ML072060441

Chapter 9 of the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (2002)

ML072060441
Person / Time
Site:	Oyster Creek
Issue date:	05/01/2002
From:	Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Davis J NRR/DLR/REBB, 415-3835
Shared Package
ML072060321	List: ML072060325 ML072060330 ML072060334 ML072060337 ML072060339 ML072060342 ML072060344 ML072060345 ML072060373 ML072060377 ML072060382 ML072060384 ML072060391 ML072060397 ML072060400 ML072060403 ML072060405 ML072060406 ML072060409 ML072060414 ML072060439 ML072060441 ML072060543 ML072060545 ML072060550 ML072060555 ML072060558 ML072060561 ML072060564 ML072060570 ML072060573 ML072060592 ML072060594 ML072060596 ML072060598 ML072060601 ML072060603 ML072060606 ML072060609 ML072060613 ML072060616 ML072060618 ML072060621
References
Download: ML072060441 (168)

Text

t<<>N Rutgers Institute of Marine and Coastal Sc cience, Little Egg Harbor.PHoTo By cmINERs MAY 2002 169

9 mmm=ý -

N- -

/ '3/4 ~

V V 43/4 '3/4

'N)

N, K

.1 1< (

IN' X-.

F?

• . ,**.*; >-*A,"}

.,,,:,* / , " ,

• Ni "I

/

~>/

SUBMERGED AQUA TIC!

I1 VEGETA FTION K-A" iI in OCEAN COUNTY

\

N,' "~'~"~ I' I '~r~

7

• ., Ni 4

'N-1~

t A

1, ~N~' I

, Widgeon Gra s ft. / Eel Grass 3/4

\N' ~NNN7 V

'N"N

• "N,

'4.

"N

'N C! #9 20000 0 20000 40000 Feet WROMM 170 BARNEGATBAYFINAL CCMP

MONITORING PROGRAM PLAN Chapter 9 9.1 Introduction the Monitoring Program Plan will help flesh out the monitoring component of Action Items in the Water An effective monitoring program is an integral compo- Quality and Water Supply Action Plan, and ensure that nent of the CCMP. Monitoring is necessary to assess the progress in implementing those actions is measurable.

status and trends in the health and abundance of the The Monitoring Program Plan also helps to ensure that Barnegat Bay watershed's water quality, water supply, Action Items are implemented effectively and adjusted habitat and living resources, and opportunities for when necessary. By measuring environmental changes human enjoyment. Monitoring provides the scientific in association with Action Item implementation, the evidence of changes taking place within the Bay and BBNEP will be able to evaluate the results of these watershed, either on a temporal or spatial scale. The actions and whether the goals and objectives of the results of such monitoring can validate the effective- Program are being met. The integration of the ness of current and planned management strategies, Monitoring Program Plan and Action Plan Action Items leading to the achievement of goals, or can suggest is indicated in Table 9-1.

where more concentrated attention should be placed.

Monitoring can be effective at different stages of the This Monitoring Program Plan describes the existing implementation process. Output monitoring measures and future monitoring efforts that will be taken with- programmatic progress and addresses CCMP implemen-in the bay and watershed. Monitoring is conducted by tation issues such as number of actions implemented a variety of Program participants, from federal, state, within a given period of time. Outcome monitoring and county agencies, to academic and research institu- focuses on the results of actions, such as the changes tions and citizen volunteers. The Action Items con- in ambient environmental conditions, ecological func-tained within this Monitoring Program Plan both com- tions, and biological populations and communities.

plement and support the Action Plans in Chapters 5 to Both kinds of monitoring are addressed by this 8 of this CCMP. For example, workshops called for in Monitoring Program Plan.

C1 MAY 2002 171

N) 0 1=00 C., 0 0

0 Action Items 5.1, 5.3, 5.4, 6.11-6.14

1) Implementation monitoring.

2) Database to track progress in stormwater management basin inventory, BMP basin retrofits, and municipality compliance 9.1-Conduct workshops on monitoring, modeling, and research needs.

Workshops will refine scope of the Action Items and identify specific data elements needed to satisfy monitoring needs.

BBEP will seek commitments from Management Conference members to OrD I

with Phase II Municipal implement TMDL development and monitoring.

Stormwater rules. These members will implement this part of the EMP.

.3) GIS to reveal Barnegat Bay coastal zone boundary, 9.2-Develop and implement Implementation of the long-term data impaired sub-watersheds, state long-term data management management strategy will facilitate the lands, etc. strategy. evaluation of data generated through the Action Items so that their effectiveness in

4) Hydrologic monitoring to reducing nonpoint source contamination can evaluate basin BMP retrofit be assessed.

performance. (D The long-term data management strategy will

5) TMDL development and include provisions for results of the monitoring. monitoring that would be needed for the development of TMDLs and for results of

6) Information tracking and monitoring that would be required to dissemination. evaluate the effectiveness of TMDLs.

Ln 9.3-9.4-Monitor CCMP BBEP will conduct implementation monitoring objectives. to track Action Item implementation (Action Item 9.4), effectiveness monitoring to track resource values and concerns (Action 9.3),

and disseminate information.

i 1*1.

w rvi 0

Action Items 5.5-5.13, 6.1 1) Database to track information 9.1-Conduct workshops on Workshops will refine scope of the Action 6.6, 6.8-6.10 on developments, households, monitoring, modeling, and Items and identify specific data elements farms, golf courses, and research needs. needed to satisfy monitoring needs.

municipalities participating in Action programs. BBEP will seek commitments from Management Conference members to conduct

2) Database to track Canada Geese sampling.

nuisance complaints.

9.2-Develop and implement Implementation of the tong-term data

3) GIS database to track the long-term data management management strategy will facilitate the amount of barren land and strategy. evaluation of data generated through the forest cover. Action Items so that their effectiveness as source-control strategies can be assessed.

4) GIS database to track populations of rare, 9.3-9.4-Monitor CCMP BBEP will conduct implementation monitoring threatened, and endangered objectives. to track Action Item implementation (Action wildlife. 9.4), effectiveness monitoring to track resource values and concerns (Action 9.3),

5) Short-term sampling to and disseminate information.

identify sources of pesticide/fertilizer residues.

6) Information tracking and dissemination.

Action Items 5.14, 5.15 No new monitoring needs other N/A N/A than implementation monitoring and information tracking/dissemination.

Monitoring of point sources is coordinated under existing regulatory programs.

n

ý3d VU 00 r+

(D

-. 4 V 0 0z 0 0

Action Items 5.16-5.19 1) Database to track the number 9.1-Conduct workshops on Workshops will refine scope of the Action of sewage urn out facilities monitoring, modeling, and Items and identify. specific data elements instafled, is ri ution of research needs. needed to satisfy monitoring needs.

promotional materials, and results of usage surveys. 9.2-Develop and implement Implementation of the long-term data man-long-term data management agement strategy will facilitate the evaluation

2) Database to track information strategy. of data generated through the Action Items so on marinas and other boating that their effectiveness as source-control facilities participating in strategies can be assessed.

"Clean Marinas" program.

9.5-Monitor CCMP objec- BBEP will conduct implementation monitoring

3) Information tracking and tives. to track Action Item implementation and dis-dissemination. seminate information.

Action Items 5.20-5.24, 6.7 1) Expand existing stream- 9.1-Conduct workshops on Workshops will refine scope of the Action gauging and saltwater monitoring, modeling, and Items and identify specific data elements monitoring networks. research needs. needed to satisfy monitoring needs.

2) Database to track information BBEP will seek commitments from on users of weather station Management Conference members to imple-data, status of wastewater ment expansion of monitoring network.

reuse demonstration project. 9.4-Develop and implement Implementation of the long-term data man-

3) Data collection through long-term data management agement strategy will facilitate the evaluation shellfish resource survey, strategy. of data generated through the Action Items so that their effectiveness in meeting goals can

4) Information tracking and be assessed.

dissemination. 9.4-Monitoring CCMP BBEP will conduct implementation monitoring objectives, to track Action Item implementation and dis-seminate information.

~rD 9L.

Action Items 5.2, 5.25 1) Data collection required for 9.2-Conduct workshops on Workshops will refine scope of the Action completion of the Natural monitoring, modeling, and Items and identify specific data elements Resource Inventory (NRI). research needs. needed to satisfy monitoring needs.

i

2) Sanitary Survey and Intensive BBEP will seek commitments from (land-based) Survey to support Management Conference members to NJDEP Shellfish Waters and implement NRI, Sanitary Survey, and Intensive Bathing Beaches protection (land-based) Survey.

strategies.

9.4-Develop and Implement Implementation of the long-term data

3) Information tracking and Long-Term Data Management management strategy will facilitate the dissemination. Strategy. evaluation of data generated through the Action Items so that their effectiveness in providing baseline information required for other Action Items can be assessed.

9.5-Monitor CCMP BBEP will conduct implementation monitoring objectives. to track Action Itemn implementation and disseminate information.

h i CD

-4 Ln

MONITORING PROGRAM PLAN 9.2 PROGRAMS EXISTING MONITORING FREQUENCY: Sampled between 5 and 12 times per IN THE BARNEGAT BAY year.

WATERSHED SAMPLE COLLECTION: Per methods described in the New Jersey Field Sampling Procedures Manual - 1992, 9.2.1 WATERSHED-BASED as amended and supplemented.

MONITORING PROGRAMS DATA MANAGEMENT: MS Access, STORET (2001 or A number of ongoing monitoring programs have facili- later), data prior to 1996-Legacy STORET.

tated the development of the CCMP, and will continue to be useful during CCMP implementation. These mon- ESTUARINE MONITORING PROGRAM itoring activities also serve as the basis for the devel-opment of the Monitoring Program Plan. Summaries of The NSSP is designed to monitor water quality for pub-these existing monitoring programs are presented lic health reasons. In the early 1980s, the "green tide" below. problems along the New Jersey coast highlighted the need to monitor parameters besides coliform bacteria that NATIONAL SHELLFISH SANITATION would provide information on the ecological health of the PROGRAM (NSSP) coastal waters as well. In response to this need, in 1989 the NJDEP Bureau of Marine Water Monitoring started the This program was established by the U.S. Surgeon Estuarine Monitoring Program. It monitors parameters General in 1929 and is active in all coastal states such as oxygen, salinity, nitrogen, phosphorus, secchi involved in interstate shellfish harvest and sale. Its depth (turbidity), temperature, chlorophyll, and suspend-purpose is to regulate the harvest and sale of shellfish ed solids. Samples are collected quarterly. There are to safeguard the public health from the consumption approximately 200 estuarine monitoring stations in the of contaminated shellfish. The elements of this pro- Barnegat Baywatershed.

gram that address nonpoint source (NPS) pollution concerns are the shellfish growing water classification The monitoring data from this program are used to requirements, which require shellfish producing states identify nitrate-impacted waters. Areas such as the to classify their coastal waters according to their suit- upper end of Barnegat Bay show elevated nitrate levels ability for safe shellfish harvest. Classifications are relative to other estuarine waters of New Jersey. The based on three types of assessments: 'pollution source apparent cause is NPS pollution.

surveys, water quality monitoring, and hydrologic sur-veys. Barnegat Bay and its tributaries are divided into FUNDING AGENCY: State appropriations.

six Shellfish Growing Areas for monitoring of total col-iform and fecal coliform bacteria. Sampling occurs at MONITORING PARAMETERS: Oxygen, salinity, nitro-several hundred monitoring stations at least six times gen, phosphorus, turbidity (Secchi depth), tempera-per year. This monitoring is conducted at a cost of ture, chlorophyll, suspended solids.

$154,000 per year.

STATIONS: 260 stations statewide; - 40 stations in FUNDING AGENCY: State appropriations. Barnegat Bay.

MONITORING PARAMETERS: Total coliforms, fecal FREQUENCY: Quarterly.

coliform, (temperature and salinity sampled in a sub-set of these stations). SAMPLE COLLECTION: Per methods described in the New Jersey Field Sampling Procedures Manual - 1992, STATIONS: 2500 stations statewide; Barnegat Bay is as amended and supplemented.

divided into 6 Shellfish Growing Areas.

DATA MANAGEMENT: MS Access, STORET (2001 or later).

176 BARNEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

Chapter 9 TOMS RIVER NONPOINT SOURCE STUDY FUNDING AGENCY: State Corporate Business Tax (CBT) and state appropriations.

The Toms River Nonpoint Source Study is a cooperative effort between the NJDEP and the USGS with Section MONITORING PARAMETERS: Temperature, dissolved 319h funding from the USEPA. Its purpose is to estab- oxygen, pH, specific conductants, ammonia, suspended lish the pollutant loads associated with land use. Four solids, nitrate/nitrite, total nitrogen, total phospho-sites have been selected in sub-tributaries of the Toms rus, orthophosphate, turbidity, E-coli.

River, each of which has a different predominant land use (commercial/high-density residential; moderate- STATIONS:. Four stations along tributaries of the Toms density residential; undeveloped land; and mixed land River.

use). This study is budgeted at $75,000 per year.

FREQUENCY: Sampling occurs during storm events.

Baseline conditions were characterized when the data were collected in 1994, the first year of the study. SAMPLE COLLECTION: Per methods described in the Nitrate and organic nitrogen were the predominant New Jersey Field Sampling Procedures Manual - 1992, nitrogen species at the most highly developed site. as amended and supplemented.

Loads of nitrate and ammonia were greatest during storms (3 lbs. nitrate nitrogen per day per square mile DATA MANAGEMENT: MS Access and submitted to and ammonia nitrogen per day per square mile) at this USGS (not WATSTORE).

location. At the site with moderate development, nitrate was the predominant nitrogen species. This was COOPERATIVE COASTAL especially true during base flow when loads ranged from MONITORING NETWORK 2.5 to 7 lbs. nitrate nitrogen per day per square mile.

Organic nitrogen was the predominant nitrogen species at This network is operated to monitor the safety of New the site where there was little development. Fecal coliform Jersey's coastal waters for bathing. Stations are locat-loads were greatest at the highly developed and moder- ed immediately adjacent to the shores where bathing ately developed land-use sites. Median values for fecal occurs, and due to the purpose of the program, sam-coliform loads ranged from 37 x 1012 to 63 x 1012 fecal pling is limited to. the summer months. The OCHD is coliforms per square mile. responsible for sample collection and the Ocean County Utilities Authority (OCUA) is responsible for sample A synoptic study was completed recently to characterize analysis. Results are reported to the NJDEP and the the geographic variability of water quality throughout the New Jersey Department of Health. Samples are ana-watershed. The participating agencies will build on this lyzed for fecal coliform and enterococcus bacteria.

program to improve their understanding of NPS pollution. Other conditions noted at these locations include float-As originally planned, additional replicates of the land use ables and the presence of algae.

factors (high-density commercial/residential, moderate-density residential, and undeveloped) are to be estab- This network identifies areas with water quality con-lished, possibly in the adjacent Metedeconk River water- cerns, initiating pollution source investigations that shed and on the barrier island. result in corrections to sewage and stormwater collec-tion systems, such as those addressed in the Sewage The next phase of the study will be to begin best man- Infrastructure Improvement Act.

agement plan implementation in cooperation with local governments. Monitoring by the NJDEP throughout the FUNDING AGENCY: Coastal Protection Trust Fund.

best management plan (BMP) implementation phase will take place over the next few years to measure the effec- MONITORING PARAMETERS: Fecal coliform and ente-tiveness of those BMPs installed. rococcus.

MAY2002 177

MONITORING PROGRAM PLAN ing importance. The increased monitoring at reference STATIONS: 328 stations statewide; 184 ocean stations or background stations will support water quality stan-and 144 bay stations. dards development, a central component to water resources management, which is also covered by the FREQUENCY: Sampled once per week from mid-May to NEPPS Agreement. Monitoring costs amount to mid.September (resamples taken daily until bacteria $45,000 per year.

levels are within standards); samples also collected after storm events. FUNDING AGENCY: S106 Grant.

SAMPLE COLLECTION: Per methods described in the MONITORING PARAMETERS: Metals, pesticides/VOCs, New Jersey Field Sampling Procedures Manual - May sediments, chlorophyll, bacteria (during primary con-1992 as amended and supplemented, and Chapter 9 of tact season).

the State Sanitary Code for dip method.

STATIONS: 115 stations statewide; 4 stations in DATA MANAGEMENT: MS Excel, STORET (2001 or Barnegat Bay watershed.

later).

FREQUENCY: Four times per year.

SAMPLE COLLECTION: Per methods described in the AMBIENT SURFACE WATER New Jersey Field Sampling Procedures Manual - 1992, MONITORING NETWORK as amended and supplemented.

This network was established with seven specific objec-DATA MANAGEMENT: WATSTORE, STORET, Water tives on a statewide basis. Those objectives most rele-Resources Data-New Jersey reports.

vant to the BBNEP are to determine status and trends of ambient surface waters, to work synergistically with the NJDEP Ambient Biomonitoring Network and atmos-pheric, groundwater, and coastal water-quality net-AMBIENT GROUNDWATER QUALITY works, and to measure non-point source contributions MONITORING NETWORK from major land-use areas, atmospheric deposition, The Ambient Groundwater Quality Monitoring Network and groundwater. There are five stations in the is a cooperative program under the direction of the Barnegat Bay watershed, with a sampling frequency of NJDEP and the USGS. The objective is to characterize four times per year. A wide variety of conventional groundwater quality. In the Barnegat Bay watershed, parameters, such as field characteristics, nutrients, approximately eight stations are sampled once every major ions, biochemical oxygen demand, organic pesti- five years during the month of August. Samples from cides, trace elements, VOCs and bed sediment contam- the wells are analyzed for physical characteristics, inants, are monitored in this program. Metals, pesti- major ions, nutrients, trace elements, organic con-cides/VOCs and sediments are monitored on a reduced stituents, and gross alpha and beta radioactivity. The sampling frequency. Barnegat Bay watershed area was last sampled in the water year 2000.

Network data are available from the following sources:

the USGS computerized data system, WATSTORE; Since the NJDEP initiated its watershed approach to water USEPA's computerized data system, STORET; and USGS's resources management, this monitoring network has annual Water Resources Data - New Jersey reports. A focused its activities in watershed management areas major objective of this network is to coordinate water under intensive review by the NJDEP. Meeting the ground-chemistry and biological databases. Completing that water subgoals/objectives of the NEPPS agreement task supports priority initiatives, such as the National requires data on groundwater concentrations of nitrates, Environmental Performance- Partnership System metals, and VOCs, which are available from this program's (NEPPS), in which biological databases are of increas- database. Network data are available from the following 178 BARNEGATBAYFINALCCMP

Chapter 9 sources: the USGS computerized data system, WATSTORE; FREQUENCY: Once every five years.

USEPA's computerized data system, STORET; and USGS's annual Water Resources Data - New Jersey reports. SAMPLE COLLECTION: Per methods described in the New Jersey Field Sampling Procedures Manual - 1992, FUNDING AGENCY: S106 Grant. as amended and supplemented.

MONITORING PARAMETERS: Dissolved nutrients, dis- DATA MANAGEMENT: STORET, GIS.

solved elements (including metals), VOCs.

STATIONS: 150 stations statewide; 8 stations in the ECOREGION REFERENCE Barnegat Bay watershed area. STATION PROGRAM FREQUENCY: Annually on a statewide basis, each The Ecoregion Reference Station Program (ERS) is used watershed area is sampled once every five years to support surface water quality and biological moni-(Barnegat Bay watershed last sampled in August 2000). toring network activities of the Bureau of Freshwater and Biological Monitoring by providing a network of Sample Collection: Per methods described in the New biologically nonimpaired reference stations. There are Jersey Field Sampling Procedures Manual - 1992, as seven stations in the Barnegat Bay watershed.

amended and supplemented. Originally introduced by the USEPA in the 1980s, the Ecological (Eco) Region concept operates under the DATA MANAGEMENT: WATSTORE, STORET, Water premise that water bodies reflect the character of the Resources Data-New Jersey reports. land they drain, and that where sites are physically comparable, chemical and biological conditions should also be comparable. As such, reference sites within a AMBIENT BIOMONITORING NETWORK given ecoregion can serve as benchmarks, or yard-sticks, for all other stations within the same ecoregion.

The NJDEP's Bureau of Freshwater and Biological The reference stations are, therefore, powerful tools in Monitoring's Ambient Biomonitoring Network (AMNET) assessing the results from both biological and chemical consists of sampling sites in the Barnegat Bay water- monitoring stations in the other networks conducted shed. The program established sampling stations in by the Bureau. Programs such as the 305(b) Watershed every sub-watershed, where the health of in-stream Initiative, and NEPPS are all supported, by.this net-benthic macroinvertebrate communities are evaluated work. Reference site selection is based upon a number using a USEPA-developed statistical methodology of factors, including, but not limited to: good water referred to as a Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP). quality, presence of pollution-intolerant benthic Under the program, drainage basins are sampled for macroinvertebrate species, stable stream banks and benthic macroinvertebrates on a rotational schedule channels, the absence of excessive suspended solids/

once every five years. The results of the program have siltation, and the absence of upstream point and non-been incorporated into the NEPPS as a primary envi- point sources of pollution.

ronmental indicator of water quality impairment.

AMNET reports of results are published annually by the FUNDING AGENCY: State appropriations.

Bureau. This program is budgeted at $3,600 for a two-year period. MONITORING PARAMETERS: Water quality, stable stream banks and channels, absence of excessive sus-FUNDING AGENCY: S106 grant. pended solids/siltation, absence of upstream point and nonpoint sources of pollution, presence of pollution MONITORING PARAMETERS: Benthic macro inverte- (intolerant benthic microorganisms).

brates.

STATIONS: 73 biological reference stations since 1989; STATIONS: Over 800 stations statewide. 7 stations in Barnegat Bay watershed.

MAY 2002 179

MONITORING PROGRAM PLAN FREQUENCY: Not applicable. FREQUENCY: Once every two weeks from the end of May to September.

SAMPLE COLLECTION: Per methods described in the New Jersey Field Sampling Procedures Manual - 1992, SAMPLE COLLECTION: Per methods described in the as amended and supplemented. New Jersey Field Sampling Procedures Manual - 1992, as amended and supplemented.

DATA MANAGEMENT: STORET, GIS.

DATA MANAGEMENT: MS Access.

COASTAL PHYTOPLANKTON MONITORING Every summer, from May to September, the Bureau of Freshwater and Biological Monitoring, in collaboration with the USEPA Region II, monitors phytoplankton ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND populations in the waters along the 120 miles of New ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (EMAP)

Jersey coastline and in major estuaries, including six stations in the Barnegat Bay watershed. Large-scale This is a nationwide program administered by the blooms of these organisms can produce unsightly and USEPA to assess the health of the country's estuaries.

unhealthy water quality, conditions often referred to Measurements include basic water chemistry, inorganic as red, green, or brown tides depending on the domi- and organic toxicants, sediment texture, and biodiver-nant varieties. When these algae die off, their decay sity. There are several EMAP sampling locations in the uses, significant amounts of dissolved oxygen in the Barnegat Bay region. Sampling locations are.not fixed, water, sometimes reducing the bottom oxygen levels but instead vary from year to year to accommodate the below the minimum necessary to sustain larger organ- stochastic sampling design. As of 2001, USEPA Region isms; such as fish and shellfish. Some of the species II is implementing a two-year R-EMAP, or Regional that create algal blooms are known to have potential- EMAP, study focused specifically on Barnegat Bay. This ly harmful effects on humans, either through direct R-EMAP study will attempt to characterize the ambient contact, or through ingestion of shellfish that have conditions of Barnegat Bay using the same parameters become contaminated with the microorganisms. as those used in the EMAP protocol.

Fortunately, New Jersey's harmful algal blooms have not been of the acutely toxic varieties. COASTAL 2000 MONITORING The Bureau maintains a network of phytoplankton The Coastal 2000 project is an attempt to assess the monitoring stations, sampled biweekly or as needed, in condition of the Nation's estuarine waters through a accord with the USEPA helicopter monitoring scheme. rigorous and statistically valid sampling design. The The monitoring results are used both- to indicate USEPA is partnering with 24 coastal states, including potential blooms, and if they do occur, to provide an New Jersey, to examine core indicators of coastal estimation of the extent and human health threat of ecosystem health: fish and benthic community struc-the bloom. The historical data also contribute to our ture, sediment and water quality, sediment toxicity, understanding of those species that chronically bloom, concentrations of contaminants in fish and shellfish, and the areas in which they bloom. This monitoring and fish pathology. The New Jersey Marine Sciences program incurs an expenditure of $74,000 per year. Consortium (NJMSC) has been designated as New Jersey's participating agency in this multi-million dol-FUNDING AGENCY: State appropriations. lar national coastal assessment project.

MONITORING PARAMETERS: Phytoplankton abun- In cooperation with the NJDEP, Division of Fish and dance (harmful algae species only). Wildlife, NJMSC scientists will assess the condition of all of New Jersey's coastal waters, including Barnegat STATIONS: 22 stations statewide; 6 stations in Bay and its tributaries. Collecting the data on the core Barnegat Bay watershed. indicators will provide a valuable picture of the condi-180 BARNEGATBAYFINAL ccMP

Chapter 9 tion of coastal waters in Barnegat Bay and will provide available in digital GIS form from the NJDEP on CD-ROM additional tools to use in ecosystem condition moni- or directly downloadable through the Internet. The toring work, which is aimed at managing and preserv- NJDEP has plans to update this data set in 2002-2003.

ing the resources of Barnegat Bay and its watershed. The data set has several applications, including identi-fication of trends in [and use arid impervious surface FUNDING AGENCY: EPA funds. cover and identification of watersheds that have the highest potential for NPS pollution inputs to Barnegat MONITORING PARAMETERS: Basic water quality Bay.

(oxygen, salinity, etc.), sediment toxins (inorganic and organic), fish tissue analysis, fish pathology, species diversity (benthic organisms, fish), sediment texture.

STATIONS: 50 stations statewide; -12 stations in CRSSA LAND COVER MAPPING PROGRAM Barnegat Bay (including Little Egg Harbor and exclud-ing Great Bay). The Rutgers University Center for Remote Sensing &

Spatial Analysis (CRSSA) has an ongoing land cover FREQUENCY: First samples taken in August 2000 with mapping and monitoring program for the Barnegat Bay a follow-up regimen in the summer of 2001. watershed and adjacent Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve (JCNERR). Land cover rep-SAMPLE COLLECTION: Per methods described in the resents the biophysical material or features covering New Jersey Field Sampling Procedures Manual - 1992, the land surface and includes such categories as high as amended and supplemented. intensity development, grassland, and forestland.

Greater detail as to the vegetation community or habi-DATA MANAGEMENT: STORET. tat type is also mapped (for example, pitch pine low-land).

Based on satellite imagery, CRSSA has mapped land cover at varying levels of detail for the Barnegat Bay NJDEP LAND USE MAPPING PROGRAM watershed for the years of 1972, 1984 and 1995. CRSSA has plans to update the land cover for the Barnegat This program was established by the NJDEP to map land Bay watershed in 2001-2002. This data set has sever-use statewide. The state defines land use as how al applications, including: identification of trends in humans are using the land, including residential land, land use and impervious surface cover; identification of industrial land, commercial and service use, etc. The watersheds that have the highest potential for NPS NJDEP has either contracted out or partnered with the pollution inputs to Barnegat Bay, and monitoring of USGS to have color-infrared aerial photography taken habitat loss, alteration and fragmentation.

in statewide coverage on an approximately five to ten-year time cycle. This aerial photography has been fur-ther processed to produce digital ortho-photography.

Based on this aerial photographic data, the NJDEP has contracted out the detailed mapping of land use.

The first land use mapping for the Barnegat Bay water-shed is for 1986. This data set has been recently updated with 1995 photography. In addition to map-ping land use type, the 1995 data include estimates of impervious surface cover. These two land use maps are MAY2002 181

MONITORING PROGRAM PLAN 9.2.2 OTHER MONITORING sists of tide gauges, tidal-crest-stage gauges, weather PROGRAMS sensors, and computer base stations. The system was established to help minimize the extensive damage The following monitoring programs will also provide that can result from flooding in New Jersey's coastal additional data and/or information for measuring the regions and back bays. Also, as the populations of the effectiveness of the action items and for evaluating coastal regions increase, large storms threaten devel-how well the objectives portrayed in each Chapter of oped areas and timely evacuation of residents is cru-the CCMP are being achieved. cial. The telemetry system (electronic equipment that transmits measurements to a base station) that is con-nected to these gauges transmits measurements of tide STREAMFLOW MONITORING PROGRAM levels, air and water temperature, rainfall, wind speed and direction, and barometric pressure directly to the As part of its statewide network, the USGS operates a National Weather Service, New Jersey State Police, New number of sites in the Barnegat Bay watershed where Jersey Department of Transportation, and county streamflows are measured. These sites include three emergency management agencies. Tide levels are avail-streamflow-gauging stations and two low-flow partial- able in real time on the Internet.

record stations. At each of these sites, measurements are made at different intervals and for different pur-poses. In addition, historical streamflow data are available for three discontinued streamflow-gauging GROUNDWATER LEVEL MONITORING stations and a number of other miscellaneous sites in the watershed. The USGS maintains a network of observation wells in New Jersey for the purpose of monitoring groundwater At streamflow-gauging stations, streamflow is mea- levels throughout the state. Twenty of these wells are sured continuously (every 15 minutes). Data for one located within the Barnegat Bay watershed. Changes in of these sites is transmitted via satellite and is avail- water levels reflect the general response of the ground-able in real time on the Internet. water system to natural climate changes, changes in recharge patterns, and groundwater withdrawals.

Low-flow stations are established to periodically mea- Automatic water-level recorders are used on 8 of these sure flow during conditions that are presumed to rep- 20 wells to obtain the continuous, tong-term record resent baseflow. that is needed to evaluate the effects of climate changes on the groundwater system, to develop a data base that can be used to measure the effects of devel-opment, to facilitate the prediction of future ground-TIDE MONITORING PROGRAM water supplies, and to provide data for groundwater-resource management. Water-level extremes recorders As part of its statewide coastal network, the USGS are used on five of the welts to determine the highest operates a number of sites where tides are measured in and lowest water levels occurring between site visits.

the Barnegat Bay watershed. These sites include four Periodic manual measurements are made at seven other tidal crest-stage stations and four tide-gauging sta- wells in the watershed.

tions. At tide-gauging stations, the height of tides is measured on a continuous basis. Tidal crest-stage gauges are located in stream reaches that are affected by the tides and are established .to measure the high- NEW JERSEY COASTAL PLAIN est stage occurring between site visits. SYNOPTIC AND CHLORIDE NETWORK The tide gauges are linked to the New Jersey Tide In addition to monitoring short-term water level Telemetry System operated by the USGS, which con- changes in these wells, the USGS has also documented 182 BAR1EGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

Chapter 9 the spatial distribution of water levels in the confined monitoring network data from approximately 100 sites aquifers of the New Jersey Coastal Plain on a regular statewide and aid in determining the parameters for basis since 1978. Every five years USGS personnel developing TMDLs.

measure water levels in approximately 1,000 wells throughout the Coastal Plain over a four- to five-month TMDLs for the 15 HUC-11 areas within the Barnegat period in late fall to assess the status of the water sup- Bay watershed will be developed through collaborative ply. Typically about 100 of these wells are located efforts using staff from the NJDEP and in conjunction within the Barnegat Bay watershed. The USGS also with the watershed planning process, which will obtains chloride concentrations from monitoring wells include input from existing Public Advisory as well as public supply wells to use in mapping and Committees and Technical Advisory Committees.

monitoring the aquifer for status of and changes in the chloride concentration. Typically the contours of the 250 mg/l and half seawater concentrations are mapped and documented in the report as well as concentration COLONIAL NESTING WATERBIRD changes over time at specific wells. Results of these MONITORING studies have been used by the NJDEP to develop with-drawal regulations and to establish Water-Supply Barnegat Bay supports large and diverse breeding Critical Areas. colonies of birds. Twenty species of colonial waterbirds nest within Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor estuarine habitats, including ten species of long-legged wading TMDL AND EXISTING WATER QUALITY birds, six species of terns, three species of gulls, and MONITORING NETWORK black skimmers. These avifauna are valuable bioindi-cators of environmental quality, notably the concen-The existing USEPA regulations for administering the trations of chemical contaminants, levels of human dis-Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) provisions of the Clean turbance, resource abundance, and habitat health in Water Act require the state to develop "pollution budgets" the system. They feed near the top of the food chain or TMDLs for all waters impaired-by nonpoint and point on numerous species of fish and invertebrates.

sources of pollution. Pollution reductions called for by a TMDL budget are designed to. meet certain safe levels of The New Jersey Department of Environmental pollutants that allow beneficial uses such as swimming or Protection, Division of Fish and Wildlife has monitored fishing as established in existing water quality standards. nesting populations of colonial waterbirds through a In the Barnegat Bay watershed the time line for the devel- combination of ground and aerial surveys for the past opment of TMDLs is to establish these by June 30, 2006. two decades. In addition, Dr. Joanna Burger of Rutgers University has conducted comprehensive investiga-The water quality monitoring network will be used to sup- tions of colonial waterbird abundance over the same plement the TMDL program. This statewide network will period of time. Regular censussing of shorebirds and monitor water quality at selected sites for each sub-basin seabirds has revealed important long-term changes in (HUC-li Areas) within a watershed. There are 15 such population abundance, as well as recent changes asso-HUC-11 areas in the Barnegat Bay watershed. Quarterly ciated with the degradation of critical habitat areas.

sampling will be performed over a two-year period begin- Declines in population abundance of some species dur-ning in October 2002 and will run through September ing the past two decades have been attributed to the 2004. All freshwater and estuarine sites in the watershed loss of habitat, increased human disturbance, and pre-will be sampled for specific conductance, pH, tempera- dation effects (e.g., from herring gulls and red foxes).

ture, D.0., ammonia and TSS. Freshwater sites will also be In addition, the NJDEP regularly monitors other bird monitored for flow and test for sulfate, chloride, TDS, total populations such as the osprey and the beach-nesting phosphorus, nitrite and nitrate and total kjeldahl nitro- piping plover.

gen. The data will supplement the NJDEP/USGS stream MAY2002 183

MONITORING PROGRAM PLAN 9.3 DEVELOPMENT OF THE

• Provide information to help redirect and refocus MONITORING PROGRAM PLAN the CCMP during implementation.

The Monitoring Plan for the BBNEP will establish a STATUS: Partial Commitment.

framework to achieve the following objectives:

WHO: BBNEP STAC (Lead), NJDEP, USEPA, OCPD.

" Assess the current environmental health and HOW: The first step in developing a monitoring pro-future trends within the Barnegat Bay estuary and gram is to conduct a needs assessment with the end-watershed project area; users. The BBNEP, working through the STAC, will hold monitoring workshops involving appropriate scientists

" Assess the effectiveness of CCMP implementation; and managers to formulate a monitoring, modeling and and research plan (i.e., the EMP) to address identified needs. At the first workshop, agencies that have

• Allow for re-evaluation of the program's priorities responsibility for various environmental monitoring and actions (discussed further in Chapter 12, programs in the Barnegat Bay area will share informa-Implementation). tion on their programs, as well as continuing unmet monitoring needs.

The Monitoring Plan includes actions to support these monitoring objectives and will determine appropriate Following this first workshop and completion of a environmental indicators and quantitative measures of needs assessment, another workshop will be held to effectiveness to accurately paint a picture of overall identify monitoring efforts and evaluate whether they implementation progress. A final monitoring plan will can be part of an integrated monitoring program be completed on the basis of monitoring workshops, designed to meet the needs of the BBNEP. Discrete which are described as an Action Item in this chapter. sampling and subsequent chemical analysis in the lab-This and the other Action Items that follow form the oratory are the traditional mainstays of monitoring underpinnings of a monitoring program in support of natural waters. However, a wide variety of monitoring the BBNEP's CCMP. efforts exist for Barnegat Bay that are conducted by myriad federal, state, and local agencies and institu-tions. These entities use different protocols, monitor ACTION 9.1 for different parameters, and analyze and store their data using different methods and media. Thus, 'one of Pfepare frorm, an conducorworkshops lonmolitonn the objectives in capitalizing on existing monitoring efforts is to seek agreement on uniform procedures for data collection, analysis, and storage. Finally sampling design, technology and data management require-SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Section 9.2 summarizes ments must be developed to meet the needs of the user ongoing monitoring, modeling and research efforts and communities. Consequently, the monitoring program needs in New Jersey. These ongoing activities will must be integrated with the Data Management Plan assist in early implementation of the Environmental outlined in Chapter 10.

Monitoring Plan (EMP). The EMP will target a compre-hensive set of environmental measurements (indica- WHEN: Work on this action is underway and will be tors), which the BBNEP would use to evaluate the suc- completed in spring 2002.

cess of CCMP action implementation:

COST ESTIMATE: Approximately $50,000 for the ini-

• Identify any new areas of concern; tial series of workshops.

" Determine whether implementation has resulted in FUNDING SOURCES: NEP funding, others to be devel-actual environmental improvements; and oped.

184 BARNEGATBAY FINAL CCMP

Chapter 9 In addition, the NJDEP has committed to expanding STATUS: Recommendation.

the existing water quality monitoring system to include monitoring stations within, each area sub- WHO: BBNEP STAC (Lead), NJDEP, USEPA, OCPD.

watershed and to enhance the monitoring to include additional biological and chemical parameters. HOW: The STAC will hold a data management work-shop to evaluate data management options.that the BBNEP can use to implement a long-term data manage-ment strategy. One key part of the data management options evaluation will be a conceptual model of long-Develop ýand implement a long-term~at manage term data management, describing how various options i.v#

tenit :strategy.-," : * *d*,.,-:*..

relate and how they could be implemented in a step-wise fashion (See Chapter 10).

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Data management is an The BBNEP has begun to identify the long-term data important component of a monitoring strategy and management needs. These include:

plan. The BBNEP will hire a Data Management Coordinator. The BBNEP is seeking commitments from " Support reporting on the program of CCMP agencies and institutions to help implement the EMP, implementation.

including data management and hiring of the Coordinator. " Provide for storage, retrieval, editing, and QA/OC of relevant environmental data, including physical, A central authority is needed to take charge of data chemical, and biological data.

management and oversee input, storage and updating of data from various sources. (See Chapter 10 of the " Provide access to all data to the USEPA, NJDEP, CCMP for details about the Data Management Goals.) other agencies and investigators.

This action is intended to identify the entity that will

• Provide appropriate tools to users, including a data archive key data sets in a manner to facilitate future use. entry package, statistical package, GIS interface, and STORET (USEPA's data system) interface.

The data management system should provide:

" Provide a full description of data sets, including Rigorous documentation of data set contents and QA/QC information.

quality assurance/quality control (QA/OC) procedures. Standardized sampling, analytical " Provide collections of relevant reference materials methods, and QA/OC protocols should be adopted at accessible locations (i.e., existing libraries and to ensure that monitoring information collected by other locations to be identified).

the various partners in this effort are of high quality and are directly comparable.

• Conduct all activities at low cost and with adequate degree of user friendliness.

• Easy downloading of data.

WHEN: Work on this action will commence upon final A Data Management Coordinator is needed to complete approval of the CCMP, or upon commitment by a spon-data entry, prepare a report documenting the data sets soring entity, and will be completed within one year.

entered, including a description of the data sets, costs to enter the data sets, and an evaluation of additional .COST ESTIMATE: Approximately $20,000 for the work-data sets to be considered for entry in the chosen sys- shop.

tem, including costs.

MAY 2002 185

MONITORING PROGRAM PLAN how much?

,.ACTION 9.3

" Are there any emerging issues not anticipated by KMonitor CCMP imptemeintation.

the CCMP?

FUNDING SOURCES: Not yet identified.

• Are there any new areas of concern (threats) that need to be tracked?

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 320(b)(6) specifies that each National Effectiveness monitoring tends itself more toward an Estuary Program (NEP) Management Conference shall assessment of success in attaining CCMP goals and

"... monitor the effectiveness of actions taken pur- objectives than to the implementation of specific suant to the plan," with the following two primary actions. This type of monitoring requires a statistical-goals: ly sound analysis of environmental data of known quality and confidence.

" Measure the effectiveness of the management actions and programs implemented under the CCMP. The environmental monitoring component of the CCMP is designed to utilize monitoring data collected and

" Provide essential information that can be used to assessed by participating agencies, so that this infor-redirect and refocus the CCMP during mation can be directly compared to quantifiable objec-implementation. tives. It builds upon recently conducted characteriza-tion studies and existing monitoring efforts. It seeks The first primary goal is environmental in nature, and to promote cooperation among agencies and stake-focuses on changes in ambient conditions, ecological holders by incorporating and coordinating efforts into functions, and biological populations and communi- an integrated monitoring plan, increasing the scope ties. The second primary goal is programmatic in and resolution of existing efforts, improving the time-nature and addresses CCMP implementation issues. To liness of data analysis, and making the results avail-effectively evaluate the success of the CCMP, it will be able to a diverse group of agencies and stakeholders in necessary to track both the extent to which the actions a timely manner.

laid out in the CCMP are being implemented and the environmental effects, or lack thereof, of those imple- The fully developed monitoring plan will incorporate mented actions. This Action Item addresses the envi- existing and planned monitoring efforts, or elements ronmental monitoring.component. Action Item 9.4 will from those programs; identify critical information address the programmatic element. gaps; and attempt to standardize and coordinate future monitoring efforts. This will minimize dupli-STATUS: Commitment. cation of effort among agencies, reduce the cost of monitoring, and provide integrated results to the sci-WHO: NJDEP (Lead), OCPD, and other technical par- entific, regulatory, and stakeholder communities in an ticipants in the Management Conference. efficient and timely manner.

HOW: Participants will monitor the effectiveness of implementation based on achieving the goats, targets, or measures of success defined in the CCMP. PROCESS FOR MONITORING EFFECTIVENESS:

Effectiveness monitoring answers broader ecological questions: 1. Identify use impairments related to water quality and NPS pollution. This can be done using

" IS the ecological integrity of the bay and watershed monitoring to document the magnitude of an changing? environmental problem.

• Is water quality improving or getting worse, and by 186 BARNEGATBAY FINAL CCMP

Chapter 9

2. Trace a water quality problem back to its source. 5. BMPs are implemented with continued monitoring.

This is accomplished with monitoring on a more Monitoring program results are reviewed annually.

localized, targeted, and intensive manner.

WHEN: Ongoing. Modifications to existing monitoring

3. Correct the problem at its source and monitor programs will be initiated following development of an effectiveness. Use evaluation monitoring to approved monitoring plan and final approval, of the measure pollution control. CCMP.

4. Using the monitoring systems described in 1, 2, COST ESTIMATE: Funding will come from existing pro-and 3 above, trace the water quality improvement gram budgets. Modifications to existing programs will back to the removal of the use impairment. be scoped out as necessary.

This process has already been used with success at cer- FUNDING SOURCES: State and federal agency moni-tain locations in New Jersey (Navesink River and toring budgets.

numerous bathing beaches). Once pollution sources have been identified (for example, through the Natural ACTION 9.4 Resources Inventory (NRI)), there must be the ability Track.....

CCMP AfctionItem inIp rl-etion.

to monitor the management measures taken. The NJDEP is preparing an inventory of NPS pollution man-agement measures being implemented throughout the SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Programmatic implemen-state. This is an important tool that will enhance coor- tation monitoring (i.e., tracking progress of Action dination among the planning, monitoring, and water- Items) is the second component of comprehensive shed characterization functions in the BBNEP. The BBNEP monitoring, and will help to keep managers type of monitoring program used will depend on the informed regarding the implementation status of vari-type of management measure. ous programs and the degree to which programs are or are not achieving their intended outcomes. With this information, managers can make needed modifications STRATEGY FOR MONITORING to the CCMP or to the actions taken to achieve the IN BARNEGAT BAY WATERSHED: desired outcomes outlined in the Plan. Where appro-priate, resources can be redirected to ensure that

1. The NJDEP prepares a listing of impairments desired outcomes are achieved.

(303(d) list) as candidates for NPS monitoring. Implementation, or programmatic, monitoring is These are ranked according to severity of designed to answer such questions as:

impairment.

" Is the CCMP being implemented at the level of

2. The NJDEP and BBNEP investigate and identify sources- commitment specified in the CCMP goals, targets, and decide on NPS management strategies to and measures of success?

address the impairments.

• Was the action taken?

3. The NJDEP's Water Monitoring Management staff reviews the list to determine the type of monitoring that " What were the specific results?

will be necessary to measure effectiveness and the

" Was the action able to be implemented?

potential cost of monitoring.

" Are the actions in the Plan having the desired

4. If the necessary level of monitoring exceeds the effects?

existing monitoring programs, funding sources are identified for thie new monitoring needs. " Does the Plan need to be changed?

MAY2002 187

MONITORING PROGRAM PLAN Many actions in the CCMP tend themselves to this type General capabilities:

of administrative monitoring. Implementation moni-

" Priority Action Item tracking toring establishes accountability on the part of the designated lead organizations for specific actions out- " Dates lined in the CCMP. It can also be used to verify

• Deliverabtes whether an educational outreach program has reached

" Payment schedule its target audience.

• Budget tracking STATUS: Commitment.

• Program budget

• Other sources of funding WHO: The BBNEP Program Office (Lead), OCPD.

" Link to BBNEP Web site and partner Web sites HOW: The CCMP Tracking System is intended to track action items scheduled for implementation. The track- WHEN: Work on this action will commence upon final ing will occur by priority issue, specifically: (1) Water approval of the CCMP.

Quality/Water Supply; (2) Habitat and Living Resources; (3) Human Activities and Competing Uses; COST ESTIMATE: $20,000 is budgeted for initiation of and (4) Public Outreach and Education. Users of the work.

system will be involved in providing reports to the Barnegat Bay Program Office. The reports will provide FUNDING SOURCES: NEP program funding.

the basis for annual and triennial reporting by the Program Office.

A more detailed and updated addendum to the Monitoring Program Plan (2003) can be found at our website, www.bbep.oro or by calling the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program office.

,i \

\i2;:.

. 7J

. A. . 'ii, 1K~

~ I I

188 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

F TE.

PHOTO COURTESYOFTHE TOMSRIVER SEAPORT SOCIETY.

MAY2002 189

An streams flow into the sea, yet the sea is never full.

To the place the streams come from, there they return again.

-- Ecclesiastes 1:7

DAIA MANAGEMENT PLAN Chapter 10 10.1 DATA MANAGEMENT 10.2 DATA MANAGEMENT GOALS Residents and visitors to Barnegat Bay represent many As a result of a needs assessment, five goals for a suit-diverse interests, each of which have different infor- able data management system for Barnegat Bay have mation needs. These groups include but are not limit- been identified. They are:

ed to:

Develop a comprehensive database that enables

" Homeowners; user groups to readily access information that

• Local elected officials; can be used to support BBNEP management goals

" Federal, state, and local watershed managers; and objectives.

" Academia; Link information management with the BBNEP

" Pre-college educators and students; public outreach effort to promote interaction

" Visitors and vacationers; among bay user groups and to disseminate information broadly.

o Special-interest groups; and

" Business and industry. Manage and classify information from many sources and formats.

Although substantial information exists on the ecolo-Identify the equipment needs, delivery systems, gy and resources of Barnegat Bay, much of this infor-personnel requirements, and a dedicated funding mation is scattered, exists in many diverse forms or source that ensures broad public dissemination formats, and is not generally accessible to the groups of Barnegat Bay information.

listed above. The objective of the Data Management Action Plan for Barnegat Bay is to archive diverse data Support an environmental monitoring program sets and make these data available in easily accessed for assessing water quality and living resources computer format via the Internet and the Ocean of the bay.

County Library system.

This data management system will be used to inform, guide, and improve local decision making, foster stew-10.3 SYSTEM ELEMENTS ardship of the bay, raise environmental awareness, This data management system is designed to put dif-enrich educational programs, support the public out-ferent types of relevant information into an accessible reach effort, and implement the Barnegat Bay CCMP.

location for many users and, where appropriate, pre-Where possible, the data management system will build sent users with information that describes the quality upon the existing capacities of large-scale data man-or utility of the data.

agement programs and will include historical, cultural, and socioeconomic information, as well as data on the A key feature of the Barnegat Bay Information System estuary's physical and biological resources. As funding and Resource Guide will be its capacity to provide data permits, the data management system will include an spatially and temporally from disparate data sets. The interactive multimedia component that enables users data system will include a data server connected to the to access frequently updated information from remote Internet with World Wide Web access, file transfer pro-sites.

tocol (FTP), e-mail, and bulletin boards. Local storage of data sets and programs also must be accommodated and is described in more detail on the following page:

MAY2002 191

World Wide Web access for the public - The Information sources index and index of site will have links to data sets stored on a on-line and off-line files - This index will BBNEP server and to non-local data sets. The site provide brief descriptions of estuary and will also have links to sites at the NJDEP, USEPA, watershed data, including the temporal and Grant Walton Center for Remote Sensing and spatial ranges of data sets, information on how Spatial Analysis at Rutgers University, USGS, to obtain files, data sources, and nietadata.

and Ocean County. Multimedia capacity will allow use of a full range of data visualization for Geographic Information System (GIS) -

both technical and non-technical users. Hot Geographic information on land use, land cover, links also will be available to relevant sites, such water resources, and living resources will be as the BBNEP homepage. presented in a GIS format.

" Computer bulletin boards to foster Distributed Data System - A distributed data information exchange - Bulletin boards will be system will be constructed to access data sets organized by topic, and will enable users to that have various formats and are at various electronically disseminate their work on the locations, eliminating the need to modify estuary and watershed. the disparate formats.

" FTP - Establishment of File Transfer Protocol (FTP) capabilities will enable easy transfer of documents and files between Internet users.

10.4 NEXT STEPS

" E-mail - E-mail capability will permit the convenient exchange of information among users Following the completion of the final Monitoring Plan, who will be able to interface with the Web site in the BBNEP STAC will hold a data management workshop order to communicate with the Web manager and to evaluate options for a long-term data management other data sources. strategy. The purpose of the workshop is to gather technical input and recommendations from stakehold-On-line data sets and information files - ers. The results of the workshop will ultimately be Where. necessary, data sets developed during the used to fully develop and implement the data manage-BBNEP characterization and synthesis phase will ment plan, which will be contingent on appropriate be stored on-line. funding to maintain the system.

• +.

t>i:i,*:,]

I . ..  ;~'il:* * ,;*o+[ ,

'I ,< - ;i**.+i "!.1) ,-= ,,+ ,

lii! = .ihii:~~~i:*i~~[{ . . * .,?I * :-*£,

19 2 BARNEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

i)nU, Fishing the estuary, circa 1940s. PHOTO COURTESY OFTOMS RIVER SEAPORT SOCIETY.

MAY2002 193

We're att downstream.

-- Margaret and Jim Drescher, Windhorse Farm, Nova Scotia

UNFINISHED AGENDA Chapter 11

11.1 INTRODUCTION

management programs, it is necessary to assess the seasonal availability, species composition, and habitat The BBNEP Management Conference members recog- use patterns associated with finfish and blue crab nized that scientific and policy issues that would resources in Barnegat Bay in order to develop an appro-emerge, both during the characterization phase and priate strategy for fishery resource management.

the development of CCMP action plans, would have to be addressed after the CCMP was completed. It was also recognized that new issues would be identified during the CCMP public review process. There are a PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTIONS BETWEEN number of issues that are potentially significant in BLUE CRABS AND HARD CLAMS in the terms of maintaining the water quality and living Little Egg Harbor Portion of Barnegat Bay resources of Barnegat Bay and its watershed, but that are insufficiently documented to justify specific Hard clam abundance has declined significantly in actions to address them. The purpose of this Barnegat Bay since the 1960s. Potential reasons for this Unfinished Agenda chapter is to lay out these remain- decline range from reduced larval settlement, the closure ing issues, which wilt be addressed by the BBNEP and of shellfish grounds because of poor water quality, to an the Program Monitoring Plan after the publication of increase in predation. To ensure a sustainable stock of the CCMP. clams, this proposal aims to determine the array of nat-ural predators that juvenile clams face and the factors 11.2 DATA GAPS governing predator-prey interactions.

Significant gaps in the scientific understanding of the Barnegat Bay estuary and its watershed and its response to environmental stressors have been identi- BAY SCALLOP RESTORATION AND fied by the Management Conference. Information is ENHANCEMENT in Barnegat Bay lacking on certain basic estuarine processes as well as on the cumulative environmental effects of pollutant The bay scallop is a common and often abundant mem-loadings on these processes. A recommendation for ber of shallow marine communities along the Atlantic additional research and policy initiatives emerged over and Gulf coasts. Bay scallops recruit to seagrasses and the last four years as the Management Conference eval- use them as attachment sites, so the decline of sea-uated concerns, resource and funding needs to ade- grass habitat has severely limited bay scallop popula-quately carry out certain actions, and current and tions in some areas, such as Barnegat Bay. Although future priorities. eelgrass has recovered in Barnegat Bay from a previous low point, bay scallop densities remain low. This pro-The Science and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) posal aims to reseed selected sites throughout identified the following projects to address data gaps Barnegat Bay with bay scallops to determine the for the. Barnegat Bay estuary and watershed. potential for restoring this fishery.

FISH AND FISHERY RESOURCES OF SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION/TOXICITY BARNEGAT BAY: A Plan for Long-Term Data Gathering Little is known about the distribution, concentration, or toxicity of sediments throughout Barnegat Bay. Such Recently, few assessments have been undertaken to information is needed for future bay management if sed-evaluate the status of fishery resources in Barnegat iment contamination or toxicity is found to be signifi-Bay. Given the declining status of many fisheries, and cant. This proposal aims to analyze benthic infaunal the lack of information to support informed fishery communities as an indicator of sediment toxicity.

MAY 2002 195

UNFINISHED AGENDA BROWN TIDE INCIDENCE AND ESTABLISHMENT OF A SUBAQUEOUS SOIL DEVELOPMENT in Barnegat Bay CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF SHALLOW-WATER Brown tides, caused by the minute alga, Aureococcus HABITAT in Barnegat Bay anophagefferens have been recurring since 1995 in the Barnegat Bay and other coastal bays in New Jersey. The purpose of this study is to develop information on While there are no known human health effects, brown the properties of subaqueous and tidal soils in order to tide blooms may cause significant negative ecological enhance the re-establishment of emergent and sub-impacts to shellfish and sea-grasses. Elevated concen- merged vegetation. Emergent and submerged vegeta-trations of brown tide blooms may cause cessation of tion provide nutrients and shelter for finfish and shell-feeding in hard clams, mussels and bay scallops and fish, and help to mitigate shoreline erosion.

cause a reduction in growth and/or mortalities and recruitment failure in shellfish. Prolonged blooms of greater than one month may produce enough shading to damage eelgrass beds. SEDIMENTS AND GEOMORPHOLOGY of Barnegat Bay In June 1999, a massive brown tide bloom was report-ed in Little Egg Harbor and southern Barnegat Bay. Barnegat Bay is comprised of a variety of sediments Because of limited data on brown tide blooms, the and sedimentary features that support diverse habitat NJDEP's Division of Science, Research and Technology assemblages. A detailed characterization of these fea-established the Brown Tide Assessment Project in 1999. tures can be used to develop a better understanding of Systematic monitoring for brown tides began in 2000 habitat value and its relationship to water quality, and and continued in 2001 to assess the spatial and tem- to prepare a sea level rise curve for the bay.

poral distribution of brown tide blooms. Recently, the NJDEP has begun to analyze the brown tide data using a newly developed Brown Tide Bloom Index, and has NONPOINT SOURCE TOXICS in found that the highest cell concentrations are found in Barnegat Bay and Little Egg Harbor, Great Bay (the next coastal bay to the Surrounding Watershed the south), and southern Barnegat Bay. The results to date indicate that additional monitoring, assessments The lack of data on toxic chemical compounds in and research are needed to more comprehensively doc- groundwater and streams contributing freshwater ument the negative impacts of brown tide blooms on inflow to Barnegat Bay could be improved by expand-natural resources. Continued monitoring of selected ing ongoing efforts aimed at quantifying nonpoint stations is also needed, but not yet funded, to assess source contaminants. Current studies focus on the brown tide concentrations and the water quality/envi- evaluation of nutrients, sediment, and bacteria in sur-ronmental factors that may promote and sustain brown face waters that originate from nonpoint sources.

tide blooms in the Barnegat Bay, Little Egg Harbor and Additional samples could be analyzed for volatile other coastal bays. organic compounds, pesticides, and/or trace elements.

d\

ECONOMIC VALUATION of Barnegat Bay Resources Very little information is available on the natural resource value of Barnegat Bay and its surrounding watershed. Data do exist on the economic impact of activities occurring throughout the bay, such as boat-ing, fishing, and tourism. However, the resources upon 1 96 BARflEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

Chapter 11 which these activities rely - open space, habitat qual- " Fluxes of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), poly ity, and water quality - are not easily quantified. cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and Efforts are needed to define the value of the bay's chlordanes across the air-water interface of the natural resources in terms that can be used to support Hudson River Estuary; informed decisions on the future character of

" Atmospheric deposition of mercury, trace metals, Barnegat Bay.

and nitrogen to the New York-New Jersey Harbor/Bight; EFFECT OF ATMOSPHERIC POLLUTANT

• Atmospheric nitrogen deposition to Barnegat Bay; LOADINGS on Barnegat Bay and Watershed

" Air-sea exchange of PCBs and PAHs in New Jersey

'Airborne pollutants reach coastal New Jersey from con- coastal waters; and tinental, regional, and/or local origins. Understanding patterns of deposition from vehicular, industrial, and " Estuarine eutrophication; that is, seasonal cycles agricultural operations, and the proportional influence of the contribution of dissolved organic nitrogen of local and out-of-state atmospheric sources, is essen- from nonpoint and point sources.

tial for developing a comprehensive watershed-based management strategy for Barnegat Bay. In coastal ecosystems like Barnegat Bay, which are experiencing rapid development, atmospheric emis-The New Jersey Atmospheric Deposition Network sions may result in increased deposition of toxic and includes nine sites where concentrations of organic, nitrogenous species. Diffusive air-water exchange of metal, and nutrient constituents are measured in wet persistent pollutants may be an important process con-and dry deposition. Designed by university scientists, tributing to, and sometimes dominating, the input, the air-monitoring stations have been operating for output, and control of, aquatic concentrations in several years. Preliminary results suggest that atmos- freshwater, estuarine, and marine components of the pheric deposition (precipitation, air-water and air- bay-watershed complex.

soil/vegetation exchange, as well as dry particle depo-The research under way, and concurrent collection of sition) may be important pollutant sources to the atmospheric deposition data at a regional network of region's coastal waters. These efforts provide evidence monitoring stations, will ultimately be used to address of seasonal and spatial variations in concentration, the question: Are atmospheric loadings a significant deposition, and exposure, and serve as the basis for proportion of inputs to the watersheds and estuaries of characterizing sources and source strengths, and sub- New Jersey? If the answer is yes, then management regional, regional, and long-range transport.

strategies to reduce the adverse effect of these load-ings will become an important part of future contami-The atmosphere is an important pathway for pollutants nant reduction schemes.

entering the coastal zone. Results of previous studies suggest that dry deposition by aerosol particles and The air emissions data will ultimately be incorporated wet deposition via precipitation are both important into multimedia models developed to estimate waste atmospheric deposition mechanisms. These studies toad allocations for dischargers into coastal waters; to also verify that.air emissions of toxic compounds from support long- and short-term dredged material man-urban/industrial centers enhance the atmospheric agement planning efforts; and to track down signifi-deposition fluxes to nearby coastal waters such as the cant sources of airborne pollutants. For Barnegat Bay, Barnegat Bay and its watershed. answers to the following questions must be sought:

Current studies under way in New Jersey are designed

• What is the state of current knowledge regarding to characterize atmospheric inputs of metals, organics, the significance of airborne pollutants and their and nitrogen to New Jersey coastal waters, including: impacts on Barnegat Bay?

MAY2002 197

UNFINISHED AGENDA

" What are the substantive gaps in knowledge 11.3 ADDITIONAL RESEARCH NEEDS concerning the effects of airborne pollutants on the bay? Additional data gaps to be addressed include:

" Periodic updating of the BBNEP data

• How can the data be used to develop science-based synthesis report.

management tools?

" Identification of the source of phosphorous

" How can the data be placed into a regulatory inputs to Barnegat Bay.

framework?

" Conducting a toxics assessment for Barnegat Bay.

Eventually, the collected air data must be made avail-able in a form that environmental managers can use in

• Quantification of riverine inputs to Barnegat Bay.

decision-making.

• Identification of factors controlling turbidity in Barnegat Bay.

Eelgrass harvest goes to market. PHOTO COURTESY TUCKERTON SEAPORT, A PROJECT OF THE BARNEGATBAY DECOY AND RAYMEN'S MUSEUM,INC.

198 BARNEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

Clam beds seen from Seven Bridges Road, spring 2001. PHOTOBY C. MINERS MAY2002 199

Water and air, the two essential fluids on which all life depends, have become global garbage cans.

-- Jacques Cousteau (1910-1997)

CCMP IMPLEMENTATION Chapter 12 12.1 OVERSIGHT OF THE CCMP tion actions through agreements it would make with other The Management Conference (see Appendix D for agencies.

Management Conference membership) considered sev-

• Retain the Current BBNEP Management Structure eral options for implementation of the CCMP. One of which was in effect when the draft CCMP was the key questions addressed was: "What form of CCMP released in May 1999. This structure consists of a oversight authority is appropriate and necessary to Policy Committee, a Management Committee, and a coordinate implementation, evaluate progress, and Program Office housed in the Ocean County revise the CCMP as new information and priorities Planning Department. Program staff consisted of emerge?" a Program Director, who was an NJDEP employee, and program staff, who were contractors.

The functions that the Management Conference con-After consideration of these options, and upon sidered to be the most important for the BBNEP to approval of the CCMP, Ocean County will become the undertake in the implementation phase are to:

lead agency for day-to-day CCMP implementation. The

• Prioritize and oversee progress toward Management Conference structure selected is illustrat-implementation of each Action Plan. ed in Figure 12-1. The Policy Committee will continue in its present form to oversee implementation progress,

• Facilitate integration of various portions of the the Management Committee will be renamed the CCMP into policies, plans, budgets, laws, Estuary and Watershed Advisory Committee, and the regulations, and actions of each participating Program Office will be housed in Ocean County. A more agency or organization.

detailed discussion follows.

" Coordinate ongoing evaluations of the Ocean County is well equipped to support CCMP imple-effectiveness of the CCMP and corrective actions in mentation because it can provide:

improving the environmental quality of the Barnegat Bay watershed.

• Contacts with the public, private, and non-profit agencies;

" Provide a forum for public participation and education on CCMP implementation and progress.

• Central office space for BBNEP staff;

• . Consider and address future estuary/watershed

• Financial and legal resources; needs and emerging environmental issues.

• Secretarial and printing services; and

• Develop annual work plans and budgets to support

• A central mailroom with mail services.

the post-CCMP organizational structure and to implement CCMP actions.

PRIMARY ACTIVITIES OF OCEAN COUNTY WOULD INCLUDE: "housing" the Barnegat Bay Program Office; The following options for a post-CCMP implementation supporting a full-time Program Director, a Public organization were:

Outreach Coordinator, and Program Associate; and

" The N.J. Department of Environmental Protection other essential activities. Ocean County has obligated (NJDEP) as Lead Entity - The NJDEP Division of $250,000 as an initial commitment to the BBNEP CCMP Watershed Management would continue its current implementation. It will be the responsibility of the responsibility for staffing BBNEP, taking on the Program Director to work with the Chairs of all com-additional role of overseeing CCMP implementation. mittees and agency representatives to achieve the goals of the CCMP. The Director will regularly brief the

" Ocean.County as Lead - Ocean County would Advisory and Policy Committees on Program progress manage CCMP implementation. Due to the CCMP's and problems, and receive guidance from them. The regional scope, Ocean County would be favorably subsequent sections in this chapter more fully discuss inclined to coordinate the full range of implementa- the implementation structure.

MAY2002 201

CCMP IMPLEMENTATION Figure 12-1. Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program Implementation Organizational Structure.

NOTE: The Barnegat Bay Watershed and Estuary Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit, is an independent entity that can inter-act with any other part of the Implementation Structure. The CAC has not remained active beyond the completion of the CCMP.

The Program will work with the BarnegatBay Watershed and Estuary Foundation to ensure the necessary input from the general public on implementation activities.

12.2 IMPLEMENTATION MEETINGS public on CCMP progress, and wilt update the CCMP on an annual basis. Every two years, an expanded report The Management Committee will be renamed the will be delivered to USEPA, as per National Estuary Barnegat Bay Estuary and Watershed Advisory Program requirements.

Committee and will meet on a quarterly basis to review progress of Action Plans, identify issues requiring res- 12.3 AGENCY PARTICIPATION olution, and introduce new initiatives. A chair will be selected by the committee membership; which will The CCMP identifies a wide range of entities, both public retain the same representation as during the planning and private, to implement specific actions. Some actions phase. already have firm commitments for implementation; oth-ers are still at the recommendation stage. As the process A Policy Committee representing the U.S. Environ- moves from plan development to plan implementation, it mental Protection Agency (USEPA), NJDEP, Ocean is essential that those entities identified with significant County freeholders, local governments, and citizens implementation responsibilities be represented on the will meet yearly, or more often as needed, to assist in Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee would resolving issues in contention, approve annual budgets review its membership to identify those entities with and work plans, and to review progress. The same enti- implementation responsibility that are not adequately ties as these represented during CCMP development will represented on the Management Conference and solicit be represented in the implementation phase. their active participation.

The Science and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC),

Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), and work groups will meet, as necessary, to fulfill their responsibilities to implement and oversee actions within their purview.

The BBNEP will formally report to the USEPA and the 202 BARNEGATBAY FINAL CCMP

Chapter 12 The best way to ensure efficient operation of govern- 12.6 BBNEP POST-CCMP ment is to increase the coordination and cooperation IMPLEMENTATION STRUCTURE of existing agencies. Each agency should fulfill its responsibilities without duplicating the efforts of other Ocean County will have the primary responsibility for agencies. Rather than creating another layer of gov-coordinating CCMP implementation actions and facili-ernment, the BBNEP will take advantage of existing tating a long-term effort to protect Barnegat Bay and resources and staff and establish connections between its watershed. After final approval of the CCMP, Ocean public and private interests and all levels of govern-County will initiate coordination of program activities.

ment. It will guide the implementation process to Ocean County will consult with the Policy Committee ensure the highest level of cooperation and coordina-before hiring program staff.

tion among interested parties.

The Citizen Advisory Committee will be convened on 12.4 WATERSHED-BASED PLANNING an ad hoc basis, and will work together with the AND IMPLEMENTATION Barnegat Bay Watershed and Estuary Foundation and the BBNEP Public Outreach Coordinator.

Since the geographic scope of the Barnegat Bay system is very large, the BBNEP would develop and implement 12.6.1 BBNEP PROGRAM OFFICE programs at the lowest appropriate level, from munici-In order to reinforce the autonomy and separate iden-pal to regional.

tity of the BBNEP Management Conference and ensure The BBNEP will review other state, regional, and continuing staff support, the BBNEP Program Office local plans, and identify opportunities to work will be "housed" at Ocean County College, but will not with sponsoring entities wherever collaboration be directed by the College.

could benefit the Barnegat Bay watershed.

Staffing will consist of a full-time Director, a Public

• The BBNEP will identify the need for additional Outreach Coordinator, and Program Associate. The watershed-based plans and seek appropriate local Director wilt provide the Policy and Advisory Committees with regular briefings on Program progress sponsors. and problems. Other support staff may also be recom-mended by the Advisory Committee.

12.5 BARNEGAT BAY WATERSHED AND ESTUARY FOUNDATION The following are the responsibilitiesof the BBNEP Program Office:

• Assure autonomy and visibility of the Program The BBNEP will support the Barnegat Bay Watershed Office.

and Estuary Foundation in its funding efforts to imple-

• Develop and update agreements among ment appropriate recommended CCMP actions. The implementing parties to ensure political and Foundation, comprised of a broad representation of funding support and implementation schedules, interests, will be responsible not only for raising and and to ensure federal agency consistency with the expending funds for specific activities during BBNEP CCMP (see Appendix E for the Federal Consistency implementation, but also for providing technically Review).

based assessments of CCMP implementation actions. In addition, the Foundation will be apolitical in the sense Oversee progress toward implementation of the that it will not be subject to the changes in public sec- Action Plans.

tor support that could come about as the result of elec- Work with other agencies and organizations to toral and political appointment processes. facilitate integration of appropriate portions of the CCMP into policies, plans, budgets, laws, regulations, and actions of each agency or organization.

MAY2002 203

CCMP IMPLEMENTATION Coordinate ongoing evaluations of the Develop and implement public information and effectiveness of CCMP actions in improving the education programs, and coordinate public quality of the Barnegat Bay and its watershed, and relations.

recommend corrective actions as needed.

• Act as liaison to Ocean County, its municipalities, Provide a public forum for public participation and and others on environmental issues associated education. The BBNEP will conduct public with Barnegat Bay and its watershed.

education, outreach, and involvement programs " Prepare triennial implementation reviews on targeting the region's estuarine and watershed behalf of the Program.

resources.

" Prepare an annual workptan and budget to ensure Consider and address future needs and emerging NEP and other funding is incorporated into the issues with respect to the Barnegat Bay BBNEP budget.

watershed's balanced use, protection, and where possible, restoration.

• Serve as an advocate for the NEP and resource for the NEP approach to other neighboring watersheds.

Develop an annual workptan and budget to support implementation of the CCMP Action Plans.

• The BBNEP will develop a strategic financial 12.6.3 POLICY COMMITTEE tong-term CCMP funding.

Responsibilities for the Policy Committee include the

" Support the efforts of the Barnegat Bay Watershed following:

and Estuary Foundation to implement various actions in the CCMP.

• Approve annual budget and workplan.

" Prepare the implementation review report to the

• Develop new action items or policy initiatives that USEPA:

develop during program implementation.

4. Develop indicators to monitor success and track

• Ensure commitment among implementing implementation of CCMP actions.

authorities for action implementation and 12.6.2 PROGRAM DIRECTOR scheduling.

The Program Director will take guidance and general Assist in securing long-term funding direction from the BBNEP Management Conference and commitments.

will supervise staff in the Program Office. Promote the BBNEP to a statewide and nationwide Responsibilities will include: audience.

" Evaluate and report progress toward CCMP Mediate issues of disagreement among BBNEP implementation. participants.

• Set up and coordinate agenda development for the Barnegat Bay Estuary and Watershed Advisory 12.7 TRACKING INFORMATION Committee meetings and Policy Committee meetings. Work with the Chairs of these Reporting on the status of CCMP implementation, and committees to facilitate implementation of the redirecting effort as needed, is crucial to its successful CCMP and to resolve obstacles which would impede implementation. CCMP progress or success will be mea-progress. sured two ways.

• Oversee administration.

• Review of Action Items to determine whether CCMP commitments have been met.

• Assist the Barnegat Bay Watershed and Estuary Foundation to raise funds and develop grant pro " Measure effectiveness of actions in meeting pos als. program goals.

204 BARNEGATBAY FINAL CCMP

Chapter 12 review will allow Ocean County, or any interested party, Review of progress using appropriate to comment on the implementation process. It also environmental indicators to determine whether allows corrections or changes to be made as necessary.

Barnegat Bay and its watershed are responding as The annual progress review will help. Ocean County to expected to pollution controls, and whether assess the effectiveness of the CCMP. This review wilt unanticipated environmental problems are determine if CCMP goats are being met in a manner that emerging. is proactive, cost effective, and equitable.

There are two critical steps in the progress review 12.7.1 FRAMEWORK process:

The CCMP provides a framework for tracking progress Each participating agency, institution, and and success: organization will submit annual reports evaluating the progress made in implementing CCMP Each Action Item in the CCMP identifies what is to recommendations and the success of be done, by when, and by whom. The BBNEP implementation strategies. The BBNEP members would review these commitments periodically and would report on progress made by their agencies, recommend mid-course corrections as needed. institutions, and organizations. They will then assess the success of the implementation The Environmental Monitoring Plan (Chapter Nine) strategies based on the recommendations of includes a process to periodically measure and the implementing organizations.

report on a number of environmental indicators of the success of CCMP implementation. This An annual progress report will be developed by activity will be the responsibility of the Program the BBNEP and will include the success of the Director, with data provided by the partnership of implementing organizations. The report will be participating agencies.

distributed to the public and any adjustments to the strategy or structure necessary to improve This activity will be the responsibility of the Program success will be made.

Director, with data provided by the partnership of par-ticipating agencies.

12.7.4 ASSESSMENT OF ESTUARINE/WATERSHED HEALTH 12.7.2 IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW Assessing the success of the implementation of the On a regular schedule determined by the EPA, the CCMP also requires monitoring of the environment and BBNEP will augment the annual progress report to a thorough evaluation of the results. The CCMP must include a full account of the status and effectiveness of be flexible to adapt to changes in watershed condi-CCMP implementation, measured by the environmental tions. Data gathered on the state of water quality, outcomes tracked through implementation of the habitats, and fisheries may be used to adjust strategies BBNEP's Environmental Monitoring Plan. As in the as necessary.

annual progress report, the implementation review submis-sion would include commitments for redirec- The critical steps in the environmental health assess-tion of efforts as needed; these wilt be subject to pub- ment are:

tic review. The Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee will report on monitoring efforts such as water 12.7.3 ANNUAL PROGRESS REVIEW quality monitoring from the NJDEP and the U.S.

Geological Survey, monitoring of fish stocks and The most critical stage of the Barnegat Bay manage- habitats by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric ment program is implementation. Without carefully Administration (NOAA), and other activities by planned and monitored implementation, the goals of other appropriate agencies. Information and the management plan may not be achieved. A progress MAY2002 205

CCMP IMPLEMENTATION environmental trends developed by these agencies partnership with the private sector. The CCMP includes will be presented to the BBNEP for review and the costs of Plan implementation as follows:

integration into its annual assessments.

• ACTION PLANS - The Action Plans (Chapters 5-8)

Data obtained by monitoring reports wilt be used describe detailed committed or recommended by the BBNEP to assess the effectiveness of actions and associated costs and funding sources management actions and identify target areas for each individual Action Item.

requiring further action.

FINANCIAL PLANNING - This section provides specific information on existing funding sources Ocean County will support and enhance public which are available to underwrite current and outreach and education efforts on the BBNEP future Action Items (Chapter 12).

implementation progress as outlined in the public outreach strategy (Chapter 8).

• BASE PROGRAMS - This section describes existing federal and state programs and their rote in funding and implementing the CCMP.

12.8 FINANCING THE BBNEP The primary objective of this section of the CCMP is to The NEP provides funding of the development of CCMPs recommend that:

under Section 320 of the Clean Water Act. The EPA will provide $300,000 (subject to long-term funding availabil- Federal, state, and local environmental programs ity) per year to Ocean County to support BBNEP program continue to be funded at current levels (at a min-staff, BBNEP office expenses, and other implementation imum). The NJDEP is involved in more actions, by needs. Ocean County has committed at least $250,000 far, than any other agency. Therefore, it is partic-annually to support the BBNEP Program Office. When ularly important to continue base program appropriate, the BBNEP will in turn encourage the funding for this agency at current levels (at a Barnegat Bay Watershed and Estuary Foundation to carry minimum).

out unfunded CCMP actions, as they are mutually sup-The BBNEP seeks additional funds for project ported. The ability of the BBNEP to achieve its goals and implementation and program enhancements. The objectives, and the pace at which progress is made, will BBNEP will work with other partner agencies to clearly be a function of the availability of additional fund-seek implementation-funding commitments.

ing from state and other sources, including a non-profit foundation.

There are a number of continuing funding programs that can be tapped to fund individual actions in this CCMP.

In recognition of the substantial public and private inter-Since funding availability is often determined by annual est in the protection and restoration of Bamegat Bay and appropriations, however, andthe funding sources are not its surrounding watershed, the BBNEP supports imple-.

exclusively for the use of BBNEP implementation, or even mentation through a combination of strategies involving necessarily for Ocean County, firm commitments for fund-existing programs that are already funded, as well as addi-ing multi-year actions through these sources cannot be tional resources, including funding and in-kind donations made immediately. The BBNEP will work with sponsoring for project implementation and program enhancement.

implementing agencies to secure the necessary funds and track the progress through programmatic monitoring and 12.8.1 FINANCIAL STRATEGY periodic reports. Where possible, each Action Item con-tains associated implementation costs and identifies a The cost of ongoing and proposed CCMP actions will be committed or recommended funding source to support significant. This section presents an overview of the action implementation. The BBNEP, in cooperation with BBNEP plan for financing. Funding to cover the costs the USEPA and the NJDEP, will continue to develop and of restoration and protection efforts must be provided update this management plan based on updates of the primarily by federal, state, and local governments, in CCMP and any changes in funding sources. The finan-206 BARNEGATBAY FINAL CCMP

Chapter 12 cial plan includes a specific focus on the opportunities for local governments to play a lead role in implement- Total CC4PImplementation costs are summarized belom ing improvements. The State of New Jersey is commit-ted to providing technical and financial assistance to Commitments for enhanced program funding total local governments in this effort. about $9,000;000 over the next four to six years.

Recommendations for enhanced program and new To fund implementation and special projects, the project funding are approximately an additional BBNEP, in cooperation with the USEPA and the NJDEP,

$8,000,000 over ten years.

will recommend the funding of specific projects using special legislative authorizations and appropriations 12.8.3 CURRENT FUNDING and statutes, such as:

• N.J. Corporate Business Tax Current funding opportunities for actions within the CCMP are presented below.

• N.J. Clean Vessel Program

• CIBA Fund BASE PROGRAM FUNDING

• Trust for Public Land Base programs are those program actions that can be fund-

• Ocean County Natural Lands Trust ed within the existing programmatic support of the imple-

• Barnegat Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project menting entity. In many cases, these actions are ongoing elements of agency work plans; in other cases the actions

" 319(h) Nonpoint Source Management can be accomplished by refocusing agency activities with-

" 604(b) Planning out identifying funding. The BBNEP has not estimated

• Other funding sources outlined later in this chapter. costs for individual base program actions since these actions are accomplished within existing programs and work plans. The CCMP includes numerous commitments on 12.8.2 COSTS

SUMMARY

behalf of USEPA, NJDEP, Ocean County, other federal, state and county agencies, local governments, and other imple-The CCMP includes commitments and recommendations for menting entities to continue the implementation of ongo-enhancements to base programs which entail additional ing programs. These commitments assume that base pro-funding. Firm commitments to fund some of these actions grams continue to be funded, at a minimum, at current exist. Other actions are called recommendations because levels. The BBNEP recommends that federal, state, county, the responsible entities require additional resources to and local governments continue to fund agency programs implement the action. The BBNEP will work to make these at current levels. USEPA' and NJDEP are committed to additional resources available. many of the actions in this plan. It is therefore particu-larly important to continue base program funding for While the proposed CCMP was undergoing public review, these agencies, at a minimum, at current levels.

there was a concurrent review by the entities that have implementation responsibilities. This resulted in the con-

• Dedicated Federal Funding for Implementation firmation or addition of many commitments. Through Start-up. USEPA's intent is generally to provide sever-program implementation, the BBNEP will work with at years of post-CCMP funding to each NEP; this is con-appropriate entities to confirm commitments to the tingent upon sufficient annual funding and adequate actions specified in this document and, to the extent pos- progress in implementing actions described in annual sible, to turn recommendations into commitments. In work plans. The BBNEP will receive at least $300,000 preparing the final CCMP, many estimated costs and tar- per year in NEP funds each year, subject to availability get dates for the completion of commitments and recom- of funds in USEPA appropriations during implementation, mendations were refined by the BBNEP Management based on progress made in CCMP implementation. An Conference. The BBNEP will continue to refine this infor- annual workplan developed by the Management mation. Conference (or its successor) must be submitted to the MAY2002 207

CCMP IMPLEMENTATION USEPA to support the annual funding allocation. These protection efforts. BBNEP will encourage all non-funds require a 50 percent non-federal match. Priorities profit organizations to help fund appropriate CCMP for the use of these funds include support of the BBNEP actions.

office (or its successor), state and county staff support, and education/outreach actions. To accomplish this, the BBNEP will:

" Identify CCMP actions that may be appropriate for Federal Statutes Other Than the Federal Clean funding by non-profit organizations. Examples Water Act. Federal programs, other than the Clean include research studies, environmental Water Act, can provide sources for financial and tech-monitoring, and educational programs.

nical support of CCMP actions. Funding specific Actions under non-Clean Water Act statutes, such as

• Identify existing non-profit organizations with the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Vessel missions that overlap with the BBNEP.

Act, the TEA-21, and others.

" Develop interest from non-profit organizations to

• Public Sector Funding for Program Enhance- work in partnership with the BBNEP to identify those actions they can implement.

ments and Projects. Additional government agen-des at all levels may be able to provide funding/

" Work with interested non-profit organizations to resources to implement CCMP actions. The BBNEP develop a coordinated strategy to further mutual will seek government agency funding for program goals, including: soliciting private sector funds; enhancements and projects mentioned in this CCMP.

funding appropriate CCMP actions; and including The BBNEP will develop a list that matches CCMP non-profit organization activities in CCMP updates.

recommendations with mission/authorities of vari-ous government agencies.

501(c)(3) non-profit organizations can be important part-

" New and Existing Non-Profit Organizations to ners in implementing CCMP actions. The BBNEP will: (1) identify actions suited for funding by non-profit organiza-Fund Implementation Actions. Funding for pro-tions, identify existing non-profit organizations with mis-posed CCMP actions need not always be provided by sions that overlap BBNEP's and seek expressions of sup-government agencies. There are individuals and cor-port from them, and work with interested organizations to porations interested in making contributions to further mutual goals and solicit private sector funding; implement estuary and watershed protection, preser-(2) support the Barnegat Bay Watershed and Estuary vation and restoration efforts. Non-profit organiza-Foundation (BBWEF) as a means to administer funding of tions under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue specific Barnegat Bay Estuary Program activities. The ulti-Code are ideally suited to receive such contributions mate intent is to develop significant support for CCMP imple-and disburse funds for the purposes of furthering mentation through corporate and foundation funding.

their missions as well as the BBNEP mission. The Barnegat Bay Watershed and Estuary Foundation has been incorporated specifically to help support implementation of the BBEP CCMP. The Barnegat Bay IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES Watershed and Estuary Foundation is an outgrowth of Many actions in the CCMP are recommendations.

the Bamegat Bay Watershed Association, Which rep-Implementation of these actions is crucial to achieve resented the environmental interests of the public the BBNEP's goals and will require resources beyond within the watershed. The Foundation has restruc-those currently identified by the USEPA. The BBNEP's tured the previous Watershed Association by diversi-strategy to identify potential funding sources and to fying its Steering Committee membership to include seek additional funding is described on the next page.

all stakeholder groups and by adopting 501(c)(3) status. The missions of some other existing non-Because of the important role local governments may profit organizations overlap that of the BBNEP, and have in implementing many of the actions in this these organizations are actively engaged in estuary CCMP, the BBNEP continues to consider the ability of 208 BARNEGAT BAY INAL CCMP

Chapter 12 local governments to pay for projects prior to their local watersheds. Loans for such infrastructure projects implementation. The BBNEP and participating agencies also tend to stimulate local economies by encouraging will: commercial development and construction.

Assure that local governments are effectively Many county and local water quality officials are more involved in the Management Conference and aware familiar with grants and, consequently, may not be utiliz-of CCMP actions that may impact them. ing this valuable financial resource. The benefits of the low or no-interest loan are:

• Actively work with local governments to assure their understanding, and gain their support, of " Little or no cash up front. Most grant programs the environmental benefits of proposed projects. require significant cost shares of as much as 40 percent or more. A CWSRF loan can cover

• Continue to develop cost estimates for project 100 percent of project costs with no cash up front.

implementation, and refine and update cost While a loan could be for as little as a few thousand estimates as necessary.

dollars, program experience indicates that capital

• Actively work with local governments to identify expenditures of $200,000 or more are best suited for and obtain funding. this loan program.

• Foster the development of low-cost approaches-to " Significant Cost Savings. CWSRF loans provide address environmental problems and implement significant cost savings over the life of the loan.

such approaches whenever possible. (For example, A CWSRF loan at 2.5 percent interest will cost encouraging non-structural, tow-tech, and low- approximately 25 percent to 30 percent less than the maintenance means to reduce runoff and same project funded at the market rate of 5.5 percent pollutant inputs.) to 6 percent. A major benefit for municipalities and other loan recipients is the substantial savings they 12.8.4 ADDITIONAL FUNDING can realize. When funded with a loan from this OPPORTUNITIES program, a project's financing costs are much tower than if funded through the bond market.

THE NEW JERSEY CLEAN WATER Combined projects are possible.

STATE REVOLVING FUND

" Streamlined FederalRequirements. Financing a The New Jersey Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) project with a CWSRF loan means fewer federal is a financing tool available to coastal managers and NEPs requirements than most federal grant programs. Plus, to implement water quality projects. Though traditionally the CWSRF program staff is experienced in helping used to offset the costs of wastewater treatment improve- applicants through the loan application process.

ments, the CWSRF is intended to fund all types of water Loan funds may be used to better the quality of quality projects. Eligible loan recipients include communi- watersheds through a wide range of water-quality ties, counties, sewage and utility authorities, individuals, related projects; loans may also be used for the citizen groups, and non-profit organizations. Nationally, protection of groundwater resources.

the CWSRF program issues about $3 billion per year. The Projects or activities listed in the approved CCMP are eligi-New Jersey CWSRF programs are set up like a bank, using ble for funding under the CWSRF. Nonpoint source and federal and state contributions to issue low-interest loans, other estuary protection projects/activities eligible for allowing funds to be repaid over periods of up to 20 years, funding include:

and recycling the money back to support other water qual-ity improvement projects. The Clean Water State Revolving 0 Structural erosion controls.

program's primary mission is to promote improvements in water quality. In addition to financial savings, loan recip-0 Septic system upgrades or replacements.

ients can realize significant environmental benefits,

• Stormwater and runoff management facilities.

including protection of public health and conservation of MAY2002 209

CCMP IMPLEMENTATION

• Water body restoration. fall into one or more of the following categories:

• Runoff control (urban, rural, and agricultural).

• Stream stabilization.

• Scenic or historic highway programs and provision of tourist and welcome center facilities.

• Storm sewer maintenance equipment.

0 Landscaping and other scenic beautification.

S Mitigation of water pollution due to highway runoff.

Eligible nonpoint source projects include virtually any Environmental mitigation to reduce vehicle-caused activity that a state has identified in its nonpoint source wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat management plan. Estuary management projects may also connectivity.

include providing marine pumpout facilities.

Also, all improvements funded through this program must SOURCES OF LOAN REPAYMENT: Many users of the be available for public use.

CWSRF have demonstrated a high level of creativity in developing sources for their loan repayment. The source Sponsors from one of the three categories must submit need not come from the project itself. Some possible applications:

sources include: County, municipality, city, town, or village in New Jersey;

• Stormwater utility fees (fees charged per household for stormwater system use); Another state agency (other than N.J. Department of Transportation);

• Fees paid by developers on other lands; An Authority (this includes, by extension, other

• Dedicated portion of local, county, and state tax fees; public and quasi-governmental agencies that have

• Property owner's ability to pay; the authority to enter into a binding contract (agreement) with the State of New Jersey.).

• Donations or dues made to nonprofit groups and associations; Applications for funding may be developed by a non-prof-it incorporated group, for example, a historic preservation

• Stormwater management fees; society. All applications, however, must be sponsored by

• Wastewater user charges. one of the three groups mentioned above.

FUNDING PROCESS: The TEA-21 Transportation CONTACT:

Enhancement Program is a federal reimbursement pro-New Jersey CWSRF Program at: gram, not.a grant program. The program also requires Municipal Finance and Construction Element the project teams to share in the cost of each project New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection by providing a minimum-matching share of at least 20 P.O. Box 425 percent of the total project cost. To lessen the finan-East State Street cial burden of this requirement, FHWA is allowing Trenton, New Jersey 08625 alternative sources of funding to augment the match-Art: Mr. Nicholas Binder, Assistant Director ing share. These are:

(609) 292-8961 www.state.nj.us/dep/ " Sponsor/project team cash.

• Private donations of cash to the team.

THE TEA-21 TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM

• Public or private donations of right-of-ways that The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) administers are an integral component of the project.

program grants pertaining to the new TEA-21 legislation

• Other federal funds (non-FHWA).

and is responsible for evaluating applications for eligibili- " Other state funds or other agency or legislative ty. To be considered eligible for funding, a project must initiatives (member items).

210 BARNEGATBAY FINAL CCMP

Chapter 12 stations and for implementation of boater education SPECIAL PROJECT CATEGORY: Mitigation of programs. Funding for the Clean Vessel Act comes from Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Due to the Sport Fish Restoration Account of the Aquatic Highway Runoff Resources Trust Fund, commonly referred to as the Wallop-Breaux Fund. This fund results from an excise This category is limited to facilities and programs to tax on fishing equipment, a tax on electric trolling minimize pollution from stormwater runoff from road- motors and sonar fish finders, a portion of the federal ways that have a functional classification other than motorboat fuel tax, and import duties on fishing tack-local roads, and that are in addition to current require- le and pleasure boats.

ments and procedures for such mitigation. Eligible Studies conducted in New Jersey in the mid-1980s doc-activities in this category include the development of umented the need for additional dockside disposal programs to mitigate highway runoff pollution and the facilities for boat sewage. The Clean Vessel Act has allowed planning, design, and construction of the mitigation New Jersey to deal with this concern by providing funds to facilities themselves. The preferred type of facility develop an updated assessment of the need for additional-uses natural systems for treatment, is self-maintaining, facilities. This includes implementation of a plan for the is aesthetically pleasing, and ecologically valuable.

construction,, renovation, operation, and maintenance of Eligible activities in this category are: pumpout stations, waste reception facilities, and sewage pumpout boats, as well as the implementation of a boater

" Environmental restoration and pollution education program related to vessel-generated wastes.

abatement projects (including the retrofit or construction of stormwater treatment systems) to Funding for the New Jersey Clean Vessel Act Program is address water pollution or environmental being provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service degradation caused or contributed to by (USFWS) and the NJDEP. The program is administered as transportation; a partnership between the USFWS, the NJDEP Division of

• Creation of wetland(s), adding vegetated ditches, Fish, Game, and Wildlife, the New Jersey Marine Sciences detention basins, or other permanent filtering Consortium, the New Jersey Sea Grant Marine Advisory systems to filter highway runoff in a sensitive Service of Rutgers Cooperative Extension, the Marine area; Trades Association of New Jersey, and other interested public and private entities.

" Planning, design, and construction of mitigation facilities; In New Jersey, the Clean Vessel Program provides 100 per-

• Installation of drainage facilities to restore cent of the costs to install sewage pumpout facilities.

original drainage patterns to wetlands degraded Seventy-five percent of this funding comes from the fed-by highway excavation and fill; eral Clean Vessel Act, and twenty-five percent comes from the state's "Shore-to-Please" license plate fund.

• Installation of a berm or closed drainage in close proximity of drinking water wells to prevent salt CONTACT:

intrusion.

NJDEP CONTACT:

Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife New Jersey Department of Transportation New Jersey Clean Vessel Program Bureau of Environmental Services 609-748-2020 609-530-2824 New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium NEW JERSEY CLEAN VESSEL ACT PROGRAM 732-872-1300 The federal Clean Vessel Act of 1992 was passed to provide New Jersey Marine Trades Association funds to states for the construction, renovation, opera- 732-206-1400 tion, and maintenance of pumpout stations and dump MAY2002 211

CCMP IMPLEMENTATION OCEAN COUNTY NATURAL LANDS to provide matching funds for the acquisition of TRUST FUND PROGRAM parcels by other agencies or organizations. The future monitoring and management responsibilities for all The voters of Ocean County approved a referendum in parcels will be determined prior to acquisition.

November of 1997 to preserve natural lands, open space, and farmland. The program would be funded Farmland will be preserved through the acquisition of through a 1.2 cent assessment per $100 of equalized development easements. Farmland will remain in pri-real property value. The referendum was approved in vate ownership and no public access will be afforded each of the county's 33 municipalities. The Ocean through this program. All nominations for the preser-County Board of Chosen Freeholders subsequently vation of farmland must first be submitted to the established the Natural Lands Trust Fund (NLTF)

Ocean County Agriculture Development Board for Program and appointed a nine-member advisory com-review and recommendation.

mittee to prepare an open space plan and advise on the acquisition of property. The Ocean County Planning Nominations to the NLTF Program can be submitted at Department (OCPD) administers the NLTF program. The any time. A completed nomination form is required to program is used to acquire undeveloped lands for the formally start the process. However, the OCPD staff can purposes of preserving and protecting environmentally provide an initial assessment of a parcel's eligibility sensitive areas, natural areas, open spaces, and farm-prior to the submittal of a nomination form.

land. The benefits of the program include the protec-tion of stream corridors, water supply areas, natural The NLTF Committee usually meets monthly. The meet-lands, agricultural uses, buffer areas, and aquifer ings are advertised in advance and open to the public.

recharge areas.

CONTACT:

The NLTF Advisory Committee began work on an open space plan during the spring of 1998. The resulting Ocean County Planning Department Program Document was adopted by the Board of Chosen 732-929-2054 Freeholders on September 2, 1998. The document establishes the guidelines for the acquisition of natur-al parcels and farmland development easements. FUNDING THROUGH THE WATERSHED PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT ACT Lands acquired through the program essentially remain OF 1997 in their natural states. They must be free of any sig-nificant disturbance or contamination. Proposals that In 1998 Governor Christine Whitman signed the include the restoration of certain disturbed natural "Watershed Protection and Management Act of 1997."

areas are also considered. This Act dedicates the equivalent of 4 percent of the revenues annually generated by the New Jersey Only passive, low-intensity activities are permitted on Corporation Business Tax for financing the costs of acquired parcels. Public access and limited develop- hazardous discharge site remediation, upgrading haz-ment opportunities are allowed to support permitted ardous underground storage tanks, water quality point activities consistent with the conservation value of the and nonpoint source pollution monitoring, watershed-property. These activities include, but are not limited based water resource planning and management, and to, trail development and maintenance, installation of non-point source pollution prevention projects. This benches and trash receptacles, and the construction of Act stipulates that of the 4 percent dedicated for these limited parking areas. Approval from the local munici- purposes, a minimum of one-sixth, or a minimum of pal governing body is required before any parcels are $5,000,000, whichever is less, is annually dedicated for acquired under the Natural Lands Program. All parcels the purposes of water quality point and nonpoint purchased exclusively with NLTF funds will be owned source pollution monitoring, watershed-based water by Ocean County. However, the program can be used resource planning and management, and nonpoint source pollution prevention projects.

212 BAR1EGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

Chapter 12 The NJDEP Division of Watershed Management current- credited annually with all monies appropriated pursuant ly administers the state's water quality planning, mon- to the requirements of the law. Any interest that accrues itoring, permitting, and enforcement programs, as part on monies in the fund shall be credited to the fund.

of the department's watershed initiative, which links Monies in the fund can be used for activities associated these programs to the watershed-based planning with implementation of watershed management plans.

approach. Through this fund, the NJDEP has established a loan and grant program to assist Watershed Management Groups in Watershed management activities can include funding the funding of watershed management activities. A for projects undertaken by the department, the New Watershed Management Group may apply to the depart-Jersey Pinelands Commission, or a "Watershed ment for a loan or grant. The application shall state the Management Group" to improve the condition or pre- objectives of the group, including the watershed activities vent further degradation of a watershed. This can proposed and which loan or grant monies are requested.

include, but need not be limited to, the following:

PURPOSE OF FUNDING: To provide grants to implement

• Public meetings to discuss and exchange best management practices, innovative measures, and information on watershed issues; other nonpoint soUrce controls to guide the development

• Establishment and operation of a stakeholders of nonpoint source water quality improvement efforts advisory group or groups dedicated to preserving within the 20 watershed management areas in New Jersey.

and protecting a watershed;

• Monitoring, water quality modeling, or assessment SOURCE OF FUNDING: The Watershed Management Act of of the condition of a watershed; 1997 provides approximately $100,000 per year. Section 319(h) of the Clean Water Act also provides funding.

• Development of projects designed to enhance or Available federal funds are approximately $950,000 and restore a watershed; are dependent upon the annual federal appropriations.

• Development, in consultation with the NJDEP, of a watershed management plan, or the reassessment STATUTORY CITATION: 1987 federal Clean Water Act and of a management plan that has been completed the 1990 Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization and and is being implemented. Amendments.

The Barnegat Bay watershed is identified as Watershed WHO IS ELIGIBLE: Regional comprehensive planning or Management Area Number 13 (WMA-13) by the NJDEP. A health organizations and coalitions (formal or informal) of Watershed Management Area means a geographic area in municipal and county governments and/or local and coun-the state, as designated by the NJDEP, within which may ty environmental commissions, watershed and water be found one or more watersheds. resource associations and non-profit organizations 501(c)(3), including, but not limited to, the following:

A Watershed Management Group means a group recog- municipal planning departments or boards, health depart-nized by the NJDEP as the entity representing the various ments or Boards, county planning departments, designat-interests within one or more watersheds located in a ed water quality management planning agencies, state Watershed Management Area and whose purpose is to and regional entities entirely within New Jersey,*state gov-improve the condition or prevent further degradation of a ernment agencies, universities and colleges, federal gov-watershed or watersheds. A Watershed Management Group ernment, interstate agencies of which New Jersey is a is eligible to receive Corporate Business Tax funding member, and intrastate regional entities.

(through the Watershed Management Fund) to carry out implementation of its management plan. QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED FOR CONSIDERATION:

Applicant must submit a project that meets the objec-The Watershed Management Fund will be established as a tives and project criteria as outlined in the "Request non-lapsing, revolving fund in the NJDEP. The fund is for Proposals."

MAY2002 213

CCMP IMPLEMENTATION GRANT LIMITATIONS: Limited to eligible costs as defined APPLICATION PROCEDURES: There is an established in the Request for Proposals. Applicant must provide application process. Technical assistance by program staff matching funds in an amount equivalent to at least 20 is available upon request.

percent of the total project amount requested. This may be cash or in-kind services. A 25 percent cash match is APPLICATION DEADLINE: October 31, annually (depend-required for projects on private lands. Grant money is paid ing on available funds for pre-storm projects). Post-storm out quarterly upon submittal of project update. projects based on coastal storm event.

NOTIFICATION DATE: Spring of following year for pre-APPLICATION PROCEDURES: Announcement to receive the Request for Proposals published. in the New Jersey storm projects.

Register and Watershed Focus Newsletter, and mailed to all municipalities. CONTACT:

Gary Rice, Chief APPLICATION DEADLINE: As published in the New Jersey NJDEP-Green Acres Program Register with the notification of the application period. Bureau of Green Trust Management P0 Box 412 NOTIFICATION DATE: No later than June 30. Trenton, NJ 08625-0412 Telephone: (609) 984-0570 CONTACT:

Kimberly Cenno Division of Watershed Management COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ACT P0 Box 418 GRANTS Trenton, NJ 08625-0418 Telephone: (609) 292-2113 PURPOSE OF FUNDING: To support environmental health e-mail address: kcenno@dep.state.nj.us services undertaken by certified local health agencies on behalf of the NJDEP pursuant to the County COASTAL BLUE ACRES GRANTS AND LOANS Environmental Health Act, N.J.S.A. 26:3A2-21, et seq:

PURPOSE OF FUNDING: To acquire storm-prone land and SOURCE OF FUNDING: Dependent upon state appropria-storm-damaged property for storm protection and recre-tion funds made available to the program.

ation and conservation purposes.

STATUTORY CITATION: P.L. 1977, c.443, as amended by SOURCE OF FUNDING: 1995 Green Acres Bond Act P.L. 1991, c.99. N.J.S.A. 26:3A2-21, et seq.; N.J.A.C. 7:IH-Program is administered by the Green Acres Program.

1, et seq.

STATUTORY CITATION: P.L. 1995, C. 204.

WHO IS ELIGIBLE: Certified local health agencies only.

WHO IS ELIGIBLE: Municipalities and counties located in the state's coastal area as defined and delineated in P.L.

QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED FOR CONSIDERATION:

1973, C.185 (C.12:19-4). Projects limited to certain coastal areas. Applicant must have the NJDEP certification pursuant to P.L. 1977, c.443 (N.J.S.A. 26:3A2-21, et seq.) and have QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED FOR CONSIDERATION: approved workplan pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:1H-1, et seq.

Must submit a complete application. Applications are evaluated based on ranking criteria established by the GRANT LIMITATIONS: Calendar year grants are award-bond act. ed annually; 50 percent match required. Grants award-GRANT LIMITATIONS: 75 percent grant/25 percent loan ed for pilot projects do not have a match requirement.

for a pre-storm project. 50 percent grant/50 percent loan for a post-storm project.

214 BARNEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

Chapter 12 APPLICATION PROCEDURES: Certified local health GRANT/LOAN LIMITATIONS: Amount varies upon agencies must attend the annual fall grant conference need. Grantee must match 25 percent/75 percent.

and submit a grant application.

APPLICATION PROCEDURES: Contact program admin-APPLICATION DEADLINE: December ,l annually. istrator.

NOTIFICATION DATE: April 1 of the following year. APPLICATION DEADLINE: None.

CONTACT: CONTACT:

Deborah M. Pinto, Chief George Caporale, Manager NJDEP-Enforcement Coordination NJDEP-Engineering and Construction Office of Local Environmental Management Bureau of Coastal Engineering P0 Box 422 1510 Hooper Avenue Trenton, NJ 08625-0422 Toms River, NJ 08753 Telephone: (609) 292-1305 Telephone: (908) 255-0767 1992 DAM RESTORATION AND INLAND SHORE PROTECTION GRANTS AND LOANS WATER PROJECTS LOAN PROGRAM PURPOSE OF FUNDING: To protect existing develop- PURPOSE OF FUNDING: Low-interest loans to assist in ment from sea-level rise and shoreline migration the funding of dam restorations, flood control projects, through dune creation and maintenance, beach fill water pollution control projects, and water-related projects and repair of existing shore protection struc- recreation and conservation projects.

tures.

SOURCE OF FUNDING: 1992 Dam Restoration and SOURCE OF FUNDING: Beaches and Harbor Fund and Clean Water Trust Fund.

Shore Protection Fund. Funds have been provided by Shore Protection Bonds issued in 1977 and 1983 and by STATUTORY CITATION: Green Acres, Clean Water, state appropriation in 1988. Recent funds have been Farmland and Historic Preservation Bond Act of 1992, P.L.

appropriated through the Shore Protection Fund of 1992, c. 88. Program Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:24A-1.1, et seq.

1992. Contact program administrator for details.

WHO IS ELIGIBLE: Local government units, private STATUTORY CITATION: N.J.S.A. 13:1D-1, et seq. Shore lake associations or similar organizations, and owners Protection Bond Act. Appropriations under specific of private dams as co-applicants with a local govern-chapters 356, P.L. 1983; c. 103, P.L. 1984; c. 103, P.L. ment unit.

1985; and c. 94 P.L. 1986; N.J.S.A. 13:19-16.1 Shore Protection Fund. QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED FOR CONSIDERATION:

Applicant must have a project that meets the objec-WHO IS ELIGIBLE: Municipalities and counties; local tives of the program as defined in the program rules.

cost share 25 percent. Loans available for the 25 per-cent local share. LOAN LIMITATIONS: Limited to eligible costs as defined in the program rules.

QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED FOR CONSIDERATION:

A ranking list has been prepared based on need; the APPLICATION PROCEDURES: Application periods will be N.J. Shore Protection Master Plan, 1981; damage from established from time to time. Notification will be pub-the December 10, 1992 storm, and U.S. Army Corps of lished in the New Jersey Register. Contact the Dam Safety Engineer (USACE) studies and projects. Section for more information and application forms.

MAY2002 215

CCMP IMPLEMENTATION APPLICATION DEADLINE: As published in the New CONTACT:

Jersey Register with the notification of the application Gary Rice, Chief period. NJDEP-Green Acres Program Bureau of Green Trust Management CONTACT: P0 Box 412 NJDEP-Engineering and Construction Trenton, N] 08625-0412 Dam Safety Section Telephone: (609) 984-0570 PO Box 419 Trenton, NJ 08625-0419 Telephone: (609) 984-0859 1996 BOND ACT/

LAKES RESTORATION PROGRAM GREEN ACRES GRANTS AND LOANS PURPOSE OF FUNDING: To improve the water quality of New Jersey takes.

PURPOSE OF FUNDING: To acquire and/or develop municipal or county land for public recreation and SOURCE OF FUNDING: "Port of New Jersey Revitalization, conservation purposes. Dredging, Environmental Cleanup, Lake Restoration and Delaware Bay Economic Development Bond Act of 1996."

SOURCE OF FUNDING: 1983, 1987, 1989, 1992, and A total of $5.million is available.

1995 Green Acres/Green Trust bond issues (revolving fund). Available funding varies each year based on STATUTORY CITATION: P.L. 1996, C. 70.

loan repayments and interest payments.

WHO IS ELIGIBLE: Municipal, county, regional, and state STATUTORY CITATION: N.J.S.A. 13:8A, et seq. government agencies, or private take owners with a local government unit as a co-applicant.

WHO IS ELIGIBLE: Any municipality or county.

QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED FOR CONSIDERATION:

QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED FOR CONSIDERATION: Public takes must be owned, leased or managed by a Must submit a completed application. There must be no local government agency. Private lakes need a local outstanding compliance problems. Applicant must meet government agency as a co-applicant. State-owned technical eligibility requirements (program specific). lakes are also eligible.

GRANT/LOAN LIMITATIONS: Differ from year to year GRANT LIMITATIONS: Up to 50 percent funding available depending on funds available and total applications for Phase I Diagnostic-Feasibility Project and up to 75 per-received. cent funding available for Phase II Implementation Projects.

APPLICATION PROCEDURES: There is an established application process. Technical assistance by program staff APPLICATION PROCEDURES: Application consists of a is available upon request. Project Workplan for either a Phase I Diagnostic-Feasibility Project, or a Phase HIImplementation Project.

APPLICATION DEADLINE: October 31, annually.

APPLICATION DEADLINE: Two rounds of funding are NOTIFICATION DATE: Spring of the following year. anticipated. The deadline for the first round of fund-ing is 30 days after final adoption of N.J.A.C. 7:9-2.

The deadline for the second round of funding is December 31.

216 BARNEGATBAYFINAL CCMP

Chapter 12 NOTIFICATION DATE: Thirty days after completed APPLICATION PROCEDURES: Eligible entities should application is submitted. contact the N.J. Pinelands Commission in order to have a potential project included in the Master Plan.

CONTACT: Provided the project is of high priority and funds are Bud Cann, Supervising Environmental Specialist available, the applicant will then be required to satisfy Division of Science and Research the NJDEP-established requirements.

PO Box 427 Trenton, NJ 08625-0427 APPLICATION DEADLINE: Varies from funding cycle Telephone: (609) 292-0427 to funding cycle.

NOTIFICATION DATE: Varies.

PINELANDS INFRASTRUCTURE TRUST FINANCING PROGRAM CONTACT:

Nicholas G. Binder, Assistant Director PURPOSE OF FUNDING: To provide funding for .waste- NJDEP-Municipal Finance and water treatment facilities needed to accommodate Construction Element existing and future needs in the 23 designated Pine- PO Box 425 lands Regional Growth Areas. Funding is available for Trenton, NJ 08625-0425 the construction of new collection systems, intercep- Telephone: (609) 292-8961 tors, and the expansion and/or upgrading of waste-water treatment facilities.

SOURCE OF FUNDING: The Pinelands Infrastructure RECYCLING EDUCATION GRANTS Bond Act of 1985 provided $30 million as a source of funding for such projects. Projects certified generally PURPOSE OF FUNDING: To provide community educa-receive a grant for 40 percent of the allowable project tion and promotional programs on recycling.

cost and a loan of 20 percent of the allowable project cost in accordance with project cost estimates con- SOURCE OF FUNDING: This is a revolving fund. The tained in the Pinelands Infrastructure Master Plan. Recycling Tax expired December 31, 1996. The amount Planning and design costs are also eligible for funding available will be based on the distribution of the fund under this program. balance.

STATUTORY CITATION: P.L. 1985, c. 302. STATUTORY CITATION: N.J.S.A. 13:1E-96, et seq. (P.L.

1987, c. 102).

WHO IS ELIGIBLE: Local government units, including municipalities and regional sewerage or utility author- WHO IS ELIGIBLE: County governments, nonprofit ities, may be eligible for assistance. organizations, and state colleges and universities.

QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED FOR CONSIDERATION: QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED FOR CONSIDERATION:

Eligibility to receive funding is determined according All counties are eligible.

to the ranking criteria presented in the Pinelands Infrastructure Master Plan. GRANT LIMITATIONS: Awards are based on county census.

GRANT/LOAN LIMITATIONS: Local unit must provide for ineligible cost and may be required to provide that APPLICATION PROCEDURES: .Program announcement portion (typically 40 percent) of the allowable cost, and procedures are sent to the counties and to previ-which the grant/loan does not cover. ously funded non-profit organizations.

MAY2002 217

CCMP IMPLEMENTATION APPLICATION DEADLINE: Grant deadlines are pub- cent of the total cost of the project. ESP grant money lished in program announcements and are sent direct- is paid upon completion of project.

ly to applicants.

APPLICATION PROCEDURES: Contact the Environ-NOTIFICATION DATE: Varies. mental Services Program for an application package.

Applications are mailed annually to local government CONTACT: officials, environmental commission chairs, and soil Guy 3. Watson, Chief conserva-tion districts in early September.

NJDEP-Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste Bureau of Recycling and Planning APPLICATION DEADLINE: December 1, annually.

P0 Box 414 Trenton, NJ 08625-0414 NOTIFICATION DATE: On or about April 1 of the fol-Telephone: (609) 984-3438 lowing year.

CONTACT:

MATCHING GRANTS FOR LOCAL Joseph C. Rogers, Program Manager ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES NJDEP-Office of Business & External Affairs Environmental Services Program PURPOSE OF FUNDING: Assist local environmental P0 Box 402 com-missions and soil conservation districts with fund-Trenton, NJ 08625-0402 ing for a variety of community education projects as Telephone: (609) 984-0828 well as environmental resource inventories; beach moni-toring and management projects; environmental trail designs; lake rehabilitation studies; stream and THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND:

water quality testing; wellhead delineation; GIS map-ping projects; NEPPS indicator projects; and surveys of BARNEGAT BAY threatened and endangered species. ENVIRONMENTAL GRANT FUND SOURCE OF FUNDING: State appropriation for FY99: The Trust for Public Land's Barnegat Bay Environmental

$165,000. Grant Fund ("The Bay Fund") Advisory Board approves grants of up to $25,000 per year from a $500,000 fund STATUTORY CITATION: Environmental Aid Act, made available to the Trust through a donation from N.J.S.A. 13:1H-1, et seq. Program rules: N.J.A.C. 7:5- Ciba-Geigy Corporation to the NJDEP. The Trust for 1.1, et seq. Public Land was designated as the administrator of The Bay Fund. Grants are to be made with approval of the WHO IS ELIGIBLE: Municipal environmental commis- Barnegat Bay Environmental Grant Fund Advisory sions and joint environmental commissions established Board to nonprofit organizations having an Internal pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:56A-1 et seq., soil conservation Revenue Service 501(c)(3) exemption status and con-districts, and county environmental commissions. ducting local or regional projects that will have a direct benefit to the Barnegat Bay and its watershed QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED FOR CONSIDERATION: area.

Applicant must be an eligible entity as described above

.and must use funds for a project having the purpose The Trust accepts proposals for grants to support local described above. 'Eligible projects and costs may be or regional environmental projects that will have direct found in the ESP Matching Grants Program Guide and benefit to Barnegat Bay and its watershed area.

Application Package. Eligible projects may include, but will not be limited to, environmental education, planning, monitoring, GRANT LIMITATIONS: The maximum annual grant is research, or land stewardship.

$2,500. Applicant must agree to match at least 50 per-2 18 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

Chapter 12 The Bay Fund is one component of the Trust for Public Consideration will be given to project cost, Land's Barnegat Bay Initiative - a long-term protection geographical setting, technical feasibility, and strategy for the bay, including public education, scientific need in terms of the overall protection and research, land planning, and acquisition of critical proper- enhancement of Barnegat Bay.

ties. Since 1988, the Trust has assisted the USFWS in pro-tecting more than 2,300 acres of critical habitat lands as Proposals will be evaluated on the basis of part of the Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge. It appropriateness, clarity of objectives, a plan for has also worked with the State of New Jersey to protect achieving the objectives, and the qualifications of more than 5,800 acres of critical wildlife habitat and recre- the organization to carry out the project ational land in the bay region. The NJDEP recognized the activities.

Trust's work in this area with a $500,000 grant, which is available to fund awards under the Barnegat Bay Grants will not ordinarily be awarded for: (a) land Environmental Grant Fund. The Bay Fund encourages sup- acquisition; (b) endowments; (c) individuals; (d) port of groups working to protect the bay. The William building campaigns; (e) capital construction Penn Foundation also provides supplemental funding to activities, such as structural erosion control the Trust for Barnegat Bay project. measures; (f) annual giving; (g) an organization's general operating budget, including direct salary, APPLICATION PROCESS: Interested organizations should benefits, or overhead. Staff costs for project-submit nine copies of a brief (no more than three pages) related work will be considered eligible expenses description of the proposed project by the spring of each and should be included in the budget.

year. Applications should include a time line for the pro-ject's completion, project budget, brief background on the *The Bay Fund will not entertain proposals from organization, and the description must be accompanied by government entities (i.e., municipalities, planning proof of the organization's federal tax exempt status under boards, environmental commissions, or schools).

Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and a copy Non-eligible entities may "partner" with a non-of the organization's Articles of Incorporation, profit organization that: (a) meets with Constitution, or Bylaws. Alt applications will be reviewed requirements under this program; and by the Advisory Board, and awards will be announced (b) serves as applicant to The Bay Fund.

Memorial Day weekend.

• Grants will not be made for fund-raising purposes.

APPLICATION GUIDELINES:

• No part of any grant may be used for

• Grants will be awarded for .activities that promote entertainment expenses.

environmental education, planning, monitoring,

" Grants will cover a 12-month period except in research, or land stewardship in Barnegat Bay and special circumstances.

its watershed.

" The Bay Fund should not be relied upon as a long-

• The Bay Fund will accept proposals solely from term source of funds; applicants may be non-profit organizations that have an Internal requested to demonstrate how ongoing programs Revenue Service 501(c)(3) exemption. Grants are would be sustained.

likely to range from $500 to $5,000.

• Grant recipients will be required to certify

• Proposals must demonstrate that the activity will program expenses to the Trust by filing a summary report within 30 days of project benefit Barnegat Bay.

completion.

• Proposals that include matching funds or in-kind " The Bay Fund will not support lobbying or services from other sources are strongly activities that advocate political solution.

encouraged.

MAY2002 219

CCMP IMPLEMENTATION 12.9 WATER QUALITY

• A process to identify, if appropriate, mine-related sources of pollution; MANAGEMENT PLANNING

• A process to identify construction activity-related The Water Quality Management (WQM) planning pro-sources of pollution; gram, sometimes referred to as the "208 Program," was developed to ensure that states provide for the future

• A process to identify, if appropriate, saltwater planning and management of their water resources. It intrusion into rivers, lakes, and estuaries; is a nationwide program, with its requirements speci-fied in the Water Pollution Control Act (P.L.92-500),

• A process to control the disposition of residual which was later amended by the Clean Water Act of waste which could affect water quality; 1977 and the Water Quality Act of 1987. The state's requirements are contained in the N.J. Water Quality

• A process to control the disposal of pollutants on Planning Act (N.J.S.A. 58:11A-1, et seq.). The federal land or in subsurface excavations to protect laws required that WOM plans be prepared by agencies ground and surface water quality.

designated for that purpose by the Governor of each state. For areas that did not have a designated agency, For a fuller discussion of the specific requirements, see the state would serve as the WOM planning agency.

Section 208 of the Clean Water Act.

All of New Jersey is divided into 12 WQM planning Due to the differing needs and priorities of New areas. Of the 12 initial WOM plans that were prepared approximately 20 years ago, 7 were prepared by desig- Jersey's 12 WOM planning areas, the resultant initial plans differed somewhat in the extent to which some nated agencies and 5 were prepared by the NJDEP.

of these subjects were addressed.

The above cited laws required that the WQM plans 12.9.1 WQM PLANNING IN OCEAN COUNTY address a variety of subject areas. These included:

The Ocean County Board of Chosen Freeholders was Identification of treatment works necessary to designated in May of 1975 as the agency responsible meet anticipated municipal and industrial waste for conducting WQM planning in all of Ocean County, treatment needs; as well as that portion of southern Monmouth County that is within the drainage basins of the Toms River Establishment of construction priorities for such and the Metedeconk River. The area of Monmouth treatment works; County that is in the Ocean County WQM Planning Area Establishment of a regulatory program addressing includes portions of Freehold, Howell, and Wall waste treatment management; Townships.

Identification of those agencies necessary to The stated goal of the Ocean County WQM Planning construct, operate, and maintain facilities Program is the protection of the area's water resources required by the plan; from potential growth-related sources of pollution.

Both groundwater and surface water are of great Identification of measures necessary to carry out importance to Ocean County, as groundwater is the the plan; primary source of potable water for area residents.

The protection of surface water was also deemed The economic, social, and environmental impact ssential, as the Atlantic Ocean, Barnegat Bay, and of carrying out the plan; the area's inland waterways provide a primary source A process to identify, if appropriate, of recreation for the area's residents and visitors.

agriculturally and silviculturally related nonpoint sources of pollution; 220 BARNEGATBAY FINAL CCMP

Chapter 12 The Ocean County WQM Plan was prepared by technical The WQM Plan amendment and revision requirements and staff hired for that purpose. A few consultants were procedures are specified in New Jersey's Water Quality hired for technical water quality analysis and for legal and Management Planning regulations (N.J.A.C. 7:15-3.4 and institutional aspects of the plan. Also actively involved in 3.5). The amendment procedures include the need to pub-the preparation and review of the plan were committees. lish a public notice and to provide the opportunity for the These included a Policy Advisory Committee (PAC), a interested public to comment on the proposed actions.

Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC), as well as a Technical Potentially affected entities, such as municipal govern-Review Committee. The committees were most active dur- ments and sewer authorities, are requested to provide res-ing the preparation and review of the initial WQM Plan; olutions of consent for the proposal. Designated agencies, however, they still occasionally meet on an as-needed such as the Ocean County Board of Chosen Freeholders, basis. have a vital role, as their approval of amendment propos-als is generally required before the state may approve an amendment. Revision procedures vary somewhat based on the nature of the revision. Mere correction of a WQM plan 12.9.2 UPDATE OF THE INITIAL is handled by the NJDEP; however, a revision of a more sig-OCEAN COUNTY WQM PLAN nificant nature, such as the transfer of sewer service area from one wastewater treatment agency to another, The initial Ocean County WQM Plan was certified by the requires that potentially affected entities be invited to Governor on August 11, 1980, and approved by the comment on the proposal.

USEPA on September 15, 1980. The Ocean County WQM Plan included nine reports. These reports are:

12.9.3 WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS

• Surface Water Quality Assessment; As a general rule, the most significant and far-reaching

• Groundwater Management Planning; WQM Plan amendments are Wastewater Management Plans

• Wastewater Flows and Sewerage Facilities for the (WMPs). WMPs are subject to the same amendment review 208 Study Area; and processing requirements as other amendments; how-ever, they differ from individual amendments in the geo-

• Stormwater Management; graphic scope and variety of subjects addressed. Generally,

• Population, Land Use, and Environmental individual amendments are prepared for a single waste-Resources; water treatment facility or housing development; WMPs are prepared for one or more municipalities. Sometimes, a

• Implementation of an Areawide Water Quality WMP may be prepared for a sewer authority's district or for Management Program in Ocean County; an entire county.

• Regulatory Program Associated with Areawide Among the items that are addressed within a WMP are dis-Water Quality Management in Ocean County; cussions and maps of the locations of wastewater treat-

• Executive Summary, Ocean County "208" Water ment facilities (domestic as well as industrial), current and Quality Management Planning Project; and 20-year projected populations to be served by each waste-water treatment facility, current and 20-year projected

• Public Participation in "208" Water Quality wastewater flows to each wastewater treatment facility, Management Planning, Ocean County, New Jersey. maps of current and future wastewater service areas, maps of environmental features, and other subjects.

In the years since the plan was approved, the Ocean County WQM Plan has been modified and updated through The WMPs that have been approved for the Ocean County formal amendments and revisions. Those modifications WQM Planning Area include: Barnegat Township WMP, were primarily to provide for new or expanded wastewater Jackson Township WMP, Little Egg Harbor WMP, treatment plants or to modify sewer service areas. Manchester Township WMP, Northern Planning Area WMP, Ocean County Utilities Authority's Central Service MAY2002 221

CCMP IMPLEMENTATION Following are the amendments and revisions that have been adopted since the initial Ocean County WQM Plan was approved.

Area WMP, Plumsted Township WMP, and Stafford effect on historic and prehistoric resources, there is Township WMP. the potential that individual actions of this plan that are subsequently implemented might. In compliance 12.10 COMPLIANCE WITH with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation NATIONAL AND STATE HISTORIC Act, if any Federal undertaking performed as part of PRESERVATION LAWS AND THE the CCMP has the potential to have an effect on pre-historic or historic resources as a result of ground-dis-ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT WHEN turbing activities, the EPA will evaluate the need for IMPLEMENTING THE CCMP the performance of an initial Stage IA cultural resources survey (CRS) and any necessary additional While this Comprehensive Conservation and stages of survey, prior to project implementation, to Management Plan in and of itself will not have any identify areas sensitive for the discovery of prehistoric 2 22 BARNEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

Chapter 12 and historic resources. Coordination of any further Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). While the EPA cultural resources investigations will be carried out by believes that the CCMP, as a programmatic plan, wilt the appropriate federal agency. To the extent that not have a negative impact on federally listed or pro-such actions are state undertakings, the NJDEP (State posed threatened and endangered species or their Historic Preservation Office) wilt be the lead in address- habitats, it is possible that some action items of the ing historic preservation requirements. CCMP may. Consequently, informal consultation will be carried out by the appropriate federal agency with the Informal consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the FWS and the NMFS at that time when the nature of Endangered Species Act has been initiated with the such action items and their source(s) of funding U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National become more defined.

4 4'

'Ž2 44' A 'AN ~

A

~44tij

)4 >. 4 4 44 t4 <~' '< 44, 4

A .As:j At 4%,

'4$

K.

223N

-- mozo Today our continuing progress is restricted not by the number of fishing boats but by the decreasing numbers of fish; not by the power of pumps but the depletion of aquifers; not by the number of chainsaws but by the disappearance of primary forests.

While living systems are the source of such desired materials as wood, fish, or food, of utmost importance are the services that they offer, services that are far more critical to human prosperity than are nonrenewable resources.

A forest provides not only the resource of wood, but also the services of water storage and flood management.

Humankind has inherited a 3.8 billion year store of natural capital.

At present rates of use and degradation, there will be little left by the end of this century.

This is not only a matter of aesthetics, it is of utmost practical concern to society and all people.

-- Paul Hawkin, Amory Lovins, L. Hunter Lovins, Natural Capitalism

COUNTY HISTORICML SOCIETY PHOTO COURTESY OF THE OCEAN Fishing on the Toms River, MAY2002

Picking in the Pines. PHOTO COURTESY OF THE OCEAN COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY REFERENCES APPENDIX A AMERICAN OCEANS CAMPAIGN. 1996.

Estuarieson the Edge: The Vital Link Between Land and Sea. American Oceans Campaign.

BARNEGAT BAY STUDY ACT. 1987.

P.L. 1987, Ch. 397 BLANCHARD, PETER AND HERPETOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES. 1995.

The Century Plan: A Study of 100 Conservation Sites in the BarnegatBay Watershed. The Trust for Public Land.

BOCHENEK, ELEANOR (NJ Sea Grant). 1999.

Personal communication. March 4.

BURGER, JOHANNA. 1996.

Avian Studies on Barnegat Bay, Proceedings of the Barnegat Bay Ecosystem Workshop. Toms River, New Jersey.

CHIN, MELISSA. 1998.

Issues and Problems Associated with Personal Watercraft in Barnegat Bay. New Jersey Sea Grant.

Sandy Hook, New Jersey.

FLIMLIN, G.E., JR. (Ocean County Cooperative Extension). 1999.

Personal communication. March 11.

HALGREN, BRUCE (NJ Department of Environmental Protection). 1999.

Personal communication. March 8.

HOOK, D. (NJ Department of Environmental Protection). 1999.

Personal communication. April 21.

JOSEPH, JAMES (NJ Department of Environmental Protection). 1999.

Personal communication. March 8.

LONGWOODS INTERNATIONAL, CENTER FOR SURVEY AND MARKETING RESEARCH. 1998.

Tourism Survey of Ocean County.

NJ DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. 1993.

A Watershed Management Plan for Barnegat Bay.

OCEAN COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 1999.

Ocean County Data Book, 9th Edition.

OCEAN COUNTY PLANNING BOARD. 1988.

Ocean County Data Book, Eighth Edition. Toms River, New Jersey.

OCEAN COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 1980.

Ocean County Water Quality Management Plan.

ROGERS, GOLDEN AND HALPERN, INC. 1990.

Management Recommendations for the Barnegat Bay.

ROGERS, GOLDEN, AND HALPERN, INC. 1990. Profile of the BarnegatBay. 1990.

RUTGERS COOPERATIVE EXTENSION OF OCEAN COUNTY. 1998.

Home*A *Syst for the Barnegat Bay Watershed. Rutgers Cooperative Extension.

RUTGERS COOPERATIVE EXTENSION OF OCEAN COUNTY. 1996.

Proceedings of the BarnegatBay Ecosystem Workshop.

MAY2002 A- 1

Don't throw away the old bucket until you know whether the new one holds water.

-- Swedish Proverb

BARNEGATPBAY ESTUARY PROGRAM A PUBLIC RESPONSIVENESS DOCUMENT TOTHE DRAFT COMPREHESV CODNISERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN "rt-------n~

f Barnegat Bay hunting sneakbox.

BAY DECOY AND BAYMEN'S MUSEUM, INC.

PHOTO COURTESY OFTHE TUCAERTON SEAPORT, A PROJECT OFTHEBARNEGAT MAY2002

The Menhaden Fish Factory, Crab Island, Little Egg Harbor,circa 1970.

PHOTO COURTESY TUCKERTON SEAPORT, A PROJECT OF THE BARNEGAT BAY DECOY AND BAYMEN'SMUSEUM. INC.

PUBLIC RESPONSE APPENDIX B INTRODUCTION The Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) for the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program (BBNEP) is the culmination of an interagency planning process which was begun on April 16, 1996, as part of the National Estuary Program (NEP). The NEP is authorized by Section 320 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) Amendments of 1987, and has as its general goals the protection and improvement of water quality and the enhancement of liv-ing resources in estuaries of national significance. Participation in the BBNEP planning process included federal, state, county, and local agencies, commercial interests, academia, and the interested public. The BBNEP Draft Final CCMP has undergone a period of public review, and comments are being incorporated into a Final CCMP for submit-tal to, and approval by, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Administrator and the Governor of New Jersey. Upon final approval, the CCMP will pass from the preliminary planning phase to active implementation under a continuing committee structure.

The Draft CCMP for BBNEP was released for public review at a BBNEP Policy Committee Meeting held at the NJ Museum of Boating in Point Pleasant, New Jersey, on May 16, 2000. Copies of the draft document were subsequently made available at the annual Barnegat Bay National Festival on May 20, 2000. During the same week, 120,000 copies of a multi-page newspaper supplement that summarized the content of the CCMP were distributed in the Sunday,. May 14, 2000, issue of the Ocean County edition of the Asbury Park Press. The newspaper supplement included a mail-in comment box for those interested in making comments to the CCMP.

Distribution of the Draft CCMP was made to the following:

• Members of all committees of the BBNEP Management Conference;

" Ocean County offices;

• Ocean County municipal offices and four municipalities in Monmouth County that lie within the Barnegat Bay watershed;

" All 20 branches of the.Ocean County Library, and two branches of the Monmouth County Library;

• Press offices within Ocean County;

• The interested public, upon request;

• The BBNEP Web site (http://www.bbnep.org);

" The Ocean County Mayors Association; and

" Federal and state legislators with districts within the watershed.

Following public release of the BBNEP Draft CCMP, six public meetings, three each in the afternoon and evening, were scheduled at three venues placed throughout Ocean County, New Jersey, to solicit comments to the draft document. The meeting schedule follows:

" Municipal Building, Stafford Township, Manahawkin, New Jersey - June 6, 2000;

" Municipal Building, Jackson Township, Jackson, New Jersey- June 8, 2000;

" Municipal Building, Brick Township, Brick, New Jersey - June 14, 2000.

A total of 46 people attended the meetings and commented to the draft document. Mail-in comments to the Draft CCMP were accepted until July 17, 2000, and 21 mail-in comments were received.

MAY2002 B-1

PUBLIC RESPONSE The following pages summarize the comments received on the Draft CCMP along with the BBNEP's responses.

Appropriate revisions to the draft document were made in light of these comments and are reflected in the Final CCMP. Comments and responses are organized according to general topics as follows:

1. General Comments/Introductory Chapters;

2. Governmental Support;

3. Water Quality/Water Supply (Chapter 5);

4. Habitat and Living Resources (Chapter 6);

5. Human Activities and Competing Uses (Chapter 7);

6. Public Outreach and Education (Chapter 8).

1.

GENERAL COMMENT

S/INTRODUCTORY CHAPTERS Comment: Why was Barnegat Bay chosen for the NEP?

Response: Barnegat Bay meets the definition of an estuary of national significance that is threatened with declin-ing water quality and ecological health. Strong local support and a nomination request by the Governor in 1995 elevated the problems of the bay to the attention of USEPA.. Under the authority of Section 320 of the CWA Amendments of 1987, Barnegat Bay was accepted into the NEP and a Management Conference was convened to devel-op a CCMP.

Comment: A person inquired about the total cost of implementing the Program.

Response: The individual action items state the estimated cost for implementation. The Draft CCMP did not include costs for all of the action items, but the final document lays out a more comprehensive estimate for costs, which total more than $9 million.

Comment: One commenter disapproved of the consensus process used in this Program, citing it as undemocratic since a single interest could stop an issue from being brought to resolution.

Response: The commenter, who did not participate in the BBNEP Management Conference, misunderstands the con-cept of consensus building. It is important to engage all stakeholders in a discussion to address a particular issue in order to arrive at a mutually agreeable resolution. Not all stakeholders will have a similar point of view on a par-ticular issue.or problem, but through the consensus process common ground can be identified, which serves as the basis for an agreement that all can support and facilitate action. The notion that a single interest can hold up res-olution to an issue is a misreading of the consensus process, and suggests that the process itself is misapplied. Now as we all proceed beyond the command and control mode of regulatory enforcement to continue our drive towards clean water and a productive estuary, it becomes all the more important to engage diverse interests in arriving at environmental solutions that satisfy a multitude of purposes and outlooks.

Comment: One letter provided specific comments to passages in the introductory chapters of the CCMP:

1. The Mission Statement should include as part of its education focus the ecology and biological resources of the bay and its watershed.

2. Chapter 1 should acknowledge the importance of recreational fishing as an economic mainstay of Barnegat Bay.

3. Chapter 1 should elaborate on the value of estuaries in order to demonstrate the importance of this Program.

Response: Appropriate revisions have been made in the Final CCMP.

B-2 BARNEGATBAY FINALCCMP

APPENDIX B

2. GOVERNMENTAL SUPPORT Comment: Legislators in attendance inquired as to the legislative needs of the Program. In a related vein, a ques-tion arose regarding the financial limitations of the Program.

Response: Governmental support at every level is needed to help implement the CCMP, including sustained com-mitments of financial assistance. A number of options to develop financial commitments are being pursued, includ-ing funding assistance programs at all government levels, and are detailed in the document. No new regulatory approaches are being proposed at present, but regulatory options are being actively considered to address identified problems related to such water-related activities as boating and personal watercraft use.

Comment: One commenter was concerned that the various levels of government will not reach resolution to pro-ceed on implementing the action items.

Response: The Management Conference of the BBNEP includes all of the interested stakeholders within the water-shed, including the agencies within all levels of government: federal, state, county, and local. Regulatory programs which mandate action are already being implemented, or are being initiated, to fully protect and conserve water quality and other environmental resources. It will require a cooperative approach among the various levels of gov-ernment to take further action. The consensus approach used within the Management Conference has produced a suite of actions in the .CCMP whereby governmental agencies will take the necessary steps outside the regulatory arena to achieve Program goals. As such actions are taken and the successes of those actions documented, reach-ing agreement on taking other action steps will be easier to achieve.

Comment: Two comments questioned New Jersey's commitment and level of support to the Program.

Response: In order for the CCMP to be approved by the Administrator of USEPA, the Governor of New Jersey must provide documentation of the state's support for implementation of the Plan. New Jersey has been an active par-ticipant in the Program, starting with the formal submittal of the nomination of Barnegat Bay to the NEP. New Jersey has ensured the commitment of 25 percent non-federal matching funds to the development of the CCMP, and will have available continuing funding sources that may be used to support CCMP implementation actions. The NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) is coordinating the CCMP with its watershed management plan for the Barnegat Bay watershed, which is identified as Watershed Management Area #13, thus integrating the CCMP into the state's administrative structure for environmental protection.

Comment: Several comments centered on the role of Ocean County as lead agency in the CCMP implementation structure. One commenter thought that Ocean County is not the appropriate agency, while others supported Ocean County in the lead role.

Response: The Barnegat Bay estuary and watershed are located primarily in Ocean County. The Management Conference considered a number of options and concluded that, on balance, Ocean County is best situated to track and oversee the implementation of CCMP actions. This decision does not put the burden of action implementation or enforcement directly on Ocean County; rather, the County will monitor the progress of the Program as individual actions are implemented by the specifically identified lead agencies. Recognizing the dominant role to be played by County agencies and local government, not to mention giving credit to the ongoing commitment -of the County to the Program, the Management Conference agreed that Ocean County, as overall lead agency within the implementa-tion management structure, would offer the best likelihood for success for the Program. Ocean County has been an active player in the development of the CCMP from the onset of the Program. The County has provided free office space for the Program and has acted on a resolution to provide substantial funding ($250,000) each year for imple-mentation of the Plan.

MAY2002 B-3

PUBLIC RESPONSE Comment: Several people questioned the commitment of local governments to the Plan. In their opinion, the lure of increased tax revenues makes regulating development difficult, and the influence of the development communi-ty often outweighs other interests.

Response: The Management Conference has taken steps to increase the participation of local governments in this Program. Other actions are cited within the Action Plans to increase local government outreach and participation.

In New Jersey, development is regulated by the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) (NJSA 40:550D-1, et seq.), which allocates planning and regulatory authority to municipalities. The MLUL establishes the broad context and proce-dural framework for how local governments plan for the future. Several planning tools related to this authority are proposed to help local governments better evaluate the economic and social effects of development, including the cross-acceptance process of the Ocean County Master Plan, and a build-out analysis showing the effect of full devel-opment under current municipal Land use zoning. The Management Conference embraces all stakeholder interests in the estuary and watershed, and works through the consensus process to reach resolution that is acceptable to all concerned. During Plan implementation, all of these same interests wilt continue to be heard, avoiding undo influ-ence by any single interest or group of interests.

Comment: A specific recommendation to ensure local government action was to add mandatory requirements for environmental measures to municipal land use plans.

Response: Mandatory elements for municipal master plans are specified as part of the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL). One of the purposes of the MLUL is to enhance preservation of the environment. Adding more detailed mandatory components to incorporate environmental considerations would require action by the state legislature.

The Management Conference will take this comment under consideration, and refer any recommendations through the appropriate state channels.

3. WATER QUALITY/WATER SUPPLY (CHAPTER 5)

Comment: Two comments noted the high turbidity of Barnegat Bay waters, particularly during the summertime.

They recommended that additional inlets be cut through the barrier island chain to increase flushing of the bay waters to the ocean.

Response: Increasing the flushing of Barnegat Bay is one way to address the water quality problems that are being experienced there, but opening new inlets is a drastic measure that would have a multitude .of environmental and economic effects, and it would necessitate a detailed feasibility study before it could be considered a viable option.

Much of the water quality degradation in Barnegat Bay derives from nonpoint source (NPS) pollution draining from the watershed, including excess nutrients that stimulate summertime algae concentrations. Reducing this nutrient input into the bay, as many of the water quality actions cited in the CCMP are meant to do, will help to alleviate the cause of summer water quality degradation and improve water clarity in the bay without drastically changing the existing hydrological conditions of the bay. The Management Conference believes that this approach, reducing the nutrient toad to the bay, is the better immediate approach for addressing Barnegat Bay's water quality problems.

B-4 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

APPENDIX B Comment: One commenter suggested that the Program address the issue of brown tide, visible blooms of micro-scopic algae that harm molluscan shellfish and reduce water clarity to the detriment of eelgrass beds in Barnegat Bay.

Response: Brown tide has been identified as a project in the Program's unfinished agenda (Chapter i1). Brown tide is a fairly recent phenomenon in the bays of the Mid-Atlantic region, and studies to date have failed to fully define the how and why of problem algal bloom occurrences. The Science and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) of BBNEP recommends a course of action to collect long-term information on brown tide blooms to help reach a better understanding of the factors that lead to such blooms and to help suggest ways that they may be mitigated, and the state of New Jersey is backing up this proposal with a commitment for monitoring.

Comment: One person questioned the effectiveness of the new stormwater management regulations.'

Response: The new Phase II Stormwater Regulations promulgated by USEPA will address contaminated discharges from stormwater systems not already covered under existing point-source discharge regulations and will apply to many, if not most, municipalities within Ocean County. Regulation of point source discharges, primarily from munic-ipal sanitary sewer systems, has shown good performance in Ocean County. There has been a demonstrable improve-ment in bay water quality since the 1980s when Ocean County regionalized its municipal sanitary sewer systems and discharged the treated wastewater effluent through ocean outfal[s. The main inputs of contaminants that lead to water quality degradation in the bay now come from stormwater and unregulated nonpoint sources. The stormwa-ter regulations will address these inputs and further reduce the contaminant load to the bay.

Comment: One local official who handles stormwater management for his township expressed frustration that there were inconsistencies in applying stormwater rules between the CAFRA area (state coastal zone boundary) and Pinelands National Reserve and Pinelands Protection Area zone (inland and upper watershed region); one jurisdic-tion specifies one set of standards while the other specifies a different set.

Response: It's true that the two regulatory areas, which both occur in about a dozen of Ocean County's munici-palities, have somewhat different rules for stormwater management, but these rules are set in law. To resolve any contradictory elements in these rules would require action by the state legislature. The Management Conference will follow up on this comment to identify any particular problems in the implementation of these regulations, and refer them to the state as appropriate.

Comment: Comments were raised that the Program should address siltation in the watershed. Another person com-mented that the bay was losing open water area due to emergent vegetative growth.

Response: The Program had not previously identified siltation as a problem in the watershed, and has not devel-oped an action specifically addressing it. Indirectly, siltation and sediments will be controlled through actions taken to implement best management practices (BMPs) for stormwater control. Sedimentation is often a localized prob-lem and can be addressed with localized remedies. The Program can address such problems as they are identified during Plan implementation.

MAY 2002 B-5

PUBLIC RESPONSE Comment: One commenter questioned how the Program was addressing flooding in low-lying areas. He suggested that engaging local municipalities in the flooding aspects of stormwater flow would facilitate their involvement in other areas of water resources management.

Response: The best way to avoid flooding impacts is to protect floodplains from development through watershed-based planning. Onsite retention of stormwater in developed areas can also reduce flooding impacts to areas down-stream. The Program will explore all avenues to ensure cooperative participation by all stakeholders within the Barnegat Bay watershed. At present, groundwater depletion due to overpumping by a number of municipalities appears to be an opportunity to engage local governments in Plan actions that will also address specific local con-cerns.

Comment: A number of concerns were raised with regard to toxic pollution in Barnegat Bay, particularly with regard to boat fuel and fuel additives, such as MTBE.

Response: Toxic pollution has not been identified as a major problem in Barnegat Bay, but it is also an issue that is poorly studied. Monitoring projects to sample toxic pollution are being developed in order to close existing data gaps, and they will help the Program better understand the relative importance of this issue and the need to take action. Currently, USEPA Region 2 is conducting a synoptic monitoring study of Barnegat Bay (R-EMAP), partly directed at characterizing the Bay's waters in terms of specific toxic contaminants.

Comment: One commenter asked about the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant and its overall effect on the Bay.

Response: Oyster Creek is the largest point-source discharger in Barnegat Bay, and is regulated through its'state discharge permit. The largest impact is the thermal discharge of.its cooling water stream. The power plant is required to submit an annual monitoring report documenting that the plant is in compliance with its permit require-ments. The CCMP includes an action whereby the Program Office will review the annual report in order to keep up-to-date on the status of the plant's emissions.

Comment: Multiple comments touched on the issue of residential landscaping and paving, requesting information, promoting-public education, questioning public acceptance of environmentally preferred alternatives, and promot-ing stricter regulations on pesticides.

Response: The CCMP includes a number of actions that promote public education, awareness, and participation in reducing the risks of NPS p6llution related to pesticides and fertilizers used in home landscaping. As public aware-ness grows, and as demonstration projects show acceptable alternatives to intensively manicured lawns, the Program believes that the impacts of residential runoff carrying nutrients and pesticides can be reduced.

Comment: Several people identified trash and floatable litter as a major problem in beach communities. Others cited dog litter as a persistent problem.

Response: Individual beach municipalities have addressed these problems through local ordinances that prohibit discharge of these kinds of waste in the storm sewers, and prescribe appropriate disposal practices and trash pick-up schedules to accommodate the transient summer population. Volunteer groups in areas such as Long Beach Island sponsor periodic trash cleanups to improve the asthetic appearance of their local communities.

The Management Conference believes this kind of local activism is the appropriate response to these sources of pol-lution, and will continue to facilitate adoption of these measures by municipalities that do not already have them.

B-6 BAPNEGATBAY FINAL CCMP

APPENDIX B Comment: One comment suggested adding another pumpout boat and pumpout stations at marinas to reduce boat sewage discharged to Barnegat Bay.

Response: The Program has been active from the outset in improving sewage pumpout capability in Barnegat Bay.

Through the Clean Vessel Act and other funding sources a number of pumpout stations have been installed and Barnegat Bay's first pumpout boat was commissioned. These facilities have been operating for about three years, and additional facilities are being planned. In addition, New Jersey has submitted a No Discharge Zone application for Barnegat Bay to the EPA that, if approved, would prohibit direct discharge of sewage of any kind into Barnegat Bay. These initiatives are described in a number of actions within Chapter 5 of the CCMP.

4. HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES (CHAPTER 6)

Comment: Two comments expressed concern regarding changing practices on mosquito ditching in tidal wetlands to control health and aesthetic problems.

Response: Action 6.4 promotes the management of the mosquito problem using the Open Marsh Water Management (OMWM) procedure. Instead of using a static grid system of mosquito ditches that is overlain on a tidal marsh, OMWM involves ditching that follows the individual contours of the marsh area, providing access throughout the marsh to mosquito-eating fish while reducing impacts to the marsh that result from straight ditching.

Comment: Several comments remarked that the CCMP fails to address the most significant problem in the water-shed, namely the rapid population increase in Ocean County and its associated development. Without restrictions on development, no environmental mneasures Will be able to reverse the trends of continuing environmental degra-dation.

Response: The Management Conference of the BBNEP includes viewpoints of all interested stakeholders within the watershed. The comment expresses one viewpoint that is represented in the Management Conference. It must also be understood that land use planning, a tool used to regulate development density, is primarily a responsibility of local governments via the MLUL and the Management Conference cannot override local government authority. It is through actions in the CCMP and coordinating with local government (to secure environmental protection within the scope of their land use planning authority), that the Management Conference can play a substantial role in addressing development impacts.

The Program has been conducting an analysis of the full build-out of Ocean County under the existing Ocean County Master Plan. This analysis is helping to forecast the physical and environmental condition of Ocean County under the full build-out scenario. With this understanding, Ocean County and its municipalities will be better able to fore-see their future situation with increased development and the attendant environmental impacts. This knowledge will help Ocean County and the municipalities appreciate the tradeoffs of additional development and to plan more intelligently for the kind of future that they desire.

MAY2002 B-7

PUBLIC RESPONSE

5. HUMAN ACTIVITIES AND COMPETING USES (CHAPTER 7)

Comment: One person expressed a concern that the Program will result in excessive restrictions on the public's use of the bay and its resources.

Response: The purpose of the Program is not to place undue restrictions on the enjoyment of the bay; rather, the Program addresses identified problems that are generally recognized among the bay and watershed's various stakeholders. Only those actions that are necessary to alleviate an identified problem are being proposed as part of the Plan. Issues that have not been resolved among the competing interests will require further discussion before agreeable solutions are found. The large population and the differing constituencies that all want to make use of the bay's limited resources require prudent steps to ensure that the enjoyment of the bay is maximized among this divergent group.

Comment: Strong comments from several sources dwelt on the issue of personal watercraft (PWC) use in Barnegat Bay. They generally criticized the noise, environmental disturbance, and hazards to others that PWC can present. Suggestions for remedies included bans and zone restrictions for such craft, as well as stepped-up enforcement of regulations for vessel operation. Kettle Creek and Silver Bay, two semi-enclosed reaches in north-ern Barnegat Bay bordered by shoreline development, were two areas identified where the PWC problem is most acute.

Response: The Barnegat Bay Watershed Association (BBWA), now undergoing a transition to a non-profit foun-dation known as the Barnegat Bay Watershed and Estuary Foundation (BBWEF), early in the Program represent-ed citizen interests and recognized PWC as a prime element of the issue of competing human uses. The BBWA conducted an interdisciplinary workshop of the PWC issue, and is making progress through consensus building in developing a satisfactory resolution. This deliberation will continue as the non-profit foundation participates in the implementation phase of this Program. It is well to note that legislative remedies are also under considera-tion at the state level in Trenton, New Jersey. Action 7.1 in Chapter 7 of the CCMP addresses this issue in detail.

A conservation zone designation, targeted at PWC, for the Sedge Islands in Island Beach State Park appears to have been effective in reducing noise and disturbance impacts to sensitive coastal habitats.

Comment: A number of people commented on a general lack of enforcement of boating regulations, which mag-nifies the nuisance problem and the conflicts among water users. One person cited Florida as an example of good enforcement of boating regulations.

Response: Boating infractions or disturbances are often due to a lack of understanding by those who take part.

A "Boater's Guide to Barnegat Bay" has been completed and helps to meet the public education and outreach goal of the Program. As stated in Action 7.2 of the CCMP, this guide will be part of an effort to ensure better boater behavior and better protection of the bay's water quality and natural resources. Enforcement of boating regulations is the responsibility of the New Jersey State Marine Police. New Jersey is committed to an adequate enforcement presence in its marine waters. As competing use problems are better defined and quantified, statewide measures can be applied that will extend benefits to the particular circumstances of Barnegat Bay.

B-8 BAPNuEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

APPENDIX B

6. PUBLIC OUTREACH AND EDUCATION (CHAPTER 8)

Comment: A number of participants voiced the need to continue funding public awareness efforts, and, con-sidering the large seasonal population of visiting tourists, noted that these efforts should extend beyond the watershed boundaries of Barnegat Bay.

Response: The CCMP cites a number of actions that continue public outreach and education activities that began with the inception of the Program. The active participation of the NJDEP and Ocean County in this Program will facilitate spreading the message of watershed management and water quality protection beyond the watershed boundaries to all areas of New Jersey.

Comment: Two comments at the public meetings recommended using local cable TV as part of the Program's public outreach strategy.

Response: The BBNEP has explored all options in implementing its public outreach and education effort, includ-ing cable TV outlets. The Program will pursue this option whenever it is appropriate.

7. USEPA HEADQUARTERS COMMENTS A revised CCMP was completed in October 2000, incorporating comments made in the public review period.

USEPA Headquarters gave the revised document a preliminary review and submitted comments in December 2000. A subsequent revised CCMP was completed and approved by the Policy Committee in January 2001. The document was published with a date of February 2001, and given detailed review by USEPA Headquarters.

Comments were submitted in April and July 2001. This final CCMP reflects the comprehensive response of the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program to this series of iterative comments by USEPA Headquarters.

The following discussion summarizes the major comments and concerns expressed by USEPA Headquarters, and the responses of the Barnegat Bay Estuary Program to the revision of the CCMP.

CCMP Goals and Objectives Comment: Action Plan Objectives are clearly stated but are not clearly related to individual action items. Most of the objectives lack measurable standards of progress.

Response: The CCMP has been significantly revamped to focus individual action items on the achievement of Program Goals and Objectives. Measurable standards for meeting goals and objectives are identified, and tar-geted milestones for incremental progress are identified where possible. See Tables 5-2, 6-2, 7-2, and 8-2 for a schematic relating indicators and measurable standards to applicable monitoring programs.

MAY2002 B-9

PUBLIC RESPONSE Action Plans Comment: The Action Plans lack prioritization, and many individual action items remain poorly defined. Many actions are missing important information, particularly the cost of implementation and identified funding sources.

Many actions also appear to lack a sense of commitment.

Response: The Management Conference engaged in a widespread discussion to reach consensus on action priorities.

This is reflected in a revised Section 4.3 (Action Plan Priorities) and Tables 4-1 through 4-4 in Chapter 4. Each of the Action Plan tables also includes a column denoting action item priority.

Poorly defined action items were revamped, deleted, or consolidated in order to strengthen the overall Action Plans.

More specificity was added to each of the action items by providing cost estimates, time lines for implementation, potential sources of funding, and structured steps for action implementation. A greater number of action items now have firm commitments for implementation and/or secure funding sources. Actions that lack firm commitments are clearly identified as to their relative priority. No major elements of the Action Plans were eliminated in the revi-sions, and the Program believes that a more coherent presentation of its environmental goals and objectives is the result.

Monitoring Program Plan Comment: The Monitoring Plan as presented is deficient and needs significant work. Identified monitoring pro-grams should be more clearly presented, and the monitoring strategy should be linked to the objectives for each of the action plans.

Response: The Monitoring Plan was revised as much as possible to respond to USEPA Headquarters comments. The linkage of monitoring strategies to objectives is presented in Tables 5-2, 6-2, 7-2, and 8-2 of the Action Plan chap-ters. A first order priority for Program implementation is the scheduling of monitoring workshops to complete prepa-ration of a final Monitoring Program Plan. One of these workshops is scheduled for October 2001. The Program believes this demonstrates a good faith effort to comply in full with Section 320 requirements.

Base Program Analysis Comment: The Base Program Analysis presents an inventory of existing programs, but does not present an evalua-tion of program effectiveness or recommendations for addressing program gaps and expanding strengths.

Response: The Base Program Analysis has been revised to expand coverage of topic areas deemed deficient by USEPA Headquarters. See Appendix Gfor the revised presentation.

B-i10 BARNEGATBAYFINAL CCMF

APPENDIX B Finance Strategy Comment: The CCMP identifies potential sources of funding, but does not link these sources to specific actions.

Response: Revisions to the final CCMP include stronger linkages between specific actions and sources of funding.

In addition, Chapter 12 includes a more comprehensive discussion of the Program's Finance Strategy. The Program has also made progress in establishing a non-profit foundation to secure corporate and other sources of funding to support Program implementation. This entity is the Barnegat Bay Watershed and Estuary Foundation.

General Editing Comments Comment: Many passages are unclear in presenting the rationale of the program, identifying priorities, and sub-stantiating the importance of individual action items.

Response: Language revisions have been incorporated into the final CCMP in order to more clearly present the work of the Management Conference, the development of the Action Plans, and the goats and objectives of the Program.

Children of Tuckerton Creek, PHOTO COURTESY OF TUCKERTON SEAPORT, A PROJECTOF THE RARNEGAT BAY DECOY AND RAYMENS'MUSEUM,INC.

MAY2002 B-11

We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us.

When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.

-- Aldo Leopold, (1887 - 1948) U.S. Forester

Harvesting BarnegatBay Clams. PHorocowurEsy OF n rurcnRron sapoR A PROJECT OF THE BARNEGAT SAY DICOYAND SAYMErS MUSEUM, INC.

MAY 2002

EARLY ACTION RESULTS AND SUMMARIES APPENDIX C APDP FUNDS AWARDED ROUND 1: $75,000 PROJECT: ECO-TOUR OF A BARRIER ISLAND - TRAIN THE TRAINER

==

Description:==

The Alliance for a Living Ocean (ALO) Eco-Tour of a Barrier Island teaches responsible citizen action in a shore environment. This program was expanded by offering ALO's services to act as a trainer for other shore communities that might mirror ALO's program, thus teaching their citizens good nonpolluting practices.

Cost: $5,000 Start Date: 12/8/97 End Date: 8/24/99 Status: Complete Recipient: Alliance for a Living Ocean Lessons Learned: The original purpose of this project was to train teachers and other professionals about environmental actions to protect Barnegat Bay. They would then take their new teaching skills and environmental information back to their school districts or other community organizations. Little response was received from teachers in 1998, so ALO then focused on training high school and college students who may become teachers or environmental educators in the future. This proved to be very successful. Fifteen tours were given during April, May and June in 1999. Four of the eco-tours were conducted for seventh graders from the Medford Memorial School, Medford, New Jersey. These teachers have supported classroom work with the field trips.

ALO also attended the Barnegat Bay Environmental Education Roundtable on April 29, 1999. A brief field trip was led on the beach front and a lesson plan which included interdisciplinary activities was distributed to the teachers.

Contact Person: Carol Elliot Alliance for a Living Ocean PO Box 95 Ship Bottom, NJ 08008 (609) 492-0222 PROJECT: WATERSHED SIGNS POSTING AT PUBLIC ACCESS POINTS

==

Description:==

The purpose of this project was to post watershed signs at public access points (boat ramps, parks, beaches, etc.) to increase the awareness of the Barnegat Bay watershed.

Cost: $9,289 Start Date: 12/8/97 End Date: 4/99 Status: Complete Recipient: Barnegat Bay Watershed and Estuary Foundation Lessons Learned: Fifty colorful signs featuring "Barnie the Crab" and other aquatic resources asking citizens to "Help Keep Our Waters Clean"have been posted at public access points in the Barnegat Bay watershed. The signs included telephone numbers for watershed education, MAY2002 C-1

EARLY ACTION RESULTS AND SUMMARIES Watershed Signs Posting at Public Access Points (continued) information and environmental crime reporting. Ocean County will provide approximately $10,000 of funding in 2001 for additional signs throughout the watershed.

Contact Person: Angela Anderson Barnegat Bay Watershed and Estuary Foundation 1508 Waverly Ave.

N. Beach Haven, NJ 08008 (609) 294-3111 PROJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATORS' ROUNDTABLE

Description:

The purpose of this project was to convene a series of meetings to focus, coordinate, and promote educational activities on Barnegat Bay and nonpoint source pollution prevention. This project would help coordinate the various players within the County that have a role in environmental education and pollution prevention. A directory would be developed that would give information on who is best positioned to take the lead on particular outreach or educational activities. The long-term goal is to provide educators in Ocean County with a Barnegat Bay watershed-specific activity guide that will be consistent with and correlated to the New Jersey Core Curriculum Standards.

Cost: $16,000 Start Date: 12/8/97

• End Date: 5/25/00 Status: Complete Recipient: Ocean County Soil Conservation District Lessons Learned: OCSCD convened two Environmental Educator Roundtable meetings to focus, coordinate, and promote educational activities on Barnegat Bay and nonpoint source pollution prevention. The purpose of the first meeting was to encourage networking, sharing and coordination among the educators within our ecologically significant watershed. The second meeting featured an array of hands-on and interactive field trips and activities to motivate teachers to incorporate Barnegat Bay Watershed topics into their curriculum. A directory of local, state, and national environmental educators and activities was also produced. NJDEP and the Barnegat Bay Estuary Program have awarded OCSCD with funds to develop a Barnegat Bay watershed-specific activity guide. Ocean County will provide some funding to continue the Educators Roundtable, Outdoor Classrooms, and implementation of the watershed-specific activity guide.

Contact Person: Kerry Jennings OCSCD 714 Lacey Road Forked River, NJ 08731 (609) 971-7002 PROJECT: PUBLIC DEMONSTRATION OF MARINE PUMPOUT VESSEL

Description:

Conducted "show me" demonstrations of the marine pumpout boat's operation.

Cost: $15,000 C-2 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

APPENDIX C Public Demonstration of Marine Pumpout Vessel (continued)

Start Date: 12/8/97 End Date: 3/99 Status: Complete Recipient: Pete McLain Lessons Learned: Four in-water demonstrations were provided for the public. Also, a pumpout boat color slide program was presented to a joint meeting of the Barnegat Bay Estuary Program committees. Reporters from four newspapers were taken on tours of the pumpout boat and accompanied the captain during regular pumpout operations. The pumpout boat serviced 466 boats, removing 7,045 gallons of sewage. The sewage was transferred to a sanitary sewer line and treated at the Ocean County Utilities Authority Central Treatment Facility.

The popularity of the pumpout boat during its first three years.of operation has resulted in the purchase of a second pumpout boat, operated by Tuckerton Seaport.

Contact Person: Pete McLain 10 Cedar Drive Toms River, NJ 08753 (732) 349-6418 PROJECT: BARNEGAT BAY ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH

==

Description:==

The purpose of this project was to encourage, educate, and demonstrate the significance of plant diversity in protecting valuable coastal bay beaches. A major effort was to Work with boaters to inform them about the benefits of maintaining coastal vegetation and to encourage designated areas as footpaths for access to boats to minimize the loss of vegetation. Also, because of its location and visibility, the site serves as an excellent demonstration area for tourists to learn about the benefits of plant diversity in the restoration of coastal beaches on Barnegat Bay. The site also demonstrates improved restoration techniques to landowners and municipalities.

Cost: $29,720 Start Date: 12/8/97 End Date: 12/31/99 Status: Complete Recipient: Ocean County Soil Conservation District Lessons Learned: Four sites along Bayview Avenue in Seaside Park were selected for restoration: 12th to 13th streets; 6th to 8th Streets; 1st to Island Streets; and a small area north of I Street. Plants native to bay coastal beaches and back dune areas were selected.

Students from Seaside Park Elementary School helped with some of the plantings.

A sign was installed at each site to inform and educate the public about the project.

In order to protect the newly planted vegetation and help to stabilize the dunes, the Borough of Seaside Park has adopted an Ordinance which restricts the storage of boats along Bayview Avenue. The Borough has also been active in installing fence around the plantings.

OCSCD also co-sponsored a Coastal Restoration Workshop, "Understanding, Enhancing and Controlling Erosion Along River, Bay and Ocean Shorelines" in the fall of 1998.

Contact Person: David Friedman OCSCD 714 Lacey Road Forked River, NJ 08731 1/4 (609) 971-7002 MAY2002 C-3

EARLY ACTION RESULTS AND SUMMARIES APDP Funds Awarded Round 2: $75,000 PROJECT: PLAN FOR DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL & RESTORATION

==

Description:==

The primary product of this project will be a detailed written plan for dredge material disposal and waterbird habitat creation and enhancement within the project area covering the next 20-25 years. Maps will be included in the plan depicting all proposed disposal sites and identifying species associated with each .site. Specific recommendations for regulatory changes to appropriate agencies will be provided in the plan. The plan will also include a section on the resource and user benefits of the Barnegat Bay and Little Egg Harbor Estuary.

Cost: $10,567 Start Date: 6/1/99 End Date: 12/31/00 Status: Interim Progress Report received 9/25/00 Recipient: NJDEP Lessons Learned: The interim report indicates that all of the initial mapping of nesting sites, vegetation coverage and bird nesting areas has been completed. The data on bird nesting has been synthesized and summarized. All sites were visited to determine current nesting status, particularly by long-legged wading birds. A great deal of information on dredge disposal his tory and future needs has been collected. The NJDEP is still collecting this information for some sites, especially for privately maintained sites. The primary remaining tasks include some minor additional data collection, additional data synthesis, and plan formulation.

Contact Person: C. David Jenkins, Jr.

NJDEP, Div. Fish, Game, and Wildlife Endangered and Nongame Species Program P0 Box 400 Trenton, NJ 08625-0400 (609) 628-2103 PROJECT: PUMPOUT BOAT PROGRAM

==

Description:==

The purpose of this project was to continue the 1998 pumpout boat program by updating the pumpout boat brochure and conducting an extension service for Ocean County by providing guidance, educational materials, and information on boat operations and acquisitions to Ocean County municipalities. Brochures and a slide show were available at boat shows, to boating and yacht clubs, and other locations where boaters gather.

Cost: $15,000 Start Date: 6/1/99 End Date: 3/14/00 Status: Complete Recipient: Jersey Shore Audubon Society Lessons Learned: As a result of discussions with municipalities about pumpout boats and the recent applications for a No Discharge Zone for the Navesink and Shrewsbury Rivers and the Barnegat Bay, a second pumpout boat has been acquired for Tuckerton Seaport and one has been purchased for the Navesink River. A proposal for another pumpout boat in Barnegat Bay has been submitted (for a total of three). Also in 2000, there were approximately 8,000 gallons of sewage pumped out at Tices Shoal. Thousands of brochures were distributed at festivals, boat shows and boating and yacht clubs.

C-4 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

APPENDIX C Pumpout Boat Program (continued)

Contact Person: Pete McLain 10 Cedar Drive Toms River, NJ 08753 (732) 349-6418 PROJECT: MANAGING OUR ENDANGERED SPECIES HERITAGE

==

Description:==

The goal of this project was to develop management plans for selected plant and animal species in a portion of the Forked River Mountain area which may be readily demonstrated to municipalities, county or state agencies, or other interested groups.

Cost: $9,996 Start Date: 6/1/99 End Date: 7/31/00 Status: Complete Recipient: Forked River Mountain Coalition Lessons Learned: The Forked River Mountain Coalition held conferences and workshops to select an area in which endangered species occur in the Forked River Mountain Preserve, select species for the development of individual management plans, and to develop management/recovery plans for the selected species. Two floral and two faunal species were selected: Bog Asphodel, Pine Barren Gentian, Northern Pine Snake, and Pine Barrens Treefrog. Fact sheets were developed for each species that described the species, its appearance, habitat requirements, threats, and management techniques to protect these species.

Contact Person: Kerry Jennings, President Forked River Mountain Coalition P0 Box 219 Forked River, NJ 08731 (609) 971-7002 PROJECT: LOCAL GOVERNMENT OUTREACH PROGRAM

==

Description:==

The purpose of the Municipal Outreach and Recognition Project (MORP) was to find successful examples of actions being taken by municipalities that demonstrate Best Management Practices and protect the environment of the Barnegat Bay and watershed.

Cost: $7,372 Start Date: 6/1/99 End Date: 8/3/00 Status: Complete Recipient: Barnegat Bay Watershed and Estuary Foundation Lessons Learned: The MORP highlighted five municipalities: Lacey, Jackson, Plumsted, Lakewood, and Millstone. The five townships highlighted are all upstream from the Barnegat Bay where the connection to the Bay is less obvious. A Community Connections Newsletter will be presented to the municipalities as a way of weaving together the concepts of the entire MORP project as it relates to them. The watershed municipalities will begin to receive the tools necessary- to initiate activities of other communities.

MAY2002 C-5

EARLY ACTION RESULTS AND SUMMARIES Local Government Outreach Program (continued)

This grant made it possible to begin to introduce some transferable watershed projects to the communities within the Barnegat Bay watershed. This grant project has opened the door to further watershed projects and for the Barnegat Bay Watershed and Estuary Foundation to continue to develop the watershed recognition concept.

Contact Person: Angela Anderson Barnegat Bay Watershed and Estuary Foundation 1508 Waverly Ave.

N. Beach Haven, NJ 08008 (609) 294-3111 PROJECT: NERRS COASTAL DECISION-MAKING RESEARCH CENTER

==

Description:==

The Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve (JCNERR) will develop a Coastal Repository at the new Coastal Training Center in Tuckerton. This Coastal Repository will support Coastal Decision-Maker training programs offered by the Reserve in the Barnegat Bay Watershed by offering visual and written resources on watershed planning strategies, protective site design principles, best management practices, and model environmental ordinances.

Cost: $16,995 Start Date: 6/1/99 End Date: 12/31/00 Status: Interim report submitted 8/15/00.

Recipient: JCNERR Lessons Learned: The interim report indicates that planning and development of the Coastal Repository is under way and the new facility that will house the Repository has been completed.

Materials for Repository have not been purchased yet.

Contact Person: Lisa Weiss, Watershed Coordinator Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve 130 Great Bay Boulevard Tuckerton, NJ 08087 (609) 812-0649 PROJECT: WATERSHED DEMONSTRATION GARDEN

==

Description:==

OCSCD developed this project to demonstrate to municipal officials and residents how to improve and manage landscapes utilizing low input techniques. The District worked closely with Lacey Township's Department of Public Works to design, plan and implement demonstration gardens throughout the township. Each of the gardens was designed utilizing best management practices suitable to that particular site. Two signs were installed at each site. The first describes the purpose of the garden and identifies pro-ject partners. The second provides a site-specific diagram accompanied by a planting list and key.

C-6 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

APPENDIX C Watershed Demonstration Garden (continued)

A workshop and tour of the Demonstration Gardens was also conducted as part of this project. A draft brochure was prepared for the workshop and is currently being revised.

The brochures will be available to visitors of the gardens in a flip box at each site.

Cost: $12,000 Start Date: 6/1/99 End Date: 8/14/00 Status: Complete Recipient: Ocean County Soil Conservation District Lessons Learned: OCSCD was able to install five Demonstration Gardens in Lacey Township. This was accomplished, in part, by leveraging funds from this project with other ongoing projects containing similar tasks. This project was successful because all the gardens are in highly utilized and visible locations and will be maintained by the township.

The gardens will remain long after the initial project has been completed.

Contact Person: Dave Friedman OCSCD 714 Lacey Road Forked River, NJ 08731 (609) 971-7002 PROJECT: ADOPT-A-STORM DRAIN

==

Description:==

The purpose of this project was to extend and continue the Adopt-a-Storm Drain program on Long Beach Island as well as throughout mainland communities along the Barnegat Bay. This program was an expansion of the Alliance for a Living Ocean's (ALO)

Crab Connection storm drain stenciling public education campaign. This program addresses nonpoint source pollution and the consequential water quality degradation in the Barnegat Bay estuary, as well as the coastal issue of flooding and the importance of properly functioning storm drain systems facilitating proper drainage.

Cost: $3,070 Start Date: 6/1/99 End Date: 7/26/00 Status: Complete Recipient: Alliance for a Living Ocean Lessons Learned: During 1999, ALO mailed more than 7,650 pieces of Adopt-a-Storm Drain materials to property owners on Long Beach Island and Ocean Township. These mailings included an introductory letter, a drain location/adoption sheet, the Crab Connection flyer explaining nonpoint source pollution, and an ALO brochure. As of 1999, 252 storm drains were adopted according to the mid-season summary. For the remainder of the year, 50 storm drains were adopted.

Contact Person: Carol Elliot, Project Director Alliance for a Living Ocean P0 Box 95 Ship Bottom, NJ 08008 (609) 492-0222 MAY2002 C-7

Here in this little Bay Full of tumultous life and great repose, Where, twice a day, The purposeless, glad ocean comes and goes.

-- Coventry, Kersey Dighton Patmore (1823 - 1896)

IA PHOTO COURTESY OF THE TOMSRIVER SEAPORT SOCIETY.

MAY2002

New Jersey designed and built, the Garvey was the best workboat for BarnegatBay shellfishing.

PHOTO COIIRTESY TIJCXERTON SEAPORT. A PROJECT OF TIE BARNEGAT SAY DECOY AND BYNEN MUSEUM, INC.

BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

PUBLIC OUTREACH APPENDIX D PUBLIC OUTREACH ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE A. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND EDUCATION ACTION ITEMS FROM ORIGINAL WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN

" The Public Outreach Workgroup was formed and meets regularly with the support of a staff Public Outreach Coordinator.

• The Toms River BBNEP office serves as a clearinghouse for a great deal of the work that is going on in other programs and organizations.

" The first stakeholders workshop was held in the fall of 1998 followed by municipal workshops. The BBNEP has supported Personal Watercraft (PWC) Taskforce, the Educational Roundtable, and the Pumpout workshops.

• The annual Barnegat Bay Festival, coordinated in partnership with the Ocean County Board of Freeholders, provides a communication vehicle via interactive activities, interpretive tours, posters, billboards, radio public service announcements, cable TV, daily and weekly newspaper coverage, and participation by more than 3,000 people annually.

• For three summer seasons, the BBNEP has been active in many festivals throughout Ocean County with its traveling display.

Several four-color posters were produced and extensively distributed ("Give Back to the Bay - Boaters,"

"Give Back to the Bay - What You Can Do in Your Yard", and "Barnegat Bay - Take a Second Look")

in addition to brochures ("Water* our finite resource and its many uses" and "50 Nifty Facts" specific to the Barnegat Bay watershed). A weatherproof "Boaters Guide" was produced to communicate sensitive areas, public access points, and pumpout locations.

• A monthly "Program Update" has been developed to send to other organizations and as a communication vehicle for the BBNEP.

• Bi-monthly press releases have been placed in daily and weekly newspapers. Public Service Announcements have been broadcast for the Barnegat Bay Festivals in 1997 and 1998.

" The Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) offered several months of speakers at the monthly CAC meetings as well as provided speakers at various clubs and organizations, including the Toms River Rotary, Employer Legislative Committee of Ocean County, Fishhawks, Whiting Mens Club, Bayhead Garden Club, and the Pinelands Commission.

, A Web site (http://www.bbnep.org) is under development and is updated periodically.

" Several meetings by the Video Committee of the CAC have developed a draft script for a half-hour film on the water resources of the Barnegat Bay watershed.

• As part of the Environmental Educators' Roundtable, coordinated by the Ocean County Soil'Conservation District (OCSCD), the ecological, cultural, and historical aspects of the Barnegat Bay watershed will be integrated into a Barnegat Bay-specific Activity Guide.

" A relationship with the Barnegat Bay Watershed Association (BBWA) has been developed, whereby donations to the BBNEP can be held in trust and used for specific activities.

• Bumper stickers, T-shirts, and buttons are available as promotional incentives:

" Several appearances on local cable TV have spread awareness of issues.

MAY2002 D-1

PUBLIC OUTREACH

• With the support of the Minigrant Program and nearly $50,000 available grant monies, more than 30 organiza tions and individuals have reached out to the public in signage programs, exhibits, teacher workshops, slide shows, etc. throughout the Barnegat Bay watershed.

• Partnerships have been developed with organizations and groups such as: Alliance for a Living Ocean (ALO);

BBWEF(a.k.a. BBWF); Ocean County Vocational-Technical School; OCSCD; Watershed Partnership for New Jersey, etc.

" Targeted mailings have been sent to landscapers, garden clubs, marinas, yacht clubs, mayors, environmental commissions, environmental organizations, teachers, etc.

• "You are entering / leaving the Barnegat Bay watershed" and Barney the Crab signage have been placed at critical borders on county roads and municipal property.

" County-wide pumpout workshops were held to develop interest in a Barnegat Bay No Discharge Zone designation and to disseminate pumpout brochures.

• Continuing public service announcements are provided to the press; provide helpful tips on lifestyle changes to promote balanced use of the Barnegat Bay region's resources, in partnership with ALO.

B. MINIGRANTS Over the past few years, approximately $50,000 has been distributed to environmental and civic organizations, schools, municipalities, and business interests to reach out to the public on issues relevant to protecting the bay and watershed. These grants focus on increasing public awareness about major environmental problems facing the bay in one of the following subject areas:

" Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution prevention/water quality control;

• Estuarine awareness;

• Habitat enhancement and preservation;

• Citizen monitoring; and

• Public participation.

Increasing the number of people aware of the issues and unifying organizers and participants are ongoing BBNEP efforts. A summary of the Minigrant Awards is presented below.

1997 Minigrant Awards

• Jenkinson's Aquarium - Healthy Estuary Exhibit

• BBWA - NPS Pollution Education Campaign

• Point Pleasant Environmental Commission - Coastal Wetlands Awareness Signage Display

• Christine Raabe - Creating A Barnegat Bay National Estuary Slide Program

" ALO- Twilight At The Bay Summer Program

• Ocean & Nature Conservation Society - Annual Endangered Species Art Contest

• AJEC - An Educational Brochure, "Streams In the Barnegat Bay Estuary . . . Yours to Protect!"

• Jersey Shore Audubon Society - Barnegat Bay Marine Ecology Study Walk

• NJ Audubon Society - Bay Buffers, Barnegat Bay Watershed Pilot Program D-2 BARNEGATBAY FINAL CCMP

APPENDIX D 1998 Minigrant Awards o Ocean County Girt Scouts - Developed environmental kits that included water testing equipment, reference books, and signage relating to Lake Amity's watershed relationship to the Barnegat Bay.

• NJ Society of American Foresters - Developed fact sheets and exploration center, "Water - A Forest Product' with a "talking tree" to deliver messages about trees, water and watersheds.

" Toms River Regional Schools - Produced a 30-minute television program to augment existing high school earth science curriculum and general science curricula at lower grades (supplemented by Telecenter Budget).

" Marine Trades Association of NJ Foundation - Developed and printed a "Users Guide to Barnegat Bay" - two-sided waterproof map delineating sensitive bay areas and providing environmental education on the reverse side.

• BBWA - Installed signs at waterfront access sites that promote stewardship of the Barnegat Bay resources.

• OCSCD - Promoted responsible litter disposal by reprinting 30,000 Uitterbags for distribution with beach badges and at marinas, festivals, and environmental events.

• Ocean Nature & Conservation Society - Conducted the annual Endangered Species Art Contest, educating children about endangered species.

" Barnegat Bay Decoy & Baymen's Museum, Inc. - Supported publication of "The Closed Sea: Barnegat Bay &

Environs," a wealth of information on the natural resources of the Barnegat Bay, in conjunction with Dr. K.

Mountford & Ocean County Historical Society.

" Township of Brick - Produced, as part of the Watercraft Accountability Project, public information pamphlets showing environmentally sensitive areas in the Upper Barnegat Bay Estuary and ways the public can help to protect these natural resources.

" Rutgers University, Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences (IMCS) - Helped initiate the Community Tidal Marsh Assessment Project by training volunteers to conduct wetland water monitoring at selected sites in the Barnegat Bay Estuary.

• ALO - Constructed a public address system for versatility in presenting its environmental message to the public, especially in outdoor situations.

• NJ Coastal Heritage Trail - Developed 25 wayside information markers for use within the estuary to describe the varied plant, wildlife, and habitat conditions of the area.

" Pinelands Preservation Alliance - Produced an environmental photographic series for exhibition, concentrating on the Barnegat Bay watershed, by local children with disabilities. This program will be placed on tour for a minimum of four exhibitions and wilt include public speaking by many of the children.

• Ocean County Vocational Technical School - Developed a "wet laboratory" created by students and open to educators, civic groups, and supervised public.

Total $26,839.40 MAY 2002 D-3

PUBLIC OUTREACH 1999 Minigrant Awards No minigrant award program in 1999.

2000 Minigrant Awards

" Seaside Heights, Hugh J. Boyd Jr. Elementary School - Developed environmental education, storm drain stenciling and NPS program.

• Toms River Avian Care - Developed public education program regarding the rehabilitation of wild migratory birds and protection of their habitat.

" Forked River Mountain Coalition - Developed program to increase public awareness with improved permanent interpretive exhibit (maps, photographs and signage) on displays at the Wells Mills County Park nature center as well as the portable interpretive exhibit used at festivals. The Web site was also improved.

• League of Women Voters - Facilitated Barnegat Bay specific modifications in 8-page booklet entitled "What you can do to prevent Nonpoint Source Pollution in the Barnegat Bay Watershed"; prepared press releases and distributed to various target audiences.

" Ocean Nature and Conservation Society - Continued the tradition of the annual Endangered Species Art Contest, which helps to instill a sense of responsibility for protecting wildlife and all living things.

" Ocean County Vocational Technical School - Developed a 30-50 page Barnegat Bay Estuary Species Field guide to be used in classrooms and, programs such as the Barnegat Bay Educators' Roundtable and NJ Community Water Watch.

• Rutgers Coop Extension - Promoted Home Landscape Best Management Practices to reduce NPS pollution and creating demonstration plots.

" NJ Society of American Foresters - Enhanced portions of Toms River through projects with area residents and user groups. Projects included planting trees for riparian buffers; benches/roofed information display boards.

• Alliance for a Living Ocean - Continued the Barnegat Bay Watch Program, educating the public through presentations demonstrating water quality monitoring techniques.

Friends of Island Beach State Park - Developed and distributed a 12-page Park Visitors Guide to inform park visitors of events and activities to make them aware of the importance of Sedge Islands and Barnegat Bay.

• Ocean County Soil Conservation District - Developed outdoor classrooms in the Bamegat Bay watershed.

" Jenkinson's Aquarium - Presented interactive and hands-on "Barnegat Bay Watershed Wonders" program to ten third-grade classes in the Bamegat Bay watershed.

" NJ Audubon Society - Provided four seminars and field trips throughout the watershed to educate 200 seniors about the need to protect and enhance the Barnegat Bay watershed. A "Habitat Guide" was compiled and distributed throughout Ocean County as well.

D-4 BAFNEGATBAY FINAL CCMP

APPENDIX D Barnegat Bay Watershed Association - The third annual seminar series, "Waste Water Reuse and Water Conservation,"

was designed, planned, hosted and followed-up with press releases and a White Paper.

Total $31,481.00 2001 Mlinigrant Awards

• Marine Trades Association - Reprint the "Boater's Guide to Barnegat Bay and Little Egg Harbor."

• West Dover Elementary--Establish "Frog Pond Alley," a water ecosystem in schoolyard habitat to use as an educational tool for all staff, students, parents and members of the community.

• Rutgers Cooperative Extension of Ocean County - Duplication of the video "Bamegat Bay Watershed On the Edge."

This provides grades 6-9 curriculum for the Barnegat Bay-specific activity guide project.

• Tuckerton Seaport - "A Day at the Back of the Bay" Teachers' workshop, providing Ocean County educators the opportunity to study links between the environment and Barnegat Bay estuary.

• Ocean County Soil Conservation District - Promote the development and use of outdoor classrooms to increase opportunities for hands-on [earning.

o Dover Township Environmental Commission - Reprint Non-Point Source Pollution Prevention Publication.

• Seaside Heights Board of Education - Develop the "Barnegat Bay Crab Information and Education Project."

o Alliance for a Living Ocean - Sponsor "Inherit the Earth" field trips throughout the Barnegat Bay estuary.

• Ocean Nature and Conservation Society - Sponsor the 27th annual Endangered Species Art Contest.

This educates children about disappearing plants and animals, fostering environmental stewardship.

• Youth Environmental Society (YES) - The implementation of Phase One of the management plan for the Experience Barnegat Bay Natural Resources Center and Camp. This increases public awareness about the potential of the facility as a premier environmental and natural resource education center.

• Ocean County College - Develop a summer training institute for K-3rd grade teachers in Ocean County to learn about the estuary and watershed.

• o.Total $20,000.00 MAY2002 D-5

When the earth is sick, the animals will begin to disappear, when that happens, The Warriors of the Rainbow will come to save them.

-- Chief Seattle (1854)

I Harvesting salt hay. PHOTO COURTESY OF THE OCEAN COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY MAY2002

Tuckerton Creek, when shipbuilding was paramount, circa early 1900s.

PHOTO COURTESY OF THE TUCKERTON SEAPORT, A PROJECT OF THE RARNEGAT BAY DECOY AND RAYMENS MUSEUM, INC.

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE MEMBERS APPENDIX E BARNEGAT BAY NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM OFFICE Dr. Roberf Scro ... Director Shannon Shinautt .. .Pubtic Outreach Coordinator.

Mary* udge ........ "Program Assistant Mary Jerkoh cz ....... .*Program Assistant*

4*>*  :: ' ,, 44 * .'. -  : . . , " '" /"'.

x " ,,. . 4.,*<'4:44  :

POLICY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Bradley Campbell  :**... NJ Department of Environmental*Protectionf

Commissioner:"

ThomasisFot *.. .... .. Citizens Advisory CiitteeSc ficAnd AdvioryCommittee

KJane Kenny ....... USEPA,-Acting Region 2 Administrator 4 . .- 4 "James Lacey....... Ocean CountytFreehotder.

D...aviddIos......... .Ocean County Mayor's Association "  ; - .. ,>,'

MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS Angela Anderson ...... Citizens Advisory Committee Alan Avery .......

. Ocean CouuntyPlanning Department Michael DeLuca ....... Science and Technical Advisory Committee.

Carlo Popolhzio .. .. US Fish and Wildhfe Service. . . ... ,... -  :

Eric Evenson....*.' ' US Geological Survey' Th'omas Fdte ..... BarnegatBay ~shd B....Waese ~ ssociation 44.

Theresa Fowler , US ArmnCops of Engineers ....

David Friedman .Ocean County Soil Conservation District Karen' Greene .. ..'... National Marine Fisheries Services <,>4-.<.

Penny Gnber;...'. '....Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee ">4, <.

Richard Kunze .. .Ocean County Utilities Authority , ,'

Jim Lae............Ocean County Freeholder /. 44444>>4-John LaMacchia> ....... Citizens Advisory Committ~ee <>- ~ 44 Dave McKeonv~ .... Oea~n County Planniing Department 44

4. Janice Reid ..... *.*-.* US Department of Ageiculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service .><

Janice Rollwagen ... .. US 'Environmental Protection Agency  : ": . '

Dave Rosenblatt.... . .NJ Department of Environmental Protection . , .

4Jer(ome,'V;WIint 4 . Ocean County Enviro'nmental Agency MAY2002 E-1

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE MEMBERS FINANCIAL PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS Dave Barth .......... NJ Department of Environmental Protection/Office ,of Management and, Budget

'Robert Foxman .....  ;Barnegat Bay Watershed Association *

,Gary Lotano .......... Lotarfo Development Co.

,Scott MacFadden ...... Township of Brick Angelina Magetriici ... '. .SeriTornicelti's*Office .' . ... ,

Pat O'Connell . ...... Boroughpof, Harvepy Cedars,- *, .,., -...

Earl S*i.iutton * .. .S.Shore Communitv Bank ofToms River SCIENCE AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS 4.:>":4~:::. ,4. * ========= ",=,= '4'#:::4::  :*. ',

'*.44 ' .4.' 4:,

,444-*'. ,

• 44-44*v * ,

Dr.Ken Able. .. . .... .Rutgers University, .. . ,>*>' . .

4Mike'Abramowicz. ...... .NJ Department of Environmental Protection 4Bitl Andirews ........ .NJ Department of Environmental Protection

,:Dr. Eleanor Bochek ...New JNe0ersey MarinSciences Consortium

'7Jiohn Brady ......... US Army Corps of Engineers ,

Malcoldi Br one ...... + Nuclear .GPU tMichaeluDelicjai ....... Rutgers University. . , > ">': .

Robert DFieter ch ... US Envirfonmrental Protection Agency Carl Du6[`dtiii.... w'... US Department of Agricultureý/Nturat Resources Coinservatio"inSercei'> '

Carol'tElott ........ Altiance for Liviig Ocean  : "'p Erico'.Evenson ....<.... 'Us*Geolo gical Survey, Water4 Resources Division Db.avd Friidiei n . .. ,Ocean County Soil Conservation District Penny Gniber' . ........ D.W Smith Assoc. "'4 "4$ '>'"7'&4' Dr. "George Guoýý.... Rutgers University Bob *nenitor:f ý...... Ocean County Health.Department Trust ' . .-.

Dr. Mike Keninish ..... Ruitgers.4 nvest Dr:) R*;

• Jantaron "

ichar*id '......utgeti;Co*ptrative 4:*i* ;i~*i

,/:,: ;i;,::

• Extension

': : :::::,.:, . Y.44,:

.:*:)*, ::i ,.* :: $$,,,  :':444444: "':

Di thtdLathrop '~... 'Rutgers Uniiversity, Dave M~eon Ocean County Planning Department "

.... .. 15*,1(Li ... ......Consultant::. *...... . *r . " *:* .4 .*.: ,,.: :::;:r ' :*4 ,**,*.:,. ...

Robert US Geological Survey '4'", .........  : ::: .'

Paul Os- ' NJ Department of"Environmental Protection Dr. Norbert-, Psuty Rutgers University4 4$~ 4 Bob, Rdid ....... National Ocanan Atm~os'pheric Administration'> 4{44 Manlyn~ 1 4.reusc ý NJ Departmeniit o'f Environmental Protection ~ ~ ~ 44> ~'

Dri Michael We~intinhi . NJ Marine Services Consortium '/ >

• • * : ,: : ::::::::::::: :  :::* :  ; ., ,* , *:;,l**::,: **.::  ::::: ,, * *:* *,!* ,v  !**::,>,V4',.4,.4",,,*

Ke1itrWnesGregor Westfll .4.US Departmhentof ~ Agniculture/Nati'nal

>~ <~ Q>K, Resources Conservation Service4 4

44 E-2 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

APPENDIX E CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Angeta. Anidersen John LaMacchia Barbara Edethause-r Steve Magetriicki Thomas Fote William Miller Sandy,*Gingras Terry*O"Leary John Griber Christine Raabe Penny Griber John Smath Ed Harrison Marityn Treuschn Rkichard King John Wnek Joan Koons OTHER PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS The Ocean County Planning Department Staff is acknowledged for their assistance as sponsor during the planning phase of the program.

Tony Ag luata, Sharon Anderi*on Scott Bennett, Steve Bruder,;Scott'Cadigan, ;Mary Ann Cilento, Jeanne

<Coale, Vicki Pecchioli, Ruth Przybitski. Linda Roberts, Matt Scardena. 7.

Scientific and Technical Support

'Darvefie Adams ..... .USEPA

.*jDr. Martin Bierbaum: ... Faci.itator

• Dr. Elean6r Bochenc ý: ... Haskin Shetlfis**Research Laboratory Tina Bologna . Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve Joanna Burger Rutgers aDr University

..... 4 Sandy .....

.ain Ocean Countyit College i Dr Mche Gos ....eorgian'ort Coten AlCEdiHenry .... ..... USFWStiUniver-.ty B

KraHoffane ..... NJDEP.

DLMinda'~ Gross....... erg. Extesio Martha~ MaxwellDoo,71e.gDRB Kd enryontoJ.... USEWPA ~

Kyra.Hoffma... NJDEP KeOfyiJennfngsate CSCDnin(,j DShaun orke Jackson H..

Rutge

• John Tiedemann ...... Monmpo;ith Unwiv:rsity MAY2002 E-3

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE MEMBERS LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE The Local Government Coommittee is comprised of at{ mayors of:Ocean County and parts of Monmouth County., During the last four years of the BBNEP, the Ocean County. Mayors Association served as, the forum-for discussion of en1ironmental issues of concern to th0-33 municipalities of Ocean County. The President of the Ocean, County Mayors Association is the Honorable David Siddons, Borough of Island

• : ; :,. ):*; .i , - + 4,; ..... 4.; 7 ':. " "'.

The f6llowingmayors have also been especially helpful 'to this program: Hon. Deborah C. Whitcraft, Beach Haven Borough Hon Joseph C. Scarpell;' Brick Township; Hon.) Stephen F. Childers, Lakehurst Borough; Ho . Hon i Dunbar, B.Confdos

.Aleande Sieaside- Parkantoloing

..... "" foorough Mei' on. Ronald '...

S. Dancer,

.. Plumsted

. . Township; Hon- Alexander s, Sk" Borough; former ayor John Peterson, Seaside Park Borough*

and Hon. Carl W. Block, Stafford Township. -.

E- BARN " B'A...NAL "CCMy

'4. 3/4

-~. \K ,7 . .*..*j< $ 4..

E-4 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

BarnegatInlet looking from Island Beach toward BarnegatCity. PHOTOCOuRTESy OFTHEOCEu COuNTY HsToRIc soCaY.

MAY2002

What would the world be once bereft Of wet and of wilderness? Let them be left 0 let them be left, wilderness and wet; Long live the weeds and wilderness yet.

-- Gerard Manley Hopkins

FEDERAL CONSISTENCY REVIEW APPENDIX F FEDERAL CONSISTENCY REPORT FOR THE BARNEGAT BAY NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM BACKGROUND The National Estuary Program (NEP) was established by the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1987, Section 320. The pur-pose of the NEP is to identify, protect, and restore estuaries of national significance. The Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program (BBNEP) was nominated as an NEP by the Governor of New Jersey in 1995. In April 1996, the Management Conference was convened to oversee development of a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). There is a federal consistency review requirement for the NEP. This is distinct from the federal consis-tency requirement of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), conducted as part of the state's coastal zone management program. In the Barnegat Bay region of New Jersey, the coastal zone management program is admin-istered through the Coastal Area Facilities Review Act (CAFRA). Revised regulations have recently been promulgat-ed, and the current regulations are known as CAFRA II.

The federal consistency review procedures being recommended for New Jersey for the BBNEP are explained below.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW EPA guidance states that the goal of the federal consistency review process is to ensure that federal actions do not adversely affect CCMP goals, and that they support actions proposed for the CCMP where possible. In addition, under an agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), CCMPs are submitted for determination that they are consistent with the coastal zone management plans of the affected states.

The major tasks in the federal consistency review process follow:

Consistency of Federal Actions with the CCMP

1. Development of an inventory of federal programs and development projects to be reviewed for consistency with the CCMP.

2. A one-time assessment of these programs/projects for consistency with the CCMP. Development of consistency review criteria were based on the goals, objectives, and actions of the Barnegat Bay CCMP. Using those criteria, the inventory was reviewed to identify programs that may be inconsistent with the Plan.

3. Setting up and implementing a continuing process to review individual federal projects for consistency with the CCMP. Numerous programs and projects were identified that have the potential to conflict with the Plan.

4. Concurrence of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service on the Endangered Species Act and of the State Historic Preservation Office on the National Historic Preservation Act.

Activities that affect the quality of the Barnegat Bay National Estuary are supported and regulated, either directly or indirectly, by federal, state and interstate agencies. Because government-sponsored activities have a wide variety of objectives, it is possible that some activities may be inconsistent with the goals of the CCMP for the bay and watershed.

The need for coordination among governmental programs and program goals that will affect the Management Conference (and ultimately, the CCMP), has been addressed in Section 320(b) (7) of the CWA, as amended.

"Purpose 7" states that:

MAY202 F-I

FEDERAL CONSISTENCY REVIEW "The purpose of a Management Conference shall be to ... review all federal financial assistance programs and fed-eral development projects in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 12372, as in effect on September 17, 1983, to determine whether such assistance program or project would be consistent with and further the pur-poses of the CCMP." It further specifies that the review shalt not be limited to EO 12372 programs, but may include programs listed in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance that may have an effect on the goals and objectives of the Plan.

Concurrence of the CCMP with the Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act The Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program also needs concurrence with two additional Acts--the National Historic Preservation Act and the Endangered Species Act. Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Federai agencies that fund, permit, license, approve, or carry out actions in the CCMP may be required to consult the State Historic Preservation Office to determine if a site is listed on or eligible for Listing in the National Register of Historic Places. If a site is listed or eligible for listing, then the agency must determine if there is a potential for adverse effects to the site as a result of the proposed action. Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act directs Federal agencies, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize listed species of their designated critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) consultation may be required during CCMP implementation where Federal agencies authorize, fund, or carry out an activity that may affect Listed species. Each Federal agency must determine if con-sultation is necessary on a case-by-case basis. See Section 12.10 of the CCMP for further discussion of this topic.

It is well to note that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service have both been inte-gral participants in the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program from the very beginning. Both agencies are repre-sented on the BBNEP Management Committee as well as on the Science and Technical Advisory Committee. Both agencies have made constructive contributions to the development of the CCMP, and they have both rendered their approval within the Management Conference approval process for the action items listed in the CCMP. At the end of this appendix are copies of the formal concurrence letters from each of the respective federal and state agencies.

Federal Consistency Review Process To fulfill the requirements of Section 320 of the Clean Water Act, the following steps were taken:

1. An inventory was first compiled of federal assistance programs listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, direct federal development projects, and federal license and permit programs.

2. For the one-time review of federal programs, such programs that are likely to either positively or negatively affect the CCMP implementation have been screened against appropriate criteria in USEPA guidance to determine their inclusion and possible effect on CCMP implementation. These criteria are presented below.

Criteria for Consistency The following criteria for determination of consistency for whether programs encourage or support the objectives as listed in the CCMP were developed by the Management Conference.

F- 2 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

APPENDIX F More specific criteria are whether the programs encourage or support the proposed CCMP actions in the following ways. Programs or projects are inconsistent if they inhibit these activities or harm the resources that they seek to protect or restore.

" Complies with existing management plans or supports continued development of interstate management plans for a wide variety of living resources and habitats;

" Encourages development of tools for such compliance, including Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and community classification systems;

" Encourages or provides for restoration of a variety of valuable habitats, including wetlands, streams, stream corridors, riparian and wetland buffer zones, artificial reefs, oyster reefs, shorelines, and large forested upland tracts;

• Reduces loss of wetlands;

" Protects shorelines;

• Promotes sustainable development;

" Reduces nonpoint source (NPS) pollution and protects water quality and quantity through watershed-based planning, best management practices (BMPs), and riparian corridor protection;

" Promotes improved land-use planning to protect water quality and reduce sprawl;

" Encourages regional coordination;

" Encourages redevelopment and compact development; o Encourages water conservation and integrated planning for water supply and wastewater;.

• Promotes better coordination and planning for dredging, including dredged material disposal;

• Encourages development and use of pumpout facilities;

• Improves public access to the river and bay;

• Addresses information and resource needs of the Toxics Management Strategy;

• Encourages wise use of chemicals by residents and businesses;

" Supports development and implementation of toxic water quality criteria;

• Helps to identify sources of contaminated sediments and identify control measures;

• Promotes regional information sharing and development of GIS;

• Supports private sector efforts to achieve all these objectives and activities;

• Supports public education activities, including newsletters, other outreach material, ecotourism promotion, hands-on activities for volunteers, and curricula development; and

• Supports existing and expanded monitoring plans, including volunteer monitoring.

Federal Consistency Review Strategy After conducting a one-time assessment and identifying potential conflicts with the CCMP (Table F-1), the following was considered and a subsequent strategy was concluded.

Executive Order (EO) 12372, which established a procedure for state and local government review of federal assis-tance programs and development projects, was implemented by all federal agencies in 1983. A requirement of the CWA is compliance with EO 12372 for the review of federal assistance programs and development projects. These reviews, known as state clearinghouse reviews, are coordinated in New Jersey by the Department of Community Affairs, Division of Community Resources.

MAY2002 F-3

FEDERAL CONSISTENCY REVIEW In 1988, the USEPA and NOAA entered into an agreement designed to avoid conflicts and duplication regarding the NEP and the Coastal Zone.Management Program. One provision is that, after concurrence by the state governor and approval by the USEPA administrator, the USEPA and NOAA will encourage and/or require, to the extent permitted by law, that the CCMP be submitted for incorporation into the Coastal Zone Management Program, as appropriate.

Therefore, the consistency review requirement of the NEP can be met by integrating the process into the existing state Coastal Management Plan (CMP) consistency review process, or, as is currently being done in New Jersey, through the E0 12372 process. The BBNEP would be available to participate, as appropriate under existing appeal and mediation proce-dures, in assisting the state in the resolution of consistency determinations.

Note also that potential inconsistencies among coastal activities can be addressed through the Management Conference itself. Under Section 320(b) (7) of the CWA, as amended, the Management Conference has such authority, as described above. However, the goal of the review process established under Purpose 7 is to complement the state's existing review processes rather than duplicate them, and the current recommendation is that the BBNEP would be best served by using existing processes.

The appropriate ongoing review programs in the state of New Jersey have the staff and experience necessary to perform federal consistency reviews, whereas the costs and start-up time, in addition to the lack of experienced personnel, could make the undertaking of a separate federal consistency review prohibitive to the BBNEP.

The Management Conference has also raised concerns regarding the review of non-federal programs for consistency with the CCMP. These concerns will be addressed through existing state and local review procedures, such as CAFRA II review by the state of New Jersey and Ocean County's cross-acceptance review of municipal master plans.

For the continuing review process, which evaluates individual projects for consistency with the CCMP, New Jersey's EQ 12372 process and single point of contact (state clearinghouse) will be used. Under the EQ process, agencies must accommodate state comments, or explain in writing why they cannot. The EO process, used by most states, does not only focus on envi-ronmental protection; it covers all federal actions and can be used to further the consistency review of the BBNEP CCMP.

NJDEP will conduct project reviews under the EQ process considering the BBNEP CCMP. This process will provide addition-al assurance that project review will be consistent with the goals of environmental protection.

Consistency of the CCMP with Coastal Management Programs Under Section 307(c) of the CZMA of 1972, as amended, and implementing regulations in 15 CFR 930, consistency with an approved state coastal zone management program is required: (a) for direct federal activities and develop-ment projects, (b) for activities requiring federal licenses or permits, and (c) for activities receiving federal financial assistance. In New Jersey, the program and the review of federal activities for consistency with the state's CMP, known as CAFRA II, is administered by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP).

The 1988 USEPA/NOAA agreement states that:

• "CCMPs developed under the NEP will voluntarily, as a matter of policy, be submitted for review under the. federal consistency provisions of Section 307(c) of the CZMA of 1972, as amended."

" New Jersey, pursuant to the federal and state consistency provisions of CAFRA II, already has a review process in place. Based on a review of the CCMP and a consistency review submitted by the NEP (USEPA Region fl will prepare such a review for the BBNEP), New Jersey wilt review the overall approval and adoption of the CCMP, and each pro posal within it, for consistency with the policies of CAFRA II, which are specific with respect to use and development of coastal resources.

" The study area for the BBNEP covers all of Ocean County, New Jersey, which is nearly coincident with the boundaries of the Barnegat Bay watershed.

F-4 BARNEGATBAY FINAL CCMP

APPENDIX F For the CCMP consistency review with the state CAFRA II, under Section 307(c) of the CZMA, the USEPA will send a formal consistency determination to the NJDEP at the same time that the final CCMP is submitted to the governor of New Jersey and the USEPA administrator. The NJDEP will determine the consistency of the BBNEP CCMP with the CAFRA II and implement enforceable BBNEP CCMP actions accordingly.

CCMP Actions with Potential Conflicts CCMP actions were designed to meet the stated Program Goals and Actions. To the extent that federal programs are geared toward environmental protection, there should be no conflict with CCMP actions. However, federal programs that contain an element of economic development, construction, or infrastructure improvement may conflict with CCMP actions. It will be through the continued deliberation of the BBNEP Management Conference that such con-flicts will be resolved and an accepted accommodation of development and environmental protection will be reached.

Federal Development Projects in the Barnegat Bay Watershed Two existing federal projects are focused in the coastal area of the Barnegat Bay watershed. One project, a beach erosion control and hurricane project, extends along the coastal barrier from the Manasquan Inlet to the Barnegat Inlet. It is sponsored by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the NJDEP. This project is in the feasibility stage and an environmental impact statement is under review. This project potentially conflicts with the goal of envi-ronmental protection, but by proposing an alternative that does not include hard coastal structures, the project reduces that potential. Members of the Management Committee, as representatives of the respective agencies, will take part in the review of this proposal.

The second project is the Barnegat Bay Restoration Study, which is also a joint feasibility study by the Corps and the NJDEP. It has been incorporated into the CCMP as Action Item 6.2. As the BBNEP has made a commitment to participate in the progress of this effort, this resolves any potential conflict of interest that may arise.

A bountiful catcL PHOTO svoR couRTsY of. TiE T*CKERrow A PROJECTOFT7E RARUE*GT RAY DECOYAND RAYMErNS MUSEUM,INC

. MAY2002 F-5

FEDERAL CONSISTENCY REVIEW TABLE F-1. Federal Program Consistency with the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program

~Catalog of

'Fede'ral<, <. ~ 'Potenitial to Potenitial to Domesti supp~ort BEEP c onflict with~

Assistance Program Tte AgencyCM BPCM P~ioirity?Z 10.200 Grants for Agricultural USDA-ES X Research, Special Research Grants 10.069 Conservation Reserve USDA-FSA Program 10.072 Wetlands Reserve USDA-NRCS x Program 10.901 Resource Conservation USDA-NRCS X X and Development 10.902 Soil and Water USDA-NRCS X Conservation 10,903 Soil Survey USDA-NRCS x 10.904 Watershed Protection and USDA-NRCS X Flood Prevention 10.906 Watershed Surveys and USDA-NRCS X Planning 10.912 Environmental Quality USDA-NRCS X X Incentives Program 10.913 Farmland Protection USDA-NRCS X Program 10.914 Wildlife Habitat Incentive USDA-NRCS X X Program 10.768 Business and Industry USDA-RB- X X Loans CS 10.769 Rural Development USDA-RB- X X Grants CS 10.854 Rural Development Loans USDA-RB- X X and Grants CS F-6 BARNEGAT BAYFINAL ccMP

APPENDIX F TABLE F-1. (continued)

I Catalog.of':, -.

Federal ýPtnilt Potential u0 U-, to Domestic - < itBBEP CCMP por conflict with Assistance Program Title ~ Agency BBEP CCMP~ Priority?.10-410 Very Low to Moderate USDA-RHS X X Income Housing Loans10-411 Rural Housing Site Loans USDA-RHS and Self-Help Housing Land Development Loans10-433 Rural Housing USDA-RHS X Preservation Grants10-766 Community Facilities USDA-RHS X X Loans and Grants 10.760 Water and Wastewater USDA-RUS X X Disposal Systems for Rural Communities 10.762 Solid Waste Management USDA-RUS x X Grants 10.770 Water and Waste Disposal USDA-RUS X X Loans and Grants 11.300 Grants for Public Works DOC-EDA X and Economic Development 11.302 Economic Development- DOC-EDA xX Support for Planning Organizations 11.307 Economic Adjustment DOC-EDA X X Assistance 11.405 Anadromous Fish NOAA X Conservation Act Program 11.407 Interjurisdictional NOAA X X Fisheries Act of 1986 11.417 Sea Grant Support NOAA X X MAY2002 F-7

FEDERAL CONSISTENCY REVIEW TABLE F-1. (continued)

Catalog of>

Federal Potential to sup Potential to Domestaice Porm ite Ž gny port BBEP CCMP~ conflict with &

Asisanerorm ite gec BEEP CCMP. Priority?>

11.419 Coastal Zone Management NOAA X X Administration Awards 11.420 Coastal Zone Management NOAA X Estuarine Research Reserves 11.426 Financial Assistance for NOAA X National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science 11.427 Fisheries Development NOAA x and Utilization Research and Development Grants and Cooperative Agreements Program 11.429 Marine Sanctuary Program NOAA X 11.433 Marine Fisheries Initiative NOAA- X 11.441 Regional Fishery NOAA X Management Councils 11.444 Aquaculture Program NOAA X X 11.463 Habitat Conservation NOAA x 11.473 Coastal Services Center NOAA X 11.474 Atlantic Coastal NOAA X Fisheries Cooperative Management Act 11.477 Fisheries Disaster Relief NOAA X 11.478 Center for Sponsored NOAA X - X Coastal Research Coastal Ocean Program 12.100 Aquatic Plant ACOE x Control F-8 BARNEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

APPENDIX F TABLE F-1. (continued)

Catalog oof SDomestic Assistance Pr.ograi 12.101 Beach Erosion Control ACOE x x Projects 12.102 Emergency Rehabilitation ACOE X of Flood Control Works or Federally Authorized Coastal Protection Works 12.104 Flood Plain Management ACOE X Services 12.105 Protection of Essential ACOE X Highways, Highway Bridge Approaches and Public Works 12.106 Flood Control Projects ACOE X X 12.107 Navigation Projects ACOE X X 12.109 Protection, Clearing and ACOE X X Straightening Channels 12.110 Planning Assistance to ACOE K States 12.111 Emergency Advance ACOE K x Measures for Flood Protection 12.300 Basic and Applied ONR X Scientific Research 12.301 Basic and Applied ONR -

Scientific Research 12.600 Community Economic DOD-OEA K K Adjustment 12.607 Community Economic DOD-0EA K .

Adjustment Planning Assistance NOVEMBER2001 F-9

FEDERAL CONSISTENCY REVIEW TABLE F-1. (continued)

Federal!~ I Q Potential to sup- Potential to~

Domestic 7 port BBEP, CCMP ~.conflict with Asitac Prga Til gency BBEP CCMP Priority?

12.612 Community Base Reuse DOD OEA X X Plans 12.613 Growth Management DOD-OEA X X Planning Assistance

• 14.2 18 Community HUD-CPD X X

• Development Block Grants/ Entitlement Grants 14.2246 Community Development HUD-CPD X X Block Grants/Economic Development Initiative.

15.605 Sport Fish Restoration FWS X 15.611 Wildlife Restoration P/IS X 15.614 Coastal Wetlands FWS X Planning, Protection and Restoration Act 15.615 Cooperative Endangered FWS X Species Conservation Fund 15.616 Clean Vessel Act FWS X -X 15.618 Administrative Grants for FWS X-Federal Aid in Sport Fish and Wildlife Restoration 15.623 North American Wetlands FWS X-Conservation Fund 15.805 Assistance to State USGS X Water Resources Research Institutes 15.976 Migratory Bird Banding USGS X-and Data Analysis F- 10 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

APPENDIX F TABLE F-1. (continued)

Catdealo 0:'7 Potential to sup-I Potential to

~Domestic 1,i,1* < port BBEP CCMP conflict withi<

~Assstan~cej Proigram Title rc Agency , BBEP CCMP'~:Priority?

15.916 Outdoor Recreation - NPS X X Acquisition, Development and Planning 15.918 Disposal of Federal NPS X X Surplus Real Property for Parks, Recreation, and Historic Monuments 15.919 Urban Park and NPS X Recreation Recovery Program 15.925 National Maritime NPS X Heritage Grants 20.005 Boating Safety Financial USCG X -

Assistance 20.006 State Access to the Oil USCG X Spill Liability Trust Fund 20.007 Bridge Alteration USCG X X 20.205 Highway Planning and FHA X X Construction 20.219 Recreational Traits FHA X X Program 20.312 High Speed Ground FRA X X Transportation - Next Generation High Speed Rail Program 20.500 Federal Transit-Capital FTA X. X Investment Grants 20.505 Federal Transit- FTA X X Metropolitan Planning Grants 20.507 Federal Transit-Formula FTA X X Grants NOVEE 0oo1 F- 11

FEDERAL CONSISTENCY REVIEW TABLE F-1. (continued) 20.509 Formula Grants for Other FTA x x than Urbanized Areas 20.514 Transit Planning and FTA X X Research 20.515 State Planning and FTA X X Research 20.801 Development and DOT-MA X-Promotion of Ports and Intermodal Transportation 66.419 Water Pollution Control- EPA X X State and Interstate Program Support 66.433 State Underground Water EPA X Source Protection 66.454 Water Quality EPA X X Management Planning 66.456 National Estuary Program EPA X X 66.458 Capitalization Grants for EPA X X State Revolving Funds 66.460 Nonpoint Source EPA X X Implementation Grants 66.461 Wetlands Protection- EPA X Development Grants 66.463 National Pollutant EPA X Discharge Elimination System Related State Program 66.500 Environmental EPA X Protection-Consolidated Research F-1 2 BARNEGM BAYFINAL CCMP

APPENDIX F TABLE F-1. (continued)

F2ederal ~~ <~ , Potential to sp~ ~ Potential to;;

Dom cPort BBEP CM conflict withi

~Assistance ~ Program Tite ~ Agency___ ~BBEP CCMP Pro1/2iy 66.600 Environmental Protection EPA X Consolidated Grants Program Support 66.605 Performance Partnership EPA X X Grants 66.606 Surveys, Studies EPA X X Investigations and Special Purpose Grants 66.608 One Stop Reporting EPA X 66.609 Children's Health EPA X Protection 66.700 Consolidated Pesticide EPA x Enforcement Cooperative Agreements 66.701 Toxic Substances EPA Compliance Monitoring Cooperative Agreements 66.604 Environmental Justice EPA X Grants to Small Community Groups 66.710 Environmental Justice EPA x Community/University Partnership Grants Program 66.713 State and Tribal EPA X Environmental Justice 66.801 Hazardous Waste EPA X Management State Program Support 66.802 Superfund State Site- EPA X Specific Cooperative Agreements NOVEMBER2001 F-13

FEDERAL CONSISTENCY REVIEW TABLE F-1. (continued)

'Catal9g of,, , .

Federal Potential ~to sp1 Potential to 1

~Domeistic . ~~ port BBEP~CCMP ~oinflict NithK Asistance P~

rogram Title >Agency K2> BBEP CCMP Priority-?

66.804 State and Tribal EPA x Underground Storage Tanks Program 66.805 Leaking Underground EPA X Storage Tank Trust Fund Program 66.806 Superfund Technical EPA X Assistance Grants for Citizen Groups at Priority Sites 66.807 Superfund Innovative EPA X Technology Evaluation Program 66.808 Solid Waste Management EPA X Assistance 66.809 Superfund State Core EPA X Program Cooperative Agreements 66.810 CEPP Technical Assistance EPA X Grants Program 66.811 Brownfield Pilots EPA X Cooperative Agreements 66.708 Pollution Prevention EPA X Grants Program 83.536 Flood Mitigation FEMA XX Assistance 83.537 Community Disaster FEMA X X Loans 83.548 Hazard Mitigation Grant FEMA X X 83.551 Project Impact-Building FEMA X X Disaster Resistant Communities F- 14 BARNEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

i It PHOTOCOURTESY OFTHETOMSRIVERSEAPORT SOCIE=T MAY 2002

The frog does not drink up the pond in which he lives.

-- American Indian Proverb

BASE PROGRAM ANALYSIS APPENDIX G TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODU CTION ............................................................ 1 A. WATER QUALITY AND WATER SUPPLY ...... .2

1. Clean Water Programs ................... ................. ............. .2 a) Federal Clean Water Program ........ ................. ............. .2 b) New Jersey State Clean Water Programs ................. ............. .3 c) Water Supply Program ............. ................. ............. .5 d) Analysis of Program Implementation ................. ............. .6

2. Clean Vessel Act ..................... ................. ............. .7 a) General Program Discussion ......... ................. ............. .7 b) Analysis of Program Implementation .. ................. ............. .8

. . . . . . . . . . . . .8

3. Air, Solid Waste, and Hazardous Waste Programs

. . . . . . . . . . . . .8 a) Air Programs ...................

. . . . . . . . . . . . .8 b) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ............

c) Superfund .......................................

d) State Hazardous Waste Programs ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . .11 e) Spill Prevention and Control ................ .............. .11 f) Solid WasteManagement................... .............. .12 g) Pollution Prevention ...................... .12 h) Analysis of Program Implementation .......... .............. .12 B. HABITAT LOSS AND ALTERATION . ............................................ 13

1. Coastal Zone Management ................................. ....... .. .. .. .13 .

a) Federal Program .......... ........................ .. . .. . . . . . . . .. .. .13 b) New Jersey Coastal Management Program ................ .. . .. . . .. . . . .. .. .13 c) Federal Consistency Process .......................... . . ... . . . . . .. .. . . .15 d) Analysis of Program Implementation ................... .. . .. .. . . . . . .. . . .15

2. Land Use Management .................................... .. .. . . .. . . . . . .15 .

a) Introduction.................................... . .. .. . .. . .. . . . . . .15 b) State Role in Land Use Planning ...................... . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .16 c) Pinelands Commission .............................. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16 d) Ocean County and Municipal Roles ..................... . . . . . .... . . . . . . .. .17 e) Analysis of Program Implementation ................... . .. . .. .. . .. . . . . . .18

3. Wetlands Regulation and Management ........................ . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 18 a) Federal Program .................................. . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . 18 b) New Jersey State Wetlands Program .................... . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . .21 c) Analysis of Program Implementation .................... . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . .22

4. The National Environmental Policy Act, and Related State Programs .... . . .. .. . .. . .. . . .. .22 a) Historical Perspective .............................. . . .. .. . .. . .. . . . . .22 b) NEPA Process ..................................... . . .. .. . .. . . .. . .. .23 c) Federal Agencies' and Public's Roles .................... . . .. ... . .. . .. . . . . .23 d) NEPA and Other Environmental Laws ................... ....... .. ........ 24 e) Integration into Federal Decision-Making ................ . . ... .. .. .. . .. ... 24 f) State Programs Comparable to NEPA .................... . . .. ... .. . .. . . .. .25 g) Analysis of Program Implementation .................... 25 .

MAY 2002 i

BASE PROGRAM ANALYSIS

5. Management of Fish and Shellfish............................................. 25 a) Federal Program ..................................... .............. 25 b) Interstate Programs.................................................27 c) New Jersey State Programs .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 27 d) Analysis of Program Implementation .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .28

6. Endangered and Threatened Species Programs .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .29 a) Federal Program. . ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .29 b) New Jersey State Program .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .31 c) Analysis of Program Implementation ..................................... 32

7. Wildlife Refuges and Preserves ............................................... 33 a) National Wildlife Refuge System ........................................ 33 b) Pinelands National Reserve ........................................... 34 c) Other Federal Programs .............................................. 34 d) State Program.....................................................35 e) Analysis of Program Implementation..............:....................... 35 C. HUMAN ACTIVITIES AND COMPETING USES......................................36

1. Public Access ........................................................... 36 a) General Program Discussion ........................................... 36 b) Analysis of Program Implementation..................................... 36

2. Navigation and Water-Dependent Activities ...................................... 37 a) Federal Actions.....................................................37 b) Analysis of Program Implementation..................................... 37

3. Parks and Recreation Areas..................................................38 a) Introduction...................................................... 38 b) Federal Parks ..................................................... 38 c) State and Local Parks and Forests ....................................... 38 d) Natural Areas System ................................................ 39 e) Green Acres Program ................................................ 39 f) Natural Lands Trusts ................................................ 39 g) Natural Heritage Program............................................. 39 h) Private Organizations and Land Trusts....................................40 i) Analysis of Program Implementation ..................................... 40

4. Public Health and Education ................................................. 40 a) Public Health Summary ............ I.................................. 40 b) Analysis of Program Implementation..................................... 41 ii BARNEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

APPENDIX G INTRODUCTION This draft inventory and summary analysis serves as a supporting document for the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program's Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). This.document is designed to give a snapshot of the existing institutional framework of the Barnegat Bay region and Ocean County, New Jersey. The inventory is a compilation of regulatory and non-regulatory programs affecting the Barnegat Bay region, and covers the issue areas that are addressed in the CCMP: Water Quality and Water Supply; Habitat Loss and Alteration; and Human Activities and Competing Uses. The analysis presents an overview of the existing framework associated with each of the Program's issue areas, summarizes the individual programs associated with those issue areas, and identifies the gaps in the institutional framework, which the CCMP has been developed to address.

A number of governmental programs have been promulgated in order to regulate coastal development, navigation, waste disposal, water quality, water supply, and wetlands conservation. These programs directly or indirectly affect the water environment and natural habitat conditions in the Barnegat Bay watershed. An early step in the devel-opment of a comprehensive management strategy for the region is a focused assessment of the particulars of these governmental programs. Specific programs, or program areas, are detailed in the following pages, grouped as follows:

A. WATER QUALITY AND WATER SUPPLY

• Clean Water Programs

• Clean Vessel Program

• Air, Solid Waste, and Hazardous Waste Programs B. HABITAT LOSS AND ALTERATION

• Coastal Zone Management

• Land Use Management

• Wetlands Protection

• National Environmental Policy Act, and related State Programs

• Fish and Shellfish Management

• Endangered and Threatened Species Programs

• Wildlife Refuges and Preserves C. HUMAN ACTIVITIES AND COMPETING USES

" Public Access

• Navigation and Water-Dependent Activities

• Parks and Recreation Programs

• Public Health and Education The three groupings follow a gradient from primarily regulatory to primarily non-regulatory programs. They also grade from federal-lead programs to non-federal, or even non-governmental, programs. The range of these programs makes clear the multiple responsibilities of the various Program participants to make the CCMP a success. No indi-vidual agency or organization can act independently to accomplish the tasks that need to be done.

MAY*2002 G-1

BASE PROGRAM ANALYSIS These program descriptions, and an analysis of their effectiveness, are the first step in developing a strategy for the protection and restoration of the Barnegat Bay watershed. The Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan will use this analysis to prescribe additional measures to protect and improve habitat conditions in the region while first ensuring that existing programs have been implemented to their full potential.

A. WATER QUALITY AND WATER SUPPLY

1. CLEAN WATER PROGRAMS a) Federal Clean Water Program The principal law governing pollution of the nation's waterways is the federal Water Pollution Control Act, or Clean Water Act. Originally enacted in 1948, it was totally revised by amendments in 1972 that gave the Act its current shape. The 1972 legislation spelled out ambitious programs for water quality improvement that are still being implemented by industries and municipalities. Congress made fine-tuning amendments in 1977, revised portions of the law in 1981, and enacted further amendments in 1987.

The Clean Water Act (CWA) authorizes the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish national, uniform technology-based effluent limitations for point sources of pollution discharging to "waters of the United States,"

broadly defined to include wetlands. Effluent limitations are enforced through Section 402 of the CWA, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program (NPDES; delegated to New Jersey under NJPDES). The CWA does not apply to agricultural nonpoint source pollution.

Recently, Phase II Municipal Stormwater Rules have been promulgated under Section 402 by the EPA, which will extend regulatory requirements for stormwater effluent limitations to smaller urban areas than have previously been affected. The program will be phased in over seven years, and will be administered by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) as part of its delegated authority under the CWA. Most, if not all, of Ocean County's 33 municipalities, which fell outside the regulatory purview of the Phase I Rules, will need to meet the compliance requirements of Phase II. Permitted municipalities will be required to implement six minimum control measures:

• Public education and outreach;

• Public involvement/participation;

• Illicit discharge detection and elimination;

• Construction site stormwater runoff control;

• Post-construction stormwater management in new development and redevelopment; and

• Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations.

An action in the CCMP, Action Item 5.4, addresses the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program's role in facilitating compliance of the regulated municipalities with the new Phase II Rules.

Sections 208 and 303(e) of the CWA of 1972 established the initial framework for addressing nonpoint sources of pollution (NPS). State and local planning agencies analyzed the extent of NPS pollution and developed water qual-ity management programs to control it with funds provided by the EPA under Section 208. Best management prac-tices were evaluated, assessment models and methods were developed, and other types of technical assistance were made available to state and local water quality managers. Section 208 provided that states prepare statewide and regional plans, based on watersheds, for the prevention of both point and nonpoint source pollution.

G- 2 BARNEGATBAYFINAL CCMP

APPENDIX G The EPA's Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program comes from Section 303(d). There remain waters in the nation that do not meet the CWA national goal of "fishable, swimable" despite the fact that nationally required levels of pollution con-trol technology have been implemented by many pollution sources. CWA Section 303(d) addresses these waters that are not "fishable, swimable" by requiring the state to identify the waters and to develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for them, with oversight from the EPA. Several waterways within Ocean County fall within the category of impaired waters as defined by Section 303(d), and an action in the CCMP addresses these.

Per Section 312 of the CWA, the EPA, individual states and the US Coast Guard work together to provide states with the opportunity to protect citizens and aquatic habitats through No Discharge Zone designations and national standards for marine sanitation devices on boat toilets, or heads. Section 312 of the CWA helps protect human health and the aquatic environment from disease-causing microorganisms which may be present in sewage from vessels and boats. These microor-ganisms can include bacteria, protozoans, and viruses. For more discussion on No Discharge Zones, see the entry on the Clean Vessel Act below.

Section 320 of the CWA of 1987 established the National Estuary Program (NEP), under which authority this document sup-porting the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program was prepared. Section 320 authorizes the EPA Administrator to con-vene Management Conferences to develop Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans for estuaries of national sig-nificance that are threatened by pollution. The general goals of the NEP are the protection and improvement of water qual-ity and the enhancement of living resources. To achieve these goals, the program calls for activities to help:

• Establish working partnerships among federal, state, and local government;

• Transfer scientific and management information, experience, and expertise to program participants;

• Increase public awareness of pollution problems and ensure public participation in consensus building;

• Promote basin-wide planning to control pollution and manage living resources; and

• Oversee development and implementation of pollution abatement and control programs.

Section 320 also specifies members of a Management Conference to ensure representation by a broad range of interests.

Membership must include, at a minimum, representatives of federal, state, regional, and local agencies, affected industries, academia, and the public.

.Section 401 of the CWA of 1977 (33 U.S.C.1251, Section 401) provides that all projects requiring federal permits for the dis-charge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States also require a Water Quality Certification. The purpose of this certification is to ensure that all such activities are consistent with national water quality standards and rmanage-ment policies. This program is administered by the state of New Jersey through federal delegation.

Section 404 of the CWA establishes the federal permitting program governing discharge of dredged and fill material into wetlands and other waters, administered by the EPA and the US Army Corps of Engineers. In New Jersey, the portion of the program applying to freshwater areas has been delegated to the state. A more detailed account of wetlands programs is found below under Topic 6 of Section C, Human Activities and Competing Uses.

b) New Jersey State Clean Water Programs The New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES) was established by the New Jersey Water Pollution Control Act of 1977 (N.,.S.A. 58:10A-1, et seq.) and regulates discharges to the land, groundwater, and surface waters of the state.

Such discharges include effluent from: public and private sewage treatment plants; industrial discharges; land application of sludge, septage, and industrial wastes; discharges into municipal wastewater treatment plants which are regulated under the industrial pretreatment program; and underground injection. This program was delegated to New Jersey under the CWA, through which the state assumed the permitting functions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. This regulatory program is administered by the Division of Water Resources. In Ocean County, there are no major permitted dis-charges of municipal wastewater effluent; all regional sewage treatment facilities discharge through ocean outfalls. There are few permitted industrial dischargers of any kind in Ocean County, and the only major one is the GPU nuclear genera-tion facility at Oyster Creek, which discharges the power plant's cooling water.

MAY 2002 G-3

BASE PROGRAM ANALYSIS The Wastewater Treatment Finance Program was established in 1985 and provides low interest loans to local government units for the construction and improvement of wastewater treatment facilities. In addition to monies from state general obligation bonds, this program receives funds from the EPA (under Section 201 of the Clean Water Act) for capitalization of a revolving fund loan program. The program has funded over half a billion dollars worth of improvements, but the total state need is over $3 billion. Most of these projects are for combined sewer overflow control and other projects outside of the Barnegat Bay region.

The water quality certification program is authorized by the New Jersey Water Pollution Control Act (N.J.S.A. 58:10A-1 to 13), and the CWA Amendments of 1977 (33 U.S.C.1251, Section 401). All projects requiring federal permits for the dis-charge of dredged or fill material into state waters or wetlands also require a State Water Quality Certification. The pur-pose of this certification is to ensure that all such activities are consistent with New Jersey water quality standards and management policies. 'The Water Quality Certification for a project is "inherent" in most state-issued permits (NJPDES, CAFRA, Waterfront Development, Tidal and Freshwater Wetlands). Only rarely are Water QuAlity Certifications issued-inde-pendently. At present, no review criteria for Water Quality Certification have been promulgated, so NJDEP utilizes the US Army Corps of Engineers Section 404(b)1 guidelines for review purposes.

New Jersey Surface Water Quality Standards classify certain shellfish waters in the state which possess exceptional resource value as Category One Waters for purposes of implementing Anti-degradation Policy: "Category One waters shall be protected from any measurable changes (including calculable or predicted changes) to the existing water quality characteristics that are generally worse than the water quality criteria, except as due to natural conditions, and shall be improved to maintain or provide for the designated uses where this can be accomplished without adverse impacts on organisms, communities or ecosystems of concern" (NJDEP 1986: 15). No freshwater areas of the state have been classified as Category One Waters.

As noted above, the NJDEP will be the lead agency in administering new Phase II Municipal Stormwater Rules for stormwa-ter effluent discharges among the regulated Ocean County municipalities. The Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program will serve to facilitate the implementation of the new regulations.

The Sewerage Infrastructure Improvement Act establishes a non-regulatory program that provides for the supervision by the NJDEP of municipal storm sewer and nonpoint source pollution abatement programs in four coastal counties (Atlantic, Cape May, Monmouth, Ocean) and for the abatement of combined sewer overflows elsewhere in the state. Stormwater collection systems built by state agencies must be designed to minimize adverse surface water quality impacts to the greatest extent feasible. This act provided grants to municipalities in the four coastal counties to inventory and map storm sewer systems, to monitor water quality at storm sewer outfalls, and to plan and design the elimination of unauthorized interconnections of storm and sanitary sewers. The Bureau of Water Quality Planning of the Division of Water Resources is writing rules and administering contract applications for the mapping of stormwater systems. The first two phases of this program are near-ing completion; a third phase, which was intended to help municipalities construct necessary infrastructure improvements, has not received funding.

The Stormwater Management and Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement, Bond Act of 1989 was approved by referendum in November 1989. The Act authorizes the state to issue a total of $50 million in bonds for the purpose of providing grants and low interest loans to local government units to manage stormwater and CSO discharges. Rules and regulations to imple-ment this Act are being developed by the NJDEP.

The NJDEP stormwater program, authorized by the New Jersey Stormwater Management Act, emphasizes pollution preven-tion techniques and source control rather than "end-of-pipe" treatment and is implemented primarily through four gener-al permits:

• Basic Industrial Stormwater - This general permit is available to regulated industrial facilities which have eliminated or can eliminate within 18 months of authorization, all exposure of industrial materials or activities to stormwater (rainfall and snowmelt waters). Exposure may be eliminated by covering the materials or activities or by moving materials or activities indoors.

G-4 BARNEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

APPENDIX G

• Concrete Products - This permit authorizes stormwater discharges to surface waters from facilities that manufacture concrete products, concrete block and brick, and ready-mixed concrete, or facilities classified as concrete manufacturers by the NJDEP.

• Construction and Mining Activities - This permit authorizes point source discharges from certain construction and mining activities. Regulated entities are required to develop a soil erosion and sediment plan aimed at eliminating the flow of contaminated rainwater into streams and rivers.

• Scrap Metal - This permit authorizes the discharge of stormwater from facilities involved in the recycling of materials (including metal scrap yards, battery reclaimers, salvage yards, and automobile junkyards --

limited to facilities classified as SIC Code 5015 and 5093).

Authorized by the Water Quality Planning Act (N.J.S.A. 58: 11A-1, et seq.), the Water Quality Management Plan Consistency Determination Program (N.J.A.C. 7:15-1, et seq.) assures that most projects approved by the NJDEP are consistent with the statewide and area-wide Water Quality Management Plans. Such projects include sewer systems, surface water and ground-water discharges, and actions regulated by the Coastal Areas Facility Review Act. This program is administered by the Bureau of Water Quality Planning of the Division of Water Resources. The Bureau conducts hundreds of consistency deter-minations annually and has approved dozens of Wastewater Management Plans.

Section 319 of the Clean Water Act directs each state to develop programs for controlling nonpoint source pollution. New Jersey has registered a State Assessment Report to the EPA which describes the state's nonpoint source pollution problems.

A State Management Program, which addresses these problems, has also been filed with the EPA; however, at present, a structured program for nonpoint source pollution control in New Jersey does not exist. Among the specific issues of con-tention include estuary protection.

The Water Pollution Control Act (N.J.S.A. 58:10A-1, et seq.) gives the DEP the authority to regulate any nonpoint source pollution category for any water pollution control purpose. The DEP has applied this authority to industrial stormwater discharges, landfills, and land disposal of wastewater and sludge. The Water Quality Planning Act (N.J.S.A. 58: 11A-1, et seq.) requires area-wide Water Quality Management Plans to control several types of nonpoint source pollution, but the existing plans generally do not include any mandatory control procedures.

The state's Discharge Prevention, Containment and Countermeasure Plan requirements are designed to assist companies in preventing, and responding to accidental discharges and spills of harmful materials. This program is administered by the Division of Water Resources.

Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Certification is a program that is authorized by the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act (N.J.S.A2 4:24-1, et seq.). Projects which will disturb more.than 5,000 square feet of land surface area must develop a plan for soil erosion and sediment control. This plan must then be certified by the local soil conservation district. Best management practices must be installed to control soil erosion, sedimentation, and nonpoint source pollution, and for stormwater management, during construction and other land disturbance activities (exclusive of agriculture and horticul-ture). Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey are published by the New Jersey State Soil Conservation Committee, and provide general standards for preparation of stream encroachment applications.

c) Water Supply Program The waters of the Barnegat Bay estuary and watershed are a regional lifeline. People depend on the waters for food, livelihood, commerce, transportation, and recreation. The waters of the estuary are also home to thousands of fish, birds, plants, and animals. Water management is a complex task involving numerous players, each trying to balance use and conservation of a specific resource in the public's interest. For proper management, many issues need to be addressed.

MAY2002 G-5

BASE PROGRAM ANALYSIS Federal water programs deal primarily with maintaining, preserving, and restoring the quality of the nation's waters; ensur-ing a continuing adequate supply of water is a responsibility primarily of state and local governments. In New Jersey, the state statute that ensures water supply is the Water Supply Management Act, N.J.S.A. 58: 1A-1, et seq. This statute declares "that the water resources of the state are public assets of the state held in trust for its citizens and are essential to the health, safety, economic welfare, recreation and aesthetic enjoyment, and general welfare of the people of New Jersey."

If the current trends of growth and development continue, the water supplies of the Barnegat Bay region will not be suf-ficient to meet the demand in some areas by the year 2040. In addition, there is a need for more integrated planning by water and wastewater utilities. This is an issue particularly important in coastal areas of the Bay watershed that are sus-ceptible to saltwater intrusion into the near surface underground aquifer. Also, there is a need for increased funding to support information, education, and technical assistance programs for integrated resource planning, water conservation, and conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water. An action in the CCMP addresses these needs to maintain and pro-tect sufficient freshwater supplies for the current and future population of Ocean County.

d) Analysis of Program Implementation Taken as a whole, federal and state clean water programs have had a dramatic beneficial effect on water quality conditions in New Jersey, and no less so in Ocean County and Bamegat Bay itself. Improvements in wastewater treatment, regional-ization of the wastewater treatment system in Ocean County, and the relocation of treated wastewater discharges to ocean outfalls were all funded in the 1970s and 1980s with federal and state assistance. These actions arrested a marked decline in Barnegat Bay's water quality, revived Bay beaches, and restored high quality primary contact recreation in the Bay.

Today, there are no major discharges of treated wastewater effluent into Barnegat Bay. Pursuing a No Discharge Zone des-ignation for the Bay will add to this positive trend by dealing with one of the remaining identifiable sources of contami-nated wastewater.

Concurrent with effectively regulating point sources of wastewater, nonpoint sources of pollution resulting from an increas-ing rate of suburban residential development have become a rapidly rising component of the total contaminant discharges to the Bay and watershed tributaries. As a result, the implementation of nonpoint source programs will determine the ulti-mate success of the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program in terms of maintaining acceptable levels of water quality in the Bay and its tributaries. Phase H Municipal Stormwater Rules are scheduled to be implemented, and the Program will take steps to ensure that they remain on schedule. Preliminary actions on TMDLs are under way, and the Program will sim-ilarly monitor the implementation schedule. The state-funded Sewage Infrastructure Improvement Act has helped munic-ipalities identify and inventory their stormwater systems, but additional funding to help municipalities upgrade and improve their stormwater systems is not forthcoming. Efforts are needed to secure appropriate funding to see this program to its intended conclusion.

The success in regulating point sources of pollution in Barnegat Bay has helped the state to upgrade shellfishing waters.

An improving trend in shellfishing water quality has persisted for about 20 years, and the state has upgraded an addition-al 5000 acres of shellfish waters in Barnegat Bay in 2001. New Jersey maintains one of the most comprehensive shellfish monitoring programs in the country, and further improvement will depend on the success of nonpoint source control pro-grams.

Water supply is another issue that is increasing in significance with the growing coastal population. Some areas of the state have already reached the critical stage in terms of overpumping groundwater supplies. -For example, a major revamping of the water supply system in Monmouth County was negotiated to reverse critical groundwater depletion in that coastal area of the state. At the southern end of the New Jersey shore, Cape May is facing the prospect of constructing a desalinization plant to forestall further saltwater intrusion into its groundwater aquifer. The Program regards the coastal water supply issue for Ocean County to be important enough to propose a comprehensive action to ensure that supplies are adequate through 2040 while not adversely disrupting the coastal hydrologic cycle (Action 5.2).

History shows that it is possible to take action when conditions reach a critical stage; the question remains whether a broad consensus to take action can be reached prior to that critical point.

G-6 BARNEGATBAY FINALCCMP

APPENDIX G

2. CLEAN VESSEL ACT a) General Program Discussion Congress passed the .Clean Vessel Act (CVA) in 1992 to help reduce pollution from vessel sewage discharges. The Act estab-lished a five-year federal grant program administered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and authorized $40 million from the Sport Fish Restoration Account for use by the states. Federal funds may constitute up to 75 percent of all approved projects with the remaining funds provided by the states or marinas. Grants are available to the states on a competitive basis for the construction and/or renovation, operation and maintenance of pumpout and portable toilet dump stations.

Currently, states submit grant proposals by May 1 of each year, to one of seven Fish and Wildlife Service regional offices for review. The service's Division of Federal Aid then convenes a panel including representatives from the Service's Washington Office of the Division of Federal Aid, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the EPA, and the US Coast Guard. The panel reviews, ranks and makes funding recommendations to the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service.

The Director gives priority consideration to grant proposals which provide installation and/or operation of pumpout and dump stations under federally approved state plans.

Three of seven recent pumpout facilities situated in Barnegat Bay were funded at least in part by the CVA. These facilities are available to any boater requesting pumpout. Two other marinas with pumpout stations also have applied for CVA fund-ing to renovate or add to their facilities. Funding for the new facilities, including a mobile pumpout vessel, comes from state and federal grants administered by NJDEP's Clean Vessel Program, which supervises construction.

Pursuant to the CVA, the Sport Fish Restoration Program sets aside money for pump-out units for marinas; money comes from an excise tax built into sales of certain fishing or boating gear (money is administered by FWS and sent back to the state agencies for projects that would benefit recreational fishing and boating). Part of the money from the New Jersey "Shore to Please" license plates is earmarked for pump out.

As noted above under Clean Water Programs, Section 312 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the EPA, individual states and the US Coast Guard to work together to provide states with the opportunity to protect its citizens and its aquatic habitats through No Discharge Zone designations and national standards for marine sanitation devices on boat toilets or heads. The availability of pumpout stations and/or the importance of the waterbody for human health and recreation or the aquatic ecosystem bring to bear on a state's request for a No Discharge Zone designation. A graphic pumpout symbol is placed at docks and marinas to show boaters where a pumpout facility is located. In some cases, small boats may be modified to receive these wastes and can visit boats to provide this service.

There are three distinct kinds of No Discharge Zone designations that may be available to an interested state. These are: to protect aquatic habitats where pumpout facilities are available, to protect special habitats or species, and to protect human drinking water intake zones.

Enforcement of No Discharge Areas is the responsibility of the US Coast Guard; the Coast Guard may delegate this respon-sibility to the state. An MOU has been established between the Coast Guard and the state of New Jersey which designates the New Jersey State Police as the lead law enforcement agency for No Discharge Areas. The State Police enforce boating safety standards, marine sanitation device regulations and the discharge of vessel sewage.

The New Jersey Water Pollution Control Act gives the NJDEP the authority to enforce a federally designated No Discharge Area; NJDEP Enforcement will designate enforcement to the State Police through regulation. The State Police will handle enforcement of any Title 58 violations referred or discovered as outlined in the regulation. Certified county health agencies may seek certi-fication in this area pursuant to the County Environmental Health Act in accordance with the regulation.

The Manasquan River, with a connection to Barnegat Bay by way of the Point Pleasant Canal, has already been declared a No Discharge Zone. In addition, the NJDEP is currently pursuing the nomination of Barnegat Bay as a No Discharge Zone as an action of the CCMP.

MAY 2002 G-7

BASE PROGRAM ANALYSIS b) Analysis of Program Implementation Barnegat Bay has benefited significantly from the Clean Vessel Act and similar sources of federal funding. Nearly one dozen pumpout facilities, including two pumpout vessels, have been funded either in whole or in part through federal and state assistance. This progress advances the schedule to designate Barnegat Bay as a No Discharge Zone. The NJDEP is currently developing further documentation to permit the EPA to concur with the state's nomination.

3. AIR, SOLID WASTE, AND HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAMS a) Air Programs The Federal Clean Air Act's primary mechanism for achieving clean air is through State Air Quality Implementation Plans.

These plans encompass many different elements, including regulations limiting emissions from small and large stationary sources, both new and existing, and strategies dealing with emissions from mobile sources such as vehicle inspection pro-grams. The EPA's primary responsibilities are to assist and oversee the development of these plans, and once in place, to ensure their implementation. Because of the large number of responsibilities delegated to the states, Section 105 of the Act established a mechanism to fund a portion of these activities. These resources are used to fund both the base programs run by the states and special outputs which are specified by the EPA. The special outputs are negotiated with the states and are in accordance with national objectives. The use of these funds and the accomplishment of specific objectives con-tained in the grants are closely tracked by the EPA.

New Jersey's Air Quality Control Program (N.J.A.C. 7:27-8.1, et seq.) was established by the Air Pollution Control Act (N.J.S.A. 26:2C-9.2, et seq.) and requires a permit and operating certificate for equipment which emits, or controls the emis-sion of, substances into the air. Such equipment includes manufacturing facilities with emission rates of air contaminants in excess of 50 pounds per hour, stationary storage tanks for liquids (10,000 gallons) and volatile organic substances (2,000 gallons), commercial fuel burning facilities having a heat input of rate of 1 million BTU per hour or greater, incinerators (with some exceptions for residential dwellings), and water or wastewater treatment facilities which emit air, contaminants.

A special category of air emissions is made up of airborne toxic compounds. The EPA is developing a national program to implement the air toxics portion of the Clean Air Act and emissions are expected to be reduced over the course of a ten-year period as controls for various categories of sources are developed. In addition, the Clean Air Act establishes National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) under Section 112 of the Act, and the EPA provides technical and financial support to state agencies for the development and implementation of air toxics programs. The EPA has estab-lished emissions standards for 7 pollutants, including mercury, and another 189 hazardous air pollutants will be regulated under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Mercury is a widespread environmental contaminant, and in New Jersey its presence has led to statewide advisories on the consumption of locally caught fish. Atmospheric sources of the contami-nant are suspected of contributing to this problem.

Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), The EPA has developed regulations for toxic air emis-sions from hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities. In the Superfund program, air toxics are addressed in clean-up decisions at sites. In addition, the EPA has developed a program of technical and financial support to states to encourage them to develop air toxics control programs of their own.

b) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

This federal statute was enacted in 1976 to ensure the proper management and disposal of hazardous and non-haz-ardous solid wastes and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. In 1984, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) were authorized by Congress to strengthen RCRA. Some of the significant requirements of the 1984 Amendments are to:

Construct land disposal facilities in accordance with Minimum Technology Requirements, such as double liners and leachate collection and detection systems; G-8 BARNEGATBAYFINAL CCMP

APPENDIX G

• Construct and operate treatment and storage tanks in accordance with the federal regulation promulgated July 14, 1986, which mandated secondary containment;

" Identify and address any release of hazardous waste and hazardous constituents from solid waste management units;

• Comply with restrictions to land disposal.of hazardous waste; and

• Certify to waste minimization.

The HSWA permit also requires the applicant to initiate a corrective action program to address any environmental releases of hazardous waste or constituents at solid waste management units.

An RCRA corrective action program consists of the following major components:

" RCRA Facility Assessment to identify past and present releases or potential releases requiring further investigation;

" Interim/Stabilization Measures to take immediate action in response to releases and to recommend the final corrective measures;

• RCRA Facility Assessment to fully characterize the extent of releases; and

• Corrective Measures Implementation to design, construct, operate, maintain, and monitor the performance of the corrective measure(s) selected.

These four activities ensure that a facility will adequately identify all contamination and provide corrective action as necessary to protect human health and the environment.

New Jersey has obtained final authorization for the RCRA base program (plus additional provisions) inclusive of regulations codified in the July 1, 1993 Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations and is effective as of August 2, 1999; however, New Jersey does not have final authorization for the HSWA corrective action program.

c) Superfund "Superfund" was established in December 1980 under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, 42 USC 1901, et seq.). The purpose of this program is to provide funding for the cleanup of sites contaminated with hazardous wastes. The Act authorized the EPA to provide tong-term remedies at hazardous waste sites, and established a $1.6 billion fund, raised over five years from special industry taxes and general revenues, to finance remedial activities. In 1986, Congress reauthorized Superfund by enacting the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), increasing the fund to $8.5 billion and strengthening the remedial process.

The sites eligible for receiving Superfund monies are listed on the National Priorities List (NPL), which is used by the EPA to set priorities for cleanup of the sites. A priority site can be remediated in several ways:

• The responsible parties, i.e., site owners and operators as well as generators and transporters, can remediate it voluntarily;

• The responsible parties can be forced to remediate it by legal and administrative actions; or Superfund monies can be used to finance the remedial action. If there is difficulty in getting the responsible parties to act, the EPA will proceed under Superfund and will seek recovery of costs through legal action at a later date.

MAY2002 G-9

BASE PROGRAM ANALYSIS Seven existing and former Superfund sites are found within the Barnegat Bay watershed of Ocean County. One site, Beachwood/Berkeley Wells, has been satisfactorily addressed and has been deleted from the Superfund list. Four sites located in Plumsted Township of Ocean County lie outside the Barnegat Bay watershed and within the Delaware drainage area. Brief summaries of the six active Superfund sites in the Barnegat Bay watershed of Ocean County are presented below:

BRICK TOWNSHIP LANDFILL: This landfill site is suspected of having received chemical wastes within its 30 years of operation, ending in 1979. The removal of drums and filling and venting of septage pits have reduced the poten-tial for exposure to contaminated materials. Further cleanup activities are being planned by the state of New Jersey, including capping the landfill, securing the site, installing landfill gas venting and air monitoring, installing a groundwater quality monitoring system, and installing a surface water control system.

CIBA-GEIGY CORPORATION: This is among the most contaminated Superfund sites within Ocean County, covering 1,400 acres, 320 of which are developed. Uncontrolled disposal of.chemical wastes from the manufacture of dyes, pigments, resins, and epoxy additives have contaminated the groundwater and soils with volatile organic com-pounds, including benzene, trichloroethylene, chloro-benzene, 1-2-dichloroethane, and toluene, as well as heavy metals including arsenic and chromium. Initial remedial actions included removal of 15,000 drums of chemical waste and closure of a ten-mile-long ocean outfall pipeline carrying mixed waste effluent from the site. The more long-term remedy for groundwater cleanup, including recharge of the treated groundwater to the local aquifer, has been selected and is being implemented. The EPA has determined that the site does not pose an immediate threat to the surrounding community or the environment while progress is underway for final cleanup remedies for the contam-inated source areas.

DENZER & SCHAFER X-RAY COMPANY, BAYVILLE: This company is involved in the reclamation of silver from both microfilm and X-ray negatives. Historic disposal of chemical wastes in the onsite septic system has contaminated the groundwater with heavy metals, including arsenic, chromium, lead, and mercury, as welt as with volatile organ-ic compounds, including chloroform and toluene. Potential risks exist for those who ingest or come into direct con-tact with groundwater from contaminated wells and soil. After adding this site to the Superfund list, the EPA deter-mined that no immediate actions were required while selection of the final cleanup remedies were made. The select-ed remedy will likely include the connection of 129 residences and commercial establishments to municipal water; excavation and disposal of the underground wastewater storage tank; and removal of contaminated film waste stock-piled on the site.

JACKSON TOWNSHIP LANDFILL: This landfill, closed in 1980, was the site for dumping millions of gallons of liq-uid sewage and septage wastes. Having been a former titanium ore-mining pit, the site also contains mine tailings on the surface. Initial remedial action was to provide an alternate water supply for 130 wells that were contami-nated as a result of groundwater contamination at the landfill. With the provision of this alternate water supply, the potential for exposure to contaminated groundwater has been eliminated, and the EPA and the state have deter-mined that no further cleanup actions are necessary at the site.

NAVAL AIR ENGINEERING CENTER, LAKEHURST: This site, whoselmajor function has been the development and testing of weapons systems, has multiple areas with varying levels of contamination. The site is currently being addressed by focusing on those areas where contamination is most significant. At some sites, the cleanup has been completed. While further investigations and other cleanup activities are underway, the EPA has determined that the overall site does not pose an immediate threat to the surrounding communities or the environment.

REICH FARM, DOVER TOWNSHIP: This site, covering approximately three acres, was used for a short period in 1971 for the illicit dumping of drums containing organic solvents, still bottoms, and residues from the manufacturing of G- 10 BARNEGATBAY FINAL CCMP

APPENDIX G organic chemicals, plastics, and resins. Groundwater is contaminated with volatile organic compounds, including trichloroethylene, and semi-volatile organics. Initial remedial action was the removal of 5,095 drums and trench wastes from the site. Shortly after, an additional 50 drums were removed, as well as 1,100 cubic yards of contami-nated soil. Nearly 150 private wells nearby were ordered closed and a zoning ordinance restricting groundwater use was established. Residents in the immediate vicinity were connected to a permanent alternate water supply. Further remediation will include: installation of extraction wells; treatment of extracted groundwater by air stripping and carbon adsorption; re-injection of the treated groundwater into the ground; excavation of soil contaminated with volatile organic compounds and treatment in an advanced volatilization unit; and backfilling the excavated area with the treated soil.

d) State Hazardous Waste Programs The Environmental Cleanup Responsibility Act (ECRA; N.J.S.A. 13:1K-6), enacted in 1983, imposes preconditions on the sale, transfer, or closure of "industrial establishments" involved with hazardous substances or wastes. The NJDEP must approve and certify that a property is not contaminated or that the property owner will ensure remediation of the site. This process may include: (1) the execution of an approved cleanup plan; (2) a negative declaration that the site is not contaminated; or (3) the execution of an Administrative Consent Order (ACO) between the owner/operator and the NJDEP, allowing the sale to proceed, but which includes financial assurance for the esti-mated cost of the cleanup. This program has proven effective for remediating contaminated sites with funds pro-vided by the responsible parties. It has prevented the abandonment of hazardous sites and encouraged proper envi-ronmental business practices.

The New Jersey Hazardous Site Discharge Fund provides monies to remediate hazardous waste sites where the respon-sible parties are not available to pay the cost of cleanup. The fund was established in 1986 with $150 million in state appropriations. Additional appropriations totaling $135 million were made in 1988 and 1989.

e) Spill Prevention and Control Prevention and cleanup of oil and hazardous substance spills are the focus of federal programs administered by the US Coast Guard and the EPA. The National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan was developed pursuant to the provisions of Section 311(c)(2) of the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended. The National Plan is also required by Section 105 of the Superfund Act. The National Plan calls for the establishment of a network of regional contingency plans, whose purpose is to provide a coordinated and integrated response to spills by federal, state, and local agencies. The plans provide for the standardization of procedure and policy among agencies, and encourage the development of capabilities by both local governments and private interests to handle and prevent pollution discharges.

Additionally, Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) requires state and local level emergency planning efforts. SARA requires industries to notify local governments of potential chemical hazards present in the community. The EPA Region 2 publishes and maintains plans for New Jersey. The Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) of New York publishes and maintains plans for the New Jersey shore from Sandy Hook to approximately Toms River; the Coast Guard COTP, Philadelphia is responsible for all plans in New Jersey south of Toms River.

The State Spill Compensation and Control Act (N.J.S.A. 58: 10-23.11, et seq.) prohibits the discharge of hazardous sub-stances unless such discharge is in accordance with the conditions of a state or federal permit. The act provides New Jersey with a mechanism to tax the chemical industry to provide funding for the remediation of hazardous waste sites. These monies are deposited in the Spill Fund, which currently totals approximately $150 million.

MAY2002 G-11

BASE PROGRAM ANALYSIS The SpitL Act imposes strict liability for cleanup and removal costs upon dischargers and any person responsible for any hazardous substance which the NJDEP has removed or is removing. Any person who violates the Spitl Act is liable to a penalty of up to $50,000 for each offense. The Act also gives the Administrator of the Spill Fund the authority to file liens against the property of dischargers to protect the NJDEP's cleanup expenditures from the spill.

f) Solid Waste Management The current federal Solid Waste Management Program is an outgrowth 6f the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). More recently, the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 and the Municipal Solid Waste Task Force within the EPA have guided federal solid waste program development. In February 1989, a final report of the Task Force, entitled "The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action," set forth the current federal initiatives in solid waste management. This and New Jersey's Solid Waste Management Program form a comprehen-sive solid waste management strategy for the state.

The disposal of solid waste in New Jersey is regulated pursuant to the Solid Waste Management Act of 1976 (which amended the Solid Waste Management Act of 1970). The Act provided a comprehensive statewide strategy for man-aging solid waste by outlining county and NJDEP responsibilities. Regional planning is undertaken by the counties, who are responsible for master plan development, site and technology selection, permit application, and project financing and implementation. The NJDEP certifies amendments to the Statewide Solid Waste Management Plan, issues construction and operation permits (for landfills, resource recovery facilities, etc.), conducts compliance and enforcement monitoring, and provides some funding. The overall goal is to make New Jersey self-sufficient in its solid waste disposal needs. This is to be accomplished through the implementation of a four-part strategy of: (1) source reduction; (2) recycling; (3) resource recovery; and (4) tandfitting. In addition, the Mandatory Source Separation and Recycling Act was passed in April 1987. This act requires each municipality to compost all leaves and recycle at least three other materials. Also, New Jersey has adopted rules regulating the disposal of certain med-ical wastes to prevent such wastes from despoiling shorelines.

g) Pollution Prevention Pollution prevention has become a key notion for environmental progress in the last decade. Pollution prevention is a multi-media approach with its primary goal being the avoidance of waste and pollution generation, followed by source reduction and environmentally sound recycling. The ultimate goal is to avoid shifting pollutants from one media to another by reducing the need for treatment. The EPA has four strategic objectives by which the pollution prevention goat can be met:

• Develop multi-media approach;

• Support regional, state, and local multi-media prevention programs;

• Build consensus for a National Agenda on Prevention; and

• Establish data strategy to develop indicators, evaluate progress, and target opportunities.

h) Analysis of Program Implementation Air, solid waste, and hazardous waste programs have generally been successful in New Jersey, including Ocean County. Air pollution levels have shown a continuing declining trend, as they have throughout the northeast.

Superfund sites have been stabilized and/or remediated, and hazardous waste programs have increased surveillance and monitoring of these potentially contaminating sources. However, the legacy of toxic pollution remains a dis-G- 12 BARNEGArBAYFINALCCMP

APPENDIX G turbing undercurrent in the daily life of Ocean County residents. A federally supported study is currently under way to examine a cancer cluster in Dover Township that some suspect may be linked to the Ciba-Geigy Corporation Superfund site. No linkage has yet been established, and any conclusion must await the results of this study. Toxic contamination has not been identified as a priority area of concern for the BBNEP. The CCMP does, however, include a num-ber of actions to ensure that any emerging issue wilt receive early attention by the primary responsible agencies.

B. Habitat Loss and Alteration

1. COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT a) Federal Program The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972, established a national policy to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance, the nation's coastal zone. The Act also encouraged the states to exercise their responsibilities in the coastal zone through the development and implementation of management programs, the preparation of special area management plans, and the participation and cooperation of the Oublic, local and state governments, interstate and regional agencies, and federal agencies in programs affecting the coastal zone. The US Department of Commerce is the federal lead agency charged with the responsibility of implementing the Act; how-ever, the Act provides that the objectives of the law are to be achieved through the development and administra-tion of approved state coastal management programs. The Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA) augmented the original Act by authorizing federal matching grants for assisting coastal states in develop-ing management programs for the land and water resources of their coastal zones, particularly for nonpoint source pollution control..

New Jersey has an approved coastal zone management program (CMP). The New Jersey CMP was approved in two phases. The first phase covering the ocean counties was approved on September 19, 1978. The second phase cov-ering the Hudson River, Raritan River, Arthur Kill, Hackensack River, and the Delaware River estuaries, was approved on September 20, 1980.

b) New Jersey Coastal Management Program The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) was given the responsibility for preparing and adminis-tering the CMP by the governor. The CMP provides for greater consistency between federal and state actions in the coastal zone. The CMP has three interrelated basic elements: a boundary defining the general geographic scope of the program; Coastal Resource and Development Policies defining the standards for ,making decisions on what activities may take ,place within the boundaries; and a management system defining the types of decisions subject to the program and the process by which those decisions will be made.

The principal authorities that enable the NJDEP to implement the Act include the Waterfront Development Law, the Coastal Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA), the Wetlands Act, and tidelands and shore protection statutes. The Waterfront Development Act (N.J.S.A. 12:5-3) authorizes the NJDEP to regulate the construction or alteration of structures on or adjacent to navigable waterways and tidal streams throughout the state. The NJDEP has adopted regulations to fully implement the Law by defining both its geographic scope and types of development to which it applies. The waterfront area is defined by N.J.A.C. 7:7-2.3 as including all tidal waterways and lands adjacent there-to up to the inland limit of the first property boundary from the waterway. This rule applies to all upland areas beyond the mean high water line outside the Hackensack Meadowlands District. Persons proposing to undertake waterfront development must obtain a permit from the Division of Coastal Resources. Persons who consider them-MAY 2002 G-13

BASE PROGRAM ANALYSIS selves aggrieved by the granting or denial of a permit may appeal the Division's decision to the Commissioner in accordance with the 90-Day Construction Permit Law (N.J.S.A. 13:10-29).

CAFRA (N.J.S.A. 13:19-1, et seq.), originally adopted in 1973, authorizes the NJDEP to regulate and approve the loca-tion, design, and construction of major industrial sites and public works facilities as a way to control adverse impacts on water quality and estuarine habitat. CAFRA covers a 1,376 square mite coastal region encompassing portions of Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, Burlington, Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland, and Salem counties. Lying within the CAFRA area are New Jersey's barrier beach islands, all of its coastal resort areas, portions of the Pinelands, and large agricultural areas. The Act is admindstered by the Division of Coastal Resources. Persons proposing to build CAFRA-regulated activities must submit an application and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to the Division. Proposed development projects must adhere to a set of "Coastal Resources and Development Policies." A public hearing and a review of the document are required before a permit decision is rendered by the Division Director. CAFRA permit decisions may be appealed to either the Commissioner of the NJDEP or to a three member Coastal Area Review Board.

In 1993, amendments to CAFRA expanded the scope of review to include "developments" in regulated coastal areas. It also requires development of an environmental inventory of the coastal area and tong-term environmental strategies. New revised regulations have only recently been promulgated by the NJDEP. These are meant to address shortcomings in the original regu-lations; moreover, they help to integrate state guidance, in the form of the New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan, into the CMP. The guidance is designed to steer development and redevelopment towards areas with existing adequate infrastructure and to promote conservation of the state's natural resources. (See further discussioh under Land Use Management below.)

New Jersey has also developed its Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program pursuant to Section 1455 of the CZMA Amendments of 1990. These most recent amendments constitute a federal land-use planning statute that requires a state with an approved coastal management program to submit a detailed plan for developing and implementing management mea-sures to control coastal nonpoint source pollution.

The Wetlands Act of 1970 (N.J.S.A. 13:9A-1, et seq.) authorizes the NJDEP to regulate activities on coastal wetlands. The Act, which is administered by the Division of Coastal Resources, gives the state broad discretion in regulating virtually all types of coastal development on mapped coastal wetlands, except for mosquito control and continued commercial produc-tion of salt hay or other agricultural crops. Coastal wetlands are defined as those wetlands subject to tidal action along spec-ified water bodies; the Act does not affect inland or freshwater wetlands. The greatest amount of wetlands acreage is found along the Atlantic and Delaware Bay shorefronts, including the entire shoreline of Barnegat Bay.

"Tide-flowed" or riparian lands are owned by the State of New Jersey, except where already conveyed. The 's ownership inter-est extends to the mean high water mark, which is determined on the basis of a theoretical 18.6-year tide. The State's own-ership role is exercised through the Tidelands Resource Council which may grant, lease, or license the use of State-owned tidelands provided that the action is in the public interest. Many of the State's tidelands were sold in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but it is the present practice of the council only to license the use of the lands, and not to grant them outright. Decisions made by the cbuncil may be vetoed by the NJDEP Commissioner and Division of Coastal Resources if it is inconsistent with State policy. Should a veto occur, the application is returned to the council for reconsideration. A Waterfront Development Permit must be obtained for any activity within the tidelands.

The Watershed Protection and Management Act of 1997 dedicates a portion of the Corporate Business Tax for purposes of "water quality point and nonpoint source pollution monitoring, watershed-based resource planning and management, and nonpoint source pollution prevention projects." One of the key provisions of the Act is to facilitate the NJDEP's watershed-based resources management process, and to provide guidelines for Long-range watershed management planning activities.

The designation of 20 Watershed Management Areas in the State was the first step in this process. The formation of watershed management groups in each of these areas, as set forth in the Act, will assist the NJDEP in identifying key issues and establishing priorities with regard to implementing activities aimed at protecting and improving water quality and water supplies within each area. The NJDEP identifies the Barnegat Bay watershed as Watershed G- 14 BARNEGATBAY rMNALCCMP

APPENDIX G Management Area #13, and intends the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program to help fulfill its objectives for com-prehensive watershed management in this area as wel[ as to serve as a model for developing plans for the other 19 Watershed Management Areas.

c) Federal Consistency Process Like their State counterparts, federal agencies operate a number of programs which affect the balanced use and pro-tection of coastal resources. The CZMA, as amended, requires the actions of federal agencies to be consistent with the policies of a state's CMP. Federally conducted or supported activities (including development projects), activi-ties requiring federal licenses or permits, federal financial assistance to state and local governments, and explo-ration, development, and production activities on the Outer Continental Shelf which require a federal license or per-mit are all subject to CZMA requirements and must be consistent with the New Jersey CMP.

To ensure that federal agencies comply with the CZMA provisions, the US Department of Commerce adopted regula-tions (15 CFR, Part 930) which established procedures for the federal consistency process. These regulations set up separate review procedures for each of the above-mentioned items.

d) Analysis of Program Implementation The Coastal Zone Management Program has helped address some of the most damaging historic coastal land use prac-tices in the region, and has helped to reduce the adverse environmental impacts of large-scale coastal development.

Its influence on smaller-scale incremental development has been more limited. The original CAFRA regulations used a threshold of 25 housing units as one measure to trigger regulatory review. As a result, a number of housing devel-opments were constructed that consisted of 24 units. The recent amendments to CAFRA, known as CAFRA II, were promulgated in part to lower this threshold. Action Item 6.10 of the CCMP contains an action to ensure that New Jersey evaluates the performance of this revised program. The BBNEP will consider the need to propose further action if the results so dictate.

Coastal zone management is part of land use regulation and falls primarily within the purview of local governments.

As a result, the success of such a program rests to a large extent on the cooperation and action of individual munic-ipalities. The BBNEP targets municipal governments in a number of actions to ensure that the Coastal Management Program is as effective as it can be in the Barnegat Bay watershed.

2. LAND USE MANAGEMENT a) Introduction Land management is a priority issue area of the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program. Population has increased by 700 percent within the watershed since 1950, and Ocean County continues to be one of the fastest growing coun-ties in New Jersey. The need for the protection of critical habitats, the control of nonpoint source pollution asso-ciated with a growing population, and the need for improvements in current water quality standards are remaining issues to be addressed. As the Program works to achieve its goals of protecting the estuary's resources, it is neces-sary to reevaluate current land use practices and to focus on land use as a tool and an opportunity for improving the environmental health of the region.

Within the Barnegat Bay estuary, there are a number of federal agencies, the state of New Jersey, Ocean County and 33 municipalities, plus 4 additional municipalities within Monmouth County. These political entities and agencies have rules and policies dealing both directly and indirectly with land use. In addition to the governmental agen-cies in the region, a number of quasi-governmental and private entities have indirect influence on land use deci-MAY2002 G-15

BASE PROGRAM ANALYSIS sions. The federal government does not play a direct role in local land use planning, but a number of federal regu-latory programs can act indirectly to affect land use and development. The federal regulatory role is mainly for envi-ronmental protection and deals with permitting and enforcement procedures, as with Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments. Also, it should be noted that federal funding for capital projects and acqui-sition of land for public uses often have effects on land use patterns. Non-regulatory federal programs provide tech-nical assistance, education and funding to state, county and local governments.

b) State Role in Land Use Planning New Jersey is involved, to a certain extent, with land use through direct regulatory control and financial assistance, but its most important role is in non-regulatory land use control. The guidance power of the state of New Jersey defines the powers of the county and municipal governments. Although the state has traditionally left land use decisions to local governments, the emergence of the Coastal Zone Management Program, concerns for environmen-tal protection, greater interest in new techniques (Transfer Development Rights, the New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan) and new methods to protect coastal environments, wetlands and farmland preservation (New Jersey's CAFRA Program) all enable the state to take a more expansive role in land use planning and manage-ment. State programs that influence land use decisions include programs of the NJDEP, such as for recreational ser-vices, protecting natural features and coastal lands, endangered species protection, and providing services dealing with groundwater supplies. The Land Use Regulation Program, in particular, administers statutes that authorize direct state regulation of environmentally sensitive features associated with wetlands, streams and tidal waters.

Other programs that influence land use management include: the Department of Transportation, the Soil Conservation Service, the Department of Community Affairs, the New Jersey Economic Development Authority, and the Department of the Treasury.

In particular, the state has instituted a program managed by the Office of State Planning, which promotes the land use provisions of the State Development and Redevelopment Plan. The State Plan was authorized by the State Planning Act (N.J.S.A. 52:18A-16, et seq.) in 1986. The State Plan was established as a guide for municipalities and county master planning, state agency functions and infrastructure investment decisions. The state encourages all governmental agencies to review their plans and bring them into consistency with the strategies, objectives and poli-cies set forth in the State Plan, a process known as "cross acceptance." The state is currently pursuing the "cross acceptance" process, but it carries with it no regulatory authority.

The goals of the State Development and Redevelopment Plan include the following: (1) to promote beneficial economic growth, development, and renewal; (2) to conserve the state's natural resources; (3) to preserve and enhance historic and cultural sites, open space, and recreational lands and structures; (4) to protect the environment; and (5) to ensure sound and integrated planning statewide. For planning purposes the state (exclusive of the Pinelands, CAFRA, and Hackensack Meadowlands) has been divided into one of seven "tiers." This tier system identifies a range of develop-ment/habitat types, from urban centers and suburbs to agricultural lands and environmentally sensitive areas. This Plan has been tied more closely into coastal zone management through promulgation of new CAFRA II regulations.

In summary, state regulatory programs and enforcement represent the principal tools for environmental protection, but it is recognized that these, for the most part, are reactive to land development pressures and seek to balance competing uses. Integrated planning among the different levels of government is needed with states playing a lead-ership role in articulating a vision for the future.

c) Pinelands Commission In 1978, the National Parks and Recreation Act established the Pinelands National Reserve and called for the devel-opment of a Comprehensive Management Plan for the region. By executive order, in February 1979, the Governor established the Pinelands Commission. The Pinelands Protection Act (N.J.S.A. 13:18-1, et seq.), which authorized G- 16 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

APPENDIX G the Commission to develop a Comprehensive Management Plan, was signed in 1979, and the Plan became effective in 1981 as N.J.A.C. 7:50-1.1, et seq. The Pi'nelands National Reserve is approximately 1.1 million acres in size and the Pinelands Area (state) includes approximately 937,000 acres.

The Commission is an independent agency which is included under the NJDEP for constitutional purposes. The Commission implements a land use plan for the Pinelands region of the state, which includes portions of seven coun-ties in southern New Jersey. The Plan divides the Pinelands into nine land use management areas including: preser-vation areas, agricultural areas, forest areas, rural development areas, regional growth areas, military and federal installation areas, towns and villages, and special agricultural areas. It also establishes 16 management programs to protect air quality, water resources, vegetation, wetlands, fish and wildlife, scenic and cultural resources, agricul-ture, and other characteristics of the Pinelands environment. All counties and municipalities in the Pinelands are required to revise their master plans and zoning ordinances to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Manage-ment Plan. The Commission reviews all local development proposals and may deny them if the application is incon-sistent with the Comprehensive Management Plan.

Thirteen of Ocean County's 33 municipalities tie wholly, or in part, within the Pinelands region, 8 of which have area included in the Pinelands inner Preservation Area, where development is more strictly regulated than in the outer Protection Area. Most Pinelands Area municipalities have revised their local master plans and land use ordinances to comply with the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan. In most of these "certified" towns, "minor" development applications (usually fewer than five residential units) can be submitted directly to the municipality for a building or subdivision approval. In these cases, the applicant is only required to send a copy of the application to the Pinelands Commission. Applications for "major" development (commercial, industrial, or larger residential developments usually involving five or more units) require initial Commission review, as do all development applications in towns which have not yet revised their plans and ordinances in compliance with the Commission's regulations.

As far as wetlands are concerned, most types of development are prohibited in the Pinetands. Exceptions include blueberry and cranberry farming, forestry, and other low intensity activities. Public improvements are permitted to cross wetlands in limited instances. In addition, no development is generally allowed within a 300-foot buffer zone surrounding wetlands.

d) Ocean County and Municipal Roles The primary responsibility for land use planning and control lies at the county and local levels. Ocean County plays a significant role in land use management through non-regulatory planning and advisory roles, as well as through the development and promotion of its comprehensive plan. The Ocean County Planning Department assists munici-palities in developing their own local plans and providing zoning assistance, but the county planning activities are nonbinding to the municipalities, and primarily limited to advisory and technical assistance. The counties are given the legal authoritT to review and approve subdivisions through the County and Regional Planning Enabling Act. This Act enables planning boards to review and approve subdivisions that affect county roads and drainage areas.

Counties also review local applications to ensure that they are consistent with the county's stormwater control and transportation plans. The county's role is increasing in the areas of regional growth, water, stormwater and waste-water management, but counties are often caught between local governments who are often unwilling to relinquish local use controls and state governments that often have broader views of regional resource management.

The primary role of land use control in the Barnegat Bay estuary, as throughout New Jersey, is achieved at the munic-ipal level of government. The authority that allows for this control is established through the Municipal Land Use Law in New Jersey. Municipal planning and zoning hearing boards include a mix of full-time, part-time and volun-tary staff. In addition, most municipalities in Ocean County have environmental commissions which may prepare and submit an index of natural resources to the planning board. In some instances, they may also review applica-tions for development. Problems and gaps associated with local land use planning often result because: many munic-ipalities plan for development, and do not or cannot use planning as a tool for accommodating natural heritage and MAY2002 G-17

BASE PROGRAM ANALYSIS open space needs; many of the ordinances are outdated; and many plans and ordinances do not consider the com-prehensive impacts on the natural elements of not only the local area, but also the estuary and watershed as a whole.

Because of community prioritization and relatively low budgets, municipalities must focus on issues that relate to community infrastructure, education and crime. This often places environmental and conservation issues, such as nonpoint source pollution, low on the prioritization lists. Also, planning and zoning, and staffing resources are often limited at the local jurisdictions. Finally, because of the common municipal concern over ratables and/or the reliance on the local tax base to maintain municipal budgets, the idea of fiscal impacts to a locality is a major issue.

Fiscal impact analyses can be utilized to compare land development futures of communities and to compare the fis-cal impacts of these futures.

e) Analysis of Program Implementation The Pinelands Commission administers one of the most effective state land use management programs. In addition, other land use planning tools are available to the state outside of the Pinelands Commission boundaries. Between the Pinelands Region and the State Coastal Management Program, about three-quarters of Ocean County is subject to state program review.

Only the northwestern quadrant of the county lies beyond the boundaries of these programs. As noted in the analysis for the Coastal Zone Management Program (see above), much of the success of land use management depends on the motiva-tion and action by local governments. Programs at the federal and state level are largely advisory, and may be helped through the offering of incentives or other benefits. In the long run, however, it will be the commitment of local govern-ment that will determine the success of land use management. The CCMP acknowledges this reality with a series of appro-priate actions in Chapters 5 and 6.

3. WETLANDS REGULATION AND MANAGEMENT a) Federal Program General Overview Until the 1970s, the regulatory program for the nation's waters consisted of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, adminis-tered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps). Section 10 of that Act prohibits the unauthorized obstruction or alteration of any navigable water of the United States. "Navigable waters" are defined as those waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide and/or are presently used, have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to trans-port interstate or foreign commerce. Since the focus of the Act is the navigation aspect of the waters, it did not serve directly to protect other attributes of waterways from environmental degradation caused by a host of both legal and ille-gal activities. Court decisions from several lawsuits in the 1960s expanded the ability of Section 10 to protect navigable waters so that the federal government now has the authority to regulate discharges of both liquid and solid materials. After passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, several lawsuits served to expand federal jurisdiction from the traditional "naviga-ble waters" to all tributaries and adjacent wetlands -- in effect, all waters within the United States.

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. These waters include all surface waters, their tributaries, and adjacent wetlands. The discharges subject to Section 404 permit-ting actions are commonly associated with projects such as channel construction and maintenance, port development, fills to create fastland for development sites, and water resource projects like reservoirs and flood control projects. Section 404 is somewhat limited as a tool for habitat protection in that it does not regulate dredging, ditching, or clearing of vegeta-tion, nor does it allow for the provision of transition (or buffer) zones around special aquatic sites. A total wetland pro-tection program would necessarily include all these facets to be most effective.

G- 18 BARNEGAT BAYFIAL CCMP

APPENDIX G The principal authorities currently in use by the Corps are as follows:

AUTHORITY ACTIVITY

,Section (), Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 Damns and ~dikes across navigable waters.

~Section 10, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 ~Any ob~struction or alteration of navigable waters.

~Section 404,~ Clean WaterAct of 192 Dicag o rde or filil matenial into waters of the United States.

Major related laws implemented by other Federal agencies are:

All regulated discharges are reviewed with respect to the Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines, which set forth the review criteria for discharges of dredged or fill material into wetlands. Although promulgated by the EPA, the Guidelines were developed and are used by both the EPA and the Corps. In general, the guidelines require a permit applicant to demonstrate that: 1) no practicable alternatives exist; 2) threatened or endangered species will not be eliminat-ed or water quality standards violated; 3) no significant degradation of waters of the U.S. will result; and 4) the impacts of any necessary discharge are minimized. The guidelines contain a "rebuttable presumption" that less dam-aging alternatives (usually upland alternatives) exist for non-water dependent projects being proposed within spe-cial aquatic sites..- This means that someone proposing, for example, to discharge fill for development of a commer-cial project must first demonstrate that no alternative upland site or less valuable wetland site exists. This issue of practicable alternatives is generally the main point of contention in controversial Section 404 permit reviews.

• The Corps conducts what is known as the "public interest review" in which the favorable impacts of a proposal are balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detrimental impacts. The Corps defines the program as "one which reflects the national concerns for both the protection and utilization of important resources." Part of the overall review process entails compliance with other applicable federal laws (i.e., NEPA, CWA, etc.).

MAY 2002 G-19

BASE PROGRAM ANALYSIS Nationwide permits give authorization for approximately 750 well-defined activities within wetlands areas. The nation-wide permits administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have been revised since 1991 from a total of 26 to 42.

Nationwide permit #26 allows for the filling of wetland areas less than three acres in size. In New Jersey, hundreds of acres of wetlands have been lost due to nationwide permits while over the past ten years, less than ten acres have been lost due to individual permits without mitigation.

Under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act, the Administrator of the EPA can prohibit or restrict the use of a water body of the United States as a disposal site for dredge or fill material. This can occur, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, whenever the Administrator determines that such disposal will have an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas (including spawning and breeding areas), wildlife, or recre-ational areas. This authority is often referred to as the EPA's "veto" authority over Corps permits because it is gen-erally invoked when there is a disagreement over a proposed permit issuance and the EPA has exhausted all other appeal measures to the Corps and to the Department of the Army itself. This authority is seldom exercised.

Nationwide through 1990, there had been eight completed actions, three of which were completed in 1989-1990, and a relatively small number have been carried on in more recent years. EPA Region 2 invoked Section 404(c) in 1989 on a proposed development project in the Hackensack Meadowlands in northern New Jersey.

The Corps has the main responsibility to monitor compliance with program requirements and conditions of issued permits.

Under a Memorandum of Agreement signed by the EPA and the Department of the Army in 1989 (the enforcement MOA),

the EPA for the first time also has authority to pursue permit violations. The Corps must first determine that a violation of a permit has occurred and decline to take action before the EPA can use this authority.

Federal Agency Coordination While the Corps has the primary responsibility of operating the program by reviewing and making decisions on per-mit applications, the EPA, along with the US Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, pro-vides federal review and comments on Corps permits actions. The agencies also cooperate on the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for activities that impact waters of the United States, including wetlands.

The EPA also assists the Corps in making wetland determinations/delineations, in reviewing proposed wetland mit-igation plans, and in enforcement of the Section 404 program.

An agreement was recently reached between the EPA, the Corps, the Fish & Wildlife Service, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service on the publication and use of one unified federal method of identifying and delin-eating jurisdictional wetlands. The approach described in this manual is a further refinement of the "three-para-meter approach" where soils, hydrology, and kVegetation are examined to determine the presence of wetlands. This manual may serve as a guide to other federal agencies, states and local governments, environmental consultants, and the environmental and developmental communities to avoid confusion in identifying wetlands.

Until fairly recently, ignorance of the program's very existence was widespread and used as a popular excuse for non-compliance. Now, much emphasis has been placed on educating the public on wetland. functions, values, and regu-lation. The EPA, the Corps and the USFWS, along with many private environmental groups, have been active in pro-moting this knowledge, and the incidence of unauthorized activity has subsequently decreased.

State Delegation of Section 404 Program The Clean Water Act allows for the EPA to delegate the Section 404 regulatory program from the Corps of Engineers to interested states, although only non-tidal and other non-navigable waters may be assumed by the states. On March 2, 1994, the State of New Jersey, as only the second state in the nation to do so, assumed the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit program for the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. See further discussion on this topic below under the heading "New Jersey State Wetlands Program." Most states have G-20 BARNEGAT BAY FIMAL CCMP

APPENDIX G not sought to assume the program, probably due to the time and expense involved.

When a state assumes the Section 404 program from the Corps, the EPA becomes the federal oversight authority. It is the decision of the Regional Administrator to delegate the program, and the EPA has a responsibility to oversee the state's management of that program for a certain period of time. In a delegated program, the EPA acts as the coordinator for federal comments, and the state is required to respond to any negative position forwarded by the EPA. While the Section 404 program remains under jurisdiction of the Corps, the EPA can also exercise its oversight authority under Section 404(c).

Other Activities One of the EPA's national initiatives is to identify valuable wetland areas that are threatened by conversion for development or agricultural use. These listings are designed to focus attention on valuable wetlands and encourage their protection through regulatory, planning, and public outreach activities. The EPA has completed a listing for the State of New Jersey.

b) New Jersey State Wetlands Program In 1970, the New Jersey State Legislature passed the Wetlands Act of 1970, designed to stop the destruction of coastal wet-lands. Coastal wetlands are defined as those wetlands subject to tidal action along specified water bodies, and extend from the head of tide, out to the coastal shoreline. This Act empowered the NJDEP to map all coastal wetlands in New Jersey south of the Raritan River, and regulate all development within these wetlands. In the period immediately prior to the Act, over 3,000 acres of coastal wetlands per year were being lost to coastal and lagoon development. Since the time the Department implemented the taw, the number of acres of coastal wetlands lost per year to development has dramatically decreased and approaches zero. Other state programs also have wetland review components. The Flood Hazard Control Act applies to wetlands located within designated floodplain areas.

In 1987 the state of New Jersey enacted the Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act (P.L. 1987, c. 156) which controls the alter-ation or disturbance in and around freshwater wetland areas in the state, and the discharge of dredged or fill material into state open waters. Rules and regulations have been adopted to implement the provisions of the Act. New Jersey's fresh-water wetlands program is designed to be more comprehensive than the federal 404 program, and regulates activities not covered by the federal program. The state open water program mirrors the federal Section 404 program and uses the fed-eral Section 404(b)(1) guidelines as the document for policies related to regulated activities in open waters.

As noted above, the state of New Jersey assumed the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit program in 1994. Under the assumed program, the state of New Jersey has jurisdiction over all waters of the United States, as defined at 40 CFR

§232.2(q), within the state as part of the state Program, with the exception of those waters which are presently used, or are susceptible to use, in their natural condition or by reasonable improvements, as a means to transport interstate or for-eign commerce shoreward to their ordinary high-water mark, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide shoreward to their mean high water mark, including wetlands adjacent thereto.

The program description for the New Jersey Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act identifies the scope of regulated activities as follows: 1) the removal, excavation, disturbance or dredging of soil, sand, gravel, or aggregate material of any kind; 2) the drainage or disturbance of the water level or water table; 3) the dumping, discharge or fill with any materials; 4) the driving of pilings; 5) the placing of obstructions; 6) the destruction of plant life which would alter the character of a fresh-water wetland, including the cutting of trees. Therefore, in addition to regulating the disposal of dredged or fill material as required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the state program also regulates other activities. Additionally, the state's program includes the regulation of transition areas (non-wetland buffers) adjacent to most wetlands. These buffer areas MAY2002 G-21

BASE PROGRAM ANALYSIS and the state regulated activities that go beyond the purview of the federal program are not subject to EPA approval or oversight.

Despite the dramatic reduction in the loss of coastal wetlands, some coastal projects continue to destroy wetlands. In those cases where a particular use is allowed that will destroy wetlands, the NJDEP requires mitigation. The mitigation rule requires that in general, mitigation should be similar in type and location to the resource disturbed or destroyed and that the loss of wetlands must be compensated for by the creation and restoration of an area of wetlands at least twice the size of the dis-turbed surface area. To restore some of the wetlands previously lost, the state completed a study in 1988 to document the location of potential mitigation sites for coastal tidal wetlands and considered setting up a coastal wetland bank to assist in wetlands management.

The Waterfront Development Act (N.J.S.A. 12:5-3), revised in 1975, requires permits for the development along the water-front upon any tidal or navigable waterway. This applies to the installation of docks, piers, wharves, bulkheads, bridges, pipelines, cables and pilings, and dredging. This program is the state's major permitting authority for development along the water's edge, and applies to all waterfronts of coastal waterways in New Jersey except upland areas under CAFRA jurisdiction.

In addition to increases in staff and funding, there is an increasing need to link habitat related environmental regulatory programs to land-use planning decisions. Many incompatibilities exist between habitat protection and environmental goals (specifically in regard to wetlands), and to state, regional, and federal economic development policies. Oftentimes, land use ordinances are not designed to consider the comprehensive impactsof growth and development. A need for incentives and innovative approaches for habitat protection and economic compatibility should be stressed and a more comprehen-sive estuary coordinated view beyond resource-specific habitat protection, should be considered in habitat protection pro-grams. Updated information and critical habitat inventories are essential for better habitat protection and planning.

c) Analysis of Program Implementation Implementation of tidal wetlands regulatory programs have been one of the great success stories in environmental protec-tion. Where previously lagoon developments built from stretches of tidal wetlands were proliferating in the 1960s, tidal wetland destruction has been effectively regulated since 1970. Still, approximately one-third of the Barnegat Bay tidal wetlands have been destroyed as a result of historic dredging and filling operations. Of the tidal wetlands that remain, most have been grid-ditched for mosquito control.

Freshwater xetlands have undergone a similar level of assault. Except for the states of Florida and Louisiana, New Jersey ranks among the highest in percentage of freshwater wetland acres per total land acre. In Ocean County, many freshwater wetlands were converted into cranberry bogs; now abandoned, these bogs are reverting to wetlands. The state assumption of the freshwater wetlands program has generally been effective, but continuing development pressure in Ocean County demonstrates the need for constant vigilance in program administration.

One opportunity to recoup a measure of historic wetlands losses is afforded by the Barnegat Bay Restoration study under-takenby the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in partnership with the NJDEP. This is Action Item 6.2 in the CCMP. The results of this study will include recommendations to rehabilitate areas that were former wetlands but are now either sites which have been filled, cranberry bogs, or constructed lagoon developments. Activities like this, combined with effective enforce-ment of regulatory wetland programs, offer the best chance to retain coastal and freshwater wetlands as an integral part of the Barnegat Bay ecosystem.

4. THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT, AND RELATED STATE PROGRAMS a) Historical Perspective The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.), was signed into law on January 1, 1970. The Act established national environmental policy and goals for the protection, maintenance, and enhancement of the environ-G- 22 BARNEGATBAY FINALCCMP

APPENDIX G ment, provided a process for implementing these goals within the federal agencies, and established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to oversee federal implementation of NEPA.

NEPA contains a Declaration of National Environmental Policy which:requires the federal government to use all practicable means to create and maintain conditions under which people and nature can exist in productive harmony. NEPA also requires federal agencies to incorporate environmental considerations into their planning and decision-making through a systematic interdisciplinary approach. Specifically, all federal agencies are to prepare detailed statements assessing the environmental impact of, and alternatives to, major federal actions significantly affecting the environment. These state-ments are commonly referred to as Environmental Impact Statements (EISs). Federal agencies are also required to lend appropriate support to initiatives and programs designed to anticipate and prevent a decline in the quality of human living and the world environment.

CEQ's regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) implementing NEPA are binding on all federal agencies. The regulations address the procedural provisions of NEPA ýnd the administration of the NEPA process, including preparation of EISs for major fed-eral actions which would significantly affect the environment. Additionally, most federal agencies have promulgated their own NEPA regulations and guidance, which generally follow the CEO procedures but are tailored to the specific mission and activities of the particular agency.

b) NEPA Process The NEPA process consists of an evaluation of the environmental effects of a federal undertaking, including its alternatives.

There are three levels of analysis, depending on whether or not an undertaking could significantly affect the environment.

These three levels include: categorical exclusion determination; preparation of an environmental assessment/finding of no significant impact (EA/FONSI); and preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS).

At the first level, an undertaking may be categorically excluded from a detailed environmental analysis if it meets certain criteria which a federal agency has previously determined as having no significant environmental impact. A number of agencies have developed lists of actions which are nonnally categorically excluded from environmental evaluation under their NEPA regulations.

At the second level of analysis, a federal agency prepares a written environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether or not a federal undertaking would significantly affect the environment. If the answer is no, the agency issues a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). The FONSI may address measures which an agency will take to reduce (mitigate) poten-tially significant impacts.

If the EA determines that the environmental consequences of a proposed federal undertaking may be significant, an EIS is pre-pared. Alternatively, if a federal agency anticipates that an undertaking may significantly impact the environment, or if a pro-ject is environmentally controversial, a federal agency may choose to prepare an EIS without having to first prepare an EA. An EIS is a more detailed evaluation of the proposed action and alternatives. The public, other federal agencies, and outside par-ties may provide input into the preparation of an EIS and then comment on the draft EIS when it is completed.

After a final EIS is prepared and at the time of its decision, a federal agency prepares a public record of its decision addressing how the findings of the EIS, including consideration of alternatives, were incorporated into the agency's decision-making process.

c) Federal Agencies' and Public's Roles The role of federal agencies in the NEPA process depends on the agency's expertise and relationship to the proposed undertaking. The agency carrying out the federal action is responsible for complying with the requirements of NEPA.

In some cases, there may be more than one federal agency involved in an undertaking. In this situation, a lead agency is designated to supervise preparation of the environmental analysis. Federal agencies, together with state or local agencies, may act as joint lead agencies.

MAY2002 G-23

BASE PROGRAM ANALYSIS A federal agency having special expertise with respect to an environmental issue or jurisdiction by law may be a cooperating agency in the NEPA process. A cooperating agency has the responsibility to: assist the lead agency by participating in the NEPA process at the earliest possible time; participate in the scoping process; develop informa-tion and prepare environmental analyses, including portions of the environmental impact statement concerning which the cooperating agency has special expertise; and make staff support available to enhance the lead agency's interdisciplinary capabilities.

The EPA, like other federal agencies, prepares and reviews NEPA documents. However, due to the EPA's unique mis-sion, many of its programs are exempted, by their authorizing legislation, from compliance with NEPA (e.g., Clean Air Act actions, and most Clean Water Act programs). Alternatively, some EPA programs utilize procedures which are functionally equivalent to NEPA requirements (e.g., the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act [Superfund] program). Although not required to do so by law, other EPA programs prepare EISs on their actions voluntarily.

The EPA also has a unique responsibility in the NEPA review process. Under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to review and publicly comment on the environmental impacts of major federal actions, including actions which are the subject of EISs. If the EPA determines that the action is environmentally unsatisfactory,; it is required by Section 309 to refer the matter to CEO.

The public also has an important role in the NEPA process, particularly in providing input on what issues should be addressed in an EIS and in commenting on the findings in an agency's NEPA documents. The public can participate in the NEPA process by attending NEPA-related hearings or public meetings and by submitting comments directly to the lead agency. The lead agency must take into consideration all comments received from the public and other par-ties on NEPA documents during the comment period.

d) NEPA and Other Environmental Laws The NEPA review takes into consideration the effects that an action may have on various aspects of the environ-ment. Some of these areas, such as impacts on endangered species and cultural resources, are also covered by other environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, etc. To reduce paperwork and avoid delays in the decision-making process, federal agencies must, to the fullest extent possible, integrate the NEPA review with the analytic and consultation requirements of these other environmental laws.

The NEPA review also takes into consideration whether a federal undertaking is in compliance with statutes such as the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Air Act. In these cases, the lead agency would con-sult with the agencies overseeing these statutes to ensure compliance with any criteria and standards promulgated under these laws.

e) Integration into Federal Decision-Making The CEO NEPA regulations require federal agencies to make the environmental review documents and any comments and responses a part of the record in formal rulemaking and adjudicatory proceedings. These documents must also accompany the proposal through the federal agency's review process. In making its decision on a proposal, an agency must consider a full range of alternatives, including ones evaluated in the NEPA review.

Most federal agencies have promulgated NEPA regulations which address how the NEPA review will be incorporated into their various programs. Agencies are encouraged to prepare broad EISs covering policy or programmatic actions, and to tier subsequent NEPA reviews to individual actions included within the program or policy. For legislative pro-posals, the NEPA process is integrated with the legislative process of Congress. Federal agencies are required to inte-G-24 BARNEGATBAY FINAL CCMP

APPENDIX G grate the NEPA review early in program or project planning. In the preparation of EISs, the scoping process provides for early identification and consideration of environmental issues and alternatives. One major problem with the NEPA process is the apparent lack of adequate consideration of cumulative impacts on the environment.

f) State Programs Comparable to NEPA While NEPA only applies to federal actions, a number of states have passed laws which incorporate consideration of envi-ronmental effects in deciding state actions, many of which are modeled after NEPA. While it has no comprehensive envi-ronmental review statutes, the state of New Jersey has several programs which require the production of Environmental Impact Statements. These include: Coastal Area Facilities Review Act (CAFRA), the Tidal Wetlands Act, and Executive Order 215 (E.O. 215). CAFRA and the Wetlands Act are discussed in the sections above for Coastal Zone Management and Wetlands Management, respectively.

Executive Order 215 - Environmental Assessment, was enacted on September 11, 1989. It requires all departments, agen-cies, and authorities of the state of New Jersey to prepare and submit to the NJDEP an environmental assessment/impact statement in support of major construction projects. The objective of E.O. 215 is to reduce or eliminate any adverse envi-ronmental impacts of projects initiated or funded by the state and specifies two levels of review depending on the antici-pated construction costs and area of disturbed land. Projects exempted from the E.O. 215 environmental review require-ments include: projects with construction costs of less than $1 million; maintenance or repair projects; building expansion of less than 25%; projects subject to review pursuant to CAFRA or the Municipal Wastewater Treatment Financing Program; and projects being reviewed pursuant to NEPA (categorical exclusions and full EIS).

g). Analysis of Program Implementation NEPA and its state counterparts have helped to instill a level of environmental review into major civil works projects. In the case of projects relevant to Ocean County, beach erosion control is typically designed to minimize the use of hard struc-tural elements. Highways and utility rights of way are examined for their potential impacts to sensitive habitats, and san-itary sewer infrastructure is studied for its impact on induced development. At the same time, increasing development necessitates improvemefits in regional infrastructure. NEPA and its state counterparts have become an indispensable tool in ensuring that large public works are constructed with a minimum of adverse environmental impacts.

5. MANAGEMENT OF FISH AND SHELLFISH a) Federal Program Introduction The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA), Public Law 94-265 as amended, provides for the conservation and exclusive management of all fishery resources within the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), defined as the seaward boundaries of the territorial sea, 3 nautical miles (nm) offshore, to 200 nm offshore.

It also provides for exclusive management authority over continental shelf fishery resources and anadromous species beyond the U.S. EEZ, except during the time they are found within any foreign nation's waters.

Under the MFCMA, eight regional fishery management councils are charged with preparing Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) for the fisheries needing management under their jurisdiction. The Mid-Atlantic Regional Fishery MAY2002 G-25

BASE PROGRAM ANALYSIS Management Council (Dover, DE) covers New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia.

However, FMPs prepared by the New England and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils may be applicable in the Mid-Atlantic Region if the distribution os a particular fishery so warrants.

FMPs generally have the following objectives: (1) reduce fishing mortality on a stock; (2) increase yield from the fishery; (3) promote compatible management regulations between the territorial sea and the EEZ; and (4) mini-mize regulations to achieve the three management objectives recognized above. The Department of Commerce, through National Marine Fisheries Service agents and the U.S. Coast Guard, is responsible for enforcing the law and regulations.

National Marine Fisheries Service's Habitat Conservation Program The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Habitat Conservation Program (HCP) activities are carried out nationwide as part of the overall NMFS fisheries research and man-agement program. The NMFS HCP Central Office in Washington, D.C. provides policy guidance for the NMFS Regional and Central programs. The habitat programs are organized and administered in each area to respond effectively to unique regional issues and geographic constraints.

All Regional HCPs are a reflection of three important considerations: the pressures on the living marine resource habitats; the size of the area managed; and the commercial and recreational value of the species. The HCP is directed by several fed-eral laws and the National Habitat Conservation Policy, which was published in 1983. Implementation of this policy is facil-itated by 12 strategies targeting: research and management coordination, habitat research, interaction with the eight Regional Fishery Management Councils and specific FMPs, strengthening NMFS involvement under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, assisting states with marine habitat issues, initiating and strengthening interagency agreements, pro-tecting anadromous fish, increasing pre-application planning, integrating habitat consideration across NMFS programs, increasing intra-NOAA cooperation, providing necessary and appropriate regulatory relief, and communicating habitat infor-mation to NMFS constituents.

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH)

On October 11, 1996, the Sustainable Fisheries Act (Public Law 104-297) became law which, among other things, amended the habitat provisions of the Magnuson Act. The re-named Magnuson-Stevens Act calls for direct action to stop or reverse the continued loss of fish habitats. Toward this end, Congress mandated the identification of habitats essential to man-aged species and measures to conserve and enhance this habitat. The Act requires cooperation among NMFS, the Councils, fishing participants, federal and state agencies, and others in achieving the essential fish habitat goals of habitat protec-tion, conservation, and enhancement.

NMFS is committed to working with the Councils, affected federal and state agencies, fishing and non-fishing industries, conservation groups, academia, land owners, and the general public to ensure that essential fish habitat provisions are understood and well coordinated, thereby providing effective protection for essential fish habitats as Congress envisioned.

NMFS will seek working agreements with organizations and provide many avenues for public input to the EFH process.

Partnerships with other federal agencies, state resource agencies, and non-governmental organizations will enhance the process.

G- 26 BARNEGATBAY FINAL CCMP

APPENDIX G b) Interstate Programs The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's (ASMFC) Interstate Fisheries Management Program (ISFMP) was initiated through a state/federal cooperative agreement with NMFS in 1980. The five major components of the ISMFP are:

I

1. To determine priorities for Territorial Sea Fisheries Management;

2. To develop, monitor and review management plans for high priority fisheries;

3. To recommend to states, Regional Fishery Management Councils, and the federal government, management measures to benefit such fisheries;

4. To provide means of conducting short-term research essential to preparation or revision of fishery management plans; and

5. To provide an organizational structure for efficient and timely administration of the ISFMP.

Since the inception of this Program, the following Fishery Management Plans have been adopted for the Atlantic coastal waters: alewife, American lobster, American shad, Atlantic croaker, Atlantic menhaden, blueback herring, bluefish, hickory shad, red drum, spot, spotted seatrout, striped bass, summer flounder, and weakfish.

c) New Jersey State Programs The NJDEP is responsible for management of the state's marine and estuarine finfish and shellfish resources and their habitats. Various components of the NJDEP are involved, including the Division of Water Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife (principally stock management role) and Division of Science and Research (principally moni-toring and assessment role). Three administrative groups within the Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife have responsibility for administering a variety of programs which impact the fisheries resources of New Jersey. The purpose of these programs is to protect, maintain, and enhance aquatic organisms and the habitat needed to sus-tain them. Scientific studies and research programs are undertaken in order to develop management strategies and plans to prudently utilize fisheries resources.

The Marine FisheriesAdministration coordinates state fishery management activities with four fisheries councils:

1. Marine Fisheries Council was established by the Marine Fisheries Management and Commercial Fisheries Act (N.J.S.A. 23: 2B-4, 5). This Council advises the commissioner of the NJDEP on the need for rules to regulate the conservation and utilization of the state's marine resources. The Council can also veto marine fishery regulations proposed by the commissioner. The Council contributes to the preparation and revision of fishery management plans and holds public hearings on marine fishery issues.

2. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission was established in 1941 by a compact entered into by New Jersey and 14 other Atlantic coastal states. The Commission assists the states in developing joint programs and administers the Interstate Fisheries Management Program.

3. New Jersey also serves on the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, which is one of eight regional councils that have exclusive management jurisdiction from 3 to 200 mites offshore. The Councils were established by the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (PK 94-265) and are responsible for developing management plans for living marine resources. The Mid-Atlantic Council encompasses the area from Montauk, New York to False Cape, Virginia.

MAY 2002 G-27

BASE PROGRAM ANALYSIS

4. The New Jersey Shellfisheries Council acts as an advisor to the commissioner and approves or disapproves shellfish leases. Staff is provided by the Bureau of Shellfisheries.

The Bureau of Marine Fisheries is responsible for the management of New Jersey's marine and estuarine finfish and crustacean resources and their habitats. The Bureau develops management plans in coordination with the New Jersey Marine Fisheries Council, the federal government and other states. In addition, a team of four region-ally assigned biologists evaluate waterfront development projects to ensure protection of the state's fishery resources. The Bureau administers a number of projects impacting New Jersey fishery resources, including a net-work of offshore artificial reefs at eight sites, a seasonal census of the fish and macroinvertebrates that inhabit the coastal waters of the state, and studies of striped bass population restoration and the life history of winter flounder.

The Bureau of Shellfisheries has as its primary responsibility the protection and enhancement of New Jersey's shellfish resources and habitat for commercial and recreational fishing. The Bureau administers (with the New Jersey Shellfisheries Council) the state's shellfish licensing and leasing programs. In 1989 state law established the Shell Fisheries Law Enforcement Fund to dedicate all clam license fees to the protection and management of the state's shellfish resources. The Bureau also conducts a number of investigations evaluating New Jersey's shell-fish resources. All estuarine waters between Raritan Bay and Great Egg Harbor have been sampled as part of the Shellfish Inventory Program established in 1983. The purpose of this program is to determine the distribution and abundance of the important molluscan species, particularly the hard clam, which occurs in New Jersey's estuaries.

Additional programs have studied the oyster, surf clam, and blue crab resources of the state. NJDEP stock management pro-grams relevant to Barnegat Bay include hard and soft clam relayi, transplant and deputation, designation of hard clam spawner sanctuaries, and leasing of shellfish growing lots. Marine fisheries management programs are geared to monitor-ing status of stocks and harvests. The DEP is a member of the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council.

d) Analysis of Program Implementation Fisheries management has become ever more important as fishing pressure and fishing technology have advanced. The eco-nomic impact of recreational and economic fishing to New Jersey is measured in billions of dollars. Bamegat Bay claims a measurable portion of that economic output, and its port facilities serve ocean-going vessels in nearshore waters.

Federal, state, and interstate commissions are charged with managing fisheries and shellfisheries in nearshore and offshore waters. They take actions to manage healthy fisheries and to schedule recovery of overfished stocks. There remains, how-ever, a relative lack of information on fisheries within Bamegat Bay itself. Although fisheries remain a priority for the BBNEP, there is insufficient information for the Program to propose appropriate fishery management actions. Accordingly, Action Item 7.10 of the CCMP includes an action to conduct a shellfish resource survey of Barnegat Bay in order to devel-op a database that can be used for future Program actions.

G-28 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

APPENDIX G

6. ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES PROGRAMS a) Federal Program Historical Perspective and Program Authority Native wildlife species and their habitats have been under continual assault since the first European colonization of North America. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531, et seq.) was one response to the growing concern for the integrity of native species and their habitats. This Act gives the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) authority, acting for the Secretary of the Interior, to protect and conserve all forms of wildlife and plants that are endangered or threatened with extinction. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) maintains similar authority for marine species under the Act, as well as for marine mammals under the Marine Mammals Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA) (16 U.S.C. 1361, et seq.). NMFS also conducts the Cetacean and Turtle Assessment Program (CETAP).

Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, federal agencies are required to consult with FWS and NMFS on actions that they may authorize, fund, or carry out, which may affect any federally-Listed species or its designated critical habi-tat, to ensure that their actions are not Likely to jeopardize the species or result in adverse modification of its desig-nated critical habitat. In June 1986, FWS and NMFS adopted final rules to improve interagency cooperation regarding Section 7 consultation.

Existing Program The FWS has active endangered species programs consisting of efforts in monitoring candidate species (species under review for potential listing as threatened or endangered), listing, recovery, interagency consultation, coordination with state environmental agencies, and technical assistance. Current constraints on the program are manpower and fund-ing.

MA4Y2002 G-29

BASE PROGRAM ANALYSIS Federally listed species in the Barnegat .Bay watershed region are summarized in the following chart.

C = candidate species H = historic occurrence N = nesting, spawning, or resident species X = transient or seasonal species

• = recovery plan established

= population in recovery; removed from list in 8/99 Recovery Plans Once a species has been listed as endangered or threatened, a recovery plan is developed that specifies the means and schedule for improving the status of the species so that it may be taken off the list. A prime example is our national symbol, the bald eagle. Nationwide, it has recovered to the point where its status has been downgraded from endangered to threatened. No breeding pairs of bald eagles are known for Barnegat Bay itself, but active nests are found just to the south along the Mullica River, as well as just to the north at the Manasquan Reservoir.

G-30 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

APPENDIX G In a more recent example, the federally threatened seabeach amaranth has been found recolonizing sandbeach habi-tats all along the Jersey Shore after having apparently been extirpated in New Jersey since 1913. As of 2001, this species was documented spreading and occurring in Monmouth, Ocean, Atlantic, and Cape May Counties. Seabeach amaranth populations are adversely affected by shoreline development and vehicular and pedestrian traffic.

The peregrine falcon, piping plover, and roseate tern also nest along the coast. For these species the FWS and other agencies, organizations, and individuals are currently implementing recovery plans. The populations of these birds have been relatively stable or increasing over the past 10 to 20 years. Among endangered and threatened plants found in or near the Barnegat Bay watershed, Knieskern's beaked-rush, swamp pink, sensitive joint vetch, and chaffseed have recovery plans. In addition, the New Jersey Field Office of the FWS works to ensure the protection of potential nesting habitat for endangered and threatened sea turtles (Atlantic Ridley turtle, green turtle, hawks-bill turtle, leatherback turtle, and loggerhead turtle) along the coast.

b) New Jersey State Program The Endangered and Non-Game Program of the Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife, established in 1973, provides scientific information and makes recommendations necessary to develop management programs for New Jersey's endangered and threatened plants and animals. The program performs hundreds of environmental reviews annual-ly to assess the potential impacts of development projects on endangered/threatened and non-game species or their habitats. The goal of the program is to protect extremely sensitive habitats and to minimize the impacts of devel-opment on other non-game habitats. One major limitation of the New Jersey program is that .the statute contains language to protect species, but not habitat. Theoretically, the habitat on which an endangered species depends can be destroyed as long as the species is not physically harmed. One way to close this loophole is to include endan-gered species regulations within other permit programs.

At the present time, 35 species of animals, and numerous additional plants that occur within the Barnegat Bay watershed are listed as endangered or threatened in New Jersey (see below). Research, habitat protection and man-agement, and population restoration projects are currently being undertaken for the bald eagle, osprey, peregrine falcon, piping plover, least tern, and black skimmer. In 1988, the program completed a coastal mapping project in which the locations of 16 wildlife species and species guilds in New Jersey's coastal zone were identified. The pur-pose of this project was to develop maps outlining existing habitat for endangered species, colonial nesting water birds and migratory shorebirds within the coastal zone, including the entire Atlantic coastline of New Jersey.

MAY2002 G-31

BASE PROGRAM ANALYSIS c) Analysis of Program Implementation In general, federal and state endangered and threatened species programs have had measurable success in New Jersey and in the Barnegat Bay watershed. Populations of coastal beach nesting birds have been fairly stable, though not necessarily increasing. :Bald eagles and peregrine falcons have rebounded as nesting species in the state, and occur-rences of a number of federal and state listed species have been well-documented both in the state as a whole and in Ocean County. Several down-listings or deletions of federally listed species have been proposed recently. In accor-dance with national policy, the New Jersey Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service intends to increase pro-tective efforts, continue to promote species conservation and recovery, stress the need for Section 7 consultations, and increase the focus on candidate species.

G-3 2 BARNEGAT BAYFINAL CCMP

APPENDIX G

7. WILDLIFE REFUGES AND PRESERVES a) National Wildlife Refuge System Introduction Theodore Roosevelt established the first National Wildlife Refuge on Pelican Island, Florida in 1903. Today the National Wildlife Refuge System includes over 450 refuges totaling 90 million acres nationwide and is managed by the FWS.

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to "provide, preserve, restore, and manage a national network of lands and waters sufficient in size, diversity, and location to meet society's needs for areas where the widest pos-sible spectrum of benefits associated with wildlife and wildlands is enhanced and made available" (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 1982).

Barnegat Bay is home to one of the largest National Wildlife Refuges on the East Coast. The Edwin B. Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge, in two units, is located in south coastal New Jersey and encompasses over 34,000 acres.

The Forsythe Refuge was established in 1984 when the Brigantine and Barnegat National Wildlife Refuges were com-bined and renamed. The Brigantine and Barnegat Refuges date from 1939 and 1967, respectively, under authority of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703-712). The purpose for their establishmentwas to preserve estuar-ine habitats important to the Atlantic brant (Branta bernicla) and to provide nesting habitats for black ducks (Anas rubripes) and rails (Rallidae) (Hamilton and Roelle, 1988).

Existing Programs and Policies The Forsythe Refuge contains over 30,000 acres of estuarine habitat, dominated by saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) and saltmeadow cordgrass (S. patens) and is actively managed for waterfowl. The refuge also provides important habitat for both federally and state-listed endangered and threatened species including the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), piping plover (Charadriusmelodus), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), least tern (Sterna antillarum), and black skimmer (Rynchops niger) (Hamilton and Roelte, 1988).

The refuge policies and management objectives are diverse. They include protection of federally and state-listed endangered species, protection of wetlands, reestablishment of native vegetation, and increasing public awareness.

Policies at the Forsythe Refuge include protection of the sattmarsh vegetation from overuse by snow geese (Chen caerulescens) using methods such as hazing to discourage geese concentrations in specific areas identified through aerial surveys (Hamilton and Roelle, 1988). To further protect wetlands and water quality, the refuge maintains a policy to avoid the use of chemicals to control mosquito populations unless (1) a specific human health concern is identified by a state public health agency, and (2) no other means of control are workable (David Beall, Refuge Manager, Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge, personal communication). The Forsythe Refuge also maintains a policy to increase public awareness of wildlife and wetland issues through public liaison, interpretative exhibits and signs, leaflets, and information notices posted at visitor centers (Hamilton and Roelle, 1988).

Planned Activities Within the past year, the FWS has completed its Comprehensive Conservation Plan to manage and expand the Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge and the Cape May National Wildlife Refuge, collectively known as the Jersey Coast Refuges. The Plan will assist the FWS in identifying what role the Refuges will play in supporting the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and addressing community expectations for public use. The Plan considered two alternatives for management of the Refuges. The Action Alternative will allow the FWS to initiate or expand addi-tional habitat and population management efforts, wildlife-dependent recreation opportunities, land protection efforts, and consider new office and visitor center facilities. Planned activities along the southern New Jersey Coast MAY2002 G-33

BASE PROGRAM ANALYSIS include acquisition of additional high value estuarine wetlands adjacent to the Forsythe Refuge and within its autho-rized boundaries as delimited by Congress.

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan is an agreement between the United States and Canada for the con-servation of important waterfowl populations and habitats. Acquisition of black duck wintering habitat along the Atlantic Coast has high priority under the plan. Consistent with this policy, the FWS is developing a proposal for acquisition of 2,000 acres on North Barnegat Bay, known as the Reedy Creek Area, for the Forsythe refuge. The pro-posed acquisition area contains no residential or commercial development and represents the largest natural open space remaining inthe northern portion of Barnegat Bay. The Reedy Creek Area contains several natural habitat communities including coastal plain swamp, coastal bog, tidal creek, salt marsh, and Atlantic white cedar stands.

Undisturbed coastal shorelines, such as those within the Reedy Creek area, are important for the survival of Atlantic brant, canvasback ducks (Aythya valisineria), and scaup (Aythya maria and A. affinis). In addition, waters off Reedy Creek provide the only waters clean enough for shellfish purification in the northern portion of Barnegat Bay (FWS, 1990).

b) Pinelands National Reserve The Pinelands National Reserve, the country's first national reserve, was created by the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978. At the state level, the PineLands Protection Act of 1979 provided for implementation of the federal bill.

A Pinelands Commission was established, which created a comprehensive management plan (CMP) to balance pro-tection and development interests; the plan was adopted in 1980 and approved in 1981. The comprehensive man-agement plan established a 136,380-hectare (337,000-acre) core preservation district to be maintained in its natur-al state through strict regulation of development. The plan also established a protection area where there are var-ious categories of land use (forest, agriculture, regional growth, rural development, pinelands, towns and villages, military and federal institutions) based on existing natural features and projected need.

Approximately one-third of the Pinelands is publicly owned. Of the nearly 400,000-hectare (1 million-acre) Pineland, there are 30,000 hectares (75,000 acres) of federal properties, including portions of Forsythe and Cape May Nation-al Wildlife Refuges managed by the FWS, and military installations such as Fort Dix, McGuire Air Force Base, and Lakehurst Naval Air Engineering Station, plus about 110,000 hectares (275,000 acres) of state-owned lands. State forest managed by the New Jersey Division of Parks and Forests include Bass River, Bass River North, Belleplain, Lebanon, Penn, and Wharton, and state parks include Belleplain, Double Trouble, and Wharton. Designated Natural Areas contained within the state forests include Batsto, Cedar Swamp. Oswego River, and West Pine Plains. State Wildlife Management Areas managed by the New Jersey Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife include Colliers Mills, Greenwood Forest, Makepeace, Manchester, Pasadena, Peaselee, Stafford Forge, Swan Bay, Whiting, and Winslow. The New Jersey Natural Lands Trust owns 14 parcels within the Pinelands. The Nature Conservancy owns Hirst Ponds Preserve. The Pinelands National Reserve is part of the Atlantic Coastal Plain Biosphere Reserve designated by UNESCO under the Man and Bio-sphere program. A substantial portion of Ocean County lies within the Pinelands National Reserve.

c) Other Federal Programs The Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve at Mullica River/Great Bay overlaps the southern portion of the Barnegat Bay study area. This reserve was created through the authorization of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is the respon-sible agency for designation of National Estuarine Research Reserves. A scientific research and public outreach pro-gram is being developed and will be cooperatively managed by the New Jersey Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife and the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences at Rutgers University.

G-334 BARNEGATBAYFINAL CCMP

APPENDIX. G d) State Program New Jersey's 73 wildlife management areas, totaling 192,000 acres, are maintained by the Bureau of Land Management of the Division of Fish, Game, and Wildlife. Since 1932, the state has acquired these lands using Fish and Game Funds, Green Acres Funds, Pinelands Funds, Federal Aid, gifts, and funds from the Waterfowl Stamp Program. The Bureau develops plans and implements programs that serve to increase the habitat diversity and ben-efit of all wildlife species and that also maximize the opportunities for wildlife-oriented recreation.

Many. wildlife and game management areas are found in Ocean County and they are well distributed within the Barnegat Bay watershed. These areas include both estuarine and freshwater habitats, as follows:

ESTUARINE HABITATS

• Manasquan Wildlife Management Area

• Forked River Game Farm

" Sedge Islands Wildlife Management Area

" Manahawkin Wildlife Management Area

• Great Bay Wildlife Management Area WATERSHED HABITATS

" Butterfly Bogs Wildlife Management Area

" Stafford Forge Wildlife Management Area

" Colliers Mills Wildlife Management Areas

• Manchester Wildlife Management Area

• Whiting Wildlife Management Area

• Pasadena Wildlife Management Area

" Greenwood Forest Wildlife Management Area

• Prospertown Lake Wildlife Management Area Egret at Sedge Islands. PHOTO BYRICH KIAN For further discussion on land protection programs, see the section "Parks and Recreation Areas" under the main topic of "Human Activities and Competing Uses."

e) Analysis of Program Implementation The wealth of federal, state, and county natural areas is one of the greatest assets of the Barnegat Bay watershed, and one that augurs well for the overall success of the BBNEP. The variety of habitats of these protected areas, from coastal dunes and wetlands to Pine Barrens and freshwater bogs, ensures living space for significant populations of most of the region's flora and fauna. However, the growing population of Ocean County is changing the conditions that support this diversity. Many of the habitats and species found in the Pine Barrens are fire-adapted, but when residential populations are at risk, fire suppression becomes a priority, threatening the long-term viability of those fire-adapted environments. Runoff from manicured lawns discharges lime and nutrients to naturally acidic waters,

. MAY2002 G-35

BASE PROGRAM ANALYSIS suppressing conditions suited.to native life and providing opportunities for aggressive or weedy species to gain hold.

As noted throughout this Appendix, the success of these programs is largely dependent on -the human element.

Public education and judicious management will help to ensure the long-term survival of the unique Pine Barrens habitat and the Barnegat Bay estuary.

C. HUMAN ACTIVITIES AND COMPETING USES

1. PUBLIC ACCESS a) General Program Discussion In New Jersey, the Rules on Coastal Zone Management (N.J.A.C. 7: 7E-8.11 Public Access to the Waterfront), states that public access is the ability of all members of the community to pass physically and visually to, from, and along the ocean shore and other waterfronts. It also states that coastal development adjacent to all coastal waters, includ-ing both natural and developed waterfront areas, shall provide permanent perpendicular and linear access to the waterfront to the maximum extent practicable, including both visual and physical access. Because coastal water and shorelines are such valuable and limited public resources, development that limits public access and the diversity of the waterfront experience is discouraged. At sites proposed for the construction of single family or duplex residen-tial dwellings, which are not part of a larger development, public access is not required as a condition of the coastal permit. The shorelines in New Jersey are protected by the New Jersey Shore Protection Program and the New Jersey Marine Police, both of which are financed by state residents.

One of the most basic principles in regard to coastal access is the Public Trust Doctrine. This common-law doctrine dictates that open tidal waters, underwater lands, and the lands immediately adjacent are held by the state in trust for the benefit of the general public. The Public Trust Doctrine applies to land covered by water which is either nav-igable, or subject to tidal influence; however, the activities which may be legally carried out by the public in sub-merged and wet-sand areas are often limited in scope. Often only fishing, navigation and fowling were protected rights of use under the original Public Trust Doctrine, and many states continue this tradition. Even though most visitors come to the shore to swim, sunbathe, picnic, and walk, these are not protected uses of the shore since recre-ation is not a right historically covered by the Public Trust Doctrine.

The Public Trust Doctrine has successfully been applied to recreational uses of the shorelands only in New Jersey after the 1972 landmark case of Neptune City v. Avon-By-The-Sea. Although the Neptune court did not pass on the question of what rights the public has to use tidal lands and waters bordering a parcel of land in private ownership, it did interpret the Public Trust Doctrine to require that any beach owned by a municipality be open to allon equal terms. The court reasoned that public rights to lands in the tidal area are no longer limited to those essential to navigation and fishing, but also include recreational uses. It stated that the doctrine "should be molded and extend-ed to meet [the] changing conditions and needs of the public it was created to benefit."

b) Analysis of Program Implementation Despite basic rights of coastal access, as a practical matter upwards of 70 percent of the Barnegat Bay shoreline has been developed or modified, restricting opportunities for public access. Shoreline areas in public ownership remain the best opportunities for satisfying the public need for water access. Island Beach and Barnegat Lighthouse State Parks provide both ocean and bay access, as does the Holgate unit of Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge at the south end of Long Beach Island. Unfortunately, these relatively natural shoreline reaches also provide the best potential nesting habitat in the region for beach-nesting shorebirds, and access restrictions are put in place during the spring and summer months to protect these sensitive species.

G-3 6 BARNEGATBAY FINAL CCMP

APPENDIX G Other major public access points to the Barnegat Bay shoreline include Cattus Island and Berkeley Island County Parks, Manahawkin Wildlife Management Area, and Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge. Commercial marinas and town parks also serve local and regional visitors.

Activities continue in the Barnegat Bay region to secure additional undeveloped lands for protection and potential-ly increased public access. One such project led to the Trust for Public Lands' Century Plan, a compendium of 100 of the most environmentally valuable undeveloped parcels in the Barnegat Bay area, and subsequent acquisition and protection efforts.

2. NAVIGATION AND WATER DEPENDENT ACTIVITIES a) Federal Actions Today, the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) is responsible for the maintenance of the main channel of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, a six-foot deep federal channel that reaches its northern terminus in Barnegat Bay. Other federal navigation maintenance responsibilities include Manasquan Inlet, the Point Pleasant Canal, Barnegat Inlet, and smaller navigation projects including a channel at Tuckerton Creek, a channel and timber jetty at Double Creek, and a dredging project at Toms River. Other navigation and water construction projects, such as marina construc-tion and maintenance, residential bulkheading, connecting channels and others are a non-federal responsibility.

Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act creates a permit program administered by the COE to control the dis-

.charges of dredged material into waters of the United States. In Barnegat Bay, dredged material originates from both federal channel maintenance and non-federal projects.

The COE has also entered into a cooperative partnership with New Jersey to develop the Barnegat Bay Ecosystem Restoration Study. Originally derived from the bi-annual Water Resources Development Act (WRDA), this restoration study is authorized by Section 206 of the WRDA of 1996, as amended. Section 206 provides authority for the Corps to investigate, study, modify, and construct projects for aquatic ecosystem restoration without specific additional Congressional authorization. This usually involves restoration of the ecosystem structure and function in an aquat-ic environment. Unlike earlier restoration study authorizations, there is no requirement for a connection to a pre-vious federal project. The restoration must also demonstrate that it is cost effective and contributes to an improved environment that is in the general public interest. These projects are limited to a federal cost of $5 million per pro-ject. Non-federal interests or sponsors provide 35 percent of the costs and provide any lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations and disposal areas, and they agree to operate and maintain the project.

b) Analysis of Program Implementation The Corps has recently released Early Action Reports and Environmental Assessments as part of its restoration study, focusing on two potential subjects for environmental restoration: historic deep dredge holes in the Bay bottom, and obstructed tidal tributaries that may benefit from the installation of fish ladders to restore anadromous fish pas-sage. These draft reports will undergo a public review period before the projects are made final. Other types of pro-jects that will be considered during the course of this study are: freshwater wetlands restoration/creation; salt marsh restoration; restoration of abandoned artificial lagoons; submerged aquatic vegetation restoration; and creation or restoration of Bay islands.

In review of the existing framework, the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program recommends long-term planning for dredged material; more coordination among regulatory agencies; more informational exchange for port interests; and more coordination among the public and private sector for oil response and pollution preventiori.

MAY 2002 G-3 7

BASE PROGRAM ANALYSIS Enforcement of navigation rules is the responsibility of the Marine Police division of the State Police as well as local police authorities. There is a high level of concern among some stakeholders that the current level of enforcement activity is insufficient to protect the natural resources, commercial viability, and public enjoyment of Barnegat Bay.

This view is particularly strong with regard to the issue of personal watercraft, also known as jet skis. The Barnegat Bay Watershed Association has taken a lead role in addressing this outstanding concern in order to arrive at a mutu-ally agreeable solution. One potential answer might be to employ volunteer citizen patrols that can take a public education approach in dealing with this issue.

3. PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS a) Introduction Parks and recreational areas are important, especially around densely populated centers. They are, however inher-ently different from wildlife refuges in that they generally provide open spaces and facilities for human recreation, such as ball fields, picnic grounds, and boat launching facilities, with a lesser emphasis on protected habitat for wildlife. For this reason, these programs are listed separately. In addition to the areas under federal jurisdiction listed here, there are many state, county, and local parks within the Barnegat Bay watershed. Some of the non-fed-eral facilities are listed here. Some of the programs supporting state park or other open space acquisition also sup-port wildlife refuge programs discussed under Wildlife Refuges and Preserves in the Habitat Loss and Alteration Section of this document.

b) Federal Parks The Federal Parks program began with the establishment of Yellowstone National Park in 1872, and has for a long time been associated with the wide-open spaces of the American West and other scenic, pristine areas of the coun-try. A more recent development in the Federal Parks program is exemplified by the Pinelands National Reserve in the Pine Barrens region of central and southern New Jersey. This designated area is a cooperative federal (National Park Service) and state effort that combines the protection of public parklands with comprehensive land-use man-agement of private lands to achieve the long-term conservation of this unique and regionally significant habitat in the congested northeast corridor. The discussion of Land Use Management under the Habitat Loss and Alteration Section gives more information on the management of the Pine Barrens National Reserve.

Other large federal landholdings in Ocean County include the military reservations at Fort Dix and the Lakehurst Naval Air Engineering Center. While the missions of these facilities vary greatly from those of the National Park Service, they lie within the Pinelands National Reserve and harbor significant tracts of undisturbed Pine Barrens habitat. Conservation of these natural resources is an important element of the protection of the Pinelands National Reserve.

c) State and Local Parks and Forests The Federal Parks program was a relative latecomer to the northeast region. As a result, state and local governments were primarily responsible for the system of regional parklands that exists today, and many jurisdictions continue to pursue aggressive land acquisition and management programs to meet the recreational and outdoor needs of the public.

New Jersey has an extensive system of state parks and other public lands. The system of New Jersey State Parks and Forests is managed by the Division of Parks and Forestry. There are 35 state parks and 11 state forests with a total G-38 BARNEGAT BAYFINALCCMP

APPENDIX G land area of approximately 266,223 protected acres. Existing parks, such as Island Beach and Barnegat Lighthouse State Parks protect more than ten miles of oceanfront and bay beaches. Inland, Double Trouble State Park protects sensitive Pine Barrens habitat along with its endemic fauna and flora and several mites of the Cedar Creek riparian corridor. Lebanon State Forest and additional large acreages of state-owned land are included within the Pinelands National Reserve.

County parks are found throughout the watershed from Cattus Island and Berkeley Island on the bayshore to Ocean County Park and Wells Mills County Park in interior areas. Smaller municipal parks supplement this extensive net-work of public lands and recreation areas.

d) Natural Areas System The Office of Natural Lands Management, within the Division of Parks and Forestry, is responsible for overall admin-istration of the Natural Areas System. The goal of the system is to permanently preserve and manage lands, often within state parks, supporting significant habitats of endangered and threatened species, natural communities and wildlife of New Jersey. There are 42 designated natural areas in the state with a total land area of approximately 30,000 acres. Management plans for each area are being developed. Five areas are found within the coastal areas of Barnegat Bay.

e) Green Acres Program The Green Acres Program acts as a "real estate" agent for the DEP. This program determines where and how state funds should be spent for park and open space acquisition, development" and capital improvements. It provides guidance and financial assistance to local municipalities to preserve open space and develop recreation facilities.

Since 1961, when the program was established, the voters of New Jersey have approved Green Acres bond issues totaling $710 million, permanently preserving 243,000 acres of land.

f) Natural Lands Trusts The New Jersey Natural Lands Trust is a state-funded land preservation organization that owns and manages, or holds conservation easements on, more than 3,000 acres of open space in New Jersey. The Trust was established in 1968 and is an independent agency within the Division of Parks and Forestry.

In 1997, the voters of Ocean County approved an incremental increase in the property tax assessment to establish the Ocean County Natural Lands Trust. The funds from the Trust will be used for open space land acquisition throughout the County.

g) Natural Heritage Program The Natural Heritage Program was established in 1984 as a joint effort between the NJDEP and The Nature Conservancy. The program has been administered by the DEP since 1986. This program is responsible for identify-ing New Jersey's most significant habitats and developing an inventory of rare plants, animals, and representative natural communities. This program is administered by the Office of Natural Lands Management in the Division of Parks and Forestry.

MAY2002 G-39

BASE PROGRAM ANALYSIS h) Private Organizations and Land Trusts Most recently, organizations of private citizens have become active in preserving undeveloped upland and wetland areas with high natural resource values. This trend has been especially notable in the urbanized northeastern United States, where such organizations have been able to respond quickly to threatened tosses of natural habitats by encroaching development.

Organizations such as The Nature Conservancy and the Trust for Public Land have built up a system of natural pre-serves, refuges, and parks that provide an important supplement to the existing land preservation programs in the region. In fact, many of the newest public park acquisitions were initiated by one of these organizations, which then transferred ownership or management responsibility to the respective public parks agency. The Trust for Public Land, in fact, has an ongoing active program to manage a $2.5 million donation from the Ciba-Geigy Corporation to the state of New Jersey for completing an inventory of sensitive habitats in the Barnegat Bay region and to secure purchases of areas on the list for long-term preservation. Other active environmental groups within the Barnegat Bay region, such as Save Barnegat Bay, have also helped to protect important habitat areas that come under the threat of development.

i) Analysis of Program Implementation With the combined efforts of federal agencies, state agencies, local agencies, and nonprofit groups, approximately one-third of Ocean County is protected or managed as public open space. This is a significant achievement, and rep-resents a substantial down payment to the long-term protection of the County's and Barnegat Bay's natural resources. On the other hand, the north-south Route 9 corridor, along which most of Ocean County's development is concentrated, separates the interior Pinelands Region watershed from the coastal marshes and estuary. The BBNEP proposes that steps be taken, such as Action Item 6.1., to ensure that intact habitat and riparian corridors be main-tained to connect the Bay and its estuary with the upstream watershed.

4. PUBLIC HEALTH AND EDUCATION a) Public Health Summary Interstate fish consumption programs include the Shellfish Sanitation Program, administered by the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference, and are implemented through the state Departments of Health, and the Departments of Fish and Game. This program plays an important role in assuring that uniform shellfish control measures are adopted, and that these measures are enforced consistently by state regulatory authorities. New Jersey has pro-grams dealing with water quality, fish consumption, and toxics.

One of the primary programs is the New Jersey Pollution Discharge Elimination System, enabled through the Water Pollution Act. This program requires all dischargers of pollutants to obtain a NJDEP permit, unless they have a valid federal permit or are exempt. Permits are conditioned to control the wastes discharged into New Jersey waters, and to achieve effluent limitations and restrictions needed to meet. water quality standards and the goals of water qual-ity management plans. Additional programs include the Fish and Game, Wild Birds and Animal Act (N.J.S.A. 23: 5-

28) which prohibits the discharge of any petroleum product, debris, and hazardous, deleterious, destructive or poi-sonous substances of any kind into any fresh or tidal waters.

G-40 BARNEGATBAY MNAL CCMP

APPENDIX G Fish consumption and contamination programs in New Jersey include the Shell and Shellfish Beds Program (N.J.S.A.

58:24-1, et seq. And regulations such as N.J.A.C. 8:13-1, et seq. (sanitation, handling, shipping, and shucking of shellfish) both of which set standards for the handing of shellfish. In addition, the NJDEP samples and issues fish advisories in areas of concern throughout the state.

The County Division of Health (DOH) has been certified by the NJDEP to administer environmental health services as called for in the County Environmental Health Act (CEHA). Environmental health services include the monitor-ing and enforcement of environmental health standards, the enactment and enforcement of environmental health ordinances to control solid waste, hazardous waste, air pollution, noise and water pollution, to protect workers and the public from hazardous substances and toxic catastrophes, and to protect against other threats to environmental health.

b) Analysis of Program Implementation Compliance monitoring and complaint investigation is conducted for air po tution control, water pollution control and violations of the state noise ordinance. The DOH receives annual funding from the NJDEP to partially support its CEHA programs. Appropriations from the general county budget coupled with revenues generated from violations of the environmental statutes provide the balance of funding.

A joint federal/state investigation is underway to study an unusual concentration of childhood cancer in the Dover Township area, known as the Toms River cancer cluster. The study will investigate potential environmental causes for this high incidence of cancer within this section of Ocean County.

Public Education efforts have been an ongoing activity at all governmental and non-governmental levels. The CCMP is replete with action items directed towards improving public outreach and education. One action in particular, Action 5.7, proposes to improve outreach and education to local government officials through the Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO) program, an existing initiative that will be administered in Ocean County through the Rutgers Cooperative Extension Services of Ocean County. Other agencies and organizations actively involved in public environmental education activities include the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Ocean County Soil Conservation District, various offices of the NJDEP, the New Jersey Marine Trades Association, the Alliance for a Living Ocean and other local environmental organizations, and several school districts in Ocean County.

See Chapter 8 of the CCMP, Public Outreach and Education, for a more comprehensive overview of ongoing and pro-posed public outreach and education efforts to support the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program.

~- I MAY2002 G-41

What is the use of a house if you haven't got a tolerable planet to put it on?

-- Henry David Thoreau

Harvesting Barnegat Bay clams circa mid-1900s. PHOTO COURTESYOF THE TOMSRIVER SEAPORTSOCIETY MAY2002

Tug on anything in nature and you will find it connected to everything else.

-- John Muir

GLOSSARY APPENDIX H Ambient Surrounding; encompassing on all sides. Specifically, existing environmental conditions, contaminant levels, rates, or species in the environment.

A..adm. rn et ns eovn s Anadromous Fish t. Anadromousfish are saltwaterspecies which spawn in rivers.

'.*naoromouls Fis, ' :7* Ana dromou

• i ,.i ter yswhidiserveo as~sa4sfor sjiai~nihlg"~",,, ,*s-uo, R ns ' ................... . to . f .m i a. .sp .... .w i g areas..

Anthrapogenic Effects or processes that are derived from human activity, as opposed to natural effects or processes that occur in the environment without human intervention.

Ecosystem zntrrelat,? andinteractngcomunties ana population 'ol*pl a Assimilative The ability of a natural system to absorb and neutralize pollutants before it Capacity begins to display a significant reduction in the biological diversity, chemical, and/or physical quality.

BatrnerIstand. A wVavbe-buhl'dpsltf aiysadraisedabove seo-levlbhns-itv wav'e action'

• and searate4dftoii'theshore ~o*r i~io~a estuar.y. ,.. .....

,Bethic .. Occurring or living on or in the bottom of a water body-The plant and animal assemblage of a biological community.

IK Bivatve Aý aquaticinvertebrate animau lo FtssBvalva ivaessucnasfciams6a oyte,"ý hý:.

a e voeshells (vlyesad) " I! t...ft.. .... . ....

An area between a sensitive site and development site which cushions and lessens the conflict between the two sites.

An agreement to lead or assist in the implementation of an action, and may also include an agreement to assume a financial obligation.

MAY2002 H-1

GLOSSARY Contaminant A substance that is not naturally present in the environment or is present in amounts that can, in sufficient concentration, adversely affect the environment.

Cumulative Impacts The total effect of a series of actions or activities as opposed to that of a single one.

~Degradatio'n Diminution ori-reduction oc!

<Detenti'on Ba.sini A facility for the temporary storage of stormwater runoff.

"Dredge3*S*p ., Mud;,siltandsand which has bee*nvq the bott<fawat generally : < f'

• tb~allow Safe na vgationA. z/,, >A 3', _ 3,.'..-:'

Dune A rounded hill or ridge of sand heaped up by the action of the wind. Dunes help protect lives and property from effects of major natural coastal hazards such as hurricanes,storms, flooding and erosion.

Dunes provide important habitatsfor wildlife species.

stnmad upoia ~~ibtniunty *f~airals pa~nt, .d b nactraand~,ts*interretated!physlcaland,i`'A* =

EcosylsRte Endan~gered A species whose prospects for survival within the state are in immediate danger due to one or many factors.

Environmentally -"coawhich tend,- plpairminc'tof33 lhp-nyszical, biologicasodiioýwi, SnsbeArea sa~thet:q*uality of lE. *les ,incude: arge aresunes, 3'

'ba~cnes'an*horeiha f iaos ' setl 'ngCqreas!

~Eosion Wearing away of rock or soil by the gradual detachment of soil or rock fragments by water, wind, ice, and other mechanical and chemical forces.

H-2 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

GLOSSARY APPENDIX H Hydrotogic/ The science dealing with the waters of the earth, their distribution on the surface and Hydrology underground, and the cycle involving evaporation, precipitation,flow to the seas, etc.

Imperiou~s ,A surface that camnnt be easily peietrated. For imsnstne,' rain des not readdt y enetsoac hol `,,

or concrt pvmn4<

Indigenous Having originated in and being produced, growing, or living naturally in a particularregion or environment, native species.

InrsIctune I* Land Use The way land is developed and used in terms of the types of activities allowed (agriculture, residences, industries, etc.) and the size of buildings and structures permitted.

Manna A wateroifiiiyrdmnnl used for thie dockage (wetordysck. ,

Or IrIrOdrgf)&OcihlT~t 4P<4 Master Plans A comprehensive long-range plan intended to guide the growth and development of a community or region.

No

.irJ tory Nonpoint S~ource Pollution that enters water from dispersed and uncontrolled sources rather than Pollution through pipes: Nonpoint sources (e.g., surface runoff, on-site sewage disposal, and recreationalboats) contribute pathogens, suspended solids, and nutrients. The cumulative effects of nonpoint source pollution can be significant.

Pathogen :Aýj s a vans,;bmaterium; jftnlgus that t Cuse u)isase3(ý fiumatns. Ph-o*cwg en cn ebt un ouh ;g

• present in mun n~d~luSdMs0t*,nd nonpoit source discharges tothe Bav.

The single-cell plant component of plankton.

The process of gravitationaldeposition of organic and/or inorganicsuspended particles by water.

MAY2002 H-3

GLOSSARY Septic Systems* An underground individual sewage system with a septic tank used for the decomposition and treatment of domestic wastewater.

An aquatic onmatisuch as a mollusk.(clams and oysters) or crsae:(crabsana snnp  :,

"> hetllfsh having a shell or shell-like eokeleton(rbsadhim)

Silt Fine particulatematter suspended in water and later deposited on water body bottom.

SSpaw.,.ning Tlhtorower~oganisms wheref:td~ltzoofeis'sius efaL - i' 1,iakehotdei An individual, agency or organization that has an interest in, or may be affected by the actions of the BarnegatBay National Estuary Program.

~AStonmwater Runoff Waters which -- l*t i Mymffadind*hsu*ýei'incliues. et iýash waterancd drainage. 'A' i Stormsewer Systema The designed infrastructure within a municipality which collects, conveys, channels, holds, inhibits or diverts the movement of stormwater.

'Subdrivisioh M ivisionofa lot, tra( Irlland into wo mor lots tracts, p!cels or other divisions 'oflnui for sale, develojomet'leiý ý"~, ~'"

Submnerged Aquatic" SAV's are vascular seagrassessuch as eelgrass (Zostera marina) and widgeon grass (Ruppia marina).

Vegetation (SAV) SAV habitatsprovide many environmental benefits, including serving as nursery and feeding habitats for numerous species offish, crabs and shellfish.

ITraeid' ~ A to dcetdsdeno Poisonous, carcinogenic, or otherwise directly harmful to life.

Tributary r A str dcethwater lwsarito aarges t stream ori body ofsuatern Tiiibiditv Reducedr water clarihl resultino from nresence of isn ended matter.

matter.

~trck s

"'Th lft~b~a ip jher bod-y in thE water usuallyjn'h fo-rm ofwv ýi s;  ;>

The geographicregion within which water drains into a particularriver, stream, or body of water.

.Awatershed includes hills, lowlands, and the body of water into which the land drains.

The animal component of plankton.

H-4 BARNEGATBAYFINALCCMP

ii,::*

i, ***!*i:*: **ii7i~* *

• iiii*

K *****:s  :* "<":U:,)*I*

,.** **'.A '>* ** * . '. *:::*-:% 5> $; 4 St i*+. <'*.... * *:* ". :

• *  % -*;; * '*iiI!'W'I*:** *4r"'

• b*I~;*.

,*'* *i" .","'I*' i:**i'ii -+. * ;*'T!'L** * ** w x;ii] 4,"tk * *)*3/4* .**

<45 '-iiii~*. .. "> >5 i-t>--

- t::

• .,*' . * ' >' " S ,

!*i* * *))i*i~i~i*

• i*,*i' i*

  *:,'*::::!'*'*<.

• • . . . .. ....... . ':* *!!:*i*'* *'$.........

.. . ."  : ?:.> ' * : {i=, ;'*::' * "°? , ,* * * " .. " "**:'... .* "" *= . . .

1 2! >, :A "**:?  !: ': "'* iii'!)?*.* .. ""! '*

K'.ii: i<. ... .. * ,i . . . . . .  ;

>4',*. ; *ii,' b ,*.*; I 5>*

> *-*!:'i***

i  :*:'"  ;'.. <>'*""*"***.

+ .; ;  ;* .... '::".. ' ..

• I.

i i~i*ii

! iI***.......

ii!** ...

S.,'.V:-*  :* * *'* 4<4<',,, * *.! -:*

45 .. ..." i 8......i 4' ' A...'"' S < " " e a lf o

. ..3/4-'" ,*",*4;",*';":*' .,. .. :A,*'

• 0 .)*1?

7:.. ' '..." .. ,'.. i .r"P 545' o ic~ila a d nSo  :;':j, J;"'

" 3/4 "5 55/

55:K' -

8. .. .  : 5 5:

On Spaceship Earth there are no passengers; everybody is a member of the crew.

We have moved into an age in which everybody's activities affect everybody else.

-- Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980)

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER