ML072060439

From kanterella
Revision as of 22:40, 12 July 2019 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
ML072060439
Person / Time
Site: Oyster Creek
Issue date: 05/02/2002
From:
Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program
To:
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Davis J NRR/DLR/REBB, 415-3835
Shared Package
ML072060321 List:
References
Download: ML072060439 (188)
v • d • e


Text

Barnegat Bay National,.

Estuary Program Page 1 of 2 IIM Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan -Approved Nlay 2002 Table of Contents: C'haplT..J..:1Itouto Chapter 2: Understanding the Barnecat Watershed CE. p t e4..3 . E arl v A s Chapter 4: Introductio'n to Action Plan Chapter 5: Water QUalityW..ater.

S.uppy Action PI an Chapter 6: Habitat and Living Resources Action Plan Chapter 7: Human Activities and Co mpetina Uses Action Plan Chapter 8: Public Participation and Education Action Plan C~halte9:

Monitoring Prograim Plan Chapter 10: Data Management Chapter 1I: Unfinished Agenda Chapter 12: CCMP Implementation AR e pen. n: c Rf e..re Alpenpdix B: Public Responsiveness Document Appendix C-:--EarlN-Acti~on Rsl s an Jd-n( Sumre-s Appendix D: Public Outreach Appendix 1K: anagemient Con ference Members.r p l .., ..!i ..........'! g ! .......................

.[ !....... ....... :T ...... ....ApNjendix F: Federal Consistency Review Appendix G: Base Program Anal sis http://www.bbeo.org/ccmo.htm 6/29/2007 , I I I Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program Page 2 of 2 Appgndix I-I Glossary http://www.bbep.org/cc-np.htm 6/29/2007 Compehesive.2002 1 >j i PHOTO BY LASZLO SELLY When the sea is everywhere from horizon to horizon...

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

I swear again how I know the sea is older than anything else.--Carl Sandburg, North Atlantic This document is available on the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program website: www.bbep.org or write or call the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program: Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program Ocean County College College Drive P.O. Box 2001 Toms River, NJ 08754-2001 This document was completed under a cooperative agreement between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 2 and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, with the support of the Ocean County Board of Chosen Freeholders, Ocean County Planning Department, Ocean County Mayors Association, and the concerned citizens of Ocean County, New Jersey.

Treat the earth well;it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children.-.Ancient Indian proverb Acknowledgements The Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program'si (BBNEP)-Comprehensive Conservation" and Management Plan (CCMP)Wi Was'made possible bythechard workand. perseverance of many people and In addition to the agen-cies and individuals identified as Barnegat Bay National,'EtayProgram-Manag'emfenht Conference members and jpartictpants (Appendix E)' we ou egtend" o ratitude to 7 those individuats who have contributed to the develop-ment, design, production, and dissemination of the CCMP, as well as those' who havae participafed inand supported the Pro'gram during the last six years, inctuding':Al THE OCEAN COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS Joseph H. Vicari, Director John C. Bartlett, Jr., Deputy Director John P. Kelly James F. Lacey James Mancini OCEAN COUNTY Stephen L. Pollock, Ocean County Administrator Alan W. Avery, Jr., Ocean County Planning Director Joseph J. Harding, Ocean County Management and Budget Director FEDERAL ELECTED OFFICIALS Senator Robert G. Torricelli Senator Jon S. Corzine Congressman H. James Saxton Congressman Christopher H. Smith STATE ELECTED OFFICIALS Senator Andrew R. Ciesla Senator Leonard T. Connors, Jr.Senator Robert W. Singer Assemblyman Christopher J. Connors Assemblyman Melvin Cottrell Assemblyman James W. Holzapfel Assemblyman Joseph R. Malone Assemblyman Jeffrey W. Moran Assemblyman David W. Wolfe OCEAN COUNTY MAYORS Dolores J. Coulter, Barnegat Township Kirk 0. Larson, Barnegat Light Borough Arthur P. Petracco, Bay Head Borough Deborah C. Whitcraft, Beach Haven Borough May 2002 OCEAN COUNTY MAYORS, continued William T. Hornidge, Beachwood Borough Jason J. Varano, Berkeley Township Joseph C. Scarpelli, Brick Township Raymond P. Fox, Dover Township John P. Kelly, Eagleswood Township Jonathan S. Oldham, Harvey Cedars Borough David M. Siddons, Island Heights Borough Joseph D. Grisanti, Jackson Township Ronald L. Sterling, Lacey Township Stephen F. Childers, Lakehurst Borough Marta Harrison, Lakewood Township Thomas J. Walls, Lavallette Borough Brian Rumpf, Little Egg Harbor Township James J. Mancini, Long Beach Township Michael Fressola, Manchester Township William K. Dunbar, III, Mantoloking Borough Daniel M. Van Pelt, Ocean Township Peter A. Terranova, Ocean Gate Borough Russell K. Corby, Pine Beach Borough Ronald S. Dancer, Plumsted Township William C. Schroeder, Pt. Pleasant Borough John E. Pasola, Pt. Pleasant Beach Borough P. Kenneth Hershey, Seaside Heights Borough Alexander B. Condos, Seaside Park Borough John Peterson -former mayor, Seaside Park Borough William HueLsenbeck, Ship Bottom Borough George J. Greitz, Jr., South Toms River Borough Carl W. Block, Stafford Township Leonard T. Connors, Jr., Surf City Borough Elizabeth Moritz, Tuckerton Borough Current members of the Policy Committee and Management Committee are acknowledged in Appendix E.We would like to acknowledge the following who helped with the development of the CCMP: Jeanne M. Fox (fornier Policy Committee Co-chair, USEPA)Robert Shinn (former NJ Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner)

Stephen Whitney (former Management Committee Chair, NJDEP)Terry Fowler (former Program Director, NJDEP)Heidi D'Ascoli (former Public Outreach Coordinator, BBNEP)Alison Gerding (Program Associate, BBNEP)Thomas Dunn (Technical Editor)Dennis Joyce (former Program Associate, BBNEP)We would also like to acknowledge the following who helped with the visual development of the CCMP: GRAPHIC DESIGN/LAYOUT

Carla Coutts-Miners (former Public Outreach Coordinator, BBNEP)NEW JERSEY VINTAGE PHOTOGRAPHY AND ENGRAVINGS:

Ocean County Historical Society, Tuckerton Seaport, a project of the Barnegat Bay Decoy and Baymen's Museum, Tom's River Seaport Society, Down Barnegat Bay-A Nor'easter Midnight Reader, by Robert Jahn, Plexus Publishing Inc., Medford, NJ.AERIALS: Studio Nine, Waretown, NJ BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP BARNEGAT BAY NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM Mission Statement.

In cooperation with our community, the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program (BBNEP) is. committed to action to restore, maintain, protect, and enhance the natural resources of the Barnegat Bay Estuary and contributing watersheds through the 21st century. We are guided by the following principles: " Encouraging and motivating residents and visitors to maintain an ethic of responsibility for the bay and watershed." Educating people about the cultural heritage, historic traditions and natural estuarine resources of the BBNEP When region for today." Implementing community-based environmental planning for an increased quality of life and economic viability for the region. w k* Integrating scientific data to prioritize the focal issues genera of point and nonpoint sources of pollution, habitatloss/open space, water quality degradation, and the multiple interests in the watershed region." Promoting sustainable management, of operative efforts of citizens, businesses, local, state, and federal governments and other stakeholders.

  • Acknowledging and planning for the rising population and increased uses of ground and surface water.Maintaining recreational and commercial fisheries through a healthy watershed.

MAY 2002 Cedar Creek leading into Barnegat Bay. PHOTO BY STUDIO NINE, WARETOWN, NJ BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

.............................

1.1 Barnegat Bay ....................................

1.2 Estuaries

& Watersheds

..............................

1.2.1 Estuaries

..................

.............

1.2.2 W atersheds

..............................

1.2.3 Interactions

...........................

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

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

1.4 The Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program (BBNEP) ........1.4.1 Statement of Purpose ......................

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

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

1.4.4 The CCM P ................................

1.4.5 BBNEP Structure

..........................

1.5 Watershed Approach ...... .........................

1.6 Vision for the Future ..............................

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

CHAPTER 2: UNDERSTANDING THE BARNEGAT BAY WATERSHED 2.1 The Abundance of Barnegat Bay .......................

2.2 Hydrological Resources

.............................

2.2.1 Barnegat Bay and Estuary ...................

2.2.2 Freshwater Resources

.......................

2.3 Biological Resources

...............................

2.3.1 Fisheries

......... .................

.....2.3.2 Birds and Wildlife .........................

2.3.3 Wetlands .................

..............

2.3.4 Barrier Island-Coastal Dune Scrub/Shrub Complex ..2.3.5 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

................

2.3.6 Upland Watershed

.........................

2.3.7 Wildlife Habitat Map .......................

2.4 Economic Value ..................................

2.4.1 Tourism/Recreation

........................

2.4.2 Commercial Fisheries/Seafood

.................

2.5 Land Use ...................................

2.5.1 Population Growth ........................

Z.5.2 Land-Use Trends ...........................

2.6 Priority Problems .................................

2.6.1 Kirkwood-Cohansey Aquifer ..................

2.6.2 Water Quality: Stormwater/Nonpoint Source Pollution 2.6.3 Water Quality: Nutrient Loading ...............

..". ..............3................3.................. ...I ...........4..........". .....4................5................5...........". ....5...............1 .5................6................6.................

'6................7................8................9.11................13................13................13................13....... .........15................15................15................16................16................16................16................16................17............ ....17................17................18................ 18.......... ......18.. ..... ... ...... 18..................21.2... ......1....... .2.23 MAY 2002 i TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.6.4 Water Quality: Pathogens

.............................................................

..............

...........

25 2.6.5 Water Supply.........................................................

.........................

..........

26 2.6.6 Habitat Loss and Alteration

..............................................................................................

27 2.6.7 Human Activities and Competing Uses ................................................................................

28 2.6.8 Fisheries Decline .................................................................................................................

30 CHAPTER 3: EARLY ACTIONS .................................................................................................

33 3.1 Introduction

.........................................................................................................................

35 3.2 "Action Now" Agenda ........ * ...................................................................................................

35 3.3 Action Plan Demonstration Projects ..................................................................................

36 3.4 Local Government Involvement

....................

..................

...............................

37 3.5 Public Participation and Education

..................................................................

.......................

38 3.6 Federal/State Programs Supporting the BBNEP ....................................

39 3.7 Barnegat Bay Environmental Fund .....................................................................................

39 3.8 Special Public Health Projects ............................................................................................

39 3.9 Survey Review of the Barnegat Bay Watershed

....................................................................

40 CHAPTER 4: INTRODUCTION TO ACTION PLANS ...................................................................

41 4.1 Management Strategies

.........

.................................................

43 4.2 Action Plans ...............................

I ......................................................................................

43 4.2.1 Water Quality/Water Supply Action Plan ...............................................................

43 4.2.2 Habitat and Living Resources Action Plan ..............................................................

43 4.2.3 Human Activities and Competing Uses Action Plan .................................................

43 4.2.4 Public Participation and Education Action Plan ......................................................

44 4.3 Action Plan Priorities

...........................................................................................................

44 4.4 Objectives

.........................

..........................................................................

.........

44 4.5 Action Items ........................................................................................................................

57 CHAPTER 5: WATER QUALITY/WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN .....................

59 5.1 Introduction--State Watershed Management Rules ...............................................................

61 5.2 Water Quality/Water Supply Action Items ...........................................................................

73 CHAPTER 6: HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES ACTION PLAN .......................................

101 6.1 Introduction

......................................................................................................................

103 6.2 Habitat and Living Resources Action Items ..........................................................................

110 CHAPTER 7: HUMAN ACTIVITIES AND COMPETING USES ACTION PLAN ...............................

121 7.1 Introduction

......................................................................................................................

123 7.2 Human Activities and Competing Uses Action Items ...............................................................

124 i1 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 8: PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND EDUCATION ACTION PLAN ..........................

139 8.1 Introduction..............................................................

..............

141 8&2 The Diversity of Stakeholders

......................................................

.......*........145 8.3 The Outreach Strategy ..............................................................................

146 8.4 Public Outreach Accomplishments to Date ..........................................................

146 8.5 Citizen Involvement in the Development of the CCMP and the Public Outreach Strategy for Implementation

........................................................................

146 8.6 Action Items ........................

..****..*

............................................

... 150.CHAPTER 9: MONITORING PROGRAM PLAN .............

.........................................

169 9.1 Introduction.........................................................................................

171 9.2 Existing Monitoring Programs in the Barnegat Bay Watershed

...................

176 9.2.1 Watershed-Based Monitoring Programs .............................

.......................

176 9.2.2 Other Monitoring Programs..............i...................................................

182 9.3 Development of the Monitoring Program Plan ......................................................

184 CHAPTER 10: DATA MANAGEMENT PLAN ...........................................................

189 10.1 Data Management....................................................................................

191 10.2 Data Management Goals .............................................................................

191 10.3 S ystem Elements ....................................................................................

191 10.4 Next Steps ................................................

...................

......................

192'CHAPTER 11: UNFINISHED AGENDA ................................................................

193 11.1 Introduction.........................................................................................

195 11.2 Data Gaps ........................................................

z..................................

195 11.3 Additional Research Needs ..........................................................................

198 CHAPTER 12: CCMP IMPLEMENTATION...............................................................

199 12.1 Oversight of the CCMP.............................................................................

201 12.2 Implementation Meetings ...........................................................................

202 12.3 Agency Participation

.................................................................................

202 12.4 Watershed-Based Planning and Implementation

....................................................

203 12.5 Barnegat Bay Watershed and Estuary Foundation

..........................................

I..........203 12.6 BBNEP Post-CCMP Implementation Structure

.......................................................

203 12.6.1 BBNEP Program Office ......................................................................

203 12.6.2 Program Director .........................................................................

204 12.6.3 Policy Committee..........................I...............................................

204 12.7 Tracking Information

.............................................................................

204 12.7.1 Framework

...............................................................................

205 12.7.2 Implementation Review ..................................................................

205 12.7.3 Annual Progress Review....................................................................

205 MAY 2002 iff TABLE OF CONTENTS 12.7.4 Assessment of Estuarine/

Watershed Health .......................................

........ 205 12.8 Financing the BBNEP................................................................................

206 12.8.1 Financial Strategy..........................................................................

206 12.8.2 Costs Summary.............................................................................

207 12.8.3 Current Funding ............................

_...............................................

207 12.8.4 Additional Funding Opportunities

.........................................................

209 12,9 Water Quality Management Planning ...............................................................

220 12.9.1 WOM Planning in Ocean County............................................................

220 12.9.2 Update of the Initial Ocean County WQM Plan ............................................

221 12.9.3 Wastewater Management Plans.............................................................

221 12.10 Compliance with National and State Historic Preservation Laws and the Endangered.

Species Act when Implementing the CCMP....................................

222 LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1. Nonpoint Source Pollutants and Their Impacts ................................................

4 Table 2-1. The Barnegat Bay and Its Watershed

.........................................................

13 Table 2-2. 1998 Tourism Input to the Ocean County Economy ..........................................

17 Table 2-3. .U.S. Census Data for the Barnegat Bay Watershed

...........................................

18 Table 2-4. Land Use in the Watershed, 1994-1995

......................................................

18 Table 2-5. Water Bodies with Known Water Quality Impairment

.............................

I......I......19 Table 2-6. Water Bodies Where Use Impairment is Not Known, Confirmation Needed...................

20 Table 2-7. Nutrient Inputs to the Barnegat Bay Estuary ................................................

24 Table 3-1. Projects and Funds Awarded for Fiscal Years 1997 and 1998.................................

36 Table 4-1. Water Quality and Water Supply Action Plan Criteria for Priority Setting...................

45 Table 4-2. Habitat-and Living Resources Action Plan Criteria for Priority Setting......................

49 Table 4-3. Human Activities and Competing Uses Action Plan Criteria for Priority Setting ............

52 Table 4-4. Public Participation and Education Action Plan Criteria for Priority Setting ...........

  • ..... 54 Table 5-1. Water Quality/Water Supply Action Items ...................................................

64 Table 5-2. Indicators and Monitoring ProgramIs for Measuring Progress toward Objectives..............

70 Table 5-3. Percentage of Municipalities Affected and Range of Per Capita Costs for Six Minimum Measures ...........................................................................

78 Table 6-1. Habitat and Living Resources Action Items .................................................

105 Table 6-2. Indicators and Monitoring Programs for Measuring Progress Toward Habitat and Living Resources Action Plan Objectives.....................................................

108 Table 7-1. Human Activities and Competing Uses Action Table........................................

125 Table 7-2. Indicators and Monitoring Programs for Measuring Progress Toward Human Activities and Competing Uses Action Plan Objectives......................................

128 Table 8-1. Public Participation and Education Action Items............................................

142 Table 8-2 Indicators and Monitoring Programs for Measuring Progress Toward Public-Participation and Education Action Plan Objectives

........................................

148 Table 9-1. Linkages Between the Environmental Action Plans and the Monitoring Program Plan ....172 iV BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2-1.Figure 5-1.Figure 6-1.Figure 7-1.Figure 8-1.Figure 12-1.The Barnegat Bay Estuary and Watershed

...... .............................

.14 Water Quality/Water Supply Actions .............

..............................

72 Habitat and Living Resources Actions ......................................

109 Human Activities and Competing Uses Action Plan ............................

129 Public Participation and Education Actions ..................................

149 Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program Implementation Organizational Structure

...... 202 PENDICES MAPS LIST OF API APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D: APPENDIX E: APPENDIX F:.APPENDIX G: APPENDIX H: References Public Responsiveness Document Early Action Results and Summaries Public Outreach Management Conference Members Federal Consistency Review Base Program Analysis Glossary Barnegat Bay Watershed

...........

12 Recreational Bathing Sites ..........

34 Ocean County Wetlands ............

100 Barnegat Bay Boater's Guide ........ 102 Ocean County Boat Count ..........

122 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

....... 170 MAY 2002 V PHOTO COURTESY TUCKERTON SEAPORT, A PROJECT OF THE RARNEGAT BAY DECOY AND BAYMEH'S MUSEUM, IHC.BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP LIST OF ACRONYMS ALO ...............................................................................................

Alliance for a Living Ocean AMNET ............................................

Ambient Biomonitoring Network ANJEC ......................................................

Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions ANJEE ..........................................................................

Alliance for NJ Environmental Educators APDP ..........................................

Action Plan Demonstration Project BBDBM .....................................................................

Barnegat Bay Decoy and Baymen's Museum BBNEP ..........................................................................

Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program BBPWCTF ..................................................................

Barnegat Bay Personal Watercraft Taskforce BBWA ................................................................................

Barnegat Bay Watershed Association BBWEF ...............................

Barnegat Bay Watershed and Estuary Foundation BMP ...... .. ...................................

........................................

Best Management Practices CAC ...............................................................................................

Citizen Advisory Committee CAFRA ...................................................................................

Coastal Area Facilities Review Act CCMP ............................................................

Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan CEHA ....................................................................................

County Environmental Health Act CMP ..................................................................................................

Coastal Management Plan CPP ..............................................................................................

Continuing Planning Process CRSSA .......................................

Center for Remote Sensing & Spatial Analysis, Rutgers University

<:. ., CVA .........................................................

Clean Vessel Act , CWA ................................................................................................................

Clean Water Act CWSRF ...................................................................................

Clean Water State Revolving Fund CZARA .................................................................

Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendment CZMA ........................................................................................

Coastal Zone Management Act : d .............................................................................................................

day......................

day DMUA ...................................................................

Dover Township Municipal Utilities Authority DOH ............................................................................................................

Division of Health ELC ...........................................................................................

Environmental Learning Center EMAP ..............................................................

Environmental Monitoring

& Assessment Program I EMP .........................................................................................

Environmental Monitoring Plan EO ..................................................................................................................

Executive Order ERS ................................................

Ecoregion Reference Station FMP...........................................................................................

Fishery Management Plan MAY 200 Vii LIST OF ACRONYMS FREC ...........................................

........ Forest Resource Education Center FTP .........................................................................................................

File Transfer Protocol gat ..............

g.................................................................................................................

galton SGIS .........................................................................................

Geographic Information System GPS ............................................................................................

.. Global Positioning System H*A*S .................

..........................................

...............................................

Home*A*Syst HSHW ...........................................

Healthy Soil/Healthy Watershed IMCS ...........................................................................

Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences IPM ..............................................................................................

Integrated Pest Management JCNERR ....................................................

Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve k g ...........................................................................................................................

kilogram s.......................................................................................

............................................

liter tb ................................................................................................................................

p ou n d LGC .............................................................................................

Local Government Committee ,, MAFPE ...............

...............

Mid-Atlantic Federal Partners for the Environment MARE .......................................................................

Marine Activities Resources and Education mg ..........................................................................................................................

milligram ml ............................................................................................................................

milliliter MLUL .................................................................................................

Municipal Land Use Law MOA .............................................................................................

Memorandum of Agreement MSD ..................................................................................................

Marine Sanitation Device MTBE .................................................................................................

methyl tert-butyl ether MW .......................................................

..................................................................

Megawatt NEMO .............................................

..........................

Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials NEP ..................................................................................................

National Estuary Program NEPA ...................................................................................

National Environmental Policy Act NEPPS ...................................................

National Environmental Performance Partnership System NJDEP ..........................................................

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection NJDOT ........................................................................

New Jersey Department of Transportation NJFS .............................................................................................

New Jersey Forestry Services NJMSC .....................................

New jersey Marine Sciences Consortium NJPDES .........................................................

New Jersey Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NJPC ...................................................................................

New Jersey Pinelands Commission Viii BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP LIST OF ACRONYMS NOAA .............................................................

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES ..............................................................

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NPL .....................................................................................................

National Priorities List NPS .................................................................................................

Nonpoint Source Pollution NRCS ...................................

US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service NRI ..............................................................................................

Natural Resources Inventory NSSP ..............................................................................

National Shellfish Sanitation Program OCADB .................................................................

Ocean County Agricultural Development Board OCED .............................................................................

Ocean County Engineering Department OCHD.....................................................................................

Ocean County Health Department OCNGS ..........................................................................

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station OCPD .................................................................................

Ocean County Planning Department OCUA .....................................................................................

Ocean County Utilities Authority OCSCD ........................................................

.................

Ocean County Soil Conservation District OCVTS .......................................................................

Ocean County Vocational-Technical School OMWM .............................................

Open Marsh Water Management ONLM ........................................

Office of Natural Lands Management PRM .................................................

Potomac-Raritan-Magothy PSA ...............

............................................................................

Public Service Announcement PSU .....................................................................................................

Primary Sampling Units PWC ..........................................................................................................

personal watercraft RBP.......................................................................................Rapid Bioassessment Protocol RCD .............................................................................

Resource Conservation and Development RCE ...................................................................

Rutgers Cooperative Extension of Ocean County R-EMAP ..............................................

Regional Environmental Monitoring

& Assessment Programn RISE .......- .......................................................................

Resource Information Serving Everyone SARA ...............................................................

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SAV ............................................................................................

submerged aquatic vegetation SDCG ..............................................

...........................

Sustainable Development Challenge Grant STAC ......................................................................

Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee SWAP ....................................

...............................................

Source Water Assessment Program TMDL.....................................................................................

...........

total maximum daily load TPL ........................................................................................................

Trust for Public Land MAY 2002 iX "

LIST OF ACRONYMS STSS ............................................................

total suspended solids USACE .........................................................................

United States Army Corps of Engineers USDA .....................................

I ............... , ..............

United States Department of Agriculture USEPA ...............................................................

United States Environmental Protection Agency USFS .............................................................................................

United States Forest Service USFWS ...........................................................................

United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS ............................................

United States Geological Survey> VOC ................................................................................................

volatile organic compound WHIP ....................

...............................

Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program WMP ..................................................................................

water management plan Wom ................

I ................................................................................

water quality management SWRAS ...............................

............................................

Watershed Restoration Action Coalition YES .......................................

.............................................

Youth Environmental Society y r ..................................................................

C................................................................

yearm ...... .........................................................................................................

.............

m icron X BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

\Fishing off Barnegat Lighthouse, FROM APPLETON'S JOURNAL, 1871 MAY 2002 1 The earth does not belong to us, we belong to the earth.We did not weave the web of life;we are merely a strand in it.Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.

--Chief Seattle, 1854 INTRODUCTION 1.1 BARNEGAT BAY The Barnegat Bay -Little Egg Harbor Estuary is locat-ed along the central New Jersey coastline within the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province.

Its watershed encompasses most of the 33 municipalities in Ocean County, as well as four municipalities in Monmouth County. Although long recognized for its great aesthetic, economic, and recreational value, this backbay system is now affected by an array of human impacts that potentially threaten its ecologi-cal integrity.

Historically, the arrival of European settlers in Ocean County first affected the environment through changes in land use and the creation of colonial industries.

As extractive natural resources were depleted, the colonial industries (e.g., lumbering and sawmills, bog iron man-ufacture, and charcoal manufacture) disappeared.

Some people left Ocean County with the demise of the main industries, but the people who remained in the colonial settlements endured and survived by farming, hunting, fishing, and berry harvesting.

In the last half of the 19th century, the recreational tourist industry began to expand, and this industry helped to produce the tremendous growth experienced in Ocean County during the last half of the 20th century.Today, many residents of Ocean County rely upon Barnegat Bay and its resources for the livelihood of their families.

Commercial and recreational fishing, tourism, and other water-dependent recreation gener-ate many jobs, as do other industries based in or near the estuary.1.2 ESTUARIES

& WATERSHEDS 1.2.1 ESTUARIES An estuary is a partially enclosed body of water formed where fresh water from rivers, streams, and groundwa-ter flows to the ocean, mixing with the salty seawater.Although influenced by the winds and tides, an estuary is protected from the full force of ocean waves, winds, and Chapter 1 storms by the barrier islands, or fingers of land, mud, or sand that define an estuary's seaward boundary.Estuaries come in all shapes and sizes and go by many dif-ferent names. They are often known as bays, lagoons, harbors, inlets, or sounds. Whatever the name or type, estuaries provide valuable functions.

They are among the most productive habitats on earth and are vital spawning, nursery, and feeding grounds for fish and shellfish.

They are critical to the survival of tens of thousands of birds, fish, and other wildlife.

Many different habitat, types are found in and around estuaries, including shallow open waters, freshwater and salt marshes, sandy beaches, mud and sand flats, tidal pools, sea grass beds, and wooded swamps.The wetlands bordering many estuaries perform valuable functions, including water quality, flood protection and water storage. Many upland areas drain to fresh and salt marshes that act as filters, removing pollutants from runoff. Wetland plants and soils also act as a natural buffer between the land and the ocean, absorbing flood-waters and dissipating storm surges. Salt marsh grasses and other estuarine plants also prevent erosion and stabilize the shoreline.

MAY 2002 3 INTRODUCTION 1.2.2 WATERSHEDS A watershed is a geographic land area that drains to a common surface water body. Groundwater recharge* areas are also part of a watershed.

Because all water-sheds are defined by natural hydrology and ultimately drain to coastal waters, they are good focal points for managing coastal resources.

A watershed has several components.

It originates at the headwaters of the streams and rivers that ultimate-ly drain into coastal waters. Headwaters include wet-lands, which often are adjacent to the flowing waters of rivers or streams. As the streams and rivers flow to coastal waters, they are influenced by land and water uses, such as farming, housing, businesses, recreation, and conservation.

Upon reaching the coastal areas, the rivers empty into estuaries.

Near-shore waters, the areas directly offshore from the beach, are part of the coastal watershed because they are influenced by the activities going on along the shoreline and by pollu-tants coming from the land.1.2.3 INTERACTIONS Since a watershed is made up of several components that are interrelated, it is important to remember that what happens on the land affects the water. For example, a river or stream that flows through a residential develop-ment can pick up lawn fertilizer and pesticides, pet waste, improperly disposed-of household chemicals, untreated sewage from failing septic tanks, petroleum hydrocarbons from automobiles and runoff from imper-vious surfaces like parking lots, agricultural operations, TABLE 1-1. Nonpoint Source Pollutants and Their Impacts Po~titType Sore Impacts , §+ t Soil

  • Construction sites
  • Muddy waters that smother* Farms bottom-dwelling organisms" Exposed Dirt
  • Decreased tight reaching the sea grass beds* Sediments clog fish gills.Transport to coastal waters of pollutants bound to sediments Nutrients
  • Lawn fertilizers
  • Excessive growth of algae* Pet and farm animal waste (microscopic plants)" Decaying plant material 0 Decreased light reaching sea* Failing septic tanks grass beds* Atmospheric deposition
  • Oxygen depletion from decay of algae" Small, inefficient sewage
  • Some algae (including Pfiesteria treatment plants piscicida and those causing harmful algal blooms (red tides) can kill fish or shellfish and be harmful or fatal to humans Toxics
  • Pesticide from lawns, .Fish kills gardens, farms .Loss of recreational and* Lead, oils, greases from commercial uses roadways* Industrial plants* Small wastewater treatment plants Pathogens
  • Untreated or poorly treated Fecal coliform bacteria can result (microscopic organisms sewage in beach closures, shellfish bed like bacteria and viruses)
  • Pet and farm animal waste closures, fish kills, human health problems 4 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP CHAPTER 1 and sediment from construction sites. These pollutants run off the land into nearby streams and storm drains.Upon reaching the coastal area, streams or rivers can be affected by commercial and recreational boating, dis-charges from industrial and municipal facilities, and recre-ational activities on beaches. All of these pollutant dis-charges, called. nonpoint source pollutants, can have an adverse impact on the estuarine resources (Table 1-1).1.2.4 HUMAN IMPACTS Estuaries are unique and highly productive waters that are critical to the nation's ecological and economic vitality.Yet, despite their value, almost every estuary in the United States is experiencing tremendous stress from pollution, development, and rapid population growth in coastal cities and counties.Human activities in the watershed can adversely affect a variety of marine and freshwater resources.

Pollutant dis-charges, as welt as structural alterations, can lead to loss of breeding and feeding grounds of fish, other aquatic animals and birds, as well as loss of recreational uses. Both surface and groundwater can serve as a transport mechanism to deliver pollutants to an estuary and its tributaries.

1.3 UNDERSTANDING BARNEGAT BAY The Barnegat Bay Estuary is a 75-square-mile environ-mentally sensitive estuarine system, consisting of aquatic vegetation, shellfish beds, finfish habitats, waterfowl nesting grounds, and spectacular vistas. Its 660-square-mile watershed is now home for approximately 500,000 people, a population which more than doubles during the summer season. Municipalities on the barrier islands bor-dering the bay on the east may experience a ten-fold increase in population.

Moreover, the entire watershed has undergone dramatic growth since 1950. During the 1990s the municipalities surrounding the bay reported population expansions that on average exceeded 20 per-cent. The development accompanying the increasing pop-ulation growth has resulted in land use changing from principally undeveloped and agricultural to suburban.Boat traffic, including personal watercraft, has also sig-nificantly grown on the bay, raising concerns with respect to both use conflicts and the cumulative impacts on the bay's water quality.The magnitude and intensity of different land uses in the Barnegat Bay watershed are having significant and often degrading effects. Surface and groundwater quality in the watershed are being degraded by nonpoint sources of pol-lution. The relationship between land use and water quality and quantity has been clearly established.

It is generally recognized that the increase in impervious sur-faces associated with development exacerbates this situa-tion by reducing the opportunities for infiltration of water into the ground. Development also impacts the estuary's fisheries and other biological resources through nonpoint source pollution and habitat loss.It is the cumulative impacts of everyday activities in the Barnegat Bay watershed that are slowly degrading the environmental quality of this sensitive ecosystem.

An assessment of the estuary, presented in Chapter Two, indi-cates that human activities in the watershed and estuary have led to measurable degradation of water quality, destruction of natural habitats, and -reduction of living resources in the system.1.4 THE BARNEGAT BAY NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM (BBNEP)1.4.1 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE Barnegat Bay is a productive estuarine resource, rich in native fish and wildlife populations and supporting both recreational and commercial water-dependent activities.

The economy of many coastal areas in Ocean County relies on the natural beauty and bounty of the Barnegat Bay Estuary. When those natural resources are imperiled, so are the livelihoods of the many people who live and work along the coast. Therefore, protecting these resources is critical to the future sustainability of the Barnegat Bay area.MAY 2002 5 INTRODUCTION 1.4.2 BBNEP HISTORY In response to growing concerns about the impacts that extensive development was imposing on Barnegat Bay, the New Jersey Legislature passed an act in 1987 requir-ing a study of the nature and extent of the impacts that development was causing on the bay. The Act, P.L. 1987, Chapter 397, created the Barnegat Bay Study Group and mandated a study of the bay and its watershed.

The planning process that resulted from the Barnegat Bay Study Act involved significant coordination and public participation with citizens who Live, work, and recreate in the bay area. A citizens advisory group was formed to identify the issues and objectives of most concern to the citizens of the Barnegat Bay watershed and define the focus of the plan. The work of the Study Group resulted in a three-part study of Barnegat Bay:* Profile of the Barnegat Bay was a characterization of con-ditions and trends in bay water quality, ecosystem vitality, and human activities that rely on or affect the bay.* Management Recommendations for the Barnegat Bay was an assessment of alternatives for managing the bay. It was based on the above publication as well as issues of impor-tance to the public.o A Watershed Management Plan for the Bay defined a multi-objective management approach directed at achiev-ing meaningful and measurable improvements to the qual-ity of life and resources in the bay area.After release of the third and final report, members of a cit-izens advisory committee formed the Barnegat Bay Watershed Association (BBWA). This led the Governor of New Jersey to petition the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to nominate Barnegat Bay into the National Estuary Program (NEP). The USEPA accepted the nomination of the Barnegat Bay Estuary into the NEP on July 6, 1995.1.4.3 NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM Congress recognized the importance of preserving and enhancing coastal environments with the establishment of the NEP in the federal Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987. Congress clearly stated that it was in the national interest to maintain the ecological integrity of estuaries through the long-term planning and management pro-gram set forth under Section 320 of the Act.The purpose of the NEP, which is managed by the USEPA, is to address the many complex issues, including the increase in coastal population and the resulting demands for development that can contribute to the deterioration of the major estuaries in the United States. The program's goals include the protection and improvement of surface and groundwater quality, as well as the protection and enhancement of living resources.

The USEPA is required to identify "nationally significant" estuaries and oversee development of Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMP) for each estuary. Governors nominate individual estuaries in their states to the NEP. The USEPA Administrator then reviews the nominations and accepts estuaries into the program on the basis of the following factors:* The ecological significance of the estuary;" The biological productivity of the estuary and its contri-bution to commercial and recreational fish and wildlife resources; e The impact of commercial, residential, recreational, or industrial activities on the health of the estuary; and* The degree to which comprehensive planning manage-ment may contribute to the ecological integrity of the estuary.Since its formation, the NEP has expanded from six estuaries to its current list of 28, all of which are now in the process of implementing their management plans.1.4.4 THE CCMP The USEPA is required to coordinate the development of CCMPs to restore and protect the ecological health and bio-logical integrity and diversity of the NEP estuaries.

The development of a CCMP is a complex process focused on identifying priority problems and their solutions, and main-taining consensus among all stakeholders throughout the process.6 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMF The CCMP is built from the results of a number of prelim-[mary planning activities.

These include: a base program analysis; technical characterizations of the water quality and environmental resources of the watershed; and a series of pilot projects known as Action Plan/Demonstration Projects.A CCMP is intended to address all uses affecting the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the estuary. The plans include recommended actions on a full range of issues, such as habitat protection, polluted runoff controls, stormwater pollution, resource management, protection of ground and surface water supplies and land-use planning.

The challenges will, in some cases, take decades to accom-plish. Therefore, a high level of local government and cit-izen participation is critical in order to maintain long-term community support and commitment to implemen-tation of the actions recommended in the CCMP.1.4.5 BBNEP STRUCTURE Shortly after Barnegat Bay's acceptance into the NEP, the USEPA and the State of New Jersey negotiated a Conference Agreement and convened a Management Conference responsible for the development of Barnegat Bay's CCMP.The purpose of the Management Conference is to assure full participation by federal, state, and local agencies, educa-tional institutions, affected industries, various user groups, and the general public. The Management Conference was charged with identifying the environmental problems fac-ing the estuary, recommending interim corrective actions, outlining compliance schedules to address the pollution problems, and ultimately constructing a CCMP that. will receive approval of the Governor of New Jersey and the USEPA Administrator.

One of the first responsibilities of the Management Conference was to set up a management structure for developing the CCMP. The following committees were cre-ated:* Policy Committee provides overall direction and sets priorities for the BBNEP, defines Management Committee membership, and selects the Program Director.

It is comprised of municipal, county, state, CHAPTER 1 and federal leaders, as well as a member representing the Citizens Action Committee and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee.

  • Management Committee refines the definitions of watershed problems and develops strategies to solve them, provides oversight to the scientific characterization of the watershed, prepares action plans for the CCMP, and plans programs to implement the CCMP. It is comprised of representatives from federal, state, and county agencies and the chairs of the Citizens Advisory Committee, Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee, Local Government Committee, and the BBWA, now the BBWEF.* Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee.guides the environmental characterization of the Barnegat Bay watershed and provides oversight of techni-cal activities.

It also produces text, provides research rec-ommendations, reviews findings and results, and works to clarify sources of problems and identify practical solu-tions. It is composed of scientists, engineers, environ-mental professionals, planners, citizen interest groups, representatives from federal, state, and local govern-ments, and individuals from academia and industry.* Citizens Advisory Committee, drawn from citizen lead-ers, works to inform the public and develop strategies to involve all citizens in the decision-making process. It develops educational programs and conducts public meet-ings and forums to solicit public input.* Local Government Committee, represented by the Ocean County Mayor's Association, meets monthly and provides the BBNEP with a forum to interact with Ocean County municipalities.

e Financial Planning Committee is represented by state, county, legislative, and private interests with expertise in financial planning, grant making, and fund raising.1.5 WATERSHED APPROACH The resources and problems of the Barnegat Bay region were assessed through a scientific characterization describing existing technical data and other relevant information.

As discussed in Chapter Two, this character-ization indicates that the priority problems in the Bamegat Bay watershed are: MAY 2002 7 INTRODUCTION

  • Water supply and water quality, including the issues of contaminated stormwater and polluted runoff, nutrient loading, pathogen contamination; groundwater contami-nation, and future water supply deficits;" Habitat Loss and alteration;
  • Fisheries decline; and" Human activities and competing uses.The broad scope of environmental issues associated with the Barnegat Bay region and the actions necessary to address them provide an opportunity for watershed-based planning and management.

A watershed protection approach has as its premise that many water quality and ecosystem problems are best solved at the watershed level rather than by the political subdivision or through uniform regulatory standards.

Major features of a watershed approach are: " Target priority problems and geographic areas of concern;" Promote a high-level of stakeholder involvement;" Use the expertise/authority of multiple agencies; and" Measure success through monitoring and other data col-lection.This approach recognizes the holistic nature of environ-mental problems in the Barnegat Bay watershed.

In other words, the priority problems are intimately linked to one another and share a common cause: population growth and its accompanying development of the watershed.

The BBNEP recognizes that management of individual actions, both on land and on the water, is the only way to prevent cumulative impacts to Barnegat Bay and its water-shed. Correction of ongoing problems must receive a high priority if trends in degradation of the watershed's resources are to be reversed.

A mutti-faceted approach, involving stakeholders from the federal, state, county;municipal, industrial, and private sectors, must commit to working together to ensure the future protection and restoration of the Barnegat Bay watershed and its valuable resources.

This will involve control of existing pollution sources and prevention of new sources, as well as protec-tion against depletion of resources necessary to maintain 8 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP the future economic and recreational vitality of the com-munities of Ocean County. The Action Plans. in this CCMP outline the actions and commitments that wilt help assure successful achievement of these goals.Since the environmental issues in the Barnegat Bay water-shed are confined primarily to Ocean County, the 33 munic-ipalities should be prepared to address many of these con-cerns. The BBNEP is committed to assisting Ocean County and its municipalities in planning and implementing envi-ronmental management actions designed to protect and restore the natural resources of the Bamegat Bay water-shed. It is recognized that the municipalities continue to have primary authority to establish land-use policy that affects both the type and rate of development.

1.6 VISION FOR THE FUTURE Many of the activities and processes that occur in the Barnegat Bay Estuary and its watershed are inevitably con-nected to environmental disturbance and degradation of natural resources.

Proper use of management techniques wilt contribute to the economic and environmental vitality of the Barnegat Bay watershed.

Appropriate land and water management practices can be selected to guide short-and long-term activities in the watershed.

The Barnegat Bay CCMP provides an opportunity to make enlightened and informed watershed-based decisions grounded in sound scientific data. The CCMP allows for the development and implementation of specific actions direct-ed towards the protection of the natural resources of Barnegat Bay and its watershed.

The challenge is to initi-ate and maintain public support for future conservation and protection of all Barnegat Bay resources, while recog-nizing the need to protect the rights of all citizens to use and enjoy the vast resources of the bay and its watershed.

The involvement, cooperation, and commitment of all stakeholders are key to the success of the CCMP.This vision should include participation by all levels of government in coordination with a broad base of stake-holders in the watershed to encourage environmentally sound stewardship of land and water resources.

Environmentally sensitive areas need to be protected white ensuring that personal property rights are CHAPTER 1 STATEMENT i:uumg Lue tast sx years w"tters iedstakeholders who live" wc OF GOALS omn this process are: 1.The Barnegat Bay estuary and it-, f sishI and wildlifeý<2. The natural water cycle ,witt he b~plies; and b) maintain or arestore ec ary and watershed.

3. Wiater quality in the estuary aric vesting and the ntegnty of the fre 4. Municipalities im the watershed

ýrrecreation where appropnat,.

,'5 All citizens and visitors wil ud tershed and the water .,ift 6 Th divrse sers of the estu respected.

All citizens of the Barnegat Bay watershed should have adequate access to the bayshore in order to enjoy fishing, picnicking, boating, and other water-based recreation.

Those who swim, fish, and enjoy boating should also be able to use the bay with a sense of safety.All residents and visitors to Ocean County need to be made aware of the valuable natural resources of the Barnegat Bay watershed, its sensitive ecosystem, and how they can con-tribute to protecting and restoring its health. Stewardship of Barnegat Bay and its watershed should become the ethic of each citizen.1.7 ORGANIZATION OF THE CCMP This CCMP is a comprehensive environmental manage-ment plan for the Barnegat Bay watershed that identi-fies priority environmental problems and issues of con-cern, management actions to deal with the priority problems, agencies and organizations responsible for implementing the action plans, resources to carry out implementation, and institutional alternatives.

The CCMP will be used by the implementing organizations and stakeholders as a blueprint for long-term actions and measurement of success.The CCMP is organized as follows: Chapter One introduces the Barnegat Bay Estuary and the BBNEP.Chapter Two summarizes the state of the watershed.

It addresses biological and hydrological resources, the.impacts of human activities on the watershed, and cur-rent status and trends.Chapter Three describes ongoing activities and initia-tives that are furthering the goals of the BBNEP.Chapter Four lays out the framework and strategies for the Action Plans to be implemented.

This includes Action Plan objectives, action priorities, and measurable end points.Chapters Five through Ten describe various action items for each of the priority areas discussed in Chapter 2. These chapters represent the essence of the CCMP, as they describe a systematic approach to reach the BBNEP goals.Chapter Eleven discusses unfinished agenda addressing issues relating to water quality, habitat and living resources, human activities, monitoring, and future environmental issues and other areas of concern.Chapter Twelve summarizes the implementation and funding strategies of the CCMP.MAY 2002 9 INTRODUCTION The Appendices contain: " References;" Early Action Results and Summaries;" Public Outreach Early Accomplishments;

  • Management Conference Members;" The Federal Consistency Review;" Base Program Analysis;" Public Responsiveness Document; and* Glossary.In addition, a comprehensive Characterization Report, which has helped to develop Program priorities and action plans, is a supporting document to this CCMP.A%! .A;:G- l<, 7 :. _10 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Along the Metedeconk.

FROM THE LITHOGRAPH BY G.R. HARDENBERGH, 1909, COURTESY OF MR. & MRS. CURLES J. HULSE MAY 2002 11 UNDERSTANDING THE BARNEGAT BAY WATERSHED The Barnegat Bay Watershed 12 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 2 2.1 THE ABUNDANCE OF BARNEGAT BAY The Barnegat Bay Estuary is an ecological treasure.

The bay's ecological productivity and broad appeal make this coastal area one of the most valuable "living" resources in the nation. An array of environmentally sensitive habitats exists here, such as sand beaches, bay islands, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), finfish nursery areas, shellfish beds, and waterfowl nesting grounds. Its biological resources are rich, and include migratory birds, threatened and endangered species, and commercially and recreationally important species of fish and shellfish.

A Scientific Characterization, describing existing tech-nical data-and other relevant information on the estu-ary and its watershed (Table 2-1), has been compiled by a diverse group of stakeholders and technical experts.This chapter is a summary of that work. More detailed information beyond this summary can be found in the BBNEP characterization document, which is available upon request.2.2 HYDROLOGICAL RESOURCES 2.2.1 BARNEGAT BAY AND ESTUARY The Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor (referred to as"Barnegat Bay" for the remainder of this document)estuarine system is composed of three shallow, microti-dal bays: Barnegat Bay, Manahawkin Bay, and Little Egg Harbor (see Figure 2-1).TABLE 2-1. The Barnegat Bay and Its Watershed A nearly continuous barrier island complex runs along the eastern edge of Barnegat Bay, separating it from the Atlantic Ocean. Seawater enters the Barnegat Bay sys-tem through the Point Pleasant Canal via the Manasquan Inlet in the north and Barnegat Inlet and Little Egg Inlet in the south. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) recently completed a large-scale reconfiguration of the Barnegat Inlet. The full impact of this project on the circulation and flushing patterns of the estuarine system are beginning to be examined.The physical nature of the bay makes it vulnerable to degradation.

.The bay itself is very shallow, with a rel-atively small amount of freshwater flowing from tribu-taries and a limited connection to the ocean. These fac-tors cause a slow flushing time and thus a long resi-dence time for pollutants harmful to plant and aquatic life.2.2.2 FRESHWATER RESOURCES The freshwater supply in the region derives from four sources:* Surface water flow;'-Groundwater from the unconfined Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system;* Groundwater from deeper, confined aquifers; and* Water transferred into the region from adjacent areas.Freshwater inflow from surface water discharges and direct groundwater input affects salinity and circulation in the estuary. Hence, it is important to determine the relative magnitude of the various freshwater sources.MAY 2002 13 UNDERSTANDING THE BARNEGAT BAY WATERSHED To this end, a hydrologic budget has been produced for water discharges (763 ft3/s, 22.9 m3/s) exceed direct the region that details the movement of fresh water groundwater seepage (103 ft3/s, 3.1 m3/s) and incident through the system. precipitation.

Freshwater discharge into the estuary from both surface water and groundwater amounts to Most freshwater inflow to the estuary is groundwater 7.5 x 107 ft3/d (2.25 x 106 m3/d). Maximum stream that either discharges to streams that flow into the bay flows occur during the winter and spring.or that seeps directly into the bay. Stream surface Figure 2-1.The Barnegat Bay Estuary and Watershed.

I 14 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 2 The principal sources of surface water flow to the sys-tem include the Metedeconk River, Kettle Creek, Toms River, Cedar Creek, Forked River, Mill Creek, West Creek, and Tuckerton Creek. In the northern section of the system, the Manasquan River connects with Barnegat Bay via the Point Pleasant Canal; however, there is not a substantial interchange of fresh and salt water between the bay and river. Portions of the Manasquan River watershed are also included in the study area.Tributary water quality is altered most greatly in devel-oped areas of the watershed where higher concentra-tions of nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfate, and other inorganic constituents have been observed.

Elevated values of pH and specific conductance have also been observed in these areas. The instream concentrations of the inorganic constituents appear to be related to the intensity of development upstream of the surface water sampling sites. The constituent loads transport-ed by tributary systems to the estuary depend primar-ily on the size of the drainage basin and the type of land cover existing there. Urban centers and heavily developed residential areas with considerable impervi-ous cover contribute greater constituent loads than rural areas with vegetative cover.2.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Since Barnegat Bay exists in the zone where rivers and streams meet salt water, many plants and animals that are adapted to salt water, fresh water, and brackish water inhabit its ecosystem.

This transitional zone, or area where two ecological zones meet, is biologically rich because species tolerant to these zones coexist and form unique ecological communities.

The shallow depth of Barnegat Bay creates an environ-ment in which significant amounts of sunlight can reach submerged aquatic plants, producing thriving benthic (bottom) plant communities.

Microscopic organisms, such as phytoptankton and zooplankton, form the basis of the estuarine food chain. Large, diverse populations of aquatic life, which, depend on phytoplankton and submerged aquatic vegetation, flourish in the shallow salt marshes of the estuary.Ptýomznrent speci-,,,s f6ýind in the sstem- include-P, /", er fiounderjwhit,ý;e perch,inadzvese irthern? pipefishi, bluefishi, wP.eakfish, striped bass;, blue crab, dnd'hard shellclams.

Most major biological groups are represented, including approximately 180 species of phytoplankton (single-celled plants), nearly 100 species of benthic flora (algae and vascular plants), more than 200 species of benthic invertebrate fauna, and about 110 species of fish.2.3.1 FISHERIES Barnegat Bay and Little Egg Harbor sustain important local and regional fisheries.

The estuary and the sur-rounding wetlands are important nursery areas for a variety of shellfish and finfish, many of which are com-mercially valuable and/or prized by recreational anglers. In-addition, anadromous fish, which migrate from the ocean to freshwater streams to reproduce, use the bay during their migrations.

2.3.2 BIRDS AND WILDLIFE The Barnegat Bay system is used by an abundance of wildlife.

Colonial waterbirds, shorebirds, songbirds, waterfowl, and raptors use the bay and wetlands for a variety of purposes, including breeding, nesting, and foraging.

The threatened diamondback terrapin (an estuarine turtle) uses the bays for all of its life stages.Barnegat Bay serves as the breeding habitat .for the gull-billed tern, common tern, least tern, great blue heron, herring gull, great egret, snowy egret, little blue heron, tricolored heron, black-crown night heron, glossy ibis, laughing gull, great black-backed gull, and black skimmer. However, the populations of some of these bird species are in decline. The bay also provides habitat for several endangered and threatened bird species, including the piping plover, least tern, and Ipswich sparrow.Migratory birds of the Atlantic flyway utilize Island Beach State Park for feeding and resting on their migration.

The bay is also an important wintering site for many species of waterfowl, including the Atlantic brant.MAY 2002 15 UNDERSTANDING THE BARNEGAT BAY WATERSHED Up to 80 percent of the Atlantic brant along the Atlantic flyway winter in the bay.2.3.3 WETLANDS Wetland forests cover 25 percent of the total water-shed. In the past, coastal wetlands were destroyed in order to open up areas for more shoreline develop-ment. However, since the passage of the Wetlands Act of 1970, tidal marsh disturbance for lagoon residential construction has virtually ceased.In the Barnegat Bay watershed, salt marshes, freshwa-ter marshes, and forested wetlands create natural buffers that minimize the impacts of coastal storms and wind on coastal and inland habitats.

Coastal wet-lands are able to withstand major storms without suf-fering lasting damage, while at the same time protect-ing inland communities.

In addition, freshwater wet-lands have the capacity to temporarily store large quantities of floodwaters, releasing waters over an extended period of time into groundwater and adjacent water bodies. The wetlands also effectively filter sed-iments and reduce erosion.2.3.4 BARRIER ISLAND-COASTAL DUNE SCRUB/SHRUB COMPLEX Island Beach and Long Beach Island form a nearly con-tinuous barrier island complex that separates the estu-ary from the Atlantic Ocean. Barrier islands also adjoin the shallower portions of Little Egg Harbor. This sys-tem of coastal barriers minimizes the impacts of coastal storms and wind.The dune scrub/shrub and woodland communities of the barrier islands, with the exception of the eight miles of Island Beach State Park, have been substan-tially altered and in many cases destroyed.

2.3.5 SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION More than 70 percent of New Jersey's total SAV acreage-is located in the Barnegat Bay Estuary, where approxi-mately 32 percent of the benthic area has been mapped as potential SAV. Commonly known as eelgrass or sea-grass beds, SAV serves several major functions in the estuary: 16 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP* It is an important primary producer, helping to oxygenate bay waters;" Some animals, such as fish, ducks, and muskrats, graze on SAV; and" SAV provides critical habitat for numerous organisms in the estuary.There is some indication of the loss of SAV beds in the estuary in recent years, although differences in map-ping methods make it difficult to unequivocally estab-lish the occurrence of a major dieback and loss of eel-grass area. One study, which compared a number of SAV surveys, suggests that there has been loss of eel-grass in the deeper waters of the estuary resulting in the restriction of the beds to shallower subtidal flats, less than 6.5 feet (2 meters) deep. The loss appears to have been most severe in Barnegat Bay north of Toms ,River but is also evident in southern Little Egg Harbor.Because of the uncertainty regarding the conclusions of this analysis, however, more investigations of SAV distribution in the estuary are recommended.

2.3.6 UPLAND WATERSHED Upland forests cover 37 percent of the Barnegat Bay watershed.

A portion of this consists of critically important Pinelands habitats that are protected by reg-ulations and local, state, and federal management pro-grams. The Pinelands habitats support unique fish, amphibian, reptilian, mammalian, and avian popula-tions. Largely unprotected tracts of interior contiguous pine/oak forests include the Forked River Mountains, Berkeley Triangle, Heritage Minerals tract, and Maple Root Branch/Long Brook tract in Jackson Township.2.3.7 WILDLIFE HABITAT MAP A list of animal and plant species of special emphasis has been developed for the Barnegat Bay estuarine sys-tem as a general indicator of biodiversity.

Species that are either commercially or recreationally important, threatened or endangered, or otherwise ecologically significant, have been compiled and cross-referenced with their respective habitats.

This list may be found in the publication, "Scientific Characterization of the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor Estuary and Watershed Chapter 2 Report" (September 2001) which can be found on the www.bbep.org website or a copy can be obtained on CD-ROM from the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program Office.2.4 ECONOMIC VALUE 2.4.1 TOURISM/RECREATION The Barnegat Bay Estuary supports a thriving tourism industry, with thousands of people visiting Ocean County each year. In 1995, tourists expended $1.71 billion in Ocean County. At that time, roughly 45,000 tourist industry jobs were registered in the county, accounting for more than $631 million in annual pay-roll. A more detailed study by Longwoods International found that in 1998 tourists spent more than $1.67 bit-lion in the county (Table 2-2).Table 2-2. 1998 Tourism Input to the Ocean County Economy (Longwoods International, 1998).Total Expendit'ure by Tourists 167 billiona Restaurants,.

152 ra~$5Oitiiiin ,Retail Sates ~ $501 million KiLodging

~ S274 mnillion'2:Auto & Travel ExpensesT

$240 rmillion 5RecrOatiorat Expenses $132 Million Jobs Created .j51 ,300.Annual Payroll' ~ $726.5 midllion<State Taxes G~enerated

< $220.3 miillion L~ocal TaxesI Gen~erated1

$89 million j Recreational activities such as fishing and boating lure many visitors to this portion of the New Jersey coast.Recreational boating, including motorboats, sailboats, yachts, canoes, kayaks, and personal watercraft, sup-ports a total of 182 marinas situated within the water-shed (Ocean County Planning Dept., 1999). Many more private slips are located in lagoon developments.

Both Little Egg Harbor and Barnegat Bay are important to the state's recreational fishing industry as actual fishing grounds and as important habitat for juvenile fish that may be caught in other areas of the state.Recreational fishing is a popular summer activity and helps to support many small businesses.

b`LlAeen:40and 50 pefrcent of ull commercial K ,:nsnore~ihard clam loadinys in New Jersey ow in ocean Count'aýr, 2.4.2 COMMERCIAL FISHERIES/SEAFOOD Barnegat Bay contributes valuable fishery resources to the Mid-Atlantic region. In 1994, the combined value of the Mid-Atlantic commercial finfish and shellfish landings totaled approximately

$149 million. In that same year New Jersey's commercial finfish and shell-fish landings totaled approximately 202 million pounds, valued at approximately

$100 million. In 1997, Ocean County vessels landed more than 21 mil-lion pounds (961,000 kilograms) of finfish and nearly 20 million pounds (888,000 kilograms) of shellfish.

The most valuable commercially caught species in the area is the inshore hard clam. In some years revenues derived from hard clam represent as much as 80 per-cent of the total value of commercial fisheries in Ocean County. Another important' shellfish species found in Barnegat Bay is the blue crab. Blue crab landings from this area comprise about 10 to 15 per-cent of the state's total blue crab landings.MAY 2002 17 UNDERSTANDING THE BARNEGAT BAY WATERSHED 2.5 LAND USE 2.5.1 POPULATION GROWTH The Barnegat Bay watershed Lies almost entirely in Ocean County, one of the most rapidly growing coun-ties in the northeastern United States. Since 1950, Ocean County's population has increased by more than 775 percent.......~s6th brre isladsd may>exerienc~a JO-¢faldaicrease~in

io ldarctti4 aifng : fthpumnner.~

The watershed area's population is now approximately 500,000 (Table 2-3),.a figure that more than doubles during the summer season. During the 1990s, year-round population in the municipalities surrounding the bay on average increased 20 percent.The population is concentrated in the northeastern and central portions of the watershed, as well as along the barrier island system.Table 2-3. U.S. Census Data for the Barnegat Bay Watershed.

Year% Watershed

~ ~Year A Watershed V Popuilation

~ Population>

1940 40,000 1980 346,000 1960 108,000 1990 -433,000 1970 208,000 2000 >500,000_(estimated) 2.5.2 LAND-USE TRENDS A strong gradient of decreasing human development and subsequent habitat loss and alteration is evident when proceeding from northern to southern sections of the watershed and estuary. There are four distinct land use areas:* The northeastern mainland area, which is heavily developed with very little dedicated public open space;* The barrier islands, which are heavily developed with the exception of Island Beach State Park;" The less densely developed southeastern mainland area with protected environmentally sensitive areas such as the Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge and the State Manahawkin Fish and Wildlife Management Area; and* The western side (upland) of the watershed, which has very low density development and is partially protected by the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan.Residential development is the primary land use in the watershed (Table 2-4). As new people arrive to this area, they require housing, services, and roads. The area of the watershed under residential, commercial, industrial, or institutional development inicreased from 18 percent to 21 percent to 28 percent from 1972 to 1984 to 1995, respectively.

More than 70 percent of the Barnegat Bay estuarine shoreline buffer zone is developed or altered, leaving only 29 percent in natural land covers. Approximately 45 percent of the estuarine shoreline is bulkheaded.

Table 2-4. Land Use in the Watershed, 1994-1995.

Forested 45.9 Wetlands (tidal & freshwater) 25.2 Urban/Residential 19.5 Agricultural/Grasslands 6.6 Barren Lands .1.9 Water Bodies 0.9 2.6 PRIORITY PROBLEMS The Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program CCMP was developed to identify and control priority problems in the watershed.

The Barnegat Bay watershed is highly susceptible to environmental degradation.

Historically, these waters have served as repositories for raw sewage, sewage effluent, toxins, and garbage.Estuarine wetlands and shorelines and inland areas have been destroyed or modified to accommodate 18 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 2 development.

Water quality degradation has led to the loss of com-mercial and recreational fishing opportunities, closed shellfish harvesting waters and swimming areas, and contributed to oxygen-depleting algae blooms and sub-sequent fish kills. Suburban growth has contributed to the magnitude of coastal storm damage resulting from loss of wetlands and other natural lands. Misuse and abuse of Barnegat Bay and its watershed are threaten-ing the viability of its ecologically and economically valuable resources.

The characterization study of the Barnegat Bay Estuary and its watershed indicate that the most significant threats to the watershed are: " Water quality and water supply, including the issues of stormwater and nonpoint source pollution, nutrient loading, and pathogen contamination;

  • Habitat loss and alteration; Human activities and competing uses; and* Fisheries decline.Population growth and accompanying development within the watershed contributed to each of these environmental problems.There are several areas within the watershed that suf-fer from known water quality impairment.

Table 2-5 lists water bodies that have, or are expected to have, the following violations:

  • Exceedance of chemical/physical criteria (minus metals and ammonia);* Exceedance of chemical/physical criteria obtained from the BBNEP (minus metals);" Fish and shellfish consumption advisories;
  • Shellfish harvesting restrictions; and* Public lakes having undergone detailed assessments under the Clean Lakes Program.Table 2-5.Water Bodies with Known Water Quality Impairment.

WtrBody ~Reach #/~ Pollution/

Impact: ~ Poltutanti/Impact:

-use~lhName K Loca'ti'on

'Water Quality Violati oil~ ~Biological~i Irlipirme'nt' Metedeconk Fecal coliform Shellfish River Estuary consumption Lake Carasaijo Lakewood, Mercury in fish Fish Ocean County tissue consumption Pohatcong/

Ocean County Elevated bacteria, phosphorous, Heavy macrophyte Boating and Tuckerton sedimentation.

Current source: growth fishing Lake nonpoint sources including suspended solids from surrounding urban areas, bacteria and phosphorus from surrounding septic systems.Manahawkin Elevated bacteria, phosphorus.

Localized heavy Primary contact Lake Current source: resident goose macrophyte growth recreation, some and gull population.

Former boating and source, surrounding septic fishing systems, most have been impairment eliminated through sewering.Toms River 02040301-018-022 fecal coliform Shellfish*Estuary consumption Toms River 02040301-018-080/

pH, fecal coliform Primary Contact, nr Toms River Aquatic Life Support Barnegat Bay Portion adjacent fecal coliform Shellfish to Toms River consumption MAY 2002 19 UNDERSTANDING THE BARNEGAT BAY WATERSHED Table 2-6 lists water bodies in the Barnegat Bay Estuary that meet the following criteria: " Moderately impaired AMNET sites;* 304(l) listings;" Metals and ammonia violations recorded through ambient monitoring; Heavy metal violations obtained through the Harbor Estuary Program; and Public takes having undergone cursory assessments under the Clean Lakes Program.Table 2-6. Water Bodies Where Use Impairment is Not Known, Confirmation Needed.R Polution/ImpNact:

Book I Twp. se Water Body Reach #/Location Water Qualityi rd ua e R ai e Violatiok SBiological Impairment Metedeconk Aldrich Rd., moderately impaired Aquatic Life River N. Brook Howell Twp. Support Metedeconk Rt. 9, Lakewood moderately impaired Aquatic Life River N. Brook Support Haystack Brook Southard Rd. moderately impaired Aquatic Life Howell Twp. Support Metedeconk Rt. 88, Lakewood moderately impaired Aquatic Life River N. Brook Support Cabinfield Brook Lanes Mill Rd., moderately impaired Aquatic Life Lakewood Support Metedeconk R S Jackson Mills Rd., moderately impaired Aquatic Life Brook Jackson TwSupport Metedeconk R S Cedar Bridge Rd., moderately impaired Aquatic Life Brook Lakewood Support Metedeconk R S Chambers Bridge Rd.s , moderately impaired Aquatic Life Brook Brick Twp. Support Beaver Dam Rt. 88, Brick Twp. i moderately impaired Aquatic Life Creek Support Forked R N @ powerlines, moderately impaired Aquatic Life Brook Lacey Twp. Support Mill Creek Rt. 72, Manahawkin moderately impaired Aquatic Life________________Support Mill Brook Nugentown Rd., moderately impaired Aquatic Life Nugentown Support Toms River 02040301-018 arsenic, cadmium, Aquatic Life chromium, copper, Support iron, lead, mercury, zinc Toms River 02040301-017 zinc, iron Aquatic Life Support Toms River 02040301-014 arsenic, copper, lead, Aquatic Life nickel Support Toms River Paint Island Rd., moderately impaired Aquatic Life Millstone Twp. Support Toms River Rt. 571, Holmson moderately impaired Aquatic Life Support 20 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Table 2-6. (continued)_

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

UJse WaterBd Rac/Lato Wa&Qaiy Biological IImpairment Name L ~ ~ Violation Maple Root Bowman Rd., moderately impaired Aquatic Life Brook Jackson Twp. Support Blacks Brook Rt. 70, Lakehurst moderately impaired Aquatic Life Support Union Brook Colonial Dr., moderately impaired Aquatic Life Manchester Twp. Support Sunken Brook Mule Rd., moderately impaired Aquatic Life Berkeley Twp. Support Jakes Brook Dover Rd., moderately impaired Aquatic Life Berkeley Twp. Support Jakes Brook Double Trouble Rd., moderately impaired Aquatic Life So. Toms River Support Toms River Rt. 37, Dover Twp. moderately impaired Aquatic Life Tributary Support Kettle Creek New Hampshire Ave., moderately impaired Aquatic Life Lakewood Twp. Support Kettle Creek Moore Rd. moderately impaired Aquatic Life Brick Twp. Support Cedar Creek Double Trouble South. moderately impaired Aquatic Life Park, Lacey Twp Support Webbs Mill Brook Rt. 539, Lacey Twp. moderately impaired Aquatic Life__ _Support 2.6.1 KIRKWOOD-COHANSEY AQUIFER Groundwater from the unconfined Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer system is critical to surface water quality in the watershed.

It is regarded as the largest source of fresh water for the estuary because most of the flow in local streams consists of base flow, which is discharge entering stream channels from groundwater.

For example, 63 to 73 percent of the total stream flow in the Metedeconk River between 1973 and 1989 was calculated as base flow.Similarly, 80 to 89 percent of the total stream flow in the Toms River between 1929 and 1989 was calculated as base flow. Virtually all of the flow in streams during periods of little or no rainfall consists of base flow. The ratio of sur-face runoff to base flow increases during periods of precip-itation.Because of the significant volume of groundwater inputs to tributary systems, the quality of groundwater in the Kirkwood-Cohansey aquifer is critical to the quality of freshwater inflow to the estuary.Groundwater in this aquifer system is generally acidic with low ionic strength and alkalinity.

Its pH ranges from 4.4 to 6.7, and the total dissolved solids concentration is less than 100 mg/I. Nitrogen and phosphorus levels are generally low.2.6.2 WATER QUALITY: STORMWATER/NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION PROBLEM Development in the watershed increases the probability of water quality degradation in bay tributaries.

Nutrients and chemical contaminants enter these influent systems from point source discharges and nonpoint sources, such as stormwater runoff, groundwater influx, and atmospheric deposition.

Nonpoint sources can extend throughout the watershed, and can include pollutants originating from agricultural, residential, and commercial properties, and rights-of-ways (e.g., highway and railway borders).MAY 200? 21 UNDERSTANDING THE BARNEGAT BAY WATERSHED POTENTIAL CAUSES To support the rapidly growing population in the region, Ocean County in particular, land use within the watershed has become increasingly more developed and urbanized.

As a result of this development, wetlands, forests, and other natural areas have been replaced with impervious surfaces, such as roofs and pavement.

The increase in impervious surface area affects the water quality of Barnegat Bay and its tributaries.

Without natural land to absorb excess rain and to filter contaminants, greater con-centrations of contaminants in more significant flows reach the estuary.stormwater and other forms of runoff, particularly from older developments and municipal streets where no deten-tion is required, contribute to water quality problems in the following ways: " Impervious surfaces as a result of development lead to an increase in runoff and sedimentation;" Groundwater transports pollutants to Barnegat Bay and tributaries;" Marina activities contribute oil and grease;* Gas stations/auto repair shops contribute petroleum products and other automotive contaminants;

  • Spills and illegal discharges of acute and persistent toxicants;" Household and agricultural waste contribute bacteria and nutrients;" Agriculture contributes bacteria and nutrients.

IMPACTS" Impaired water quality and water clarity;" Impaired habitat;* Loss of drinking water supply;* Adverse impacts to waters supporting water recreation, including beach and shellfish closures;* Toxic contaminants can accumulate in tissue of fish and shellfish, rendering them unsafe to eat.TRENDS AND STUDY RESULTS Due to the land-use patterns of the bay system, pollut-ed runoff is a greater concern in the northern portion of the system. There is a significant need for a Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) to provide a more detailed analysis regarding the impact human land-based activities has on the water quality of the estuary..Essentially, the NRI is a statistical, intensive watershed-based survey which has been designed and implemented to assess conditions and trends of soil, water and related natural resources.

The NRI is conducted by the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), in cooperation with the Iowa State University and the local soil conservation district.

It is important to note that it acts to enhance local understanding of natural resources and their condi-tions. (This could be significant to connect residents on the land to the bay.) Data are collected at the field level by technical personnel who have been trained in soil and water conservation.

Toxic chemical contaminants may be locally important in the Barnegat Bay Estuary (e.g., near marinas).Comprehensive monitoring of shallow groundwater in the watershed reveals widely scattered occurrences of volatile organic compounds, mercury, and radium isotopes.

When found, these contaminants generally exhibit low concen-trations.

However, there are some areas where the levels of these contaminants in groundwater exceed the maxi-mum permissible levels for public drinking water. The number of volatile organic compounds and the concentra-tion of methyl tert butyl ether (MTBE) in streams tend to increase with residential and industrial land use.The most extensive database on chemical contaminants in the estuary exists on trace metals and radionuclides.

Other toxic chemical contaminants (e.g., halogenated hydrocarbons and potycyctic aromatic hydrocarbons) are not sufficiently characterized.

Because of their potential carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic effects on estuar-ine organisms, additional study of these contaminants is warranted.

22 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 2 2.6.3 WATER QUALITY: NUTRIENT LOADING PROBLEM Nutrient loading, primarily nitrogen and phosphorus, is one of the primary problems confronting the nation's estuaries.

Excessive levels of these nutrients stimulate the growth of algae in Barnegat Bay. As the algae grow, they block sun-light needed by the submerged aquatic vegetation of the bay; when the algae die and decay, they reduce the level of oxygen in the water, which can result in large fish kills.Some species of algae are toxic to aquatic organisms and humans.POTENTIAL CAUSES Excess inputs of nutrient constituents, nitrogen and phos-phorus can be caused by the following: " Urban runoff;" Leaking or failing septic systems;" Animal waste;* Fertilizer use (household landscaping and agriculture).

IMPACTS Excess nutrient inputs can result in widespread negative ecological and health effects:* Reduced oxygen can kill fish and make the water unsuitable as nursery habitat;" Impaired habitat in creeks for fish and possibly wildlife;" Reduced light levels result in loss of submerged aquatic vegetation (eelgrass);" High nutrient levels can make water unsafe to drink;" Atmospheric deposition;" Boater discharges.

TRENDS AND STUDY RESULTS Nutrient inputs to the Barnegat Bay Estuary originate essentially from nonpoint sources, mainly stream and river discharges, atmospheric deposition, and groundwater influx. Table 2-7 lists some of the nutrient inputs to the Barnegat Bay Estuary. The estimated total nitrogen load to the system amounts to -1.74 x 106 lb/yr (7.9 x 105 kg/yr). This value is considered to be an underestimate because it does not account for: " Nitrogen in storm runoff that discharges directly to the estuary;" Nitrogen released from bottom sediments of the estuary; and* Nitrogen in ocean water entering the system on flood tides.Total nitrogen concentrations in the estuary range from 20 to 80 pM. Organic nitrogen is the dominant form of nitrogen in the bay, with a concentration approximate-ly 10 times greater than the concentration of dissolved inorganic nitrogen.

Highest concentrations of organic nitrogen (approximately 40 pM) have been reported during the summer.Sampling between 1989 and i996 indicates that mean sea-sonal ammonium and nitrate levels amount to 2.5 jiM and less than 4 pM, respectively.

While the highest concentra-tions of ammonium occur in the summer, nitrate levels peak during the winter. Dissolved inorganic nitrogen lev-els are higher in the northern part of the estuary due to greater nitrogen loading to the rivers in this region.Phosphate concentrations, in contrast, do not exhibit any obvious spatial patterns.Mean annual phosphate concentrations are less than 1 pM;highest phosphate levels arise during the summer, a sea-sonal pattern typical of other Mid-Atlantic estuaries.

Fertilizers used on domestic lawns are considered to be major contributors to Barnegat Bay's high nitrogen levels.Highest phytoplankton biomass values occur in the north-ern estuary during the summer months in response to greater nutrient inputs from more developed areas of the watershed.

During the late spring and summer period in recent years, the southern estuary has been the site of intense blooms of phytoplankton.

For example, large blooms of Aureococcus anophagefferens, a species of brown algae, were documented in Little Egg Harbor during 1995, 1997, and 1999. The NJ Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) found biologically stressed conditions (dissolved oxygen concentrations less than 5.0 mg/l) at five stations in the central part of the estuary between MAY 2002 23 II w nitrogen nitrate Surface Water Discharge 8.7 x 10' lb/yr (3.9 x 10' kg/yr)50" Much is derived from base flow" Highest total nitrogen loads from Wrangle Brook, Toms River, Mill Creek Basins" Lowest total nitrogen loads from Long Swamp Creek Basis Nitrogen Direct 6.7 x 10' Ib/yr 39 0 Originates principally from nitrous oxide emissions from Atmospheric (3.0 x 10' kg/yr) fossil fuel combustion Deposlion Nitrogen Nitrate, Direct 2.0 x 10 lb/yr 11 0 Concentration of nitrogen species in shallow ground-Nitrite Groundwater (9.1 x 10 kg/yr) water exceed 10 mg/l in some areas of watershed Discharges

  • Median concentrations of nitrogen species are less than 0.2 mg/I* Total concentration of nitrogen in shallow groundwater appears to represent a potentially significant reservoir of this nutrient to the estuary Nitrogen Total Nitrate Surface Water 3.6 x 10' lb/yr NA e Highest in watershed areas characterized by moderate to Plus Nitrite Load Discharges (1.6 x 104 kg/yr) high urban land cover e Highest yields in Wrangle Brook and Toms River Basins* Much smaller yields from less-impacted Westecunk and Cedar Creek Basins Nitrogen Ammonia Surface Water 1.1 x 10', lb/yr NA
  • Median Value, 0.05 mg/I Discharges (5.0 x 10' kg/yr) a Highest yields from Mill Creek, Toms River, Oyster Creek Basins* Lowest yield from Wrangle Brook Basin Nitrogen Total Ammonia Surface Water 4.6 x 10' lb/yr NA 4 Storm water appears to be important source of total Plus Organic Discharges (2.1 x 10, kg/yr) ammonia plus organic nitrogen Nitro gen
  • Highest yield from Mill Creek, Oyster Creek, Toms River Basins* Lowest yield from Long Swamp Creek Basin Phosphorus Surface Water 2.3 x 10' lb/yr NA
  • Highest yield from Toms River, Wrangle Brook, Oyster Discharges (1.0.x 10' kg/yr) Creek Basins* Lowest yield from Jakes Branch Basin 0~r+(D La SU (A C:.0-4 til W W<

Chapter 2 Toms River and Dipper Point during the 1990s.High phytoplankton biomass and production during the warmer months of the year contribute to elevated turbid-ity readings.

Phytoplankton, together with suspended sediments, detritus and colored dissolved organic mole-cules, reduce water clarity and limit light penetration in the water column. This shading effect is detrimental to benthic flora. For example, benthic algal production is reduced by high summer turbidity, and SAV distribution may be restricted by this effect as well, especially in the northern estuary. One way to measure turbidity is with a secchi disk. A secchi disk model formulated for the Barnegat Bay system strongly suggests that light penetra-tion is a major factor controlling the distribution of sea-grasses, which appears to be more restricted today than during the past several decades.2.6.4 WATER QUALITY: PATHOGENS PROBLEM Disease-causing microorganisms called pathogens are found in human and animal wastes. Pathogens in coastal waters pose health risks to humans who eat contaminated shellfish or who recreate in beach waters. Gastroenteritis, hepatitis, and other diseases can result from ingestion of pathogen-contaminated seafood or water.Fecal coliform and total coliform are indicators of pathogens.

For this reason, beaches and shellfish beds are closed or restricted when standards for fecal coliform bac-teria or total coliform are exceeded.

New Jersey has an extensive recreational beach-monitoring program that includes mandatory closure requirements when water quality standards for swimmer safety are exceeded.Though Barnegat Bay no longer has any major point sources of coliform pollution, nonpoint source runoff dur-ing wet weather can cause some beaches along the Barnegat Bay shore to close for short periods of time.POTENTIAL CAUSES The causes of pathogenic contamination are largely of human or human-related origins:* Urban and stormwater runoff;" Faulty septic systems;" Domestic-animal wastes;* Overboard discharges from boats;" Waterfowl;" Agricultural runoff.IMPACTS Human health can be significantly affected by pathogen-ic contamination: " Gastroenteritis, hepatitis, and other diseases can result from ingestion of pathogen-contaminated seafood or water;" Closure of shellfish areas with its attendant loss of commercial and recreational activity;" Closure of recreational beaches.TRENDS AND STUDY RESULTS Highest concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria in the Bamegat Bay Estuary are recorded under rain conditions.

From 1988 to 1998, 834 beach closings were registered in the estuary as a result of elevated fecal coliform counts in water samples, with the highest numbers reported in 1989 (175), 1990 (186), and 1994 (127). Beachwood Beach in Beachwood, Windward in Brick, and Money Island in Dover had the greatest frequency of beach closings.In general, areas north of Barnegat Inlet exhibited the most degraded water quality conditions based on beach closings data (e.g., Lavellette, Seaside Heights, Seaside Park, Island Beach, Brick, Point Pleasant, Dover, Island Heights, Beachwood, Pine Beach, and Ocean Gate).However, water quality has improved in these areas in recent years. Since 1995, for example, there have been fewer than 50 beach closings reported each year through-out the estuary.With regard to shellfish harvesting, the general trend in the estuary has been toward less restrictive shellfish grow-ing classifications.

For example, more than 5,000 acres of shellfish waters were upgraded by the State in Barnegat Bay in 2000 alone.However, local areas of water quality degradation persist.The largest areas of shellfish harvesting restriction are found in Barnegat Bay tributaries from Toms River north-ward as well as in backbay locations along Island Beach.Shellfish harvesting is also prohibited from marinas and manmade lagoons.MAY 200 225 UNDERSTANDING THE BARNEGAT BAY WATERSHED The most dramatic improvement in water quality of the estuary occurred during the 1970s when the Ocean County Utilities Authority commenced operation of a state-of-the-art wastewater treatment system. Prior to operation of this system, wastewaters were discharged to the estuary and fecal coliform levels were elevated.

Pipeline outfallts now discharge wastewaters one mile (1.6 kilometers) off-shore in the Atlantic Ocean, thus bypassing the estuary.2.6.5 WATER SUPPLY PROBLEM The increase of impervious surfaces resulting from devel-opment within the watershed results in a reduction in the amount of water that would otherwise recharge the groundwater that serves as drinking water supply and sus-tains stream base flow. Excessive water withdrawals from area aquifers are also a concern because they can cause saltwater intrusion problerhs and reductions in stream flow.POTENTIAL CAUSES Problems with available water supply can be caused by the following:

Development within the watershed, increasing contaminant loads in the groundwater and reducing recharge;Excessive water withdrawals.

IMPACTS The impacts of a degraded water supply include the following:

  • Decreased drinking water supply;" Decreased supply of water for irrigation/agri-cultural purposes;* Degraded flow regimes in freshwater tributaries;" Disturbance to salinity gradients in the bay that sustain estuarine biota.TRENDS AND STUDY RESULTS In 1990, estimated average groundwater withdrawals from private wells for residential use totaled 8.2 x 106 gal/d (3.16 x 107 l/d), and average groundwater withdrawals from wells for public supply, as well as for commercial, industrial, and irrigation uses, totaled 4.4 x 107 gal/d (1.71 x 108 lI/d). Groundwater supplies have been lost in some areas of the watershed due to saltwater intrusion and streamflow reduction related to excessive withdrawal of well water. The regional threat of saltwater intrusion has led to state mandated reductions on withdrawals from affected aquifers.

In an extreme case, drought conditions during the summer of 1999 culminated in statewide restrictions on nonessential groundwater use.There are two areas in the region where saltwater intrusion has affected wells drawing water from the Kirkwood-Cohansey.

aquifer system. Salt water has adversely affected public-supply wells in Seaside Heights and Point Pleasant Beach. There are numerous other public and private wells that are located near brackish water along the coast.Although saltwater intrusion into the major confined aquifers is not known to be a problem for supply wells in the Ocean County area, there are wells in several areas that are potentially threatened by saltwater intrusion.

These areas include: " Long Beach Island (Atlantic City 800-ft. sand aquifer);* Bamegat Light, Seaside Heights, and Seaside Park (Piney Point aquifer);Point Pleasant, Lavalette (Englishtown aquifer system);-Point Pleasant, Chadwick and Lavalette (upper aquifer of the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system); and Lavallette, Toms River, and other locations in Northern Ocean County (middle aquifer of the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy aquifer system).2 6 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 2 2.6.6 HABITAT LOSS AND ALTERATION PROBLEM Human activities-both in watershed areas and on open bay waters -have impacted habitats and living resources of the system. Habitat fragmentation and human distur-bance in the watershed adversely affect many plant and animal species. The construction of residential, commer-cial, and industrial structures, as well as the building of roadways not only destroy natural habitat in the water-.shed but also can create pollution problems in receiving waters. These impervious surfaces facilitate surface runoff, which promote the transport of pollutants (e.g., fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, oil, metals, etc.) to waterways.

POTENTIAL CAUSES The causes of habitat loss and alteration include various human development activities:

  • Dredging operations in marinas and the Intracoastal Waterway;" Development of coastal wetlands, barrier islands, and other natural areas in the watershed;
  • Bulkheading, diking, or other modifications to wetlands;* Construction of buildings and roadways.IMPACTS The impacts of habitat degradation include the following: " Increased coastal storm damage and flooding due to loss of wetlands;" Adverse impacts on endangered or threatened species populations;
  • Loss of SAV and other aquatic nursery habitats;Loss and fragmentation of upland and coastal habitat adversely affects fish and wildlife resources;
  • Loss of coastal beaches.TRENDS AND STUDY RESULTS Where development is most extensive, in the northern mainland watershed area and on the barrier island com-plex, nonpoint source pollution can degrade water quality and the health of living resources in the estuary. New res-idential construction is subject to peak rate runoff reduc-tions that were designed to control nonpoint source pol-lution. There are laws that mandate control of stormwa-ter runoff from commercial and other development.

Along the estuarine perimeter, marsh filling and bulk-heading, diking and ditching, and dredging and lagoon construction have disrupted salt marsh and shallow water habitats and altered biotic communities.

The use of per-sonal watercraft (PWC) and boats has also disturbed some parts of the estuarine shoreline.

Increased nutrient inputs and human activities such as dredging and boating, have affected eelgrass in the estuary. These two activities alone have physically altered the habitat and have reduced the sunlight penetration needed to sustain submerged aquatic life.A strong gradient of decreasing human development and subsequent habitat loss and alteration is evident when proceeding from the northern to southern sections of the watershed and estuary. Development in the watershed has resulted in the following habitat losses: 0 33,916 acres (13,731 hectares) or 20 percent of upland forest between 1972 and 1995;* 4,631 acres (1,875 hectares) or 6 percent of fresh water wetlands during the same period; and about 33 percent of tidal wetlands, or upwards of 10,000 acres, during the past 100 years.As of 1988, freshwater wetlands were jointly regulated by the USACE and the NJDEP. In March 1994, New Jersey assumed jurisdiction of the federal 404 program of the Clean Water Act. Between March 2, 1994 and June 30, 1998, 510 acres (207 hectares) of freshwater wetlands were impacted by statewide development activities and granted Statewide General Permits under the permit pro-gram of the NJDEP Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act Rules. The filling of isolated wetlands totaled 173 acres (70.1 hectares) during that same time period, and minor road crossings totaled 65 acres (26 hectares) (NJDEP, 1999). Between 1990 and 1998, filling of wetlands for development declined, leaving a total of approximately 300,000 acres (121,500 hectares) of freshwater wetlands that remain in the state (New Jersey Future, 1999).MAY 2002 27 UNDERSTANDING THE BARNEGAT BAY WATERSHED Apart from dredging and infilling, mosquito control mea-sures (parallel grid ditching) have significantly altered salt marsh habitat. Approximately 14,548 acres (5,890 hectares) of Barnegat Bay salt marshes have been ditched to reduce mosquito-breeding habitat. This represents about two-thirds of the existing tidal salt marsh area.However, parallel grid ditching is no longer a desirable management technique of mosquito control in this system and is being replaced by alternative open marsh water management techniques.

More than 70 percent (10,433 acres, 4,224 hectares) of the Barnegat Bay estuarine shoreline buffer zone is devel-oped/altered, leaving only 29 percent (4,283 acres, 1,734 hectares) in natural land covers. Approximately 45 per-cent of the estuarine shoreline is now bulkheaded (36 per-cent when tidal creeks are included).

Bulkheading elimi-nates shoreline beach habitat important for shorebirds and terrapin turtles. It also deepens adjacent nearshore estu-arine waters.2.6.7 HUMAN ACTIVITIES AND COMPETING USES PROBLEM Rapid population growth within the Barnegat Bay water-shed during the 20th century has led to intense competi-tion for resource use. The areas of conflict can be placed in three general categories:

land-use activities; competi-tion between recreational and commercial fisheries; and conflicts between boats and PWC.IMPACTS* Habitat loss and alteration, i.e., bulkheads, sea walls, docks, dredging, suburban development, resulting in reduced carrying capacity for the bay's biological resources;

  • Restricted shore access for public.TRENDS AND STUDY RESULTS Growth and development in the watershed raise several important issues. Accelerated population growth during the last half of the 20th century has led to changes in land use for homes and businesses.

Since the most populated areas are located in the north-central portion of the coun-ty, in Dover, Brick, Lakewood, Manchester, Jackson and Berkeley Townships (Ocean County Planning Board, 1998), these areas have experienced the most commonly recog-nized effects of land-use changes.There has been a dramatic rise in the amount of impervi-ous surfaces in the northern part of the watershed.

Current development practices may be severely compact-ing the soil underlying new residential developments, thereby restricting soil permeability and groundwater recharge capabilities.

Soil erosion, sedimentation, and compaction also accelerate nonpoint source problems throughout the watershed.

Impervious surfaces that do not drain into detention basins are of particular concern.Beyond soil compaction, direct riparian construction is a cause for concern. The dredging of navigation channels also has an adverse impact on the bay.Tourism has been a focus of business development over the past 10 years. The coastal waters of Barnegat Bay are the final destination for many visitors.

Losing access to the water due to lack of public access has presented problems.These are among the most common impacts created by modern land-use changes in the watershed.

Some of the categories mentioned are controlled by state environmen-tal regulations (e.g., wetland impacts, soil erosion, and sediment control), whereas others are not. The dredging and filling of wetlands in tidal waters are also regulated by federal agencies.

Some of the causes of pollution listed above are not being addressed because of the lack of clean-up funds or reduced enforcement budgets. A number of LAND-USE ACTIVITIES POTENTIAL CAUSES The causes of conflicting uses are activities that place a high demand on limited space:* Real estate development (residential, industrial, commercial);

  • Tourism.28 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 2 these impacts can be attenuated by more effective plan-ning and development, but some problems may have no immediate solution and will require an intense public out-reach effort aimed at education and personal behavioral modification.

FISHERIES CONFLICTS POTENTIAL CAUSES* Resource decline;* Lack of natural stock restoration;

  • Commercial and recreational overharvesting of fish and shellfish.

IMPACTS* Distrust between/among user groups;* Economic losses.TRENDS AND STUDY RESULTS There are few written sources of information on the prob-lems or conflicts between commercial fishermen and recre-ational anglers in the Barnegat Bay Estuary. According to the NJDEP, conflicts between commercial and recreational clammers in the estuary are so minor that they are not perceived to be an issue requiring regulatory action.Clamming conflicts are related to the minimal stocks in the estuary (Flimlin, 1999).In recent years, the blue crab fishery has become a limit-ed entry system. There are currently only 312 commercial crabbing licenses for the State of New Jersey, and each license holder in the Barnegat Bay Estuary is limifted to no more than 400 crab pots for each license (Halgren, 1999).Since the crabs are a limited resource, there have been complaints to the NJDEP from recreational crabbers, who feel that the commercial crabbers take an unfair propor-tion of available crabs, and that there are not enough crabs left in the bay for them. That perception has caused recreational crabbers to blame commercial crabbers for a perceived lack of crabs. However, placing blame on the commercial crabbers may not be justified.

Local baymen with personal knowledge of the bay have stated that the location chosen for crabbing has more to do with the size of the catch than the number of crabs taken by commer-cial crabbers (Hook, 1999).BOATS AND PERSONAL WATERCRAFT POTENTIAL CAUSES* High-intensity vs. low-intensity recreational pursuits;* Lack of boater education.

IMPACTS* Destruction of seagrass beds;* Shoreline erosion;* Destruction of fish larval habitat;* Disruption of colonial nesting birds, nest abandonment;

  • Distress to waterfowl (reproductive problems, behavioral changes);* Habitat loss/increased water turbidity;
  • Disturbance to other recreational water users;* Interference with fishermen.

TRENDS AND STUDY RESULTS Recreational boating has experienced tremendous growth within the last decade. Many marinas are located on both the east and west sides of Barnegat Bay and Little Egg Harbor, and along the major inland tributaries.

The tidal portions of the Manasquan River also provide boating facil-ities that are connected to Barnegat Bay by the Point Pleasant Canal.Conflicts exist between recreational clammers and boaters when boats speed past people treading for clams. The boaters are not sensitive to the safety issues of overboard treaders in the congested bay. Recreational clammers have complained that the boat traffic is so intense around Swan Point that they cannot work the clam beds (Flimlin, 1999).Commercial clammers complain about the improper use of personal watercraft and inconsiderate boaters (Hook, 1999).Weekend boaters will attest to the crowded conditions that can be found in many areas of Barnegat Bay; however, actual use patterns by time and location have not been quantified.

MAY 2002 29

.UNDERSTANDING THE BARNEGAT BAY WATERSHED According to the NJDEP, Bureau of Sheilfisheries, boaters complain that commercial crab pots interfere with boat navigation in shallow bay areas (Joseph, 1999). Boaters complain that they cannot navigate in areas where there are many crab pots (Bochenek, 1999).PWC are classified as boats in New Jersey, but there are several major differences between boats and personal watercraft, the major one being the depth of water in which the PWC can operate. The PWC can maneuver in shallow waters that often contain SAY. These are also important habitats for fish and wildlife.Although no studies have been performed to assess PWC impact on the larvae in Bamegat Bay, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) estimates that approximately two-thirds of commercial and recreational species of fish and shellfish rely on estuarine marshes for spawning and as nursery habitat (Chin, 1998). SAV beds have also been designated as a habitat area of particular concern for sum-mer flounder by the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council.Crabbers, anglers, public officials, and members of the pub-lic have expressed concerns about the use of PWCs on Barnegat Bay (Burger, et al., 1996; Barnegat Bay Watershed Association, 1998). Given the popularity of this type of watercraft, more research is needed to identi-fy all the specific problems with their use in the Barnegat Bay area. Conflicts between PWC users, the public, and other boaters will continue to exist until environmental restrictions are developed to protect the estuarine resources.2.6.8 FISHERIES DECLINE PROBLEM Historical accounts of fishing in the Barnegat Bay Estuary are replete with descriptions of the vast amounts of fish available to recreational and commercial fishermen.

Based on these descriptions, it is almost inconceivable to think that such vast numbers of fish could be depleted and that.human use could outstrip the resource's ability to replen-ish itself. Human exploitation and habitat loss, however, are affecting the abundance of fish and impacting the commercial fishing industry, as well as the recreational angler.POTENTIAL CAUSES-Increased and unsustainable fishing effort;* Excess bycatch;* Habitat loss/lowered carrying capacity;* Impaired water quality.IMPACTS* Fisheries conflicts;

  • Economic losses to commercial and recreational interests.

TRENDS AND STUDY RESULTS'Fishery resource quality is highly dependent on water quality, which can affect the health and bioaccumulation of toxins in fish and shellfish and in organisms that serve as food sources for important fishery species. Other than the condemnation of shellfish beds, there is little infor-mation available to determine the effect that water quali-ty has had on fishery resources or the organisms on which they feed.With regard to fishery resource quantity, there is no infor-mation available on the size or sustainable yield of Barnegat Bay populations.

Nor is there information on the total harvest of fishery resources from the bay.The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, created under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, has a Scientific and Statistical Committee and Advisory Panel to provide expertise for development of Fishery Management Plans 30 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 2 (FMPs). A number of FMPs have been developed for species in the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor region. These plans can require size limits, bag limits, quotas, limits on the number of vessels, restriction on net mesh size, closed areas and seasons, or any other measure to control fishing activity.

They can affect both commercial and recreation-at fishermen.

Contemporary clam stocks are much lower than the level of historical resource stocks. There is an effort on the recreational side to have Sunday clamming approved in New Jersey, but the restriction on Sunday clamming may never be Lifted due to the Limited resources available and the fear by regulators that lifting the limit would further, deplete the clam stocks.The blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) commercial crabbing industry is a "limited entry fishery," with the goal to reduce the number of crab pot fishermen over time. There are currently 312 commercial crabbing licenses for the State of New Jersey, and each license holder in the Bamegat Bay Estuary is limited to no more than 400 crab pots for each license (Hatgrert, 1999).A more detailed scientific and technical description of the Barnegat Bay Watershed can be found in the report, "The Scientific Characterization of the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor Estuary and Watershed" (2001).Hard Clams in Barnegat Bay sneakboxes and harvested in Barnegat, February 20, 1930. PHroT couRrTsY ocEAN COUNTY HISTORiCAL SOCiETY MAY 2002 31 Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.Teach a man to fish and he will eat for the rest of his life.-Chinese proverb PHOTO COURTESY TUCKERTON SEAPORT, A PROJECT OF THE BARNEGAT BAY DECOY AND BAYMEN'S MUSEUM, LNC.MAY 2002 33 RECREATIONAL BATHING SITES IN OCEAN COUNTY 0 Rvcere.tionzk Batthing Sites Streams jocean Count-t 34 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP EARLY ACTIONS

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Barnegat Bay was accepted into the NEP in July 1995. The newly formulated partnership of federal, state, and local interests which now comprises the BBNEP recognized that development of the CCMP would take several years. At that point, .however, the State of New Jersey and other regional and Local interests had compiled a substantial body of data indicating that the environmental quality of Barnegat Bay was already threatened.

Water quality degradation, loss and alteration of natural habitat, and competition among the bay's human population were all identified as critical issues. The BBNEP recognized the need to develop and implement quick, short-term actions to address these issues while the CCMP was being written.This suite of Early Actions was guided by recommenda-tions from several sources, including the 1993 Watershed Management Plan for the Barnegat Bay, the Ocean County Water Management Strategic Plan, the Barnegat Bay Management Conference Committees, Local Government Roundtables, and citizen input. Since the goals of the 1993 Watershed Management Plan are similar to the cur-rent goals of the BBNEP, the early actions were consistent with the current priorities.

The following categories of Early Actions were developed and implemented: " Action Now Agenda;* Action Plan Demonstration Projects;* Local Government Involvement;

  • Ocean County Local Government Environmental Roundtable;" Public Participation and Education;
  • Nonpoint Source Watershed Protection Projects;" Survey Review of the Barnegat Bay Watershed;" Special Public Health Projects;* Trust for Public Land; and* Save Barnegat Bay.-Chapter 3 Each of these categories of actions is summarized in this chapter. Detailed results of these actions can be found in Appendix C.3.2 "ACTION NOW" AGENDA The BBNEP Management Conference committed to devel-oping a preliminary Action Plan or "Action Now" Agenda as part of the BBNEP's USEPA/NJDEP Joint Conference Agreement that was approved on April 16, 1996. The objective of developing the agenda was to identify short-term 'actions that could be implemented immediately dur-ing the development of this CCMP. As a result of this com-mitment,.

the "Action Now" Agenda was published on June 25, 1997. The actions identified in the agenda built upon the actions that were previously recommended in "A-Watershed Management Plan for the Barnegat Bay" (1993)by examining processes for implementing the plan's actions, engaging action item stakeholders in a construc-tive dialogue, and where appropriate, implementing imme-diate actions that would directly benefit Bamegat Bay, its watershed, and its inhabitants.

Since the objective of developing the agenda was to imme-diately implement actions that would provide benefit, the BBNEP identified actions that the Management Conference had previously approved for implementation and that required little or no additional funds or staff. The 47 action items included in the agenda were categorized into the following environmental management issues: " Watershed Management;

  • Point and Nonpoint Source Pollution;
  • Sensitive Areas;" Water Area and Use;* Fisheries Management;
  • Public Participation; and* Research and Monitoring.

The agenda included actions that could be initiated by the BBNEP, as well as actions that could be initiated under MAY 2002 35 EARLY ACTIONS existing federal, state, and local programs.

It also provid-ed information on who would lead the actions, and the schedule and estimated cost for implementation.

As a result of the completed agenda, the NJDEP now has some guidance for prioritizing funding in the watershed, and allowing the BBNEP the opportunity to initiate beneficial activities within the watershed during the CCMP planning and development process. "Agenda Now" activities have been under way since 1997. An update on the "Action Now" Agenda progress is included in Appendix C.3.3 ACTION PLAN DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS The Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program (BBNEP) was charged with identifying and implementing projects that utilize innovative and unique management strategies to address priority watershed issues. These projects, titled,"Action Plan Demonstration Projects" (APDP) were used as a mechanism for effective implementation of the "Action Now" Agenda. The BBNEP Management Conference solicited proposals and awarded funds totaling $150,000 to grant recipients for 12 projects.

These 12 projects selected for early implementation provided integral infor-mation leading to the development of several action items in the CCMP.The criteria used to select the grant recipients included: " Applicability to action items identified in the "Action Now" Agenda;" Amount of non-federal match offered in the proposal;" Breadth and diversity of scope, target audience and practical effect; and" Award of funds to as many worthwhile proposals as possible.Table 3-1 lists the projects and funding awarded for each fiscal year. A short description of each project and the lessons learned are included in Appendix C.The APDP results were considered in both the planning and development of the CCMP and various action items.These projects were also initiated as examples of actions that others in the watershed could duplicate.

TABLE 3-1: Projects and Funds Awarded for Fiscal Years 1997 and 1998 Funding 1997 * , ,;Eco-Tour of the Barrier Island $ 5,000.00 Watershed Signs at Public Access Points $ 9,280.00 Environmental Educator's Roundtable

$ 16,000.00.P b ! ..D o .n .t .. .. .... .......[ .a ...............

o t sf ..............

........................

..... ...........

............

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

..........

Public Demonstration of Marine Pumpout Vessel $ 15,000.00 Barnegat Bay Ecosystem Restoration

$ 29,720.00 Total $ 75,000.00 Funding 1998 Managing our Endangered Species Heritage $ 9,996.00 Dredged Materials Disposal and Habitat Restoration

$ 10,567.00 Adopt-a-Storm Drain $ 3,070.00 Watershed Demonstration Garden $ 12,000.00 Coastal Decision-Making Resource Center $ 16,995.00 Coordination of the Pump Out Boat $ 15,000.00 BBWA Local Government Outreach (partial funding) $ 7,372.00 Total $ 75,000.00 3 6 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 3 3.4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT Central to the operation of the BBNEP is the principle that the Management Conference should serve in an advisory capacity and should facilitate the implementation of actions and policies through increased awareness and stakeholder participation in the development and imple-mentation of the CCMP. Local governments are one criti-cal stakeholder group to this process. Therefore, the BBNEP established a Local Government Committee (LGC).The Ocean County Mayors' Association has served as LGC for three years and has provided a forum for exchange of information between the Management Conference and local government agencies.

The Management Conference is committed to encouraging active participation from the LGC and has, therefore, developed the following actions to ensure that local governments support and commit to the implementation of the CCMP.ro gram Policy.> ContinuaL input e, the folliowing three a~ctions are Iltatble meetings in; each of the Ocean .County ' ih'ave already. been conducted in Brick, Stafford, and, rring these oundtables are indorpiorated in this UCMP.can be found iii Appendix B..MAY 2002 37 EARLY ACTIONS PRINCIPLES OF THE BBNEP COMMITMENT TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (CONTINUED)

Utilize public outreach and Ocean County informational services as vehicles to distribute information to local governments, including Monmouth County municipalities located in the Bamegat Bay watershed, on issues related to the protection and restoration!of the bay, its rivers, and streams.** Develop informational materials that are I communicate and share information with effort.3.5 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND EDUCATION MINI-GRANT PROJECTS The BBNEP recognizes that public participation and edu-cation is integral to promoting environmental awareness and stewardship and is necessary for successful imple-mentation of the CCMP. Therefore, the Mini-Grant program was established to foster public awareness and education of the Barnegat Bay Estuary and its surrounding tatmhed.The program was designed to motivate the public to actively participate in protecting and restoring the bay by funding environmental education projects that will direct-ly benefit Barnegat Bay and its watershed area.Applicants were invited to submit a proposal in one of the following subject areas: nonpoint source pollution preven-tion/water quality control, estuarine education, habitat enhancement/

preservation, citizen monitoring, and pub-lic participation.

Mini-Grants were awarded in 1997, 1998, and 2000 totaling $70,000. The grants are listed in Appendix D. The successful completion of these projects increased public awareness through education, with emphasis on the ecosystem as a living environmental and social resource.3 8 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 3 3.6 FEDERAL/STATE PROGRAMS.SUPPORTING THE BBNEP SECTION 319(h) COMPETITIVE GRANTS The objective of the 319(h) coastal watershed protection projects is to coordinate nonpoint source pollution and stormwater runoff control demonstration projects by fund-ing local group activities that provide long-term results and serve as successful project "models" for future projects within other subwatersheds in Ocean County. The NJDEP provides coordination and financial and technical assis-tance. This is due, in large part, to the BBNEP being part of the NEP and having developed a watershed management plan.Nonpoint source pollution and watershed protection pro-jects have been implemented in various sections of the Barnegat Bay watershed over the last several years. BMPs for the purposes of protecting the surface and groundwa-ter resources have been instituted.

Within Ocean County the primary objective of the projects has been to reduce the nonpoint source pollution loadings to Barnegat Bay and its watershed, including contaminated stormwater runoff, so that beneficial uses of the bay and its tributaries will be protected and restored.Through the conduct of these projects it is expected that significant sources of nonpoint source pollution will be identified and targeted actions will be developed and implemented to reduce those sources through innovative approaches, including public education and outreach, and through the development of creative partnerships and institutional arrangements.

The effectiveness of each of these projects will be monitored, and, if successful, these valuable techniques will be applied to other subwatersheds in the Barnegat Bay watershed.

Descriptions of each 319(h) grant project are provided in Appendix D.3.7 BARNEGAT BAY ENVIRONMENTAL FUND On February 26, 1992, the Ciba-Geigy Corporation made a donation of $2,500,000 to NJDEP for enhancement and protection of the Barnegat Bay watershed.

This is direct-ly related to several priority issue areas in the CCMP, specifically habitat protection and water quality/water supply protection.

After a long public comment period, the NJDEP decided that $1,975,000 would go into a land trust fund to purchase public access and environmentally sensitive areas. The remaining

$525,000 would be placed in an Environmental Grant Fund, which would support grants to non-profit organizations for environmental plan-ning, education, monitoring, research, or stewardship.*

The Trust for Public Land (TPL) was designated as the administrator of the Ciba-Geigy donation.

Expenditure of funds under these two programs is made with approval of the Barnegat Bay Environmental Grant Fund Advisory Board.3.8 SPECIAL PUBLIC HEALTH PRO3ECTS In the third year of the BBNEP, the USEPA provided$36,500 for special public health project activities.

The following projects were funded: 1. Support of Citizens Water Quality Monitoring Program The Barnegat Bay Watch Monitoring Program was cre-ated to provide ongoing monitoring of health and eco-logical conditions in the Barnegat Bay/Little Egg, Harbor ecosystem by citizen volunteers through the Alliance for a Living Ocean (ALO). Currently.

the pro-gram is monitoring between 25 and 50 sites through-out the watershed.

The activities of the program are designed to produce data which will aid in detection of episodic events and identification of trends or changes in habitats and water quality in order to provide elect-ed officials, resource managers, and scientists with information on the health and vitality of the ecosys-tem. During the third year, the BBNEP provided'$5,000 of Public Health funds to support the Barnegat Bay Watch Monitoring Program. The $5,000 was used to pur-chase replacement chemicals and equipment for the 1999 sampling season. The ALO received the "Governor's Award" for environmental protection in 1999.* The Barnegat Bay Environmental Grant Fund serves to support many of the Action Items.MAY 2002 39 EARLY ACTIONS 2. Support of the Barnegat Bay Marine Sewage Pumpout Boat As part of a coalition of agencies and organizations, the BBNEP has been active in supporting the establishment and continuation of a marine sewage pumpout vessel on Barnegat Bay. This vessel has now been purchased and launched and has had two successful years (1998 and 1999 boating seasons), pumping out more than 7,000 gallons of sewage from bay boats each year. The vessel covers the waters of Barnegat Bay and provides pumpout services to moored vessels.This provides a convenience to vessel owners who might not otherwise have reasonable access to .a marine sewage pumpout device.The presence of the vessel should mitigate the sense of need some vessel owners have to dispose of their waste in the bay waters. Hence, there will be a direct decrease in public health hazards associated with illicit discharges.

The BBNEP has committed

$16,500 of Public Health funds to support the second year of operation of the pumpout vessel. Twenty percent match was provided by the State of New Jersey's"Shore to Please" license plate fund. Also, the Barnegat Bay Pumpout Boat Program and its organiz-er, Pete McLain, were recognized by the USEPA with the 1999 Environmental Quality Award.3. Barnegat Bay No Discharge Zone Application The N.J. Marine Sciences Consortium was retained to develop an application for a No Discharge Zone for Barnegat Bay. This designation wilt make it illegal to discharge either treated or non-treated sewage from boats into Barnegat Bay and will assist in protecting bathing and shellfish water quality. The NJDEP has submitted an application to USEPA Region 2 and is currently working to provide the necessary documen-tation on the area boating population and the avail-ability of sufficient pumpout capacity to allow USEPA to grant approval of this application.

40 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP 3.9 SURVEY REVIEW OF THE BARNEGAT BAY WATERSHED As part of the NJDEP grant entitled "A Partnership for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control in the Barnegat Bay Watershed," the Ocean County Soil Conservation District (OCSCD) established a cooperative effort among various conservation agencies to develop an effective communica-tion and conservation education program for teachers, municipalities, environmental commissions, and the pub-lic. To effectively develop the communication and edu-cation strategy it was necessary to determine the level of general public knowledge about nonpoint source pollution and its effects on Barnegat Bay. Therefore, the OCSCD developed a survey entitled "Understanding and Communicating With People About People Pollution in the Watershed of Bamegat Bay" and distributed it at three pub-lic events -the Ocean County Fair in July 1995 and September 1996, and September 1997 at the Barnegat Bay Decoy and Gunning Show. This predates the organization of public outreach efforts for the Barnegat Bay Estuary Program. The following summarizes the responses received: Most respondents understood what a watershed was, yet only a small percentage knew that they lived within a watershed; Although respondents knew that there were water quali-ty problems in Barnegat Bay, there was little under-standing of the term "nonpoint source pollution," or of the impact of nonpoint source pollution; Although about one-half of the respondents said that they maintained their own lawns, only a small percent-age of that number ever tested the soil for nutrients or pH level;Most respondents had volunteered, or would be willing to volunteer, in a local conservation effort, but only a small percentage would consider doing so as part of an orga-nization or would want to attend a meeting such as a hearing or seminar;The preferred method for receiving conservation informa-tion was through newspapers, radio, or TV These results helped to focus the Bamegat Bay National Estuary Program's public outreach efforts on the topics to discuss and the segments of the watershed popula-tion to reach.

Racing sloops in Barnegat Bay, circa 1930. PHOTO COURTESY OF OCEAN COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY MAY 2002 41 The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones.-Keynes INTRODUCTION TO ACTION PLANS Chapter 4 4.1 MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES The CCMP has been divided into four major Action Plans: 1. Water Quality/Water Supply;2. Habitat and Living Resources;

3. Human Activities and Competing Uses; and 4. Public Participation and Education.

4.2 ACTION PLANS 4.2.1 WATER QUALITY/WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN Water quality in the Barnegat Bay watershed is being degraded by nonpoint and point sources of pollution.

Excessive nutrient inputs, coupled with bacterial pol-lution, upset the natural balance of the Barnegat Bay ecosystem and can directly impair human uses of the bay, including restrictions on shellfish harvesting and swimming.

A significant amount of this pollution is attributed to development on land and the activities associated with development (e.g., impervious cover, vehicle use, lawn and garden maintenance, and septic systems) although other sources, such as boats and wildlife populations, also contribute to the problem.The Water Quality/Water Supply Action Plan in Chapter Five presents Action Items designed to effectively remediate the impacts impairing water quality and quantity throughout the watershed.

4.2.2 HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES ACTION PLAN The continued health and biodiversity of marine and estuarine systems depends on the maintenance of high-quality habitat. Threats to habitat in the Barnegat Bay watershed include conversion of open land and forest to residential and commercial devel-opment, highway construction, marinas, dredging and filling, and bulkheading.

Declines in fish and wildlife populations have resulted from fragmentation and. loss of habitats and ecosystems; pollution and decreased water quality due to increases in the runoff of sedi-ments, nutrients, and chemicals; and overexploitation of resources.

The Habitat and Living Resources Action Plan, present-ed in Chapter Six, contains a suite of Action Items to combat loss and alteration of habitat. Also discussed is the decline in fisheries stocks.4.2.3 HUMAN ACTIVITIES AND COMPETING USES ACTION PLAN A key to effective environmental management is to realize that environmental degradation involves indi-vidual actions among stakeholder groups.Effective management requires careful consideration of the balance between appropriate and necessary uses on the one hand, and protection of natural resources on the other. Given Ocean County's increasing population and popularity as a resort area, the BBNEP recognizes the need to limit constraints on the use of Barnegat Bay and its watershed.

The Human Activities and Competing Uses Action Plan, presented in Chapter Seven, targets two primary areas of competing uses:* Land use and development activities that threaten environmental quality; and" Contention over the use of boats and personal watercraft (PWC).This Action Plan complements the Habitat and Living Resources and Water Quality/Water Supply Action Plans by presenting actions individual citizens can take to positively impact Barnegat Bay and its watershed.

MAY2002 43 INTRODUCTION TO ACTION PLANS 4.2.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND EDUCATION ACTION PLAN The BBNEP recognizes that the public is essential to the protection of Barnegat Bay. The Public Participation and Education Action Plan presented in Chapter Eight was developed to increase the public's understanding of the workings of the bay and its watershed and how individual actions impact the bay and its natural resources.

The Action Items presented in this plan address all the priority problems by foster-ing a stewardship ethic among Ocean County residents and visitors through citizen monitoring programs, increased estuarine awareness, and environmental edu-cation.4.There is vigorous public support for this action;4.3 ACTION PLAN PRIORITIES The BBNEP priority issues and associated Action Items were refined following public comments received from:* An extensive series of public meetings throughout the Barnegat Bay Watershed;

  • Local government workshops and meetings;* Postings on the Barnegat Bay Estuary Program website; and* 130,000 mailings of a 12-page newspaper insert describing the BBNEP and priority issues of concern The Barnegat Bay Estuary Program, represented by the Policy Committee, the Management Committee, Science and Technical Advisory Committee, and the Citizens Advisory Committee, developed a set of criteria that were used to prioritize the Action Items in each of the Action Plan chapters of the CCMP. This included Chapter 5. Water Quality/Water Supply; Chapter 6. Habitat and Living Resources; Chapter 7. Human Activities and Competing Uses; Chapter 8. Public Participation and Education; and Chapter 9. Monitoring.

The seven criteria of equal weight that were devel-oped are as follows: 1. Importance of achieving a program objective;

2. Future actions depend on getting the action done;3. There is an existing commitment by a viable entity to do this action;44 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP 5. This action supports more than one program objective;
6. There is a regulatory mandate to do this action;and 7. There is great interest on the part of one or more of the agencies involved in the BBNEP in this action.Each Action Item in the CCMP was then rated as either"High", "Medium", or "Low" priority, based on these seven criteria.

In general, the Action Items in each Action Plan chapter were grouped in order of priority, from highest to lowest. Action Items were rated as a"High" priority for implementation if more than four of the seven criteria were satisfied.

Action Items were rated as a "Medium" priority if three or four criteria were satisfied.

Action Items were rated as a "Low" pri-ority for implementation if one or two criteria were satisfied.

Tables 4-1 through 4-4 include the assessment of pri-ority for each of the Action Items in Chapters 5 through 8. In addition, the summary tables of Action Items in each of those chapters include a column des-ignating the relative priority of each action.4.4 OBJECTIVES A critical step in the development of the Action Plan chapters (i.e., Chapter 5. Water Quality/Water Supply;Chapter 6. Habitat and Living Resources; Chapter 7.Human Activity and Competing Uses, and Chapter 8.Public Participation and Education) was the identifica-tion of quantifiable objectives, environmental indica-tors for the measurement of success in achieving those objectives, and agencies responsible for facilitating and monitoring progress.

Measuring environmental indica-tors will be achieved through existing or future moni-toring programs which will, in turn, help document the progress in attaining the quantifiable objectives.

Trends identified through continued monitoring will serve the program by noting the achievement of mile-stones or helping to redirect future remedial action.A timeline for start-up and completion of Action Items has also been included as an adjunct for tracking mile-Development of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for areas listed on the 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies.

V/V V/V.I-b -4_________

-4 .4 4-H H 5.2 Complete a high-intensity Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) to identify pollution sources from land use informa-tion and site conditions.

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

/ / / M basins to increase infiltration V M and recharge of rainfall runoff. "_" 5.4 Implement Phase II Municipal Stormwater Rules in the / V/____Barnegat Bay Watershed.

5.5 Encourage native species land-scaping to minimize water use andfertilizer and pesticide V/ V/ M application.

5.6 Develop a financial incentives mechanism, "Water Quality Rebate", for implementing Best V/ V VI M Management Practices on non-federal, non-agricultural lands.5.7 Institute the Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials ( NEMO) program within the V -arnegat Bay Watershed.

5.8 Promote existing technical and financial assistance programs t o ./ V V / M implement soil management practices on agricultural lands.0-4 r+(D 0A F+.'-4 CD'-I k<'CA M.-r-9 01.Ln (D JS' Ch'I-.0+0 0 Identity the extent ot water quality problems emanating tram livestock farms and work with livestock producers to reduce runoff from manure V/V/L 5.10 Develop a management strategy to reduce the congreation of / / / / M Canada Geese populations in V V urban areas.5.11 Sample and analyze water to evaluate fertilizer and pesticide

/ .VI / M residues introduced into surface V water systems.5.12 Continue publication of"Pesticides for New Jersey" to include site-specific recommen-V V V dations for the use of pesticides on golf courses and public lands.5.13 Promote Home*A*Syst for the Bornegot Bay Watershed (RCE, IVM 1998) through widespread distribution.

5.14 Periodically examine technical and permit data on small point source discharge permit holders M in order to promote and V /maintain an understanding of their relationship to the overall ecological health of the bay.

tol 40 e-I UAd.IIL-LL L-LLIL-L and permit data on the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in order to promote and main-tain an understanding of its relationship to the overall ecological health of the bay./VI V/M 5.16 Eliminate the discharge of boat sewage into the bay by promot- / / / /ing the use of sewage pumpout facilities.

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

5.18 Apply to the USEPA for federal designation of Barnegat Bay as a / VI V / V H No Discharge Zone.5.19 Develop a "Clean Marinas" pro-gram to help marina owners and managers use their facilities in a / H manner that employs BMPs to the maximum extent.5.20 Establish a comprehensive water supply plan for the Barnegat Bay watershed that will guide water supply development, use, / V V V V V H and reuse throughthe year 2040 and, to the maximum extent possible, maintain the natural ydrology of the watershed.-i -i o VU 4-, 00 M 0 0-0 IV 0 iueveiop a worKptan anu institute controls for management of water demand/water conservation.

V/VI V/V/V/H 5.22 Integrate existing shallow groundwater protection I'/ V / / H programs.5.23 Establish a network of three weather stations in the water-shed tied to the South Jersey V1 L Resource Conservation

&Development RISE network.5.24 Establish a demonstration proj-ect for wastewater reuse, which will be discharged back to the watershed, and which alleviates V/ V/ M the need for potable water for irrigation of lawns, golf courses, or other public areas.5.25 Assist municipalities in their involvement in the NJDEP Shellfish Waters and Bathing / V/ V/ H Beaches protection strategies for the Barnegat Bay watershed.

rroiecr & improve vegetaiea buffer zones adjacent to coastal wetlands & freshwater tributar-ies to maintain continuous ripar-ian corridors, for habitat protection and low-impact V, VI V/V, V, H eil In 6.2 Conduct a Barnegat Bay ecosystem restoration V' / V // / H feasibility study.6.3 Control erosion in threatened

/ L shoreline areas. V V 6.4 Manage tidal wetlands to preserve unditched wetlands &to rehabilitate wetlands L that have been ditched or otherwise altered.6.5 Maintain intact large blocks of Pinetands habitat within state parks & forests & other publicly VM owned lands.%0 L7I 0 C, H-C 0 to.0 0 tVn Implement more ettective enforcement of current regulations regarding sensitive coastal habitats.V/V/VI VI/M 6.7 Coordinate and integrate management of federal lands // V V/ M for natural habitat values.6.8 Facilitate partnerships for habitat protection and VI / / / V/ H restoration projects.6.9 Revise municipal master plans to encourage subwatershed planning to V / / / /minimize impervious coverage H& maintain natural habitat and landscape values.n

~Y1 0'.4.I-'.Assess the eftectiveness ot CAFRA II regulations within the Barnegat Bay Coastal Zone Boundary.V/V/V/V/V, VI H 6.11 Identify and manage impaired sub-watershed through local government V/ / V/ M cooperation to address water resource issues that cross municipal boundaries.

6.12 Develop a cooperative approach among the Pinelands Commission, state parks, state wildlife manage- -V V/ V/ -.ment areas, state forests, and other state agencies to coordi-nate watershed protection on state lands.CD u, W Future setn aem foImportance Depend Public Interst SppsThere is a 7.o ItemP fo Eite i endod Mandatehfor seoith 71e Dafte a u Barea t Baynegat W. n aement stratiegy areais H m t f W Uthrb setting Roaner empa s A for state w ide ptli cy .Ite m n Mti ma_7.2 Pomote the 6use o i t L Outrea0 Proec PwithiV contiued poducDonno"BoDafte' Gudet Barnegat Bay proand LittleEgHrbor"fto proma-comtuenite Coareas, by '/ M mtieai setto ante impats wotr suty anwide pnoaralsy 7.3 Frolmowtu the Municpa of_ the"Cmmunigtyn Conneripcti on"VV nwsaeterqult and withral"Community awardsion programs.

Z 7.4 Use environmental commissions to foster the M watershed approach.

_ _ __7.5 Support the Barnegat Bay Watershed and Estuary Foundation (BBWEF) to V/ / / / H protect Barnegat Bay and its watershed resources.

0'-

(D1 0L Establish a Barnegat Bay Blue Card Certification program on soil health, low-input landscapes, and balancing the water cycle.V/V/L 7.7 Use data & information from the Natural Resource Inventory (NRI) to promote */ L the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs).7.8 Design and construct environmentally sensitive demonstration gardens in all /municipalities.

7.9 Construct an environmentally sensitive demonstration lawn for homeowners to use as a V V V M model for landscaping plans.7.10 Conduct shellfish resource survey. _ __/ M un W U.'~ V C~) -~Post tne eineLands Curriculum Guide Lessons for Grades 4-6 and 7-8 on the World Wide Web./9/L 8.2 Conduct two, two-day summer teacher workshops through the Ocean County Vocational-Technical School (OCVTS) that V/ M focus on the Barnegat Bay Estuary and watershed.

8.3 Revise & reprint the Barnegat Bay Watershed Educational I / / / M Resource Guide.8.4 Conduct an annual Environmental Educators V/ / / / M Roundtable.

8.5 Support the Sea Grasses for Classes Project -Institute of H Marine & Coastal Sciences V (IMCS), Rutgers University.

8.6 Develop the Forest Resource Education Center (FREC) as a resource and interpretive center that promotes an ./ VI V m understanding of the human &resource connections

& a stew-ardship ethic among students, scouts, & the general public.I-...0 0 0 0 r-0.r+4 U-4 tv z z 00 to1 0+0./uevetup d DdaIIiydi Ddy Watershed Education Campaign, to be implemented in elementary schools via a mascot, Barnie the Crab V/V/IV V/M 88 Develop a Barnegat Bay.//"% /%/watershed-specific activity VV guide. H 8.9 Continue the Alliance for a Living Ocean (ALO) Ecotour of a Barrier Iand for schoolchildren and the general public.8.10 Promote the development

&/I/M use of outdoor classrooms.

V/__ __ / M 8.11 Establish a Bay Keeper Program as a public watchdog for the protection of Barnegat Bay.8.12 Create a Barnegat Bay-specific Educational Guide outlining the natural and cultural .ecotourism opportunities inL Central New Jersey, with an emphasis on the Barnegat Bay watershed region.8.13 Establish one waterway cleanup per year within the I I M Barnegat Bay watershed.

LIM uLn (ID-PS L, Ch 1>tol 0 r+a 0 0 0 0 Provide interpretive exhibits, programs, and activities focusing on the historical human uses of the environmen-tal resources within the R~rneaat Pay watershed.

I/V/V/H 8.15 Provide education and technical training to local gov-ernment officials

& other coastal H1 / / / / H decision makers in the Barnegat " Bay watershed guide.8.16 Revise and reprint the "Low-Maintenance Landscaping

/ VI / M Homeowners' Guide." 8.17 Educate professional landscapers, municipal grounds personnel, and facility managers on more M efficient and environmentally sensitive use of pesticides.

8.18 Promote the use of IPM methods. "' / _ M 8.19 Incorporate BBEP outreach and education displays and programs at the V/Environmental Learning Center of Ocean County.8.20 Experience Barnegat Bay, a project of YES.

Chapter 4 Action Items were refined following public comments received from several sources such as, an extensive series of public meetings throughout the Barnegat Bay Watershed, local government workshops and meetings, postings on the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program website, and 130,000 mailings of a 12-page newspaper insert describing the BBNEP and priority issues of con-cern. Each of the Action Plan chapters cited above includes a table of quantifiable objectives as well as a timeline chart for action item implementation.

4.5 ACTION ITEMS The individual Action Items that comprise the four actions plans were developed in an effort to achieve program goals and objectives.

During the course of one year, four draft versions of the CCMP have been reviewed and revised in accordance with the recom-mendations of the Policy Committee, the Management Committee, the Science and Technical Advisory Committee, and various agencies.

These reviews and revisions were done prior to release to the public for review and comment. A summary of BBNEP's response to comments received is located in Appendix B..Each Action Plan contains an Action Item Summary Table listing the Action Items, their status, lead responsible agencies or organizations., tentative sched-ule, and estimated cost. It is recognized that many Action Items overlap priority issues and, therefore, wilt provide multiple benefits.

Where Action Items are cross cutting (e.g., are applicable to more than one Action Plan), a notation is made in the "Other Action Plan Supported" column of the Summary Tables.The following template was used to present individual Action Items.STATUS: Note the programmatic status of the action (recommendation, commitment, or partial commit-ment). "Recommendation" indicates organizational willingness and capability to carry out the prescribed action item, but funding has not yet been secured."Commitment" indicates that funding is available to carry out the Action Item.WHO: Identify the agency, authority, citizens group, governmental body, trade association, corporate body, or private individual who is responsible or who has agreed to assume responsibility to complete or lead implementation of the action.HOW: Give a description of the means and methods used to accomplish the specific action.WHEN: Note a schedule of milestones, including start and finish dates of subtasks where possible.WHERE: Describe the location and boundary of where the action is to take place.MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Give a qualita-tive or quantitative measurement to evaluate the effec-tiveness of the Action Item. The effectiveness of Action Items will also be assessed through the Monitoring Program Plan (Chapter Nine). The linkages between Action Items and the Monitoring Program Plan are indicated in Table 9-1.COST ESTIMATE:

State the total cost of the action, and include unit costs (per acre, per year) as appropri-ate. The cost of some Action Items can only be deter-mined on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, in some cases, specific unit costs cannot be determined.

FUNDING SOURCES: Sources of funding for action items are listed wherever they are currently commit-ted. For action items that are recommendations, often a funding source has not yet been determined.

See the general discussion of financial strategy in Chapter 12 for a listing of funding sources that the Program expects to be available for the purposes of implemen-tation. Rather than presuppose an individual funding source for a- recommended action, the Program prefers to leave that designation to the continuing negotiation process among -the Program stakeholders.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Explain how this action contributes to the overall objectives of the Barnegat Bay watershed program. This should be no more than a short paragraph.

MAY 2002 57 INTRODUCTION TO ACTION PLANS REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: State if the proposed action requires new regulation, ordinance, or policy..-j4 4'4K 58 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Development in Ortley Beach and beyond, looking toward Point Pleasant, late 1990s. PHOTO BY STUDIO NINE, WAUTOWN, NJ MAY 2002 59 Water, water everywhere, Nor any drop to drink.--The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, Samuel Taylor Coleridge WATER QUALITY/WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN Chapter 5

5.1 INTRODUCTION

-STATE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT RULES The completion of this CCMP coincides with the NJDEP watershed planning and management process. The cen-terpiece of this process is the Water Quality and Watershed Management Rules document, published for public com-ment in the New Jersey Register on July 3, 2000, after an extensive stakeholder input process, from March to October 1999.The existing Water Quality Management Planning Rules, which are being proposed for repeal, were initially adopt-ed in 1989. They established a process. for the NJDEP to develop and approve Wastewater Management Plans (WMPs) as amendments to area-wide Water Quality Management (WQM) plans. These rules also established a process for review and approval of project-specific amend-ments to area-wide WQM plans. In implementing the process, the NJDEP works with the designated planning agencies, such as the Ocean County Planning Board (OCPD), to develop the area-wide WQM plans and adopts,all plan amendments on behalf of the Governor under the Water Quality Planning Act. The rules provide a base level of detail on the examination of the potential impacts on natural resource capacity of the development which the plans and plan amendments accommodate.

The rules emphasize instead the impact of sewer service area changes on wastewater treatment needs, which are deter-mined through the land use development patterns identi-fied in the municipal master plans. Nonetheless, the exist-ing rules have had important environmental benefits, because: (1) they have helped ensure better conformance between local zoning and utility plans; (2) provided updated and more realistic projections of sewer service areas and needs; and (3) identified potential conflicts among regional sewer systems and between the regional systems and local wastewater facilities.

Over the last several years, the NJDEP has required the submittal of more comprehensive evaluations of the direct and indirect environmental impacts of wastewater treat-ment systems in the course of reviewing WMPs, area-wide WOM plans, and plan amendments under the rules. These evaluations are necessary because development has effects on water resources beyond those related directly to waste-water management.

On January 11, 2000, Governor Whitman signed Executive Order No.109, which supports this direction and calls for the consideration of the applicability of alternative analy-ses that address water supply issues, land use, environ-mental build-out, and pollutant loading during the NJDEI~s review of plans and plan amendments.

Executive Order No.109 applies to all new and pending applications for wastewater management plans and plan amendments that directly affect 100 or more acres of land or the dis-position of 20,000 gallons of wastewater or more per day until these rules are adopted.The proposed new Water Quality and Watershed Management rules represent a fundamental shift in water resource protection planning.

Rather than focusing on how to address point sources of wastewater by considering various treatment scenarios, the new rules reflect a holis-tic approach to water resource protection.

They require consideration of both point and nonpoint sources of wastewater and pollutants generated from residential, agricultural, industrial, and commercial development and activities.

This evaluation includes alternative treatment technologies (including reuse), best management practices (BMPs), and land use alternatives to assess the direct and indirect environmental impacts of development and to help determine how and where development can occur with minimal adverse impact to the water resources of the State.MAY 2002 61 WATER QUALITY/ WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN The proposed new rules also reflect a change from a pri-marily point source "command and control" regulatory approach to a more cooperative, place-based planning framework that considers alternative wastewater treat-merit and land use as key to sound management of water resources.

The proposed new rules are also intended to reinvigorate regional planning based on "nature's bound-aries," with the objective of maintaining, enhancing, and restoring water quality, water quantity, and ecosystem health. The proposed new rules set the framework for determining the water resource capacities for a region through Watershed Management Area planning.

These capacities are then used as the "limits" for more detailed infrastructure and land use planning at the local level.While the proposed new rules emphasize wastewater facil-ities planning, they also recognize the importance of assessing and managing by non-structural means stormwa-ter, water supply, and habitat preservation.

Thus, the rules encompass and promote both "green" and "gray" infrastructure planning.

Specifically, the proposed new rules: Emphasize that the primary objective of water quality and watershed management planning is, wherever attainable, to restore, maintain, and enhance water quality, water quantity, and ecosystem health. These objectives are comparable to the goals of the CCMP;Establish the process for integrating surface and groundwater quality standards and assessments, anti-degradation, total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), and water quality maintenance in watershed management planning.

These features of watershed management planning support the CCMP and its various action plans;Emphasize Watershed Management Area planning as the primary vehicle for conducting regional water resources planning and for integrating water resource protection measures and land use develop-ment scenarios in order to achieve water resource objectives; the CCMP is the first iteration of a water-shed management area plan for the Barnegat Bay watershed;

  • Articulate the roles and responsibilities of the various participants in the development of effective strategies to address water quality, water quantity and ecosys-tem health issues and achieve the desired results for a specific watershed management area. There are similarities between the public processes in the NJDEFs proposed planning efforts and the NEP process, including public outreach through a consensus process. This will facilitate the BBNEP's ability to serve the role as a watershed management forum, primarily through action plan implementa-tion;" Establish watershed management area plans as dynamic and flexible planning tools. They will consist of certain mandatory statewide elements but also incorporate components specific to each watershed;
  • Support the integration and coordination, of planning efforts across all planning levels (state, regional, county, and municipal) and across NJDEP programs (wastewater, water supply, and land use);Improve and expand the environmental assessments and analyses which will be required as part of waste-water management planning.

These include: pollutant loading analysis; environmental build-out analysis; population, household, and employment projection analysis; land use projection analysis;alternatives analysis; coordination and integration with state, county, watershed and municipal plans, including the State Development and Redevelopment Plan; consumptive water use analysis; environmental and public health needs assessments; and wastewater and water supply projection analysis.

The CCMP action plans call for some of these analyses to be performed in order for appropriate water strategies to be accomplished;" Ensure that all new development outside of existing designated sewer service areas will be evaluated for its water resource impacts. This includes develop-ments totaling six units or more that will use septic systems and that have not already received municipal approval;* Enhance the wastewater plan amendment process by: utilizing impervious cover as a screening tool to promote infill development; requiring mandatory 62 BAPNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 5 The Shack, a landmark seen from LBI Causeway circa, 1950. PHOTO COURTESY OF THE OCEAN COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY.pre-planning conferences for projects with the potential to result in direct, indirect, or cumula-tive impacts to clarify for the applicant the applica-tion process and requirements; requiring statements of local plan consistency and local consents at the time of application to ensure that there is local support for a project prior to the expenditure of substantial state resources and to enhance state/local communication; and incorporating timeframes for the processing of plan modifications to increase predictability for applicants and to support the NJDEP's goal of Open and Effective Government under its Strategic Plan; and Incorporate aspects of the continuing planning process (CPP) required by the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), including area-wide water quality manage-ment plans, TMDLs, and procedures for revisions to water quality management plans. Other aspects of the CPP are implemented under other NJDEP regulations and programs.As the state adopts its new proposed rules, the BBNEP is strategically positioned to make productive use of the existing relationship of its member agencies to implement, where appropriate, various aspects of watershed manage-ment and to accomplish the goals of the CCMP. The Barnegat Bay watershed will continue to directly benefit from the funding which the NJDEP is providing to Ocean County for watershed management efforts in the Barnegat Bay watershed.

The second chapter of the CCMP demonstrates the wealth of water resources that are a part of the Bamegat Bay and its watershed.

Both in terms of water quality and quanti-ty, the watershed provides needed fresh water, through streams, lakes, and groundwater, for the many freshwater aquatic uses, including fish and wildlife, aquatic inverte-brates, drinking water, recreational use, and industrial and.commercial uses. Fresh water from the watershed is also needed as inflow to the estuary, to maintain the unique ecosystem where fresh and salt water mix and create a vital nursery for life along this section of the Atlantic coast.Many activities that occur within the bay and its water-shed have a profound effect on these water resources.

As discussed in Chapter 2, some resulting priority water resource problems include increased nutrient loading to the streams of the watershed and to the bay; withdrawal of water that disrupts the natural hydrologic cycle;increased pathogen loadings; and an ever-increasing pop-ulation that requires fresh water for its subsistence.

However, to merely treat the priority problems as they become known would be similar to treating only the symp-toms of a larger problem. To effectively remediate the impacts that are impairing water quality and quantity throughout the watershed, it is necessary to develop a strategy that effects change at the source of the impair-ment (e.g., stormwater runoff, point sources).Because of the anticipated population growth in the watershed area, an effective water quality and supply plan must target both present and future conditions.

As a result, action items have been developed that specifically address future population needs, and components of many action items have been designed to predict and manage impacts of the anticipated growth.The scope of the various Action Items germane. to the quality and supply of water within the Barnegat Bay watershed involve consideration of the quality of the water in the bay, waters from tributaries running off into the bay, and the supply and use of groundwater from which the majority of residents draw their drinking water (Table 5-1).MAY 2002 63 Im CD cn Development of TotaL Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for areas listed on the 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies. -C immediately.

If TMDLs are neces-sary, it is expected that they will be completed by June 2006.TMD L 5.2 Complete a high-intensity H OCSCD, USFWS, The pilot area $375,000 See Chapter 12 Natural Resources Inventory USDA-NRCS and inventory could for the pilot area (NRI) to identify pollution Ocean County begin immediately sources from land use informa- municipalities and be complete tion and site conditions. -R within 2-3 years.5.3 Retrofit retention or detention M NJDEP, Division Completed within 5 $3,000 to See Chapter 12 basins, and retrofit stormwater of Watershed years upon receipt $7,000 per basin basins to increase infiltration Management of funding. and $85,000 for and recharge of rainfall runoff, and OCSCD mapping-R 5.4 Implement Phase II Municipal H NJDEP 12/99-03/2003 See Table 5.1 Public Eligible State Stormwater Rules in the Participation and Loan Programs Barnegat Bay Watershed. -C Education 5.5 Encourage native species M NRCS Implement within Enhanced Habitat and See Chapter 12 landscaping to minimize water two years of final program funding; Living Resources use and fertilizer and pesticide approval of the no estimate application. -R CCMP Status: R = Recommendation C = Commitment PC = Partial Commitment Priority: H = High M = Medium L = Low tz1 r,Develop a financial incentives mechanism, "Water Quality Rebate", for implementing Best Management Practices on non-federal, non-agricultural lands. -R M OCSCD As soon as funding is available A start-up grant of approximately

$75,000 is necessary Public Participation and Education Human Activities and Competing Uses See Chapter 12 5.7 Institute the Nonpoint M RCE Two years to futty $65,000 per year Habitat and N3DEP Funding Education for Municipal impiement in a Living Resources Officials (NEMO) program with- small sub-watershed in the Barnegat Bay watershed.-PC 5.8 Promote existing technical and M NRCS and the Upon completion

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

5.9 Identify the extent of water H OCSCD and 5 years from date $66,000 Human Activities Eligible Federal quality problems emanating NRCS of NRI data and Competing and State from livestock farms and work Uses Funding. See with livestock producers to Chapter 12 reduce runoff from manure stockpiles. -R.--S Lii Status: R = Recommendation C = Commitment PC = Partial Commitment Priority: H = High M = Medium L = Low (D

~ to 0 Z-9 C31 t.lU Develop a management strate-gy to reduce the congregation of Canada Geese populations in urban areas. -C M Uli)ungomg nase program funding laitat ann Living Resources Ocean County Health Dept.5.11 Sample and analyze water to M RCE 2002-2005

$25,000 -$49,750 Human Activities See Chapter 12 evaluate fertilizer and pesticide and Competing residues introduced into sur- Uses face water systems. -R 5.12 Continue publication of M RCE Immediately to Estimated to be Human Activities Rutgers"Pesticides for New Jersey" to coincide with the $1,000. and Competing Cooperative include site-specific recommen-annual update of Uses Extension dations for the use of pesti- Pesticides for New cides.on golf courses and pub- Jersey ric lands. -PC 5.13 Promote Home*A*Systfor the M RCE Implement upon $7,000 for 1,500 Human Activities See Chapter 12 Barnegat Bay Watershed (RCE, availability of guidebooks and Competing 1998) through widespread dis- funds. Uses tribution.

-R 5.14 Periodically examine technical M BBEP To begin immedi- $1,500/year BBEP Program and permit data on small point STAC ately after approval Funding source discharge permit holders of the CCMP in order to promote and main-tain an understanding of their relationship to the overall eco-logical health of the bay. -R W<-4 Iv Status: Priority: R = Recommendation H = High C = Commitment M = Medium PC = Partial Commitment L = Low r-.r'eIuo(lcaLLy examinIIIe LecInIICaL and permit data on the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in order to promote and maintain an understanding of its relationship to the over-all ecological health of the bay. -R 5.16 Eliminate the discharge of boat H NJ Clean Vessel Planning for Cost to print and Public NJ Clean Vessel sewage into the bay by pro- Program pumpout facilities distribute the Participation and Program moting the use of sewage to begin immedi- Barnegat Bay Education pumpout facilities.

-C ately. Fact sheets Boaters Fact Sheet Human Activities to be distributed

$1,000. and Competing annually beginning Uses this Spring.5.17 Acquire an additional sewage H NJ Clean Vessel To begin immediate-Cost of acquiring Clean Vessel Act pumpout boat for Barnegat Bay Program iy upon CCMP and equipping a Funding and its major tributaries.

-C approval pumpout boat is$35,000. Annual operation cost is$22,000 5.18 Apply to the USEPA for federal H NJMSC Draft application

$15,000 Habitat and BBEP and NJ designation of Barnegat Bay as completed.

Living Resources Marine Sciences a No Discharge Zone. -C Human Activities Consortium and Competing Uses Status: Priority: R = Recommendation H = High C = Commitment M = Medium PC = Partial Commitment L = Low Ch 14 (D I-'

Ch 00 t-4 U,'-a 0 I.-.DeveLop a "Clean Marinas" pro-grai to assist marina owners and managers to use their facilities in a manner that employs BMPs to the maximum extent. -C Marine Trades Association of New Jersey upon ULM'approval Shuu initiaL costs and $1500 per year, thereafter

~rLdill U~PULL:U Human Activities and Competing Uses iNJutt ano LJ Marine Trades Assn.bii5.20 Establish a comprehensive water supply plan for the Barnegat Bay watershed that will guide water supply devel-opment, use, and reuse through the year 2040 and, to the maximum extent possible, maintain the natural hydrology of the watershed.

-R H NJDEP, Division of Watershed Management Completed four years after CCMP approval$500,000 for staff support over 4 years; additional costs not yet determined Human Activities and Competing Uses Eligible Federal and State Funding.See Chapter 12 5.21 Develop a workplan and insti- H NJDEP, Division Complete within $125,000 for staff Human Activities See Chapter 12 tute controls for management of Watershed two years of CCMP support over 2 and Competing of water demand/water conser- Management implementation years plus Uses vation, -R undetermined additional project costs 5.22 Integrate existing shallow H NJDEP, Division Upon initiating, No additional Human Activities No Additional groundwater protection pro- of Watershed this action will be funds are needed and Competing Funding is grams. -R Management ongoing for this action. Uses Required 5.23 Establish a network of three L South Jersey Immediately upon $6500 per weath- Public See Chapter 12 weather stations in the water- RC&D funding er station to Participation and shed tied to the South Jersey establish;

$250 Education Resource Conservation

& per year to Development RISE network. -R operate Status: R = Recommendation C = Commitment PC = Partial Commitment Priority: H = High M = Medium L = Low to r+PL~Actioni Action Item, Tentative

~ Approx. Other Actionl Funding'Item No.; Titeand Statuis ~ Priority AedSchedule costj Plani Supported Source 5.24 Establish a demonstration proj- M OCUA Three years from Not yet Human Activities See Chapter 12 ect for wastewater reuse, which project initiation determined I and Competing will be discharged back to the Uses watershed, and which allevi-ates the need for potable water for irrigation of lawns, golf courses, or other public areas.-R 5.25 Assist municipalities in their H BBEP Ongoing $500,000 Clean Water SRF involvement in the NJDEP i and Others Shellfish Waters and Bathing Beaches protection strategies for the Barnegat Bay water-shed. -C Status: Priority: R = Recommendation H = High C = Commitment M = Medium PC = Partial Commitment L = Low~0 r+I'D P4 WATER QUALITY / WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN:BBNEP WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY Action Plan Objectives:

Restoreandnmaintain a productive ecosystem with no adverse effectscdue to pollution;

  • :Ensure that edible seafood is safe for>unrestricted human consumption;
  • 'Minimiize h1ealth risks ~tocontact wa~ter uses;<EstimTate adverse impacts of eutrophication, incldujing Iypoxia;, resulting from hiuhman activities; P Provide a sustainable water supply to the hunman population without adversely, ,., impacting natural water regimes.The detailed action items in this chapter are intended to achieve the objectives noted in the text box. Table 5-2 and Figure 5-1 show how the achievement of those objectives wilt be measured by the specific parameter and monitoring program within the Barnegat Bay watershed and give the timetine for implementation of the action items in this chapter. The monitoring pro-grams listed are those that are currently administered by the referenced agencies.

The BBNEP will help coor-dinate these programs in order that they may serve the purpose of measuring the success of the CCMP imple-mentation.

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

Restore and maintain a productive ecosystem with no adverse effects due to pollution.

The measure of success in this objective wilt be no net increase in phosphorus and nitrogen (P-N) loadings to the Bay over the implementation of the management plan.P-N are good indicators of human impact to the system, and they are readily measured in most areas by existing monitoring pro-grams. Currently, we have an estimated loading of P-N from streams, the atmos-phere direct to the Bay surface, and from ground water direct to the Bay. This load-ing estimate was primarily generated from actual monitoring data, although addition-al data are needed in some areas. The pro-gram wilt periodically compare these esti-mates against new estimates to see if the management actions are effective in reduc-ing current loads while the projected popu-lation increase occurs. Our objective is to hold the loadings at no net increase while continuing research occurs on the role of nutrients in the Bay.The loadings of phosphorus and nitrogen to the Bay wilt be monitored by, or estimated from, data collected in the fol-Lowing programs:* Surface Water Quality Data-The NJDEP/USGS coopera-tive Ambient Surface Water Monitoring Network and the Toms River Nonpoint Source Study.* Ground Water Quality Data-The NJDEP/USGS coopera-tive Ground Water Monitoring Network.-Atmospheric Deposition Monitoring Data-The National Atmospheric Deposition Program.* New Jersey DEP TMDL Monitoring Program Ensure that edible seafood The measure of success in this objective Monitoring wilt continue is safe for unrestricted will be the status and trends in the acreage through the existing National human consumption.

of shellfish beds open for unrestricted Shellfish Sanitation Program shellfish harvest. The program goal is to operated by the Bureau of reduce microbial loadings from all sources Marine Water Monitoring, to the Bay to the point that all shellfish NJDEP.beds can be opened for unrestricted shell-fish harvest.70 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 5 TABLE 5-2. (continued),Water Quality and" OQuantity Objectives o h Br gat Bay National, 'EnvironnmentalIndicators I Monitoring Pr64r,111sýf~r Estar Program of th'e BBEPf ,,Indicat'rs~

Minimize health risks to For Primary Contact Recreation at Bay The programs that monitor for contact water uses. Beaches, the measure of success of this these indicators are as follows: objective will be if Less than 10 percent of 100 beach days are closed per'year.

For Primary Contact Recreation Recreation Uses of Estuarine Waters, the at Bay Beaches measure of success of this objective will be -The Cooperative Coastal if the NJ Surface Water Quality Standard Monitoring Program Ocean for SE Waters for secondary contact uses is and Bay Beach Closure data fully supported.

This measure is supported collected by the Ocean if the fecal coliform geometric average was County Health Department less than 200 MPN/10OmL and less than 10 and cooperating health percent of the individual samples exceeded agencies and coordinated by 400 MPN/100ml.

the NJDEP.Recreation Use of Estuarine Waters-The marine and coastal water quality FC data collected by the Bureau of Marine Water Monitoring, NJDEP.Estimate adverse impacts The measure of success in this objective This indicator will be moni-of eutrophication, includ- will be to complete research adequate to tored by the BBEP ing hypoxia resulting understand the role of nutrients and other Management Committee and from human activities, contaminants that contribute to eutrophi-the Scientific and Technical cation and hypoxia and the effects of these Advisory Committee to deter-conditions on living resources of the Bay. mine when the indicator has Once the program has achieved conclusive been achieved.results on the role of human activities affecting eutrophication and its impact, this objective will be met. If it is deter-mined that there is an adverse impact from eutrophication, new objectives to mitigate the impacts will have to be developed.

Provide a sustainable The measure of success in this objective Water demand will be moni-water supply to the will be to achieve the following measures tored by programs of the human population with- with associated indicators:

NJDEP's Water Allocation and out adversely impacting Safe Drinking Water Bureau.natural water regimes. 1. Meet 2040 water demand as measured by the Water Allocation and Safe Streamflow will be monitored Drinking Water Program. by the U.S. Geological Survey's 2. Maintain adequate streamfiow to meet streamflow monitoring net-aquatic biota needs as measured by work.stream gauging stations in the water-shed with streamflow meeting the Saltwater intrusion will be requirements identified as a result of monitored by the U.S.Action 5.20. Geological Survey's New Jersey 3. No evidence of increase in saltwater Coastal Plain Synoptic and intrusion as measured by the Coastal Chloride Network.Plain Synoptic and Chloride Monitoring Network operated by the U.S. Geological Survey and NJDEP.MAY 2002 71 Z[I<>NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROLS Develop TMDLs (5.1)Conduct Natural Resources Inventory (5.2)Retrofit Stormwater Basins (5.3)Implement Phase II Stormwater Rules (5.4)Encourage Native Species Landscaping (5.5)Develop "Water Quality Rebate" Program (5.6)Institute NEMO Program (5.7)Promote Soil Management Programs (5.8)Identify and Manage WQ Problems of Livestock Farms (5.9)Develop Strategy for Canada Geese Control (5.10)Evaluate Fertilizer and Pesticide Residues (5.11)Continue Publication of "Pesticides for New Jersey" (5.12)Promote Home "A" Syst (5.13)Assist Municipalities in Shellfish and Bathing Beach Protection (5.25)POINT SOURCE CONTROLS Examine Technical and Permit Data on Point Sources (5.14)Examine Data on Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (5.15)BOATING CONTROLS AND MARINAS MANAGEMENT Eliminate Discharge of Boat Sewage (5.16)Acquire Additional Pumpout Boat (5.17)Apply for NO DISCHARGE ZONE Designation (5.18)Develop "Clean Marinas" Program (5.19)MANAGEMENT OF EXISTING AND FUTURE WATER SUPPLY Establish Comprehensive Water Supply Plan (5.20)Develop Workplan for Water Demand/Conservation (5.21)Integrate Existing Shallow Groundwater Protection Programs (5.22)Establish Three Additional RISE Network Weather Stations (5.23)Establish Wastewater Reuse Demonstration Project (5.24)m -________.44 44________ v'v~v44 ________ _______ <4444,4.4.4

--_____ E _________~44_____

--'I ---I -I -I --.4<.. 44<4444,4.4.4444'..

.4,4.4w', 44.944444~.4<

vwwvvv4. '.4v.4*w.4v' 3: _______ 44.4' -444.4.44wvv 44'--- F ----- --L, ,-..tD IN 0 Zj::,Z Z, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 YEAR OF CCMP IMPLEMENTATION PRE-EXISTING COMMITMENT 4 J HIGH PRIORITY vMEDIUM PRIORITY L LOW PRIORITY Chapter 5 5.2 WATER QUALITY/WATER SUPPLY ACTION ITEMS MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

FoUow-up monitor-ing by NJDEP for the pollutant(s) of concern will be per-formed to determine effectiveness of TMDLs should they be necessary.

COST ESTIMATE:

$300,000 per TMDL.FUNDING SOURCES: NJDEP will schedule funding as appropriate within its schedule for implementing plans for the state's Watershed Management Areas.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: Not yet determined.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Implementation of the TMDL is intended to bring the impaired water bodies into com-pliance with the Federal Surface Water Quality Standards.

At this time the baseline information available is not strong enough to support actual implementation of TMDLs in the Barnegat Bay watershed.

Therefore, this action is a commitment to assess the potential need for TMDL devel-opment.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Commitment, High Priority.WHO: TMDL development and monitoring will be per-formed by NJDEP (Lead) with input from all stakeholders.

HOW: The streams identified in Chapter 2 as potentially impaired waterways (Table 2-5) are located within the Pine Barrens and are naturally acidic with a high dissolved min-eral content. These waters support a highly adapted fauna and flora that are unique to the Pine Barrens, of which many species are listed as rare and endangered; yet, because water quality readings of these waters may fall outside the acceptable limits of a typical freshwater sys-tem, they may be mistakenly labeled as "impaired." Therefore, the stream data need to be re-examined and compared to other typical Pine Barren streams to deter-mine impairment.

If it is determined that these water bodies are, in fact, impaired, the state can begin the process of TMDL development.

WHEN: Monitoring and data evaluations are to begin immediately.

If TMDLs are necessary it is expected that they will be completed by June 30, 2006.WHERE: Impaired, or potentially impaired, water bodies occur throughout the watershed but are concentrated in the Metedeconk and Toms River subwatersheds in the northern half of Ocean County.SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The successful completion of a NRI will provide comprehensive baseline information that will assist in achieving many of the water quality and supply action plan objectives; data from the inventory will support strategies to address nonpoint and point source pollution and water supply, and will provide information necessary to allocate resources and target critical areas for implementation.

Specifically, the data will be used to:* Establish TMDLs at the sub-watershed level;Establish flow requirements for streams and into the estuary;Compare existing conditions to future build-out scenarios;

  • Determine sources of stream impairments;
  • Identify specific BMPs for implementation;
  • Support water conservation, reuse, and recharge projects;* Assist in the development of alternative landscape designs;* Develop soil health restoration activities; MAY2002 73 WATER QUALITY / WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN* Implement Section 402 of CWA (Phase H of Storm Water Rules) for small MS4s: <100,000 people and>1000 people per square mile, including federally owned installations; and" Target actions and fiscal resources to critical areas.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, High Priority.WHO: OCSCD, U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Services (NPCS) and Ocean County municipalities (Lead). Other partners, including Ocean County Planning and Health Department (OCPHD), NJDEP, and USGS would be consulted to ensure the data could be used for pur-poses intended under the various other action items.HOW: The nationally recognized NRCS NRI method will deter-mine the location of specific NPS-impacted sub-watersheds and/or number of primary sampling units (PSUs) needed for statistically significant resource infonnation.

The selected/random PSUs within sub-watershed(s) will coincide with the proposed USGS enhanced stream-gaug-ing network; to accurately reflect the major land use/land cover types (agriculture, forest, urban, suburban, barren land, shore land). On-site data collections will be specific to the land use type. All data points will be located with GPS and all data entered into the GIS system.DATA TO COLLECT Urban/suburban:

Lot size, percent open space, open space cover, degree of soil profile disturbance, soil bulk density, water source, sewerage system, point source dis-charges, lawn maintenance (owner or contractor), erosion rate, irrigation type and water source, stream length, water body size, nature/extent of riparian forest.Agricultural/forest:

Crop, irrigation used, irrigation type, water source, type of animal, animal density, animal waste handling, land slope, soil type, soil bulk density, conservation treatments, erosion rate, woodland harvest-ing, stream length, water body size and nature/extent of riparian forest.Barren land/shore land: Erosion rate, soil type, soil bulk density, pH, land cover, point source discharges, land shape, water fetch, land slope, orientation, on- and off-shore traffic.74 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP WHEN: It is estimated that an NRI of the Toms River sub-watersheds (beginning with Long Swamp Creek) would begin when funding is available and take two to three years to complete with the addition of one full-time Ocean County staffer. More areas and/or faster turn-around can be accomplished with additional funding/staff.

WHERE: The Toms River sub-watershed will be the pilot watershed for the project. The Metedeconk sub-watershed wilt follow when funds become available.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

The results will be used to: (1) help determine the priority of actions; (2)measure the effectiveness of actions taken; (3) help to begin the TMDL development process; and (4) help with water supply planning efforts. The number of agencies partnering in the inventory, and the number of projects or actions that use the NRI data, would be tracked and repli-cated in other watersheds, including the Metedeconk sub-watershed.

COST ESTIMATE:

For an inventory of this scope, it is esti-mated to cost $2,500 per PSU. The total number of PSUs required will depend on the area selected, the detail demanded by other action items, and the level of statisti-cal accuracy desired. Based on current information, it is estimated that $375,000 will be required for the pilot area.FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments.

See poten-tial funding sources in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.Seining at BayFest-in Berkeley Island County Park Chapter 5 ACTION 5.3 Retrofit ireteti.noor date ft stormwater basiris to increase-infilt:-ation and~ri~echarge ,of franfatt SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: As a watershed is developed, the hydrology, hydraulics and pollutant loadings all change in ways that may not have been accounted for when the existing retention/detention basins were designed and constructed.

Retention/detention basins are primarily designed to hold excess stormwater runoff gen-erated by a specific development and to release it at a rate that will not adversely affect the receiving water body by causing flooding or severe erosion. Existing retention/

detention basins in developments can be retrofitted to reduce the adverse hydrologic, hydraulic, and water quali-ty effects that the developments cause. Increasingly over the last decade, some basins are also being used to provide a measure of water quality treatment either by settlement of suspended solids and/or by using plants to take-up pol-lutants settled out or in solution.Keeping the water cycle in balance is a major concern for the watershed program and making provision for the full groundwater recharge of the one-year storm would help address the bulk of stormwater runoff and provide ade-quate water cycle balance. There are over 1,000 stormwa-ter facilities within existing developments where preven-tive strategies are obviated.

Restoring some level of infil-tration and storage in these facilities can effectively reduce impacts from the development and come closer to predevelopment hydrologic conditions for the site.Retrofitting existing basins will implement measures to reduce stormwater runoff volume and peak flow rate main-taining base flows and decreasing the severity of high flow events in streams.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Medium Priority.WHO: NJDEP, Division of Watershed Management and.OCSCD (Leads), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), OCPD, and Ocean County Engineering.

District (OCED).HOW: Stormwater basins can be retrofitted to improve water quality by: improving the settling capacity of the basin, adding vegetation to improve pollutant uptake, adding BMPs (such as settling chambers or sand filters)into the stormwater collection system to reduce the load-ing on the basin, reducing the amount of impervious area contributing runoff to the system, or any combination thereof. Some specific recommendations for significantly enhancing the BMP objectives include: " Modifying the outfall to create a two-stage release to better contain smaller storm discharges while not compromising the structure for controlling larger storm outflow;" Incorporate a settling chamber in the stormwater system prior to discharging intothe basin;" Eliminating or altering concrete low-flow channels and replacing with meandering stone-lined swales to promote infiltration and/or filtering;

  • Eliminating low-flow bypasses;* Eliminating or altering concrete low-flow channels;" Incorporating low berms to lengthen the flow path and eliminate short-circuiting;" Incorporating forebays and micropools at the inlet and outlet, respectively;" Regrading the basin bottom to create a wetland area near the outlet or re-vegetating parts of the basin bottom with wetland vegetation to enhance pollutant removal, reduce mowing, and improve aesthetics;" Creating a wetland shelf along the periphery of a wet basin to improve shoreline stabilization, enhance pollutant filtering, and enhance aesthetics; and" Installing a "floating riser" that will take flow from the top of the temporary pool through a filter, allowing higher sediment trap efficiency.in the basin.Through completion of the GIS stormwater facility database and the NRI recommended in Action Item 5.2, the OCPB, OCED, NRCS, USGS and the OCSCD target basins for potential retrofitting.

Basins will be selected for retrofitting based on their ability to enhance groundwater recharge and improve water quality. The.District and NRCS will supervise the installation of retrofits to: construct forebays; remove low flow chan-nels; modify outlet structures including installation of floating risers; reduce soil compaction to encourage MAY 2002 7 5 WATER QUALITY / WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN groundwater recharge; planting of herbaceous and woody plants to filter and absorb nutrients and related practices.

Such retrofits will help to protect water quality and to encourage infiltration to reduce runoff volume.Portions of older dry basins can be converted into wet pond marsh systems to minimize nonpoint sources and to help filter the water prior to recharge runoff into ground-water.WHEN: Upon availability of funds, storm drain mapping can be completed within one year, and retrofitting can be completed within a total of five years.WHERE: Priority sites include the Toms River and Metedeconk sub-watersheds.

Beyond the five-year time frame, it is expected that this action will be implemented throughout the watershed.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Each retrofitted detention basin will be evaluated based on the specific objective for the action. If a basin is retrofitted to enhance flood control, effectiveness will be measured by the change in flow rate from the basin. If the retrofit sup-ports enhanced water quality, monitoring will be conduct-ed by measuring the pollutants of concern in the basin influent and effluent.Existing stormwater basins are designed to control peak runoff rates and not mimic pre-development watershed hydrology.

Improper design of some existing basins may lead to elevation in water temperatures and may acceler-ate downstream erosion. The cumulative impacts that these site-specific stormwater basins have on the water-shed's hydrology and water quality is a concern because many of these basins were installed only to reduce the impacts of site-specific development.

To effectively assess whether a specific basin is a candidate for retrofitting, the following must be considered.

Will the retrofit or selected BMP: " Reduce nonpoint source pollution;" Encourage groundwater recharge;* Assist in maintaining base flows; or* Reduce the severity of potential flooding and down-stream erosion?Monitoring by USGS, and others, as part of the BBNEP's environmental monitoring plan should measure changes in base flow, reduced suspended solids and nutrients in receiving streams. The BBNEP and participating agencies will work to secure the necessary funding.COST ESTIMATE:

Based upon data provided by NRI the tosts per basin are estimated to be between $3,000 and$7,000 per basin. The total number of basins to be retro-fitted would be determined by the technical watershed committee.

The mapping portion is estimated to cost$85,000. Approximately 50 basins will be identified using the 303(d) list as a priority.FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments.

See discus-sion of potential funding sources in Chapter 12.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: Residential maintenance of stormwater man-agement structures is a problem because homeowner associations often do not have the necessary resources for the work. Should the responsibility fall to the pub-lic to ensure maintenance, a dedicated funding source must be identified.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Implementation of the Phase II Rules will reduce the NPS pollution contribution to the bay and its watershed, thereby protecting public health and the natural resources of Ocean County.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Commitment, High Priority.WHO: NJDEP Bureau of Nonpoint Source Control (Lead)is the permitting authority by delegation from USEPA.The regulated municipalities, alone or working together with other stakeholders, are responsible for implementing the six minimum control measures of the Phase II Rules.These Rules will be satisfied through the state's own Stormwater Management Rules, which call for implement-ing BMPs related to Statewide Basic Requirements in a Stormwater Management Plan and a Stormwater Control Ordinance.

In addition, optional measures such as wildlife 7 6 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 5 management may be implemented if the municipality so chooses. Further measures may be required when a TMDL has been specified or when a Watershed Area Management Plan or a Regional Stormwater Management Plan has been adopted for the watershed.

BBNEP will assist with public outreach and education.

HOW: Permitted municipalities will be required to imple-ment the six minimum control measures, as embodied in the statewide basic requirement for: " Local public education and outreach;* Public involvement/participation;

  • Improper disposal of waste;" Floatables and solids control;" Pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations; and" Post-construction stormwater management in new development and redevelopment to be addressed through the required Stormwater Management Plan and a Stormwater Control Ordinance. (Construction site stormwater runoff control will continue to be implement-ed through Chapter 251 Plan certification by the Ocean County Soil Conservation District.)

WHEN: The following schedule is anticipated for the finalization of the rules: December 8, 1999 -- USEPA rules become final;October 27, 2000 -- USEPA issues menu of BMPs for regulated municipalities; December 8, 2002 -- NJ modifies NJPDES rules;December 8, 2002 -- NJDEP issues general permit(s);

March 10, 2003 -- Regulated municipalities submit permit application.

Program fully implemented.

WHERE: All municipalities which operate separate munic-ipal storm sewers and meet the USEPA definition of an urbanized area as determined by the 2000 Census, and those municipalities designated by N3DEP, will be required to obtain a permit. USEPA defines an urbanized area as "a central place (or places) and the adjacent densely settled surrounding area that together have a minimum popula-tion of 50,000 and a minimum average density of 1,000/square mile." According to existing Census data and NJDEPs designation of all municipalities regulated under the SIIA, all municipalities in the Barnegat Bay watershed will be required to obtain general permit autho-rization.MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

The effectiveness of this action will be measured by the number of municipal-ities achieving compliance.

COST ESTIMATE:

See Table 5-3.FUNDING SOURCES: Some projects such as construction of new stormwater basins, construction of new storm sew-ers, replacement of existing storm sewers, purchase of storm sewer maintenance equipment and controls to pre-vent runoff from salt storage facilities are eligible for loans through NJDEP. The BBNEP will provide the resources nec-essary for public outreach activities.

REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: Municipalities may need to adopt ordinances in order to implement some of the statewide basic require-ments.ACTION 5.5~vEnoiae Inative I speciesi landscaping t

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Among the secondary impacts of development is the creation of artificial vegeta-tive landscapes consisting of alien plant species that require specific applications of fertilizer, pesticides, and water. Such maintenance procedures result in increased pollutant loads in runoff destined for the local tributaries.

Artificial landscapes can also attract nuisance wildlife.

For example, Canada Geese are attracted to open landscapes of close-cropped lawns. Developments that entail large open spaces requiring landscaping, such as corporate parks or campus-like settings, can be designed using native species that require less maintenance and that recreate a sem-blance of natural habitat. This would have the salutary effect of providing habitat more conducive to local native wildlife, discourage introduced or nuisance species, reduce long-term maintenance costs, and reduce the load of NPS pollution to the bay and watershed.

MAY 2002 77 WATER QUALITY / WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN TABLE 5-3. Percentage of Municipalities Affected and Range of Per Capita Costs for Six Minimum Measures.Percentof&

' igh-End Range~~/*Pcr (apita>First Permit Cycle: Public Education 39 $0.02 $0.34 Public Involvement 100 $0.19 $0.20 Illicit Discharge D&E 90 $0.04 $2.61 Const. Site SW Runoff Control 83 $0.04 $1.59 Post Construction SW Mgt. 4 $1.09 $1.09 PP/GH of Municipal Ops. 71 $0.01 $2.00 2nd and 3rd Pernit Cycles: Public Education 39 $0.01 $0.34 Public Involvement 100 $0.12 $0.12 Illicit Discharge D&E T 73 $0.04 $2.17 Const. Site SW Runoff Control 80 $0.01 $0.83 Post Construction SW Mgt. 4 $1.09 $1.09 PP/GH of Municipal Ops. T 67 $0.01 $1.08 STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Priority Medium WHO: NRCS (Lead), OCSCD, to provide technical informa-tion and guidance for large-scale developments within the watershed.

HOW: The agencies will utilize their authorized programs to provide technical materials, guidance, and assistance to the regulated community.

WHEN: This action is targeted to be implemented by 2004.WHERE: This action will target areas in the watershed undergoing active development, particularly areas that are environmentally sensitive, such as riparian zones, flood-plains, and rare species habitats.MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Effectiveness will be gauged by the number of developments that choose to employ less-intensive landscaping within their design.Over the long term, the measure of success can include large lawn areas that are converted to a lower mainte-nance form of landscaping.

COST ESTIMATE:

Enhanced funding for public education and outreach programs for the agencies is necessary; no estimate is currently available..

FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments.

See poten-tial funding sources in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.78 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Current U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) cost share programs are available only to agricultural landowners.

However, in the Bamegat Bay watershed, the majority of land is owned and managed by residential and commercial owners, who collectively have a tremendous impact on groundwater recharge, bayshore and riverfront areas, NPS pollution, and runoff volume. It is well established that financial incentives are powerful tools for changing behavior.

A "water quality rebate" pro-gram could be established to provide that incentive to homeowners and commercial property managers and would also offer tremendous public relations potential to educate the public on the watershed project goals.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Medium Priority.WHO: OCSCD (Lead) will administer the pilot program ini-tially. However, it would be more appropriate for a public utility to administer the program. 0CSCD would provide training to the public utility.HOW: A list of recommended BMPs will be developed based on data from the NRI (Action Item 5.2) and avail-able technical references.

The OCSCD will make site visits to develop specific BMP plans for each owner, and follow up with visits to ensure the BMPs have been implemented prior to paying the "rebate." Grant money will be needed to fund the start-up of the program. Rebates would be available only to individual cit-izens, public or private entities such as municipalities or golf courses who have completed the Healthy Soil/Healthy Watershed (HSHW) program (see related Action Item 7.7)and who choose to implement BMPs on areas they manage.Ultimately, it is hoped that utility authorities and other entities that benefit from the BMPs through reduced costs will fund the program.Chapter 5 WHEN: Implement by target date of 2004.WHERE: This action is linked to Action 7.7 and will focus on the municipalities in the Metedeconk and Toms River sub-watersheds.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Initially, effective-ness will be measured by the participation rate (percent of eligible households) in the program. Once the administra-tion of the program is turned over to a local utility, the utility could track cost/benefit in water usage and/or water quality at strategically selected monitoring sites fol-lowing storm surges.COST ESTIMATE:

A start-up grant of approximately

$75,000 would be needed to initiate the program and pro-vide the early rebates. This estimate does not include the costs to implement the HSHW program. It is anticipated that the program will become self-sustaining through cost reductions over the long term.FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments.

See poten-tial funding sources in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: NEMO is a public service pro-gram to teach local officials about imperviousness/water quality through local mapping and modeling.

Education of these officials supports the water quality goals estab-lished in this CCMP.The dramatic increase in impervious surface cover within the Barnegat Bay watershed during the past half-century has significantly contributed to water quality degradation.

Emphasizing the link between water quality and land use, NEMO is a program that teaches local officials about the rote of impervious surfaces in the transport and concen-tration of pollutants.

Focusing on local decision makers as MAY 2002 79 WATER QUALITY / WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN the key to this link, NEMO brings advanced tools and tech-nology to elected officials, planning board members, and town planners.

NEMO's use of GIS modeling enables towns to compare, combine, and analyze multiple layers of infor-mation at once, using computer technology, natural resource and municipal databases, and satellite images.The technology can also be used to model the water resources impacts of projected future levels of develop-ment, based on zoning build-out analyses, and to allow local officials to plan accordingly.

STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Partial Commitment, Medium Priority.WHO: Rutgers Cooperative Extension Services of Ocean County (RCE) (Lead) and existing NEMO staff.HOW: The NEMO program uses several delivery methods including a slide presentation that includes local pho-tographs, educational materials, images from GIS, and a video on NPS pollution entitled "Luck Isn't Enough." NEMO also uses the World Wide Web as an information and educational tool. Employing all these tools, NEMO spells out the problem, shows the cumulative effects, and demonstrates potential solutions and results. Data from the NRI (Action Item 5.2) on current local land uses and potential nonpoint pollution sources would be used.WHEN: Once initiated, it is estimated the various NEMO tasks will take approximately two years to fully implement in a small sub-watershed (consisting of a maximum of four municipalities).

The target date to begin is 2002.WHERE: The goal is to implement the NEMO program in every municipality in the Bamegat Bay Watershed.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Effectiveness will be measured by the number of municipalities participating in NEMO.COST ESTIMATE:

Project expenses would include salaries with fringe benefits, travel, equipment, supplies, and administrative costs estimated at $65,000 per year.FUNDING SOURCES: The NJDEP is currently funding Rutgers (Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences (IMCS))to conduct a build-out analysis of the Barnegat Bay water-shed. No other funding sources* have been identified at this time.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: No changes are required to implement NEMO.However, recommended outcome/solutions may include changes to regulations, ordinances, and policies.SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Modern farming practices contribute to loss of organic matter and structure in soil, and contribute to increased compaction below and within the plow layer. Compacted soils produce more runoff and less infiltration, and are more easily eroded. These factors reduce stream base flow and affect ecological health.Although agriculture is a minor land use within the water-shed, it can be managed to increase the surface area avail-able to infiltration, helping to recharge aquifers as well as reducing sedimentation and nutrient runoff.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Medium Priority.WHO: NRCS and the OCSCD (Leads) wilt be responsible for this action with assistance provided by the New Jersey Forestry Service. The Ocean County Agricultural Development Board (OCADB) will also provide assistance as necessary.

HOW: Informational mailings on soil compaction and nutrient runoff will be sent to farmland-assessed proper-ties. The Forestry Service will assist by providing mailing lists of properties assessed as farmlands in Barnegat Bay counties and by providing staff time and postage for dis-tribution of the mailings should funding be available.

If justified by the NM data, priority area funding under the Environmental Quality Incentives Program or a Land Treatment Watershed project for the implementation of on-farm conservation practices wilt be pursued. Practice selection wilt be based on the Soil Management Systems technical standard.80 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 5 Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) was established through the 1996 Farm Bill to offer volun-tary conservation assistance to farmers. Nationally, it provides educational, financial and technical assis-tance to farmers targeted to livestock-related resource problems and to general conservation assistance.

The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) has the leadership role in EQIP and works in conjunction with the USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA) to establish pro-grams and priorities.

NRCS establishes local work groups made up of Districts, NRCS, FSA, Cooperative Extension, DEP and others interested in natural resource conservation.

EQIP works to establish priori-ty areas for critical farm conservation needs. Contracts are provided to farmers to provide incentive payments and compensation for conservation practices.

Cost sharing can pay up to, 75 percent of costs for some practices.

Practices can include grassed waterways, manure management, etc. Incentive payments can also be developed to encourage a farmer to install certain management practices such as soil management, nutri-ent management, Integrated Pest Management, and irrigation.

WHEN: Implement following the completion of the Soil Management Systems technical standard.

Outreach began in 2002. Priority area funding or additional work could not begin until 2004.WHERE: Watershed-wide, coinciding with areas iden-tified by the NRI.MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Effectiveness will be measured against goal of 20 percent of the total number of farms identified in the watershed with soil management plans being implemented over a five-year period.COST ESTIMATE:

Costs include preparing and mailing appropriate information at regular intervals over a period of five years. The total number of contacts will be determined by the results of the NRI coupled with farmland assessment records. A rough estimate is$4,000 per year, or $20,000 minimum.FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments.

See dis-cussion of potential funding sources in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The Federal Clean Water Action Plan identifies national environmental concerns, such as the toxic microbe, Pfiesteria, that are linked to animal feeding operations.

The USEPA and the U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA) have targeted larger Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs), known as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), for stricter regulatory control. Under this regulatory requirement the EPA has requested that the NJDEP (and most other states) prepare a statewide strategy that outlines how AFOs and CAFOs will be managed and/or regulated.

The NJDEP Commissioner signed the Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations Management in December 2000 and submitted it to the EPA for use in the Federal Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations.

This strategy is consistent with NJDEP's Strategic Planning Goal of Clean and Plentiful Water, as well as the point and nonpoint pol-lution elimination objectives of both the state's Strategic Plan and the Performance Partnership Agreement with USEPA Region 2..Preliminary inspections by the NJDEPs Water Compliance and Enforcement (WCE) Office have confirmed that, in some cases, significant pollution is entering surface and ground waters, as a result of poor animal management practices in the state. The first step in the process will be to identify CAFOs through watershed inspections and other means, and then to permit those facilities.

MAY 2002 81 WATER QUALITY / WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Low Priority.WHO: The NJDEP Division of Water Quality, Bureau of Nonpoint Pollution Control, Compliance and Enforcement Element, Division of Watershed Management and the NJ Department of Agriculture will work together to achieve state and federal water quality goals. related to animal feeding operations.

The NJDEP will implement regulatory activities for CAFOs and assist the NJ Department of Agriculture to implement voluntary management mea-sures for other AFOs.HOW: The NJ Department of Agriculture will identify AFOs not classified as CAFOs. NJDEP will follow a multi-faceted approach in identifying and inspecting CAFOs: 1) Utilize information provided by the NJ Department of Agriculture and other agencies, existing statistical data and land use inventory databases to identify potential sites. The NJ Forest Service has agreed to iirovide information (NRI data) to assist in this effort. NRI data will be used as the base for locating the livestock operations in the Metedeconk and Toms River sub-watersheds and will provide necessary information to map these locations;

2) When specific discharges or improper animal waste-water management practices are identified by either third-party complaints or local governments, NJDEP will actively investigate those sites; and 3) NJDEP, as a function of its watershed management process, will conduct stream surveys and investigations to identify potential discharges of wastes. Where such discharges are identified, NJDEP will actively investigate those sites.The NJDEP will assist the NJ Department of Agriculture in outreach activities aimed at informing all AFOs of the applicable program requirements.

These two agencies will provide educational information to and through agricul-tural publications, advisory groups, and organizations.

Current animal waste disposal methods will be determined through site visits. Upon completion of an inventory, tar-get areas will be prioritized according to relative impact to the watershed.

Alternative management practices will be explored for implementation.

The NJ Department of Agriculture and the Conservation Program Partnership will promote voluntary implementation of management prac-82 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP tices. AFOs that have a reasonable potential to impact sur-face and groundwater quality will be the highest priority for the development and implementation of conservation, nutrient, and animal waste management plans and prac-tices. The NJ Department of Agriculture will develop a progress reporting system that will establish the number of facilities that are implementing the necessary manage-ment practices.

Storage structures on farms and other BMPs recommended can be costly to install and maintain.

The NJDEP will work with the NJDA and NRCS to identify and procure funding to assist the agricultural community in implementing both CAFO and AFO management practices.

WHEN: Inventory is targeted for completion by the end of 2003. It is estimated that five years will be needed to contact landowners and involve them in cur-rent voluntary programs.WHERE: Specific sites in the Metedeconk and Toms River sub-watersheds will be targeted initially and will be deter-mined from NRI data.MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Effectiveness will be measured by the percentage of livestock farms that have implemented BMPs to protect water quality in the targeted watershed.

The targeted goal is 100 percent participation.

COST ESTIMATE:

Planning/implementation costs are esti-mated at $50,000 for Year One of this action (2003), and $4,000 per year for Years Two through Five of post-CCMP implementation.

The high cost estimate in Year One is attributable to costs necessary to fund on-site visits, which may involve staff overtime for working nIon-office hours, as many farmers work full- or part-time off-farm.

Cost estimates include preparing and mailing appropriate information at regular intervals over the course of the project period.Costs to implement onsite BMPs (e.g., storage struc-tures, etc.) or other solutions cannot be estimated at this time. The percentage of cost sharing that can be provided to individual farmers through existing pro-grams will depend on individual farmer eligibility, farm location, structure size, and yearly-appropriated fund-ing levels.

Chapter 5 FUNDING SOURCES: The NJDA and the Conservation Program Partnership will provide funding to secure accel-erated implementation where possible and deemed appro-priate. Section 319, US Department of Agriculture, NRCS, other federal funds, and state funds, to the extent avail-able, will be used to support this effort. Loans under the Environmental Infrastucture Financing Program may also be available to provide funding. The NJDA and the NRCS have established a joint State Conservation Cost Share and Federal Environmental Quality Incentives Program which will enhance the implementation of needed management practices.

REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: Not yet determined.

STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Commitment, Medium Priority.WHO: OCHD (Lead). The BBNEP will work in conjunction with the Monmouth County Health Department, Monmouth County Water Resources Association, and Navesink River Municipalities Committee.

HOW: Management measures to discourage geese from congregating in urban areas include: " Install a shoreline barrier, such as a tow fence, Mylar tape or some other type of obstruction;" Install vegetative barriers in landscaped areas consisting of various types of shrubs and grasses to create a visual impediment to geese and discourage their use of these areas;* Use of swans. Swans with young are very aggressive and tend to keep geese away;" Implement a no-mow policy by establishing a high grass strip around water bodies and mow only once in late summer or early fall to remove seed heads, a potential attractant;" Install an 18-inch-high, chicken wire fence with two-inch mesh (possibly covered with hedge);" Use scarecrows, or red, orange or black plastic sheets/flags (1 per 25 feet);" Twist reflective Mylar tape from stake to stake along the edge of the water;" Install dead goose decoys;" Relocate geese to other areas (this can be done in June or July during molting).

Geese should be relocated at least 200 miles away to prevent them from returning to original nesting areas;" Leave the eggs in the nest to prevent the geese from laying more eggs; and" Work with local municipalities to promote ordinances supporting these management measures.It is important to note that Canada Geese are a protected species under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918.Therefore, any actions taken to support the control of the geese populations must be consistent with the guidelines of that Act.SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Canada Geese acclimate easi-ly to urban areas because of a good food supply, access to open water, and good habitat.The fecal matter from a large flock of Canada Geese con-tains a large amount of nutrients.

It has been determined that four geese are capable of producing as much phos-phorus as one septic system. This extra nutrient load can contribute to algae blooms, especially small ponds, lakes and shallow estuarine areas, such as Barnegat Bay. High densities of geese can also elevate the bacterial levels of lakes, ponds and the bay, which results in the closing of swimming areas or restrictions on shellfish harvesting in the watershed.

Geese are also a public health concern because they carry known pathogenic microbes, such as Salmonella, Chlamydia, Giardia, and Cryptosporidium.

Since the intense grazing of shorelines or adjacent Lawns by geese can also create localized erosion problems and bank instability, reduction in Canada Geese populations would also support the goals and objectives of the Habitat and Living Resources Action Plan.MAY 2002 83 WATER QUALITY / WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN WHEN: Ongoing action by Ocean County' Health Department.

WHERE: Action will be taken in all applicable areas of the Barnegat Bay watershed.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Reduction of nuisance complaints by municipalities and the public in locations where geese typically congregate will mea-sure effectiveness.

A reduction in bird-related beach closures due to water quality will also be a useful mea-sure.COST ESTIMATE:

Base program funding.FUNDING SOURCES: Initial implementation costs to be borne by the BBNEP, in addition to base program funding.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: New local ordinances are needed to support this action.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Medium Priority.WHO: RCE.(Lead) will coordinate sampling and devel-op recommendations regarding the adoption of BMPs.NJDEP wilt assess samples and compare data. Georgian Court College will provide student assistance with the research study.HOW: Water samples from waterways and/or Super-fund site wells adjacent to a golf course and cranberry bog will be tested on a regular basis to evaluate pesti-cide/fertilizer residues introduced into surface water systems. Sampling will be intensified following a rain event. Data will be analyzed for levels of pollutants and adjusted for seasonal levels.Water samples from areas immediately adjacent to sub-urban housing will likewise be analyzed.WHEN: Sampling will be taken quarterly over a three-year period commencing January 2002.WHERE: Six sites will be determined, preferably at least one from each of the three categories.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Data trends will determine the need for further action and identify appropriate remedial measures.COST ESTIMATE:

Current estimates are $25,000-$49,750 (personnel, travel, equipment, supplies, ana-lytical costs)/year.

FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments.

See potential funding sources in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Pesticides and fertilizers represent a major category of NPS pollution.

It would be advantageous to natural resource management to determine the major source of these inputs into the environment.

Points downstream from golf courses, suburban new housing developments, and cranberry bogs are to be studied.The Rutgers Cooperative Extension of Ocean County (RCE) and Dr. Roy Meyers of NJDEP propose a research study to evaluate residues introduced into surface water systems. A 1999 study previously looked at the movement of pesticides applied to a golf course on the surrounding watershed system, confirming cause for concern.84 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

/Chapter 5 ACTION 51~<~Continue Publication ofl 'Peýsticdesý for New Jersey 'to nclcý-sif,-

ci- ic recbmmendations forthus of pesicide on (gdll ur ad publicla SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Fertilizer and pesticide runoff from golf courses and public lands is a concern to both the public and the turf industry.

The potential for a fertilizer or a pesticide to contribute to NPS pollution is a function of rate, timing, application techniques, and the interaction between specific product formulation or chemical properties and the environment in which it is used. Which factor is most significant varies from loca-tion to location; however, differences in formulation can greatly affect the impact on the environment.

Pesticide and fertilizer technology is constantly improving, and is becoming increasingly complex. Fertilizer technology now offers sophisticated nutrient release mechanisms.

With careful timing and by utilizing semi-permeable coatings, polymer urea chemistry, and natural organic byproducts, nutrient availability in the soil can be syn-chronized with plant needs. Matching the appropriate technology to the site is the key to sustainable develop-ment and maintenance practices.

Creation of a resource for decision makers to use in selection of fertilizer for-mulations and pesticide formulations should reduce or eliminate NPS threats from golf course and public lands maintenance.

STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Partial Commitment, Medium Priority.WHO: The RCE (Lead) publishes "Pesticides for New Jersey"(E045M) each year, which informs users about pesticide and fertilizer products, and recommends rates and timing for applications.

RCE would work with the USGS which retains the data and the format for model-ing fertilizer and pesticide movement.HOW: The choice of a fertilizer or pesticide formula-tion is a function of a number of factors: availability, habit, price, practicality, and knowledge.

It is critical that decision makers have access to the information needed to understand the relationship between site and product. Attempts at regulation that address rates without recognizing the benefits of formulation modi-fications can be counterproductive.

As an example, the timing of the application and the source of the nitro-gen can be more significant than the amount being applied. Similarly, subtle changes in pesticide formu-lation can affect the behavior of a product in the envi-ronment.The development of site-specific product and formula-tion recommendations is a complex endeavor.

The RCE has substantial experience with developing unbiased recommendations.

By reviewing existing data and cre-ating appropriate models, the behavior of both fertiliz-er components and pesticide products can be predicted across a broad spectrum of environmental scenarios.

This process would then allow the risk models to be developed and products to be recommended based on geographic, hydrologic, meteorological, and agronomic parameters.

Circulation of this pesticide document will be part of RCE's established public outreach.WHEN: This project could begin in 2002. and would coincide with the annual update of Pesticides for New Jersey.WHERE: The recommendations would be tailored to site-specific conditions, and would be of value to appropriate areas throughout the Barnegat Bay water-shed.MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

A survey of pes-ticides for New Jersey golf courses and other land-scaped public lands which use this document and employ prescribed methods of pesticide applications will be conducted.

COST ESTIMATE:

Estimates for data review and analy-sis and development of recommendations have not yet been determined.

However, it is anticipated that annu-al publication costs will be approximately

$1,000 above base program level of funding.FUNDING SOURCES: Funding is already in place for the publication of "Pesticides for New Jersey." Additional funding will be sought from other potential sources identified in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.MAY 2002 85 WATER QUALITY / WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None. Existing laws and regulatory agencies are adequate.

Given the litigious nature of society it would be in the best interest of any golf course to follow recommendations created by The State University.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Although Ocean County already maintains a household hazardous waste collec-tion program twice a year, hazardous chemicals are not always disposed of properly, whether through negli-gence or lack of awareness.

Most human activities and residential developments produce polluted runoff and stormwater discharges that contribute to the deterio-ration of Barnegat Bay's water quality. Measures to reduce contamination need to be suggested and imple-mented to reduce such degradation.

It is important to focus not only on technical solutions, but also on pol-lution prevention via public outreach.

It is also impor-tant to focus not only on new development and rede-velopment, but also on NPS pollution resulting from existing land uses. The Home*A*Syst (H*A*S) pro-gram is structured to facilitate such individual behav-ior modification through a voluntary residential pollu-tion prevention program.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Medium Priority.HOW: H*A*S is an environmental risk assessment guide for the home and residential property.

The guide conveys useful information about the basics of hydrol-ogy, watersheds, and groundwater for the individual homeowner.

It also includes site assessment work-sheets that landowners can use to increase their under-.standing -of water pollution risks that are unique to their property.

Collectively, the document builds a community's capacity for proper environmental man-agement of water resources.

Circulating this document at public outreach events will help draw in the public as active participants in reducing hazardous waste.WHO: RCE (Lead) would be responsible for reproduc-tion of the H*A*S for the Barnegat Bay Watershed guidebook.

The BBNEP's responsibility would be to serve as a marketing consultant, and much more importantly, to potentially provide funding for repro-duction of the document.WHEN: Implement upon availability of funds, with a target date of 2003.WHERE: Throughout Ocean County. The 1990 Census indicates 168,147 households in Ocean County, an area nearly coincident with the Barnegat Bay watershed.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Initial funding for the H*A*S guidebook supported publication of 1,500 copies of the document.

Public requests for H*A*S during the first year have depleted the entire supply. Requests continue to be received at a similar rate, indicating that the "market is not yet near satu-ration." Additionally, it is recommended that periodic surveys of home usage kits be conducted, with the first survey being conducted within two years of action item implementation.

COST ESTIMATE:

$7,000 for publication of 1,500 guidebooks.

Given sufficient funds, RCE could enhance its marketing techniques to distribute the guides.FUNDING SOURCES: Initial funding came from a USEPA Section 319(h) pass-through grant from NJDEP's Office of Environmental Planning.

No firm commit-ments for future funding. See discussion of funding services in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.a I,& r 86 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 5~'ACTION5.14 Exanine technial( and pernit, data on aL i)pý6;Sii~source ~discharge permtit holders i~n order tpomo.and mairtaint an of the relatinship ,of the discharges to the ovrl clgia elho SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The Barnegat Bay watershed is the site of some 20 small point-source discharge per-mit holders, none of which have been associated with any particular wafer quality problem. Permitted dis-charges in the watershed are regulated by state authori-ties. A principal goal of the BBNEP is to identify and address ongoing human activities that may have detri-mental effects in the watershed and estuary. An aware-ness of actions related to point-source discharges by the BBNEP will help to ensure efficient coordination among the discharges, environmental monitoring efforts, and other Estuary Program activities.

STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Medium Priority.WHO: The BBNEP Science and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC) (Lead) will establish the technical group.HOW: A technical group wilt assemble on an ad hoc basis to examine environmental reports completed by the per-mittees on small point-source discharge permit holders by industry, government, and independent sources to identi-fy trends in estuary or watershed conditions that correlate with point-source discharges, to identify related issues that need to be addressed by the BBNEP, and to ensure efficient coordination with other Estuary Program activi-ties.WHEN: The re-examination wilt commence in 2002 at the beginning of the implementation phase of the CCMP.Findings wilt be reported directly to the Director of the BBNEP.WHERE: This action encompasses the entire Bamegat Bay watershed.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

The effectiveness of the action will be reflected in the integration of the technical group findings into the monitoring protocol for the overall Program.COST ESTIMATE:

$1,500/year for a research assistant.

FUNDING SOURCES: BBNEP base program funding, or other funding source that has not yet been identified.

REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station (OCNGS), a 630 MW (net) electric generating facility located between Oyster Creek and Forked River, affects environmental conditions in the watershed, airshed, and estuary through permitted releases of chemical biocides and thermal discharges.

It also directly impacts estuarine organisms via impinge-ment on intake screens and entrainment in plant con-densers. In addition, the OCNGS alters water flow in Forked River and Oyster Creek. The OCNGS is by vol-ume the most significant point source discharger to the Barnegat Bay-Little Egg Harbor estuary. Activities of this permitted facility are regulated by federal and state authorities.

A principal goat of the BBNEP is to identify and address ongoing human activities that may have detrimental effects in the watershed and estuary. An awareness of OCNGS actions by the BBNEP wilt help to ensure an efficient coordination among OCNGS activities, environmental monitoring efforts, and other BBNEP activities.

STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Medium Priority.WHO: The BBNEP Science and Technical Advisory Committee (Lead) will establish the technical group; it will coordinate with the NCDEP (NJPDES Permit Program)and with the existing OCNGS Citizens Task Force.MAY 2002 87 WATER QUALITY / WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN HOW: A technical group will assemble on an ad hoc basis to examine environmental reports completed on the OCNGS by industry, government, and independent sources to identify trends in estuary or watershed condi-tions that correlate with OCNGS information, to identify related issues that need to be addressed by the BBNEP, and ensure efficient coordination with other BBNEP activities.

The reports will contain technical and permit data from the zone of monitoring around the power plant and Oyster Creek.WHEN: The examination will commence at the begin-ning of the implementation phase of the CCMP. Findings will be reported directly to the Director of the BBNEP.WHERE: Oyster Creek, Forked River, and nearby portions of Barnegat Bay.MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

The effectiveness of the action will be reflected in the integration of the technical group findings into the monitoring protocol for the overall Program.COST ESTIMATE:

$2,500/year for a research assistant.

FUNDING SOURCES: BBNEP base program funding, or other funding source that has not yet been identified.

REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.In 1992, Congress passed the Clean Vessel Act (CVA) to reduce overboard sewage discharge by providing funds for the construction, renovation, operation, and mainte-nance of pumpout stations for holding tanks and dump stations for portable toilets. Federal funds provide up to 75 percent of all approved projects with the remaining funds provided by the state or marinas. A secondary goal of the CVA is to provide information and education to boaters about the advantages of pumpout stations.Under CVA regulations, any boat with an installed toilet is required to have one of three types of certified Marine Sanitation Devices (MSD), whether it treats the sewage and discharges it, or holds the sewage for future disposal.Boat sewage dumped into Barnegat Bay and its tribu-taries threatens aquatic vegetation, fish, shellfish beds, and other wildlife species, not to mention public health.The nutrients, microorganisms, and chemicals contained in human waste from boats have a negative impact on coastal and inland waterways, resulting in a decrease of marine life, as well as contamination of bathing areas and shellfish beds.Recent efforts to reduce water pollution have resulted in the resurgence of blue crabs, clams, oyster beds, finfish, and other wildlife in coastal waters. The proper use of pumpout facilities can continue to increase fish and shellfish populations and protect recreational uses for all to enjoy.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Commitment, High Priority.WHO: NJ Clean Vessel Program (Lead), NJDEP Fish and Wildlife, NJ Marine Trades Association, NJ Sea Grant Advisory Service, National Clean Boating Campaign.HOW: The BBNEP will work with the marina and boat-ing industries to encourage and promote fuller use of sewage pumpout facilities.

In conjunction with the National Clean Boating Campaign, the BBNEP will devel-op and distribute the following information, in the form of a "Barnegat Bay Boater Fact Sheet," to owners of boats, marinas and other appropriate facilities and venues including: " NJ Clean Vessel Program;" National Clean Boating Campaign website; and" U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Pumpout Hotline.SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Eliminating discharges by promoting the use of pumpout facilities will further reduce bacterial contamination of shellfish waters, bathing beaches, takes, and drinking water supply intakes, resulting in increased public health protection.

The number of sewage pumpout facilities can also be used to support the designation of No Discharge Zones (See Action Item 5.18).88 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 5 WHEN: Meet with cooperating agencies during the start of the spring 2001 boating season to plan next steps.Develop "Barnegat Bay Boater Fact Sheets" by spring 2001 and distribute annually to marinas, yacht clubs, and boaters by Memorial Day. This is an ongoing activity.WHERE: This action targets Barnegat Bay, Little Egg Harbor and all tidal waters flowing to these embayments.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Successful distrib-ution of "Barnegat Bay Boater Fact Sheet" to marinas, boat yards, yacht clubs, trade organizations, boat dealers and press/media, followed by monitoring the use of available pumpout facilities and the installation of new ones.COST ESTIMATE:

Print and distribute the Barnegat Bay Boaters Fact Sheet, $1,000.FUNDING SOURCES: NJ Clean Vessel Program, $50,000 annually, of which a portion is available for public out-reach materials.

NJ Clean Vessel Program, in conjunction with NJ Fish and Wildlife, have committed to developing information per-taining to the Clean Vessel Program, assist in the devel-opment of the Clean Marinas Program, and distribute funds through the Clean Vessel Coordinator for pumpout and dump station construction in the estuary.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.to encourage county and local governments to consider the acquisition of pumpout boats to be used in areas where there is heavy boat traffic, which results in the dumping of sewage from boats' holding tanks overboard.

Silver Bay and Tuckerton are being considered as areas that would benefit from a pumpout boat.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Commitment, High Priority.WHO: The NJ Clean Vessel Program (Lead) will coordi-nate with other state and county agencies and local gov-ernment as appropriate, to foster acquisition and use of pumpout boats.HOW: Commitments are currently being negotiated with appropriate local officials.

Technical assistance and a 13-minute slide show of the Tice's Shoal pumpout boat will be provided to educate and encourage acquisition and use of additional pumpout boats in Barnegat Bay tidal waters. One new vessel per year will be purchased over the next two years.WHEN: This program will commence at the beginning of the implementation phase of the CCMP.WHERE: Local marinas, boat basins and local and coun-ty governments in Ocean County wilt be supplied with information on the pumpout boat program.MAY 2002 89 SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION- One of the goals of the BBNEP is to reduce nonpoint source pollution and pro-tect public health. One way to accomplish this is to obtain an additional mobile sewage pumpout boat on the Bay similar to the one currently in operation off Tice's Shoat near the Borough of Seaside Park, and to develop a public information program to promote use of the pumpout boat. It is the overall objective of this action WATER QUALITY / WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

The results of the May to October 1999 pumpout boat use at Tice's Shoal resulted in a total of over 8,000 gallons removed from the area on summer weekends.

The public coop-erated with the pumpout boat as a convenient and practical method of reducing the volume of boat sewage in specific areas of the bay. Monitoring of the number of gallons of sewage pumped will indicate degree of success of the pumpout boat. Over time, the annual increase in the number of gallons pumped will be a continuing measure of success.COST ESTIMATE:

The current cost of acquiring and equipping a pumpout boat is about $35,000 and oper-ation of a boat for a season is approximately

$22,000 for captain and boat operations.

Public outreach will be provided by the NJ Clean Vessel Program. The Barnegat Bay sewage pumpout boat (the first of its kind in New Jersey) was purchased.with funds provid-ed under Wallop-Breaux legislation, which authorizes the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to award fed-eral CWA Section 106 grants for that purpose.FUNDING SOURCES: Federal funding through the Clean Vessel Act is available for one new boat in 2000 and the NJ Clean Vessel Program committed to sup-porting the maintenance of the pumpout boat for five years.REQUIRED REGULATORY ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: Other than fulfilling all federal and state regulations pertaining to the purchase of pumpout boats utilizing federal CVA funding, no new regula-tions, ordinances, or policy are required.disposal of vessel-generated sewage into the bay, the waters of Barnegat.

Bay should be designated a No Discharge Zone. This designation will help protect and enhance the natural resources of the bay. In addition, this designation would also satisfy Action Plan 4.27 of the 1993 Barnegat Bay Watershed Management Plan.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Commitment, High Priority.WHO: The NJ Marine Sciences Consortium (NJMSC)(Lead) will be assisted by the Ocean County Vocational and Technical School (OCVTS).HOW: The NJMSC wilt gather the necessary infor-mation to prepare an application that NJDEP can sub-mit to the USEPA on behalf of the citizens in the Barnegat Bay watershed.

WHEN: The completed draft application was submit-ted to the USEPA by NJDEP in May 2000, and the appli-cation is pending approval.WHERE: The No Discharge Zone application will cover the navigable waters of Barnegat Bay, Manahawkin Bay, Little Egg Harbor Bay, and their tributaries.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Designation of Barnegat Bay as a No Discharge Zone will be the ulti-mate measure of success of this action.COST ESTIMATE:

Approximately

$15,000 will be need-ed to complete a survey of the boating population using Barnegat Bay.FUNDING SOURCES: The BBNEP will provide funding for the project and the NJMSC will provide necessary matching funds.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None required-authority is provided under Section 312 of the CWA.SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Vessel discharges in the shallow, poorly flushed waters of Barnegat Bay result in coliform bacteria pollution and can contribute to the closure of shellfish beds and bathing beaches, as well as to the general impairment of the bay's recre-ational resources.

In an order to provide federal, state and local officials with the authority to prohibit the 9 0 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 5 Develop a "Clean Maninas" program to assist mainavowners and cmanagers touse BMPs SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The program will help to restore and maintain a productive ecosystem with no adverse effects due to pollution, and ensure that edi-ble seafood is safe for unrestricted human consump-tion. This can be accomplished by targeting marinas for participation in a "Clean Marinas" program, aimed at reducing pollutant discharges to shellfish waters.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Commitment, High Priority.WHO: NJ Marine Trades Association (Lead), National Clean Boating Campaign, NJDEP, NJ Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NJPDES), NJ Clean Vessel Program, and NJ Sea Grant Advisory Service.HOW: The BBNEP will work with the marina and boat-ing industries to develop a Barnegat Bay "Clean Marinas" program for new and existing marinas. It will also develop an award program to designate facilities showing substantial progress on implementing Best Management Practices as a "Clean Marina." Designated marinas will have implemented pollution prevention measures addressing the siting, design and/or opera-tion of the facility, and shall address both point and NPS of pollution.

The NJ Marine Trades Association, in cooperation with NJDEP, will provide technical guid-ance. New and expanding marinas and boat yards are subject to stormwater permitting requirements imple-mented through the NJPDES permit program, including implementation of pollution prevention measures.Since marinas are located at the water's edge, assis-tance will be given to help all marinas comply with permitting requirements.

Components of this program are: 1. Use BMPs which have proved to work in other marinas, are cost effective, easy to do, based on existing technology, and can help improve and protect water quality;2. Once BMPs have been selected, all marina staff will be educated about "Clean Marina" techniques; and 3. Once staff receive training on the BMP program, they will educate customers and solicit their help in making the marina a cleaner environment and proýtecting its waters from marina-related pollutants.

WHEN: Implementation began in 2002.WHERE: Barnegat Bay, Little Egg Harbor and all tidal waters flowing to these embayments.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

The success of this program will be measured by the number of facili-ties in Barnegat Bay designated as a "Clean Marina." The target number is at least five new "Clean Marinas" per year.COST ESTIMATE: Item 1. Develop and distribute "Clean Marina" check-list and BMP information to marinas: $500;Source: N.J Marine Trades Association, NJDEP, Division of Watershed Management.

Item 2. Provide permanent signs for marinas designat-ed as "Clean Marinas":

$1,000/year; and Source: NJDEP, Division of Watershed Management.

Item 3. Promote Public Education Program: $500/year.

Source: BBER FUNDING SOURCES: See above. In addition, NJ Fish and Wildlife will provide limited information and Education Program staff time to work with the respon-sible agencies to develop the Clean Marinas Program.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.MAY 200291 WATER QUALITY / WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The watershed area of the BBNEP includes the portions of the state experiencing the most rapid increase in population growth. This pop-ulation growth is dependent on a sustainable supply of water. The state's Water Supply Master Plan has identified the Barnegat Bay watershed as an area of significant water supply deficit by the year 2040. At the same time, the withdrawal of potable water for this area is almost totally consumptive to the watershed, as most of the wastewater is discharged to the ocean resulting in reduced streamflow and saltwater intrusion.

Additionally, current modifica-tions to the landscape change the natural hydrology of the watershed by reducing recharge and increasing runoff. A comprehensive water supply plan is required for the watershed in order to ensure that all of the important human and ecological needs are met.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, High Priority.WHO: The NJDEP, Division of Watershed Management (Lead) will coordinate the effort. Other contributing par-ties will be: USGS, OCPD, OCSCD, OCUA, IMCS and Jacques Cousteau NERR (JCNERR), Purveyors of the Barnegat Bay watershed, USDA-NRCS and the NJ Forestry Services (NJFS).HOW: A plan will be completed that is accepted by all parties and provides for definite measures to ensure a sus-tainable water supply for the population and the ecology of the bay and watershed.

The BBNEP will provide the forum for discussion.

DETAILED STEPS: In order to make this plan a reality, there are a number of steps that need to be accomplished, involving numerous agencies and parties. The execution will require an overall workplan and budget, which should be developed by the NJDEP, Division of Watershed Management.

After the workplan is in place, the follow-ing technical efforts need to be accomplished:

1. Establish a Forum on In-stream Flow Requirements:

The NJDEP needs to establish an ongoing forum on in-stream flow requirements in the coastal plain of New Jersey. This forum would assemble information on the ecological, recreational, industrial, agricultural, and public supply uses and requirements for stream flow in the coastal plain. It would debate the relative merits of the various uses and would provide guidance to NJDEP programs on the freshwater in-stream flow requirements that meet the state's needs. The NJDEP should convene the forum with representation from the agricultural community, freshwater and estuarine ecologists and hydrologists, recreational users, water supply purveyors, county and state planners, county soil conservation districts, industrial users and the public-at-large.

The objective would be to develop freshwater flow requirements for all in-stream uses and for the receiving water bodies.2. Determine In-stream Flow Requirements for Barnegat Bay Estuary: It is recommended that USGS and IMCS lead an effort to develop interim freshwater in-stream flow requirements while the above forum develops the final flow requirements.

These two partners will need substantial input from the NJDEP, NRCS, NJ Pinelands Commission (NJPC), the OCPD and OCSCD. Local interests will also need to be inventoried in this effort. Since the NRI action item (Action Item 5.2) inventories resources and identifies sources of NPS pollution, this will be an essential prerequisite to this action. Therefore, the NRI will have multiple benefits that include the inventory of and planning for water supply actions. It is estimated that this step will take two to three years.3. Establish a Monitoring Program for Saltwater Intrusion:

Saltwater intrusion continues to be a major concern along the New Jersey coastal plain aquifers.

The current monitoring network is inadequate for providing.

early warning, or out-post monitoring for movement of chlorides.

This is particularly true in the area of Barnegat Bay.The NJDEP and USGS will work together to propose a monitoring network for water use and saltwater intrusion in the surficial and confined 9 2 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 5 aquifers in the Barnegat Bay region. It is estimated that this step will take six months.4. Inventory Water Availability, Withdrawal, Use, and Discharge Information:

A detailed inventory will be developed of water availability, withdrawals, uses and ultimate discharge.

This information wilt serve in part as the basis for developing future recommendations on water supply alternatives.

The NJDEP wilt take the lead on this effort with major input from the USGS.The OCPD, OCUA, and the area purveyors wilt provide assistance and feedback.

It is estimated that this step wilt take nine months.5. Establish Water Withdrawal Thresholds and Action Triggers:

A series of water with-drawat thresholds wilt be established white the investigations are continuing.

The thresholds wilt be used to control continued water supply development and prevent adverse or irreversible impacts to the environment while the sustainable water supply levels and practices are being established.

During this step, population projections and water use estimates will be refined. The NJDEP wilt take the'lead on this step, with assistance from the USGS. The OCPD wilt provide assistance.

It is estimated that this step wilt take one year.6. Integrate Constraining Factors with Water Supply Projections:

All of the constraining factors on water supply development will be integrated with the projections for future water supply demand. Projects will be carried through to the year 2050. The NJDEP and the OCPD will take the lead on this step. This step is estimated to require three months.7. Develop Water Supply Alternatives:

This step involves the thorough evaluation of alternative sources of water for present and future demand.The NJDEP wilt take the lead on this step with input from the area water-supply purveyors.

The OCPD wilt assist. It is estimated that this step will take one year.8. Evaluate Water Conservation, Reuse, and Recharge Technologies:

In this step, the alter-natives for water conservation, wastewater and gray water reuse, stormwater recharge, alternative landscape design and soil health measures will be evaluated for implementation.

The NJDEP will take the lead on this step with assistance from the NRCS, the.OCPD, OCSCD, OCUA, and the USGS.Three years is the estimated time required for this step.9. Evaluate Institutional Arrangements and Financial Analysis for Alternatives:

Various institutional arrangements for implementing the alternatives and the conservation, reuse, and recharge measures wilt be evaluated.

The NJDEP wilt take the lead on this step. The OCPD will assist. This step is estimated to take two months. The financial analysis is generally conducted by a consultant hired by the NJDEP and wilt require approximately four months to complete.10. Select Water Supply Alternatives:

Using all the outputs from steps 1 to 9, decision-makers will select a set of water supply alternatives for implementation.

The NJDEP and the water supply purveyors of the area will take the lead on this step. The OCPD will assist. Selection of an alter-native will take six months.WHEN: The entire action is expected to be completed within four years of CCMP approval.WHERE: This action encompasses the entire Barnegat Bay watershed.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Completion of an approved Barnegat Bay Watershed Supply Plan in four years.COST ESTIMATE:

Minimum staffing needs would be about two full-time personnel for each of four years at a cost of approximately

$500,000.

Additional cost esti-mates would be developed during the course of action implementation.

FUNDING SOURCES: Federal, state, and other sources identified in Chapter 12 may each contribute partially to this action. See Section 12.8.1.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: No legislation is required for the studies..Legislation may be required to implement the recom-mended actions based on the studies.MAY 2002 93 WATER QUALITY / WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN'ACTION 5.21 ~<<Develop a iirplAn'ninstituite controls for araemehto ater denian/ae cnev SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The watershed area of the BBNEP, as with every other portion of the state, is sub-ject to drought. Drought is caused by prolonged peri-ods of below-normal precipitation and drought warn-ings and emergencies can be called on the grounds of agricultural impacts, water supply, and environmental factors. In addition to this normal susceptibility to drought, this watershed has a significant population with shallow irrigation wells for residential and com-mercial/recreational use. Increased use of shallow groundwater during drought conditions further depletes the baseflow of streams in the watershed and, therefore, reduces the freshwater inflow to the estuary.One of the goats of the BBNEP is to maintain a balanced hydrologic cycle in the watershed and estuary. In order to achieve this goal, demand must be controlled and water conserved during periods of drought.STATUS AND .PRIORITY:

Recommendation, High Priority.WHO:, NJDEP, Division of Watershed Management (Lead) in cooperation with the USGS, OCPD, OCSCD, purveyors of the Barnegat Bay watershed, NRCS.HOW: Convene all responsible agencies to discuss and carry out the following steps.DETAILED STEPS: To successfully complete this plan, there are a number of steps that need to be accom-plished involving numerous agencies and parties. The execution will require an overall workplan and budget, which should be developed by the NJDEP, Division of Watershed Management.

The following are general technical actions that should be planned and imple-mented by convening all responsible agencies: 1. Evaluate the Opportunities for Water Supply Interconnections between Adjacent Public Supply Systems: Significant advantages can be gained from interconnecting adjacent public water supply systems. The largest advantage is that purveyors withdraw water from different sources, each of which varies in its susceptibility to drought conditions.

By having interconnections between various systems, water could be moved from sources that are more "drought-proof" to those that are very susceptible to drought. It is recommended that the NJDEP undertake a study to determine if significant advantage could be gained by inter-connecting the water supply purveyor systems in the watershed.

It is estimated that this step would-take nine months.2. Assessment of Irrigation Systems in the Barnegat Bay Watershed:

It has been suggested that irrigation systems play a very large role in water usage during the growing-season months and particularly during droughts.

As such, it would be prudent to conduct an assessment of irrigation systems in the watershed to verify this usage.The assessment would include:* Developing an inventory of irrigation systems and the sources from which they *obtain their water;* Estimating the amount of water used for irrigation, by source;* Developing an educational component on how residents and commercial establishments can reduce the amount of irrigation water used through measures like proper site planning and use of soil moisture information; and* Linking this action to Action Item 5.23 for exploring long-term water supply alternatives.

Irrigation water would be a prime candidate for re-use of treated wastewater.

It is recommended that OCSCD take the lead on this effort with major input from the NJDEP, the NRCS, and the OCPD. Local interests will have to be inventoried and accounted for in this effort. Data from the NRCS effort under the NRI will be essential to this process.The time frame for this assessment is estimated at two years.94 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 5 3. Develop Public Service Announcements (PSAs) for Water Conservation, Water Demand Management, and Drought Awareness:

It is recommended that the BBNEP develop PSAs that identify the need for water conservation and water demand management.

These announcements should be particularly tailored to include information on the impacts-that occur to a freshwater/estuarine system from consumptive use of fresh water and reduction in freshwater inflow to the estuary. The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) of the Barnegat Bay National Estuary Program should identify an entity to produce the PSAs. The time frame for this effort is estimated at nine months.4. Evaluate the Potential to Reinstate Conjunctive Use of the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy Aquifer System in the Barnegat Bay Watershed During Periods of Drought: As an emergency measure, the NJDEP should evaluate the potential for utilizing the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy (PRM) Aquifer System in the watershed area as a safe water supply during periods of drought. Under this action, the PRM would only be utilized during the period of time that the drought warning and emergency are in effect. After the drought has abated, the PRM would then be left to recover. The NJDEP would have to evaluate the technical, financial and regulatory viability of this action. The N3DEP would take the lead on this action, with major input from the USGS, the OCPD, and the local water supply purveyors.

This information will also serve in part as the basis for recommending future actions on water supply alternatives.

The time frame is estimated at one year.WHEN: Establishing a plan for the Barnegat Bay water-shed that wilt control water demand and conserve water to the maximum extent possible by 2003.WHERE: This action encompasses the entire Barnegat Bay watershed and all associated water source areas.MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Successful compte-tion of the workplan will determine effectiveness.

COST ESTIMATE:

Minimum staffing needs would be about one full-time worker over two years, or approximately

$125,000.

Additional costs would be developed during the detailed action steps.FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitment.

See discus-sion of potential funding sources in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.REQUIRED REGULATORY ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: Legislation may be' required for implementa-tion of the actions from the studies. Specific changes will be determined once the workplan is complete.ACTION 5.22 -I teestng shallow groundwatCe protectLonI SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Groundwater in the shallow unconfined aquifer system of the Barnegat Bay watershed provides an important source of water supply for the grow-ing watershed population.

This groundwater also feeds streams that flow into the bay, and some groundwater seeps directly into the bay. As a result, the quality of groundwater can also affect the water quality of the bay.The shallow, unconfined aquifer system is vulnerable to contamination from human activities, especially in areas where overlying soils are sandy and highly permeable.

Contaminants from human activities at the land surface can enter the aquifer system and can then migrate to water supply wells or to the bay. Actions designed to pro-tect groundwater quality for water supply objectives and actions designed to protect groundwater for estuary pro-tection objectives can be mutually beneficial, and should be coordinated, to the extent practicable, with ongoing efforts to achieve a comprehensive approach to resource protection.

STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, High Priority.WHO: NJDEP, Division of Watershed Management (Lead), USEPA, USGS, OCHD, Municipalities of the Barnegat Bay watershed, water-supply purveyors.

HOW: Specific steps for integrating groundwater programs will be developed by cooperating parties, and a plan to protect groundwater supplies developed by linking the fol-lowing efforts. The data collected will be entered into the NJDEP GIS.MAY 2002 95 WATER QUALITY / WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN Additional steps may be identified in conjunction with results of ongoing groundwater protection efforts.1. Integrate New and Ongoing WQ Studies: Recent state legislation authorized establishment of a project to assess the quality of water resources and contaminant sources in the Metedeconk River and Toms River sub-watersheds and to recommend actions that will address identified problems.

The project is being conducted by the USGS in cooperation with the NJDEP, and is expected to provide more detailed information about the distribution of contaminants present in shallow groundwater.

Results of this study, due in 2003, and other ongoing and future studies of groundwater quality should be integrated with results from other protection programs and reflected in CCMP action items, as appropriate.

2. Integrate Source Water Assessment Program and Other Groundwater Program Results: As part of the implementation of the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, efforts are under way- nationwide to assess the sources of all public drinking water supplies.

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

3. Coordinate Protection Programs:

Groundwater protection programs that are administered at the state, county, and municipal level, as well as those instituted by water-supply purveyors, should be coordinated at the watershed level to the extent practicable:

examples of such programs include Superfund, the groundwater discharge permitting process; groundwater monitoring programs; well testing programs; and well head protection zoning ordinances.

As new information or program elements emerge, coordination meetings should be held, as appropriate, with participation by the BBNEP.WHEN: Beginning in 2003, this action, which targets pro-tection of water supplies and estuarine water quality, will be conducted on an ongoing basis.WHERE: This action encompasses the entire Barnegat Bay watershed.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

A draft protection plan should be produced within three years. The measure of effectiveness will be the comprehensiveness of program integration and the area of the Barnegat Bay watershed covered by it.COST ESTIMATE:

No additional resources are required for this action.FUNDING SOURCES: No additional funding is required.REQUIRED REGULATORY ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: To be determined.

Legislation may be required for implementation of actions that result from the various ongoing protection efforts.SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Weather data from local weather stations can be used by residents, farmers, and land managers to efficiently schedule appropriate irri-gation cycles tied to local real time weather con-ditions. An existing network of weather stations, including one station in Toms River, already provides irrigation data to hundreds of South Jersey farmers, golf course managers, and professional weather fore-casters. The addition of two stations in the Barnegat Bay watershed would provide additional highly local-ized data.96 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 5 If the effectiveness of irrigation water use by the largest users (residential and commercial areas) can be increased, the total demand for water during peak times will decrease.

Less water being used means savings to water utilities (taxpayers), and less need to create new water supplies.

It also means slower draw down of aquifers, and less direct discharge to streams and stormwater facilities.

STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Low Priority.WHO: South Jersey RCD (Lead), OCSCD, the BBNEP Public Outreach Program would assist in educating users.HOW: South Jersey RCD has a process in place for locat-ing and establishing weather stations once funding is secured. An education and outreach plan for each user group (farmers, suburban homeowners, corporate campus-es, golf courses) would promote the concept and benefits of irrigation scheduling.

Data collected by this network can be made available to the public at no additional cost.WHEN: Commence immediately upon funding. Targeted for 2002.WHERE: Stations would be set up to maximize spatial coverage within the watershed.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

The number of users accessing the weather station data through the existing Internet site will be tracked to determine the effectiveness of the broadcasting.

Water utility data can be used to monitor water use before and after weather sta-tion data installation so as to measure the effectiveness of the action item. A goal for the action is to increase by 30 percent the number of institutional (government, park, school, etc.) water users that practice irrigation schedul-ing techniques based on real weather and soil moisture data.COST ESTIMATE:

$6,500 per weather station to establish;

$250 per year to operate. The BBNEP Public Outreach Program would cover public outreach costs.FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitment.

Funding could come from among the potential funding sources identified in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The population growth with-in the Barnegat Bay watershed will be dependent on a sus-tainable supply of water. Presently, almost all wastewater (50+ million gallons per day of freshwater effluent) is dis-charged into the ocean, slowly lowering the groundwater levels and degrading the health of the Barnegat Bay ecosystem.

The 1999 drought focused the attention of, and sensitized the general public to, the importance of wise use of water resources, a concern already recognized in the August 1996 Statewide Water Supply Plan.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Medium Priority.WHO: OCUA (Lead), NRCS, NJDEP, NJPC, Ocean County Board of Chosen Freeholders, OCSCD, Township of Berkeley, and the Ocean County Parks Department.

HOW: Divert a portion of the OCUA Central Wastewater Treatment Plant effluent through a tertiary, new treatment process. Pump the final treated effluent for use in irri-gating existing and future golf courses near the facility.WHEN: Complete necessary treatment and distribution infrastructure planning by 2003.WHERE: The demonstration project will occur within the Toms River and Cedar Creek sub-watersheds.

MAY 2002 97 WATER QUALITY / WATER SUPPLY ACTION PLAN MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Qualitative and quantitative evaluations of effectiveness will need to be conducted by independent agencies and/or universities.

These measures will include reductions in the use of potable water for lawn irrigation, golf courses, etc., result-ing from establishment of the demonstration project.COST ESTIMATE:

Not yet determined.

FUNDING SOURCES: No finn commitments.

See poten-tial funding sources in Chapter 12.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: NJPDES permit changes will be necessary.

terial and pathogen loadings.

The hard clam harvest has experienced a steady decline over the past 50 years, and short-term closure of recreational bathing beaches has been a chronic problem, though the trends for bathing beaches have shown a great improvement over the last ten years.To ensure that shellfish or contact recreational uses of bathing waters do not endanger the public health or jeop-ardize commercial fishing and recreational interests, it is essential that these resources be protected from point and NPS of pollution.

Protection demands that a comprehen-sive assessment and identification of pollution sources be undertaken cooperatively by state and local agencies.The Sanitary Survey, in conjunction with an Intensive (land-based)

Survey where appropriate, includes a water-shed assessment and land use analysis to determine potential point and NPS of pollution originating from:* Sewage treatment plants and other sanitary sewage facilities;

  • Treatment plants not meeting NJDEP's permit condition;
  • Septic system failures;* Urban/suburban stormwater runoff;* Marina and boating-related discharges; and* Agricultural waste.Point sources are not major contributors of pollution to Barnegat Bay, since all treated municipal wastewater is discharged through ocean outfatls; though nonpoint sources continue to be a threat.Subsequent to the identification of pollution sources in a watershed, efforts will focus on the degree of contamina-tion from all sources, the potential for improving, upgrad-ing, and/or preventing further degradation of shellfish and recreational bathing waters, and implementation of a comprehensive action plan for pollution control through-out the watershed.

STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Commitment, High Priority.WHO: NJDEP, with the cooperative support of BBNEP, OCHD and municipalities.

HOW: The BBNEP will serve as a forum to serve county and local governments.

The objective of this action plan SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: It is a goat of the BBNEP to ensure that edible seafood is safe for unrestricted human consumption and to minimize bathing beach closures.New Jersey's stringent water quality monitoring program has resulted in the upgrading of thousands of acres of shellfish-producing waters in Barnegat Bay alone over the past ten years. The shellfish resources of Barnegat Bay (i.e., clams and mussels) currently support a commercial fishery with a dockside value in excess of $3 million, as well as an important recreational fishery. Bathing beach-es are also a significant recreational resource to the water-shed's year-round residents and support and attract more than $1.5 billion in tourism revenues for Ocean County, primarily focused on the ocean beaches. However, pollu-tion, habitat destruction, the tremendous demand for seafood, and in some cases, other environmental factors have placed a heavy burden on these seafood and recre-ation resources.

Both of these significant economic and recreation resources are vulnerable to impairment from the same environmental and human health impacts: primarily bac-98 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 5 is to ensure that the existing shellfish and recreational bathing water quality planning and management strategy is fully comprehensive.

The identification of nonpoint pollution sources, and the institution of mitigative mea-sures for their control by state and local cooperative action, wil[ be performed in conjunction with the regula-tion of new and existing point sources of pollution man-agement activities by appropriate governmental agencies and private concerns.The implementation of point and/or nonpoint source pol-lution controls will be coordinated by the NJDEP through its watershed management program. Integral components of this shellfish and recreational bathing beach water quality management plan include: 1. Point Sources Controls;2. Malfunctioning Septic Systems; and 3. Urban/Suburban Stormwater Runoff.WHEN: Ongoing.WHERE: Barnegat Bay and Little Egg Harbor.MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Follow-up monitor-ing of the Barnegat Bay and its tributaries will continue to be conducted at least six times a year by the NJDEP (Bureau of Marine Water Monitoring and the Cooperative Coastal Monitoring Program) to determine whether the quality of shellfish waters and their tributaries has improved as a result of new management practices.

Measurement of effectiveness will be carried out in con-junction with a reclassification survey of the shellfish growing waters by the Bureau of Marine Water Monit6ring that will be implemented to determine if upgrading of the waters is warranted.

Monitoring trends in the annual num-ber of beach closures will provide a measure of effective-ness for actions targeting recreational beach waters.COST ESTIMATE:

$500,000 for all activities.

FUNDING SOURCES: Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), 319(h), WRAS, 6217, Environmental Infrastructure.

Trust (available) to municipalities for stormwater remediation (Structural BMPs).REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.MAY 2002 99 Ocean County Wetlands Map 7"" Municipal Boundary County Parks Wetlands Land N i4 4 0 48 mies!

A 4 ~<~~A Cutting Mosquito trenches in the salt marsh. PHOTO COURTESY OCEAN COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY. 1/2MAY 2002 10 1 BARNEOA T BA Y LITTLE EGGHARBOR BARNEGAT BAY BOATER'S GUIDE 102 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP HABITAT and LIVING RESOURCES ACTION PLAN Chapter 6

6.1 INTRODUCTION

Increased demands for housing in the Barnegat Bay watershed and a corresponding increased recreational use of Barnegat Bay have had negative impacts on environmentally sensitive natural habitats.

Declines in fish and wildlife populations have resulted from frag-mentation and loss of habitats and ecosystems, pollu-tion and decreased water quality, and over-exploitation of resources.

The same areas that often attract human development also provide essential food, cover, migra-tory corridors, and breeding/nursery areas for coastal and marine organisms.

In addition, these habitats also perform other important functions, such as water qual-ity and, flood protection, and water storage.Ecosystems can be degraded through loss of habitat or through a change or degradation in habitat structure, function, or composition.

Threats to habitat in the Barnegat Bay watershed include conversion of open land and forest to residential and commercial develop-ment, highway construction, marinas, dredging and filling, and bulkheading.

Proper management of pub-lic lands, such as the Lakehurst Naval Air Station, is also a concern. Development activities in the water-shed result not only in direct loss of habitat, but also in habitat degradation due to increased runoff of sedi-ments, nutrients, and chemicals.

The distribution and abundance of estuarine fish and wildlife depend on factors, such as tight, turbidity, nutrient availability, temperature, salinity, and habi-tat, and food availability.

Human-induced activities that disturb or change environmental conditions affect the distribution and abundance of estuarine species.Barnegat Bay has historically supported a major com-mercial hard clam sheLlfishery; since 1990, however, there has been a substantial decline in the commercial landings of this species. Landings from 1991 to 1996 dropped approximately 75 percent, to 110 metric tons.A growing fraction of the meat yield in recent years has originated from aquaculture operations and relay and depuration programs, with catch statistics derived from natural beds diminishing dramatically.

Overharvesting of hard clam beds, together with the lack of successful recruitment, appears to have contributed to the reduced catch. Barnegat Bay also has supported major commercial and recreational fisheries for winter floun-der, American eel, and blue crab, but Little recent data exist with which to assess the health of those stocks.There are serious concerns regarding the impact of har-vesting and pollution on finfish and benthic communi-ties in the estuary. One of the priority management initiatives for the Barnegat Bay Estuary Program is to MAY 2002 103 HABITAT and LIVING RESOURCES ACTION PLAN design a study to examine this issue. This chapter does not specify individual actions to address the issue of harvestable fishery resources within Barnegat Bay since the data are lacking to support such actions; but it is noted that Action 7.10 does recommend that a shellfish resource survey of the Bay be conducted to examine the possible causes of stock decline in hard shell clams. When implemented, this action would be a first step in the collection of data essential to fish-eries management.

Assessment data is also necessary for an accurate characterization of the health of other stocks. Additional studies to assess the magnitude of Barnegat Bay fishery resources are necessary for the development of a strategic approach to fisheries man-agement, and will be discussed in Chapter 11.The continued health and biodiversity, of marine and estuarine systems depends on the maintenance of high-quality habitat. The BBNEP has developed specif-ic action items (Table 6-1) to protect habitat and liv-ing resources, which are detailed in the following sec-TABLE 6-2 and FIGURE 6-1 detail the measures to be used to determine the achievement of these objec-tives, the programs that will be used for monitoring, and a time chart for the anticipated completion of the action item.BBNEP'S 2002 POSTER: "Waterfront Residents" 104 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Action ,. ActionItem~

~Tentativ Ap ox.Other Actionin~ItmN.Priority

~jlLead Ie fundingion Itii~N. 1 Title cin Sttu ~' _______ Schedule ~ Cost ~ Plani Supported li Source 6.1 Protect & improve vegetated H NODEP Ongoing Enhanced program Water Quality/ NJDEP Base-buffer zones adjacent to cost, $25,000- Water Supply Program Funding coastal wetlands & freshwater

$50,000 per year and Other tributaries to maintain contin- over 5 years Sources uous riparian corridors, for habitat protection and low-impact recreational pursuits.

-PC 6.2 Conduct a Barnegat Bay H USACE & NJDEP Oct. 10, 1997 -$2.5 million Eligible Federal ecosystem restoration teasibili-2003 and State ty study. -C Funding. See Chapter 12 6.3 Control erosion in threatened L NJDEP Upon availability of The costs are site Eligible Federal shoreline areas. -R funds and project Funding and dependent; an Local Cost Share individual small project may cost$50,000 -$150,000 6.4 Manage tidal wetlands to pre- L USFWS Initiation within $10,000-$20,000 See Chapter 12 serve unditched wetlands & to two years upon per acre of salt rehabilitate wetlands that have availability of funds marsh been ditched or otherwise altered. -R=t r+0)r+o.0 Status: R = Recommendation C = Commitment PC = Partial Commitment Priority: H = High M = Medium L = Low 0 U.'(D Ch i h V tZ 0l Maintain intact Large blocks of Pinelands habitat within state piarks & forests & other pub-icly owned lands. -R Initiation within two years upon availability of funds. ONLM and NJFS estimate five years for the com-pletion of their recommendation

$25,000 per year for five years.Eligible State Funding Ci2 i0 6.6 Implement more effective N State & Federal Within two years of $50,000 over 2 Public Eligible Federal enforcement of current regula- Enforcement availability of funds years Participation

& and State tions regarding sensitive Authorities Education Funding coastal habitats.

-R 6.7 Coordinate and integrate man- M USDOD Memoranda of Enhanced program See Chapter 12 agement of federal lands for Agreement within funding, natural habitat values. -R two years of MAFPE $50,000 over 2 approval years 6.8 Facilitate partnerships for habi- H Federal, state Ongoing, with Existing program None Required tat .protection and restoration and local framework devel- funds; no projects.

-C authorities, oped within two additional cost and private years of CCMP organizations approval 6.9 Revise municipal master plans H Local Coordinate with $15,000-$25,000 Water Quality & NJDEP Base to encourage sub-watershed municipalities municipal master per year over 5 Water Supply Program Funding planning to minimize plan review process years impervious coverage &maintain natural habitat and landscape values. -PC Status: R = Recommendation C = Commitment PC = Partial Commitment Priority: H = High M = Medium L = Low toa 0+CD4+ f +/- I 6.11 Identify and manage impaired sub-watersheds through local government cooperation to address water resource issues that cross municipal boundaries.

-R M USEPA Implement pilot projects within two years of funding availability

$50,000 for small plot project Water Quality/Water Supply See Chapter .12 6.12 Develop a cooperative approach M NJDEP Ongoing; $50,000 Eligible among the Pinelands implementation State Commission, state parks, state within 2 years of Funding wildlife management areas, CCMP state forests, and other state implementation agencies to coordinate watershed protection on state lands. -R Status: Priority: R = Recommendation H = High C = Commitment M = Medium PC = Partial Commitment L = Low 4- g~(D HABITAT and LIVING RESOURCES ACTION PLAN TABLE 6-2. Indicators and Monitoring Programs for Measuring Progress Toward Habitat and Living Resources Action Plan Objectives.

Habitat and Living Resource Monitoring Programsfor ObjectiWes of the Barnegat Bay Environmental Indicators of the BBEP Indicators Estuary Program < Ind:cators Maintain on a landscape level the A measure of success of this objective will In order to measure success in natural environment of the be a reduction in the rate of protecting the Barnegat Bay landscape, watershed.

fragmentation of watershed habitats as a commitment to updating, on a depicted in Land Use Land Cover maps regular basis, the I and Use/I and developed by Rutgers researchers.

Cover maps that have been developed Historical trends data have been will be secured. Whether through the compiled for 1984-1997.

Maintaining the NJDEP or through research institutions functional landscape of watershed habitats in the State, there is a need to develop will be instrumental to the long-term a framework for updating land use success of protecting environmental information and for analyzing it to resources and water quality in the Barnegat assess continuing trends within the Bay watershed.

A second indicator may be watershed.

Stream flow will be the measure of stream base flow in monitored by the USGS's stream flow Barnegat Bay watershed tributaries, monitoring network. Under NEPPS, the Maintaining the natural seasonal flows of NJDEP has agreed to monitor trends of freshwater streams will be integral to forest acreage by watershed.

perpetuating the ecosystem integrity of the Bay, estuary, and watershed.

Protect existing habitat categories This objective will be met first by a status A framework for status and trends within the Barnegat Bay watershed and trends analysis of the condition of analysis of biological indicators has to preserve and improve regional selected habitat types or wildlife already been provided by the National biodiversity.

populations within the estuary and Environmental Performance Partnership watershed.

Indicators will be selected System, which is a cooperative effort during a .Program workshop based on of USEPA and NJDEP. Selection of existing biological survey data. Ultimately, appropriate indicators for Barnegat Bay the measurement of success will be an trends analysis wilt be one of the early improving trend in the condition of habitat actions of CCMP implementation.

types. Under the NEPPS agreement between USEPA and NJDEP, the State will monitor the following:

  • Status and Trends in Wetlands Acreage;* Status and Trends of Tree Species Populations, Distribution, Growth Rate and Mortality; and Status of Endangered Plant Species Populations.

108 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Protect Riparian Corridors (6.1)Barnegat Bay Restoration Study (6.2)Control Shoreline Erosion (6.3)Manage Tidal Wetlands through Open Water Marsh Management (6.4)Maintain Large Blocks of Pinelands Habitat Intact (6.5)Enforce Regulations to Protect Sensitive Coastal Habitats (6.6)Coordinate Federal Lands Management (6.7)Facilitate Partnerships for Habitat Protection (6.8)Revise Municipal Masterplans to Encourage Subwatershed Planning (6.9)Assess Effectiveness of CAFRA 11 (6.10)Engage Municipalities in Regional Subwatershed Planning (6.11)Integrate Watershed Protection at the State Level (6.12)_ _ I _ _ F_ _ _ I _ _ I__ ,_ _ _ F-" -... -m"l -- --1 2 3 4 5 7 8 10: pi I'D4 W.-0 zt YEAR OF CCMP IMPLEMENTATION MPRE-EXISTING COMMITMENT

  • uw HIGH PRIORITY MEDIUM PRIORITY LOW PRIORITY o 0 0'~0 HABITAT and LIVING RESOURCES ACTION PLAN 6.2 HABITAT AND LIVING RESOURCES ACTION ITEMS~iACTION 6.1 ~~:~Prtet ndiprove vegetated buaffer zones Adjacent to coastat wetlands and freshwater

-ln butaris tor habintain rotetinous Yiarnd ~iipan co>[eational pursuits,.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Riparian areas have a major impact on water quality by filtering pollutants and reducing stream temperature.

They also serve as a transition zone between aquatic and terrestrial habi-tats. The corridors formed by these riparian buffers help to maintain the integrity of the watershed ecosys-tem by functioning as continuous habitat links between extensive areas of Pinetands in the interior and coastal wetlands and bayshores.

In addition, they offer opportunities for canoeing and other low-impact recreation.

Of special note, some headwater areas of.the Toms and Metedeconk Rivers support seasonal trout fisheries.

Existing regulatory programs administered by the NJDEP now protect stream channels and wetlands, including designated buffer zones around them, but practices that occurred prior to regulatory review often degraded riparian corridors.

A re-examination of the current condition of riparian buffers and the strategic measures necessary to ensure their protection are vital to meeting the goats of water quality and habitat pro-tection within the Barnegat Bay watershed.

STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Partial Commitment, High Priority.WHO: NJDEP Land Use Regulation Program (Lead), through administration of its Wetlands Law. Other par-ticipating agencies include OCSCD, NRCS, N.J. Forest Service (NJFS), and OCPD.HOW: Implementation of this action will entail a two-part effort to identify and rehabilitate degraded riparian buffers and to protect buffer zones that remain intact.A. An NJFS model uses soil and stream data to assess areas for riparian improvements.

The participating agencies would apply the model and integrate the data with the Natural Resource Inventory (NRI) land use data using GIS technology to prioritize potential sites based on impact and land ownership.

The first step wilt be to select one sub-watershed in which to implement demonstration projects, and follow up with additional sub-watersheds.

The OCSCD would participate by working with landowners to implement selected projects using technical and financial assistance incentives.

B. For areas that will be affected by future development activities, the NJDEP wilt apply its regulatory authority in combination with appropriate incentive measures to protect streams and wetlands and to maintain the water quality and habitat integrity of riparian buffer zones.WHEN: Ongoing regulatory program. Supplemental rehabilitation actions to commence in 2002.WHERE: Actions to be taken along coastal boundaries and in riparian zones, with a special emphasis on the Metedeconk and Toms River sub-watersheds.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

The extent of stream corridors with adequate buffers will be mea-sured biannually, and trends in such habitats will be established.

Any negative trends should be reversed, and stream segments with adequate buffers should increase by five percent per decade. Loss of existing vegetated stream, buffers should be negligible.

A pro-gram target is to infiltrate 90 percent of the runoff from one- to two-year storms to recharge aquifers and maintain stream base flow.COST ESTIMATE:

Enhanced program cost, $25,000-$50,000 above base program funding per year over five years.FUNDING SOURCES: Base program funding wilt sup-port NJDEP regulatory programs.

Funding for riparian improvement projects and incentive measures may come from a number of potential sources, identified in Chapter 12, but no firm committments have been made to date. See Section 12.8.1.1 10 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 6 REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None currently identified but implementation of incentive measures may require format agreements between NJDEP and other participating authorities.

ACTION 6.2 ~ ~ /4 Conduct a rBanegat Bay ecosstem reitorat feasibility study'7 SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The purpose of this feasi-bility study, which is phase two in a two-part U.S.Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) planning process, is to develop various ecosystem restoration projects for the Barnegat Bay estuary. These projects will help pre-serve and improve habitats for numerous species of plants and animals. The feasibility study will docu-ment and provide background data and support for the implementation of future restoration projects.

The fea-sibility study will consider the following areas for restoration:

fresh-water wetlands, salt marshes, aban-doned lagoons, submerged aquatic vegetation, fisheries habitat, and waterfowl habitat (geese and ducks).STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Commitment, High Priority.WHO: The feasibility study is a joint project between: the USACE and the NJDEP.HOW: The study began with the formation of a study team to conduct intensive site investigations for fast-track implementation opportunities.

Existing condi-tions were characterized through data collection and structuring, and data have been entered into a com-prehensive GIS database as appropriate.

Plan formulation will follow with the identification and screening of potential alternatives, and the evaluation of detailed plans that addresses the documented prob-lems. The purpose of the formulation analysis is to identify plans that are publicly acceptable, imple-mentable, and feasible from environmental, engineer-ing, and socioeconomic standpoints.

By analyzing the alternative solutions in this manner, the solution that best fits the planning objectives and constraints can be formulated in a logical and efficient manner. An incremental analysis will be performed to optimize the solutions.

Environmental quality benefits will be determined utilizing the Habitat Evaluation Procedure.

When both the USACE and the non-federal sponsor are satisfied with the optimized plan, a draft feasibility report and a draft National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document will be produced.

After a period of agency and public review, a final report will be issued. If the final report recommends a construc-tion project and funding is in place, the project will proceed to pre-construction, engineering and design, and then construction.

WHEN: October 1997 to December 2003. Potential fast-track restoration projects, including fish ladders on coastal tributaries, and restoring habitat in deep dredged holes are nearing completion of preliminary planning.WHERE: The feasibility study focuses on the Barnegat Bay, including Little Egg Harbor and adjacent lands.f MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Recommendations for actions contained in the feasibility report wilt include specific monitoring plans to assess project performance.

COST ESTIMATE:

$2.5 million for the feasibility study.FUNDING SOURCES: On September 15, 1995, the U.S.House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure requested that the USACE conduct a study of the Barnegat Bay estuary and surrounding areas to identify possible improvements in ecosystem restoration and protection.

The Conference report, which accompanied the Fiscal Year 1998 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, contains feasi-bility phase funds for this project. The Barnegat Bay Ecosystem Restoration Study is budgeted to receive a total of $1.25 million in federal funds during the study period, which is well under way. Section 105 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 specifies the cost-sharing requirements applicable to the study. The State of New Jersey hasagreed to provide $1.25 million MAY 2002 111 HUMAN ACTIVITIES and COMPETING USES ACTION PLAN during the study period, which will serve as the required match.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None currently identified.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Perturbations in tidal ranges and circulation within the Barnegat Bay have led in some areas to persistent erosion of natural or unstabilized shorelines.

This is a problem because up to 75 percent of the Barnegat Bay shoreline has already undergone some level of modification.

Since they are integral to the overall health of the estuary, natural shorelines are a resource that needs focused attention.

STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Low Priority.WHO: NJDEP (Lead). Potential non-federal sponsors (e.g., NJDEP Engineering and Construction Division)can contact the Special Studies Section of the USACE, Philadelphia District, to request federal involvement.

HOW: Under Section 103, Rivers and Harbors Act of 1962, as amended, the USACE may construct small beach restoration and protection projects not specifi-cally authorized by Congress.

The project must not be dependent on additional improvements for successful completion.

Each project must meet certain criteria: " The project must be complete within itself and not commit the USACE to further construction;" The project must be economically justified; that is, the benefits must exceed the costs, including project operation and maintenance;" The project must be environmentally acceptable; and where applicable, will include further consulta-tion with the US Fish and Wildlife Service to accommodate the habitat needs of such shoreline-dwelling species as piping plover and seabeach amaranth;The sponsor of the project must be willing to assist with the project by fulfilling non-federal responsibilities, such as providing lands, easements,.

or rights-of-way, and must agree to operate and maintain the project.In addition, NJDEP Division of Engineering and Construction staff can work with communities to explore shore protection projects that address erosion in threatened shoreline areas.WHEN: The target date for initiation of action is 2004.WHERE: Projects will be undertaken along actively eroding shorelines within the Barnegat Bay proper.MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Completed projects.will be assessed to determine the extent to which they protect natural shoreline areas threatened by erosion.COST ESTIMATE:

The costs are site- and project-dependent; an individual small project may cost between $50,000 and $150,000.FUNDING SOURCES: Funds are provided to the USACE annually.

Study costs: First $100,000 -100 percent federal funds; amount over $100,000 -50 percent fed-eral/50 percent non-federal funds. Potential non-fed-eral sources would be state, county, or municipal fund-ing.PRO3ECT COSTS: 65 percent/35 percent, federal/non-federal; $2 million maximum federal contribution.

112 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 6 REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None currently identified.

A4CTION 6.4~!..anage tidal wetlands Into presrve unitched_wetlands and to rehabilitate w-etLands thatj have~been ditched or other~wise altered de 4 rjou~g1 SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Tidal wetlands are crucial to the biological productivity of Barnegat Bay. Perhaps one-third of the historical wetlands bordering the bay has been lost to human development or alteration.

Mosquito ditching and other human alterations have impacted most of the remaining wetlands.

Protecting currently unmodified tidal wetlands in Barnegat Bay should be a top priority.

Additionally, remedial mea-sures should be taken to restore ditched and other altered tidal wetlands to a more productive condition, while satisfying the need for mosquito control.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Low Priority.WHO: USFWS (Lead), NJDEP, and other authorities with responsibility to manage wetlands acreage.HOW: Open Marsh Water Management (0MWM) is a technique developed to address the concern about nuisance mosquitoes while minimizing adverse impacts to the biological productivity of tidal wetlands.

By adopting OMWM as a standard practice, wetlands management authorities can, address public concerns about mosquitoes while improving wetlands productiv-ity and value.WHEN: Initiate action by 2003.WHERE: This action will occur in ditched salt marsh areas within the Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge.MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Effectiveness wilt be measured by the increase in wetlands under active management that receive more sensitive man-agement treatment, and the growth in the number of acres of unaltered tidal wetlands that are preserved.

COST ESTIMATE:

$10,000-$20,000 per acre of salt marsh.FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments.

See dis-cussion of potential funding sources in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: No formal administrative changes required.SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The upland areas of the Barnegat Bay watershed lie primarily in the Pinelands region of the state, which is characterized by high water tables yet drought-like soil conditions due to the sandy nature of the soil. The dominant vegetative type is pitch pine forest; associated species include a wealth of rare, unique, and endangered flora and fauna. The pitch pine forest is maintained by the nat-ural occurrence of wildfires, which perpetuates the open-canopy conditions favored by many of the more unusual species. Human development within this envi-ronment leads to fire suppression measures that inter-rupt the natural fire cycle and lead ultimately to closed-canopy forests and the toss of rare fire-adapted species. Maintenance of large tracts of the native pitch pine forest is essential in order to allow space for some measure of natural or managed fire regeneration that will sustain the native forest and its associated species.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Medium Priority.MAY2 002 113 HUMAN ACTIVITIES and COMPETING USES ACTION PLAN WHO: NJDEP (Lead), state parks, and state forests;N.J. Pinelands Commission (NJPC), Office of Natural Lands Management (ONLM), NJFS, and TPL.HOW: Using existing authorities, responsible agencies can ensure that their management practices will bene-fit Pinelands habitats sufficiently to maintain the full complement of rare and local species that are current-ly found in those habitats.Much of the information required to identify and man-age such large tracts within portions of Ocean County for native forest types and rare species is now available or is under development by staff of the ONLM. Detailed mapping of all vegetation has been completed in the Barnegat Bay watershed south of Cedar Creek. More mapping work is needed northward to the Toms River.Extensive fieldwork has been used to separate pine plains, pitch pine-shrub oak barrens, pine-oak wood-land, and pine-oak/oak-pine forest types, each of which has different fire management needs.Wildfire records from the NJFS havebeen compiled for Ocean County dating back to the 1920s, but gaps in the fire record and mapping inaccuracies are still being corrected with aerial photography and information from other sources. A database summarizing each fire of this wildfire-prone region has been initiated, and there are plans to digitize all fire perimeters into a GIS and link each record to the database.WHEN: The target date for initiation of action is 2003.ONLM and NJFS estimate five years for the completion of their recommendations.

WHERE: This action will occur in the upland and trib-utary areas of the Barnegat Bay watershed.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Effectiveness wilt be gauged by the number of areas purchased or improved.COST ESTIMATE:

Enhanced program cost for infor-mation gathering:

$25,000 per year over five years.FUNDING SOURCES: Potential funding sources include those available to NJDEP on an annual basis.See Chapter12, Section 12.8.1.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: Managing authorities may need to address the maintenance of appropriately sized habitat blocks within their management policies.SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: In the coastal bay, colo-nial nesting shorebirds and waders are dependent on ever fewer undisturbed sandy islands and coastal thickets for nesting, feeding, and loafing. Federal and state-lis'ted threatened and endangered species are prominent among the populations found within and around the Barnegat Bay region. Human activity on these islands and coastal habitats must be restricted to successfully protect these populations of colonial nest-ing birds.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Medium Priority.WHO: State and federal enforcement authorities.

HOW: Improved enforcement and focused public edu-cation with regard to illegal trespassing at sensitive sites in the bay are important parts of this effort. A follow-up commitment by enforcement authorities to reduce human disturbance to these habitats will also be necessary. "The Boater's Guide to Barnegat Bay and Little Egg Harbor"serves as a public education tool for this action.WHEN: An enhanced program will be developed with-in two years, now targeted for 2003, following avail-ability of funds.WHERE: This action will focus on undeveloped islands and coastal habitats in Barnegat Bay.MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Average annual increases in populations and nesting locations for tar-geted species will be used to measure the effectiveness of this action.COST ESTIMATE:

$50,000 over two years for staff and other costs.114 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 6 FUNDING SOURCES: Potential funding sources would include available federal and state funding programs.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: No new ordinances are anticipated; howev-er, commitment to improve state enforcement of exist-ing regulations is necessary for the effective protection of sensitive nesting sites.SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Much of the area that lies within the Barnegat Bay watershed is publicly owned at the federal, state, or local level. This places much of the burden for ensuring the continued ecological integrity of the watershed on the public sector. Major federal land holdings are managed by the U.S.Department of Defense (Lakehurst Naval Air Station, Fort Dix Military Reservation) and the USFWS (Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge). In addition, management of the Pinelands National Reserve and the Coastal Heritage Trail are a cooperative effort between the fed-eral government and the State of New Jersey (public and private lands). While these properties have differ-ent attributes and are managed under very different mandates, each plays a role in the unique ecological makeup of the Barnegat Bay watershed.

The USFWS areas are primarily coastal marshlands, while the Pinelands and military reservations contain a wealth of sensitive Pinelands habitats, with associated rare and endangered species. Airstrips at the military reservations paradoxically harbor some of the region's few populations of nesting grassland bird species.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Medium Priority.WHO: U.S. Department of Defense (USDOD) (Lead), USFWS, National Park Service, USEPA.HOW: The Mid-Atlantic Federal Partners for the Environment (MAFPE), which include each of the participating agencies in this action, would oversee an effort by resource managers from the agencies to devel-op a memorandum of agreement or other appropriate vehicle establishing the cooperative management of federal public lands for the protection of natural habi-tat and resource values within agency mandates.Opportunities to cooperate with state and local land managers should also be explored.WHEN: Memoranda of Agreement within two years of MAFPE approval to be completed by 2003.WHERE: This action would encompass federal land holdings and areas of management authority within the Barnegat Bay watershed (e.g., Forsythe National Wildlife Refuge).MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Effectiveness will be measured by the number of agreements con-cluded among federal participants and the number of actions taken cooperatively to protect, enhance, and restore habitat quality.COST ESTIMATE:

Enhanced program funding, $50,000 over two years for staff support.FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments.

The fed-eral partners will need to secure the required funding.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: Memoranda of Agreement or other appro-priate authority will be needed to ensure that the respective federal agencies cooperate in the conserva-tion and management of natural resources and habitats under their control.ACTION 6.8~" iFaciitate partnerships pfrabitatprotection an restorfation projectýs SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Cooperative partnerships can be developed between and among land management authorities at various government levels and between gov-ernment agencies and private organizations.

An ongoing arrangement between the State of New Jersey and the TPL resulted in the publication of a report ("The Century Plan") documenting threatened sensitive natural, areas, MAY 2002 115 HUMAN ACTIVITIES and COMPETING USES ACTION PLAN and it continues with land acquisition and protection efforts. Additional constructive efforts of this nature should be explored and pursued.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Commitment, High Priority.WHO: BBNEP Program Office will facilitate partner-ships among federal, state, and local authorities, and private organizations.

HOW: Where a funding source has been established, a cooperative approach can be pursued whereby two agencies or an agency and a private organization can join forces to implement effective habitat protection.

Often the partners of the agreement bring different capacities that result in accomplishment of goals that may be unattainable by either partner individually.

For example, the ONLM has partnered with natural area superintendents and the NRCS, which provides a cost share on wildlife habitat restoration projects.

Projects funded under the NRCS's Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) include limited-scale and demonstra-tion projects for control of invasive plants in State Natural Areas administered by the NJDEP, Division of Parks and Forestry.

The ONLM is working with Island Beach State Park to control Asiatic sand sedge on the primary dunes of the Island Beach Southern Natural Area. The BBNEP will facilitate the formation of simi-lar partnerships through the Program office and the Barnegat Bay Watershed

& Estuary Foundation.

WHEN: Ongoing. New partnerships will be developed within two years of final approval of the CCMP, or by 2003.WHERE: Partnerships will be developed anywhere within the Barnegat Bay watershed.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

The measure of success will be determined based on the objectives of each individual partnership.

Overall, the number of successful partnerships will serve as one measure of effectiveness.

COST ESTIMATE:

The BBNEP Program Office will act as facilitator using its annual budgeting; no additional costs are anticipated.

FUNDING SOURCES: None required REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: No regulatory changes are required.ACTION 6.9,<R is init-ipjnal master plans to encourg& .......sub aterhedpja.-ning to iinimjnimprvou Je a maintain natural habiýtat and ]SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Municipalities are respon-sible for planning for growth and development as authorized by the NJ Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL)(N3SA 40:55D -1, et seq.) Municipal master plans con-tain elements allowed by the MLUL that could enhance municipalities' ability to accommodate growth white protecting the natural environment of the Barnegat Bay watershed.

These elements include:* Conservation;

  • Historic preservation;
  • Stormwater management; and" Land use (including environmental impacts to wetlands, topographic features, floodplains, and soils).In order to address more regional issues of watershed protectioni, however, municipalities need to consider their role in, and contribution to, problems and poten-tial solutions.

Future iterations of municipal master plans throughout the entire watershed should incorpo-rate a regional watershed approach.County planning departments prepare county master plans that serve as guidance for development.

The OCPD has a number of resources available to assist municipalities in planning for the protection of natur-al resource values as regional development continues.

STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Partial Commitment, High Priority.116 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 6 WHO: Local municipalities (Lead) in Ocean County will individually revise municipal master plans to improve natural resource protection.

The OCPD will provide guidance and technical information to municipalities in order to facilitate appropriate changes to local mas-ter plans.HOW: The MLUL calls for reassessments of municipal master plans every six years, guided by the respective county master plans. As reviews become due, the municipalities will coordinate with the OCPD to improve natural resource protection in their master plans. During the master plan review process, munici-palities should rely on input from their environmental commissions (where applicable), the Coastal Decision Makers Institute, Ocean County Environmental Health Agency, OCPD, Office of State Planning, and the NJPC (where applicable).

WHEN: This action should occur during the cross-acceptance review process of the State Development and Re-Development Plan, and during the Municipal Master Plan review process as required by the Municipal Land Use Law. The review schedules for municipal plans are staggered so that the county acts on several plans every year.WHERE: This action is applicable to all municipalities within Ocean County.MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

The effective-ness of this action will be measured in two ways: 1) by the number of municipal master plans that are reviewed and amended over time; and 2) by the natural resource pro-tection afforded by the amended master plans.COST ESTIMATE:

Review and revision of municipal master plans will require levels of effort from each municipality that cannot be easily quantified.

For the 33 municipalities of Ocean County, an annual supple-ment totaling $15,000 to $25,000 may be required.This will cover the five to six municipalities under-going review every year, since the reviews are staggered over six years.County review of municipal master plans is an ongoing effort of the OCPD, and would be conducted through its base program funding. Guidance and technical support for the municipalities may require additional county effort.FUNDING SOURCES: State support to the county and municipalities may be available through base program operations of the NJDEP.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: No changes are required at the state or county level. This action would entail revisions in municipal master plans.NJDEP coastal zone management policies guide munic-ipalities working to develop appropriate local ordi-nances. In addition, model ordinances adopted by some municipalities in the county serve as useful examples for others. Also, under the State Develop-ment and Re-Development Plan, the land-use plan of each community is reviewed as part of the cross-accep-tance process, which is coordinated by the OCPD.SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The Coastal Zone Management Program regulates development in the coastal zone and seeks to conserve coastal natural resources.

CAFRA II is the most recent revision to the state's program, and the new, revised regulations meant to address shortcomings in the original regula-tions have only recently been promulgated.

Moreover, they help to integrate state guidance, in the form of the NJ State Development and Redevelopment Plan, into the coastal management program. The guidance is designed to direct development and redevelopment towards areas with existing adequate infrastructure and to promote conservation of the state's natural resources.

STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Commitment, High Priority.WHO: NJDEP, Division of Watershed Management, Land Use Regulation Program (Lead).MAY 2002 117 HUMAN ACTIVITIES and COMPETING USES ACTION PLAN HOW: Through administration of the newly revised regulatory program, the NJDEP wilt be making incre-mental improvements to the protection of coastal resources.

According to standard procedure for Department Rules, the NJDEP will assess the success of limiting the growth in development in the coastal zone, concentrating new development and redevelop-ment in existing development centers, and restricting the increase in impervious cover in the coastal water-shed.WHEN: NJDEP will assess the effects of its new regu-latory program five years after the start of implemen-tation, or by 2006.WHERE: This action applies to the CAFRA coastal zone area in New Jersey, including Ocean County and the Barnegat Bay Watershed.

Most or all of the 33 munic-ipalities lie, at least in part, within the CAFRA region, MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

A program assessment wilt be conducted after five years, allowing NJDEP to measure the change in resource protection (area of impervious cover reduced, coastal resources conserved) relative to the increase in coastal develop-ment.COST ESTIMATE:

This assessment will be completed using base program funding of the NJDEP.FUNDING SOURCES: State funding of NJDEP base pro-grams.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None-changes have already been effected.ACTION 6.11 ~ f.n andmanag ee impaired dAs througnioi

]a:l government cooperation to addoo ess watei w:resource issuLes that ~cross ~municipat bounidarti,_

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Existing regulatory pro-grams help to minimize the environmental impacts of ongoing development, and help to preserve important environmental values. In many cases, however, previ-ous development practices and inconsistencies in municipal land-use plans among neighboring town-ships and boroughs have led to serious and long-stand-ing adverse impacts to the local environment.

To accommodate continued growth within a framework of environmental protection for the Barnegat Bay water-shed, previous environmental damage must be addressed and steps must be taken to rectify those abuses. This action also contains a significant water quality component.

STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Medium Priority.WHO: USEPA, Barnegat Bay Watershed and Estuary Foundation (BBWEF), Science and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC), NJDEP, and county and local agencies.HOW: Identify sub-watersheds that lie in more than one local jurisdiction and that suffer from poor water quality, altered hydrology, excessive sedimentation, or other habitat or water quality impairment; determine the appropriate remedial measures to address the impairment; and schedule actions to reduce or elimi-nate the long-term consequences of the impairment.

This action will be supported by the Natural Resources Inventory (Action 5.2).WHEN: Implement two pilot projects within two years upon availability of funds. Schedule appropriate com-prehensive remediation measures to be completed within 10 to 20 years.118 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CcMP Chapter 6 WHERE: Impaired sub-watersheds throughout Ocean County.MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Effectiveness will be measured by the increase in the number of waterways meeting water quality standards and the reduction in pollutants reaching the Barnegat Bay.COST ESTIMATE:

Approximately

$50,000 for complet-ing a pilot project for a small sub-watershed.

FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments.

See dis-cussion of potential funding sources in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: Responsible agencies will need to make a commitment to address environmental degradation that may lie beyond the reach of regulatory authority.

The stimulus to encourage participation might include financial incentives to municipalities or the offer of technical expertise to address locally recognized envi-ronmental problems.WHO: NJDEP (Lead); state parks and state forests;NJDEP, Division of Fish and Wildlife; NJ Pinelands Commission.

HOW: Within their existing authorities; responsible state agencies can more actively cooperate to ensure the optimal protection of the natural resource values of these lands. For example, the NJDEP is imple-menting a plan for the long-term protection of rare species in New Jersey known as the Landscape Project. This effort focuses on the relationships between organisms and their environment, emphasiz-ing the larger region, or landscape, in which these communities exist. This effort recognizes the current weaknesses in long-term preservation of rare species such as fragmentation of habitats and tack of coordi-nated land management among government agencies.The Division of Fish and Wildlife's Non-Game Program can provide data from the Landscape Project to iden-tify areas for state acquisition.

WHEN: Ongoing, with implementation within two years of final approval of the CCMP, or by 2003.WHERE: This action will take place at state-owned management areas throughout Ocean County.MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Effectiveness will be measured by the number of successful collabo-rative efforts to foster long-term ecosystem protection.

COST ESTIMATE:

Approximately

$50,000 for staff support and other costs.FUNDING SOURCES: Potential funding sources would include those available to NJDEP on an annual basis.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: Policy commitment for cooperation among state land management authorities will be needed.MAY 2002 119 SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The State of New Jersey is a large landowner within Ocean County. Tens of thousands of acres of state parks, state forests, and state wildlife management areas are distributed around the county, largely concentrated in the Pinelands region of the inland watershed.

Optimal management of these areas for maintaining environmental values would entail a cooperative approach among the various state agencies that oversee these lands.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Medium Priority.

I do not see a delegation of the four-footed.

I see no seat for the eagles.We forget and we consider ourselves superior, but we are after all a mere part of Creation.--Oren Lyons, Faithkeeper of the Turtle Clan of the Onondaga Nation, addressing the United Nations assembly Catboat and houseboat off Barnegat Lighthouse at Island Beach. PHOTO COURTESY OF THE OCEAN COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY..MAY 2002 121 Estimated Housing and Boat CountsBay Front and Lagoon Communities Ocean County, New Jersey* ' OreillC~mt P"asl Owpalmefat Legend Marbias S upumpout Stations La0oon Say Front E]Lagoon Island WLagoon -Retirement N Label Kay Q4-, b- Ea-Matr wetwF d W"a ofttc c4 ma BOAT COUNT. ESTIMATES

____ __COMMUNITlY TYPE NUMBER OF KOOSfS HUMBOIF OF 'A Of TOTAL NUlMBER OF BOATS SOF BOATS____________________itOTS BOATS 'OR -25FT. .OR -Z5FT.L00" 10423 6.703 6' 2290 22 DAYFROUT 2475 3266 In2 41 RIVERPRONT

.267i fW4 69 003. 30 LAGOO MEISMENI ISqQ 1034 437t 1 0544. 234i3 15561 6. S IBS .JL 122 3ARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

.Chapter 7

7.1 INTRODUCTION

The Barnegat Bay region is very popular for many differýent reasons and has many different uses. In fact, there are so many users and different interest groups, all of whom want to use this finite space, that they experience real and perceived conflict with each other. Commercial and recre-ational fishing, power boating and sailboating, use of per-sonal watercraft (PWC), beachgoing, passive pursuits such as bird-watching and natural study, all compete as pre-ferred activities within the Barnegat Bay estuary.At the same time, human activities within the watershed contribute to the estuary's water quality impairment and habitat loss and alteration.

Human activities such as development, dredging, illegal dumping, and erosion due to shoreline structures or boat wakes all contribute to the loss and degradation of natural habitat and the decline in the bay's water quality.Despite the increased pressure on the watershed, efforts must be made to sustain the long-term viability of the coastal ecosystem.

Without these efforts, continued degradation will result in the loss of natural resources, aes-thetics, and ultimately, economic value and quality of life.Through proper stewardship, that is, by protecting the bay and its watershed now, concerned citizens will protect the bay's resources not only for themselves, but also for their children and subsequent generations.

Previous chapters detail regulatory and other govern-ment agency actions that are targeted at protecting water quality and maintaining natural resource values.This chapter focuses more specifically on the human uses of the estuary and how they compete for a finite resource.

In doing so, this chapter fulfills the intent of the BBNEP to develop a comprehensive plan for the bay and its watershed.

In a similar mantner, the next chapter details public education and outreach efforts to improve public awareness of the very real environ-mental impacts people impose on the watershed mere-ly by their style of living. The Human Activities and Competing Uses Action Plan proposes actions that take the next step beyond education to citizen empower-ment and mobilization to rectify unintended environ-mental consequences and to diminish the effects of the growing human population.

It is an objective of the BBNEP to describe competing uses, determine the com-pensatory limits of the estuary's natural systems, and develop an effective management plan to sustain and enhance overall ecosystem health and use. The BBNEP has assessed the linkage between human activities and impacts on the estuary and is proposing politically fea-sible management solutions to mitigate those impacts.This Action Plan works in tandem with the plans described in the previous two chapters to ensure the protection of water quality and water supply and to maintain the area's wealth of natural resources.

MAY 2002 123 HUMAN ACTIVITIES and COMPETING USES ACTION PLAN Actions with an emphasis on what the average citizen can do are organized by their impacts on the water-shed (residential development and day-to-day living activities) and impacts on the estuary (boating and boating infrastructure, use of PWC, fishing and shell-fishing).

A summary of Action Items within this Action Plan can be found in Table 7-1.Table 7-2 and Figure 7-1 give the measures by which the above objectives will be achieved; the means of taking the measure of achievement, and the expected timeline for completion of action implementation.

phenomenon that threatens the health of Barnegat Bay's shallow-water habitat and its inhabitants.

An action item to address this particular use is essential for the long-term health of the bay. Inappropriate PWC use is a local, state, national, and international issue, and extensive educational resources, information, and research data have been compiled on PWC use and impacts. This action describes how the Barnegat Bay PWC Task Force, which represents federal, state, coun-ty, and local agencies, will address this issue locally, statewide, and federally.

This action includes develop-ment of a conservation-zoning model for Barnegat Bay for incorporation into statewide legislation, which will help other regions of New Jersey. This action will also help promote consistency between state and federal initiatives.

STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Commitment, High Priority.WHO: A volunteer-based PWC Task Force (BBPWCTF)has been assembled for the Barnegat Bay watershed (Lead). This task force includes interested parties from environmental, dealer, user, rental operations, state police, legislative, and marine trades groups. This group is co-chaired by the Barnegat Bay Watershed Association (BBWA) and Clean Ocean Action.Participants currently include: N.J. State Police, Marine Trades Association, N.J. Boating Regulatory Commission, Jersey Coast Anglers Aisociation, Alliance for a Living Ocean (ALO), Isaac Walton League of Ocean County, Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve (JCNERR), American Littoral Society, BBNEP, RCE, Congressman James J. Saxton's office, a PWC user, and Island Beach State Park.HOW: The BBPWCTF has been developing goals and objec-tives to create an action plan for PWC uses in Barnegat Bay and throughout the state. This group will draft a PWC management plan for Barnegat Bay based on scientific studies that have been done on the effects of PWC on shal-low-water habitats and coastal nesting grounds for birds.The studies and models that have been compiled are local, national, and international.

Members of the BBPWCTF have assessed international and national research on what other regions have done to estab-lish conservation zoning and other PWC-related initiatives.

These findings are incorporated into the draft statewide leg-islation which the group is developing.

7.2 HUMAN ACTIVITIES AND COMPETING USES ACTION ITEMS SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Barnegat Bay is a popular vacation destination due to its valuable fishing, crab-bing, and clamming opportunities; but other activities also contribute to the popularity of this area as a beach resort destination.

Boating, specifically jet-powered vessels such as PWC and jet boats,; is a fairly new 124 BARMEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP

-.1:, : , l , :' ... ...... .6 r : (! i Acteio Actit In Tentative A pprpx. .Drox.Action Fundini.g..

Itr o, Ttean ttu roit edSchedule Cost Plan Supported~

Source 7.1 Draft a Barnegat Bay personal H PWC Task Force Ongoing $10,000 Habitat Loss & Coastal watercraft (PWC) management Alteration Management strategy, thereby setting an Plan example for statewide policy. -C 7.2 Promote the use of the M RCE or Marine Annually i $20,000 for Public See Chapter 12"Boater's Guide to Barnegat Trades 21,000 copies Participation

&Bay and Little Egg Harbor" to Association of Education protect sensitive areas by miti- New Jersey gating boater impacts to water Water Quality/quality and natural resources.

-Water Supply PC Habitat & Living Resources 7.3 Follow up the Municipal M BBWEF Quarterly newslet- $10,000 per year BBEP Program Outreach Project with contin- ter I Funding ued production of "Community Connection" newsletter and Annual with a community awards pro- recognition gram. -R awards ceremony 7.4 Use environmental commis- M BBEP, Ocean Commence upon None available See Chapter 12 sions to foster the watershed County availability of beyond existing approach.

-R Environmental funds. program funding Agency 7.5 Support the Barnegat Bay H Municipal

& Ongoing $10,000 Public BBEP Program Watershed and Estuary county govern- Participation

& Funding Foundation (BBWEF) to protect ments Education Barnegat Bay and its watershed resources.

-C 0*I-4 r+.I 0 Status: R = Recommendation C = Commitment PC = Partial Commitment Priority: H = High M = Medium L = Low Ulf P4 Ci to-.0 Lsraousn a narnegat 1ay MLue Card certification program on soil health, tow-input landscapes, and ba ancing the water cycle. -R 1 LILIdLC Lidiililly upon availability of funds.1/J,UUU LU establish program& core training Water UuaLity/Water Supply Non-government Funding Sources.See Chapter 12.7.7 Use data & information from L OCSCD Upon availability of $75,000 Water Quality/ See Chapter 12 the Natural Resource Inventory funds Water Supply (NRI) to promote the use of Best Management Practices Habitat & Living (BMPs). -R Resources Public Participation

&Education 7.8 Design & construct L RCE Initiate within one $35,000 per year Water Quality/ See Chapter 12 environmentally sensitive year of receipt of Water Supply demonstration gardens in all funding.municipalities.

-R Public Participation

&Education 7.9 Construct an environmentally M RCE 2003 $5,000 -$8,000 Water Quality/ BBEP Program sensitive demonstration lawn per year Water Supply Funding for homeowners to use as a model for landscaping plans. -Public PC Participation

&Education rn-bi 0 bi Status: R = Recommendation C = Commitment PC = Partial Commitment Priority: H = High M = Medium L = Low tz D .Action Acion Itern J >Tentativo Approx. Other Action Funding~Item No. ~ rel adSoaurcs~

Pri1t Lea Schedule ~ Cost ~ Plan Supported

,Source 7.10 Conduct shellfish resource sur- M NJDEP, Division 2002 $190,000 See Chapter 12 vey of the bay to examine of Fish &potential causes of stock Wildlife decline and meat discoloration in hard shell clams and explore resource enhancement strate-gies so that an adequate sup-ply of shellfish exists to reap the benefits of improved water quality resulting from Action Item 5.25 in the Water Quality/ Water Supply Action Plan. -PC Status: Priority: R = Recommendation H = High C = Commitment M = Medium PC = Partial Commitment L Low o E-9U HUMAN ACTIVITIES and COMPETING USES ACTION PLAN TABLE 7-2. Indicators and Monitoring Programs for Measuring Progress Toward Human Activities and Compteting Uses Action Plan Objectives.

H*umnan Activities and Mntrg .P........

fo Competing UseQObjectives of the EnvironmentaLIndicators of the BBEP , Monitoi.1 Pogam fr Barnegat Bay Estu ;Progirai

." ., Indicators.

Support water-related recreation The measure of success in this objective (a) The status and trends in economic while preserving the economic wilt be an increase in: (a) economic vitality vitality will be comipiped by the Ocean viability of commercial endeavors, associated with Ocean County tourism County Office of Tourism and (dollars spent, jobs maintained); (b) the monitored by the BBEP; (b) the number of municipal beach badges sold number of beach badges sold will be (bay-side only); (c) the number of compiled by the municipalities of recreation arid commercial shellfish Ocean County and monitored by the harvesting licenses sold. BBEP; (c) the number of recreational and commercial shellfish licenses sold will be monitored by the NJDEP Division of Fish and Wildlife (Bureau of Marine Fisheries).'

Encourage sustainable methods of The measure of success in this objective will (a) Surface Water Quality Data -NJDEP living within the watershed, be improvements in the quality of surface and USGS cooperative Ambient Surface whereby human uses are balanced water and groundwater used by the citizens Water Monitoring Network and the with ecosystem protection.

of Ocean County, as well as the Toms River Nonpoint Source Study; (b)maintenance of baseflow in the major Groundwater Oualitv Data -NJDEP and tributaries in the watershed.

Specifically, USGS Cooperative Groundwater targeted base flow levels in watershed Monitoring Network; (c) Ocean County tributaries could be monitored and Health Department's water quality cataloged to demonstrate that adequate data; (d) Results of the Toms flows are being provided to in-stream River/Metedeconk River Watershed aquatic Life. Study (i.e., Ciesla Study).Empower citizens in the protection This objective will be measured by the The BBWEF will arrange and coordinate and stewardship of the Barnegat Bay number of forums, workshops, meetings and the user conflict forums, meetings, and its watershed, public events, and activities in the workshops, and.other associated watershed directed at user conflicts and activities.

Monitoring to be conducted promoting dialogue between competing by the BBEP.users of the Bay and its watershed.

Establish a consensus-based The measure of success in this objective is The Barnegat Bay PWC Task Force, agreement to restrict uses of PWCs the number of forums, workshops, meetings together with Rutgers Institute of in sensitive shallow nearshore and activities undertaken to develop a Marine and Coastal Sciences and the waters. Management Plan for PWCs. Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Reserve, will continue to work toward facilitating and monitoring progress toward development of a PWC Management Plan for the Barnegat Bay area.Manage recreationally and A measure of success for this objective will A program committee to maintain an commercially important fish and be an annual inventory of outstanding annual inventory of crab and clam shellfish species for sustainable and licenses for recreational and commercial licenses wilt be required to implement safe harvest. clamniing and crabbing.

NJDEP issues this indicator.

A source of funds will licenses for recreational and commercial be needed to enable the NJ Bureau of harvest of hard clams and blue crabs within Sheltfisheries to conduct an updated the state's in-shore waters, and an annual stock assessment for hard clams in count of outstanding permits wilt provide a Barnegat Bay.measure of current fishing pressure, registering a qualitative measure of the status of the fisheries.

A periodic stock assessment of the hard clam fishery will add a quantitative measure for the success of actions to meet this Program objective.

A stock assessment of the hard clam fishery was most recently conducted by NJDEP Division of Fish and Wildlife (Bureau of Shellfisheries) in 1985-1987.

1 2 8 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Draft a BB PWC Management Strategy (7.1)Promote the Use of the 'Boater's Guide.- (7.2)Follow-up the Municipal Outreach Project...

(7.3)Use Environmental Commissio-s to Foster the Watershed Approach (7 4)Establish the BEWEF (7.5)Establish a BB Blue Card Certification (7.6)Use Data ard Informatiort Fron the NRI to Promote BMP's (7.7)Design and Construct Environmentally Sensitve Derrno. Gardens in Muricipalititie (7.8)Construct an Environ. Sensitive Demo. Lan for Homeowners as Model Plan (7.9)Conduct Shellfish Resource Survey t7.10)-I5 I n I I II II 3 __ _ __ i --_ I __I_ i __ _ Z I I_ _ ____ ___ .I__I_3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 (D YEAR OF CCMP IMPLEMENTATION in 1 2 M M PRE-EXISTING COMMITMENT HIGH PRIORITY MEDIUM PRIORITY LOW PRIORITY C: 0 I-4 ~ ,7 r-~ .........7 U-~'a--2~<t 7 2>SC-, VU HUMAN ACTIVITIES and COMPETING USES ACTION PLAN Additionally, JCNERR and the Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences (IMCS) of Rutgers University will host two seminars to bring together national experts who have worked on the science and policy issues related to PWC use. The information from these workshops will be used to identify research data gaps and future areas of study.JCNERR will utilize the information to develop manage-ment recommendations for consideration by the N.J.Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP).The BBPWCTF will also use this information to bolster existing efforts that the group has been working on to establish and institute a management plan and guiding legislation for PWC use in Barnegat Bay.The draft management plan will outline: " Education;" Enforcement;

  • Community involvement;" National scientific study research; and* Legislation (federal, state and local), including conservation zoning.Education:

A demonstration day is planned to look at the PWC and how it operates, potential problems asso-ciated with misuse of the craft, and how to use the craft in a manner that protects human safety and the ecosystem.

Legislation:

The BBPWCTF is working with federal and state legislators to draft legislation -to establish con-servation zoning in sensitive areas, possibly using Island Beach State Park to introduce this concept in New Jersey.Other Recommendations:

  • Increased funding for enforcement of the current N.J. State Police regulations for PWC use. Fund-ing needs to be provided to bolster state and local law enforcement agents during the peak-use sea-son from May through September.

The BBPWCTF has begun to identify gaps in current enforcement initiatives and will seek funding sources to help the different levels of enforcement (Marine Police, Coast Guard, municipal, etc.). Law Enforcement Grants that could be used to enforce current regulations are identified in H.R. 3141.* Strengthen the State Police Educational program to include PWC-specific items. The BBPWCTF has 130 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL cCMP submitted comments on the educational standards for the enforcement agents and will continue to work with the N.J. State Police on this initiative.

WHEN: The BBPWCTF activities have-been ongoing since May 1999. Scientific and management workshops were held at the end of 1999 and a final outcome, in the form of a management policy, is targeted for 2001.WHERE: The statewide model will be developed in the Barnegat Bay estuary and watershed.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Effectiveness will be measured by the reduction in disruption of sen-sitive areas through the implementation of a manage-ment strategy.COST ESTIMATE:

$10,000.FUNDING SOURCES: NERRS/IMCS are receiving fund-ing for the PWC workshops from the Coastal Zone Management Program. Other recommended funding sources are:* Federal Coastal Zone Management Act reauthoriza-tion; BBPWCTF was identified in the proposal for$500,000 a year for at least five years as itemized in the CZMA reauthorization bill, introduced by Congressman James J. Saxton;" Task Force Development Grants outlined in H.R.3141 -"Personal Watercraft Responsible Use Act of 1999," introduced by Congressman Saxton. Each state may receive "no more than 25 percent of the total amount appropriated for a fiscal year." The initial request for allocation nationally is$2.5 million;* Public Outreach Funding for Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) of BBNEP; and* Private funding sources.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: Portions of the project would require federal, state, and local legislation or ordinances.

Chapter 7 ACTION 7.2~Promote the usep ( ofthe "'Boater's Guide to;Barnegat Bay and Little Egg Harbor" to protect 4s~ensitive;.areas by mitigating boaterimipacts~to wtrquialityT and naturalreocs SIGNIFICANCE OFACTION:

One goal of the BBNEP is to provide for the human enjoyment of the bay while maintaining ecosystem integrity.

The BBNEP recog-nizes that the bay is an important boating and PWC destination.

Approximately 25 percent of the 196,000 licensed pleasure boats in New Jersey (including PWC)operate in the Barnegat Bay watershed during the sum-mer. In recent years, PWC have been the fastest grow-ing segment of the boating industry, with Internet list-ings for PWC operators featuring Barnegat Bay as a prime destination.

Since PWC can operate in much shallower water than other boats, they have a greater propensity for damaging sensitive near-shore habitats.Sea grass meadows are found in shallow waters of the bay. Their functions include: serving as important nursery grounds for commercially and recreationally important finfish and shellfish; reducing shoreline ero-sion; taking up nutrients in summer that would other-wise be available to harmful phytoplankton; and serv-ing as an important food source. These meadows extend from Dover Township south, primarily on the eastern shore of the bay.Both small boat and PWC users operate their vessels in shallow waters. Boat wakes impact marshes by eroding the banks and disrupting birds that nest on the salt-marsh wrack. Vessel operation in narrow tidal creeks can disturb feeding birds, especially long-legged wad-ing birds. Propellers, wakes, and prop wash from boats and PWC operating in shallow sea grass regions can destroy the plants that provide shelter for many small fishes and invertebrates.

STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Partial Commitment, Medium Priority.WHO: Reprinting of the Boater's Guide and a survey of changing boating habitats can be done by either RCE or the Marine Trades Association of New Jersey.HOW: Under the auspices of RCE/N.J. Sea Grant Extension Program, the Marine Trades Association of New Jersey Foundation has developed a "Boater's Guide to Barnegat Bay and Little Egg Harbor" modeled after a successful NEP project in Tampa Bay, Florida. This user's guide is a two-sided waterproof map that is sim-ilar in size and design to a road map or marine chart.Funding from BBNEP, NJDEP, and Ocean County has supported the production and a minimal printing of the map.Free dissemination of the map will be made to marinas and boaters as well as to organizations such as Barnegat Bay Power Squadron, Coast Guard Auxiliary, boating courses, fishing and yacht clubs, boat shows, PWC classes, PWC dealers, pumpout boats, parks, and recreation departments.

The project seeks to promote positive actions and behaviors that safeguard the liv-ing resources of the bay through boater outreach and education with a users' guide map designating special areas such as sea grass meadows, bird nesting sites, and other sensitive near-shore habitats that boaters and PWC operators should avoid. The map also delineates such things as public boat ramps and sewage pumpout stations, and it provides educational information about Barnegat Bay habitats and safe boating practices.

With additional funding; a survey can be conducted to determine changing boating behavior in response to the BBNEP's outreach and education about the bay's environmental sensitivity.

The survey will then be printed and distributed to the public, specifically to boaters, marina owners, and others that use the Bay area.WHEN: Reprinting, which will require six months fol-lowing the availability of funds, is necessary to ensure an adequate supply of the "Boater's Guide to Barnegat Bay and Little Egg Harbor" for each boating season.The target date is spring 2002. The survey would be conducted two to three years after that.WHERE: The "Boater's Guide to Barnegat Bay and Little Egg Harbor" will include the 75-plus square miles (195 km2) of bay waters and the navigable tributaries.

MAY 131 HUMAN ACTIVITIES and COMPETING USES ACTION PLAN MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

There wilt be fewer complaints about vessels causing environmental degradation because operators wilt know how to better protect critical habitats.

Other environmental mea-sures that may be useful would include increases in shallow sea grass beds and increases in beach-nesting colonial bird populations.

COST ESTIMATE:

Printing of 21,000 copies will cost approximately

$20,000. The boater survey develop-ment and printing costs may amount to $30,000.FUNDING SOURCES: Potential funding sources wilt be among those identified in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.Community involvement:

Modify and continue com-munity recognition program for watershed-related pro-jects administered by municipalities.

This would become an annual awards program. The annual recog-nition program would select and recognize one water-shed-related project from one community per year within the Barnegat Bay watershed as part of an annu-al watershed event held in conjunction with the water-shed river cleanup.WHEN: The newsletter wilt be produced quarterly upon the availability of funds, with a target start-up date of 2002. The recognition awards ceremony wilt coincide with the river cleanup day.WHERE: Outreach wilt occur throughout the Barnegat Bay watershed.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

The activities in the communities within the watershed will be identi-fied and monitored to determine how many new pro-jects develop as a result of the recognition program.COST ESTIMATE:

The program cost totals $10,000 per year, including press releases and press coverage and a watershed event to award a community with a Barnie watershed plaque.SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Serving as a catalyst for the 33 municipalities in the watershed to plan and educate with a watershed perspective, rather than strictly within their municipal boundaries, will benefit all the watershed's communities and ecosystems.

STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Medium Priority.WHO: The Barnegat Bay Estuary. and Watershed Foundation (BBWEF) (Lead) would be the primary orga-nizer for this activity.

JCNERR wilt partner for the pro-duction of "Community Connections." HOW: Education:

Continue production of "Community Connection" newsletter in coordination with JCNERR for use as an outreach and information-sharing tool among the municipalities of the watershed.

FUNDING SOURCES: BBNEP Public Outreach funding or other available sources, preferably community generated.

REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.13 2 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 7.Use envirornmentat cornmmssions to foster the watershed, approach.;

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Local environmental com-missions, each representing one of the state's munici-palities, have been created and are served by the Association of N.. Environmental Commissions (AN3EC). Most Ocean County municipalities have envi-ronmental commissions and are members of ANJEC.The environmental commissions serve a local planning function within the municipalities as well as an advi-sory role. Highlighting the role of the environmental commissions within Ocean County will improve the ability of local governments to implement sustainable development practices with strong linkages to the CCMP goals and objectives.

STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Medium Priority.WHO: BBNEP and the Ocean County Environmental Agency (leads) and the individual environmental com-missions.HOW: Environmental commissions are currently includ-ed in the local government planning process. By cre-ating a strong linkage to CCMP goals and objectives, environmental commissions will help tocal govern-ments better pursue sustainable development policies.WHEN: Initiation in 2002.WHERE: Every municipality with an active environ-mental commission would be included in thisaction.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Success will be measured with the enhanced implementation of sus-tainable development practices at the local government level. This could be measured through the increased activity of the environmental commissions in advising their local municipalities.

COST ESTIMATE:

None available beyond existing Program funding.FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitment.

See dis-cussion of potential funding sources in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: Municipalities would need to increase the role of environmental commissions within the local planning process, either through new or revised munic-ipal ordinances or policy initiatives.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The BBWA (now known as BBWEF), which was active during the BBNEP planning phase, is a non-profit citizen's action organization made up of watershed residents.

The BBWA (a.k.a BBWEF) has recently constituted itself for the post-CCMP implementation phase as a multi-stakeholder, non-profit organization to educate the public about protecting resources, promoting better land-use prac-tices, and supporting the Program through funding and concerted action.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Commitment, High Priority.WHO: BBWEF (lead), Ocean County and BBNEP.HOW: Grants available through the BBNEP public out-reach program would fund qualified activities of the BBWEF that inform and empower the public to partici-pate in the environmental protection of Barnegat Bay and its watershed.

This action would require annual support for the BBWEF.The BBWEF will serve as the non-profit arm of the Program, focusing on carrying out public outreach and education activities and other low-cost action items.The roles and responsibilities of the BBWEF and its linkage to the Program office are currently being worked out by the BBWEF, a private consultant, and the Ocean County government.

MAY 2002 133 HUMAN ACTIVITIES and COMPETING USES ACTION PLAN WHEN: Ongoing -BBWEF will raise funds to imple-*ment specific action items that do not yet have fund-ing commitments.

WHERE: The BBWEF would be active throughout the watershed.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

An annually increasing amount of funds generated by the BBWEF and dispensed to implement CCMP actions. The first funding target would be $10,000 for start-up costs.COST ESTIMATE:

$10,000 start-up cost.FUNDING SOURCES: Section 320 of the CWA.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.WHO: OCSCD (Lead), NRCS, RCE, NJDEP, OCPD, Ocean County Vocational-Technical School (OCVTS), and Ocean County College.HOW: Representatives of NRCS, OCSCD, RCE, and OCPD will identify training needs and develop a core-training program. Following identification of training needs and in cooperation with OCVTS and the Ocean County College, staff from these entities would conduct Blue Card training seminars offering continuing education credits for landscapers, builders, land-grading contrac-tors, and personnel from public schools and parks departments.

This will be a volunteer training program for those pro-fessionals who want to learn more about the signifi-cance of soil quality management and would like to receive certification.

WHEN: Initial core training will be targeted for 2003.Specialized training will begin early in 2004. Begin-ning in the summer of 2004, landscapers, builders, and grading contractors can complete the core training, obtain at least three credits, and receive a Blue Card certification.

The certification will be valid for a peri-od of three years, and re-certification will require the applicant to obtain an additional six credits over the next three years to maintain certification.

WHERE: The Blue Card certification program will be available throughout the watershed.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

The success of this action will be measured first by the number of pro-fessionals who complete the specialized training.COST ESTIMATE:

It will cost $75,000 to establish the program and core training.FUNDING SOURCES: Registration fees wilt help pro-vide some support for continuing education and train-ing. Other potential funding sources are identified in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The Blue Card certifi-cation program would train and certify construction inspectors, landscapers, builders, contractors, and oth-ers to recognize the problems that may come with development, and to take steps to retain and incorpo-rate natural features into the site development process for the purposes of runoff reduction, groundwater recharge, and water quality.Implementation of a watershed-wide training and cer-tification program will prevent water quality problems from becoming worse and help prevent impacts from future development.

By engaging those most involved in activities that disturb the land, the program will enhance participants' understanding of the link between soil quality and watershed health, and move the BBNEP closer to its water quality goals.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Low Priority.1 3 4 BARNEGAT BAY FrNAL CCMP Chapter 7 Use diata and, information from the Natura -Resource Jn'ventory (NRI) to promote the use of Best Maniagement Practices (Bmps)SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Through the implementa-tion of this action, Barnegat Bay watershed residents wilt understand the connection between properly man-aging the soil and natural resources on their property and the overall watershed.

Residents will have the opportunity to participate in a voluntary program in which they use soil health practices that will reduce stormwater runoff and potential nonpoint pollution sources. Implementation of this action wilt also sup-port the objectives of the Habitat and Living Resources Action Plan (Chapter 6).STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Low Priority.WHO: OCSCD (Lead), NRCS, RCE.HOW: Local homeowners will receive assistance in establishing an environmentally friendly yard by meet-ing with the OCSCD at their home sites. where they wilt review their current practices and resources.

The OCSCD would then prepare a conservation plan for the property, recommending various soil and water conser-vation piactices, emphasizing low-input lawn and gar-den care and reducing the footprint of impervious sur-faces. Once the residents have implemented the con-servation plan, OCSCD wilt re-visit the property to cer-tify compliance with the plan's recommendations.

When homeowners become certified they wilt be eligi-ble to receive cost-sharing assistance for having imple-mented the conservation plan and a certificate from the OCSCD for participating in the program.WHEN: Target date is 2002.WHERE: Based on the information provided through the NRI, a small sub-watershed wilt be selected as the pilot area for implementation.

Other sub-watersheds will be included in the program following the comple-tion of the pilot project. They will be selected on the basis of information from the NRI, with the sub-water-sheds most at risk from runoff and nonpoint pollution designated as priorities.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Effectiveness wilt be measured by the annual increase in the number of homeowners assisted.COST ESTIMATE:

$75,000.FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments.

See dis-cussion on potential funding sources in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: Vegetative practices must be preserved and should not be removed by homeowners.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Many residential land-scapes declined during drought years, in part due. to poor plant/grass selection and poor irrigation prac-tices, including excess irrigation used to improve land-scapes, but which resulted in increased leaching poten-tial of pesticides and fertilizers.

Environmentally sen-sitive and low water use landscaping (xeriscaping) techniques can be implemented to reduce such impacts. Gardens designed using xeriscaping will be located in highly visible public places such as parks and grounds surrounding municipal buildings, libraries and post offices. Public land managers wilt be informed about the design and construction of envi-ronmentally sensitive gardens.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Low Priority.WHO: RCE (Lead), in conjunction with OCSCD and NRCS. Rutgers staff, volunteers from RCE's Master Gardener program, and/or a professional horticulture consultant will develop the landscape designs and coordinate planting.

United Water, Toms River wilt also MAY2002 135 HUMAN ACTIVITIES and COMPETING USES ACTION PLAN support this effort. Municipal employees wilt assist during planting and will be responsible for the future maintenance of the demonstration garden.HOW: A xeriscape demonstration garden was estab-lished in 1999 by the RCE in partnership with United Water at their Toms River headquarters on Wall Street.A native plant demonstration garden was established by 0CSCD at Hebrew Park in Lacey Township.Two municipalities will be selected annually for partic-ipation, either through a lottery or a competitive grant. A demonstration garden of low-input grasses and native/xeriscape/pest resistant plants will be designed by a horticulturist consultant, RCE staff, or trained Master Gardener designers.

The gardens will be announced and promoted through municipal mailings.

RCE staff, OCSCD staff, consultants and/or Master Gardener volunteers will conduct instructional sessions at each garden site in conjunc-tion with other municipal events to reach as many res-idents as possible and promote low-input landscapes.

WHEN: The program can be initiated within one year after receipt of funding. The target date is 2002.WHERE: Demonstration gardens will be constructed at various selected locations throughout the watershed.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

To measure the effectiveness of this action BBNEP will track the num-ber of gardens installed in Ocean County and the atten-dance at outdoor educational events. The BBNEP will also conduct event surveys to assess the increase in public awareness about actions to control and reduce nonpoint source pollution.

COST ESTIMATE:

The program will cost $35,000 annu-ally per garden including costs for part-time horticul-ture consultant

($10,000-$15,000), plant material, irrigation systems, weed control blankets, mulch, soil testing, supplies, and travel.FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments.

See dis-cussion on potential funding sources in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.Construct an environmentillysesiiv demon--.stratiom lawn for homeowners to4use as a model SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Homeowners often improperly irrigate established turfgrass stands.Excess irrigation increases the leaching.

potential of pesticides and increases disease pathogens (particular-ly when irrigation is timed improperly).

Some varieties of turfgrasses used by homeowners often require more irrigation than other, lower maintenance varieties.

The lower maintenance varieties also require less fer-tilizer and pesticides because they are hardier and pest resistant.

Planting environmentally sensitive lawns will reduce nonpoint source pollutants associated with pesticides and fertilizers and will promote conservation of water supply sources.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Partial Commitment, Medium Priority.WHO: RCE (Lead) will determine the site(s) utilized in cooperation with N.J. State Forest Tree Nursery, OCSCD, and senior villages.

Master Gardener volunteers and/or county/state grounds employees will be utilized to establish plots.Extension staff and Master Gardener volunteers will hold field days in conjunction with other county/agency events for optimal attendance.

HOW: A demonstration lawn site will be planted to encourage replacement of Kentucky bluegrass lawns with low-input lawns. The demonstration site wilt include a variety of recommended turfgrass seed types/blends adapted to Barnegat Bay watershed soil conditions to withstand drought and low water use.Turfgrass will be planted according to existing research protocol.

They will be sown side-by-side and main-tained to serve as visual comparisons.

136 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 7 The demonstration will be located in a highly visible site accessible to the public in one or more locations in the county.. Educational information to accompany the demonstration site will include information on turf-grass selection, proper watering, proper fertilization, and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) methods for pest control. The site will be chosen to foster both guided and unguided tours.An annual field tour of the site will be held to promote these varieties with low-maintenance characteristics.

Proper lawn care maintenance in general wilt also be discussed.

WHEN: Late 2001.MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Number of lawns installed will determine the effectiveness of this action.COST ESTIMATE:

$5,000-$8,000 (personnel, travel, equipment, seed, maintenance costs, signs, education-al brochure, supplies) annually.FUNDING SOURCES: Funding for one year of the pro-gram (2000-2001) has been provided by the BBNEP.Additional funding for future years will be sought by the BBWEF or provided by other potential funding sources identified in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The last comprehensive shellfish stock assessment of Barnegat and Little Egg Harbor bays was conducted by the NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife (Bureau of Shellfisheries) in 1985-1987.

Since that time, aside from sporadic site inspections associated with coastal development permits, the only information the Division has regarding the status of the shellfish resource is from shellfishermen.

Without exception, the shellfisher-men report declining catch-es. In addition, hard clams in vast areas of Barnegat and Little Egg Harbor bays have discolored meat that ranges from olive drab to nearly black. While the dis-coloration has been determined to be due to an ingest-ed plant pigment, the ecological cause has not been investigated.

STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Medium Priority.WHO: NJDEP, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of Shellfisheries.

HOW: Hire additional staff in the Bureau of Shellfisheries to undertake this survey. Four positions would be needed: senior biologist, principal environ-mental technician, boat operator, and technician.

The survey will be carried out using Standard Operating Procedures previously established by NJDEP (Nacote Creek Research Lab).WHEN: Target date for initiation is spring 2002.3/4, A .-~t,, MAY 2002 137 HUMAN ACTIVITIES and COMPETING USES ACTION PLAN WHERE: This action wilt be carried out for shellfish beds throughout the estuary.MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Effectiveness wilt be measured at first by the number of shellfish beds surveyed.

Further measures will include the num-ber of actions taken to enhance shellfish resources, fol-lowed by a trend in improving shellfish stocks.COST ESTIMATE:

$190,000 for all activities.

FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments.

See dis-cussion of potential funding sources in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None currently identified.

P.%.%L.4 13 8 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CcGP Vintage Postcard, Bathing Beach in Beachwood.

COURTESY OF THE OCEAN COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY.MAY 2002 139 Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, concerned citizens can change the world.Indeed it is the only thing that ever has.--Margaret Mead Chapter 8

8.1 INTRODUCTION

The Public Participation and Education Action Plan supports and enforces the idea that, to be successful, the BBNEP must involve the public in any solution to the watershed's issues. The Action Items presented in this Action Plan support all of the BBNEP's priority issues: water quality and water supply, habitat loss and alteration, fisheries decline, and human activities and competing uses. In light of this, Table 8-1 does not contain the "Other Action Plan Supported" column: This Action Plan is largely a product of the Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC). The CAC is designed to allow representatives from all stakeholder groups to have a voice in the planning process. Stakeholders may include any individual or group with an eco-nomic, recreational, environmental, or other stake in the health and viability of the estuary. Representa-tives from marine trades, the business community, recreational and commercial fishermen, the edu-cational community, cultural and environmental orga-nizations, citizens, and others were invited to partici-pate in the development of the management plan for the watershed.

The CAC is a diverse group, offering a wide perspec-tive of opinions, knowledge, and vision. This group has made strides in working together to pursue a common goal. The issues of the watershed require both planning ahead and working together.

They require the input of local government, businesses, groups, agencies, and citizens.

It is the cumulative effect of everyone's individual actions that threaten the estuary, and it will likewise take collective action to effect positive change. Planned growth must take into account all that is valued, balancing values and thoughts and beliefs to find a commonsense middle ground.The CAC's role in the development of the CCMP is to provide a public voice in the decision-making process.The CAC was established early in the planning process so that it was given the opportunity to develop man-agement actions rather than merely comment on the prepared document at the end of the process. The CAC also developed a Public Outreach Strategy to reach and teach people and move them to action. During imple-mentation, the CAC will be part of the Barnegat Bay Watershed and Estuary Foundation.

The primary objec-tive of the CAC's outreach plan was awakening the pub-lic's pride and love of Barnegat Bay's resources, devel-oping an understanding of the issues that threaten them, and ultimately assigning people their share of responsibility for maintaining the health of the bay and its watershed.

Change quite often occurs in the wake of legislation and regulation.

The change that ensues is one of com-pliance and enforcement.

This level of change happens most often on the governmental/agency level and is dealt with extensively in other chapters.

Significant changes, however, often happen in daily life without regulation.

These changes happen when a situation is created that encourages them to occur.MAY 2002 141 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and EDUCATION ACTION PLAN TABLE 8-1. Public Participation and Education Action Items.Action Action Item Pirityl Lead Tentative App rox. Goals item No.4 ~T Ii Ie and Status Shdlcot- Supported, 8.1 Post the Pinetands PineLands Beta testing $20,000 1 1, 5 Curriculum Guide Commission October 1999 Lessons for Grades 4-6& 7-8 on the World Lessons completed.

Wide Web. -R 8.2 Conduct two, two-day MCVTS Summer months $5,100 5 summer teacher (July and August)workshops through the Ocean County Vocational-Technical School (OCVTS) that focus on the Barnegat Bay estuary and I watershed.

-PC 8.3 Revise & reprint the M Barnegat Bay First .revisions, $5,000 each 5 Barnegat Bay Environmental 2002-2003 round of Watershed Educational Education school year revisions Resource Guide. -R Roundtable I 8.4 Conduct an annual M Barnegat Baj Each spring $2,500 per year 5 Environmental Environmental upon availability Educators Roundtable.

Educators of funding-R Roundtable 8.5 Support the Sea H IMCS Upon availability of $15,00 to5 Grosses for Classes funding (Pilot implement Project -Institute of already conducted)

Web site &Marine & Coastal purchase Sciences (IMCS), equipment Rutgers University.

-PC $40,000 to scientifically monitor the project 8.6 Develop the Forest M NJDEP, Ongoing Enhanced 6 Resource Education Division of program Center (FREC) as a Parks & funding of resource and Forestry, State $20,000 per interpretive center Forest Service year that promotes an understanding of the human & resource connections

& a stewardship ethic among students, scouts, & the general public. -PC 142 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 8 TABLE 8-1. (continued)

Action Aeptative prox. Goas ActonItrnPloltvLead I enaiv Item No. Title arnd Status Schedule Co st Co" d'8.7 Develop a Barnegat Bay M BBWEF Six months for $60,000 for 5 Watershed Education program start up and Campaign, to be development, first- year implemented in implementation elementary schools via a mascot, "Barnie the Crab." -R 8.8 Develop a Barnegat H Barnegat Bay Activity guide $60,000, initial 5, 6 Bay watershed-specific Environmental completion by the implementation activity guide. -PC Education 2002-2003 school Roundtable year.Steering Committee 8.9 Continue the Alliance M ALO Student tours $5,000 5 for a Living Ocean during the school (ALO) Ecotour of a year Barrier Island for schoolchildren and the Summer tours general public. -R weekly in July &August 8.10 Promote the M OCSCD Implementation

$5,000 per year 3, 5 development

& use of as soon as outdoor classrooms.

-funding secured R 8.11 Establish a Bay Keeper L Water Keeper Upon availability of $60,000 per 1, 2, 5 Program as a public Program funding year watchdog for the protection of Barnegat Bay. -R 8.12 Create a Barnegat Bay- L NJMSC Upon availability of $20,000 for 5 specific Educational funding 45,000 copies Guide outlining the natural and cultural ecotourism opportunities in Central New Jersey, with an emphasis on the Barnegat Bay watershed region. -C 8.13 Establish one M BBWEF Annually in early $5,000 per year 5 waterway cleanup per spring beginning year within the 2002-2003 Barnegat Bay watershed.

-R MAY 2002 143 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and EDUCATION ACTION PLAN TABLE 8-1. (continued)

N' N CCMP~Action Item. Priority Lead Tentative:, Approx. Goals Itm o. Title and Status Schedule ~ CostN'> upLe 8.14 Provide interpretive BBDBM Ongoing 1 $1.29 million 5 exhibits, programs, and 1 activities focusing on the historical human uses of the environmental resources within the Barnegat Bay watershed. " Cu 5 8.15 Provide education and H JCNERR Ongoing $848,000 start up technical training to local government

$45,000 annually officials

& other coastal decision makers in the I Barnegat Bay watershed.

-C 8.16 Revise and reprint the M OCSCD First revision/

$35,000 every 3, 5, 6"Low-Maintenance RCE reprint in 2002-2003 three years Landscaping Homeowners' Guide." -R -8.17 Educate professional M RCE Upon availability

$20,000- 1, 5, 6 landscapers, municipal of funding $30,000/year grounds personnel, and facility managers on more efficient and environmentally sensitive use of pesticides.

-R 8.18 Promote the use of M RCE Implement upon $24,000- 1, 3, 5, 6 IPM methods. -R funding $29,000/year 8.19 Incorporate BBEP i ELC of Ocean Opening of the ELC $40,000 5 outreach and County to the public 2004-education displays and 2005 programs at the Environmental Learning Center of Ocean County. -PC 8.20 Experience Barnegat M Youth Upon availability Minimum 5 Bay, a project of YES. Environmental of funding $150,000-PC Society (YES)144 BARNEGAT BAY FI14AL ccMP Chapter 8 For example, when recycling programs were created, peo-ple were provided information on the importance of recy-cling, plus given the opportunity to recycle. Most people understood and gladly complied.For unregulated change to occur in the Barnegat Bay watershed, three things need to happen:* Awareness

-People need to be informed about the issues facing the watershed.

Many people understand that they live in a watershed, but they are not quite sure what it is or which one they live in. Awareness of the inter-connectedness of estuaries and waterways must be fos-tered.* Motivation

-People need to understand how their behavior impacts, positively or negatively, the watershed and its resources.

For example, many people are genuine-ly surprised to learn that stormwater is a major source of pollution and that residential areas in watersheds are sig-nificant sources of stormwater pollution.

-Action -People need to be given an opportunity to change their behaviors (increase the positive, decrease the negative) that play a role in watershed issues, such as stormwater pollution.

8.2 THE DIVERSITY OF STAKEHOLDERS The stakeholders in Bamegat Bay and its watershed are a diverse group. There are those people who live on the southern barrier island (Long Beach Island), and those that live on the northern barrier island. Logistically they do not generally mix. There are mainland residents who live in the northern, more developed bayshore of the watershed and those that live along the southern bayshore.

There are the people who live inland up to 25 miles away from the coast. There are full-time residents, part-time residents, and a large population of senior resi-dents and seasonal visitors.

These geographic and resi-dency distinctions exist and directly influence how people respond to the issues and determine the practicality of coordinating efforts.In order to develop outreach strategies to correspond with their attitudes, these subgroups and communities can be categorized more clearly based upon their relationship and attitudes towards Barnegat Bay and its watershed: " People who live next to the bay (or its water bodies)." People who use the bay (or its water bodies)for work or recreation." People who don't use the bay (or its water bodies), but like knowing it's there. By virtue of living in the watershed, these people have an impact on it." People who don't think about the bay (or its water bodies) at all, but by virtue of living in the watershed, have an impact on it.For example, boaters and operators of personal watercraft rely on the bay, but may be unaware of their impacts on sensitive SAV or waterfowl nesting areas. Seasonal visi-tors, who may have a significant impact in a limited time frame, need to be made aware of these impacts and their consequences with a message that is simple and painless.Those who, while not directly using the bay or its tribu-taries, still appreciate its existence, might be motivated to support initiatives if reminded of the overall positive effects on the quality of life in a healthy watershed.

Air quality, drinking water; and the potential opportunity to take direct advantage of the resources some time in the near future are quality of life issues.For those people who don't usually think about the bay at all, an approach that reminds them of the overall eco-nomic and health benefits of a balanced environment might arouse not only their consciousness but also a fond-ness for their pocketbook or well-being.

Drinking water issues, property values, and a healthy economy might be the motivating factors for these residents.

Nearly a third of the resident population of Ocean County are seniors, many of whom head south in the winter. In the summer, Ocean County population swells to nearly one million people. The composition of the community, with so many part-time residents, newcomers, and diverse interests, presents a challenge for environmental outreach and protection efforts. However, working with existing organized groups, some with memberships that expand dramatically during the summer, enables a far-reaching extension for outreach awareness efforts. Establishing an understanding and a connection to the watershed is an important goal.MAY 2002 145 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and EDUCATION ACTION PLAN 8.3 THE OUTREACH STRATEGY The CAC's public outreach strategy has evolved to max-imize its impact. Present efforts target three main net-works: " Media -Efforts to maximize media coverage will bring the largest exposure." Partnerships

-Partnering with existing organizations helps disseminate the messages to an expanded network." Municipal outreach -Involvement of local governments is critical to the success of the CCMP.8.4 PUBLIC OUTREACH ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE The CAC has already made a number of public outreach accomplishments.

A Public Outreach Workgroup was formed, which works with a staff Public Outreach Coordinator.

Public workshops for stakeholders began in the fall of 1998, and additional stakeholder outreach has been conducted with educational brochures, press releases, promotional materials, and a mini-newsletter.

Other outreach approaches include development of a Web site, participation in the Barnegat Bay Festival, partnerships with organizations interested in water-shed protection, speaking at various clubs and organi-zations, and public service announcements.

See Appendix D for further discussion.

A focal point of the public outreach effort to date has been the Minigrant Program. Over the past few years, approximately

$50,000 has been distributed to envi-ronmental and civic organizations,.

schools, municipal-ities, and business interests to reach out to the public on issues relevant to protecting the bay and its water-shed. These grants focus on increasing public aware-ness for major environmental problems facing the bay in one of the following subject areas:* Nonpoint source pollution prevention/water quality control;* Estuarine awareness;

  • Habitat enhancement and preservation;
  • Citizen monitoring; and" Public participation.

Appendix D contains a summary of the Minigrant Awards to date.8.5 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CCMP AND THE PUBLIC OUTREACH STRATEGY FOR IMPLEMENTATION Community involvement in the development of the CCMP began during the earliest efforts of the Estuary Program in 1996, and has been enhanced during the last year in preparation for release of the Draft CCMP for public review and comment. It was community interest that initiated the earlier Barnegat Bay Study that led to the nomination and entry of Barnegat Bay into the NEP. The formal establishment of the CAC and the monthly meetings, attended regularly by the Public Outreach Coordinator, Program Director and EPA Coordinator, have ensured that the lines of communi-cation between the public and the Advisory Committees remained open. The CAC developed work-plans and budgets, reviewed and approved significant documents and had a regular voice at the Management and Policy Committees, particularly as the CCMP began to take shape.In 1998 and 1999 the BBNEP initiated a series of Environmental Roundtables in the Barnegat Bay water-shed to engage the public, the communities and the local governments in Ocean County in a dialogue on issues of concern that should be included in the CCMP.As has been done in preparing for the Draft CCMP, pub-lic education will continue to be an essential element of the Plan in its implementation phase. The Program office will support and work with the BBWEF to edu-cate citizens on bay/watershed issues and publicize the Program's progress.

The Program and the BBWEF will continue to network with existing resources to maximize its reach and work with organizations to bring hands-on educational resources to the public.146 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 8 The following existing public outreach vehicles will continue: " Annual minigrants;" Quarterly newsletter;" Coordination with other educational organizations;" Visible presence at festivals with printed materials and Program display;* Education of school children through continued support of the Educational Roundtables and Activity Guide;* Regular press releases and media contacts on relevant events;* Annual Barnegat Bay Festival;* Ongoing updating of the Program Web site;" Production and distribution of the Barnegat Bay watershed video;" Coordinate with the Barnegat Bay Watershed and Estuary Foundation on field trips, cleanups, seminars, fund raisers, etc.; and" Support of the implementation of education-related Action Items.Targeted mailings to specific audiences:

new home buyers, landscapers, educators, civic organizations, the governmental sector, recreation and tourism, busi-ness/commercial interests, environmental groups, senior citizens communities and organizations, sum-mer residents and visitors, media and geographical subsets of the above-mentioned groups (such as inland communities).

Support of public involvement and education is the best long-term investment Ocean County can make to guarantee the successful protection of the Barnegat Bay watershed.

Public stewardship of the ecosystem is crucial to continued support and funding of govern-ment improvement projects and for the lifestyle changes that must occur to ensure a healthy ecosystem for future generations.

The Public Outreach Coordinator will continue to maximize results by working with three main networks:

media, partnerships and munici-pal outreach.The Draft CCMP was also presented and made available to the communities and citizens of Ocean and Monmouth counties through the Program Web site (www.bbnep.org), a series of six daytime and evening public meetings in three different municipalities (Stafford Township, Jackson Township, and Brick Township), and at all 21 local libraries in the Barnegat Bay watershed.

Summaries were made available through newspaper supplements and a series of press releases.BBNEP PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and EDUCATION B uid cogmmng i awareness, apprecIation and sunderstading of the ecosystem and it-1 importance; and etermAgaltin h at the Community level.~,.* romoe inrease~comumcaIonad foster ooperatvesonibetween groups tDor -Aesed ans involved in e reaounc(e a*~Involve

ýjgovj~r-wiretspecifically local~Sgovernmentts, for sta n'edefectiveness Iin managing watershed ruce and securing funiýding for CCMEýF ,,, nný indaltions.

As in the previous chapters, Table 8-2 and Figure 8-1 present measures to determine the achievement of objectives, monitoring methods to be used, and an expected timeline for action implementation.

MAY 2002 147 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and EDUCATION ACTION PLAN TABLE 8-2. Indicators and Monitoring Programs for Measuring Progress Toward Public Participation and Education Action Plan Objectives.

Public Par-ticipation and Mntrn rg-II o>~Ed4ucation Objectives ofthe E ironmenl Indicators of the BBEP I Bairnegat Bay Estuary Program Build community awareness, The measure of success for this objective Statistical data about school systems appreciation, and understanding of will be the number of schools across the programs will be collected by the the ecosystem and its importance; watershed that have included an BBWEF and evaluated by the BBEP.and encourage action at the environmental education program in their community level. curriculum.

The Program will periodically compare the baseline number against new numbers to see if the management actions are effective in increasing awareness and understanding of the ecosystem in the Barnegat Bay watershed.

Promote increased communication The measure of success in this objective will Seminar and participation information and foster cooperation between be evaluated first by the level of volunteer will be collected from appropriate groups and organizations involved participation at conflict resolution management conference partners.in watershed resources.

seminars.

The program goal is for diverse Monitoring will be the responsibility of users of the estuary and watershed to the BBEP.cooperate in the stewardship of resources.

Later measures of success could include: a) Level of volunteer participation in the citizens baywatch monitoring program;b) Catalog of complaints by bay users, e.g., for PWC noise or disturbance; c) Trends in successful shorebird nesting;and d) Refuge staff time devoted to enforcing refuge restrictions.

Involve government, specifically The objective will be measured by Funding levels, sources and recipients, local governments, for sustained determining the level of action and/or as well as ordinance information, will effectiveness in managing watershed funding obtained by local governments for be collected from appropriate resources and securing funding for environmental projects.

Furthermore, management conference partners, CCMP recommendations.

changes in environmental ordinances by including local governments.

The local governments will be monitored to BBEP will 'monitor the status of these evaluate the impact of the management indicators.

actions on this objective.

148 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Post the Pinelands Curriculum Guide Lessons (81)Conduct Two, Two-day Summer Teacher Workshops (8.2)Revise and Reprint the 8B Watershed Educational Resource Guide (8.3)Conduct an Annual Environmental Educators Roundtable (8.4)Support the Sea Grasses for Classes Project (8.5)Develop the FREC as a Resource and Interpretive Center (8.6)Develop a BB Watershed Education Campaign (8.7)Develop a BB Watershed-Specific Activity Guide (8.8)Continue the ALO Ecotour (8.9)Promote the Development and Use of Outdoor Classrooms (8.10)Establish a Bay Keeper Program as a Public Watchdog (8.11)Create and Distribute an Educational Ecotourism Guide (8.12)Establish One Waterway Cleanup Per Year Within the BB Watershed (8.13)Provide Interpretive Exhibits, Programs, and Activities (8.14)Provide Educational and Technical Training to Local Government Officials (8.15)Revise and Reprint the "Low-Maintenance Landscaping Homeowners Guide" (8.16)Educate Professional Landscapers on Environ. Sensitive Use of Pesticides (8.17)Promote the Use of IPM Methods (8.18)Incorporate BBEP Outreach Educ. Displays at Envir, Learning Ctr. (8.19)Experience BB, a Project of YES (8.20)___ ___ ~~1~~_____ E ~ ____-w ________ 2227. __sv~~:j___

___ ___-I__ __-~ ____ ~ _____ _____ ____"i1n 00 ri" 0J It".o+0+1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 YEAR OF CCMP IMPLEMENTATION PRE-EXISTING COMMITMENT HIGH PRIORITY MEDIUM PRIORITY LOW PRIORITY II r+'*1 00 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and EDUCATION ACTION PLAN 8.6 ACTION ITEMS SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: This pair of curriculum guides is designed to accompany the Pinelands video,"The New Jersey Pinelands, Our Country's First National Reserve," which is currently available from New Jersey Network (http://www.njn.njnsecure.com/njnvideo/

pinelands.html).

Adapted from an 80-slide Pinelands audio-visual program, nine percent of the program specifically addresses the connection between Pinelands waterways and New Jersey's coastal bays and marshes, such as the Barnegat Bay watershed.

Curriculum lessons-particularly those dealing with soil, water, plants, and animals-reinforce the inter-connectedness between the Pinelands and coastal areas like the Barnegat Bay estuary. These are lessons teachers have shared with students throughout New Jersey and in neighboring states. Their adaptation for the New Jersey PineLands Commission (NJPC) Website will expand their use.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Low Priority.WHO: The NJPC's Public Programs Supervisor (Lead) is working with the Education Specialist to convert these"hard copy" lessons into a format for Web use.Assistance in achieving this objective is provided by the NJPC's Management Information Systems and Cartography staff members. Outside assistance will come from educators who have agreed to Beta-test the product and, ultimately, from teachers who incorporate these lessons into their curriculae.

HOW: The NJPC has developed a lesson, "Habitat, Sweet Habitat," which is included in the curriculum for grades four to six, to serve as the model for future Web site lessons. It has been added to the NJPC's Web site for Beta-testing by approximately 20 New Jersey teacher volunteers.

Teachers are asked to respond to the lesson's online evaluation.

The revised format will reflect educators' recommendations and will serve as the model for adaptation of the remaining lessons.Staff of the BBNEP will be able to significantly con-tribute to the long-range implementation of this pro-ject by (a) viewing the Web site and sharing insights for format enhancement, and (b) sharing information about the Web site with educators in the BBNEP's geo-graphic area. The latter may be encouraged by coop-erating with NJPC staff to present teacher workshops.

Additionally, a link can be established between the BBNEP's Web site and the NJPC's Web site.WHEN: Project will commence upon the availability of funds, with a target date of 2002.. The Beta-test of the model lesson will last one week. It is anticipated that one new lesson can be added to the Web site every two weeks.There are 22 lessons in the curriculum guide for grades 4 to 6 and 18 lessons in the curriculum guide for grades 7 and 8. Theoretically, 40 lessons can be completed in 80 weeks (two lessons per month). It is anticipated that the entire package can be on the Pinelands Commission Website within six months after funding, currently targeted for 2002.WHERE: The Beta-testing effort will be undertaken by educators in schools throughout New Jersey.MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

The on-line evaluation included in the Beta-test will serve as a qualitative measure of the product. The number of"hits" on the NJPC's Web site can serve as a general quantitative measure. Effectiveness will also be mea-sured by ancillary requests for other teaching materials, including the Pinelands Speakers Directory; Pinelands Guide to Recreational Opportunities, Historic Sites, Nature Centers, and Field Trips; the Pinelands poster;and Pinelands Information Packets.COST ESTIMATE:

Cost to the NJPC for a part-time Education Specialist's monthly pay is currently$1,491.60 per month. Estimated cost of continued service for one year, based on previous funding, is$20,000.150 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 8 FUNDING SOURCES: The NJPC has been underwriting the cost of curriculum lesson reformatting for website use; however, funding has not been budgeted for this project since June 30, 2000. It is estimated that approximately 40 percent of the lessons (16 lessons)will be on the website by this time. At the same refor-matting rate, the remaining 60 percent of the lessons (24 lessons) should be completed by mid-2001.However, completion depends on funding capability.

Potential sources include joint NJPC and NJDEP water-shed funding recently awarded by the State of New Jersey.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None are anticipated.

-" ,Thmmer -ea>-n--'ACTION 8.2 ro1)ugeh theO-ean County Vocatiuial SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Educating teachers about the environment in which they live can have lasting effects. The focus of the workshop is on the Barnegat Bay watershed, with clear, well-developed activities that work in a classroom.

All of the materials and strategies can be incorporated into many disciplines.

Historical, ecological, biological, chemical; physical, and economic aspects of the bay and watershed will be discussed.

The teachers will then incorporate the material gathered into a lesson for their classes. The workshops provide a common focus on all groups involved in watershed education, protection, and usage.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Partial Commitment, Medium Priority.WHO: OCVTS (Lead) has a wealth of resources, includ-ing some curriculum from the Marine Science program.In addition, that school works with each school district within the Ocean County area. Therefore, the school could utilize its contacts to attract teachers to the free workshops.

Workshop personnel include educators and experts within the Barnegat Bay Estuary. Christine Raabe has a wealth of information for teacher training and is will-ing to work with the program. Terry O'Leary also has a great deal of information on species within the bay.Others possibly involved include John Wnek, Instructor, Marine Academy of Technology and Environmental Science (OCVTS); Lisa Koch (OCVTS);Lynda Aue; Bob MacMaster; and Darren Dorris (GPS activities).

HOW: There will be two workshops that will be two days in duration.

The focus of the workshop, which will target all teachers in grades K-12, will be specific activ-ities designed for elementary (K-5), middle (6-8), and high school (9-12). The teachers wilt receive a binder with the agenda, activities, and guides featuring the Barnegat Bay estuary that can be used in the class-room, as well as resource materials from the BBNEP.WHEN: The workshops will take place in the months of July and August, typical vacation months for teach-ers. Two sessions were selected to accommodate teach-ers' summer vacation.

The target year is 2002.WHERE: OCVTS has the facilities to host the teacher training sessions.

The first workshops would be held at the Bishop Building of the Ocean County Library/OCVTS. Field trips to the bay may also be included in the workshops.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS: " The teachers must submit one lesson based upon the resources given. The lesson must be completed during the first semester of the school year and returned to the BBNEP." In addition, immediately after the lesson is presented to students, teachers will be asked to complete an evaluation of the lesson. This is an important aspect of the program.COST ESTIMATE:

$5,100.FUNDING SOURCES: OCVTS will provide tand-based transportation where necessary.

Other organizations have committed to providing resources to the program in the form of promotional items and learning materials.

MAY 2002 151 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and EDUCATION ACTION PLAN REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.ACTION 8.34~§Reisf-.i~d reprint thh(_ t Bal Watershed Ec~tional Resource-Uide.SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The Resource Guide pro-vides valuable information about the resources avail-able to environmental educators within the Barnegat Bay watershed.

Initially designed to be an interim resource during the development of the Activity Guide, it will continue to serve as a supplemental resource once the Activity Guide is completed.

It will, there-fore, need to be periodically updated.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Medium Priority.WHO: Barnegat Bay Environmental Education Roundtable (Lead), a project of the Barnegat Bay Watershed Association, now known as the BBWEF. This action will be coordinated by the OCSCD.HOW: Revise and reprint once every three years. This could be a project for an intern.WHEN: Provided the funds are available, first revisions wilt be made for the 2002-2003 school year in con-junction with the release of the Activity Guide.WHERE: The Resource Guide is relevant to the whole watershed.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Number of requests for the Resource Guide will be used to gauge effectiveness of this action.COST: $5,000 for each round of revisions.

FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments.

See potential funding sources in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.1 52 EARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: This annual event pro-vides a mechanism for environmental educators to share resources and information related to the water-shed. The enthusiasm instilled in teachers is carried back to their schools and colleagues and wilt help to promote environmental education opportunities with-in the watershed.

STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Medium Priority.WHO: Barnegat Bay Environmental Education Roundtable (Lead).HOW: Sponsor an annual Environmental Educators Roundtable to facilitate the sharing of resource infor-mation and ideas and provide hands-on opportunities that can be carried back to the classroom.

WHEN: Upon availability of funds, the Roundtables will occur during the spring of each year. The target year for initiation is 2002.WHERE: The Roundtables should be conducted throughout the watershed.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Number of Roundtables conducted and attendance at each will measure effectiveness.

COST: $2,500 per year.FUNDING SOURCES: BBWEF or other potential sources identified in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None identified.

Chapter 8 ACTION 8.5 Supijirt ~the& Sea Grasses for Classes Project-institute' of Marine ~& Coasta Sciences (IMCS)-Riitqers Uni-.ersity SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ACTION: This program wilt create partnerships with schools through the Marine Activities Resources

& Education (MARE) program of IMCS to restore eelgrass (Zostera spp.) in New Jersey waters. The project wilt not only be scientifically sig-nificant, but will also provide hands-on opportunities for students in grades 4 to 12 to study the importance of eelgrass as one of the sensitive habitats of Barnegat Bay.During 1998, a dramatic reduction in eelgrass coverage and biomass occurred in Little Egg Harbor. Due to the importance of this habitat for local species, it is the goal of this Action Item to restore portions of this habitat, determine the best planting techniques for eelgrass beds in New Jersey, and create long-term mon-itoring goats for assessment of restoration and habitat value.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Partial Commitment, Medium Priority.WHO: The IMCS (Lead) will be responsible for program implementation.

The BBNEP will serve as a consultant to the project and might assist in promoting the pro-ject through public outreach.HOW: With increasing pressure on K-12 educators in New Jersey to meet the New Jersey State Core Curriculum Standards without concomitant increases in school budgets, programs such as MARE are in increas-ing demand. The scientific community has a responsi-bil-ity to support teachers and assist schools in seek-ing outside funding for science education reform. IMCS is committed to making its faculty and staff resources and advanced technology available to educators and their students through programs like this one.There are currently approximately 12,000 school chil-dren participating in the MARE program.WHEN: The 1999-2000 school year was the pilot year for the "Sea Grasses for Classes" project, which is tar-geted for continuation in 2001 with funding from the Dodge Foundation.

WHERE: Schools participating in the MARE program are somewhat focused within the boundaries of the Jacques Cousteau National Estuarine Research Reserve (JCNERR) at Mullica River/Great Bay, which has over-lapping boundaries with the BBNEP. Four pilot schools in Toms River and Lacey Township have been selected to participate in the "Sea Grasses for Classes" project.MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

IMCS has hired a professional evaluator to develop pre- and post-project surveys and focus group protocols to assess the success of the community-based project. The MARE program is currently in year two of a professional evaluation pro-gram.COST ESTIMATE:

$15,000 is required to implement a website and purchase classroom curriculum and equip-ment. Additional funding would be required ($40,000)to scientifically monitor the project and assess its sci-entific value.FUNDING SOURCES: Seed money for the 1999-2000 school year was secured from the Geraldine R. Dodge Foundation.

Additional sources of funding for scaling up of the program may come from other non-profit sources.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.MAY 2002 153 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and EDUCATION ACTION PLAN Develop the Forest Resource Education Center (FREC) as a resource and interpr~etieeter tha~t ,promotes art understandig.n0f thed hiuman/natural resource ;connection anfd a(stewardshrpi ethic arnong scouts, 1ah, th g irI public, SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Trees provide many bene-fits to ensure a healthy environment and high quality of life. The FREC is dedicated to enhancing awareness, knowledge, and understanding of forest resources as one means to development of a conservation ethic.The FREC provides a range of products and services and promotes values that contribute to community well-being and ecological health through active participa-tion in projects and programs.

The FREC will establish partnerships to strengthen environmental education programs throughout the Barnegat Bay watershed and across the state.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Partial Commitment, Medium Priority.WHO: The FREC is a property of the NJDEP Division of Parks arnd Forestry, state Forest Service (Lead).Partners with the FREC include OCSCD, Boy and Girt Scouts of Ocean County, Jackson School District, Ocean County 4-H, New Jersey Society of American Foresters, Project Learning Tree, New Jersey Tree Farm Committee, Alliance for. New Jersey Environmental Educators (ANJEE), and others.HOW: The FREC has the unique opportunity to model positive land-use practices that can be implemented by homeowners in an "up-watershed" location.

The FREC is striving to be a model for land-use practices that communities, residents, visitors, and landowners can learn about and later implement at home. Such prac-tices could include but are not limited to: tree plant-ings for energy conservation, water gardens to reduce runoff and increase water re-entry into aquifers, habi-tat plantings for wildlife, riparian buffer plantings, and many more.The NJDEP Division of Parks and Forestry has commit-ted to distributing BBNEP's watershed outreach materi-als and will provide agency facilities (i.e., FREC) for joint presentations.

Parks and Forestry has also agreed to incorporate educational materials about watersheds into their presentations.

WHEN: Ongoing.WHERE: The FREC is located on Route 527 in Jackson, with more than 450 acres near the headwaters of the Toms River. Outreach efforts extend throughout the county and the watershed, as Well as across the state.MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

The education and outreach efforts of the FREC will be measured by an increase in visitation by students, scouts, visitors, and area residents, and by the increased promotion of forest tree seedlings for plantings throughout the Barnegat Bay watershed by residents and landowners.

In succeeding years, the measure of effectiveness wilt include the annually increasing number of tree seedlings planted.COST ESTIMATE:

Supplemental expenditures of$20,000 per year would enhance the public outreach and education value of this action.FUNDING SOURCES: The FREC has allocated funds to construct an interpretive center over the next few years. Additional funds are sought to enhance inter-pretive and visitor services to better aid information dissemination regarding the Barnegat Bay watershed.

Required Regulatory, Ordinance, or Policy Changes: None.154 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 8 Develop a Barnegat Bay Watershed Education Campaign, to be implemented in all elemrientary Sclools via a ,mascot "Barnie the Crab." This character would address kindergarten throughor fourth grades with awatershed aware rn-s miessage.

InI addition, the program would!:e ~available to scout and otheryol gou t:Khroughout the watershedd SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Education is key to effect-ing social change. Educating school-age children about the bay and its natural resources could influence the development of positive environmental behavior and habits. Such behavior changes in children may influ-ence changes in parents' attitudes toward the bay, thus fostering an environmental ethic in the citizens of the watershed.

This action wilt help all citizens and visi-tors know how they positively and negatively influence the watershed environment and their role in its con-servation and improvement.

STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Medium Priority.WHO: Barnegat Bay Watershed and Estuary Foundation (BBWEF) (Lead).HOW: Develop a program featuring an educator in a"Barnie the Crab" costume who will conduct presenta-tions in individual classrooms at all elementary schools in the watershed.

Lesson plans and grade-specific handouts wilt be developed which are compatible with New Jersey State Core Curriculum Standards.

The con-tent of these materials will focus on building awareness and appreciation for the watershed's natural resources.

The "Barnie the Crab" costume will build on the exist-ing signage program sponsored by the BBWEF (former-ly BBWA). During the summer, a college student intern would utilize the costume and educational materials to expand the program to public beaches and boardwalk.

WHEN: It is envisioned that development of this pro-ject would take an education consultant approximate-ly six months upon the availability of funds, the target date being 2002. The organization, development, and scheduling of the 60 public elementary schools and pri-vate school presentations could take a full year or more. In addition, there are numerous opportunities to schedule public appearances of "Barnie the Crab" at special events throughout the year.WHERE: The presentations will be conducted at schools, Libraries, and public facilities within the Barnegat Bay watershed.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

This program will foster a personal connection and sense of respon-sibility for managing watershed resources.

One mea-sure of success will be the number of youngsters reached by this program and their geographic distribu-tion in Ocean County. Another measure may be new participants drawn to the ongoing baywatch monitor-ing program.COST ESTIMATE:

Start-up cost for development of the character and program as well as first-year implemen-tation will be in the $60,000 range. The costs for the multiple components for this project wilt each have to be estimated when funding sources become available.

Continued funding sources must be identified for long-term engagements and program management.

FUNDING SOURCES: Potential funding sources include the NJDEP, New Jersey Department of Education, pri-vate foundations, and the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation.

REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.,Ij/MAY 2002 155 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and EDUCATION ACTION PLAN SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Environmental education provides meaningful connections to the surrounding envi-ronment and leads the student (whether a child or an adult) through a process from awareness to action.Once completed, the activity guide wilt enable teachers to integrate and apply lessons and activities directly related to the watershed in which they teach. Thus, the guide wilt help to develop an environmental ethic and responsible citizens.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Partial Commitment, High Priority.WHO: Barnegat Bay Environmental Education Roundtable Steering Committee (Lead), coordinated by OCSCD.HOW: Initially, provide facilitator training so the activity guide is implemented in a consistent fashion. Coordinate a series of workshops for school districts throughout the watershed to introduce the activity guide. Showcase and highlight a number of successful stewardship projects in order to make the program action-oriented.

WHEN: The activity guide should be completed for the 2002-2003 school year. Initial implementation will take three years.WHERE: The activity guide wilt be available for use throughout the watershed.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Effectiveness will be gauged by an increased awareness about and action to control and reduce nonpoint source pollution.

A numeri-cal measure would be the number of educators making use of the guide. Another measure would be the number of guides distributed.

COST ESTIMATE:

Initial implementation will cost $60,000 (over three years) for printing and a facilitator.

Subsequent funding wilt be needed to revise and reprint the guide and to continue the teacher-training program.FUNDING SOURCES: CWA Section 320 -Program Funding and other contributing sources to be identified.

REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: Not yet determined.

ACTION 8.9, Contin~ue the Allian~cefor a Living Ocean (ALO)Ec-tou5r of a Barrier Island for school childrenr and the general pubhic.SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The main purpose of the ecotours is to educate the public about the Barnegat Bay Estuary -what it is, its ecological importance, and how it can be protected and restored.

Each participant is sent home with the educational tools needed to improve not only the Barnegat Bay Estuary, but also any environment near his or her home. Many partici-pants come from the Tri-state area. Their actions impact the Barnegat Bay Estuary and its barrier islands. If, by taking the ecotours, people learn to be good stewards of the natural resources of a barrier island and estuary, it is hoped that they will extend their knowledge to protecting other estuarine environ-ments.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Medium Priority.WHO: ALO (Lead).HOW: The ALO school trips are held on a reservation basis and are tailored to the grade level of the stu-dents, as well as the time constraints of the school.Each ecotour stops at points of environmental interest along the entire length of Long Beach Island. Some of the topics discussed are water quality and water mon-itoring, dune preservation, indigenous species, non-point source pollution, beach debris, and estuarine preservation.

Many schools require their students to write papers or do a project about something learned on the ecotour.The summer version of the ecotour is split into two parts, northern and southern, because of traffic prob-lems. A trolley is rented to provide transportation, and 156 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 8 a guide speaks to the participants as the trolley proceeds from stop to stop. The same lessons provided to students during the school year are used during the summer.WHEN: The. ALO offers ecotours to schoolchildren throughout the school year. The summer version of the ecotour takes place once a week in July and August.WHERE: The ecotour takes place on Long Beach Island.MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

The program's effectiveness has been measured historically by the repeat participation of many schools, i.e., many schools bring their students back each year. As an example, Medford Memorial School has integrated the ecotour into its sev-enth-grade coastal studies. In addition, many summer participants have chosen to take both the northern and southern tours.COST ESTIMATE:

Approximately

$3,000 to continue the existing program and an additional

$5,000 to update the curriculum with new information.

FUNDING SOURCES: Funding is anticipated from an Ocean County Freeholders Tourism Grant. No other fund-ing source is pending.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.the water quality of area lakes, streams, and rivers that flow into Barnegat Bay.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Medium Priority.WHO: OCSCD (Lead), USDA- NRCS, and NJDEP.HOW: Provide technical and financial assistance to public schools to promote the development and use of outdoor classrooms.

Technical assistance will be provided through a series of teacher training workshops such as Project WILD/WILD School Sites and Project Learning Tree/Project WET. The New Jersey Forestry Service is an active partici-pant in Project Learning Tree, and has agreed to provide information about the Barnegat Bay watershed as part of this project. Financial assistance will be provided through a competitive mini-grant program for local schools.WHEN: The program is targeted to begin in 2002.WHERE: Outdoor classrooms will be encouraged through-out the watershed.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Number of outdoor classrooms developed will serve as a measure of effective-ness.COST: $5,000 per year.FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments.

See discus-sion of potential funding sources in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY Changes: None.SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Outdoor classrooms offer a realistic way to provide students with meaningful hands-on learning experiences and to demonstrate how the sub-jects and skills taught in the classroom relate to the world around them. Outdoor classrooms also offer an opportu-nity for parents and the entire community to become involved in conservation efforts. Outdoor classrooms can demonstrate to homeowners and residents how to take positive actions and make improvements to their home landscapes that will be beneficial to wildlife, promote water conservation, and reduce the runoff of nonpoint source pollution from their yards. This will help improve SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The "BayKeeper Program" is a program of public environmental advocacy that acts as the eyes of the public to guard against environmental insults and unlawful pollution.

In nearby regions, Bay Keepers or River Keepers operate in Long Island Sound, the Hudson River, and the New York/New Jersey Harbor. These programs serve to educate the public, MAY2002 157 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and EDUCATION ACTION PLAN businesses, and local agencies, press for enforcement of existing environmental regulations, and initiate litiga-tion when necessary.

They can serve an effective role in forestalling degradation of the estuarine environ-ment and in promoting its restoration.

STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Low Priority.WHO: BayKeeper Program (Lead), American Littoral Society, and other interested citizens and groups.HOW: Public interest within the watershed and active support by the BBWEF will determine the viability of establishing a "BayKeeper" Program within Barnegat Bay.WHEN: Given the interest and a source of funding, the program could be in operation within a relatively short period of time, upon the availability of funds.WHERE: The program should be implemented throughout the tidal portion of Barnegat Bay.MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Success of the program will be measured through the number of pol-lution events prevented, minimized, or corrected, and by the level of compliance with applicable regulatory standards.

COST ESTIMATE:

Approximately

$60,000 per year.FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments.

See dis-cussion of potential funding sources in Chapter 12.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None identified.

ACTION 8.12 Cret a Barnegat :Bay-speific Educational G"outtiniig the natural and citiuraltecntounism oppor-lturities in central New Jersey. wýith an eniiasis on-the Barmegat Bay watershed region. Produce :and '

qie gde to target audienices.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Ecotourism promotes the non-consumptive or sustainable use of resources to con-serve environments and maintain the well-being of local people. While there are excellent examples of local and some regional publications, most are highly fragmented and limited to specific activities.

Prior to June 2000, there were no readily available, comprehensive resources to assist New Jersey residents and visitors in identifying and locating ecotourism opportunities.

The Ecotourism Guides developed by the New Jersey Marine Sciences Consortium (NJMSC) represent a precedent-setting pilot project for this type of publication.

This guide is the second in the series. The first guide is entitled, "Ecotourism Guide for Southern New Jersey," and a third will include the coastal area between the Manasquan Inlet and the Palisades.

STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Commitment, Low Priority.WHO: The NJMSC (Lead) and its New Jersey Sea Grant College Program were directly responsible for the actual.design and production of the guide. Content of the guide was determined by the Steering Committee, which consists of. key contributors from the target region and agencies representing the public and private sectors.HOW: The "Ecotourism Guide for Central New Jersey," focusing on the Barnegat Bay watershed, contains a detailed map with pertinent and useful information about ecotourism, including selected "showcase" natural and cultural sites, .activities, and events within the Barnegat Bay watershed.

It directs users to the bounty of attrac-tions in this region and is developed on a temporal and spatial scale that promotes one-day trips, weekend trips, and potentially longer ecotourism vacations.

WHEN: The project's Steering Committee was identified and confirmed in June 1999. The original guide was printed and ready for distribution during the first six months of 2000.158 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 8 WHERE: The geographical setting for this guide encompasses Ocean County, with an emphasis on areas in and around the Barnegat Bay estuary. It will be market-ed and distributed statewide and regionally, by request.MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Several survey and monitoring mechanisms such as contact phone numbers and Internet websites are included in the guide. These will allow the Project Coordinator to assess the number of"hits" and phone inquiries received by sites as a result of the guide's publication.

Requests for the publication gen-erated by marketing approaches (determined by the Steering Committee) will help determine the popularity and demand of the product.COST ESTIMATE:

The cost (including design and market-ing expenses) for 45,000 copies is $20,000. Depending on the number of additional funding sources, an increased print run will be considered.

FUNDING SOURCES: To date, funding commitments for the series of Ecotourism Guides include $10,000 from the New Jersey Commerce and Economic Growth Commission,$5,000 from Cumberland County, and $20,000 from the New Jersey Sea Grant College Program.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.Establishing river cleanups throughout the watershed will enable the BBWEF to actively engage watershed-wide participation in community stewardship.

This project will become an effective outreach tool for watershed education, spark watershed stewardship among Ocean County citizens, and result in cleanup of the waterways.

STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Medium Priority.WHO: The BBWEF (Lead) would be the primary orga-nizer for this activity.

The organizational members of the BBWEF as well as other affiliated groups (such as AmeriCorps) would be partners.

BBWA will also work with local civic groups and community leaders in the cleanup.HOW: This action would be coordinated with the ALO Volunteer Barnegat Bay monitoring program. The cleanups will handle debris and Litter.WHEN: The cleanups will be conducted annually in early spring beginning in the year 2001.WHERE: Cleanups will be conducted throughout the Barnegat Bay watershed.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

A "Watershed Quiz" will be designed and disseminated pre- and post-cleanup to quantifiably measure the participants' knowledge of watershed and nonpoint source pollution concepts.COST ESTIMATE:

The cost for supplies and miscella-neous materials will total $5,000 per year.FUNDING SOURCES: Possible funding support includes public outreach funding from Section 320 (NEP) and private funding sources.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.MAY 2002 159 SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Barnegat Bay is a popular vacation destination known for its valuable fishing, crabbing, and clamming.

There is much activity along its nine tributaries, such as residential and commercial development, recreational uses, golf courses, and road-ways, which produce nonpoint source pollution and litter.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and EDUCATION ACTION PLAN~ACTION 8.~14~~Provide interpretive ehibts, programns and -_Itiv-ities focusingci on theý histoncal human use(Jb the env,:ironmental resouiýr es within the Barne g at Bay watershed.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: This action will develop an understanding and appreciation of the rich heritage and cultural traditions of the Barnegat Bay and Pine-land regions' early settlers and families, whose way of life was almost entirely natural resource based. The knowledge and understanding and dependence on the resources of the bay, ocean, and forest as a way of life have been greatly diminished since the 1960s and 1970s, with the tremendous influx of tourism and sub-urban development within the watershed.

In order to keep the older traditions alive, to better understand the natural and cultural resources of the watershed, and to promote a sense of place and belonging, the Barnegat Bay Decoy and Baymen's Museum (BBDBM) is constructing a working maritime cultural village, the Tuckerton Seaport.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Commitment, High Priority.WHO: The BBDBM (Lead) has Worked cooperatively with a number of partners on a variety of projects to achieve its current level of programming.

These part-ners include schools, universities, and county, state, and federal agencies.PROGRAM Site Size! ............

SPECIFICS:

Stage One ents Bu;_iding Stýizel Pot st'ucurs Prjce nnuahiia~o~

Average VtEayA 0A' iPeak Visitor )l i l- 0-.Scool Stltudents I:, 160~y OpenGA Per Fear......

HOW: The BBDBM has established the Tuckerton Seaport, and is using existing historical buildings or building replicas of once-existing structures from towns along the bay to provide exhibits and interpretive pro-grams for a significant number of the traditional folk-ways of the Barnegat Bay region. Traditional resource-based occupations of the Baymen and their families that will be interpreted include: shetlfishing, waterfowling, boat building, decoy carving, salt hay and eelgrass indus-tries, whaling, charter boat fishing, production of baymen's tools, lighthouse and lifesaving, harvesting and milling cedar and other forest products, and trapping and hunting. Baymen's preservation of the bay culture through festivals, including programs enhanced by crafts, writing, poetry, music, recipes and social activ-ities, will also be featured.WHEN: Many activities are currently available.

Others, such as development of a research library, will be scheduled according to the availability of funds, expected to begin in 2002.WHERE: The BBDBM's Tuckerton Seaport is located on a 40-acre waterfront site in Tuckerton, New Jersey.MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

All groups and programs are evaluated by way of internal review among the staff, follow-up interviews, and question-naires, and also by unsolicited letters from partici-pants commenting on programs.

If visitation increas-es and the need arises, further evaluation techniques will be employed.

Chapter 8 COST ESTIMATES PROGRAM BUDGET: Exhibits ................

........ $1,125,000 Staff ...........................

$125,000 Library and Archives .........

..... $40,000 TOTAL .........................

$1,290,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Funds have been received as follows: New Jersey Green Acres Program ........$527,375 Tuckerton Borou'gh ..................

$62,500 Little Egg Harbor ....................

$62,500 Ocean County .......................

$62,500 Casino Reinvestment Development Authority

.............

$1,000,000 NJDOT -ISTEA Grant ...... ......$661,570 Museum Fund Raising ....... .....$324,375 E.J. Grassmann Trust ..................

$5,000 Gannet Foundation

..................

$20,000 Ocean Federal Foundation

.............

$30,000 Atlantic Electric ....................

$10,000 First Union Foundation

....* ." .........

$25,000 Other Business and Individual Donators ..$129,000 TOTAL .......................

$2,919,820 REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: All environmental and regulatory permits have been obtained.governments with the background information they need to make informed decisions affecting the coast.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Commitment, High Priority.WHO: JCNERR (Lead) and its partners propose imple-menting the Coastal Institute Initiative in New Jersey.The JCNERR can utilize the research and education strengths of the IMCS at Rutgers University, which will administer the program, along with National.

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and many other organizations in New Jersey. Partners include BBNEP, USFWS, NJDEP, New Jersey Pinelands Commission, and Richard Stockton College.HOW: A number of outreach tools are needed to effec-tively reach all segments of this diverse audience.

A new Coastal Institute that will provide a training cen-ter for local governments will be constructed in Tuckerton, New Jersey. The Coastal Institute will house a Coastal Repository that was funded initially through an Action Plan/Demonstration Project (APDP)grant from the BBNEP. This repository provides local governments with access to geographic information system (GIS) spatial information on the Barnegat Bay and Mullica River watersheds.

It also serves as a clear-inghouse for model environmental ordinances, water-shed planning strategies, protective site design princi-ples, and best management practices.

A number of workshops are being planned to disseminate this infor-mation. A minimum of three coastal decision-maker workshops will be held per year.WHERE: Although many of the Coastal Institute pro-grams are statewide in scope, several programs have been developed specifically for the Barnegat Bay and Muilica River watersheds.

A workshop, "Land-Use Strategies for Coastal Decision-Makers," is being tar-geted to municipalities in these two watersheds.

The Coastal Repository and PAGIS (GIS) programs have also been developed primarily for local governments within the two watersheds.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Coastal decision-maker programs will be evaluated to determine the success of the initiative.

Metric guidelines will be established to ensure documentation and consistent MAY 2002 161 SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Decisions made by local governments can have profound, long-term conse-quences for estuarine and coastal environments.

Elected and appointed local officials, land-use plan-ners, and other decision makers often do not have access to timely, science-based information that is available in a user-friendly format. With significant development pressures on coastal communities and the resulting impacts on coastal resources, there is a strong need to develop an efficient means of providing local PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and EDUCATION ACTION PLAN WHEN: TASK DESCRIPTION SCHEDULE reporting.

Long-term funding will be pursued to assess the impact of the program on coastal management.

Evaluations will include:* Assessments that measure the outputs (what the program is producing)." Assessments that measure the outcomes (what happens as a result of the program being implemented).

Cost Estimate: START-UP COSTS -FACILITY Construction

$800,000 NOAA and IMCS Workshops

$20,000 NOAA, IMCS, and NJDEP Repository

$18,000 BBNEP (complete)

PAGIS $10,000 NOAA and IMCS Total $848,000 ANNUAL COSTS 0" Both internal and external reviews by skilled evaluators.

Workshops.

Repository PAGIS Total$20,000 NJDEP$10,000 NOAA and IMCS$15,000 NOAA and IMCS$45,000 FUNDING SOURCES: Commitments in place with NOAA, IMCS, NJDEP, and BBNEP (as indicated above).Required Regulatory, Ordinance, or Policy Changes: None required.16 2 BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 8 ACTION 8.16 Revise and reprint the "Low-Maintentance Landscaping Homneownrers' Guide.'" SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The guide shows Ocean County homeowners how to save time and money on landscaping by using effective horticultural practices.

At the same time, the use of these landscaping tech-niques will also reduce nonpoint source pollutants such as fertilizers and pesticides that are transported by stormwater runoff. These pollutants enter lakes, rivers, and streams that eventually drain into Barnegat Bay. Low-maintenance landscaping techniques also reduce water consumption, helping to preserve the aquifers that sustain Barnegat Bay and Ocean County's wetlands, native plants, and wildlife.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Medium Priority.WHO: OCSCD and RCE.HOW: The guide. will be revised and reprinted approx-imately every three years. Appendices, in particular, must be periodically updated to provide the most up-to-date information available.

WHEN: The first revision/reprint will be conducted in 2002-2003, depending on availability of funds.WHERE: The guide will be designed for use through-out the watershed.-

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Number of requests received for the guide will measure this action's effectiveness.

COST ESTIMATE:

$35,000 (every three years).FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments.

See dis-cussion of potential funding sources in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: Not yet determined.

ACTION 8.17 iEducate professional landscapers, municicpal ,grounds personnel, and facility managers on more effi'cient and environmirentally sensitive use of pesticides.

SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Pesticides are traditional-ly applied by commercial landscapers on a calendar basis to cover all plants and lawn surfaces at the typi-cal residence.

Pesticides are simple to use and provide a quick kill of pests, but unnecessary and haphazard pesticide use contributes to nonpoint source pollution.

An alternative is the use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) methods, which promote monitor-ing and identification of plant pest problems prior to making decisions about treatment.

Alternatives to tra-ditional pesticide treatments are utilized as a first resort.The RCE IPM program has demonstrated an average 42 percent decrease in pesticide use and a 70 percent reduction in the number of plants sprayed utilizing IPM techniques.

Many landscapers do not adopt IPM techniques because of lack of knowledge.

The goal of this program is to provide practical IPM information in a timely, clear-cut, practical format, delivered directly to landscapers when pests are active. Otherwise, landscapers are'less apt to follow IPM methods because of time constraints and lack of knowledge.

Such a "bottom line" source of diagnostic and control information should encourage adoption of IPM tactics and proper pest control tactics, and reduce haphazard spraying, which in turn reduces nonpoint source pollution.

STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Medium Priority.WHO: RCE, through a horticulture consultant.

HOW: A brief, bi-weekly newsletter will be offered at no charge (or minimal charge) to encourage use and adoption of IPM techniques.

It will alert all watershed landscapers of currently active pests and the proper IPM treatment and timing. Pesticide recommendations will MAY 2002 163 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and EDUCATION ACTION PLAN be made in conjunction with RCE and [abet recommen-dations.The newsletter will be available by mail or fax (and possibly by posting on a Web site in the future).The newsletter could also be modified for garden cen-ters, utilizing recommendations appropriate for their home gardener audiences.

Likewise, this version of the newsletter could be sent to homeowner associations for printing in their association newspapers and newslet-ters.An annual landscape IPM maintenance symposium will be held for watershed landscapers to increase knowl-edge in IPM methods.WHEN: Implement upon receipt of funding. The tar-get date is 2002.WHERE: Information will be distributed throughout the watershed.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Success will be measured by newsletter and program evaluations through participant surveys. Change in pesticide use and renewals will be highlighted.

COST ESTIMATE:

$20,000-$30,000 for staff support.FUNDING SOURCE: No firm commitments.

See dis-cussion of potential funding sources in Chapter 12, Section 12.8.1.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.ACTION 8.18 Pronmote he nuse of Inte grated Pest 'Managemienti SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: Homeowners routinely apply pesticides for control of insects, diseases, and weeds on home lawns and landscapes.

These pesti-cides are typically applied as a crisis response to long-standing or unobserved problems, many of which are a result of poor planning, poor plant selection, and improper maintenance techniques, i.e., maintenance becomes routine and over-reliance on pesticides occurs. Pesticides are often selected based on avail-ability, price, and the recommendations of neighbors, local garden center, or mass merchandise store.Unnecessary and haphazard pesticide use contributes to nonpoint source pollution.

Another factor relevant to Ocean County is that it has the largest percentage of adult communities in the state. Common-ground property is often maintained via a low-bid approach to contracting, and individual residents are removed from the day-to-day decision-making that determines what chemicals are applied to the property.An alternative approach to lawn and landscape main-tenance is the use of IPM methods. IPM promotes proper plant selection (with a focus on resistant plant varieties) and monitoring and identification of plant pest problems early on, prior to decisions .on treat-ment. The least toxic alternative treatments to tradi-tional pesticides, i.e., botanical, biorational and bio-logical pest control products, are utilized as a first resort for maximum control with minimum environ-mental impact.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Recommendation, Medium Priority.WHO: RCE (Lead) will coordinate activities.

HOW: A newspaper column will be written for a local newspaper.

A bi-weekly column such as this will receive wide exposure and be able to most econom-ically disseminate research-based information to 164 BARNEGAr BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 8 homeowners.

Pest identification (prior to any control tactic) and IPM maintenance methods will be stressed.The column should become a trusted source of good advice for pesticide/fertilization recommendations.

Master Gardeners are volunteer homeowners trained in gardening/horticulture through RCE. Program volun-teers receive a ten-week class covering plant biology, plant selection and identification, insects and diseases (both indoors and outdoors), vegetable gardening, lawn care, etc. Master Gardeners are trained in IPM methodology and can help implement this action.Plant clinics or walk-in clinics where homeowners can bring in insects/sick plants for identification and con-trol will be offered at local libraries or community events throughout the watershed via the RCE's Master Gardener program. Advertising the clinics will be car-ried out in cooperation with the Ocean County Library system and/or events coordinators.

A seminar series will be held in conjunction with the Master Gardener program's seminars.

Seminars will be held monthly at different locations around the county and promoted via newspaper, newsletter, and other media outlets. Soil pH testing will be offered to all landowners at a minimal charge. Tests will be per-formed on a weekly basis and include information about lime requirements.

To promote better plant selection and reduce pesticide use, an IPM slide series with script will be written and made available to the speakers bureau as well as to area garden clubs that wish to borrow it at no charge.WHEN: The program will begin upon funding.WHERE: Information will be distributed throughout the watershed.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Success will be measured by program evaluations and requests for information.

Changes in pesticide use and renewals of licenses will be highlighted.

COST ESTIMATE:$24,000-$29,000 annually$20,000-25,000 (personnel/consultant)

$2,500 supplies (paper, stickers, labels, computer ink, travel, etc.)$1,500 signs and promotion FUNDING SOURCES: No firm commitments.

See dis-cussion of potential funding sources in Chapter 12,.Section 12.8.1.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The Environmental Learning Center (ELC) of Ocean County is a not-for-profit organization that will construct a learning cen-ter on the Toms River on property owned by the Dover Township Utilities Authority (DMUA) in Toms River.The facility will be located on the grounds of the DMUA and bus station on Highland Parkway.The mission of the ELC is to provide visitors, students, educators, and residents with information and hands-on activities promoting the Barnegat Bay watershed.

The ELC will feature standing displays, computer inter-active lessons, and hands-on activities.

Conservation and protection of our natural resources will be a focal point of the ELC.STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Partial Commitment, Low Priority.WHO: ELC of Ocean County.HOW: The ELC will establish a Barnegat Bay Estuary display that reflects the major aspects of the BBNEP.The target audience will include all visitors to the ELC.MAY 2002 165 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and EDUCATION ACTION PLAN The following will be included in the display: " A brief chronology of the BBNEP." Key agencies, professionals, and personnel." Main goals of the program." Suggestions about how people could become more estuary and watershed friendly.WHEN: The display will be present upon opening of the ELC to the public. The target date is 2005.WHERE: The display wilt include selected scenes from around the entire Barnegat Bay Estuary and watershed.

A computer display about the BBNEP will be exhibited either at the display area or in a separate technology area, and will be linked to the BBNEP Web site. The display will be exhibited in the main center of the ELC.Presentations about the Barnegat Bay' estuary and watershed will be made available at the theater, includ-ing the Dynamics of the Barnegat Bay slide show. A copy of this slide show is currently available at the Ocean County Parks and Library. The slide show wilt be available periodically, changing each season to reflect the unique seasonal aspects of the Barnegat Bay estu-ary and watershed.

MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

Success of this effort will be gauged by the number of visitors to the ELC.COST ESTIMATE:

The ELC has commitments for devel-opment ($300,000 plus land value of $1,000,000).

The display would include hardware, professional layout, design, and production at a cost of $40,000 (break-down listed below): FUNDING SOURCES: The ELC has received a number of commitments from various organizations for funding, including Ocean Federal Foundation and the Citta Foundation.

The Ocean County/Toms River Chamber of Commerce also conducts fund-raising to support the cost of developing the ELC.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: None.SIGNIFICANCE OF ACTION: The Lighthouse Camp (95 acres) and the adjacent Bowker Property (96 acres)comprise one of the last parcels of open space in cen-tral Ocean Township not currently developed for hous-ing between Route 9 and Barnegat Bay. These con-tiguous tracts contain substantial maritime forest, salt marshes, and two small freshwater streams that feed into the bay. The habitat diversity here is noteworthy.

These sites have the potential to be excellent outdoor laboratories providing opportunities for field investiga-tions, research and interpretive programs for students, teachers, decision-makers, as well as the public at large. The property, formerly known as the Lighthouse Camp for the Blind, Inc. has been sold to the Trust for Public Land (TPL) and will be transferred to the NbJDEP Division of Fish and Wildlife.Implementation of this action will provide interpreta-tive and educational opportunities to educators, visi-tors, academia, and the general public by providing a natural resource conservation facility to serve the needs of this diverse audience.

This site and existing facilities can be used as a conference center, a teacher training facility, an outdoor classroom, and a residen-tial environmental education center. No other such facility exists within the Barnegat Bay watershed.

STATUS AND PRIORITY:

Partial Commitment, Medium Priority.WHO: YES has a 23-year history of commitment to promoting environmental education throughout New 166 6BARNEGAT BAY FINAL CCMP Chapter 8 Jersey. YES has recently undergone a reorganization and is now focused on the leasing of the 95-acre parcel known as the Lighthouse Camp. The main purpose of the facility is to provide overnight accommodations and conference support to organizations sponsoring environmental and natural resource educational activ-ities, programs and conferences.

The facility will be named "Experience Barnegat Bay." HOW: YES plans to lease the property and facility from the NJDEP Division of Fish and Wildlife and offer a vari-ety of educational opportunities focusing on the Barnegat Bay watershed and estuarine ecosystems.

YES will operate the Experience Barnegat Bay facility as a federal tax 501(c)(3) organization, and will seek funding from a variety of sources, including grants, endowments, gifts, memberships, facility fees, and oth-ers.WHEN: Through the efforts of TPL, purchase of the property was recently completed using Green Acres (state environmental open space) funding, and a coop-erative agreement with the NJDEP Division of Fish and Wildlife, which will own the property.

The existing facility and building infrastructure will then be leased to YES by the NIJDEP Division of Fish and Wildlife and operated as "Experience Barnegat Bay." MEASUREMENT OF EFFECTIVENESS:

It is anticipated that numerous groups, organizations, and agencies will utilize the facility due to the unique amenities and edu-cational opportunities that it offers. Attendance records and evaluations solicited from participants will be utilized to determine the effectiveness of the facility.COST ESTIMATES:

It is estimated that a minimum of$150,000 will be required for annual operating expenses, including salaries, upgrading of facilities to meet code requirements and maintenance.

This is only an estimate based on the best information presently available.

FUNDING SOURCES: TPL and the Green Acres program provided funds for the purchase of the property.Additional operating funds will have to be solicited by YES and from the non-profit, educational sector. The seller has provided an initial start-up fund of $10,000 to help defray the cost of necessary repairs and main-tenance to the buildings and facility.

Additional grants from foundations and government agencies, endow-ments, donations, etc. will be actively solicited to cover the cost(s) of operation and maintenance of this unique, high-quality educational facility.REQUIRED REGULATORY, ORDINANCE, OR POLICY CHANGES: No changes are anticipated because the buildings and facility infrastructure are pre-existing.

No new construction is anticipated.

MAY2002 167 The real conflict of the beach is not between sea and shore, for theirs is only a lover's quarrel, but between man and nature.--G. Soucie, Smithsonian 1973

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML072060439&oldid=1823306"