data essential to fish-eries management. Assessment data is also necessary for an accurate characterization of the health of other stocks. Additional studies to assess the magnitude of Barnegat Bay fishery resources are necessary for the development of a strategic approach to fisheries man-agement, and will be discussed in Chapter 11.

The continued health and biodiversity, of marine and TABLE 6-2 and FIGURE 6-1 detail the measures to be estuarine systems depends on the maintenance of used to determine the achievement of these objec-high-quality habitat. The BBNEP has developed specif- tives, the programs that will be used for monitoring, ic action items (Table 6-1) to protect habitat and liv- and a time chart for the anticipated completion of the ing resources, which are detailed in the following sec- action item.

BBNEP'S 2002 POSTER:

"Waterfront Residents" 104 BARNEGATBAY FINAL CCMP

=t Action ,. ActionItem~ ~Tentativ Ap ox.Other Actionin~

Ie fundingion Itii~N.ItmN.Priority 1 Title cin Sttu ~' ~jlLead

_______ Schedule ~ Cost ~ Plani Supported li Source 6.1 Protect & improve vegetated H NODEP Ongoing Enhanced program Water Quality/ NJDEP Base r+

-buffer zones adjacent to cost, $25,000- Water Supply Program Funding coastal wetlands & freshwater $50,000 per year and Other tributaries to maintain contin- over 5 years Sources uous riparian corridors, for habitat protection and low-impact recreational pursuits. -

PC 6.2 Conduct a Barnegat Bay H USACE & NJDEP Oct. 10, 1997 - $2.5 million Eligible Federal ecosystem restoration teasibili- 2003 and State 0) ty study. - C Funding. See Chapter 12 r+

o.

6.3 Control erosion in threatened L NJDEP Upon availability of The costs are site Eligible Federal shoreline areas. - R funds and project Funding and dependent; an Local Cost Share individual small project may cost

$50,000 -$150,000 6.4 Manage tidal wetlands to pre- L USFWS Initiation within $10,000-$20,000 See Chapter 12 serve unditched wetlands & to two years upon per acre of salt rehabilitate wetlands that have availability of funds marsh 0 been ditched or otherwise altered. - R Status: Priority:

R = Recommendation H = High C = Commitment M = Medium PC = Partial Commitment L = Low (D

0 U.' Ch

V ih tZ 0l Maintain intact Large blocks of Initiation within $25,000 per year Eligible State Pinelands habitat within state two years upon for five years. Funding piarks & forests & other pub-icly owned lands. - R availability of funds. ONLM and NJFS estimate five years for the com-pletion of their recommendation Ci2 i0 6.6 Implement more effective N State & Federal Within two years of $50,000 over 2 Public Eligible Federal enforcement of current regula- Enforcement availability of funds years Participation & and State tions regarding sensitive Authorities Education Funding coastal habitats. - R 6.7 Coordinate and integrate man- M USDOD Memoranda of Enhanced program See Chapter 12 agement of federal lands for Agreement within funding, natural habitat values. - R two years of MAFPE $50,000 over 2 approval years 6.8 Facilitate partnerships for habi- H Federal, state Ongoing, with Existing program None Required tat .protection and restoration and local framework devel- funds; no projects. - C authorities, oped within two additional cost and private years of CCMP organizations approval 6.9 Revise municipal master plans H Local Coordinate with $15,000-$25,000 Water Quality & NJDEP Base to encourage sub-watershed municipalities municipal master per year over 5 Water Supply Program Funding planning to minimize plan review process years impervious coverage &

maintain natural habitat and landscape values. - PC Status: Priority:

R = Recommendation H = High C = Commitment M = Medium PC = Partial Commitment L = Low

toa 0+

CD4

+ f +/- I 6.11 Identify and manage impaired M USEPA Implement pilot $50,000 for Water Quality/ See Chapter .12 sub-watersheds through local projects within two small plot Water Supply government cooperation to years of funding project address water resource availability issues that cross municipal boundaries. - R 6.12 Develop a cooperative approach M NJDEP Ongoing; $50,000 Eligible among the Pinelands implementation State Commission, state parks, state within 2 years of Funding wildlife management areas, CCMP state forests, and other state implementation agencies to coordinate watershed protection on state lands. - R Status: Priority:

R = Recommendation H = High C = Commitment M = Medium PC = Partial Commitment L = Low (D

4- g~

HABITAT and LIVING RESOURCES ACTION PLAN TABLE 6-2. Indicators and Monitoring Programs for Measuring Progress Toward Habitat and Living Resources Action Plan Objectives.

Habitatand Living Resource Monitoring Programsfor ObjectiWes of the Barnegat Bay Environmental Indicators of the BBEP Indicators Estuary Program < Ind:cators Maintain on a landscape level the A measure of success of this objective will In order to measure success in natural environment of the be a reduction in the rate of protecting the Barnegat Bay landscape, watershed. fragmentation of watershed habitats as a commitment to updating, on a depicted in Land Use Land Cover maps regular basis, the I and Use/I and developed by Rutgers researchers. Cover maps that have been developed Historical trends data have been will be secured. Whether through the compiled for 1984-1997. Maintaining the NJDEP or through research institutions functional landscape of watershed habitats in the State, there is a need to develop will be instrumental to the long-term a framework for updating land use success of protecting environmental information and for analyzing it to resources and water quality in the Barnegat assess continuing trends within the Bay watershed. A second indicator may be watershed. Stream flow will be the measure of stream base flow in monitored by the USGS's stream flow Barnegat Bay watershed tributaries, monitoring network. Under NEPPS, the Maintaining the natural seasonal flows of NJDEP has agreed to monitor trends of freshwater streams will be integral to forest acreage by watershed.

perpetuating the ecosystem integrity of the Bay, estuary, and watershed.

Protect existing habitat categories This objective will be met first by a status A framework for status and trends within the Barnegat Bay watershed and trends analysis of the condition of analysis of biological indicators has to preserve and improve regional selected habitat types or wildlife already been provided by the National biodiversity. populations within the estuary and Environmental Performance Partnership watershed. Indicators will be selected System, which is a cooperative effort during a .Program workshop based on of USEPA and NJDEP. Selection of existing biological survey data. Ultimately, appropriate indicators for Barnegat Bay the measurement of success will be an trends analysis wilt be one of the early improving trend in the condition of habitat actions of CCMP implementation.

types. Under the NEPPS agreement between USEPA and NJDEP, the State will monitor the following:

  • Status and Trends in Wetlands Acreage;
  • Status and Trends of Tree Species Populations, Distribution, Growth Rate and Mortality; and Status of Endangered Plant Species Populations.

108 BARNEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

Protect Riparian Corridors (6.1)

Barnegat Bay Restoration Study (6.2) pi Control Shoreline Erosion (6.3)

__ I _ _ F_ _ _ I _ _ I Manage Tidal Wetlands through Open Water Marsh Management (6.4)

Maintain Large Blocks of Pinelands Habitat Intact (6.5)

__ ,_ _ _ F Enforce Regulations to Protect Sensitive Coastal Habitats (6.6)

Coordinate Federal Lands Management (6.7) - " -... - m"l -- --

Facilitate Partnerships for Habitat Protection (6.8) I'D4 Revise Municipal Masterplans to Encourage Subwatershed Planning (6.9)

Assess Effectiveness of CAFRA 11(6.10)

W.-

Engage Municipalities in Regional Subwatershed Planning (6.11)

Integrate Watershed Protection at the State Level (6.12) 1 23 4 5 7 8 10: 0 zt YEAR OF CCMP IMPLEMENTATION MPRE-EXISTING COMMITMENT uw

  • HIGH PRIORITY MEDIUM PRIORITY LOW PRIORITY o 0 0

'~0

HABITAT and LIVING RESOURCES ACTION PLAN 6.2 HABITAT AND HOW: Implementation of this action will entail a two-part LIVING RESOURCES ACTION ITEMS effort to identify and rehabilitate degraded riparian buffers and to protect buffer zones that remain intact.

A. An NJFS model uses soil and stream data to assess areas

~iACTION 6.1 ~~:~ for riparian improvements. The participating agencies would apply the model and integrate the data with the Prtet ndiprove vegetated buaffer zones Natural Resource Inventory (NRI) land use data using Adjacent to coastat wetlands and freshwater - GIS technology to prioritize potential sites based on ln*butaris tor ~iipan co>

habintainrotetinous Yiarnd impact and land ownership. The first step wilt be to select one sub-watershed in which to implement

[eational pursuits,.

demonstration projects, and follow up with additional sub-watersheds. The OCSCD would participate by working with landowners to implement selected SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Riparian areas have a projects using technical and financial assistance major impact on water quality by filtering pollutants incentives.

and reducing stream temperature. They also serve as a transition zone between aquatic and terrestrial habi- B. For areas that will be affected by future tats. The corridors formed by these riparian buffers development activities, the NJDEP wilt apply its regulatory authority in combination with help to maintain the integrity of the watershed ecosys-appropriate incentive measures to protect streams tem by functioning as continuous habitat links and wetlands and to maintain the water quality between extensive areas of Pinetands in the interior and habitat integrity of riparian buffer zones.

and coastal wetlands and bayshores. In addition, they offer opportunities for canoeing and other low-impact WHEN: Ongoing regulatory program. Supplemental recreation. Of special note, some headwater areas of. rehabilitation actions to commence in 2002.

the Toms and Metedeconk Rivers support seasonal trout fisheries. WHERE: Actions to be taken along coastal boundaries and in riparian zones, with a special emphasis on the Existing regulatory programs administered by the Metedeconk and Toms River sub-watersheds.

NJDEP now protect stream channels and wetlands, MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: The extent of including designated buffer zones around them, but stream corridors with adequate buffers will be mea-practices that occurred prior to regulatory review often sured biannually, and trends in such habitats will be degraded riparian corridors. A re-examination of the established. Any negative trends should be reversed, current condition of riparian buffers and the strategic and stream segments with adequate buffers should measures necessary to ensure their protection are vital increase by five percent per decade. Loss of existing to meeting the goats of water quality and habitat pro-vegetated stream, buffers should be negligible. A pro-tection within the Barnegat Bay watershed.

gram target is to infiltrate 90 percent of the runoff from one- to two-year storms to recharge aquifers and STATUS AND PRIORITY: Partial Commitment, High maintain stream base flow.

Priority.

COST ESTIMATE: Enhanced program cost, $25,000-WHO: NJDEP Land Use Regulation Program (Lead),

$50,000 above base program funding per year over five through administration of its Wetlands Law. Other par-years.

ticipating agencies include OCSCD, NRCS, N.J. Forest Service (NJFS), and OCPD. FUNDING SOURCES: Base program funding wilt sup-port NJDEP regulatory programs. Funding for riparian improvement projects and incentive measures may come from a number of potential sources, identified in Chapter 12, but no firm committments have been made to date. See Section 12.8.1.

1 10 BARNEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

Chapter 6 REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY By analyzing the alternative solutions in this manner, CHANGES: None currently identified but implementation the solution that best fits the planning objectives and of incentive measures may require format agreements constraints can be formulated in a logical and efficient between NJDEP and other participating authorities. manner. An incremental analysis will be performed to optimize the solutions. Environmental quality benefits will be determined utilizing the Habitat Evaluation Procedure. When both the USACE and the non-federal ACTION 6.2 ~ ~ /4 sponsor are satisfied with the optimized plan, a draft Conduct a rBanegat Bay ecosstem reitorat feasibility report and a draft National Environmental feasibility study'7 Policy Act (NEPA) document will be produced. After a period of agency and public review, a final report will SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The purpose of this feasi- be issued. If the final report recommends a construc-tion project and funding is in place, the project will bility study, which is phase two in a two-part U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) planning process, is proceed to pre-construction, engineering and design, and then construction.

to develop various ecosystem restoration projects for the Barnegat Bay estuary. These projects will help pre-serve and improve habitats for numerous species of WHEN: October 1997 to December 2003. Potential plants and animals. The feasibility study will docu- fast-track restoration projects, including fish ladders ment and provide background data and support for the on coastal tributaries, and restoring habitat in deep implementation of future restoration projects. The fea- dredged holes are nearing completion of preliminary planning.

sibility study will consider the following areas for restoration: fresh-water wetlands, salt marshes, aban-doned lagoons, submerged aquatic vegetation, fisheries WHERE: The feasibility study focuses on the Barnegat habitat, and waterfowl habitat (geese and ducks). Bay, including Little Egg Harbor and adjacent lands.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Recommendations STATUS AND PRIORITY: Commitment, High Priority.

for actions contained in the feasibility report wilt WHO: The feasibility study is a joint project between: include specific monitoring plans to assess project the USACE and the NJDEP. performance.

HOW: The study began with the formation of a study COST ESTIMATE: $2.5 million for the feasibility study.

f team to conduct intensive site investigations for fast-track implementation opportunities. Existing condi- FUNDING SOURCES: On September 15, 1995, the U.S.

House of Representatives Committee on Transportation tions were characterized through data collection and structuring, and data have been entered into a com- and Infrastructure requested that the USACE conduct a study of the Barnegat Bay estuary and surrounding prehensive GIS database as appropriate.

areas to identify possible improvements in ecosystem Plan formulation will follow with the identification and restoration and protection. The Conference report, screening of potential alternatives, and the evaluation which accompanied the Fiscal Year 1998 Energy and of detailed plans that addresses the documented prob- Water Development Appropriations Act, contains feasi-lems. The purpose of the formulation analysis is to bility phase funds for this project. The Barnegat Bay identify plans that are publicly acceptable, imple- Ecosystem Restoration Study is budgeted to receive a mentable, and feasible from environmental, engineer- total of $1.25 million in federal funds during the study period, which is well under way. Section 105 of the ing, and socioeconomic standpoints.

Water Resources Development Act of 1986 specifies the cost-sharing requirements applicable to the study. The State of New Jersey hasagreed to provide $1.25 million MAY 2002 111

HUMAN ACTIVITIES and COMPETING USES ACTION PLAN during the study period, which will serve as the Each project must meet certain criteria:

required match.

" The project must be complete within itself and not REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY commit the USACE to further construction; CHANGES: None currently identified.

" The project must be economically justified; that is, the benefits must exceed the costs, including project operation and maintenance;

" The project must be environmentally acceptable; and where applicable, will include further consulta-tion with the US Fish and Wildlife Service to accommodate the habitat needs of such shoreline-dwelling species as piping plover and seabeach SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Perturbations in tidal amaranth; ranges and circulation within the Barnegat Bay have led in some areas to persistent erosion of natural or The sponsor of the project must be willing to assist unstabilized shorelines. This is a problem because up with the project by fulfilling non-federal to 75 percent of the Barnegat Bay shoreline has already responsibilities, such as providing lands, easements,.

undergone some level of modification. Since they are or rights-of-way, and must agree to operate and integral to the overall health of the estuary, natural maintain the project.

shorelines are a resource that needs focused attention.

In addition, NJDEP Division of Engineering and STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Low Construction staff can work with communities to Priority. explore shore protection projects that address erosion in threatened shoreline areas.

WHO: NJDEP (Lead). Potential non-federal sponsors (e.g., NJDEP Engineering and Construction Division) WHEN: The target date for initiation of action is 2004.

can contact the Special Studies Section of the USACE, Philadelphia District, to request federal involvement. WHERE: Projects will be undertaken along actively eroding shorelines within the Barnegat Bay proper.

HOW: Under Section 103, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1962, as amended, the USACE may construct small MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Completed projects.

beach restoration and protection projects not specifi- will be assessed to determine the extent to which they cally authorized by Congress. The project must not be protect natural shoreline areas threatened by erosion.

dependent on additional improvements for successful completion. COST ESTIMATE: The costs are site- and project-dependent; an individual small project may cost between $50,000 and $150,000.

FUNDING SOURCES: Funds are provided to the USACE annually. Study costs: First $100,000 - 100 percent federal funds; amount over $100,000 - 50 percent fed-eral/50 percent non-federal funds. Potential non-fed-eral sources would be state, county, or municipal fund-ing.

PRO3ECT COSTS: 65 percent/35 percent, federal/non-federal; $2 million maximum federal contribution.

112 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

Chapter 6 wilt be measured by the increase in wetlands under REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY active management that receive more sensitive man-CHANGES: None currently identified. agement treatment, and the growth in the number of acres of unaltered tidal wetlands that are preserved.

A4CTION 6.4~! COST ESTIMATE: $10,000-$20,000 per acre of salt marsh.

.. anage tidal wetlands Intopresrve unitched

_wetlands and to rehabilitate w-etLands thatj have FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments. See dis-cussion of potential funding sources in Chapter 12,

~been ditched or other~wise altered 4 derjou~g1 Section 12.8.1.

REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: No formal administrative changes required.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Tidal wetlands are crucial to the biological productivity of Barnegat Bay. Perhaps one-third of the historical wetlands bordering the bay has been lost to human development or alteration.

Mosquito ditching and other human alterations have impacted most of the remaining wetlands. Protecting currently unmodified tidal wetlands in Barnegat Bay should be a top priority. Additionally, remedial mea-sures should be taken to restore ditched and other altered tidal wetlands to a more productive condition, while satisfying the need for mosquito control.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The upland areas of the Barnegat Bay watershed lie primarily in the Pinelands STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Low region of the state, which is characterized by high Priority.

water tables yet drought-like soil conditions due to the sandy nature of the soil. The dominant vegetative WHO: USFWS (Lead), NJDEP, and other authorities with type is pitch pine forest; associated species include a responsibility to manage wetlands acreage.

wealth of rare, unique, and endangered flora and fauna. The pitch pine forest is maintained by the nat-HOW: Open Marsh Water Management (0MWM) is a ural occurrence of wildfires, which perpetuates the technique developed to address the concern about open-canopy conditions favored by many of the more nuisance mosquitoes while minimizing adverse impacts unusual species. Human development within this envi-to the biological productivity of tidal wetlands. By ronment leads to fire suppression measures that inter-adopting OMWM as a standard practice, wetlands rupt the natural fire cycle and lead ultimately to management authorities can, address public concerns closed-canopy forests and the toss of rare fire-adapted about mosquitoes while improving wetlands productiv-species. Maintenance of large tracts of the native pitch ity and value.

pine forest is essential in order to allow space for some measure of natural or managed fire regeneration that WHEN: Initiate action by 2003.

will sustain the native forest and its associated species.

WHERE: This action will occur in ditched salt marsh STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Medium areas within the Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge.

Priority.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Effectiveness MAY2 002 113

HUMAN ACTIVITIES and COMPETING USES ACTION PLAN WHO: NJDEP (Lead), state parks, and state forests; REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY N.J. Pinelands Commission (NJPC), Office of Natural CHANGES: Managing authorities may need to address Lands Management (ONLM), NJFS, and TPL. the maintenance of appropriately sized habitat blocks within their management policies.

HOW: Using existing authorities, responsible agencies can ensure that their management practices will bene-fit Pinelands habitats sufficiently to maintain the full complement of rare and local species that are current-ly found in those habitats.

Much of the information required to identify and man-age such large tracts within portions of Ocean County SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: In the coastal bay, colo-for native forest types and rare species is now available nial nesting shorebirds and waders are dependent on or is under development by staff of the ONLM. Detailed ever fewer undisturbed sandy islands and coastal mapping of all vegetation has been completed in the thickets for nesting, feeding, and loafing. Federal and Barnegat Bay watershed south of Cedar Creek. More state-lis'ted threatened and endangered species are mapping work is needed northward to the Toms River.

prominent among the populations found within and Extensive fieldwork has been used to separate pine around the Barnegat Bay region. Human activity on plains, pitch pine-shrub oak barrens, pine-oak wood-these islands and coastal habitats must be restricted to land, and pine-oak/oak-pine forest types, each of successfully protect these populations of colonial nest-which has different fire management needs.

ing birds.

Wildfire records from the NJFS havebeen compiled for STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Medium Ocean County dating back to the 1920s, but gaps in the Priority.

fire record and mapping inaccuracies are still being WHO: State and federal enforcement authorities.

corrected with aerial photography and information from other sources. A database summarizing each fire HOW: Improved enforcement and focused public edu-of this wildfire-prone region has been initiated, and cation with regard to illegal trespassing at sensitive there are plans to digitize all fire perimeters into a GIS sites in the bay are important parts of this effort. A and link each record to the database. follow-up commitment by enforcement authorities to reduce human disturbance to these habitats will also WHEN: The target date for initiation of action is 2003. be necessary. "The Boater's Guide to Barnegat Bay and ONLM and NJFS estimate five years for the completion Little Egg Harbor"serves as a public education tool for of their recommendations. this action.

WHERE: This action will occur in the upland and trib- WHEN: An enhanced program will be developed with-utary areas of the Barnegat Bay watershed. in two years, now targeted for 2003, following avail-ability of funds.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Effectiveness WHERE: This action will focus on undeveloped islands wilt be gauged by the number of areas purchased or and coastal habitats in Barnegat Bay.

improved.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Average annual COST ESTIMATE: Enhanced program cost for infor-increases in populations and nesting locations for tar-mation gathering: $25,000 per year over five years. geted species will be used to measure the effectiveness of this action.

FUNDING SOURCES: Potential funding sources include those available to NJDEP on an annual basis. COST ESTIMATE: $50,000 over two years for staff and See Chapter12, Section 12.8.1. other costs.

114 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

Chapter 6 FUNDING SOURCES: Potential funding sources would participating agencies in this action, would oversee an include available federal and state funding programs. effort by resource managers from the agencies to devel-op a memorandum of agreement or other appropriate REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY vehicle establishing the cooperative management of CHANGES: No new ordinances are anticipated; howev- federal public lands for the protection of natural habi-er, commitment to improve state enforcement of exist- tat and resource values within agency mandates.

ing regulations is necessary for the effective protection Opportunities to cooperate with state and local land of sensitive nesting sites. managers should also be explored.

WHEN: Memoranda of Agreement within two years of MAFPE approval to be completed by 2003.

WHERE: This action would encompass federal land holdings and areas of management authority within the Barnegat Bay watershed (e.g., Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge).

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Much of the area that lies within the Barnegat Bay watershed is publicly owned MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Effectiveness at the federal, state, or local level. This places much will be measured by the number of agreements con-of the burden for ensuring the continued ecological cluded among federal participants and the number of integrity of the watershed on the public sector. Major actions taken cooperatively to protect, enhance, and federal land holdings are managed by the U.S. restore habitat quality.

Department of Defense (Lakehurst Naval Air Station, Fort Dix Military Reservation) and the USFWS (Forsythe COST ESTIMATE: Enhanced program funding, $50,000 National Wildlife Refuge). In addition, management of over two years for staff support.

the Pinelands National Reserve and the Coastal Heritage Trail are a cooperative effort between the fed- FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments. The fed-eral government and the State of New Jersey (public eral partners will need to secure the required funding.

and private lands). While these properties have differ-REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY ent attributes and are managed under very different CHANGES: Memoranda of Agreement or other appro-mandates, each plays a role in the unique ecological priate authority will be needed to ensure that the makeup of the Barnegat Bay watershed.

respective federal agencies cooperate in the conserva-tion and management of natural resources and habitats The USFWS areas are primarily coastal marshlands, while the Pinelands and military reservations contain a wealth under their control.

of sensitive Pinelands habitats, with associated rare and endangered species. Airstrips at the military reservations ACTION 6.8~"

paradoxically harbor some of the region's few populations of nesting grassland bird species. iFaciitate partnerships pfrabitatprotection an restorfation projectýs STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Medium Priority.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Cooperative partnerships WHO: U.S. Department of Defense (USDOD) (Lead), can be developed between and among land management USFWS, National Park Service, USEPA. authorities at various government levels and between gov-ernment agencies and private organizations. An ongoing HOW: The Mid-Atlantic Federal Partners for the arrangement between the State of New Jersey and the TPL Environment (MAFPE), which include each of the resulted in the publication of a report ("The Century Plan") documenting threatened sensitive natural, areas, MAY 2002 115

HUMAN ACTIVITIES and COMPETING USES ACTION PLAN and it continues with land acquisition and protection FUNDING SOURCES: None required efforts. Additional constructive efforts of this nature should be explored and pursued. REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: No regulatory changes are required.

STATUS AND PRIORITY: Commitment, High Priority.

WHO: BBNEP Program Office will facilitate partner-ships among federal, state, and local authorities, and ACTION 6.9,<

private organizations.

init-ipjnal master plans to encourg&

Ris .......

HOW: Where a funding source has been established, a subaterhedpja.-ning to iinimjnimprvou cooperative approach can be pursued whereby two a maintain natural habiýtat and]

Je agencies or an agency and a private organization can join forces to implement effective habitat protection.

Often the partners of the agreement bring different capacities that result in accomplishment of goals that SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Municipalities are respon-may be unattainable by either partner individually. sible for planning for growth and development as authorized by the NJ Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL)

For example, the ONLM has partnered with natural area (N3SA 40:55D -1, et seq.) Municipal master plans con-superintendents and the NRCS, which provides a cost tain elements allowed by the MLUL that could enhance share on wildlife habitat restoration projects. Projects municipalities' ability to accommodate growth white funded under the NRCS's Wildlife Habitat Incentives protecting the natural environment of the Barnegat Program (WHIP) include limited-scale and demonstra- Bay watershed. These elements include:

tion projects for control of invasive plants in State

  • Conservation; Natural Areas administered by the NJDEP, Division of Parks and Forestry. The ONLM is working with Island
  • Historic preservation; Beach State Park to control Asiatic sand sedge on the
  • Stormwater management; and primary dunes of the Island Beach Southern Natural Area. The BBNEP will facilitate the formation of simi- " Land use (including environmental impacts to lar partnerships through the Program office and the wetlands, topographic features, floodplains, and Barnegat Bay Watershed & Estuary Foundation.

soils).

WHEN: Ongoing. New partnerships will be developed In order to address more regional issues of watershed within two years of final approval of the CCMP, or by protectioni, however, municipalities need to consider 2003. their role in, and contribution to, problems and poten-tial solutions. Future iterations of municipal master WHERE: Partnerships will be developed anywhere plans throughout the entire watershed should incorpo-within the Barnegat Bay watershed.

rate a regional watershed approach.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: The measure of County planning departments prepare county master success will be determined based on the objectives of plans that serve as guidance for development. The each individual partnership. Overall, the number of OCPD has a number of resources available to assist successful partnerships will serve as one measure of municipalities in planning for the protection of natur-effectiveness. al resource values as regional development continues.

COST ESTIMATE: The BBNEP Program Office will act as STATUS AND PRIORITY: Partial Commitment, High facilitator using its annual budgeting; no additional Priority.

costs are anticipated.

116 BARNEGATBAYFINALCCMP

Chapter 6 WHO: Local municipalities (Lead) in Ocean County will base program funding. Guidance and technical support for individually revise municipal master plans to improve the municipalities may require additional county effort.

natural resource protection. The OCPD will provide guidance and technical information to municipalities FUNDING SOURCES: State support to the county and in order to facilitate appropriate changes to local mas- municipalities may be available through base program ter plans. operations of the NJDEP.

HOW: The MLUL calls for reassessments of municipal REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY master plans every six years, guided by the respective CHANGES: No changes are required at the state or county master plans. As reviews become due, the county level. This action would entail revisions in municipalities will coordinate with the OCPD to municipal master plans.

improve natural resource protection in their master NJDEP coastal zone management policies guide munic-plans. During the master plan review process, munici-ipalities working to develop appropriate local ordi-palities should rely on input from their environmental nances. In addition, model ordinances adopted by commissions (where applicable), the Coastal Decision some municipalities in the county serve as useful Makers Institute, Ocean County Environmental Health examples for others. Also, under the State Develop-Agency, OCPD, Office of State Planning, and the NJPC ment and Re-Development Plan, the land-use plan of (where applicable).

each community is reviewed as part of the cross-accep-tance process, which is coordinated by the OCPD.

WHEN: This action should occur during the cross-acceptance review process of the State Development and Re-Development Plan, and during the Municipal Master Plan review process as required by the Municipal Land Use Law. The review schedules for municipal plans are staggered so that the county acts on several plans every year.

WHERE: This action is applicable to all municipalities within Ocean County.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The Coastal Zone Management Program regulates development in the MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: The effective-coastal zone and seeks to conserve coastal natural ness of this action will be measured in two ways: 1) by the resources. CAFRA II is the most recent revision to the number of municipal master plans that are reviewed and state's program, and the new, revised regulations amended over time; and 2) by the natural resource pro-meant to address shortcomings in the original regula-tection afforded by the amended master plans.

tions have only recently been promulgated. Moreover, they help to integrate state guidance, in the form of COST ESTIMATE: Review and revision of municipal the NJ State Development and Redevelopment Plan, master plans will require levels of effort from each into the coastal management program. The guidance is municipality that cannot be easily quantified. For the designed to direct development and redevelopment 33 municipalities of Ocean County, an annual supple-towards areas with existing adequate infrastructure ment totaling $15,000 to $25,000 may be required.

and to promote conservation of the state's natural This will cover the five to six municipalities under-resources.

going review every year, since the reviews are staggered over six years. STATUS AND PRIORITY: Commitment, High Priority.

County review of municipal master plans is an ongoing WHO: NJDEP, Division of Watershed Management, Land effort of the OCPD, and would be conducted through its Use Regulation Program (Lead).

MAY 2002 117

HUMAN ACTIVITIES and COMPETING USES ACTION PLAN HOW: Through administration of the newly revised regulatory program, the NJDEP wilt be making incre- ACTION 6.11 ~ f.

mental improvements to the protection of coastal

  • Ideii* andmanag n ee impaireddsub*:wateis1e dAs resources. According to standard procedure for througnioi ]a:l government cooperation to addoo ess Department Rules, the NJDEP will assess the success of watei w:resource issuLes that ~cross ~municipat limiting the growth in development in the coastal bounidarti,_

zone, concentrating new development and redevelop-ment in existing development centers, and restricting the increase in impervious cover in the coastal water-shed.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Existing regulatory pro-WHEN: NJDEP will assess the effects of its new regu- grams help to minimize the environmental impacts of latory program five years after the start of implemen- ongoing development, and help to preserve important tation, or by 2006. environmental values. In many cases, however, previ-ous development practices and inconsistencies in WHERE: This action applies to the CAFRA coastal zone municipal land-use plans among neighboring town-area in New Jersey, including Ocean County and the ships and boroughs have led to serious and long-stand-Barnegat Bay Watershed. Most or all of the 33 munic- ing adverse impacts to the local environment. To ipalities lie, at least in part, within the CAFRA region, accommodate continued growth within a framework of environmental protection for the Barnegat Bay water-MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: A program shed, previous environmental damage must be assessment wilt be conducted after five years, allowing addressed and steps must be taken to rectify those NJDEP to measure the change in resource protection abuses. This action also contains a significant water (area of impervious cover reduced, coastal resources quality component.

conserved) relative to the increase in coastal develop-ment. STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Medium Priority.

COST ESTIMATE: This assessment will be completed using base program funding of the NJDEP. WHO: USEPA, Barnegat Bay Watershed and Estuary Foundation (BBWEF), Science and Technical Advisory FUNDING SOURCES: State funding of NJDEP base pro- Committee (STAC), NJDEP, and county and local agencies.

grams.

HOW: Identify sub-watersheds that lie in more than REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY one local jurisdiction and that suffer from poor water CHANGES: None-changes have already been effected. quality, altered hydrology, excessive sedimentation, or other habitat or water quality impairment; determine the appropriate remedial measures to address the impairment; and schedule actions to reduce or elimi-nate the long-term consequences of the impairment.

This action will be supported by the Natural Resources Inventory (Action 5.2).

WHEN: Implement two pilot projects within two years upon availability of funds. Schedule appropriate com-prehensive remediation measures to be completed within 10 to 20 years.

118 BARNEGAT BAYFINAL CcMP

Chapter 6 WHERE: Impaired sub-watersheds throughout Ocean WHO: NJDEP (Lead); state parks and state forests; County. NJDEP, Division of Fish and Wildlife; NJ Pinelands Commission.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Effectiveness will be measured by the increase in the number of HOW: Within their existing authorities; responsible waterways meeting water quality standards and the state agencies can more actively cooperate to ensure reduction in pollutants reaching the Barnegat Bay. the optimal protection of the natural resource values of these lands. For example, the NJDEP is imple-COST ESTIMATE: Approximately $50,000 for complet- menting a plan for the long-term protection of rare ing a pilot project for a small sub-watershed. species in New Jersey known as the Landscape Project. This effort focuses on the relationships FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments. See dis- between organisms and their environment, emphasiz-cussion of potential funding sources in Chapter 12, ing the larger region, or landscape, in which these Section 12.8.1. communities exist. This effort recognizes the current weaknesses in long-term preservation of rare species REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY such as fragmentation of habitats and tack of coordi-CHANGES: Responsible agencies will need to make a nated land management among government agencies.

commitment to address environmental degradation The Division of Fish and Wildlife's Non-Game Program that may lie beyond the reach of regulatory authority. can provide data from the Landscape Project to iden-The stimulus to encourage participation might include tify areas for state acquisition.

financial incentives to municipalities or the offer of technical expertise to address locally recognized envi- WHEN: Ongoing, with implementation within two ronmental problems. years of final approval of the CCMP, or by 2003.

WHERE: This action will take place at state-owned management areas throughout Ocean County.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Effectiveness will be measured by the number of successful collabo-rative efforts to foster long-term ecosystem protection.

COST ESTIMATE: Approximately $50,000 for staff support and other costs.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The State of New Jersey FUNDING SOURCES: Potential funding sources would is a large landowner within Ocean County. Tens of include those available to NJDEP on an annual basis.

thousands of acres of state parks, state forests, and state wildlife management areas are distributed around REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY the county, largely concentrated in the Pinelands CHANGES: Policy commitment for cooperation among region of the inland watershed. Optimal management state land management authorities will be needed.

of these areas for maintaining environmental values would entail a cooperative approach among the various state agencies that oversee these lands.

STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Medium Priority.

MAY 2002 119

I do not see a delegation of the four-footed.

I see no seat for the eagles.

We forget and we consider ourselves superior, but we are after all a mere part of Creation.

-- Oren Lyons, Faithkeeper of the Turtle Clan of the Onondaga Nation, addressing the United Nations assembly

Catboat and houseboat off Barnegat Lighthouse at Island Beach. PHOTOCOURTESYOFTHEOCEAN COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY.

. MAY2002 121

Estimated Housing and Boat Counts i* Bay Front and Lagoon Communities Ocean County, New Jersey OreillC~mt P"asl Owpalmefat N

Legend Marbias S upumpoutStations La0oon Say Front E]Lagoon Island WLagoon Retirement LabelKay Q4-, b- Ea-Matr wetwF d W"a c4ma ofttc BOAT COUNT. ESTIMATES ____ __

COMMUNITlYTYPE NUMBER OFKOOSfS HUMBOIFOF 'AOf TOTAL NUlMBEROF BOATS SOF BOATS

____________________itOTS BOATS 'OR -25FT. .OR -Z5FT.

L00" 10423 6.703 6' 2290 22 DAYFROUT 2475 3266 In2 41 RIVERPRONT . 267i fW4 69 003. 30 LAGOO MEISMENI ISqQ 1034 437t 1 0544. 234i3 15561 6. S IBS .JL 122 3ARNEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

.Chapter 7

7.1 INTRODUCTION

Previous chapters detail regulatory and other govern-ment agency actions that are targeted at protecting The Barnegat Bay region is very popular for many differý water quality and maintaining natural resource values.

ent reasons and has many different uses. In fact, there are This chapter focuses more specifically on the human so many users and different interest groups, all of whom uses of the estuary and how they compete for a finite want to use this finite space, that they experience real and resource. In doing so, this chapter fulfills the intent perceived conflict with each other. Commercial and recre- of the BBNEP to develop a comprehensive plan for the ational fishing, power boating and sailboating, use of per- bay and its watershed. In a similar mantner, the next sonal watercraft (PWC), beachgoing, passive pursuits such chapter details public education and outreach efforts as bird-watching and natural study, all compete as pre- to improve public awareness of the very real environ-ferred activities within the Barnegat Bay estuary. mental impacts people impose on the watershed mere-ly by their style of living. The Human Activities and At the same time, human activities within the watershed Competing Uses Action Plan proposes actions that take contribute to the estuary's water quality impairment and the next step beyond education to citizen empower-habitat loss and alteration. Human activities such as ment and mobilization to rectify unintended environ-development, dredging, illegal dumping, and erosion due mental consequences and to diminish the effects of the to shoreline structures or boat wakes all contribute to the growing human population. It is an objective of the loss and degradation of natural habitat and the decline in BBNEP to describe competing uses, determine the com-the bay's water quality. pensatory limits of the estuary's natural systems, and develop an effective management plan to sustain and Despite the increased pressure on the watershed, efforts enhance overall ecosystem health and use. The BBNEP must be made to sustain the long-term viability of the has assessed the linkage between human activities and coastal ecosystem. Without these efforts, continued impacts on the estuary and is proposing politically fea-degradation will result in the loss of natural resources, aes- sible management solutions to mitigate those impacts.

thetics, and ultimately, economic value and quality of life.

Through proper stewardship, that is, by protecting the bay This Action Plan works in tandem with the plans and its watershed now, concerned citizens will protect the described in the previous two chapters to ensure the bay's resources not only for themselves, but also for their protection of water quality and water supply and to children and subsequent generations. maintain the area's wealth of natural resources.

MAY2002 123

HUMAN ACTIVITIES and COMPETING USES ACTION PLAN Actions with an emphasis on what the average citizen phenomenon that threatens the health of Barnegat can do are organized by their impacts on the water- Bay's shallow-water habitat and its inhabitants. An shed (residential development and day-to-day living action item to address this particular use is essential activities) and impacts on the estuary (boating and for the long-term health of the bay. Inappropriate PWC boating infrastructure, use of PWC, fishing and shell- use is a local, state, national, and international issue, fishing). A summary of Action Items within this and extensive educational resources, information, and Action Plan can be found in Table 7-1.

research data have been compiled on PWC use and impacts. This action describes how the Barnegat Bay Table 7-2 and Figure 7-1 give the measures by which the above objectives will be achieved; the means of PWC Task Force, which represents federal, state, coun-taking the measure of achievement, and the expected ty, and local agencies, will address this issue locally, timeline for completion of action implementation. statewide, and federally. This action includes develop-ment of a conservation-zoning model for Barnegat Bay for incorporation into statewide legislation, which will help other regions of New Jersey. This action will also help promote consistency between state and federal initiatives.

STATUS AND PRIORITY: Commitment, High Priority.

WHO: A volunteer-based PWC Task Force (BBPWCTF) has been assembled for the Barnegat Bay watershed (Lead). This task force includes interested parties from environmental, dealer, user, rental operations, state police, legislative, and marine trades groups. This group is co-chaired by the Barnegat Bay Watershed Association (BBWA) and Clean Ocean Action.

Participants currently include: N.J. State Police, Marine Trades Association, N.J. Boating Regulatory Commission, Jersey Coast Anglers Aisociation, Alliance for a Living Ocean (ALO), Isaac Walton League of Ocean County, Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve (JCNERR), American Littoral Society, BBNEP, RCE, Congressman James J. Saxton's office, a PWC user, 7.2 HUMAN ACTIVITIES AND and Island Beach State Park.

COMPETING USES ACTION ITEMS HOW: The BBPWCTF has been developing goals and objec-tives to create an action plan for PWC uses in Barnegat Bay and throughout the state. This group will draft a PWC management plan for Barnegat Bay based on scientific studies that have been done on the effects of PWC on shal-low-water habitats and coastal nesting grounds for birds.

The studies and models that have been compiled are local, national, and international.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Barnegat Bay is a popular vacation destination due to its valuable fishing, crab- Members of the BBPWCTF have assessed international and bing, and clamming opportunities; but other activities national research on what other regions have done to estab-also contribute to the popularity of this area as a beach lish conservation zoning and other PWC-related initiatives.

resort destination. Boating, specifically jet-powered These findings are incorporated into the draft statewide leg-islation which the group is developing.

vessels such as PWC and jet boats,; is a fairly new 124 BARMEGAT BAYFINALCCMP

Acteio Actit In

, l * :* ,  :'

Tentative Drox.Action Apprpx. .

6 r 't* : 1:,

(!

  • i i*i:

Fundini.g..

Itr o, Ttean ttu roit edSchedule Cost Plan Supported~ Source r+

7.1 Draft a Barnegat Bay personal H PWC Task Force Ongoing $10,000 Habitat Loss & Coastal watercraft (PWC) management Alteration Management strategy, thereby setting an Plan example for statewide policy. - 0*

C 7.2 Promote the use of the M RCE or Marine Annually i $20,000 for Public See Chapter 12 "Boater's Guide to Barnegat Trades 21,000 copies Participation & I-4 Bay and Little Egg Harbor" to Association of Education protect sensitive areas by miti- New Jersey gating boater impacts to water Water Quality/

quality and natural resources. - Water Supply PC Habitat & Living Resources 7.3 Follow up the Municipal M BBWEF Quarterly newslet- $10,000 per year BBEP Program Outreach Project with contin- ter I Funding ued production of "Community Connection" newsletter and Annual with a community awards pro- recognition gram. - R awards ceremony 7.4 Use environmental commis- M BBEP, Ocean Commence upon None available See Chapter 12 sions to foster the watershed County availability of beyond existing approach. - R Environmental funds. program funding Agency .I 7.5 Support the Barnegat Bay H Municipal & Ongoing $10,000 Public BBEP Program 0 Watershed and Estuary county govern- Participation & Funding Foundation (BBWEF) to protect ments Education Barnegat Bay and its watershed resources. - C Status: Priority:

R = Recommendation H = High C = Commitment M= Medium PC = Partial Commitment L= Low P4 Ulf

Ci to 0

Non-government Lsraousn a narnegat 1ay MLue 1 LILIdLC Lidiililly 1/J,UUU LU Water UuaLity/ Funding Sources.

Card certification program on upon availability of establish program Water Supply soil health, tow-input funds. & core training See Chapter 12 landscapes, and ba ancing the water cycle. - R

.7.7 Use data & information from L OCSCD Upon availability of $75,000 Water Quality/ See Chapter 12 the Natural Resource Inventory funds Water Supply rn-(NRI) to promote the use of Best Management Practices Habitat & Living bi (BMPs). - R Resources Public Participation &

Education 0 7.8 Design & construct L RCE Initiate within one $35,000 per year Water Quality/ See Chapter 12 environmentally sensitive year of receipt of Water Supply demonstration gardens in all funding.

municipalities. - R Public Participation & bi Education 7.9 Construct an environmentally M RCE 2003 $5,000 - $8,000 Water Quality/ BBEP Program sensitive demonstration lawn per year Water Supply Funding for homeowners to use as a model for landscaping plans. - Public PC Participation &

Education Status: Priority:

R = Recommendation H = High C = Commitment M = Medium PC = Partial Commitment L = Low

tz D .

Action Acion Itern J >Tentativo Approx. Other Action Funding

~Item No. ~ adSoaurcs~

rel Pri1t Lea Schedule ~ Cost ~ Plan Supported :,Source 7.10 Conduct shellfish resource sur- M NJDEP, Division 2002 $190,000 See Chapter 12 vey of the bay to examine of Fish &

potential causes of stock Wildlife decline and meat discoloration in hard shell clams and explore resource enhancement strate-gies so that an adequate sup-ply of shellfish exists to reap the benefits of improved water quality resulting from Action Item 5.25 in the Water Quality/ Water Supply Action Plan. - PC Status: Priority:

R = Recommendation H = High C = Commitment M= Medium PC = Partial Commitment L Low o E-9U

HUMAN ACTIVITIES and COMPETING USES ACTION PLAN TABLE 7-2. Indicators and Monitoring Programs for Measuring Progress Toward Human Activities and Compteting Uses Action Plan Objectives.

H*umnan Activities and .P........ Mntrg fo Competing UseQObjectives of the EnvironmentaLIndicators of the BBEP , Monitoi.1 Pogam fr Barnegat Bay Estu ;Progirai . " . , Indicators.

Support water-related recreation The measure of success in this objective (a) The status and trends in economic while preserving the economic wilt be an increase in: (a) economic vitality vitality will be comipiped by the Ocean viability of commercial endeavors, associated with Ocean County tourism County Office of Tourism and (dollars spent, jobs maintained); (b) the monitored by the BBEP; (b) the number of municipal beach badges sold number of beach badges sold will be (bay-side only); (c) the number of compiled by the municipalities of recreation arid commercial shellfish Ocean County and monitored by the harvesting licenses sold. BBEP; (c) the number of recreational and commercial shellfish licenses sold will be monitored by the NJDEP Division of Fish and Wildlife (Bureau of Marine Fisheries).'

Encourage sustainable methods of The measure of success in this objective will (a) Surface Water Quality Data - NJDEP living within the watershed, be improvements in the quality of surface and USGS cooperative Ambient Surface whereby human uses are balanced water and groundwater used by the citizens Water Monitoring Network and the with ecosystem protection. of Ocean County, as well as the Toms River Nonpoint Source Study; (b) maintenance of baseflow in the major Groundwater Oualitv Data - NJDEP and tributaries in the watershed. Specifically, USGS Cooperative Groundwater targeted base flow levels in watershed Monitoring Network; (c) Ocean County tributaries could be monitored and Health Department's water quality cataloged to demonstrate that adequate data; (d) Results of the Toms flows are being provided to in-stream River/Metedeconk River Watershed aquatic Life. Study (i.e., Ciesla Study).

Empower citizens in the protection This objective will be measured by the The BBWEF will arrange and coordinate and stewardship of the Barnegat Bay number of forums, workshops, meetings and the user conflict forums, meetings, and its watershed, public events, and activities in the workshops, and.other associated watershed directed at user conflicts and activities. Monitoring to be conducted promoting dialogue between competing by the BBEP.

users of the Bay and its watershed.

Establish a consensus-based The measure of success in this objective is The Barnegat Bay PWC Task Force, agreement to restrict uses of PWCs the number of forums, workshops, meetings together with Rutgers Institute of in sensitive shallow nearshore and activities undertaken to develop a Marine and Coastal Sciences and the waters. Management Plan for PWCs. Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Reserve, will continue to work toward facilitating and monitoring progress toward development of a PWC Management Plan for the Barnegat Bay area.

Manage recreationally and A measure of success for this objective will A program committee to maintain an commercially important fish and be an annual inventory of outstanding annual inventory of crab and clam shellfish species for sustainable and licenses for recreational and commercial licenses wilt be required to implement safe harvest. clamniing and crabbing. NJDEP issues this indicator. A source of funds will licenses for recreational and commercial be needed to enable the NJ Bureau of harvest of hard clams and blue crabs within Sheltfisheries to conduct an updated the state's in-shore waters, and an annual stock assessment for hard clams in count of outstanding permits wilt provide a Barnegat Bay.

measure of current fishing pressure, registering a qualitative measure of the status of the fisheries. A periodic stock assessment of the hard clam fishery will add a quantitative measure for the success of actions to meet this Program objective.

A stock assessment of the hard clam fishery was most recently conducted by NJDEP Division of Fish and Wildlife (Bureau of Shellfisheries) in 1985-1987.

1 28 BARNEGATBAY FINALCCMP

Draft a BB PWC Management Strategy (7.1)

Promote the Use of the 'Boater's Guide.- (7.2) I n I I II II

- I5 Follow-up the Municipal Outreach Project... (7.3)

Use Environmental Commissio-s to Foster 3 __ _ __ i _ -- I

__I_ i _

the Watershed Approach (7 4)

Establish the BEWEF (7.5)

_ _ Z I I_ _ ____ ___ .

Establish a BB Blue Card Certification (7.6)

Use Data ard Informatiort Fron the NRI to Promote BMP's (7.7) I__I_

Design and Construct Environmentally Sensitve Derrno. Gardens in Muricipalititie (7.8)

Construct an Environ. Sensitive Demo. Lan for Homeowners as Model Plan (7.9)

Conduct Shellfish Resource Survey t7.10) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 (D YEAR OF CCMP IMPLEMENTATION in C:

M M PRE-EXISTING COMMITMENT HIGH PRIORITY MEDIUM PRIORITY 0

LOW PRIORITY

-~

4 ~ ,7

'a-

-2

~<t 7 2>

SC-,

r

-~ ......... 7 VU U

I-

HUMAN ACTIVITIES and COMPETING USES ACTION PLAN Additionally, JCNERR and the Institute of Marine and submitted comments on the educational standards Coastal Sciences (IMCS) of Rutgers University will host two for the enforcement agents and will continue to seminars to bring together national experts who have work with the N.J. State Police on this initiative.

worked on the science and policy issues related to PWC use. The information from these workshops will be used WHEN: The BBPWCTF activities have-been ongoing to identify research data gaps and future areas of study. since May 1999. Scientific and management workshops JCNERR will utilize the information to develop manage- were held at the end of 1999 and a final outcome, in ment recommendations for consideration by the N.J. the form of a management policy, is targeted for 2001.

Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP).

WHERE: The statewide model will be developed in the The BBPWCTF will also use this information to bolster Barnegat Bay estuary and watershed.

existing efforts that the group has been working on to establish and institute a management plan and guiding MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Effectiveness legislation for PWC use in Barnegat Bay. will be measured by the reduction in disruption of sen-sitive areas through the implementation of a manage-The draft management plan will outline: ment strategy.

" Education; COST ESTIMATE: $10,000.

" Enforcement; FUNDING SOURCES: NERRS/IMCS are receiving fund-

  • Community involvement; ing for the PWC workshops from the Coastal Zone

" National scientific study research; and Management Program. Other recommended funding sources are:

  • Legislation (federal, state and local),

including conservation zoning.

  • Federal Coastal Zone Management Act reauthoriza-tion; BBPWCTF was identified in the proposal for Education: A demonstration day is planned to look at

$500,000 a year for at least five years as itemized the PWC and how it operates, potential problems asso-in the CZMA reauthorization bill, introduced by ciated with misuse of the craft, and how to use the Congressman James J. Saxton; craft in a manner that protects human safety and the ecosystem. " Task Force Development Grants outlined in H.R.

3141 - "Personal Watercraft Responsible Use Act of Legislation: The BBPWCTF is working with federal and 1999," introduced by Congressman Saxton. Each state legislators to draft legislation -to establish con-state may receive "no more than 25 percent of the servation zoning in sensitive areas, possibly using total amount appropriated for a fiscal year."

Island Beach State Park to introduce this concept in The initial request for allocation nationally is New Jersey.

$2.5 million; Other Recommendations:

  • Public Outreach Funding for Citizens Advisory
  • Increased funding for enforcement of the current Committee (CAC) of BBNEP; and N.J. State Police regulations for PWC use. Fund-ing needs to be provided to bolster state and local
  • Private funding sources.

law enforcement agents during the peak-use sea-son from May through September. The BBPWCTF REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY has begun to identify gaps in current enforcement initiatives and will seek funding sources to help CHANGES: Portions of the project would require the different levels of enforcement (Marine Police, federal, state, and local legislation or ordinances.

Coast Guard, municipal, etc.). Law Enforcement Grants that could be used to enforce current regulations are identified in H.R. 3141.

  • Strengthen the State Police Educational program to include PWC-specific items. The BBPWCTF has 130 BARNEGATBAYFINALcCMP

Chapter 7 ACTION 7.2 Extension Program, the Marine Trades Association of New Jersey Foundation has developed a "Boater's Guide

~Promote the usep (ofthe "'Boater's Guide to; to Barnegat Bay and Little Egg Harbor" modeled after Barnegat Bay and Little Egg Harbor" to protect a successful NEP project in Tampa Bay, Florida. This 4s~ensitive;.areas by mitigating boaterimipacts~to user's guide is a two-sided waterproof map that is sim-wtrquialityT and naturalreocs ilar in size and design to a road map or marine chart.

Funding from BBNEP, NJDEP, and Ocean County has SIGNIFICANCE OFACTION: One goal of the BBNEP is supported the production and a minimal printing of to provide for the human enjoyment of the bay while the map.

maintaining ecosystem integrity. The BBNEP recog-nizes that the bay is an important boating and PWC Free dissemination of the map will be made to marinas destination. Approximately 25 percent of the 196,000 and boaters as well as to organizations such as licensed pleasure boats in New Jersey (including PWC) Barnegat Bay Power Squadron, Coast Guard Auxiliary, operate in the Barnegat Bay watershed during the sum- boating courses, fishing and yacht clubs, boat shows, mer. In recent years, PWC have been the fastest grow- PWC classes, PWC dealers, pumpout boats, parks, and ing segment of the boating industry, with Internet list- recreation departments. The project seeks to promote ings for PWC operators featuring Barnegat Bay as a positive actions and behaviors that safeguard the liv-prime destination. Since PWC can operate in much ing resources of the bay through boater outreach and shallower water than other boats, they have a greater education with a users' guide map designating special propensity for damaging sensitive near-shore habitats. areas such as sea grass meadows, bird nesting sites, and Sea grass meadows are found in shallow waters of the other sensitive near-shore habitats that boaters and bay. Their functions include: serving as important PWC operators should avoid. The map also delineates nursery grounds for commercially and recreationally such things as public boat ramps and sewage pumpout important finfish and shellfish; reducing shoreline ero- stations, and it provides educational information about sion; taking up nutrients in summer that would other- Barnegat Bay habitats and safe boating practices. With wise be available to harmful phytoplankton; and serv- additional funding; a survey can be conducted to ing as an important food source. These meadows determine changing boating behavior in response to extend from Dover Township south, primarily on the the BBNEP's outreach and education about the bay's eastern shore of the bay. environmental sensitivity. The survey will then be printed and distributed to the public, specifically to Both small boat and PWC users operate their vessels in boaters, marina owners, and others that use the Bay shallow waters. Boat wakes impact marshes by eroding area.

the banks and disrupting birds that nest on the salt-marsh wrack. Vessel operation in narrow tidal creeks WHEN: Reprinting, which will require six months fol-can disturb feeding birds, especially long-legged wad- lowing the availability of funds, is necessary to ensure ing birds. Propellers, wakes, and prop wash from boats an adequate supply of the "Boater's Guide to Barnegat and PWC operating in shallow sea grass regions can Bay and Little Egg Harbor" for each boating season.

destroy the plants that provide shelter for many small The target date is spring 2002. The survey would be fishes and invertebrates. conducted two to three years after that.

STATUS AND PRIORITY: Partial Commitment, Medium WHERE: The "Boater's Guide to Barnegat Bay and Priority. Little Egg Harbor" will include the 75-plus square miles (195 km2) of bay waters and the navigable tributaries.

WHO: Reprinting of the Boater's Guide and a survey of changing boating habitats can be done by either RCE or the Marine Trades Association of New Jersey.

HOW: Under the auspices of RCE/N.J. Sea Grant MAY20o*2 131

HUMAN ACTIVITIES and COMPETING USES ACTION PLAN MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: There wilt be Community involvement: Modify and continue com-fewer complaints about vessels causing environmental munity recognition program for watershed-related pro-degradation because operators wilt know how to better jects administered by municipalities. This would protect critical habitats. Other environmental mea- become an annual awards program. The annual recog-nition program would select and recognize one water-sures that may be useful would include increases in shed-related project from one community per year shallow sea grass beds and increases in beach-nesting within the Barnegat Bay watershed as part of an annu-colonial bird populations.

al watershed event held in conjunction with the water-shed river cleanup.

COST ESTIMATE: Printing of 21,000 copies will cost approximately $20,000. The boater survey develop- WHEN: The newsletter wilt be produced quarterly ment and printing costs may amount to $30,000. upon the availability of funds, with a target start-up date of 2002. The recognition awards ceremony wilt FUNDING SOURCES: Potential funding sources wilt be coincide with the river cleanup day.

among those identified in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.

WHERE: Outreach wilt occur throughout the Barnegat REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY Bay watershed.

CHANGES: None.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: The activities in the communities within the watershed will be identi-fied and monitored to determine how many new pro-jects develop as a result of the recognition program.

COST ESTIMATE: The program cost totals $10,000 per year, including press releases and press coverage and a watershed event to award a community with a Barnie watershed plaque.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Serving as a catalyst for the 33 municipalities in the watershed to plan and educate with a watershed perspective, rather than strictly within their municipal boundaries, will benefit all the watershed's communities and ecosystems.

STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Medium Priority.

WHO: The Barnegat Bay Estuary. and Watershed Foundation (BBWEF) (Lead) would be the primary orga-nizer for this activity. JCNERR wilt partner for the pro-duction of "Community Connections."

FUNDING SOURCES: BBNEP Public Outreach funding or HOW: other available sources, preferably community generated.

Education: Continue production of "Community Connection" newsletter in coordination with JCNERR for REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY use as an outreach and information-sharing tool among CHANGES: None.

the municipalities of the watershed.

13 2 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

Chapter 7 FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitment. See dis-cussion of potential funding sources in Chapter 12,

.Use envirornmentat cornmmssions to foster the Section 12.8.1.

watershed, approach.;

REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: Municipalities would need to increase the SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Local environmental com- role of environmental commissions within the local missions, each representing one of the state's munici- planning process, either through new or revised munic-palities, have been created and are served by the ipal ordinances or policy initiatives.

Association of N.. Environmental Commissions (AN3EC). Most Ocean County municipalities have envi-ronmental commissions and are members of ANJEC.

The environmental commissions serve a local planning function within the municipalities as well as an advi-sory role. Highlighting the role of the environmental commissions within Ocean County will improve the ability of local governments to implement sustainable development practices with strong linkages to the CCMP goals and objectives. SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The BBWA (now known as BBWEF), which was active during the BBNEP planning STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Medium phase, is a non-profit citizen's action organization Priority. made up of watershed residents. The BBWA (a.k.a BBWEF) has recently constituted itself for the post-WHO: BBNEP and the Ocean County Environmental CCMP implementation phase as a multi-stakeholder, Agency (leads) and the individual environmental com- non-profit organization to educate the public about missions. protecting resources, promoting better land-use prac-tices, and supporting the Program through funding and HOW: Environmental commissions are currently includ- concerted action.

ed in the local government planning process. By cre-ating a strong linkage to CCMP goals and objectives, STATUS AND PRIORITY: Commitment, High Priority.

environmental commissions will help tocal govern-ments better pursue sustainable development policies. WHO: BBWEF (lead), Ocean County and BBNEP.

WHEN: Initiation in 2002. HOW: Grants available through the BBNEP public out-reach program would fund qualified activities of the WHERE: Every municipality with an active environ- BBWEF that inform and empower the public to partici-mental commission would be included in thisaction. pate in the environmental protection of Barnegat Bay and its watershed. This action would require annual MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Success will be support for the BBWEF.

measured with the enhanced implementation of sus-tainable development practices at the local government The BBWEF will serve as the non-profit arm of the level. This could be measured through the increased Program, focusing on carrying out public outreach and activity of the environmental commissions in advising education activities and other low-cost action items.

their local municipalities. The roles and responsibilities of the BBWEF and its linkage to the Program office are currently being COST ESTIMATE: None available beyond existing worked out by the BBWEF, a private consultant, and Program funding. the Ocean County government.

MAY2002 133

HUMAN ACTIVITIES and COMPETING USES ACTION PLAN WHEN: Ongoing - BBWEF will raise funds to imple- WHO: OCSCD (Lead), NRCS, RCE, NJDEP, OCPD, Ocean

  • ment specific action items that do not yet have fund- County Vocational-Technical School (OCVTS), and ing commitments. Ocean County College.

WHERE: The BBWEF would be active throughout the HOW: Representatives of NRCS, OCSCD, RCE, and OCPD watershed. will identify training needs and develop a core-training program. Following identification of training needs MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: An annually and in cooperation with OCVTS and the Ocean County increasing amount of funds generated by the BBWEF College, staff from these entities would conduct Blue and dispensed to implement CCMP actions. The first Card training seminars offering continuing education funding target would be $10,000 for start-up costs. credits for landscapers, builders, land-grading contrac-tors, and personnel from public schools and parks COST ESTIMATE: $10,000 start-up cost. departments.

FUNDING SOURCES: Section 320 of the CWA. This will be a volunteer training program for those pro-fessionals who want to learn more about the signifi-REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY cance of soil quality management and would like to CHANGES: None. receive certification.

WHEN: Initial core training will be targeted for 2003.

Specialized training will begin early in 2004. Begin-ning in the summer of 2004, landscapers, builders, and grading contractors can complete the core training, obtain at least three credits, and receive a Blue Card certification. The certification will be valid for a peri-od of three years, and re-certification will require the applicant to obtain an additional six credits over the next three years to maintain certification.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The Blue Card certifi-cation program would train and certify construction WHERE: The Blue Card certification program will be inspectors, landscapers, builders, contractors, and oth-available throughout the watershed.

ers to recognize the problems that may come with development, and to take steps to retain and incorpo- MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: The success of rate natural features into the site development process this action will be measured first by the number of pro-for the purposes of runoff reduction, groundwater fessionals who complete the specialized training.

recharge, and water quality.

COST ESTIMATE: It will cost $75,000 to establish the Implementation of a watershed-wide training and cer- program and core training.

tification program will prevent water quality problems from becoming worse and help prevent impacts from FUNDING SOURCES: Registration fees wilt help pro-future development. By engaging those most involved vide some support for continuing education and train-in activities that disturb the land, the program will ing. Other potential funding sources are identified in enhance participants' understanding of the link Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.

between soil quality and watershed health, and move the BBNEP closer to its water quality goals. REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.

STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Low Priority.

1 34 BARNEGAT BAY FrNAL CCMP

Chapter 7 basis of information from the NRI, with the sub-water-sheds most at risk from runoff and nonpoint pollution designated as priorities.

Use diata and, information from the Natura -

Resource Jn'ventory (NRI) to promote the use of MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Effectiveness Best Maniagement Practices (Bmps) wilt be measured by the annual increase in the number of homeowners assisted.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Through the implementa-tion of this action, Barnegat Bay watershed residents COST ESTIMATE: $75,000.

wilt understand the connection between properly man-aging the soil and natural resources on their property FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments. See dis-and the overall watershed. Residents will have the cussion on potential funding sources in Chapter 12, opportunity to participate in a voluntary program in Section 12.8.1.

which they use soil health practices that will reduce stormwater runoff and potential nonpoint pollution REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY sources. Implementation of this action wilt also sup- CHANGES: Vegetative practices must be preserved and port the objectives of the Habitat and Living Resources should not be removed by homeowners.

Action Plan (Chapter 6).

STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Low Priority.

WHO: OCSCD (Lead), NRCS, RCE.

HOW: Local homeowners will receive assistance in SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Many residential land-establishing an environmentally friendly yard by meet- scapes declined during drought years, in part due. to ing with the OCSCD at their home sites. where they wilt poor plant/grass selection and poor irrigation prac-review their current practices and resources. The tices, including excess irrigation used to improve land-OCSCD would then prepare a conservation plan for the scapes, but which resulted in increased leaching poten-property, recommending various soil and water conser- tial of pesticides and fertilizers. Environmentally sen-vation piactices, emphasizing low-input lawn and gar- sitive and low water use landscaping (xeriscaping) den care and reducing the footprint of impervious sur- techniques can be implemented to reduce such faces. Once the residents have implemented the con- impacts. Gardens designed using xeriscaping will be servation plan, OCSCD wilt re-visit the property to cer- located in highly visible public places such as parks tify compliance with the plan's recommendations. and grounds surrounding municipal buildings, libraries When homeowners become certified they wilt be eligi- and post offices. Public land managers wilt be ble to receive cost-sharing assistance for having imple- informed about the design and construction of envi-mented the conservation plan and a certificate from ronmentally sensitive gardens.

the OCSCD for participating in the program.

STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Low WHEN: Target date is 2002. Priority.

WHERE: Based on the information provided through WHO: RCE (Lead), in conjunction with OCSCD and the NRI, a small sub-watershed wilt be selected as the NRCS. Rutgers staff, volunteers from RCE's Master pilot area for implementation. Other sub-watersheds Gardener program, and/or a professional horticulture will be included in the program following the comple- consultant will develop the landscape designs and tion of the pilot project. They will be selected on the coordinate planting. United Water, Toms River wilt also MAY2002 135

HUMAN ACTIVITIES and COMPETING USES ACTION PLAN support this effort. Municipal employees wilt assist REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY during planting and will be responsible for the future CHANGES: None.

maintenance of the demonstration garden.

HOW: A xeriscape demonstration garden was estab-lished in 1999 by the RCE in partnership with United Water at their Toms River headquarters on Wall Street. Construct an environmentillysesiiv demon--

A native plant demonstration garden was established .stratiom lawn for homeowners to4use as a model by 0CSCD at Hebrew Park in Lacey Township.

Two municipalities will be selected annually for partic-ipation, either through a lottery or a competitive SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Homeowners often grant. A demonstration garden of low-input grasses improperly irrigate established turfgrass stands.

and native/xeriscape/pest resistant plants will be Excess irrigation increases the leaching. potential of designed by a horticulturist consultant, RCE staff, or pesticides and increases disease pathogens (particular-trained Master Gardener designers. ly when irrigation is timed improperly). Some varieties of turfgrasses used by homeowners often require more The gardens will be announced and promoted through irrigation than other, lower maintenance varieties.

municipal mailings. RCE staff, OCSCD staff, consultants The lower maintenance varieties also require less fer-and/or Master Gardener volunteers will conduct tilizer and pesticides because they are hardier and pest instructional sessions at each garden site in conjunc- resistant. Planting environmentally sensitive lawns tion with other municipal events to reach as many res- will reduce nonpoint source pollutants associated with idents as possible and promote low-input landscapes. pesticides and fertilizers and will promote conservation of water supply sources.

WHEN: The program can be initiated within one year after receipt of funding. The target date is 2002. STATUS AND PRIORITY: Partial Commitment, Medium Priority.

WHERE: Demonstration gardens will be constructed at various selected locations throughout the watershed. WHO: RCE (Lead) will determine the site(s) utilized in cooperation with N.J. State Forest Tree Nursery, OCSCD, MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: To measure the and senior villages. Master Gardener volunteers and/or effectiveness of this action BBNEP will track the num- county/state grounds employees will be utilized to ber of gardens installed in Ocean County and the atten- establish plots.

dance at outdoor educational events. The BBNEP will also conduct event surveys to assess the increase in Extension staff and Master Gardener volunteers will public awareness about actions to control and reduce hold field days in conjunction with other county/

nonpoint source pollution. agency events for optimal attendance.

COST ESTIMATE: The program will cost $35,000 annu- HOW: A demonstration lawn site will be planted to ally per garden including costs for part-time horticul- encourage replacement of Kentucky bluegrass lawns ture consultant ($10,000-$15,000), plant material, with low-input lawns. The demonstration site wilt irrigation systems, weed control blankets, mulch, soil include a variety of recommended turfgrass seed testing, supplies, and travel. types/blends adapted to Barnegat Bay watershed soil conditions to withstand drought and low water use.

FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments. See dis- Turfgrass will be planted according to existing research cussion on potential funding sources in Chapter 12, protocol. They will be sown side-by-side and main-Section 12.8.1. tained to serve as visual comparisons.

136 BARNEGATBAYFINAL CCMP

Chapter 7 The demonstration will be located in a highly visible site accessible to the public in one or more locations in the county.. Educational information to accompany the demonstration site will include information on turf-grass selection, proper watering, proper fertilization, and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) methods for pest control. The site will be chosen to foster both guided and unguided tours.

An annual field tour of the site will be held to promote these varieties with low-maintenance characteristics.

Proper lawn care maintenance in general wilt also be discussed. SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The last comprehensive shellfish stock assessment of Barnegat and Little Egg WHEN: Late 2001. Harbor bays was conducted by the NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife (Bureau of Shellfisheries) in 1985-1987.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Number of lawns Since that time, aside from sporadic site inspections installed will determine the effectiveness of this associated with coastal development permits, the only action. information the Division has regarding the status of the shellfish resource is from shellfishermen. Without COST ESTIMATE: $5,000-$8,000 (personnel, travel, exception, the shellfisher-men report declining catch-equipment, seed, maintenance costs, signs, education- es. In addition, hard clams in vast areas of Barnegat al brochure, supplies) annually. and Little Egg Harbor bays have discolored meat that ranges from olive drab to nearly black. While the dis-FUNDING SOURCES: Funding for one year of the pro- coloration has been determined to be due to an ingest-gram (2000-2001) has been provided by the BBNEP. ed plant pigment, the ecological cause has not been Additional funding for future years will be sought by investigated.

the BBWEF or provided by other potential funding sources identified in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1. STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Medium Priority.

REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None. WHO: NJDEP, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Shellfisheries.

HOW: Hire additional staff in the Bureau of 3/4, Shellfisheries to undertake this survey. Four positions would be needed: senior biologist, principal environ-mental technician, boat operator, and technician. The A .-~t,, survey will be carried out using Standard Operating Procedures previously established by NJDEP (Nacote Creek Research Lab).

WHEN: Target date for initiation is spring 2002.

MAY2002 137

HUMAN ACTIVITIES and COMPETING USES ACTION PLAN WHERE: This action wilt be carried out for shellfish COST ESTIMATE: $190,000 for all activities.

beds throughout the estuary.

FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments. See dis-MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Effectiveness cussion of potential funding sources in Chapter 12, wilt be measured at first by the number of shellfish Section 12.8.1.

beds surveyed. Further measures will include the num-ber of actions taken to enhance shellfish resources, fol- REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY lowed by a trend in improving shellfish stocks. CHANGES: None currently identified.

P 77y?*-*

L

.4 13 8 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CcGP

Vintage Postcard, Bathing Beach in Beachwood. COURTESY OF THEOCEAN COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY.

MAY 2002 139

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, concerned citizens can change the world.

Indeed it is the only thing that ever has.

-- Margaret Mead

Chapter 8

8.1 INTRODUCTION

effect of everyone's individual actions that threaten the estuary, and it will likewise take collective action The Public Participation and Education Action Plan to effect positive change. Planned growth must take supports and enforces the idea that, to be successful, into account all that is valued, balancing values and the BBNEP must involve the public in any solution to thoughts and beliefs to find a commonsense middle the watershed's issues. The Action Items presented in ground.

this Action Plan support all of the BBNEP's priority issues: water quality and water supply, habitat loss and The CAC's role in the development of the CCMP is to alteration, fisheries decline, and human activities and provide a public voice in the decision-making process.

competing uses. In light of this, Table 8-1 does not The CAC was established early in the planning process contain the "Other Action Plan Supported" column: so that it was given the opportunity to develop man-agement actions rather than merely comment on the This Action Plan is largely a product of the Citizen's prepared document at the end of the process. The CAC Advisory Committee (CAC). The CAC is designed to also developed a Public Outreach Strategy to reach and allow representatives from all stakeholder groups to teach people and move them to action. During imple-have a voice in the planning process. Stakeholders mentation, the CAC will be part of the Barnegat Bay may include any individual or group with an eco- Watershed and Estuary Foundation. The primary objec-nomic, recreational, environmental, or other stake in tive of the CAC's outreach plan was awakening the pub-the health and viability of the estuary. Representa- lic's pride and love of Barnegat Bay's resources, devel-tives from marine trades, the business community, oping an understanding of the issues that threaten recreational and commercial fishermen, the edu- them, and ultimately assigning people their share of cational community, cultural and environmental orga- responsibility for maintaining the health of the bay nizations, citizens, and others were invited to partici- and its watershed.

pate in the development of the management plan for Change quite often occurs in the wake of legislation the watershed. and regulation. The change that ensues is one of com-pliance and enforcement. This level of change happens The CAC is a diverse group, offering a wide perspec- most often on the governmental/agency level and is tive of opinions, knowledge, and vision. This group dealt with extensively in other chapters. Significant has made strides in working together to pursue a changes, however, often happen in daily life without common goal. The issues of the watershed require regulation. These changes happen when a situation is both planning ahead and working together. They created that encourages them to occur.

require the input of local government, businesses, groups, agencies, and citizens. It is the cumulative MAY 2002 141

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and EDUCATION ACTION PLAN TABLE 8-1. Public Participation and Education Action Items.

Action Action Item Pirityl Lead Tentative App rox. Goals item No.4 ~TIiIe and Status Shdlcot- Supported, 8.1 Post the Pinetands PineLands Beta testing $20,000 1 1, 5 Curriculum Guide Commission October 1999 Lessons for Grades 4-6

& 7-8 on the World Lessons completed.

Wide Web. - R 8.2 Conduct two, two-day MCVTS Summer months $5,100 5 summer teacher (July and August) workshops through the Ocean County Vocational-Technical School (OCVTS) that focus on the Barnegat Bay estuary and I watershed. - PC 8.3 Revise & reprint the M Barnegat Bay First .revisions, $5,000 each 5 Barnegat Bay Environmental 2002-2003 round of Watershed Educational Education school year revisions Resource Guide. - R Roundtable I 8.4 Conduct an annual M Barnegat Baj Each spring $2,500 per year 5 Environmental Environmental upon availability Educators Roundtable. Educators of funding

- R Roundtable 8.5 Support the Sea H IMCS Upon availability of $15,00 to5 Grosses for Classes funding (Pilot implement Project - Institute of already conducted) Web site &

Marine & Coastal purchase Sciences (IMCS), equipment Rutgers University. -

PC $40,000 to scientifically monitor the project 8.6 Develop the Forest M NJDEP, Ongoing Enhanced 6 Resource Education Division of program Center (FREC) as a Parks & funding of resource and Forestry, State $20,000 per interpretive center Forest Service year that promotes an understanding of the human & resource connections & a stewardship ethic among students, scouts, & the general public. - PC 142 BARNEGATBAYFINAL CCMP

Chapter 8 TABLE 8-1. (continued)

Action prox.

Aeptative Goas ActonItrnPloltvLead I enaiv Item No. Title arnd Status Schedule Co" Co st d' 8.7 Develop a Barnegat Bay M BBWEF Six months for $60,000 for 5 Watershed Education program start up and Campaign, to be development, first- year implemented in implementation elementary schools via a mascot, "Barnie the Crab." - R 8.8 Develop a Barnegat H Barnegat Bay Activity guide $60,000, initial 5, 6 Bay watershed-specific Environmental completion by the implementation activity guide. - PC Education 2002-2003 school Roundtable year.

Steering Committee 8.9 Continue the Alliance M ALO Student tours $5,000 5 for a Living Ocean during the school (ALO) Ecotour of a year Barrier Island for schoolchildren and the Summer tours general public. - R weekly in July &

August 8.10 Promote the M OCSCD Implementation $5,000 per year 3, 5 development &use of as soon as outdoor classrooms. - funding secured R

8.11 Establish a Bay Keeper L Water Keeper Upon availability of $60,000 per 1, 2, 5 Program as a public Program funding year watchdog for the protection of Barnegat Bay. - R 8.12 Create a Barnegat Bay- L NJMSC Upon availability of $20,000 for 5 specific Educational funding 45,000 copies Guide outlining the natural and cultural ecotourism opportunities in Central New Jersey, with an emphasis on the Barnegat Bay watershed region. - C 8.13 Establish one M BBWEF Annually in early $5,000 per year 5 waterway cleanup per spring beginning year within the 2002-2003 Barnegat Bay watershed. - R MAY2002 143

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and EDUCATION ACTION PLAN TABLE 8-1. (continued)

N' N CCMP~

A*tion Action Item. Priority Lead Tentative:, Approx. Goals Itm o. Title and Status Schedule ~ CostN'> upLe 8.14 Provide interpretive BBDBM Ongoing 1 $1.29 million 5 exhibits, programs, and 1 activities focusing on the historical human uses of the environmental resources within the Barnegat Bay watershed. " Cu 5 8.15 Provide education and H JCNERR Ongoing $848,000 start up technical training to local government $45,000 annually officials & other coastal decision makers in the I Barnegat Bay watershed. - C 8.16 Revise and reprint the M OCSCD First revision/ $35,000 every 3, 5, 6 "Low-Maintenance RCE reprint in 2002-2003 three years Landscaping Homeowners' Guide." -

R -

8.17 Educate professional M RCE Upon availability $20,000- 1, 5, 6 landscapers, municipal of funding $30,000/year grounds personnel, and facility managers on more efficient and environmentally sensitive use of pesticides. - R 8.18 Promote the use of M RCE Implement upon $24,000- 1, 3, 5, 6 IPM methods. - R funding $29,000/year 8.19 Incorporate BBEP i ELC of Ocean Opening of the ELC $40,000 5 outreach and County to the public 2004-education displays and 2005 programs at the Environmental Learning Center of Ocean County. - PC 8.20 Experience Barnegat M Youth Upon availability Minimum 5 Bay, a project of YES. Environmental of funding $150,000

- PC Society (YES) 144 BARNEGAT BAYFI14ALccMP

Chapter 8 For example, when recycling programs were created, peo- " People who live next to the bay (or its water ple were provided information on the importance of recy- bodies).

cling, plus given the opportunity to recycle. Most people " People who use the bay (or its water bodies) understood and gladly complied.

for work or recreation.

For unregulated change to occur in the Barnegat Bay " People who don't use the bay (or its water bodies),

watershed, three things need to happen: but like knowing it's there. By virtue of living in

  • Awareness - People need to be informed about the the watershed, these people have an impact on it.

issues facing the watershed. Many people understand that " People who don't think about the bay (or its water they live in a watershed, but they are not quite sure what bodies) at all, but by virtue of living in the it is or which one they live in. Awareness of the inter- watershed, have an impact on it.

connectedness of estuaries and waterways must be fos-tered. For example, boaters and operators of personal watercraft

  • Motivation - People need to understand how their rely on the bay, but may be unaware of their impacts on sensitive SAV or waterfowl nesting areas. Seasonal visi-behavior impacts, positively or negatively, the watershed tors, who may have a significant impact in a limited time and its resources. For example, many people are genuine-frame, need to be made aware of these impacts and their ly surprised to learn that stormwater is a major source of consequences with a message that is simple and painless.

pollution and that residential areas in watersheds are sig-nificant sources of stormwater pollution.

Those who, while not directly using the bay or its tribu-

- Action - People need to be given an opportunity to taries, still appreciate its existence, might be motivated to change their behaviors (increase the positive, decrease the support initiatives if reminded of the overall positive negative) that play a role in watershed issues, such as effects on the quality of life in a healthy watershed. Air stormwater pollution. quality, drinking water; and the potential opportunity to take direct advantage of the resources some time in the 8.2 THE DIVERSITY OF near future are quality of life issues.

STAKEHOLDERS For those people who don't usually think about the bay at all, an approach that reminds them of the overall eco-The stakeholders in Bamegat Bay and its watershed are a nomic and health benefits of a balanced environment diverse group. There are those people who live on the might arouse not only their consciousness but also a fond-southern barrier island (Long Beach Island), and those ness for their pocketbook or well-being. Drinking water that live on the northern barrier island. Logistically they issues, property values, and a healthy economy might be do not generally mix. There are mainland residents who the motivating factors for these residents.

live in the northern, more developed bayshore of the watershed and those that live along the southern Nearly a third of the resident population of Ocean County bayshore. There are the people who live inland up to 25 are seniors, many of whom head south in the winter. In miles away from the coast. There are full-time residents, the summer, Ocean County population swells to nearly one part-time residents, and a large population of senior resi-million people. The composition of the community, with dents and seasonal visitors. These geographic and resi-so many part-time residents, newcomers, and diverse dency distinctions exist and directly influence how people interests, presents a challenge for environmental outreach respond to the issues and determine the practicality of and protection efforts. However, working with existing coordinating efforts.

organized groups, some with memberships that expand dramatically during the summer, enables a far-reaching In order to develop outreach strategies to correspond with extension for outreach awareness efforts. Establishing their attitudes, these subgroups and communities can be an understanding and a connection to the watershed is categorized more clearly based upon their relationship and an important goal.

attitudes towards Barnegat Bay and its watershed:

MAY2002 145

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and EDUCATION ACTION PLAN 8.3 THE OUTREACH STRATEGY

  • Citizen monitoring; and

" Public participation.

The CAC's public outreach strategy has evolved to max-imize its impact. Present efforts target three main net- Appendix D contains a summary of the Minigrant Awards works: to date.

" Media - Efforts to maximize media coverage will bring the largest exposure.

8.5 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN

" Partnerships - Partnering with existing THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CCMP organizations helps disseminate the messages to an expanded network. AND THE PUBLIC OUTREACH

" Municipal outreach - Involvement of local STRATEGY FOR IMPLEMENTATION governments is critical to the success of the CCMP.

Community involvement in the development of the CCMP began during the earliest efforts of the Estuary 8.4 PUBLIC OUTREACH Program in 1996, and has been enhanced during the ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE last year in preparation for release of the Draft CCMP for public review and comment. It was community The CAC has already made a number of public outreach interest that initiated the earlier Barnegat Bay Study accomplishments. A Public Outreach Workgroup was that led to the nomination and entry of Barnegat Bay formed, which works with a staff Public Outreach into the NEP. The formal establishment of the CAC and Coordinator. Public workshops for stakeholders began the monthly meetings, attended regularly by the in the fall of 1998, and additional stakeholder outreach Public Outreach Coordinator, Program Director and EPA has been conducted with educational brochures, press Coordinator, have ensured that the lines of communi-releases, promotional materials, and a mini-newsletter. cation between the public and the Advisory Other outreach approaches include development of a Committees remained open. The CAC developed work-Web site, participation in the Barnegat Bay Festival, plans and budgets, reviewed and approved significant partnerships with organizations interested in water- documents and had a regular voice at the Management shed protection, speaking at various clubs and organi- and Policy Committees, particularly as the CCMP began zations, and public service announcements. See to take shape.

Appendix D for further discussion.

In 1998 and 1999 the BBNEP initiated a series of A focal point of the public outreach effort to date has Environmental Roundtables in the Barnegat Bay water-been the Minigrant Program. Over the past few years, shed to engage the public, the communities and the approximately $50,000 has been distributed to envi- local governments in Ocean County in a dialogue on ronmental and civic organizations,. schools, municipal- issues of concern that should be included in the CCMP.

ities, and business interests to reach out to the public As has been done in preparing for the Draft CCMP, pub-on issues relevant to protecting the bay and its water- lic education will continue to be an essential element shed. These grants focus on increasing public aware- of the Plan in its implementation phase. The Program ness for major environmental problems facing the bay office will support and work with the BBWEF to edu-in one of the following subject areas: cate citizens on bay/watershed issues and publicize the Program's progress. The Program and the BBWEF

  • Nonpoint source pollution prevention/water will continue to network with existing resources to quality control; maximize its reach and work with organizations to bring hands-on educational resources to the public.
  • Estuarine awareness;
  • Habitat enhancement and preservation; 146 BARNEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

Chapter 8 The following existing public outreach vehicles will The Draft CCMP was also presented and made available continue: to the communities and citizens of Ocean and

" Annual minigrants; Monmouth counties through the Program Web site (www.bbnep.org), a series of six daytime and evening

" Quarterly newsletter; public meetings in three different municipalities

" Coordination with other educational organizations; (Stafford Township, Jackson Township, and Brick

" Visible presence at festivals with printed materials Township), and at all 21 local libraries in the Barnegat and Program display; Bay watershed. Summaries were made available through newspaper supplements and a series of press

  • Education of school children through continued releases.

support of the Educational Roundtables and Activity Guide;

  • Regular press releases and media contacts on BBNEP PUBLIC PARTICIPATION relevant events; and EDUCATION
  • ty awareness, apprecIation and sunderstading of the ecosystem and it-1
  • Ongoing updating of the Program Web site; importance; and etermAgaltin h at the

" Production and distribution of the Barnegat Community level.

Bay watershed video; ~,.*

inrease~comumcaIonad romoe foster

" Coordinate with the Barnegat Bay Watershed and ooperatvesonibetween groups tDor -Aesed ans involved in e reaounc(e a Estuary Foundation on field trips, cleanups, seminars, fund raisers, etc.; and *~Involve ýjgovj~r-wiretspecifically local~

Sgovernmentts, for sta n'edefectiveness Iin

" Support of the implementation of education- managing watershed ruce and securing related Action Items. funiýding for CCMEýF ,,, nnýindaltions.

Targeted mailings to specific audiences: new home buyers, landscapers, educators, civic organizations, the As in the previous chapters, Table 8-2 and Figure 8-1 governmental sector, recreation and tourism, busi- present measures to determine the achievement of ness/commercial interests, environmental groups, objectives, monitoring methods to be used, and an senior citizens communities and organizations, sum- expected timeline for action implementation.

mer residents and visitors, media and geographical subsets of the above-mentioned groups (such as inland communities).

Support of public involvement and education is the best long-term investment Ocean County can make to guarantee the successful protection of the Barnegat Bay watershed. Public stewardship of the ecosystem is crucial to continued support and funding of govern-ment improvement projects and for the lifestyle changes that must occur to ensure a healthy ecosystem for future generations. The Public Outreach Coordinator will continue to maximize results by working with three main networks: media, partnerships and munici-pal outreach.

MAY2002 147

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and EDUCATION ACTION PLAN TABLE 8-2. Indicators and Monitoring Programs for Measuring Progress Toward Public Participation and Education Action Plan Objectives.

Public Par-ticipation and Mntrn rg-II o

>~Ed4ucation Objectives ofthe E ironmenl Indicators of the BBEP

  • I Bairnegat Bay Estuary Program Build community awareness, The measure of success for this objective Statistical data about school systems appreciation, and understanding of will be the number of schools across the programs will be collected by the the ecosystem and its importance; watershed that have included an BBWEF and evaluated by the BBEP.

and encourage action at the environmental education program in their community level. curriculum. The Program will periodically compare the baseline number against new numbers to see if the management actions are effective in increasing awareness and understanding of the ecosystem in the Barnegat Bay watershed.

Promote increased communication The measure of success in this objective will Seminar and participation information and foster cooperation between be evaluated first by the level of volunteer will be collected from appropriate groups and organizations involved participation at conflict resolution management conference partners.

in watershed resources. seminars. The program goal is for diverse Monitoring will be the responsibility of users of the estuary and watershed to the BBEP.

cooperate in the stewardship of resources.

Later measures of success could include:

a) Level of volunteer participation in the citizens baywatch monitoring program; b) Catalog of complaints by bay users, e.g., for PWC noise or disturbance; c) Trends in successful shorebird nesting; and d) Refuge staff time devoted to enforcing refuge restrictions.

Involve government, specifically The objective will be measured by Funding levels, sources and recipients, local governments, for sustained determining the level of action and/or as well as ordinance information, will effectiveness in managing watershed funding obtained by local governments for be collected from appropriate resources and securing funding for environmental projects. Furthermore, management conference partners, CCMP recommendations. changes in environmental ordinances by including local governments. The local governments will be monitored to BBEP will 'monitor the status of these evaluate the impact of the management indicators.

actions on this objective.

148 BARNEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

"i1n

~~1~~

00 Post the Pinelands Curriculum Guide Lessons (81)

Conduct Two, Two-day Summer Teacher Workshops (8.2)

Revise and Reprint the 8B Watershed Educational Resource Guide (8.3)

Conduct an Annual Environmental Educators Roundtable (8.4) ___ ___

Support the Sea Grasses for Classes Project (8.5)

Develop the FREC as a Resource and Interpretive Center (8.6)

Develop a BB Watershed Education Campaign (8.7)

Develop a BB Watershed-Specific Activity Guide (8.8)

Continue the ALO Ecotour (8.9)

Promote the Development and Use of Outdoor Classrooms (8.10)

_____ E ~ ____

Establish a Bay Keeper Program as a Public Watchdog (8.11) ri" Create and Distribute an Educational Ecotourism Guide (8.12)

Establish One Waterway Cleanup Per Year Within the BB Watershed (8.13) - w _____ 0J Provide Interpretive Exhibits, Programs, and Activities (8.14)

Provide Educational and Technical Training to Local Government Officials (8.15)

___ 2227. __sv~~:j___ ___ ___

Revise and Reprint the "Low-Maintenance Landscaping Homeowners Guide" (8.16) - I__ __

Educate Professional Landscapers on Environ. Sensitive Use of Pesticides (8.17)

-~ ____ ~ _____ _____ ____ It".

Promote the Use of IPM Methods (8.18)

Incorporate BBEP Outreach Educ. Displays at Envir, Learning Ctr. (8.19)

Experience BB, a Project of YES (8.20) o+

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 0+

YEAR OF CCMP IMPLEMENTATION PRE-EXISTING COMMITMENT HIGH PRIORITY MEDIUM PRIORITY LOW PRIORITY II r+

'*1 00

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and EDUCATION ACTION PLAN 8.6 ACTION ITEMS teacher volunteers. Teachers are asked to respond to the lesson's online evaluation. The revised format will reflect educators' recommendations and will serve as the model for adaptation of the remaining lessons.

Staff of the BBNEP will be able to significantly con-tribute to the long-range implementation of this pro-ject by (a) viewing the Web site and sharing insights for format enhancement, and (b) sharing information about the Web site with educators in the BBNEP's geo-graphic area. The latter may be encouraged by coop-SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: This pair of curriculum erating with NJPC staff to present teacher workshops.

guides is designed to accompany the Pinelands video, Additionally, a link can be established between the "The New Jersey Pinelands, Our Country's First National BBNEP's Web site and the NJPC's Web site.

Reserve," which is currently available from New Jersey Network (http://www.njn.njnsecure.com/njnvideo/ WHEN: Project will commence upon the availability of pinelands.html). Adapted from an 80-slide Pinelands funds, with a target date of 2002.. The Beta-test of the audio-visual program, nine percent of the program model lesson will last one week. It is anticipated that specifically addresses the connection between one new lesson can be added to the Web site every two Pinelands waterways and New Jersey's coastal bays and weeks.

marshes, such as the Barnegat Bay watershed.

Curriculum lessons-particularly those dealing with There are 22 lessons in the curriculum guide for grades soil, water, plants, and animals-reinforce the inter- 4 to 6 and 18 lessons in the curriculum guide for grades connectedness between the Pinelands and coastal 7 and 8. Theoretically, 40 lessons can be completed in areas like the Barnegat Bay estuary. These are lessons 80 weeks (two lessons per month). It is anticipated teachers have shared with students throughout New that the entire package can be on the Pinelands Jersey and in neighboring states. Their adaptation for Commission Website within six months after funding, the New Jersey PineLands Commission (NJPC) Website currently targeted for 2002.

will expand their use.

WHERE: The Beta-testing effort will be undertaken by STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Low educators in schools throughout New Jersey.

Priority.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: The on-line WHO: The NJPC's Public Programs Supervisor (Lead) is evaluation included in the Beta-test will serve as a working with the Education Specialist to convert these qualitative measure of the product. The number of "hard copy" lessons into a format for Web use. "hits" on the NJPC's Web site can serve as a general Assistance in achieving this objective is provided by quantitative measure. Effectiveness will also be mea-the NJPC's Management Information Systems and sured by ancillary requests for other teaching materials, Cartography staff members. Outside assistance will including the Pinelands Speakers Directory; Pinelands come from educators who have agreed to Beta-test the Guide to Recreational Opportunities, Historic Sites, product and, ultimately, from teachers who incorporate Nature Centers, and Field Trips; the Pinelands poster; these lessons into their curriculae. and Pinelands Information Packets.

HOW: The NJPC has developed a lesson, "Habitat, COST ESTIMATE: Cost to the NJPC for a part-time Sweet Habitat," which is included in the curriculum for Education Specialist's monthly pay is currently grades four to six, to serve as the model for future Web $1,491.60 per month. Estimated cost of continued site lessons. It has been added to the NJPC's Web site service for one year, based on previous funding, is for Beta-testing by approximately 20 New Jersey $20,000.

150 BARNEGATBAYFINAL CCMP

Chapter 8 FUNDING SOURCES: The NJPC has been underwriting Workshop personnel include educators and experts the cost of curriculum lesson reformatting for website within the Barnegat Bay Estuary. Christine Raabe has use; however, funding has not been budgeted for this a wealth of information for teacher training and is will-project since June 30, 2000. It is estimated that ing to work with the program. Terry O'Leary also has a approximately 40 percent of the lessons (16 lessons) great deal of information on species within the bay.

will be on the website by this time. At the same refor- Others possibly involved include John Wnek, matting rate, the remaining 60 percent of the lessons Instructor, Marine Academy of Technology and (24 lessons) should be completed by mid-2001. Environmental Science (OCVTS); Lisa Koch (OCVTS);

However, completion depends on funding capability. Lynda Aue; Bob MacMaster; and Darren Dorris (GPS Potential sources include joint NJPC and NJDEP water- activities).

shed funding recently awarded by the State of New Jersey. HOW: There will be two workshops that will be two days in duration. The focus of the workshop, which will REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY target all teachers in grades K-12, will be specific activ-CHANGES: None are anticipated. ities designed for elementary (K-5), middle (6-8), and high school (9-12). The teachers wilt receive a binder with the agenda, activities, and guides featuring the

-'ACTION-",Thmmer 8.2 -ea>-n-Barnegat Bay estuary that can be used in the class-room, as well as resource materials from the BBNEP.

WHEN: The workshops will take place in the months ro1)ugeh theO-ean CountyVocatiuial of July and August, typical vacation months for teach-ers. Two sessions were selected to accommodate teach-ers' summer vacation. The target year is 2002.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Educating teachers about the environment in which they live can have lasting WHERE: OCVTS has the facilities to host the teacher effects. The focus of the workshop is on the Barnegat training sessions. The first workshops would be held at Bay watershed, with clear, well-developed activities the Bishop Building of the Ocean County Library/

that work in a classroom. All of the materials and OCVTS. Field trips to the bay may also be included in strategies can be incorporated into many disciplines. the workshops.

Historical, ecological, biological, chemical; physical, and economic aspects of the bay and watershed will be MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

discussed. The teachers will then incorporate the

" The teachers must submit one lesson based upon the material gathered into a lesson for their classes. The resources given. The lesson must be completed workshops provide a common focus on all groups during the first semester of the school year involved in watershed education, protection, and and returned to the BBNEP.

usage.

" In addition, immediately after the lesson is STATUS AND PRIORITY: Partial Commitment, Medium presented to students, teachers will be asked to Priority. complete an evaluation of the lesson. This is an important aspect of the program.

WHO: OCVTS (Lead) has a wealth of resources, includ-ing some curriculum from the Marine Science program. COST ESTIMATE: $5,100.

In addition, that school works with each school district within the Ocean County area. Therefore, the school FUNDING SOURCES: OCVTS will provide tand-based could utilize its contacts to attract teachers to the free transportation where necessary. Other organizations have workshops. committed to providing resources to the program in the form of promotional items and learning materials.

MAY2002 151

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and EDUCATION ACTION PLAN REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None. CHANGES: None.

ACTION 8.34~§ Reisf-.i~d reprint thh(_ t Bal Watershed Ec~tional Resource- Uide.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: This annual event pro-vides a mechanism for environmental educators to SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The Resource Guide pro- share resources and information related to the water-vides valuable information about the resources avail- shed. The enthusiasm instilled in teachers is carried able to environmental educators within the Barnegat back to their schools and colleagues and wilt help to Bay watershed. Initially designed to be an interim promote environmental education opportunities with-resource during the development of the Activity Guide, in the watershed.

it will continue to serve as a supplemental resource once the Activity Guide is completed. It will, there- STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Medium fore, need to be periodically updated. Priority.

STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Medium WHO: Barnegat Bay Environmental Education Priority. Roundtable (Lead).

WHO: Barnegat Bay Environmental Education HOW: Sponsor an annual Environmental Educators Roundtable (Lead), a project of the Barnegat Bay Roundtable to facilitate the sharing of resource infor-Watershed Association, now known as the BBWEF. This mation and ideas and provide hands-on opportunities action will be coordinated by the OCSCD. that can be carried back to the classroom.

HOW: Revise and reprint once every three years. This WHEN: Upon availability of funds, the Roundtables could be a project for an intern. will occur during the spring of each year. The target year for initiation is 2002.

WHEN: Provided the funds are available, first revisions wilt be made for the 2002-2003 school year in con- WHERE: The Roundtables should be conducted junction with the release of the Activity Guide. throughout the watershed.

WHERE: The Resource Guide is relevant to the whole MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Number of watershed. Roundtables conducted and attendance at each will measure effectiveness.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Number of requests for the Resource Guide will be used to gauge COST: $2,500 per year.

effectiveness of this action.

FUNDING SOURCES: BBWEF or other potential sources COST: $5,000 for each round of revisions. identified in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.

FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments. See REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY potential funding sources in Chapter 12, Section CHANGES: None identified.

12.8.1.

1 52 EARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

Chapter 8 There are currently approximately 12,000 school chil-ACTION 8.5 dren participating in the MARE program.

Supijirt ~the&Sea Grasses for Classes Project- WHEN: The 1999-2000 school year was the pilot year institute' of Marine ~&Coasta Sciences (IMCS)- for the "Sea Grasses for Classes" project, which is tar-Riitqers Uni-.ersity geted for continuation in 2001 with funding from the Dodge Foundation.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ACTION: This program wilt WHERE: Schools participating in the MARE program create partnerships with schools through the Marine are somewhat focused within the boundaries of the Activities Resources & Education (MARE) program of Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve IMCS to restore eelgrass (Zostera spp.) in New Jersey (JCNERR) at Mullica River/Great Bay, which has over-waters. The project wilt not only be scientifically sig- lapping boundaries with the BBNEP. Four pilot schools nificant, but will also provide hands-on opportunities in Toms River and Lacey Township have been selected for students in grades 4 to 12 to study the importance to participate in the "Sea Grasses for Classes" project.

of eelgrass as one of the sensitive habitats of Barnegat Bay. MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: IMCS has hired a professional evaluator to develop pre- and post-project During 1998, a dramatic reduction in eelgrass coverage surveys and focus group protocols to assess the success and biomass occurred in Little Egg Harbor. Due to the of the community-based project. The MARE program is importance of this habitat for local species, it is the currently in year two of a professional evaluation pro-goal of this Action Item to restore portions of this gram.

habitat, determine the best planting techniques for eelgrass beds in New Jersey, and create long-term mon- COST ESTIMATE: $15,000 is required to implement a itoring goats for assessment of restoration and habitat website and purchase classroom curriculum and equip-value. ment. Additional funding would be required ($40,000) to scientifically monitor the project and assess its sci-STATUS AND PRIORITY: Partial Commitment, Medium entific value.

Priority.

FUNDING SOURCES: Seed money for the 1999-2000 WHO: The IMCS (Lead) will be responsible for program school year was secured from the Geraldine R. Dodge implementation. The BBNEP will serve as a consultant Foundation. Additional sources of funding for scaling to the project and might assist in promoting the pro- up of the program may come from other non-profit ject through public outreach. sources.

HOW: With increasing pressure on K-12 educators in REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY New Jersey to meet the New Jersey State Core CHANGES: None.

Curriculum Standards without concomitant increases in school budgets, programs such as MARE are in increas-ing demand. The scientific community has a responsi-bil-ity to support teachers and assist schools in seek-ing outside funding for science education reform. IMCS is committed to making its faculty and staff resources and advanced technology available to educators and their students through programs like this one.

MAY 2002 153

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and EDUCATION ACTION PLAN The NJDEP Division of Parks and Forestry has commit-ted to distributing BBNEP's watershed outreach materi-Develop the Forest Resource Education Center als and will provide agency facilities (i.e., FREC) for (FREC) as a resource and interpr~etieeter tha~t joint presentations. Parks and Forestry has also agreed

,promotes art understandig.n0f thed hiuman/natural to incorporate educational materials about watersheds resource ;connection anfd a(stewardshrpi ethic into their presentations.

arnong st*idents, scouts, th 1ah,g irI public, WHEN: Ongoing.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Trees provide many bene- WHERE: The FREC is located on Route 527 in Jackson, fits to ensure a healthy environment and high quality with more than 450 acres near the headwaters of the of life. The FREC is dedicated to enhancing awareness, Toms River. Outreach efforts extend throughout the knowledge, and understanding of forest resources as county and the watershed, as Well as across the state.

one means to development of a conservation ethic.

The FREC provides a range of products and services and MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: The education promotes values that contribute to community well- and outreach efforts of the FREC will be measured by being and ecological health through active participa- an increase in visitation by students, scouts, visitors, tion in projects and programs. The FREC will establish and area residents, and by the increased promotion of partnerships to strengthen environmental education forest tree seedlings for plantings throughout the programs throughout the Barnegat Bay watershed and Barnegat Bay watershed by residents and landowners.

across the state. In succeeding years, the measure of effectiveness wilt include the annually increasing number of tree STATUS AND PRIORITY: Partial Commitment, Medium seedlings planted.

Priority.

COST ESTIMATE: Supplemental expenditures of WHO: The FREC is a property of the NJDEP Division of $20,000 per year would enhance the public outreach Parks arnd Forestry, state Forest Service (Lead). and education value of this action.

Partners with the FREC include OCSCD, Boy and Girt Scouts of Ocean County, Jackson School District, Ocean FUNDING SOURCES: The FREC has allocated funds to County 4-H, New Jersey Society of American Foresters, construct an interpretive center over the next few Project Learning Tree, New Jersey Tree Farm years. Additional funds are sought to enhance inter-Committee, Alliance for. New Jersey Environmental pretive and visitor services to better aid information Educators (ANJEE), and others. dissemination regarding the Barnegat Bay watershed.

HOW: The FREC has the unique opportunity to model Required Regulatory, Ordinance, or Policy Changes:

positive land-use practices that can be implemented by None.

homeowners in an "up-watershed" location. The FREC is striving to be a model for land-use practices that communities, residents, visitors, and landowners can learn about and later implement at home. Such prac-tices could include but are not limited to: tree plant-ings for energy conservation, water gardens to reduce runoff and increase water re-entry into aquifers, habi-tat plantings for wildlife, riparian buffer plantings, and many more.

154 BAYFINAL CCMP BARNEGAT

Chapter 8 WHEN: It is envisioned that development of this pro-ject would take an education consultant approximate-ly six months upon the availability of funds, the target Develop a Barnegat Bay Watershed Education date being 2002. The organization, development, and Campaign, to be implemented in all elemrientary scheduling of the 60 public elementary schools and pri-Sclools via a ,mascot "Barnie the Crab." This vate school presentations could take a full year or character would address kindergarten through more. In addition, there are numerous opportunities to th*ird or fourth grades with awatershed aware schedule public appearances of "Barnie the Crab" at rn-s miessage. InI addition, the program would special events throughout the year.

!:e ~available to scout and otheryol gou t:Khroughout the watershedd WHERE: The presentations will be conducted at schools, Libraries, and public facilities within the Barnegat Bay watershed.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: This program SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Education is key to effect- will foster a personal connection and sense of respon-ing social change. Educating school-age children about sibility for managing watershed resources. One mea-the bay and its natural resources could influence the sure of success will be the number of youngsters development of positive environmental behavior and reached by this program and their geographic distribu-habits. Such behavior changes in children may influ- tion in Ocean County. Another measure may be new ence changes in parents' attitudes toward the bay, thus participants drawn to the ongoing baywatch monitor-fostering an environmental ethic in the citizens of the ing program.

watershed. This action wilt help all citizens and visi-tors know how they positively and negatively influence COST ESTIMATE: Start-up cost for development of the the watershed environment and their role in its con- character and program as well as first-year implemen-servation and improvement. tation will be in the $60,000 range. The costs for the multiple components for this project wilt each have to STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Medium be estimated when funding sources become available.

Priority. Continued funding sources must be identified for long-term engagements and program management.

WHO: Barnegat Bay Watershed and Estuary Foundation (BBWEF) (Lead). FUNDING SOURCES: Potential funding sources include the NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Education, pri-HOW: Develop a program featuring an educator in a vate foundations, and the National Fish & Wildlife "Barnie the Crab" costume who will conduct presenta- Foundation.

tions in individual classrooms at all elementary schools in the watershed. Lesson plans and grade-specific REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY handouts wilt be developed which are compatible with CHANGES: None.

New Jersey State Core Curriculum Standards. The con-tent of these materials will focus on building awareness and appreciation for the watershed's natural resources. /

The "Barnie the Crab" costume will build on the exist-ing signage program sponsored by the BBWEF (former-ly BBWA). During the summer, a college student intern would utilize the costume and educational materials to expand the program to public beaches and boardwalk.

,Ij MAY 2002 155

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and EDUCATION ACTION PLAN FUNDING SOURCES: CWA Section 320 - Program Funding and other contributing sources to be identified.

REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: Not yet determined.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Environmental education ACTION 8.9, provides meaningful connections to the surrounding envi-ronment and leads the student (whether a child or an Contin~ue the Allian~cefor a Living Ocean (ALO) adult) through a process from awareness to action. Ec-tou5r of a Barrier Island for school childrenr Once completed, the activity guide wilt enable teachers to and the general pubhic.

integrate and apply lessons and activities directly related to the watershed in which they teach. Thus, the guide wilt help to develop an environmental ethic and responsible SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The main purpose of the citizens. ecotours is to educate the public about the Barnegat Bay Estuary - what it is, its ecological importance, and STATUS AND PRIORITY: Partial Commitment, High how it can be protected and restored. Each participant Priority. is sent home with the educational tools needed to improve not only the Barnegat Bay Estuary, but also WHO: Barnegat Bay Environmental Education Roundtable any environment near his or her home. Many partici-Steering Committee (Lead), coordinated by OCSCD. pants come from the Tri-state area. Their actions impact the Barnegat Bay Estuary and its barrier HOW: Initially, provide facilitator training so the activity islands. If, by taking the ecotours, people learn to be guide is implemented in a consistent fashion. Coordinate good stewards of the natural resources of a barrier a series of workshops for school districts throughout the island and estuary, it is hoped that they will extend watershed to introduce the activity guide. Showcase and their knowledge to protecting other estuarine environ-highlight a number of successful stewardship projects in ments.

order to make the program action-oriented.

STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Medium WHEN: The activity guide should be completed for the Priority.

2002-2003 school year. Initial implementation will take three years. WHO: ALO (Lead).

WHERE: The activity guide wilt be available for use HOW: The ALO school trips are held on a reservation throughout the watershed. basis and are tailored to the grade level of the stu-dents, as well as the time constraints of the school.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Effectiveness will Each ecotour stops at points of environmental interest be gauged by an increased awareness about and action to along the entire length of Long Beach Island. Some of control and reduce nonpoint source pollution. A numeri- the topics discussed are water quality and water mon-cal measure would be the number of educators making use itoring, dune preservation, indigenous species, non-of the guide. Another measure would be the number of point source pollution, beach debris, and estuarine guides distributed. preservation. Many schools require their students to write papers or do a project about something learned COST ESTIMATE: Initial implementation will cost $60,000 on the ecotour.

(over three years) for printing and a facilitator. The summer version of the ecotour is split into two Subsequent funding wilt be needed to revise and reprint parts, northern and southern, because of traffic prob-the guide and to continue the teacher-training program. lems. A trolley is rented to provide transportation, and 156 BARNEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

Chapter 8 a guide speaks to the participants as the trolley proceeds the water quality of area lakes, streams, and rivers that from stop to stop. The same lessons provided to students flow into Barnegat Bay.

during the school year are used during the summer.

STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Medium WHEN: The. ALO offers ecotours to schoolchildren Priority.

throughout the school year. The summer version of the ecotour takes place once a week in July and August. WHO: OCSCD (Lead), USDA- NRCS, and NJDEP.

WHERE: The ecotour takes place on Long Beach Island. HOW: Provide technical and financial assistance to public schools to promote the development and use of outdoor MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: The program's classrooms. Technical assistance will be provided through effectiveness has been measured historically by the repeat a series of teacher training workshops such as Project participation of many schools, i.e., many schools bring WILD/WILD School Sites and Project Learning Tree/Project their students back each year. As an example, Medford WET. The New Jersey Forestry Service is an active partici-Memorial School has integrated the ecotour into its sev- pant in Project Learning Tree, and has agreed to provide enth-grade coastal studies. In addition, many summer information about the Barnegat Bay watershed as part of participants have chosen to take both the northern and this project. Financial assistance will be provided through southern tours. a competitive mini-grant program for local schools.

COST ESTIMATE: Approximately $3,000 to continue the WHEN: The program is targeted to begin in 2002.

existing program and an additional $5,000 to update the curriculum with new information. WHERE: Outdoor classrooms will be encouraged through-out the watershed.

FUNDING SOURCES: Funding is anticipated from an Ocean County Freeholders Tourism Grant. No other fund- MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Number of outdoor ing source is pending. classrooms developed will serve as a measure of effective-ness.

REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None. COST: $5,000 per year.

FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments. See discus-sion of potential funding sources in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.

REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY Changes: None.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Outdoor classrooms offer a realistic way to provide students with meaningful hands-on learning experiences and to demonstrate how the sub-jects and skills taught in the classroom relate to the world around them. Outdoor classrooms also offer an opportu-nity for parents and the entire community to become SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The "BayKeeper Program" is involved in conservation efforts. Outdoor classrooms can a program of public environmental advocacy that acts as demonstrate to homeowners and residents how to take the eyes of the public to guard against environmental positive actions and make improvements to their home insults and unlawful pollution. In nearby regions, Bay landscapes that will be beneficial to wildlife, promote Keepers or River Keepers operate in Long Island Sound, water conservation, and reduce the runoff of nonpoint the Hudson River, and the New York/New Jersey source pollution from their yards. This will help improve Harbor. These programs serve to educate the public, MAY2002 157

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and EDUCATION ACTION PLAN businesses, and local agencies, press for enforcement of existing environmental regulations, and initiate litiga-ACTION 8.12 tion when necessary. They can serve an effective role Cret a Barnegat :Bay-speific Educational G in forestalling degradation of the estuarine environ-ment and in promoting its restoration.

"outtiniig the natural and citiuraltecntounism oppor-lturities in central New Jersey. wýith an eniiasis on

- the Barmegat Bay watershed region. :and Produce '

STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Low

distrib~utI** gde qie to target audienices.

Priority.

WHO: BayKeeper Program (Lead), American Littoral SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Ecotourism promotes the Society, and other interested citizens and groups. non-consumptive or sustainable use of resources to con-serve environments and maintain the well-being of local HOW: Public interest within the watershed and active people. While there are excellent examples of local and some regional publications, most are highly fragmented support by the BBWEF will determine the viability of and limited to specific activities. Prior to June 2000, there establishing a "BayKeeper" Program within Barnegat were no readily available, comprehensive resources to Bay.

assist New Jersey residents and visitors in identifying and locating ecotourism opportunities. The Ecotourism Guides WHEN: Given the interest and a source of funding, the developed by the New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium program could be in operation within a relatively short (NJMSC) represent a precedent-setting pilot project for period of time, upon the availability of funds. this type of publication. This guide is the second in the series. The first guide is entitled, "Ecotourism Guide for WHERE: The program should be implemented Southern New Jersey," and a third will include the coastal throughout the tidal portion of Barnegat Bay. area between the Manasquan Inlet and the Palisades.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Success of the STATUS AND PRIORITY: Commitment, Low Priority.

program will be measured through the number of pol-lution events prevented, minimized, or corrected, and WHO: The NJMSC (Lead) and its New Jersey Sea Grant by the level of compliance with applicable regulatory College Program were directly responsible for the actual.

standards. design and production of the guide. Content of the guide was determined by the Steering Committee, which consists COST ESTIMATE: Approximately $60,000 per year. of. key contributors from the target region and agencies representing the public and private sectors.

FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments. See dis-cussion of potential funding sources in Chapter 12. HOW: The "Ecotourism Guide for Central New Jersey,"

focusing on the Barnegat Bay watershed, contains a REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY detailed map with pertinent and useful information about CHANGES: None identified. ecotourism, including selected "showcase" natural and cultural sites, .activities, and events within the Barnegat Bay watershed. It directs users to the bounty of attrac-tions in this region and is developed on a temporal and spatial scale that promotes one-day trips, weekend trips, and potentially longer ecotourism vacations.

WHEN: The project's Steering Committee was identified and confirmed in June 1999. The original guide was printed and ready for distribution during the first six months of 2000.

158 BARNEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

Chapter 8 WHERE: The geographical setting for this guide Establishing river cleanups throughout the watershed encompasses Ocean County, with an emphasis on areas in will enable the BBWEF to actively engage watershed-and around the Barnegat Bay estuary. It will be market- wide participation in community stewardship. This ed and distributed statewide and regionally, by request. project will become an effective outreach tool for watershed education, spark watershed stewardship MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Several survey and among Ocean County citizens, and result in cleanup of monitoring mechanisms such as contact phone numbers the waterways.

and Internet websites are included in the guide. These will allow the Project Coordinator to assess the number of STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Medium "hits" and phone inquiries received by sites as a result of Priority.

the guide's publication. Requests for the publication gen-erated by marketing approaches (determined by the WHO: The BBWEF (Lead) would be the primary orga-Steering Committee) will help determine the popularity nizer for this activity. The organizational members of and demand of the product. the BBWEF as well as other affiliated groups (such as AmeriCorps) would be partners. BBWA will also work COST ESTIMATE: The cost (including design and market- with local civic groups and community leaders in the ing expenses) for 45,000 copies is $20,000. Depending on cleanup.

the number of additional funding sources, an increased print run will be considered. HOW: This action would be coordinated with the ALO Volunteer Barnegat Bay monitoring program. The FUNDING SOURCES: To date, funding commitments for cleanups will handle debris and Litter.

the series of Ecotourism Guides include $10,000 from the New Jersey Commerce and Economic Growth Commission, WHEN: The cleanups will be conducted annually in

$5,000 from Cumberland County, and $20,000 from the early spring beginning in the year 2001.

New Jersey Sea Grant College Program.

WHERE: Cleanups will be conducted throughout the REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY Barnegat Bay watershed.

CHANGES: None.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: A "Watershed Quiz" will be designed and disseminated pre- and post-cleanup to quantifiably measure the participants' knowledge of watershed and nonpoint source pollution concepts.

COST ESTIMATE: The cost for supplies and miscella-neous materials will total $5,000 per year.

FUNDING SOURCES: Possible funding support includes public outreach funding from Section 320 (NEP) and private funding sources.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Barnegat Bay is a popular REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY vacation destination known for its valuable fishing, CHANGES: None.

crabbing, and clamming. There is much activity along its nine tributaries, such as residential and commercial development, recreational uses, golf courses, and road-ways, which produce nonpoint source pollution and litter.

MAY2002 159

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and EDUCATION ACTION PLAN HOW: The BBDBM has established the Tuckerton

~ACTION 8.~14~ Seaport, and is using existing historical buildings or

~Provide interpretive ehibts, programns and -_Itiv- building replicas of once-existing structures from towns ities focusingci on theý histoncal human use(Jb the along the bay to provide exhibits and interpretive pro-env,:ironmental resouiýr es within the Barne gat Bay grams for a significant number of the traditional folk-ways of the Barnegat Bay region. Traditional resource-watershed.

based occupations of the Baymen and their families that will be interpreted include: shetlfishing, waterfowling, SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: This action will develop boat building, decoy carving, salt hay and eelgrass indus-an understanding and appreciation of the rich heritage tries, whaling, charter boat fishing, production of and cultural traditions of the Barnegat Bay and Pine- baymen's tools, lighthouse and lifesaving, harvesting and land regions' early settlers and families, whose way of milling cedar and other forest products, and trapping life was almost entirely natural resource based. The and hunting. Baymen's preservation of the bay culture knowledge and understanding and dependence on the through festivals, including programs enhanced by resources of the bay, ocean, and forest as a way of life crafts, writing, poetry, music, recipes and social activ-have been greatly diminished since the 1960s and ities, will also be featured.

1970s, with the tremendous influx of tourism and sub-urban development within the watershed. In order to WHEN: Many activities are currently available.

keep the older traditions alive, to better understand Others, such as development of a research library, will the natural and cultural resources of the watershed, be scheduled according to the availability of funds, and to promote a sense of place and belonging, the expected to begin in 2002.

Barnegat Bay Decoy and Baymen's Museum (BBDBM) is constructing a working maritime cultural village, the WHERE: The BBDBM's Tuckerton Seaport is located on Tuckerton Seaport. a 40-acre waterfront site in Tuckerton, New Jersey.

STATUS AND PRIORITY: Commitment, High Priority. MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: All groups and programs are evaluated by way of internal review WHO: The BBDBM (Lead) has Worked cooperatively among the staff, follow-up interviews, and question-with a number of partners on a variety of projects to naires, and also by unsolicited letters from partici-achieve its current level of programming. These part- pants commenting on programs. If visitation increas-ners include schools, universities, and county, state, es and the need arises, further evaluation techniques and federal agencies. will be employed.

PROGRAM Site Size! . ...........

SPECIFICS: Stage One hmpr** ents PrjceStýizel Bu;_iding nnuahiia~o~

Pot st'ucurs

' iPeak Visitor i)l l- 0-.

Scool Stltudents I:,

160~yFear......AverageOpenGA VtEayA Per 0A

Chapter 8 COST ESTIMATES governments with the background information they need to make informed decisions affecting the coast.

PROGRAM BUDGET:

Exhibits ................ ........ $1,125,000 STATUS AND PRIORITY: Commitment, High Priority.

Staff ........................... $125,000 Library and Archives ......... ..... $40,000 WHO: JCNERR (Lead) and its partners propose imple-TOTAL ......................... $1,290,000 menting the Coastal Institute Initiative in New Jersey.

FUNDING SOURCES: The JCNERR can utilize the research and education Funds have been received as follows: strengths of the IMCS at Rutgers University, which will New Jersey Green Acres Program ........ $527,375 administer the program, along with National. Oceanic Tuckerton Borou'gh .................. $62,500 and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and many Little Egg Harbor .................... $62,500 other organizations in New Jersey. Partners include Ocean County ....................... $62,500 BBNEP, USFWS, NJDEP, New Jersey Pinelands Casino Reinvestment Commission, and Richard Stockton College.

Development Authority ............. $1,000,000 NJDOT - ISTEA Grant ...... ...... $661,570 HOW: A number of outreach tools are needed to effec-Museum Fund Raising ....... ..... $324,375 tively reach all segments of this diverse audience. A E.J. Grassmann Trust .................. $5,000 new Coastal Institute that will provide a training cen-Gannet Foundation .................. $20,000 ter for local governments will be constructed in Ocean Federal Foundation ............. $30,000 Tuckerton, New Jersey. The Coastal Institute will Atlantic Electric .................... $10,000 house a Coastal Repository that was funded initially First Union Foundation .... * ."......... $25,000 through an Action Plan/Demonstration Project (APDP)

Other Business and Individual Donators . . $129,000 grant from the BBNEP. This repository provides local TOTAL ....................... $2,919,820 governments with access to geographic information system (GIS) spatial information on the Barnegat Bay REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY and Mullica River watersheds. It also serves as a clear-CHANGES: All environmental and regulatory permits inghouse for model environmental ordinances, water-have been obtained. shed planning strategies, protective site design princi-ples, and best management practices. A number of workshops are being planned to disseminate this infor-mation. A minimum of three coastal decision-maker workshops will be held per year.

WHERE: Although many of the Coastal Institute pro-grams are statewide in scope, several programs have been developed specifically for the Barnegat Bay and Muilica River watersheds. A workshop, "Land-Use SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Decisions made by local Strategies for Coastal Decision-Makers," is being tar-governments can have profound, long-term conse- geted to municipalities in these two watersheds. The quences for estuarine and coastal environments. Coastal Repository and PAGIS (GIS) programs have also Elected and appointed local officials, land-use plan- been developed primarily for local governments within ners, and other decision makers often do not have the two watersheds.

access to timely, science-based information that is available in a user-friendly format. With significant MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Coastal decision-development pressures on coastal communities and the maker programs will be evaluated to determine the resulting impacts on coastal resources, there is a strong success of the initiative. Metric guidelines will be need to develop an efficient means of providing local established to ensure documentation and consistent MAY2002 161

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and EDUCATION ACTION PLAN WHEN:

TASK DESCRIPTION SCHEDULE reporting. Long-term funding will be pursued to assess Cost Estimate:

the impact of the program on coastal management.

START-UP COSTS - FACILITY Evaluations will include:

Construction $800,000 NOAA and IMCS

  • Assessments that measure the outputs (what the Workshops $20,000 NOAA, IMCS, program is producing).

and NJDEP

" Assessments that measure the outcomes (what Repository $18,000 BBNEP (complete) happens as a result of the program being implemented). PAGIS $10,000 NOAA and IMCS 0"

Both internal and external reviews by skilled Total $848,000 evaluators.

ANNUAL COSTS Workshops. $20,000 NJDEP Repository $10,000 NOAA and IMCS PAGIS $15,000 NOAA and IMCS Total $45,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Commitments in place with NOAA, IMCS, NJDEP, and BBNEP (as indicated above).

Required Regulatory, Ordinance, or Policy Changes:

None required.

16 2 BARNEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

Chapter 8 ACTION 8.16 ACTION 8.17 Revise and reprint the "Low-Maintentance iEducate professional landscapers, municicpal Landscaping Homneownrers' Guide.'" ,groundspersonnel, and facility managers on more effi'cient and environmirentally sensitive use of pesticides.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The guide shows Ocean County homeowners how to save time and money on landscaping by using effective horticultural practices. SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Pesticides are traditional-At the same time, the use of these landscaping tech- ly applied by commercial landscapers on a calendar niques will also reduce nonpoint source pollutants such basis to cover all plants and lawn surfaces at the typi-as fertilizers and pesticides that are transported by cal residence. Pesticides are simple to use and provide stormwater runoff. These pollutants enter lakes, a quick kill of pests, but unnecessary and haphazard rivers, and streams that eventually drain into Barnegat pesticide use contributes to nonpoint source pollution.

Bay. Low-maintenance landscaping techniques also An alternative is the use of Integrated Pest reduce water consumption, helping to preserve the Management (IPM) methods, which promote monitor-aquifers that sustain Barnegat Bay and Ocean County's ing and identification of plant pest problems prior to wetlands, native plants, and wildlife. making decisions about treatment. Alternatives to tra-ditional pesticide treatments are utilized as a first STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Medium resort.

Priority.

The RCE IPM program has demonstrated an average 42 WHO: OCSCD and RCE. percent decrease in pesticide use and a 70 percent reduction in the number of plants sprayed utilizing HOW: The guide. will be revised and reprinted approx- IPM techniques.

imately every three years. Appendices, in particular, Many landscapers do not adopt IPM techniques because must be periodically updated to provide the most up-of lack of knowledge. The goal of this program is to to-date information available.

provide practical IPM information in a timely, clear-cut, practical format, delivered directly to landscapers WHEN: The first revision/reprint will be conducted in when pests are active. Otherwise, landscapers are'less 2002-2003, depending on availability of funds.

apt to follow IPM methods because of time constraints and lack of knowledge. Such a "bottom line" source of WHERE: The guide will be designed for use through-diagnostic and control information should encourage out the watershed.-

adoption of IPM tactics and proper pest control tactics, and reduce haphazard spraying, which in turn reduces MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Number of nonpoint source pollution.

requests received for the guide will measure this action's effectiveness.

STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Medium Priority.

COST ESTIMATE: $35,000 (every three years).

WHO: RCE, through a horticulture consultant.

FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments. See dis-cussion of potential funding sources in Chapter 12, HOW: A brief, bi-weekly newsletter will be offered at Section 12.8.1. no charge (or minimal charge) to encourage use and adoption of IPM techniques. It will alert all watershed REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY landscapers of currently active pests and the proper IPM CHANGES: Not yet determined. treatment and timing. Pesticide recommendations will MAY2002 163

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and EDUCATION ACTION PLAN be made in conjunction with RCE and [abet recommen-dations. ACTION 8.18 Pronmote henuse of Inte grated Pest 'Managemienti The newsletter will be available by mail or fax (and possibly by posting on a Web site in the future).

The newsletter could also be modified for garden cen- SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Homeowners routinely ters, utilizing recommendations appropriate for their apply pesticides for control of insects, diseases, and home gardener audiences. Likewise, this version of the weeds on home lawns and landscapes. These pesti-newsletter could be sent to homeowner associations for cides are typically applied as a crisis response to long-printing in their association newspapers and newslet- standing or unobserved problems, many of which are a ters. result of poor planning, poor plant selection, and improper maintenance techniques, i.e., maintenance An annual landscape IPM maintenance symposium will becomes routine and over-reliance on pesticides be held for watershed landscapers to increase knowl- occurs. Pesticides are often selected based on avail-edge in IPM methods. ability, price, and the recommendations of neighbors, local garden center, or mass merchandise store.

WHEN: Implement upon receipt of funding. The tar- Unnecessary and haphazard pesticide use contributes get date is 2002. to nonpoint source pollution.

WHERE: Information will be distributed throughout Another factor relevant to Ocean County is that it has the watershed. the largest percentage of adult communities in the state. Common-ground property is often maintained MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Success will be via a low-bid approach to contracting, and individual measured by newsletter and program evaluations residents are removed from the day-to-day decision-through participant surveys. Change in pesticide use making that determines what chemicals are applied to and renewals will be highlighted. the property.

COST ESTIMATE: $20,000-$30,000 for staff support. An alternative approach to lawn and landscape main-tenance is the use of IPM methods. IPM promotes FUNDING SOURCE: No firm commitments. See dis- proper plant selection (with a focus on resistant plant cussion of potential funding sources in Chapter 12, varieties) and monitoring and identification of plant Section 12.8.1. pest problems early on, prior to decisions .on treat-ment. The least toxic alternative treatments to tradi-REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY tional pesticides, i.e., botanical, biorational and bio-CHANGES: None. logical pest control products, are utilized as a first resort for maximum control with minimum environ-mental impact.

STATUS AND PRIORITY: Recommendation, Medium Priority.

WHO: RCE (Lead) will coordinate activities.

HOW: A newspaper column will be written for a local newspaper. A bi-weekly column such as this will receive wide exposure and be able to most econom-ically disseminate research-based information to 164 BARNEGAr BAYFINAL CCMP

Chapter 8 homeowners. Pest identification (prior to any control FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments. See dis-tactic) and IPM maintenance methods will be stressed. cussion of potential funding sources in Chapter 12,.

The column should become a trusted source of good Section 12.8.1.

advice for pesticide/fertilization recommendations.

REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY Master Gardeners are volunteer homeowners trained in CHANGES: None.

gardening/horticulture through RCE. Program volun-teers receive a ten-week class covering plant biology, plant selection and identification, insects and diseases (both indoors and outdoors), vegetable gardening, lawn care, etc. Master Gardeners are trained in IPM methodology and can help implement this action.

Plant clinics or walk-in clinics where homeowners can bring in insects/sick plants for identification and con-trol will be offered at local libraries or community events throughout the watershed via the RCE's Master Gardener program. Advertising the clinics will be car- SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The Environmental ried out in cooperation with the Ocean County Library Learning Center (ELC) of Ocean County is a not-for-system and/or events coordinators. profit organization that will construct a learning cen-ter on the Toms River on property owned by the Dover A seminar series will be held in conjunction with the Township Utilities Authority (DMUA) in Toms River.

Master Gardener program's seminars. Seminars will be The facility will be located on the grounds of the DMUA held monthly at different locations around the county and bus station on Highland Parkway.

and promoted via newspaper, newsletter, and other media outlets. Soil pH testing will be offered to all The mission of the ELC is to provide visitors, students, landowners at a minimal charge. Tests will be per- educators, and residents with information and hands-formed on a weekly basis and include information on activities promoting the Barnegat Bay watershed.

about lime requirements. To promote better plant The ELC will feature standing displays, computer inter-selection and reduce pesticide use, an IPM slide series active lessons, and hands-on activities. Conservation with script will be written and made available to the and protection of our natural resources will be a focal speakers bureau as well as to area garden clubs that point of the ELC.

wish to borrow it at no charge.

STATUS AND PRIORITY: Partial Commitment, Low WHEN: The program will begin upon funding. Priority.

WHERE: Information will be distributed throughout WHO: ELC of Ocean County.

the watershed.

HOW: The ELC will establish a Barnegat Bay Estuary MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Success will be display that reflects the major aspects of the BBNEP.

measured by program evaluations and requests for The target audience will include all visitors to the ELC.

information. Changes in pesticide use and renewals of licenses will be highlighted.

COST ESTIMATE:

$24,000-$29,000 annually

$20,000-25,000 (personnel/consultant)

$2,500 supplies (paper, stickers, labels, computer ink, travel, etc.)

$1,500 signs and promotion MAY2002 165

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and EDUCATION ACTION PLAN The following will be included in the display: FUNDING SOURCES: The ELC has received a number of commitments from various organizations for funding,

" A brief chronology of the BBNEP. including Ocean Federal Foundation and the Citta

" Key agencies, professionals, and personnel.

Foundation. The Ocean County/Toms River Chamber of Commerce also conducts fund-raising to support the

" Main goals of the program. cost of developing the ELC.

" Suggestions about how people could become more REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY estuary and watershed friendly. CHANGES: None.

WHEN: The display will be present upon opening of the ELC to the public. The target date is 2005.

WHERE: The display wilt include selected scenes from around the entire Barnegat Bay Estuary and watershed.

A computer display about the BBNEP will be exhibited either at the display area or in a separate technology SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The Lighthouse Camp (95 area, and will be linked to the BBNEP Web site. The acres) and the adjacent Bowker Property (96 acres) display will be exhibited in the main center of the ELC. comprise one of the last parcels of open space in cen-Presentations about the Barnegat Bay' estuary and tral Ocean Township not currently developed for hous-watershed will be made available at the theater, includ- ing between Route 9 and Barnegat Bay. These con-ing the Dynamics of the Barnegat Bay slide show. A tiguous tracts contain substantial maritime forest, salt copy of this slide show is currently available at the marshes, and two small freshwater streams that feed Ocean County Parks and Library. The slide show wilt be into the bay. The habitat diversity here is noteworthy.

available periodically, changing each season to reflect These sites have the potential to be excellent outdoor the unique seasonal aspects of the Barnegat Bay estu- laboratories providing opportunities for field investiga-ary and watershed. tions, research and interpretive programs for students, teachers, decision-makers, as well as the public at MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: Success of this large. The property, formerly known as the Lighthouse effort will be gauged by the number of visitors to the Camp for the Blind, Inc. has been sold to the Trust for ELC. Public Land (TPL) and will be transferred to the NbJDEP Division of Fish and Wildlife.

COST ESTIMATE: The ELC has commitments for devel-opment ($300,000 plus land value of $1,000,000). The Implementation of this action will provide interpreta-display would include hardware, professional layout, tive and educational opportunities to educators, visi-design, and production at a cost of $40,000 (break- tors, academia, and the general public by providing a down listed below): natural resource conservation facility to serve the needs of this diverse audience. This site and existing facilities can be used as a conference center, a teacher training facility, an outdoor classroom, and a residen-tial environmental education center. No other such facility exists within the Barnegat Bay watershed.

STATUS AND PRIORITY: Partial Commitment, Medium Priority.

WHO: YES has a 23-year history of commitment to promoting environmental education throughout New 1666BARNEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

Chapter 8 Jersey. YES has recently undergone a reorganization MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: It is anticipated and is now focused on the leasing of the 95-acre parcel that numerous groups, organizations, and agencies will known as the Lighthouse Camp. The main purpose of utilize the facility due to the unique amenities and edu-the facility is to provide overnight accommodations cational opportunities that it offers. Attendance records and conference support to organizations sponsoring and evaluations solicited from participants will be utilized environmental and natural resource educational activ- to determine the effectiveness of the facility.

ities, programs and conferences. The facility will be named "Experience Barnegat Bay." COST ESTIMATES: It is estimated that a minimum of

$150,000 will be required for annual operating expenses, HOW: YES plans to lease the property and facility from including salaries, upgrading of facilities to meet code the NJDEP Division of Fish and Wildlife and offer a vari- requirements and maintenance. This is only an estimate ety of educational opportunities focusing on the based on the best information presently available.

Barnegat Bay watershed and estuarine ecosystems.

YES will operate the Experience Barnegat Bay facility FUNDING SOURCES: TPL and the Green Acres program as a federal tax 501(c)(3) organization, and will seek provided funds for the purchase of the property.

funding from a variety of sources, including grants, Additional operating funds will have to be solicited by endowments, gifts, memberships, facility fees, and oth- YES and from the non-profit, educational sector. The ers. seller has provided an initial start-up fund of $10,000 to help defray the cost of necessary repairs and main-WHEN: Through the efforts of TPL, purchase of the tenance to the buildings and facility. Additional grants property was recently completed using Green Acres from foundations and government agencies, endow-(state environmental open space) funding, and a coop- ments, donations, etc. will be actively solicited to erative agreement with the NJDEP Division of Fish and cover the cost(s) of operation and maintenance of this Wildlife, which will own the property. The existing unique, high-quality educational facility.

facility and building infrastructure will then be leased to YES by the NIJDEP Division of Fish and Wildlife and REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY operated as "Experience Barnegat Bay." CHANGES: No changes are anticipated because the buildings and facility infrastructure are pre-existing.

No new construction is anticipated.

MAY2002 167

The real conflict of the beach is not between sea and shore, for theirs is only a lover's quarrel, but between man and nature.

-- G.Soucie, Smithsonian 1973

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML072060439&oldid=2575621"